The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991946.tiff RESOLUTION RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 1999, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO - DENY PETITIONER'S APPEAL AND AFFIRM ASSESSOR'S VALUE PETITION OF: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY ATTN DAVE FINNMAN CORP TAX DEPT 343 STATE STREET ROCHESTER, NY 14650-0904 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: ACCOUNT #: P0018021 PARCEL#: 080726000039 - SHEET FILM SECT,TWN,RNG:26-06-67 PARCEL: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, convened as the Board of Equalization for the purpose of adjusting, equalizing, raising or lowering the assessment and valuation of real and personal property within Weld County, fixed and made by the County Assessor for the year 1999, and WHEREAS, said petition has been heard before the County Assessor and due Notice of Determination thereon has been given to the taxpayer(s), and WHEREAS, the taxpayer(s) presented a petition of appeal of the County Assessor's valuation for the year 1999, claiming that the property described in such petition was assessed too high, as more specifically stated in said petition, and WHEREAS, said petitioner being represented by , and WHEREAS, the Board has made its findings on the evidence, testimony and remonstrances and is now fully informed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, acting as the Weld County Board of Equalization, that the evidence presented at the hearing clearly supported the value placed upon the Petitioner's property, after review by the Weld County Assessor. Such evidence indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies, percentages, figures and formulas dictated to the Weld County Assessor by law. The assessment and valuation of the Weld County Assessor shall be, and hereby is, affirmed as follows: ACTUAL VALUE AS DETERMINED BY ASSESSOR Land $ 0 Improvements OR Personal Property 21,605,953 TOTAL ACTUAL VALUE $ 21,605,953 991946 AS0043 RE: BOE - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a denial of a petition, in whole or in part, by the Board of Equalization may be appealed by selecting one of the following three options; however, said appeal must be filed within 30 days of the denial: 1. Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's (CBOE's) decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA). Such hearing is the final hearing at which testimony, exhibits, or any other evidence may be introduced. If the decision of the BAA is further appealed to the Court of Appeals, only the record created at the BAA hearing shall be the basis for the Court's decision. No new evidence can be introduced at the Court of Appeals. (Section 39-8-108(10), CRS) Appeals to the BAA must be made on forms furnished by the BAA, and should be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of denial by the CBOE to: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 523 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 866-5880 OR 2. District Court: You have the right to appeal the CBOE's decision to the District Court of the county wherein your property is located. New testimony, exhibits or any other evidence may be introduced at the District Court hearing. For filing requirements, please contact your attorney or the Clerk of the District Court. Further appeal of the District Court's decision is made to the Court of Appeals for a review of the record. (Section 39-8-108(1), CRS) OR 3. Binding Arbitration: You have the right to submit your case to arbitration. If you choose this option the arbitrator's decision is final and your right to appeal your current valuation ends. (Section 39-8-108.5, CRS) Selecting the Arbitrator: In order to pursue arbitration, you must notify the CBOE of your intent. You and the CBOE select an arbitrator from the official list of qualified people. If you cannot agree on an arbitrator, the District Court of the county in which the property is located will make the selection. Arbitration Hearing Procedure: Arbitration hearings are held within sixty days from the date the arbitrator is selected. Both you and the CBOE are entitled to participate. The hearings are informal. The arbitrator has the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses, books, records, documents and other evidence. He also has the power to administer oaths, and all questions of law and fact shall be determined by him. 991946 AS0043 RE: BOE - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Page 3 The arbitration hearing may be confidential and closed to the public, upon mutual agreement. The arbitrator's written decision must be delivered to both parties personally or by registered mail within ten (10) days of the hearing. Such decision is final and not subject to review. Fees and Expenses: The arbitrator's fees and expenses are agreed upon by you and the CBOE. In the case of residential real property, such fees and expenses cannot exceed $150.00 per case. The arbitrator's fees and expenses, not including counsel fees, are to be paid as provided in the decision. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 4th day of August, A.D., 1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONTY, C RA ATTEST: ZUOLO Hall, Chair Weld County Clerk to the Board EXCUSED Barbar J. Kirkmeyer Pro-Tem BY: / A- .1 t_--4--; z Deputy Clerk to the Board f Georg axter APPROVED AS TO FORM: C `� A p, O�U J.Ct/ Geile As stant C ty Attorney e <U,uL tL6, Glenn Vaad 991946 AS0043 NOTICE OF DENIAL r a OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR If SHEET FILM SECT,TWN,RNG:26-06-67 1400 NORTHl7th AVE. J PARCEL: GREELEY,CO 80631 \ PHONE(970)353-3845,EXT.3650 WRDc COLORADO OWNER: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY LOG 3206 ATTN DAVE FINNMAN CORP TAX DEPT PARCEL 080726000039 343 STATE STREET ACCOUNT P0018021 ROCHESTER, NY 14650-0904 YEAR 1999 07/08/1999 The appraised value of property is based on the appropriate consideration of the approaches to value required by law. The Assessor has determined that your property should be included in the following category(ies): If your concern is the amount of your property tax,local taxing authorities(county,city,fire protection,and other special districts)hold budget hearings in the fall. Please refer to your tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of these districts,and plan to attend these budget hearings. The Assessor has carefully studied all available information,giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest,and has determined the valuation(s)assigned to your property. The reasons for this determination of value are: NO CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE VALUATION OF THIS PROPERTY. COLORADO LAW REQUIRES US TO SEND THIS NOTICE OF DENIAL FOR ALL PROPERTIES ON WHICH WE DO NOT ADJUST THE VALUE. PETITIONER'S ASSESSOR'S VALUATION PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION ESTIMATE OF VALUE ACTUAL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE PRIOR TO REVIEW AFTER REVIEW LAND 0 0 IMPS 21605953 21605953 $ 21605953 $ 21605953 TOTALS $ If you disagree with the Assessor's decision,you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration,39-8- 106(I)(a),C.R.S. Please see the back of this form for detailed information on filing your appeal. 07/08/1999 By: Stanley F. Sessions WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR DATE 15-OPT-AR Form PR-207-87/99 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE ASSESSOR'S DECISION The County Board of Equalization will sit to hear appeals beginning July 1 and continuing through August 5 for real property (land and buildings) and personal property (furnishings,p machinery, and equipment) 39-8-104 and 39-8- 107(2), C.R.S. APPEAL PROCEDURES: If you choose to appeal the Assessor's decision, you must appeal to the County Board of Equalization. To preserve your right to appeal, your appeal must be POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED ON OR BEFORE JULY 15 FOR REAL PROPERTY, AND JULY 20 FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY. WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone(970)356-4000 Ext. 4225 NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: You will be notified of the time and place set for the hearing of your appeal. COUNTY BOARD OF EOUALIZATION'S DETERMINATION: The County Board of Equalization must make a decision on your appeal and mail you a determination within five business days of that decision. The County Board must conclude their hearings by August 5. TAXPAYER RIGHTS FOR FURTHER APPEALS: If you are not satisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision you must file within thirty days of the County Board of Equalization's written decision with ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA): Contact the BAA at 1313 Sherman, Room 315, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303)866-5880. District Court: 9th Avenue and 9th Street, P.O. Box C Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4520 Arbitration: WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4225 If you do not receive a determination from the County Board of Equalization, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by September 10. TO PRESERVE YOURAPPEAL RIGHTS, YOU MUST PROVE YOU HAVE FILED A TIMELY APPEAL; THEREFORE,WE RECOMMEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE MAILED WITH PROOF OF MAILING. PETITION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION In the space below, please explain why you disagree with the Assessor's valuation. IN ACCORDANCE WITH 39- 8-106, C.R.S., YOU MUST STATE YOUR OPINION OF VALUE IN TERMS OF A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT. Attach additional documents as necessary. X11 __ 5 s WctS Ca�c.:.�,�a- 4c�.ustrvci 0. l �...L[ e0y, l}Cc Car i-hc e c - C oS te.c ,_S)N Ce. e c_o�.+,,-.� r�u�. ' Po o/ CSht nk YJ e -�. c �+ ��-- is os.C `1�v.r��- g io _e a�r �, ke � S ��p�o�r.c,�-e �k-©r `�1�•.5 c �� .-„ en� Q« �r . ... I op. o < �Y-e.Y� ecu eck 00-Z Li. s 1 iF C1P-1- laa ._a� . ci s.. -�1 /cc{ _._tice t „tFu ck cot' / ____x7-14 7 9 S1I P?tIIiIUN ,ry�,� ,� c_."4/44-194 uAIb D1vtecTs.c, s"T.q-me+ L.acRL 1\4 ten O85549 NOTICE OF VALUATION PERSONAL PROPERTY This Is Not a Tax Bill Stanley F. Sessions LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Weld County Assessor 1400 N. 17th Avenue SHEET: FILM SECT,TWN,RNG:26-06-67 PARCEL: Greeley, CO 80631 Date: June 15, 1999 HEARING DATES: 6/15/99-7/6/99 LOCATION: 1400 N 17th Avenue OFFICE HOURS: (8:30014:00 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY TELEPHONE NQ 997 . ,S 978 x-3650 ATTN DAVE IlterilMN CORP TAX DEPT 343 STATE STREET ROCHESTER NY 14650-0904 TAX YEAR: 1999 TAX AREA: 0400 PARCEL NO: 080726000039 ACCOUNT NO: P0018021 PROPERTY FICATION PRIOR AL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE DECREASE PERS PROP 23769679 21605953 -2163726 TOTAL 23769679 21605953 • -2163726 6 2 (a S 7 a (� t{ 3zSi `2. Parcel# 080726000039 / r u..�Ji 7=/ Account # P0018021 To appeal by mail, list your name, address, and phone # below, detach the lower portion of this notice and mail in accordance with instructions on the reverse side to: Weld County Assessor — 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 6— 43 ' '\ An assessment percentage will be applied to the actual value of your property before taxes are calculated. Personal property is assessed at 29% of actual value (39-1-104(1), C.R.S.). Your property was valued as of January 1 of the current year. The "current year actual value" represents the actual or market value of your property. The tax notice you receive next January from the treasurer will be based on that value. DOCUMENTATION - &EASON FOR REQUESTING A REVI W: W� cue (n�.`� �1-h� u.%e o{ the. \3 � e_a.r' CQapre-e.t on cc-d'ot`s. Ti- 15 o u�`n e�.e 'c 44,a f +4.e_ ro-Ye.-ter G#2 pits' Lai-tor-, "4-4-c_$ rs —_1 e c-a c_r-1 4- e ...cr •e rn e 't+ ( 415 c.1 eel, Or, o u-,4- re-.-L4_OA_\ 1 O ) Verification: I the undersigned state the information and facts contained berm to be true to the best of my knowledge regarding the property. L 0.S kC &c_-lc '^.(3r c1 Signature:�sJ�_�K C - Owner/Agent Date: (o'a4-ci 9 m o-C- a v a-c ttA- Address: 34-3 S ATI A -Creek- Daytime Phone #:(1a.) 1a4 - aai /�V .ec e_ske-C t'3y IVC, CO- 09oy a • YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUE • APPEAL PROCEDURES - PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUATION APPEALS: If you disagree with the"current year actual value" or the classification determined for your property you may appeal by mail or in person with the County Assessor. Please refer to the Appeal Procedures for the deadline dates for filing appeals. APPEAL BY MAIL: If you choose to mail a written appeal, you may elect toiehinpletntiloppeal portion of this form, detach it, and mail or FAX if tothe Assessor at the address listed on this Notice of Valuation. To preserve your right to appeal,your mailed appeal must be postmarked no later than JUNE 30. TO PRESERVE YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS, YOU MAY lIE REQUIRED TO PROVE YOU HAVE FILED A TIMELY APPEAL THEREFORE, WE RECOiMMEP ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE MAILED WITH PROOF OF MAILING. APPEAL IN PERSON: If you choose to present oral or written ob ections to the Assessor in person, you may elect to complete the appeal form at the bottom of this page and deliver it to the Assessor at the address listed on this Notice of Valuation. Appeal in person between JUNE 15 and JULY 6. ASSESSOR'S DETERMINATION: The Assessor must make a decision on your appeal and mail a Notice of Determination to you on or before JULY 10. APPEALING THE ASSESSOR'S DECISION: If you are not satisfied with the Assessor's determination, or if you do not receive a Notice of Determination from the Assessor., you must file a written appeal with the County Board of Equalization on or before July 20. PERSONAL PROPERTY APPEAL FORM YOU MAY ELECT TO COMPLETE THE FORM WHICH FOLLOWS TO APPEAL YOUR PROPERTY gVALUATION OR CLASSIFICATION. ers—ATTACH ADDITIONALOPE Y?ElCUIViO�,N ST' S. N CEISSARY MARKET j? al �� period p tal valu of yyour pro property on January 1 to f this year.s It!e to lowing appropriate ms k time , ll helpdyou estimate the market value ot your property. If available, attach a copy of any appraisal or written estimate of value. DATE SOLD ITEM SELLING PRICE CAST APPROACH: This approach to value uses replacement cost new, less depreciation, to determine the value of your property on January 1 of this year. Item Estimated Replacement Cost New$ _ Source Have cha es been made to the property, , i.e. refurbishing, reconditioning, addition of components; etc.? YES It yes give date, description, and estimate cost: DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE COST Is your equipment in typical condition for its age? i i not .�%i B ed on the original cost of acgOutsi sod$the cost of any changes, less depreciation, estimate the total value otathe property as o January year. INCOME APPROACH,: If your property was rented or leased during the previous year, attach operating statements snhowing renta an gicpensepa�mounts or}.t is p operty. i4}} knopwn, hsstt rents�ot comparable equi3 ent negottiated dungg the previous year. avepraisalMA a t e incom aop$o c was conducted during the previous year, please attach. / / E f . a v 0.a C' '-'in 0 O N O y A N ¢ U N 0 T N 0 Co. O, N v 0 H v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P O O O cl O N G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 y 0 x in N i0 (V O 00 1` Vl en M ,D C .M-� H in V in O ,C ^ w U [-- 7 1/40 ti > N O, en M N v) 7 7 N ,O v) ,D M - ^ a Y N ILK tic N 1-- t vt 00 T Ill ON CO N N ,D - 9 °:1 N d J" I-.0 .N. N-� h h .N. M in O N t. N v, 0 D I= Z g — C L. e' 0) „N„ v m ed V 4 y cG fa. Cot en o N ^ 7 O O N N 0 N 00 np 7 0 0 1- N m ^'- L 7 h 00 ON \O M CO M ,D 1 0 M N N N d N t` vi V 0o vi N 7 O M 00 0o O ^ M N N L. C > 00 O, 7 `O n 00 O, in 0 b 1� v, N 00 N .Ni ,O b N b t` N vl in 00 h oo ^ ^ 7F. d N 00 co v) ,O O M ,D 7 N 00 N ^-' 7 ^ M M0 7 en tn � ON 7 O 77- N n e•••• O1 O1 • T y L. •--� b 7 .7.. Nit .7a O a Cho 7 = o V C y o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 13 a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 13 U r-: 1: N N V' O Cr; en 00 O 0o N `G ,D 'a O f M CO In1` t` O, m M O 00 r- h h C0 9 1 M0 7m 7 N 0 in CO O ,D 1- 1` N ^ O ^-_ v) V 7 O 1- O m 7 O ^ 00 7 ,r N 3 t 1� O ,D 'D ,D N 7 O to ^ O O N (A a 7 vt N l"-- b N 7 D\ MO M ^. e7 M U -' w d N O J+a 0 co rn rn it, rn et, O o, 0 000 000 1/40 CO 00 00 N Q > Cr. O, O, O, O, Cr. O, O, O, O, O. O, O, O, O, CO O E R 3 co co N O en en ccl N .. 4n L 0 d w N a N Q •V C 0 G ^ n a 0 N. W CDl 0 U 0o n a e'el N y .n ,5... 0 O 00 3 C o - a. a. APPRAISAL REPORT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PETITIONER V.S. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE RESPONDENT SCHEDULE NUMBER:P0018021 LOG NUMBER: 3206 DATE: AUGUST 4, 1999 TIME: 1:30P BOARD: CBOE PREPARED BY RAELENE ANDERSON Signature Date S�R'SOFFI) #17 CE STAFF APPRAISER ASSESSOR VALUE $21,605,953 APPRAISAL REPORT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PETITIONER V.S. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE RESPONDENT SCHEDULE NUMBER:P0020594 LOG NUMBER: 3205 DATE: AUGUST 4, 1999 TIME: 1:30P BOARD: CBOE PREPARED BY RAELENE ANDERSON 1471d1A,D0d ?-2-q Signature Date /� 'r7d 4.4941 ) ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF APPRAISER ASSESSOR VALUE $33,346,916 July 7, 1994 David N. Finnman Property Tax Manager Eastman Kodak Company Rochester, NY 14650 RE: Explanation of Kodak's 1994 Obsolescence Granted Dear David: This letter is to explain the reason why the Weld County Assessor's Office set the obsolescence at the percentages shown on the Notice of Valuation which you received in a seperate mailing. I will explain the items in the order they were presented in your April 14, 1994, letter. 1. Finishing: a. Sheet Film: The Assessor's Office granted a 15 percent obsolescence. We believe that the 15 percent is a reasonable level of obsolescence and recognizes your argument that the market place competition has limited production of the medical x-ray film. You have presented us with no information regarding the levels of production from 1993 as compared to the levels in 1994. Thus, although you have some unused capacity, you may be producing more this year than last. Part of your unused capacity may be a decision by your company not to fully utilize the equipment and as far as we can tell may not be solely the result of market place factors. b. 110 Film: The Assessor's Office has granted the 45 percent obsolescence as requested. We understand that the use of 110 film is declining. c. Plastics Molding: We have denied obsolescence for this category. We recall from our tours through the Kodak plant in 1991, 1992, 1993, that plastics molding equipment produces not only the 110 cartridges but also the film canisters for 35 millimeter film. It is my specific recollection that some of the plastic molding equipment was being used to produce plastic parts which were then sold to other manufacturing companies and other divisions of Kodak. It seems totally unreasonable for Kodak to ask for 40 percent obsolescence when evidence appears to show that plastics molding equipment can be and is being used to manufacture more than just the molding of 110 film cartridges. d. PTS Paper: We have granted 25 percent obsolescence for PTS paper The Assessor's Office does not believe that your requested 40 percent obsolescence is reasonable. Although we understand that market demands are such that only a portion of the production capacity is being used, again we see this as a management decision rather than purely market driven. You have not provided the Assessor's Office with information which shows the production from 1993 versus 1994. It is hard to justify any obsolescence if there has been increases in production. 2. Thermal Media: The Weld County Assessor's Office has granted a 50 percent obsolescence, but has extended the year life from ten to fifteen years. Kodak asked and was granted an 85 percent obsolescence for thermal media in 1993 . Your representations from last year were that production would be increasing steadily over the course of three years. Given that the Assessor's Office granted 85 percent for year one, we see 52 percent for year two as being reasonable. Additionaly, it only makes sense to us that we add five extra years on the age life during the time when the "debugging" is being accomplished. You should not receive both hefty obsolescence and rapid depreciation for the "debugging" time period. We note that the depreciation schedule provides a rapid depreciation during the first five years of any new equipment. • 3. Sheet Film of the 90's and Plate II: We have denied obsolescence for both sheet film of the 90's and Plate II. On May 8, 1992 and June 16, 1992 I sent two letters. Those letters address the issue of obsolescence for Sheet Film of the 90's and Plate II. As you can see, the Assessor's Office granted 50 percent obsolescence for these two product lines in 1992. We recall that the discussions at the time were that the two production items would be fully on line within two years. It appears that both of these areas have markets which are fully developed and are strong. We believe that it is unreasonable to be asking for any obsolescence given the current markets for these products and your representations made in 1992. 4. Plate Manufacturing: The Assessor's Office granted a 15 percent obsolescence for plate manufacturing. It is our undertanding that competition in plate manufacturing has increased. Kodak's market share may have declined. We believe that a 15 percent obsolescence is more reasonable than your requested 25 percent. We would be happy to discuss this matter with you in person. We would like to meet July 18, 1994. Please call me at (303) 353-3845 extension 3665, to discuss the time and date for a meeting. Yours truly, Warren L. Lasell Weld County Assessor WLL/css pc: Mike Sampson Bruce Barker July 22, 1994 Eastman Kodak Company Mr. David N. Finnman 343 State Street Rochester, NY 14650 Dear Mr. Dave: The purpose of this letter is to summarize the results of the meeting Monday July 18, 1994 at 9 a.m. in my office. You and Larry Conners represented Kodak Colorado Division (KCD) . Debbi Fangmeier, Mike Sampson and I represented Weld County. The purposes of the meeting were to discuss and reach agreement upon the assessed value of personal property at KCD as of January 1, 1994. We used the format of your letter to me dated April 14, 1994, to guide our discussions. I shall use the same format for discussion in this letter. 1. Finishing a. Sheet film. Participants in the meeting agreed to an adjustment of 15 percent for obsolescence. b. 110 film. Participants agreed to an adjustment of 45 percent for obsolescence. c. Plastics molding. You and Larry indicated you would look for sales data for plastics molding equipment. You expressed hope that you could be successful within a week (July 25) . We will discuss a possible adjustment on plastics molding after you learn of sales data. d. PTS paper We agreed to an adjustment of 25 percent for obsolescence Page 2 Mr. David N. Finnman for this equipment. 2. This section includes four separate manufacturing areas: thermal media, sheet film of the 90's, plate film, and plate II. Because of special circumstances involved in the start up of equipment in these manufacturing areas, we have in the past granted a large amount of obsolescence "up front" . In the meeting we spent several minutes discussing the need for consistency in dealing with the difficulties which companies experience in starting new processes. The general procedures in the future for start up, based upon what we have allowed KCD, will be: up to 85 percent in year one, up to 50 percent in year two, and up to 30 percent in year three. We will add one year to the depreciation life for each year in which the "up front" obsolescence is granted. Specific adjustments for each of the four areas follow. a. Thermal media. We will grant an adjustment of 50 percent for obsolescence this year, an adjustment to be determined next year and extend the total life for depreciation to 13 years. b. Sheet film of the 90's and Plate II. We will grant 30 percent adjustment for obsolescence this year on each of these projects and extend the total life for depreciation for each to 13 years. c. Platte manufacturing. We will grant 15 percent adjustment for obsolescence. Dave, if you have any questions or if I have misrepresented the positions on which we agreed, please let me know. Sincerely, Warren L. Lasell Weld County Assessor Si / ItR:) IVO OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PHON A MINI TRATIV OFEXT 365E WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N.17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 C. COLORADO March 3, 1995 Eastman Kodak Company Mr. Dave Finnman 343 State Street Rochester, NY 14650 Dear Dave: This letter is a follow up to our meeting Monday February 27 at Kodak Colorado Division in Windsor. In it I am presenting our understanding of the agreement regarding Kodak personal property for 1995. First, we appreciated the opportunity to meet and talk with John Sauer. And, thanks for lunch. The depreciation percentage and years we will use in 1995 or various categories and projects follow. I used the order for projects and categories that you used initially in your letter of April 14, 1994 and we have both used since that time. Mr. Dave Fineman Page 2• -caiegor;t2, peprexattera ` � royect Finishing- Sheet Film 15% 10 years V Finishing - 110 Film , .. J 45% 10 years ✓ Finishing - Plastics Molding 10 years / Finishing - PTS Paper N/A' N/A ✓ Thermal Media 30% 13 years 'Y Sheet Film of the 90's 30% 13 years V Plate Manufacturing 15% 10 years / Plate II 30% 13 years Let me lcnow if this agrees with your perception of our agreement. If any questions, please call me. Sincerely,. r te-4.- ) Warren L. Lasell Weld County Assessor WLL:brd ' You and Larry will attempt to get market data on the sales of plastics moldings and provide information to us. z PTS paper-one half has been transferred to Rochester and the balance of equipment moved to other areas. De OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PHONE(970) 353-3845, EXT 3656 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ' 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 O Q YJ COLORADOrib • May 13, 1996 Eastman Kodak Company Mr.Dave'Finnman 343 State Street Rochester,NY 14650 Dear Dave: The purpose of this letter is to present our position with respect to the depreciation this year of the personal property listed in four projects at KCD. Our understanding from the meeting with you and several others this year at the Kodak facility is that the equipment used for thermal media, sheet film of the 90's, mid plate II is completely operational. It appears that Kodak now is experiencing r. some market problems with products from these three projects. During the past few years we have allowed depreciation for these three projects because the a, ,; eqUiquupment has not been fully operational. There were"bugs" in the equipment of eacli'of he'tl ree projects which would not allow these projects to produce at full capacity. Weffelit it only fair to grant depreciation because of the many startup problems in the operation of the equipment for the three projects. We do not feel,however, that we can or should grant depreciation for less than fully developed markets. Neither the statutes nor guidelines by which we operate suggest this approach. In addition,using market share as a criterion for the determination of depreciation could lead to such flexible interpretation that the application of the criterion might appear random` Mr. Dave Finnman 2 May 13, 1996 For 1996 we will allow depreciation for the projects which follow in the amounts shown. Finishing - Sheet Film 15% Finishing - 110 Film 60% Thermal Media 0% Sheet Film of the 90's 0% Plate Manufacturing 15% Plate II 0% If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, ecutiA_ Warren L. Lasell Weld County Assessor WLL:brd • OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PHONE (970) 353-3845, EXT 3650 ' FM: (970)351-0978 r WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE . GR,EELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO May 11, 1998 K. ry - Mr. Dave Finnman ' 343 State Street y4 , Rochester NY 14650 t Dear Mr. Finnman: This letter is a response to your letter of April 15,1998, in which you asked for us to reduce the life of three projects for depreciation purposes to 10 years from 13 years and to allow 35 percent depreciatiiori for personnel property. When Sheet Film of the 90's,Thermal Media Manufacturing, and Plate Manufacturing II began we granted your request for a large amount of obsolescence in the first three years because the start up was extremely slow. We felt at that time that we should increase the life to 13 years from 10 years because of the huge break we gave you in the early years of the project. You agreed and seemed to feel it was i. fair to increase the overall life to help compensate for the loss in tax revenue associated-with the starteup period. r{• It appears you are now looking for another major break by asking us to cut the life back to 10 years. I feel that goes against the spirit of our earlier agreement and can not agree to that. We were trying to be fair when we gave you a substantial reduction in value during the early years of the projects and felt that the 13 year depreciation for the three projects was a"good faith" compromise which would work for Kodak and Weld County. I have instructed Debbie to continue the projects on the 13 year life for depreciation and to use the appropriate depreciation level from the table. Sincerely, • 4�a IA Warren L. Lasell Weld County Assessor WLL:jsw Hello