- 15 -
comparable sales approach as inappropriate to the circumstances
in this case and relied on both a cost and earnings approach to
determine value. He identified the properties that he was
appraising as the bill of sale assets. He determined the
reproduction cost of the bill of sale assets to be $64,879,102,
but, taking into account the results of his income analysis,
concluded that the fair market value of the hydroelectric
facility was $65,000,000. We are not troubled by that
discrepancy. Mr. Moody did not assign any value to going concern
value.
Respondent’s criticism of Mr. Moody’s opinions focuses on
his determination that the reproduction cost of the bill of sale
assets was $64,879,102. Respondent quarrels with inclusion of a
15 percent turnkey fee of $5,860,000 and a 20 percent developer’s
profit of $10,810,000. Apparently, respondent does not disagree
that the remaining acquisition and construction costs of the bill
of sale assets were $48,209,102. Indeed, respondent’s expert,
Mr. Knoll, was of the opinion that the “overall construction
price” paid by THP was $48,200,000.
In his report, Mr. Moody states that, although THP had
contracted for construction of the facility, it was not
guaranteed a complete working hydroelectric facility at the
completion of construction. He states that the owners bore the
risk of nonperformance of the various contractors, as well as the
cost of unforeseen difficulties such as bad weather, floods,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011