- 21 -
sewer lines, we must then consider the reasons why petitioner
would construct such a sewer line.
As discussed above, Mr. Fribis testified that he completed a
life cycle cost analysis before constructing the sewer line. A
businessman such as Mr. Fribis, with access to information about
the development plans of both Brookshire and Pine View, would
certainly not decide to construct a sewer line if it seemed to be
a bad investment on the information available to him at that
time. It is inconceivable to us that EPCO would spend $150,000
of its own money, plus $200,000 contributed by other business
people, to construct an asset worth only $80,000 when completed.
At trial, Mr. Fribis sought to minimize his prior knowledge
of the Pine View development. Mr. Fribis testified that he
believed that the property would not be fully developed as long
as Interstate owned the property and that he was skeptical that
the full development of Pine View could have proceeded as
planned. Though later events certainly justified this view,
there were no clear indications at the time of the sewer line
construction of Interstate's later financial difficulties.
Testimony has shown that developers generally construct housing
developments in stages. That future development did not go
according to either Fribis-Wiley's or Interstate's plan does not
affect the valuation of the sewer line at the time of
construction.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011