EXHIBIT 3 PSC REF#:168667 Part 1 of 3

2535-CE-100 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 12/3/2012 (aff) RECEIVED: 07/19/12, 12:19:36 PM Docket 2535-CE-100 Witness: Peter J. Poletti

A REAL ESTATE PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT STUDY OF THE PROPOSED HIGHLAND WIND FARM ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN

Ex.-HWF-Poletti-3 Docket No. 2535-CE-100 Ex.-HWF-Poletti-3

A REAL ESTATE PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT STUDY OF THE PROPOSED HIGHLAND WIND FARM ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN

Prepared for EEW Services, LLC

Prepared by

POLETTI AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 302 West Clay Street Suite 100 Collinsville, Illinois 618/344-3270

July 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...... 1 Introduction...... 2 Location...... 2 Scope and Methodology of the Consulting Report...... 2 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions...... 4 General Limiting Conditions...... 5 Purpose and Intended User of the Report...... 5 Review of Literature...... 6 Description of the Proposed Highland Wind Farm...... 10 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Area...... 10 Economic and Social Data of Subject Area...... 12 Impact on the Value of the Surrounding Properties...... 17 Rosiere and Lincoln Wind Farms; Kewaunee County, Wisconsin ...... 18 Results of the 2008 Through May 2012 Study ...... 21 Results of the Kewaunee County 2005 Study ...... 27 Twin Groves Wind Farm, McLean County, Illinois ...... 38 Single-Family Residential Values ...... 41 Case Study: Residential Farmstead Values, Twin Groves ...... 49 Mendota Hills Wind Farm, Lee County, Illinois ...... 52 Results of the Mendota Hills 2003-2005 Study ...... 55 Mendota Hills Wind Farm, Update; 2005 through February 2009 ..... 61 Case Study: 965 Bingham Road ...... 72 Case Study: Meadow Brook Subdivision (Mendota, IL) ...... 80 Summary and Conclusion...... 82 Certificate of Consulting Report...... 84 Bibliography...... 86 ------Appendices Residential Sales in Target and Control Areas, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin...... I All Residential Sales within Lincoln Town Plat ...... II All Sales in Target and Control Areas, Twin Groves Wind Farm I and II (1/1/06-3/31/09) ...... III All Residential Sales in Target and Control Areas of Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II ...... IV Photographs of Twin Groves Case Study Properties ...... V Residential Sales, Mendota Hills; 2003-March 2005 ...... VI Mendota Hills Area Residential Sales; Jan., 2005-March, 2009 ..... VII Analysis of Mendota Hills Residential Sales ...... VIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Poletti and Associates, Inc. has undertaken a Real Estate Property Value Impact Study of the proposed Highland Wind Farm for the purpose of determining whether the request meets the criterion set forth in Wisconsin Statute 196.491 (3) and Wisconsin Administrative Code Section PSC 111.53. Specifically, this report will determine whether the proposed Wind Farm is so located as to not substantially injure or diminish the value of surrounding property. The date of the report is July 17, 2012. The effective date of the opinion is July 17, 2012.

When a land use is proposed that is dependent upon a regulatory approval, such as in the case of the subject, it is important to consider its impact on the use, marketability, and value of other property in the vicinity. An analysis of this type is appropriate when addressing the standards of the State of Wisconsin.

A review was conducted of the subject property, existing land uses in the surrounding area, and plans for the proposed wind energy center. In addition, detailed studies were conducted to assess the impacts on surrounding property values, if any, associated with three operating wind farms constructed in similar eastern Wisconsin and north-central Illinois agricultural areas: the Rosiere and Lincoln wind farms in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin; the Twin Groves Wind Farm, Phases I and II, in McLean County, Illinois; and the Mendota Hills Wind Farm in Lee County, Illinois.

These studies included statistical analyses of sales transactions of agricultural properties, residential tract acreage, and improved residential properties in a Target Area and a Control Area around each of the operating wind farms. In addition, comparable sales analysis (also called “paired sales analysis”) was performed for specific properties in close proximity to each of the operating wind farms. Finally, observations were made of continuing residential development after construction of the Mendota Hills wind farm. These studies identified no observable impact of the operating wind farm on surrounding property values. This finding also is consistent with the findings of numerous research papers in the published literature.

Therefore, after reviewing the available data, it is my opinion that as of July 17, 2012 the proposed Highland Wind Farm is so located as to not substantially injure or diminish the value of surrounding property. The details of the analysis and the factors considered in reaching this conclusion are found on the following pages.

1

INTRODUCTION

This report provides an evaluation of the proposed Highland Wind Farm for the purpose of determining if the proposed project is so located as to not substantially injure or diminish the value of surrounding property. The Highland Wind Farm is located entirely within towns of Forest and Cylon in St. Croix County.

LOCATION

The proposed wind energy farm will be located primarily within the Town of Forest with a substation located within the Town of Cylon in St. Croix County. The proposed turbines are located east of U.S. Route 63; generally south of 230th Avenue; west of 210th Street; and north of 180th Avenue.

SCOPE AND METHODOLGY OF THE CONSULTING REPORT

The purpose of this report is to determine if the proposed Highland Wind Farm is so located as to not substantially injure or diminish the value of surrounding property. To accomplish this purpose, a number of steps were undertaken. A review was made of published literature concerning the effect of wind generated electric facilities on surrounding property values. Plans for the proposed Highland Wind Farm were reviewed. Representatives of EEW Services, LLC were interviewed concerning design and operating specifics. Peter J. Poletti inspected the subject project area as well as land uses within that area. Information employed in this report was gathered from a variety of sources. The records of the sale transactions for the towns of Red River and Lincoln in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, McLean County, Illinois, and Lee County, Illinois were reviewed for sales transactions surrounding operating wind generating sites. This record included the size of tract and the style, age, and size of the improvements.

The methodology employed in this report is based upon accepted practices of the real estate appraisal profession. This methodology consisted of two basic quantitative analysis techniques: (1) a comparison of the average selling price of a property type in a Target Area compared to the average selling price of similar properties in a Control Area; and (2) a matched pair sales analysis using specific properties and making adjustments for specific differences between the properties. These techniques are employed by appraisers when estimating the percent or dollar adjustments that are necessary for valuing properties.

In using the above techniques, the Target Area is defined as a zone in proximity to an operating wind farm and is defined by a combination of distance, intervening land uses, and visibility of the facility. In contrast, the Control Area is defined as a region

2

outside of the Target Area that is considered to be similar to the Target Area but outside the immediate influence of the operating wind farm.

The first technique uses the average selling price of various property types as a comparison. Since it employs statistical analysis, this technique is considered the more exact approach. In this technique, if the wind farm was affecting values, there would be a statistically measurable difference between values in the target area and those in the control area. For the analysis, the operating hypothesis assumes that there is a measurable difference between values in the target area and those in the control area. The comparison is the test of this hypothesis. If the analysis of the data reveals no statistically significant difference between the two areas, the operating hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is no measurable difference in prices between the Target and Control area.

The second technique uses matched pair analysis commonly used by appraisers when valuing individual properties. This technique can also be used to estimate the amount that certain characteristics (ie a garage, basement, fireplace, etc.) add in value to a property. This procedure can also be used to measure other effects on properties located off of the property site, as in this instance, a wind farm. In this technique, individual properties are adjusted for significant differences, and any remaining difference between properties in the Target Area and those in the Control Area are attributable to the outside influence, or in this case, the wind farm.

Finally, in addition to the above quantitative analysis, observations also were made of continued residential development in proximity to the Mendota Hills Wind Farm in Lee County after construction.

3

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. The appraiser did not make a boundary survey of the property; therefore, no responsibility is assumed in connection with such matters. Sketches in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.

2. No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature affecting title to the property nor is an opinion of title rendered. The title is assumed to be good and merchantable.

3. Information furnished by others is assumed to be true, correct, and reliable. A reasonable effort has been made to verify such information; however, the appraiser assumes no responsibility for its accuracy.

4. This report considers the subject property as being under responsible ownership and competent management.

5. It is assumed that there is general compliance with all federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless non- compliance is stated, defined, and considered in the consulting report.

6. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the consulting report.

7. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based.

8. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines.

9. Any use of this appraisal report by anyone, whomsoever, constitutes acceptance of the above and any other limiting conditions that might be outlined later herein.

4

GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. The appraiser or Poletti and Associates, Inc. will not be required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefore.

2. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser or Poletti and Associates, Inc., and, in any event, only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety.

3. The distribution of the total valuation assigned in this report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.

4. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other media without the expressed written consent and approval of the appraiser or Poletti and Associates, Inc. Nor shall the appraiser, firm, or professional organization of which the appraiser is a member be identified without the written consent of the appraiser.

PURPOSE AND INTENDED USER OF THE REPORT

The purpose of this report is for incorporation in the siting application and use at the siting hearing for the proposed Highland Wind Farm. The client for the report is EEW Services, LLC. The intended users of this report are EEW Services, LLC, its representatives, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and its representatives. Use by anyone else is not permitted. The report was ordered by John Wilson, attorney for EEW Services, LLC.

5

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A review of literature concerning property value impacts from wind farms was made. The studies reviewed in this section are some of the more extensive and generally employ quantitative techniques although there is also some use of qualitative techniques, such as interviews. These studies are briefly summarized below.

The most recent study is a paper by Jason Carter entitled “The Effect of Wind Farms on Residential Property Values in Lee County, Illinois”. The study used hedonic price modeling to estimate the effect of area stigma from wind farms on pricing levels of residential homes. The study comprised 1,298 real estate transactions that occurred in Lee County between 1998 and 2010. He concludes from the study that wind farms do not negatively impact surrounding residential values but did recommend that further studies be undertaken.

Another recent study is a masters thesis entitled "Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois" by Jennifer Hinman, a candidate for the Master of Science degree in Applied Economics at Illinois State University. Hinman studied the area surrounding the 240 turbine Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II located in McLean County, Illinois. She used 3,851 residential property transactions from McLean and adjoining Ford counties that occurred between January 2001, and December 2009. Hinman based her study on a pooled hedonic model with the use of difference in differences estimators. Her study concluded that there was some effect on property values before and during the permitting process due to anticipation stigma theory or fear of the unknown. She goes on to write:

However, during the operational stage of the wind farm project, as property owners, living in close proximity to Twin Groves I and II wind turbines acquired additional information on the aesthetic impacts on the landscape and actual noise impacts of the wind turbines to see if any of their concerns materialized, property values rebounded and soared higher in real terms than they were prior to wind farm approval. Thus, this study presents evidence that demonstrates close proximity to an operating wind farm does not necessarily negatively influence property value appreciation rates or property value levels (in percentage terms). The estimation results strongly reject the existence of wind farm area stigma theory for the area surrounding Twin Groves I and II.

The most extensive study on a wind farm’s impact on surrounding properties is The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Model [LBNL]. This study, published in 2009, was conducted at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and funded by the United States Department of Energy. The authors collected and analyzed a dataset of 7,459 property sales at 24 existing wind power facilities located in 9

6

states. These included one facility in Illinois (the Mendota Hills Wind Farm in Lee County), one in Wisconsin, and one in Iowa. The distance of the subject residences from an operating wind tower varied from 800 feet to over five miles.

The study used Hedonic pricing models and other statistical analyses to examine whether any change or variance in residential property values could be correlated with construction of a wind farm, proximity to operating wind turbines, or view of wind turbines, as well as other factors. None of the analytic techniques identified a negative impact on property values. The authors concluded that:

. . . no evidence is found that home prices surrounding wind facilities are consistently, measurably, and significantly affected by either the view of wind facilities or the distance of the homes to those facilities. Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact.

This conclusion is consistent with numerous prior, but less comprehensive, studies.

One of the earliest wind farm studies was The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values by the Renewable Energy Policy Project [REPP]. This report was produced in May 2003 and studied ten projects located in California, New York, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. The study reviewed more than 25,000 sales within the view shed areas and comparable areas. This study essentially looks at the rate of change in property values within and without a view shed of the turbines. The view shed of each project was generally defined as a five-mile radius from the outermost turbine. Data from the view shed was then compared to another comparable area that was chosen based on demographic characteristics and local assessor's impressions. The REPP analysis used three separate cases: (1) looked at how prices changed over the entire period of the study for the view shed and a comparable region; (2) compared how prices changed within the view shed before and after the projects came on-line; and (3) looked at how prices changed for both the view shed and the comparable region but only for the period after the projects came on-line. The study used simple regression analysis to test for correlation, if any, between proximity to the wind farm, and a change in property values, if any. This provides an indication if property value was affected by the wind farm. The study concluded that: "the statistical analysis does not support a contention that property values within the view shed of wind developments suffer or perform poorer than in a comparable region." [REPPS, 4]

ECONorthwest produced a report in November of 2002 for the Phoenix Economic Development of Ellensburg Washington entitled the

7

Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County." This study looked at three impacts: (1) Property Values; (2) Economic Impacts; and (3) Tax Revenues. The property valuation section consisted of two separate analyses. One utilized interviews of the tax assessor in jurisdictions where wind farms had been constructed within the ten previous years. The study sample included twenty-two wind farms located in thirteen different counties. Six of the counties had residential properties with view of turbines while six of the remaining had no residential view of the wind farm. The wind farm in the thirteenth county was too new for the assessor area to know if nearby property values were affected. Assessors in all six of the counties with residential views stated that they had not determined any negative impact on property values.

The second means of analysis used by ECONorthwest was a review of published literature. The literature was restricted to journals where the articles are subject to peer review. ECONorthwest reported only one study on wind farms impact on property values. This 1995 Danish study reported lower prices for homes near an operating wind farm. It indicated that prices for homes near the wind farm were 94 Kroners (or about $17 per home in 1995 U.S. dollars) lower than houses located farther away. This difference was not statistically significant and was based on a small sample size. The other articles reviewed by ECONorthwest concerned power transmission lines.

Ben Hoen studied wind farm and property values in Madison County New York in 2006. This study utilized Hedonic modeling to estimate a wind farm's impact on surrounding property values due to visibility. The wind farm consisted of twenty turbines and Hoen utilized a defined set of criteria for estimating view impact. His study failed to find any statistically significant relationship between either proximity to or visibility of the wind farm and the price of residential properties. He also states that: "the analysis in this report failed to uncover a relationship even when concentrating on homes within a mile or that sold immediately following the announcement and construction of the windfarm" [Hoen, 2006].

Stephen Crosson studied wind farms in Texas in conjunction with appraising eight properties in Cooke and Montague counties. Crosson utilized three methods in his analysis. These included a statistical analysis of aggregated sales data using means comparison and regression analysis, a matched pair sales analysis, and an opinion survey of real estate professionals. Both the means comparison and the regression analysis indicated that there was no statistically measurable effect on property prices from the wind farm. The matched pair analysis indicated ". . . materially higher prices after construction, or after public knowledge of construction, of wind farms than prior sales prices." Crosson goes on to state that ". . . quantification of enhancements to properties within the view shed as a result of the wind farm cannot be reliably estimated. However, the data clearly show upward trends in sale prices in three of four test areas post wind farms." This data would indicate that the wind farms

8

did not negatively impact prices in the area but that overall appreciation continued. Crosson's third methodology, an opinion survey indicated that sixteen of eighteen respondents indicated that the farm would have no influence on value, one respondent believed that it would have no influence to slight positive, and one respondent believed that it would have a negative impact on property values. Overall, based on his research using these analytical techniques, Crosson concludes that there is no detrimental impact upon, nor enhancement to, surrounding properties.

Sims and Dent modeled wind farms impacts on surrounding property values in a paper presented to RICS ROOTS Rural Research Conference held at Trinity College, Oxford, England in 2008. These researchers used Hedonic modeling in their analysis. Their conclusion after studying 201 sales transactions between 2000 and 2007 in St. Eval, Cornwall was that "the view of the surrounding environment from a property could influence selling price, although there is no clear relationship between having a view of the windfarm and a reduction in value. Nor is there any evidence to suggest a relationship between distance to the windfarm and house price."

These eight studies used a wide variety of techniques to study wind farms ranging from interviews to Hedonic modeling. The various studies also employed a Target/Control area relationship or a distance relationship (the Hedonic models). In all of these studies, the researchers found no significant difference between properties located near an operating wind farm and those located some distance from the wind farm.

9

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED HIGHLAND WIND FARM

The proposed Highland Wind Farm will contain a total of forty-one to forty-four wind turbines sites out a total of fifty-two sites including the alternatives. Manufacturer of the turbine will be either Nordex or Siemens. Each turbine is rated to produce between 2.3 and 2.5 megawatts of electricity depending upon the turbine model chosen. The maximum hub height is 328 feet with the maximum tip height of 497 feet with the blade at its highest point. These heights vary with the turbine that is ultimately utilized and represents the maximum hub heights and tip heights of the three various models under consideration. Turbines will be set back a minimum 1,250 feet from non-participating residences.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUBJECT AREA

ACCESS AND FRONTAGE

The proposed wind energy farm will be located within the Town of Forest in St. Croix County (see Fig. 1). The proposed turbines are generally located east of U.S. Route 63; north of 180th Avenue; west of 320th Street; and south of 230th avenue. A substation is proposed along 230th Avenue north of County Road H within the Town of Cylon.

TOPOGRAPHY AND CURRENT LAND USE

The site topography is generally level to rolling with relief differences of approximately 100 feet. The predominant land use is agriculture with some wooded areas.

10

Fig. 1: Location of Proposed Turbines.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DATA OF THE SUBJECT AREA

The project is located in Town of Forest in St. Croix County. The closest population concentration to the proposed project is the unincorporated community of Connorsville located just east of the project (see Fig. 2). The largest population concentration is at Glenwood City located about five miles south. Other nearby communities include Clear Lake about four miles north of the site, Deer Park located about five miles west, and Downing about six miles southeast.

The area has shown a generally stable to modestly growing population base between 1990 and 2010 (see Table 1). The population of the Town of Forest showed about a 2 percent increase while the Town of Cylon remained essentially stable over this twenty year time frame. Similar statements can be made about the towns of New Haven and Tiffany in Dunn County. The two towns located east or south of the proposed wind farm area are Glenwood and Vance Creek, but in both cases, the net population change was less than 10 percent. The largest rates of growth were in the Towns of Black Brook, Emerald, and Clear Lake where some tract development has occurred.

12

Table 1: Local Population. 20 Year % Jurisdictions 1990 2000 2010 Change Places: Glenwood City: 1,003 1,193 1,242 23.8% Deer Park: 196 227 216 10.2% Clear Lake: 972 1,051 1,070 10.1% Downing: 269 257 265 -1.5% 2,440 2,728 2,793 14.5% Townships: St. Croix Ctny.: Forest: 619 590 629 1.6% Glenwood: 726 755 785 8.1% Emerald: 667 691 853 27.9% Cylon: 686 629 683 -0.4% Polk Ctny: Clear Lake: 728 800 899 23.5% Black Brook: 964 1,208 1,325 37.4% Barron Ctny.: Vance Creek: 609 747 669 9.9% Dunn Ctny: New Haven: 665 656 677 1.8% Tiffany: 584 633 618 5.8% Subtotal: 6,248 6,709 7,138 14.2%

Counties: St. Croix: 50,251 63,155 84,345 67.8% Polk: 34,773 41,319 44,205 27.1% Barron: 40,750 44,963 45,870 12.6% Dunn: 35,909 39,858 43,857 22.1% Subtoal: 161,683 189,295 218,277 35.0%

Wisconsin: 4,891,769 5,363,675 5,686,986 16.3% Source: U.S. Census.

13

Project Loc.

Fig. 2: General Location of the Highland Wind Farm, St. Croix County, Wisconsin.

14

Transportation and access to the area is typical for the more rural areas of the state. Interstate 94 is the closest interstate and is located about fourteen miles south of the southern edge of the proposed wind farm. This is a major east-west interstate connecting to Detroit, Michigan on the east with the major metropolitan areas of Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. Locally, Eau Claire and Menomonie are located on this route. Paralleling Interstate 94 is U.S. Route 12 which today functions primarily as a secondary connecting road that has no direct connection to Interstate 94. The other major regional road in the area is U.S. 53 located about 35 miles east of the area. This four-lane highway connects Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls on the south with the Duluth–Superior area on the north and would be considered the primary highway serving northwestern region of the state. There are several north-south roads which connect the area to Interstate 94. These include U.S. Route 63 on the western edge of the proposed wind farm. This road connects Clear Lake north of the site with Interstate 94 interchange at Woodville. Additionally, State Route 128 and its extension, County Road P services the central portion of the proposed wind farm connecting this area with Glenwood City and the Interstate 94 interchange located just southwest of Wilson. Wisconsin 64 is an east west road located near the southern edge of the proposed wind farm. This road connects New Richmond on the west with U.S. 53 just north of Bloomer. County or township maintained roads provide local access. These are generally two-lane with an asphalt surface or improved gravel roads. Overall, road access is considered to be typical for rural northwestern Wisconsin being primarily dependent upon local roads with some access to U. S. Route.

The Canadian National provides rail service to the area. Amtrak service is available at Dwight and Pontiac. The nearest international airport is in Minneapolis-St. Paul. A regional airport is available at Eau Claire with additional small landing strips throughout the greater area.

The subject area is very similar to the general land use in northwest Wisconsin. The prevalent land use is agricultural with the typical crops being forage, corn, soybeans, and some wheat. Consequently, the local economy is primarily centered on the agricultural sector with the various communities functioning primarily as service centers for the surrounding farms. The various establishments reflect this function. There are several grain elevators in the area with additional services being generally related to farm equipment, seed and fertilizer supply.

15

Communities in the area have services typical of similar-sized communities and generally serve the local residents. The two largest communities are Glenwood City and Clear Lake. Both communities have similar services and both have medical and dental clinics, restaurants, grocery stores, auto parts and repair, convenience stores, financial institutions, insurance agencies, hardware stores, gift shops, and other retail and service establishments. In addition, Glenwood City has a lumber mill while Clear Lake has a dairy and a farm equipment manufacturer. Downing, located to the southeast of Glenwood City, has a cafe and tavern, car repair, cabinet shop, and a gas and convenience store. Deer Park has a bank and insurance office, cabinet maker, convenience store, two bar and liquor stores, two gift shops, two car repair facilities, propane service and a laundromat. The unincorporated community of Forest has a grain elevator and a bar and grill. The unincorporated community of Connorsville has two bars, a feed mill, cheese store, an antique store, and a repair shop.

Besides the above nearby communities, residents can also shop at several other communities. Amery and New Richmond are both located within twenty miles of proposed wind farm area. Both communities have a variety of different establishments. In addition emergency medical services are available in these two communities. Menomonie, Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls also would be considered to be within driving distance for less frequently required goods or services. .

Residential development within the area of the proposed wind farm is very limited. This development is effectively limited to individual tracts with subdivision development generally being restricted to Clear Lake and Glenwood City.

There are several recreational facilities available in the immediate area. The Cylon Marsh State Wildlife Area is located just to the west of U.S. 63 and features a Variety of hunting opportunities. Golf courses are available at Clear Lake, at Glen Hills County Park, and Amery. A variety of recreational activities are available along the St. Croix River as well as the Mississippi and Chippewa rivers. In addition, various cultural and sporting events are available in Menomonie, Eau Claire, Chippewa falls, and the Twin Cities.

In summary, the subject area is typical of many similar areas in northwestern Wisconsin. There is a strong reliance on the agricultural sector. With Interstate 94 located about fifteen miles south of the area and U.S. 53 located about thirty-five miles east of the area plus north-south state highways, the highway access is considered above average compared to many other rural areas of northwestern Wisconsin. The local communities offer a number of different services as well as some employment opportunities. Additional employment opportunities as well as retail and service establishments are available in Menomonie as well as New Richmond.

16

IMPACT ON THE VALUE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES

The potential impact of the proposed Highland Wind Farm was evaluated by analyzing the impact on surrounding property values of one operating wind farm in Wisconsin and two in north-central Illinois that are located in agricultural communities.

One means of estimating a wind power electric generating farm's impact on surrounding property values is to compare sale prices of properties within a Target Area to prices of similar properties within a Control Area. The methodology and techniques used to accomplish this analysis is more fully explained in the Scope and Methodology section of this report. It is important to recognize that the operative hypothesis used in this analysis is that wind farms do measurably affect property values. If the analysis does not show a statistically measurably difference in property values, then the hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that the wind farm does not measurably affect property values. The comparisons used in this report are made to test this operative hypothesis.

The wind farms used to test the hypothesis are the Rosiere and Lincoln wind farms (treated as a single wind farm) located in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin; the Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II located in McLean County, Illinois; and the Mendota Hills Wind farm located in Lee County, Illinois. These three wind farms are further described in their respective sections below.

17

ROSIERE AND LINCOLN WIND FARMS, KEWAUNEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

There are two wind farms located within Kewaunee County that have operated since 1998. The farms are located within Red River and Lincoln townships about midway between Lake Michigan and Green Bay. The larger of the two farms is the Rosiere Wind Farm located along Red River and Town Line Road. This wind farm is operated by Madison Gas and Electric and has a total of 17 turbines located on 476 acres. The Lincoln Wind Farm is operated by Wisconsin Public Service and is located near Gregorville. It comprises 14 turbines located on 237 acres. Although smaller than those proposed for the subject project, the design of the turbines is similar to those at the subject.

Land use in the area is primarily agricultural with some commercial establishments located in smaller communities such as Casco and Luxembourg. A more recent development has been the construction of several confinement dairy farms in the general area. Most residential development consists of houses located on tracts between one and ten acres. Development throughout both townships has continued since the turbines were constructed in 1998. The topography is somewhat rolling and is generally similar to that at the subject site.

The Kewaunee projects are a good comparable to the proposed Highland Wind Farm. The general land use in the area is similar with a mixture of farming and wooded land with some homes located on individual tracts. The general terrain has somewhat less relief than the proposed wind farm, but the increased terrain relief of the proposed area means that sight distances of turbines will be somewhat less than are encountered in the Kewaunee area. There are comparable demographic and other market forces active in both areas.

Land use in the area is predominately farming with some residential properties located on 3 to 10 acre tracts. In addition, there are also some lands used for recreational purposes. Commercial uses in the main are generally restricted to the communities of Casco, Luxemburg, Rio Creek, and Lincoln.

A Target Area was established around the two Kewaunee wind farms with the boundary of the Target Area represented as the yellow line in Figure 3. This Target Area reflects the overall topography of the area as well as any tree lines and intervening land uses in the area. The target boundary distance from the turbines varies depending upon the above stated criteria but generally ranges from about one mile to about two miles.

The Control Area lies outside the Target Area. The control area includes The Towns of Lincoln and Red River with the exception of the western most portion northwestern portion of Section 18 and the western half of Section 8 of the Red River Township. This area is near Highway 57 and Green Bay. This area was excluded because of overall better road access to the City of Green Bay and because of the

18

influence of shore front property and bay view on prices of land and homes when compared to those without views of the bay or quick access to City of Green Bay.

Two separate analyses have been completed of the wind farms in Kewaunee. The most recent study covers the time frame from January 2008 through May, 2012. This study analyzed the selling prices of recreational land, agricultural land and single-family houses. The earlier study covers the time frame between January 1998 through December of 2004 for the Town of Lincoln and January 2001 through December of 2004 for the Town of Red River. This study analyzed small residential tracts, residential tract acreage, large tract acreage, and single-family residences. The results of those studies follow.

19

Results Of The 2008 Through May 2012 Study

An analysis was prepared of recreational land, agricultural land and single-family residential property sales for the time period between January 2008 and May 2012. This time frame reflects the general period that real estate market has sustained a general decline throughout the United States. The Town of Lincoln Assessor, Joe Jerabek, and the Town of Red River Assessor, Gary Taicher, provided sales data for the time frame from January of 2008 through May of 2012 for all properties transactions that were considered to be arm’s length (ie those sales that were not between family members, the result of judicial actions, condemnation proceedings, or other similar reasons). Such sales do not represent transactions that meet the requirements of the definition of market value. This time frame was chosen because it corresponds with the period of the general decline nationwide in real estate prices. These sales are summarized in Appendix I.

Recreational Tract Acreage

A review was made of the selling prices of recreational acreage. These tracts are defined as being primarily wooded and often being purchased for either hunting or fishing purposes. There were a total of two sales within the Target Area and five sales within the Control Area. The sales are summarized in Table 2. The average selling price per acre within the Target Area was $2,250 while within the Control Area it was $2,265. These two prices are similar, indicating that there is no difference in the overall price of land within the Target Area versus recreational tract sales in the Control Area. Given the relatively small size of the sample as well as the closeness of the two averages, a statistical analysis of the two averages was not warranted.

Table 2: Recreational Land Selling Prices. Sale Sale Acr Sale Parcel No. Address Grantor Grantee Doc $/Ac. Notes Date Price es Target Area: 1 31 10 25 141 Pheasant Busch Blazei Jan-12 436577 $44,000 20 $2,200 Recreational 2 31 10 11 01 Bluebird Krause Tr Challis Nov-10 426727 $92,000 40 $2,300 Wooded $2,250

Control Area 3 31 10 02 012 CR X Busch Thayse May-08 419208 $100,000 40 $2,500 Recreational 4 31 10 01 15 Grant Busch Cota Oct-08 421185 $80,000 40 $2,000 Recreational 5 31 10 01 06 CR X Busch Oshefsky Mar-09 423011 $112,500 40 $2,813 Recreational 6 31 10 01 07 CR X Busch Oshefsky Dec-10 431996 $90,000 40 $2,250 Man. Forest 7 31 10 16 151 Partridge Moralejo Frye Nov-11 436384 $30,000 17 $1,765 Wooded $2,265

21

Agricultural Tract Acreage

A review was made of the selling prices of agricultural tracts acreage. There were a total of fourteen agricultural sales that sold over the time period that were considered arm’s length. Of these, eight were located within the Target Area while six were located within the Control Area. Generally, agricultural tract comprise greater than twenty acres, but in this case, one sale in the Target Area had only eighteen acres but was considered by the local assessor to be agricultural in nature. The agricultural sales are summarized in Table 3. It is also noted that some of the sales in both Target and Control areas included associated farm buildings. Given the overall size of the tract as well as typical condition of many older farm buildings, these buildings generally contribute little extra value to the price of the land on a per acre basis.

These sales indicated that the average selling price within the Target Area was $3,939 per acre while within the Control Area it was $4,158. A statistical comparison was made of the two means to ascertain if there was, in fact, a significant difference between the two indicated prices (see Table 4). This analysis indicated that the calculated T statistic for the sample was -0.336. The standard T statistic for 12 degrees of freedom for the sample size is of 1.782. Since the calculated t statistic of -0.336 is less than the standard T of 1.782, the research hypothesis that there is a difference in value between the target and control areas is rejected and it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between the two means at the 95 percent confidence interval.

In addition, Table 3 includes six land sales that were not used in the analysis. This was generally because the tracts were very small; were purchased as potential home sites; or in the case of Sale 16, was purchased to correct an encroachment of a septic on adjoining land. The exception is Sale 15. This sale represents the completion of part of much larger Sale 5. Sale 5 had a total of 228 acres with buildings and was purchased via a contract for deed. Sale 15 is the completion of a portion of that contract for a total of 7.5 acres and includes all of the buildings. Therefore, in this case the price per acre indicated by Sale 15 would not be representative of the value of agricultural land.

22

Table 3: Agricultural Land Sales. Sale Sale Parcel No. Address Grantor Grantee Doc Sale Price Acres $/Ac Comments Date

Target Area: 1 31 018 14 141+ Ferron/Thayse Alberts Kinnard Farms May-09 423725 $206,500 39.05 $5,288 2 31 018 24 06 Townhall/Thayse Alberts Kinnard Farms Jul-10 429250 $170,000 40 $4,250 CD 3 31 10 06 05 CR X Graf Guilette Farms Feb-08 417627 $141,000 37.6 $3,750 Inc. 1 Turbine 4 31 10 07 08 + N 9181 Tamarack + Wendricks Pagels Ponderos Jul-10 429244 $108,000 76.6 $1,410 Inc. Bldngs. 5 31 10 08 132;+ Finch/ CR C Wautlet Pagels Ponderos Aug-08 420465 $1,312,800 228 $5,758 Inc. Bldngs. CD 6 31 10 08 052 + Cardinal Herison SDA Ahnapee Jun-08 419516 $516,600 129.1 $4,002 CD 7 31 10 26 08 CR S; CR P Yunk Pagels Ponderos Dec-10 431945 $320,000 80 $4,000 8 31 10 35 1511 CR K Jahnke Busch Aug-09 426869 $55,000 18 $3,056 Average: $3,939

Control Area: 9 31 018 29 121 Vanness Enderby Feb-10 427674 $107,700 29.8 $3,614 10 31 018 36 032 Malcdore EstJorgensen Mar-10 427906 $135,000 34.9 $3,868 11 31 10 14 06 + Cr P; Black Ash Mertens Kinnard Farms Oct-08 421155 $875,000 157.4 $5,559 Inc. Bldngs. 12 31 10 14 01 N 8816 Black Ash Massey Tr Pieschek Apr-12 437798 $170,000 40 $4,250 Tore Down House 13 31 10 31 12 E 2539 CR K VanDrisse Bailey Aug-09 425343 $275,000 113.1 $2,431 Inc. Bldngs. 14 31 10 31 042 CR C Thiry Kinnard Farms Sep-09 425825 $700,000 132.5 $5,283 Inc. Bldngs. CD Average: $4,168

Sales Not Used 15 31 10 08 16 N 8955 CR C Wautlet Pagels Ponderos Jan-10 422150 $400,000 7.5 $53,333 Inc. Bldngs. 16 31 10 05 151 Church Jeanqaurt Vlies Nov-10 431385 $6,000 1 $6,000 Sep. Tank Encr. 17 31 10 20 166 E 3260 CR S Hucek Theys Nov-09 426866 $5,000 1 $5,000 18 31 10 33 021 Pheasant May Duerst Jan-09 422196 $3,500 0.6 $5,833 19 31 018 01 106 CR X Tielens Belter Sep-10 430154 $13,500 3.53 $3,824 20 31 018 03 164.1 E 2228 CR X Busch Lax Jan-08 417672 $29,900 5 $5,980

Table 4: Statistical Analysis Agricultural Sales. Sale Sum of Sale Parcel No. Address Sale Price Acres $/Ac Date Squares

Target Area: 1 31 018 14 141+ Ferron/Thayse May-09 $206,500 39.05 $5,288 1,819,708 2 31 018 24 06 Townhall/Thayse Jul-10 $170,000 40 $4,250 96,642 3 31 10 06 05 CR X Feb-08 $141,000 37.6 $3,750 35,769 4 31 10 07 08 + N 9181 Tamarack + Jul-10 $108,000 76.6 $1,410 6,396,878 5 31 10 08 132;+ Finch/ CR C Aug-08 $1,312,800 228 $5,758 3,307,917 6 31 10 08 052 + Cardinal Jun-08 $516,600 129.1 $4,002 3,897 7 31 10 26 08 CR S; CR P Dec-10 $320,000 80 $4,000 3,706 8 31 10 35 1511 CR K Aug-09 $55,000 18 $3,056 780,698 Average: $3,939 12,445,215

Control Area: 9 31 018 29 121 Feb-10 $107,700 29.8 $3,614 306,419 10 31 018 36 032 Mar-10 $135,000 34.9 $3,868 89,670 11 31 10 14 06 + Cr P; Black Ash Oct-08 $875,000 157.4 $5,559 1,936,106 12 31 10 14 01 N 8816 Black Ash Apr-12 $170,000 40 $4,250 6,782 13 31 10 31 12 E 2539 CR K Aug-09 $275,000 113.1 $2,431 3,014,280 14 31 10 31 042 CR C Sep-09 $700,000 132.5 $5,283 1,244,059 Average: $4,168 6,597,316

Sample Sample Degrees Sample Sum Stand. Size Of Mean of Dev. Freedom Squares Target: 8 7 $3,939 12,445,215 1333.4 Control: 6 5 $4,168 6,597,316 1148.7 Combined: 14 12 -$228.52 19,042,531

Difference of Means: -$228.52 Variance: 1,586,878 Variance of Difference of Means: 462,839 Standard Deviation: 680.3 Calculated t = -0.336 Standard t at 95% 12 Degrees of Freedom: 1.782

24

Single Family Residential Values

There were a total of thirty-seven residential sales that were considered to be arm’s length with seventeen of those sales in the Target Area and the remaining twenty in the Control Area. These sales are summarized in Appendix I. Sales between relatives or other related parties, commercial establishments and mobile homes were not included in the analysis as not being truly indicative of values for a single-family residential property. The overall average price within the Target Area was $75.46 per square foot and $75.09 per square foot within the Control Area (see Appendix Ia). The two averages are very close indicating that there is no apparent difference between the target and control area prices.

These homes vary significantly in characteristics such as total size, style, age, amount of associated land, type of construction, external factors, condition, and number of outbuildings. Because of the magnitude of these differences, comparing an overall average sale price of all sales within the Target Area to an average sale price within the Control Area is not especially helpful.

To increase the reliability of the study, certain criteria were applied to the sales. Only houses constructed after 1960 were used because these homes are more similar in style, construction techniques, amenities, condition, and utility than homes constructed before this time frame. Homes located on tracts larger than five acres or those with newer large outbuildings were not used because of the possibility of the extra land and buildings distorting the price per square foot. Sale 11 from the Target Area and Sale 30 from the Control Area were removed because they are mobile home units. Sales 8 and 9 from the Target Area and Sale 23 from the Target Area was removed because they are located within one-quarter mile of dairy confinement centers. Finally, Sale 13 was removed from the Target Area. This sale was from an individual to Wisconsin Public Service. According to the local assessor, Joe Jerabek, there were issues between Wisconsin Public Service and the owner and Wisconsin Public Service resolved the issues by purchasing the property. The subsequent re-sale of the property has been left in the analysis. Mr. Jerabek did state that the home was not in the best condition due to a lack of maintenance by the former owner and that repairs would be required by the latest owner.

These sales indicated that the average selling price within the Target Area was $90.65 per square foot while within the Control Area it was $93.04 per square foot (see Table 5). There were a total of 13 sales with 4 sales in the Target Area and 9 sales in the Control Area. A statistical comparison was made of the two means to ascertain if there was, in fact, a significant difference between the two indicated prices. This analysis indicated that the calculated T statistic for the sample was -0.188. The standard T statistic for 11 degrees of freedom for the sample size is of 1.796. Since the calculated T

25

statistic of 0.188 is less than the standard T of 1.796, the research hypothesis that there is a difference in value between the target and control areas is rejected and it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between the two means at the 95 percent confidence interval.

Table 5: Single Family Residences Built After 1960. Sale Lot Sum of Sale Address Sale Price Style Age Size 2 Date Size $/Ft Squares

Target Area: 5 N 9597 Church May-09 $145,000 1SFM 1970 1,383 5.50 $104.84 201.4 12 N 7987 CR P Nov-09 $235,000 2SF 1998 2,670 5.50 $88.01 7.0 14 N 7905 CR P Jun-10 $120,500 1SF 1980 1,424 6.40 $84.62 36.3 16 E 3764 CR K May-09 $143,000 1SFM 2005 1,680 1.40 $85.12 30.6 Average: $90.65 275.3

Control Area: 20 N 7805 CR A Jan-10 $160,000 1.5SF 1977 1,352 2.75 $118.34 640.0 21 N 9415 Duvall Sep-10 $123,500 1SF 1962 1,528 1.50 $80.82 149.4 26 E 4030 Hawk May-12 $100,000 1SFM 1975 1,824 1.60 $54.82 1,460.9 27 N 8798 CR P Jun-11 $151,000 1SF 1982 1,364 2.50 $110.70 311.8 28 N 8798 CR P Jun-11 $151,000 1SF 1982 1,364 2.50 $110.70 311.8 29 N 8399 CR C Jul-10 $160,000 1SB 1977 1,930 2.10 $82.90 102.8 35 N 7945 Maple May-11 $165,000 1SF 1988 1,472 2.30 $112.09 362.9 36 N 7919 Maple May-08 $103,000 1SF 1989 960 1.00 $107.29 203.0 37 N 7825 Maple Oct-10 $107,000 1SFM 1996 1,792 1.34 $59.71 1,111.0 Average: $93.04 4,653.6

Sample Sample Degrees Sample Sum Stand. Size Of Mean of Dev. Freedom Squares Target: 43 $90.65 275.3 9.6 Control: 9 8 $93.04 4,653.6 24.1 Combined: 13 11 -$2.39 4,928.9

Difference of Means: -$2.39 Variance: 448 Variance of Difference of Means: 162 Standard Deviation: 12.7 Calculated t = -0.188 Standard t at 95% 11 Degrees of Freedom: 1.796

26

Results of the Kewanuee County 2005 Study

The Rosiere and Lincoln wind farms were previously studied in 2005. This analysis looked at the price of single-family homes. The years that sales were available were from January of 1998 through December of 2004 for the Lincoln Township and January of 2001 through December of 2004 for Red River Township. Like in the 2008 through 2012 study, sales that occurred between related parties (such as family members), as the result of judicial actions or in lieu of foreclosure, or involved governmental units were eliminated from consideration. Such sales do not represent transactions that meet the requirements of the definition of market value. Also eliminated from consideration were sales to Wisconsin Public Service and Madison Gas or Electric for similar reasons. The same target and control were used for this study as the 2008 through 2012 study (see Fig. 3). The studies are detailed below.

27

Small Residential Tract Acreage

A review was made of the selling prices of residential acreage. These tracts are defined as comprised of five acres or less. There were a total of nine sales within the Target Area and twelve sales within the Control Area. The sales are summarized in Table 6. The average selling price per acre within the Target Area was $6,548 while within the Control Area it was $5,785. These two prices are similar, indicating that there is no difference in the overall price of land within the Target Area versus smaller residential tract sales in the Control Area.

Special mention is made of Sale 9 within the Target Area. This sale is located on Cherry Road approximately 1,900 feet from the nearest operating turbine and has a direct view of the wind farm. This property sold for a price per acre of $23,333. There was an existing old house on the property, which was torn down for a new house. The cost for removal of the existing house is not included in the $23,333 per acre. If Sale 9 is ignored, then the overall price per acre of Target Area is $4,450 per acre.

A statistical comparison was made of the two means to ascertain if there was, in fact, a significant difference between the two averages (see also Table 6). This analysis does not include Sale 9. This analysis indicated that the calculated T statistic for the sample was 0.577. This is less than the Standard T of 1.729 indicating that at the 95% confidence interval, there is no significant difference in the mean sale price per square foot of small residential tracts within the target and control areas. Consequently, the hypothesis that there is a difference between value of residential acreage located near an operating wind farm and that located some distance is rejected and it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in pricing.

28

Table 6: Small Residential Tract Sales. Sale Parcel No. Address Grantor Grantee Sale Size Book/ Sale $/Ac. Price Page Date Target: 1 31 010 5 021 X Sprngdl. DF Chaudoir $1,800 1.000 341/011 Nov-99 $1,800 2 31 010 14 151 Black Ash Wery Miller $6,500 1.000 420/207 Feb-03 $6,500 3 31 010 22 12 S Jeanquart Dufek $2,400 2.980 336/355 Jul-99 $805 4 31 010 22 14 Cherry Cravillon Naze $5,000 5.000 338/303 Sep-99 $1,000 5 31 010 35 151 P Mertens Srnka $1,500 0.085 346/362 May-00 $17,647 6 31 010 35 151 P Mertens Neuzil $300 0.120 318/895 May-98 $2,500 7 31 010 35 151 P Mertens Vogel $2,000 2.000 337/589 Aug-99 $1,000 8 31 018 12 153 Tamarack Schlise Challis $20,000 4.600 402/782 Sep-02 $4,348 9 31 010 27 092 N7875 Cherry Fenendael Pelnar $21,000 0.900 472/110 Aug-04 $23,333 Average: $6,548 Average Sales 1 through 8: $4,450

Control: 10 31 010 3 061 Fir Dutil Trust Hackett $3,000 5.000 351/130 Sep-00 $600 11 31 010 10 165 Hawk Rd Nicolet Brd.Streck $10,900 1.600 375/146 Sep-01 $6,813 12 31 010 11 15 Hawk Rd Moreau Paul $500 1.000 341/690 Dec-99 $500 13 31 010 19 151 S Kinnard Fms Beaurain $300 0.210 430/225 Apr-03 $1,429 14 31 010 19 014 Martin Dhuey Trust Cochart $2,000 1.400 428/17 Apr-03 $1,429 15 31 010 29 131 Maple Rd Deprey Doperalski $10,000 1.000 333/256 Apr-99 $10,000 16 31 010 29 131 Maple Rd Deprey Tr. Petry $10,000 1.500 342/235 Jan-00 $6,667 17 31 010 29 135 Maple Rd Martin Deprey $12,900 2.000 349/555 Aug-00 $6,450 18 31 010 33 12 K Strnad Spitzer $28,000 4.500 350/173 Sep-00 $6,222 19 31 010 33 061 Maple Rd Deprey Moreau $2,400 2.300 334/457 Jun-99 $1,043 20 31 018 30 163 E0478 Thiry Pallet LeGrave $17,500 1.000 462/636 Apr-04 $17,500 21 31 018 30 166 E0496 Thiry Nachtwey LeGrave $14,000 1.300 461/169 Apr-04 $10,769 Average: $5,785

Sample Sample Degrees Sample Sum Standard Size Of Mean Of Deviation Freedom Squares Target: 9 8 $4,450226,288,635 5318.47 Control: 12 11 $5,785297,570,905 5201.14 Combined: 21 19 523,859,540

Variance: 27,571,554.7 Variance of Difference of Means: 5,361,135.64 Standard Deviation: 2,315.41 Calculated T = 0.577 Standard T at 95% 19 Degrees of Freedom: 1.729

29

Residential Tract Acreage

A review was made of the selling prices of residential tract acreage. These tracts are defined as comprising between five acres and twenty acres. The sales are summarized in Table 7. These sales indicated that the average selling price within the Target Area was $2,494 per acre while within the Control Area it was $1,747. These two prices are close together and would indicate that there is no difference in the overall price of land within the Target Area versus small residential tract sales in the Control Area.

Table 7: Residential Tract Sales. Parcel No. Address Grantor Grantee Sale Size Book/ Sale $/Ac. Price Page Date Target: 31 010 22 021 P Rhoades Shaw $76,000 14.040 327/27 Oct-98 $5,413 31 010 35 151 K Mertens Jahnke $15,000 18.100 343/888 Mar-00 $829 31 010 36 13 Chestnut Salzsieder Nell $6,000 6.000 316/642 Apr-98 $1,000 31 010 36 161 SH 54 Salzsieder Nell $8,400 7.000 453/230 Nov-03 $1,200 31 010 36 161 SH 54 Salzsieder Nell $11,600 12.000 453/232 Nov-03 $967 31 018 24 161 S Englebert Johnson $100,000 18.000 365/845 Jun-01 $5,556 Average: $2,494

Control: 31 010 9 15 Hawk Rd Horak Alberts $6,136 9.000 335/675 Jun-99 $682 31 010 20 151 CH "S" Dhuey Theys $2,000 6.000 324/401 Oct-98 $333 31 010 20 06 Spruce Rd Dhuey Jandrin $10,000 12.500 313/817 Feb-98 $800 31 018 3 022 E1531 Cnty Ln. Laluzerne Ahlswede $15,000 10.000 373/219 Oct-01 $1,500 31 018 3 051 County Line Mork Jonet $23,300 17.300 388/236 Mar-02 $1,347 31 018 3 111 X & Rocky Road Dalebroux Derenne $42,000 19.000 444/348 Aug-03 $2,211 31 018 16 16 Town Hall Dalebroux Besaw $27,300 13.000 452/516 Nov-03 $2,100 31 018 19 16 SS Mertens Brenneke $35,000 7.000 357/882 Jan-01 $5,000 Average: $1,747

30

Large Tract Acreage

A review was made of the selling prices of large tract acreage. These tracts are defined as comprised of more than twenty acres. They are used for agricultural purposes or very large residential tracts. Sales between family members and related parties as well as those comprising swamp and forested land were not included in the analysis. The agricultural sales are summarized in Table 8. These sales indicated that the average selling price within the Target Area was $1,418 per acre while within the Control Area it was $1,602. These two prices are close together and indicate that there is no significant difference in the overall price of land within the Target Area versus large tract sales in the Control Area.

A statistical comparison was made of the two means to ascertain if there was, in fact, a significant difference between the two indicated prices (see Table 9). This analysis indicated that the calculated T statistic for the sample was 0.881. This is less than the Standard T of 1.678 indicating that at the 95% confidence interval, there is no significant difference in the mean sale price per square foot of large tracts within the target and control areas.

31

Table 8: Large Tract Sales. Sale Parcel No. Address Grantor Grantee Sale Acres Book/ Sale $/Acre Price Page Date Target: 1 31 010 6 153 Spruce Rd & C Herison Pagel's $108,000 72.0 394/62 Jun-02 $1,500 2 31 010 7 05 Tamarack Rd Hurley Jandrin $37,500 25.0 469/662 Jul-04 $1,500 3 31 010 21 031 Apple Kinnard Peters $63,800 75.0 335/341 Jun-99 $851 4 31 010 22 04 P Morse Trust Sogge $58,000 40.0 397/709 Aug-02 $1,450 5 31 010 22 06 Partridge Golapske Moynihan $112,500 40.0 442/103 Aug-03 $2,813 6 31 010 27 14 Cherry Rd Pelnar Yunk $29,155 35.0 324/181 Oct-98 $833 7 31 010 27 05 S. Cherry Duescher Petersilka $40,000 36.0 342/652 Jan-00 $1,111 8 31 010 27 091 Cherry Almonte Fenendael $36,000 39.0 355/450 Feb-01 $923 9 31 010 27 08 Cherry Miller Zellner $80,000 40.7 392/639 Jun-02 $1,966 10 31 010 33 08 Hemlock Vandermause Maedke $60,000 41.0 447/625 Sep-03 $1,463 11 31 010 33 03 Hemlock Annoye Srnka $63,000 70.0 318/192 May-98 $900 12 31 010 34 111 Hemlock Annoye Strand $26,000 34.4 316/829 Apr-98 $756 13 31 010 35 12 E4386 K Mertens Hoagland $40,000 40.0 343/352 Feb-00 $1,000 14 31 010 35 12 K Mertens Hoagland $40,000 40.0 431/738 Feb-03 $1,000 15 31 018 23 061 Town Hall Haske Watson $110,000 34.3 472/683 Sep-04 $3,207 Average: $1,418

Control: 16 31 010 3 061 X & Fir Dutil Pagel's $45,204 34.7 388/118 Mar-02 $1,303 17 31 010 3 022 Elm Dutil Trust DeGrave $45,200 34.7 373/820 Oct-01 $1,301 18 31 010 3 11 Fir Huettl Pagel's $63,000 35.0 453/937 Dec-03 $1,800 19 31 010 4 05 X Forsch Pagel's $49,600 33.0 462/307 Apr-04 $1,503 20 31 010 4 03 X Menne Pagel's $99,800 66.5 430/516 Apr-03 $1,501 21 31 010 5 13 C Delfosse Pagel's $58,400 39.2 454/163 Dec-03 $1,490 22 31 010 9 15 Fir Horak Kinnard $35,000 50.0 339/233 Oct-99 $700 23 31 010 9 16 N8967 Fir Kinnard Pagel's $50,000 57.7 421/715 Sep-02 $866 24 31 010 9 141 P Horak Pagel $180,500 260.0 317/645 May-98 $694 25 31 010 10 121 Hawk Rd Pinchart 3 M Tree Fa $65,000 39.4 375/26 Nov-01 $1,650 26 31 010 11 063 CH P Horak Postotnick $24,000 20.0 320/682 Jul-98 $1,200 27 31 010 11 063 P Postotnik Krzewina $33,000 20.0 347/496 Jun-00 $1,650 28 31 010 11 063 P Horak Postotnick $33,000 20.0 347/495 Jun-00 $1,650 29 31 010 11 032 Black Ash Massey Leitzinger $90,000 60.0 342/146 Jan-00 $1,500 30 31 010 13 04 Hickory Gostein Blair $87,500 40.0 437/129 Jun-03 $2,188 31 31 010 14 04 Black Ash Tollefson Parins $40,000 40.0 400/795 Aug-02 $1,000 32 31 010 14 03 Black Ash Carr Destree $73,500 40.0 439/867 Jul-03 $1,838 33 31 010 14 08 Black Ash Massey Destree $40,000 41.0 338/414 Sep-99 $976 34 31 010 14 111 Cherry & Part Deer Trail FMiller $50,000 72.6 321/902 Aug-98 $688 35 31 010 15 061 Hawk Rd Mertens Sautebin $40,000 40.0 352/831 Dec-00 $1,000 36 31 010 20 101 Spruce Dhuey Trust Kinnard $30,000 20.0 433/377 Jun-03 $1,500 37 31 010 29 131 Pheasant Rd. Mueller Pinchart $108,700 58.7 452/751 Nov-03 $1,852 38 31 010 29 131 Pheasant Rd. Deprey Tr Mueller $104,000 186.6 391/220 May-02 $557 39 31 010 32 011 Maple Rd Deprey Tr Massart $40,000 20.0 342/878 Feb-00 $2,000 40 31 010 32 05 Pheasant Rd. Frisque Kinnard $47,000 21.3 476/574 Nov-04 $2,207 41 31 010 32 10 C Pinchart Kinnard $60,000 40.0 382/721 Jan-02 $1,500 42 31 010 32 011 Pheasant Rd. Mueller Anderson $86,000 40.0 455/397 Dec-03 $2,150 43 31 010 32 06 E2995 Pheasan Deprey Tr Mueller $183,000 100.0 391/219 May-02 $1,830 44 31 010 32 021 Pheasant Rd. Mueller Kinnard Far$242,000 118.0 455/378 Jan-04 $2,051 45 31 018 3 111 X & Rocky Rd. Dalebroux Derenne $38,000 20.0 444/343 Aug-03 $1,900 46 31 018 20 073 H Nellis Bader $70,000 20.0 369/631 Jul-01 $3,500 47 31 018 20 141 S Dalebroux Jacobs Tr. $235,000 94.0 452/90 Nov-03 $2,500 48 31 018 21 071 A Dalebroux Euclide $124,200 43.8 465/119 Apr-04 $2,836 Average: $1,602

32

Table 9: Statistical Analysis of Large Tract Sales. Sample Sample Degrees Sample Sum Standard Size Of Mean Of Deviation Freedom Squares Target: 15 14 $1,418 7,521,028 732.95 Control: 33 32 $1,602 13,231,030 643.02 Combined: 48 46 20,752,058

Variance: 451,131.7 Variance of Difference of Means 43,746.10 Standard Deviation: 209.16 Calculated T = 0.881 Standard T at 95% 46 Degrees of Freedom: 1.678

33

Single Family Residential Values

A number of homes have sold within the target area surrounding the two operating wind farms in Kewaunee County. A total of seventy- nine improved sales were reviewed. Of these, 33 sales were within the Target Area and 46 sales were within the Control Area. These sales are summarized in Appendix II. Sales between relatives or other related parties, commercial establishments and mobile homes were removed from the analysis as not being truly indicative of values for a single-family residential property. This left a total of 26 sales within the Target Area and 39 sales within the Control Area. The overall average price within the Target Area was $62.19 per square foot and $68.60 per square foot within the Control Area. The two averages are very close indicating that there is no apparent difference between the target and control area prices. A statistical comparison was made of the two means to ascertain if there was a difference between the two indicated prices (see Table 10). This analysis indicated that the calculated T statistic for the sample was 0.688. This is less than the Standard T of 1.671 indicating that at the 95% confidence interval, there is no significant difference in the mean sale price per square foot of all residences within the Target and Control areas.

Table 10: Statistical Analysis of All Residential Properties. Sample Sample Degrees Sample Sum Standard Size Of Mean Of Deviation Freedom Squares Target: 26 25 $62.19 19,782 28.13 Control: 39 38 $68.60 65,630 41.56 Combined: 65 63 85,412

Variance: 1,355.7 Variance of Difference of Means: 86.91 Standard Deviation: 9.32 Calculated T = 0.688 Standard T at 95% 63 Degrees of Freedom: 1.671

These homes vary significantly in characteristics such as total size, style, age, amount of associated land, and number of outbuildings. Because of the magnitude of these differences, comparing an overall average sale price of all sales within the Target Area to an average sale price within the Control Area would not be meaningful.

To increase the reliability of the study, certain criteria were applied to the sales. Only houses constructed after 1960 were used because these homes are more similar in style, construction techniques, amenities, condition, and utility than homes constructed before this time frame. Homes located on tracts larger than five acres or those with newer large outbuildings were not used because of the possibility of the extra land and buildings distorting the price

34

per square foot. Bi-level and tri-level homes also were not included in the study because they tend to sell for less per square foot than do one-story and two-story homes and because it is often difficult to accurately estimate the actual amount of living space. Consequently, these types of homes would tend to skew results in the sample.

A total of 19 sales remained in the sample with 6 sales being located within the target area and the remaining 13 within the Control Area. The sales used are summarized in Table 11. The overall per square foot price range for houses within the target area was from $77.47 to $108.75 with an average of $92.64. In comparison, the overall per square foot price range for houses within the control area was from $68.59 to $122.75 with an average of $91.53 or $1.11 lower than that within the Target Group. A statistical comparison was made of the two means to ascertain if there was, in fact, a significant difference between the two indicated prices. This analysis indicated that the calculated T statistic for the sample was -0.147. This is less than the Standard T of 1.740 indicating that at the 95% confidence interval, there is no significant difference in the mean sale price per square foot of residences within the Target and Control areas. Overall, it is concluded that there is no measurable difference between improved residential sales within the Target and Control Area.

35

Table 11: Sales of Residences Constructed After 1960.

Sale Parcel No. Address Sale Acres Sale Age Ft2 $/Ft2 Sum Of Price Date Squares Target Area: 17 31 010 27 05 N8015 Cherry $162,000 5.00 Oct-02 2001 1,850 $87.57 26.0 25 31 018 3 161. E1650 X $80,000 1.10 Feb-02 1980 1,000 $80.00 160.0 26 31 018 3 162 E1658 X $121,500 1.50 Sep-02 1998 1,232 $98.62 36.0 27 31 018 13 093 E2225 Fameree $119,000 1.10 Feb-03 1983 1,536 $77.47 230.0 28 31 018 15 151 E1596 Town Hall $184,000 5.00 Mar-04 1995 1,692 $108.75 260.0 29 31 018 15 151 E1596 Town Hall $175,000 5.00 May-02 1995 1,692 $103.43 116.0 Average: $92.64 828.0

Control Area: 42 31 010 17 141 N8601 C $172,000 1.00 May-02 1980 1,569 $109.62 327.0 54 31 010 31 103 N7452 RR<L $150,000 1.29 Mar-04 1988 1,222 $122.75 975.0 55 31 010 32 111 E2962 K $120,400 2.00 Sep-99 1972 1,544 $77.98 184.0 57 31 010 32 051 E3009 Pheasant $127,000 2.00 Jul-02 1991 1,361 $93.31 3.0 58 31 010 32 122 E3088 K $171,000 0.92 Jul-03 1974 1,808 $94.58 9.0 65 31 018 9 093 N9047 A $118,000 1.79 Jul-01 1995 1,465 $80.55 121.0 67 31 018 18 013 E457 Macco $175,000 1.00 Jun-02 1987 2,370 $73.84 313.0 68 31 018 18 012 Macco $137,500 3.00 Jul-01 2001 1,838 $74.81 280.0 69 31 018 19 133 N8207 H $103,000 1.00 Oct-01 1978 1,104 $93.30 3.0 70 31 018 25 012 E2497 S $139,900 1.50 Dec-02 1966 1,500 $93.27 3.0 75 31 018 28 092 N7805 A $179,000 2.70 Sep-03 1977 1,608 $111.32 392.0 76 31 018 32 121 E642 K $129,000 3.00 Jul-02 1985 1,344 $95.98 20.0 77 31 018 33 012 N7655 A $207,000 2.90 Jul-02 1976 3,018 $68.59 526.0 Average: $91.53 3,156.0

Sample Sample Degrees Sample Sum Standard Size Of Mean Of Deviation Freedom Squares Target: 6 5 $92.64 828.0 12.87 Control: 13 12 $91.53 3,156.0 16.22 Combined: 19 17 3,984.0

Variance: 234.4 Variance of Difference of Means: 57.09 Standard Deviation: 7.56 Calculated T = 0.147 Standard T at 95% 17 Degrees of Freedom: 1.740

36

Anecdotal Information

Joe Jerabek, the assessor for Town of Lincoln, provided some anecdotal data. He indicated that construction was continuing in the area and that there was no apparent affect from the wind turbines located in his township. His analysis, based on assessment levels, indicated that the overall percentage level of assessment in the area had declined which would indicate an increase in property value. He also stated that new construction was occurring along Cherry Road, which is approximately 1,750 feet from nearest wind turbine. This was confirmed by a visual inspection of the area.

Special mention is made of two sales between individuals and Wisconsin Public Service. Wisconsin Public Service subsequently removed both properties. Sale 1 is between John C. Kostichka and Wisconsin Public Service on October 10, 2001 and is recorded in Book 371/Page 789. The company paid a total of $86,500 for Kostichka's property. The Lincoln Assessor had the property listed as a 948 square foot single-story house plus an enclosed porch. The construction date was 1955. In addition, there was a 1,200 square foot garage. There was no basement. The house was located on 4.5 acres. The exterior consisted of masonite and some brick. The interior had not been modernized. The assessor stated that the house was somewhat "rambling in design". Overall condition of the house was considered to be fair to average. The overall price paid was $91.24 per square foot. According to the assessor, Kostichka wanted to move to the town of Luxembourg for some time and saw this as an opportunity.

The second property that sold was from Greg Gabriel to Wisconsin Public Service. The price paid on August 30, 2001 was $88,000 and is recorded in Book 369/Page 859. This house was originally constructed in the 1920s as a cheese processing plant and was converted to a house. It is located about 10 feet from the roadway and is located next to a stop sign. The adjoining property was a tavern. The property was a two-story building containing a total of 1,500 square feet. There was no basement. It was located on 0.70 acre tract. The overall price was $58.66 per square foot. According to the assessor, at the time of the sale, Gabriel was divorced and living at a friend's house. The house purchased by Wisconsin Public Service was vacant at the time for this reason.

37

TWIN GROVES WIND FARM, MCLEAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS

The Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II is operated by Horizon Wind Energy LLC (now Renewables of North America LLC) and is located in McLean County, Illinois just south of Illinois Highway 9 between County Highway 25 and the McLean and Ford county line. This wind farm has 240 wind turbines producing up to a total of 393.5 megawatts of electricity. The design of the turbines is similar to those to be constructed at the subject. The tower hub height is 262 feet with an overall maximum height at top of rotor blade of 397 feet. The minimum setback from a non-participating residence is 1,500 feet. Permits for this project were issued in 2005, with construction in 2006 and operation beginning in 2007.

The Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II is a significantly larger project than proposed Highland Wind Farm. The land uses throughout both areas are similar and there are comparable demographic and other market forces active in both areas.

The topography in this area is generally level to very slightly rolling with only limited relief. The dominant terrain feature is the moraine that is aligned east to west between Saybrook and Downs. Land north of the moraine is generally level while south of this ridge it gradually drops away to the Salt Creek basin.

Land use in the area is predominately farming with some residential properties located on 3 to 10 acre tracts. Commercial uses in the main are restricted to the communities of Ellsworth, Arrowsmith, and Saybrook. Services within Ellsworth and Arrowsmith are generally limited to farm related activities. Saybrook has a wider variety of services available including a convenience store, antique store, restaurant, insurance office and other retail and service establishments. Le Roy (6 miles south), the Bloomington Normal Area (10 miles west), and Gibson City (5 miles east) provide a greater variety of services.

A Target Area was established around the Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II (see Fig. 4.) The boundary of the Target Area is represented as the yellow line in Figure 4. This Target Area reflects the overall topography of the area as well as any tree lines and intervening land uses in the area. The target boundary distance from the turbines varies depending upon the above stated criteria but generally ranges from about one mile to two and one-half miles. It is noted that communities of Ellsworth and Arrowsmith are essentially surrounded by the turbines while turbines are located on the north and western sides of Saybrook. All three communities are located within the Target Area.

The Control Area for the study was that portion of Empire Township north and east of Interstate 74, excluding the Village of LeRoy, and the areas of Lawndale, Cropsey, Blue Mound, Martin, Anchor, Cheney's Grove, West, and Bellflower townships not included within the

38

Target Area. The general land use characteristics of the Control Area are similar to the Target Area except for being at a greater distance from the wind farm

The Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II are located in three townships (Dawson, Arrowsmith and Cheney's Grove). The McLean County Supervisor of Assessments Office provided a list of sales for all properties within the Target and Control areas for the years 2006 through March of 2009. This time frame was chosen because it corresponds with the period the wind farm was undergoing construction and, subsequently, operating. These sales are summarized in Appendix III. The Twin Grove’s analysis comprises two parts. The first part is an analysis of the average sale price per square foot for single- family residential properties located within the Target Area versus the average price per square foot located within the Control Area. The second part is a paired sales analysis of three farmstead properties that have between six to nine towers located from 1,522 feet to 4,525 feet from these houses. The results of these studies follow.

39

Single Family Residential Values

A review of all sales classed as residential by the McLean County Assessor within these eleven townships was made and is included as Appendix IV. There were a total of 195 sales in the Target and Control areas with 78 sales in the Target area and the remaining 117 sales in the Control area. Overall, these sales indicated an average price per square foot of $67.60 in the Target Area and $57.05 per square foot in the Control Area.

The above sales included all residential classed sales within the respective areas. Among these were sales that were amongst family members or other related entities or the result of financial foreclosures, other judicial actions or other compulsory sales. Such sales are considered not to be arms length in nature and were not used for comparison purposes. Some of the county property record cards did not contain information on the respective parcels. These sales, although classed as residential, were vacant lots or the house was subsequently removed. These sales were also removed from the sample.

Several other criteria were also applied to ensure the quality and comparability of the data between houses within the both the Target and Control areas. These criteria make sure that properties in both groups are more similar in nature, and hence increase the overall reliability of the analysis. Appraisers typically apply such criteria when valuing a property to ensure that the subject and the comparable sales are as similar as possible, and hence lead to the best estimate of value. The same criteria was applied to sales both within the Target and Control areas so that both areas were treated the same.

Criteria used in this analysis were as follows:

1. All duplex, condominiums, modular and bi-level (split level) homes were removed. These types of properties have different pricing levels than do traditionally constructed one and two story homes. These styles of home would normally not be used by an appraiser when valuing a one or two story home.

2. Properties with greater than 5 acres of land were also removed from the samples. This controls for the effect of excess land on pricing.

3. Sales with a price per square foot of less than $40.00 were also removed because prices below this level would generally indicate that there were physical or functional problems with the particular house.

The remaining sales after these criteria were applied are summarized in Table 12. There were a total of 37 sales in the Target area and 54 sales in the Control area. After these adjustments, the overall average for the Target Area is $71.19 per square foot while

41

for the Control Area it is $69.26 or a difference of $1.93 per square foot. The calculated T statistic for the sales is 0.348. This is less than the standard T of 1.666 at 91 Degrees of Freedom. This indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups (see Table 13). Consequently, the hypothesis that the wind farm has had a negative impact on property values is rejected and it is concluded that the Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II has not had a statistically measurable effect on surrounding property values.

42

Table 12: Sales Used, Twin Groves Wind Farm Phases I and II, 2006 to March 2009. Sale Parcel Sale Sale Land Grantor Grantee Prop. Age Size StyleBase. Gar. Notes $/Ft2 Date Price Area Address Target: 1 23 09 400 007 Nov-07 $149,000 3.58 DeBaun Moore 26916 E 1200 North 1900 1,104 1SF C None $134.96 3 23 14 177 012 Nov-08 $83,000 0.62 Dyson Starcher 409 W High St 1973 1,634 1SF C 2-Car $50.80 5 23 14 332 001 Mar-08 $74,000 0.26 Hussong Lockwood 108 W South St 1884 1,226 1SF C 2-Car $60.36 7 23 14 332 005 Feb-08 $83,000 0.20 Vera Virg Hanover 205 S Main 1921 1,652 1SF F 2-Car $50.24 11 23 14 405 004 Mar-07 $130,000 0.33 Bane Dickerson 101 N East St 1894 2,335 2SF F Partial 1575' Pole Bld $55.67 12 23 14 405 012 Jan-07 $123,000 0.25 Vanover Parker 106 S East St 1874 1,237 1.5SF C 2-Car $99.43 13 23 17 200 004 Dec-08 $80,000 0.62 McDaniel Lewis 11610 N 2600 East 1950 888 1SF P 2-Car $90.09 15 23 26 200 005 Jun-07 $104,000 4.41 Roberts Lawrence 28690 E 950 North 1910 1,703 2SF P 1-Car Barn,Machine Shed $61.07 23 24 15 153 003 Aug-07 $123,000 0.30 Roth Riggenbach 309 N Main 1983 1,524 1.5SF C 2-Car & 1-Car $80.71 24 24 15 306 002 Mar-07 $76,000 0.39 Boyle Whitehouse 307 S Main 1886 1,690 1.5SF C 3-Car $44.97 25 24 15 307 002 Nov-07 $98,590 0.39 Grezelak Betts 309 S. Walnut 1886 1,660 2SF C 2-Car Coal House $59.39 28 24 16 277 004 Jan-07 $227,400 5.00 North Star Tr. Wright 36681 E1000 North 1861 1,258 1.5SF C 2-Car Coal House $180.76 30 24 16 278 008 Aug-07 $98,000 0.18 Stegall Sauer 302 N Oak 1921 2,388 2SF F 2-Car $41.04 33 24 16 427 005 Jul-07 $133,500 0.20 Lipic Cont. Lopez 105 Tipsord 2006 2,416 2SF C 2-Car $55.26 34 24 16 427 007 May-08 $120,000 0.20 Henrichs Favero 113 S Tipsord 2005 1,360 1SF C 2-Car & 1-Car $88.24 40 25 21 301 025 Jul-07 $60,000 0.60 Kirkpatrick Fam Ream 11357 N 3900 East 1959 1,040 1SF F 1-Car $57.69 42 25 21 327 022 Oct-07 $58,000 0.65 Nelson Streenz 710 Main St 1968 1,120 1SB F 2-Car $51.79 44 25 21 329 002 Feb-07 $115,000 0.48 Bedel Sanford 313 W. Oak 1894 2,027 2SF P 2-Car Remodeled 1998 $56.73 46 25 21 355 007 Mar-07 $60,750 0.42 Hinton Lubbers 1280 E 1500 North 1957 748 1SF F 2-Car $81.22 48 25 21 380 001 Nov-07 $62,000 0.32 Porter Heavilin 415 N. State St 1952 960 1SF F 1-Car $64.58 49 25 21 385 003 Aug-08 $73,000 0.21 Morris Chambers 206 N State St 1947 750 1SF F 1-Car $97.33 52 25 21 451 001 Jul-08 $119,000 0.51 Hintzman St. Peters 513 N Main St 1909 1,740 2SF P 2-Car $68.39 53 25 21 452 011 Sep-08 $60,000 0.52 Gibbens Tr. Nunamaker 213 E Locust 1884 1,320 1.5SF C 1-Car $45.45 54 25 21 461 004 Oct-07 $162,500 0.82 Phillips Irwin 205 N. Main 1859 3,017 2SF F 2-Car Sev. Outbuild. $53.86 55 25 21 467 002 Apr-07 $30,000 0.11 Bottles Campbell 109 N. Washington 1899 745 1SF C 2-Car $40.27 57 25 28 101 001 Aug-07 $69,000 4.00 Stauffer White 814 W. Harrison 1968 864 1SF F None $79.86 58 25 28 133 002 Jul-08 $52,500 0.18 Dayn Murphy 201 W. Harrison 1951 910 1SF P 1-Car $57.69 62 25 28 211 002 Nov-08 $70,000 0.22 Payl Bottles Burgess 308 E Lincoln 1923 1,264 1SF F 2-Car $55.38 64 25 28 213 001 Apr-07 $40,000 0.27 Nunamaker Watterson 401 S Washington 1874 812 1.5SF P 3-Car Shed $49.26 66 25 28 232 001 Oct-08 $66,000 0.36 Tipsord Tipsord 706 E. Harrison 1950 1,610 1SF F 2-Car $40.99 67 25 28 254 006+ Apr-07 $56,000 1.86 Nunamaker Bottles 310 Jackson 1894 1,052 1SF C 1-Car $53.23 69 25 28 254 026 Jan-08 $50,000 1.56 Nunamaker Watterson 314 E Jackson St 1894 768 1SF C 1-Car 1620' Pole Bld $65.10 74 16 27 200 009 Feb-07 $132,000 3.39 Smith Wissmiller 22781 E 1600 North 1900 1,864 2SF F 2-Car $70.82 75 16 33 100 004 Aug-08 $145,000 2.05 Sajovec Leuck 26039 1500 North 1900 1,176 2SF P 2 Det. Gar + out Build $123.30 76 16 36 300 004 May-08 $165,000 2.70 Brisch Burr RR2 Box 59 1915 1,484 1SF P 2-Car 1080 Ft2 $111.19 77 17 27 200 004 Aug-08 $154,000 5.00 O Connell Herman 33527 E 1600 North 1905 1,708 2SF P 1-Car $90.16 78 18 27 400 004 Oct-08 $160,000 3.400 Middendorf Woolever/Wolle 39572 E 1500 North 1908 2,394 2SF F 2-Car Pole Bld, Cattle Shed $66.83 Average: $71.19 Table 12: Continued on Next Page.

Table 12: Continued. Sale Parcel Sale Sale Land Grantor Grantee Prop. Age Size StyleBase. Gar. Notes $/Ft2 Date Price Area Address Control: 80 10 03 400 004 May-08 $101,000 2.14 Cornelius Roark 33631 E 2550 N Rd 1910 1,800 2SF F 2-Car 1568'Mach & 1536' Barn $56.11 81 10 03 400 004 Aug-06 $90,000 2.14 Smock Cornelius 33631 E 2550 N Rd 1910 1,800 2SF F 2-Car 1568'Mach & 1536' Barn $50.00 82 10 08 100 002 Oct-08 $155,000 2.04 Rivera Corray 31210 E 2450 N Rd 1900 1,712 2SF P None 1512' Brn 520'Mach Shd $90.54 83 10 11 200 012 Aug-06 $146,775 4.08 Crummett Buffano 35012 E 2450 N Rd 1909 2,464 2SF F 1-Car Sev. Outbuild. $59.57 84 10 22 300 004 Jul-08 $435,000 5.00 Warsaw Gilmore 22085 N 3300 E Rd 1983 2,747 1SB F 2-Car 2856' Pole Bld $158.35 87 10 30 200 010 May-06 $130,000 1.65 Gilmore Fry R.R.1 1976 1,804 1.5SF C 2-Car $72.06 90 11 23 426 004 Jun-07 $50,000 0.30 Lane Gonzalez 216 W Yates 1879 1,146 1SF C 1-Car & Carport $43.63 98 11 23 433 012 Jun-08 $83,500 0.34 Ward Dyer 301 S East ST 1960 1,392 1SF C 3-Car $59.99 99 11 24 101 004+ Sep-06 $75,000 1.33 Marmet Moulton 22807 N 4100 East 1881 1,108 1.5SF F None $67.69 104 17 02 301 004 Apr-07 $62,000 0.17 Waller Painter 305 E Fifer 1904 864 1SF F 2-Car $71.76 105 17 02 304 005 Oct-07 $65,000 0.16 Wright Ledew 501 E Wood 1894 905 1SF C 2-Car $71.82 107 17 02 305 012 Mar-08 $67,000 0.36 Sutton Brewer 308 S Euclid 1914 1,440 1SF C 2-Car $46.53 108 17 02 306 009 Jun-07 $109,900 1.20 Haller Douglas 309 S. Euclid 1894 1,136 1SF F 2-Car $96.74 109 17 02 307 006 Feb-07 $108,000 0.58 Wyant Est. Hinrichsen 306 S. Hyatt 1979 2,279 1SF P 2-Car 3-Car Detached $47.39 110 17 02 327 007 Oct-07 $115,000 0.52 Gross Phillips 607 E Wood 1967 1,624 1SF C 2-Car $70.81 111 17 03 203 004 Apr-08 $141,000 0.22 Evers Hudson 303 Terra 1992 1,760 2SF F 2-Car $80.11 113 17 03 226 002 Jun-08 $90,000 0.29 Davis Tr Reynolds 100 Rte 165 West 1964 1,008 1SB F 2-Car $89.29 114 17 03 226 008 Jul-07 $136,000 0.74 Schenk Beck 512 N. Center 1885 1,993 2SF F 2-Car $68.24 120 17 03 251 004 Aug-07 $112,000 0.37 Winterland Tr Fincham 309 W North 1967 1,412 1SF F 2-Car $79.32 121 17 03 252 003 Sep-08 $70,000 0.46 Barclay Bayles 204 W Cooper 1963 1,020 1SF F 2-Car $68.63 122 17 03 252 008 Oct-07 $60,000 0.27 Birge etal Weaver/Holzhauer 205 W North 1958 1,456 1SF C 2-Car $41.21 123 17 03 254 010 Jun-07 $61,500 0.11 Weber-Rodriguez Jackson 203 W. Main 1966 864 1SF C 1-Car $71.18 126 17 03 278 002 Jul-08 $69,500 0.16 Reum Harper 106 W North 1884 1,194 1SF C 2-Car $58.21 127 17 03 278 003 Apr-07 $49,000 0.16 Goldsberry Gierch 104 W North 1899 1,054 1SF F 1-Car $46.49 128 17 03 286 008 Oct-08 $70,000 0.24 Gillan Tolan 205 E Main 1894 1,330 1SF P 2-Car $52.63 129 17 03 286 009 Apr-07 $90,000 0.32 Habison Kemp 207 E. Main 1884 1,681 2SF F 2-Car $53.54 134 17 03 428 010 Dec-07 $103,000 0.26 Hoselton Smith 106 S. Harrison 1949 1,602 1SF C 2-Car $64.29 135 17 03 429 001 Aug-07 $93,500 0.30 Crowley Reynolds 110 W Fifer 1884 1,221 1SF P 2-Car $76.58 138 17 03 477 008 Nov-07 $124,000 0.46 Tipsord Banks 402 Sunset 2006 1,480 1SF F 2-Car $83.78 139 17 03 477 014 Apr-08 $183,000 0.48 Grimes Young 414 Sunset 1996 2,360 1SB F 2-Car $77.54 140 17 12 400 008 Feb-17 $150,000 1.09 Hartley Battiste 18316 N 3600 East 1905 2,518 2SF F 2-Car $59.57 143 31 25 300 003 Apr-07 $55,000 1.17 Healea Spilmon 35298 E 300 North 1971 1,092 1SF F 2-Car Outbuilding $50.37 144 39 01 300 006+ Nov-08 $95,000 0.31 Nelson Koeser 41532 E 100 North 1915 1,400 1SF F None $67.86 Table 12: Continued on Next Page.

Table 12: Continued. Sale Parcel Sale Sale Land Grantor Grantee Prop. Age Size StyleBase. Gar. Notes $/Ft2 Date Price Area Address 146 32 08 400 004 Apr-07 $110,000 2.86 Stine Brown 37676 E 600 North 1910 1,598 2SF C 1-Car Mach Shed Barn Lean To $68.84 147 39 12 200 004 Mar-07 $82,500 0.15 Zeigli Place RR1 Box 147 1939 1,008 1SF $81.85 148 32 21 381 005 May-07 $72,500 0.33 Bill Rapp P.O. Box 148 1911 1,689 1.5SF P 2-Car $42.92 149 32 21 382 003 Feb-08 $70,000 0.24 Noe Bedford 104 W. Kleinbeck 1954 1,128 1SF F 1-Car $62.06 150 32 21 383 006 Jul-07 $120,000 0.33 Hinkle Freden & Bedford 102 N Prairie St 1899 2,371 2SF C 1-Car $50.61 151 32 21 384 001 Jun-07 $98,000 0.19 Heinrich Connor 210 W Melvin 1899 1,680 1.5SF P 2-Car $58.33 152 32 21 385 003 May-07 $73,500 0.33 Gill Hall 101 N Vine 1884 1,120 1SF C 3-Car Pole Bld $65.63 153 32 21 453 002 Nov-07 $83,900 0.33 Anstrom Mintz 301 E Marquis 1899 1,704 1SF C 2-Car Shed $49.24 163 32 28 132 008 Nov-07 $63,000 0.17 Burton Abbott 101 W South St 1999 728 1SF C None $86.54 165 32 31 200 005 Sep-08 $175,000 1.36 Vaughn Paullin 36723 E 300 North 1910 1,398 1.5SF P 2-Car Barn and Lean to $125.18 166 32 35 300 004 Jan-08 $174,900 2.00 Beckley Riley 2317 N 4000 East 1954 2,499 1SB P 2-Car $69.99 167 16 14 127 006 Jun-07 $73,000 0.15 Marsh Clark 202 W Lincoln 1879 960 1SF P 2-Car $76.04 169 16 14 129 001 Jan-07 $75,000 0.32 Kirby Kinsella 205 W Lincoln 1884 1,388 1SF C 2-Car $54.03 170 16 14 129 002 Oct-07 $65,000 0.16 Keith Ammerman 203 W Lincoln 1889 1,008 1.5SF P 2-Car $64.48 172 16 14 201 001- Jun-07 $80,000 0.42 Cavinder Hereford (Tolan) 203 N Koch 1894 1,136 1SF C None $70.42 173 16 14 201 005 Jun-07 $76,000 0.14 Wissmiller Weber 100 E Lincoln 1958 1,392 1SF F 2-Car $54.60 174 16 14 201 010 Feb-08 $88,000 0.42 Tolan Alexander 203 N. Koch 1894 1,136 1SF C None $77.46 179 16 14 205 005 Mar-07 $162,000 0.53 Terven Weber 101 N Walnut 1985 1,998 1SB F 2-Car + $81.08 181 16 14 211 003 Jun-07 $105,000 0.28 Weber Marsh 205 S Walnut 1899 1,833 2SF F 2-Car $57.28 182 16 14 251 008 Dec-08 $49,000 0.14 Brent Brown 306 S Walnut 1899 1,204 1SF P None $40.70 183 16 20 100 012 Apr-07 $210,000 2.36 Wade Bender 25169 E 1700 North 1945 1,389 1SF P 2-Car+ Stor Add to Gar. 874' $151.19 Average: $69.26

Table 13: Statistical Analysis.

Sale Parcel Sale Sale Prop. Age Size $/Ft2 Sum of Date Price Address Squares Target: 1 23 09 400 007 Nov-07 $149,000 26916 E 1200 North 1900 1,104 $134.96 4,066.7 3 23 14 177 012 Nov-08 $83,000 409 W High St 1973 1,634 $50.80 416.0 5 23 14 332 001 Mar-08 $74,000 108 W South St 1884 1,226 $60.36 117.4 7 23 14 332 005 Feb-08 $83,000 205 S Main 1921 1,652 $50.24 438.9 11 23 14 405 004 Mar-07 $130,000 101 N East St 1894 2,335 $55.67 240.8 12 23 14 405 012 Jan-07 $123,000 106 S East St 1874 1,237 $99.43 797.6 13 23 17 200 004 Dec-08 $80,000 11610 N 2600 East 1950 888 $90.09 357.1 15 23 26 200 005 Jun-07 $104,000 28690 E 950 North 1910 1,703 $61.07 102.5 23 24 15 153 003 Aug-07 $123,000 309 N Main 1983 1,524 $80.71 90.6 24 24 15 306 002 Mar-07 $76,000 307 S Main 1886 1,690 $44.97 687.6 25 24 15 307 002 Nov-07 $98,590 309 S. Walnut 1886 1,660 $59.39 139.3 28 24 16 277 004 Jan-07 $227,400 36681 E1000 North 1861 1,258 $180.76 12,005.6 30 24 16 278 008 Aug-07 $98,000 302 N Oak 1921 2,388 $41.04 909.3 33 24 16 427 005 Jul-07 $133,500 105 Tipsord 2006 2,416 $55.26 254.0 34 24 16 427 007 May-08 $120,000 113 S Tipsord 2005 1,360 $88.24 290.4 40 25 21 301 025 Jul-07 $60,000 11357 N 3900 East 1959 1,040 $57.69 182.3 42 25 21 327 022 Oct-07 $58,000 710 Main St 1968 1,120 $51.79 376.6 44 25 21 329 002 Feb-07 $115,000 313 W. Oak 1894 2,027 $56.73 209.1 46 25 21 355 007 Mar-07 $60,750 1280 E 1500 North 1957 748 $81.22 100.5 48 25 21 380 001 Nov-07 $62,000 415 N. State St 1952 960 $64.58 43.7 49 25 21 385 003 Aug-08 $73,000 206 N State St 1947 750 $97.33 683.3 52 25 21 451 001 Jul-08 $119,000 513 N Main St 1909 1,740 $68.39 7.9 53 25 21 452 011 Sep-08 $60,000 213 E Locust 1884 1,320 $45.45 662.5 54 25 21 461 004 Oct-07 $162,500 205 N. Main 1859 3,017 $53.86 300.4 55 25 21 467 002 Apr-07 $30,000 109 N. Washington 1899 745 $40.27 956.3 57 25 28 101 001 Aug-07 $69,000 814 W. Harrison 1968 864 $79.86 75.1 58 25 28 133 002 Jul-08 $52,500 201 W. Harrison 1951 910 $57.69 182.3 62 25 28 211 002 Nov-08 $70,000 308 E Lincoln 1923 1,264 $55.38 250.1 64 25 28 213 001 Apr-07 $40,000 401 S Washington 1874 812 $49.26 481.0 66 25 28 232 001 Oct-08 $66,000 706 E. Harrison 1950 1,610 $40.99 912.0 67 25 28 254 006+ Apr-07 $56,000 310 Jackson 1894 1,052 $53.23 322.6 69 25 28 254 026 Jan-08 $50,000 314 E Jackson St 1894 768 $65.10 37.1 74 16 27 200 009 Feb-07 $132,000 22781 E 1600 North 1900 1,864 $70.82 0.1 75 16 33 100 004 Aug-08 $145,000 26039 1500 North 1900 1,176 $123.30 2,715.1 76 16 36 300 004 May-08 $165,000 RR2 Box 59 1915 1,484 $111.19 1,599.5 77 17 27 200 004 Aug-08 $154,000 33527 E 1600 North 1905 1,708 $90.16 359.9 78 18 27 400 004 Oct-08 $160,000 39572 E 1500 North 1908 2,394 $66.83 19.0 Average: $71.19 31,390.2 Table 13: Continued on Next Page.

46

Table 13: Continued. Sale Parcel Sale Sale Prop. Age Size $/Ft2 Sum of Date Price Address Squares Control: 80 10 03 400 004 May-08 $101,000 33631 E 2550 N Rd 1910 1,800 $56.11 173.0 81 10 03 400 004 Aug-06 $90,000 33631 E 2550 N Rd 1910 1,800 $50.00 371.1 82 10 08 100 002 Oct-08 $155,000 31210 E 2450 N Rd 1900 1,712 $90.54 452.5 83 10 11 200 012 Aug-06 $146,775 35012 E 2450 N Rd 1909 2,464 $59.57 94.0 84 10 22 300 004 Jul-08 $435,000 22085 N 3300 E Rd 1983 2,747 $158.35 7,937.0 87 10 30 200 010 May-06 $130,000 R.R.1 1976 1,804 $72.06 7.8 90 11 23 426 004 Jun-07 $50,000 216 W Yates 1879 1,146 $43.63 657.1 98 11 23 433 012 Jun-08 $83,500 301 S East ST 1960 1,392 $59.99 86.1 99 11 24 101 004+ Sep-06 $75,000 22807 N 4100 East 1881 1,108 $67.69 2.5 104 17 02 301 004 Apr-07 $62,000 305 E Fifer 1904 864 $71.76 6.2 105 17 02 304 005 Oct-07 $65,000 501 E Wood 1894 905 $71.82 6.5 107 17 02 305 012 Mar-08 $67,000 308 S Euclid 1914 1,440 $46.53 517.0 108 17 02 306 009 Jun-07 $109,900 309 S. Euclid 1894 1,136 $96.74 755.0 109 17 02 307 006 Feb-07 $108,000 306 S. Hyatt 1979 2,279 $47.39 478.5 110 17 02 327 007 Oct-07 $115,000 607 E Wood 1967 1,624 $70.81 2.4 111 17 03 203 004 Apr-08 $141,000 303 Terra 1992 1,760 $80.11 117.7 113 17 03 226 002 Jun-08 $90,000 100 Rte 165 West 1964 1,008 $89.29 400.8 114 17 03 226 008 Jul-07 $136,000 512 N. Center 1885 1,993 $68.24 1.1 120 17 03 251 004 Aug-07 $112,000 309 W North 1967 1,412 $79.32 101.1 121 17 03 252 003 Sep-08 $70,000 204 W Cooper 1963 1,020 $68.63 0.4 122 17 03 252 008 Oct-07 $60,000 205 W North 1958 1,456 $41.21 787.1 123 17 03 254 010 Jun-07 $61,500 203 W. Main 1966 864 $71.18 3.7 126 17 03 278 002 Jul-08 $69,500 106 W North 1884 1,194 $58.21 122.3 127 17 03 278 003 Apr-07 $49,000 104 W North 1899 1,054 $46.49 518.7 128 17 03 286 008 Oct-08 $70,000 205 E Main 1894 1,330 $52.63 276.7 129 17 03 286 009 Apr-07 $90,000 207 E. Main 1884 1,681 $53.54 247.3 134 17 03 428 010 Dec-07 $103,000 106 S. Harrison 1949 1,602 $64.29 24.7 135 17 03 429 001 Aug-07 $93,500 110 W Fifer 1884 1,221 $76.58 53.5 138 17 03 477 008 Nov-07 $124,000 402 Sunset 2006 1,480 $83.78 210.8 139 17 03 477 014 Apr-08 $183,000 414 Sunset 1996 2,360 $77.54 68.5 140 17 12 400 008 Feb-17 $150,000 18316 N 3600 East 1905 2,518 $59.57 94.0 143 31 25 300 003 Apr-07 $55,000 35298 E 300 North 1971 1,092 $50.37 357.2 144 39 01 300 006+ Nov-08 $95,000 41532 E 100 North 1915 1,400 $67.86 2.0 146 32 08 400 004 Apr-07 $110,000 37676 E 600 North 1910 1,598 $68.84 0.2 147 39 12 200 004 Mar-07 $82,500 RR1 Box 147 1939 1,008 $81.85 158.3 148 32 21 381 005 May-07 $72,500 P.O. Box 148 1911 1,689 $42.92 693.8 149 32 21 382 003 Feb-08 $70,000 104 W. Kleinbeck 1954 1,128 $62.06 52.0 150 32 21 383 006 Jul-07 $120,000 102 N Prairie St 1899 2,371 $50.61 347.9 Table 13: Continued on Next Page.

47