constitutional arguments in this case and i want to talk about a couple of cases the peterson plaza case was a decision cited by the defendants in this case involving a property transfer tax ruling for enterprise zones in that case the plaintiff challenging things did not raise a constitutional argument at the administrators level or at the at the trial court level and it was argued for  the st time on the field that it was this ruling dealing with a fifty percent threshold to be commercial or industrial was unconstitutionally they the court st stated that a constitutional challenge should be for in the sims case our case we're looking at a situation where there was no opportunity to address the argument that was being made at the trial court level for the st time that the boilerplate section saying plural include singular and singular includes plural should be be used to define the productivity to the farm to include all farms wherever situated and that was st raised in oral argument by the defendant at this hearing now and before judge o'connor judge o'connor had me speak st and then the defendant's counsel speak there was no opportunity for me to speak there after so i had no opportunity to address that issue at the trial court level now and it's a far different issue in terms of the constitutional issue of situation another case that was cited was the board of education versus board of education the defense i have decades but inec ace the constitutional argument was not found to be forfeited because there was no real opportunity to prevent the argument previously very similar to our case i cited in our reply brief the ok sic vs children's home and aid society case the neck ace the supreme court the position that to the extent any for which your argument could be made it should be overlooked in the interest of maintaining sound and uniform body of precedent and further stated that the only issues  so because of that there was no problem with proofs and defendants were able to present an argument so the issues of law of course have done over as indicated by the court so in this situation i think the forfeit your argument fails the other is constitutional issues were kind of addressed in both breeze a little bit and some of the cases cited and one of those cited by both sides was the two thousand and thirteen st district case cited by defendants and they indicate in that case that the oh i can situation requires that real estate taxes shall be levied uniformly  by valuation ascertain as the general assembly shall provide by law and that uniformity requires equality in the burden of taxation taxing officials may not tax the same kind of properties within the same taxing boundary at different proportions that are true value and that's what this attempted reach is doing mine are defendants they want to tax property not based on the contribution of a building to that farm but they want to look at who's the owner how many other firms they own in this county and other counties who knows and how is the quitman in the buildings used on other farm somewhere else to create value to those other f know we also say the case of walsh versus property tax appeal board with that same equality of taxation in proportion to the value of the property as being taxed in this property is not the other farms that are miles away you know the defendant tried to raise another case saying you can look at other properties they cited the county of du page versus property tax if you'll board in one thousand nine hundred and five nd district case but that case did not look at parcel in that in that case and should be considered in the value that parcel in defining how much that's worth in our case mr sims doesn't have any easements that makes other property rights involved in this in this property so i want to now turn to the the issues presented by the peacock decision and that this isn't was a two thousand and three th district decision involving a farm property and taxation of a building on that property which is the very same issue we have in this case in the peacock decision the court relied on the one expert who actually looked at the issue of obsolescence and look beyond the cost approach and they look to contribution of productivity of the farm now in that case this this particular expert is nameless cornwell was both an appraiser and a farmer just like our expert mr blaine was fraser in a farmer and cornwall relied on his life in farming to testify as to what the contribution that these buildings would have been to what extent were they obsolete and because he had that experience he was able to make a judgment on that issue and mr blaine made a similar judgment in this case he looked at the size of the building and found it was oversized and looked at the two types of obsolescence and found that it was beyond what was needed for the productivity and didn't add full value however when you look at what the other expert witness had to say and blaine's testimony is in the common law record that was joyce well henry count fraser when confronted on cross examination that she should have gone beyond the cost approach and valuing the building and considered that this building is too ours it had the full value for productivity purposes she opined that there was no super adequacy here because mr sims would not have built the building this size unless it was useful to him and that she he she knew that mr simms had six hundred and ninety two acres in henry county alone in addition to this farm he had many other and other farms and so she said that there can't be obsolescence because he would have built this big if he couldn't use it somewhere and he's got a lot of other acres somewhere now cross examination when confronted with this that that ex should not count other properties and you should not be considering other firms she said well that's very narrow sided she found that valuing a building based  its contribution to the parcel and son is narrow sided and not logical her so i asked her doesn't doesn't that prevent you from doing this and she said no and i said well that's not the law was she said it's not logical to me so she never considered the issue of obsolescence is this building over bill for the parcel it's on does it how much does it contribute to that person never looked at it so this isn't a case of you know us trying to impeach  methodology she never looked at she looked so we at the cost she was inventing her own concept of how farm building should be valued and that's different than what the legislature intended so i think it's a situation where we have one appraiser who had competent testimony that actually looked at that out so lessons issue and the decision peacock says you cos approach is only a starting point you have the credit well case and as found there are other situations that you can find where there's large overbuild buildings there are few and far between but some exist and when you're selling it as a one property and looking at what it does for that property there's got to be some some valuation change there's also a case that does not involve a farm building which is the lake county board of review versus p t b which is a nd district file that the appraiser for that plaintiff found out the lessons in very similar percentages to those used by mr breen in our case so obsolescence clearly exists in the definition of the statute which requires that these buildings only be text based on their productivity far now i am sure defendant has search for other cases defined are there any other cases where other firms have been considered  valuing a building and its productivity and i'm sure if they had found any they would have cited those i don't think that the court should create a legislative broadening of a statute to define firearms as multiple properties in different locations so this isn't a situation where there's two adjacent parcels where they are operated as one farm we've got you know this this is a single two hundred and twenty four dollars acre tract that is it's own far and i don't think we should go down that slippery slope of trying to define productivity is to all farms wherever no because well that would create a huge issues and in the application one would be one of mr sims transferred it to his daughter his son you know known as many for an en terms of productivity of a building to a farm to require some kind of survey of all the other farms own by now judge o'connor looked at this issue and he's clearly he said that this is an issue of law the issue is when looking at productivity does that constitute productivity to this far are multiple far that's the issue here and it's an issue of law and i think this case is going to go regardless of how i rule well because of that because it's an issue of law the noble standard review should apply here because the sole issue is can we look of joyce well better uses a legal standard which i believe is different than what the legislature intended and if you can't then there is no by mr blaine our expert so i think with up statute involving singular versus plural that statute could be referring to like the number of owners of the property so if you have husband or wife in a property it's the same thing as one person you're looking at you know how to value that property so it applies to a taxpayer whether it's multiple taxpayers or the same taxpayer that owns that property i don't think the legislature ever intended someone to come up with this creative argument that the property should include multiple other properties wherever located miles away and i think that would really ad of problems in education the tax code and would involve constitutional problem because that's just simply not rational it's not a uniform system of taxation and you're not taxing property based on the val property you're basing out based on the owners you know well how many other farms they own and what perceived contribution there is to other properties that are humans you know valued by that assess code under the code form of these are based upon their current value to base upon their current use and their quote contribution to the productivity of the farm and the code further defines the farm as any property used for an agricultural or particle purpose and in that same definition ads that improvements should be assessed as part of the farm when they contribute quote in whole or in part to the operation of the farm and that standard was reaffirmed by the illinois supreme court o'connor when it said that the legislature has provided that farm buildings she value on the basis of quote their contribution to the farm operation land and for harvesting crops and all that land not just the two hundred and twenty four dollars acres on the same taxable parcel on which the chef sat so fly the plane and plant language here he said correctly consider the value of that shed as it applied to the productivity as it enhanced the productivity of the full farm operation nothing in the codes language itself contrary to the trust argument limits the farm to a single taxable parcel again it says that it should be assessed based on its value to farm operations without any specifications on how broad or narrow those operations might be and if the legislature had intended to specific farm land parcel they didn't do that and so they didn't they could have and they didn't also the trust interpretation here defies common sense both experts in this case agreed that most farm operations consist of more than one parcel that farmers have a base of operations with a housing machinery and they use that base of operations to farm every parcel own property including farm unproven should not be assessed in a vacuum this should derives its value from the fact that it can house large machinery modern machinery that can cultivate a lot of land and a lot of  so the shed really has a lot of value in the fact that it can efficiently house a lot of machinery that can farm a lot of land and that's precisely within the codes plain language of requiring  that improvements be valued based on their contributions to the full foreign operations product it let me can i ask you a question hypothetically i live down middle of corn fields a separate parcel that's not contiguous with any of those farm operations where he stores his equipment you know course as for these large farms these comments get bigger and bigger and bigger so would bet parcel on your theory would that parcel of land that has these big sheds that would you look at its contribution to those those noncontiguous one thousand acres because if he sells that piece of property by itself it only has a value somebody's got a one thousand acres of farmland and needs that that much machinery stuart yes you would look at those acres your honor and that's because exactly what you pointed out someone who wanted to buy that shed would be someone who had a lot of acreage could have a very productive large farm so that should still hold value well what a had were completely taken up by the shed it's not the case here but say it's just a parcel that holds the shed and across the street is not contiguous parcel that's a farm farm and only one of the trust interpretation it should have no value because it wouldn't contribute anything to the specific parcel on which it sat and they just cannot be but the legislature intended that these productive large farms would escape taxation simply because of the way the taxable parcels are constructed and the way they are  value is more in the context of other properties again farm improvements are a little different in that they look at the contribution to productivity of a farm operation so yes on the market this should have value because  create a lot of productivity it could be used for large machinery a lot of machinery to cultivate a lot of acreage and so on the market yes it would have value your honor and turned back to the point that again we're here on the manifest way the evidence standard for p thames ultimate decision and so if this court likes not to reach to settle for interpretation issue it need not because for two severely flawed for all the reasons discussed impeach abscission the use of a comparable property that was not arm's length sale failure to explain why certain estimates were made or the division of depreciation on that auction property and this court recently held in the mentee no community school district case in august this year that if peach had a space of two flawed valuation methodology methodology it's because the burden of proof rests on the party challenging the local to a criminal case where the property was sold and it was bought by a family member of the original property owner and so he used the calculation of the math for what that building was sold for in coming up with this sixty percent depreciation now read on the other hand it was of the opinion that i was not an arm's length transaction she used the cost approach but was they'd be opinion she could not find a comparable sale simms built this building what it was to be used for its intended use and the contribution to his farming operation and so it's not opposing counsel indicates where she  clearly didn't consider these factors she did but she was of the opinion that there was no basis for depreciation and found that the value of this property was four hundred and twenty nine thousand and one one hundred and twenty two dollars i should say that the building itself now the decision was that he found her credible had issues with clean thought his analysis and conclusions  flawed that he didn't think there was an arm's length transaction and a lot of these calculations were not well explained and again it was sim's burden this particular agency hearing and that he s not meet the burden and found in favor of but in our kind of order of you now i know what i want to point out i think it's ironic about this is that it be hearing the hearing opposite concluded that the farm a program was worth four one hundred and twenty nine thousand dollars plus in relation to this building the henry county board of review had only a stuffed and valued this building out two hundred and eighty one thousand five hundred and twenty dollars and peter obstacle did not increase the valuation just simply locked it since it was a much lower amount that had been offered and this is the conclusion of each op and as i pointed out this is a ministry of agency just decision and the review should be about decision it is not a review of the trial court so with all due respect to judge o'connor i know he was fascinated  a lot of questions he asked issues but the reality is her his comments are relevant because this is a preview of what happens at the agency level and none of those issues are arguments were presented peach opt in not make any statutory interpretations did not make any conclusions of law this is simply a question of valuation and depreciation and the issue of ms web methodology or how she applied it is still a question of fact as based on the cases cited in the briefs so here again we have a factual finding and factual finding of the agency taxing is not for any properties it's for any property ok and the operation of the farm is what's used in the statute not all farming operations so the question is what does the farmer mean does it mean all farms so that it is that is that is an issue of law in basically what council is trying to do is redefine the code the property tax code is a turning value to the owner not value to the far also they confuse depreciation and obsolescence mr blaine found no depreciation it's a new building when this happened example which is hard to find of a crazy oversized bill in this building that mr sims has is a half an acre ok so how much is that half an acre and to the productivity of the far you know how many bushels per acre can be produced with a half acre building versus a quarter acre building that's what mr lane was looking at and you know terms of the administrative agency looking at the  or do we look at the big picture you know i think you have to look at this as a battle of appraisers as was stated and which appraiser can you rely on and if you rely on one that  on a court ordered sale even though he said it well it was typically advertise everyone had an opportunity to inspect it they could you know any any of the highest bidder could been at it but but you know the search clearly not a normal situation but in the in the peacock case the court said you don't need comparables you need experience of an appraiser looking at the issue and that's what mr blaine did and then his what joyce webb refused to do so based on that there's an issue of law here because you only have one person that gave a qualified opinion and looked at the issue that the court said you have to look at in this situation that was blaine and this hearing officer not only did he cut off discussion if you look at page four hundred and thirty six the record what i'm exploring why she's not using the right standard but he relied on incompetent testimony based on a new definition that you can so function obsolescence basically is when a building as a super adequacy or something in its construction that doesn't translate fully into value property and so you know one example in a none farm case is a swimming pool no swimming pool doesn't always add value to the property because it's not something everyone would want you know that's a little different concept here it's based on productivity production of a farm and this situation you have a half acre building you don't need a half acre building to make a two hundred and twenty four acre farm productive