dispositive and that is that intentions are not enough the illinois supreme court recently had occasion to this court's decision in the faith it was a case that says that intention is insufficient when it comes development and adaptation in the spray for pages thirty fifty but steps and efforts are merely intentions under this court's decision those religious friends who also has a duty as the supreme court emphasized to determine whether those principles or bona fide and actual and here in the record doesn't stand up to scrutiny for two reasons  first the church's bylaws don't say anything about building a bridge fact they mention work it is and be able to borrow and therefore to go to the second the pastor's doesn't doesn't mean that religious exception and of course find in favor of the department on that point secondly the actual use argument once the court moves into this hon should also fold that only yes you just for a practical standpoint in texas on this property until they went up to sixty dollars correct yes and they go from sixty dollars to fifteen thousand dollars in one year and they did so because they were the property was assessed a civil as agricultural was assessed and commercial yes actually it's supposed to said that it was proper to joe from sixty dollars to fifteen thousand dollars a year even though there is absolutely nothing in the record to show that this property has been in use for anything other than putting the church changed to commercial but also lost it's not clear of the sequence of events perhaps because of the work they did on the property they lost their religious exemption and when you're exempt pay no taxes and yes that was a condition of selling an acre of land and preparing he's not exactly articulated by the witness one of the reasons that the annexation  so the second son the second reason the court should affirm confirm the department is that the actual use even if everything that was done on the property was religious it was simply insufficient is or it isn't religious but the fact is that that's only six months of activities in poll tax and in that six months there were only twelve days of any type years and all that one of the factors that made that property religiously exempt was the fact that they were bible study classes four times a week that's two hundred fifty times a year on also there's a suggestion in the faith builders case court was examining the religious and chance and purposes of a town care center where the desire to educate preschool children religiously matched up with other things that children are sunni's on social skills and the court held that you vandalizing children at preschool age was one of eleven different things that the preschool caught so yeah a very if you know if brace ever had a religious exemption on the supreme seem to me from something i read it seemed to me that they didn't really bother getting stands to reason given the fact that the church is admitted that it primarily uses for this religious services the illinois retired teachers association  the only use of the property is for religious purposes go as you've indicated if it's a very modest not well defined yes then throw your failure somebody thought there was going to be a church built there and least for a decade after they got the details there will be seven years from two thousand to two thousand and seven but if we're all looking at th the to protest is first ownership and that's not an issue here the second prong is exclusive use that's where the nuances come into play under exclusive use nuances they allow for the development exceptions so we're really focusing on use and i think that's disconnect your question was appointed one only use in this situation was you know religious uses or uses that the church used for you know neighborhood activities its own church uses and those kinds of things cows are referred to a quantitative test now there is nothing anywhere that says that th has to be intensive or ecstacy or full time or wall to wall or any such thing it can become i can understand why where he's coming from for example in the provision of cases which was decided here if you've got a  a small room with a little hospital that is engaged in some sort of you know you mustn't marry or charitable activities and you're trying to exclude just that part of it you could quantify it and i think that's what in a case was about but that's not what this case about door that's really where all the mischief started just as turner was correct this property was being farmed for a number of years after it had been dated to it by of the mother ship so to speak of i think springfield missouri they gave it to the local congregation to develop eventually it had been farmed for a period of time and well let me ask you do you think antioch is suitable or are you saying we should infrastructure to the extent of some twenty thousand dollars there were several thousand dollars paid what's infrastructure the water lines and sewer lines that were put to the property which was part of the execution which was necessary to allow soldiering house to build next door which development for the church itself and in this instance we had a tornado that it comes through there is an acknowledged in two thousand and six and you know they lost all their records in the in the school when they had to rebuild and as a result of that and some of the expenses around that and some  part of that which you can do this you can drag nearly in a couple of previous years once you make your application and so as was recognized the soldier in house development came up the other extension came up and suddenly the taxes we fifteen thousand dollars a year which in this situation has become confiscatory because it's recognized there's a tax the proceeding pending here and the church is going to lose everything unless the exemption is upheld because the whole the whole project is it is basically gone because they have had the money and the monies that were dedicated and given for building a church building you know they can invade those funds of their as a gated for a building i don't see anything on the record testimony at all that we hearing about them out of us that i don't remember anything about that he would now be part of do not i mean in the sense that if part of the evidence is we've made consumable progress toward raising enough money to proceed with groundbreaking additional iger took architectural plans but we want to spend half the tax part is resolved ok great you know we've raised there yes right i don't remember anything about the amount of money that was being held i know there was a number of amounts it was testified the for actual developer i guess what troubles me more than anything else is that the department put on no witness not one document not one scintilla of any kind of evidence to contradict what the church clear testimony was that this property had been digging dedicated wholly to the use of its activities in putting neighborhood children activities and giving out the school bags for children and the prayer walks in the conversation of meetings and abuse and the only use was testified to is clearly church activities and those activities which for development but what about the issue that it has to be a sufficient you're that right there is no law that requires a counseling some prayer walk a couple of gatherings to to hand out items to neighborhood children no one would be surprised sixty five days a year is not much and then tests of the remaining three hundred fifty three days it's no use i think that's what sort of is that appears to be part of it but part of it also is a pastor said look all my records my calendars were destroyed i reconstructed what i could you know that's what i did from you know basically from memory so he had at least you know a period of time that he was able to say well that we did do this properly but the evidence is twelve days  focus even if you leave one day where nothing if there was a police and they say that all those days were religious and i think there are some conflicting testimony that's enough that if there was only one day i think it's enough if there's no other activities with a feud for profit that would be a little he must be wrong when he makes the argument that no use doesn't qualify for the same should see i think the intention this is where i'm having a little bit of trouble what if the intention to kill is realistic because they have nothing in there five years and they're not willing to take out a mortgage so in other words they've been saving money allowed to substitute her own private prejudices or preferences or opinions or whatever it is then are we at the same place where we're asking this panel to collectively accumulate its own collective prejudice or opinion or certain this court sits in review on what the agency did i understand there's no deference given to the trial court you know although i think the trial court got it right in this case where he said that nobody ever put any evidence to the contrary and we have to doesn't have to how can the a l j say that that's what that's my point is they can't acknowledge that that was a credible witness they had nothing else you know she acknowledged that in her opinion so if we have nothing else oh no but what's the evidence that they intend to build a church but we don't know how and they use this property soley for church purposes charitable purposes for the church that was that's the only use they get not use it for  i'm saying not use is not present in this record while how do you explain those three hundred fifty three days where it's not well that's what i started out there is nothing anywhere that requires that the use be intensive or extensive or full time or any such thing nowhere it's the department the a l j just made up her mind well i don't think it's enough and i don't think that's a rule of law was not used for with a view towards profit it was used for any church use and it was there was a significant steps being taken toward development there was money in expended there was money being raised all those kinds of activities be during a recent whole period of time but the legislature passed a law that says you know you can only have religious exemption for five years you know unless you're actually going to start you know breaking ground or something but there's no law out there that says you the next question is though was the development of sewer and water could one argue that that was exclusively for the purpose of providing what was necessary for the building of so your house or is it that development done in such a way that it benefits the whole property it's my recollection that to get to the soldier house you go by the property and so you you know at least the for profit purpose and there have previously been blueprints and plans you do have water and i guess the electricity is that we're wired so you've got those what are their goals what are their what are their intentions department doesn't call this information or knowledge and that's why the department doesn't have the burden in this case and in both administrat constitutional and property tax code question was charitable or was it religious and in this case we have a very to me this religious use of the standard is