No. 2--01--1351

_________________________________________________________________

	IN THE

	APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS	

	SECOND DISTRICT

_________________________________________________________________

THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW,) Petition for Review of Order 

                                   ) of the Illinois Property Tax

     Petitioner,                   ) Appeal Board.

                                   )     

v.                                 ) No. 99--2033--C--3     

		                         )

THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD,     )

                                   )

     Respondent                    )

	                              )

(AT&T, Respondent and              ) 

Cross-Petitioner).                 )                            

_________________________________________________________________

	JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court:

	Petitioner, the Kendall County Board of Review (BOR), appeals

from the decision of the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB). 

Respondent and cross-petitioner, AT&T, cross-appeals from the same

order.  We affirm.

	AT&T operates a telecommunications facility and training

center on a 15.48-acre parcel of land in Kendall County.  The

parcel is zoned for agricultural use with a permitted special use

as a telecommunications facility.  Various buildings erected on the

property, including a 62,000-square-foot underground building, 

total approximately 97,000 square feet.  The property received a

1999 assessed valuation of $79,690 for the land and $1,765,700 for

the improvements, for a total of $1,845,390.  AT&T filed a

complaint with the BOR, which denied relief and left the assessed

valuation at $1,845,390.  AT&T then appealed to the PTAB.  After an evidentiary hearing, the PTAB determined that the fair market value

of the property in 1999 was $2 million, and the assessed valuation

was $61,438 for the land and $602,762 for the improvements, for a

total of $664,200.  The BOR filed a petition for review with this

court, and AT&T filed a cross-petition shortly thereafter.  

	The BOR first contends that the PTAB's decision and finding of

fair market value were against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

The findings and conclusions of an administrative agency on

questions of fact are to be held prima facie true and correct.  Oregon Community Unit School District No. 220 v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 285 Ill. App. 3d 170, 174-75 (1996); 735 ILCS 5/3-- 110 (West 2000).  This court may not reweigh evidence or make an

independent determination of the facts, and we will not disturb an

agency's findings of fact unless they are against the manifest

weight of the evidence.  Oregon Community Unit School District, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 175.  A finding is against the manifest weight of

the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident,

not if an opposite conclusion is reasonable or if this court may

have found differently.  Oregon Community Unit School District, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 175.  In addition, weighing evidence and

determining the credibility of witnesses are jobs of the PTAB and

are uniquely in its province.  Oregon Community Unit School District, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 175.

	AT&T presented J. Edward Salisbury, a real estate appraiser,

as its expert valuation witness.  Salisbury testified that he

applied both the sales comparison approach and the cost approach to

determine the value of the subject property.  Under the sales comparison approach, Salisbury took into account the recent sales

of eight AT&T parcels with underground buildings in various parts

of the country.  This approach led to a value for the parcel of

$800,000.  Under the cost approach, Salisbury estimated the value

of the land at $185,000, based on sales of other properties in

Kendall County and surrounding counties.  He then determined the

value of the buildings by the replacement cost method, which

determines the current cost of erecting a building of the same

degree of utility as the existing structure.  This method produced

a value for the buildings of $10,354,737.  He then calculated

depreciation of the buildings.  Using five of the properties from

his sales analysis, Salisbury concluded that the subject property

was subject to an annual depreciation of 3.5% and a total

depreciation of 94.5%.  This produced a depreciation amount of

$9,785,226 for the property, leaving a net value of the buildings

of $569,511.  When this was added to the value of the land, the

total value of the property, under the replacement cost method, was

$754,511.  Salisbury gave more weight to the sales comparison

approach and stated that he believed that the value of the property

was $800,000.  

	Salisbury also opined that the highest and best use of the

property was commercial use as a warehouse.  This opinion was based

on the assumption that the county "would consider" changing the

current zoning.  Under the current agricultural zoning, the

buildings would have zero or negative value, as they had no

agricultural use and would need to be torn down.  In addition, the

property would not sell as a telecommunications center.  

	AT&T also presented the testimony of its tax director, Denis

Duvoisin.  According to Duvoisin, AT&T no longer built underground

structures such as the one on the subject property, and such

buildings had no functional utility for contemporary

telecommunications.  AT&T still used the building as a

telecommunications facility, and there were no plans to replace the

underground building with an aboveground facility.  

	The BOR presented the testimony of Donald B. Johnson, an

independent appraiser.  Johnson made his initial appraisal as of

January 1, 2000, and then estimated "what was there" on January 1,

1999, because AT&T did not provide him with all of the information

that he had requested.  Johnson determined that the highest and

best use of the property was as a single-tenant communications

center; that use was already legally permitted, the site hosted the

confluence of five major fiberoptic cables, and any other use would

require demolition of the improvements on the property and approval

by the Kendall County Board. 

	Johnson opined that the fair market value of the land was

$185,000.  In determining the value of the improvements, Johnson

used the reproduction cost method for the control building and the

replacement cost method for the remaining structures.  This

resulted in a total value of all improvements of $6,954,359. 

Johnson then determined depreciation for the improvements, using

the Marshall Valuation Service and some adjustments for functional

obsolescence.  Different depreciation percentages were applied to

various portions of the improvements.  This resulted in total

depreciation of $2,940,271.  Subtracting the depreciation from the value of the improvements, Johnson determined a net value of

improvements of $4,014,089.  Adding the value of the land, the fair

market value of the parcel was $4,199,089.

	The PTAB found that the main building on the property was

unusual and difficult to value, as was demonstrated by the "wildly

divergent" values found by the two appraisals submitted by the

parties.  The PTAB also found that Salisbury's determination that

the highest and best use of the property was as a warehouse was

"incorrect," as the property was not zoned for such a use and there

was no evidence of a reasonable probability of rezoning in the near

future.  Thus, Salisbury's appraisal was to receive reduced weight

where it conflicted with actual zoning.  In addition, the PTAB also

found Johnson's highest and best use analysis to be flawed. 

Johnson had opined that the highest and best use was as a

telecommunications center.  However, Duvoisin had testified that

the telecommunications center would not be purchased by another

company because competing systems would be incompatible. 

Furthermore, there was no demand for such a building, as government

regulations no longer required such buildings to be underground. 

Salisbury's sales statistics for other underground

telecommunications centers revealed that all of the centers were

sold for uses other than as communications centers.  Thus, the PTAB

also accorded reduced weight to Johnson's highest and best use

analysis.

	The PTAB agreed with both appraisers that the value of the

land was $185,000.  As to the improvements, the PTAB found

Salisbury's cost approach as to the underground portion of the main building to be best supported by the record and valued that portion

at $7,088,983.  As to the aboveground section of the main building

and the other buildings, the PTAB found Johnson's costs more

detailed and complete and used those figures, resulting in a value

of $193,675 for the aboveground portion of the main building.  

	The PTAB also noted that the appraisers' "vastly different

depreciation analyses" resulted in values that were $4 million

apart.  The PTAB again found that Salisbury's analysis regarding

the underground portion was better supported, and it applied a

depreciation rate of 92.7%, the highest such rate Salisbury found

for a comparable property, but less than Salisbury's estimate of

94.5%, and determined that the net value of the underground portion

was $517,496.  The PTAB concluded that, because the aboveground

portion of the building was new, no depreciation should be taken. 

Adding the previously determined value of $193,675 for the

aboveground portion to the depreciated value of the underground

portion resulted in a value of $711,171 for the main building.  As

to the other buildings, the PTAB agreed with the depreciated values

provided by Johnson, with the exception of a training center that

the PTAB concluded should have been functionally depreciated by an

additional 15%.  Therefore, adding together all the depreciated

values, the PTAB found the value of the property to be $2,149,476.

	The PTAB noted that neither appraiser had valued the property

under an income approach, and it accorded little weight to

Salisbury's sales comparison approach, as the sales that were

provided were not comparable in size or zoning.  Salisbury's sales

analysis resulted in a value of $1,460,750.  The PTAB found that the subject property had more features and new construction that

were not accounted for in the sales analysis.  However, the PTAB

then found that the subject property had a value of $2 million as

of January 1, 1999, and applied the three-year weighted average

median level of assessments for Kendall County of 33.21%.  The

correct assessed valuation of the property was found to be

$664,200, which was comprised of $61,438 for the land and $602,762

for the improvements.

	The BOR argues that the PTAB's decision is against the

manifest weight of the evidence because the PTAB used an improper

method of evaluation.  According to the BOR, the PTAB improperly

relied on the sales comparison analysis contained in Salisbury's

appraisal for use in determining the value of the property and the

depreciation of the underground portion of the facility.  The PTAB

found that Salisbury's determination that the highest and best use

of the property was as a warehouse was "incorrect."  However, the

PTAB then used one of the sale properties from Salisbury's analysis

in its own analysis, even though that property had a highest and

best use different from that of the subject property, was sold for

a purpose incompatible with the subject property's current zoning,

and its current zoning was not known.  

	There are three basic methods of property valuation: (1) the

sales comparison approach; (2) the income approach; and (3) the

cost approach.  Residential Real Estate Co. v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 188 Ill. App. 3d 232, 242-43 (1989).  None of the approaches is conclusive evidence of value, but each is a factor to

be considered.  Residential Real Estate Co., 188 Ill. App. 3d at 243.  The PTAB explicitly stated that it accorded "reduced weight"

to Salisbury's appraisal "where it conflicts with the subject's

actual zoning," "little weight to the conclusions in Mr.

Salisbury's sales comparison approach," and only "some weight" to

the property in the sales analysis, "as there is little in the

record that can be relied on without any rezoning research

developed by the parties in this record."  It is obvious that the

BOR's characterization of the PTAB's consideration of this property

as "reliance" is not accurate.  The PTAB was not prohibited from

considering the sales analysis property, and it exercised its

discretion by granting the property limited weight.  The BOR cites

no case that prohibits the PTAB from giving such a comparison

property any weight at all.  We find no error here.	

	The BOR next argues that AT&T failed to meet its burden of

going forward under the PTAB's rules; therefore, the PTAB should

have confirmed the BOR's original assessment.  We disagree.

	Section 1910.63(b) of the PTAB's regulations provides that the

contesting party must "provide substantive, documentary evidence or

legal argument sufficient to challenge the correctness of the

assessment of the subject property.  Failure to do so will result

in the dismissal of the appeal."  86 Ill. Adm. Code §1910.63(b)

(2001).  Such documentary evidence may consist of an appraisal of

the subject property.  86 Ill. Adm. Code §1910.65(c)(2) (2001). 

The BOR argues that the PTAB should have rejected Salisbury's

appraisal because the basis forof the appraisal was Salisbury's

"erroneous" determination of highest and best use.  However, we

have already concluded that the PTAB could properly consider Salisbury's appraisal, even if it gave little or no weight was

attached to

itsSalisbury's conclusions.  AT&T provided sufficient documentary

evidence to challenge the correctness of the assessment of its

property and met its burden of going forward.

	The BOR finally contends that the PTAB failed to include the

value of the land in its final calculation of the value of the

property.  This argument has no merit.  The PTAB found that "the

subject property" had a value of $2 million and that the value of

the land alone was $185,000, as was determined in both of the

appraisals.  In stating the "correct assessed valuation of the

property," the PTAB clearly delineated the assessed valuation of

the land ($61,438) and the valuation of the improvements

($602,762), which resulted in a total assessed valuation of

$664,200, which was 33.21% of the value of the property.  There is

no evidence that the PTAB "forgot" to include the value of the

land; to the contrary, it specifically accounted for that value. 

	In its cross-appeal, AT&T contends that the PTAB should have

used the sales comparison approach to value the property instead of

the cost approach.  AT&T cites Willow Hill Grain, Inc. v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 187 Ill. App. 3d 9 (1989), for the proposition that the sales comparison or "market" approach is the preferred

method of property valuation and that the replacement cost method

should be used only when there is no actual or potential market for

the property.  However, in the case before us, there was no

evidence of an actual or a potential market for the subject

property.  The land was zoned for agricultural use, and a special

use for telecommunications was allowed.  Salisbury, who appraised the property for AT&T, testified that the property could not be

marketed as a communications center.  None of the underground

telecommunications centers contained in Salisbury's analysis were

used for that purpose after they were sold.  Furthermore, Salisbury

testified that the buildings on the property would need to be torn

down if the land were to be used for agricultural purposes and that

the parcel could then have a negative value.  Thus, under the

current zoning restrictions, there was no market for the property. 

In addition, the record contained no evidence of a reasonable

probability that the zoning would be changed to accommodate any

other use.  Salisbury could only state, hypothetically, that the

county "would consider" altering or changing zoning on the property

to facilitate another use in the event of a sale.  The record was

devoid of any current or reasonably probable market for this

property.  Thus, the PTAB did not err in placing substantial

reliance on the cost approach of valuation.

    Considering the totality of the evidence, a conclusion other

than the PTAB's conclusion made by the PTAB is not clearly evident, and we must

therefore affirm the judgment of the PTAB as not against the

manifest weight of the evidence.  Oregon Community Unit School District, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 175.

	For these reasons, the decision of the PTAB is affirmed.     

Affirmed.

	GROMETER and CALLUM, JJ., concur.