These uses are integral to the agricultural function of the property as a whole. The limited use of the building as overnight accommodations during haying season is a convenience which is more comfortable than sleeping in a car and less costly over the long term than getting a motel room. Since the evidence persuades this Hearing Officer that the parcel is devoted primarily to agricultural uses and there is no separate residential use, there is no authority for separating out 1.91 acres as a potential residential site solely due to the existence of a well and septic system. The appropriate tax classification is irrelevant to a determination of market value. The appropriate starting point for a market value appraisal is to observe the physical nature of the property, determine its highest and best use in the open market and prepare all applicable approaches to value based upon the highest and best use determination.
Complainants only contest the valuation placed on the metal building.
Complainants value opinions are based on their cost to construct in 1989 and depreciation as utilized in their depreciation and amortization schedule for their income tax filing. This Hearing Officer holds that the entire parcel should be classified as agricultural property. The application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. If an application for review of a hearing officer decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission. Any Finding of Fact which is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed.