*1 Geis, of State Office, Defenders Appellate Ottawa, ap James pellant. Mihm,

Michael M. Peoria, State’s Attorney, for the People. Inc., Western Cooperative, Power v. Plaintiff-Appellant, al., Board et Defendants-Appellees. Prop Inc., Menard Cooperative, Electric v. Plaintiff-Appellant, erty al., Board et ct Defendants-Appellees.—Rural Ele Cooperative Prop ric Co., Convenience Plaintiff-Appellant, erty al., Board et Defendants-Appellees. 12322; (No. cons.;

(Nos. 12323-12324 Fourth Distric t June *2 CRAVEN, concurring part dissenting part. J., Foreman, Hall & Rammelkamp, Dahman, Bradney, of Jacksonville Hall T. C. (Albert W. Rammelkamp, counsel), for appellant Cooperative. Western Power Grosboll, E. Petersburg, appellant Menard Electric Coopera-

John tive. & Pree,

Pree Rural Electric Springfield, Convenience Cooperative. Scott, General, Attorney William Chicago, H. (George Klumpner, J. General,

Assistant Attorney counsel), for appellees. Mr. PRESIDING SIMKINS delivered opinion of JUSTICE court: re- Co., Western Illinois Power Inc.

Plaintiff-Appellant, (hereinafter Act, ferred to as under the Administrative Review WIPCO), appeals, from the circuit court’s of a decision affirmance WIPCO’s electric Board which affirmed the assessed valuation placed transmission lines the Board of Review County. of Sangamon decision 69-135 is a consolidation of decisions of the Board of appeals of 1967,1968 decisions for Review’s and 1969. The assessment years was on reversal and in accordance with an circuit remand order review, court, with following together administrative but was considered the 1968 and 1969 The same trans- appeals. personal (electric three of consolidated lines) appeals mission involved in all before Appeal Board. court the decision of Board for each of circuit affirmed involved, and found that the Board’s was not years decision and was before supported for each of the that this question. requests Plaintiff lines, court reverse and set assessed valuation or reverse re- directions the assessed valuation in accordance mand with to find formula: following ratio in of line of the percent operating “The revenues *3 property taxpayers property reasonably Plaintiff’s to of having net to that of the Plaintiff the ratio in of comparable percent mile line of the Plaintiff’s per of (operating margins) revenues to the net revenues mile of line income) per property (operating to that of taxpayers having property reasonably comparable of with the averaged. average averaged shall be shall be Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s consumers mile of percent per ratio number of comparable taxpayers having property reasonably of line The of shall be average percentages to that of Plaintiff. these the taxpayers assessed valuation of hav- by average multiplied and, Plaintiff, that of the comparable to reasonably ing property shall of be the assessed valuation multiplication said product line the Plaintiffs mile of of property.” per corporation whose sole function is not-for-profit an Illinois WIPCO is at wholesale. systems its member electricity to supply is seven electric distribution by in 21 owned co- counties. It operates directors is of comprised representatives board of and its operatives, in personal property Sangamon owned corporations. these consisting approximately miles in 9.91 question, County, 38.26 69 K.V. miles of lines. For and approximately 23 K.V. Sangamon of assessments of supervisor County pur- the year line at and the 69 K.V. ported to assess the 23 line at mile per $2090 K.V. $136,445. assessor placed $3025 mile a total The same per for assessment of a value mile on per $1925 mile on the 23 K.V. line and per $2750 $124,285 K.V. line for a total assessed for year valuation of For the the 23 K.V. year mile for per $1775 values were $113,- $2500 the 69 K.V. lines for a total assessment valuation of 240.00. Plaintiff the value that its lines are overvalued and argues place of the 23 mile, K.V. lines at lines at per $210 $315 K.V. $14,133 only a total assessed valuation of for each of the years. termed, 21 of statutory guideline, if is contained section be so can Revenue Act of re- Rev. Stat. ch. which (Ill. 502), § quires that is personal be assessed at fair cash value. There property no here dispute has no cash value” property “fair question the commonly accepted sense of that phrase, imports the what the property buyer buy when bring willing a seller is to sell. The evidence was that values were willing since, Cross, of no assistance he had heard according witness never State, of an electric transmission line in the sold nor had ever heard of one market. being put up open for sale We are therefor confronted with proposition that the measure of value set forth in unworkable, the statute is and constitutes no at all. guideline The supervisor Park, of assessments for Wilson Sangamon County, one testified on behalf of the Board of Review as to how assessed valua- tion of s' at. property was arrived precise method used somewhat difficult follow. The assessed investor owned utilities the method of cost replacement less depreciation. on data Relying supplied by plaintiff as to the of its lines he age assessed those lines degree, manual, some on relying, an assessors revised January, and supplied by the Illinois Department of Revenue. manual con- tains helpful directions to the assessor: following “* * * the Department of Revenue presents suggestions

as to types values for use specific officials. Exercise of ‘good judgment’ part assessor is most it is important impossible since statements general to take into consideration all conditions which important determine the * * * *4 of a specific property. value Values given here are full conservative, values are relatively based on the latest * * * Illinois replacement available estimates of costs. These cannot and are not intended to take place values the assessors * * judgment that he never Park testified heard of a income approach had income to consider valuation of but that one did have property, a assessment extent at producing ability arriving proper some valuations manual lower assessed cooperative. suggests assessors used method precise than for investor owned utilities. cooperatives testimony is unclear. His by Park the 1967 assessment making court, that he indicated to remand the circuit prior hearing, prior from as- did not calculating consider income specifically plaintiffs Class 3 sessment. he that he used the the second testified During hearing lines indicia from even the assessors manual values 20-year-old which old though he was aware that the to 5 plaintiff’s bulk or less. on his perhaps recognition His use of this factor age was peculiar use and that he did He testified type property. because he fac- density was an economic plaintiff give He was than in- tor. aware that had customers fewer vestor owned utilities.

Park he added a new testified that in 1969 assessment making factor in less arriving replacement at the valuation. In addition cost economic he functional and depreciation gave plaintiff a reduction for that he gave 1969 he stated obsolescence. With reference to * * economic obsolescence plaintiff some additional is, intertwined which seems to to some imply degree, in arriving with the economic which Park had used factors density define economic obsolescence. valuation. Park endeavored to In the valuation plaintiffs essence can be said that he reduced in “less location, the number of customers and because of their fewer than the 1967 assessment by come.” His 1968 assessment was lower allowed, was and this amount of economic amount obsolescence * * * This same factor matter of opinion at the 1969 assessment. Park was utilized a greater degree replace are assessed the cost of utilities testified that investor-owned reduction for economic obsole with no depreciation ment less formula scence. value the in excess assessment sustain its claim of

To Cross, a lawyer agri- Albert testimony relied on J. in rural electrification experience who had cultural economist Association of Illinois Electric employed economics and who was none of three tradi- opinion that in his testified Cross Cooperatives. i.e., comparative of property, the value of determining tional methods cost less depreciation, sales, replacement of income or capitalization electric transmission fines. of cooperative the value determine accurately com- given amount of should that a great believed Cross He defined that cooperative. lines of a income parative *5 the term potential as income meaning producing "You the compare generation poten- producing transmission with the income and tial this approach of a that similar business.” He while type of stated name, that by has been not called not used and been formally in many of Review Supervisors of Assessments Boards and Counties, un- on an in have cooperatives, of electric assessing lines and official and formalized informal what I have basis used for years called that replacement a comparative thought income He approach.” costs in assessing less little depreciation weight should be given very owned by that another formula cooperatives. Cross also thought could compare be used in lines was to assessing cooperatively owned consumer on the investor- density on its lines with consumer density since, owned ratio his bears a direct utility opinion, density in lines, to the value in approximately of the formula would result and this the com- same valuation from application as the result obtained utility parative income formula. Cross that the lines of public agreed those same type and owned by cooperatives physically prop- but stated that erty, income-producing were not the same as to their they potential. He comparative ap- testified that believed that the income Scott, Pike, and proach had been on an informal basis in Morgan used Union to demonstrate the Cross counties. Exhibits were introduced method assessed resulted calculating year valuation in a income the WIPCO to that of investor system factor of the 69 K.V. line utilities of 8.88 this factor percent. Using per owned $307.25, would have and the 23 K.V. lines $194.56. an assessed valuation of contention rejected appellant’s income” mile formula “comparative density or customers found, of its It among be in at the fair cash value lines. utilized testi operation appellant, other that “the as things, philosophy to supply fied is to its member by appellant, electricity witnesses cost, made to make its or net income as attempt gross no systems made to realize a is attempt being profit.” as and no a fair high possible assessors and Boards of by inference that the methods used Review in State, to arrive value of transmission is a cooperatives, patchwork improvisa distribution lines owned by instances of local authorities tion, many predicated uniformity. Considering unique in a total lack of charac resulting see this is a result. We no need to recite predictable ter the property the creation of underlying electric philosophy coopera history function, a a particular satisfy particular serve need. They tives. treatment, unique not should be accorded tax they pur Whether manner in which that and the function is function, of their view poses, legislature, is, be resolved view, discharged problem our in the refusal find no error and not this court. We therefore appellant. suggested by the formula adopt Board to review administrative here that on argues also decision of the Board to establish to reverse this court urges evidence and weight and remand lines, reverse fix the or to assessed valuation of formula which with a directions that the in accordance lines be assessed substantial given income” as a factor to “comparative establish lines. *6 of Plaintiff’s purposes are considered to be personal to statute taxation. The valuation is defined purposes for assessment 120, 1973, 502.) be Rev. ch. its value.” Stat. (Ill. § 120, 1973, ch. Section 111.4 of 1939 Rev. Stat. the Revenue Act of (Ill. in each provides, in decision 592.4) that “The Board shall make a part, § it, equity case .appeal upon and such decision be heard shall * * and the fraud weight and not constructive upon of that decisions (Emphasis supplied.) same section it is By provided the of the Admin Property Tax Board review under the Appeal subject are to 1973, 110, istrative Review Act et Section seq.). ch. 264 (Ill. Rev. Stat. § 11 find of the Act (Ill. 1973, 110, Rev. Stat. ch. the 274) provides § and fact ings conclusions of the on of questions administrative agency shall be held to prima facie true and correct.

The opinion following: of the Tax Board the Property Appeal contains “In the consideration appeals Board, of of the Board by this the decision of Review is prima accorded facie of correctness. It presumption incumbent the and appellant to such decision to be erroneous prove to further offer sufficient evidence the to allow this Board to determine * * * correct valuation for the subject We not believe property. do that the has appellant borne its of burden of to proof any with relation the assessment years in question.”

No authority has been cited for the proposition that the decision the Board Review is entitled to a “prima facie presumption of correct- ness” in appeals to the Board, Tax Property Appeal have nor we found any authority which the supports proposition which, course, imports the further Property Tax Appeal Board will disturb only the and findings conclusions of fact of the Board of Review they unless are shown to be the of the weight evidence. We hold that the and findings conclusions of fact of the Board of Review are not to be afforded prima facie the weight by Property Tax Board. Appeal clear, seems from the provisions of section 111.4 of the Revenue Act 1973, 120, ch. Rev. Stat. (Ill. the 592.4) has § legislature Tax specifically stated standard to be applied by Property Board, and that Board. standard must be applied by followed and Where the statute to be an burden creating prescribes proof agency it in applied by duties, its must be discharge of standard Motorola, measure v. Fair by which its decisions Inc. are judged. 282, Employment Com., 266, Practices 215 N.E.2d 286. Ill.2d the decision appellant would have court refuse to afford in flat Board the facie Property prima presumption 110, contradiction 274). mandate Rev. ch. statutory (Ill. Stat. § We decline to ignore statutory requirement. however,

We whether or not the may, determine Appeal Board, decision, has acted within according the statute creating People Thompson it. ex rel. Board, Ill.App.3d N.E.2d and we conclude that afford prima Review, facie correctness to decision Board of ing indicated, in the burden imposition of the as above proof and in standard 111.4 failing apply imposed by section Revenue Act of 1939 Rev. Stat. ch. the Board (Ill. § 592.4) within did act mandate. according statutory us to determine that the decision of the

Appellant urges evidence; not based on equity other words court to standard which the statute requests apply the Board Our function is not weigh apply. reweigh Authority Transit v. Fair presented (Chicago Employment the evidence *7 Com., 329, 243 Practices N.E.2d would be Ill.App.2d we 638) be standard to record which was doing apply fore Board. 75-91, 12322, there- agenda

In our number we bearing general case of the circuit court and remand to the Property fore reverse the consistent ex- proceedings Board for further views Appeal Tax herein. pressed in consolidated cases presented bearing general

Identical issues are our 75-92, and the cases are therefore agenda numbers 12323 and are the above The of the circuit court opinion. judgments controlled by remanded to Property Appeal therefore reversed and the cases Tax consistent with the herein. expressed views proceedings Board for further made render consideration other assignments dispositions unnecessary. error cases remanded with directions. reversed

Judgments GREEN, concurs. J., CRAVEN, part, dissenting part:

Mr. concurring JUSTICE method of opinion I concur in the majority holding However, I would not the court. plaintiffs’ legislature, Property Tax Board. Property Appeal not remand these cases to reached Board would have Board Appeal opinions indicate Remand- had been applied. same if the standards burden proper result nor here. ment is neither desirable Its deci- First, hearings. Board held de novo Appeal upon not hearings, upon sions received those of review. the various boards the record of before proceedings the assessed adjust Board’s refusal to clear demonstrated to the plaintiffs’ adjustment No. 12322 and valuation case small in Nos. and 12324. assessed valuations law, not of fact. cases are Second, the in these questions essential adversely plaintiffs. have been resolved These questions Board, 22 Ill.App. ex rel. Thompson People In had contended 317 N.E.2d 3d the presumption to overcome proof meet her burden had failed to there court found appellate was correct. The the assessed valuation a reversal require issue did proof burden view of erroneous Davis, 224 79 N.E. in Pratt v. Ill. Similarly, remandment. was harmless error proof on the burden of ruling court’s erroneous the trial under the correct considered arid when of the pleadings in light law. propositions be repeated reached below will that the results discloses record was proof the burden Therefore, concerning the error remand.

harmless.