Oregon Community Unit School Dist. No. 220 v. Property Tax Appeal Bd.

Decision Date05 December 1996
Docket NumberNo. 2-96-0105,2-96-0105
Citation285 Ill.App.3d 170,674 N.E.2d 129
Parties, 220 Ill.Dec. 858 OREGON COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 220, et al., Intervenors-Petitioners-Appellants, v. The PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD, Respondents-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Frederic S. Lane, Harold C. Hirshman, Robert B. Millner, David E. Lieberman, Kirk M. Minckler, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, Stuart L. Whitt, Donna K. Metzler, Law Offices of Stuart L. Whitt, Aurora, for Byron Community Unit School Dist. 226, Byron Fire Protection Dist., Byron Forest Preserve Dist., Byron Museum Dist., Byron Public Library Dist., County of Ogle, Oregon Community Unit School Dist. 220, Oregon Park District, Rock Valley College Dist. 511, Rockvale Township.

James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Karen J. Dimond, Assistant Attorney General, Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, John P. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, Chicago, for Property Tax Appeal Board.

Terry F. Moritz, Michael D. Karpeles, Frederick H. Cohen, Lisa M. Young, Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Chicago, Thomas M. Atherton, Dutton, Overman, Goldstein & Pinkus, Indianapolis, IN, for Commonwealth Edison Co.

Douglas P. Floski, Ogle County State's Attorney, Oregon, for Ogle County Board Of Review.

Presiding Justice McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court:

This case is an appeal from a Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB) decision assessing the respondent's, Commonwealth Edison Company's, machinery and equipment as personal property. The PTAB consolidated the appeals of the assessments for 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 and reversed the Ogle County Board of Review's holding that the respondent's equipment was properly assessed as real property. Because the respondent sought a reduction of more than $300,000 in the assessed value of its property, we take this direct review of the PTAB's decision (35 ILCS 200/16--195 (West 1994)) and affirm.

The subject matter of this appeal is the assessments of a nuclear power plant, located in Rockvale Township, Ogle County, Illinois, commonly referred to as Byron Station (Byron), for ad valorem real property tax purposes for the years 1989 through 1992. The appellants are Oregon Community Unit School District No. 220, Byron Community Unit School District No. 226, Rock Valley College District No. 511, Byron Fire Protection District, Oregon Park District, Byron Forest Preserve District, Byron Museum District, Byron Public Library District, Rockvale Township, and the County of Ogle, Illinois (petitioners). The appellees are the PTAB, Commonwealth Edison Company (Edison), and the Ogle County Board of Review (Board) (collectively, the respondents).

For the years in question, the Board determined that the parcels of land containing the Byron Nuclear Power Plant had an assessed value of:

                1989   $545,775,470
                1990    516,578,120
                1991  1,070,820,160
                1992  1,054,223,370
                

Edison appealed these assessments to the PTAB. The PTAB consolidated the appeals. The petitioners intervened in the appeal. The PTAB hearing began on May 18, 1995, and ended on July 26, 1995.

THE PTAB's FINDINGS

The PTAB determined that, under section 24--5 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/24--5 (West 1994)), the machinery and equipment at the Byron site should be classified as personal property. The PTAB found: (1) prior to January 1, 1979, Ogle County classified land, building structures, lot improvements, and building-related property as real property; (2) prior to January 1, 1979, Ogle County classified manufacturing process machinery and equipment as personal property; (3) prior to January 1, 1979, Robert Troop, Ogle County supervisor of assessments from 1973 through 1984, classified the machinery and equipment at Byron as personal property with the exception of the steam generators; (4) Troop's classification of the steam generators as real property violated Ogle County's uniform classification policy; (5) the machinery and equipment at Byron are similar and of like kind to that found at other Ogle County industries classified as personal property; (6) the process/building-related classification scheme was applied to every Ogle County taxpayer with the exception of Edison after 1979; (7) James Harrison, the Ogle County supervisor of assessments in 1991, and the Board erroneously reclassified the Byron property in 1991 because of an assistant State's Attorney's erroneous interpretation of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 219 Ill.App.3d 550, 162 Ill.Dec. 268, 579 N.E.2d 1082 (1991) (hereinafterZion ); (8) after subtracting the value of land not at issue, Real Estate Analysis Corporation's (REAC) appraisals are best evidence of the value of the real property at Byron; and (9) the appraised value of the real property at Byron and its assessed value are as follows:

                APPRAISED VALUE      YEAR    MEDIAN LEVELS    ASSESSED VALUE
                $1,148,512,252   --  1989   --   32.21%  --    $369,935,795
                 1,138,053,989   --  1990   --   31.87   --     362,697,803
                 1,056,055,537   --  1991   --   33.01   --     348,603,993
                  958,055,532    --  1992   --   33.20   --    318,074,438
                ----------
                

In essence, the petitioners argue that Edison's power generating machinery and equipment should be classified, assessed, and taxed as real property. According to the petitioners, the major items in dispute are the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) (with the exception of the reactor vessels), piping and electrical equipment, including power and control cables, and cable pans. The petitioners assert that the PTAB erroneously: (1) reclassified the property in violation of the "Freeze Act" (35 ILCS 200/24--5 (West 1994)); (2) applied the like-kind test; (3) classified the respondent's property as personal property; and (4) adopted the respondent's classification test.

The standard of review for a PTAB decision is governed by the Administrative Review Law. 735 ILCS 5/3--101 et seq. (West 1994); Boone County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 276 Ill.App.3d 989, 993-94, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72 (1995). Section 3--110 of the Administrative Review Law provides "[t]he findings and conclusions of the administrative agency on questions of fact shall be held prima facie true and correct." 735 ILCS 5/3--110 (West 1994).

Thus, when reviewing the administrative agency's findings of fact, we may not reweigh the evidence or make an independent determination of the facts. Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill.2d 76, 88, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111 (1992); Boone County, 276 Ill.App.3d at 994, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72. Accordingly, we will not disturb an agency's findings of fact unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 88, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111; Boone County, 276 Ill.App.3d at 994, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72.

A finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence unless the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 88, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111; Boone County, 276 Ill.App.3d at 994, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72. Thus, we will not disturb an agency's finding of fact merely because an opposite conclusion is reasonable or because we may have found differently. Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 88, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111; Boone County, 276 Ill.App.3d at 994, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72. In addition, weighing of evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses are the jobs of the PTAB and are uniquely within its province. La Salle Partners, Inc. v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 269 Ill.App.3d 621, 632, 207 Ill.Dec. 101, 646 N.E.2d 935 (1995). If the PTAB's findings of fact are reasonable, it does not matter if we might have reached a different result had we been the trier of fact. Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 88, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111. Accordingly, if the record contains evidence to support an agency's finding of fact, it will not be disturbed. Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 88-89, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111; Boone County, 276 Ill.App.3d at 994, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72.

Conversely, an administrative agency's determinations of law are not accorded the same deference as its findings of fact. Perto v. Board of Review, 274 Ill.App.3d 485, 490, 210 Ill.Dec. 933, 654 N.E.2d 232 (1995). It is well settled that an agency's finding on a question of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, is not binding on this court. Wyndemere Retirement Community v. Department of Revenue, 274 Ill.App.3d 455, 459, 211 Ill.Dec. 146, 654 N.E.2d 608 (1995). Thus, we must review questions of law de novo. Illini Country Club v. State Property Tax Appeal Board, 263 Ill.App.3d 410, 416-17, 200 Ill.Dec. 764, 635 N.E.2d 1347 (1994). However, we must give substantial weight and deference to statutory interpretations made by an administrative agency charged with administration of a particular statute. Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 97-98, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111. Our supreme court explained, "[a] significant reason for this deference is that agencies can make informed judgments upon the issues, based upon their experience and expertise." Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 98, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111.

Therefore, when we are presented with a mixed question of law and fact, we must first determine whether the findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Abrahamson, 153 Ill.2d at 88, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111; Boone County, 276 Ill.App.3d at 994, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72. After that analysis is complete, we must engage in our own independent analysis in applying those facts to the questions of law. Boone County, 276 Ill.App.3d at 994, 213 Ill.Dec. 442, 659 N.E.2d 72.

The Illinois Constitution of 1970 abolished the ad valorem personal property tax, effective January 1, 1979. Ill. Const.1970, art. IX, § 5(c)....

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Board of Educ. of Round Lake Area Schools v. Community Unit School Dist. No. 116
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 22, 1997
    ...Board, 287 Ill.App.3d 348, 353, 222 Ill.Dec. 901, 678 N.E.2d 773 (1997); Oregon Community Unit School District No. 220 v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 285 Ill.App.3d 170, 174-75, 220 Ill.Dec. 858, 674 N.E.2d 129 (1996). Our role as an appellate court is to review the administrative decision, ......
  • Bd. of Educ. of Du Page High Sch. Dist. 88 v. Pollastrini
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 29, 2013
    ...331 Ill.App.3d 96, 98, 264 Ill.Dec. 570, 770 N.E.2d 1266 (2002) (quoting Oregon Community Unit School District No. 220 v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 285 Ill.App.3d 170, 175, 220 Ill.Dec. 858, 674 N.E.2d 129 (1996)). “When a statute is ambiguous, it will be given a construction that is reaso......
  • Luchesi v. RETIREMENT BD. OF FIREMEN'S ANN.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 19, 2002
    ...unless the manifest weight of the evidence contradicts those findings. Oregon Community Unit School District No. 220 v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 285 Ill. App.3d 170, 175, 220 Ill.Dec. 858, 674 N.E.2d 129 (1996). But the "deferential standard is not controlling where the [agency] is prejud......
  • Mitchell v. People
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 31, 2016
    ...agency charged with administration of a particular statute.” Oregon Community Unit School District No. 220 v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 285 Ill.App.3d 170, 175, 220 Ill.Dec. 858, 674 N.E.2d 129 (1996).¶ 28 Here, prior to this consolidated appeal, the TIRC was presented with the same questi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT