"The Petitioners’ witness testified that the property was not buildable and would require excavation and fill before any construction could occur. Milo testimony. The soil evaluation report supports the Petitioners’ contentions and the proposal from Heise Excavating shows the expense that would be incurred to remedy the problem. Petitioner Exhibits 2 and 3. There is no evidence, however, of the market value of the property with or without the fill. More importantly, there is no evidence that the property’s assessed value does not already reflect the value of the property in its current condition. Without the benchmark of the property’s market value as buildable, the cost of remedying the soil conditions has little probative value in establishing the property’s market value-in-use."
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Milo_75-002-09-1-5-00001.pdf
