Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-24379-R-1 Walters

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change in the assessment of the
property as established by the Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $2,404
IMPR.: $24,412
TOTAL: $26,816
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/CKG
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Daniel J. Walters
DOCKET NO.: 05-24379.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 18-20-100-058-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Daniel J. Walters, the appellant, by attorney Rusty A. Payton of
the Law Offices of Rusty A. Payton, P.C., Chicago, Illinois; and
the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 20-year old, two-story
townhouse of frame construction containing 1,620 square feet of
living area with a full, unfinished basement, central air
conditioning, a fireplace, and a two car garage.
The appellant submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal
Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process as the
basis of the appeal. In support of the equity argument, the
appellant submitted a grid analysis detailing four suggested
comparable properties and Exhibit 1 listing one additional
comparable. The appellant’s map indicates the comparables are
located in close proximity to the subject. The comparables are
two-story frame townhouses that are 28 or 32 years old with
fireplaces and no basements. Three comparables have central air
conditioning. Their living areas are 1,961 square feet in size,
and have improvement assessments of $12.70 to $12.82 per square
foot. The additional comparable is 1,789 square feet in size and
has an improvement assessment of $13.00 per square foot. The
subject property has an improvement assessment of $15.07 per
square foot. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested a
reduction in the subject's improvement assessment.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on
Appeal" wherein the subject's final assessment was disclosed. In
support of the subject's assessment, the board of review offered
the property characteristic sheets and a spreadsheet detailing
four suggested comparable properties located three to three and