Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-21406-R-1 Pollet

              (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: $6,630
IMPR.: $15,090
TOTAL: $21,720
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/CKG
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Loren Pollet
DOCKET NO.: 05-21406.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 31-23-204-001-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Loren Pollet, 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 41-year old, multi-level
dwelling of frame and masonry construction containing 1,718
square feet of living area with a partial, finished 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. The appellant’s map indicates one
comparable is located in close proximity to the subject and three
comparables are located one-half mile from the subject. The
comparables are multi-level frame and masonry dwellings that are
39 to 48 years old with partial basements. Three comparables
have central air conditioning and two comparables have
fireplaces. Their living areas are 1,835 to 2,140 square feet in
size, and have improvement assessments of $6.96 to $7.76 per
square foot. The subject property has an improvement assessment
of $8.78 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
three suggested comparable properties. Two comparables are
located on the same block as the subject and one comparable is