Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2002-22648-C-3 Lodgian, Inc.

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessment of the
property as established by the Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuations of the property are:
DOCKET # PIN LAND IMPROVEMENT TOTAL
02-22648.001-C-3 08-07-205-004 $163,913 $1,543,162 $1,707,075
02-22648.002-C-3 08-07-205-006 $978,614 $3,812,311 $4,790,925
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/KPP
1 of 17
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Lodgian, Inc.
DOCKET NO.: 02-22648.001-C-3 and 02-22648.002-C-3
PARCEL NO.: 08-07-205-004 and 08-07-205-006
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board
(hereinafter PTAB) are Lodgian, Inc., the appellant, by Attorney
Gregory Lafakis with the law firm of Liston & Lafakis in Chicago;
the Cook County Board of Review by Assistant State's Attorney
Aaron Bilton with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in
Chicago; and the two intervenors, Palatine Community Consolidated
School District #15 as well as Arlington Heights Township High
School District #214, both by Attorney Michael Hernandez with the
law firm of Franczek Sullivan PC in Chicago.
The subject property consists of two parcels containing 300,665
square feet of land improved with a masonry, commercial structure
built in stages from 1962 to 1983 and utilized as a hotel. The
hotel contains varying story heights as well as 420 guest rooms,
while sited in Rolling Meadows. The building contains 263,621
square feet of aggregate area with an additional 9,575 square
feet of partially finished basement area.
At the commencement of the hearing, a preliminary matter was
addressed. The appellant made a Motion to Exclude Witnesses with
which the intervenors concurred and the board of review had no
objection. Upon due consideration, the PTAB granted this motion.
As to the merits of this appeal, the appellant argued that the
fair market value of the subject is not accurately reflected in
its assessed value as the basis for this appeal.