Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-23755-R-1 Scherr

              (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: $3,400
IMPR.: $16,418
TOTAL: $19,818
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/CKG
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Marcia Scherr
DOCKET NO.: 05-23755.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 24-02-300-038-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Marcia Scherr, 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 50-year old, one and one-half
story dwelling of masonry construction containing 1,425 square
feet of living area with a full, unfinished basement, central air
conditioning, and a two and one-half 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 the
comparables are located one to one and three-quarters of a mile
from the subject. The comparables are one-story frame or masonry
dwellings that are 51 to 90 years old with no basements. Two
comparables have central air conditioning. Their living areas
are from 792 to 924 square feet in size, and have improvement
assessments of $11.03 to $11.37 per square foot. The subject
property has an improvement assessment of $17.81 per square foot
based on 922 square feet of living area; however, no evidence in
the record supports that square footage. 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