Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-21696-R-1 Bowie

              (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: $8,790
IMPR.: $42,209
TOTAL: $50,999
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/CKG
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Preston Bowie
DOCKET NO.: 05-21696.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 31-13-303-035-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Preston Bowie, 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 26-year old, one-story
dwelling of masonry construction containing 4,188 square feet of
living area with a full, unfinished basement, central air
conditioning, two fireplaces, and a three car attached 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 three additional
comparables. The appellant's map indicates the comparables are
located in close proximity to the subject. The comparables are
one-story dwellings that are 35 to 49 years old with central air
conditioning and fireplaces. One comparable has a partial
basement and three comparables have no basements. Their living
areas are from 3,234 to 4,768 square feet in size, and have
improvement assessments of $4.00 to $5.17 per square foot. The
additional comparables are 3,208 to 3,429 square feet in size and
have improvement assessments of $5.28 to $7.38 per square foot.
The subject property has an improvement assessment of $10.08 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
two suggested comparable properties located in close proximity to
the subject. The comparable properties consist of one-story