Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2003-30637-C-1 Harrison

              (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 valuation of the property is:
Docket No. Parcel No. Land Impr. Total
03-30637.001-C-1 16-24-220-015-0000 301 0 301
03-30637.002-C-1 16-24-220-018-0000 21,597 0 21,597
03-30637.003-C-1 16-24-220-019-0000 5,654 1,260 6,914
03-30637.004-C-1 16-24-220-020-0000 2,259 1,210 3,469
03-30637.005-C-1 16-24-220-021-0000 3,765 1,914 5,679
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/cck/1-15
1 of 5
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: J. Harrison
DOCKET NO.: 03-30637.001-C-1 through 03-30637.005-C-1
PARCEL NO.: See Below
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
J. Harrison, the appellant, by attorney Edward P. Larkin of Park
Ridge, Illinois, and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property, consisting of five permanent index
numbers, consists of a total of 122,108 square feet of land.
Three of the five parcels include improvements, but the
appellant seeks no change in those improvement assessments.
Only two land assessments are in dispute in this appeal. The
subject property is located in Chicago, West Chicago Township,
Cook County.
The appellant in this appeal submitted documentation to
demonstrate that for two of the five appealed parcels, namely
16-24-24-220-020-0000 (hereinafter "020") and 16-24-220-021-0000
(hereinafter "021"), the subject property's land was being
inequitably assessed. Parcel 020 consists of 8,217 square feet
of land area and Parcel 021 consists of 13,695 square feet of
land area. Appellant contends that the current total land
assessments of these parcels, $7,230 and $12,051, respectively,
result in "a land unit price of $4.00 per square foot of land."
However, having performed the arithmetic calculation for parcels
020 and 021, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds based on the