Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-01080-R-1 Neiman

              (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 Lake County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 44,246
IMPR.: $ 51,244
TOTAL: $ 95,490
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/EEB/Oct.07/2005-01080
1 of 6
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Kenneth Neiman
DOCKET NO.: 05-01080.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 16-29-314-007
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Kenneth Neiman, the appellant; and the Lake County Board of
Review.
The subject property consists of a one-story style frame dwelling
that is 55 years old and contains 1,156 square feet of living
area. Features of the home include one full bath and a 252
square foot attached garage. The subject is located in the
Clavey subdivision in Deerfield, Illinois.
The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board
claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process as the basis
of the appeal. In support of this argument, the appellant
submitted a grid analysis of three comparable properties located
in close proximity to the subject. The comparables consist of
one-story frame dwellings that range from 55 to 59 years old and
range in size from 874 to 1,094 square feet of living area. The
comparables have features that include central air-conditioning,
one full bath, full basements and garages ranging from 231 to 360
square feet of building area. These properties have improvement
assessments ranging from $40,153 to $44,286 or from $40.48 to
$48.18 per square foot of living area. The subject has an
improvement assessment of $51,244 or $44.32 per square foot of
living area.
The appellant argued that the subject property is in teardown
condition and should have a reduced assessment based on the
improvement being untenable. The appellant testified that the
subject property does have utilities, however they have not
worked. In addition, the appellant claimed the teardown cost to
demolish the structure was approximately $15,000. The appellant
also argued that the assessment for the subject property included