(Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds an increase 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
01-21556.001-I-3 18-19-301-005-0000 $507,802 $ -0- $507,802
01-21556.002-I-3 18-19-301-004-0000 $284,198 $ -0- $284,198
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/lbs/08013 1 of 5
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Lyons Township High School District No. 204
DOCKET NO.: 01-21556.001-I-3 and 01-21556.002-I-3
PARCEL NO.: See below.
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Lyons Township High School District No. 204, the appellant, and
the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of 10.094 acres, or 439,694 square
feet, improved with three metal-clad industrial buildings 25+
years old along with a 40+-year-old office building. The
industrial buildings contain a total of 19,678 square feet of
building area and the office building contains 3,300 square feet
of building area.
The appellant, through counsel, appeared before the Property Tax
Appeal Board arguing that the fair market value of the subject
was not accurately reflected in its assessed value. In support
of that argument, an appraisal (Exhibit 1) and the supporting
testimony of its author, Anthony J. Uzemack, was presented. Mr.
Uzemack testified he has been an independent appraiser since
1978; and is a State of Illinois, State of Indiana and State of
Michigan certified real estate appraiser. Uzemack also testified
that he holds the Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI)
designation and is a facilitator and instructor of Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) both for the
Appraisal Institute and the Appraisal Foundation in Washington,
D.C. After further testimony regarding Uzemack's credentials,
the witness was offered and accepted as an expert appraisal
witness in the valuation of industrial property.
Appellant's counsel introduced an aerial photograph (Exhibit 2)
into evidence. Mr. Uzemack identified the photograph as an
aerial view of the subject property and the surrounding area
which was secured from brokers currently listing the property for
sale. The witness proceeded to explain that the subject property
is located in an industrial area with excellent access to major
interstate highways and key secondary roads. He also indicated