Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-01354-R-2 Melchionna

              (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 Carroll County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
Docket No. Land Improvement Total
04-01657.001-R-2 $116,667 $344,802 $461,469
05-01354.001-R-2 $124,250 $448,338 $572,588
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/smw/04-01657/2-08
1 of 12
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Ken Melchionna
DOCKET NO.: 04-01657.001-R-2 & 05-01354.001-R-2
PARCEL NO.: 01-06-024-016
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Ken Melchionna, the appellant, by attorney Joanne P. Elliott of
Elliott & Associates, Des Plaines; and the Carroll County Board
of Review by attorneys David O. Edwards and Christopher E. Sherer
of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C., Springfield.
The subject property is improved with a two-story single family
dwelling with a brick exterior construction that contains 7,067
square feet of above grade living area. Features of the dwelling
include a walk-out basement with approximately 4,000 square feet
of finished area, central air conditioning, eight fireplaces, an
in-ground swimming pool and a two-car attached garage.
Construction of the dwelling was completed in 2004. The property
is located on a 6.52 acre parcel on Lake Carroll, Carroll County.
At the hearing the parties stipulated the subject property had a
land value of $350,000 for 2004 and $370,000 for 2005. The
parties also stipulated the subject dwelling had an occupancy
date of March 27, 2004, and the 2004 improvement assessment
should be prorated at 77% based on the occupancy date. The
parties also stipulated that both appraisers are expert witnesses
for purposes of the hearing.
The appellant contends the market value of the subject property
is not accurately reflected in the assessed valuation. The
appellant's attorney argued that subject had a total market value
of $1,650,000. The appellant's attorney contends the subject's
market value should then be reduced 6% to account for the sales
commission resulting in a market value estimate of $1,551,000 as
of January 1, 2004. To this amount the attorney argued that a
77% occupancy factor should be applied to the improvement