Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-01069-R-1 DeKoster

              (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 Rock Island County Board of Review
is warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 5,113
IMPR.: $ 14,400
TOTAL: $ 19,513
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/cck/4-10
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Corben and Darlene DeKoster
DOCKET NO.: 06-01069.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 06/964
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Corben and Darlene DeKoster, the appellants, and the Rock Island County Board of Review.
The subject property composed of 9,750 square feet of land area (75' x 130') has been improved with a one-story single-family dwelling of frame construction which was built in 1979. The dwelling contains 484 square feet of living area and features central air conditioning, a full, unfinished basement, and two garages: one built before 1950 of 360 square feet of building area and one built in 2002 of 720 square feet of building area. There is also a 96 square foot shed. The subject property is located in Hampton, Hampton Township, Illinois.
The appellant Darlene DeKoster appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board on behalf of the appellants contending unequal treatment in the assessment process with regard to both the land and improvement assessments of the subject property. The primary contention concerned the land assessment and methodology. Appellants submitted numerous packets of data; appellants also presented several analyses of the subject property to properties in the area both from an assessment per front-foot and from an assessment per square-foot of land area perspective. Appellants also had correspondence from the township assessor expounding upon the use of a "Base Lot" method of assessment involving "standard" lots, smaller or "minus" lots, and larger or "plus" lots.
In support of the land inequity argument, appellants presented packet #1 with five comparable properties located in close proximity to the subject and on the same street as the subject. The comparable lots ranged in size from 45' x 130' (5,850 square feet of land area) to 180' x 130' (23,400 square feet of land area). Appellants noted the township assessor placed a land assessment of $3,408 on the smallest or "minus" lot, an