Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-01067-F-1 Whitmore

              (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:
FARMLAND: $ 755
HOMESITE: $ 3,960
RESIDENCE: $ 46,270
FARM BLDGS: $ 670
TOTAL: $ 51,655
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/cck/4-10
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Robert Whitmore
DOCKET NO.: 06-01067.001-F-1
PARCEL NO.: 13/120-1
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Robert Whitmore, the appellant, by attorney Karla C. Steele of Califf & Harper P.C. in Moline, Illinois, and the Rock Island County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 10-acre parcel of land improved with a residential dwelling and various farm buildings. The two-story frame residential dwelling was 69 years old and consists of 2,700 square feet of living area. Features of the dwelling include a fireplace, full basement, and a one-car detached garage along with an attached "shop." The farm outbuildings consist of three larger barns, with a tack room off the big barn, a corn bin, and a large concrete slab off one of the barns which was formerly used for a cattle feeding operation. The property is located in Coal Valley, Rural Township, Rock Island County.
The appellant appeared with counsel before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming improper classification of the subject tract as entirely residential land and the buildings as entirely non-farm. Appellant asserted that horses are both raised and boarded on the subject property which thereby qualifies the property by definition as having a principal use for agricultural purposes. In support of these contentions, appellant submitted a 2005 aerial photograph of the subject property and several ground-level photographs of the property depicting grassland, horses and farm outbuildings, along with the testimony of the appellant as to the use of the property. In further support of the classification claim, appellant noted the subject property had received a farmland classification prior to 2006.
The appellant testified that approximately 8-acres are dedicated for use as pastureland associated with the grazing and boarding of horses with some training of horses. Appellant maintained this has been the use of the property since he purchased it in