(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 Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuations of the property are:
LAND: See Page 15
IMPR.: See Page 15
TOTAL: See Page 15
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Sears Roebuck & Company
DOCKET NO.: 02-28639.001-C-3 and 02-28639.002-C-3
03-24928.001-C-3 and 03-24928.002-C-3
04-25461.001-C-3 and 04-25461.002-C-3
PARCEL NO.: See Page 15
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board (hereinafter PTAB) are Sears Roebuck & Company, the appellant, by Attorney Patrick Doody with the Law Offices of Patrick Doody in Chicago; the Cook County Board of Review by Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Aaron Bilton; and three intervenors, School District #215 by Attorney Joel DeTella with the law firm of Sraga Hauser, LLC in Flossmoor, as well as School District #157 and the City of Calumet City both by Attorney Elizabeth Shine with the law firm of Odelson & Sterk Ltd. in Evergreen Park.
The subject property consists of two parcels of land improved with a part one-story and part two-story, single-tenant anchor department store of masonry construction attached to a regional shopping mall as well as a detached, stand-alone, auto service center. The land comprises 1,069,790 square feet of area. The retail store contains 306,250 square feet with a sales area of 197,000 square feet. This store was constructed in 1966 with a second floor expansion in 1972. The auto service center contains a part one-story and part two-story building. It contains 52,532 square feet of area and was constructed in 1966. The entire property contains 358,782 square feet of building area. In addition to the building improvements, there is approximately 700,000 square feet of asphalt paving used for parking and driveway areas.
At the commencement of this hearing, the PTAB dealt with several procedural matters relating to verbal motions made by the parties. First, intervenor, school district #215, moved to exclude witnesses, whereupon the board of review and remaining intervenors had no objections. However, the appellant's objections lay in the argument that a review appraiser should be present during the opposing parties' appraisers' testimony to assist in formulating questions for cross examination most especially due to the summary format of several parties' evidence