(Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change 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. PROPERTY NO. LAND IMPR. TOTAL
07-21910.001 05-34-121-041-000 18,219 33,800 52,019
07-21910.002 05-34-121-042-000 19,200 0 19,200
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: MCR-ManorCare Services, Inc.
DOCKET NO.: 07-21910.001-R-1 and 07-21910.002-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 05-34-121-041-0000 and 05-34-121-042-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are MCR-ManorCare Services, Inc., the appellant, by attorney Thomas Battista of Rock, Fusco & Associates, LLC, Chicago, Illinois; and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property, PIN #05-34-121-041-0000, is improved with a 50-year old, one-story style dwelling of masonry construction containing 1,295 square feet of living area with a full, finished basement and a one-car detached garage. The appellant's appeal includes an adjacent, vacant land parcel, PIN #05-34-121-042-0000, but no claim was made to suggest that this parcel was inequitably assessed.
The appellant’s appeal is based on unequal treatment in the assessment process. The appellant submitted information on four comparable properties described as one-story frame or frame and masonry dwellings that range in age from 54 to 129 years old. Photographic evidence submitted by the appellant indicates that two of the comparables are not one-story dwellings. The comparable dwellings range in size from 1,080 to 1,616 square feet of living area. One comparable has a fireplace, but this was the only feature listed on the appellant's grid analysis. These properties have improvement assessments that ranged from $15.77 to $23.37 per square foot of living area. The subject’s improvement assessment is $26.10 per square foot of living area. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested a reduction in the subject's improvement assessment.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's final assessment was disclosed. The board of review presented descriptions and assessment information on three comparable properties consisting of one-story masonry dwellings. Photographic evidence submitted by the board of review indicates that one of the comparables is not actually a one-story dwelling. The dwellings range in age from 55 to 60 years old. One comparable has a full, finished