(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 St. Clair County Board of Review
is warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 3,933
IMPR.: $ 7,321
TOTAL: $ 11,254
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Rick Sminchak
DOCKET NO.: 06-02358.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 06-03.0-237-046
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Rick Sminchak, the appellant, and the St. Clair County Board of Review.
The subject property is a one-story frame and masonry rental dwelling containing 925 square feet of living area that was built in 1960. Features include a concrete slab foundation and central air conditioning.
The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process as the basis of the appeal. In support of this claim, the appellant submitted property record cards, photographs and an assessment analysis of the subject and four suggested comparables. The comparables consist of one-story frame dwellings that were built from 1955 to 1958. Two comparables are located within the subject's subdivision while two comparables are located ½ of a mile from the subject in different subdivisions. The comparables have concrete slab foundations and central air conditioning. Two comparables have garages. The dwellings range in size from 864 to 1,096 square feet of living area and have 2006 final equalized improvement assessments ranging from $1,639 to $3,403 or from $1.50 to $3.94 per square foot of living area. The subject property has an equalized improvement assessment of $7,321 or $7.92 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 equalized assessment of $11,254 was disclosed. In support of the subject's assessment, the board of review submitted property record cards, aerial photographs and six suggested comparables. However, an analysis of only four comparables was presented. At the hearing, the board of review's representative testified the board of review would rely on the first four comparables to support the subject's assessment.