(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 Winnebago County Board of Review
is warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 16,416
IMPR.: $ 21,650
TOTAL: $ 38,066
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 6
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Herbert Rosene
DOCKET NO.: 05-00755.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 04-32-327-035
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Herbert Rosene, the appellant, and the Winnebago County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a part one-story and part one-and-one-half-story frame dwelling that was built in 1952 and contains 1,648 square feet of living area. Amenities include a fireplace and two garages. The subject improvement is situated on a 0.50± acre site containing 146.45 front feet along the Rock River in Roscoe Township.
The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process as the basis of the appeal. The appellant is appealing the subject's land assessment only. In support of the inequity claim, the appellant submitted four comparable properties. Two of the comparables are located in an adjacent township. The comparables are all non-flood plain riverfront improved properties. The four comparables range in proximity from ¼ mile to 1 mile from the subject. Detailed information regarding the improvements for the comparables was not disclosed. The comparable riverfront non-flood plain lots are described as ranging in size from 18,600 to 206,910 square feet of land area. The amount of front footage of each comparable along the river was not disclosed. They have land assessments ranging from $6,952 to $25,062. The subject property is described as containing 22,082 square feet of land area with a land assessment of $16,416. The appellant argued the subject property is inferior to the comparables because the subject is located in a flood plain, unlike the comparables, and does not have city water or sewer services available. In addition, the appellant argued that the subject's 105% increase in its land assessment from 2004 to 2005 is excessive. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested a reduction in the subject's land assessment to $8,208.