(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:
LAND: $ 9,623
IMPR.: $ 29,814
TOTAL: $ 39,437
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Koskue Kiyohara
DOCKET NO.: 06-22737.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 02-35-106-002-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Koskue Kiyohara, the appellant, by attorney Julie Realmuto of
McCarthy & Duffy, Chicago, Illinois; and the Cook County Board of
The subject property is a 45-year old, one-story style dwelling
of masonry construction containing 2,215 square feet of living
area with a crawl-space foundation.
The appellant’s appeal is based on unequal treatment in the
assessment process. The appellant submitted for consideration
four comparable properties described as one-story masonry
dwellings that are between 43 and 49 years old. Two of the
dwellings do not have basements. The comparables contain from
2,061 to 2,706 square feet of living area and have improvement
assessments ranging from $9.00 to $10.43 per square foot. The
subject’s improvement assessment is $13.46 per square foot.
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 three comparable properties
consisting of one-story masonry dwellings that are between 42 and
52 years old. Each of the dwellings has a basement. The
dwellings contain from 1,927 to 2,307 square feet of living area
and have improvement assessments ranging from $13.40 to $14.54
per square foot. Based on this evidence, the board of review
requested confirmation of the subject's assessment.
After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the
Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the