Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-26605-C-1 Torrence Professional Center Office

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessments of the
properties as established by the Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuations of the properties
are:
DOCKET NOS. PARCEL NOS. LAND IMPRVT. TOTAL
05-26605.001-C-1 30-31-318-059-1001 $ 7,805 $10,026 $17,831
05-26605.002-C-1 30-31-318-059-1002 $ 8,760 $11,176 $19,936
05-26605.003-C-1 30-31-318-059-1003 $ 5,362 $ 6,877 $12,239
05-26605.004-C-1 30-31-318-059-1004 $ 5,270 $ 6,725 $11,995
05-26605.005-C-1 30-31-318-059-1005 $13,283 $17,009 $30,292
05-26605.006-C-1 30-31-318-059-1006 $ 6,709 $ 8,562 $15,271
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/lbs/08
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Torrence Professional Center Office
DOCKET NO.: 05-26605.001-C-1 through 05-26605.006-C-1
PARCEL NO.: See below.
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Torrence Professional Center Office, the appellant, by attorney
Kevin P. Burke of Smith, Hemmesch, Burke, Brannigan & Guerin,
Chicago, and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a six office/professional
condominium units. The units range in size from 492 to 1,292
square feet of building area. The building housing the six units
under appeal contains seven units, one of which is not under
appeal in this cause. The subject is located in Thornton
Township, Cook County.
The appellant, through counsel, submitted evidence before the
Property Tax Appeal Board claiming the subjects' assessments are
not reflective of their market values. In support of this
argument, the appellant offered data regarding the sale of two
units in the subject complex. The units contain 604 and 1,007
square feet and sold in February 2005 and January 2003 for price
of $40,000 and $45,000, or $62.50 and $44.68 per square foot of
building area, respectively. A real estate contract and a
closing statement were offered verifying the arm's length nature
of the sales was also presented. Counsel argued an average of
the per square foot sales prices for these two properties
represents the fair market value of the units under appeal. A
copy of the subject's 2005 board of review final decision was
also included. Based on this evidence, the appellants requested