(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 Peoria County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 306,900
IMPR.: $ 608,320
TOTAL: $ 915,220
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: MJM Limited Partnership
DOCKET NO.: 05-00196.001-C-2
PARCEL NO.: 14-21-301-002
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are MJM Limited Partnership, the appellant, by attorney Clyde B. Hendricks of Peoria, Illinois; and the Peoria County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 5.52 acre parcel improved with three, one-story commercial buildings with 62,001 square feet of building area. The subject property is of concrete block construction with central air conditioning, a ceiling height of 12 feet and is used as a retail strip shopping center. The buildings were constructed in 1973 and are approximately 32 years old. The property is located in the City of Peoria Township, Peoria County.
The appellant contends assessment inequity in the improvement assessment as the basis of the appeal. In support of this argument the appellant presented an assessment analysis prepared by Vivian E. Hagaman. Hagaman testified she has experience as a broker, appraiser and a certified assessor. She testified that she has been in this business for 10 years.
Hagaman prepared an assessment analysis, Appellant's Exhibit No. 1, using four equity comparables. The data used in her analysis was taken from the property record cards for the subject and the comparable properties. She indicated that the equity comparables were adjusted in relation to the subject for grade as well as for condition, desirability and utility (CDU). She testified that using CDU is an attempt to relate loss in value due to condition, desirability and utility. She indicated that condition relates to actual age versus effective age, desirability focuses on the economic obsolescence and utility focuses on functional obsolescence. She further explained her analysis dealt only with the improvement assessment and not the land. Her report contained copies of the property record cards for the subject and the comparables from the township assessor's Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) records. She also provided copies of photographs for the subject and the comparables.