Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2004-23278-R-1 Schroder

              (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: $ 2,494
IMPR.: $ 13,945
TOTAL: $ 16,439
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/BRW
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Kurt and Crystal Schroder
DOCKET NO.: 04-23278.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 03-34-200-176-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Kurt and Crystal Schroder, the appellants, by attorney Rusty A.
Payton of the Law Offices of Rusty A. Payton, P.C., Chicago,
Illinois; and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property is a 43-year old, two-story masonry
townhouse containing 1,156 square feet of living area with a
full, unfinished basement and central air conditioning.
The appellants submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal
Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process as the
basis of the appeal. In support of the equity argument, the
appellants submitted a grid analysis detailing four suggested
comparable properties. On the appellant's map, two comparables
are located in the same tax block as the subject, and two are
located approximately one mile from the subject. The comparables
are two-story masonry townhouses that are 40 or 43 years old.
Two of the comparables have full basements, and two have
unfinished basements. One comparable has central air
conditioning, and one has a fireplace. The dwellings have living
areas that contain 1,148 to 1,180 square feet, and their
improvement assessments range from $4.46 to $6.37 per square
foot. The subject property has an improvement assessment of
$12.06 per square foot. Based on this evidence, the appellants
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 assessment was disclosed. In
support of the subject's assessment, the board of review offered
property characteristic sheets and a spreadsheet detailing three
suggested comparable properties that are located in the same tax
block as the subject. The comparables are two-story masonry