Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 1999-27145-C-3 Saks, Inc.

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessment of the
property as established by the Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuations of the property are:
DOCKET # PIN LAND IMPROVEMENT TOTAL
99-27145-C-3 17-10-105-015 $1,739,087 $3,753,053 $5,492,140
99-27146-C-3 17-10-105-016 $ 76,052 $ 93,808 $ 169,860
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/KPP
1 of 24
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Saks, Inc.
DOCKET NO.: 99-27145-C-3 and 99-27146-C-3
PARCEL NO.: 17-10-105-015 and 17-10-105-016
TOWNSHIP: North Chicago
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board
(hereinafter PTAB) are Saks, Inc., the appellant, by Attorney
Terrence Griffin with the law firm of Eugene L. Griffin &
Associates; the Cook County Board of Review by Assistant State's
Attorney Harry Brice with the Cook County State's Attorney's
Office in Chicago; and the intervenor, Chicago Board of Education
by Attorney Terry Moritz with the law firm of Goldberg Kohn Bell
Black Rosenbloom & Moritz in Chicago as well as Attorney Bernard
J. Murphy, Assistant General Counsel for the Board of Education
in Chicago. After the hearing, Attorney Moritz withdrew
representation of the intervenor and a substitution of counsel
was submitted by Attorney Ares Dalianis with the law firm of
Franczek Sullivan PC in Chicago.
The subject property consists of two land parcels improved with a
49-story, mixed-use, residential retail development thereon
including a seven-story, anchor department store with basement
and mezzanine area located in the City of Chicago's, Michigan
Avenue. The subject contains 161,492 square feet of gross
building area.
At the commencement of the first day of hearing, several
preliminary issues were raised. First, the parties were asked to
disclose the witnesses that each intended to call during this
multiple-day hearing. Second, the intervenor tendered to the
PTAB and the remaining parties a Motion In Limine to Exclude
Certain Evidence. The intervenor indicated that the evidence it