Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2003-27283-R-1 Gardner

              (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: $ 1,632
IMPR.: $ 7,384
TOTAL: $ 9,016
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/BRW
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Toni Gardner
DOCKET NO.: 03-27283.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 29-09-104-038-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Toni Gardner, the appellant, 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 39-year old, multi-level masonry
dwelling containing 1,076 square feet of living area with a
partial, finished basement, central air conditioning, and a two-car
garage.
The appellant 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
appellant submitted a grid analysis detailing four suggested
comparable properties. On the appellant's map, two of the
comparables are located near the subject, and two are located
approximately 0.75 to 1.0 mile from the subject. The comparables
are multi-level masonry dwellings that are 39 to 42 years old.
Each comparable has a partial basement, and one comparable has
central air conditioning. Information on garages was not
disclosed. The dwellings have living areas that contain 1,116 to
1,266 square feet, and their improvement assessments range from
$5.45 to $6.06 per square foot. The subject property has an
improvement assessment of $6.86 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 assessment was disclosed. In
support of the subject's assessment, the board of review offered
property characteristic sheets and a spreadsheet detailing four
suggested comparable properties. One of the comparables is