(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 valuation of the property is:
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Rodney Payton
DOCKET NO.: 05-22796.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 15-16-105-002-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Rodney Payton, 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 consists of an 82-year old, one-story
dwelling of frame construction containing 1,088 square feet of
living area with a full, unfinished basement and central air
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 and Exhibit 1 listing three additional
comparables. The appellant's map indicates the comparables are
located in close proximity to one-half mile from the subject.
The comparables are one-story or one and one-half story frame,
masonry, or frame and masonry dwellings that are 52 to 59 years
old. Two comparables have unfinished basements and two
comparables have no basements. Their living areas are from 1,140
to 1,234 square feet in size, and have improvement assessments of
$9.82 to $10.95 per square foot. The additional comparables are
1,152 to 1,224 square feet in size and have improvement
assessments of $10.95 to $10.98 per square foot. The subject
property has an improvement assessment of $16.10 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 final assessment was disclosed. In
support of the subject's assessment, the board of review offered
the property characteristic sheets and a spreadsheet detailing
three suggested comparable properties. One comparable is located