(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:
LAND: See Page Two
IMPR.: See Page Two
TOTAL: See Page Two
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 5
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Metal Maintenance, Inc.
DOCKET NO.: 05-23593.001-I-1 thru 05-23593.009-I-1
PARCEL NO.: See Page Two
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB)
are Metal Maintenance, Inc., the appellant, by attorney Patrick
C. Doody of Field & Golan LLP of Chicago and William O'Shields of
the Cook County Board of Review (board).
The subject property consists of a one-story, masonry industrial
building containing 6,050 aggregate square feet of building area,
constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, on a 13,752
square foot site and located in West Township, Cook County.
The property in this appeal was the subject of appeals before the
Property Tax Appeal Board for prior years under Docket Nos. 03-
27371.001-I-1 thru 03-27371.009-I-1 and 04-25460.001-I-1 thru 04-
25460.009-I-1. In those appeals, the Property Tax Appeal Board
reached a decision based upon equity and the weight of the
evidence in the record as presented by the parties to the appeal.
Pursuant to the Official Rules of the Property Tax Appeal Board,
evidence from both parties in support of their respective
opinions of the subject's market value as of the assessment date
or equity of the assessment was requested.
After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the
Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Property Tax
Appeal Board finds from its analysis of the record that the
evidence in this appeal is no different from that of the prior
year. Since no new evidence was presented to warrant a change
from the previous year's decision, the Board finds that the
assessment as established in the prior year's appeal is