Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2002-28826-C-3 The Lurie Company

              (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 23
IMPR.: see page 23
TOTAL: see page 23
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/mmg
1 of 27
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: The Lurie Company
DOCKET NOS.: 00-24524.001-C-3; 01-25795.001-C-3;
02-28826.001-C-3, consolidated
PARCEL NO.: 17-09-419-001-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board
(hereinafter PTAB or the Board) are The Lurie Company, the
appellant, by Attorneys Patrick C. Doody and Liat Meisler of the
law firm of Golan & Christie, in Chicago; the Cook County Board
of Review (hereinafter the board of review or the board) by
Assistant State's Attorney Ralph Prioetti of the Cook County
State's Attorney's Office; and the intervenors, the Chicago Board
of Education (CBOE) by Attorney Ares G. Dalianis of the law firm
of Franczek Sullivan, P.C., in Chicago, and the City of Chicago
(City), by Attorneys Kory Atkinson and Richard Danaher of the
Corporation Counsel's Office.
The subject property consists of a 70-year-old, 41-story, multi-tenant,
commercial office building, located in the Chicago Loop
Central Business District (CBD) on LaSalle Street. The common
address is 221 North LaSalle Street. The improvement contains
520,450 square feet of gross building area of which approximately
395,122 square feet is rentable area. The subject sits on a
parcel of land containing approximately 21,000 square feet.
The appellant, through its attorneys, appeared before the PTAB
and argued that the market value of the subject was not
accurately reflected in its assessed value. The appellant argues
that, based upon its correct market value, the subject is over
assessed.
The appellant's attorney, in his opening statement, noted that
the appellant's evidence contained two appraisals; one has an
opinion of market value of $15,500,000 and one has an opinion of
market value of $16,150,000. The appellant requested reductions
in the subject's assessment based upon market value findings