Letter from Chief Deputy - Cook County Board of Review

BRENDAN F. HOUUHAN
roMMISSIONER
LARRY R. ROOERS, IR.
roMMISSIONER
,'e··.·,~_:."
,:,".
·c'
"
.:
J
i
HoD.James Houlihan
Cook County Assessor
Office of Cook County Assessor
118 North Clark Street, Room 320
Chicago,' DIinois60602
'"
.
,,'.
-
1< :-
SCOTt M. GUETZOW
<lIIEf DPl'UI'Y COMMISSIONER
'.
118 NOlmi nARK STREET
ROOM 601, COUNTY BUlWING
QllCAGO. UllNOlS 60602
TEL: (312) 603-5540
FAX: (312) 603-3479
Mr. Michael Stone, Esq.
Chief Deputy Assessor
Office of Cook County Assessor
118North Clark Street, Room 320
Chicago, Ulinois 60602'
Re: Request for Information Supporting Increases in Non-Triennial Market Values
Dear Honorable Assessor Houlihan & Chief Deputy Assessor Stone:
Please let this correspondence serve as the Cook CoUntyBoard of Review's f{)nnalrequestfor
your data and detail supporting increases in the market values of properties in non-triennial Cook
County townships for the 2009 tax year pursuant to Sections 35 ILCS 200/16-5 and 16-8. You have
significantly increased the market values for the vast majority of non-triennial properties without
providing our office with data and detail supporting increased market values in the face of a widely
acknowledged- downturn in the real estate market during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 tax years. These
increases in marlcet value posted by your office defy a significant declining trend in virtually every
faret of the current real estate market The increases this tax year appear so obviously at odds with
reality that further elucidation on your part has become necessary to the public.
Taxpayers are arguing that you have increased marlc-etvalues in spite of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, without sufficient notice of an increase in market value, and by function of
the change in the level of assessment instead of a genuine analysis of the market Further, taxpayers
are providing evidence in support pf reduced market values including: appraisals, sales, income
analysis, and relevant market data. Without this ClUCialevidence from you supporting your market
value increases, the weight oftbe evidence before us is tipped dramatically in favor of the appellant.
Currently, we are foICed to make assumptions on your reasoning behind the market value
increase apparently prompted by Cook County Ordinance 08-0-51. More specifically, the market
values appear to be "backed into" by application of dividing the former assessment by the new level
of assessmenrfor many non-residential properties or by reducing former assessments by a unifonn
percentage then dividing the modified assessment by the new level of assessment for residential
properties. Because "backing into" market values is unsupportable as a valuation practice, we are
interested in any evidence that may dispel that appearance. For example, in prior years when the level
of assessment was reduced for apartment buildings, the levels of assessment were reduced without
increasing the respective market values. Conversely, in 2009, the levels of assessment were reduced
but non~triennial market ·val.ueshave increased without explanation. This historic increase in 2009
inarket values in a non~triennialreassessment year mandates that you provide evidentimy supportthat
is property specific to justify such dramatic departures invalue, especially during a depressednimket.
.The Board of Review has recently closed the filing period for the first seven townshipsin its
2009 session. These townships. are: Cicero, Norwood Park, River Forest, Riverside, Evanston, Oak,
Park, and Rogers Parle.With the exception of Rogers Park, all of the townships in the first.~up are
non~trieimial townships in 2009. The second group of townships will close on February 22, 2010.
These townships are: Berwyn,·Bremen, Palos,.and Lakeview. With the exception of Lakeview, all of
.the townships in the second group are non-triennial townships in 2009. Please provide us the data and
detail for the aforementioned properties as soon as.possible.
We strongly encourage you to attend and defend your assessments before our agency. Your
office's participation in defending your assessments through evidentiary support and participation at
hearings is welcome and particularly important this year in light of the increases in malket values that
appear to be artificial on their face. Your implementation of Ordinance 08-O~51has created an entirely
new restoration basis of appeal that will generate thousands of otherwise unnecessary appeals.
Historically, your office has not defended its assessments before the Board of Review. It is reasonable
to expect that the increased market values issued in 2009 will be extremely vulnerable to challenges
unless your office actively defends its assessments by evidence and at hearings in equal measure,
particularly when your legislation created the issue on appeal. The first scheduled Board of Review
hCarings for the 2009 tax year are scheduled for Janwny 20, 21, and 22 for thefirstgtoup of
townships. A copy of the hearing schedule in addition to pre-file appeals is available upon request.
We had referenced ma"ny of these same concerns in our letter to the County Board on
November 3, 2009 during the FY2010 budget cycle. Some of the concerns that we identified before
the Finance Committee regarding Ordinance 08~O~
51 were:
.
"As Commissioners of the Board of Review, our greaWst concern is that the
10125Ordinance legislation will cause next year's 2009 tax bills to be the latest in
history and imntediate action needs to·be taken by the County Board to avoid a
potentially disastrous scenario. The Assessor has clearly neglected to notify Cook
County taxpayers, .the·Board of Review, or the County Board of Commissioners of
the adverse effects of the "10125 Ordinanee." Some of the issues that shoUld have
been disclosed for consideration include:
(1)
The manner in which the Assessor intended to implement the 10125 Ordinance
for non-triennial Townships should have been made transparent Unfortunately, it
only recently became clear that the Assessor's approach would be to back into
increaseS in fair market value for Don-triennial commercial and industrial
properties via the Ordinance.
(2)
• That by backing into market values, which is unsupportable under widely
accepted appraisal theory, the Assessor has created a new basis for appeal where
taxpayers are seeking "restoration" of prior year fair market values.
(3)
That without unjustly increasing non~triennial market values during a
universally acknowledged depressed real estate market, there would be neither the
motivation nor the basis for many thousands of taxpayers to appeal
seeking restoration of prior marketvalu~ .
ttm year
That if the Board of Review fopows the law and appraisal methodology, there is a
substantial likelihood that restoration appeals can be successful when supported
by widely available evidence.
.
Those successful appeals will reflect such significant changes in value that there
wiIi be an unjust and disparate shift of tax liabilities•
.That the 10125 Ordinance may cause an unjust shift in tax liability to
homeowners in a time when many hom~wners are at a tipping point
That both those taxpayers who do not appeal in 2009 and those taxpayers who
did not already appeal in prior triennial years will suffer disproportioiudely.
That there is no market support for inc~
non-triennial Townships in Cook County.
the majority of market values in
That the Assessor's justification for the Ordinance is grossly outmatched by its
pervasive flaws.
.
That the vast increase in the number of appeals may cause 2009 Second
InstaUment tax biDs to be due in 2011.
(10)
The Ordinance is not revenue neutral While seemingly harmless and well
intentioned, the means. of implementation of the Ordinance was not appropriately·
disclosed or vetted before the County Board."
1.
REQUEST FOR DATA RELIED UPON FORMARKET VALUATIONS
A.
STATUTORYAUTHORITY
Pursuant to Sections 35 ILes 200/16-5 and 16-8\ the Board of Review specificaUyrequests
all reports, books, papers, notes, property recofd cards, studies, research, opinion letters, data,
I See 35 IllComp.Stat.200/16-5(2009) "[t]he chiefCOWlty
assessment·officer
shall ftnnish to the boardof reviewor board
of appeals aU books, papers and information· in his or her office requested.by the board to assist it in the proper
discharge of its duties." (emphasisadded.)
See 35 llLComp.Stat.2oo/16-a(2009) ''Books and records of chief county assessment officer." (a) In cowrtieswith
3~OOO,OOO.or m~ inhabitants,.1hechief COWltyassessmentofficershall mainWn records of the assessed value of each
parcel propertyand shaDenter upon the property record card of each town or city lot or parcel of land the elements
(or basg) ohaluation and computations that ate taken into consideration by the chief county assessment ofliter in
ascertaining and determining the fair cash value of e3ch town or city lot or parcel of land and of each improvement
thereoll, induding the elements (shown by percentages or otherwise) that were taken into consideratiOnas
enhancing or detracting elements (such as depth, comer, aUey,railway or otherelementsl. The assessmentofficer
sba1lmaintainthe recordsfor at least 10 years. Upon requestby the boardof appeals (tintiIthe firstMonday in December
1993 and 1heboard of reviewbeginningthe first Monday iti December1998and 1hereatl:er);the officersball immediately
furnish all of1herequestedrecordsto the board. The recordsshallbe available,on request, to the taxpayer.The chiefcounty
assessment officershallcertify,in writing, the amount of the 8ssessmentto the board. If 1herecords maintainedby thechief
of
includIDgelectronic data2 and any other mfonnation used by the Cook Cowty AssesSor's Office
(hereinafter "Assessor") in itsmarlcet value determinations for all 1.8 million parcels located within
county assessment officer at the time the assessment is certified to the board under subsection (a) cootain none of the
elements (or basis) of valuation for d1eparcel, then any increase by the chief <;<>unty
assessm~ officer shall be considered
invalid by the board actiPg on a complaint under Section 16-120; and no action by the board under Section 16-120 shall
. result in an increase in the valuation for the parcelforthecurrept asses$mentyear." (emphasis added.)
The Illinois Freedom·of lnforination Act defines "Public Records" that includes "electJQnic data" stating that "PWlic
records" means all records, reports, fonus, "Mitings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs,
microfihns,cards,
tapes, recordings, electronic data grocessigg records, recorded information and all ~er
docwnentary materials, regafdIess of physical form or cbaracteristics,having been prepared, or having been or
being used, received, posSessed or under the' control of any public body. 5 ULComp.8tat
140Il/2(cX2009Xemphasis added.) .
2
In addition, you have stated that the following data is a~le
to the public un<1era FNedom of Infonnation Act (FOIA)
request:
AINQ- Printouts of tile most current assessment information for a Property Index Number.
ASIQ- Printouts of the historical summarized assessment history of a parceL
Face Sheets- One page printout of land and improvement detail with Assessor or Board of Appeals assessment
values for a given year.
Appeal Dockets- Taxpayer submitted documentation as well as a copy of the final valuation result
Division Petition Document - Formal request for the division or consolidation of a parcel or parcels.
Division Worksheet- Assessor's copy of the written division workedfrotJ'l a Petition! Document request
Permits- Assessor's record of the field inspection resulting from a municipal permit on a given parcel.
Homeowner and Senior Exemption Renewal Cards- Hard copy of the exemption
application signed by the taxpayer.
Assessment Notices- Mailings from the Assessor's Office that notify a taxpayer of any increase in assessment
Assessor's Assessment Roll (A-Roll) Fiche- A list On microfiche of
the Certified Final Assessments from the Assessor for a given tax year.
Board of Appeals Assessment Roll (A-Roll) Fiche- A list on microfiche of
the Certified Final Assessments from the Board of Appeals for a given tax year.
See http://www.cookcountyassessor.com/index.aspx(follow
~"
hyperlink.)
••Info••hyperlinkthen follow ''Freedom of Information
Cook County, lllinois. As you know, .the Cook 'County Board of Review (hereinafter "Board of
Review") is charged with the duty of adjUdicationof property tax appeal complaints.
In order·to assist in the proper execution of its duties, the Board of Review.is requiredto
analyze the parcels at issue. However, in light of Ordinallce 08-0-51 (hereinafter the "10/25
Ordinance''), which changes the levels of assessment that will inevitably affect complaints to the
Board of Review for the 2009 tax year, the Board of Reviewneeds more information from your office
to ensure that each taxpayer filing before it has bislherlits cOmplaintand parcel analyzed in the most
fair and equitable. manner. See Cook County, IL, Ordinance 08-0-51 (Sept 17, 2(08).
This
infonnation will assist the Board of Review in the proper discharge of its duties; therefore, please
.provide this infonnation to the Board of Review within 30 days.
I
As you. are fully aware, based upon your recommendations, the· Cook County Board of
.. Commissioners passed the "10/25 Ordinance," wending the classification system for the assessment
of all Cook County real property. This ordinance was touted by your office as a means to reduce and
clarify assessment levels. See Cook County, IL, Ordinance 08451 (Sept 17, 2008). The amendment
-of the Cook County classification system for assessment was in itself monumental considering that
that the classification system of residential, industrial and commercial properties had never been
amended to this extent since its initial implementation. Even more noteworthy is that, given the great
significance of the subject legislation, it was passed without any input from the Cook Coupty Board of
Review. Further, no determinative findings were issued from a task force commissioned to evaluate
the potential impact of the subject ordinance, particularly, the potential shift of the tax burden from the
commercial/industrial parcels to Cook County homeowners. Nonetheless, in sum, the ordipance
created two (2) assessment levels where there had formerly been seven (7).. Specifically, pursuant to
the new ordinance, the assessed value of a residential property purportedly represents ten percent
(lOOAl)of its market value and the assessed value of a comrtlercial or industrial property purpOrtedly
represents twenty five percent (25%) of its market value. In support of your ordinance, you have
stated that, "Simplifying the levels ties assessments to market values in a way everyone can
understand. It gives the taxpayer the ability to review an assessment and determine if it accurately
reflects the value of his or her property. The 10/25 ordinance will not in and of itself necessarily
change a property's assessed value or the amount' of a tax bill"
See
http://www.cookcountyassessor.comlindex.aspx
(follow "Info"
hyperlink;
then. follow
"Understanding your assessmenf' hyperlink; then follow "iO/2S Ordinance" hyperlink). (emphasis
wMed).
.
Noticeably absent from your explanation of the "10/25 Ordinance" is a detailed and open
explanation of the effect of the subject ordinance upon market valuations; particularly, in a well
documented declining market. As you know, assessments are based on market valuations and the
assessed value is simply a "legally authorized fraction" of the market value for taxation
.purposes. 3
3 In discussing the "Assessment FWJ.ction" it has been stated that after an assessor has discovered, identified, and classified
all the real property within its jurisdiction, the assessor must then value each property. GenemI. specific, and compamtive
data on all types of property are conected, anaI~
and processed into indications of value for each individual property.
The property is then assessed at its market value gr at some legaDy authorj!Ald fraction thereof. know as the~
value. The assessor usually nOtifiesthe property o~
of the value after making the assessment and also may be ~
to notify various. government agencies of the total value of different types of property. The assessment ron is then certlfied
A River Forest Township residential property located at 1346 Keystone Avenue, River Forest,
lllinois(pIN: 15-01-101-022-0000).
f
Year
/I Total AssessedValue
12008.
II $67,932··
12009
II $64,535
II % Change
II MarketValue
1\ %Ch;e
\
IrN/A
11-5%
11424,575
1\ NIA
\
11645,350
1\ +52%
I
Note: This parcel was randomly selected from the Cook County Assessor web site and RiverF()rest
township was reassessed in 2008. Also, there are no recent sales of the subject property.
Instead, you stated that non-triennial residential properties will receive a "marlcet adjustment" to
reflect the real .estate downturn in the form of reductions of their assessed values. See
http://www.cookcountyassessor.comlindex.aspx (follow "News" hyperlink; then follow May 11,2009
press release hyperlink).. Actually your factor is mischaracterized as a downward ''market adj\1StDleO.t"
and it is really a downward "assessment adjustment" and an upward, not downward; "madcet
adjustment" You added that "the· situation we are facing is extraordinary. Foreclosures and
declines in"sale prices and volume have taken a toll on home values." Id. Also, your office
stated that "after careful analysis of market sales and foreclosure data, we determined these
townships should not have to wait until their next reassessment for the impact to be reflected."
Id.
As part of your initiative, the Assessor's Office will mail notices to every property owner
in Cook County this year. Normally, properties are assessed every three yeats and receive notices
only then. The north suburbs are not scheduled to be reassessed until 2010; the south and west
suburbs will be reassessed in 2011. Id. Your office stated that ''this year, each suburban
township will receive an adjustment percentage, which will lower the existing assess·ed values of
all residential properties in that township." The reductions will likely range from 4% to 15%.4
You added that "areas hit hard by foreclosures and market drops will see the biggest reductions.
We will continue to monitor the market. The percentage reductions win change if the conditions
warrant it" Id.
Since all townships will receive assessment notices due to the "10/25 .ordinance," we must
mention the reassessed City townships. For example, in Rogers Park township you stated that the
"(reassessment) notices reflect widespread declines in assessed value for most types of residential
property." .See http://www.cookcountyassessor.comlindex.aspx (follow "News" hyperlink; then
and delivered to the appropriate agency so the roll QlaY be reviewed, taxes computed, bills sent, and moneys collected.
lntemational AssoCiation of Assessing Officers, Property Assesstt1entValuation 3 (2<1.ed. 1996) (emphasis added) .
.• See May 17, 2009 Press Release (River Forest Townsbip-5% assessment decrease); May 28, 2009 Press Release
(Riverside Township-12% assessment decrease); June 12, 2009 PreSs Release (Norwood park Towoship-15% assessment
decrease); June 18,2009 Press Release (Cicero Townsbip-15% assessment decrease); July 2, 2009 Press Release (OakParlc
Townsmp;.7% assessment decrease); July to, 2009 Press Release (Evanston Township-4% assessment decrease); July 23,
2009 Press Release (Bawyn Townsbip-t5% assessment decrease); July 29, 2009 Press Release (palos Township-5%
assessment ~);
August 10, 2009 Press Release (Bremen-5% assessment decrease); and August 14,2009 (Calumet
Township-7% assessment decrease).
. follow June 30, ·2009 Press release hyperlink). Specifically, you stated that ''the median·assessed
value of single-family homes and other non~ndo residential properties fell to $37,142iri 2009 from
$39,519 in 2006-a decrease of 6.06%" while again failing to disclose the increased market valuations
.in an admitted "overall slowdown in the real estate market."
Id. See also,
http://www.cookcountyassessor.comJindex.aspx (follow "News" hyperlink; then follow July 31, 2009
and September 25, 2009 press release hyperlinks.)
In sum, you.have clearly neglected to notify Cook County taXpayersof the adverse effects of
the "10/25 Ordinance" upon-their market valuations while it is widely known that assessed walues
. must FIRST be established by market valuation determinations. Asa result of your ordinance, it
certainly defies· aU logic that all Cook County homeowners. will experience inc~
mmket
valuatiQIlSin an admittedly real estate downturn. Also, you have failed to disclose the impact of the
"10/25 ordinance Upontax rates or the state equalization factor. Lastly, your statement that the "10/25
ordinance" will not change the amount of tax bill" is not substantiated·by any empirical data or fully
explained to CookCounty taxpayers.
ill.
EVIDENTIARYSUPPORT
A
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
In detenniningmarket values for Cook County homeowners, you have stated that your office
utilizes "a computer-assisted mass appraisal method to value residential properties. This computerized
,sales comparison model considers several different value components including, but not limited to,
sales of comparable properties, land, location, building square footage, and construction type. These
a(e some of the very same factors that would be considered by an appraiser seeking to value an
individual property." See http://www.cookcountyassessor.comfindex.aspx (follow "Info" hyperlink;
then follow "Understanding your Assessmenf' hyjJerlink; then follow\''How your property is valued"
hyperlinkXemphasis added) In addition, "residential properties are assessed as of January 1st of
the current year, using three to five years of prior sales information. By using multiple sale years,
this increases the stability.ofmar.ket-.v.alue predictiGD&!'--I4~00ded}..
Also, your office considers a uniformity analysis stating that "our appraisal method
reviews all the sales within a neighborhood and estimates a market value by assigning values to
the -individual. building characteristics of sold prOp(!rties. The market values of all properties
(sold and· unsold) are determined· by using the· value estimates. AdjuStments are made for
disparities discovered when comparing the building characteristics, thereby accounting for
differences (like age, quality of construction, size, etc.) between properties ..Any necessary final5
adjustments are. made to ensure· a fair and uniform assessment of all residential properties." 1<1.
(emphasis added).
5 In residential appeals, the Cook County Board of Review also utilizes a uniformity analysis where it is
recommended that individual appellants do the following: support their complaint by submitting evidence of
properties with similar characteristics to theirs that have lower;assessments. Similar properties must be:
Again, by your own admissions, yoUr assessments are derived frOm historical sales data
of comparable properties which are consideredto establish MARKET VALUATIONS. While
the "10/25" ordinance may decrease asSessed valuations, it undoubtedly also increases
MARKET VALUATIONS in a declining real estate market
B.
COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
Unlike residential parcels, your office applies different methods of ,valuation for Cook
County commercIal. and industrial properties. In addition, income producing and owner
occupied commercial and industrial properties are valued differen~ly.
You have stated that "valuation techniques have been developed for the different types of
properties in Cook County," See' http://www.cookcountYassessor.comfmdex.aspx(follow "Info"
hyperlink; then follow ''UnderStandingyour Assessment" hyperlink;then follow "How your property
is valued" hyperlink). "Physical features of buildings often indicate value. For. example,
apartments may be valued by number of un.its and UIiitmix while industrial properties are valued
by amenities such as number of loading docks and the building size. For these reasons, the Cook
County Assessor collects information on all of the properties asses~." {d.
You added that "assessors throughout the country typically look at three approaches to
estimate value to obtain a property's value: the cost (replacement) approach, the income
approach
and
the
sales
comparison
(market)
approach."
See
http://www.cookcountyassessor.comlindex.aspx
(follow
"Info"
hyperlink;
then
fonow
"Understanding your Assessment" hyperlink; then follow ''How your property is valued" hyperlink).
You define the "Three Approaches to Value" as follows:
Cost Approach - is an estimate of value derived for property by determining$e l
cost to construct' the building(s) less the estimated depreciation of the pr<)perty.
The Cost Approach is most effective when valuing unique manufacturing
properties as income and sales data may not be available for these owner occupied
properties. Marshall & Swift™ cost calibration software is used to apply cost
estimates to this type of property. Id.
2.
Similar to their property in size, type of constIUction, age, constroction materials, and general. condition. For
example, if their property class is a 2-03 (small ranch house or bungalow),
their comparables sIiould be 2-03' s.
3.
lhe best way to present this data is to staple or glue the picture(s) to the "Appeal Based on Lack of Uniformity"
form or to a standard 8-112" x ·11" sheet of paper. Beneath the picture(s) they should W!ite the address, Pennanen1
Index Numbers and assessed value of property shown. Show the land and improvement breakdown as well as the
total. They must remember to include all of the above for their property as well Information from the Assessor's
website may be printed out and attached. http://www.cookcountyboardofteview.com (follow "Residential"
hyperlink; then follow ''How to Present a Case" hyperlink.)
January 12,2010
Income Approach - is an estimate of value based on the rental income generated
by the property. This approach is often a very important indicator of property
value for income-producing properties. The Cook County Assessor's Office uses
niarket estimates for income, expenses, 8l!d a fate of return for an investor (the
capitalization rate) to determine value. Id. 6 (emphasis added.)
Where the entire property is covered under one (1) lease, a copy thereof shall be furnished.
Where multiple leases are in place, th<;:Board will consider lease summaries, audited financial statements, rent rolls
with totals and representative samples of leases submitted by the taxpayer and any such document requested by the
Board must be filed.
See BOR Rule 20. http://www.cookcountyboardofreview.com(follow
••TheBOR30Rules
••hyperlink.)
January 12,2010
Sales Comparison Approach - is an estimate of value that compares tbesubject
property to similar properties ~at have recently sold and have similar
characteristics or indicators of value. Differences in location, physical
characteristics, time of sale, physical condition, size,·age and other market related
.conditions are adjustments that can be made to sale prices. This accounts for
differences between comparable sold properties and the subject property.
Extensive editing arid adjustments are made before unsold similar properties are
valued. Also, large commercial transactions are thoroughly analyzed because of
the complexity of these types of sales. Id.
In short, your m.arlcetvaluations for the real property located in Cook County·are based upon
certain. data, including recent sales transactions as well as both historical and current nuuket data.
Therefore, again, due to the aforementioned impact of the "10/25 Ordinance"upon matket valuations,
as well as the other stated factors, it.is extremely·impOrtant that the Assessor's Office produce its
specific· data and calculations relied upon to establish its tnalket valuation increases for all oontriennial Cook County parcels. Raw data without specific detail relating to itsapplicatioll and
development of market values is obviously unhelpful and not likely to shed any light on the accQmCy
of the finalassessment
Your assistance in helping the Board·of Review execute its task will be greatly appreciated.
Cc:
Chairman Brendan.Houlihan
Commissioner Joseph Berrios
Commissioner Larry R. Rogers, lr.
Thomas Jaconetty,FirstAssistant Commissioner
John Sullivan, First Assistant Commissioner
OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR
COOK
COUNTY
ILLINOIS
CHICAGO 60602
Mr. Scott Guetzow
Chief Deputy Commissioner
Cook County Board of Review
118 North Clark Street
Room 601
Chicago, Illinois 60602
This letter is in response to your letter dated January 12,2010 requesting assistance, information
and insight from the Cook County Assessor's Office. In your letter, you made a formal request
on behalf of the Board of Review, stating that the request was in accordance with 35 ILCS
200/16-5 and 16-8, for "all reports, books, papers, notes, property record cards, studies, research,
opinion letters, data, including electronic data and any other information used by the Cook
County Assessor's Office in its market value determinations for all 1.8 million parcels located
within Cook County, lllinois." You stated that the data and detail would assist in helping the
Board of Review execute its task. You also made statements regarding the·Cook County Board
of Commissioners' 10/25 Ordinance (the "Ordinance") which amended the classification system,
stating that the Ordinance was monumental, was not vetted before the County Board and was
passed without any input from the Cook County Board of Review.
THE 10/25 ORDINANCE IS ONE OF MANY CHANGES TO THE CLASSIFICATION
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZED BY THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION AND PROPERTY
TAX CODE.
As you know, the Illinois Constitution authorizes the classification of real property for the
purpose of assessment and taXation. It provides, in part, as follows:
(b) Subject to such liIhitations as the General Assembly may hereafter prescribe
by law, counties with, a population of more than 200,000 may classify or continue
to classify real property for purposes of taxation. Any such classification shall be
reasonable and asseSsments shall be uniform within each class. The level of
assessment or rate of tax of the highest class in a county shall not exceed two and
one-half times the level of assessment or rate of tax of the lowest class in that
county. Real property used in farming in a county shall not be assessed at a higher
level of assessment than single family residential real property in that county.
(See Illinois Const., Art. IX, § 4 (2010).
In addition, the classification of real property is authorized by statute when approved by
the County Board:
9-150. Classification of property. Where property is classified for purposes of ~
taxation in accordance with Section 4 of Article IX of the Constitution and with
such other limitations as may be prescribed by law, the classification must be
established by ordinance of the county board. If not so established, the
classification is void. (See 35 ILCS 200/9-150).
Prior to 1973, Cook County was required by law to assess all real property at 33.33% of its
market value. In 1973, the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed the first Cook County
Real Property Assessment Classification Ordinance. It classified and assessed properties as
follows:
The Ordinance has been materially amended over twenty times since 1973. Some noteworthy
significant changes include:
In 1976, the assessment on Class 2 Residen,tialproperties was lowered from 22%
to 17%of market value.
.
:
- "
.
In 1977, the assessment onCfass 2 Residential.properties was further reduced to
16% of market value.
In 1978, Class 6 was created and has subsequently undergone many changes. For
example, duringtht1.economic· downturn in.1984, Class 6 was discontinued and
replaced with Classes 6a and 6b, whereby for Class 6a, the property was assessed
at 30% of market value for 8 years and for Class 6b, the property was assessed at
16 percent for 8 years. In 1990, Class 6a and 6b merged into one incentive
classification.
In 1995, Class 6b changed again, wherebythe property was assessed for 8 years at
16 percent ofmarket value; the 9th year would bring a 30 percent of market value
assessment. In the 10th year, the property is assessed at 16 percent of market
value for up to 3 years.
In. 2002, the Cook County Board unanimously.amended the Ordinance -again
decreasing the level of assessment on apartment buildings of 7 units or more
beginning in the 2004 tax year from 33 percent on a graduating scale. The level of
assessment changes were as follows:
2004:
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
30%
26%
24%
22%
20%
level
level
level
level
level
of assessment
of assessment
of assessment
of assessment
of assessment
In 2008, the Board of Commissioners made additional changes to the Ordinance.
The most recent changes to the Ordinance are as follows:
The Assessor shall assess, and the Board of Review shall review,
assessments on real estate in the various classes at the following
percentages of market value:
(1) Class 1: 10 percent.
(2) Class 2: 10 percent.
(3) Class 3: 16 percent in tax year 2009, 13 percent in tax
year 2010, 10percent in tax year 2011, and subsequent years.
(4) Class 4: 25 percent.
(5) Class 5a: 25 percent.
(6) Class 5b: 25 percent.
(7) Class 6b: 10 percent for first ten years and for any subsequent tenyear renewal periods; if the incentive is not renewed, 15 percent
in year 11 and 20 percent in year 12.
(8) Class C:Industrial properties: 10 percent for first ten years, 15
percent in year 11 and 20 percent in year 12; commercial
properties: 10 percent for first ten years, .15percent in year 11 and
20 percent in year 12.
(9) Class 7a: 10 percent for first ten years, 15 percent in year 11 and
20 percent in year 12.
(10) Class 7b: 10 percent for first ten years, 15 percent in year 11 and
20 percent in year 12.
(11) Class 8: 10 percent for first ten years and for any subsequent tenyear renewal periods; if the incentive is not renewed, 15 percent
in year 11 and 20 percent in year 12.
(12) Class 9: 10 percent for an initial ten-year period, renewable upon
application for additionalten-year periods.
(13) Class S: 10 percent for the term of the Section 8 contract renewal
under the mark up to market option, as defined herein, and for any
additional terms of renewal of the Section 8 contract under the
mark up to market option.
(14) Class L, renewable properties: 10 percent for first ten years and
for any subsequent ten-year renewal periods; if the incentive is
not renewed, 15 percent in year 11 and 20 percent in year 12;
commercial properties: 10 percent for first ten years, 15 percent in
year 11 and 20 percent in year 12. (Sec. 74-64. Market value
percentages).
(Code 1980, § 13-15; Ord. of 6-6-1977, p. 3802; Ord. of9-19-1977, p.
5752; Ord. of 5-16-1978, p. 4122; Ord. of 1-2-1979, p. 543; Ord. No.
80-0-14, 3-3-1980; Ord. No. 84-0-36, 10-1-1984; Ord. No. 86-0';17,
5-19-1986; Ord. No. 88-0-36, 6-20-1988; Ord. No. 90-0-02, 12-41989; Ord. No. 90-0-05, 12-18-1989; Ord. No. 02-0-14, § 3, 4-92002; Ord. No. 06-0-09, § 3, 2-15-2006; Ord. No. 06-0-47, 11-22006; Ord. No. 08-0-51, 9-17-2008.).
As set forth above, the classification ordinance has undergone major changes since its inception
in 1973. It is dynamic and changes are permitted and at times necessary. Most importantly, the
classification ordinance, as amended, has been well established as being authorized by the
Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Property Tax Code.
THE 10/25 ORDINANCE WAS CONSIDERED
ONLY AFTER LENGTHY CONSIDERATION.
BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
On April 9, 2008, I announced that I would make a proposal to the County Board to amend the
classification ordinance. The proposed changes would make the assessments simpler and more
transparent by having two major assessment levels (10% and 25%). This public announcement
was made at the City Club of Chicago, was attended by many, including members of the Board
of Review, and received significant press coverage. At the City Club event, through press
releases and media coverage, I noted a certain disconnect between a property's market value and
its property taxes and called for more transparency, accountability and fairness in the property
tax system. I also expressed my hope for input regarding the best way to implement the change.
For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the press release dated April 9, 2008. (Exhibit
A. - Press Release dated Apri/9, 2008).
Prior to the announcement, the Assessor's Office met with the Cook County State's Attorney's
Office on March 27, 2008 to discuss the legal authority for the proposal aIld viable defenses that
would be raised if the Ordinance was challenged. Beginning in May 2008, the Assessor's Office
began meeting with President Todd Stroger and members of the President Todd Stroger's staff
on the proposed ordinance. The meetings included the President's Chiefs of Staff Lance Tyson
and, later, Joe Fratto, the President's Chief Financial Officer and others from the President's
staff. Subsequent to the announcement and prior to consideration by the County Board, the
Assessor's Office met with members of the Board of Review and discussed issues and concerns
related to the proposed Ordinance.
The Ordinance was first introduced to the County Board on June 17, 2008. It was immediately
assigned to the Finance Committee. In response to the introduction of the proposed Ordinance,
President Stroger created the Cook County Property TaX Classification Task Force solely for the
purpose of analyzing the proposed Ordinance, determining its impact, and making
recommendations. Chairman and Commissioner John P. Daley and the other members of the
Finance Committee dedicated substantial resources and effort to this matter.
The Task Force began meeting on June 19,2008, a mere two days after the Ordinance was first
introduced, and quickly established a weekly meeting schedule plus additional meetings as
needed. The Task Force was chaired by Professor Donald Haider, a distinguished professor of
management at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and was cochaired by Judith C. Rice, Vice President and Director of Government Relations of Harris Bank
and former Treasurer of the City of Chicago. The Task Force included as members the
Honorable Wilson Frost, retired and now deceased Commissioner of the Cook County Board of
Review, the Honorable Carl Hansen, retired commissioner of the Cook
County Board of Commissioners, the Honorable Zenovia G. Evans, President of the Village of
Riverdale, Michael Comicelli, Executive Vice President of the Building Owners and Managers
Association of Chicago, Juan Rangel, Chief Executive Officer of United Neighborhood
Organization, Tom Johnson of the Taxpayer's Federation of lllinois, Lise Valentine of the Civic
Federation, Michael Mini of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Bob Herman of Duff and
Phelps, Maurice Jones of the Cook COWltyDepartment of Planning and Development, Bill
Vaselopulos of the Office of the Cook County Clerk, Billy Glunz of the Office of the Mayor of
the City of Chicago, and Beverly Vivians of the Office of the Cook County Treasurer.. The Task
Force established four subcommittees to ensure that all issues received in depth consideration.
The Task Force welcomed any and all interested parties to present information, raise concerns, or
provide commentary.
The Task Force established a weekly meeting schedule to consider evidence in favor and
opposed to the proposed Ordinance. Additionally, the Task Force scheduled working
committees as needed. The Task Force considered evidence from a number of experts and
authorities on property tax including the lllinois Department of Revenue, Cook COWltyAssessor
James M. Houlihan, the Taxpayers Federation, the City of Chicago Property Tax Advisory
Council, the Chicago Bar Association, the lllinois State Bar Association and the Illinois Property
Tax Lawyers Association and members of the lllinois bar. The Board of Review itself presented
issues and concerns to the Committee for consideration. In addition, the Task Force considered
the reports prepared by prior commissions including the 1972 Commission Report lead by
Professor Richard Michael.
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERED THE
TESTIMONY OF MANY.
On September 16, 2008, the Cook COWltyBoard of Commissioner's Finance Committee
(Committee) held a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance. The Committee was led by
Chairman and Commissioner John P. Daley and Vice-Chair Commissioner Deborah Sims.
Participating Commissioners included:
MR. WILLIAM M. BEAVERS,
MR. JERRY BUTLER,
MR. FORREST CLAYPOOL,
MS. EARLEAN COLLINS,
MS. ELIZABETH ANN DOODY GORMAN,
MR. GREGG GOSLIN,
MR. ROBERTO MALDONADO,
MR JOSEPH MARIO MORENO,
MS. JOAN P. MURPHY,
MR. ANTHONY J. PERAICA,
MR. TIMOTHY O. SCHNEIDER,
MR. PETER N. SILVESTRI and
MR. LARRY SUFFREDIN.
Civic leaders, business leaders, public officials and members of the public attended the public
hearing and testified. They offered information, and opinions on the proposed Ordinance.
The Cook County Assessor was present and testified. His message and purpose was simple and
straightforward. The property tax system needs to be transparent, understandable and clear. He
answered the Commissioners' questions and addressed their concerns. (Exhibit B. - Fin.
Commit. Pub. Hear., pp. 2-6, 43-78, 80- 94, 106).
Mr. Jerry Roper, President and CEO of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, while
articulating some concerns, agreed that·the proposed Ordinance would " ... provide more clarity
and simplicity in the understanding of the assessment process... " (Id., p.7).
Ms. Judith Roettig, Vice President of the Chicagoland Apartment Association, testified about the
market conditions and concerns shared by residential apartment owners. (Id., p.12.).
Mr. Laurence Msall, President of The Civic Federation stated" " .The Civic Federation supports
the proposal to move the Cook County classification ordinance to 25 and 10. We support it
because we believe that it will simplify the way taxpayers, businesses, and other observers -- all
taxpayers view their assessment process. We think it will be a positive step in providing
transparency." (Id., p.17).
Many attorneys and tax representives testified at the hearing. Attorney John Norris, a
representative for the Illinois Property Tax Lawyers Association, supported a different approach
to achieve clarity and transparency. He testified that the Association "looked at the Assessor's
proposal and we applaud the fact that he is trying to be transparent with the taxpayers of Cook
County." (ld., p. 19).
.
Mr. Slinkam, a businessman, who owns commercial property and residential apartment buildings
testified "I support this legislation one hundred and ten percent." (Id. p. 32).
Mr. Nathan Paige, Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Cook County, a member and
representative of the President Stroger's Property Tax Classification Task Force offered
testimony regarding the progress, status and determinations ofthe Task Force. (Id. pp. 78- 80).
The Committee also heard and considered the testimony of Me. Brian Bernardoni, the Senior
Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy for the Chicago Association of Realtors and
Mr. Cornicelli of BOMA.
As someone who has been involved off and on with the property
tax system for twenty-six years, in different roles, I can empathize
with some of the testimony of the people who appeared here today.
I know there is a lot of suspicion about the property tax system,
and a lot of it is justified. It is a broken system. We have talked
about that at many levels. It is a very complicated system. It leads
to inequities and it leads to confusion and complexity.
I think: that understandable concern is misdirected, in terms of this
ordinance. This ordinance·was designed for one thing, and that is
to create greater transparency. The Assessor has come forward
with an idea that makes a lot of sense. We have known for years
and years -- forever -- and pretended that it is not true, that
somehow the assessments were actually at the statutory level.
They are not.
This reflects the actual reality as best we know it. The Assessor is
not going to change in any way how he assesses property because
of this ordinance. He is going to continue to do it exactly as he has
done now. The same statutory ratios are in place. The same equal
protections are still in place. The same basis for appeals, the same
use of income as a j.ustification. This is not going to change any of
that. But it will allow people to see the direct relationship between
their property's value and the actual assessment that is legally
prescribed.
That is a small step towards transparency and reflecting reality. I
think: that is something that the Assessor ought to be applauded for,
I think it is something that is good for the system. It doesn't solve
all of these other problems that everybody has talked about. We
have a long way to go in resolving that. But it is a small step
forward to bringing a little sunshine into the process.
The Ordinance simplifies, clarifies and adds transparency to the assessment process. This makes
it easier for taxpayers to have a meaningful understanding of their assessments and the market
value attributed to that assessment.
The Ordinance is supported and endorsed by the public, elected officials, civic organizations, and
the Mayor Daley's Property Tax Counsel, of which the Board of Review was a part.
The Ordinance has a long history and has been under consideration for over a decade. As early
as 1998, the Tax Policy Forum recommended that such an ordinance be adopted. The Tax Policy
Forum included over 100 members from the business community, civic organizations and
government. The report of the Forum noted the confusion caused by the system:
Reflect accurate full market values on tax bills.
When a residential taxpayer in Cook County receives an
assessment notice or tax bill, the "market value" printed on the bill
may not correspond to the property's true market value. This
discrepancy creates confusion and distrust of the entire system.
Some taxpayers fail to file an assessment appeal because, though
their taxes may seem high, a low market value suggests that taxes
could actually go up under the scrutiny of an appeal. Other
taxpayers file unwarranted appeals because they are unfamiliar
with the process ofcomparing their bill's "market value" with that
of similar properties nearby. (Exhibit C - Executive Summary of
the Property Tax Forum, p. 5).
The Tax Policy Forum noted that the old classification system was identified as a reason for a
lack of competitiveness of Cook County to surrounding counties, an issue that remains even
more true today:
Today, the classification system is widely blamed for reducing
competitiveness of Cook County businesses and discouraging new
development, in particular on the Cook County side of the border
with the collar cotinties. Also, the "spread" of the system from the
lowest to the highest levels of assessment may exceed the 2.5 to 1
limit set by the lllinois Constitution according to the Illinois
Department of Revenue. Restructuring the classification system
would address both the competitive and constitutional issues. (!d.
p.14).
The Tax Policy Forum went on to recommend a classification ordinance that is very similar to
the Ordinance passed by the Cook County Board (Id. p. 14).
Since the original endorsement by over 100 members of the business community, CIVIC
organizations and government, the Ordinance has been endorsed by civic, business and
government leaders. In a letter to Board President Todd Stroger, Laurence Msall, President of
the Civic Federation, in part, states that the Ordinance:
'" will accomplish two worthy goals. First, it will clarify
assessments for the owners of all property types by more closely
aligning assessment level with market values. ... producing a
more comprehensible and transparent system for property
owners.. ... reducing the assessmentS levels from seven to two....
Will simplify the administration of assessments and make the
system easier for property owners and observers to understand.
The Civic Federation strongly believes that the Cook County
property tax system is excessively complex and applauds this step
towards greater simplicity. We fully support this move due to the
transparency and simplicity it will bring to the system.
(Exhibit D.).
J. Thomas Johnson, President of the Taxpayer's Federation of Illinois, also wrote to President
Stroger in support of the Ordinance·and states "We believe changes are appropriate at this time.
Greater transparency is a requirement of the taxpayer's better understanding of a relatively
complex system." (Exhibit E.).
Even the Mayor's Property Tax Advisory Council, which included twenty-six experts and
authorities on the property tax system including yourself and the Chief of Staff for each of the
other two Board of Review's Commissioners, affIrmed the Ordinance for its transparency to the
system:
... the Cook county Assessor recently proposed changes to the
classification system to assess residential .property at 10 %
assessment level and other property at 25% assessment level. The
intent of this change is to make it easier for the taxpayer to
understand his or her assessment as it relates to the market value of
his or her property. (Exhibit F.).
RECALIBRATION
JUSTIFIED
AND
OF NON-TRIENNIEL ASSESSMENTS IS WARRANTED,
STATUTORILY, L~GALLY AND METHODOLOGICALLY
SUPPORTED.
As you know, the Cook County Assessor is charged with the duty to value and assesses all
parcels in the County. The Assessor is statutorily charged with ascertaining and determining the
fair cash value of each town or city lot or parcel of land and of each improvement. (35 ILCS
200/16-8.).
Pursuant to the Illinois Property Tax Code, the Cook County Assessor has the authority to assess
all property or if necessary equalize' all property, including those in non-kiennial years if
appropriate. The Property Tax Code provides:
... the county assessor shall have authority annually to revise the
assessment books and correct them as appears to be just; and on
complaint in writing in proper form by any taxpayer, and after
affording the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard thereon, he or
she shall do so at any time, until the assessment is verified... (§ 35
ILCS 200/9-85.)
The legal authority in Illinois permits an annual reassessment of property and permits assessment
corrections in a non-triennial years if those adjustments are warranted. See Goodfriend v. Board
of Appeals, 18 Ill. App. 3d 412,305 N.E.2d 404, 1973, (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1973).
The Assessor's Office is responsible for the assessment of approximately 1.8 million parcels.
From time to time, mistakes and corrections are necessary. To the extent that irregularities,
omissions or improper methodology occur, they will not defeat or vitiate an assessment. See
People ex. rei. Schlaeger v. Buena Vista Building Corp., 396 Ill. 164, 71 N.E.2d 10.
The Assessor's Office was legally compelled to comply with the new Ordinance for 2009. The
Assessor's Office was also compelled to provide notice and afford all property owners an
opportunity to be heard if their assessments were impacted by the Ordinance. The Assessor's
Office complied with these requirements for the 2009 assessment year. See Lindheimer v.
Nelson, 369 Ill. 312316, 16 N.E.2d 734.), People ex ref. Edgar v. National Box Co., 248 Ill. 141,
93 N.E. 778.
Some of the questions and concerns set forth in your letter center around the methodology
implemented by the Assessor's Office for the 2009 assessment. However, the concerns are
unwarranted. Even if the Assessor's Office's methodology is wrong or mistakes are made, the
assessment is valid The caselaw shows, and the courts have consistently held, that even failing
to comply with the Illinois Property Tax Code is insufficient to defeat the assessment. (See for
example People ex rei. Smith v. eoen, 415 Ill. 73, ll2 N.E.2d ll9, People ex reI. Ball v.
Anderson, 21 Ill. 2d 396, 172 N.E.2d 760, appeal dismissed, 368 U.S. 18, 7 L. Ed. 2d 86, 82 S.
Ct. 137; Farmers & Merchants Bank v. City of Vandalia, 57 Ill. App. 681.), People v. Kimmel,
323 Ill. 261, 154N.E. 97.
Illinois courts have held that no error or informality in the proceedings of any of the officers
connected with the assessment, levying or collection of the taxes, not affecting the substantial
justice of the tax itself: shall vitiate or in any manner affect the tax or the assessment. People ex
ref. Schaegler v. Buena Vista Building Corp., 396 lll. 164,71 N.E.2d 10.
The Illinois Property Tax Code provides that the lien date for determining value and determining
the assessment is January 1st of the assessment year at issue. Specifically, the Illinois Property
Tax Code provides in part:
.... determine as near as practicable the value of each property
listed for taxation as of January 1 of that year, or as provided in
Section 9-180 (35 ILCS 200/9-180], and assess the property at 33
1/3% of its fair cash value, or in accordance with Sections 10-110
through 10-140 and 10-170 through 10-200 (35 ILCS 200/10-110
through 35 ILCS 200/10-140 and 35 ILCS 200/10-170 through 35
ILCS 200/10-200], or in accordance with a county ordinance
adopted under Section 4 of Article IX of the Constitution of
Illinois. The assessor or deputy shall set down, in the books
furnished for that purpose the assessed valuation of properties in
one column, the assessed value of improvements in another, and
the total valuation in a separate column. (§ 35 ILCS 200/9-155.).
The Property Tax Code mandates that all real property in Cook County is assessed at the
Ordinance level as of the lien date for the assessment year at issue. Accordingly, each parcel of
real property in Cook County must be valued and assessed as of the January 1st lien date. In this
case, the revised Ordinance is applicable and the lien date is January 1, 2009. All parcels under
the Ordinance are required by law to be valued and assessed as of January 1,2009 at the revised
levels.
Annually, the Illinois Department of Revenue is tasked with performing a sales ratio analysis of
each of the classes of real property by township and by triad reassessment district. The Illinois
Property Tax Code reads in part:
The Department shall monitor the quaiity of local assessments by
designing, preparing and using ratio studies, and shall use the results as the
basis for equalization decisions. (§ 35 ILCS 200/17-5.).
For your convenience, I have attached copies ofthe most recent sales ratio analysis conducted by
the Illinois Department of Revenue. (Exhibit G. - The Illinois Department of Revenue Sales
Ratio Studies).
The analysis considers the initial assessment made by the Cook County
Assessor's Office and the impact of reductions made by the Board of Review. This year, the
nlinois Department of Revenue is once again expected to perform a sales ratio analysis. This
sales ratio analysis is one of the first steps in the equalization process conducted by the Illinois
Department of Revenue.
The Illinois Department of Revenue's sales ratio analysis of Cook County assessments and its
resulting impact on effective property tax rates has also been analyzed by other organizations.
(See for example Exhibit I - The Civic Federation's Effective Property Tax Rates 1999-2007:
Selected Municipalities in Northeastern Illinois. September 18, 2009).
As you know, in every county except Cook County, boards of review are also required to
conduct an equalization process:
The board of review shall act as an equalization authority, if after
equalization by the supervisor of assessments the equalized assessed value
of property is not 33 1/3% of the total fair cash value. (§ 35 ILCS 200/1665.).
Equalization is not only mandated throughout the State but is a widely accepted and valid
methodology fot establishing assessed values. Ratio studies and the resulting equalization is not
only used by the lllinois Department of Revenue and Boards of Review but also is a valid
internal method employed by Assessors. (See Exhibit H ~ International Association of Assessing
OfficersStandard on Ratio Studies, approved July 2007).
The 2009 notice of reassessment was legally sufficient. Taxpayers.received proper notice of the
revisions of their assessments and have had and will have opportunities to be heard. The
Assessor's Office's notice satisfies all due process requirements. People ex reI. Ball v.
Anderson, 21 Ill. 2d 396, 172 N.E.2d 760, appeal dismissed, 368 U.S. 18, 7 L. Ed. 2d 86, 82 S.
Ct. 137; Goodfriend v. Board of Appeals, 18 lll. App. 3d 412,305 N.E.2d 404.
The assessment placed on all parcels for 2009 must not be wholly ignored or usurped. The law
presumes that, in fixing the value of property, that the taxing authorities have properly
discharged their duties and that the tax is just. People ex reI. Smith v. Coen, 415 Ill. 73, 112
N.E.2d 119 (1953). This presumption of correctness must be overcome by clear and convincing
evidence. (People ex reI. Toman v. Marine Trust Co. 375 IlL 488.).
The burden of proving the assessment of the property to be excessive is on the objecting
taxpayer. The proof must be by clear and convincing evidence. ( Kankakee County Board of
Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board (1989), 131 lll. 2d 1, 22, 544 N.E.2d 762, 771, 136 Ill.
Dec. 76; La Grange Bank # 1713 v. Du Page County Board of Review (1979), 79 IlL App. 3d
474,480-81,398 N.E.2d 992, 998, 35 IlL Dec. 42.).
Historic assessments or market values on parcels from past years do not dictate the assessments
or values of those parcels as of the January 1, 2009 lien date. The constitution, statues and legal
authority do not support a historical assessment approach that ignores the January 1 lien date. No
legal authority exists that dictates market values or assessments must remain stagnant and
unchanged for the 2009 assessment year.
The Assessor's Office believes that the Board of Review request for data and information
exceeds' that which is contemplated by the Property Tax Code. However, this Office will, to the
fullest extent possible, assist the BOR. The Assessor's Office responds to each REQUEST as
follows:
REQUEST: AINQ- Printouts of the most current assessment information for Property Index
Number.
RESPONSE: The BOR currently has access to the information requested. The cost and time
prohibIt us from printing the approxImately 1.8 million pages requested by the BOR. However,
if you wish us to coordinate .enhanced access to these electronic records through County
Management Information Systems (though we are currently uncertain if any enhancement
greater than current access can even be obtained), please contact my staff and we will be happy
to assist you.
REQUEST: ASIQ - Printouts of the historical summarized assessment history of a parceL
RESPONSE: The BOR currently has access to the information requested. The cost prohibits the
Assessor's Office from printing the approximately 1.8 million pages that the BOR has
requested. However, if you wish us 'to coordinate enhanced access to these electronic records
through County Management Information Systems (though we are currently uncertain if any
enhancement greater than current access can even be obtained), please contact my staff and we
will be happy to assist you.
REQUEST: Face Sheets- One page printout of land and improvement detail with· assessment
history of parcel.
RESPONSE: The BOR currently has access to the information requested. The cost and time
prohibit us from printing the approximately 1.8 million pages requested by the BOR However,
if you wish us to coordinate enhanced access to these electronic records through County
Management Information Systems (though we are currently uncertain if any enhancement
greater than current access can even be obtained), please contact my staff and we will be happy
to assist you.
REQUEST: 4901 Forms- Field sketch records for residential properties.
RESPONSE: The cost and time prohibit us from printing the approximately 1.8 million pages
requested by the BOR These records are available for inspection and copying. Please contact
my staff to coordinate appropriate times for inspection and copying.
REQUEST: 4904/4905 Forms - Field sketch records of the Commercial/Industrial property
characteristics of the property.
RESPONSE: The cost and time prohibit us from printing the approximately 1.8 million pages
requested by the BOR These records are available for inspection and copying. Please contact
my staff to coordinate appropriate times for inspection and copying.
REQUEST: The Property Record Card - Assessment information for a given property going
back numerous years.
RESPONSE: The BOR currently has access to the property record cards, which are also known
as AINQs. The cost and time prohibit us from printing the approximately 1.8 million pages
requested by the BOR
However, if you wish us to coordinate enhanced access to these
electronic records through County Management Information Systems (though we are currently
uncertain if any enhancement greater than current access can even be obtained), please contact
my staff and we will be happy to assist you.
REQUEST: ASAL Sale Printouts - Recent sales information on a given property.
RESPONSE: The Assessor's Office will forward a letter to MIS authorizing the BOR's access to
the requested printouts.
REQUEST: Appeal Dockets - Taxpayer submitted documentation as well as a copy of the final
valuation resUlt.
RESPONSE: These records are available for inspection and copying. Please contact my staff to
coordinate appropriate times for inspection and copying.
REQUEST: Division Petition Document - Formal request for the division or conSolidation of a
parcel or parcels.
RESPONSE: These records are available for inspection and copying. Please contact my staff to
coordinate appropriate times for inspection and copying.
REQUEST: Division Worksheet - Assessor's copy of the written division worked a
PetitionIDocument request.
RESPONSE: These records are available for inspection and copying. Please contact my staff to
coordinate appropriate times for inspection and copying.
REQUEST: Permits - Assessor's record of the field inspection resulting from a municipal permit
on a given parceL
RESPONSE: These records are available for inspection and copying. Please contact my staff to
coordinate appropriate times for inspection and copying.
REQUEST: Homeowner and Senior Exemption Renewal Cards - hard copy of the exemption
application signed by the taxpayer.
RESPONSE: For 2007, 2008, and 2009 Homeowner and Senior Exemptions did not require a
renewal card.
REQUEST: Assessment Notices - Mailings from the Assessor's Office that notify a taxpayer of
any increase in assessment.
,RESPONSE: The Notices are available on the Cook County Assessor's Website located at
www.cookcountyassessor.com.
The cost and time prohibit us from printing the approximately
1.8 million pages requested by the BOR.
REQUEST: Assessor1s Assessment Roll (A-Roll) Fiche - A list on microfiche of the Certified
Final Assessments from the Assessor for a given tax year.
RESPONSE: These records are available for inspection and copying. Please contact my staff to
coordinate appropriate times for inspection and copying.
REQUEST: Board of Appeals Assessment Roll (A-Roll) Fische - A list on microfiche of the
Certified Final Assessments from the Board of Appeals for a given tax year.
RESPONSE: This appears to bea request for a record of the Board of Review.
In addition to the records, information and documents provides above, the Assessor's Office is
providing to the Board of Review with this letter the following information and documentation:
The Taxpayer's
(Exhibit E.).
Federation of lllinois'
letter endorsing the Ordinance
International Association of Assessing Officers Standard on Ratio Studies,
approved July 2007 (Exhibit H).
.
The Civic Federation's Effective Property Tax Rates 1999-2007: Selected
Municipalities in Northeastern Illinois, September 18,2009. (Exhibit f).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Board of Review with a historic perspective,
support, and materials to review and consider. While there may be some initial challenges, the
Ordinance will offer the transparency that taxpayers need to make well informed decisions
related to their property tax assessments.
The Assessor's Office welcomes and invites members ofthe Board of Review to meet with us to
discuss matters related to the Ordinance.
es M. Houlihan
Cook County Assessor