Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

September 30, 2013

KRAFT FOODS, INC., Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD, KANE COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, CITY OF AURORA, and WEST AURORA SCHOOL DISTRICT #129, Respondents.

Held [*]

On appeal, respondent Property Tax Appeal Board’s decision that the industrial property leased and used as a distribution center by petitioner had an assessed value of $13.3 million was upheld over petitioner’s claim that the assessed value was $10.7 million, since weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses were matters for the Board, and under the circumstances, the Board’s decision, after considering the testimony of the appraisers presented by the parties, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Petition for review of order of Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, No. 07-03035.001-C-3.

Patrick C. Doody, of Law Offices of Patrick C. Doody, of Chicago, for petitioner.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Valerie J. Quinn, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board.

Joshua S. Whitt and Brittany Flaherty Theis, both of Whitt Law LLC, of Aurora, for respondents City of Aurora and West Aurora School District #129.

Presiding Justice Burke and Justice Zenoff concurred in the judgment and opinion

OPINION

SCHOSTOK, JUSTICE

¶1 This is an action for direct review of a final administrative decision of the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB or Board). In its decision, the PTAB concluded that, for purposes of tax year 2007, the industrial property leased and occupied by taxpayer Kraft Foods, Inc. (Kraft), had a total assessed value of $13, 312, 000, reflecting a fair market value of $40 million. Kraft, claiming an assessed value of $10, 791, 000 and a fair market value of $30 million, has appealed from the PTAB's decision. We confirm the PTAB's decision.

¶2 BACKGROUND

¶3 The property at issue is Kraft's industrial warehouse distribution center located at 1700 North Edgelawn Drive in Aurora Township, Kane County. The property consists of 2, 160, 822 square feet of land that is improved with an 860, 248-square-foot, one-story, partially air-conditioned building constructed in 2003. The building contains 19, 477 square feet of office space, with the 840, 771-square-foot balance used as a warehouse distribution center. There are 93 exterior truck docks on the east and west elevations of the building. The land-to-building ratio is 2.51:1. The large amount of land area allows for ample parking: there are 307 customer/employee parking spaces, and 234 truck trailer parking stalls.

¶4 The property was encumbered by a 10-year build-to-suit lease agreement that commenced March 8, 2003. Kraft was the sole tenant and had options for two 10-year periods. The monthly rent for the first five years of the lease was $4.35 per square foot of building area. The lease was a triple-net lease, under which the tenant paid for utilities, taxes, insurance, and maintenance, and the landlord paid for structural repairs only. For the second five years of the lease, the rent increased to $4.49 per square foot. In January 2006, in a bulk-sale transaction, the subject property sold for $62, 858, 000, or $73.07 per square foot.

¶5 On March 10, 2008, the Kane County Board of Review assessed the property for tax year 2007 at $13, 679, 281, which reflected a market value of $41, 103, 609. Kraft subsequently appealed the Board of Review's decision to the PTAB, arguing that the Board of Review's assessed value was excessive. The Board of Review did not respond to Kraft's appeal. However, both the City of Aurora and West Aurora School District #129 (collectively referred to as Aurora) were granted permission to intervene.

¶6 At the hearing before the PTAB, Kraft presented the testimony of appraiser Terrance McCormick. He estimated that the value of the subject property was $30 million. Aurora presented the testimony of appraiser James Gibbons. Gibbons estimated that the value of the subject property was $43.3 million. Below, we set forth only those facts necessary to an understanding of the issues in this appeal.

¶7 Kraft's Appraisal

¶8 McCormick, a real estate appraiser with 32 years' experience, testified that he applied the three traditional approaches to value in order to arrive at an estimate of the market value of the property. Under the cost approach, he arrived at an estimated value of $31 million. Under the income approach, he arrived at an estimated value of $29.3 million. However, he placed the most weight on the sales comparison approach. In conjunction with that approach, he considered five comparable sales.

¶9 Comparable Sale 1 was in Aurora, Naperville Township, Du Page County. It was a one-story, concrete-panel-constructed, multiple-tenant warehouse distribution industrial building containing 315, 799 square feet and situated on a 739, 213-square-foot parcel of land. The building was constructed in 2000 and had 1.8% office space, 32-foot clear ceiling heights, 37 exterior truck-height docks, 3 drive-in truck doors, and a sprinkler system. The building was in average physical condition for its age. The building was last sold in December 2007 for $12.8 million. The unit price was $40.53 per square foot of building area, including land.

¶10 Comparable Sale 2 was in Aurora, Aurora Township, Kane County. It was a one-story, concrete-panel-constructed, multiple-tenant warehouse distribution industrial building containing 383, 948 square feet and situated on a 780, 595-square-foot parcel of land. The building was constructed in 2002 and had 1% office space, 30-foot clear ceiling heights, 41 exterior truck-height docks, 2 drive-in truck doors, and a sprinkler system. The building was in average physical condition for its age. The building was last sold in April 2007 for $18.1 million. The unit price was $47.14 per square foot of building area, including land.

¶11 Comparable Sale 3 was in Romeoville, Will County. It was a one-story, concrete-panel-constructed, multiple-tenant warehouse distribution industrial building containing 471, 453 square feet and situated on a 1, 000, 573-square-foot parcel of land. The building was constructed in 2004 and had 2% office space, 30-foot clear ceiling heights, 48 exterior truck-height docks, 3 drive-in truck doors, and a sprinkler system. The building was in average physical condition for its age. The building was last sold in June 2006 for $16, 502, 500. The unit price was $35 per square foot of building area, including land.

¶12 Comparable Sale 4 was in Joliet, Will County. It was a one-story, steel-framed, concrete-panel-constructed, multiple-tenant warehouse distribution industrial building containing 474, 432 square feet and situated on a 1, 446, 323-square-foot parcel of land. The building was constructed in 2006 and had 2% office space, 30-foot clear ceiling heights, 140 exterior truck-height docks, 4 drive-in truck doors, and a sprinkler system. The building was in average physical condition for its age. The building was last sold in February 2007 for $18.25 million. The unit price was $38.47 per square foot of building area, including land.

ΒΆ13 Comparable Sale 5 was in Romeoville. It was a one-story, steel-framed, concrete-panel-constructed, multiple-tenant warehouse distribution industrial building containing 652, 056 square feet and situated on a 1, 151, 421-square-foot parcel of land. The building was constructed in 2007 and had 2% office space, 30-foot clear ceiling heights, 76 exterior truck-height docks, 3 drive-in truck doors, and a sprinkler system. The building was in average physical condition for its age. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.