{ "id": 4291122, "name": "THE COOK COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, Petitioner, v. THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD et al., Respondents", "name_abbreviation": "Cook County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board", "decision_date": "2009-11-13", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201408\u20142703", "first_page": "776", "last_page": "788", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "395 Ill. App. 3d 776" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "31 Ill. Reg. 16240", "category": "laws:admin_register", "reporter": "Ill. Reg.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill. Reg. 7914", "category": "laws:admin_register", "reporter": "Ill. Reg.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill. Reg. 1247", "category": "laws:admin_register", "reporter": "Ill. Reg.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "780 N.E.2d 691", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" }, { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 Ill. App. 3d 1038", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1209187 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1044" }, { "page": "1044" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/331/1038-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 L. Ed. 746", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "766" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 U.S. 364", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157998 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "395" }, { "page": "542" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/333/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "763 N.E.2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" }, { "page": "280-81" }, { "page": "280-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 Ill. 2d 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 29956 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "392" }, { "page": "393" }, { "page": "393" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/198/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "902 N.E.2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660" }, { "page": "660" }, { "page": "660" }, { "page": "660" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Ill. 2d 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3619580 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "243" }, { "page": "243" }, { "page": "243" }, { "page": "243-44" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/232/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "886 N.E.2d 1011", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1018" }, { "page": "1018" }, { "page": "1018" }, { "page": "1018" }, { "page": "1018" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 Ill. 2d 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5706718 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "210" }, { "page": "210" }, { "page": "210" }, { "page": "210" }, { "page": "210" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/228/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "844 N.E.2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 Ill. App. 3d 646", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5766698 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/363/0646-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ill. Reg. 3721", "category": "laws:admin_register", "reporter": "Ill. Reg.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1237, "char_count": 30738, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.3866533271208e-08, "percentile": 0.4423586085520816 }, "sha256": "674299f268f0c8b8a7e83b2895307d6b309a6522fe6d3367488c98373f7312ff", "simhash": "1:e7e7c4120424ec43", "word_count": 4921 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:58:02.073967+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE COOK COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, Petitioner, v. THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD et al., Respondents." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE TOOMIN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn the instant matter, we consider the quantum and quality of evidence submitted in a real estate assessment appeal and the interplay of the administrative rules on the content of those proceedings. Following a hearing, the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision modifying the assessed value of the property at issue for 2003, 2004, and 2005. Thereafter, the Cook County Board of Review (Board) petitioned for review of the PTAB\u2019s order. On appeal, the Board contends that (1) the PTAB erred as a matter of law in reducing the assessed value of the property; and (2) the findings as to the market value and tax assessment were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Both the PTAB and the Fulton House Condominium Association (Fulton House) are responsive parties to this action. For the following reasons, we affirm the PTAB\u2019s decision.\nBACKGROUND\nThe subject property is located at 345 N. Canal Street in Chicago, Illinois. It is improved with a 16-story building comprised of 94 residential condominium units, 18 commercial units, and 1 industrial unit. Originally built in 1905, the property was utilized as a cold storage facility until 1978. In 1980 and 1981 it was renovated to its current status as a mixed-use building.\nThe Board issued tax assessments on the property of $2,874,995 for 2003 and $2,884,333 for both 2004 and 2005. These amounts were based upon an estimated market value of $14,857,490. In turn, Fulton House appealed each of these assessments to the PTAB. These appeals were consolidated before the PTAB and Fulton House and the Board each submitted documentation for the PTAB\u2019s consideration. Fulton House provided an appraisal prepared by Schlitz Appraisal Services, Inc. (SAS), a professional appraisal company. The Board\u2019s submissions consisted of a document entitled, \u201cBoard of Review Notes on Appeal,\u201d as well as three memoranda prepared by employees of the Board or the Cook County assessor\u2019s office. After the administrative record was closed, a hearing was convened before a hearing officer on October 18, 2007.\nFulton House called Robert Schlitz, the president of SAS, to testify regarding the appraisal he prepared for the subject property. Schlitz was tendered as an expert in the area of condominium appraisals. Based on his qualifications, designations, and experience in conducting thousands of condominium appraisals, the hearing officer accepted the proffer. Schlitz\u2019s testimony essentially concerned the appraisal report he prepared and submitted to the PTAB.\nSchlitz testified that he appraised the subject property on numerous occasions during his professional career, including twice when he was employed by the assessor and as many as six times subsequently in private practice. For the purposes of the instant appeal, an appraisal was prepared by SAS with an \u201ceffective date of value of January 1, 2003.\u201d Schlitz described the history of the building, its makeup, the problems associated with it over time, and its condition at the time of the appraisal, which he described as \u201caverage.\u201d He likewise described the building as an average condominium, rather than a deluxe condominium. Schlitz valued the property based on the three traditional approaches used in establishing property values, namely, cost, income, and market with adaptations. He relied most heavily on the sales approach in assigning a value to the property, as this is the traditional approach.\nUtilizing the \u201cdirect sales approach,\u201d the land on which the building is situated was valued at $900,000 \u201cAs Though Vacant.\u201d This value was arrived at based on comparisons and evaluations of sales of comparable properties in the immediate area of the building. The appraisal then turned to the \u201cCost Approach to Value.\u201d This method takes into account the estimated value of the property if it were vacant, \u201cestimating the replacement cost new of the improvements and deducting the appropriate accrued depreciation determined from the market of similar improved properties that recently sold.\u201d Utilizing this approach yielded a value of $12,800,000 as reconciled.\nThe appraisal report then utilized the \u201cIncome Approach to Value\u201d or \u201cIncome Capitalization Approach.\u201d This method looks at \u201cthe net present worth of the property\u2019s prospective current and future potential income and/or benefits during the remainder of its productive life.\u201d While this approach is not typically fully relevant to condominiums as they are most-often owner occupied, because \u201cthe property can not [sic] be sold out as a condominium leasing becomes the only viable alternative and the Declaration permits subletting it must be considered as to valuation.\u201d This methodology likewise considered comparable properties in the area. Three values were ascertained, a \u201cMortgage Equity\u201d value of $11,220,198, a \u201cGross Income Multiplier\u201d value of $12,253,494, and a \u201cDirect Capitalization\u201d value of $12,649,868. Considering these values, the \u201cpurpose and function\u201d of the appraisal, and other relevant factors, SAS concluded that the value of the property would fall somewhere between these three values. The report concluded that by using the income approach, the building had a value of $12,250,000.\nThe appraisal report next examined the \u201cDirect Sales Comparison Approach to Value.\u201d The report describes this approach as follows:\n\u201cIn the Sales Comparison Approach, sales and offerings of similar type properties are analyzed and adjusted for a value indication of the property being appraised. This approach reflects the actions of buyers and sellers in the market and is primarily based upon the principle of substitution.\u201d\nIn this case, the analysis focused on properties that were converted to residential use, like the subject property. This method of determination yielded a value of $12,750,000 for the property.\nA subset of the sales comparison approach was a multiple regression analysis, which involves examining individual sales, when they took place, the sale price, the unit\u2019s percent of ownership, location in the building, the floor height, number of bathrooms and bedrooms, the buyer and seller, the real estate taxes, the tax rate, information from the recorder of deeds on prior sales, and mortgage and financing information on the most recent sale. This methodology compared \u201csales within the subject to one another.\u201d Schlitz did not think it was possible to validly evaluate the units as a whole without taking these factors into account because of the way he believed they influenced the value. Here again, the property was appraised at a value of $12,750,000. His report also included a detailed table applying the multiple regression analysis to each of the individual units in the subject building thereby providing a value for each. The total value of $12,750,000 was similarly broken down reflecting an aggregate value for the residential, mixed-use, commercial and industrial units by category.\nAccording to Schlitz, this methodology was not utilized by the assessor\u2019s office for cooperatives or condominiums \u201cdue to lack of reliable data and inadequate staff.\u201d Nevertheless, it was used on all other types of residential real estate, including town homes, single-family homes, and apartments consisting of up to six units.\nThe report determined the value of the property in several stages. First it noted that the appraisal was based upon \u201c82 total sales over time and the 20 most recent individual sales of units in the Subject.\u201d First, the \u201cAggregate Retail Future Value @ 100% Sellout\u201d was estimated to be \u201c$13,807,610 to $14,160,193 \u2018As Projected.\u2019 \u201d It was then noted how the values established as to cost, income capitalization, and sales comparison were\n\u201cadapted to conform to Illinois Law, the Condominium Property Act, Uniform Standards Principles of Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the condominium concept. Any minor differences in the value conclusions reached, together with market trends, were weighted and reconciled in order to arrive at a reconciled estimate of value for the entire property inclusive of the land, units, and common elements components. We have utilized these same sales in a Multiple Regression Analysis to best address the variance in the market for valuation of the individual units. It is our opinion this methodology which is utilized in the Assessment process to value all other residential property is far superior to all other methods.\u201d\nThe \u201cDiscounted Wholesale Present Value Net Present Value\u201d was estimated to be $12,602,056 to $12,842,044 \u201cAs Is.\u201d The \u201cAggregate Retail Market Value\u201d was set at $12,679,457 and the \u201cWholesale Discount Value\u201d was set at $13,973,865. Therefore, the ad valorem value of the property \u201cfor the purposes of real estate taxation as of January 1, 2003,\u201d was a \u201cRetrospective Market Final Value of $12,750,000 \u2018As Reconciled.\u2019 \u201d\nThe hearing officer posed several questions to Schlitz, in addition to several clarifying questions interposed during the direct examination. First, the hearing officer noted that the report appeared to include five sales that took place after the effective date of the appraisal, i.e., after January 1, 2003. Schlitz described those sales as being a part of a second test group that was not used in the report. He explained, \u201cYou hold out sales that occurred after the date and see how well your model also predicts.\u201d The hearing officer likewise inquired as to the basis for the statement in the report that the units in the subject were overassessed. Schlitz explained that this opinion was based upon comparisons with other similar properties in the area and their rates of taxation per square foot. Similarly, the calculation of the value of the air rights on the subject property was set based upon a comparison with a similar property at 300 Canal Street.\nOn further questioning by the hearing officer, Schlitz described the highest and best use of the property as individual condominiums \u201cas approved\u201d and as a mixed-use condominium \u201cas vacant\u201d including larger units and on-site parking. The hearing officer then asked Schlitz to provide a column-by-column explanation of the table establishing values for the individual units in the subject property, which he did in accordance with her questions.\nThe Board\u2019s representative, Matt Panush, then conducted a cross-examination of Schlitz. It was established that the sales utilized in the report matched up with those used by the Board. Schlitz noted that the sales he utilized in preparing the report were verified by second and even third sources to assure their accuracy. Panush inquired specifically about why there was a discrepancy between the price shown for a particular unit sale in the report versus the sale price noted by the Board. Schlitz explained that he could not say where the Board\u2019s price came from, but he explained that the prices he used were obtained from either the sale participants, the recorder\u2019s office, the multiple listing service, or other sources. Regardless of the source, though, the prices were subjected to second-source verification.\nPanush claimed that nearly one-third of the 30 sales used had discrepancies in the sale price. Yet, at the same time, he conceded the existence of problems in obtaining accurate information for a variety of reasons. Fulton House\u2019s counsel objected to the offering of this evidence as hearsay and because several of the questioned sales occurred after the effective date of the appraisal and were, therefore, not relevant. The hearing officer overruled the objection, reasoning that the information was timely submitted and contained in the PTAB record. As to relevance, the hearing officer overruled the objection and indicated \u201cwe\u2019ll let PTAB accord the proper weight to the documentation.\u201d\nThe hearing officer next considered the materials submitted by the Board. Panush explained a \u201cSummary\u201d included in the record as follows:\n\u201cWe believe that just over 85 percent of this building is residential use and the remaining part of it being commercial use.\nWe have gone ahead and Tom Jaconetty [then-chief deputy of the Cook County Board of Review] has determined that the commercial units in the building has [sic] a market value of roughly 1.8 million. We also concluded that the residential portion has a market value of roughly 21,750,000. When combined, we end up with the commercial and residential units, a total market value of 23,592,680 for the entire building both residential and commercial.\u201d\nAnother memorandum prepared by Panush addressed itself to 30 sales of residential units in the subject property. For each unit there was an allocation of $3,000 for \u201cpersonal property.\u201d Based on these considerations, the market value for the residential portion of the property was estimated at $21,656,908. In turn, an estimated value of $25,346,686 was determined for the entirety of the subject property. These values were reached by calculating the total consideration of the 30 individual sales, less the personal property allocation, and the percentage interest in the building these sales represented, specifically 25.02911%, to establish the full value of the building. That figure was then multiplied by the residential percentage, 85.44276%, to yield the estimated value of the residential units.\nThen, regarding another submission consisting of a printout and numerous handwritten calculations and computations, Panush offered the following:\n\u201cAll over the page these are Tom Jaconetty\u2019s notes. He seems to be using different methodologies to try and determine what the commercial and industrial \u2014 I think there\u2019s one PIN actually that has an 8/5/89 indicating industrial PIN in this building trying to come up with a value for the commercial and industrial portion of this building.\nIt looks like the different methodologies that he\u2019s used. He came up with several different numbers and for some reason he seemed to have signed off on a market value of 2,875,000 which is not consistent with what he has in his summary which is the commercial unit being 1,842,000.\nAll of the numbers that he has on this page, whatever method he used, one seems to be using a sales approach, one seems to be using a price per square foot. Whatever approach he used, he came out to a much higher number than he summarized at 1,842,000.\u201d\nIn addition, there were several printouts reflecting sales of units over time. According to Panush, these documents were included to show the Board\u2019s belief that \u201cthe market value is definitely trending up.\u201d Specifically, there was approximately a 12% average increase in the units noted in the printouts. In response to the hearing officer\u2019s inquiry as to the value for the commercial units, Panush conceded that he could not explain how Mr. Jaconetty established them.\nPanush was then called as a witness by Fulton House. He testified that he did not independently verify any of the sales by either reviewing the deeds or talking to the parties. Additionally, no adjustments were made on any of the sales as to the timing, conditions, or location of the property in the subject property. Moreover, Panush had not discussed the valuations with Jaconetty since the initial decision was rendered by the Board of Review. Consequently, his review of the submissions attributed to Jaconetty were interpretations made to the best of his ability as to their meaning.\nSchlitz was recalled in rebuttal and clarified some of his prior testimony. Specifically, he noted that although some sales after January 1, 2003, were included in his report, the vast majority predated the effective date of the appraisal. Moreover, he would rely more heavily on sales prior to January 1, 2003, in creating his report than those that came later.\nThe PTAB then took the matter under advisement and ultimately issued its decision on August 29, 2008. In our opinion, the decision thoroughly and completely recited the evidence presented and the testimony heard at the hearing. Citing section 1910.65(c) of title 86 of the Illinois Administrative Code (86 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a71910.65(c), amended at 21 Ill. Reg. 3721, eff. March 6, 1997), the PTAB noted that \u201cProof of market value may consist of an appraisal, a recent arm\u2019s length sale of the subject property, recent sales of comparable properties, or recent construction costs of the subject property.\u201d Based upon the evidence presented, the PTAB determined a partial reduction and a partial increase in the tax assessment was warranted.\nIn turn, the PTAB determined the best evidence of fair market value was found in the SAS appraisal and supporting testimony. Specifically, the PTAB viewed with favor the approaches used by the appraiser, his background and experience, and the myriad factors considered in reaching his value calculations. Conversely, the PTAB \u201caceord[ed] little weight to the board of review\u2019s evidence for: an unrecognized methodology was employed containing only a limited number of unit sales with the building; an arbitrary amount deducted for personal property; and no adjustments made for the units\u2019 characteristics.\u201d Therefore, the market value expressed in the SAS appraisal was adopted for the 2003, 2004, 2005 triennial assessment period. Moreover, Fulton House\u2019s request that the assessment values roll forward throughout the period was granted.\nThe Board now appeals contending the PTAB\u2019s decision was in error as a matter of law due its reliance on the SAS appraisal to establish the market value. The Board asserts that because the appraisal did not rely on the recent sales within the subject property, it violated the rule of uniformity and improperly disregarded the Board\u2019s evidence of recent sales. Additionally, the Board contends that the PTAB\u2019s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nANALYSIS\nAt the outset, we acknowledge that our review of decisions of the PTAB is governed by the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3\u2014 101 et seq. (West 2008)). 35 ILCS 200/16 \u2014 195 (West 2008); Consumers IL Water Co. v. Vermilion County Board of Review, 363 Ill. App. 3d 646, 649, 844 N.E.2d 71, 73 (2006). The scope of our review extends to \u201call questions of law and fact presented by the entire record\u201d before us. 735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 110 (West 2008). Moreover, \u201cThe findings and conclusions of the administrative agency on questions of fact shall be held to be prima facie true and correct.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 110 (West 2008). As a reviewing court, we do not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the administrative agency. Cinkus v. Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210, 886 N.E.2d 1011, 1018 (2008). Therefore, we will not reverse the factual findings of an administrative agency unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210, 886 N.E.2d at 1018. Conversely, an agency\u2019s determination on a question of law is not binding on us, rendering our review \u201cindependent and not deferential.\u201d Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210, 886 N.E.2d at 1018.\nWe recognize that administrative review proceedings present three different types of questions: those of fact, those of law, and mixed questions of law and fact. Cook County Republican Party v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 232 Ill. 2d 231, 243, 902 N.E.2d 652, 660 (2009). In turn, each type of question engenders a different standard of review. Factual determinations are subject to reversal only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Republican Party, 232 Ill. 2d at 243, 902 N.E.2d at 660. Determinations of questions of law are reviewed using a de novo standard. Republican Party, 232 Ill. 2d at 243, 902 N.E.2d at 660; Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210, 886 N.E.2d at 1018. Lastly, mixed questions of law and fact will be reversed on appeal only when they are deemed \u201cclearly erroneous.\u201d Republican Party, 232 Ill. 2d at 243-44, 902 N.E.2d at 660. This intermediate standard of review falls between the manifest weight standard and the de novo standard and accords a measure of deference to the underlying agency decisions. AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 392, 763 N.E.2d 272, 280 (2001). Our supreme court has consistently adhered to the approach that \u201c \u2018[a] finding is \u201cclearly erroneous\u201d when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\u2019 \u201d AFM Messenger Service, 198 Ill. 2d at 393, 763 N.E.2d at 280-81, quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 746, 766, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542 (1948).\nHere, the Board offers a discussion of the standard of review addressing both the de novo standard and the manifest weight standard. However, the Board\u2019s treatment deals only a glancing blow to the issue of the actual standard of review to be utilized with further obfuscation of the matter within the argument. Nevertheless, the Board complains that the PTAB \u201cerred as a matter of law\u201d only to conclude that section with the following: \u201cBased on recent sales data submitted into the record, the PTAB\u2019s finding of market value was also against the manifest weight of the evidence.\u201d The PTAB and Fulton House counter, albeit in subtly different ways, that no question of law is presented and that, instead, the proper standard of review is the manifest weight standard. We agree. A careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the Board reveal that no question of law was addressed by the PTAB and none is properly raised on appeal. Consequently, insofar as the dispositive issues raised on appeal are concerned, we are disposed to review the PTAB\u2019s factual determinations and ultimate conclusion utilizing the manifest weight of the evidence standard. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210, 886 N.E.2d at 1018.\nPrior to conducting our analysis of the PTAB\u2019s ultimate decision, we first consider the forfeiture arguments raised by the PTAB. In its responsive brief the PTAB asserts that the failure of the Board to raise certain issues at the hearing operate as a waiver of those issues on appeal. The PTAB challenges the Board\u2019s argument that \u201cMr. Schlitz\u2019s multiple regression analysis simply results in values that do not reflect the amount of recent sales.\u201d It likewise challenges the Board\u2019s attempt to claim the decision violates the rule of uniformity in the rates of taxation as delineated in article IX, section 4, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX, \u00a74). We recognize that arguments or objections that are not made during the course of the administrative hearing process but instead are raised for the first time on review are deemed waived. National City Bank of Michigan/Illinois v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 331 Ill. App. 3d 1038, 1044, 780 N.E.2d 691, 696 (2002).\nAs to the first challenge, the record clearly reflects that Schlitz was not cross-examined on this point to any meaningful degree. There does not appear to be any argument in the record opposing his calculations. Instead, what the record indeed reflects is limited to an inquiry posed to Schlitz regarding his use or potential use of sales that came after the effective date of the appraisal report. This is a far cry from the Board\u2019s argument offered on appeal. Moreover, the rules of procedure before the PTAB provide:\n\u201cThe board of review must provide substantive, documentary evidence or legal argument sufficient to support its assessment of the subject property or some other, alternate valuation. Failure to do so will result in a decision by the [PTAB] based upon the information submitted by the contesting party and, if applicable, the evidence submitted by any intervening party.\u201d 86 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a71910.63(c), amended at 24 Ill. Reg. 1247, eff. January 5, 2000.\nTherefore, insofar as the Board\u2019s argument relates to a challenge to the degree by which the values obtained in the multiple regression analysis fail to reflect recent sales, it is waived. Likewise, the table included as an appendix to the Board\u2019s brief is hereby stricken. We are guided in this action by section 1910.40(a) of title 86 of the Illinois Administrative Code requiring the Board to submit \u201cThe Board of Review Notes on Appeal and all written and documentary evidence supporting the board of review\u2019s position\u201d within 90 days of the notice of filing of an assessment appeal. 86 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a71910.40(a), amended at 33 Ill. Reg. 7914, eff. July 1, 2009 (amendment increased Board\u2019s time to submit evidence from 30 to 90 days). Additionally, section 3 \u2014 110 of the Administrative Review Law provides, \u201cNo new or additional evidence in support of or in opposition to any finding, order, determination or decision of the administrative agency shall be heard by the court.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 110 (West 2008).\nA similar result obtains with respect to the Board\u2019s uniformity argument. As noted, arguments and objections may not be raised for the first time on appeal. The uniformity argument is unquestionably raised for the first time on appeal. Since this argument was not raised during the administrative proceedings, it fell outside the consideration of the PTAB and cannot now be raised on appeal. See National City Bank, 331 Ill. App. 3d at 1044, 780 N.E.2d at 696; 86 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a71910.90(1), amended at 31 Ill. Reg. 16240, eff. November 26, 2007 (\u201cDecisions of the [PTAB] shall be based on the evidence contained in the administrative record\u201d).\nWe next consider whether the PTAB\u2019s decision in modifying the assessment of the Fulton House property was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Prior to the administrative hearing, both sides had the opportunity to present documentary evidence in support of their position. A review of the record reveals a marked disparity between the quantum of evidence offered by the Board as against that offered by Fulton House. The submissions from Fulton House were significantly comprised of the SAS appraisal report and its related documents. The report itself was an extensively detailed compilation of factual and analytical materials relative to the valuation of the subject property. Conversely, the Board\u2019s submissions consisted of a very limited scope of documents, many of which were of composed of printouts containing handwritten notes in the margin. Although the Board\u2019s representative at the hearing attempted to decipher these materials \u2014 only one of which he clearly produced himself \u2014 even he was challenged to do so. We therefore conclude the Board\u2019s documentation was not particularly cogent and did not provide any sort of meaningful analysis to support the valuation and assessment it established.\nThe same measure of disparity manifested through the course of the hearing. As noted, the majority of the testimony offered came from Fulton House\u2019s appraiser, Robert Schlitz, who testified extensively to the appraisal report he prepared. Schlitz offered detailed explanations of the methodologies he used in preparing the report and answered questions from Fulton House\u2019s counsel, the hearing officer, and the Board\u2019s representative. His testimony also included explanations of specific portions of his report. The Board did not call any witnesses as to valuation per se. Matt Panush did answer some questions posed by the hearing officer as well as when he was called by Fulton House\u2019s counsel. Nonetheless, the Board did not call any witness or present any additional evidence in support of its valuation. Instead, Panush asserted that what was presented by the Board was \u201ca very nice mix\u201d and \u201crepresentative\u201d set of sales within the property. He likewise pointed to the Board\u2019s prior submissions to support its valuation.\nHaving carefully reviewed the record before us, we conclude the PTAB\u2019s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We perceive nothing about the decision that evinces a mistake of any measure permeates its logic or its conclusion. See AFM Messenger Service, 198 Ill. 2d at 393, 763 N.E.2d at 280-81. Likewise, we discern no error on the part of the PTAB in placing significant reliance upon the SAS appraisal report or Schlitz\u2019s testimony thereon. The valuations provided in the report and related testimony were clearly the product of extensive research, comparison, analysis, and evaluation. On the other hand, the valuation evidence offered by the Board was utterly conclusory with little or no foundation or explanation. Although the Board may have disagreed with the process or conclusions of the SAS appraisal, those challenges should have been made during the course of the administrative proceedings through the crucible of cross-examination or by the introduction of competent evidence.\nOur review of the record persuades that the evidence presented in favor of Fulton House\u2019s position was comparatively overwhelming. Although the hearing raised some questions as to certain aspects of the information upon which it was based, those issues do not alter our conclusion. That the Board disagrees with the appraisal report and the resulting PTAB decision is not sufficient to deem that decision against the manifest weight. The Board was given ample time and opportunity to offer evidence to support its position and failed to do so. Nevertheless, the fact that the PTAB raised some assessments while lowering the majority is indicative of the fact that there was evidence weighed in reaching its conclusions. The findings and decision of the PTAB were entirely reasonable, appropriate, and consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision and findings of the Property Tax Appeal Board.\nAffirmed.\nTULLY and FITZGERALD SMITH, JJ, concur.\nAlthough Schlitz did not testify to each and every line of his report, because his testimony and the appraisal report are equally part of the record before us, we treat them as one in the same for the purposes of our review.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE TOOMIN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Anita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Benjamin R. Bilton, and Charles J. Cullinan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for petitioner.", "Thomas J. McNulty and David S. Martin, both of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP of Chicago, for respondent Fulton House Condominium Association.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Carl J. Elitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE COOK COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, Petitioner, v. THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD et al., Respondents.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201408\u20142703\nOpinion filed November 13, 2009.\nAnita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Benjamin R. Bilton, and Charles J. Cullinan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for petitioner.\nThomas J. McNulty and David S. Martin, both of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP of Chicago, for respondent Fulton House Condominium Association.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Carl J. Elitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board." }, "file_name": "0776-01", "first_page_order": 792, "last_page_order": 804 }