STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|BRIARCLIFF VILLAGE, LLC||)||Appeal No. 19-32021|
|)||Parcel/Locator No. 17211000100100|
|Complainant,||)||Appeal No. 19-32022|
|)||Parcel/Locator No. 17211000100105|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 19-32023|
|)||Parcel/Locator No. 17211000100106|
|CATHY RINEHART, ASSESSOR,||)||Appeal No. 19-32024|
|CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)||Parcel/Locator No. 17211000100108|
|)||Appeal No. 19-32025|
|Respondent.||)||Parcel/Locator No. 17211000100110|
DECISION AND ORDER
The decisions of the County Board of Equalization of Clay County (BOE) independently valuing the subject properties are SET ASIDE. Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Respondent presented substantial evidence to support the valuations of the BOE of the subject properties; however, Respondent’s evidence was not as persuasive as Complainant’s evidence.
True value in money (TVM) for the subject properties for tax years 2019 and 2020 is set at $15,100,000, commercial assessed value of $4,832,000.
Briarcliff Village, LLC (Complainant) appeared by counsel Aaron March and Chris Mattix.
Cathy Rinehart, Assessor of Clay County, Missouri (Respondent) appeared by attorney Patricia Hughes.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the BOE, which sustained the valuation of the subject properties. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes these appeals to determine the TVM for the subject properties on January 1, 2019. The value as of January 1 of the odd-numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even-numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the properties. Section 137.115.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Authority. Authority over these appeals is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the STC from the decisions of the BOE.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on June 4, 2020, at Clay County Administration Building, Liberty, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Properties. The subject properties are identified by map parcel number or locator number as follows:
They are further identified as 4151 North Mulberry Drive, Kansas City, Clay County, Missouri. (Ex. A).
- Description of Subject Properties. The Briarcliff Shopping Center is a community shopping center comprised of mixed-use office, retail, and restaurants. Retail and restaurant tenant leases are structured on a triple-net basis where the tenant is required to pay the majority of their operating expenses, including taxes, property insurance, common area maintenance, and sometimes management fees. (Hrg. Tr. at 29:9-19). The office tenant leases are structured as gross leases where the landlord is responsible for paying operating expenses, including taxes. Id.
- Assessment. Respondent and the BOE valued the properties as follows:
|Appeal Number||Respondent TVM||BOE Value|
(Complaints for Review of Assessment)
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant offered into evidence the following exhibits:
|A||Appraisal Report of Alex Hoenig|
|B||Written Direct Testimony of Alex Hoenig|
|C||Objections to Respondent’s Exhibits|
|D||Glossary for Property Appraisal and Assessment-Second Edition|
The exhibits were admitted into the evidentiary record.
Briarcliff’s evidence of value includes a fee simple appraisal report prepared by Alex Hoenig that values the Briarcliff Shopping Center at $15,100,000 as of January 1, 2019. (Complainant’s Ex. B Written Direct Testimony of Alex Hoenig at 127). Mr. Hoenig concluded that the Briarcliff Shopping Center is an investment property and applied the income approach and sales comparison approaches to establish value. (Briarcliff’s Ex. B Written Direct Testimony of Alex Hoenig at 126). After reviewing the actual income and expense information on the Briarcliff Shopping Center, making appropriate adjustments, including a $7.12 per square foot transactional adjustment that converted the triple-net leases to market-rate gross leases, and comparing the market rental rates and expenses of comparable properties, Mr. Hoenig arrived at a value of $15,100,000 for the Briarcliff Shopping Center. Id. He also identified and analyzed sales of comparable in-line retail and office/commercial properties and concluded an overall value for the subject of $15,100,000 under the comparable sales approach. Id. Because these are income-producing properties, Mr. Hoenig relied primarily on the income approach although the sales comparison approach validated the $15,100,000 valuation. Id.
Mr. Hoenig’s income approach applied the direct capitalization method to estimate the Briarcliff Shopping Center’s durable rental income through a reconciliation of the in-place lease terms with market lease data. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 49). The market rent analysis examined current market lease rates for both triple-net leases and gross leases. Mr. Hoenig identified five comparable market triple-net leases that ranged between $15.00 and $19.00 per square foot. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 52). Similarly, Mr. Hoenig identified five comparable market gross leases that ranged between $21.50 and $28.00 per square foot. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 57).
Because the Briarcliff Shopping Center consists of a mix of triple-net and gross leases, Mr. Hoenig included a transactional adjustment to convert the triple-net leases to gross leases. (Hrg. Tr. at 35:2-8). This transactional adjustment is necessary because it allows an “apples to apples” comparison when dealing with a property consisting of multiple-use types and establishes a single net operating income figure to which a fully loaded capitalization rate is applied. (Hrg. Tr. at 66:3-6). The transactional adjustment totaled $7.12 and was added to each base triple-net lease rate. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 55). Mr. Hoenig’s converted triple-net lease rates averaged $24.42 per square foot with a median value of $25.12 per square foot, and he, therefore, concluded that the market gross lease rate for converted triple net-leases was $25.00 per square foot. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 56). The converted triple-net lease rates for retail tenants matched Mr. Hoenig’s value of $25.00 for office leases. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 60).
Mr. Hoenig estimated the Briarcliff Shopping Center’s potential gross income (PGI) using market lease rate data. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 61). From PGI, Mr. Hoenig subtracted an 8.6% vacancy and credit loss based on market analysis. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 63). Market operating expenses were also identified, analyzed, and compared to the Briarcliff Shopping Center’s three-year historical expense data. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 63-64). Mr. Hoenig allowed expenses for property insurance (0.7%), common area maintenance (26.8%), management fees (0.3%), administrative fees (0.7%), and miscellaneous non-reimbursables (0.9%). Id. Property taxes were not a specific line item included as an expense because Mr. Hoenig used a loaded capitalization rate after establishing what “market” is for gross leases. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 63). Operating expenses as a percentage of PGI totaled 32.1%. Id.
Mr. Hoenig developed an opinion for the capitalization rate by examining comparable sales, investor surveys, and the band of investment technique. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 64). These three approaches resulted in overall average capitalization rates ranging from 7.05% to 9.17%. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 66). Mr. Hoenig concluded the overall rate for retail to be 9.00% and the overall rate for office to be 8.5%. Id. Mr. Hoenig then calculated a single weighted average capitalization rate based on the percentage of PGI projected between office and retail components and concluded the overall rate for the Briarcliff Shopping Center at 8.78%. Id. A load factor to account for the exclusion of real estate taxes as an expense item of 3.48% was added to the overall rate to arrive at a fully loaded capitalization rate of 12.26%. Id.
From PGI totaling $2,941,473, Mr. Hoenig subtracted $223,998 for vacancy loss and $871,507 for operating expenses to arrive at a net operating income of $1,845,969. (Briarcliff’s Ex. A, Appraisal Report at 67). When the loaded capitalization rate is applied, Mr. Hoenig’s final value determination for the Briarcliff Shopping Center is $15,100,000. Id.
- No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2020, therefore the assessed value for 2019 remains the assessed value for 2020. Section 137.115.1.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence the following exhibits:
|1||Appraisal of Grant Knauff|
|3||Written Direct Testimony of Grant Knauff|
|4||Summary of Exhibits 1 and 2|
The exhibits were admitted into the evidentiary record.
Respondent’s appraiser, Mr. Knauff, also prepared an appraisal report. Mr. Knauff’s appraisal considered the cost approach, sales comparison approach, and the income approach with the most weight and final value consideration determined by the income approach. (County’s Written Direct Testimony of Grant Knauff at 2). Respondent’s concluded value for the Briarcliff Shopping Center is $16,259,800 as of January 1, 2019. Id.
To develop the Respondent’s income approach, Mr. Knauff identified three comparable leases each for office properties, retail properties, and restaurant properties. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 28). Market rate office leases (stated on a gross basis) ranged from $24.60 per square foot to $27.43 per square foot. Id. Market rate retail leases (stated on a triple-net basis) ranged from $17.50 to $19.41 per square foot. Id. Market rate restaurant leases (stated on a triple-net basis) ranged from $25.17 to $31.50 per square foot. Id.
Respondent relied on vacancy and expense rate information obtained from third-party market summaries and responses to Respondent’s questionnaire that she distributes annually to market participants. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 32-34). Market office vacancy ranged from 15.42% to 36.8% for class A property. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 32). Expenses as a percentage of PGI ranged from 23% to 40% for class B office. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 34).
Mr. Knauff performed a market capitalization rate analysis to establish the County’s base capitalization rate. Class A office capitalization rates ranged from 6.32% to 7.75%. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 35). Mr. Knauff stated that he used a rounded 11% loaded capitalization rate for office properties, although the actual capitalization rate shown on the property record card was 11.25% for some office property and 11.50% for other office property. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 35, 40, 42). Retail and restaurant capitalization rates from market surveys ranged between 6.32% and 7.75%. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 36). The actual capitalization rate used for restaurant and retail properties on the property record cards were 7.5%, 8%, and 10.5%. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 39, 41, 43-45). Mr. Knauff calculated separate potential gross income, expenses, and applied different capitalization rates to each of the five tax parcels. (County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 39-45). To arrive at Mr. Knauff’s overall value determination of $16,259,800 for the Briarcliff Shopping Center, Mr. Knauff added the separate values from each of the several property record cards. (Hrg. Tr. at 98:2-8, County’s Ex. 1 Appraisal at 39-45).
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – Value Established. The evidence presented by Complainant was substantial and persuasive to both rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and to establish the fair market value of the subject properties to be $15,100,000, assessed commercial value of $4,832,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
STC Authority Over Ad Valorem Taxation Appeals
The STC has authority to hear this appeal and to correct any assessment that is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary, or capricious. The hearing officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying, or reversing the determination of the BOE, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431.
Basis of Assessment
The Constitution mandates that real property and tangible personal property be assessed at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute, real and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of TVM. Section 137.115.5. residential property at 19% of TVM; commercial property at 32% of TVM and agricultural property at 12% of TVM.
Presumption In Appeal
There is a presumption of validity, good faith, and correctness of assessment by the BOE. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Mo. 1968); May Department Stores Co. v. STC, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo. 1958). This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption. It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant. When some substantial evidence is produced by the Complainant, “however slight,” the presumption disappears and the Hearing Officer, as the trier of facts, receives the issue free of the presumption. United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. March, 650 S.W.2d 678, 680-81 (Mo. App. 1983), citing State ex rel. Christian v. Lawry, 405 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo. App. 1966). The presumption is not evidence of value. The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the BOE’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the properties. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702. Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To prevail, Complainant must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject properties on January 1, 2019. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 895. There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in an STC appeal still bears the burden of proof. The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.” See Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991). A valuation that does not reflect the fair market value (true value in money) of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair, and improper assessment.
Standard for Valuation
Section 137.115 requires that properties be assessed based upon true value in money, which is defined as the price a property would bring when offered for sale by one willing or desirous to sell and bought by one who is willing or desirous to purchase but who is not compelled to do so. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993). TVM is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. Daly, 77 S.W.3d at 649, citing Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1993); citing, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). It is the fair market value of the subject properties on the valuation date. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 897.
Methods of Valuation
Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the STC. It is within the purview of the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case. See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975). Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach, and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc, 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. 1974).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property – its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869. “The method depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347. “Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.” Id. “The ‘comparable sales approach’ uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for the difference between the properties. Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. (quotation omitted). “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.” Id.
Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
- Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
- Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interest;
- A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
- Payment is made in cash or its equivalent;
- Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale;
- The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction.
Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Revised Edition, 1984; see also, Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J.D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1982, pp. 4-5; Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, pp. 79-80’ Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Glossary.
The income approach is often utilized to value income-producing properties. This approach determines the value of an income stream. Market-based revenues and market-based expenses are utilized to which an appropriate capitalization rate is applied. Above-market lease rates overstate potential gross income and are not representative of a stabilized income for a property. Realty Associates Fund VII v. St. Louis County Assessor, 2012 WL 6676125 (Mo.St.Tax.Com. November 30, 2012).
Investigation by Hearing Officer
To investigate appeals filed with the STC, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification, or assessment of the property. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Section 138.430.2. The Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing made inquiry of the Complainant’s and Respondent’s appraiser.
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining true value in money and is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonable they may be deemed entitled. The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing officer to decide. Security Bohomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d at 659; St. Louis County, 515 S.W.2d at 450; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, 436 S.W.2d 657.
The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012)
Opinion Testimony by Experts
An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W. 2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The STC cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W. 2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider, 156 S.W. 3d at 348.
The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and may accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley, 819 S.W. 2d at 403; Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W. 2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).
If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.
The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
Section 490.065; State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. banc 2004); Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).
Complainant Proves Value
Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a TVM as of January 1, 2019, to be $15,100,000 for the subject properties. Complainant’s appraiser, Mr. Hoenig, developed an opinion of value relying upon an established and recognized approach for the valuation of real property, the income approach. The adjustments made by the appraiser were consistent with generally accepted guidelines for the appraisal of property of the subject’s type. The adjustments properly accounted for the differences between the subject and each property utilized to determine market revenue and market expense.
Both Respondent’s appraiser and Complainant’s appraiser agree that the Briarcliff Shopping Center operates as a single economic unit. See Exhibit 1 Appraisal Report at 6. The property was created, developed, and operates as a single economic unit under one property management. Mr. Hoenig, Complainant’s appraiser, testified that the likely scenario for any hypothetical market purchaser of Briarcliff is that buyers/investors would look at the overall performance of the entire property and make a purchase decision for the property as a single economic unit. (Hrg. Tr. at 78:17-22). In his appraisal report, Mr. Knauff, Respondent’s appraiser, agreed that the property should be treated as a single economic unit.
All of the evidence in the record suggests that the most appropriate valuation approach is the income approach and to treat the Briarcliff Shopping Center as a single economic unit. Mr. Hoenig’s appraisal report correctly applied this approach by converting the triple-net leases to gross leases so that he could apply an appropriate capitalization rate. (Hrg. Tr. at 35:2-8). By converting the triple-net leases to the market based gross lease rate, Mr. Hoenig increased the lease rates of all portions of the subject properties that are leased on a triple-net basis, to the full lease rate that the market will bear, under a gross lease situation. Mr. Knauff would add contemplated real estate taxes to the gross lease amount. However, market gross lease rates already contemplate the landlord paying real estate taxes out of the market gross lease rate. To further add real estate taxes to the market gross lease rate would, in effect, increase the gross lease rate to an amount that the market has already determined the market will not bear. Put another way, it would double-count real estate tax amounts contemplated in a gross lease rate. If real estate tax amounts are double counted, the TVM of the subject property would be improperly inflated.
The assessed valuation for the subject properties as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the BOE for the subject tax day are SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject properties for tax years 2019 and 2020 is set at $4,832,000.
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Decision. The application shall contain specific facts or law as grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. Said application must be in writing addressed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, and a copy of said application must be sent to each person at the address listed below in the certificate of service.
Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the application for review is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432.
The Collector of Clay County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending the possible filing of an Application for Review unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of Section 139.031.8.
Any Finding of Fact which is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision which is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of December, 2020
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on January 14th, 2021, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 All statutory citations are to RSMo. 2000, as amended.
 The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer originally was published on the STC website on December 31, 2020; however, the Decision and Order was inadvertently not sent to the individuals noted in the Certificate of Service on the original publication date. Accordingly, the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer has been republished and sent to the individuals noted in the Certificate of Service as of the republication date.