STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|BRIDGETON TRANSFER STATION LLC, BRIDGETON LANDFILL, LLC (as Successor by Merger)||)|
|Complainant,||)||Appeal Nos. 20-10053 through 20-10069|
|)||Parcel Nos. (Table included)|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
Bridgeton Transfer Station, LLC, Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, as Successor by Merger (Complainant) appeals the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decisions determining the true value in money (TVM) of 17 parcels associated with the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton, Missouri. Complainant alleges overvaluation and asserts the parcels have no market value.
Complainant produced substantial and persuasive evidence showing 10 of the 17 parcels had no market value as of January 1, 2020, based on the economic conditions on January 1, 2019. Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence showing the remaining seven parcels had no market value on January 1, 2020, based on the economic conditions on January 1, 2019. The BOE decisions for the 10 parcels with no market value are SET ASIDE. The BOE decisions for the remaining seven parcels are AFFIRMED.
Complainant is represented by attorney Nicholas Roark. Respondent is represented by attorney Steven Robson. The parties waived an evidentiary hearing and submitted the appeals on the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- The Subject Properties. The 17 subject properties are part of a 320.41 acre assemblage located on and around the closed West Lake landfill complex in Bridgeton, Missouri. (Ex. B at 14, 31) The subject properties total 203.10 acres. The individual parcels range from .30 to 49.04 acres. The properties lie along the 12000 and 13000 blocks of St. Charles Rock Road and Boenker Lane. There are 15 buildings spread across the subject properties. The buildings range from 200 to 34,845 square feet and have a combined area of 71,270 square feet. (Ex. B at 6)
The majority of the acreage lies within an area included on the National Priorities List pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601-9657, commonly referred to as “Superfund.” The acreage within the Superfund site is subject to ongoing environmental monitoring and remediation requirements administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The subject properties are grouped in three different areas of the West Lake Landfill assemblage. The first group lies in the east-central part of the assemblage and is accessed from the three southernmost entrances along St. Charles Rock Road. This group consists of five irregularly shaped parcels totaling approximately 19 acres. These properties are the subjects of Appeal Nos. 20-10058, 20-10059, 20-10060, 20-10068, and 20-10069.
Portions of two of these parcels, consisting of approximately 2.5 acres on the southern edge of the group, are part of a stormwater detention basin located within the Superfund site. (Ex. B at 19, 34) A comparison of the maps on pages 19 and 36 of Exhibit B shows that small areas on the rear, western potions of the other three parcels are within the Superfund site . These three parcels include several buildings and surface parking lots. For instance, the subject property in appeal 20-10058 is improved with a parking lot and several office and warehouse buildings totaling 48,149 square feet of net leasable area. (Ex. 4 at 50)
The second group consists of four parcels in the southwest part the assemblage. Two of these parcels are classified as agricultural and are the subjects of appeals 20-10055 and 20-10056. Complainant purchased these two parcels in March 2020 for $134,310 to settle a lawsuit. (Ex. B at 11) These parcels were never used as a landfill and are not part of the Superfund site. (Ex. B at 14, 17, 19) These two parcels are subject to zoning restrictions and have access via Boenker Lane. These two parcels have legally permissible and physically possible uses.
The other two parcels in the second group are the subjects of Appeal Nos. 20-10057 and 20-10064. These parcels lie on the two southernmost landfill cells and are within the boundaries of the Superfund site. (Ex. B at 19, 35-36)
The final group consists of eight parcels totaling 115.86 acres in the north and west parts of the assemblage. These parcels are located within the Superfund site and include much of the closed sanitary landfill. The parcels also include buildings and other improvements utilized for treating hazardous waste. (Ex. B at 35) These parcels are the subject properties in Appeal Nos. 20-10053, 20-10054, 20-10061, 20-10062, 20-10063, 20-10065, 20-10066, and 20-10067.
- Assessment and Valuation. The BOE determined the following values as of January 1, 2020:
Appeal No. Parcel Classification TVM
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant submitted Exhibit B and the written direct testimony (WDT) of Missouri licensed appraiser Thomas McReynolds. Exhibit B is McReynolds’ appraisal report. Respondent did not object to Complainant’s evidence.
McReynolds has been a commercial real estate appraiser since 1976. (WDT at 5; Ex. B at 51). From 1976 to 2001, McReynolds was an appraiser with McReynolds Appraisal Company, Inc. Since 2001, McReynolds has been a principal of the appraisal firm of McReynolds Von Trapp, P.C. McReynolds is an MAI Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute and has been the chair or a member of multiple Appraisal Institute committees and boards. McReynolds has testified as an expert witness before the Missouri State Tax Commission and in Missouri circuit courts, federal bankruptcy courts, and federal district courts. (Ex. B at 51; WDT at 12)
The closed landfill consists six cells. Five of the landfill cells were sanitary landfills and the sixth was a demolition debris landfill. McReynolds asserts there is a “virtual prohibition of re-use” of closed sanitary landfills due to restrictions on construction. Most of the subject properties lie entirely or partially on closed sanitary landfill cells. (Ex. B at 19, 36) The building restrictions on debris landfills are less stringent. (Ex. B at 15) None of the subject properties are situated primarily on the closed demolition debris landfill cell. (Ex. B at 19, 36)
The closed landfills are subject to state-mandated environmental monitoring and remediation requirements requiring the capture and disposal of the methane gas and liquid leachates emitted by the closed landfill. The monitoring period lasts at least 30 years. (Ex. B at 15) To meet these obligations, the owners have invested approximately $200 million for odor control equipment and environmental monitoring and remediation infrastructure. (Ex. B at 16) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has not yet approved a post-closure monitoring program for the closed landfills. (Ex. B at 15)
In 1990, the closed landfill was placed on the National Priorities List for remediation through the EPA-administered Superfund program. The boundaries of the Superfund site are depicted on a map on page 19 of Exhibit B. The boundary of the overall West Lake assemblage is outlined in red. The Superfund site corresponds with this boundary, except on the south side, where the Superfund site boundary is shown by a blue and yellow dashed line. (Ex. B at 19)
Following designation of the Superfund site, radiological contamination was discovered in two areas of the landfill. Further testing revealed the contamination had spread to two properties on the northwest corner of the landfill complex. (Ex. B at 17) In 2008, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying the originally contaminated areas as Operating Unit 1, Area 1, and Operating Unit 1, Area 2, and the adjacent areas as the Buffer Zone and Lot 2A2. The ROD remediation plan provided for encapsulating the contaminants in place and monitoring the site in perpetuity. (Ex. B at 20)
In December 2010, a heat-producing “sub-surface reaction” was discovered in the southernmost landfill cell. (Ex. B at 15) The reaction causes waste to decompose at an accelerated rate, resulting in surface subsidence. The owners installed approximately 200 gas extraction and interceptor wells, more than a dozen temperature monitoring probes, and alternative technologies to extract heat and manage the subsurface reaction. To maintain the surface elevation and ensure drainage, soil from the southeast part of the assemblage is used as fill. (Ex. B at 15-16) Since discovery of the subsurface reaction, the owners have spent approximately $250 million on environmental monitoring and remediation equipment and processes. (Ex. B at 17)
In 2018, the EPA issued an amended ROD. Rather than encapsulating the contaminants on site, the amended ROD requires excavation and removal of the radiologically contaminated material. The proposed excavation depth ranges from eight to 20 feet, with an average of 12 feet. The excavated contaminants will be shipped off site, and the excavated areas will be re-filled and capped by a landfill cover meeting federal statutory requirements. (Ex. B at 21) As of January 1, 2020, the EPA and potentially responsible parties were engaged in ongoing feasibility studies to finalize remediation efforts. These studies are expected to be completed in 2022. Once a remedial plan is finalized, the remediation work is expected to take several years, with a preliminary cost estimate of $206,000,000. (Ex. B at 21)
McReynolds concluded the properties had no value for two general reasons. “First, the state and federal regulatory prohibition of redevelopment of sanitary landfills means that none of the properties can be put to any appreciable economic use.” “Second, the financial liabilities associated with the ongoing remediation work and potential legal liabilities that accompany those requirements produce large negative cash flows for the owners.” (WDT at 34) McReynolds concluded either of these factors would support a conclusion that the properties had no value. (WDT at 34) Collectively, the development restrictions and environmental remediation liabilities leave the subject properties with no legally permissible, physically possible, or financially feasible use. (Ex. B at 45-48) Therefore, McReynolds concluded the subject properties have no valuable highest and best use either as improved or as vacant. (Ex. B at 45, 49)
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent submitted Exhibits 2 and 4. Exhibit 2 consists the BOE decisions determining the TVM of the subject properties. Exhibit 4 consists of a “Commercial/Industrial Review Document” for each subject property, also referred to as a property record card. (PRC). Complainant did not object to Respondent’s evidence.
The PRCs in Exhibit 4 include data regarding size of the subject properties as well as the number, size, and type of improvements on each property. Each PRC estimates a land value. For properties with improvements, the PRCs utilize the cost approach to estimate the depreciated replacement cost of the improvements. The final value estimate is the sum of the land value and the depreciated replacement cost of the improvements.
Some PRCs also utilize the income approach by modeling market income and expenses to estimate net operating income (NOI). Respondent submitted no testimony or other evidence regarding the reliability of the income and expense estimates or whether the data demonstrates market demand for any of the subject properties.
- Value. On January 1, 2020, 10 of the 17 seventeen subject properties had no market value based on the economic conditions as of January 1, 2019. The BOE decisions for these parcels are set aside and the TVM was $0 as of January 1, 2020. The BOE decisions are affirmed with respect to the remaining seven properties; specifically, the two agricultural parcels not located within the Superfund site and the five parcels grouped in the east-central portion of the West Lake landfill assemblage. As of January 1, 2020, the values were as follows:
Appeal No. Parcel Classification TVM
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
- Assessment and Valuation. Commercial real property is assessed at 32% of its TVM as of January 1 of each odd-numbered year. Section 137.115.5(1)(c). In an even-year appeal, the TVM of the “property as newly constructed or improved shall be determined as of January 1 of the odd-numbered year.” 12 CSR 30-3.001(2); 12 CSR 30-3.015(1).
“True value in money is the fair market value of the property on the valuation date, and is a function of its highest and best use, which is the use of the property which will produce the greatest return in the reasonably near future.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Mo. Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005) (internal quotation omitted). The fair market value is “the price which the property would bring from a willing buyer when offered for sale by a willing seller.” Mo. Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Comm’n, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993). “True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange not value in use.” Tibbs v. Poplar Bluff Assocs. I, L.P., 599 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (internal quotation omitted). “Determining the true value in money is an issue of fact for the STC.” Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346. The three generally accepted approaches are the cost approach, the income approach, and the comparable sales approach. Id. at 346-48; see also St. Louis Cty. v. Sec. Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). The STC has wide discretion in selecting the appropriate valuation method but “cannot base its decision on opinion evidence that fails to consider information that should have been considered under a particular valuation approach.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 348. An assessment will not be upheld “where it is clear that the assessment does not take into account all factors relevant to a determination of true value in money.” Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc., v State Tax Comm’n, 499 S.W.2d 798, 802 (Mo. 1973).
- Evidence. The hearing officer is the finder of fact and determines the credibility and weight of the evidence. Kelly v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div., 456 S.W.3d 107, 111 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). “Although technical rules of evidence are not controlling in administrative hearings, fundamental rules of evidence are applicable.” Mo. Church of Scientology v. State Tax Comm’n, 560 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Mo. banc 1977).
- Complainant’s Burden of Proof. The taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was misclassified or overvalued. Westwood P’ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). The BOE’s valuation is presumptively correct. Tibbs, 599 S.W.3d at 7. The “taxpayer may rebut this presumption by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that the valuation is erroneous.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). The taxpayer also must prove “the value that should have been placed on the property.” Id. “Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, and from which the trier of fact can reasonably decide the case on the fact issues.” Savage v. State Tax Comm’n, 722 S.W.2d 72, 77 (Mo. banc 1986) (internal quotation omitted). Evidence is persuasive when it has “sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.” Daly v. P.D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); see also White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298, 305 (Mo. banc 2010) (noting the burden of persuasion is the “party’s duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party”).
- Complainant Produced Substantial and Persuasive Evidence of Overvaluation for 10 of the 17 Subject Properties.
Complainant produced substantial and persuasive evidence showing that 10 of the 17 subject properties situated on or near the closed sanitary landfill cells and within the Superfund site boundary lacked market value as of January 1, 2020. Complainant’s evidence shows these 10 parcels were used for ongoing environmental monitoring and remediation efforts mandated by both state and federal law. The environmental monitoring and remediation is of indefinite duration, and preliminary cost estimates indicate future remediation costs will exceed $200,000,000. As indicated by the 2018 amended ROD, the actual scope and duration of the remediation process remains uncertain and is subject to ongoing remedial investigation and feasibility studies. Further, Complainant’s unrebutted evidence shows that redevelopment on the former sanitary landfills is not feasible due development restrictions and continuing surface subsidence. This evidence is substantial, and persuasively establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the 10 parcels located on or near the closed sanitary landfill and within the Superfund site “have no financially feasible use.” (Ex. B at 48)
The conclusion these 10 parcels lack market value is buttressed by the fact a potential purchaser would face potential CERCLA liability. “CERCLA imposes strict liability for environmental contamination upon four broad classes of [potentially responsible parties].” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599, 608 (2009). The potentially responsible parties include the “owner or operator of any … facility.” 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (Emphasis added). Because any “owner” may be held liable, “even parties not responsible for contamination may fall within the broad definitions” of a potentially responsible party. United States v. Atl. Rsch. Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 136, (2007).
The liability exposure is amplified by the fact CERCLA authorizes joint and several liability enabling the EPA to hold any responsible party liable for the entire cost of the response action. Burlington, 566 U.S. at 614-15; see also Emhart Indus., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 988 F.3d 511, 517 (1st Cir. 2021) (citing Burlington and holding CERCLA authorizes joint and several liability for the entire response cost). Here, the future remediation costs are estimated at $206,000,000. Practically, this means that in addition to buying contaminated land with no reasonably foreseeable and financially feasible use, a prospective purchaser is essentially purchasing potential joint and several liability for a $206,000,000 remediation process of indefinite duration. This liability exposure, while not independently sufficient to demonstrate a complete lack of market value, is nonetheless a relevant factor. See Stephen & Stephen Properties, 499 S.W.2d at 802 (holding an assessment must account for all factors relevant to value). Considered in conjunction with the severe development restrictions, the ongoing remediation costs and potential liability persuasively supports the conclusion that the parcels with substantial Superfund exposure had “no financially feasible use” and, therefore, no market value as of January 1, 2020. (Ex. B at 48)
Respondent’s evidence – consisting solely of the BOE decisions and the PRCs – does not undermine the persuasiveness of Complainant’s evidence. McReynolds’ appraisal report and WDT rebutted the BOE values shown in Exhibit 2. Once rebutted, a presumption “disappears from the case and the fact-finder receives the issue free from any presumption.” Deck v. Teasley, 322 S.W.3d 536, 539–40 (Mo. banc 2010).
Likewise, Respondent’s PRCs do not undermine Complainant’s evidence. There is no evidence establishing the reliability of the land values or the depreciated replacement costs. Nor was there any persuasive consideration of the known and potential environmental remediation liabilities associated with any parcel. The lack of evidence regarding the reliability of the estimated land value is particularly problematic when, as in this case, the subject property is unique from the vast majority of other commercial parcels in St. Louis County. See Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 568 (14th ed. 2013) (noting that a lack of data “can weaken the credibility of the estimate off land value that is an essential part of the cost approach”).
Further, even if Respondent’s cost assumptions are accurate, there is no evidence the improvement replacement costs reflect market demand for a closed landfill on a Superfund site. This omission is crucial because the TVM of a property is “the price which the property would bring from a willing buyer when offered for sale by a willing seller.” Mo. Baptist Children’s Home, 867 S.W.2d at 512. The cost approach incorporates this market-based concept through “principle of substitution” which “affirms that a knowledgeable buyer would pay no more for a property than the cost to acquire a similar site and construct improvements of equivalent desirability and utility without undue delay.” Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (14th ed. 2013) 563-64. It follows that a property “with no utility would not be recreated, and the value of the property would be low.” Id. at 568; see also Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 499 S.W.2d 798, 803 (Mo. 1973) (noting “It is well known that a building, especially one constructed for a special purpose, is rarely worth on the market what it has cost to erect it”). Respondent’s cost estimates do not demonstrate any market demand for closed landfill properties subject to severe development restrictions and substantial environmental remediation costs of indefinite duration.
The income, expense, and capitalization rates utilized in the PRCs are similarly unpersuasive. There is no evidence showing the reliability of any income projection or capitalization rate assumption in Respondent’s PRCs as applied to the unique circumstances of the subject properties. Respondent’s PRCs do not rebut Complainant’s substantial and persuasive evidence showing that 10 of the 17 subject properties lacked market value as of January 1, 2020.
Although Exhibit B and the McReynolds’ WDT are substantial and persuasive evidence showing that 10 of the 17 subject properties lacked market value as of January 1, 2020, McReynolds’ analysis does not persuasively establish the remaining seven subject properties lacked market value as of January 1, 2020. Specifically, McReynolds’ appraisal report notes that the two agricultural parcels (Appeal Nos. 20-10055 and 20-10056) and portions of the parcels in the east central part of the assemblage (Appeal Nos. 20-10058, 20-10059, 20-10060, 20-10068, and 20-10069) have legally permissible and physically possible uses. Despite the legally permissible and physically possible uses, McReynolds concludes “proximity stigmatization” negates the financial feasibility of these uses. (Ex. B at 48) This conclusion is unpersuasive.
Appeals Nos. 20-10055 and 20-10056
McReynolds concluded the only legal impediment to the use of these two parcels are local zoning ordinances restricting certain uses but permitting others. (Ex. B at 46) There is no physical impediment to development because these two parcels have adequate access to roads and utilities. The two parcels have legally permissible and physically possible uses. Thus, McReynolds concluded “it is reasonable to assume a petition to re-zone this land for industrial use would be approved.” (Ex. B at 12) Despite the lack of any substantial legal or physical use restrictions, McReynolds concludes the nearby Superfund site creates “proximity stigmatization” negating the market value of the two agricultural parcels. (Ex. B at 48) There is no substantial and persuasive evidence supporting this conclusion.
“Stigma is an adverse public perception regarding property” that “penalizes the marketability of the property and may also result in a diminution in value.” The Appraisal of Real Estate 213. Environmental contamination is one of the most common causes of stigma. Id. Measuring the effect of stigma on value is difficult. Id. “Focus groups, surveys, statistical analyses, case study comparisons, and other tools” have been used to measure the effect of stigma. Id. The record is devoid of such evidence. There is no survey of market participants. There is no national, regional, or local market data regarding the impact of landfill proximity to value. Aside from McReynolds’ assertion it would be “irrational” for a buyer to purchase these parcels, there is no other evidence supporting the conclusion that proximity stigmatization negates all market value. McReynolds’ conclusion that the two agricultural parcels had a TVM of $0 on January 1, 2020, is not supported by substantial and persuasive evidence. The BOE decisions setting the value of the subject properties in Appeal Nos. 20-10055 and 20-10056 are affirmed.
Appeal Nos. 0-10058, 20-10059, 20-10060, 20-10068, and 20-10069
Similarly, McReynolds’ conclusion that the five parcels in the east-central part of the assemblage lack market value is also not premised on substantial and persuasive evidence showing the lack of any financially feasible use. The record shows these five parcels either include or lie adjacent to several office and warehouse buildings totaling approximately 50,000 square feet. (Ex. B at 6, 19; Ex. 4 at 50-51) The buildings are adjacent to large parking lots accessible from St. Charles Rock Road. Substantial parts of these five parcels lie outside the Superfund site boundary. Exhibit B includes aerial photographs showing large buildings and surrounded by parking lots utilized by numerous vehicles, thus indicating the buildings are in use. (Ex. B at 19, 33, 36) The fact this group of properties includes substantial office, warehouse, and parking improvements that are in use is indicative of some value in exchange. There is no evidence these office and warehouse buildings are specialized or transitory improvements with no market value. Based on these facts, the most logical inference is that these parcels retain some market value, even if it is diminished due to the proximity of the Superfund site. Complainant’s proposed value of $0 leaves no middle ground accounting for the possibility the parcels retain residual market value.
The fact small portions of these five parcels lie within the Superfund boundary is not a sufficient basis for concluding they lack any market value. Potential CERCLA liability may diminish value. But it is a quantum leap from diminution of value to zero value. The liability exposure for a prospective purchaser of these five parcels is a hypothetical possibility mitigated by the fact joint and several liability may be apportioned among potentially responsible parties. See Burlington, 566 U.S. at 614; Emhart Indus., 988 F.3d at 517. While potential liability is a factor relevant to value, the liability exposure in this case is uncertain and, therefore, does not by itself negate all market value. On this record, Complainants have not shown the hypothetical liability exposure negates all residual market of the five parcels in the east-central part of the assemblage.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Complainant produced substantial and persuasive evidence showing the value of the subject properties in Appeal Nos. 20-10053, 20-10054, 20-10057, and 20-10061 through 20-10067 was $0 as of January 1, 2020. The BOE decisions for these appeals are set aside. The TVM of these properties for tax year 2020 was $0.
Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence showing the value of the subject properties in Appeal Nos. 20-10055, 20-10056, 20-10058, 20-10059, 20-10060, 10-10068, and 20-10069 was $0 as of January 1, 2020. The BOE decisions determining the TVM of these properties for tax year 2020 are affirmed.
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC an application for review of this decision within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the certificate of service for this decision. The application “shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.” Section 138.432. The application must be in writing, and may be mailed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, or emailed to Legal@stc.mo.gov. A copy of the application must be sent to each person listed below in the certificate of service.
ailure 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 St. Louis County, and 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 the disputed taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of section 139.031.
SO ORDERED September 10, 2021.
Eric S. Peterson
Senior Hearing Officer
State Tax Commission
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on September 10, 2021, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
421 East Dunklin Street
P.O. Box 146
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146
 Complainant timely filed a complaint for review of the assessment in each appeal. The State Tax Commission (STC) has authority to hear and decide Complainant’s appeals. Mo. Const. art. X, sec. 14; Section 138.430.1, RSMo 2000. All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, as amended.
 The locations of the subject properties within the overall assemblage are depicted on a map on page 36 of Exhibit B. The map is attached to this decision and order.
 The maps in Exhibit B appear consistent with the St. Louis County parcel map accessed through the St. Louis County open government portal at: https://stlcogis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e70f8f1814a34cd7bf8f6766bd950c68.
 All citations to McReynolds’ WDT refer to the numbered questions and answers.
 The map is attached to this decision and order.
 A “potentially responsible party” or “PRP” is “any person who may be liable pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for response costs incurred” by the federal government. 40 CFR section 304.12(m).
 The EPA determines a final response action based on both a remedial investigation and a feasibility study. See 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(a).
 McReynolds’ appraisal report does not include separate documentation of the data underlying his analysis and conclusion. An expert appraisal report can be substantial and persuasive evidence of value even if “the precise numerical derivation of the figure set forth in the expert’s testimony was not placed in evidence[.]” Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S./Marriott Hotels, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 852 S.W.2d 376, 382 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). It is sufficient that “the narrative explanation” of the report is “sufficiently explained and justified to enable the Commission to evaluate the weight that should properly be accorded to the data supplied.” Id. McReynolds’ appraisal report and WDT sufficiently explain the basis of his opinion and constitute substantial and persuasive evidence rebutting the BOE presumption and showing that 10 of the 17 subject properties had no market value as of January 1, 2019.