STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|DALE T. SUNDBAKKEN,||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 16-12646|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE) is AFFRIMED. Complainant Dale Sundbakken (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by counsel Steven Robson.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann (Hearing Officer).
Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation and on the ground of exemption/other alleging that he is a 100 percent disabled combat veteran. Respondent initially set the true market value (TMV) of the subject property, as residential property, at $198,100. The BOE lowered Respondent’s valuation to $190,000. 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 or improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property as the property existed on January 1, 2016, under the economic conditions as they existed on January 1, 2015.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the STC.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The parties agreed to submit the appeal on the evidence and exhibits without an evidentiary hearing.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 22R540219. It is further identified as 411 Brass Lamp Drive, Ballwin, St. Louis County, Missouri. (Exhibit A; Exhibit 6)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 12,458 square foot residential lot improved by a 1,900 square-foot, ranch style single-family home built in 1967. (Exhibit 6) The lot is level and includes landscaping. (Exhibit 6) The home includes three bedrooms; two full bathrooms; a two-car attached garage; a patio; and one fireplace. (Exhibit 6) The exterior of the home consists of brick and vinyl construction. (Exhibit 6) The home’s kitchen was remodeled in 2006 and includes granite counters, a center island, and a ceramic tile floor. The home’s two bathrooms, garage doors, rear-entry driveway, patio, and windows have been updated. The roof was replaced in April 2014. (Exhibit 6) The subject property is located in western St. Louis County in the Parkway School District. (Exhibit 6)
- Sale of Subject. The subject property was purchased by Complainant on January 30, 2015, for $220,000. (Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 6)
- Assessment. Respondent set a TMV for the subject property of $198,100 residential, as of January 1, 2015.
- Board of Equalization. Following Complainant’s appeal to the BOE in 2016, the BOE lowered Respondent’s TMV of the subject property to $190,000.
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant proposed a TMV of $110,000. To support his opinion of value, Complainant offered the following as evidence:
|Exhibit A||Packet containing letter to STC, BOE Notice of Decision, Assessment Appeal Form, evidence presented to BOE|
|Exhibit B||Copies of photographs depicting radiant heating manifold|
|Exhibit C||Copies of photographs depicting exterior air conditioning unit and exterior rail-tie retaining wall|
|Exhibit D||Copies of photographs depicting exterior rail-tie retaining wall|
|Exhibit E||Copies of photographs depicting decaying and/or collapsed exterior rail-tie retaining walls|
|Exhibit F||Copies of photographs depicting decaying and/or collapsed exterior rail-tie retaining walls|
|Exhibit G||Copies of photographs depicting decaying and/or collapsed exterior rail-tie retaining walls along driveway and closeup of exterior brick wall with some bricks missing|
|Exhibit H||Copies of photographs depicting closeup of exterior brick wall with cracks and some bricks missing|
|Exhibit I||Copies of photographs depicting closeup of exterior brick wall with cracks and interior ceiling|
|Exhibit J||Copies of photographs depicting interior ceiling with broken and falling drywall tape|
|Exhibit K||Copies of photographs depicting front door threshold and frame with some deteriorated paint and rot|
|Exhibit L||Copies of photographs depicting front side door with some deteriorations and rot along frame|
|Exhibit M||Copy of photograph depicting interior ceiling with line between drywall joints|
Respondent did not object to Complainants’ exhibits, which were received into the record.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent advocated that the BOE’s valuation of the subject property as of January 1, 2016, $190,000, was correct. Respondent offered the following evidence:
|Exhibit 1||Written Direct Testimony of Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser Sharon Kuelker (the Appraiser)|
|Exhibit 2||Professional Qualifications of the Appraiser|
|Exhibit 3||Certified Copy of Warranty Deed for subject property recorded with St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds|
|Exhibit 4||Copy of Real Property Certificate of Value for Complainant’s purchase of the subject property recorded with St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds|
|Exhibit 5||Certified Copy of St. Louis County Ordinance 13,329 requiring a certificate of value in the sale of real estate|
|Exhibit 6||Public sale listing for subject property providing list price, sale price, and detailed description of characteristics of subject property|
|Exhibit 7||BOE Notice of Decision letter valuing the subject property at $190,000|
Complainant did not object to Respondent’s exhibits, which was received into the record.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted. Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The STC has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and to correct any assessment that is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement. 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, 138.431.4, RSMo.
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 property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
Issuance of Decision Absent Evidentiary Hearing
The Hearing Officer, after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the BOE, correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious. Section 138.431.5 RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.080 (2). Both parties agreed to submit these appeals upon the record. The filing of exhibits and written direct testimony establishes the basis upon which opportunity for an evidentiary hearing can be held. The Complainant has the burden to present substantial and persuasive evidence. The Hearing Officer considered all the exhibits and written direct testimony and then proceeded to ascertain if said exhibits and written direct testimony met the standard of substantial and persuasive evidence to establish proper classifications for the subject property.
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order 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. Section 138.430.2 RSMo (2000) as amended. 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. Id.
In this case, the parties agreed to submit the case on the exhibits and evidence they would have presented at an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer’s decision is based upon the exhibits and evidence submitted, all of which were received into the record without objection.
The legal authority for ad valorem property tax exemptions is located in Article X, Section 6, of the Missouri Constitution of 1945 and in Section 137.100, RSMo. The types of exemptions that frequently require the most research and analysis are:
…all property, real and personal, not held for private or corporate profit and used exclusively for religious worship, for schools and colleges, for purposes purely charitable, or for agricultural and horticultural societies….
Article X, Section 6 (Mo. Const. 1945). Article X, Section 6, also provides an exemption for real property used as a homestead by an individual who has a military service-related total disability and who was a prisoner of war. Additionally, Section 137.100(9) exempts from taxation for state, county or local purposes all property, real and personal, belonging to veterans’ organizations. “As used in this section, ‘veterans’ organization’ means any organization of veterans with a congressional charter, that is incorporated in this state, and that is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” Section 137.100(9).
Here, in the Complaint for Review, Complainant alleged as one of the grounds for the appeal of assessment that the subject property should be exempt from ad valorem taxation because he is a 100 percent disabled combat veteran. During the prehearing conference on January 4, 2017, the Hearing Officer and the parties discussed whether the subject property could be considered exempt under Article X, Section 6, or Section 137.100(9). Although Complainant stated that he would be able to produce documentation of his service-related total disability, Complainant stated that he had not been a prisoner of war. In the packet of exhibits Complainant submitted for the determination of the appeal, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the subject property should be exempt from ad valorem taxation under Article X, Section 6, as Complainant was not a prisoner of war. Furthermore, there has been no allegation made or evidence presented showing that the subject property is owned by a veterans’ organization as defined in Section 137.100(9). Consequently, the subject property does not qualify for an exemption.
Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption. In charter counties or the City of St. Louis, there exists by statutory mandate a presumption that the Assessor’s original valuation was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program – the computer-assisted presumption. These two presumptions operate with regard to the parties in different ways.
The BOE presumption operates in every case to require the taxpayer to present evidence to rebut it. If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then Respondent is required to rebut the BOE presumption.
The computer-assisted presumption is applicable only if (1) the BOE lowered the value of the Assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and (2) it has not been shown that the Assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer assisted method. The BOE’s valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
In the present appeal, the BOE lowered the initial valuation of Respondent, and Complainant is now seeking to lower the BOE’s assessment; therefore, the BOE presumption applies.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).
In order 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 property on January 1, 2016. Hermel, supra. There is no presumption that Complainant’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in an STC appeal still bears the burden of proof because 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 which does not reflect the true market value of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair and improper assessment.
Presumption in Appeal
A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct. Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. 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). See also, 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).
There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a Commission 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.” Westwood Partnership, 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. W.D. 1991).
Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land. Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.” Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d at 783. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the STC “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
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 reasonably 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. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
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).
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 897; 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 used 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 differences 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 interests.
- 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 cost approach may be based on either reproduction cost or replacement cost. The reproduction cost, or cost of construction, is a determination of the cost of constructing an exact duplicate of an improved property using the same materials and construction standards. The replacement cost is an estimate of the cost of constructing a building with the same utility as the building being appraised but with modern materials and according to current standards, design and layout.
The cost approach is most appropriate when the property being valued has been recently improved with structures that conform to the highest and best use of the property or when the property has unique or specialized improvements for which there are no comparables in the market.
While reproduction cost is the best indicator of value for newer properties where the actual costs of construction are available, replacement cost may be more appropriate for older properties. Snider, 156 S.W. 3d. at 347 (citations omitted).
In this case, Complainant supplied descriptions of needed construction repairs and replacements and estimates for some of those repairs and replacements. Complainant argued that, in light of the estimates for repairs and replacements, the current condition of the subject property requires the BOE’s valuation to be reduced. In Exhibit A, Complainant argued that the following repairs and replacements were needed: new retaining walls along sides and rear of lot; driveway pad extension to accommodate Complainant’s disabilities; new air conditioning unit; new forced air hearing system; tuckpointing to brick exterior walls, the chimney, and the fireplace; fenced backyard for Veteran’s Administration-approved service dog; new front door and frame; new ceiling in kitchen, living room, dining room, and hallway due to moisture damage; change current two-car garage to one-car garage to make it “handicap accessible”; and install attic insulation and weather stripping around four windows and all doors for energy savings and comfort. (Exhibit A)
However, when weighed against Respondent’s evidence, Complainant’s evidence was neither substantial nor persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion. Id. There was no evidence showing that the proposed repairs and replacements would have any impact on the market value a typical buyer or seller would assign to the subject property.
Respondent’s evidence compels the conclusion that the BOE’s valuation was correct. Significantly, Exhibit 4, the Certificate of Value for the subject property, established that Complainant had purchased the subject property in January 2015 for $220,000. The record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the alleged necessary repairs and replacements were not known to Complainant at the time of purchase or that the subject property incurred considerable deterioration between the time of purchase and January 1, 2016, the tax date at issue.
Furthermore, Exhibit 6, the public sale listing for the subject property, included sharp, color photographs of the interior and the exterior. None of the photographs showed any damage or deterioration of the ceiling or the brick or the rail-tie retaining walls but did show the updated nature of the subject property. Arguably, some deficiencies of a home might not be detected through sale listing photographs or until after a new homeowner purchases and actually lives in the home. However, with all due respect to Complainant, given the short period of time between the time of purchase and January 1, 2016, the alleged necessary repairs and/or replacements of exterior retaining walls, exterior brick, drywall ceilings, the air conditioning unit, and radiant heating system should have been apparent either at the time of purchase or based on a professional inspection prior to purchase. Complainant purchased the subject property in January 2015 for $220,000 in the condition represented by the photographs in the public sale listing. Moreover, the proposed additions of a driveway pad extension, a backyard fence, and reconfiguration of the garage to accommodate Complainant’s specific needs are not “repairs” or “replacements” of depreciated components of the subject property and, therefore, the estimated cost of these proposed additions and reconfiguration cannot properly be considered as factors for reducing the BOE’s valuation.
The TMV for the subject property as determined by the BOE is AFFIRMED. The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2016 is set at $36,100 residential ($190,000 TMV).
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 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, RSMo
The Collector of St. Louis 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, RSMo.
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 April 11, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Amy S. Westermann
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 11th day of April, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.