Drury Chesterfield v. Muehlheausler (SLCO)

 

DRURY CHESTERFIELD, INC.)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeals Number 06-10291 and 06-10292

)

PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS COUNTY,MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

 

ORDER SUSTAINING HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION

AND AFFIRMING BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

 

HOLDING

Upon review of the entire record, the Commission sustains the Hearing Officer Decision entered on July 18, 2008, and sustains the value determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization.

HISTORY

On July 18, 2008, Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan entered her Decision and Order (Decision) sustaining the assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization and setting true value in money for the property under appeal for tax year 2006 at $775,000, assessed value as commercial property of $248,000 (in Appeal Number 06-10292), and $22,400,400, assessed value as commercial property of $7,168,128 (in Appeal Number 06-10291).

On August 19, 2008, Thomas Caradonna entered his appearance on behalf of Complainant and filed his Application for Review of the Decision.Respondent filed a Response.

POINTS RAISED IN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The following points, summarized for purposes of this Decision, were presented for the Commission’s consideration in Complainant’s Application for Review:

1.                  The Hearing Officer erred in that the Complainant did not fail to present an opinion of market value.App. Rev. II. 1.

 

2.                  The Hearing Officer erred in suggesting that the income approach was not the most appropriate method to value the subject property or that the Complainant’s approach was not credible.App. Rev. II 2.

 

3.                  The Hearing Officer erred by concluding that the cost approach was the most appropriate.App. Rev. II 3, 6

 

4.                  The Hearing Officer erred by concluding that the Complainant’s appraiser used “hypothetical rates and hypothetical room occupancyon a hypothetical hotel”. App. Rev. II 4.

 

5.                  The Hearing Officer erred by not finding the Complainant’s appraiser’s opinion of value did not rise to the level of substantial and persuasive evidence.App. Rev. II 5.

 

6.                  The Hearing Officer erred by stating that the Complainant’s appraiser gave one value for both parcels leaving the Hearing Officer speculating as to the value of each parcel.App. Rev. II 7.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard Upon Review

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but 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 Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact.Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com’n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984); Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. 1980); St. Louis County v. STC, 562 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1978); St. Louis County v. STC, 406 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. 1966).

DECISION

A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer.There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer.A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal.Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).

The facts upon which an expert’s opinion is based, like the facts sufficient to support a verdict, must measure up to the legal requirements of substantiality and probative force; the question of whether such opinion is based on and supported by sufficient facts or evidence to sustain the same is a question of law for the court.Robinson v. Empiregas Inc. of Hartville, 906 S.W.2d 829 (S.D. 1995).Nance v. Tax CommissionMo 18 S.W.3d 611 (App WD 2000)The Commission is the judge of the credibility of the witness and of the evidence.

Income Approach

The Hearing Officer erred by concluding that the Complainant’s appraiser used “hypothetical rates and hypothetical room occupancy on a hypothetical hotel.”

App. Rev. II 4.

 

The Hearing Officer erred in suggesting that the income approach was not the most appropriate method to value the subject property or that the Complainant’s approach was not credible.

 

The Hearing Officer did not find the Income Approach presented by the Complainant to be substantial and persuasive evidence.According to the Complainant’s appraiser, since the hotel was not operational as of the date of the appraisal, the market value of the property as a going concern can only be hypothetical.There was no actual net operating income to discount or capitalize as an indication of value.Further, the Complainant’s appraiser’s hypothetical discounted cash flow analysis yielded a result that was not supported by his cost approach; the hotel which was 85% completed on January 1, 2006, had cost the owner $28, 200,000.Since this is a newly constructed property, the costs reported are accurate but the income records were too brief to be useful.Driftwood Shores, Inc., v. Department of Revenue, 555 P.2d 1251 (1976)

Cost Approach

 

The Hearing Officer erred by concluding that the cost approach was the most appropriate.App. Rev. II 3, 6.

 

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. Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. 2005).The property was under construction in 2006 and the property was developed to its highest and best use.

Burden of Proof

 

– The Hearing Officer erred in that the Complainant did not fail to present an opinion of market value.App. Rev. II. 1.

 

– The Hearing Officer erred by not finding the Complainant’s appraiser’s opinion of value did not rise to the level of substantial and persuasive evidence.App. Rev. II 5.

 

– The Hearing Officer erred by stating that the Complainant’s appraiser gave one value for both parcels leaving the Hearing Officer speculating as to the value of each parcel.App. Rev. II 7.

 

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.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).

The taxpayer in a Commission tax appeal, even after overcoming the presumption, still bears the burden of proof and must show that the property was improperly valued.Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. ED 2003).Taxpayers must present substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on the tax day.Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.The persuasiveness does not depend on the quantity but on its effect.Daly v. PD George, 77 S.W.3d 645, (Mo. App. ED 2002).

After the review of all the evidence, Hearing Officer found that the Complainant did not rebut the presumption of correct valuation and the Complainant’s evidence did not meet the necessary standard of substantial and persuasive on the issue of fair market value of the subject property.

ORDER

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified.Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.

The Decision of the Hearing Officer is SUSTAINED.The value approved by the Board of Equalization is AFFIRMED.The Clerk of St. Louis County is hereby ordered to put a market value of $775,000, assessed value as commercial property of $248,000 (in Appeal Number 06-10292), and $22,400,400, assessed value as commercial property of $7,168,128 (in Appeal Number 06-10291).

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the date of the mailing of this Order.

If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8, RSMo.

If no judicial review is made within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of St. Louis County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall disburse the protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accord with the decision on the underlying assessment in this appeal.

SO ORDERED October 15, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.

Complainant appeared by Counsel, Cathy Steele.

Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor, Paula Lemerman.

ISSUE

The Commission takes these appeals to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2006.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.The Assessor determined an appraised value in case number 06-10291 of $22,400,400, assessed value of $7,168,130, as commercial property and in case number 06-10292 of $775,000, assessed value of $248,000, as commercial property.The Board sustained the values.Complainant, on their Complaint for Review of Assessment, proposed a value in case number 06-10291 of $13,000,000, assessed value of $4,160,000, as commercial property, and in case number 06-10292 of $550,000, assessed value of $176,000.The parties pre-filed their appraisal reports and written direct testimony.A hearing was conducted on February 4, 2008, at theSt. LouisCountyAdministrativeBuilding,St. Louis,Missouri.The parties requested briefs on the hearing.The Complainant filed their brief on May 12, 2008.After a Motion for Continuance for Filing Brief was granted to the Respondent, Respondent was ordered to file their brief on or before June 20, 2008 and Complainant’s reply brief was due by July 7, 2008.Respondent did not file a brief.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A:A Self-Contained Appraisal

Respondent objected to pages 43-50, 54. Objections were overruled.

 

Exhibit B:Written Direct Testimony of Gary Andreas

Respondent objected to all questions relating to land valuation methodology.Objections were overruled.

 

Testimony of Gary Andreas

 

Respondent’s Evidence

Exhibit 1: Drury Job Cost Report

 

Exhibit 2: Pages from Drury website

 

Exhibit 3: Building Plans

 

Exhibit 4: Room Count

 

Exhibit 5: Site Plan

 

Exhibit 6: Letter from Murphy Property Tax Consulting

 

Exhibit 7: Purchaser’s Statement for Land 2001

 

Exhibit 8: Exchange & Sale Agreement

 

Exhibit 9: Statement of Operations, December 2006

 

Exhibit 10: Management & Marketing Agreement

 

Exhibit 11: Lease

 

Exhibit 12: Application for Demolition

 

Exhibit 13: Industrial Review Document of 18S230433

Objection sustained prior to the hearing for lack of foundation.

At the hearing, the Respondent laid the foundation and the document was accepted into evidence.

 

Exhibit 14:Property Record Card of 18S230433

 

Exhibit 15: Recorder of Deeds

Objection overruled.

 

Exhibit 16: Written Direct Testimony of Boris Frumson

Objection overruled.

 

Testimony of Boris Frumson

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.

2.The subject property consists of two parcels located at 333 and 355 Chesterfield Center East,Chesterfield,Missouri.The properties are identified by parcel identification numbers 18S210172 and 18S230433.The properties consist of two parcels, 1.05 acre and 3.8 acre sites for a total of 4.85 acres.The parcels were purchased by the Complainant in May 2004 for $5,106,431.On parcel 18S210172, the 1.05 acre site, was a one-story 4,400 square foot office building that was used for the construction offices for the hotel and was razed before May, 2006.The other parcel has an improvement consisting of a ten story hotel structure with a gross square footage of 164,054 square feet.The hotel has 275 guest rooms, lobby, exercise room, indoor swimming pool, breakfast area, meeting and function rooms, house service and office area.A one-story restaurant is located on the property.The property has additional amenities of concrete walks, pad and curbing, parking (including a two level parking deck), signage and landscaping

3.As of January 1, 2006, the subject property was under construction.The hotel was ready for occupancy in May, 2006; the restaurant was still under construction and opened at a later date; the improvement on parcel 18S210172 was razed in May.

4.Highest and best use: Commercial property as permitted by the current zoning which includes hotel development.

5.Complainant proposed the following values:

 

6.Respondent proposed the following values:

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious.Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo.The hearing officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any

assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious.Section 138.431.4, RSMo.

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.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).

The presumption in favor of the Board is not evidence.A presumption simply accepts something as true without any substantial proof to the contrary.In an evidentiary hearing before the Commission, the valuation determined by the Board, even if simply to sustain the value made by the Assessor, is accepted as true only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.

The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s and/or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.Snider, Hermel, & Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)Cupples Hesse, supra.

Complainant’s Burden of Proof

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, 2005.Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.See, Cupples-Hesse Corporation.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).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).

Standard for Valuation

Section 137.115, RSMo, requires that property be assessed based upon its 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).It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.Hermel, supra.

Market value is the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeable and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1.Buyer and seller are typically motivated.

 

2.Both parties are well informed and well advised, and each acting in what they consider their own best interests.

 

3.A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

 

4.Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

5.Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

 

6.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.

Methods of Valuation

Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission.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, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).

Missouricourts 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. Div. 2 1974).

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. Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. 2005).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.

The subject property is recently constructed.The hotel was completed in May, 2006.The actual costs of purchasing the land and constructing the improvements were available to the parties.

The Complainants purchased both parcels in May 2004 for $5,106,431. They spent over $25,000,000 constructing the improvements.The cost to produce the building as of December 31, 2005 was $23,085,000.Total cost to construct the hotel and other amenities was $28,200,000.

The Respondent, using a computer-assisted mass appraisal system, calculated the market value of the 1.05 acre parcel with a 4,400 square foot building on January 1, 2006, at $775,000.(The improvement was razed before May 1, 2006.)The Respondent calculated a land value for the second parcel of $1,688,400.The land value was determined using market data collected by the Assessor’s Office. A value for the improvement was calculated at $20,712,000.The improvement value was calculated using Marshall Valuation Service, by Marshall and Swift.A total value for the property using the cost approach was calculated at $22,400,400.

The Complainant’s appraiser began his cost approach by determining the market value of the land.The appraiser valued both parcels as one site of 211,266 square feet.The appraiser located sale of 5 properties between April 2003 and September 2004.The properties ranged in size of 54,014 square feet to 391,295 square feet.The prices ranged from $9.40 per square foot for the largest property to $17.13 per square foot for the smallest property.The appraiser adjusted the property for time of sale, size of the parcel, and location.The adjusted sales prices ranged from $16.30 to $17.40.The appraiser concluded on a value of $17.40 per square foot or $3,700,000.

The Complainant’s appraiser then determined the value of the improvements on the property.The appraiser used the Marshall Valuation Service to determine the replacement cost new estimates of the improvement.The square foot construction costs for a good quality Class “B” mid- to high-rise hotel building was approximately $162.06 per-square-foot or $26,098,381.Estimated reproduction costs for the paving, parking lot lighting, fencing, signage and landscaping is estimated at $488,500.The appraiser calculated total depreciation of $5,429,317.The resulting valuation for the cost approach as developed by the Complainant’s appraiser was $32,000,000.

Comparable Sales Approach

Neither party developed the sales comparison approach.“Given the incomplete nature of the construction as of the date of the appraisal, the lack of an income stream, and the lack of direct physical comparability of the hotels it is not possible to develop a definitive value estimate by the sales comparison approach.” Exhibit A p. 56

Income Approach

The income approach determines value by estimating the present worth of what an owner will likely receive in the future as income from the property.The income approach is “based on an evaluation of what a willing buyer would pay to realize the income stream that could be obtained from the property when devoted to its highest and best use….” Equitable Life Assurance Society v. State Tax Commission, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380, (Mo.App.1993)

According to the Complainant’s appraiser, since the hotel was not operational as of the date of the appraisal, the market value of the property as a going concern can only be hypothetical.There was no actual net operating income to discount or capitalize as an indication of value.Each party developed an income approach using hypothetical average daily rate and average room occupancy.

Respondent, using a computer assisted mass appraisal system, calculated a value of $10,223,700 for property identified by parcel number 18S230433.The Respondent used 289 rentable rooms and multiplied the number of rooms by an average daily rate of $60.00 for a total of $6,329,100.The Respondent determined a vacancy rate of 33% resulting in an effective gross income of $4,240,500.The Respondent determined that the operating expenses would be 70% of the effective gross income or a net income of $1,272,100.The Respondent also determined that the net income for the main level rooms would be $56,700.The Respondent determined that an appropriate capitalization rate is 10.5% and the effective tax rate is 2.82%.The resulting indicated value using the income approach is $10,223,700.

Complainant developed an income approach using a discounted cash flow.The appraiser first calculated the present value of the income stream, including the return on the investment and management expenses, at $14,152,534 and the present value of the reversion at $9,964,635 (by using a cap rate of 10.5% and an effective tax rate of 2.75%) for a value for the property at $24,100,000 as a going concern.The appraiser then calculated and deducted the intangible component of the value, including building cost and furniture, fixture and equipment differential, entrepreneurial profit, management fees, franchise fees, start up costs and overhead, for a resulting value of $13,900,000.

DISCUSSION

The Complainant failed to meet their burden of proof.They failed to present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the value they proposed is indicative of the market value of the subject properties.

Complainant argues that the income approach is the most appropriate method to value the property which was completed in mid 2006 as the property’s value is based upon the amount of income to be expected to be derived from the property.To use the income approach, the appraiser used hypothetical rates and hypothetical room occupancy on a hypothetical hotel.

The appraiser argues that the income approach is appropriate as the value is based on an evaluation of what a willing buyer would pay to realize the income stream that could be obtained from the property when devoted to its highest and best use.Using that reasoning, Complainant paid too much to develop property for the income it is expected to bring in.It is difficult to believe that Drury Corporation would spend $30 million dollars on a project worth $13.9 million.Drury owns numerous hotels in the market and would be familiar with the average daily room rates and potential vacancy.

The subject property was under construction on January 1, 2006.It is unknown how much of the hotel and its amenities were completed on the tax day of January 1, 2006.The hotel was completed in May, 2006.The actual costs of purchasing the land and constructing the improvements up to December 31, 2005 and from January 1 to May 2006 were available to the parties.The total land cost was over $5,000,000.The total construction costs were over $28,000,000.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.

The other problem with the Complainant’s appraisal report is that there are two parcels whose value was appealed.On January 1, 2006, there was one parcel with a 4,400 square foot office building and another parcel with a partially built hotel, restaurant and parking garage.During the year, improvements were completed and improvements were razed.The Complainant’s appraiser gave one value for both parcels and the hotel and other improvements.The Hearing Officer is unable to place a value on each parcel and is left “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. 1980).

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject properties as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization forSt. LouisCountyfor the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2006 is set at $7,168,130 in case number 06-10291 and in case number 06-10292 of $775,000.

Complainants may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision.The application shall contain specific 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, MO65102-0146, 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 appeal is based will result in summary denial.Section 138.432, RSMo 2000.

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 a filing of an Application for Review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of 139.031.8 RSMo.If no Application for Review is filed, the Collector is ordered to disburse the disputed taxes in accordance with the assessment set by this Decision and Order.

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 July 18, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer