State Tax Commission of Missouri
| JARBOE REALTY & INVESTMENT CO. | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal Nos. 13-14744 & 13-14745 |
| ) | ||
| JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
ORDER MODIFYING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On May 3, 2016, Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan, entered her Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the Board of Equalization values for tax years 2013 and 2014 and setting a new commercial value of $0.00 (assessed value $0.00).
Respondent timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision on June 1, 2016. Complainant timely filed its Response. Both Complainant and Respondent were represented by counsel.
Standard Upon Review
A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission may then summarily allow or deny their request. The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse or set aside the decision. The Commission may take any additional evidence and conduct further hearings.
Respondent’s Claim of Error
Section 138.432 RSMo. specifically states that “[a] complainant, respondent-assessor, or other party subject to a decision and order of a hearing officer, may file with the commission, within thirty days following the date of notification or mailing of such decision and order, an application to have such decision and order reviewed by the commission. Such application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.”
Respondent’s Application for Review lacks any section setting for “specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.” Id. Not until page 5 of the Application for Review is a statement about an error of the Hearing Officer mentioned, located in the seventh paragraph of the Argument section.
Respondent, through counsel, puts forth the following alleged errors in the Decision.
- The Hearing Officer erred in accepting Complainant’s testimony that Complainant would be responsible for the remediation costs for the HISS and FUTURA properties
DECISION
Respondent’s sole contention of error by the Hearing Officer is“[t]he Hearing Officer erred in accepting Complainant’s testimony that Complainant would be responsible for the remediation costs for the HISS and FUTURA properties”
The owner of the property testified that the property still suffers from contamination and that the Corps of Engineers have placed deed restrictions and liens on the property due to the contamination and remediation costs. The Hearing Officer found the testimony credible. The Commission defers to the Hearing Officer appointed to the appeal on issues involving the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. T.H. v Sonic Drive In of High Ridge, 388 SW3d 585 (ED 2012)
Respondent failed to support the contention that testimony of the owner of the property was inadmissible and failed to substantiate that such error constituted an arbitrary and capricious decision by the Hearing Officer. Consequently, we find no error as to Respondent’s claim of error.
Review of Decision
The Commission, in reviewing the record, acknowledges the unique characteristics associated with this property and appeal. There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization. The presumption is rebuttable and only serves the place of evidence until the owner of the property comes forward with evidence, i.e., the presumption ceases to exist when evidence of incorrect valuation is presented. Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686 (S.Ct. 1959)
The Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence that the assessment was incorrect. The properties consist of 11 acres with improvements including a warehouse, office space and out-buildings. The properties are unusual in that they were used to store and process “uranium-bearing residues”. The properties have been subject to remediation for over 50 years. Although remediation efforts have been extensive, radioactive contamination exists on both tracts of land and such contamination exceeds the Corps of Engineers’ remediation goal. Neither parcel has been completely classified as Unlimited Use and Unlimited Exposure (UUUE).
The property owner testified that since he was unable to lease or sell the property, he moved his manufacturing business to the property. His business only occupies a fraction of the space. The Corp of Engineers leased a portion of the property for the storage of their equipment and placement of contaminated soils during the remediation.
The real estate broker, Mr. Wolken, testified that he initially listed the properties for sale but withdrew the listing after learning of the contamination. He opined that the properties cannot be sold or leased due to the contamination; there is no market for contaminated property and there is no financing for contaminated properties. He has been an active, real estate broker since 1977. He is the past Chairman of the Missouri Real Estate Commission, member and past Chapter President of the Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, past President of the Commercial Division of the St. Louis Association of Realtors and National Association of Realtors.
The broker’s opinion that the property was not marketable was confirmed by a certified, general appraiser. The appraiser has been engaged in real estate appraisal for almost 50 years. He is a member of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, member of the St. Louis Real Estate Board, certified under the Appraisal Institute, and a real estate broker. He testified that he was unable to appraise the properties as there was no market for the leasing or sale of properties contaminated with radioactive materials.
Markets are driven by both subjective and objective factors, including, but not limited to various stigmas, unknowns and fears. The presence of radioactive waste on the property would have an impact on the marketability of the property. Upon review of the record, we find that the testimony of a certified appraiser and real estate broker was substantial and persuasive to support the conclusion that the subject properties lacked the value assigned by Respondent and the St. Louis County Board of Equalization in tax year 2013. However, the State Tax Commission does not find the subject properties have $0.00 value or that Complainant submitted substantial and persuasive evidence to support a value of $0.00 for the subject properties.
The Commission is charged with correcting any assessment shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. Green County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762 (S.Ct. 1974) In 2011, Parcel 10K510023 was valued by Respondent at $100,000 and Parcel 10K510090 was valued by the Respondent at $31,400; a total market value of $131,400. In 2013, the parcels were valued by the Respondent at a combined value of $1,054,800. An increase in one assessment cycle of 800%.
The Complainant appealed the 800% increase and requested the valuation be returned to the prior cycle’s true value ($131,400). Complainant has the burden to produce substantial and persuasive evidence that the valuation did not reflect market value. Complainant obtained the services of a real estate broker and a general certified appraiser who confirmed the Complainant’s opinion that the properties were unmarketable. The certified general appraiser testified:
“There is no typical market for the leasing or sale of properties that are contaminated by radioactive materials. Such a market is a necessary reference from which to develop an appraisal of the properties. Therefore, there is no basis for either the capitalization of income approach to value or the sales comparison approach. In addition, ordinary financing would not be available for the purchase or development of these properties, because a lender would typically not accept the potential environmental liability associated with being in the chain of title on a contaminated property.”
Without market information regarding these properties, he was unable to perform an appraisal of the properties or develop an appropriate adjustment. Although Complainant took every necessary step to fulfill the burden placed upon him to prove market value, Complainant was unable to do so due to the unusual circumstances of the presence of radioactive waste on the property. Respondent did not present an appraisal to support their conclusion of value or the Board’s value.
The Commission finds the assessments in 2013 to be unfair, arbitrary and capricious. The State Tax Commission orders the true market values assigned by the Respondent in tax years 2011-2012 (Appeal 13-14745: $100,000 and Appeal 13-14744: $31,000) be placed on the properties for 2013-2014.
The Commission’s determination is limited to the facts presented in these appeals such as the significant increase in valuation, radioactive contamination, and the onus of producing market evidence in these circumstances. These appeals should not be cited as precedent in future appeals.
ORDER
The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated herein by reference, as if set out fully herein verbatim. The Commission finds that the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be modified. Accordingly, the Decision is modified and the true market value of the property the subject of appeal 13-14745 is set at $100,000, $32,000 assessed value and that the true market value of the property the subject of appeal 13-14744 is set at $31,000, $9,920 assessed value.
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 mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for 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 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 this 13th day of September, 2016.
STATE TAX COMMISSION
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 13th day of September, 2016, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
301 W. High Street, Room 840
P.O. Box 146
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146
573-751-2414
573-751-1341 Fax
State Tax Commission of Missouri
| JARBOE REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal Nos. 13-14744 and 13-14745 |
| ) | ||
| JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| ST LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the County Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE. Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization and establish that the property had no value.
Complainant appeared by counsel James Gamble.
Respondent appeared by counsel Robert Fox.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Complainant seeks the Commission determine that the properties have no value or determine that since the property cannot be valued, the Commission order the Assessor not to increase the value, thereby returning the properties to the valuations determined for the 2011 assessment cycle.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2013. 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 property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo
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 State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing occurred on December 1, 2015 in St. Louis County.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject properties are identified by map parcel numbers 10K510090 and 10K510023. They are further identified as 9170-9200 Latty Ave, St. Louis County, Missouri. The properties are adjacent. Parcel 10K510023, 9200 Latty Avenue (Appeal 13-14745) is 3.51 acres improved with warehouse and office space[1]. Parcel 10K510090, 9170 Latty Avenue (Appeal 13-14744) is 7.57 acres improved with a building that is partially on 7200 Latty, an out-building and chain link fence.[2]
The property is currently owner-occupied with small manufacturing companies –Creative Polymers, Inc and Replications Unlimited, LLC – which are located on 9200 Latty Avenue.
From 1942 to 1957, Mallinckrodt LLC processed uranium materials for U.S. military purposes. In 1946, land near the St. Louis Airport was used to store residues and scrap from the processing plant. In 1966, “uranium-bearing residues” were purchased and placed in storage at 9170 Latty Avenue; named by the U.S. Corp of Engineers (Corp) as Hazelwood Interim Storage Site Property or HISS. The residues were processed and shipped to out-of-state locations. The processing continued until 1970. It was estimated that at the end of processing, 10,000 tons of raffinate and 8700 tons of leached barium sulfate remained at the site. The property was tested in 1979. The property suffered from thorium and radium contamination in and around the buildings and soil. The owner at the time demolished one building, excavated portions of the property, paved areas and constructed several new buildings on 9200 Latty. The excavated materials were moved to 9170 Latty. In 1981, testing in the area occurred again. Contamination in the area was again found. Contaminated soil from areas on Latty Avenue was excavated and stored at 9170 Latty Avenue. Both 9200 and 9170 Latty were included in an expedited cleanup plan ordered by US Congress. Cleanup was performed from 2001 to 2013 for accessible soils and for structural surface contamination. 9170 Latty Avenue was leased by the Corp of Engineers to store equipment and contaminated soil during the cleanup period. The Corp removed their equipment and contaminated soil and ended their lease in February 2012.
Due to the improvements on 9170- 9200 Latty being constructed after the soil was contaminated, radioactive contamination remains around and under the improvements. Restrictions and notice of the contamination are recorded on the properties. 9200 Latty is more impacted by the remaining contamination due to the number of buildings on the property; 9170 Latty is impacted due to the contamination of “Building 4” which is located partially on 9170 Latty and partially on 9200 Latty.
- Assessment. The properties were classified as commercial real property and valued as follows:
Parcel 10K510023, 9200 Latty Avenue (Appeal 13-14745)
| Year | Land Value | Improvement Value | Total | BOE |
| 2011 | $87,000 | $13,000 | $100,000 | N/A |
| 2013 | Unknown | Unknown | $832,600 | $660,700 |
Parcel 10K510090, 9170 Latty Avenue(Appeal 13-14744)
| Year | Land Value | Improvement Value | Total | BOE |
| 2011 | $500 | $30,900 | $31,400 | N/A |
| 2013 | $195,800 | $26,400 | $222,200 | Sustained |
- Complainant’s Evidence.
Exhibit A: Remedial Action Summary dated February 19, 2014 – 42 page report with attachments regarding the remedial actions for the subject properties.
Exhibit B: Post- Remedial Action Report dated September 25, 2013 authored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Exhibits C and D: FUSRAP (Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program) Updates The St. Louis Sites dated Summer 2012 (Ex C), Winter 2013 (Ex D)
Exhibits E – L: Parcel Views
E – 9170 Latty
F – 9200 Latty
G – FUSRAP parcel map
H – FUSRAP parcel map showing areas of remaining contamination.
I – FUSRAP parcel map showing areas of remaining contamination.
J – FUSRAP parcel map showing areas of remaining contamination.
K – FUSRAP parcel map showing areas of remaining contamination.
L – FUSRAP parcel map showing areas of remaining contamination.
Exhibit M: Mr. Michael J. Wolken – Real Estate Broker. Mr. Wolken has listed, leased and sold properties for the Complainants in the past. He had the subject properties listed at one time. After Mr. Wolken learned of the contamination, he withdrew from the contract to broker the property. It is his opinion that the properties cannot be sold or leased due to the contamination – there is no market for such properties and there is no financing for the properties because of the contamination.
Exhibit N: Mr. John Hottle – Certified General Appraiser. Mr. Hottle testified that the subject properties could not be appraised as no market for the leasing or sale of properties that are contaminated by radioactive materials. He testified that no lender would accept the properties due to the liability associated with the properties.
Exhibit O: John Hottle – CV
Exhibit P: Mr. Rodney Jarboe – Owner of the property. He purchased the property after the property was contaminated and experienced one cleanup. Improvements were constructed believing the property was not contaminated. However, the property was still contaminated and the small remedial measures made by the owner did not remove much of the contamination.
The owner has been unable to sell or lease the land because of the contamination. At one time he sold a business (Futura) located at the properties. The purchaser of the business moved the operations off the subject property. The owner testified that he sold other properties he owned and moved his other manufacturing businesses into the improvements on 9200 Latty. His manufacturing businesses are too small for the improvements but could not lease the properties to anyone else. There are deed restrictions on the property due to the contamination. Pursuant to Federal Code and Tolling Agreements, the Complainants are liable for the cost of remediation. He estimated the cost to be in the millions.
Rebuttal Exhibit Q – Excluded for lack of foundation and cumulative
Rebuttal Exhibit R – Excluded for lack of foundation and cumulative
- No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014; therefore, the assessed value for 2013 remains the assessed value for 2014. Section 137.115.1, RSMo.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered no exhibits as a case-in-chief. The Respondent offered rebuttal exhibits:
Exhibit 1 – Post Remedial Action Report dated September 25, 2013.
- Acronyms and Abbreviations
- Table 3 – Chronology of Significant Events
- Table 4 – Performance Results
- Verification Summary
- Tables A-13-10, A13-11, Table A13-12
- Appendix B Final Inspection Forms
- Letter dated December 2, 2011 from MSD
Exhibit 2 – Post-Remedial Action Report and Final Status Survey Evaluation for the Latty Avenue Property Futura – St. Louis
- Acronyms and Abbreviations
- Planned Future Land Use
- Table 3 Chronology of Significant Events
- Final Inspection Section 4.3
- Table 4, Performance Results
- Dose Rate Measurement Collection
- Institutional Controls for Inaccessible Areas
- Property Status Conclusions
Exhibit 3 – Not offered
Exhibit 4 – Not offered
Exhibit 5 – Not offered
Exhibit 6 9060 Latty – 2006 Sale
- Special Warranty Deed
- Contract
- Certificate of Value – Excluded as hearsay
- Not offered
Exhibit 7 9151 Latty – Sale 2014
- Special Warranty Deed
- Deed of Trust
- Certificate of Value – Excluded as hearsay
- Not offered
- Not offered
- Addendum to Post Remedial Action Report
- 2007 Maps show decontamination of buildings – excluded for relevance.
- Remedial Action Summary 2013
Exhibit 8 8920 Latty – 2011 Sale
- Special Warranty Deed
- Certificate of Value C
- Sale Brochure – Excluded as hearsay
Exhibit 9: 8966 Latty – Sale 2008
- Special Warranty Deed
- Certificate of Value- Excluded as hearsay
- Sale Brochure- Excluded as hearsay
Exhibit 10 9150 Latty
- Sale Brochure- Excluded as hearsay
Exhibit 11 9040 Frost
- Sale Brochure- Excluded as hearsay
Exhibit 12 – Wall Street Journal Article – Excluded for relevance
Exhibit 13 – WDT Bo Frumson: Questions and Answers 24 and 25 stricken as an opinion of value not offered in the case in chief and not supported by any research or report by the appraiser.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted. Complainant’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.
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. 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. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
Presumption In Appeal
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of 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 of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property. Hermel, supra; 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, supra. 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).
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainants 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, 2013. Hermel, supra. 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.” 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).
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).
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). 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. Div. 2 1974).
Substantial and Persuasive Evidence as to Negative Adjustment
This is clearly an unusual case; it is an out of the ordinary valuation. If a property is impacted by a negative influence, an appraiser can typically make an adjustment in comparable properties in the sales comparison approach, the capitalization rate in an income approach, or as a deduction from the value for repair or remediation in the cost approach or from the concluded value from the other approaches. The owner’s testimony was supportive of a significant negative adjustment to a valuation of the subject property due to the cost of cleanup of contaminated soil and the stigma which he felt would attach to the property because of the radioactive containments. An appraiser may make such an adjustment if a dollar amount is assigned. For example in Colonial Baking Company v. Mary King, Assessor, St. Louis City, 1997 WL 219914 (May 1, 1997), the appraiser opined a value for the property of $435,000 to $440,000 if it were free of asbestos. The property suffered from asbestos in which there was an estimate cost of removal of $1,000,000. Given the projected cost of removal, the appraiser concluded a market value of $0.
As testified to by Mr. Hottle, a Certified General Appraiser, there is no market for properties such as the subject:
“There is no typical market for the leasing or sale of properties that are contaminated by radioactive materials. Such a market is a necessary reference from which to develop an appraisal of the properties. Therefore, there is no basis for either the capitalization of income approach to value or the sales comparison approach. In addition, ordinary financing would not be available for the purchase or development of these properties, because a lender would typically not accept the potential environmental liability associated with being in the chain of title on a contaminated property.”
Without market information regarding these properties, he is unable to perform an appraisal of the properties or develop an appropriate adjustment.
The Hearing Officer is persuaded the concerns relating to and the negative impact of the contamination are proper elements and proper to consider in valuation. The Hearing Officer finds that a negative adjustment for cleanup and stigma would be appropriate in arriving at a determination of value.
The removal of the negative influence – radioactive contamination – was quite extensive. (The contamination was not completely removed. The contamination still surrounds the buildings and other areas as indicated on the FUSRAP maps.) The property owner is responsible for those costs and a lien/deed restriction has been placed on the property for those costs. The contamination was up to 12 feet below grade, required the construction and removal of a rail spur to move the materials. It required remediation of the improvements as well. The removal of the contaminant soil alone has an average cost of removal of $765 per cubic meter. Over 25,000 cubic meters were removed from the 9200 Latty property thus far. Without full calculation of all the cleanup costs, it is apparent they far exceed the value set by the Board of Equalization. The property therefore has no value in the market.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and modified by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE. The assessed value for the properties is $0.
Application for Review
A party may file with the Commission 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, RSMo
Disputed Taxes
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 this 3rd day of May 2016.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 3rd day of May, 2016, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
301 W. High Street, Room 840
P.O. Box 146
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146
573-751-2414
573-751-1341 Fax
[1] One building is built on land from both parcels. It is identified in FUSRAP maps as Building 4
[2] Property and improvement information was obtained from the St. Louis County Assessor’s on-line real property look-up and maps submitted as Exhibits.