Nike IHM v Zimmerman

February 5th, 2002


NIKE IHM, INC., ) Appeal No. 00-33023





ZOLTEK CORPORATION, ) Appeal No. 00-33024


CENTRAL ROLLED THREAD DIE CO., ) Appeal No. 00-33027

NOVUS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Appeal No. 00-33028


Complainants, )


v. )





Respondent. )



Decisions of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization denying exemption of the subject properties for January 1, 2000, are AFFIRMED, Commission renders no decision on value to be placed on subject properties for purpose of assessment as of January 1, 2000.

Complainant, Nike IHM and Zolteck Corporation (Nike), appeared by Counsel, Byron Francis, St. Louis, Missouri.

Complainant, Research Park Investments (RPI), appeared by Counsel, John Mitocka, St. Louis, Missouri.

Complainant, Central Rolled Thread Die Co. (Central), appeared by Counsel, Mark Leadlove, St. Louis, Missouri.

Complainant, Novus International, Inc.(Novus) , appeared by Counsel, Douglas King, St. Louis, Missouri.

Respondent appeared by Counsel, Lisa Leslie, Assistant County Counselor, St. Charles, Missouri.

Counsel, Bryan Francis, acted as lead counsel for Complainants in preparation of Stipulation of Facts and preparing of Brief.

Cases decided by Commission.


The Commission takes these appeals to determine the issue of whether the subject properties are exempt from taxation for tax year 2000. The Commission does not reach the issue of true value in money but retains jurisdiction on that issue, pending judicial review of this decision.


Complainants appeal the decisions of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization which increased the valuations of each of the subject properties from 1999 to 2000. The parties filed Stipulation of Facts on July 23, 2001. Complainants filed a Brief and Reply Brief. Respondent file a Brief. Complainants’ Reply Brief was received by the Commission on November 1, 2001.

The Commission, after consideration of the facts stipulated to by the parties and all the arguments advanced by the briefs of the parties, enters the following Decision and Order on the issue of the exempt status of the subject properties as of January 1, 2000.


Stipulated Findings of Fact

Stipulation of Facts filed by Counsels for Complainants and Respondent on July 23, 2001, approved and adopted by the Commission as Findings of Facts for these appeals.

1. Complainants are the lessees of certain lots of real property (Subject Properties) located in St. Charles County that are the subject of these appeals. The addresses and parcel identification numbers for the subject Properties are as follows:

Nike: 8 Missouri Research Park Boulevard; Parcel ID #3-160-1769-00-Boll.10.

Zoltek: 11 Missouri Research Park Boulevard; Parcel ID #3-160-1796-00-Boll.1.

RPI: 11 Missouri Research Park Boulevard; Parcel ID #3-160-1796-00-Boll.8.

Central: 16 Missouri Research Park Boulevard; Parcel ID #3-160-1796-00-Boll.7.

Novus: 20 Missouri Research Park Boulevard; Parcel ID #3-160-1796-00-Boll.2.

2. At all times relevant to these appeals, the owner of the fee simple interest in the Subject Properties has been the University of Missouri.

3. Complainants constructed certain improvements on the Subject Properties.

4. The Subject Properties are part of a research park known as the Missouri Research Park.

5. The Missouri Research Park was created pursuant to R.S.Mo. Sec. 172.273 (1986), which provides, in part, that utilization of the Subject Properties is deemed to be a public purpose and in furtherance of the purposes of the University. Property owned by the University of Missouri is exempt from taxation pursuant to, inter alia, Mo. Const., Art. X, Sec. 6 and R.S.Mo. Sec. 137.100. Pursuant to R.S.Mo. Sec. 172.273.3, no leasehold or other interest in the Subject Property, by whomever held, may be separately assessed or taxed, and such real property as a whole was deemed to be the property of the University and exempt from all forms of property tax.

6. R.S.Mo. Sec. 172.273 was amended in 1988 and again in 1996. These amendments are not relevant to this appeal.

7. In 1996, the St. Charles County Board of Equalization (the BOE) brought an action questioning the constitutionality of R.S.Mo. Sec. 172.273.3. In Missouri Bluffs Golf Joint Venture v. St. Charles Board of Equalization, 943 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997), the Court of Appeals held that the BOE lacked authority to consider the constitutionality of the statute, and further, stated that Section 172.273.3 is unambiguous and clearly provides an exemption.

8. Notwithstanding the existence of R.S.Mo. Sec. 172.273.3 and the 1997 decision in Missouri Bluffs, Respondent has assessed the Subject Properties in various years since 1994. In all years in which Respondent has assessed the Subject Properties, Complainants have appealed to the Board of Equalization for St. Charles County (the BOE) and, when necessary, to this Commission. In each case, the property was determined to be tax-exempt and not subject to assessment, resulting in an assessed value of $0.00.

9. On August 13, 1996, Respondent and St. Charles County filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County in the matter styled St. Charles County, Missouri, et al. v. Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., Cause No. CV196-5177. Plaintiffs sought a declaration the R.S.Mo. Sec. 172.273.3 violates, inter alia, Mo. Const., Art. X, Sec. 6. Certain of the Complainants, as tenants of Missouri Research

10. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. By Order and Judgment dated September 7, 1999, the Circuit Court found in defendant’s favor, holding that R.S. Mo. Sec. 172.273.3 is constitutional and does not unconstitutionally exempt from real estate taxation the leasehold interests of Defendants in Missouri Research Park. Respondent was ordered to strike [the tenants’]leaseholds from the tax rolls and refrain from assessing such interests.

11. On September 24, 1999, Respondent and St. Charles County appealed the Circuit Court’s decision to the Missouri Supreme Court.

12. As of January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2000, the assessed value of the Subject Properties was $0.00.

13. By notices dated March 31, 2000, Complainants were informed by Respondent that the Subject Properties were being assessed for the year 2000. The assessed values were $2,445,910 for Nike; $756,800 for Zoltek; $1,201,930 for RPI; $493,340 for Central Rolled and $850,720 for Novus.

14. The assessed value of the Subject Properties was included in the assessment rolls as a result of the decision of Respondent.

15. Generally, all parcels of land within St. Charles County are placed upon the tax rolls each year. All parcels of land are retained within the database of property records. Pursuant to a review conducted by the Special Assessment Division, certain properties are determined to be exempt and the assessed value of such properties is removed from the tax rolls each year. There is no separate tax roll for exempt property. Rather, where appropriate, certain properties are identified with codes denoting exemption and then the assessed values of such properties are removed automatically. This coding causes the property value to be disregarded with respect to transferring value to the tax rolls. The property itself is not deleted from the records. In the case of the Subject Properties, no code had been entered denoting automatic exemption. These properties and their values were included in Respondent’s certified rolls in previous years and, because they were not coded with an automatic exemption code, their values were also included in the year 2000 tax rolls. The Subject Properties themselves were never deleted from the assessor’s records.

16. Subsequently, by notices dated May 18, 2000, the assessed value of the Subject Properties was reduced to $0.00. Legal counsel for St. Charles County advised Respondent that the Subject Properties could not be assessed for the current tax year pursuant to the order entered by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County in Cause No. CV196-5177CC. At the direction of Respondent, the assessed values of the Subject Properties were removed from the tax rolls subsequent to taxpayer notification and prior to the May 15, 2000 certification date.

17. On August 1, 2000, the Missouri Supreme Court issued its opinion in St. Charles County et al. v. Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., Case No. SC82038, holding that R.S.Mo. Sec. 172.273.3 violates Mo. Const., Art. X, Sec. 6.

18. Following the ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court, Respondent requested the BOE to add the assessed value of the Subject Properties back onto the 2000 property tax record and to notify the owners and/or lessees. By notices dated August 29, 2000, the St. Charles Board of Equalization increased the assessed valuation of the Subject Properties as follows: for Nike, from $0.00 to $2,798,920; for Zoltek, from $0.00 to $1,000,000; for RPI from $0.00 to $1,350,090; for Central Rolled, from $0.00 to $535,380 and for Novus, from $0.00 to $937,820. A representative copy of the August 29, 2000, Notice was submitted to the Commission as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference in this Finding of Fact. At the direction of Respondent, the leasehold interest in the land was added to the leasehold interest in the buildings, thus increasing the assessed value from the amount stated in the previously mailed notice of chance. This information was presented to the BOE on an Excel spreadsheet at the same time that the BOE was petitioned to add the Subject Properties to the tax rolls.

19. Section 120.210 of the Charter of St. Charles County provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The County Board of Equalization shall meet at least once a month for the purpose of hearing allegations of erroneous assessments, double assessments and clerical errors. Between the first (1st) Monday in June of each year and the last Saturday of July of that year, the Board shall meet in regular session and as often as necessary to timely hear and consider any appeal or complaint resulting from an evaluation made during a general assessment of all taxable real property and possessory interests in St. Charles County. Such hearings must be concluded on the last Saturday in July of each year; provided, that the estimated true value of personal property as shown on any itemized personal property return shall not be conclusive on the Assessor or prevent the Assessor from increasing such valuation.

20. Section 120.220.2 of the Charter of St. Charles County provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Assess omitted property. The Board shall assess and equalize the value of any property that may have been omitted from the Assessor’s books and records then under examination by them and adjust and correct the books and records accordingly;

a. If the Board shall add any property to the Assessor’s books and records or increase the assessment, the Board shall cause notice in writing to be served upon the person owning or controlling the property affected, his agent or representative, by personal notice, by mail, or if the address of the person, agent, or representative is unknown, then by publication in one(1) issue of at least two (2) daily newspapers published within the County. The notice shall state the kind and class of property and the value fixed thereon and name the time and place, not less than five (5) days thereafter, when and where such owner may appear before the Board and show cause why said assessment should not be made;

b. At the time fixed, the Board shall again meet and give opportunity to the taxpayer to be heard in regard to his assessment, and may change or alter the same upon being shown by the owner that the assessment was erroneous or improperly made; otherwise, the property and the valuation, as fixed by the Board, shall be extended upon the Assessor’s books and records, as in the case of other property.

21. No new construction or improvements were added to the Subject Property during the years 1999 or 2000.

22. Complainants timely appealed the August 29, 2000, notice of increase in the assessed value to the BOE.

23. By notice dated November 2, 2000, the BOE denied Complainants’ appeals.

24. Complainants timely appealed such denial to the Commission.

Special Findings of Fact

25. Complainants asserted the following issues: Complaints for Review of Assessment; Complainants’ Brief, p. 6.

A. Each of the Complainants asserted as a ground for appeal in their Complaints for Review of Assessment the ground of overvaluation. The Commission does not reach that issue in this decision, as the evidentiary hearing to consider said issue will not be scheduled until judicial review of this decision and order.

B. Whether the Subject Properties were omitted property so as to allow them to be assessed in the manner done by the Board of Equalization?

C. Whether there exists statutory authority permitting the assessments made by the Board of Equalization to stand?

D. Whether the actions taken by Respondent and the Board of Equalization in increasing the assessed values on the Subject Properties are beyond the time limitations provided for under the statutes?

E. Whether the assessment by the Board of Equalization represent an attempt to improperly retroactively apply the law?

F. Whether the assessment by the Board of Equalization violates the two-year assessment cycle?

G. Whether the assessments on the Subject Properties can be increased in August from the values established by Respondent in March?

26. Counsel for Respondent asserted the following issues: Respondent’s Brief, p. 4.

A. Is the property at issue in this case omitted property?

B. Can property that was previously assigned a $0 value be added to the tax rolls on August 29, 2000?

C. Can property that was treated as tax exempt because of a statute which was later declared unconstitutional be assessed taxes for the entire tax year in which the previously relied-on statute was declared unconstitutional?



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, 138.460(2) RSMo. It is the duty of the Commission to cause to be placed upon the assessment rolls at any time during the year property which may be discovered to have, for any reason, escaped taxation. Section 138.380, RSMo. All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1986, as amended, unless otherwise noted.


Exemption Issue

The only issue which the Commission must reach in order to render its decision is the matter of the exemption granted the subject properties under Section 172.273.3. On August 1, 2000, the Supreme Court of Missouri found that Section 172.273.3 violated Article X, Section 6 of the Missouri Constitution. Accordingly, the subject properties were not exempt, but were subject to ad valorem taxation. It is the responsibility of the Commission when hearing appeals to insure that property is lawfully assessed. The Commission is bound by the determination of the Supreme Court. The subject properties must be placed on the assessment roll for tax year 2000 as taxable properties as was done by the Board of Equalization.

Valuation Issue

The issue of the true value in money of the subject properties, as of January, 2000, is not reached in this decision. Once judicial review is had, or the time for same as expired without Complainants seeking judicial review, then it will be necessary for the Commission to hear evidence on the issue of the fair market value of the subject properties as of January 1, 1999, in order to make a valuation of the properties under Section 137.115 for tax year 2000.


The decision of the Missouri Supreme Court in the St. Charles County et al. v. Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., case is controlling. The statute which granted the subject properties exempt status was not constitutional, accordingly, the properties were not exempt on January 1, 2000.

This decision is a final decision as to the legal issue addressed herein for purposes of seeking judicial review. Accordingly, the Commission retains jurisdiction for the purpose of determining true value in money, pending Complainant’s seeking judicial review.


The determinations by the Board of Equalization for St. Charles County for the subject tax day (January 1, 2000) that the subject properties are not exempt are AFFIRMED.

Judicial review of this Decision may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.470 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the date of the mailing of this Decision.

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 February 5, 2002.


Sam D. Leake, Chairman

Bruce E. Davis, Commissioner

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner