BUCHANAN AG PROPERTIES, INC.,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeals Number 02-45004 & 02-45005
	)
SCOT VAN METER, ASSESSOR,	)
BUCHANAN COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

The decision of the Buchanan County Board of Equalization setting market value for Appeal No. 02-45004 at $1,065,813 (assessed value $341,060) for tax year 2002 is hereby SET ASIDE.

The decision of the Buchanan County Board of Equalization setting market value for Appeal No. 02-45005 at $102,407 (assessed value $32,770) for tax year 2002 is hereby SET ASIDE. The correct combined market value for the subject properties on January 1, 2002, was $25,000 (assessed value $8,000).

These appeals were heard and decided by hearing officer, Luann Johnson. Complainant was represented by counsel, Simon Buckner. Respondent was represented by counsel, Pamela Cone.

The issue in these appeals is true value in money of the subject property, an obsolete grain elevator and supporting land, on January 1, 2002.

A hearing was conducted on August 12, 2003, in the Buchanan County Courthouse, St. Joseph, Missouri. Complainant appeared by its appraiser, Dennis Vogan. Respondent appeared by his appraiser, Larry Jones.

The property consists of two parcels, numbers 06-9.0-30-000-001.000 (Appeal No. 02-45004) and 06-4.0-19-004-000-002-00 (Appeal No. 02-45005), which form what is commonly referred to as the APeavey@ or AConAg@ grain elevator. For the purposes of the hearing and valuation, the parcels are considered as a single unit. Value is divided equally between the two parcels.

The parcels contain approximately 2.03 acres of land and are improved with a 2,186,000 bushel capacity grain elevator.

For tax year 2002, the proposed values on the parcels are as follows:

For appeal 02-45004, the Assessor determined an market value of $1,065,813 (assessed value of $341,060). The Buchanan County Board of Equalization sustained the valuation of the subject property.

For appeal 02-45005, the Assessor determined a market value of $102,407 (assessed value of $32,770). The Buchanan County Board of Equalization sustained the valuation of the subject property.

At hearing, Complainant proposed a combined value for both parcels of $25,000 (assessed value of $8,000).

Respondent presented no evidence of value at hearing.

The following Exhibits were introduced into the record:

Complainant=s Evidence:

Exhibit A - Appraisal report of Dennis Vogan.

Exhibit B - Written direct testimony of Dennis Vogan.

Exhibit C - Written direct testimony of William Webster.

Respondent=s Evidence:

Exhibit 1 - Answer to Interrogatories of William Webster.

1. Jurisdiction over these appeals is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Buchanan County Board of Equalization.

2. The subject properties are combined for purposes of hearing and decision. Combined, the parcels form a tract of land containing approximately 2.03 acres. The parcels are improved with a slipform concrete terminal grain elevator built in the 1920's or 1930's. The grain elevator has a total licensed grain storage capacity of 2,186,000 bushels and the capacity to load 30 train cars.

3. The subject grain elevator was last operated as a commercial warehouse in June of 1997. Most of the elevator=s operating systems have been removed or are no longer operational. The estimated cost to return the elevator to service is 1 million dollars.

4. The grain elevator also suffers from significant economic obsolescence. The demand for small terminal elevators is declining. Today=s grain industry prefers grain loading facilities located closer to production areas on mainline railroads with the ability to load up to 110 cars.

5. It is not financially feasible to remove the improvements from the site at this time. demolition costs are estimated at $500,000.

6. ConAg marketed the subject property for two years without finding a purchaser. In December, 2001, Complainant agreed to accept title to the subject property upon the payment by ConAg to Complainant of $25,000 and the prorated taxes due for tax year 2001.

7. Complainant acquired the subject property because it was contiguous to a parcel owned by a sister company and because it was the desire of Complainant that the subject property not fall into further disrepair and create a nuisance for the adjacent property. Complainant reported that a failure to purchase a similar grain elevator in the Kansas City area had resulted in that similar property being turned into a rat infested used tire dump.

8. Complainant=s appraiser assigned no value to the improvements. He determined that the only value was in the land itself, which had a value of approximately $12,000 per acre, or $24,360 rounded to $25,000.

9. Respondent presented no evidence of value.

10. The true value in money of the subject parcels on January 1, 2002 was $25,000, assessed value ($8,000).

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, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978).

In order to prevail, a party must present an opinion of market value and then must present substantial and persuasive evidence that its proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2002, in order to have that value accepted. 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 v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). 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).

The decision of the Buchanan County Board of Equalization is hereby SET ASIDE. The correct market value for the subject appeals on January 1, 2002, was $25,000 (assessed value $8,000). The Clerk is HEREBY ORDERED to place the new assessed value on the tax books for tax year 2002. The new value shall be divided equally between the two parcels.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of a hearing officer decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.

If an application for review of a hearing officer decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission. If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Buchanan 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. If any protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.

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 September 17, 2003.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer