ROBERT L. STANTON,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 02-41000
	)
LORI JONES, ASSESSOR,	)
ATCHISON COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

The decision of the Atchison County Board of Equalization setting market value for Appeal No. 02-41000 at $366,300 (assessed value: $115,010 - commercial; $830 - agricultural) for tax year 2002 is hereby SET ASIDE. The correct market value for the subject property on January 1, 2002, was $278,000 - commercial; $6,900 - agricultural (assessed value: $88,960 - commercial; $830 - agricultural).

This appeal were heard and decided by hearing officer Luann Johnson. Complainant was represented by counsel, Zel M. Fisher. Respondent was represented by counsel, Scott Ross.

The issue in this appeal is true value in money on January 1, 2002, of a two-year old commercial building designed as a fiber optics call center.

A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2003, in the Atchison County Courthouse, Rock Port, Missouri. Complainant appeared by his appraiser, Ed J. Hennessy. Respondent appeared by her appraiser, James W. Downey.

The parcel consists of a one acre commercial site improved with a vacant one-story commercial building. The parcel also contains slightly more than 31 acres of agricultural land.

The parties stipulate as follows:

1. The agricultural land has a value of $6,900.

2. The one acre commercial site has a value of $30,500.

3. The highest and best use of the property is for commercial use.

4. There are no comparable sales in Atchison County.

The following Exhibits were introduced into the record:

Complainant=s Evidence:

Exhibit A - Appraisal report of Ed J. Hennessy.

Exhibit B - Atchison County Development Company flyer of Stanton Building.

Exhibit C - Written direct testimony of Clinton L. Gayler.

Exhibit D - Written direct testimony of Ed J. Hennessy.

Respondent=s Evidence:

Exhibit 1A - Appraisal report of James W. Downey.

Exhibit 2A - Written direct testimony of James W. Downey.

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

2. The subject property is a 32.25 acre tract improved with a one-story, 2,752 square foot, wood frame structure with shake siding, composition roof, over a fully poured concrete walk out basement, with a deck, octagon tower with walkway, tongue and grove cathedral ceiling, skylights, forced air heating, zoned central air, and carpeted floors. The property has 4 large rooms on the main floor and two restrooms. There is minimal interior finish. The property is identified as parcel 10-16-9-29-6.04, more commonly known as 21792 Outer Road, Rock Port, Missouri 64482.

3. The subject property was constructed as a fiber optics call center with fiber optics to support 50 telephones. Recent economic factors have resulted in major telephone companies moving their call centers to foreign countries. The Atchison County Development Corporation has actively marketed the building as a call center for the last two years with no success. The building has not been marketed for any other purpose.

4. The subject property is located at the intersection of US 136 and I-29 in the City of Rock Port, 95 miles north of Kansas City. The subject property has some visibility from I-29, a divided four lane highway that serves as a major artery between Kansas City, Missouri and Winnipeg, Canada. The daily traffic count on I-29 is 12,945 vehicles.

5. Atchison County has a population of only 6,414 people, and population has been decreasing. The small town of Rock Port is the county seat. At the intersection of US-136 and I-29, there are several filling stations, a truck stop, two fast food restaurants, a motel, and a fireworks stand. The subject property is northeast of the fireworks stand, on the outer road. There are additional small commercial buildings in the downtown section of Rock Port, approximately a mile from the subject property. Vacancy rates for commercial buildings in the area are 15% to 20%. The predominant use of land in Atchison County is for agricultural purposes.

6. There are no sales of comparable buildings in Atchison County. Sales outside Atchison County are not substantially similar to the subject property. There was no paired sales analysis by either appraiser to adjust for the significantly different location, population and amenities of the subject property. Therefore, the sales comparison approach is not a reliable indicator of value for the subject property.

7. Complainant=s appraiser found no comparable rentals in the Rock Port area. Respondent=s appraiser found only two rentals in the Rock Port area; one which was about as large as the subject property and the other which was only one-eighth the size of the subject property. Neither one of the proposed comparables were triple net leases, as Respondent=s appraiser suggested would be appropriate for the subject property. Respondent=s other proposed comparable rentals were all located in much more highly developed commercials areas in St. Joseph and Liberty. St. Joseph and Liberty are not comparable locations to the subject property and use of rental information from these areas does not produce a reliable indicator of potential gross income for the subject property. Finally, Respondent=s appraiser used only a 5% vacancy and collection loss calculation and provided no support for his calculation of a capitalization rate. Therefore, we find that the income approach prepared by Respondent=s appraiser is not a reliable indicator of value for the subject property.

8. The subject property suffers from superadequacy. The market for commercial buildings in this area does not recognize value for fiber optics, vaulted ceiling with sky lights, walls of windows, or the turret/tower.

9. The most reliable method of valuing the subject property is through the cost approach. Complainant proposed a value of $278,000 under the cost approach. Respondent proposed a value of $333,900 under the cost approach - which value included $10,000 for the observation tower as well as value for the vaulted ceilings and other superadequate amenities; except no value was placed on the fiber optics. We find that Complainant=s cost approach best addresses the superadequacies of the subject building.

10. The correct value for the subject commercial site and building, utilizing the cost approach, is $278,000 (assessed value $88,960). The stipulated value of the additional agricultural property is $6,900 (assessed value $830). The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2002, was $284,900.

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 Atchison County Board of Equalization is hereby SET ASIDE. The correct market value for the subject property on January 1, 2002, was $278,000 - commercial; $6,900 - agricultural (assessed value: $88,960 - commercial; $830 - agricultural). The Clerk is HEREBY ORDERED to place the new assessed value on the tax books for tax year 2002.

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 Atchison 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 October 8, 2003.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer