[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6128745,"mediaKeyId","5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5","parentId",5750256,"title","County requests sale documentation after owner says he overpaid for former Macy’s at Metro North Crossing","audioSeconds",77,"startMs",7326000,"endMs",7403000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5&start=7326&end=7403","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5/thumbnail_7326000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6128745/Clay-County/Missouri/County-requests-sale-documentation-after-owner-says-he-overpaid-for-former-Macys-at-Metro-North-Crossing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6128745-401d4234a7b1c88e6feaba7a2c9d03d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770960908&Signature=DiTWOkup9YgyJV-rrNTCUEGPhuNxnEPeBcnKm2ZQFplm-DyYjz9oRlJGEYyRQEtGtfUldHNI2EXN~Ns0Hd3cPKG~UQ26XBBnP~7Db1-6TIrlKChIzWW7ige28yaZ-DX59VGo0aLtPxMRqsMzX9aZpo~cmJovSkIpMwNsHzGDB7eCDFTV7GPXwtK4Z10XuMpsyJOr~zykzVnl5fGgeblDnXd3xv-lHE4PUS2Sg~MFomN3IYZv9R7gnENpfr7c3xCf~GDKP8wBktXz1N9XRXW2BJZ9T48SeO2roaxj29MvDiCz0THPraB4muwjyUrwFQKM2g-s4mStIVDcUUWXRIsszw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clay County, Missouri","date","2025-08-22T00:00:00Z","article","A recent purchase of the former Macy’s at Metro North Crossing drew scrutiny at an appeals hearing after a representative for the buyer said he paid $6.7 million and that brokers believed fair market value was closer to $4 million.

Why it matters: If the purchase price is a non–arms-length transaction or reflects special circumstances, county staff said they cannot accept an unsupported owner assertion without settlement documentation; loan and deed recordings can bear on valuation determinations.

At the hearing the appellant’s representative said Dan Horn purchased the parcel in 2024 for $6.7 million and that Mr. Horn told the representative brokers believed fair market value was roughly $4 million. County staff said the claim was hearsay without a settlement statement or closing documentation and observed that the loan records show a deed of trust and a loan amount recorded June 3, 2025, for $9,700,000 that may reflect planned improvements or financing. The county asked the appellant to provide a settlement statement or similar closing documentation; staff said an appraisal likely accompanied the recent loan.

County staff also noted they had submitted maps and other Metro North Crossing data and asked for the requested evidence in advance of any local change; without documentation the county said it could not accept the asserted sale price. The transcript records county staff saying an email alone is insufficient evidence to alter assessed value and that the county requested settlement statements and appraisal materials.

Decision and next steps: The county requested the settlement statement or similar proof of closing; staff recommended no change locally until such evidence is provided. The transcript does not show a formal local change to the assessment during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Clay County Board of Equalization Hearings August 22nd, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","An owner reportedly paid $6.7 million last year for the former Macy’s parcel; county staff said the claim requires a settlement statement or deed evidence and noted a June 2025 loan of $9.7 million related to the property.","taxTitle","taxId",13661,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6128750,"Multiple grocery-store appeals remain open as county defers to state commission",6946,3317000,10263000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5&start=3317&end=10263","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5/thumbnail_3317000.jpg","/articles/6128750/Clay-County/Missouri/Multiple-grocery-store-appeals-remain-open-as-county-defers-to-state-commission","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6128750-a3149d26b278aed8e816fbae66ea3264/orig.mp4?Expires=1770960908&Signature=a7PkS4TGcF45F6k-c6yVps88bd6LfUTEKf5Ggco-8Mf2Q00blp6RDrDVwx96AEDOl4TUvC63NAnQOTo18-8x61G4tdo3d9O8hX13Hw3zNxTN-U1akBSHpAjURHCQXI1LFHdCKKzhlK5IKFxuJ~wk3MnCRi~ysOEzYsx8fZkDHojzR4qsAFzshlHU8ER-y5YywqUZWNYnZlnX3IMilmZvsZCCQUizX5iZsOvOoEoh0Iu8QyHbO-p8ZCbRGLIRqaCMWFXXFqTBVoA8hpP5sROum90i6uadgoc2~GqEDgWjJAmoZEv5q9hDljzX8cFkVmLdCyqT00oJn1XRR1-sqRW65A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several grocery-store properties were discussed at the appeals hearing, with the county and appellants signaling that many of these cases are pending at the State Tax Commission and that the local board will likely hold to a no-change position pending state review.

Why it matters: Grocery stores often use financing and sale-leaseback structures that affect how appraisers and tax assessors calculate income and rents; divergent methods can create large valuation gaps and repeated appeals.

At the hearing the representative for a Price Chopper property in Kearney said several grocery-store appeals for 2023 and 2024 are pending before the State Tax Commission and that the local board typically will not overrule differing valuations in advance of state action. The county’s stated position was to recommend no change at the local level and to allow the state process to resolve open cases.

On valuation methodology, one speaker described the rise of sale‑leaseback financing for grocery chains and how those transactions create rental rates tied to store sales and negotiated factors rather than standalone market rents. The speaker said appraisers and investors sometimes back into rents using a percentage of grocery-store sales multiplied by a factor, which can depart from traditional market-rent or income‑approach methods.

Discussion: County staff noted a $4 million valuation gap on one Price Chopper case and said the correct local approach is to defer until the State Tax Commission rules on related 2023–24 appeals. For Hy‑Vee and similar chains the county and appellants disputed how to treat sale‑leaseback rents and whether those are market rents for assessment purposes.

Decision and next steps: For multiple grocery-store appeals the county recommended no change locally and indicated the issues would be decided at the State Tax Commission where appraisals and financing evidence can be fully reviewed. The transcript does not show local board votes on these matters during the hearing.","Several grocery properties, including Price Chopper and Hy‑Vee locations, are under appeal to the State Tax Commission for tax years 2023–25; county staff said they will likely maintain no-change locally while awaiting state rulings and noted the sale‑leaseback financing model complicates valuation.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6128755,"County reclassifies Hy-Vee–adjacent parking lot as taxable after correcting exempt status",287,9360000,9647000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5&start=9360&end=9647","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5/thumbnail_9360000.jpg","/articles/6128755/Clay-County/Missouri/County-reclassifies-Hy-Veeadjacent-parking-lot-as-taxable-after-correcting-exempt-status","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6128755-a3148ec1a57d338ab19a7eef749e1cea/orig.mp4?Expires=1770960908&Signature=ECiwblJdaHDxqS8cp5cHIJDFYRYt3QMBE9-9BHtiOG5-GTosnb1on~z~f2XRWgMv3SUPxSNsqlBD0az05XueD9waPpr0biMLu254vEc4FFvwCGRwmSNN1HOUFjUXsjQqNn6OLxdz~4cS7GTjwBL9n2Rh5QZo2ULK2GvvdZBei~Us8Bo~7X1lzUMsPzRauAenGI4wpqaN7HETvsN~PkOXnr1cJQOzdXS2lTY9L3rUqdztsWs0lyEVgB7-nQM43BLVimU-Xmrge5jpt3-PCKT8ZqHAJeVQxJLC2yM6vTIs6yZFgs06DjdLRArgaSTfs6atfTCGcf9jz3KIEeDNLUDGrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clay County assessment staff told an appeals hearing they corrected a parcel adjacent to the Hy‑Vee in Liberty that had been marked exempt in county records and associated with the Olive Garden parcel. The county said the piece of land is a 2.2‑acre support parking parcel and should be taxed to Hy‑Vee for 2025, with a resulting assessed value of $673,700.

Why it matters: Reclassifying a previously exempt parcel increases the county’s tax roll for the property and changes who receives the tax bill. The county said Olive Garden previously paid the tax under a private arrangement, but the county must record the parcel owner and tax the parcel unless it meets an exemption category.

Grant Knopf, identified in the transcript as a member of the Clay County Assessor’s Office, summarized the county’s position: the parcel had been shown as exempt in 2024; for 2025 the assessor’s office corrected the record, assigned a value based on land comparables and cost approach, and removed the exemption. Knopf said the county does not classify the parcel as a pad site for development because it is a support parcel used primarily for parking; instead, the assessor’s office applied a land value of $6.45 per square foot and added an asphalt improvement valued at about $50,000.

County staff explained that any private agreement between Olive Garden and Hy‑Vee about who pays taxes does not change the fact that the parcel belongs to Hy‑Vee and must be valued for tax purposes. Knopf said the county will send the tax bill to Hy‑Vee, which may have arrangements to pass the charge through to Olive Garden.

Decision and next steps: County staff requested no change to the corrected 2025 valuation on the record and asked that any evidence disputing ownership or use be submitted for rebuttal. The transcript does not show a formal board vote on the matter at the hearing.

Context and limits: This article reports the county’s description of the ownership, prior exemption classification and the new 2025 taxable valuation. It does not adjudicate the legal standing of any private agreement between Olive Garden and Hy‑Vee or the final tax payment arrangements.","A parcel used as a parking lot by Olive Garden had been treated as exempt in county records; the Assessor's Office corrected the error for tax year 2025 and placed a taxable valuation on the lot, saying Hy‑Vee owns the parcel and Olive Garden had been paying taxes under a private agreement.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6128760,"Antioch senior apartments: county and owner debate appraisals and vacancy treatment",671,5520000,6191000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5&start=5520&end=6191","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5/thumbnail_5520000.jpg","/articles/6128760/Clay-County/Missouri/Antioch-senior-apartments-county-and-owner-debate-appraisals-and-vacancy-treatment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6128760-a3ff40518309ec6336c7aee3b2dce9ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1770960908&Signature=kq4nFHhCz~NdutD-T53Eg4yoZe4TNtZEF1YyCzfjSMDtA5mMY9d6Nq9eVOirUM1ScWSSljFxQCs8apOP6a74wJL4F8sio8TmtboKbI~pgvwUcABbH7rfrH3ktiZWL~Z9hZa2w0EdYTm9cZL69HLMoLzpPYkKk9LP0Lx~PE4BwD65v2xTe8sKQMAC9pocnQEjZG6iHqJMW2H7llwkagnqd5-ZXEFkGow0zIkd7zXBQRVoVtzSEmuD9Qdq2UG-HWy8WRJIYAin~8LUO4MIVl~MDfFl-8KYYiE~mDlmTYZpppevVjm1cDhC5-6raTyjn0MnR~i1s~VdmTQiZlinToTRCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An appeal over the Antioch senior apartments focused on per-unit valuation, vacancy assumptions and reliance on appraisals the county says support a higher valuation than the owner’s submission.

Why it matters: Differences in per-unit values and cap-rate assumptions change assessed values across multifamily portfolios, affecting tax bills and market comparisons for similar properties.

At the hearing the property’s representative asked the board to accept a valuation based on a loaded cap rate of 7.53 and a 2% personal property deduction, producing a requested value of roughly $11,000,009. The representative acknowledged they had not included vacancy in the computer calculation and said the property’s actual occupancy was approximately 94.78 percent (five vacant units reported).

Mike Jacoby, identified in the transcript as Clay County assessment staff, told the panel the county had appraisals for comparable class A-minus and B-plus apartments and cited a 2019 appraisal for the subject property at $13,500,000 (appraised Oct. 30, 2019) and an average appraised per-unit figure of about $152,900 among recent appraisals. Jacoby said the county’s appraisals and trip data support a higher valuation and that the county usually uses a 1% personal property deduction rather than 2%.

Discussion: County staff objected that the appellant’s potential gross income (PGI) and the deductions for vacancy and ‘loss to lease’ were underreported in the materials submitted at the hearing and noted the appellant’s analysis was the first the county had seen at the meeting, limiting time for review. County staff recommended a no-change position locally and said the record suggested the owner should pursue the issue at the State Tax Commission if they wished to press differences tied to appraisals.

Decision and next steps: The county asked that the appellant present appraisals and rent-roll details for full review; the transcript records county staff urging a State Tax Commission hearing rather than altering the local assessment without time to examine the newly submitted material. No formal local vote to change valuation appears in the transcript.

Context and limits: The county cited several market appraisals and trip data spanning 2016–2023; the transcript shows disagreement about vacancy and the proper personal property deduction. This article describes only the recorded statements and figures given at the hearing.","Appellant and county gave different unit-per-unit valuations and differed on vacancy and personal property deductions; county cited multiple appraisals and trip data indicating higher per-unit values and lower cap rates.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6128765,"Owner and county differ on Holiday Inn value after 2023 appraisal",12,4162000,4174000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5&start=4162&end=4174","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5750256-80b2b545bbd33d980674da0596aa37b5/thumbnail_4162000.jpg","/articles/6128765/Clay-County/Missouri/Owner-and-county-differ-on-Holiday-Inn-value-after-2023-appraisal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6128765-270ba8a856a3a6ec3ea10fd6f885f324/orig.mp4?Expires=1770960908&Signature=J~T4XHuP~z8XWkrSbwuTknIOHGtTf79MNK9FKOJwh67A-yOlhKSiNMZmUkQIrJQSak6Vh~~4caKR7xfD-bSe8k-kkISkFrDSblLGESz0--Yz3OH6vEIm9CeoPXHzbcgBgHIphpUlxzk387bRMTHVvY3XqvGHhad59lwTG99S88HRHVMJe4JJ26xwZPeYfTBMi74n~GC6dytY1jkgX97VjtxzuDiDsObYO-brqO0NVS8JNgoJVqyHx66QW08JxosDWIPSUtIBUEnTDFA70EHUlMOMcm9gyWU1C88MpHhNN9aXy0l~qBcYr8OcyNcam8HiEJNm64Wg3wh89sB4aATtjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An assessment hearing on the Holiday Inn near Worlds of Fun centered on a large gap between a recent appraisal and the county’s valuation. The owner supplied income and expense statements and an appraisal dated Aug. 1, 2023, that lists the property at $14,300,000; the county’s current assessed value is $5,900,000.

Why it matters: A difference of this size affects the owner’s tax liability significantly and, if sustained, could alter precedent for similar hotel valuations in the county.

At the hearing the property’s representative said the appellant provided financial statements for 2022–24 and used those to calculate a value of $2,662,500 after applying their vacancy and cap-rate adjustments. Mike Jacoby, identified in the transcript as Clay County assessment staff, told the panel that the county’s trip report lists an August 1, 2023, appraisal showing $14,300,000 and said, “The appraisal would spell out everything about this hotel. It would tell you what the business value is, what the real estate value is, and everything.” Jacoby told the hearing he had not seen the full appraisal copy prior to this meeting and asked that the county be allowed to take no change and require the appraisal be submitted at the State Tax Commission level.

Discussion: County staff noted their valuation used a different cap rate and that the appellant’s loaded cap rate was high relative to the appraisal’s implied cap rates; the county pointed to loan-to-value and implied cap-rate figures in the trip report. The appellant asked the board to consider their income-based calculation for tax year 2025. County staff also noted an original loan balance of $9.5 million and other financing entries in the record.

Decision and next steps: County staff recommended a no-change position at the local level and said the appraisal should be produced to the State Tax Commission if the appellant pursues an appeal there. The transcript does not show a formal vote recorded on the record at this hearing.

Context and limits: The county representative described an existing appraisal in their trip report but said the county had not received the full appraisal file before the meeting; the appellant supplied financial data for 2022–24 during the hearing. This article reports only what the transcript records and does not assess the appraisal’s merits or the correct taxable value.

For follow-up: The county asked that the appellant supply the appraisal or otherwise present it to the State Tax Commission; county staff indicated they would treat the local record as a no-change recommendation unless the appraisal were provided for review.","An owner appraisal lists the Holiday Inn near Worlds of Fun at $14.3 million while county records show $5.9 million; county staff asked that any change be pursued at the State Tax Commission and requested the appraisal as evidence.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County requests sale documentation after owner says he overpaid for former Macy’s at Metro North Crossing

Multiple grocery-store appeals remain open as county defers to state commission

County reclassifies Hy-Vee–adjacent parking lot as taxable after correcting exempt status

Antioch senior apartments: county and owner debate appraisals and vacancy treatment

Owner and county differ on Holiday Inn value after 2023 appraisal