Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, right, testifies to the House Budget Committee in February. Bailey sued Jackson County over its property assessment process but had the case dismissed. Now a court has also dismissed the State Tax Commission’s attempt to enforce its order against Jackson County. (Rudi Keller/MIssouri Independent).
State officials’ hopes of rolling back Jackson County property assessment increases are floundering after a circuit court judge dismissed a lawsuit by the State Tax Commission on Wednesday.
The commission in August ordered Jackson County to reverse most of its 2023 property valuations, arguing they had been performed illegally and resulted in huge increases in property values.
But the county didn’t comply.
Jackson County officials called the State Tax Commission’s August order “unconstitutional” and “unprecedented” and said it only took action to cover for Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s failures in his own efforts to undo the property assessments.
The State Tax Commission then sought a court order to force the county to cap property assessments to a 15% increase since the last assessment — unless new construction or building improvements increased the value. That effort was dismissed Wednesday.
Missouri attorney general asks to dismiss lawsuit a day before scheduled deposition
Jackson County Executive Frank White Jr. thanked county residents in a statement Wednesday “for their patience and understanding as we’ve worked to address problems that have been decades in the making.”
“Our goal remains ensuring that every property owner is treated fairly under the law,” White said.
Gregory Allsberry, chief counsel for the State Tax Commission, said in an email that the judge did not find the commission’s order invalid.
“The commission’s order is still a valid order, despite Jackson County’s refusal to comply, and the Commission will continue to do all within its power to enforce the order,” Allsberry said. “It will also do everything within its power to ensure that Jackson county’s assessing officials don’t commit the violations of state law in 2025 that they did during the 2023 reassessment cycle.”
Neither Bailey’s office nor the State Tax Commission immediately returned requests for comment.
Jackson County’s property valuation process has been in near-constant litigation since Bailey and the State Tax Commission first sued the county in December.
According to that lawsuit, the county’s 2023 reassessment process resulted in an average 30% increase in value across hundreds of thousands of properties in the county. The lawsuit says more than 90% of residential properties saw an increase in value, and values increased by at least 15% for three-quarters of properties in the county.
The increase in property values means an increase in property taxes for some owners.
Bailey and the State Tax Commission accused Jackson County of failing to follow proper procedures in the valuation process, including performing physical inspections, before increasing property values by more than 15%.
During the litigation, Bailey and a deputy came under fire for meeting with a Jackson County official without notifying the county’s attorneys. Under Missouri Supreme Court rules, attorneys are not to communicate about a lawsuit with individuals represented in the case by another lawyer without the consent of the other lawyer.
Bailey maintained that his meeting with the official, Sean Smith, was nothing more than a campaign meeting. At the time, Smith, a member of the Jackson County Legislature, was running for the U.S. House of Representatives against incumbent U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, II, who won with 60% of the vote earlier this month.
Jackson County’s attorneys were granted permission by the judge in the case to question Bailey under oath about his meetings with Smith. But in August, a day before Bailey was scheduled to sit for the deposition, the State Tax Commission issued its order and Bailey’s office had the case dismissed.
At the time, Bailey’s spokeswoman, Madeline Sieren, said the state dismissed the lawsuit because of the State Tax Commission’s order.
“Pushing the lawsuit forward could have jeopardized the much needed relief offered in the Tax Commission’s order and would be counterproductive for Jackson County taxpayers,” Sieren said in an August email.
The county said at the time that the State Tax Commission was “being used as a shield for…Bailey, who is trying to escape accountability after lying and realizing he was losing the case.”
When the county didn’t comply with the August order, the State Tax Commission sought a court order to force the issue.
In response, the county said in a filing that the State Tax Commission was attempting to bring the same legal claims a second time. That was impermissible, the county argued, because the original lawsuit was dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning the case couldn’t be brought again.
Senior Judge Jacqueline Cook, who handled the case because the circuit judges in Jackson County recused themselves, dismissed the case with prejudice Wednesday.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.