BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF         ) 

MAURICE T. McLOUGHLIN FROM          )

A DECISION OF THE LARAMIE COUNTY   )         Docket No. 2004-122

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - 2004              )

PROPERTY VALUATION                                 )

(McLoughlin Property)                                      )

DECISION AND ORDER

APPEARANCES

Maurice T. McLoughlin, appearing pro se, on behalf of himself and Susie W. McLoughlin (Petitioners or Taxpayers).

Mark T. Voss, Deputy Laramie County Attorney, on behalf of Brenda Arnold, Laramie County Assessor (Assessor or Respondent).

DIGEST

This is an appeal from a decision of the Laramie County Board of Equalization (County Board) affirming the Assessor’s valuation of Petitioners’ agricultural land. The State Board of Equalization (State Board), comprised of Alan B. Minier, Chairman, Thomas R. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman, and Thomas D. Roberts, Board Member, considered the hearing record and decision of the County Board. Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal was filed with the State Board effective August 24, 2004. Only the Respondent filed a brief as allowed by the State Board’s Briefing Order dated October 8, 2004. Neither party requested oral argument.

In affirming the Assessor’s 2004 valuation of Petitioners’ property, the County Board concluded the Petitioners had not presented sufficient, credible evidence to overcome the presumption that the Assessor’s valuation was valid. On appeal, the Petitioners present no specific allegation of error. Therefore, we have reviewed the decision of the County Board to determine whether it was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD

The County Board conducted a hearing on June 16, 2004. A “Decision on Appeal” was entered by the County Board on July 29, 2004, concluding that the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of demonstrating the parcels were assessed incorrectly, erroneously or in an otherwise unlawful manner, and affirming the Assessor’s determination of the productivity values.

JURISDICTION

The State Board is required to “hear appeals from county boards of equalization.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-11-102.1(c). A timely appeal from the County Board decision was filed with the State Board. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3, §2.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When the State Board hears appeals from a County Board, it acts as an intermediate level of appellate review. Laramie County Board of Equalization v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 915 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Wyo. 1996); Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 802 P.2d 856, 859 (Wyo. 1990). In its appellate capacity, the State Board treats the County Board as the finder of fact. Id. In contrast, the State Board acts as the finder of fact when it hears contested cases on appeal from final decisions of the Wyoming Department of Revenue. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-11-102.1(c). This sharp distinction in roles is reflected in the State Board Rules governing the two different types of proceedings. Compare Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 2 and Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3. Statutory language first adopted in 1995, when the State Board of Equalization and the Department of Revenue were reorganized into separate entities, does not express the distinction between the State Board’s appellate and de novo capacities with the same clarity as our long-standing Rules. 1995 Wyo. Sess. Laws, Chapter 209, §1; §39-1-304(a).

By Rule, the State Board’s standards for review of a County Board’s decision are nearly identical to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act standards which a district court must apply to hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §16-3-114(c)(ii). However, unlike a district court, the State Board will not rule on claims that a County Board has acted “[c]ontrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. §16-1-114(c)(ii)(B). The State Board’s review is limited to a determination of whether the County Board action is:

(a) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(b) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;

(c) Without observance of procedure required by law; or

(d) Unsupported by substantial evidence.

Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3, §9.

Since the State Board Rules are patterned on the judicial review provision of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, we look to precedent under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §16-3-114(c) for guidance. For example, we must apply this substantial evidence standard:

Our task is to examine the entire record to determine if substantial evidence exists to support the [County Board’s] findings. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the [County Board] if [its] decision is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions.

Clark v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division, 934 P.2d 1269, 1272 (Wyo. 1997).

ISSUES

Petitioners generally object to the valuation of that portion of their rangeland classified as R-1 by the Assessor and the validity of the Department of Revenue (Department) formula used for the valuation. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 8].

We conclude agricultural land is valued and assessed on the objective value of what the land is capable of producing under normal conditions. The value is not based on what the land is actually producing but on what the soils, temperature, moisture and other factors would allow. It is the responsibility of the Department to develop values which must be followed by the Assessor and County Board. We conclude the decision of the County Board was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. We further conclude there was substantial evidence on the record supporting the County Board decision.

FACTS PRESENTED TO THE COUNTY BOARD

1.        The Petitioners own or control 6 parcels of land in Laramie County, Wyoming, of which 2,404.10 acres are classified as rangeland for assessment purposes. Of the 2,404.10 acres, 249.82 acres are classified as R-1, 5.7 acres are classified as R-4, and the remaining 2148.58 acres are classified as R-5 by the Assessor. [County Board Record, pp. 60-65, 72-77]. The six protested parcels containing R-1 land are:

[County Board Record, pp. 72-77].

2.        The Assessor sent Petitioners’ Notices of Assessment for the 2004 tax year on March 15, 2004. [County Board Record, pp. 60-65; Trans. p. 16].

3.        On April 14, 2004, Maurice T. McLoughlin filed six Official Appeal of Assessments. [County Board Record, pp. 52-57]. On May 10, 2004, the Laramie County Clerk wrote the McLoughlins advising them of the June 16, 2004, hearing before the Laramie County Board of Equalization. [County Board Record, p. 8-A]. On May 28, 2004, the Respondent sent copies of the exhibits the Assessor would offer at the County Board hearing to Petitioners. [County Board Record, p. 59].

4.        Maurice T. McLoughlin appeared and testified on behalf of the Taxpayers at the County Board hearing. The Assessor was represented by Mark T. Voss, Deputy County Attorney. The Assessor testified on her own behalf at the County Board hearing. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 2].

5.        Mr. McLoughlin testified he had some questions about the validity of the information the Department uses in the formula to arrive at productive value for the land classified as R-1 rangeland.

6.        Mr. McLoughlin reviewed the Department’s paperwork identifying the number of animal unit months (AUMs) and had a problem with the Department using Lusk and Pine Bluffs, Wyoming, as comparable since they are at lower elevations than his land. He also discussed the topography of Petitioners’ land and its ability to hold precipitation, contrasting it in general with other areas. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 10]. He did not present evidence of a different AUM production level for the land under appeal.

7.        Mr. McLoughlin testified the land under appeal land is classified R-l in Land Resource Area 2. He questioned the fact that the Department has only one classification higher than the property under appeal. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 11].

8.       While Mr. McLoughlin questioned the accuracy of the figures the State is using in the formula, he acknowledged the Assessor is required to use the State figures and graphs. He admitted his argument is mainly with the State. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 11 ].

9.        Mr. McLoughlin told the County Board he believed the Assessor’s figures were double what they should be. [County Board Record, Trans. pp. 13-14]. The six Official Appeal of Assessment forms each showed a productivity figure of $165 on the line “Remedy Requested: (Changes in estimated market value should be supported by documentation).” [County Board Record, pp. 52-57]. No documentation or other information supporting the $165 figure was presented at the County Board hearing.

10.      The Assessor testified she has served as Laramie County Assessor since January 1995. She is certified as a Wyoming property tax appraiser and has an accreditation from the International Association of Assessing Officers. She is responsible for determining the taxable value of property within Laramie County, specifically the productivity value for the agricultural land in the McLoughlin appeal. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 15]. She explained she followed Department of Revenue and Board of Equalization Rules which determine the procedures that must be used when determining productivity. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 16].

11.      The Assessor testified she had some concerns about the agricultural classification of Petitioners’ land because she was unable to locate any livestock on the property, and had not been able to verify the lease of the land with the agricultural operator leasing Petitioners’ land. However, she did not change the agricultural classification for assessment purposes. [County Board Record, Trans. pp. 17-18].

12.      The Assessor testified as to how many acres were in each property and how the value for the land under protest was calculated using the Department’s Rules and the Department’s 2004 Agricultural Land Valuation Study. All of Laramie County has the same land resource area (LRA) of 2. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 19; County Board Record, p. 113].

13.      The Assessor explained that digital soils information for western Laramie County was available for the first time in 2003, and was used as required by Chapter 11 of the Department’s Rules for classifying Petitioners’ property. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 20]. In examining the infrared satellite imagery photos, the Assessor found that Petitioners’ R-1 land has been mechanically harvested. She also testified that Petitioners’ land is very productive land, the best rangeland in Laramie County according to the infrared satellite imagery. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 21].

14.      The Department’s 2004 Agricultural Land Valuation Study - Range Land Appraisal Value sets the range of values for R-1 rangeland between $419 (high) and $205 (low). The Petitioners request that the Assessor use $165, which is below the authorized high-low range. The Assessor chose to value all R-1 rangeland in Laramie County, including Petitioners’ R-1 rangeland, at $333 per acre based on her office’s historical use of a value calculated at 60% of the high value and 40% of low value. [County Board Record, Trans. pp. 21-22, 28].

15.      The Assessor testified she believes the $333 per acre for R-1 rangeland in Laramie County to be accurate. The Assessor is mandated to use the range of values which come from the Department. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 22].

16.      Jeff Moore, a principal appraiser with the Department’s Ad Valorem Tax Division, was called as a witness for the Assessor. Mr. Moore is charged with determining the actual productive values to be used by all county assessors in valuing irrigated crop land, dry crop land, and rangeland. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 31].

17.      Mr. Moore explained the Agricultural Land Valuation Study compiled each year by the Department is based on the income approach to value. It requires that there be income derived which is capitalized using a capitalization rate to determine actual value. For the capitalization rate, the Department uses the Farm Credit Bank of Omaha’s long-term portfolio rates. They use a five year weighted average. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 32].

18.      Mr. Moore informed the County Board that the production values used by the Department are obtained from the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service. For rangeland the Department uses the AUM (animal unit month) stocking range, which is enough forage to sustain a cow with calf or a thousand-pound cow for one month. The income amount is based on the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service surveys of producers throughout the state and is the actual rental rate or lease rate if the land were being leased. Expenses are deducted from income to arrive at a net income. The net income is then capitalized by dividing the net income by the capitalization rate to determine the actual value. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 33].

19.      Mr. Moore explained that the production rates for the various land classifications were developed by an Agricultural Research Committee comprised of representatives from the Department, Wyoming County Assessors Association, Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Wheatgrowers Association, Stockgrowers Association, University of Wyoming Agricultural Department, Wyoming State Range Farm Bureau Federation, Rocky Mountain Farm Bureau, and the Woolgrowers Association. This committee determined the production rates to be used for the actual valuation formula. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 34]. For rangeland, the Department had a soil scientist on staff who worked with Natural Resources Conservation Service tech guide sheets to develop the stocking rates to be utilized for rangeland classes R-1, R-2, and R-3 based on precipitation, climate conditions and the actual forage of the land. Once the stocking rates were developed, they were approved by the Agricultural Research Committee. The only factors that change annually in the Department’s agricultural land valuation formula are the interest rates and the actual price of the commodities. [County Board Record, Trans. pp. 35, 39].

20.      Mr. Moore stated that the Wyoming Constitution requires agricultural and grazing land be valued according to the capability of the land to produce agricultural products under normal conditions. The values are therefore, based off average and normal conditions and don’t take into account drought or good or bad years. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 38].

21.      Mr. Moore also explained at length why a five year weighted average is used to calculate commodity prices. The five year weighted average levels out big spikes and declines in commodity prices. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 40].

22.      On July 29, 2004, the County Board issued its decision affirming the Assessor’s productivity values. [County Board Record, p. 125, Exhibit A].

DISCUSSION OF PETITIONERS’ ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW

23.      Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal to the State Board was filed timely. The State Board has jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues properly raised pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-13-109(b)(ii). However, Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal to the State Board only states: “I would like to appeal Laramie County desicison (sic) Dated July 30th.” [State Board Record].

24.      The Rules of the State Board governing appeals from a county board of equalization decision require a notice of appeal contain a statement in ordinary and concise language of the facts and errors alleged to have been committed and issues upon which the appeal is based and of the amount of the tax assessment or refund denial, and the amount of tax in controversy. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3, §2(b)(ii) and (iii). Petitioners failed to comply with this Rule.

25.      Because of Petitioners’ failure to comply with our Rules or to file a brief in this matter, we are left with the difficult task of trying to discern Petitioners’ complaint with the County Board decision without assistance. While this Board makes some allowances for pro se litigants, we caution Petitioners and other pro se litigants that they will be expected to comply with the minimal requirements of our Rules. Were this an appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court, the decision of the County Board may very well have been summarily affirmed and costs assessed against Petitioners for their failure to identify any claimed error or to provide cogent argument or pertinent authority. See: Dewey Family Trust v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 3 P.3d 833 (Wyo. 2000).

26.      From our review of the County Board record, it appears Petitioners raised two issues at the hearing before the County Board. Petitioners contested some of the information used in the Department formula for computing value, and contested the classification of a portion of their rangeland as category R-1. Petitioners concede that most of their argument is with the State. Absent the required designation of issues by the Petitioners, we will assume these are the issues Petitioners desire to pursue on appeal.

Agricultural Land Classification

27.      Petitioners’ first complaint appears to concern the County Board’s affirmation of the Assessor’s classification of a portion of Petitioners’ rangeland as R-1.

28.      The primary consideration in classifying agricultural land for assessment purposes is the land’s capability to produce agricultural products. Wyo. Const. art. 15 §11(b); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-13-103(b)(x)(B)(IV); Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §4 (a)(ii).

29.      Wyoming Statutes Annotated Section 39-13-103(b)(x)(B) provides in pertinent part:

(B) Contiguous or noncontiguous parcels of land under one (1) operation owned or leased shall qualify for classification as agricultural land if the land meets each of the following qualifications:

* * *

(IV) The land has been used or employed, consistent with the land’s size, location and capability to produce as defined by department rules and the mapping and agricultural manual published by the department, primarily in an agricultural operation, . . . (emphasis added.)

30.      Consistent with Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-13-103(b)(x)(B)(IV), the Department’s Rules further establish that “[t]he Mapping and Agricultural Manual is the Department’s official source for general mapping and agricultural land valuation standards for all County Assessors.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §4(a).

The classification of agricultural land, for assessment purposes, shall be based on the Mapping and Agricultural Manual in which the soil’s capability to produce vegetation will be determined for three principal agricultural uses; irrigated crop land, dry crop land and rangeland.

Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §4(a)(ii).

31.      The Rules of the Department define “Rangeland” as “any land which is used for livestock production, and cannot or has not been cultivated by mechanical means.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §3(g), (h) and (j).

32.      An assessor is “responsible for developing and maintaining current maps, in accordance with the Mapping and Agricultural Manual, which depict all three categories of agricultural land use, which include irrigated crop land, dry crop land and rangeland.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §4(b)(iii). An assessor is required to adhere to the standards and productivity sources as specified in the Department’s Mapping and Agricultural Manual. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §4(b).

33.      The Mapping and Agricultural Manual sets out the three steps for classifying agricultural land productivity. The steps are: 1) Identify ownership, 2) Identify land use (irrigated crop land, dry crop land and range land) and 3) Identify productivity. Mapping and Agricultural Manual, §5, p. 5-1 (July 30, 1996).

34.      In identifying land use, the Mapping and Agricultural Manual recognizes that any one or all three categories of agricultural land, irrigated crop land, dry crop land and rangeland, may be found in any given parcel.

To properly value each agricultural parcel, these categories must be correctly identified and located. This is accomplished through the use of Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Surveys, color infrared photography, aerial photography and U.S.G.S. [United States Geological Survey] orthophotos.

Mapping and Agricultural Manual, §5, p. 5-1 (July 30, 1996).

35.      At the County Board hearing, Petitioners presented generalizations with respect to the classification of their property as R-1 rangeland when compared to other R-1 rangeland, including generalizations about altitude and topography. However, Petitioners did not present specific evidence establishing that the Assessor’s classification was incorrect.

36.      In contrast, the Assessor presented specific evidence, including the infrared satellite imagery photos, establishing the portion of Petitioners’ rangeland classified as R-1 as very productive land. She characterized it as the best rangeland in Laramie County according to the infrared satellite imagery. [County Board Record, Trans. p. 21].

37.      An Assessor’s valuation is presumed valid, accurate, and correct. This presumption survives until overturned by credible evidence. Teton Valley Ranch v. State Board of Equalization, 735 P.2d 107, 113 (Wyo.1987). A mere difference of opinion as to value is not sufficient to overcome the presumption. J. Ray McDermott & Co. v. Hudson, 370 P.2d 364, 370 (Wyo. 1962). The presumption is especially valid where the Assessor valued the property according to the Department’s Rules and Regulations. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 §6(b),(d). “The burden is on the Taxpayer to establish any overvaluation.” Hillard v. Big Horn Coal Co., 549 P. 2d 294 (Wyo. 1976).

38.      The County Board record lacks any substantial evidence by Petitioners to challenge the Assessor’s classification of the property based upon productive capacity.

39.      Based on the applicable constitutional provision; the Wyoming Statutes and Rules and Regulations of the Department, which require the Assessor to classify agricultural land based on its capability to produce; the infrared images of Petitioners’ rangeland; and the absence of evidence that the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Surveys, color infrared photography, aerial photography or U.S.G.S. orthophotos establish a different land classification, we conclude the decision of the County Board affirming the Assessor’s land classification was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.

40.      Further we conclude that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the County Board.

Agricultural Land Value

41.      We perceive Petitioners’ second issue to be an objection to the County Board’s affirmance of the Assessor’s valuation of Petitioners’ R-1 rangeland at $333 per acre rather than the $165 per acre suggested by Petitioners.

42.      The authority to determine the taxable value of agricultural lands is vested in the Department.

The department shall determine the taxable value of agricultural land and prescribe the form of the sworn statement to be used by the property owner to declare that the property meets the requirements of subparagraph (B) . . . . In determining the taxable value for assessment purposes under this paragraph, the value of agricultural land shall be based on the current use of the land, and the capability of the land to produce agricultural products, including grazing and forage, based on the average yields of lands of the same classification under normal conditions.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-13-103 (b)(x)(A).

43.      The Department is required to confer with, advise and give necessary instructions and directions to the county assessors as to their duties, and to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the enforcement of all tax measures. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-11-102(c)(xvi) and (xix). In particular, the Department “shall prescribe by rule and regulation the appraisal methods and systems for determining fair market value using generally accepted appraisal standards.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-13-103(b)(ii).

44.      The Department has adopted Rules, Chapter 11, Ad Valorem Classification, Valuation, Methodology and Assessment for Designated Agricultural Land. Consistent with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103 (b)(x)(A), the Department’s Rules provide that “[t]he Mapping and Agricultural Manual is the Department’s official source for general mapping and agricultural land valuation standards for all County Assessors.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §4(a). [County Board Record, p. 68].

45.      The Department’s Rules, Chapter 11, §5(a) require the Department to develop valuation amounts for agricultural land using the “Mapping and Agricultural Manual.” The determined value is based upon the capacity of the land to produce forage or crops. The Department publishes this valuation information through the annual Agricultural Land Valuation Study:

Valuation amounts for agricultural land for assessment purposes shall be based upon the Department’s Mapping and Agricultural Manual, and shall be published annually by January first or as soon thereafter as possible by the Department of Revenue. The valuation of agricultural land is based upon the land’s capability to produce forage or crops.

Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §5(a). The annual Agricultural Land Valuation Study is, in form and function, an order, procedure or formula of the Department

46.      The Department’s Rules for the valuation of rangeland further provide:

The gross income from rangeland is based on the price of grazing reported in dollars per AUM by the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service. This price information is converted to a 5 year weighted average. The gross income from rangeland is calculated using the 5 year weighed price of grazing per AUM. All of the gross income from the grazing is treated as cash rent paid to the owner for grazing . . ..

Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §5(b)(ii)(C)(I). [County Board Record, p. 107].

47.      An assessor is required to annually value property within the assessor’s county for tax purposes at its fair market value. In completing this task, an assessor is required to “[f]aithfully and diligently follow and apply the orders, procedures and formulae of the Department of Revenue or orders of the State Board of Equalization for the appraisal and assessment of all taxable property.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. §18-3-204(a)(ix). An assessor is required to select a value “. . . within the range of values for the current year as published in the Ad Valorem Tax Division’s Agricultural Land Valuation Study.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 11, §5(c). [County Board Record, p. 108].

49.      The Department’s annual Agricultural Land Valuation Study, as an order, procedure, and formula, is binding on an assessor. Neither the Laramie County Assessor, nor the County Board have the authority to deviate from the valuation ranges established by the Department.

51.      Based on the applicable constitutional provision, the Wyoming Statutes, and the Rules and Regulations of the Department, the Assessor is required to select a value within the range of values for the current year as published in the Ad Valorem Tax Division’s Agricultural Land Valuation Study, which the Assessor did in this case. We therefore, conclude the decision of the County Board affirming the Assessor’s determination of productive values is correct.

52.      We find nothing in the record to support the Petitioners’ asserted value.

53.      The Department of Revenue is not a party to this appeal. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3, §4. If the Petitioners have a grievance with the Department of Revenue for setting a range of values for the County Assessor, the remedy does not lie in this appeal.

54.      Further, we conclude that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the County Board.

ORDER

           IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that the Laramie County Board of Equalization Order Denying the Petitioners’ Protest and Affirming the 2004 Assessment of Petitioners’ property is affirmed.

Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §16-3-114 and Rule 12, Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by this decision may seek judicial review in at the appropriate district court by filing a petition for review within 30 days of the date of this decision.

           Dated this _______ day of March, 2005.

                                                                                          STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

                ________________________________

                                                                                          Alan B. Minier, Chairman

   ________________________________

                                                                                         Thomas R. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman

      ________________________________

      Thomas D. Roberts, Board Member

ATTEST:

_________________________________

Wendy J. Soto, Executive Secretary