A DECISION OF THE ALBANY COUNTY     )         Docket No. 2004-133

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - 2004              )

PROPERTY VALUATION (Crane Property)   )





James Schermetzler, Deputy Albany County Attorney on behalf of Deborah J. Nagel Smith, the Albany County Assessor (Petitioner or Assessor).


Charles H. Crane, appearing pro se, on behalf of himself and Mrs. Charles H. Crane (Respondent or Taxpayer).





This is an appeal from a decision of the Albany County Board of Equalization (County Board). 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. Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was filed with the State Board effective October 6, 2004. The Petitioner and Respondent filed briefs as allowed by the State Board’s Briefing Order issued December 16, 2004. Neither party requested oral argument.


The Assessor appealed a decision of the County Board modifying the Assessor’s 2004 valuation of the Crane Property from $111,900 to $97,500. We reverse the decision of the County Board and reinstate the Assessor’s valuation.





The County Board conducted a hearing on July 23, 2004. A “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order” was entered by the County Board on September 7, 2004, directing the Assessor to lower the Taxpayer’s valuation from $111,900 to $97,500.





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.





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; Wyo. Stat. Ann. §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).





The Assessor raises two issues with the County Board decision: whether the County Board decision is unsubstantiated by the evidence, and whether the decision arbitrarily and capriciously determines the property’s fair market value for the 2004 tax purposes.


We conclude the decision of the County Board was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. We further conclude there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the Assessor’s valuation.





1.        The Respondent owns a residential property at 87 USFS FDR #633, Albany County, Wyoming. [County Board Record, p. 5].


2.        The Assessor sent Respondent a Notice of Assessment for the 2004 tax year on May 18, 2004. [County Board Record, p. 50].


3.        On June 16, 2004, Respondent filed a Petition For Appeal. The Albany County Assessor sent a letter to the Taxpayer advising him of the July 23, 2004 hearing before the Albany County Board of Equalization. [County Board Record, pp. 16-17].


4.        At the hearing the Respondent testified he was concerned about the increase in the assessed value of his property since 2003 and properties in the south end of the county that were used as comparisons. [Trans. pp. 103, 109].


           A.       Respondent’s evidence before the County Board consisted of a written statement, Assessment Notice for 2003 Tax Year, legal description of the property, and photographs of the property. [County Board Record, pp. 87-96].


           B.       Respondent expressed concern that the comparable properties used by the Assessor were “at the other end of the county and are in much different recreational areas.” The map of the comparable properties submitted by the Assessor confirms that the Respondent’s property is located in the northeast corner of Albany County while four of the comparable properties used by the Assessor are in the southwest corner of Albany County and the fifth comparable is south of Laramie. [County Board Record, map].


           C.       Respondent also expressed concern that the valuation of his property increased by 34.5% from 2003 to 2004. [County Board Record, p. 96].


5.        Cheri Frank, Residential Appraiser for the Albany County Assessor’s Office, testified that she was a certified property tax appraiser in the State of Wyoming and had a permanent certification from the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO). [Trans. p. 106].


6.        The Appraiser testified with regard to the valuation process using the Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal system (CAMA). She testified that all sales in Albany County are recorded with the county clerk and verified to make sure the sales are arms-length transactions. Only qualified sales are used in the sales approach for valuation and these verified sales are entered into the computer. [Trans. p. 107].


7.        The Appraiser testified comparable sales are based on features of the assessed buildings and land, such as age, size, land area, garages, decks and number of baths. These features are used to select comparable properties and are adjusted so they look like the subject property, much like a fee appraiser does when doing a fee appraisal. [Trans. p. 108].


8.        The Appraiser testified in order to get enough sales to create a model, they must use all the sales within the county outside of the city of Laramie to support the use of the CAMA system. For any given assessment year, the Assessor will consider sales within the preceding five year period. [Trans. p. 108; Assessor’s Exhibit 28, p. 43].


9.        The Appraiser testified the Crane property is a cabin; basically a recreational use structure similar to many cabins near the Colorado border. In the northern part of Albany County there are several 35 acre subdivisions that can not be used as comparable since they are larger sections of land. All sales used for comparison have been verified as arm’s-length transactions in Albany County as recorded in the county clerk’s office in the last five years. [Trans. pp. 110-112].


10.      According to the Appraiser, the Respondent’s property value was affected by new sales that were comparable. These recent sales are weighed more heavily than earlier sales. The new sales reflect the fact that people are paying more for this type of property than they were a year ago. [Trans. pp. 112-113].


11.      The Respondent questioned the Appraiser as to whether or not two sales in the Crane’s Harris Park area were used as comparables (the Hensel property and Beatty property). [Trans. p. 113].


12.      The Appraiser testified the Assessors’ Office had no record of a valid sale which actually took place for the Beatty property in the last five years. However, the Hensel property sold on September 16, 2003 for $75,000. It was not used as a comparable because of differences in square footage, age, bathrooms and heating. She testified there are many differences between neighboring properties. [Trans. pp. 114, 116, 124].


13.      Respondent’s property was adjusted from $136,100 to $83,200 in 2003. The valuation was run at replacement cost new less depreciation. It was the only approved method of valuation they were able to apply to the Respondent’s property because at that time they were unable to obtain sufficient data to use the comparable sales approach. For the 2004 tax years the Assessor could use the comparable sales approach for the Respondent’s property, which produced the increased of valuation of $111,900. [County Board Record, p. 20; Trans. pp. 117-118].


14.      On September 7, 2004, the County Board issued its decision modifying the Assessor’s valuation. [County Board Record, p. 128].





15.      Petitioner’s 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).


16.      The Department of Revenue (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).


17.      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).


18.      The Wyoming Constitution, Article 15 § 11, requires all property be uniformly assessed for taxation, and the legislature shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of taxation of all property, real and personal:


Early on, Justice Blume recognized a truth inherent in the area of property valuation: “there is no such thing as absolute value. A stone cannot be other than a stone, but one man may give a different valuation to a piece of land than another.” Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Ass’n, 29 Wyo. 461, 475, 215 P. 244, 248 (l923). Accordingly, this court has consistently interpreted Wyo. Const. art. 15, § 11 to require “only a rational method [of appraisal], equally applied to all property which results in essential fairness.”


Basin Electric Power Coop. v. Dept. Of Revenue, 970 P.2d 841, 857 (Wyo.1998) quoting: Holly Sugar Corp. v. State Board of Equalization, 839 P.2d 959, 964 (Wyo.1992)


19.      Broken into its component parts, the constitutional standard requires: (1) a rational method; (2) equally applied to all property; and (3) essential fairness. It is the burden of one challenging an assessment to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at least one of these elements has not been fulfilled. Basin Electric Power Coop., 970 P.2d at 852.


20.      All property must be valued annually at fair market value. Wyo. Stat. Ann.§39-13-103(b)(ii). Further all taxable property must be valued and assessed for taxation in the name of the owner of the property on January 1. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-13-103(b)(i)(A).


21.      Fair market value is defined as:


[T]he amount in cash, or terms reasonable equivalent to cash, a well informed buyer is justified in paying for a property and a well informed seller is justified in accepting, assuming neither party to the transaction is acting under undue compulsion, and assuming the property has been offered in the open market for a reasonable time.


Wyo. Stat. Ann. §39-11-101(a)(vi).


22.      The Department has promulgated rules prescribing the methods for valuing property. The acceptable methods include a sales comparison approach, a cost approach, an income or capitalized earning approach, and the CAMA system. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, §6(a), (b), (c), and (d).


23.      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 Mc Dermott & 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 Regulation which provide for the use of the CAMA system in the assessment of real property. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, §6(a), (b) and (d). “The burden is on the Taxpayer to establish any overvaluation.” Hillard v. Big Horn Coal Co., 549 P.2d 294 (Wyo. 1976).


24.      The Wyoming Supreme Court has recognized the validity of valuations derived from the CAMA system. Gray v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1347 (Wyo. 1995). In fact, the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected the use of actual sales price for properties in favor of the value established by the CAMA system because of the equality and uniformity derived by its use. Id. at 1351.


25.      The record shows the Assessor complied with all the requirements of the state law in determining the value for the Respondent’s property by using sales comparison approach to value the property as prescribed in Chapter 9 of the Rules promulgated by the Department. The Department’s Rules oblige the Assessor to reconcile the differences between the results of different valuation approaches, and to “place the most weight and reliance on the value indicator which, in his professional judgement, best approximates the value of the subject property.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, §7. The uncontroverted testimony of the appraiser showed that she followed the Department’s Rule and relied on the sales comparison approach. The record also shows how and why the appraiser was restricted to only the cost approach in the prior year, with a result more favorable to the Respondent.


26.       The Respondent did not demonstrate that the Assessor’s CAMA based results were incorrect. While the Respondent is obviously of the opinion that different properties should have been used as comparables, and questioned the location of some of the comparables upon which the Assessor relied, he could not prevail simply by having an opinion contrary to that of the Assessor. As we have already noted, a mere difference of opinion is not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s valuation. Supra, ¶23. The County Board’s decision to accept the lay opinion of the Respondent is contrary to law.


27.      What the County Board did was to simply calculate a compromise value, splitting the difference between the prior year valuation of $83,200 and the present year valuation of $111,900. The County Board is not authorized to compromise valuations, or to order a valuation which does not take into account the requirements of the Department’s Rules. “The county board of equalization has no power to and shall not set tax policy or engage in any administrative duties concerning assessments which are delegated to the [state] board, the department, or the county assessor.” Wyo. Stat. Ann §39-13-102(d). The County Board’s substitute value is therefore arbitrary and capricious.


28.      The County Board’s value is likewise unsupported by substantial evidence. It is not the result of a CAMA based recalculation, or of any justifiable alternative valuation method consistent with the Department’s Rules.


30.      Further, we conclude there was substantial evidence in the record to support the value of the County Assessor. The Appraiser testified how the CAMA based valuation was reached.






           IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that the Albany County Board of Equalization Order modifying the valuation of Respondent’s 2004 property is reversed. The Assessor’s 2004 assessment of Respondent’s property is reinstated.


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 April, 2005.


                                                                             STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION





                                                                                     Alan B. Minier, Chairman





                                                                                     Thomas R. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman





Thomas D. Roberts






Wendy J. Soto, Executive Secretary