Charmaine Reed, Deputy Sheridan County Attorney, on behalf of Paul Fall, Sheridan County Assessor (Assessor or Respondent).

This is an appeal from a decision of the Sheridan County Board of Equalization (County Board) affirming the Assessor’s valuation of Petitioner’s three one-acre farmsteads and its agricultural outbuildings. 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 November 18, 2005. The Petitioner and Respondent filed briefs as allowed by the State Board’s Briefing Order dated January 20, 2006, and Order Resetting Briefs dated May 24, 2006. Neither party requested oral argument.

The County Board conducted a hearing on July 27, 2005, and entered an Order and its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, both dated October 20, 2005. The County Board affirmed the value of D Bar D’s property for 2005 as determined by the Assessor.

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 Department. 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) (currently Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102.1(c)).

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. § 16-3-114(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;

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.

(1) the Assessor improperly valued the Petitioner’s agricultural outbuildings;

We conclude the decision of the County Board was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. We further conclude there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the County Board decision.

1. The Petitioner owns a ranch in Sheridan County, Wyoming, comprised of approximately 2,540 acres of deeded lands and related improvements. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 139, 143, 144, 149]. The property is located at 38, 65, 66, and 192 Bear Gulch Road, Sheridan County, Wyoming. [County Board Record, County Board Findings, ¶ 1; Exhibit A, p. 60]. William J. Doenz is the manager of the D Bar D Ranch, LLC, and the representative of the current owner of the property. [County Board Record, pp. 1-3].

2. The Assessor sent Petitioner a Notice of Estimated Taxes for the 2005 tax year on April 18, 2005, and a corrected Notice of Estimated Taxes for the 2005 tax year on May 10, 2005. [County Board Record, pp. 1, 4-5].

3. On May 18, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Taxpayer’s Contest of 2005 Annual Property Tax Assessments. [County Board Record, pp. 1-5].

4. The County Board held its hearing on July 27, 2005. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 1]. Before the hearing, the Petitioner filed an Issue Summary/Hearing Brief, and the Assessor filed a Trial Brief. [County Board Record, pp. 50-59].

5. The Petitioner originally stated the amount in controversy with respect to its agricultural outbuildings to be $724,778. [Case Notice for Review of Final Administrative Decision, p. 12]. This calculation is incorrect. The County Board had information before it to demonstrate the Assessor’s value for all D Bar D outbuildings to be $212,992.

6. D Bar D’s corrected tax notice for 2005 shows a total fair market value for all D Bar D property of $1,194,778. [County Board Record, Exhibit C, p. 62; Transcript, p. 201; County Board Findings, ¶ 2]. That total value is comprised of five elements identified as “Line Codes,” each of which is associated with a “Market Value”:

[County Board Record, Exhibit C, p. 62]. Only two of the five line codes are at issue: “Total Ag. Related Lands” and “Agricultural Improvements.”

7. “Total Ag. Related Lands” include three one-acre farmsteads associated with the three residences on D Bar D property. The Assessor assigned each one-acre parcel of land a value of $40,000, for a total of $120,000. [County Board Findings, ¶ 14]; infra, ¶¶ 38-42.

8. “Agricultural Improvements” includes all D Bar D improvements, i.e., a house with attached garage located on each of the three farmsteads, and all other agricultural outbuildings. The houses are associated with three separate addresses. The Assessor determined a value for each house with garage attached. The dimensions used and values determined by the Assessor were as follows:

[County Board Record, Exhibits 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, 7c, pp. 340-363]. The total residence value of $538,747 represents 71.7% of all fair market value included in the Line Code entitled “Agricultural Improvements.” (By computation).

9. The Assessor identified twenty-five other improvements on the D Bar D property, and associated those structures with the addresses at 38 Bear Gulch Road and 192 Bear Gulch Road. [County Board Record, Exhibit 17, pp. 396-402]. Each of these improvements is identified with a single page calculation record showing the value assigned by the Assessor. [County Board Record, Exhibit 18, pp. 403-427]. We list the twenty-five improvements in order to facilitate a comparison of the evidence of the two parties:

Assessor item	Description	Square footage	Assessor value
1	Feed tank	n/a	$4,230
2	Feed tank	n/a	$4,230
3	Open shed	800	$850
4	Pole shed	2,520	$21,712
5	Hay shed	2,304	$7,957
6	Pole building	10,080	$70,566
7	Scale house	378	$3,075
8	Pole building	2,520	$23,808
9	Closed shed	216	$322
10	Open shed	540	$1,057
11	Open shed	140	$747
12	Barn with loft	1540	$20,427
13	Hay shed	2304	$6,294
14	Bunk house	406	$2,259
15	Detached garage	240	$1,152
16	Detached garage	264	$1,287
17	Well house	120	$270
18	Bunk house	92	$435
19	Porch	92	$624
20	Barn	1224	$8,064
21	Grain bin	10' diameter	$1,296
22	Open shed	1728	$9,975
23	Pole shed	432	$6,562
24	Frame building	432	$3,441
25	Open shed	3024	$12,352

[County Board Record, Exhibits 17, 18, pp. 396-427]. The total of these improvements is $212,992. (By calculation. The total of houses, attached garages, and other improvements in Assessor’s exhibits varies from the Line Code in Exhibit C by $3, due to rounding).

10. Although D Bar D only appeals the value of its agricultural outbuildings in this proceeding, it argued the total value of all its structures to be $470,000. In support of this contention, D Bar D relied on a specific fee appraisal prepared by Rick Six of Six Appraisal Services, Inc., located in Worland, Wyoming. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, pp. 261-326]. The Six appraisal accounts for only seventeen improvements. Using these seventeen items, Six calculated a value for the contribution of each improvement to the overall value of D Bar D. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, p. 265, 274, 289-290]. In order to evaluate D Bar D’s alternative valuation, the County Board had to compare Six’s list of improvements with that of the Assessor. Six’s list was:

Item	Description	Square footage
1	Barn/Arena	10,080
2	Scale Building	378
3	Horse Barn	2,520
4	Hay Shed	2,304
5	Shop Building	2,520
6	Log Barn	1,540
7	House/38 Bear Gulch Road	2,738
8	Garage	624
9	Detached Garage	240
10	Horse Barn	1,224
11	Horse Barn	2,664
12	Machine Shed	1,728
13	Guest House	92
14	House/66 Bear Gulch Road	2,546
15	House/65 Bear Gulch Road	1,624
16	Garage	572
17	Corral	n/a

11. Six’s seventeen improvements include the three residences which are not at issue in this proceeding. By comparison with Six’s descriptions and square footage, it is clear Six’s items 7 and 8 together correspond to the Assessor’s valuation of the house and attached garage at 38 Bear Gulch Road. Similarly, Six’s items 15 and 16 correspond to the Assessor’s valuation of the house and attached garage at 65 Bear Gulch Road. Finally, Six’s item 14 corresponds to the Assessor’s valuation of the house and attached garage at 66 Bear Gulch Road, but ignores the 462 square foot attached garage at that location. In sum, five of Six’s seventeen items correspond to the Assessor’s residential value calculations.

12. By comparison of Six’s descriptions and square footage, it is clear six of the items on Six’s list correspond to miscellaneous improvements which the Assessor located at 38 Bear Gulch Road: the Horse Barn (Assessor’s item 4), the Hay Shed (Assessor’s item 5), the Barn/Arena (Assessor’s item 6), the Scale Building (Assessor’s item 7), the Shop Building (Assessor’s item 8), and the Log Barn (Assessor’s item 12).

13. By comparison of Six’s descriptions and square footage, it is clear four of the items on Six’s list correspond to miscellaneous improvements which the Assessor located at 192 Bear Gulch Road: the Detached Garage (Assessor’s item 15), the Guest House (Assessor’s item 18), the 1224 foot Horse Barn (Assessor’s item 20), and the Machine Shed (Assessor’s item 22). Despite a discrepancy in footage, the County Board would have correctly found that a fifth structure, the 2664 foot Horse Barn, corresponded to the Assessor’s 3024 foot Open Shed (Assessor item 25), based on a comparison of the all of the features of the building as listed in the respective reports of Six and the Assessor, such as age, construction, and the like. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, p. 265, Exhibit 17, p. 401]. In addition, a 2003 appraisal introduced by D Bar D locates a 36' by 84' pole frame Horse Barn at 192 Bear Gulch Road. [County Board Record, Exhibit Q, p. 229]. Those dimensions coincide with those listed by the Assessor, and compute to 3024 square feet. [County Board Record, Exhibit 17, p. 401].

14. The last item in the Six appraisal is a corral. The Assessor did not include a corral in his list of improvements. His reason for not doing so is plain enough when one considers Six’s photographs of the D Bar D improvements. As shown in the appraisal, the corral fencing was not permanent, but was instead portable corral panels. [E.g., County Board Record, Exhibit X, pp. 275, 276]. D Bar D should have listed the corral fencing as personal property, not real property. D Bar D failed to do so in its personal property rendition for 2005. [County Board Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 364-367]. The only items listed on D Bar D’s personal property rendition were a tractor, a swather, and a round baler. [County Board Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 364-367]. Since the Assessor has not appealed this oversight, we pay it no further attention.

15. Taken as a whole, the comparison shows that the Six appraisal omits one attached garage – not at issue because it was attached to a residence – and fourteen miscellaneous agricultural structures. The miscellaneous agricultural structures are Assessor’s items 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 24. The Assessor assigned a total value of $33,469 to these fourteen structures. (By computation from ¶ 9, supra). This represents 15.7% of the value assigned by the Assessor to non-residential improvements. (By computation).

16. The discrepancy between the Assessor’s and Six’s lists of buildings could conceivably be explained by the fact that the buildings had been removed when Six visited D Bar D. However, D Bar D did not question the accuracy of the Assessor’s listing of buildings. [E.g., County Board Record, Transcript, p. 167]. The Deputy Assessor testified William Doentz advised her that he was tearing down a bunkhouse, and that the Assessor had removed the bunkhouse from the tax roll. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 167-168]. She affirmed that any necessary adjustment had been made.

17. The Assessor’s records of field work do not support the Deputy Assessor’s testimony with perfect clarity. Exhibit 17 is undated. However, the Assessor did not inspect the site in 2005, because Petitioner resisted a site inspection. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 166-167; Exhibits 40 and 41, pp. 516-517]. This suggests that the field work record reflects an inspection in 2004 or earlier. Hand notations on Exhibit 17 are likewise undated. A notation next to building 14 on a diagram of buildings says, “taken away.” [County Board Record, Exhibit 17, p. 396]. A notation in the tabulation of building qualities for building 3 located at 38 Bear Gulch Road says, “gone.” [County Board Record, Exhibit 17, p. 396]. Nonetheless, every item listed in Exhibit 17 is associated with one of the active individual property records in Exhibit 18. [Compare Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18]. If the Assessor removed a building from the tax rolls, it was clearly not building 14 on the diagram, or building 3 located at 38 Bear Gulch Road. Of course, the possibility remains that these hand notations were made after the statutory valuation date of January 1, 2005, and hence reflected an intent to eliminate one or both of the buildings for tax year 2006.

18. When D Bar D presented its case to the County Board, at least two of its witnesses testified to their responses to the deposition testimony of Rita Glantz. [E.g., County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 14 (Davis), 55 (Johnson)]. Glantz is a Deputy Assessor and Field Appraiser in the Sheridan County Assessor’s Office. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 161]. The Department has awarded Glantz and Sheridan County Assessor Paul Fall permanent certification as Property Tax Appraisers, “in accordance with Wyoming Statute 18-3-201 and the Department of Revenue Rules.” [County Board Record, Exhibits 1 and 3, pp. 334-337; County Board Findings, ¶¶ 10, 11; Glantz’s list of courses appears in Exhibit 4].

19. While D Bar D did not call Glantz to testify in its case [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 159 et seq; County Board Findings, ¶ 3], the main points of Glantz’s testimony on behalf of the Assessor are essential for understanding D Bar D’s critique of the Assessor’s valuation practices. For the sake of clarifying the complex dispute presented to the County Board, we turn to her explanation of the means by which the Assessor determined the value of the real estate improvements on the D Bar D, and the value of the three one-acre farmsteads.

20. Glantz testified she was responsible for ensuring all taxable property in Sheridan County is on the county tax roll, and for ensuring the property was being adequately valued based on state law. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 168]. The Assessor’s office relies on mass appraisal to value the universe of properties in Sheridan County. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 168]. Mass appraisal incorporates statistical testing and field data to estimate value based on known sales of property. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 168]. A major key to mass appraisal is uniformity in valuation. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 168].

21. The Assessor collected field data regarding specific properties in a prescribed format, and entered that data in to the County’s computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) system. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 169-170]. The record includes the Assessor’s field data for the three residences on D Bar D property. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 169; Exhibits 5c, 6c, 7c, County Board Record, pp. 346-347, 354-355, 362-363]. The record also includes the Assessor’s separate field data for all of the detached miscellaneous improvements. [County Board Record, Exhibit 17, pp. 396-402; Transcript, pp. 188-190].

22. Each valuation year, after data entry is complete, the Assessor uses the CAMA system to calculate a replacement cost new less depreciation (RCNLD) for every improvement to real property. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 172]. “Replacement cost new” is defined in one of the exhibits as follows:

The cost, including material, labor, and overhead, that would be incurred in constructing an improvement having the same utility to its owner as the subject improvement, without necessarily reproducing exactly any particular characteristics of the subject. The replacement cost concept implicitly eliminates all functional obsolescence from the value given; thus, only physical depreciation and economic obsolescence need be subtracted to obtain replacement cost new less depreciation (RCNLD).

23. The CAMA system provided a costing program based on the characteristics of a house or structure. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 169]. Exhibits 5a, 6a, and 7a showed the CAMA results for the three houses with attached garages. [County Board Record, Exhibits 5a, 6a, 7a, pp. 340-344, 348-352, 356-360]. Exhibit 18 showed the CAMA results for each miscellaneous improvements, as costed out by the CAMA system’s Boeckh program. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 188; Exhibit 18, pp. 403-427].

24. The Assessor has not consistently updated the Boeckh program as it relates to the miscellaneous improvements, due to (1) an upcoming state-mandated transition to a different CAMA system and (2) a separate transition to Marshall and Swift as provider of costing tables. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 190]. The Assessor has added some new miscellaneous improvement designations to the system in the past couple years, and for those items the Assessor uses only current values. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 192].

25. Some values for individual D Bar D miscellaneous improvements show cost adjustments related to quality of construction. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 190; Exhibit 18, pp. 403, 404, 411, 412, 417, 418, 420, 423, 426]. The Assessor makes no adjustments for functional obsolescence. The County’s CAMA system doesn’t allow such adjustments, so the Assessor relies on taxpayers to bring issues related to functional obsolescence to the attention of the Assessor’s office. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 233].

26. The CAMA system includes depreciation tables. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 170]. The depreciation tables for residential improvements are put in and controlled by the Wyoming Department of Revenue. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 170]. The Assessor has no access to depreciation tables for residential improvements. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 170].

27. In contrast, the Assessor can adjust depreciation tables for miscellaneous improvements such as D Bar D’s agricultural outbuildings. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 171]. However, Glantz has never changed the County’s CAMA depreciation tables for outbuildings. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 172]. Exhibit 20 is a set of tables in the Assessor’s CAMA system for miscellaneous improvements. [County Board Record, Exhibit 20, pp. 443-457; Transcript, p. 198]. The tables were created years ago for the Assessor’s office by the Department of Revenue. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 198]. The fifteen tables are identical. [County Board Record, Exhibit 20, pp. 443-457].

28. The Assessor’s CAMA system allows a further cost calculation adjustment by use of a “time-location multiplier.” [County Board Record, Exhibit 18, pp. 403-427, tenth line under “description” on each page]. An excerpt of a treatise in the record explains “Time and Location Modifiers” as follows:

Time and location modifiers are used to adjust cost data for local variations and changes in the cost of labor and materials over time. If a national, state, or provincial cost manual is used, location modifiers will be required for individual counties, cities, or market areas. The modifiers can be developed from commercial cost services or through local studies.

[County Board Record, Exhibit 25, pp. 479-480]. On the value calculation for each D Bar D miscellaneous improvement, the value of the time-location multiplier is 1.00, showing that no adjustment was made. [County Board Record, Exhibit 18, pp. 403-427, tenth line under “calculated” on each page].

29. Glantz explained the Boeckh cost location multiplier was last adjusted in 2000, and Boeckh has not updated the multiplier since then. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 191; Exhibit 26, pp. 481-483]. The Boeckh “agricultural historical time-location multiplier” for all of Wyoming was 1.54. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 191; Exhibit 26, pp. 481-483].

30. The principal reason that the Assessor has not opted to use the Boeckh multiplier of 1.54 is that the Assessor’s cost tables reflect old and new values, a situation arising from the transition to a new computer system. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 196]. The Boeckh manual says an appraiser should apply the multiplier to dated costs. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 227].

31. To get to fair market value from calculated cost, the Assessor has opted instead to make a market adjustment. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 192; Exhibit 18, pp. 403-427, thirteenth line of each property calculation under “description,” stated as “MADJ + .50"]. The Assessor acknowledged that this is an adjustment based on a sales comparison approach, rather than the cost approach. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 228]. Glantz viewed it as a way to reconcile the cost approach and market value. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 232-233].

32. The Assessor can adjust a table in the CAMA system providing for market adjustments. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 172]. Glantz testified that the Sheridan County Assessor has used the market adjustment feature of its CAMA system since the system first went live in 1990 or 1991. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 162-163].

33. To make the market adjustment, the Assessor looks at sales data to compare the results of the cost calculations with known sales in a specific universe of properties, such as a neighborhood. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 172-174]. The sales information comes from confidential statements of consideration which must be filed in conjunction with most real property transactions. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-142 et seq. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 172-173]. The sales are verified on site. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 172-173].

34. The Assessor enters sales data from the statements of consideration into the CAMA system, and used a program in the CAMA system to run a sales comparison study known as a value comparison report, or VCR. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 117]. In preparing values for the year at issue, the Assessor reviewed the result and attempted to identify properties that were undervalued. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 175-176].

35. The Assessor next determined what value adjustment to replacement cost new less depreciation was necessary to reach a final determination of fair market value for assessment purposes. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 176-182]; see supra, ¶ 23. The Assessor then applied market adjustments to similarly situated property, such as various classes of homes in a neighborhood grouping. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 199; Exhibit 21, p. 458].

36. The Assessor made market adjustments to miscellaneous improvements to real property in one of two ways. Where a miscellaneous improvement such as a garage or patio was attached to a house, the Assessor applied the residential property market adjustment to both the house and the attached improvement. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 194-195, 220]. If a miscellaneous improvement was not attached to a residence, the market adjustment was made with a default value entered into the CAMA system by the Assessor. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 195]. D Bar D’s agricultural outbuildings were listed separately from the three houses with attached garages, and therefore received the default value. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 201].

37. The Assessor applied a 50% market adjustment – an increase in replacement cost new less depreciation – to all miscellaneous improvements in D Bar D’s neighborhood, including D Bar D’s agricultural outbuildings. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 191, 195-196, 230]. The Assessor identified two sources for this 50%, a value which was established over the last few years. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 225]. One source was the sales identified in Exhibit 16, which includes sales a couple of years old. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 193, 222-223]. The other source was the time-location multiplier. The Assessor reasoned that the obvious alternative to the 50% adjustment was to use the Boeckh time-location multiplier of 1.54, which would have meant a slightly higher increase of 54%. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp.196, 226]. The Assessor has used the 50% default rate for miscellaneous improvements for the last few years. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 229-230].

38. The values for the D Bar D farmsteads (or “Total Ag. Related Lands,” supra, ¶ 6) were determined in a way less directly related to the Assessor’s CAMA system. As noted above, through confidential statements of consideration, the Assessor had recent sales information from vacant lands to compare with existing assessed values. Supra, ¶ 33. This comparison can be supplemented by looking at specific properties, and calculating what the improvement value is worth, and hence the portion of total value related to land. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 177].

39. The CAMA system allows the Assessor to value residential land as a flat value; or on a range; or on a graduated scale. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 185]. The Assessor opted to value on a range because the Assessor’s office found that option easy to follow and explain. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 185]. Every taxpayer whose land fell within a specific size for a parcel was assigned a value consistent with everyone else whose parcel fell within the same parameters. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 185]. The Assessor generated a spreadsheet which showed what values were associated with what size parcels, on a per-acre basis, for neighborhoods 306 and 307. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 184; Exhibit 15, p. 377]. Generally speaking, the larger the parcel, the less the value per acre. [County Board Record, Exhibit 15, p. 377]. The value assigned to a single acre in neighborhood 306, where D Bar D is located, was $40,000. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 186]. A value comparison report supporting the $40,000 figure was introduced as Exhibit 12. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 212; Exhibit 12, pp. 370-374].

40. The Assessor linked the farmstead and residential valuation by deeming every farmstead in Sheridan County’s rural agricultural neighborhoods to be one acre in size. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 186]. For each farmstead, the Assessor referred to the neighborhood residential value for one acre, then put that amount in the CAMA system as the land value for the parcel in question. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 187]. The residential tables of the CAMA system do not drive values related to farmsteads, so the value is independently entered in the CAMA system for each farmstead parcel. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 187].

41. Former Sheridan County Assessor Douglas Minnick established the policy of associating each farmstead dwelling with a one-acre parcel. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 164-166]. Prior to the decision to use one acre for a farmstead, subdivided lands were getting five acres per farmstead, and lands described by metes and bounds were getting three acres. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 165]. The D Bar D farmsteads are on platted lands [County Board Record, Exhibit A, p. 60]. Assuming platted status is a correct indication that the D Bar D farmsteads are on subdivided lands, and if the policy of the former Assessor were still in place in 2005, by reference to Exhibit 15 we can compute an alternative farmstead value. Each five-acre farmstead would be assigned a value of $127,500; the total for three five-acre farmsteads would be $382,500. (By computation).

42. For 2005, the Assessor assigned each one-acre farmstead a value of $40,000. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 186]. The total for all three farmsteads was therefore $120,000.

43. The Assessor acknowledged that the farmstead value is based on residential sales, rather than agricultural sales [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 208]; that the majority of those residential sales are located in various subdivisions [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 214]; and that lot size is the only factor that comes into play when determining value. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 212]. Specifically, the Assessor did not consider zoning, covenants, access to city water, paved roads, DSL internet service, or proximity to a public right of way. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 212].

44. D Bar D called Peter L. Davis, who was the ratio study supervisor and geographic information systems manager for the Division of Property Valuation of the Department of Revenue for the State of Kansas, located in Topeka, Kansas. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 12-13]. William Doenz explained D Bar D’s reliance on a Kansas state official by observing that he requested the assistance of the Wyoming Department of Revenue, but “they were too busy because Cheyenne Frontier Days was in progress down there in Cheyenne.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 140].

45. Davis was active in the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”), and was chairman of the IAAO Technical Standards Subcommittee from 1994-1999. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 13; Exhibit E, pp. 64-66]. Almost all of his career experience was in the field of mass appraisal and sales ratio studies. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 13; Exhibit E, pp. 64-66]. Based on this background, on his review of a deposition of Rita Glantz, and on his review of the Assessor’s exhibits [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 14], the County Board allowed Davis to offer a variety of opinions. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 16].

46. Davis’s principal opinion was that the Assessor’s mass appraisal was not in compliance with three standards: the IAAO Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property [County Board Record, Exhibit J-1, pp. 134-152]; the IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies [County Board Record, Exhibit J-2, pp. 153-195]; and Standard Rule 6 of the Appraisal Foundation’s Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”). [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 15].

47. Davis found nothing in Wyoming rules and regulations “that suggested that mass appraisers, elected Assessors in the State of Wyoming, do not have to follow USPAP standards or IAAO standards.” [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 17-18].

48. Davis characterized Wyoming statutes as calling for a use value approach to agricultural lands, rather than a market value approach. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 17]. The IAAO and USPAP standards themselves allow only one exception, which is a jurisdictional exception dealing with the valuation of agricultural land for assessment purposes. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 17].

49. Glantz agreed that IAAO and USPAP standards apply to the Assessor’s appraisal practices. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 219]. Glantz and Assessor Paul Fall received training in a number of courses put on under the auspices of the IAAO and the Appraisal Foundation. [County Board Record, Exhibits 2 and 4, pp. 335-336, 338-339].

50. Davis explained that mass appraisal involves a universe of properties, and typically involves mathematical models to come up with estimates of value. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 18]. In contrast, fee appraisal typically involves single property appraisals. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 18]. Different USPAP standards apply to mass and fee appraisals. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 18]. However, the assignment in both cases is to come up with an estimate of fair market value. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 19].

51. The mathematical models used for mass appraisals require two steps, model specification and model calibration. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 18-19]. The performance of a model can be judged by a ratio study. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 19].

52. Davis criticized the Assessor’s appraisal of the D Bar D farmsteads. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 20]. By farmstead, Davis understands Wyoming rules and regulations to be talking about “the land on which the agricultural buildings rest, it’s the focal point of the farm…it seems to include not only the homesite, but also the land devoted to the support of the agricultural improvements.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 28].

53. Davis noted that the Assessor did not put together a formal analysis to estimate the value of the farmstead. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 20]. However, the core of his criticism was that the Assessor relied on sales of land in developed subdivisions in Neighborhood 306 to develop a value for the farmsteads. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 21]. Davis argued that the residential sales cannot be used to value farmsteads because subdivisions and farm home sites typically have different amenities, such as being closer to churches, schools, and shopping. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 21].

54. The record included evidence from which the County Board could have rejected Davis’s view that the farmsteads in this case had nothing in common with subdivisions. In 2003 Milton B. Williams appraised the entire D Bar D property. Williams noted that the “total of the subject property is operated as a gentlemen’s cattle ranch including 2,537.98 acres and three residential dwellings and related outbuildings.” [County Board Record, Exhibit Q, p. 227]. Williams placed the total value of the D Bar D land at just over $3,000,000.00. [County Board Record, Exhibit Q, p. 232].

The subject property is located in close proximity to Big Horn, Wyoming. Big Horn is located in Sheridan County approximately 10 miles southwest of Sher-idan, Wyoming. The location is at the foot of the Big Horn mountains which is considered a very attractive and prestigious location. By departing southwesterly from Sheridan on Wyoming State Highway 335 and proceeding southwesterly approximately 10 miles, access to the Big Horn community is readily available. Then north on Sheridan County Road 87 approximately 4 miles to the site of the subject property. . .

Sheridan, Wyoming is the major town in the area of the subject property. Sheridan is the county seat of Sheridan County. The area consist primarily of rolling foothill [sic] to the east with the “face” of the Big Horn Mountain range readily visible to the west. Sheridan is located on Interstate 90 which is the main access north and west into Montana. . .

Domestic water and sewerage is provided through the Sheridan Water and Sewer system. Electricity is also provided by the City of Sheridan. Garbage disposal is provided by city garbage collection service. Telephone is provided by AT&T, Sprint, Mountain Bell, MCI and others. Utilities are underground except for the main power lines…

In summary, the subject use is consistent with neighboring uses and has adequate access and utilities. The Sheridan neighborhood is stable and the area should maintain its position within the community.

[County Board Record, Exhibit Q, p. 227-228]. The more limited appraisal of Six Appraisal Services identified a different set of service providers for D Bar D: water by well, electricity by an REA, sewer by septic tank, and propane gas. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, p. 272]. However, Six noted that markets and the service center are 10 miles away; a hospital is 10 miles away; schools and a major highway are 5 miles away. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, p. 272].

56. Williams also contradicted any assumption that the D Bar D can only be viewed as a modest ranching operation. He concluded the highest and best use of the D Bar D property was a “Gentlemen’s Cattle Ranch.” [County Board Record, Exhibit Q, p. 230]. In so concluding, Williams observed:

The area of the subject property is very prestigious with beautiful views of the Big Horn Mountains and surrounding foothills. The area has been highly respected by the affluent, aristocratic clientele for years…

57. Davis argued that the preferred method for determining the value of farmsteads is abstraction, i.e. determining the value that the farmstead contributes to the overall farm. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 21-22]. To determine the value of the farmstead, he would determine the market value of the farm based on recent sales, then subtract (1) the market value of the agricultural land and (2) the depreciated cost of farm improvements. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 22]. Alternatively, one would look for sales of farmsteads outside of subdivisions. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 22].

58. Davis acknowledged that the Department does not allow sales of agricultural property to be used in sales ratio studies. [See Exhibit 23, County Board Record, p. 473, Invalidity Code 8]. He nonetheless argued this rule did not prevent the Assessor from developing estimates of market value for agricultural land. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 23-24].

59. Davis generally criticized the Assessor and his staff for using a sales ratio study to calibrate the Assessor’s cost models. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 25]. In his view, a sales ratio study is a only a performance tool, and not a calibration tool. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 25]. A ratio study should be performed prior to an evaluation cycle to determine uniformity problems, and after the cycle is over to determine improvement. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 25]. It should not be used to adjust property values to come closer to market value, a practice he characterized as sales chasing. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 25]. An appraiser chasing sales is simply changing a factor to bring an appraised value closer to a known sale price, which Davis views as a lack of appraisal sale price independence. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 44].

60. Commenting on a sales ratio study involving vacant land in Neighborhood 306 [County Board Record, Exhibit 14, pp. 375-376], Davis said that the coefficient of dispersion (COD) for diverse Neighborhood 306 was a number too low to be credible – 2.2743 – and therefore indicative of sales chasing. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 26, 28, 29]. The COD is a common measure of appraisal uniformity. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 28]. While a low number in this context is generally good, Davis said the next revision of IAAO standards will suggest that a COD should not be below 5. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 28-29]. For residential property in the most economically active and homogeneous areas of the country, Davis said it is hard to see models develop an appraisal for vacant land with a COD less than 10. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 43].

61. Usually, sales ratio studies are done “by strata, such as vacant lots, residential, commercial, industrial, so you can focus on various types of property.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 42].

62. With regard to the ranch improvements, Davis stated the Assessor appears to have a cost system in a County computer to generate replacement cost new less depreciation for various farm buildings and improvements. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 30]. The Assessor simply uses this number, with an adjustment factor. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 30]. However, Davis saw no effort to calibrate the replacement cost new figure to the local market. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 30].

63. Davis stated that the replacement cost new number is typically calibrated to the local market by a locational multiplier, which is applied as part of a cost model. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 30]. He pointed to the Assessor’s work papers to show that every listed agricultural outbuilding is supplied with a time/location multiplier of 1.00. A value of 1.00 means no multiplier at all, because it does not change the result of the calculation. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 30-31]. The proper way to generate the multiplier is to compare the replacement cost new generated by the CAMA system with “actual construction costs for these buildings locally,” with the difference being the adjustment. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 31]. Davis says a study to generate the multiplier should be done every year. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 31].

64. Davis was similarly critical of the Assessor’s depreciation tables for miscellaneous improvements. [County Board Record, Exhibit 20]. Davis did not think these tables had ever been calibrated to reflect the local market. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 31]. At a minimum, there should be different economic lives for the different improvements like residential garages and patios, but all of the Assessor’s tables were the same. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 32]. The depreciation schedules should also be subject to change every year, again on the basis of a market analysis. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 32].

65. As a point related to depreciation, Davis stated that farmers tend to keep buildings around after they fail to produce an economic benefit. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 33, 46]. Davis believed tables which indicate an improvement does not reach the end of its economic life before sixty years make no sense. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 33].

66. Davis cited the IAAO for the principle that a properly calibrated cost model will require a minimal time/location multiplier to bring the value generated for replacement cost new to fair market value. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 34]. If the appraiser uses some sort of market adjustment factor, it must be supported by a rigorous analysis with market data. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 34-35]. He sees the 50% market adjustment in this case as serving purposes for which it was never designed. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 35].

67. More generally, Davis saw the Assessor’s market adjustment of 50% as an indicator that the Assessor’s office did not properly calibrate its cost models. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 36].

68. According to Davis, the USPAP standard mentions three specific calibration tools: multiple regression analysis, non-linear aggression/regression, and adaptive estimation. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 36]. If the Assessor doesn’t understand how to use these tools, he must find someone who does, because USPAP requires their use. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 36-37].

69. On this subject, Glantz testified that the Department provided the services of an appraiser who would do regression analysis for the Sheridan County Assessor, but the person retired about three years ago and no such analysis has been run since. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 200]. However, that person said that multiple regression analysis did not work well in rural areas, so the Assessor only used it on town properties. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 200]. The Assessor never used regression analysis to make market adjustments, but instead viewed regression analysis as a tool to gauge market values. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 200].

70. Davis identified the “biggest flaw” in the Assessor’s market adjustment to be the absence of supporting data or analysis to support the 50%. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 38]. USPAP requires an appraiser to provide a reasonably clear and appropriate explanation as to how the cost model is calibrated. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 38]. Davis accordingly viewed the market adjustment as purely subjective. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 38].

71. Kim Johnson, an Accredited Rural Appraiser from Phoenix, Arizona, and a USPAP instructor, testified on behalf of D Bar D. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 49; Exhibit F, pp. 67-68]. She was not an expert in mass appraisal, and conceded she did not understand all of the material submitted to her for review, “because I’m not a mass appraisal expert.” [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 54, 65]. She nonetheless claimed general experience with regard to generally accepted appraisal standards related to the sales approach and the cost approach. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 54-55]. Johnson supported and elaborated upon two aspects of Davis’s testimony.

72. Johnson testified land, soil, water, terrain, elevation, size, and shape are all important elements of comparison for rural properties. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 56]. She read the pertinent Wyoming regulations as “encompassing the same intent and purpose…as the regular appraisal standards,” and was concerned the Assessor appeared to only consider size of parcel. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 57]. In her view, the Assessor did not meet generally accepted practice when he failed to consider other factors in the D Bar D appraisal. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 57-58]. She also believed an appraisal should account for locational factors within a neighborhood. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 64-65].

73. Johnson further testified that the Assessor’s use of the cost approach did not follow USPAP-based methodology. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 59-60]. She observed that the Assessor’s costs were not up to date. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 60]. Johnson said she would go to costs per square foot if a cost manual were not updated “as of six months ago or a year ago or two years ago, which frequently with the cost services we do find that to be the case.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 60]. She also noted that cost services commonly provide periodic updates with factors to bring costs current. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 60, 65-66]. Another way to estimate replacement cost new would be to get a bid from a local contractor. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 66]. Johnson would not in any event use a procedure that attempted to account for a time lag in costs by applying a factor. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 61].

74. In response to a County Board question, Johnson explained that “replacement cost new” or RCN means a building built by today’s standards that has the same utility as the subject building. In contrast, reproduction cost means an exact replica. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 69]. The two terms are generally interchangeable except with older structures where one would reproduce the building with significantly different construction if it were built today. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 70].

75. Rick Six was a Certified Real Estate Appraiser with Six Real Estate Services, Inc., located in Worland, Wyoming. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 72-73; Exhibit G, pp. 69-70]. D Bar D hired Six Appraisal Services to do a Uniform Agricultural Appraisal Report for the D Bar D Ranch Buildings. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 85; Exhibit X, pp. 261-326]; see supra, ¶¶ 10-15. Six reached his opinion of value of the D Bar D buildings using a cost approach analysis and also a market analysis (or sales approach), but omitted an income approach. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 85-86]. Six had never done mass appraisal; did not use a CAMA system; and relied on agricultural sales from adjoining Johnson County. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 99].

76. Based on the cost approach and after depreciation, Six concluded that the appropriate value for the ranch buildings, including the three residences, was $470,000. [County Board Record, Transcript pp. 88, 102]. He relied on a current Marshall & Swift book to determine that the replacement cost new of all buildings would be $880,000. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 88]; but see limits of list of buildings, supra, ¶ 10. Overall, Six observed that the buildings are in good shape, on “a very appealing site.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 89]. However, he considered the structures to be economy construction. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 89].

77. Six depreciated the buildings by doing his own market analysis, concluding generally that the buildings depreciate on an age life basis. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 89-90]. He declined to make any further adjustments to his determination of replacement cost new less depreciation because he concluded that the three or four sales the Assessor used to support a market adjustment were too limited to reach a conclusion. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 91]. Six was particularly critical of 2003 horse barn sale that the Assessor used to value the D Bar D horse barn. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 96]. In his view, the Assessor did not have any support for adjustments to replacement cost new less depreciation. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 96].

78. Six claimed he verified his results by referring to “bids” for two buildings provided by Bill Doenz of D Bar D. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 88-89]. Doenz testified to a document his attorneys described as the “Morton bid.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 140; Exhibit D, p. 63]. Doenz stated the document represented a value for which Morton Building would replace the ranch’s “exact buildings brand new.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 140]. On its face, the single page document was something less. It addressed two buildings, one of 2,520 square feet and the other of 10,080 square feet. [County Board Record, Exhibit D, p. 63]. For each building, there was a price related only to material, freight, labor, and tax. [County Board Record, Exhibit D, p. 63]. We note the absence of any indication that the prices in question included such items as rental of equipment to aid in construction, or a construction contractor’s overhead and profit. [County Board Record, Exhibit D, p. 63]. We further note the absence of any commitment on the part of the preparer of the exhibit, Gary Sabers of Morton Buildings, to construct the two buildings in question for the amounts which appear on the exhibit. [County Board Record, Exhibit D, p. 63].

79. With regard to these two buildings, Six opined that only in extreme cases will one find buildings valued at more than they cost new. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 97]. Six was referring to a comparison between the Assessor’s value, his own estimate, and the Morton bid:

[County Board Record, Exhibit 18, pp. 408, 406; Exhibit X, p. 289; Exhibit D, p. 63]. Six’s improvement contribution values totaled only $418,518 in the aggregate, and with all improvements collectively adjusted to reach an aggregate value of $470,000. To the extent that any of this adjustment applied to the barn/arena and shop building, the improvement contribution value shown in the table understates the value Six assigned to the two improvements.

80. Six also testified to his opinion of the value of the three farmsteads on the D Bar D ranch. Based on seven sales of agricultural parcels, he initially testified that the value of each one-acre farmstead should be $10,000. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 86; Exhibit X, pp. 280-281]. However, Six did not fully explain the method in his calculations. In his appraisal, it appeared that Six derived per-acre farmstead values using parcels ranging in size from five to three hundred ninety-five acres. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, pp. 280-281]. It further appears that his per-acre value of $10,000 assumes a parcel of five acres, whose total value would be $50,000. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, p. 280]. On cross-examination, Six stated he would treat all three home sites as together being located on five acres, for a total value of $50,000. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 100].

81. Like Davis, Six faulted the Assessor for using sales in subdivision areas that were not comparable to the subject. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 87]. In his view, using the value of land in a subdivision to calculate a value for a ranch site mixes two different highest and best uses. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 103]. Highest and best use also determined his decision to use five acres a the basis of comparison for determining farmstead values. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 100].

82. Douglas Minnick was Sheridan County Assessor for twelve years, and a practicing real estate broker at the time of the County Board hearing. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 107-108]. He was a past member of the Wyoming Certified Real Estate Appraiser Board, has training in USPAP, and had served on an IAAO committee. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 108].

83. Minnick testified he was familiar with the three sales used by the Assessor to justify the market adjustment to the D Bar D outbuildings [County Board Record, Exhibits 16a, 16b, 16c, pp. 378-395], and was critical of each comparison. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 109-113]. In his view, the Scott property [County Board Record, Exhibit 16a, pp. 378-383] was a commercial entity, “grossing over 80 some thousand dollars on monthly rentals,”and therefore could only be compared with the D Bar D barn on an income basis, which rendered the properties dissimilar. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 111-112]. Minnick said the Hannah Creek Stables property [County Board Record, Exhibit 16b, pp. 384-391] also had “a large income flow,” and was likewise dissimilar. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 112]. The third building [County Board Record, Exhibit 16c, pp. 392-395] was a shed or small building on seven acres, with a valuation of only $6,000 that had recently been lowered rather than raised. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 112-113].

84. Like Davis, Minnick testified that the State of Wyoming requires the application of USPAP Standard 6 for mass appraisals. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 113-114]. In his view, the mass appraisal standards required the Assessor to use a CAMA model to value farmsteads, but the Assessor did not do so, relying instead on “three comps.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 114].

85. Minnick denied he had ever made market adjustments to agricultural outbuildings during his twelve years as county assessor. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 115]; compare supra, ¶ 32.

86. Minnick testified that the Assessor had violated IAAO or USPAP standards in other ways. Minnick agreed with Davis that the Assessor must use an extraction method to come up with the value of ranch outbuildings. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 115]. He agreed with Davis and Six that comparisons with subdivisions must be adjusted for things like city water, sewer, paving, and zoning. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 115-116]. He stated that the Assessor violated USPAP standards by not maintaining complete written records to regard the models, for a period of five years. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 120]. The USPAP standard requires the Assessor to have a clear and meaningful appraisal, which in this case required a clear derivation of the market adjustment figure. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 123].

87. Minnick said the Assessor’s table of residential values, determined by lot size [County Board Record, Exhibit 15, p. 377] violated USPAP standards because it was not supported by a proper sales comparison report. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 121-122].

88. On cross-examination, Minnick acknowledged that the State Board ordered equalization in Sheridan County in 1993 [County Board Record, Exhibit 28, pp. 504-506], during his tenure as Assessor. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 125]. He also acknowledged a second equalization order in 1996, which was withdrawn. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 127]. Minnick attributed the 1993 order to the improprieties of a member of his staff. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 130]. He now takes the view that the State Board is not equalizing enough counties. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 129].

89. Minnick recalled that when he was Assessor, he determined the per-acre value of farmsteads on the basis of sales comparison ratios run against parcels of thirty-five acres or more. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 135]. In his view, zoning laws typically prohibit the sale of a farmstead parcel of one or two acres by division from a parcel of thirty-five acres or more. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 135]. As Assessor, he took the position that the appropriate sales ratio analysis was accordingly based on parcels of thirty-five acres, from which he derived a per-acre value for the embedded farmstead site. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 135].

90. Based principally on its review of the testimony of Rita Glantz [County Board Findings, ¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19], the County Board concluded that D Bar D did not overcome the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s assigned value, and did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Assessor’s valuation was improper. [County Board Conclusions, ¶ 3, 5].

91. Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal to the State Board was filed on time. The State Board has jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-109(b)(ii).

92. The Wyoming Constitution, article 15, § 11(b), provides in pertinent part: “[a]ll taxable property shall be valued at its full value as defined by the legislature except agricultural and grazing lands which shall be valued according to the capability of the land to produce agricultural products under normal conditions.”

93. The Legislature has required all property in Wyoming to be valued annually at fair market value. Wyo. Stat. Ann.§ 39-13-103(b)(ii). The statutory valuation date is January 1 of each year; all taxable property must be valued and assessed for taxation in the name of the owner of the property on that date. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(i).

94. Each county assessor annually determines the fair market value of residential real property within his/her county. Wyo. Stat. Ann. 18-3-204(a)(i), (ii), (vi); Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-13-103(b)(i). In doing so, the assessor must “[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).

95. The Department has a corresponding statutory obligation 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), (xix). In particular, the Department must “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).

96. The Department has promulgated rules which establish appraisal techniques which may be used by an assessor. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6. These techniques include the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach, and the Income or Capitalized Earnings Approach. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6 (a), (b), (c). The Department’s Rules also include a number of definitions pertinent to this case, including “Appraisal Foundation” and “Cost.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 4 (g), § 6 (b)(v)(B). Administrative rules have the force and effect of law. Wyo. Dep’t of Revenue v Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2003 WY 54,¶ 18, 67 P.3d 1176, 1184 (Wyo. 2003); Painter v. Abels, 998 P.2d 931, 939 (Wyo. 2000).

97. The Department’s Rules provide for use of a CAMA system. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6 (d). CAMA “automates the comparable sales and replacement cost methods.” Britt v. Fremont County Assessor, 2006 WY 10, ¶ 39, 126 P.3d 117, 128 (Wyo. 2006). The Wyoming Supreme Court has recognized the validity of valuations derived from a CAMA system. Gray v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1347 (Wyo. 1995).

98. By rule, the Department has defined its own additional and independent responsibility to monitor the assessors’ use of CAMA systems:

(i) Annually, the Ad Valorem Tax Division shall monitor each Wyoming county to discuss and ensure utilization of the Department approved CAMA systems and compliance with all Department directives and orders with regard to appraisal method and valuation methodologies. The results shall be compiled by identifying current issues of concern and presented to the Department of Revenue Director no later than January 31^st.

99. The determination of fair market value inevitably involves a degree of discretion:

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). The Wyoming Supreme Court has recently reiterated the “rational method” standard. Britt v. Fremont County Assessor, 2006 WY 10, ¶ 18, 126 P.3d 117, 123 (Wyo. 2006).

100. The Wyoming Supreme Court has described the burden of proof for a taxpayer challenging a county assessor’s valuation as follows:

A strong presumption favors the Assessor’s valuation. “In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the officials charged with establishing value exercised honest judgment in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, and other directives that have passed public scrutiny, either through legislative enactment or agency rule-making, or both.” Amoco Production Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 2004 WY 89, ¶ 7, 94 P.3d 430, 435 (Wyo. 2004). The Britts [i.e., the protesting taxpayers] had the initial burden of presenting evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption. Id., ¶ 8. If the Britts successfully overcame the presumption, then the county board was “required to equally weigh the evidence of all parties and measure it against the appropriate burden of proof.” CIG v. Wyoming Dept. of Revenue, 2001 WY 34, ¶ 10, 20 P.3d 528, 531 (Wyo. 2001). The burden of going forward would then have shifted to the Assessor to defend her valuation. Id. Above all, the Britts bore “the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the valuation was not derived in accordance with the required constitutional and statutory requirements for valuing . . . property.” Id.

101. A mere difference of opinion as to value is not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of an assessor’s valuation. J. Ray McDermott & Co. v Hudson, 370 P.2d 364, 370 (Wyo. 1962).

102. Several D Bar D witnesses argued the Assessor’s mass appraisal is governed by the International Association of Assessing Officers Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property; the IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies; and Standard Rule 6 of the Appraisal Foundation’s Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Supra, ¶¶ 46-47, 73, 84. Glantz agreed. Supra, ¶ 49. However, the Board has already concluded, as a matter of law, that the IAAO and USPAP standards are not binding in Wyoming. Lowes HIW, Inc., Docket No. 2005-115, May 19, 2006, - WL - , ¶¶ 86-89 (Wyo. St. Bd. Eq.).

103. The Legislature vested the Department with authority to adopt rules to constrain the valuation methodology used by county assessors to determine the taxable value. Supra, ¶¶ 94-97. The Department has issued these rules. See generally, Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9. To interpret these rules, we apply principles of statutory interpretation. State ex rel. Department of Revenue v. Buggy Bath Unlimited, Inc., 2001 WY 27, ¶ 6, 18 P.3d 1182, 1185 (Wyo. 2001). “‘Initially, we make an inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection. We construe together all parts of the statute in pari materia, giving effect to each word, clause, and sentence so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous.’” In re WJH, 2001 WY 54, ¶ 7, 24 P.3d 1147, 1150 (Wyo. 2001).

104. The Department’s Rules include a definition of the Appraisal Foundation. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 4 (g). The Appraisal Foundation definition identifies the International Association of Assessing Officers as a regular institutional member of the Appraisal Foundation. Id. However, the Department’s Rules go no further in the direction of adopting IAAO standards or USPAP. See generally, Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9. This absence is a significant omission. In the absence of an affirmative adoption of IAAO and USPAP standards by rule, the IAAO and USPAP standards have not been incorporated into Wyoming law. We specifically reject Davis’s assumption that the IAAO and USPAP standards govern in the absence of specific Departmental rules to the contrary. Supra, ¶ 47.

105. Although Glantz conceded that USPAP and IAAO standards apply to the Assessor’s appraisal practice, supra, ¶ 49, the standards do not have the force and effect of law. The professional standards were a factor the County Board could have taken into account when evaluating the facts in the case, just as it could have taken into account the training received by the Glantz and the Assessor in IAAO and USPAP principles. Supra, ¶ 18. The County Board was free to weigh the application of USPAP and IAAO standards in the context of other facts in the case. However, the application of the USPAP standards in this case would have been questionable, as no copy of the pertinent USPAP standards was introduced into the record, and the USPAP standards were not discussed in sufficient detail for the County Board to form a meaningful understanding of what they might or might not require.

106. D Bar D argues the Department’s Rules define a farmstead, Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 10, § 3 (c)(iv), and by implication, do so in a way that recognizes farmsteads as a subclass of residential real property. As a threshold matter, we note the Department’s Rules governing appraisal methods recognize no such subclass. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9. For example, the Cost Approach to value does not recognize separate principles applicable only to farmsteads. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6(b).

107. Chapter 10 of the Department’s Rules is devoted to distinguishing between those lands which must be taxed as agricultural lands, and those which must not. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-103 (b)(x); Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 10. The record demonstrates how favorable agricultural status can be. D Bar D’s appraiser Williams placed the value of D Bar D’s 2,540 deeded acres at $3,000,000 in 2003. Supra, ¶ 54. The 2005 taxable value of all but three of those 2,540 deeded acres was only $283,276. Supra, ¶ 6. Only $1,862.79 of D Bar D’s estimated 2005 taxes related to its 2,537 acres of agricultural lands. [County Board Record, p. 4, by calculation].

108. D Bar D benefits not only from the favorable valuation accorded all agricultural lands, but also from the fact that the agricultural valuation statute ignores any market premium associated with location. All agricultural lands are assessed on the basis of capability to produce, Wyo. Const. art. 15, § 11(b), Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103 (b)(x)(A), even if located in a “prestigious” or “beautiful” location as is the D Bar D. Supra, ¶ 56. The taxable value of a ranch with classes of agricultural land similar to D Bar D, located in a less desirable location in another county, can vary from that of D Bar D only within narrowly defined limits authorized by the Department. See Fremont County Assessor (Dechert Property), Docket No. 2004-125, February 4, 2005, 2005 WL 301141, ¶¶ 26-28 (Wyo. St. Bd. Eq.).

109. Nothing in Wyoming statutes indicates the Legislature intended special tax treatment for farm and ranch residences as well as for agricultural lands. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(x). The Department’s Rules define agricultural lands by reference to use, i.e. those lands “being used and employed for the primary purpose of providing gross revenue from agricultural or horticultural use or any combination thereof unless part of a platted subdivision.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 10, § 3(a). The Rules specifically exclude farmsteads from classification as agricultural lands. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 10, § 3(c)(iv). D Bar D has advanced no credible argument to support a claim that favorable ad valorem tax treatment extends to the land under the personal dwellings of those engaged in agriculture.

110. D Bar D’s witnesses generally assume that a farmstead serves as much of an agricultural purpose as any other portion of a farm or ranch. Wyoming statutes do not support this assumption. In Wyoming, agricultural purpose is limited to three types of land use, none of which are residential:

(viii) “Agricultural purpose,” as used in W.S. 39-13-103(b)(x), means the following land uses when conducted consistent with the land’s capability to produce:

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(viii). One of the four qualifications for agricultural land is that it be used and employed for an agricultural purpose. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(x).

111. By excluding farmsteads from agricultural lands, the Department’s Rule gives rise to a practical issue recognized by both parties. Sales of farmsteads tend to occur as part of the sale of an entire agricultural parcel. Under practice established by the Department, where an entire agricultural parcel has been valued on the basis of its agricultural productivity, that parcel must be excluded from the universe of sales the Assessor may use to determine market values. [County Record, Transcript, p. 203; Exhibit 23, pp. 461, 473].

112. D Bar D argues that excluding such sales has the effect of ignoring market information which has a bearing on farmstead parcels.

113. The Department’s Rules contemplate two components of value, land and improvements, but have relatively little to say about the calculation of land values. For example, the Department Rules on the cost approach merely provide that, “[t]he cost approach is a method of estimating value by summing land value, where applicable, with the depreciated value of improvements.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, Section 6 (b). The Rules state that the cost approach requires “[a]ccurate, current land values in the case of real property,” Id., Section 6 (b)(i), but do not say more.

114. D Bar D’s witnesses suggested three acceptable ways to value a farmstead. Appraiser Six proposed to develop a value based on sales of other agricultural parcels. Supra, ¶ 80. Davis proposed to determine a value for the entire parcel, then calculate the portion of that value attributable to the farmstead. Supra, ¶ 57. Minnick proposed to prepare sales comparisons with parcels of thirty-five acres or more, and use that value per acre to value the farmstead. Supra, ¶ 89.

115. In contrast, the Assessor determined the farmstead value by reference to all other residential improvements in appropriate neighborhoods. Supra, ¶¶ 38-43. The Assessor’s approach is in accord with the spirit and letter of the statute, which contemplates treatment of the farmstead as a residential parcel not inherently different from any other residential parcel.

116. To the extent that this dispute is nothing more than a difference of opinion between D Bar D’s witnesses and the Assessor, the presumption favors the Assessor, and the Assessor prevails. Supra, ¶ 101. The State Board used this principle to dispose of essentially the same claim when D Bar D appealed the Assessor’s valuation for tax year 2004. D Bar D Ranch, LLC, Docket 2004-123, April 14, 2005, 2005 WL 907431, ¶¶ 64-72 (Wy. St. Bd. Eq.).

117. We also conclude that the Assessor’s method of valuation is more consistent with the statute and with agency rules than D Bar D’s alternatives.

118. Persons engaged in agriculture are not entitled to the special treatment for farmsteads using fee appraisals, rather than valuation by mass appraisal techniques. In Wyoming, the hallmark of a mass appraisal for tax purposes is certification by the Department. “Wyoming law distinguishes between appraisers who make valuation judgments for tax purposes, and appraisers who develop and communicate real estate appraisals under a valid permit from the State…. The Department must certify any county employee, including the elected County Assessor, ‘who makes valuation judgments used as a basis for ad valorem taxation.’” Russell & Susan Magarity, Docket No. 2005-93, February 14, 2006, 2006 WL 370816, ¶¶ 50-51 (Wy. St. Bd. Eq.). D Bar D’s witnesses Davis, Johnson, and Six did not claim such certification by the Department of Revenue. More important, none of them offered a valuation approach that would readily lend itself to mass appraisal.

119. D Bar D’s only mass appraisal alternative was offered by Minnick. In his view, zoning laws typically prohibit the sale of a farmstead parcel of one or two acres embedded in a parcel of thirty-five acres or more. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 135]. When he was Assessor, he took the position that the appropriate sales ratio analysis was accordingly based on parcels of thirty-five acres, from which he derived a per-acre value for the embedded farmstead site. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 135]. Since agricultural parcels were excluded as invalid, supra, ¶ 58, we presume that the thirty-five acre parcels he used to derive a value were not themselves agricultural. We note that Minnick’s general invocation of zoning laws was unaccompanied by specific reference to any pertinent zoning regulations of Sheridan County. His position was unsupported by reference to any authority other than his own judgment.

120. The obvious result of Minnick’s approach is to yield a value for the D Bar D farmsteads far less than any residential property of comparable size in D Bar D’s neighborhood. Minnick implicitly proposes preferential treatment for taxpayers who already experience the favorable tax status of agricultural lands. Supra, ¶¶ 107-108. Minnick’s approach is a poor solution to the problem posed by the Department’s Rule that limits farmsteads to the “land used in direct connection with the homesite.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 10, § 3(c)(iv). The language of the Department Rule strongly suggests that the appropriate comparison is between “the land used in direct connection with the homesite” and residential properties of a similar size. However, we reach no final conclusion as to Minnick’s approach until the proper case, with a developed record which includes specific values, presents itself.

121. There is an additional reason for including farmsteads in the class of all residential improved property. An assessor’s treatment of farmsteads must be consistent with the residential and commercial classifications of property the State Board uses to discharge its equalization function.

122. The Wyoming Constitution and statutes expressly recognize three classes of property for ad valorem purposes: the gross product of minerals and mine products; property used for industrial purposes; and all other property, real and personal. Wyo. Const., art. 15, § 11 (a); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103 (b)(iii). The principal distinction between these three classes of property lies in the Legislature’s determination of the percent of fair market value which is taxable value. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(iii). Gross product of minerals and mine products are taxed at 100% of fair market value; property used for industrial purposes is taxed at 11.5% of fair market value; and all other real and personal property is taxed at 9.5% of fair market value. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(iii).

123. The State Board annually determines whether each county is in compliance with the statutory fair market value standard. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102.1(c)(ii); Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 5, § 2. It does so principally by statistical analysis which measures the coefficient of dispersion (COD) and price-related differential (PRD) for residential and commercial properties. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 5, § 3(a)(iv),(xiii), § 5(a), § 6(a)(ii). The State Board gathers information for this purpose pursuant to a statutory duty to “[p]rescribe the form for the abstract of the assessment roll, examine and compare the abstracts of the counties and equalize the same, so that all taxable property in the state is assessed at its fair market value….” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102.1(c)(ii).

124. The Board requires county assessors to prepare abstracts which report the assessed value and fair market value of four classes of property: (1) residential lands including farmsteads, (2) residential improvements including residences on farmsteads, (3) commercial lands, and (4) commercial improvements. See Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 5, § 3(a)(iii). Annual abstract reports demonstrating the use of these categories are available on the Board’s web site, http://taxappeals.state.wy.us/, under the heading, “Wyoming Abstract & Mill Levy Report.” The annual abstract reports also report on the values of agricultural lands in three categories: irrigated lands, dry crop lands, and range lands in each county. There is no separate reporting for the value of farmsteads.

125. The Department’s Rules also reflect the fact that the constitutional class of “all other real property” has historically been divided into two categories, residential and commercial. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 10, Section 3 (c). Not coincidentally, the testimony of Peter Davis is consistent with these same categories; Davis identified “vacant lots, residential, commercial, industrial” as appropriate strata for sales ratio studies. Supra, ¶ 61. As noted in the record, different CAMA cost tables apply to residential and commercial properties. Supra, ¶¶ 26-27.

126. The size of Wyoming’s counties places a practical constraint on the ability of the State Board to authorize the use of alternative valuation procedures for strata of property defined more narrowly than residential or commercial, improved or vacant. The State Board must be able to evaluate whether assessors have properly determined the value of real and personal property consistent with their obligations under state law. Supra, ¶ 123. In order to do so, the State Board is required by statute to collect and analyze appraisal and sale data from counties. Supra, ¶ 124.

127. To perform statistically valid sales ratio studies for equalization purposes on a county by county basis, the State Board must have an adequate, consistently valued universe of sales for a specified property class in each county. We take notice of the fact that Wyoming’s least populous county, Niobrara, had 2,407 inhabitants in 2000. U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data Summary File. The number of sale transactions associated with a county population of that size tend be so few as to strain the State Board’s ability to perform statistically satisfactory sales ratio studies. This is so even for residential improved, the class of property that normally has the greatest number of sale transactions. If the class of residential property were further divided into two subclasses of residential property and farmsteads, the State Board’s ability to conduct useful sales ratio studies could be compromised – particularly with regard to the smaller category, farmsteads.

128. Despite his credentials, Peter Davis worked for an arm of the Kansas Department of Revenue that has no direct analogue in Wyoming law or government. K. S. A. §§ 75-5105, 5105a, 79-1401 to 1410, 79-1481. The County Board could properly have concluded that his insights were grounded in the perspective of another jurisdiction, and discounted his testimony. The State Board naturally has no opinion regarding the virtues of the methods the State of Kansas employs to determine the value of its farmsteads, nor regarding the construction and interpretation of Kansas statutes.

129. We now turn to the specific arguments D Bar D highlighted in its briefing. D Bar D’s most consistent criticism of the Assessor is directed at the Assessor’s use of land values from subdivision properties to develop a value for farmstead land. [Opening Brief, 14-22]. The Assessor’s land value is adjusted only for lot size. Supra, ¶ 39. D Bar D argues the Assessor has assumed the existence of amenities which are found on subdivision lands, but not at D Bar D. The County Board would properly have given this argument little weight.

130. D Bar D’s own appraisals [County Board Record, Exhibits Q and X] showed that D Bar D cannot be distinguished from other residential properties, including subdivided properties, by an absence of amenities. Although D Bar D’s two appraisers differ in their identification of service providers, D Bar D has access to electricity, water, sewer, energy, and telecommunications. Supra, ¶¶ 55. The appraisers likewise agree commercial and medical facilities of Sheridan are only ten miles away, a distance the Williams appraisal characterizes favorably. Supra, ¶ 55.

131. D Bar D suggests that the Assessor should be tracking items such as DSL Internet service, and adjusting sales comparisons based on its availability. [Opening Brief, p. 17]. The County Board would properly have concluded that such marginal information is unnecessary for a mass appraisal.

132. D Bar D attacks the Assessor’s use of a range of residential values based on lot size. [Opening Brief, pp. 21-22]. Contrary to D Bar D’s argument, the record includes substantial evidence to support the values used for D Bar D, in the form of Exhibits 12 and 15 and the testimony of Rita Glantz.

133. D Bar D questions the result of the Assessor’s method, which is that all farmsteads in Neighborhood 306 are valued at $40,000 per acre. This value is the result of the Assessor’s selection of the size of Sheridan County farmstead as one acre. That selection is authorized by the Department’s Rules. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 10, § 3 (c)(iv). Further, as the State Board has previously observed, this one acre treatment is more favorable to this taxpayer than would be a farmstead of larger size. D Bar D Ranch, LLC, Docket No. 2004-123, April 14, 2005, 2005 WL 907431, ¶¶ 65, 68 (Wy. St. Bd. Eq.). That observation would also be true for tax year 2005. Supra, ¶¶ 41-42.

134. D Bar D argues that the Assessor’s justification for its farmstead value does not meet the standard implicitly set by the State Board in Russell & Susan Magarity, Docket No. 2005-93, February 14, 2006, 2006 WL 370816 (Wy. St. Bd. Eq.). We disagree. Magarity presented the different land valuation problem of a lot in an upscale neighborhood, rather than a farmstead. While D Bar D correctly observed that the assessor in Magarity found the pertinent market in Teton County to be for lots rather than acres, nothing in Magarity limited the Assessor in this case from reaching an alternate conclusion. Indeed, Magarity stands as support for the reasonable exercise of an assessor’s discretion, not as a directive from this Board that an assessor’s discretion is constrained by what is reasonable in Teton County.

135. D Bar D attacked the Assessor’s value of its agricultural outbuildings using two different lines of argument. On one hand, D Bar D argued for an alternative value. On the other, D Bar D argued the Assessor’s mass appraisal methodology was fatally flawed. While these arguments tend to reinforce one another, the County Board would have correctly understood the fact D Bar D’s alternative values were not reached by modification of the Assessor’s mass appraisal calculations. They are instead the product of a fee appraiser’s judgment.

136. The evidence presented to the County Board showed the Assessor’s valuation of the agricultural outbuildings to be $212,992. Supra, ¶ 9. Of this amount, $33,469 was for fourteen buildings which D Bar D’s appraisers overlooked. Supra, ¶ 15. The County Board properly concluded D Bar D had failed to carry its burdens with respect to these fourteen buildings.

137. Petitioner’s appraisers calculated alternative values for the eleven other agricultural outbuildings. However, the County Board could not have calculated precisely what alternative valuation Six proposed for the agricultural outbuildings listed in his appraisal. Six individually costed the improvements in question, but collectively adjusted the individual total of $418,518 upward to reach his value of $470,000 for all residential improvements and agricultural outbuildings. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, pp. 289-290]. To illustrate the dimensions of this dispute, we can compare Six’s (unadjusted) individual agricultural outbuilding values with the Assessor’s final values:

Six’s description	Unadjusted cost	Assessor item	Value
Barn/arena	$32,155	6	$70,556
Scale Building	$2,269	7	$3,075
Horse Barn	$14,055	4	$21,172
Hay Shed	$7,898	5	$7,957
Shop Building	$10,445	8	$23,808
Log Barn	$6,679	12	$20,427
Detached Garage	$277	15	$1,152
Horse Barn	$1,294	20	$8,064
Horse Barn	$15,067	25	$12,352
Machine Shed	$6,483	22	$9,975
Guest House	$119	18	$435
Total	$96,831		$179,523

138. The estimated annual tax on the $179,523 of agricultural outbuildings was $1,180.52. [County Board Record, p. 4; by calculation]. Using Six’s unadjusted cost figures, the minimum estimated tax conceded by D Bar D is $636.75. [County Board Record, p. 4; by calculation]. Using Six’s unadjusted cost figures, the maximum amount of estimated tax in dispute with respect to the agricultural outbuildings is therefore $543.78. (By calculation). After adjustment to conform to Six’s final opinion of a $470,000 value, the taxes in dispute would presumably be well under $500.

139. The valuation differences for the eleven buildings are nothing more than a difference of opinion between D Bar D’s appraiser and the Assessor. The presumption favors the Assessor, and the Assessor prevails. Supra, ¶ 101.

140. D Bar D introduced evidence of the estimated labor and materials required to replace two of the agricultural outbuildings. Supra, ¶ 78. D Bar D argued it could build a new Barn/Arena for $67,253, versus the Assessor’s value of $70,556. Supra, ¶ 79. It also argued it could build a new Horse Barn for $23,838, versus the Assessor’s value of $21,712 for the existing building. Supra, ¶ 79. While the County Board voiced doubts about the implications of these estimates for the Assessor’s valuation, it was still correct in upholding the Assessor. D Bar D’s estimates did not take into account all costs required by law for a cost approach valuation.

141. The costs to be used for a cost approach valuation are defined under the Department’s Rules:

(B) “Cost” consists of all components of expense incurred in the building and manufacture of real and personal property.

(I) “Direct costs” include, but are not limited to, materials, labor, supervision, equipment rentals, installation of components, and utilities.

(II) “Indirect costs” include, but are not limited to, architecture and engineering, building permits, title and legal expenses, insurance, interest and fees on construction loans, taxes incurred during construction, advertising and sales expenses, and reasonable overhead and profit.

Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6(b)(v)(B). Various indirect costs are ignored in the Morton bid, most notably reasonable overhead and profit. We note that taxpayers commonly complain about Assessor valuations by reference to incomplete cost information, without success. E.g., Lowes HIW, Inc., Docket No. 2005-115, May 19, 2006, - WL - , ¶¶ 72-74 (Wyo. St. Bd. Eq.); Russell & Susan Magarity, Docket No. 2005-93, February 14, 2006, 2006 WL 370816, ¶¶ 32, 87-88 (Wyo. St. Bd. Eq.).

142. Finally, the County Board would have been justified in doubting the probative value of the Morton estimate which has no binding effect.

143. D Bar D argues to this Board, but not the County Board, that one or more of the agricultural outbuildings included in the Assessor’s valuation were torn down or removed prior to January 1, 2005. [D Bar D Reply Brief, p. 6]; see supra, ¶¶ 16-17. In support of this claim, D Bar D asserts “[t]he Sheridan County Assessor has had access to the Petitioner property and has the obligation to inspect the property and verify that its assessment in any given year is correct.” [D Bar D Reply Brief, p. 5]. D Bar D is mistaken. The Department does not require inspections of every county property each year. Instead, the Department requires, “[e]ffective January 1, 1991, each County Assessor shall commence a program to review all taxable properties within their jurisdiction at least once every four years in order to assure the property characteristic data is correct.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 3(d). This case was complicated not by the Assessor’s failure to make the required review, but rather by the taxpayer’s refusal to cooperate with such a review and allow access to its property once the taxpayer had complained of its valuation. [County Board Record, Transcript pp. 166-167].

144. When a taxpayer removes or tears down a miscellaneous improvement such as one of numerous agricultural outbuildings, the taxpayer has no right to assume that the Assessor is aware of such a change. Particularly where, as here, the taxpayer discouraged the Assessor’s efforts to ascertain the status of the taxpayer’s property, the presumption continues to favor the Assessor’s valuation. Since an assessor is required to visit the property only once every four years, a taxpayer is well advised to notify the assessor when it has removed improvements from its property.

145. Rather than notifying the assessor informally, a taxpayer is free to protest its valuation and present evidence to its county board of equalization to overcome the presumption in favor of the assessor’s valuation. D Bar D did not do so in this case. The State Board may intervene to direct a correction of the tax rolls where the record demonstrates a substantial likelihood that some real property improvement or personal property does not exist by virtue of a duplicate listing. See Mountain Cement Company, Docket No. 2004-136, 2005 WL 1650797, ¶¶ 39-43 (July 12, 2005). In this case, the Deputy Assessor testified that she had removed a bunkhouse from the tax roll in response to information from the taxpayer. Supra, ¶ 16. The County Board could properly accept her testimony as conclusive on this point.

146. Finally, D Bar D argues that two feed tanks “are portable non-fixed items and should most likely be classified as personal property.” [D Bar D Reply Brief, p. 6]. It is not immediately obvious from the record that the feed tanks were indeed portable. [County Board Record, see photograph in Exhibit X, p. 277, depicting “cake bins”]. However, D Bar D did not list the feed tanks on its personal property rendition. Supra, ¶ 14. D Bar D apparently believes that if the feed tanks were personal property, they would not be subject to taxation. While we were prepared to accept this result for the corral panels because the Assessor did not place them at issue, supra, ¶ 14, the feed tanks plainly are at issue.

G. The Assessor’s Application of Mass Appraisal Methods to D Bar D’s Outbuildings

147. The balance of D Bar D’s evidence was offered to support its claim that the Assessor misapplied mass appraisal methods to determine the value of D Bar D’s agricultural outbuildings. D Bar D made similar claims for tax year 2004. The County Board rejected those claims, and the State Board affirmed the County Board. D Bar D Ranch, LLC, Docket 2004-123, April 14, 2005, 2005 WL 907431, ¶¶ 50-63 (Wy. St. Bd. Eq.). D Bar D relied heavily on the testimony of Peter Davis to strengthen its claims for tax year 2005.

148. There appears to be no dispute about the CAMA cost model calculations for D Bar D’s agricultural outbuildings, which were fully disclosed for each building in Exhibit 18. [County Board Record, Exhibit 18, pp. 403-427]. Nor does there appear to be any dispute about the existence of the Assessor’s field notes supporting the calculations. [County Board Record, Exhibit 17, pp. 396-402]. While D Bar D generally complains about the age and utility of its buildings, the Assessor’s cost model calculations indicate that the Assessor accounted for building condition when he deemed it appropriate to do so. [E.g., County Board Record, Exhibit 18, p. 403 reflecting a construction quality adjustment which halved the building cost].

149. Instead, D Bar D identifies five specific aspects of the Assessor’s use of CAMA as improper: (1) use of a local multiplier adjustment; (2) failure to calibrate depreciation tables for individual buildings; (3) failure to account for functional obsolescence; (4) failure to employ multiple regression analysis; and (5) failure to calibrate the model according to USPAP standards. [Opening Brief, pp. 24-34].

150. Ideally, the replacement cost generated by the CAMA system is subject to adjustment by multipliers which increase or decrease the computed value. Other than depreciation, two recognized factors are (1) a Time and Location Modifier and (2) a Market Adjustment Factor. [County Board Record, Exhibit 24, pp. 479-480, which is an excerpt of International Association of Assessing Officers, Property Assessment Valuation, Second Edition]. “Time and location modifiers are used to adjust cost data for local variations and changes in the cost of labor and materials over time.” [Id., p. 479]. In contrast,

Market adjustment factors, reflecting supply and demand preferences, are often required to adjust values obtained from the cost approach to the market. These adjustments should be applied by type of property and area and are based on sales ratio studies or other market analysis. Accurate cost schedules, condition ratings, and depreciation schedules will minimize the need for market adjustment factors.

151. As Peter Davis pointed out, the Assessor applied no Time and Location Modifier. Supra, ¶ 63. Davis characterized this as a failure to properly calibrate the CAMA cost model on annual basis. Supra, ¶ 63. Davis was not satisfied with the use of a Market Adjustment Factor to compensate. For Davis, the Assessor’s reliance on a sales ratio study improperly substituted a measure of performance for proper calibration methods. Supra, ¶¶ 66-67.

152. D Bar D also criticized the basis for the value of the Assessor’s Market Adjustment Factor, i.e. 50%. Douglas Minnick supplemented Davis’s points with sharp criticism of the information sources on which the Assessor relied to generate the 50% market adjustment factor. Supra, ¶ 83. D Bar D characterizes the Deputy Assessor’s testimony as an admission that there was no support in the record for the 50% market adjustment. [Opening Brief, p. 26].

153. The County Board correctly approved the Assessor’s use of and selection of his 50% Market Adjustment Factor. As a threshold matter, we note that D Bar D did not propose an alternative factor. This narrowed the decision alternatives available to the County Board.

154. The evidence in the record would not permit the County Board to eliminate the Market Adjustment Factor, particularly in the absence of a Time and Location Modifier. To ignore both adjustments would argue for a value that was nothing more than replacement cost new less depreciation, a value inconsistent both with the IAAO treatise and Davis’s own opinions. More important, the Department Rules would not allow such a result. As prescribed by the Department, the cost approach to value must rely on current data “which considers appreciation in the case of real…property.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6(b)(iii). Appreciation means an increase in value brought about by, among other things, “greater demand, improved economic conditions, [or] increasing price levels….” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6(b)(iii).

155. The record is replete with evidence of appreciation in value of D Bar D’s buildings due to market factors, not the least of which is its desirable location, long respected by an “affluent, aristocratic clientele.” Supra, ¶ 56. The record shows market adjustments of 80%, 90% and 45%, respectively, applied to the three farmstead residences with attached garages – none of which D Bar D contested. [County Board Record, Exhibits 5a, 6a, 7a]; supra, ¶ 36. The County Board would also have properly inferred an adjustment for appreciation was warranted from the fact that the Assessor did not apply a Time and Location Modifier, even though Davis and the IAAO treatise agree that a Time and Location Modifier is generally appropriate. In the absence of a Time and Location Modifier, a mass appraisal value may be too low.

156. The only evidence in the record of an appropriate Time and Location Modifier was a statewide modifier of 1.54 found in a Boeckh manual. Supra, ¶ 29. D Bar D did not propose an alternative Time and Location Modifier, or demonstrate that an alternative value was available. The Deputy Assessor justified the selection of the 50% Market Adjustment Factor, at least in part, by its close proximity to the Boeckh Modifier. Supra, ¶ 37. Since the Assessor’s Market Adjustment Factor had an effect equivalent to a Modifier of 1.50, the Assessor’s use of a Market Adjustment Factor was slightly more favorable to D Bar D than if the Assessor had instead used the Boeckh Time and Location Modifier. If the Assessor had used the Boeckh modifier and no Market Adjustment Factor, the resulting valuation would have been very close to what Davis sought – a cost-based value subject to a time and location modifier, for which little or no further market adjustment was required.

157. On the technical point of whether a market adjustment based on sales ratio studies is appropriate, the IAAO treatise plainly answers in the affirmative, supra, ¶ 150, thereby disagreeing with Davis. The County Board was free to accept the statement in the treatise.

158. In light of the evidence we have already discussed, the County Board could have placed little weight on Minnick’s objections to the three barn sales identified by the Deputy Assessor. Supra, ¶ 83. The use of these sales was a matter of appraisal judgment, and the County Board could readily have determined that Minnick – who had nothing positive to say about the Assessor – was less than credible. Moreover, the point of Minnick’s testimony was apparently to argue that the Assessor had no basis in fact for making a market adjustment, and therefore could not make such an adjustment. The County Board could have properly concluded that the weight of the evidence pointed to the desirability of an adjustment to the CAMA replacement cost, even if the County Board questioned the value of the sales identified by the Deputy Assessor.

159. The last aspect of D Bar D’s challenge to the market adjustment is a claim that the Assessor was obliged to undertake further study in order to reach a proper valuation. For reasons we discuss in detail in the context of depreciation, the County Board could have properly disagreed with this nebulous demand for the Assessor to devote his limited resources to studies of the Taxpayer’s choosing. In the specific context of the market adjustment, the County Board otherwise had sufficient evidence of the adequacy of the Assessor’s investigation to sustain the 50% Factor.

160. D Bar D correctly points out that the Assessor used the same depreciation schedules for all of D Bar D’s agricultural outbuildings, without attempting to account for the different economic lives of each one. Supra, ¶ 27. Further, the Assessor used depreciation schedules originally provided with the CAMA system, without calibrating the accuracy of the tables by further study. Supra, ¶ 27. D Bar D did not propose any alternative depreciation tables, and did not find general fault with the depreciation schedule originally provided with the CAMA system.

161. D Bar D refers to three items as having separate economic lives which warrant different depreciation schedules: “a grain bin, lawn sprinkler system and residential garages.” [Opening Brief, p. 28]. Of these, only the grain bin can be an agricultural outbuilding. The lawn sprinkler system was not included on either the Assessor’s list of real property improvements, or appraiser Six’s. Residential garages were included the residential improvement valuation which is not at issue, supra, ¶ 8, and in any event were subject to a different depreciation schedule for residential improved property. Supra, ¶ 26.

162. D Bar D did not explain what degree of study would be satisfactory, or specify what subcategories of improvements warranted study. Stated another way, D Bar D did not create a record that would have enabled the County Board to give the Assessor reasonably precise directions about what study was expected, and how many different depreciation schedules should result from such study. D Bar D was not entitled to have the County Board assume that more than one depreciation schedule was required. By way of comparison, we have already seen that the only Time and Location Modifier available from a commercial source was to be applied to the entire State of Wyoming, even though one can make an argument that there should be different time and location modifiers for different locations in a state as large and diverse as Wyoming.

163. D Bar D nonetheless asserts, “[t]he Sheridan County Assessor has failed to satisfy its legal obligation to conduct a fair market analysis to determine what the local depreciation schedule should be.” [Opening Brief, p. 28]. This assertion in not accompanied by citations to any authority.

164. Peter Davis is the source of D Bar D’s demand for further study. As we have already noted, Davis worked for an arm of the Kansas Department of Revenue that has no direct analogue in Wyoming. Supra, ¶ 128. In Wyoming, the Department of Revenue does provide resources to support the costs models for residential improvements. Supra, ¶ 26. Obviously, if the depreciation schedules pertinent to agricultural outbuildings were never adjusted by the Department for use by the Assessor, the Department does not support county cost models for miscellaneous commercial improvements in the same way it supports county cost models for residential improvements. Davis may have been assuming the availability of resources not available to the Assessor.

165. In fact, the resources available for depreciation modeling were likely to be exclusively local. The county commissioners in each Wyoming county determine the budget available to the county assessor in that county. The office of the county assessor is established by statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-3-201 through 18-3-206, and as of 2005, the salary of a county assessor was restricted by statute to a range of not less than $10,000 nor more than $60,000. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-107(a)(i)(A). An assessor may only appoint deputies, “clerks, stenographers and assistants as may be necessary to properly administer the affairs of any county office” with “the consent of the county commissioners.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-107(e). In short, the Assessor does not control his budget, and the only financial and personnel resources available to the Assessor are those made available by the county commissioners.

The object of mass appraisal is to produce equitable valuations at low costs. Improvements in equity generally require increased expenditures…

An assessment jurisdiction requires a certain expenditure level simply to inventory, list, and value properties. Beyond that point, additional expenditures make possible rapid improvements in equity initially, but marginal improvements in equity diminish as expenditure increases. At a minimum, jurisdictions should budget to meet statutory standards of equity…

167. The Assessor plainly did not believe the benefits of further calibrating depreciation tables for miscellaneous commercial improvements similar to D Bar D’s agricultural outbuildings would yield substantial benefits for the calculation of value. The County Board could readily have agreed with this judgment. D Bar D did nothing to demonstrate what level of overall effect was anticipated from further adjustment of the depreciation schedules, and therefore failed to demonstrate what improvements in equity, if any, would result. In the absence of some demonstration that the effort demanded of the Assessor would improve the equity of the system, the County Board was faced with little more than a preference for use of more expensive technique. The preference of Davis was not enough to carry D Bar D’s burdens.

168. We focus on the evidence produced by D Bar D because the County Board should understandably be reluctant to order the Assessor to use the limited resources available at his disposal in a way that might prove to be counterproductive for tax equity in Sheridan County. Even if the County Board agreed with Davis that the ideal practice would be detailed adjustment of depreciation schedules, the pursuit of an isolated ideal may interfere with the Assessor’s ability to discharge his duty to all Sheridan County taxpayers. The time devoted to the studies advocated by Davis would be time no longer available to assure that other priorities are met.

169. Even if the Assessor were able to accommodate Davis’s demand for further study, the Assessor would have to do so in a way which did not give rise to uniformity issues with other taxpayers. The Assessor may not improve the granularity of his depreciation schedules only with respect to the types of improvements of interest to D Bar D. Although the use of a single depreciation schedule for all miscellaneous improvements may fall short of the ideal, it has the virtue of being a uniform valuation method for all affected taxpayers. See Gray v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 896 P. 2d 1347, 1351 (Wyo. 1995).

170. We have already remarked on indications the agricultural outbuildings may in fact be undervalued because the Assessor used only a market adjustment without a time and location multiplier. Supra, ¶ 155. This is accordingly a case in which the County Board would have faced little concern that D Bar D has suffered an overvaluation of its agricultural outbuildings in the aggregate.

171. Under the Department’s Rules, functional obsolescence is a type of depreciation, a loss of utility and hence value:

Functional obsolescence means the impairment of functional capacity or efficiency, which reflects a loss in value brought about by such factors as defects, deficiencies, or super adequacies, which affect the property item itself or its relation with other items comprising the larger property.

Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6(b)(v)(D)(II). Davis found no reference to functional obsolescence in the deposition testimony of Glantz. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 33]. According to Davis, the Assessor acted improperly if he failed to account for obsolete buildings which may not be “a true contributor to the farming operation.” [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 46]. Davis cited no specific instances of such buildings on the D Bar D.

172. The County Board could properly have found Davis’s concern to be merely theoretical. The form of the Six appraisal specifically provided lines to enter a functional obsolescence factor with respect to the buildings Six evaluated, and in every instance Six provided no factor for functional obsolescence. [County Board Record, Exhibit X, pp. 289-290]. The cost approach in the Williams appraisal likewise took depreciation into account without any reference to functional obsolescence. [County Board Record, Exhibit Q, pp. 233-235]. Finally, a definition of replacement cost new less depreciation in the record observed that, “[t]he replacement cost concept implicitly eliminates all functional obsolescence from the value given….” Supra, ¶ 22.

173. D Bar D complains, again through Davis, the Assessor failed to use the multiple regression analysis tool available in its computer software to calibrate the cost model for miscellaneous improvements. Supra, ¶ 68. The Deputy Assessor testified that such analyses had previously been performed for the Assessor’s office by the Department. Supra, ¶ 69. However, multiple regression analysis did not work well in rural areas, and the Assessor had only used multiple regression analysis for properties in town. Supra, ¶ 69. D Bar D did not provide any witness to specifically refute this distinction. On this record, the County Board could reasonably have found that multiple regression analysis was ineffective or otherwise of limited use with respect to the properties in the neighborhood of D Bar D.

174. D Bar D pointed to no principle of law, statute, or Rule of the Department requiring use of multiple regression analysis in all circumstances. While D Bar D referred to a USPAP standard, no such standard was specifically identified in the record.

175. We have already concluded that USPAP standards do not bind the Assessor or the County Board as principles of law. Supra, ¶¶ 102-105. However, as evidence of the consequences of the Assessor’s supposed lack of compliance with USPAP standards, D Bar D points to other evidence we have already considered, including the Morton estimate of labor and materials; Six’s estimate of value of the barn/arena; and Minnick’s criticism of the sales on which the Assessor relied. [Opening Brief, pp. 31-34]. We have already reviewed all of D Bar D’s arguments on these points, and concluded the County Board could properly have found for the Assessor.

176. Although the County Board found for the Assessor, its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order included the following declaration as a Conclusion of Law:

6. The Sheridan County Board of Equalization expresses general concern with the Department of Revenue failing to provide guidance to Assessors on valuing agricultural buildings in conjunction with the use of depreciation and market adjustment.

177. The Special Deputy County Clerk of Sheridan County further elaborated on the County Board’s concerns in her January 13, 2006, cover letter transmitting the County Board record to the State Board:

As mentioned in Chairman Durante’s letter of October 20, 2005, the Sheridan County Board does have concerns over the inequities in valuation of buildings throughout Wyoming as there appears not to be a coordinated method of valuation used in all counties as related to:

(2) The use of market value adjustment to out-buildings, which, in effect, simply wipe out any depreciation tables used on out-buildings.

(3) The fact that taxable valuations of out-buildings frequently exceed the replacement cost of the same out-buildings.

178. The Department is not a party to appeals from a county board of equalization to the State Board. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3, § 4. A conclusion of law by a county board is accordingly an inappropriate means of communication between a county board of equalization and the Department.

179. To the extent that the Special Deputy County Clerk’s cover letter is an independent expression of uncertainty about the relationship between cost calculations and market value, the State Board can reply directly. The guiding principle is that market forces may indeed be more important than costs in determining fair market value in a desirable location. Two barns, of identical age and construction, may have substantially different values if one is in a desirable location, and the other is not. Equally important, under the principles of law which govern ad valorem taxation in Wyoming, replacement costs are not limited to the price of construction materials and labor, but must include indirect costs such as reasonable overhead and profit. Supra, ¶ 141. CAMA systems which comply with the Department’s Rules do so.

180. These principles are not limited to agricultural outbuildings, but apply to all residential and commercial real property in Wyoming. Two houses, of identical age and construction, will likely have different fair market values if one is in a desirable location and the other is not. The replacement costs of houses are not limited to the price of construction materials and labor, but must include indirect costs such as reasonable overhead and profit. CAMA systems which comply with the Department’s Rules do so.

181. The Wyoming Constitution prescribes special property tax treatment for agricultural lands. The special treatment of agricultural lands does not extend to dwellings and commercial improvements of those engaged in agriculture. For dwellings and commercial improvements, all taxpayers in Wyoming stand on the same footing.

182. For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude the County Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, and was not otherwise contrary to law.

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that the Sheridan County Board of Equalization Order affirming the 2005 Assessment of Petitioner’s 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.

Line Code	Market Value
Irrigated Lands	$168,168
Range Lands	$115,108
Total Ag. Related Lands	$120,000
Agricultural Improvements	$751,742
Commercial Personal Property	$39,760

Address	House area	Garage area	Assessor value
38 Bear Gulch Road	2738 square feet	624 square feet	$232,985
66 Bear Gulch Road	2546 square feet	62 square feet	$201,093
65 Bear Gulch Road	1642 square feet	572 square feet	$104,669

Improvement	Assessor Value	Six Improvement Contribution Value	Exhibit D labor & materials estimate
10,080' Barn/Arena	$70,566	$32,155	$67,253
2,520' Horse Barn	$21,712	$10,445	$23,838