BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF           ) 

MICHAEL G. MORES FROM                         )

A DECISION OF THE LARAMIE COUNTY     )         Docket No. 2007-74

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - 2007                )

PROPERTY VALUATION                                   ) 

AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER

APPEARANCES

Michael G. Mores (Taxpayer) appeared pro se.

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

DIGEST

This is an appeal from a decision of the Laramie County Board of Equalization (County Board) affirming the Assessor’s valuation of Taxpayer’s residence for 2007 tax purposes. Taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal was filed with the State Board effective September 5, 2007. Taxpayer and the Assessor filed briefs as allowed by the October 24, 2007, State Board Briefing Order. Neither party requested oral argument.

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 parties’ briefs, the hearing record and the decision of the County Board. We will evaluate Taxpayer’s appeal of the County Board decision against our standard of review, which is whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and/or contrary to law. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3 § 9.

We affirm the decision of the County Board.

*See chart at ¶15 for the only change to this Amended Decision and Order.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD

The County Board conducted a hearing on June 25, 2007, at which the Taxpayer and Assessor each testified and presented exhibits. The County Board entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on August 1, 2007, affirming the Assessor’s 2007 fair market value for Taxpayer’s property. The decision was mailed to Taxpayer on August 6, 2007. [County Board Record, pp. 158-165].

JURISDICTION

The State Board is required to “hear appeals from county boards of equalization.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102.1(c). Taxpayer filed a timely appeal of the County Board decision with the State Board effective September 5, 2007. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3 § 2.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

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

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

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

c) Without observance of procedure required by law; or

(d) Unsupported by substantial evidence.

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

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

When [a taxpayer] challenges a [county board]'s findings of fact and both parties submitted evidence at the contested case hearing, we examine the entire record to determine if the [county board]'s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2001 WY 34, ¶ 8, 20 P.3d 528, 530 (Wyo.2001); RT Commc'ns, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 11 P.3d 915, 920 (Wyo.2000). If the [county board]'s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the [county board] and will uphold the factual findings on appeal. “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence; it is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency.” Id.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 2007 WY 79, ¶ 9, 158 P.3d 131, 134 (Wyo. 2007).

ISSUES

Taxpayer argues generally that the County Board erred in accepting the Assessor’s valuation in light of the evidence Taxpayer presented regarding the value of his residence. To prevail, Taxpayer must establish the County Board decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, and/or the County Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in affirming the Assessor’s value for 2007 tax purposes.

We conclude the decision of the County Board was neither unlawful, arbitrary, nor capricious. We further conclude there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the County Board decision.

FACTS PRESENTED TO THE COUNTY BOARD

1.        Taxpayer owns residential property at 1218 Mount Meeker Drive, Laramie County, Wyoming. [County Board Record, Exhibit A, p. 142]. Taxpayer’s house is a 3,052 square foot, single story, brick veneer ranch with an attached garage and a second garage in the basement. [County Board Record, Exhibit A, pp. 145-148].

2.        The Assessor sent Taxpayer a Notice of Assessment for the 2007 tax year on March 19, 2007, indicating a fair market value of $667,719 for Taxpayer’s property. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 30; Exhibit A, p. 142].

3.        Taxpayer requested the Assessor review the characteristics of his property. Based on information provided by Taxpayer, the Assessor issued an amended assessment schedule reducing the fair market value of Taxpayer’s property to $577,406 on March 26, 2007. The assessed value of Taxpayer’s house without the land was $519,401. [County Board Record, Exhibit A, p. 143]. The reduction in assessed value resulted from the Assessor changing the quality of the structure to good and updating the basement finish and plumbing count. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 30-31].

4.        On April 17, 2007, Taxpayer filed an Official Appeal of Assessment with the County Board. [County Board Record, p. 1]. The County Board held a hearing on Taxpayer’s appeal on June 25, 2007. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 8].

5.        At the hearing, Taxpayer asserted his house was overvalued by the Assessor. To support his position, Taxpayer offered evidence of the construction cost of his residence, his insurance policy’s listed replacement value, the assessed values of neighboring properties, a real estate agent’s market evaluation, the assessed values of recently sold properties, and an appraisal of his house done for financing. Each of the values offered by Taxpayer to support his position was different than the Assessor’s value, and also different than the other values offered by Taxpayer.

6.        Taxpayer agreed with the Assessor’s valuation of the land where his house is located. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 17-18]. He did not remember what he paid for the lot, but indicated it would be worth more money now. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 19].

7.        Taxpayer offered a Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor and floor plan and elevation for his house constructed in 2006 by J & R Homes Inc. The final cost of construction was $394,629.63. Taxpayer told the County Board they moved into the house July 1, 2006. [County Board Record, Exhibit 1, pp. 57-64; Transcript, p. 14].

8.        Taxpayer testified about the reconstruction cost listed on his homeowners’ insurance policy. A copy of his insurance policy declarations page listed a reconstruction cost of $396,000. Taxpayer testified his insurance company inspected his house and set the reconstruction cost. [County Board Record, Exhibit 2, p. 64; Transcript, p. 15]. No one from Taxpayer’s insurance company was called as a witness to testify concerning the reconstruction cost.

9.        Taxpayer offered evidence of the assessed values of neighboring houses. Taxpayer testified about a neighboring house oat 1407 Green Mountain Road. The two story house is larger than the Taxpayer’s ranch style house, 3,567 square feet as compared to 3,052 square feet, and was assessed for tax purposes at $435,192, an amount less than the assessed value of Taxpayer’s house. [County Board Record, Exhibit 3, pp. 65-70; Transcript, p. 15]. The two story house was built in 1992, so the Assessor reduced its “construction cost new” by 15% to reflect depreciation due to its age. [County Board Record, Exhibit 3, pp. 65-66].

10.      Taxpayer presented information concerning a neighboring house located on Sherman Mountain Road. The ranch style house is 2,555 square feet in area and was assessed at $394,593. Taxpayer compared it to his house which is 500 square feet larger but was assessed for almost $125,000 more. [County Board Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 71-76; Transcript, p. 16]. The Sherman Mountain house was built in 1994 so the Assessor reduced its “construction cost new” by 9% to reflect depreciation due to its age. [County Board Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 71-72].

11.      The Taxpayer presented information for a one story house located at 1201 Green Mountain Road, which he characterized as comparable to his house. The house is 3,067 square feet in area and was assessed at approximately $479,600, which was less than the $519,401 assessed value of Taxpayer’s house. Taxpayer told the County Board this was an inconsistency. [County Board Record, Exhibit 5, pp.77-82; Transcript, pp. 16-17]. The Green Mountain house was built in 1991, so the Assessor reduced its “construction cost new” by 12% to reflect depreciation due to its age. [County Board Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 77-78].

12.      The Taxpayer also presented a market evaluation of his property prepared by The Property Exchange in June, 2007. [County Board Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 83-92; Transcript pp. 17-18, 24]. The Market Evaluation Report used a square footage method and a comparison method to estimate the value of Taxpayer’s property. [County Board Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 83-92]. The Taxpayer testified the estimate of value computed using square footage was $483,100. He emphasized the estimate included $110,000 for his land, while the assessor valued his land at $58,000. [County Board Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 83-84; Transcript, pp. 17-18]. The report also contained an estimate of value of between $484,000 and $487,000 based on recent sales. [County Board Record, Exhibit 6, p. 85]. The real estate agent who prepared the market evaluation was not called as a witness to testify concerning the market evaluation report. The properties utilized in preparing the evaluation were smaller with significantly different characteristics. While the area of Taxpayer’s main level was 3052 square feet, the main level areas of the comparables were only 1803 square feet, 1723, square feet and 1890 square feet. Of the three houses used in the evaluation, only one had three bathrooms like Taxpayer’s house. and none of the houses were brick veneer like Taxpayer’s house. [County Board Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 86, 93-94, 97-98, 101-102].

13.      The Taxpayer testified about a house on Fox Ridge in Murray Hills Estates that sold during the same time period the construction of his house was completed. According to Taxpayer, the house sold for $531,500 in 2006. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 20]. It was valued by the Assessor for 2007 tax purposes at $515,170. The house was for sale again with an asking price of $555,000. [County Board Record, Exhibit 7, pp. 107-114; Transcript, p. 19-21]. Taxpayer compared the assessed values of the Fox Ridge house with his house on a square foot basis. The house on Fox Ridge was assessed at $122.76 per square foot while his house was assessed at $170 per square foot. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 21]. The Fox Ridge house is frame construction with partial stone veneer while Taxpayer’s house is full brick veneer. [County Board Record, Exhibit 7, p. 107; Exhibit A, p. 147; compare County Board Record, Exhibit 7, p. 111 with County Board Record, Exhibit A, p. 145].

14.      The Taxpayer also compared a house located on Stardust Trail to his house. The Stardust Trail house sold for $621,801in 2007 but was assessed at $533,000. He testified the Stardust Trail house was bigger than his house, 3300 square feet with a 4,000 square foot basement and 1400 square foot basement garage. Taxpayer characterized the Stardust Trail house as bigger and nicer than his house, and pointed out it was assessed for less than his house. [County Board Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 115-122; Transcript, pp. 21-22]. The Stardust Trail house was constructed in 2005. It is stucco construction while Taxpayer’s house is full brick veneer. [Compare County Board Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 115-116 with County Board Record, Exhibit A, p. 147].

15.      The characteristics of houses from which Taxpayer asked the County Board to draw conclusions with respect to the value of his house are summarized on the following chart.

[County Board Record, Exhibit 3, pp. 65-70; Exhibit 4, pp. 71-76; Exhibit 5, pp. 77-82; Exhibit 7, pp. 107-114; Exhibit A, pp. 145-148]. The exhibits include photos of each building showing the differences in the type of building and the finishes which affect the final value.

* Includes 30% market adjustment see Infra ¶ 23.

16.       The last exhibit Taxpayer presented was an appraisal prepared by Steven Kelly of Kelly & Associates Inc. The appraisal was done for Taxpayer’s mortgage company, Wallick & Volk, as part of its loan process. The appraisal valued Taxpayer’s house as of July 18, 2006, at $520,000. [County Board Record, Exhibit 9, pp.123-141; Transcript, p. 23]. The stated purpose of the appraisal was “to estimate the value of the subject property as defined in the limiting conditions herein for federally regulated loan purposes. **This summary report in intended for the use [by] the noted lender/client (and/or assigns) for a mortgage finance transaction only. This report is not intended for any other use.” [County Board Record, Exhibit 9, p. 130]. The appraiser was not called as a witness to testify concerning the appraisal.

17.      The Taxpayer testified he was not a certified appraiser, but he disagreed with the appraiser’s fair market value estimate. In the Taxpayer’s opinion, the appraiser erred in adding $15,000 to the appraisal for the basement garage because it reduced the usable basement area. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 23, 26-27].

18.      When asked what he thought his house should be appraised for, Taxpayer responded that in his opinion his house and land should valued somewhere between $450,000 and $500,000. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 25-26].

19.      The Assessor testified she has been with the assessor’s office since 1988, was elected Laramie County Assessor, and took office in January, 1995. She has been a certified Wyoming tax appraiser since 1989, and is accredited by the International Association of Assessing Officers. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 27-28].

20.      The Assessor explained the mass appraisal process used to value residential property in Laramie County for tax purposes. The Assessor uses a computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) system provided by the Department of Revenue for the mass appraisal process. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 31].

a.    Field appraisers collect information on each property including property dimensions, structure type, heating system, construction materials, quality of construction, year built, basement size, finished area, plumbing, plumbing fixtures. The information collected is entered into the CAMA system. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 31-32].

b.    Using the collected information, the CAMA system calculates a replacement cost new using Marshall & Swift cost tables that most fee appraisers use in the cost approach to appraisal. Replacement cost new looks at what it would take to build the structure using today’s labor and material costs. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 32].

c.    The replacement cost new is adjusted for depreciation. Depreciation based on the remaining life of the structure and its condition is applied to determine the replacement cost new less depreciation for a structure. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 32].

d.    The Assessor then adjusts the replacement cost new less depreciation to account for market conditions. The Assessor monitors sales and compares the reported sale prices from statements of consideration to the Assessor’s 2006 replacement cost new less depreciation plus land value for the property sold. By comparing these values the assessor determines an average percent above or below the replacement cost new less depreciation that buyers were paying in 2006 for property in an area. The Assessor applies the percentage to every property in the neighborhood to determine the assessed value for each property. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 32-33].

21.      This process was utilized by the Assessor to value Taxpayer’s property for 2007 tax purposes. The Assessor testified that her office completed an on-site inspection of Taxpayer’s property on January 11, 2007. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 30]. Information on Taxpayer’s house was entered into the CAMA system.

22.      Taxpayer’s property information was subsequently reviewed by the Assessor at the request of the Taxpayer. Corrections were made by the Assessor’s office to reflect changes in quality of the structure, basement finish and plumbing count. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 30-31]. The garage in the basement of Taxpayer’s house was not included by the Assessor as part of the basement. It was treated as a separate area. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 46]. The replacement cost new for the property was then recalculated and depreciation of 1% was applied against the property resulting in a replacement cost new less depreciation of $399,539. [County Board Record, Exhibit A, p. 148; by calculation COST TOTAL RCN less PHYS DEPR VAL]. The depreciation factor was small because the property was only one year old. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 32].

23.      Finally, the Assessor compared the sold prices of properties with the CAMA system’s computed replacement cost new less depreciation values for the sold properties in Taxpayer’s neighborhood. The comparison, based on 71 sales in 2006, indicated properties in the same neighborhood as Taxpayer’s house were selling for 30% more on average than replacement cost new less depreciation. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 33, 45; see Exhibit A, pp. 144, 149-154]. The Assessor applied the 30% adjustment to every residential structure within the area, including Taxpayer’s residence. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 33]. The application of this method by the Assessor resulted in an assessed value of $577,406 for Taxpayer’s property, $519,401 for the residence and $58,001 for the land. [County Board Record, Exhibit A, p. 143].

24.      The Assessor testified concerning the State Board equalization standards. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 33-34]. While the County Board included the testimony in its findings of fact, there is nothing to indicate it relied on the information in reaching its ultimate decision. [See County Board Record, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, pp. 158-165].

25.      The Assessor furnished the County Board a copy of the letter she sent to Taxpayer on April 10, 2007, discussing the Kelly appraisal. [County Board Record, Exhibit A, pp.156-157; Transcript, p.30]. The Assessor’s letter pointed out that by removing the 2005 sales from the appraisal, the appraisal would be within 6% of the Assessor’s determined value of $577,406 and within 11% if those sales were left in. [County Board Record, Exhibit A, pp.156-157; Transcript, p. 37].

26.      The Assessor told the County Board she reviewed the market analysis provided by The Property Exchange indicating two different values, a square footage calculation based on another property’s sales price, and range of values based on a comparable sales approach. The Assessor argued the estimates were opinions of value reflecting only a difference of opinion. [County Board Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 83-92; Transcript, pp. 36-37].

27.      The Assessor testified about the property information contained in her exhibit and the property information she provided to Taxpayer to which he testified. The Assessor stated the information was not included to make a comparison similar to that found in the appraisal. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 34-35, 41]. Rather the information was included to illustrate the effect different characteristics such as age, size, finish, plumbing fixtures, and fireplaces, have on value. [County Board Record, Transcript, pp. 36, 42-43]. The Assessor testified she could not simply take a sale price as the basis for property taxation. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 35].

28.      The County Board issued its decision on August 6, 2007, affirming the Assessor’s revised 2007 fair market value of Taxpayer’s property. The County Board concluded Taxpayer had not met his burden of showing the Assessor had failed to properly utilize the CAMA system in valuing Taxpayer’s property. [County Board Record, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, ¶ 8, p. 163].

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW

29.      The Wyoming Constitution, article 15 § 11, requires “[a]ll taxation shall be equal and uniform within each class of property. The legislature shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of taxation of all property, real and personal.”

30.      Broken into its component parts, the constitutional standard requires: (1) a rational method; (2) equally applied to all property; and (3) essential fairness. It is the burden of one challenging an assessment to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at least one of these elements has not been fulfilled. Basin Electric Power Coop. v. Dept. of Revenue, 970 P.2d. 841, 852 (Wyo. 1998).

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

32.       Fair market value is defined as:

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

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-101(a)(vi); See Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Ch. 9 § 4(f.).

33.      An assessor is required to annually value property within the assessor’s county for tax purposes at its fair market value. In completing this task, an assessor is required to “[f]aithfully and diligently follow and apply the orders, procedures and formulae of the department of revenue or orders of the state board of equalization for the appraisal and assessment of all taxable property.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-204(a)(ix).

34.      The Department of Revenue is required to confer with, advise and give necessary instructions and directions to the county assessors as to their duties, and to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the enforcement of all tax measures. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102(c)(xvi) and (xix). The Department of Revenue is required to “[p]rescribe the system of establishing the fair market value of all property valued for property taxation to ensure that all property within a class is uniformly valued.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102(c)(xv).

35.      In particular, the Department of Revenue “shall prescribe by rule and regulation the appraisal methods and systems for determining fair market value using generally accepted appraisal standards.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(ii). The Department of Revenue has promulgated rules prescribing the methods for valuing property. The acceptable methods include a sales comparison approach, a cost approach, and an income or capitalized earning approach. The rules also authorize the use of the CAMA system. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6(a)–(d).

36.      In valuing real property and improvements for tax purposes, the assessor must take into consideration depreciation. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.)(iv.). Depreciation is defined as follows:

(d.) "Depreciation" means a loss of utility and hence value from any cause. Depreciation may take the form of physical depreciation, functional obsolescence, or economic obsolescence.

(i.) "Physical Depreciation" means the physical deterioration as evidenced by wear and tear, decay or depletion of the property.

(ii.) "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 a larger property.

(iii.) "Economic Obsolescence" means impairment of desirability or useful life arising from factors external to the property, such as economic forces or environmental changes which affect supply-demand relationships in the market. The methods to measure economic obsolescence may include, but are not limited to:

(A.) Capitalization of the income or rent loss attributable to the negative influence;

(B.) Comparison of sales of similar properties which are subject to the negative influence with others which are not.

Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 4(d).

37.      The determination of fair market value 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 (1923). 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).

38.      An assessor’s valuation is presumed valid, accurate, and correct. Teton Valley Ranch v. State Board of Equalization, 735 P.2d 107, 113 (Wyo. 1987). This presumption survives until overturned by credible evidence. Id.; Britt v. Fremont County Assessor, 2006 WY 10, ¶ 34, 126 P.3d 117, 127 (Wyo. 2006). A mere difference of opinion as to value is not sufficient to overcome the presumption. J. Ray Mc Dermott & Co. v. Hudson, 370 P.2d 364, 370 (Wyo. 1962); Britt, supra. The presumption is especially valid where the Assessor valued the property according to the Department’s Rules and Regulations which provide for the use of the CAMA system in the assessment of real property. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b), (d). “The burden is on the Taxpayer to establish any overvaluation.” Hillard v. Big Horn Coal Co., 549 P.2d 293, 294 (Wyo. 1976).

39.      The Wyoming Supreme Court has recognized the validity of valuations derived from the CAMA system. Gray v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1347 (Wyo. 1995); Britt v. Fremont County Assessor, 2006 WY 10, ¶ 39, 126 P.3d 117, 128 (Wyo. 2006). In fact, the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected the use of actual sales price for properties in favor of the value established by the CAMA system because of the equality and uniformity which result from its use. Gray, supra, 896 P.2d at 1351.

40.      Our evaluation of Taxpayer’s appeal turns on the question of whether there is substantial evidence in the record which reasonably supports the County Board’s decision. In determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record, the State Board will not substitute its judgement for findings reasonably supported by evidence in the County Board record. Laramie County Board of Equalization v. State Board of Equalization, 915 P.2d 1184, 1188-1189 (Wyo. 1996); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 839 P.2d 959 (Wyo. 1992); Sage Club, Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm’n., 601 P.2d 1306, 1310 (Wyo. 1979). While substantial evidence may be less than the weight of the evidence, it cannot be clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Wyoming Supreme Court has stated “[s]ubstantial evidence is a term of art best described as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate support for an agency’s conclusion.” Sidwell v. State Workers’ Compensation Div., 977 P.2d 60, 63 (Wyo. 1999).

41.      The Assessor complied with the requirements of state law in determining the value for Taxpayer’s property by using the cost approach adjusted to account for appreciation as prescribed in Chapter 9 of the Rules promulgated by the Department. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b). Specifically, the Assessor employed the CAMA system supplied by the Department of Revenue to determine the value of Taxpayer’s house. The use of the CAMA system is specifically authorized and entitles the Assessor’s value to be afforded a presumption of correctness. Supra ¶ 38.

42.      Taxpayer did not present evidence challenging the CAMA system, its use by the Assessor or the information specific to his property inputted in the CAMA system. Rather Taxpayer presented other estimates of value ranging from Taxpayer’s reported construction cost to an appraisal completed prior the assessment date for financing purposes. Supra ¶¶ 7-18. While Taxpayer is obviously of the opinion that his construction cost should be utilized to value his house, he nonetheless presented other value information which was not consistent with either his desired value nor the Assessor’s value. Taxpayer can not prevail simply by having an opinion or presenting opinions of others contrary to that of the Assessor. As we have noted, a mere difference of opinion is not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s valuation. Supra ¶ 38.

43.      Taxpayer ultimately contends the cost of constructing his residence should be used as the value of his residence. [Petitioner’s Reply Brief, p. 3]. Our review of the record, however, reveals not one but four different values based on construction. Taxpayer reported a cost of construction of $394,629.63 in July, 2006. Supra ¶ 7. The reconstruction cost estimate for insurance purposes was $396,000. Supra ¶ 8. The appraisal listed a reproduction cost new with no depreciation of $391,580 as of July, 2006. [County Board Record, Exhibit 9, p. 125, Total Estimate of Cost New minus Opinion of Site Value]. The CAMA system calculated a replacement cost new less depreciation of $399,539 as of January 1, 2007, utilizing the undisputed characteristics of Taxpayer’s house. Supra ¶ 22. While the construction cost estimates vary slightly from Taxpayer’s reported construction cost, there is nothing to suggest the Assessor’s estimate derived using the CAMA system is fundamentally flawed. In the absence of evidence calling into question the validity of the Assessor’s replacement cost new less depreciation value, we can only conclude there are slight differences which the County Board was justified not accepting as proof that Taxpayer’s house was overvalued.

44.      Taxpayer would have the valuation process stop at this point, using his construction cost plus the Assessor’s land value as the taxable value of his property. Valuation of Taxpayer’s property, however, does not end at this point. An assessor is required to take into consideration appreciation. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.)(iii.). Appreciation is defined as “an increase in value due to an increase in cost to reproduce, value over the cost, or value at some specified earlier point in time, brought about by greater demand, improved economic conditions, increasing price levels, reversal of depreciating environmental trends, or other factors as defined in the market.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.)(v.)(A.).

45.      The Assessor collected sales information and compared the recent valid sale prices with the value calculated using the replacement cost new less depreciation for those recently sold properties. She found that the value reflected by sales price exceeded the replacement cost less depreciation by thirty percent (30%). She, therefore, adjusted the values of the properties in the neighborhood accordingly to reflect the appreciation. Supra ¶ 23. The only evidence offered by Taxpayer directly contrary to the adjustment made by the Assessor was his opinion that he didn’t think it was realistic for him to have a contractor build a house, walk into it and be able to sell it for significantly more immediately. [County Board Record, Transcript, p. 20]. We find Taxpayer’s opinion standing alone insufficient to meet the Taxpayer’s ultimate burden of proof.

46.      Taxpayer did offer two estimates of value, a market evaluation report and an appraisal, which indicated a market adjustment, albeit lower, was warranted. The first estimate was a market evaluation report performed in June of 2007, after the statutory assessment date. Supra ¶ 12. The market evaluation is of questionable relevance since it post-dates the statutory assessment date of January 1, 2007, and was not supported by any testimony. Absent testimony of market conditions, the evaluation cannot be assumed to reflect the value of Taxpayer’s property as of the assessment date. It is also of questionable relevance because of the differences between the Taxpayer’s house and the properties used in the evaluation. The houses used in the evaluation were significantly smaller than Taxpayer’s and had other characteristics significantly different than Taxpayer’s house. Supra ¶ 12. Without testimony concerning the method used to account for these readily apparent differences, the County Board was justified in not accepting its conclusions.

47.      The second estimate was an appraisal procured by Taxpayer’s finance company for loan purposes. Supra ¶ 16. The appraisal was completed nearly six months prior to the assessment date, and is of questionable relevance simply for that reason. Its usefulness is also questionable because it was done for the limited purpose of the finance transaction, and was “not intended for any other use.” [County Board Record, Exhibit 9, p. 130]; supra ¶ 16. Finally, we note that not even Taxpayer accepted the appraiser’s estimate of value, arguing the appraiser overstated the value of his property. Supra ¶ 17.

48.      We conclude that neither the market evaluation completed after the assessment date nor the appraisal completed for financing purposes prior to the assessment date is sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s valuation. Supra ¶ 38.

49.      Taxpayer offered testimony of the assessed values of neighboring properties to support of his position. Supra ¶¶ 9-11, 15. The testimony and exhibits proved nothing other than the fact that different properties with different characteristics, built in different years have different values. See Chart, supra ¶ 15. Absent evidence of how each property’s differences affected value or how the differences should be accounted for in comparing the values to Taxpayer’s house, the values of neighboring houses are not relevant and add nothing to the determination of whether the County Board decision is correct. Taxpayer’s argument also fails to account for the differences in property age and the associated depreciation which the Assessor is required to consider. Supra ¶¶ 32, 36; See Chart, supra ¶ 15.

50.      The same may be said for Taxpayer’s testimony concerning other properties which had recently sold. Supra ¶¶ 13-14. The evidence indicated that a given property’s sales price may not be the same as the Assessor’s taxable value, nothing more. From that evidence it may be inferred that a market adjustment, such as the adjustment made by the Assessor, is warranted. A generalized comparison of properties, without a discussion of the differences between properties, how those differences affect value, or how they should be accounted for in comparing the values to Taxpayer’s house is of no assistance in determining whether a particular property is correctly valued. From our review, the characteristics of the recently sold properties relied on by Taxpayer were sufficiently different that the County Board was warranted in rejecting the comparisons made by Taxpayer. Supra ¶¶ 13-15.

51.      While we can appreciate Taxpayer’s reaction to his initial assessment notice, we conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the County Board’s decision affirming the Assessor’s amended valuation of Taxpayer’s property. Taxpayer did not challenge the CAMA system or assert the Assessor improperly utilized the system. The CAMA system ensures that all residential real estate is valued using the same rational method. By its uniform application, the constitutional requirements of uniformity and essential fairness are met. Supra ¶¶ 29-30.

52.      The valuation of the Assessor derived using the CAMA system is presumed valid, accurate, and correct. In this case Taxpayer failed to present sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the CAMA system was not a rational method, that its was not equally applied to all property, or that it did not achieve essential fairness. The decision of the County Board affirming the Assessor’s valuation is supported by substantial evidence. We further conclude based on our review of the record that the County Board decision was neither unlawful, arbitrary, nor capricious.

ORDER

           IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED the Laramie County Board of Equalization Order affirming the Assessor’s 2007 valuation of Taxpayer'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 the appropriate district court by filing a petition for review within 30 days of the date of this decision.

           Dated this _______ day of June, 2008.

                                                       STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

_____________________________________

                                                           Alan B. Minier, Chairman

_____________________________________

                                                           Thomas R. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman

_____________________________________

                                                           Thomas D. Roberts, Board Member

ATTEST:

____________________________

Wendy J. Soto, Executive Secretary