March 27th SF 144 Teleconference Minutes by w9XF65FG


									The Department of Revenue Senate File 144 Committee will hold a work meeting April
15, 2009 at the Natrona County Annex, Corner of First and David, Casper, WY 82601
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Department of Revenue Senate File 144 Committee will hold a work meeting April
29, 2009 at the Natrona County Annex, Corner of First and David, Casper, WY 82601
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Department of Revenue Senate File 144 Committee will hold a work meeting May
13, 2009 at the Natrona County Annex, Corner of First and David, Casper, WY 82601
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Department of Revenue Senate File 144 Committee will hold a work meeting May
27, 2009 at the Natrona County Annex, Corner of First and David, Casper, WY 82601
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Department of Revenue Senate File 144 Committee will hold a work meeting June 9,
2009 at the Natrona County Annex, Corner of First and David, Casper, WY 82601 from
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

CANCELLED: The Department of Revenue Senate File 144 Committee will hold a work
meeting June 24, 2009 at the Natrona County Annex, Corner of First and David, Casper,
WY 82601 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Department of Revenue Senate File 144 Committee will hold a public meeting July
9, 2009 at the Wyoming County Assessors Summer Meeting, Saratoga Inn, Saratoga,
WY from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

March 27th SF 144 Teleconference Minutes
   The meeting was called to order at app. 9:34 a.m.
   Ken Uhrich started the meeting with brief introductions and bio’s from each
    committee member.
   General ground rules and purposes for the committee were discussed. Primarily this
    committee is to promulgate rules that act in the best interest of the State, the Counties,
    and the taxpayers as a whole. Any personal agenda must not be considered.
   Ken Uhrich went over the general goals and objectives of the committee referred to in
    the March 13th letter.
   The calendar of meetings was addressed by David Franck. A new calendar will be
    sent out to each committee member. One of said dates will be the public meeting on
    July 9th from 8:30-10:30 at the Assessors’ meeting in Saratoga.
   The DOR will look in to the availability of teleconference for members of the
    committee unavailable to physically attend Casper meetings.
   Mr. Wirth stated that the public should not be allowed to interfere with the actions of
    the committee. He suggested written comment and limited verbal comment from the
    public at scheduled meetings in Casper. The remainder of the committee is in
   The DOR will look in to what constitutes “legal notice” of a public meeting.
   David Franck briefly went over the documents sent out the committee. These
    documents will also be included in each member’s notebook.
   Briefly recap the language in SF 144.
   A brief conversation of the CH 9 rules as well as potential areas of change was
    mentioned. Kathy Treanor mentioned that potential areas of change may be sections
   Ken Uhrich stated that the committee will need to be familiar with CH 9 rules as well
    as Part A of the IAAO Sales Ratio Standard.
   The committee came to the consensus that any applicable IAAO standards should be
    considered in writing rules relating to SF 144.
   Shelley Deromedi brought up the point that these rules may be in direct conflict with
    SBOE rules and procedures. The DOR will need to look in to this potential problem.
   Jack Rehm brought up Mr. Wirth's request for raw sales data for analysis. The
    committee saw no great problem with this request provided the data is “generic” and
    does not identify owner/jurisdiction names, etc.
   Mr. Wirth made a brief presentation regarding sales ratios and the bell curve. He
    stated that the lower elongated curve is what the committee should address. Also that
    homogeneity and increased sample size should correct most problems the taxpayer
    would see as an issue.
   Sub-Committee assignments were reviewed. Mr. Madden and Mr. Docksteder opted
    to change places. A revised copy of the work assignments will be sent to each
    committee member.
   County liaison assignments were reviewed. County Assessors on the committee saw
    no problem with these assignments and thought the idea to be a sound one.
   The DOR will bring its laptop server to each meeting to give the committee access to
    Realware. Kathy Treanor agreed to have Washakie County data loaded on the server.
   The meeting adjourned at app. 11:30 a.m.

SF 144 Committee Meeting Minutes April 2, 2009
   The meeting was called to order by Ken Uhrich at 9:05 a.m.
   In attendance were Ken Uhrich, Jack Rehm, David Franck, Marvin Applequist, Grant
    Showacre, Shelley Deromedi, Kathy Treanor, Troy Clements, Sen. Dan Dockstader,
    Rep. Mike Madden, and Mike Watson.
   Mike Madden mentioned that the interim committee meeting had been moved to July
    22nd and 23rd.
   Shelley Deromedi moved to accept the minutes from the March 27 teleconference,
    Grant Showacre 2nd the motion, the committee voted to accept the minutes.
   Multiple attempts were made to set up a teleconference call to enable Mr. Wirth to
    participate in the meeting. These attempts failed and Mr. Wirth was unable to
   Ken Uhrich briefly reviewed the committee schedule and future meeting dates.
   Ken Uhrich stated that posting the committee information on the DOR website did
    constitute as public notice for the Public Information Act.
   The committee briefly reviewed sub-committee assignments and “sub-chairman”
    positions were established as follows: Statistical group- Jack Rehm; Reporting form-
    Shelley Deromedi; Rules- Troy Clements (however in sub-committee meeting it was
    decided that Grant Showacre will chair the Rules Sub-Committee).
   The committee briefly reviewed county liaison assignments. Assignments were
    deemed to be acceptable.
   The two chairman of the interim committee will be put on the email list for SF 144
    committee minutes by the request of Rep. Madden and Sen. Dockstader.
   Ken Uhrich went over the recap of SF 144.
   Sen. Dockstader and Rep. Madden recommended focusing more on guidelines for
    residential improved parcels vs. vacant, etc.
   Grant Showacre stated the guidelines for improved parcels would most likely flow
    over in to the unimproved properties.
   Grant Showacre also suggested that the rules be somewhat stable (generic) so they do
    not need to be re-written every year. A suggestion was made that the wording in the
    rules say “the most current” IAAO standards. The committee agreed with this
   Marvin Applequist stated that CCI needs to know what needs to be on the form
    ASAP in order to have things in place on the first of the year.
   Rep. Madden stated that the taxpayers need a simple form that explains how the
    Assessor’s value was determined.
   Grant Showacre stated that overall the system is good as is, it just needs to better
    explain how values are arrived at.
   Break from 10:36-10:50.
   The committee discussed whether the bill was intended to pull in all IAAO standards
    or just specific standards. The general consensus of the committee was to pick and
    choose the most applicable standards for use in Chapter 9 Rules.
   The DOR will send out a list of all IAAO standards to the committee for the next
    meeting. The committee will determine the most applicable standards.
   Ken Uhrich reiterated that the effective date of this bill is July 1, 2009.
   Marvin Applequist stated that the DOR is pushing CCI that the changes the
    committee decides on WILL be done (forms/reporting, etc.).
   The committee discussed the current access to sales by the taxpayer. Current statute
    reads sales information is available for properties “of like use and geographical area”
    not a blanket statement giving full access to all sales.
   Ken Uhrich stated that definitions of all terms (LEA/NBHD, etc) MUST be included
    in the rules.
   Mike Watson        stated that the taxpayer wants to see how and why a property is
    valued as it is.
   Committee discussed that lettering and numbering of rules may need to be altered.
    The rules sub-committee will look in to this matter further. Ad Valorem will need to
    be replaced with Property Tax Division, etc.
   Rep. Madden said that Chapter 9 rules Section 9 is the basis of the committee’s work.
   Ken Uhrich went over the IAAO standard on Ratio Studies and stated that part A is
    the most applicable to our job and should be the focus of the committee’s work.
   Break for lunch 12:00-1:02 p.m.
   Jack Rehm gave a brief demonstration of what is available in the Realware system.
    The Assessors on the committee did a great job of further explaining how they used
    the system and further explained the system to the committee.
   Grant Showacre explained the difference between NBHD and LEA to the legislators
    on the committee.
   The committee discussed the forms currently available in the CAMA system. The
    statistical form in the system is a good one but would need to include a total number
    of parcels w/in a strata (not just the number that sold) as well as an individual sales
    ratio for each sale.
   The committee discussed the ins and outs of the sales verification process.
   Rep Madden had to leave at 2:07 p.m.
   Break from 2:20-2:34 p.m.
   The committee broke up in to sub-committee groups.
   After reconvening as a whole sub-committee discussions were reviewed.
   The forms group stated that what is currently in the system is pretty good and that a
    few adjustments such as the total # of accounts in a strata as well as adding
    confidence intervals and any additional statistics that the statistical sub-committee
    comes up with should be added. The want to contact CCI to see about expanding the
    cost breakdown report already in the system. They had a brief conversation with
    David Chapman of the Technical Services Group (TSG) to better understand what
    CCI will be able to do. Dan Shadakofsky will be the liaison between the committee
    and TSG. The forms sub-committee want to keep to forms and explanation as simple
    and easy as possible for the taxpayer.
   The Rules group will begin working on adding definitions and renumbering/lettering
    the Chapter 9 rules. Grant Showacre will email the Assessors regarding what the
    rules state regarding county computer systems.
   The statistical group was unable to meet as Mr. Wirth was not present for the meeting
    and Rep. Madden had to leave early.
   David Franck will get copies of the Guide for Assessment standards, W.S. 39-11-102,
    and relevant Wyoming Constitution areas sent out to the committee.
   Ken Uhrich recommended that the sub-committees work via teleconference or web
    meeting to expedite their work between regularly scheduled meetings.
   The meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
   Our next meeting will be held April 15 & 16 in Casper at the Petroleum Club.

   Called to order by Ken Uhrich at 2:10 p.m.
   In attendance were: Troy Clements, Jack Rehm, Shelley Deromedi, David Franck,
    Dan Shadakofsky, Ken Uhrich, Rep. Mike Madden, Grand Showacre, and Sen. Dan
   Ken Uhrich gave a brief explanation on Governor Freudenthal’s recent order to limit
    spending and what this meant to the SF 144 Committee (no two day meetings or
    DOR paid lunches, etc.).
   Ken Uhrich asked the committee if they thought that this reduction in the number of
    meeting days would be adequate. The committee felt that it would still have
    sufficient time to achieve its goals.
   Grant Showacre stated that he would be willing to do whatever it takes to get this
    process done in a timely manner. The rest of the committee concurred.
   Rep. Madden and Grant Showacre suggested that public be put on notice that they
    will have a limited window to address the committee with questions or comments at
    the meetings in order to maintain productivity. The entire committee was in
   Shelley Deromedi suggested that in working in sub-committee groups that the entire
    committee be kept abreast of progress and goals.
   Ken Uhrich went over a proposed agenda for the meeting on April 15th.
   Grant Showacre made a brief presentation on the progress of the rules sub-committee.
    Some changes and restructuring of the rules have been done. Things are moving
    along but much of the rules work will have to wait until the statistical and form sub-
    committees have made more progress.
   Shelley Deromedi has sent out a draft of the proposed reporting form to Sen.
    Dockstader and Kathy Treanor and hopes to have more information available at the
    next meeting. She will email the other assessors and ask what they think would be
    important to have on the reporting form. She also stated that she heard through the
    “grapevine” that CCI has been working on a draft reporting form based on a report
    provided by Laramie County Assessor, Brenda Arnold some time ago. The DOR has
    looked in to this matter and this is not the case. Both Marvin Applequist and David
    Chapman have stated that CCI is not currently working up a reporting form without a
    work order being signed.
   Jack Rehm briefly went over some information sent out to the statistical
   Rep. Madden brought up the issue of the wording in the bill itself gave no clear
    definition of “over assessed”. He suggested that the committee will need to help
    define this and account for the decided definition in the chosen statistical parameters.
    A suggestion was made of basing the definition on no more than a 10% chance that
    25% of the properties are over-assessed. Ken Uhrich suggested that the entire
    committee put some thought in to this issue and come to the next meeting armed with
   The meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.

   The meeting was brought to order at 8:59 a.m.
   In attendance were: Rep. Mike Madden, John Wirth, Grant Showacre, Jack Rehm,
    Kathy Treanor, Dan Shadakofsky, Shelley Deromedi, Ken Uhrich, David Franck,
    Marvin Applequist, Mike Watson, Sen. Dan Dockstader, Cindy South, and Kevin
   Ken Uhrich briefly went over the proposed meeting agenda.
   The minutes from the April 2nd meeting and the April 9th teleconference were
    reviewed. Shelley Deromedi made a motion to approve the minutes; Jack Rehm
    made a second, the motion carried.
   A brief explanation and review of the SBOE abstracts was covered.
   Mr. Wirth asked the committee for the abstracts (statistical package from the SBOE)
    for 22 counties (all except Fremont County's data). The committee approved his
    request. Jack Rehm will work on supplying the data to Mr. Wirth.
   Ken Uhrich asked the committee if all IAAO standards or just specific standards
    should be written in to the rules. Kathy Treanor moved to tie wording in the rules
    back to a specific standard where applicable. Jack Rehm 2nd the motion. The
    committee came to an agreement that specific standards would be referenced in the
    rules when deemed necessary. Not all of the standards are applicable and not all
    should be adopted.
   The committee briefly reviewed different sub-committee progress. Grant Showacre
    stated that the rules committee had added 20+ definitions as well as moving the
    CAMA definitions, etc. to a new section and the committee is now waiting for input
    from other committees. Jack Rehm reported that he had sent out Washakie counties
    data to his committee members and they had each worked up their own analysis to try
    and work up a model for homogeneity. They will ask for guidance from CCI on how
    best to pull statistical data in to CAMA. Shelley Deromedi said her committee is
    looking at the report in Realware with the addition of more statistics and she sent it to
    Kathy Treanor to see where in the table structure the data could be pulled from.
   The committee formally thanked the representatives from CCI for attending the
    meeting and assisting in the process.
   The Assessor’s on the committee stated that response back from the other counties in
    the state has been limited due to NOV’s being sent out and being in the middle of
    protest period. They anticipate more feedback from the other counties as the
    committee gets more work done and submits the work out for county review.
   Mr. Wirth suggested writing up a set of FAQ’s to hand out to taxpayers and suggested
    that the assessors make notes on what they would want to see on such a document.
   Cindy South stated that CCI currently has a database that can provide the data the
    committee wishes to see on the forms for statistical review (Auditware). She will
    also provide copies of the NOV’s/nod’s to the committee.
   Break from 9:58-10:10 a.m.
   Cindy South stated that much of the data wanted by the committee is already
    available on the property profile report. She will have a prototype of a form available
    and sent to Shelley Deromedi by next week. The confidence interval, COV, etc is
    already available in MASS and can be moved to the sales history. She will look in to
    what other jurisdictions using CCI are putting out to taxpayers. She thinks the
    changes could be made for Version 4:18 possibly by October. The DOR needs to
    provide a written request ASAP. They will have preliminary work orders in place to
    estimate what it will take to achieve this build.
   Mr. Wirth explained some of the ways the stats sub-committee will look at clustering
    nbhd/lea’s and the possibility of using tree analysis in SPSS.
   Cindy South will send documentation on Auditware. She said she will be available
    for WebEx/teleconference to assist the committee during meetings.
   Lunch break from 12:10-1:40.
   John Wirth discussed the statistics of sales ratios at the stratum level (Neighborhood
    or LEA). He stated the mean or median of a stratum’s pre-market-adjusted ratios is
    what determines the market adjustment factor that is applied to all the properties in
    the stratum. He discussed the differences between the COD, the COV of a stratum
    and the COV of the mean ratio of a stratum’s ratios. He expressed the opinion that
    this COV of the mean ratio is the most important parameter in assessing the accuracy
    of the estimate of the estimated market adjustment factor applied to all properties in
    the stratum.

     Dr. Wirth expressed the following opinions regarding the intent of SF144:
         A mean or median post-market-adjustment ratio (LOA) of any Stratum
            exceeding 1.0 implies a likelihood, i.e. probability, greater than 50% of
            stratum over assessment and violates the intent of SF144: and,
         To further comply with SF144, the rules being crafted by the Committee
            should stipulate requirements, within realistic constraints, for the variance of
            any stratum’s mean ratio, e.g. the COV of the mean ratio or a confidence
            interval of the LOA. This results in reducing the width of the stratum’s
            market-adjusted “bell curve” and the portion of the bell exceeding 1.0. The
            area under a ratio bell curve exceeding 1.0 is the probability (likelihood) that
            any individual is over assessed.
   Rep. Madden gave a brief presentation of a few suggestions on how to establish
    uniformity in stratification. One suggestion was that Assessors should establish
    nbhd's using a reasonable # of sales over a two year period. The intent of the
    legislation was to be reasonably sure that a property within a stratum is not over
    assessed. He also suggested the possibility of wording rules so that there is not more
    than a 10% chance a property is over assessed by 10% or more. Another suggestion
    was setting the level of appraisal between .90 and 1.0 vs. .95-1.05 or IAAO’s .90-
   Ken Uhrich asked the legislators on the committee if the statutes really trump rules.
    For example the SBOE CH 5 rules. Madden said that an opinion may need to come
    out of the AG’s office.
   Marvin Applequist stated that the major problem with any of the stat work is that the
    Supreme Court has ordered that the ultimate goal is market value not 95% of market
   Mike Watson (private citizen) presented the following questions to the committee:
         Why are sales the only method of establishing market value? Do counties use
            fee appraisers? Ken Uhrich stated that the DOR can assist the counties by
            providing written appraisals. The Assessors on the committee stated that in
            reviewing the sold properties most problems are resolved. By using a fee
            appraiser you are essentially creating a “pseudo sale”, there is no better
            indicator of value than actual market sales.
       Whether re-zoning could affect value? The Assessors stated that re-zoning
          could definitely and most likely affect the value.
       Will the system meet uniformity statewide? The committee stated that this is
          the big problem that we are working on solving.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:44 p.m.

April 29th SF 144 Committee Meeting Minutes
   The meeting was brought to order at 9:03 a.m.
   In attendance were: Kathy Treanor, Shelley Deromedi, John Wirth, Grant Showacre,
    Dan Shadakofsky, Troy Clements, Ken Uhrich, Jack Rehm, Rep. Mike Madden,
    David Franck, Sen. Dan Dockstader, Marvin Applequist, Mike Watkins, Ted Preston.
   Jack Rehm moved to add Mr. Wirth’s addition to the minutes. Mr. Wirth 2nd the
    motion. The motion carried.
   Jack Rehm moved to accept the minutes as amended. Grant Showacre 2nd the motion.
    The motion carried.
   Ken Uhrich briefly went over the proposed meeting agenda.
   Shelley Deromedi gave a brief presentation on the progress of the forms sub-
    committee. They are working with CCI to try and get information to the taxpayer
    straight out of the RealWare program. They have a list of things they would like to
    provide but have no set form as of yet. The sub-committee is looking toward the
    property profile report, statistical report in the CAMA system as a means of providing
    information with a few modifications. Mr. Wirth asked if CCI had provided
    examples of what they could provide. Shelley stated that she had received some
    forms from CCI but they are very general and may not provide everything the sub-
    committee desired.
   Grant Showacre briefly reviewed the progress of the Rules sub-committee. The rules
    sub-committee has added many definitions as well as many spelling and grammar
    corrections. The sub-committee is at somewhat of a standstill as more data and
    information is needed from the other sub-committees before further rules can be
   Jack Rehm stated that the statistical sub-committee had met via a tele-conference on
    April 28th and reviewed some data. They think that a cluster analysis is the best way
    to handle the stratification of data at this time. The stepwise regression in SPSS may
    work to accomplish this analysis (due to budget constraints the DOR can not afford to
    purchase new software). The State of Utah has a good analysis program the sub-
    committee may utilize (COD, COV, mean and median).They are also recommending
    that Assessor’s not use more than the past two years of sales for analysis in valuation.
     Grant Showacre asked if they had considered what to do with areas with few or
        no sales. The sub-committee has no concrete answer at this time but this matter
        will be investigated. They may suggest looking to similar NBHD’s, allocation,
        etc. They hope to have an answer to this question soon.
     Kathy Treanor stated that CLT could use MRA for a NBHD group and we may
        have to ask CCI if Realware could perform a similar function. Jack Rehm stated
        that is exactly the direction the sub-committee is heading with their analysis. She
        also stated that the DOR will need to provide the assessors with additional
        training in statistics and using the SPSS software. Marvin Applequist stated that
        the DOR recognizes the fact that this legislation will impact education and that
        the DOR will find a way to provide the education needed.
   Ken Uhrich asked if any input had been received from other assessors across the
         Some assessors have expressed concern about using MRA to cluster
             properties as the process can be difficult for taxpayers to understand.
         Another assessor had stated that giving too much explanation to the taxpayer
             made the taxpayer feel that he/she was being “snowed” or intimidated. The
             explanation needs to be simple to explain and easy understand.
   Mr. Wirth asked how the SBOE fits in with this process. Marvin Applequist stated
    that they really have no input in this process. Their job is equalization between the
    counties and tax appeals not valuation within the counties. The SBOE will have the
    opportunity to submit questions and concerns to the committee at the public meeting
   Grant Showacre asked of the rules the committee comes up with are more stringent
    than the SBOE rules will small counties be able to meet the test. The statistical sub-
    committee stated that they will make sure that the small jurisdictions will be able to
    pass the tests as well.
   Mr. Wirth stated that the rules may potentially look to using three years of sales for
    the cluster analysis and current sales to actually set value.
   Morning Break from 10:00-10:10 a.m.
   10:10 a.m. break in to sub-committees for work meetings.
   Lunch 11:45-1:15
   Grant Showacre gave a brief run-down on the progress and status of the rules
    subcommittee. Mr. Wirth discussed the possibility of requiring counties to publish
    information on the web. Ken Uhrich stated that the DOR had no real authority to
    demand this. Sen. Dockstader stated that this was not necessarily the intent of the bill
    to have the information published on the web; that is was intended to make the
    information available at the counter in the county assessor’s office.
   Shelley Deromedi suggested the rules sub-committee take a closer look at the
    definition of “market adjustment factor”.
   Ken Uhrich stated that CCI had given a preliminary rough estimate of $25,000 for
    changes to the CAMA system to provide the forms etc. required by this bill.
   Shelley Deromedi gave a rundown of the reports and forms her sub-committee would
    like to use. They are looking to modify the existing property profile report (in
    CAMA system) as well as an overall neighborhood statistics sheet and the existing
    statistical report out of the CAMA system. With more detailed information such as
    total market value and current year neighborhood adjustment, etc. Mr. Wirth
    suggested setting things up in the following manner: section A- an overall general
    statewide sheet (FAQ’s) which could be posted on the DOR website B- county
    specific explanation C- individual property explanation (profile reports, etc.)
   Grant Showacre moved to accept the Overall Nbhd Statistics form provided by the
    forms subcommittee. Jack Rehm 2nd the motion, the motion carried.
   Grant Showacre moved to accept the Property Profile reports as amended. David
    Franck 2nd, Discussion: Mr. Wirth asked if a page for each building on the account
    would be included. The answer was yes. The motion carried.
   Shelley Deromedi discussed the CAMA system statistical report and what the
    committee would like to see added (confidence interval, COD &COV centered on the
    mean and median, as well as a NBHD grouping function).
   Shelley Deromedi moved to accept the statistical report as amended. Kathy Treanor
    2nd the motion, the motion carried.
   Mr. Wirth moved to define the 3 forms as follows:
     A. generic statewide forms to be provided by the state
     B. Countywide forms to be provided by the county
     C. Individual property forms to be provided by the county
         With the three forms approved by the committee falling under B or C. Grant
            Showacre 2nd the motion, the motion carried.
   Break 3:05-3:15p.m.
   The meeting was opened up to the following questions from the public:
     Ted Preston asked:
         “Does the committee intend to adopt all or just some portion of the IAAO
            standards? Are there portions which are in conflict with Wyoming practices?
             He was provided with information from the previous committee meeting
                where it was determined that only relevant standards would be written in
                to the rules.
         When, pursuant to the SF 144 requirement, a County Assessor provides
            statistical parameter data to the Board of Equalization to ensure compliance
            with the rules, will the rules include some mechanism to provide that data to
            the public as well? (in order to increase public confidence in the fairness of
            the system.)
                 Mr. Wirth stated that this information was provided to the SBOE by
                     the County Assessor and is available to the public from the SBOE
                     upon request.
         In order to promote uniformity of reporting of each county’s assessment
            methodology, is the Department of Revenue willing to publish each county’s
            report on the DOR website? This could resolve the dilemma created by
            counties that do not maintain their own websites.
                 Mr. Applequist stated that the DOR had no intention of posting this
                     information on the DOR website. Grant Showacre stated that the
                     information would be available to taxpayers at the County Assessor’s
                     office upon request.
         Just a comment: it may be helpful to find a new term to replace the work
            “neighborhood” when describing the collection of properties used in
            developing a sales ratio. The word neighborhood has an obvious meaning to
            the average taxpayer that is completely at odds with the way you use it at
            DOR and the Assesso5r’s offices. It is destined to create confusion.
                 Grant Showacre stated that the committee has no intention of changing
                     this term as it is widely used and recognized through out mass
                     appraisal documents. It is a very standard term. The committee will
                     be sure and define this term in the rules.
     Mike Watkins asked the following:
         How much of property profile will be available: 1. individual property; 2.
                 The entire property profile report is public information and will be
                   available at the counter in the County Assessor’s office.
         Can rules ensure uniformity throughout Wyoming? For example: if all state
            property profiles are run through the system, will the results be same as
            produced in each county?
                 The answer is yes. If the building is entered the same from one county
                   to the next the value of the building would be the same. This assumes
                   building value only. Land values can and most likely will differ from
                   one county to the next.
         Put in definition of statistics: statistical analysis is a mathematical model to
            describe the characteristic of the stratum or universe developed in a body of
                 The committee will most likely use a definition from the IAAO Ratio
                   Standards in order to maintain compliance with the wording in SF 144
                   “The rules shall comply with generally accepted statistical methods
                   and the International Association of Appraisal Officers standards.”
         Information available should be available as a download with a disclosure
                 The answer was no. Nothing in the bill stated that this must be
                   available for download.
   Rep. Mike Madden will be emailing out the proposed performance standards and
    requested the committee review them and be ready to discuss them at the next
   Mr. Wirth stated the statistical sub-committee will be using the existing SPSS
    program to develop the stratification of data.
   Grant Showacre asked the legislators if the committee was heading in the right
    direction and accomplishing the intent SF 144. The legislators both answered yes.
   The meeting was adjourned at 3:57 p.m.

May 13th SF 144 Committee Meeting Minutes
   The meeting was brought to order at 9:05 a.m.
   Present for the meeting were: Ken Uhrich, Jack Rehm, David Franck, Kathy Treanor,
    Shelley Deromedi, Grant Showacre, Troy Clements, John Wirth, Sen. Dan
    Dockstader, and Rep. Mike Madden. Non-committee attendee’s were: Mike Watkins,
    Ted Preston, Ted Smith, and Marvin Applequist.
   Committee reviewed the April 29th meeting minutes. Shelley Deromedi moved to
    accept the minutes, John Wirth 2nd the motion, the motion carried.
   Ken Uhrich went over some FAQ sheets from IAAO and provided by Delta County
    Colorado and suggested the committee may be able to use all or part of these
    documents to satisfy part A of the taxpayer explanation forms. He also reviewed the
    work orders provided by CCI for system enhancements to the CAMA system. Ken
    also stated that as chairman he would like to bring closure to the forms and statistical
    sub-committee work if at all possible.
   Jack Rehm gave a brief overview of the progress of the statistical sub-committee. He
    stated that John Wirth was continuing with his work on grouping/stratification
    requirements and Mr. Wirth had worked up a rough draft of how the statistical
    parameter rules may be written.
   Grant Showacre gave an overview of the progress of the rules sub-committee. They
    are at a standstill until the statistical parameters and forms have been finalized.
   Shelley Deromedi stated that the forms sub-committee had a conference call with
    Cindy South (of CCI) and that Cindy had sent adjusted work orders to the sub-
    committee. Shelley wants to make sure that all of the changes the committee is
    requesting are actually in the work orders. Mr. Wirth asked about including the
    confidence interval centered around the mean, Kath Treanor replied that CCI either
    can’t or won’t but it is available in SPSS should the committee decide it is necessary.
   Ken Uhrich went over the remaining committee schedule and upcoming meetings and
    urged the committee to work quickly and efficiently so that all deadlines can be met
    (CCI changes, public notification, etc.).
   At 9:30 a.m. the committee broke up for sub-committee meetings.
   Lunch break from 11:45a.m.-1:20 p.m.
   The forms committee met and discussed the Narrative and Forms we need to get
    implemented. Below are the changes/modifications they agreed upon. The committee
    did not feel there was a need to contact CCI on a conference call.
     Narrative
         Shelly created a list of general information for the county narrative. It has 6
            bullet points that will be used as guidelines for every county
         She also created a list of more specific information for each LEA
         Finally Shelly created a list of specific information targeted for each Nbhd or
         We discussed making it mandatory each county follows this information but
            they have the discretion to use it how they like. i.e. put this on a flyer, or in a
            folder on the customer counter
         She also included forms used in other counties such as one entitled: LEA fact
            sheet and another entitled Sales Statistics.
             Changes to the forms and work orders
                  Work Order #WYDOR045-Property Profile – Change name on Page
                    1 to Property Summary. Value per unit and attribute adjustment need
                    to be out 2 decimal places, whole numbers only on the report for
                    Market Value.
                  Change name on Page 2 to Property Detail. – Nbhd Adj shouldn’t be
                    rounded, take off the costs on the Building Details but add detail such
                    as sq ft, change Value Detail name to Cost Detail, also any adjustment
                    to RCN will be here, add a box that says Market Adjustments for any
                    adjustment to RCNLD, remove Plumbing Adjustment and Rough In
                    Adjustment. Add the words “with all adjustments” after total
                    improvement value. All totals are whole numbers, Phys Depr $ needs a
                    dollar sign before the amount. Phys Depr % should not be rounded.
                    Work order needs to say that “All Calculations must be correct.”
                A better explanation on the bottom of the form stating “Calculations
                 for the Building Detail Value can be provided upon request”.
                Sales Ratio Actual Values – will need to change the work
                 WYDOR043 to make it consistent with the Sales Ratio report. Will
                 need to include the Confidence Interval upper and lower bound around
                 the median, Change the # of Parcels to # of Sales, add a neighborhood
                 group function, and add total number of parcels in the
                 NBHD/NGRP/LEA being evaluated.
                Need to change work order WYDOR044 by adding the words “be
                 added into Realware like in Mass”, after the words “Overall
                 Neighborhood Stats report”. Add the words “That functionality be
                 added so that a new report based on neighborhood grouping can be
                 run, and “The Same report should be available for vacant land by
                 individual LEA only.” Delete last two sentences from the
                 specifications beginning with “Add additional report …….” Don’t
                 believe this was discussed with CCI. Add (The result will be three
                 different reports, two with the same statistics, one based on individual
                 neighborhood and the other with grouped neighborhoods, and another
                 report for LEAs. Titles on the reports will reflect which report it is,
                 NBHD, NGRP, or LEA
                Overall Nbhd Stats report – Confidence Interval around the median
                 need to show both upper and lower bounds. In the Total Report
                 Statistics on the last page, additional descriptions need to be added to
                 by what strata these total were derived.
                On the Stats report we need to ask CCI what the confidence interval of
                 the median is and how it is calculated. We need both the lower and
                 upper numbers on the report.

   Jack Rehm went over the statistical group’s progress. They have worked on
    narrowing the parameters to be used. Mr. Wirth has written up a preliminary draft of
    how he envisions the statistical rules to be written. Rep. Madden gave an overview of
    the performance standards and how they would relate to the overall NBHD statistics
         Kathy Treanor brought forth some concerns over an arbitrary sample size
            especially when dealing with special circumstances such as a small NBHD
            with 5 properties where 4 of the properties sold.
         Grant Showacre expressed concern of an arbitrary sample size when dealing
            with “cookie-cutter” or “row homes”. In an area of nearly identical properties
            a small number of sales should be adequate to determine value.
         Rep. Madden stated that restratification and time adjustments may be a
            better/more simple way of handling this problem. Ken Uhrich said that the
            SBOE requires the Assessors to keep 3 years of SOC’s so the committee may
            want to look at writing the use of 3 years worth of sales in to the rules.
         Mr. Wirth posed the question of how to handle a county with little to no sales.
            Some suggestions were adjusting according to CPI, overall county percent
            change from year to year. Ken Uhrich had said that some of this had been
             addressed for state appraisals in the DOR CH 7 rules and Wyoming Statutes
             for best information appraisals and suggested the possibility of copying this
             wording and moving it in to the CH 9 rules.
         Jack Rehm said that the rules sub-committee will work with Niobrara
             County’s data to make sure that their theories will work in a very small
             jurisdiction with few sales and will have something for the rest of the
             committee at the next meeting.
   Mr. Wirth quickly went over his proposed statistical rules and asked the rest of the
    committee for feedback and suggestions.
   Ted Preston will email David Franck some questions to be answered by the
    committee via email.
   Mike Watkins posed several questions to the committee that were answered at length.
    One key item he brought up was that the taxpayer may have a very different
    definition of depreciation than the Assessors.
   Ken Uhrich asked the committee to be ready to review and vote on the forms and
    statistical parameters at the next meeting and be ready to get the rules written as
    quickly as possible.
   The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

   Meeting began at 9:00 a.m.
   Present for the meeting were: Shelley Deromedi, John Wirth, Dan Shadakofsky, Ken
    Uhrich, Jack Rehm, Rep. Mike Madden, Grant Showacre, David Franck, Troy
    Clements, Kathy Treanor, Marvin Applequist and Mike Watkins.
   Ken Uhrich brought the meeting to order and reviewed the proposed meeting agenda.
   Shelley Deromedi moved to accept the minutes from the May 13 meeting. John
    Wirth 2nd the motion. Motion carried.
   John Wirth questioned CCI’s seemingly exorbitant costs regarding annual
    maintenance and proposed changes to the system to which Marvin Applequist gave a
    history of how CCI came to be the State’s CAMA vendor.
   Shelley Deromedi gave a presentation of the progress of the forms sub-committee.
     Mr. Wirth suggested referencing the constitutional term of “Fair Market Value”
        on the property summary report.
     Currently the property summary includes the overall neighborhood adjustment in
        the RCNLD- this is unacceptable. The committee decided that the RCNLD
        should not contain the NBHD adjustment. It should be straight RCNLD.
     The forms sub-committee submitted a form provided by Laramie County,
        produced from an AdHoc report generated from the CAMA system. The
        committee decided that this form should be used and attached to the back of the
        property summary report.
     The committee decided not to add the upper and lower confidence interval to the
        sales ratio report due to the fact that these statistics will be available on the overall
        neighborhood statistics report.
     The committee desires to have a 95% high and low confidence interval of the
        mean ratio added to the overall NBHD/LEA/group reports.
     The narrative will consist of an overall county, LEA and Nbhd/Nbhd group
        written report. The narrative format could be put in the rules as an addendum.
        The assessors may write up the narrative however they see fit as long as all of the
        items listed by the narrative outline are covered in the narrative report.
     The sales ratio report out of cama will be modified to include ONLY residential
        square feet instead of total square feet; it should include the confidence interval, #
        of sales and # of parcels in nbhd/nbhd group/LEA.
     David Franck moved to accept the forms as amended, Kathy Treanor 2nd, the
        motion carried.
     Grant Showacre moved to add the narrative to the rules as an addendum with
        mention in the body of the rules. Troy Clements 2nd, the motion carried.
   Break from 10:34-10:45
   The committee had a conference call with CCI so that CCI could explain some of the
    charges for the proposed changes to the forms/CAMA system. They are hoping to
    have modified work orders provided to the DOR by Friday, May 29th.
   The statistical sub-committee gave a presentation on their proposed statistical
    parameters and rules.
         Rep. Madden presented a proposal on minimum sample size, level of
            assessment, etc.
   Lunch Break 11:51-1:15
         The committee continued its discussion of what the appraisal level should be
            set at.
         Mr. Wirth suggested using a minimum small neighborhood sample size and
            the confidence interval of the mean ratio as more reliable measures than the
            confidence interval of the median. Mr. Wirth demonstrated this with 2008
            ratio data from Albany County.
         Grant Showacre moved to add the following to rules: a minimum sample size
            of 5 in one year must be within a 95% confidence interval of the mean ratio
            between .85 and 1.05. Troy Clements 2nd the motion. The committee had
            discussion on this matter. Mr. Showacre move to amend the motion as
            follows: sales ratio sample size shall be 5 or greater and the upper and lower
            limits of the 95% confidence interval of the mean nbhd sales ratio for any
            nbhd shall lie between .85 and 1.05. John Wirth 2nd the motion, the motion
         The committee had a discussion on remedies for strata without a minimum
            sample size of 5. Mr. Showacre moved to accept the remedies for inadequate
            samples from the IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies as follows:
              Small samples should be enlarged if the assessor desires to increase the reliability of
               statistical measures. Inadequate sample sizes are typically indicated by unacceptably
               wide confidence intervals. The following alternatives should be considered (in order
               of importance):
                Restratification. If levels of appraisal are similar or properties are homogenous,
                 broader strata containing larger samples can be created by combining existing
                 strata or by stratifying on a different basis.
                Extending the period from which sales are drawn. This is often the most
                 practical and effective approach. Sales from prior years can be used; however,
                adjusting the sale price for time may be necessary and significant property
                characteristics must not change.
               Enlarging the sample by validating previously rejected sales. Sales previously
                excluded from the analysis, because it was not administratively expedient to
                confirm them or to make adjustments, can be reevaluated.
               Imputing appraisal performance. Ratio study statistics for strata with no or few
                sales can sometimes be imputed from the results obtained for other strata. These
                strata should be as similar as possible. Procedures and techniques used to
                appraise properties in the strata also should be similar.

        Jack Rehm 2nd the motion. Discussion: Mr. Wirth had some concern with #4
         “Imputing appraisal performance” stating that it could be easily abused and
         that it was a possible escape route for an assessor to completely bypass the
         sales sample size requirement. Ken Uhrich called for the question. Motion
         carried with one member, John Wirth, opposed.
        Mr. Showacre moved to accept the remainder of the performance standard
         from line 22 page 1 to line 33 page two as written with 95% on line 32 page 1
         changed to 96%. Troy Clements 2nd. The committee moved to further
         discussion. Grant withdrew the motion, Troy 2nd the withdrawal.
        Mr. Showacre moved to accept the remainder of the performance standard
         from line 22 page 1 to line 22 page two with the following changes:
              Line 32 page 1 change 95% to 96%
              Line 33 page 1 add “tests to protect against the statistical likelihood
                  that any property in any stratum is over-assessed “
               Delete the last sentence on line 20/21 page two beginning with “if the sample”.
        Troy Clements 2nd the motion.
        Kathy Treanor moved to amend the motion as follows: remove lines 22-24 on
          page 1. Mr. Showacre 2nd the motion. The motion carried as amended.
        Mr. Showacre move to change the last sentence on page 2, line 20 to read: “If
          the sample measure of central tendency falls outside of that range an
          adjustment factor must be applied.” Shelley Deromedi 2nd the motion, motion
   Ken Uhrich gave a brief overview of the remaining schedule and timeline of the
   Marvin Applequist stood and formally thanked the committee for all of their hard
   The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.


   The meeting was brought to order by Ken Uhrich at 9:00 a.m.
   Present for the meeting were: Shelley Deromedi, John Wirth, Ken Uhrich, Jack
    Rehm, Grant Showacre, David Franck, Troy Clements, Kathy Treanor, Sen. Dan
   Shelley Deromedi moved to accept the minutes from the May 27th meeting, Troy
    Clements 2nd the motion. The motion carried.
   Ken Uhrich went over the remaining timeline of the committee work.
   Shelley Deromedi stated that on the 1st in the afternoon the work orders for the
    changes to the CCI system had been signed. On the 5th the CIO office and CCI were
    having discussions regarding payments, dates, etc. on the work orders and were still
    in the process of working out the details. The total cost for the modifications to the
    system are approximately $55,000. Shelley will keep the committee informed as to
    the progress of the workorders.
   Ken Uhrich stated that in writing rules the wording should be clear, simple, concise,
    non-repetitive and to the point.
   Ken Asked the committee to express their satisfaction/concerns with the product of
    the committee thus far.
     Jack Rehm had no major concerns, the small concerns he had could be addressed
        in a paragraph by paragraph review of the rules.
     Grant Showacre echoed Jack’s thoughts also stating that he is pleased with the
        progress of the committee and believed the product to be useable and workable.
     Sen. Dan Dockstader expressed gratitude to all of the committee for the work
     David Franck reserved his comments for later discussion.
     Troy Clements had no major concerns at this time.
     Kathy Treanor feels that the majority of the Assessor’s are already doing what SF
        144 mandates. Overall she feels that this process will help the Assessor’s in the
        performance of their duties as well as assist the taxpayers with inquiries on their
     John Wirth stated that the forms and reporting procedures established by the
        committee are “superb”. He stated that the rules process has a few potential
        problems. He feels that some things have been missed. He feels that the rules
        need to be “beefed-up” in regards to how the Assessor will apply adjustments to
        the RCNLD to reach market value. RCNLD is not defined. The process of using
        one NBHD adjustment across an entire NBHD is not uniform statewide. He
        wants to make sure that these rules “modify past behaviors”.
   Break 10:12-10:24
   The committee began discussing the rules and changes to the rules paragraph by
   Lunch 12:10-1:20
   The committee resumed its discussion on the rules, making changes as deemed
   Ken Uhrich gave another recap of the remaining timeline for the committee work
   Ken Uhrich asked Sen. Dockstader and the rest of the committee if the following
    requirements of SF 144 had been met:

    Section 1.

       Residential properties;
       Improved and unimproved;
       Computed using sales comparison methods; and
       Which require county assessors to provide statistical parameter data annually to
        the state board of equalization to demonstrate compliance with the rules;
       The rules shall specifically address any adjustments made by a county assessor in
        input data to or assessed values, obtained from, the county computer assisted mass
        appraisal system;
       The method of establishing strata for sales ratio studies;
       The adequacy of the number of arms-length sales to be used in any sales
        comparison analyses. And;
       The use of appropriate statistical tests to protect against the statistical likelihood
        that any property in any stratum is over assessed;
       Rules shall include requirements for the format and quality of a written
        explanation of the county assessor’s residential assessment methodology;
       Including an explanation and description of the parameters used to develop any
        stratification applied to a class of property as well as any market adjustment
        factors utilized to arrive at a fair market value for a property;
       The written explanation required to be maintained by the county assessor shall be
        public records available to a taxpayer upon request.

    Section 2.

       In preparing the rules required by section 1 of this act, the department of revenue
        shall consider the published rules and procedures in other states employing a
        computer assisted mass appraisal system;
       The rules shall comply with generally accept statistical methods and the
        International Association of Appraisal (Assessing) Officers standards.

    Section 3.

       This act is effective July 1, 2009.

   The committee and Sen. Dockstader agreed that all of the above requirements had
    been met with the exception of clear and concise rules regarding statistical
    parameters. The committee will get the parameters resolved and finalized in the next
    couple weeks.
   The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

                                SF 144 Committee Minutes
                                     Public Meeting
                                       July 9, 2009

   Meeting was brought to order at 8:30 a.m.
   Ken Uhrich went over the meeting agenda.
   Ken Uhrich gave an overview of how the committee was formed and the process that
    was followed in drafting the new CH 9 Rules. He stressed that SF 144 was not
    intended to tear apart the CAMA system.
   Ken Uhrich introduced the members of the committee.
   Ken Uhrich gave an overview of the scope and intent of SF 144.
   Ken Uhrich stated that the DOR is hoping to have the rules submitted for review by
    Ed Schmidt by July 15. He also gave an overview of the remaining timeline for the
    rulemaking process.
   Ed Schmidt stressed that the public comment period ends in October 2009.
   Ken Uhrich gave an overview of the work process and schedule. As well as
    expressing his thanks to Dave Chapman, Dan Shadakofsky, and CCI for their
    assistance in developing the reporting forms.
   Ken Uhrich asked each committee member to express any comments or concerns they
    may have:
     Kathy Treanor had no comment but expressed a desire to hear discussion later in
        the meeting
     Shelley Deromedi stated that the felt the final product produced by the committee
        will satisfy the legislature and believed that the Assessors are currently doing a
        great job already, but that these new rules would be a help and benefit to them.
     Rep. Mike Madden said that the committee had been a great learning process, that
        he did not realize what all went in to the appraisal process, and the he was very
        interested in hearing comments from the other Assessors in attendance.
     Grant Showacre stated that he was interested in hearing comments/questions from
        the other Assessors as well as the SBOE.
     John Wirth expressed his thanks to the rest of the committee. He said the
        committee had done a great job and was very happy with the outcome.
     Jack Rehm stated that John Wirth and Rep. Madden had given a lot and put a
        great amount of effort on to the new rules. He is very proud of what the
        committee has accomplished.
     David Franck had no comments.

   Ed Schmidt stated that this last legislative session there were 35 property tax related
    bills and that there was a great misunderstanding among taxpayers as to how the tax
    process works. He said that this committee was a departure from the normal rule
    making process but he thinks it has been good to have outside involvement and
    viewpoints. He feels that the Assessors have done and are doing a good job, but he is
    trying to use this process to head off some fears and concerns over property tax. He
    said there will be a formal comment period in October. He expressed his thanks to
    the committee.
   Ken Uhrich stressed that these rules are for valuation purposes and not evaluation.
   Grant Showacre gave an overview of the rules as revised by the committee. The
    committee tried not to create a “novel” and attempted to focus just on changes that
    needed to be made based on the SF 144 guidelines. Much of the change was just
    cosmetic. Some sections were moved to improve the flow of the document, wording
    and grammar were corrected. New language specific to land was added. Personal
    property rules were all moved their own section. A new section for statistical
    standards was added using primarily IAAO standards. The committee tried not to
    limit the capabilities of the CAMA system in creating these rules. A new section
    relating to providing the taxpayer with information was added per SF 144.
   Shelley Deromedi stated that the forms sub-committee tried to take the statutory
    language of SF 144 and develop forms to meet this language. They wanted to be sure
    information was straight out of the CAMA system on order to maintain statewide
    consistency. They asked CCI to move the overall statistical form from MASS in to
    the RealWare interface. Statistical parameters will show on the forms as specified in
    the new Section 6. Statistical Analysis and Standards. There are guidelines in the
    new rules relating to the written explanation to the taxpayer in the form of a narrative
    report. It is up to the Assessor to meet the SF 144 guidelines and make them
    available to the public.
   Jack Rehm stated that in SF 144 the Department was to create rules to prevent the
    likelihood that any property is over assessed. The rules sub-committee tried to
    establish guidelines that met SF 144 guidelines as well as being able to be met by all
    counties. When using more than one year of sales a time trend must be established.
    The mean is used as it helps in protecting against the likelihood that any property is
    over assessed. The rules recommend that outliers be trimmed to ensure a more
    accurate analysis. Remedies for a small sample size (under 5) were written in to the
    rules and based on their level of importance.
   Grant Showacre went over a few more “housecleaning” changes to the rules again
    stressing that all personal property rules were put in to one new section. And a few
    old sections were moved and re numbered in order to make the rules flow better to a
   The meeting was opened up to questions:
     Dixie Huxtable expressed concern that by limiting the upper level of assessment
        to 1.0 and suggesting a level of .96 that the rules may be violating the constitution
        in regards to fair market value. Ken Uhrich stated that the AG’s office has not
        expressed concern over this yet. Mr. Wirth stated that by allowing a level of
        assessment over 1.0 you are most likely over or under assessing 50% of the
        properties in the sample and SF 144 specifically states that rules are to protect
        against the statistical likelihood that any property is over assessed. In a two tailed
        test, the Assessor needs to keep the amount of tail over 1.0 to a minimum thus
        narrowing the bell curve and protecting against the likelihood of over assessment.
        Ed Schmidt stated that he will have the AG’s office look in to this.
     Brenda Arnold asked why the title was changed from “Local” to “County”. Ken
        Uhrich stated that this was done in order to be consistent with the re-write of the
        CH 7 rules. He also stated that there are only 3 approaches to value and the rules
        have been re-written to make this clearer. This changed title was done to be more
        specific and to the point.
     Brenda Arnold stated that land valuation was the most difficult part of the
        Assessor’s job. Do these rules adequately address allocation and other methods
        of land valuation? Shelley Deromedi stated that in the new rules Section 5 there
        is a statement that the sales comparison method is the preferred method but there
        are other recognized methods in the rules as well as IAAO standards to handle
    land valuation. She stated that the Assessor may use the narrative report to
    explain the methods/approaches used to value land.
   Brenda Arnold asked if the Assessor will be in a position to have to defend each
    of these statistics. Ken Uhrich stated that the DOR is gearing up to assist counties
    with valuation training in order to meet these new rules.
   Rep. Colin Simpson stated in Section 2. a. that there was a definition of “fair
    market value” and that there was no definition of “appraised value”. Ken Uhrich
    replied that the statutes are based on appraised value. Grant Showacre stated that
    the neighborhood adjustment factor has ties to fair market value and that the
    appraised value definition was straight out of IAAO.
   Doug Brandt stated that in putting a minimum sample size of 5 the rules are
    putting the “appraiser” judgment in jeopardy. Jack Rehm replied that there is not
    that much difference between geographic areas. Instead of having to distinct
    LEA’s it may be better for the Assessor to use land attribute adjustments thus
    limiting the number of LEA’s and most likely increasing sample size. SF 144
    specifically stated a minimum sample size be established and IAAO states any
    sample size less than 5 is deemed to be unreliable. Rep. Madden stated that this
    wording was put in to SF 144 to encourage “re-thinking” of neighborhoods and
    stratification. We need some mechanism in the rules to encourage this “re-
    thinking”, and that a county may need to look to an overall county rate of change
    to establish time trends and other adjustments.
   Debbie Larson state that the narrative talks about sales ratios. Will these be
    available year round or only during protest periods? Shelley Deromedi stated that
    we are waiting on an opinion from the AG’s office. Ken Uhrich stated that per
    the AG’s office confidential sales information is limited to the NBHD/LEA used
    to value the property and that the time period is currently under discussion within
    the AG’s office.
   Kay Music stated that the assessors are by nature appraisers. She had some
    concerns over developing a county-wide time trend using some “hot” areas to
    value a “slow” area. Grant Showacre replied that the rules leave these options
    open and referred Kay to Section 6 (a.) (i.) (D.) imputing appraisal performance.
   Susan Dewitt asked why SF 144 came about? John Wirth stated that the senators
    and representatives have had thousands of complaint of over assessments from
    their constituents and that the Governor had 50 letters from angry taxpayers. He
    stated that you can not develop accurate values without an adequate sample size.
    Some counties are doing an exceptional job but taxpayers have heard out of other
    counties that the values come out of “the system” and were given no further
    explanation. He further stated that the bill passed 30-0. Rep. Madden stated that
    there was great diversity in how one county to another were able to explain the
    values. When legislators speak with taxpayers they have a great number of
    different stories and experiences. This bill was designed to create less
    dependence on individual office policies and encourage more statewide
    uniformity. Ken Uhrich stressed that Sen. Dockstader as a co-sponsor of the bill
    has stated that these new rules meet the intent and purpose of SF 144.
   Carla Rice asked if the narrative will be part of something that has to be approved.
    Shelley Deromedi stated that she did not foresee the department “approving” the
    narrative but that the DOR would be reviewing the narrative and possibly making
    suggestions for improvement.
   Dee Griffis again brought up the confidentiality issue of putting this information
    on the counter. Shelley Deromedi said that this bill stated the information should
    be public and available and that any further issues will have to wait on the opinion
    from the AG’s office.
   Ed Schmidt said that Wyoming is a non-disclosure state. Several efforts to open
    this up have been shut down. He thinks we should continue to push for full
    disclosure. He also stated that the whole idea behind these rules was not to limit
    the Assessor’s appraisal judgment but that the committee was trying to give
    enough le-way to do their jobs while still meeting the guidelines in SF 144.
   Dixie Huxtable stated that she had yet to have a legislator come to her for
    explanation on a value. She does not feel that is right for all Assessors to be
    punished for the mistakes of a few. She further stated that the town of Orin had
    few to no sales. Do these new rules limit her to using straight cost or will she
    have to use the rest of the county to value properties in Orin. Rep Madden
    refereed her to Section 6 (a.) (i.) (D.). Grant Showacre suggested she refer to
    Section 6 (a.) (i.) (D.) and use her best judgment but be ready to defend her
   Doug Brandt referred to the narrative and how statistics are to be shown both pre
    and post adjustment and asked if the Assessor will have to narrate each little
    adjustment. Shelley Deromedi replied that the committee did not foresee
    reporting every adjustment appearing in the narrative but that this refers more to
    the LEA/NBHD adjustments. Jack Rehm stated that this whole premise is a
    summary on the NBHD/LEA level. However the Assessor should be prepared to
    answer questions regarding attribute adjustments posed by the taxpayer on an
    individual basis.
   Brenda Arnold stated that the Assessors are representing the same people
    represented by the legislators. Some Assessors may be unable to explain to the
    dollar the value of a property. There is some misunderstanding over what
    invalidates a sale. The key issue behind this whole bill is are the sales used to
    establish value representative of the entire population. The taxpayer just wants to
    feel that they are being treated fairly.
   Rep. Colin Simpson referred to section 6 (a.)(i.)(A.) stating that level of appraisal
    or level of assessment (one or the other) should be used consistently throughout
    the document.
   Ken Uhrich expressed his thanks to the committee and ended the meeting at 10:45

To top