David M. and Wendy L. Elias v MDOR

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
.-J B.'J
DAVID M. AND WENDY L. ELIAS
Appellants,
V.
STATE OF MONTANA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Respondent.
CASE :pT-2026-3
JUL 10 2026
Montana Tax Appeal Board
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER,
AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal of a final decision by the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Tax
Appeal Board (CTAB) denying David M. and Wendy L. Ellas (Taxpayers) a reduction
in value on the subject property located at 937 Pauline Drive in Anaconda, Montana
(Subject Property). The Taxpayers appealed that outcome to the Montana Tax Appeal
Board (MTAB) on January 28, 2026. The Board affirms the CTAB's determination.
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
Whether the CTAB erred in denying the Taxpayers' request for a value
reduction on the Subject Property.
EXHIBIT LIST
The following evidence was submitted at the hearing:
Taxpayer Exhibits:
1. Department Comparables Sales Map;
2. Certificate of Survey #475-A;
3. Department Aerial Photo with Property Outline;
4. Department Photo Showing Electric Service Pedestal;
5. Cost Estimate for Electrical Service Pedestal;
6. Scaled Drawing of Easement;
7. Department 2025 Revised Assessments ofElias Property;
8. Cadastral Entry for Lot 9 Old Works Estate; and
9. Cadastral Entry for Common Area 2 Old Works Estates.
1

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELMS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
DOR Exhibits:
A. Anaconda City Land Model;
B. Land Model Aerial Map;
C. Four Nearby Sales Aerial;
D. Withdrawn;
E. AB-26 Determination Letter;
F. Certificate of Survey 195A;
G. Aerial of Area Around Certificate of Survey 195A;
H. Screenshot of Diggers Contracting DM; and
I. Email: Anaconda Deer-Lodge County Municipal Water.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Department of Revenue (Department) valued the Subject Property at
$79,118 for the 2025/2026 appraisal cycle, with the land valued at $75,748 and the
improvements valued at $3,370. MTAB Dkt. 3. The Taxpayers filed an AB-26,
Request for Informal Classification and Appraisal Review, with the Department on
July 28, 2025, requesting a reduced value because the Subject Property has no water
and cannot be developed. Id. The Department sent a Form AB-26 Determination
Letter to the Taxpayers dated October 28, 2025, denying the Taxpayers' request and
increasing the Subject Property's value from $42,419 to $79,118. Id. The Taxpayers
appealed the Department's valuation to the CTAB on August 18, 2025, requesting a
land value of $16,892 and an improvements value of $0. Id. The CTAB hearing was
. held on January 6, 2026, and the CTAB's decision denying the Taxpayers' application
for reduction was sent to the parties on January 6, 2026. Id. The Taxpayers appealed
to MTAB on January 28, 2026, per Mont. Code Ann § 15-2-301, requesting a total
value of $17,327. MTAB Dkt. 1. The MTAB hearing was conducted in Helena on
April 29, 2026, at which the following were present:
a. Edward G. Beaudette, Taxpayer Counsel; David M. Elias, Taxpayer; and
b. Dave Burleigh, DOR Counsel; Cindy McGinnis, Paralegal; Rain Kraus,
Appraiser; and Tedd Weldon, Area Manger.
The record includes all materials submitted to CTAB, a recording of the CTAB
hearing, all materials submitted to MTAB with the appeal, additional exhibits
2

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
submitted by the parties prior to and at the MTAB hearing, and a transcript of the
MTAB hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. To whatever extent the following findings of fact may be constmed as
conclusions of law, they are incorporated accordingly.
2. The Subject Property is a residential home owned by David M. and Wendy L.
Elias located at 937 Pauline Drive, Anaconda, Montana, in the Teresa Ann
Terrace subdivision. MTAB Dkt. 3. The Subject Property is also identified by
its assigned geocode 30-1285-02-2-01-02-0000. Id. The site is 12,371 square
feet in total size and contains a roughly 12 x 16-foot shed. Id. The Taxpayers
also own neighboring lot 8, located north of the Subject Property, where the
Taxpayers' primary residence is located. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 9:17-20.
3. The Department initially appraised the Subject Property's land value at
$42,419: Ex. E. During the AB-26 review, the Department raised the Subject
Property's land value to $75,748 due to changing the Subject Property's
designation from secondary site to primary site and adding improvements
valued at $3,370 for a total value of $79,11 8. Ex. E; MTAB Dkt. 2. At the
January 6, 2026, CTAB hearing, the Taxpayers requested a total market value
of $16,812. MTAB Dkt. 3. The CTAB denied the Taxpayers' request and
upheld the Department's value. Id. The Taxpayers appealed to MTAB on
January 28, 2026, and asserted that the total market value of the Subject
Property should be $17,327. MTAB Dkt. 1. The Department requests a total
value of $79,118 for the Subject Property. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 2:15-19.
4. Mr. Ellas holds a master's degree in civil engineering and is professionally
licensed as both an engineer and a land surveyor. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 5:13-6:8.
Mr. Ellas was employed by Anaconda-Deer Lodge County as an engineer and
is familiar with the utility infrastructure of Anaconda Deer Lodge County. Id.
3

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDY L. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
5. Mr. Elias testified that when the Old Works Subdivision and thirteen lots on
Pennsylvania Street adjacent to Teresa Ann Terrace were developed, the city
utility main lines were upgraded within the street and service lines were
extended into the lots. Ex. 1; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 7:1-8:18. Mr. Elias further
testified that the Teresa Ann Terrace subdivision, where the Subject Property is
located, went bankrupt during development, resulting in incomplete records
regarding the installation of utilities in the western half of the subdivision. Id.
Additionally, Mr. Elias testified that the records for the Teresa Ann Terrace
subdivision are unclear regarding which lots received utility "stub-outs".1
MTAB Hr'g Tr. 35:23-36:14. Mr. Elias stated that the utility connections were
stubbed in on a case-by-case basis. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 8:4-14. Mr. Elias also
testified that the Subject Property was originally designated as "subdivision
park" property and that no utility services were stubbed into the property.
MTABHr'g Tr. 8:17-9:24, 48:17-49:10. Subsequent surveys and property line
reconfigurations, left the Subject Property it without utility access.
6. Mr. Elias testified that he had Lot 1, referred to here as the Subject Property,
resurveyed because the 85.03-foot-long section situated in northeast portion of
the lot connecting the Subject Property to Christine Court, which can also be
described as the crosshatched area on Exhibit 2 (Flag Strip), was inadvertently
left off the last survey. Ex. 2; MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 11:18-12:10. Mr. Elias shared his
updated survey with the Department and the Department appraisers'
determined that valuing the Subject Property as a secondary site rather than a
primary site was still correct. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 12:16-13:6. Mr. Ellas stated that
due to uncertainty regarding the Subject Property's survey when purchasing the
property, he reserved an easement from the cul-de-sac on Christine Court, via
warrsiniydeed.MTABHr'gTr. 15:24-16:15, 19:9-13, 20:8-23.
1 A utility stub-outs are a pre-installed, capped-off branch of a utility line that runs from a main line up to the
edge of a property, stub-outs allows a property to connect to city services in the future.
4

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEALBOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
7. Mr. Elias testified that the Subject Property is not connected to water and is not
connected to the sewer system. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 14:13-25. Mr. Elias testified
that the Subject Property does have electrical and natural gas services. MTAB
Hr 'g Tr. 34:1-11. Mr. Elias also testified that there are two potential routes for
connecting the Subject Property to municipal water. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 18:12-19.
The first route would require crossing county-owned property. Id. Mr. Elias
testified that a request for a physical access easement across the county
property had previously been denied. Id. On cross-examination, Mr. Elias
acknowledged that the County stated it would consider granting a utility
easement, but Mr. Ellas has not submitted an application for one. MTAB Hr'g
Tr. 63:9-14. The second potential route to connect to municipal water would
follow the Subject Property's legal access along the Flag Strip. MTAB Hr'g Tr.
18:12-19. Mr. Ellas testified that an electrical utility representative
discouraged installation of a water line along the second route because a seven-
foot-deep water trench would need to be dug in close proximity to existing
electrical infrastructure. Id.
8. Mr. Elias testified that the electrical, natural gas, and telephone utilities were
installed virtually on top of an active sanitary sewer line. MTAB Hr 'g Tr.
18:20-19:18. Mr. Elias further testified that a storm drain is also located in the
area, although it was not installed as deep as the other utilities. Id. Mr. Elias
testified that extending water service to the Subject Property would be difficult
due to the required depth of the water line and physical obstacles, such as an
electrical pedestal and the paved roadway within Christine Court. Id. Mr. Elias
estimated that the cost of relocating the water utility would be approximately
$8,000. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 25:7-8.
9. Mr. Elias testified that extending sewer service to the Subject Property would
present difficulties similar to those associated with extending water service,
including conflicts with existing utilities and infrastructure. MTAB Hr'g Tr.
19:21-20:3. Mr. Elias further testified that the cost of installing sewer service
5

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
would also be similar to the estimated cost for installing water service. MTAB
Hr'gTr. 19:21-20:3,25:7-11.
10. Mr. Elias testified that relocating the water and sewer utilities would be
difficult because county regulations require a minimum separation of ten feet
between the utilities, necessitating a larger trench and the relocation of multiple
existing utilities. Ex. 5; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 25:9-21, 37:14-23, 64:15-17. Mr.
Elias estimated that relocating the utilities would cost approximately $35,000.
Ex. 5; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 25:9-21, 37:14-23. Mr. Elias further testified that, if
the Subject Property were sold separately, structures that currently straddle the
boundary between the Taxpayers' two lots would either need to be relocated or
the property boundaries would need to be adjusted. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 26:19-
27/7P. Mr. Elias testified that a boundary line adjustment would be difficult
and would further complicate the utility relocation issues. Id.
11. Mr. Ellas testified that an electrical pedestal was installed on the Flag Strip
serving as access to the Subject Property. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 16:23-17:19. Mr.
Elias testified that the placement of the electrical pedestal obstructs physical
access to the Subject Property. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. J 6:23-1 7:19, 20:18-21:1. Mr.
Elias testified that relocating the electrical pedestal would be difficult and
would be subject to the discretion ofNorthWestem Energy, who would
determine the scope and cost of any relocation. AfT^45 Hr'g Tr. 21:2-13. Mr.
Elias testified that he was unable to obtain a relocation estimate from
Northwestern Energy. Id. Mr. Elias prepared his own cost estimate for
relocation of the electrical pedestal which he determined would cost
approximately $27,000. Ex. 5; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 24:7-25:6. On cross-
examination, Mr. Elias testified that, although he had conducted some research
regarding the estimated relocation costs, he had never previously estimated the
cost of relocating an electrical pedestal and had not consulted NorthWestem
Energy regarding those costs in his estimate. Ex. 5; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 44:2-15.
6

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDY L. ELMS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
12. Mr. Elias testified that, based on a drawing he prepared from personal
knowledge, the electrical pedestal is located 3.68 feet inside the Flag Strip
providing access to the Subject Property. Ex. 6; MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 30:11-21,
42:6-10. Mr. Elias testified that the location of the electrical pedestal renders
the southern portion of the Flag Strip unsuitable for trenching. Id. On cross-
examination, Mr. Elias testified that relocating the electrical pedestal would
require moving it approximately 350 feet and would necessitate temporarily
disconnecting electrical service to three residences. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 43:5-25.
Mr. Elias further testified that he had no involvement in determining the
location of the electrical pedestal when it was originally installed. Id.
13. Department Area Manager, Tedd Weldon, testified that the Subject Property
was valued using the cost approach and that land values under the cost
approach are derived from the sales comparison approach. MTAB Hr 'g Tr.
72:17-73:10. Mr. Weldon further testified that he believes the Subject Property
is a buildable lot after discussing the issue with the Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County sanitarian. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 73:20-74:10. Mr. Weldon testified that the
Anaconda Deer Lodge County sanitarian informed the Department that the
Teresa Ann Subdivision has full access to water and sewer utilities. MTAB
Hr 'g Tr. 75:5-22. Utility access is also evident from the developed properties
in the subdivision. Ex. B, C, F.
14. Department Appraiser, Rian Kraus, testified that in 2023 she changed the
classification of the Subject Property from a primary site to a secondary site
because the Department's GIS system had not been updated to show the Flag
Strip portion of the Subject Property, leading to the determination that the
Subject Property was landlocked. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 153:10-154:8. Ms. Kraus
testified that the Department was also unaware of the Flag Strip's utility
easement at that time. Id. Ms. Kraus further testified that the property was later
7

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDY L. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
reclassified as a primary site after additional research showed the Subject
Property has legal access. Id.
15. Mr. Weldon testified that in 2023 the Subject Property was reclassified from a
secondary site to a primary site after his review of GIS data indicated that the
Subject Property had access from the Christine Court cul-de-sac and a utility
easement. Ex. I; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 77:14-78:13, 91:11-15, 119:4-120:9,
126:15-25. Mr. Weldon further testified that the Department relied on
Certificate of Survey 475-A, which indicated that the Subject Property has
legal access and that the recorded deed included an easement. Id.
16. Mr. Weldon testified that the Department uses a multiplicative model to value
properties in Region 4C. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 93:1-12. Mr. Weldon testified that
the model establishes a base rate and applies incremental adjustments
depending on whether a lot is smaller or larger than the model's base size of
10,000 square feet. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 93:7-17. Mr. Weldon further testified that,
to ensure market value, the Department evaluates market influences that may
increase or decrease the value of properties that are selling differently in the
market. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 94:4-15, 115:17-116:19.
17. Mr. Weldon testified that he used the Anaconda City 2024 Land Valuation
model to value the Subject Property. Ex. A; MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 112:11-113:25.
Mr. Weldon testified that statistical measures, including the coefficient of
dispersion (COD), coefficient of variation (COV), and R-squared value are
used to evaluate the reliability of the land model. Id. Mr. Weldon testified that
an acceptable COD ranges from five to fifteen percent, a COV should be less
than twenty percent, and an R-squared value of 100 percent indicates a perfect
fit. Id. Mr. Weldon testified that the model applied to the Subject Property
produced a CQD of 9.05%, a COV of 12.22%, and an R-squared value of 90%,
which indicates a reliable land model. Id. Mr. Weldon further testified that the
multiplicative model uses a base size of 10,000 square feet at a base rate of
8

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
$79,902, and the Department applied an incremental rate of 0.18 to account for
the Subject Property's larger 12,371-square-foot size. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 114:4-
115:16.
18. Mr. Weldon testified that the Subject Property was valued using vacant land
sales of comparable size and that market sales in the area did not indicate that
properties without utility stub-outs sold differently. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 117:5-
118:2. Mr. Weldon further testified regarding "Sale 4," in the land model,
which is not located in the Teresa Ann Subdivision, was understood not to have
utility stub-outs, and did not sell differently from other comparable properties.
Id. Mr. Weldon stated that the absence of utility stub-outs does not disqualify a
property from inclusion in the Department's land model. MTAB Hr'g Tr.
109:1-10.
19. Mr. Weldon testified that the Flag Strip providing access to the Subject
Property is approximately twenty feet wide, with an electrical pedestal located
approximately 3.68 feet from the property boundary. Ex. 6; MTAB Hr 'g Tr.
120:10-121:7. Ms. Weldon estimated that the electrical pedestal is three to four
feet wide, leaving approximately a 12-foot clearance between the pedestal and
the opposite property boundary. Id. Mr. Weldon testified that a vehicle could
pass through a 12-foot-wide opening and that most parking garages are
designed to accommodate vehicles with similar clearance. Id. Mr. Weldon
further testified, using, that comparable properties in the area have driveways
approximately 10.46 feet wide that provide access to garages located at the rear
of the lots. Ex. G; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 129:17-130:7.
20. Mr. Weldon testified that, based on aerial photographs, similar lots used in the
land model required excavation into the street to access utilities. MTAB Hr 'g
Tr. 128:9-129:3, 129:17-130:7. Mr. Weldon showed on, COS 195-A, that
similar properties, selling at market value have storm drains and easements
9

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVIDM.AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
crossing the properties and maintain the ability to connect to city utilities and
construct improvements. Ex. F, G; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 130:8-21.
21. Mr. Weldon testified that if stub-outs existed, the Subject Property's prior
designation as park land would not affect utility access because, over time,
some lots in Cristine Court were consolidated, likely leaving unused stub-outs.
MTAB Hr'g Tr. 139:24-140:4, 142:13-145:3. Mr. Weldon further testified
that, under municipal code, new construction must connect from the structure
to available stub-outs where present, meaning property owners would incur at
least some cost to connect to city utilities. Id. Mr. Weldon further testified that
municipal code provides that sfub-outs extend only to the curb line of a
property. MTABHr'gTr. 146:12-17, 147:5-11. Additionally, the neighboring
property owned by the Taxpayers was connected to city utilities when the
improvements were constructed. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 150:15-23.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
22. The Montana Tax Appeal Board is an independent agency not affiliated with
the Montana Department of Revenue. Mont. Const., Art. VIII § 7; Mont. Code
Ann. § 15-2-101. The Taxpayer filed a timely appeal of the DOR'S decision to
the MTAB. Therefore, this Board maintains jurisdiction to hear and decide this
matter. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301.
23. When reviewing a county tax appeal board decision under Mont. Code Ann. §
15-2-301, MTAB acts as a quasi-appellate body with authority to supplement
the record and is limited to issues properly preserved for appellate review.
O'Brien v. Mont. Dep 't of Revenue, 2026 MT 132, ^72.
24. The Board's order is final and binding upon all parties unless changed by
judicial review. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(6).
10

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL.ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
25. To whatever extent the following conclusions of law may be construed as
findings of fact, they are incorporated accordingly.
26. "All taxable property must be appraised at 100% of its market value...." Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-8-111.
27. Market value is the value at which property would change hands between a
willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under compulsion to buy or to
sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. Mont. Code Ann.
§15-8-lll(2)(a).
28. "[1]n connection with any appeal under [Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301], the
Montana board is not bound by common law and statutory mles of evidence or
rules of discovery and may affirm, reverse, or modify any decision. To the
extent that this section is in conflict with the Montana Administrative
Procedure Act, this section supersedes that act." Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-
301(5).
29. DOR is entitled to a "presumption of correctness if its decisions are pursuant to
an administrative rule or regulation, and the rule or regulation is not arbitrary,
capricious or otherwise unlawful." Burlington N., 169 Mont. at 214, 545 P.2d
at 1090. However, DOR cannot rely entirely on the presumption in its favor
and must present a modicum of evidence showing the propriety of their action.
Western Air Lines v. Michunovich, 149 Mont. 347, 353, 428 P.2d 3, 7 (1967).
30. The Taxpayer bears the burden of proving the error of DOR'S decision.
Farmers Union Cent. Exch. v. Dep't of Revenue, 272 Mont. 471, 476, 901 P.2d
561, 564 (1995); Western Air Lines, 149 Mont. at 353, 428 P.2d at 7.
11

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELMS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
31. '"Assessment fonnulations' by [the Montana Tax Appeal Board] should be
upheld unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Peretti v.
Dep't of Revenue, 2016 MT 105, ^ 15, 383 Mont. 340, 344, 372 P.3d 447,450
(citing (9 We;-// v. Dep't of Revenue, 2002 MT 130, If 23, 310 Mont. 148, 155,
49 P.3d 43, 47); see Northwest Land & Dev. v. State Tax Appeal Bd., 203
Mont. 313, 317, 661 P.2d 44, 47 (1983).
32. The Board "may not amend or repeal any administrative mle of the
department," but may enjoin its application if the Board concludes the rule is
"arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful." Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(5).
33. The term "improvements" includes all buildings, structures, fences, and
improvements situated upon, erected upon, or affixed to land. Mont. Code Ann.
§ 15-l-101(l)(i).
34. The Legislature intended the Department to utilize a number of different
approaches or combination of approaches, including the income approach,
sales comparison approach, and cost less depreciation approach, depending on
the market where the appraisals take place, when it assesses property and
estimates market value. Albright v. State, 281 Mont. 196, 208-09, 933 P.2d
815,823 (1997).
35. "(a) Subject to subsection (7)(b), a county tax appeal board and the Montana
tax appeal board may not adjust the estimated value of the real or personal
property determined under subsection (6) unless the landowner or the
landowner's agent:
(i) gives permission to the department to enter the land to appraise or audit
the property; or
(ii) provides to the department and files with the county tax appeal board or
the Montana tax appeal board an appraisal of the property conducted by
an appraiser who is certified by the Montana board of real estate
12

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
appraisers. The appraisal must be conducted in accordance with current
uniform standards of professional appraisal practice established for
certified real estate appraisers under 37-54-403. The appraisal must be
conducted within 1 year of the reappraisal valuation date provided for
in 15-7-103(6) and must establish a separate market value for each
improvement and the land.
(b) If a landowner or the landowner's agent prevents a person qualified under
subsection (1) from entering land to appraise or audit property or fails or
refuses to establish a date and time for entering the land pursuant to subsection
(5), the department shall estimate the value of the real and personal property
located on the land." Mont. Code Ann. § 15-7-139(7).
DISCUSSION
36. The duty of the Board is to determine the Subject Property's market value.
Based on the evidence in the record, the Board finds that the Subject Property
should be valued by the Department as a primary building site. The record does
not contain sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Subject Property cannot
be connected to municipal services or that it lacks legal access. Accordingly,
the Board concludes that a willing buyer and willing seller would consider the
property a primary site when determining its market value.
37. The Taxpayer testified that the Tracy Ann Terrace subdivision went bankrupt
and that no records could be located establishing whether utility stub-outs were
installed along Christine Court. The Taxpayer further testified that utility stub-
outs were installed on a case-by-case basis and was unsure whether any stub-
outs currently exist for the Subject Property. The Department, likewise, could
not confirm the existence of utility stub-outs but testified that, where present,
stub cuts generally extend only to the curb line and that it is the property
owner's responsibility to connect to those utilities. Since the existence and
location of any utility stub-outs have not been established, the Board cannot
reduce the Subject Property's value based on speculation that substantial utility
13

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
extension costs may be incurred. Mr. Elias presented an estimate for
connecting the Subject Property to municipal utilities. However, some or all of
the work reflected in that estimate may be unnecessary if utility stub-outs are
present within the Christine Court cul-de-sac. Although the Board recognizes
that the property owner will incur some expenses to connect the Subject
Property to municipal services, the amount of that expense cannot be
determined from the evidence in the record because the status and location of
the utilities themselves and of any utility stub-outs remain unknown. The Board
also considers Lot 25A, which the Taxpayer successfully connected his
primary residence to municipal utilities, as evidence that utility services are
available.
38. The Taxpayer argues that, because the Subject Property was originally platted
as a park, utility stub-outs were never installed for the property. The
Department argues that many of the original lots along Christine Court were
subsequently consolidated, leaving unused utility stub outs available to serve
other parcels. The Board agrees with the Department that several lots within
the subdivision were consolidated and that such consolidations could have
resulted in unused utility stub-outs. Mr. Elias testified that lot consolidations
occurred and that a survey of the Subject Property was necessary as a result.
However, as the existence, location, and associated connection costs of any
utility stub-outs remain unknown, the Board cannot determine whether the
Subject Property would sell for less than comparable buildable lots due to
utility connection expenses. The Department also introduced Sale 4, of its land
model, which was understood to be a property without utility stub-outs and
sold at market price. Accordingly, the Board finds insufficient evidence to
conclude that the potential absence of utility stub-outs affects the market value
of the Subject Property.
39. The Department testified that it found no evidence indicating that properties
sold for less because of the cost of connecting to municipal utilities. Mr. Elias
14

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
testified and presented an estimate, which he prepared himself, showing that
connecting the Subject Property to municipal utilities would likely be a
substantial expense. The Board agrees that the cost of connecting the Subject
Property to municipal utilities may be greater than that of a typical lot because
the Subject Property is separated from Christine Court and existing utilities by
the Flag Strip. However, the record indicates that the Subject Property has two
potential routes for utility service. The Subject Property benefits from legal
access across the Flag Strip and a potential utility easement located west of the
Subject Property. Although each route presents potential challenges, both
indicate that connection to municipal water and sewer services is feasible.
40. First, extending utilities through the Flag Strip may be complicated by existing
utility infrastructure and could require additional excavation or construction.
However, if utility stub-outs exist within the Christine Court cul-de-sac, some,
or all of those additional costs may be avoided. Since the existence and location
of county utilities and any stub-out connections remain unknown, the Board
finds that the ultimate cost of utility connection remains speculative.
41. Second, while the Subject Property does not presently have a utility easement
providing access from the west, testimony established that the County may be
willing to grant such an easement, although the Taxpayer has not applied for
one. The Board does not rely on the assumption that such an easement would
be granted. Rather, the testimony demonstrates that an additional potential
avenue for utility service may exist.
42. Although records from the Treasa Ann Terrace Subdivision are incomplete and
the Subject Property was originally designated as a park, the evidence does not
establish that the property is incapable of receiving county municipal service.
The Board finds that the Subject Property has potential routes for connection to
water and sewer services and that the evidence presented does not support a
reduction in value based on utility-access limitations. The Board further notes
that the Department presented evidence of comparable properties that required
15

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
excavation or other utility-extension work to obtain service and nevertheless
sold at market price. This evidence supports the conclusion that additional
utility connection costs, alone, do not always diminish market value.
43. Next, the Taxpayer argues that physical access to the Subject Property is
impeded by an electrical pedestal located within the Flag Strip and that the
Subject Property's value should be reduced by the cost of relocating the
pedestal. The Department argues that, although the electrical pedestal is located
on the Flag Strip, it does not prevent access to the Subject Property and the
Flag Strip can still function as a driveway. The record shows that the Flag Strip
is approximately 20 feet wide and that the electrical pedestal is located
approximately 3.68 feet from the property line. The Department presented
uncontroverted testimony that approximately 12 feet of clearance exists
between the electrical pedestal and the opposing property line. The Department
further presented evidence of several properties within the Teresa Ann Terrace
Subdivision that utilize driveways approximately 10 feet in width. The Board
agrees with the Department that the electrical pedestal does not block access to
the Subject Property. Although the placement of the pedestal is not ideal,
sufficient space remains within the Flag Strip to provide vehicular access to the
property. The testimony indicates that similar or narrower clearances are
commonly used for residential driveways and garage access.
44. While the presence of the electrical pedestal may make access less convenient,
the Board finds insufficient evidence that the pedestal prevents reasonable
physical access to the Subject Property or that relocation of the pedestal is
necessary for development of the property. Accordingly, the Board concludes
that the Subject Property has reasonable routes for physical access, and the
Taxpayers have not proven that the presence of the electrical pedestal warrants
a reduction in the Subject Property's value.
16

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDY L. ELMS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
45. Even if the Board were to conclude that the electrical pedestal materially
impaired access to the Subject Property, the Board would be hesitant to rely
upon Mr. Elias' estimate of the cost to relocate the pedestal. While the Board
found Mr. Elias to be a credible witness regarding the facts of the property, the
record does not establish that he possesses specialized knowledge or experience
regarding the relocation of electrical infrastructure or the costs associated with
such work. Mr. Elias testified that relocation of the electrical pedestal would be
subject to the approval of and performed at the direction of Northwest Energy.
Mr. Elias further acknowledged that the ultimate cost of relocation would be
determined by Northwest Energy rather than by himself. Although Mr. Elias
made a good-faith effort to estimate the potential costs associated with
relocating the pedestal, the Department identified several components of the
estimate that called its accuracy into question.
46. The Department testified that, when developing a land valuation model, it
analyzes market sales to identify factors or influences that cause properties to
sell differently from one another. The Subject Property was valued using a land
model based on vacant land sales of comparable properties. According to the
Department's testimony, the model was statistically reliable and applied a base
land value that was adjusted using an incremental rate to account for
differences in lot size. Mr. Weldon testified that the Department's analysis did
not reveal any market evidence indicating that properties lacking utility stub-
outs sold for less than otherwise comparable properties. Likewise, Mr. Weldon
testified that properties believed to be without utility stub-outs sold at prices
consistent with other properties included in the land model. The Board finds
this testimony more persuasive because it is based on actual market
transactions rather than speculative estimates of potential development costs.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the Department's land model appropriately
reflects the market and supports the valuation assigned to the Subject Property.
17

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
47. The record establishes that the Department previously valued the Subject
Property as a secondary site based on incomplete information regarding access
to the property. Ms. Kraus testified that the Department was unaware of the
utility easement and the existence of the Flag Strip when the Subject Property
was classified during the prior appraisal cycle. Ms. Kraus further testified that
additional research, including review of a subsequent survey, provided
information regarding legal access to the Subject Property.
48. Mr. Weldon testified that, after reviewing Certificate of Survey 475-A, the
Department detennined that the Subject Property possessed legal access and
should be classified as a primary site rather than a secondary site. Mr. Weldon
further testified that the Department's records had not been updated to reflect
this information during the prior appraisal cycle, resulting in the Subject
Property being incorrectly valued as a secondary site. The Board finds that the
Department's prior classification of the Subject Property as a secondary site
was based on incomplete information. The evidence presented at hearing
demonstrates that the Subject Property has legal access and supports the
Department's current classification of the Subject Property as a primary site.
49. The Taxpayer did not present evidence of any specific improvement costs to be
deducted from the Subject Property's market value.
50. Although the electrical pedestal located within the Flag Strip may make access
less convenient, the evidence demonstrates that sufficient space remains within
the Flag Strip to provide practical vehicular access to the Subject Property
without relocating the pedestal. The Board further recognizes that the Subject
Property may incur additional costs to connect to municipal utilities. However,
the amount of any such costs is uncertain as of the lien date. The evidence
indicates that utility service may be available through existing stub-outs within
the Christine Court cul-de-sac. Since the necessity and extent of future utility-
connection expenses remain unknown, and the status of the utilities is
18

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELMS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
unknown, the Board declines to reduce the Subject Property's value based on
speculative costs that may or may not be incurred.
51. The Board understands the Taxpayers' concerns regarding the substantial
increase in the Subject Property's assessed value from the prior appraisal cycle.
The evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that the increase is largely
attributable to the Department's classification of the Subject Property as a
primary site rather than a secondary site. The Board also notes testimony and
photographic evidence indicating that the Subject Property is currently used m
conjunction with the adjoining property, including the placement of sheds and
other improvements near or across the common property line. However, the
Board's duty is to determine the market value of the Subject Property as it
exists on the lien date and not to evaluate potential future changes to property
boundaries or ownership. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the
Taxpayer has not met the burden of proving the Department's valuation is
incorrect.
19

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVID M. AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
ORDER
52. The Board denies the Taxpayer's appeal and affirms the determination of the
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Tax Appeal Board.
Dated this 10th day of July 2026.
PPEA^. 6
f^-^	^	/^ 0
SEAL
^^j
^ 	s:
^
^ T
^^^'
-y
Travis Brown, Chairman
A- N^^
Adam Millinoff, Member
^
Christopher Fe"ember
Notice: You are entitled to judicial review of this Order by filing a petition in district
court within 60 days of the service of this Order. The Department of Revenue shall
promptly notify this Board of any judicial review to facilitate the timely transmission
of the record to the reviewing court. Mont. Code Ann. §15-2-302(2).
20

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
DAVIDM.AND WENDYL. ELIAS v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Certificate of Service
I certify that I caused a tme and correct copy of the foregoing Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law to be sent by email and United States Mail via Print & Mail
Services Bureau of the State of Montana on July 10, 2026, to:
David M. and Wendy L. Elias
P.O. Box 494
Anaconda, Montana 59711
davidelias615@gmail.com
Edward G. Beaudette
P.O. Box 1026
Anaconda, Montana 59711
ed(%mtiustcomp.com
Dave Burleigh, Senior Tax Counsel
State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Legal Services Office
P.O. Box 7701
Helena, MT 59604-7701
Paula Gilbert
State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Property Assessment Division
P.O. Box 8017
Helena, MT, 59604-8018
Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County Tax Appeal Board
800 South Main
Anaconda, MT 59711
all	C7 	Madison Ambrose^
Legal Administrative Assistant
21