WPC  GIL\4 n0bɠCo^kb1p"㿨&Α[G;kAdM(F%Q?K]-$Z/(z˸֍ӘW "%Ec6<^Z^)Ey2jSӍk{)gA7zb􊢼=nmZHq_5 lO2 =P#4h7U֯Tԋ#Uk冨bn5 In(OFv dATr$ʯk٠ltm p jU4p[.35GbB6y,_(~P < 61nWg"ElvɤS`Oe%Iq8nG3Rk }vDjDCٟoPŌٟ'a 6Mp "x#Bld#!xUN % 0(UF w[ 4_ s UP U F ^ 0 lv 0 D UF& l  UF_UFaUF=ZUF=#`uUF'moUFk B mN6U:^ WWWWWWcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc 0Dk D5 AQ5 0D 0D? HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular{Z='3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular T  $    7    XwIXXX' XXwIT.C.A.45322iscontainedintheUniformAdministrativeProcedures P  Act,codifiedat'  'T.C.A.45#'  '#101,etseq.((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    3    XwIXXX' XXwIWillamettespropertiesinWayneCountyrangeinsizefrom43to2,973 P  acres,andaggregatelycomprisesome10,061acres.   $    1    XwIXXX' XXwITheWayneCountyTrustee,aswellastheAAC,werealsonamedas P  respondentsintheChanceryCourtproceeding.Foreaseofreference,the   WayneCountyAssessorofPropertyandtheWayneCountyTrusteewill  ` collectivelybereferredtoas theCountyinthisopinion.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    6    XwIXXX' XXwITheAACdidnotethattheDPAhaderroneouslytreatedcertainof P  Willamettesparcelsassmalltractsbecausetheycomprisedportionsoflarger   tractsthatextendedintoothercounties.Itthereforerecalculatedthe  ` valuesassignedbytheDPAtoreflectthetruesizeoftherespectiveparcels.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular W  $    2    XwIXXX' XXwITheRuralLandScheduleconsistsofagridofperacrevalues,with P  fourlandtypesbrokendownintofourlocationfactorsandthreequality   factorsgood,average,andpoor.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular P  $    5    m XX'  mTimberisincludedinthestatutorylistof growingcropsthathave P  beenspecificallyexceptedfromtaxationinTennessee.SeeT.C.A.675   216(a).<5 9Z .Courier New Regular 3  $    9    XwIXXX' XXwIThe grossdisparityin Allegheny resultedfromtheWebsterCountyTax P  Assessorsvaluationofthepetitionerspropertyonthebasisofitsrecent   purchaseprice,ascomparedtohervaluationofsimilarpropertiesthathad  l notrecentlybeensoldbymakingonlyminoradjustmentstotheirmostrecent, l  butmucholder,saleprice.      $    4    XwIXXX' XXwITheweightedaveragevalueperacrewasdeterminedbymultiplyingthe P  numberofacresineachtractbytheperacrevalueassignedtothattract,   addingtheproductsofthosemultiplications,anddividingthetotalbythe  ` 10,061acres.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    8    XwIXXX' XXwITheDPAs RuralLandProceduresManual providesthat [t]imberis P  consideredasagrowingcropandisalwaystreatedasanegativeadjustment,   andthatits valuemustberemovedfromthesellingpricetoarriveata  ` valueindicationforlandonly.TheseprovisionsareconsistentwithT.C.A. `  675216(a),whichexemptstimberfromtaxation.Theydonotmeanas   Willamettearguesthattheresidualmethodistheonlypermissible  p methodologytoachievethisobjective.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular dU , b"  _#XXXX#5X#X   Ad FILED#XX#5  September3,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx ,cAZ"Arial Regular#' (3$ !  )!dxdxabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  !  _P X#XXX8 XXdd8TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TP_v`"[@0,j:`  `@EQ ` 8ttxPP  v__@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATNASHVILLEWILLAMETTEINDUSTRIES,INC.,  )C/ANO.O1A019812CH00639 T    `     h   )   ` PetitionerAppellant,)   `     h   )   `     h   )v.   `     h   ) 2     `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE   `     h   )DAVIDSONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT   `     h   )   `     h   )TENNESSEEASSESSMENTAPPEALS  ) `  COMMISSION,WAYNECOUNTY h   ) 6 ASSESSOROFPROPERTY,and  ) \  WAYNECOUNTYTRUSTEE, h   ) 2    `     h   )HONORABLECAROLL.McCOY,   ` RespondentsAppellees.)CHANCELLORForAppellant    h     ForAppelleeTennessee 6    `     h     AssessmentAppealsCommissionJERRYC.SHELTONLyell,Seaman&Shelton h     PAULG.SUMMERS !h Nashville,Tennessee h     AttorneyGeneral&Reporter ">    `     h     Nashville,Tennessee   `     h     SEAND.CLANCY   `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral   `     h     Nashville,Tennessee   `     h     ForAppelleesWayneCounty   `     h     AssessorofPropertyand   `     h     WayneCountyTrustee   `     h     JAMESY.ROSS,SR.   `     h     Waynesboro,Tennessee@$ XXXX#  !X XOPINION XX!  X#XX XԈ 4*3 AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J. b:09 P     _   ` Thepetitioninthiscaseseeksjudicialreviewofreal P  propertyvaluationsestablishedbyafinalorderoftheTennessee   AssessmentAppealsCommission( AAC),abodycreatedbythe  X StateBoardofEqualizationtohear appealsregardingthe T assessment,classificationandvalueofpropertyforpurposesof  taxation.T.C.A.6751502(a).TheAACsorderintheinstant \  casefixed,foradvaloremtaxpurposes,theseparatevaluesof X  15parcelsofWayneCountywoodlandownedbythepetitioner,   WillametteIndustries,Inc.( Willamette).Uponreviewofthe l  AACsorder,thetrialcourtheld,amongotherthings,thatthe h appraisalmethodologyutilizedbytheAACwasnotpersecontrary  toTennesseelaw,andthattherecordcontainedsubstantialand | materialevidencetosupporttheAACsvaluationsbaseduponthat x( methodology.Accordingly,itaffirmedtheAACsorder. $  Willametteappeals,raisingthefollowingissuesforour ! consideration: |#,   8 ` 1.DoTennesseestatutesandcaselaw,prior &" decisionsoftheAAC,andtheadministrative 'Z# proceduresmanualforWayneCountyrequire (0$ woodlandwithgrowingtreestobevaluedby V)% the residualmethod,wherebythevalueof ,*& standingtimberissubtractedfromthesale + ' priceofcomparablelandwithstandingtimber +!( toarriveatthe residualvalueforthe ,^") landonly?-4#*` x` x   8 ` 2.Istheresubstantialandmaterial 0/$, evidencetosupportthevaluesetbytheAAC 0%- forWillametteswoodland?0&.` x` x   8 ` 3.Didtheappraisalmethodologyusedbythe 28(0 WayneCountyAssessorandStateDivisionof ^3)1 PropertyAssessmentsforWillamettes 44)2 woodland,butnotforanyotherwoodland  5*3 appraisalsinWayneCounty,denyWillamette 5+4 equalprotectionundertheUnitedStatesand 6f,5 TennesseeConstitutions?7<-6` x` x  89.8   P  @l l I.FactsandProceduralHistory P     ` In1992,therespondent,theWayneCountyAssessorof  d Property( theCounty),  #  1      ׀assistedbytheStateDepartmentof ` PropertyAssessments( DPA),completedareappraisalofall   taxablerealpropertyinWayneCounty.Informationregarding70 h  propertysaleswascompiledbyLeonOliver,aDPAemployee,who d  analyzedeachsaleandsubtractedfromthesalespricean   estimatedvalueforanyappropriatedeductions,including l  standingtimber.Thisinformationwascompiledintoa Rural h LandScheduleP  #  2      ,whichinturnformedthebasisfortheappraisal  of,amongotherthings,allwoodlandinWayneCounty,including p the15parcelsownedbyWillamette.XwIXX XwI(  #  3      # XwIXXXwI # l    ` ApplicationoftheRuralLandScheduleresultedina !t weightedaveragevalueP   #  4      ׀of$178peracreforWillamettes10,061 p#  acres.The$178peracrevaluewasarrivedatbysubstracting %  fromthegrossvalueperacrethesumof$62peracre &x" representingtheallegedvalueofthestandingtimber.   #  5      ׀Arguing t($$ thatthisadjustmentfortheexceptedfromtaxationtimberwas  *& inadequate,WillametteappealedtheCountysassessmentstothe P  WayneCountyBoardofEqualization.Afterreceivingan   unfavorabledeterminationthere,Willamettethenappealedtothe  X StateBoardofEqualization.Ahearingbeforeanadministrative T lawjudgewasheldonJanuary4and5,1994.Theadministrative  lawjudgedeterminedthatthetimbervalueshadbeen \  underestimatedandorderedthattheappraisalofWillamettes X  propertiesbereducedbyanadditional$67peracre,i.e.,that   theaverageadjustmentfortimberbeincreasedfrom$62peracre l  to$129peracretheamountcalculatedbyWillamettebased h uponresearchbyitsownexperts,aswellasU.S.ForestService  statistics.Insoholding,theadministrativelawjudgeadopted p the residualmethodofwoodlandvaluationadvocatedby l Willamette.Underthatmethod,thevalueofeachparcelwas   reducedbytheestimatedvalueofitsstandingtimberto !t determinethelands residualvaluefortaxassessment p#  purposes. %     ` Beingdissatisfiedwiththejudgmentofthe t($$ administrativelawjudge,theCountyappealedtotheAAC.A  *& hearingwasheldbeforethatbodyonFebruary25and27,1997. +|!( Atthehearing,theCountypresentedtestimonyfromthree x-(#* witnesses,includingCharlesSmith( Smith),aDPAemployeeand $/$, certifiedgeneralappraiserwhowasqualifiedasanexpertwith 0&. regardtothevaluationofruralland.Smithcalculatedthe |2,(0 weightedaveragevalueofWillamettespropertieswithoutthe (4)2 standingtimberat$168peracre.Inreachingthis 5+4 conclusion,heutilizeda directcomparablesalescomparison 70-6 method,wherebyhedeterminedthevalueofthesubjectproperties ,9.8 bycomparingthemtosalesoflandfromwhichthetimberhad P  eitherbeenremovedorsoldindependentoftheland.Inthe   courseofhisanalysis,SmithvisitedallofWillamettes  X propertiesandcomparedthemto28similarpropertiesselected T fromthe70salesthathadformedthebasisoftheRuralLand  Schedule. \     ` Inadditiontothedirectcomparablesalesmethod   advocatedbySmithandtheCounty,theAACheardtestimony `  regardingtheresidualmethod,describedabove,andthe land \  expectationmethod,underwhichanexpectedincomefromtimber  isprojectedforthelandandcapitalizedatanappropriaterate. d Extensiveproofregardingthelattertwomethodswasofferedby ` Willamettethroughthetestimonyofitsexpertwitnesses.   Willamettecontendedthatthevaluesforitspropertiesshouldbe !h reducedbyanaverageadjustmentof$136peracre,representing d# theallegedvalueofthetimberontherespectiveparcels.The %  AAC,however,foundasfollows: &l"   8 ` ...thedirect[comparablesales]methodisan *& attractivealternativeifsufficient * ' qualifiedsalesareavailable,andthatis +p!( thecasehere.TheDivisionofProperty ,F") Assessmentsreexamineditscollectionof l-#* salesinthecourseofdefendingtaxpayers B.#+ appeal,andwhilethisdataisnotuniformly /$, beyondreproach,itoffersacredible /%- alternativetothedifficultadjustments 0t&. requiredbytheresidualmethod.1J'/` x` x TheAACreferredtotwoparticularsalescitedbytheCountyand 4*3 DPA,notingthatuseofsuchsalestodeterminethevalueofthe 6N,5 subjectparcels offer[ed]amorecrediblealternativetothe J8-7 residualmethodasappliedby[Willamettes]expertsinthis 9/9 case.Therefore,theAACmodifiedthedecisionofthe P  administrativelawjudgeanddeterminedthatWillamettes   propertiesshouldbeassessedataweightedaverageof$160per  X acre.  #  6      ׀Itassignedtotalvaluestoeachofthe15parcelsinan T exhibitattachedtoitsfinaldecisionandorder,whichwas  enteredonMarch18,1997. \     ` Willamettesubsequentlypetitionedthetrialcourtfor   reviewoftheAACsdecision.Afterhearingargumentbasedupon `  theproofintheadministrativerecord,thetrialcourtaffirmed \  thefindingsoftheAAC.Thetrialcourtheldasfollows:    8 ` [Willamette]contendsthatasamatterof ` law,theresidualmethodistheonlymethod 6 thatshouldbeutilizedinvaluingwoodland.   TheCourtdoesnotreachthatconclusion.   Thecaseof Richardsonv.Tennessee !h AssessmentAppealsCommission ,828S.W.2d403 "N (Tenn.App.1991)doesnotdeclarean #4 exclusivemethodofvaluation.ThisCourt Z$  cannotfindTennesseecaselawor[any] 0%  statutethatdesignatesasolemethodology &! forvaluingwoodland.Inlightofthis,the &" Courtcannotconclude,asamatteroflaw, 'b# thattheresidualmethodistheonlymethod (8$ tobeutilizedinvaluingwoodland.Indeed, ^)% thelegislatureestablishedspecific 4*& administrativeagenciestodetermineproperty  + ' valueswhichhaveacquiredextensive +!( knowledgeandexpertise.Theprocessof ,f") valuingpropertyisintenselyfactual,and -<#* flexibilityisnecessaryfortheexpert b.$+ agenciestovaluepropertyinwideranging 8/$, circumstances. Courtswilldefertothe 0%- decisionsofadministrativeagencieswhen 0&. theyareactingwithintheirareaof 1j'/ specializedknowledge,experience,and 2@(0 expertise. WayneCounty[v.TennesseeSolid f3)1 WasteDisposalControlBoard ,756S.W.2d274, L4)2 279(Tenn.App.1988)].25*3` x` x  6+4   8 ` TherecordrevealsthattheAACexamined P  salescompiledbyCharlesSmithandfound &  thereweresufficientqualifiedsalestouse   thedirectcomparable[sales]methodin   valuing[Willamettes]woodland.TheAAC  X identifiedtwosalesoutofMr.Smiths ~. reporttosupportitsdecisiontousethe T directcomparablesalesmethod.Bothof * thosesalesinvolvedthesaleoflandonly,  withtimbernotbeingafactorinthesale.   TheselandonlysalessupporttheAACs \  valuationof[Willamettes]properties. 2  [Willamette]contendstheAACmerelyadopted X  Mr.Smithsconclusions;however,thatisnot .  evidentfromtherecord.TheAAC,after   hearingallthetestimonyandreviewingthe   exhibits,foundthedirectcomparable[sales] `  methodofferedacrediblebasistodetermine 6 thelandvaluescomparedtothequestionable \  valuesresultingfromuseoftheresidual 2 method.TheCourtconcludesthereis  substantialandmaterialevidenceinthe  recordtosupporttheAACsdecision.d` x` x    ` ThetrialcourtalsoheldthattheAAChadnoterredin   allowingSmithtotestifyregardinghisreportandopinions !h despitethefactthatthewitnesshadrelieduponhearsay d# informationobtainedfrombuyersandsellersofthesubject %  properties.Furthermore,theCourtheldthattheAACsvaluation &l" ofWillamettespropertyhadnotresultedinanydenialofequal h($ protectiontoWillamette.Accordingly,thetrialcourtaffirmed *& thedecisionoftheAACinitsentirety,andthisappeal +p!( followed. l-#* @xx!II.ApplicableLaw 0t&.    ` Generallyspeaking,courtswill defertodecisionsof (4)2 administrativeagencieswhentheyareactingwithintheirareaof 5+4 specializedknowledge,experience,andexpertise. XwIXX XwIWayneCounty 70-6 v.TennesseeSolidWasteDisposalControlBoard ,756S.W.2d274, L9.8 279(Tenn.App.1988)# XwIXXXwI,M#.Thus,judicialreviewofsuch P  determinationsisgovernedby thenarrow,statutorilydefined   standardcontainedin[T.C.A.]45322(h)ratherthanthebroad  X standardofreviewusedinothercivilappeals. WayneCounty , T 756S.W.2dat279.Specifically,T.C.A.XwIXX XwI45322(h)# XwIXXXwInO#(5)   #  7         provides,asrelevanthere,thatthereviewingcourt |    8 ` mayreverseormodifythedecisionifthe $  rightsofthepetitionerhavebeenprejudiced   becausetheadministrativefindings,   inferences,conclusionsordecisionsare:V` x` x @XX%*** R   8 ` (5)Unsupportedbyevidencewhichisboth  substantialandmaterialinthelightofthe  entirerecord.Z` x` x   8 ` Indeterminingthesubstantialityof V evidence,thecourtshalltakeintoaccount ,  whateverintherecordfairlydetractsfrom ! itsweight,butthecourtshallnot ! substituteitsjudgmentforthatofthe "^ agencyastotheweightoftheevidenceon #4 questionsoffact.Z$ ` x` x Thus,wewillnotsubstituteourjudgmentregardingtheweightof 'b# theevidenceforthatoftheagency,evenwheretheevidence ^)% couldsupportadifferentresult. WayneCounty ,756S.W.2dat  + ' 279(citing HumanaofTennesseev.TennesseeHealthFacilities ,") Commn ,551S.W.2d664,667(Tenn.1977)); Grubbv.Tennessee .R$+ CivilServ.Commn ,731S.W.2d919,922(Tenn.App.1987); Hughes n0&- v.BoardofCommissioners ,319S.W.2d481,484(Tenn.1958)). :2'/ Statedanotherway, 4)1   5b+3   8 ` [a]nagencysfactualdeterminationshouldbe P   upheldifthereexists suchrelevant &  evidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptto   supportarationalconclusionandsuchasto   furnishareasonablysoundbasisforthe  X actionunderconsideration.~.` x` x  WayneCounty ,756S.W.2dat279(quoting SouthernRy.v.State   Bd.ofEqualization ,682S.W.2d196,199(Tenn.1984); Sweetv. R  StateTechnicalInst. ,617S.W.2d158,161(Tenn.App.1981)).As n  furtherexplainedin WayneCounty , :    8 ` [t]hegeneralrulesgoverningjudicialreview b ofanagencysfactualdecisionsapplywith 8 evengreaterforcewhentheissuesrequire ^ scientificortechnicalproof.Appellate 4 courtshaveneithertheexpertisenorthe   resourcestoevaluatecomplexscientific  issuesdenovo.Whenverytechnicalareasof f expertiseareinvolved,theygenerallydefer  < toagencydecisions,andwillnotsubstitute b! theirjudgmentforthatoftheagencyon 8" highlytechnicalmatters.#` x` x   8 ` However,thecourtsdeferencetoanagencys $j expertiseisnoexcuseforjudicialinertia. %@  Evenincasesinvolvingscientificor f&! technicalevidence,the substantialand <'" materialevidencestandardin[T.C.A.]4 (# 5322(h)(5)requiresasearchingandcareful ($ inquirythatsubjectstheagencysdecision )n% toclosescrutiny.*D &` x` x  WayneCounty ,756S.W.2dat280(citationsomitted). -#*    ` Withregardtothevaluationofrealpropertyfortax d1'. purposes,T.C.A.675601(a)mandatesthat 3(0   8 ` [t]hevalueofallpropertyshallbe h6,4 ascertainedfromtheevidenceofitssound, >7,5 intrinsicandimmediatevalue,forpurposes 8-6  ofsalebetweenawillingselleranda 8.7 willingbuyerwithoutconsiderationof P  speculativevalues....& ` x` x  `TheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesthat allpropertyreal, ~. personalormixedshallbesubjecttotaxation...exceptthe * directproductofthesoilinthehandsoftheproducer,andhis   immediatevendee....Tenn.Const.art.II,28.Growingcrops 2  Єincludingtimberarespecificallyexemptedfromproperty .  taxationbyT.C.A.XwIXX XwI675216(a).# XwIXXXwI0d#   @ III.ThePartiesContentions 2    ` Onappeal,Willamettearguesthattheappropriate F methodofvaluingwoodlandisbymeansoftheresidualmethod, B i.e.,analyzingsalesofcomparablepropertywithgrowingtrees   anddeductingthevalueofthetimbertoarriveataresidual "V valueforthelanditself.Willametteinsiststhatuseofthe R$ residualmethodismandatedbyTennesseestatutes,caselaw, %! priordecisionsoftheAAC,andtheappraisalmanualusedbythe 'Z# CountyandtheDPA.Willamettechieflyreliesuponthedecision V)% ofthiscourtin Richardsonv.TennesseeAssessmentAppeals + ' Commn ,828S.W.2d403(Tenn.App.1991),inwhichweaffirmedthe ,~") lowercourtsuseoftheresidualmethodofvaluingpropertywith .J$+ surfaceandmineralvalues.Initsbrief,Willamettearguesthat F0%-  Richardson unequivocallysetsforth theappraisalmethodology 1'/ requiredbylawforvaluationoflandexclusiveoftimberand 3n)1 mineralvalues. j5+3   7,5    ` Willamettealsocontendsthattherecorddoesnot P   containsubstantialandmaterialevidencetosupporttheAACs   decisionthatthedirectcomparablesalesmethodwasappropriate  X forvaluationofthesubjectwoodland.Inthisconnection, T Willamettearguesthattheonlycredibleproofregardingthe  growingtimbersvaluecamefromitsownwitnesses,andthatthe \  testimonyoftheCountyswitnesseswasunreliable,erroneous, X  andbaseduponinadmissiblehearsay.Willamettealsocontends   thattheAACimproperlyreliedupontwosalesofcutover `  propertyselectedbySmith,andthattheAACwassimply \  attemptingtoaffirmwhatevervaluestheassessingofficialshad  previouslydetermined. d    ` Finally,Willamettearguesthatithasbeendenied   equalprotectionundertheUnitedStatesandTennessee !h Constitutions,byvirtueoftheadministrativeagencies d# applicationofthedirectcomparablesalesmethodtoits %  properties,butallegedlytonoothersinWayneCounty. &l" WillamettecontendsthattheCountyandDPA,inaneffort to h($ approximatetheerroneousRuralLandSchedulevalues, devised *& thiscutoverordirectsalescomparisonvaluationtheoryto +p!( applyonlytoWillamettesproperty. l-#*    ` TheCounty,ontheotherhand,contendsthat Richardson  0t&. isinapplicabletotheinstantcase;thatneither XwIXX XwIRichardson # XwIXXXwIyq#,nor 2@(0 anyotherauthority,mandatestheexclusiveuseofasingle \4 *2 appraisalmethod;thattherecordsupportstheAACs 6+4 determinationthat,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,the 7p-6 directcomparablesalesmethodwaspreferabletotheresidual l9/8 method;andthatWillamettedidnotprovethatapplicationofthe P  directcomparablesalesmethodhadresultedinanydenialofits   righttoequalprotection.  X    ` TheAAClikewisearguesinitsbriefthattheappraisal  methodologyappliedtoWillametteswoodlanddidnotdeny \  Willametteequalprotectionundereitherthestateorfederal X  constitution.TheAACalsoarguesthat [t]hereisnolegal   requirementthatonlytheresidualassessmentmethodbeusedto `  determinethevalueoftimberland,andthat,asamatterof \  publicpolicy,theassessingagencies shouldbepermittedtouse  theassessmentmethodologyforadvaloremtaxpurposesthat d producesthefairestandbestvaluationofagivenpieceof ` property.   @$IV.Analysis d# @tt)A. %! gw   ` TurningfirsttoWillamettesissueregardingthe (<$ propermethodofvaluation,wedonotfindthattheapplicable 8*& statutoryscheme,Tennesseecaselaw,ortheappraisalmanual +!( usedbytheCountyandDPA  #  8      ׀requirethattheresidualmethodbe -@#* utilizedinthevaluationoftimberland.Onthecontrary,no H/$, authoritysuggeststhatanysinglemethodismandated,tothe 0&. exclusionofallothers.Althoughweaffirmedthelowercourts 2P(0 useoftheresidualmethodinthe Richardson case,wedidnot P  holdthatitwastheexclusivemethodavailabletotheassessing   agencies;onthecontrary,thatcasesimplyholdsthat,underthe   factsprsentedthere,useoftheresidualmethodwasappropriate. 0 See Richardson ,828S.W.2dat40708.Bythesametoken,weare , notawareof,norhavewebeencitedto,anyotherauthority   mandatinguseofasingleappraisalmethodology. T     ` Wethereforemustconsiderthequestionofwhetherthe   recordcontainssubstantialandmaterialevidencetosupportthe X AACsdecisiontoacceptappraisedvaluesthatweredeterminedby T meansofthedirectcomparablesalesmethod.Therecordcontains  extensivetestimonyregardingseveraldifferentmethodsof \ valuation,eachofwhichpossessesinherentadvantagesand X  disadvantages.TheCountyswitnessesopinedthatthedirect " comparablesalesmethodwaspreferableintheinstantcase. #` Smithtestifiedthathewouldonlyusetheresidualmethodwhere \%   aninsufficientnumberofsalesofvacantlandwereavailablefor '" comparison.AnotheroftheCountyswitnesses,BobRusk, (d$ testifiedthatthedirectcomparablesalesmethodwasuseful `* & where,ashere,sufficientinformationregardingothersalesis  ,!( available;healsostatedthattheresidualmethodwasnotas -h#* suitableforuseinWayneCountyasitwouldbeinamorestable d/%, marketwheretimberandlandpriceshadnotchangedmuchovera 1&. longperiodoftime.Ruskfurthertestifiedregardingthe 2l(0 variousadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthetwomethods. h4*2 Willamette,ontheotherhand,presentedextensivetestimony 6+4 regardingtheresidualmethod.OneofWillametteswitnesses, 7p-6 Dr.RobertParker,disputedthetimbervaluescalculatedbySmith l9/8 andRusk,andmaintainedthattheresidualmethodwasthebest P  waytoarriveatanaccuratevaluationofthetaxablerawland.   Willamettealsoofferedothertestimonybasedupontheresidual  X method,includingthatofRobertWilliams,whosupported T Willamettescontentionthattheappropriateaveragetimber  deductionshouldbeapproximately$136peracre. \     ` ItisclearthattheAACwasconfrontedwithaconflict   intheexperttestimony.Asexplainedin WayneCounty , `    8 ` [a]genciesarenotboundbytheexpert ( opinionspresentedtothem.Becauseoftheir  presumedexpertiseandknowledge,agencies  areaccorded widediscretionindetermining Z theweightorprobativevaluetobegiventhe 0 testimonyoftheexpertwitness....V` x` x   8 ` Resolvingconflictingevidenceisforthe ! agency.Thus,whenconflictsinexpert ! testimonyarise,itistheagencys "^ prerogativetoresolvethem,notthecourts.#4` x` x * Id. at281(citationsomitted). &"    ` Aspreviouslyexplained,courtstypicallywilldeferto T* & anagencydecisionwheretheagencyisactingwithinitsareaof ,!( knowledgeandexpertise, Id. at280,andthisisparticularly -\#* truewheretechnicalorscientificmattersareinvolved. Id.  x/(%, Admittedly,therecordcontainsevidenceregardingboth D1&. advantagesanddisadvantagesofeachappraisalmethod,aswellas 2(0 evidencethattheresidualmethodcould,incertaininstances,be 4L*2 thepreferablemeansofvaluation.Ontheotherhand,italso H6+4  containscredibleevidenceindicatingthat,underthe 7-6 circumstancesofthiscase,thedirectcomparablesalesmethod P  representedtheappropriatechoice.       ` Theevidenceestablishesthattheuseofthedirect T comparablesalesmethodinthiscasesatisfiestherequirements  ofT.C.A.675601(a).Havingdecidedthatthevaluation \  methodolgyutilizedbytheAACwas,ingeneralterms,in X  compliancewiththestatutorymandate,wenowmustdecideifthe   recordreflectsXwIXX XwIԀ suchrelevantevidenceasareasonablemind l  mightaccepttosupportarationalconclusionandsuchasto h furnishareasonablysoundbasisforthevaluationsdetermined  bytheAAC. WayneCounty, 756S.W.2dat279. p @tt)B. b x   ` Willamettecontendsthattherecorddoesnotcontain ! substantialandmaterialevidencetosupporttheappraisalvalues #F calculatedbytheAAC.Inreachingitsconclusion,theAAC N%  essentiallyacceptedthevaluessuggestedbySmithandRusk,and &" rejectedthoseadvancedbyWillametteswitnesses.Again,these (V$ determinationsrequiredtheAACtoresolveconflictingexpert R* & testimonyregardingvaluationsofthesubjectproperties.Under +!( thesecircumstances,wecannotsubstituteourjudgmentforthat -Z#* oftheAAC,asaffirmedbythetrialcourt.# XwIXXXwI܏#ԀWefindthatthe V/%, recorddoescontainsubstantialandmaterialevidencetosupport 1&. theappraisalvaluesassignedtoWillamettespropertiesbythe 2^(0 AACintheexhibittoitsfinalorder. Id. at279. Z4 *2 @tt)C. 6,5  P 7-6    ` Willamettealsoarguesthatthetestimonyofthe P   Countyswitnesseswasbasedoninadmissiblehearsayin   particular,statementsfromvariousbuyersandsellersof  X propertyinWayneCountyanddidnot possesssufficient T indiciaofcredibilitytobeadmissibleunderRule703,  Tenn.R.Evid.Rule703provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: \    8 ` Ifofatypereasonablyrelieduponby   expertsintheparticularfieldinforming   opinionsorinferencesuponthesubject,the `  factsordata[relieduponbytheexpert] 6 neednotbeadmissibleinevidence.The \  courtshalldisallowtestimonyintheformof 2 anopinionorinferenceiftheunderlying  factsordataindicatelackof  trustworthiness.d` x` x ǘRule703,Tenn.R.Evid.      ` Therecordindicatesthatobtaininginformationfrom d# buyersandsellersofpropertyisacommonpracticeutilizedby %  realestateexpertsinformingopinionssuchasthoseatissuein &l" theinstantcase.Therefore,inaccordancewiththeabovequoted h($ languagefromRule703,theCountyswitnesseswereentitledto *& relyuponthefactsanddatainquestion.Furthermore,although +p!( therecordcertainlycontainssometestimonycontrarytothat l-#* offeredbytheCountyswitnesses,itdoesnotreflectsucha /$, lackoftrustworthinessastorenderthetestimonyofthe 0t&. Countyswitnessesinadmissible.Willamettesargumentonthis p2 (0 pointisfoundtobewithoutmerit. 4)2 @tt)D. 6N,5  < z7*-6    ` WenextturntoWillamettesequalprotectionargument. P   Inthiscontext,Willamettereliesinpartuponthedecisionof   theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin AlleghenyPittsburghCoalCo.  X v.CountyCommnofWebsterCounty,WestVirginia ,488U.S.336, t$ 109S.Ct.633,102L.Ed.2d688(1989).Inthatcase,theSupreme @ Courtheldthatcertainpropertyvaluationsbythecountytax   assessorhadresultedin grossdisparitiesintheassessedvalue H  ofgenerallycomparablepropertyXwIXX XwI  #  9      ,# XwIXXXwIT#andhadthereforedeniedthe D  taxpayersequalprotectionundertheFourteenthAmendment. Id. ,   109S.Ct.at635.Insoholding,theCourtstatedasfollows: l   8 ` Thattwomethodsareusedtoassessproperty  inthesameclassis,withoutmore,ofno  constitutionalmoment.TheEqualProtection p Clause appliesonlytotaxationwhichin F factbearsunequallyonpersonsorproperty l  ofthesameclass....Ineachcase,the B! constitutionalrequirementistheseasonable " attainmentofaroughequalityintax " treatmentofsimilarlysituatedproperty #t owners.$J` x` x  Id. ,109S.Ct.at63738(citationsomitted).TheCourtalso )N% notedthat j+!'   8 ` [t]heStates,ofcourse,havebroadpowersto .r$+ imposeandcollecttaxes.AStatemaydivide /H%, differentkindsofpropertyintoclassesand n0&- assigntoeachclassadifferenttaxburden D1&. solongasthosedivisionsandburdensare 2'/ reasonable....Ineachcase, [i]fthe 2(0 selectionorclassificationisneither 3v)1 capriciousnorarbitrary,andrestsuponsome 4L*2 reasonableconsiderationofdifferenceor P  policy,thereisnodenialoftheequal &  protectionofthelaw. ` x` x   Id. ,109S.Ct.at638(citationsomitted). T    ` Inthe Allegheny case,theCourtfoundthatthe |  propertyofthepetitionershadbeenassessedatapproximately 8 H  to35timesmorethancomparableneighboringproperty,and[that] D  thesediscrepancieshavecontinuedformorethan10yearswith   littlechange. Id. ,109S.Ct.at638.Notingthatthe L petitionershad sufferedfromsuchintentionalsystematic h undervaluationbystateofficialsofcomparablepropertyinthe  County,theCourtheldthat [t]herelativeundervaluationof p comparablepropertyinWebsterCountyovertimethereforedenies l  petitionerstheequalprotectionofthelaw. Id. ,109S.Ct.at " 639. #    ` Uponreviewoftherecordintheinstantcase,we <'" cannotsaythatWillamettehassufferedadenialofequal ($ protectionbyvirtueof grossdisparitiesintheassessedvalue *D & ofgenerallycomparablepropertysuchasoccurredin Allegheny . @,!( See Id. ,109S.Ct.at635.Althoughthereisproofintherecord  .#* showingthatdifferentappraisedvaluesforWillamettes /%, propertiesresulteddependinguponwhichvaluationmethodwas 14'. employed,suchdifferencesgenerallywerenotofthemagnitudeof 03(0 thosein Allegheny. Asexplainedinthatcase,themerefact 4*2 thattheassessingagencieshaveemployeddifferentappraisal 6X,4 methods is,withoutmore,ofnoconstitutionalmoment. Id. , T8.6 109S.Ct.at637.Therecordheresimplydoesnotcontainproof  :/8 thattheAACsuseofthedirectcomparablesalesmethod P  resultedinanabsenceof XwIXX XwIroughequalityintaxtreatmentof   similarlysituatedpropertyowners. Id. ,109S.Ct.at# XwIXXXwI"#638.We  X thereforeholdthattheChanceryCourtcorrectlyheldthat t$ Willamettehadnotbeendeniedequalprotectionunderthe   FourteenthAmendment. |     ` Alsowithregardtoitsequalprotectionargument, $  WillamettereliesuponArticleII,28oftheTennessee   Constitution,whichsectionprovides,inpertinentpart,as |, follows: (   8 ` Theratioofassessmenttovalueofproperty 0 ineachclassorsubclassshallbeequaland V uniformthroughouttheState,thevalueand ,  definitionofpropertyineachclassor ! subclasstobeascertainedinsuchmanneras ! theLegislatureshalldirect.Each "^ respectivetaxingauthorityshallapplythe #4 sametaxratetoallpropertywithinits Z$  jurisdiction.0% ` x` x Thereisnoproofintherecordbeforeusestablishingthatthe (8$  ratioofassessmenttovalueofWillamettespropertywasnot 4*& equaloruniformtootherpropertiesinthesameclassthroughout +!( thestate.Furthermore,asexplainedearlier,theappraisaland -<#* assessmentofWillamettespropertieswasincompliancewiththe 8/$, requirementofT.C.A.675601(a)that [t]hevalueofall 0&. propertyshallbeascertainedfromtheevidenceofitssound, 2@(0 intrinsicandimmediatevalue,forpurposesofsalebetweena <4)2 willingsellerandawillingbuyerwithoutconsiderationof 5+4 speculativevalues. 7D-6  @9.8    ` Willamettesequalprotectionissueisfoundtobe P  withoutmerit.   @#V.Conclusion T    ` ThejudgmentoftheChanceryCourtisaffirmed.Costs h  onappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedto d  thetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,   pursuanttoapplicablelaw. l     `     h     __________________________     `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.  CONCUR: B ________________________ "J HoustonM.Goddard,P.J. p#  ________________________ &x" HerschelP.Franks,J. 'N#