*1 P.2d CLARK, of Ada L. “Mike” J. Assessor Planting, Idaho, County, A. Clarence Court and Ex-Offi of the District

Clerk Idaho, Auditor, Ada Ada cio Association, an

County Property Owners Chance, Corporation, Don wife, Chance, Ada husband

Dora

County Taxpayers, and Ellen Elmo Orr Petitioners,

Orr, County Taxpayers, Ada OF BOARD COMMIS ADA COUNTY SIONERS, Individually, Davis,

Equalization, Lund Linda Gary Emery, Individually, rn

Ve Individually, Bermeosolo, as mem thereof, Com the Idaho

bers Little, Individually,

mission, Ewing Don Palmer, Individually,

Loveland, Jenkin Larry Looney,

Individually, Individ thereof, Respon

ually, and as members

dents, 2,No. and Can

Joint School Counties, Idaho, Meridian, City

yon City,

Municipal Corporation, Garden Eagle, City

Municipal Corporation, City Boise,

Municipal Corporation,

Municipal Corporation, District, body politic

Highway Idaho, Respondents. Additional

No. 12740.

Supreme of Idaho. Court

Dec. *2 Assessor,

County County Ada Clerk Auditor, the District Court and Ex-Officio County the Ada Property Owners Associa- tion, and taxpayers. four Petitioners seek peremptory prohibition against writ of respondents, the Ada County Board Com- missioners, County Equal- the Ada Board of ization, Commission, the Idaho State Tax and their members. Petitioners seek to prevent the Ada County Equaliza- Board of tion from existing further on the acting 1977 Ada County Property Real Assessment Roll, of County and the Board Commission- ers from interfering with Assessor’s his office from transferring to the Asses- petitioners sor’s office. seek Additionally the Idaho Tax State acting certifying on to the Ada County Clerk of the District Court and Ex- existing Officio Auditor the Coun- Ada Property Real ty Assessment Roll and from issuing orders directives to the Ada County Assessor that interfere with the di- Croner, M. management R. Robson Robson and rect of his office. Boise, petitioners. for Subsequent this petition date David Pros. Har- Leroy, Atty., Jim C. filed, the respondents named filed mo- their ris, Deputy Chief Pros. Ada Atty., Civ. tion to proceedings dismiss the and the for County, respondents Ada Bd. of County cause was for argument September on Com’rs and members. its meantime, In the various Ada Kidwell, Gen., Wayne Atty. L. and Theo- County Taxing municipalities districts and Gen., Atty. V. for Spangler, Deputy dore peti- moved intervene and dismiss respondents Tax Com’n and its mem- At argument agreed tion. the parties bers. the intervenors should be treated as addi- respondents. tional Ambrose, Fitzger-

John O. Fitzgerald Crookston, Meridian, ald for School May 7,1976, by order issued on Counties, Dist. No. Canyon Ada Commission, Ada As- City of Meridian. Equali- sessor and Boise, Brown, & Boyd Allen Ellis Ellis zation were directed to conduct a revalua- for City. Garden tion June County by Ada 1, 1977, Mossman, Boise, on Hugh these values be shown Acting City Atty., City. for Boise the 1977 assessment rolls and used for provided: The order also assessments. Alfred C. R. Hagan David Lombardi Boise, Langroise, Smylie, “The shall retain the services of Sullivan & Ada Dist. Highway qualified independent ap- professional praiser purpose conducting McFADDEN, Chief Justice. indepen- valuation as an program either or in conjunction dent contractor original is an proceeding This instituted August by petitioners, on assessor’s office.” provisions of the order and P. Arnold and implement Max On June made. Associates, progress into a written Inc. entered APPRAISAL SERV- FOR “CONTRACT Supplemental of this After the issuance agreement with Ada ICES” Com- Order, present Board by the Asses- being approved and executed “policy issued a statement” missioners *3 sor, Clark, of J. and each the L. “Mike” 30, provided This June statement 1977. County of Com- then members of the Board Associates, Inc., that P. Arnold and Max missioners. process to review and would be retained of 24, 1977, appeals of the 1977 Notice Valuations reappraisal while the May On of agents review 1977 roll as the and to the nearing completion, was program the Equalization purpose for of or- Board of supplemental issued a Tax Commission on the any recommendation on final actions findings its that there Reciting in der. roll, reappraisal that the function for procedures to be need reform appeared Assessor, of the 1978 roll would be returned County purposes the offices of the Ada The policy all to the office of Assessor. to insure that Auditor and Treasurer staffing included a for proc- plan statement also uniformly properly data would a staffing plan office and property, reappraisal the valuation of the essed for “permanent for assessment, program tentative audit equalization, levy and collection division,” was independently to audit years, of taxes for 1977 future taxing and results” of the “procedures then directed Ada its Commission provided The statement also system. policy Board Commissioners and Board of of funds Equalization transferring for from the Assessor’s continuing accomplish office in order to Review, 1. of by Equaliza- Board made reappraisal, provisions but no re- tion, re-ap- all values established supervision quiring consent praisal program, including, but not limit- Assessor. protested ed by taxpayers; to those

2. 90 the time to days Extend de June, 1977, reappraisal By the end of protests, all and to submit to the termine roll project completed and the tax an estimated Tax Commission ab The Arnold & Associates. prepared July of the rolls on or before stract to the “transmitted” the roll Assessor 1977. on June County Board of Commissioners verify the stating he was unable to parcel

3. and maintain a Establish I.C. 63-318 and 63- system (required by rolls numbering process- with the data §§ 319) knowledge had no he ing equipment procedures to be used because offices; Equalization ac- map, accuracy. and inven- cepted the roll without verification and de- tory verify all new and to for preparation it to the Auditor taxing district boundaries. livered July the Auditor abstracts. On Establish, 4. under the Board of the abstract of submitted Commissioners, County independent an roll Tax Commission. This processing sys- data audit permanent by the Auditor and abstract was certified procedures tem review and audit all by the Assessor on approved examined and valuation, assessment, and results of transmittal. The State Tax date its equalization, levy, payment collection and the abstract as modi- approved of taxes. 22,1977 (the August Monday fied fourth the Board of Supervise, through 5. August and it was certified on August), Commissioners, the activities of 26, 1977, day proceeding this was insti- relating county officers tuted. assessment, levy and collection stages. taxes at all specifically prohibit seek to Petitioners Commissioners Ada a writ- the Board days within 45 to Submit following from the acts: showing steps taken to report ten acting “a. prohibition From further as is a discretionary remedy, on the ex- granted only when the court is satisfied isting Property 1977 Ada Real the remedy appropriate. is Rust v. Assessment Roll. Stewart, 64 P. 222 As case, interfering

b. From unlawful we held extraordinary manner with the Ada County granted Assessor’s will not be its appropriate- when his employed ness or effectiveness is doubtful. Thus an office. applicant bears the of showing burden respondent acting

c. is without or in transferring lawfully From excess or dedicated to the use its and that the writ will Ada County Assessor’s office.” effectively prevent respondent from so not, however, The court acting. will issue They also seek to the Idaho State *4 e., gesture, writ as an idle i. where no act Tax from following Commission acts: jurisdiction prevented. excess can be “a. acting From on or certifying to Clerk of It past follows act that a will be Court and the Ex-Officio the ex- Auditor subject to a writ. this court As stated in isting 1977 Property Real Stockslager, Bellevue Water Co. v. 4 Idaho Assessment Roll. 636, (1895): 43 P. 568 issuing b. From orders or directives to writ prohibition “The will not issue Assessor which intere- where the act to be restrained has al- feres the direct management [sic] ready been even performed, where the his office.” has performed during act been pend- 5, Article Section 9 of Idaho writ, ency application for the grants juris Constitution this court original reason that the would be writ without diction to writs of prohibition. .issue The 641, effect 4 Idaho 43 any whatever.” function of a of prohibition and the 569. P. at circumstances in it is are appropriate La also: Salle Extension Univ. v. Dis- See 7, 4 generally set out Title of the Chapter Court, 559, trict 52 16 P.2d Idaho 1064 defined, Idaho Code. As therein a writ of Marshall, (1932), and Nelson v. 94 Idaho prohibition extraordinary is an writ issued 726, (1972), citing 497 P.2d 47 Bellevue tribunal, to arrest proceedings of a cor Water, supra, approval. poration, person board or acting without or against sought A. Restraints the Idaho in excess jurisdiction. 7-401. I.C. § Tax By this writ a State Commission judicial court intervenes in or quasi-judicial proceedings to acts prevent or request We turn that petitioners’ proceedings or in authori without excess of this court Idaho State Tax ty. The is remedy preventive therefore “acting certifying Commission from Miller, nature. In 4 re Idaho 43 P. 870 to the Ada of the District County Clerk (1896). However, juris even in cases where existing Court Ex-Officio Auditor exceeded, diction may lacking be a writ Property 1977 Ada Real Assessment prohibition plain, issue only will if no It day Roll.” is that on the documented is speedy adequate remedy at law avail filed, August 26, this action e. i. able. I.C. 7-402. Pfirman Probate See v. acting Tax as the State Commission Court, (1937); 57 Idaho 64 P.2d 849 already had Murphy McCarty, v. 69 Idaho 204 P.2d approved reviewed and abstract of the (1949). 1014 personal roll property real and of Ada County. abstract of roll defining prohibi

In the writ of tion, formally August merely the Idaho Code the was certified on codifies It undisputed characteristics of the common law writ. is further at the time of Morrison, P. no of the Stein certification member Commission law, Under Idaho common the writ knowledge filing had of the instant concerning the acts Any subsequent roll the assessment that since action and prohib court to petitioners ask the roll that and returned already been certified had fall re- statute therefore required no further acts are were it County, there words, County Board the Commission. within quired et had been 63-401 instant action Idaho Code Equalization. §§ the time proce- certification filed, require, in the but only empower, all actions seq. not completed by equali had been as a board of dure to meet commissioners to be nothing remained protests hear and determine zation roll concerning the 1977 tax accomplished 63, Chap Title exemptions. claims have prohibition the writ of could for which require Idaho Code 9 and 10 of the ters writ cannot such facts the issued. Under levies, computation mill determination issue. mailing parcel each tax due on Thus the taxpayers. tax notices Next, request petitioners taken on the 1977 remaining to be actions issuing prohibited Tax Commission prohibited when have been might roll Assessor that directives to the orders or by stat were authorized was filed suit management of his with the direct interfere point have themselves petitioners As petitioners would ute. Again, the actions office. is issued out, completed. prohibition a writ enjoin have been ed have this court further actions Furthermore, point out petitioners prevent fail in and intervene action is is threat of such The writ jurisdiction. where there excess of *5 We therefore being taken in the future. extra- past of forcing for review vehicle prohibition that the writ of should conclude present by prohibiting actions jurisdictional issue to the Commission. juris respondent’s within a plainly actions therefore declines The court diction. against sought B. Restraints using further respondents from prohibit of County Board Commissioners County tax roll. 1977 Ada County Equalization of Board prohibit next seek Petitioners seek to further Petitioners interfering un- County Boards from Equalization County action supervi- with the Assessor’s lawful manner roll, complete. on the 1977 tax which is now by his employed office sion is that petitioners’ argument The crux of to his transferring from carried independent appraisal because the it appears petition From the office. and Max out Commissioners that the Board on the claim this is founded was not within the Commis Arnold up an inde- Commissioners subsequent acts jurisdiction, sioners’ review real to audit and pendent office are in and have and assessment property appraisal and, therefore, excess for funds levied personnel and transferred argument This is un prohibited. should be the Assessor’s of- from purposes tenable. Im- supervision. without his consent or fice reappraisal first notes that The court as to whether mediately question arises two months before at least completed adequate an alternative the Assessor had past act was filed. Because this action un- remedy allegedly for these speedy Water v. prohibited, Bellevue Co. cannot lawful activities.1 decided, supra, it need not be Stockslager, decide, 7-402 embodies the whether Code § decline Idaho expressly and we prohibition jurisdic- law rule that writ exceeded their common the Commissioners speedy and ade only plain, if no with Arnold & Associ- will issue dealings tion in their remedy is available. Cronan at law quate ates. remedy claim for relief Petitioners do not base their for an common law 1. The traditional provisions. alleged usurpation in the these of office is action quo §§ warranto. I.C. 6-602-6-609. nature of 754 Court,

v. District 15 Idaho 96 P. 768 attempt to appeal those actions of the Broxon, (1908); Little v. 31 Idaho 170 County Commissioners of they which com- Court, (1918); P. v. 918 Evans 47 Idaho plain.2 they Nor have shown that appeals (1929); 275 99 P. ex rel. Bank be inadequate would to redress their griev- Leonardson, Eagle v. 51 9 Idaho P.2d They ances. have therefore failed in their Paxton, Olden 27 Idaho showing plain, burden of no speedy (1915), P. this court cited adequate remedy at law is available. approval holding: Florida ease Idaho long Code 7-402 and a line of principle “It is a of universal application, prevent cases court granting one which lies at very foundation writ showing. absent such a prohibition, law of juris- The application for the writ is denied. diction is strictly confined cases where Order to issue. exists, no remedy always and it is sufficient reason withholding BISTLINE, J., COGSWELL, District party

that the aggrieved has another and Judge, concur. complete remedy (High at law. on Ex. LODGE, Judge, specially District Rem., concur- sec. cited.) authorities SCOGGIN, ring, Judge And writ will not be allowed to take (Ret.), concurs. place cases, appeal. of an In all therefore, party where the ample has I concur with reasoning and conclu- remedy by appeal or judg- from the order opinion majority sion as to the denial court, prohibition ment the inferior application prohibi- the writ of lie, pressing will no such necessity However, tion. that the believe statewide appearing in cases as warrant impact this case forces discussion of the interposition of this extraordinary reme- statutory constitutional and relationship dy, being and the writ not one of absolute Commission with not right, but in the resting largely sound Assessor and Board of Commis- *6 discretion of the court.” Sherlock v. sioners, but also county with all assessors. Mayor City Jacksonville, and 17 Fla. 93 important A most element in this is case (1879). petitioners’ argument framed the by cases, In Court, see Cronan v. District assessment duties the Assessor supra, emphasized this court has that an may not be taken from him because he is a is appeal normally adequate remedy at by people. constitutional officer elected the law but that under some circumstances it Petitioners assert that the two orders of the be may adequate prohibi- and a writ of just They Tax Commission did that. also may g., tion therefore issue. E. Spivey v. contend that the authority constitutional Court, 37 Idaho P. by the Assessor was further the eroded (1923). But the burden is on the petitioner County’s appraisal contract with an outside to show that his appeal remedy is inade- authorizing firm firm to conduct the quate. Young, Smith v. 71 Idaho 225 reappraisal giving litigation,1 rise to this (1950). P.2d 466 by and the “policy by statement” issued

The court finds no evidence in the sup- In Commissioners. to record show that petitioners any port contentions, petitioners made rely these inadequate regarding ing may 2. The record appeal is the Coun- of the Board” from which an ty’s alleged ongoing interference with the As- taken under I.C. Nor we if 31-1509. do know by way appeal sessor’s Office of diversion of funds such has ever been taken. personnel. and The record notes that a “policy announcing statement” issued was petitioner-Assessor position 1. As to the this such an intention. We do not know whether light participa- seems untenable in of his actual “policy statement” was ever carried out. tion the execution of the contract between published firm, We do not know whether it was ever appraisal and the outside Max “act, order, proceed- posted as an official P. Arnold and Associates. part legislature an intention on the Commis- Blomquist v. Board specifical- implement the constitution sioners, 284, 137 P. 174 25 Idaho of the assessor power ly setting forth asserting that counter Respondents pur- property for appraise reappraise decided Blomquist the time was of taxation. poses created legislatively Tax 18, Section Today, that Commis- to Article body. Acting pursuant and authorized Constitution, legislature established and constitutionally sion is a of the 63-201, Code, a 1944 a result of Section body as in Idaho authorized has set forth all 12 of the to assess Article assessor duty amendment Section Thus, county. ar- his respondents within wholly Idaho Constitution. situated property longer is no are reasoning Blomquist other duties gue, And, throughout Title apposite. obligation reval- including prescribed, within continuing basis ue on An respondents’ position. disagree duty of the “It be the county: shall Constitution, Blomquist, examination county in the state of each county assessor validity existing supports statutes continuing pro- carry out a to conduct claim. petitioners’ under all properties of valuation gram Blomquist, the Tax Commission .” 63-221. . . I.C. § . his filed an action in this court original provides that this statute fact compel writ of mandate to issuance of a “pursu- duties his perform the assessor shall Bannock as the regulations rules and ant to such substitute valuation the Commis- prescribe,” may commission state tax for a valuation set the Bannock sion the asses- provide is that the Commission County Assessor. This court refused technical assist- sor with reviewing relationship after be- from the fact that not detract ance does tween the constitutional functions carry pro- out” the to “conduct and duty of the elected assessor and duties is There is of the assessor. gram that powers of the Tax statutory Commis- legis- 63-221 that the slightest hint in § sion. Tax Commission intended the State lature While the 1944 constitutional amendment duty to remove power to have obviously referred to above has affected the person. it to third grant the assessor Blomquist statutory discussion of the au- Commission, thority that amend- has legislature evidence that the Further way ment has in no impor- diminished the authority to grant never intended holding Blomquist tance of the court’s Code, found in Idaho the Tax Commission is *7 6, 18, that “Under sec. article of the Consti- which 63-202A, very the statute Section tution, it is essential that the of assessment compliance to order permits the Commission county located a property wholly within with Code and provisions with of the Idaho by by be shall made the assessor elected the statute regulations. That its own rules and (25 county voters of the . . . .” Idaho may order the Commission provides that 292, 176.) holding at 137 P. at That prop- of all reappraisal county to conduct unchanged, remains it has been re-en- pro- county, and further within the erty by Blomquist forced the fact that since and officer affected public that if the vides 1944, subsequent people even to the of Ida- com- does not order of the Commission the ho have amended Article 6 of Section of the the service days ten ply within times, several and each the Constitution “may to a order, apply the Commission position of time have retained the elective county district court the judge of the county assessor. officer holds office for public the which compel public to such offi- ... order I that stat- can find either individual Nor order, comply” to with the employee cer or the scheme of Title 63 or overall utes officer or public the holding why or to show cause have altered the Idaho Code compelled. should not be so contrary, employee both indicate Blomquist. To the the to pursue If Commission elects not the act. statute authorized the Tax provide to provided determination and judicial the Sec- assistance, “commence, technical and to 68-202A, may proceed tion it under an al- continue, and such complete revaluations in provided by the approach legisla- ternative counties where such revaluations have not 63-513(19). That statute ture Section been commenced 1961.” (Emphasis sup- that shall provides the Commission have the S.L.1955, plied.) Ch. Sec. Disre- duty: and power for the moment the garding legisla- lack county “To examine and test the work of tive authority to remove from a constitu- any time and to have and assessors portion tional officer even a of the charac- all rights powers of such as- possess (see teristic duties to belonging that office persons for the sessors examination Callahan, Wright 99 P.2d n and for property, discovery (1940) Blomquist, supra) it is clear taxation; to and if it property subject original that under the enactment Sec- any ascertain that taxable property shall permitted tion 63-221 the Commission was is omitted from assessment rolls or is to a revaluation in a perform county where law, according not assessed or valued it had ignored. law been how- bring shall the same to the attention of ever, that section was replaced by the assessor the proper county in writ- statute, S.L.1969, present Ch. Sec. ing, neglect and if such assessor shall or which an authorization does contain comply request refuse to “commence, the Commission to continue place commission to tax such on complete” revaluations not carried out rolls, the assessment or correct such in- Instead, by the counties. it directs valuation, correct promulgate regu- Commission “to rules and have power pre- commission shall lations implementation pro- roll, pare supplemental supple- gram, provide any county and to asses- property required ment shall include all such supervision sor with and technical as- placed the tax may Moreover, commission be sistance as necessary.” this new statute assessment roll all corrections to be directs board county commissioners to “furnish the assessor with supplement shall be made. Such filed such additional may as roll, assessor’s assessment be required to out” the carry revaluation shall thereafter an integral constitute program. that statutory believe these thereof part por- exclusion legislature changes clearly show original tions assessment rolls in- did not intend Commission have therewith, consistent and shall be sub- power county-wide reap- conduct county to the mitted therewith board of praisals them order conducted added.) (Emphasis equalization.” party, third but rather intended power prepare supple- Neither Commission, commissioners, and the (Section 63-513(19)) roll mental assessment provide necessary assistance to the to seek a court order authority nor the reappraisal. assessor for his conduct of such compliance with an order to re- compelling changes argue against These compellingly (Section 63-202A), appraise property autho- authority the existence of in the Com- *8 to permits rizes the Commission direct county employ mission to order a to third that some than the assessor party party carry reappraisal. to out a duties. perform appraisal nothing I find the legis- Title or in Moreover, legislative history of Sec- history lative 63-221 Section that casts grant tion 63-221 shows such doubt on the continued viability to the Commission is not intended. power Blomquist court’s as holding to con- statute, original text of that as enacted assessor authority county stitutional assessor obligated the county elected people to conduct assessment complete county-wide re- wholly undertake functions as to all situated passage county. years within six valuation budgeted to appear the assessor would of contention point important Another 6 of the Constitu- violate Article Section argu- by petitioners’ is presented this case tion, prohibits which the establishment of forbids Blomquist ment that named any county offices other than those with the to interfere County Commissioners Constitution, court’s decision in the and this in- establishing Assessor’s functions Commissioners, 4 Ida- in Meller Board audit office dependent processing data (1894), that the ho P. 712 which held which office funds transferring to that lack to estab- authority commissioners Respondents Assessor. to the budgeted are lish new office unknown the Constitu- actions the Board’s propriety of argue the already tion and endow it with functions 31-802, provides the basis of I.C. affixed law another office. power with the county commissioners of all conduct the official “supervise - On the issue of whether or not the Board assessing, charged with . . . officers may Commissioners enter into or dis- safekeeping, management collecting, party performance contract with a third reve- moneys and public bursement duties, cases Dexter faithfully per- they and to “see nues” Horton Trust & Bank v. Clearwater Sav. .” . . . their duties form (D.Idaho 1916), 235 F. aff’d 248 (9th 1918), F. 401 Cir. and Meller v. Board respondents’ agree I Again, cannot Commissioners, supra, suggest there is no may 31-802 agree that Section position. present authority for a proposition. division up an audit the Board permit staff, but own administrative as part commis- to the with funds of a new Creation for their staff.

sioners it of funds office, and diversion