Opinion ID: 2636990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the district court have the authority to declare Ordinance 66 void?

Text: The adoption of Ordinance 66 was a legislative action by the county commissioners. Cooper v. Board of County Commissioners, 101 Idaho 407, 614 P.2d 947 (1980). In Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983), we held that legislative actions by county commissioners cannot be attacked by a petition for judicial review. The petition filed by the respondents in this case was clearly a petition for judicial review. It was entitled, Notice of Appeal Petition for Review. The petition referred to Mr. and Mrs. Scott and Mr. Cogger as Appellants both in the caption and in the body of the petition. The petition contained a single count, the allegations of which began: 1. Appellant's appeal and request judicial review of the decision filed by Respondent Gooding County Commission in the appeal to the Gooding County Commission for the Gooding County Planning and Zoning Commission issuance of CAFO siting permit No. G99-183. The commissions [sic] written Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were entered on June 14, 1999. The petition alleged that the Appellants had exhausted all available administrative remedies and are entitled to appeal under Idaho Code § 67-5271 [2] and that venue was proper. It then alleged, This appeal and petition for judicial review is taken upon issues of fact and law. The petition concluded with a list of eleven issues on appeal which appellants intend to assert. [3] The district court initially interpreted this case as being solely a petition for judicial review. After the district court issued its Memorandum Decision on Appeal voiding Ordinance 66, the Gooding County parties pointed out in their petition for rehearing that the district court had no authority to invalidate the ordinance on a petition for judicial review. Only then did the district court find that the petition also included a claim for declaratory relief. The petition listed as an issue on appeal, Whether the Gooding County CAFO Ordinance is valid and enforceable as adopted. Because that issue could not be resolved in a petition for judicial review, the district court held that Mr. and Mrs. Scott and Mr. Cogger must have intended the inclusion of the issue to constitute a claim for declaratory relief. There is nothing in the record below indicating that they intended their petition for judicial review to include a claim for declaratory relief. In fact, they attempted to withdraw from their appeal the issue of the validity of the ordinance. They likewise have not participated in this appeal from the district court's judgment declaring the ordinance void. The petition filed by Mr. and Mrs. Scott and Mr. Cogger was, on its face, clearly a petition for judicial review challenging the issuance of the CAFO siting permit, and it was clearly intended by them to be a petition for judicial review. The district court did not have authority to rule upon the validity of Ordinance 66. Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983). Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings.