Opinion ID: 2623475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the county excise board is authorized to resolve funding disputes related to the visual inspection program.

Text: ¶ 12 The Assessor submitted Tulsa County's proposed visual inspection plan [20] to the Tax Commission for 2003 2006 on September 26, 2002. The plan was approved on November 14th. The County Commissioners and the Assessor argue that the statutory scheme limits the Excise Board's discretion in altering the visual inspection budget to upholding the visual inspection plan approved by the Tax Commission. [21] The Excise Board and the School Districts contend that the statutory language does not support such an argument. [22] We agree. ¶ 13 The Excise Board's general supervisory powers over the budgeting process are contained in 19 O.S.2001 § 1414. Under the statute, the Excise Board may strike and disregard any amounts deemed unlawful or reduce figures exceeding legally supported appropriations. [23] Section 2820(C) of title 68 [24] requires that county assessors submit their four-year visual inspection plans to the Tax Commission for approval. If those plans are found wanting, the Tax Commission may modify the plan to ensure the four-year cycle is completed and adequate property use samples are collected for valuation purposes. Budgeting disputes relating to the visual inspection program are specifically addressed in 68 O.S.2001 § 2822(C). The statute provides in pertinent part: . . . Any disputes as to the amount authorized to carry out the countywide visual inspection program shall be resolved by the county excise board; provided, the Oklahoma Tax Commission shall take such action as may be necessary to ensure that such amounts are used exclusively to carry out the countywide visual inspection program and that the allocation of such amounts does not serve to decrease other funds allocated to the office of county assessor. [Emphasis supplied.] The Legislature has used clear and mandatory language [25] in the statute stating that funding disputes shall be resolved by the Excise Board. Under the statute, the Tax Commission's role is limited to ensuring thatonce the excise board has made a funding determination  amounts allocated by the excise board to the visual inspection program are used exclusively for the program's purpose and that funds so apportioned are not utilized to decrease the assessor's general obligation funds. ¶ 14 Clay v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County, 1997 OK 13, 935 P.2d 294, like the instant cause, involved the visual inspection program in Tulsa County. In Clay, the Court was asked to determine whether school districts were required to pay the costs of the visual inspection program as budgetary items or whether the payment could be deducted from sinking funds. Although we held that payment could not be made from the school districts' sinking funds, we determined that an assessor could compel payment by filing an original action in the District Court for a writ of mandamus during the fiscal year, and, if necessary, for the amount to be included in the school district's budget allowing for recovery outside the fiscal year. ¶ 15 Clay also involved the authority of the Excise Board to determine the Assessor's budget. The school districts challenged the Assessor's placement of twenty-two employees in the revaluation budget. The school districts did not present evidence to show the Excise Board's abuse of discretion in approving the budget or in the trial court's upholding of the decision. Therefore, the school districts were denied relief. In doing so, this Court specifically recognized that [T]he Excise Board has discretion in determining the budget of the Assessor. [26] ¶ 16 To adopt the County Commissioner's, the Budget Board's and the Assessor's positionthat the Tax Commission's approved plan governs funding disputeswe would be required to read a nonexistent exception into the specific statutory mandate of 68 O.S.2001 § 2822(C) [27] providing that it is the Excise Board which will resolve funding disputes relating to the visual inspection program. Additionally, we would have to ignore our decision in Clay v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County, 1997 OK 13, 935 P.2d 294 recognizing the Excise Board's discretion in determining the Assessor's budget. We decline to do so. [28] Instead, we determine that the Excise Board has discretion in resolving funding disputes concerning the visual inspection budget. [29]