
    535 P.2d 1051
    Colin W. DODSON and Etta Louise Dodson, husband and wife, Janies Charles Carruth and Sarah Virginia Carruth, husband and wife, Edwin T. Kay and Nancy B. Kay, husband and wife, John T. Hamilton III, Homer A. Dodge and Ardes K. Dodge, husband and wife, Fort Lowell Park Apartments, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Henry Kaldenbaugh and Elizabeth H. Kaldenbaugh, husband and wife, William N. Rosecrans and Jennie L. Rosecrans, husband and wife, Paul G. Rees, Jr. and Donna S. Rees, husband and wife, Everett Queen, Jr., and Charlotte G. Queen, husband and wife, Allan Elias and Margery Elias, husband and wife, and Robert L. Hale and Mary F. Hale, husband and wife, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Jack E. BADE, Pima County Assessor, James Lee Kirk, Pima County Treasurer, Dennis Weaver, Thomas S. Jay and James J. Murphy, as members of the Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Pima County, Arizona, a body politic, Pima County Board of Equalization, Board of Equalization of the State of Arizona, Arizona State Board of Property Tax Appeals and State of Arizona, a body politic, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
    No. 11666-PR.
    Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.
    June 2, 1975.
    Hillock & Richards by Malcolm L. Hillock, Tucson, for appellants and cross-appellees.
    Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by James D. Winter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees and cross-appellants.
    Beer & Kalyna by Olgerd W. Kalyna, Phoenix, for amicus curiae.
   PER CURIAM.

In this matter, the Court of Appeals in an unpublished memorandum decision on June 6, 1974, held, for the reasons stated in the court’s opinion Hillock v. Bade, 22 Ariz.App. 46, 523 P.2d 97 (1974), that the action of the Pima County Assessor pursuant to a county, three-year, cyclical reevaluation plan was constitutional under Article 9, § 1, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. We accepted review to examine into the question.

Our conclusions are in accord with those expressed by the Court of Appeals.

The memorandum decision is approved and judgment is ordered in favor of appellees, cross-appellants as directed therein.  