Cochise supervisors direct county attorney to seek Arizona Supreme Court review of A and P Ranch decision

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted Aug. 5 to direct the Cochise County Attorney’s Office to file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeals decision in A and P Ranch Limited v. Cochise County after a closed‑door legal discussion.

The action follows an executive session invoked under Arizona open‑meeting law authorizing discussions and legal advice on pending litigation. The board moved to pursue appellate review and approved the direction by voice vote.

Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §38‑431.03(A)(3) and (4), the board held an executive session to “discuss with counsel” the Court of Appeals decision and to consider legal strategy. The board also cited confidentiality of executive session minutes under Arizona Revised Statutes §38‑431.03(B).

Supervisor Gomez moved to “direct Cochise County Attorney’s Office to file a petition to review to the Arizona Supreme Court in the Court of Appeals decision in A and P Ranch Limited versus Cochise County.” A second was made and the board approved the motion by voice vote; Supervisor Tom Crosby responded “Aye.” The motion as recorded directs county counsel to initiate the petition for review; the meeting transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.

Board members and staff present for the executive session who were listed on the record included Supervisor Tom Crosby, Supervisor Antonori, Supervisor Gomez, Clerk of the Board Laura Lowenheim, County Attorney Laurie Zuko, Sharon Gillman (staff), Deputy Joe Casey, County civil attorney Paul Correa, Assessor Phil Leinecker, Deputy Assessor Felix Dagnino, and budget manager Stacy Penhouse.

After the vote, supervisors discussed next steps including whether to engage co‑counsel and coordinating with the assessor’s office to draft potential legislation. The board directed staff and counsel to follow up; the transcript indicates members planned a separate discussion about engaging co‑counsel and coordinating with the assessor and other stakeholders but does not record any final engagement of outside counsel or the content of draft legislation.

The board convened the special meeting for 9 a.m. and adjourned to the regular board meeting at 10 a.m. The transcript does not specify deadlines for filing the petition, the legal grounds to be raised on review, nor any estimated costs for appellate work.