Cochise County supervisors approve $130,000 settlement, suspend jail tax until Nov. 2025 election

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors on March 21 voted 3-0 to direct county staff to finalize a settlement in the litigation Daniel LaChance v. Cochise County and to suspend collection of the proposed jail sales tax until and unless a new election is held in Nov. 2025.

Supervisor Kathleen Gomez moved that the county "suspend the collection of the tax until and unless a new election is held Nov. 2025, to agree to pay $130,000 to plaintiff Daniel LaChance and to agree that it is contingent upon approval of the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss." The board approved the motion by voice vote, with the meeting record showing a 3-0 tally in favor.

The motion directs county counsel staff member Lesota to complete the settlement agreement. The action follows an executive session held under Arizona Revised Statutes ARS 38-431.02(H) and ARS 38-431.03(B) to discuss "ongoing litigation and potential settlement" in the case identified in the meeting as CV20-40150-PR.

Supervisor Kathleen Gomez said the board remained committed to building a new jail but wanted the funding question decided by voters. "I want to make clear to the public who's listening that the board is committed to building a new jail... that is why we are insisting on holding an election in 2025 so that we can bring this back to the public," Gomez said.

Chairman Antinori added the board is "committed to making sure things are done properly, specifically with regard to elections and the way elections are conducted in this county," and said the settlement steps are intended to ensure there is no doubt about public support for funding the jail through a sales tax.

Supervisor Crosby briefly concurred with Gomez and Antinori, saying their points "are well taken." The board returned to regular session at 10:54 a.m. after the vote and then adjourned.

The settlement is recorded in the meeting as contingent on the filing and approval of a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the pending lawsuit; the board did not provide additional public details about the settlement terms beyond the dollar amount and the suspension of tax collection. The motion did not name who seconded it in the public record. The board identified participants present for the executive session, including county staff and elections officials, but no further public actions on the tax or construction timetable were taken in the meeting.

Next steps indicated by the motion are for county staff to complete the agreement and for parties to file the joint motion to dismiss the case; the timing for those filings and any subsequent actions to place a tax question on the Nov. 2025 ballot were not specified in the meeting record.