Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Appeal Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochise County supervisors approve settlement in Michael E. Piper tax appeal
Summary
At a June 10 special meeting, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 to approve a settlement in Michael E. Piper v. Cochise County (TX 2024-000356) following an executive session for legal advice under Arizona law; the transcript does not disclose settlement terms.
The Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 on June 10 at a special meeting in Bisbee to approve a proposed settlement in the tax appeal Michael E. Piper v. Cochise County, TX 2024-000356, a case then pending in the Arizona Tax Court sitting in Maricopa County.
The vote followed an executive session called under Arizona Revised Statutes §38-431.03(A)(3) and (4) to receive legal advice and to consider and instruct the county's attorneys on the public body's position in pending litigation. The board entered executive session at 10:38 a.m. and returned to open session at 10:51 a.m., after which a motion to approve the settlement was made, seconded and approved unanimously, with the meeting record showing a 3-0 vote in favor.
County meeting attendees identified in the public record included Supervisors Crosby (District 1), Gomez (District 2) and Antonoria (District 3); Attorney Bert Whitehead and paralegal Louisa Cacotta from the county attorney's office were noted as participating in the executive session. Additional staff present in the boardroom were identified by name in the transcript (Lowenhaim, Gilman, Leyendecker, the county assessor and Joe Casey) but their roles were not specified in the public remarks.
The transcript records the motion language as a request to "approve this proposed settlement of the large tax appeal in Michael E. Piper versus Cochise County, TX 2024-000356, now pending in Arizona Tax Court, a division of the Superior Court in and for Maricopa County." The public portions of the meeting do not include any discussion of the settlement's monetary terms or the practical effect on the county budget or taxpayer liability; those details were not specified in the transcript.
After the vote the board adjourned the special meeting and noted a separate 1:00 p.m. work session the same day in the hearing room to discuss public works. The transcript contains no further public discussion of the Piper settlement or of any follow-up actions assigned to staff.
No direct quotes of substantive terms were provided in the public record; the board indicated only that the settlement was approved and recorded the unanimous vote.
