DISCUSSION I. The County was not required to hold a public auction before entering into the cooperative agreement ¶ 7 In reviewing a summary judgment in a case involving undisputed material facts, we independently review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Ass’n, 204 Ariz. 91, 92, ¶ 6, 60 P.3d 231, 232 (App. 2002). ¶ 8 This ease presents an issue of statutory interpretation. Johnson, characterizing the agreement between the County and the City as a lease, relies primarily on §§ 11-251(9) and -256 to support his argument that all leases or subleases of county property must, absent a unanimous vote of the board of supervisors, be put up for public auction. See Davis v. Hidden, 124 Ariz. 546, 548, 606 P.2d 36, 38 (App.1979) (<HOLDING>). Appellees claim that the agreement is not a
holding that a healthcare power of attorney conferred by a resident to his wife explicitly limited the powers of the agent to those set out in writing in the document holding that a probate courts jurisdiction is limited to that expressly conferred or which is necessarily implied from those expressly conferred holding the facility had certain powers despite fact that statute did not expressly confer those powers because facility does not derive power solely from statute holding entities created by statute can only exercise the powers granted to them by the legislature holding that the board of supervisors possesses only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied therefrom