and we do not discern such support from our review of the law. The statutes governing counties do not provide for county administrative officers, apparently leaving the creation of such positions to the boards of supervisors. Because other counties may not have “administrative officers” with duties similar to Maricopa County’s administrative officer, interpreting “chief executive officer” to refer to different entities or persons depending on the identity of the county at issue would create unwarranted confusion. See Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 191 Ariz. 77, 80, 952 P.2d 315, 318 (App.1997) (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”); see Nielson v. Patterson, 204 Ariz. 530, 531, ¶ 5, 65 P.3d 911, 912 (2003) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 10 The Blauvelt court’s identification of a
holding that statutes are to be interpreted in accordance with the legislative intent and in a manner that will not render the statutes application absurd unreasonable or unjust internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that statutes should not be interpreted so as to render any of its provisions nugatory holding same holding that subsequently enacted federal statutes trump the rules of civil procedure holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes