Cochise County details multi‑year road and bridge projects, schedules and funding gaps

Cochise County engineers told the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 30 that a slate of road and bridge projects — including long‑running work on Davis Road, design for Mohsin Road, scoping for several timber bridges and a public hearing on adding or dropping maintenance of county roads — will proceed over the next several years but remain dependent on grants and state interagency approvals.

County Engineer Jack, who presented the update, said the county has been “working on Davis Road since the mid, 2005” to address drainage and make the road passable in all weather, and that the project has risen in priority with a new commercial port of entry expected to open in 2028. “We should have those plans updated 2026 and then construction starting next year,” Jack said, and added the project requires a new NEPA clearance. He also said the county has a grant and HEERF funds allocated to the effort.

The county described the Davis Road work as targeted repairs to flooding and safety problem locations and not a full lane expansion; Jack said the design includes 8‑foot shoulders on segments from Central Highway to State Highway 191 and a realignment at milepost 5 to soften a sharp curve. Supervisor Gomez expressed concern about increased truck traffic reaching Tombstone and Benson if the road is improved.

On Mohsin Road (7.8 miles), Jack said design work is advancing to 60% and the county received a $6,100,000 grant; he estimated roughly $2,000,000 would remain to complete design and right‑of‑way work. The project includes spot improvements for sight distance and eight‑foot shoulders; an open house drew about 150 attendees, Jack said.

James Ranch Road and the commercial port of entry are in final design with ADOT participation. Jack said ADOT has provided about $27.5 million and the project needs roughly $20 million more. The county’s earlier concept design included two roundabouts; Jack said the current budgeted plan omits roundabouts to reduce costs and avoid flooding complications, and the county will issue a correction letter to stakeholders who still have the old plan.

Multiple bridge projects are in scoping or design. Jack listed Whitewater Draw (Rucker Road, mile 15.7), a 1937 wooden bridge with a 5‑ton posted load that is vulnerable during rain events; Leslie Canyon and Middlemarch bridges, both timber structures with 10‑ton limits; and a one‑lane bridge on another canyon road that was replaced to its prior one‑lane configuration after an overweight truck caused the earlier failure. The county has applied for ‘‘off‑system bridge’’ grant funds and intends to move forward with scoping and design when funding cycles permit. For one site with scour at Turkey Creek, Jack said natural channel and scour remedies are being designed with the local NRCD and an upstream consultant; he explained that scour — loss of material around bridge footings — threatens bridge stability and must be addressed downstream to protect the structure.

Jack said a Leslie Canyon precast box culvert design is being prepared in‑house to address a mile‑post 8.6 culvert with a 10‑ton limit that forces some residents onto 35‑mile detours for water deliveries. The county noted it has more than 300 FEMA‑documented crossings on county roads and will prioritize improvements by traffic volume and consequence of failure.

The board discussed public outreach for a Nov. 6 public hearing on proposed additions and drops from the county’s maintenance list. Jack said the county will mail postcards to about 4,000 property owners whose roads are under consideration and that the board will vote on adding or dropping roads at a later meeting. He said the county expects 200–300 attendees at the hearing and that logistics may require a larger venue such as a high‑school auditorium or Cochise College.

Supervisors and staff repeatedly noted that many projects have long histories: Davis Road efforts trace back to the mid‑2000s, and the county is implementing elements of the 2015 long‑range transportation plan. Several presenters said implementation depends on additional grant awards, ADOT funding and interagency agreements; Supervisor Crosby volunteered to coordinate with ADOT contacts and said he would speak with Mark Sanders at ADOT and other partners about funding and scope. Jack told the board the county will bring an ADOT intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for one bridge scoping project back to the board likely in November.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the work session; the discussion was informational and staff‑directed next steps and outreach.

The board ended the session with a reminder of a separate meeting on the county’s vaccination policy later the same day.