The Cochise County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the boards for several light improvement districts, on a unanimous voice vote approved final budgets for fiscal year 2025–26 for six unincorporated-area districts and discussed how utility companies maintain the lights those budgets pay for.

The adopted budgets, approved during a special meeting called by the Board of Supervisors, set levy funding to pay streetlight utility bills in the Bowie, Golden Acres, Knockhill (labeled in the meeting as “Nauqua/NAWA” in one motion), Porterville and SunSites light improvement districts. The board approved the minutes for the districts’ June 10 meeting on the consent agenda before taking the budget votes.

Each district’s final budget and the board’s roll-call outcome: Bowie Light Improvement District, $14,183 (approved 3–0); Golden Acres Light Improvement District, $8,388 (approved 3–0); a district recorded in the meeting as “Nauqua/NAWA,” $9,931 (approved 3–0); Porterville Light Improvement District, $32,044 (approved 3–0); and SunSites Light Improvement District, $34,364 (approved 3–0). The consent motion to approve the minutes also passed by the same unanimous voice vote.

Why it matters: the budgets set available funds and, together with reserves and anticipated utility trends, underlie the property tax rates that pay for exterior street lighting in unincorporated parts of Cochise County. During the meeting, at least one supervisor raised concerns about whether the county is receiving the service taxpayers are paying for and whether the electric utility is accountable for repairs and ongoing maintenance.

Supervisor Gomez pressed staff on whether the county has a contract with Arizona Public Service (APS) or similar providers that requires lights to be kept working. “So in the contract, is there anything that says that APS has to make sure these lights are on?” she asked. Finance staff responded that the county does not have a separate contract with APS for those lights because they are in APS’s service area and the county pays based on utility billing rather than through a maintenance contract.

Gomez framed the concern in taxpayer terms, saying residents expect functioning lighting for taxes they pay. “The citizens are paying the taxes on their bill. Right? To have to go out and check and see what the lights are...that just doesn’t seem right,” she said, adding that during recent campaigning she observed many lights out.

A staff member who presented the budgets said the county pays based on usage and monitors utility trends, and that county facilities personnel already do periodic early-morning drive-throughs and could be asked to take additional spot checks in affected communities. The staff member offered to have facilities personnel perform spot checks in Porterville and asked supervisors to continue encouraging residents to report outages.

A member of the board raised a separate procedural question about whether Golden Acres had been annexed into the City of Sierra Vista, which would affect the district’s status; the meeting record does not show an annexation determination or a definitive answer during the hearing.

All budget items were handled individually: the board took public-hearing procedures for the group of budgets, then moved through separate motions and voice votes for each district. The meeting record shows no amendments to the proposed budgets; each motion’s stated dollar amount was approved as presented.

The board adjourned following the votes and noted the next agenda item would be a library district meeting to approve minutes, demands and a final budget.

(Quotes attributed to speakers and attributions reflect the meeting transcript.)