Cochise County supervisors debate Bisbee, Tombstone and other sites for new jail; public meeting to be scheduled

Cochise County supervisors on July 1 discussed potential locations for a proposed new county jail and gave staff direction to schedule a public meeting to gather input and potentially place a vote on the site on a later agenda.

“The purpose of today's meeting is to provide an opportunity for the board to discuss the possible site location of a new jail,” Phil Bourdon, the project manager, told the board as he summarized a planning study that evaluated six candidate sites. The study’s top-ranked sites were the existing jail property in Bisbee and a parcel adjacent to the County Administration complex on Melody Lane (State Route 92).

Why it matters: supervisors pressed tradeoffs between lower up-front infrastructure costs at the existing Bisbee location and long-term access for county population centers. Supporters of rebuilding at the existing Bisbee site emphasized existing utilities, nearby county facilities that could be reused and the jail workforce already located near Bisbee; others argued locating the facility closer to growing population centers could reduce transport time for police and families.

Bourdon, summarizing the May 2025 planning study by Chin Planning and cost estimates prepared with DLR, said the existing Bisbee site already has utilities on site and county-owned land (two parcels totaling about 65 acres). He cautioned that the planning study used generalized blocking diagrams and that final design work could reduce the facility square footage and alter site layouts. “When you start designing this, you're gonna bring on a team that's gonna come out ... and they'll work with the county to reduce the square footage of the facilities and optimize the use of any property for that design process,” he said.

The Tombstone site — state trust land near Highway 80 and Davis Road by the Tombstone Airport — lacks sewer and other utilities in close proximity and therefore carries higher estimated utility costs, Bourdon said. He cited study estimates that utility work for the Tombstone option would be roughly $14–15 million, compared with about $2 million estimated for the existing Bisbee site; Sierra Vista was estimated at about $7 million for utilities.

The county sheriff’s office told the board that existing operational practices could mitigate longer transport times if the jail were located away from Bisbee. “We currently have two jail substations, one in Wilcox and one in Sierra Vista, that are utilized for booking,” Commander Bradshaw said. Those substations, Bradshaw said, allow local police to book persons short-term before they are later transported to the main facility.

Several supervisors emphasized workforce, local economic impacts and timeline. “I want to build a jail tomorrow. It should've been built yesterday,” Supervisor Gomez said, arguing that rebuilding at the current Bisbee location would be quicker and less costly for taxpayers because the county already owns the land and utilities are in place. Other supervisors urged consideration of future population growth in Benson, Douglas and Sierra Vista and asked for a formal cost-benefit analysis before making a site decision.

Bourdon warned that acquiring new property or assembling multiple privately owned parcels could add time to the project because of appraisals, negotiations and, if necessary, eminent-domain processes. “When you start acquiring ... that is a time killer,” he said.

The planning-study background: the board previously commissioned a jail planning study (Chin Planning, May 2025) that evaluated six sites: Benson, Sierra Vista, Douglas, Tombstone, the Bisbee Melody Lane parcel adjacent to the county administration complex, and the existing Bisbee jail site. That study removed Sierra Vista from consideration earlier in the process after a conservation easement was found on a Sierra Vista parcel and identified Bisbee and Melody Lane as the two highest-ranked sites.

Board direction and next steps: the board did not take a formal vote during the work session. Supervisors directed staff to schedule a public meeting in the near term to gather community input on site location and said they could place a site vote on the same special-meeting agenda if desired. Sharon (staff) was tasked with coordinating the meeting time; a supervisors’ agenda item to consider an owner’s representative was already scheduled for a July 23 meeting.

Budget context and timeline: speakers referenced earlier cost estimates and bond planning. Bourdon and supervisors discussed a previous planning estimate near $200 million that some officials said had been revised downward in later discussions to roughly $120 million; board members said those cost estimates and the timeline for construction and bonding remain key considerations for choosing a site.

The board also agreed to host public outreach so citizens can review options and comment on siting before any formal action. The work session adjourned with staff directed to return with scheduling and site-specific materials the board requested, including utility maps and more detailed cost comparisons.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the work session.