Consultants present plan for new Cochise County jail, recommend 468-bed facility and site analysis

Consultants presented a final draft jail planning study to the Cochise County Jail District board on Tuesday, May 20, recommending a 468-bed replacement facility and providing a six-site comparison for Cochise County.

The study, summarized by consultant Karen Shemachin, lays out a 204,760 gross-square-foot program for a 468-bed jail with a support core sized to serve up to 600 inmates, and recommends building initially closer to 400 beds while preserving future expansion options. "The recommendation ... is a 468 bed jail," Shemachin said, and the program includes specialized housing, a 48‑bed medical/mental health unit and separate units for females and youthful offenders.

Why it matters: The consultants said length of stay, not admissions, is driving the county jail population upward and that operational changes could reduce the number of beds the county ultimately needs. The board heard both design concepts and practical tradeoffs — including utility and access costs for remote sites, transportation impacts for staff and inmates, and financing options — to inform a future site selection and budgeting decision.

Key findings and numbers

- Population and jail trends: Cochise County population was described in the study as about 125,000, with projections for growth through 2040. The consultant reported average daily population (ADP) had historically been about 250–300, rose to roughly 315 in 2022 and about 335 in 2023, and that admissions overall are down from earlier years. The consultant emphasized that rising average length of stay (from about 16 days to over 20 days) is the main driver of the ADP increase.

- Snapshot demographics and conditions: The consultant reported a one-day snapshot where 85% of inmates were male, 69% identified as white, 82% were pretrial, 28% had been detained over 100 days, 54% had a bond set (46% did not), roughly 65% were Cochise County residents and about 79.5% were U.S. citizens.

- Facility program and alternatives: The recommended program totals roughly 204,760 building gross square feet for 468 beds, with housing mostly double-occupancy and some single cells for medical/special management. The program includes intake and screening areas, a medical/mental-health clinic, an arraignment courtroom and a superior courtroom that could reduce transportation needs if judges agree to hold some proceedings at the jail.

- Cost and operating estimates: The study gave a planning per-diem operating cost of about $127 per inmate per day for the proposed facility (including staff, benefits and non-personnel costs). The consultants noted contingencies and that site choice and bed count are major cost drivers. They gave a rough schedule of about 3½–4 years from site-selection to occupancy under an uninterrupted timeline and described construction and procurement options intended to help control costs.

- Site analysis: Consultants presented six candidate sites for comparison — Benson (I‑10/North Sycamore Road area), Tombstone (SR‑80/Davis Road area), Sierra Vista (near Charleston/Mohsen Road), Douglas (near SR‑191 north of the Douglas Airport), a Bisbee Melody Lane site, and the existing Bisbee jail site. The evaluation considered utility availability (water, sewer, gas, power, telecom), topography, proximity to population centers, access for deliveries and transportation, and the possibility of reusing existing county facilities. Several sites would require substantial utility extension or package treatment plants; the consultants flagged those utility extensions as large contributors to site cost variance.

Discussion of operational alternatives

Consultants and jail staff discussed several operational strategies intended to reduce length of stay and future bed needs, including expanded pretrial screening, electronic monitoring, more uniform initial appearance/bond processes, increased case management for probation violators, and improved intake screening to identify people better served by community-based programs. Karen Shemachin referenced examples from other jurisdictions where targeted monitoring and case management substantially reduced failure-to-appear rates and daily jail population.

At the meeting Lieutenant Heiser explained the jail population dynamics around the COVID period, saying that when the jail restrictions eased "they were bringing in the misdemeanors. They were bringing in the warrants. They were bringing in probation," which contributed to an uptick after the initial COVID dip.

Site selection tradeoffs

Consultants said the sites range widely in off-site utility costs; they cited a spectrum of off-site costs from roughly under $1 million to as much as $12 million depending on site and needed extensions. The team recommended weighing site purchase cost, utility extensions, grading and wash/basin challenges, workforce access, transportation impacts for staff and inmate transports, and the potential to co-locate a future courthouse or sheriff's facilities as part of a long-term campus plan.

Board and staff process and next steps

Presenters urged early engagement with court leadership, the county attorney, public defender and probation to lock in operational changes (for example, arraignment and bond practices and any courtroom placement at the jail) that affect the needed bed count and facility circulation. Consultants recommended choosing a project delivery method (construction manager‑at‑risk or design‑build) that brings contractors into the design phase early to help contain costs. The study team proposed an initial planning path that would allow the county to start design and procurement while continuing to monitor operational steps that could reduce the ultimate bed count.

Quotes from meeting participants

"The recommendation ... is a 468 bed jail," consultant Karen Shemachin said, summarizing the program and options for staging fewer beds at opening while preserving expansion capacity.

"They were bringing in the misdemeanors. They were bringing in the warrants. They were bringing in probation," Lieutenant Heiser said in explaining a COVID-period reversal that materially affected jail population trends.

Meeting schedule and funding discussion

Consultants provided an illustrative timeline of roughly 3½–4 years from site selection to occupancy under an uninterrupted schedule and noted shakedown and staff training time after construction. The team also described financing options and referenced preliminary discussions with financial advisors and underwriters; presenters encouraged the county to develop a firm budget target and pursue a procurement and project‑management structure early in design to manage cost risk.

Ending

No formal board action was taken at the work session. The consultants concluded the presentation and the board set follow-up items including further site analysis, additional coordination with judicial stakeholders, and a next work session to continue the discussion.