Greenlee supervisors begin application to pursue state trust land near ‘the Y’ for housing

The Greenlee County Board of Supervisors voted to begin the formal process of applying to the Arizona State Land Department to acquire state trust land near the area locally called “the Y” — between Loma Linda and Verde Lee along Skyline Drive — for potential housing development. The board did not set precise boundaries at the meeting; the motion instructs staff to start the application and return with recommended parcel dimensions and further analysis.

Why it matters: County leaders say the step is intended to expand local housing supply in an area where private development faces uncertainty because of water availability, infrastructure costs and market risk. Staff and outside consultants told the board that water availability, archaeology and the state land auction process are among the issues that will shape whether any purchase can be used for housing.

In a work session that preceded the vote, county staff outlined two scales under consideration: a smaller roughly 115-acre polygon composed of mostly flat mesa tops near the landfill and park, and a larger “full mesa” option that could total several hundred acres. Staff estimated the smaller parcel could yield about 50–65 half-acre lots (after accounting for roads and setbacks) if developed for single-family housing; they cautioned those are preliminary estimates. “The first question is water. It always is water,” County staff member Derek Rapier told the board during the presentation.

Staff presented a timetable and early cost estimates drawn from a prior state-land acquisition effort, noting the process can be lengthy. “We began this process in August of ’22 and the auction is scheduled to take place June of ’25. So we will be 34 months into it by the time we acquire the land,” County staff member Reid said, describing the sample timeline. Staff said an optimistic, smooth path could be shorter but recommended assuming a multi-year lead time. Initial due‑diligence and survey work for a parcel of this scope was estimated in discussion to run in the low‑to‑mid five figures; other specialty studies (archaeology, geotechnical, hydrology) would add to that cost and timeline.

Water availability was the central technical uncertainty identified in the session. The county has commissioned a desktop hydrogeologic review and scheduled follow-up meetings with the consulting hydrogeologist. County staff said the area sits over the Gila conglomerate formation in places, which offers some prospects for wells, but that additional drilling and testing would be required to move from “encouraging” desktop results to reliable well yields and water quality data. Staff warned that exploratory drilling requires landowner permissions (the candidate parcels are state trust land), and that well testing and treatment (for contaminants like arsenic, which has been an issue for nearby systems) would add cost.

Local water companies are already engaged. A representative of a privately owned local utility (identified in the meeting materials as Cactus State/Verde Lee water interests) provided a preliminary “will serve” posture in discussions with staff but did not guarantee supply. Staff said the utility would expect a developer or the county to prepare engineering plans and pay infrastructure costs; the utility could then execute main‑extension and developer agreements as regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Board members and staff also reviewed development options and legal constraints. County staff described two distinct technical routes: (1) standard subdivision (platting with full public-rights-of-way and infrastructure dedication) and (2) smaller “lot split” or minor land-division approaches that historically have moved faster but can create long-term road, utility and maintenance problems. Staff cautioned that state law and Arizona Department of Real Estate rules limit how some land splits may be sequenced and that the county’s subdivision ordinance currently allows “improved all‑weather surfaces” rather than requiring paved roads, a detail the presentation flagged as a potential policy change to consider.

State Land Department procedures were discussed in detail: the county must file an application, pay a nonrefundable application fee (staff cited a $2,000 figure for the application), and the department may require surveys, environmental and archaeological reviews and an appraisal before holding an auction. Staff said State Land sometimes stages or segments sales rather than selling a large block all at once; more clarity on that staging process is a task the county will pursue. Staff emphasized the state agency’s fiduciary duty to maximize trust returns for schools, so parcels in higher‑value markets can draw internal priority in the department’s work queue.

Board action and next steps: After the discussion the supervisors voted to instruct staff to begin the formal State Land application process and to return with more‑detailed recommended boundaries and follow-up analyses. The board did not adopt a final parcel size at the meeting; members requested more data on water testing, anticipated surveying costs, potential private partners and an approach for phasing or staging development if the county proceeds. Staff said they would pursue additional meetings with the hydrogeologist, the local water utility and State Land, and would return with a recommended application boundary and estimated costs for the next board meeting.

The board’s vote begins a process that staff and outside consultants said could take many months to more than two years depending on the parcel scale, the State Land timeline, and findings from hydrology, archaeology and other due diligence.

What the board did not decide: The supervisors did not set a final parcel boundary, commit county funds for subdivision infrastructure, or authorize county construction. Staff and supervisors repeatedly framed the vote as authorization to pursue the State Land application and assemble more detailed information for future decisions.