Greenlee County board opens formal process to pursue state land at 'the Y' for housing

The Greenlee County Board of Supervisors voted to formally begin the process of acquiring state trust land around the site known locally as “the Y,” directing staff to open an application and continue technical work while the board defines exact parcel dimensions.

The vote followed a two‑hour work session in which county staff reviewed likely parcel configurations, timelines, hydrology findings and options for partnering with private developers or creating a county housing program.

County staff said the parcels under consideration include a mix of relatively flat mesa tops and steeper drainages; preliminary mapping suggests 50–65 half‑acre lots could be developed on the most buildable portions of a roughly 115‑acre footprint, while larger polygon calls could encompass several hundred acres. Reid, a county land‑use specialist, said exact acreages will be set after further surveying and consultation with State Trust Land Office staff.

Why this matters: The board framed the item as an attempt to increase local housing supply in a market tied to mining employment. Staff repeatedly described water availability and treatment, the timing of state processes, and private‑market interest as the riskiest factors for any future subdivision or development. The board voted to initiate the official state‑land application process so the county can gather more information before deciding whether to bid at auction.

What staff told the board County staff laid out three parallel tracks they expect to run: (1) a formal state‑land application and mapping process, (2) a water availability assessment (desktop hydrogeologic study now, possible test wells later) and (3) outreach to potential private partners and local water providers. The county has commissioned a hydrologist’s desktop analysis and has scheduled a follow‑up meeting with that consultant.

Staff estimated the county’s upfront costs to prepare a state‑land application and baseline surveys at roughly $30,000–$50,000 if the footprint and investigative scope grow; earlier, smaller steps (mapping, an initial application fee) would cost substantially less. Staff advised board members that if the process advances to auction, total sunk preparatory costs will be materially higher and the board will face a discrete “decision point” about whether to bid or withdraw.

Water and infrastructure concerns A principal topic during the work session was water. Staff said legal water rights and physical availability are separate questions: even where wells exist nearby, water quality (the presentation noted historical arsenic incidents) and sustainable yield matter to developers and regulators. A local water operator that has bought systems in the region (identified in the meeting as Cactus State/Central States affiliate) provided a statement of interest: the company said it could work with a developer or community owner to extend service, but stressed it would not finance major infrastructure and that developers generally pay up‑front for engineering and extensions. Staff said any required arsenic treatment would add cost.

Timeline and state process County staff described prior experience with state‑land transactions and said the process can be lengthy: earlier local purchases took roughly 24–34 months from initial work to auction, though staff said an optimistic, expedited path could be shorter. The State Trust Land Office has discussed “staging” — selling a single larger call in phases — but staff said the mechanics of staging must be clarified with the trust office.

Market and developer interest Staff summarized earlier housing analyses showing demand concentrated near mines and existing services; they cautioned a single datapoint such as a housing authority waiting list should not be treated as a precise demand forecast. Staff said some private developers have previously examined nearby parcels but withdrawn, often because of unresolved water or infrastructure questions. The board discussed whether the county should act only to enable private development (pre‑zoning, infrastructure planning) or whether the county should itself buy‑and‑prepare parcels — with the latter option requiring much larger financial commitment and exposing taxpayers to development risk.

Options discussed Board members and staff debated tools and structures including: pre‑zoning state land before sale to increase development value; county lot subdivision versus lot splitting; using a county housing authority to develop or finance housing; staged auctions; and public‑private partnerships to move down‑risk steps (e.g., paying for test wells or off‑site infrastructure). Staff cautioned the board against “sunk‑cost” logic and urged that each stage be a stand‑alone decision point: continue, pause, or stop.

Board action and next steps Following discussion, the board voted to direct staff to formally begin the state‑land acquisition process for land near the Y between Loma Linda and Verdelia (exact parcel dimensions to be determined later). Staff said they will meet with the county‑commissioned hydrogeologist and with the State Trust Land Office, refine the polygon that will be filed, continue outreach to potential private partners and report back with additional technical findings and recommended decision points.

What remains unresolved Staff and board members said they do not yet know whether the site has sufficient sustainable groundwater for large‑scale development, nor whether private developers will commit to financing infrastructure. The board acknowledged that the process is likely to take many months and that any final decision to bid at auction would come only after additional technical and market information.

Ending note Supervisors said the goal of starting the process is to assemble the technical and market information needed so the board can make an informed decision later — whether that is selling parcels to a private developer after pre‑zoning, creating mixed income housing through a housing authority, or stepping back if the risks outweigh the benefits.