Cochise County reviews owner's representative proposal, 90-day plan as jail bond and publicity timetable loom

Cochise County officials heard a presentation July 23 from Banner, a construction and program management firm proposed as an owner's representative for the county's planned jail replacement, and discussed next steps including a 90-day startup plan, budget targets and materials for the ballot publicity pamphlet.

The presentation came during a work session of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors and the Cochise County Jail District board. Sharon Gilman, the county administrator, introduced the Banner team and said the county completed a jail-planning study in May and is moving into design and construction planning.

Banner project manager Cody Newsom said Banner would act as an advocate and independent third-party representing the county throughout planning, design and construction. "I will be your principal in charge for the new jail project," Newsom said. He described Banner's experience with detention projects and said the firm's role is to protect taxpayer dollars and help the county make informed decisions during design and construction.

Banner project director Mike Bieber and project manager Shannon Lobdell detailed services Banner would provide, including stakeholder coordination, budget and schedule controls, risk management and drafting a project management plan. Lobdell described a 90-day action plan Banner would use to start the project: team kickoff and stakeholder workshops, finalize roles and responsibilities, review the planning study and establish project controls and reporting.

The Banner team presented budget and schedule assumptions repeatedly during the session. They said a practical starting budget the team would use as a baseline is about $120 million, with county staff and supervisors discussing a planning range near $120 million to $130 million. Banner estimated programing and design could take about 12–15 months, with construction starting 18–24 months after project initiation depending on delivery method and other factors. "We could program and design in 12 to 15 months and start construction in probably 18 to 24," Newsom said as a preliminary estimate.

Banner described delivery-method options allowed under state procurement law and the tradeoffs of each: traditional design-bid-build, construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) with a guaranteed maximum price and design-build. Lobdell and Bieber emphasized that CMAR or design-build can reduce schedule risk and bring contractor input earlier in the design cycle, while noting procurement must follow state statute and local procurement rules.

Supervisors pressed on public engagement and the fall ballot timetable. Several supervisors said the publicity pamphlet and the ballot question must present concise, accurate cost and schedule information to voters. Supervisors and Banner discussed available funds the county already has—about $10 million set aside from existing taxes—and a possible $20 million state allocation referenced by county staff, which together could reduce the bond amount the county would need to issue. Gilman and Banner agreed the board should set a design-to-cost target before contracting with design teams.

Banner confirmed it has not yet been placed under contract. County staff said they plan to return a proposed scope of work and fee schedule to the Board of Supervisors for approval; staff suggested that could be placed on the Aug. 5 agenda. Gilman told the Banner team she expected a final scope could be provided "by the end of next week" for board consideration, and supervisors asked Banner to provide a high-level milestone schedule suitable for the publicity pamphlet.

Discussion also covered operational and system-level issues raised by the county's CHIN planning report (referred to in the meeting as the planning study). Supervisors and Banner discussed parallel work the county would need to pursue with justice-system stakeholders — the courts, probation and the presiding judge — to implement programs the planning report recommended to reduce future jail population. Banner said it can help coordinate that stakeholder work and that the design should plan for immediate needs while allowing future expansion.

No formal contract award or motion to authorize a contract was taken during the work session. Instead, supervisors and staff agreed to return a recommended scope and fee for board action, and Banner was asked to provide documents and a high-level schedule the county can use in the ballot publicity materials.

The work session closed with the board reiterating the priorities supervisors had repeatedly voiced during the meeting: a clear project budget, a realistic milestone schedule for public materials, and ongoing transparency with the sheriff's office and other stakeholders as the county moves toward potential bond financing and subsequent design work.