Residents demand forensic audit and clear ballot language as Cochise County considers jail bond

Public commenters at a June 17 meeting of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors acting as the Cochise County Jail District Board of Directors pressed elected officials to conduct a forensic audit, provide detailed ballot language and account for money already collected before placing a new jail bond before voters.

“The taxpayers demand real and timely accountability,” said Randall Limbach, a Sierra Vista resident, who asked whether any bond amount would be reduced by “money on hand,” whether a bond would require a tax increase and whether bond proceeds would pay jail operations.

The comments came amid lingering questions about a prior, court-challenged jail district election and money collected under that measure. Yvonne Mayer of Hereford urged supervisors to spell out the new jail’s planned size, capacity, location and cost estimates before asking voters to approve new funding. “Under no circumstances just don't ask us to sign a blank check,” Mayer said.

Several speakers asked supervisors to order a comprehensive forensic audit of the sheriff’s office and the prior jail district finances. Limbach asked that any audit be conducted by an independent auditor “with absolutely no connections to Cochise County and or any of its employees or elected officials.” Kara Harris asked the board to hold a jail-district work session or town hall and to “determine just how much money that has been collected from the previous illegal election and where exactly it was spent.”

Mayer cited funding figures she said she’d been told: about $20 million set aside by the state, $2 million attributed to U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and “the amount that has already been collected in taxes.” She also referenced a tentative budget summary that she said showed a contingency fund “of just over $12,000,000.” Mayer asked whether any previously collected funds could be reused for a new facility and whether operating costs would remain in the county’s general fund.

County Administrator Gilman told the board she would provide written answers to residents’ questions, post the information on the county website and distribute it to local media. “Yes, ma'am. I can do that,” Gilman said in response to a request to put the facts in writing so they could not be “spun.”

Supervisor Gomez noted that ballot language must include projected future revenue demands of the jail and said statutes govern what must appear on the ballot. Chair Supervisor Crosby said the county expected to stop collecting the jail district tax “at the end of this month. Tomorrow.”

Speakers also raised alternative funding suggestions and limits on county authority. Limbach suggested asking the federal government to construct and operate an ICE detention facility at the Douglas Port of Entry to reduce local costs; that suggestion was presented as a public comment, not a staff recommendation.

The board then moved to approve consent agenda items 1 and 2. Supervisor Gomez moved the motion, Supervisor Crosby seconded, and the motion passed with two ayes; Supervisor Antonori was not present.

Next steps the board identified during the meeting included staff publishing the settlement document already attached to a prior agenda and issuing the written clarifications about available funds and statutory requirements before further action on a bond or a ballot measure.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve consent agenda items 1 and 2 — Mover: Supervisor Gomez; Second: Supervisor Crosby; Vote: Gomez — yes; Crosby — yes; Antonori — absent; Outcome: approved.