Cochise County hears final draft of jail study; consultants recommend 468‑bed facility and outline site tradeoffs

Bisbee — The Cochise County Board of Supervisors on May 20 heard a final draft of a county jail planning study from consultant Karen Shembach and architects from DLR Group (Gary Rittel and Jacob Reese). The consultants presented a program for a new jail, site‑selection analysis of six candidate locations and a rough order‑of‑magnitude cost and schedule; the board and staff discussed tradeoffs but took no formal action.

Shembach summarized the county and jail data underlying the study, saying Cochise County’s current population is “about 125,000” and citing a forecast that it could reach roughly 130,000 by 2040. She said reported crime and arrests have declined overall while the county’s jail population has risen because inmates are staying longer: “Average daily population was pretty consistent between 250 and 300 inmates, but it did seriously flip up in 2022 and 2023,” she said, noting a rise to about 315–335 average daily in that period.

The consultant emphasized the role of length of stay in driving bed needs. “Admissions are actually down… What is really increasing is the length of stay,” Shembach said, adding that overall average length of stay rose from about 16 days to over 20 days. She also reported demographic and case data from a jail snapshot: about 85% of the population was male, 82% were pretrial, 54% had bond set (46% did not), 65% were Cochise County residents and roughly 79.5% were U.S. citizens. On the snapshot day Shembach said 28% of inmates had been in the jail more than 100 days and she estimated about 40% of the jail population had serious mental‑health or substance‑use issues.

Shembach described alternatives used in other jurisdictions to reduce jail population and bed need, including expanded electronic monitoring, intake screening, a dedicated arraignment/initial‑appearance courtroom and greater coordination among courts, probation, the county attorney and the sheriff’s office. “If people could be placed on monitors… everyone doesn't need to stay in the jail,” she said. Lieutenant Heiser of the sheriff’s office told the board that a COVID‑era reduction followed by catch‑up bookings helped explain the 2022–23 spike: “A lot of it had to do with COVID… they filled it up as much as they could as quickly as they could.”

Program and cost highlights: the consultants presented a planning program for a 468‑bed jail with 204,760 gross building square feet and a support core sized to accommodate up to 600 beds for operational systems (kitchen, laundry, maintenance). The program includes a full superior courtroom and a smaller arraignment courtroom adjacent to intake, a 48‑bed medical/mental‑health unit, a juvenile (youthful offender) unit, and a mix of double‑occupancy and single cells with specialized segregation units. Shembach said the consultant’s mid‑range operating estimate for the program was about $127 per inmate per day (including staffing and non‑personnel operating costs).

DLR Group architects showed a single‑story, cluster‑based layout with housing units grouped around a central control/ support core, secure vehicle and service yards, and exterior recreation yards with mesh covers. Architects argued single‑story layouts avoid elevator logistics and can improve operational sightlines, though they noted multistory designs are sometimes used when sites are constrained.

Site analysis and tradeoffs: the team tested six candidate locations on an apples‑to‑apples basis: a North Civil Road/Benson area site, a Tombstone‑area site (State Route 80/Davis Road), a Sierra Vista site (Charleston/Mohsen), a Douglas site (near State Route 191 and Douglas airport), a Bisbee/Melody Lane parcel and the existing Bisbee courthouse/jail site. Strengths and constraints varied by site: Benson and Tombstone scored well for regional access or visibility but would require substantial off‑site water/sewer work (package plants or long utility extensions). Sierra Vista offers proximity to the county’s largest population center; the Bisbee site already has utilities and nearby county facilities but is constrained for future expansion without adjacent land agreements.

Cost, schedule and procurement: the consultants presented rough order‑of‑magnitude costs with a program contingency structure; total project estimates varied by site and assumptions, and the presentation emphasized that the site decision and program size are the largest cost drivers. The team described a typical timeline of roughly 3.5–4 years from site selection to occupancy under an efficient schedule, including design, permitting and approximately two years of construction, plus a final 2–3 month “shakedown” for operations. County staff and the consultants recommended early selection of a project delivery method (for example construction manager‑at‑risk or design‑build) and consideration of an owner’s representative to help control costs and coordinate funding and operations decisions.

Board and staff comments: supervisors and staff raised workforce, transport and community impacts. Several supervisors emphasized potential economic effects if county functions move away from Bisbee; others noted the Sierra Vista population concentration and the transportation cost of locating at the county extremes. Panelists and supervisors discussed possible land contributions or leases from nearby property owners (consultants said Freeport/Phelps Dodge owns adjacent flat land at the Bisbee site and had indicated a willingness to discuss community uses). The board heard that some candidate sites are privately owned and would require purchase negotiations.

No formal action: the presentation was a work session — public comment was not taken and the board did not vote on site selection, program size or funding. The consultants and staff said the next steps are further review and engagement with courts, the county attorney, the public defender and other system stakeholders to agree operationally on arraignment procedures, bond schedules and alternatives that could influence final bed needs and cost. The board scheduled further meetings (staff noted a work session May 29 and agenda items for June 2) to continue review.

Funding and next steps: county staff referenced prior financing outreach with municipal finance professionals (mentioning Steve Paul and staff contact with Stifel) and said the county will continue to develop funding scenarios and refine the budget as the program and site are finalized. Consultants recommended using the planning window to evaluate population‑management alternatives that could reduce required beds before committing to full construction.

What remains: the study provides a program and conceptual site‑testing framework. The board must still decide the site, the initial bed count to build, what court and operational changes the county will commit to, and how to fund the work. Supervisors and staff said they will return with follow‑up analysis and stakeholder meetings before any formal vote on a site or financing plan.