Cochise County adopts tentative budgets for six rural street-light districts

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the boards of directors for multiple light improvement districts, adopted tentative budgets for fiscal year 2025–26 for six rural street-light districts on Tuesday, June 10, approving each measure by voice vote, 3-0.

County staff told the board the budgets pay utility bills for street lights in the districts and that voter-approved reserves can cause a district’s tax rate to fall even when utility costs rise. Members of the public used the meeting’s public-comment period to criticize county planning and zoning enforcement and to raise concerns about large corporate projects and potential safety issues tied to utility-scale solar.

County administrative staffer Miss Gilman explained that the board was acting in its capacity as the light improvement-district board of directors and that the districts were set up by voters to pay a secondary property tax specifically to keep street lights on. “These are ballot approved measures that were voted on by the locals in these specific districts to tax themselves, to put up street lights,” Gilman said. She added that the county’s role is to review and approve budgets and to pay the utilities; dissolving a district would require another ballot by residents.

A county staff member identified as Stacy described differences among the districts. She said the Naco district had a reduced budget and reduced rate because it will spend down a carryover contingency. “When there is a carryover, there is a cash contingency. We work to make sure that that doesn't get overinflated so we're not overcharging our districts on their secondary tax rate,” she said. Stacy said some districts saw flat budgets this year, one saw an increase to cover dwindling funds, and another had reserves large enough to allow a rate decrease.

The board then voted on each tentative budget individually. Motions to adopt tentative budgets passed by voice vote, recorded as “motion carries 3-0,” for each district listed below: Bowie — $14,183 (agenda item 2) approved 3-0; Golden Acres — $8,388 (item 3) approved 3-0; Naco — $9,931 (item 4) approved 3-0; Porterville — $32,044 (item 5) approved 3-0; SunSites — $33,484 (item 6) approved 3-0. The record shows the board approved each tentative budget amount as presented.

During public comment, two residents raised broader concerns. Tim Frazier criticized planning and zoning complaint processes and county enforcement, urging fiscal restraint: “Flashlights and batteries are cheap. Citizens can afford them. We need to stop the pork barrel spending,” Frazier said. He also complained about what he described as vindictive neighbor reporting to county planning and zoning that had consequences for property owners.

Dan Baker (signed up to speak and present for his three-minute slot) criticized county priorities and large industrial solar projects then under review, saying residents had requested safety tests and received no results. “We are, we're letting big corporations just walk and trample all of our rights,” Baker said. He added, “It's been over a year. I've been asking for 1 test across these facilities. We have 10,000 more acres of industrial solar facility going in,” and warned about inverter and thermal-runaway risks noted by federal agencies.

Supervisor Gomez said she had canvassed Porterville during the campaign and found many nonworking lights; she asked staff to coordinate with Arizona Public Service (APS) to ensure lights are inspected and repaired. Gomez asked for follow-up and said she would continue to work with the clerk of the board and staff to bring more information back to the board. The clerk of the board confirmed coordination with APS to repair lights already reported and noted vandalism and abandoned properties as complicating factors in some locations; the cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative (SSVEC) was identified as the responsible utility in one county-island example.

The board concluded by noting the next scheduled meeting — a library district meeting to adopt a tentative budget — and then adjourned the light improvement districts meeting.

Votes at a glance - Bowie Light Improvement District: Adopted tentative budget $14,183; vote recorded 3-0 (approved). - Golden Acres Light Improvement District: Adopted tentative budget $8,388; vote recorded 3-0 (approved). - Naco Light Improvement District: Adopted tentative budget $9,931; vote recorded 3-0 (approved). - Porterville Light Improvement District: Adopted tentative budget $32,044; vote recorded 3-0 (approved). - SunSites Light Improvement District: Adopted tentative budget $33,484; vote recorded 3-0 (approved).

(County staff told the board that where a district has a cash contingency or reserve, the tax rate may be lowered for the fiscal year even if the overall budget rises because of higher utility costs.)