Residents press Cochise County on transparency, election procedures and oversight for jail proposal

Residents at a Cochise County town hall raised detailed questions about public notice, independent technical reviews and election procedures related to the proposed jail funding.

Several attendees said they had only learned of the town hall at short notice and asked county officials to expand outreach. One resident said a press release and website posting were difficult to find; Supervisor Kathleen Gomez and Public Information Officer Jane Montgomery said the county will add meetings and post materials on the county jail project page and pursue additional outreach to city councils and local organizations.

Independent engineering and accreditation concerns: Attorney and resident Sandy Russell pressed the county for independent engineering reports and questioned reliance on a NIJO (national corrections resource) assessment; she asked for additional contractor bids and a transparent, independent engineering review that the public could inspect. County officials said a planning study and a citizens advisory committee recommended new construction but that some detailed risk assessments have been withheld from public release for security reasons. Sheriff Hartehouse stated the county’s risk assessment contains sensitive security details and cannot be fully released without jeopardizing facility safety; he invited judicial review if ordered.

Election and ballot process questions: Several residents raised concerns about the conduct of the prior election, chain‑of‑custody of mail‑in ballots and whether a 60 percent supermajority applies to the measure. Commenters said they wanted clearer protocols around voter registration lists, ballot custody, and an opportunity to meet with the county recorder to review procedures. Supervisors said election administration is constrained by state law, that the county recorder controls ballots and that the board would work with the recorder’s office to arrange a public briefing on election mechanics.

Transparency requests and county responses: Public commenters asked the board to publish amortization schedules and a “worst‑case” and “accelerated‑payoff” example in the voter pamphlet. The board told attendees it must follow statutory rules for the publicity pamphlet (including required content) but said it will include the mandatory 15‑year amortization scenario and add the county’s 10‑year accelerated example as an explanatory illustration where permissible. Officials also said the county will post design and budget materials as they become available and hold public design review meetings before final design approval.

Oversight and safeguards: Residents asked who will control project funds and how the county will guard against misuse. Supervisors said jail‑district money is firewalled in a restricted account and that any disbursement requires public board approval; they also noted that the board had approved a recent emergency allocation for a firewall/fire‑alarm contractor from the general fund rather than the jail account. Project manager Phil and the hired owner’s representative were presented as the county’s procurement and oversight mechanisms for architect selection and contract administration.

Ending: County leaders acknowledged the political sensitivity of a large construction bond and said they would expand public outreach, post planning documents on the county jail page and convene follow‑up sessions on election procedures and independent technical reviews. Residents said they will continue to press for independent engineering reports and clearer public notice ahead of the vote.