Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochise supervisors schedule public hearing to confirm continued establishment of jail district amid legal questions
Summary
The board voted 3-0 to call an Aug. 5 public hearing to consider continuing the county jail district; attorneys and a supervisor raised questions during the meeting about whether the district legally exists and how previously collected funds would be handled.
The Cochise County Board of Supervisors on July 1 adopted Resolution 25-16, calling a public hearing on Aug. 5 to consider the continued establishment of the Cochise County Jail District and, if appropriate, to reaffirm a November election on funding. The motion passed 3-0.
County counsel said the board originally followed the statutory formation steps in 2022 but that a subsequent settlement and legal issues prompted staff to seek a new board resolution and public hearing to clarify the district’s status going into the November ballot. “The statute does not necessarily lay out a plan for a situation such as ours, so we're doing our best to cover our bases, given this situation,” county counsel said.
Members of the public and Supervisor Crosby pressed the board for clarity about several points that will be discussed at the Aug. 5 hearing, including: whether a jail district currently exists, whether a prior settlement (referred to in the meeting as the Daniel Lechants settlement) and prior notices changed the election method, and what will happen to money already collected for the jail district if voters reject future funding.
Public speaker Tricia Jeradette asked whether the settlement could be linked or provided to the public and whether a funding mechanism would appear on the November ballot. “...there's a reference in this resolution to the settlement that occurred with Daniel Lechants et al. And, I'm wondering if that can be shared publicly via this resolution via hotlink,” Jeradette said.
Supervisor Crosby argued the record is ambiguous on whether the district ever legally existed and suggested several remedial options, including amending the resolution language to refer to a “potential but currently nonexistent district” or seeking a declaratory judgment. “In my opinion, it didn't. And the only way to reconcile it is to either rewrite it as I ... noted above so it says potential but currently nonexistent district or do something otherwise with legislation,” Crosby said.
County staff and counsel said they will place the statutorily required notices in the paper and prepare a publicity pamphlet for households with registered voters in advance of the Aug. 5 hearing. Counsel further confirmed the settlement documents referenced in public comment are available on the county’s March 27, 2025 agenda packet for public review.
The board approved scheduling the Aug. 5 public hearing and agreed to publish required notices; staff advised the Aug. 5 hearing will be held in the Board of Supervisors hearing room at 10 a.m. and that the board may use that hearing to confirm the district’s status ahead of any November ballot measure about funding.
