Question of whether to form a flood control taxing district will be on Nov. ballot—along with candidates for board of directors

The Sierra County Commission petitioned the district court to put the question on the November ballot—should a flood control district be formed?

District Judge Roscoe Woods ruled from the bench June 21 that the question will be on the ballot, signing County Attorney Dave Paxon’s already-prepared order.

But voters beware. The limited ballot language won’t mention the word taxes, let alone lay out the considerable powers of the five “directors” to spend your tax dollars.

The ballot language also won’t inform voters that we already have a flood commissioner and we already pay 1.50 mills for flood control.

If successful, if voters approve the formation of the “Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control District,” we will pay a double tax and have two flood-control governments.

The new flood control district could automatically collect .50 mills with its formation and up to 2.00 mills with voter approval for “general purposes.”

But debt? If voters approve a bond issue, just as they regularly approve for the school district, the mill levy to pay off debt is “without limitation,” as stated in state law 72-18-20.K.

In addition, without going to the voters for approval, the directors can pick an area in the county for a “benefit assessment,” as stated in state law 72-18-22. If, say, Truth or Consequences’ benefit assessment showed it would cost $7.8 million to dismantle Cantrell Dam and to increase run-off capacity of arroyos and ditches, then the directors can levy taxes to collect the needed revenue to pay for that project.

The Sierra County Commission isn’t talking, yet it is attempting to tax every property owner in T or C, Elephant Butte, Williamsburg and those in unincorporated areas in the county. County commissioners didn’t hold town halls to inform the people what a flood district would mean. County commissioners are obviously not interested in taking the public’s pulse on whether forming a second layer of flood-control government is needed or of public benefit.

Voters should also beware of the director nomination process.

Usually interested candidates declare on specific days with the county clerk’s office. The populace and media are attuned to those days. We check online who declared or read about it in the newspaper. Usually there is a bit more than four months before declaring candidacy and the election.

This flood control district question and its five directors’ nominations are done through petitions presented to the district court. The court already approved the county commission’s “emergency” petition to put the question on the ballot. From now until August 7, the district court’s clerk will accept petitions for candidates for director.

I arrived at the August 7 deadline by counting 90 days back from Nov. 5, election day. State law 72-18-9, “Nominations for initial board,” states candidate petitions have to be turned in at least 90 days before the election.

Candidates may live anywhere in the county, must be qualified electors and must present a petition signed by at least five qualified electors living within the county. No voter may nominate more than one candidate; therefore all petition signatures on all candidate petitions must be different with no repeat names. I bet the county commissioners have already selected their candidates, probably all ranchers living in unincorporated areas.

This obscure process, as well as the Sierra County Commission’s near silence and lack of public hearings and town halls, ensures that the interests of the public are not being considered. Voter, beware.

Those interested in protecting the people should run for a director’s seat.