You may have checked the “yes” box Nov. 5 to create the “Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control District.”
You may not have known that five “directors” positions would normally be on the ballot at the same time as the question whether to form such a district.
Last July, the New Mexico Secretary of State General Counsel Peter Auh interceded in the court case brought by Sierra County Commissioners that put the question on the ballot. He argued that local elections—such as those for flood-control-district directors—are held in odd years. Sierra County District Court Judge Mercedes Murphy agreed. She ordered that the question whether to form the district would be on the ballot, but the directors’ positions would not.
Murphy further ruled that she would appoint the five directors if voters approved the measure, and they would sit until elected directors were chosen November 2025 and seated January 2025.
In a Dec. 10 court hearing, attended by Auh and Sierra County Attorney Dave Pato, Murphy heard suggestions, mostly from Pato, on how the field of appointee-directors should be gathered.
Pato is Valencia County’s attorney as well. Is it coincidence that Valencia’s election resolution, court-case argument, ballot language and director-appointee process are nearly cut-and-paste duplicates to Sierra County’s?
Murphy had Pato draft an order detailing the selection process, which was issued today, and it’s nearly the same as the Valencia County district judge’s order, except for the Nov. 5 vote tallies. Voters approving the formation of the district were 3,949, those against were 1,521 in Sierra County.
The order states that Sierra County is responsible for twice advertising in the Sentinel that five flood-control directors’ positions will be appointed by Murphy. The Sierra County Manager Amber Vaughn will receive documents from interested applicants and forward them to the court. Three documents from each candidate are required: a letter of interest, a resume, and a petition signed by at least five electors. The county will provide potential appointees with the correct petition form. The deadline for submission is Jan. 10, 2025.
Murphy’s order goes on to state that if five people do not apply by Jan. 10, then the county commission will muster up enough volunteers, providing Murphy with their letters of interest and resumes. Petitions for them will not be required.
Murphy does not give herself a deadline for making the appointments. Nor are the selected appointees and their information to be advertised by the county.
This first board of directors is very important. They will set up the bylaws, decide whether to impose a .5 mill levy, which does not require voter approval. They could also decide to put questions on the November 2025 ballot, such as whether to create a special taxing district within the county-wide flood control district to pay for a project to protect that area, which, supposedly, would be approved only by electors within the proposed special taxing district. The appointed board could ask for additional millage on the ballot for various flood-control projects. It could ask voters for permission to issue bond debt without mentioning in the ballot language that this would entail an increase in property taxes.
This first appointed set of directors will be “at large,” according to Murphy’s order. The appointees could then stipulate that future directors be from five separate districts, electors in each district choosing their candidate. Or they could institute some combination of district and at-large representation.
What this first appointed set won’t have is money in hand. State law says all property assessments start January 1. Since the directors won’t be appointed until after January 1, 2025, no tax can be imposed until Jan. 1, 2026, with tax bills going out Nov. 1, 2026. And the amount of money .5 mills will bring in is not a lot—about $170,000.
My estimate is based on what the current flood-control 1.50 mill levy brings in. That’s right. Sierra Countians, those in incorporated and unincorporated areas, are already paying a flood-control tax.
Neither Valencia or Sierra counties’ ballot questions included “taxing district” in the language, so many voters probably didn’t know they were potentially, indeed, likely, increasing property taxes when they voted yes. But Sierra County Commissioners also didn’t let voters know that property owners already pay a 1.50 mill levy and that they already have a governor-appointed flood commissioner overseeing flood-control needs.
Valencia County doesn’t have a flood commissioner and isn’t already collecting a flood-control tax, so its voters will not be double taxed for flood control.
Sierra County’s Flood Control Commissioner has been Sandy Jones for the last four years. The 1.50 mill levy brings in about $500,000 a year; therefore .50 mills will bring in about one-third of that, or about $170,000.
This first board of appointees, hopefully, will realize the people are already being taxed and they will be willing to cooperate and coordinate with Jones.