This tax was not mentioned in the Nov. 5 2024 ballot language:
“Shall the Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control District be established for the purpose of mitigating the risks associated with flooding, implementing proactive flood control measures to protect lives, property, and infrastructure, fostering sustainable development and economic growth by reducing flood-related damages, and enhancing public safety and emergency preparedness within both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Sierra County?”
Nevertheless, an increase in property taxes of at least .5 percent was inevitable if the ballot measure passed.
It passed with 3,949 “yes” votes and 1,521 “nay” votes, a 72-percent approval, well above the over-50 percent needed.
State law 72-18-20 lays out the taxing power of a flood control district:
https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/item/4402/index.do?iframe=true#
For “general purposes,” a tax of .50 mills can be levied without voter approval. Up to 2.0 mills can be levied for general purposes, but voter approval must be gained for each increment above .50 mills.
A tax for “debt” payoffs has no limit, but any debt tax must be approved by voters.
The five-person board of “directors” (so titled in state law) must “certify” by July 15 each year what the tax will be, in writing, to the county commission. The new Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control District board of directors did so, and the Sierra County Commission passed a resolution that “levies” the tax at their May 20 regular meeting.
Since the Sierra County Commission spearheaded the formation of this new taxing district, (not the people) it is unsurprising the tax measure was approved with little discussion or pause. All three commissioners, Jim Paxon, Travis Day and Hank Hopkins, are Republican and supposedly for limiting, not extending government, for decreasing, not increasing taxes.
This will be the second tax that property owners will pay to fund flood control work and projects. They already pay 1.50 mills:
https://sierracountycitizen.org/another-taxing-district-were-already-taxed-for-flood-control/
Both of the flood control taxing districts have the same boundaries: incorporated and unincorporated areas within the county line.
The county commission pushed the flood district measure onto the November 2024 ballot, even though the law states it could only be placed on an odd-year, local-election ballot:
https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/item/4402/index.do?iframe=true#
Flood Commissioner Sandy Jones, who oversees how the monies are spent for the 1.50 mills flood control district, asked to intervene in the county’s court case–the county commission’s petition to the district court seeking to put the formation of a flood control district and five flood control directors’ positions on the Nov. 5, 2024 ballot.
Jones’ attorney tried to argue that the ballot measure should be put off until the next local election, but Judge Mercedes Murphy said his attorney was paid with county taxes and therefore worked for the county and thus he could not oppose the county. Jones was not allowed in as an intervenor. Jones would have to bring a private suit, Murphy said.
Thank goodness the secretary of state’s attorney also asked to intervene to argue the same point.
Murphy ruled that the question of whether to form the flood control district would go on the November 2024 ballot, but the five directors’ positions would not. Instead of the public choosing the five directors, she would appoint them.
Murphy appointed Barry Ragsdale, Beau Marshall, Bobby Blackwood Jr., William (Billy) Neely and Creeden Coil.
Ragsdale was made chairperson by his fellow directors and Beau Marshall vice chair at their organizational board meeting.
Ragsdale, in a conversation with the Citizen, said either two or three positions would be on the November 2025 ballot, not all five.
Normally, if the court had to step in and appoint a person to an elected position, (usually due to illness, death or moving out of the district by the predecessor) the duration of the appointment would only last until the next election.
But Murphy appointed a whole board, not a lone elected official, and a board that has to create its organization from scratch. Some start-up members must remain who can give legs to their formation steps, work plan and goals.
So it’s conceivable that some of Murphy’s appointees will sit for six years, the length of a director’s term, without approval from their constituents.
One director is the head of the county’s road department, Billy Neely, a massive conflict of interest, especially since Jones caught the county using flood control money to buy county road equipment:
But it looks like the people lucked out. Ragsdale applied for the thankless job and Murphy appointed him. He has, by far, the most government and flood control experience among the appointees. He was flood director for seven years under two prior flood commissioners (the governor-appointed position that Jones holds now, who was also a county flood director under yet another prior flood commissioner.)
Ragsdale said the two flood control districts will work together. The aims and statutory constraints and duties overlap and make a natural division of flood-control labor between the two districts.
One major difference is that Jones’ district can work on private property, Ragsdale said, while the Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control district cannot. Being able to go anywhere during and post-flood would make Jones’ district the best choice to be “reactive.” While the new district could be more “proactive,” concentrating on building or shoring up arroyos, levees, culverts, dams, etc. “We’ll concentrate on long-term infrastructure that will prevent flooding,” Ragsdale said.
So far the directors have passed resolutions adopting parliamentary procedures, their Open Meetings Act and Inspection of Public Records Act policies. Bylaws have yet to be drafted, but they have set out a work plan, some of which needs money, administrative help and professional hirings to enact. For instance, doing a hydrological study to identify critical and problem flooding areas will probably entail hiring and paying a firm.
The directors have also drafted a memorandum of understanding (with the help of county staff, since they have none) to collect “seed money” from Sierra County, City of Truth or Consequences, City of Elephant Butte and Village of Williamsburg. If those entities don’t come through, the new flood control directors board will have to wait until January 2026 or so for money.
The new property tax goes into effect July 1, 2025. First half of property taxes must be paid by Dec. 10, second half by April 10. The first flush of cash should therefore hit the new flood control district’s bank account around January 2026.
And it won’t be that much money. It will be one-third of what Jones’ district sees in a year. The 1.50 mill levy resulted in about $515,000 in 2024, therefore Ragsdale’s district will see about $172,000 in a year.
It’s unsurprising that seeking grants from federal and state agencies is part of the work plan.
For those interested, the new board of directors will meet the second Wednesday of the month at 1 p.m. in county commission chambers, 1712 N. Date St. The next meeting is June 11.