The all mail-in ballot special election that went on for about a month ended yesterday with 583 people voting against issuing a $4.5-million bond to purchase a “public safety” building and 447 people voting for the bond issuance.
Although it was a Truth or Consequences ballot question, Sierra County ran the election. About four years ago the city commission took advantage of a state law passed about five years ago that allows municipalities to turn its local elections over to the county clerk’s office.
According to the Sierra County Clerk’s Office, 3,523 ballots were mailed out. Only 29 percent or 1,030 of those ballots were returned, which is a fairly low voter turnout.
The results were posted on the “Sierra County Clerk’s Office” Facebook page around 7:30 p.m., March 19. On that same page was a prior post stating the clerk’s office was getting a lot of ballots they had mailed out bounced back to them, which indicates voters are not updating their mailing address with the county clerk’s office.
This is the second time the people forced the question of a bond issuance to build a public safety building to the ballot. The first time was in 2017, when it was also voted down.
State law forbids the city from bringing up this same bond issue/public safety building idea for one year.
I voted against it because I thought the money could better be used for water pipe repair and other infrastructure repairs. Well I’m wondering Kathleen if you have any insights or have previously written a column I missed regarding the capacity and utility of the existing police building and whether or not it is currently satisfying the needs of the officers and support staff?
I wrote a prior article quoting people who had or who where working there. They said the building is inadequate, in particular, the evidence room. Another person said she was often afraid because arrestees could possibly punch through regular plaster walls. The building has also had flooding problems. In a prior article I referred to last year’s Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan that had about $8,000 listed for repairs.
During the recent public meeting sponsored by Frances Luna/the Sentinel, Chief of Police Luis Tavizon said he has added two more officers, which now number 17. If I remember correctly, the usual number is around 12 officers, so Tavizon has increased the force quite a bit, which is probably causing cramping. Tavizon said he could do this because of a three-year grant he received from the state law enforcement fund, which gave the city about $200,000 a year for officer recruitment and retention, which is what the .25 public safety gross receipts tax (put into effect by the city commission via an ordinance in 2011) was supposed to be used for. That grant ends this year. Therefore the city’s general fund will have to pick up the cost of these increased officers in the upcoming fiscal years.
I am sure there are concerns about the current building, but this does not denote a $4.5 million dollar bond issue. Most people I talked with did not want the police department to move out of the downtown. Further, because it was voted down in 2017 it was complete folly of the City to rush through, at considerable expense of more than $30,000, Ordinance 756. Commissioner Forrister has already stated “they’ll just do it again in a year.” I’d urge a community meeting with the City’s officers so they discuss the needs before the public and get public input into a better less costly solution. Commissioner Fahl said at the meeting at the end of February, “that if we can not sell this idea to the public, we should all resign.” We should hold them to it. Their active disregard and distain for public comments or any poublic input are counterproductive to advancing a sound, happy and secure community.