Issues from flooding and requests for assistance by residents dominated public comment, while emergency services administrator Williams and road director Neeley updated the county’s efforts. Accepting an appropriation for law enforcement was tabled for additional information. Lease agreement for extension office approved after removal of “offensive language” from the contract.
The recorded meeting can be viewed on facebook. The viewing times are included.
Flooding in Sierra County requires immediate and long term solutions
As of Oct 5 Sierra County experienced 200-300% of average monsoon season rainfall, emergency services administrator Ryan Williams told the county commission (39:00). Over the Black Fire burn scar the rainfall has been even greater with 400-600% of average. This has caused widespread flooding issues in the county. While no homes or structures have been damaged, according to Williams, there have been problems with travel through the most heavily affected areas.
“I’ve been visiting watersheds” throughout the county and taking pictures, said Williams, who is trying to document damage for disaster relief requests. I can “take pictures one day and the next week it will look totally different”, he continued. Las Palomas, lower Cuchillo Creek, and San Miguel are all in such bad shape that if there was an emergency no ambulances would be able to get in. Residents cannot go about their “day to day livelihood”.
Residents who have damage not yet documented by Williams can submit photos to him along with their names and information about where and when the photo was taken.
Road director Billy Neeley spoke of his department trying to rebuild “wiped out roads” (37:00). In San Miguel they have been trying to keep “a mile and a half of roads together so that people can get in and out”. In Hermosa the road department hasn’t been able to get in. The last time Neeley had been out there he’d had to borrow the sheriff’s side by side vehicle. At that time “at least three miles of road were not even there”. Additional heavy rain has fallen since that visit. Neeley anticipates even more road woes in the area.
Readers of the Citizen saw and read a first hand account of the of the devastating effects of flooding from Monument Creek area resident Dan Warren. Elephant Butte resident Johanna Tighe (23:00) spoke for friends and her housekeeper who live in the Cuchillo Creek area and who were not able to attend in person. Tighe, like Warren, called on the commission to see that a bridge be built in this area that has “ongoing, every year occurrences of flooding”.
Williams described the damage as “pretty overwhelming” and that it is going to require “big equipment”, not “friends helping friends” to repair the roads and watersheds. Commissioner Hopkins concurred and expressed concern that if people start using tires and old cars to make repairs that will cause greater problems in the future. “We need to do something”, Hopkins concluded.
Commissioner Day inquired about the Palomas diversion used for crop irrigation. “We need to prioritize agriculture”, he said, “that is who we are as Sierra County”. Williams informed him that the irrigation group had already gone in, spent their $5,000 budget and the work all needs to be redone because the ditches were filled back in. When Day asked if they had the equipment needed, Williams told him no, they are going to need an excavator.
Williams reiterated, the repairs need more than friends helping friends. Heavy equipment will be needed. Engineers will be needed.
The county commission also heard from area residents who requested help from the flood commission. Las Palomas residents David Bean (18:40), Horatio Armijo (21:00) and Richard Shetter (via email, 29:40), and Sierra County resident Harvey Chatfield (26:00) all requested the commission find a way to get the flood commissioner, Sandy Jones, to provide assistance in the manner of former flood commissioner, Travis Atwell.
Bean said that in past years flood commissioner Atwell had used county equipment in the creeks to help out landowners but now Bean understands “it will be thrown back on the landowner”. He further elaborated that “we voted for you (the commissioners) to do what is in our best interest. One guy comes in (Jones) with the ideology that we don’t do that. It seems that one person should not have power to decide the equipment can or cannot be used”.
Armijo and Chatfield both mentioned an incident that had taken place “a few years ago” that resulted in “one dead and one in prison”. During discussions with Williams, commissioner Travis Day expressed concern about leaving it up to landowners to deal with flooding on their own. “They don’t all have the same financial means and equipment. That turns out to make problems for other landowners. Upstream owners are going to affect downstream owners” and there will be a “patchwork” of repairs that can result in fighting.
The conflict between newly appointed flood commissioner Jones and the county commission over which arm of the local government is responsible for helping landowners deal with the immediate impact of flooding has come at an inopportune time. Landowners have come to depend on the flood commission to help with these immediate problems. But Jones’ “slight change of direction at the flood office” could be a much harder change than he had anticipated.
During the Sept 20, 2022 commission meeting Jones opposed the commission’s plan to transfer a lowboy trailer, dump truck and pickup truck from the flood commission to the road department without compensating the flood commission. On Oct 5, 2022 the commission had a special meeting (discussion at 14:00) that included reduction in force (lay-off) of the equipment operator position in the flood commission office. County manager Charlene Webb reported that Jones had told her he did not need an equipment operator so the commission deemed it unnecessary to pay for the position. Thus even if Jones has a change of heart and the appropriate equipment, he has no equipment operator to assist during the current flooding.
Jones had not attended that meeting although Attorney Pato confirmed that Webb had informed him of the commission’s intent.
Sheriff to hire a new officer….or not
On the agenda was an appropriation for $131,250 to hire a new law enforcement officer. Sheriff Glenn Hamilton (1:06:00) explained the appropriation and how the county had been given it. During last year’s 30 day legislative session house bill 2, which provided millions of dollars for recruitment and retention of law officers, was passed. In July Hamilton and other law enforcement departments throughout the state were given a survey regarding their needs for officers. At that time, the county’s sheriff’s office was short two positions. Since then the two positions have been filled.
In early September Hamilton was contacted by the governor’s office that Sierra County had been awarded an appropriation for an officer. The appropriation would be for a total of $131,250 to be awarded over three years. The first year the state would pay the entire cost of the officer, the second year they would pay for half and the third year one quarter. The county would pick up the difference in the cost of the officer over the three years and from the fourth year on would cover the entire cost.
Although the sheriff does not currently need the additional officer, the sheriff determined that the county would be able to afford the new position. He reasoned that this year the law protection fund had increased from $20,000 to $45,000 and in 2023 it is scheduled to increase to $90,000. This plus the $1,000 per officer that the county receives would mean the county could afford another officer even if there were no additional income for the county. The sheriff and commissioner Day were comfortable the county could afford the extra officer and the sheriff requested the commission approve the appropriation.
Just before the commission voted on the appropriation, attorney Pato stepped in (1:10:00) with some more information to consider. He said that house bill 68 provides funding for both recruitment and retention. The appropriation the commission was considering was strictly for recruitment, not retention of existing personnel. Pato had received a memorandum from the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration that the funds could be used for retention if desired but there were no guidelines given. Pato suggested the commission might wish to table the discussion until further information was available.
“I’d love to table until further clarification”, Hamilton jumped in, “I’d much rather use the funds for retention bonuses”. The state police also received a funding increase and, according to Hamilton “had been actively recruiting our deputies”. The discussion was tabled until it was determined if the sheriff could use the monies for retention of officers.
Following executive session (3:09:30) Pato announced that he had heard the DFA will circulate new agreements for both recruitment and retention and he hoped they would hear more details soon.
Commissioner Paxon offended by language in contract
The commission voted to renew the county’s contract with Olive Tree (1:21:00) to administer the county’s Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program with no discussion of the effectiveness of the work being provided.
The next item of discussion (1:22:15), renewing the lease for the extension office, elicited much more discussion.
Jocelyn Holguin, chief procurement officer presented the contract to the commission with the explanation that the current agreement had expired and an update was needed.
Paxon asked Holguin what was meant by the “she/he stuff on page 7, item XXII”. That section describes “Grammatical Usage” and says “In construing this Lease, feminine or neuter pronouns shall be substituted for those masculine in form and vice versa, the plural terms shall be substituted for singular and singular plural in any place in which the context so requires.” “What does that even mean?” exclaimed Paxon.
Holguin explained that it was just legal jargon she had copied off the original contract signed three years ago and on the contract before that. Pato chimed in that some leases utilize terms like his/hers or she/he that don’t translate cleanly and the grammatical usage statement is to cover everybody. “It’s not a big political statement”, he said, “it just means that any references are gender neutral”
“It’s to cover everybody”, added Holguin. Commissioner Hopkins, clarified “so no one is offended” and Paxon replied “just by that statement I am offended. This is worse than government gobbledygook, I don’t understand…I am insulted by this”.
After an extended pause, Pato said that the statement was not critical, it was just grammatical and could be removed. Paxon said that he found it objectionable and requested it be removed. Neither Day nor Hopkins expressed interest so agreed to approve with the objectionable statement removed.