local government and
public-interest reporting

Legislature having balked, Sierra Vista Hospital leaders will now ask community to vote on special hospital district

by Kathleen Sloan | April 20, 2021
6 min read
A special hospital district will also simply Sierra Vista’s ownership and oversight structures. Source: Facebook

Sierra Countians may be asked to decide whether to create a special hospital district at the November polls, since the attempt to have state legislators pass the measure has now failed twice.

If a referendum to create a special hospital district can be placed on the ballot this fall, county voters will essentially be deciding whether to increase their property taxes to support Sierra Vista Hospital, because a hospital district has its own taxing authority.

A special hospital district would also simply Sierra Vista’s ownership and oversight structures.

Putting the question of a special hospital district on the ballot was the informal decision of the Sierra Vista Hospital Joint Powers Commissioners at their April 15 quarterly meeting. Whether to go forward with a referendum on the district was on the agenda as a discussion item only, so the JPC could not formally vote on the matter. The JPC agreed to call a special meeting soon to hold a vote, which will probably pass, as no one dissented during the April 25 meeting.

The special hospital district legislation, Senate Bill 76, was presented during the regular 2020 session by its sponsors, state Representative Rebecca Dow, R-District 38, and state Senator Crystal Diamond, R-District 35,

Travis Day, JPC member and Sierra County Commissionvice chairman, said SB 76 got through the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee with a “do pass,” and then headed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “where it died,” without ever being scheduled for a hearing. “Some senators were questioning why it was being formed legislatively versus by referendum,” Day said.

In a separate interview with the Sun, Sierra County CommissionChairman Jim Paxon, a JPC member, confirmed that Senator Diamond was privately told by various Senate colleagues they believed that a hospital district should be formed locally, by election.

The Sun asked Senator Diamond and Representative Dow for comment. Dow responded that, as Diamond “took the lead,” on the legislation, she would “let her answer.” Diamond never responded.

Currently Sierra County’s four local governmental entities own the hospital. Agreements among Sierra County, Elephant Butte, Truth or Consequences and the Village of Williamsburg created two boards to oversee the hospital. The Joint Powers Commission, made up of elected officials from the four local governments, has 12 members. It oversees policy, long-range plans and finances. The nine community members who sit on the governing board are appointed by the elected officials of the four governmental entities, and they oversee day-to-day operations. 

The public will still own the hospital if a special hospital district is formed. In compliance with state law, a five-member board of trustees elected by the people would govern the hospital and represent the public interest.

For nearly two years, members of the JPC have said the main reason for creating a special hospital district is to do away with the cumbersome and inefficient 21-person, two-board oversight. Little mention has been made of the district’s taxing authority, which will undoubtedly be deployed to support the hospital’s operation and pay off its construction debt.

Currently the local government entities use their taxing authority to levy gross receipts and property taxes to pay for the debt. No matter what transpires at the November polls, the gross receipts taxes dedicated to the hospital will remain in place until 2046. The dedicated property tax will remain in place until 2028. When they expire, these taxes may be again put on the ballot, according to JPC Chairperson Kim Skinner, interviewed by the Sun before the 2020 legislative session.

The five special hospital district trustees will have the authority to put tax referendums on the ballot. State law gives them the power to propose property tax levies of up to $4.25 dollars for every $1,000 of taxable real estate value. Each new tax levy—some hospital districts have more than one—has a four-year lifespan, after which it would have to be voted upon again.

For more information about the fiscal impact a special hospital district may have on gross receipts and property taxes, read the Sun’s Related coverage at the bottom of the page.

Paxon and Sierra County Manager confirmed that, according to state law 4-48A-4, a petition signed by local voters is the first step toward placing the measure on the ballot. Qualified electors (i.e., registered voters) equal in number to 10 percent of those voting in the last election for governor must sign the petition. In 2018, 4,723 persons voted in the governor’s election, according to the New Mexico Secretary of State website; therefore, 472 registered voters living in the county must sign a petition in support of creating a special hospital district.  

Once the county clerk verifies the signatures and informs the county commission the petition is “certified,” the county commission must issue a proclamation calling for an election.

Paxon told the JPC that County Attorney Dave Pato and New Mexico Hospital Association Attorney Dave Johnson would write the proclamation or “election referendum.” The referendum must be submitted to the county clerk by June 24, Paxon said, in order to be on the November general election ballot.

Paxon said the intention is to include candidates for the special hospital district trustees on the November ballot, as well. They will be installed if the special hospital district referendum passes.

State law 4-48A-5(B) stipulates that candidates for trustee must file declarations with the county clerk “not later than 5:00 p.m. on the thirtieth day after the issuance of the proclamation by the board of county commissioners.” If the referendum is successfully placed on the November ballot, those interested in running would have to declare their candidacy by Monday, July 26, the first business day after the 30-day deadline.

State law dictates that two of the five seats will have two-year terms and three will have four-year terms. In subsequent elections, all seats will be for four-year terms.

The county commission, as mandated by state law, will determine whether the trustees will be elected on an at-large or district basis.

The county commission has decided there will be two at-large and three district seats, Paxon said at the JPC’s April 15 meeting. The hospital district positions will correspond to the districts for the three county commission seats. County residents will have three votes, one for each at-large candidate and one for their district candidate.  

Winning candidates must “furnish a corporate surety bond in the penal sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the faithful performance of his duties and the accounting for all funds which shall come into his possession. Such bond shall run to the benefit of the special hospital district,” state law 4-48A-8 (C) states.

The JPC will hold town halls to inform the public about the special hospital district and to circulate the referendum petition. “It will be a tight schedule, getting it on the November ballot,” Paxon told the Sun.

CORRECTION: The date of the JPC meeting referenced in the third paragraph from the end of the story, which was in error in the original posting of this story, has been corrected.

Kathleen Sloan is the Sun’s founder and chief reporter. She can be reached at kathleen.sloan@gmail.com or 575-297-4146.
Share this:

Third day on the job, Swingle brings transparency and reality to T or C’s budgeting process, Parts 1 and 2

In addition to contending with a $1.6 million deficit in the fiscal year 2021-2022 draft budget, new city manager Bruce Swingle informed the city commissioners that they must play a lead role in identifying departmental spending priorities and cuts and devising a plan within two years to end the practice of balancing the budget with transfers from utility fees.

Peter A. Lawton (T or C) commented on Part 1: It is nice to see there finally seems to be an adult in charge in our city. Great article!

Barb Dewell (T or C) commented on Part 2: I’m really surprised so much is going on in T or C that the commissioners don’t know anything about. It’s very disappointing. They don’t even appear to want to ask questions. It seems reports are made, Luna makes her comments, no one else has a question or comment, and the issue either goes the way Commissioner Luna wants or it’s tabled, I guess. This isn’t how our city should be run. Thank goodness for City Manager Swingle. I hope he is able to corral all this spending and these very loose approvals and get the city finances back on track. I know most residents are really worried about all this, as I’ve been, and we have high hopes for City Manager Swingle’s leadership.

Ronn Fenn (T or C) commented on Part 2: For a long time I’ve been questioning why this airport is a T or C-funded facility and not a county facility with its location about five miles from the recognized city proper and serving a largely non-resident user base. It and its annual transfer funds to support its operation needs to be investigated. This facility is not and probably never will be an income-producing asset. Its operating costs should be spread throughout the county and not borne solely by T or C’s residents. Pie in the Sky is not likely to land in T or C.

Lydia Dixon (T or C) commented on Part 2: This is great reporting. People would not know most of this if it were not published here. Thanks!



Welcome, Bruce!

Now that you’ve had a couple days to settle in as city manager, please consider implementing these 10 doable fixes that will make the governance of the City of Truth or Consequences more transparent, responsive and effective.

Reader Joey Perry (T or C) commented: Great suggestions. Here’s one more. Make the meeting agendas more informational. In addition to the ordinance number, include a sentence or two (in plain English) saying what the item is about and why it is on the agenda—e.g., what is the issue? This would help me decide if I want to attend a meeting, or write a letter to the manager or the commissioners, expressing my views ahead of the meeting.


Changing ownership and governance of Sierra Vista Hospital to a “special hospital district” is on legislative menu again
by Kathleen Sloan | November 11, 2020

Sierra County’s state elected officials, Representative Rebecca Dow and newly elected Senator Crystal Diamond, will present legislation in the upcoming session that will trigger the...

Sierra Vista Hospital’s problems are rooted in hidden contention among leaders and over-borrowing, says Senator John Arthur Smith
by Kathleen Sloan | November 30, 2020

The veteran senator supports the creation of a special hospital district because of his firsthand knowledge of the hospital's management, financial and governance problems.

Nor-Lea Special Hospital District CEO David Shaw attributes success to public engagement
by Kathleen Sloan | December 2, 2020

What lessons can be learned about how to make this form of hospital governance work to improve patient care from Lovington, NM's experience?

2 Comments on “Legislature having balked, Sierra Vista Hospital leaders will now ask community to vote on special hospital district”

  1. This is an excellently researched and presented synopsis of what has become an unnecessarily complex, top-down issue concocted by an elite few. It will be interesting to see what arguments are manufactured to convince taxpayers to swallow yet another tax increase.
    The Sun is to be commended for putting this whole ball of snakes out in the public view. However, for property taxpayers, the bottom line is clearly that their taxes would go up, and up. . . .

    It seems property owners need the Sierra County equivalent of the California tax crusader, Jarvis, to once and for all put a cap on property taxes rising like a bloated cow in the sun. Property owners on fixed or very low incomes would especially feel the bloat.

    With nearly 210 acres, we are one of the larger property owners in the county. Our land was purchased in 2017 to be kept in a natural condition as the anchor for a future open-space system benefiting Sierra County residents. Our land is intended to offer outdoor education opportunities in the natural and cultural sciences, therapeutic contacts with nature, outdoor recreation such as hiking and nature study, research and preservation as an inheritance for future generations.

    Unfortunately, Truth or Consequences’s Comprehensive Plan does not even have an open-space element on which to build such a system. And the county owns, with the JPC as “managers,” the infamous 15-acre “hospital” property blocking access to this special landscape. This essentially locks up the many benefits to county residents, including the economy, which would be available if these 210 acres could go forward in the public interest. But the JPC is on record as opposing our acquisition of this parcel, misrepresenting it narrowly in their April 15th meeting as a “donation.” We would certainly be open to other purchase options, and so stated in our written request.

    A lot of confusing dates are sprinkled throughout the Sun’s article. The Sun did its best to try and keep it all straight. However, two April dates need to be re-examined: 1) in the 4th paragraph from the top, and 2) the 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

  2. The editing error regarding the date of the JPC meeting referenced in the third paragraph from the end of the story has been corrected.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top