Curry County commissioners place law-enforcement levy on May 2025 ballot amid heated public debate over jail and staffing

The Curry County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 19 voted 3-0 to place a five-year local option tax measure on the May 2025 ballot asking voters whether to levy $1.12 per $1,000 of assessed value to fund the Curry County Sheriff’s Office. The measure, as read into the record, estimates annual revenue of about $4,280,920 to add five patrol deputies, two dispatchers and one sergeant and to provide about $122,605 toward marine and search-and-rescue services.

The question was read aloud during the meeting by Commissioner Jay Troese, who presented the ballot language the board approved to place on the ballot. “Should Curry County levy $1.12 per $1,000 of assessed property value 2025 to 2030 to fund Curry County Sheriff’s Office patrol and 911 dispatch,” Troese read before the board moved and voted to place the measure before voters.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they want voters to decide whether to restore services and staffing the county and sheriff’s office have lost in recent years. The levy is framed by county staff as a way to replace about $1,180,000 in restricted road funds used for patrol and roughly $1,253,258 from the Curry County general fund that currently help pay for patrol, SAR and marine patrol costs.

Public comment and union response: The item drew extended public comment. Representatives of Teamsters Local 223, which represents Curry County sheriff’s office personnel, said the board’s fiscal decisions had driven staffing shortages and urged an immediate levy. “This is not leadership. It’s abandonment,” Rod Paulquist, business agent for Teamsters Local 223, told commissioners, tying staffing losses and a dispatcher resignation to board budget choices. Austin DePalo, principal officer of Teamsters Local 223, said deputies and staff deserve an immediate funding solution and urged commissioners to set a ballot date without delay.

Several residents also urged action while criticizing other county choices. Public speaker Michelle Martin questioned a proposed five-year contract for the county finance/HR director, saying it would cost roughly $800,000 over five years based on her calculation and that pay and training allowances in the contract were excessive. County Assessor Kylie Wagner — an elected official who addressed the board during the same discussion — told commissioners the proposed finance/HR package “is unacceptable” and urged the board to revisit it at the budget process rather than act immediately.

Commissioner response and rationale: Chair Brad Alcorn said he supported giving voters the opportunity to decide the funding question and urged the public and advocacy groups to work together. “If we could try to work together and stop with the confrontations, maybe we could have some success,” Alcorn said, repeating his appeal multiple times as tensions during public comment rose.

Levy language and fiscal details: The ballot statement approved by the board describes the levy as replacing restricted road and general fund allocations used for patrol and dispatch and includes the assessor’s caveat that tax estimates “are an estimate only” and may reflect discounts and collection rates. The written measure text included the $1.12 per $1,000 rate and the projected annual revenue estimate of $4,280,920.

Next steps: The board’s vote (3-0) places the local option tax on the May 2025 ballot. Commissioners and staff said they will provide voters with further budget details in the lead-up to the election and that a five-member citizen review board would be appointed to oversee levy expenditures if the measure passes, according to the measure text read at the meeting.

Votes at a glance (other actions taken Dec. 19): - Board voted 3-0 to authorize placing the five-year local option tax (SEL 805) on the May 2025 ballot (motion to place measure moved during item 7a; vote recorded 3-0). The board-approved summary and estimate were read into the record prior to the vote. - Board approved an amended and restated lease with Elk River Development (motion passed 3-0). - Board approved four owner-petition annexations into rural fire protection districts (BOC Annexation Nos. 24-27; 24-35; 24-36; 24-37); each vote passed 3-0 after the public hearings. - Board approved acceptance of a JMOUD (jail-related) emergency grant application and authorized signature authority to the director of county operations after finance review (motion passed 3-0). The grant is reimbursement-based and retroactive to earlier this federal fiscal year; staff said compliance elements remain to be routed through finance.

What was not decided: Discussion of an employment/contract package for the county finance/HR director — which several speakers had criticized during public comment — was not approved at the Dec. 19 meeting. Commissioners and staff agreed to defer final action and review the item during the upcoming budget process so the incoming commissioner can participate in the discussion.

Context and background: Commissioners and budget committee members described years of one-time funding and use of road-fund reserves to cover public-safety costs. Board members and staff said the county’s long-term sustainability requires a voter-approved funding solution, and the levy is meant to shoulder recurring costs rather than relying on one-time funds.

What to watch: The county will publish additional levy budget numbers for voters in the months before the May 2025 election. Commissioners urged community groups, labor and residents to avoid inflammatory social-media posts and to focus debate on the factual numbers that will be presented in the voter information materials.