The Plumas County budget is on track with no major surprises, County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero told the Plumas County Board of Supervisors on March 12.
In her midyear budget report, Lucero said property taxes are growing at a projected rate of 2% annually and the transient occupancy tax, collected on overnight visitors to the county, also appears to be growing.
“We’re on track,” she said to the supervisors, “but you’re going to have to make really good, prudent decisions because <money> just doesn’t grow on trees.”
While Lucero’s March 12 report was generally positive, it included several sobering details.
- Audits: Despite major strides in bringing financial accounting up to date, Plumas County is still behind in completing mandatory audits. A draft of the 2021-2022 audit is expected to be completed in early April. That leaves last year’s audit still incomplete.
- Utilities: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. bills are up 15% to 40% in some departments, and an assessment of energy costs jumped from $840,000 to $1.3 million, Lucero said.
- Proposition 1: If it passes, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to beef up California’s mental health system will be “a major game changer” for this and other counties, requiring local governments to foot the bill for new services and facilities.
A total of 95 vacancies
One statistic that commanded attention during the board discussion is the number of vacancies in the county workforce: 95. That puts the county 25% below a full workforce, Lucero said. She has been assessing each department to understand what positions are needed and which ones can be replaced to create a better workflow countywide. Reorganization in many departments will allow the county to utilize allocations more efficiently and eliminate those that remain unfilled after one or two years.
“We don’t have the personnel to do it the way we’ve been doing it for 20 years,” Lucero said.
“Putting it simply, if we filled all those positions, we’d be broke.”
Tom McGowan, Plumas County supervisor
The many unfilled positions have created an uncomfortable irony. Vacancies are costing the county less money in wages, thus helping with the overall balance of revenues against expenditures.
“Putting it simply,” said Supervisor Tom McGowan, “if we filled all those positions, we’d be broke.”
District Attorney David Hollister noted that the $6.9 million fund balance, which the county has built up since 2014, is the result of having one person do the job of two or three people. While that does save money, most of the county’s 26 departments reported an increase in overtime payments because of the many missing employees.
The vacancies are taking a horrific toll on the 324 people in the county workforce, Lucero said. “We see it every day. People are overworked. They’re exhausted. They’re tired and they’re burnt out,” she said.
“We are trying to catch up. It’s just that it’s a big load.”
Debra Lucero, Plumas County administrative officer
She blamed a combination of COVID and the trauma of the Dixie Fire. In recent months, Lucero has reported an increase in the number of positions being redefined with accurate job descriptions and then advertised.
“We are trying to catch up. It’s just that it’s a big load,” she said.
Filling all those 95 vacant positions is challenging in a county with limited housing and childcare. Both are costing the county “in so many ways” that have not been calculated, said Clint Koble, who reports to the supervisors on business and economic development.
The supervisors discussed the potential for identifying jobs that could be done remotely. Some people could work most days in Chester or Portola, said McGowan, going to Quincy once a month or so. But remote positions can also be a detriment when they are out of the county, said Hollister.
“That’s money that not only doesn’t go into our property tax base and sales tax and vehicle registration fees, but it’s also money that doesn’t go into our local businesses,” he said.
PG&E settlement fund
The 2021 Dixie Fire cost Plumas County untold damages beyond the toll on residents who lost their homes. Lucero asked each of the county’s department heads to determine its losses. They ranged from county-owned buildings — a library, sheriff’s substation and town hall — to damaged and destroyed road department equipment and a radio tower.
Along with reviewing expenses, the supervisors discussed the $7.8 million they received from PG&E as a settlement payment. California fire officials found PG&E responsible for starting the blaze with faulty electrical equipment in the Feather River Canyon near Pulga.
The supervisors have not made a decision about how to spend this fund, which was awarded in January 2023. “It’s a really important decision as we move forward,” said Lucero. “It’s very rare to get a chunk of money like that with no strings attached.”
She has advocated investing $2 million and using another $2 million as a match for grants. Lucero was clear March 12 that the $7.8 million is intended to “make the county whole. … It’s the county operations that are to be made whole — the county of Plumas as an organization,” she said.
Supervisor Kevin Goss was not ready to make any decisions. “I can’t see a path forward without using a majority of that $7.8 million to come up with a solution to build back in Greenville,” he said.
“I want to see most if not all of this money spent in the fire footprint area.”
Jeff Engel, Plumas County supervisor
Greenville residents make up the vast majority of the victims of the Dixie Fire, said McGowan, but they are not the only ones: “The entirety of the county’s constituents have been affected.”
Supervisor Jeff Engel sided with Goss: “I want to see most if not all of this money spent in the fire footprint area. … I think the majority of this decision should be made by Kevin’s constituents.”
Before deciding how to allocate the PG&E settlement fund, the supervisors agreed they needed additional information, including what insurance will pay for various county losses. Goss’ motion to bring the issue back the third week of April passed unanimously. Meanwhile, the PG&E settlement funds are earning interest, Lucero said.
After months of questioning by The Plumas Sun about when the supervisors accepted the $7.8 million settlement and why they did not publicly disclose the amount on acceptance, they ended the uncertainty March 12. “There’s nothing nefarious about it. There wasn’t anything underhanded about it. It was a settlement discussed in closed session,” Lucero said.
As to announcing the dollar amount of the settlement, Engel summed it up succinctly: “Just consider it to be an oversight,” he said.