The Plumas County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to resume budget hearings June 25, a week after county officials and the public weighed in June 18 on spending proposed for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.
Dollar figures and workforce totals in the 2024-2025 budget have changed significantly from the recommended budget submitted June 7, in part because of feedback from the department heads and elected officials who packed the June 18 public hearing.
That’s the public process, said County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero: “Budget numbers are always a moving target.”
Between the June 18 hearing and the final June 25 hearing, the length of the proposed budget mushroomed from 502 pages to 629 pages. The budgeted general fund increased by 15%, Lucero said. She attributed the changes to adding back 15 staff positions recommended for elimination and a $596,946 retirement expenditure in the district attorney’s budget that was not included in the previous county budget.
The total recommended budget is now $156.4 million, with a county general fund of $57.5 million and $6.4 million fund balance, available for the supervisors to allot as needed.
Cutting staff positions
Among the controversies raised by the budget released June 7 is the number of positions recommended for elimination. Of the county’s 401 full-time positions, Lucero originally identified 19.6 for removal. All are vacant, she said. Lucero also suggested adding two positions each in the probation and public health departments.
“The Band-Aid ripped off when I saw one full-time position taken out of our office.”
Marcy DeMartile, Plumas County clerk-recorder
A total of 84.695 county positions are unfilled, Lucero said. The payroll for these positions is approximately $8 million. County officials have in the past used the revenue saved from vacant positions to increase the county’s fund balance. Opponents of this budgeting scheme have complained that the supervisors are balancing the budget on the backs of county employees, who are doing the work of two or three people.
At the June 18 hearing, Plumas County Clerk-Recorder Marcy DeMartile was one of several department heads who attended to object to losses in their staff.
“The Band-Aid ripped off when I saw one full-time position taken out of our office,” she said.
Debbie Wingate, acting director for social services, also objected to losses in her department. The social services department performs a variety of tasks mandated by the state, which provides the funding. Because the positions were vacant, the work did not get done, Wingate said. That meant returning money to the state.
Eliminating the positions will not solve the problem, she told the supervisors. It would further reduce the mandated work, force the county to return more money and “only make it worse,” said Wingate.
Supervisor Kevin Goss spoke in favor of retaining positions in the county’s social services and public health departments. Because they are state funded, eliminating them does nothing to reduce the county’s expenses. He recommended leaving those positions in the county budget cycle.
Other departments faced with staff position losses include behavioral health, building and probation.
In her revised budget recommendation, Lucero added back 15.02 positions. They are worth approximately $2 million, she said. They remain unfilled. The budget going to the supervisors June 25 eliminates three vacant positions from the general fund that have remained open for one year without being filled. One is in the building department and two are in the probation department.
Lucero emphasized the importance of “strategically” eliminating unfilled positions to bring the county’s projected vacancy rate from 20.3% to 10% in the next budget cycle. Positions can always be reinstated upon approval by the board of supervisors, she said.
Pay raises of up to 10%
A major component in the 2024-25 budget is a proposed pay increase of up to 10% for most county workers. The board of supervisors has made that a priority, Lucero said. It would not include departments that have recently had salary adjustments. Among these are the sheriff’s office, child support services and the public works department.
The budget also proposes a pay increase of up to 20% for employees of the social services department. The impact of potential and approved raises in the budget amounts to $5.4 million annually, Lucero said.
She noted that salaries allocated to positions that are unfilled have helped balance the county budget in recent years. And she cautioned the supervisors about the potential effects of attracting more employees through higher wages. Actual costs and vacancy rates will need to be closely monitored “to ensure Plumas County is not forced into a position of making workforce reductions in future years.”
In other workforce-related issues, Lucero said 60% of the county workforce is on track to receive merit and longevity pay increases.
County is facing ‘an existential crisis‘
The standing-room-only crowd at the supervisors’ June 18 budget hearing reflected widespread criticism of the 2024-25 budget proposed by Lucero. In an open letter written later that day, the six elected county officials who signed it sent a message intended to sound an alarm. The county is facing “an existential crisis that is a threat to its sheer survival,” they said.
The budget proposes increased expenditures without the revenue to pay for them, and it is balanced by “one-time fixes with no concrete, sustainable long-term financing strategy,” the letter stated. It was signed by Plumas County District Attorney David Hollister, Sheriff Todd Johns, Assessor Cindie Froggatt, Auditor-Controller Martee Nieman Graham, Treasurer-Tax Collector Julie White and Mimi Hall, who was elected in March as county supervisor to represent the downtown Quincy district.
Plumas County is facing “a staggering $10.3 million general fund deficit.”
Open letter to county supervisors from elected officials
The elected officials took Lucero to task for several “factual errors” in her characterizations of the proposed budget, but their major criticism was using the county’s $6.4 million fund balance to close what they called “a staggering $10.3 million general fund deficit.” The budget should instead use cost savings or increased revenue from solutions implemented in the prior year to be budgeted in 2024-25, the letter stated.
“The liberal use of fund balance as the answer to the budget’s annual expenditure gap is fiscally irresponsible and leaves the county at great financial risk,” the elected officials said. Their letter suggests that the CAO has a lack of understanding regarding the basic financing and administration of government.
Lucero included her response in an updated letter to the supervisors with revised budget recommendations. She refuted the elected officials’ “inaccuracies or misrepresentations,” but said she was “in complete agreement” with their call to reduce reliance on one-time funds. To do that will require updated policies for all staff, and significant up-front costs to replace existing systems, she said.
Lucero has relied on consultants Clifton Larsen Allen to develop the last two budgets. The county has allocated $1,412,000 over two to three years to update its financial processes, including $728,000 over two to three years to CLA. In response to criticism over her budgeting process, she cited “a continuing pattern” of late audits and reports, pointing to deficiencies in the auditor/controller and tax collector offices. That affects budget preparation, Lucero said.
“When books are not closed in a timely manner, necessary internal reports are unavailable and external reports such as audits are late,” she said in her letter. The last audit Plumas County turned in was dated April 22, 2024. It was due March 31, 2023.
Lucero’s five-page June 25 response to the supervisors also noted that many of the challenges the county now faces have accumulated over multiple years. It will take a multiyear approach to address them, Lucero said.
Other budget issues included:
PG&E fund – The county’s $7.8 million Dixie Fire settlement from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is a one-time revenue source that remains largely unallocated. It has earned $314,324 in interest, Lucero said. Adam Cox, general manager of Indian Valley Community Services District, encouraged the supervisors to allocate some of the fund as soon as possible to current projects that address recovery in the burn scar areas.
Reviving the 0.75 percent sales tax increase – Lucero made eight recommendations for increasing revenues. Among them is a 0.75 percent sales tax increase originally proposed by Plumas County Sheriff Todd Johns and District 5 Supervisor Jeff Engel as Measure A on the March 5 ballot. Designed to generate an additional $2 million for public safety, the measure failed to win the required two-thirds majority.
