The Plumas County Board of Supervisors approved a $163.9 million budget for the 2024-2025 year with little fanfare and few public comments. The public hearing Oct. 1 lasted less than 10 minutes.
The action was a continuation of a Sept. 17 hearing. In the interim, the overall budget was reduced by $862,037 and numerous changes were introduced, all of them small, said County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero.
Plumas County’s 2024-2025 spending plan is dominated by $153.6 million in state and federal funds that are not under the control of the board of supervisors. Most are directed to state-mandated programs such as behavioral and public health.
The supervisors have more control over the general fund, which totals $59.3 million. It is used for programs that include sheriff’s services, senior nutrition programs, the district attorney’s office and library services. The budget includes $5.3 million in debt services, and $428,000 in capital projects.
The changes introduced between the Sept. 17 and Oct. 1 hearings did not affect the available fund balance, which remains $9.98 million. These monies are unassigned funds and available for the supervisors to allot when unexpected expenses arise.
Lucero said all of the budget changes were posted publicly and available to everyone. But Plumas County Auditor/Controller Martee Graham said she had not seen them.
“They are all in here,” said Lucero, pointing to a budget binder.
“I don’t have it,” Graham replied, raising questions about the availability of the recent budget changes to the general public.
ENGIE contract raises concerns
Among the highlights of the 2024-2025 budget are a 5% across-the-board raise for most county employees and a 15% raise for the social services department. Lucero also called a $10.8 million comprehensive energy plan with ENGIE Services U.S. a bright spot in the spending plan.
With it, Plumas County is embarking on “a significant project” to transition to renewable, low-carbon energy sources, “which is better for our environment and will save the county money on energy costs,” she said. ENGIE’s energy plan is designed to save the county as much as $4.8 million over the 30-year life of the project.
Others, however, have questioned the process used to approve the ENGIE contract. The supervisors did not seek other bids for the alternative energy innovations and generator purchases proposed by ENGIE. That is required by the county’s purchasing policy and government code.
Rick Foster, a Quincy resident who frequently attends board of supervisor meetings, called for rescinding the Sept. 3 action that approved the ENGIE contract. That would allow “proper notification” and avoid “arbitrary decisions,” he said. Foster said the supervisors did not notify the public of a hearing to approve the energy package.
“It’s been pointed out that <the ENGIE contract> may not be totally legal.”
Tom McGowan, Plumas County supervisor
Supervisor Tom McGowan raised the issue Oct. 1, asking a “technical question” to make certain including the ENGIE contract in the budget was proper.
“It’s been pointed out that it may not be totally legal,” he said.
Board of Supervisors Chairman Greg Hagwood reassured him, saying the county’s legal counsel and “multiple legal counsels” have taken a position that “the adoption was proper under the law.”
“Multiple subject matter experts” have weighed in “regarding those legal considerations,” he said, before moving to invite comments from the public on the budget. The only public comment questioned whether the public has adequate access to the recent changes in the budget.
Budget approval came on a motion from McGowan seconded by Supervisor Kevin Goss. The vote was unanimous.