Plumas County voters will decide June 2 whether to approve a 1% countywide sales tax designed to stabilize county finances. The Plumas County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved two measures Jan. 6 that will place the across-the-board tax on the ballot.
The sales tax, which would require a simple majority for approval, would generate about $3 million annually, according to county officials. It would automatically end in 12 years.
“We don’t have enough ongoing annual revenue to cover our regular ongoing costs.”
Mimi Hall, Plumas County supervisor
At the supervisors’ meeting, newly elected Board Chair Mimi Hall plainly stated the case for approving a sales tax: “We don’t have enough ongoing annual revenue to cover our regular ongoing costs.”
Plumas County has undertaken significant efforts in the past year to resolve a gap between county spending and revenues, Hall said. Among them are multiyear budget balancing strategies, improved budget forecasting and transparency, internal cost-containment reforms and targeted expenditure reductions. As a result, the county has reduced its structural deficit and improved reserve levels.
While the efforts have been substantial, they have not erased the persistent budget deficits the county has faced in recent years. The 2024-2025 fiscal year deficit was $12.9 million. For fiscal year 2025-2026 it was $6.2 million.
“You cut, cut, cut away a structural deficit problem,” Hall said, but the cost savings are “nowhere near the amount of retirement, health insurance and salary increases,” which are the biggest impacts on the county budget. A 10% salary increase approved for county workers in 2025 cost $3 million in ongoing increases to the county budget.
“If we do want a workforce that makes more than minimum wage, if we do want a workforce that’s going to stay here, we have to do something to the look to the future,” Hall said.
“Approval of this measure is not going to be a magic bullet. It’s not going to solve our budget problems, but it will go a long way,” she added.
How the tax would work
If more than 50% of voters countywide approve it, the sales tax would add 1% to most purchases made countywide. Among the reasons the supervisors chose a sales tax is that about half would be paid by people who are not Plumas County residents. It is a broad-based tax not levied on one segment of the economy, Hall said.
“So this is spreading the burden amongst visitors who come here and spend money,” Hall said. It would add $1 to every $100 spent in Plumas County.
If voters approve it, Plumas County’s sales tax would go from 7.25% to 8.25%. That’s what consumers currently spend in Butte County. In the city of Chico it is 9.25%. Grass Valley and Nevada City each collect 8.875% on all sales within the city. The sales tax in Nevada County is 7.5%.
Not everyone at the Jan. 6 board meeting agreed that a sales tax is the most equitable way to generate revenue for Plumas County. Josh Hart, of Portola, called it “a regressive tax” that will hit working people the hardest. “The people who are struggling the most shouldn’t be required to pay the most,” Hart said in comments delivered via Zoom.
Hart suggested instead that the county raise revenue by eliminating property tax exemptions to those who qualify for timber production zones. He also proposed putting a tax on second homes.
“These are revenue-generating mechanisms that would target the wealthy, target corporations, and leave the working class alone,” Hart said.
‘Extensive education‘
Debbie Hopkins, of Quincy, cautioned the supervisors about taking voter approval for granted. “If you don’t do a very extensive education intervention, this is going to be a waste of time to put it on the ballot,” she said. She urged the supervisors to organize how they present the measure to the public and how they explain it.
Janet Crain, of Meadow Valley, said she was willing to help campaign for the sales tax but needed to know how to explain some county circumstances to the public. Among those she cited are county audits, currently two years behind schedule; around 89 unfilled county positions; and the county’s negative bond rating.
“These kinds of things I think you should bring up and talk to us about so that we can be educated on how to support this issue,” Crain said.
Supervisor Jeff Engel said he preferred a sales tax over raising building department or planning department fees. “I just want to try to keep Plumas County as reasonable as I possibly can,” he said. “We need to keep people here, lure people here. If we can’t pay them, they’re going to go to another county.”
Supervisor Dwight Ceresola’s comment was to the point: “I don’t like taxes but if this is needed, so be it.”
Supervisor Tom McGowan suggested that some of the revenue generated by the 1% sales tax be directed toward economic development. Plumas County has a declining and aging population.
“We need to attract younger families … and new residents and employees of the county, who also contribute to our overall budget and economy,” he said.
Pro and con ballot arguments
Approval of the sales tax ballot measure came in two sections. After a 35-minute discussion, the supervisors voted unanimously on Engel’s motion to place the measure on the June 2 ballot. Then, in a separate motion also by Engel, they voted to approve a six-page ordinance spelling out the terms of what is formally known as a “retail transactions and use tax.”
County Counsel Joshua Brechtel made it clear the 1% sales tax is a general tax measure requiring a simple majority vote to pass. It does not need the two-thirds majority required by a special tax measure, he said.
Now that the measure has been approved to appear on the June 2 ballot, arguments for and against it can be generated to appear in ballot materials, said Plumas County Clerk-Recorder Marcy DeMartile. She will begin accepting them Jan. 12.
