Barnes votes yes on Measure A

Oct. 25—With mail-in ballots already out and Election Day just a little more than two weeks away, Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes announced late last week his support for a Sutter County one cent sales tax measure to help fund county services, including those concerning public safety.

In a roughly two-minute long video posted online Thursday night, Barnes explained why he already has voted for Measure A, Sutter County's "Essential Services Measure" that is on the Nov. 8 ballot. The measure calls for an added one cent sales tax for a period of nine years that would raise about $19 million a year in revenue for the county.

"Recently, I've been getting a lot of phone calls, specifically asking my position on Measure A," Barnes said, who also said he already has voted yes.

As part of his reasoning for supporting the measure, Barnes mentioned the fact that 51 of 58 counties in California either have a "county or a city in that county" with a similar tax measure already in place.

"These are the jurisdictions that we're competing with for qualified applicants here at the Sutter County Sheriff's Department," Barnes said. "So kind of taking that into consideration, I kind of went through this process to see whether or not I felt that this tax initiative would, one, help the employees of the Sutter County Sheriff's Department and as I looked at that, I felt that it would."

In the video, it said there are currently 17 vacancies in "sheriff's patrol" and nine vacancies in "911 dispatch."

Barnes said another big factor in his decision to support the tax measure was if the money could be used to help the community.

"Would it be able to allow us to either sustain or in some cases enhance our services to the residents of Sutter County? And my answer to that is, 'Yes, I think it would.' So taking all of those things into consideration, I decided to vote yes," Barnes said.

For those who have publicly been opposed to the measure, a main point of contention is the fact that the money collected will go into the county's general fund, where theoretically it could be spent on anything the county wanted.

County supervisors have pushed back at that notion.

"I put this community first, before politics. I believe as an elected official we owe it to the people of our community, do you support this measure or not. Why do you support it or why don't you support it? When I vote on a bond, I look at how it affects me and my family," District 3 Supervisor Mike Ziegenmeyer recently said, who along with the other Sutter County supervisors unanimously voted on Aug. 9 to put the sales tax measure on the Nov. 8 ballot. "It could help us recruit and keep talent here. You can't be lean in public safety or behavioral health. You need 100% staffing in those areas."

During a Sept. 13 Sutter County Board of Supervisors meeting, Ziegenmeyer made a plea to the public to look past the rhetoric of anti-tax voices and ask the right questions.

"No one likes taxes, I don't want to pay more taxes. ... You look at what you're gonna get out of it, that's how I look at it. ... We look at the services that we provide right now and I see people post on certain items, 'well, you don't need this and you don't need that.' ... I'd like to have a safer community," Ziegenmeyer said. "I'd like to actually have four sheriff deputies patrolling, instead of one or two. It's not just because they got three or four or five sitting back at the department twiddling their thumbs, because that's all they have. I'd like to see two firefighters working in the department, whether we receive a SAFER grant or not. I believe we have 15 positions in the public works and we're down five. Behavioral health ... we're down 30% ... just in that department alone. I can't imagine what we're down in probation ... that's public safety. These are things that we need to figure out how to fund and this is a big deal. Do your homework and ask those questions."

Barnes said during his first term as sheriff, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors has been "completely supportive" of both law enforcement and the fire department.

"I think that's reflected in the votes that they made over the course of the last four years that I've been in office," Barnes said. "Now of course, I know that the make up of the board can change over time. But, where I fall in that is ... many of those candidates come to me and they ask for endorsements and so I'm going to vet those candidates out, as many of the members of the community would as well. I think that's important to do. If we have a candidate that does not reflect the values of our community, then of course we'll lend our support somewhere else."

According to the county, Measure A includes "strict fiscal accountability provisions" to quell concerns the money may not be spent as intended. These provisions include independent citizens' oversight, public disclosure of all spending, and annual independent financial audits.

"We have to take a little bit of a leap of faith to get where I think we need to be as a county. And so for all of those reasons, I decided to vote yes on Measure A and I hope you'll give it consideration too," Barnes said.

How we got here

The 2020/21 Sutter County Grand Jury report stated "there is not sufficient funding for fire services" in Sutter County. The grand jury found there was outdated equipment that needed to be replaced and that salaries were so low that the county was having a difficult time recruiting and retaining employees. The report also stated that aging vehicles "are more expensive to maintain and prone to failure which could endanger the firefighters and the public."

To fix these issues, the Sutter County Grand Jury recommended that the county seek a measure to fund fire services and inform the public why more revenue was needed to "continue to provide fire and emergency services at the present level."

In the 2021/22 Sutter County Grand Jury report released in June, it said, "the Sutter County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) is providing service to the community while being understaffed and underpaid."

On Sept. 22, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors filed its official response to concerns related to the sheriff's department. In the response, the board asserted that the "Sutter County Sheriff's Office staff are underpaid, which can lead to low morale and high staff turn-over."

In its response, the board said it agreed with the evaluation by the grand jury.

"The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Due to limited resources and higher salaries in other counties and cities, Sutter County has found it difficult to stay competitive in the market for employees across the board," the response from the board said. "While prevalent in all departments, this problem is especially persistent in the Sheriff's Office. In February 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Sutter County Peace Officers Association, representing sworn law enforcement personnel. The MOU provided ongoing raises in 2022 of an average of 14.73% (low of 9.2%; high of 23/6%) that brought salaries for sworn positions closer to market parity."

The board also said that after the increase, "other jurisdictions provided across the board raises" of 5-8%, which the county contends made it more difficult to recruit and retain quality employees.

"Over the past 10 years, Sutter County has supported public safety at an increasing rate, which takes resources away from other vital County functions," the supervisors said. "The County has little ability to raise revenue to support the anticipated rise in public safety costs. This is the reason that the Board of Supervisors voted to place a sales tax measure on the ballot for voter consideration. Without additional revenue, the Board will have to decrease service levels in order to remain competitive in the market for employees, especially those who provide crucial public safety services."

On Aug. 9, prior to that official response to the grand jury, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the inclusion of a ballot measure for the upcoming Nov. 8 general election that would ask voters to approve a one cent retail sales tax increase — Measure A.

If the increase is approved by voters, the new county retail sales tax rate would be 8.25%. A one cent increase is an additional cent on each dollar spent.

The county has contended that the additional money is needed so that it can properly fund existing county services, including public safety. Because of what the county views as limitations in its ability to grow and benefit from its current tax base, Sutter County has been put in a position where it must ask voters to consider a sales tax increase in order to not only keep up with surrounding counties and jurisdictions when it comes to recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers and firefighters, but also essential county employees that are already working with limited means.

Sutter County Administrator Steve Smith previously said that because of the county's strong commitment to public safety, other costs and services provided by the county have been affected. Of particular concern is the county's ability to properly fund its fire services. Smith said that if the tax measure doesn't pass or more revenue can't be generated, then those full-time positions could potentially be transformed into voluntary ones.

Critics of the measure contend that the county and its supervisors wouldn't be appropriate stewards of the additional funds. Smith and the supervisors, much like Barnes, have pushed back against this idea.

"Actions speak louder than words. The county has a long history of prioritizing public safety in its budgets and expenditures," Smith said. "Over the past 10 years, public safety costs have increased by over 38% while non-public safety department costs have increased by only 2.3%. The (Sutter County) Board of Supervisors has prioritized public safety, and especially the sheriff's operations, above all other county functions. This represents the will of the constituency and strong policy from the board. There is no reason to believe that the policy decisions, which are driven by our community priorities, would change."

Smith, in an editorial that was published in the Appeal, asserted that Sutter County "has been doing more with less for a long time." According to the county, it has the second fewest employees per capita of the 31 counties within California with a population of 200,000 or fewer.

"Sutter County has difficulty recruiting employees, especially those with specialized skills, because it pays less than surrounding government agencies," Smith wrote. "And we have combined services with other local government agencies wherever possible."

Smith also said that because of Sutter County's unique geography, there are limitations for the type of growth that is possible — growth that could contribute to the type of revenue the county would need.

"The natural features that lend to the pleasant aspects of the countryside and country life we enjoy come at a cost. They severely restrict the ability of the county to attract economic development and generate revenue for county services," Smith wrote. "More than 68% of Sutter County's land mass is in either a federal or state designated flood zone, where the cost of raising buildings to a safe elevation is often too great to encourage development. No other California county is handicapped by federal and state flood plain policy to such an extent. (Yolo County, the county with the next highest percentage of its land in a flood zone, is at about half of Sutter County's percentage)."

Vocal opposition

Much of the opposition surrounding Measure A has been supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

According to its website, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation (HJTF) is the "research, education and legal arm of the Jarvis organization." The organization said it "advances the interests of taxpayers in the courtroom. Given the high cost of litigation, an ordinary taxpayer is rarely in a position to challenge the validity of an illegal tax levy. In appropriate cases, HJTF provides legal representation without cost to other taxpayer advocacy organizations, homeowners and individual taxpayers where the precedence established confers a broad public benefit to other citizens."

The group sponsored "The Great Flat Tax Forum" in Simi Valley and has funded the distribution of tax policy-related books and studies to public and school libraries throughout California, according to its website. A flat tax is generally described as a tax with a single rate on the taxable amount, after accounting for any deductions or exemptions from the tax base.

According to an article published by CNBC, critics of a flat tax say "it primarily benefits wealthy households" and could hurt the amount of revenue collected in an economic downturn.

"It's not about simplicity," Richard Auxier, senior policy associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told CNBC. "It's about tax relief for higher-income households."

In December 2018, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, along with citizens Charlie Matthews and John Mistler, challenged Measure K in Yuba County, arguing it should have been classified as a special tax — funds collected from Measure K go toward public safety and essential services.

Measure K passed in 2018 with a simple majority of 53% and raised the sales tax by one percentage point in unincorporated Yuba County, the Appeal previously reported. In September 2019, Yuba County Superior Court Judge Stephen Berrier ruled that the measure should have been a special tax that requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Berrier ruled that the language in the tax mentioned specific uses for funds collected. The county appealed the decision and in July 2021 the California Third District Court of Appeal overturned Berrier's ruling and deemed Measure K a general tax.

The tax went into effect in April 2019, while the lawsuit was pending. As litigation played out, the county collected the tax and held funds in a trust that remained untouched pending the final ruling. County Administrator Kevin Mallen said in a presentation to the Yuba County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 12, 2021, that approximately $14 million was collected between April 2019 and June 2021.

Critics of Measure A in Sutter County not only are concerned about where the money will be spent, but also that the additional funds are being requested during a time of economic uncertainty.

While a one cent increase is unlikely to be noticed by most residents, the county has attempted to clear up exactly what would be taxed if the measure were to pass.

"In California, sales tax is charged on goods, not services. There is no sales tax on groceries, prescription medicine, health care, education, auto maintenance, household utilities, manufacturing equipment, or a variety of goods related to agriculture, such as seed and fertilizer to grow food," the county says on its website. "Items subject to sales tax include food purchased at restaurants, gasoline and motor oil, furniture, household equipment, vehicles, clothing, alcohol, tobacco, and recreational cannabis."

Another point of contention among critics is what Sutter County currently spends on its employees and services, with many having the belief that more cuts can and should be made.

According to county documents, Sutter County raised staff salaries by 3% from 2018 to 2023. When compared to other counties, such as Yuba County, the percentages are much higher. For example, Yuba County saw total raises during the same time period of 15%. Nearly all surrounding counties in the region saw raises of 10% or higher from 2018 to 2023.

"We've been cutting for 10 years," Smith said. "... We're always going to do our best. And we're going to balance the budget no matter what. ... My department, we're super thin. Other departments are super thin compared to other counties. Right now we're really lucky to have a dedicated and smart workforce in Sutter County, but when you're paying less, who do you think you're going to get? We're lucky to have what we have. It's not realistic that it can go on."