Aug. 10—After a lengthy and at times contentious meeting Tuesday night, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a November general election ballot measure that will ask voters to consider a one cent retail sales tax increase in order to properly fund existing county services, such as public safety.

Because of the limitations in its ability to grow and benefit from its 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 said prior to Tuesday's meeting that because of the county's strong commitment to public safety, other costs and services have been affected. Several supervisors during Tuesday's meeting also stressed their commitment to law enforcement and ensuring that the county's officers and firefighters are properly supported.

"To provide for countywide services such as sheriff, jail, fire, elections, probation, district attorney, property assessment, agriculture, weights and measures, environmental health and many others, the county has been cutting other General Fund costs for many years to support the board's strong commitment to public safety," Smith said in an email when asked about why the one cent retail sales tax increase is ultimately needed. "We've reduced costs and maintained service levels by holding positions vacant, delaying equipment purchases, deferring building maintenance, and limiting non-public safety pay raises. The General Fund departments are at such a low level of staffing, that cuts are impractical and unfortunately public safety cannot go untouched when reductions are made."

Smith also sought to assure the public that money collected from the proposed tax increase will be used as intended, something supervisors echoed as well during Tuesday's meeting.

"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."

Several supervisors touted their commitment to funding public safety and stressed that if the one cent sales tax increase is not passed by voters, then significant cuts will have to be made.

"When I think about passing a tax, I'm a Republican also, nobody likes paying more taxes. But, this is something that is going to have to happen and this community's going to have to get prepared for it," Sutter County District 1 Supervisor Nick Micheli said. "... If it doesn't happen in the next couple years, we're going to make severe cuts and it's going to be painful and it's going to be across the board."

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.

"There is a real possibility ... maybe we don't close a fire station, but maybe it turns to volunteer," he said.

Sutter County District 3 Supervisor Mike Ziegenmeyer suggested that county services such as the museum or library also could be at risk if more revenue isn't generated in a timely manner.

"I'm not gonna cut public safety, that's last on the list. I'm gonna look at something else to cut," Ziegenmeyer said. "... I believe in the arts. I believe in the museum. I believe in the library. But we're going to have to make cuts that are going to help keep the community safe. I hate to say this, but those are going to be some of the first places we look at."

When asked prior to Tuesday's meeting if the idea of dissolving the museum or library was an option, Smith said doing so would only temporarily solve the county's overall funding concerns.

"I think all county services are vital. The library is packed all the time. It's such a great resource," Smith said. "We may have to at some point (cut it), but it would probably be along with other stuff. If you cut the library or museum, you've solved the problem for maybe a year or less."

Linda Baker, president of the Friends of the Sutter County Library, warned that cutting quality-of-life services such as the library and museum would ultimately harm the county and its ability to attract potential new residents.

"The library is low-hanging fruit. I think that we need to not just consider public safety ... we also need to consider quality of life," Baker said. "... If I'm selling a piece of real estate in this county, I want to be able to brag about the great library. I want to be able to brag about the museum."

Several critics of the county spoke up during public comment at Tuesday's meeting. Many said the county wasn't doing enough to cut staff or trim unnecessary waste.

Smith pushed back on this during his presentation and in a conversation with the Appeal prior to his presentation. Even supervisors who had the same concerns about how the county was spending its money and its level of staffing admitted that once in office, they observed the reality of the situation and now understood the dire needs of the staff and county as a whole.

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."

Smith, in a recent editorial 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."

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 Appeal previously reported.

"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)."

In a staff report, an analysis and projection of Sutter County's "General Fund revenues and costs shows a gap of slightly under $1 million in FY 2023-24 with the deficit rising to approximately $11.8 million by FY 2028-29 if current trends continue."

The county said it "cannot sustain an ongoing operating deficit, so reductions in services, inclusive of public safety services like law enforcement and fire protection, will have to be made if additional revenues do not materialize."

Smith and the county have estimated that a one cent countywide sales tax increase could generate about $19.6 million in its first year of implementation.

If the one cent increase is approved by voters, the new county retail sales tax would be 8.25%. A one cent increase is an additional cent on each dollar spent. The following is a breakdown of the statewide 7.25% sales and use tax rate, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration: — Rate: 3.6875%. Purpose: Goes to the state's General Fund. Authority: Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 6051, 6201. — Rate: 0.25%. Purpose: Goes to the state's General Fund. Authority: Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 6051.3, 6201.3. — Rate: 0.5%. Purpose: Goes to the Local Public Safety Fund to support local criminal justice activities (1993). Authority: Section 35, Article XIII, State Constitution. — Rate: 0.5%. Purpose: Goes to the Local Revenue Fund to support local health and social services programs (1991 Realignment). Authority: Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 6051.2, 6201.2. — Rate: 1.0625%. Purpose: Goes to Local Revenue Fund 2011. Authority: Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 6051.15 and 6201.15. — Rate: 1.25%. Purpose: 0.25% goes to county transportation funds; 1% goes to city or county operations. Authority: Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7202 and 7203.

A main concern for critics of a potential tax increase is the fact that the money that will go into the county's General Fund will not actually go toward public safety. Supervisors pushed back on that notion, highlighting how the majority of the county's budget has gone to public safety and how each of them have been fully supportive of public safety during their time in office.

"I believe as long as the individuals are here, we're going to continue where those funds go. We can't come out and tell you that 100% of the funds are going to go to public safety or 90% or 85, we can't do that," Ziegenmeyer said. "All I'm hoping is that you take our voting record and what we've been preaching and what we've said and I have stayed true to my word the last three and a half years I've been a supervisor. ... And so has every other individual up here. We have not changed or deviated."