Thomas County approves $175,000 settlement for treasurer-tax-collector and authorizes budget transfer

The Thomas County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 25 approved a settlement and release agreement calling for a $175,000 payment tied to claims by Treasurer–Tax Collector Julie White and authorized a separate $40,000 supplemental budget transfer to the county’s litigation line for fiscal year 2024–25.

The settlement and budget adjustment were discussed at a special meeting where counsel Ruben Cruz described the proposal as “a proposed settlement and release agreement designed to resolve issues related to the treasurer tax collector's claims for reimbursement for attorney's fees.” The board voted on the items in roll call and moved forward with the payments.

The matter drew sharp public criticism. A commenter identified in the record as Kayla said she was “very confused as to why the board is willing to pay what looks like $215,000 of taxpayer money just to make White's complaint go away,” and urged the board to reject the item. A separate commenter on Zoom said approving the payout “isn't just bad policy. It borders on criminal,” and cited “California penal code 424” in arguing the payment could violate law.

County staff explained the budget action was administrative, not new spending. Auditor–Controller Marty told the board, “this budget adjustment is to give the auditor controller appropriation for the fiscal year 24–25 to pay the claim of $175,000 in the fiscal year 24–25, because at the moment we do not have $175,000. This is not additional money. This is just to increase the budget for fiscal year 24–25.” The supplemental transfer of $40,000 was described as a cushion so the litigation line can cover invoices through the fiscal year.

Board members framed their votes as a choice between protracted litigation and an immediate settlement. One supervisor summarized the dilemma: “Now we can deny this and take the chance of going to court, and maybe it'll cost the taxpayers of Plumas County over $500,000… we have to look out for the overall good of the county,” and said the settlement is a compromise intended to avoid further cost and disruption.

During discussion a board member asked that the board sign and issue a formal apology tied to the settlement; the motion to approve the settlement was made with that addendum and seconded before the roll call vote. Counsel Ruben Cruz said the settlement is intended “to avoid protracted litigation and future costs and reach a final resolution of the matter.”

The agenda also listed an item to authorize a budget transfer of $40,000 from general fund use of fund balance to account 2002052/521901 (County Administration — Litigation) to cover over‑budget costs associated with litigation; the board approved that supplemental transfer at the same meeting.

After the votes the board recessed into closed session on an unrelated personnel matter and later reported no reportable action from the closed session.

The record shows public objections emphasizing alleged prior findings in a grand jury report and questions about whether proper pre‑approval of outside counsel and related procedures occurred; those objections are included in the meeting minutes and were made part of the public record.