Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Taxation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Plumas County holds informational briefing on Measure B (proposed 1¢ sales tax); public reaction split

Plumas County Board of Supervisors · April 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board held an information‑only presentation on Measure B, a proposed countywide 1% sales tax limited to 12 years to shore up general fund revenues and reduce reliance on one‑time funds; public comment was mixed, with supporters stressing service preservation and opponents warning of costs to residents and businesses.

The Plumas County Board of Supervisors hosted an informational presentation on Measure B — a proposed countywide 1% sales tax that would appear on the June 2, 2026 ballot if placed by voters — and heard public comment from residents and business owners.

The presentation, provided at the board’s request and reviewed by county counsel for content and tone, explained the measure’s basics: it is a general tax limited to 12 years, would exempt groceries and certain other state‑excluded items, and would be collected on taxable purchases in Plumas County (including purchases by visitors and seasonal residents). Staff and the auditor’s office summarized the county’s fiscal situation and argued the measure is intended to reduce reliance on one‑time funds that have funded ongoing operations in recent years.

Supporters in the audience argued Measure B would help maintain public safety, preserve staffing and county services, and stabilize infrastructure maintenance; one resident said the measure is modest compared with service needs. Opponents said the tax would increase costs for vulnerable households, raise business operating costs that could be passed to consumers, and provide the county with a general fund allocation that could be used at the board’s discretion rather than for a narrowly defined program.

The presentation did not include a board endorsement (board members stated the item was information only and that counsel had reviewed presentation content to avoid advocacy during the meeting). The board encouraged further public review and said citizens who did not get to speak could submit written comments or address the board at a future meeting.