Mulheren Wants Transparency on Annexation – Just Not the Kind That Hurts the City's Case

At this week's budget hearings, Supervisor Maureen Mulheren delivered an impassioned speech about transparency, warning that government shouldn't present "selected facts," "talking points," or "narratives" to the public. According to Mulheren, residents deserve the "full picture" on major policy decisions.

That's a great sentiment. It's just hard to square with what's happening with the City of Ukiah's annexation proposal.

For weeks, county staff have been trying to understand the financial impacts of the City's massive annexation scheme. Sheriff Matt Kendall raised one of the most obvious questions: if annexation costs the County hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first year alone, what happens in year two? Year three? How many deputies, services, or programs are ultimately put at risk?

Those aren't political questions. They're basic fiscal questions.

Instead of addressing those concerns directly, Supervisor Mulheren dismissed them as incomplete because they focus on lost county revenue rather than hypothetical future savings. Her argument boils down to this: don't worry about the money the County loses because someday there might be offsetting benefits.

That isn't transparency. That's speculation.

Even more remarkable was Mulheren's criticism of county staff for presenting information that "supports a particular conclusion." The irony is hard to miss. The City of Ukiah has spent years promoting annexation while refusing to provide a finalized map, refusing to provide a complete fiscal picture, and continually shifting the proposal itself.

It's also worth remembering that Supervisor Mulheren represents the City of Ukiah on the Board of Supervisors. Throughout the annexation debate, she has often appeared less like a neutral county policymaker and more like one of the City's strongest advocates. That's her prerogative, but it makes her complaints about "narratives" and one-sided information particularly noteworthy. If residents deserve the "full picture," that standard should apply just as much to the City of Ukiah's annexation claims as it does to County analyses of the proposal.

As Board Chair Supervisor Bernie Norvell pointed out, the annexation map remains a moving target. County officials were reportedly shown draft maps and told not to share them, only to see those same maps presented publicly shortly afterward. When asked for a timeline on a final map, the City reportedly said no draft map should be considered final and provided no timeline for when one might exist.

How exactly are residents supposed to evaluate the impacts of annexation when the City won't even commit to what areas it intends to annex?

Supervisor Ted Williams raised perhaps the most sensible point of the entire discussion: nobody seems to trust the analyses coming from either side. He proposed that they commission an independent review and let the facts speak for themselves.

That suggestion alone tells you everything you need to know about where things stand.

If annexation is truly the win-win scenario as the City of Ukiah and Supervisor Mulheren claim, there should be no fear of an independent financial analysis. There should be no fear of public scrutiny. There should be no fear of answering questions about county revenue losses, sheriff staffing impacts, infrastructure obligations, or long-term costs.

Instead, residents are being asked to trust a proposal that still doesn't have a final map, still lacks a universally accepted financial analysis, and still appears to leave the County with little leverage to negotiate protections for taxpayers.

Supervisor Mulheren is right about one thing: transparency builds trust.

The problem is that transparency requires more than speeches. It requires complete information, honest numbers, and a willingness to answer tough questions.

So far, that's exactly what the City of Ukiah has failed to provide.