Pack the Room Tuesday: The Future of Annexation Is on the Line
Tuesday, June 23 could be one of the most important days yet in the fight against the City of Ukiah's annexation proposal.
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors will consider a resolution to terminate the Master Tax Sharing Agreement (MTSA) between the County and the cities of Ukiah, Willits, Fort Bragg, and Point Arena. The item is expected to be heard at approximately 1:30 p.m. at the Board Chambers, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah.
If you cannot attend in-person, here is the zoom information.
Zoom Link: https://mendocinocounty.zoom.us/j/8274909212
Zoom Phone Number (if joining via telephone): 1 669 900 9128 ; Zoom Webinar ID: 827 4909 2122
The resolution is nearly identical to the one introduced by Supervisor Ted Williams last year and comes after months of County analysis showing the significant fiscal and operational impacts the proposed annexation would have on County government.
The draft resolution states that the first annexation proposal under the MTSA revealed "significant workload, financial strain, and administrative overhead" and that the projected loss of revenues threatens the County's ability to maintain staffing for core public safety services, including the Sheriff's Office. The resolution further concludes that the County's ability to fulfill its constitutional and statutory obligations could be impaired by the current agreement.
This meeting is not the time to stay home.
If you oppose annexation, if you are concerned about rising costs, if you believe County taxpayers deserve transparency, and if you think decisions of this magnitude should be based on facts rather than promises, we need you there. Fill the chambers. Speak during public comment. Show the Board that residents are paying attention.
The timing of this agenda item is particularly notable. Just days after the City's annexation workshop, County CEO Darcie Antle sent a strongly worded letter to the City of Ukiah expressing concern that materials presented to the public contained inaccuracies that had not been reviewed or verified by the County. Antle wrote that moving forward with information known to be inaccurate "makes it difficult to maintain the trust that is essential for progressing such a significant annexation effort." She further requested that future annexation materials be jointly reviewed before being presented to the public.
That letter raises serious questions. For months, residents have been told to trust the City's process. Yet now the County's top administrative officer is publicly stating that inaccurate information was presented to residents and that trust between the agencies has been damaged. If the City cannot accurately present information during a public workshop, how can residents have confidence in the rest of the annexation proposal?
When speaking to the Board, residents may want to consider several key facts:
The County's own fiscal review found over $30 million in lost or redirected revenues over time while finding little to no corresponding reduction in County responsibilities.
The County would continue to operate the jail, coroner services, elections, public health programs, social services, emergency management, and numerous other mandated functions regardless of annexation.
The Sheriff's Office would continue serving the region, yet the County could lose revenue used to support those services.
The City has repeatedly argued that annexation is necessary for water infrastructure funding. However, the SAFER drinking water grant program does not require annexation for eligibility.
The City has also argued annexation is needed for fire protection. Yet fire protection is already provided throughout the region today. Residents already receive fire service without annexation.
Even with annexation discussions underway, local fire officials have acknowledged that additional funding measures may be needed in the coming years and that voters could be asked to approve new taxes to support fire services. Annexation is therefore not a guarantee against future tax increases.
Residents in annexed areas would immediately become subject to the City's higher sales tax rate.
The County's analysis found that the MTSA itself creates significant administrative burdens, requiring complicated manual calculations and long-term revenue tracking.
The City continues to disagree with many of the County's conclusions, but disagreement is not a substitute for evidence. Residents deserve a full public discussion of the County's findings.
The Board of Supervisors needs to hear from the people who will be affected by this proposal. City officials and their consultants have had countless opportunities to make their case. Now it is time for residents, taxpayers, business owners, farmers, seniors, and families to make theirs.
Pack the room. Bring your neighbors. Speak during public comment.
The future of annexation in Mendocino County may depend on what happens Tuesday.
Information Related to the Meeting
Board of Supervisors Agenda — Item R8 and R9
Board Resolution Terminating Tax Sharing Agreement
Full Text of the Master Tax Sharing Agreement
Letter from Mendocino County CEO Darcie Antle to Ukiah City Manager Sage Sangiacomo
