At Tuesday’s BOS meeting on June 24, the Supes unanimously decided not to terminate the tax-sharing/annexation agreement with the city of Ukiah.
Instead, they chose to continue to monitor the sketchy deal with an ad hoc committee of Supes Madeline Cline and Bernie Norvell, who are supposed to report on a regular basis any developments and additional information relative to the proposed annexation/tax sharing proposal.
Exactly one year ago in June, the supervisors, with the exception of John Haschak, voted 4-1 to approve a so-called tax-sharing agreement brought forward by the city of Ukiah. Haschak appears to be the only supervisor who figured out that Ukiah had hornswoggled the BOS with what looks like a very bad deal.
Following the 2024 vote, Haschak explained, “The Board approved a Master Tax Sharing Agreement without proper analyses done of how it would affect County services and finances … when areas that are in the County have sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax generating businesses, it becomes much more complicated and risky for the County. The County projects a loss of $3 million if, for example, the area north of Ukiah is annexed. This includes Raley’s, auto dealers, motels, and many other businesses (14 of the 25 highest sales tax generators in the County). Yet the County will still be responsible for coroner duties and other law enforcement activities, social services, mental and public health, and other services. This loss of income will affect the County’s budget unless there is a huge surge of economic development as the proponents claim.”
A day after this Tuesday’s BOS meeting, the Laytonville Municipal Advisory Council met for our monthly meeting. The Council voted unanimously requesting the BOS to terminate the annexation/tax-sharing agreement with Ukiah.
The Laytonville Council recommended terminating the June 2024 master tax-sharing agreement between Mendocino County and the city of Ukiah due to potential adverse financial impacts to county coffers from the proposed annexation that could lead to Ukiah tripling in size, along with the estimated annual loss of $3 million in tax revenues.
Our Council, which I chair, emphasized that the proposal lacks sufficient information and data, making it difficult for decision-makers and the public to assess its implications. We also noted that the county should reject the proposal, as the city of Ukiah is the sponsoring party, and is therefore responsible for providing all necessary information related to the proposal. The county should not be wasting time and money attempting to ferret out all the missing details in a land and tax grab transaction that so far conceals much more than it reveals. Ukiah should bear the costs of providing any and all data, information and studies supporting why this proposal is such a good deal for county residents.
Even the city of Ukiah Planning Commission has raised similar concerns about the tax-annexation proposal.
“My sense is that this whole thing was rushed, and there was a lot of people here with questions: how is this going to affect me, what is this going to do to my property?” said Commissioner Mark Hilliker after numerous residents expressed concerns about the annexation plan. “I think when people come storming in here and they’re unhappy about something, it’s because they don’t have information. The city needs to share and spread the information before they come to us to make a decision.”
Sheriff Matt Kendall said recently, “I am concerned this annexation could be a lose-lose for everyone and may have a negative effect on all of Mendocino County due to the reduction in revenues from businesses as well as a reduction in services for those annexed into the city. These impacts will be felt from Gualala to Round Valley. This isn’t simply an issue for the residents of the Ukiah Valley; it will likely affect every resident of the county in one form or another.”
There’s an old saying about how it is always easier to give advice than to follow it.
This is definitely one of those times the supervisors should follow some pretty sound advice from people who know what they’re talking about.
Haschak on ‘Budget-Balancing Shell Game’
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column on the Board of Supervisors vote to approve the 2025-26 budget.
I led off the piece stating, “Characterizing the County Supervisors recent tentatively approved 2025-26 budget as a ‘budget-balancing shell game,’ Mark Scaramella, of the Anderson Valley Advertiser, posits that the facts just don’t cooperate with those who might disagree with his analysis.”
That column prompted a response from District 3 Supervisor John Haschak.
Here’s Haschak’s take on it.
At risk of breaking the Observer’s Rule #1 (“Never get into an argument with people who buy their ink by the barrel.” —Mark Twain), here is a response to Mark Scaramella’s article that was reprinted in your column of June 19. There seems to be some misunderstandings. Referred to as a “budget-balancing shell game,” the author states that the $6 million carryover from this current year will be used to balance the budget, which just happens to be the amount of proposed savings from the strategic hiring freeze. The author must have heard some other meeting than the one I was in.
I appreciate Jim’s acknowledgement that the Supervisors would take issue with the comments.
1. There was no amount attached to what the carry forward might be.
2. It was proposed by the Executive Office to use any carry forward money for one time only capital projects such as repairing roofs.
3. The Auditor Controller Treasurer Tax Collector suggested we use any carry forward to cover any gap in the strategic hiring plan’s proposed savings of $6 million which I thought was a reasonable idea. Staff clarified that the carry forward, which is unknown and won’t be realized until the books close, can be used as needed.
I believe that the strategic hiring freeze will be difficult to implement requiring cutbacks to services and very tight departmental budgets.
Just to wrap this up, the carry forward will most likely not be anywhere near $6 million and is not being used as some sleight of hand. The Board is going to have to make ongoing hard decisions. If we make these hard budgetary decisions, we will reduce the budget by $6 million. There won’t be a need for the carry forward as back-up and we can use that money for much needed capital projects.
First up is cutting the Supervisors’ own budget. I proposed in April that we cut all out of state travel. Supervisors have spent over 100% over budget this year for travel expenses. Some was expected with two new Supervisors to on board and receive appropriate training. Yet three Supervisors went back to Washington in February and now two Supervisors are wanting to go to Philadelphia in July. If the Board is serious about cutting the budget, the first act is to say no to these requests and start cutting its own budget.
Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, [email protected], the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at 12 noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: www.kpfn.org)
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The Observer: Annexation/tax-sharing, Round 2 )
Also on site :
- Conquering Soccer and Arming Warlords
- Pope Leo XIV marks feast day as Vatican launches campaign to help erase its $57-68 million deficit
- Parvati Shallow Reveals How 'The Traitors' Led to Her Coming Out