Supervisors decline formal tax‑sharing agreement, authorize conditional HCSD contribution tied to construction

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors · December 9, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

After LAFCO-initiated negotiations over the proposed North McKay Ranch annexation, the board declined a formal county property‑tax sharing agreement but approved a CAO-directed general‑fund contribution of $1,000 per year for up to 10 years to the Humboldt Community Services District, payable once construction begins.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors considered a request from the Humboldt Community Services District (HCSD) related to the proposed North McKay Ranch annexation and whether to enter a property‑tax sharing agreement.

County staff explained tax-sharing would be atypical and administratively burdensome for the relatively small initial annual amounts being discussed; the CAO noted property-tax sharing has historically been reserved for arrangements tied to substantial service exchanges, such as fire services. HCSD representatives described interim infrastructure costs and said incremental tax sharing allows the district to manage maintenance and system risk while a phased development proceeds.

After discussion, the board declined to enter a formal property‑tax sharing agreement but approved a CAO-managed general‑fund contribution of $1,000 annually for up to ten years to HCSD, payable only once construction‑level activity commences ("first shovel of dirt"), and with a clarifying resolution stating the county will not enter a tax‑sharing agreement in this instance. The motion included direction for staff to structure the payment trigger and term; supervisors indicated the contribution was intended as a limited goodwill/partnership signal to enable HCSD to seek project funding.

The motion passed 3–2. The board also asked staff to consider how similar requests might be evaluated in the future to avoid precedent concerns.