County staff and the county executive offered a detailed explanation of the statutory tax‑share and annexation process and updated the committee on outreach with two cities that have raised concerns.

Ben Mills summarized the process governed by Revenue & Taxation Code § 99: annexation petitions typically go to LAFCO, the assessor supplies valuation data, the auditor prepares property‑tax revenue calculations, an independent fiscal impact analysis is prepared and the county and city negotiate tax‑share terms. If parties cannot agree, statute requires mediation and, if needed, advisory arbitration with strict statutory timelines.

Daniel Chatney, Placer County’s county executive officer, told the committee the county had received a letter from the City of Lincoln asking to reopen several historic tax‑share agreements. County staff has met repeatedly with Lincoln staff to identify tax rate areas and to scope costs, and said the county is gathering data to present a cost‑of‑service analysis for Board consideration. Chatney said the county has been responsive and is attempting to assemble a full, comparable analysis for supervisors to review.

The committee heard that Rocklin’s mayor had raised a separate concern about county‑owned facilities inside that city, which is a different issue from annexation tax‑share calculations. Staff reiterated the limited authority of the charter to alter state statutory tax‑share procedures but offered to use county–city liaison meetings to address concerns and to pursue fact‑finding analyses as requested by cities.

Following staff remarks and limited public comment, a motion to close the tax‑share agenda item (pending staff follow‑up) passed on roll call.

What happens next: County staff will continue meetings with Lincoln and Rocklin staff, seek the requested breakouts and tax‑rate area information, prepare a cost‑of‑service/fiscal analysis and bring recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as appropriate.