Mendocino County delays vote on master tax pact as annexation debate intensifies

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on June 23 delayed a decision that would have ended a countywide Master Tax Sharing Agreement, asking instead for more independent analysis and a negotiated review with the City of Ukaya after an extended public hearing on a proposed annexation map.

The board voted to table a resolution to terminate the agreement and approved a separate motion to create an ad hoc group to work with inland stakeholders and staff on options for how lodging and other revenues are allocated. Chair Norville said the pause was intended to ensure the county has a full fiscal and services analysis before taking an irreversible step.

The delay followed hours of public comment and a presentation by county staff highlighting the potential fiscal consequences. Auditor-Controller Shamse Cubbison said preliminary estimates — based on the city's own sales-tax data — show the county could share an estimated $30'$34 million in discretionary revenue by year 16 under the current agreement if the full annexation advanced. "If we lose revenue, we will lose deputies," Sheriff Kendall warned during public comment, arguing reductions would affect public-safety staffing countywide.

Supporters of the county's current arrangement and some city officials urged caution. Sage Sanjako, Ukaya's city manager, said the city is still developing a final annexation proposal and asked for more time to answer outstanding questions about services and district boundaries. "Nothing is final," Sanjako said, urging joint, data-driven work rather than a premature termination.

Several supervisors pressed for an independent, joint fiscal-and-service study that both sides can accept. Supervisor Klein and Supervisor Hashack were named to a new ad hoc group to work with staff and inland stakeholders on contract and scope amendments related to the lodging Business Improvement District and to coordinate a consultant search. The board asked staff to return with options for a neutral analyst and to outline whether costs could be shared with the city.

Public comment was dominated by residents inside the proposed annex boundary, many of whom said they oppose being moved into the city and expressed fear about higher fees and changes to services. Union members and county employees, who spoke earlier during the public comment portion, also urged the board to protect county services amid lingering budget and staffing pressures. "You're asking me to settle for a mere 1% raise," said Betsy Mercer, a public-health program specialist and co-director of an oral-health program.

Board members framed the decision as balancing two objectives: safeguarding countywide services funded from county discretionary revenue while also exploring whether municipal governance and partnerships can improve infrastructure and emergency services. Supervisor Mullhern said she favors independent review but urged deliberation: "This is a very big deal," she said. "We owe that to the community."

What happens next: the board asked staff to identify independent consultants experienced in annexation fiscal and service analyses and to return with options for who would be selected and how costs would be shared. The ad hoc committee, now formed, will coordinate with inland lodging stakeholders and Visit Mendocino on refining contract language and inland allocations. The matter will return to the board after that work is completed.

The board also took a number of other routine actions during the meeting, including extending an interim county counsel contract, appointing Sarah Pierce as interim CEO (effective July 13) while a permanent recruitment proceeds, and approving a penalty-fee waiver for Meadow Farm Community Land Trust to allow the nonprofit to secure permits to correct building-code violations. The board received a staff briefing on an invasive glassy-winged sharpshooter trace-forward effort, and the county's elections clerk reported the June vote-by-mail counts were complete and certification was expected on or after July 2.

The board's action to pause and seek a neutral analysis reflects sharply differing views among residents, city officials and county leaders on how best to plan for infrastructure, water and public-safety needs. The consultant the board has requested will be asked to model both fiscal transfers and projected service impacts so supervisors can weigh whether any annexation is in the public interest before taking a binding step.