UKIAH, CA., 6/11/26 — An annexation information workshop hosted by the city of Ukiah Thursday evening answered dozens of questions and addressed comments made by Ukiah Valley residents with more than 60 in attendance.
First presented last year, the city’s proposed annexation would bring areas to the north and south of Ukiah into the city limits, switching responsibility for servicing those areas from the county to the city, like providing law enforcement service and road maintenance.
Among the most common concerns residents had at the 6 p.m. meeting Thursday were whether residents get to vote on annexation, how amounts of property and sales taxes would shift from the county to the city in the areas proposed to be annexed and whether property taxes would go up.
There is a public voting aspect involved in the annexation proposal process, but not until the city’s application to the Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission is complete.
It’s called the protest vote. After the city presents its annexation proposal to the commission, landowners and registered voters in the areas proposed to be annexed will receive written notification of the protest process and be able to submit their choice of whether they approve of the annexation. If the commission receives more than 50% disapproval, the annexation proposal will be canceled, and the city cannot reapply for a year.
At the meeting, city finance director Dan Buffalo explained that per the Mendocino County’s master tax-sharing agreement with the cities in the county, if annexation goes through, the city would take half of the increment of property taxes on parcels in the areas proposed to be annexed. This means the city would get half the amount of however much a property’s assessed value increases in a year, which since 1978, has been locked in at a maximum of about 2% per year. The county gets the other half of the growth. The amount the city can take will be capped at 15% of total property taxes in the areas proposed to be annexed. Buffalo emphasized that property taxes would not go up because of annexation if it happens.
As for sales tax, every year after the first year of annexation, if it happens, one-fifteenth of a 1% sales tax called the Bradley Burns tax that is normally split among the county and city would go to the city in the areas proposed to be annexed, meaning it would take 15 years for the city to take 1% sales tax that is normally shared with the county, in the new areas of Ukiah, if annexation happens, Buffalo said.
The County should cancel the master tax sharing agreement ASAP
The few things that are transparent with the city and Mendocino County you want to dismantle?
Does anyone understand the math in Paragraphs 6 & 7? Did the people at the meeting follow it? Where do the 1/15th and 15% come from?
1/15th means the sales tax, which is the 1% cut will be trimmed 1/15th each year to the city till it reaches the 15th year and 100% of the 1%. This is where the city will incrementally absorb more of the sales tax revenue in the annexed areas (over 15 years) and the county loses 1/15th of that 1% sales tax each year till it reaches zero at the 15th year.
Prop 13 (CA Prop tax law) is based on taxing 1% of assessed property values each year and rising no more than 2% a year. (voted in bonds, and measures can make it higher than 1% depending on the county and district.) The city’s take on property taxes is capped at 15% of that 1% on those assessed values. Keep in mind most property taxes (est 63%) go towards the school districts. Cities and Counties collect a much smaller slice of the property tax share.
Hopefully that helps.
Correction* CA prop 13 is 1% of your assessed value on your base transfer year (the year you bought your house) and than only rises no more than 2% each after the original assessment. Everything else is the same…
Then*
Cell phone phat fingering
I want to find out more about the adding the Atkins Ranch to Montgomery woods. do you have articles I can read about this?
Can’t find the MV story, but you can contact the original nonprofit purchaser, Save the Redwoods League at: https://www.savetheredwoods.org/
So, Urbanist, are you saying that after 15 years the City will get 100% of the sales tax it now shares with the County in the annexed areas? And that it will also get just 15% of half of the County’s property taxes in those areas, or is it only 15% of any increase in property taxes?
I appreciate your previous explanations and discussions about the advantages of annexation and its consequent increase in revenues that will help improve the City’s efforts to make the downtown more attractive and livable.
Sales Tax Break down:
Mendocino County
State Tax: 6.000%
Mendocino County Local Tax: 0.250%
County District Tax: 1.000% (Bradley-Burns)<—– (1/15th moving to City / year)
Local District Tax: 0.625%
Total: 7.875%
-"are you saying that after 15 years the City will get 100% of the sales tax it now shares with the County in the annexed areas? "
Ukiah will receive 100% of the 1% of the Bradley-Burns sales tax in annexed areas over 15 year increments (i.e.1/15th) Technically Mendocino county still receives a small portion of sales even in the city of Ukiah, but the concern over this portion of the Sales Tax seems to be situated around the Bradley-Burns sales tax portion solely.
Property Taxes:
https://www.mendocinocounty.gov/departments/auditor-controller/property-tax-information/property-tax-process-4160
Under "distributes property taxes" will disclose how the county breaks out property taxes to different entities. The county takes around 30% of property taxes pre-annex, which will likely come down to more 15% in post annexed areas, since Ukiah will be taking a larger portion of the property tax share. (up to 15%)
Your property taxes are governed by (Prop 13, Prop 8,) and State law. Ukiah will take up to 15% of the property tax proportion instead of the county usually taking it and your tax bill isn't changing because of the annexation.
Thank you for taking the time to try to make all that simpler. I think the complication of these tax issues is part of the reason so many people are as confused as I am, and it partly explains why they’re so angry.
The County is certainly in a lot of trouble financially, and unfortunately, that’s largely the fault of the ineptitude and reckless decisions of a particular past CEO and some current County officials. Also, of course, the cannabis boom shift to collapse has a lot to do with our economic troubles (although a lot of us could see that coming). This has little to do with the topic of annexation, but I believe the Bounty BOS should take a pay cut before making any more disastrous decisions that deplete our County budget further. No wonder people are angry. Unfortunately, the bad decisions of the County are souring people’s attitudes towards all local government, especially the City.
You’re welcome.
I understand the anger and frustration with the county and the current situation. Mendocino County definitely has an old boys club problem especially in the DA’s office. Given I spent 3-4 years inside Mendocino County’s gov’t, I saw a mixture of dysfunction with this regional area. It’s not all in the elected heads either. Money that gets generated in the Ukiah valley is being used to subsidize some sparsely populated county road that doesn’t generate any revenue for the whole county, in fact it may be enabling black market activity.
Problem:
Old Boys Club – Mendocino County could benefit from more diversity (outside competition) and less homemade protectionism. Mendo’s black market has kept this county isolated, broke, and locked-in with an unsavory group of power brokers, and home grown legacy families running this county…. or pillaging this county depending on your perspective. Mendocino County businesses mostly stay inside Mendocino County or maybe Lake County. Why can’t they grow in places like Santa Rosa or the bay area? Cannabis may be the only export that makes it to the world stage aside from wine. All of that was built on infrastructure Mendocino’s economy never built and/or maintained on its own. This created a artificial sense of economic security for the area and reinforced the intrenched local power brokers.
Solution:
Like any ecosystem, you need to introduce new predators to an area to alter/dilute the balance of power. Ukiah rising to the occasion is a result of that power being diluted. I’m not saying the city doesn’t have unsavory characters working for them but the city can do things more effectively than the county ever could by the structure of design. The city has higher standards on development (Like there’ no such thing as a class K permit in the city limits). Some of it has less to do with the elected C.C. leadership and more the structure of a charter city. Your newly diverted taxes will be staying in the Ukiah Valley along with additional representation on the city council. There is more likelihood of your streets getting the needed maintenance or repaving it needs inside the city and perhaps better overall urban landscapes. You still retain one BOS member in the county and will have 5 city council members that you can call to for city wide concerns. The police dept will respond much quicker than the Sheriff, since they will be stationed in the same valley and enforcement will stay focused inside the city. Ukiah petitioning for annexation will act like a initial pay cut to the county at least in the beginning. As Ukiah improves the valley for economical growth and development it will attract people to the area which will bring the county into a new version of itself.
*entrenched