This five-part series of Q&As with Ukiah City Council candidates runs Wednesday through Sunday. Each installment presents a key question alongside responses from the seven candidates who responded to the Mendocino Voice. Today’s question:
The proposed annexation initiative, which was ultimately abandoned, used a great deal of staff time and created tension with the county. What would you have done differently?
John Strangio
I would have started with collaboration before spending significant time and money developing a proposal.
Annexation affects more than the City of Ukiah. It affects the County, special districts, property owners, businesses, residents and emergency service providers. I believe those stakeholders should have been brought together early to identify the problems we were trying to solve, areas where there was common ground, and areas where there was not.
I also would have wanted clear financial information presented early: What will annexation cost? What new revenue will it generate? What additional services and staffing will be required? And what is the long-term benefit to existing Ukiah residents?
Growth may be necessary, but growth needs to make financial and operational sense.
Going forward, I would like to rebuild and strengthen the relationship between the City and County. We share the same community, roads, economy, housing challenges, homelessness issues and emergency services. We will accomplish far more working together than working against one another.
Mari Rodin
In retrospect, I would have started the public conversation differently. We overestimated the community’s familiarity with annexation discussions that have been part of Ukiah Valley planning for decades. We also underestimated how quickly misinformation shapes public perceptions of a complicated issue.
The City’s proposal did not emerge from nowhere. The County’s 2011 Ukiah Valley Area Plan recognized the importance of coordinated Valley planning, and in 2024 the County and all four cities (Willits, Fort Bragg, Point Arena, and Ukiah) approved a Master Tax Sharing Agreement to facilitate future annexations. The City then took the next step of exploring what annexation could look like for Ukiah.
Before that proposal could be fully explained, organized opposition emerged. Claims about “land grabs,” loss of private property rights, and other issues quickly gained traction. In hindsight, we needed to anticipate that possibility and communicate more proactively—not because the process lacked transparency, but because complex government processes are difficult to explain once misinformation takes hold.
I still believe the underlying conversation is important. City and Valley residents share roads, water, public safety, housing, and an economy. Better coordination will improve accountability, planning, water security, housing opportunities, and economic development. I would have begun there.
Susan Sher
This question assumes the time City staff put into the annexation effort was wasted. Public and private discussions, however, highlighted the urgent problems faced by the County and the City — housing shortages, aging infrastructure, and economic stagnation—that will not disappear just because annexation failed. Yes, the City’s presentations unfortunately got bogged down in technical jargon and left some people confused, but the dialogue sparked important policy changes. For instance, the City Council passed “Right to Farm” and “Right to Industry” ordinances to protect agricultural and manufacturing operations within city limits.
Even a City Council candidate and board member of the anti-annexation group Mendo Matters now admits he is “100% for annexation” if done correctly.
Moreover, it was revealed that some of the most vocal opponents of annexation had a financial stake in defeating the proposal. One critic profited handsomely by keeping his property under County jurisdiction; he sold a parcel to Amazon for a distribution center using a simple County building permit. This project offered low-pay jobs and more traffic near an already congested area. Had that parcel been annexed into the City, a planning process would have allowed public comment and studies to address the resulting traffic bottleneck.
Robert Bazzani
The annexation process consumed significant staff time and created tension with the County. The City ultimately acknowledged that the proposal did not have the public support or shared understanding necessary to move forward.
I believe we should have focused earlier on building a stronger regional partnership with the County, affected residents, and other local agencies before developing such a large proposal.
If annexation is considered again, I would want clear answers before moving forward: What services will be provided? What will they cost? Who pays? What infrastructure is needed? What are the benefits to existing City residents and the people being annexed? And, importantly, do the affected residents actually want it?
Growth should not be pursued simply because we can grow. It should happen when it makes sense for the entire community.
Matt Froneberger
With hindsight being somewhat clearer, I would have sought more community involvement in the earliest stages of the process and a smaller affected area to avoid the backlash in 2025. Following that, a large scaling back and slowing down of the process including more direct information gathering and dissemination for residents and business owners on both sides of the current boundary. During the scaling back phase, monies that were to be utilized on the annexation could have been directed at the City’s critical infrastructure needs.
Sean White
The City did the groundwork. Staff met with the County early and secured a tax-sharing agreement. What was missing was a community-wide understanding of what that agreement and the annexation actually meant. That’s the lesson I’d apply.
I’d do three things differently. First, communicate the need and the benefits early and often, in plain language, through town halls, mailers, and neighborhood meetings, before opposition hardens around a slogan. People should hear why we’re doing this, what it would deliver for working families, and what it would cost, from the City and not from rumor.
Second, address the concerns directly. Many residents feared losing our rural character, worried about the County’s budget, or assumed the City would stretch services too thin. I’d answer each one with specifics: what would and wouldn’t be developed, how the tax-sharing agreement protects the County, and how we’d phase growth so City services are never overextended.
Third, start smaller. A focused proposal for service-ready areas is easier to explain and easier to trust, and it builds support for whatever comes next.
Juan Orozco
The first miscalculation that caused the reaction people had against the proposed area of annexation was that it was such a large area. Another problem was that many affected property owners claimed that they did not know much about the annexation plans.
No one likes unpleasant surprises. The very first thing I would have done is to contact all the affected property owners to have a conversation and try to come to an agreement. A give and take process could have been more successful for both parties. One that makes everyone feel that they have been part of the decision making, and that they understand all the ramifications of the plan.
Mia L. Uribe did not respond to requests to participate, and Matt Froneberger did not provide a photo.