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.
The public bought Liberty’s BS and now he made his money with Amazon. I hope the public will be wiser next time around.
ol KRoss proves the rubes are easily manipulated
mr liberty is anything but
amazon has been good for him
got rushed theough with no public input and because its a
“forfillment center” the county doesnt get any additional tax
revenue
ask the farm beuraue pres why
annexation is terrible
ukiah is left behind again
there are no new miracle ceops for ukiah and mendo
no new magic industry
the best use of all the fallowed lands is to grow the community
even if its a bedroom community to sonoma
county jobs its a posotive thing for mendo
but instead we will get another generation or two of
dead grass
junkies, more of the poverty industrial
complex
lots of free needles amd meth pipes though
so thats cool
so much winning
So the three incumbents (Rodin, Sher and Orozco) all would have done it differently. But all of them fallowed City Staff’s lead on the process that was taken. Even after the fallout from the first map in 2025 almost cost all four Cities in the County the tax sharing measure they cosigned when Staff doubled down on the “Sapling” plan.
Rodin was even on the City Ad-Hoc for Annexation and had the opportunity to set the course of the project directly. Blaming the public for falling for misinformation rather than owning the mistake is disappointing but not surprising.
I don’t understand why so many people that get the job of City Council Member just let the City Manager and City Staff lead them around by the nose. All City Staff has to do is call something an emergency and the vote goes 4-1 and staff gets what they get what they want.
None of the incumbents this election cycle have demonstrated that are willing to do the job of City Council Member: 1) Set policy. 2) Ensure those policies are carried out effectively and efficiently. 3) Hold the City Manager accountable for the actions of City Staff.
These incumbents seem to like the title but all too often have been rubber stamps for City Staff and to grind their personal axes rather than do the job.
The county can’t pass a road tax when its roads are clearly deteriorating. The county botched the cannabis ordinance and the roll out; the DA got into a pissing match with the auditor’s office and ran up all sorts of legal fees over an erroneous charge. Yet the DA still sits in his position after basically making a fraudulent charge against another elected official. The assessors office is far behind on assessments. (No one cries about not receiving an escape) Not long ago the county couldn’t make heads or tails on whether it was in a surplus or a deficit in its own fiscal situation. It’s one thing after another. The failure in the county is not because of this tiny city trying to take things in a different direction. The culture in this county is a reflection of the leadership making decisions for this county.
The county let Amazon walk all over it without public input, zero accountability. It wasn’t a coincidence that the anti annex movement was on the heel of a major multi million dollar land / development deal. They set up a shop right outside the city district without infrastructure improvements and (by the sound of it, not much in new tax revenue) which will affect this area for decades. The misinformation spear heading this anti annex movement was driven by a large landowner and their short sighted greed…
But you can blame the mostly unpaid city council (the same way some folks blamed the unpaid COOP board for not holding on to a manager), if that’s what you feel is the source of the failure. It is the public that has to approve this at the end of the day, not the city council.
Daddy issues. You have them.
Urbanist – You make a compelling case that the County is also mismanaged. On that we can agree. However the topic here is Ukiah City Council and the botched forced annexation attempt that burned at least several hundred thousands dollars of tax money, distracted staff from core functions and fueled enmity in the community.
-Eric
Is this the sole gripe you have is that the annexation cost money? Anything a govt does costs money. Thousands of dollars is pennies compared to the generous benefits of being in the city and getting better roads and sidewalks.
This topic was brought up two years ago and there were several public meetings over the topic. The county and the city had a tax sharing agreement prior to this happening not to mention a public board meeting. I’m not sure why you think it was forced.
The city has been active in upgrading the local infrastructure and new businesses have come into town even in the last few years. I have yet to hear a strong genuine argument to keep the surrounding parcels in the county other the misinformation campaign bankrolled by Liberty.
Urbanist – My issue is not with the concept of annexation in general. It was the scale and the approach that was chosen that caused it to fail.
The Tax Sharing Agreement between the County and 4 cities unlocked what could have been a logical, sustainable and rational pattern of annexation that could have made up for the decades of stagnation. I believe had the City started with property owners who wanted to be annexed and those that were already obligated to be annexed and then seen who they might be able to recruit annexation would happen organically over time.
Unfortunately the approach that was taken by City Staff was done in a way that broke public trust, nearly caused the destruction of the Tax Sharing Agreement for all 4 cities in the county and galvanized a large and now organized opposition. That was a massive unforced error that will likely prevent logical annexation for at least a decade.
I remain unconvinced that the City of Ukiah was capable of doing the things they were promising at they scale they were trying to force.
When I got a look at the first public map for the annexation released in 2025 it was clear to me it was dead on arrival. After the BOS meeting in Spring 2025 the City could have done what they should have done in the first place: Start with the willing and the obligated and then have a dialogue with the community. What we got in 2026 was a map that was still way too aggressive, still didn’t have community buy in and was being imposed on rather than agreed to by the landowners.
Nothing positive was achieved by the course that was chosen. All we got was wasted time, money, effort, opportunity and good will; for nothing.
Eric – You have given little reason, if any reason, that this annexation was some sort of hijacking of the public interest. You don’t have clear guidelines for the city to fulfill except it was too much too fast. During the two year process they downsized the annex multiple times and adjusted after public meetings. Nothing in this processed was forced. LAFCO was involved, the county was involved, the public was involved. What in this is the bad guy for you that isn’t misinformation / propaganda?
It’s a bit dramatic to say “at least a decade.”
The city has better roads, sidewalks, parks, community driven events, and houses the highest concentration of businesses in the county. What else do you want from the city? What metric, if you even have one, to base your objection on?
Does the process need to take 5 year, 10 years? The city has done more in this little section of the valley than the county has done in 20 years.
You pay (and have been paying) sales taxes to a city you have no representation in and no voice, assuming you shop at any of the major establishments in town. Staying with the county you made certain to stay with the dysfunctional status quo you are already know. Your roads won’t get fixed and responses by the Sheriff will stay bogged down by the sheer distances of the county geography. Ukiah will keep evolving as the county stays stuck in 1st gear.
My street has been slurried, my street lights have been upgraded to LEDs. State St, Main St, and School St are renovated and or in the process of being renovated. This city will hold the only bowling alley in the whole county.
I disagree with your last statement completely. Learning requires failure. If you don’t fail, you are not learning.
Urbanist –
I live in the City of Ukiah but own property in the proposed annexation area. I opposed both the “Oak” and “Sapling” maps for several reasons including: 1) They were driven from the top down by City Staff. 2) Based on the structure of the Tax Agreement there was no way to pay for what they were promising without some other income streams that were not being made clear and that they actively tried to hide during the public forums. 3) It is easier to get things done in the County than it is in the City.
As a resident of the City of Ukiah I opposed the Cities attempt to force annexation from the start. I believe that if they were to have gotten either of their maps through the process it would have been catastrophic for the region especially City residence.
The appropriate approach would have been to find the willing and the obligated and start with that map as the jumping off point for community engagement. Had that been started in 2024 after the Tax Sharing agreement was signed I think we would be in the late stages of LAFCO approval of annexation Gardens Gate, Brush Street Triangle and Lovers Lane.
I did not get my information from the No Ukiah Annexation camp; I formed my own views based on my experience with the City and the County and knowing the players very well. When the first map was published I started reaching out to other property owners to make them aware of the proposal but each and every one of the dozens I called in those first weeks already knew about it and were looking to organize against it. This was before No Ukiah Annexation formed.
All the City improvements you described were enabled on debt money at ~2% interest and were addressing massive deferred maintenance. The City is not funding those projects on normal cashflows and can not sustain going forward. The City also struggled with managing every aspect of those projects: Design, safety, plans and specifications and change orders. City staff is strained under it’s current load for normal operations. Nearly tripling the area would have required a substantial increase in staff headcount (an related management compensation) just to maintain current levels of service.
The Bowling Ally is a private endeavor that I hope have deep enough pockets to survive the process of getting through the minefield of City bureaucracy. I wish them well; but I don’t see how it is relevant to the annexation discussion.
We will have to agree to disagree on the necessity of causing a train wreck to learn that train wrecks are bad and should be avoided. I don’t think anything was learned by Staff in this debacle; they are just furious they got caught and stopped.
This outcome was predicted and inevitable before the 2025 map went public. As for my prediction of for the chilling effect of this screw up on annexation in the next ten years; time will tell. Perhaps you can look me up in ten years and we can revisit this discussion. I of course can not do the same as you remain anonymous.
“Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.” Will Rogers
-Eric
I’m guess you never worked for the county in any long running compacity. (Please correct if I’m wrong) I can give a whole work down on the broken nature of the county services.
“It is easier to get things done in the County than it is in the City.” -Why is County full of empty deteriorating buildings and infrastructure? Is it really easier or does it just sound better than nothing? Why are so many businesses jammed into tiny Ukiah if the city is so difficult to work with ?
Williamson act is a cost to the county, the county development planning is a joke, (Why are so many houses built in fire prone areas?) .County assessments are a joke (They are behind by several years and many Williamson act parcels aren’t being assessed properly). The county might as well mean a lack of governing or standards when you mean easy. PG&E is pulling the plug on the subsidized water in this area. The county is more exposed to all the risks and none of the benefits of living in Mendocino and has little to no hope of paying for the upcoming costs of the climate changing… It was the city of Ukiah that had to save the coast when their wells ran dry….who is better prepared for the ongoing climate disasters?
The state of CA took away Mendocino County’s ability to issue permits for Cannabis due to the ongoing fiasco it caused. Business friendly, my ass. More like just corruptible that doesn’t mean they are good business people.
“It is easier to get things done in the County than it is in the City.” – Let’s continue with this…
Why are you in the city if the city is so hard? Maybe you like the City of Ukiah more than the county? Why stay in the city if you are so negative toward city council. Why not make your paradise in the county, if it is so easy as you stated. Maybe the lack of standards in the county has other unforeseen costs, perhaps?
“This outcome was predicted and inevitable before the 2025 map went public.” By whom? You? I think your ego is talking out loud here.
Why is the only bowling alley in Mendocino county setting up in the city of Ukiah (The hardest place to start a business, according to you.) and not in the business paradise that is the County?
You say one thing and then there are numerous contradicting facts that say something else when we look down on the ground.
Eric – Continued…
“All the City improvements you described were enabled on debt money at ~2% interest and were addressing massive deferred maintenance. The City is not funding those projects on normal cashflows and can not sustain going forward. ”
Can you show me this?
Like last I checked the state grants and sales tax dollars from Measure Y paid for this but I’m open to hear if debt was added. Do you have a source?
By the way arterial roads are funded via state grant gas taxes. The city of Ukiah received the lion share of the funding from the grant apportioned amount based on gas taxes collected.
The upcoming improvements (like School St. are also built around receiving grant money to fund the majority of the costs.) I believe it is coming from Caltrans.
Once again, do you have a problem with this method? If you do, you might as well leave CA, because this is how arterial roads get renovated all through the state.
Eric – https://mytownview.com/california/mendocino/ukiah/finances/audits
Eric – https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2025-049/
“Perhaps you can look me up in ten years and we can revisit this discussion. I of course can not do the same as you remain anonymous.” – In the next ten years, you will be glad your house is in the city of Ukiah and not the county. Your property values and secure water source will thank you for buying in the city limits. 🙂
Once again your cynicism baffles me why you live in the city. It almost makes me wonder if you actually believe in what you are saying.
In late 2020, the Ukiah City Council passed Resolution No. 2020-54, which authorized the issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2020A (officially designated for the Community Facilities Improvement Project)
Because interest rates dropped to historic lows during the COVID-19 pandemic, The City of Ukiah was able to borrow this money at a very low interest rate. Instead of waiting for Measure Y’s half-cent sales tax revenues to trickle in year by year, the city used these low-interest bonds to front-load capital. This effectively “accelerated” the timeline for major public works, allowing them to deploy millions into immediate road overhauls and the Downtown Streetscape project right away, using subsequent annual Measure Y tax receipts to pay down the low-interest bond debt over time.
In short the future anticipated cash flows we leveraged to barrow at low rates and were spent. The thinking being that interest would be cheaper over the life of Measure Y than the devaluation of the currency (often mislabeled “inflation”).
https://records.cityofukiah.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=73979&dbid=0&repo=Ukiah&cr=1
So this item is the reason you rather stay with the county over the city?
The city still sounds way more competent than the county by a long shot. The County is broke with no hope of keeping up with rising costs. The city still is solvent and paying down the debt. This is where discernment is important. Plus Ukiah has brand new infrastructure for decades while the county sits with deteriorating roads and no clear direction on how to correct itself.
https://www.mendolocal.news/mendocino-county-structural-deficit/
I seem to remember way back when Mr. Cash was the city administrator 1960s. He supported an annexation from the Forks to Boonville Rd. That should have been done 50 years ago. The last proposal was a huge overreach.