COLUSA, CA (MPG) – The Colusa County Board of Supervisors postponed action until Aug. 4 on whether to place a county-sponsored library funding measure on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot, allowing additional time for a citizen committee to complete its own initiative and for county staff to address concerns over how agricultural property would be assessed under the proposed tax.
The delay came after Madison Martin, speaking on behalf of the citizen-led library committee, told supervisors the group expects to complete its initiative in time for the Aug. 4 meeting. She requested the board wait until then so supervisors could consider the community proposal before deciding whether to move forward with the county’s measure.
The county proposal would establish a $145 annual parcel tax expected to generate about $2 million per year for library operations. Both the county-sponsored measure and the citizen initiative would require two-thirds voter approval because they would impose a special tax. The proposal includes an independent citizens oversight committee and requires library tax revenue to remain in a separate fund dedicated solely to library services.
Much of the discussion centered on how agricultural land would be assessed under the proposed tax. Martin said the citizen committee favors assessing all parcels, including agricultural land, while several agricultural representatives urged the board to instead tax only parcels with residential dwellings. They argued the current proposal could place a disproportionate burden on farmers.
Colusa County Farm Bureau Executive Director Marijke Lauwerijssen warned supervisors that the issue would generate strong opposition if left unchallenged.
“If you do it by parcel and not by dwelling, you are going to have some very angry people knocking at your door,” Lauwerijssen said.
Farmer Joe March said he supports stable funding for the library but also urged supervisors to consider how the assessment would affect property unfairly. He noted that a 56-unit apartment complex on a single parcel would pay the same $145 annual assessment as a parcel of rice ground or grazing land with no residence, even though those agricultural properties generate little or no library use. He said more discussion is needed before deciding how agricultural land should be assessed.
Martin also raised concerns about portions of the county’s proposed ordinance. She urged supervisors to include language requiring the county to continue funding library building maintenance, repairs and capital improvements through a guaranteed $1 million annual General Fund commitment. The request appeared to catch several supervisors by surprise.
Supervisor Daurice Kalfsbeek-Smith said the purpose of the parcel tax is to establish a dedicated stand-alone funding source for the library because it is often among the first programs affected during difficult budget years. She said tying the measure to a guaranteed General Fund contribution would undermine that objective.
County Counsel Richard Stout advised supervisors that requiring a guaranteed General Fund contribution in the ballot language would not be legally enforceable because it would improperly obligate future boards, which must retain the authority to adopt budgets each year. County officials said the proposal was developed with the understanding that the county would continue maintaining library buildings while revenue generated by the parcel tax would be dedicated to library operations.
Supervisors directed County Administrative Officer Joshua Pack to continue working on language for the county’s proposed ordinance while the citizen committee completes its own initiative. Both proposals will return to the board Aug. 4, allowing supervisors to decide which measure, if either, to place on the November ballot before the Clerk-Recorder’s Aug. 7 election deadline.
Before concluding the discussion, Pack reminded supervisors not to engage with one another on this topic outside a noticed public meeting, cautioning that doing so could violate California’s open meeting law.