Editors Note: This article has been updated from its original posting on July 3, 2026.
COLUSA, CA (MPG) – The Colusa County Board of Supervisors is expected to decide Aug. 4 whether to place a county-sponsored library funding measure on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot after postponing action to allow time for a citizen-led proposal to move forward.
The county’s draft proposal presented June 30 would establish a $145 annual special parcel tax expected to generate about $2 million a year for library operations.
The delay came after Madison Martin, speaking on behalf of the citizen committee, told supervisors the group expected to complete its initiative in time for the Aug. 4 meeting. She asked the board to wait so supervisors could consider the community proposal before deciding whether to move forward with the county’s measure.
Since the board’s June 30 meeting, Martin and Erin E. Steidlmayer finalized a Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition for a library special parcel tax. The proposed initiative would establish an $85 annual parcel tax dedicated exclusively to supporting the Colusa County Free Library system and require the county to maintain General Fund support at no less than 75% of its 2025-26 funding level of $1.6 million.
The measure also would create operating and capital equipment reserves and remain in effect unless repealed by Colusa County voters.
Both tax measures would establish independent citizens oversight committees, limit annual increases to no more than 3% based on changes in the California Consumer Price Index and require two-thirds voter approval because they would impose special taxes. The proposals differ in the amount of the annual parcel tax, treatment of ongoing General Fund support and the method for assessing agricultural land. That question dominated the June 30 discussion and is expected to remain a key issue Aug. 4 as agricultural representatives urge the board to ensure all farmland parcels are not treated the same as residential property.
Colusa County Farm Bureau Executive Director Marijke Lauwerijssen warned supervisors that the issue would generate strong opposition if left unaddressed.
“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 uses the library and supports stable funding for the department but also urged supervisors to consider how the assessment would affect agriculture. 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.
Also unresolved is whether the county can legally require future Boards of Supervisors to maintain a minimum General Fund contribution for library operations as part of a ballot measure. The issue surfaced after Martin initially urged supervisors to include language in the county’s proposed ordinance 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 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 said requiring a guaranteed General Fund contribution in the county’s ballot language may not be legally enforceable because it could 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 initiative. Both proposals will return to the board Aug. 4, allowing supervisors to decide which measure, if either, to place on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot before the Clerk-Recorder’s Aug. 7 election deadline.
Before concluding the discussion, Pack reminded supervisors that the citizen initiative is a separate effort and cautioned them not to collaborate or discuss its development outside a public meeting. He said maintaining a clear separation between the county’s proposal and the citizen initiative was necessary to avoid violating California’s open meeting law.