George Hinds: What’s fair about county’s tax-sharing claim?

The “County says offer to city on tax sharing is fair” (Front page, April 13). What is actually happening is Merced County wants to use its leverage on the tax-sharing agreement to maximize its share of tax receipts, which naturally will come at the expense of a city.

Tax revenue negotiations are never about fairness. The county raised objection to the Merced Costco project at a public hearing because it claimed an increase in crime would impact county courts.

In backroom discussions on providing services to UC Merced, the county wanted to maintain control knowing sewer and water connections would have to come from the City of Merced. When told the city only provided services to city residents, one supervisor accused the city of blackmail. The county administrator was asked how the city could be stopped. The answer, “through the encroachment permit process.”

Annexation can reduce the county’s cost as the unincorporated area will be serviced by city police and fire. The county encourages building residential neighborhoods on the edge of a city, with additional costs for the adjoining city, but keeps the property tax revenues. The county should support a nexus claim with actual budget numbers. Candidates for supervisor should be asked what is a real “fair deal.”

This story was originally published April 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM with the headline "George Hinds: What’s fair about county’s tax-sharing claim?."