Because two supervisors maintained a conflict of interest on a decision over the matter, the Williamson Act benefit for local landowners will stay the same.
Supervisors on Tuesday were considering a reduction to the benefit to ease the general fund deficit. They voted 2-1, which fell short of the three votes needed to pass the measure.
With a split vote, the supervisors did not have the majority they needed to implement AB 1265. County Counsel Matthew Granger explained to the board that while the three supervisors had a quorum, San Benito County is a general law county that requires a majority of the membership to approve a vote – or at least three votes. With Rivas opposing the change, they did not have enough votes to approve the item.
Rural residents of San Benito County showed up in force on Tuesday afternoon for a public hearing on the Williamson Act as supervisors prepared to decide if they wanted to lower the property tax benefit by 10 percent for ranchers and farmers with land in agricultural use or if they wanted to stay with the status quo.
At the outset of the conversation, Supervisors Jerry Muenzer and Anthony Botelho recused themselves from the discussion because they both own land that is part of a Williamson Act contract.
“I sent a letter to the Fair (Political) Practices (Commission) and their response back is that it is a financial issue so I have to recuse myself,” he said. “It’s a shame because I have experience with the Williamson Act.”
Muenzer said he was in the same position and the two exited the supervisors’ chambers before the discussion began.
Granger said the remaining three supervisors could discuss the issue because they still had a quorum and they could take a vote of a majority.
County assessor Tom Slavich said the supervisors had three options for the Williamson Act based on Assembly Bill 1265. The bill was passed in 2010 to allow county supervisors to recapture some of the property tax lost to Williamson Act contracts while the state has suspended its subvention payments that helped to fill some of the gap.
Slavich said supervisors could cancel all the Williamson Act contracts to recapture the property tax – but that the taxes would go the state first, with 11 cents on the dollar coming back to San Benito County. He said the supervisors could implement AB 1265, which would lower the property tax benefit by 10 percent for landowners and cut their contracts from 10 years to nine years. Or they could keep the status quo.
He said if the supervisors were to implement AB1265, they would regain about $230,000 for the general fund recently hampered by a $5.3 million deficit. He said the amount property owners would pay would vary dramatically depending on the Prop. 13 values of their homes – for those who have owned the land for a long time it would be lower than those who purchased more recently. AB 1265 would sunset in 2016, when the Williamson Act contracts would return to the full benefit and contract term.
Robert Frusetta, a land owner in Tres Pinos, expressed concern during the public comment period.
“You said AB 1265 is sponsored by the farm bureau, but I don’t see it that way,” he said. “If you allow it to be implemented, it would be a 10 percent reduction next year and 10 percent the next year” until there would be no benefit to owners.
Paul Hain, another landowner in Tres Pinos, said he had seen the economic and ecological benefits of the Williamson Act, which allows agricultural landowners a tax break to maintain agricultural production on their land for 10 years.
“It would allow rapid development to be caused by taking away the tax rate,” Hain said.
He said he supported the adoption of AB 1265 over eliminating the Williamson Act altogether.
Ray Pierce, a member of the county planning commission and a real estate agent, said he also thought cancellation of the Williamson Act would create rapid development in the county because agricultural landowners would struggle to meet the property tax payments on the production value of the land.
Supervisor Robert Rivas came down against making any changes to the Williamson Act.
“We need revenue,” he said. “But I opposed the Solargen project because I felt, as I feel now, the preservation of ag land is vital and essential.”
Supervisors Margie Barrios and Jaime De La Cruz both said they supported initiating AB 1265 to bring $230,000 back to the general fund.
“We value ag land, and a lot of decisions are made about it,” Barrios said. “I would never eliminate (the Williamson Act) altogether but I certainly will vote for AB 1265. Everyone should play a part in helping us solve the issues we have.
