Behind closed doors, the task force trying to reform the
county
’s Williamson Act policies crafted a first draft of the
procedures the county will follow to evict the nearly 1,200 parcels
that are too small to qualify for the act’s tax break.
Behind closed doors, the task force trying to reform the county’s Williamson Act policies crafted a first draft of the procedures the county will follow to evict the nearly 1,200 parcels that are too small to qualify for the act’s tax break. The rules are still tentative, but the first eviction notices will be sent Jan. 1, 2006, and officials hope to finish that process in a year.
The task force is taking a break from raucous public meetings, hoping to make quick progress on the myriad of issues that must be resolved before new, more stringent polices can be adopted by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Any policy changes are subject to public input.
But it’s clear that the toughest call, how to best enforce Williamson Act contracts that remain after the purge, will not be hashed out in one four-hour meeting. Still, Kevin O’Day, the county’s deputy agriculture commissioner, expects the committee to meet its November deadline.
“Right now, contract monitoring is what it comes down to,” O’Day said. “It’s something that needs to be discussed and built into the ordinance, and something that the task force will present to the board by November. It’s not an easy process, but it’s a very necessary process.”
Under the 1965 Williamson Act, property owners receive a tax break in exchange for maintaining a farming enterprise or preserving particular types of open space. But during the last 30 years, the county has allowed many illegal subdivisions. As many as 1,200 parcels may be receiving illegitimate tax breaks of several thousand dollars annually.
Ultimate oversight of the law rests with the state Department of Conservation, which can revoke the county’s right to offer the contracts. Under Santa Clara County rules, Williamson Act contracts apply only to parcels of at least 10 acres of prime farmland – typically valley floor land able to support orchards or row crops – or 40 acres of non-prime grazing land.
By their own admission, county planners haven’t done a very good job enforcing the rules, creating a landscape of subdivided home sites receiving tax breaks they don’t qualify for. The department is considering hiring staff to administer the act, and it’s been suggested that the assessor’s office take over monitoring duties – a proposal soundly rejected by County Assessor Larry Stone.
“Everything we do has to do with value, we’re not code enforcers,” Stone said. “If the assessor becomes a code enforcer for another department, I think that’s inappropriate and improper. I wonder why anyone would think it should be done by anyone other than the planning department.”
And of the 56 counties in the state with Williamson Act contracts, only one, San Benito County, uses the assessor to administer the program. In Kings County, the assessor helps determine whether a parcel is prime or non-prime land, but San Benito is the only county where the assessor administers the act from application through monitoring. The assessor there, Tom Slavich, said his office has tried unsuccessfully to hand off the job to county planners.
“Over the last few years, we’ve been wanting to give it to planning but they’ve resisted,” Slavich said. “We’re such a small office we’d like to concentrate on appraisals, but we’ve been doing it so long it’s just a part of the job.”
The arrangement in San Benito County inverts the typical process for sanctioning land improvements and lot line adjustments. When a Williamson contract holder wants to make a change on his property, the application must be approved by the assessor and the county supervisors, before it goes to the planning department for approval.
The appraisers on Slavich’s 12-member staff are responsible for ensuring that Williamson Act properties maintain agriculture use through the life of the contracts.
“They’ve been doing it such a long time it’s second nature to them,” Slavich said. “It’s an informal process. Our ordinance here is pretty tight. Over the years the county has non-renewed several non-compliant parcels.”
But Stone believes his office will be less effective if the public perceives appraisers as property police.
“We depend upon information from property owners, whether it’s a house, an office building a shopping center or agriculture,” Stone said. “If we were also code enforcers we believe we would have substantially less cooperation from Williamson Act property owners.”
Supervisor Don Gage agrees with Stone. He believes monitoring should be the responsibility of the agriculture department, staffed with those best equipped to evaluate farm operations.
“Somebody has to be able to determine if there’s an agricultural use or value,” Gage said. “That’s the agriculture commissioner. The issue here is how many people you have to hire to go out and check the properties. It’s a lot easier to do these things in a small county than in the fourth largest county in the state.”
Currently, O’Day and Commissioner Greg Van Wassenhove verify the farm uses of new applications. Whether or not the department takes on monitoring duties is a decision county supervisors will make later this year.
“It’s just one of many things that need to be worked out,” O’Day said. “In addition to policies and procedures and a new agriculture preserve map. It is definitely a task that needs to be addressed.”
Matt King covers Santa Clara County for The Times. He can be reached at 847-7240 or mk***@gi************.com.
