The Williamson ACT*

\boxtimes I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the Findings numbered below, and have attached, as required, a statement specifying any portion of the Finding that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons therefore.

– When the County does not enforce this provision it could allow participants to receive an undeserved tax benefit. This could cause a loss of tax revenue to the County. Agree with clarification. If the County does not strictly enforce the referenced provision, it is possible that some participants that did not respond are not meeting the minimum standards to qualify for a Williamson Act contract. In such a case, the County would not be receiving all tax revenue it would be entitled to.

– In the past, if a property owner did not return the Reporting Statement, either the Assessor's Office, Planning and Building Department or the Agricultural Commissioner's Office would look at aerial photography maps, perform visual confirmation or use other means to determine compliance. However, that is not what the Ordinance states. Agree with clarification. The County's current ordinance does not include a provision for County staff to independently determine eligibility for a Williamson Act contract. However, members of County departments did undertake a certain level of independent investigation to determine whether property owners were in compliance with the eligibility qualifications. If that review did not provide evidence to establish eligibility, the property owner was sent a notice of non-renewal, at which point the property owner had the opportunity to respond with evidence of eligibility.

– The Reporting Statement to Maintain Agricultural Preserve Eligibility has not been sent out in six years. Because the statements have not been sent out, the Grand Jury believes there is a substantial possibility that a large number of parcels, which would have been removed, are still in the Williamson Act. This may have resulted in a loss of tax revenue for the County. Agree in part, disagree in part. The process for reviewing the results from the 2009 reporting statements took over a year to complete, with notices of non-renewal being sent in both 2010 and 2011. County departments involved in administering the County's Williamson Act program began contemplating changes to the program in 2012 and became more focused on that effort in 2013 and 2014. These departments did not believe it appropriate to process another round of reporting statements while contemplating changes to the program. In addition, if reporting statements had been sent out in 2012 or any year since, it is uncertain if a large number of parcels would have been removed after reviewing the returned reporting statements.

– The annual Williamson Act property tax reduction is anywhere from 10 to 95 percent for a participant. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors will defer to the County Assessor as she is responsible for property tax assessment.

– In 2014, the Board of Supervisors shortened the length of the Williamson Act contract from ten to nine years. Agree with clarification. State law changed. California Government Code was amended in 2010 to allow a county to make a determination, in any year in which the subventions are less than one-half of the county's actual foregone property tax revenue, to reduce the term of Williamson Act contracts from 10 years to 9 years. The County first made this determination in 2010 and has made it each year since, including 2014.

- The Policies and Procedures, currently being developed, would require proof of revenue which will show appropriate property use under the Williamson Act. Agree with clarification. The draft Policies and Procedures would require proof of income and/or expenditures to prove eligibility for a Williamson Act contract. The draft Policies and Procedures were reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 4, which made certain revisions to the draft Policies and Procedures and recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 22.08 of the County Code and adopt a resolution approving the proposed Policies and Procedures. The Planning Commission also provided direction to staff to research and provide the Board of Supervisors with additional information regarding qualifying income levels. A date for review by the Board of Supervisors has not been set. , , , ,

- For the timely mailing of the 2015-16 Reporting Statement, the Board of Supervisors must act on the proposed Policies and Procedures prior to September 1, 2015. Disagree. There is no specific deadline for the mailing of the reporting statement or when Board of Supervisor action on the proposed Policies and Procedures must take place. Based on the process for the 2009 reporting statements, the County estimates that if a reporting statement is mailed to contract holders, the County would have time to review the statements and begin preparing notices of non-renewal the following year. For example, if the County mailed reporting statements in September 2015, it anticipates that it would be able to review the statements and, where warranted, issue notices of non-renewal to contract holders in 2016, which could go into effect as of January 1, 2017.