San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses | Attachments San Mateo County’s Agricultural
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
San Mateo County’s (County) Williamson Act (WA) program has not been audited in the entire 40-year history of the program. The California State Department of Conservation (DOC) completed the County’s first audit in May 2007 and found substantial instances of non-compliance with provisions of the WA and the related Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Complete the Williamson Act (WA) surveys as soon as possible.
F2
Most of the County’s WA parcels were enrolled in the 1960s and 1970s with fewer than 20 new enrollments in the last decade.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Cancel the WA contracts with those owners who have failed to respond to the second notice to submit their surveys.
F3
Acreage restricted under WA contracts equal 16% of all countywide lands yet amount to less than one tenth of 1% of total countywide assessed value.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Identify properties that have no apparent agricultural, open space, or recreational use and determine which contracts are subject to nonrenewal.
F4
There are 543 parcels comprising 47,058 acres enrolled in the WA program compared to a total of 219,316 parcels and 286,720 acres countywide. Only 2,750 of the County’s 47,058 WA acreage are categorized as prime agricultural land.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Publish revised San Mateo County Land Conservation Act Uniform Rules and Procedures no later than December 31, 2009.
F5
Most non-prime acreage is used for grazing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Commission an annual report from all agencies and not-for-profits acquiring and maintaining open space lands in the County, such as the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), setting forth plans for the use of their lands for agricultural purposes. 10
F6
The 2008 assessed value of WA restricted lands totaled $173 million-- $68 million in assessed land value and $105 million in improvements, personal property and fixtures-- compared to a total countywide assessed value of over $132 billion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
After the Planning Department has identified non-compliant properties, the Treasurer & Tax Collector should quantify lost tax revenues for tax years 2002 through 2008 resulting from the County’s non-compliance with the provisions of the WA no later than six months after the completion of the surveys.
F7
More than half of the WA restricted parcels, approximately 250, have WA restricted assessed land values of less than $1,000 per acre. Only 70 parcels have assessed land values greater than $10,000 per acre. The overall average assessed land value for WA restricted lands is less than $1,500 per acre. By comparison, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) paid an average of $6,000 per acre for land acquired between 2003 and 2008 as part of its Coastal Annexation program with some lands acquired by the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) as part of the program, exceeding $20,000 an acre.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
After the Treasurer & Tax Collector has calculated the lost tax revenues, the Controller should calculate the impact on school or special districts that otherwise would have received an allocation of any lost tax revenues for the period including tax years 2002 through 2008.
F8
The market value of agricultural land in the County has increased 500% in the last 50 years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The Assessor’s Office and the Planning Department should jointly author an annual report stating the County’s compliance with the provisions of the WA.
F9
The San Mateo County Assessor’s Office (Assessor’s Office) has been using rental data from the 1980s, with some rental data reportedly dating back to the 1960s, in calculating the restricted value of agricultural lands.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Subventions payments not used to defray the costs of the Planning Department’s administration of the program should be assigned to the San Mateo Farm Bureau to be used to fund marketing programs to promote San Mateo County’s locally produced agricultural products. Encourage local not-for-profit agencies acquiring and maintaining open space lands, such as the POST, to contribute to the funding of such marketing programs.
F10
The County’s non-compliance with certain provisions of the WA resulted in $73,892 in penalties and the suspension of any further subvention payments typically amounting to more than $50,000 annually from the State. The WA and OSSA payment program may be suspended as part of the State budget crisis resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Convene a conference after all the commissioned reports have been received to develop a comprehensive agricultural lands strategy designed to increase the amount of prime agricultural acreage, establish additional Farmland Security Zones, maximize subvention payments by the State of California, fund marketing programs for locally produced products, and increase agricultural use of open space lands to the extent these strategies are consistent with acceptable environmental standards. Attachment 1 12 Warren Slocum 555 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 phone 650-363-4500 fax 650-363-1903 Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder email wslocum@smcare.org web www.smcare.org September 8, 2009 Honorable George A. Miram Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Response to the 2008-09 Grand Jury findings and recommendations Dear Judge Miram: I thank the 2008-09 Grand Jury for their constructive review of San Mateo County’s management of the California Land Conservation Act, commonly referred to as Williamson Act, properties. I look forward to using their constructive review of our process to improve the assessed value product that we produce for the citizens and taxing jurisdictions of San Mateo County. This years report focused on the 2007 compliance audit of San Mateo County’s Williamson Act and Open Space Subvention Act programs by the California Department of Conservation. As the report accurately states, accountability for various aspects of the program are distributed to various County officials. The legislative body of a local governmental entity negotiates the contract with private landowners restricting the use of their land. Once the contract is approved and recorded, the County Assessor has very specific responsibilities in determining the assessed value as articulated in the California Revenue and Taxation Code. The assessed value of these enforceably restricted open space lands is determined by our appraisal staff each year. I’m concerned that the tenor of this report and its accompanying press release do not fully represent the hard work and dedication we expend each year in preparing a fair and equitable assessment roll. I want to acknowledge our staff for their hard work, professionalism and commitment to serving San Mateo County and the San Mateo County taxpayer. Their continuing dedication to improving our performance is greatly appreciated. Listed on the following pages are the 2008-09 Grand Jury findings and recommendations followed by our response which attempts to clarify and correct any misunderstandings in the official report, press release and related media coverage. Please keep in mind that my responses pertain only to the Assessor responsibilities under the Williamson Act. Response to the 2008-09 Grand Jury findings and recommendations
F11
The County Building and Planning Department (Planning Department) and Assessor’s Office have instituted a procedure to selectively audit 20% of WA properties annually. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 7
-
CL1 Page 10The County’s compliance obligations under the Williamson Act (WA) and the Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA) programs have been seriously neglected during the last 20 years.
-
CL2 Page 10Responsibility for compliance with the provisions of the WA rests with the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors (Board) and the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office (Assessor’s Office). These responsibilities have been neglected by the Board and the Assessor’s Office. These elected officials have failed to provide proper oversight. Due to the lack of oversight, it is not known whether or not land has been properly classified as agricultural lands under the provisions of the WA.
-
CL3 Page 10Agricultural lands may be significantly under assessed due to the use of outdated rental information in calculating their restricted assessed value resulting in lost tax revenues to the County. Depending on the trends in the rental value of agricultural lands on a year- to-year basis, the County could have substantially misstated the restricted value of the agricultural lands.
-
CL4 Page 10Even if WA lands are misclassified and/or their restricted values improperly calculated, their taxable assessed value may not increase immediately as many parcels are held by multigenerational families and, thus, likely to be assessed at pre-Proposition 13 valuations until sold.
-
CL5 Page 10The County does not have a comprehensive agricultural lands strategy designed to increase the amount of prime agricultural acreage, establish Farmland Security Zones, maximize subvention payments from the State of California (State), fund marketing programs for locally produced products, and increase agricultural use of open space lands to the extent these strategies are consistent with acceptable environmental standards.
-
CL6 Page 10The State budget crisis may affect Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s ability to finance the acquisition of the remaining Coastside Protection Program acreage.
-
CL7 Page 19The Assessor is required to annually value all enforceable restricted land within the county. Our assessment practices are reviewed every 5 years by the BOE. Although our annual valuation program includes land located within the jurisdiction of some cities as well as other types of open space land, the majority of our enforceable restricted valuation program is WA land located within the unincorporated area. We have attached as Exhibit “A” to this response a 7-year assessed value history of all enforceable restricted land as compared to the assessed value of the county. As demonstrated by this exhibit, the assessed value the entire county has increased by 52 percent since the 2002-03 assessment roll was produced, whereas the assessed value of enforceable restricted land has increased 113 percent. As the most recent 2008 and 2009 data has verified, the rental value of much of the WA land has been stagnant for decades as much of the land is non-productive, is difficult to access and is used as open space. The cost saving measures that were instituted in the mid 1980’s have proven to be both effective and reasonable. Sincerely, Warren Slocum Attachment: Exhibit “A” - Open Space Value Change 2002-03 to 2009-10 cc: Members, Board of Supervisors David Boesch, County Manager grandjury@sanmateocourt.org Exhibit "A" Assessed Value Change 2002-03 to 2009-10 Restricted Land Assessed Value Compared to County Assessed Value Restricted Land Local Roll Assessed $ % Assessed Value $ % Year Value Change Change (net) Change Change 2009-10 $ 83,209,231 $ 1 4,526,559 21.2% $ 1 42,921,792,582 $ 9 96,175,452 0.7% 2008-09 $ 68,682,672 $ 4 ,000,191 6.2% $ 1 41,925,617,130 $ 1 0,721,459,843 8.2% 2007-08 $ 64,682,481 $ 8 31,145 1.3% $ 1 31,204,157,287 $ 9 ,411,790,077 7.7% 2006-07 $ 63,851,336 $ 6 ,132,869 10.6% $ 1 21,792,367,210 $ 9 ,732,679,752 8.7% 2005-06 $ 57,718,467 $ (203,068) -0.4% $ 1 12,059,687,458 $ 7 ,761,774,631 7.4% 2004-05 $ 57,921,535 $ 8 ,603,320 17.4% $ 1 04,297,912,827 $ 4 ,662,846,046 4.7% 2003-04 $ 49,318,215 $ 1 0,335,141 26.5% $ 9 9,635,066,781 $ 5 ,396,656,942 5.7% 2002-03 $ 38,983,074 $ 9 4,238,409,839 2002-03 to 2009-10 Change $ 4 4,226,157 113% $ 4 8,683,382,743 52%
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Mateo County Assessor
Elected County Office