BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Patricia Wiggins, Chair
BILL NO: SB 170 HEARING: 4/15/09
AUTHOR: Florez FISCAL: No
VERSION: 4/13/09 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS
Existing Law
Under the Williamson Act, landowners can sign contracts
with counties, agreeing to restrict the use of their
property to agriculture, open space, or compatible uses for
the next 10 years. These contracts automatically renew
each year; the termination date is always a decade away.
In return for the landowner's agreement to not develop the
land, county officials must assess the property based on
its use, not its market value. The use-value assessment
method lowers the landowner's property tax bills.
There are several ways to end Williamson Act contracts,
including nonrenewal, cancellation, rescission, and eminent
domain.
The preferred method is nonrenewal in which either the
landowner or the county decides to not renew the contract,
which then runs out in nine years. After nonrenewal,
county officials increase the property's assessed value to
its market value by the end of the contract period when the
land use restrictions also end.
County officials can cancel a Williamson Act contract at
the landowner's request, immediately ending the contract
and allowing the landowner to use the property for another
specified use. To cancel a contract, the county
supervisors must find that the cancellation is either
consistent with the Act's purposes or in the public
interest. To be consistent with the Act's purposes, the
county supervisors must find that:
The contract is already in nonrewal.
The cancellation won't result in removing nearby
land from ag use.
The proposed new use is consistent with the
county's general plan.
The cancellation won't result in discontiguous
urban development.
SB 170 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 2
There is no nearby noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the proposed new use (or
that development would result in more contiguous urban
development).
To be in the public interest, the county supervisors must
find that:
Other public concerns substantially outweigh the
Act's objectives.
There is no nearby noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the proposed new use (or
that development would result in more contiguous urban
development).
The landowner must pay a cancellation fee equal to 12% of
the property's nonrestricted value; the revenues go into
the State General Fund.
Rescission occurs when the county supervisors cancel a
Williamson Act contract, but the landowner simultaneously
puts an agricultural conservation easement on other land of
equal or greater value.
When a public agency uses its power of eminent domain to
take private land that is subject to a Williamson Act
contract for a public improvement, the contract becomes
null and void.
Background
The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, which has a
135-acre reservation in Santa Barbara County, wants to
build a cultural center, more infrastructure, and more
housing. The Chumash Reservation is mostly developed,
except for property which includes wetlands along a creek.
Rather than develop the wetlands, the Chumash tribe wants
to expand its reservation.
Through the tribal fee-to-trust process, a federally
recognized tribe can buy more land and then apply to the
federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to take that property into
trust for the tribe. Federal officials are generally
reluctant to accept land into trust status if there are
encumbrances on the property's title. Williamson Act
contracts are among the encumbrances that may concern
federal officials who review these situations on a
SB 170 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 3
case-by-case basis.
The privately owned agricultural properties which are
contiguous to the Chumash Reservation are subject to
Williamson Act contracts with Santa Barbara County. The
tribe could buy contiguous contracted land, give notice of
nonrewal, and wait nine years for the contracts to end.
Instead, the tribe wants the Legislature to make it easier
for tribal governments to cancel Williamson Act contracts.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 170 creates a rebuttable presumption that
tribal cultural centers, infrastructure, and housing are
alternative uses that are public concerns that
substantially outweigh the Williamson Act's objectives when
a federally recognized Indian tribe petitions to cancel a
Williamson Act contract.
SB 170 creates a rebuttable presumption that for tribal
cultural centers, infrastructure, and housing, land
contiguous to an existing Indian reservation would provide
more contiguous patterns of urban development than
development of nearby noncontracted land when a federally
recognized Indian tribe petitions to cancel a Williamson
Act contract.
The bill requires the tribe to agree to a negative
easement, at the time of the contract cancellation when the
presumption is operative, so that the property could not be
used for purposes other than a cultural center, housing, or
infrastructure during the remainder of the nonrenewal
period, subject to the Secretary of the Interior's
approval.
The bill declares that it shall not be interpreted to
narrow the circumstances under which a county board of
supervisors or a city council can approve the cancellation
of a Williamson Act contract where other grounds for
approval exist where one or both these presumptions don't
apply or have been rebutted.
Comments
SB 170 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 4
1. Self-sufficiency . The long-term sustainability of
Indian tribes depends on having a land base that's
sufficient to support economic development, housing, and
other tribal activities. The federal fee-to-trust process
allows tribes to expand their reservations by buying more
land and bringing it under tribal control. Because
Williamson Act contracts encumber the title to private
property, those contracts can be an obstacle to tribal
self-sufficiency. By creating rebuttable presumptions to
buttress local officials' decisions, SB 170 makes it easier
to cancel Williamson Act contracts and expand Indian
reservations. With larger reservations, tribal governments
can continue their efforts to promote economic
self-sufficiency and long-term sustainability.
2. Already within reach . The Williamson Act already
allows tribal governments to end contracts on land they
want to add to their reservations. Although it requires a
decade to unwind the contractual restrictions on
development, nonrenewing a Williamson Act contract is the
preferred method because it results in an orderly
transition from agricultural use to the potential for
development. The Committee may wish to consider whether a
tribal government that wants to end a Williamson Act
contract should be treated differently than other property
owners who want to develop agricultural land that is
subject to Williamson Act contracts.
3. Beyond the county's reach . Once the federal government
takes land into trust status for an Indian reservation,
state and local land use laws no longer apply. Although SB
170 makes it easier to cancel a Williamson Act contract to
permit alternative uses such as tribal cultural centers,
infrastructure, or housing, current state law can't require
a tribal government to restrict the property to those land
uses. SB 170 requires a tribe that takes advantage of the
bill's rebuttable presumption to accept a "negative
easement," restricting the property to a cultural center,
housing, or infrastructure for the rest of the nonrenewal
period. However, as economic conditions or reservation
policies change, a tribal government may want to use that
former Williamson Act contracted land for other purposes.
The Committee may wish to consider whether a temporary
easement is an adequate policy trade-off for a permanent
SB 170 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 5
contract cancellation. Should SB 170 require a permanent
covenant in return for a rebuttable presumption?
4. Not Willits . In 2002, the First District Court of
Appeals explored a controversy in which the Sherwood Valley
Rancheria wanted to build low-income homes for tribal
members and Willits Valley residents wanted to preserve
open space for agricultural use. The Mendocino County
Board of Supervisors made the statutorily required findings
and approved the cancellation of the Williamson Act
contract. The tribe signed a land use agreement with the
County, voluntarily agreeing to comply with the terms of
the former Williamson Act contract on the property where it
would not build houses. That covenant lasted until the
contract's nonrenewal period would have ended. In the
Willits situation, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs
accepted the property into trust for the tribe.
5. Variation on a theme ? If legislators want to make it
easier for county supervisors to cancel Williamson Act
contracts and expand Indian reservations to accommodate
tribal cultural centers, infrastructure, and housing, they
might consider an approach that blends SB 170 with the
current law on contract rescissions and the Sherwood Valley
Rancheria's experience. The Committee may wish to consider
an amendment that applies the bill's statutory rebuttable
presumption to the rescission of a Williamson Act contract
on land owned by a tribal government on the condition that
the tribe imposes a permanent covenant on the former
contracted land, restricting its use to the stated
alternative purpose (e.g., cultural centers,
infrastructure, housing). As a contract rescission, the
tribal government would put an agricultural conservation
easement on other, noncontracted land of equal or greater
value.
6. Shifting the burden of proof . Before they can cancel a
Williamson Act contract, county supervisors must make
documented findings. The Legislature created these high
standards to protect the Act's constitutional integrity by
discouraging easy cancellations. SB 170 shifts the burden
of proof by assigning rebuttable presumptions in favor of
tribal cultural centers, infrastructure, and housing. By
declaring that those land uses substantially outweigh the
Williamson Act's objectives, the bill makes it easier to
SB 170 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 6
cancel a contract. The bill also makes it easier to cancel
Williamson Act contracts by declaring that those land uses
provide better urban development patterns. Because the
bill shifts the burden of proof, the Senate Rules Committee
has ordered a double-referral for SB 170; first to the
Senate Local Government Committee and then to the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
7. Legislative history . SB 170 is similar to AB 2860
(Mendoza, 2008) which died in the Assembly Agriculture
Committee.
Support and Opposition (4/9/09)
Support : Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, California
Association of Tribal Governments, California Nations
Indian Gaming Association, Tribal Association of Sovereign
Governments, Barona Band of Mission Indians, Rumsey Band of
Wintun Indians, San Miguel Band of Mission Indian, Soboba
Band of Luise?o Indians, Table Mountain Rancheria Tribal
Government, Tule River Indian Tribe.
Opposition : Artichoke Joe's Casino, Buellton Is Our Town,
California Chamber of Commerce, California Farm Bureau
Federation, California State Association of Counties,
California State Grange, County of Santa Barbara,
Neighborhood Defense League of California, Preservation of
Los Olivos, Regional Council of Rural Counties, Santa Ynez
Valley Alliance, Santa Ynez Valley Concerned Citizens,
Women's Environmental Watch, and 9 individual letters.