Three supervisors excused from Williamson Act vote for conflict, one forced to vote anyway

Three Merced County supervisors excused themselves Tuesday from voting on an action regarding the Williamson Act because they had conflicts, but because the vote required three “yes” votes to pass, one supervisor with a conflict voted anyway.

The Williamson Act – formally the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 – allows local governments to enter into agreements with landowners in order to restrict land use to farming. The agreements offer tax relief to property owners who keep farmland for that purpose for 10 years. The state paid local governments subvention for the foregone tax revenue until 2009. Then, the state quit paying for a couple years.

Merced County received $549,484 in 2014-15 from 3,543 parcel contracts, according to county records.

Before the recession, the county received $1.4 million annually in state Williamson Act subvention funding, according to county documents.

During the final budget hearings on Tuesday, the board took action to determine that the state provided less than one half of the foregone tax revenue in 2014-15. Because Supervisors John Pedrozo, Deidre Kelsey and Jerry O’Banion own agriculture land and receive tax relief under the Williamson Act, voting on the item was considered a conflict. Only Supervisors Hub Walsh and Daron McDaniel did not have conflicts.

However, to make the determination, the board need three “yes” votes, said county counsel James Fincher. The three board members with conflicts drew straws, and since Pedrozo picked the shortest one he participated in the vote despite his conflict.

Walsh, McDaniel and Pedrozo each voted yes to make the determination, passing the action unanimously.

This story was originally published August 20, 2015 at 5:25 PM with the headline "Three supervisors excused from Williamson Act vote for conflict, one forced to vote anyway."