Bigger Tax Cuts for Long Farm Pacts Likely

Responding to growth-control laws and strong interest by local farmers, Ventura County supervisors today are expected to approve expanded tax breaks for agricultural landowners who agree to continue farming for at least two decades.

Under the guidelines, farmers would have the option of extending a 10-year contract to preserve prime cropland an additional 10 years in return for a greater reduction in property taxes. Landowners who opt to convert current 10-year contracts to 20-year pacts would see their property-tax break jump from 30% to 35%.

Of the 1,200 contracts currently administered by the county, 10% are opting to convert, bringing 1,522 acres of prime farmland into long-term protection, said Milada M. Allen, who manages the contracts for the county.

Another 25% will probably convert next year, Allen estimated. So far, the chance to contract for a longer time has not brought a flurry of new applicants to the program, Allen said. Countywide, 40% of the 129,659 acres protected by 10-year contracts are eligible for extended contracts because they are considered prime farmland under the state Land Conservation Act.

“People who are thinking about whether to continue farming like this,” Allen said, “they see it as an additional tax break and incentive to go on farming.”

*

The revisions bring “fairness” to newly enacted growth-control laws that prohibit development of farmland without first getting voter approval, Supervisor John K. Flynn said. Voters in the county’s unincorporated areas and in five cities approved the laws in a movement to slow construction of housing tracts.

“When you pass laws like that, you try to treat the ramifications of it in a fair manner,” said Flynn, who drew farmers’ wrath by supporting the SOAR growth-control measure. “This is an option to make it a fairer system for farmers.”

But Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau, said he sees little connection between passage of growth-control laws and the expansion of the tax breaks. The California Farm Bureau has for years been pushing for longer contracts in the state’s Land Conservation Act.

“John may be saying that to assuage his guilt,” Laird said. “But this is truly a quid pro quo. These people are tying up their property for an extended period of time. And in return, they are taxed on what the property is really valued [at] and not on some speculative value.”

Laird said he welcomes a provision that prohibits school districts from acquiring acreage covered in a 20-year conservation contract. Too often, Laird said, school districts cross into undeveloped farmland to build schools. Sooner or later, houses--and complaints about farming activities--sprout up around them, he said.

“School districts are not bound by any land-use policies and can put schools anywhere they want--and frequently do so,” Laird said. “This is the only instance where you would have protection from that.”

Richard Francis, an author of the SOAR laws, said he sees expansion of farmland contracts as complementary to other growth-control measures. But the schools provision is not likely to end districts’ practice of building on prime farmland, Francis said.

“No one goes into a 20-year contract expecting to sell land to a school,” Francis said. “Even if a school district could buy out the contract, they would have to pay exorbitant back taxes, and it’s not likely a school district would be willing to do that.”

The Land Conservation Act, adopted by the state in 1965, was first implemented in Ventura County four years later. The law is intended to preserve a diminishing supply of agricultural land throughout the state.

Last year, the state enacted an amendment allowing conversion of 10-year contracts to 20-year contracts. But unlike the shorter ones, 20-year contracts are available only to farmers whose land is designated as prime for crop production.

*

In addition to the schools restriction, the longer contracts place limits on city and special district annexations, Allen said.

The county would lose between $40,000 and $80,000 in annual property tax money if the guidelines are approved, officials estimate. But a conservation policy with more teeth in it is beneficial to the county, Supervisor Kathy Long said.

“The loss of revenue [is far outweighed by] the benefit we get of having the land protected,” said Long. “It’s like a self-imposed conservancy.”

Added Supervisor Judy Mikels: “It’s absolutely the right thing to do. With SOAR and everything else, people obviously want to keep ag land as long as they can.”