A 1998 law that takes Williamson Act property taxes breaks for agricultural land one step further is constitutional, according to a state attorney general's opinion. The opinion, written by Deputy Attorney General Gregory L. Gonot, (Attorney General's opinion No. 98-1106, filed March 10, 1999) concludes the "Super Williamson Act" approved by the Legislature does not violate state constitutional requirements that all property be taxable at the same percentage of fair market value. Farm interests said the opinion should end confusion that had slowed implementation of the measure, which provides tax incentives for landowners not to develop farmland and open space. However, Stanislaus County Assistant County Counsel Vernon Seeley, who requested the opinion, believes the opinion is incorrect and has asked the attorney general to reconsider. Lawmakers considered the Williamson Act constitutional when they approved it in 1965. But they amended the act over several years after approval of a 1966 constitutional amendment that addressed land conservation. In the opinion, Gonot quotes that constitutional amendment, which became Section 8 of Article XIII: "To promote the conservation, preservation and continued existence of open space lands, the Legislature may define open space land and shall provide that when this land is enforceably restricted, in a manner specified by the Legislature, to recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use or conservation of natural resources, or production of food or fiber, it shall be valued for property tax purposes only on a basis that is consistent with its restriction and uses." The Legislature last year approved Farmland Security Zone tax incentives (Revenue and Taxation Code § 423.4) to strengthen the Williamson Act (Government Code §§ 51200-51295). Under the Williamson Act, a landowner may contract with a city or county to restrict the use of agricultural land in exchange for lower property taxes based on the farmland's restrictions and actual use, rather than on the land's potential as a development site. The size of the tax break depends on the land's location and base-year value. Williamson Act contracts, which are renewed annually, have 10-year rolling terms. The Legislature last year declared its desire to find greater incentives for farmland preservation. The Farmland Security Zone tax incentives bill, known as the Super Williamson Act, provides for a 35 percent reduction in value for property tax purposes. In exchange, the landowner agrees to maintain the farmland or open space for 20 years. Property owners who sign Super Williamson Act contracts place their property in a different classification, according to Gonot. "The principle that different tax rates may apply to property in different classifications was expressed by the court in Hewlett-Packard Co. v. County of Santa Clara (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 74, 79: ‘The constitutional mandate for uniform … taxation applies only to property which has not been classified in a manner different from other property or has not been exempted from taxation in whole or in part,'" Gonot writes. The opinion continues, "Since land subject to a Farmland Security Zone contract is under more use restrictions than land subject to a Williamson Act contract, the former must be valued less for property tax purposes than the latter. Accordingly, Section 423.4 sets the value at 65 percent of the value of Williamson Act land under Section 423. Because the Constitution prohibits the same valuation for lands subject to different restrictions, Sections 423 and 423.4 carry out this constitutional mandate." Seeley, the Stanislaus County attorney, differs. In an interview, Seeley said he is convinced the Super Williamson Act is unconstitutional because the state constitution does not authorize the Legislature to make tax exemptions, such as this one, by statute. "There is a great deal of case law that says you cannot have an exemption without a constitutional amendment," Seeley said. In this instance, "the constitution was not amended." Seeley rejects the attorney general's conclusion that the Super Williamson Act places land in a different classification. The only change is in the terms of a landowner's contract with the county, he argued. Stanislaus County, which has not implemented the Super Williamson Act, supports the goal of farm preservation. The county's fear is that it could not defend against a taxpayer lawsuit, Seeley said. Since then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed the Farmland Security Zone law in August 1998, six counties have begun offering the contracts, according to the California Farm Bureau, which praised the opinion. "Now that this cloud has been taken off the Farmland Security Zone program, we believe more landowners will step forward wanting to get involved and more counties will begin to offer it," John Gamper, the bureau's taxation and land use director, said in a written press release. Contacts: Vernon Seeley, Stanislaus County Counsel's office, (209) 525-6376. John Gamper, California Farm Bureau, (916) 446-4647.