Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 - Exhibit 6 - Contribution of AgricultureTHE CONTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE TO COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Executive Summary Prepared by FLORIDA STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION, INC. Boca Raton, Florida Project Director & Writer: Craig Evans Researcher/Analyst: Jean McGuire Printing & Design: Press Printing Photographs Provided Courtesy of.- Southwest Florida Research and Education Center University of Florida . © 1996, Florida Stewardship Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 621 N.W. 53rd Street, Suite 240 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 - 'sl Community Revenues & Expenses The third part of the study, an Analysis of Community Revenues & Expenses Generated by Agriculture & Agribusiness, Compared with Other Land Uses, reveals that residential development increases the local tax- base but does not pay for itself. Any gain in revenue from residential land uses is lost when the cost of delivering necessary public services -- such as police and fire protection, schools and roads -- required by people living in these communities is subtracted from the revenues collected. This analysis shows that for every $1.00 generated by residential revenues, the county and schools spend $1.20 in direct services, thereby creating a deficit. In comparison, for every $1.00 generated by agricultural related activities, the county and schools spend only 37 cents in direct services. Consequently, of the $1.00 contributed by agricultural related activities, 63 cents remains, thereby creating a surplus. Commercial and industrial activities also create a surplus, since for every $1.00 generated, the county and schools spend only 24 cents in services. So even though agricultural land uses generate a much smaller amount of revenue than do residential land uses, every time agricultural land is replaced with a housing development, a small surplus is replaced with a large deficit. The following table shows the ratios of Revenues to Costs for Services for each of the land uses analyzed_ Summary of Findings Collier County, Florida 1992 COMMUNITY REVENUES & EXPENSES _ Land Use Ratio of Revenues to Costs for Services Residential $1.00 $1.20 r' Agriculture & Agribusiness $1.00 $0.37 V Commercial & Industrial $1.00 $0.24 Vacant $1.00 $0.=19 Open $1.00 $0.26 Other $1.00 $0.24 -21- Opportunity Cost The fourth part of the study, the Opportunity Cost Analysis, compares the value gained or foregone when an acre of agricultural lurid is converted to residential use. This analysis found that residential uses contribute a great deal to the economy when a development is being constructed ... but over time it contributes very little. Agricultural land uses, on the other hand, contribute on a steady, long-term basis, and several major agricultural land uses contribute much more to the economy than residential development. For example, over 50 years, the contribution of residential development on one acre of land, plus the resale of those homes, contributes $815,310 to the economy ... with a present value of $543,042. Present value and net present value are frequently used interchangeably. Present value represents the present worth of an even flow of money over a period of time. Net present value represents the present worth of a variable flow of money over time. Although for simplicity sake the term present value is used in this study, the net present value formula was used since the cash flows are variable from year to year. This is the amount of money that would have to be invested today in another business, economic activity or security ... with a rate of return at least equal to the rate of inflation ...-to replace the revenue that agriculture contributes to the economy. One acre of citrus contributes $532,454 ... for a present value of $109,486. An acre of tomatoes contributes even more ... $3 million ... for a present value of $613,595. The following table shows the results of the study's Opportunity Cost Analysis. Summary of Findings Collier County, Florida 1992 OPPORTUNITY COST ANALYSIS Economic Contribution Present over 50 years/acre Value Residential Construction & Resale $ 815,310 $ 543,042 Retail $ 984,999 $ 202,541 Citrus $ 532,454 $ 109,486 Green Peppers $ 2,108,516 $ 433,564 Tomatoes $ 2,984,042 $ 613,595 -23- The fifth part of this study looks at some common perceptions about agriculture .... such as its impact on the environment and the social costs its creates through low paying jobs. Several other studies have analyzed these issues. These studies show that: 1. The pesticides currently used in southwest Florida agriculture do not have a harmful effect on ground water. 2. Although agriculture is a major user of water, it will be outpaced by residential uses as growth continues. Additionally, agriculture recharges the county aquifers whereas much of the runoff from developed areas goes into the Gulf of Mexico, where it is lost as a source of water for replenishing the aquifers. 3. Farm workers do not experience poverty due to inappropriately low wages (the mean hourly wage is $7.08 an hour for citrus workers), but rather to unemployment in the off season and underemployment in the season due to weather and harvest cycles. The social services needed by low income families would not go away if agriculture was to go away, but would continue since the demand for service workers and other low pay jobs would increase with development. 4. Studies show that citrus operations, while increasing in Collier County, can avoid negative effects on wildlife by using designs that preserve upland forested areas and permanent water holes. When these techniques are used, the wildlife continues to thrive. The findings of these studies are described in more detail, starting on page 64 of the full technical report. Conclusions The findings from this study indicate: 1. Farming for food and housing for shelter are both necessities. Agriculture, however, is an engine that drives the economy_ Housing is not. It is a service. Moreover, it requires large amounts of infrastructure -- and, hence, tax revenues -- to support. 2. Agriculture & agribusiness make significant. contributions to Collier County's economy, job base and payroll. Agriculture & agribusiness also provide a surplus in revenues to county government and schools. _ 3. Although the proportion of total revenue that is contributed to the tax base by agricultural land is relatively small, this contribution is more than enough to pay for the community services it requires, such as roads, police and fire protection. 4. Common assumptions about agricultural activities should be questioned, such as the assumption that agriculture contributes very little to the economy ... that it gets a "free" ride at the expense of other taxpayers because of its low property tax rate ... that it is a temporary land use awaiting conversion to a higher and better land use, such as residential developments ... and that the county will be better served by converting agricultural lands to other uses. 5. Collier County has two distinct types of agriculture, with distinct opportunities for economic expansion and differences in the way in which they can fit with or co -exist with encroaching urbanization. High intensity agriculture (such as ornamentals, vegetables and citrus) is a major income - producer for the county. Some high intensity agricultural uses -- such as nurseries -- -25- can coexist with nearby, urban uses. Others are forced to modify their operations, or relocate, since the odors, dust and spray drift that are a natural part of these operations often cause conflicts with their new neighbors as urban. uses filtin around them. There is a limit, however, to how many times these operations-can:move as urbanization forces them out of one location after another. Moves are expensive. Soil conditions vary throughout the county. When an agricultural operation is forced to move to an area where soil conditions are less conducive to crop production, more inputs are required -- in the form of nutrients, herbicides and pesticides -- which add to operating costs and increase the risks of environmental impacts. Water also is a major limiting factor. Under current water policies, opportunities for most agricultural operations to relocate have been severely reduced .21 Low intensity agriculture (such as cattle ranching) is just as important to the county, but for vastly different reasons. It may produce a low return on a dollar per acre basis, but it provides an economically viable use that allows private landowners to maintain open space, critical wildlife habitats and water resources for the benefit of all county residents ... at no cost to the public. Low -intensity agricultural uses can utilize soils that are not desirable for crop production, and can easily incorporate wetlands, hammocks, pine uplands and greenway corridors into their operations. Converting these lands to urban uses will mean the loss of their natural resources and wildlife values. Purchasing them with public monies may be prohibitively costly. Although the tax revenues and economic contributions produced by low intensity agricultural uses are small when compared with other land uses, the costs for the services they require are even smaller. When these lands are purchased with public monies,. their tax revenues and economic contributions are lost. The public also must pay for purchasing these lands, for making capital improvements and for providing ongoing annual maintenance and management. When public budgets are cut, maintenance and management of public lands often is one of the first categories to suffer, which in turn, allows these lands to degrade, become invaded with exotic species and, with the build up of undergrowth, be at greater risk of severe damage or habitat destruction as the result of intense fires. The results of this study show that one of the most cost-effective ways of maintaining open space and wildlife habitats in the county may be to encourage private landowners to continue low -intensity agricultural uses. Because of the challenges currently facing the beef industry, which is undermining its profitability ... and -survival ... the county may wish to consider initiating a program to pay private landowners to make capital investments and carry out annual maintenance and management of the open areas, wildlife habitats and natural resources on private lands ... as an incentive to prevent their conversion to more intense uses ... and as a cost-saving measure to protect these resources without the debts that would be incurred by public acquisition and the loss of property tax and economic revenues generated by these lands. 6. Although residential use generates significant revenues, it represents a large financial liability to all taxpayers because of demand for services, such as police and fire protection, schools and roads. Much of this liability is in the form of "unfunded mandates" since many costs -- such as adequate classroom capacity in public schools -- are being deferred. These "unfunded -26- mandates" were not captured in the numbers reported in this study, since the study used actual expense and revenue numbers from county and school budgets. It is obvious, however,' that;some areas of the county -- and some service sectors, such as schools' -- are receiving less than the optimal amount of funds needed to provide adequate levels of service -for current residents. Hence, the county is already facing the need to "catch up," even before new residents are added. When service levels are increased to meet public demand, and the bill comes due for increasing service levels up to the capacities required, the county may face the uncomfortable necessity of raising taxes or compromising or cutting services -- or, worse, having to do all three (leaving residents with congested roads, crowded schools and poorly maintained public facilities ... and even higher taxes). These choices -- and dilemmas -- are becoming apparent in many fast -growth communities throughout the country, such as DuPage, Illinois (see Appendix, pages III and IV of the full technical report). Collier County currently has the opportunity to avoid some of these pitfalls. 7. Replacing agriculture with uses such as residential developments, replaces a small surplus with a large deficit. For this reason, it would be prudent for development to be planned for ... or directed to ... areas that are not currently being used for agriculture. 8. Common assumptions about the value of residential development should be questioned, such as the assumption that it pays its way ... lowers property taxes ... and should be considered as a preferred land use when compared with agriculture, agribusiness, "clean" high-tech industries, open space or other natural land uses. 9. County records are not kept in a manner that delineate revenues and expenses by land use. For this reason, it is not readily apparent that residential uses create a deficit, or that agricultural uses create a surplus. Consequently, county decision makers only see one side of the coin: the extra revenue brought in by residential development. The other side of the coin, the costs of services required by residential development, are not easily visible. There are several reasons for this: Residential land uses appear to be fiscally attractive because they provide short term stimulus to the economy during construction and contribute a significant amount of revenue to the tax base. Impact fees paid by developers provide large infusions of cash, which often -appear on the books long before the costs these fees are designed to offset are incurred. The full impact of the costs associated with the services needed by a residential development, such as fire and police protection, schools and roads, may not become apparent for several years ... after the impact fees paid for specific housing units have been exhausted ... and after all the housing units are occupied and their residents begin using their full share of public services and infrastructure. Because of the continuing nature of growth, the addition of new taxables, the expansion of the tax base and collection of impact fees help obscure -27- the deficits that are incurred as yesterday's developments begin demanding their full share of public services. Finally, infrastructure improvements are made in stages: a sewage treatment plant or incinerator, for example, is built with excess. capacity to allow for future growth. Shortfalls in capacity or miscalculations in the actual costs of providing service to a resident do not become apparent until the excess capacity is used up and a new plant or expansion becomes necessary ... at a cost of several hundred million dollars. 10. Although homes in higher price brackets may create a surplus, a variety of housing types, offered at a variety of prices, are necessary to meet the needs of the county's residents. However, there currently is no mechanism for determining the fiscal impact of each housing type, nor of adjusting the mix as developments are approved so there is a better fiscal balance. 11. Over the long term, residential uses create a deficit. For Collier County, this deficit is significant: residential uses in the county currently account for expenses of $1.20 for every $1.00 contributed in revenue, resulting in a deficit of $.20. 12. The loss of agricultural land to development causes an ongoing deficit for Collier County government and schools, because the shortfall between revenues and expenses does not occur just one time, but year ... after year ... after year., 13. A study by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation shows that the use of pesticides on agricultural land in Collier County does. -not pose a threat to the county's groundwater. Other studies have shown that residential uses of fertilizers and pesticides is the main contributor of contamination of surface and ground water. 14. Even though agriculture uses more water in Collier County than any other sector of society, increasing development trends indicate that residential and commercial use of water will outstrip agricultural consumption within the next 20 to 25 years ... or even sooner as farmers use more efficient irrigation systems. Additionally, developed land provides much less recharge of the county's aquifers than does agricultural land because paved areas and -storm sewers prevent rainwater from percolating into the ground, but instead channel it into the Gulf of Mexico. 15. Needs for social services currently used by agricultural workers and their families would not decrease if agriculture "went away" as many people believe. Migrant workers attracted to the county by farm jobs often leave agriculture to work in lower -paying but steadier jobs in the service industry. - Although agricultural jobs on average pay more per hour, they are subject to unemployment and underemployment due to harvest cycles and weather extremes. Because of a lack of employable skills and other barriers to employment, such as lack of English, many workers take jobs that pay less per hour than farmwork. As development occurs, there is an accompanying growth in service jobs. Thus, as residential growth continues and agriculture shrinks, just as many or more people will be required to fill low-paying services jobs and, thus, the need _for publicly funded social services will continue and even grow. 16. Contrary to common belief, citrus operations allow for wildlife to flourish, especially if waterholes are created and forested upland preserved, according to a study of wildlife prepared for the South Florida Water Management District. This study, of course, does not answer all questions about the relationships between the revenues and expenses generated by each land use in Collier County. The study's findings, however, do call out for serious examination of the factors -- and underlying assumptions about growth, the county's Wix of land uses, impact fees and tax rates -- that are causing these relationships. For this reason, additional research on this subject may be desirable, such as: ° A study to calculate the liability Collier County has incurred as a result of requirements to provide infrastructure and public services to developments that are already permitted but not completed or built. ° A study to quantify the amount of economic revenues lost and the cost of deficits incurred as a result of the demand for public services on lands that were converted out of agricultural production to urban uses over the 24 -year period from 1972 to 1996. A study, based on the Polk County study done in February of 1987 by the Plantec Corporation of Jacksonville, to determine if Collier County can afford the costs of urban build out, as set forth in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, with the resources that will be brought in by the mix of land uses proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations The findings from this study show that agriculture more than pays its way. Agricultural activities not only provide a significant contribution to the economy of Collier County, but also provide a surplus to county government and schools. As a result of these findings, it is recommended that the Collier County agricultural community consider taking the following actions: 1. Use this study to stress the benefits and needs of agriculture to policy makers, planners - and regulators. 11 3 Stress that agriculture needs to be viewed as an important industry, and accorded respect and attention from planners and policy makers commensurate with the economic contribution that it makes- to the county. Stress that actions to benefit agriculture and the economy -- and to overcome obstacles that have been created for agriculture -- must go beyond land use decisions, and incorporate regulatory and policy decisions that work in conjunction with each other to create a conducive. business climate in which agriculture can operate. Obtain a copy of Future of Agriculture for Montgomery County, MD prepared by the Agricultural Advisory Committee and Dr. Robert Scarfo, February -1995 (available from The Montgomery County Office of Economic Development, Executive Office Building, 101 Monroe Street, Suite 1500, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-217-2345). Emphasize that the document's two major findings, after assessing a two -decade long experiment with purchasing development rights and implementing strict agricultural land use planning and zoning, are: _ "Without profitable agriculture, there will be no agriculture. 1112 "Survival of agriculture will be influenced substantially --perhaps decisively --by the cumulative effects of government regulations and attitudes 1123 Stress that the following question must be answered: Is there a future for agriculture & agribusiness in Collier County? If so, encourage the county to dedicate adequate staff and financial resources to a well - coordinated, inter -agency effort to define ... plan for ... and implement ... the steps that -29- THE CONTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE TO LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA An Analysis of. - 7 -he Economic Impact of Agriculture & Agribusiness and 2. The Community Revenues & Expenses Generated by Agriculture Compared with Other Land Uses Prepared for Lake Soil & Water Conservation District by FARMING FOR THE FUTURE, INC. Boca Raton, Florida Project Director & Writer: Craig Evans Researcher/Analyst: Jean McGuire 1996, Farming for the Future, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ONE PARK PLACE 621 N.W. 53RD STREET • SUITE 240 • BOCA RATON • FLORIDA 33487 PHONE 407.995. 1474 • FAX 407.995. 1475 Summary of Findings Table Lake County, Florida ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AGRICULTURE (Data for 1992) 011112ut Employment Pavroll DIRECT: Agriccdture & Food Processing $541 million 3,208 $ 74 million INDIRECT & INDUCED: Agrictdture & Food Processing $371 million 4,022 $ 91 million TOTAL: Agriculture & Food Processing $912 million 7,230 $165 million COMMUNITY REVENUES & EXPENSES (Data for 1994) Ratio of Land Use Revenues to Costs for Services Residential $1.00 $1.56 Commercial & Industrial $1.00 $0.13 Agrictdtttral Related $1.00 $0.07 Vacant $1. U0 $0.05 Open $1.00 $0.03 ALL LAND USES $1.00 $0.97 IN AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER FACT SHEET COST OF COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION FARMLAND INFO RMATI-ON CENTER Cost of Community Services studies are an inex- pensive, easy -to -understand way to determine the net fiscal contribution of different land uses to local budgets. Municipal records are reorgan- ized to assign the cost of local public services to privately owned farm, forest and open lands, as well as residential, commercial and industrial lands. The result is a set of ratios that compare the annual income to the annual expenditures for different land uses. COCS studies are a snapshot in time of costs versus revenues for each type of land use. They do not predict future costs or revenues or the impact of future growth. They do provide a baseline of current information to help local officials and citizens make informed land use and policy decisions. METHODOLOGY COCS studies involve five basic steps: S E RVI C E S 1. Define the scope of the project and identify land use categories to study (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, farm and forest land). STUDIES 2. Collect data on local revenues and expenditures. .. P l_ib .4mrrrc=FarmlandTruv TECHNICAL AssiSTANCE Herrick Mill, One Short Street Northampton, MA 01060 Tel: (413) 5864593 Fax: (413) 586-9332 Web: www.farmiandinfo.org NATIONAL OFFICE 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 331-7300 Fax: (202) 659-8339 Web: www.farmland.org 3. Group revenues and allocate them to the land use categories identified in step 1. 4. Group expenditures and allocate them to the land use categories identified in step 1. 5. Analyze the data and calculate revenue -to - expenditure ratios for each land use category. The process is straightforward, although ensur- ing reliable figures requires the assistance of local officials and service providers. The most complicated task is interpreting existing records to reflect COCS land use categories. Allocating revenues and expenses requires a significant amount of research, including extensive personal interviews. HISTORY Communities often evaluate the impact of growth on local budgets by conducting or commissioning fiscal impact analyses. Fiscal impact studies project public costs and revenues from different land development patterns. They generally show that residential development is a net fiscal loss for communities and recommend commercial and industrial development as a strategy to balance local budgets. Rural towns and counties that are likely to benefit most from the information provided by fiscal impact analyses rarely have the expertise or resources to conduct a study, which tends to be expensive. Also, these studies rarely consider the fiscal contribution of farm, forest and recre- ational lands, which are very important to rural economies. American Farmland Trust developed COCS studies in the mid-1980s to give communities a simple, inexpensive method of evaluating the contribution of farm, forest and ranch lands to the local tax base. COCS studies have been conducted in at least 70 communities in the United States. FUNCTIONS & PURPOSES Communities pay a high price for unplanned growth. Scattered development frequently causes traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss of open space and increased demand for costly public services. This is why it is important for citizens and community leaders to understand the relationships between residential and commercial growth, land conservation and their municipali- ty's bottom line. COCS studies can help local officials and farm- land protection advocates counter three claims that are commonly heard at local meetings in rural and suburban communities: April 2000 The Farmland Information Center is a public1private partnership between American Farmland Trust and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service that provides technical information about farmland protection. AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES For additional information on cost of community services studies and farmland protec- tion, the Farmland Information Center offers publications, an online library and technical assistance. To order Is Farmland Protection a Community Investment? How to Do a Cost of Community Services Study, a 26 -page hand- book (510.00), or other AFT publications, call (800) 370- 4879. The farmland informa- tion library is a searchable data- base of literature, abstracts, statutes, maps, legislative updates and other useful resources. It can be found at http.11www. farmiandinfo.org. For additional assistance on specific topics, call the technical assistance service at (413) 586-4593. —t-&l__ar Amoicwi Farmland Tires FARMLAN D I N FORMATION CENTER 1. Residential development will lower property taxes by increasing the tax base; 2. Farmland gets an unfair tax break when it is assessed at its actual use for agriculture instead of its potential use for development; 3. Open lands, including productive farms and forests, are interim uses just waiting to be devel- oped to their "highest and best use." While it is true that an acre of land with a new house generates more total revenue than an acre of hay or corn, this tells us little about a commu- nity's fiscal stability. In areas where farming and forestry are major industries, it is especially important to consider the real property tax contribution of privately owned natural resource lands. Farms, forests and other open lands may generate less revenue than residential, commer- cial or industrial properties, but they require little public infrastructure and few services. COCS studies conducted in more than 70 com- munities over the past decade show that owners of farm, forest and open lands pay more in local tax revenues than it costs local government to provide services to their properties. Residential land uses, in contrast, are a net drain on munici- pal coffers: It costs local governments more to provide services to homeowners than residential landowners pay in property taxes. SUMMARY: COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES $ 1.25 $ 1.00 $ .75 $ .50 $ .25 Industrial - -- The findings of COCS studies are consistent with those of conventional fiscal impact analyses, which document the high cost of residential development and recommend commercial and industrial development to help balance local budgets. What is unique about COCS studies is that they show that agricultural land is similar to other commercial and industrial uses. In every community studied, farmland has generated a fis- cal surplus to help offset the shortfall created by residential demand for public services. This is true even when the land is assessed at its current agricultural use. Communities need reliable information to help them see the full picture of their land uses. COCS studies are an inexpensive way to evaluate the net contribution of farm and open lands. They can help local leaders discard the notion that natural resources must be converted to other uses to ensure fiscal stability. They also dispel the myths that residential development leads to lower taxes, that differential assessment programs give landowners an unfair tax break and that farmland is just waiting around for development. One type of land use is not intrinsically better than another, and COCS studies do not judge the overall public good or long-term merits of any land use or taxing structure. Communities must balance goals such as maintaining affordable housing, creating jobs and conserving land and resources. With good planning, these goals can complement rather than compete with each other. COCS studies give communities another tool to make decisions about their futures. Graph: Median cost—per dollar of revenue raised— to provide public services to different land uses. American Farmland Trust works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. AM E RI CAN FARMLAND TRUST • FARMLAND INFORMATION C EN.TE R SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE -TO -EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS. State/Town Residential Combined Farm/Forest Source including Commercial Open Land farm houses & Industrial New York Amenia 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.17 Bucknall, 1989 Beckman 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.48 American Farmland Trust, 1989 Dix 1 : 1.51 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.31 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1993 _ Farmington 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.72 Kinsman et al., 1991 Fishkill 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.74 Bucknall, 1989 Hector 1 : 1.30 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.28 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1993 Kinderhook 1 : 1.05 1 -.0.21 1 : 0.17 Concerned Citizens of Kinderhook, 1996 Montour 1 : 1.50 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.29 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992 Northeast 1 : 1.36 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.21 American Farmland Trust, 1989 Reading 1 : 1.88 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.32 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992 Red Hook 1 :1.11 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.22 Bucknall, 1989 Ohio Madison Village 1 : 1.67 1-0.20 1 : 0.38 AFT and Lake County Ohio SWCD, 1993 Madison Township 1: 1.40 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.30 AFT and Lake County Ohio SWCD, 1993 Pennsylvania. Allegheny Township 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.14 1 : 0.13 Kelsey, 1997 Bedminster Township 1 :1.12 1 : 0.05 1 : 0.04 Kelsey, 1997 Bethel Township 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1992 Bingham Township 1 :1.56 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.15 Kelsey, 1994 Buckingham Township 1 :1.04 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.08 Kelsey, 1996 Carroll Township 1 :1.03 1 : 0.06 1 : 0.02 Kelsey, 1992 Maiden Creek Township 1 :1-28 1 : 0.11 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1998 Richmond Township 1 :1.24 1 : 0.09 1 : 0.04 Kelsey, 1998 Stewardson Township 1 : 2.11 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.31 Kelsey, 1994 Straban Township 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1992 Sweden Township 1 :1.38 1: 0.07 1 : 0.08 Kelsey, 1994 Rhode Island Hopkinton 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Little Compton 1 :1.05 1 : 0.56 1 : 0.37 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 West Greenwich 1 :1.46 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.46 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Utah Cache County 1 : 1.27 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.57 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Sevier County 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.99 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Utah County 1 :1.23 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.82 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Virginia Clarke County 1 : 1.26 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.15 Piedmont Environmental Council, 1994 Northampton County 1 : 1.13 1:0.97 1 : 0.23 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Washington Skagit County 1 : 1.25 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.51 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Wisconsin Dunn 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.18 Town of Dunn, 1994 American Farmland Trust's Farmland Information Center acts as a clearinghouse for information about cost of community services studies. Inclusion in this table does not signify review or endorsement by American Farmland Trust. AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST • FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES -STUDIES. REVENUE -TO -EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Statc/Town Residential Combined Farm/Forest Sourcc including Commercial Open Land farm houses & Industrial Connecticut Bolton 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.50 Geisler, 1998 Durham 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.23 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Farmington 1 : 1.33 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Hebron 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.47 1 : 0.43 American Farmland Trust, 1986 Litchfield 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.34 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Pomfret 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.86 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Idaho Canyon County 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.79 1 : 0.54 Hartmans and Meyer, 1997 Cassia County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.87 1 : 0.41 Hartmans'and Meyer, 1997 Kentucky Lexington -Fayette Co 1 : 1.64 1 : 0.22 1 : 0.93 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Maine Bethel 1 : 1.29 1 : 0.59 1 : 0.06 Good, Antioch New England Graduate School, 1994 Maryland Carroll County 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.48 1 : 0.45 Carroll County Dept. of Management & Budget, 1994 Cecil County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.37 Cecil Counry Office of Economic Development, 1994 Frederick County 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.50 1 : 0.53 American Farmland Trust, 1997 Massachusetts Agawam 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.44 1 : 0.31 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Becket 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.83 1 : 0.72 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Deerfield 1 : 1.16 1: 0.38 1 : 0.29 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Franklin 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.58 1 : 0.40 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Gill 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.43 1 : 0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Leverett 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.25 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Southborough 1 : 1.03 1: 0.26 1 : 0.45 Adams and Hines, 1997 Westford 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.53 1 : 0.39 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Williamstown 1:1.11 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.40 Hazlet et al., 1992 Minnesota Farmington 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.79 1 : 0.77 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Lake Elmo 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.27 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Independence 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.19 1 : 0.47 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Montana Gallatin County 1: 1.45 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.25 Haggerty, 1996 New Hampshire Deerfield 1 :1.15 1: 022 1: 0.35 Auger, 1994 Dover 1 :1.15 1-0.63 1 : 0.94 Kingsley et al., 1993. Exeter 1 :1.07 1 :0.40 1: 0.82 Niebling, 1997 Fremont 1 :1.04 1: 0.94 1: 0.36 Auger, 1994 Stratham 1 :1.15 1: 0.19 1: 0.40 Auger, 1994 New Jersey Freehold Township 1 :1.51 1: 0.17 1: 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Holmdel Township 1 :1.38 1: 0.21 1: 0.66 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Middletown Township 1 :1.14 1: 0.34 1: 0.36 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Upper Freehold Township 1 :1.18 1: 0.20 1: 0.35 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Wall Township 1 :1.28 1 :0.30 1 :0.54 American Farmland Trust, 1998