Rural Treasure ‐
The State of Boone County Agriculture Boone County, Kentucky September 1, 2010
Rural Treasure ‐ The State of Boone County Agriculture The Boone County Farm Initiative is pleased to release the results of a recent study to assess the current status of agriculture in Boone County.
The study includes a profile of the county’s agriculture industry, results from a survey of Boone County farmers, and a Cost of Community Services Study that shows a snapshot in time of the impact of agriculture on the county’s economy. The study was prepared under the guidance of the Boone County Conservation District and members of the Boone County Farm Initiative. The study was funded by grants from the Kentucky Soil and Water Commission.
The study research was conducted by Sarah Hume, an independent researcher from Campbell County; Dr. Alison Davis, Department of Agricultural Economics with the University of Kentucky; and Dr. Julie Zimmerman, Department of Rural Sociology & Community and Leadership Development, also with the University of Kentucky. A teen survey is currently being conducted and results of that study will be released later in 2010.
Jim Walton, chair of the Boone County Conservation District, said that the Initiative was started to bring together groups and individuals with a heartfelt interest in preserving the agricultural community of Boone County for present and future generations. The district board envisions that this initiative will result in opportunities to not only ensure a future base of land available for food and fiber production, but will raise public awareness about the many contributions that agriculture makes to the county. A meeting of community agriculture leaders was convened on March 12, 2009. The Initiative was formed from individuals and groups present at that initial meeting. Members of the Initiative include representatives from the Boone County Cooperative Extension Service, Boone County Farm Bureau, Northern Kentucky Horse Network, Northern Kentucky Cattle Association, Sunshine Ranch, Alpaca Bend Farms, Ideal Farm Supply, USDA Farm Service Agency, interested citizens, and the Conservation District. The study will be posted on the Boone County Conservation District web site, http://www.boonecountyky.org/bccd/default.aspx or Web Portal: http://www.nkcd.org BOONE COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 6028 Camp Ernst Road Burlington, KY 41005 859‐586‐7903 (Phone) 859‐586‐7683 (Fax) Boone County Conservation District Board of Supervisors: James (Jim) B. Walton, Chairman; Rob Hall, Vice Chairman; Monty Taylor, Secretary/Treasurer; Rose Bunger; Debra W. Messer; Tom Comte; and, Rick Soper. September 1, 2010
Agriculture Profile Boone County, Kentucky
Julie N. Zimmerman Rural Sociology Dept of Community and Leadership Development University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension
Conducted for the Boone County Conservation District Burlington, KY
September 2010
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
i
Executive Summary Boone County is one of the three northernmost counties in Kentucky. The 4th most populous county in the state, Boone County continues to experience rapid population growth. At 246.26 square miles, 47% of the county’s land is in farms. It is also home to a larger number of farms compared with both Kenton and Campbell counties, more acres of land in farms, and a larger average farm size. Small family farms comprise 96.5% of all farms in Boone County. Like that nationally, off-farm employment is important for farmers in Boone County with 68.3% reporting working off-farm. In 2007, the total market value of agricultural products sold in Boone County was $17.5 million with an average per farm of $25,278. This is around 3 times greater than that found in either Kenton and Campbell counties. The total value of agricultural sales in Boone County was about evenly split between the two categories of crops and livestock, poultry (and their products). Between 2002 and 2007, Boone County saw a – 3.3% decrease in the total market value of agricultural products sold. During this same time, the total cost of farm production expenses in Boone County increased with the greatest increase in gasoline, fuels, and oils. In 2007, the net cash farm income of farm operations in Boone County was $2.7 million ($2,666,000). Not only was this higher that that in Kenton and Campbell counties, Boone was the only county of the three to see positive net cash farm income. While the number of farms using organic production in the county is small, as a percent of all farms using organic production, Boone County is higher than that in the state as a whole. In addition, 4% of farms reported producing value-added products, income from agritourism was $340,000 and direct sales to individuals for human consumption accounted for a half of a million dollars. Boone County compares favorably with several national trends. For instance, 14% of all principal operators in the county are women. This is higher than that found in either Kenton or Campbell County and is comparable with that seen nationally. In Boone County, 60.4% of farms have internet access. Not only is this greater than that for the nation, it is also higher than that found in Kenton or Campbell counties or in the state as a whole. Of those who had internet access in Boone County, just over two thirds (63.3%) reported having high speed internet In Boone County, 80.1% of farms were in three categories: other crop farming (217 farms); beef cattle ranching and farming (203 farms); and animal aquaculture and other animal production (126 farms). In terms of acreage, the top crop items in Boone County were forage, soybeans, corn for grain, tobacco and nursery stock. For livestock inventories, the leading products were: cattle and calves; horses and ponies; layers; all goats; and sheep and lambs. Using IMPLAN analysis, the total economic impact of production agriculture in Boone County, including indirect and induced effects is $24,634,020. The final value-added economic impact is $11,577,573, indicating that there is an additional $11.5 million in income in the county because of production agriculture.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
ii Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
1) What do farms in Boone County look like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Number of farms b) Land in farms c) Agricultural Land use d) Farm size e) Value of land and buildings f) Farm typology
3
2) Who is farming? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Tenure (own/rent) b) Age c) Farming as an occupation d) Off-farm employment e) Women principal operators f) Average years on farm g) Farm as residence h) Internet access i) Hired labor
8
3) What are they producing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Farms by type b) Land in farms by type c) Leading agricultural products d) Organic production e) Community Supported Agriculture and value-added products
15
4) What are they earning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Total market value of sales b) Average sales per farm c) Value of sales by commodity type d) Value of direct sales to individuals for human consumption e) Value of sales by commodity group f) Farms by value of sales g) Agritourism and recreation h) Production expenses i) Net cash income
19
5) What is the impact? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 a) IMPLAN model
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
1
Agricultural Profile Boone County, Kentucky Introduction Of the 120 counties in Kentucky, Boone County is the 4th most populous county in the state. At 115,231 persons, only Jefferson (713,877), Fayette (282,114), and Kenton (157,629) counties have larger populations. Like that of its neighbors, Kenton and Campbell counties, Boone County straddles the Ohio River and is part of the Cincinnati, Ohio metropolitan statistical area. Boone County is also home to the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. Since 2000, the population in Boone County has been growing from 87,000 in 2000 to 115,231 persons in 2008. 1 This growth rate of 32.4% is much higher than state as a whole which grew by 5.4% during the same time. The population growth seen in Boone County since 2000 is the third greatest rate of population growth in the state. Only two counties had higher rates of population growth – Spencer (44.9%) and Scott (33.3%) counties. In contrast, between 2000 and 2008, Kenton County grew by only 3.9% and Campbell County’s population declined slightly by - 1.8%. In 2008, nearly one third of the population lived in the three cities of Florence, Union, and Walton. Since 2000, these cities combined grew by 18.0%. Individually, Florence grew by 16.9%, Union by 23.7% and Walton by 21.9%. The majority of residents in Boone County (70.2%) live in the ‘balance’ of Boone County which includes both rural areas as well as other urbanized areas such as Burlington and Hebron. Between 2000 and 2008, the ‘balance’ of Boone County has gone from 57,855 to 80,837 persons, an increase of 39.7%. This growth rate also means that the share of the population has grown, up from 66.5% of the county’s population in 2000. 2 The majority of the population growth in Boone County is from migration. Between 2000 and 2005, of the 18,433 in population growth, 13,701 were projected to have come from net migration (74.3%) while only 25.7% came from natural increase (births minus deaths). Boone County’s population is projected to continue to increase and at a rate much higher than either Kenton or Campbell counties or the state as a whole. In 2020, the population of Boone County is projected to be 153,545 persons. This is a 45.6% increase from the population in 2005, the most recent estimate used in the Census Bureau’s population projections. 3 Like its population, Boone County’s economy has also been growing. Between 2001 and 2007 (the most recent data available), total employment in the county grew by 13.9%. This is greater than that in Kenton and Campbell counties which saw total employment grow by 10.0% and 12.9% respectively. All three northern Kentucky counties saw total employment grow at a faster pace than that seen in the state as a whole (5.8%). In Boone County, household income has also been growing. In 2008 (the most recent data available), at $66,178 Boone County had the second highest median household income in the state. Not only is this higher than that found in the state as a whole, this is also higher than that in either Kenton or Campbell counties which had a median household income of $44,657 and $43,042 respectively. 1
The 2009 population estimate for Boone County is 118,576 persons. In order to be comparable to the estimates by place, the 2008 estimate is used in this summary. These data are from the Kentucky State Data Center. 2 In 2000, 24.3% of Boone County residents lived in rural parts of the county while 75.7% lived in urbanized areas. 3 These data are produced by the U.S. Census Bureau and are from the Kentucky State Data Center.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
2
Despite its economic growth, most recently, the economy has taken a hit. The preliminary February unemployment rate was 10.2 in Boone County. This is up from an annual unemployment rate of 5.6 in 2008. Similar increases have been seen in Kenton and Campbell counties as well as for the state as a whole. Of the three northernmost counties in the state, at 246.26 square miles, Boone County is the largest. Of this, 47.4% of the county’s land is in farms. The following report examines the structure and role of agriculture in the county.
Background In 2009, the Boone County Conservation District contracted with Julie N. Zimmerman and Allison Davis in the College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky to conduct an analysis of agriculture in Boone County. Dr. Davis conducted the Cost of Community Services and Dr. Zimmerman conducted the Agricultural Profile. In addition, Dr. Davis also conducted the IMPLAN analysis included in the profile. The following is the Agricultural Profile for Boone County. In order to assess agriculture in the county, detailed data were collected and analyzed from the U.S. Census of Agriculture. Specifically, the data used included the 2002 and 2007 Agricultural Census from the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, as well as data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Kentucky State Data Center. As previous profiles have been conducted by the American Farmland Trust for Kenton and Campbell counties, to be comparable, variables used in those previous profiles are also included in this assessment of agriculture in Boone County. When applicable, adjustments were made to assess the impact of inflation. To do this, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator was used. Generally, the Census of Agriculture measures crop production, sales, income, and expenses for the calendar year. Inventories and market value of land and buildings are measured as of December 31 of the census year.
Results The results of the Agricultural Profile for Boone County, Kentucky are divided into 5 sections. Each section assesses both the patterns in Boone County for 2007 and trends since the previous Agriculture Census in 2002. In some cases, individual data were examined in greater detail. In addition, the patterns and trends in Boone County were compared with both Kenton and Campbell counties as well as the state of Kentucky. The analysis and results are organized around 5 central questions: What do farms in Boone County look like? Who is farming? What are they producing? What are they earning? What is the impact? Each of the sections examine multiple variables. Combined with longitudinal data and data for other places, 392 different data points were used in this analysis.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
3
What does farming in Boone County look like? In order to assess the overall characteristics of farming in Boone County, the following section examines several factors:
Number of farms Land in farms Land use Size of farms Value of land and buildings Farm Typology
Number of Farms The Census of Agriculture defines a farm as “any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were, or normally would be, produced and sold during the Census year.” In 2007, there were 682 farms in Boone County, Kentucky. This is a larger number of farms compared with both Kenton and Campbell counties which reported having 481 and 535 farms respectively.
Number Numberof ofFarms, Farms,2007 2007 800 800 700 700
682 682
600 600
481 481
500 500
535 535
400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 -Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Cambell Cambell
Since 2002, the number of farms in Boone County declined from 743 to 682 farms. This is a decrease of - 8.2% representing a net loss of 61 farms. This net loss came from losing 73 farms while gaining 12 farms during the five years. Table 1. Number of Farms. Place
2002
2007
Percent Change
Boone Kenton Campbell
743 495 581
682 481 535
-8.2% -2.8% -7.9%
Kentucky
86,541
85,260
-1.5%
The experience of Boone County is not uncommon. Since World War II, the number of farms in the nation has been declining. While the latest Agriculture Census indicates that this national trend is leveling off with some states showing an increase in the number of farms, many states (including Kentucky) continue to see decreases in the number of farms.
Boone County's decline in the number of farms is also similar to that of Campbell County, which saw a decrease of - 7.9% in the number of farms located there. Even though Kenton County also saw a decline in the number of farms, the decrease was only - 2.8%.
Land in Farms While the number of farms in Boone County decreased, the land in farms was relatively stable. Between 2002 and 2007, the land in farms decreased by only 165 acres. Compared to Kenton and Campbell counties, Boone County continues to have more acres of land in farms than either other county.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
4
While the amount of land in farms in Boone County was relatively stable during the past 5 years, by comparison, both Kenton and Campbell counties saw decreases at - 8.5% and - 6.0% respectively.
Land LandininFarms Farms(Acres). (Acres).2007 2007
80,000 80,000
74,750 74,750
70,000 70,000 60,000 60,000 50,000 50,000
42,544 42,544
47,335 47,335
Table 2. Land in Farms (Acres).
40,000 40,000
Place Boone Kenton Campbell
2002 74,915 46,479 50,383
2007 74,750 42,544 47,335
Percent Change -0.2% -8.5% -6.0%
Kentucky
13,843,706
13,993,260
1.1%
30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 -Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Cambell Cambell
Agricultural Land Use
Like Boone County, Kenton and Campbell counties also saw decreases in total cropland acres. While Kenton County saw a decrease of - 19.2%, Campbell County saw the greatest rate of decline at - 29.6%.
Acres Acres
In Boone County, cropland continues to be the dominant type of agricultural land use. Total cropland includes harvested cropland, cropland used for pasture or grazing, and other cropland uses such as cover crops, failed crops, Land Landin inFarms FarmsAccording Accordingto toUse, Use,Boone BooneCounty County summer fallow. In 2002, there were 44,176 2002 2007 2002 2007 acres in total cropland, the largest number of 50,000 50,000 acres in any category of land use. In 2007, 44,176 44,176 45,000 45,000 even though this number declined to 35,832 40,000 40,000 35,823 35,823 35,000 35,000 acres, it remains the largest category. 29,663 29,580 29,663 29,580 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000
18,023 18,023 15,588 15,588
20,000 20,000 15,000 15,000
16,019 16,019 9,720 9,720
10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
5,431 5,431 4,885 4,885
-Total TotalCropland Cropland
Total Total Woodland Woodland
Permanent Permanent pasture pasture
Land Landinin buildings, buildings, ponds, ponds,etc etc
Pastureland Pastureland
Because it is the largest land use category in the county and it saw the largest change in the number of acres, it is important to look at the category of total cropland more closely. While the total acreage in cropland declined in Boone County, there have also been shifts in the types of cropland use. Table 3. Total Cropland by Type (Acres), Boone County. Percent of Total Cropland Cropland Use 2002 2007 2002 2007 Harvested cropland 21,641 23,749 49.0% 66.3% Cropland used only for pasture or grazing 15,085 7,731 34.1% 21.6% Idle, cover crops, soil improvement 6,446 3,413 14.6% 9.5% Crops failed 651 568 1.5% 1.6% Cultivated summer fallow 353 362 0.8% 1.0% Total Cropland 44,176 35,823 100.0% 100.0%
Most of the decline in total cropland acreage came from cropland used only for pasture or grazing. In 2002, this comprised 15,085 acres but in 2007 this was down to 7,731 acres; a - 48.8% decrease.
By contrast, harvested cropland not only continues to the dominant type of cropland use in the county, its share of the total cropland increased. Between 2002 and 2007, the acres of harvested cropland in Boone County went from 21,641 acres to 23,749 acres. This means that in 2002, 49.0% of the acres in cropland were harvested but in 2007 this increased to 66.3%.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
5
Between the two census years, just as the total cropland decreased, the total woodland and permanent pasture increased. From 2002 to 2007, the number of acres in woodland increased from 15,588 acres to 18,023 acres. During the same time, the number of acres in permanent pasture increased by 6,299 acres from 9,720 to 16,019 acres in 2007. Combined, these two categories increased by 8,734 acres, nearly the same amount as the decrease in acreage in cropland.
Farm Size In Boone County, the average farm size in 2007 was 110 acres. This is a larger average size than that in Kenton or Campbell counties where average farm size was 88 acres in both counties. Not unexpectedly, the farm size in Boone County was smaller than that reported for the state as a whole which had an average Average AverageFarm FarmSize Size farm size of 164 acres. In the five years since the last Agriculture Census, the average size of farms in Boone County increased from 101 acres to 110 acres (an increase of 8.9%). This increase in average farm size accounts for the small decrease in the total land in farms despite a decline in the total number of farms.
2002 2002
180 180
2007 2007 164 160 160 164
160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100
101 101
110 110 94 94
88 88
87 87
88 88
80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20
A similar growth in average farm size -Boone Kenton Cambell Kentucky experienced in Boone County was not shared Boone Kenton Cambell Kentucky in Kenton and Campbell counties. In Kenton County, the average farm size decreased by 6.4% down from 94 acres. In Campbell County, average farm size remained stable, only moving from 87 to 88 acres in the 5 years. In 2007, most of the farms in Boone County had between 10 and 179 acres. The largest number of farms were between 10 and 49 acres in size. This is 45.2% of all farms in the county. The next largest group were farms between 50 and 179 acres. The 204 farms Number of Farms by Size in Boone County. Number of Farms by Size in Boone County. in this category constitute 29.9% of all 2002 2007 2002 2007 farms. Together, 75.1% of all farms in 350 350 307 308 307 308 Boone County are in these two categories. 300 300 265 265
250 250 204 204
200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50
97 88 88 97
65 65 54 54
12 12 11 11
-11toto99acres acres
10 10toto49 49 acres acres
50 50toto179 179 acres acres
180-499 180-499 acres acres
66 88
500 500toto999 999 1,000 1,000acres acres acres or acres ormore more
Even though the average farm size increased in Boone County, the median farm size decreased from 59 to 43 acres. The median is the point at which half of all farms are larger and half are smaller. The difference between the average and the median size reflects changes in the distribution of farms by size in the county.
Since 2002, there have been some changes in the number of farms by size in the county. In terms of total numbers, the largest change was in the number of farms with 180-499 acres
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
6
which increased by 9 farms. The largest changes were in the decrease in the number of farms in two categories. Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms with 50 to 179 acres declined by 61 farms and the smallest farms, those with 1-9 acres, declined by 11 farms. As a result, there has been a slight shift in the distribution of farms. While in 2002, the two categories with the largest number of farms comprised 77.0% of all farms (10 - 49 acres and 50 - 179 acres), in 2007 this share decreased to 75.1%.
Number Numberof ofFarms Farmsby bySize Sizein inBoone, Boone,Kenton, Kenton,and and Campbell CampbellCounties, Counties,2007 2007 350 350
308 308
300 300
Boone Boone 240 240
250 250
Kenton Kenton
208 208 204 204 200 199 200 199
200 200
Campbell Campbell
150 150
97 97 When comparing Boone County with Kenton 100 100 54 54 55 54 5455 and Campbell, Boone County has a slightly 50 22 50 25 2225 11 88 0 0 11 66 77 0 0 different structure to the size of its farms. For -11to to99acres acres 10 10to to49 49 50 50to to179 179 180-499 180-499 500 500to to999 999 1,000 1,000acres acres instance, Boone County has about twice as acres acres acres acres or acres acres acres acres ormore more many of the smallest farms compared to Kenton or Campbell counties and a smaller proportion of mid-sized farms. At the largest end of the spectrum, while Boone County has 8 farms at 1,000 acres or more, neither Kenton nor Campbell counties had any farms of this size.
Value of Land and Buildings The Agriculture Census asks respondents to report their estimate of the current market value of land and buildings. Respondents are asked to report their estimate of the current market value on land that is owned, rented or leased from others, and rented or leased to others. The data are then reported on both a per farm and per acre basis. Estimated EstimatedPer PerFarm FarmMarket MarketValue Valueof ofLand Landand andBuildings Buildings 2007 2007 2002 2002(adjusted (adjustedfor forinflation) inflation)
Campbell Campbell
Kentucky Kentucky
566
$$444 400, ,221 133 $$333 388, $ 9 $229 ,9 1 1 94 4, 1 ,005 1
Kenton Kenton
6, ,0 0 1 13 3
$$334 455, ,4 $$335 48866 522, ,669 $3$30 922 06
$300,000 $300,000
On a per acre basis, the estimated value of land and buildings in Boone County was $4,926 per acre in 2007. Again, adjusted for inflation, this means that in 2010 dollars, the value of land and buildings would be $5,170 per acre.
,4 3 36 6
$400,000 $400,000
$$339 933, ,8 $$335 81111 577, $ 7 , $ 3 31 7990 10 0, 0 4
$500,000 $500,000
0, ,5 5779 9
$600,000 $600,000
2002 2002(not (notadjusted) adjusted)
$$553 399, ,994 488
$700,000 $700,000
$$339 922, ,553 $$334 311 40
On a per farm basis, in Boone County, the market value of land and buildings was estimated in 2007 to be $539,948 per farm. Adjusted for inflation, in current dollars (2010), this means that the estimated market value of land and buildings per farm would be $566,742.
$200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 Boone Boone
In Boone County, the average per farm estimated market value of land and buildings was higher than that in Kenton or Campbell County and higher than in the state as a whole. Indeed, because of the large increase in the average per farm estimated market value of land and buildings in Boone County, while in 2002 Boone County was only slightly higher that Kenton or Campbell counties, in 2007 the difference became marked. In 2007, the estimated market value of land and buildings was $539,948 per farm compared to $393,811 in Kenton County, $345,486 in Campbell County, and $440,213 in the state.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
Since the last Agriculture Census in 2002, the estimated per farm market value of land and buildings increased by 58.5% ($199,369) in Boone County. This is a slightly higher rate of increase compared to the nation as a whole which saw an increase of 43%.
7
Percent PercentChange Changein inthe theEstimated EstimatedPer PerFarm FarmMarket MarketValue Valueof of Land Landand andBuildings, Buildings,2002-2007 2002-2007 70.0% 70.0% 60.0% 60.0%
Not Notadjusted adjustedfor forinflation inflation Adjusted for inflation Adjusted for inflation
58.5% 58.5%
49.7% 49.7%
50.0% 50.0% 40.0% 40.0%
37.6% 37.6% 29.9% 29.9%
26.9% 26.9%
30.0% 30.0%
When adjusted for inflation between 2002 20.0% 20.0% 12.9% 12.9% and 2007, the estimated value of land and 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% buildings in Boone County not only kept -2.0% -2.0% 0.0% 0.0% pace, but exceeded that accountable for by Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky -10.0% inflation. This means that if the 2002 figure -10.0% of $340,579 per farm was adjusted for inflation, the estimated value of land and buildings would be $392,531 in 2007 dollars. Even accounting for inflation, this means that the value of land and buildings per farm still increased by 37.6% between 2002 and 2007. Just as the estimated per farm market value of land and buildings increased since the last Agriculture Census, so too has the estimated value per acre. In 2002, the estimated per acre market value of land and buildings in Boone County was $3,633. When assessed relative to inflation, this means that the value of land and buildings was $4,222 per acre in 2007 dollars. Compared with the estimated value from the 2007 Agriculture Census, this means that, including inflation, the per acre value of land and buildings in Boone County still increased by 16.7% between 2002 and 2007.
Farm Typology In order to group farms with similar characteristics, the Economic Research Service at the USDA has developed a typology of farms. This typology both differentiates among family and nonfamily farms as well as among different types of small family farms. In Boone County as in the state as a whole, most farms are small family farms. Small family farms are family farms with less than $250,000 in sales. Small family farms comprise 96.5% of all farms in Boone County (658 farms). Small family farms are subdivided into 5 categories: limited-resource; retirement; residential/lifestyle; farming occupation/lowersales; and farming occupation/higher-sales. In Boone County, 70.1% of small family farms (461 farms) are in two categories: residential/lifestyle and retirement.
Number Numberof ofFarms Farmsby byType Typein inBoone BooneCounty, County,2007 2007
Large LargeFamily Family Farms Farms 33 Small SmallFamily Family Farms Farms 658 658
Very VeryLarge Large Family FamilyFarms Farms 33
Nonfamily NonfamilyFarms Farms 18 18
Of the 658 small family farms in Boone County, 41.5% are residential/lifestyle family farms (273 farms). These are farms where the principal operator reports that something other than farming as their primary occupation and the market value of products sold is less than $250,000. Given
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
8
Small SmallFamily FamilyFarms Farmsin inBoone BooneCounty, County,2007 2007
Farming Farming Occupation/ Occupation/ Lower LowerSales Sales 14.9% 14.9%
Residential/ Residential/ Lifestyle Lifestyle 41.5% 41.5%
the increasing importance of off-farm work, this number is not unexpected and similar proportions can be found in Kenton and Campbell counties and the state as a whole.
The next largest category of small family farms is retirement. Retirement farms are those where the principal operator reports being retired and the market value of LimitedLimitedproducts sold is less than $250,000. In Resource Resource 13.4% Boone County, nearly 30% of small family 13.4% Retirement, farms are in this category (28.6% or 188 Retirement, 28.6% 28.6% farms). Given the increasing average age of principal operators, this number is not unexpected and similar proportions can again be found in Kenton and Campbell counties and the state as a whole. Farming Farming Occupation/ Occupation/ Higher HigherSales Sales 1.7% 1.7%
Limited-resource family farms and farming occupation/lower-sales together comprise 28.3% of small family farms in Boone County. Limited-resource family farms are those whose principal operator reports a household income of less than $20,000 and sales of less than $100,000. In Boone County, 13.4% (88 farms) are in this category. Farming occupation/lower-sales are those small family farms whose principal operator reports farming as their primary occupation and sales between $100,000 and $249,999. In Boone County, 14.9% of small family farms are in this category (98 farms).
Who is farming? In order to assess the characteristics of those who are farming in Boone County, the following section examines several factors:
Tenure (own/rent) Age Farming as an occupation Off-farm employment Women principal operators Average years on farm Farm as residence Internet access Hired labor
Tenure (Own/Rent) Overall, a majority of farms in Boone County have full owners. Full owners are defined as those who only operated the land they owned. Of the 682 farms in 2007 in Boone County, 80.6% of farms had full owners. In addition to these, 14.7% of farms had part owners (those who operated land they owned as well as land they rented) and 4.7% were tenants (those who only operated land they rented or worked on for shares).
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
9
Even with the total number of farms decreasing during these 5 years in Boone County, farm ownership has remained relatively stable since the last Agriculture Census. While the number of farms with full owners was down in 2007, they still comprised 80% of all farms in Boone County. (This is up from 78.5% in 1997.)
Table 4. Number and Distribution of Farms by Tenure in Boone County. Number of Percent of all Farms Farms Tenure 2002 2007 2002 2007 Full Owners Part Owners
595 102
550 100
80.1% 13.7%
80.6% 14.7%
Tenants Total Number of Farms
46
32
6.2%
4.7%
743
682
100.0%
100.0%
The largest change in the distribution of farms by ownership is in the tenant category. Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms with tenants decreased. This means that farms with tenants comprised a smaller share of all farms in 2007 compared to that in 2002. Similar to that in 1997, in 2002, farms with tenants comprised just over 6% of all farms. In 2007, this number was down to 4.7% of all farms in the county. Table 5. Percent of all Farms by Tenure, 2007. Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky Tenure Full Owners
80.6%
77.3%
76.8%
76.8%
Part Owners
14.7%
18.7%
22.1%
19.4%
4.7%
4.0%
1.1%
3.8%
Tenants
Compared with Kenton and Campbell counties and compared with the state as a whole, Boone County has a slightly higher rate of farm ownership and a slightly lower rate of part owners.
Age The average age of principal operators has been increasing across the nation. Nationally, this went from an average age of 55.3 to 57.1 between 2002 and 2007. The same is the case in Boone County. In 2002, the average age of principal operators was 56.6 years. In 2007, this had increased to nearly 58 years (57.9). Boone County is not alone in seeing the average age of principal operators increase. The average age of principal operators also increased in the neighboring counties of Kenton and Campbell, and in the state as a whole.
Average AverageAge: Age:56.6 56.6
2002 2002
2007 2007
59 59 58 58
57.9 57.9
57.8 57.8
57.7 57.7
57.2 57.2 57 57
57.1 57.1
56.6 56.6
56.5 56.5
56 56
55.3 55.3
55.2 55.2
Campbell Campbell
Kentucky Kentucky
55.3 55.3
55 55 54 54 53 53 Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
U.S. U.S.
The aging of principal operators in Boone County can also be seen in the age structure.
Number Numberof ofPrincipal PrincipalOperators Operatorsby byAge Agein inBoone BooneCounty County 2002 2002
Average AverageAge Ageof ofPrinicpal PrinicpalOperators Operators
2007 2007
Average AverageAge: Age:57.9 57.9
250 250 207 207 192 192
200 200 150 150
112 112
111 111 100 100
74 74
60 60 50 50 --
22 22
110 110 89 89
135 135 122 122 87 87 79 79
23 2320 20
Under Under 25-34 25-34 25 25years years
35-44 35-44
45-54 45-54
55-59 55-59
60-64 60-64
65-69 65-69
70 70and and over over
In 2002, 136 of the 743 principal operators in the county were under 45 years old. Five years later, the number was down to 82 of the 682 principal operators in the county. This means that the percent under the age of 45 went from 18.3% in 2002 to 12.0% of all principal operators in Boone County in 2007.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
10
Farming as an Occupation The Census of Agriculture defines primary occupation as those spending 50% or more of their work time at farming. In Boone County, of the 682 principal operators, 276 reported that farming was their primary occupation. This means that in 2007, farming was the primary occupation for 40.5% of all principal farmers in the county. By comparison, principal operators reporting that something other than farming as their primary occupation was 59.5%. The number of principal operators indicating that farming is their primary occupation decreased by - 24.0% compared to 5 years ago. This means that while nearly fifty percent (48.9%) of principal operators in Boone County had farming as their primary occupation in 2002, this declined to 40.5% of principle operators in 2007.
Table 6. Principal Operators Reporting Farming as an Occupation in Boone County. Occupation
Number
Distribution
2002
2007
2002
2007
Primary Occupation is Farming
363
276
48.9%
40.5%
Primary Occupation is Other
380
406
51.1%
59.5%
Total Number of
743
682
100%
100%
In contrast to those reporting farming as their Principal Operators primary occupation, the number of principal operators reporting something other than farming as their primary occupation increased by 6.8%. This means that in 2002, 51.1% had a primary occupation other than farming, in 2007 this number had increased to nearly 60 percent (59.5%).
Boone County is not alone in these trends as most other places are experiencing similar trends. Table 7. Percent of Principal Operators Reporting Farming as an Occupation. Boone Kenton Campbell Occupation 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 Primary Occupation 48.9% 40.5% 47.5% 34.5% 47.3% 37.4% is Farming Primary Occupation 51.1% 59.5% 52.5% 65.5% 52.7% 62.6% is Other
Kentucky 2002 2007 54.2%
39.8%
45.8%
60.2%
Off Farm Employment Nationally, off-farm employment is increasingly important for farmers. In Boone County, more than two thirds of principal operators (68.3%) reported working off-farm in 2007. This is similar to that found not only in Kenton and Campbell counties, but in the state and nation as a whole. Like that nationally, since 2002, the number of principal operators in Boone County reporting working off-farm increased by 9.4%. This means that while in 2002, 57.3% of principal operators worked offfarm, in 2007 this grew to 68.3% of principal operators working off-farm.
Table 8. Principal Operator by Days Worked Off Farm in Boone County. Days worked offfarm 2002 2007 Any 426 57.3% 466 68.3% 200 days or more Total Number of Principal Operators
337
45.4%
301
44.1%
743
100%
682
100%
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
11
The importance of off-farm employment is also evident in the numbers reporting having worked off-farm 200 days or more. In 2007, 44.1% of all principal operators in Boone County not only worked off-farm, but did so for 200 days or more. Table 9. Principal Operators by Days Worked Off Farm, 2007. Days worked off-farm Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky 68.3% Any 68.8% 73.3% 65.8%
Even though the numbers of principal operators working offfarm are growing, there was 44.1% 200 days or more 46.2% 47.7% 41.2% also a change occurring for Total Number of those working 200 days or 682 481 535 85,260 Principal Operators more. In 2002, of those working off-farm, 79.1% reported working 200 days or more off-farm. In 2007, by contrast, in Boone County this number was down to 64.6%. Women Principal Operators Nationally, the number of women who are principal operators has been on the rise. From 2002 to 2007, the number of farms with women principal operators grew across the nation by 30% while the number of all farms increased by only 4%. This means that women principal operators now constitute 14% of all farm operators in the U.S. Similar patterns are occurring in Boone County. In 2007, there were 95 principal operators who were women. This is 13.9% of all principal operators in the county and is comparable with the 14% found nationally.
Women WomenPrincipal PrincipalOperators, Operators,2007 2007 Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Cambell Cambell
Kentucky Kentucky
16.0% 16.0% 13.9% 13.9% 12.0% 12.0%
10.7% 10.4% 10.5% 10.7% 10.4%10.5% 8.1% 8.1%
8.0% 8.0%
7.1% 7.1% 7.0% 7.0% 6.8% 6.8%
4.0% 4.0%
0.0% 0.0% Percent Percentofofall allFarms Farmswith withWomen Women Principal PrincipalOperators Operators
Percent Percentofofall allLand LandininFarms Farmswith withWomen Women Principal PrincipalOperators Operators
The proportion of principal operators who are women in Boone County is higher than that found in either Kenton or Campbell County or the state as a whole. Boone County has also seen an increase in the number of women principal operators. Between 2002 and 2007, the number of women principal operators went from 89 to 95 of all principal operators in the county. This is an increase of 6.7%. Table 10. Women Principal Operators, 2007. Number Land in of Farms Farms with Total with Women Place Number Women Principal of Farms Principal Operators Operators (Acres) Boone 95 682 6,075 Kenton 50 481 3,004 Campbell 56 535 3,334 Kentucky
9,110
85,260
954,488
Total Land in Farms (Acres)
Percent of all Farms with Women Principal Operators
74,750 42,544 47,335
13.9% 10.4% 10.5%
Percent of all Land in Farms with Women Principal Operators 8.1% 7.1% 7.0%
13,993,260
10.7%
6.8%
In Boone County, farms run by women principal operators comprise a total of 6,075 acres or 8.1% of all of the land in farms in the county (up from 5,701 acres in 2002). Women principal
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
12
operators in Boone County account for twice as much land in farms compared with Kenton and Campbell counties in which farms with women principal operators accounted for 3,004 and 3,334 acres respectively. Since 2002, even though both Kenton and Campbell counties have seen a higher rate of growth in the number of women principal operators, they remain nearly half the number found in Boone County. In 2007, the market value of products sold by farms with women principal operators in Boone County was $380,000 dollars. This figure comprised 2.2% of the total market value of all products sold by farms in the county. This is higher than that reported in 2002 when the market value of products sold by farms with women principal operators comprised 1.8% of the total market value of all products sold by farms in the county. Table 11. Market Value of Products Sold by Farms with Women Principal Operators Market Value of Agricultural Percent of Total Market Value Total Market Value of Products sold by Farms of Agricultural Products Sold Agricultural Products with Women Principal by Farms with Women Place Sold by All Farms Operators Principal Operators 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 Boone $333,000 $380,000 $18,148,000 $17,546,000 1.8% 2.2% Kenton $100,000 $107,000 $5,311,000 $4,575,000 1.9% 2.3% Campbell $179,000 $213,000 $5,853,000 $5,699,000 3.1% 3.7% Kentucky
$187,143,000
$213,932,000
$3,080,080,000
$4,824,561,000
6.1%
4.4%
Just as the number of farms with women principal operators is lower in Kenton and Campbell counties, so too is the market value of products sold by farms with women principal operators ($107,000 and $213,000 respectively). While the dollar figures for these counties is nearly half that in Boone, as a percent of the total market value of all farms, that produced by farms with women principal operators is on par with Boone County.
Years on Farm Typical of many in farming, principal operators in Boone County have been on their present farm for quite some time. In 2007, the average number of years principal operators have been on their current farm was 21.9 years. This is up slightly from 2002 when the average number of years was 20.8 years and both years remain on par with that in the state as a whole (20.2 and 21.1 years respectively). Compared with the Kenton and Campbell counties, the average number of years on the present farm was slightly higher than in Boone County. In Kenton County, principal operators reported an average of 24.3 years and in Campbell, they reported an average of 23.1 years. Another way to look at farm stability is to examine the number of years principal operators report having been on their current farm. In Boone County, more than 75% of principal operators reported having been on their present farm for 10
Number Numberof ofYears Yearson onPresent PresentFarm, Farm,Boone BooneCounty County2007 2007
20 20
45 45
10 10years years or ormore more
22years years or orless less 33or or44 years years
535 535 82 82
55to to99 years years
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
13
years or more. In 2007, this was 78.4% of all principal operators (535 of the 682 principal operators in the county). This is up slightly from 2002 when 76.0% of principal farmers reported having been on their present farm for 10 years or more (565 of 743 principal farmers in the county at the time). While the majority of principal operators have been on their current farm for a decade or more, Boone County has also seen small increases in new entrants in farming their current farm. Those reporting having been on their present farm for 2 years or less, while small, increased from 1.9% of all principal operators in 2002 to 2.9% in 2007. There was also slight growth in the proportion on their current farm for 3 or 4 years from 5.7% in 2002 to 6.6% in 2007. Compared with Kenton and Campbell counties, they too saw small increases in the proportion of principal operators reporting having been on their present farm for less than 5 years, but with a slightly different pattern. In both counties, the larger growth was for those on their present farm for 3 or 4 years. Table 12. Distribution of Principal Operators by Length of Time on Present Farm Boone Kenton Campbell Years on present farm 2002 2007 2002 2007 2002 2007 1.9% 2.9% 2 years or less 2.0% 2.3% 2.9% 2.8% 5.7% 6.6% 3 or 4 years 2.8% 5.2% 4.1% 6.0% 16.4% 12.0% 5 to 9 years 12.5% 9.8% 14.6% 12.1% 10 years or more All Principal Operators
Kentucky 2002 2007 3.7% 4.1% 6.7% 6.5% 17.7% 16.1%
76.0%
78.4%
82.6%
82.7%
78.3%
79.1%
71.9%
73.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Farm as Residence Unlike many other types of businesses, farming and residence are much more likely to be colocated – meaning they occur in the same place. Like that nationally, the majority of principal operators in Boone County report that their place of residence is on the farm that they operate.
Farm Farmas asPlace Placeof ofResidence Residence Boone Boone
700 700
Campbell Campbell
682 682
600 600 500 500
In Boone County, in 2007, 83.7% of principal operators report that their place of residence is on the farm they operate. By contrast, 111 principal operators in the county indicated that their place of residence was not on the farm they operated (16.3%). Since 2002, these numbers have remained stable.
Kenton Kenton
800 800
481 481
535 535
571 571 462 462 400 400
400 400 300 300 200 200
111 111 81 81
100 100
73 73
00 Total TotalNumber NumberofofPrincipal Principal Operators Operators
Residence Residenceon onFarm Farm Operated Operated
Residence ResidenceNot Noton onFarm Farm Operated Operated
The proportion of principal operators whose residence is on the farm they were operating in Boone County is similar to that found in Kenton and Campbell counties (83.2% and 86.4% respectively). For all three counties, these figures are slightly higher than that found the state as a whole where 79.6% of all principal operators report that their place of residence is on the farm that they operate.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
14
Internet Access Nationally, the number of farms with internet access has been on the rise. In 2007, 412 of the 682 farms in Boone County reported having access to the internet. This is 60.4% of farms in the county and is greater than that for the nation as a whole which reported 57% of all farms as having access to the internet.
Percent Percentof ofFarms Farmswith withInternet InternetAccess, Access,2007 2007 70.0% 70.0% 65.0% 65.0% 60.0% 60.0%
60.4% 60.4% 57.8% 57.8%
55.0% 55.0%
57% 57%
52.8% 52.8% 50.6%
50.6% The proportion of farms with internet access in 50.0% 50.0% Boone County is also higher than that found in 45.0% 45.0% Kenton or Campbell counties or in the state as a whole. In Kenton County, 52.8% of all farms 40.0% 40.0% Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky U.S. Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky U.S. reported having internet access whereas 57.8% of farms in Campbell County reported the same. All three counties have higher rates of internet access compared with the state as a whole. In Kentucky, 50.6% of farms report having internet access. High HighSpeed SpeedInternet InternetAccess, Access,2007 2007
PercentofofFarms Farmswith withInternet InternetAccess Access Percent
70.0% 70.0% 65.0% 65.0%
63.3% 63.3%
60.0% 60.0%
57.5% 57.5%
57.9% 57.9%
57.6% 57.6%
58% 58%
55.0% 55.0%
In 2007, the Agriculture Census asked for the first time whether farms had access to high speed internet. Of those who had internet access in Boone County, just over two thirds (63.3%) reported having high speed internet. This is higher than that reported for both the state and the nation as a whole.
50.0% 50.0%
As with internet access in general, the proportion of those who have high speed 40.0% 40.0% internet access is again higher in Boone Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky U.S. Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky U.S. County. In Kenton County, of the 254 farms with internet access, 57.5% had high speed internet. In Campbell County, of the 309 farms with internet access, 57.8% had high speed internet. Both of these are rates of access to high speed internet are comparable to that reported for the state where 57.6% of farms with internet access had high speed internet. 45.0% 45.0%
Hired Labor In Boone County, 19.9% of the 682 farms in the county reported using hired labor in 2007. The Agriculture Census defined hired labor as paid farm workers, including paid family members, bookkeepers and maintenance workers. Compared with Kenton and Campbell counties, a larger share of farms in Boone County used hired labor. Since 2002, the number of farms using hired labor in the county decreased, down from 24.0% of all farms in 2002. This is a decline of
Percent Percentof ofFarms Farmswith withHired HiredLabor Labor 2002 2002
2007 2007
35.0% 35.0% 28.8% 28.8%
30.0% 30.0% 25.0% 25.0% 20.0% 20.0%
24.0% 24.0% 19.9% 19.9%
15.0% 15.0%
19.8% 19.8% 17.6% 17.6% 15.8% 15.8%
22.1% 22.1%
14.2% 14.2%
10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Campbell Campbell
Kentucky Kentucky
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
15
- 8.2%. Just as the number of farms relying on hired labor decreased slightly during this time, so too did the number of hired workers, but to a much greater extent. In 2007, 495 workers were hired by farms in Boone County. This is only about half the number in 2002 when 832 workers were hired on farms in the county. During this same time, Campbell County also saw a marked decrease in hired farm labor, moving from 595 to 260 hired workers. Unlike either Boone or Campbell counties, Kenton County saw the number of hired farm workers increase from 151 to 240 workers hired on farms. While the number of workers declined in Boone County, hired labor payroll increased from $2.2 million to $2.7 million (a 20.9% increase). When the 2002 data are adjusted for inflation, the cost of hired farm labor was $2.6 million (in 2007 dollars). This means that, even adjusted for inflation, the cost of farm labor increased by 4.9% between 2002 and 2007. Just as the number of farms with hired labor and the number of workers decreased between 2002 and 2007 in Boone County, there were also changes in the number of workers per farm. In both years, the majority of farms with hired workers in Boone County had 4 or fewer 100 100 workers. In 2002, this was 80.9% of farms with workers and it remained stable at 81.6% 79 79 80 80 44or fewer workers of farms with workers in 2007. However, or fewer workers 63 63 within this category, there was also been a 60 60 shift. The number of farms with 1 or 2 worker 42 42 38 38 40 40 decreased by nearly half. In 2002, 79 farms 31 31 22 22 hired only 1 worker, down to 38 farms in 20 14 20 14 12 12 11 11 2007. Similarly with farms hiring 2 workers. 22 In 2002, 63 farms hired 2 workers, which was 00 Farms Farms Farmswith with11 Farmswith with22 Farms Farmswith with33or or Farms Farmswith with55toto Farms Farmswith with10 10 down to 42 farms in 2007. By contrast, the worker workers 44workers 99workers or worker workers workers workers ormore moreworkers workers number of farms with 3 or 4 workers saw a dramatic increase during this time. In 2002, only 2 farms reported hiring 3 or 4 workers whereas five years later this grew to 31 farms. Hired HiredFarm FarmLabor Laborin inBoone BooneCounty County 2002 2002
2007 2007
What are they producing? In order to assess what farms in Boone County are producing, the following section examines several factors:
Farms by type Leading agricultural products Organic production Agritourism and recreation Community Supported Agriculture and value-added products
Farms by Type In the Agriculture Census, farms are classified according to the type of production they are primarily engaged in using NAICS (the North American Industry Classification System). This system groups farms that use similar production processes.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
16
In Boone County, the largest number of farms were in three categories: other crop farming (217 farms); beef cattle ranching and farming (203 farms); and animal aquaculture and other animal production (126 farms). In 2007, these comprised 80.1% of all farms in the county. The largest of the three categories is called other crop farming. This category contains: tobacco; cotton; and sugarcane, hay and all other. In 2007, the majority of farms in Boone County in this category were those categorized as sugarcane, hay, all other (190 of the 217 farms or 87.6% of the category). This is in contrast to 2002 when the largest group was tobacco at 53.8% of the farms in the group. Since 2002, as expected, the largest decline in the number of farms occurred in tobacco farms. Between the two Agriculture Censuses, the number of farms primarily engaged in tobacco went from 162 farms in 2002 to 27 farms in 2007. This was a - 83.3% decline and a decrease of 153 farms. While the number of tobacco farms declined precipitously, this decline was offset somewhat by an increase in farms classified as sugarcane, hay, all other. This category saw a gain of 51 farms during the five year period. Despite this, the overall category of other crop farming still saw the greatest net decline in the number of farms. While small by comparison, other categories also saw a decrease in the number of farms. Those primarily engaged in greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture declined by 12 farms and the number of farms primarily engaged in oilseed and grain farming declined by 10 farms. The categories with the largest growth in the number of farms in Boone County occurred in several areas. The number of farms primarily engaged in beef cattle ranching and farming increased by 29 farms. Following close behind was the number of farms primarily engaged in vegetable and melon farming which increased by 21 farms. While small in number, there was also an increase in the number farms primarily engaged in sheep and goat farming which grew from 6 to 10 farms in the county.
Table 13. Number of Farms in Boone County by NAICS (North American Industry Classification System). Boone County 2002 2007 Oilseed and grain farming 26 16 Vegetable and melon farming 19 40 Fruit and tree nut farming 17 9 Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 42 30 Other Crop Farming 301 217 Tobacco 162 27 Sugarcane, hay, all other 139 190 Beef cattle ranching and farming 174 203 Cattle feedlots 13 13 Dairy cattle and milk production 12 10 Hog and pig farming 0 0 Poultry and egg production 8 8 Sheep and goat farming 6 10 Animal aquaculture and other animal production 125 126 Total Number of Farms
743
682
In 2007, the structure of farming in Boone County held similarities with both Kenton and Campbell counties and the state as a whole, but there were also important differences. In terms of similarities, in all three counties and the state, for instance, the majority of farms were in the two categories of other crop farming and beef cattle ranching and farming ranging from 61.6% of farms in Boone County to 74.8% in Kenton County. This is similar to the 72.7% of all farms in the state. In the category of other crop farming, as in Boone County, the number of farms engaged primarily in tobacco saw the greatest decrease. Also similar to Boone County, the declines were offset slightly by increases in the number of farms in the sugarcane, hay, all other category.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
17
Table 14. Number and Distribution of Farms by NAICS (North American Industry Classification System).
Oilseed and grain farming Vegetable and melon farming Fruit and tree nut farming Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture Other Crop Farming Beef cattle ranching and farming Cattle feedlots Dairy cattle and milk production Hog and pig farming Poultry and egg production Sheep and goat farming Animal aquaculture and other animal production Total Number of Farms
Boone 16
Number of Farms Kenton Campbell Kentucky 2 2 4,592
Boone 2.3%
Distribution of Farms Kenton Campbell Kentucky 0.4% 0.4% 5.4%
40 9
4 6
14 18
1,162 567
5.9% 1.3%
0.8% 1.2%
2.6% 3.4%
1.4% 0.7%
30 217
9 186
22 157
870 28,053
4.4% 31.8%
1.9% 38.7%
4.1% 29.3%
1.0% 32.9%
203 13
174 21
202 27
33,966 1,073
29.8% 1.9%
36.2% 4.4%
37.8% 5.0%
39.8% 1.3%
10 0 8 10
6 0 17 8
3 1 5 7
1,641 354 1,593 2,038
1.5% 0.0% 1.2% 1.5%
1.2% 0.0% 3.5% 1.7%
0.6% 0.2% 0.9% 1.3%
1.9% 0.4% 1.9% 2.4%
126
48
77
9,351
18.5%
10.0%
14.4%
11.0%
682
481
535
85,260
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Despite the similarities, the structure of farming in Boone County also held distinct differences from that in Kenton and Campbell counties. In 2007, for instance, compared to it neighboring counties, Boone County had a larger number and share of farms engaged in several categories: oilseed and grain farming; vegetable and melon farming; and animal aquaculture and other animal products. On the other hand, Boone County had a lower number of farms engaged in cattle feedlots compared to the other counties.
Leading Agricultural Products There are two ways of assessing leading agricultural products. One is by the number of acres devoted to crops and the other is the inventory numbers for livestock. For the top crop items, in 2007 the leading products in Boone County were forage, soybeans, corn for grain, tobacco and nursery stock. Together, these comprised 23,378 acres in the county. This is up from a total of 20,932 acres in 2002 for the same leading crops – an overall increase of 2,446 acres in the 5 years. Of the acres for the top crop items, between 2002 and 2007, gains were seen in three of the five categories; forage, soybeans, and corn for grain. Of these, forage saw the greatest increase in terms of acreage, moving from 15,946 to 18,131, an increase of 2,185 acres. By contrast, declines in acreage were seen in two categories; tobacco and nursery stock. For tobacco, the 35.3% decline in acres is not unexpected. For nursery stock, even though the number of acres declined, in 2007 Boone
Top TopCrop CropItems Itemsin inBoone BooneCounty County(Acres) (Acres)
20,000 20,000 18,000 18,000 16,000 16,000
2002 2002
2007 2007
18,131 18,131 15,946 15,946
14,000 14,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 4,000
2,142 1,852 1,852 2,142
2,000 2,000
2,174 1,787 1,787 2,174
842 842 545 545
505 505 386 386
Tobacco Tobacco
Nursery Nurserystock stock
-Forage Forage
Soybeans Soybeans
Corn Cornfor forgrain grain
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
18
County was ranked 4 of the 78 counties producing the item (down from being ranked 2 of 70 counties in 2002). For livestock inventories, in 2007 the leading products in Boone County were: cattle and calves; horses and ponies; layers; all goats; and sheep and lambs. As with crops, the leading livestock items in Boone were the same in 2002 as in 2007.
Top TopLivestock LivestockInventory InventoryItems Items in inBoone BooneCounty County(Number) (Number) 2002 2002
12,000 12,000 10,000 10,000
9,738 9,738
2007 2007
9,291 9,291
8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000
While the largest in terms of inventory, the number of cattle and calves in Boone County 1,849 1,732 2,000 1,732 1,849 1,261 2,000 1,261 decreased by - 4.6 percent during the five 812 644 812 479 644 372 316 372 316 479 years. This was the only category to see -Cattle Horses Layers All Sheep Cattleand and Horsesand and Layers AllGoats Goats Sheepand and any decreases during that time. By contrast, Calves Ponies Lambs Calves Ponies Lambs between 2002 and 2007, inventories grew for all of the other categories (horses and ponies, layers 20 weeks old and older, all goats, and sheep and lambs). In terms of numbers, the largest inventory increases were in layers (increasing by 617) and goats (increasing by 440). 4,000 4,000
Organic Production For the 2007 Agriculture Census, farmers were asked several questions about organic production. In contrast to the 2002 census which only referred to certified organically produced crops, the 2007 census asked for farmers to report organic production as defined by the National Organic Standards. Since the data for 2002 and 2007 are not comparable, the data for 2007 are reported here. Total acres used for organic production includes both land from which organic crops were harvested as well as organic pastureland. A separate question asked about land being converted to organic production. In Boone County, 4 farms reported using organic production on a total of only 8 acres. While a small number, 7 farms reported that they were in the process of converting land. In 2007, 58 acres in the county were being converted to organic production. All 4 farms using organic production produced crops, including nursery and greenhouse. The total value of organic product sales was $3,000. Table 15. Organic Production Farms using Organic Production
Percent of all Farms
Acres being Converted to Organic Production
Farms Converting Land to Organic Production
Place
Acres used for Organic Production
Boone Kenton Campbell
8 (undisclosed) --
0.01% ---
4 2 --
0.6% ---
58 -(undisclosed)
7 -1
Kentucky
9,280
0.07%
193
0.2%
7,044
229
Percent of all Acres
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
19
While the number of farms with organic production is small across the state, the percent of farms using organic production in Boone County is higher than that in the state as a whole. Statewide, only 0.2% of farms reported using organic production compared with 0.6% of farms in Boone County. By comparison, only 2 farms in Kenton County reported using organic production. In Campbell County, no farms reported using organic production with only one converting land.
Community Supported Agriculture and Value-Added Products Among the new questions asked in the 2007 Agriculture Census, farmers were asked about their participation in Community Supported Agriculture and the selling of value-added products such as beef jerky, jelly, or floral arrangements. In Boone County, 27 farms reported producing value-added products. This comprised 4% of all farms in the county. Similar proportions of farms producing value-added products are found in Kenton County and the state as a whole. Compared with Boone County, Campbell County had a slightly larger number and share of farms producing value-added products.
Table 16. Number of Farms Producing Value-Added Products or Marketing Products Through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Percent of all farms Marketed Marketed Total Produced products products Produced Number value-added through value-added through of Farms commodities CSA commodities CSA Boone 682 27 6 4.0% 0.9% Kenton 481 20 2 4.2% 0.4% Campbell 535 29 6 5.4% 1.1% Kentucky 85,260 3,368 544 4.0% 0.6%
While much smaller in numbers, similar patterns were found regarding participating in a community supported agriculture (CSA) arrangement. In Boone County, 6 farms reported marketing products through a CSA arrangement. While this is only 0.9% of all farms in the county, it is still a larger share of all farms compared with either Kenton County or the state as a whole. Like Boone County, Campbell County also has 6 farms reporting marketing products through a CSA arrangement.
What are they earning? In order to assess what farms in Boone County are earning, the following section examines several factors:
Total market value of sales Average sales per farm Value of sales by commodity type Value of sales directly to individuals for human consumption Value of sales by commodity group Farms by value of sales Production expenses Net cash income
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
20
Total Market Value of Sales In the Agriculture Census, the total market value of agricultural products sold refers to direct sales by farm operators. This does not include agricultural supplies from businesses.
Total TotalMarket MarketValue Valueof ofAgricultural AgriculturalProducts ProductsSold, Sold,2007 2007 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $17,546,000 $17,546,000
$18,000,000 $18,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000
In 2007, the total market value of agricultural products sold in Boone County was $17,546,000 or $17.5 million. This means that the total market value of agricultural products sold in Boone County was around 3 times greater than that found in either Kenton and Campbell counties. Kenton County saw $4.6 million and Campbell County reported $5.7 million in agricultural sales.
$12,000,000 $12,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000
$4,575,000 $4,575,000
$5,699,000 $5,699,000
$3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Campbell Campbell
Between 2002 and 2007, Boone County saw a decrease in the total market value of agricultural products sold, a decline of -3.3%. When inflation is taken into account, the decrease in the total value of agricultural products sold was even greater. In 2002, the $18.1 million in sales would be worth $20.9 million in 2007 dollars. Compared with the $17.5 in agricultural products sold in 2007, this would mean a decrease of -16.9%. The decline in total dollars in sales was also seen in Kenton and Campbell counties. By contrast, the state as a whole saw dollars in sales agricultural products increase and at a rate that exceeded inflation.
Table 17. Total Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold.
Place
2002
Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky
$18,148,000 $5,311,000 $5,853,000 $3,080,080,000
2002 (adjusted for inflation)
2007
$20,916,300 $6,121,142 $6,745,818 $3,549,916,330
$17,546,000 $4,575,000 $5,699,000 $4,824,561,000
Percent Change 2002 2007
Percent Change, 2002 (adjusted) - 2007
-3.3% -13.9% -2.6% 56.6%
-16.1% -25.3% -15.5% 35.9%
Average Sales per Farm Another way to assess sales of agricultural products is on an average per farm basis. In 2007, the average per farm market value of agricultural products sold in Boone County was $25,278. This is nearly 3 times higher than that in either Kenton or Campbell County ($9,512 and $10,651 respectively). Compared with the state, the average sales per farm in Boone County is about half ($56,686).
Market MarketValue Valueof ofAgricultural AgriculturalProducts ProductsSold Sold (Average (Averageper perFarm) Farm) 2007 2007 $60,000 $60,000
$56,586 $56,586
$50,000 $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000
$25,728 $25,728
$20,000 $20,000
Since 2002, the average per farm market value of agricultural products sold increased from $24,426 to $25,728 in 2007, an increase of 5.3%.
$10,000 $10,000
$9,512 $9,512
$10,651 $10,651
Kenton Kenton
Campbell Campbell
$0 $0 Boone Boone
Kentucky Kentucky
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
21
However, this increase did not keep up with inflation. When the 2002 figure is adjusted for inflation, there was actually a Table 18. Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold (Average decrease of - 8.6%. per Farm).
Like Boone County, Campbell County also saw an increase in average per farm sales that similarly did not keep pace with inflation. In contrast to all three counties, for the state as a whole not only did the average sales per farm increase, it exceeded the rate of inflation.
2002 (adjusted for inflation)
2007
Place
2002
Boone Kenton Campbell
$24,426 $10,730 $10,074
$28,151.95 $11,610.69
$25,728 $9,512 $10,651
Kentucky
$35,591
$41,020.06
$56,586
$12,366.76
Percent Change 2002 2007
Percent Change 2002 (adjusted) - 2007
5.3% -11.4% 5.7%
-23.1%
59.0%
37.9%
-8.6% -8.3%
Value of Sales by Commodity Type The total market value of agricultural products sold is subdivided into two groups: crops (including nursery and greenhouse); and livestock, poultry, and their products. In 2007, the total value of agricultural sales in Boone County was about evenly split between the two categories. That year, crops constituted nearly $9 million dollars ($8,963,000) or 51.1% of total sales. Livestock, poultry (and their products) came in just under crops at $8.6 million ($8,584,000) or 48.9% of agricultural sales. (This is in contrast to 2002 when crops comprised 62.3% of total sales in Boone County.) Just as the total value of sales was much higher in Boone compared with either Kenton or Campbell County, so too were the sales by commodity type. In Kenton and Campbell counties, crops comprised $1.8 and nearly $2 million respectively. In 2007, livestock and poultry comprised two thirds of the total sales in both Kenton and Campbell counties.
Value Valueof ofAgricultural AgriculturalProducts ProductsSold Soldby byType, Type,2007 2007 Crops, Crops,including includingnursery nurseryand and greenhouse greenhouse $10,000,000 $10,000,000
$8,963,000 $8,963,000 $8,584,000 $8,584,000
Livestock, Livestock,poultry, poultry,and andtheir their products products
$8,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
$3,714,000 $3,714,000 $2,778,000 $2,778,000 $1,797,000 $1,797,000
$1,984,000 $1,984,000
Between 2002 and 2007, sales from crops $0 $0 Boone Kenton Campbell (including nursery and greenhouse) Boone Kenton Campbell decreased by - 20.7% from $11.3 million in 2002 to nearly $9 million in 2007. When inflation is taken into account, the decrease grows to - 31.2%. While the value of sales in crops decreased in Boone County, this decline was partially offset by an increase in the value of sales of livestock and poultry. Between 2002 and 2007, sales of livestock, poultry, and their products increased from $6.8 million to $8.5 million. Even taking inflation into account, this is still an increase of 8.8%.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
22
Table 19. Value of Agricultural Sales by Type in Boone County.
Boone County
Crops, including nursery and greenhouse Livestock, poultry, and their products Total Value of Sales
2002
2002 (adjusted for inflation)
2007
Percent Change 20022007
Percent Change 2002 (adjusted) - 2007
$11,305,000
$13,029,470
$8,963,000
-20.7%
-31.2%
$6,843,000
$7,886,833
$8,584,000
25.4%
8.8%
$18,148,000
$20,916,303
$17,547,000
-3.3%
-16.1%
Value of Sales to Individuals for Human Consumption In addition to sales by commodity, the Agriculture Census asks for the value of agricultural products sold directly to individuals for human consumption. This includes roadside stands, farmer’s markets, and pick-your-own sites. While livestock sales are included, it excludes processed products such as jellies and sausages, and non-edible products such as cut flowers, nursery crops or craft items.
$400,000 $400,000
2002 2002 2002 2002(adjusted (adjustedfor forInflation) Inflation) 2007 2007
$100,000 $100,000
$$3344,0,000 00
$200,000 $200,000
$$113300,00 ,0000
$300,000 $300,000
$$114499,83 ,8300 $$223399,00 ,0000
$500,000 $500,000
$$551100,00 ,0000
$600,000 $600,000
$$2222,0,000 00 $$2255,3,356 56
This is much greater than that in Kenton County which reported only $34,000 in sales and more than twice the sales in Campbell County ($239,000).
Value Valueof ofAgricultural AgriculturalProducts ProductsSold SoldDirectly Directlyto toIndividuals Individuals for forHuman HumanConsumption Consumption
$$332244,00 ,0000 $$337733,42 ,4233
In Boone County, direct sales to individuals for human consumption accounted for a half of a million dollars in sales in 2007 ($510,000).
Between 2002 and 2007, the value of $0 $0 agricultural products sold directly to individuals Boone Kenton Campbell Boone Kenton Campbell for human consumption increased in Boone County. Up from $324,000 in 2002, this is an increase of 83.8%. Even when inflation is taken into account, this is an increase of 36.6%. The value of agricultural products sold directly to individuals for human consumption also increased in Kenton and Campbell counties and the state as a whole. But for Kenton and Campbell counties, the total value remained much lower than in Boone County.
Value of Sales by Commodity Group The total market value of agricultural products sold can be subdivided by commodity group. In 2007, of the 16 commodity groups, there are data available for 13 of them for Boone County. For 3 commodity groups (cattle and calves; aquaculture; and other animals and animal products) data are not disclosed. The Agriculture Census does not publish data that would disclose information (directly or that can be estimated) about the operations of an individual farm. For the 13 commodity groups for which there are data, the 2 commodity groups with the highest dollars in sales in 2007 were horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys ($5.2 million), and
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
23
nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod ($4.8 million). Together, these 2 commodity groups comprised 57.1% of sales in Boone County that year.
Table 20. Rank Order Value of Sales by Commodity Group, Boone County. Number of Rank Commodity Group 2007 counties in in state state producing
The next two commodity groups with high sales in Boone County were tobacco ($1.3 million) and grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas ($1.1 million).
Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod Tobacco Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas
$5,204,000
9
119
$4,816,000
5
111
$1,333,000
63
106
$1,136,000
61
117
Vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes Other crops and hay Milk and other dairy products from cows Fruits, treenuts, and berries Sheep, goats and their products Poultry and eggs
$838,000
6
117
$732,000
63
120
$144,000
82
111
$90,000 $52,000 $36,000
9 47 57
106 118 120
$19,000
15
50
$4,000 $0
94 0 74 15
110 0 120 40
(undisclosed)
111
Relative to sales across the state’s counties, Boone ranked 9th of the 119 counties in the state producing horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys that year. For nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod, Boone County ranked 5th out of the 111 counties in the state. While lower in total sales, Boone County is also highly ranked in the sales of vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes (6th out of 117 counties) and fruits, treenuts, and berries (9th out of 106 counties).
Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops Hogs and pigs Cotton and cottonseed Cattle and calves Aquaculture Other animals and animal products Total market value of agricultural products sold
(undisclosed) (undisclosed) (undisclosed)
$17,546,000
In Boone County, 6 commodity groups saw an increase in sales between 2002 and 2007. For 5 of the 6, the growth in sales exceeded the rate of inflation. These were: horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys; grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas; vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes; other crops and hay; poultry and eggs; and sheep, goats and their products. The exception was cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops. While sales increased from $18,000 to $20,746, when inflation is taken into account, the value of sales actually declined. Of the commodity groups that saw gains in sales, not only was horses (etc) the commodity group with the highest sales in 2007, it also had the highest dollar increase in sales (going from $3.5 million in 2002 to $5.2 million in 2007). Between 2002 and 2007, 5 commodity groups saw sales decrease. Of these, nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod saw the greatest dollar decline going from $6.5 million in 2002 to $4.8 million in 2007. Still, even with the decline in sales, this commodity group remains one of the top 2 in sales in Boone County.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
24
Table 21. Value of Sales by Commodity Group, 2002-2007. Boone County Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas Vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes Other crops and hay Poultry and eggs Sheep, goats and their products Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops Cotton and cottonseed
2002 (adjusted for inflation)
2002 $3,516,000 $724,000 $525,000 $552,000 $20,000 $42,000 $18,000
$4,052,332
$20,746
$5,204,000 $1,136,000 $838,000 $732,000 $36,000 $52,000 $19,000
$0
$0
$0
$26,508
$3,270,909
$4,000 $144,000 $90,000 $1,333,000
$7,466,156
$4,816,000
Hogs and pigs Milk and other dairy products from cows Fruits, treenuts, and berries Tobacco
$23,000 $893,000 $1,536,000 $2,838,000
Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod
$6,478,000
Cattle and calves Aquaculture Other animals and animal products
2007
$834,439 $605,084 $636,202 $23,051 $48,407
$1,029,218 $1,770,302
$2,338,000
$2,694,639
(undisclosed)
(undisclosed)
(undisclosed)
(undisclosed)
(undisclosed)
(undisclosed)
(undisclosed)
Finally, as expected, sales from tobacco decreased by half in Boone County between 2002 and 2007. In 2002, tobacco accounted for $2.8 million in sales while five years later this was down to $1.3 million. Table 22. Value of Sales by Commodity Group, 2007. Commodity Group Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod Tobacco Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas Vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes Other crops and hay Milk and other dairy products from cows Fruits, treenuts, and berries Sheep, goats and their products Poultry and eggs Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops Hogs and pigs Cotton and cottonseed Cattle and calves Aquaculture
Boone $5,204,000 $4,816,000 $1,333,000 $1,136,000 $838,000 $732,000 $144,000 $90,000 $52,000 $36,000 $19,000 $4,000 $0 (undisclosed) (undisclosed)
Kenton $368,000 $591,000 $693,000 $40,000 $38 $426,000 $232,000 (undisclosed) $35,000 $156,000 (undisclosed) $1,000 $0 $1,981,000 $0
Campbell $179,000 $646,000 $272,000 $146,000 $186,000 $650,000 $295,000 $53,000 $16,000 $28,000 $31,000 $13,000 $0 $3,171,000 $0
Other animals and animal products
(undisclosed)
$6,000
$12,000
$17,546,000
$4,575,000
$5,699,000
Total market value of agricultural products sold
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
25
Farms by Value of Sales Another way of looking at sales is to examine the number of farms by the value of sales reported. Distribution Distributionof ofFarms Farmsby byValue Valueof ofSales, Sales,2007 2007
In 2007, the majority of farms in Boone County reported sales of under $10,000 (73.4%). Just under a quarter (22.6%) of farms had sales between $10,000 and $100,000 and 28 farms (4.1%) reported sales of $100,000 or more.
Less Lessthan than$10,000 $10,000
$10,000 $10,000toto$99,999 $99,999
$100,000 $100,000or ormore more
100% 100%
80% 80%
81.1% 81.1%
80.6% 80.6%
73.3% 73.3% 66.5% 66.5%
60% 60%
40% 40%
This distribution of farms by sales is very similar to that found in Kenton and Campbell counties and not far off from the state as a whole.
22.6% 22.6% 20% 20%
26.5% 26.5% 16.6% 16.6%
4.1% 4.1%
17.4% 17.4%
2.3% 2.3%
6.9% 6.9%
2.1% 2.1%
0% 0% Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Campbell Campbell
Kentucky Kentucky
Since 2002, in Boone County, the largest increase was in the number of farms with sales of less than $1,000 growing from 195 farms to 233 farms; an increase of 19.5%. This means that in 2002, these farms comprised 26.2% of all farms in the county, but in 2007 this rose to 34.2%. Number Numberand andPercent Percentof ofFarms Farmsby byValue Valueof ofSales, Sales, Boone BooneCounty County 2002 2002
2007 2007
300 300 250 250
233 233
195 200 200 195
73.4% 73.4%--2002 2002 73.3% 73.3%--2007 2007
22.1% 22.1%--2002 2002 22.6% 22.6%--2007 2007
4.6% 4.6%--2002 2002 4.1% 4.1%--2007 2007
145 145
150 150
The category in Boone County with the next largest increase was in the number of farms reporting sales of $20,000 to $24,999. Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms in this sales category more than doubled increasing from 18 to 29 farms.
108 103 9791 108 103 97 91 73 73 73 7369 69
100 100
Despite these increases, in the 5 years between 2002 and 2007, Boone County saw 55 5 5 00 more sales categories with decreases than increases. The largest decreases were in two groups. Farms with sales of $1,000 to $2,400 decreased from 145 farms to 103 farms (a - 29.0% decline) and those with sales between $5,000 and $9,999 went from 108 farms to 73 farms (a - 32.4% decline). $500,000or or $500,000 more more
$250,000toto $250,000 $499,999 $499,999
$100,000toto $100,000 $249,999 $249,999
23 21 2319 20 8 19 2120 8 33 $50,000toto $50,000 $99,999 $99,999
$40,000toto $40,000 $49,999 $49,999
$25,000toto $25,000 $39,999 $39,999
$10,000toto $10,000 $19,999 $19,999
$5,000toto $5,000 $9,999 $9,999
$2,500toto $2,500 $4,999 $4,999
$1,000toto $1,000 2,499 2,499
lessthan than less $1,000 $1,000
$20,000toto $20,000 $24,999 $24,999
39 39 28 29 28 29 18 11 18 11 99
50 50
During the same 5 years, as in Boone County, Kenton and Campbell counties also saw changes in the number of farms by sales category. Kenton County, for instance, saw the number of farms with sales under $1,000 increase from 95 farms to 170 farms. Campbell County, on the other hand, saw increases in the number of farms with sales in the mid and upper categories. In contrast to all three counties, for the state as a whole, the majority of the increases were in the number of farms with sales of $250,000
Percent PercentChange Changein inthe theNumber Numberof ofFarms Farmsby bySales, Sales,2002-2007 2002-2007 Less Lessthan than$10,000 $10,000
30% 30%
22.2% 22.2%
$10,000 $10,000toto$99,999 $99,999 20% 20%
$100,000 $100,000or ormore more
15.7% 15.7% 10.7% 10.7%
10% 10% 0% 0% -10% -10% -20% -20%
Boone Boone
2.6% 2.6%
Kenton Kenton
-6.1% -6.1% -8.3% -8.3%
-8.3% -8.3%
-17.6% -17.6% -22.3% -22.3%
-30% -30%
Kentucky Kentucky Campbell Campbell
-11.7% -11.7%
-2.6% -2.4% -2.6% -2.4%
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
26
or more. The greatest increase was in the number of farms with sales of $500,000 or more, the number of which more than doubled (a 69.1% increase) between 2002 and 2007.
Agritourism and Recreation Agritourism and recreation are a way for farms to generate income. For the Agriculture Census, this includes providing services such as hunting, fishing, farm or wine tours, and/or hay rides. (In 2002, this category was referred to as Recreational Services. Only the name has changed so data are comparable between the two census years.) In 2002, only 2 farms in Boone County reported obtaining income by providing agritourism or recreational services. Five years later, this number had grown to 9 farms providing services (a 350% increase). While small in numbers, this rate of increase was much higher than the state as a whole. Compared with its neighboring counties, the number of farms in Boone County providing agritourism or recreational services is the same as in Kenton County but higher than that in Campbell County. Income generated from agritourism and recreation in Boone County has increased to $340,000 in 2007. This figure is higher than that reported in Kenton County which had the same number of farms reporting income from Table 23. Agritourism and Recreational Services. agritourism and recreation. By comparison, in Campbell County the total income generated in agritourism and recreation was just above that in Boone County but with only 5 farms reporting such income.
Place
Number of farms reporting income from agritourism and recreational services 2002
Boone Kenton Campbell Kentucky
2007 2 5 1 421
9 9 5 428
Income from agritourism and recreational services
2002 (undisclosed) $6,000 (undisclosed) $3,332,000
2007 $340,000 $25,000 $354,000 $3,332,000
In Boone County, the $340,000 generated by agritourism and recreational services comprises 12.1% of the total income (before taxes and expenses) generated from farm-related sources.
Production Expenses Production expenses includes all farm-related expenses. Not included are any expenses associated with activities where the income is not considered part of the farm such as that from being a separate business. Production expenses are important both for the running of farms, but they are also dollars that tend to be spent locally. In 2007 in Boone County, the total dollars spent in farm production expenses was $17.9 million dollars ($17,876,000). Compared with Kenton or Campbell counties, just as Boone County has a larger number of farms and a larger average size of farms, so too were total production expenses higher. In Kenton, production expenses were about a third of those in Boone County ($5,268,000). In Campbell County, production expenses were about half ($7,306,000).
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
27
On an average per farm basis, production expenses in Boone County were $26,211 in 2007. As with total expenses, again, this was higher than that in either Kenton or Campbell counties where average per farm production expenses were $10,951 and $13,657 respectively. Compared with the state, the average per farm production expenses in Boone County were about half that found in the state as a whole. In 2007, the top categories of production expenses for farms in Boone County were hired farm labor ($2.7 million), all other production expenses ($2.7 million), and supplies, repairs and maintenance ($2.0 million). Together these three categories accounted for 41.2% of all expenses.
Average AveragePer PerFarm Farm Production ProductionExpenses, Expenses,2007 2007 $50,000 $50,000
$46,097 $46,097
$40,000 $40,000
$30,000 $30,000
$26,211 $26,211
$20,000 $20,000
The next two highest categories were interest expense and feed purchased ($1.6 million each). Almost two thirds of all production expenses (59.4%) were in these 5 categories.
$10,951 $10,951
$13,657 $13,657
$10,000 $10,000
$0 $0 Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Campbell Campbell
Kentucky Kentucky
Between 2002 and 2007, the total cost of farm production expenses in Boone County increased from $15.4 million in 2002. This is an increase of $2.4 million dollars or 15.9%. When inflation is taken into account, total production expenses still increased, but only slightly higher (0.6%) than the rate of inflation. Just as total expenses increased during this five years, so too did the average per farm. In Boone County, average per farm production expenses increased by 25.6% up from $20,870 per farm in 2002. Even taking inflation into account, this was still an increase of 9.0% in average per farm production expenses. Between 2002 and 2007, the production expense category that saw the greatest increase in Boone County was gasoline, fuels, and oils. In 2002, the $574,000 spent in this category rose to $1.2 million five years later ($1,195,000). This was an increase of 108.2%. Even taking inflation into account, the cost of fuel still increased by 80.6%. Similar large increases were seen in Kenton and Campbell counties and in the state as a whole.
Total TotalProduction ProductionExpenses Expenses
$5,000,000 $5,000,000
$$77,3,306,0 06,0 00 00
$99,9,984,4 84,4 57 57
$$88,6,663,0 63,0000 0 $
$10,000,000 $10,000,000
$$55,2,268,0 68,0 00 00
$4,2,279,3 79,3 82 82
2007 2007 2007 2007
$$33,7,713,0 13,0 00 00 $4
$15,000,000 $15,000,000
$$1177,8,876 76,0,0000 0
$20,000,000 $20,000,000
$$1155,4,423 23,0,0000 0
$25,000,000 $25,000,000
$$1177,7,786 86,0,000 00
2002 2002 2002 2002(adjusted (adjustedfor forinflation) inflation)
$0 $0 Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Campbell Campbell
Four other expense categories also saw double digit increases in Boone County. Even taking inflation into account, fertilizer, lime, and soil conditioners purchased increased by 65.9%, feed increased by 63.5%, utilities by 55.8%, and property taxes by 52.1%. Together with gasoline, these categories accounted for an additional $2.3 million dollars being spent (above inflation).
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
28
Table 24. Farm Production Expenses, Boone County. 2002 (adjusted for inflation)
Percent Change 2002 2007
Percent Change 2002 (adjusted) 2007
Expense
2002
Gasoline, fuels, and oils Fertilizer, lime, and soil conditioners purchased Feed purchased Utilities Property taxes paid Chemicals purchased Seeds, plants, vines, and trees Hired farm labor
$574,000
$661,558
$1,195,000
108.2%
80.6%
$513,000 $861,000 $343,000 $837,000 $200,000 $1,097,000 $2,256,000
$591,253
91.2% 88.4% 79.6% 75.3% 23.5% 23.2% 20.9%
65.9%
$2,600,131
$981,000 $1,622,000 $616,000 $1,467,000 $247,000 $1,352,000 $2,727,000
$992,337 $395,321 $964,676 $230,508 $1,264,337
2007
63.5% 55.8% 52.1% 7.2% 6.9% 4.9%
Supplies, repairs, and maintenance Cash rent for land, buildings, and grazing fees
$1,746,000
$2,012,335
$1,980,000
13.4%
-1.6%
$461,000
$531,321
$511,000
10.8%
-3.8%
All other production expenses
$2,523,000
$2,907,859
$2,658,000
5.4%
-8.6%
Interest expense Contract labor Livestock and poultry purchased or leased Rent and lease expenses for machinery, equipment, and farm share of vehicles
$1,698,000 $238,000
$1,957,013
$1,635,000 $211,000
-3.7% -11.3%
-16.5%
$274,305
$1,585,000
$1,826,776
$550,000
-65.3%
-69.9%
$197,000
$227,050
$59,000
-70.1%
-74.0%
$296,000
$341,152
$66,000
-77.7%
-80.7%
$15,425,000
$17,777,934
$17,877,000
15.9%
0.6%
Customwork and custom hauling SUM TOTAL
-23.1%
Net Cash Income Net cash farm income of the operations is calculated by subtracting farm expenses from total sales, government payments, and other farm-related income. (Depreciation is not included in calculating net cash income.) In 2007, the net cash farm income of farm operations in Boone County was $2.7 million ($2,666,000). Not only was this higher than that in Kenton and Campbell counties, Boone Net NetCash CashFarm FarmIncome Incomeof ofOperations Operations Boone Boone Kenton Kenton Campbell Campbell was the only county of the three to see positive net cash farm income. Kenton County saw a $7,438,495 $8,000,000 $7,438,495 $8,000,000 negative net income of - $184,000. Campbell $6,454,000 $6,454,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 County saw an even greater negative net income of operations in 2007 at - $688,000. $4,000,000 $4,000,000
$2,666,000 $2,666,000
$2,000,000 $2,000,000
A similar pattern was seen on a per farm basis. $0 $0 In 2007, the per farm net cash income of -$184,000 -$316,000 -$364,203 -$184,000 -$316,000 -$364,203 -$688,000 -$688,000 -$2,000,000 -$2,000,000 operations in Boone County was $3,909. Not -$1,916,000 -$1,916,000 -$2,208,267 -$2,208,267 only is this higher than that in either Kenton or -$4,000,000 -$4,000,000 2002 2002 2007 2002 2002(adjusted (adjustedfor for 2007 Campbell counties, again, Boone County was inflation) inflation) the only one to report positive net income. In Kenton County, the per farm net income was - $383 and in Campbell County, it was greater at $1,248.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
29
Average AveragePer PerFarm FarmNet NetCash CashIncome Incomeof ofOperations Operations 2002 2002
$16,000 $16,000
$11,000 $11,000
$6,000 $6,000
2007 2007
$15,077 $15,077
$9,788 $9,788
$8,734 $8,734
$3,909 $3,909 Kenton Kenton
$1,000 $1,000
Boone Boone
-$383 -$639 -$639 -$383
-$4,000 -$4,000
Campbell Campbell -$1,248 -$1,248 -$3,280 -$3,280
Kentucky Kentucky
-$9,000 -$9,000
While Boone County saw positive net cash income of operations in 2007, it was lower than that in 2002. This is not unexpected given the decrease in the market value of products sold and increases in farm production expenses. Between the five years, net income in the county declined from $6.4 million ($6,454,000) to $2.7 million ($2,666,000). This was a - 58.7% decrease. Taking inflation into account, the $6.4 million in 2002 would be worth $7.4 million in 2007 dollars. Given this, with inflation, the decline was even greater at - 64.2%.
For Kenton and Campbell counties, the negative net cash income of farm operations seen in 2007 also occurred in 2002. While still negative in 2007, however, in both counties the amount lessened. Similar patterns across the three counties occurred on an average per farm basis. Comparing Boone County with the state as a whole, in 2002, the average per farm net income in Boone County was just under that reported for the state. However, the decline in net cash farm income in the county between 2002 and 2007 and the growth in per farm net income in the state meant that unlike in 2002, a wide gap between the two occurred in 2007. These same patterns are evident in the number of farms reporting net gains and losses (farms that broke even are included with those reporting net gains). In 2007 in Boone County, more farms reported net losses (448 farms) than net gains (234 farms). While the number of farms with losses was greater, In Boone County the average per farm gain was greater than the average per farm loss. In 2007 for farms with gains, the average per farm was $32,734 whereas for those with net losses, the average per farm was $11,146.
Average AveragePer PerFarm FarmNet NetCash CashIncome Income of ofOperations, Operations,2007 2007 $50,000 $50,000
Farms Farmswith withnet netgains gains
$45,000 $45,000
$44,708 $44,708
Farms Farmswith withnet netlosses losses
$40,000 $40,000 $35,000 $35,000
$32,734 $32,734
$30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000
$11,146 $11,146
$10,000 $10,000
$12,991 $12,991 $6,986 $6,986
$12,391 $12,391
$11,194 $11,194
$7,120 $7,120
$5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 Boone Boone
Kenton Kenton
Campbell Campbell
Kentucky Kentucky
What is the impact? In order to assess the economic impact of farming in Boone County, the following section uses IMPLAN to assess the economic impact of agriculture in the county.
What is IMPLAN? To determine the value of production agriculture in Boone County we will use an input-output (IO) model with 2007 IMPLAN data. The IO model provides us several key pieces of information.
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
30
Two different types of multipliers are derived. These multipliers give us an indication of the impact of an industry on output and income on the local economy. Multipliers measure the total change throughout the economy from a one unit change for a given sector. While there are several types of multipliers, the Type II multiplier is most widely used in IO analysis. A Type II multiplier includes the effect of direct or initial spending, indirect spending or businesses buying and selling to each other as well as it includes household spending based on the income earned from the direct and indirect effects. Essentially, these latter induced effects represent employees spending on goods and services.
What are the results? The table below provides an overview of the market value for agricultural production in Boone County. Total output for the entire agriculture industry topped $16.8 million and employed 1,057 workers. Agricultural output is approximately 7.5% of total revenue in the state of Kentucky. The output multiplier is often used to describe the “turnover” of the dollar. For every dollar increase in sales, the multiplier tells us how many additional dollars are generated. Type II multipliers were derived for each of the agricultural sectors. The multipliers range from 1.23 to 1.62. The total economic impact of production agriculture in Boone County, including indirect and induced effects is $24,634,020. Table 25. IMPLAN Results of Total Economic Output for Boone County. Type II Multiplier
Total Economic Impact of Agriculture
Grains, oilseeds, Tobacco Vegetables Fruits Nursery Christmas Trees Other crops and hay Poultry and eggs Cattle and calves Milk and dairy Hogs and pigs Sheep goat
$1,136,000 $1,333,000 $838,000 $90,000 $4,816,000 $19,000 $732,000 $36,000 $2,453,000 $144,000 $4,000 $52,000
1.37 1.39 1.54 1.62 1.62 1.54 1.43 1.51 1.33 1.23 1.41 1.41
$1,556,320 $1,852,870 $1,290,520 $145,800 $7,801,920 $29,260 $1,046,760 $54,360 $3,262,490 $177,120 $5,640 $73,320
Horses ponies
$5,204,000
1.41
$7,337,640
Total
$16,857,000
$24,634,020
What is often of more interest is the concept of value-added agriculture. Output describes receipts associated with agricultural sales. Value-added represents an increase in income or profit to the producer. The table estimates the total value added for each
Agricultural Profile, Boone County
31
of the agricultural sectors. Then, value-added or income multipliers are derived for each category. Table 26. IMPLAN Results of Value-Added Economic Impact for Boone County. VA Type II Multiplier Grains, oilseeds, Tobacco Vegetables Fruits Nursery Christmas Trees Other crops and hay Poultry and eggs Cattle and calves Milk and dairy Hogs and pigs Sheep goat
$503,816 $346,580 $419,000 $0 $2,523,584 $9,956 $292,800 $7,560 $441,540 $59,040 $2,120 $27,560
1.48 1.94 1.63 0 1.61 1.61 1.65 2.23 1.95 1.32 1.42 1.42
Horses ponies
$2,758,120
1.42
Total
$7,391,676
$745,648 $672,365 $682,970 $0 $4,062,970 $16,029 $483,120 $16,859 $861,003 $77,933 $3,010 $39,135 $3,916,530 $11,577,573
The final value-added economic impact is $11,577,573. This suggests that there is an additional $11.5 million in income in the county because of production agriculture.
Results of the Survey of the Agricultural Land Owners in Boone County, Kentucky
Sarah Hume Conducted for the Boone County Conservation District Burlington, KY August 16, 2010
Executive Summary Boone County, Kentucky has recently experienced a period of significant development. A survey of the agricultural landowners of Boone County was conducted to determine if programs to help strengthen the agricultural community would be welcomed and how to make them effective. The survey was mailed to 1669 landowners. There was great interest in topics as there were 340 respondents who provided information about themselves, their land use, their general plans for future of the land and their views on agriculture in Boone County and their connection to it. The respondents were predominantly married men and the average age was 62. Most respondents were employed off the farm and only a small portion of their income was from agriculture. In total, the respondents owned 29,428 acres. The average parcel size was 88 acres. The respondents owned 39% of the agricultural land in Boone County. Most of the respondents have at least some of their land in agricultural production. Those that were in agriculture for the most part had been so for decades, learned to farm as a child from their family, and there has been little change in the amount of acreage farmed in the past 5 years. The respondents that are involved with agriculture are planning on maintain the amount of acreage in production and are also planning on being involved at least in the moderate term, average response is 15 years, but most are not planning beyond their control of the land, though some are making intergenerational plans. Most respondents are planning on passing along the land to family members. Many more people thought their family would continue to have the land in agricultural production than those that did not, but the largest number of people were unsure of what their family would do with the farm. Though the respondents are strongly interested in maintaining agriculture in Boone County, this interest does not translate to them wanting their particular land to be farmed in perpetuity. But those that are interested of maintaining the farm size of their farms are also strongly interested in of maintaining agriculture in Boone County in general. This interest creates an opportunity for programs that are interested in promoting agriculture to now help bolster the agricultural community. The program should avoid using top down approaches, such as government regulation. The program needs to be voluntary and protect property rights by not placing any restrictions on the land usage. The program should emphasize any aspects that would help to preserve farming culture and heritage, the environmental benefits and/or how it will practically strengthening the economic viability of farming through creating various income generating opportunities or relief from existing economic pressures. It should be community based that is generated through a dialogue between the program directors and the potential participants. The program should help bolster the viability of agriculture in the county so that the next generation of agriculturalists not only will want to, but also be able to continue the agricultural tradition of Boone County.
i
Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 3 General Information ........................................................................................................... 3 Agricultural Information .................................................................................................... 5 Future Plans ..................................................................................................................... 11 Views on Agriculture ....................................................................................................... 12 Comments ........................................................................................................................ 16 Linear Regression ............................................................................................................ 16 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix I: Cover Letter ............................................................................................................ 25 Appendix II: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................. 26 Appendix III: Comments ............................................................................................................ 30 Sources Cited ............................................................................................................................... 37
i
Introduction
.
Boone County, Kentucky is a rapidly growing community that is experiencing a period of urbanization. Historically, Boone County has had a vibrant and comprehensive agricultural community (U.S. Department of Commerce 1942, Zimmerman 2010). Though there has been a decrease in recent years in the acreage, intensity and amount of agricultural product sold, there is still a significant proportion of land that is considered to be agricultural land. With the increased amount of land being developed, there is a corresponding pressure on the remaining farmland to be converted from agriculture. If the people of Boone County wish to preserve the county’s agricultural tradition, they must take steps while there is still enough available arable is in the county and a viable agricultural population remaining. Due to historic loss of arable cropland and a decrease in the number of individuals involved in farming, Boone County is either at or quickly approaching a junction at which the future of agriculture will have to be assessed while there still remains a significant population involved in agriculture. To have a greater understanding of agriculture in Boone County, the Boone County Conservation District surveyed the owners of agricultural land. These individuals were chosen, as they are the stakeholders that have direct control over the agricultural land and have the most obvious and significant involvement in the preservation of Boone County’s agricultural community. In general, this survey was designed to elicit information regarding how these land owners viewed the connections of themselves to the land and as well as the land to the larger Boone County community. Specifically, the survey asked questions regarding: the land owner’s agricultural history; how they currently use their land and what is grown; what their future plans are for the land; whether or not they are interested in preserving the agricultural heritage of Boone County; and a general view of acceptability of different types of approaches for bolstering and encouraging the perpetuation of agriculture in Boone County. By understanding the view points of these individuals, the concept of preserving agriculture in Boone County can be assessed as to whether or not it is a desirable goal for the community and, if so, what options or techniques in promoting, strengthening, and/or maintaining the agricultural economy and community would be most acceptable to the people already involved in agriculture. By using methods that are perceived to be addressing concerns or removing impediments of the community, the chances of success for any future program are enhanced. Methods In preparation for this survey, a literature review of land usage and perceptions of land by people involved in agriculture produced some historical studies in the regional area. The Agricultural Census (U.S. Department of Commerce 1942) provided historical perspective of the changing dynamic of agriculture in Kentucky. The most helpful and detailed information to create a beginning of an understanding of current Boone County residents prior to preparing this survey was the review of recent similar surveys of agricultural land owners in other Northern Kentucky counties and in-depth personal interviews of agriculturalists in Northern Kentucky highlighted regional agriculturalists’ land usage, future plans for land, interests and concerns (Campbell County Conservation District 2005, Kenton County Farmland Working Group 2005). Though these literature reviews and interviews were not of current Boone County residents, the subjects
1
were closely related so they were able to provide contextual information from which relevant questions could be formed to be pertinent to Boone County residents. Through a series of meetings between September 2009 and January 2010, Sarah Hume and the Boone County Conservation Districts Farmland Initiative Steering Committee created a survey designed to understand who comprised the agricultural land owners of Boone County, how they utilized their land and their future plans for the land, what their agricultural history was and whether or not they wished to see the agricultural aspect of Boone County to continue in the future and the acceptability of various ways to encourage that to happen. The survey instrument was 4 pages in length, printed on one folded sheet of 11 ½” x 17” paper with a mixture of multiple choice and open-ended questions. The population, to which the survey was sent, was determined by the Boone County Geographic Information Systems parcel database, which contained names and addresses for land that were considered agriculture for tax purposes. There were originally approximately 2,000 entries. Mary Kathryn Dickerson removed obvious duplications, lands that were not in agricultural areas such as those on Industrial Road and parcels that were less than 9.9 acres of land. After the removal of these parcels, there were 1669 potential respondents. A cover letter was included with the request that the respondent be over 18 and a landowner in Boone County. The survey was mailed out standard rate on February 1, 2010 with a self addressed and stamped envelope and was requested to be returned by February 19, 2010. Though electronic surveys can have a higher response rate at a lower cost, a mailed survey would decrease the probability of respondent bias since email and Internet connectivity is not easily accessible in more rural areas. To increase the response rate, the respondents were given an inducement of participating in a drawing for a $50 gift certificate from a local feed and farm supply store. A stamped postcard, which was used as the drawing ticket, was included with the intention of it to be returned separately to preserve anonymity of the respondents. Out of the 1669 surveys mailed, 340 valid surveys were returned. Several surveys returned were not included in the analysis due to incompleteness, the respondents indicated that they were no longer involved with the property and/or the responses indicated that the respondents did not fall within the parameters of the target survey population. The response rate for the survey was 20.4%, which for an unsolicited mailed self-administered relatively long survey is an above average return. The returned surveys were collected at the Conservation District office in Burlington and hand delivered unopened to Sarah Hume who separated the surveys from the envelopes on which some had return addresses. These envelopes were destroyed to preserve anonymity. The surveys continued to be returned until March 29, 2010. The data was compiled in Excel and analyzed using Systat 12.02. All comments whether written in the provided comments area or next to other questions were included in the comments column verbatim except for these two types of edits – correcting words that were misspelled and Figure 1: Distribution of respondent’s age in years (n 337)
2
deletion of identifying information such as names and addresses. There was an attempt to preserve the intensity of some of these comments through the use of underlining and the use of capital letters. Results General Information Though not a description of any one respondent, an amalgamation of the averages provides a general description of a typical respondent as being a married 62 year old male that has had some college education. He has an income between $50,000 to $100,000 but makes less than $1,000 from agricultural and is employed off of the farm at least part-time. The average household has 2.5 people containing 2.1 adults with their children reside off of the farm. The age of respondents ranged from 25 to 91 years old with an average of being 61.8 years old with an n=337 (see Figure 1).
a
Figure 2: Respondent’s annual net income (n 310)
Males comprised the vast majority of respondents with 80.5% male and 19.5% female (n 336). The marital status of the respondents was predominantly married with 82.8% (280) being married, 7.1% (24) widowed, 5.3% (18) were single and 4.7% (16) who were divorced with an n=338. The income level of the respondents ranged from below $25,000 to greater than $500,000. With an n=310, there were 45 with incomes between $0 to $25,000, 74 incomes between $25,001 to $50,000, 106 incomes between $50,001 to $100,000, 50 incomes between $100,001 to $150,000, 14 incomes between $150,001 to $200,000, nine incomes between $200,001 to production is far less than the annual income for most respondents. With an n = 332, the agricultural income level of respondents ranged from $0 to $500,000. The incomes that generated money from agricultural production included 129 incomes that generated $0, 77 incomes between $1 to $1,000, 90 incomes between $1,001 to $10,000, 17 incomes Figure 3: Respondent’s annual net income from agricultural production (n 332) $10,001 to $20,000, six from $20,001 to $30,000, 3
two incomes between $30,001 to $40,000, three incomes between $40,001 to $50,000, three incomes between $50,001 to $100,000, two incomes between $100,001 to $150,000, one income between $150,001 to $200,000 and one income between $300,001 to $500,000. The household size ranges from one to 11 individuals Figure 4: Respondent's highest level of education (n 338) with an n=333 and an average of 2.5. The number of adults in each household ranged from one to five individuals with an n=334 and an n=334 and an average of 2.1. Of the 332 respondents, 296 had children and only 100 hundred of them reported that they lived on the farm. There was a -0.207 correlation between age and whether or not the respondent’s children lived on the farm.
Figure 5: Respondent’s primary occupation (n 314)
The respondents in general have at least some college education. Of the 338 respondents, 15 had a grade school education, 82 had completed high school, 32 had gone to a trade school, three had completed Junior/Community College, 67 had completed some college, 75 had a bachelor’s degree, 40 had a Master’s degree and 24 had a Doctorate degree (see Figure 4).
4
Most respondents worked off of the land at least part time in a large array of careers. In general categories, there were 21 in health care, 38 in construction, 54 respondents in agriculture, 42 were retired, 21 in education, 17 in sales, 9 in engineering, 7 in real estate, 11 in transportation, 5 in legal, 4 in informational technology, 11 in civil service, 27 in business operations, 18 are technicians, ten in service, and 23 in a non-traditional form of employment (see Figure 5). Most of Figure 6: Respondent’s primary occupation (n 314) the respondents are employed full time (164) or retired (124), but many work part time (32) as well. There are several that are between jobs (6) and there were four that categorized themselves as self employed and 10 that indicated that they were not employed or were on SSD. (See Figure 6)
Figure 7: The number of years that the respondent's land has been out of production if the respondent indicated that the land was currently out of production. (n 81)
Agricultural Information Most, 62.4% (212) of 340, of the respondents indicated that the land was in some form of agricultural production with 37.6 % (128) that it was not. Of the portion of respondents that indicated that the land was no longer in the agricultural production, 81 individuals reported the number of years that the land had been out of production. The number of years ranged from two to 45 with the mean being 14 years, median being ten years and the mode being 20 years (see Figure 7). Other answers had less definitive time structures. There were four forever, nine unknown, and one that indicated just “years” answers. It was asked, of those whose land was not currently in production, how the land was being used. Of the 100 respondents with a total of 136 responses, the most common land utilization forms were homestead (18), pasture/grazing (17), hay (12), woods (11), natural habitat (11), equines (11) and not used (12) (see Figure 8). Out of
5
336 responses, 54.4% (176) responded that they were involved with agricultural production and 47.6% (160) respondents indicated that they were not.
Figure 8: How plots that are not considered to be in agricultural production are being utilized. Many of the 100 responses included multiple uses, which were separated to be included in multiple categories.
Of those that indicated that they were not personally involved in agricultural production, 68 of them indicated another person did utilize their land for agriculture. A family member was the most common person who would work the land with 23 respondents, after that it as lessee (17), neighbor (10), tenant (5), manager (4) and other (9). Most, 78% of 336 (262), individuals lived
Figure 9 : How the respondents view themselves as agriculturists (n 299)
6
Activity/Item Cattle Hay Corn Equine Breeding, Sales, Services Lease/Rent Timber Livestock Tobacco Soybean Tree farm Produce Nursery stock Goats Grain Tomatoes Aquaculture Bees Grass Pasture Agritourism Alfalfa Construction Corn Maze Eggs Flowers Petting Zoo Pigs Pumpkins Sheep Straw Strawberries Taxidermy None Not applicable
Freq. 64 54 16 11 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 50
Product Hay Cattle Corn Trees Horses Vegetable Chickens Soybeans Tobacco Bees Garden Apples Tomatoes Fruit trees Timber Fish Flowers Fruit plants Pumpkins Grapes Pasture Peaches Pigs Plants Red Raspberry Wildlife Alpacas Beans Berries Blackberry
Freq. 145 60 35 23 22 19 18 15 15 12 9 7 7 6 6 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
Product Blueberry Donkey Goats Grass Livestock Melons Peppers Rabbits Shrubs Strawberry Wheat Alfalfa Asparagus Beets Cherries Dogs Forage Grain Herbs Lavender Nuts Pears Perennials Potatoes Rhubarb Sheep Straw Zucchini None
Freq. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 66
Table 2: Items grown or raised on grown land (n310)
on their agricultural property, while 22% (74) did not.
To understand how the respondents primarily perceived themselves in an agricultural context, the respondents were Table 1: Primary income source asked how they viewed themselves – livestock producer, Primary income generated on land equine owner/manager, tree farmer, commodity farmer, (n 293) produce farmer or other. There were six given categories – livestock producer, produce producer, commodity farmer, tree farmer, equine owner/manager and other with an opportunity to write in an answer. Some respondent gave more than one response. By far, the most frequent response was livestock producer with 104 responses. Among the given categories, the following is the total number of responses given per category: 41 equine owners/manager, 40 tree farmers, 24 commodity farmers, 25 produce farmer and 65 other. The other was broken out further with the most common responses being 23 hay farmer, four gardener, four nursery gardener, 12 other and ten do not farm. (see Figure 9).
7
Where Sold
Freq.
Not applicable Do not sell Stockyards At farm Processor Farmers Roadside stand Farmers' market Auction Horse customers Individuals Neighbor Private sales Word of mouth Friends Livestock market Family members Grain market Loggers
67 113 37 17 13 10 10 8 7 6 5 5 5 4 3
Market Tobacco station Barter Cattle customers Consigned sale Craft shows Elevator Flea market Government buyout tobacco program Retailer Warehouse Work Other
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 2 2
The primary income generating activities are cattle (64), hay (54), corn (16), equine breeding, sales, services (11), timber (11), lease/rent (11), and livestock (10). Many people also indicated that they did not have any income generating activity (50) or that it was not applicable (50). Out of the 293 responses, five respondents misunderstood the question and gave us dollar amounts rather than the activities. For the list of the reported income sources of income through items sold or activities see Table 1. There were many items that are reported to be grown or raised on the land. Most people that reported at least one thing being grown or raised, reported several items. In total, there were 310 respondents who provided information on what was being raised or grown with 59 items in total being reported to be grown or raised on agricultural land. The most common items were hay (145), cattle (60), corn (35), trees (23), horses (22), vegetables (19), chickens (18), soybeans (15), tobacco (15) and bees (12). 66 respondents indicated that nothing was being grown or raised on their land. For a complete list of the items grown or raised, see Table 2. Of the 270 responses, a large portion (113) indicated that they did not sell anything. 67 reported that selling product was not applicable to them and 46 stated that they did not sell their product but gave it away or it was for personal consumption. Of those that do sell their product, the stockyard (37) is the most commonly stated place to sell product. Other common places are at the farm (17), processor (13), to other farmers (10), roadside stand (10), and farmers’ market (8). For a complete list of locations or to whom product is sold, see Table 3.
The number of acres that were owned by the respondents was 29,428. The farm size ranged from three acres to 1,000 acres and the average size of the farm was 88 acres with 334 respondents. The acreage in agricultural production is 15,096. The acreage in agricultural 1 production per farm ranged from zero to 850 with an average number 1 of acres being 50 with a total of 308 respondents. The acreage that 1 the respondents personally farmed totals 17,356. The range on acreage is from zero to 1200 with and average number of acres per 1 respondent being 56.2. The number of acres the respondents 4 personally owns and farms is 12,688. The range is from zero to 770 Table 3: Location or to whom with an average acreage being 42. The number of acres leased by the product is sold (n 270) respondents was 2,699 with a range from zero to 580 with an average per respondent being 8.2 acres. The number of acres leased out to others was 2,163. The range of acres was zero to 350 with an average being 6.63 acres (see Table 4).
8 T
Total acres Acres owned by respondent Acres in agricultural production Acres that respondent personally farms Acres that respondent personally owns and farms Additional acres leased Acres leased out
Avg acres
Min acres
Max acres
29,428
88
3
1,000 334
15,096
49
0
850 308
17,356
56
0
1,200 309
12,688 2,699 2,163
42 8 7
0 0 0
770 301 580 330 350 326
N
Table 4: Acreages of farms: The total acreage for all the respondents and also the average, minimum and maximum acres for the individual farms. The frequency of response for each question is also included in column N.
The way the rest of the land, that is not in being used for agricultural production, is being utilized is most commonly left as woods/timber (85). The other most common uses are house/homestead (44), pasture (28), yard/lawn (16), trees (14), lake/pond/streams (12) and hay (11). For a complete list of how is being utilized that is not currently in agricultural production, see Table 5.
Land Use Woods/Timber House/ Homestead Pasture Yard/Lawn Lake/Pond/Stream Hay Horse Not Used Wildlife Habitat Barn Recreation Mowed Building Fallow Garden Hunting Not tillable Tree farm Cattle Fields Flood plain Greenhouse Road Buffer Fruit trees Leased out Office Power lines Shop Shrub Softball Complex Various Not applicable
Freq. 85 44 28 16 12 11 9 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
The number of lease agreements was 76 with 27 agreements were with the respondents agreeing to lease another’s land and 49 agreement with the respondents leasing out their own land. Most (18) of the agreements for the respondent leasing out another’s land were informal, there were some (14) that had formal agreements. Most (26) of the agreements of the respondents leasing out their own land were through formal agreements though a few (10) were through informal arrangements. The number of acres being in agricultural production and the intensity of the usage of those acres has predominantly remained the same. Out of the 304 people who Table 5: Land use of acres not in responded to this question, 236 respondents stated that the agricultural production number of acres in production had remained the same, while 32 had increased and 36 had decreased. Out of the 303 people who responded to the question about intensity of land usage, 242 individuals responded that intensity of the land usage had remained the same over the last five year, while 32 had increased and 29 had decreased. With the large number of non-responses, the difference between those increasing and decreasing the either the intensity or acreage is negligible and a trend cannot be determined. The number of lease agreements was 76 with 27 agreements were with the respondents agreeing to lease another’s land and 49 agreement with the respondents leasing out their own land. Most (18) of the agreements for the respondent leasing out another’s land were informal, there were some (14) that had formal agreements. Most (26) of the agreements of the respondents leasing 9
out their own land were through formal agreements though a few (10) were through informal arrangements. The number of acres being in agricultural production and the intensity of the usage of those acres has predominantly remained the same. Out of the 304 people who responded to this question, 236 respondents stated that the number of acres in production had remained the same, while 32 had increased and 36 had decreased. Out of the 303 people who responded to the question about intensity of land usage, 242 individuals responded that intensity of the land usage had remained the same over the last five year, while 32 had increased and 29 had decreased. With the large number of non-responses, the difference between those increasing and decreasing the either the intensity or acreage is negligible and a trend cannot be determined.
Total Workers Family Members Paid Workers Unpaid Workers
0 92
1 65
Number of Workers on Agricultural Land 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 71 32 13 11 9 3 8 1 3
140 220 157
53 23 23
56 5 28
23 9 12
15 3 14
4 4 4
5 2 2
3 0 1
0 4 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
11 0
12 2
0 0 0
0 1 0
Table 6: Distribution of individuals, including the respondent, working per parcel of land
The respondents did not report having a large work force. There were a total of 612 workers including the respondents. The number of workers per parcel ranged from zero to 12 with an average being 1.97 (n 310). Family members participated in a slim majority of the agricultural endeavors. The total number of family members was 365 with a range from zero to seven per parcel with an average being 1.22 per parcel (n 300). Most workers were unpaid with only 157 being paid and 210 being unpaid. The total number of paid workers on each farm ranged from zero to 12 with an average of 0.58 (n 272). The number of unpaid workers on each farm ranged from zero to seven with an average of 0.87 (n 241). The respondents were asked how many people, including themselves, worked on the land. To see distribution of numbers of workers, see Table 6. 38 respondents indicated that they used seasonal workers. Some used them for a very short time for a specific use such as hay baling and others gave longer and non-specific time periods such as spring through fall. By breaking these varied types of responses down by season, the seasonal hiring were: spring, 15; summer, 23; fall, 15; and winter, four.
Figure 10: Age at which the respondents first began to learn how to farm (n 199)
In general, the respondents learned how to farm when they were children. Many gave us a year at which they began to farm, but several gave nonspecific ages such as all of life (22), as a child (17) and as a teenager (2). Not all of the respondents have learned how to farm, 41 of the 281 responses indicated that they had never learned or it was not
10
applicable. Of the 199 who gave a specific age at which they began to learn how to farm, the ages ranged from 0 to 75 with an average being 17.2. For a graph of the age distribution of when the respondent learned how to farm, see Figure 10. When asked how long the respondent had been farming, most, 223 out of 261, gave specific time frames ranging from 0 to 84 years with an average being 33 years. The other non-specific time frames included do not know (2), off and on all of life (1) and not farming now (1). There were also 34 responses of not applicable or dashes which were interpreted to be the same meaning (see Figure 11). 178 out of 322 respondents indicated that their parents had farmed but only 55 were still on the same land. The respondents reported a wide array of Figure 11: Number of years the respondent has been farming. If the ways to learn agricultural techniques. respondent had reported “all of life”, to generate a number 5 years was Although the group accessed at least 19 subtracted from the age of the respondent. (n 223) sources of knowledge, most, 189 out of 340, individuals relied on only one or two sources of knowledge. The number of knowledge resources accessed by each individual ranged from zero (91) to nine (1) with an average per individual of 1.4. The slope of the curve for sources is rather steep with those relying solely on one information source (121), two source (67), three sources (31), four source (17), five sources (6), six sources (5) and seven sources (1). Most of the respondents (172) learned how to farm at least partially from their family. The survey provided several expected sources of knowledge transfer and gave an area for the respondents to write in other sources. Other than the family the most common sources were personal study (83), Extensions (48), Future Farmer’s of America (36), trade journals (35), mentor (32), 4H (27), agricultural high school (19), college courses (14) and other (25 respondents). In the other category, sources such as spouse, other farmers, neighbors, experience, hired help, Christmas Tree Association, summer work during high school and trade meetings were included. Only 85 of the 326 respondents reported that they were actively participating in continued education. Of those that are participating in in continued education, the following are the sources of education: attending Extension classes (34), have a mentor (6), read trade journals (39), personal studies (51) and other activities (18). Future Plans Looking towards the future, most of the respondents, 223 out of 261, planned on having the same amount of acreage in agricultural production in the future as they do currently. Only eleven respondents indicated that they would decrease the acreage and 27 reported that they planned on increasing the acreage.
11
Many of the respondents do not have a definitive idea of how long the land will be in agricultural production. Most gave unspecific answers, with many giving at least a perception that it should be continued in the long term. These answers included unknown (51), as long as respondent on the land (48), forever (30), and foreseeable future (6). Other responses included none (32), not applicable (20) and other responses that couldn’t be categorized (5). For those that gave specific number of years, the length of time that the respondents are planning on having the land in agricultural production ranged from two to 50 years. The average number of years is 15.3 (n 60). Of the 335 responses, once the respondents are no longer in control of the land, most of them are planning on passing their land down to children or other relations, 87 of which are thought to be planning on keeping the land in agricultural production, 38 are not and 114 are undecided. Other respondents (13) are planning on selling the land to another farmer and 68 respondents are going to sell to a non-farmer. Five individuals are planning Figure 12: The future plans for the agricultural land or at least entertaining the idea of setting aside the land for conservation or preservation. Though many have definite ideas, 22 have no formed plans, 12 had other plans and five declined to answer (see Figure 12). Views on Agriculture The respondents had strong opinion on their views of agriculture in Boone County. They were given a series of 11 propositional statements regarding agriculture in general, agriculture in Boone County and their personal land. They were asked if they strongly agreed, moderately agreed, slightly agreed, slightly disagreed, moderately disagreed or strongly disagreed with these statements. For the most part, the respondents either strongly disagreed or agreed with propositional statements. They believed in general that agriculture and the agricultural lifestyle and heritage were important to Boone County, even though it was difficult due to economic pressures. They did not want any restrictions placed upon their land. Most (90.0%) agreed that agriculture lifestyle and culture was important and only a few (4.4%) disagreed. A slightly lower percentage (85.3%) think farmland should be preserved with a few more (9.1%) disagreed. There was a large agreement (80.0%) that the county was becoming too urbanized with a portion disagreeing (13.8%). Many (80.3%) agreed that future generations should be able to farm in Boone County, with a few (10.3%) disagreeing. A larger proportion (85.6%) agreed that farmland preservation would have a positive impact on the county with several (8.8%) disagreeing. Most people (54.4%) disagreed that they considered their land solely as an investment, but a significant portion (35.3%) agreed. A large portion (87.9%) do not want 12
restriction place on how land is used now, but a small portion (6.8%) would be willing to have some placed on the land. Another very large portion (86.8%) do not want restriction place on how land is used in the future, but a slightly larger portion (7.9%) would be willing to have some placed on the land. Though most do not want restrictions a medium size portion (44.4%) are willing to explore options, probably with enough incentive, that would help maintain agriculture in Boone County by placing loose restrictions on the land and a slightly larger portion (47.6%) would not be willing to explore these options. A slightly smaller portion (42.9%) agreed that they would be willing to explore options that would place strict restrictions on their land, and a slightly larger portion (48.2%) disagreed. Though the numbers for those willing to explore these options do not seem to show much difference, the intensity of feelings are different. In general, the respondents that disagreed had a much more intensity of belief than the respondents that agreed. Most respondents (82.9%) agreed that maintaining agricultural life is difficult due to economic pressures; a small portion (9.7%) disagreed. To see the break down of variations in strengths of agreements and disagreements of the propositional statements see Table 7. The last portion of the survey was designed to ascertain whether or not certain actions, knowledge or policies would either encourage or discourage landowners in participating in programs that would support agriculture in Boone County. The list incentives were formed from interviews with agriculturalists in Northern Kentucky and incentives and concerns that were elicited from similar studies of agriculturalists in Northern Kentucky counties. Since some of the individuals did not recognize some of these items as types of incentives there was some confusion, which were expressed in the comments. The section was also on the back page of the lengthy survey so some individuals see it and so did not finish the survey. These factors contributed to the lower response rate, which had a range of 51 to 73 non-responses and an average of 60. The items that had the most positive influence to encourage the respondents to participate in a program to bolster the agriculture of Boone County were ones that would produce tangible economic benefits. These items included improved ways to inherit farms (80.9% encourage [E], 4.1% discourage [D]), more and/or improved farmers’ markets (76.5% E, 6.8% D), tax incentives (75.9% E, 7.1% D) and incentives from conservation programs such as Kentucky Cost Share (71.5% E, 12.1% D). Other intangible incentives included those that gave cultural benefits such as preservation of farming culture/heritage (77.1% E, 7.6% D), preservation of rural aesthetics (75.0% E, 8.2% D) and knowledge preserved land will expose local children to agricultural way of life (74.7 % E, 8.8% D). Other intangible incentives included environmental benefits (77.1% E, 7.1% D), conservation of green space (71.5% E, 12.6% D), knowledge that farmland in Boone County is being preserved (71.2% E, 11.8% D), knowing the specifics of the program (63.8% E, 15.9% D) and revitalization of urban cores (61.5% E, 18.5% D) which help to control suburban sprawl. Some of the items did not have a strong influence either for the positive or negative. These items also had a lower response rates. They were incentives such as participation in Grassland Reserve Program (57.1% E, 21.5% D), knowledge that the respondent's land was being preserved (55.6% E, 24.4% D), decreased level of development growth in the county (52.6% E, 28.8% D) and participating in a government program (45.0% E, 35.9% D).
13
14
57 (16.8%)
229 (67.4%) 218 (64.1%)
19 (5.6%) 19 (5.6%)
Agriculture lifestyle and culture is important
Farmland should be preserved
39 (11.5%) 43 (12.6%) 174 (51.2%)
27 (7.9%) 30 (8.8%) 25 (7.4%)
Willing to explore options for loose restrictions
Willing to explore options for strict restrictions
Maintaining agricultural life is difficult due to economic pressures
20 (5.9%)
18 (5.3%)
19 (5.6%)
21 (6.2%)
13 (3.8%)
10 (2.9%)
6 (1.8%)
7 (2.1%)
31 (9.1%)
31 (9.1%)
2 (0.6%)
4 (1.2%)
8 (2.4%)
114 (33.5%)
110 (32.4%)
12 (3.5%)
12 (3.5%)
12 20 (3.5%) (5.9%) 14 13 (4.1%) (3.8%) 9 12 (2.6%) (3.5%) 40 111 (11.8%) (32.6%)
11 (3.2%)
4 (1.2%)
315
310
313
322
322
305
321
308
319
321
321
N
Table 7: Propositional statements regarding agriculture. The respondents indicated the strength of their agreement or disagreement. For every level of agreement/disagreement, the frequency is followed by the percentage in parenthesis. The response rate is in the N column.
70 38 (20.6%) (11.2%)
50 53 (14.7%) (15.6%)
47 65 (13.8%) (19.1%)
44 (12.9%)
231 (67.9%)
18 (5.3%)
7 (2.1%)
Don't want restrictions on land in future
15 (4.4%)
37 (10.9%)
247 (72.6%)
18 (5.3%)
Land solely a real estate investment
Farmland preservation have a positive impact
Future generations be able to farm in Boone County
County becoming too urbanized
Don't want restrictions on land now
10 (2.9%)
5 (1.5%)
62 33 15 (18.2%) (9.7%) (4.4%) 58 40 8 (17.1%) (11.8%) (2.4%) 61 38 9 (17.9%) (11.2%) (2.6%) 30 59 34 (8.8%) (17.4%) (10.0%)
23 (6.8%)
20 (5.9%)
Slightly Slightly Mod. Strong Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
21 177 (6.2%) (52.1%) 32 175 (9.4%) (51.5%) 19 192 (5.6%) (56.5%) 35 31 (10.3%) (9.1%)
49 (14.4%)
Mod. Agree
No Strongly Answer Agree
Propositional Statements
15 15 (4.4%) 10 (2.9%)
21 (6.2%) 16 (4.7%) 46 (13.5%) 10 (2.9%) 13 (3.8%) 10 (2.9%) 11 (3.2%) 14 (4.1%)
27 (7.9%) 11 (3.2%) 25 (7.4%) 12 (3.5%) 7 (2.1%) 11 (3.2%)
58 (17.1%) 117 (34.4%) 58 (17.1%) 67 (19.7%) 68 (20.0%) 55 (16.2%) 58 (17.1%) 76 (22.4%) 58 (17.1%) 170 (50.0%) 47 (13.8%) 41 (12.1%) 56 (16.5%) 140 (41.2%) 68 (20.0%) 46 (13.5%) 52 (15.3%) 142 (41.8%) 63 (18.5%) 57 (16.8%) 57 (16.8%) 133 (39.1%) 69 (20.3%) 53 (15.6%) 54 (15.9%) 126 (37.1%) 63 (18.5%) 54 (15.9%) 68 (20.0%) 80 (23.5%) 71 (20.9%) 58 (17.1%) 54 (15.9%) 155 (45.6%) 64 (18.8%) 43 (12.6%) 28 (8.2%)
51 (15.0%) 196 (57.6%) 51 (15.0%)
57 (16.8%) 96 (28.2%) 94 (27.6%) 70 (20.6%)
Knowledge farmland preserved
Knowledge respondent's land being preserved
Tax incentives Knowledge preserved land will expose local children to agricultural way of life
Preservation of farming culture/heritage
Preserve rural aesthetics
Conservation of green space
Revitalization of urban cores
Environmental benefits
Improved ways to inherit farms
More/ improved farmer markets
Table 8: The impact of these incentives on the respondent’s willingness to participate in a program that is designed to promote the continuation of agriculture in Boone County.
63 (18.5%) 82 (24.1%) 48 (14.1%) 49 (14.4%) 35 (10.3%) 18 (5.3%) 45 (13.2%)
29 (8.5%) 36 (10.6%) 39 (11.5%) 127 (37.4%)
Decreased level of development growth
27 (7.9%) 69 (20.3%)
Potential decreased land resale value
13 (3.8%)
20 (5.9%)
69 (20.3%) 103 (30.3%) 56 (16.5%) 58 (17.1%)
Know the specifics of program
26 (7.6%)
33 (9.7%) 28 (8.2%) 61 (17.9%)
65 (19.1%) 37 (10.9%) 47 (13.8%) 69 (20.3%)
Participating in a government program
8 (2.4%)
26 (7.6%) 30 (8.8%) 135 (39.7%)
24 (7.1%) 47 (13.8%)
7 (2.1%)
5 (1.5%)
7 (2.1%)
20 (5.9%)
11 (3.2%)
10 (2.9%)
13 (3.8%)
12 (3.5%)
57 (16.8%)
5 (1.5%)
2 (0.6%)
5 (1.5%)
9 (2.6%)
6 (1.8%)
6 (1.8%)
4 (1.2%)
2 (0.6%)
15 (4.4%)
Restrictions placed on land use
21 (6.2%)
27 (7.9%) 10 (2.9%) 36 (10.6%)
73 (21.5%) 49 (14.4%) 63 (18.5%) 82 (24.1%)
22 (6.5%)
Participation in the Grassland Reserve Program
9 (2.6%)
10 (2.9%)
56 (16.5%) 113 (33.2%) 66 (19.4%) 64 (18.8%)
Potential Incentives Incentives from conservation programs (Kentucky Cost Share)
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderate. Strongly No Answer Encourage Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage Discourage
Two items would have a negative impact on the respondent’s willingness to participate. These are restrictions placed on how land is used (27.1% E, 56.2% D) and something that would have potential impact to decrease in land resale value (20.3% E, 59.4% D). For an expanded analysis of these items, see Table 8.
Comments At the end of the survey, a place was left for people’s comments about any topic they thought was not adequately covered in the survey or for them to have a venue in which they could raise concerns. For a complete and unabridged copy, except for identifying information, of all the comments, see Appendix 3. These comments have been listed in random order. There was an attempt to Comments Categories Freq. capture the intensity of some of the writings through Interest in Farmland Preservation 21 the use of capitals and underlining lining where Concerns about taxes/PVA 19 Concerns about property rights 18 pertinent. Most of these comments could be classified into 22 broad categories. The 8 most common categories include: interest in farmland preservation (21 comments), concerns about taxes/property value administrator (PVA) (19 comments), concerns about property rights (18 comments), concerns about government involvement (17 comments), positive statements about rural/agricultural life (15 comments), concerns about accelerated development (13 comments), interested in conservation and wildlife (12 comments), and a concern that there is a for need better regional planning and zoning (9 comments). For a list of the comments categories and their frequency being independently addressed, see Table 9.
Concerns about gov't involvement Positive statements about rural/farming life Concerns about accelerated development Interested in conservation and wildlife Need better regional planning and zoning Promote small scale farming Concerns regarding cost of land Interested in selling land soon Program must be voluntary Concerns about eminent domain Development is inevitable Need better infrastructure Need urban development opportunities Acreage minimum for lots Concerns about easements Concerns regarding too much reg. planning and zoning County does not support farmers but developers Decrease in number of farmers (especially young) leads to decrease in # of farms Need incentives for farmers
17 15 13 12 9 7 5 4 4 3 3 3 3
Linear Regression 2 Linear regression models were done on all ordinal 2 variables. There were 13 models that were statistically significant. The regression model to 2 explain the variation in the number of acres owned by 2 the respondent (r2 0.600, f 150.217, p < 0.001) found that those that had more land had managers to farm the land (t 8.741), soybeans grown on land (t 2.993), 2 and larger numbers of owned acres that are farmed (t 2 17.731). The regression model to explain the 2 variation in acres the respondent personally farms (r Table 9: Comment categories that had more 0.886, f 376.338, p < 0.001) found that the more acres than one entry. farmed, the more additional land was leased (t 2.772), which was not leased through informal agreements (t -4.035), fewer number of owned acres were
16
owned (t -2.499) and farmed (t 29.390), soybeans were grown on the farm (t 5.030), and the respondents do not own all of acres farmed (t -9.959). The regression model to explain the variation in number of acres owned and farmed (r2 0.885, f 377.474, p < 0.001) found that these respondents that had more acres were full time farmers (t 3.582), owned all of acres farmed (t 8.175), did not have soybeans grown on farm (t -4.396), and had additional acreage leased through informal agreements (t 2.26). They also personally farmed more acres (t 28.141), and had an increased number of acres owned (t 8.929). The regression model to explain the variation in number of workers at the farm (r2 0.938, f 575.381, p < 0.001) found that respondents with more workers had the land in production (t 7.317), acres were leased out (t 3.628), and shrubs were not grown on farm (t -2.691). The respondents with more workers on the farms also had larger number of family members working on the farm (t 11.419), larger number of paid workers on the farm (t 31.97) and larger number of unpaid workers on the farm (t 8.507). The regression model to explain the variation in number of family members working on the farm (r2 0.514, f 76.411, p < 0.001) found that respondents with larger numbers also had larger numbers of people working on farm in general (t 15.842), the respondent consider self as a produce farmer (t 1.847), the respondent was taking continued education through extensions (t 1.442) and believed any program must be voluntary (t 1.688). The regression model to explain the variation in the respondents willingness to explore strict restrictions placed upon the land (r2 0.532, f 193.818, p < 0.001) found that those more willing to explore strict restrictions were also more willing to explore loose restrictions (t 15.097) and knowledge that the respondent’s land is preserved had a greater encouraging effect for the respondent to participate in a program to promote agriculture (t 3.043). The regression model to explain the variation in the respondents belief that agriculture is economically difficult (r2 0.587, f 81.43, p < 0.001) found that the more an respondent held this belief the more they believed the county too urban (t 5.144) would be encouraged to participate in programs by tax incentives (t 2.215), They were not encouraged to participate by the knowledge that this would help revitalize urban core (t -3.464) and but they were encouraged by the knowledge that farmland preserved in Boone County (t 3.402). There are 6 models that help describe the strength and direction of the influence some potential incentives or concerns will have on the respondent’s willingness to participate in programs that will promote agriculture in Boone County. The regression model to explain the variation in influence on the respondent of the knowledge that the program would expose children to agricultural lifestyle (r2 0.809, f 205.559, p < 0.001) found that the greater the positive influence, the more likely the following items would be a positive influence as well, participation in Grassland Reserve Program (t 2.747), knowledge that respondent’s land is preserved (t 2.432), preservation of agricultural culture (t 15.591), future generations would be able to farm in Boone County (t 2.844), and environmental benefits (t 5.085). They also thought restrictions placed upon land use was a positive influence (t -3.391), and the respondent was more likely to believe farming is not economically viable but this would encourage participation (t 3.601). The regression model to explain the variation in influence on the respondent that the program would preserve agricultural culture (r2 0.858, f 256.289, p < 0.001) found that the greater the influence the more the respondent is influenced by the preservation of rural aesthetic in Boone County (t 8.069), revitalization of the urban core (t 2.525), knowledge that farmland will be
17
preserved in Boone County (t 4.583), knowing specifics of program (t 3.394) and maintaining farms in Boone County would expose children to agricultural lifestyle (t 11.961). The respondent also believes more strongly that agricultural life is important (t 4.551), however the respondent would be less willing to participate in P.A.C.E. (t -3.243), and does not believe farmland should be preserved in Boone County (t -3.553). The regression model to explain the variation in influence of the program preserving rural aesthetics in Boone County on the respondent (r2 0.808, f 239.383, p < 0.001) found that the greater the influence, the respondent is less likely to believe agricultural lifestyle is important (t 2.324), but they did believe that farmland in Boone County should be preserved (t 3.152). The respondents were also more greatly the influenced by tax incentives (t 2.572), preservation of agricultural culture (t 9.907), conservation of green space (t 11.119), and knowing the specifics of the program (t 2.024). The regression model to explain the variation in influence on the respondent that the program would conserve green space (r2 0.763, f 156.918, p < 0.001) found the greater the influence had the respondents were more willing to participate in Grassland Reserve Program (t 2.822), and they were more positively influenced by revitalization of the urban core (t 4.468), environmental benefits (t 6.737), preservation of rural aesthetic in Boone County (t 10.982); however they did not want any restrictions on land use (t 2.361), to participate in government program (t -3.113) and were not encouraged by tax incentives (t -3.431). The regression model to explain the variation in influence of environmental benefits on the respondent (r2 0.666, f 169.392, p < 0.001) found that the respondents influenced by environmental benefits were also influenced by the idea of conserving green space (t 9.913), and revitalization of urban core (t 4.743). They were encouraged by better ways to inherit (t 4.926) and had the belief that farming is economically non-viable (t 2.566). The regression model to explain the variation in willingness of the respondent to participate in government programs (r2 0.647, f 155.748, p < 0.001) found that these respondents were encouraged to participate by knowledge of the specifics of the program (t 7.614), and financial incentives from conservation program (t 5.203). They also held the belief that farming is economically non-viable (t 2.762) and were against restriction of land use (t 7.970). Discussion There may have been a slight bias in the sampling or the population is aging as the respondent population’s average age at 61.8 years old a slightly older than expected since the average age was 57.9 years in 2007 (Zimmerman 2010). However, the population has been aging slightly in recent years so this difference might be reflecting the actual change in population. Also, the vast majority of respondents were married men, which again might indicate a sampling bias. However analysis did not find a significant difference in answers due to age or gender. Most respondents had at least some secondary education. There was a significant negative correlation of age and education therefore the population seems to be becoming more educated. Most respondents were employed off the farm in a wide array of occupations. The average income fell within the bracket between $50,000 to $100,000, but 61% of the respondents made less than a $1,000 from agriculture. Therefore for most landowners, the land is not a primary source of
18
income except for those that have their primary occupation in agriculture and/or are farming full time. Most of the respondents (215) had at least part of the land in agricultural production. Of those that did not have the land in agricultural production, the average length of time was over 13 years. For those that gave non-numerical answers, they all gave the impression that the land had not recently been in production as they answered years, unknown and forever. This indicates that there has not recently been a significant shift of agricultural use patterns. When asked how the land that is not in agricultural production is being used, many of the answers were suggestive of small-scale agriculture, such as hay, pasture/grazing, garden, cattle and horse. Therefore, there may be an under-reporting of agricultural activity as people that are involved with low intensity; micro and/or small-scale agriculture are not considering their activities to be agriculture. Even so, 52.4% of respondents considered that they farmed at least part time and another 13.4% were retired from farming and 34.2% did not consider themselves ever to have been farmers (n 336). Of those that did not farm themselves, 42% had somebody else work the land for them. Mostly the workers were family members or neighbors; some of the larger operations had managers, tenants or lessees. Most of the income generating product or activity had to do with animal husbandry or feed. The two most frequently report items are cattle and hay followed distantly by equine breeding, sales and services, general livestock. Of the produce, the most frequently sited were in descending order: corn, tobacco, soybeans, and trees. Some infrequently sited non-traditional sources of income were aquaculture, agritourism, petting zoo, and corn mazes. Again, the most commonly reported items grown or raised were again either having to do with animal husbandry or feed. By far the most reported item was hay followed distantly by cattle, horses, chickens and bees. The most commonly reported items grown were corn, soybeans, tobacco, trees and unspecified vegetables. These items that were sold/distributed through a wide array of methods from selling in large scale through commercial vendors to individuals bartering and many did not sell their produce at all but either consumed it all or gave it away to family, friends and neighbors. In total, the respondents owned 29,428 acres. The average parcel size was 88 acres. The total cropland was 17,356 acres with an average parcel size of 56 acres. 12,688 acres were personally farmed by the respondents with an average of 42 acres. According to the Census of Agriculture in 2007, the total acreage of agricultural land was 74,750 acres and the total acreage of cropland was 35,823 acres. So the respondents owned approximately 39% of the agricultural land and approximately 48% of the cropland of Boone County (Zimmerman 2010). The full-time farmers tend to own more acres that they farm personally. There was a low rate of leasing land through either formal or informal agreements. Of those respondents that did participate in leasing land, more respondents were the lessors (49 respondents) than lessees (27 respondents); however, more acreage was leased than leased out. In total, there were more than twice the informal agreements than formal agreements. There is a low rate of employment on the farms. Most of the people working on the farm are the respondent or family members. Of the reported 612 people working on the farm, only 157 are paid workers. Of the 321 respondents, 11.8% employed seasonal workers.
19
There was a theme within the answers given by respondents that were or had been active in agriculture; they had a long agricultural heritage. Over half had parents that had farmed, 55 respondents were still on their parents land. Most (60.5%, n 281) people that had learned how to farm, did so as a child. The respondents that were in or had retired from agriculture had been active in agriculture for a long time with the average length of time being 33 years (n 223). This tradition is still being carried out with those individuals needing help with their farms relying frequently on family members to either take over running the farm or at least being additional workers. When asked where the respondents had learned to farm, 172 respondents sited family as being one of the primary sources of learning. Other common learning methods involved exposing the respondent to agriculture when s/he was a child such 4H (27), Future Farmers of America (36) and attending an agricultural high school (19). The other common ways of learning was personal study (83), reading trade journals (35) and taking classes though extensions. Only 85 respondents are still participating in continued education as an adult. The most common learning techniques are taking classes through extension (34), reading trade journals (39) and personal study (51). The respondents were asked an open question of how long did people plan on their land being in agriculture production. The respondents are planning on keeping their land in agriculture at least in a moderate time frame. On average the respondents are planning on keeping their land in agriculture for 15 years. Answers that gave a finite length of time the land will be in agriculture had a negative correlation with the age of the respondent, so that older individuals were projecting shorter lengths of time. This may indicate that these individuals do not think their land will continue in to be in agricultural production past the time of their control of the land. Of the answers that were not a specific number of years, 30% reported they would continue for the foreseeable future with no real plans of stopping, 15% did not have any plans and another 15% did not plan on having their land being in agriculture production in the future. The 12.7% of the responses that indicated that the land would be in agriculture “forever” or at least past the respondents life span indicated that there was some multigenerational planning with 9% wanting their lands to always be in agricultural production. The respondent’s plan for changing the acreage and intensity of the agriculture in the future is consistent with the reported change of land use in the last 5 years. For the most part, the vast majority remained the same over the past 5 years and the respondents are planning it on remaining the same in both acreage and intensity in the future. Taking into account the large number of non-responses, there are similar numbers of respondents who are planning on increasing as those that are planning on decreasing the amounts or intensity. The results are also consistent with the acreage in farms having only a very slight decrease of 165 acres from 74,915 acres in 2002 to 74,750 acres in 2007 (Zimmerman, 2010). Most respondents are planning on passing along the land to family members. Many more people that will be passing their land to relatives thought their family would continue to have the land in agricultural production than those that did not, but the largest number of people were unsure of what their family would do with it. Of those that are planning on selling it, most are not planning on trying to sell it to someone they know will farm the land. There were a few people
20
that were highly interested in having their land go to a preservation or conservation group to keep their lands from being developed. There were high levels of agreement that agricultural lifestyle and culture were important, farmland preservation would have a positive impact on the county, farmland should be preserved and future generations should be able to farm in Boone County. There was also strong agreement that the county is becoming too urbanized and that it is difficult to maintain the agricultural lifestyle due to economic pressures. Those that did have the belief this economic viewpoint also believed that the county was becoming to urbanize. They would be more willing to participate in a program by being offered tax incentives and knowing the program is helping to preserve farmland in Boone County. In general, the respondents indicated maintaining agriculture in Boone County is a desirable goal for the community, and that due to economic pressures it would be beneficial to the agricultural community to explore options that would promote and strengthen the local agricultural economy. The respondents indicated that they were interested in maintaining the agricultural land, when asked about their own land. They also strongly indicated that they did not want to have any restrictions placed on how the land was used now or in the future. Though it is clear they wish to preserve their autonomy and property rights, there appears to be some willingness to explore options to maintain the agricultural land. The agreement in these questions about exploring options by placing restrictions on land use were weak and had the most intense disagreement so though the numbers are close, the intensity is not. The respondents that agree, only slightly agree to explore the options and those that are not willing to explore the options strongly disagree. There does seem to be more of a connection to the land though than just one of an investment. The last portion of the survey was designed to determine whether or not certain actions, knowledge or policies would either encourage or discourage landowners in participating in programs that would support agriculture in Boone County. Items that would have a direct tangible economic benefit such as improved economic opportunities in farmers’ markets, tax incentives and improved ways to inherit farms seemed to have the most influence. But intangible benefits such as preserving farming culture and heritage and environmental benefits also were strong incentives. Especially significant were preserving the farming culture and rural aspects of the county so that future generations would be exposed to the farming way of life. The environmental aspects had a little bit less but still significant positive influence as a motivating factor. Though keeping agricultural land in Boone County was indicated to be important, keeping the individual’s land in agriculture was not as important. Other items had with a definite discouraging effect on the respondent’s willingness to participate in a program. Such disincentives included any restrictions placed on how the land was used or anything that had even the potential for decreasing the land resale value. Again the idea of autonomy and property value is very important; however, there are some that are willing to explore the options of having strict restrictions placed upon their land use because of their interest in having their own land preserved. There was a confluence of influences so that those that were interested in one type of incentive were also interested in other types of incentives. The respondents that were more influenced to participate in a program by the knowledge that farmland in Boone County would be preserved were also influenced by preserving agricultural culture and heritage, the rural aesthetic, and their
21
own land as agricultural land. They were also interested in partnering with conservation programs and the Grassland Reserve Program. These respondents in general are planning to maintain the number of acres that are in agriculture into the future. They hold the belief that agriculture is economically difficult to maintain, therefore financial incentives from the conservation programs are a positive influence. Knowing the program would help preserve agricultural heritage and lifestyle and their land as agricultural land also influences the respondents that are influenced by the fact that children will be exposed to the agricultural lifestyle by maintaining a strong agricultural community in Boone County. These respondents are also influenced by the perceived environmental benefits of maintaining agriculture and willing to participate in the Grassland Reserve Program. They are also believe that it is important to have future generations be able to farm in Boone County, but that farming is not economically viable. These respondents are the ones that are the most likely to be willing to explore options on placing restrictions on land use. Those respondents that are interested in preserving the agricultural heritage and lifestyle are also interested in preserving the rural aesthetic of Boone County and revitalizing the urban core. They in general do not want to participate in the Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. Though they believe agriculture is important and they would like to have their farmland preserved and have children exposed to the agricultural way of life they do not believe that the farmland should be preserved. This seems counter intuitive at first, but it appears that though they would like to have it the agriculture continue, they do not wish it mandated that it should be done, but left up to the individual decision. Those that are interested in preserving the rural aesthetic of Boone County are also interested in preserving the agricultural heritage and lifestyle and green spaces. They would be encouraged to participate in programs through tax incentive and knowing the specifics of the program. The program revitalizing urban cores also encourages the respondents that are interested in conserving green space, preserving the rural aesthetic in Boone County and environmental benefits. They are more willing to participate in programs such as the Grassland Reserve Program. They are willing to explore options about restrictions on land use, but are less willing to participate in government programs and are less encouraged by tax incentives. The respondents that are motivated by environmental benefits of a program are also motivated by conserving green space, revitalization of the urban core, and better ways to inherit farms. They also believe that farming is not economically viable and so would be motivated by programs that would improve the agricultural economy. The respondents that are willing to explore having restrictions placed on land are more motivated to participate in programs by the knowledge that their land is preserved and the conservation of green space. They are more interested in participating in Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements and government programs in general. They are less concerned by a decrease resale value of the land. They are interested not as motivated by the idea that the program would expose local children to the agricultural lifestyle. The respondents that are motivated by participating in government programs would prefer to know the specifics of the programs. They have a stronger belief that farming is not economically viable and are motivated by financial incentives from conservation programs. They are also part of the minority that is willing to explore restrictions of land use.
22
They comments section of the survey elicited some very strong responses and opinions. The comments were sorted into 34 categories to analyze what were the most common concerns. Several respondents independently brought many of these categories up without prompting which is an indication of their importance to those individuals and probably to a lesser degree to at least a portion of the population in general. There most category of common comment was one that expressed in some interest in maintaining farmland in Boone County (21 times). On a related note, another common theme was one of positive statements about rural or farming lifestyle and heritage (15 times). There was also an interest in the conservation of wildlife (12 times). There were concerns raised about the decrease of number of young farmers, which is contributing to the decrease in number of farms (2 times). The most common concerns raised were about taxes and the PVA (19 times), property rights (18 times), and government involvement (17 times). There were also concerns that the county was getting developed to quickly (13 times), there was a need for better regional planning and zoning (9 times), and concerns regarding the cost of land (5 times). In general the comments were consistent with the rest of the survey. Maintaining agriculture and its corresponding lifestyle and heritage in Boone County are believed to be a positive and important thing for the community by the respondents. There are concerns about autonomy, property rights, taxes and planning and zoning. Conclusions Historically, Boone County, Kentucky has had a strong agricultural tradition. In 1930, 92.5% (149,159 acres) of the county was involved in agriculture. Over time, the portion of the land in agriculture has decreased to 46.3% (74,750 acres), as of 2007, with the land being converted to other uses such as industrial parks, commercial space and residential areas (U.S. Department of Commerce 1942, Zimmerman 2010). There was a stabilization of agricultural land conversion between 2002 and 2007, but the number of farms decreased and the acreage of each farm increased (Zimmerman 2010). The future of agriculture in Boone County is not certain in the long term. To get a better understanding of the agriculture community and understand if maintaining the agricultural aspect of Boone County was a desirous goal of the people that owned the land, this study was designed to find out who these landowners were, how they were currently use their land, how they view the land and their connection to it and what aspects of a program designed to bolster the agricultural community would be most beneficial and suitable to the land owners. With 340 respondents, out of 1669 surveys, that own 39% of the agricultural land in Boone County, there seems to be a definite interest in this subject within the sampled population. In general, the respondents are married men that have land that is in agricultural production. Though most are active in agriculture at least part time, but who are not solely reliant on the farm for income, but are accessing economic opportunities off of the land. Of those that are active in agriculture, they have been in agriculture for over 30 years. Of those that are not active, their land has been inactive for over a decade on average. They plan on keeping their land active in the future and for the most part passing the land on to relatives. A large portion of the
23
respondents are unsure of whether or not the relatives will continue to keep the land in agriculture. There was no indication of a large shift of land usage having occurred recently or one being planned to occur in the near term. However, there is significant ambiguity about whether or not their land will continue to be agricultural land after the current owners no longer control the land. The respondents raised many concerns regarding the difficulty of maintaining the agriculture lifestyle in Boone County. Some of the concerns are economic in nature with many of the respondents agreeing that due to economic pressures it is hard to maintain an agricultural way of life. These perceived pressures include price of land, taxes, and pressure from development to name a few. Other issues are more social in nature. The age of the population of people involved with agriculture in Boone County is slightly increasing. The average age in 2002 was 56.6 and 2007 it was 57.9 and this survey in 2010 had a response population with an average age of 61.8 (Zimmerman 2010). There was a paucity of younger agriculturalists answering this survey and respondents raised concerns in comments about lack of involvement, for a multitude of reasons, of younger people in agriculture. These factors may contribute to an attrition of agriculturalists in Boone County if measures are not taken to help make agriculture a sustainable lifestyle. Even with these concerns, there still is strong interest in having the agricultural land and community remain in the county. Though the respondents, in general, are strongly interested in maintaining agriculture in Boone County, this interest does not translate to the respondents wanting their particular land to be farmed in perpetuity. But those that are interested of maintaining the farm size of their farms are also strongly interested in of maintaining agriculture in Boone County in general. This interest creates an opportunity for programs that are interested in promoting agriculture to now help bolster the agricultural community. The program should avoid using top down approaches, such as government regulation. The program needs to be voluntary and protect property rights by not placing any restrictions on the land usage. The program should emphasize any aspects that would help to preserve farming culture and heritage, the environmental benefits and/or how it will practically bolstering the economic viability of farming through creating various income generating opportunities or relief from existing economic pressures. It should be community based that is generated through a dialogue, which potentially has already been started by this survey, between the program directors and the potential participants. This dialogue should focus on finding creative solutions that would help bolster the viability of agriculture in Boone County so that the next generation of agriculturalists not only will want to, but be able to continue the agricultural tradition of Boone County.
24
Appendix I: Cover Letter
25
Appendix II: Survey Instrument Boone County Agricultural Survey Demographics 1. What is your age? __________ 2. What is your gender? Male Female 3. What is your relationship status? Single Married/Committed Relationship Divorced Widowed 4. What is your total net annual income? $ 0 – $ 25,000 $ 25,001 - $ 50,000 $ 50,001-$ 100,000 $ 100,001-$ 150,000 $ 150,001-$ 200,000 $200,001-$ 300,000 $ 300,001-$ 500,000 $ 500,001 + 5. What is your total net annual income from agricultural production? $ 0 $ 1–$ 1,000 $ 1,001-$ 10,000 $ 10,001-$20,000 $ 20,001-$ 30,000 $ 30,001-$40,000 $ 40,001-$ 50,000 $ 50,001-$ 100,000 $ 100,001-$ 150,000 $ 150,001-$ 200,000 $ 200,001-$ 300,000 $ 300,001-$ 500,000 $500,001 + 6. How many people are in your household? __________ How many adults? _____________ 7. Do you have children? Yes No If yes, do they live on your farm? Yes No 8. What is your highest level of education completed? Grade School High School Trade School/Vocational School Junior /Community College Some College College (B.A./B.S.) Masters (M.A./M.S.) Doctorate (Ph.D./M.D./J.D.) 9. What is your primary occupation (e.g. farmer, teacher, doctor)?______________________ 10. Are you employed? Full time Part time Retired Between jobs Other______ Farming Demographics and History 1. Is your land currently in agricultural production? Yes No If no, how long has your land not been in production? _________ Also if no, how is it currently utilized? _________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Do you currently farm? (Please check only one) Yes, Full time Part time No Retired from farming Do not farm If no, does someone else farm your land? Yes No If so, who farms it? Family member Manager Tenant Lessee Other ________________ 3. Do you live on your agricultural property? Yes No If yes, are you a/n Owner Tenant Manager Farming occupant Non-farming occupant Lessee 4. If you farm, do you consider yourself a Livestock producer Equine owner/manager Tree farmer Produce farmer Commodity farmer Other_________________ Page 1 of 4
26
5. What is the primary income generating activity on your farm?________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 6. What is grown or raised on your farm? (e.g. chickens, apples, bees, hay etc.)__________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Where do you sell your product? (e.g. Farmer’s market, road side stand, processor) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 8. How many acres do you own? _____ How many acres are in agricultural production? _____ How is the remaining acreage utilized? ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 9. How many acres do you personally farm? ______ Do you own all the land you farm? Yes No If no, how many acres that you personally farm do you own? ________ 10. Do you rent or lease additional acreage? Yes No If yes, is this through a formal or informal agreement? How many acres do you rent or lease? _________ 11. Do you lease or rent out any of your land? Yes No N/A If yes, is this through formal or informal agreements? How many acres?_________ 12. In the past 5 years, has the acreage in active production on your farm increased decreased or remained the same? 13. In the past 5 years, has your land use intensity increased decreased or remained the same? 14. How many people (including yourself) work on your farm during the year?____ How many are family members? ______ How many workers are paid?_______ unpaid?________ 15. Do you employ seasonal workers? Yes No If yes, when?_____________________ 16. At what age did you learn/begin to farm? ____________________ 17. How many years have you been actively farming?______________ 18. Did your parents farm? Yes No If yes, are you on the same land? Yes No 19. How did you learn to farm? (If choosing more than one, please indicate primary means of learning as (1), the secondary means as (2), etc.) ___4H ___Family ___FFA ___Mentor ___Agricultural high school ___College with agricultural degree ___Extension Service __Personal study __Trade journals __Other_______________ 20. Are you currently participating in any activities that will lead to improving your farming skills? Yes No If yes, what are they? ___Extension Service classes ___Mentor ___College classes ___Trade journals ___Personal study ___Other?_____________ Page 2 of 4
27
Future Plans 1. What are your plans for the future of your land? (Please choose only one) Pass down to children or other relations who plan do not plan are undecided on farming the land. Sell the land to another farmer Sell the land for other uses Other:________________________________________________________________ 2. How long do you plan on your land being in agricultural production? __________________ 3. Do you plan on increasing decreasing maintaining the acres being farmed? Farmland Preservation 1. Please RATE the strength of your agreement or disagreement to the following statements with 1) Strongly Agree 2) Moderately Agree 3) Slightly Agree 4) Slightly Disagree 5) Moderately Disagree 6) Strongly Disagree ___Agricultural lifestyle and culture is important to preserve in Boone County. ___Farmland should be preserved in Boone County. ___Boone County is becoming too urbanized. ___I would like my children/future generations to be able to farm in the Boone County area. ___I believe that farmland preservation in Boone County will have a positive impact to the county in general. ___My farmland is solely a real estate investment. ___I do not want any restrictions on how my land is currently used. ___I do not want any restrictions on my land that would impact future owner’s rights to use the land as they wish. ___I would be willing to explore options that would loosely restrict my land use so that it may only be used in agricultural production in the future regardless of who owns it. ___I would be willing to explore options to have my land be part of preservation, conservation and or green space program with strict regulations regarding its use. ___It is difficult to maintain an agricultural way of life in Boone County due to economic pressures. Page 3 of 4
28
2.
Please RATE the following items as to what degree they would encourage or discourage you in participating in any program to preserve farmland. 1) Strongly Encourage 2) Moderately Encourage 3) Slightly Encourage 4) Slightly Discourage 5) Moderately Discourage 6) Strongly Discourage ___Financial incentives from conservation programs(e.g. Kentucky Cost Share). ___Participating in Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (P.A.C.E.) ___Participation in Grassland Reserve Program. ___Knowledge that farmland in Boone County is being preserved. ___Knowledge that your personal land will be farmed in perpetuity. ___Tax incentives regarding the Property Value Administrator (PVA) or other forms. ___Knowledge that farmland preservation will expose local children to the agricultural way of life. ___Preservation of farming culture/heritage in Boone County. ___Preservation of rural aesthetics in Boone County. ___Conservation of green space in Boone County. ___Farmland preservation will help encourage the revitalization of urban cores. ___Benefits to the environment/nature/wildlife. ___Improved ways to inherit farms. ___More and/or improved farmer’s markets. ___Restrictions placed on how land is used. ___Participating in a government program. ___Knowing the specifics of the program. ___Decreased autonomy. ___Potential decrease in land resale value. ___Belief that farming is becoming economically nonviable due to price of land, equipment etc. and rate of return. ___Decreased level of development growth in Boone County. ___Other_____________________________________________________________
Additional comments (If necessary, please attach extra paper) ___________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 4
29
Appendix III: Comments
I am totally opposed to any local, state or federal involvement in making, rules, laws or anything that imposes itself on my use of personal property. Opposed to the point of resisting in every legal manner available to me. You'll need to work on question 2. It is not at all clear. Your results will not be valid in my opinion. Questions do not apply Thank you for asking my opinions! Discourage the right of eminent domain There is no justification for the number of & high salaries of those within conservation district in positions that were once unpaid positions. The extension office itself consists of too many employees who are in conflict-of-interest because of participating in gov. programs themselves: same with conservation office. Comment regarding urbanization - You have already let the cat out of the bag Condo's. General comment regarding Farmland preservations - Deer Deer Deer Development with hiking trails and connection to stores to walk to - I like Triple crown & also Union on 42 to walk to Kroger-Walgreens-Library - Coffee & Ice cream - I enjoy walking, biking trails not on the road but blacktop path - like triple Crown or sidewalks like 42. Tax rate in Boone County out of control and is unfair. I wish my land was in Gallant County - They are more fair and have less government. Note regarding economic pressures - So true! Such as high taxes, county zoning laws, high price of land due to developers, size of building lots, need more tree farms. Comments: County should encourage and promote subdivisions such as "Idlewild Estates" 2 acres/3 acre/4 acre/5 acre lots Owning your own property whether farmed or not allows children to have common sense & the knowledge to survive off the land. I bother nobody and nobody bothers me. Where I am located I have good neighbors that know how to relax & be stress free from the hustle & bustle of the city. This alone increases the value of my home & the land because I have peace of mind and feel closer to God on what He has given to us (our freedom). I support personal independence from government restrictions, regulations etc. If you live on or at your home, you aren't going to do things to damage the land/water etc. Everyone should garden to some extent. Even if it is cutting a slit in a bag of topsoil and planting seeds from your deck or even a shed roof. Organic food improves health, encourage it. Some statements on back page; I did not fully understand. I am discouraged with farming in Boone Co. My taxes have risen drastically. I have to buy a business license and pay taxes on any income and yet they let industries coming into the county to be tax free. Comment from farmland preservation section: Taxes!!! Schools, Libraries etc. > Although important, grand foyers and copper domes seem unnecessary and wasteful.
30
31
We purchased our land to use as residential property but are constantly encouraging maintenance of green space and wildlife conservation. Almost 10 acres of our land is wooded. I believe the government needs to stay away from our farms. Farmers "real farmers" know their business. They know what to do with their property. They know how to market their goods and they know how to treat their land. The government needs to stay out of their lives. Too much land is going for Housing Development too many house and not enough on roads. Keep government out of private property Want my farm to be kept as is for my children & grandchildren & for wildlife preservation Keep government out of my business Don't need to raise taxes the pva does that!! Limit the growth lower property taxes Land is next to industrial park, know someday will be sold for industry Our small farm is being inundated with the tunnel bisects our property, and now East Kentucky Power Cooperative is claiming an easement. We have hired a lawyer but they have the power of eminent domain. We are disappointed at having little control over our land, which obviously favors developers Someone else cuts it for us. I would like to sell it to avoid problems when I die More farm land should be preserved by reducing all taxes and death tax Personal property rights are important Urban development & good clean farmland, work for both good future One of first of 8 farms in KY to sign up for (P.A.C.E.) In the future make the questioning a little easier to understand. The elder generation sometimes has trouble with comprehending the questions asked for example #2 above. I had my daughter to help me fill this form out. We bought our home in 2005 and use it as our personal residence, not a farm. We do greatly enjoy the wildlife that pass through our property - turkeys, deer, raccoons, rabbits, squirrels, possum, fox & coyote. We have about a one acre lake that is enjoyed by very large snapping turtles, herons, ducks & geese. We also see a wide variety of birds. There is not much flat land on our property, so it is not suited for farmland. About half of our property is wooded. We have a double cistern that we use for all our water, drinking water included. We are very conscious of water conservation. Farming is very important in the county, but there should not be any restrictions on what I do or what anyone else who owns the property does. I strongly oppose controls. Farming as an independent operator and owner is great and it should remain that way. Most (government programs) do not help small farmers. Not sure (about 2nd rating questions). I want the farmland to remain farmland Taxing farmers out of their lifestyle is unwise and unfair. Taxing landowners out of any potential to profit out of selling their property when necessary is also unfair.
Do not use for any more parks. Too much tax money used for parks. To stop this vote for Kathy Flaig My farm came from family as a land grant from rev. war. I do not want to lose it, nor be forced to sell because of property tax, which I see as excessive. The small family farm simply cannot compete as in years past, nor pay a salary to the owner. I am glad to see building come to a halt in these economic hard times. We are too old to consider farming our health would not allow I am for saving the green in Boone County. But strongly disagree with anyone telling a person what they can or cannot do with there own property. I have a conservation easement on my farm since 2000 - held by the Kentucky Heritage Council. Restrictions should not be put on property I own. Property owners should be permitted free autonomy on their land use and sale. The above is ambiguous and should have been worded better. At 80+ years - I'm here to live on the farm not control the farm at my death I am only a part time farmer on my own land. I believe the development in Boone County is out of control. Subdivisions are built before the infrastructure (roads, schools) are in place. There used to be a plan to keep Western Boone County undeveloped. It should stay that way. At minimum 5 acres per house. I would welcome participation in a preservation program but in no way forcing anyone to do anything with their land that they do not want to do. This is not government's right you'll catch more flies with sugar than vinegar - we are over governed as it is. Freedom! ***Other comments made in margins of survey*** need processing co-op program. Less government When my husband and I bought our house & the land at (removed address for anonymity) , we were pleased to live in a rural area even though it is more expensive. In recent years, the attitude of the Property Rights Advocates, Home Owner's group, even "tea party" advocates negate the idea of growing as a community and honoring Boone County's farming heritage. The rage, resentment and unwillingness to listen and compromise puts the ideas of preservation and conservation at risk. Instead of celebrating Boone County's unique heritage, these type of people want any form of government curtailed. This has impeded progress in developing any form of green space or at least promoting it (e.g. not passing the park tax, the elimination of the greenbelt plan). I'd like to help promote Boone Co. heritage. Tell me how! At 81 I just want to sell the land and move on. Boone County is no longer the peaceful farming community I grew up in. The loss of farmland is inevitable with loss of famers. Young people pursue better opportunities. Land in Boone County is too expensive to buy for general farming. Every year the number of farmers diminish nationally and especially here. I do not see when that will change. This farm was placed in trust for our family's future Question 2 was very confusing. Need to be redone so it can be understood
32
33
"I don't want any restrictions on how my land is currently used" is the most significant question. It’s too late for Boone Co. I like the idea of having farms conserved, but only if the owner wants to. Planning and zoning has changed growth plans and zoning classifications to allow unchecked development for years. I believe it is too late for a new way of thinking in Boone County. Infrastructure needs/requirements trail private development In today's economy, Boone County land is too expensive to purchase for beginning farmers. Therefore preservation of existing farms HAS to be a priority or Boone will become another Cincinnati. Incentives to help existing farms & recognition by county government of the important balance farms provide is a necessity if we are to keep farming as part of our heritage & culture. Please institute a farmland preservation program! Note - the wording of some questions does not lend itself to extensive understanding of future land value if such a program were initiated. More discussion is needed. Please bring water/sanitation to western Boone County - this is really hurting development - 3 miles out of downtown Burlington you enter an undeveloped zone - this is the county seat and this is 2010 (not the 1800's) My main interest is being able to save family farms in Boone County that are wishing to, so that they are not forced to sell. # 2 is not stated very clearly Boone Co. as a whole no longer supports farming or farmers. County gone to the way of homebuilders & big money! I enjoy the rural outdoor experience. That said, I am disinclined to promote government interference with property rights or evaluation of property. Conservation programs may yield the best results for everyone. We purchased our property to live on and raise horses and hay. I am strongly against government interference as to what farmers can & can't do. Too many restrictions are major concerns & have caused the farmers to seek other means of income in order to survive. Tobacco farming is a good example. I do not have enough land to be considered a serious farmer. I would like to grow strawberries for sale, or pasture horses. I do believe urban sprawl is a serious problem in Boone Co., as well as the entire Cincinnati area. My land is an Ohio River hillside, not suitable for farming. The land had bottomland until 1964 and now the Ohio River covers that acreage. I love the idea of conservation, however mine would be nature hikes, etc. not farmland. Thank you. Taxes are absolutely way too high for farmers to survive. We need incentives that will help farmers maintain & grow. While my property was originally part of a farm, the land is not going to be used as a farm again. We are on 16 acres, only agricultural use in the future maybe to raise horses. I believe that "NO ONE" should tell individuals/farmers what to do with their land. The county now owns land on the river that I understand is to be used for a park or model farm. I have not heard a thing about the model farm in the media or from candidates or
the elected. I am not sure what your concerns are. With resources such as what we have to (Landon River) work with and the public not being interested enough to vote for it, I wonder if anyone cares. Again model farm for a start. I have loved living on my farm and believe it is a great way of life. I encourage some preservation of farmland but can understand urban growth in this county. I doubt any of my kids (3) will farm but I know they enjoyed growing up on a farm. I deeply respect nature & farming and feel I have learned so much about life through it. I agree it is a necessity to preserve farms but realize that growth is inevitable!! Good luck & God bless!! My 3 children will decide when I'm gone. The current farmers market along KY 18 is way too expensive for a Farmer's market. If it was not funded by tax dollars the tenants would not be able to pay for it. Why not roadside stands & save taxpayers money. We are retired without any children and we plan on living the rest of our life in this place and leaving it to our nieces so we don't know what will happen to this place since we will be deceased When I retire from my full time job, I plan on doing more vegetable gardening to sell. Some of these sound like trick questions Boone County needs to control zoning & planning. This board is ruining the county and raising taxes. Also need new school board where education is given a high priority not field trips. I have a horse farm & the land all around me has been sold for industrial development. We have been trying to fight it for over 10 years without success. Boone County development, planning and zoning seems only to be interested in money. We used to have some of the most beautiful land in Boone County - now ruined by development that was NOT NEEDED. Don't value farmland for taxes just because they are surrounded by subdivisions with high-end value homes. I know it is difficult to slow down the amount of land that can be used in housing and commercial development, but unless this happens Boone County will lose its attraction to its open undeveloped spaces that make it a pleasant space to live. Growth in Boone County seems to have gotten out of control - too many warehouses (How many people actually work in these massive buildings?) All of the farms and wooded areas were destroyed forever to build concrete/asphalt, what? Also, what about the land turned to concrete and now basically unused at our CVG airport? More control in these areas would be beneficial for future farming. Many farms would and have sold for millions of dollars for commercial and subdivision growth - could they make that money farming? I hope that many of our real farmers, which I am not, will reply to this survey. I do not want more government - just common sense to keep Boone Co. beautiful and prosperous for everyone. Restrict home building/subdivisions in agricultural lands. The roads can not support the traffic. The wildlife deserves a place to live.
34
35
This land is for my use as agricultural and my children’s if they so choose with no strings attached from us as parents. And who knows what the future may hold. I may have to sell it off to live my life. I enjoy doing a little farming on my land. Growing what I can. My dad and I farmed in southern IN and had a big garden. I have always enjoyed it. It is important to preserve areas for wildlife as well as for future generations to enjoy the country. I would like to see homesteads sold in Boone County w/min of 3 acres to each home instead of the cluster housing. Areas that are surrounding an existing township (population of > 1,000) could have less restrictions. Preserve areas outside a 3 mile radius of city center for ag. I.E. Walton as an established city core, Verona could be kept ag. I do not feel this survey is applicable to my land. I purchased this land (15 acres) with a nice lake on it 38 years ago to live on. It was part of a dairy farm then. We enjoy the lake and green area around it. Yes I expect to make a profit when it it is sold and understand its limitations to farming because of the development around it. After these last 2 years - I do not think we need the government involved - already too involved. Too much - planning - zoning- regulations. Power companies have too much farmland. Cut taxes & gov't programs - less government intervention My farm is situated in the middle of a commercial zone. I and my family have lived here and farmed the land for 47 years. I love the land but live here alone and am no longer able to farm it on my own. However, I allow another farmer to cut, bale & use the grassland for hay. Also, my son raises some alfalfa on the farm & also another son sometimes raises a vegetable garden on part of the land. I hope to stay here as long as I am able and don't get taxed off of it. This land is already restricted Too many questions! If you are going to develop Boone County for use other than farms, such as residential, look to communities that have "plans" to restrict such development or to exert controls that would keep land values high! Look at how it is done in Indian Hill Ohio! If you lose the farms, at least it could be developed in a sensitive manner. You don't want tract housing! Or high density land use! Want to be left alone by the government. Allow open burning year round 24-7 My answer to most of above (2) would be "no affect" Farm for personal use - garden vegetables, etc. My son farm with me. He was 6 months when we moved here. I thought he would take the farm. He deceased in 2007. My wife of 51 years also 2007. I was a tenant farmer until my friends and neighbors sent me to service that was the end of my farming unless it was for me. I bought this farm in 1957. I work and farm since. I raise tobacco, corn and hogs, but that is history. This was probably the most productive 50 acres in Boone Co. with Tobacco and Hogs.
Our government is being manipulated by chemical companies and farming is and will continue to suffer and degrade from it. Small time farmers cannot afford the expensive equipment needed to manage hard pan soil and clay which is left when you don't plow and loosen the ground to make new top soil, as evidenced by wash-outs, ruts, and sink holes. I guess it won't matter really anyway since the inheritance tax will be so high that the land will have to be sold to pay the taxes. Wake up! I moved away from Boone Co. 20 years ago because of the high price of land. Most of my farming takes place in a nearby county where land was cheaper, but with the loss of the Tobacco Price Support Program it is very hard to pay the mortgage. The land that I farm in Boone Co. had belonged to my father. After he died my 2 sisters and I inherited it. They live too far away to take care of it, and I'm too far away to farm it profitably. The best solution for us is to sell the land for development and pay off debts. Even if I wanted to return to Boone Co. I couldn't afford to buy the land from my 2 sisters. In all honesty, Boone Co. is not home anymore, and I wouldn't return there to live. It would be nice to sell the farm to a rich horse farmer, but such a person would have to pay close to what a developer would pay (the farm is 110 ac). Sorry but marking of top part is confusing. I'm interested in checked items and would want more information on specifics and implications N/A My answer to most of above (2) would be "no affect" Property is just one of many investment options and it is not acceptable to place any restrictions on the use of that property that adversely affects its value for purposes of "green space" or conservation. If land is to be used for conservation or "green space" uses then it should be purchased at fair market value or leased. No restrictions should be placed on a property owner to benefit others in the county. Financial incentives - never enough for all- only enough aid for very few. (Note about family farm) Because eminent domain took farm for school & it was even on historical registry. (Note on ability to maintain agricultural way of life.) Such as taxes on farms recently increased drastically. Also think there should be a tax break for homes on these properties - some type of incentive to build nice houses on the farm. (General comment) Would love to see financial tax incentive & less environmental rules in place to help the farmer continue to farm. It is not a money making proposition, but feel it's important to preserve farmland, but without mandates or restrictions of it's use. It is difficult to answer many of these questions because many involve government involvement, incentive and restrictions. Due to the great inefficiency of our government, it leaves me unable to support many of the questions, I may agree with. With the government involved in this it will probably costly and ineffective. These are hard questions due to the way I feel personally about each person's right to do what they want with their land. I would love to see farms stay farms and stay in the families, but I also understand some one selling a farm to make big money. I am not a farmer cannot really answer these questions. I have horses for pleasure only. Do not buy and sell horses for profit.
36
Sources Cited Campbell County Conservation District. Help Decide the Future of Farming in Campbell County Farmland Survey November 2004 – Summary of Results. In house published, Burlington, Kentucky. 2005. Kenton County Farmland Working Group. The Kenton County Agriculture and Farmland Futures Project. In house published, Burlington, Kentucky. 2005. United States. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Agriculture: First and second series state reports, Statistics for counties: Farms and farm property, with related information for farms and farm operators, livestock and livestock products and crops. v1. p4. Washington: GPO. 1942. Zimmerman, Julie N. Agricultural Profile Boone County, Kentucky. Conducted for Boone County Conservation District. 2010.
37
Boone County Cost of Community Services Study
Prepared for the Boone County Conservation District
Completed by Alison F. Davis PhD Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Economics University of Kentucky June 23, 2010
Contact Information: Alison Davis 411 CE Barnhart Building Lexington, KY 40546 (859) 257-7260
[email protected]
-1-
Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Boone County officials who kindly contributed information and assistance in accordance with conducting this research. Cindy Rich, Boone County PVA Sheryl Jones, Boone County PVA Adam Howard, Boone County Fiscal Court Lisa Buerkley, Boone County Treasurer Mike Blevins, Boone County Board of Education Josh Quinn, Boone County Sheriff’s Office I also gratefully acknowledge Mary Kathryn Dickerson of the Boone County Conservation District who oversaw the research. Funding for this project came from Boone County Conservation District, through a grant from the Kentucky Soil and Water Commission.
-1-
I. Introduction Suburban sprawl is an issue that many urban/rural fringe communities are faced with today. Pressures on building “out” instead of “up” result in controversies about the development of vacant or agricultural land for residential development. Many communities in Kentucky that are located on the urban/rural fringe are faced with the debate over the desirable mix of land uses which eventually leads to the implementation to some degree of zoning regulations. The question remains what role should the local government play in affecting the rate at which new land uses transition from traditional ones? Areas with strong economic growth tend to face these issues more often than areas where growth is stagnant. Thus on the one hand, these development issues are desirable because it suggests higher incomes, more jobs, etc. On the other hand, individuals have a right to be concerned about the changing landscape if the rural lifestyle was what attracted residents in the first place. An important element of public debate over appropriate land use policies is whether or not increased local government expenditures on community services needed to accommodate residential and commercial development exceed the contribution of that development to the local revenue base. Often times a cost of community services (COCS) study is a tool that is used to address this question. A COCS study is essentially a case study of the net fiscal impacts of existing land uses on local budgets. It provides a snapshot in time of costs versus revenues based on current land use. COCS studies are based on a local budget for a particular year. The COCS study shows what services taxpayers receive from their local government and how local government revenues and expenditures relate to land use. The analysis presented for Boone County, KY employs a methodology established by the American Farmland Trust, one that has been used in hundreds of communities across the United States. The COCS study for Boone County will answer the important question: Do property taxes and other revenues generated by residential land uses exceed the amount of publicly-provided services required to them? There are very well known limitations to the COCS approach. The COCS is a static measure of the current pattern of land use. This study can not be used to predict how future changes in land use will affect the fiscal contributions and expenditures for a
-2-
given community. It is useful as a tool to address whether or not alternative types of land uses are likely to contribute more in tax dollars than they demand in services. In addition, the COCS study does not take into consideration the social value of each form of development. In Kentucky, residents place value on the existence of horse farms, not because they generate income for the majority of individuals but because people receive non-monetary benefits from knowing they exist. There are other mechanisms that can be used to determine the social value of certain land uses. For example, studies often employ a hedonic housing analysis that estimates the implicit price of certain amenities as a component of housing prices. In this particular example, one could include the distance to open spaces or horse farms to test if they have a positive impact on housing prices. For the purposes of the needs of a rapidly growing Boone County, a COCS study is the optimal starting point.
II.
Boone County, KY Background
Boone County is an interesting area to study for a COCS study. The majority of the COCS studies focus on regions that are on the fringe of urban development. However Boone County is urban itself and while it feeds into the larger Cincinnati MSA it is its own stand alone city with mature and thriving industries. This study was proposed because of the potential for further development, particularly residential development, in the region and the possible loss of farmland. Is this study necessary? Is it expected that Boone County will continue to grow at such a rate that new development is necessary to meet the demand of a growing population? Figure 1 provides an illustration that justifies the need for this study. The projected population growth rate suggests that by 2020 there were will be roughly 141,000 people residing in Boone County, compared to 115,000 that reside there now. If it is assumed that the housing supply in 1990 and 2000 met the housing demand, then by 2020 there would need to be approximately 58,000 housing units to accommodate the growing population. As a point of reference, in 2009 there were 39,312 residential units; this suggests a 50% increase in demand for new housing.
-3-
Figure 1 Project Population and Housing Supply
At the same time Boone County is not a bedroom community. The majority of residents (53%) work within the county suggesting that there is substantial industry within the county. As a point of reference, in the United States there are 0.022 business establishments per capita while in Boone County there are 0.024 business establishments per capita.1 Figure 2 provides an overview of employment by aggregated industry as well as projected employment. It is estimated that there will be a large increase in the number of service jobs over the next ten years with a moderate increase in the number of manufacturing, mining, and construction jobs. These projections suggest the growth of industry and the demand for space for new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses. Figure 3 suggests that while there has been a decline in farm employment since the 1980’s, it is projected that there will be a moderate increase in farm employment over the next several decades. These three figures imply that Boone County will be faced with some very important questions over the next decade. The expected growth in population, employment, and stable farm employment suggests that land is freely available and of course that simply is not true. Meeting the future demands of Boone County’s residents and employers requires careful strategic planning as early as possible. The COCS study is a tool that can be used to initiate discussion. 1
U.S. Census, County Business Pattern data, 2007
-4-
Figure 2 Employment by industry in Boone County
Figure 3 The Future of farming, forestry and fishing
-5-
III.
Methodology
There are a series of steps a researcher takes while completing a COCS. We will briefly identify each procedure and then discuss in more detail the specifics involved with completing each step.
Step 1: Define the land use categories in study area Step 2: Collect initial local data from budgets, interviews, reports Step 3: Calculate percentages for allocation of various costs and revenues Step 4: Allocate expenditures and revenues by land use category Step 5: Compute the cost-revenue ratios for each land use type
This COCS study focused on the county budget only because it represents revenues and expenditures for the largest portion of government services provided to residents living in Boone County. The study covers countywide services and includes every parcel of land in the county. As is common for COCS studies, the analysis does not include city and town services because the allocation of municipal budgets by land use would require separate studies beyond the scope of this effort. In addition, because municipalities typically contain very little farmland, a study of their services would only show residential and commercial land use revenues and expenditures. After a review of the county property tax classification system, three land use categories were defined for this study:
Residential Development – property used for dwellings, mobile homes, and rental units
Commercial and Industrial Development – property actively used for business purposes other than agricultural or forestry, includes retail, wholesale and production
Farmland – all farm and agricultural parcels, includes residences on farms.
Interviews were conducted with county officials to obtain relevant information and to collect necessary documents. The Boone County 2009 annual financial report was used for this study and it contains services provided by all county departments including: general government, judicial administration, public safety (including fire) , public works,
-6-
the library, and the county Cooperative Extension Service. Every line in the budget was reviewed to gain an understanding of the nature of services provided by county governments. Information from county financial documents for 2009 for both general and special funds were entered into spreadsheets and allocated by land use. General fund services to county residents and businesses include: general government, administration of justice, public safety, public health and welfare, and other operations such as parks and recreation. Special funds include the public library, highways and public works, general debt service, capital projects, Cooperative Extension, and education. Officials were interviewed to determine how revenue was generated by land use and to what extent each land use was served by public services. As a result, all 2009 revenues and expenditures were allocated to land use categories based on the information gathered from reports and interviews. In some instances and understandably so, officials could not provide an exact percentage of how revenues and expenditures were allocated across land uses. When this occurred fall back percentages were used. Fall-back percentages are defined as distributing costs or revenues by land use using best estimates (using data from previous studies or the distribution of land use within the regions. These fall-back percentages were carefully determined by examining other COCS studies in surrounding counties as well as studies from around the country.
IV.
Boone County Revenues
Revenues under the Boone County general fund consist of local, state, and federal sources. Local sources include general property taxes, occupational license taxes, personal property taxes and miscellaneous business taxes. Table 1 provides an overview of the 2009 Boone County Property Assessment and the modifications in the assessment that were completed to determine the percentage of property tax revenue collected from each type of land use. The residential sector as mentioned includes any property used for dwellings, including mobile homes. Houses on farm properties were about 51% of the total assessed farmland. This is important to mention as we must include the service demands for farm residences in addition to non-farm residences. This suggests that houses on farms are included as a part of the agricultural land category. Commercial and
-7-
industrial development includes the value of commercial, industrial, telecommunication and leasehold interests. In order to assess property at market value, the PVA utilizes a computer assisted mass appraisal system (CAMA) and considers all three approaches to value: the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income approach. In 2009, there was a little over $10 billion in assessed property in the county. The land use contribution of property taxes resulted in the following:
55.9% from residential development;
39.1% from commercial and industrial development; and
5% from farm and agricultural land.
Other local taxes, such as personal property taxes, bank franchise property taxes, and franchise real and personal property taxes were all included as commercial revenue. Occupational license taxes were allocated such that 1% of the revenue was categorized as agriculture and the remaining 99% was split 50/50 between residential and commercial. This category is difficult to deem as being completely residential or completely commercial because without workers there wouldn’t be a lot of businesses and thus there would be very few taxes collected. In addition without businesses there would be very few workers and again very few taxes collected. After speaking with the Boone County Treasurer, the 50/50 split seemed to be the most appropriate allocation.
Table 1 2009 Boone County Property Assessment
Boone County Property Assessment COCS Study Adjustment Land Use Assessed Value Residential Commercial Farmland Residential $5,909,245,929 $5,663,034,109 $246,211,820 Commercial $3,957,977,406 $3,957,977,406 Agricultural $257,152,430 $257,152,430 Total Real Estate $10,124,375,765 $5,663,034,109 $3,957,977,406 $503,364,250 Percentage of Total Assessed Value 55.9% 39.1% 5.0%
There are two school systems within Boone County: Boone County and WaltonVerona Independent. Within the Boone County school district, the property tax rate for the school system is the same, approximately $.539 per $100 of taxable value. In the Walton-Verona Independent school district the school tax rate is 1.006 per $100 of assessed taxable value. For properties located within the Boone County school district,
-8-
we used the breakdown of 55.9 % residential, 39.1 % commercial and 5% farmland to calculate school based property tax revenues. After discussion with the Boone County PVA office, it was estimated that the breakdown of development for those properties in the Walton-Verona Independent school district should be 87.59% residential, 7.41% commercial, and 5% farmland. In addition other local school fund revenues were collected from occupational licenses taxes. All of these taxes were considered residential.
Table 2 School Revenues by Land Use Category
Total Revenues
Residential
Commercial
Agriculture
$150,172,984
$98,136,587
$47,023,088
$ 5,013,308
$13,149,775
$10,665,604
$2,112,389
$371,782
$163,322,759
$108,802,191
$49,135,477
$5,385,090
Boone County School District W-V Independent School District Total Boone Co School System
Table 2 illustrates a summary of the breakdown of the revenues generated for the school system with the full details included in the appendix. State and federal government grants were allocated according to the type of program that received the income, because the revenue was provided to pay for specific services. The list of revenues collected by the county is provided in entirety in the appendix along with the allocation of those revenues across land use categories.
-9-
Boone County Revenues Jail Fund Revenues 2% Public Safety Fund 2%
Public Works Fund 1%
School System 72%
General Fund 18%
Cooperative Extension 1% Library 4%
Figure 4 2009 Boone County Revenues
By the end of Fiscal Year 2009, $221,316,948 was collected in revenue in Boone County. It was estimated that 64.3% of the total revenues were generated by residential development, 33.1% by commercial development and 3% by farmland. Figure 4 provides a breakdown of county revenues by fund.
V.
Boone County Expenditures
County officials and department heads were interviewed to determine how county expenditures should be allocated to the three land use categories. Court expenses were allocated by reviewing court dockets. Several service expenditures were clearly residential, including libraries, parks, and public transportation. Any expenditures that were related to economic and community development were allocated to commercial land. All education expenditures, including operating, debt service, and capital projects were included as residential. Soil conservation and the Cooperative Extension Service had significant portions of expenditures allocated to agricultural land use. In many instances, we relied on a local official’s best guess of how their department’s efforts were allocated. If an agency representative was unable or unreachable to make an estimate, we relied on default allocations. The full list of expenditures broken down by land use - 10 -
category can also be found in the appendix. Figure 5 provides a breakdown of county revenues by fund. It is important to remember that a large portion of the agricultural expenditures are due to the existence of residential buildings on the farmland. If a farmland property does not contain a residence its demand for services is quite small but the existence of a residence suggests that individuals need services related to education, health, legal, etc.
Figure 5 2009 Boone County Expenditures
VI.
Results
After allocating all revenues and expenditures among the land use types, the revenues and expenditures were summed for each of the three land use categories. The total net surplus or deficit was calculated for each land use category. Figures 6 and 7 reveal the final - 11 -
breakdown of revenues and expenditures by land use category. In total, 64.8% of Boone County revenues were generated by residential development, 32.3% by commercial development and 2.9% by farmland. These results are consistent with findings from comparable COCS studies. In contrast, 93.9% of all Boone County expenditures were used for residential purposes, 5% for commercial purposes and 1.1% for agricultural purposes.
Agriculture 2.9%
Commercial 32.3%
Residential 64.8%
Figure 6 Revenues by land use category
Commercial 5.0%
Agriculture 1.1%
Residential 93.9%
Figure 7 Expenditures by land use category
If the two pie charts above were positioned on top of each other, it would be possible to see the relationship between what was paid in and what was paid out by land use category. Obviously, a smaller percentage was paid in by the residential category than was received. While agriculture does not contribute to a large share of the revenues, - 12 -
they receive an even smaller share of the expenditures. Boone County is a unique location to complete this study because it is already relatively developed compared to more rural areas where there is a growing, but small, commercial sector. In Boone County, the commercial sector plays a large role in generating revenues. In return, they receive only a small share of the services the county provides. Table 3 provides a summary of the findings from this study. The net contributions detail either the excess or shortage of revenues to expenditures. As expected from the illustrations provided in Figures 6 and 7, the residential category does not pay for itself. The services they are provided are essentially subsidized from the two other land use groups. The last line in Table 3 is the number provided to conclude all COCS studies. These expenditure-to-revenue ratios suggest that, for example, for every $1 in property tax and other revenues generated by the residential sector, the county spends $1.42 to provide services supporting those land uses. In other words, the residential sector is a net user of local public finances. Both the commercial and agriculture sector have ratios that are less than 1. This suggests that for every dollar in revenues attributable to these two land uses, less than a $1 in services benefits them. In Boone County, and in many other studies, the ratio for the commercial sector is smaller than the agricultural sector. This is largely due to the fact that the commercial sector is responsible for a large share of the tax base. Table 3 Boone County COCS Study Findings
All County Funds FY 2009 actual a) Total Revenues $ 228,687,932 b) Total Expenditures $ 224,156,332 Net Contribution a-b Percent of Revenue by Land Use Percent of Expenditures by land use Land use Ratio
Residential $ 148,133,714 $ 210,577,696 $ (62,443,982) 64.78% 93.94% 1.42
Commercial $ 73,934,183 $ 11,171,719 $ 62,762,464 32.33% 4.98% 0.15
Farmland $ 6,600,937 $ 2,408,424 $ 4,192,512 2.89% 1.07% 0.36
Figure 8 serves as a point of reference of how the estimated Boone County COCS study ratios compare to previous studies. The median residential ratio from a collection of other studies is approximately 1.15 compared to 1.42 in Boone County. The median commercial ratio for the other studies is 0.37 compared to 0.15 in Boone County. This difference is expected and is largely attributable to the substantial commercial base in
- 13 -
Boone County and its’ relative contributions to the tax base. Finally the median farmland ratio from the other studies is 0.28 as compared to 0.36 for Boone County. The range of COCS ratios that was collected from 70 COCS studies conducted nationwide is provided
Cost of services per dollar of revenue raised
below in Table 4.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 Median Value
0.8
Boone County
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Residential
Commercial
Farmland
Land Use Type
Figure 8 Boone County Cost of Community Services Results Table 4 Expenditure/Revenue Ratios from Nationwide COCS studies
Residential
Commercial
Farmland
Minimum
1.02
0.02
0.05
Median
1.15
0.37
0.28
Maximum
2.12
0.94
0.97
VII.
Discussion
The main finding of this study is that farmland and commercial land uses subsidize residential land uses in Boone County. This is consistent with virtually every COCS study that has been completed in the United States. The degree of cross-subsidization of the residential sector is somewhat higher than has been found in most other studies. This
2
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_8-04.pdf
- 14 -
can be explained by two factors. First, there is a large commercial base in Boone County and businesses are responsible for paying a significant share of property taxes in addition to employing workers that pay occupational license taxes. Second, the school system in Boone County is a significant source of expenditures and those services are considered as purely residential benefits. The value of public services provided to residential land uses exceeds the property tax and other revenues that they might contribute to the budget. The results from this study suggest that claims that residential development is a benefit to county finances due to its expansion of the property tax base are not accurate. Commercial land use emerges as the largest contributor to local financial resources. Agricultural land use is neither a large contributor nor a large recipient of tax dollars. In the end farmland only receives about one-third of the tax dollars, in terms of public services, that they contribute. It was expected, based on other studies as well as the current level of commercial services in Boone County, that there would be some degree of subsidization of residential land use. The results from this study should not be used to conclude whether the current distribution of land use, or proposed future land use mix, is appropriate. Instead, this study should serve as a resource when faced with future land use decisions about the relative cost of development. In addition, this study should be used to support the notion that, in addition to the other benefits of agricultural lands not addressed in this study including contributing to the rural character of the county, these lands are more than selfsupporting the local public financial resources.
- 15 -
Appendix All Revenues Total Revenues General Fund Total Taxes Other General Fund Revenues Total General Fund Revenues Public Works Revenues Public Safety Operating Fund Public Safety Capital Fund LGEA Fund MH/MR Fund Revenues Jail Fund Revenues Public School System Boone County Walton Verona Independent Total School System Other County Services Library Local Funds State, Fed and other Funds Total Library Revenues Cooperative Extension Taxes Charges Other Revenue Interest Earned Total Extension Revenues
Total Revenues % Revenues
- 16 -
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
$33,037,122 $7,324,483
$15,431,045 $4,745,370
$16,861,552 $2,491,627
$744,525 $87,486
$40,361,605 $2,872,307
$20,176,415 $1,510,744
$19,353,179 $1,241,419
$832,011 $120,144
$2,407,290 $1,928,756 $136,994 $2,048,333 $4,683,740
$2,407,290 $1,448,616
$479,320 $136,994
$820
$2,047,771 $4,098,175
$571,107
$562 $14,457
$150,172,984 $13,149,775 $163,322,759
$98,136,587 $10,665,604 $108,802,191
$47,023,088 $2,112,389 $49,135,477
$5,013,308 $371,782 $5,385,090
$7,218,413 $1,198,784 $8,417,197
$5,348,844 $888,299 $6,237,143
$1,761,293 $292,503 $2,053,796
$108,276 $17,982 $126,258
$2,387,159 $844 $33,829 $87,119 $2,508,951
$1,315,325 $422 $25,067 $64,555 $1,405,369
$933,379 $8,254 $21,257 $962,890
$138,455 $422 $507 $1,307 $140,691
$228,687,932
$148,133,714
$3,934,183
$6,620,034
64.78%
32.33%
2.89%
All Expenditures General Fund Expenditures Public Works Expenditures Public Safety Capital Fund Public Safety Operating Fund Jail Fund Expenditures LGEA Fund MH/MR Fund Expenditures
Total Expenditures $39,025,289 $5,023,328 $991,293 $2,387,208 $4,602,744 $90,822 $2,301,560
Residential $29,263,990 $3,742,379 $738,513 $1,694,918 $4,110,250
Commercial $8,595,589 $1,265,879 $249,806 $596,802 $372,822 $90,822
Agricultural $1,165,711 $16,577 $2,974 $95,488 $119,671
$2,301,560
Public School System Boone County Walton Verona Independent
$147,126,849 $12,352,986
$147,126,849 $12,352,986
$159,479,835
$159,479,835
$8,601,789
$8,601,789
Personnel
$844,144
$329,216
$514,928
Operations
$733,327
$285,998
$447,329
$74,993
$29,247
$45,746
$1,652,464
$644,461
$1,008,003
$224,156,332
$210,577,696
$11,171,719
$2,408,424
93.94%
4.98%
1.07%
Total School System
Other County Services Total Library Expenditures Cooperative Extension
Capital Outlay Total Extension Expenditures
Total Expenditures Percent Expenditures
- 17 -
General Fund Revenues Real Estate Tax Personal property Tax Motor Vehicle Tax Delinquent Property Tax Bank Franchise Deposit Tax Franchise Real Property Tax Franchise Personal Property Tax Deed transfer Tax Net Profit Tax Occupational License Tax Total Taxes Total In Lieu Tax Payments County Attorney Excess Co Clerk Excess Fee Sheriff Excess Fee Total Excess Fee Business License Beer/liquor License Building Permits Cable TV Franchise Fee Omitted Property Tax Inter-co Motor Vehicle Tax Election Expense BD of Assessment Appeals Legal process tax AOC Courthouse Rentals Contract with other counties EM Reimbursement AOC Telephone Reimbursement Court Facility Fee Parks and Recreation Fees Swimming Pool Fees Animal control sales Spay Neuter violations Data Processing Services Water System Surcharge Sewer System Surcharge Postage Reimbursement EM Violation Clean up fees Arboretum Maintenance Other charges Surplus Property Sales Assisted Housing lease Walton Fire Dept Lease NKY Health District Lease Board of Ed/Facility Lease
- 18 -
Residential $5,310,367 $923,421 $63,302
$256,906 $8,877,049 $15,431,045 $96,639 $217 $485,784 $447,744 -
$384,914 $315,341 $168,346 $151,641 $24,000 $292 $455 $405,847 $27,338 $13,308 $40,522 $341,629 $271,065 $61,245 $130,913 $530 $99,956 $186,520 $11,149 $20,970 $29,906 $131,575 $875.53 $9,367.7
Commercial $3,714,407 $1,716,542 $246,246 $44,278 $251,104 $280,922 $900,058 $179,697 $651,250 $8,877,049 $16,861,552 $76 $171,257 $157,847 $239,632 $83,092 $128,305 $105,114 $117,752 $103 $88,547 $9,638 $4,692 $120,437 $35,238 $3,807 $228 $7,393 $10,543 $309 $3,302 $29,370 $25,395 $54,925 $57,209
Agricultural $474,988 $61,561 $5,662 $22,979 $179,334 $744,525 $6 $12,661 $11,670 $15,058 $8 $713 $347 $8,904 $12,328 $2,785 $5,954 $24 $2,605
$547 $779 $23 $244 -
Boone County CASA Lease Valley Orchards Lease Children's home of NKY Lease Brighton Center Lease Commonwealth Attorney Lease Petersburg Fire Dept Big Bone Landing Lease Reimbursements MH/MR Aging Admin Reimbursement Health District Grant HUD Admin Reimbursement Animal Shelter Donations $11,806 Heritage Council Grant $7,000.00 Preserve America Grant $22,323 FEMA grant $39,641 Non public school Trans Grant $429,587 Senate Bill 66 $5,684 Dead Livestock Grant Wildlife Grant FEMA Grant $1,097 LIFT Grant $13,000 Due Community grant $2,500 Senior Plus Grant $26,269 Health District Grant $196,451 Defined benefits Grant $25,000 Chalk Art Festival Donations $4,932 Misc Revenues $4,411 Workers comp Reimbursement $1,348 Payroll Tax Collection Fees Airport Parking Fines $4,900 Interest on Deposits $91,269 Interest on Bonds $63 Total Operating Revenues $4,745,370 Total Taxes $15,431,045 Total GF Revenue $20,176,415
Percent Allocation
- 19 -
49.98%
$5,640 $18,900 $33,359 $6,600 $49,489 $196,991 $188 $497 $200,585 $40,000 $9,586 $14,018 $3,976 $388 $400,974 $56,189 $38 $2,491,627 $16,861,552 $19,353,179 47.95%
$536.92 $1,969 $508 $1,095 $3,623.00 $55 $224.29 $200.62 $61.29 $4,556 $3 $87,486 $744,525 $832,011 2.06%
General Fund Expenditures Judge Executive office County Attorney County Clerk Coroner Fiscal Court PVA County Treasurer/Finance Human Resources Information Systems Election commission Property Maintenance Justice Center Juvenile Detention Sheriff Building Code Enforcement Water Rescue Emergency Management Public Defender Animal Care and Control Human Services Parks Union Pool Debt Service Audit Services Consultants Transit Authority of NKY Incompetency proceedings BC Soil Conservation Boone Co-Bus/Non Public Walter Bus/Non public Boone Co planning commission Planning and Zoning GIS Public Safety Communications NKADD OKI NKY Regional Hazmat Unit Division of Forestry Nky Drug Strike Force Evaluation and Testing Fiscal Agent Charges Legal Fees Other contracted services Storm Water Management Bank Charges Dinsmore Foundation Fire Dept Burlington
- 20 -
Residential $277,477 $92,046 $53,052 $89,453 $148,592 $99,790 $406,414 $144,653 $469,613 $110,381 $633,321 $308,299 $7,426 $8,121,912 $403,075 $57,614 $238,980 $10,281 $485,440 $446,729 $1,722,503 $84,286 $989,246 $34,880 $1,443 $3,398,036 $ 3,587 $ 52,571 $583,465 $19,869 $272,742 $111,040 $1,579,667 $4,298 $95,650 $27,713 $846 $8,966 $28,552 $11,449 $21,389 $43,856 $9,778
Commercial $98,126 $32,551 $18,761 $52,547 $69,799 $143,722 $51,154 $166,072 $39,035 $223,964 $109,025 $2,747,278 $142,541 $80,836 $349,832 $7,418 $510 $95,106 $38,720 $143,284 $23,410 $37,112 $4,751 $9,800 $129 $1,364 $4,340 $17,758 $3,257 $3,308
Agriculture $13,784 $4,573 $2,635 $4,068 $7,382 $8,926 $20,190 $7,186 $23,329 $5,483 $31,462 $15,315 $338 $32,706 $20,024 $2,620 $962 $468 $22,077 $20,316 $78,337 $3,833 $49,143 $3,778 $72 $163 $22,530 $26,535 $904 $25,152 $10,240 $ 45,993 $1,244 $4,350.00 $1,377 $25 $260 $826 $619 $1,994 $39
Dan Beard Council Fire/EMS Grant Fire Chiefs Association Civil Air Patrol Boone Co. Urban Forestry Bond/Liability Insurance Insurance Claims Postal Charges Utilities Bond Payments and Lease Payments Fringe Benefits Retirement Insurance Unemployment Insurance Workers Comp Total General Fund Expenditures
- 21 -
$4,304 $7,576 $28,493 $1,179 $321,380 $93,261 $337,225
$2,563 $5,873 $243 $67,419 $19,564 $88,291 $119,254
$196 $31 $1,885 $78 $9,275 $118,110 $34,274 $16,752
$4,343,063 $402,640 $757,845 $991,676 $34,731 $230,238
$3,037,813 $89,795 $169,012 $221,160 $7,746 $51,347
$388,467 $12,558 $23,636 $30,929 $1,083 $7,181
$29,263,990
$8,595,589
$1,165,711
School Revenues Boone County Local Tax Other Local Revenue Total Local Revenue Total State Revenue Federal Other Total 567 Walton Verona Independent Local Tax Other Local Revenue Total Local Revenue Total State Revenue Federal Other Total
- 22 -
Residential $45,699,547 $6,707,832 $52,407,379 $37,651,548 $7,483,272 $594,388 $98,136,587
Commercial $31,965,157 $31,965,157 $12,398,081 $2,464,127 $195,723 $47,023,088 -
Agriculture $4,087,616 $4,087,616 $762,177 $151,483 $12,032 $5,013,308 -
Residential $4,662,697 $783,994 $5,446,691 $4,661,581 $537,235 $20,097 $10,665,604
Commercial $393,881 $393,881 $1,534,988 $176,903 $6,618 $2,112,389
Agriculture $266,136 $266,136 $94,364 $10,875 $407 $371,782
Jail Fund Revenues and Expenditures Jail Fund Jail payments and fees Jail Work Release Jail Prisoner Reimbursement Jail medical fees Jail housing fees Telephone commission Reimbursements Misc revenue Interest on Deposits Total Jail Fund Revenues
Residential $ 3,308,175 $ 42,774 $ 61,875 $ 9,704 $ 132,703 $ 139,566 $ 15 $ 14,199 $ 4,773 $ 3,713,783
Commercial $ 867,233 $ 42,774 $ 3,497 $ 1,175 $ 914,679
Agriculture $ 54,995 $ 211 $ 71 $ 55,278
Jail Fund Expenditures Elected County officials Office staff Overtime pay Temp part time Rentals Other contracted services Building maint supplies Food Linens Office supplies Prisoner clothing Uniforms Dental services Medical supplies Memberships Printing Registration Utilities Maintenance and repairs Other equipment Social Security Retirement Insurance Total Jail Fund Expenditures
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
- 23 -
92,858 1,310,121 53,620 370,434 5,466 60,044 113,385 618,869 10,787 39,090 13,294 18,957 5,883 258,989 2,115 1,479 16,199 275,187 33,755 12,356 128,029 423,600 245,732 4,110,250
8,423 118,835 4,864 33,600 496 5,446 10,285 56,135 978 3,546 1,206 1,720 534 23,492 192 134 1,469 24,961 3,062 1,121 11,613 38,423 22,289 372,822
2,704 38,145 1,561 10,785 159 1,748 3,301 18,019 314 1,138 387 552 171 7,541 62 43 472 8,012 983 360 3,728 12,333 7,155 119,671
Public Works Revenue Permit/Inspection State Grants Transportation Projects Truck License Distribution Vehicle Operation Aid County Road Aid Municipal Road Aid Contract with Other Counties Misc Payments Landfill User Road Maint/Improvements Surplus Property Sales Road material Sales Vehicle maintenance Recycling Bond Money Reimbursement Misc Revenues Interest on Deposits Total PW Revenues Public Works Expenditures Statutory Appointments Office staff Overtime Pay Temp Part time Contracted Srvs Highway Contracted Srvs Ktc Contracted Srvs Sewers Engineering Services Maintenance Agreement Maintenance and Repairs Program Support Rentals Solid Waste State Cleanup Program Other Contracted Services Asphalt Building Maintenance Supplies Concrete Crushed Stone and Gravel Gasoline General Construction Storm Sewer materials Motor Vehicle Parts Office Supplies Petroleum Products Pipe
- 24 -
Residential $ 17,120 $ 9,503 $ 268,147 $ 208,767 $ 5,982 $ 477,494 $ 415,300 $ 16,770 $ 63,514 $ 62,677 $ 24,468 $ 2,288 $ $ 129,248 $ 4,388 $ $ 9,219 $ 4,626 $1,510,744
Commercial
Agricultural
$ 11,975 $ 6,647 $ 187,559
$ 1,531 $ 850 $ 23,985
$ 4,184 $ 333,989 $ 290,487 $ 11,730 $ 44,426 $ 43,840 $ 8,157 $ 762 $ 32,995 $ 43,082 $ 1,097 $ 5,500 $ 2,986 $ 3,236 $1,241,419
$ 535 $ 42,710 $ 37,147 $ 1,500 $ 5,681 $ 5,606 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 186 $ 414 $120,144
$ 49,981 $1,042,406 $ 139,444 $ 36,317 $ 365,862 $ 244,960 $ 24,792 $ 13,422 $ 5,756 $ 27,579 $ 8,100 $ 22,641 $ 82,917 $ 8,154 $ 33,312 $ 50,645 $ 1,877 $ 37,340 $ 25,280 $ 36,400 $ 7,933 $ 21,168 $ 114,704 $ 3,471 $ 9,513 $ 9,950
$ 34,960 $ 729,125 $ 97,536 $ 25,402 $ 255,907 $ 171,341 $ 17,341 $ 9,388 $ 4,026 $ 19,290 $ 5,666 $ 15,837 $ 57,997 $ 5,704 $ 23,301 $ 35,425 $ 1,313 $ 26,118 $ 17,683 $ 25,461 $ 5,549 $ 14,806 $ 80,231 $ 2,428 $ 6,654 $ 6,959
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
4,471 93,239 12,473 3,248 32,725 21,911 2,218 1,201 515 2,467 725 2,025 7,417 729 2,980 4,530 168 3,340 2,261 3,256 710 1,893 10,260 311 851 890
Signs Salt Tools Tires and Lubes Uniforms Memberships Printing, Stationery Registration Conferences Utilities Maintenance and Repairs Safety Program Communication Equipment Other Equipment Interest on Bonds Total Public Works Expenditures
- 25 -
$ 37,693 $ 178,021 $ 6,362 $ 20,084 $ 11,206 $ 4,132 $ 349 $ 5,631 $ 24,756 $ 385 $ 1,831 $ 818 $ 13,010 $ 79,836
$ 26,365 $ 124,519 $ 4,450 $ 14,048 $ 7,838 $ 2,890 $ 244 $ 3,939 $ 17,316 $ 269 $ 1,281 $ 572 $ 9,100 $ 55,843
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
3,372 15,923 569 1,796 1,002 370 31 504 2,214 34 164 73 1,164 7,141
$2,808,040
$1,964,121
$251,166
The Boone County Conservation District gratefully acknowledges all those who helped in any way with the preparation of this study. This study would not have been possible without the support of the Kentucky Division of Conservation, Stephen Coleman, Director; and the Kentucky Soil and Water Commission. We also wish to thank the Boone County Fiscal Court for their support. Boone County Farm Initiative Members Rose Bunger, Chair Toni Bessler Jerry Brown Thomas E. Comte Mary Kathryn Dickerson Bruce Gaskins Lynn Griffith Sarah Hume Kim Kinman Bob Maurer Debra W. Messer Linda Salsbury Collin Taylor John Terlau James B. Walton
