CRAVEN COUNTY
Cost of Community Services Study
Prepared by
Lois G. Britt Agribusiness Center
December, 2014
This project was funded by the North
Carolina Agricultural Development
and Farmland Preservation Trust
Fund
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-1-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Acknowledgements
The Craven County Cost of Community Services study was written by
Kathy T. Best. Dr. Best received a Ph.D. in economics from North Carolina
State University and is licensed by the state of North Carolina as a certified
public accountant.
Sandy Maddox, director of the Lois G. Britt Agribusiness Center at The
University of Mount Olive, assisted with necessary research and editing of
the study. Dr. Maddox has more than 30 years of experience in agriculture.
In addition to American Farmland Trust, the following agencies and
individuals were instrumental in development of the Craven County Cost of
Community Services study:
Craven County Government Offices
Jack B. Veit III county manager
Don Baumgardner, director of planning and inspections
Timothy Down, economic and physical development
Kent G. Flowers, Jr., social services
Kathleen Gallman, dean of health programs, Craven Community College
Eddie Games, culture and recreation
Scott Harrelson, health department
Mary Harris, director, New Bern Riverfront Convention Center
Casandra Hunsucker, librarian
Christine Kaine, marketing analyst, economic development
Glenn Reaves, assistant superintendent of schools
Ray Silverthorne, environmental protection
Craven County Cooperative Extension
Mike Carroll, extension agent
Tom Glasgow, county extension director
Craven County Tax Department
Ronald V. Antry, tax administrator
Craven County Finance Office
Rick Hemphill, finance director
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-2-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ……………………………………… 3
Introduction ………………………………………………. 5
Cost of Community Service Studies……………………… 6
Findings ………………. ……………………………........ 12
Discussion ……………………………………………….. 14
A Profile of Craven County………………………………. 17
Agriculture in Craven County……………………………. 24
Literature Cited ………………………………………….. 29
Appendix: Supporting Tables …………………………… i-ix
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-3-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Executive Summary
American Farmland Trust first introduced the idea of Cost of Community
Services (COCS) studies because agricultural land was converted to
development more often than any other type of land. With that in mind, this
COCS study was conducted in order to determine the public service costs
versus revenues based on current land uses in Craven County, North
Carolina.
1
Revenues and expenditures were analyzed on a land use basis for
fiscal year 2013 (July 2012 to June 2013) in order to compare the overall
contribution of agricultural lands with residential, commercial and industrial
development.
The County budget was used as the source of data because it represents
revenues and expenditures for the largest portion of government services
provided to residents. This COCS study demonstrates the following
outcomes for the fiscal year 2012-13:
For each $1 of revenue received from residential properties in fiscal
year 2013, Craven County spent $1.10 in providing services to those
properties.
For each $1 of revenue from commercial land uses, the County spent
33 cents.
And for each $1 received from farmland, the county spent 20 cents to
provide essential services.
Residential land uses created a deficit of $11.4 million, while the other two
land use categories generated surpluses: $9.85 million from commercial and
$2.2 million from farmland (Table 1).
1
The land category designations are the following:
• Working and open lands includes farms, forests and open space.
• Commercial and Industrial are combined and includes firms.
• Residential development includes all housing, including rentals.
Note also that in the event there was evidence of a migrant agricultural work force, temporary housing for
these workers was considered part of agricultural land use. Additionally, the farm business has been
separated from the farm residence, with the property value of farm residences assessed in the same manner
as any other residences. Therefore farm residences would be included in the residential land use category.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-4-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
While residential development contributes the largest amount of revenue,
$114.2 million, its net fiscal impact is negative. Commercial and farmland
generated significant revenue from property taxes as well as charges for
services, enough net revenue in fact to offset the shortfall created by
residential development.
Agricultural lands pay more in local tax revenues than they receive in
services. Differential property tax programs are justified as a way to provide
an incentive to keep land open and in active agricultural use. Even with the
present-use value taxes, agricultural properties contribute a surplus of
revenue that contributes to public services for Craven County residents.
2
Table 1. Craven County Cost of Community Services Study Findings
Craven County FY 2013
Actual
Residential Commercial Farmland
Total Revenues $ 131,546,428
$ 114,163,636
$ 14,592,385
$ 2,790,407
Total
Expenditures
$ 130,884,497 $ 125,595,432
$ 4,743,045 $ 546,020
Net contribution $ 661,931 ($ 11,431,796) $ 9,849,340 $ 2,244,387
Land use ratio* –
Expenses/Revenue
$1: $1.10 $1: $0.33 $1: $0.20
*For each $1 of revenue generated, the cost of services provided.
2
Present-Use Value, or PUV, is a program established by N.C.G.S. §§ 105—277.2 to .7 and administered
by the county tax assessor through which qualifying property can be assessed, for property tax purposes,
based on its use as agricultural, horticultural or forest land. The present-use value is the value of the land
based solely on its ability to produce income. Qualifying property is assessed at its present-use value rather
than its market value. The tax office also maintains a market value for the land. The difference between the
market value and the present-use value is maintained in the tax records as deferred taxes. When land
becomes disqualified from the program, the deferred taxes for the current and three previous years with
interest will usually become payable and due. (Lawrence, Grace. Craven County Agricultural Development
Plan, 2011).
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-5-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Introduction
Most communities fail to realize that saving land saves money. While
residents demand expensive public services and infrastructure, privately-
owned working lands enhance community character and quality of life
without requiring significant public expenditures. Their fiscal contributions
typically are overlooked, but like other commercial and industrial land uses,
agricultural (farm, ranch and forest) lands generate surplus revenues that
play an essential role in balancing community budgets. This, perhaps, is the
most important lesson learned from Cost of Community Services (COCS)
studies.
Numerous COCS studies have been completed by a variety of researchers
around the country for cities and rural communities. The maximum, median,
and minimum ratios of local government revenues-to-
expenditures collected
from these studies are shown in Table 4 of the Appendix. The median ratio
states that for every dollar the county generates from the residential
category, it spends $1.16 in services. The commercial/industrial and
farm/forestland categories show that, on average, the government receives
more than it spends and therefore, these land uses create a surplus. These
numbers show the fallacy of depending on residential development as the
road to a sound growth policy. Residential development has not generated
sufficient revenue to cover its associated expenditures in even one instance
of various NC county studies or other county studies across the nation.
American Farmland Trust developed this low-cost fiscal analysis to
contribute local knowledge to decisions about land use. The purpose of this
research is not to suggest any prescriptive course of action. By using
statistics and financial land use and economic data specific to Craven
County, this COCS study can help move public dialogue from emotion to
analysis and from speculation to projection. It provides reliable financial
data, allowing officials to make informed planning decisions and evaluate
strategies that will maintain a balance in the distribution of future land uses.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-6-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES
3
A Cost of Community Services (COCS) study is a case study approach used
to determine an individual community’s revenues versus public service costs
based on current land use, specifically residential, commercial/industrial,
and farm/forest. Publicly available financial reports (CAFR), departmental
records and budgets, and assessor’s data are used to allocate revenues and
expenditures to determine the financial effects of the various land uses.
COCS studies are based on real numbers, making them different from
traditional fiscal impact analysis, which is predictive and speculative. They
show what services taxpayers receive from their local government and how
local government revenues and expenditures relate to land use.
American Farmland Trust (AFT) first became interested in COCS studies
and growth-related issues in the 1980s because agricultural lands were
converted more commonly to development than any other type of land.
Farmland is desirable for building because it tends to be flat, well drained
and has few physical limitations for development. It is also more affordable
to developers than to farmers and ranchers. COCS studies were originally
used to investigate three commonly held claims:
1. Open lands—including working agricultural and forest lands—are an
interim land use that should be developed to their “highest and best
use”;
2. Agricultural land gets an “unfair” tax break when it is assessed at its
actual use value for farming or ranching instead of at its potential use
value for development;
3. Residential development will lower property taxes by increasing the
tax base.
3
Freedgood, Julia. Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case for Conservation.
American Farmland Trust. 2002.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-7-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
In response to these claims, it is of particular relevance to consider the fiscal
contributions of privately-owned natural resource lands in areas, such as
Craven County, where farming and forestry are important industries.
Although they generate less revenue than residential, commercial or
industrial properties, such agribusinesses require little public expenditure
due to their modest demands for infrastructure and public services. While it
is true that an acre of land with a new house generates more total revenue
than an acre of farmland, this information provides little insight into a
community’s fiscal balance. As a result, COCS studies are used to determine
the net fiscal impact of land uses in the present by comparing total revenues
to total expenditures to ascertain the overall contribution of different land
uses (AFT).
COCS studies are conducted for a variety of other reasons, such as
supporting existing land protection programs or developing new ones. Some
communities are interested in raising awareness about the benefits of
protecting natural resources, while others may have broader planning goals.
Other primary reasons for COCS are: to compare the impacts of different
land uses, to direct new development toward existing infrastructure, or to
supplement a comprehensive planning process. Above all, COCS are most
valuable to communities that are concerned about farm and other open
lands.
COCS studies are best used in communities similar to Craven County that
rely heavily on property taxes to generate revenues. It is important to
recognize that COCS studies are fiscal, not economic analyses and therefore
do not examine direct economic benefits or secondary impacts of a given
land use to the local or regional economy. COCS studies are not intended to
judge the value of one land use over another or compare one type of new
development to another. The particular niche of a COCS study is to identify
existing land use relationships and evaluate the contribution of agricultural
and other open lands on equal ground with developed land uses. Note, the
data provided in COCS studies are “snapshots in time,” and as such are
neither predictive nor speculative.
Table 2 classifies categories of information that a Cost of Community
Services Study can provide and what their ultimate utility can illustrate to
local governmental officials.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-8-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table 2. Uses of Cost of Community Services Studies
COCS Studies Do: COCS Studies Do Not:
o
Provide a baseline of information to help
local officials and citizens make informed
land use decisions.
o Offer the benefit of hindsight to see the
effect of development patterns to date.
o Demonstrate the relative fiscal importance
of privately owned land in agricultural,
forest or other open space uses.
o Make similar assumptions about
apportioning costs to agricultural land as
to commercial/industrial land.
o Have a straightforward methodology and
easy-to-understand findings.
o
Project f
uture costs of services incurred by
new development.
o Determine the direct or indirect value of a
particular land use to the local or regional
economy.
o Quantify the non-market costs and
benefits that occur when agricultural land
is converted to urban uses.
o Judge the intrinsic value of any particular
land use.
o Compare the costs of different types of
residential development.
o Treat agricultural and other working lands
as residential development.
Source: Freedgood, Julia. Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case for Conservation.
American Farmland Trust. 2002.
Methodology
The following standard land use definitions are adapted to individual COCS
studies.
• Agricultural development (Farm, Forest and Open Land) – All
privately-owned land and buildings associated with agricultural and
forestry industries, including temporary housing for seasonal workers
who are not permanent residents.
• Residential development – All single-and multi-family residences
and apartment buildings, including farmhouses, residences attached to
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-9-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
other kinds of businesses and rental units; all town-owned property
used for active recreation or social functions for local residents.
Commercial and Industrial Development
4
– All privately-owned
buildings and land associated with business purposes, the
manufacturing of goods or the provision of services, excluding
agricultural and forestry industries, and utilities.
There are three basic steps in the process of conducting a COCS study:
1. Collect data: Obtain relevant reports and other financial records,
interview officials, boards and departments.
2. Allocate revenues and expenditures by land use.
3. Analyze data and calculate revenue-to-expenditure ratios for each land
use category.
The COCS revenue-to-expenditure ratio compares how many dollars of local
government services are demanded for each dollar collected. A ratio greater
than 1.00 suggests that for every dollar of revenue collected from a given
category of land, more than one dollar is spent. Conversely, an expenditure
ratio less than 1.00 indicates that for a given category of land, demand for
publicly-financed services is less than that sector’s contribution to the local
budget.
COCS Method in Craven County
The basic approach used in the current research was quite simple. Working
from Craven County’s 2012-2013 audited financial data, revenues and
expenditures were allocated among the three land use categories:
agricultural, residential, and commercial/industrial. This process was carried
out through interviews and email exchanges with various local officials
knowledgeable of and responsible for specific departments (listed in the
Acknowledgements). These individuals were obviously best equipped to
determine the extent to which the various land categories used the services
provided by their departments.
4
For simplicity, the term “commercial” will denote both industrial and commercial land uses for the
remainder of this study. Likewise, “agricultural” will refer to farm and forest land uses.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-10-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
The Craven County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for
the year ending June 30, 2013 was used to obtain the actual revenues and
expenditures. Information from county reports for fiscal year 2013 was
entered into spreadsheets and allocated by land use. General fund services to
county residents and businesses include the following: general government,
public safety, environmental protection, economic and physical
development, health, social services, culture and recreation, and education.
The largest county fund was education with expenditures of $23.2 million.
Revenues for Craven County included the following categories: Property,
sales and tourism room taxes, intergovernmental revenue, charges for
services, interest, miscellaneous, and other financing sources. Real property
taxes were collected for the general fund at a rate of 47¢ per $100. For
example, a residence appraised at $100,000 would have been charged $470
in property tax. Property tax and sales tax revenues were allocated to
specific land use categories based on the 2013 property tax assessments.
Expenditures for the County included the following categories: General
government, public safety, environmental protection, economic and physical
development, health social services, culture and recreation, and education, as
well as debt service payments and transfers out. Other financing sources
included loan proceeds and transfers in, while other financing uses included
debt service and transfers out.
In the event that revenues and/or expenditures were not easily amenable to
being allocated among various land use categories, one of two allocation
schemes was used.
For services that exclusively benefit households (as opposed to commercial
establishments)—for example, public schools and library services—100% of
expenditures were allocated to the residential sector. For departments whose
activities benefited both businesses (including agricultural businesses) and
residences, expenditures were allocated based on the proportion of total
property value accounted for by each land used category. The assessed value
of Craven County taxable property over the last ten years is depicted below.
The “default” breakdown based on assessed property valuation for the 2012-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-11-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
2013 fiscal year was 73.2% residential, 22.4% commercial, and 4.4%
agricultural.
The estimated market value of property in 2012-2013 was $9,118,877,782. It
was calculated by dividng the assessed value by an assessment-to-sales ratio
determined by the State Department of Revenue. The ratio is based on actual
property sales which took place in the calendar year ending during the fiscal
year. For this fiscal year the sales-to-assessment ratio was 106.79%.
Figure 1. Craven County 2013 Taxable Assessed Value in $1,000
2,929,226
3,048,946
3,215,296
3,344,660
3,558,507
3,746,692
3,845,443
5,721,631
5,738,197
5,808,897
1,189,206
1,227,730
1,254,929
1,389,347
1,478,931
1,515,597
1,548,665
2,180,029
2,205,828
2,209,993
67,315
72,291
67,076
67,623
66,670
65,637
65,392
113,840
129,376
134,336
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
PUV
Commercial
Residential
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-12-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Findings
All findings presented in this section are supported by tables in the
Appendix.
Appendix Table 1 summarizes the overall breakdown of county revenues for
the 2012-2013 fiscal year. (More detailed information is found in Appendix
Table 6.) Total county general fund revenues for 2012-2013 were $131.55
million. Almost half (47.8%) of the $95.5million in revenue (less other
financing sources) came from ad valorem property taxes. Intergovernmental
revenue (21.0%), sales taxes (13.7%) along with charges for services
(15.8%) accounted for most of the remainder. This COCS study found that
in Craven County 87 percent of revenue in fiscal year 2013 was generated
by residential land uses; 11 percent was generated by commercial land uses;
and 2 percent by farmland.
Appendix Table 2 summarizes the overall breakdown of county expenditures
for the 2012-2013 fiscal year (More detailed information is found in
Appendix Table 7.). During that year, Craven County’s general fund
revenues exceeded expenditures by approximately $661,931. During this
particular fiscal year there was $36,059,550 in other financing sources and
$40,214, 335 in other financing uses which consist of loan proceeds and
transfers in along with debt service payments and transfers out. The
difference, $4,154,785, is approximately 3.2 percent of both revenues and
expenditures. In summary, this COCS study found that in Craven County 96
percent of county expenditures were used to provide services for residential
land use compared with 3.6 percent for commercial and 0.42 percent for
farmland.
In other words, as Appendix Table 3 summarizes, for each $1 of revenue
received from residential properties in fiscal year 2013, Craven County spent
$1.10 in providing services to residential land owners. For each $1 of
revenue received from commercial land uses, the county spent 33 cents for
the provision of necessary services; and for each $1 received from farmland,
the county spent 20 cents in the delivery of necessary services.
Most studies show that the COCS ratio is substantially above 1 for
residential land while ratios for the other two land use categories are usually
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-13-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
substantially below 1. Note in the Appendix Tables 4A&B that the median
“national” residential revenue-to-expenditure ratio is 1:1.16, while the
median commercial and agricultural are 1:0.29 and 1:0.35, respectively. In
North Carolina, over fourteen counties which have had cost of community
services studies, the median residential revenue-to-expenditure ratio is
1:1.24, while the median commercial and agricultural are 1:0.37 and 1:0.62,
respectively.
Break-Even Home Values
The revenue and cost of service numbers that lie behind the ratios reported
in this study can also be used to calculate the home value necessary for a
county to break-even. If one assumes that service cost is fairly constant
across houses relative to the home value, such computations are
straightforward. Further, this is not an unreasonable assumption as local
government service costs will vary with house location, lot size, and with
number of children, but are not particularly correlated with home value.
Given this assumption, Appendix Table 5 presents an analysis which
computes the residential property value needed to generate an exact balance
between average revenues contributed by current housing units and the
average value of public services consumed by households.
The “breakeven” house price was computed assuming that any new
household would consume the average amount of services reflected in the
2012-2013 budget – i.e., that they would possess the average number of
school children, consume an average amount of public health and social
services, etc. The computation further assumes that any new household
would contributed the average amount of non-property tax revenues
generated by existing residential properties, and takes as a benchmark the
current property tax rate of 47.0¢ per $100. Based on these assumptions, the
breakeven property value was computed as $246,123.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-14-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Discussion
COCS studies provide a baseline of information to help local officials and
citizens make informed land use decisions. They offer the benefit of
hindsight to see the effect of development patterns to date. They also
demonstrate the fiscal importance of privately owned land in farm and forest
uses.
The ratios found in Craven County are comparable to national median value
for the residential sector. The residential ratio of $1 of revenue to $1.10
expenditure is slightly lower than the national median of $1.16 and the
median for NC studies, $1.235. The commercial ratio of $1 of revenue to
$0.33 is halfway between the national median of 29 cents and the NC
median of 37 cents. Finally, the farmland ratio of $1 to $0.20 is 15 cents
lower than the national median of $1 to $0.35 and 41.5 cents lower than the
NC median of $1 to $0.615 (See Figure 3.).
Figure 3. Cost of Community Services Study Ratios
(American Farmland Trust)
Craven
Craven
Craven
NC
NC
NC
National
National
National
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Residential Commercial Farmland
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-15-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
The purpose of a COCS study is to determine the net fiscal contribution of
farm properties so these lands may be duly considered in the planning
process, not to recommend one type of land use over another. Because the
studies are descriptive, they should not be used to predict the impact of a
single development or to project future costs of services created by new
development.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, over twenty
square miles of land within Craven County has been converted from farm
use to other uses since 1997. Converting existing farmland to other uses is
much cheaper than clearing forested land or restructuring or demolishing
existing buildings. Regrettably for those in agriculture, this results in loss of
the most productive lands since the soils most productive for agriculture also
are the most suitable for development.
The results of this study, however, provide reliable financial information that
demonstrates the importance of agricultural and forest lands to the fiscal
stability of Craven County. The story is in the numbers:
• While in Craven County residential development contributes the
largest amount of revenue, $114.2 million, its net fiscal impact is
negative. Residential land uses created a deficit of $11.4 million,
while the other two land use categories generated surpluses: $9.85
million from commercial and $2.2 million from farmland.
• Commercial and farmland generated significant revenue from
property and sales taxes, over ninety percent of their respective totals,
enough net revenue in fact to offset the shortfall created by residential
development.
• Both commercial and agricultural lands pay more in local tax
revenues than they receive in services, even with a reduced assessed
value.
As American Farmland Trust has emphasized previously, this research also
suggests that development of strategies to retain this land base for future
agriculture would be a good long-term investment.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-16-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Differential property tax programs, such as present-use value, are
justified as a way to provide an incentive to keep land open and in
active agricultural use.
A balance of land uses, including agricultural lands, is needed to
provide adequate revenue to pay for these services.
The findings of this study show the fiscal benefits that result from
agricultural lands and factual information to help residents understand the
delicate fiscal balance between taxes, other community revenues and the
cost of public services. In addition, this information should be useful for
county leaders and residents when faced with land use decisions now and in
the future.
Agriculture within Craven County is a significant contributor to the
economy. Over 60,000 acres of field crop production provides annual farm
sales between $40-50 million depending upon yield and commodity
price. Livestock accounts for approximately equal value. This study makes
a significant statement: It is financially wise to keep land in agriculture and
growing crops that can be used locally. As a result, this effort has become an
economic development focus for the County and others who are concerned
about the sustainability of farmland within North Carolina. In addition to
helping maintain fiscal balance, farmlands help sustain Craven
County’s economy, contribute to economic diversity and rural
character, and help shape the overall quality of life in the region.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-17-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
A PROFILE OF CRAVEN COUNTY
*
Craven County is a rural county in the coastal plains of eastern North
Carolina. Its economy has historically relied greatly on agriculture and the
military. In North Carolina, agriculture is the largest industry, and Craven
County makes significant contributions to the state totals. The military is the
second-largest industry in the state. According to the Craven County 2013
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the County also
contributes to this statistic as the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry
Point provided employment in 2013 for a total work force of 14,520
personnel, including 5,194 civilian jobs.
5
In addition, in 2013 Craven County
capitalized on the tourism business, which is recognized as the third-largest
industry of economic impact in North Carolina. Domestic tourism in the
County generated an economic impact of $120.75 million during the
calendar year under study.
6
With its many historic sites and homes, the
Croatan National Forest, 40 miles of navigable rivers, and abundant wildlife
and lakes, Craven County has become a desirable destination for tourists.
The following strengths were identified for Craven County relative to
economic developments in the 2013 Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategic Plan for Craven County (CEDSP)
7
:
Presence of military installations and related industries
Established industrial base of international companies
Presence of a mainline railroad (Norfolk Southern) with access to the
port of Morehead City
Proximity and access to water as both a recreational and industrial
resource
Strong and stable health services provider
Regional airport
Craven Community College
Destination area: tourism and events
___________________
*Much of the information in this section comes from the following sources:
5
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan. (2013). RKG Associates, Inc.
http://www.cravencountync.gov/departments/edc/documents/2013/StrategicPlan2013.pdf
6
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Craven County, North Carolina, FYE June 30, 2014
7
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Craven County, North Carolina, FYE June 30, 2013.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-18-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
The following was noted in the County’s 2013 CAFR:
While still a rural county, Craven County has become much less
dependent on agriculture as its main economic engine. The County
has revealed itself as a desirable destination for tourists, drawn by
abundant opportunities for conventions, golf, sailing, beaches,
fishing, hunting, and touring over 150 historic landmarks. The
County's reputation as a desirable retirement community is a direct
result of its popularity as a tourist destination.(
pp2-3
)
Anticipated pressure for development has already resulted in rapid loss of
farmland statewide. This COCS study has been prepared to emphasize the
importance of farmland to Craven County’s overall economic health.
Growth is sustained only with a strong economic base, one to which
agriculture makes a significant contribution. The preservation of farmland is
imperative to the continued prosperity of the county and its people.
Location
Approximately eighty miles east of Raleigh, Craven County is located in the
central coastal plain of North Carolina. Its major waterways are the Neuse
and Trent Rivers, which join the Pamlico Sound just east of New Bern. US
17(north-south route) and US 70 (east-west route) bisect the County, and the
Atlantic Ocean is only 13 miles from its southern boundary. Craven County
is part of the Neuse, the Tar-Pamlico and the White Oak River Basins. Water
comprises 8.49 percent of the county’s total area. As a coastal county,
Craven County is one of twenty that must adhere to the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) regulations. North Carolina passed this law in an
effort to encourage coastal counties to maintain the environmental qualities
that make them attractive while allowing for continued economic
development. The county’s location has made it a popular destination for
vacationers and others who wish to live by the water. As a result of this,
expansion has occurred along the county’s rivers and creeks, and agricultural
lands have been lost to this growth.
Given its location in eastern North Carolina, Craven County has a moderate
climate. On average, there are 214 sunny days per year and 55 inches of rain
(US average - 37 in). The July high is approximately 90 degrees, and the
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-19-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
January low is 35. Snowfall is approximately 2 inches per year (US average
- 25 in). The number of days with any measurable precipitation is 114.
Landscape
Craven County has a significant amount of wooded acreage and is relatively
flat. The County encompasses approximately 774 square miles, of which 66
square miles is water and 712 square miles, or 455,680 acres, is land.
Approximately 270,500 acres is identified as agricultural land according to
the CEDSP (
p4-4
). Other land is identified as residential, commercial, and
industrial. Roughly 12,400 acres are identified as "Vacant Parcels".
See section entitled “Agriculture” for more information.
Transportation
Craven County is bisected by U.S. Highway 70, connecting the county to the
west, and U.S. Highway 17, stretching north and south. These highways
serve both the Morehead City and Wilmington port while providing access
to markets around the state.
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (formerly known as Craven County
Regional Airport) is a public airport located three miles (5 km) southeast of
the central business district of New Bern, the county seat. Coastal Carolina
Regional Airport serves four counties in Eastern North Carolina, including
Craven County, Pamlico County, Carteret County, and Jones County.
Norfolk Southern Railway provides rail freight service through New Bern to
points from Florida to Canada and provides services directly to the Port of
Morehead City. Amtrak passenger railway service is available from Wilson,
N.C., approximately 1.5 hours by shuttle service from New Bern.
8
Population
According to the County’s CAFR, the population was 105,179 at the
beginning of the fiscal year 2013. The Center for Regional Economic
Competitiveness projects an increase of up to 112,177 residents by 2017, an
annual increase of approximately 1.3% (
p 3-1
).
9
See chart on next page.
___________________
8
http://cravenbusiness.com/site_selection/transportation
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-20-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
9
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan. (2013). RKG Associates, Inc.
http://www.cravencountync.gov/departments/edc/documents/2013/StrategicPlan2013.pdf
10
Source: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness
NC’s Eastern Region Regional Cluster Analysis, March 2012
While the population is relatively young (36.6 = 2012 median), by 2017 the
median age is projected to be 37.7. As of the 1990 Census, the 65+ age
group represented 12.0% of the total population of North Carolina and is
projected that this share will rise to 15.2% of the State’s population in 2017.
For Craven County, the growth in this age group has been greater, rising
from 11.2% in 1990 to 15.8% in 2012, projected to rise to 18.0% by 2017.
Overall, the general trend within Craven County is towards an older
population. As a result, potential implications for economic development
include a possible shortage of labor to support business growth, in addition
to changing demand for housing and municipal services to support older
residents. Average household size trends in Craven County (2.45) and the
State (2.51) have shown a steady decline, possibly the result of an increase
in the “empty-nest” retirement age population (
p 3-8
).
11
Median household income between 2008 and 2012 was $47,383, as
compared to the NC median of $46,450, with approximately 16.3% and
16.8% of the population below poverty level in Craven and NC,
respectively.
12
___________________
10
NC’s Eastern Region Regional Cluster Analysis, March 2012.
http://www.econdev.org/documents/NCER%20March%202012%20Cluster%20Analysis.pdf
11
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan. (2013). RKG Associates, Inc.
http://www.cravencountync.gov/departments/edc/documents/2013/StrategicPlan2013.pdf
Population Trends
Comparative Study Area Trends: 1990-2017
Eastern Region 2012 Population
1990 2000 2012 2017
Onslow 184,001
Census Census Actual Projected
Pitt 172,971
POPULATION
Wayne 124,318
Craven County 81,605 91,954 105,232 112,177
Craven 105,232
Ea s tern Region 829,332 918,108 1,051,181 1,112,149
Nash 95,517
North Carol ina 6,628,637 8,081,614 9,752,073 10,356,702
Wilson 81,755
PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION
Carteret 67,750
Craven County 12.7% 14.4% 6.6%
Duplin 60,005
Ea s tern Region 10.7% 14.5% 5.8%
Lenoir 59,171
North Carol ina 21.9% 20.7% 6.2%
Edgecombe 55,736
ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION
Greene 21,369
Craven County 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%
Pamlico 13,072
Ea s tern Region 1.1% 1.2% 1.1%
Jones 10,284
North Carol ina 2.2% 1.7% 1.2%
NCER Total 1,051,181
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-21-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
12
US Census Bureau State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
Economy
Craven County has a diversified industrial base that has allowed it to survive
difficult economic downturns and restructuring. According to the
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan, the County has been
successful in attracting and retaining international businesses such as B/S/H
Home Appliances, Moen, and Weyerhauser (
p. 2-1
). On the County’s
economic development website, the key employers by respective industry
are listed as the following:
13
Industry Company
Education Carven Community College
Craven County Schools
Government Craven County
City of New Bern
Health Care Carolina East Health Systems
Naval Health Clinic
Manufacturing B/S/H Home Appliances
Moen – Plumbing Fixtures
Weyerhaeuser – Wood Fiber Products
Hatteras Yachts - Marine
Military 2
nd
Marine Aircraft Wing
Fleet Readiness Center East
Marine Corps Air Station
Retail Merchandising Wal-Mart
According to the results of the 2013 American Community Survey, Craven
County exhibits a distinct characteristic of entrepreneurship with 24% of
self-employed people working in professional, scientific, management, and
administrative services. Fourteen percent were engaged in construction,
while 12% worked in the areas of educational services, health care and
social assistance. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting comprised 4% of
the total number of self-employed people by various industries in 2013.
From another perspective, healthcare led business sectors in annual payroll
of $2.91 million out of $9.70 million (approximately 30%), while retail trade
trailed second with $1.09 million (approximately 11.2%). Agriculture,
forestry, fishing and hunting had an annual payroll of $7.1 million.
___________________
13
Craven County, NC Economy Data. <
http://www.towncharts.com/North-Carolina/Economy/Craven-County-
NC-Economy-data.html
>
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-22-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
The Military
A 2013 report conducted by the NC Department of Commerce found that the
military accounts for 10% of the state’s economic activity, making it North
Carolina’s second largest economic sector. Put into real terms, this means
that the sector supports 540,000 jobs in North Carolina, including 340,000 in
the private sector, contributing over $30 billion in personal income to the
state's residents. As one of the state’s major employers, the military has a
huge impact on the economy of North Carolina’s eastern region. Many
benefits result from the dominant presence of the military in the state and
Craven County in particular. In addition to job opportunities, examples of
various benefits brought about by the military include defense contracting
opportunities, government-funded university research and increased business
for the state’s ports. Military spouses and retirees contribute to a more well-
trained and educated workforce in the County. Many of them leave service
earlier than civilians and settle near bases to enjoy tax-free shopping and
healthcare.
Craven County takes pride in being the home of the Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point (Cherry Point), which includes tenant commands 2
nd
Marine Aircraft Wing and the Fleet Readiness Center East (FRC East).
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point was authorized in 1941 and
established in Craven County because of the rural and coastal nature of the
county (
p5
).
14
According to the County’s CAFR, Cherry Point is the largest
Marine Corps Air Station on the East Coast, employing 5,194 civilian
workers. The Fleet Readiness Center East is one of eight fleet readiness
centers operated by the U.S. Navy. They are located on 13,164 and 150 acres
of land, respectively, in Craven County. FRC East is the largest industrial
employer in eastern North Carolina (
p2
).
15
Rapid growth in North Carolina has led to increased development which
threatens the state’s private farm and forest land and interferes with military
training.
16
As a result, the North Carolina Foundation for Soil & Water
___________________
14
Lawrence, Grace. Craven County Agricultural Development Plan.
https://www.google.com/#q=grace+lawrence+and+craven+county
15
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Craven County, North Carolina, FYE June 30, 2014.
16
Market Based Conservation Initiative
http://ncsoilwater.org/media/3544/5-mbci-landowner-factsheet.pdf
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-23-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Conservation (Foundation) piloted a program whereby they are entering into
voluntary 10, 20, or 30 year contracts with private landowners under a
military flight path in order to protect farms and forests from development.
The program is referred to as the Market Based Conservation Initiative
(MBCI).
Its purpose is to test methods of establishing cost effective alternatives to
ensuring military readiness by protecting and promoting family farms. It
focuses on the land under a unique 2 mile wide flight training route and
special use airspace crossing over 18 eastern North Carolina counties:
Beaufort, Bertie, Carteret, Craven, Duplin, Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax,
Harnett, Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Onslow, Pamlico, Sampson,
and Wake. This route is used by all the armed services and cannot be
duplicated on the eastern seaboard. The MBCI program offers assistance to
private landowners for maintaining property as agricultural, wildlife, or
other open space land uses.
Over $3 million in Landowner Contract and Program Funds were provided
by the Department of Defense, the Navy and the Marine Corps, the North
Carolina Agriculture Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund
and North Carolina State University. Landowners owning working lands
property under the flight path or special use airspace were offered the
opportunity to submit a per acre bid to enter into a term limited contract with
the Foundation and place certain requirements on their land. The Landowner
is required to
•
maintain their land in the Present Use Valuation Taxation Program.
•
maintain a land management plan.
•
limit future development to agriculture or forestry related enterprises.
•
have no lights shining upward.
•
not build any structures over 100 feet.
•
not construct any permitted landfills.
17
The pilot program ends in 2015.
___________________
17
Ibid.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-24-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
AGRICULTURE IN CRAVEN COUNTY
Agricultural production in Craven County makes a significant contribution
to its own population and that of the state. Although at first thought most
individuals picture the historic landmarks of the County or its well-known
military presence at Cherry Point, agribusiness and open lands play a vital
role in the economy.
SALES
A farm is a tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural production
and has more than $1,000 or more of agricultural products being produced or
sold.
Of 256 farms in Craven County, there were 64 that make more than
$100,000 annually. The market value of agricultural products sold was
approximately $55.5 million, ranking it 58
th
in the state. Crop sales
(including nursery and greenhouse products) made up 68% of the total,
while livestock, poultry and their products composed 32%. The Census of
Agriculture provides the most comprehensive statistical overview of the
impact that agriculture has on counties, states and the nation as a whole. The
2012 Census reported Craven County data that is presented in the table
below.
18
2012 2007 % change
Market Value of
Products Sold
$55,506,000
(256 farms)
$50,529,000
(286 farms)
+10
Crop Sales $37,742,000
(68%)
$24,543,000
(49%)
+19
Livestock Sales $17,764,000 $25,987,000 -19
(32%) (51%)
Average Per Farm $216,819 $176,676 +23
Government Payments
$1,471,000 $2,218,000 -34
Average Per Farm
Receiving Payments
$10,290
$14,041
-27
Note: Government payments are a direct result of the U.S. Farm Bill which authorizes a number of distinct
commodity programs that provide a range of programs that support crop, dairy and livestock producers in
various ways. Many provide financial benefits to producers.
19
___________________
18
2012 Census of Agriculture – County Data North Carolina, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
19
USDA Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-
policy/government-payments-the-farm-sector.aspx
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-25-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Total farm production expenses for the County are $47,018,000 with an
average per farm of $183,665. The net cash farm income of operation was
$12,058,000 with an average per farm of $47,101. The graph below depicts
the number of farms by value of sales.
Craven County ranks in the top 25
th
percentile of North Carolina’s 100
counties in the following commodity groups:
20
Item Quantity State Rank
Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and
dry peas
$24,839,000 25
Hogs and Pigs $16,838,000 25
Aquaculture $507,000 11
Corn for grain 16,276 acres 16
According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture statistics (summarized in the
table above ), grains (including oilseeds) were by far the largest commodity
group in sales ($24.8 million) followed by tobacco ($5.1 million). Hogs and
pigs accounted for the top livestock with $16.8 million in sales. Craven
County ranks eleventh in the state in aquaculture, with $507,000 in sales in
2012, a drop from $1.3 million in 2007 and a ranking of sixth.
__________
20
2012 Census of Agriculture
– County Data North Carolina, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
98
10
15
21
20
3
5
7
13
20
11
33
Farms by Value of Sales
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-26-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
POSSIBILITIES
The authors of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan
made several recommendations with respect to agricultural operations in the
County. In regard to aquaculture, its presence opens the possibility of
attracting a processing facility as a support operation. While livestock
provides a notable contribution to the County’s gross domestic product
and diversifies the local economic base, government officials should explore
possibilities for providing support for these operations in several alternative
activities. For example, any mechanism by which value can be added to the
agricultural products would serve to increase direct revenues to individual
farmers. Also, the County should consider research options for assisting
local farmers, particularly livestock and aquaculture operations, which are
likely to result in the greatest sales increase from their operations.
21
A centralized processing storage and distribution facility for the County’s
farm operations appears to be a need given that individual farms do not have
the financial capability of creating and maintaining processing, storage, and
shipping of goods to various markets for final sale. Perhaps an agricultural
incubator would be practical while at the same time offering shared
kitchen/processing facilities for certain types of produce, not to mention
business training in developing and marketing value-added products. A local
abattoir has the potential for processing livestock and allowing local
operations to sell greater quantities to local markets, thus capitalizing on the
farm-to-table movement.
22
Future growth in the warehousing and
distribution area could also help to support agribusiness economic
development efforts in the County.
THE LAND
As seen in the table below, the County experienced a 10 percent decrease in
the number of farms between 2007 and 2012, while at the same time a 11
percent increase in the average farm size. The number of acres in farms
decreased 15.4% from 1997 to 2007.
2012 2007 1997 1987
Number of Farms
256 286 277 406
Land in Farms
70,632 acres 70,886 acres 83,850 acres
89,149 acres
Average Size of Farm
276 acres 248 acres 303 acres 220 acres
__________
21
2013 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan, Craven County, NC, RKG Associates.
22
ibid
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-27-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
THE
STATE
North Carolina ranks among the top producing states for a variety of crops
and livestock. Table 2 contains statistics reported by the NC Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Table 2. North Carolina’s Rank in U.S. Agriculture, 2012
Rank
Item
Production
N.C.
Percentage
of U.S.
Top 3 States
1
2
3
1 All Tobacco 381 (Mil Lbs) 50.0 NC KY VA
Flue-cured
Tobacco
377 (Mil Lbs) 79.8 NC VA SC
Sweet Potatoes 12,400 (000
Cwt)
46.8 NC CA MS
2 All Poultry &
Egg Cash
Receipts
4,188 (Mil $) 10.7 GA NC AR
Annual Pig Crop
Dec 09-Nov 10
18 (Mil Hd) 15.3 IA NC MN
Christmas Tree
Cash Receipts
75 (Mil $) 20.3 OR NC WA
Hogs & Pigs
(12-1-10)
9 (Mil Hd) 13.6 IA NC MN
Trout Sold
(foodsize)
3.3 (Mil Lbs) 6.8 ID NC CA
Turkeys 36 (Mil Hd) 14.2 MN NC AR
3 Cucumbers -
Processing
35.0 (000
Tons)
7.0 MI FL NC
Cucumbers –
Fresh Market
1,102
(000Cwt)
11.0 GA FL NC
Source: “NC’s Rank in US Agriculture.” NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services.
http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/crops/Ranking.pdf. 17 November 2014.
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-28-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
THE
COUNTY
Craven County agriculture contributes to the rankings of North Carolina.
According to the 2012 Census (Table 3), Craven was ranked 31
st
in flue-
cured tobacco with 2,000 acres harvested and a yield of 2,025 pounds per
acre. The County was also ranked 21
st
in production of hogs and pigs.
Table 3. CRAVEN COUNTY CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Crops –2012 Acres
Harvested
Yield Production County
Rank
Corn for Grain: Bu 18,700 107 2,000,000 16
Cotton: Lbs: Production in
480 Lb. Bales
7,200 840 12,600 30
Soybeans: Bu. 24,000 38 921,000 25
Tobacco, Flue-Cured: Lbs. 2,000 2,025 4,050,000 31
Nursery, Greenhouse,
Floricultures & Christmas
Trees (Dollars)
3,899,000 38
Vegetables, Fruits, Nuts &
Berries (Dollars)
2,642,000 44
Livestock Number Rank
Cattle, All
(Jan. 1, 2013)
900 87
Beef Cows
(Jan. 1, 2013)
500 86
Hogs and Pigs
(Dec. 1, 2012)
60,000 21
Cash Receipts – 2012 Dollars Rank
Livestock, Dairy and Poultry 20,483,000 51
Crops 42,552,000 34
Government Payments 7,370,831 22
Total
70,405,831
47
Source: NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. “County Statistics – 2012.”
http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/codata/craven.pdf
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-29-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Literature Cited
Climate in Craven County, NC. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.bestplaces.net/climate/county/north_carolina/craven
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (2013). Craven County, N.C. New Bern, NC
Retrieved from
http://www.cravencountync.gov/finance/Documents/2013/June30_2013Comprehe
nsiveAnnualFinancialReport.pdf
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan. (2013). RKG Associates, Inc.
Costs of Community Services. (2015). Retrieved from
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/lcr/cost.cfm
Cost of Community Services Studies. (2015). Retrieved from
http://conservationtools.org/guides/show/15-Cost-of-Community-Services-
Studies
Dorfman, J. (2006). The Economics of Growth, Sprawl and Land Use Decisions.
Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/20082/GnG-
Panel_5_Dorfman.pdf;jsessionid=5A97027576FE21C21D2AD0B9EE03D35D.s
mart1?sequence=1
The Economic and Tax-Base Benefits of Land Conservation. (2011). Land Trust
Alliance. Retrieved from
https://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/documents/the-economic-and-tax-
base-benefits-of-land-conservation
Edwards, M. (n.d.). Community Guide to Development Impact Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane/facilitation/all_resources/impacts/analysis_
cost.htm
Farmland Information Center Fact Sheet Cost of Community Service. (n.d.). Retrieved
from http://www.communitypreservation.org/community_services.pdf
Fiscal Analysis. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.farmland.org/services/fiscalplanning/
Lawrence, Grace. Craven County Agricultural Development Plan (2013). Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/#q=grace+lawrence+and+craven+county
Market Based Conservation Initiative. Retrieved from
http://ncsoilwater.org/media/3544/5-MBCI-landowner-factsheet.pdf
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
-30-
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Morgan, J. (2010). Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Economic Development Projects.
Community and Economic Development Bulletin, (7). Retrieved from
http://sogpubs.unc.edu//electronicversions/pdfs/cedb7.pdf
North Carolina’s Eastern Region Regional Cluster Analysis, March 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.econdev.org/documents/NCER%20March%202012%20Cluster%20A
nalysis.pdf
Prindle, A., & Blaine, T. (n.d.). Costs of Community Services. Retrieved from
http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1260.html
RKG Associates. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan, Craven
County, NC. Retrieved from
http://www.cravencountync.gov/departments/edc/documents/2013/StrategicPlan2
013.pdf
Saving Land Saves Taxes. (n.d.). Green Valley Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.greenvalleyinstitute.org/brochures/fact_sheet_2_saving_taxes.pdf
Sykes, W. (2010). Richmond County Working Lands Protection Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.bracrtf.com/documents/RichmondWLPP_000.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of
Agriculture, North Carolina State and County Data. Washington D.C., 2012
.
Wentworth, R. (2008). Economic Benefits of Open Space Protection. Retrieved from
http://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/documents/economic-benefits.pdf
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Appendix: Supporting Tables
Table 1. Craven County Total Revenue for 2012-2013
Item Revenue Percentage
Taxes:
Property
$ 45,642,570 34.70%
Sales
13,055,998
9.92%
Intergovernmental revenue
20,022,161
15.22%
Charges for services
15,072,071
11.46%
Interest
169,277
0.13%
Miscellaneous
1,524,801
1.16%
Total Revenues before Other
Financing Sources
95,486,878
72.59%
Other Financing Sources
36,059,550
27.41%
Total
$ 131,546,428
100.00%
a
Includes
transfers from other funds and loan proceeds
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Craven County, Fiscal Year Ending, June 30, 2013
-i-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table 2. Craven County Actual Expenditures for 2012-2013
Item Expenditure Percentage
General Government
$ 9,423,766 7.20%
Public Safety
13,680,188
10.45%
Environmental Protection
4,908,080
3.75%
Economic and Physical Development
2,647,496
2.02%
Health
8,605,502
6.57%
Social Services
22,457,994
17.16%
Culture and Recreation
2,180,338
1.67%
Education, Schools
23,170,510
17.70%
Debt service
3,596,288
2.75%
Total Expenditures before Other
Financing Uses
90,670,162
69.27%
Other Financing Uses
a
40,214,335
30.73%
Total
$ 130,884,497 100.00%
a
Includes
transfers to other funds and debt service
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Craven County, Fiscal Year Ending, June 30, 2013
-ii-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table 3. Revenue-to-Expenditures in Craven County
Revenue-to-Expenditure Ratios in Dollars
Residential Commercial Agricultural
Revenues $114,163,636 $14,592,385 $2,790,407
(86.79%) (11.09%) (2.12%)
Expenditures $125,595,432 $ 4,743,045 $ 546,020
(95.96%) (3.62%) (0.42%)
Revenue-to-
Expenditure 1:1.10 1:0.33 1:0.20
Ratio
a
a
This ratio measures the cost of services used by a given land sector for each dollar of county revenue
contributed to that sector.
-iii-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Tables 4A & B.
Comparison of Revenue-to-Expenditures in Other Counties
Revenue-to-Expenditure Ratios from National Studies
a
Residential Commercial Agricultural
Minimum 1:1.01 1:0.05 1:0.02
Median
*
1:1.16 1:0.29 1:0.35
Maximum 1:2.11 1:1.04 1:2.04
*
Median cost per dollar of revenue raised to provide public services to different land uses.
Revenue-to-Expenditure Ratios from Local NC Studies
b
Residential Commercial Agricultural
Wake County
(2001)
1:1.54 1:0.18 1:0.47
Union County
(2004)
1:1.30 1:0.41 1:0.24
Orange County
(2006)
1:1.32 1:0.24 1:0.72
Alamance County
(2006)
1:1.47 1:0.23 1:0.59
Chatham County
(2007)
1:1.15 1:0.33 1:0.58
Henderson County
(2008)
1:1.16 1:0.40 1:0.49
Gaston County
(2008)
1:1.23 1:0.41 1:0.88
Franklin County
(2009)
1:1.12 1:0.53 1:0.76
Guilford County
(2010)
1:1.35 1:0.29 1:0.62
Wayne County
(2011)
1:1.24 1:0.34 1:0.47
Yadkin County
(2011)
1:1.18 1:0.38 1:0.61
Catawba County
(2013)
1:1.23 1:0.54 1:0.75
Pitt County
(2013)
1:1.29 1:0.36 1:0.62
Davie County
(2014)
1:1.14 1:0.50 1:0.67
a
These figures are derived from Cost of Community Services summarized on the American Farmland
Trust website (http://www.communitypreservation.org/community_services.pdf).
b
Source: Renkow, Mitch. “Land Preservation Notebook.” (http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/wq/lpn/cost.html)
-iv-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table 5. Breakeven Analysis for Residential Property Value
(1) Property tax rate (cents per $100 of property value) $ 47.0
(2) Residential Non-Property Tax Revenue Contribution in
FYE June 30, 2013 (omitting other financing sources)
$ 44,693,725
(3) Total residential expenditures in FYE June 30, 2013
(omitting other financing uses)
$ 85,381,097
(4) Total Expenditures needing to be paid for by property taxes
[(3) – (2)]
$ 40,687,372
(5) Number of residential properties in the county 35,173
(6) Per household expenditures needing to be paid for by property
taxes [(4) ÷ (5)]
$1,157
Breakeven property value [(6) ÷ (1)] $ 246,123
-v-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table 6. Craven County Actual Revenues by Land Use Category for 2012-13
Item
Total Residential Commercial Agricultural % Breakdown
Taxes
$ 58,698,568
Property 45,642,570 $ 33,410,361
$ 10,223,936
$ 2,008,273
73.2-22.4-4.4
a
Sales 13,055,998 9,556,991
2,924,544
574,464
73.2-22.4-4.4
Intergovernmental $ 20,022,161
19,621,718
200,222
200,222
98.0-1.0-1.0
Charges for services $ 15,072,071
13,866,305
1,205,766
-
92.0-8.0-0.0
Interest $ 169,277
123,911
37,918
7,448
73.2-22.4-4.4
Miscellaneous $ 1,524,801
1,524,801
-
-
100-0-0
Other Financing
Sources
b
$ 36,059,550
36,059,550
100-0-0
Total revenues
$ 131,546,428 $ 114,163,636
$ 14,592,385
$ 2,790,407
a
Default percentages were based on the 2013 assessed property valuation: 73.2%, 22.4%, and 4.4%.
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Craven County, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2013
b
Other Financing Sources” includes loan proceeds of $33,950,000 and transfers in of $2,109,550.
-vi-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table 7.
Craven County Actual Expenditures by Land Use Category for 2012
-
13
Item
Total
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
%
Breakdown
General Government
$ 9,423,766
Commissioners
576,853
519,168
46,148
11,537
90-8-2
Administration
468,510
421,659
37,481
9,370
90-8-2
Human resources
361,024
361,024
-
-
100-0-0
Information technology
998,617
998,617
-
-
100-0-0
Finance
833,421
833,421
-
-
100-0-0
Elections
400,084
400,084
-
-
100-0-0
Tax assessor
834,397
610,779
186,905
36,713
73.2-22.4-4.4
Tax collections
605,272
443,059
135,581
26,632
73.2-22.4-4.4
Register of deeds
668,783
601,905
53,503
13,376
90-8-2
Public buildings
1,019,610
1,019,610
-
-
100-0-0
Housekeeping
250,653
250,653
-
-
100-0-0
Court facilities
293,121
293,121
-
-
100-0-0
GIS/Mapping
315,608
231,025
70,696
13,887
73.2-22.4-4.4
Maintenance
617,203
617,203
-
-
100-0-0
Non-departmental
1,180,610
1,062,549
94,449
23,612
90-8-2
Public safety
$ 13,680,188
Animal control
383,706
376,032
-
7,674
98-0-2
Medical examiner
59,700
59,700
-
-
100-0-0
Sheriff
5,602,698
5,042,428
448,216
112,054
90-8-2
Jail
3,845,574
3,845,574
-
-
100-0-0
Fire marshal/Emergency Mgt 863,922
691,138
146,867
25,918
80-17-3
Inspections
499,111
374,333
124,778
-
75-25-0
Other-Professional Services 10,000
10,000
-
-
100-0-0
Volunteer rescue squads
2,415,477
2,415,477
-
-
100-0-0
Environmental Protection
$ 4,908,080
Solid waste
3,387,738
3,218,351
169,387
-
95-5-0
Environmental health
1,105,605
650,096
423,447
32,063
58.8-38.3-2.9
Soil conservation
130,910
13,091
13,091
104,728
10-10-80
Cooperative extension
283,827
156,105
14,191
113,531
55-5-40
-vii-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table7. Craven County Actual Expenditures by Land Use Category for 2012-13 (continued)
Item
Total
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
%
Breakdown
Economic and Physical
Dev
$ 2,647,496
Planning
746,301
485,096 246,279
14,926
65-33-2
Economic Dev Commission 165,523
-
165,523
-
0-100-0
Convention Center
1,610,672
644,269
966,403
-
40-60-0
Other-Legal
125,000
-
125,000
-
0-100-0
Health
$ 8,605,502
Dental
335,082
335,082
-
-
100-0-0
Maternity
1,236,627
1,236,627
-
-
100-0-0
Child health
1,273,746
1,273,746
-
-
100-0-0
Risk Reduction
199,389
199,389
-
-
100-0-0
WIC
621,308
621,308
-
-
100-0-0
Adult Health Services
246,954
246,954
-
-
100-0-0
Communicable Disease
154,806
154,806
-
-
100-0-0
Bio-Terrorism
38,726
38,726
-
-
100-0-0
Family planning
750,579
750,579
-
-
100-0-0
Home health
2,045,029
2,045,029
-
-
100-0-0
Mental health
277,100
277,100
-
-
100-0-0
Other-unclassified
1,426,156
1,426,156
-
-
100-0-0
Social services
$ 22,457,994
Transportation
1,647,264
1,647,264
-
-
100-0-0
Administration
2,336,366
2,336,366
-
-
100-0-0
Employment assistance
3,234,715
3,234,715
-
-
100-0-0
Adult/child services
1,267,988
1,267,988
-
-
100-0-0
Veterans services
141,347
141,347
-
-
100-0-0
Senior services
546,513
546,513
-
-
100-0-0
Public assistance payments 6,685,665
6,685,665
-
-
100-0-0
TANF
5,438,703
5,438,703
-
-
100-0-0
Child support enforcement
1,159,433
1,159,433
-
-
100-0-0
-viii-
Craven County, NC
Cost of Community Services
University of Mount Olive
Lois G. Britt AgriBusiness Center
Table7. Craven County Actual Expenditures by Land Use Category for 2012-13 (continued)
Item Total Residential Commercial Agricultural
% Breakdown
Culture and recreation
$ 2,180,338
Recreation 810,239
810,239
-
-
100-0-0
Libraries 1,267,128
1,267,128
-
-
100-0-0
Special appropriation 102,971
82,377
20,594
-
80-20-0
Education, schools $ 23,170,510
Public schools - current expenditures 18,658,502
18,658,502
-
-
100-0-0
Public schools - fines and forfeitures 56,878
56,878
-
-
100-0-0
Public schools - capital outlay 700,000
700,000
-
-
100-0-0
Community college 3,755,130
3,004,104
751,026
-
80-20-0
Debt service $ 3,596,288
Principal 2,543,964
2,187,809
356,155
-
86-14-0
Interest
1,052,324
904,999
147,325
-
86-14-0
Other Financing Uses
a
40,214,335
40,214,335
-
-
100-0-0
Total Expenditures $ 130,884,497
125,595,432
4,743,045
546,020
a
Other Financing Uses” includes debt service (payments to escrow) of $33,890,117 and transfers out of $6,324,218.
-ix-
