The Value of Agriculture in Ventura County:
An Economic Analysis
For information about ordering this publication contact:
Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust and Conservancy
PO Box 4664, Ventura, CA, 93007
FAX (805) 647-6493
© March 1996 by the Regents of the University of California
This material is based upon work supported by the University of California
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, funded by the Hansen Trust.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of
the Regents of the University of California, the Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension, or the Hansen Trust.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the
publisher.
The University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State
law and University policy, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, medical condition (cancerrelated), ancestry, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or status as a
Vietnam-era veteran or special disabled veteran. The University also
prohibits sexual harassment.
Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be
directed to Affirmative Action Director, University of California, Agriculture
and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor, Oakland CA 946123560 (510) 987-0096.
Printed in the United States of America
1
Table of Contents
Page
Dedication
3
Acknowledgments and Authors
4
Foreword
Larry Rose
President, Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust
Michael Fischer
Executive Officer, California State Coastal Conservancy
8
9
Introduction
10
Background Information
12
Agriculture In Ventura County:
Its Impact on The County Economy
20
Jill McCluskey and George Goldman, University of California
Farmland Protection In Ventura County:
A Review Of General Plan Policies And Tools
56
Elisabeth K. Young and Alvin D. Sokolow, University of California
Farmland Conversion in Ventura County
77
Michal Moore, Resource Economist
Ventura County Agricultural Support Industries
99
David Strong, Strong Associates
The Costs Of Farming Near Cities
117
Michal Moore, Resource Economist
Economic Analysis Of Status Quo Vs.
Compact Urban Development
127
David Strong, Strong Associates
Geographic Information System
Edward S. McNiel, University of California, Davis
2
175
Dedication
The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County: An Economic Analysis is dedicated to
Phyllis Dwire.
Phyllis Dwire was a fourth generation Somis resident. Her family homesteaded
their farm in the Las Posas Valley in 1868. From the time of the early efforts to
develop her favorite valley until her death, she led a continuing effort to keep the
Las Posas Valley a viable agricultural area.
She served for many years as the secretary of The Ventura County Las Posas
Citizens Advisory Committee and was a member of the Board of Supervisorappointed Agricultural Land Trust Advisory Committee whose study resulted in
the formation of the Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust And Conservancy.
Phyllis was a founding director and president of the Agricultural Land Trust and
helped focus the farmland conservation efforts of The League of Women Voters.
Phyllis dedicated volunteer efforts to many other organizations in Ventura
County.
Her gentle manner and soft-spoken style belied a tenacious and unwavering
devotion to the conservation of farmland in Ventura County. Phyllis Dwire
passed away peacefully in the early evening of November 24, 1995 at home with
her family at her side.
3
Acknowledgments
Many people have contributed to the effort of producing this publication and the
associated Geographic Information System computer modeling tool. Most
importantly, we wish to thank the authors for their work:
Peter S. Brand conceived, organized and directed this study. He is a land use
planner with special expertise in coastal resource planning, agricultural
preservation and community participation. Mr. Brand began his career at the U.S.
Department of the Interior in Washington, D. C. working on national land use
policy and outdoor recreation planning. For the last seventeen years, he has
managed a variety of complex planning projects throughout California both as a
consultant and as staff to the California State Coastal Conservancy. Since 1989, he
has focused his efforts on the preservation of farmland in California.
Jill McCluskey is a Ph.D. student in Agricultural and Resource Economics at the
University of California, Berkeley. She holds a masters degree in economics from
Georgetown University and a masters in Agricultural and Resource Economics
from U.C. Berkeley. Before graduate school, she worked as a researcher for an
economics consulting firm, specializing in energy issues. Her fields of study are
natural resource economics and industrial organization. She is currently doing
research on grazing policy.
George Goldman has worked for the University of California's Cooperative
Extension for thirty years. Most of that time he has worked on rural economic
development, community development, local government finance, and the
economics of agricultural land and water resources. These usually have been
applications of quantitative economic models to answer the "what if" questions, or
the economic impacts of alternatives. Recent projects have been on the economic
impacts of agriculture in California, the economic importance of the California State
University System on the state, the economic impacts of our state park system, and a
fair development fee for new construction in a rural California county. Most of his
work has been on using Leontief input-output models to estimate the economic
impacts of public policies or resource use alternatives. For the last 12 years he has
used the U.S. Forest Service's IMPLAN system to generate these input-output
models. During this time he has been the primary IMPLAN user in the state, and is
an important member of the national network of IMPLAN users.
4
Edward S. McNiel lectures and conducts research as a faculty member of the
Landscape Architecture Program at U.C. Davis. He has taught at three major
universities over a twenty year period and conducts courses and lectures
internationally and nationally on the use of computer technology in land planning
and cultural preservation. He has been using computerized geographic information
systems to assist in land planning since 1974. He has constructed data bases as large
as 600 square miles and has addressed issues as varied as the preservation of
biodiversity in a natural reserve to the preservation of historic architecture in small
towns. He currently serves as principal investigator for GIS based research projects
for the U.S. Forest Service, the Yosemite Rail Road Company, and the California
Coastal Conservancy and serves as a consultant to the City of Folsom, the California
Cities Commission and two private environmental planning firms.
Michal Moore is a trained resource economist. He specializes in analyzing fiscal and
economic impacts of land use decisions. His work is both theoretical and empirical,
generating interactive time series and predictive models as well as policy evaluation
and critique. He served two terms as an elected county supervisor and specialized in
taxation and local government issues on many statewide committees. He served in
the Deukmejian administration initially as director of economic research in the
Department of Commerce and finally as a Special Assistant for Local Government
Affairs. Most recently, he has worked as a contract fiscal consultant for county and
city government in California. He was recently appointed by Governor Wilson to
the California State Energy Commission.
Elisabeth K. Young is a research assistant with Cooperative Extension Service for the
University of California, Davis, Farmland Policy Project and a graduate student in the
Community Development Department. She studied city and regional planning at
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and has worked for local and
regional transportation planning agencies in San Luis Obispo and Sacramento.
Young's interests are in land use planning with special interest in public policy, local
and state government, and urban growth's impact on farmland and open space.
Alvin D. Sokolow is public policy specialist with the Cooperative Extension Service
for the University of California, housed on the Davis campus. As professor of
political science at U.C. Davis for 27 years until 1992, he taught courses in local
government and community politics, California politics, and American federalism.
Sokolow's research and outreach activities focus on farmland and resource policy,
California local government, state-local relations, and community political leadership.
Recent publications deal with farmland policy, local office holding, county
government, and local public finance.
5
David Strong has 19 years of experience conducting agricultural economic impact
studies throughout California as both a private consultant and an economic
analyst for the Cooperative Extension at U.C. Berkeley. His experience includes
micro studies of farm enterprises and macro studies of multi-county public and
private economic impacts, as well as regional planning and site-specific agriculture
viability studies. Mr. Strong's coastal related agriculture projects have covered
almost every California coastal county over a 17 year period. Mr. Strong's
experience with local government and agricultural impact analysis uniquely
qualifies him to develop and evaluate information on this project.
Special recognition goes to Madge Strong, Larry Rose, Sheri Klittich and Ellen
Brokaw for compilation and editing, and, to Gene Kjellberg of the County of
Ventura Planning Division for his assistance.
6
Foreword
From Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust and Conservancy
Thanks to the generous funding of the University of California Hansen Trust, this
study, The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County: An Economic Analysis, is
presented by the California State Coastal Conservancy and the Ventura
Agricultural Land Trust and Conservancy.
The study is intended to help Ventura County communities and government
policy-makers understand the relationship of agriculture to the County economy
and the reliance of this industry on land and other resources for its efforts.
Information from this study can be used for improving public policy decisions
affecting agriculture, our cities and every taxpayer and resident in Ventura
County.
The elements of the study depict a picture in time of a thriving, dynamic industry,
constantly adapting to new market opportunities while accommodating intense
urban growth pressures. The study quantifies a relationship between city and
farm that goes well beyond services shared or the enjoyment of open space, to an
intricate and intimate fiscal and social interdependence.
The Agricultural Land Trust, committed to providing an independent, objective
research effort, used the expertise of the California State Coastal Conservancy and
engaged a distinguished group of professors from the University of California and
private economic consultants. They were asked to do in-depth research with the
local agricultural industry, depict the study in practical and educational terms, and
ensure that the research can be periodically updated. The Trust wishes to thank
these researchers: George Goldman, Edward S. McNiel, Michal Moore, Alvin D.
Sokolow, David Strong and especially Peter S. Brand of the California State Coastal
Conservancy, the project director.
The Board of Directors
Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust and Conservancy
7
Foreword
From the Coastal Conservancy
This important report is the product of a three party partnership of the Coastal
Conservancy, the University of California, and the Ventura County Agricultural
Land Trust and Conservancy. The University has helped provide the expertise
and scientific objectivity that provides an accurate picture of the economics of
agriculture in Ventura County today. They, along with two consultant
economists, addressed the first key question: Are there urban economic forces
that cloud the future of the economic viability of farming in Ventura County? Our
other partner, the Land Trust has given us the perspective of the resident and
farmer of the county. They have helped find answers to this key question: What
are the most pressing local concerns about the relationship between agriculture
and urban land use?
The Coastal Conservancy's involvement comes from our conviction that Ventura
agriculture is a natural, economic, and human resource of statewide, as well as
national, importance. Through this study we have asked the question: Is Ventura
agriculture important compared to other agricultural areas? The numbers tell the
story; yes.
We are pleased to have played a part along with the County Board of Supervisors
in helping establish the Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust and Conservancy.
The Coastal Conservancy was established to provide an alternative to regulation
and as such is an entirely voluntary program. Similarly, local land trusts exist as
non-regulatory, voluntary programs to assist landowners. If you agree that this
study has revealed a need for additional action to help the local farmer stay in
business, we encourage local landowners to work with the Agricultural Land
Trust.
Our sincere appreciation goes to the Hansen Trust and to the Ventura community
for recognizing the need for this important analytical study. We believe it will
become a model for employing the new techniques of a computerized Geographic
Information System to measure the economic importance of agriculture in other
regions.
Michael Fischer
Executive Officer
8
The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County:
An Economic Analysis
Introduction & Executive Summary
Peter S. Brand
Introduction
Ventura County's mild climate and fine soils enable farmers to grow and harvest a
variety of high value crops on a year-round basis. More than one billion dollars in
farm sales and 20,000 jobs are generated every year by Ventura County agriculture.
Crop production, processing, shipping and other related industries add another $1.25
billion to the local economy. Ventura County has some of the most productive
farmland in the world.
Ventura County’s farmland is also among the most threatened. Ventura County's
climate and diverse geography attract thousands of people who want to live near its
sunlit beaches, cool mountains, green fields and shaded orchards. Since 1970, the
population has grown 50 percent faster than the statewide rate. Based on the recent
census and planned developments, the county's population is projected to reach
776,000 by the year 2000. Despite progressive planning and regulatory measures,
farmland conversion continues without an end in sight.
The Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust and Conservancy (VCALT), a private
non-profit organization dedicated to providing alternatives to the sale or development
of farmland, sought to identify economic information that could provide a basis for
future land use policies. The VCALT, with the California State Coastal Conservancy,
administered a study titled The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County: An Economic
Analysis. The study was prepared by a team of agricultural economists and land use
experts two years to complete. Funding for the study was provided by the Hansen
Trust, a local endowment set up within the University of California to support Ventura
County agriculture.
A Geographic Information System (GIS) was created as a fundamental part of this
study. The GIS is a computerized mapping system that displays complex land use
dynamics and trends of farmland conversion. Study sponsors felt a GIS was essential
to make the kinds of analyses needed for a comprehensive, strategic conservation
9
program. By linking a large data base to layered maps, the GIS enabled the research
team to view land use patterns and economic values as they changed over time and
space.
Ventura County experienced a phase of rapid growth from the 1950s through the
1970s, prior to the creation of countywide growth management policies. Resulting
areas of urban sprawl created an ambiguous and confusing message for both the
farmer and the developer. This ambiguity caused noncontiguous development that
left islands of agriculture surrounded by industrial parks and housing tracts. In areas
where agricultural islands still exist, inflated land prices discourage any future
agricultural investment. The uncertainty of future land use decisions has discouraged
long term farming investment and encouraged urban conversion on the Oxnard Plain
where most of the prime farmland is found.
Even when public policy guidelines for growth were clear, urban development
opportunities often determined the direction in which many cities grew. In some
cases, farmland annexed long ago, but left undeveloped, was ignored in favor of
converting new areas for urban uses. Farmers were left wondering where agriculture
would remain and where it would have to give way to development.
There is still substantial undeveloped acreage within Ventura County's cities and their
Spheres of Influence. The GIS and the economic analyses contained in the study
illustrate several scenarios for both the magnitude and the location of future urban
development that can save farmland and still accommodate projected population
growth.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the significance of agriculture to the economy
of Ventura County. Also, the study examines and quantifies past and present impacts
of urbanization upon farming in Ventura County, and considers the effects of cities’
and county’s land use planning policies.
The study gives a picture in time of agriculture and its place in Ventura County and
examines trends that illuminate its strengths and vulnerabilities. Most importantly the
study, and accompanying GIS, provide tools for use in the coming years as decisions
are made which will either support the continuation of agriculture as a viable industry
or lead towards its eventual demise.
The GIS will be used to visually demonstrate effects of continued urban development
on agricultural uses at the urban/rural interface. The GIS can be used as a tool by
10
VCALT to identify and prioritize private, voluntary farmland conservation efforts, and
by local government agencies to develop policies supporting agriculture in Ventura
County
The economic model, which demonstrates the fiscal impact upon cities and county of
alternative density development, can be adapted by land uses planners and
government planning agencies to demonstrate real direct and indirect costs of
farmland conversion to our local government decision makers and ultimately, the
taxpayers.
Those who read and utilize this study should understand it for what it is; an
examination of agriculture’s place in the economy of Ventura County and of some of
the economic forces that support or prevent conservation of farmland. The study is
not intended to be a precise and detailed picture of all facets of agriculture. Farmers,
like other business people, must deal with many factors besides availability and
location of land, including issues of export markets for their products, competing
imports, and -- a special problem of agriculture -- the weather. However, without land
and water agriculture does not exist.
Some of the questions posed are:
• How healthy and competitive is Ventura County agriculture compared to
agriculture elsewhere?
• Is conversion of prime farmland a threat to the survival of the local industry?
• In pragmatic terms what does conversion of farmland mean for the taxpayer?
• Are there alternative policy directions for the county’s elected officials?
• What are the actual added costs, if any, of farming near the cities?
• At what point do agricultural support industries diminish in a farming region
because of declining production?
• Does low-density urban development, and the resulting farmland conversion,
affect the local economy?
• Does farmland conversion result in hidden costs to the county’s taxpayers?
11
Background Information
Existing Setting
The value of Ventura agriculture begins with its natural virtues that are unsurpassed.
The coastal agricultural plain and fertile valleys have a combination of more frost-free
days and fewer days above 90 degrees than other farming areas in California. Crops
can be grown year-round and vegetables are harvested more than once a year. The
excellent climate and soil enable the Ventura County farmer to produce more with less
water than farmers growing similar crops in inland areas.
Ventura County’s agricultural diversity is proven with 30 farm products in excess of
$1 million each in farm-gate, or raw product sales. In 1992, Ventura County ranked in
the top five of all California counties for eleven commodities. Compared to other
areas in southern California and the nation, it is also self sufficient. Ventura County
agriculture has little dependency on state water and has no federal crop subsidies.
Representative Crops
Lemons are the county’s number one crop. Ventura County produces 61 percent of
all lemons grown in California and 47 percent of the lemons grown in the nation. The
Ventura County lemon grower gets a 20 percent greater yield per acre than his
counterparts in the rest of the state. The success of the local lemon industry is
enhanced by the close proximity of Port Hueneme where export activity consists
exclusively of agricultural products. In December of 1993, Sunkist growers switched
from the Port of Long Beach to the Port of Hueneme. Fresh fruit exports climbed
from 50,000 tons in 1992 to 178,000 tons in 1994 and are expected to keep growing.
Farmland Productivity
The success and productivity of Ventura County’s agricultural industry should be
attributed in large part to the skill of its farmers. Yields per acre increased for leading
crops over the past two decades at rates higher than the statewide averages. During
the last 20 years, the crop yields per acre for celery and strawberries have both
increased by 20 percent.
One way of measuring a county's or a region's statewide importance is to calculate its
output as a percentage of the state's total agricultural sales. Ventura County ranks
eleventh among California counties -- in comparison, Fresno County ranks first in the
state and in the nation. Another measure is to calculate its productivity and economic
efficiency in its use of land, on a per acre basis. Ventura County's net return per
irrigated acre in 1992 was almost three times that of Fresno County.
12
Economic Impacts
Economic productivity is traditionally measured by the growers' return for bulk,
unprocessed, raw products at the farm gate. More accurate measures include
agricultural production and integral, value-added processing sales that in 1992 were
$1.16 billion. Also, using a complex analysis of the direct and indirect ripple effects for
each major crop type, the study identified an additional $1.25 billion in sales from
agriculture and related industries. The total impact of these sales on the County
economy was $2.41 billion. In addition to product, processing and sales, agriculture
provides over 8 percent of the county’s employment and personal income. The ripple
effects of these contributions to the economy in turn affect other non-agricultural
sectors.
As most of Ventura County’s farms are individual or family owned, farm revenues
and jobs generate additional local economic benefits as profits are reinvested and
wages are spent locally. The ability to harvest year-round also allows for consistent
employment and better employee benefits inducing farm workers to settle in and
become part of the community.
Issues and Findings
What are the Existing Public Sector Policies Related to the Protection of
Agriculture?
• Issue 1: Do the general plans of five focus cities and Ventura County explicitly
protect farmland?
• Finding: General plan policies, like zoning regulations, are by their very nature
changeable. They reflect individual community’s growth philosophies and provide
direction and priorities in judging the merits of future development proposals. The
five cities’ plans acknowledge that the majority of lands being permanently converted
to urban uses are prime irrigated farmland. All of the cities’ plans, and the county’s
plan, emphasize the problems farmers face when urban development begins to
encroach on their farmland. Each of the city plans requires, and the county’s plan
recommends, that new urban development should provide adequate buffer areas
between residential and agricultural uses. All of the plans emphasize that new urban
development should be directed to existing cities thus minimizing the conversion of
agricultural lands.
13
• Issue 2: Do the cities’ and the county’s plans require an analysis of development
proposals and mitigation for the loss of farmland?
• Finding: Several of the cities’ plans call for feasibility analyses of land use
alternatives. The cities’ plans also recommend that development impacts be mitigated
through the use of impact fees that could fund the purchase of agricultural
conservation easements or the acquisition of development rights (easements) over
nearby farmland. None of these mitigation policies are currently mandatory but
rather call for examining the feasibility of retaining farmland through the above
measures. The county’s plan emphasizes that non-agricultural development on
irrigated farmland should remove a minimal amount of land from farm production.
• Issue 3: How do growth management initiatives and other building density policies
affect urban development and farmland conversion?
• Finding: The Ojai Valley, and four of the five cities studied have residential growth
control initiatives that control the pace of urban development but not necessarily its
location and density. The five cities studied recognize limited higher density and infill
as appropriate methods of minimizing impacts of urban growth on agricultural land.
The study also concluded that the five cities’ annexation policies overall are consistent
with the Guidelines for Orderly Development, but contain little that could be interpreted
as long-term protection for farmland. Although the farmland protection goals and
policies of these jurisdictions are among the most far reaching and aggressive in the
state, they are often inconsistent or not specific in relating urban development to
farmland protection.
What Are The Impacts Of Farmland Conversion?
• Issue 1: External growth pressures -- Ventura County's population has doubled five
times since 1950. Urban growth pressures and resulting urban development has
caused conversion of farmland at rates that exceed other important farming areas in
the state and nation.
• Finding: New irrigation technologies and favorable investment climate encouraged
orchard development on non-prime land in the foothills resulting in a relatively minor
net loss of farmland. However, the small net loss of acreage disguises a fundamental
degradation of the county’s farmland base by a greater reliance on less fertile, nonprime farmland. Ultimately, land and water resources for further new farm
development are more limited thus placing greater emphasis on conservation of the
existing farmland.
• Issue 2: Responding to changing market opportunities -- Historically, Ventura
County’s agricultural industry has pursued market window opportunities unique to
14
Ventura County's climate and geography. High land costs have made it impractical to
underutilize the land.
• Finding: Crops have progressed from low-input, low-income field crops like lima
beans and sugar beets to select, high-valued crops like strawberries and lemons.
Technology and know-how have enabled farmers to realize full advantage of Ventura
County’s natural farming resources. The county's growers have substantially
increased production but the region is consolidating on less farmland. The versatility
and flexibility that have been enjoyed may diminish because less land will be
contributing to the industry's production base.
• Issue 3: Measuring future farmland productivity -- The conversion of farmland
acreage to urban uses is difficult to define statistically because different measures of
farmland and productivity are used.
• Finding: Ventura County's Agricultural Commissioner tallies crop production using
harvested acres (e.g., some vegetables may be harvested more than once a year on a
cultivated acre). In contrast, various state and federal agencies use other measures and
categories that reflect each agencies’ needs and purpose. The study's GIS computer
model uses a consistent data base that defines trends in farmland conversion more
accurately and predicts the effects of a continuing diminished farmland base.
How Does Farmland Conversion Impact Agricultural Support Industries?
• Issue 1: If sufficient agricultural lands are converted to urban land uses, will
businesses that support agriculture diminish and will costs to the farmers rise?
• Finding: The study conducted interviews with agricultural support industries to
determine their dependence on the county's agricultural production. The key
questions were:
• What percent of your business relies on Ventura County agriculture -- and,
• What percent reduction in agricultural production could your firm withstand
and stay in business?
It is very difficult to predict what the aggregate business climate will be a decade from
now for businesses sharing the same market. However, the sector of the agriculturesupport industry that can withstand the least reduction in production is agriculture
sales and services. Equipment manufacture and sales and farm supply businesses are
close behind in their sensitivity to crop losses. Packers and shippers, despite their high
dependence on agriculture, are apparently able to withstand a much larger crop
reduction due to their relatively low fixed costs and ability to respond by consolidating
operations and reducing the number of employees.
15
• Issue 2: Can acreage trends anticipate how much urban conversion of farmland the
agricultural industry and support businesses can withstand?
• Finding: The research suggests that local decision makers should seriously consider
the consequences of farmland conversion to urban use to avoid losing not only the
prime farmland, but vital segments of the agricultural support industry as well. If
farmland conversion continues, at the present rate, Ventura County farmers would
find some support industries unable to continue in business. Costs could rise and/or
service decline. This would negatively affect the farmers' net returns and thus
negatively impact reinvestment decisions.
The Farmland/Urban Interface -- Are There Added Costs Of Farming Near Cities?
• Issue 1: What are the true costs to farmers dealing with encroaching urban
development?
• Finding: The study found that a variety of urban influences increase the cost of
production to the farmer near development by at least 5 percent. This does not
include costs such as fence construction, major theft, water saving technology, or
higher prices for land or water due to urban competition. The largest of the quantified
costs appears to be the loss through theft or vandalism on the periphery, setback
buffers implemented by the farmer or shift in crop types to minimize conflicts.
However, the primary cost is the farmer's time in terms of the extra management it
takes to prevent or solve problems caused by proximity to urbanized areas. This cost
is usually internalized and does not arise in estimates of loss. Nevertheless, it is a
constant drain that farmers in more rural areas do not face.
• Issue 2: How do land prices affect the stability of the agricultural industry?
• Finding: Although farmers can make management adjustments for some urban
influences, the most intractable problem for farmers on the urban periphery is the cost
of land. Proximity to urban development results in inflated prices for farmland that
prevent farmers from buying and selling to other farmers and limits investment
opportunities. Speculating on the possibility of urban conversion also raises the land
price above its farming value though the conversion may be dependent on future
political changes or unknown time factors.
16
What Are The Private and Public Sector Costs of Status Quo Development to
Agriculture?
• Issue 1: Farmland conversion has adverse impacts that go beyond the farming
community. Other sectors of the county’s economy that are affiliated with agriculture
are also directly or indirectly affected. A little known impact is that the taxpayer is also
indirectly affected.
• Finding: Agriculture requires about $.65 in services from the county for every $1.00
it generates in revenues. Under the study's compact development scenario, retaining
more land in agriculture gives the cities' a $.22 net surplus on every dollar of revenues
offset against costs. The study shows that low-density urban expansion usually results
in fiscal losses and city deficits. In contrast, the cost savings of orderly and efficient
development with the resulting smaller loss of agricultural land can be passed on to
the cities to balance their budgets or provide more services.
• Issue 2: Public sector fiscal impacts that result from farmland conversion.
• Finding: The average cost per resident and job depends on how efficiently each city
develops. Cost/revenue ratios for a low-density, single-use development scenario
and a more compact, more efficient urban development scenarios are included in the
study. Under the current low-density development pattern of the five cities studied,
the average resident's cost in services is $1.25 for every dollar he generates in
revenues. When job-producing land uses are factored into the calculation, there is still
a net loss of revenues to the city. The compact growth scenario would result in a
positive net cash flow of $4.9 million per year total for the five cities instead of a
negative cash flow of $5.2 million, or a $10.1 million annual difference.
• Issue 3: Financial impacts of urban expansion and farmland conversion on the
private sector -- In addition to the fiscal impacts to county and city governments, the
study also calculates the private sector economic loss of agricultural output under
different growth scenarios.
• Finding: If residential, commercial and industrial development is encouraged to take
place on farmland, short term economic growth may take place but the community
also risks the loss of the agricultural industry. The private sector impact of each
growth alternative is thus expressed in the study only in terms of the impact on the
agricultural industry. The economic model shows that at existing, low-density urban
densities, just over 10,000 acres of land would accommodate the projected (to the year
2010) population growth including land for job-related land use.
The study assumes that all of the 10,000 acres converted is farmland since most urban
conversion in the past has been irrigated agriculture. The private sector impact of this
much farmland conversion would be significant. The study determined the county’s
17
economy would sustain an annual loss of $192 million in direct agricultural production,
processing and sales.
The hypothetical alternative called "compact" development assumes some infill and a
modest increase in average density. This compact, more efficient growth alternative
would retain about 4,300 more acres of agricultural land, retain 1,500 more agricultural
jobs, and retain $80 million more in agricultural sales annually.
• Issue 4: Alternative urban growth scenario that minimizes the conversion of
agricultural land. Another growth pattern alternative to the ones described in issues 2
and 3 would be to develop only non-agricultural lands.
• Finding: The compact growth scenario requires 5,900 acres to accommodate the
projected population. The GIS shows there is a total of 5,800 undeveloped acres
located within the spheres of influence of the five cities. The acreage is no longer in
agricultural use and commitments for urban infrastructure exist. The study assumes
additional or alternative sites for development could be accommodated as infill.
Instead of just diminishing the amount of farmland conversion and loss of agricultural
production, this scenario would avoid altogether the loss of 10,000 acres of prime
Ventura County farmland and the $192 million annual loss to the local economy.
18
Conclusions
1. Agriculture, and its related businesses, are a very significant part of the Ventura
County economy.
2. Recent and current land use policies have provided some significant protection for
farmland but population pressures are such that urban and farm coexistence will not
be possible in the future without some changes in land use planning and urban/farm
interface policies.
This study will have failed if it is used only by the planning community or academics.
Our primary audience is the farmer, the taxpayer, and the public official for whom
economic concerns are paramount. We hope that those reading the study may have a
new understanding of the economic forces that cause or prevent conservation of
farmland. Even though Ventura County’s farmland is some of the most productive in
the world, both in yield and gross revenue, farmers cannot compete in the
marketplace for their farmland against speculative development land values and
expanding cities.
It is hoped that this combination of innovative economic case studies and models and
the analytic and visual tool of the GIS will be useful to a wide variety of users. The
databases will be transferred to the VCALT and to the Ventura County Planning
Division so that they can remain current and useful. More importantly, we hope that
the study will be persuasive to the people of Ventura County who will look for
solutions to the problems identified.
19
Agriculture in Ventura County
Its Impact on the County Economy
Jill McCluskey, Researcher
and
George Goldman, Economist
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
University of California, Berkeley
Table of Contents
Introduction
21
Land Use and Crop Trends
23
26
28
33
35
43
History of Ventura County Crops
Acreage by Crop
Productivity: Crop Yields
Value of Crops
Net Income
People on Farms
Farm Ownership and Farm Characteristics
Agricultural Employment
Farm Labor Contractors
Affordable Housing for Farm Labor
45
45
48
49
50
Aggregate Measures of the Agricultural Sector
51
Bibliography
55
20
Introduction
California, with a crop value of $19.9 billion in 19931 led the United States in
agricultural production. Ventura County agricultural production was worth $848.3
million in 1993 and is in the top fifth of counties in California. Ventura County is
one of the five leading counties in California for ten commodities. (See Table
below)
Ventura County Rankings
in California Farm Commodities
All Commodities
All Vegetables
Cabbage
Celery
Lemons
Spinach
Strawberries
Avocados
Cucumbers
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Nursery Products
12
5
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
Source: California Agricultural Statistics
Services, Summary of Agricultural Commissioners'
Reports, 1992
Ventura County leads the state in production of lemons (with 61% of all lemons
grown in California), celery (43% of the State’s total) and cabbage (29%). The
County’s strawberry crop represents 20% of the State’s. On the national level
Ventura County produces 47% of all lemons and almost 15% of strawberries.
Ventura County produces more than forty kinds of fruits and vegetables, ranking
fifth among all the counties in total vegetable production.
Approximately 27% of the land (nearly 321,000 acres) in Ventura County is
occupied by farms and ranches. This compares with about 30% of the land in
1 1992 and 1993 figures are from separate sources. The trends they illustrate are consistent.
21
California. About one-third of the agricultural land in Ventura County is irrigated.
Approximately three-fourths of cropland is used to grow fruits and vegetables.
The unique and most valuable feature of the coastal plain of Ventura County is its
extremely mild, almost frost-free, Mediterranean climate. The climate is suitable
for subtropical fruits, year-round production of several vegetables, and a long
harvest season for strawberries. Because of its unique climate and good soil, land
in Ventura County has a high value for farming. However, land in Ventura
County is also highly valued as speculative real estate investment. Land value and
water price and availability are two of the more critical issues facing agriculture.
In 1992, agriculture and agriculture-related products contributed to Ventura
County's economy by providing just over 8% of all County and personal income.
In the following pages, this chapter presents:
• a review of historic trends in land and crop production and value in
Ventura County,
• a description of farm ownership and employment, and
• an analysis of the total economic impact of the agricultural sector.
22
Land Use and Crop Trends
Land in Farms
Farms and ranches occupy 321,000 acres in Ventura County, which is 26.9 percent
of county land. Cropland (which includes harvested cropland2 , cropland used for
pastures, and other cropland) accounts for 131,000 acres or 40.8 percent of land in
farms and ranches3 . (See Table 1)
Table 1
Division of Land in Acres (000) and Percentages
Ventura
County
1964
1969
1974
1978
1982
1987
1992
California
1964
1969
1974
1978
1982
1987
1992
Total
Land
Area
1,192
1,192
1,192
1,192
1,192
1,192
1,192
Land in
Farms &
Ranches
437
433
310
340
301
329
321
% Of
Total
Land
36.7
36.3
26.0
28.5
25.3
27.6
26.9
100,207
100,069
100,069
100,070
100,031
100,031
100,031
37,012
35,328
33,386
32,327
32,157
30,598
28,979
36.9
35.3
33.4
32.3
32.2
30.6
29.0
Cropland Cropland Woodland Woodland
* % of Farms
% of Farms
& Ranches
& Ranches
158
36.2
7
1.6
144
33.3
5
1.2
128
41.3
5
1.6
140
41.2
15
4.4
136
45.2
10
3.3
134
40.7
12
3.7
131
40.8
5
1.6
11,815
11,245
10,630
11,455
11,257
10,895
10,479
31.9
31.8
31.8
35.4
35.0
35.6
36.2
3,403
2,038
1,522
1,365
1,483
1,351
1,150
9.2
5.8
4.6
4.2
4.6
4.4
4.0
Other Other % of
Land Farms &
**
Ranches
272
62.2
284
65.6
177
57.1
185
54.4
141
46.8
183
55.6
185
57.6
21,793
22,045
21,234
19,908
19,416
18,352
17,349
58.9
62.4
63.6
61.6
60.4
60.0
59.9
*Includes harvested cropland, cropland used for pastures, and other cropland.
**Includes pasture land, rangeland, houses and barns, lots, ponds, roads, and wasteland.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California, various years
2 Harvested acres include vegetable crops that may be harvested and counted more than once
a year. Harvested acre numbers are greater than real acre numbers.
3The definition of a farm which has been used in the Census of Agriculture since 1974 is any
agricultural operation whose production is valued at greater than or equal to $1,000. The
definition used before 1974 had a minimum value on production of $500. This decreases the
number of farms because farms with production below $1000 are no longer counted.
23
As shown in Table 2 below, Ventura County's average farm size has declined from
290 acres in 1964 to 146 in 1992. This is considerably below the average California
farm size of 373 acres.
The number of farms in Ventura County has been slowly, but steadily increasing
over the past thirty years. This is in contrast to the State of California in which the
number of farms has been relatively constant. (Note: The definition of a farm
used in Census of Agriculture changed in 1974. A farm is defined as an agricultural
operation with annual production of $1,000 or more. The definition used before
1974 had a minimum requirement of $500 dollars of production).
Table 2
Farm Acreage, Number and Size
California and Ventura County
California
Year
Number
of Farms
1964
1969
1974
1978
1982
1987
1992
80,852
77,875
67,674
73,194
82,463
83,217
77,699
Ventura
Land in Average
Farms
Size
(1,000 ac.)
37,011
35,328
33,386
32,727
32,157
30,598
28,979
(acres)
458
454
493
447
390
368
373
Number
of Farms
Land in
Farms
Average
Size
1,507
1,679
1,639
1,793
2,064
2,120
2,195
(1,000 ac.)
437
433
310
340
301
329
321
(acres)
290
258
189
190
146
155
146
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California
24
Investment dollars in Ventura County agricultural land and buildings are high.
The average value of land and buildings on a Ventura County farm is $978,005,
twenty percent higher than the California state average. More dramatically, the
average Ventura County farm has a value of $6,7004 per acre, compared with
$2,200 per acre statewide, as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Value of Land and Buildings
California and Ventura County
California
Ventura
Year
Total
Value
Average
Value/Farm
Average
Value/Acre
Total
Value
1964
1969
1974
1978
1982
1987
1992
Millions
$17,355
16,932
21,793
38,152
61,565
48,571
63,718
dollars
$214,650
217,429
322,034
521,240
746,577
583,668
820,063
dollars
$468
479
653
1,161
1,918
1,575
2,199
Millions
$918
815
663
1,130
1,647
1,553
2,147
Average
Average
Value/Farm Value/Acre
dollars
$609,125
485,593
404,683
630,148
797,809
732,708
978,005
dollars
$2,118
1,885
2,141
3,357
4,659
3,996
6,696
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California
4 This value is calculated on all farm acreage in the County including rangeland. Values of
irrigated acres are significantly higher.
25
History of Ventura County Crops
In 1542 Juan Cabrillo landed on the shore of what is now Ventura County, during his
explorations of the California coast. Over 200 years later, in 1782, missionaries came to
this same area and established Mission San Buenaventura. They brought in sheep, cattle,
and crops from the Mediterranean. Other plants, especially rangeland grasses, forage
plants and cropland weeds, were introduced unintentionally and spread over both wild
and cultivated lands.
Walnuts and lemons were introduced in 1867. In the period from 1880 to 1910, barley
for grain and hay, and oats were grown on over 60,000 acres without irrigation. These
crops can still be grown without irrigation on as much as 10,000 acres of hilly land in
years with near or above average rainfall. In the 1880's, figs, prunes, and apples were
tried, but none became important crops. Lima beans were introduced in 1868, and
exceeded 50,000 acres in some years between 1900 and 1943. After the early 1940's, lima
bean acreage declined steadily. Following the building of a sugar factory in 1899, there
were about 11,000 acres of sugar beets. Sugar beet acreage fell to two to three thousand
acres in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and almost none since 1985.5 (See Oxnard
Brothers' story on the following page for more about sugar beets.)
In terms of both acreage and production value, lemons are currently number one in
Ventura County. Lemons first became the highest-valued commodity in 1930 and have
stayed in the number one spot since 1947. In recent years, the number two and three
commodities in greatest production value have been celery and strawberries.
Strawberries were first planted in Ventura County in 1929. Acreage was first reported
in the Ventura County Crop reports in 1940 when strawberries acreage totaled 5 acres
with a total value of $5,520. By 1951, strawberry acreage had only increased to 11 acres
with a crop value of $16,357. In the following ten years there was a great expansion
with strawberry plantings occupying 520 acres in 1961 with a value of $1.7 million. Since
1990 strawberries have exceeded 4,000 acres and $100 million in value
Celery was first planted in 1923 with a total production of 155 tons. Celery was not
grown again until 1934, with production averaging about 50 acres for the next ten years.
By 1951, the acreage had increased to 403 acres. In the early 1960's, celery and
strawberries became two of the major row crops in the county. Cultural and harvesting
practices for celery also changed drastically in the early 1960's. The early harvesting
practice for celery was to cut the celery, place it in bins, and transport it to a packing
house for washing, trimming and packing. In later years, celery growers packed the
celery in the field.6
5Cooperative Extension, University of California, Ventura County
6History of Ventura County celery and strawberries paraphrased from the Ventura County
Agricultural Commissioner's Report, 1988.
26
The Oxnard Brothers' Sugar Beet Factory
Robert, Benjamin, Henry T., and James Oxnard were four French immigrant brothers who inherited a sugar
refining business. In 1887, the brothers consolidated their business with other sugar refining companies and
took the name of the American Sugar Refining Company. In 1889 and 1890, they built the first two of their
five factories in Grand Island, Nebraska and Chino, California, respectively.
After Ventura County farmer Albert F. Maulhardt heard about the sugar beet factory in Chino, he went to
San Francisco to persuade Henry T. Oxnard to come to Ventura County and consider it as a future sugar beet
refinery site. At the time, only crops such as barley and lima beans were grown in the area because of the
unpredictable rainfall. The market for lima beans was depressed from excess supply. Maulhardt reasoned
that since sugar beets can grow in almost any soil or climate, they would be a good crop to rotate with lima
beans. If a refinery could be built in the area, the farmers would have a stable market for their sugar beets.
Another argument for growing sugar beets was that the main competition would be imports (which would
include transportation costs). During the period 1880 to 1896, ninety percent of the sugar consumed in the U.S.
was imported.7
In 1896, Maulhardt convinced the growers to raise enough sugar beets to send a crop to Chino. At the Chino
refinery they determined that the sugar beets were eighteen to twenty percent sugar--at a time when beets
with twelve percent sugar were considered good.8 These results convinced Henry T. Oxnard. The Oxnard
brothers' proposal was that they would build a $200 million sugar refinery on a site in the bean fields close to
the growers if the County of Ventura gave them 100 acres for the site, the right of way for a spur from the
Southern Pacific Railroad, and a railroad and draining ditch to the ocean. The growers also had to pledge to
plant 20,000 acres of sugar beets for five years. The Oxnard brothers guaranteed a price of $3.25 per ton for
beets with 12% sugar, plus 25 cents per ton for each percentage of sugar above that. The factory would be the
largest in the west, processing at least 2,000 tons of sugar beets per day. When the refinery was completed in
1898, Major Driffill, the first manager of the refinery, arranged for acquisition of land and developed plans
for a town site near the factory. "Stories say that Henry T. Oxnard wanted the town to be named Sakchar
(which in Greek means sugar), but when he called from Sacramento, the phone connection was so poor that
they could not understand what he was saying. In exasperation, he said to just call the town 'Oxnard'."9 The
factory was responsible for an enormous amount of growth in the area, and on June 30, 1903, Oxnard officially
became a town.
From the opening of the refinery up to World War I, the main crops grown in the Oxnard area were grain,
lima beans, and sugar beets. After World War I, sugar beets became less profitable. Irrigation made it
possible for farmers to raise citrus crops. The factory was open from 1899 to 1959. The factory was salvaged
by Lipsett Steel products, and the site went to Ventura County Industrial Plaza for development.
7LeDesma, p. 3.
8LeDesma, p. 4.
27
Acreage by Crop
The history of selected crops from 1940 to 1993 is shown in Table 4 below. Note
that acreage reported in the tables and graphs means acreage harvested. Therefore,
an increase in vegetable crop acreage may signify more double cropping, not
additional land in production. Double cropping occurs when the same land is used
for two or more harvested crops in the same year. Total harvested acres are
therefore greater than acres cultivated. In Ventura County, on average about
20,000 acres of vegetables are double cropped. There is no significant triple
cropping in Ventura County.
The six most significant crops in terms of harvested acres are:
• Lemons. with 18% of all cropland
• Avocados
• Oranges
• Celery
• Lettuce, and
• Strawberries
These are also illustrated in Figure 1 on the following page.
28
Figure 1
Ventura County Crop Acreage (Harvested Acres)
25,00 0
20,00 0
15,00 0
10,00 0
5,000
0
19 40
19 45
Lem on
Lettu ce
19 50
19 55
19 60
19 65
Valen cia
Strawberry
19 70
19 75
Avocado
Broccoli
19 80
19 85
19 90
Celery
Cabbag e
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports.
29
19 93
Table 4
Ventura County Crop Acreage, Selected Crops (Harvested Acres)
Year
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
25 Yr Ave
Lemon
14,652
18,152
19,004
19,004
16,446
17,954
18,670
18,588
17,620
17,708
16,537
16,318
17,631
17,631
17,339
18,799
19,496
20,260
21,670
21,728
22,009
22,656
20,886
22,895
21,876
21,289
20,770
21,245
21,878
22,550
23,380
23,868
24,033
24,870
25,513
23,098
23,697
22,609
22,530
23,647
24,147
24,947
21,824
23,295
22,620
21,340
21,806
21,669
22,169
22,285
22,381
23,630
23,369
24,239
23,181
Valencia
14,080
16,586
16,332
16,332
15,321
15,919
16,374
16,374
16,295
16,756
18,081
17,033
17,532
17,532
15,827
16,070
16,146
16,086
15,986
16,436
16,480
16,320
15,055
15,436
15,687
16,146
14,679
16,971
17,962
18,940
18,830
19,374
19,215
18,878
18,884
15,879
15,849
15,571
15,502
15,580
15,633
15,533
11,819
14,204
14,310
14,424
14,535
14,535
14,245
14,245
14,294
14,355
14,006
12,325
15,638.60
Avocado
312
325
231
258
231
379
430
430
422
470
497
512
548
700
807
1,365
1,841
1,977
1,766
1,829
2,084
2,375
2,337
2,574
2,649
2,359
2,661
2,613
2,785
3,060
3,070
3,155
3,279
3,387
3,497
4,720
6,212
7,768
7,416
10,187
10,917
12,100
12,748
15,636
16,251
16,448
16,503
16,303
16,103
16,170
16,198
12,926
13,911
16,199
10,567
Celery
55
0
36
23
35
55
57
65
69
155
159
403
693
1,003
1,147
1,299
1,486
1,601
1,739
2,210
2,017
2,424
2,190
2,574
2,649
2,855
4,330
4,029
4,440
5,440
5,940
6,147
6,516
6,716
7,534
8,739
8,558
9,437
9,481
10,309
9,934
10,011
10,793
10,290
11,079
10,976
11,075
9,615
10,650
11,100
11,242
10,528
11,723
9,878
9,348
Lettuce
475
420
330
250
250
312
357
430
660
797
1,478
1,581
3,519
2,427
1,980
1,829
2,500
3,692
4,221
4,572
5,485
5,542
5,468
7,746
7,723
7,125
6,550
5,107
4,650
5,820
5,210
4,614
5,927
5,437
3,518
4,688
4,504
5,615
6,157
5,247
4,696
5,703
6,387
5,637
7,686
7,220
7,178
6,390
9,792
9,342
7,842
7,368
6,826
6,824
6,225
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports
30
Strawberry
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
11
54
137
150
141
310
301
310
334
530
520
461
480
489
535
617
701
858
915
1,040
1,273
1,429
1,606
2,011
2,050
2,290
2,430
3,230
2,383
2,419
2,535
2,227
2,300
2,760
3,006
3,027
3,468
3,500
3,938
4,200
4,435
5,550
4,795
2,753
Broccoli
0
0
0
0
44
100
112
76
106
152
242
401
925
1,080
789
889
1,747
1,686
1,435
2,360
3,014
2,106
1,520
1,509
1,693
1,562
2,030
2,318
2,040
2,260
2,060
3,406
3,728
2,090
4,492
3,561
3,149
5,011
4,320
2,649
2,704
2,708
6,260
4,653
4,589
6,394
4,686
4,985
2,481
2,429
2,791
4,457
4,600
4,632
3,804
Cabbage
150
200
200
110
90
287
19
31
65
238
284
405
348
266
183
433
960
1,107
1,757
1,908
1,954
1,359
2,312
2,261
2,350
2,667
2,330
2,389
2,495
2,160
2,670
3,617
2,891
2,924
3,172
3,100
2,122
1,548
1,760
1,604
1,727
1,554
1,832
1,781
1,984
1,620
2,409
2,004
3,134
2,432
1,590
2,503
2,757
2,202
2,284
Harvested acres of higher-value fruits and vegetables, such as avocados, broccoli
and lettuce, have increased, while harvested acres of low-value field crops such as
sugar beets have decreased. Vegetable acreage, as a commodity group, increased
steadily from less than 10,000 acres to nearly 60,000 acres in 1984, and has dropped
back to 42,000 in 1993. It should be noted that acreage of pasture, nursery stock,
and cut flowers are not included in Table 5.
Table 5
Ventura County Harvested Acres
By commodity group
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Fruits & Nuts
51,966
52,743
52,833
53,520
54,222
49,282
51,895
52,393
52,934
56,138
57,676
59,675
55,064
59,217
59,575
58,575
59,608
59,076
58,714
59,286
59,721
58,238
59,122
59,685
Vegetables
37,000
41,580
45,880
43,239
45,340
48,874
39,901
46,752
46,829
49,467
43,408
45,176
52,255
49,851
59,685
58,099
51,163
47,012
48,962
47,264
46,725
47,109
46,522
41,798
Field Crops
17,120
29,309
20,026
23,410
26,854
29,805
21,987
22,740
20,473
17,063
18,836
14,547
13,454
14,760
10,507
10,004
9,829
7,467
6,707
7,076
2,632
3,282
3,287
3,629
Total
106,086
123,632
118,739
120,169
126,416
127,961
113,783
121,885
120,236
122,668
119,920
119,398
120,773
123,828
129,767
126,678
120,600
113,555
114,383
113,626
109,078
108,629
108,931
105,112
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports
31
Figure 2
Composition of Ventura County Harvested Acres
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
Acres
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1970
1975
1980
Fruits & Nuts
1985
Vegetables
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports
32
1990
1991
Field Crops
1992
Total
1993
Productivity: Crop Yields
Crop yields per acre have increased for Ventura County's leading crops over the
past two decades. Crop yields are illustrated in Figure 3 and Table 6 for selected
Ventura County crops. Comparing 1973 crop yields per acre with 1993 yields per
acre, the avocado crop yield per acre has increased the most with a 50% increase,
owing to the maturing of groves planted in the 1970s and 1980s. The increases in
crop yields per acre for other leading crops are not as dramatic: The crop yield per
acre for lemons increased by 2%; for strawberries, the increase was 19%; and for
celery, it was 20%.
Ventura County crop yields per acre are on average slightly better than statewide
yields. For some crops, Ventura County is substantially more productive than the
state.
Figure 3
Ventura County Selected Crop Yields Per Acre
35
30
Tons/Acre
25
20
15
10
5
0
1973
1975
1977
Celery
1979
1981
Strawberry
1983
Lemon
1985
Valencia
1987
1989
1991
Avocado
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports.
33
1993
Table 6
Crop Yields Per Acre (tons)
Ventura County
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Average
California
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Average
Celery
28.6
29.0
31.0
28.5
31.0
29.0
28.0
26.4
30.0
27.5
28.0
28.0
27.6
29.1
33.6
30.1
29.5
31.4
31.9
30.1
34.3
29.6
Strawberry
22.9
25.7
26.0
24.4
26.5
19.0
19.8
25.2
23.7
26.0
27.0
26.6
28.2
27.0
28.8
30.6
25.0
29.8
30.6
21.6
27.3
25.8
Lemon
17.9
15.0
21.5
15.1
21.5
20.9
11.3
17.5
18.7
14.3
12.4
12.4
15.1
14.8
23.0
15.4
16.9
15.9
15.2
21.7
18.2
16.9
Valencia
12.9
6.8
16.7
10.9
10.1
15.8
6.2
14.3
13.8
18.3
6.9
6.9
14.0
10.2
11.4
19.3
13.3
13.2
9.5
22.1
10.2
12.5
Avocado
3.4
3.3
3.6
2.5
1.8
2.4
2.4
0.8
4.3
2.5
3.2
3.2
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.8
2.2
1.3
1.7
1.7
5.1
2.6
28.5
29.0
29.1
28.1
29.0
27.5
27.2
28.5
28.9
31.2
30.9
31.4
31.2
29.7
29.8
32.7
33.5
29.9
33.5
33.5
30.2
19.8
21.5
19.0
19.5
22.5
19.5
20.5
23.5
24.8
28.0
24.0
26.8
26.5
25.3
23.5
22.5
21.3
24.8
24.8
24.8
23.1
16.3
13.0
18.5
12.2
16.3
16.4
10.6
13.5
18.0
13.0
15.2
12.7
15.2
11.8
16.9
13.2
12.7
12.6
12.1
12.4
14.1
10.0
8.0
11.9
11.1
10.2
11.3
8.2
13.6
14.1
8.0
19.9
8.1
14.5
11.6
13.1
15.5
13.4
14.7
5.3
17.3
12.0
3.6
2.6
4.4
2.3
4.1
3.1
3.1
1.7
5.0
2.4
2.9
3.4
2.6
2.2
3.7
2.4
2.2
1.4
1.8
2.1
2.9
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioners Reports and California Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service
34
Value of Crops
Agriculture has continued to flourish in Ventura County partly because the
County’s resources have allowed it to produce high-value crops. Ventura County
agriculture is characterized by advanced levels of technology, capital, and
management. The concentration of higher-value fruits and vegetables and high peracre yields partially explains Ventura County's consistently high cash receipts.
However, the same mild, frost-free Mediterranean climate that allows the County to
grow unique and high-valued crops also makes it a desirable place to live.
Development in Ventura County has caused the value of land to increase in recent
years, partially explaining the shift to high-value crops. As the value of land
increases, the economic return from the land must also increase. Otherwise, the
land may eventually be sold and converted to urban uses for a higher return on the
land. If farmers did not inherit the land they are working, then they need to grow
high-valued crops in order to afford the high price or rent for the land. The total
value in constant dollars (constant dollars are dollars adjusted for inflation) of
Ventura County’s agricultural production has been following an upward trend since
at least the 1930’s. The trend since 1955 is illustrated in Figure 4. As shown in
constant 1993 dollar value, total crop production values were $200 million in 1955,
doubled by 1970, and doubled again to about $800 million in the early 1990’s.
35
Figure 4
Value of Ventura County Agricultural Production
1993 Constant Dollars Producti on Val ue ($,000)
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
(1993=100) Producer Price Index for Farm Products from the 1994 Economic Report of the President.
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports.
Selected individual crops are illustrated in Figure 5 and Table 7. As shown,
strawberries have made the greatest gains in production value in the last fifty years.
In the early 1940's almost no strawberries were grown in Ventura County.
Adjusting for inflation10 , the 1993 value of strawberry production is 136 times as
large as the 1955 value. They now represent 13% of the total production value in
the County (second only to lemons). Avocados have the second highest rate in
increase in value.
Lemon values, although they have increased less dramatically, have still more than
tripled since 1955 and are the County’s top value crop at 24% of the total. Orange
production values, however, have been flat relative to lemons.
10Nominal values were converted to real values by using the Producer Price Index for Farm
Products.
36
Figure 5
Ventura County Production Values for Selected Crops
250,000,000
200,000,000
Constant Dollars
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
0
1955
Avocado
1960
Valencia
1965
1970
Lemon
1975
1980
Str awberry
1985
1990
Cabbage
1991
Celery
1992
1993
Let tuce
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports
(1993=100) Producer Price Index for Farm Products from the 1994 Economic Report of the President
In the last fifty years, high-valued crops such as strawberries and avocados have shown
the greatest increases. Once negligible commodities, strawberries and avocados are now
13% and 10%, respectively, of total production value.
37
Table 7
Ventura County Production Value of Selected Crops in Constant Dollars
Year
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Avocado
1,377,053
1,982,048
1,393,162
3,002,653
3,631,656
3,248,741
4,549,865
2,938,559
3,357,741
5,164,335
5,077,024
5,950,049
4,422,280
9,822,919
5,133,143
11,813,084
8,433,984
13,209,664
11,242,861
14,553,774
15,495,831
26,195,410
13,877,779
20,066,008
23,730,125
16,511,386
27,563,059
17,187,032
25,937,304
28,659,229
31,575,158
52,201,106
23,470,028
59,164,627
53,260,324
50,887,850
34,516,651
30,923,363
49,906,000
Valencia
34,027,840
35,367,925
35,054,952
49,896,812
54,718,049
51,115,614
49,840,431
54,961,864
72,086,733
82,283,128
63,130,126
52,137,610
57,450,777
60,844,928
39,919,163
38,401,869
56,670,494
32,371,215
41,747,719
27,421,344
41,442,051
27,547,121
39,146,746
62,490,605
26,712,505
45,648,331
35,316,314
42,425,637
37,018,809
49,179,513
63,880,513
64,126,929
50,528,852
67,922,277
59,955,616
48,785,047
106,401,458
42,774,220
45,034,000
Lemon
60,354,266
55,369,225
54,770,679
71,944,420
75,207,966
73,701,825
81,075,472
82,343,750
104,312,618
106,750,343
97,319,401
98,611,655
111,058,290
121,110,549
129,044,223
125,799,065
132,491,389
132,309,000
124,783,633
115,366,326
120,907,032
87,297,121
109,207,923
127,948,389
134,250,107
126,636,165
96,184,906
90,333,833
82,357,367
89,062,880
130,481,548
124,588,804
182,313,725
172,049,164
158,668,468
166,890,139
208,500,860
171,576,121
216,129,000
Strawberry
816,693
2,560,796
1,037,988
2,343,890
5,027,149
4,761,566
4,752,022
5,339,778
6,133,748
11,182,442
9,706,362
14,135,651
19,702,073
24,857,071
21,600,095
25,007,009
29,005,970
32,991,290
28,226,818
34,804,119
41,874,236
46,335,823
52,758,658
37,312,836
33,478,728
41,855,048
48,872,050
43,728,868
49,797,283
56,693,712
67,608,011
76,520,387
99,056,583
92,835,577
81,577,576
120,555,026
132,332,220
104,489,775
110,447,000
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Reports
38
Cabbage
884,280
1,190,428
2,154,501
2,843,183
3,905,571
2,937,284
2,761,725
6,495,498
2,354,499
3,946,091
4,511,830
4,122,429
4,155,440
3,943,081
4,234,427
6,485,981
7,432,836
6,217,545
6,476,303
5,274,399
8,288,077
3,680,065
7,209,406
4,947,657
5,464,439
4,168,660
3,733,727
5,548,898
4,880,878
10,594,320
3,952,520
8,661,599
6,151,261
15,212,158
9,320,726
5,877,360
8,985,727
10,988,432
8,975,000
Celery
7,397,544
4,997,697
8,071,968
15,257,312
11,176,471
9,238,754
9,407,008
17,799,258
11,302,891
16,786,008
20,079,653
26,285,504
26,093,264
25,135,340
37,803,138
52,873,832
38,110,218
51,336,168
32,512,511
31,694,222
49,694,275
49,681,559
67,410,726
81,854,075
56,750,430
47,795,570
67,574,247
75,705,114
66,578,892
87,743,408
55,268,902
73,089,150
89,276,190
82,814,157
82,445,967
80,538,814
77,065,492
81,507,953
113,823,000
Lettuce
2,403,307
2,615,099
5,083,690
4,652,375
6,906,287
7,462,994
9,563,342
12,023,305
12,666,577
14,320,165
11,919,295
11,900,098
8,195,078
6,903,618
13,899,192
11,028,037
14,557,979
17,225,218
15,952,164
8,421,482
10,380,906
10,963,607
15,014,688
21,875,915
10,964,761
12,701,466
16,590,724
25,599,187
19,293,626
22,589,249
23,044,554
25,274,130
22,782,073
38,791,310
28,930,915
23,416,937
28,002,834
24,304,896
28,704,000
Lemons have been the number one crop in terms of value of production since 1947.
The production value of lemons is almost twice the value of second place celery. In
recent years, the production values of celery and avocados have gained position
with celery overtaking strawberries in 1993. Other shifts in the top ten
commodities in the past ten years are Valencia Oranges going from fourth to sixth,
and cabbage moving from fourteenth to tenth. These are shown in table 8 below.
Table 8
Ventura County's Rankings of Commodities
Commodity
Lemons
Celery
Strawberries
Nursery Stock
Avocados
Valencia Oranges
Lettuce
Cut Flowers
Broccoli
Cabbage
1983
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
8
10
14
1988
1
3
2
4
6
5
7
8
12
9
1993
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner's Report
Citrus makes up 38% of harvested acres and 44% of production value. All
tree crops make up 54% of harvested acres and 51% of production value.
39
Limoneira: Place of the Lemon
"One hundred years ago, [Maine natives] Wallace Hardison [founder of Union Oil] and
Nathan Blanchard inaugurated the agricultural venture they called Limoneira [which
means place of the lemon in Portuguese] based upon a forthright business plan: 'the
culture, curing and marketing of the lemon.' This unpretentious conception guided the
company and those that came afterward--transforming rocky, dusty acreage and ink
on paper into vigorous enterprise."11 In 1872, Blanchard arrived in Ventura County,
purchased 2,700 acres of land, and established the Santa Paula townsite Blanchard
planted 100 acres of oranges in 1874. The Southern Pacific Railroad arrived in Santa
Paula in 1887 and made it possible to ship oranges east.
In 1891, Blanchard and Hardison purchased land to raise lemons. "Blanchard and
Hardison also obtained water rights for the property by organizing the Santa Paula
Water Company in 1891 and the Thermal Belt Water Company in 1893."12 In an
unstable economic atmosphere, Blanchard and Hardison formed the Limoneira
Company in Santa Paula on March 4, 1893 and sold stock. A nursery was established at
the ranch to provide a source of future orchard stock."13 They also built bunk houses,
dormitories, and a mess hall for the workers.
In 1899, Limoneira joined the Southern California Fruit Exchange (which later became
Sunkist), quit in 1904, and re-joined in 1911. In 1916, Limoneira decided to add the
Sunkist label to their boxes and wraps.
In 1907, Limoneira purchased the 2,300 acre Olivelands Tract for $400,000. The
company had grown from fifteen employees in 1897 to 200-250 in 1995. Limoneira
provided affordable, close-to-the-work-site housing for its employees with cottages
and apartments for fieldworker families, and houses for supervisors' families. The
company also ran an on-site store for its employees. "By 1923 the main part of the
ranch took on the appearance of a small town."14 By 1920, Limoneira's ". . . labor
force during the same year exceeded 400 employees during peak season, with at least
half that number staying on year round.
Continued on next page
11Triem, p.
12Triem, p.
13Triem, p.
14Triem, p.
40
23.
2.
3.
10.
Limoneira: Place of the Lemon, Continued
According to the. . . Santa Paula Chronicle for October 1921, Limoneira had become '. .
. the largest individual shipper of lemons'."15
Even during the Great Depression profits soared.
The 1940's were a more difficult time for Limoneira. World War II made it difficult to
get supplies, and modernization and replacement of equipment was delayed. There
was also a labor shortage of field workers. Limoneira began to hire Mexican nationals
under the bracero guest worker program in 1942. Over-production depressed
markets.
The 1950's brought about many changes including the company responding to
changing market demand by producing more Valencia Oranges, the installation of
labor-saving equipment, and the replacement of wooden crates with fiberboard
cartons. In the 1960's, labor unrest confronted the Limoneira Company. The bracero
program ended in 1964 causing Limoneira to demand more domestic labor. In an
effort to attract more domestic workers, Limoneira made improvements and
additions to employee living and recreational facilities. Soon Mexican laborers were
allowed to emigrate to the U.S. on work permits, and Limoneira took advantage of
this additional labor supply. The company began to offer benefits and educational
opportunities including language classes and a head start program for pre-school
children of field workers.
Limoneira's field workers decided to join the United Farm Workers in 1978." The
unionization experiment lasted until 1985 when the workers voted to decertify it, but
legal problems and appeals required a second vote in 1991. The field workers once
again voted against the union."16
Limoneira is still changing. In the early 1980's, the company entered the computer
age. In 1985, the Limoneira Company merged with the Samuel Edwards Associates to
form Limoneira Associates. This merger almost doubled Limoneira's acreage. Milton
Teague died in 1986, and his nephew Alan Teague became Chairman of the Board in
1987. As of 1992, Limoneira had 3,188 producing acres including 1,303 acres of
lemons.17
15Triem, p. 9.
16Triem, p. 21.
17Triem, p. 23.
41
Table 9 shows the production per acre and the values per acre for vegetable and fruit
crops in Ventura County in 1993. The highest gross returns per acre were for
strawberries at $23,000 and celery at $11,000, kale at $10,200 and lemons at $8,900.
Table 9
Fruit and Vegetable Production and Values - 1993
Production
CROP
Vegetables
Celery
Lettuce
Onions
Broccoli
Cabbage
Peppers
Cilantro
Spinach
Oriental Vegetables
Parsley
Tomatoes
Cauliflower
Beans
Kale
Sweet Corn
Carrots
Cucumbers
Pumpkin
Total Vegetables
Fruits
Lemons
Strawberries
Avocados
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Grapefruit
Total Fruits
Combined Total*
Harv. Acre
Value
Tons/Acre Total Tons
$/Ton
$/Acre Total ($,000's)
9,878
6,824
2,256
4,632
2,202
1,852
1,658
1,644
913
859
2,402
1,318
2,382
300
1,127
887
412
252
41,798
34.33
10.04
20.58
5.20
22.53
13.13
7.21
6.52
11.29
10.07
32.05
6.57
2.40
24.05
6.78
17.58
9.33
12.88
339,130
68,502
46,431
24,081
49,611
24,322
11,958
10,713
10,308
8,648
76,979
8,656
5,724
7,216
7,645
15,597
3,844
3,247
722,612
$335.63
419.02
288.17
532.70
180.91
305.98
555.44
597.87
616.71
649.28
65.84
534.77
542.98
426.00
329.63
149.64
454.99
158.92
$11,523
4,206
5,931
2,769
4,076
4,018
4,006
3,896
6,963
6,537
2,110
3,512
1,305
10,247
2,236
2,631
4,245
2,048
5,578
$113,823
28,704
13,380
12,825
8,975
7,442
6,642
6,405
6,357
5,615
5,068
4,629
3,108
3,074
2,520
2,334
1,749
516
233,166
24,239
4,795
16,199
806
12,325
667
59,031
100,829
18.21
27.27
5.10
7.79
10.16
18.13
441,379
130,763
82,600
6,275
125,196
12,093
798,306
1,520,918
489.67
844.63
604.19
260.40
359.71
235.43
8,917
23,034
3,081
2,029
3,654
4,268
7,952
6,968
216,129
110,447
49,906
1,634
45,034
2,847
469,397
702,563
*Fruits and vegetables make up approximately 96% of Ventura County agricultural production by production value.
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner's Report, 1993
42
Net Income
As shown in Table 10, total market value (that is, gross returns) of all agricultural
products in Ventura County in 1992 was $667.8 million. After total expenses of an
estimated $549.4 million, total net returns for Ventura County farms were over
$115.7 million, averaging $52,729 per farming operation. Net returns are defined as
market value of products sold less total production expense and are calculated on a
cash flow basis. Net returns do not include farm income from other sources.
Production expense does not include returns on capital or the value of the owner's
labor. Average returns are defined as the net returns divided by the number of
farms. The figures for California are net returns of $3.2 billion, averaging $40,935
per farming operation. The Ventura County net return per farm is about three times
the U.S. average.
Table 10
Farm Income (In $,000’s unless stated otherwise)
Ventura County
Market Value of Products Sold
California
1987
$537,519
1992
$667,826
1987
$13,922,234
1992
$17,651,912
3,032
29,288
12,534
13,974
18,413
9,554
11,089
135,552
40,614
15,972
12,348
17,542
16,142
6,961
58,521
401,539
7,263
20,521
19,377
23,088
23,542
13,425
12,955
186,746
62,847
21,391
8,547
18,830
20,349
11,480
99,057
549,419
776,540
1,707,608
215,542
427,924
544,779
332,166
330,538
2,385,242
613,340
503,218
335,292
697,449
381,871
245,512
1,420,571
10,917,593
935,152
2,108,719
274,495
568,772
694,549
414,984
500,264
2,922,390
967,377
630,574
448,923
738,910
492,662
291,385
1,815,826
13,804,983
135,980
115,741
2,927,279
3,179,111
253,547
304,249
189,405
250,305
64,016
52,729
Agriculture: California
167,300
131,205
35,179
219,546
177,755
40,935
Production Expense
Livestock & Poultry Purchased
Feed
Seeds, Bulbs, Plants & Trees
Commercial Fertilizer
Ag. Chemicals
Petroleum Products
Electricity
Hired Farm Labor
Contract Labor
Repair & Maintenance
Customwork, Rental of Equipment
Interest Paid
Cash Rent
Property Taxes Paid
Other Production Expenses
Total Production Expense
Net Returns
Average Per Farm (Not in $,000’s)
Market Value of Products Sold
Production Expense
Net Returns (dollars)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of
43
Table 11 compares the value of net returns per acre with Monterey County which
grows similar crops, with Fresno County, California’s biggest agricultural county,
and with statewide figures (all for 1992). The market value of products sold per
irrigated acre of land in Ventura County of $6,593 is about 2.9 times as large as the
average for California. The net return of $1,143 per irrigated acre of land is 2.7
times as large as the state average. Monterey’s value and return per acre are
comparable with Ventura County, while Fresno County’s are closer to the
statewide averages.
Table 11
Value Per Irrigated Acre
Ventura County
Market Value of Products Sold ($,000)
Net Returns ($,000)
Market Value of Products Sold per Irrigated Acre
(Net
$ ) Return per Irrigated Acre ($)
California
1987
$537,519
1992
$667,826
1987
$13,922,234
1992
$17,051,912
135,980
115,741
2,927,279
3,179,111
5,172
6,593
1,833
2,252
1,308
1,143
385
420
Fresno County
Market Value of Products Sold ($,000)
Net Returns ($,000)
Market Value of Products Sold per Irrigated Acre
(Net
$ ) Return per Irrigated Acre ($)
Monterey County
1987
$1,681,523
1992
$2,081,516
1987
$730,746
1992
$1,202,715
360,608
378,827
157,703
272,991
1,663
2,084
4,034
5,402
357
379
871
1,226
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California
There are of course wide variations in gross and net returns for different
crop types and each individual farm operation, depending primarily on
their costs. For lemon crops, for example, typical cultural and overhead
costs are estimated at $2,223 per acre, compared to $1,829 for Valencia
orange crops. For avocados, sample cultural costs in the South Coast
Region in 1992 were $1,139 per acre (in the fifth year of the life of the
orchard), while harvest costs were $377, overhead was $757, and interest on
operating capital was $112 for a total of $2,385 per acre costs.18
18 Source: Ventura County Cooperative Extension data.
44
People on Farms
Farm Ownership and Farm Characteristics
As shown on Table 12 below, families or individuals own just over two-thirds of
Ventura County farms. This percentage is increasing in contrast to the state
percentage which is declining. If one includes family held corporations in this
category, the percentage increases to three-fourths. Partnerships make up 17.7% of
ownership, which is higher than both the state and national averages of just under
15% and 10%, respectively. Most farms are managed directly by an owner or part
owner who is a farmer. These farmers may utilize a farm management company
or labor contractors to varying degrees. The percentage of tenant19 farmers is
declining.
Table 12
Farm Ownership and Organization
Ventura County
Farm Operator
Full
FarmOwner
Operator
Part Owner
Tenant
Type of Ownership
Individual or Family
Partnership
Family Held Corp.
Other Corporation
Other*
California
Farm Operator
Full
FarmOwner
Operator
Part Owner
Tenant
1982
1987
1992
# of Farms % of Farms # of Farms % of Farms # of Farms % of Farms
1,652
80.04
1,735
81.84
1,834
83.55
159
7.70
155
7.31
127
5.79
253
12.26
230
10.85
234
10.66
1,356
475
149
38
46
65.70
23.01
7.22
1.84
2.23
1,428
433
171
31
57
67.36
20.42
8.07
1.46
2.69
1,530
388
173
33
71
69.70
17.68
7.88
1.50
2.23
1982
1987
1992
# of Farms % of Farms # of Farms % of Farms # of Farms % of Farms
60,556
73.4
60,639
72.9
56,559
75.44
12,692
15.4
12,218
14.7
11,471
15.30
9,215
11.2
10,360
12.4
6,939
9.26
Type of Ownership
Individual or Family
65,482
79.4
64,928
78.0
60,187
Partnership
11,360
13.8
12,127
14.6
11,350
Family Held Corp.
4,849
5.9
4,677
5.6
4,220
Other Corporation
343
0.4
690
0.8
847
Other*
429
0.5
795
1.0
1,065
*Cooperative, Estate, Trust, Institution, etc.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California, 1992, 1987, 1982
77.49
14.61
5.43
1.09
1.37
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California, 1992, 1987, 1982
Tenant is in reference to a farmer on rented land rather than a sharecropper.
19
45
Farmers tend to stay on a farm for ten years or more. In Ventura County, more
than half the farmers were reported to have spent ten or more years on their
present farm (similar to the statewide average). Over half (57%) of Ventura
County’s farm operators have a principal occupation outside of farming, compared
to about 48% statewide, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13
Farm Operator Characteristics
Principal Occupations & Farm Tenure
Ventura County
California
# of Farms
% of Farms
Principal Occupation
Farming
Other
# of Farms % of Farms
947
1,248
43.14
56.86
40,215
37,454
51.78
48.22
Years on Present Farm
Less than 2
3 to 4
5 to 9
Greater than 10
Not Reported
105
202
489
1,185
214
4.78
9.20
22.28
53.99
9.75
4,239
7,526
13,886
42,172
9,846
5.46
9.69
17.88
54.30
12.68
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California, 1992
46
The age, gender and race classifications of farmers in Ventura County generally
reflect the breakdown at the state level. The average age of farmers in Ventura
County is 56.4 years, while at the state level, it is 55.2 years. Ventura County has a
slightly lower percentage of farmers who are under 35 years with 3.5% compared
to 6.1% at the state level. See Table 14 below.
The racial and ethnic breakdown of Ventura County farmers is very close to that
of the state. This is in spite of Ventura County's higher percentage of white
residents in the general population of 65.9% compared with the state percentage of
57.2%
Table 14
Farm Operator Characteristics
Age, Gender and Race
Ventura County
Age
under 25
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 & over
Gender
Male
Female
California
# of Farms
% of Farms
# of Farms
% of Farms
1
75
354
608
534
623
0.05
3.42
16.13
27.70
24.33
28.38
417
4,288
14,232
19,223
17,997
21,412
0.54
5.53
18.35
24.78
23.20
27.60
1,918
277
87.38
12.62
68,016
9,653
87.57
12.43
Race & Ethnicity*
White
2,058
93.76
71,772
92.53
Black
7
0.32
253
0.33
Native American
3
0.14
486
0.63
Asian or Pacific Islander
47
2.14
3,292
4.24
Other Races
80
3.64
1,766
2.28
Spanish Origin
151
6.88
3,883
5.01
*Numbers add up to greater than 100% because those claiming Spanish Origin also claim
another racial classification.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture: California, 1992
47
Agricultural Employment
Agriculture continues to be a strong source of employment in Ventura County.
Figure 6
Farm Employment in Ventura County
19,000
18,000
17,000
16,000
15,000
Jobs
14,000
13,000
Job loss is attributed to lack of harvested
crops following severe frost years
12,000
11,000
10,000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Year
Source: California Employment Development Department
48
1985
1990
Farm Labor Contractors
Farm labor contractors are becoming more and more important in agricultural
production. In 1992, researchers from the U.C. Berkeley, U.C. Davis, and Vaupel
Associates completed a study on farm labor contractors in California for the
California Employment Development Department.20 Although farm labor
contractors’ field workers tend to be seasonal workers, the E.D.D. study found that
in Ventura County citrus and vegetable workers tend to be settled in the
community and find work there through much of the year. The E.D.D. study
indicated that in Ventura County, the contractors’ field workers are mostly male
(93%), and Hispanic (90%). About three-fourths of the labor contractors were born
in Mexico, one-fourth were born in the United States and their average age is fifty
years. Half of the workers speak English well, and about a fifth speak English
poorly or not at all. Just over a third speak English at home. About 20% have
graduated from a U.S. high school. The average field worker has about ten years
of experience.
Most farm labor contractors take a commission on the wage that the customers
(farm operators) agree to pay per field worker. Ten percent use a piece rate
system. The mean payroll of the farm labor contractors sampled in Ventura
County was just over $1 million. During the peak employment period, the mean
number of workers employed per farm labor contractor was 175. Many farm
labor contractors operate other businesses. Of the farm labor contractors sampled
in Ventura County, 55% of farm labor contractors operated some other business.
Most of the farm labor contractors (90%) have been in business for more than three
years.
Agricultural employment increases in the spring and continues to be high
throughout the summer, peaking in May. Most of the seasonality of County
employment can be attributed to agriculture.
20California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division,
Farm Labor Contractors in California, California Agricultural Studies 92-2.
49
Affordable Housing for Farm Labor
A major difficulty for Ventura County’s farm labor force is finding affordable
housing, given the County’s high property values. In 1992, the median existing
single-family home sales price of $225,680 was 14% higher than the statewide
median price of $197,900. When compared to the heavily agricultural Central
Valley; Ventura County's median price was 89% higher than the median sales price
of $119,130 in the Central Valley. Ventura County's median sales price peaked in
1990 and has been on a downward trend through 1991 and 1992.21
High property values also imply high payments for rental housing. According to
1990 Census results, California is the second most expensive state (Hawaii was first)
in which to rent housing accommodations with the median contract rent equal to
about two-and-a-half times the national average. According to the 1990 Census of
Housing, the median gross rent in Oxnard and Ventura was $899 per month.
21California Statistical Abstract, 1993
50
Aggregate Measures of the
Food and Fiber Sector
Ventura County's agriculture and agricultural processing sectors have a large
impact on the economy in Ventura County. For each dollar or job generated
directly in farm production and processing, there are ripple effects: The farmer’s
purchase of supplies and services; the farm workers’ income spent on rent,
groceries, etc.; and the jobs and income of those suppliers and merchants in turn
affecting other sectors of the economy.
The total impact from the agricultural sector is estimated from IMPLAN22 system.
The IMPLAN model calculates specific multiplier effects (the direct and indirect
ripple impacts) for each major crop type. The results are the following aggregate
estimates (detailed in Tables 15 and 16):
• Agricultural production and processing sales in 1992 were $1.16 billion.
• The total impact of these sales on the county economy was $2.41 billion. This
represents an additional $1.25 billion in sales from ripple effects from
agriculture and related industries.
• Similarly, the same $1.16 billion in sales created $1.22 billion in personal income,
$1.31 billion in value added, and 28,641 jobs.
• This represents 8.09% of personal income, 7.22% of value-added23 , and 8.13%
of jobs in Ventura County.
The vast majority of these impacts is from vegetable, fruit and nut production and
vegetable and fruit processing. This impact is comparable to that of the State of
California as a whole.24
22The IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) system was designed by the U.S. Forest
Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture to be able to estimate economic input-output models
for any county, or group of counties in the United States. An input-output model provides
detailed economic multipliers for all sectors of the economy.
23 Value-added in this case is equal to the value of goods and services sold minus the costs of
inputs and services (but not labor). For agriculture, value-added would indicate value added
to the economy from farm products, less processing costs, transportation, interest on loans, etc.
24 Carter and Goldman found that the statewide impact of agriculture was 9.42% on
personal income, 9.05% on value added and 9.78% on jobs.
51
Table 15
Economic Impact of Ventura County Agriculture - 1992
Ventura County
Agriculture
Agriculture Processing
Total Ag & Processing
Ag. as % of Ventura Co
Income
Value Added
Jobs
$,000
$,000
Number
15,088,406
727,437
493,582
1,221,019
8.09%
18,146,531
783,903
526,638
1,310,541
7.22%
352,200
19,652
8,989
28,641
8.13%
Sources for Data:
1. Ventura County Personal Income, 1992: California Department of Finance,
Sacramento
2. Ventura County Value Added, 1992: Estimated applying ratio of California State
Product to Personal Income in 1989 to Ventura County Personal Income in 1992.
3. Ventura County Employment, 1992: California Employment Development
Department, Sacramento
52
Table 16
Economic Impacts of Ventura County's Food Industry - 1992
Major
Agricultural
Commodity
Groups
Total Sales Impacts on Ventura County
Production/Processing
Sales, 1992
Dollars
Sales
Value
Added
$,000
Jobs
$,000
Personal
Income
$,000
5,001,718
5,442,768
14,968,766
248,002,064
187,935,509
1,140,624
82,911,447
11,941,862
42,812,279
431,671,999
29,039,856
11,777,356
4,143,247
1,723,497
79,827,337
73,193
9,450
9,550
25,398
640,862
429,019
2,354
238,553
18,886
63,718
781,542
45,627
17,986
6,386
3,228
120,571
228
5,368
5,647
13,680
317,343
219,809
1,374
164,214
6,949
20,340
383,843
21,963
7,729
1,813
1,104
49,716
124
5,653
6,119
14,981
344,748
235,408
1,463
175,532
7,494
21,753
409,052
23,244
8,168
1,934
1,697
53,157
140
116
116
213
8,957
4,966
31
5,252
154
402
7,008
379
139
32
30
840
5
$1,158,413,521
$2,413,358
$1,221,019
$1,310,541
28,641
8.09%
7.22%
8.13%
Dairy Farm/Poultry Products
Livestock
Food/Feed Grains
Fruits and Tree Nuts
Vegetables
Misc. Crops
Greenhouse/Nursery
Sausages/Prepared Meats
Fluid Milk
Processed Fruits/Veg.
Flour Grain Mill Products
Cocoa/Chocolate Products
Shortening/Cooking Oils
Wines, Brandy and Spirits
Bottled/Canned Soft Drinks
Manufactured Ice
Total
% of Ventura County
Ventura County Estimated Personal Income ($,000)
Ventura County Value Added, 1992 ($,000)
No.
$15,088,406
$18,146,531
Ventura County Employment, 199225
352,200
Sources for Data:
1. Ventura County Personal Income, 1992: California Department of Finance, Sacramento
2. Ventura County Value Added, 1992: Estimated applying ratio of California State Product
to Personal Income in 1989 to Ventura County Personal Income in 1992.
3. Ventura County Employment, 1992: California Employment Development
Department, Sacramento
25
Includes salaried workers, employers, own-account workers, unpaid family workers, and
workers directly involved work stoppages.
53
Port of Hueneme
Built in 1870, the Port of Hueneme in Ventura County is
the only deep water port between Los Angeles and San
Francisco. It is located on a projection into the sea about
twelve miles north of Point Mugu. The deep water Port of
Hueneme enables Ventura County farmers to ship their
products abroad from a location within Ventura County.
Export activity at the Port of Hueneme consists exclusively
of agricultural products. Citrus growers have especially
taken advantage of this lower cost alternative for shipping
their product to Asia. Port Hueneme not only reduces the
transportation costs involved in getting an agricultural
product to market, but also provides high-paying jobs for
Ventura County.
In February of 1992, the Port of Hueneme became an
official "Port of Entry" under the U.S. Department of
Customs.26 The Port handles "break bulk" cartons like
those used for shipping citrus. Fresh fruit exports were at
an all-time high of 178,409 tons in fiscal year 1994 and are
expected to continue growing. The reason for this
explosion in export activity is that in December of 1993,
Sunkist Growers switched from using the Port of Long
Beach to the Port of Hueneme.
When the UCSB Economic Forecast Project did an
Economic base study of the Oxnard-Port Hueneme area,
they pointed out that "[r]elatively very high salaries for the
employment of longshoremen are paid to Port workers.
The monthly number of registered longshoremen, clerks,
and foremen was 93 in 1994. The average annual salary
for registered longshoremen was $48,248 in 1993.
Including clerks and foremen, salaries for Port workers
averaged $52,291 in 1993."27
26Economic Base Study Oxnard-Port Hueneme Area, p. 23.
27Economic Base Study Oxnard-Port Hueneme Area, p. 24.
54
Bibliography
Blanchard, Dean Hobbs, Edited by Grant Heil, Of California's First Citrus Empire: A
Rainbow Arches from Maine to Ventura County, The Castle Press, Pasadena, 1983.
California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Vegetable Crops, (selected
years).
California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Fruit and Nut Statistics, (selected years).
California Employment Development Department, Annual Planning Information, Ventura
County.
California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Farm
Labor Contractors in California, California Agricultural Studies 92-2.
California Employment Development Department, Ventura County Employment Data.
California Department of Water Resources, California Water Plan Update, 1993, Draft
Bulletin 160-93, November 1993.
Cooperative Extension, Ventura County, University of California, Ventura County
Agricultural Data.
Carter, Harold O. and George Goldman, The Measure of California Agriculture: Its Impact of
the State Economy, Agricultural Issues Center, November 1992.
LeDesma, Diane, "The Oxnard Brothers and the Beet Sugar Factory", Ventura County
Historical Museum, 1981.
Triem, Judith, The Limoneira Company, One Hundred Years of Growing: 1893 -1993, Limoneira
Company, Santa Paula, California, 1993
UCSB Economic Forecast Project, Economic Base Study Oxnard-Port Hueneme Area, 1994.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, (selected years).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vegetable and Situation Outlook, (selected years).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, (selected years).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, (selected
years).
U.S. Forest Service, IMPLAN computer program, version 91-09.
Ventura County Agricultural Commissioners Reports, 1930-1993.
55
Farmland Protection In Ventura County:
A Review Of
General Plan Policies And Tools
Elisabeth K. Young
and
Alvin D Sokolow
UC Cooperative Extension,
Department of Human and Community Development, Davis
Table of Contents
Introduction
57
A Focus on General Plans
58
Cities’ General Plans
58
59
60
Overview of the General Plans
Farmland Protection Rationale
Implementing Tools
61
Urban Growth and Development
Restrictions On Development In Agricultural Areas
Compact Development
Rural Residential Development
Annexations
63
63
64
65
65
County of Ventura General Plan
67
67
Farmland Protection Rationale
Implementing Tools
Rural Residential Development
Annexations
Tables
56
67
69
69
73
Farmland Protection In Ventura County:
A Review Of
General Plan Policies And Tools
Introduction
In suburban and rapidly growing Ventura County, the issue of farmland
conversion to urban uses has long had a central place on the public agenda. More
so than its value to the county’s economy, farmland is seen as the principal form of
open space around expanding cities. It is a highly desirable public commodity as an
urban amenity, an antidote to congestion and a means of keeping communities
intact and physically separate from each other. Popular support for this approach
seems strong and enduring.
The farmland protection policies of local governments in Ventura County, as a
result, are among the most aggressive and far reaching in California. The county,
cities, and the Local Agency Formation Commission, (LAFCO) here have more
than 20 years of experience in crafting and implementing innovative policies.
Interjurisdictional cooperation is a major feature of these policies. Cooperation
extends to greenbelt agreements between individual cities and
city/county/LAFCO adoption of the Guidelines for Orderly Development that direct
growth to cities and away from unincorporated areas. Several cities as well have
growth management ordinances, largely the result of voter-approved ballot
measures.
Such policies may have minimized the impacts of growth on farmland conversion,
but they have not slowed population increase appreciably in Ventura County
overall. The county’s population increased by 484 percent from 1950-90, and by 26
percent from 1980-90. What is clear is that the pressure on farmland comes almost
entirely from city expansion and not from growth in unincorporated areas. While
the 10 cities registered an aggregate increase of 148,000 residents in the 1980s, the
county’s unincorporated area actually decreased by 8,000 persons, a result of limited
development combined with city annexations. The most critical farmland-related
policies in Ventura County thus are the expansion strategies of cities, especially
relating to the efficiency with which they use open land in the development
process. Issues of density, infill, and the geographical direction of growth are
central to this process.
57
The capacity of current policies to continue to hold the line on farmland for the
foreseeable future may be questioned. One reason is that some of the county’s
cities are approaching their buildout limits within existing boundaries. Without
major increases in development densities or infill opportunities, cities soon will be
bumping into greenbelts and sphere of influence lines. Looming over all of this is
continued, substantial growth. State figures project that Ventura County will have
more than 1.3 million residents by 2040, a doubling of the population in the 50
years after 1990.
A Focus on General Plans
For indications of both current and future farmland-related policies, we turn to a
review of city and county general plans in Ventura County. The focus is on how
the language of current plans expresses the objectives and methods of farmland
protection.
General plans of California local governments of course are not necessarily
accurate reflections of how they actually deal with growth and resource protection.
Rather they are statements of goals and broad intent, prepared in large part to
satisfy state government mandates. They are often deliberately vague to allow
flexibility in the day to day actions of planning commissions and elected governing
boards. Still, they suggest the growth philosophies of individual governments and
they frame and rationalize more specific and immediate actions. In looking to their
communities’ futures and in referring to specific policies and tools, the plans
indicate direction and priorities.
Cities’ General Plans
We concentrate on the current general plans of five of the county’s ten
municipalities--Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Oxnard and Ventura. Selected for
analysis in the larger Hansen Trust-supported study of Ventura County agriculture
(of which this chapter is a part), these cities have boundaries and future growth
more directly related to surrounding farmland than the other municipalities.
Ventura County’s plan is included in the analysis largely for reference purposes.
We look closely at the clarity, specificity, and consistency of general plan language.
The review compares the five city plans according to (1) rationales presented for
farmland protection; (2) reference to specific implementing tools; and (3) policies
relating to urban growth and development.
58
Overview of the General Plans
The five city plans view agricultural land primarily as an open space resource that
complements urban living. Farmland is valued as open space land that should be
preserved for its aesthetic qualities and physical separation between cities, rather
than as an economic resource for the area.
Among the five documents, those of Ventura and Camarillo most clearly establish
the rationale and policies for farmland protection. The Fillmore, Moorpark, and
Oxnard plans are less emphatic about this goal. The Ventura and Camarillo
documents are relatively clear, specific, and detailed about farmland protection.
Supporting policies include:
• minimum parcel sizes linked to crop and soil characteristics
• greenbelts and buffers
• designated growth and protection areas
• annexation policies consistent with the Guidelines for Orderly Development.
The consequences of losing farmland are extensively discussed and numerous
solutions are offered. However, the Ventura and Camarillo plans also promote
low density residential development as a means for maintaining rural character and
open land, conflicting with general farmland protection goals.
Each of the city general plans reviewed here contains the seven state-mandated
elements--Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and
Seismic Safety. Most of the farmland-related provisions are found in the combined
Open Space and Conservation elements with additional broad polices in the Land
Use elements. Agricultural land as an open space and natural resource is
emphasized in the Open Space/Conservation elements in the general plans of
Camarillo (1989), Fillmore (1992), Moorpark (1986), and Oxnard (1990). As an
alternative to the Open Space and Conservation elements, Ventura addresses
farmland issues in its Resources element (1989).
The Land Use elements of all five plans include population projections, land use
designations, and general land use goals and policies that influence farmland
preservation. In addition, the Oxnard plan’s optional Growth Management
element (1990) includes comprehensive development policies for annexation and
greenbelt agreements. The current Land Use elements of all five plans were
59
adopted between 1988 and 1993 and are intended to provide policy guidance until
2010, with the exception of Oxnard which has a 2020 horizon.
Since several of these cities are nearing build-out within existing boundaries, goals
and policies related to farmland protection are directed towards development in
the unincorporated areas within their spheres of influence and Areas of Interest.
The spheres, which designate the anticipated growth areas (“ultimate buildout” in
some cases) for each city, are adopted by LAFCO. Areas of Interest typically are
larger zones in which cities wish to exercise long-term influence.
Farmland Protection Rationale
In common, all five city plans express concern about local farmland conversion
trends, as Table 1 indicates. The documents emphasize the contribution agricultural
lands make to open space and to visual or scenic resources. Most plans cite
farmland as a desirable means of providing physical definition to urban areas and
physical separation between cities in order to maintain community identity. A
common theme is the intrinsic quality of farmland as natural openness. The
Camarillo plan’s rationale for farmland protection is: “to enhance the physical,
emotional and mental well-being of the City residents.” Virtually all of the plans
also refer to farmland as a way to maintain the rural character associated with
Ventura County.
Only the Camarillo and Fillmore documents mention agriculture’s contribution to
the local economy as a major rationale for preserving farmland. The references are
largely to countywide patterns and less to existing farmland within city boundaries.
Fillmore’s plan notes that while only 180 acres of agricultural land exists within city
boundaries: “Agriculture will remain the dominant industry in the Fillmore area as
a result of the Greenbelt Agreement and due to the land development constraints
in the Planning Area.”
Economic factors more often are cited as a reason to develop farmland for urban
uses since development boosts the local economy and builds tax base. The Oxnard
and Fillmore plans note that economic incentives to urbanize land exist, especially
in urban fringe zones where land values are high. The plans refer to development
as a way to enhance the local economy and tax base.
On the other hand, the Camarillo plan mentions farmland as one of the most
inexpensive forms of open space, providing a self-supporting economic return
because it remains on the tax rolls, in private ownership and under professional
private management.
Major goal statements in the city documents do not pinpoint farmland protection
as a top purpose of planning efforts. Only indirectly is agricultural preservation
60
included in such all encompassing goals as “the need to maintain and enhance
environmental quality thorough the management and preservation of the diverse
natural resources Camarillo’s plan specifically mentions farmland as contributing
to environmental benefits, including air and water quality.
IMPLEMENTING TOOLS
California cities and counties have access to a variety of planning and land use
policies and tools that can be applied to control growth and protect farmland.
Table 2 singles out several policy techniques, as they are cited in the county and five
city general plans. Specific references vary considerably from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction.
• Agricultural zoning and minimum parcel size. All but the Fillmore plan specify
agricultural land as a separate land use designation. The Fillmore plan lumps
agricultural use in with the open space zone, stating: “No agricultural uses
would remain within the Planning Area given build-out of the land use
designations. . . unless existing agricultural uses remain in the areas designated
as open space and hillsides.” There are no minimum parcel sizes for
agricultural zones referred to in the Ventura and Oxnard plans, while the
Camarillo and Moorpark agricultural zones have 10, 20, and 40-acre minimum
parcel sizes. Only Camarillo’s plan defines criteria for rating minimum parcel
sizes linked to crop and soil characteristics and water availability. The Ventura
plan includes the toughest restrictions on changes in agricultural zoning. It
contains this explicit statement for long-term protection of farmland:
“Agriculturally designated lands may not be considered (for redesignation)
until after the year 2010.” But the horizon date of 2010 does not imply that
development of agricultural lands would be appropriate at the time of later
plan updates.
• Land Conservation Act contracts/easements and Greenbelt Agreements. Williamson
Act (LCA) contracts attempt to place farmlands off limits to development, with
lowered property taxes as the incentive for landowners to participate.
Participation is entirely voluntary. Counties are the principal governmental
participants in the program, receiving state subventions to compensate for a
portion of the property taxes lost. Only 19 cities statewide formally participate,
but this includes three Ventura County municipalities--Camarillo, Oxnard, and
Thousand Oaks. Camarillo, Oxnard, and Ventura plans refer to the program,
encouraging the continuation of contracts. The Camarillo plan notes, however,
the diminished economic benefits for landowners since Proposition 13.
Greenbelt Agreements between individual cities, with county government
participation, have been in place in Ventura County for many years. They are
61
a device for maintaining physical separation (open space) between cities in
order to maintain community identity. All five city plans express strong
support for maintaining these zones. The Ventura plan also states the intention
to establish a new greenbelt between this city’s boundaries and Oxnard (The
first in the county’s coastal area, this was established in 1994.) The Camarillo
plan along with several others, mentions the Ventura County Open Space Plan
and the increased number of agricultural preserves, including greenbelts, as
“lessening the threat” of development in the cities’ fringes.
The Moorpark plan notes that the expansion of greenbelts should only occur if
participating jurisdictions commit to prohibiting incompatible land uses such as
detention facilities and other non-agricultural and institutional uses within the
protected areas.
• Soil Inventory. With the exception of the Ventura document, the plans all refer
to the 1970 USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey. Camarillo’s plan notes
the use of soil inventories as a major criterion for the designation of “prime
agricultural land” under the Williamson Act. Several plans note that the acres
first converted to urban uses disproportionately include prime agricultural
lands composed of the richest and most productive soils. The Moorpark Land
Use element states: “Agricultural land use designation should be retained for
agricultural uses within the City’s Area of Interest, which have been identified
as Prime and/or Statewide Importance, as long as economically feasible.”
Camarillo and Fillmore plans acknowledge that land being lost to urban uses is
predominantly “prime” or “Class I”, including irrigated row crop land on the
urban fringes and farmland adjoining the freeway and major arterials.
• Land trusts and development rights acquisition. Although the practice is still
limited, some California jurisdictions have begun to purchase or otherwise
acquire development rights to farmlands, usually using non-profit land trusts
for this purpose. While none of the city plans reviewed here mention specific
land trusts, Ventura and Camarillo documents call for examining the feasibility
of retaining farmlands through land trusts, donations, state and federal
conservation grant programs, and bond issues.
• Mitigations and transfers. A less costly strategy for cities to acquire development
rights is to require new development to pay for farmland protection as a form
of mitigation. The Camarillo and Ventura general plans stand out as listing a
range of techniques for following this approach, including: (1) impact fees to
fund land conservation; (2) donation of conservation easements; and, (3)
requiring purchase of development rights elsewhere and their transfer to
public agencies or land trusts. The respective policy statements only suggest
their possible use, as in Ventura’s Resource element which states: “Evaluate the
62
feasibility of retaining (agricultural lands) through the establishment of land
trusts, donations, purchase and transfer of development rights.” Such
techniques have not yet been actually implemented.
Urban Growth and Development
All five city general plans recognize population growth as inevitable due to the
area’s desirable location, climate, and quality of life. Citing the need for wellplanned growth as a land use goal is common. Ventura’s Land Use Element, for
example, includes this goal:
Control development as a means of preserving the City’s economic, social,
cultural, and physical amenities and community service levels, while
keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the air basin, water, and land
resources.
Among the five documents, Oxnard’s plan looks most favorably on increased
development and welcomes the resultant economic growth. The Moorpark and
Camarillo plans are the only two that refer to growth control ordinances.
Moorpark’s Measure F, adopted by voters in 1986, limits residential development
to 270 units per year in 1986-1994. Camarillo’s Residential Development Control
initiative, adopted by voters in 1981, was in response to residents “desire to control
the quality, distribution and rate of growth.” Its provisions expire on December 31,
1995. (Editors Note: Ventura voters approved Measure I in November, 1995,
restricting urban development on agriculturally zoned areas within the City Sphere
of Influence until 2030).
As Table 3 shows, specific references to the details of future development vary
from community to community.
RESTRICTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS
All five plans emphasize the problems farmers face when urban development
begins to move onto their farmland. Ventura provides the most comprehensive
list of these problems, including (1) vandalism, (2) water quality and quantity, (3)
drainage, (4) street easements, and (5) complaints regarding “cultural practices”
such as wind machines, pesticide spraying and dust. Like the other four plans, the
Ventura document contains general language that “discourages” conflicting land
uses from occurring in essential agricultural areas, but does not provide specific
techniques for this purpose. The Ventura plan only recommends that the city
investigate such problems and develop policies that will aid agricultural owners in
minimizing impacts.
63
In common, the city plans require new development to provide adequate buffers
and fencing between residential and agricultural uses. The Moorpark plan calls for
using the specific plan process to ensure that adequate buffer areas are established.
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
To varying degrees, all five plans recognize higher density and infill development
as appropriate methods of minimizing the impacts of growth on open space land.
Several plans refer to infill development as a general policy. Fillmore’s document
states: “Population growth and attendant urban development should be
accommodated by infill development prior to expanding the City limits.” But infill
development in residential areas, some documents caution, should not involve
higher densities than surrounding uses.
Most likely as a result of regional and state requirements for providing affordable
housing, all five plans refer in their Housing elements to specific techniques for
achieving higher density and infill. Included are density bonuses, zoning for small
lots, mixed-use development, and fee waivers or reductions.
Some of the plans seek to protect existing low density residential neighborhoods
by confining high density uses to only downtown or commercial areas.
Moorpark’s plan notes in the Land Use and Housing elements that the overall
density and intensity of development should decrease as distance from arterials
and commercial shopping centers increases.
Only Moorpark and Fillmore plans specifically mention farmland and open space
preservation as a justification for promoting higher densities. Moorpark’s Housing
element notes that one of the acceptable reasons for allowing clustering of
residential dwelling units is the subsequent creation of common areas that can be
used to protect agricultural lands. Fillmore’s plan also mentions cluster and
planned development as a means of providing open space.
64
Infill development in commercial and industrial areas is also cited as a way to
reduce the conversion of open space. The Oxnard plan addresses the need to infill
older and underutilized commercial and industrial areas. Ventura’s Land Use
element includes the goal to: “encourage orderly growth and development,
particularly through the development of vacant and unproductive properties in
areas that are already developed.”
RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Housing is the dominant land use among all the plans, with single-family homes on
large lots the preferred option in most residential areas. All five land use elements
emphasize goals that reflect the residential traditions of small towns wanting to
retain their rural atmosphere. Many of the plans mention the goal of creating
“opportunities for diverse rural residential environments” without noting the
potential conflict with goals for preserving farmland and open space. A general
goal of the Fillmore plan is to “create opportunities for estate-type residential
development in outlying portions of the Planning Area in such a manner as to have
orderly development and preserve agricultural resources.”
ANNEXATIONS
City expansion through annexation is the major source of farmland conversion. All
of the general plans refer to LAFCO policies stressing that urban development and
the extension of urban services belong within cities. The Ventura plan also notes
support for the Guidelines for Orderly Development.
In the two city plans that are most clear about the preservation of farmland,
relative emphasis is given to discouraging the annexation of productive farmland
for development purposes. The Camarillo plan states: “Agriculturally designated
lands should not be annexed unless there is some compelling need or benefit to the
City.” However, “compelling need or benefit” is not defined and presumably left
to the discretion of the planning commission and city council. The Ventura plan
states: “Those lands designated as Agriculture Use will not be annexed unless for
public purposes or redesignated for development in accordance with the goals and
policies of the Plan.”
The most extensive policies for annexing open space land are found in Oxnard’s
general plan. Similar to other documents, it acknowledges the need to infill or
develop within urban areas before annexing more land or extending urban
services. But it also outlines specific conditions that could justify annexation,
including an adequate infrastructure plan and fiscal program. The Oxnard Housing
element refers to potential areas for annexation: “There are several large vacant
and agricultural areas within the Planning Area, both inside and outside the City
limits, which have (residential) development potential.”
65
The five plans’ annexation policies overall are consistent with the Guidelines for
Orderly Development, but contain little that could be interpreted as long-term
protection for farmland. A city’s need for annexation appears to be related to how
much undeveloped land currently exists within its borders. As the only document
that does not foresee the need for annexation, the Camarillo plan notes: “there is
undeveloped land within the present limits that could accommodate considerable
population, even at relatively low density residential zoning.”
66
County of Ventura General Plan
With the bulk of farmland contained within unincorporated areas, the County of
Ventura General Plan gives more attention to farmland protection than any of the
city plans. Adopted in May, 1988, the County’s document is organized into four
chapters: Resources, Hazards, Land Use, and Public Facilities and Services.
Agricultural issues are covered primarily in the Resources and Land Use chapters
and technical appendix. The planning horizon for the plan is the year 2010.
Farmland Protection Rationale
The overriding rationale for farmland protection is economics. The plan notes
agriculture is Ventura County’s number one industry and has statewide and
national importance. The plan’s goals include promoting the development of
facilities and programs related to marketing locally grown agricultural products.
The County plan differs significantly from the cities’ plans in its distinction of
agricultural land as a separate land use from open space. Open space land is
recognized for its intrinsic values--aesthetics, natural openness--while farmland is
valued primarily as productive land.
IMPLEMENTING TOOLS
In comparison to the cities’ documents, the County plan is much more extensive in
addressing the problems associated with urbanization of farmland. The Resources
Appendix includes a lengthy section on farmland resources that examines the
factors which affect agricultural economic viability. The factors described are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost of land,
cost of water,
cost of material and equipment,
cost of labor,
the cost of processing and distribution,
interest rates,
consumer demand,
natural factors,
housing and its effect on agriculture, and
congestion on farm-to-market roads.
The plan notes that while most of these factors are outside of County government
control, the County can take some actions which would indirectly support the
economic viability of local agriculture, including land use planning policies and
regulations. Farmland preservation programs mentioned are:
67
• agricultural land use designation, which establishes a 40 acre minimum
parcel size and agricultural exclusive zoning;
• participation in Greenbelt Agreements and the Guidelines for Orderly
Development with the cities;
• widespread use of Williamson Act contracts;
• conservation and water development programs.
The plan notes the value of land trusts, including the Ventura County Agricultural
Land Trust and Conservancy and the American Farmland Trust. The document
also recommends that the County’s Public Works Agency should seek
transportation improvements that mitigate impacts on farmland.
The plan calls for minimum parcels of 40 acres for irrigated farmland, and 80 acres
for non-irrigated acreage. The stated justification for such minimums is to support
agricultural operating efficiency and discourage ranchette-type development and
land speculation for non-agricultural purposes.
Similar to the cities’ plans, the County document recommends adding policies and
standards for governing development adjacent to farmland. These standards could
require buffers between agricultural uses and residences, off-site flood and siltation
control measures, and notification of new property owners of county and state
laws that protect agricultural operations.
The plans notes that the Federal Important Farmland Inventories (IFI) system was
originally used to identify and map County lands considered to have agriculture
value. The agricultural land use designation primarily includes lands identified as
Prime Farmlands, Farmlands of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmlands,
although land may not be designated agricultural if small areas of farmland are
isolated from larger blocks of farmland (in such cases, agricultural land is assigned
to the Open Space or Rural designation of the surrounding parcels). According to
the plan’s Resource element, development should be limited on land designated as
Prime or Farmlands of Statewide Importance. The plan also notes that agricultural
development on hillsides has caused erosion and subsequent siltation problems.
68
RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
In referring to minimum parcel sizes for agricultural land and discouraging
ranchettes, the County plan recognizes the negative effects of rural residential
development on farmland. Ranchette-type development frequently has negative
environmental impacts, requires urban services, stimulates traffic and vandalism,
and promotes speculative and increased land costs. Still, there is room for low
density housing in unincorporated areas. Among the goals of the Land Use
chapter is: “Recognize and plan for low density rural residential development,
while preserving resources, avoiding hazards, and providing adequate public
facilities and services.” The plan notes that as: “a matter of right” a single-family
dwelling has always been permitted on any legally created parcel zoned for
agricultural purposes in Ventura County. Some parcels thus have been created in
agricultural zones primarily for expensive home sites or “ranchettes”.
While density is not addressed specifically in the Land Use chapter, the Housing
chapter refers to federal and state programs that promote increased density to
reduce housing costs. The Land Use chapter notes that 10,200 acres of land outside
the cities’ spheres of influence are designated “rural”. These areas are suitable for
low-density and low-intensity land uses, such as residential estates of one acre or
larger that include agricultural and horticultural uses.
ANNEXATIONS
One of the goals of the Land Use chapter is: “Promote the establishment of
reasonable city boundaries and Spheres of Influence and prevent step-out
development.” County growth should be consistent with the Guidelines for Orderly
Development, the document emphasizes.
The County’s land use designation “Urban Reserve Overlay” applies to all
unincorporated land within a city’s adopted Sphere of Influence. The chapter notes
that, while LAFCO has determined these areas to be appropriate for eventual
annexation and urbanization by designating them as Community, Rural,
Agricultural, and Open Space, more intense development could not occur until
annexation. Applicants for General Plan amendments, zone changes, and
discretionary development should apply to the appropriate city and be discouraged
from applying to the County.
The Land Use chapter also refers to the Greenbelt Agreement program as a means
of maintaining the integrity of separate, distinct cities and preventing inappropriate
development between city boundaries. A major goal is to discourage outward
expansion of urban development when suitable developable land exists within
identified urban centers. Seven areas are listed as candidates for new greenbelt
agreements.
69
In more detail than the city documents, the County plan forecasts population
growth and future land use changes affecting farmland conversion. The plan
states:
The purpose of population forecasts is not to impose artificial limits on the
rate or form of growth, but to provide a logical basis for planning public
facilities and services, and to assist the public decision-making bodies in
ensuring that public needs be addressed and accommodated in a
comprehensive and long-term manner.
General plans are seen as being subject to change: “It should be recognized that
true buildout never actually occurs, as general plans are periodically amended to
anticipate and accommodate future housing and employment needs.”
70
Farmland Conversion In Ventura County
Michal Moore
Resource Economist
Table of Contents
Introduction
78
Data Sources and Methodology
79
Previous Studies
Ongoing Reports
80
81
Analysis of Conversion Issues
83
83
86
Population Change & Urban Conversion of Farmland
Land Cost Impacts & Proximity to Urban Uses
Williamson Act 78
Other Property Sale Information
88
Intra-Agricultural Shifts
89
Important Lands - Gross Acreage Shifts
93
Summary of Conclusions
97
77
Farmland Conversion In Ventura County
Introduction
The area involved in this chapter encompasses slightly more than 300 square miles
of Ventura County. While taking in more area than the 1977 Coastal Conservancy
study- Analysis of Agriculture on the Oxnard Plain and the Urban/Rural Interface
(which was confined to the Oxnard Plain alone), the objectives for examining
farming and agricultural impacts are similar.
The area is bounded on the east and southeast sides by the Los Angeles County
line and on the north by the mountains directly north of Santa Paula. The study
area includes:
• Santa Clara Valley (including Piru, Fillmore, Santa Paula and Saticoy as well
as the eastern edge of Ventura);
• Oxnard Plain (generally including Oxnard, Port Hueneme and part of
Camarillo); and
• Las Posas Valley (extending to parts of Camarillo, Somis and El Rio).
The Ventura/Oxnard plain has been subject to population pressures largely
generated from the Los Angeles Basin. Population growth rates have slowed
recently, although trends in farmland conversion have only abated slightly. The
result is a relatively steady loss of "important” agricultural land. Total agricultural
acreage has increased only because more marginal hillside lands have been
brought into production1 .
Agricultural land prices continue to increase at rates that go beyond the economic
rent possible from the representative crop types. This change presages further
conversion and increased pressure for urban uses in the future.
1Not all of the development of marginal foothill areas can be attributed to urban type
pressures within the Oxnard Plain. The availability of efficient and more reasonably priced
drip irrigation systems, changes in tax laws and prices for specialty agricultural products
which could be economically grown and harvested there have all contributed as well.
78
This chapter examines the conversion of agricultural land in the Oxnard Plain.
Agricultural land "converts" in three principal ways:
• through "extensification" or inclusion of new lands that were formerly
thought to be of marginal productive value such as hillsides or rangelands,
• through abandonment or shifts to higher value-added crops or
• through conversion to urban uses.
In order to examine these possibilities, we build on data developed in previous
studies and evaluate published statistics and interviews to arrive at conclusions.
Additionally, the study has used computer generated mapping via a Geographic
Information System (GIS) to visually array and interpret the spatial trends.
Data Sources and Methodology
This chapter of the report was generated using a combination of public data
sources, interviews and previous publications. Data for individual parcel
characteristics was obtained from assessor's records and incorporated into two
separate data bases for analysis (see technical note on use of data base
information). This allowed cross comparisons of property characteristics and also
functioned as a proxy for time series events2 which were not available in this study.
This information was then used with time series data, such as rates of population
change and actual subdivision creation by year and location, which were publicly
available from the Department of Conservation and other County offices.
Finally, a series of interviews was conducted with property owners, real estate
agents and appraisers to ascertain the rate of withdrawal of agricultural land areas
from current uses.
In order to understand the extent to which change is actually occurring, the project
utilized a GIS mapping system which illustrated changes in the designated Spheres
of Influence for the major cities over time, mapping the growth in urban
boundaries against the remaining agricultural land uses. This acreage was
compared with the reported withdrawals of land acreage from Williamson Act
Open Space Contracts and in the important farmlands inventory. These in turn
were used to give an indicator of the magnitude of expected change in the future
(since contract non-renewal indicates a complete withdrawal from the program
after a ten year period).
2 Data which reoccurs on a regular basis such as reassessment of property values.
79
The mapping system also allowed the team to simulate time series events, using
the assessor's data on property value and change of ownership. Additionally,
because the Assessor Record information is coded by characteristic, the mapping
system can create a spatial portrayal of lands of like characteristics, such as citrus
crops or vegetable crops which can be further delineated into areas under
Williamson Act Open Space - Land Conservation (LCA) contracts.
Previous Studies
Several studies have contributed to our knowledge of conditions within the study
area and have been utilized in the compilation of this study. They include:
• 1970 - The Economics of Conserving Agriculture in Ventura County
Author - Bill Wood
This pioneering study established the contribution of agriculture to the local
economy and local government revenues. He measured these against the
economic impacts of comparable land uses and projected estimated population
increases and land use changes into the future.
• 1977 - Analysis of Agriculture on the Oxnard Plain and the Urban/Rural
Interface
Author - Dickenson, et al, for the California Coastal Commission
This study set out the broad physical and cultural factors affecting agricultural
production on the Oxnard Plain including climate, soil type and productivity,
water availability and broad scale demographic characteristics. It described
existing agriculture and its productivity as well as describing the historic trends
in production and the revenue generated from the industry. This study also
introduced the concept of critical mass industries, and forecast the point at
which continued urban development would threaten those relationships.
Using public planning information, the report forecast the growth rate and
expansion of the existing urban growth patterns.
• 1991 - The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California
Author - Jones and Stokes for The California Department of Conservation
This report analyzed several counties in California with particular emphasis on
Ventura County. It borrowed heavily from the Coastal Commission’s 1977
study to establish the basic relationship of the agricultural community to the
local economy and used this to develop a new forecast of the impact of
farmland conversion. This study was the first to utilize the studies begun in
80
1988 by the Department of Conservation to map the changing rate of
conversion of important agricultural land in California.
• 1994 - Overall Economic Development Plan
Author - UCSB Economic Forecast Project
This document contains an analysis of the economic factors influencing the County
including labor markets, demographic characteristics, retail markets and real
estate trends. It further evaluates the influence of several macro trends in the
national and state economy which may affect different sectors of the County
economy. This report provides the first comprehensive analysis of the
County’s economic base and will be invaluable for ongoing trend analysis of
changing conditions.
• 1994 - Report to the Hansen Trust
Author - Dick Johnson
This report was made to the Hansen Trust to categorize a lengthy series of
interviews with persons concerned with the future of agriculture in Ventura
County. The interviews delved into the role, importance and future of
agriculture in the County and ultimately were the basis of an educational
outreach program that is currently ongoing in the County school system.
Ongoing Reports
Several sources of information are renewed annually and provide the ongoing
statistical data for a report such as this. They include:
• Annual Ventura County Statistical Abstract
Author - Stephen D. Cummings and available from Ventura County Economic
Development Association
This abstract updates the broad census of information specific to the County from
population and labor to sales of real property. Begun in 1990, it is updated
annually.
• Assessor’s Records
The Assessor's Records provide the basis for applying property based taxes such
as the property tax, bond issue levies and special taxes. This record encodes
information on parcel characteristics including ownership, dates of sale and
estimated values. The list of records is updated annually although actual
reappraisals of property value take place only at the time of sale or under other
special circumstances
81
• Maps
Base maps for the GIS system were provided by the County Engineering
Department, County Planning Department, the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) and individual cities. These were augmented by field
checking the results.
• Annual Crop Reports
Annual reports of crop production, value and acreage are provided through the
County Agricultural Commissioner. These are available in hard copy from 1948
to the present. A summary of Cropland History has been compiled from this
information by Robert Brendler and is available from the University of
California Cooperative Extension.
• Crop Characteristics and Costs
Characteristics, sources of interviews and costs were supplied through data
available in the offices of the University of California Cooperative Extension.
Much of the history of crop performance and changing crop characteristics was
only available from interviews with the farm advisors for the Cooperative
Extension. These reports are updated periodically.
• Conversion Reports
The Farmland Conversion Report of the, begun in 1984 by the California
Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,
reports gross acreage changes by County on a biennial basis. Data are supplied
by survey of individual counties.
82
Analysis Of Conversion Issues
We have examined the conversion rates of agricultural land from several vantage
points. These include:
• conversion that can be attributed to pressure from urban demands;
• the effects of rising land costs, especially in proximity to urban areas;
• shifts in acreage devoted to crop types within the area (to achieve higher or
more frequent yields or to emphasize higher value-added crops); and
• actual acreage lost to production, as classified by the important farmland
mapping program.
There has been a relatively constant but not accelerating trend of farmland
conversion. It is predictably more intense at the edge of urban areas. The balance
of this chapter presents some of the trends in tabular and graphic form, illustrating
the magnitude of the change.
Population Change & Urban Conversion of Farmland
A major force driving land conversion within the County is change in the resident
population. Population growth has, until recently, been due almost equally to
natural rates of growth3 and in-migration (the exception being the period 1980 81). The rate of net migration in the last 5 years, however, has slowed dramatically,
as illustrated in the Table 1 and Figure 1.
3
Births over deaths
83
Table 1
Population Change
Ventura County
Year
Total Increase
Natural
Net Migration
17,300
13,800
13,800
12,700
12,000
13,600
14,500
17,100
17,600
13,300
10,900
11,900
10,500
9,800
5,861
6,464
6,495
6,545
6,340
6,992
6,653
7,103
7,528
8,124
8,752
8,889
8,642
8,293
11,439
7,336
7,305
6,155
5,660
6,608
7,847
9,997
10,072
5,176
2,148
3,011
1,858
507
!80 - 81
!81 - 82
!82 - 83
!83 - 84
!84 - 85
!85 - 86
!86 - 87
!87 - 88
!88 - 89
!89 - 90
!90 - 91
!91 - 92
!92 - 93
93 - 94
Source: US Census, Ventura County, Ventura County Statistical Abstract
Figure 1
Ventura County Population Changes - Natural vs. Migration
Ventura County
Components of Annual Population Increase
18000
16000
14000
12000
Total Increase
10000
Natural
8000
Net Migration
6000
4000
2000
0
!80
81
!81
82
!82
83
!83
84
!84
85
!85
86
!86
87
!87
88
!88
89
!89
90
!90
91
!91
92
!92
93
Source: US Census, Ventura County, Ventura County Statistical Abstract
84
Population growth is driven in part by changes in employment opportunities. As
shown in Figure 2 below, there was dramatic growth in Ventura County’s
employment (all industries combined) in the 1980’s, from less than 170,000 to a
peak of nearly 250,000 in 1990, with a slight decline since then. (In contrast,
agricultural jobs have continued to grow, from a low of 14,500 in 1985 to nearly
19,000 in 1993).
Figure 2
Total Ventura County Employment (,000)
All Agriculture vs. All Other Industries
250
19
All Industries
18.5
240
18
230
17.5
220
17
210
All Agriculture
16.5
200
16
190
180
All Industries
15.5
All Ag
15
170
14.5
160
14
!1980
!1985
!1990
!1991
!1992
!1993
Source: US Census, Ventura County, Ventura County Statistical Abstract
Subdivisions and other urban activity permanently convert agricultural lands. The
process can be discontinuous, depending on fortuitous circumstances (i. e. willing
seller and willing buyer), speculative investment, local government plans and
approvals, and finally market forces.
Conversion is a permanent event in two key senses. First and most obvious is
conversion to actual urban uses. While it is physically possible to remove buildings
and infrastructure, doing so on a scale that would redevelop profitable agricultural
uses is improbable at best. Additionally, speculative pressure contributes to
changes in agricultural use patterns that appear to be the harbinger of ultimate
urban conversion which is discussed below.
85
Land Cost Impacts and Proximity to Urban Users
Urban demand is transferred to agricultural land through land price bids, both
direct as in formal purchase offers, and indirect from recent sales in the vicinity.
The force is felt by agricultural owners in forms ranging from land prices creating a
barrier to new entrants to a growing attitude among resident farmers that the land
has ceased to be a capital asset and is functioning largely as a bank for future nonagricultural uses. This theory seems to be borne out by examining the assessor’s
records for the study area, for lands both in and out of Williamson Act contracts.
WILLIAMSON ACT LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS
The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the
Williamson Act, has protected agricultural and open space land for
over 25 years. The Act is a voluntary, locally administered
program. Landowners who enroll their land in 10 to 20 year
contracts with local governments receive lower property taxes
based on the actual use of the land for agricultural and open space
purposes rather than their Proposition 13 based value estimate.
Costs of running the program are partially offset by State revenue
subventions to counties. The tax differential that was a major
incentive for property owners has gradually diminished in value
since the inception of the program with a corresponding increase in
rates of contract non-renewals.
By 1991 Ventura County cumulative non-renewals totaled 33,543 acres or nearly
1/3 of all non-renewals in the South Coast/Desert Region. This represented 22% of
the total land under contract in Ventura County (152,300 acres). Non-renewals in
the 1990-91 period were reported as 1,831 acres. The figure becomes important
more in terms of motives for individual land owners than direct conversion since
the lag period is at least 10 years until actual contract cancellation.
Sales of land held in Williamson Act contracts reflect a price differential of up to 30%
less than non-contracted lands and are fewer in number than those offered without
contract restrictions. Non-renewal of contracts appear to offer illustrative but not
definitive indicators of future land conversion pressure.
86
In Williamson Act (LCA contract)
Property values adjacent to the urban fringe (Sphere of Influence) can be 55% to
85% higher than in more remotely located areas away from the Sphere of Influence
(SOI) depending on crop type and zoning.
Out of the Williamson Act (LCA contract)
The range is greater, but the effect is still the same. Proximity to the urban boundary
confers a price differential:
• up to 91% for truck farms
• up to 42% for lemons
• up to 26% for range lands
• up to 10% premium for avocado lands
When viewed in terms of zoning4 categories, a similar phenomenon is seen in
Table 2.
Table 2
Selected Examples of Farm Land Values Per Acre
By Zoning Designation
Zone
Adjacent
Non-Adj.
Differential
Residential Estate RE1
$25,600
$19,411
32%
Agriculture Exclusive AE
$14,400
$11,500
25%
Rural Agriculture RA
$32,500
$15,000
116%
Source: Ventura County Assessor - 1994
These data illustrate the effect on land costs of proximity to urban areas given the
presumed ultimate use of the property, demonstrating as well the differential
offered by the presumption of accompanying urban type uses. This is borne out
by legal and planning documents.
Using the GIS information generated for the study area, land price relationships in
correlation with agricultural use can be identified. These data show the expected
influence of the urban boundary line. Similar property value differentials are noted
4Zoning designations are used by planners to provide guidance in interpreting the General
Plan of the County. In the broadest sense, they divide future land use potential into four
categories: residential, industrial, commercial and agriculture. Zoning designations can be
combined to provide greater flexibility (or limits).
87
at the intersection of principal access roads and in the proximity of recent public
projects such as school facilities.
OTHER PROPERTY SALE INFORMATION
In a 1994 Environmental Impact Report (EIR)5 for a project near Buellton, a
proposed parcel map would re-subdivide one legal lot totaling 3,877 acres into 31
parcels, ranging in size between 101 and 224 acres. The EIR established economic
values which bear on the case of values in the Ventura County area. The following
excerpts from the EIR illustrate this.
"The primary economic concern associated with the proposed arrangement is the
potential for the project to increase land values in the region, thereby inducing
other ranch properties to subdivide in a similar manner. . . . . . Based on the 94
agricultural properties on the market or recently sold in the local area as of
December 30, 1993, the average price per acre for various sized parcels was as
follows in Table 3:
Table 3
Average Price Per Acre of Various Parcel Sizes
Parcel Size (Acres)
Average Value/Acre
1-5
$98,000
6-9
$43,000
10 - 20
$28,000
100
$4,000 - $10,000
Ranchland*
$1,000 - $3,000
*This category refers generally to ranches considerably larger
than 100 acres, up to holdings of thousands of acres.
“. . . . . In addition, by creating more parcels of this size close to town, the increased
land value of the project site would increase values on adjacent, non-subdivided
properties, making these properties more attractive for speculation buyers.”
5Mission Oaks Ranch Vesting Tentative Map EIR, County of Santa Barbara Department
of Planning and Development, 94-EIR-1, March, 1994
88
In a recent court case in which a recognized local expert property appraiser and
attorney testified in a successful Tax Court Appeal, the question of assigning value
to agricultural properties was reviewed for 41 acres of orchards and row crops near
Camarillo6 . In finally deciding true agricultural land value, the court turned to
comparable appraisals from the Santa Barbara area, finding them less influenced by
speculative land bids from a nearby urban area. In its decision, the Court stated
"We find that the prices of farmland in Ventura County have been affected by the
locale's proximity to Los Angeles County and 'urban sprawl' therefrom."
A brief look at recent agricultural land sales in Ventura County (1990 - 1994),
including lemons, row and specialty crop lands7 , indicates that average sales prices
have been $25,000 per acre - much higher than their value purely as farms8 .
Intra-Agricultural Shifts
Agricultural land change in Ventura County is driven by a diverse array of forces
ranging from land price bids to shifts in market prices for products. Clearly, as
long as land is retained in agricultural production, the owner or tenant will seek to
maximize return per acre (especially given high land costs), based on such factors
as:
•
•
•
Annual yield per acre
Market price for the product, and
Costs of production.
A detailed look at Table 4 on page 30, suggests some of the shifts that have been
taking place between agricultural crop types. Of these selected crops, acreage in
Valencia orange production has experienced the largest overall decline, from about
16,000 acres in 1975 to 12,300 acres in 1993. The largest gains in acreage have been
for higher value crops such as avocados, strawberries, broccoli, celery and specialty
lettuces.
While the choice of crop type is closely linked to changes in market prices, change is
not instantaneous, with time needed to process information about expected market
trends as well as to modify agricultural operations and planting commitments.
6Tax Court Memorandum Decisions, Estate of Elizabeth G. Hughan, CCH Dec. 47,
413(M), Arguments by Lindsay F. Nielson, Ventura, 1992.
7 Based on 12 property sales from 1990 to 1994.
8 The market value of a parcel of agricultural land contains an unearned increment not
attributable to agricultural production. This speculative increment exceeds the capitalized
value of the agricultural investment on the land on parcels near an urban boundary (Ventura
County Assessor, Jerry Sanford, 1991).
89
Fruit and nut crops (including citrus) dominate crop selection and gross receipts to
the County economy, with an increasing influence of specialty agricultural crops
such as avocados. The aggregate published data, with citrus under the "fruit and
nut " classification, illustrates the broad decline of field crop share.
Figure 3
Long Term Economic Performance
Gross $ Return per Acre
30,000
25,000
Gross Income $
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1980
1985
Avocado
Str awberries
1990
1991
Valencia Oranges
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner Data
90
1992
Lemons
1993
1994
Ave. Row Crop
As shown below in Table 4, by far the highest gross returns per acre, as of 1994,
comes from strawberries, at $29,000. Other high gross return crops include
avocados ($4,500), peppers ($4,500), lemons ($7,400), celery ($8,300), and other high
value vegetables (cabbage, cauliflower, lettuce, and spinach all over $4,000/acre
each).
Table 4
Detailed Gross Income in Dollars Per Acre
by Type of Selected Crops
!1980
!1985
!1990
!1991
!1992
!1993
!1994
5 Yr Ave
Specialty
Avocado
Strawberries
Peppers9
Average Specialty
1,454
16,639
2,903
6,999
1,706
19,990
3,340
8,345
3,294
30,099
2,918
12,104
2,638
29,477
2,690
11,602
2,152
18,228
3,428
7,936
3,080
23,033
4,018
10,044
4,490
29,022
4,486
12,666
3,130
25,971
3,508
10,870
Citrus
Naval Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Lemons
Grapefruit
Average Citrus
1,118
2,808
5,043
1,171
2,535
4,159
3,926
5,434
1,145
3,666
5,736
3,578
7,819
12,892
7,506
7,305
7,322
8,716
8,647
7,998
2,883
2,957
7,109
2,813
3,941
2,027
3,653
8,916
4,268
4,716
2,743
3,218
7,446
2,352
3,940
4,138
4,145
8,001
6,194
5,620
1,374
2,321
2,889
3,387
2,563
2,083
4,627
2,549
1,917
2,780
2,169
3,248
1,328
3,126
3,400
4,475
2,644
2,808
2,634
2,886
2,964
3,876
2,498
1,869
3,496
3,229
7,572
6,124
3,949
2,770
3,835
3,492
3,547
2,802
3,113
4,150
3,847
7,231
4,490
2,913
2,429
3,801
2,721
3,859
3,908
3,804
3,414
3,254
6,732
4,367
3,718
1,703
3,748
2,769
4,075
3,512
2,577
4,635
4,433
11,522
4,245
3,895
2,236
4,390
3,515
4,396
4,336
4,798
5,328
5,849
8,339
3,630
4,444
3,128
4,776
3,092
3,950
3,411
3,232
4,204
4,122
8,279
4,571
3,783
2,453
4,110
Row Crop
Broccoli
Cabbage
Cauliflower
Lettuce- Head
Lettuce - Romaine
Lettuce - Leaf
Celery
Cucumbers
Spinach
Sweet Corn
Average Row
Source: Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner
9 Peppers are included in the specialty category to illustrate the trend to high value crops.
91
This trend of shifts to higher yield, higher value crops in Ventura County,
however, may be just the precursor to eventual urbanization. In their 1991 report,
The Department of Conservation10 speculated that a clear intra-agricultural
transition could be identified, which ultimately led to urban conversion, illustrated
in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4
Land Conversion Transition Paths
Intensity
of Use
Urban
Specialty
Citrus
Row Crops
Viticulture
Field Crops
Range
Dairy/Poultry
Time
This is a predictable result, given price theory in agricultural production - each
agent will strive to maximize the rent from the land available. As a matter of
practice, though, transitions appear to follow land sales, perhaps with mortgage
rent providing the impetus to shift to higher value-added crops and eventually
urban uses.
10The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California, California Department of
Conservation, 1991
92
Important Lands - Gross Acreage Shifts
Shifts in agricultural land have been catalogued since 1984 by the Department of
Conservation in figures reported by the County Agricultural Commissioner. They
illustrate a continuing trend of conversion of land. This conversion is primarily
occurring from the stock of those lands classified as Prime and Land of Statewide
Importance and is shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5
Important Land by Category
Acres in Ventura County
Year
!1984
!1986
!1988
!1990
!1992
!1994
10 Yr.Diff
% Diff
Prime
Land of
Unique
Farmland Statewide Farmland
Import
57,023
55,718
54,757
53,591
53,300
53,042
3,981
7%
39,922
39,346
38,809
38,299
38,102
37,883
2,039
5%
22,915
22,608
22,479
22,510
22,454
22,512
398
2%
Farmland Important
of Local Subtotal
Import
12,486
12,353
12,190
11,691
11,442
11,416
1,070
9%
132,346
130,025
128,235
126,091
125,298
124,808
7,538
6%
Grazing
Total
Agriculture
212,736
211,822
211,130
210,068
209,630
209,091
3,645
2%
345,082
341,847
339,365
336,159
334,928
333,900
11,182
3%
Source: State Dept. Of Conservation, FMMP
The prime and lands of statewide importance categories of important farmland in the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program are based upon statewide technical
criteria relating to soil quality and water availability. Unique lands fail to meet these
technical criteria, but produce any of the state’s forty highest cash value crops. In
Ventura County the Oxnard Plain and the valley floors meet the criteria for prime
or statewide important lands. The gentle to steeply sloping irrigated land in the
county produce high value crops, primarily avocados and lemons, which allow
them to be classified as unique. The remaining non-irrigated lands, which are
farmed primarily to grains or hay are classified as lands of local importance.
Unfortunately, the largest share of conversion is of lands classified as prime and
other important agricultural lands. Over the 10 year period 1984-94, about 7,500
acres of important agricultural lands were lost, while about 3,600 additional acres of
grazing were lost. While the rate is not alarming, it is steady.
93
Figures 5 A and B below graph the gross reduction in acres over the past ten years,
by the same categories. The relative flat rate of decline in 1992 and 1994 probably
reflects the lingering recession in the property development market.
Figure 5 A and B
Total Farm and Rangeland
by Type in Gross Acres
60,000
350,000
340,000
55,000
330,000
320,000
310,000
300,000
50,000
290,000
280,000
270,000
260,000
45,000
35,000
Acres
Acres
40,000
30,000
210,000
200,000
190,000
180,000
25,000
20,000
170,000
160,000
150,000
140,000
15,000
10,000
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994
Prime Farmland
130,000
120,000
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994
Land of Statewide Importance
Important Subtotal
Unique Farmland
Graz ing
Farmland of Local Import ance
Total
Source: State Department of Conservation, FMMP
94
250,000
240,000
230,000
220,000
Total land conversion seems to be closely correlated with the actual number of
subdivision acres created annually.11 Figure 6 below illustrates the same trend in
terms of lands converted directly to non-agricultural use.
Figure 6
Acres Lost to Urban Uses
by Category
8,000
Total converted by 1994
was 11,200 acres
7,000
6,000
Acres
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1984 - 1986
1986 - 1988
1988 - 1990
Prime Farmland
Unique Farmland
Important Subtotal
Total
1990 - 1992
1992 - 1994
Land of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Local Import ance
Graz ing
Source: State Dept. Of Conservation, FMMP
11This can be deceptive. There is a strong correlation between new subdivision acreage
annually and the number of agricultural acres removed from production. Actual
subdivision activity in terms of current houses being constructed takes place within
incorporated boundaries, thus much of the removal may reflect future or anticipated
growth.
95
The tradeoff involved is fundamental, since the quantity of land is fixed. This
tradeoff is illustrated in Figure 7 below. Conversion of agriculture lands to nonagricultural uses has continued at a relatively consistent rate. Total agricultural
acreage has dropped from 345,000 to 334,000 acres in the County, while urban
acreage has grown from about 77,000 to 92,000 acres over this ten year period.
Figure 7
Net Change in Total Agricultural Acreage vs.
Total Urban and Built up Acreage
5,000
4,000
3,000
Acres
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
-3,000
-4,000
1984 - 1986
1986 - 1988
Loss of Agr icultur al Acreage
1988 - 1990
1990 - 1992
1992 - 1994
Increase in Urban & Built -Up Acre age
Source: State Dept. Of Conservation, FMMP
Rates of conversion, when compared to the State as a whole, are slightly higher
and probably reflect the continuing demand from the adjacent Los Angeles urban
market.
96
Summary of Conclusions
This chapter concludes that conversion of agricultural land over the last ten years
continues at a relatively constant rate, with no indication that the trend will
diminish even though the trends span periods of recessionary activity. Reflected in
major part is the demand for urban expansion space and the resultant response to
increased bid prices for open land, even when not zoned for other than agricultural
use. The change in use is not, however, always occurring in the locations where
either the market or the prevailing general plans have anticipated.12
• Most conversion pressures continue to be from demand fed by natural
population increase and in-migration.
• Strong market pressure to specialize, to take advantage of capital investment
that increases production (or its corollary - diminished labor costs), has
continued to result in intra-agricultural changes. Thus, many of the shifts from
row crops to specialty agriculture or lemons or avocados can be linked to the
trend to higher value crops to maximize return per acre on high value land.
• Bringing previously unused acreage into production such as in the foothills has
also generally emphasized high return crops such as lemons and avocados. As
a consequence, many of the shifts from row crops to specialty agriculture, or
bringing new foothill lands into lemon or avocado production, can be linked to
the trend to higher value added land use. Of the citrus acreage replaced since
1980, 90% appears to be Valencia oranges replaced by avocados.
• Rates of conversion are not as high as the 1977 Coastal Commission report had
forecast. This is in part explained by consistent and firm land use policies
exercised by most cities, the Ventura County government and LAFCO; slower
urban growth; and bringing new agricultural lands into production.
• Interviews with the farming and real estate community suggest that a
dwindling proportion of farmers expect to be in agriculture for the long term.
This attitude is more in evidence the closer the property is to an urban
boundary. Additionally, lands owned by individuals show a slightly higher
tendency to convert to urban uses than those held by corporations or
partnerships. (The supportive correlation also shows higher average acreage
per holding by corporations, illustrating one of the economies of scale available
to them).
12 This conclusion is supported by trends illustrated in the Geographic Information System
data associated with this report
97
•
Population overall in the County continues to grow. This is not directly related
to agricultural acreage lost or agricultural conversion to new houses, suggesting
that residential demand continues to be accommodated in cities. This is in
contrast to demand for commercial expansion which seeks out access to major
road intersections which are often in unincorporated areas.
•
Changes in overall production costs, such as water or other inputs show little
tendency to induce land conversion but may stimulate intra-agricultural
transfer. Property sales clearly steer the way to ultimate conversion, though,
and the combination of sale values and current crop can be used to predict likely
future land use changes.
•
Data for land prices within protected areas such as greenbelts suggest they may
be acting as holding areas rather than permanent buffer zones. For instance,
sale prices do not appear to differ significantly from zones outside the protected
greenbelt.
•
As demonstrated in the associated GIS, the preponderance of conversion to
urban uses in rural areas has been taking place in the form of small (under 5
acre) residential developments within generally agricultural areas, usually in the
proximity of urban areas.
•
Land values tend to decrease as a function of distance from the urban limit lines,
with certain exceptions. These seem to occur near road intersections where
future growth might be anticipated, next to public facilities such as schools, or in
areas where a future change to the General Plan might be anticipated. Where
this occurs within designated greenbelts, the inference is that future zoning or
General Plan changes will modify or diminish the intensity of regulation there.
•
Speculative sales may be leading or driving values and consequently future
intra-agricultural crop changes. The value of these sales implies confidence that
conversion possibilities exist within relatively short time frames, since the
holding cost for land purchased at levels in excess of the agricultural return can
be excessive.
98
Ventura County Agricultural
Support Industries Analysis
David Strong
Strong Associates
240 41st Street
Oakland 94611,
510-428-2904
Table of Contents
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Methodology
Survey Results
By Location
By Crop Supported
By Type of Business
By 10-Year Forecast
By Percent Reliance on Ventura Agriculture
100
100
100
102
105
106
107
107
110
111
Analysis Of Crop Reduction Capacity
112
Comparison With 1977 Coastal Commission Study
114
99
Introduction
Purpose
This chapter analyzes the degree of dependence of Ventura County agricultural
support industries on the County’s agricultural production. Businesses that rely on
agricultural production thrive and expand when direct agricultural production
prospers and grows. If agricultural lands are reduced or productivity declines,
businesses that support agriculture leave the area or, because of reduced
competition, costs may rise or service delivery times lengthen.
This chapter is based upon on a focused survey of those businesses which rely on
Ventura agriculture for a substantial portion of their sales. The survey results
estimate how much loss in agricultural productivity, including which types of crops
and their effect on various categories of support industries, could be sustained
without the support industries going out of business or leaving the County.
This chapter includes the following parts:
• Introduction, giving background on the region and changes in agricultural
production over the past 20 years, as well as describing the methodology used in
this analysis.
• Survey results, discussing the findings of interviews with the various support
industries by location, type of business, type of agriculture they serve, etc.
• Analysis of crop reduction capacity, that is how many acres of current agricultural
land could be taken out of production based on the survey results.
• A comparison with the 1977 California Coastal Commission study (“Analysis of
Agriculture on the Oxnard Plain and the Urban/Rural Interface”).
Background
In 1993, Ventura County had an estimated 81,000 harvested acres of selected1 tree
and vegetable crops (including most citrus, avocados, and five key vegetables,
including double cropping of some vegetable crop acreage). In 1975, these same
crops totaled only 66,000 harvested acres. Thus, as shown in Table 1, there was an
increase of almost 19% over the 18 year period in these selected crops. The major
1
Only major tree and vegetable crops were selected to develop this analyses, thus the
harvested acres noted are less than the total harvested acres inventoried in the first chapter
of this study
100
increases in acreage have been for avocados, specialty crops and vegetables
(particularly strawberries, lettuce, and broccoli). Lemons - the County’s most
important crop - have increased slightly, while oranges and cabbage have declined
since 1975.
Table 1
Comparing Harvested Acres in 1975 and 1993
Selected Crops
Year
1975
1993
Trees
Lemons
Oranges
Avocados
Total Tree, Selected Crops
17 Yr Diff
% Change
23,098
15,879
4,720
43,697
24,239
12,325
16,199
52,763
1,141
-3,554
11,479
9,066
4.7%
-28.8%
70.9%
17.2%
Vegetables (1)
Celery
Strawberries
Lettuce
Broccoli
Cabbage
Total Vegetable, Selected Crops
8,739
2,050
4,688
3,561
3,100
22,138
9,878
4,795
6,824
4,632
2,202
28,331
1,139
2,745
2,136
1,071
-898
6,193
11.5%
57.2%
31.3%
23.1%
-40.8%
21.9%
Total
65,835
81,094
15,259
18.8%
___________________________________
Source: Table 1 "Ventura County Crop Acreage" from Ag in Ventura County:
Its Impact on the County Economy
(1) Note that vegetable acreage is reported in single planting acres.
Cooperative Extension Advisors estimate double cropping of all vegetable acreage.
It should be noted that this increase in acreage in higher value crops has involved
both a conversion of acreage previously used for lower value agricultural
production and a shift from level well drained lands to hillside lands requiring drip
irrigation. Meanwhile, there has been a reduction in overall agricultural land
acreage (as discussed in detail in Chapters 1 and 3). There is now little additional
land available for expansion for new agricultural development. In fact any
additional urban development on existing agricultural land will most likely result in
a loss of agricultural production with no replacement in the County.
101
For this chapter, the County’s agricultural production has been broken down into
three geographic sub areas:
• The Oxnard Plain area which surrounds the City of Oxnard and extends
towards Ventura and Camarillo. The principal crops in this area are
vegetables, including strawberries, celery, broccoli, cabbage, etc. , with
some production in trees;
• The Las Posas Valley area which adjoins Camarillo and into the
surrounding foothills. Crops in this area are similar to the Oxnard Plain,
but includes more tree crops; and
• The Santa Clara Valley which surrounds the Santa Clara River up through
Saticoy, Santa Paula, Fillmore and Piru, in which principal crops are trees,
specifically avocados, lemons and oranges.
Methodology
This analysis relies on interviews with representatives of businesses in the
agricultural support industries. A breakdown of the categories of agricultural
support businesses includes:
• business services (accounting, financial, and legal services to agricultural
and other businesses);
• agricultural sales and services, including businesses selling agricultural
products, such as nurseries, as well as services such as fertilizer and
pesticide applicators, pollination, frost protection, etc.;
• equipment sales, service and manufacturing;
• farm supplies, including fertilizer, seeds, etc.; and
• citrus and avocado packers and shippers.
An initial contact list was developed from the following sources:
• California Grower Industry Directory
• the Ventura County Farm Bureau membership list and
• telephone directory yellow page listings.
102
Additional businesses were identified based on referrals from those contacted
during initial interviews. The total list of people considered as possible contacts was
approximately 180.
The criteria for qualifying as an “agricultural support industry” are:
• reliance on Ventura County agriculture for at least 5 to 10 percent of gross
sales
• being located in Ventura County
• if you are a grower, that supply services to other growers.
During the process of interviewing, it was discovered that many of the 180
potential names did not qualify. Most were growers providing their own services
(production agriculturists, that is farmers who are also providing shipping and
packing and/or sales, services, etc. for their own agricultural production as a
vertically integrated agricultural operation). These were eliminated from the data
base, since they are not actual support businesses. While an estimated 80 to 90
respondents were contacted, the final number of relevant interviews was 34.
The questionnaire identified the location of each business, the person contacted and
their title, and then included the following questions:
1. What products and/or services does your firm provide for Ventura County
agriculture? (answers such as: nursery, packing/shipping, consulting, business
support)
2. What agriculture products does you firm support?
(answers such as: tree-avocado, lemon, strawberry, other vegetables)
3. What percent of your business relies on Ventura County agriculture
production?
(somewhere between zero and 100%)
4. Of the percent that relies on Ventura County agriculture, can the products or
service be broken down into the following geographic areas?
Oxnard Plain -- Los Posas Valley -- Santa Clara Valley
5. What is the estimated maximum reduction in agricultural production in Ventura
County that your firm could withstand and remain in business (in terms of % of
business activity)? This is the key question for estimating the amount of
103
production agriculture necessary to sustain the support business. The response to
this question was approached by each respondent based on several different
factors including:
• historic employment patterns
• management capacity
• key employee positions
• profit to operation size ratio
• opportunities for other non production agriculture sales
• desire to remain in business in Ventura County
6. Estimated number of employees; full time and part time.
7. Does your firm use other products and services from other Ventura County
businesses (agriculture and non-agriculture)? How?
8. Is there anything else you would like to add that encourages or discourages
your ability to do business in Ventura County?
9. Where do you see your business in 10 years (less, the same or more business
activity)?
The results of this survey are tabulated and discussed later in this chapter. In
addition to the essential primary data research from interviews, other sources of
background information for this analysis include:
• 1977 Coastal Commission Study
• 1993 U.C. Ventura County Economic Study
• 1994 Ventura County Statistical Abstract
• Assessor’s Records
• University of California Cooperative Extension
• Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner
104
• 1994 California Grower
• California Farm Bureau
Cooperative Extension farm advisors were interviewed to validate results from the
primary interviews. Other literature sources were reviewed to validate historical
trends noted in interviews.
Survey Results
Throughout the survey result tables, each table presents:
• the number of businesses contacted;
• the percentage of reliance on Ventura County agriculture for those
businesses’ total activity (an average of the responses of the relevant
businesses);
• the percentage reduction in agricultural production that the businesses
could withstand and remain in business in the County (again an average of
the businesses responding); and
• the average number of employees per business.
It should be noted that all data represent averages of the results for all the
businesses in the various categories. Individual businesses within any category
may be more sensitive than others to agricultural productivity and to losses of crop
acreage.
It must also be emphasized that the estimates of percentage reduction that Ventura
County support industries could withstand represent the point at which those
businesses (on average) would go bankrupt, close their doors, or leave the County.
The stress to an agricultural support business would start at a much lower
percentage. That stress could take the form of employee layoffs, reduction in
services, inability to make needed capital investments, etc.
The tables and following text evaluate the sensitivity of these support businesses
by: location, crops supported, type of business, ten-year forecast, and percent of
reliance on Ventura County agriculture.
105
Survey Results By Location
As shown in Table 2A, most of the support industries are located in the Oxnard
Plain and Santa Clara Valley areas (31 of the total 34 in the survey). Moreover,
these support businesses have high average employment, with 41.6 employees per
business in the Oxnard area and 65.1 in the Santa Clara Valley. They rely between
59-63% on the County’s agriculture for their business activity, and estimate that
they could survive a loss of nearly 43% of agricultural productivity.
Table 2 A
Ventura County Support Industries
Survey Results By Location of Business
Total
Oxnard Camarillo S.C . Valley
Number of Businesses
34
17
3
14
% Rely on Vent Ag
61.9%
58.9%
73.3%
63.1%
% Loss Capacity (1)
41.1%
42.9%
23.3%
42.7%
Average Jobs per Business
48.1
41.6
5.7
65.1
(1) How much sales reduction your business can withstand and remain in business.
In contrast, the three agricultural support businesses surveyed in Camarillo have
an average of less than 6 employees each. They rely more heavily (over 73%) on
the County’s agricultural productivity, and could withstand a much smaller loss
(23.3%) in that agriculture activity.
106
Survey Results By Crop Supported
As shown in Table 2B, of the support businesses surveyed, 10 deal with all
agriculture generally, 17 only or principally with tree crops, and 7 only or
principally with vegetable crops.
Table 2 B
Ventura County Support Industries
Survey Results By Crop Supported
Number of Businesses
% Rely on Vent Ag
% Loss Capacity
Average Jobs/Business
Total
34
61.9%
41.1%
48.1
General Ag
10
51.8%
47.0%
17.8
Trees
17
69.2%
41.9%
68.6
Vegetable
7
58.6%
30.7%
41.7
Those serving agriculture generally are somewhat less dependent on agriculture,
averaging about 52%, since they often serve many other sectors of the economy.
They also estimate they could withstand a larger reduction in agriculture
production, at an average of 47%, than those businesses serving fruit crops or
vegetables. On the other hand, these general agriculture-serving support
businesses employ fewer people, at an average of about 18 per business.
The businesses serving trees have a high reliance on Ventura County agriculture
(69.2%), yet estimate they could withstand a substantial reduction in acreage
(41.9%). These businesses also have a high average number of employees, at 68.6,
and this may give them flexibility to survive reduction in productivity by downsizing.
Businesses serving vegetable crops are somewhat less reliant (58.6%) on Ventura
County agriculture but are more sensitive to reduction in acreage, capable of
sustaining only an estimated 30.7% loss. These businesses employ an average of
41.7 workers per business.
Survey Results By Type of Business
As shown in Table 2C, of the 34 businesses surveyed:
• Five are business services (accounting, financial, and legal services to
agricultural and other businesses), with an average of 28.4 employees. These
businesses have the least reliance on Ventura County agriculture (36.4%) and
could withstand the largest reduction in crop acreage (57%).
107
• Eleven are agricultural sales and services, employing an average of 18.9 people.
These businesses, which sell agricultural products and provide services such as
fertilizer and pesticide application, pollination, and frost protection, are the
most reliant on agriculture (70.5%) and could tolerate the least amount of crop
reduction (29.1%).
• Six equipment manufacturing, service and sales businesses employ an average
of 6.5 people. They estimate a 60% reliance on agriculture and an ability to
survive a 30% loss in acreage or productivity.
• The four farm supply businesses, with an average of 8.7 employees, estimate
somewhat less reliance on the County’s agriculture (43%), yet a fairly low
tolerance to crop reductions (33%).
• The eight independent packers and shippers, with by far the largest
employment, averaging 149.4, have a high reliance on Ventura County
agriculture (66.3%) and yet estimate they could withstand up to 51.9%
reduction in crop acreage.
108
Table 2 C
Ventura County Support Industries - Survey Results
By Type of Business
Business Ag Sales &
Total
Service Service (1)
Number of Businesses
34
5
11
% Rely on Vent Ag
61.9%
36.4%
70.5%
% Loss Capacity
41.1%
57.0%
29.1%
Average Jobs/Business
48.1
28.4
18.9
(1) Seed/nursery sales, professional and pest application
Equip Mfg
& Sales
6
60.0%
30.0%
6.5
C-1: Breakout of Ag Sales & Services by Crop
Total
Number of Businesses
11
% Rely on Vent Ag
70.5%
% Loss Capacity
29.1%
Average Jobs/Business
18.9
Trees
8
70.6%
34.4%
23.1
Vegetable
3
70.0%
15.0%
7.7
C-2: Breakout of Packers/Shippers by Crop
Total
Number of Businesses
8
% Rely on Vent Ag
66.3%
% Loss Capacity
51.9%
Average Jobs/Business
149.4
Trees
6
71.7%
49.2%
155.8
Vegetable
2
50.0%
60.0%
130.0
Farm
Supplies
4
43.0%
33.0%
8.7
Tables 2C-1 and 2C-2 analyze the two most agriculture-dependent industries as to
the type of agriculture on which they rely.
For agricultural sales and services (Table 2C-1), the eight businesses relying on fruit
crops and the three relying on vegetable crops are nearly equally dependent on
Ventura County agriculture, but those serving fruit crops estimate they could
withstand up to a 34.4% reduction in acreage, while those serving vegetables could
withstand only a 15% reduction. The largest nursery supplying trees to Ventura
County growers is actively expanding and diversifying its market, with Ventura
County becoming a smaller part of its sales, which in part accounts for the treeserving sales businesses higher estimated tolerance for crop reductions in the
County.
For packers and shippers, the six businesses serving tree crops are 71.7% reliant on
Ventura County agriculture and estimate they could survive up to 49.2% reduction
in acreage. The two businesses serving vegetable crops are less reliant on the
County’s agriculture (50%) and could withstand up to 60% reduction in crop
acreage.
109
These results are quite different than what was found in the 1977 study and reflect
several dramatic changes in the packing and shipping industry, for both tree and
vegetable crops. All of the packing/shipping businesses tend to be very labor
intensive (averaging nearly 150 employees per business), and the vegetable
packers are also very capital intensive, requiring expensive cooling equipment.
These aspects of the industry have not changed since 1977.
What has changed is that the packing/shipping operations in citrus are becoming
more consolidated and vertically integrated. If production decreases so that not as
many packing operations are needed, growers can shift to another cooperative.
Instead of each packing business competing for a share of the market to survive,
the cooperatively-owned businesses have the flexibility to handle the amount of
production the growers can actually produce.
For vegetable packers and shippers, there is also more vertical integration than in
1977. Most of the owners of the large cooling sheds, critical to processing fresh
vegetables, are also the farmers or lease and contract with farmers. Their sales
people talk by telephone and arrange contracts mostly with U.S. and Canadian
buyers, such as Safeway and Luckys, and then lease and farm the amount of
acreage needed to fulfill these contracts up to the processing capacity of the packing
sheds. They also operate in several other counties, coordinating the total acreage
and packing operations needed to meet their contracted production goals.
As a result of these changed conditions, the packing/shipping industry, for both
tree and vegetable crops, indicates a much greater tolerance for reduction in
agricultural productivity now than it did in 1977.
Survey Results By 10-Year Forecast
As shown in Table 2D, the businesses surveyed are split almost evenly in thirds in
their predictions of future business activity. The businesses that envision getting
smaller or staying the same are generally those more reliant on agriculture (6769%) and that could withstand less reduction in crop acreage (32-36%). The
agriculture-support businesses expecting to grow average a 48% reliance on the
County’s agriculture and an ability to withstand up to 58% reduction in crop
acreage.
110
Table 2 D
Ventura County Support Industries
Survey Results By 10 Year Forecast:
Less, Same or More Agricultural Business Activity
Number of Business
% Rely on Vent Ag
% reduce withstand
Average Employment
Less
12
66.7%
31.7%
41.0
Same
12
68.8%
36.3%
63.9
More
10
48.0%
58.3%
37.7
Total
34
61.9%
41.1%
48.1
Survey Results By Percent Reliance on Ventura County Agriculture
Table 2E indicates that, not surprisingly, the businesses least dependent on
agriculture have the greatest capacity to tolerate crop reductions (76%). However,
the businesses in the middle of the spectrum (average 49% reliance) estimate they
could withstand only 32.4% crop acreage reduction, while those most reliant
(averaging almost 90%) could tolerate a 37.7% reduction in acreage. This may be
simply an anomaly of the survey responses or may be linked to the changes in
business relationships noted above (more cooperatives and vertical integration),
allowing flexibility to crop reductions even in the most agriculture-dependent
businesses.
Table 2 E
Ventura County Support Industries
Survey Results By Percent of Business Reliance on
Ventura County Agriculture
Number of Business
% Rely on Vent Ag
% reduce withstand
Average Employment
Under 33%
5
15.0%
76.0%
22.8
34%-66%
14
48.9%
32.4%
49.6
67%-100%
15
89.7%
37.7%
55.2
Total
34
61.9%
41.1%
48.1
111
Analysis Of Crop Reduction Capacity
Table 3 illustrates the effect of applying the estimated crop loss capacities based on
the survey results. These estimates are expressed in harvested acres, although
increased production per acre and/or more than double cropping would modify
results. For all agriculture-support businesses:
• they could withstand up to 37.3% reduction in total crop acres, thus
potentially going from the current 101,483 acres to a minimum of 63,612;
• those dependent on fruit crops could withstand only slightly more (41.9%),
bringing tree acreage from the current 59,685 to a minimum level of 34,652;
• those dependent on vegetables could tolerate considerably less reduction
(30.7%), thus going from the current 41,798 to a minimum of 28,960 acres.
Table 3
Analysis of Reduction and Effect on Existing Crops
All Support Business
Acres in 1993 (1)
% capacity Loss
Acres loss (2)
Acres Needed (3)
Fruit and Nuts
59,685
41.9%
25,033
34,652
Vegetables
41,798
30.7%
12,838
28,960
Total
101,483
37.3%
37,871
63,612
Sale & Service
Acres in 1993 (1)
% capacity Loss
Acres loss (2)
Acres Needed (3)
59,685
34.4%
20,517
39,168
41,798
15.0%
6,270
35,528
101,483
26.4%
26,786
74,697
Packers & Shippers
Acres in 1993 (1)
% capacity Loss
Acres loss (2)
Acres
_ _ _ _ _Needed
_ _ _ _ _ _ (3)
_____
59,685
49.2%
29,345
30,340
41,798
60.0%
25,079
16,719
101,483
53.6%
54,424
47,049
(1) Chapter 1, Table 5. Harvested Acres by Commodity Group
(2) 1993 acres time the percentage loss capacity
(3) Acres necessary to sustain agricultural infrastructure
112
Again, it must be noted that these estimates are the point at which the collective
businesses, on average, would close or leave the County. Some businesses would
be more sensitive than others, and all or most would experience stress and
probable lay-offs at smaller percentage reductions.
Table 3 also breaks out the estimates of tolerable crop loss for the two largest and
most agriculture-dependent segments of the support industry.
The agriculture sales and service businesses estimated a tolerance for a 26.4%
reduction in total crop acreage, with a greater loss capacity for tree crops (34.4%)
than for vegetable crops (only 15%). These tolerable losses would result in a need
to retain minimum levels at:
• 63,612 total agriculture acres
• 34,652 acres in tree production
• 28,960 acres in vegetable crops.
The packing and shipping businesses estimate a high tolerance for reduction in crop
acres, at 49.2% for fruit crops, 60% for vegetables, or 53.6% for all crops combined.
These loss capacities would result in minimums of:
• 47,059 total agriculture acres
• 30,340 acres in tree production
• 16,719 acres in vegetable crops.
The sector of the agriculture-support industry that can withstand the least
reduction in production is agriculture sales and services. Equipment manufacture
and sales and farm supply businesses are close behind in their sensitivity to crop
losses. (See Table 2-C.) Packers and shippers, despite their high dependence on
agriculture, are apparently able to withstand a much larger crop reduction due to
their relatively low fixed costs and ability to respond by consolidating operations
and reducing the number of employees.
To avoid losing vital segments of the agriculture support industry, the most
conservative crop loss capacities should be used. If the average for all agriculturesupport industries were the standard, it is likely that most or all businesses in the
more sensitive sectors could be lost. Even at the most restrictive crop loss
estimates, the more sensitive individual businesses may not survive.
113
Comparison With 1977
Coastal Commission Study
Table 4 compares the results of the similar analysis of agriculture support
businesses from the 1977 Coastal Commission study with this current analysis. In
1977, the support industry estimated they could, on average, withstand a 26.8%
reduction in agriculture productivity, with somewhat higher tolerance for loss of
tree crops (32.0%) and less for vegetable crops (24.4%). In the current study, the
overall industry reports a tolerance for significantly greater reductions: 41.1% in
total crops, 41.9% for fruit crops, and 3.7% for vegetables.
Table 4
Comparison of 1977 Study to 1995 Study
Percentage of Loss in Production that
Ventura County Agriculture Can Withstand
Oxnard Plain Study
conducted in 1977
Trees
Vegetables
32.0%
24.4%
Total
26.8%
1995 Study Results
All support
Sales &
Businesses
Service
41.9%
34.4%
30.7%
15.0%
41.1%
29.1%
Shippers/
Packers
49.2%
60.0%
51.9%
The most sensitive sector of the support industry - agriculture sales and services more closely parallels the results of the 1977 study. That sector estimates an ability
to withstand only slightly more total crop or tree crop losses and considerably less
reduction in vegetable crops than the overall industry indicated 17 years earlier.
114
Comparison of 1977 Study to 1995 Study
Capacity of Loss in Production that Ventura County Agriculture Can Withstand
Percentage Loss Capacity
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1977 Study
All Support
Businesses
1995 Study
Trees
Sales/Serv
1995 Study
Vegetables
Shippers/Packers
1995 Study
Total
Surprisingly, in the 1977 study, it was the packing/shipping sector that was most
sensitive to crop losses, estimating a capacity to withstand a 32% reduction in
lemon tree crops, and only a 22% decline in vegetable crops. In the current study,
this sector estimates much higher tolerance for reductions, at 49.2% for fruit crops
and 60% for vegetables. Some of the reasons for this shift were discussed above
(explaining the findings of Table 2C-2), primarily the change to more vertical
integration of the packing/shipping industry with both growers and buyers and an
ability to adjust the packing capacity to meet the productivity rather than packers
competing to meet their capacity (and more likely to go out of business if total
productivity dropped).
In addition, subjective perceptions may account for some of the differences in the
1977 and current results. Businesses that have survived over the past two decades
may have a sense of confidence in their ability to adjust to large shifts and cycles in
agricultural production. One crop has replaced another; floods and frosts have
meant temporary losses; and the economy has been up and down. Some acres lost
to urbanization have been replaced, with agricultural land shifting from prime
flatland farms to hillsides.
This chapter has focused on today’s most important crops, in which there has been
a net increase in harvested acres. But during 17 year period between these two
studies, there has been a 19,000 acre loss of field crops such as sugar beets as
growers shift to higher value crops. Many of the businesses associated with field
crops have disappeared.
115
This confidence of the agriculture support industry in their ability to survive despite
large fluctuations in agriculture production over the past two decades may lead to
an over-estimate of their capacity to withstand permanent losses in the future,
where no replacement acreage or increase in productivity would soften the impact.
This, however, would be the effect of most reductions in crop acreage in the 1990’s.
116
The Costs Of Farming Near Cities
Michal Moore
Resource Economist
Table of Contents
Introduction
118
Previous Work
119
Cost Impacts on Agriculture
120
Increased Costs of Operation Due to Location
120
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Theft of Product
Vandalism
Soil Compaction and Spread of Crop Disease
Regulations
Increased Liability Insurance
Air Pollution
Road Congestion
Buffer Zones
Timing of Operations
• Noise
Land Prices
Conclusions
124
126
117
Introduction
This chapter explores the costs of farming in the proximity to urban areas. We
focus on costs which show a direct relationship to the proximity of the urban
interface.
Urban influences can be blatant or subtle depending on the community and the
distance from the urban boundary. They range from long-term and sometimes
barely visible effects of air pollution, to direct urban impacts such as vandalism or
traffic interference with crop transport or farm machinery. The effect and the
conflict have not been lost on public agencies. Planning policies, such as greenbelt
and buffer zone designations, and regulations, such as right-to-farm ordinances,
have been employed to mitigate or diminish the impacts; each has been successful
in limited degree. In each case, the effectiveness may be short lived, as regulations
or rule-making bodies change over time.
To put this in context, we evaluate the costs of agricultural activities in the
proximity of urban areas by classifying the nature of costs as either direct or
indirect.
Direct costs are those borne by agricultural producers, either landowners or
renters, in the process of developing, harvesting and transporting crops to market.
A general list of these includes:
• Land acquisition cost (or lease)
This can be in the form of a mortgage from conventional or farm based lenders.
The category includes tenant or leasehold farming where an annual or crop
cycle payment is made to the landowner.
• Land Taxes (secured and unsecured property)
Based on property value at the time of property sale. This can vary significantly
for properties purchased pre-1977 (pre Proposition 13) and those purchased
since, where value is based on 1% of current purchase price and escalates at 2%
annually.
• Production costs
Labor - The labor category includes management, field harvest and preparation,
transfer and shipment and packing services. Management is further divided
into direct crop or harvest management and the more esoteric subcategory of
regulation, a field that includes tax, pesticide and chemical regulation
compliance.
118
Factor inputs - This category is the most obvious cost area for farmers. It
includes water costs, which can vary significantly within the region, and inputs
such as chemicals or fertilizers.
Indirect costs are those which follow from actions not controlled by the landowner.
These can be either regional (affecting all owners more or less equally) or local or
property specific in nature. Each represents a cost that must be internalized within
the price of final products.
Indirect regional impacts include:
• Broad based air pollution impacts
• Road congestion and access interference
• Land price effects promulgated by agricultural land sales either for intraagricultural or direct conversion to higher intensity land use
On a local scale, indirect impacts include:
• Vandalism or trespass
• Theft of products or machinery
• Complexity and compliance responsibilities to government agencies
These are examined below in the context of the proximity of urban boundaries.
Previous Work
This chapter builds on work done in two previous documents as well as periodic
updates on production costs prepared by field advisors to the Cooperative
Extension. They are:
• Analysis of Agriculture on the Oxnard Plain and the Urban/Rural
Interface
The California Coastal Commission, 1977 and
• The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California,
Department of Conservation, 1991
119
Field work for this task was accomplished through a series of interviews with a
selected sample of agricultural managers and staff of the Agricultural
Commissioner and the University of California Cooperative Extension and a
review of published literature on actual and expected current and historical
production costs. In general, production cost records were not provided except for
a limited number of isolated, specific costs. In the area of actual increased costs
experienced by operators in the vicinity of urban areas, we have been forced to
rely on inferential and anecdotal data, although in fairness to all who were
interviewed, the opinions and inferences were remarkably similar.
Cost Impacts on Agriculture
Farming in the proximity of urban areas is a study in choices and contrasts, with
resultant pluses and minuses for the owner. For instance, the proximity of large,
densely populated urban areas generally implies greater access to and higher
quality of transportation facilities. This in turn can mean lower market transport
costs. The greater competition for surface roads, however, can produce conflicts
with urban dwellers who encounter slower moving farm vehicles or processing
devices. Similarly, the presence of urban development means a dense potential
consumer base. However, in one of the perverse twists of modern marketing, it is
often cheaper to process and ship products out of the area rather than sell them
locally. Thus, often the only producers to profit from the local population base
may be those smaller farmers who engage in direct marketing through such
devices as local farmers markets.
Increased Costs of Operation Due to Location
As stated in the Coastal Commission's 1977 report, "Given present economic
conditions, farmers are generally employing least-cost methods of production in
growing the crops for which the plain has the greatest comparative advantage. . . . .
. Apparently the crop selection on the Oxnard Plain is as compatible with
urbanization as possible. What is actually needed to minimize conflict is the
development of appropriate buffer zones."
Our research indicates nothing has changed in outlook since this was written.
Agriculture continues to adjust its practices to the presence of the urban
community. In the list that follows, we should note that impacts are bi-directional,
that urban dwellers, once they are established, are impacted by, and tend to
complain about, some agricultural practices as well.
120
Interviews revealed topical rather than specific complaints on the part of farmers
regarding the influence of urban activities. In the most obvious examples, where a
residential subdivision coexisted next to an active farm area, costs that could be
quantified were inconsistent but involved a range of costs from changes in farming
techniques such as timing, nature and duration of chemical sprays to a need to
create fenced barriers to entry.
The interviews revealed costs were involved in the following areas:
THEFT OF PRODUCT
Theft of the product grown on the property is cited most often in proximity to the
urban area. When in direct proximity to a neighborhood subdivision, those rows
of crops closest to the subdivision tend to be most affected by small scale theft.
Where this is a problem, crop production in the first two rows appear to generate
up to 20% lower production than rows beyond. Many respondents indicated that a
common resolution to the problem involved visits or personal contacts with the
subdivision residents, who often viewed the presence of the crops as a free amenity
available to them.
Where the problem cannot be solved by meetings with neighbors, fences are an
option. The lowest level of barrier, largely symbolic, is the barbed wire fence
(estimated cost $2-3 per running foot); chain link fences (estimated cost $5/foot)
seem to significantly curb casual access.
At distances from urban areas which make casual access unlikely, the theft risk is
changed considerably. Here in the more remote areas, high value crops such as
avocados are subject to large scale theft from organized thieves who can steal a
significant portion of a yield and make use of public roadways to elude capture.
Cost from this level of theft, while inconsistent, can be very significant in terms of
total harvest for an individual owner.
VANDALISM
A problem cited at a rate similar to theft is the occurrence of vandalism. Most
owners implied that the greatest damage from vandalism came inadvertently, for
instance when horse riders trampled or damaged irrigation risers or pipes, or
walkers or joggers broke branches or compacted tilled, seeded soil in cultivated
fields.
These effects are exacerbated by instances of deliberate vandalism to vehicles or
farm machines stored in the fields or to wind machines and smudge pots. Damage
done here tends to magnify its initial impact. For instance, any vehicle vandalized
to a degree that it must be repaired represents lost productivity or access to crops
until it is brought back into use. As a consequence, elaborate means must be taken
121
to move these to more secure areas. The result, although difficult to measure
directly, is higher labor costs and lower productivity in lands so affected.
Damage to trees and crops tends to diminish with rows further than the 2nd or 3rd
row closest to the urban interface. A non-threatening but increasing complaint
suggests that there is an increase in graffiti on farm support buildings and
equipment, resulting in extra labor costs for removal.
SOIL COMPACTION AND SPREAD OF CROP DISEASE
Crops such as avocados can be subject to root diseases transferred from other
infested areas. The use of non-designated trails by horse riders is cited as a
complaint for many of the growers. Soil compaction can influence water retention
and percolation rates and results in an increased need for tilling. These were not
cited as serious recurring problems by those interviewed, however.
REGULATIONS
Virtually every owner or manager interviewed cited the increased responsibility of
complying with government regulations, ranging from farm and crop reports to
compliance with pesticide regulations and applications, as a significant extra cost
area. This was not quantified but is called out as an increased cost of management,
typically borne by the operators themselves.
The cost is time, to retrain and remain current in the regulations, significant in the
case of new pesticides, and to generate, submit and certify required forms. Many
managers were devoting up to one man day per week in increased reporting
requirements. Most of these management costs, however, are the same for all
farmers, whether they are in proximity to urban boundaries or not.
INCREASED LIABILITY INSURANCE
Agricultural operators are sensitive to the problems that can be caused by persons
injuring themselves, even as a result of unauthorized access to their property.
While this was not quantified by any of the respondents, it was generally conceded
that insurance rates had increased to account for potential losses due to accidents or
damage to persons not directly involved in farm operations. Those interviewed
indicated that overall liability insurance could be 10% higher where farms were
adjacent to urban uses.
AIR POLLUTION
This factor is often cited in literature reviews on farming costs, but was mentioned
very little in the interviews. We believe the long term effects have been
internalized industry-wide for farms on the Oxnard Plain not only in terms of price
reductions but in general expected yields. Those interviewed indicated that crops in
direct proximity to a busy thoroughfare exhibit lower yields and smaller products
122
on average. In most cases the effects, which appear to be the result of a more
generalized problem originating in and exported from the Los Angeles basin, affect
crop yields throughout the area. Overall crop yields, in gross weight as well as
average yield per plant for harvested products, have been estimated to be
diminished by up to 10% from air pollution.
ROAD CONGESTION
Roads within agricultural areas are typically without curbs and present a narrow
cross section for vehicles to utilize. Competition on roads with urban dwellers
seeking access/egress to subdivisions has caused some increase in accident
frequency, although not significant statistically for the area as a whole. The
greatest problem seems to be one of interference and inconvenience. This
condition is made worse when farm vehicles, such as tractors, must make use of
the public highways and can be the source of minor traffic jams. The largest
number of complaints in this category, however, came from operators who
confront urban dwellers using the agricultural access roads to travel back and forth
to their homes. Higher costs have resulted from efforts by agricultural managers
to time movements of harvest or operational vehicles at night or in early morning
so as to minimize conflicts with suburban traffic.
BUFFER ZONES
Agricultural operators in proximity to urban structures often take defensive action
such as creating lower intensity use areas on the boundary of their property, in
effect designating a buffer zone. This results in higher labor costs of operation
(both in management and cultural costs) and typically in lower net yields as well.
The most obvious example of changes in practice within these areas is shifts to
crops which minimize sprays or chemical applications and minimize the generation
of dust from agricultural operations.
TIMING OF OPERATIONS
Most operators interviewed indicated that they were sensitive to the presence of
the urban dwellers and took them into account when making operational decisions.
While this is not directly quantifiable, it does reflect additional management time
needed to account for prevailing winds (in terms of dust generated as well as
pesticide or herbicide applications) and noise (for instance night operations are
severely limited in the immediate proximity of urban dwellers). Most operators
took on this task themselves as well as acting as the direct mediator to the
neighborhood when problems did occur.
NOISE
Noise is a concern for agricultural owners in the proximity of urban development.
Normal operations can be cited as a nuisance by those living in subdivisions and
subsequent actions by local government, such as the nighttime prohibition against
123
the use of wind machines, can impact growers directly. In this example, the frosts
which create the need for the wind machines typically occur at night. Alternatives,
such as orchard heaters, have air pollution implications and may result in lower
levels of protection and generate additional costs.
In general, the result of our field work suggests that, other than those costs borne
through increased property values (discussed below), the costs of operations near
or adjacent to urban areas are largely internalized by landowners. Beyond isolated
incidents involving significant operational costs such as fence construction or major
theft, increases appear to be about 5% of total variable costs (about half the rate of
increase we expected anecdotally). This can be attributed largely to the agricultural
operators handling most of the increased management effort themselves and their
tendency to discount the value of their own labor (essentially to zero).
Land Prices
The impact of land price changes and subsequent shifts in land use can be
significant, especially when viewed in the context of entry to the market. This has
been reviewed in the chapter on urban land conversion, but it should be
emphasized that the net return from single harvest or lower value crops can be
diminished significantly when higher land payments are required following resale
or refinance of individual properties.
In order to visualize the influence of land sale value or rent, we can construct a
simple formula reflecting the land manager's view of gross receipts and factor costs
compared to mortgage or rent payments. In this formula we assume:
Gr - (Pc + Pr + C) = Lc
Gr =Gross receipts
Pc =Productions costs, including labor and factor inputs
Pr =Profit
C =Contingency, and
Lc =Balance available for rent or amortized land mortgage payments
124
For example we use the hypothetical case of citrus with the following assumptions:
Gross return = 800 boxes/acre @ $4.50/box = $3,600 gross/acre
Input or production costs = $2,000/acre
(labor, sprays, fertilizers and variables incl. insurance )
Desired profit at 13% of net return = $200
With no allowance for contingencies, that would leave $1,400/acre net available
return for rent or land mortgage payments. Using an interest rate of 8%, this loan
repayment potential ($1,400/acre annually) could support a land mortgage of:
$15,000/acre at 25 year loan period
$15,700/acre at 30 year loan period
If we add a margin of $200/acre for contingencies, the supportable mortgage base
falls to $12,800 for a 25 year loan and $13,500 for a 30 year loan.
Field evidence indicates that actual land acquisition prices are in the range of
$25,000 to $35,000/acre, especially in the proximity of urban expansion areas (see
Conversion of Agricultural Land chapter). Using the citrus example cited above,
land sales at $25,000 - $35,000/gross acre would almost necessitate conversion,
either to a much higher value crop or ultimately to urban land use.
Land bids at urban land use values drive land costs up, beginning this sequence.
Further, this occurs with higher frequency in the immediate proximity of urban
spheres of influence.
The retention of much of Ventura County’s current agricultural operations relies
either on owner operators who bought land at much lower prices or owners who
lease their land out for farming as a holding action, giving them some immediate
returns, but with the intention of eventual development or resale to recoup their
investment.
125
Conclusions
• Quantifiable costs increase at the urban fringe, with estimates as high as 5 - 6%
of total operations cost per acre
• The highest increased cost of operations at the urban fringe is the entry price for
land purchase or rental.
• Intangible costs such as the effects of air pollution on the size and weight of crop
yields have generally been internalized into the overall costs of operation on the
Plain, not disproportionately distributed to urban proximity properties.
• One of the most insidious and pervasive costs experienced by growers is the
most difficult to quantify. That cost is the value of the grower's time, whether
spent in compliance with new regulations or in the acts of changing agricultural
practices which are deemed necessary to forestall complaints by urban
residents, even when perfectly legal (this may be most visible in the area of
pesticides and their application).
The following scenarios can occur on remaining farmland as more farmland
converts to urban use near the urban fringe:
• Smaller agricultural units and more specialized operations, including changes to
higher value and more specialty crops.
• Higher reliance on technology to maximize returns, minimize water use and
take advantage of more efficient pesticide application. The need for capital
intensive improvements, however, may conflict with the trend above, favoring
consolidation of agricultural acreage in fewer holdings.
• Higher acreage aggregation of agricultural units by corporate owners and the
disaggregation and higher diversity for smaller individual land owners1 . This
may include increased development of so-called hobby farms which meet the
minimum acreage requirements for agriculture but emphasize residential rather
than agriculture as the primary use.
• Continued escalation of agricultural land entry prices with corresponding shifts
in crop diversity and location.
1 This conclusion is supported by trends illustrated in the Geographic Information System
data mapping tool associated with this study.
126
Economic Analysis Of Status Quo Vs.
Compact Urban Development
David Strong
Strong Associates
240 41st Street
Oakland 94611,
510-428-2904
Table of Contents
Introduction & Summary
Demographics
128
133
134
136
139
Existing Conditions
Projections to Year 2010:
Status Quo vs. Compact
Private Sector Impacts
Status Quo vs. Compact
139
140
Cities’ Costs & Revenues
Average Revenues and Costs
Ongoing Revenues and Costs
Status Quo vs. Compact
Property Tax Case Study
Capital Cost Case Study
Projections to Year 2010
Status Quo vs. Compact
143
143
144
145
145
147
149
149
County’s Costs & Revenues
Average Revenues and Costs
Property Tax Case Study
Loss of Agriculture Revenues/Costs
Projections to Year 2010
Status Quo vs. Compact
Appendix: Cities’ Revenues/Costs Detail
157
158
160
160
163
163
164
127
Introduction & Summary
Introduction
This chapter, the fiscal impact portion of The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County,
develops an economic model to evaluate the private and public sector impacts of
urbanization of agricultural lands. The fiscal impact assessment compares the effect
of potential new development to the year 2010 under a status quo development
pattern (i.e. at current average densities) vs. an agricultural preservation, compact
development approach. The agriculture preservation scenario uses simplified
overall density increases and infill to illustrate the potential benefits; more
individualized alternatives are possible.
This chapter focuses on the six cities in Ventura County most affected by and
surrounded by agricultural uses - Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Oxnard, Santa
Paula, and Ventura - as well as the impact of those cities’ growth on the County of
Ventura. The analysis uses each city’s projections of population and job growth,
with all the new development expected to occur in existing or newly annexed city
areas. It does not assess growth in the rest of the cities or unincorporated areas of
the County.
The economic model establishes estimates of per capita, per job and per acre fiscal
impacts (revenues and costs) under either density scenario for each city studied and
for the County. These multipliers, based on average and case study (CS, see
appendix) revenues and costs for each jurisdiction, are then used to assess the effect
of projected development between 1994 and 2010 and compare the two growth
scenarios.
This chapter includes five sections:
• Introduction and Summary
• Demographics, describing existing conditions and comparing projections to
the year 2010 under both status quo and compact development scenarios.
• Private sector impacts of the status quo vs. compact scenarios, using
information from the first chapter of this study, “The Value of Agriculture
to Ventura County: An Economic Analysis”
• Cities’ revenues and costs under the two scenarios, and
County’s revenues and costs under the two scenarios.
128
Summary
As the six focus cities grow, additional land will be converted from agriculture to
housing and commercial development. The amount of land converted - and the
fiscal impact of that urbanization - are dramatically affected by the pattern and
density of the new development.
The status quo pattern accommodates growth by urbanizing and annexing lands at
the current average density for each city, while the compact scenario assumes that
20% of growth will be accommodated by infilling within existing city boundaries
and the balance will be on new urban land but at 50% higher densities.
Briefly, as shown in the Summary Table on page 133, this chapter finds that the
compact scenario would:
• Retain about 4,300 more acres of land in agricultural use;
• Retain about 1,500 more agriculture-related jobs;
• Retain about $80 million more in total agricultural sales annually;
• Result in a positive annual cashflow of $4.9 million for the six agriculturedependent cities, compared to a negative over $5.2 million deficit from the
status quo pattern, a difference of $10.1 million; and
• Yield a slightly higher net surplus of $2.7 million annually for Ventura
County government, compared to $2.5 million for the status quo pattern.
Cities’ Fiscal Impact
For each of the cities, the net revenue/cost balance is consistently more favorable
under the compact scenario, but there is a wide range in impact depending on each
city’s conditions.
As shown in the Summary Table, adopting the compact approach would have
these beneficial impacts:
• Camarillo would go from a net loss of $896,000 to a surplus of $300,000
• Fillmore would go from a $677,000 loss to a $96,000 surplus
• Moorpark would go from a $1,946,000 loss to a much smaller $387,000 loss
129
• Oxnard would go from a $1,656,000 loss to a $1,673,000 surplus
• Santa Paula would go from a $997,000 loss to a smaller $425,000 loss
• Ventura would go from a $951,000 surplus (the only city with a surplus
under the status quo pattern) to a much larger $3,648,000 surplus.
The Summary Table also shows the per resident and per job revenues and costs
associated with the two alternative scenarios. As shown, for the six cities
combined, on average:
• Each resident generates about $460 revenue under either scenario;
• Each resident costs $576 to serve under the status quo pattern compared to
$495 under the compact approach;
• Thus residents create a net loss under both scenarios, but the loss is $114
under the status quo compared to $34 under the compact approach.
• Each job generates about the same revenue, at $375;
• The cost per job is $312 for the status quo pattern compared to $267 for the
compact scenario;
• Thus jobs create a net surplus under both scenarios, but less for the status
quo, at $63, than for the compact approach, at $108 surplus per job.
Ventura County Fiscal Impact
Since the entire population growth is assumed to take place within existing or
newly annexed city areas, the fiscal impact of accommodating the new
development is relatively small on the County. The revenues and costs are
increased from the addition of the new County residents, jobs, and property values
in the six study cities, but they are also decreased by the loss of agricultural land.
130
As evaluated in Tables 7-10 of this chapter:
• The County’s average per resident and per job revenues and costs are the
same to serve the new development whether it occurs in the status quo or
compact pattern.
• The revenues from the new property values are slightly higher for the
compact scenario, because the portion of new development in existing city
boundaries has on average a higher share of property tax revenue.
• Finally, the County will lose the net revenue surplus it enjoys from
agricultural acreage, with less loss from the compact pattern since it uses
fewer agricultural acres.
The overall effect on Ventura County is a follows:
• The status quo pattern would produce County revenues of $53.2 million,
less costs of $50.7 million, for an estimated net annual surplus of $2.5
million.
• The compact scenario would produce revenues of $53.6 million, less costs
of $50.9 million, for a net annual surplus of $2.7 million.
• The net difference between the two is a $200,000 advantage for the
compact development scenario.
This nearly equal surplus in the County fiscal impact for either scenario is far
outweighed by the major adverse impact - an estimated $10.1 million disadvantage
- the status quo pattern has on the cities.
131
Per Dollar Comparison
The implications of these differences in the impact on cities and County from the
alternative scenarios can be illustrated by this simplified example:
For each dollar of revenue generated per resident or job,
how much does it cost to provide city services? For the
six cities combined:
Six Cities Revenue/Cost Ratios
Resident
Revenues
Costs
Net Cost
Job
Revenues
Costs
Net Revenue
Status Quo
Compact
$1.00
$1.25
($0.25)
$1.00
$1.07
($0.07)
$1.00
$0.83
$0.17
$1.00
$0.71
$0.29
Thus, the cities “lose” 25 cents on each dollar for each new resident under the status
quo, compared to only 7 cents lost under the compact model. For each new job,
the cities “gain” 17 cents (more revenue than costs) under the status quo, compared
to a 29 cents per job gain under the compact alternative.
Using the same simplified comparison, how much does
the County benefit from each dollar of revenue from
agricultural acreage?
County Revenue/Cost Ratios
Status Quo
Agriculture
Per Ag Land Revenues
Per Ag Land Costs
With a Net Revenue per Job
$1.00
$0.65
$0.35
Compact
$1.00
$0.65
$0.35
In other words, for each dollar generated from agricultural land, only 65 cents of
costs are required, generating a net 35 cent surplus. Although the numbers are
overwhelmed by the large revenues and costs generated by new development
(under either scenario), each acre going out of agricultural production slightly
reduces the County’s net surplus.
132
Summary Table
Status Quo
DEMOGRAPHIC (Tables 1 and 2)
New Population
New City Jobs
Lost Ag Jobs
Net Jobs Gained
New Urban Acres
PRIVATE SECTOR (Table 2)
Loss of Ag Sales ($,000)
Loss of Farm Income ($,000)
75,967
54,509
3,554
10,765
10,162
75,967
54,509
2,072
12,247
5,904
$192,550
$121,319
$112,310
$70,759
CITIES REVENUES/COSTS (Table 6 C)
6 Cities Combined Totals
Revenue
Costs
Net Revenue/Costs
$55,527,847
$60,748,458
($5,220,611)
Each City's Net Revenue/(Cost)
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Oxnard
Santa Paula
Ventura
Total
Total
($896,004)
($676,819)
($1,945,672)
($1,656,332)
($996,699)
$950,915
($5,220,611)
Cities Combined Revenues/Costs - Per Resident and Per Job
Per Resident
Status Quo
Revenue
$461
Cost
$576
Net Revenue (Cost)
($114)
Per Job
Revenue
$376
Cost
$312
Net Revenue (Cost)
$63
COUNTY REVENUES/COSTS (Table 10)
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenue (Cost)
Compact
$53,236,807
$50,710,537
$2,526,270
$55,443,304
$50,538,292
$4,905,013
$299,660
$95,930
($386,691)
$1,672,963
($424,516)
$3,647,666
$4,905,013
Compact
$460
$495
($34)
Difference
0
0
1,482
(1,482)
4,258
$80,240
$50,560
($84,543)
($10,210,167)
$10,125,624
$1,195,664
$772,749
$1,558,981
$3,329,295
$572,183
$2,696,751
$10,125,624
Difference
($1)
($81)
$80
$375
$267
$108
$0
($45)
$45
$53,554,016
$50,871,142
$2,682,874
$317,209
$160,605
$156,604
133
Demographics
Existing Conditions
Table 1A shows the population, employment, and housing statistics for Ventura
County and its cities as of 1990 and 1994. The year 1990 is presented because
complete comparable statistics are available from U.S. census data. The updated
1994 estimates, however, are used as the benchmark from which the impact of
future development can be measured.
Table 1 A
Demographics - Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions: 1990
Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark
Description (1990 Census)
Population
52,303
12,001
25,494
Number of Households (HH)
18,109
3,404
7,621
Population per /HH
2.89
3.53
3.35
Number of Jobs
Ag direct workforce
Ag:direct +indirect workforce
% Direct Ag jobs
% Direct+Ind Ag jobs (1)
Existing Conditions: 1994
Population (State est.)
Number of Households
Number of Jobs
Acre Information
Pop per resid & infrastructure ac.
Residential & infrastructure ac.
Comm. & indust. ac. (30 Jobs/acre)
Total city acres (FMMP)
Oxnard
Ventura
142,192
39,343
3.61
Santa
Paula
25,062
7,664
3.27
92,575
35,408
2.61
Six City
Total
349,627
111,549
3.13
County
Total
669,016
217,298
3.08
24,967
799
1,851
3.2%
7.4%
5,232
701
1,483
13.4%
28.4%
13,423
447
1,038
3.3%
7.7%
66,922
8,166
17,012
12.2%
25.4%
11,184
1,727
3,465
15.4%
31.0%
47,791
1,001
2,355
2.1%
4.9%
169,519
12,841
27,205
7.6%
16.0%
336,772
17,892
35,886
5.3%
10.7%
56,500
19,562
26,970
12,900
3,659
5,624
27,150
8,116
14,295
151,900
42,029
71,491
26,850
8,211
11,982
97,000
37,100
50,075
372,300
118,678
180,438
708,200
230,025
356,497
6.1
9,320
899
10,219
15.1
854
187
1,041
8.6
3,170
476
3,646
11.3
13,485
2,383
15,868
12.9
2,077
399
2,476
9.2
10,505
1,669
12,174
9.4
39,409
6,015
45,424
na
na
na
na
(1) U.S. Census employment data and California Employment Development Dept. data used in Chapter 1 differ.
For 1994, the latest population estimates from the State Dept. of Finance are used,
with the ratio of dwellings and jobs to population the same as in 1990. Thus, in
1994, the entire County is estimated to have a population of over 708,000, with
230,000 occupied dwellings (3.08 people per household), and a workforce of
356,500. The six agriculture-dependent cities being studied range from most to
least populous as follows: Oxnard, 151,900; Ventura, 97,000; Camarillo, 56,500;
Moorpark, 27,150; Santa Paula, 26,850; and Fillmore, 12,900, using 1994 estimates.
(In the table they are listed in alphabetical order.)
134
Table 1A and Figure 1 also indicates the relative degree of agricultural dependence
of these cities and the county, based on census employment statistics. Using a
multiplier of direct and indirect jobs related to agriculture the County as a whole
has 10.7% of its jobs related to agriculture. In the six cities studied, three have very
high rates of agriculture-related employment - Santa Paula at 31%, Fillmore, at
28.4%, and Oxnard, 25.4% - while three are below the County average - Moorpark
at 7.7%, Camarillo at 7.4%, and Ventura at 4.9%. All, however, are above the
average of the other cities in the County (at 3.3%).
Figure 1
Percent Agricultural Employment
Of Cities’ Total Employment
35
Percent of Total Employment
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Camar illo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ventur a
Source: Cities’ General Plans
135
The existing developed acreage within city limit boundaries is shown at the bottom
of Table 1A, coming to a total of 45,400 acres1 for the six cities combined. These
acreages are based on the state Farmland mapping and Monitoring Program data.
For each city, the portion of this acreage devoted to commercial/industrial is
estimated at 30 jobs per acre. The remaining developed acreage is divided by
population to calculate the density of residents per acre. As shown, this residential
density varies from a low of 8.6 people per acre in Moorpark to a high of 15.1
people per acre in Fillmore, with the six-city average at 9.4.
These 1994 estimates of population, jobs, and acreage are used in the economic
model, in conjunction with the 1994 budgets of each city, to calculate the per capita,
per job, and per acre average revenues and costs.
Projections To Year 2010
Table 1B shows the expected growth in population, housing and jobs for the six
cities based on each city’s General Plan projections for the period from 1994 to 2010.
Table 1B
Projections To Year 2010
Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark
Added Between 1994 and 2010
Population
12,240
4,332
18,600
Dwellings
5,496
1,489
6,282
Jobs
4,154
6,878
5,555
Percent Increase Between 1994 and 2010
Pop % increase from 1994
21.7%
33.6%
68.5%
Dwelling % increase from 1994
28.1%
40.7%
77.4%
Job % increase from 1994
15.4%
122.3%
38.9%
Added Acres with Status Quo
Residential
2,019
287
2,171
Commercial (@ 30 jobs/ac)
138
229
185
Total of new acres
2,157
516
2,357
Added Acres with Compact Growth
20 % Residential and job is assumed to be infill with -0- new acres
80 % Resid (@1.5 Status Quo)
1,077
153
1,158
80 % Com (@1.5 Status Quo)
111
183
148
Total of new acres
1,188
336
1,306
Oxnard
Santa
Paula
7,226
2,745
1,921
Ventura
11.0%
16.9%
30.3%
26.9%
33.4%
16.0%
17.4%
16.8%
28.6%
1,485
723
2,208
559
64
623
1,824
477
2,301
8,345
1,817
10,162
792
578
1,370
298
51
349
973
382
1,355
4,451
1,454
5,904
16,730
7,115
21,682
16,840
6,234
14,319
Six City
Total
75,967
29,361
54,509
20.4%
24.7%
30.2%
Source: Cities’ and County General Plans
As shown above and in Figure 2, the rate of population growth ranges from 11% in
Oxnard to 68.5% in Moorpark, with an average of 20.4% for the six cities combined.
1 FMMP land indicates developed land within city boundaries, and is thus less than the city
boundary acreage. Remaining acreage after commercial and industrial (job acreage) is thus
either residential or infrastructure (schools, parks, streets, drainage ponds, water ways etc.).
Openspace or undeveloped acreage is not included.
136
In total numbers, the population of the six cities combined is expected to rise from
372,300 in 1994 to nearly 448,300 in 2010, a gain of 76,000 new residents. For the
purpose of this chapter, it is assumed that all the new population will be housed
within either existing city or newly annexed city areas.
Figure 2
Projected Population and Job Increase
80
Percent Increase
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Camar illo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Population Incre ase
Oxnard
Santa
Paula
Ventur a
Job Increase
Source: Cities’ General Plans
The projected growth in housing is generally parallel to population growth, at an
average of 24.7% increase. Cities anticipating a higher rate of housing growth are
expecting new dwellings to have fewer people per household.
The cities’ projections of job growth vary the most widely, with the average at
30.2%. Three of the cities - Camarillo, Moorpark, and Santa Paula - expect jobs to
grow at a significantly lower rate than population, while the others - Fillmore,
Oxnard, and Ventura - have projected higher rates of job growth (Fillmore most
markedly). Disparities in the ratio of job growth to housing and population
growth could have significant impacts within a city or its neighbors. Such analysis,
however, is beyond the scope of this chapter; we have relied on the County’s
report of each city’s General Plan projections. Adjustments in the relative growth
rates would affect the magnitude but not the overall direction of the impacts found
in this chapter.
Finally - and most importantly for purposes of this analysis - Table 1B and Figure 3
compare the amount of land required to accommodate the projected population
137
based on a status quo vs. compact development pattern. The status quo pattern
assumes no infill and the same average number of residents per developed acre as
is estimated for each city in 1994 (see Table 1A), while commercial acreage is
estimated at 30 jobs per commercial acre. At these “status quo” densities, a total of
10,162 acres of land would be required to house the new growth within the six
cities.
Figure 3
New Acres Needed to Accommodate Development Under Two
Scenarios
2,500
New Acres Developed
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Oxnard
Santa
Paula
New Acres Needed Under Status Quo Development
New Acres Needed Under Compact Development
Source: Cities’ General Plans
138
Ventura
The compact development scenario assumes that 20% of the new population and
jobs would be accommodated by infilling within existing city boundaries, and the
remaining 80% would be on new land at 50% higher than existing densities. The
infilling is a logical extension of a policy of increasing densities in annexation areas,
since the value of existing city land and its potential economic return will be
enhanced by more closely matching the pattern of newly developing areas. As
shown, this compact development pattern would require only 5,904 acres to
accommodate the same population growth, retaining 4,258 more acres in
predominantly agricultural use.
It should be noted that these are generalized, illustrative
assumptions regarding density. Actual land use designations
would require individualized approaches based on site and cityby-city case study.
The results of these alternative scenarios for
accommodating new growth can be briefly compared for
the six cities combined as follows:
New Population to 2010
New Jobs to 2010
New Acres to 2010:
Residential & Infrastructure ac.
Conmmercial & Industrial ac.
Total Acres
Status Quo
75,967
54,509
8,345
1,817
10,162
Compact
75,967
54,509
4,451
1,454
5,904
Difference
0
0
3,894
363
4,258
139
Private Sector Impacts
Table 2 shows the impact of lost agricultural uses on sales, income and jobs under
the alternative land use scenarios. The determination of direct and indirect sales,
income and jobs per agricultural acre uses a weighted composite number based on
the types of crops affected and the calculations of indirect and induced economic
activity from these crop types derived from the IMPLAN input/output study in the
first chapter of this study (page 51).
For example, the communities with predominantly vegetable crops in their
anticipated urban expansion area - Camarillo and Oxnard - are estimated to lose
$22,708 per acre in total (direct and indirect) sales activity, while those with
predominantly tree crops - Fillmore and Santa Paula - will lose $16,070 in
agricultural sales for each acre converted to urban uses. Moorpark is estimated to
have 50% trees, 20% vegetables, and 30% non-agricultural open space, with an
average $12,482 direct and indirect sales per affected acre; and Ventura has 50%
trees, 50% vegetables, averaging $19,863 total sales per affected acre.
It should be noted that these estimated impacts from city to city are still generalized
and illustrative. Determining more precise acreage affected, crop values and
economic impacts would require detailed case studies.
140
Table 2
Private Sector Impact of Agricultural Acreage Lost:
Status Quo vs. Compact
Camarillo
AG USE DATA
Ag Affected, By Percent
Trees
Vegetables
Open Space
Fillmore Moorpark
Oxnard
Santa
Paula
Ventura Six Cities
Total
20.0%
80.0%
0.0%
90.0%
10.0%
0.0%
50.0%
20.0%
30.0%
20.0%
80.0%
0.0%
90.0%
10.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
Direct Sales per Acre (1)
Direct & Indirect per Acre (2)
Sales
Income
Jobs
$8,916
$6,273
$4,882
$8,916
$6,273
$7,783
$22,708
$14,141
.386
$16,070
$10,432
.357
$12,482
$7,991
.255
$22,708
$14,141
.386
$16,070
$10,432
.357
$19,863
$12,551
.374
STATUS QUO PATTERN
Acres Lost
Ag Sales ($,000)
Ag Income ($,000)
Ag Jobs
2,157
$48,992
$30,508
833
516
$8,290
$5,381
184
2,357
$29,414
$18,831
602
2,208
$50,138
$31,221
853
623
$10,009
$6,497
222
2,301
$45,706
$28,880
860
10,162
$192,550
$121,319
3,554
COMPACT PATTERN
Acres Lost
Ag Sales ($,000)
Ag Income ($,000)
Ag Jobs
1,188
$26,968
$16,793
459
336
$5,404
$3,508
120
1,306
$16,304
$10,438
334
1,370
$31,117
$19,377
529
349
$5,613
$3,643
125
1,355
$26,905
$17,000
506
5,904
$112,310
$70,759
2,072
(1) Weighted average based on the following values from the Ag Commissioner, 1994:
Trees
Harvested Acres
Crop Value ($,000)
Value/Acre
Lemons
24,239
$216,129
$8,917
Avocados
16,199
$49,906
$3,081
Valencia Oranges
12,325
$45,034
$3,654
Total Above Tree Crops
52,763
$311,069
$5,896
Vegetables
Celery
9,878
$113,823
$11,523
Strawberries
4,795
$110,447
$23,034
Lettuce
6,824
$28,704
$4,206
Broccoli
4,635
$12,060
$2,602
Cabbage
2,202
$8,975
$4,076
Total Above Vegetables
28,334
$274,009
$9,671
(2) Based on the following multipliers developed by Goldman's Input/Output Model, Chpt. 1:
Sales
Income
Jobs/acre
Multipliers for trees
2.565
1.680
.353
Multipliers for vegetables
1.544
1.572
.395
141
Based on these per acre figures, the private sector agricultural
economic impact of the status quo pattern of growth can be
briefly compared with the compact approach as follows:
Urban acres required
Annual Loss of Total Sales($000)
Annual Loss in Farm Income ($000)
Loss in Agriculture-Related Jobs
Status Quo
10,162
$192,550
$121,319
3,554
Compact
5,904
$112,309
$70,758
2,072
Difference
4,258
$80,240
$50,560
1,482
% Change
41.9%
41.7%
41.7%
Figure 4
Comparing Urban Acres Required Under Two Scenarios
And Agricultural Jobs Lost Due To Loss of Agricultural Land
10,000
Acres or Jobs
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Status Quo
Urban acres required
142
Compact
Difference
Loss in Agr ic ulture-Related Jobs
Cities Revenues & Costs
In order to estimate future revenues and costs to the cities from new growth, the
economic model estimates current average per resident, per job, and per acre
revenues and costs as well as analyzing case study items. The case study items use
specific estimates rather than average per person or per acre figures. Property
taxes are a case study on the revenue side, and one-time capital costs are a case
study on the cost side in this analysis.
Average Revenues & Costs
As noted above, the economic model uses the 1994 cities’ budgets to determine
average per resident, per job and per acre revenues and costs as one basis for
projecting the fiscal impact of future growth. Appendix Table A summarizes the
total budgets of the six affected cities within Ventura County. Each line item is
allocated as a revenue or cost attributable to residents, to jobs, to both residents
and jobs, or to acreage.
For example, business license taxes are classified as a per employee revenue, since
they are generated only by businesses. Parks and recreation are allocated per
resident, since they are used and paid for principally by the local residents.
Franchise taxes, police and most general government services are allocated to both
residents and employees, with each job counted at 2/3 the average usage of each
resident. Per acre costs include such items as fire protection, street, and sewer
services.
In Table 3, the total revenues and costs for each classification are tallied (taken from
the Appendix). It then calculates the current average revenue and cost generated
per resident, per employee, and per acre in each of the cities in the study. Note that
the case study items (discussed below) are excluded from these figures.
For example, the total revenues for the city of Camarillo are over $27 million, with
about $400,000 of that in the property tax case study, $18.9 million allocated to
population and $7.8 million to employment. Based on its 1994 demographics, the
population-related revenues come to an average of $334.99 per resident, and jobrelated revenues come to $287.91 per job.2
The same calculations are also shown for costs. In addition to costs generated by
residents and jobs, there is an estimate of acreage-related costs. Total acreage2 Note that revenues assigned to both are divided using a ratio of each job being the
equivalent of 2/3 of a resident, as shown in the top portion of the table. This assumption is
based on standards developed in other fiscal analyses throughout California.
143
related costs are divided by residential and commercial acreage, and these are then
divided by the number of acres and numbers of residents or jobs per acre to
calculate the average per resident and per job allocation of these acreage-driven
costs.
Table 3
City Ongoing Average Revenues and Costs
DEMOGRAPHIC -1994
Population
Jobs
Jobs Equivalent @ 2/3 Pop.
Jobs Equivalent + Population
Population % Share
Job Equivalent % Share
Total Developed Acres(FMMP)
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Oxnard
56,500
26,970
17,980
74,480
75.9%
24.1%
10,219
12,900
5,624
3,749
16,649
77.5%
22.5%
1,041
27,150
14,295
9,530
36,680
74.0%
26.0%
3,646
151,900
71,491
47,661
199,561
76.1%
23.9%
15,868
CITY REVENUES - By Use Classification (Appendix A)
Case Study
$401,491
$325,005 $1,028,221 $14,294,034
Res/Jobs
$15,970,707 $2,773,401 $5,049,676 $69,765,260
Jobs
$3,909,457
$537,603 $1,060,353 $11,133,655
Resid
$6,811,468 $1,722,129 $3,783,622 $16,167,906
Acre
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Revenue
$27,093,123 $5,358,138 $10,921,872 $111,360,855
Resident & Job Total
Resident Share
$18,926,685 $3,870,982 $7,521,325 $69,271,267
Job Share
$7,764,947 $1,162,151 $2,372,326 $27,795,554
Averages
Per Resident
$334.99
$300.08
$277.03
$456.03
Per Job
$287.91
$206.64
$165.96
$388.80
CITY COSTS - By Use Classification (Appendix A)
Res/Jobs
$14,856,225 $2,763,515
Jobs
$867
$506
Resid
$168,251
$205,838
Acre-related
$8,343,310 $2,448,851
Total Cost
$23,368,653 $5,418,709
Resident, Job & Acre Total
Resident Share
$11,438,032 $2,347,031
Job Share
$3,587,311
$622,828
Acre-related Resident Share
$7,609,309 $2,007,859
Acre-related Job Share
$734,001
$440,992
Average City Costs
Per Resident
$202.44
$181.94
Per Job
$133.01
$110.75
Acre Related Costs - Ongoing
Per Resident: Status Quo
$134.68
$155.65
Per Resident: Compact
$89.79
$103.77
Per Job: Status Quo
$40.82
$117.62
Per Job: Compact
$27.22
$78.41
144
Santa
Paula
26,850
11,982
7,988
34,838
77.1%
22.9%
2,476
$1,679,455
$4,174,597
$1,212,947
$2,222,781
NA
$9,289,780
Ventura
97,000
50,075
33,384
130,384
74.4%
25.6%
12,174
Total
Six Cities
372,300
180,438
120,292
492,592
75.6%
24.4%
45,424
$10,115,328 $27,843,534
$56,604,186 $154,337,827
$10,268,388 $28,122,402
$17,592,717 $48,300,624
NA
NA
$94,580,619 $258,604,387
$5,440,192 $59,703,895 $164,734,345
$2,170,133 $24,761,396 $66,026,508
$202.61
$181.12
$615.50
$494.48
$442.48
$365.92
$4,770,587 $53,249,694
$0
$1,082,892
$2,178,861 $10,763,909
$3,010,293 $43,603,640
$9,959,741 $108,700,135
$5,404,762
$2,220
$1,646,364
$2,499,142
$9,552,487
$43,411,900 $124,456,682
$169,081
$1,255,566
$13,208,724 $28,171,947
$26,458,089 $86,363,324
$83,247,793 $240,247,518
$5,709,986
$1,239,462
$2,616,877
$393,416
$51,296,084
$13,800,411
$37,055,306
$6,548,334
$5,811,876 $45,505,385 $122,108,395
$1,241,469 $11,284,319 $31,775,800
$2,096,012 $22,830,416 $74,215,778
$403,130 $3,627,672 $12,147,545
$210.31
$86.71
$337.70
$193.04
$216.46
$103.61
$469.13
$225.35
$327.98
$176.10
$96.39
$64.26
$41.28
$27.52
$243.95
$162.63
$137.39
$91.60
$78.06
$52.04
$50.47
$33.64
$235.37
$156.91
$108.67
$72.44
$199.34
$132.90
$100.98
$67.32
The “status quo” figures show the current averages. For the compact development
scenario, the infill development generates no new acreage-driven costs, but the
costs per resident and per job for the higher density new urban lands are
substantially lower, since there will be 50% more residents or jobs on each acre,
while the cost per acre remains the same.
For illustrative purposes looking at the six cities combined,
these average annual revenues and costs come to:
Status Quo
Compact
Average Revenues:
Per Resident
$442
$442
Per Job
$366
$366
Average Costs:*
Per Resident
$527
$461
Per Job
$277
$243
* include per capita plus per acre costs
Difference
$0
$0
($66)
($34)
% Change
0.0%
0.0%
-12.6%
-12.1%
Although this does not include all relevant revenues and costs, and the differences
vary among the six cities, the average costs to serve the compact land use scenario
are clearly lower than for serving the status quo pattern.
Property Tax Case Study
Property tax revenue to the cities from new development is calculated as a case
study item because the city share of property tax varies depending not only on the
density of development but on whether that development occurs within existing
city boundaries or on newly annexed lands.
Table 4 shows the current county and other relevant districts’ shares of property
tax on unincorporated lands as well as the calculation of property tax shares to the
cities within existing city boundaries and on newly annexed properties. When land
is annexed from unincorporated area into a city, the shares previously allocated to
the County and some special districts are redivided based on an intergovernmental agreement specific to each jurisdiction. The County still receives a
substantial share, since it provides services to city as well as unincorporated area
residents. If the city provides its own library and fire protection services, it usually
receives the share of property tax revenue previously allocated to the County
Library and Fire Protection Districts.
145
Table 4
Property Tax Case Study
Annexation Property Tax Shift
County Property Tax Rate
County Unincorporated Rate
Library Unincorporated Rate
Fire Unincorporated Rate
Annexation Prop Tax Shift (1)
County Share to City
Library Share to City
Fire Share to City
Property in Existing City
County Rate in City
City Rate
Property Tax of Annexed Area
County Rate in City
City Rate
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Oxnard
Santa Paula
Ventura
20.5%
1.6%
14.5%
22.0%
1.7%
13.6%
21.8%
1.7%
15.1%
21.8%
1.7%
15.0%
20.5%
1.8%
14.4%
20.3%
1.6%
14.3%
13.7%
0.0%
0.0%
13.7%
0.0%
100.0%
13.7%
0.0%
25.0%
13.7%
100.0%
100.0%
13.7%
0.0%
100.0%
13.7%
100.0%
100.0%
19.2%
3.3%
20.3%
15.8%
17.0%
7.2%
20.2%
17.2%
18.1%
19.7%
19.5%
16.2%
17.7%
2.8%
19.0%
16.6%
18.8%
6.8%
18.8%
19.6%
17.7%
17.2%
17.5%
18.7%
Property Tax Share to Residents and Jobs - Infill and Annexation areas
Value Per Household
$150,000
$125,000
Value per Resident
$51,935
$35,455
Property Tax per Resident
$519.35
$354.55
County Share - Infill
$99.68
$72.05
County Share - Annexed Area
$91.94
$67.33
City Share - Infill
$16.88
$56.07
City Share - Annexed Area
$14.65
$58.86
Value Per Job
Property Tax per Job
County Share - Infill
County Share - Annexed Area
City Share - Infill
City Share - Annexed Area
$12,984
$129.84
$24.92
$22.99
$4.22
$3.66
$8,864
$88.64
$18.01
$16.83
$14.02
$14.72
$175,000
$52,313
$523.13
$89.17
$98.40
$37.52
$35.42
$150,000
$41,503
$415.03
$83.70
$78.22
$71.49
$81.49
$125,000
$38,225
$382.25
$69.22
$67.67
$75.17
$65.68
$175,000
$66,934
$669.34
$130.61
$117.33
$108.73
$124.84
$13,078
$130.78
$22.29
$24.60
$9.38
$8.86
$10,376
$103.76
$20.93
$19.56
$17.87
$20.37
$9,556
$95.56
$17.30
$16.92
$18.79
$16.42
$16,733
$167.33
$32.65
$29.33
$27.18
$31.21
(1) Tax shift based on City/County agreements in AB 8. Moorpark has no tax agreement.
As shown, the city share of taxes within existing city boundaries varies widely,
from 3.3% in Camarillo to 19.7% in Santa Paula. The share for the cities on newly
annexed lands - after dividing the County share and, where appropriate shifting
special district shares - is sometimes lower, for example down to 2.8% in Camarillo
and to 17.2% in Santa Paula, and sometimes higher, for example in Fillmore,
Oxnard, and Ventura.
Table 4 also shows the per resident and per job allocation of property tax revenues
based on the estimated value per dwelling unit or commercial acre and number of
residents and jobs in each city. The value per resident and per job is estimated to
be the same under either status quo or compact scenarios, but the cities’ share of
revenues will vary depending on tax rate share from infill within existing city
boundaries vs. newly annexed areas.
146
Capital Costs Case Study
On the cost side, the projection of one-time capital costs is based on a case study for
the City of Ventura. Applying the case study to all six cities, Table 5 shows the
estimates of these costs for providing major new city infrastructure, such as trunk
sewer and water lines, arterial roads and storm drains, fire stations and equipment,
and new parks. (The new development is expected to cover the costs of local
streets, sewer and water lines, storm drains, etc. , as development occurs, so only
the major infrastructure costs are included here.) These capital cost estimates are
generalized per acre costs for either a status quo or compact scenario, using specific
data from the City of Ventura. More accurate estimates for each city would require
further case study analysis.
As shown, the total cost of providing new water, waste water, storm drain,
traffic/streets, fire, and parks infrastructure to new urban development is
estimated at $12,375 per acre for the status quo pattern and at $14,500 for compact
development.
These per acre costs are translated to per resident and per job costs (the latter not
including park-related costs), and are also calculated into annualized costs
(spreading the capital investment over 20 years at an estimated 8% interest rate),
resulting in the following:
• $114.58 per resident per year for the status quo pattern, compared to
• $89.51 per resident for the compact approach; and
• $32.68 per job per year for the status quo, compared to
• $23.48 per job for the compact scenario.
These will be used to calculate total projected costs to serve new urban
development in the next table. Note that these costs apply only to annexed lands.
Infill within existing city boundaries will use existing city infrastructure.
147
Table 5
Capital Costs Projections - One Time Per Acre Costs
New Population per residential acre
New Jobs per commercial acre
Water:
Number of feet needed per acre
Cost per foot
Capital cost per acre
Waste Water:
Number of feet needed per acre
Cost per foot
Capital cost per acre
Storm drain:
Number of feet needed per acre
Cost per foot
Capital cost per acre
Traffic / Streets:
Number of feet needed per acre
Cost per foot
Capital cost per acre
Fire:
Acres served/fire station
Fire station cost
Cost per acre
Status Quo
11
30
Compact
17
45
% Increase
50%
50%
25
$60
$1,500
25
$70
$1,750
17%
25
$100
$2,500
25
$110
$2,750
10%
25
$20
$500
25
$20
$500
0%
25
$175
$4,375
25
$185
$4,625
6%
2,000
$1,500,000
$750
2,000
$1,500,000
$750
0%
Per Acre Sub Total (for Job impact)
$9,625
$10,375
8%
Parks:
Park acres needed/1,000 population
Population/acre of development
Park acres per acre of development
Park cost/acre of development @$50,000
5
11
0.0550
$2,750
Per person Impact
Total per acre cost
Capital cost per person
Per Acre - Annualized cost:20 yrs @ 8%
Per Person - Annualized cost:20 yrs @ 8%
Per Job Impact
Total per acre cost
Capital cost per Job
Per Acre - Annualized cost:20 yrs @ 8%
Per Job - Annualized cost:20 yrs @ 8%
$12,375
$1,125
$1,260.42
$114.58
$14,500
$879
$1,476.86
$89.51
$9,625
$321
$980.33
$32.68
$10,375
$231
$1,056.72
$23.48
Source: City of Ventura - Wells and Saticoy Communities
Capital Improvement Deficiency Study & Strong Associates
148
5
17
0.0825
$4,125
50%
17%
-22%
8%
-28%
Projections To Year 2010
It is now possible to project the total estimated local government revenues and
costs of new urban development under both the status quo and compact scenarios
combining the three methodologies discussed above:
• average per resident, per job, or per acre revenues and costs;
• case study property tax revenues; and
• case study one-time capital costs.
To project the future impacts, all of these revenues and costs have been calculated
in per resident and per job figures.
STATUS QUO DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
Table 6A shows the effect on the six cities’ revenues and costs if all the projected
population growth is accommodated in annexations at the current average density
of residents per net residential/infrastructure acre and jobs at the average of 30 per
acre, or “status quo” development.
As shown, for the six cities combined, it is estimated that for the new development
scenario:
• Total annual revenues from new development would be $55.5 million.
• Costs of providing on-going services are estimated at $50.3 million.
• Added to this are $10.5 million in annualized capital costs.
• Thus the net effect of the status quo pattern on the combined cities is an
annual $5.2 million shortfall.
The breakdown by cities shows that some will be more adversely affected than
others, due to a combination of the amount of growth being accommodated and
the average costs and revenues of the jurisdictions involved. Five of the cities
would experience substantial shortfalls; only Ventura shows a positive net balance.
Table 6A also shows the per resident and per job total revenues and costs
associated with the new development in each city. These figures demonstrate that
each resident creates a substantial shortfall - the costs of serving a resident exceed
revenues generated - ranging from a negative 10.6% to 52.5%. The average per
149
resident shortfall for the six cities combined is $114.20, or the net is 25% less than
revenues per resident.
In contrast, each job usually creates a surplus, with only Fillmore as an exception.
The combined average per job surplus is $63.39, or a positive 17% compared to
revenues per job.
Table 6 A
Cities’ Added Revenues/Costs at year 2010
Scenario #1- No Infill and Status Quo Development
Camarillo
Demographic Information
Added residents
Added jobs
Added Acres w/Status Quo
City Revenues
Per Resident (Tables 3&4)
Residential Revenues
Per Job (Tables 3&4)
Job Revenues
Total Revenues
Per Resident Revenue/Cost
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenue/(Cost)
Net as a % of Revenue
Per Job Revenue/Cost
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenue/(Cost)
Net as a % of Revenue
150
Moorpark
18,600
5,555
2,357
Oxnard
16,730
21,682
2,208
Santa
Paula
7,226
1,921
623
Ventura
4,332
6,878
516
$349.63
$4,279,311
$291.57
$1,211,176
$5,490,488
$358.94
$1,554,910
$221.36
$1,522,477
$3,077,387
$312.45
$537.53
$5,811,512 $8,992,790
$174.81
$409.17
$971,103 $8,871,496
$6,782,615 $17,864,286
$268.30
$740.34
$461.31
$1,938,589 $12,467,484 $35,044,596
$197.54
$525.69
$375.78
$379,473 $7,527,526 $20,483,251
$2,318,061 $19,995,010 $55,527,847
$337.59
$1,462,418
$228.37
$1,570,665
$3,033,083
$306.70
$581.64
$5,704,528 $9,730,839
$127.99
$330.43
$710,996 $7,164,296
$6,415,524 $16,895,135
$294.52
$704.49
$460.94
$2,128,071 $11,863,751 $35,015,807
$154.08
$334.01
$279.71
$295,988 $4,782,820 $15,246,864
$2,424,058 $16,646,571 $50,262,670
$114.58
$496,372
$32.68
$224,751
$721,123
$3,754,206
$114.58
$114.58
$2,131,234 $1,916,980
$32.68
$32.68
$181,529
$708,503
$2,312,763 $2,625,483
$8,728,287 $19,520,618
$114.58
$114.58
$114.58
$827,928 $1,929,605 $8,704,569
$32.68
$32.68
$32.68
$62,774
$467,919 $1,781,219
$890,702 $2,397,524 $10,485,788
$3,314,760 $19,044,095 $60,748,458
($896,004) ($676,819) ($1,945,672) ($1,656,332)
($996,699)
16,840
14,319
2,301
Total
Six Cities
75,967
54,509
10,162
12,240
4,154
2,157
City Ongoing Costs
Per Resident (Tables 3&4)
$337.12
Residential Costs
$4,126,199
Per Job (Tables 3&4)
$173.83
Job Costs
$722,100
Total before Capital Costs $4,848,299
Add Annualized Capital Costs
Per Resident (Table 5)
$114.58
Residential Costs
$1,402,449
Per Job (Table 5)
$32.68
Job Costs
$135,743
Total Added Capital Costs $1,538,193
Total Costs including Capital $6,386,492
NET REVENUE (COST)
Fillmore
$950,915
($5,220,611)
$349.63
$451.70
($102.07)
-29.2%
$358.94
$452.17
($93.23)
-26.0%
$312.45
$421.28
($108.83)
-34.8%
$537.53
$696.23
($158.70)
-29.5%
$268.30
$409.10
($140.81)
-52.5%
$740.34
$819.08
($78.73)
-10.6%
$461.31
$575.52
($114.20)
-24.8%
$291.57
$206.51
$85.06
29.2%
$221.36
$261.04
($39.68)
-17.9%
$174.81
$160.67
$14.15
8.1%
$409.17
$363.11
$46.06
11.3%
$197.54
$186.76
$10.78
5.5%
$525.69
$366.69
$159.00
30.2%
$375.78
$312.39
$63.39
16.9%
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
The impact on the six cities of the compact growth pattern - accommodating 20% of
the growth within existing city boundaries and the remaining 80% at an average of
1.5 the current densities - is shown in Table 6B. The combined cities’ total revenues
are nearly the same, but costs drop substantially:
• Combined revenues come to a $55.4 million annually.
• On-going costs drop to an estimated $44.1 million.
• Annualized capital improvement costs drop to an estimated at $6.5 million.
Thus, the combined cities would experience a $4.9 million net surplus of revenues
over costs under this compact development scenario.
Looking at individual cities, only Moorpark and Santa Paula show a net annual
deficit under the compact model, and this deficit is far lower than it would be under
the status quo approach.
Table 6B also shows the per resident and per job total revenue/cost associated with
the compact scenario in each city. Despite the improved revenue/cost balance,
each resident still generally creates a shortfall, with the only exception being in the
City of Ventura. The average per resident shortfall for the six cities combined is
$34.13, or the net is a negative 7.4% compared to revenues.
In contrast, each job creates a large surplus, with the combined average at $107.90,
or a positive 28.7% of the net exceeding revenues per job.
151
Table 6 B
Cities’ Added Revenues/Cost at Year 2010
Scenario #2 - Infill 20% and Compact Development
Camarillo
Development Information
New residents
New jobs
New Acres
City Revenues
Per Resident (Table3&4)
Residential Revenues
Per Job (Table 3&4)
Job Revenues
Total Revenues
Per Resident Revenue/Cost
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenue/(Cost)
Net as a % of Revenue
Per Job Revenue/Cost
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenue/(Cost)
Net as a % of Revenue
152
Moorpark
16,730
21,682
1,370
Santa
Paula
7,226
1,921
349
Ventura
$350.08
$4,284,779
$291.68
$1,211,640
$5,496,419
$358.38
$1,552,486
$221.22
$1,521,515
$3,074,001
$312.87
$535.53
$5,819,320 $8,959,328
$174.92
$408.67
$971,686 $8,860,655
$6,791,006 $17,819,983
$270.19
$1,952,298
$198.01
$380,384
$2,332,682
$737.12
$12,413,222
$524.89
$7,515,991
$19,929,213
$460.48
$34,981,434
$375.39
$20,461,871
$55,443,304
$285.71
$1,237,664
$189.16
$1,301,008
$2,538,672
$274.57
$500.33
$5,106,942 $8,370,441
$114.23
$284.63
$634,553 $6,171,315
$5,741,495 $14,541,756
$268.50
$1,940,053
$137.26
$263,672
$2,203,725
$626.04
$10,542,558
$297.79
$4,264,146
$14,806,704
$405.10
$30,774,394
$244.00
$13,300,267
$44,074,661
$89.51
$310,191
$23.48
$129,208
$439,398
$2,978,070
$89.51
$89.51
$1,331,842 $1,197,951
$23.48
$23.48
$104,359
$407,312
$1,436,201 $1,605,264
$7,177,697 $16,147,020
$89.51
$517,386
$23.48
$36,088
$553,474
$2,757,199
$89.51
$1,205,841
$23.48
$269,003
$1,474,843
$16,281,548
$89.51
$5,439,623
$23.48
$1,024,008
$6,463,631
$50,538,292
$95,930
($386,691) $1,672,963
$3,647,666
$4,905,013
($424,516)
16,840
14,319
1,355
Total
Six Cities
75,967
54,509
5,904
4,332
6,878
336
$299,660
18,600
5,555
1,306
Oxnard
12,240
4,154
1,188
City Ongoing Costs
Per Resident (Table 3&4)
$292.23
Residential Costs
$3,576,734
Per Job (Table 3&4)
$160.22
Job Costs
$665,574
Total before Capital Costs
$4,242,308
Add Annualized Capital Costs
Per Resident (Table 5)
$89.51
Residential Costs
$876,413
Per Job (Table 5)
$23.48
Job Costs
$78,038
Total Added Capital Costs
$954,451
Total Costs including Capital $5,196,759
NET REVENUE (COST)
Fillmore
$350.08
$381.73
($31.66)
-9.0%
$358.38
$375.21
($16.83)
-4.7%
$312.87
$364.08
($51.21)
-16.4%
$535.53
$589.83
($54.31)
-10.1%
$270.19
$358.01
($87.81)
-32.5%
$737.12
$715.54
$21.58
2.9%
$460.48
$494.61
($34.13)
-7.4%
$291.68
$183.71
$107.97
37.0%
$221.22
$212.64
$8.58
3.9%
$174.92
$137.71
$37.21
21.3%
$408.67
$308.12
$100.56
24.6%
$198.01
$160.74
$37.27
18.8%
$524.89
$321.27
$203.61
38.8%
$375.39
$267.48
$107.90
28.7%
COMPARISON OF STATUS QUO VS. COMPACT
As shown in Table 6C, the compact development scenario is far more favorable to
the cities’ budgets than is the status quo approach. For the six cities combined:
• The status quo pattern results in a negative over $5.2 million deficit;
• The compact scenario results in a positive annual cashflow of $4.9 million;
• Thus the compact approach saves the six cities a total of $10.1 million.
Figure 5
Comparison Of Status Quo Vs. Compact Development Scenarios
At Year 2010 (from Tables 6A and 6B)
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
-$2,000,000
-$4,000,000
-$6,000,000
Status Quo
Development
Scenario
Compact
Development
Scenario
Difference
Between Two
Scenarios
153
Table 6 C
Cities’ Revenues/Costs at Year 2010
Comparison of Two Scenarios (from Tables 6A and 6B)
Status Quo
Total Revenues
On-Going Costs
Annualized Capital Costs
Net Revenues/(Costs)
Camarillo
$5,490,488 $3,077,387 $6,782,615
$4,848,299 $3,033,083 $6,415,524
$1,538,193
$721,123 $2,312,763
($896,004) ($676,819) ($1,945,672)
Santa
Ventura
6 Cities
Paula
Total
$17,864,286 $2,318,061 $19,995,010 $55,527,847
$16,895,135 $2,424,058 $16,646,571 $50,262,670
$2,625,483
$890,702 $2,397,524 $10,485,788
($1,656,332) ($996,699)
$950,915 ($5,220,611)
Compact
Total Revenues
On-Going Costs
Annualized Capital Costs
Net Revenues/(Costs)
$5,496,419
$4,242,308
$954,451
$299,660
$3,074,001
$2,538,672
$439,398
$95,930
$6,791,006
$5,741,495
$1,436,201
($386,691)
$17,819,983
$14,541,756
$1,605,264
$1,672,963
$2,332,682
$2,203,725
$553,474
($424,516)
$19,929,213 $55,443,304
$14,806,704 $44,074,661
$1,474,843 $6,463,631
$3,647,666 $4,905,013
Diff: Status Quo Vs. Compact $1,195,664
$772,749
$1,558,981
$3,329,295
$572,183
$2,696,751 $10,125,624
Per Resident - Status Quo
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenues/(Costs)
Per Resident - Compact
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenues/(Costs)
Diff: Status Quo Vs. Compact
Per Job - Status Quo
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenues/(Costs)
Per Job - Compact
Revenue
Cost
Net Revenues/(Costs)
Diff: Status Quo Vs. Compact
154
Fillmore
Moorpark
Oxnard
$349.63
$451.70
($102.07)
$358.94
$452.17
($93.23)
$312.45
$421.28
($108.83)
$537.53
$696.23
($158.70)
$268.30
$409.10
($140.81)
$740.34
$819.08
($78.73)
$461.31
$575.52
($114.20)
$350.08
$381.73
($31.66)
$358.38
$375.21
($16.83)
$312.87
$364.08
($51.21)
$535.53
$589.83
($54.31)
$270.19
$358.01
($87.81)
$737.12
$715.54
$21.58
$460.48
$494.61
($34.13)
$70.42
$76.40
$57.63
$104.39
$53.00
$100.31
$80.08
$291.57
$206.51
$85.06
$221.36
$261.04
($39.68)
$174.81
$160.67
$14.15
$409.17
$363.11
$46.06
$197.54
$186.76
$10.78
$525.69
$366.69
$159.00
$375.78
$312.39
$63.39
$291.68
$183.71
$107.97
$221.22
$212.64
$8.58
$174.92
$137.71
$37.21
$408.67
$308.12
$100.56
$198.01
$160.74
$37.27
$524.89
$321.27
$203.61
$375.39
$267.48
$107.90
$22.91
$48.26
$23.06
$54.49
$26.49
$44.61
$44.51
For each of the cities, the net revenue/cost balance is consistently more favorable
under the compact scenario, but there is a wide range in impact depending on each
city’s conditions. As shown, adopting the compact approach would have these
beneficial impacts:
• Camarillo would go from a net loss of $896,000 to a surplus of $300,000
• Fillmore would go from a $677,000 loss to a $96,000 surplus
• Moorpark would go from a $1,946,000 loss to a much smaller $387,000 loss
• Oxnard would go from a $1,656,000 loss to a $1,673,000 surplus
• Santa Paula would go from a $997,000 loss to a smaller $425,000 loss
• Ventura would go from a $951,000 surplus to a much larger $3,648,000
surplus.
Figure 6
Cities Revenues/Costs at Year 2010
Comparison of Two Scenarios
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
-$1,000,000
-$2,000,000
Camar illo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Oxnard
Santa Paula
Ventur a
Status Quo Development Scenar io Compact Deve lopment Scenar io
Difference Between Two Scenar ios
155
Table 6C and Figure 7 also compare the per resident and per job revenues and
costs associated with the two alternative scenarios. As shown, for the six cities
combined, on average:
• Each resident generates about $460 revenue under either scenario;
• Each resident costs $576 to serve under the status quo pattern compared to
$495 under the compact approach;
Thus residents create a net loss under both scenarios, but the loss is $114 under the
status quo compared to $34 under the compact approach:
• Each job generates about the same revenue, at $375;
• The cost per job is $312 for the status quo pattern compared to $267 for the
compact scenario;
• Thus jobs create a net surplus under both scenarios, but less for the status
quo, at $63, than for the compact approach, at $108 surplus per job.
156
Figure 7
Cities’ Revenues/Costs for Residents and Jobs at Year 2010
Comparison of Two Scenarios
$175
$125
$75
$25
-$25
-$75
-$125
-$175
Camar illo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Oxnard
Santa
Paula
Ventur a
Net Revenues/Resident Status Quo
Net Revenues/Resident Compact
Net Revenues/Job St atus Quo
Net Revenues/Job Compact
157
County Costs & Revenues
The County government will also be affected by the displacement of agricultural
lands and the revenues and costs generated by the new growth in the six
agricultural-dependent cities. This chapter evaluates the County fiscal impacts
combining three methodologies:
• Determining average County revenues and costs for each new resident
and new job added to the six cities;
• Calculating the County’s share of property taxes from the new
development, both from infill and annexed lands; and
• Evaluating the loss of revenues and costs from the reduction in agricultural
land.
The County will have no capital costs and no acre-related costs for serving the new
development, all of which is expected to occur within existing or newly annexed
city areas.
Ongoing Average Revenues And Costs
The same methodology that is used for the cities above is also used for the County
to allocate costs and revenues attributable to residents and jobs based on current
budget documents and then determine average per resident and per job revenues
and costs. The results are depicted in Table 7.
158
Table 7
County Ongoing Average Revenues and Costs(1)
County Total
New Population and Jobs
Revenues by Use Classification
Case Study, Other
Residential/Job Split (2)
Residential
Total Revenues
Per Resident and Per Job (2)
$167,092,700
$229,181,000
$171,250,100
$567,523,800
New Revenue
Costs by Use Classification
Case Study, Other
Residential/Job Split (2)
Residential
Total Costs
Per Resident and Per Job (2)
$24,978,500
$243,843,200
$206,412,900
$475,234,600
New Cost
(1) Detail in Appendix B
(2) Based on Ventura County Budget 1993/1994
Population
708,200
Jobs
356,497
Jobs @ 2/3 weight
237,664
Total Pop plus 2/3 Jobs
945,864
Residential
Job
75,967
54,509
$171,595,402
$171,250,100
$57,585,598
$342,845,502
$484.11
$57,585,598
$161.53
$36,776,199
$8,804,928
$182,573,477
$206,412,900
$61,269,724
$388,986,377
$549.26
$61,269,724
$171.87
$41,725,618
$9,368,236
Total New
Development
$45,581,127
$51,093,855
% Share
74.9%
25.1%
100.0%
As shown, the distribution of revenues (excluding case study items) comes to:
• $484.11 per resident
• $161.53 per job
Yielding a total of $45.6 million annual revenue from the new development.
The distribution of costs comes to:
• $549.26 per resident
• $171.87 per job
Resulting in a total of $51.1 million in annual costs for the new development.
159
Property Tax Case Study
In Table 4 on page 146, the shares of property taxes to each city and to the County
were calculated for added property value in both infill and new annexation areas.
The County’s shares are summarized in Table 8, along with the projected total
added revenue to the County for both scenarios.
As shown, the total County property tax revenue from new development is:
• $8.25 million for the status quo scenario, compared to
• $8.32 million for the compact alternative.
The small difference is due to the generally higher share the County will receive
from the compact scenario’s infill development.
Table 8
County Share of New Property Tax
Camarillo
Development Information
Residents
Jobs
12,240
4,154
Fillmore Moorpark
4,332
6,878
Per Resident and Job Property Tax (from Table 4)
Resident
Add for Infill Prop Tax
$99.68
$72.05
Add for Annex Prop Tax
$91.94
$67.33
Job
Add for Infill Prop Tax
$24.92
$18.01
Add for Annex Prop Tax
$22.99
$16.83
Total County Property Tax
Status Quo (no infill)
Compact (20% infill)
160
$1,220,818
$1,241,353
Oxnard
Santa
Paula
7,226
1,921
Ventura
18,600
5,555
16,730
21,682
$89.17
$98.40
$83.70
$78.22
$69.22
$67.67
$130.61
$117.33
$22.29
$24.60
$20.93
$19.56
$17.30
$16.92
$32.65
$29.33
$407,433 $1,966,851 $1,732,648
$413,146 $1,929,961 $1,756,921
16,840
14,319
Total
Six Cities
75,967
54,509
$521,474 $2,395,812 $8,245,038
$523,855 $2,450,079 $8,315,314
Loss Of Agriculture Land Revenues/Costs Case Study
Up to this point, we have evaluated the fiscal impact of adding new development to
the cities and Ventura County. This subsection evaluates the revenue/cost impact
to the County of losing the current agricultural uses as the urban growth occurs.
Table 9 itemizes the County revenues and costs attributable to agriculture. The
major revenue is from property tax. As shown in the lower part of the table, there
are an estimated 89,961 total acres of agricultural land in the County, which at the
County’s 33% share of the 1% property tax, generate over $4.2 million in total
property tax revenue, or an average of $47.25 per acre. Those agricultural acres in
the path of urbanization are estimated at an average 12% higher value, or $52.92
per acre. This higher average value is based on sample audits of Assessor’s parcel
data by location using the GIS model, and is due in part to their speculative
property value. Other revenues attributable to agriculture include Agricultural
Commissioner fees and State aid, coming to a total of $58.00 per acre.
161
Table 9
County Loss of Agricultural Land Direct Revenue and Cost
AGRICULTURAL IMPACT TO COUNTY GENERAL FUND
Agricultural Acreage Lost
Annual
Revenue per Acre @$58.00
Cost per Acre @ $37.72
Net Revenue Lost
Status Quo
10,162
Compact
5,904
Difference
(4,258)
% Change
589,358
383,318
342,426
222,713
(246,932)
(160,605)
206,040
119,712
(86,328)
-41.9%
Support information
County Total
89,961
100%
Per Acre
Status Quo
10,162
11%
Compact
5,904
7%
County Revenues Lost
Property Tax (see below) (1)
Agriculture Commissioner
Fees Ag Commissioner
State Aid-Agriculture
Total Revenue
Percent of total
$4,250,859
NA
$450,000
6,600
$4,707,459
100%
$52.92
$0.00
$5.00
$0.07
$58.00
$537,782
$0
$50,830
$746
$589,358
13%
$312,459
$0
$29,533
$433
$342,426
7%
County Costs Reduced
Agriculture Commissioner
Sheriff - 1 patrol plus overhead
Other County Costs (2)
Total Cost
Percent of total
$1,793,500
$100,000
$1,500,000
$3,393,500
100%
$19.94
$1.11
$16.67
$37.72
$383,318
11%
$222,713
7%
($160,605)
Net County Revenue Lost
Net as a Percent of Revenues
$1,313,959
27.9%
$14.61
$206,040
35.0%
$119,712
35.0%
($86,328)
Assesssed Property Tax County Share
Value (3)
@1%
@33%
Total County
Property Tax
Agricultural Acres Lost
Percent of total
Agricultural Land Property Tax Calculation
Acres
Difference
(4,258)
Fruits & Nuts (4)
63,477
$16,218
$162.18
$53.52
$3,397,251
Vegetables (5)
26,484
$9,767
$97.67
$32.23
$853,608
$47.25
$52.92
$4,250,859
Total Selected Crops
89,961
Ag land near Cities is 12% higher than County Wide Average
(1) Per acre ag property tax of $52.42 is noted above as 12% higher than county wide average
(2) Based on budget review and interviews with administration support staff.
(3) Property value estimated based on Assessor tape of Ag land uses
(4) Actual acres inc. non-bearing and non-harvested Tree crops.
(5) 1/2 of 52,968 harvested acres to account for double cropping
162
The costs of providing County services include the Agricultural Commissioner’s
budget, estimated sheriff patrol costs, and other items, coming to a total of $37.72
per agricultural acre. Thus there is a net surplus of revenues of $20.28 for each acre
of agricultural land.
As noted above, the status quo scenario of new development will use a total of
about 10,200 acres of predominantly agricultural land, while the compact scenario
uses only about 5,900 acres. Thus, the County will lose:
• $206,040 in net revenue lost from the status quo scenario, compared to
• $119,712 in net revenue lost from the compact scenario.
• The difference is a $86,328 advantage (less revenue lost) to the County
from the compact approach.
Projections To Year 2010: Status Quo Vs. Compact
The County’s revenues and costs are increased from the addition of the new
County residents, jobs, and property value in the six focus cities, but they are also
decreased by the loss of agricultural land. As evaluated above:
• The County’s average revenues and costs are the same to serve the new
development whether it occurs in the status quo or compact pattern.
• The revenues from the new property value are slightly higher for compact
scenario.
• Finally, the County will lose some of the net revenue surplus it enjoys from
agricultural acreage, with the compact pattern losing less than the status
quo scenario.
As shown in Table 10, for the status quo pattern, the County would:
• Gain $53.2 million in revenue compared to
• $50.7 million in costs,
Yielding a net surplus of $2.5 million annually from the effect of new development.
163
Under the compact growth scenario, the County would:
• Receive $53.5 million in new revenues, compared to
• $50.8 million in costs,
Yielding a net surplus of $2.7 million annually.
Thus under either scenario the County is well above break-even. The compact
development scenario has a slight advantage, with a $157,000 higher annual surplus
than the status quo pattern.
Table 10
County Revenues and Costs
Status Quo
Compact
Difference
County Revenues
Average Revenues (Table 7)
Property Tax Share (Table 8)
Less Ag Revenue lost (Table 9)
Total Revenue
$45,581,127
$8,245,038
($589,358)
$53,236,807
$45,581,127
$8,315,314
($342,426)
$53,554,016
$0
($70,277)
($246,932)
($317,209)
County Costs
Average Costs (Table 7)
Less Ag Cost Reduction (Table 9)
Total Cost
$51,093,855
($383,318)
$50,710,537
$51,093,855
($222,713)
$50,871,142
$0
($160,605)
($160,605)
$2,526,270
$2,682,874
($156,604)
Net Revenue (Cost)
Figure 8
Ventura County Net Revenues Comparing Two Scenarios
Ventura
County Net
Revenues
$2,700,000
$2,600,000
$2,500,000
$2,400,000
Status Quo Development Scenar io
164
Compact Deve lopment Scenar io
Appendix A: City Revenue Detail
ANNUAL REPORT 1992/93 - FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS CONCERNING CITIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark
Oxnard
Allocation
CS (1)
CS
CS
CS
CS
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Jobs.67
(3)Res.33 (4)
Jobs.67
(3)Res.33 (4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Jobs (3)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Taxes
Secured and Unsecured
Prop Tax
Indebtedness Property Tax
Property Tax - Prior Year
Other Property Taxes
Interest, Penalties /
Delinquent
Sales and Use Taxes
Transportation Tax
Transient Lodging Taxes
Franchises
Business License Taxes
Real Property Transfer
Taxes
Utility Users Tax
Other Non-Property Taxes
Benefit Assessments
Fire
Paramedics
Lighting
Other
Licenses and Permits
Construction Permits
Other Licenses and
Permits
Fines and Forfeitures
Vehicle Code Fines
Other Fines,
Forfeitures/Penalties
Use of Money
Investment Earnings
Rents and Concessions
Royalties
Other
Intergovernmental
State Motor Vehicle InLieu Tax
State Trailer Coach InLieu Tax
State Cigarette Tax
Santa
Paula
Ventura
1,679,455
9,625,488
358,373
320,739
1,017,647
10,783,293
6,185
34,522
2,411
2,227
415
2,947,942
439,249
406,577
2,039
10,159
123,550
83,263
3,604,366
475,952
897,155
11,252,058
150,186 12,702,647
1,354,702
304,117
685,461
2,391,190
1,294,894
1,339,087
557,300
949,759
586,881
147,257
34,902
158,137
14,957
10,570
63,074
1,208,852
1,907,900
1,992,679
177,667
511,688
48,241
209,147
122,466
1,762,948
822,238
850,642
174,525
328,338
1,552,555
3,678,474
25,837
19,550
5,060,787
5,198,370
115,488
21,938
444,045
350,977
835,529
593,939
336
51,524
7,166
32,713
1,070,630
226,917
114,926
20,328
421,414
4,895
50,862
75,617
4,392
5,256
52,178
43,218
406,763
255,426
29,039
4,393
515,063
49,443
958,614
21,995
438,853
25,427
1,109,941
58,745
3,587,729
408,747
227,206 10,489,969
39,399
81,116
3,422,029
437,241
974,891
5,168,948
909,452
3,361,644
16,968
4,246
1,259
18,372
6,355
22,498
2,726
1,130
1,725
7,540
2,543
15,181
323,057
936,194
73,426
165
Appendix A: City Revenue Detail - continued
Camarillo Fillmore
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Homeowners Property Tax
Relief
State Gasoline Tax
Other State Grants
County Grants of State Gas
Tax
County Grants
Federal Revenue Sharing
Other Federal Grants
Other Taxes in-Lieu
Charges for Services
Zoning Fees and
Subdivision Fees
Police Department
Services
Fire Department Services
Plan Checking Fees
Animal Shelter Fees and
Charges
Engineering Fees
Street, Sidewalk and Curb
Repairs
Weed and Lot Cleaning
Sewer Charges/Connect
Fees *
Solid Waste Revenues *
First Aid and Ambulance
Charges
Library Fines and Fees
Parking Facilities
Parks and Recreation Fees
Golf Course Fees
Water Charges/Connect
Fees *
Electric Revenues
Airport Revenues
Cemetery Revenues
Housing Revenues
Transit Revenues
Quasi-External
Transactions
Resid
Resid
Resid
Resid
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Jobs (3)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
166
Moorpark
Oxnard
Santa
Paula
Ventura
6,326
26,000
18,546
283,627
31,529
184,900
878,331
55,989
214,000
176,316
443,706
359,840
1,745,009
322,653
438,093
119,735
1,594,631
3,240,421
10,123
587,984
339,275
2,174,128
257,358
1,718,641
54,057
390,111
53,298
157,983
5,727
1,709
19,298
294,273
2,220
17,618
123,887
776,430
1,105
29,715
37,486
612
254,937
317,174
433,606
12,761
29,114
8,597
548,502
10,640
16,043,223
1,634
994,035
16,015
9,386,327
32,833
13,660,771
1,102,798
798,933
550,223
502,837
176,780
33,034
551,680
2,865,756
41,281
35,596
35,192
4,481,133
775,342
29,533
413,280
5,396
86,146
1,024,970
1,150,988
13,107,009
9,784
1,465,552
1,524,362
11,294,461
6,053,925
2,456,653
8,421
Appendix A: City Revenue Detail - continued
Res/Jobs (2)
Sub of *
above
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Other Current Service
Charges
Sewer/water/solid waste
*
Other Revenues
Sale of Real and Personal
Property
Contributions: Non-Govt
Sources
Other Sources of Revenues
Other Sources
Sale of Bonds
Notes and Other
700,893
46,413
4,773
91,764
1,292
63,911
270
10,810
53,628
34,420
934,174
139,597
403,313
41,425
52,989
4,884,157
124,324
17,924
415,292
712,680
5,765,743
Santa
Paula
Ventura
3,150,000
Appendix A: City Cost Detail
ANNUAL REPORT 1992/93 - FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS CONCERNING CITIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Acre (5)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Acre (5)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Acre (5)
Acre (5)
Jobs (3)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
General Government
Legislative
725,807
91,957
Management and
3,141,882
131,357
Support
Public Safety
Police
3,993,614 1,156,941
Fire
187,280
Emergency Medical Services
Animal Regulation
168,251
29,513
Weed Abatement
3,540
8,598
Street Lighting
47,356
Disaster Preparedness
18,502
Other
Transportation
Street, Highways, &
4,003,373 1,033,489
Storm Drains
Street Trees &
916,993
126,146
Landscaping
Parking Facilities
506
Public Transit
331,685
127,396
Airports
Other
23,634
1,142,479
2,155,332
Oxnard
1,561,597
8,477,076
18,028,416 2,901,097 14,531,623
6,878,156
616,853 7,640,305
66,703
389,994
235,496 1,711,585
661,973 10,019,670
88,914
2,557
765,213
42,379
2,592,102
49,901
836,684
2,309,531
13,886,298 1,367,605
8,467,636
742,409
466,860
148,153
117,976
16,981
167
Appendix A: City Costs Detail - Continued
Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Jobs (3)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid (4)
Resid (4)
Ac(5)0.5 &
Res/job(2)0.5
Ac(5)0.5 &
Res/job(2)0.5
Resid (4)
Res/Jobs (2)
Resid
Resid
Resid
Resid
Resid
Resid
Resid
Resid
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Ac(5)0.5 &
Res/job(2)0.5
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
Res/Jobs (2)
168
Community Development
Planning
825,389
Construction and Engineering
Regulation Enforcement
1,682,803
Redevelopment
Housing
Employment
867
Community Promotion
45,298
Other
663,182
Health
Physical & Mental Health
Hospitals & Sanitariums
Solid Waste
2,593,844
Sewers
Ventura
893,436
1,779,555
190,673
1,337,996
108,162
341,053
1,233,054
96,023
647,944
616,032
475,673
405,628
2,252,062
2,220
20,928
1,004,552
1,423,925
26,101
7,453
34,259
56,394
1,031,499
1,579
Santa
Paula
84,524
Cemeteries
Other
Culture and Leisure
Parks and Recreation
168,872
Marina and Wharf's
Libraries
Museums
Golf Courses
Sports Arena/Stadiums
Community Center/Auditoriums
Other
Public Utilities (Enterprise)
Water
4,252,044 1,043,401
Gas
Electric
Other
Other Costs
Oxnard
967,540
12,783,188 1,029,367
17,936,654
2,025,541
4,519,843
8,612,706
450,339
8,775,682
739,846
2,087,225
163,481
2,179,273
1,740,533
1,166,143
86,617
139,571
1,952,663
13,428,104
8,929,403
Appendix B: County Revenues & Costs Detail
COUNTY BUDGET, 1993-1994
(1) Per population and Job
Calculation
1993-1994
< - - Divide By - - >
County Cost Population(1) Pop+Empl (2)
945,864
74.9%
Employ
share
25.1%
$2,146,900
$15,286,100
$2,871,300
$357,200
$20,661,500
$15,469,949
$5,191,551
$55,399,400
$3,189,200
$3,988,000
$1,772,300
$0
$1,790,000
$10,972,400
$97,772,800
$55,399,400
$3,189,200
$3,988,000
$1,772,300
$0
$1,790,000
$10,972,400
$77,111,300
$57,735,783 $19,375,517
$529,400
$529,400
COSTS
General-Legislative/Administrative
Board of Supervisors
$2,146,900
Special Accts & Contribs
$15,286,100
Chief Admin Office
$2,871,300
Clerk-Board of Supervisors
$357,200
Total
$20,661,500
Finance
County Counsel
Personnel
Elections
Property Management
Plant Acquisition
Other General
Total General
Public Protection
Judicial
County Clerk
708,200
Superior Court
Municipal Court
District Attorney
DA-Child Support
Public Defender
Workers Comp Fraud Unit
Fish & Game Prosecution
Indigent Legal Services
Grand Jury
Total Judicial
$8,809,100
$10,091,400
$13,801,700
$11,801,000
$5,113,600
$250,000
$78,200
$78,200
$1,896,400 Case Study
$184,900
$52,555,700
$78,200
$8,809,100
$10,091,400
$13,801,700
$11,801,000
$5,113,600
$250,000
Sheriff-Police Services
Sheriff-Detention Service
Corrections Services Agy
Total Sheriff-Police Services
$54,319,700
$26,520,900
$18,834,000
$99,674,600
$54,319,700
$26,520,900
$18,834,000
$18,834,000
$184,900
$50,581,100
$80,840,600
Pop Share
$37,871,744 $12,709,356
$60,528,034 $20,312,566
169
Appendix B: County Revenues & Costs Detail - continued
Protective Inspection
RMA-Building & Safety
Solid Waste Management
Agriculture Commissioner
RMA-Weights & Measures
Total Protective Inspection
$1,807,900
$1,807,900
$1,524,000
$1,524,000
$1,793,500 Agricultural Related (see case study)
$450,400
$0
$5,575,800
$0
$3,331,900
$2,494,704
Other Protection
RMA-Planning
Animal Regulation
Spay/Neuter Program
RMA-Operations
Fish & Game
Recorders Office
HCA-Medical Examiner
Public Administrator
Local Agy Formation Com
Total Other Protection
$3,415,000
$2,722,500
$181,700
$2,139,400
$36,300
$1,743,800
$897,800
$531,800
$185,700
$11,854,000
Public Ways & Facilities
PWA-Roads
Total Public Ways & Facilities
$13,252,700
$13,252,700
Health & Sanitation
HCA-Admin & Support Services
HCA-AB75 Admin/Clearing
HCA-Emergency Medical
Services
HCA-Public Health
HCA-Mental Health
HCA-Alcohol/Drug Programs
HCA-Drinking Driver Programs
RMA- Environmental Health
HCA-Women/Infant/Children
HCA-Child Disability
Total Health & Sanitation
Public Assistance
Total Administration
Aid/Families/Dep Children
PSSA
Total Aid to Children in Instit
Total Aid-Other
Total General Relief
Total Other Assistance
Total Public Assistance
170
$837,196
$3,415,000
$2,722,500
$181,700
$2,139,400
$36,300
$1,743,800
$897,800
$531,800
$3,472,300
$1,103,800
$3,213,600
$1,222,600
$1,103,800
$3,213,600
$1,222,600
$7,357,000
$32,169,700
$5,930,700
$1,909,700
$3,461,300
$1,184,500
$3,641,600
$61,194,500
$7,357,000
$32,169,700
$5,930,700
$1,909,700
$42,347,500
$66,242,200
$42,347,500
$66,242,200
$185,700
$8,381,700
$6,275,656
$2,106,044
$13,252,700
$13,252,700
$9,922,735
$3,329,965
$2,591,590
$869,710
$3,461,300
$1,184,500
$3,641,600
$57,733,200
$10,212,500 $10,212,500
$1,070,200
$1,070,200
$990,500
$990,500
$5,432,300
$5,432,300
$126,295,200 $126,295,200
$3,461,300
Appendix B: County Revenues & Costs Detail - continued
Education
Total Library Services
Ag Education Farm Advisor
Total Education
$6,882,600
$6,882,600
$176,700Agricultural Related (see case study)
$7,059,300
$6,882,600
$5,153,230
Total Costs
Per Capita/Job
Case Study Costs:
$475,234,600 $206,412,900 $243,843,200 $182,573,477
$291.46
$257.80
Total
$549.26
Residential
$1,970,200
$388,986,377
Agriculture Costs
County population as of Jan 1 1994
County Employ (1990 Census)
times 66.7 percent
Population plus 66.7 percent
employment
$1,729,370
$61,269,724
$171.87
708,200
356,497
237,664
945,864
Appendix B: County Revenues & Costs Detail
COUNTY BUDGET, 1993-1994
(1) Per population and Job
Calculation
REVENUES
Taxes
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Other Tax
Total Tax
Licenses, Permits and Franchises
Animal License
Business License
Construction Permits
Road Privileges & Permits
Zoning permits
Franchises
Other licenses & permits
Total Licenses, Permits &
Franchises
1993-1994
< - - Divide By - - >
County
Revenue
Population(1) Pop+Empl (2)
0.0%
Employ
share
25.1%
$83,414,200 Case Study (see Table 7 A - Property Tax)
$5,928,900
$5,928,900
$2,039,600
$2,039,600
$91,382,700
$7,968,500 $5,966,280
$2,002,220
$446,500
$2,305,200
$775,900
$152,100
$14,900
$1,544,800
$1,670,300
$98,292,400
$2,002,220
708,200
945,864
Pop Share
$446,500
$446,500
$2,305,200
$775,900
$152,100
$14,900
$1,544,800
$1,670,300
$14,431,700
$5,966,280
171
Appendix B: County Revenues & Costs Detail - continued
Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties
Vehicle Code Fines
Other Court Fines
Forfeitures and Penalties
Total Fines, Forfeitures &
Penalties
Use of Money & Property
Interest
Rents & Concessions
Total Use of Money & Property
Intergovernmental Revenue
Intergovernmental Revenue
Transfer
Airports-State Grants
State Highway Users Tax
State Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax
Auditor-Controller
State-Public Assist Admin
State Aid for Publ Assist
State Health Admin
State Aid-Calif Children
State Aid-Mental Health
Other State Aid-Health
State Aid-Agriculture
State Aid-Construction
State Aid-Corrections
State Aid-Disasters
State Aid-Veterans Affairs
H/O Prop Tax Relief
State Trial Court
State-Other
District Attorney
Auditor-Controller
Auditor Controller
Elections Division
Superior Court
DA-Child Support
Public Defender
Sheriff-Police Services
Corrections Services Agy
RMA Planning
HCA-Medical Examiner
HCA-Mental Health
Chief Admin Office
District Attorney
DA-Child Support
172
$709,200
$5,768,400
$1,474,700
$7,952,300
$709,200
$5,768,400
$1,474,700
$7,952,300
$5,954,150
$1,998,150
$5,779,400
$97,500
$5,876,900
$5,779,400
$97,500
$5,876,900
$4,400,230
$1,476,670
$584,400
$584,400
$10,000
$10,000
$10,086,300
$10,086,300
$37,625,300
$37,625,300
$700
$700
$9,436,100
$9,436,100
$47,215,400
$47,215,400
$1,870,500
$1,870,500
$1,378,800
$1,378,800
$13,429,700
$13,429,700
$8,609,700
$8,609,700
$6,600Ag Related - See Ag Case
Study
$422,400
$422,400
$192,700
$192,700
$84,700
$84,700
$54,900
$54,900
$1,488,400 Case Study (see Table 7 A - Property Tax)
$10,257,400
$10,257,400
$4,900
$285,400
$63,700
$98,000
$29,500
$289,300
$10,400
$46,100
$48,700
$37,200
$3,200
$268,000
$100
$825,100
$124,000
$4,900
$285,400
$63,700
$98,000
$29,500
$289,300
$10,400
$46,100
$48,700
$37,200
$3,200
$268,000
$100
$825,100
$124,000
Appendix B: County Revenues & Costs Detail - continued
Public Defender
Workers Comp Fraud Unit
Sheriff-Detention Services
Corrections Services Agy
Solid Waste Management
Agriculture Commissioner
RMA-Weights & Measures
HCA-AB75 Admin/Clearing
RMA-Environmental Health
PSSA-Income Maintenance
PSSA-Adult Services
PSSA-Children's Services
HCA-AB75 Admin/Clearing
Auditor-Controller
District Attorney
Public Defender
Sheriff-Police Services
Corrections Services Agy
Total State Aid
Intergovernmental - Federal
Federal Public Assistance Admin
Federal Aid-Public Assist
Federal Health Admin
Federal Aid-Construction
Federal Aid for Disaster
Federal Forest Reserve Rev
Federal In-Lieu Taxes
Federal-Other
Other In-Lieu Taxes
Other Governmental Agency
Total Federal Aid
Total Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges For Services
HCA-Child Disability
Interfund Charges
Assessment & Tax Coll Fees
Auditing, Accounting Fees
Election Services
Legal Services
Personnel Services
Planning & Engineering
$243,900
$243,900
$15,400
$15,400
$158,600
$158,600
$588,800
$588,800
$13,200
$13,200
$1,113,400 Ag Related - See Ag Case
Study
$13,400
$13,400
$949,700
$949,700
$28,900
$28,900
$10,807,500
$10,807,500
$3,057,800
$3,057,800
$126,300
$126,300
$2,048,800
$2,048,800
$24,899,900
$24,899,900
$167,000
$167,000
$100,200
$100,200
$1,746,000
$1,746,000
$295,200
$295,200
$191,261,600
$90,956,300 $97,696,900
$12,366,300
$73,148,903
$24,547,997
$4,458,800
$61,300
$9,291,100
$16,080,300
$12,039,853
$4,040,447
$154,606,400 $113,777,200
$85,188,756
$28,588,444
$12,366,300
$43,199,400
$43,199,400
$8,084,400
$8,084,400
$85,900
$2,183,200
$28,300 Not
Applicable
$406,400 Not
Applicable
$4,458,800
$61,300
$9,291,100
$80,165,100
$63,650,100
$271,426,700
$359,600
$13,480,700
$3,655,400
$10,100
$144,700
$594,800
$222,400
$3,548,000
$85,900
$2,183,200
$359,600
$13,480,700
$3,655,400
$10,100
$144,700
$594,800
$222,400
$3,548,000
173
Appendix B: County Revenues & Costs Detail - continued
Agricultural Serv Commissioner
$318,800 Ag Related - See Ag Case
Study
$424,000
$424,000
$1,919,200
$1,919,200
$103,600
$103,600
$103,800
$103,800
$17,620,000
$17,620,000
$1,635,300
$1,635,300
$2,000
$2,000
$797,000
$797,000
$10,046,300
$10,046,300
$24,600
$24,600
$592,400
$592,400
$25,700
$25,700
$3,815,000
$3,815,000
$118,800
$118,800
$159,100
$159,100
$1,204,900
$1,204,900
$60,926,200
$15,698,200 $44,909,200
$33,625,005
$11,284,195
Miscellaneous Revenues
HCA-Public Health
Welfare Payments
Other Sales
Miscellaneous
Total Miscellaneous Revenues
$24,100
$474,900
$720,100
$13,352,400
$14,571,500
$720,100
$13,352,400
$499,000 $14,072,500
$10,536,547
$3,535,953
Other Financing Sources
$25,047,400
$28,145,000
$21,073,093
$7,071,907
$567,523,800
$171,250,100 $229,181,000 $171,595,402
$241.81
$242.30
$57,585,598
$161.53
Sheriff-Police Services
Court Fees & Costs
Estate Fees
Humane Services
Law Enforcement Services
Recording Fees
Road and Street Services
Health Fees
Mental Health Services
California Children's Serv
Sanitation Services
Adoption Fees
Institutional Care & Services
Educational Services
Library Services
Other
Total Charges for Services
Total Revenues
Per Capita/Job
174
$24,100
$474,900
Geographic Information System
Edward S. McNiel
University of California, Davis
Table of Contents
Background
The Ventura County Agricultural GIS
Map and Data Sources
176
177
177
Source Table
179
Sample Map
177
175
Background
Geographic Information System (GIS) data bases are used to provide the spatial
dimension to analyses that normally are performed solely on numbers or text. The GIS
is a series of graphic map overlays with text and numeric information attached to each
element on the maps. The logic for the organization of these overlays comes from
Systems Theory. It is based on the notion that the environment and the social network
of human activities it supports can be broken into a series of smaller coherent units of
analysis. Investigating these units in relative isolation will result in a greater depth of
understanding about the characteristics and dynamics of individual systems.
These systems are then recombined in the GIS according to hypothetical conceptual
models created by the user to test the validity of the underlying assumptions about
how holistic environment works. Analysis can be carefully controlled and be more
precise because of the integrity of the individual systems represented in the layers. In
selectively discovering causal relationships between a limited number of variables, the
growing body of knowledge helps the investigator validate and calibrate each
conceptual model. In research design this would be the same as reducing the number
of independent variables so a few can be studied in detail for their influence on the
dependent variable.
The systems are conceptually grouped into two sub-categories; Natural Systems and
Cultural Systems. Natural systems describe the landscape in basic units dealing with
topography and landforms, soils, hydrology and vegetation. Cultural systems are
those concerned with the activities and artificial boundaries determined by the actions
of humans. Since this data base was constructed to support economic analysis, most of
the cultural information is available at the parcel level, the primary economic unit of
agriculture. The data available at parcel level was provided by the Ventura County
Assessor's Office. They include information about the ownership, use and value of each
parcel. The GIS application adds spatial information including location, size and
adjacency.
The way textual and numerical information is stored is the same as for all flat file data
bases, using "records" and "fields". Records can be thought of as an entire form that has
many pieces of information on it, similar to an inventory sheet or questionnaire. Each
object on the map has a record attached to it. The actual information is stored in fields
within the record. Some records have only one field containing the name of a road or a
degree of slope while others will have many fields containing a wide variety of
information. Some fields are calculation fields and perform mathematical operations.
All record formats will be the same for a particular layer, although all the fields for a
particular record may not contain data.
176
The Ventura County Agricultural GIS
Study sponsors felt a GIS was essential to make the kinds of analyses needed for a
comprehensive, strategic farmland conservation program. By linking a large data
base to layered maps, the GIS enabled the research team to view land use patterns
and economic values as they changed over time and space.
The Ventura County Agricultural data base covers the majority of southern
Ventura County and combines maps with data for each parcel of farmland. The
system will produce maps from user specified criteria or will return the information
associated with any object on any of the many map overlays. A map, following at
the end of this chapter, illustrates layers including State Department of
Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifications, City and
Sphere of Influence boundaries and individual farmland parcels.
Since GeoNavigator™, the GIS application used for this study, works with the real
world scale of the objects portrayed on the maps, accurate measurements can be
made directly on the maps themselves, returning distances and area calculations.
This type of information is extremely helpful in the assessment of the spatial
magnitude of a particular land use or similar spatially defined variable. On the data
side, the application will perform basic and complex mathematical operations and
print reports that combine text and numbers in almost any way desired.
The GIS will be utilized by the Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust to
demonstrate economic impacts of farmland conversion and to develop strategies
for long term farmland conservation. The County of Ventura Planning Division
will also use this farmland data base GIS in concert with their broader-based, multipurpose GIS now in development.
Map And Data Sources
The base map itself, consisting of a detailed local street map and the parcel layer
was provided by the Ventura County Public Works Agency. The labels for roads,
districts and water features have been taken from a variety of maps including the
Ventura County Public Works Agency’s master base sheet and from various road
maps, U.S. Geological Survey quad maps and city plans. A number of the layers
include information assembled by the Ventura County Planning Division. The
software has a feature called regions that allows for a multi-tiered data base.
Regions are large areas that can be used to help select the elements within them.
For example, one set of regional polygons in the Ventura County data base are the
greenbelts.
177
Hydrology of the area; surface streams, wetlands, washes and riparian zones are all
based on USGS maps and have a resolution of 1:2400 so that any map printed at
that scale up to 1:62,500 and beyond are going to be reasonably accurate. At scales
of 1:1200 and smaller, the confidence level that a line on the map would be in the
correct spot when transferred to the ground is about half as good as at its original
scale (1:24,000). In many cases, the accuracy of the areas is relatively unimportant,
for example in trying to gain a general idea of the percentage of farmland growing
a particular crop. In other instances, for example, when trying to estimate the exact
value of a parcel, the accuracy of the data is much more critical.
The Source Table illustrates the source for each of the data layers so that each user
can assess the confidence level of the data depending on what they are trying to
learn or illustrate. Since each layer has its own map source, its important to take
into account the accuracy of various layers when making decisions. Knowing the
inherent level of inaccuracy in the various layers should allow the analyst to use the
appropriate amount of caution when basing a decision on a map produced within
the GIS.
178
The following Source Table describes the information used in the development
of this initial version of The Ventura County Agricultural GIS:
Source Table
Type
Source
Scale
Important Farmlands
Individual City, County, FMMP
mapping
Water Course
USGS Quads
1:24,000
1:48,000
Aerial Photo Mapping
Roads
USGS Quads
Public Works Agency
1:24,000
Aerial Photo Mapping/County
Public Works
Lakes/Marshes
USGS Quads
Public Works Agency
1:24,000
Aerial Photos
Political Boundaries
USGS Quads
1:24,000
1:48,000
County Planning Division LAFCO
Annexed Territory
LAFCO Indiv. Cities
Varies
LAFCO, Indiv. Cities Ventura
County Planning
Wetlands and
Riparian Habitat
Ventura County Planning
1:24,000
Aerial Photos, Ground Surveys
LCA Contract Maps
Ventura County Planning
1:24,000
Ventura County Planning
General Plan Land Use Ventura County Planning
Division
1:24,000
Ventura County Planning
Areas of Interest and
Spheres of Interest
LAFCO
Varies
Ventura County Planning and Indiv.
Cities
Zoning
Ventura County Planning
1:24,000
Ventura County Planning
Steep Slopes
NRCS (formerly SCS)
1:100,000
Aerial Photos
Roads
USGS Quads
Public Works Agency
1:24,000
Cal Trans
Major Roads
USGS Quads
Public Works Agency
1:24,000
Cal Trans
Geographic Names
USGS Quads
Public Works Agency
1:24,000
Public Works Agency
Parcels
USGS Quads
Public Works Agency
1:24,000
Public Works Agency
Varies based on
USGS Quads
Source of Original Data
County Records Ag Commissioner,
FMMP maps
GIS Version 1.0 - Feb. 1996
179