Quality Of Life Q UALITY OF LIFE Table of Contents Section Summary QLEx-1 Composite QOL Scoring QLEx-1 Quality of Life Implementation Table and Key QLEx-4 Map QOL-1. Regional Trail Concepts QLEx-6 A. Introduction and Methodology QL-1 A.1 Introduction QL-1 A.2 Role of Fort Riley in Quality of Life QL-2 A.3 Methodology QL-3 B. Health Care and Mental Health QL-6 B.1 Introduction QL-6 B.2 Indicators QL-6 Table B.1 - Comparison of Physicians per 1,000 Population, 2006 QL-6 Table B.2 - Comparison of Infant Mortality and Low Birth Rates QL-7 Table B.3 - Comparison of Low Birth Weight Rates QL-7 C. Public Safety QL-8 C.1 Introduction QL-8 Table C.1. Total Crime and Crime Rates in the Region, 2003-2005 QL-9 How Do We Compare? Public Safety & Crime. QL-10 C.2 Indicators QL-10 D. Education QL-11 D.1 Introduction QL-11 Table D.1 - Population and Expenditures per Pupil QL-12 D.2 Indicators QL-12 Table D.2 - Student-Teacher Ratios, 2005-2006 QL-13 Table D.3 - Attendance and Graduation Rates, 2005-2006 QL-14 Table D.4 - Reading and Math Profi ciency, 2005-2006 QL-14 Table D.5 - Teacher Qualifi cation, 2005-2006 QL-15 How Do We Compare? Education. QL-15 Table E.1 - Forecast Housing Supply for the Primary Impact Area QL-16 E. Housing QL-16 E.1 Introduction QL-16 E.2 Indicators QL-16 Table E.2 - Vacancy Trends QL-17 Table E.3 - Average Sales Prices QL-17 Table E.4 - Sales Volume QL-18 Table E.5 - Historic Turnover of Housing QL-18 Table E.6 - Appraised Value QL-19 How Do We Compare? House Prices. QL-19 F. Parks and Recreation, Open Space and Conservation QL-20 F.1 Introduction QL-20 F.2 Indicators QL-23 Table F.1 - Total Municipal Parkland Acreage and Level of Service for 5 Largest Communities in Study Area* QL-23 Table F.2 - Parks and Recreation Resources QL-29 Table F.2 - Parks and Recreation Resources, con’t. QL-30 Table F.3 - Total State, Federal, and Private Park - Recreation and Conservation Lands and Level of Service in the Study Area* QL-31 Table F.4 -Recreational Trails and Mileage in Study Area QL-34 G. Environment QL-37 G.1 Introduction QL-37 G.2 Indicators QL-37 Table G.1 - Annual Mean PM10 QL-38 Table G.2 - Annual Mean PM25 QL-38 Chart G.1 - Shawnee County, KS; Annual Mean PM10 QL-38 Chart G.2 - Shawnee County, KS; Annual Mean PM2.5 QL-39 Table G.3 – Community Water System Monitoring, Geary County QL-40 Table G.4 – Community Water System Monitoring, Pottawatomie County QL-41 Table G.5 – Community Water System Monitoring, Riley County QL-41 Table G.6 – Systems with Most Health and Monitoring Violations QL-42 Table G.7 – High Priority TMDL Occurrences QL-43 Q UALITY OF LIFE Figure 1. Geographic Distribution of TMDL streams QL-45 H. Transportation and Public Transit QL-47 H.1 Introduction QL-47 Table H.1 - Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Study Region QL-47 H.2 Indicators QL-48 Table H.2 - Average Daily Traffi c Volumes, Geary County QL-49 Table H.3 - Average Daily Traffi c Volumes, City of Junction City QL-49 Table H.4 - Average Daily Traffi c Volumes, Riley County QL-50 Table H.5 - Average Daily Traffi c Volumes, City of Manhattan QL-51 I. Utility Infrastructure and Service QL-52 I.1 Introduction QL-52 I.2 Indicators QL-53 Table I.1 - Average Cost of Natural Gas in Kansas, 2001 to 2006 QL-55 Table I.2 - Average Cost of Electricity in Kansas, 2006 to 2007 QL-55 J. Economy QL-55 J.1 Introduction QL-55 J.2 Indicators QL-55 Table J.1 - Annual Average Unemployment Rate QL-56 Table J.2 - Median Family Income QL-58 K. Arts and Culture QL-58 K.1 Introduction QL-58 K.2 Indicators QL-59 Table K.1 - National Register of Historic Places and Kansas State Historical Society listings for Geary, Riley, and Pottawatomie Counties QL-64 L. Child Care QL-67 L.1 Introduction QL-67 L.2 Indicators QL-68 Table L.1 – Percent of Child Care Facilities Accredited QL-69 Table L.2 – Registered Child Care Spaces, as a Percent of Estimated Need QL-69 Table L.3 - Affordability of Child Care in Flint Hills Region QL-69 Table L.4 – Percent of Child Care Facilities Contracting with SRS by Type QL-69 M. Social Services QL-74 M.1 Introduction QL-74 Table M.1 – Number and Percent of People in Poverty, 2000 QL-74 Table M.2 - People per 1,000 served by SRS Temporary Assistance to Families, 2006 QL-74 M.2 Indicators QL-74 N. Key Findings QL-75 Table N.1 - Composite QOL Scoring QL-75 O. Recommendations QL-76 O.1 Recommendations QL-76 Q UALITY OF LIFE Section Summary Introduction This section assesses the impact of expected population and employment growth on the region’s quality of life, including evaluating performance on key indicators in the areas of child care, culture and arts, economy, education, environment, health care and mental health, housing, parks and open space, public safety, utilities and transportation. Composite QOL Scoring Composite Indicator Score Collectively, the quality of life indicators depict a desirable Low Average High place to live. Manhattan was listed as the 9th best community Child Care in the United States to retire young in the April 2007 edition of Money Magazine. This ranking was based on criteria such Culture & Arts as: affordable housing; plentiful leisure activities; plentiful Economy cultural options; job growth; sunny weather; short commute Education time; and good health care access. Amenities such as parks Environment and recreation, good schools, a healthy environment, and Health Care/Mental Health a low crime rate further strengthen the region’s appeal. As Housing in other high quality of life areas around the United States, Parks & Open Space most of these elements are inter-connected and dependent Public Safety upon each other for continued success. Utilities Existing Conditions Transportation Low: Existing defi ciencies. Average: Minor defi ciencies, potential The study area for this section varies based upon the quality future defi ciencies expected. High: No defi ciencies. of life indicator under review. Most fi ndings focus on the performance of the three counties of Riley, Geary, and elements vary, in which some may be measured by a national Pottawatomie. The analysis notes the inclusion of additional standard set by the Federal government, or some may follow communities when the planning team gathered data beyond a more subjective, qualitative comparison based on expert this primary study area. Our Quality of Life (QOL) analysis opinion, they conveniently allow us to gauge what is highly revealed that the Flint Hills region largely rates comparably valued, planned for, and/or where gaps in amenities and with nationwide levels. While comparisons among individual services exist. educational institutions. Fort Riley offers an array of cultural, recreational, and education resources on-post for military members and their families. However, challenges still exist. The most notable defi cit in K EY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS SECTION: the Flint Hills region is in the area of child care. While the • Strategic Action Plan and Growth Impact number of child care facilities is comparable to communities Assessment for the Flint Hills Region, RKG with similar characteristics, the availability of Early Head Associates, October 2006 Start and Head Start centers for families living at or below • Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation the federal poverty level is lower. Early Head Start is geared Plan (SCORP), State of Kansas, 2002 to low income families with infants and toddlers and seeks to • Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 2005 promote healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women and Strategic Plan very young children. Head Start emphasizes school readiness • City of Manhattan Strategic Park Plan (1999) and and social and cognitive development. Additionally, the Comprehensive Parks Master Plan (1992) percent of median income spent on child care annually and number of children assisted by child care subsidies falls short of the demand. Quality of Life elements in which the Flint Hills region currently excels are in Parks & Open Space, Public Safety, Assessment/Gap Analysis Housing, and Education. The fi ve largest municipalities in The following measures indicate regional challenges and the Fort Riley area have a high level of service for parkland, potential areas of improvement: the highest being in Ogden with an impressive 48.1 acres per 1,000. While total park space per capita is one measure of • the region’s shortage of health care professionals adequacy, an analysis of recreational resources should also • drinking water quality in rural systems consider the availability of facilities by type, location, and • the lack of any formal air quality monitoring stations the accessibility of facilities by pedestrians, bicyclists and • an overall median family income that lags both state motorized vehicles. Other amenities that contribute to the and national averages area’s high overall rating for Parks & Open Space include • a defi cit of child care spaces proximity to tallgrass prairie resources and the abundance • the inconsistent adoption of best practices for of nearby state and Federal parkland. Multi-use trails offer planning and growth management, particularly for recreational opportunities to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other preserving rural areas and open space non-motorized travelers, and can provide connectivity within • development of new parks and recreational resources the municipality to multiple destinations.