Ford County Comprehensive Plan

RESOLUTION NO. 1999-09

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FORD COUNTY KANSAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHEREAS, Kansas State Statute 19-2958 gives the Board of County Commissioners the power to adopt a County Comprehensive Plan,

WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners have asked the Ford County Joint Planning Board to develop such a plan,

WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners have been presented a certified copy of the Ford County Comprehensive Plan developed by the Joint Ford County Planning Board,

WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners approves of this submitted Comprehensive Plan,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Ford County, Kansas, that Ford County shall adopt and approve this Comprehensive Plan.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Ford County Kansas,
On the 12th day of April 1999.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST:

___________________________________ ___________________
Don K. Wiles, Chairman Rita A. Slattery
County Clerk

ORDINANCE NO. 3261

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE “FORD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1998” AS AN UPDATE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DODGE CITY, KANSAS.

_____________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, in December, 1998 the joint Ford County Planning Commission recommended approval of the “Ford County
Comprehensive Plan 1998” after a duly advertised public hearing to the Board of Commissioners of Ford County,
Kansas; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Ford County, Kansas in January, 1999 adopted said Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the “Ford County Comprehensive Plan 1998” applies to the municipalities within Ford County as well as the
unincorporated areas; and

WHEREAS, on November 16, 1999 the Zoning Board of the City of Dodge City conducted a duly advertised public hearing to
solicit comment on said comprehensive plan; and

WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the City of Dodge City at the conclusion of said public hearing unanimously recommended
approval to the City Commissioners of the City of Dodge City of the “Ford County Comprehensive Plan 1998” as an
amended update to the City of Dodge City Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF DODGE CITY, KANSAS:

SECTION 1. There is hereby incorporated by reference, for the purposes of guiding public action to ensure
coordinated and harmonious development or redevelopment which will best promote the health, safety, morals, order,
convenience, prosperity, and general welfare as well as wise and efficient expenditure of public funds, an amended
update the City of Dodge City comprehensive plan, entitled ”Ford County Comprehensive Plan 1998,” prepared, compiled,
published and promulgated by the City of Dodge City in code form as that term is defined in K.S.A. 12-3301 ©, such
incorporation by reference being authorized by K.S.A. 12- 3009 through 12-3012. No fewer than three copies of the
”Ford County Comprehensive Plan 1998” shall be marked or stamped “Official Copy as Incorporated by the Code of the
City of Dodge City,” and shall be filed with the City Clerk to be open for inspection and available to the public
during reasonable business hours.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance ‘shall be codified under Chapter XVI, Article 5 (Zoning and Planning, Comprehensive Plan).

SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the official City newspaper.

ADOPTED this 7th day of December 1999, by
the governing body of the City of Dodge City, Kansas.

EXISTING CONDITIONS,
TRENDS, AND ISSUES

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

POLICIES AND STRATEGIES

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS

1999 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS, TRENDS, AND ISSUES

POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 1

EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS

After many meetings, citizen surveys, questions of people knowledgeable in various issues, the Ford County Planning Commission devised a set of Goals and Objectives to be a guide for future action These goals and objectives, when adopted by the Ford County Board of County Commissioners, become the map for planning strategies to meet the projected future needs. The Goals and Objectives: fit between the background studies and the planning strategies. They are at the end of this background report; they are at the beginning of the planning strategies report.

Comprehensive planning is a process. It should be continuous. Citizens, planning commissioners, and elected officials should constantly consider local issues and problems, and how to better the area quality of life. State planning statutes emphasize this point by requiring annual review of the comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan need not be a single document. As new concerns arise, and more information is obtained, the plan can be expanded by incorporating separate studies. We do not have to revise the entire comprehensive plan for each new concern.

This is a Ford County, Kansas Comprehensive Plan. It was prepared for review and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. However, much information is included for the incorporated cities and unincorporated villages. Citizen surveys were conducted in Bucklin, Dodge City, Ford, and Spearville, as well as in unincorporated Ford County. There are two reasons for this: all are tax-paying county citizens, and each jurisdiction can using the information for their individual planning efforts.

When an incorporated Ford County city is ready for a comprehensive plan, this document provides the required background research and studies. Only the Goals and Objectives and the planning strategies need modification for issues singular to those individual communities. In many instances, only slight modification would be necessary. Each jurisdiction will not have the time consuming task of preparing background reports.

HISTORY

Where we have been gives us a better understanding of where we are going. The historical context of Ford County is exciting and entertaining. The rich history can provide a focus for the future. This plan first discusses the natural history, which shaped our landforms; then our cultural history, in which humans adapted to the land.

NATURAL HISTORY

Geology

In geologic time, inland seas covered Ford County and Southwest Kansas. The basic underlying geologic foundation gently slopes up to the west and the Rocky Mountains. The official name for the underlying formation is the Hugoton Embayment of the Anadarko Basin.

Geologic time is divided into Periods. Important periods for the development of Southwest Kansas start with the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Periods (280-345 millions years ago). These are also known as the Carboniferous Periods. The few reservoirs of oil and natural gas found in Ford County were created from deposits during these Periods. Ford County oil and gas are found deep under the surface: 3,0005,000 foot wells are the best producers.

The next period is the Permian (230-280 million years ago). Seas covered southwest Kansas during this time. Permian deposits are combinations of limestone, shale, and chert. Salt and gypsum deposits. May also be found. Salt deposits over 400 feet thick are located northeast of Ford. A very deep Cedar Hills Sandstone Aquifer is found in the Lower (older) Permian formations (900 feet under Ford County).

No rocks were formed or remain in the county from the next two periods, the Triassic (230-180 million years ago), and Jurassic (135-180 million years ago). Western Kansas was covered by seas during the Cretaceous Period (135-65 million years ago). Formations from this period produced the Dakota Aquifer from ancient river deltas and sandbars.

The two most recent geologic periods are the Tertiary (600,000 to 65 million years ago), and Quaternary (600,000 years ago to current time). The Rocky Mountains were formed during the Tertiary Period about 3.8 million years ago. The Ogallala Aquifer was created by a huge alluvial fan (delta) with deposits from mountain erosion. The Ogallala formation and aquifer cover parts of five states. During the early Quaternary Period the current river and stream channels were established in Western Kansas.

A thrust fault jolted the area during the Tertiary Period. Permian and Cretaceous bedrock in Southeast Ford County were pushed up about 200 feet from the adjacent land. This is known as the Crooked Creek-Fowler Fault. The Ogallala deposits continued after the fault, leveling the surface again. This ancient fault poses almost no risk for earthquakes today. On a scale of earthquake susceptibility for the nation. Southwest Kansas ranks lowest.

Continued deposition of Rocky Mountain materials in recent geologic history has raised the bed of the Arkansas River. This caused tributaries to either not feed the river, or made past tributaries change course away from the upper Arkansas. This lack of feeder tributaries is one reason for the surface water shortage in Ford County and along the Arkansas River basin.

Physiography

The visible surface landforms comprise the regional physiography. In Ford County three distinct areas are identified. The Arkansas River Lowlands are the most recent. The river deposits are from the most recent Quaternary Period. These Cross the county in a band a few miles either side of the present river.

North and south of the river are the High Plains. These comprise deep soils deposited from Rocky Mountain erosion, with surface bedrock created during the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods. The very north-central part of the county is in the Smoky Hills physiographic region. Bedrock for the Smoky Hills is from the older Cretaceous Period. South of Ford County even older Permian rocks are found at the surface in the Red Hills of Clark County.

Geographers refer to the High Plains, as being a steppe environment The natural vegetation is bluestem prairie short grass and buffalo grass. It is characterized by rolling plains with wide flood plains along stream channels. Erosion near the Arkansas River bed creates a more hilly terrain north of downtown Dodge City than found in other southwest Kansas towns. Precipitation averages about 20 inches annually. Historically there were no trees. The climate is subject to extremes: high winds, cloudbursts and floods, blizzards, and tornadoes.

CULTURAL HISTORY

Native Americans

Pre-History. The High Plains has been settled on a continuous basis since some 12,000 years ago. The earliest Native Americans are known as the Paleo-Indian Culture. Twelve Mile Creek site in Logan County has been dated to 10,300 years ago. The western Kansas Paleo-Indians were big game hunters. An archeological “site” may be little more than the discovery of stone points. Climate changes at the end of the glacial “Ice Age” brought forward the less nomadic Archaic Culture, which started in the High Plains about 8,000 BC. The Archaic peoples were hunters and gatherers with some crude beginning horticulture. Around the start of the Christian era, the Archaic Culture was replaced by what is known as the Ceramic Culture. Technological advances included pottery, more advanced horticulture, and the bow and arrow. These technologies were most likely introduced through the influence of Eastern Woodlands cultures from Missouri and further east. The people of the High Plains were becoming less nomadic, often occupying temporary villages.

Groups from the later Ceramic Culture appeared just prior to direct European contact. East of Ford County were ancestors of the Wichita tribe, and to the west were the beginnings of the Plains Apache. In the late 1600s, a Pueblo village was constructed in Scott County. This may be more of an accidental settlement rather than evidence of extensive Pueblo occupation of the High Plains. Natives of the Plains were hunters more than farmers. Little evidence exists of anything other than temporary villages.

Spanish Contact. Native American contact with Spaniards allowed the High Plains to flourish-because of the horse. The local Plains tribes became adept horsemen and often raided neighboring tribes to replenish their herds. Eastern tribes migrated to the High Plains to create, along with native tribes, the “horse and buffalo” culture, which lasted through the Indian Wars of 1830-1870. Apache and Arapaho settled to the west; Kansa and Osage to the east; Wichita and Comanche to the south; Cheyenne and Sioux to the north, with the Kiowa occupying a region from the Smoky Hill River south to the Red River (including Ford County). There were no precise boundaries for these High Plains Horse Indians. They were mobile, created alliances, and fought each other. By 1790, the Kiowa and Comanche often were together.

The Kiowa conducted horse-stealing raids against the Spanish settlements by the mid-17th Century. After 1680, the Kiowa traded horses with the Arapaho, Cheyenne, Pawnee, Wichita Tribes, and Spanish traders along the Santa Fe Trail.

United States Contact. The United States Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which was the beginning of the end for the horse and buffalo culture. Eastern tribes were resettled to the High Plains to rid the settled United States of Indians. Opening the Santa Fe Trail, the settlement of Texas, and the general move of the United States westward voided treaties and started the Great Plains Indian Wars.

The 1830 Indian Removal Act carved Kansas (and all land between the Missouri and Red Rivers) into various Indian lands as a “Permanent Indian Frontier”. Most of Ford County was allocated to the Osage Tribe, with “Cherokee Neutral Lands” south.

Broken treaties, massacres, and the white philosophy of “Manifest Destiny” to conquer the continent marked the 1830-1870 eras. The Indian Wars. Were little more than a series of raids, marauding, and massacres? These lasted until the Indians were removed from Kansas to reservations in present day Oklahoma in 1876. The Santa Fe Trail began in 1821. In Ford County two short-lived stations were built: Fort Mann in April 1847, and Camp Mackay in August 1850 (renamed Fort Atchison in 1851). These provided early protection for travelers and trade along the Santa Fe Trail

Before the Civil War, there were battles and raids between the Indians and trail travelers. Tribes created alliances to combat the loss of their traditional lands. The Sand Creek Massacre of 1864 (near Fort Lyon, Colorado) unified the Arapaho and Cheyenne. The Comanche and Kiowa often defended and raided together. During the Civil War the Confederate States supplied arms to the Kiowa and Comanche to antagonize the Union Army.

After the Civil War, settlement pushed into western Kansas. Fort Dodge was constructed in 1865 several miles east of the earlier stations. Its troops protected trail traffic, railroad construction, and eventually settlers. Homesteader pressure caused more forced movement of Indians. The Fort Atkinson Treaty of 1853 with the Kiowa and Comanche Tribes was one of many minor treaties designed to protect the Santa Fe Trail area The Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867 supposedly placed all southern plains tribes on reservations. It also prohibited whites from hunting buffalo south of the Arkansas River.

In 1868-69 General Phillip Sheridan mounted a large-scale campaign against the Kiowa, Comanche, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Sioux to resolve the conflict between American settlers and the Indians. Colonel Alfred Sulley and later George Armstrong Custer’s 7th Cavalry led one march from Fort Dodge for battles in Indian Territory (Oklahoma). This effort subdued most of the Cheyenne.

Bands of Comanche and Kiowa made a struggle for independence in the 1870s. Buffalo hunters based in Dodge City had depleted the Kansas herds. This market resource was still available in Texas. Contrary to the Medicine Lodge Treaty, the hunting moved south. A major hunting expedition left Ford County for a station called Adobe Walls in the Texas panhandle. Kiowas, with some Comanche’s, attacked the 28 buffalo hunters on June 26, 1874, but could not defeat the heavily armed whites. Afterwards, General Sheridan was again called upon to stop the Indian “problem”. By February 1875, the last of the Kiowa surrendered; and by June, the remaining Comanche gave up. Tribes on the southern Plains were thereafter confined to reservations.

European Exploration and Settlement

Francisco de Coronado led an expedition of Spanish Conquistadors from Mexico into the High Plains in the mid-16th Century. By accounts, he crossed the Arkansas River in Ford County in late June 1541. These Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to visit southwest Kansas. His trail is reputed to have been northeastward from Seward County, through Ford, and on to the Linsborg area-and perhaps further into the plains. His return trip was also through Ford County, then more due south into Mexico.

Early Ford County was split by international boundaries. North of the Arkansas River and east of the 100th meridian was claimed by France in 1682. There is no record of French settlement in southwest Kansas; sporadic exploration was conducted, but was not well documented. South of the Arkansas River and west of the 100 meridian was claimed by Spain. In 1762 the French territory was given to Spain, but negotiated back to France by Napoleon in 1802. With the Louisiana Purchase of April 30, 1803, the French portion of Ford County became part of the United States. The actual boundary was disputed for some time. An 1819 Spanish-American Treaty verified the former Louisiana Purchase-Spanish American boundary through Ford County. In 1821 Mexico became a free republic from Spain. Ford County lands south of the river and west of the 100th meridian were under Mexican rule. After the Mexican-American War of 1848,

The United States acquired the former Mexican territory. (The 100th meridian is approximately 1,000 feet west of the present Avenue P in Dodge City.)

Santa Fe Trail. The Santa Fe Trail was originally an Indian trade route between the Rio Grande and the High Plains. Spanish conquistadors and settlers of Mexico used the route for trade between Mexico and the Missouri River area. Especially after the founding of Santa Fe (New Mexico) in 1610. United States parties made a few trips along the Santa Fe in the early 1800s, such as Zebulon Pike on his 1806 expedition west. And merchants seeking trade. In 1821 William Becknell of Missouri opened the Santa Fe as a commercial route between Mexico and the United States. Mexico had just become a republic. , And lowered tariffs encouraged trade. After the Mexican-American War, the Santa Fe Trail became a military route into the newly acquired territory.

Early Stations/Forts. Way stations and defense forts were established along the Santa Fe for the wagon trains. In Ford County, Fort Mann was established in 1847 and operated for one year. Camp Mackay was established in 1850, and re-named Fort Atkinson in 1851. This was in operation unti11854. There are no remains of these dugout, sod, and log facilities. Both were just west of the present day Dodge City.

Fort Dodge. In 1865 Fort Dodge was established to protect the Santa Fe Trail. It was named for Major General Grenville M. Dodge, then in command of the Missouri Military District. General James H. Ford established the fort. The first buildings were dugouts along the river. Colonel Richard 1. Dodge was a commanding officer at the fort. The two Dodge’s often being confused. Fort Dodge was de-commissioned in 1888, becoming a state soldiers’ home.

Dodge City. The military administration established a “military reservation” five miles around the fort. With the railroad under construction towards the area. George M. Hoover rode five miles from the fort. Unhitched his wagon. And opened up a saloon from the back in June 1872. This was the start of Dodge City. Kansas. For two or three months the place was called Buffalo City. The post office refused to accept that name. As there was already a Buffalo, Kansas. The community then decided to name themselves after the nearby fort.

The Atchison. Topeka. And Santa Fe Railroad was completed through Ford County in 1872. That same year the town site was laid out. But the town was not incorporated until November 2, 1875.

By 1872 there were twenty-two identified stores in Dodge City, a railroad depot, one sod house. And several tents and dugouts. Seven of the businesses were saloons and two stores were conducted out of tents. The primary economy in early Ford County was buffalo hunting along with services for the hunters. By 1874 the vast Kansas herds were decimated. The buffalo hunters moved on to the herds in Texas contrary to the Medicine Lodge Indian Peace Treaty.

The first longhorn cattle drive arrived in Dodge City in 1875. A tick-spread fever caused the Kansas legislature to establish a “quarantine line” to protect the state’s eastern domestic herds. In 1877 the Chisholm Trail to Wichita and Abilene was closed. In 1885 the cattle drives stopped as the quarantine line included the entire state of Kansas. It was during this decade that Dodge City became known as the Cowboy Capital.

Two fires devastated downtown Dodge City in 1885. A severe blizzard that winter nearly marked the end of all area economy. The economy recovered as a typical Kansas farming and cattle raising region.

Ford County. Ford County was authorized in 1867. The Kansas legislature allowed for the creation of western counties if and when a minimum population of 600 was verified. On April 5. 1873 the state acknowledged Ford County. named after the general who laid out Fort Dodge. Until Ford County was authorized, the only civil law and legal support was found in Hays.

Other Towns and Settlements. Several towns were planned in Ford County that never became chartered. Some were settled to later disappear. Three became incorporated cities and have survived, in addition to Dodge City. One unincorporated village remains a thriving community. Approximately every ten miles Along the railroad lines, a station was provided to water the steam locomotives and a siding was installed for trains to pass each other on the otherwise single line. These later became ideal locations for farm produce collection, and almost each one had a grain elevator by the 1910s.

The village of Bellefont was platted in July 1885. Promoters believed that it would become a railhead for the Santa Fe Railroad Instead, the railhead was placed in Dodge City, and Bellefont became a small village with a grain elevator. Oil fields have been explored east and south of the community since 1979.

Bloom developed as a stop on the Fort Dodge-Camp Supply Trail before the Rock Island Railroad It began in the 1880s and was originally called Bloomberg. Droughts nearly decimated the community in 1893. By 1908 Bloom was again thriving. It has more recently lost most of its population

Howell developed in the late l880s, with a population approaching 150 by 1890. This village has all but disappeared except for the grain elevator and county rural fire station.

Nolan started around 1882 as a country store with a post office. It no longer exists.

Sears had little more than a telegraph station and a rural schoolhouse. It no longer exists.

Kingsdown started as a rural village in 1887 along the Rock Island Railroad It was platted in 1909. A few houses and a grain elevator remain in the community.

Wilroads Gardens was a subdivision from the 1930s. It was platted with very deep lots and included irrigation ditches. Homes were designed towards the street frontage, while the rear areas were intended for self-sustaining agriculture.
Windhorst developed by a group of German Catholics from Cincinnati seeking homestead lands. The Santa Fe Railroad offered ten sections of land for ten dollars an acre, and donated eighty acres for a town site in 1876. The village was settled, but a promised Santa Fe Railroad leg from Offerle was never constructed

Wright started as a stop for the Stage Coach Line. A hotel was constructed there by 1886. It was originally called Ridgeway. In 1887 a Charter of Incorporation was filed, but Wright never became a Ford County City. Wright is the most populous and most thriving of the Ford County unincorporated villages today.

Bucklin was platted in May 1887. It was designed as a railroad town for the Rock Island Railroad. Ford was Platted in 1885, another stop for the Rock Island Line. Spearville was platted earlier, in May 1873. Spearville was a designated stop for the Santa Fe Railroad These three became incorporated cities, and are still functional as farming communities and small market areas within the county.

Other communities were planned but never developed. There was much speculation with the developing railroads, and many areas were touted as the next Kansas City. In Ford County, these include Colcord, Corbitt, Concord, and Newkirk. The proposed town of Ryansville was platted and developed in 1885~ however, it lost its existence soon after the Rock Island was laid through the City of Ford a little to the south.

The more recent development and steady growth of the Ford County region have been based on wheat, feed grain, cattle, and manufacturing. Dodge City is the principal grain market in southwest Kansas. In recent years, the feeding and fattening of cattle in local feed yards has reached major economic proportions. Manufacturing activities have rapidly grown due to beef processing and agri-business industries.

Much has been written and compiled about Ford County’s history. Valuable resources are available through the Kansas Heritage Center in Dodge City.

ENVIRONMENT

A sound environment enhances the quality of life. Some environmental issues are simple to comprehend: animal waste smells, litter is unattractive. But most environmental issues are quite complex: the quality of groundwater may be affected by events in another state. Ford County cannot solve, much less debate, environmental issues without a full understanding of their causes and effects.

GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is the greatest resource in southwest Kansas. Surface streams are intermittent at best. The only reliable water source is underground. Aquifers are subsurface formations, which hold ground water. There are three in Ford County: the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer, immediately adjacent to the river bed, the Ogallala Aquifer which ranges from zero to 240 feet below the surface, and the Dakota Aquifer below the Ogallala. In Ford County, these aquifers are hydraulically interconnected in many places. For water allocation and regulatory purposes, the Southwest Kansas Groundwater District does not use the same aquifer definitions.

Ground water usage in Kansas comprises the following:

POPULATION

A comprehensive plan begins with an analysis of the population. We need to know how many persons are expected by the forecast date, and as much information as can be gathered about that future population, including their racial and age composition, and where they might live. Studies of past trends provide a picture of the future. Any given projection given can be wrong. Area economic changes can greatly affect population: 1,000 new jobs would reduce migration out of the area and induce more persons to move in. Conversely, the loss of 1,000 jobs would have the opposite effect.

The historical data below are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Estimates and projections are provided by the University of Kansas, Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, Kansas Statistical Abstract: 1996, unless otherwise noted.

POPULATION TRENDS

After a population loss in the 1930s, Ford County has grown steadily. Rural areas have declined, as people migrated to Dodge City. In 1990, 77 percent of the entire county population lived in Dodge City while the central city was under 50 percent of the total in 1940 and before.

The county growth rate has been steady at about 10 percent each decade. Dodge City has grown at a higher pace. The incorporated towns of Ford, Bucklin, and Spearville have mostly stayed at the same population through the decades with marginal changes. Spearville has seen modest growth while Bucklin and Ford have had declines from 1980 to 1990.

The rural townships have fluctuated with· some increases and some decreases in population. Seven of the fourteen townships had less than 200 persons for the three census periods shown below. The following table does not include incorporated towns. Annexation would reduce a township population. This would help explain the significant decreases from 1970 to 1980 in Dodge and Richland Townships.

The Ford County population is becoming older. The median age has increased from 27.9 years in 1970 to 30.2 years in 1990. However, the 1990 state median age was significantly higher at 32.9 years.

A review of the census age cohorts (brackets) helps indicate the need for various services. A typical breakdown is preschool (under 6), school age (6-19), working age (20-64), and elderly (65+). The City of Ford had an exceptionally high percentage of ·elderly persons (30.3%), while other jurisdictions have a lower percentage of elderly than the state ratio of 13.8 percent

Ford County lost population in certain age cohorts from 1980 to 1990: 20-24,50-54, and 55-59-with the latter showing the largest decrease. These figures may be disturbing that people just out of school and nearing retirement leave the area. The state as a whole reflects a similar pattern.

MINORITY COMPOSITION

There has been a significant change in the county migration patterns and minority composition. From 1980 to 1990 the net migration total for Ford County was zero. There was a 3,148-person increase during this decade and there were 3,148 more births than deaths. A zero net migration number means in effect that every one person who moved out of the county (or died) was replaced by one person moving in (or being born).

A significant portion of the in-migration has been minority persons-mostly of Asian and Hispanic descent. In 1980 minorities comprised 8.5 percent of the county population. By 1990 that ratio more than doubled to 19.6 percent. In raw numbers, there were 3,301 new minority persons in the county in 1990.

NOTE: From the ‘80 & ‘90 census, a person may be counted as Hispanic and
another race-double counting may occur; accuracy of the ‘70 census is not verified.

The 1990 minority age cohort ratios are significantly different from the total population age breakdown, with more pre-school age children and less elderly:

ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS

Our current population is estimated from past trends and available vital statistics. The most recent available Census Bureau estimates are for July 1, 1996. At that time, Ford County was estimated to have about 29,309 persons. This is a 6.7 percent increase from the 1990 census-which still indicates a growth rate at about 10 percent each decade (slightly more at this time). Two basic factors influence population: the number of births and deaths (termed the rate of natural increase), and net migration.

There has been a marked increase in minority representation since the 1990 census. From the 1990 census to 1996, the Census Bureau estimates that 1,040 persons have migrated into Ford County from foreign countries, while domestic net migration shows 1,352 more persons moved out of than in to Ford County. Most of the recent immigration has been observed to be from Latin America and Southeast Asia. Assuming that all the foreign immigrants are minority persons, the county minority population would be about 21.9 percent of the total in 1996. According to Unified School District 443 records, the school age minority population percentage is significantly higher than the total at 51 percent and even more in the elementary grades.

Immigration of persons from foreign countries has spurred this recent growth, as domestic migration shows a net loss. If it were not for the international in-migration, Ford County would have had a net migration decrease of 1,352 since 1990.

The rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) during from the 1990 Census through 1996 was 2,165 for Ford County. Combining the net migration and natural increase, the county gained 1,853 persons.

Population estimates are more difficult to derive for the towns within Ford County. Annexations do not provide head counts, and persons moving into and out of towns cannot be easily measured. If we assume that Dodge City has increased from 77 percent to 78.5 percent of the total county population (one-half of the 1980-1990 increase), the July 1996 estimated city population would be 23,008 persons. The towns of Bucklin, Ford, and Spearville had less than 1,000 persons in the last census; with such small base populations, any estimate would merely be a guess-and not attempted in this plan. An exception to this is the village of Wright. Wright is a growing community, and needs attention in comprehensive planning. It is not singled out in U.S. Census records, but current estimates put the Wright population at approximately 250 persons.

Projection of future populations can be undertaken. Projections rely on assumptions based on past trends, and are only as reliable as those assumptions. For Ford County, the basic assumptions are that the population will continue to grow as it has in the recent past. In September of 1992 the Kansas Division of the Budget published Kansas Population Projections: 1995-2030. That report projects county populations. Dodge City projections are made based on a percentage of the population residing in the central city. Not only will people continue the trend of moving into Dodge City, but future annexations will incorporate already developed fringe areas. A regression line analysis shows Dodge City with 96% percent of the county population by 2030. If true, only 1,900 Ford County residents would reside outside Dodge City. This Comprehensive Plan more conservatively assumes that the Dodge City ratio to the entire county population will be 83 percent in 2000, 85 percent in 2010, 90 percent in 2020, and stabilizing at 90 percent for 2030.

The characteristics of this future population deserve some analysis. The minority population ratio is anticipated to continue increasing. The immigration patterns are expected to continue. The current minority persons are younger and as they move through the age cohorts, more minority persons should have children. In 1996, we have estimated that 21.9 percent of the county population were minority persons. That ratio is expected to increase to 25 percent by 2000. After that projections become quite speculative. The minority ratio to total population depends on several variables: in-migration, birth rates, and out-migration by the majority population and death rates. By the year 2030, we expect the ratio to have leveled out at 30 to 35 percent.

The elderly population ratio is expected to increase, but not at a high rate. According to the September 1992 Kansas Population Projections: 1995-2030, the percent elderly in Ford County should increase from 12.6 percent in 1990, to 13.2 percent in 2000, to 14.5 percent in 2030. In numbers of people, this is an increase from 3,468 in 1990 to 6,609 by 2030. The 2030 elderly population ratio projected for the entire state is much higher at 21.2 percent. While the percentage increase is slight, the county elderly population is projected to nearly double by 2030.

By 2030, this plan projects there to be 4,550 persons residing in Ford County outside of Dodge City. This represents a loss of 1,785 persons. Some of this loss will be due to Dodge City annexation of existing suburban areas. Current trends indicate that the towns of Bucklin, Ford, and Spearville, and the village of Wright, should remain relatively stable, while the decline would be primarily from unincorporated areas.

Growth of urban areas is encouraged or restrained by the availability of public facilities and services. Water and sewerage capacity are the most basic necessary facilities. A municipality with limited capacity will have limited growth. A city that plans for water and sewerage expansion can accommodate growth. Other public facilities and services such as quality parks, well maintained streets, efficient fire and police protection, good libraries and schools increase the quality of life and desirability of growth. These issues are discussed in a later section of this plan under PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.

SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

The previous section of this comprehensive plan provided an analysis of the raw population data. More information is available detailing characteristics of these Ford County residents. The data offered below were taken from the U. S. Bureau of the Census and the University of Kansas Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, unless otherwise noted.

HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY STATUS

The average number of persons per household has increased in Ford County, from 2.68 in 1980 to 2.69 in 1990. While this is a very slight increase, it reverses state and national trends towards smaller households. The more typical pattern is for smaller households as more elderly become self-sufficient, as divorces and female headed households become more common. Only four other Kansas counties had an increase in persons per household (Barton, Finney, Seward, and Stevens). The Kansas state average was lower at 2.53 persons per household. A one-tenth of one percent difference is significant with persons per household data.

The percent of females in the work force for Ford County is less than the state average with Dodge City being slightly higher. The same is true for percent of female-headed households. Female-headed households with children data are about the same as the state statistics. Bucklin, Ford, and Spearville show more variation in these numbers.

Ford County had a significant increase in the number of females in the work force with children under the age of six from 1980 to 1990 (825 to 1,858). Over 80 percent of these households were in Dodge City. The number of children under six with all household parents working looks at the children rather than the households or mothers; and compared to working mothers data, is slightly higher for Ford County, Dodge City, and Spearville, while lower for Bucklin and Ford

POVERTY AND DISABLED PERSONS

Poverty level information for the area shows an increase from 1980 to 1990-except for the elderly population. The number of children below the poverty level showed a significant increase. The percentages are on par with state-wide figures except for the City of Spearville, which had significantly less than the state. The elderly population in poverty decreased from 1980 to 1990 for the county. Ford County and Dodge City were below the state average for elderly poverty persons in 1990, Bucklin and Spearville were significantly below, but Ford was well above the state average. Poverty Level is determined by a complicated formula based on the minimum cost of basic necessities. It is a national average with no consideration for regional cost of living differentials.

Poverty conditions continue to increase. Census Bureau estimates for 1993 show that 15.8 percent of the county population was in poverty and 19.2 percent of the children under 18 years. This is almost a five percent increase in three years.

The working age population that is disabled follows the state averages. Those that are prevented from work are less than that found in the rest of the state.

MEDICAL CARE

Statistics on medical care service indicate Ford County is below the state average, but slightly above the average of fourteen peer counties with similar population and economic characteristics (see ECONOMIC ANALYSIS section for a discussion of peer counties). In 1995 Ford County had 767 persons per physician and 2,373 persons per dentist. The state averages were 607 and 2,100 respectively; while the peer counties had 904 and 2,427 persons respectively. In 1995 Ford County had 41.1 admissions per hospital bed. This is a much better utilization of hospital services than the state average of 21.4, and a bit higher than the 31.0 admissions per hospital bed for our 14 peer counties.

EDUCATION
Kansas and all of the mid-west have a high percentage of persons (over 25 years old) completing high
School. While the state significantly increased its percentage of high school graduates from 1980 to 1990
(65.4 to 81.3%), the Ford County ratio increased only marginally (73.7 to 76.6%). In Dodge City the ten
year increase was much smaller, from 73.7 to 74.9 percent
Ford County has a higher pupil-per-teacher ratio than the state: 17.8 compared to 16.1 for Kansas. Only two of the fourteen peer counties analyzed had higher ratios (Finney and Geary). Only

HOUSING

How we are housed is critical to comprehensive planning. The future population is projected to continue growing and they must be housed. The number of new housing units needed, and where they will be located, determines where public facilities (schools, water and sewer, public safety services) need to be situated. The housing information provided below was derived from the 1980 and 1990 census statistics unless otherwise noted.

EXISTING CONDITIONS-1990 CENSUS

There were 10,842 housing units in Ford County in 1990. This is 1,010 more than in 1980; and 993 of the increase was in Dodge City. Mobile homes comprised 12.4 percent of the total county housing stock in 1990. Almost 1,000 units were vacant. Of the occupied units, 70.8 percent were single-family homes, and 64.9 percent of all occupied units were owner occupied.

Dodge City had 2,955 of the 1990 rental units, while the rest of Ford County had 510. In 1990 mobile homes comprised 9.6 percent of the Dodge City housing stock. The 1990 Census considered 564 county housing units to be overcrowded, and 503 of those were in Dodge City.

In 1990, 925 persons lived in Group Quarters. These include dormitories, nursing homes, boarding houses, and public institutions such as Ft. Dodge, jails, and detention homes. Dodge City had 720 of these Group Quarters’ residents, Grandview Township had 171 (Ft. Dodge), Enterprise Township had 27 (Methodist Youthville), and the City of Spearville had seven.

The 1990 Census attempts to address housing conditions with categories for persons per room, kitchen, and plumbing facilities. A unit is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room. A complete kitchen includes refrigerator, cooking appliance, and sink. Complete plumbing includes hot and cold piped water, a toilet, and either a bathtub or shower. Ford County in 1990 had more than the state average in these negative housing conditions. A review of fourteen counties with similar population and economic characteristics indicates that Ford County has more than twice the average housing units in substandard condition (see ECONOMIC ANALYSIS section for a detailed discussion of these peer counties).

Overcrowded conditions more than doubled from 1980 to 1990 and the vast majority of those situations were in Dodge City. Units lacking complete kitchens were more prevalent in Ford and Dodge City than other towns. Units lacking complete plumbing were found more so in Spearville and Ford than other jurisdictions.

1990-1996 ESTIMATES

The City of Dodge City conducted a survey of new housing permits since the 1990 census. The survey is through December 1996. It indicates that 599 new housing units were constructed during this period. Conversions of single-family units to multi-family may have occurred without permits, making this figure smaller than the actual number of new units. Of the verified new units, 59 (9.9%) were mobile homes, 62 (10.4%) were duplex units, while multi-family units comprised 165 (27.6%) of the total. It is interesting to note that a 1973 plan for Dodge City suggested that 93.8 percent of new residential units would be single family.

Ford County issues septic system permits for new residences. From the County Sanitarian’s records, 260 permits were issued for new systems from 1989 to 1996. Of these, 140 were for mobile homes. The County Sanitarian believes that these numbers are under-counted with a few individuals avoiding the permit process, especially before 1993.

PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND

The 1990 Census found 2.69 persons per household in Ford County. If that rate continues, we can determine from the population projections that the county will need another 6,020 housing units by 2030. Dodge City will need 6,695 new units. At first glance, this makes little sense. Unincorporated Ford County is projected to lose 1,785 persons in that time period. This makes approximately 665 homes that will be annexed or otherwise vacated. The remaining ten-unit discrepancy may be attributed to rounding error.

Not that many additional units will have to be constructed. A part of the Dodge City growth will result from future annexation of developed suburban areas now on the urban fringe. The persons per household may also change over time. The Year 2000 Census may show a significant increase in that figure, especially among minority persons. A recent report indicates that foreign immigrants initially are less likely to form their own households, but over time their upward mobility will generate a demand for housing units. (Accounting for Immigration, American Planning Association PAS Memo, Oct. 1997.) Finney County, with a higher recent immigration rate than Ford, had 3.01 persons per household in 1990. If Ford approaches the current Finney persons per household rate, 50 or 60 fewer new housing units may be needed.

The number of owner occupied housing units has been declining and that is expected to continue. In 1980, the county had 70.6% owner and 29.4% renter occupied units. By 1990, Ford County had 64.9% owner and 35.1% renter units. Dodge City in 1990 had 61.2% owner and 38.8% rental units. From 1990 through 1996, 52.3% of the residential building permits were for single-family homes. Apartments and duplexes comprised 38.0% and mobile homes 9.9%. If we conservatively contribute one-half of the mobile homes to renters, 43% of the 1990-96 units were rentals. If this trend continues, nearly 40 percent of the total Dodge City housing stock would be rentals by 2030. The rental rates for Bucklin, Ford, and Spearville should remain near the 1990 levels of 22.4%, 27.7% and 19.2%, respectively. The 1972 Comprehensive Plan for Dodge City found 93.8 percent of the housing was owner occupied.

LAND USE

The land use portion of a comprehensive plan suggests land use development pattern changes in order to encourage orderly growth with a minimum of incompatibilities. Our urban counterparts have many lands use classifications; and each should be mapped and analyzed. Such an urban plan balances social and physical objectives, in an orderly fashion which directs growth into preferred patterns to conserve natural resources, optimize choices, and place the least possible burden on the taxpayers.

This Ford County Plan leaves much of that detail to the cities and towns to work out separately. The land use patterns on a countywide level are simple. What is urban? What is agricultural? Where are other population concentrations? What other rural land uses have an impact on the environment and/or infrastructure?

This plan explores three basic land use categories: population centers, agricultural, and agricultural production. Population centers are further classified as: urban, small city, and rural village. The vast majority of Ford County’s 1,099 square miles are agricultural. Dodge City is the urban land use. The incorporated city and surrounding urban area comprise about 12.1 square miles of land. Dodge City provides a complete array of urban services.

Bucklin, Ford, and Spearville are the small cities in Ford County. Bucklin and Spearville occupy about 0.6 square mile of land each, while Ford comprises about 0.4 square mile. These towns are primarily residential, with the commercial uses that their respective populations can support.

Wright is the largest village in Ford County, followed by Wilroads Gardens, Kingsdown, Bloom, Bellefont, Windhorst, and Wilroads, and. Howell. Wright, Wilroads Gardens, Kingsdown, Bloom, Wilroads, and Windhorst are primarily residential. The principal land uses in Bellefont and Howell are grain elevators.

Agricultural production land uses in Ford County are commercial feedlots, grain elevators, and Fanners’ Cooperative operations. Heavier Agri-business industrial operations such as meatpacking and fertilizer production are located within the urban and small city areas.

The remainder of the 1,085.3 Ford County square miles is rural/agricultural. Some of this land is situated in flood hazard areas, but flood prone lands can be used for agricultural purposes with suitable protections.

POPULATION DENSITY

Ford County had a 1990 population density of 25.0 persons per square mile. Incorporated places had the following densities per square mile: Dodge City-1, 746.2; Bucklin-1, 183.3; Ford-617.5; Spearville1, 193.3. The high densities in the urban areas mean that rural Ford County is sparsely populated. Six townships had less than 3.0 persons per square mile (Bloom, Concord, Royal, Sodville, Wheatland, and Wilburn). In 1996 it was estimated that the county had 30.2 persons per square mile. This is less dense than both the state and peer counties’ averages.

COUNTY ZONING

The Ford County Commission in 1997 implemented a zoning resolution for the entire unincorporated area. This resolution has as its basic concept that non-municipal areas should remain agricultural. Outside existing population centers, there should be no lot smaller than 40 acres, precluding suburban subdivisions in rural, agricultural areas. Smaller lot residential development may be permitted in areas with adequate water and sewerage service (adjacent to existing urban areas). Land use proposals that are non-agricultural and non-residential are considered on a case-by-case basis in a public hearing where individual merits are deliberated the thrust of the zoning resolution is that non-agricultural land uses should be situated in the population centers.

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

In 1995 Ford County had 740 farms comprising 680,000 acres (1,062.5 square miles). This is the largest number of farms for all Western Kansas. From 1985 to 1995 between 262,000 and 372,000 acres have been harvested annually. The remaining acreage is used for livestock raising and fallow cropland.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION LAND USE

There are 65 permitted commercial confined cattle feedlots in Ford County. These have an authorized capacity for 220,000 cattle (or other animal units). A majority of the lots are concentrated along the southern area of Dodge City with a few scattered sites elsewhere. There are no large-scale confined feed operations for poultry or swine in Ford County to date. That possibility does exist for some time in the near future. There has been no determination of the maximum capacity that the land can hold for confined feeding operations. State environmental regulations govern separation and waste treatment requirements and authorize differing maximum capacities for each feedlot. But an overall county capacity has not been set.

Other agricultural production land uses in Ford County are grain elevators and farmers’ cooperatives. There are eleven-grain elevators in use throughout the county. These are operated by the various farmers’ cooperatives. Due to their function, grain elevators are situated adjacent to railroad tracks and dispersed along those lines. Farmers’ cooperatives providing additional services are situated in existing population centers.

PLANNING CONCERNS

A primary concern of this and most comprehensive plans are to direct future land uses. All other elements of the planning process come into play. Where will the projected future population live? Is the transportation system adequate for the anticipated growth? Are public facilities sufficiently programmed for the growth? Will area economics support the future population? Are preservation/enhancement of the environment and quality of life being considered? Most importantly, what do the present and future citizens want regarding growth issues?

The previous section on population indicates that Dodge City will have 90 percent of the total Ford County population by the year 2030. The cities of Bucklin, Ford, and Spearville will grow slightly (along with the village of Wright): The remainder of the county is expected not to have a population increase and most likely will continue a population decline. If this is not the most desirable growth pattern, strategies can be developed to foster change. If this is desirable, strategies should be formulated to accommodate the growth patterns while enhancing the quality of life within those growth areas.

Preservation of agricultural land is encouraged in Ford County. It is not, however, always seen as a critical issue because there is so much land. Citizens should become more aware of the need to consciously keep a distinction between agricultural and urban land uses.

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation is a major key to Ford County’s development. The Santa Fe Trail first crossed the future county, bringing people and goods across the Great Plains. Fort Dodge was established to help protect the Trail Other horse and wagon trails developed off the Santa Fe. The Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad followed the Santa Fe Trail. Cattle drives from Texas to the Ford County railroad stations developed into trails. Highways were then constructed following these earlier trails. A municipal airport was added. As Dodge City grew and became more densely populated, a public transit system was created. Lately, recreational trails have been discussed for the area Ford County has a truly multi-modal transportation system. All modes of travel exist-except for water.

HIGHWAYS AND STREETS

There should be a hierarchy of streets, from limited’ access highways to unpaved rural section line roads. All should be designed to carry goods and people with varying degrees of access. National standards have been developed to classify the different categories: Freeway, Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, Minor Collector, Local Street, and Rural Road. When considering the network of highways and streets in rural Ford County, however, an abbreviated hierarchy may be more meaningful. Below is a discussion of arterials (the U.S. routes), collectors (the paved county roads), and rural roads (the unpaved, usually township roads).

Primary Roads

Ford County does not have a true freeway. There are two highways around Dodge City, which are limited access (U.S. 50 north of town and U.S. 56 By-pass south east of town). These do not fit the precise definition of freeways because there is no grade separation (over/under-pass) at intersections, nor divided medians. However, they are limited access, requiring frontage roads rather that direct driveway access.

Our major arterial highways are the U.S. and Kansas State Routes that cross Ford County. These connect the towns within Ford County, and provide direct access to other counties and states. Three U.S. routes converge on Dodge City and a fourth crosses the southern portion of Ford County. Only the Kansas City area, Sedgwick, and Shawnee Counties have more federal routes crossing their jurisdictions.

U.S. Route 400 is a relatively new highway designation, which follows existing routes through Kansas from Missouri to Colorado. In Ford County it follows, (from east to west) U.S. 54 bypassing Bucklin to the north, the former K-154 northeast to Dodge City, and U.S. 50 from Dodge City on to Garden City. This route provides Ford County direct access to Wichita, Kansas and Pueblo, Colorado.

U.S. Route 56 connects Great Bend to Dodge City and continues southwest through Sublette, Hugoton, Elkhart, and on to New Mexico. East of Ford County this route splits with U.S. 50 continuing to Hutchinson, U.S. 56 to Great Bend, and U.S. 183 to Hays.

U.S. Route 54 connects Wichita and Liberal through Bucklin and the villages of Kingsdown and Bloom, and on to Minneola in Clark County. U.S. Route 283 is the north-south arterial through Ford County, connecting Nebraska and Oklahoma through Dodge City.

Ford County does not have many Kansas State Routes. K-154 has been re-designated as U.S. 400 east of Dodge City. (Trail Street in Dodge City was recently designated a city street, a trade-off when the southeast U.S. 56 By-pass was constructed). K-94 is a short route connecting the village of Kingsdown on U.S. 54 with the Clark County Lake State Park. K-34 connects U.S. 400 north of Bucklin with U.S. Routes 160/183 in Clark County. K-94 is difficult to classify as a major arterial due to its traffic and function.

Secondary Roads

It is difficult to describe collector roads within a rural county setting. A collector funnels traffic from local origins to arterial routes for final destinations. Outside the cities and villages, Ford County has very few concentrations of traffic origins and destinations from which to funnel traffic. The county system of paved roads (and county roads proposed to be paved) is the nearest to providing a collector street network. When the roads proposed for paving are completed, Ford County will have approximately 250 miles of blacktop collectors. County road standards are not designed for heavy truck traffic.

In an urban setting, these paved county roads would be considered local streets from a design viewpoint however; roads that fit the minor street function in rural Ford County are the gravel and graded dirt farm routes. Most all of these are under township maintenance control (approximately 1,000 miles).

Recent and Planned Improvements

The State of Kansas has recently made several roadway improvements in Ford County:

              · East Wyatt Earp in Dodge City (U. S. Routes 400/50/56) was widened to four lanes with left turns
              · South 2nd Avenue in Dodge City (U.S. Route 283) was widened to four lanes with left turns
              • U.S. Route 56 By-pass was constructed southeast of the city as a two lane facility
              • US. 4001K-154 was reconstructed and widened southeast from Dodge City to the City of Ford
              • US. 283 was reconstructed from Wright to the Hodgemen County line (and on to Jetmore)

Planned highway improvements are found in the Kansas Department of Transportation five-year plan for fiscal years 1998-2001. The state considers this an “interim” plan because the legislature will be asked for additional funding in the near future. There are many more transportation needs than there is current funding. The scheduled improvements include:

              • Resurface K-34 from US. 54 to Clark County (5.9 mi.)-and on to U.S. 160
              • Resurface U.S. 50 from west Dodge City limits 8.7 miles
              • Resurface U.S. 50 from east Dodge City limits to US. 283 (6.0 mi.)
              • Reconstruct US. 50 from east Dodge City limits to US. 50B/56 (preliminary engineering)
              ;• Overlay bridge on US. 56 at Arkansas River
              • Upgrade RR signals at Second Avenue, Dodge City
              • Resurface U.S. 56 from east Dodge City limits to US. 50 (3.2 mi.)

In addition to the above, Ford County and Dodge City have contracted for improvements to South Fourteenth Avenue connecting it with U.S. Route 56. This two-lane facility will help alleviate downtown Dodge City congestion caused by through traffic mixing with local traffic. This improvement will not replace the need for a southern by-pass, but it will provide an arterial connector to the existing southeast by-pass. Ford County has utilized state secondary road funds for this project. This will unfortunately delay some other secondary road paving projects; however, it is considered a higher priority.

A proposal has been floating around the country for over a decade concerning the need for a new interstate system route from the east to west coasts. Supporters call it 1-66. Following existing rights-of-way as often as possible, potential corridors have been pinpointed through Virginia and Kentucky. A likely route through Kansas would basically follow the recently designated US. Route 400: through Wichita, Dodge City, and on to Pueblo, Colorado.

Planning Concerns

Through traffic on arterial routes is considerably slowed by congested areas. Where congestion is a problem or where local/pedestrian traffic becomes a safety issue with through traffic, cities and village communities should be by-passed. In Ford County the principal points of such congestion are: US. 54 and K-34 through Bucklin, and Dodge City. Potential congestion is possible on U.S. 4001K-154 at Ft Dodge and through the City of Ford. There also is more heavy truck traffic coming into the City of Spearville from the south than the road is designed to accommodate-creating congestion and related problems for southern Spearville.

The arterial routes through other cities and villages in Ford County have been well designed to by-pass potential congestion. Traffic problems could occur if Spearville, Bellefont, Bloom, Kingsdown, and/or Wright were to experience more development across their respective highways.

The “free flow of through traffic” discussion for Ford County’s comprehensive plan cannot be limited to Ford County. For proper growth and development, our area depends on access throughout the region. Goods must get to markets, tourists must be able to visit, and raw materials must be delivered.

U.S. 400 traffic is restricted between Wichita and Ford County by congestion concerns in Kingman, Pratt, and Greensburg. As vehicle numbers increase, U.S. 400 should become a four-lane facility from Wichita to Pueblo. Access to and from Interstate 70 east is difficult through Kinsley, Larned and Great Bend. Travel to and from Hutchinson and Great Bend is inconvenienced through Kinsley, as US. Routes 50 and 56 disrupt that city.

Traffic routes through Dodge City will be left to a study of arterial, collector, and minor street issues specific to its needs. Except, that is, for two issues that affects all of Ford County and the region. With so many arterial highways converging on Dodge City, Wyatt Earp Blvd. through town has too many demands. And U.S. Route 50 north of town is becoming congested due to urban development north of this facility. (Through traffic appears to need a more complete by-pass-one, which will not have the future congestion as on US. 50.)

The second issue confronting arterial movement through Dodge City is that there is no well-defined nor designed north-south traffic way. Fourteenth Avenue serves the west side of town quite well, but the center and east sides have very poor north-south movement. Giving someone directions to get from South Dodge north becomes an intellectual challenge. There is only one overpass for north-south traffic over the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe tracks-on the US. 56 By-pass. (A secondary road provides an underpass, between East Wyatt Earp and Trail Street, which is not designed for through traffic.) This is a safety as well as traffic concern. If a train were blocking access, there is only one direct means of crossing the rail tracks from north to south.

OTHER TRANSPORTATION MODES

There is no water transportation in Ford County. A navigable waterway requires a constant minimum depth for draw. There is often so little water in the Arkansas River that rafting is not possible. All other modes of moving goods and people are present

Airport

The Dodge City Regional Airport serves Ford County. United Express provides two daily flights to Denver, while U.S. Air Express connects Ford County with Kansas City twice a day. U.S. Air resumed service to the airport in January 1998. The airport was constructed in 1942. The primary runway can accommodate jet aircraft (6,900ft. long) with instrument landing system. Charter airplanes, the National Weather Service, automobile rental, Civil Air Patrol, and aerial spraying services are located on airport property. Tie downs and T -hangers are also available.

Over 2,500 passengers boarded planes at the airport last year-with only U.S. Air Express service. With the addition of United Express service to Denver and continuation of the recent aggressive marketing campaign, total enplanement should more than double for 1998.

Improvements planned for the airport include a complete renovation of the terminal building. Budgeted for 1988, up-to-date security system will be installed with other improvements.

Railroads

Three railroads pass through Ford County. The Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe were the first, which roughly followed the Santa Fe Trail. This line provided the means for goods to be shipped from Ford County to markets and permitted the area to develop. This line serves Bellefont, Spearville, and Wright to Dodge City, then forks into two lines. One continues southwest to Santa Fe and one west through Howell to Garden City and Colorado. The Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe recently merged with the Burlington Northern Railroad system.

The Chicago and Rock Island Line provided service to southeastern Ford County, through Bucklin, Kingsdown, and Bloom. Later named the St Louis Southwestern Railway, it merged with and became the Southern Pacific Railway, and more recently the Union Pacific.

The Rock Island Line had a short line connection between Dodge City and Bucklin. This route is now operated for recreational use as the Dodge City, Ford, and Bucklin Railroad, with commercial access to the Wilroads grain elevator and connecting the Burlington Northern and Union Pacific Lines.

Amtrak service is available in Ford County. A route from Chicago to Los Angeles makes daily stops in Dodge City each way. Amtrak follows the Santa Fe route through Kansas.

Recreational Transportation

Transportation for recreation is quite popular in many areas. It may have a high potential in Ford County. Bicycling and hiking can meet exercise needs. Trails may help meet tourist expectations. Equestrian and wagon trails are untapped potential resources.

There is a recreational train route. The Dodge City, Ford, and Bucklin Railroad provides tourists and local residents with seasonal rides including dinner and western theme re-enactments along a 16 mile round trip route. Trolley rides are available to the historic sites in Dodge City.

There are several bicycling enthusiasts in and around Ford County. Designated routes, however, do not exist. Perhaps there is little demand for specifically designated routes, due to the rather wide streets and rights-of-way, flat terrain, and relatively unobstructed views.

Designated hiking trails are limited to a one-half mile course on the Dodge City Community College Campus and historical tour routes in Dodge City and Fort Dodge. Hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding are popular activities for many persons. There have been discussions in the past to explore potential trails in Ford County, but none have been aggressively pursued. The potential for equestrian trails appears to be a good prospect for tourism development considering the cultural history of Ford County.

Commercial Trucking

Truck service is available daily with Kindsvater Truck Lines, Price, Yellow Freight Systems, and Western Kansas Express. Approximately twenty trucking companies serve Ford County. The area is also home to a U.P.S. regional distribution center. Federal Express, Pony Express, Air Borne Express, the United States Postal Service, and Roadway Package Systems, Inc. are also available for both ground and air transport.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES

FORD COUNTY

Ford County provides a number of public services. The county courthouse provides working space and administrative support for two district court judges. The Ford County Government Center houses the administrative functions of the county: the Treasurer, Register of Deeds, County Clerk, Tax Appraisal, Public Works Department, and Environmental Health/Zoning Officer. The County Agricultural Extension Agent, Court Services Offices, and Emergency Communications Center are also located in the Government Center. The courthouse and government center are in good condition, with only minor maintenance needs. The courthouse was renovated in 1993, while the government center was created from the former Laura Locke Hotel in 1991. County government services have rapidly expanded in the past several years, and more office space is needed.

The Santa Fe Trail Community Corrections office, located on West Spruce Street is in need of more space for badly needed additional personnel. They have 103 adult clients needing intensive supervision, and 32 juvenile clients. These numbers are expected to double or triple in the immediate future.

The Ford County Health Department is in a separate location on East Spruce Street. It has recently seen a rapid increase in clients, to over 1,200 each month. Health Department services such as childhood immunizations are often provided at outreach centers in Bucklin and Spearville. The Spruce Street facility is in need of alteration. A separate employee entrance and new roof are immediate concerns.

The Sheriff’s Office and Ford County Jail are on Avenue L at Military Avenue. The jail was designed for an anticipated year 2010 capacity. The inmate population has unfortunately soared recently, and the facility is now severely overcrowded. Designed for 32 inmates, it was recently remodeled and cells were “doubled up” so the current design capacity is 84 inmates. The jail currently serves more than 100 inmates. Discussions are underway to determine whether the jail should be enlarged, or if a new facility in another location should be constructed.

The county landfill is situated on North Fourteenth Avenue. It was opened for use within the past two years, and has ample room for fifty years’ growth. The former landfill just west of the Dodge City Municipal Airport retains facilities for household hazardous waste disposal.

County fire protection and emergency medical services are offered at several facilities, with one more under construction. Eight fire stations are located, in Dodge City, Ford, Kingsdown, Bucklin, Spearville, Howell, Bloom, and Wright. Emergency Medical Service stations are located in Dodge City, Bucklin, Howell, and Spearville. The ambulance services share buildings with the local fire stations. The South Dodge City station is in the worst condition of all. A new facility is under construction in North Dodge City on U.S. Highway 50. This is not intended to replace the South Dodge station, as fire and ambulance services are needed north and south for a proper response time.

Except for Dodge City police and fire protection, the above services are provided throughout Ford County for all citizens. Police and fire protection are shared among the jurisdictions as needed.

The county supports several recreation facilities. Ford County Lake and Haynes State Fishing Lake are located in the northern portion of the county. It has several camper sites around a fishing lake. The Ford County Historical Society owns and maintains Coronado Cross Park, a monument commemorating the Conquistadors 1541 visit to the area near Fort Dodge. The Home of Stone is an 1881 house museum on East Vine Street in Dodge City owned by Ford County and operated by the Ford County Historical Society. Eleven miles west of Dodge City on U.S. Route 50 is a park overlooking one the best remaining sites for Santa Fe Trail rots. The county recently obtained grant funds to upgrade this historic feature into a positive tourist attraction with interpretive centers and accessible walkways.

MUNICIPAL AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Ford County is not in the public water or sewer business. Dodge City, Bucklin, and Spearville offer municipal water and sanitary sewer service to their citizens, while Ford and Wright have both water and sanitation districts. Wilroads Gardens has a sanitary sewer district. There are five or six storm water drainage districts throughout the county. Other· than these, the unincorporated areas of the county are too sparsely populated for urban services to make fiscal sense. Population and land use projections noted in other sections of this plan do not forecast that such utilities will be needed in the future for these rural areas.

The communities of Bloom and Kingsdown are approaching a problem situation with inadequate septic systems. The residential lots there are too small for both individual wells and septic systems. A sanitation district may be a solution, but there are few property owners to support the expense.

The village of Wright recently experienced groundwater contamination reports. The City of Dodge City contractually agreed to supply potable water to the Wright water district for a safe supply. Servicing the approximately 250 people has an insignificant impact on the Dodge City capacity.

The City of Ford recently had an issue with its public sanitation. They were near or at capacity, with no means to add on customers. This year the lagoon system was cleaned out so that there now is excess capacity. Bucklin, Spearville, and Wright have no problems with their sewerage capacity, with Bucklin and Spearville having some minor water capacity problems. With minor modifications, their respective systems can reasonably accommodate the anticipated population increases. Dodge City, however, is projected to absorb the vast majority of future county growth. Anticipating this, an engineering firm has been retained to study future water and sewer needs for the urban area.

TOWNSHIPS

Townships are basically limited to providing road maintenance. Township roads must be graded and snow plowed. Farms must have access to survive. Road maintenance becomes an expensive endeavor for the townships, however. Several are in financial difficulty. The possible solutions to this financial problem include the county taking over all road responsibilities, townships merging or contracting with each other, or the provision of centralized services.

Called a “county unit” system, Ford County could provide maintenance for all local roads. Financed through the general fund, it has been projected that township property taxes would be reduced one or two mills while Dodge City property owners would see a five or six mill increase. Municipalities do not currently participate in township tax levies. Equipment and operators would have to remain in out lying locations because snow plowing requires easy access. Ford County currently provides road maintenance for the townships around Dodge City.

It may be possible for townships to merge services. This could reduce the number of road maintenance locations and save costs. Townships could actually merge, as when Pleasant Valley joined Bucklin Township in the 1970s. As an alternative, services could be contracted among the townships. This would have the same effect while retaining township identity.

According to the townships, costs are becoming prohibitive for insurance, legal fees, and supplies. It may be possible to pool the available resources and provide centralized services for more efficient operations. Perhaps the county could participate, or the townships could mutually contract for such services. Actual cost savings should be verified while exploring this option.

EDUCATION

Three unified school districts, one parochial school, and a community college serve Ford County students. USD 443 serves the greater Dodge City area. It is by far the largest with a 1998 enrollment of 5,125 pupils.

It currently has a four-grade high school, one 7_8th grade middle school, one 6th grade center, and seven K5th grade elementary schools. A charter school was approved in 1997 for middle school students needing additional help. Of the student population, 51 percent are minority persons, and 53 percent are eligible for free or reduced price lunch programs. The lower grades are more crowded at the present (480 in kindergarten, 298 seniors). English, as a Second Language is a major focus with the significant number of non-or marginal English speaking immigrants.

The larger number of students in the lower grades will move up through the system. The USD 443 board has prepared a physical facilities plan, and a financing bond issue was recently approved. A new high school will be constructed, the former high school converted into a 5-6th grade center, the existing 6th grade center incorporate 5th and 6th grade pupils, and a physical upgrade of all seven elementary schools which will become K-4th grade facilities.

USD 381 serves the Spearville-Windhorst area. It has 564 students in grades K through 12. There are two classroom buildings for the district. Some remodeling and expansion should be anticipated in the near future, but the growth pressures are much less severe than with USD 443.

USD 459 serves Bucklin. It has 628 pupils on one campus. The school faces some overcrowding, and expansion/remodeling will be needed in the near future. As with USD 381, Bucklin does not face the growth pressures as USD 443.

For the 1996-97 school year, these districts had the following property tax mill levies:

For regional comparison, USD 457 in the Garden City area had a 56.44 mill levy for 1996-97, and USD 480 in Liberal had a 44.33 school mill levy.

Sacred Heart Cathedral School on Central Avenue in Dodge City provides a parochial education for about 400 students in grades K-8. The facility is not overcrowded, but is in need of reconstruction/remodeling because it is out-dated for modem education needs.

Dodge City Community College is located on North Fourteenth Avenue. It serves a total of 2,856 students (1,545 full-time equivalent pupils). With a history going back to 1935, the present campus was developed in 1970 with dormitories added in the 1980s. The community college offers two-year degree programs as well as individually tailored services for the local business community and citizens.

Kansas Newman College and Fort Hays State University offer academic programs in Ford County through their outreach efforts. It is possible for county citizens to obtain bachelors and masters degrees with limited travel. The Dodge City Community College provides classroom space for Fort Hays State, while the Kansas Newman Western Division has facilities on the former St. Mary of the Plains College campus.

As of January 1997 there were 132 licensed child-care facilities in Ford County. Six of these were Child Care Centers (13 or more children), 18 Group Day Care Homes (up to 12 children), 76 Licensed Day Care Homes (up to 10 children), 28 Registered Day Care Homes (up to 6 children), and 4 Pre-schools (fewer than 13 children, 3 hours each day).

FAMILY FACILITIES

Dodge City and Ford County voters in 1997 approved a sales tax issue to provide improved area recreation and entertainment facilities. The projects will develop an exposition center, construct a auto race track, air condition and upgrade the Dodge City Civic Center, develop a four-diamond baseball/softball complex, and reconstruct baseball diamonds for the high school and Dodge City Sheridan Recreation Center. No sites have been selected for the new facilities. When completed, these projects should provide more activities for tourists to the area, as well as for the local community. The exposition center and racetrack will be destinations for their users: conventions and racing enthusiasts.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

PEER COUNTIES

Comparing Ford County to the State of Kansas may not always provide the best picture. The nonagricultural population is heavily skewed to eastern Kansas. The metropolitan counties have a different economic composition than non-metropolitan areas with higher incomes and a higher cost of living. Conversely, counties with a more rural nature than Ford often have a lower cost of living and a different economic structure.

Ford County supports a regional economy. Perhaps a better comparison would be among other Kansas counties that are regional markets. Fourteen counties have been selected for this analysis:

In choosing this list, we first took out the metropolitan counties. The Census Bureau defines these: the four Kansas metro areas are the counties in the Kansas City Area (Johnson, Leavenworth, Miami, and Wyandotte), Lawrence (Douglas), Topeka (Shawnee), and the Wichita Area (Butler, Harvey, and Sedgwick). Then we looked at all counties with more than 25,000 populations in 1990. Final adjustments were made after reviewing comparative data for all counties. Seward County (with an 18,743 population) was added, as it is a regional center in Southwest Kansas and is part of the three county growth area of Finney, Ford, and Seward. Each also has a central city (or twin cities) with a greater than 15,000 population.

Sumner County (population 25,841) was deleted from the list. Its economic statistics do not indicate that it is at the same regional center level as the other counties. It is less urban, loses retail dollars to other areas, and has more employees commuting to other areas than working in the county.

These fourteen become “Peer Counties” for comparison purposes. To remain competitive as a regional center, Ford County should see how it compares with the others. A review of the 1997 median family income data shows the benefit of using these peer counties for comparison. Statewide the median income for a family off our was $42,900. For the nine metropolitan counties it was $50,200. For the fourteen peer counties it was significantly lower than either figure at $37,600, but higher than for all non-metropolitan counties ($36,100).

The statistics derived for these Peer Counties are detailed at the end of this section.

ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Several factors are available to analyze an area’s economy. The six indicators below are the most recent available from the Bureau of the Census and the State of Kansas as reported in the Kansas Statistical Abstract: 1996. By each of these, Ford County appears to be doing quite well, with higher retail sales, higher income, higher housing value, and lower unemployment than the average of our peers. Ford was not the highest in anyone category, as there is always room for improvement. Also, positive economic statistics need be tempered against the poverty data found in the SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS section.

The peer county data above is not weighted; it is an average of each of the counties rather than a total of raw numbers.

The County Pull Factor is an indicator of business attraction. Developed by Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, the Pull Factor is a county’s per capita sales tax receipts divided by the state per capita sales tax receipts. A factor higher than 1.0 indicates that the county is attracting business; a factor less than 1.0 indicates the county is losing business. Seward County has the highest Pull Factor in the entire state at 1.68.

The remaining five terms are self-explanatory. Retail Sales Growth figures are adjusted for inflation and show the real change in sales over time. Average Wages are figured per job, not per worker. The Median Family Income is an estimated figure developed by the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and considers the average income for a family of four. The Median Housing Value was reported by the 1990 census. This is the most dated of the data presented, but is useful for comparison purposes. Unemployment data was made available from the Kansas Department of Human Resources.

There are three widely used sets of employment statistics, each with different counting methods. The Kansas Department of Human Resources prepares the Employed Civilian Labor Force from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This information is the source for unemployment rates. The Civilian Labor Force counts persons where they live rather than where they work and is based on estimates. It is based on the person rather than the job. The U.S. Bureau of Employment Analysis compiles BEA Employment. BEA data counts persons where they work rather than where they live. Part time employees and farm workers are included. The U.S. Census Bureau compiles County Business Patterns. Like the BEA data, persons are counted by where they work. Part time employees and farm workers are not included. Reported by employers, these data count jobs rather than people.

The following table shows the differences among these employment statistics for Ford County in 1995:

No one system of compiling employment data is right for all situations. The most critical issue is to make certain that comparable figures are used. Also, there is always an unreported, underground economy wherein people work for unreported cash wages or barter. Because of this, all methods of counting employment undercount the true economic picture.

EMPLOYMENT SECTORS

The next table indicates the number of employees by various business sectors. The data was derived from County Business Patterns of the U.S. Census Bureau. The table reflects changes in our non-farm employment composition from 1984 to 1995 and compares Ford County with Kansas and our peer counties. The percentages derived for the peer counties are weighted, utilizing the absolute numbers of employees rather than each county average.

There are a few areas of significant variation. Ford County is well below average for Agricultural and Mining Services job averages. This is likely due to the limited natural resources available in the county. The Ford County employment percentages in Manufacturing and Services are opposite the state and peer counties numbers: we have many more relative manufacturing jobs, and many less services jobs, than the state and our peers. (Services covers a wide range of economic activity, from restaurant/motel work to teachers, government employees, and professionals.)

Ford County appears to have a significant Wholesale Trade business, quite a bit higher than our peer counties and higher than the state average. Employment averages in Construction Activities and the FinancelInsurance/Realty sectors are appreciatively lower than state wide and in our peer counties.

NATURAL RESOURCES

The greatest natural resources in Ford County are the soil and ground water. The above Agricultural Analysis shows how critical these are to the area economy. Ground water quality and quantity are threatened, as detailed in the ENVIRONMENT section of this plan.

The county is on the edge of the Hugoton natural gas field-<me of the largest in the world. Unfortunately, being on the edge does not produce as well as in neighboring counties. Ford County in 1995 had 24 wells producing 796 million cubic feet. Clark County produced 3,395, Kiowa 11,436, Seward 39,560, and Finney 48,946 million cubic feet. Stevens County was the top gas producing area, with 169,665 million cubic feet in 1995.

Oil production in Ford County is similar to natural gas-the neighbors fare much better. Fifty-six wells pumped 132,000 barrels of oil from Ford County in 1995. Hodgeman County produced 502,000, Seward 1,629,000, and Finney 2,329,000 barrels that year. Ellis County was the top producer in the state at 3,088,000 barrels.

Sand and gravel are extracted for construction material from beds along the Arkansas River plain. Other natural resources with some economic potential in Ford County include salt and volcanic ash. Salt beds. over 400 feet thick are located across the southern part of the county, being most thick northeast of Ford. The beds are 2,000 feet below the land surface. A line of volcanic ash exists from Bloom to Fowler. The ash may have some potential for ceramics.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

The University of Kansas, Kansas Center for Community Economic Development produced Economic Trends-Ford County in December 1995 (Technical Report Series, Report No. 23 Update). That report concludes that Ford County has a high employment participation rate (percent of persons in the work force) and a low unemployment rate. These indicate that job creation may have to recruit workers from outside the county (and perhaps outside the region as all of Southwest Kansas has the same characteristics). A major conclusion of the report is that the nature of the Ford County economy is changing. Agriculture, growing field crops and raising livestock, has steadily declined from 1988 to 1993. It appears that this economic segment is being replaced by other employment sectors.

But this 1995 report may not provide a complete picture. First, a minor clerical error led to significantly erroneous conclusion. The listed value of field crops numbers was copied wrong. Actually, 1993 was a banner year for field crops in Ford County, the highest value in the decade-the county ranked fourth in the state. Also, the cyclical nature of agricultural production must be carefully considered. The 1995 report showed a decline in livestock and poultry production from 1988 to 1993. If the time frame were extended two years (1987-1994), there would have been a significant increase in livestock and poultry production (1987 was a very low year, while 1988 was high-and 1994 was very high).

The employment sectors have changed as reported. We need to consider, however, that Ford County may be in a transition period after a rather rapid influx of meatpacking manufacturing jobs. The number of manufacturing jobs rose from 26 percent of the total non-farm employment in 1984 to 35 percent in 1995. Rather than a restructuring of the county economy, this may indicate that the other sectors need to “catch up” with the recently increased manufacturing base. Perhaps the key numbers are not the increase in manufacturing jobs, but rather the relative decline in other sectors, especially construction, finance insurance-realty, and services.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goals and Objectives are the focus of a comprehensive plan. The background analysis provided by the previous sections provide the citizens, the planning commission, the county commission, and other jurisdictions with data on where we have been and where the trends appear to lead us. Goals and objectives direct us to what we want for the future. Land use resolutions and policy decisions should be based on the approved goals, which are general statements as to what our future should be; and objectives, which are more specific statements designed to help attain the goals.

CITIZEN INPUT

Goals and objectives are derived from citizen input through out 1997 the Ford County Planning Commission conducted a series of citizen surveys to determine our strengths and weaknesses. A mail-out post card survey was provided to the unincorporated areas. Every household address was contacted. The smaller cities provided surveys with their utility bills. These were one hundred percent surveys to all area addresses. The response rate was over twenty percent. This is very good for a mail survey. Notice of the survey was published in the local newspaper to help generate a response. Dodge City presented surveys to various civic groups and area leaders for input with a significant response. In addition, the Planning Commission recorded comments offered by county, township, municipal, special purpose district and school board representatives at two retreats sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The results of these surveys are summarized in the APPENDIX section.

GOALS

The Planning Commission studied in-depth the citizen comments and formulated the many issues into eleven general statements which became our goals. They are sufficiently general to focus our policies and decisions for the time frame of this plan-to the year 2030. These goals may be amended from time to time, as new issues develop and new information is obtained. As goals are general in nature, it is more likely that the objectives would be amended. Eleven goals have been established for the future of Ford County. They are not presented in any particular order of importance:

I. PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

II. PLAN FOR GROWTH

III. ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE

IV. PROMOTE QUALITY HOUSING

V. ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT LAND DEVELOPMENT

VI. PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION

VII. PROVIDE EFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES

VIII. FURTHER GOVERNMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS

IX. PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH

X. PROMOTE OUR HISTORIC HERITAGE

XI. ENHANCE THE AGRICULTURAL BASE

OBJECTIVES

Objectives are the tools and techniques that will assist in attaining the stated goals. The functional planning elements and policies that follow are designed to meet the objectives. Objectives can be accomplished; goals are what we strive for. The objectives below are listed under the general heading of the goal they are intended to assist as with the Goals, these objectives are not necessarily listed in any order, and they may be amended from time to time as new issues occur.

I. Protect the Environment

        1. Promote development that considers, respects, and minimizes adverse impacts on the natural and cultural environment
        2. Conserve productive agricultural land as it is a limited resource with both environmental and economic value.
       3. Encourage efforts to conserve groundwater and protect its quality, as our groundwater resources are nearly             nonrenewable.
        4. Encourage efforts to preserve and expand upon our historic resources.
        5. Promote practices and programs that preserve habitats for threatened and endangered species.
        6. Encourage and promote multi-jurisdictional efforts to curb illegal dumping and littering problems.

II. Plan for Growth

       1. Maintain a moderate population growth rate of one to two percent per year.
       2. Scrutinize all facets of this comprehensive plan when making development decisions: the elements are all inter-related
           and must be analyzed as a whole.
       3. Encourage growth for the existing population centers at a rate considered desirable by their respective citizens; provided
           adequate public facilities and services can be provided.
       4. Add elements to this comprehensive plan as conditions change and new information becomes available.
       5. Prepare small area plans in cooperation with Ford County population centers, and detailed plans for the Dodge City area
       6. Prepare more detailed planning elements for issues identified as critical through this comprehensive planning process.
       7. Encourage all governmental jurisdictions to rationally budget for growth in public facilities and services.
       8. Review previous plans and studies before "reinventing the wheel"; many studies have been prepared for the Ford County
           area and old Ideas are not necessarily out-of-date.

III. Enhance the Quality of Life

       1. Encourage preservation and enhancement of area cultural attractions.
       2. Promote growth in the health services, assuring an adequate level of service throughout Ford County.
       3. Promote the benefits of ethnic diversity.
       4. Promote programs that help recent immigrants become productive citizens.
       5. Develop strategies to help keep local youth from leaving the county.
       6. Encourage conservation of safe, clean, and decent residential neighborhoods.
       7. Support projects and programs, which enhance area public and private education.

IV. Promote Quality Housing

       1. Initiate aggressive programs to eliminate substandard housing conditions.
       2. Encourage development of quality manufactured housing parks.
       3. Promote a variety of affordable housing opportunities for all residents.
       4. Expand on housing conditions programs to include prevention of blighting property maintenance and neighborhood
           conditions.
       5. Promote development guidelines that minimize conflicts between residential and nonresidential land uses.
       6. Construct new housing on sites with adequate vehicular access, public facilities, and public services.
       7. Encourage residential development reflecting quality urban design practices, making efficient use of available land and
           public facilities.

V. Encourage Efficient Land Development

       1. Promote land development that can be efficiently served by public utilities and services.
       2. Integrate land development with the existing and planned transportation system.
       3. Make land development sensitive to the natural and cultural environment.
       4. Encourage more dense development in and around the Dodge City urban growth area
       5. Preserve and conserve agricultural areas from premature land development.
       6. Encourage small city and village land development that maintains the small town village character of such areas.
       7. Situate agricultural production activities so that adverse environmental impacts are minimized.
       8. Locate commercial and industrial activities to serve their respective markets without disruption to the surrounding
           neighborhoods and transportation systems, and where existing and planned public facilities and services can
           accommodate the land use.
       9. Promote quality land development proposals that produce attractive and beneficial settings for growth.

VI. Provide For Efficient Transportation

       1. Promote the efficient movement of goods, services, and people within and throughout Ford County.
       2. Avoid undesirable environmental and fiscal impacts from transportation system improvements.
       3. Strive to conserve natural and cultural resources with transportation improvements design.
       4. Encourage vehicular traffic to utilize roads according to their design.
       5. Promote development of a four-lane limited access east-west route through Ford County.
       6. Develop an effective major and minor arterial street system through Dodge City, for existing and anticipated demands.
       7. Continue the county road paving, resurfacing, and bridge replacement program; budget such projects through a Capital
           Improvements Program.
       8. Develop land use policies that respect the existing and planned transportation system.
       9. Explore recreational transportation systems (bicycle, horse, and hiking routes) for local needs and tourism potential.
     10. Continue improvement efforts to make the Dodge City Municipal Airport the regional air facility for the region.
     11. Support programs and projects for safer and more efficient rail transportation.

VII. Provide Efficient Infrastructure and Public Services

       1. Refrain from placing undue burdens on any existing community in terms of efficiency of public infrastructure and services.
       2. Encourage cooperation or consolidation of public services among municipalities, townships, and special purpose districts
           where appropriate, to avoid duplication and overlapping costs and to establish a satisfactory level of service.
       3. Provide adequate facilities and services that offer diverse educational, cultural, and social opportunities.
       4. Provide a variety of accessible open space areas and recreational facilities as well as protect undevelopable natural areas
           for the enjoyment and benefit of all citizens and visitors.
       5. Assure that expansion of public utilities and services are cost effective and efficiently serve the anticipated population.
       6. Discourage public facilities and services improvements, which may promote encroachment into agricultural areas.
       7. Provide the most effective level of public safety services.

VIII. Further Governmental Effectiveness

       1. Make every possible effort to encourage citizen participation in governmental decisions with all county jurisdictions.
       2. Explore feasible options to increase effectiveness and efficiency of township operations.
       3. Promote methods to increase intergovernmental cooperation with all Ford County jurisdictions that are cost effective and
           responsive to the public need-including special purpose districts.
       4. Develop policies and programs for storm water drainage issues that apply to entire drainage basins, not constrained by
           artificial jurisdiction boundaries.
       5. Explore methods for regional cooperation with other counties and municipalities within southwest Kansas for multi-
           jurisdictional issues, free flow of information, and possible economies of scale.
       6. Develop Capital Improvements Programs to better anticipate, plan for, and budget capital expenditures for Ford County
           and its municipalities.
       7. Pursue aggressive annexation programs to accommodate Ford County municipalities and their respective future
           populations, assuring that the future citizens are adequately served with municipal utilities and services.

IX. Promote Economic Growth

       1. Foster a business environment that generates higher skilled employment opportunities.
       2. Capitalize on the rich history and heritage of Ford County.
       3. Continue the current efforts to attract diverse business interests into the area.
       4. Promote programs for small business attraction, expansion, and retention.
       5. Encourage business growth in population centers suitable to their respective markets.
       6. Solidify the position of Ford County and Dodge City as a regional market center.
       7. Cooperate with Finney and Seward Counties on economic development activities that mutually benefit the tri-county
           region.
       8. Encourage small business development/redevelopment within existing commercial areas.
       9. Support the Ford County Economic Development Corporation's strategic planning efforts.

X. Promote Our Historic Heritage

       1. Recognize that historical tourism is a major component of the Ford County economy.
       2. Support historic preservation and enhancement projects throughout the county.
       3. Encourage inter-jurisdictional cooperation for historic preservation.
       4. Promote the historic aspects of area minority cultures.
       5. Support governmental and volunteer efforts to identify and preserve archeological and historic sites.
       6. Promote protection of unique natural features, including vistas of the High Plains, from disruptive development.

XI. Enhance the Agricultural Base

       1. Locate future urban development within or adjacent to existing population centers.
       2. Foster and promote a diverse and sustainable agricultural economy.
       3. Keep the regulatory burden on agricultural activities to the minimum necessary.
       4. Participate actively in state, federal, and local programs that help identify and protect agricultural land.
       5. Encourage refinement and implementation of soil and water conservation plans.
       6. Participate actively in state, federal, and local Integrated Pest Management programs for noxious weeds, vertebrate and
           insect pests.
       7. Locate public facilities for minimal disruption of agricultural land.

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS:
POLICIES AND STRATEGIES

This Comprehensive Plan is a combination of a policy and a map plan. The Future Land Use Map must be used in conjunction with the written policies/strategies. The primary function of the map is to provide a visual basis for the determining how a proposed land use will fit into the existing and projected development patterns.

FUTURE LAND USE MAP

The Future Land Use Map sets aside a surplus of land for all land uses beyond that, which is anticipated to satisfy future growth needs during the planning period to the year 2030. Assuming that land suitable for development cannot always be acquired, the county and its population centers can be in a comfortable position by providing more land than needed for growth.

This Future Land Use Map is intentionally general. It defines growth areas around the existing population centers based on anticipated growth needs, and designates the remaining areas for rural and agricultural uses. For convenience, these growth areas are delineated to section or half section lines. For practical purposes, the county should consider property immediately across a growth area line to be within the same designation. Individual determinations for appropriate land use activities within these areas should consider both the Future Land Use Map and the following Policies and Strategies.

The Ford County administration is working towards greater mapping capabilities. In the future maps will be available that will show in detail:

       · Natural development constraints such as flood hazard areas and wetlands,
       · Locations of existing and planned land uses,
       · Proposed public improvements such as street paving projects,
       · Areas that may need additional protections such as wellheads and critical wildlife habitats, and
       · Demographic information from the census.

POLICIES/STRATEGIES

The Policies and Strategies provide a reference for the Planning Commission, County Commission, and respective local governing bodies in the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan and other devices (such as zoning, subdivision regulations, capital improvements programming) to promote the orderly and systematic growth of Ford County. The Policies and Strategies provide a reference for land use decisions, and act as a set of criteria and recommendations to form a standard measure for making determinations.

These Policies and Strategies are organized under the following headings:

       · Land Use: Locations and Relationships,
       · Public Facilities,
       · Transportation,
       · Conservation of Natural Resources,
       · Housing, and
       · Continued Planning, followed by
       · Capital Improvements Programming

Kansas State Statutes at K.S.A. 12-747(b) list the requirements for a comprehensive plan. The statutes refer to these as recommendations. For purposes of this plan, recommendations and policies/strategies may be used interchangeably. The headings used in this plan follow those requirements as closely as possible in similar order:

       · General location and relationship of the· use of land,
       · Population and building intensity standards (included with the above),
       · Public facilities including transportation (separated individually),
       · Public improvements programming (capital improvements programming),
       · Long range financial planning (capital improvements programming),
       · Conservation of natural resources, and
       · Any other element deemed necessary (housing, continued planning)

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES CONSISTENCY

The Policies and Strategies recommendations are derived from the adopted comprehensive plan Goals and Objectives. To be valid, a recommended policy or strategy must be consistent with the Goals and Objectives. This consistency is tabulated below, with the most pertinent goals/objectives listed in parentheses immediately after each policy. This can be useful when one asks: "how did the planning commission and County Commission develop this policy?" This consistency adds legal validity to the policies and strategies, and decisions make from them. Many if not most of the policies/strategies are derived from multiple goals/objectives. The primary ones are listed. An attempt was made to list the major one goal/objective first, while others may not be in any particular order.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The final part of this Comprehensive Plan discusses the financial aspects of planning. Public buildings, new highways, utilities, and other aspects of this plan take money to implement Ford County should anticipate those costs, and determine what funds may be available to make the plan work.

LAND USE: LOCATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS

AGRICULTURAL

       1. Continue through county zoning and extension of public facilities/services to limit non-agricultural development outside
           projected population centers' growth areas. (XI. I, X 4)

       2. Density of development outside population centers' growth areas should be no more than one home for each forty acres,
           retaining the current zoning provision for one additional dwelling to be permitted for each forty acres. This is considered
           the maximum density to retain agricultural land uses, allowing family members or employees to reside near their farm or
           ranch. (1.2, IV.5, V.1)

       3. Non-agricultural and non-residential development outside projected growth areas should be limited to uses which serve the
           agricultural area and which by necessity need the proximity to agricultural production. Other potentially acceptable non-
           agricultural land uses would be related to tourism, natural resources extraction, Agri-business and limited residential
           developments. Each proposal would have to document that it would not harm the primary agricultural use of the region,
           that adequate public roads, facilities, and services are available, and that any private services will be maintained over
           time. (1.2, V.3)

       4. Ford County government should retain its position as protector of the agricultural base. The county should strongly support
           programs and legislation, which preserve farmland and enhance agricultural productivity. (XI.4, 1.2, V5)

       5. Public facilities and private utilities should not be located outside population centers' projected growth areas unless
           absolutely necessary, and then should be designed to cause minimal disruption to agricultural productivity and the rural
           lifestyles. (XI.7, VI1.6, V.3)

       6. Land uses outside of projected population centers' growth areas, which do not conform to the above policies, should be
           contained, not permitted to expand, and be made more conforming over time. (XI.1, V.5)

RESIDENTIAL

       1. The primary residential focus for Ford County and its population centers is the protection and rehabilitation of viable
            neighborhood as a major housing source. (IV.1, IV.4, III.6)

       2. Existing and planned residential areas should be protected from the harmful effects of incompatible development and/or
           environmental hazards through zoning and subdivision regulations. (IV.5, III.6, V3)

       3. Devise methods to reduce through traffic in existing neighborhoods and prevent through traffic in planned residential areas.
           (VI.8, IV6. IV5).

       4. Proposed residential developments within the Ford County jurisdiction should be situated where road maintenance is
           assured for such development. (VI.4, IV.6, VI.5)

       5. Proposed residential developments within the Ford County jurisdiction should be located so that public services are readily
           available without being a public cost burden. (IV.6, IV.7, VII.5)

       6. Planned residential development within the otherwise rural areas are to be discouraged, but when found acceptable they
           should only be undertaken with a clear understanding that the surrounding area is rural, that typical urban services will not
           be available, and that agricultural and residential land uses are often incompatible. Binding assurances should be
           obtained to ensure that private facilities, utilities, and services are maintained. (VII.6, V.1, I.1)

       7. Existing residential development which is inappropriate to its setting (i.e. in a rural area, without public services) should not
           be permitted to expand. Rather, efforts should be taken to make such areas more conforming over time. (IV.5, IV.6, I.2)

       8. Residential densities for unincorporated Ford County should be no greater than:
                            (XI. 1, I.2, 11.3, IV.6, V.l, V.4, VII.5)
              · Two dwelling units for each forty acres (agricultural),
              · One dwelling unit for each ten acres (where permitted outside designated growth areas)
              · One dwelling unit for each two acres (designated growth areas without full services)
              · As per adjacent municipal zoning code (designated growth areas with full services)

COMMERCIAL

       1. The preferred locations for urban land uses are within the boundaries of population centers were adequate levels of service
            exist. Annexation is encouraged. Secondary preferred locations for urban land uses are within designated growth areas
            for the existing population centers. (VIII.7, XI.1, IX.5, IX.8)

       2. Planned commercial centers designed to serve several neighborhoods or the region shall be located at the intersection of
           two arterial streets or an arterial and collector street. (V.2, V.8, VI.1, VI.4)

       3. Neighborhood commercial centers should be located adjacent to a collector or arterial street and near other neighborhood
           facilities such as schools and parks, and should be integrated into the design of the neighborhood they serve. (V.2, V.8,
           VI.1).

       4. Highway oriented commercial uses shall be clustered along segments of arterial streets; they should contain uses which
           are mutually compatible and reinforcing in use and design. (VI.8, VI.4, V.3)

       5. Highway commercial uses should be designed in such a way as to minimize signage, access points, and excessive
           lengths of commercial strip development. (V.9, V.3, X6)

       6. Rural area commercial development shall be limited to uses for the necessity and convenience of rural and agricultural
           customers. (I.2, V.3, XI.1)

       7. Tourism based commercial development may be suitable for rural areas with proper site design and location standards.
           Such operations should be located on or very accessible to an arterial street, not be a burden on public infrastructure or
           services, and provide adequate protections for nearby agricultural and rural uses. The rural life style is quiet,
           uncongested, with little artificial lighting. (X2, IX.2, III.l, I .1)

       8. The county should encourage farm-based business enterprises, home occupations and cottage industries that are
           compatible with agricultural operations. (XI.2, XI.3, IX.4)

       9. Encroachment by new or expanded commercial uses into viable existing or planned residential should be prohibited. (IV.5,
           V.8, III. 6),

       10. Access to commercial uses should be prohibited from local residential streets. (IV.5, V.8, III.6)

INDUSTRIAL

       1. Industrial land use locations should be limited to population centers' growth areas. Limited industrial uses may be
           considered in rural areas provided the applicable below policies are satisfied. (IX.5, XI.1, V.8)

       2. Industrial uses should be located in industrial subdivisions or large industrial areas. Industrial zones should be at last five
           acres in area. (Y.9, VI.8, V.8)

       3. Smaller industrial areas may be allowed when it is an adaptive reuse of existing structures, when small-scale industries can
           be compatible with adjacent commercial uses with no harmful effects, or when adjacent to existing industrial areas. (V.6,
           V.8, IX.5)

       4. Performance standards should be developed for industrial uses as a measure of compatibility with their location. (V.8, IX.4,
           I.1)

       5. All potential industrial locations should have adequate public facilities and services. Access onto an arterial or non-
           residential collector street is critical for all but the least intense uses. Access to industrial areas through residential streets
           shall be restricted. (VI.1, VI.8, IV.5)

       6. Industrial development location and operation shall not diminish the desirability of existing and planned non-industrial uses,
           nor shall non-industrial uses be allowed to encroach upon existing or planned industrial sites. (V.8, IV.5, V.9)

       7. Outside the designated population centers' growth areas, certain industrial uses are encouraged. Natural resources
           extraction (and sometimes its processing) needs to locate at the raw materials source. Agri-business manufacturing is
           welcome in rural areas. Agricultural processing by necessity belongs in the rural area with these types of activities;
           adequate public facilities and environmental protection standards should be developed and enforced. (V.7, IX.3, XI.2)

COMMUNITY FACILITIES: RECREATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS

       1. Ford County will work with recreation site providers, public and private, to create an effective recreational program for all
              county citizens and visitors. (VII.4, III.1)

       2. Area churches, schools, and large employment centers will be encouraged to provide recreation facilities as they expand.
              (VII.4, III.4, VII.3)

       3. Ford County shall encourage the School Districts that serve the county to coordinate land use planning and school facility
              expansions in order to allow cost effective services to be provided while minimizing negative impacts on existing
              facilities. (II.7, VIII.3, VIII.7)

       4. Public buildings and facilities will locate with due consideration to the population served, accessibility, availability of
              adequate public utilities and services, and impact on the surrounding area. (VII.5, V.9)

       5. Public facilities, which by their nature must be at isolated locations, shall be situated and designed for accessibility and
              minimal negative impact to the surrounding area. (VII.6, V.3, I.1)

       6. Public buildings and grounds should set an example for quality development. (V.9, VII.3)

PUBLIC FACILITIES

1. Anticipate the projected service populations when determining public facility expansion needs. County buildings should be
designed for at least a twenty-year period, with expansion capabilities. (VII.5, II.7, VII.7, VIIL6)

       2. Expand the current criminal justice detention facilities. Explore locations that can accommodate all needs of the county
           criminal justice system, with room for expansion. Explore the possibilities for joint programs with adjacent counties. (VII.
           7, VIII.5, II.7)

       3. Both Community Corrections and Court Services are parts of the criminal justice system that have rapidly outgrown their
           current capacity. A plan for its expansion should be started immediately, with funding sources identified and alternative
           suitable locations selected for the operation. This service should be located in close proximity to other social services.
           (VII.7, II.7,VIII.6, V.8)

       4. The county health department is another service that has had rapid service demand increases. Ford County should identify
           alternative solutions for the increased demand, keeping in mind that the facility must remain readily accessible to all
           potential clients. (III.2, V.8, VII.6)

       5. Ford County will not become a municipal services provider. Water and sewerage treatment and distribution are municipal
           services, to be provided by area cities. In order to correct existing health and safety concerns, special service districts
           may be created. In such instances, the objective shall be to correct problem situations, and not to foster expansion of
           inappropriate land uses. (XI.1, VIII.7, XI.7, V.4)

6. Ford County will work towards flood control on a drainage basin basis. This will entail cooperation among the county and
its various municipal governments, and cooperative agreements with adjacent counties. (VIII.4, V.3, VIII.5)

       7. Areas with concentrations of people shall be adequately served with fire and emergency medical services. Fire and
           Emergency Medical Service facilities shall be located within an optimum response time to areas with concentrations of
           people. (VII.7, II.7, IV.6)

8. Locate new developments wherever possible in areas fully served by existing and adequate utilities. (V.1, VII.l, XI.1)

9. Utility installations within urban growth areas of Ford County municipalities shall be constructed to the standards of the
adjoining city. (VII.5, VII.l, VIII.7)

10. Locate only low intensity land uses on sites where public water or sewerage facilities are not available, but could be
serviced in the future. (VII.l, VII.5, XI.1)

     11. Services provided by townships should be evaluated to ascertain that optimum levels of efficiency are achieved. With a
            limited tax base and (for many) a declining population, townships struggle to provide basic services. The effectiveness
            and efficiency of service delivery is critical with limited resources. (VIII.2)

12. Continue efforts to control noxious weeds, vertebrate, and insect pests throughout Ford County. (XI.6)

TRANSPORTATION

       1. Develop transportation plans to create efficient delivery of people, goods, and services for Ford County and the region:
              · Work with state and federal officials to create a 4-lane (preferably limited access) route from Wichita to Pueblo (VI.5)
              · Work with state and federal officials to create a better Ford County connection with 1-70, preferably that would help
                neighboring Edwards (Kinsley) and Barton (Great Bend) Counties (VI. 1)
              · Complete the south by-pass around Dodge City for a complete loop of the city (VI.5, VI.6)
              · Study the tourism/recreation feasibility for pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails (VI.9)

       2. Encourage common access points and discourage frequent driveway cuts to protect the safety and usefulness of area
           collector and arterial streets. (VIA, VI.8)

       3. All land use proposals should have adequate street facilities to handle the anticipated traffic. They should provide
           adequate access to, from, and through the proposed development for proper collector and arterial street functioning and
           emergency vehicle access. Consideration shall be given to:
                                   (VI.4, V.8)
              · Access to a legally established roadway
              · Properly spaced access points (typically 500-600' apart and from intersections)
              · Linkage to the street system
              · Sight distances
              · Type, volume, and speed of traffic
              · Turning movements
              · Internal circulation
              · Need for frontage roads, street widening, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and turn lanes

       4. Restrict development that burdens township roads with more traffic than their design, and reject improvement proposals
           along township roads unless resources are readily available for their maintenance. (VI.2, VI.8, IV.6)

       5. Study alternatives for truck traffic around Spearville and Wright. (VI.1)

       6. Work towards making the former Landfill Road a state-connecting route. (VI.6)

       7. Develop a multi-year county road paving and bridge replacement program an aspect of a Ford County Capital
           Improvements Program. (VI.7, VII.6)

       8. Support continued improvements to the Dodge City Regional Airport. Such expansion shall be carefully planned to
           minimize potential land use conflicts and hazardous conditions. Land use controls suggested by the 1992 Airport Master
           Plan for surrounding properties shall be considered with all development proposals. (VI.10)

       9. All developments shall provide adequate off-street parking and loading space of sufficient quantity and adequate design
            for the type and intensity of the proposed use. (VI.8, V.2)

    10. Support the development and implementation of a thoroughfare plan for the 'Dodge City area (VI.6)

     11. In designing new transportation system or improving existing ones, give due consideration to minimizing fiscal and social
           costs (private, public, environmental, and community). (VI.2, VI.3)

    12. Provide necessary support for county rail systems. AMTRAK should continue its stop in Ford County. Rail service to grain
          elevators is critical to the area economy, and must be maintained. (VI.11)

    13. Develop standards for construction of private streets and criteria for when they are appropriate. (VI.1, VI.2)

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

       1. In general, strive to protect the Ford County natural and cultural environment. The environment is fragile, and protection is
           much easier than restoration.
              · Develop stringent, concise environmental standards for Ford County conditional use zoning reviews. (V.3, V.9, VII.4)
              · Identify environmentally sensitive areas that need to be protected. (X.5, V.3, I.4, VII.4)
              · Develop a reward system for sensitive development practices. (I.1, V.9, V.3, X.6)

       2. Ford County is historically based in agriculture. The Agri-business and tourism economies rely on retention of farmland
           Environmental protection must include preservation of agricultural areas.
              · Identify the most productive and threatened agricultural properties. (X4, I.2, XI.4)
              · Continue through zoning and extension of public facilities to limit non-agricultural development outside projected urban
                service areas. (X.l, VIl.6, XI.7, Y.5)

       3. Groundwater in all of Southwest Kansas is the most precious and nearly non-renewal natural resource. Its protection should
           be the highest priority for Ford County. (I.3, XI.5, VIII.4)
              · Work with the Groundwater Management District Number 3. Adopt as policy reports and position papers developed to
                conserve groundwater resources. Attend and actively participate in District meetings.
              · Preserve aquifer recharge areas. Protect floodplains from unwarranted development and encroachments.
              · Develop and adopt wellhead protection measures.

       4. Ford County history is of statewide importance. Dodge City and its environs are internationally known, and the most
           recognized place name in Kansas. The county should take every effort to emphasize its place in this historical context.
              · Support a county-wide inventory of archeological, historic, and architectural sites of merit (X5, I.4, X.l)
              · Support measures to protect area cultural resources. (X4, III. 1, VII.4, XII, X3)
              · Encourage development of facilities and activities, which enhance area cultural resources. (IX.2, III.1, X.2, VIII.3, XI.1,
                X5)

       5. Area wildlife is an economic feature of the Ford County landscape. The hunting season is a regional attraction. Wildlife
           conservation is also a major component of overall environmental conservation.
              · Identify and inventory the most critically threatened wildlife habitats in Ford County. (I.5, X.l, X6)
              · Work with environmental and sporting groups to promote awareness of critically sensitive areas. (I.5, V.3, VII.4)
              · Support programs that foster preservation of threatened wildlife habitats. (X.6, VI.3, V.3)

       6. Citizen survey results for this plan indicated that dumping and littering were a major concern in all areas of Ford County.
          The county and its population centers should take positive action to curb this blighting influence on the visual
            environment. (I.6, III.6, IV.4)
              · Illegal dumping and littering do not stop at political boundaries; a multi-jurisdictional program among Ford County and its
                municipalities will be more effective than individual efforts.
              · Develop and adopt strongly worded resolutions to curb dumping and littering.
              · Create an effective mechanism to enforce adopted resolutions.

       7. Confined animal feeding operations make an important contribution to the area economy. They are an environmental
           planning concern due to the adverse impacts on neighboring land uses and the potential for surface and groundwater
            contamination. (V.7, V.3, V.9)
              · Support Kansas State University and other research into methods to control the negative environmental effects of
                confined feeding operations.
              · Work towards adoption of state legislation creating more stringent state standards for the sitting and operation of
                confined feeding operations.
              · Work towards adoption of state legislation granting more precise local control over location standards for sitting
                confined feeding operations.

       8. Due to our topography and weather, drainage and flooding are primary planning concerns. Improper drainage can cause
           serious property and personal damage. Ford County should strive to minimize flood damage through a number of
           techniques that become a unified flood management program for the area. (I.1, VIII.4, I.3, XI.5, V.3)
              · Regulate development in flood hazard areas by: restricting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due
                to water or erosion hazards; requiring that uses vulnerable to flooding, including facilities which serve such uses, be
                protected against flood damage; and controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural
                barriers.
              · Adequate drainage control measures for new development shall ensure that: no significant increase in erosion,
                sedimentation, or flooding occurs as a result of the development; the entire development retains as much storm water
                runoff as it creates unless adequate on-site or off-site facilities already exist which can handle all potential runoff; and
                storm water runoff will not become a source of water pollution.
              · Protect and enhance storm water drainage' systems by: minimizing filling, grading, dredging, or other activity which may
                increase erosion, sedimentation, or flood damage; maintaining existing drainage ways clear of obstructions; employing
               sound management practices for erosion and sedimentation control during and after soil disturbing activities; and
               considering drainage issues as they affect entire drainage basins.

HOUSING

Substandard housing conditions in Ford County are a severe problem, as indicated by the 1990 census. Programs need to address several factors-not merely the structural conditions, but the various causes of neighborhood deterioration.

       1. Support efforts to provide additional housing units throughout Ford County. While emphasis should be given to affordable
            housing, opportunities for decent housing should be available to all income ranges. Especially needed are additional:
                     · Safe, decent and sanitary multi-family and single family rental units (IV.3)
                     · Quality manufactured housing parks (IV.2)
                     · Rehabilitated older housing for home ownership (IV.4)
                     · New housing for middle income home ownership (IV.3)

       2. New housing development should follow the policies under the LAND USE: LOCATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS-
           RESIDENTIAL section of this plan's Policies and Strategies. See LAND USE RESIDENTIAL.

       3. The existing housing stock within Ford County population centers should be conserved with a variety of programs such as
            tax incentives, state grants, and technical assistance. (IV.1, IV.4)

       4. Ford County should pursue a limited property maintenance code to maintain standard conditions where residential
           neighborhoods exist in otherwise rural areas. The county further encourages population centers to adopt and enforce
           housing maintenance codes within their respective jurisdictions, and pursue methods for municipalities to help enforce
           minimum standards within their respective projected growth areas. (IV.1, III. 6)

       5. As deteriorating neighborhood conditions are just as responsible for substandard living as structural issues, Ford County
           and its municipalities should strive to improve the entire residential environment (vacant lots, streets, utilities, services).
           (IV.4, III.6)

       6. Creation of new housing on vacant and underutilized lots within existing neighborhoods should be encouraged. This is
           known as infill housing. Design and density should be compatible with the neighborhood characteristics. (IV.7, IV.3)

GOVERNMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS / CONTINUED PLANNING

       1. Explore the benefits of retaining an administrator for Ford County for more efficient and effective governmental operations.
           (VII.I-7)

       2. Examine the effectiveness and efficiency benefits of consolidating governmental functions among various jurisdictions
          within Ford County. Merger of certain operations may overcome some inefficiency, and contractual agreements for
           certain operations may provide financial benefits. (VIII.2, VIII.3)

       3. Encourage and strengthen intergovernmental cooperation among Ford County jurisdictions including: governing bodies,
           school districts, townships, drainage districts; and with neighboring jurisdictions that share common issues such as:
           regional drainage districts, multi-county economic development efforts. (VIII.3, VIII.5)

       4. Plan for and budget capital funds for the projected population. County capital outlays should be for traditional county funded
           activities-water and sanitary sewerage expansions, intense fire and law enforcement protection, and municipalities
           and village special purpose districts should fund similar municipal service needs. (VIII.6, VII.5, VI.7, II.1)

       5. Encourage municipalities and villages to support housing and commercial needs for their respective future populations.
           (IX.5, 11.3, IV.3, XU)

       6. Area population centers should determine their respective preferred rates of growth, mindful of the costs of growth.
           Population centers should ascertain that public infrastructure and services are or will be available for the desired
           future populations. (II.3, VII. I, VII.5, II.7)

       7. Each jurisdiction within Ford County should develop specific strategic plans for their specific needs. This current county
           comprehensive plan provides the framework, background data, goals and objectives, and much of the citizen input
           required for such plans. (II. 5, VII. 2, II. 7, VIII. 7)

       8. This plan should be readily amended as needed. The plan must not be static. As additional plans are developed for the
            area, the planning commission needs to incorporate them into the comprehensive plan. As new and pertinent
            information becomes available, it should be made part of the overall plan. (II.3, II.8)

       9. Prepare more detailed elements to this comprehensive plan for issues identified as critical. Identified thus far as critical
           issues which should be detailed in future plan amendments are: (II.4, II.6, II.8)

                     · Confined feedlot operations and standards
                     · Groundwater management
                     · Housing and neighborhood stabilization

New issues affecting the plan should be addressed by plan amendments as they arise. Examples could possibly include:

                     · Arterial road construction, affecting surrounding land use patterns
                     · Changing economic conditions, as when a major employment center creates demand for utilities
                     · Changing social conditions, as when a significant shift in a population segment requires special services (the
                       elderly, for example)

       10. Prepare detailed standards and criteria for what is considered adequate levels of utilities/services. Other portions of this
             plan require such adequate levels, efficiently provided, prior to development proposal approval. This concept should be
             made as clear as possible for area developers. (VI.1, VII.5, II.6)

       11. Work with area municipalities to utilize traditional zoning maps and districts within urban growth fringe areas. As these
             areas are likely to become part of the adjacent city, development patterns and zoning should be consistent with the
             municipal guidelines. (II.3, Y.6, Y.9)

       12. The Zoning Board and County Commission should review the entire comprehensive plan when evaluating development
              proposals. Policies, strategies, goals, and objectives may seem conflicting when taken individually out of context. A
             development proposal covers the entire range of issues, not merely one or a few. (II.2)

       13. Make certain that the public interest and citizen participation are considered in all development decisions. (VIII. 1)

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMING

"Whenever the planning commission has adopted and certified the comprehensive plan ... no public facility or public utility of a type embraced within the recommendations of the comprehensive plan or portion thereof shall be constructed without first being submitted to and being approved by the planning commission as being in conformity with the plan." K.S.A. 12-748

Ford County should develop a comprehensive Capital Improvements Program at least every two years. For purposes of this comprehensive plan, it should include projected activities for a five or six year period, identifying major capital projects and sources of funding. Only activities, which are “embraced by the plan”, need be included. These activities include:

                     · Bridge replacement and street paving programs
                     · Highway programs which affect county arterial streets
                     · Locations for and construction of new county facilities
                     · Maintenance, remodeling, re-surfacing streets, new vehicles, etc. are operating costs within the meaning of Capital
                       Improvements Programming, and are not part of the comprehensive planning process.

State Statutes at K.S.A. 19-120 allow counties to establish a Capital Improvement Fund when a program of capital expenses is developed. Ford County established such a fund in 1987. With this comprehensive plan adoption, each proposed Capital Improvement Fund expense that is within the definition of a capital expense will need planning commission review (either as a capital fund program proposal, or individually prior to undertaking the activity).

A Capital Improvement Program budget as approved by the County Commission may include for administrative purposes items that are not activities, which are "embraced by the plan." For instance, Ford County may wish to monitor equipment purchases through capital budgeting-even though vehicles, computers, etc. are not technically capital expenses.

For fiscal year 1998 Ford County had approximately the following amounts in reserve funds, many of which may be allotted for capital projects:

In addition, the county annually pays out $497,000 to payoff-bonded indebtedness on renovations to the County Court House and Government Center. The $250,000 payment for the Court House will be paid off in the year 2002, and the $147,000 for the Government Center also in 2002.

The above figures may appear as significant revenue sources for the capital items discussed in this plan. They unfortunately are not. Replacement of ONE Bridge can easily cost $181,500. These Reserve Funds are not annual appropriations; rather, they are cash balances (additional monies can be appropriated). Also much of the available funds are required for routine maintenance or other non-capital activities. Payments on bonded debt are committed for the next three years.

Until 1998, a 1/4 of one-cent sales tax was available for major highway improvements. This was used to fund the local match for the Southeast Bypass and other major projects. (The Kansas Department of Transportation requires local governments to contribute at least 25 percent of any major project cost.) In 1998 the county voters' decided that sales tax proceeds should be utilized to fund the Family Facilities

Entertainment projects and activities. The county is at the maximum allowable local sales tax option with that vote. Individual state legislation is required to increase the available local sales tax levy.

The funds needed for a Capital Improvement Program cannot be covered by the general fund and reserve funds of the county. The needs anticipated by this comprehensive plan's recommendations run to substantial expenditures. Construction of new county facilities such as a criminal justice center will require debt financing and a vote of the citizens. Major road construction and bridge replacement activities will depend on appropriate financing from state highway funded programs.

Tight budgets and funds are reasons to advocate a Capital Improvements Program. This tool allows the County Commission to set priorities for capital needs, and project from where funds may be obtained. The planning commission is available to help with recommending priorities. Effective capital improvements programming process can lead to many benefits. Specifically, it can:

                            · Ensure that plans for community facilities are in fact carried out;
                            · Better schedule public improvements that require more than one year to construct;
                            · Provide an opportunity for long-range financial planning and management;
                            · Help stabilize tax rates through intelligent debt management; and
                            · Avoid scheduling errors such as paving a road one year when utilities are scheduled under it next year.

Capital improvements programming is the multi-year scheduling of public physical improvements. The scheduling is based on studies of fiscal resources available and the choice of specific improvements to be constructed for that time period (usually 5-6 years). The first year of such a schedule becomes the capital improvements budget. Only the first year budget is legally binding on the community. Future years may see priorities change.

UNINCORPORATED FORD COUNTY CITIZEN SURVEY

The next twenty pages are a tabulation of the results from the postcard survey of unincorporated Ford County. They are listed as either positives or negatives. The table lists the information by township, using the following code:

Grant Powers - - Chairman Voting Member 11361 130 Rd Spearville, KS 67876 316-826-3702	Terry Janson Voting Member 2809 Meadowlark Ln., Dodge City, KS 67801 316-225-5221
Frank Mages Voting Member 12632 Backtrail Rd Spearville, KS 67876 316-385-2595	Mike Shafer Voting Member 401 E. Ave. A, Spearville, KS 67876 316-385-2677 june1941@ucom.net
Lewis Lawson Voting Member 719 N Dellinger St., Bucklin KS 67834 316-826-3553	Lowell Brakey Voting Member P.O. Box 423, Dodge City, KS 67801 316-225-1957 voyager@pld.com
Arlen Eaton Voting Member 10564 Lariat Rd., Dodge City, KS 67801 316-225-1111	Mike Gurnee City of Dodge City, Kansas 806 Second Ave., Dodge City, KS 67801 316-225-8105 mikeg@trails.net
Beverly Temaat Voting Member 10988 129 Rd. Spearville, KS 67876 316-385-2551	Chris Dunn, Ford County Planning & Zoning 100 Gunsmoke, Dodge City, KS 67801 316-227-4739 zone@fordcountv.net
Mike Bosley Voting Member 2315 1st Ave. Dodge City, KS 67801 316-227-3889	Also Assisting: Kevin Shrader Darlene Hemphill Dennis Veatch Dean Chesnut
Robert Sobba Voting Member 10119 Wrangler Rd, Fowler KS 67844 316-646-5786

Kansas Water Usage
Irrigation	94%
Public/Municipal	3%
Industrial	2%
Livestock	0.5%
Rural Domestic	0.4%

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
1930 -1990 POPULATION
	1930	1940	1950	1960	1970	1980	1990
FORD COUNTY	20647	17254	19670	20938	22587	24315	27463
DODGE CITY	10059	8487	11262	13520	14602	18001	21129
BUCKLIN	917	832	824	752	771	786	710
FORD	382	296	244	252	246	272	247
SPEARVILLE	703	603	610	602	738	693	716
UNINCORP. COUNTY	8586	7036	6730	5812	6230	4563	4661

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
TOWNSHIP POPULATION TRENDS
	1970	1980	1990		1970	1980	1990
BLOOM	149	132	134	GRANDVIEW	862	783	759
BUCKLIN	66	157	138	RICHLAND	863	319	673
CONCORD	124	99	115	ROYAL	97	107	106
DODGE	2348	884	674	SODVILLE	135	129	124
ENTERPRISE	545	633	736	SPEARVILLE	611	479	435
FAIRVIEW	189	320	309	WHEATLAND	342	235	210
FORD	147	152	156	WILBURN	153	134	92
NOTE: Pleasant Valley Township had 83 persons in the 1970 census and was merged with Bucklin Township before 1980.

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
CHANGE IN MINORITY POPULATION
	1970	1980	1990
HISPANIC	1212	1556	4083
ASIAN	NA	84	663
BLACK	344	354	473
NATIVE AMERICAN	28	79	155

HISTORY	3
ENVIRONMENT	8
POPULATION	13
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS	17
HOUSING	19
LAND USE	21
TRANSPORTATION	23
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES	28
ECONOMIC ANALYSES	32

Agriculture	Recreation
Residential	Education
Commercial	Public buildings
Industrial	Other community facilities

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
1990 AGE COHORTS
	TOTAL POPULATION	MINORITY POPULATION
PRE-SCHOOL	9.0%	18.6%
SCHOOL AGE	23.9%	24.8%
WORKING AGE	54.5%	53.6%
ELDERLY	12.6%	2.9%
The vast majority of the minority population lives in Dodge City (5,062 out of 5,374 minority persons in 1990).

FORD COUNTY-DODGE CITY, KANSAS
POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
	1996	2000	2010	2020	2030
FORD COUNTY	29309	31776	35895	40614	45497
DODGE CITY	23008	25421	30511	36553	40947

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS
SOCIAL INDICATORS
	1980	1990
	FORD COUNTY	FORD COUNTY	DODGE CITY	BUCKLIN	FORD	SPEAR- VILLE	STATE
	FORD COUNTY	FORD COUNTY	DODGE CITY			SPEAR- VILLE
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD	2.68	2.69	2.68	2.32	3.38	3.13	2.53
%COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL	73.7	76.6	74.9	84.4	69.4	82	81.3
% FEMALES IN WORK FORCE	51.2	51.9	60.6	51.1	38.7	55.8	58.0
% FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLD	------	10.8	12.1	7.3	6.3	7.9	11.9
%FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLD W/CHILDREN	------	64.4	64.9	64.3	100	33.3	64.5
FEMALES IN WORK FORCE W/CHILDREN <6	825	1,858	1,467	50	19	39	------
CHILDREN<6, ALL PARENTS WORKD	-----	1,924	1,568	39	5	48	------
BELOW POVERTY LEVEL:
#PERSONS	2,225	3,143	2,553	66	25	30	------
%PERSONS	9.5	11.9	12.6	9.3	10.1	4.2	11.5
#FAMILIES	450	592	474	21	7	8	------
%FAMILIES	6.9	8.3	8.3	8.6	10.9	4.2	8.3
#CHILDREN<18	619	1,120	896	26	6	7	------
%CHILDREN<18	8.8	14.6	15.2	9.3	7.8	3.4	13.9
#ELDERLY	441	313	238	16	10	9	------
% ELDERLY	14.7	10	10.6	9.4	30.3	6.4	12
%DISABLED PERSONS 16-64	7	7.6	8	3.5	9.2	4.2	7.2
%DISABLED PERSONS 16-24PREVENTED FROM WORK	2.6	2.8	2.9	1.1	9.2	1.1	3.2

FORD COUNTY. KANSAS
HOUSING CONDITIONS
	1980	1990
	FORD COUNTY	FORD COUNTY	DODGE CITY	BUCKLIN	FORD	SPEAR- VILLE
HOUSING UNITS	9832	10842	8258	355	122	308
MOBILE HOMES	1019	1340	795	27	34	20
OCCUPIED UNITS	8776	9872	7609	306	92	281
OWNER OCCUPIED	6192	6407	4654	250	72	227
RENTER OCCUPIED	2584	3465	2955	56	20	54
OVERCROWDED UNITES	234	564	503	5	1	6
%LACKING COMPLETE PLUMBING	1.2	1.3	.5	.5	2.5	3.5
%LACKING COMPLETE KITCHEN	1.5	2	1.4	1.1	2.5	.7

SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATES
USD 443	46.99
USD 381	48.52
USD 459	41.37

Barton (Great Bend)	Lyon (Emporia)
Cowley (Arkansas City/Winfield)	McPherson (McPhersonlLinsborg)
Crawford (Pittsburg)	Montgomery(Coffeyville/Independenced)
Ellis (Hays)	Reno (Hutchinson)
Finney (Garden City)	Riley (Manhattan)
Ford (Dodge City)	Saline (Salina)
Geary (Junction City)	Seward (Liberal)

ECONOMIC INDICATORS
	KANSAS	PEERS	FORD CO.
1990-96 COUNTY PULL FACTOR	1.00	1.05	1.24
1988-94 RETAIL SALES GROWTH	13.80	9.10	15.20
1996 MEDIAN WAGES	23219	19882	20575
1997 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME	42900	37600	40300
1990 MEDIAN HOUSING VALUE	52200	45100	48900
1996 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE	4.50	4.60	4.00
SOURCE: Kansas Statistical Abstract-1996, Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, University of Kansas

EMPLOYED CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE	15,091
BEA EMPLOYMENT	18,965
COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS	12,323

EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR

		1984
	KANSAS		PEERS	FORD CO.

AG SERVICES & MINING	3.05%		2.78%	0.50%
CONSTRUCTION	5.33%		5.00%	4.23%
MANUFACTURING	25.04%		26.04%	26.37%
TRANSP & UTILITIES	6.70%		5.55%	5.57%
WHOLESALE	8.07%		6.80%	9.34%
RETAIL	22.97%		24.61%	25.94%
FINANCE/INSURANCE/REALTY	7.30%		5.14%	4.50%
SERVICES	24.14%		23.05%	22.43%
UNCLASSIFIED	1.07%		1.05%	1.13%

		1995

	KANSAS		PEERS	FORD CO.

AG SERVICES & MINING	1.59%		1.70%	0.53%
CONSTRUCTION	5.29%		4.58%	3.64%
MANUFACTURING	19.89%		26.00%	35.48%
TRANSP & UTILITIES	6.34%		4.49%	5.44%
WHOLESALE	7.24%		5.47%	8.41%
RETAIL	22.10%		24.83%	22.24%
FINANCE/INSURANCE/REALTY	6.24%		4.12%	3.01%
SERVICES	31.22%		29.13%	21.07%
UNCLASSIFIED	0.07%		0.07%	0.18%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (www.census.gov)

FORD COUNTY, KANSAS

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS

YEAR	NUMBER FARMS	R A N K	ACRES HARVESTED	R A N K	VALUE- CROPS ($000)	R A N K	VALUE- POULTRY LIVESTOCK ($000)	R A N K	FARM EMPLOYMENT	R A N K
1985	824	31	371,970	5	61,310	4	80,788	2	1,181	21
1986	808	30	357,170	5	43,181	3	80,417	1	1,087	20
1987	813	28	316,550	6	39,363	5	69,542	2	1,109	21
1988	812	28	282,250	10	50,136	7	94,993	2	1,086	21
1989	810	23	261,850	11	35,082	13	90,607	3	1,084	18
1990	810	23	298,050	12	46,842	6	97,041	3	1,062	20
1991	810	23	290,350	11	41,029	15	87,550	4	1,046	19
1992	770	24	281,100	12	39,782	18	87,093	4	1,025	20
1993	700	27	325,650	9	62,550	4	91,243	4	1,017	21
1994	700	27	329,610	11	57,312	11	96,316	4	985	20
1995	740	27	328,340	10	57,569	14	87,801	4	1000	NA
SOURCE: County Profile Report, Institute for Pubic Policy and Business Research, University of Kansas, April 1997

PEER COUNTIES

PERCENT EMPLOYEES BY BUSINESS SECTOR

1984-1995

	B A R T O N	C O W L E Y	C R A W F O R D	E L L I S	F I N N E Y	F O R D	G E A R Y	L Y O N	M C P H E R S O N	M O N T G O M E R Y	R E N O	R I L E Y	S A L I N E	S E W A R D	P E R S A V E R A G E	K A N S A S
AG/MINING	11.7 6.4	3.0 1.7	2.2 1.4	9.3 3.0	1.2 2.5	0.5 0.5	0.8 0.0	0.6 0.5	2.2 1.5	4.3 1.3	0.9 0.7	0.7 1.3	0.4 0.4	8.1 0.1	2.8 1.7	3.1 1.6
CONSTRUC- TION	6.2 7.0	3.1 2.9	3.7 3.7	5.7 5.6	6.5 5.4	4.2 3.6	2.5 2.4	2.8 2.3	4.0 3.9	3.2 2.8	6.3 6.2	7.7 6.5	6.5 5.0	2.6 0.0	5.0 4.6	5.3 5.3
MAUNFAC- TURING	18.5 15.3	36.1 27.2	29.0 27.4	14.1 10.6	31.7 33.3	26.4 35.5	12.3 7.0	39.4 39.8	29.1 30.5	39.1 38.1	27.6 22.3	8.8 5.9	22.5 27.5	26.9 30.1	26.0 25.6	25.0 19.9
TRANSPOR- TATION	7.0 5.3	4.4 2.2	5.6 3.1	5.4 4.0	5.5 5.7	5.6 5.4	9.9 11.5	4.2 4.1	2.4 4.5	6.9 7.0	4.6 3.0	3.3 2.5	4.4 3.4	15.2 7.2	5.6 4.5	6.7 6.3
WHOLESALE	8.8 7.2	5.0 3.2	6.7 7.1	6.2 4.7	7.3 5.9	9.3 8.4	3.9 2.5	3.7 4.6	6.1 3.9	3.7 3.7	9.0 7.8	4.6 3.3	9.1 6.3	7.9 4.6	6.8 5.5	8.1 7.2
RETAIL	21.4 21.9	22.7 21.0	22.2 22.6	31.6 31.7	19.8 21.0	25.9 22.2	41.6 36.4	22.0 20.7	15.8 16.9	19.8 19.7	24.1 27.9	38.4 37.8	24.4 24.8	22.7 23.1	24.6 24.8	23.0 22.1
F I R E	3.6 3.9	4.0 3.3	5.4 3.9	4.7 4.1	3.9 3.5	4.5 3.0	5.6 5.0	4.9 2.5	6.4 5.7	4.9 3.1	5.2 4.1	8.9 8.9	5.2 3.3	4.1 3.3	5.1 4.1	7.3 6.2
SERVICES	21.0 33.0	21.0 39.0	24.6 30.6	25.9 36.3	22.5 30.6	22.4 21.1	23.3 33.8	21.4 25.5	33.1 33.1	17.4 24.2	21.5 28.1	26.6 33.7	26.5 29.3	11.6 22.0	23.1 29.1	24.1 31.2
UNCLASS	1.7 0.1	0.8 0.0	1.1 0.1	0.9 0.1	1.7 0.1	1.1 0.2	0.9 0.1	1.0 0.1	0.8 0.1	0.8 0.1	0.9 0.0	1.1 0.0	0.9 0.0	1.0 0.0	1.1 0.1	1.1 0.1
SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU, COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS TOP NUMBER:1984
BOTTOM NUMBER: 1995
FIRE: FINANCE, INSURANCE REAL ESTATE

BL	Bloom	GR	Grandview
BU	Bucklin	RI	Richland
CO	Concord	RO	Royal
DO	Dodge	SO	Sodville
EN	Enterprise	SP	Spearville
FA	Fairview	WH	Wheatland
FO	Ford	WI	Wilburn
0 Not Stated

Capital Improvement Reserve Fund	$541,800
Building Improvement Reserve Fund	$390,000
Equipment Reserve Fund	$1,000,000
Special Bridge Reserve Fund	$181,500