Vesom 1




                      Kathy Vesom

                Kansas State University

Analysis of Neighborhood Revitaliz...
Vesom 2

                     Table of Contents

1.   Introduction                        3-4




2.   Background         ...
Vesom 3

                         Introduction

       In any given major city or small town, there are

areas that have d...
Vesom 4


discussion on the background of NRP.    It is hypothesized

that if the program is successful, there will be an
...
Vesom 5


Revitalization Program.9   The study found that “in addition

to making a significant difference in increasing t...
Vesom 6


     They continue quot;city agencies have not undergone

complementary reforms to reorganize themselves in ways...
Vesom 7


     jobs. Therefore citywide economic development should
     be a primary focus of public policy.”23

     Man...
Vesom 8


assistance, education, leadership training, case

management, home ownership, and community design.quot;30

    ...
Vesom 9


     improvements that are in need of conservation or
     preservation due to age, history and
     architectur...
Vesom 10


agencies in Geary County, the mill levy for the county is

prepared by county clerk.47   The City of Junction C...
Vesom 11


causing higher property values which in turn resulted in

higher taxes.54

     The increase in population migh...
Vesom 12


data were obtained from the Comprehensive Annual Financial

Reports.57

     Data from 1992 – 2005 were provide...
Vesom 13


     Unemployment data were obtained from Micah Ross,

Research Analyst for the Kansas Department of Labor.65

...
Vesom 14


“Improvement Value” was used in this analysis since this

represents estimated appraised values utilizing NRP.7...
Vesom 15


         19.3%, annual sales tax revenue per capita increased

         44.77%, job growth increased 24.5%, tot...
Vesom 16

b
Sixty-one NRP applicants had 253 jobs that existed prior to

NRP utilization.81
c
Sixty-one NRP applicants cre...
Vesom 17


have proved that NRP has been successful and beneficial to

Junction City.

     Data from Table 1 demonstrates...
Vesom 18


in population may have been the result of soldiers’

deployment.

     In theory, property valuation should be ...
Vesom 19

                           Bibliography

1.   Minneapolis NRP.    (n.d.).    Minneapolis Neighborhood

     Revi...
Vesom 20


9.    Minneapolis NRP, op. cit..

10.   Ibid.

11.   Fagotto, E. and Fung. A.   (2005, Feb. 15).   The

      M...
Vesom 21


25.   Ibid., p. 131.

26.   Hamlin, R. E. and Lyons, T. S. (1996).        Economy

      Without Walls:   Manag...
Vesom 22


      Property Taxes.    Retrieved April 29, 2008, from

      http://www.geary.kansasgov.com/MV2Base.asp?VarCN...
Vesom 23


54.   Wikipedia.   (2007, Mar. 12).     California

      Proposition 13 (1978).   Retrieved March 25, 2007, fr...
Vesom 24


      Year Ended December 31, 2004, p. 83; Comprehensive

      Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year End...
Vesom 25


72.   Ibid.

73.   Barnes, R. D.    (personal communication, 2006).

74.   Schnurr, J.   (personal communicatio...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Kathy Vesom Internship Report Final Copy

813

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
813
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Kathy Vesom Internship Report Final Copy"

  1. 1. Vesom 1 Kathy Vesom Kansas State University Analysis of Neighborhood Revitalization Plan in Junction City, KS Internship Paper May 9, 2008
  2. 2. Vesom 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3-4 2. Background 4 3. Literature Review 4-8 4. Methodology 8 - 14 5. Results 14 - 16 6. Conclusions & Recommendations 16 - 18 7. Bibliography 19 - 25
  3. 3. Vesom 3 Introduction In any given major city or small town, there are areas that have deteriorated both physically in appearance and economically. This economic deterioration in conjunction with deterioration of overall physical appearance in these neighborhoods may have been caused by a number of factors, e.g. lack of jobs, high crime or people simply moving away to new neighborhoods. Neighborhood revitalization is one solution that many cities have used to improve the economic and physical appearance of these neighborhoods. A program evaluator found that the Neighborhood Revitalization Program in Minneapolis made a significant difference in increasing the number of repairs and improvements in the Minneapolis housing stock.1 This internship paper will briefly evaluate Junction City's Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (NRP) by looking at population, crime statistics, job growth, sales tax revenue, property valuations and unemployment rates between 1992 and 2006. To understand NRP, the background of NRP and problems in analyzing this program will be discussed in this paper. In addition, the property valuations before and after program implementation of revitalized areas will be discussed. State laws will be discussed as part of the
  4. 4. Vesom 4 discussion on the background of NRP. It is hypothesized that if the program is successful, there will be an increase in population, a reduction in crime, an increase in job growth, an increase in sales tax revenue, increase in property valuations and a decrease in unemployment rates in Junction City. Background The Neighborhood Revitalization Act (NRA) was passed by the Kansas Legislature in 1994.2 It provides for property owners to receive tax rebates for making renovations and improvements to their property.3 There has been little opposition to this state law.4,5 Prior to the passing of this legislation, Mike Hall notes quot;there seemed to be no real opposition to it, but not a lot of enthusiasm at first, either.quot;6 The Attorney General of Kansas and the Assistant Attorney General felt that the tax rebate should be payable to the owner of the property who is liable to pay the taxes.7 Literature Review A recent literature search of evaluating neighborhood revitalization programs has resulted in limited success. There have been in depth studies utilizing complex techniques such as econometrics in evaluation.8 However, a study has been done on the Minneapolis Neighborhood
  5. 5. Vesom 5 Revitalization Program.9 The study found that “in addition to making a significant difference in increasing the number of repairs and improvements in the Minneapolis housing stock, the NRP made a significant difference in increasing homeownership rates in Minneapolis neighborhoods.”10 Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung state: “Under this program, neighborhood associations develop „action plans‟ that articulate residents‟ needs and also strategies and projects to meet those needs. These associations work with city agencies, private contractors and other organizations to implement those strategies and projects to meet those needs.”11 They state “the NRP was conceived as a program to join residents and city agencies in the business of neighborhood improvement.”12 They analyzed the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program on the basis of secondary literature, program evaluations, data relative to neighborhood characteristics, allocations and expenditures made available by NRP and individual and group interviews.13 They state quot;even though many organizations predate NRP, the program resuscitated many neighborhood organizations, and stabilized and contributed to the growth of many others.quot;14 They state quot;property values have risen in Minneapolis, and this may be in part due to NRP activities.quot;15 They criticize NRP in that the program quot;did not transform city agencies.quot;16
  6. 6. Vesom 6 They continue quot;city agencies have not undergone complementary reforms to reorganize themselves in ways to accommodate neighborhood input in their planning and decision-making.quot;17 They have observed that “inter-agency collaboration did occur for a number of projects…but departments did not adopt more integrated approaches to work with neighborhoods.”18 Finally, they state “Since NRP’s success depends in large measure upon cooperation with and among city agencies, a clearer system of incentives and governance rules would have improved the program’s efficacy.”19 To remedy these problems, they suggest that “incentives could have been designed for city agencies, such as large pools of dedicated funding to spend exclusively on NRP projects.”20 In addition, they believed that “the governance structure defining the interaction between the city and the neighborhoods should have been spelled out more clearly, assigning agencies precise roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis neighborhoods.”21 One author has some thoughts on guidelines on neighborhood revitalization.22 Roger Ahlbrandt, Jr. states the following: “Public policy for neighborhood renewal should be formulated on several levels. Cities must be concerned with the overall loss in population and
  7. 7. Vesom 7 jobs. Therefore citywide economic development should be a primary focus of public policy.”23 Many cities throughout the U.S. have utilized neighborhood revitalization. Ahlbrandt, Jr. notes the following: “Pittsburgh has integrated housing, economic development, and city service and infrastructure improvements as circumstances have warranted. This strategy is based on a recognition that a comprehensive, targeted approach to neighborhood revitalization is necessary in order to stem decline and to raise the level of confidence in the neighborhood's future on the part of home owners, investors, and others who affect its quality of life and the strength of its economic base.”24 While Pittsburgh may have a unique approach to neighborhood revitalization,25 Louisville, Kentucky, has also a unique program.26 The city utilizes Housing and Neighborhood Development Strategies (HANDS), an innovative neighborhood revitalization program which was created in 1993 under a three-year, $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education and operated by the University of Louisville.27 Roger Hamlin and Thomas Lyons state that quot;the focus of HANDS's efforts is the low-income, inner city neighborhood on the city's west side known as Russell.quot;28 There are numerous and a wide range of collaborators within HANDS, such as the City of Louisville, Habitat for Humanity as well as local churches.29 Hamlin and Lyons state that quot;HANDS offers job training, entrepreneurship
  8. 8. Vesom 8 assistance, education, leadership training, case management, home ownership, and community design.quot;30 Methodology In contrast to community based neighborhood revitalization programs in Minneapolis and Louisville, the neighborhood revitalization program in Junction City is mostly focused on individual properties. On October 21, 1996, the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (NRP) was adopted by the City of Junction City and has since undergone 13 revisions.31 The Original Plan of NRP established the purpose, rules and physical boundaries of NRP areas.32 Subsequent revisions further expanded these areas and rules.33 The latest revision was on Feb. 6, 2006.34 NRP is intended to promote the revitalization and development of the City of Junction City by stimulating new construction, and the rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment of specified areas in order to protect the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city by offering certain incentives which include property tax rebates.35 In the 13th NRP revision, then mayor Jack Taylor states the following: “…the Neighborhood Revitalization Areas designated by the City Commissioners have dilapidated, deteriorated and deteriorating structures, buildings and
  9. 9. Vesom 9 improvements that are in need of conservation or preservation due to age, history and architecture…there are a substantial number of deteriorated structures and other conditions that substantially impair the sound growth of Geary County.”36 There is a three year application period for NRP.37 The Junction City-Geary County (JCGC) Economic Development states the following: “At the end of the three years, the taxing entities will review the plan and determine its continuation. Those approved during the three year period shall continue to receive the tax rebate for up to the full ten years allowed, dependent on conditions granted by the city commission.”38 Under the 13th NRP revision, tax rebates are transferable with ownership of the property.39 Rebates are revoked if any property is delinquent in any tax payment and/or special assessment.40 Only improvements to existing buildings and/or construction of new buildings can receive tax rebates.41 Property taxes account for 22% of Junction City's revenues.42 In order to calculate property taxes, mill levies must be determined and are used to calculate assessed property valuation.43 A mill levy is the number of dollars a taxpayer must pay for every $1000 of assessed value.44 Property appraisals are a part of the valuation.45 County appraisers submit property appraisals to the county clerk.46 Based on the budgets presented by governmental
  10. 10. Vesom 10 agencies in Geary County, the mill levy for the county is prepared by county clerk.47 The City of Junction City states the following: quot;The County Clerk calculates the mill levy by dividing the dollars needed for city services by the assessed property value within the city limits. This is repeated for each taxing unit-schools, county and city.quot;48 In essence, the budget determines the mill levy.49 Junction City City Commissioners must approve of any change in mill levy.50 As property valuations increase, the value of the mill levy increases as well.51 The mill levy multiplied by the assessed value of properties make up the taxes for all properties each year.52 The influx of soldiers presents with a problem with analyzing this program. This influx might lead to a great demand for housing, which might lead to an increase in property tax revenues due to new construction for the surrounding areas of Fort Riley and an increase in economic development. Therefore, these effects make it difficult to assess whether NRP is successful. Soldiers from various U.S. military bases from around the world and country will be reallocated to Fort Bliss, Texas and Fort Riley due to base closings.53 In California, the increase in population has caused an increase in demand for housing, thereby
  11. 11. Vesom 11 causing higher property values which in turn resulted in higher taxes.54 The increase in population might lead to an increase for demand for services and housing and might lead to increasing city sales tax and property tax revenues. Whenever the troops are deployed, the population decreases. When the troops arrive from other bases, the troops bring their families thereby increasing the population. In addition to affecting population, these fluctuations cause an increase in property valuation, city sales tax revenue, and job growth and a decrease in unemployment. Since the literature review did not provide a preliminary evaluation, the policy will be evaluated on the basis of six variables (crime, civilian population, city sales tax revenue, job growth, property valuation and unemployment rates). Data from 1992 to 2006 in all variables were used in this study to compare the data before NRP was implemented (1992 – 1995) and data after NRP implementation (1996 – 2006). In all variables, data used in this analysis represents only Junction City. Data for total population between the years 1992 to 2006 were used in this analysis since civilian population was reported only in the 2000 Decennial Census.55,56 Total population
  12. 12. Vesom 12 data were obtained from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.57 Data from 1992 – 2005 were provided by Bill Reid, Research Analyst II of the Kansas Bureau of Investigations.58 Data from 2006 were obtained from the Kansas Bureau of Investigations website.59 All collected data from both sources were used to analyze crime in Junction City. The data that were provided by Reid were not complete.60 Data from the years: 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1999 were not available.61 Crime index offenses are the total number of crimes, which includes violent crimes and property crimes.62,63 Crime index offenses are heavily dependent on population. Population in Junction City fluctuated possibly due to the number of soldiers coming to Fort Riley. Crime per capita per year was calculated using population data that were reported in this analysis. Crime per capita per year was calculated by dividing the number of crime index offenses by the population. The crime index offenses do not mean that the offenses were committed by Junction City residents, but indicate that the crimes took place in Junction City by any person from any area, e.g. Manhattan, etc..64
  13. 13. Vesom 13 Unemployment data were obtained from Micah Ross, Research Analyst for the Kansas Department of Labor.65 Ross obtained the original data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.66 Unemployment per capita was calculated using population data that were reported in this analysis. Job growth data were obtained from Rose Palmer, Economic Development Specialist for the JCGC Economic Development Commission.67 A total of 61 NRP applicants were included in the job growth study.68 Job growth could not be reported in percentages due to the limited data given by Ms. Palmer.69 Property valuation data were obtained from a spreadsheet provided by the Geary County Appraiser, Jim Ruhnke.70 People whose projects were not completed, one applicant who applied six times and another applicant who did not receive a rebate due to human error were not included in the property valuation study. A total of 127 NRP applicants in Junction City, whose projects were completed by 2006, were included in this study for the property valuation. Sixty applicants out of 127 applicants in the study had $0 in the “Improvement Basis.” The $0 in the “Improvement Basis” indicates that there was no building on the land and since NRP is only used for building valuation and not for land valuation.71 The
  14. 14. Vesom 14 “Improvement Value” was used in this analysis since this represents estimated appraised values utilizing NRP.72 Sales tax revenue data from 1992 – 2005 were obtained from the City Manager, Rod Barnes.73 Data from 2006 were obtained from Joleen Schnurr, City Treasurer.74 Sales tax revenue per capita was calculated using population data that was reported in this analysis. In all variables with the exception of job growth, the averages were computed for 1992 – 1995 (before NRP) and 1996 – 2005 (after NRP) due to fluctuations in data. National economic conditions may have affected the data. From March 1991 to March 2001, there was a period of economic growth.75 A recession occurred from March 2001 to November 2001.76 Although the 13th NRP revision and original NRP plan did not specifically state any program goals,77,78 some program goals were proposed during the analysis of this program and were discussed with the City Manager. These goals include increased sales tax revenue, increased job growth, decreased crime rate, decreased unemployment, increased property valuation and increased population. Results Table 1 below best summarizes the total variable analysis. This table demonstrates that unemployment per capita decreased 2.71%, annual sales tax revenue increased
  15. 15. Vesom 15 19.3%, annual sales tax revenue per capita increased 44.77%, job growth increased 24.5%, total number of crimes per year decreased 92.15%, total number of crimes per capita per year decreased 91.02%, and property valuation increased 89.62%. The average percent change for property valuation was computed by first calculating the percent change for each NRP applicant’s property and then taking the average for all 127 NRP applicants.79 The individual property percent change was computed by the following calculation:80 Individual property percent change = 2006 Improvement Value – Improvement Basis x 100 (2006 Improvement Value + Improvement Basis)/2)) Before and After NRPa Table 1: Average Average Percent Variables 1992 – 1995 Median 1996 – 2006 Change Unemployment per capita 0.0391 0.0398 0.0380 -2.71% Annual Sales Tax Revenue $1,949,826.67 $2,139,269.68 $2,326,058.22 19.30% Annual Sales Tax Revenue per capita $91.92 $121.77 $133.07 44.77% 253b 315c Job Growth 284 24.50% Total Number of Crimesd per year 2049 1104.93 160.86 -92.15% Total Number of Crimesd per capita per year 0.1 0.092 0.009 -91.02% $55,301.71e $297,689.01f Property Valuation $80,590.00 89.62% a Different time frames may alter comparisons.
  16. 16. Vesom 16 b Sixty-one NRP applicants had 253 jobs that existed prior to NRP utilization.81 c Sixty-one NRP applicants created an additional 315 jobs after utilizing NRP.82 d Data only available for 1992, for 1996 to 1998 and for 2000 to 2006.83 e The amount indicated in the “Average 1992-1995” for property valuation is only the average of all 127 NRP properties appraised values prior to NRP (“Improvement Basis)” and not the average of appraised values from 1992 to 1995. The “Improvement Basis” is the appraised value of the building.84 f The amount indicated in the “Average 1996-2006” for property valuation is only the average of all 127 NRP properties appraised values (“Improvement Value”) from 2002 to 2006. Conclusions and Recommendations In conclusion, I recommend that Junction City continue this policy on the basis of data from Table 1. Data from Table 1 clearly demonstrates that unemployment decreased, sales tax revenue increased, crime has decreased and job growth increased since the implementation of NRP. In addition, property valuation has increased on the properties undergoing revitalization. Therefore, the data
  17. 17. Vesom 17 have proved that NRP has been successful and beneficial to Junction City. Data from Table 1 demonstrates that property improvement leads to job growth, an increase in sales tax revenue and a decrease in unemployment. This data shows that neighborhood revitalization can work on an individual basis in a community such as Junction City, while the literature review shows that neighborhood revitalization is successful on a community level, meaning communities work together to revitalize neighborhoods. It would be interesting to see if NRP in Junction City with a combination of both individual and community levels is successful. More work is necessary to determine the long term effects of NRP on Junction City. A decrease in unemployment, increase in sales tax revenue, increase in job growth and property valuation may be due to an increase in demand for housing and services due to the influx of soldiers from Fort Riley. Economic growth that began in March 1991 and ended in March 200185 may have caused property valuations to increase, sales tax revenue to increase, job growth to increase and unemployment to decrease. A decrease in crime may be the result of a greater number of police officers, tighter crime legislation or a decrease in population. A decrease
  18. 18. Vesom 18 in population may have been the result of soldiers’ deployment. In theory, property valuation should be the main variable in determining the success of NRP. The main focus of NRP is revitalizing neighborhoods by residential and commercial improvements.86 As these improvements are made, crime rates decrease, sales tax revenue increases, population increases, unemployment decreases and job growth increases. In theory, revitalized areas have lower crime rates, higher property values, higher population, lower unemployment, greater sales tax revenue and higher job growth. To what extent and how long these effects will last are unknown.
  19. 19. Vesom 19 Bibliography 1. Minneapolis NRP. (n.d.). Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program Fact Sheet. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/Basics/NRPFactSheet.pdf 2. The Kansas Neighborhood Revitalization Act. 1 Session Laws of Kans. §§ 242-1-18 (1994), p. 997. 3. Ibid., pp. 997-999. 4. Hall, M. (2000, July 9). Target Area Splits Backers. The Topeka Capital-Journal Online. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.cjonline.com/stories/071000/com_backers.sht ml. 5. Stovall, C. J. and Feighny, M. (1996, Nov. 14). Attorney General Opinion No. 96-84. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://www.kscourts.org/ksag/opinions/1996/1996- 084.htm. 6. Hall, op. cit.. 7. Stovall, C. J. and Feighny, M., op. cit.. 8. Center for Urban Policy Research. (n.d.). Program Evaluation. Retrieved Aug. 5, 2007, from http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/cupr/research/progeval.h tm.
  20. 20. Vesom 20 9. Minneapolis NRP, op. cit.. 10. Ibid. 11. Fagotto, E. and Fung. A. (2005, Feb. 15). The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program: An Experiment in Empowered Participatory Governance. Retrieved Aug. 6, 2007, from http://www.ids.ac.uk/logolink/resources/downloads/Reci te_Confpapers/NRPFinal.pdf, p. 56. 12. Ibid., p. 56. 13. Ibid., p. 4. 14. Ibid., p. 57. 15. Ibid., p. 56. 16. Ibid., p. 57. 17. Ibid., p. 57. 18. Ibid., p. 57. 19. Ibid., p. 57. 20. Ibid., p. 57. 21. Ibid., p. 58. 22. Ahlbrandt, Jr., R. S. (1986). Public-Private Partnerships for Neighborhood Renewal. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 488, 120-134. 23. Ibid., p. 123. 24. Ibid., p. 131.
  21. 21. Vesom 21 25. Ibid., p. 131. 26. Hamlin, R. E. and Lyons, T. S. (1996). Economy Without Walls: Managing Local Development in a Restructuring World. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, pp. 77-78 and pp. 82-85. 27. Ibid., p. 77. 28. Ibid., p. 78. 29. Ibid., pp. 82-84. 30. Ibid., p. 85. 31. JCGC Economic Development. (2006). Neighborhood 13th Revision, p. 2. Revitalization Plan. 32. Palmer, R. (personal communication, 2006). 33. Ibid. 34. JCGC Economic Development., op. cit., p. 2. 35. Ibid., p. 5. 36. Ibid., p. 4. 37. Ibid., p. 6. 38. Ibid., p. 6. 39. Ibid., p. 7. 40. Ibid., p. 7. 41. Ruhnke, J. W. (personal communication, 2006). 42. City of Junction City. (2006, October 17). Junction City Fact Sheet. 43. Geary County. (n.d.). A Homeowner’s Guide to
  22. 22. Vesom 22 Property Taxes. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.geary.kansasgov.com/MV2Base.asp?VarCN=217. 44. Sweetwater County Treasurer's Office. (n.d.). What is a Mill Levy?. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://www.co.sweet.wy.us/treas/propertytaxes/page4.ht ml. 45. Geary County Appraiser's Department. (n.d.). Geary County Website. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://www.geary.kansasgov.com/MV2Base.asp?VarCN=192. 46. Ruhnke, J. W., op. cit.. 47. Geary County Appraiser's Department., op. cit.. 48. City of Junction City, op. cit.. 49. Gould, C. (personal communication, 2008). 50. Gowen, T. L. (personal communication, 2008). 51. Gould, C., op. cit.. 52. Geary County Appraiser’s Department., Geary County Website, op. cit.. 53. Gilmore, G. J. (2006, June 21). Troop Moves, BRAC Part of DoD's Transformation Agenda, Officials Say. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15 985.
  23. 23. Vesom 23 54. Wikipedia. (2007, Mar. 12). California Proposition 13 (1978). Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ Proposition_13. 55. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Junction City city, Kansas – DP-2 Profile of Special Characteristics: 2000. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&- geo_id=16000US2035750&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&- ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on. 56. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Junction City city, Kansas – DP-2 Profile of Special Characteristics: 1990. Retrieved September 5, 2008, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&- context=qt&-qr_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&- ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&-CONTEXT=qt&-tree_id=101&- all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=16000US201415&- search_results=16000US201415&-format=&-_lang=en. 57. City of Junction City, Kansas. (n.d.). Demographic Statistics Last Ten Years. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1992, p. 92; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1996, p. 101; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal
  24. 24. Vesom 24 Year Ended December 31, 2004, p. 83; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2005, p. 80; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006, p. 74. 58. Reid, B. (personal communication, 2006). 59. Kansas Bureau of Investigations. (2007, Apr. 30). 2006 Crime Index. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/PDF/Crime%20Index%2020 06.pdf, p. 6. 60. Reid, B., op. cit.. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Story, Chief B. (personal communication, 2006). 64. Ibid. 65. Ross, M. (personal communication, 2008). 66. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Bureau of Labor Statistics Data. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet. 67. Palmer, R., op. cit.. 68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 70. Ruhnke, J. W., op. cit.. 71. Ibid.
  25. 25. Vesom 25 72. Ibid. 73. Barnes, R. D. (personal communication, 2006). 74. Schnurr, J. (personal communication, 2008). 75. National Bureau of Economic Research. (2001, Nov. 26). The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://www.nber.com/cycles/november2001/. 76. National Bureau of Economic Research. (2003, July 17). Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.pdf, p. 1. 77. JCGC Economic Development. (1996). Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. Original Plan, pp. 2-19. 78. JCGC Economic Development. (2006). Neighborhood 13th Revision, pp. 2-49. Revitalization Plan. 79. Turner, T. M. (personal communication, 2008). 80. Ibid. 81. Palmer, R., op. cit.. 82. Ibid. 83. Reid, B., op. cit.. 84. Ruhnke, J. W., op. cit.. 85. National Bureau of Economic Research. (2001, Nov. 26). The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001., op. cit.. 86. JCGC Economic Development., op. cit., pp. 5-7.

×