housing fremont county · 6/27/2017 · •places for growing old with dignity community housing...

Housing Fremont CountyA Community Housing Assessment Team PresentationJune 28, 2017

The County as a Whole

10,2829,282 9,401

8,226 8,0107,441

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change

% Change During Period

Average Annual Change

1960 10,282

1970 9,282 -1,000 -9.7% -1.0%

1980 9,401 119 1.3% 0.1%

1990 8,226 -1,175 -12.5% -1.3%

2000 8,010 -216 -2.6% -0.3%

2010 7,441 -569 -7.1% -0.7%

2015 (Est) 7,106 -335 -4.5% -0.9%

1960-2015 -3,176 -30.9% -0.7%

Population Change in Fremont County1960-2015

Population Change in Fremont County1960-2010

5,296 5,1555,570

4,896 4,857 4,6234,986

4,127 3,8313,330 3,153 2,818

10,282

9,282 9,401

8,226 8,0107,441

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Incorporated Cities Unincorporated Fremont Co. Fremont County

2000 2010 Change0-15 1,632 20.4% 1,363 18.3% -269

15-19 557 7.0% 503 6.8% -54

20-24 304 3.8% 314 4.2% 10

25-34 803 10.0% 717 9.6% -86

35-44 1,143 14.3% 811 10.9% -332

45-54 1,166 14.6% 1,156 15.5% -10

55-64 816 10.2% 1,121 15.1% 305

65-74 742 9.3% 692 9.3% -50

75-84 607 7.6% 536 7.2% -71

85+ 240 3.0% 228 3.1% -12

Total 8,010 100.0% 7,441 100.0% -569

Growth

Decline

Population Change by Age Cohort2000-2010

2010 Actual2015

Predicted 2015 Actual Difference % Variance0-15 1,363 1,189 1,292 103 8.7%

15-19 503 470 416 -54 -11.5%

20-24 314 501 339 -162 -32.3%

25-34 717 651 648 -3 -0.4%

35-44 811 789 774 -15 -1.8%

45-54 1,156 921 991 70 7.5%

55-64 1,121 1,160 1,160 0 0.0%

65-74 692 825 739 -86 -10.5%

75-84 536 467 529 62 13.3%

85+ 228 264 218 -46 -17.4%

Total 7,441 7,236 7,106 -130 -1.8%

Overperform

Underperform

Notes: Non-college communities almost always display a high level of outmigration in the 15 to 24 age cohorts.


25

1915 14

22

12 1114

810

69

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Single Family Home Permits

2000 2015Change

2000-2015Number% of Occupied

Units Number% of Occupied

Units

Owner-Occupied 2,383 74.5% 2,240 75.8% -143

Renter-Occupied 816 25.5% 714 24.2% -102

Total Vacant 315 478 163

Vacancy rate 9.0% 13.9%

Total Units 3,514 3,432 -82

Housing Occupancy Changes2000-2015

Construction Activity

Income Range % of HHs# HHs in

Each RangeAffordable Range for

Owner Units# of Owner

Units

Affordable Range for

Renter Units# of Renter

Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 21.6% 638 $0-50,000 454 $0-400 267 721 83

$25-49,999 23.3% 688 $50-99,999 665 $400-800 403 1,068 380

$50-74,999 24.5% 725 $100-149,999 520 $800-1250 36 556 -169

$75-99,999 11.3% 334 $150-199,999 211 $1250-1500 0 211 -123

$100-150,000 11.8% 348 $200-$300,000 208 $1500-2000 7 215 -133

$150,000+ 7.5% 221 $300,000+ 182 $2000+ 0 182 -39

100.0% 2,954 2,240 714 2,954 0

Housing Affordability RangesFremont County 2015

Symptoms of an undervalued market:- Higher income people living in lower value units- Units in general are valued below replacement

cost

Median HH Income (2015 est.)

Median House Value (2015 est.) Value / Income Ratio

Total County $53,324 $100,100 1.88

Farragut $47,813 $74,100 1.55

Hamburg $34,931 $66,800 1.91

Riverton $52,583 $39,700 0.75

Sidney $48,636 $84,800 1.74

Tabor $57,083 $99,500 1.74

Randolph $47,969 $70,000 1.46

Thurman $49,063 $70,000 1.43

Household Income to House ValueFremont County 2015

•An affordable, self-sustaining housing market, with adequate value or revenues to support market rate new construction, typically has a V/I value between 2.5 and 3.•Ratios below 2.0 are significantly undervalued relative to income•Ratios above 3.0 exhibit significant affordability issues

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic Trend (-0.67% ACR) 7,441 7,106 6,871 6,644 6,425

Natural Growth 7,441 7,106 6,893 6,715 6,578

0.5% Annual Population Increase 7,441 7,106 7,285 7,469 7,658

Comparative Population ModelsFremont County

Calculating Housing NeedsFremont County

• Use population scenarios, recent construction activity, assumptions about people per household, projected vacancy, and replacement to generate ten years of overall housing demand.

• Consider the distribution of household income in a community.

• Match income ranges with affordability price points, based on housing costs equal to 30% of adjusted gross income.

• Define price breakouts for new housing demand, based on the assumption that new construction should ideally be affordable to the existing household income distribution.

• Note: These estimates are not meant to indicate an exact demand for housing, but rather provide guidance as to what kind of housing is needed to reach certain targets

Total Housing Unit Needs = Population Demand + Replacement

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 16 units•A declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Population at End of Period 7,106 6,751 6,578

HH Population at End of Period 6,977 6,628 6,458

Average PPH 2.4 2.4 2.4

HH Demand at End of Period 2,932 2,785 2,714

Projected Vacancy Rate 10.7% 9.1% 8.0%

Unit Needs at End of Period 3,283 3,063 2,950

Replacement Need 128 96 224

Cumulative Need During Period -92 -27 -119

Average Annual Need NA NA NA

Source: RDG Planning & Design

Development: Natural Change2017-2030

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 16 existing unit per year. *Cumulative need includes allowance for

unmet replacement need from 2016. •A declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total








Cumulative Need During Period 234* 158 391

Average Annual Need 29.2 26.3 28.0


Development Targets: 0.5% Annual Growth 2017-2030

•This analysis assumes a split of 60% owner-occupied and 40% rental units, meeting the demand for quality rental units.

•Most new construction will probably cost more than $130,000, causing demand for lower-cost units to be met by existing housing.

2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Total Need 234 158 391

Total Owner Occupied 140 95 235

Affordable Low: $60-100,000 16 11 28

Affordable Moderate: $100-130,000 25 17 42

Moderate Market: $130-200,000 44 30 73

High Market: Over $200,000 55 37 92

Total Renter Occupied 94 63 157

Low: Less than $500 32 21 53

Affordable: $500-800 34 23 57

Market: Over $800 28 19 47

Development Targets2017-2030

RepopulationHow do we reverse the long-term trend of population drain? How do we create a market?

Capacity and AffordabilityHow do we create the “infrastructure” (financial, physical, developmental) that can deliver the appropriate products that our market needs?

Community DevelopmentHow do we position our communities to capitalize on potential?

The Challenge

Growing Up Starting Settling Prospering Aging

•Safe, nurturing homes for growing as a person•Secure neighborhoods

•Places to try out and experiment•Housing within one’s means•Economic opportunity

•Places to put down roots and gain equity•Places to grow a establish a household•Housing within one’s changing means•Room to grow

•Options•Settings that adapt to stages of life

•Options•Settings that adapt to stages of life•Places for active retirement•Places for growing old with dignity

Community Housing for the Life Cycle

Understanding Markets

Future ViabilityThe future economic viability of the county and its communities depends on reversing the population drain and achieving some level of growth.

Capital and OrganizationAccomplishing viability is going to require capital and an organizational ability to use that capital strategically and effectively.

UnityFremont County should be seen as a unified entity made up of a collection of communities. We’re all in this enterprise together, and the approach will have both regional and local components.

Individual SpecialtiesEach community is different and cannot be all things to all markets. Policy should capitalize on these differences and appeal to appropriate targets.

Community InvestmentSome housing strategies do not deal directly with housing, but instead with community quality. These strategies can create the conditions for increased private investment.

Key Realizations

CapitalizationSufficient investment capital to get the market going must be raised. This could be done through a countywide bond issue, augmented by private contributions, other grant funds and programs, and redevelopment tools like TIF and the Iowa Workforce Housing Tax Credit. But we must be both self-sufficient and strategic.

CapacityA countywide development entity capable of using a variety of methods to accomplish projects and administer the overall program must exist.

Program ApproachesSome project concepts are useful in every community. Other ideas are relevant to individual settings. The overall program must be capable of both.

AccountabilityExperience has shown that taxpayers and voters will support efforts that are both in their economic self-interest, serve communities, and are used for visible and specific improvements. Accountability is a critical component.

Structure of a Fremont County Program

Moderately-priced housing through a community-based program. In Sioux Center, a growing community in northwest Iowa, a community land development corporation, capitalized by purchase of shares by citizens of the town, has developed a new moderately-priced development. This features a program to build five speculative homes at a time, maintaining an available inventory. The proceeds of sales are then used to build the next increment of houses. This town of about 5,000 has built out a 70 home subdivision in this way.

Example ProgramNew Construction

Example ProgramAcquisition/Rehab/Resale

•HDC purchases houses, focusing on structures priced at a reasonable level, based on delivering a completed product at or under a specified price. (about $100,000)

•HDC, through contractors or programs such as a community college partnership, rehabilitates house, addressing:

•Exterior envelope for integrity and energy cost savings: attic and wall insulation, windows, roof.•Basic building infrastructure: heating, air conditioning, plumbing.•Cosmetics: carpet, paint, kitchen and bathroom elements

•Resale as turnkey unit following rehabilitation, using local Realtors.

This program works most effectively where appropriate houses are available at relatively low cost – well suited to the Fremont County housing market

Example ProgramRent-to-Own

Combined with site availability, low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) for developers can successfully address some affordable housing needs. An innovative form that can be especially appealing to a housing partnership is a rent-to-own (or CROWN) program, that can be built with in single-family detached or attached configurations. A portion of the household’s rent payment goes into an escrow that is devoted to the eventual purchase of their house, or another qualified home in the city. These programs can be especially effective when paired with homeownership training efforts.

CROWN homes in Omaha provide initial rents in the $550-650 range. These units, developed by the nonprofit Holy Name Housing Corporation are financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and remain in qualified occupancy for 15 years. They are “paired” with similar single-family houses that buyers can use their escrows to purchase.

Development Corporation Components

Components may include:

•A consortium of lenders to provide interim financing and other support to development efforts, and encourage economies of scale.

•Cooperative and professional administration of seed capital funds through a public/private board and professional staff.

•A nonprofit or for-profit housing development corporation that may be an active developer if necessary, but principally to work with private developers or builders.

•Community/county involvement in the development and financing of infrastructure and development of sites.

Examples of Supporting Resources:Iowa Workforce Housing Tax Credit

• Total program benefits up to $1 million per project• Includes a refund of sales, service or use taxes paid during construction• State investment tax credit of up to 10% of the investment directly related

to the construction or rehabilitation of the housing.• The state investment tax credit is fully transferable.

Examples of Supporting Resources:Iowa Workforce Housing Tax Credit

•Projects must meet one of four criteria: • Housing development located on a grayfield or brownfield site• Repair or rehabilitation of dilapidated housing stock• Upper story housing development• New construction in a greenfield (community with demonstrated workforce

housing needs)•Developer must build or rehabilitate at least four single-family homes or at least one multi-family building containing three or more units or at least two upper story units•Total project costs may not exceed $200,000 per unit for new construction or $250,000 per unit for historic rehabilitation•The housing project must be completed within three years of award

Local Tax Abatement Local tax abatement should also be considered for specific development targets. It would be logical to use the IWTC qualifications for application of city tax abatement assistance. In addition, tax abatement may be applied to properties or projects that deliver housing in specific target ranges.

TaborHousing Issues Assessment

909957

1,088994 993

1,040

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 909

1970 957 48 5.3% 0.5%

1980 1,088 131 13.7% 1.3%

1990 994 -94 -8.6% -0.9%

2000 993 -1 -0.1% 0.0%

2010 1,040 47 4.7% 0.5%

2015 (Est) 1,237 197 18.9% 3.5%

1960-2015 328 36.1% 0.6%

Population Change in Tabor1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Tabor 909 957 1,088 994 993 1,040 131

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Tabor as a % of Fremont County 8.8% 10.3% 11.6% 12.1% 12.4% 14.0%

2000 2010 Change0-15 195 19.6% 202 19.4% 7

15-19 58 5.8% 68 6.5% 10

20-24 38 3.8% 36 3.5% -2

25-34 102 10.3% 117 11.3% 15

35-44 122 12.3% 104 10.0% -18

45-54 146 14.7% 132 12.7% -14

55-64 82 8.3% 150 14.4% 68

65-74 100 10.1% 81 7.8% -19

75-84 97 9.8% 92 8.8% -5

85+ 53 5.3% 58 5.6% 5

Total 993 100.0% 1,040 100.0% 47

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015

Predicted 2015 Actual Difference % Variance0-15 202 177 285 108 60.6%

15-19 68 66 82 16 24.5%

20-24 36 68 105 37 55.1%

25-34 117 96 142 46 48.7%

35-44 104 105 110 5 4.5%

45-54 132 108 120 12 10.8%

55-64 150 145 169 24 16.8%

65-74 81 118 89 -29 -24.5%

75-84 92 54 67 13 24.4%

85+ 58 61 68 7 11.2%

Total 1,040 998 1,237 239 24.0%

Overperform

Underperform



5

10

1 10 0 0

3 3

1 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 281 72.6% 275 66.3% -6

Renter-Occupied 106 27.4% 140 33.7% 34


Vacancy rate 7.0% 11.7% 0

Total Units 416 470 55






Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 22.9% 95 $0-50,000 26 $0-400 68 94 -1

$25-49,999 22.9% 95 $50-99,999 113 $400-800 47 160 65

$50-74,999 19.5% 81 $100-149,999 73 $800-1250 25 98 17

$75-99,999 21.2% 88 $150-199,999 35 $1250-1500 0 35 -53

$100-150,000 10.8% 45 $200-$300,000 28 $1500-2000 0 28 -17

$150,000+ 2.7% 11 $300,000+ 0 $2000+ 0 0 -11

100.0% 415 275 140 415 0

Housing Affordability RangesTabor 2015

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic Trend (0.56% ACR) 1,040 1,237 1,272 1,308 1,345

Natural Growth 1,040 1,237 1,223 1,229 1,238

0.5% Annual Growth 1,040 1,237 1,268 1,300 1,333

Comparative Population ModelsTabor

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 3 existing units per year•A steady vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total




HH Demand at End of Period 498 499 503


Unit Needs at End of Period 537 538 543


Cumulative Need During Period 28 22 50




Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 3 existing units per year•A steady vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total














2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Total Need 52 35 87


Affordable Low: $60-100,000 2 2 4


Moderate Market: $130-200,000 8 5 13



Low: Less than $450 12 8 19

Affordable: $450-700 5 3 8

Market: Over $700 4 3 7


Resources

Community SchoolsThe Fremont-Mills is highly regarded and continues to improve its physical facilities. This quality has helped Tabor attract families with children.

LocationTabor is on the edge of the Omaha-Council Bluffs metro area’s acceptable commuting zone, and has benefited from growth that has radiated toward Glenwood from the cities. The completion of the new US 34 Missouri River bridge has brought more metropolitan area job centers within Tabor’s reach.

Growth ProspectsTabor is the only Fremont County community that is experiencing natural population growth. THe town has attracted developer interest and some new small subdivision activity has occurred north of the high school.

Community QualityTabor casts an image of quality and has made some significant public investments. Its City Park and surrounding neighborhoods presents a classic small town environment and main street is evolving in a positive direction.

Resources

A Housing MarketTabor’s more competitive housing market produces supportable value more in line with actual construction costs. Participants identify a need and market for homes in a $150,000 to $180,000 range, well above the market elsewhere in the county’s communities.

Infrastructure Investment PlanningTabor’s leadership is aware of the need to make investments in public infrastructure to create the conditions for private development. The city is in the midst of a planning program to maximize the return of investments.

Issues

Affordable Ownership HousingIn Tabor, affordability is more of a problem than demand. The town’s primary target market is generally viewed as young families with a “sweet spot” in today’s low-interest environment between $150,000 and $180,000. But this product is difficult to build because of lack of economies of scale and readily available subdivision lots.

Rental DemandTabor representatives report a significant demand for rental housing, again generated by younger families getting established in town. This produces a demand for larger apartments, one of the most difficult products to produce in small communities.

Senior LivingAging Tabor residents tend to move out of the city in search of housing and support services. Innovative designs like cottages and attached or “pinwheel” units would be received well in the marketplace, but builders active in the Tabor area do not build them.

Downtown ActivityTabor residents see a vital downtown as an important economic asset and a magnet for target households. Downtown Tabor is emerging and provides such basic services as a pharmacy and grocery. Innovative establishments like the Main Stage point the way to greater diversity and activity. Glenwood and Malvern have demonstrated the effectiveness of downtown revitalization.

Markets and Directions

Markets• Family households with children

• Omaha-Council Bluffs area commuters

• Senior living: independent settings

• Move-up housing for maturing families

Directions• Develop an implement a strategic

infrastructure investment program, including a new residential subdivision that can be phased along with demand.

• Use Iowa Workforce Tax Credit to encourage affordable family rental development

• Recruit builders of creative housing for older adults to town. Provide a site for such a project, potentially integrated into a new subdivision.

• Institute a downtown development program, following the precedents of Glenwood and Malvern

HamburgHousing Issues Assessment

Population Period

Population Change



1960 1,647

1970 1,649 2 0.1% 0.0%

1980 1,597 -52 -3.2% -0.3%

1990 1,248 -349 -21.9% -2.4%

2000 1,240 -8 -0.6% -0.1%

2010 1,187 -53 -4.3% -0.4%

2015 (Est) 1,111 -76 -6.4% -1.31%

1960-2015 -536 -32.5% -0.71%

Population Change in Hamburg1960-2015

1,647 1,649 1,597

1,248 1,240 1,187

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Hamburg 1,647 1,649 1,597 1,248 1,240 1,187 -460

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Hamburg as a % of Fremont County 16.0% 17.8% 17.0% 15.2% 15.5% 16.0%

2000 2010 Change0-15 235 19.0% 241 20.3% 6

15-19 83 6.7% 74 6.2% -9

20-24 52 4.2% 81 6.8% 29

25-34 150 12.1% 118 9.9% -32

35-44 156 12.6% 125 10.5% -31

45-54 172 13.9% 153 12.9% -19

55-64 129 10.4% 159 13.4% 30

65-74 126 10.2% 112 9.4% -14

75-84 94 7.6% 85 7.2% -9

85+ 43 3.5% 39 3.3% -4

Total 1,240 100.0% 1,187 100.0% -53

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015


15-19 74 64 87 23 36.3%

20-24 81 74 92 18 24.9%

25-34 118 140 105 -35 -25.2%

35-44 125 125 113 -12 -9.7%

45-54 153 136 161 25 18.7%

55-64 159 143 132 -11 -7.5%

65-74 112 126 101 -25 -20.0%

75-84 85 84 62 -22 -26.5%

85+ 39 40 12 -28 -70.0%

Total 1,187 1,163 1,111 -52 -4.5%

Overperform

Underperform



2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 388 71.3% 301 63.9% -87

Renter-Occupied 156 28.7% 170 36.1% 14





2 2

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

1

2

3

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016






Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 35.0% 165 $0-50,000 112 $0-400 62 174 9

$25-49,999 25.5% 120 $50-99,999 106 $400-800 99 205 85

$50-74,999 24.6% 116 $100-149,999 54 $800-1250 9 63 -53

$75-99,999 7.4% 35 $150-199,999 23 $1250-1500 0 23 -12

$100-150,000 6.8% 32 $200-$300,000 6 $1500-2000 0 6 -26

$150,000+ 0.6% 3 $300,000+ 0 $2000+ 0 0 -3

100.0% 471 301 170 471 0

Housing Affordability RangesHamburg 2015

Some move-up opportunity in these ranges

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic Trend (-0.71% ACR) 1,187 1,111 1,072 1,034 998

Natural Growth 1,187 1,111 1,114 1,121 1,129


Comparative Population ModelsHamburg

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 3 units per year•A declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total














2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Total Need 35 24 59


Affordable Low: $60-100,000 5 3 8


Moderate Market: $130-200,000 8 5 13




Affordable: $450-700 5 4 9



Resources

George C. Grape Community HospitalPositions Hamburg to attract people who need or want proximity to health services

IndustryHamburg is Fremont County’s largest center for industrial and private employment

Visual QualityHamburg is a visually appealing town with its tree-lined residential streets, public spaces, and historic houses and commercial buildings.

I-29 LocationThe interstate makes the city accessible to regional metropolitan areas, trade routes, and travelers. But it is relatively invisible from the highway.

Main StreetAttractive historic main street district right off the interstate presents development and commercial opportunities.

PrecedentsFox Circle neighborhood illustrates marketability of quality housing in town

Issues

Flood IssuesLocation of much of the town in the floodplain and flood events, including the highly visible Missouri River flooding of 2011, are seen as the dominant issues affecting the future of the city.

UncertaintyThe costs and perceived risks of insurance and property loss may discourage people and businesses from investing in Hamburg.

Schools and PovertySchools are seen as a community issue that needs (and is getting) community attention. A complication is the town’s relatively high poverty rate. Good schools are critical to Hamburg’s ability to attract younger households.

Housing EconomicsIn common with other towns in the county, housing replacement value is well above housing market value. This complicates an ability to replace and upgrade existing housing stock and contributes to a lack of available, quality rental housing.


Markets• First time homebuyers and young

families

• Workers in local industries

• Older adults attracted by sense of community and health services.

Directions• With State, RC&D, Corps, and other

agencies, define and implement a feasible plan to reduce flood risks

• Reduce the cost of flood insurance to potential buyers.

• Infill with innovative flood-resistant designs: living areas elevated over parking or storage space

• Focus on Main Street revitalization, including upper level apartnments as a main element.

• Improve community visibility from I-29

• Develop a new subdivision on a site outside of the floodplain


Homes elevated over garages, Atlantic coast floodplain, Milford, CT

SidneyHousing Issues Assessment

1,057 1,061

1,3081,253 1,300

1,138

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 1,057

1970 1,061 4 0.4% 0.04%

1980 1,308 247 23.3% 2.1%

1990 1,253 -55 -4.2% -0.4%

2000 1,300 47 3.8% 0.4%

2010 1,138 -162 -12.5% -1.3%

2015 (Est) 1,001 -137 -12.0% -2.5%

1960-2015 -56 -5.3% -0.1%

Population Change in Sidney1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Sidney 1,057 1,061 1,308 1,253 1,300 1,138 81

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Sidney as a % of Fremont County 10.3% 11.4% 13.9% 15.2% 16.2% 15.3%

2000 2010 Change0-15 291 22.4% 209 18.4% -82

15-19 88 6.8% 82 7.2% -6

20-24 52 4.0% 47 4.1% -5

25-34 144 11.1% 118 10.4% -26

35-44 171 13.2% 142 12.5% -29

45-54 165 12.7% 144 12.7% -21

55-64 110 8.5% 155 13.6% 45

65-74 94 7.2% 98 8.6% 4

75-84 126 9.7% 88 7.7% -38

85+ 59 4.5% 55 4.8% -4

Total 1,300 100.0% 1,138 100.0% -162

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015


15-19 82 79 71 -8 -9.9%

20-24 47 82 49 -33 -40.0%

25-34 118 104 81 -23 -22.5%

35-44 142 137 180 43 31.3%

45-54 144 130 94 -36 -27.6%

55-64 155 154 113 -41 -26.6%

65-74 98 118 112 -6 -5.0%

75-84 88 67 63 -4 -6.3%

85+ 55 54 41 -13 -23.7%

Total 1,138 1,104 1,001 -103 -9.3%

Overperform

Underperform



2

1

0 0 0 0

1

0

1

0 0 00

1

2

3

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 347 70.7% 299 72.9% -48

Renter-Occupied 144 29.3% 111 27.1% -33



Total Units 538 515 -23






Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 24.4% 100 $0-50,000 77 $0-400 46 123 23

$25-49,999 27.1% 111 $50-99,999 98 $400-800 62 160 49

$50-74,999 24.9% 102 $100-149,999 92 $800-1250 3 95 -7

$75-99,999 10.2% 42 $150-199,999 29 $1250-1500 0 29 -13

$100-150,000 10.2% 42 $200-$300,000 3 $1500-2000 0 3 -39

$150,000+ 3.2% 13 $300,000+ 0 $2000+ 0 0 -13

100.0% 410 299 111 410 0

Housing Affordability RangesSidney 2015

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic Trend (-0.10% ACR) 1,138 1,001 996 991 986

Natural Growth 1,138 1,001 967 942 930


Comparative Population ModelsSidney

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 2 existing units per year•A gradually declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Population at End of Period 1,001 948 930

HH Population at End of Period 952 902 884






Cumulative Need During Period -9 2 -8

Average Annual Need -1.2 0.3 -0.5



Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 2 existing units per year•A gradually declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total


HH Population at End of Period 952 995 1,026












2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Total Need 35 24 59


Affordable Low: $60-100,000 3 2 5


Moderate Market: $130-200,000 7 5 12




Affordable: $450-700 5 3 8



Resources

Community SchoolsSidney’s full service school system, including an excellent high school facility, is a distinct attraction for family households.

County SeatThe town’s status as a government center generates business and housing demand. The county and school system are Sidney’s largest employers.

Revitalized DowntownOf the county’s town centers, Sidney’s has received the most substantial public investment and it shows in terms of both appearance and activity. This provides strong encouragement for potential new residents.

Regional FameThe Sidney Rodeo is a regionally well-known event that establishes a strong and positive Western brand for the town. It also provides a good environment for other events that can add quality to life in the community.

Resources

Infill LandSidney has a relatively low-density development pattern that leaves a significant amount of land open that falls within the urban services area. This reduces housing cost and makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure.

Commercial ServicesSidney benefits from providing a good range of retail services. While not large enough to support large format retailers, a viable downtown, grocery, and other businesses supports residential development.

Issues

First ImpressionsPeople in Sidney are sensitive about community gateways and rightfully so, particularly in a town that attracts a significant number of visitors. While downtown and the immediate area are attractive, the frequently used south gateway should be upgraded..

Lack of Private Sector EmployersThe city’s dominant employers are public sector –county government and school system. Diversification of the economic base would help increase demand for housing. However, attracting new business also requires active residential development.

Property UpkeepSustaining values of existing housing is important to encouraging new housing. New construction does not work in low value environments. While much of Sidney’s housing stock is good, deteriorating properties on a block can have a major impact on value and a future buyer’s willingness to invest.

Internet AccessSlow on-line service reduces the city’s ability to attract younger households


Markets• Family households with children

• Entrepreneurs

• Commuters from other regional employment centers

• Senior living: independent and assisted settings

• Professionals related to education and government

Directions• Increase efforts to package available

infill sites for housing development

• Implement a south corridor enhancement program

• Create a trail network from the center of town to fairgrounds, park, and schools

• Upgrade on-line services

• Address senior living opportunities

FarragutHousing Issues Assessment

495521

603

498 509 485

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 495

1970 521 26 5.3% 0.5%

1980 603 82 15.7% 1.5%

1990 498 -105 -17.4% -1.9%

2000 509 11 2.2% 0.2%

2010 485 -24 -4.7% -0.5%

2015 (Est) 461 -24 -4.9% -1.0%

1960-2015 -34 -6.9% -0.1%

Population Change in Farragut1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Farragut 495 521 603 498 509 485 -10

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Farragut as a % of Fremont County 4.8% 5.6% 6.4% 6.1% 6.4% 6.5%

2000 2010 Change0-15 108 21.2% 80 16.5% -28

15-19 34 6.7% 44 9.1% 10

20-24 16 3.1% 18 3.7% 2

25-34 39 7.7% 38 7.8% -1

35-44 79 15.5% 51 10.5% -28

45-54 59 11.6% 88 18.1% 29

55-64 53 10.4% 64 13.2% 11

65-74 53 10.4% 51 10.5% -2

75-84 47 9.2% 37 7.6% -10

85+ 21 4.1% 14 2.9% -7

Total 509 100.0% 485 100.0% -24

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015

Predicted 2015 Actual Difference % Variance0-15 80 67 51 -16 -23.7%

15-19 44 33 35 2 6.3%

20-24 18 44 11 -33 -74.9%

25-34 38 31 35 4 13.5%

35-44 51 49 26 -23 -46.6%

45-54 88 70 103 33 47.6%

55-64 64 71 96 25 35.3%

65-74 51 54 62 8 14.4%

75-84 37 34 24 -10 -30.0%

85+ 14 19 18 -1 -6.0%

Total 485 472 461 -11 -2.2%

Overperform

Underperform



2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 177 80.1% 164 73.2% -13

Renter-Occupied 44 19.9% 60 26.8% 16

Total Vacant 13 11 -2





0

2

1

0 0

1

0 0 0 0 0 00

1

2

3

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016





Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 25.4% 57 $0-50,000 42 $0-400 33 75 18

$25-49,999 27.7% 62 $50-99,999 78 $400-800 25 103 41

$50-74,999 21.9% 49 $100-149,999 36 $800-1250 2 38 -11

$75-99,999 12.9% 29 $150-199,999 4 $1250-1500 0 4 -25

$100-150,000 7.1% 16 $200-$300,000 4 $1500-2000 0 4 -12

$150,000+ 4.9% 11 $300,000+ 0 $2000+ 0 0 -11

100.0% 224 164 60 224 0

Housing Affordability RangesFarragut 2015

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic Trend (-0.13% ACR) 485 461 458 455 452

Natural Growth 485 461 441 422 401

0.5% Annual Population Increase 485 461 473 485 497

Comparative Population ModelsFarragut

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 1 existing unit per year•A steady vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Population at End of Period 461 425 401








Average Annual Need -1.0 -0.9 -0.9



Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 1 existing unit per year•A steady vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total














2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Total Need 19 13 32


Affordable Low: $60-100,000 2 1 3


Moderate Market: $130-200,000 3 2 6




Affordable: $450-700 3 2 5



Resources

Trail LinkConnection to Wabash Trace Nature Trail and Shenandoah provides both a transportation amenity and a conduit for regional visitors.

On-Line AccessFarragut is scheduled to get high speed internet service in the near future.

Adjacency to ShenandoahProximity to Shenandoah provides access to jobs, health care, and a variety of community and commercial services.

School ProjectConversion of the former schoolhouse to apartments provides needed contemporary rentals and a first step to more housing investment.

Available Low-Cost HomesLow purchase prices provide an opportunity for developing affordable, quality housing through a rehabilitation program.

Issues

Downtown VacancyAn active Downtown is an important sign of community vitality, which in turn helps market the town. Farragut’s downtown has lost most of its businesses, and is viewed as a significant obstacle.

Lack of Services and Commercial ConvenienceWhile nearby Shenandoah offers a variety of retail, services, and hospitality, some local convenience commercial development remains important. Farragut does not offer hometown convenience to its residents.

Little Housing DemandHouses appear to be slow to sell in Farragut, but this could also present an opportunity. Younger buyers often do not want to go through the trouble and cost of rehabilitation, but a development corporation could improve the marketability of available houses.


Markets• Rural creatives, buyers attracted to

the quality of life and economic potential of a regional trail link

• Shenandoah employees

Directions• Complete and enhance the Wabash

Trace spur to Shenandoah as a community corridor. Form partnerships for both enhancement funding and taking the trail beyond the basics into an attraction

• Recruit creative entrepreneurs to Main Street buildings by providing property and funding

• Establish an acquisition/rehab/resale program for existing available houses.

RivertonHousing Issues Assessment

399

331 342 333304 304

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 399

1970 331 -68 -17.0% -1.9%

1980 342 11 3.3% 0.3%

1990 333 -9 -2.6% -0.3%

2000 304 -29 -8.7% -0.9%

2010 304 0 0.0% 0.0%

2015 (Est) 331 27 8.9% 1.7%

1960-2015 -68 -17.0% -0.3%

Population Change in Riverton1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Riverton 399 331 342 333 304 304 -95

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Riverton as a % of Fremont County 3.9% 3.6% 3.6% 4.0% 3.8% 4.1%

2000 2010 Change0-15 68 22.4% 69 22.7% 1

15-19 23 7.6% 18 5.9% -5

20-24 18 5.9% 8 2.6% -10

25-34 29 9.5% 35 11.5% 6

35-44 46 15.1% 39 12.8% -7

45-54 35 11.5% 44 14.5% 9

55-64 34 11.2% 40 13.2% 6

65-74 30 9.9% 34 11.2% 4

75-84 15 4.9% 14 4.6% -1

85+ 6 2.0% 3 1.0% -3

Total 304 100.0% 304 100.0% 0

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015


15-19 18 21 12 -9 -42.7%

20-24 8 18 13 -5 -27.5%

25-34 35 23 64 41 179.8%

35-44 39 41 35 -6 -14.1%

45-54 44 40 39 -1 -3.2%

55-64 40 38 35 -3 -8.5%

65-74 34 35 21 -14 -40.1%

75-84 14 23 20 -3 -12.2%

85+ 3 2 7 5 201.9%

Total 304 301 331 30 9.9%

Overperform

Underperform



0

1

0 0

1

0 0

1

0 0 0 00

1

2

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 105 84.0% 119 89.5% 14

Renter-Occupied 20 16.0% 14 10.5% -6









Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 24.1% 32 $0-50,000 69 $0-400 0 69 37

$25-49,999 22.6% 30 $50-99,999 28 $400-800 14 42 12

$50-74,999 21.8% 29 $100-149,999 9 $800-1250 0 9 -20

$75-99,999 10.5% 14 $150-199,999 5 $1250-1500 0 5 -9

$100-150,000 21.1% 28 $200-$300,000 8 $1500-2000 0 8 -20

$150,000+ 0.0% 0 $300,000+ 0 $2000+ 0 0 0

100.0% 133 119 14 133 0

Housing Affordability RangesRiverton 2015

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic Trend (-0.34% ACR) 304 331 325 320 315

Natural Growth 304 331 330 332 340

0.5% Annual Population Increase 304 331 339 348 357

Comparative Population ModelsRiverton

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 1 existing unit every other year•A gradually declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total














2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Total Need 10 7 17


Affordable Low: $60-100,000 0 0 1


Moderate Market: $130-200,000 2 1 3




Affordable: $450-700 2 1 3



Resources

Environment and RecreationRiverton Wildlife Management Area is a distinctive if little known regional environmental resource of almost 4,000 acres, offering outdoor sports, primarily boating and hunting. The NishnabotnaRiver also offers significant potential as a canoe trail.

City ParkIn addition to superb views, Riverton’s City Park offers the historic Chautauqua Pavilion, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, provides special event opportunities.

Community HallThe Riverton Community Hall has become a popular venue for events and meetings, and serves as a regional hub.

Town Center PossibilitiesOther buildings in the center of town provide affordable entrepreneurial opportunities, possibly for outdoor oriented businesses.

Issues

Limited ServicesLike other small towns in Fremont County, Riverton struggles with commercial services, although it does have an iconic convenience store and café. However, the combination of an outdoor attraction and available commercial buildings may open some possibilities. More commercial activity addresses the issue of community marketing and resident attraction.

Lack of DemandRiverton has a small supply of attractive, older houses but again, in common with other towns, their market value suffers from lack of demand. Houses in relatively poor shape that may be on the market also deteriorate further without demand. A real objective is a program to increase the demand for housing in town, thereby also increasing population.


Markets• Potential residents attracted to

outdoor life and recreation.

• Entrepreneurs with business models related to outdoor sports and environment, including services to recreationalists.

Directions• Increase regional marketing and

awareness of the wildlife management area and Nishnabotna to expand user base. Program events at Chautauqua Pavilion.

• Position Riverton as a base of operations for the area.

• Recruit thematic businesses to Riverton Center and provide financing for basic building rehab.

• Establish an acquisition/rehab/resale program for existing houses.

• Make vacant lots available for homes.

Rural and VillagesHousing Issues Assessment – Includes Bartlett, Imogene, Percival, Randolph, and Thurman

5,775

4,7634,463

3,900 3,6643,287

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 5,775

1970 4,763 -967 -16.7% -1.8%

1980 4,463 -345 -7.2% -0.7%

1990 3,900 -563 -12.6% -1.3%

2000 3,664 -236 -6.1% -0.6%

2010 3,287 -377 -10.3% -1.1%

2015 (Est) 2,965 -322 -9.8% -2.0%

1960-2015 -2,810 -48.7% -1.2%

Population Change in Villages1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Remaining Areas 5,775 4,763 4,463 3,900 3,664 3,287 -2,488

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841Remaining Areas as a % of Fremont County 56.2% 51.3% 47.5% 47.4% 45.7% 44.2%

2000 2010 Change0-15 735 20.1% 562 17.1% -173

15-19 271 7.4% 217 6.6% -54

20-24 128 3.5% 124 3.8% -4

25-34 339 9.3% 291 8.9% -48

35-44 569 15.5% 350 10.6% -219

45-54 589 16.1% 595 18.1% 6

55-64 408 11.1% 553 16.8% 145

65-74 339 9.3% 316 9.6% -23

75-84 228 6.2% 220 6.7% -8

85+ 58 1.6% 59 1.8% 1

Total 3,664 100.0% 3,287 100.0% -377

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015


15-19 217 208 129 -79 -37.8%

20-24 124 216 69 -147 -68.1%

25-34 291 257 221 -36 -13.9%

35-44 350 332 310 -22 -6.5%

45-54 595 438 474 36 8.3%

55-64 553 609 615 6 0.9%

65-74 316 374 354 -20 -5.3%

75-84 220 204 293 89 43.3%

85+ 59 88 72 -16 -17.9%

Total 3,287 3,198 2,965 -233 -7.3%

Overperform

Underperform



1612 13 13

20

11 1013

47 5

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 1,085 75.8% 1,082 83.2% -3

Renter-Occupied 346 24.2% 219 16.8% -127

Total Vacant 147 137 -10


Total Units 1,578 1,438 -140






Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 14.5% 189 $0-50,000 128 $0-400 53 181 -8

$25-49,999 20.8% 270 $50-99,999 242 $400-800 158 400 130

$50-74,999 26.7% 348 $100-149,999 256 $800-1250 0 256 -92

$75-99,999 9.7% 126 $150-199,999 115 $1250-1500 0 115 -11

$100-150,000 14.2% 185 $200-$300,000 159 $1500-2000 8 167 -18

$150,000+ 14.1% 183 $300,000+ 182 $2000+ 0 182 -1

100.0% 1,301 1,082 219 1,301 0

Housing Affordability RangesRemaining Areas 2015

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic Trend (-1.20% ACR) 3,287 2,965 2,791 2,627 2,472

Natural Growth 3,287 2,965 2,818 2,670 2,539

0.5% Annual Growth 3,287 2,965 3,040 3,117 3,195

Comparative Population ModelsRemaining Areas

Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 6 existing units per year•A declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total









Average Annual Need -12.9 -9.7 -11.6



Housing demand calculation is based on:•No change in the number of people per household•Average annual replacement of 6 existing units per year•A declining vacancy rate

2015 Base 2017-2024 2025-2030 Total














2017-2024 2025-2030 Total

Total Need 77 52 129


Affordable Low: $60-100,000 4 3 7


Moderate Market: $130-200,000 14 10 24




Affordable: $450-700 13 9 21



ImogeneHousing Issues Assessment

264

192 188

8866 72

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 264

1970 192 -72 -27.3% -3.1%

1980 188 -4 -2.1% -0.2%

1990 88 -100 -53.2% -7.3%

2000 66 -22 -25.0% -2.8%

2010 72 6 9.1% 0.9%

2015 (Est) 34 -38 -52.8% -13.9%

1960-2015 -230 -87.1% -3.7%

Population Change in Imogene1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Imogene 264 192 188 88 66 72 -192

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Imogene as a % of Fremont County 2.6% 2.1% 2.0% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0%

2000 2010 Change0-15 15 22.7% 17 23.6% 2

15-19 2 3.0% 4 5.6% 2

20-24 3 4.5% 3 4.2% 0

25-34 11 16.7% 3 4.2% -8

35-44 11 16.7% 10 13.9% -1

45-54 7 10.6% 12 16.7% 5

55-64 4 6.1% 10 13.9% 6

65-74 7 10.6% 4 5.6% -3

75-84 5 7.6% 9 12.5% 4

85+ 1 1.5% 0 0.0% -1

Total 66 100.0% 72 100.0% 6

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015


15-19 4 5 2 -3 -59.9%

20-24 3 4 1 -3 -74.9%

25-34 3 6 4 -2 -33.0%

35-44 10 6 3 -3 -49.6%

45-54 12 7 9 2 30.7%

55-64 10 15 7 -8 -54.4%

65-74 4 6 0 -6 -100.0%

75-84 9 3 1 -2 -66.1%

85+ 0 3 2 -1 -29.3%

Total 72 69 34 -35 -50.5%

Overperform

Underperform



2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 23 79.3% 18 100.0% -5

Renter-Occupied 6 20.7% 0 0.0% -6

Total Vacant 9 5 -4

Vacancy rate 23.7% 21.7% 0

Total Units 38 23 -15





Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 44.4% 8 $0-50,000 10 $0-400 0 10 2

$25-49,999 5.6% 1 $50-99,999 4 $400-800 0 4 3

$50-74,999 22.2% 4 $100-149,999 2 $800-1250 0 2 -2

$75-99,999 22.2% 4 $150-199,999 1 $1250-1500 0 1 -3

$100-150,000 5.6% 1 $200-$300,000 1 $1500-2000 0 1 0

$150,000+ 0.0% 0 $300,000+ 0 $2000+ 0 0 0

100.0% 18 18 0 18 0

Housing Affordability RangesImogene 2015

Resources/Issues

Resources

Wabash TraceA major regional attraction that attracts people who normally would have little awareness of the village.

Emerald IsleAn important community node and center of activity

St. Patrick’sIn many ways, the spiritual symbol of the village and region.

Rural QualityAppealing to creative people wanting an alternative to the city

Internet AccessMakes it possible to live in the village and do business elsewhere

Issues

Streets and InfrastructurePoor streets with no money to repair or replace.

Critical MassSmall community with difficulty assembling the capital to reinvest.

Markets/Directions

Markets• Households, including young

people, attracted by a rural hamlet but keeping “one foot in the city”

• People attracted by Imogene’s unique assets: trail, humor, “Cheers” quality, spiritual center

Directions• Emphasize “hamlet” quality

• Develop a rural hamlet cluster of appropriate homes, shared systems

• Identify strategic streets to improve while maintaining rural standards

• Focus on specific opportunity sites and buildings like the Post Office that are consistent with markets.

RandolphHousing Issues Assessment

257

214 223243

209

168

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 257

1970 214 -43 -16.7% -1.8%

1980 223 9 4.2% 0.4%

1990 243 20 9.0% 0.9%

2000 209 -34 -14.0% -1.5%

2010 168 -41 -19.6% -2.2%

2015 (Est) 188 20 11.9% 2.3%

1960-2015 -69 -26.8% -0.6%

Population Change in Randolph1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Randolph 257 214 223 243 209 168 -89

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Randolph as a % of Fremont County 2.5% 2.3% 2.4% 3.0% 2.6% 2.3%

2000 2010 Change0-15 48 23.0% 29 17.3% -19

15-19 16 7.7% 10 6.0% -6

20-24 7 3.3% 8 4.8% 1

25-34 23 11.0% 15 8.9% -8

35-44 28 13.4% 14 8.3% -14

45-54 31 14.8% 27 16.1% -4

55-64 29 13.9% 35 20.8% 6

65-74 11 5.3% 18 10.7% 7

75-84 14 6.7% 10 6.0% -4

85+ 2 1.0% 2 1.2% 0

Total 209 100.0% 168 100.0% -41

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015


15-19 10 5 2 -3 -59.9%

20-24 8 10 7 -3 -29.7%

25-34 15 16 25 9 56.9%

35-44 14 12 17 5 42.7%

45-54 27 25 31 6 26.2%

55-64 35 26 29 3 12.5%

65-74 18 26 23 -3 -12.6%

75-84 10 14 6 -8 -56.2%

85+ 2 1 2 1 65.9%

Total 168 166 188 22 13.3%

Overperform

Underperform



2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 65 79.3% 56 74.7% -9

Renter-Occupied 17 20.7% 19 25.3% 2

Total Vacant 6 14 8


Total Units 88 89 1





Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 34.7% 26 $0-50,000 16 $0-400 5 21 -5

$25-49,999 24.0% 18 $50-99,999 29 $400-800 14 43 25

$50-74,999 30.7% 23 $100-149,999 9 $800-1250 0 9 -14

$75-99,999 5.3% 4 $150-199,999 0 $1250-1500 0 0 -4

$100-150,000 5.3% 4 $200-$300,000 2 $1500-2000 0 2 -2

$150,000+ 0.0% 0 $300,000+ 0 $2000+ 0 0 0

100.0% 75 56 19 75 0

Housing Affordability RangesRandolph 2015

Resources/Issues

Resources

Community AppearanceRandolph presents itself attractively along its principal corridor.

FeaturesQuality of life and community features like the museum, library, and park, suggest a good living environment.

Kids and FamiliesChildren make up an unusually large % of the village’s population. The town attracts young families.

Area TownsProximity to Tabor and Malvern keep commercial support services relatively close.

Issues

Lack of Convenience ServicesConvenience services are lacking although relatively close by in Tabor.

Unmet Rental DemandParticipants document rental demand, but town lacks rental housing

Access on J18 CorridorTown is relatively strung out along east-west corridor. A continuous roadside trail would provide safer access, important in a community with a large number of children.

Markets/Directions

Markets• Family households

• Regional employees and commuters – related to growth in Tabor

Directions• Community marketing, including

promotion of attractions, possibly in concert with Malvern

• Organize a community store, possibly using an available building in the center of town

• Develop a small cluster of rental units: potentially cottages around a common space

• Establish an acquisition/rehab/resale effort for several older houses

ThurmanHousing Issues Assessment

268

230 221239 236 229

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Period

Population Change



1960 268

1970 230 -38 -14.2% -1.5%

1980 221 -9 -3.9% -0.4%

1990 239 18 8.1% 0.8%

2000 236 -3 -1.3% -0.1%

2010 229 -7 -3.0% -0.3%

2015 (Est) 209 -20 -8.7% -1.8%

1960-2015 -59 -22.0% -0.5%

Population Change in Thurman1960-2015

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change

Thurman 268 230 221 239 236 229 -39

Fremont County 10,282 9,282 9,401 8,226 8,010 7,441 -2,841

Thurman as a % of Fremont County 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1%

2000 2010 Change0-15 61 25.8% 63 27.5% 2

15-19 24 10.2% 14 6.1% -10

20-24 6 2.5% 11 4.8% 5

25-34 28 11.9% 32 14.0% 4

35-44 39 16.5% 27 11.8% -12

45-54 31 13.1% 42 18.3% 11

55-64 22 9.3% 20 8.7% -2

65-74 14 5.9% 11 4.8% -3

75-84 10 4.2% 7 3.1% -3

85+ 1 0.4% 2 0.9% 1

Total 236 100.0% 229 100.0% -7

Growth

Decline


2010 Actual2015


15-19 14 19 30 11 58.2%

20-24 11 14 4 -10 -71.3%

25-34 32 20 22 2 10.5%

35-44 27 37 36 -1 -2.0%

45-54 42 32 25 -7 -23.0%

55-64 20 34 31 -3 -7.7%

65-74 11 13 8 -5 -36.9%

75-84 7 7 5 -2 -27.5%

85+ 2 2 3 1 34.8%

Total 229 233 209 -24 -10.1%

Overperform

Underperform



2000 2015Change



Units

Owner-Occupied 71 87.7% 60 82.2% -11

Renter-Occupied 10 12.3% 13 17.8% 3



Total Units 90 92 2





Units



Units

Total Affordable

Units Balance

$0-25,000 15.1% 11 $0-50,000 25 $0-400 7 32 21

$25-49,999 37.0% 27 $50-99,999 18 $400-800 7 25 -3

$50-74,999 23.3% 17 $100-149,999 4 $800-1250 0 4 -13

$75-99,999 15.1% 11 $150-199,999 4 $1250-1500 0 4 -7

$100-150,000 9.6% 7 $200-$300,000 4 $1500-2000 0 4 -3

$150,000+ 0.0% 0 $300,000+ 5 $2000+ 0 5 5

100.0% 73 60 13 73 0

Housing Affordability RangesThurman 2015

Resources/Issues

ResourcesI-29 Location

Direct access to I-29 is convenient for commuters. The new US 34 also speeds access to Omaha-CB metro area

Open LotsAvailable sites can accommodate infill houses and rental units.

Interesting HousesSome large houses add value to the community and can help to anchor new construction

Water ProjectWater quality and distribution is a critical problem in Thurman. Village has received a major grant to address this issue

Loess Hills RegionProximity to Waubonsie, Forney Lake, the Wilds and the river all can appeal to potential residents

IssuesLack of Convenience Services

Convenience services are lacking. Interstate corridor itself is in the flood plain and was inundated during the 2011 event.

Steady DeclineThe town has gone through consistent population loss, and is viewed as a place with little to attract new residents.

Markets/Directions

Markets• Rural-based entrepreneurs

needing good transportation access

• Agriculturally-oriented households

Directions• Acquisition/rehab/resale program

• Infill on vacant lots

• Possible rental group for regional commuters

• Execute water system improvements

I-29 TownsBartlett and Percival

Resources/Issues

ResourcesI-29 Location

Direct access to I-29 is convenient for commuters and truck transportation. The new US 34 bridge speeds the trip to the southern part of the Omaha metropolitan area.

Open LotsAvailable sites can accommodate infill houses and rental units.

Community InvestmentIn spite of its small size, Percival has developed an attractive small park. Both towns have churches.

The WildsThis camping area, restaurant, and river access brings people to Bartlett.

IssuesSize

Both communities are very small and struggle with critical mass.

Flood IssuesBoth communities are in the Missouri River floodplain and experienced major flood damage during the 2011 event.

Markets/Directions

Markets• Area residents rebuilding

• People and businesses who need immediate access to I-29

Directions• Infill on vacant lots, encouraging flood

resistant designs such as building over parking

• Possible rental group for regional commuters

• Possible reuse of Percival School building or redeveloping site

Fremont County provides many attractions, many of which are unknown to most of the surrounding population. Distinctive communities, an annual rodeo, the Loess Hills and Waubonsie State Park, the Wabash Trace, the Nishnabotna, a key wetlands refuge, an historic Chautauqua Pavilion, and many other features. Increasing awareness of these, combined with an aggressive development program, can make a significant difference. A county marketing program targeted to critical markets could include:• Emphasis on community strengths: civic life, educational

quality, spiritual life, image features• Promotion of environmental assets• Tourism events • Economic opportunity • Peer group testimonials• Substantial on-line presence: website, social media

And finally… county marketing

housing fremont county · 6/27/2017 · •places for growing old with dignity community housing...

Documents