Sheridan County NEBRASKA PROFILE VOLUME II County.pdf · Nebraska Profile II.81.2 Final Report:...

Sheridan County

NEBRASKA PROFILE

VOLUME II

Volume II: County Profiles Sheridan County

N E B R A S K A I N V E S T M E N T F I N A N C E A U T H O R I T Y

Nebraska Profile II.81.1 Final Report: 4/3/2020

Please visit the Nebraska State Profile Dashboard:

http://www.NEstats.org

For an online version of this profile with many additional

features including:

Mapping Interactive Charts and Tables Data Downloads Interactive Long Read Interactive Tour Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction Comparison Download Additional Reports And More

http://www.nestats.org/




Sheridan County

DEMOGRAPHICS

Population Estimates

The Census Bureau’s current census estimates indicate that Sheridan County’s population

decreased from 5,469 in 2010 to 5,190 in 2018, or by 5.1 percent. This compares to a statewide

population change of 5.6 percent over the period. The number of people from 25 to 34 years of age

decreased by 14 percent, and the number of people from 55 to 64 years of age decreased by 12

percent. The white population decreased by 6.1 percent, while the black population increased by

75 percent. The Hispanic population increased from 171 to 274 people between 2010 and 2018,

or by 60.2 percent. These data are presented in Table II.81.1.

Table II.81.1 Profile of Population Characteristics

Sheridan County vs. State of Nebraska 2010 Census and 2018 Current Census Estimates

Subject Sheridan County State of Nebraska

2010 Census Jul-18 % Change 2010 Census Jul-18 % Change

Population 5,469 5,190 -5.1% 1,826,341 1,929,268 5.6%

Age

0 to 14 years 1,056 952 -9.8% 383,542 398,790 4%

15 to 24 years 533 537 0.8% 258,206 268,759 4.1%

25 to 34 years 513 441 -14% 245,176 255,723 4.3%

35 to 44 years 562 550 -2.1% 220,838 239,311 8.4%

45 to 54 years 741 567 -23.5% 258,726 219,971 -15%

55 to 64 years 852 750 -12% 213,176 243,048 14%

65 and Over 1,212 1,393 14.9% 246,677 303,666 23.1%

Race

White 4,649 4,364 -6.1% 1,649,264 1,703,446 3.3%

Black 12 21 75% 85,971 98,757 14.9%

American Indian and Alaskan Native

625 555 -11.2% 23,418 28,663 22.4%

Asian 18 26 44.4% 33,322 52,343 57.1%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

10 14 40% 2,061 2,338 13.4%

Two or more races 155 210 35.5% 32,305 43,721 35.3%

Ethnicity (of any race)

Hispanic or Latino 171 274 60.2% 167,405 215,872 29%

Table II.81.2, presents the population of Sheridan County by age and gender from the 2010 Census

and 2018 current census estimates. The 2010 Census count showed a total of 2,654 males, who

accounted for 48.5 percent of the population, and the remaining 51.5 percent, or 2,815 persons,

were female. In 2018, the number of males rose to 2,546 persons, and accounted for 49.1 percent

of the population, with the remaining 50.9 percent, or 2,644 persons being female.




Table II.81.2 Population by Age and Gender

Sheridan County 2010 Census and Current Census Estimates

Age 2010 Census

2018 Current Census Estimates

% Change 10-18 Male Female Total Male Female Total

0 to 14 years 542 514 1,056 498 454 952 -9.8%

15 to 24 years 265 268 533 273 264 537 0.8%

25 to 34 years 269 244 513 219 222 441 -14%

35 to 44 years 267 295 562 282 268 550 -2.1%

45 to 54 years 365 376 741 300 267 567 -23.5%

55 to 64 years 426 426 852 356 394 750 -12%

65 and Over 520 692 1,212 618 775 1,393 14.9%

Total 2,654 2,815 5,469 2,546 2,644 5,190 -5.1%

% of Total 48.5% 51.5% . 49.1% 50.9% .

Diagram II.81.1

Population Sheridan County

2018 Current Census Estimates




Diagram II.81.2 Age Distribution

Sheridan County 2018 Current Census Estimates




Population Migration Trends

Total population change is a combination of births, deaths,

and the net migration of those arriving in and leaving the

state. The result of births minus deaths is termed the “natural

increase.” As calculated from data shown in Table II.81.3, the

2018 population estimates showed a natural decrease of 112

persons since 2010. Between 2010 and 2018, Sheridan

County’s population decreased from 5,469 in 2010 to 5,190

in 2018, or by 5.1 percent.

The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) collects

data on drivers who move to Nebraska and exchange licenses

from other states as well as those surrendering Nebraska

driver’s licenses when relocating to a different state. The

NDOT data does not represent a precise count of migration,

as they show only the net change in the number of driver’s

licenses, but the data indicate the general direction of population movement.

As can be seen in Table II.81.4, the most recent first half of 2019 data saw a total net out-migration

of 17 persons, with a total of 70 persons entering Sheridan County and 87 persons leaving Sheridan

County.

Table II.81.4 Net In-migration by Year

Sheridan County Nebraska DOT Data

Year In-

Migration Out-

Migration Net-

Migration

2002 117 129 -12

2003 107 113 -6

2004 101 94 7

2005 90 103 -13

2006 106 103 3

2007 107 121 -14

2008 99 57 42

2009 98 88 10

2010 118 73 45

2011 90 83 7

2012 123 79 44

2013 104 85 19

2014 123 79 44

2015 96 90 6

2016 113 74 39

2017 93 123 -30

2018 90 80 10

2019 – First Half

70 87 -17

Table II.81.3 Population Change

Sheridan County 1980–2010 Census and Intercensal Data

1980 Population 7,544

Natural Increase 80–90 246

Net Migration 80–90 -1,040


Natural Increase 90–00 -111

Net Migration 90–00 -441




2009 Population Estimate 5,264




2018 Population Estimate 5,190




Diagram II.81.3 shows in and out- migration as a shaded area, with net migration depicted as a line

graph. As can be seen, the maximum net migration occurred in 2010 with 45 people entering and

the lowest net migration occurred in 2017 with 30 people leaving Sheridan County

Diagram II.81.3 Net In-migration

Sheridan County Nebraska DOT Data: 2002 – 2018

The NDOT data also collects gender and age information. Table II.81.5 shows in- and out-

migration by gender. In the most recent first half 2019 data, 82 percent of net-migrants were male

and the remaining 18 percent were female.




Table II.81.5 Net In-migration by Gender


Gender 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-

First Half

In

Male 49 57 42 67 53 66 56 60 45 47 29

Female 49 61 48 56 51 57 40 53 48 43 41

Total 98 118 90 123 104 123 96 113 93 90 70

Out

Male 38 40 37 48 41 39 44 40 58 37 43

Female 50 33 46 31 44 40 46 34 65 43 44

Total 88 73 83 79 85 79 90 74 123 80 87

Net

Male 11 17 5 19 12 27 12 20 -13 10 -14

Female -1 28 2 25 7 17 -6 19 -17 0 -3

Total 10 45 7 44 19 44 6 39 -30 10 -17

Table II.81.6 shows net-migration for Sheridan County by age range. In 2019, the 45 to 54 cohort

saw 4 persons entering Sheridan County, while the 65 and older cohort saw 10 persons leaving

Sheridan County.

Table II.81.6 Migration by Age Range


Age Range

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 – First Half

In

14-24 17 20 14 15 11 24 16 21 18 22 15

25-34 18 27 27 36 29 27 21 20 15 20 16

35-44 21 27 7 27 22 25 18 21 14 11 9

45-54 13 15 25 16 17 20 11 19 14 13 14

55-64 18 18 13 16 11 17 17 24 19 10 9

65 + 11 11 4 13 14 10 13 8 13 14 7

Total 98 118 90 123 104 123 96 113 93 90 70

Out

14-24 26 25 21 12 11 13 16 14 23 21 20

25-34 17 17 19 19 17 31 29 16 25 26 14

35-44 14 9 13 11 16 11 12 10 20 6 11

45-54 16 9 14 12 12 7 14 15 17 13 10

55-64 11 7 8 13 22 11 15 11 23 9 15

65 + 4 6 8 12 7 6 4 8 15 5 17

Total 88 73 83 79 85 79 90 74 123 80 87

Net

14-24 -9 -5 -7 3 0 11 0 7 -5 1 -5

25-34 1 10 8 17 12 -4 -8 4 -10 -6 2

35-44 7 18 -6 16 6 14 6 11 -6 5 -2

45-54 -3 6 11 4 5 13 -3 4 -3 0 4

55-64 7 11 5 3 -11 6 2 13 -4 1 -6

65 + 7 5 -4 1 7 4 9 0 -2 9 -10

Total 10 45 7 44 19 44 6 39 -30 10 -17




Table II.81.7 shows migration data for Sheridan County between 2012 and 2018. This data comes

from the IRS, which tracks address changes between filing years. As a result, this dataset might

underrepresent low-income people who are less likely to file taxes. This dataset also excludes tax

returns filed after late September. Taxpayers who file after late September are likely to have

complex returns that report high income, which means this dataset will also underreport the very

wealthy.

According to the IRS, Sheridan County saw a net in migration of 63 persons in 2018, unfortunately

there was insufficient data to calculate migration trends for 2017.

Table II.81.7 IRS Migration Trends

Sheridan County IRS Data

Year In-Migration Out-Migration Net-Migration

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 63 0 63




School Age Enrollment

According to the Nebraska Department of

Education (DOE), the total number of school-

age children in Sheridan County decreased by

9.1 percent from 817 in 2018 to 743 in 2019,

as shown in Table II.81.8. The number of

school-age children 5 to 11 years of age

decreased from 367 in 2018 to 332 in 2019.

Diagram II.81.4 shows the distribution and size

of school-age cohorts in Sheridan County from

1992 to 2018.

Diagram II.81.4

School-Age Cohorts Sheridan County

1992 – 2018 Nebraska DOE Data

Table II.81.8 School-Age Children

Sheridan County Academic Years 2000–2019 DOE Data

Year Age Group

Total 5–11 12–13 14–18

2000 572 200 550 1,322

2001 552 196 399 1,147

2002 527 190 430 1,528

2003 519 177 417 1,113 2004 505 139 404 1,048 2005 495 154 389 1,038 2006 482 149 398 1,029 2007 417 137 370 924 2008 434 137 349 920 2009 480 139 343 962

2010 519 138 323 980

2011 517 122 337 976

2012 512 142 319 973

2013 520 154 321 995

2014 429 139 314 882

2015 421 142 339 902 2016 410 132 324 866 2017 392 131 325 848 2018 367 123 327 817 2019 332 124 287 743




Census Demographic Data

In the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses, the Census Bureau released several tabulations in

addition to the full SF1 100 percent count data including the one-in-six SF3 sample. These

additional samples, such as the SF3, asked supplementary questions regarding income and

household attributes that were not asked in the 100 percent count. In the 2010 decennial census,

the Census Bureau did not collect additional sample data, such as the SF3, and thus many

important housing and income concepts are not available in the 2010 Census.

To study these important concepts the Census Bureau distributes the American Community Survey

every year to a sample of the population and quantifies the results as one-, three- and five-year

averages. The one-year sample only includes responses from the year the survey was implemented,

while the five-year sample includes responses over a five-year period. Since the five-year estimates

include more responses, the estimates can be tabulated down to the Census tract level, and

considered more robust than the one or three year sample estimates.




Commuting Patterns Table II.81.9 shows the place of work by county of residence. In 2010 76 percent of residents

worked within the county they reside with 11.4 percent working outside their home county. This

compares to 79.2 percent of residents in 2018 who worked within the county in which they

resided and 10.6 percent of residents worked outside their home county but still within the state.

Table II.81.9 Place of Work Sheridan County

2010 and 2018 Five-Year ACS data

Place of work 2010 Five-Year ACS % of Total 2018 Five-Year ACS % of Total

Worked in county of residence 1,960 76% 2,047 79.2%

Worked outside county of residence 294 11.4% 274 10.6%

Worked outside state of residence 325 12.6% 262 10.1%

Total 2,579 100% 2,583 100%

Table II.81.10 shows the aggregate travel time to work based on place of work and residence. In

Sheridan County the total aggregate travel time was 44,800 minutes in 2018, with residents

working in their home county spending a total of 28,250 minutes.

Table II.81.10 Aggregate Travel Time to Work (in Minutes)

Sheridan County 2010 and 2018 Five-Year ACS data

Place of Work 2010 Five-Year ACS % of Total 2018 Five-Year ACS % of Total

Worked in County of residence 20,190 48.1% 28,250 63.1%

Worked outside County of residence 10,875 25.9% 7,775 17.4%

Worked outside State of residence 10,905 26% 8,775 19.6%

Aggregate travel time to work (in

minutes): 41,970 100% 44,800 100%

Table II.81.11 shows the average travel time to work based on place of work and residence. In

2018 the overall aggregate travel time was 41,970 minutes. Residents working within their home

county spent an average of 13.8 minutes commuting to work, with those working outside their

county of residence spending an average of 28.4 minutes on their commute.




Table II.81.11 Average Travel Time to Work (in Minutes)


Place of Work 2010 Five-Year ACS 2018 Five-Year ACS

Worked in County of residence 10.3 13.8

Worked outside County of residence 37 28.4

Worked outside State of residence 33.6 33.5

Average travel time to work (in minutes): 16.3 17.3

Table II.81.12 shows the means of transportation to work. In 2018, 69.5 percent of commuters

drove alone in a car, truck, or van. Only 14 percent carpooled, with an additional 0 percent taking

public transportation. Also, there were 203 persons or 7.9 percent who worked from home.

Table II.81.12 Means of Transportation to Work


Means 2010 Five-Year

ACS % of Total

2018 Five-Year ACS

% of Total

Car, truck, or van: Drove alone 1,757 68.1% 1,794 69.5%

Car, truck, or van: Carpooled: 284 11% 361 14%

Public transportation (excluding taxicab): 0 0% 0 0%

Taxicab 0 0% 0 0%

Motorcycle 5 0.2% 4 0.2%

Bicycle 10 0.4% 16 0.6%

Walked 244 9.5% 199 7.7%

Other means 1 0% 6 0.2%

Worked at home 278 10.8% 203 7.9%

Total 2,579 100% 2,583 100%

Table II.81.13 shows the breakdown of the means of transportation by tenure. In 2018, 51.3

percent of commuters owned their home and commuted alone by car, which compares to 52.2

percent in 2010. There were also 474 renters who drove alone in 2018 and accounted for 18.4

percent of the total commuter population. Commuters who owned their own home and took public

transportation represented 0 percent of the population, which compares to 0 renters, or 0 percent

taking public transportation.




Table II.81.13 Means Of Transportation To Work By Tenure


Tenure 2010 Five-Year

ACS % of Total

2018 Five-Year ACS

% of Total

Car, truck, or van - drove alone:

Owner 1,346 52.2% 1,320 51.3% Renter 411 15.9% 474 18.4%

Car, truck, or van - carpooled:

Owner 169 6.6% 202 7.9% Renter 115 4.5% 153 5.9%

Public transportation (excluding taxicab):

Owner 0 0% 0 0% Renter 0 0% 0 0%

Walked:

Owner 136 5.3% 155 6% Renter 108 4.2% 40 1.6%

Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means:

Owner 15 0.6% 21 0.8% Renter 1 0% 5 0.2%

Worked at home:

Owner 221 8.6% 186 7.2% Renter 57 2.2% 17 0.7%

Total: 2,579 100% 2,573 100%

Population Characteristics

Population by race and ethnicity through 2018 is shown in Table II.81.14. The white population

represented 82.7 percent of the population in 2018, compared with the black population

accounting for 0.8 percent of the population. Hispanic population represented 5 percent of the

population in 2018.

Table II.81.14 Population by Race and Ethnicity

Sheridan County 2010 Census & 2018 Five-Year ACS

Race 2010 Census 2018 Five-Year ACS

Population % of Total Population % of Total

White 4,629 84.6% 4,331 82.7%

Black 12 0.2% 40 0.8%

American Indian 619 11.3% 502 9.6%

Asian 18 0.3% 42 0.8%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 5 0.1% 2 0%

Other 24 0.4% 26 0.5%

Two or More Races 162 3% 291 5.6%

Total 5,469 100% 5,234 100%

Hispanic 171 3.1% 261 5%

Non-Hispanic 5,298 96.9% 4,973 95%




The change in race and ethnicity between 2010 and 2018 is shown in Table II.81.15. During this

time, the total non-Hispanic population was 4,973 persons in 2018. The Hispanic population was

261.

Table II.81.15 Population by Race and Ethnicity

Sheridan County 2010 Census & 2018 Five-Year ACS

Race 2010 Census 2018 Five-Year ACS

Population % of Total Population % of Total

Non-Hispanic

White 4,559 86.1% 4,270 85.9%

Black 12 0.2% 40 0.8%


Asian 18 0.3% 37 0.7%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 2 0% 2 0%

Other 0 0% 0 0%

Two or More Races 145 2.7% 191 3.8%

Total Non-Hispanic 5,298 100% 4,973 100%

Hispanic

White 70 40.9% 61 23.4%

Black 0 0% 0 0%


Asian 0 0% 5 1.9%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 3 1.8% 0 0%

Other 24 14% 26 10%

Two or More Races 17 9.9% 100 38.3%

Total Hispanic 171 100 261 100%

Total Population 5,469 100% 5,234 100%

Households by type and tenure are shown in Table II.81.16. Family households represented 61

percent of households in 2018, while non-family households accounted for 39 percent. These

changed from 63.1 and 36.9 percent in 2010, respectively.

Table II.81.16 Household Type by Tenure

Sheridan County 2010 Census SF1 & 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Household Type 2010 Census 2018 Five-Year ACS

Households Households Households % of Total

Family Households 1,501 63.1% 1,372 61%

Married-Couple Family 1,230 81.9% 1,103 80.4%

Owner-Occupied 981 79.8% 917 83.1%

Renter-Occupied 249 20.2% 186 16.9%

Other Family 271 18.1% 269 19.8%

Male Householder, No Spouse Present 83 30.6% 76 30.9%

Owner-Occupied 43 51.8% 60 78.9%


Female Householder, No Spouse Present 188 69.4% 193 69.9%

Owner-Occupied 108 57.4% 81 42%

Renter-Occupied 80 42.6% 112 58%

Non-Family Households 879 36.9% 879 39%

Owner-Occupied 519 59% 552 62.8%

Renter-Occupied 360 41% 327 37.2%

Total 2,380 100% 2,251 100%




The number of foreign born persons are shown in Table II.81.17. An estimated 0.4 percent of the

population was born in Guatemala with 0.3 percent being born in Nepal and another 0.2 percent

were born in Mexico.

Table II.81.17 Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population

Sheridan County 2018 Five-Year ACS

Number Country Number of Persons Percent of Total

Population

#1 country of origin Guatemala 23 0.4%

#2 country of origin Nepal 14 0.3%

#3 country of origin Mexico 12 0.2%

#4 country of origin Canada 9 0.2%

#5 country of origin Russia 7 0.1%

#6 country of origin Bangladesh 5 0.1%

#7 country of origin Panama 5 0.1%

#8 country of origin Philippines 5 0.1%

#9 country of origin Korea 4 0.1%

#10 country of origin Romania 3 0.1%

Limited English Proficiency and the language spoken at home are shown in Table II.81.18. An

estimated 0.8 percent of the population speaks Spanish at home, followed by 0.3 percent speaking

Other Indo-European languages.

Table II.81.18 Limited English Proficiency and Language Spoken at Home


Number Country Number of Persons Percent of Total

Population

#1 LEP Language Spanish 40 0.8%

#2 LEP Language Other Indo-European

languages 14 0.3%

#3 LEP Language Korean 4 0.1%

#4 LEP Language Russian, Polish, or other

Slavic languages 4 0.1%

#5 LEP Language Arabic 0 0%

#6 LEP Language Chinese 0 0%

#7 LEP Language French, Haitian, or

Cajun 0 0%

#8 LEP Language German or other West Germanic languages

0 0%

#9 LEP Language Other Asian and Pacific

Island languages 0 0%

#10 LEP Language Other and unspecified

languages 0 0%




Disability

Disability by age, as estimated by the 2018 ACS, is shown in Table II.81.19. The disability rate for

females was 20.4 percent, compared to 15.6 percent for males. The disability rate grew

precipitously higher with age, with 64.8 percent of those 75 or older experiencing a disability.

Table II.81.19 Disability by Age

Sheridan County 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Age Male Female Total

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Under 5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

5 to 17 49 10.7% 16 3.5% 65 7.1%

18 to 34 6 1.3% 19 4.7% 25 2.9%

35 to 64 96 10.9% 141 14.8% 237 12.9%

65 to 74 92 26.5% 121 35.7% 213 31%

75 or Older 150 60.7% 245 67.5% 395 64.8%

Total 393 15.6% 542 20.4% 935 18%

The number of disabilities by type, as estimated by the 2018 ACS, is shown in Table II.81.20. Some

11 percent have an ambulatory disability, 6.6 percent have an independent living disability, and

3.7 percent have a self-care disability.

Table II.81.20 Total Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older


Disability Type Population with

Disability Percent with

Disability

Hearing disability 314 6.1%

Vision disability 150 2.9%

Cognitive disability 266 5.4%

Ambulatory disability 543 11%

Self-Care disability 183 3.7%

Independent living disability 264 6.6%




Education

Education and employment data, as estimated by the 2018 ACS, is presented in Table II.81.21 and

Table II.81.22. In 2018, some 2,614 persons were employed and 65 were unemployed. This

totaled a labor force of 2,679 persons. The unemployment rate for Sheridan County was estimated

to be 2.4 percent in 2018.

Table II.81.21 Employment, Labor Force, and Unemployment


Employment Status 2018 Five-Year ACS

Employed 2,614

Unemployed 65

Labor Force 2,679

Unemployment Rate 2.4%

In 2018, 90.1 percent of households in Sheridan County had a high school education or greater as

shown in Table II.81.22.

Table II.81.22 High School or Greater Education


Education Level Households

High School or Greater 2,029

Total Households 2,251

Percent High School or Above 90.1%

As seen in Table II.81.23, in 2018 34.5 percent of the population had a high school diploma or

equivalent, another 31.9 percent had some college, 15.2 percent had a Bachelor’s Degree, and 6.8

percent of the population had a graduate or professional degree.

Table II.81.23 Educational Attainment


Education Level Population Percent

Less Than High School 469 11.6%

High School or Equivalent 1,396 34.5%

Some College or Associate’s Degree 1,291 31.9%

Bachelor’s Degree 617 15.2%

Graduate or Professional Degree 276 6.8%

Total Population Above 18 years 4,049 100%




ECONOMICS

Labor Force

Table II.81.24 shows the labor force statistics for Sheridan County from 1990 to the present. Over

the entire series the lowest unemployment rate occurred in 1990 with a rate of 1.8. The highest

level of unemployment occurred during 2009 rising to a rate of 3.9. This compared to a statewide

low of 2.3 in 1990 and statewide high of 4.6 in 2009 Over the last year the unemployment rate in

Sheridan County remained unchanged from 2.6 percent in 2017 to 2.6 percent in 2018, which

compared to a statewide decrease to 2.8 percent.

Table II.81.24 Labor Force Statistics

Sheridan County 1990 - 2018 BLS Data

Year

Sheridan County Statewide

Unemployment Rate Unemployment Employment Labor Force Unemployment

Rate

1990 57 3,076 3,133 1.8% 2.3%

1991 69 3,036 3,105 2.2% 2.7%

1992 72 2,951 3,023 2.4% 2.9%

1993 66 2,926 2,992 2.2% 2.8%

1994 75 2,980 3,055 2.5% 2.6%

1995 79 2,990 3,069 2.6% 2.6%

1996 90 2,985 3,075 2.9% 2.7%

1997 101 2,929 3,030 3.3% 2.5%

1998 81 2,827 2,908 2.8% 2.6%

1999 88 2,847 2,935 3% 2.8%

2000 97 3,198 3,295 2.9% 2.8%

2001 87 3,113 3,200 2.7% 3.1%

2002 88 3,154 3,242 2.7% 3.6%

2003 89 3,326 3,415 2.6% 3.9%

2004 94 3,192 3,286 2.9% 3.9%

2005 87 3,137 3,224 2.7% 3.8%

2006 86 3,152 3,238 2.7% 3.1%

2007 83 3,025 3,108 2.7% 3%

2008 84 2,977 3,061 2.7% 3.3%

2009 122 2,994 3,116 3.9% 4.6%

2010 100 2,721 2,821 3.5% 4.6%

2011 101 2,730 2,831 3.6% 4.4%

2012 100 2,707 2,807 3.6% 4%

2013 91 2,710 2,801 3.2% 3.8%

2014 73 2,704 2,777 2.6% 3.3%

2015 74 2,655 2,729 2.7% 3%

2016 78 2,657 2,735 2.9% 3.1%

2017 70 2,639 2,709 2.6% 2.9%

2018 69 2,621 2,690 2.6% 2.8%




Diagram II.81.5 shows the employment and labor force for Sheridan County. The difference

between the two lines represents the number of unemployed persons. In the most recent year,

employment stood at 2,621 persons, with the labor force reaching 2,690, indicating there were a

total of 69 unemployed persons. Diagram II.81.5

Employment and Labor Force Sheridan County

1990 – 2018 BLS Data




Unemployment

Diagram II.81.6 shows the unemployment rate for both the State and Sheridan County. During the

1990’s the average rate for Sheridan County was 2.6, which compared to 2.6 statewide. Between

2000 and 2010 the unemployment rate had an average of 2.8, which compared to 3.5 statewide.

Since 2010 the average unemployment rate was 3. Over the course of the entire period Sheridan

County had an average unemployment rate lower than the state, 2.8 percent for Sheridan County,

versus 3.2 statewide. Diagram II.81.6

Annual Unemployment Rate Sheridan County

1990 – 2018 BLS Data




Diagram II.81.7 shows the monthly unemployment rate for both the State and Sheridan County

from 2007 through June of 2019.

Diagram II.81.7

Monthly Unemployment Rate Sheridan County

2007 – June 2019 BLS Data




Employment

Table II.81.25 shows Employment and Median Earnings by industry for Sheridan County from the

2018 Five-Year ACS. The top industry by number of people employed in Sheridan County was

Farming in 2018. The Farming industry employed 320 people in 2018, accounting for 17% of all

employment in Sheridan County, with industry-wide median earnings of $40,000.

Table II.81.25 Employment by Industry


Industry Total

Employment Percent of

Employment Median

Earnings

Admin 28 2% $57,500

Arts 4 0% $0

Construction 91 5% $32,426

Education 129 7% $45,804

Farming 320 17% $40,000

Finance 103 6% $78,029

Food 95 5% $17,554

Health Care 214 12% $37,917

Info 39 2% $39,083

Management 20 1% $0

Manufacturing 100 5% $33,542

Mining 3 0% $0

Other 71 4% $22,250

Prof Service 92 5% $31,364

Government 172 9% $38,587

Real Estate 0 0% $0

Retail 206 11% $24,688

Transport 79 4% $60,893

Utilities 22 1% $67,500

Wholesale 66 4% $35,833




Diagram II.81.8 displays employment and earnings data for 2018 in Sheridan County. Only

industries that employed more than 0.0 percent of people and had accurate median earnings data

are included in Diagram II.81.8.

Diagram II.81.8

Employment and Median Earnings by Industry Sheridan County

2018 Five-Year ACS Data




Earnings

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (B.E.A.) produces regional economic accounts which provide a

consistent framework for analyzing and comparing individual state and local area economies. Table

II.81.26 shows total real earnings by industry for Sheridan County. In the most recent 2018

estimate, the government and government enterprises industry had the largest total real earnings,

with total real earnings reaching 32,754,000 dollars. Between 2017 and 2018 the farm industry

saw the largest percentage increase, rising by 26.3 percent to 25,707,000 dollars.

Table II.81.26 Real Earnings by Industry

Sheridan County BEA Table CA-5N Data (1,000’s of 2018 Dollars)

NAICS Categories 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Change

17-18

Farm earnings 20,167 50,679 47,885 52,721 70,007 47,317 35,717 20,356 25,707 26.3

Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Construction 2,798 2,472 2,882 2,543 2,973 2,921 3,147 3,484 3,667 5.3

Manufacturing 1,022 1,485 1,386 1,915 7,258 12,422 8,703 8,520 10,402 22.1

Wholesale trade 9,982 10,145 10,480 9,650 10,478 9,173 7,922 8,592 8,720 1.5

Retail trade 11,050 11,140 12,374 12,869 11,361 11,303 9,588 9,805 9,844 0.4

Transportation and warehousing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Information 1,429 1,392 1,203 1,123 1,398 1,528 1,927 1,302 1,533 17.8

Finance and insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Real estate and rental and leasing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Professional and technical services

0 0 0 0 0 1,536 1,590 1,542 1,534 -0.5

Management of companies and enterprises

0 0 0 -108 -873 -95 -57 -159 -113 -28.7

Administrative and waste services

0 0 0 0 0 440 403 332 341 2.6

Educational services 152 126 88 31 233 232 150 152 154 1.1

Health care and social assistance

2,899 2,584 2,887 2,671 2,585 2,776 3,273 4,614 5,376 16.5

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

194 256 202 258 860 567 0 0 363 0

Accommodation and food services

2,698 2,634 2,461 2,199 2,380 2,483 0 0 2,239 0

Other services, except public administration

6,274 6,234 6,733 6,373 6,438 5,865 5,840 5,661 5,814 2.7

Government and government enterprises

33,505 32,823 32,012 31,820 32,081 32,440 32,640 32,368 32,754 1.2

Total 104,775 136,324 136,717 139,486 161,743 143,465 125,732 113,540 123,811 9




Table II.81.27 shows the total employment by industry for Sheridan County. The most recent

estimates show the government and government enterprises industry was the largest employer in

Sheridan County, with employment reaching 644 jobs in 2018. Between 2017 and 2018 the

management of companies and enterprises industry saw the largest percentage increase, rising by

20 percent to 12 jobs.

Table II.81.27 Employment by Industry

Sheridan County BEA Table CA25 Data


17-18

Farm earnings 616 627 600 606 596 649 621 627 637 1.6%


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Construction 111 121 124 119 110 102 111 99 101 2%

Manufacturing 38 40 42 62 110 131 149 150 155 3.3%

Wholesale trade 261 256 241 227 222 211 197 208 205 -1.4%

Retail trade 360 361 355 350 370 359 344 335 339 1.2%

Transportation and warehousing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Information 31 29 28 29 28 28 31 30 32 6.7%

Finance and insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Real estate and rental and leasing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Professional and technical services 0 0 0 0 0 67 65 71 68 -4.2%


0 0 0 8 8 13 21 10 12 20%

Administrative and waste services 0 0 0 0 0 37 22 25 26 4%

Educational services 44 17 22 19 19 20 23 24 23 -4.2%

Health care and social assistance 106 114 145 130 122 119 128 151 170 12.6%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 19 27 28 24 22 21 0 0 23 0%

Accommodation and food services 165 177 159 167 153 156 0 0 117 0%


209 211 210 220 212 225 210 202 201 -0.5%


709 692 685 682 672 648 638 639 644 0.8%

Total 3,138 3,155 3,141 3,163 3,175 3,226 3,173 3,195 3,257 1.9%




Table II.81.28 shows the real average earnings per job by industry for Sheridan County. These

figures are calculated by dividing the Total Real Earning displayed in Table II.81.26 and Table

II.81.27, by Industry. In 2018, the manufacturing industry had the highest average earnings

reaching 67,110 dollars. Between 2017 and 2018 the farm industry saw the largest percentage

increase, rising by 24.3 percent to 40,356 dollars.

Table II.81.28 Real Earnings Per Job by Industry

Sheridan County BEA Table CA5N and CA25 Data


17-18

Farm earnings 32,738 80,829 79,808 86,998 117,462 72,908 57,516 32,465 40,356 24.3%


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Construction 25,205 20,426 23,244 21,368 27,032 28,638 28,350 35,192 36,307 3.2%

Manufacturing 26,899 37,125 33,011 30,883 65,978 94,823 58,408 56,802 67,110 18.1%

Wholesale trade 38,244 39,629 43,486 42,509 47,198 43,474 40,215 41,307 42,537 3%

Retail trade 30,694 30,858 34,858 36,770 30,704 31,485 27,873 29,268 29,038 -0.8%

Transportation and warehousing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Information 46,088 47,986 42,972 38,717 49,923 54,589 62,150 43,392 47,906 10.4%

Finance and insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Real estate and rental and leasing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Professional and technical services

0 0 0 0 0 22,923 24,463 21,719 22,559 3.9%


0 0 0 -13,560 -109,124 -7,293 -2,729 -15,850 -9,417 -40.6%

Administrative and waste services

0 0 0 0 0 11,901 18,330 13,294 13,115 -1.3%

Educational services 3,446 7,412 4,014 1,656 12,271 11,587 6,524 6,349 6,696 5.5%

Health care and social assistance

27,347 22,667 19,908 20,545 21,188 23,325 25,570 30,556 31,624 3.5%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

10,216 9,500 7,215 10,758 39,101 26,987 0 0 15,783 0%

Accommodation and food services

16,350 14,879 15,475 13,167 15,559 15,916 0 0 19,137 0%


30,020 29,543 32,060 28,970 30,367 26,068 27,811 28,025 28,925 3.2%


47,257 47,431 46,733 46,657 47,740 50,061 51,161 50,655 50,860 0.4%

Total 33,389 43,209 43,527 44,099 50,943 44,471 39,626 35,537 38,014 7%

Table II.81.29 shows total employment and real personal income for the years of 1969 to 2018. As

can be seen in Total Real Personal Income in 2018, comprising all wage and salary earnings,

proprietorship income, dividends, interest, rents, and transfer payments, was 244,323,000 dollars, a

5.4 percent change between 2017 and 2018. The Table shows further annual data for the years

1969 through 2018. In 2010, total employment was 3,138 and 3,257 in 2018, which was a

percentage change of 1.9 over this period.




Table II.81.29 Total Employment and Real Personal Income

Sheridan County BEA Data 1969 Through 2018

Year

1,000s of 2018 Dollars Per

Capita Income

Total Employment

Average Real Earnings

Per Job Earnings Social

Security Contributions

Residents Adjustments

Dividends, Interest, Rents

Transfer Payments

Personal Income

1969 84,676 4,268 -729 27,019 14,332 121,029 16,123 3,329 25,437

1970 86,197 4,145 -937 28,406 15,820 125,341 17,266 3,298 26,135

1971 88,119 4,532 -1,105 29,040 16,844 128,366 17,887 3,325 26,500

1972 103,098 4,868 -386 31,486 17,213 146,544 19,805 3,552 29,025

1973 121,242 6,103 -57 35,482 18,956 169,520 22,255 3,630 33,399

1974 95,479 6,622 832 36,776 19,099 145,564 19,830 3,733 25,576

1975 89,719 6,857 1,176 36,760 20,488 141,287 19,038 3,774 23,772

1976 97,893 7,298 1,700 37,483 21,465 151,244 19,860 3,943 24,826

1977 86,132 7,129 2,607 40,571 21,178 143,360 18,700 3,974 21,673

1978 96,694 7,697 3,534 41,027 21,890 155,449 20,311 4,056 23,839

1979 93,471 7,978 4,060 42,509 22,748 154,809 20,564 4,051 23,072

1980 105,739 7,854 4,337 49,037 24,076 175,334 23,214 4,140 25,540

1981 95,828 7,934 4,482 55,382 25,079 172,836 22,817 4,066 23,569

1982 90,903 7,922 4,138 62,984 26,414 176,518 23,100 4,014 22,647

1983 97,583 7,818 3,838 60,534 27,230 181,366 23,613 4,076 23,942

1984 91,056 8,262 4,434 65,501 27,623 180,353 23,600 3,981 22,874

1985 103,972 8,388 5,273 63,115 28,143 192,116 25,809 3,894 26,701

1986 89,788 8,313 6,094 58,939 28,822 175,330 24,033 3,685 24,366

1987 87,715 8,694 6,931 54,085 28,322 168,359 23,200 3,790 23,144

1988 96,286 9,415 7,174 50,873 28,490 173,407 24,037 3,782 25,460

1989 84,173 9,160 8,031 54,101 29,252 166,396 23,737 3,669 22,942

1990 87,238 9,069 10,420 51,859 30,328 170,775 25,527 3,665 23,804

1991 78,858 9,133 10,983 49,277 30,069 160,054 24,310 3,673 21,469

1992 76,178 9,028 11,827 49,461 32,633 161,071 24,542 3,636 20,951

1993 87,338 9,704 13,043 50,416 33,752 174,846 26,726 3,721 23,472

1994 77,168 9,700 14,427 50,409 34,079 166,382 25,402 3,738 20,645

1995 78,899 9,366 14,678 53,987 35,136 173,334 26,443 3,676 21,464

1996 77,413 9,222 14,715 53,944 36,409 173,259 26,388 3,729 20,760

1997 78,670 9,353 15,461 54,026 36,971 175,774 26,975 3,732 21,079

1998 81,204 9,198 16,740 55,733 37,246 181,726 28,641 3,557 22,830

1999 88,212 9,153 17,083 55,548 39,642 191,333 30,438 3,479 25,356

2000 89,891 9,026 16,699 59,142 40,089 196,795 31,921 3,429 26,215

2001 96,260 9,077 18,596 58,137 39,711 203,626 33,966 3,521 27,338

2002 100,406 9,271 20,507 52,367 39,767 203,775 33,990 3,408 29,462

2003 121,385 9,442 22,561 52,694 39,065 226,263 38,730 3,344 36,299

2004 109,535 9,228 25,104 45,978 38,377 209,766 35,851 3,207 34,154

2005 119,028 9,293 26,508 43,083 39,110 218,436 38,148 3,216 37,011

2006 101,300 9,838 28,175 43,421 40,715 203,773 36,072 3,240 31,266

2007 100,302 10,030 29,850 47,885 41,503 209,509 37,466 3,206 31,285

2008 106,438 10,288 31,853 53,260 44,895 226,158 41,119 3,135 33,951

2009 98,607 10,372 30,395 48,969 47,581 215,181 39,138 3,119 31,615

2010 104,775 10,347 30,252 47,588 48,567 220,835 40,565 3,138 33,389

2011 136,324 9,243 29,691 50,513 46,839 254,123 47,402 3,155 43,208

2012 136,717 9,289 28,901 48,798 47,020 252,146 47,315 3,141 43,527

2013 139,486 10,338 26,162 48,597 46,697 250,603 48,109 3,163 44,100

2014 161,743 10,889 25,348 51,298 43,437 270,936 51,578 3,175 50,942

2015 143,465 10,852 25,640 53,997 49,262 261,511 50,136 3,226 44,472

2016 125,732 11,108 25,206 51,122 49,527 240,479 45,972 3,173 39,626

2017 113,540 11,515 25,797 50,839 53,071 231,731 43,905 3,195 35,536

2018 123,811 12,043 25,546 53,195 53,814 244,323 47,076 3,257 38,014




Diagram II.81.9 shows real average earnings per job for Sheridan County from 1990 to 2018. Over

this period the average earning per job for Sheridan County was 31,491 dollars, which was lower

than the statewide average of 48,556 dollars over the same period.

Diagram II.81.9 Real Average Earnings Per Job

Sheridan County BEA Data 1990 - 2018




Diagram II.81.10 shows real per capita income in Sheridan County from 1990 to 2018, which is

calculated by dividing total personal income from all sources by population. Per capita income is a

broader measure of wealth than real average earnings per job, which only captures the working

population. Over this period the real per capita income for Sheridan County was 36,340 dollars,

which was lower than the statewide average of 43,098 dollars over the same period.

Diagram II.81.10 Real Per Capita Income

Sheridan County BEA Data 1990 - 2018




Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) produces the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

(QCEW), which reports monthly data on employment and quarterly data on wages and number of

business establishments. QCEW employment data represent only filled jobs, whether full or part-

time, temporary or permanent, by place of work over the pay period. Data from this series are from

the period of January 2010 through June 2019 and are presented in Table II.81.30, with the 2019

information considered preliminary. Between 2017 and 2018, total annual employment decreased

from 1,754 persons in 2017 to 1,744 in 2018, a change of -0.6 percent.

Table II.81.30 Total Monthly Employment

Sheridan County BLS QCEW Data, 2010–2019(p)

Period 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(p)

Jan 1,681 1,679 1,712 1,680 1,751 1,748 1,708 1,738 1,734 1,695

Feb 1,670 1,661 1,686 1,647 1,719 1,736 1,728 1,741 1,732 1,674

Mar 1,670 1,675 1,691 1,672 1,688 1,741 1,750 1,741 1,710 1,671

Apr 1,693 1,667 1,687 1,665 1,756 1,699 1,778 1,749 1,710 1,707

May 1,741 1,711 1,728 1,700 1,806 1,745 1,799 1,763 1,744 1,731

Jun 1,774 1,730 1,786 1,734 1,836 1,776 1,841 1,808 1,798 1,772

Jul 1,710 1,667 1,721 1,696 1,777 1,747 1,759 1,735 1,742

Aug 1,714 1,679 1,687 1,704 1,761 1,743 1,703 1,724 1,762

Sep 1,697 1,697 1,687 1,719 1,732 1,714 1,749 1,732 1,734

Oct 1,741 1,711 1,701 1,730 1,770 1,749 1,760 1,769 1,735

Nov 1,738 1,692 1,704 1,798 1,736 1,720 1,748 1,779 1,767

Dec 1,721 1,704 1,691 1,789 1,769 1,725 1,755 1,771 1,757

Annual 1,713 1,689 1,707 1,711 1,758 1,737 1,757 1,754 1,744

% Change -1.9% -1.4% 1.1% 0.2% 2.7% -1.2% 1.2% -0.2% -0.6% %

The QCEW also reports average weekly wages, which represents total compensation paid during

the calendar quarter, regardless of when services were performed. The BLS QCEW data indicated

average weekly wages were 562 dollars in 2017. In 2018, average weekly wages increased by 6.4

percent over the prior year, rising to 598 dollars, or by 36 dollars. These data are shown in Table

II.81.31.




Table II.81.31 Average Weekly Wages


Year First

Quarter Second Quarter

Third Quarter

Fourth Quarter

Annual % Change

2001 325 328 337 344 333

2002 341 342 345 351 345 3.6%

2003 349 352 358 360 355 2.9%

2004 354 364 360 379 364 2.5%

2005 351 365 372 394 370 1.6%

2006 377 394 372 399 386 4.3%

2007 385 406 419 446 414 7.3%

2008 415 436 437 474 440 6.3%

2009 421 442 437 486 446 1.4%

2010 435 457 462 482 459 2.9%

2011 453 466 484 496 475 3.5%

2012 478 467 486 516 487 2.5%

2013 497 488 510 514 502 3.1%

2014 513 507 529 562 528 5.2%

2015 538 522 528 574 540 2.3%

2016 518 529 565 588 550 1.9%

2017 546 561 551 589 562 2.2%

2018 552 595 581 662 598 6.4%

2019 597 632 %

Total business establishments reported by the QCEW are displayed in Table II.81.32. Between

2017 and 2018, the total number of business establishments in Nebraska decreased by 3.7 percent,

from 271 to 261 establishments.

Table II.81.32 Number of Business Establishments


Year First

Quarter Second Quarter

Third Quarter

Fourth Quarter

Annual % Change

2001 245 242 239 237 241 2002 241 241 241 242 241 (ND)% 2003 240 241 244 237 241 (ND)% 2004 244 240 241 239 241 (ND)% 2005 240 242 247 241 243 0.8% 2006 239 244 240 237 240 -1.2% 2007 238 240 239 234 238 -0.8% 2008 233 233 234 228 232 -2.5% 2009 227 226 224 223 225 -3% 2010 221 219 221 223 221 -1.8% 2011 219 221 223 221 221 (ND)% 2012 251 255 258 259 256 15.8% 2013 260 267 268 269 266 3.9% 2014 267 273 264 266 268 0.8% 2015 268 272 271 273 271 1.1% 2016 279 278 283 276 279 3% 2017 272 276 272 262 271 -2.9% 2018 262 267 257 258 261 -3.7% 2019 257 261 %




Nebraska Department of Revenue

According to the Nebraska Department of Revenue (DOR), returns from taxpayers with adjusted

gross incomes (AGIs) of less than 10,000 dollars decreased by 13.3 percent between 2010 and

2018. Returns from taxpayers with AGIs of 35,001 dollars to 50,000 dollars decreased by 11.6

percent over the period. By 2018 there were 245 returns for AGIs of 100,000 dollars or more.

Table II.81.33, presents AGI distribution for the years 1991 through 2018.

Table II.81.33 Income Tax Returns by Adjusted Gross Income

Sheridan County 1991–2018 DOR Data

Year Less than $10,000

$10,000–$15,000

$15,001–$25,000

$25,001–$35,000

$35,001–$50,000

$50,001–$75,000

$75,001–$100,000

$100,001–$250,000

More than $250,000

Total1

1991 1,088 288 552 325 261 147 12 36 0 2,736

1992 1,076 317 521 345 259 151 12 34 0 2,748

1993 1,020 314 501 332 278 172 0 43 0 2,701

1994 1,102 298 506 317 273 155 41 35 0 2,739

1995 1,097 274 483 311 246 163 28 26 0 2,657

1996 1,062 276 471 337 249 175 39 39 0 2,663

1997 1,025 232 491 316 305 191 58 37 0 2,668

1998 977 258 472 308 283 216 49 40 0 2,619

1999 961 230 446 311 301 240 59 61 0 2,625

2000 911 210 446 315 343 242 71 72 0 2,631

2001 876 213 455 294 322 255 82 64 0 2,573

2002 843 213 445 291 306 241 82 53 0 2,486

2003 818 226 432 311 300 255 77 51 0 2,485

2004 742 234 440 306 297 268 88 69 0 2,462

2005 656 199 357 271 306 273 99 86 11 2,258

2006 589 248 441 295 304 302 0 116 14 2,415

2007 584 214 425 269 281 318 0 112 0 2,356

2008 580 248 430 268 291 319 142 118 10 2,406

2009 539 240 390 268 297 306 137 100 10 2,287

2010 496 186 401 268 319 324 163 113 12 2,282

2011 469 208 371 283 286 352 175 132 15 2,291

2012 446 201 312 264 301 330 182 182 24 2,242

2013 460 183 332 301 279 319 192 163 14 2,243

2014 419 209 326 232 327 335 191 209 24 2,272

2015 437 189 325 301 289 354 181 194 19 2,289

2016 476 201 357 280 319 317 163 194 10 2,317

2017 454 183 345 280 313 312 173 188 20 2,268

2018 430 172 331 296 282 319 184 228 17 2,259

1 Income levels with fewer than 10 returns were not disclosed, but are included in the totals. As a result, income levels may not sum to

total.




Poverty

Poverty is the condition of having insufficient resources or

income. In its extreme form, poverty is a lack of basic human

needs, such as adequate and healthy food, clothing, housing,

water, and health services. According to the Census Bureau’s

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program, the number

of individuals in poverty decreased from 919 in 2010 to 834 in

2018, with the poverty rate reaching 16.5 percent in 2018. This

compared to a state poverty rate of 11 percent and a national

rate of 13.1 percent in 2018. Table II.81.34 presents poverty

data for the county. Diagram II.81.11 displays the SAIPE

estimated poverty rates for Sheridan County compared to the

State of Nebraska from 2000 to 2018.

To compare the poverty rate against more recent data, Table

II.81.35 shows poverty by age from the 2010 and 2018 Five-

Year ACS data. As can be seen, the 2010 Five-Year ACS had a

poverty rate of 16.5 percent versus 18 percent in the most

recent 2018 data.

Table II.81.35 Poverty by Age

Sheridan County 2010 & 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Age 2010 Five-Year ACS 2018 Five-Year ACS

Persons in Poverty % of Total Persons in Poverty % of Total

Under 6 121 13.9% 111 11.9%

6 to 17 142 16.3% 270 28.9%

18 to 64 459 52.6% 377 40.4%

65 or Older 150 17.2% 176 18.8%

Total 872 100% 934 100%

Poverty Rate 16.5% . 18% .

Table II.81.34 Persons in Poverty

Sheridan County 2000–2018 SAIPE Estimates

Year Persons in

Poverty Poverty Rate

2000 878 14.9% 2001 854 14.5% 2002 885 15.5% 2003 762 13.3% 2004 754 13.5% 2005 806 14.6% 2006 880 16.2% 2007 812 15.3% 2008 809 15.6% 2009 821 16.1% 2010 919 17.2% 2011 875 16.6% 2012 843 16.2% 2013 823 16% 2014 826 16% 2015 732 14.3% 2016 831 16.2% 2017 737 14.3% 2018 834 16.5%




Diagram II.81.11 Poverty Rate Sheridan County

U.S. Census Small Area Income Poverty Estimates




Household Income

Table II.81.36 shows the HUD calculated Median Family Income (MFI) for a family of four in

Sheridan County. As can be seen in 2018 the MFI was 55,500 dollars, which compared to 74,900

dollars for the State of Nebraska. Diagram II.81.12 shows this data for Sheridan County compared

to the State of Nebraska.

Table II.81.36 Median Family Income

Sheridan County 2000–2018 HUD MFI

Year MFI State of

Nebraska MFI

2000 34,800 50,400 2001 37,100 53,400 2002 37,600 55,100 2003 40,400 55,400 2004 41,500 56,300 2005 42,100 57,400 2006 43,500 59,400 2007 42,400 59,400 2008 43,600 59,000 2009 45,400 62,000 2010 45,800 62,600 2011 43,000 63,500 2012 43,600 64,400 2013 45,200 64,600 2014 46,000 66,000 2015 51,800 66,800 2016 46,000 66,500 2017 50,200 68,200 2018 55,500 74,900

Diagram II.81.12 Median Family Income

Sheridan County HUD MFI Data




HOUSING

The Census Bureau estimates that the

total number of housing units

decreased by -0.9 percent in Sheridan

County between 2010 and 2018, from

2,936 to 2,911. This compared to an

estimated 6.1 percent increase

statewide, as shown in Table II.81.37.

Housing Production

The Census Bureau reports building

permit authorizations and “per unit”

valuation of building permits by county

annually. Single-family construction

usually represents most residential

development in the county. Single-family building permit authorizations in Sheridan County

remained unchanged from 3 authorizations in 2017 to 3 in 2018.

The real value of single-family building permits decreased from 72,263 dollars in 2017 to 70,666

dollars in 2018. This compares to an increase in permit value statewide, with values increasing

from 211,499 dollars in 2017 to 220,051 dollars in 2018. Additional details are given in Table

II.81.38 and presented in Diagram II.81.13. and Diagram II.81.14.

Table II.81.37 Housing Units

State of Nebraska vs. Sheridan County 2000 and 2018 Census Data and Intercensal Estimates

Subject State of

Nebraska

% Growth since

Census

Sheridan

County

% Growth since

Census

2000 Census Base 722,656 . 3,011 .

2010 Census 796,793 10.3 2,936 -2.5

July 2011 Estimate 801,868 0.6 2,930 -0.2

July 2012 Estimate 806,064 1.2 2,927 -0.3

July 2013 Estimate 811,158 1.8 2,924 -0.4

July 2014 Estimate 817,508 2.6 2,921 -0.5

July 2015 Estimate 823,898 3.4 2,918 -0.6

July 2016 Estimate 830,751 4.3 2,916 -0.7

July 2017 Estimate 837,443 5.1 2,913 -0.8

July 2018 Estimate 845,042 6.1 2,911 -0.9




Table II.81.38

Building Permits and Valuation Sheridan County

Census Bureau Data, 1980–2018

Year

Authorized Construction in Permit Issuing Areas Per Unit Valuation,

(Real 2018 $)

Single- Family

Duplex Units

Tri- and Four-Plex

Multi-Family Units

Total Units

Single-Family Units

Multi-Family Units

1980 12 0 0 0 12 127,285 0

1981 8 0 0 0 8 129,711 0 1982 5 0 0 0 5 102,925 0 1983 5 0 0 0 5 127,213 0 1984 0 0 0 12 12 0 52,170 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1988 2 0 0 0 2 57,009 0 1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1991 2 0 0 0 2 75,885 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 1 4 0 0 5 95,656 0 1995 10 0 0 0 10 26,396 0 1996 8 0 0 0 8 78,243 0 1997 2 0 0 0 2 133,452 0 1998 3 0 0 0 3 80,156 0 1999 8 0 0 0 8 123,230 0 2000 1 0 0 0 1 176,728 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 2 0 0 0 2 170,230 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 3 0 0 0 3 92,002 0 2005 3 0 0 0 3 89,226 0 2006 4 0 0 0 4 126,241 0 2007 4 0 0 0 4 79,614 0 2008 1 0 0 0 1 82,728 0 2009 1 0 0 0 1 82,103 0 2010 1 0 0 0 1 81,160 0 2011 2 0 0 0 2 133,847 0 2012 1 0 0 0 1 78,006 0 2013 3 0 0 0 3 148,501 0 2014 1 0 0 0 1 75,233 0 2015 3 0 0 0 3 74,440 0 2016 3 0 0 0 3 73,633 0 2017 3 0 0 0 3 72,263 0 2018 3 0 0 0 3 70,666 0




Diagram II.81.13 Single-Family Permits

Sheridan County Census Bureau Data, 1980–2018

Diagram II.81.14 Total Permits by Unit Type

Sheridan County Census Bureau Data, 1980–2018




Housing Characteristics

Table II.81.39 below shows housing units by type in 2010 and 2018. In 2010, there were 2,965

housing units, compared with 2,924 in 2018. Single-family units accounted for 83.2 percent of

units in 2018, compared to 84.3 in 2010. Apartment units accounted for 3 percent in 2018,

compared to 3 percent in 2010.

Table II.81.39 Housing Units by Type


Unit Type 2010 Five-Year ACS 2018 Five-Year ACS

Units % of Total Units % of Total

Single-Family 2,500 84.3% 2,432 83.2%

Duplex 13 0.4% 33 1.1%

Tri- or Four-Plex 37 1.2% 76 2.6%

Apartment 88 3% 89 3%

Mobile Home 319 10.8% 294 10.1%

Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 8 0.3% 0 0%

Total 2,965 100% 2,924 100%

Table II.81.40 shows housing units by tenure from 2010 to 2018. By 2018, there were 2,924

housing units. An estimated 71.5 percent were owner-occupied, and 23 percent were vacant.

Table II.81.40 Housing Units by Tenure

Sheridan County 2010 Census & 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Tenure 2010 Census 2018 Five-Year ACS


Occupied Housing Units 2,380 81.1% 2,251 77%

Owner-Occupied 1,651 69.4% 1,610 71.5%


Vacant Housing Units 556 18.9% 673 23%

Total Housing Units 2,936 100% 2,924 100%

Households by income for the 2010 and 2018 Five-Year ACS are shown in Table II.81.41.

Households earning more than 100,000 dollars per year represented 15.4 percent of households in

2018, compared to 7.9 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, households earning less than 15,000 dollars

accounted for 14 percent of households in 2018, compared to 17.8 percent in 2010.

Table II.81.41 Households by Income


Income 2010 Five-Year ACS 2018 Five-Year ACS

Households % of Total Households % of Total

Less than $15,000 433 17.8% 315 14%

$15,000 to $19,999 197 8.1% 144 6.4%

$20,000 to $24,999 190 7.8% 161 7.2%

$25,000 to $34,999 441 18.1% 269 12%

$35,000 to $49,999 341 14% 404 17.9%

$50,000 to $74,999 447 18.4% 421 18.7%

$75,000 to $99,999 193 7.9% 190 8.4%

$100,000 or More 192 7.9% 347 15.4%

Total 2,434 100% 2,251 100%




Table II.81.42 shows households by year home built for the 2010 and 2018 Five-Year ACS data.

Housing units built between 2000 and 2009, account for 1.6 percent of households in 2010 and

4.7 percent of households in 2018. Housing units built in 1939 or earlier represented 40.8 percent

of households in 2018 and 41.4 percent of households in 2010.

Table II.81.42

Households by Year Home Built Sheridan County

2010 & 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Year Built 2010 Five-Year ACS 2018 Five-Year ACS

Households % of Total Households % of Total

1939 or Earlier 1,007 41.4% 918 40.8%

1940 to 1949 222 9.1% 174 7.7%

1950 to 1959 374 15.4% 307 13.6%

1960 to 1969 205 8.4% 183 8.1%

1970 to 1979 300 12.3% 281 12.5%

1980 to 1989 145 6% 147 6.5%

1990 to 1999 143 5.9% 133 5.9%

2000 to 2009 38 1.6% 105 4.7%

2010 or Later . . 3 0.1%

Total 2,434 100% 2,251 100%

The distribution of unit types by race are shown in Table II.81.43. An estimated 87.2 percent of

white households occupy single-family homes, while percent of black households occupy single-

family homes. Some 3.8 percent of white households occupy apartments, while percent of black

households occupy apartments. An estimated 45.5 percent of Asian, and 85.4 percent of American

Indian households occupy single-family homes.

Table II.81.43 Distribution of Units in Structure by Race


Unit Type White Black American

Indian Asian

Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islanders

Other Two or

More Races

Single-Family 87.2% % 85.4% 45.5% 100% % 100%

Duplex 0.8% % 0% 0% 0% % 0%

Tri- or Four-Plex 1.5% % 11.5% 31.8% 0% % 0%

Apartment 3.8% % 0% 22.7% 0% % 0%

Mobile Home 6.6% % 3.1% 0% 0% % 0%

Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 0% % 0% 0% 0% % 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The disposition of vacant units between 2010 and 2018 are shown in Table II.81.44. By 2018, for

rent units accounted for 15 percent of vacant units, while for sale units accounted for 6.5 percent.

“Other” vacant units accounted for 56.2 percent of vacant units, representing a total of 378 “other”

vacant units.




Table II.81.44 Disposition of Vacant Housing Units

Sheridan County 2010 Census & 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Disposition 2010 Census 2018 Five-Year ACS


For Rent 119 21.4% 101 15%

For Sale 38 6.8% 44 6.5%

Rented Not Occupied 7 1.3% 11 1.6%

Sold Not Occupied 37 6.7% 0 0%

For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 124 22.3% 139 20.7%

For Migrant Workers 0 0% 0 0%

Other Vacant 231 41.5% 378 56.2%

Total 556 100% 673 100%

Department of Property Assessment Division

The Department of Property Assessment Division (PAD) provided a database of residential property

transactions over the last 20 years. Property transactions are primarily related to existing buildings,

with very few for new construction. During fiscal years 1999 through 2019, there were 1,214

property transactions in Sheridan County. Of these, 1,117 were for single-family homes during this

20-year period, as shown in Table II.81.45.

Table II.81.45 Residential Property Transactions

Sheridan County Fiscal Years 1999–2019 PAD Data

Year Single-Family

Mobile Home

Duplex Townhome Missing Total

1999 58 3 0 0 0 61

2000 61 9 0 2 0 72

2001 52 5 0 0 2 59

2002 68 5 0 1 0 74

2003 66 1 0 0 1 68

2004 71 3 0 0 5 79

2005 57 3 0 0 2 62

2006 40 3 0 0 1 44

2007 57 1 0 0 2 60

2008 47 6 0 1 1 55

2009 58 3 0 1 0 62

2010 36 3 0 0 0 39

2011 51 3 0 0 0 54

2012 38 0 0 1 0 39

2013 54 4 0 1 0 59

2014 64 5 1 0 0 70

2015 61 8 0 0 1 70

2016 25 1 0 0 0 26

2017 53 4 0 0 0 57

2018 45 1 0 0 0 46

2019 55 3 0 0 0 58

Total 1,117 74 1 7 15 1,214




The PAD data also include descriptions of the quality of the building, which refers to the grade of

materials and workmanship used in the original construction. Of the 591 single-family home

property transactions for units built before 1931, 6.6 percent of units were of low quality and 56.3

percent were of fair quality. Conversely, of the 3 homes built from 2001 through 2010, 0 percent of

units were of low quality and 33.3 percent of fair quality. Table II.81.46, provides details on the

quality of these single-family residential dwellings by vintage of construction.

Table II.81.46 Single-Family Homes by Year Built and Quality of Materials and Workmanship


Quality Before 1931

1931-1960

1961-1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1991-2000

2001-2010

2011-2018

Missing Total

Low 39 11 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 59 Fair 333 111 14 48 12 6 1 0 9 534 Average 211 133 68 48 13 6 0 0 6 485 Good 8 9 7 5 0 3 2 0 3 37 Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Excellent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missing 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total 591 266 92 104 26 16 3 0 19 1,117

In regard to the current condition of residential dwellings, of the same 591 single-family homes

built before 1931, 21.5 percent of the homes were worn out or badly worn, and 76 percent were in

average condition. Table II.81.47, provides details about the condition of single-family residential

dwellings by year built.

Table II.81.47 Single-Family Homes by Year Built and Condition


Condition Before 1931

1931-1960

1961-1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1991-2000

2001-2010

2011-2018

Missing Total

Worn Out 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 Badly Worn 117 30 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 159 Average 449 230 80 84 25 7 3 0 13 891 Good 12 6 8 14 1 7 0 0 1 49 Very Good 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Excellent 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 591 266 92 104 26 16 3 0 19 1,117




Housing Costs

Between 2010 and 2019, the average sales price of an existing single-family home changed from

40,914 dollars to 73,304 dollars, a total increase of 79.2 percent,

as shown in Table II.81.48.

Single-family home prices from the PAD database also indicated

a general increase in average home prices and average floor area

for newer homes. The average home price for single-family

homes in Sheridan County ranged from 34,465 dollars for homes

built before 1931 to 207,333 dollars for homes built from 2001

to 2010, and 0 dollars for the newest homes built between 2011

and 20191. Homes built from 2011 through 2019 were also

larger, averaging 0 square feet per unit. Table II.81.49, provides

additional details about single-family homes.

Table II.81.49 Single-Family Homes by Year Built, Average Sales

Price, Average Floor Area, and Price Per Square Foot Sheridan County

Fiscal Years 1999–2019 PAD Data

Year Built Average

Sales Price ($) Average Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)

Price per Sq. Ft.2

($)

Before 1931 34,465 1,165 29.58

1931-1960 46,921 1,215 38.62

1961-1970 77,857 1,404 55.45

1971-1980 88,971 1,499 59.36

1981-1990 114,840 1,845 62.26

1991-2000 91,656 1,494 61.36

2001-2010 207,333 1,922 107.87

2011-2019 0 0 0

Average 49,356 1,252 39.42

1 When a manufactured home is placed on a permanent foundation, the Assessor considers the property a single-family dwelling.

Hence, these property transactions are seen even though a single-family new construction permit was probably not issued for the

manufactured home. 2 Price per sq. ft. may not compute precisely due to rounding-off of sales price and floor area.

Table II.81.48 Average Sales Price of Single-

Family Homes Sheridan County

Fiscal Years 1999–2019 PAD Data

Fiscal Year Average

Sales Price ($)

1999 43,269

2000 30,937

2001 38,591

2002 39,244

2003 33,601

2004 43,633

2005 46,723

2006 44,663

2007 47,494

2008 42,012

2009 46,322

2010 40,914

2011 44,020

2012 36,847

2013 59,985

2014 54,915

2015 65,779

2016 58,765

2017 74,416

2018 79,903

2019 73,304

Average 49,356




Housing Problems

Households are classified as having housing problems if they face overcrowding, incomplete

plumbing or kitchen facilities, or cost burdens. Overcrowding is defined as having from 1.1 to 1.5

people per room per residence, with severe overcrowding defined as having more than 1.5 people

per room. Households with overcrowding are shown in Table II.81.50. In 2018, an estimated 2.5

percent of households were overcrowded, and an additional 0.8 percent were severely

overcrowded.

Table II.81.50 Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding


Data Source No Overcrowding Overcrowding Severe Overcrowding

Total Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total

Owner

2010 Five-Year ACS 1,654 97.2% 48 2.8% 0 0% 1,702

2018 Five-Year ACS 1,592 98.9% 14 0.9% 4 0.2% 1,610

Renter

2010 Five-Year ACS 698 95.4% 29 4% 5 0.7% 732

2018 Five-Year ACS 586 91.4% 42 6.6% 13 2% 641

Total

2010 Five-Year ACS 2,352 96.6% 77 3.2% 5 0.2% 2,434

2018 Five-Year ACS 2,178 96.8% 56 2.5% 17 0.8% 2,251

Incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities are another indicator of potential housing problems.

According to the Census Bureau, a housing unit is classified as lacking complete plumbing facilities

when any of the following are not present: piped hot and cold water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or

shower. Likewise, a unit is categorized as deficient when any of the following are missing from the

kitchen: a sink with piped hot and cold water, a range or cook top and oven, and a refrigerator.




There were a total of 7 households with incomplete plumbing facilities in 2018, representing 0.3

percent of households in Sheridan County. This is compared to 0.3 percent of households lacking

complete plumbing facilities in 2000, as shown in Table II.81.51

Table II.81.51 Households with Incomplete Plumbing Facilities

Sheridan County 2000 Census SF3 & 2010 & 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Households 2000 Census 2010 Five-Year ACS 2018 Five-Year ACS

With Complete Plumbing Facilities 2,541 2,405 2,244

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 8 29 7

Total Households 2,549 2,434 2,251

Percent Lacking 0.3% 1.2% 0.3%

There were 31 households lacking complete kitchen facilities in 2018, compared to 2,549

households in 2000. This was a change from 0.3 percent of households in 2000 to 1.4 percent in

2018, as shown in Table II.81.52.

Table II.81.52 Households with Incomplete Kitchen Facilities

Sheridan County 2000 Census SF3 & 2010 & 2018 Five-Year ACS Data

Households 2000 Census 2010 Five-Year ACS 2018 Five-Year ACS

With Complete Kitchen Facilities 2,541 2,391 2,220

Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 8 43 31

Total Households 2,549 2,434 2,251

Percent Lacking 0.3% 1.8% 1.4%

Cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that range from 31 to 50 percent of gross household

income; severe cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that exceed 50 percent of gross

household income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy

payments, water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the

determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, this

figure represents monthly rent and selected electricity and natural gas energy charges

.

In 2018 in Sheridan County 11.2 percent of households had a cost burden and 8.6 percent had a

severe cost burden. Some 10.8 percent of renters were cost burdened, and 11.2 percent were

severely cost burdened. Owner-occupied households without a mortgage had a cost burden rate of

9.5 percent and a severe cost burden rate of 3.3 percent. Owner occupied households with a

mortgage had a cost burden rate of 14.9 percent, and severe cost burden at 15.3 percent.




Table II.81.53 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden by Tenure


Data Source

30% or Less (No Cost Burden)

31%-50% (Cost Burden) Above 50% (Severe Cost

Burden) Not Computed

Total

Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total

Owner With a Mortgage

2010 Five-Year ACS

492 67.6% 132 18.1% 74 10.2% 30 4.1% 728

2018 Five-Year ACS

398 69.8% 85 14.9% 87 15.3% 0 0% 570

Owner Without a Mortgage

2010 Five-Year ACS

751 77.1% 131 13.4% 69 7.1% 23 2.4% 974

2018 Five-Year ACS

905 87% 99 9.5% 34 3.3% 2 0.2% 1,040

Renter

2010 Five-Year ACS

355 48.5% 130 17.8% 63 8.6% 184 25.1% 732

2018 Five-Year ACS

363 56.6% 69 10.8% 72 11.2% 137 21.4% 641

Total

2010 Five-Year ACS

1,598 65.7% 393 16.1% 206 8.5% 237 9.7% 2,434

2018 Five-Year ACS

1,666 74% 253 11.2% 193 8.6% 139 6.2% 2,251




Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)

The following table set shows Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. If a data

point is not available or is missing, a “.” or “%” will be present in its place.

Housing Problems by Income, Race, and Tenure

Table II.81.54 through Table II.81.59 show households with housing problems by race/ethnicity.

These tables can be used to determine if there is a disproportionate housing need for any racial or

ethnic groups. If any racial/ethnic group faces housing problems at a rate of ten percentage points

or higher than the jurisdiction average, then they have a disproportionate share of housing

problems. Housing problems are defined as any household that has overcrowding, inadequate

kitchen or plumbing facilities, or are cost burdened (pay more than 30 percent of their income on

housing). In Sheridan County, housing problems are faced by 249 White homeowner households,

0 Black homeowner households, 0 Asian homeowner households, and 0 Hispanic homeowner

households.

Table II.81.54 Percent of Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race

Sheridan County 2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data

Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any

Race) Total

White Black Asian American

Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race

With Housing Problems

$0 to $17,460 67.7% % % 100% % 100% % 70.4%

$17,461 to $29,100 29.3% % % % % 50% % 30%

$29,101 to $46,560 21.7% % % 0% % % % 20.3%

$46,561 to $58,200 10.3% % % 100% % 0% % 11.2%

Above $58,200 0.6% % % 28.6% % 71.4% 0% 2.5%

Total 16.8% % % 37.5% % 39.1% 0% 18.1%

Without Housing Problems

$0 to $17,460 25.8% % % 0% % 0% % 23.7%

$17,461 to $29,100 70.7% % % % % 50% % 70%

$29,101 to $46,560 78.3% % % 100% % % % 79.7%

$46,561 to $58,200 89.7% % % 0% % 100% % 88.8%

Above $58,200 99.4% % % 71.4% % 28.6% 100% 97.5%

Total 82.5% % % 62.5% % 60.9% 100% 81.3%




Table II.81.55 Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any Race)

Total White Black Asian

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $17,460 105 0 0 10 0 4 0 119

$17,461 to $29,100 60 0 0 0 0 4 0 64

$29,101 to $46,560 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 65

$46,561 to $58,200 15 0 0 4 0 0 0 19

Above $58,200 4 0 0 4 0 10 0 18

Total 249 0 0 18 0 18 0 285


$0 to $17,460 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 40

$17,461 to $29,100 145 0 0 0 0 4 0 149

$29,101 to $46,560 235 0 0 20 0 0 0 255

$46,561 to $58,200 130 0 0 0 0 20 0 150

Above $58,200 670 0 0 10 0 4 4 688

Total 1,220 0 0 30 0 28 4 1,282

Not Computed

$0 to $17,460 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

$17,461 to $29,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Total

$0 to $17,460 155 0 0 10 0 4 0 169

$17,461 to $29,100 205 0 0 0 0 8 0 213

$29,101 to $46,560 300 0 0 20 0 0 0 320

$46,561 to $58,200 145 0 0 4 0 20 0 169

Above $58,200 674 0 0 14 0 14 4 706

Total 1,479 0 0 48 0 46 4 1,577




In total, some 141 renter households face housing problems in Sheridan County. Of these, some

109 white renter households, 0 black renter households, 0 Asian renter households, and 4 Hispanic

renter households face housing problems.

Table II.81.56 Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income



American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $17,460 45 0 0 20 0 0 4 69

$17,461 to $29,100 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 40

$29,101 to $46,560 10 0 0 4 0 4 0 18

$46,561 to $58,200 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Above $58,200 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Total 109 0 0 24 0 4 4 141


$0 to $17,460 45 0 0 4 0 0 0 49

$17,461 to $29,100 55 0 0 0 0 0 4 59

$29,101 to $46,560 85 0 4 25 4 4 4 126

$46,561 to $58,200 125 0 0 4 0 25 0 154

Above $58,200 85 4 0 0 0 0 0 89

Total 395 4 4 33 4 29 8 477

Not Computed

$0 to $17,460 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 14

$17,461 to $29,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 14

Total

$0 to $17,460 94 0 0 34 0 0 4 132

$17,461 to $29,100 95 0 0 0 0 0 4 99

$29,101 to $46,560 95 0 4 29 4 8 4 144

$46,561 to $58,200 135 0 0 4 0 25 0 164

Above $58,200 89 4 0 0 0 0 0 93

Total 508 4 4 67 4 33 12 632




Table II.81.57 Percent of Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic

(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $17,460 47.9% % % 58.8% % % 100% 52.3%

$17,461 to $29,100 42.1% % % % % % 0% 40.4%

$29,101 to $46,560 10.5% % 0% 13.8% 0% 50% 0% 12.5%

$46,561 to $58,200 7.4% % % 0% % 0% % 6.1%

Above $58,200 4.5% 0% % % % % % 4.3%

Total 21.5% 0% 0% 35.8% 0% 12.1% 33.3% 22.3%


$0 to $17,460 47.9% % % 11.8% % % 0% 37.1%

$17,461 to $29,100 57.9% % % % % % 100% 59.6%

$29,101 to $46,560 89.5% % 100% 86.2% 100% 50% 100% 87.5%

$46,561 to $58,200 92.6% % % 100% % 100% % 93.9%

Above $58,200 95.5% 100% % % % % % 95.7%

Total 77.8% 100% 100% 49.3% 100% 87.9% 66.7% 75.5%




Table II.81.58 Percent of Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $17,460 60.2% % % 68.2% % 100% 100% 62.5% $17,461 to $29,100 33.3% % % % % 50% 0% 33.3% $29,101 to $46,560 19% % 0% 8.2% 0% 50% 0% 17.9% $46,561 to $58,200 8.9% % % 50% % 0% % 8.7% Above $58,200 1% 0% % 28.6% % 71.4% 0% 2.8%

Total 18% 0% 0% 36.5% 0% 27.8% 25% 19.3%


$0 to $17,460 34.1% % % 9.1% % 0% 0% 29.6% $17,461 to $29,100 66.7% % % % % 50% 100% 66.7% $29,101 to $46,560 81% % 100% 91.8% 100% 50% 100% 82.1% $46,561 to $58,200 91.1% % % 50% % 100% % 91.3% Above $58,200 99% 100% % 71.4% % 28.6% 100% 97.2%

Total 81.3% 100% 100% 54.8% 100% 72.2% 75% 79.6%




Overall, there are 426 households, or 19.3% of households with housing problems in Sheridan

County. This includes 358 White households, 0 Black households, 0 Asian households, 42

American Indian, 0 Pacific Islander, and 22 “other” race households with housing problems. In

addition, there are 4 Hispanic households with housing problems. This is shown in Table II.81.59.

Table II.81.59 Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $17,460 150 0 0 30 0 4 4 188

$17,461 to $29,100

100 0 0 0 0 4 0 104

$29,101 to $46,560

75 0 0 4 0 4 0 83

$46,561 to $58,200

25 0 0 4 0 0 0 29

Above $58,200 8 0 0 4 0 10 0 22

Total 358 0 0 42 0 22 4 426


$0 to $17,460 85 0 0 4 0 0 0 89

$17,461 to $29,100

200 0 0 0 0 4 4 208

$29,101 to $46,560

320 0 4 45 4 4 4 381

$46,561 to $58,200

255 0 0 4 0 45 0 304

Above $58,200 755 4 0 10 0 4 4 777

Total 1,615 4 4 63 4 57 12 1,759

Not Computed

$0 to $17,460 14 0 0 10 0 0 0 24

$17,461 to $29,100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 14 0 0 10 0 0 0 24

Total

$0 to $17,460 249 0 0 44 0 4 4 301

$17,461 to $29,100

300 0 0 0 0 8 4 312

$29,101 to $46,560

395 0 4 49 4 8 4 464

$46,561 to $58,200

280 0 0 8 0 45 0 333

Above $58,200 763 4 0 14 0 14 4 799

Total 1,987 4 4 115 4 79 16 2,209




Table II.81.60 through Table II.81.62 show the percent of households with a severe housing

problem by tenure and race.

Table II.81.60 Percent of Homeowner Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income



American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race

With A Severe Housing Problem

$0 to $17,460 40.6% % % 100% % 100% % 45.4%

$17,461 to $29,100

7.3% % % % % 0% % 7.2%

$29,101 to $46,560

6.7% % % 0% % % % 6.2%

$46,561 to $58,200

2.7% % % 100% % 0% % 4.6%

Above $58,200 0.6% % % 0% % 0% 0% 0.6%

Total 7.3% % 28.6% % 9.3% 0% 8%

Without A Severe Housing Problems

$0 to $17,460 53.1% % % 0% % 0% % 48.9%

$17,461 to $29,100

92.7% % % % % 100% % 92.8%

$29,101 to $46,560

93.3% % % 100% % % % 93.8%

$46,561 to $58,200

97.3% % % 0% % 100% % 95.4%

Above $58,200 99.4% % % 100% % 100% 100% 99.4%

Total 92.1% % % 71.4% % 90.7% 100% 91.4%




Table II.81.61

Percent of Renter Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race Sheridan County

2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data

Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $17,460 45.5% % % 58.8% % % 100% 50.4%

$17,461 to $29,100 10.5% % % % % % 0% 10.1%

$29,101 to $46,560 4% % 0% 13.8% 0% 50% 0% 8.1%

$46,561 to $58,200 0% % % 0% % 0% % 0%

Above $58,200 4.5% 0% % % % % % 4.3%

Total 12.2% 0% 0% 35.8% 0% 12.1% 33.3% 14.8%


$0 to $17,460 50.5% % % 11.8% % % 0% 39.4%

$17,461 to $29,100 89.5% % % % % % 100% 89.9%

$29,101 to $46,560 96% % 100% 86.2% 100% 50% 100% 91.9%

$46,561 to $58,200 100% % % 100% % 100% % 100%

Above $58,200 95.5% 100% % % % % % 95.7%

Total 87% 100% 100% 49.3% 0% 87.9% 66.7% 83%




Table II.81.62 Percent of Total Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic

(Any Race) Total

White Black Asian American Indian Pacific Islander Other Race


$0 to $17,460 42.5% % % 68.2% % 100% 100% 47.6%

$17,461 to $29,100 8.3% % % % % 0% 0% 8.1%

$29,101 to $46,560 6% % 0% 8.2% 0% 50% 0% 6.8%

$46,561 to $58,200 1.4% % % 50% % 0% % 2.4%

Above $58,200 1% 0% % 0% % 0% 0% 1%

Total 8.5% 0% 0% 32.8% 0% 10.5% 25% 9.9%


$0 to $17,460 52.1% % % 9.1% % 0% 0% 44.7%

$17,461 to $29,100 91.7% % % % % 100% 100% 91.9%

$29,101 to $46,560 94% % 100% 91.8% 100% 50% 100% 93.2%

$46,561 to $58,200 98.6% % % 50% % 100% % 97.6%

Above $58,200 99% 100% % 100% % 100% 100% 99%

Total 90.8% 100% 100% 58.6% 100% 89.5% 75% 89%




These racial/ethnic groups were also disproportionately impacted by severe housing problems, as

seen in Table II.81.63. Severe housing problems include overcrowding at a rate of more than 1.5

persons per room and housing costs exceeding 50 percent of the household income. Some 0 black

households face severe housing problems, as well as 0 Asian households, and 4 Hispanic

households.

Table II.81.63 Total Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $17,460 110 0 0 30 0 4 4 148

$17,461 to $29,100 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

$29,101 to $46,560 24 0 0 4 0 4 0 32

$46,561 to $58,200 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 8

Above $58,200 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Total 171 0 0 38 0 8 4 221


$0 to $17,460 135 0 0 4 0 0 0 139

$17,461 to $29,100 275 0 0 0 0 4 4 283

$29,101 to $46,560 375 0 4 45 4 4 4 436

$46,561 to $58,200 280 0 0 4 0 45 0 329

Above $58,200 755 4 0 15 0 15 4 793

Total 1,820 4 4 68 4 68 12 1,980

Not Computed

$0 to $17,460 14 0 0 10 0 0 0 24

$17,461 to $29,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 14 0 0 10 0 0 0 24

Total

$0 to $17,460 259 0 0 44 0 4 4 311

$17,461 to $29,100 300 0 0 0 0 4 4 308

$29,101 to $46,560 399 0 4 49 4 8 4 468

$46,561 to $58,200 284 0 0 8 0 45 0 337

Above $58,200 763 4 0 15 0 15 4 801

Total 2,005 4 4 116 4 76 16 2,225




As seen in Table II.81.64 and Table II.81.65, the most common housing problem tends to be

housing cost burdens. More than 214 households have a cost burden and 129 have a severe cost

burden. Some 54 renter households are impacted by cost burdens, and 34 are impacted by severe

cost burdens. On the other hand, some 160 owner-occupied households have cost burdens, and 95

have severe cost burdens. Overall there are 1,765 households without a housing problem.

Table II.81.64 Percent of Housing Problems by Income and Tenure


Housing Problem $0 to

$17,460 $17,461 to

$29,100 $29,101 to

$46,560 $46,561 to

$58,200 Above

$58,200 Total

Owner-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities

28.6% 28.6% 50% 100% 100% 52%

Severely Overcrowded with > 1.5 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

0% % 0% % % 0%

Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems)

16.7% % 50% % 100% 33.3%

Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems)

68.4% 100% 100% % 0% 73.6%


91.8% 60% 81.8% 50% 100% 74.8%

Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems)

50% % % % % 50%

Has none of the 4 housing problems

47.1% 71.4% 66.7% 49.2% 88.4% 72.8%

Total 57.7% 68.2% 68.3% 50.7% 88.3% 71.5%

Renter-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities

71.4% 71.4% 50% 0% 0% 48%


100% % 100% % % 100%


83.3% % 50% % 0% 66.7%


31.6% 0% 0% % 100% 26.4%


8.2% 40% 18.2% 50% 0% 25.2%


50% % % % % 50%

Has none of the 4 housing problems

52.9% 28.6% 33.3% 50.8% 11.6% 27.2%

Total 42.3% 31.8% 31.7% 49.3% 11.7% 28.5%




Table II.81.65 Housing Problems by Income and Tenure


Housing Problem $0 to $17,460 $17,461 to

$29,100 $29,101 to

$46,560 $46,561 to

$58,200 Above

$58,200 Total

Owner-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 4 4 4 10 4 26


0 0 0 0 0 0


4 0 4 0 4 12


65 15 15 0 0 95


45 45 45 10 15 160


10 0 0 0 0 10

Has none of the 4 housing problems 40 150 260 150 685 1,285

Total 168 214 328 170 708 1,588

Renter-Occupied



4 0 4 0 0 8


20 0 4 0 0 24


30 0 0 0 4 34


4 30 10 10 0 54


10 0 0 0 0 10

Has none of the 4 housing problems 45 60 130 155 90 480

Total 123 100 152 165 94 634

Total



4 0 4 0 0 8


24 0 8 0 4 36


95 15 15 0 4 129


49 75 55 20 15 214


20 0 0 0 0 20

Has none of the 4 housing problems 85 210 390 305 775 1,765

Total 291 314 480 335 802 2,222




Cost Burdens

For owner occupied housing, elderly non-family households are most likely to be impacted by

housing cost burdens, with 24.6 percent of these households having a cost burden or severe cost

burden. For lower income owner households, elderly non-family households and large families are

most likely to experience cost burdens. Some 62.5 percent of elderly non-family and 100 percent of

large family households below 30 percent HAMFI face cost burdens or severe cost burdens. These

data are shown in Table II.81.66

Table II.81.67 displays cost burden in renter-occupied households by family status and income.

Renter households tend to be impacted at a higher rate by cost burdens than owner households.

Some 71 renter occupied households faced cost burdens, compared to 170 owner occupied

households. Of these, there are 8 renter households with incomes less than 30 percent HAMFI

facing housing problems.




Table II.81.66 Owner-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost

Burden Sheridan County


Income Elderly Family

Small Family

Large Family

Elderly Non-Family

Other Household

Total

No Cost Burden

$0 to $17,460 4 0 0 30 10 44

$17,461 to $29,100 35 25 4 90 4 158

$29,101 to $46,560 100 90 10 40 25 265

$46,561 to $58,200 70 35 4 25 30 164

Above $58,200 180 340 40 30 105 695

Total 389 490 58 215 174 1,326

Cost Burden

$0 to $17,460 10 4 0 30 4 48

$17,461 to $29,100 20 10 4 10 4 48

$29,101 to $46,560 0 20 0 0 25 45

$46,561 to $58,200 4 10 0 0 0 14

Above $58,200 0 15 0 0 0 15

Total 34 59 4 40 33 170

Severe Cost Burden

$0 to $17,460 4 10 30 20 10 74

$17,461 to $29,100 0 4 0 10 0 14

$29,101 to $46,560 4 10 0 0 0 14

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 24 30 30 10 102

Cost Burden Not Computed

$0 to $17,460 10 0 0 0 0 10

$17,461 to $29,100 0 0 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560 0 0 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 10 0 0 0 0 10

Total

$0 to $17,460 28 14 30 80 24 176

$17,461 to $29,100 55 39 8 110 8 220

$29,101 to $46,560 104 120 10 40 50 324

$46,561 to $58,200 74 45 4 25 30 178

Above $58,200 180 355 40 30 105 710

Total 441 573 92 285 217 1,608




Table II.81.67 Renter-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost

Burden Sheridan County


Income Elderly Family

Small Family

Large Family

Elderly Non-Family

Other Household

Total

No Cost Burden

$0 to $17,460 0 4 4 40 4 52

$17,461 to $29,100 0 15 4 20 15 54

$29,101 to $46,560 4 40 35 10 50 139

$46,561 to $58,200 4 75 30 10 40 159

Above $58,200 4 45 4 0 35 88

Total 12 179 77 80 144 492

Cost Burden

$0 to $17,460 0 0 4 4 0 8

$17,461 to $29,100 0 15 0 20 4 39

$29,101 to $46,560 4 0 0 0 10 14

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 10 10

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4 15 4 24 24 71

Severe Cost Burden

$0 to $17,460 0 4 20 20 15 59

$17,461 to $29,100 0 0 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560 0 0 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 4 0 4

Total 0 4 20 24 15 63

Cost Burden Not Computed

$0 to $17,460 0 0 10 0 4 14

$17,461 to $29,100 0 0 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560 0 0 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 10 0 4 14

Total

$0 to $17,460 0 8 38 64 23 133

$17,461 to $29,100 0 30 4 40 19 93

$29,101 to $46,560 8 40 35 10 60 153

$46,561 to $58,200 4 75 30 10 50 169

Above $58,200 4 45 4 4 35 92

Total 16 198 111 128 187 640




In total, some 229 households face cost burdens, and 169 face severe cost burdens. This includes

164 owner households and 65 renter households facing cost burdens and 104 owner households

and 65 renter households facing, as seen in Table II.81.68.

Table II.81.68 Households with Cost Burden by Tenure and Race


Race No Cost Burden

Cost Burden Severe Cost

Burden Not

Computed Total

Owner-Occupied

White 1,245 145 90 10 1,490

Black 0 0 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0 0 0

American Indian 40 4 10 0 54

Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0

Other Race 30 15 4 0 49

Hispanic 4 0 0 0 4

Total 1,319 164 104 10 1,597

Renter-Occupied

White 400 65 45 4 514

Black 4 0 0 0 4

Asian 4 0 0 0 4



Other Race 30 0 0 0 30

Hispanic 20 0 0 0 20

Total 497 65 65 14 641

Total

White 1,645 210 135 14 2,004

Black 4 0 0 0 4

Asian 4 0 0 0 4



Other Race 60 15 4 0 79

Hispanic 24 0 0 0 24

Total 1,816 229 169 24 2,238




Lead-Based Paint Risks

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), older homes are more likely to contain

lead-based paint, which is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning. A home built

between 1960 and 1977 has a 24 percent chance of containing lead-based paint, while a home

built from 1940 to 1959 has a 69 percent chance of containing lead-based paint. Homes built

before 1940 have the highest rate of lead-based paint at 87 percent3.

Table II.81.69 shows the risk of lead-based paint for households with young children present. As

seen therein, there are an estimated 132 households built between 1940 and 1979 with young

children present, and 56 built prior to 1939.

3 https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#sl-home




Table II.81.69 Vintage of Households by Income and Presence of Young

Children Sheridan County


Income One or more

children age 6 or younger

No children age 6 or younger

Total

Built 1939 or Earlier

$0 to $17,460 10 100 110

$17,461 to $29,100 0 115 115

$29,101 to $46,560 19 160 179

$46,561 to $58,200 8 115 123

Above $58,200 19 245 264

Total 56 735 791

Built 1940 to 1979

$0 to $17,460 14 140 154

$17,461 to $29,100 14 150 164

$29,101 to $46,560 45 155 200

$46,561 to $58,200 14 100 114

Above $58,200 45 285 330

Total 132 830 962

Built 1980 or Later

$0 to $17,460 0 29 29

$17,461 to $29,100 4 30 34

$29,101 to $46,560 0 90 90

$46,561 to $58,200 25 75 100

Above $58,200 20 190 210

Total 49 414 463

Total

$0 to $17,460 24 269 293

$17,461 to $29,100 18 295 313

$29,101 to $46,560 64 405 469

$46,561 to $58,200 47 290 337

Above $58,200 84 720 804

Total 237 1,979 2,216




Elderly Housing Needs

Table II.81.70 shows the rate of housing problems for elderly households, ages 62 to 74, and extra

elderly households, ages 75 and above. Some 53 elderly and 131 extra-elderly households have

housing problems. Of these, some 25 elderly households with housing problems have incomes less

than 30 percent MFI, and 70 extra-elderly households have incomes below 30 percent MFI.

Table II.81.70 Households with Housing Problems by Income and Elderly Status


Income Elderly Extra-Elderly Non-Elderly Total


$0 to $17,460 25 70 100 195

$17,461 to $29,100 14 45 45 104

$29,101 to $46,560 10 8 65 83

$46,561 to $58,200 4 4 25 33

Above $58,200 0 4 20 24

Total 53 131 255 439


$0 to $17,460 30 45 14 89

$17,461 to $29,100 65 85 65 215

$29,101 to $46,560 125 64 195 384

$46,561 to $58,200 100 65 140 305

Above $58,200 189 64 530 783

Total 509 323 944 1,776

Not Computed

$0 to $17,460 0 10 10 20

$17,461 to $29,100 0 0 0 0

$29,101 to $46,560 0 0 0 0

$46,561 to $58,200 0 0 0 0

Above $58,200 0 0 0 0

Total 0 10 10 20

Total

$0 to $17,460 55 125 124 304

$17,461 to $29,100 79 130 110 319

$29,101 to $46,560 135 72 260 467

$46,561 to $58,200 104 69 165 338

Above $58,200 189 68 550 807

Total 562 464 1,209 2,235




Home Mortgage Loans

The FFEIC The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) was enacted by Congress in 1975. Data

collected under the HMDA provide a comprehensive portrait of home loan activity, including

information pertaining to home purchase loans, home improvement loans, and refinancing. For the

analysis only owner-occupied originated loans for single-family units were considered. As can be

seen in Table II.81.71, of the 53 loans in 2018, 31 loans were for Home Purchases, 2 were for

Home Improvement and 18 were for refinancing.

Table II.81.71 Owner-Occupied Single-Family Home Loans by Loan Type

Sheridan County

2008 – 2018 HMDA Data

Year Home

Purchase Home

Improvement Refinancing Total

2008 16 12 16 44

2009 17 11 21 49

2010 11 14 15 40

2011 21 14 28 63

2012 19 4 23 46

2013 26 11 13 50

2014 20 10 13 43

2015 15 8 20 43

2016 18 4 12 34

2017 31 7 16 54

2018 31 2 18 53

Table II.81.72 shows the average loan value by loan type. In 2008, average home purchase loans

were 70,125 dollars, 68,211 dollars in 2012 and 78,548 dollars in 2018. Overall, average loans

were 114,386 dollars in 2008 and 74,434 dollars in 2018.




Table II.81.72 Owner-Occupied Single-Family Home Loans by Average Loan Amount

Sheridan County

2008 – 2018 HMDA Data

Year Home

Purchase Home


2008 $70,125 $34,000 $218,938 $114,386

2009 $64,588 $23,455 $173,286 $101,939

2010 $62,455 $37,143 $194,800 $103,225

2011 $68,333 $18,786 $114,929 $78,032

2012 $68,211 $106,750 $75,478 $75,196

2013 $66,615 $112,636 $150,308 $98,500

2014 $78,700 $23,600 $131,308 $81,791

2015 $83,600 $11,625 $142,150 $97,442

2016 $93,667 $83,000 $198,000 $129,235

2017 $86,452 $39,286 $70,750 $75,685

2018 $78,548 $30,000 $76,111 $74,434

Table II.81.73 shows the total volume of owner-occupied single-family loans. Average home

purchase loans totaled 1,122,000 dollars in 2008 and 1,296,000 dollars in 2012 and 2,435,000

dollars in 2018. Overall, total loans were valued at 5,033,000 dollars in 2008 and 3,945,000

dollars in 2018.

Table II.81.73 Total Volume of Owner-Occupied Single-Family Loans

Sheridan County

2008 – 2018 HMDA Data

Year Home

Purchase Home


2008 1,122,000 408,000 3,503,000 5,033,000

2009 1,098,000 258,000 3,639,000 4,995,000

2010 687,000 520,000 2,922,000 4,129,000

2011 1,435,000 263,000 3,218,000 4,916,000

2012 1,296,000 427,000 1,736,000 3,459,000

2013 1,732,000 1,239,000 1,954,000 4,925,000

2014 1,574,000 236,000 1,707,000 3,517,000

2015 1,254,000 93,000 2,843,000 4,190,000

2016 1,686,000 332,000 2,376,000 4,394,000

2017 2,680,000 275,000 1,132,000 4,087,000

2018 2,435,000 60,000 1,370,000 3,945,000




Survey of Rental Properties

From September through December of 2019, a

telephone survey was conducted with

landlords and rental property managers

throughout Nebraska. Table II.81.74, presents

some basic statistics about the completed

surveys from this and other surveys conducted

from 2002 through 2019 in Sheridan County.

The number of completed surveys fell to 5 in

2019 from 7 in 2018. Between 2018 and 2019

the vacancy rate for all units decreased by 3.1

percentage points and was at 7.8 percent in

2019.

Table II.81.75 shows the amount of total and

vacant units with their associated vacancy

rates. At the time of the survey, there were an

estimated 3 single family units in Sheridan

County, with 0 of them available. This

translates into a vacancy rate of 0 percent in

Sheridan County, which compares to a single

family vacancy rate of 4.4 percent for the State of Nebraska. There were 74 apartment units

reported in the survey, with 6 of them available, which resulted in a vacancy rate of 8.1 percent.

This compares to a statewide vacancy rate of 4.1 percent for apartment units across the state.

Table II.81.74 Survey of Rental Properties

Sheridan County 2002–2019 Survey of Rental Properties

Year Completed

Surveys Total Units

Vacancy Rate

Absorption Rate

2002 0 0 0 0

2003 2 52 3.8 46.1

2004 6 83 8.4 39.5

2005 8 77 2.6 26.3

2006 7 120 5.8 38.4

2007 6 123 2.4 23.5

2008 7 83 7.2 17.7

2009 7 98 1 27.4

2010 6 66 10.6 19.8

2011 5 86 3.5 14.8

2012 7 110 1.8 26.8

2013 5 87 3.5 14.5

2014 7 109 6.4 60

2015 6 109 4.6 23.3

2016 5 91 2.2 30

2017 7 112 4.5 30

2018 7 129 10.9 59.5

2019 5 77 7.8 57.5




Table II.81.75 Rental Vacancy Survey by Type

Sheridan County 2019 Survey of Rental Properties

Place Total Units Vacant Units Vacancy Rate Five-Year Average

Single-Family 3 0 0% 6.9%

Apartments 74 6 8.1% 13%

Mobile Homes 0 0 0% 0%

“Other” Units 0 0 0% 9.4%

Don’t Know 0 0 0% .

Total 77 6 7.8% 6.2%

Table II.81.76, reports units by number of bedrooms. As can be seen there were 8 two-bedroom

apartment units and 0 three bedroom units. Overall, the 8 two-bedroom units accounted for 10.4

percent of all units, and the 2 three bedroom units accounted for 2.6 percent. Several respondents

choose not to provide bedroom sizes, which accounted for the 0 units listed as “Don’t Know”.

Additional details for additional unit types are reported found below.

Table II.81.76 Rental Units by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Single-Family Units

Apartment Units

Mobile Homes

“Other” Units

Don’t Know

Total

Efficiency 0 0 0 0 . 0

One 0 66 0 0 . 66

Two 0 8 0 0 . 8

Three 2 0 0 0 . 2

Four 1 0 0 0 . 1

Don’t Know 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3 74 0 0 0 77

Table II.81.77, displays the vacancy rate of

single family units by the number of

bedrooms. Three-bedroom units were the

most common type of reported single

family unit, which had a vacancy rate of 0

percent.

Table II.81.78, displays the vacancy rate of

apartment units by the number of

bedrooms. The most common apartment

units were One-bedroom units, which had

a vacancy rate of 7.6 percent.

Table II.81.77 Single-Family Units by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Units Available Units Vacancy Rates

Efficiency 0 0 0%

One 0 0 0%

Two 0 0 0%

Three 2 0 0%

Four 1 0 0%

Don’t know 0 0 0%

Total 3 0 0%




Table II.81.78 Apartment Units by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Units Available Units Vacancy Rates

Efficiency 0 0 0%

One 66 5 7.6%

Two 8 1 12.5%

Three 0 0 0%

Four 0 0 0%

Don’t know 0 0 0%

Total 74 6 8.1%

Average market-rate rents by unit type are shown in Table II.81.79. Not all respondents were able

to disclose the rental amounts for their units, so there may be some statistical aberrations in the

computed rental rates, but generally those units with more bedrooms had higher rents.

Table II.81.79 Average Market Rate Rents by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Single-Family Units

Apartment Units

Mobile Homes

“Other” Units Total

Efficiency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

One $0 $435 $0 $0 $435

Two $0 $595 $0 $0 $595

Three $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Four $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total $500 $453 $0 $0 $462

Median market-rate rents by unit type are shown in Table II.81.80. Not all respondents were able to

disclose the rental amounts for their units, so there may be some statistical aberrations in the

computed rental rates, but generally those units with more bedrooms had higher rents.

Table II.81.80 Median Market Rate Rents by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Single-Family Units

Apartment Units

Mobile Homes



One $0 $446 $0 $0 $446

Two $0 $595 $0 $0 $595

Three $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Four $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total $500 $448 $0 $0 $449




Table II.81.81 shows the average rental rates for assisted units by bedroom size and unit type. Since

assistance is often based on income of the resident or other case by case determinations, average

assisted rents can vary across bedroom size.

Table II.81.81 Average Assisted Rate Rents by Bedroom Size


Number of Bedrooms

Single Family Units

Apartment Units

Mobile Homes



One $0 $370 $0 $0 $370

Two $0 $495 $0 $0 $495

Three $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Four $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total $0 $433 $0 $0 $433

Table II.81.82 shows vacancy rates for single family units by average rental rates for Sheridan

County. The most common rent for single family units was less than 500 dollars and the units in

this price range had a vacancy rate of 0 percent.

Table II.81.82 Single-Family Market Rate Rents by Vacancy Status


Average Rents Single-Family

Units Available Single-

Family Units Vacancy Rate

$500 or Less 3 0 0%

$501 to $750 0 0 0%

$751 to $1,000 0 0 0%

$1,001 to $1,250 0 0 0%

$1,251 to $1,500 0 0 0%

Above $1,500 0 0 0%

Missing 0 0 0%

Total 3 0 0%

The average rent and availability of apartment units is displayed in Table II.81.83. The most

common rent for apartment rents was less than 500 dollars and the units in this price range had a

vacancy rate of 8.1 percent.




Table II.81.83 Apartment Market Rate Rents by Vacancy Status


Average Rents Apartment

Units

Available Apartment

Units Vacancy Rate

$500 or Less 62 5 8.1%

$501 to $750 12 1 8.3%

$751 to $1,000 0 0 0%

$1,001 to $1,250 0 0 0%

$1,251 to $1,500 0 0 0%

Above $1,500 0 0 0%

Missing 0 0 0%

Total 74 6 8.1%

Respondents were asked if utilities are included in the rent and as shown in Table II.81.84, 4

respondents, or 80 percent, included some sort of utility in the rent.

Table II.81.84 Are there any utilities included with

the rent? Sheridan County

2019 Survey of Rental Properties

Period Respondent

Yes 4

No 1

% Offering Utilities 80%

The type of utility included in the rent is shown in Table II.81.85. There were 2 respondents who

included electricity, 0 respondents who included natural gas, 4 respondents who included water

and sewer and 4 respondents included trash collection in the rent.

Table II.81.85 Which utilities are included with the rent?


Type of Utility Provided Respondent

Electricity 2

Natural Gas 0

Water/Sewer 4

Trash Collection 4




Table II.81.86 shows the number of survey respondents

who keep a waiting list. As can be seen 3 respondents said

they keep a waitlist, with an estimated 3 number of persons

on the wait list.

Respondents were also asked how they would rate the need

for renovating existing units. As shown in Table II.81.87, 0

respondents said there was no need for renovating single

family units, with 1 respondents saying there was extreme

need for renovating single family units. Likewise, 0 respondents indicated no need for renovating

existing apartment units, with 1 respondents saying there was extreme need for renovating existing

apartment units.

Table II.81.87 How would you rate the need for renovation of existing units in the city?


Need Single-Family Apartments Mobile Homes Other Units

No Need 0 0 0 0

Low Need 0 0 0 0

Moderate Need 3 3 3 3

High Need 0 0 0 0

Extreme Need 1 1 1 1

Respondents were also asked how they would rate the need for constructing new units. As shown

in Table II.81.88, 2 respondents said there was no need for new single family units, with 1

respondents saying there was extreme need for constructing new single family units. Likewise, 2

respondents indicated no need for new apartment units, with 1 respondents saying there was

extreme need for constructing new apartment units.

Table II.81.88 How would you rate the need for construction of new units in the city?


Need Single-Family Apartments Mobile Homes Other Units

No Need 2 2 2 2

Low Need 1 1 1 1

Moderate Need 0 0 0 0

High Need 0 0 0 0

Extreme Need 1 1 0 0

Table II.81.86 Do you keep a waiting list?


Period Respondent

Yes 3

No 2

Waitlist Size 3

Sheridan County NEBRASKA PROFILE VOLUME II County.pdf · Nebraska Profile II.81.2 Final Report:...

Documents

Transcript of Sheridan County NEBRASKA PROFILE VOLUME II County.pdf · Nebraska Profile II.81.2 Final Report:...