hhs

hendricks

housing study

October 2008









Development Services, Inc.

402 North Harold

Ivanhoe, Minnesota 56142

507-694-1552

table of contents





I. INTRODUCTION 1

A. Overview 1

B. Goals 1

C. Methodology 1

D. Limitations 2

E. Acknowledgement 2



II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3



III. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA & CENSUS INFORMATION 5

A. Sources of Data 5

B. Definition of the Study Area 5

C. Population Trends 6

Figure 1 – Population, 1980 to 2000 6

Table 1 – Population, 1980 to 2000 7

D. Population Projections 7

Table 2 – Population Projections, 2000 to 2030 7

E. Age 8

Figure 2 – Median Age, 1980 to 2000 8

Table 3 – Age Breakdowns, 2000 8

Figure 3 – Population Pyramid, 2000 9

F. Income Conditions 10

Figure 4 – Household Incomes, 1990 to 2000 (Entire Study Area) 10

Table 4 – Household Incomes, 1990 to 2000 (Entire Study Area) 11

Figure 5 – Median Household Income, 1980 to 2000 11

Table 5 – Median Household Income, 1980 to 2000 12

Table 6 – Per Capita Income, 1980 to 2000 12

G. Housing Units by Census Category 13

Figure 6 – Total Number of Housing Units in Study Area, 2008 13

Table 7 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 1990 to 2008 14

Table 8 – Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 1990 to 2008 14

Table 9 – Vacant Housing Units, 1990 to 2008 15

Figure 7 – Housing Units in Entire Study Area, by Year Built 15

Table 10 – Housing Units, by Year Built (Entire Study Area) 15

Figure 8 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value (Entire Study Area), 2000 16

Table 11 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value (Entire Study Area), 2000 16

H. Vacancy Rates 17

Table 12 – Owner-Occupied Vacancy Rates, 1980 to 2000 17

-i-

Table 13 – Renter-Occupied Vacancy Rates, 1980 to 2000 18

I. Labor & Workforce Patterns 18

Table 14 – City of Hendricks Labor Shed & Commute Shed 19

Table 15 – Lincoln County Labor Shed & Commute Shed 20

IV. SURVEY INFORMATION 21

A. Source of Survey Data & Response Rate 21

Table 16 – Response Rates of Survey 21

B. Summary of Full Survey Responses, Entire Study Area 21

Age Breakdowns 22

Figure 9 – Age Breakdown of Survey Respondents, 2008 22

Annual Household Income 22

Figure 10 – Income Breakdown of Survey Respondents, 2008 22

Place of Work & Commuting 23

Type of Current Home 23

Figure 11 – Type of Current Housing of Survey Respondents, 2008 24

Own or Rent Current Home 24

Year Current Home Was Built 24

Current Monthly House Payment or Rent 24

Current Monthly Taxes, Insurance, and Utility Costs 24

Where Primary Medical Services Are Received 24

Assisted Living Facility Needed for Hendricks Area 24

Level of Interest in Assisted Living 25

Important Services & Amenities in an Assisted Living Facility 25

Why Not Interested in Assisted Living 25

Interested in Types of New Housing 25

Own or Rent New Housing 26

First Time Home Buyer 26

Currently Use Income-Based Housing Assistance 26

Affordable Monthly Payment or Rent for New Housing 26

Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in New Housing 26

Level of Interest in New Housing Preferences 26

Reasons Interested in New Housing 26

Figure 12 – Why Interested in New Housing 27

Why Not Interested in New Housing 27

What Community Services & Amenities Are Important 27

Figure 13 – Survey Respondents View of Important Services & Amenities 27

Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information 27

C. Detailed Responses of Those Interested in New Housing 28

Table 17 – Locations of Survey Respondents Interested in New Housing 28

Table 18 – Age Breakdowns of Persons in Households Interested in New Housing 28



- ii -

Table 19 – Annual Incomes of Households Interested in New Housing 29

Place of Work & Commuting 29

Type of Current Home 29

Own or Rent Current Home 29

Year Current Home Was Built 29

Current Monthly House Payment or Rent 30

Current Monthly Taxes, Insurance, and Utility Costs 30

Interested in Types of New Housing 30

Table 20 – Types of Housing Desired by Households Interested in New Housing 30

Own or Rent New Housing 31

First Time Home Buyer 31

Affordable Monthly Payment of Rent for New Housing 31

Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in New Housing 31

Table 21 – Reasons Given by Households for Interest in New Housing 32

Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information 32

D. Detailed Responses of Those Interested in Assisted Living 32

Table 22 – Locations of Survey Respondents Interested in Assisted Living 32

Table 23 – Age Breakdowns of Persons in Households Interested in Assisted Living 33

Table 24 – Annual Incomes of Households Interested in Assisted Living 33

Type of Current Home 33

Own or Rent Current Home 33

Year Current Home Was Built 33

Current Monthly House Payment or Rent 34

Current Monthly Taxes, Insurance, and Utility Costs 34

Where Primary Medical Services Are Received 34

Figure 14 – Location of Primary Medical Services 35

Table 25 – Services & Amenities Important to Households Interested in Assisted Living 35

Affordable Monthly Payment or Rent for Assisted Living 35

Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in Assisted Living 36

Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information 36



V. INTERVIEWS & ADDITIONAL RESEARCH 36

A. Sources of Data 36

B. Permits & Sales 36

Table 26 – Residential Building Permits Issued, 2000 to 2008 37

Housing Sales 37

C. Listings for Sale 38

Table 27 – Residential Listings of Homes for Sale 38

D. General Information from Interviews 39

Rental Housing 39

Elderly Rental Housing 39

- iii -

Single-Family Rental Housing 40

House Hunting 40

E. General Information from Employer Interviews 40

Perspectives of Main Employers 40

Table 28 – Information from Main Employers 41

F. Specific Interviews 41

Employment & Housing 41

The Community & Housing 42

Public Policy & Housing 43

Financial Issues & Housing 43



VI. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 44

A. The Housing Spectrum 44

Multi-Family Housing 44

Additional Lots and/or New Subdivisions for Single-Family Housing 45

Promotion and Marketing 46

Rehabilitation 46

Acquisition/Demolition 46

B. Assisted Living 47

Definitions 47

Other Assisted Living Facilities 47

Recommendation 47



VII. ATTACHMENTS 49

A. Neighboring Assisted Living Facilities 50

Table 29 – Assisted Living Facilities Within 70 Miles of Hendricks 50

B. Survey Instrument 51

C. Detailed Survey Analysis, Entire Survey Area 55

Table 30 – Question 1 – Where Survey Respondents Live 55

Table 31 – Question 2 – Age Breakdowns 56

Table 32 – Question 3 – Annual Household Income 57

Table 33 – Question 4 – Place of Work & Commuting 58

Table 34 – Question 5 – Type of Current Home 61

Table 35 – Question 6 – Own or Rent Current Home 61

Table 36 – Question 7 – Year Current Home Was Built 62

Table 37 – Question 8 – Current Monthly House Payment or Rent 62

Table 38 – Question 9 – Current Monthly Taxes, Insurance, Utility Costs 63

Table 39 – Question 10 – Where Primary Medical Services Are Received 63

Table 40 – Question 11 – Assisted Living Facility Needed for Hendricks Area 65

Table 41 – Question 12 – Level of Interest in Assisted Living 65

Table 42 – Question 13 – Important Services & Amenities in an Assisted Living Facility 66

- iv -

Table 43 – Question 14 – Why Not Interested in Assisted Living 67

Table 44 – Question 15 – Interested in Types of New Housing 68

Table 45 – Question 16 – Own or Rent New Housing 69

Table 46 – Question 17 – First Time Home Buyer 69

Table 47 – Question 18 – Currently Use Income-Based Housing Assistance 69

Table 48 – Question 19 – Affordable Monthly Payment or Rent for New Housing 70

Table 49 – Question 20 – Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in New Housing 70

Table 50 – Question 21 – Level of Interest in New Housing Preferences 71

Table 51 – Question 22 – Reasons Interested in Different Housing 71

Table 52 – Question 23 – Why Not Interested in Different Housing 72

Table 53 – Question 24 – What Services & Amenities Are Important to You 72

Table 54 – Question 25 – Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information 73

D. Other Demographic Tables 73

Table 55 – Detailed Household Incomes, 1990 to 2000 73

Table 56 – Housing Units, by Year Built 74

Table 57 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units, by Value, 2000 75

Table 58 – Residential Sales (Minnesota Segment of Study Area) 76

Table 59 – Residential Sales (South Dakota Segment of Study Area) 77









-v-

part i

introduction



Section I-A – Overview

We begin with the assumption that housing is a vital physical asset in every community, no less important

to the life of that community than the infrastructure of streets, sewer lines, and electrical power. All too

often, however, issues surrounding housing may be neglected by local decision-makers. They do so at the

peril of their community’s future. Today, as in the past, housing is a vital link in a chain that connects

economic development, jobs, schools, retirement, and quality of life. When housing becomes a weak

link, the strength of the entire community suffers.



This project arose from a shared recognition of the importance of housing on the part of the Hendricks

Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the Hendricks Community Hospital Association (HCHA).

Development Services, Inc. was retained to conduct this study. Working together in close partnership, the

EDA and HCHA have provided guidance and planning assistance throughout the project.



Section I-B – Goals



This study proceeded with a variety of goals, all of which are closely related and have a bearing on many

issues relating to housing in the community:

• To assemble, organize, and present a variety of related demographic and survey information.

• To analyze the current housing inventory, market, and trends.

• To identify unmet needs, potentials, and opportunities in the housing field.

• To offer a special focus on proposals for developing an Assisted Living Facility in the community.

• To offer a series of findings and recommendations.

• To present all information as a useful basis for future decision-making.



Section I-C – Methodology

The people of Hendricks have traditionally defined their community as extending beyond the city limits.

The rural townships which surround the city are seen as important parts of the community. Similarly, a

long-standing close relationship has existed between Hendricks and their South Dakota neighbors

immediately to the west. As a result of this broader sense of community and in recognition of the

economic trade area and housing market, this study has included:



In Minnesota In South Dakota

City of Hendricks (Lincoln County) City of Astoria (Deuel County)

Hansonville Township (Lincoln County) Lake Hendricks Township (Brookings County)

Hendricks Township (Lincoln County) Oak Lake Township (Brookings County)

Shaokatan Township (Lincoln County) Scandinavia Township (Deuel County)

-1-

Section I-D – Limitations



This study represents an analysis performed with the data known to be available at the time. The findings

and recommendations are based upon current circumstances, realistic solutions, professional judgment,

and relevant information on future trends and projections. Significant changes in the regional economy,

employment patterns, local projects, federal or state government policies, or other related factors could

change these conclusions and recommendations.



The information and conclusions presented in this report are largely offered for the study area as a whole.

Specific information for each community or township in the study area may be most readily available

from the detailed tables in the document and the attachments.



Section I-E – Acknowledgements



Development Services, Inc. wishes to thank the members of the Hendricks Economic Development

Authority and the Board of Directors and staff of the Hendricks Community Healthcare Association for

their assistance in defining the scope of this study and providing policy guidance for the project as a

whole.



We hope you find this report useful and beneficial to the long term development of Hendricks and the

surrounding area.









This study is prepared by

development services, inc.

402 North Harold

Ivanhoe, Minnesota 56142

507-694-1552

in association with

susan brickweg, prairie country consulting, inc.

and

elizabeth larkin, larkin & associates









-2-

part ii

executive summary



The future is shaped by plans that are made today. In recognition of this, and by affirming the important

role that housing plays in the vitality of a community, the Hendricks Economic Development Authority

(HEDA) and Hendricks Community Hospital Association (HCHA) retained Development Services, Inc.

(DSI) to study the housing environment in an area consisting of the City of Hendricks, Hansonville

Township, Hendricks Township, and Shaokatan Township (in Minnesota) plus the City of Astoria, Lake

Hendricks Township, Oak Lake Township, and Scandinavia Township (in South Dakota).



The objectives of the study were to: (1) present available demographics and survey information, (2)

examine the current housing inventory, markets, and trends; (3) identify unmet needs; (4) provide a series

of findings and recommendations; and (5) analyze opportunities for new housing in the study area.

Special attention has been paid to potentials for an assisted living facility in the study area.



Analysis was performed using data known to be available at the time. Key observations were based on

current circumstances, relevant information concerning future trends and projections, realistic solutions,

and professional judgment. Significant changes in the regional economy, employment patterns, local

projects, government policies, and other related factors could affect the conclusions.



Findings were made within the context of a progressive housing model or “spectrum” of housing needs,

one which seeks to address the range of housing issues that are encountered as people move through life’s

stages – youth, employment years, retirement, and elderly care.



After careful analysis of survey results, area demographics, local interviews, current housing, future needs

of key employers, and with a focus on the area’s aging housing inventory and population, we recommend

the following:



• Construction of a 14- to 20- unit assisted living facility subject to the completion of a feasibility

study for the project.



• Construction of 6 to 12 units of multi-family housing in the form of twin homes, multi-plexes, or

condos.



• Development of additional lots and/or new subdivisions to accommodate the construction of 6 to

10 single-family homes.



• Promotion and marketing for housing and population growth.



• Continued efforts to rehabilitate and repair existing single-family houses and rental units.



• Acquisition and demolition of deteriorated houses.



The strongest base of support for the study’s conclusions comes not from dry statistics in census books

but, rather, from the people in the study area themselves – support gathered from testimonials and survey





-3-

results. A large majority of survey respondents spoke loudly by indicating their desire for new housing

directly tied to retirement and/or the need for lower maintenance housing.



Construction of an assisted living facility and additional townhouses/condominiums fits clearly within the

progressive housing model. Such housing provides new alternatives for the aging population while

opening up existing homes for sale to growing families, people being recruited to the area, and all others

in the community.



The future is, indeed, shaped by plans that are made today. It is hoped that this study will be a valuable

tool in guiding that future.









-4-

part iii

demographic data & census information



Section III-A – Sources of Data



There is no shortage of information in today’s world. All too often the reverse is true and we run the risk

of drowning in data. While this study is crammed with facts and figures, the goal has been to present

relevant data in a relevant manner. A variety of resources have been tapped in order to gather information

for this study. The following have been used:



• United States Census Bureau.



• State government demographic sources in both Minnesota and South Dakota.



• County government offices, again in both Minnesota and South Dakota.



• Records and information from the City of Hendricks and the Hendricks Community Hospital

Association.



• Personal interviews with elected officials and community leaders.



• Similar interviews with realtors, property managers, developers, landlords, and others having a

special interest in housing issues.



• Area public housing agencies.



• A survey of all households in the study area, supplemented by additional mailing lists. (The

survey component of the study is more fully explained in Part IV.)



• Note that some inconsistency may occur within census data. People responding to the census may

answer some questions and not others. Therefore, some disagreement among statistics will be

inevitable.



Section III-B – Definition of the Study Area



Every study of this type must have a manageable and relevant geographic focus. Market issues, plus a set

of historical relationships that define a sense of community in and around Hendricks, leads this study to

focus on:



• In Minnesota: City of Hendricks, Hansonville Township, Hendricks Township, and Shaokatan

Township.



• In South Dakota: City of Astoria, Lake Hendricks Township, Oak Lake Township, and

Scandinavia Township.



-5-

Section III-C – Population Trends



Figure 1 shows that the study area has been subject to declining population pressures for decades. This

parallels a set of out-migration trends that have been common throughout rural areas of Minnesota and

South Dakota. Historical data for the last three census periods is as follows:



Figure 1 – Population, 1980 to 2000





2,261

1,883 1,896









Source: US Census Bureau _____________________________________________________________________________________________





Table 1 presents the population information in comparison with statewide trends for Minnesota and South

Dakota.



-6-

Table 1 – Population, 1980 to 2000

% Change

1980 Population 1990 Population 2000 Population

1980–2000

State of Minnesota 4,075,970 4,375,099 4,919,479 20.7%

State of South Dakota 690,768 696,004 754,844 9.3%

City of Hendricks 737 656 725 -1.6%

Hansonville Township 202 143 122 -39.6%

Hendricks Township 377 297 220 -41.6%

Shaokatan Township 254 200 192 -24.4%

City of Astoria 169 155 150 -11.2%

Scandinavia Township 197 187 217 10.2%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 161 136 172 6.8%

Oak Lake Township 164 109 98 -40.2%

Study Area Totals 2,261 1,883 1,896 -16.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau





While both the states of Minnesota and South Dakota have seen steady overall population increases since

1980, the study area as a whole has lost nearly one-fifth of its people. Hendricks Township and

Hansonville Township have suffered the worst decline. Growth has taken place in Scandinavia Township

and Lake Hendricks Township. The City of Hendricks has experienced a rebound in population since

1990, although a small overall decline since 1980 has occurred.



Section III-D – Population Projections



Table 2 indicates that future population trends for the study area are mixed. Hansonville Township,

Hendricks Township, and the City of Astoria are projected to continue experiencing population declines

through 2030. The population of the City of Hendricks is projected to increase by 12% from 2000 to

2030, while a 3.6% increase is anticipated for Shaokatan Township. However, the data are incomplete for

the study area due to the unavailability of projections for the three townships in South Dakota.



Table 2 – Population Projections, 2000 to 2030

2010 2020 2030

2000 % Change

Population Population Population

Population 2000-2030

Estimate Estimate Estimate

City of Hendricks 725 707 761 812 12.0%

Hansonville Township 122 100 93 84 -31.1%

Hendricks Township 220 190 183 171 -22.3%

Shaokatan Township 192 196 199 199 3.6%

City of Astoria 150 143 130 N/A -13.3%

Scandinavia Township 217

Lake Hendricks Twp. 172 Projections are not available for these townships.

Oak Lake Township 98

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Minnesota State Demographic Center; Deuel County Comprehensive Plan.









-7-

Section III-E – Age

Median Age.



Figure 2 shows that the median age 1 has been increasing in all of the townships in the study area. A

decrease in median age was experienced in the cities of Astoria and Hendricks from 1990 to 2000.



Figure 2 – Median Age, 1980 to 2000









Source: US Census Bureau _____________________________________________________________________________________________





Age Breakdowns.



Table 3 presents age breakdowns. The census shows that the study area as a whole is more elderly (29%

of the population being 65 years of age and older) than either the state of Minnesota (12%) or South

Dakota (15%). Special housing considerations may come into play for the elderly population, it is

important to note that the city of Hendricks is the “grayest” community within the survey area. Nearly

half – 47% – of the residents in Hendricks are 65 or older.



Table 3 – Age Breakdowns, 2000

Persons Under Persons Age Persons Age Persons Age

Totals

Age 20 20 to 44 45 to 64 65 and Older

State of Minnesota 1,434,845 – 29% 1,819,803 – 37% 1,070,565 – 22% 594,266 – 12% 4,919,479 – 100%

State of So. Dakota 229,307 – 32% 271,897 – 36% 142,469 – 18% 111,171 – 15% 754,844 – 100%

City of Hendricks 155 – 24% 141 – 21% 121 – 18% 308 – 47% 725 – 100%

Hansonville Twp. 42 – 29% 32 – 22% 29 – 20% 19 – 13% 122 – 100%

Hendricks Twp. 55 – 19% 68 – 23% 54 – 18% 43 – 14% 220 – 100%

Shaokatan Twp. 58 – 29% 49 – 25% 50 – 25% 35 – 18% 192 – 100%

City of Astoria 38 – 25% 37 – 24% 33 – 21% 42 – 27% 150 – 100%

Scandinavia Twp. 65 – 35% 64 – 34% 47 – 25% 41 – 22% 217 – 100%

Lk. Hendricks Twp. 34 – 25% 33 – 24% 60 – 44% 45 – 33% 172 – 100%

Oak Lake Twp. 24 – 22% 30 – 28% 34 – 31% 10 – 9% 98 – 100%

Study Area Totals 471 – 25% 454 – 24% 428 – 23% 543 – 29% 1,896 – 100%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau





1

The median age is an age “x”, such that exactly one-half of the population is older than “x” and the other half is

younger than “x”. (Source: www.statcan.ca)

-8-

Since 1980, the study area as a whole has consistently had a significantly higher median age than is found

statewide in either Minnesota or South Dakota. The city of Hendricks has the highest median age – 56.8

years – which is more than twenty years older than the statewide patterns.



The rate of aging (% Change) differs widely within the study area. Lake Hendricks Township and Oak

Lake Township show substantial increases in age. The median age in the city of Hendricks, although very

high, has remained fairly consistent in the past decades. The city of Astoria has bucked the trend by

growing slightly younger since 1980.



Population Pyramid.



Figure 3 shows age distribution by gender in Lincoln County and is presented for comparison purposes

with the study area data. Figure 3 is county-wide and differs from the study area examined in Table 3.

When drawn as a “population pyramid,” age distribution can indicate at patterns of growth and/or decline

of a specific age group, all things remaining constant.



When looking at the population pyramid for Lincoln County, we can see that the female population

between the ages of 55 to 85+ is heavily weighted (with a slight decline of those age 50 to 54) but then

raises again for those ages 39 to 49.



When looking at the male side of the pyramid, although the elderly male population compares

unfavorably to the female side, it shows that sustained growth in the male population can also be expected

over the next 50 years.



Figure 3 – Population Pyramid, 2000









From this population pyramid, and all other factors remaining constant, over the next 50 years Lincoln

County can anticipate a significant increase in the elderly population. The “bulge” in population in the 35

to 49 age bracket will soon move into the elderly category. Therefore, investments in alternative and

elderly housing today will continue to have demand well into the future.







-9-

☛ Key Observations.

• Even when considering the past trends of population decline, the population projections and age of

the population suggest creative and cost effective solutions to develop housing that meets the

needs of persons living within and expected to live within the study area.



• Table 3 shows that the highest percentage of persons age 65+ gravitates to the city of Hendricks,

where services and medical care are more conveniently located. Therefore, it is important for the

community to prepare for elderly housing needs and create a “livable community” where access to

essential services is available to this population.



• There will be increased pressures on the city of Hendricks’ housing stock if the population

projections provided in Table 2 are realized.



• The population pyramid indicates that an Assisted Living Facility or elderly housing needs are key

in housing decisions considering the 50-year expected span of high elderly population and can

provide housing options for the elderly for the next 50 years.



Section III-F – Income Conditions



Census information demonstrates that income conditions are depressed in the study area. This is reflected

by household income data, per capita income, and the distribution of households among income

categories. (Detailed household income for each city and township in the study area is found at Table 55

in Section VII-D.)



Household Income Ranges.



Figure 4 and Table 4 presents household incomes for the entire study area. The number of households in

the lowest income brackets has decreased between 1990 and 2000. To a degree, this can be attributed to

general wage inflation over the decade.



Figure 4 – Household Incomes, 1990 to 2000 (Entire Study Area)









Source: U.S. Census Bureau





However, there are still comparatively few households with incomes exceeding $75,000 per year.

Household incomes are still heavily weighted at less than $50,000 per year.

- 10 -

Table 4 – Household Incomes, 1990 to 2000 (Entire Study Area)

Households Households

Income Range Income Range

1990……..2000 1990……..2000

$0 – $14,999 295 159 $50,000 – $74,999 31 106

$15,000 – $24,999 191 146 $75,000 – $99,999 4 29

$25,000 – $34,999 104 117 $100,000 – $149,000 9 15

$35,000 – $49,999 91 153 $150,000 + 7 12

Source: U.S. Census Bureau





Median Household Incomes.



Figure 5 and Table 5 consider median household incomes 2 as measured by the last three census counts.

This points to low income conditions, as is also shown in the household income ranges described above.



While median household incomes across Minnesota and South Dakota increased 165.2% and 168.2%,

respectively, between 1980 and 2000, the increase of income has lagged in the study area, rising by 140%.

The slowest increase in income was in Hansonville Township (77.6%) while household income in

Hendricks Township rose the greatest, by 214.0%.



Figure 5 – Median Household Income, 1980 to 2000









Source: US Census Bureau





The 2000 median household income within the study area ($30,172) was $5,110 lower (14.4% lower)

than South Dakota’s statewide median of $35,282. The median was also $16,939 lower (35.9% lower)

than Minnesota’s median of $47,111.



2

“Median Household Income” is “commonly used to provide data about geographic areas and divides households

into two equal segments with the first half of households earning less than the median household income and

the other half earning more. The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better indicator

than the average household income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values." (U.S.

Census Bureau)

- 11 -

Table 5 – Median Household Income, 1980 to 2000

% Change

1980 1990 2000

1980–2000

State of Minnesota $17,761 $30,909 $47,111 165.2%

State of South Dakota $13,156 $29,206 $35,282 168.2%

City of Hendricks $10,358 $14,479 $26,042 151.4%

Hansonville Township $11,262 $17,914 $20,000 77.6%

Hendricks Township $13,092 $22,614 $41,111 214.0%

Shaokatan Township $14,014 $23,125 $28,929 106.4%

City of Astoria $10,198 $12,417 $24,375 139.0%

Scandinavia Township $12,585 $21,250 $30,417 141.7%

Lake Hendricks Twp. $13,493 $21,058 $38,750 187.2%

Oak Lake Township $15,623 $41,250 $31,750 103.2%

Study Area Average $12,578 $21,763 $30,172 140.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.





Per Capita Incomes.



Table 6 examines per capita income, where a somewhat different perspective emerges.



Per capita incomes 3 in the study area increased 214.2% from 1980 to 2000. This compares with a

139.8% increase statewide in Minnesota during those decades and a 125.2% increase in South Dakota.

The largest increase occurred in Oak Lake Township (274.4%) and the smallest increase in Shaokatan

Township (121.2%). These percentage increases may appear positive at first glance. However, it is

significant to note that the disparity in income between the study area and statewide was greater in 2000

than in 1980.



The 2000 per capita income within the study area ($15,815) was $1,747 lower (9.9% lower) than South

Dakota’s statewide amount of $17,562 and $7,383 lower (31.8% lower) than Minnesota’s amount of

$23,198. This may be a more accurate portrait of per capita income conditions, with incomes in the study

area standing nearly 1/3 lower than Minnesota as a whole.



Table 6 – Per Capita Income, 1980 to 2000

% Change

1980 1990 2000

1980–2000

State of Minnesota $9,673 $18,784 $23,198 139.8%

State of South Dakota $7,800 $15,488 $17,562 125.2%

City of Hendricks $4,792 $10,497 $15,828 230.3%

Hansonville Township $3,936 $8,024 $13,725 248.7%

Hendricks Township $4,610 $8,714 $14,582 216.3%

Shaokatan Township $5,362 $11,414 $11,859 121.2%

City of Astoria $4,450 $7,751 $14,641 229.0%

Scandinavia Township $6,110 $8,251 $15,243 149.5%

Lake Hendricks Twp. $5,429 $8,758 $18,697 244.4%

Oak Lake Township $5,862 $9,964 $21,945 274.4%

Study Area Average $5,069 $9,172 $15,815 214.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.





3

“Per Capita Income” is “obtained by dividing the total family income by the total number of family members.”

(National Statistical Coordination Board)

- 12 -

☛ Key Observation.

• When analyzing the income data of the study area provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, one must

carefully consider affordability of new housing options for residents. Private lenders recommend

that housing costs (mortgage principal, interest, insurance, and property taxes) should not exceed

28% of a household’s income. This provides a general guide when considering affordability of

housing for study area residents.



Section III-G – Housing Units by Census Category



It should be noted that housing information provided in the following tables was obtained from multiple

sources. This may account for variances in the data reported.



The 1990 and 2000 housing data were provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2008 data were

compiled through a variety of means, including research by local officials and study team interviews with

various community representatives including real estate agents, landlords, and employers.



Total Units.



Figure 6 illustrates the total number of owner occupied housing units, renter occupied housing units, and

vacant housing units in the study area at the time of the study. This combines information from Tables 7,

8, and 9.



Figure 6 – Total Number of Housing Units in Study Area, 2008



178 Units









160 Units

689 Units





Source: U.S. Census Bureau; City and Township Officials _______________________________________________________





Owner-Occupied Housing.



Table 7 summarizes the number of owner-occupied housing units since 1990. The study area as a whole

has experienced an 8.8% increase in the number of such housing units over the past 18 years.

Hansonville and Lake Hendricks Townships have seen the most significant increases.









- 13 -

Table 7 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 1990 to 2008

% Change

1990 2000 2008

1990–2008

City of Hendricks 254 241 274 7.9%

Hansonville Township 45 38 42 -6.7%

Hendricks Township 76 73 71 -6.6%

Shaokatan Township 61 66 71 16.4%

City of Astoria 54 55 53 -1.9%

Scandinavia Township 71 81 82 15.5%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 46 67 66 43.5%

Oak Lake Township 26 32 30 15.4%

Totals 633 653 689 8.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; City Clerks; Township Board Members.





Renter-Occupied Housing.



Table 8 presents information on the number of renter-occupied housing units. The study area has seen a

modest increase in the number of rental units of 8.8% over the past 18 years.



Table 8 – Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 1990 to 2008

% Change

1990 2000 2008

1990–2008

City of Hendricks 65 67 88 35.4%

Hansonville Township 7 6 7 0.0%

Hendricks Township 19 13 14 -26.3%

Shaokatan Township 9 5 5 -44.4%

City of Astoria 16 14 15 -6.3%

Scandinavia Township 10 14 15 50.0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 9 7 7 -22.2%

Oak Lake Township 12 9 9 -25.0%

Totals 147 135 160 8.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; City Clerks; Township Board Members.







Vacant Housing.



Table 9 outlines the trends in vacant housing units. Throughout the study area, the number of vacant units

has declined by 17.6% since 1990.



The largest drops in vacant units have occurred in the City of Hendricks and Oak Lake Township. In

contrast, vacant units have increased most dramatically in Hansonville and Hendricks Townships. (It

should be noted that some of the data related to vacant housing in the townships may include structures of

questionable livability. Additionally, the U.S Census definition of “vacant” includes unoccupied units

which may be for sale.)







- 14 -

Table 9 – Vacant Housing Units, 1990 to 2008

% Change

1990 2000 2008

1990–2008

City of Hendricks 51 52 19 -62.7%

Hansonville Township 8 13 12 50.0%

Hendricks Township 32 38 39 21.9%

Shaokatan Township 25 38 35 40.0%

City of Astoria 9 6 8 -11.1%

Scandinavia Township 20 14 13 -35.0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 61 51 47 -23.0%

Oak Lake Township 10 4 5 -50.0%

Totals 216 216 178 -17.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; City Clerks; Township Board Members.





Age of Housing.



Figure 7 and Table 10 show that housing in the overall study area is old. The bulk of the housing units

are nearly 70 years old or older, having been built in 1939 or earlier.



Figure 7 –Housing Units in Entire Study Area, by Year Built









Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; City Clerks; Lincoln County Environmental Office;

Brookings County Zoning Department; Township Officials.





Comparatively few units have been built since 1990. Most of the newer construction has taken place in

Lake Hendricks and Shaokatan Townships. This can be attributed to lakeshore housing construction

which has taken place in those townships. The most recent significant housing development in the City of

Hendricks occurred during the 1970s, which makes the majority of the newest housing in Hendricks 30

years old. (Detailed ages of housing units for each city and township in the study area are found at Table

56 in Section VII-D.)



Table 10 – Housing Units, by Year Built (Entire Study Area)

Year Built Households Year Built Households

1939 and Earlier 414 – 38.3% 1980 to 1989 63 – 5.8%

1940 to 1959 162 – 15.0% 1990 to 1995 21 – 1.9%

1960 to 1969 69 – 6.4% 1995 to 1999 66 – 6.1%

1970 to 1979 179 – 16.6% 2000 to 2008 107 – 9.9%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; City & Township Clerks; Lincoln County Environmental Office; Brookings County Zoning Department.





- 15 -

Housing Values.



Figure 8 and Table 11 examine the value owner-occupied housing units in the entire study area, based to

the value that was reported to the U.S. Census Bureau by the homeowner. The 2000 census indicated that

housing values in the study area are far below that of the State of Minnesota as a whole and below values

in South Dakota as well. The median value of a house in Minnesota was $122,400, compared to $65,488

for the study area (46.5% lower). Faring worst was the city of Astoria, with a median value of only

$17,800. Lake Hendricks Township fared best, at $108,300, which can be attributed to a number of

higher-value lakeshore homes. (Detailed owner-occupied housing values for each city and township in

the study area are found at Table 57 in Section VII-D.)



Figure 8 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value (Entire Study Area), 2000









Source: US Census Bureau ___________________________________________________________________________________________





The breakdown of houses within ranges of value also points out depressed conditions. There were almost

no houses in the study area valued at more than $200,000, whereas 15% of the owner-occupied houses in

Minnesota were in this higher value bracket. Correspondingly, almost half (46%) of the housing units in

the study area were valued in the lowest bracket of less than $50,000, compared to only 8% statewide in

Minnesota. Astoria again ranked worst, with nearly all (89%) of the houses valued at less than $50,000.

Lake Hendricks Township has the fewest such low-valued houses, at 17%.



Table 11 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units, by Value, 2000 (Entire Study Area)

Year Built Households Year Built Households

Less than $50,000 236 – 46% $200,000 to $299,999 –

$50,000 to $99,999 114 – 25% $300,000 to $499,999 –

$100,000 to $149,999 32 – 15% $500,000 or More 2 – 4%

$150,000 to $199,999 14 – 10% Median Value $65,488

Source: U.S. Census Bureau







☛ Key Observation.

• With low housing values, owners have limited equity when they want to sell their home and

- 16 -

reinvest in alternative housing. This may indicate a need for assistance programs to aid in

transitioning current homeowners into alternative housing options.



• Also due to the low value of houses in the study area, financing assistance may be needed to

bridge the gap between the cost of construction and the assessed value of the new home.



Section III-H – Vacancy Rates



Owner-Housing Vacancy.



Table 12 shows that the average vacancy rates for owner-occupied housing in the study area has been

below 2.0% through the last three census periods.



There are wide variations of owner-occupied vacancy within the cities and townships. In 2000, the city of

Hendricks had the highest vacancy rate at 4.0%. Three townships plus the city of Astoria had no

vacancies. Considering the increase in owner-occupied housing over the past 18 years, this suggests a

need to increase availability of owner-occupied housing units.



Table 12 – Owner-Occupied Vacancy Rates, 1980 to 2000

1980 1990 2000

State of Minnesota 1.5% 1.5% 0.9%

State of South Dakota 2.1% 1.9% 1.8%

City of Hendricks 0.9% 4.0% 4.0%

Hansonville Township 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Hendricks Township 1.3% 3.0% 2.7%

Shaokatan Township 2.3% 0.0% 0.0%

City of Astoria 2.1% 1.8% 0.0%

Scandinavia Township 2.7% 0.0% 1.3%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0.8% 2.1% 1.6%

Oak Lake Township 1.5% 3.7% 0.0%

Study Area Average 1.6% 1.8% 1.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.





Renter-Housing Vacancy.



Table 13 shows that the 2000 average renter-occupied vacancy rate within the study area (7.2%) was

substantially higher than that of Minnesota (4.1%), but is on par with the rate for South Dakota (8.0%).



Once again, there are significant variations within the study area itself. While Lake Hendricks Township

showed a renter-occupied vacancy rate of nearly one-third (30.0%), there were no rental vacancies in four

other townships. Considering the increase in renter-occupied housing over the past 18 years, this suggests

a need for rental-housing alternatives.









- 17 -

Table 13 – Renter-Occupied Vacancy Rates, 1980 to 2000

1980 1990 2000

State of Minnesota 5.8% 7.9% 4.1%

State of South Dakota 10.1% 7.3% 8.0%

City of Hendricks 8.6% 13.9% 6.9%

Hansonville Township 7.1% 9.1% 0.0%

Hendricks Township 3.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Shaokatan Township 5.3% 0.0% 0.0%

City of Astoria 12.7% 5.9% 6.7%

Scandinavia Township 10.2% 23.1% 14.3%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 13.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Oak Lake Township 6.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Study Area Average 8.4% 6.5% 3.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.





☛ Key Observations.



• Trends showing a decreasing vacancy rate suggest the need for development of both owner-

occupied and renter-occupied development to meet housing demands in the study area.



• We must take into consideration that vacancy percentages will be higher in the study area because

of the total number of units and number of vacant properties as compared to the metro area.



Section III-I – Labor & Workforce Patterns



Understanding the employment patterns in a given locale is an important key to understanding housing

needs. Of particular interest are the people commuting to Hendricks for their jobs, since they may be

enticed to move to the community if the circumstances are favorable.



Two significant measurements of the labor and workforce patterns for an area are the labor shed and

commute shed. “Labor shed” defines the residence location of those who work in a community (such as

Hendricks). The converse is a “commute shed,” which is the work destination of people who live in a

certain location.



Hendricks Labor & Commute Patterns.



Table 14 presents labor shed and commute shed information for the city of Hendricks. The available data

show that:



• A large majority of persons (228 individuals) who work in Hendricks have their residence in

Lincoln County.



• 29 workers in Hendricks are from Brookings County, 13 are from Yellow Medicine County, and

10 are from Lyon County.



• Another large majority of persons (222 individuals) who live in Hendricks have their work

destination in Lincoln County.

- 18 -

• 12 Hendricks residents have their work destination in Yellow Medicine County. Lyon County is

the work destination for 9 persons.



Table 14 – City of Hendricks Labor Shed & Commute Shed

Labor Shed – Residence Locations of Those Commute Shed – Work Destination of Those

Working in Hendricks Living in Hendricks

Primary Jobs / Primary Jobs /

County of Residence County of Work

Count of Workers Count of Workers

Lincoln 228 Lincoln 222

Brookings, SD 39 Yellow Medicine 12

Yellow Medicine 13 Lyon 9

Lyon 10 Ramsey 4

Deuel, SD 5 Chippewa 3

Codington, SD 3 Dakota 3

Pipestone 3 Hennepin 3

Others 9 Others 6

Totals 310 Totals 262

↑ Current out of state work destinations such as South Dakota are

Source: Minnesota Department of Employment & Economic Development.

not yet available, but may be later in 2008.





Lincoln County Labor & Commute Patterns.



Table 15 (on the following page) sets forth labor shed and commute shed data for Lincoln County. The

available information shows that:



• A large majority of persons (976 individuals) have their residence in Lincoln County and also

have their work destination within the county.



• 111 workers in Lincoln County are from Lyon County, 88 are from Brookings County, and 81 are

from Pipestone County.



• 379 Lincoln County residents have their work destination in Lyon County. Brookings County is

the work destination for 166 persons.



☛ Key Observations.

• With 310 persons working in Hendricks (Table 14, left side) and 262 persons who live in

Hendricks and either work in Hendricks or elsewhere, it is evident that the city of Hendricks has

more jobs available than it has employees within the community.



• Although we have no basis for determining how many people who live in Hendricks actually work

in Hendricks, the evidence supports the observation that more people are coming to Hendricks for

employment each day than are leaving.









- 19 -

Table 15 – Lincoln County Labor Shed & Commute Shed

Labor Shed – Residence Locations of Those Commute Shed – Work Destination of Those

Working in Lincoln County Living in Lincoln County

Primary Jobs / Primary Jobs /

County of Residence County of Work

Count of Workers Count of Workers

Lincoln 976 Lincoln 976

Lyon 111 Lyon 379

Brookings, SD 88 Brookings, SD 166

Pipestone 81 Pipestone 79

Yellow Medicine 31 Yellow Medicine 70

Murray 24 Hennepin 86

Deuel, SD 13 Ramsey 43

Redwood 8 Murray 28

Codington, SD 5 Dakota 23

Dakota 5 Blue Earth 20

Lake 3 Brown 19

Olmsted 3 Kandiyohi 18

Ramsey 3 Minnehaha, SD 15

Others 33 Rock 12

Totals 1,384 Steele 12

Moody, SD 11

Platte, NE 11

Source: Minnesota Department of Employment & Economic

Development. Redwood 11

Deuel, SD 9

Nobles 9

Jackson 8

Nicollet 8

Big Stone 7

Morrison 7

Anoka 6

Chippewa 6

St. Louis 6

Waseca 6

Renville 5

Stearns 5

Others 40

Totals 2,101









- 20 -

part iv

survey information



Section IV-A – Source of Survey Data & Response Rate



A widely distributed survey was conducted in May of 2008, in order to gather additional information.

Mailing lists were obtained for the jurisdictions in the study area, using city utility billing records and plat

books. These were supplemented by lists from the Hendricks Community Hospital Association of

employees and others associated with the hospital. Surveys were mailed to 2,224 parties, together with a

postage-paid return envelope.



A copy of the survey form is included in Attachment VII-B at the end of this report.



Numerous tables giving detailed responses from all survey respondents are found in Attachment VII-C.



438 surveys were returned, for a 19.7% response rate. Table 16 presents the response rate for the survey.

(Note: The headings “Other Minnesota” and “Other South Dakota” are for responses from households

with addresses outside of the study area who were included on the hospital’s mailing lists.)



Table 16 – Response Rates of Public Survey

Surveys Survey Rate of

Surveys Returned

Distributed Return

City of Hendricks 129

Minnesota









Hansonville Township 14

Hendricks Township 1,522 32 294 19.3%

Shaokatan Township 18

Other Minnesota 101

City of Astoria 8

South Dakota









Scandinavia Township 19

Lake Hendricks Twp. 702 27 136 19.4%

Oak Lake Township 6

Other South Dakota 76

Location Unreported N/A 8 8 N/A

Totals 2,224 438 438 19.7%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)







Section IV-B – Summary of Full Survey

Responses, Entire Study Area



This section summarizes the survey findings for the entire study area. Detailed information from the

- 21 -

cities of Hendricks and Astoria, as well as the individual townships, can be found in the tables which are

presented in Attachment VII-C. The total number of survey responses may vary from one question to

another, depending on survey questions which may or may not have been answered by the public.



Age Breakdowns. (See Table 31.)

• 41% of the persons in the study area are age 60 or older.

• The city of Hendricks has the oldest population profile, with 59% of the persons being age 60 or

older. Astoria is a close second in this regard, with 57% in that category.

• Comparatively few persons under age 20 are reflected in the survey, again underscoring the older

nature of the populations.



Figure 9 – Age Breakdown of Survey Respondents, 2008









Source: Development Services Inc, 2008 Survey ________________________________________________________________________





Annual Household Income. (See Table 32.)

• 39% of the households in the study area (171 out of 438) are low- and moderate-income (LMI). 4

The largest proportion of LMI households is found in the city of Hendricks, where more than one-

third (36%) of the households are LMI.

• Income information from the survey can also be grouped according to the income brackets used in

the LMI calculation. Far and away the largest number of households in the study area (30% – 133

out of 438) is found in the lowest bracket of under $31,750 per year. Nearly half of these are

found in the city of Hendricks, again pointing to low-income conditions in that community.



Figure 10 – Income Breakdown of Survey Respondents, 2008



133 of 438

(30%)









Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey) ___________________________________________







4

A “Low- and Moderate-Income” (LMI) household is defined as one having an annual income 80% or less of the

median household income for a county, based on household size. It is a measurement calculated annually by

the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and is frequently used for determining eligibility

for certain federal financial assistance programs.

- 22 -

☛ Key Observation.

• The survey results above reflect similar demographics as are shown in the previous sections

(age and income data) and suggest that determination of housing development should take

these factors into consideration when prioritizing various housing options.



Place of Work & Commuting. (See Table 33.)

• The largest block of households (141) in the survey group report working in Hendricks (36%).

The next largest group (43 households) works in Brookings.

• There are 60 households in the city of Hendricks with one or more persons working in the city.

• The survey finds a number of households with one or more persons who commute into the city of

Hendricks for work. These are:

o 23 households commute in from elsewhere in Minnesota.

o 16 households commute in from Hendricks Township.

o 11 households from Lake Hendricks Township.

o 10 households from Shaokatan Township.

o 9 households from elsewhere in South Dakota.

o 6 households from Hansonville Township.

o 4 households from Scandinavia Township.

o 1 household from Oak Lake Township.

o No households from Astoria.

• The survey also finds a number of households with one or more persons who live in Hendricks

and commute elsewhere for work. These are:

o 8 households commute to Ivanhoe for work.

o 5 households commute to Marshall.

o 4 households commute to Brookings, S.D.

o 4 households commute to Toronto, S.D.

o 3 households commute to Clear Lake, S.D.

o 2 households commute to Canby.

o 2 households commute to Minneota.

o 2 households commute to Tyler.

o 1 household commutes to Astoria.

o 1 household commutes to Marble Township.

o 1 household commutes to Pipestone.

o 1 household commutes to Watertown, S.D.



Type of Current Home. (See Table 34.)

• 90% of the respondents have standard single-family houses.

• 8% live in apartments.

• 2% are in a duplex or twin-home.

• Only 1% live in mobile homes.

• Several of the communities have no housing opportunities other than single-family homes.









- 23 -

Figure 11 – Type of Current Housing of Survey Respondents, 2008









366 of 408

(90%)









Source: Development Services, Inc. 2008 Survey ________________________________________________





Own or Rent Current Home. (See Table 35.)

• A very high proportion of all households (89%) own their home while 11% are renters.

• The highest rates of rentership are found in the cities of Astoria and Hendricks. The lowest

rentership is in three of the townships where no rentals are reported.



Year Current Home Was Built. (See Table 36.)

• More than one-third (39%) of the housing units date from 1939 or earlier. The highest proportions

of older housing are found in Oak Lake Township (75%) and the city of Astoria (67%).

• Only 25% of the housing units have been built since 1980. Larger proportions of newer housing

are present in Shaokatan and Lake Hendricks Townships, where more recently-constructed

lakeshore homes are found.



Current Monthly House Payment or Rent. (See Table 37.)

• A majority of all households (64%) have no monthly payments, indicating that they own their

homes free and clear.

• Of those households which do have mortgage or rent payments, most payments are in the two

ranges of $300-$499 and $700+.



Current Monthly Taxes, Insurance, and Utility Costs. (See Table 38.)

• A majority (53%) of the survey respondents report their housing-related expenses as being $300 or

more per month.



Where Primary Medical Services Are Received. (See Table 39.)

• Far and away, the medical facilities in Hendricks are most heavily patronized by the survey

respondents. More than three-fourths (76%) of the these households cite Hendricks as the source

of their primary medical services.

• The strongest patronage of the Hendricks medical facilities comes from Hendricks Township

(97%) and the city of Hendricks (94%).



Assisted Living Facility Needed for Hendricks Area. (See Table 40.)

• The survey indicates strong agreement that an assisted living facility is needed, with 267 house-

holds answering “yes.” Only 21 households stated that such a facility was not needed.

• The strongest support for assisted living is found in the city of Hendricks (accounting for 33% of

the “yes” responses), while the weakest support is in Oak Lake Township (only 1% of the “yes”

responses).

• Of particular interest are the responses from households with at least one person age 60 or older.

This is the age group that can potentially be served at some point by an assisted living facility.

- 24 -

A total of 167 households in that age bracket believe such a facility is needed. The largest

proportion of these (65 households, 39%) are in the city of Hendricks.



Level of Interest in Assisted Living. (See Table 41.)

• Although a majority of responding households (60%) have little or no interest in assisted living at

this time but may in the future and 16% are simply not interested, a total of 20 survey households

have an almost immediate interest.

• Future planning should also take into account the 80 households who say their timeline for

assisted living spans only 2, 3, 4, or more years.



Important Services & Amenities in an Assisted Living Facility. (See Table 42.)

• The services and amenities which are believed to be most important for an assisted living facility

are snow removal (333 responses) and lawn care (331 responses).

• This is followed relatively closely by meal services (319 responses) and light housekeeping (301

responses).

• Ranking lowest is organized activities (208 responses).

• The pattern is the same for those survey households that expressed a positive interest in assisted

living for themselves.



Why Not Interested in Assisted Living. (See Table 43.)

• More than half (54%) of the survey households gave “not being in the right age group” as the

reason why they are not interested in assisted living.

• Almost one-quarter (22%) say they are not interested because they are satisfied with their current

housing.

• Only 3% are not interested because they would rather live in a different community.



Interested in Types of New Housing. (See Table 44.)

• 115 households are interested in new single-family housing.

o As a subset, 43 are interested in new single-family housing on the lakeshore.

o As a subset, 20 are interested in such housing on the golf course.

• 61 households are interested in a duplex or twin-home.

o As a subset, 31 are interested in new duplex or twin-home housing on the lakeshore.

o As a subset, 9 are interested in such housing on the golf course.

• 60 are interested in a condo or town house.

o As a subset, 29 are interested in new condo or town house housing on the lakeshore.

o As a subset, 12 are interested in such housing on the golf course.

• 102 are interested in new apartment housing.

o As a subset, 10 are interested in new apartment housing on the lakeshore.

o As a subset, 1 is interested in such housing on the golf course.

• Most of the interest in new housing comes from households in the city of Hendricks. Of these:

o 33 are interested in new single-family housing.

o 23 are interested in a duplex or twin-home.

o 19 are interested in a condo or town house.

o 32 are interested in an apartment.

• Significant interest is also shown by the survey respondents who have “Other Minnesota” and

“Other South Dakota” locations of residence.

• Follow-up with these individuals may prove advantageous to the community, as their housing

needs (if met) could attract new people to Hendricks.



- 25 -

Own or Rent New Housing. (See Table 45.)

• 57% of the responding survey households would be interested in new home ownership.

• 43% would prefer to rent.

• The highest expressions of interest in ownership were in Lake Hendricks Township (84%) and

Scandinavia Township (79%).

• The largest proportions of households interested in renting were in Astoria (80%) and Hansonville

Township (60%).



First Time Home Buyer. (See Table 46.)

• Very few survey respondents (7%) who are interested in new housing would be first-time buyers.

• However, 8 households in the city of Hendricks did say “yes” to this question and further work to

determine their specific needs may be advisable.



Currently Use Income-Based Housing Assistance. (See Table 47.)

• A small proportion of the survey respondents (4%) currently make use of income-based housing

assistance. (The primary types of such assistance are income-based public housing units and

Section 8 rent subsidy vouchers.)



Affordable Monthly Payment or Rent for New Housing. (See Table 48.)

• Most respondents (45%) could afford monthly payments/rent for new housing in the range of $200

to $600.

• A sizeable proportion (14%) could only afford payments/rent of less than $200 per month.

• The survey found that 16% of the respondents would not need a mortgage for new housing and

can be assumed able to afford such housing without additional financing.



Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in New Housing. (See Table 49.)

• The survey examined the public’s preferences concerning three key factors affecting the appeal of

new housing – the number of bedrooms, the number of bathrooms, and the number of garage

stalls. By wide margins, the responding households expressed preferences for new housing which

offers:

o Two bedrooms – 192 responses.

o Two bathrooms – 204 responses.

o Two garage stalls – 157 responses.

o There is also a large number of households desiring only one garage stall – 138 responses.



Level of Interest in New Housing Preferences. (See Table 50.)

• Although many households expressed a preference for a type of new housing, a majority (69%) do

not have an immediate interest. Their interest may be more long-term. (See “Why Not Interested

in New Housing,” page 27.)

• However, 26 households do have an almost immediate interest in the new housing. 9 of these are

in the city of Hendricks.

• Future planning should also take into account the 89 households who say their timeline for new

housing spans only 2, 3, or 4 years.



Reasons Interested in New Housing. (See Table 51.)

• The largest segment of the survey group (33%) is interested in new housing because of retirement

issues.

• The next largest segment of households (25%) is interested because of the prospect of reduced

maintenance associated with new housing.

- 26 -

Figure 12 – Why Interested in New Housing









Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Why Not Interested in New Housing. (See Table 52.)

• Nearly three-quarters (72%) of the households say they are satisfied with their current housing and

are therefore not interested in new housing opportunities.

• Ranking second as a reason for disinterest in new housing (14%) is the opinion that the new

housing would not be affordable.



What Community Services & Amenities Are Important. (See Table 53.)

• The survey indicated the strongest interest in a community center (92 households) and a 24-hour

fitness center (47 households).

• The least interest is in an expanded golf course (4 households), a soccer field (2 households), and

additional health care services (1 household).



Figure 13 – Survey Respondents View of Important Services & Amenities









47 92

Households Households









Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey) ____________________________________________





Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information. (See Table 54.)

• The survey asked people to give their names if they desired additional information about particular

housing projects. This can form a valuable base for follow-up as certain housing projects take

shape or move forward. The interest in receiving additional information was:

o 16 households – assisted living

o 12 households – housing repair

o 5 households – new rental housing

o 5 households – new owner housing

- 27 -

Section IV-C – Detailed Responses of

Those Interested in New Housing



The survey identified 51 households who said they were interested in new housing opportunities for

themselves. This includes 26 who reported they were interested almost immediately and 25 who were

interested within the next two or three years. Detailed information about this sub-group is presented in

this section.



Locations.

• 18 households (35.3%) that are interested in new housing are in the city of Hendricks.

• 12 households (23.5%) that are interested are from areas of Minnesota other than Hansonville,

Hendricks, and Shaokatan Townships.

• Comparatively few of the interested households are from South Dakota.



Table 17 – Locations of Survey Respondents Interested in New Housing

Households Persons

City of Hendricks 18 – 35.3% 39 – 36.1%

Minnesota









Hansonville Township 1 – 1.9% 1 – 0.9%

Hendricks Township 5 – 9.8% 10 – 9.2%

Shaokatan Township – –

Other Minnesota 12 – 23.5% 30 – 27.8%

City of Astoria 2 – 3.9% 2 – 1.8%

South Dakota









Scandinavia Township 3 – 5.9% 9 – 8.3%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 4 – 7.8% 8 – 7.4%

Oak Lake Township – –

Other South Dakota 6 – 11.7% 9 – 8.3%

Totals 51 – 100% 108 – 100%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)







Age Breakdowns.

• 39.8% of the persons in households that are interested in new housing are age 60 or older.

• Very few children age 6 and younger are reflected in the survey.



Table 18 – Age Breakdowns of Persons in Households Interested in New Housing

Age Group Number of Persons Age Group Number of Persons

Age 6 and younger 8 – 7.4% 50 to 59 years old 10 – 9.2%

7 to 19 years old 15 – 13.9% 60 to 69 years old 13 – 12.0%

20 to 29 years old 10 – 9.2% 70 to 79 years old 9 – 8.3%

30 to 39 years old 12 – 11.1% 80 or older 21 – 19.4%

40 to 49 years old 10 – 0.9% Total 108 – 100%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Annual Household Income.

• 39.2% of the households that are interested in new housing (20 out of 51) are in the lowest bracket

of under $31,750 per year.

- 28 -

• 54.9% of these households (28 out of 51) are in the federally-defined category of being low- and

moderate-income (LMI).



Table 19 – Annual Incomes of Households Interested in New Housing

Income Range Households Income Range Households

Less than $31,750 20 – 39.2% $56,251 to $59,850 –

$31,751 to $36,300 8 – 15.7% $59,851 to $70,200 2 – 3.9%

$36,301 to $40,800 5 – 9.8% $70,201 to $80,730 2 – 3.9%

$40,801 to $45,350 8 – 15.7% Over $80,730 1 – 1.9%

$45,351 to $49,000 – Income Not Reported 4 – 7.8%

$49,001 to $52,600 1 – 1.9% Total 51 – 100%

$52,601 to $56,250 –

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Place of Work & Commuting.

• 15 of the 51 households interested in new housing report one or more persons working in

Hendricks.

• 6 working in Ivanhoe.

• 3 working in Marshall.

• 2 working in Brookings, S.D.

• 2 in Clear Lake, S.D.

• 2 in Elkton, S.D.

• 2 in Pipestone.

• 2 in Toronto, S.D.

• 2 in Watertown, S.D.

• 1 in Arco.

• 1 in Brandt, S.D.

• 1 in Canby.

• 1 in Sioux Falls, S.D.

• 1 in Tyler.

• 1 in White, S.D.



Type of Current Home.

• 41 of those interested in new housing are currently in standard single-family houses.

• 8 live in apartments.

• 1 is in a duplex or twin-home.

• 1 is in some other type of housing.

• None live in mobile homes.



Own or Rent Current Home.

• 36 of those interested in new housing own their current home.

• 14 are renters.

• 1 did not report their type of current housing.



Year Current Home Was Built.

• A large proportion (45.7%) of the homes currently occupied by households interested in new

housing date from 1939 or earlier.



- 29 -

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 16 – 45.7% – Built 1939 or earlier

o 2 – 5.7% – Built 1940 to 1959

o 5 – 14.3% – Built 1960 to 1969

o 6 – 17.1% – Built 1970 to 1979

o 3 – 8.6% – Built 1980 to 1989

o 2 – 5.7% – Built 1990 to 1999

o 1 – 2.8% – Built 2000 to 2008



Current Monthly House Payment or Rent.

• A majority of all households (64%) have no monthly payments, indicating that they own their

homes free and clear.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 22 – 45.8% – None

o 2 – 4.1% – Under $100

o 9 – 18.7% – $100 to $299

o 10 – 20.8% – $300 to $499

o 5 – 10.4% – $500 to $699

o None – $700 or Over



Current Monthly Taxes, Insurance, and Utility Costs.

• The largest percentage of the households interested in new housing (39.1%) have monthly

payments of $300 or more.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 6 – 13.0% – None

o 6 – 13.0% – $5 to $99

o 5 – 10.8% – $100 to $199

o 11 – 23.9% – $200 to $299

o 18 – 39.1% – $300 or Over



Interested in Types of New Housing.

• The largest number of households that are interested in new housing are interested in a traditional

single-family house (115) and in an apartment (102).

• Several households expressed interest in housing on the lakeshore and/or golf course as subsets of

their interest in new housing. For example in the table below: 115 households are interested in

new single-family housing. Of these, 43 are interested in new single family housing that is on the

lakeshore.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows. (Note that several survey

respondents stated multiple types of housing that they are interested in.)



Table 20 – Types of Housing Desired by Households Interested in New Housing

Type Households Interested Type Households Interested

Single-Family House 115 – 32.7% Condo or Town House 60 – 17.1%

• Subset on Lakeshore 43 • Subset on Lakeshore 29

• Subset on Golf Course 20 • Subset on Golf Course 12

Duplex or Twin-Home 61 – 17.4% Apartment 102 – 29.0%

• Subset on Lakeshore 31 • Subset on Lakeshore 10

• Subset on Golf Course 9 • Subset on Golf Course 1

Other 13 – 3.8%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)

- 30 -

Own or Rent New Housing.

• 21 of the 51 households interested in new housing would want to own.

• 23 would prefer to rent.

• 7 gave no response on this question.



First Time Home Buyer.

• 9 of the 51 households interested in new housing would be first-time home buyers.

• 37 would not.

• 5 gave no response on this question.



Affordable Monthly Payment or Rent for New Housing.

• Most households that are interested in new housing (16 – 39.0%) could afford monthly

payments/rent in the range of $200 to $399.

• None report being able to afford payments of $800 or more.

• Very few ( only 3) would not need a mortgage for new housing.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 8 – 19.5% – Under $200

o 16 – 39.0% – $200 to $399

o 8 – 19.5% – $400 to $599

o 6 – 14.6% – $600 to $799

o None – $800 to $999

o None – $1,000 or Over

o 3 – 7.3% – Would not need a mortgage



Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in New Housing.

• Of those households interested in new housing who answered the question, their preferences for

bedrooms in the new housing are as follows:

o 8 – One bedroom

o 18 – Two bedrooms

o 16 – Three bedrooms

o 4 – Four bedrooms

• Preferences for bathrooms are:

o 15 – One bathroom

o 28 – Two bathrooms

o 2 – Three bathrooms

o 1 – Four bathrooms

• Preferences for garage stalls are:

o 1 – No stalls

o 18 – One stall

o 21 – Two stalls

o 1 – Three stalls

o 1 – Four stalls



Reasons Interested in Different Housing.

• The largest segment of households interested in new housing (33.3%) is interested because of

retirement issues.

• The next largest segment of households (25.9%) is interested because of their desire for a larger

home.

- 31 -

• Of those who gave a response to this survey questions:



Table 21 – Reasons Given by Households for Interest in New Housing

Reason Households Reason Households

Desire a Larger Home 7 – 25.9% Expanding Household Size 1 – 3.7%

Desire a Smaller Home 3 – 11.1% Smaller Household Size 1 – 3.7%

Access to City Services 3 – 11.1% Reduced Maintenance 3 – 11.1%

Retirement – Other Reasons 9 – 33.3%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information.

• Of the 51 households who said they were interested in new housing for themselves, several gave

their names for inclusion on an information list for follow-up. The responses by those who

answered the question were:

o 4 households – Assisted Living

o 4 households – New Rental Housing

o 3 households – New Home Ownership



Section IV-D – Detailed Responses of

Those Interested in Assisted Living



The survey identified 39 households who said they were interested in a new assisted living facility for

themselves. This includes 20 who reported they were interested almost immediately and 19 who were

interested within the next two or three years. Detailed information about this sub-group is presented in

this section.



Locations.

• 14 of the households (35.9%) that are interested in assisted living are in the city of Hendricks.

• The next-highest levels of interest are found among households elsewhere in Minnesota (7

households) and elsewhere in South Dakota (6 households).



Table 22 – Locations of Survey Respondents Interested in Assisted Living

Households Persons

City of Hendricks 14 – 35.9% 23 – 28.7%

Minnesota









Hansonville Township – –

Hendricks Township 4 – 10.2% 6 – 7.5%

Shaokatan Township – –

Other Minnesota 7 – 17.9% 21 – 26.2%

City of Astoria 3 – 7.7% 4 – 5.0%

South Dakota









Scandinavia Township 2 – 5.1% 6 – 7.5%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 3 – 7.7% 8 – 10.0%

Oak Lake Township – –

Other South Dakota 6 – 15.4% 12 – 15.0%

Totals 39 – 100% 80 – 100%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)







- 32 -

Age Breakdowns.

• 32.5% of the persons in households that are interested in assisted living are age 80 or older.

• 48.5% of the persons in the interested houses are age 60 or older.



Table 23 – Age Breakdowns of Persons in Households Interested in Assisted Living

Age Group Number of Persons Age Group Number of Persons

Age 6 and younger 7 – 8.7% 50 to 59 years old 7 – 8.7%

7 to 19 years old 11 – 13.7% 60 to 69 years old 7 – 8.7%

20 to 29 years old 1 – 1.2% 70 to 79 years old 6 – 7.5%

30 to 39 years old 9 – 11.2% 80 or older 26 – 32.5%

40 to 49 years old 4 – 5.0% Total 80 – 100%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Annual Household Income.

• 43.6% of the households that are interested in assisted living (17 out of 39) are in the lowest

bracket of under $31,750 per year.

• 58.9% of these households (23 out of 39) are in the federally-defined category of being low- and

moderate-income (LMI).



Table 24 – Annual Incomes of Households Interested in Assisted Living

Income Range Households Income Range Households

Less than $31,750 17 – 43.6% $56,251 to $59,850 –

$31,751 to $36,300 5 – 12.8% $59,851 to $70,200 –

$36,301 to $40,800 6 – 15.4% $70,201 to $80,730 2 – 5.1%

$40,801 to $45,350 3 – 7.7% Over $80,730 1 – 2.5%

$45,351 to $49,000 – Income Not Reported 4 – 10.2%

$49,001 to $52,600 1 – 2.5% Total 39 – 100%

$52,601 to $56,250 –

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Type of Current Home.

• 27 of those interested in assisted living are currently in standard single-family houses.

• 6 live in apartments.

• 2 are in a duplex or twin-home.

• 4 are in some other type of housing.

• None live in mobile homes.



Own or Rent Current Home.

• 25 of those interested in assisted living own their current home.

• 13 are renters.

• 1 did not report their type of current housing.



Year Current Home Was Built.

• A large proportion (46.1%) of the homes currently occupied by households interested in assisted

living date from 1939 or earlier.



- 33 -

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 12 – 46.1% – Built 1939 or earlier

o 4 – 15.4% – Built 1940 to 1959

o 4 – 15.4% – Built 1960 to 1969

o None – Built 1970 to 1979

o 3 – 11.5% – Built 1980 to 1989

o 2 – 7.7% – Built 1990 to 1999

o 1 – 3.8% – Built 2000 to 2008



Current Monthly House Payment or Rent.

• Half of all households that are interested in assisted living have no monthly payments, indicating

that they own their homes free and clear.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 19 – 50.0% – None

o 2 – 5.2% – Under $100

o 4 – 10.5% – $100 to $299

o 6 – 15.8% – $300 to $499

o 4 – 10.5% – $500 to $699

o 3 – 7.9% – $700 or Over



Current Monthly Taxes, Insurance, and Utility Costs.

• Over one-third of the households (34.3%) that are interested in assisted living have monthly

housing-related expenses of $300 or more.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 7 – 20.0% – None

o 6 – 17.1% – $5 to $99

o 4 – 11.4% – $100 to $199

o 6 – 17.1% – $200 to $299

o 12 – 34.3% – $300 or Over



Where Primary Medical Services Are Received.

• Far and away, the medical facilities in Hendricks are most heavily patronized by the households

that are interested in assisted living. Well over three-fourths (80.5%) of these households cite

Hendricks as the source of their primary medical services.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 33 – 80.5% – Receive their medical care in Hendricks

o 2 – 4.8% – Receive care in Ivanhoe

o 2 – 4.8% – Receive care in Marshall

o 1 – 2.4% – Receive care in Canby

o 1 – 2.4% – Receive care in Pipestone

o 1 – 2.4% – Receive care in Sioux Falls, S.D.

o 1 – 2.4% – Receive care in White, S.D.









- 34 -

Figure 14 – Location of Primary Medical Services









Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Important Services & Amenities in an Assisted Living Facility.

• The top services and amenities which are believed to be most important for an assisted living

facility are lawn care, meal services, and snow removal.

• Garages are reported as the least important.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:



Table 25 – Services & Amenities Important

to Households Interested in Assisted Living

Service or Amenity Households Service or Amenity Households

Lawn Care 32 Help with Medications 24

Meal Services 32 Organized Activities 23

Snow Removal 32 Group Kitchen / Dining Room 21

Social & Activity Room 29 Bathing & Personal Care 20

In-Town Transportation 28 Garages 18

Light Housekeeping 26 Other 1

24-Hour Care Attendant 24

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





Affordable Monthly Payment or Rent for Assisted Living.

• More than half of the households that are interested in assisted living (17 – 54.8%) report they

could afford monthly payments/rent of under $400.

• A breakdown of those who answered the question is as follows:

o 8 – 25.8% – Under $200

o 9 – 29.0% – $200 to $399

o 3 – 9.6% – $400 to $599

o 6 – 19.3% – $600 to $799

o 1 – 3.2% – $800 to $999

o 2 – 6.4% – $1,000 or Over

o 2 – 6.4% – Would not need a mortgage



- 35 -

Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in Assisted Living.

• Of those households interested in assisted living who answered the question, their preferences for

bedrooms in the new housing are as follows:

o 10 – One bedroom

o 13 – Two bedrooms

o 5 – Three bedrooms

o 4 – Four bedrooms

• Preferences for bathrooms are:

o 11 – One bathroom

o 15 – Two bathrooms

o 1 – Three bathrooms

o None – Four bathrooms

• Preferences for garage stalls are:

o None – No stalls

o 13 – One stall

o 9 – Two stalls

o 3 – Three stalls

o None – Four stalls



Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information.

• Of the 39 households who said they were interested in assisted living for themselves, several gave

their names for inclusion on an information list for follow-up. The responses by those who

answered the question were:

o 7 households – Assisted Living

o 2 households – New Rental Housing

o None – New Home Ownership

o 1 household – Housing Repair









- 36 -

part v

interviews & additional research



Section V-A – Sources of Data



Several personal contacts were made in order to obtain additional information for this study. Available

city and county records were consulted concerning building permits, sales, valuations, and other factors.

Individual interviews were conducted with a variety of persons who have a special perspective on housing

issues in the study area, including 5 major employers, 3 other business owners, 12 owners of rental

properties, 4 real estate professionals, and 2 others with roles in the local housing industry.



Section V-B – Permits & Sales



Residential Building Permits.



Table 26 presents residential building permit information. A total of 107 permits for new dwelling

construction have been issued in the study area since 2000.

The comparatively large number of permits issued in Shaokatan Township, Hendricks Township, and

Lake Hendricks Township can be attributed to new single-family lakeshore housing. The bulk of this new

construction (52 permits – 48.6%) occurred between 2004 and 2006.



Table 26 – Residential Building Permits Issued, 2000 to 2008

2008

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 To Total

Date

City of Hendricks – – – 3 5 4 – – – 12

Hansonville Township – – 1 2 – – – – – 3

Hendricks Township – 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 – 14

Shaokatan Township – 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 – 14

City of Astoria – 1 – 1 1 1 2 2 – 8

Scandinavia Twp. 3 – 1 – – 6 3 4 – 17

Lake Hendricks Twp. 5 5 7 – 6 – 6 2 4 35

Oak Lake Township – 1 1 1 – – – 1 – 4

8 9 14 9 17 19 16 11 4 107

Totals

7.5% 8.4% 13.1% 8.4% 15.9% 17.7% 15.0% 10.4% 3.6% 100%

Sources: City Clerks; Lincoln County Environmental Office; Brookings County Zoning Department; Township Officials.





Housing Sales.



Tables 58 and 59 in Attachment VII-D list detailed residential sales in the study area. The tables do not

account for rejected home sales, which are defined as homes that are sold for more than 150% of assessed

value. A rejected sale may also be a transaction which is not available on the open market, such as a sale

between relatives.



- 37 -

Within the Minnesota portions of the study area (see Table 58), there have been 68 residential sales over

the last five years:

• 56 in the City of Hendricks Average Sale Price: $46,582

• 5 in Hendricks Township Average Sale Price: $101,700

• 5 in Shaokatan Township Average Sale Price: $156,275

• 2 in Hansonville Township Average Sale Price: $38,500



Since 2004, the average residential sale price in the city of Hendricks has increased by 24.0%, from

$39,850 to $49,441.



For all sales in the city of Hendricks since 2004, the average ratio of sales price to market value has

remained largely unchanged:

• 2004 – sales prices 115% of market value

• 2005 – sales prices 105% of market value

• 2006 – sales prices 102% of market value

• 2007 – sales prices 128% of market value

• 2008 to date – sales prices 118% of market value



Our research also sampled lakeshore property sales around Lake Hendricks. Of the 14 residential

recreational sales found in our sampling, the average sale price of these lakeshore properties was $88,018.



Within the South Dakota portions of the study area (see Table 59), there have been 23 residential sales

over the last five years:

• 6 in the City of Astoria Average Sale Price: $4,768

• 12 in Oak Lake & Lake Hendricks Townships Average Sale Price: $224,575

• 5 in Scandinavia Township Average Sale Price: $77,569



Section V-C – Listings for Sale



Table 27 shows the availability of houses listed for sale on the residential market. Various real estate

professionals were consulted to determine availability in Hendricks and on the lakeshore as of April 30,

2008. (There was no information available concerning active listings in the City of Astoria and rural

townships within the study area.)



Homes Listed – City of Hendricks

• Average listing price $64,488

• Average number of bedrooms 2.5

• Average number of baths 1.6



Homes Listed – Hendricks Lakeshore

• Average listing price $248,350

• Average number of bedrooms 3

• Average number of baths 1.75









- 38 -

Table 27 – Residential Listings of Homes for Sale

List Price

Location Broker Bedrooms Baths Lot Size

of Home

City of Hendricks Orlan L. Sandro $5,000 1 1 65 x 150

City of Hendricks Orlan L. Sandro $39,500 2 1 N/A

City of Hendricks Orlan L. Sandro $48,500 1 2 N/A

City of Hendricks Orlan L. Sandro $49,500 3 2 50 x 140

City of Hendricks Orlan L. Sandro $58,500 3 1 85 x 140

City of Hendricks Real Estate Retrievers $62,500 3 2 1.5 acres

City of Hendricks Orlan L. Sandro $65,900 3 1 60 x 140

City of Hendricks Orlan L. Sandro $89,500 3 2 79 x 140

Hendricks (Lake) Orlan L. Sandro $149,500 3 1 50 x 170

City of Hendricks Lincoln Realty $161,500 5 3 10.8 acres

Hendricks (Lake) Orlan L. Sandro $215,000 3 2 114 x 124

Hendricks (Lake) Prime Realty, Inc. $295,000 3 1.5 0.81 acres

Hendricks (Lake) The Realty Team $333,900 3 2.5 100 x 227

Averages $121,061 2.7 1.6

Sources: Interviews with real estate professionals (April 2008).







Section V-D – General Information from Interviews



Rental Housing.



• Rental opportunities 5 in the city of Hendricks were identified with the assistance of the Lincoln

County Assessor’s Office, local individuals, and classified ads found in local newspapers.

Interviews were also conducted with several rental property owners.



• Many of the vacant apartments are publicly subsidized and are available to low- to moderate-

income tenants. Due to high vacancy rates stemming from income and rent restrictions imposed

by the federal government, one property owner has decided to convert eight income-subsidized

apartment units into market rate units. This owner’s rental units will now be available to a larger

market.



Elderly Rental Housing.



• The exact opposite is true of rentals dedicated to the elderly. Units dedicated or marketed towards

the elderly have waiting lists. It is not known how many people have their names on multiple

lists, but some such overlap among waiting lists can be presumed given the limited number of

rentals. Throughout the industry, units dedicated to elderly are typically condos or town homes

and are newer construction that charge higher rents.



• More often than not, the elderly in Hendricks are moving out of single family homes within the



5

Rental information does not include bed and breakfast facilities, rooms for rent in individuals’ homes, motels,

hotels, or hunting lodges.



- 39 -

community. Their homes then become available to other families interested in living in

Hendricks, looking for their first home, or moving into a larger home to meet the demands of a

growing family.



• Hendricks has a successful congregate housing program for the elderly. 6 The Hendricks

Community Hospital Association (HCHA) owns and operates Lincoln Lane Congregate Living

Center, which has 16 apartments. Interested parties must submit a $500 deposit to be added to the

facility’s waiting list. A total of 25 persons are currently on the waiting list. The Lincoln Lane

units are available to individuals 55 years old or older. Rents range from $825 to $1,045 per

month (including utilities), depending upon number of people occupying a given apartment and

the range of services which are desired.



• HCHA’s administration and board members allow Lincoln Lane residents to stay in the facility

until they are ready for nursing home care. There is a consensus, however, that some residents

reside at Lincoln Lane longer than they should because the community lacks assisted living

facilities.



Single-Family Rental Housing.



• Single family homes represent approximately 10% of the area’s rental opportunities. Many of

these units have not been updated for many years, other than amenities such as paint or carpeting.

The average home has a rent of $337 per month, not including utilities. Few houses have garages.

•

• Many individuals who own vacant single-family houses prefer to have their homes sit vacant

pending sale rather than rent out the house. This is enhanced by banking policies which may offer

aggressive loan programs to encourage individuals to buy versus rent.

•

• Local property owners are being encouraged to increase rents in order to provide enough revenue

in order to adequately maintain the properties and provide a return on investment for the owners.

•

• Almost all property owners rely upon word of mouth to rent their properties. When necessary,

owners will advertise in the local paper.



House Hunting. Several recent “transplants” to the Hendricks area were interviewed.



• Several people have preferred to rent when first moving to the community. They found it difficult

to obtain a rental property suitable for a growing family. In addition, these individuals noted that



6

Congregate housing and group living arrangements are available for rental to older persons in many

communities. They are also sometimes known as “Sheltered Housing” or “Enriched Housing.” While you have

your own private living quarters, including a kitchen for light meals and snacks, you routinely eat with others in a

central dining facility. Typically, residents of congregate housing are usually expected to take care of personal

needs, such as laundry. The home may provide housekeeping services, transportation to shopping areas,

movies, speakers, and entertainment. If you are infirm or having trouble getting around, this type of arrangement

relieves you of major cooking, housekeeping, and shopping responsibilities. Some may even offer health

screening, personal care, or other types of assistance. Congregate housing is distinguished from board and care

homes by the presence of professional staff, such as social workers, counselors, or nutritionists, who help

administer services and social activities. In some congregate homes, residents organize advisory councils to

work with the staff on policies and home management. (Source: www.senior-site.com)



- 40 -

many of the single-family homes for sale or rent on the open market were structurally sound but

needed cosmetic updates.



• For one family, the home they were renting sold during the term of the lease and they lost their

occupancy.



• There were few developed lots that were available when these individuals were house-hunting.

People are interested in lake lots, but many believe the lots are too expensive at this time.



• It should be noted that a multiple listing service (MLS) is not available. Working with realtors in

the area may enhance opportunities for homebuyers.



Section V-E – General Information from Employer Interviews



Perspectives of Main Employers.



Interviews were conducted with the area’s five main employers. It is estimated that this group employs

approximately 268 people and services a 35 to 40 mile area. Based upon these interviews:



• The employee turnover rate is minimal (less than one percent). Most of the turnover is due to

retirement. This is expected to change over the next few years. An increase in turnover is

occurring which the employers attribute to the increased cost of gasoline and transportation for

commuters. However, these higher fuel prices may work to the advantage of local employers, as a

few have reported benefiting from people deciding to work closer to home and no longer commute

to larger communities.

•

• All the employers who were interviewed commented on how their job recruits and/or business

clients are typically surprised by all that Hendricks has to offer. They find the number of services

provided in a community the size of Hendricks is impressive. All believe the community does a

good job providing the daily “necessities.” Few would like to see local shops increase the variety

of goods and/or products.

•

• The size of Hendricks helps to “weed out” potential applicants before they apply. As a result,

employers only work with those applicants who are serious about the area and their job

opportunity.

•

• To date, few of the major employers have had problems recruiting employees. Historically,

employers in Hendricks tend to recruit within their own trade area. Hospital and school

administrators believe this will change over the next few years. It is becoming more difficult to

recruit people with the required education, skill, and experience.

•

• Specifically in terms of education, a number of local teachers will be retiring over the next few

years. This may cause the schools in Lincoln County to increasingly become stepping stones for

new teachers. Those with ties to the community or area may stay longer. The same may be true

for the Hendricks hospital as it continues to expand its services. As a result, housing issues may

play a larger part in job recruiting.



Table 28 summarizes employment, commuting, income, and other information obtained from the five

main employers:

- 41 -

Table 28 – Information from Main Employers

Of Those Employees Who Commute to Work



Total Commute Commute Commute Commute Median Annual Service Area

Number of Number 5 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40+ Income of Turnover of of the

Employees Miles Miles Miles Miles Employees Employees Business



30 to 40

$31,600 0.87%

Totals 268 125 38 59 22 6 miles; and

Average Average

Multi-State

Source: Individual interviews (2008) 30% 47% 18% 5%





Section V-F – Specific Interviews

Selected specific interviews are summarized in this section. They were found to be representative of the

larger group of interviews and also illustrate a number of important housing issues.



Employment & Housing.



• Personnel have not been lost due to a lack of amenities in Hendricks. However, employers have

encountered problems in recruiting qualified candidates because of Hendricks’ limited range of

amenities. Most of the positions are secondary jobs and serve to secure family benefits. Younger

employees want new homes with all the amenities.



• Historically, the hospital typically employed wives of local farmers and ranchers. Their positions

were typically secondary jobs which provided benefits for the family.



• Hendricks now recruits candidates from throughout the nation. Housing is the number one issue

for most new job recruits. Housing and location are becoming more important issues as fuel

prices continue to increase for commuting.



• NB Golf employs 13 persons who are located in Hendricks. Nine of these are full-time, four are

part-time. Two employees commute 22 miles daily. Both individuals are established in their

community and will not move to Hendricks.



• The Hospital (HCHA) is expected to hire between 20 and 25 people over the next five years. The

facility currently employs 200 people from the surrounding area. There is a turnover rate of 2.5%,

meaning that approximately five people resign or retire annually.



• The Hendricks Clinic currently employs 16 people. Six employees commute into work from their

family farms.



• The Clinic has had a difficult time recruiting people with training in specific services which are

needed in the area.



• Hendricks Farmers Lumber currently employs seven people. One person lives in the Brookings

area. There are plans to remodel and expand the facilities over the next three years, in addition to

hiring an additional 1 or 2 people.



- 42 -

• Concerns from some prospective employees have focused on the viability of the hospital and

school.



• The school has a stable but aging staff. Currently there are 30 to 35 employees. One person

commutes from Marshall, is established in Marshall, and would not move to Hendricks. Two

others commute from Lake Benton, one commutes from Canby, and 11 commute from Ivanhoe.

The rest of the employees live in Hendricks.



• One school employee retired this year and school officials predict that six people will retire over

the next five to ten years. The belief at that point is that the school will be a stepping stone for

young teachers to get experience before moving to higher paying positions. New teachers may

remain with the school district if they themselves are originally from the area.



• As is the case with other small school districts, the school size may remain stable over the next

few years but school officials do not see it growing.



The Community & Housing.



• Transplants to Hendricks noted that not much is available for housing in Hendricks upon

relocating to the community, unless one wants to build new. The community does not offer

developed land or family developments.



• Potential employee recruits typically comment how wonderful the community is, while housing

has been expressed as a concern.



• Many believe the size of the community filters out many people before the application or

interview process even begins.



Public Policy & Housing.



• It is believed that Hendricks may develop best as a bedroom community, as the community is

located halfway between Marshall, MN and Brookings, SD. However, this poses the classic

chicken-or-the-egg question, “Which comes first, the jobs or the homes?”



• One individual believes there is potential to develop land for new housing on the South Dakota

side of Lake Hendricks due to tax advantages and the preferences of “snowbirds” who move south

for the winter.



• The community has not seen “real” development in almost twenty years. The area needs

developed lots but most groups are neither willing to take the risk nor have the financial capacity

or desire to develop the area.



• Hendricks is on the brink of needing new housing options. Most development in the area takes

place around Lake Hendricks and Lake Shaokatan. Lot costs of approximately $70,000 are not

affordable to many people. One interviewee does not believe people would be interested in lots

off of the lake.



• The prospect for development raises issues for city government. Hendricks may be able to annex

developed or undeveloped lakeshore property into the city limits. In the past, the City has paid all

- 43 -

up-front infrastructure development costs. The developer has then re-paid the city over time. It is

believed the existing municipal utility infrastructure has a 10% capacity for growth.



Financial Issues & Housing.



• Houses typically rent for between $250 and $350 per month. Some property owners are now

raising the rent to around $400 per month.



• Local banks are very flexible when working with potential home buyers. 100% financing for five

years may be offered because most first-time home buyer programs are not competitive in today’s

market.



• The most active housing price range is from $40,000 to $75,000. A typical home in that price

range will be 1 1/2 story and have 1,200 square feet on the main floor.



• As of April 10, 2008 there were ten homes and six developed lots listed. Currently listed prices

range from $12,000 to $215,000, while lake lots range from $75,000 to $120,000. Houses in the

identified price range are in good structural condition but need cosmetic updates.



• About seven to ten homes are sold in the city of Hendricks annually.



• One family found it was difficult to find a home to rent when moving to Hendricks. The general

opinion is that rental conditions are not that great. All the rentals investigated at the time were

older homes with smaller rooms and in need of cosmetic updates.



• Few consider building new, but the price of lake lots seemed too high, although the construction

costs appeared reasonable.









- 44 -

part vi

findings & recommendations





Section VI-A – The Housing Spectrum



Throughout this study, one focus has been on the range of housing needs which extends across age

groups, employment status, and retirement objectives. This can be regarded as “the housing spectrum.”

Community leaders and housing stakeholders are well-advised to consider current and future needs along

each point of this spectrum. The study itself has identified opportunities within each of the following

areas. (Special attention is paid in Section VI-B to those needs associated with the proposed assisted

living project.)



Multi-Family Housing.



A strong correlation exists among the demographic information, study area survey results, and analysis of

the housing inventory which suggests a need for new, maintenance-free housing alternatives, especially

for those of retirement age. The development of such new housing can also “open up” additional existing

homes for those who seek housing for growing families, thereby providing additional housing

opportunities for those in the 20 to 49 age group. The study recommends:



• Construct 6 to 12 units of multi-family housing in the city of Hendricks. Special attention should

be paid to housing in the townhouse or condo style, in order to meet the needs of retirement-age or

pre-retirement individuals who have expressed strong interest for such units. (Figure 3.)



• This recommendation is supported by findings from this study, including the following:



o There is strong public interest in owning new housing in the twin-home, condo, or town house

style (Table 20, Table 44) and several parties with an immediate or near-term desire for such

housing (Table 50).



o A significant reduction in the number of vacant houses indicates a tightening overall housing

market (Table 9).



o Retirement and a desire for reduced maintenance are strong motivations for desiring this style

of housing (Table 51).



• Private-sector developers should be approached first, together with offering assistance in preparing

a feasibility study or business plan for such a project. Partnerships between private developers

and public development groups should be encouraged.



• If a private developer is not available, however, a public entity such as the Hendricks Economic

Development Authority (EDA) must be prepared to exercise that role. EDAs have the legal ability

to function as a developer and it is quite common that this occurs when needed. The Hendricks

EDA should obtain further information and guidance as to how they could pursue such a project in

their own right.



- 45 -

• Whether a private- or public-sector developer is involved, financial incentives may be necessary in

order for a housing development project to be feasible for the developer and affordable for the

home buyer. Information and guidance should be obtained to determine how tax increment

financing, essential function (gross revenue) bonds, downpayment assistance programs, or other

tools including Federal and State funding sources can be used to provide such incentives.



Additional Lots and/or New Subdivisions for Single-Family Houses.



A strong correlation exists among the interview information, study area survey results, and analysis of the

housing inventory which suggests a need to provide opportunities for new housing construction when

attracting new residents to Hendricks. The availability of lots for this market is key to the development of

this new housing. The study recommends:



• Develop additional lots and/or new subdivisions in order to accommodate 6 to 10 new single-

family homes in the city of Hendricks. Lots which can be easily developed are, of course, the

keys to any new housing development.



• This recommendation is supported by findings from this study, including the following:



o There is strong public interest in owning new single-family homes (Table 20, Table 44, Table

45). Furthermore, several parties have an immediate or near-term desire for such housing

(Table 50).



o A significant reduction in the number of vacant houses indicates a tightening overall housing

market (Table 9).



o Employment patterns indicate the potential for enticing workers to live in Hendricks who now

commute into Hendricks (Table 14, Table 33).



o Demographics point to an increasing population in Hendricks which will require housing

(Table 2), lower incomes which may make financial incentives necessary (Table 5, Figure 5,

Table 6, Figure 10), and limited ability to afford monthly payments (Table 48).



• Land should be identified which is most suitable for new housing. This can be followed by

assistance to property owners who may seek to develop the land on their own or by another private

party. As noted above, however, the Hendricks EDA does have the ability to pursue a subdivision

project as a developer.



• Annexation of land into the Hendricks city limits may be needed in order to extend utilities,

provide other infrastructure, and expand the city’s tax base for the support of city services to the

new areas. The Hendricks City Council and its legal staff should be encouraged to move forward

with annexation when it is appropriate.



• As is the case with multi-family housing development, if a private developer is not available the

Hendricks Economic Development Authority (EDA) must be prepared to exercise that role.



Promotion & Marketing.



• Hendricks should undertake a coordinated program of promotion and marketing in order to

- 46 -

maximize housing utilization and population growth.



• Such a program should focus on: Local assets and opportunities for lakeshore housing as a key

sector of the study area’s housing market; housing directed to workers who currently commute

into Hendricks; and the needs of an aging population.



• Review and follow up with survey responses who provided contact information and who indicated

an immediate or short-term interest in new housing options.



Rehabilitation.



The study did not collect specific information concerning the structural condition of buildings in the study

area. However, observations made during the housing study and an analysis of the housing inventory lead

to the following recommendation:



• Many houses and commercial buildings are in need of physical repair in order to be preserved for

future use and/or to deal with health and safety issues. Additionally, many personal comments

received during the study’s interviews point to the need for the general upgrading of houses.



• All jurisdictions in the study area should continue to pursue grant funds for housing rehabilitation

and commercial building repair, in coordination with local leveraged funds.



• Past rehabilitation efforts in the city of Hendricks and the Minnesota townships in the study area

have been successful. However, unmet need remains in those jurisdictions, as documented by

waiting lists for rehabilitation assistance and frequent inquiries as to the availability of such

assistance. There is no evidence that a focused program of building rehabilitation has ever been

attempted in the city of Astoria or the South Dakota townships.



Acquisition/Demolition.



The study did not collect specific information concerning the need for building demolition in the study

area. However, observations made during the housing study and an analysis of the housing inventory lead

to the following recommendation:



• Many houses in the study area are old, small, deteriorated, and not laid out in keeping with today’s

housing styles. All these factors make them unappealing and not suitable for new buyers with

contemporary preferences in housing. At some point, such houses can become “dead properties”

which may sink even farther into disrepair. Within the cities of Hendricks and Astoria, a program

of acquisition/demolition should be implemented to remove such structures.



• Such an acquisition/demolition program can be especially beneficial if two or more structures are

adjacent to each other. Their removal could “free up” sufficient space to allow for construction of

new housing that would better address the contemporary preferences of homebuyers.



• Acquisition/demolition could focus on: Vacant and seriously deteriorated buildings; buildings

which may become available through the non-payment of property taxes; homes owned by long-

term residents of the nursing home; and candidates for transition into various elderly housing

facilities.





- 47 -

Section VI-B – Assisted Living



The Hendricks Community Hospital Association (HCHA) is currently considering whether to embark on

a major project – constructing and operating an assisted living facility. Therefore, we are separately

addressing this aspect of housing in this section.



Definitions.



Definitions of “assisted living” include “a type of long-term care facility for elderly or disabled people

who are able to get around on their own but who may need help with some activities of daily living, or

simply prefer the convenience of having their meals in a central cafeteria and having nursing staff on call”

(www.medterms.com) or “A living arrangement in which people with special needs, especially seniors

with disabilities, reside in a facility that provides help with everyday tasks such as bathing, dressing, and

taking medication.” (www.answers.com)



Other Assisted Living Facilities.



Table 29 in Section VII-A presents an inventory of assisted living (and related) facilities which have been

identified within a 70-mile radius of Hendricks. There are 26 such facilities in Minnesota and 25 in South

Dakota, within that selected radius. This information may be useful as HCHA examines the market

feasibility of their proposed facility.



Recommendation.



• Construct a 14- to 20-unit assisted living facility in the city of Hendricks, as may be warranted by

a subsequent feasibility study and business plan. 7 Based on what we have seen in similar

communities with similar demographics and medical facility attributes, this is a realistic and

achievable goal in the community.



• This recommendation is supported by findings from this study, including the following:



o There is strong community support for an assisted living facility (Table 40).



o A significant number of individuals have an immediate or near-term desire to move into such a

facility (Table 42).



o The demographics of the study area indicate a growing base for this type of housing. The

current age of the population (Table 3) and anticipations for an increasingly aging population

(Figure 3) both indicate a widening need for this housing option.



o Income information cited throughout this study indicates the steps should be taken to develop

an assisted living facility which is affordable to its clientele.



• Several initial steps should be taken by the HCHA Board and administration, such as:



o Identifying potential locations for the facility.





7

This housing study does not serve as a feasibility study nor should it replace the technical considerations that a

full business plan can bring to such a project.

- 48 -

o Evaluating the levels of care which can best be offered by the facility.



o Assessing the suitable range of services and amenities which the facility would offer.



o Moving forward with a feasibility study and/or business plan.



o Taking steps to secure architectural services if the decision is reached to proceed with plans

and specifications.









- 49 -

part vii

attachments









- 50 -

Section VII-A – Neighboring Assisted Living Facilities



Table 29 – Assisted Living Facilities Within 70 Miles of Hendricks

Name of Facility City Distance in Miles



Minnesota Facilities

Appleton Hospital Home Health Care Appleton 66

Lakeview Senior Housing Balaton 45

REM Canby Senior Services Canby 21

Serenity House Canby 21

Fieldcrest Cottonwood 51

Prairie Meadows Assisted Living Dawson 47

Edgebrook Estates Assisted Living Edgerton 58

Henry Hill Assisted Living Granite Falls 63

Hometown Care Provider – Riverside Granite Falls 63

Homestead Place Granite Falls 63

Westwood Elderly Home Granite Falls 63

Jasper Sunrise Village Jasper 53

Popular Creek Estates Luverne 66

Boulder Estates Marshall 36

Lyon County Extended Care Marshall 36

REM Southwest Marshall 36

Madison Avenue Apartments Minneota 32

Burnsdale Extended Care Montevideo 65

Copper Glen Assisted Living Montevideo 65

Health Providers Montevideo 65

Home Front Montevideo 65

Valin Senior Care Montevideo 65

Fairway View Senior Community Ortonville 56

Falls Landing Assisted Living Pipestone 42

Springside Tracy 58

Lutheran Social Services Tracy 58

South Dakota Facilities

Park Place Brookings 38

Stoneybrook Suites Brookings 38

Greenleaf Brookings 38

Prairie Crossing Brookings 38

South Park Assisted Living Bryant 58

Castle View Castlewood 42

Deuel County Good Samaritan Clear Lake 30

Orchard Hills Dell Rapids 66

Cozy Korner Elkton 22

Estelline Nursing & Care Center Estelline 27

Riverview Flandreau 40

Greenleaf Flandreau 40

Parker Assisted Living Hetland 63

Homested Lake Norden 45

Angela Hall Milbank 60

Golden Living Community Milbank 60

Beverly Health Care Milbank 60

Trent Assisted Living Trent 53

Dakota Sun Volga 44

Meadow Lake Acres Watertown 51

Evergreen Watertown 51

Cedar View Watertown 51

Prairie Crossings Watertown 51

Prairie Crossings Watertown 51

Stoneybrook Suites Watertown 51





- 51 -

Section VII-B – Survey Instrument



Hendricks Area Housing Survey

The Hendricks Economic Development Authority and Hendricks Community Hospital are conducting this

survey. We want to determine if there is interest in new housing projects. If you complete and return

this survey, you will have a chance to win $100, as is explained on the last page.

Information gathered from this survey will be kept completely confidential.



General Questions

In Minnesota In South Dakota

1. Please mark an ✕ where you live: ______ City of Hendricks ______ City of Astoria

______ Hansonville Township ______ Scandinavia Twp.

______ Hendricks Township ______ Lake Hendricks Twp.

______ Shaokatan Township ______ Oak Lake Township

______ Other (please list): ______ Other (please list):

___________________



2. Please write the number of people in each age group who are living in your household.

Age 6 and younger 30 to 39 years old 60 to 69 years old

7 to 19 years old 40 to 49 years old 70 to 79 years old

20 to 29 years old 50 to 59 years old 80 years or older



3. What is your approximate gross annual household income? Check the range which best fits your

income. This information is confidential and will only be used to help determine housing needs

in the Hendricks area. Please mark an ✕ in the correct range of household income.

Less than $31,750 $45,351 to $49,000 $59,851 to $70,200

$31,751 to $36,300 $49,001 to $52,600 $70,201 to $80,730

$36,301 to $40,800 $52,601 to $56,250 Over $80,730

$40,801 to $45,350 $56,251 to $59,850



4. Please list the community or communities in which you and your family members currently work.

_______________________ _______________________ _______________________





Your Current Housing

5. What type of home do you currently live in? Please mark an ✕ for the correct answer.

______ Single-family house ______ Duplex/twin-home ______ Apartment

______ Mobile home ______ Other (please explain): _________________________



6. Do you currently own or rent your current home? ______ Own ______ Rent



7. If you own, in what year was your home built? _________

- 52 -

8. What is your current monthly house payment or rent? (Do not include taxes, insurance, utilities.)

None $100 to $299 $500 to $699

Under $100 $300 to $499 $700 or Over



9. What are your current monthly taxes, insurance, and utility costs at your current residence?

None $100 to $199 $300 or Over

$5 to $99 $200 to $299





A New Assisted Living Facility?

Hendricks Community Hospital is considering a new project in Hendricks… constructing an Assisted

Living facility. The Hendricks area already has a strong hospital, nursing home, and independent living

apartments (Lincoln Lane Villa). “Assisted Living” can assist persons who need more care than what

independent living offers, but who do not need the full range of care offered by the nursing home.

Assisted Living seeks to meet the residential needs of senior citizens while also providing an appropriate

range of health care services.



10. Where do you currently receive your primary medical services? _________________________



11. Do you believe an Assisted Living facility, as described above, is needed to serve the Hendricks area?

Yes No Unsure



12. If a new assisted living option were available in Hendricks, which of the following would best

describe your own level of interest?

Yes – I would be interested almost immediately.

Yes – I would be interested in two or three years.

Yes – I have an interest, but probably not for four or more years.

I currently have little or no interest, but may in the future.

_______ Not interested.



13. What kinds of services and amenities would you think are important in an assisted living

apartment facility? Please mark an ✕ for all that apply.

______ 24-hour care attendant ______ Help with medications ______ Meal services

______ Lawn care ______ Bathing & personal care ______ In-town transportation

______ Snow removal ______ Light housekeeping ______ Garages

______ Organized activities ______ Group kitchen/dining room ______ Social & activity room

______ Other (please explain): ________________________________________________________



14. If you are not interested in new assisted living for yourself, why? Mark an ✕ for all that apply.

I have already made other living arrangements.

I am satisfied with my current housing.

I would rather live in a different community.

I am concerned about not being able to afford it.

_______ I am not in the right age group for assisted living.

Other reasons (please explain): ___________________________________________________



- 53 -

Other New Housing?



15. If new housing were made available in Hendricks, what type of new housing would you be

interested in? Please mark an ✕ for all that apply.

Traditional single-family house Condo or town house

______ Duplex or twin-home ______ Apartment

______ On the lakeshore None of these

______ On the golf course ______ Other: ______________________



16. Would you want to own or rent? ______ Own ______ Rent



17. Would you be a first-time home buyer? ______ Yes ______ No



18. Do you currently make use of income-based housing assistance? ______ Yes ______ No



19. What amount of monthly house payment or rent would you realistically be able to afford for the

type of new housing you would want?

Under $200 $400 to $599 ______ $800 to $999

$200 to $399 $600 to $799 ______ $1,000 or Over

______ I would not need a mortgage



20. If you were interested in new housing, would you like…

How many bedrooms? _____ How many bathrooms? _____ How many garage stalls? _____



21. If the housing preferences you mentioned above were available in Hendricks, which of the

following best describes your own level of interest?

Yes – I would be interested almost immediately.

Yes – I would be interested in two or three years.

Yes – I have an interest, but probably not for four or more years.

I currently have little or no interest, but may in the future.

______ Not interested.



22. If you are interested in different housing than you currently have, why? Mark an ✕ for all that

apply.

Desire a larger home Expanding household size

Desire a smaller home Smaller household size

______ Access to city services ______ Reduced maintenance

______ Retirement ______ Other reasons: ______________________________





- 54 -

23. If you are not interested in different housing for yourself, why? Please mark an ✕.

I have already made other living arrangements.

I am satisfied with my current house.

I would rather live in a different community.

I am concerned about not being able to afford it.

Other reasons (please explain): ___________________________________________



24. Whether you live in Hendricks or not, what services and amenities would be important to you?

Please mark an ✕ for all that apply.

A community center ______ A 24-hour fitness center

Additional recreation facilities, such as:

______ Tennis courts ______ Soccer field

______ Expanded golf course ______ Other recreation: __________________________

Additional health care services (please explain): _____________________________________

Other services or amenities (please explain): ________________________________________





Information List? / Others to Contact?

25. If you would like to be put on an information list for follow-up on any of these possible housing

projects, please tell us which and then give your name, address, and phone number below.



______ Assisted living ______ New home ownership ______ Housing repair



______ New rental housing ______ Other: __________________________________



Name, address, and phone: _______________________________________________________



26. Do you know of someone who may not have received this survey, but may be interested? If so,

we can make sure they are sent a survey. Their name and address? _______________________

_____________________________________________________________________________







m Win a prize for returning this survey! m



We have enclosed an envelope for your use. If you complete this survey and

mail it back or drop it off in person at City Hall before May 25, you will be

entered in a drawing. Three winners will each receive $100 in Hendricks

Bonus Bucks, which are as good as cash at Hendricks businesses. You have

three chances to win! Be sure your name is on the envelope, so you can be

entered. Your name will not be matched up with the survey. The envelope will

be destroyed, in order to remain confidential.

- 55 -

Section VII-C – Detailed Survey Analysis,

Entire Study Area







Table 30 – Question 1 – Where Survey Respondents Live

Households Persons

City of Hendricks 134 – 30.2% 246 – 26.0%

Minnesota









Hansonville Township 14 – 3.1% 35 – 3.7%

Hendricks Township 32 – 7.2% 76 – 8.0%

Shaokatan Township 18 – 4.0% 42 – 4.4%

Other Minnesota 101 – 22.7% 239 – 25.3%

City of Astoria 8 – 1.8% 14 – 1.4%

South Dakota









Scandinavia Township 19 – 4.2% 47 – 4.9%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 27 – 6.0% 52 – 5.5%

Oak Lake Township 6 – 1.3% 15 – 1.5%

Other South Dakota 76 – 17.1% 162 – 17.1%

Location Unreported 8 – 1.8% 16 – 1.6%

Totals 443 – 100% 944 – 100%









- 56 -

Table 31 – Question 2 – Age Breakdowns

Total Persons Persons Age 6 Persons Age Persons Age

from the Survey and Younger 7 to 19 20 to 29

City of Hendricks 246 8 – 3% 21 – 8% 10 – 4%

Hansonville Township 35 0 – 0% 8 – 23% 3 – 8%

Hendricks Township 76 3 – 4% 15 – 20% 3 – 4%

Shaokatan Township 42 2 – 5% 7 – 17% 2 – 5%

Other Minnesota 239 13 – 5% 41 – 17% 17 – 7%

City of Astoria 14 0 – 0% 2 – 14% 0 – 0%

Scandinavia Township 47 5 – 11% 10 – 21% 0 – 0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 52 2 – 4% 2 – 4% 0 – 0%

Oak Lake Township 15 0 – 0% 4 – 27% 1 – 7%

Other South Dakota 162 0 – 0% 27 – 17% 12 – 7%

Totals 928 33 – 4% 128 – 14% 45 – 5%

Persons Age Persons Age Persons Age Persons Age

30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69

City of Hendricks 13 – 5% 14 – 6% 39 – 16% 43 – 17%

Hansonville Township 0 – 0% 4 – 11% 7 – 20% 9 – 26%

Hendricks Township 7 – 9% 7 – 9% 16 – 21% 13 – 17%

Shaokatan Township 4 – 10% 5 – 12% 14 – 33% 4 – 10%

Other Minnesota 9 – 4% 33 – 14% 27 – 11% 41 – 17%

City of Astoria 1 – 7% 2 – 14% 1 – 7% 3 – 21%

Scandinavia Township 6 – 13% 8 – 17% 8 – 17% 0 – 0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 5 – 10% 4 – 8% 20 – 38% 14 – 27%

Oak Lake Township 1 – 7% 5 – 33% 3 – 20% 0 – 0%

Other South Dakota 12 – 7% 27 – 17% 29 – 18% 22 – 14%

Totals 54 – 6% 107 – 12% 157 – 18% 140 – 16%

Persons Age Persons Age

70 to 79 80 or Older

City of Hendricks 54 – 22% 44 – 18%

Hansonville Township 3 – 8% 1 – 3%

Hendricks Township 6 – 8% 6 – 8%

Shaokatan Township 3 – 7% 1 – 2%

Other Minnesota 32 – 14% 24 – 10%

City of Astoria 0 – 0% 5 – 36%

Scandinavia Township 9 – 19% 1 – 2%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 5 – 10% 0 – 0%

Oak Lake Township 0 – 0% 1 – 7%

Other South Dakota 16 – 10% 17 – 10%

Totals 125 – 14% 97 – 11%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 57 -

Table 32 – Question 3 – Annual Household Income

Total Low- and

Households Less Households Households

Moderate-Income

than $31,750 $31,751 to $36,300 $36,301 to $40,800

Households

City of Hendricks 61 – 36% 52 10 10

Hansonville Township 5 – 3% 4 0 1

Hendricks Township 8 – 5% 7 1 1

Shaokatan Township 4 – 2% 2 2 0

Other Minnesota 41 – 24% 31 10 5

City of Astoria 5 – 3% 5 0 1

Scandinavia Township 4 – 2% 3 1 3

Lake Hendricks Twp. 8 – 5% 6 2 1

Oak Lake Township 1 – 1% 1 0 0

Other South Dakota 34 – 20% 22 9 9

Totals 171 – 100% 133 35 31

Households Households Households Households

$40,801 to $45,350 $45,351 to $49,000 $49,001 to $52,600 $52601 to $56,250

City of Hendricks 11 5 9 0

Hansonville Township 3 2 0 0

Hendricks Township 0 6 4 1

Shaokatan Township 0 1 3 1

Other Minnesota 7 5 6 2

City of Astoria 1 0 0 0

Scandinavia Township 0 0 1 1

Lake Hendricks Twp. 1 2 1 1

Oak Lake Township 0 0 2 0

Other South Dakota 5 2 3 5

Totals 28 23 29 11

Households Households Households Households Over

$56,251 to $59,850 $59,851 to $70,200 $70,201 to $80,730 $80,730

City of Hendricks 3 8 4 9

Hansonville Township 1 0 1 2

Hendricks Township 0 3 1 3

Shaokatan Township 1 5 0 3

Other Minnesota 4 14 4 10

City of Astoria 0 0 0 0

Scandinavia Township 1 2 3 3

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 2 2 9

Oak Lake Township 1 1 0 1

Other South Dakota 2 6 1 10

Totals 13 41 16 50

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 58 -

Table 33 – Question 4 – Place of Work & Commuting

Live in ® All Households, Hansonville Hendricks

City of Hendricks

† Work in Entire Survey Township Township

MN - Arco 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Canby 17 – 4% 2 – 2% 1 – 7% 2 – 9%

MN - Clarkfield 3 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Granite Falls 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Hansonville Twp. 4 – 1% 0 – 0% 4 – 29% 0 – 0%

MN - Hendricks 141 – 36% 58 – 63% 6 – 43% 16 – 70%

MN - Ivanhoe 40 – 10% 8 – 9% 2 – 14% 0 – 0%

MN - Lake Benton 4 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Marble Twp. 1 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 2 – 9%

MN - Marshall 28 – 7% 5 – 5% 1 – 7% 0 – 0%

MN - Minneapolis 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Minneota 5 – 1% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Pipestone 3 – 1% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Porter 4 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Redwood Falls 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Russell 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Tyler 5 – 1% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Astoria 10 – 3% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Brandt 2 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Brookings 43 – 11% 4 – 4% 0 – 0% 1 – 4%

SD - Castlewood 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Clear Lake 15 – 4% 3 – 3% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Colman 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 4%

SD - Deuel County 3 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Elkton 5 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Estelline 3 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Gary 10 – 3% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Madison 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Sioux Falls 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Toronto 20 – 5% 4 – 4% 0 – 0% 1 – 4%

SD - Watertown 4 – 1% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - White 10 – 3% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Totals 388 – 100% 92 – 100% 14 – 100% 23 – 100%

Continued on the next page









- 59 -

Table 33 – Question 4 – Place of Work & Commuting (Continued)

Live in ® Shaokatan Scandinavia

Other Minnesota City of Astoria

† Work in Township Township

MN - Arco 0 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Canby 0 – 0% 11 – 11% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Clarkfield 0 – 0% 5 – 5% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Granite Falls 0 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Hansonville Twp. 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Hendricks 10 – 43% 23 – 23% 0 – 0% 4 – 27%

MN - Ivanhoe 3 – 13% 24 – 24% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Lake Benton 0 – 0% 5 – 5% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Marble Twp. 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Marshall 2 – 9% 13 – 13% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Minneapolis 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Minneota 0 – 0% 3 – 3% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Pipestone 0 – 0% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Porter 1 – 4% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Redwood Falls 0 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Russell 0 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Tyler 1 – 4% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Astoria 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 25% 2 – 13%

SD - Brandt 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 7%

SD - Brookings 4 – 17% 4 – 4% 1 – 13% 2 – 13%

SD - Castlewood 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Clear Lake 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 13% 3 – 20%

SD - Colman 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Deuel County 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 13% 0 – 0%

SD - Elkton 0 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Estelline 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Gary 0 – 0% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Madison 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Sioux Falls 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 13% 0 – 0%

SD - Toronto 1 – 4% 0 – 0% 2 – 25% 2 – 13%

SD - Watertown 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 7%

SD - White 1 – 4% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Totals 23 – 100% 102 – 100% 8 – 100% 15 – 100%

Continued on the next page









- 60 -

Table 33 – Question 4 – Place of Work & Commuting (Concluded)

Live in ® Lake Hendricks Oak Lake

Other South Dakota

† Work in Township Township

MN - Arco 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Canby 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

MN - Clarkfield 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Granite Falls 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Hansonville Twp. 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Hendricks 11 – 50% 1 – 14% 9 – 12%

MN - Ivanhoe 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 3%

MN - Lake Benton 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Marble Twp. 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Marshall 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 4 – 5%

MN - Minneapolis 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

MN - Minneota 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Pipestone 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Porter 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

MN - Redwood Falls 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Russell 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

MN - Tyler 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Astoria 0 – 0% 1 – 14% 4 – 5%

SD - Brandt 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

SD - Brookings 5 – 23% 3 – 43% 18 – 23%

SD - Castlewood 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

SD - Clear Lake 1 5% 0 – 0% 7 – 9%

SD - Colman 0 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Deuel County 0 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 3%

SD - Elkton 3 14% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Estelline 0 0% 0 – 0% 3 – 4%

SD - Gary 2 9% 0 – 0% 5 – 6%

SD - Madison 0 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

SD - Sioux Falls 0 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

SD - Toronto 0 0% 0 – 0% 10 – 13%

SD - Watertown 0 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 3%

SD - White 0 – 0% 2 – 29% 6 – 8%

Totals 22 – 100% 7 – 100% 78 – 100%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 61 -

Table 34 – Question 5 – Type of Current Home

Single-Family Duplex /

Mobile Homes Apartments

Houses Twin-Homes

City of Hendricks 101 – 83% 1 – 1% 4 – 3% 16 – 13%

Hansonville Township 13 – 93% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 7%

Hendricks Township 28 – 97% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 3%

Shaokatan Township 18 – 100% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Other Minnesota 86 – 90% 0 – 0% 3 – 3% 7 – 7%

City of Astoria 5 – 71% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 29%

Scandinavia Township 18 – 100% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 27 – 100% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Oak Lake Township 6 – 100% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Other South Dakota 64 – 90% 3 – 4% 0 – 0% 4 – 6%

Totals 366 – 90% 4 – 1% 7 – 2% 31 – 8%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 35 – Question 6 – Own or Rent Current Home

Own Rent

City of Hendricks 97 – 81% 23 – 19%

Hansonville Township 12 – 92% 1 – 8%

Hendricks Township 31 – 97% 1 – 3%

Shaokatan Township 18 – 100% 0 – 0%

Other Minnesota 88 – 88% 12 – 12%

City of Astoria 6 – 75% 2 – 25%

Scandinavia Township 19 – 100% 0 – 0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 27 – 100% 0 – 0%

Oak Lake Township 5 – 83% 1 – 17%

Other South Dakota 68 – 91% 7 – 9%

Totals 371 – 89% 47 – 11%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 62 -

Table 36 – Question 7 – Year Current Home Was Built

1939 and Earlier 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1969 1970 to 1979

City of Hendricks 34 – 36% 19 – 20% 8 – 9% 26 – 28%

Hansonville Township 7 – 64% 2 – 18% 0 – 0% 1 – 9%

Hendricks Township 12 – 44% 3 – 11% 1 – 4% 2 – 7%

Shaokatan Township 5 – 31% 4 – 25% 0 – 0% 2 – 13%

Other Minnesota 29 – 36% 14 – 17% 9 – 11% 10 – 12%

City of Astoria 4 – 67% 0 – 0% 2 – 33% 0 – 0%

Scandinavia Township 5 – 26% 3 – 16% 2 – 11% 1 – 5%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 5 – 19% 1 – 4% 1 – 4% 3 – 11%

Oak Lake Township 3 – 75% 0 – 0% 1 – 25% 0 – 0%

Other South Dakota 33 – 52% 1 – 2% 3 – 5% 6 – 9%

Totals 137 – 39% 47 – 13% 27 – 8% 51 – 15%

1980 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 to 2008

City of Hendricks 1 – 1% 4 – 4% 2 – 2%

Hansonville Township 1 – 9% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Hendricks Township 2 – 7% 4 – 15% 3 – 11%

Shaokatan Township 0 – 0% 1 – 6% 4 – 25%

Other Minnesota 8 – 10% 5 – 6% 6 – 7%

City of Astoria 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Scandinavia Township 2 – 11% 1 – 5% 5 – 26%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 2 – 7% 6 – 22% 9 – 33%

Oak Lake Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Other South Dakota 5 – 8% 9 – 14% 7 – 11%

Totals 21 – 6% 30 – 9% 36 – 10%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 34 – Question 8 – Current Monthly House Payment or Rent

Under $100 to $300 to $500 to $700 or

None

$100 $299 $499 $699 Over

City of Hendricks 74 2 11 20 6 9

Hansonville Township 10 1 0 1 2 0

Hendricks Township 18 0 1 1 4 4

Shaokatan Township 10 0 0 1 1 4

Other Minnesota 65 0 5 9 10 6

City of Astoria 4 0 1 3 0 0

Scandinavia Township 13 0 0 1 3 1

Lake Hendricks Twp. 19 0 1 0 1 5

Oak Lake Township 4 0 0 1 0 1

Other South Dakota 37 2 7 9 1 10

254 5 26 46 28 40

Totals

64% 1% 7% 12% 7% 10%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)

- 63 -

Table 38 – Question 9 – Current Monthly

Taxes, Insurance and Utility Costs

$5 to $100 to $200 to $300 or

None

$99 $199 $299 Over

City of Hendricks 7 7 15 25 60

Hansonville Township 7 0 0 4 8

Hendricks Township 0 1 1 7 19

Shaokatan Township 0 0 3 2 13

Other Minnesota 8 3 13 23 46

City of Astoria 1 2 1 0 3

Scandinavia Township 1 0 4 2 10

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 0 1 10 16

Oak Lake Township 0 0 0 1 5

Other South Dakota 5 5 6 22 34

29 18 44 96 214

Totals

7% 4% 11% 24% 53%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 39 – Question 10 – Where Primary Medical Services Are Received

All Households, Hansonville Hendricks

City of Hendricks

Provider Entire Survey Township Township

Brookings 18 – 4% 3 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Brown Clinic 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Canby 16 – 4% 2 – 2% 3 – 21% 0 – 0%

Estelline 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Flandreau 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Hendricks 341 – 76% 118 – 94% 11 – 79% 30 – 97%

Ivanhoe 30 – 7% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 3%

Marshall 14 – 3% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Pipestone 2 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Sioux Falls 8 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Tracy 1 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Tyler 3 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Veteran's Hospital 2 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

White 10 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Totals 448 125 – 100% 14 – 100% 31 – 100%

Continued on the next page









- 64 -

Table 39 – Question 10 – Where Primary Medical Services Are Received (Continued)

Shaokatan Scandinavia

Other Minnesota City of Astoria

Provider Township Township



Brookings 0 – 0% 2 – 2% 1 – 13% 4 – 20%

Brown Clinic 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Canby 2 – 12% 8 – 7% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Estelline 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Flandreau 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Hendricks 14 – 82% 64 – 54% 7 – 88% 13 – 65%

Ivanhoe 1 – 6% 25 – 21% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Marshall 0 – 0% 8 – 7% 0 – 0% 1 – 5%

Pipestone 0 – 0% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Sioux Falls 0 – 0% 5 – 4% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Tracy 0 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Tyler 0 – 0% 2 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Veteran's Hospital 0 – 0% 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 1 – 5%

White 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 5%

Totals 17 – 100% 118 – 100% 8 – 100% 20 – 100%

Lake Hendricks Oak Lake Other South

Provider Township Township Dakota

Brookings 1 – 4% 0 – 0% 7 – 9%

Brown Clinic 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

Canby 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Estelline 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

Flandreau 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

Hendricks 22 – 88% 4 – 67% 55 – 70%

Ivanhoe 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 3%

Marshall 2 – 8% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

Pipestone 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Sioux Falls 0 – 0% 1 – 17% 2 – 3%

Tracy 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Tyler 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 1%

Veteran's Hospital 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

White 0 – 0% 1 – 17% 8 – 10%

Totals 25 – 100% 6 – 100% 79 – 100%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 65 -

Table 40 – Question 11 – Assisted Living Facility Needed for Hendricks Area

"Yes" –

Households with

Yes No Unsure

Persons Age 60

and Older

City of Hendricks 87 – 33% 11 – 52% 29 – 23% 65 – 39%

Hansonville Township 10 – 4% 1 – 5% 3 – 2% 6 – 4%

Hendricks Township 21 – 8% 4 – 19% 6 – 5% 14 – 8%

Shaokatan Township 12 – 4% 1 – 5% 4 – 3% 5 – 3%

Other Minnesota 54 – 20% 3 – 14% 39 – 31% 31 – 19%

City of Astoria 6 – 2% 0 – 0% 2 – 2% 4 – 2%

Scandinavia Township 15 – 6% 0 – 0% 4 – 3% 6 – 4%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 19 – 7% 1 – 5% 7 – 6% 8 – 5%

Oak Lake Township 3 – 1% 0 – 0% 3 – 2% 0 – 0%

Other South Dakota 40 – 15% 0 – 0% 30 – 24% 28 – 17%

Totals 267 – 100% 21 – 100% 127 – 100% 167 – 100%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 41 – Question 12 – Level of Interest in Assisted Living

Positive – Households with

Positive Negative

Persons Age 60 and Older

Little or No

Almost 4 or Interest Almost 4 or

2 or 3 Not 2 or 3

Immediate More Now, But Immediate More

Years Interested Years

Interest Years May in Interest Years

Future

City of Hendricks 5 9 23 69 19 5 7 17

Hansonville Township 0 0 2 10 1 0 0 1

Hendricks Township 1 3 5 20 2 1 3 4

Shaokatan Township 0 0 1 11 5 0 0 1

Other Minnesota 5 2 14 53 21 4 1 9

City of Astoria 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 0

Scandinavia Township 2 0 4 13 0 1 0 2

Lake Hendricks Twp. 3 0 4 16 4 0 0 3

Oak Lake Township 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0

Other South Dakota 3 3 7 46 12 2 2 5

20 19 61 246 65 14 15 42

Totals

5% 4% 15% 60% 16% 20% 21% 59%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 66 -

Table 42 – Question 13 – Important Services & Amenities in an Assisted Living Facility

All Households, Hansonville Hendricks

City of Hendricks

Entire Survey Township Township

Snow Removal 333 – 10% 104 11 21

Lawn Care 331 – 10% 103 11 21

Meal Services 319 – 10% 90 9 25

Light Housekeeping 301 – 9% 90 9 23

Social, Activity Room 292 – 9% 87 11 21

In-Town Transportation 271 – 8% 80 10 18

24-Hour Attendant 240 – 7% 60 7 15

Bathing, Personal Care 235 – 7% 68 7 17

Group Kitchen, Dining 230 – 7% 73 6 16

Help with Medications 227 – 7% 80 8 19

Garages 226 – 7% 74 8 18

Organized Activities 208 – 6% 43 8 18

Other 13 – 0% 2 0 1

Totals 3,226 – 100% 400 44 104

Shaokatan Scandinavia

Other Minnesota City of Astoria

Township Township

Snow Removal 13 74 6 14

Lawn Care 13 76 6 13

Meal Services 15 78 7 12

Light Housekeeping 16 71 4 14

Social, Activity Room 14 70 5 13

In-Town Transportation 12 62 4 14

24-Hour Attendant 12 66 3 14

Bathing, Personal Care 12 61 4 12

Group Kitchen, Dining 10 56 3 11

Help with Medications 14 66 5 13

Garages 10 54 3 12

Organized Activities 13 56 3 11

Other 0 4 0 1

Totals 154 794 53 154

Those With

Lake Hendricks Oak Lake Other South

Positive Interest in

Township Township Dakota

Assisted Living

Snow Removal 19 6 60 86

Lawn Care 19 5 59 85

Meal Services 20 4 53 81

Light Housekeeping 18 4 47 70

Social, Activity Room 18 4 45 77

In-Town Transportation 16 2 48 71

24-Hour Attendant 19 3 37 61

Bathing, Personal Care 16 3 31 56

Group Kitchen, Dining 18 3 30 57

Help with Medications 17 3 48 71

Garages 13 3 29 61

Organized Activities 14 2 35 57

Other 1 1 3 3

Totals 208 43 525 836

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





- 67 -

Table 43 – Question 14 – Why Not Interested in Assisted Living

Made Other Satisfied with Rather Live Not in the

Not Able to

Arrange- Current in Different Right Age Other

Afford

ments Housing Community Group



City of Hendricks 2 30 3 12 24 5

Hansonville Township 0 0 1 1 7 0

Hendricks Township 0 4 0 3 13 1

Shaokatan Township 0 2 0 1 6 1

Other Minnesota 0 16 3 8 37 5

City of Astoria 0 0 0 1 1 0

Scandinavia Township 0 1 0 0 8 0

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 2 0 1 13 0

Oak Lake Township 0 1 0 0 1 0

Other South Dakota 1 3 1 7 31 6

3 59 8 34 141 18

Totals

1% 22% 3% 13% 54% 7%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 68 -

Table 44 – Question 15 – Interested in Types of New Housing

All Households, Hansonville Hendricks

City of Hendricks

Entire Survey Township Township

Single-Family House 115 – 32.7% 33 1 6

• Subset on Lakeshore 43 6 1 6

• Subset on Golf Course 20 4 – 2

Duplex or Twin-Home 61 – 17.4% 23 1 9

• Subset on Lakeshore 31 5 – 7

• Subset on Golf Course 9 3 – 2

Condo or Town House 60 – 17.1% 19 3 7

• Subset on Lakeshore 29 4 1 5

• Subset on Golf Course 12 3 – 2

Apartment 102 – 29.0% 32 4 11

• Subset on Lakeshore 10 2 – 3

• Subset on Golf Course 1 1 – –

Other 13 – 3.8% 5 1 –

Shaokatan Scandinavia

Other Minnesota City of Astoria

Township Township

Single-Family House 4 31 1 4

• Subset on Lakeshore – 14 – 3

• Subset on Golf Course 3 3 – 2

Duplex or Twin-Home 3 8 1 3

• Subset on Lakeshore 1 7 – 2

• Subset on Golf Course – 1 – 1

Condo or Town House 3 12 1 2

• Subset on Lakeshore 1 8 – 1

• Subset on Golf Course – 3 – 1

Apartment 4 26 4 1

• Subset on Lakeshore – 4 – –

• Subset on Golf Course 1 – – –

Other 1 2 – 1

Lake Hendricks Oak Lake

Other South Dakota

Township Township

Single-Family House 7 3 29

• Subset on Lakeshore 3 – 10

• Subset on Golf Course 3 2 1

Duplex or Twin-Home 5 – 8

• Subset on Lakeshore 2 – 7

• Subset on Golf Course 2 – –

Condo or Town House 7 – 6

• Subset on Lakeshore 3 – 6

• Subset on Golf Course 3 – –

Apartment 9 – 10

• Subset on Lakeshore – 1 –

• Subset on Golf Course – – –

Other 1 – 2

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 69 -

Table 45 – Question 16 – Own or Rent New Housing

Own Rent

City of Hendricks 51 – 50% 50 – 50%

Hansonville Township 4 – 40% 6 – 60%

Hendricks Township 17 – 63% 10 – 37%

Shaokatan Township 5 – 42% 7 – 58%

Other Minnesota 45 – 56% 35 – 44%

City of Astoria 1 – 20% 4 – 80%

Scandinavia Township 11 – 79% 3 – 21%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 21 – 84% 4 – 16%

Oak Lake Township 3 – 60% 2 – 40%

Other South Dakota 35 – 61% 22 – 39%

Totals 193 – 57% 143 – 43%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 46 – Question 17 – First Time Home Buyer

Yes No

City of Hendricks 8 – 7% 100 – 93%

Hansonville Township 0 – 0% 10 – 100%

Hendricks Township 1 – 3% 30 – 97%

Shaokatan Township 0 – 0% 16 – 100%

Other Minnesota 10 – 11% 77 – 89%

City of Astoria 0 – 0% 6 – 100%

Scandinavia Township 1 – 6% 15 – 94%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 1 – 4% 24 – 96%

Oak Lake Township 1 – 20% 4 – 80%

Other South Dakota 5 – 8% 59 – 92%

Totals 27 – 7% 341 – 93%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 47 – Question 18 – Currently Use Income-Based Housing Assistance

Yes No

City of Hendricks 8 – 7% 107 – 93%

Hansonville Township 1 – 7% 13 – 93%

Hendricks Township 0 – 0% 31 – 100%

Shaokatan Township 0 – 0% 18 – 100%

Other Minnesota 6 – 7% 82 – 93%

City of Astoria 0 – 0% 5 – 100%

Scandinavia Township 0 – 0% 17 – 100%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 – 0% 27 – 100%

Oak Lake Township 0 – 0% 6 – 100%

Other South Dakota 2 – 3% 63 – 97%

Totals 17 – 4% 369 – 96%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)



- 70 -

Table 48 – Question 19 – Affordable Monthly Payment or Rent for New Housing

Would

Under $200 to $400 to $600 to $800 to $1,000 or

Not Need

$200 $399 $599 $799 $999 More

Mortgage

City of Hendricks 11 28 18 14 7 8 11

Hansonville Township 2 2 2 2 0 0 3

Hendricks Township 7 5 2 6 3 3 3

Shaokatan Township 2 3 3 2 1 0 3

Other Minnesota 11 15 22 10 7 1 13

City of Astoria 3 1 1 0 0 0 0

Scandinavia Township 0 4 2 1 2 1 6

Lake Hendricks Twp. 2 4 5 1 3 1 8

Oak Lake Township 0 2 0 1 0 0 1

Other South Dakota 7 16 14 5 1 4 6

45 80 69 42 24 18 54

Totals

14% 24% 21% 13% 7% 5% 16%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 49 – Question 20 – Bedrooms, Bathrooms, Garage Stalls Desired in New Housing

Bedrooms Desired

Six or

Efficiency One Two Three Four Five

More

City of Hendricks 0 9 64 22 4 1 2

Hansonville Township 0 1 8 2 1 0 0

Hendricks Township 0 1 19 9 2 0 0

Shaokatan Township 0 1 11 2 1 2 0

Other Minnesota 0 14 41 17 6 1 1

City of Astoria 0 3 2 1 0 0 0

Scandinavia Township 0 1 6 5 3 0 0

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 3 11 7 5 0 0

Oak Lake Township 0 0 3 1 1 0 0

Other South Dakota 0 6 27 19 7 0 1

Totals 0 39 192 85 30 4 4

Bathrooms Desired Garage Stalls Desired

Four or Three or

One Two Three One Two

More More

City of Hendricks 38 57 2 3 49 42 2

Hansonville Township 4 6 1 1 8 3 1

Hendricks Township 8 21 2 0 12 16 2

Shaokatan Township 3 11 1 1 5 9 2

Other Minnesota 31 44 3 2 33 34 9

City of Astoria 4 1 0 0 2 1 0

Scandinavia Township 2 11 1 0 3 9 1

Lake Hendricks Twp. 6 16 2 1 7 12 4

Oak Lake Township 3 2 0 0 2 3 0

Other South Dakota 17 35 7 0 17 28 14

Totals 116 204 19 8 138 157 35

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)





- 71 -

Table 50 – Question 21 – Level of Interest in New Housing Preferences from Question 15

Positive Negative

Little or No

Almost In 4 or Interest

In 2 or 3 Not

Immediate More Now, But

Years Interested

Interest Years May in the

Future

City of Hendricks 9 9 28 49 20

Hansonville Township 0 1 0 11 0

Hendricks Township 2 3 6 18 1

Shaokatan Township 0 0 4 10 4

Other Minnesota 7 5 14 46 15

City of Astoria 0 2 0 2 2

Scandinavia Township 1 2 3 10 0

Lake Hendricks Twp. 4 0 2 17 3

Oak Lake Township 0 0 1 4 1

Other South Dakota 3 3 6 35 16

26 25 64 202 62

Totals

7% 6% 17% 53% 16%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 51 – Question 22 – Reasons Interested in New Housing

Growing Smaller

Desire Desire Access to Reduced

Retire- House- House-

Larger Smaller City Mainte- Other

ment hold hold

Home Home Services nance

Size Size

City of Hendricks 6 4 0 15 1 0 19 11

Hansonville Township 0 0 2 4 0 1 1 0

Hendricks Township 1 0 1 5 0 2 2 2

Shaokatan Township 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 2

Other Minnesota 2 4 2 16 1 0 5 9

City of Astoria 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Scandinavia Township 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0

Lake Hendricks Twp. 3 1 1 1 0 0 8 0

Oak Lake Township 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Other South Dakota 2 3 2 10 0 1 2 8

16 15 8 57 2 4 44 32

Totals

9% 8% 4% 32% 1% 2% 25% 18%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









- 72 -

Table 52 – Question 23 – Why Not Interested in New Housing

Made Other Satisfied Rather Live in

Not Able to

Arrange- with Current Different Other

Afford

ments Housing Community

City of Hendricks 2 57 4 11 4

Hansonville Township 0 8 1 2 1

Hendricks Township 0 16 0 5 1

Shaokatan Township 0 9 0 1 3

Other Minnesota 2 41 6 6 5

City of Astoria 0 2 0 2 0

Scandinavia Township 0 14 1 0 1

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 14 0 3 1

Oak Lake Township 0 3 0 0 0

Other South Dakota 0 31 1 7 4

4 195 13 37 20

Totals

1% 72% 5% 14% 7%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)









Table 53 – Question 24 – What Community Services & Amenities Are Important to You

A Community A 24-Hour Expanded Golf

Tennis Courts

Center Fitness Center Course

City of Hendricks 20 – 22% 13 – 28% 4 – 57% 0 – 0%

Hansonville Township 3 – 3% 1 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Hendricks Township 7 – 8% 0 – 0% 1 – 14% 0 – 0%

Shaokatan Township 5 – 5% 7 – 15% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Other Minnesota 26 – 28% 11 – 23% 1 – 14% 0 – 0%

City of Astoria 1 – 1% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 1 – 25%

Scandinavia Township 8 – 9% 2 – 4% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 7 – 8% 4 – 9% 0 – 0% 1 – 25%

Oak Lake Township 0 – 0% 1 – 2% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Other South Dakota 15 – 16% 8 – 17% 1 – 14% 2 – 50%

Totals 92 – 100% 47 – 100% 7 – 100% 4 – 100%

Additional Health Other Services

Soccer Field Other Recreation

Care Services or Amenities

City of Hendricks 1 – 50% 2 – 29% 1 – 100% 0 – 0%

Hansonville Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Hendricks Township 1 – 50% 3 – 43% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Shaokatan Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Other Minnesota 0 – 0% 1 – 14% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

City of Astoria 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Scandinavia Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 – 0% 1 – 14% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Oak Lake Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Other South Dakota 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Totals 2 – 100% 7 – 100% 1 – 100% 0 – 0%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)



- 73 -

Table 54 – Question 25 – Gave Their Names for Receiving More Information

Information List for Possible Housing Projects

Assisted New Rental New Owner Housing

Other

Living Housing Housing Repair

City of Hendricks 7 2 0 10 1

Hansonville Township 0 0 0 0 0

Hendricks Township 0 0 0 0 3

Shaokatan Township 2 0 1 0 0

Other Minnesota 2 3 2 1 0

City of Astoria 1 0 0 0 0

Scandinavia Township 1 0 0 0 0

Lake Hendricks Twp. 1 0 0 0 0

Oak Lake Township 0 0 0 0 0

Other South Dakota 2 0 2 1 0

16 5 5 12 4

Totals

38% 12% 12% 29% 10%

Source: Development Services, Inc. (2008 Survey)







Section VII-D – Other Demographic Tables



Table 55 – Detailed Household Incomes, 1990 to 2000 (Number of Households)

$0 – $14,999 $15,000 – $24,999 $25,000 – $34,999 $35,000 – $49,999

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

City of Hendricks 157 88 66 51 31 45 31 50

Hansonville Township 10 10 18 12 6 0 6 10

Hendricks Township 24 6 34 16 10 15 14 24

Shaokatan Township 14 11 25 17 18 13 10 15

City of Astoria 44 20 18 17 7 9 4 13

Scandinavia Township 20 13 15 21 21 14 10 14

Lake Hendricks Twp. 20 9 8 4 11 13 2 23

Oak Lake Township 6 2 7 8 0 8 14 4

Totals 295 159 191 146 104 117 91 153

$50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 – $149,000 $150,000 +

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

City of Hendricks 5 23 2 18 7 5 5 8

Hansonville Township 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hendricks Township 13 23 0 0 0 2 0 0

Shaokatan Township 4 11 2 0 2 1 2 0

City of Astoria 2 11 0 1 0 0 0 1

Scandinavia Township 0 10 0 7 0 3 0 0

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 16 0 3 0 4 0 0

Oak Lake Township 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 3

Totals 31 106 4 29 9 15 7 12

Source: U.S. Census Bureau



- 74 -

Table 56 – Housing Units, by Year Built

1939 and Earlier 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1969 1970 to 1979

City of Hendricks 142 94 24 68

Hansonville Township 32 13 2 4

Hendricks Township 51 12 13 25

Shaokatan Township 51 8 8 25

City of Astoria 36 8 4 19

Scandinavia Township 49 15 7 13

Lake Hendricks Twp. 31 12 9 21

Oak Lake Township 22 0 2 4

Totals 414 162 69 179

1980 to 1989 1990 to 1995 1995 to 1999 2000 to 2008

City of Hendricks 24 0 5 12

Hansonville Township 0 0 0 3

Hendricks Township 6 9 12 14

Shaokatan Township 3 6 11 14

City of Astoria 3 0 7 8

Scandinavia Township 6 2 2 17

Lake Hendricks Twp. 19 2 26 35

Oak Lake Township 2 2 3 4

Totals 63 21 66 107

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; City Clerks; Lincoln County Environmental Office; Brookings County Zoning Department; Township Officials.









- 75 -

Table 57 – Owner-Occupied Housing Units, by Value, 2000

$50,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 to

Less than $50,000

$99,999 $149,999 $199,999

State of Minnesota 85,915 – 8% 306,642 – 27% 366,474 – 33% 185,489 – 17%

State of South Dakota 33,332 – 24% 61,385 – 45% 26,863 – 20% 8,957 – 7%

City of Hendricks 154 – 68% 69 – 30% 0 – 0% 4 – 2%

Hansonville Township 10 – 71% 4 – 29% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Hendricks Township 10 – 36% 12 – 43% 2 – 7% 2 – 7%

Shaokatan Township 4 – 31% 3 – 23% 4 – 31% 2 – 15%

City of Astoria 42 – 89% 5 – 11% 0 – 0% 0 – 0%

Scandinavia Township 2 – 25% 2 – 1% 0 – 0% 3 – 38%

Lake Hendricks Twp. 5 – 17% 8 – 27% 15 – 50% 2 – 7%

Oak Lake Township 9 – 28% 11 – 34% 11 – 34% 1 – 3%

Study Area Totals 236 – 46% 114 – 25% 32 – 15% 14 – 10%

$200,000 to $300,000 to

$500,000 or More Median Value

$299,999 $499,999

State of Minnesota 115,472 – 10% 44,497 – 4% 13,000 – 1% $122,400

State of South Dakota 4,875 – 4% 1,682 – 1% 437 – <1% $79,600

City of Hendricks 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% $39,200

Hansonville Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% $37,500

Hendricks Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 7% $85,000

Shaokatan Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% $88,300

City of Astoria 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% $17,800

Scandinavia Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% $102,500

Lake Hendricks Twp. 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% $108,300

Oak Lake Township 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 0 – 0% $45,300

Study Area Totals 0 – 0% 0 – 0% 2 – 4% $65,488

Source: U.S. Census Bureau









- 76 -

Table 58 – Residential Sales (Minnesota Segment of Study Area)

2008 To Date 2007 2006 2005 2004



Sale Market Sale Market Sale Market Sale Market Sale Market

Price Value Price Value Price Value Price Value Price Value

City of Hendricks

$27,500 $25,400 $10,000 $10,800 $12,500 $16,100 $10,000 $17,800 $12,500 $10,100

$30,000 $30,000 $14,000 $13,300 $15,500 $7,800 $14,000 $13,100 $15,000 $12,700

$52,000 $51,300 $16,000 $18,900 $25,000 $38,700 $14,750 $17,800 $16,500 $13,200

$57,150 $43,000 $42,000 $42,600 $30,000 $51,700 $17,500 $21,500 $16,500 $15,600

$62,000 $51,000 $47,500 $43,400 $37,000 $39,000 $23,000 $24,500 $16,500 $19,000

$68,000 $49,500 $47,000 $48,500 $42,500 $35,100 $29,000 $22,200 $39,000 $35,800

$146,500 $104,300 $48,000 $32,900 $50,000 $54,000 $30,500 $35,100 $45,000 $31,900

– – $58,500 $34,500 $50,000 $56,200 $32,500 $34,900 $46,500 $39,500

– – $65,000 $37,900 $56,000 $55,400 $45,000 $37,300 $66,000 $64,600

– – $68,000 $37,300 $60,000 $44,000 $50,000 $42,700 $125,000 $104,000

– – $70,000 $58,600 $62,000 $52,600 $55,500 $49,500 – –

– – $85,000 $65,300 $63,000 $51,000 $58,200 $40,500 – –

– – $225,000 $173,400 $65,000 $62,800 $74,000 $74,200 – –

– – – – $95,000 $82,800 – –

Hansonville Township

$40,000 $34,500 $37,000 $39,100 – – – – – –

Hendricks Township

$145,000 $94,400 – – $107,500 $64,100 $112,000 $93,000 $144,000 $66,500

– – – – – – – – $144,500 $116,100

Shaokatan Township

$268,000 $226,100 $17,000 $89,000 $8,000 $6,900 $9,755 $7,500 $43,400 $48,500

$243,700 $174,100 $85,000 $66,700 $55,000 $60,100 $15,000 $21,700 $80,000 $77,300

– – $123,000 $74,400 $145,000 $146,200 – – $100,000 $60,100

– – $129,000 $73,800 – – – – $120,000 $65,000

– – $139,000 $73,800 – – – – $125,000 $42,700

– – $158,350 $114,800 – – – – $130,000 $65,200

Sources: Lincoln County Assessor’s Office. Figures in italics are for bare land only.









- 77 -

Table 59 – Residential Sales (South Dakota Segment of Study Area)

2008 To Date 2007 2006 2005 2004



Sale Market Sale Market Sale Market Sale Market Sale Market

Price Value Price Value Price Value Price Value Price Value

City of Astoria

– – – – – – $10,500 $9,868 $360 $347

– – – – – – – – $375 $705

– – – – – – – – $375 $705

– – – – – – – – $2,000 $21,983

– – – – – – – – $15,000 $10,221

Oak Lake & Lake Hendricks Townships

$139,000 N/A $247,000 N/A $154,000 N/A $187,000 N/A $115,000 N/A

– – $320,000 N/A $210,000 N/A – – $234,900 N/A

– – – – $249,000 N/A – – $235,000 N/A

– – – – $289,000 N/A – – – –

– – – – $315,000 N/A – – – –

Scandinavia Township

– – – – $88,800 $65,299 $90,048 $69,429 $76,000 $54,769

– – – – – – – – $73,000 $55,192

– – – – – – – – $60,000 $48,217

Source: Brookings County Office of Equalization. Figures in italics are for bare land only.









- 78 -