Introduction

Location

Washington County is located along the Missouri River on the Nebraska/Nebraska border. Washington County is bounded

on the south by Douglas County, on the west by Dodge County, on the north by Burt County and on the east by the Missouri

River. Across the Missouri River in Nebraska, both Harrison County and Pottawattamie County bound Washington County.

Several highways traverse Washington County. U.S. Highway 30 enters Washington County from the west and east and State

Highway 91 enters from the west. State Highways 31 and 133 enter Washington County from the south and U.S Highway 75

enters from the North and South. All U.S. and state highways converge on Blair, in the east central part of the county with

U.S. Highway 30 continuing into Nebraska.

Topography and Climate

Washington County contains approximately 400 square miles, or 256,000 acres. The surface of the County is quite

diversified. Approximately sixty percent of the County is upland, or rolling prairie. Creek and river bottoms, and valleys

comprise about thirty percent of the landscape; while ten-percent of the County is broken and bluffy. The bottoms of the

Missouri River, along the eastern edge of the County, are from three to seven miles wide, and those of the Elkhorn, on the

southwestern border, are from three to six. Many smaller streams cover the County. The Papillion River and its tributaries

drain a large portion of the County.

Washington County is located approximately 1,100 feet above sea level. The annual average temperature is 50.8L F. During

the winter months, the average temperature is 28.0L F, but can dip below zero. During the summer months, the average

temperature is 72.8L F; however, there will likely be a few days when the temperature surpasses 100L F. Not only is the

temperature capable of very large annual changes, it can also change very quickly if conditions are right. Average annual

moisture is 56.0 inches. Average rainfall is 3.4 inches in spring and summer and 1.2 inches in fall and winter. Average

snowfall is 2.7 inches in early winter, and 6.6 inches in late winter. The annual growing season is 170 days.

History of Washington County

Washington County has a rich and important history. Its history began in 1804, when Meriwether Lewis and William Clark

held a council with six Indian chiefs from the Missouri and Otoe tribes. This council, held at present day Fort Calhoun,

established friendly relations between the expedition of Lewis and Clark and the Indian tribes represented there.

In 1819, the Federal Government established Fort Atkinson, afterward called Fort Calhoun, on the same ground where the

Lewis and Clark council had taken place. Fort Atkinson was the first American fort west of the Missouri River, and

eventually included Nebraska’s first school, farm, sawmill, hospital, and library. At its peak, Fort Atkinson was the largest

military installation in America. However, by 1827, the frontier had moved further west, and Fort Atkinson was closed.

In 1846, Brigham Young and the Mormons established a winter camp in Florence, just south of Washington County, and

several of the party continued north, to an area just south of present day Blair, to set up a farm for food supplies. After

conflicts with Indian tribes in the area, Brigham Young and the Mormons closed their encampment.

In 1854, Thomas B. Cuming, acting Governor of the Nebraska Territory, issued a proclamation that set the original

boundaries of Washington County. The first Legislature of Nebraska convened in January of 1856, and in February,

reorganized the boundaries of Washington County. The same act that reorganized the boundaries set Fort Calhoun as the

county seat. Where it remained until 1858 when it was moved to Desoto; in 1866 it was again located at Fort Calhoun by a

popular vote and in 1869, by a public vote moved to Blair.

The Carter brothers were the original settlers of present-day Blair in May 1855. In 1864 the Northern Nebraska Air-Line

Railroad Company was organized and in 1867 received a grant of seventy-five section of land, which was transferred to the

Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Company composed of five gentlemen. In 1868 John I. Blair and associates became owners of

the franchises of the road. In June the people of Washington County, at a special election, voted to the S.C. & P Company

$75,000 in county bonds and the company which had been awaiting the result of the election, immediately under the

management of John I. Blair, pushed the road across the Missouri and built it centrally throughout the County from east to

west to Fremont, to the exact location of the prospective railroad company from the Carter brothers and three other men and

the offering to this land for sate in lots at public auction. The sale was conducted ostensibly by the Railroad Company, but

really, John I. Blair purchased the whole tract from the original settlers’ it was he who sold the lots and it was he in whose

hone the town was named.

Washington County was named in honor of President George Washington, United States President from 1789 to 1797.

According to Perkey’s Nebraska Place Names, (Perkey, Elton A., Nebraska State Historical Society, 1995), there were as

many as 50 different settlements in Washington County at various times. Many were merely railroad stations, and several

were destroyed by floods. Washington County is now home to six communities; Arlington, Blair, Fort Calhoun, Herman,

Kennard, and Washington.

The Purpose of Comprehensive Planning

The Washington County Comprehensive Development Plan is designed to promote orderly growth and development for the

County and its communities. The Comprehensive Development Plan will provide policy guidelines to enable citizens and

elected officials to make informed decisions about the future of the County.

The Plan acts as a tool to “Develop

a road map that guides the community

through change”

The Comprehensive Development Plan will provide a guideline for the location of future developments within the planning

jurisdiction of Washington County. The Comprehensive Development Plan is intended to encourage a strong economic base

for the County so the goals of the County are achieved.

The Plan will assist Washington County in evaluating the impacts of development (i.e. economic, social, fiscal, service and

amenity provision, health, safety and general welfare) and encourage appropriate land uses throughout the jurisdictional area

of the County. The objective of planning is to provide a framework for guiding the community—whether a village, city,

county, toward orderly growth and development. The Plan assists the County in balancing the physical, social, economic,

and aesthetic features as it responds to private sector interests.

Planned growth will make Washington County more effective in serving residents, more efficient in using resources, and able

to meet the standard of living and quality of life every individual desires.

The Comprehensive Planning Process

Comprehensive planning begins with the data collection phase. Data are collected that provide a snapshot of the past and

present County conditions. Analysis of data provides the basis for developing forecasts for future land-use demands in the

County.

The second phase of the planning process is the development of general goals and policies, based upon the issues facing the

County. These are practical guidelines for improving existing conditions and guiding future growth. The Comprehensive

Development Plan is a vision presented in text, graphics and tables that represent the desires of the County for the future.

The Comprehensive Development Plan represents a blueprint designed to identify, assess, and develop actions and policies in

the areas of population, land use, transportation, housing, economic development, community facilities, and utilities. The Comprehensive Development Plan contains recommendations that when implemented will be of value to the County and its

residents.

Implementation is the final phase of the process. A broad range of development policies and programs are required to

implement the Comprehensive Development Plan. The Comprehensive Development Plan identifies the tools, programs, and

methods necessary to carry out the recommendations. Nevertheless, the implementation of the development policies

contained within the Comprehensive Development Plan is dependent upon the adoption of the Plan by the governing body,

and the leadership exercised by the present and future elected and appointed officials of the County.

The Plan was prepared under the direction of the Washington County Planning Commission with the assistance and

participation of the Washington County Board of Supervisors, the Plan Review Committee and citizens of Washington

County. The planning time period for achieving goals, programs, and developments identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Development Plan is 20 years. However, the County should review the Plan annually and update the

document every ten to fifteen years, or when a pressing need is identified. Updating the Comprehensive Development Plan

will allow the County to incorporate ideas and developments that were not known at the time of the present comprehensive

planning process.

Comprehensive Plan Components

Nebraska State Statutes require the inclusion of certain elements in a Comprehensive Plan. A “Comprehensive Development

Plan,” as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-114.02 (Reissue 1997), “shall consist of both graphic and textual material and shall

be designed to accommodate anticipated long-range future growth.” The Comprehensive Plan is comprised of the following

components:

§ Community Characteristics Profile,

§ Community Facilities Profile,

§ Community Goals and Policies,

§ Land Use Analysis,

§ Transportation Analysis, and

§ Plan Implementation.

Analyzing past and existing demographic, housing, economic and social trends permit the projection of likely conditions in

the future. Projections and forecasts are useful tools in planning for the future; however, these tools are not always accurate

and may change due to unforeseen factors. Also, past trends may be skewed or the data may be inaccurate, creating a

distorted picture of past conditions. Therefore, it is important for Washington County to closely monitor population, housing

and economic conditions that may impact the County. Through periodic monitoring, the County can adapt and adjust to

changes at the local level. Having the ability to adapt to socio-economic change allows the County to maintain an effective Comprehensive Development Plan for the future, to enhance the quality of life, and to raise the standard of living for all

residents.

The Comprehensive Development Plan records where Washington County has been, where it is now, and where it likely will

be in the future. Having this record in the Comprehensive Development Plan will serve to inform County officials as much

as possible. The Comprehensive Development Plan is an information and management tool for County leaders to use in their

decision-making process when considering future developments. The Comprehensive Development Plan is not a static

document; it should evolve as changes in the land-use, population or local economy occur during the planning period. This

information is the basis for Washington County’s evolution as it achieves its physical, social, and economic goals.

Governmental and Jurisdictional Organization

The Washington County Board of Supervisors, which is a board of elected officials, performs the governmental functions for

the County. Each incorporated community in Washington County also has elected officials and officers that oversee how

their community is governed.

The planning and zoning jurisdiction of Washington County, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-114 (Reissue 1997), includes

all of the unincorporated portions of the County, excluding the established extraterritorial jurisdiction of each incorporated

city or village.

Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-1002 (Reissue 1997), the planning and zoning jurisdiction for the incorporated communities

in Washington County that have adopted Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Ordinances, except for Blair, includes the area

within one mile of their corporate limits. The City of Blair has the authority to exercise planning and zoning jurisdiction

throughout a two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction. As these communities grow and annex land into their corporate limits,

their extraterritorial jurisdictions will extend further into the County. There are five (5) communities in Washington County,

besides Blair, that are incorporated, including Arlington, Fort Calhoun, Herman, Kennard, and Washington.

County Assessment:

Conditions and Trend Analysis

Demographic Profile

Population statistics aid decision-makers by developing a broad picture of Washington County. It is important for

Washington County to understand where it has been and where it appears to be going. Population is the driving force behind

housing, local employment, economic, and fiscal stability of the County. Historic population conditions assist in developing demographic projections, which in turn assist in determining future housing, retail, medical, employment and educational

needs within the County. Projections provide an estimate for the County a basis from which to base future land-use and

development decisions. However, population projections are only estimates and unforeseen factors may effect projections

significantly.

Population Trends and Analysis

Table 1 indicates the population for the incorporated communities in Washington County, the unincorporated areas, and

Washington County as a whole, between 1980 and 2003. This information provides the residents of Washington County with

a better understanding of their past and present population trends and changes. Washington County’s population in 2000 was

18,780 persons, which was an increase of 3,272 persons, or 21.1%, from 1990. The County’s population in 2003 was

estimated to be 19,690, an increase of 910 persons, 4.8%, over 2000.

The table indicates that Washington County had a net increase of 6,380 persons or 47.9% between 1980 and 2003. This was

driven primarily by an increase in the populations of Washington County’s unincorporated areas. The greatest population

increases, with regard to percentages, for the incorporated areas, occurred in Fort Calhoun and Blair. Herman is the only

community to have suffered an overall loss between 1980 and 2003, which happened in large part between 1980 and 1990.

Washington County exhibited its greatest population gain, both in terms of total number of persons and in percentage, within

Table 1, between 1990 and 2000, when it recorded an increase of 3,272 persons, or 21.1%. During this period, the

unincorporated areas of Washington County experienced a population gain of 2,338 persons, or 38.5%, and the incorporated

areas increased by 934 persons, or 9.9%.

Since 2000, estimates for Washington County show the population has continued to increase in all areas of the county. The

communities of Fort Calhoun and Washington exhibited the largest percentage increases, growing by 5.8% and 7.1%

respectively. The largest increase in total numbers occurred in the City of Blair, which has grown by 266 persons, or 3.8%.

Table 2 indicates the population for the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), of which Washington

County is a part. This MSA includes the Nebraska Counties of Douglas, Sarpy, Washington, Saunders (added in 2000) and

Cass County (added in 1998). The MSA also includes Pottawattamie County, Iowa. Since Washington County is part of a

larger economic region, it is important for the County to have an understanding of the role they play within that area. The

information shown in Table 2 allows Washington County to compare its growth to the growth of the surrounding area

Table 1: Population Trends, Washington County & Communities, 1980 to 2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, 1980 - 1990, 2000, 2003

Washington County is the least populated county within the MSA. Washington County’s growth rate between 1980 and

2003 was 27.0%, compared to the MSA’s growth rate of 30.3%. In 1980, Washington County accounted for 2.65% of the

population of the MSA. By 2000, Washington County had decreased its percentage to 2.55%. The population growth rate in

Washington County has been much greater than any other county in the MSA except for Sarpy County.

Table 2: Population Trends, Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1980 -2003

*Cass County, Nebraska, was added to the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Statistical Area in 1998

** Saunders County was added to the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, 1980 - 1990, 2000, 2003

Migration Analysis

Migration Analysis allows a county to understand how specific dynamics are in influencing population change. Migration

indicates the population size that has migrated in or out of the County. The migration number is determined by subtracting

the natural change in population (i.e. births minus deaths) from the total change in population. Table 3 shows the total

change in population for Washington County from 1960-1970, 1970-1980, 1980‑1990, and 1990-1998. A negative number

in the “Total Migration” column indicates the number of persons that have migrated out of the County, while a positive

number indicates the number of persons that have migrated into the County. Unfortunately, this analysis is primarily

available for the County as a whole. These data have limited availability for communities.

Migration Analysis is important for a County to understand since it offers an explanation of what affected the population

changes. Through migration analysis, it can be determined how much of a population change was due to persons migrating

in or out of an area, and how much was due to births or deaths in the area. For example, assume an area had a total change of

100 persons during any given time period, but there were 15 more births than deaths during that same time period. Looking

at the natural change only, the area should have grown by 15 persons. However, when the total change of 100 is taken into

account, we need to subtract out those births in order to determine what caused the remaining change. If the total change of

100 was an increase, then 85 people moved into the area (100 increase – 15 births that occurred in area = 85 additional people

in area). If, however, the total change of 100 represented a loss, then 115 people moved out of the area (100 decrease + 15

births in the area that did not increase the population = 115 people moved out of the area).

Table 3: Migration Analysis, Washington County, 1960 to 2000

Source(s): U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, 1960 - 1990, 1998

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services System, Vital Statistics Report(s), 1960 –1998

Table 3 indicates births exceeded deaths in Washington County for each reporting period. Based upon this information and

the migration analysis formula, the primary factor of Washington County’s increasing population can be determined for any

given period. During the reporting periods of 1960 to 1970, and 1980 to 1990, the largest contributor to Washington

County’s population change was the number of births in the County. There was an addition of 724 and 725 persons, due to

births, in these reporting periods, respectively. Also, there was a total in-migration of 483 and 374 persons, respectively.

During the 1970 to 1980 reporting period, total in-migration added 1,462 persons, while births exceeded deaths by 736,

therefore, in-migration accounted for twice as many additions to the County’s population as births. During the final reporting

period, 1990 to 2000, in-migration added 1,664 persons, while the natural change accounted for the addition of 509 persons,

which shows that in-migration accounted for nearly three times more of the increase than births.

Age Structure Analysis

Age structure is an important component of population analysis. By analyzing age structure, one can determine which age

groups (cohorts) within Washington County are being affected by population shifts and changes. Each age cohort affects the

population in a number of different ways. For example, the existence of larger young cohorts (20-44 years) means that there

is a greater ability to sustain future population growth than does larger older cohorts. On the other hand, if the large, young

cohorts maintain their relative size, but do not increase the population as expected, they will, as a group, tend to strain the

resources of an area as they age. Understanding what is happening within the age groups of the County’s population is

necessary to effectively plan for the future.

Table 4: Age-Sex Characteristics, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, STF-1A, 1980, 1990

Table 4 exhibits the age cohort structure for Washington County in 1990 and 2000. Examining population age structure may

indicate significant changes affecting the different population segments within the County. Realizing how many persons are

in each age cohort, and at what rate the age cohorts are changing in size, will allow for informed decision-making in order to

maximize the future use of resources. As shown in Table 4, changes between 1990 and 2000 occurred within a number of

different age group cohorts.

One method of analyzing cohort movement in a population involves comparing the number of persons aged between 0 and 4

years in 1990 with the number of persons in the same age cohort 10 years later, or aged between 10 and 14 years in 2000.

For example, in Washington County, there were 1,063 children between the ages of 0 and 4 in 1990, and in 2000 there were

1,479 children between the ages of 10 and 14, an increase of 416 children. A review of population by this method permits

one to undertake a detailed analysis of which cohorts are moving in and out of the County. The positive change in this cohort

indicates in-migration.

Washington County experienced growth in many of its age cohorts. The 0 to 4 and 5 to 9 cohorts always indicate an

increase, since the persons, in that group, were not born when the previous census was completed. Increases in the cohorts

occurred in five age groups between 1990 and 2000, these cohort shifts were:

1990 Age Cohort Number 2000 Age Cohort Number Change

NA NA 0-4 years 1,207 persons + 1,207 persons

NA NA 5-9 years 1,423 persons + 1,423 persons

0-4 years 1,063 persons 10-14 years 1,479 persons + 416 persons

5-9 years 1,329 persons 15-19 years 1,581 persons + 252 persons

20-24 years 932 persons 30-34 years 1,024 persons + 92 persons

25-34 years 2,338 persons 35-44 years 3,057 persons + 719 persons

35-44 years 2,659 persons 45-54 years 2,849 persons + 190 persons

Total Change + 4,299 persons

Five of the age-cohorts that existed in 1990 and 2000 declined in number. Note that the cohorts represented in Table 4 differ

from those listed below due to the consolidation of the 25-29 and 30-34 cohorts from 1990 into a 35-44 cohort in 2000.

While the County population increased during this ten year span, an analysis of where the changes took place will lead to an understanding of what services will be needed in the future. Outside of the 2000age groups of 0-4 and 5-9 years, the greatest

increases included the 35-44 and 10-14 year age groups. These specific age groups represent a solid in-migration of family

populations between 1990 and 2000.

Decreases in the cohorts occurred in a number of age groups between 1990 and 2000, these cohort shifts were:

1990 Age Cohort Number 2000 Age Cohort Number Change

10-14 years 1,400 persons 20-24 years 1,139 persons - 261 persons

15-19 years 1,295 persons 25-29 years 928 persons - 367 persons

45-54 years 1,818 persons 55-64 years 1,670 persons - 148 persons

55-64 years 1,521 persons 65-74 years 798 persons - 723 persons

65 years + 2,252 persons 75 years + 1,162 persons -1,090 persons

Total Change - 2,589 persons

The three age cohorts, from 2000, representing the most negative change, are the 75 years and older, 65-74, and 20-24 age

cohorts. The changes in the 75 years and older age cohort were most likely due to either deaths or people moving into elderly

care facilities located in other counties. The changes in the 20-24 and 25-29 age cohorts in 2000 are most likely related to

persons completing high school or vocation training and moving onto either higher education opportunities or new careers

outside of the County. The changes in the latter two are critical since they indicate that young people are moving away to

pursue higher education opportunities. However, fewer of them are returning to Washington County when starting their

career and family. However, the 2000 U. S. Census is indicating that a large number of families are moving to Washington

County once they pass the higher age group. Some of this may be due to increased employment opportunities in the County,

which can be attributed by the establishment of Cargill and Huntel.

The median age in Washington County increased from 34.8 years in 1990 to 37.1 years in 2000. The proportion of persons

less than 18 years of age decreased slightly in total population between 1990 and 2000, while those aged 65 years and older

increased by 7.7% overall. There is a segment of the population that works in Omaha and has chosen to live in Washington

County and commute to Omaha. The 10-14 year old age group of 2000 showed an increase of 144 persons, which leads to

the assumption that people with young families may be drawn to Washington County because of its quality of life and close

proximity to Omaha. The change in people ages 55-74 has increased by 255 persons.

In order to accommodate a growing number of elderly, whom tend to remain in place as they age, Washington County, in

cooperation with the communities, should be involved in developing facilities that can house those that need assistance and

allow them to feel safe and comfortable. To encourage the return of the younger and middle age groups, the County should

be involved in economic development activities, including housing options and the continued maintenance and improvement

of infrastructure to accommodate new growth, making Washington County an attractive place to live and work. Having

Omaha commuters live in Washington County is fine for increasing the population base, but Washington County needs a

plan to also develop its economic base. With a larger, secure economic base, Washington County would be better positioned

to plan for and meet its future service needs.

Population Projections

Population Projections are estimates based upon past and present circumstances. Population projections allow Washington

County to estimate what the population will be in future years by looking at past trends. By scrutinizing population changes

in this manner, the County will be able to develop a baseline of change from which they can create different future scenarios.

A number of factors (demographics, economics, social, etc.) may affect projections positively or negatively. At the present

time, these projections are the best crystal ball Washington County has for predicting future population changes. There are

many methods to project the future population trends; the six methods used below are intended to give Washington County a

broad overview of the possible population changes that could occur in the future.

Trend Line Analysis

Trend Line Analysis is a process of projecting future populations based upon changes during a specified period of time. In the analysis of Washington County, three different trend lines were reviewed: 1960 to 2000, 1980 to 2000, and 1990 to 2000. A review of these trend lines indicates Washington County will continue to increase in population through 2030. The following projections summarize the decennial population for Washington County through 2030.

Washington County Trend Analysis

Year Trend: 1960 to 2000 Trend: 1980 to 2000 Trend: 1990 to 2000

2010 21,370 persons 20,761 persons 21,237 persons

2020 24,318 persons 22,951 persons 24,016 persons

2030 27,671 persons 25,373 persons 27,159 persons

Cohort Survival Analysis

Cohort Survival Analysis reviews the population by different age groups and sex. The population age groups are then

projected forward by decade using survival rates for the different age cohorts. This projection model accounts for average

birth rates by sex and adds the new births into the future population.

The Cohort Survival Model projection indicates Washington County’s population will increase each decade through 2030.

The following projection for Washington County is based on applying survival rates to age cohorts, but does not consider the

effects of either in-migration or out-migration.

Washington County Cohort Survival Analysis

Year Cohort Survival Model

2010 18,939 persons

2020 20,162 persons

2030 21,359 persons

Summary of Population Projections

Using the modeling techniques discussed in the previous paragraphs, a summary of the six population projections for

Washington County through the year 2030 is shown in Figure 1. Three population projection scenarios were selected and

include (1) a Low Series; (2) a Medium Series; and, (3) a High Series. All of the projections forecast an increase in County

population through the year 2030. The following population projections indicate the different scenarios that may be

encountered by Washington County through the year 2030.

Year Low Series = Cohort Medium Series = 1980-2000 High Series = 1960-2000

2010 18,939 persons 20,761 persons 21,370 persons

2020 20,162 persons 22,951 persons 24,318 persons

2030 21,359 persons 25,373 persons 27,671 persons

Figure 1 reviews the population history of Washington County between 1900 and 2000, and identifies three population

projection scenarios into the years 2010, 2020, and 2030. Figure 1 indicates the peak population for Washington County

occurred in 2000 with 18,780 people. Beginning in 1900, Washington County began to experience a gradual decline in its

population. However, starting in 1950, Washington County began to increase in population much more rapidly than it had

decreased over the previous fifty years. From 1900 through 1950, Washington County lost a total of 1,575 people. However,

between 1950 and 2000, Washington County gained 7,269 people, an average increase of 12.12 people every month over the

50 year period. Between 1950 and 2000, Washington County's population increased by 63.0%, or 1.26% per year.

Figure 1: Population Trends and Projections, Washington County, 1900 to 2030

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, 1900-2000, 2003

As stated previously, these projections are based upon data from past trends and present conditions. A number of external and

internal demographic, economic and social factors may affect these population forecasts. Washington County should monitor

population trends, size and composition periodically in order to understand in what direction their community is heading.

Washington County’s greatest population threat continues to be out-migration, and strategies should be developed to further

examine and prevent this phenomenon.

Table 5: Population Projection Series, Washington County and Communities, 2000 to 2030

Source: Population projections, JEO Consulting Group, 2000

Table 5 shows the population projection by series for each of the areas within Washington County. The population

projections for the communities were found by determining the proportion of the total population that each community had

and calculating that percentage for each series. This method of projection is helpful and gives an idea of where people are

likely to live. This method does not consider the social issues that people use when choosing a place to live, which have the

potential to alter population projections in any direction.

Housing Profile

The Housing Profile in this Plan identifies existing housing characteristics and projected housing needs for residents of

Washington County. The primary goal of the housing profile is to allow the County to determine what needs to be done in

order to provide safe, decent, sanitary and affordable housing for every family and individual residing within Washington

County. The housing profile is an analysis that aids in determining the composition of owner-occupied and renter-occupied

units, as well as the existence of vacant units. It is important to evaluate information on the value of owner-occupied housing

units, and monthly rents for renter-occupied housing units, to determine if housing costs are a financial burden to Washington

County residents.

To project future housing needs, several factors must be considered. These factors include population change, household

income, employment rates, land use patterns, and residents' attitudes. The following tables and figures provide the

information to aid in determining future housing needs and develop policies designed to accomplish the housing goals for

Washington County.

Age of Existing Housing Stock

An analysis of the age of Washington County’s housing stock reveals a great deal about population and economic conditions of the past. The age of the housing stock may also indicate the need for rehabilitation efforts, or new construction within the County. Examining the housing stock is important in order to understand the overall quality of housing and the quality of life in Washington County.

Figure 2: Age of Existing Housing Stock, Washington County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, SF3, 2000

Figure 2 indicates 2,042, or 28.0% of Washington County’s 7,408 total housing units, were constructed prior to 1940. There

were 1,475 housing units, or 20.0% of the total, constructed between 1970 and 1979; this indicates there was a strong

economy during this time. In addition, there were 1,130 housing units or 15.25% of the total units were built between 1990

and 1998. Washington County has a large percentage of housing units built prior to 1940, which may indicate a need for a

housing rehabilitation program to improve the quality and energy efficiency of these older homes. Additionally, demolition

of units that are beyond rehabilitation may be necessary. Construction of new housing might be another program the County

could support, as housing becomes an integral component of the County’s ability to pursue economic development activities.

Housing Trends

An analysis of housing trends can reveal a great deal about the different sectors of the population in the County. Housing

trends may also indicate the potential demand for additional owner- or renter-occupied housing. Examining housing trends is

important in order to understand the overall diversity of the population and their quality of life within Washington County.

Table 6: Community Housing Trends, Washington County, 1990 and 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, STF-1A, 1990, DP-4 2000

Table 6 indicates the number of persons living in households increased between 1990 and 2000 by 2,122 persons, or 13.2%,

and the number of persons in group quarters increased by 51 persons, or 10.2%. In addition, the number of persons per

household decreased from 2.68 to 2.63 persons. Nationally, the trend has been towards a declining household size, and

Washington County appears to be following that trend.

Table 6 also indicates the number of occupied housing units increased from 6,017 in 1990 to 6,940 in 2000, or 15.3%, while

vacant housing units increased, from 361 in 1990 to 468 in 2000, or 29.6%. The increase in the number of housing units is

due to new home construction, and potentially the rehabilitation and use of vacant housing in the County. Renter occupied

units became less popular in 2000 compared to 1990 with vacancy rate for renter occupied units increasing from 3.3% to

8.5%.

Single-family housing units increased slightly from 5,074 in 1990 to 5,907 in 2000, or 16.4%. Duplex and multi-family

housing had the smallest change, increasing from 772 units to 1,018 units in 2000, or 31.9%. Mobile homes and trailers

decreased from 532 to 483, or -9.2%.

Median contract rent in Washington County increased from $240 per month in 1990 to $539 per month in 2000, or 124.6%.

The State’s median monthly contract rent increased by 41.1%. This indicates Washington County has seen contract rent

increase at a greater rate than the state and has surpassed the state’s average. This likely will continue to increase as more

commuters make the choice to live in a rural setting, or small communities, near Omaha. Comparing changes in monthly

rents between 1990 and 2000 with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) enables the local housing market to be compared to

national economic conditions. Inflation between 1990 and 2000 increased at a rate of 32.1%, indicating Washington County

rents increased at a rate nearly four times faster than the rate of inflation. Thus, Washington County tenants were paying

considerably higher monthly rents in 2000, in terms of real dollars, than they were in 1990, on average.

The Median value of owner-occupied housing units in Washington County increased from $58,200 in 1990 to $114,300 in

2000 and represents an increase of 96.4%. The median value for owner-occupied housing units in the state showed an

increased of 76.0%. Housing values in Washington County increased at a rate nearly three times more than the CPI. This

indicates housing values Statewide and Countywide exceeded inflation and were valued considerably higher in 2000, in

terms of real dollars, than in 1990, on average.

Table 7: Tenure of Household by Selected Characteristics, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, STF-1A, 1990 / SF4 2000

In terms of real dollars, tenants in Washington County were paying greater contract rent. In addition, the residents in the

county saw a substantial increase in housing costs. This trend is consistent with the state, as data show housing costs across

Nebraska have exceeded inflation. This trend has created a seller’s market, it can also act as a incentive to property owners

to update and rehabilitate housing units.

Table 7 shows tenure (owner-occupied and renter-occupied) of households by number and age of persons in each housing

unit. Analyzing this data allows the County the ability to determine where there may be a need for additional housing. In

addition, the County could target efforts for housing rehabilitation and construction at those segments of the population

exhibiting the largest need.

The largest section of owner-occupied housing in Washington County in 2000, based upon number of tenants, was two

person households, with 1,984 units, or 37.0% of the total owner-occupied units. By comparison, the single person

households had 524 renter-occupied housing units, or 33.3% of the total renter-occupied units. Washington County was

comprised of 3,962 1- or 2-person households, or 57.1% of all households. Households having 5- or more persons comprised

only 11.83% of the owner-occupied segment, and 7.1% of the renter-occupied segment. Countywide, households of 5- or

more persons accounted for only 742 units, or 10.7% of the total.

When compared to 1990, all six owner-occupied household groups grew in number. Owner-occupied household groups of

one person grew by the greatest number, increasing by 239 units, or 32.3%. Five of the six renter-occupied housing unit

groups increased, with six-person or more units increasing the most with 23 new units, or a 65.7% increase. Renter-occupied

units with five persons were the only category to decrease with 16 fewer units, or -22.9%.

Table 8: Composition of Household by Family Type, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, STF-3A, 1990, SF4 2000

According to the 2000 data in Table 7, the largest groups of the owner-occupied units were the 35 to 44 years and 45 to 54

years. Each age group accounted for 24.4% of the total. The two groups combined totaled 48.8%. Tenure by age indicates

63.9% of owner-occupied housing units were comprised of persons aged 45 years and older, while 65.1% of renter-occupied

units were comprised of persons aged 45 years and younger. These data are likely an indication of the student population

attending Dana College in Blair. The largest category of renter-occupied units was the 25 to 34 age group, with 30.5% of the

renter-occupied total. Additionally, 24.5% of all renter-occupied housing units were comprised of those 55 years and older.

Table 8 indicates the fastest growing category of housing units, by family type, in Washington County, was the non-family

category. Non-family households are those in which the occupants are not related. Table 8 shows that while the number

increase of non-family households is relatively large and is equal to 755 or 431.4%. The only other significant increase

occurred in the number of female families with no husband present. The data in Table 8 indicates that there were decreases in

one person households for both male and female head of households. However, two of more person families with children

saw an increase of 7.1% from 1990 to 2000.

Table 9: Selected Housing Conditions, Washington County, 1990 and 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, STF-3A, 1990, DP-4 2000

Table 9 indicates changes in housing conditions and includes an inventory of substandard housing for Washington County.

The occupancy household rate in Washington County decreased from 94.3% of all housing in 1990 to 93.7% of all housing in

2000. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of housing units in Washington County increased by 1,030, or an average of 103

units per year. However, there were 562 new occupied housing units. This indicates the loss of vacant housing in the County

was partly due to these units becoming inhabited.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, housing units lacking complete

plumbing or are overcrowded are considered substandard housing units. HUD defines a complete plumbing facility as hot

and cold piped water, a bathtub or shower, and a flush toilet. HUD defines overcrowding as more than one person per room.

When these criteria are applied to Washington County, there were 172 housing units, or 2.3% of the total units, were

considered substandard in 2000. It should be noted, however, that this figure was reached by adding together the number of

housing meeting one criterion to the number of housing units meeting the other criterion. However, the largest amount of

substandard units was based on overcrowding.

What these data fail to consider are housing units that have met both criterion and any such housing unit was counted twice,

once under each criterion. Even so, the county should not assume that these data overestimate the number of substandard

housing. Housing units containing major defects requiring rehabilitation or upgrading to meet building, electrical or

plumbing codes should also be included in an analysis of substandard housing. A comprehensive survey of the entire

housing stock should be completed every five years to determine and identify the housing units that would benefit from

remodeling or rehabilitation work. This process will help ensure that a community maintains a high quality of life for its

residents through protecting the quality and quantity of its housing stock.

Economic and Employment Profile

Economic data are collected in order to understand area markets, changes in economic activity and employment needs and

opportunities within Washington County. In this section, employment by industry, household income statistics, transfer

payments, and basic/non-basic analyses were reviewed for Washington County, the Metropolitan Statistical Area (when

possible), and Nebraska.

Income Statistics

Income statistics for households are important for determining the earning power of households in a community. The data

presented here shows household income levels for Washington County in comparison to the state. These data were reviewed

to determine whether households experienced income increases at a rate comparable to the state of Nebraska and the

Consumer Price Index (CPI). Note that income statistics may exhibit different numbers than housing statistics; for example,

Table 9 shows that there were 7,408 households in Washington County in 2000, but Table 10 shows that there were only

6,954. Discrepancies of this nature are to be expected, and can be accounted for by the fact that these data were derived from

different census survey formats.

Table 10: Household Income, Washington County, 1990 and 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, STF-3A, 1990 / DP-3 2000

Table 10 indicates the number of households in each income range for Washington County for 1990 and 2000. In 1990, the

household income range most commonly reported was $50,000 and over, which accounted for 48.7% of all households. This

is a substantial increase considering that the $35,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 and over accounted for a total of 41.8%.

However, those households, earning less than $15,000 per year accounted for 10.1% of the total households compared to

19.6% in 2000. In addition,.

The median household income for Washington County was $29,805 in 1990, which was nearly $4,000.00 higher than the

State average. By 2000, the median household income increased to $48,500 or an increase of 62.7% and was over $9,000.00

higher than the state average. The CPI for this period was 32.1%, which indicates incomes in Washington County did exceed

inflation. Washington County households were earning more, in real dollars, in 2000 than in 1990.

Table 11: Household Income by Age (55 Years & Older) Washington County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, SF4 2000

Table 11 indicates household income for Washington County householders aged 55 years and over in 2000. The purpose for

this information is to determine the income level of Washington County’s senior households. The Table indicates a total of

2,543 senior households. Of the 2,543 senior households, 909 or 35.7% had incomes less than $25,000 per year.

Furthermore, 417 senior households, or 16.4% of the total senior households, had incomes less than $15,000 per year; in

addition, these 417 senior households accounted for 59.3% of all households in the County earning less than $15,000. This

information indicates many senior households could be eligible for housing assistance to ensure they continue to live at an

appropriate standard of living. The number of senior households could easily continue to grow during the next twenty years.

As the size of the 55 and over age cohort increases, these typically fixed income households may be required to provide their

entire housing needs for a longer period of time. Also, the fixed incomes that seniors tend to live on generally decline at a

faster rate than any other segment of the population, in terms of real dollars.

The last two columns of Table 11 indicate the total number of households in each income level and the proportion of those

households that were age 55 years and older. Note that in the income level of less than $10,000, 58.1% of all households

were over the age of 55. By contrast, only 36.7% of all households in the $35,000 to $49,999 income range are over 55 years

of age, and only 25.2% of all households in the $50,000 or more income range was over 55 years of age. This indicates that

those who are over 55 years of age in Washington County account for a strong part of these income groups and appear to be

increasing in line with all ages in these income groups. As noted above, the over 55 age group may increase faster than any

other cohort in the next twenty years.

Table 12: Housing Costs As A Percentage of Household Income, Washington County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, SF 3 Table H73 and H97, 2000

Table 12 shows owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing costs as a percentage of householder income in 2000. In

addition, the Table identifies the number of households experiencing a housing cost burden. Note the total number of

households is different, due to the use of a different survey form. A housing cost burden, as defined by the U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), occurs when gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30% of gross

household income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 12 shows 3,889 households, or 79.1% of total

households, paid less than 30% of their income towards housing costs. This means the remaining 1,029 households, or

20.9% of the total, were experiencing a housing cost burden.

There were 678 owner-occupied households and 351 renter-occupied households that experienced this housing cost burden.

However, even though the total number of owner-occupied units was nearly double the renter-occupied, only 18.3% of

owner-occupied households had a housing cost burden, while 29.2% of renter-occupied households had a housing cost

burden. The median rent in Washington County, which was $539 and was slightly higher than the state median of $491.

Table 13 shows owner and renter costs for householders age 65 and over. Similar trends are shown in Table 13 as were

shown in Table 12. A housing cost burden affects 290 households age 65 and over. In 2000, there were 172 owner-occupied

households age 65 and over with a housing cost burden or 19.4% of the total households with this burden. However, there

were 118 renter-occupied households age 65 and over that experienced a housing cost burden, or 54.9% of the total

households with this burden. While only 20.9% of the County population as a whole experienced a housing cost burden,

26.3% of all households over age 65 experienced a housing cost burden. This finding is of particular importance because it

shows that elderly households are being disproportionately impacted with a housing cost burden, all while they continue to

face increasing housing costs and fixed or decreasing incomes.

Table 13: Age 65 and Older Costs As Percentage of Income, Washington County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, SF 3 Table H71 and H96, 2000

The relationship between income and housing is the most crucial factor in the provision of safe, decent, sanitary and

affordable housing for all households and individuals. Washington County should look at developing and implementing a set

of housing goals when making decisions regarding future developments. Specifically, Washington County should develop a

list of policies that are based on the following factors.

§ Washington County should assist the elderly populations by ensuring policies are developed permitting and

encouraging the continued support of services that aid in the quality of life for elderly residents.

§ Washington County should continue to play an important role in the development of affordable housing options for all

residents through appropriate land-use policies.

Income Source and Public Assistance

Table 14 shows personal income by source for Washington County, the MSA, and the State. Between 1970 and 2000, the

CPI was 345.1%. Total income, non-farm income and per capita income showed tremendous growth. Non-farm income

increased from $50,248,000 in 1970 to $544,349,000 in 2000, or an increase of 983.3%, which was nearly 3 times the CPI.

In 2000, farm income had risen from $7,246,000 to $8,734,000, or 20.5%, which is considerably less than the CPI. Farm

income increased the least of the three income factors. Per capita income increased from $3,789 in 1970 to $27,627 in 2000,

or an increase of 629.1%, which was 1.5times the CPI. The rate at which non-farm income and farm income were increasing

suggests that farm related employment activities are being replaced by non-farm related jobs. These data indicate

Washington County may be going through an economic transformation.

Table 14: Income by Source, State, MSA, and Washington County, 1970 to 2000

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2000

It is important for Washington County to understand its position within the MSA. Between 1970 and 2000, Washington

County maintained a similar annual change in non-farm income, farm income, and per capita income as the MSA. Non-farm

income in 2000 in Washington County was only 1.5% of total farm income for the entire MSA; however, farm income was

12.2% of the entire MSA. Per capita income in Washington County had an annual increase of 24.7% between 1970 and

2000, compared to an increase of 24.5% for the MSA. The per capita income in Washington County in 2000 was 91.9 % of

the entire MSA per capita income.

The per capita income in Washington County has historically increased at a rate higher than the state as a whole. Since 1980,

Washington County's per capita income has been above that of Nebraska, and has also maintained a higher annual growth

rate than the State. Washington County appears to have a strong economic base, however, the County still needs to monitor

and manage its resources and continue to develop its economic base so that it can sustain its per capita income growth rate.

Table 15 indicates Transfer Payments to individuals in Washington County from 1970 to 2000. Note the total amount of

Transfer Payments equals Government Payments to Individuals plus Payments to Non-Profit Institutions plus Business

Payments. The remaining categories listed in Table 16 are sub-parts of the Government Payments to Individuals category.

Table 15: Transfer Payments, State, MSA, and Washington County, 1970 to 2000

(D) – Less than $50,000, estimates are included in totals.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2004

Total transfer payments between 1970 and 2000 showed an increase in each reporting period. Government payments,

retirement and disability insurance benefits, and medical payments comprised the majority of total transfer payments. The

largest percentage increase occurred within Medical Payments, which increased by over $20,637,000 or 6,389.2%. Income

Maintenance Payments also increased dramatically; these payments, which include SSI, AFDC, and food stamps, increased

by $2,148,000, or 2,440.9%.

The trend for transfer payments per capita between 1970 and 2000 indicates payments increased significantly to individuals

in Washington County, increasing by 980% in 30 years. However, transfer payments, as a proportion of per capita income,

increased at a much lower rate between 1970 and 2000. In 1970, transfer payments comprised 7.6% of total per capita

income, and in 2000, transfer payments were 10.6% of total per capita income.

In 1970, Total Transfer Payments for Washington County were $3,819,000, and for the MSA were $208,504,000. By 2000,

Total Transfer Payments for Washington County were $53,446,000, or an increase of 1,441.6%, and the MSA total was

$2,617,475,000, or an increase of 1,155.4%. In 2000, transfer payments per capita in Washington County were $3,066.00,

and in the whole MSA were $3,404.00.

Industry Employment

Analyzing employment by industry assists a county in determining the key components of their labor force. This section

indicates the type of industry comprising the local economy, as well as identifying particular occupations that employ

residents. Table 16 indicates employment size by industry for Washington County, the MSA and the State of Nebraska

between 1970 and 2000.

Table 16: Employment by Industry, State, MSA, and Washington County, 1970 - 2000

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2004

Between 1970 and 2000, Washington County experienced many changes within its industries. Overall, the workforce in

Washington County increased by 4,269 jobs, or 71.4%. The MSA increased by 263,895 jobs, or 94.4%, while the State of

Nebraska had an increase of 468,117 positions, or 65.5%.

Washington County industries with the greatest increases were Services, with an increase of 2,038 jobs, Government and

Government Enterprises, with an increase of 885 jobs, and Retail Trade, with an increase of 492 jobs. The industry with the

largest decrease was Farm Employment, which lost 395 jobs, and was the only industry to lose jobs over the 1970 to 2000

time period.

Increases in employment positions occurred in all other industry categories:

§ Services + 2,038 jobs

§ Government and Government Enterprises + 885 jobs

§ Retail Trade + 492 jobs

§ Manufacturing + 431 jobs

§ Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate + 276 jobs

§ Ag. Services, Forestry, Fishing, Mining, Other + 167 jobs

§ Transportation and Public Utilities + 161 jobs

§ Wholesale Trade + 142 jobs

§ Construction + 72 jobs

Changes within Washington County are reflective of the move nationally for more service-related industries. Washington

County, together with its economic development partners, needs to identify community assets and market the County as an

attractive location for businesses to relocate, establish new operations, or assist existing businesses in expanding their scope

of activity. This may become easier as telecommuting and technology continue to improve and become accessible to rural

communities. Another marketing tool that Washington County can use is its ability to provide quality, affordable housing in

close proximity to the Omaha metro area.

Table 16 also demonstrates the importance of this MSA to the State as a whole. While the State had an increase of 468,117

jobs, this MSA had an increase of 263,895. That means that this MSA had nearly one-half of the State's total jobs. Note,

however, the MSA data includes Pottawattamie County, Nebraska, which are not included in the Nebraska data. Therefore,

the jobs created within the MSA are not an accurate reflection of its proportion of Nebraska jobs as a whole. However, the

comparison is between Washington County, the MSA, and the State. It is important to understand Washington County's

relationship to the MSA and to the State, and to understand the effect that development and growth may have on Washington

County.

This information underscores the importance of Washington County’s membership within the MSA. If this MSA is going to

continue to expand as it has, and the trend suggests it will, people moving into the area will need a place to live. Washington

County could use its rural atmosphere and proximity to Omaha to attract people who work in this MSA to live in the County.

However, future land use policies and strategies will need to be specific and regulated in order to maintain this rural

atmosphere.

Commuter Trends

Tables 17 and 18 show the commuter characteristics for Washington County. Table 17 indicates where the residents of

Washington County work. A trend seen between 1970 and 2000 indicates the resident workforce employed in Washington

County increased, as did the number of residents commuting out of the County.

Table 17: Commuter Population Trends, Residents of Washington County, 1970 to 2000

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2004

The number of Washington County residents employed in Washington County increased by 926, while the number of

Washington County residents commuting out of Washington County increased by 4,382. The majority of the outgoing

commuter increase was seen as employment in Douglas County (Omaha), which had 3,794 of the 4,382 total increases in the

commuter workforce. The total workforce commuting to Douglas County for employment increased from 8.2% of the total

in 1970, to 41.9% of the total in 2000. The percentage of Washington County residents working in Washington County

decreased from 82.2% in 1970, to 47.7% in 2000. The remaining 10.4% of the 2000 workforce were scattered between at

least seven other counties in the region.

The number of Washington County residents employed in Washington County increased by 1,027, while the number of

workers commuting in to Washington County increased by 1,258. The majority of the incoming commuter population came

from Douglas County (Omaha), which added 871, or 69.2%, of the total increase of 1,258 in the commuter workforce. The

total workforce commuting from Douglas County for employment increased from 4.9% of the total in 1960, to 17.5% of the

total in 1990. The percentage of Washington County workers living in Washington County decreased from 91.5% in 1960,

to 73.8% in 1990. The remaining 8.7% of the 1990 workforce commute into Washington County from at least seven other

counties in the region.

Table 18: Commuter Population Trends; Workers in Washington County, 1970 to 2000

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2004

During 1970, there were 828 workers living in Washington County that commuted elsewhere for employment. There were

also 1,210 workers living elsewhere that commuted into Washington County for employment. By 2000, these numbers

changed to 5,210 commuting out of Washington County, and 2,264 commuting into Washington County. These changes

represent an increase of 529.2% in the number commuting out, and 87.1% in the number commuting into Washington

County. The percentage of workers commuting out of Washington County grew by much more than the percentage

commuting into the county. However, the number of workers leaving the County for employment is more than twice the

number of workers coming into the County for employment.

The information in Tables 17 and 18 allows the County to identify how much money is leaving the County every day in the

pockets of resident commuters. In addition, the County can get an idea of how much is coming into the County from non-

resident commuters. By knowing how many residents are leaving the county for employment, Washington County can

develop strategies to create jobs within the county that will attract and keep its own residents in the county, spending their

money on goods and services provided by the county workforce.

Travel time to work is another factor that can be used to gauge where Washington County’s workforce has been commuting.

Table 19 shows how many residents of Washington County travel to work in each of several time categories.

Table 19: Travel Time to Work, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, STF-3A, 1990 – SF 3 Table PCT56 and DP3, 2000

Table 19 indicates the workforce in 2000 spent nearly three minutes more traveling to work than in 1990. The average travel

time increased from 19.9 minutes in 1990 to 22.8 minutes in 2000. The largest increase occurred in the 30 to 44 minute

category, which increased by 485 persons, or 63.6 %. The next largest increase occurred in the 60minutes or more

categories, which increased by 92 persons, or 48.7%. Increases in travel times are more likely due to the population

commuting to the Omaha area than other places. The number of persons working at home decreased by the greatest amount;

it decreased by 98 people, or -18.0%. This may be caused by the availability of more and better paying jobs in the area, but

also may be a result of a population that has fewer children to take care of at home, and is therefore able to work farther from

home.

Regional Basic/Non-Basic Analysis

The following data examine six occupational areas established by the U.S. Census Bureau to evaluate trends in employment

and the area economy. Basic employment and non-basic employment are defined as follows:

§ Basic employment is business activity providing services primarily outside the area through the sale of goods and

services, the revenues of which are directed to the local area in the form of wages and payments to local suppliers.

§ Non-Basic employment is business activity providing services primarily within the local area through the sale of goods

and services, and the revenues of such sales re-circulate within the community in the form of wages and expenditures by

local citizens.

This analysis is used to further understand which occupational areas are exporting goods and services outside the area, thus

importing dollars into the local economy. The six occupational categories used in the analysis are listed below:

§ Management, professional, and related occupations

§ Service occupations

§ Sales and office occupations

§ Farming, fishing and forestry occupations

§ Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations

§ Production, transportation, and material moving occupations

A related concept to the basic/non-basic distinction is that of a Basic Multiplier. The basic multiplier is a number, which

represents how many non-basic jobs are supported by each basic job. A high basic multiplier means that the loss of one basic

job will have a large potential impact on the local economy if changes in employment occur. The rationale behind this

analysis is that if basic jobs bring new money into a local economy, that money becomes the wages for workers in that

economy. Finally, the more money generated by basic jobs within a county; the more non-basic jobs that are supported.

Table 20: Basic/Non-Basic Employment by Occupation, Washington County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, DP-3, 2000

Table 20 indicates the occupation category, the percent of Washington County residents employed in each category, the

percent of State residents employed in each category, and the basic and non-basic employment for that category in

Washington County. The formula for determining the basic or non-basic nature of an occupation entails subtracting the

State’s percentage of workforce in a particular occupation from the percentage of the workforce in that occupation in the

County. If the County has a lower proportion of its workforce employed in an occupation than the State as a whole, then that

occupation is non-basic.

In Washington County, there are two basic occupation industries: 1) Sales and office occupations, and 2) Construction,

extraction, and maintenance occupations. Goods and services from these occupations are exported to outside markets, which

in turn generate an infusion of dollars into the local economy. Table 20 shows that 94.0% of the jobs in Washington County

are non-basic, while only 6.0% provide goods and services outside of the County. This is likely due to the rapid increase in

the population of the County, which has consumed much of the County's production of goods and services. This could also

be due to the number of people commuting outside of the County, which increases the overall County need due to fewer

people producing goods and services for an increasing population.

The basic multiplier for Washington County is 15.64. This number indicates 15.64 non-basic jobs are supported by every

one basic job in Washington County. Every time Washington County loses a job in 1) Sales and office occupations, and 2)

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations. The County potentially could lose 15.64 non-basic jobs. In order to

decrease this potential, Washington County needs to accentuate the basic jobs by diversifying the employment base even

more. Counties want a balance of basic and non-basic employment in their economy to ensure future economic stability.

Table 21: Regional and State Labor Force Comparisons, Washington County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, DP-3, 2000

Table 21 indicates the 2000 percentage of employment by occupational categories for residents of the State of Nebraska,

Washington County, and surrounding counties. The comparison with surrounding counties indicates the percentage of

Washington County residents employed in each occupation category in comparable to the surrounding counties. Washington

County employs the lowest percentage of workers in the Management, professional, and related occupations (21.9%), and

Sales and office occupations (12.3%) but in all other industries, the County falls close to the middle of the range.

Interestingly, Washington County's Basic Multiplier is much higher than the surrounding communities.

While the surrounding counties have a multiplier in the range of 6.97 to 14.98, Washington County's multiplier is 15.64. The

impact of such a high multiplier is that Washington County is much more sensitive to the loss of one basic position than its

neighboring counties. The reason for the higher multiplier is that the workforce is only 6.0% basic. This indicates a very

small proportion of the workforce is responsible for generating the flow of new money into the County. The higher the basic

percentage becomes the lower the Basic Multiplier will become. There is no perfect multiplier number; however, the

multiplier must be balanced with a broad based basic sector.

One way for the County to increase the proportion of basic labor would be to increase the number of jobs in the existing basic

categories, 1) Sales and office occupations, and 2) Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations. Another strategy

would be for Washington County to diversify its employment opportunities and increase the strength and security of its

workforce. To do this, Washington County must bring some of its non-basic jobs into the basic category.

Table 20 shows that the three non-basic occupation categories are very close to the same percentage as the State, so it is

possible that these categories could become basic, if additional jobs were created. If these occupational areas were to surpass

the state percentage, they would start to contribute to the basic employment of the county, which in turn would lower the

basic multiplier. However, as jobs are added to one Occupation Category, the percentages for all of the industries will

change. This makes forecasting future basic and non-basic occupations complex and difficult.

Table 22 offers another basic/non-basic analysis. This approach is based upon Industry Categories instead of Occupation

Categories. With the data presented in this Table, Washington County will have more detailed information to define where

job growth needs to occur. Note the total percentage of basic and non-basic employment is not calculated in this Table. The

reason for this omission is those percentages are used to determine the Basic Multiplier, which is based upon Occupation

Categories, and not Industry Categories. This is due to variations in data collection and tabulation techniques used by the

U.S. Census Bureau. Table 22 has been provided solely as a means of determining which industries may be targeted for

growth.

Table 22: Basic/Non-Basic Employment by Industry, Washington County, 2000

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 1999

According to Table 22, Construction, Transportation and warehousing and utilities and Communication and Other Public

Utilities, Information, Professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste management services and Other

Services are very strong industries in Washington County. These industries are providing many of the basic jobs that are

supporting non-basic employment. The industries having the most room for growth are manufacturing, wholesale trade,

educational, health, and social services. These industries are below the State average by 1.8%, 1.2%, and 2.4% respectively.

Tables 20 and 22 combine to give Washington County a picture of its employment situation and where it could go. In order

to boost the economy of the County, there must be a flow of money into the County from other regions. To do that, the

County needs to offer goods and services to those other areas. The County could also diversify its economic structure, which

will add strength and stability.

Agricultural Profile

The agricultural profile enables a county to evaluate the influence of the agriculture industry on the area economy. Since

most Nebraska counties were formed around county seats and agriculture, the agricultural economy, historically, has been the

center of economic activity for counties. The U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Agriculture tracks agricultural statistics every

five years. Since that frequency does not coincide with the decennial U.S. Census of Population and Housing, it is difficult to

compare sets of census data.

Agriculture Trends

Table 23 identifies key components affecting Washington County’s agricultural profile. This Table indicates the number of

farms within Washington County decreased between 1987 and 2002, likely due to an agricultural sector that has operated

with economic instability. The average size of farms increased from 280 acres in 1987 to 319 acres in 2002. The average

value of land and buildings increased from $290,634 per farm in 1987 to $726,531 per farm in 2002 and from $1,079 per acre

in 1987 to $2,252 per acre in 2002. The typical trend in Nebraska has been for the number of farms to decrease, but increase

in size and value. The number of acres committed to crops, as well as the number of acres actually harvested, has also

increased, albeit only slightly.

Table 23: Agricultural Profile, Washington County, 1987-2002

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1992, 1997, 2002

The average size of farms in Washington County has increased by 13.9%. The time period between 1987 and 2002 was one

of great turmoil for the agriculture industry. Therefore, the value of farms decreased greatly. Looking only at the time period

from 1987 to 2002, Table 22 shows the average value per farm increased by 150.0% and the average value per acre increased

by 108.7%.

Table 24: Number of Farms by Size, Washington County, 1987-2002

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1992, 1997, 2002

The size of farms, in acres, is indicated in Table 24. Table 24 shows between 1987 and 2002 smaller farm sizes were

declining in number. The increase in the number of farms with over 1,000 acres indicates farms were consolidating. These

data support Table 23 in that the numbers of farms have been decreasing, but the size is increasing.

Table 25: Number of Farms & Livestock by Type, Washington County, 1987 to 2002

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1992, 1997, 2002

Table 25 indicates the number of farms and livestock by type for Washington County between 1987 and 2002. The

predominant livestock raised in Washington County are hogs and pigs. All livestock productions showed a decline in both

the number of farms raising them and total animals raised, except beef cows and sheep and lambs, each had a slight increase

in the number of head. Cattle and calf operations have declined in number, but the total number of animals raised increased

between 1992 and 1997. Average livestock numbers per farm were calculated for each type of operation and the results

indicated that every livestock group except chickens increased despite the declining number of farms.

Table 26: Number of Farms & Crops by Type, Washington County, 1987 to 2002

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1992, 1997, 2002

Table 26 indicates the number of farms and crop by type for the period from 1987 to 2002. This Table shows the prominent

crops grown in the county. In addition, the Table indicates the total number of farms producing the specific crop and finally

an average per farm. Corn and soybeans have been the two most frequently raised crops in Washington County since 1987.

In all cases, the number of farms growing a particular crop decreased between 1987 and 2002. All of the crops indicated saw

an increase in the average number of acres per farm. The largest increases of acres per farm were in the production of Wheat

(90.5%), Corn for Grain (73.4%), and Soybeans (65.7%). Between 1987 and 2002, Corn for grain, Soybeans and Alfalfa all

indicated increases in the total number of acres planted; however, the number of farms growing these three crops decreased.

This indicates the farms that are continuing to grow these crops are getting larger; this is a statewide as well as a nationwide

trend.

County Facilities

County Facilities

State and local governments provide a number of goods and services for their citizens. The people, buildings, equipment and

land utilized in the process of providing these goods and services are referred to as public facilities.

Public facilities represent a wide range of buildings, utilities, and services that are built and maintained by the different levels

of government. Such facilities are provided to insure the safety, well being and enjoyment of the residents of a jurisdiction,

in this case, Washington County. These facilities and services provide county residents with social, cultural, educational, and

recreational opportunities, as well as law enforcement and fire protection services designed to meet area needs. It is

important for all levels of government to anticipate the future demand for their goods and services if they are to remain strong

and vital. The first step is to evaluate the ability of the county to meet that future demand and determine the level of services

that will be provided. The analysis of existing facilities, and future goods and services are contained in the Facilities Plan.

Alternatively, in some instances, there are a number of goods and services that are not provided by the local or state

governmental body and thus are provided by non-governmental private or non-profit organizations for the county. These

organizations are important providers of goods and services, especially in sparsely populated rural counties.

Facilities Plan

The Facilities Plan component of a Comprehensive Development Plan reviews present capacities of all public and private

facilities and services. This section evaluates the current demands and accepted standards to determine whether capacity is

adequate, as well as determine what level of service is required to meet future demands within the planning period. Finally, recommended improvements for public goods and services that are not adequate for present or future needs are provided.

The Facilities Plan for Washington County is divided into the following categories:

§ Recreational Facilities

§ Educational Facilities

§ Fire and Police Protection

§ County Buildings

§ Transportation Facilities

§ Communication Facilities

§ Public Utilities

§ Health Facilities

Recreational Facilities

Washington County is located in Nebraska’s Riverfront Country, a region within the Nebraska Department of Game and

Parks system. Riverfront Country includes the counties of Washington, Douglas, and Sarpy. The Nebraska Game and Parks

Department has this to say about Riverfront Country:

“The Riverfront offers tourists a myriad of historical, cultural and recreational opportunities. Where else

can you view one of the finest collections of Western art, take a riverboat excursion, tour aquariums and

nature centers, visit nationally prominent museums and zoos, hear arias or polkas, eat a world-famous

steak, and take in the beauty of the great outdoors? Nowhere else but the Riverfront in Nebraska.”

Federal Recreational Facilities

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge is located three miles east of Fort Calhoun, along the Missouri River. The refuge

includes a restored three-mile long river channel surrounded by 2,000 acres (approved to expand up to 10,000 acres) of

grassland, woodland, and wetlands. This area is an example of a multi-jurisdictional cooperation (In addition to the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, the Army Corp of Engineers, and other local agencies were involved.) that successfully benefited the

area by restoring important habitat as well as creating a recreation area. There are two short nature trails and a four-mile long

hiking trail. The refuge is open daily during daylight hours, admission is free, and it is handicapped accessible. Activities

include fishing, canoeing, and bird watching. Picnic areas are provided.

De Soto Bend, a national wildlife refuge area located in the wide floodplain of the Missouri River, is widely known for its

traditional waterfowl flyway every spring and fall. The refuge encompasses approximately 7,800 acres of which 2,000 are in

agricultural production. Since 1965 1,500 acres of the refuge has been transformed back into grasslands. This area is

expanding every few years to incorporate more land into the wildlife management area.

A major attraction within the park is the Bertrand Steamboat excavation site and the various artifacts found within the hull of

the 1860’s era sternwheeler. Along with this site there are various other recreation-related activities including the De Soto

Bend Visitor’s Center, fishing, hunting, boating, and mushroom gathering.

The following trails are also developed within this area:

§ Betrand Trail

Runs along the old river channel through grassland and marsh habitats.

§ Cottonwood Trail

Wood chip trail through the woods ¾ of a mile long.

§ Wood Duck Pond Trail

Crosses trough Wood Duck Pond and lead through woods and along grasslands

§ Missouri Meander Trail

A handicapped accessible trail adjacent to the De Soto Visitor’s Center with year round access.

State Recreational Facilities

Although some of the parks listed below may be located outside Washington County these resources are still utilized by the

residents of Washington County. A general distance of 30 miles was used when determining what sites to include in the

following:

Fort Atkinson State Historical Park is located on Madison Street in Fort Calhoun, 10 miles southeast of Blair. Fort

Atkinson enjoys a prominent position in the history of the area, of Nebraska, and of the United States. Fort Atkinson was

established as the first U.S. military post west of the Missouri River in 1819, and was an active post from 1820 until 1827.

Over 1,000 soldiers were garrisoned at Fort Atkinson. This fort was charged with the often-impossible task of regulating the

fur trade and enforcing peaceful relations between traders and Indian tribes.

There is a visitor center at the Park that is open daily from late May until early September 4, and weekends only from early

September until late October. The park also offers a living history. One weekend per month, from May until October,

volunteers portray what life was like for persons living at Fort Atkinson in the 1820s. This portrayal lasts from 11 a.m. until

5 p.m.

Summit Lake State Recreation Area is located two miles west of Tekamah, in Burt County, which is approximately 22

miles north of Blair. There are 345 acres of pasture on which to hunt for pheasant, quail, rabbit, squirrel, and waterfowl.

There is also 190 acres of water for boating, fishing, and swimming activities. The park also offers RV and tent camping,

and picnic facilities.

Pelican Point State Recreation Area is located four miles north and 4 miles east of Tekamah, in Burt County, which is

approximately 27 miles northeast of Blair. The area offers 36 acres of pasture for hunting quail, rabbit, squirrel, and

waterfowl.

Middle Decatur Bend Wildlife Management Area is located four miles east of Decatur, in Burt County, which is

approximately 40 miles north of Blair. This area is accessible only by boat from the Missouri River. It offers 25 acres of

pasture, and 108 acres of timber. Hunting for deer and waterfowl is allowed.

Powder Horn Wildlife Management Area is located nine miles south of West Point, in Dodge County, which is

approximately 38 miles northwest of Blair. The area includes 83 acres of crop, 183 acres of timber, and 18 acres of water.

Hunting is allowed for deer, dove, squirrel, quail, rabbit, turkey, and waterfowl.

Fremont State Recreation Area is located three miles west of Fremont, in Dodge County, which is approximately 27 miles

southwest of Blair. This area is a popular destination for vacationers. The area offers 400 acres of pasture, but hunting is

prohibited. Some of the amenities offered by the park include power boating, swimming, fishing, non-power boating,

camping, and picnicking. The park also includes 269 acres of water divided among 20 sandpit lakes, each of which offers

different amenities. Fishing is popular here, and there are many species to catch, including crappie, bluegill, catfish, northern

pike, largemouth bass, rock bass, redear sunfish, green sunfish, and carp. There are limitations on boating at different times

of the day. The stock of the lakes may be rotated from time to time in order to manage the various species of fish.

Wilson Island, named after former Governor George Wilson, came into existence as an island sandbar around 1900. Today,

Wilson Island State Recreation Area encompasses 577 acres of dense cottonwood stands. Located approximately 12 miles to

the east of Blair. Seclusion is one of the area's greatest assets and spacious shady campsites, hiking trails and picnic spots

provide a welcome retreat.

Wildlife is abundant in the park and a visitor may see deer grazing in the park's fields or be awakened by a huge flock of

snow geese flying low overhead in the fall. Bald eagles are often perched in the tall cottonwoods during the winter and

mushroom hunters will find no better place in the spring.

En route to Wilson Island, visitors will see the unique wave-like loess hills which overlook the great Missouri River flood

plain. These rugged hills are found along the Missouri River Valley in Nebraska and Missouri. Early history tells us that

Lewis and Clark traveled and camped on this reach of the Missouri River in 1804 - 1806 on their historic trip to and from the

Pacific Coast.

Local Recreational Facilities

Black Elk/Neihardt Park is located on College Drive in Blair. The park includes a pavilion and sculpture dedicated to

Black Elk and John G. Neihardt. The park offers excellent views of eastern Nebraska's rolling hills. The park is open year

round from dawn until 11 p.m.

Other Recreational Activities

Nebraska Motorplex is located two miles south of Scribner, in Dodge County, which is approximately 40 miles northwest

of Blair This is a NHRA Division 5 drag strip that was constructed on what used to be the airstrip for a WWII military base.

The motorplex offers many classes of racing, from beginner racers in the high school class to professional racers in NHRA

sanctioned points races, and it even offers motorcycle classes. The race schedule begins in early July and lasts until late

October.

Golf Courses

Blair Golf Course is located on Highway 75, two miles North of Blair. This is an 18-hole, par 72, semi-private golf course.

Non-members can play weekdays before 4 p.m. The course is generally flat and lush and well maintained. A clubhouse with

bar and cooking facilities and cart space is available to members. The foothills located west of the course offer a scenic

backdrop to the course, especially at dusk.

Other golf courses in the general vicinity of Washington County include the following:

Course Distance from Blair

§ Benson Golf Course (Public) 30 Miles

§ The Champions Club (Private) 28 Miles

§ Elkhorn Ridge Golf Course (Public) 21 Miles

§ Happy Hollow County Club (Private) 28 Miles

§ The Knolls Golf Course (Public) 26 Miles

§ Indian Creek Golf Course (Public) 20 Miles

§ Omaha County Club (Private) 20 Miles

§ Pacific Springs Golf Course (Public) 26 Miles

§ Shoreline Golf Course (Public) 26 Miles

Future Recreation development in Washington County

There is various future recreation developments planned for Washington County involving many different jurisdictions. The

success of these projects hinges upon the level of cooperation between these entities. The following is a list of projects

scheduled for this area:

Back to the River Project

One major initiative that has been started is the Back to the River Project. This project involves public and private groups

working together for six main goals:

§ Wildlife habitat restoration

§ Recreation and river access

§ Education

§ Economic development

§ Cultural resources

§ Flood plain management

The Back to the River Project covers six counties in all, three Nebraska counties: Washington, Douglas, and Sarpy, and three

Nebraska Counties; Harrison, Pottawattamie, and Mills. Specifically in Washington County initial projects include:

§ In Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge, a revitalization of 2,000 acres of habitat for fish, mink, river otter, and

migratory waterfowl. In addition to revitalization of this area of Boyer Chute, expansion is planned including Nathan’s

Lake, and the continuing purchase of privately owned property for the overall benefit of the area.

§ Krimlofski Tract Addition to Neale Woods Nature Center is a planned acquisition by the Fontenelle Forest Association

of 262 acres of floodplain forest with one mile of riverfront for educational and recreational uses.

§ In addition to these listed projects efforts are underway to construct a Missouri River Trail along both sides the River

with connects points across the river.

§ These are just the beginnings of projects in Washington County not to mention other Counties in cooperation of this

project.

Educational Facilities

Public Schools

The public schools in Nebraska are grouped into six classes, depending upon the type of educational services provided and

the size of the school district. The six classes, as defined by the State of Nebraska, are:

§ Class 1 Any school district that maintains only elementary grades under the direction of a single school board.

§ Class 2 Any school district with territory having a population of 1,000 inhabitants or less that maintains both

elementary and high school grades under the direction of a single school board.

§ Class 3 Any school district with territory having a population of more than 1,000 and less than 100,000 that

maintains both elementary and high school grades under the direction of a single school board.

§ Class 4 Any school district with territory having a population of 100,000 or more and less than 200,000 inhabitants

that maintains both elementary and high school grades under the direction of a single school board.

§ Class 5 Any school district with territory having a population of 200,000 or more that maintains both elementary

and high school grades under the direction of a single school board.

§ Class 6 Any school district that maintains only a high school under the direction of a single school board. The

territory of Class 6 district is made up entirely of Class 1 districts (or portions thereof) that have joined the

Class 6.

The residents of Washington County are served by six Washington County-based public school districts. These districts can

be seen on the school district map of Washington County, figure 3. The school districts, their class, and district number, are:

Arlington Public Schools Class 3 No. 89-0024

Bennington Public Schools Class 3 No. 28-0059

Blair Community Schools Class 3 No. 89-0001

Fort Calhoun Community Schools Class 3 No. 89-0003

Herman Public Schools Class 3 No. 11-0001

Logan View Class 3 No. 27-0594

Washington County is also served by two non-public schools. These schools are:

Immanuel Lutheran Elementary School Class NP No. 89-0701

St. Paul’s Lutheran Elementary School Class NP No. 89-0702

Table 27 indicates student enrollment figures for school districts located within Washington County. In addition, enrollment

figures are categorized by grade. According to the data, Blair Community Schools had the highest student enrollment.

Table 27: School Enrollments, Washington County, 1999-2000

Source: Nebraska Education Directory, Nebraska Department of Education, 2000

Table 28 shows the valuations and cost per student for each school district serving Washington County. School officials

should be looking at the population projections for the County and municipalities and developing future needs plans for each

district. Facilities in each school district, at the time of the plan, were adequate and meeting the needs of faculty and students.

Buildings and learning tools of each district are being updated continually.

Table 28: School District Valuations & Cost Per Student- Washington County, 1998

Source: 1998/1999 Annual Financial Report, Nebraska Department of Education

* Average Daily Attendance

Other Public School Entities in Washington County

Washington County is also served by Educational Service Unit number 3. This is a supplementary educational service that

provides member school districts with assistance, and develops recommendations for services that will be provided to

schools.

Figure 3: School District Map

Post-Secondary Education

There is one post-secondary education school in Washington County. Dana College is a liberal arts school located in Blair.

Danish settlers founded Dana College as a Lutheran school over 100 years ago. Today, Dana College is part of the Nebraska

Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. There are several other post-secondary level educational

opportunities located near Washington County, which include:

§ University of Nebraska Lincoln

§ Nebraska Wesleyan Lincoln

§ Union College Lincoln

§ Southeast Community College Lincoln

§ Lincoln School of Commerce Lincoln

§ University of Nebraska Omaha

§ Creighton University Omaha

§ University of Nebraska Medical Center Omaha

§ Clarkson College Omaha

§ College of St. Mary Omaha

§ Grace College of the Bible Omaha

§ Metropolitan Community College Omaha

§ Nebraska Methodist College of Nursing and Allied Health Omaha

§ Midland Lutheran College Fremont

This is a short list of post-secondary institutions available to residents of Washington County. There are various other

schools offering post-secondary education, such as vocational and business schools.

Other Educational Opportunities within Washington County

In addition to these post secondary institutions the University of Nebraska has a cooperative extension office in Blair to serve

the residents of Washington County. The extension office provides professional development, county based programs, adult

education, publications and many other services.

Fire and Police Protection

Fire and Rescue

Fire Protection in Washington County is the responsibility of 10 fire districts located throughout the County. The major

concerns of the fire departments are the many acres of open range, farmland, rural residential fires and hazardous materials

storage. Fire protection is provided by volunteer firefighters. Historically, the volunteers have fulfilled that capacity

exceptionally well. Each of the districts provides regular training for firefighters and is continuing to add certified

Emergency Medical Technician personnel as needed. Fire Districts that serve Washington County include:

Arlington Fire District

The Arlington Fire District provides fire protection and emergency rescue for the Village of Arlington and the surrounding

area. The department is located at 425 North 4^th Street in Arlington. The total area in the district is 67 square miles. Because

the Village of Nickerson does not have a rescue squad, this department also responds to rescue calls in the Nickerson district

within Washington County. The rescue district, therefore, encompasses approximately 100 square miles. In 1984, the Village

of Arlington Fire Department merged with the Arlington Rural Fire District to become the Arlington Fire District. The

facility that houses the department was built in 1973 to replace an older building in the downtown area. In 1984, a 40’ x 70’

addition was built to the north of the fire hall which added four large truck bays. The fire department shares part of the

building with the village auditorium.

The department has, at this time, 35 members. The roster allows for 35 firefighters and five active reserve members.

Monthly drills are split between fire and rescue. The district sponsors classes put on by the Fire Marshal Training Division,

Area Medical Association, NE Fire Chiefs Associations and others.

The Fire District is a member of the Washington County Mutual Aid Association, and also has interagency agreements with

the Fremont Rural Fire Department and the Nickerson Fire Department for mutual aid assistance.

Year, Make and Type Pump Size Tank Size

1986 Ford/Danko 4x4 Grass Truck 300 GPM 325 gal

1986 GMC/Smeal Pumper 750GPM 1000 gal

1999 Navistar/Danko Tanker 300 GPM 1800 gal

1992 Ford/Smeal Tanker 300 GPM 1800 gal

1992 Ford/Road Rescue

1999 Navistar/Amtech Heavy Rescue

1978 Chevrolet Utility Truck

All of the vehicles are in good to excellent condition. As with all emergency responders, the purchase of the new vehicles is

always ongoing. In the near future, the district will be purchasing a new rescue squad and pumper. The district is fortunate

to have a Fire Board that is aware of the importance of proper equipment.

Bennington Fire District

The Bennington Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad, located at 15509 Warehouse Road in Bennington provides fire and rescue

service not only for the City of Bennington but also the surrounding area. In addition to this station in Bennington there is a

satellite station located in the Village of Washington, four miles to the northwest. The area which the Bennington fire district

covers is roughly from Fort Street to two miles north of the Douglas County line, from 108th Street to 220th Street,

approximately 45 square miles. The Department was established in 1892 and has been a volunteer service ever since. The

facility that houses the department is 30 years old, with an addition that was constructed in 1993. The 48’ x 84’ addition

which was added to the south of the original facility added three additional bays, a large meeting room, new kitchen,

conference room, new bathrooms, and a new office. The facility is adequate at the present time but improvements are

expected for the future.

Year, Make and Type Pump Size Tank Size

1990 Ford Central Mini-Pumper/Attack Unit 150 GPM 300 Gallon

1993 Spartan/Central Class A Pumper 1250 GPM 1000 Gallon

1985 Ford Chassis/1962 Smeal Body 750 GPM 1250 Gallon

1997 Chevrolet Suburban/Utility

1979 Ford/Pierce Pumper

1988 Ford/Collins Type III Ambulance

1996 Ford/Lifeline Type III Ambulance

Herman Fire District

Established in 1922, the Herman fire district is responsible for the Village of Herman as well as the northern rural area of

Washington County, an area covering approximately 60 square miles.

Year, Make and Type Pump Size Tank Size

4x2 Pumper 750 GPM 1500 gal.

4x2 Pumper 500 GPM 1200 gal.

4x2 Tanker 300 GPM 1200 gal.

4x4 Grass Truck 75 GPM 250 gal.

6x6 Grass Truck 300 GPM 1200 gal.

4x2 Cube Van

Uehling Fire District

The Uehling fire district covers a total of 76 square miles overall in Dodge, Cumming, Burt, and Washington Counties. The

Uehling fire district covers a total of two square miles in the northwest portion of Washington County. The fire district was

originally formed in 1947 in the Village of Uehling. There are a total of 24 volunteer firemen in the district of which three are

a part of the rescue squad. In addition to the volunteers for the fire district there are a total of 16 volunteer rescue squad

members (all EMT’s) serving the district. Monthly training occurs for all volunteers by a training officer. The Uehling fire

district is a member of Mutual Aid with Dodge County. The building, owned by the fire district, was constructed in 1970

with a major addition occurring in 1979. The fire hall contains two restrooms, a meeting room, a radio room, and six bays for

vehicle storage. There are no plans for expansion or remodeling of the fire hall but the topic was being discussed, although

the site did not leave any room for expansion.

Year, Make and Type Pump Size Tank Size

1991 Ford F350 Brush Truck 150 GPM 200 gal.

1988 Smeal/GMC Crossmount Pumper 750 GPM 900 gal.

1978 Pierce/Ford Midship Pumper 1000 GPM 1000 gal.

1991/1997 Danko/GMC Tanker 150 GPM 2000 gal.

1978 Ford Tanker 150 GPM 2200 gal.

1985 Ford Ambulance

1976 Cadillac Ambulance

Other Fire District Information

In addition to the fire districts and volunteer fire departments listed above, there several other fire districts that serve the

planning area of the county. However, for a number of reasons, specific data for these departments/districts was not obtained.

These districts include Blair, Craig, Fort Calhoun, Kennard, Nickerson, and Winslow.

Figure 3: Fire District Map

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement in Washington County is the responsibility of the Washington County Sheriff. The office of the

Washington County Sheriff is located at 1535 Colfax Street in Blair, adjacent to the Washington County Courthouse. This

facility also serves as the offices for the Blair police department. The communities of Herman and Washington do not have

independent police departments; therefore, they rely solely on the Washington County Sheriff for protection.

Based upon data in the “Crimes in Nebraska- 1996-1998” published by the Nebraska Crime Commission, Washington

County had 11 sworn officers in 1996, 13 in 1997, and 18 in 1998. With an average population of approximately 18,300 in

those years, the numbers of sworn officers per 1,000 persons in the population were 1.0, 1.2, and 1.7 respectively. Table 30

shows the number of sworn officers per 1,000 persons in Washington County and the surrounding counties.

Table 30: Sworn Officers, Washington and Surrounding Counties, 1996, 1997, and 1998

Source: “Crimes in Nebraska,” 1996, 1997, 1998, Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

The ratio of law enforcement officers per 1,000 persons in the population for any given area is influenced by many factors.

The determination of law enforcement strength for a certain area is based on such factors as population density, size and

character of the community, geographic location and other conditions that exist in the area. In 1998, Washington County had

more sworn officers and more officers per 1,000 persons in the population than the surrounding counties, except for Douglas

County. Between 1996 and 1998, Washington County added seven sworn officers, and increased its number of officers per

1,000 persons in the population from 1.0 to 1.7. Washington County was the only county in Table 30 to increase its number

of sworn officers. It is one of two that increased its ratio of officers to population.

County Buildings

Washington County Courthouse is located at 1555 Colfax Street in Blair. This facility houses the Washington County Clerk, County District Court, Supervisors, Surveyor, Assessor’s office, County Attorney, State Probation, County Treasurer,

County Planning and Zoning Department including Building Inspections, Veteran’s Service Office, and State Social

Services.

Washington County Highway Department located 8845 Berry Hill Road in Blair. The department is responsible for

maintaining 591 miles of roads in Washington County. In addition, the staff has over 108 bridges in the county to inspect and

maintain.

Fairgrounds

The Washington County Fairgrounds are located in Arlington on the western edge of the county. The fairgrounds are host to

the annual County Fair which is typically held during the middle part of August.

County Historical Sites and Buildings

Within Washington County there are various places of historical significance.

Table 31: National Register of Historic Places, Washington County

Source: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 2001

Washington County Museum located at 102 North 14^th Street in Fort Calhoun opened in 1938 in the former Fort Calhoun

Bank building. In 1968 the Edith L. Neale wing was added and then in 1989 the North gallery was added to the structure. The

museum is open seasonally from March through mid December. In addition to regular exhibits the museum holds special

exhibits throughout the year. The museum houses various records which include: biographies, histories, cemetery records,

family and community photographs, federal census atlases, obituaries, old newspapers, school records, and vital statistics

both on film and microfiche.

Bertrand Steamboat Site (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

Beginning in the early nineteenth century, steamboat traffic increased on the Missouri River. The Bertrand, owned by the

Montana and Idaho Steamship Lines, was one of the largest steamboats to ply the Missouri north of the Platte River. The 160

by 30 foot sternwheeler hit a snag on the Missouri River north of Omaha and sank in April 1865. The boat was discovered

and excavated in the late 1960s. The artifacts recovered are displayed in the Bertrand museum at the DeSoto National

Wildlife Refuge. The steamboat hull was reburied at the site of its discovery.

Blair High School (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

Located in Blair, the Blair High School was constructed in 1899. It is a two-story over raised basement brick structure

designed in the Richardsonian Romanesque style. The original H-plan, sheltered by a series of hipped roofs, had two

additions appended to the north. The first, a two-story gable roofed brick Colonial Revival annex was added in 1929. In 1967

a small, one-story, flat-roofed brick structure was appended to the west facade of the 1929 addition.

Abraham Castetter House (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

Located on what was known as "Silk Stocking Row" in Blair during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the

Abraham Castetter house is a product of Eclecticism. The original house was built in the French Second Empire style in

1876, with later additions following various architectural styles that were popular during the 1880s and 1890s. Castetter, a

native of Ohio, moved to Blair in 1869 and entered the banking business. In 1898 he established "The Banking House of A.

Castetter." In 1887 Castetter deeded to the city land which formed the nucleus of the city park.

Congregational Church of Blair (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

The Congregational Church of Blair is a good example of the Carpenter Gothic style. The board and batten structure was

constructed in 1874 by George Sutherland, a local builder, to the designs of Charles F. Driscoll, an Omaha architect. Several

additions were made in later years. Eight charter members organized the church on February 10, 1870, eleven months after

Blair was platted.

C. C. Crowell, Jr. House (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

The C. C. Crowell, Jr. House was built in 1901 by Christopher Columbus Crowell, Jr. and is transitional in style, exhibiting

both Queen Anne and Neo-Classical Revival details. The Crowell family and their businesses, the Crowell Lumber and Grain

Company and the Crowell Elevator Company, were associated with the development and commercial growth of the city of

Blair for seventy years.

Fontanelle Town Hall

The Hall was constructed in 1860 by H.J. Carpenter for community use for voting and making local decisions. Founded six

years earlier the town of Fontanelle is one of the oldest towns in the state. At one time it was considered for the state capitol

and was the siting for the first university west of the Missouri, Nebraska University. It is the only town hall in Washington

County preserved in its original location. The Fontanelle Town Hall is now owned and maintained by the County Historical

Society.

Fort Atkinson State Historical Park (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

The Yellowstone Expedition, under the command of Colonel Henry Atkinson, traveled up the Missouri in 1819 with the

intention of establishing military posts near Council Bluffs, the Mandan villages, and the Yellowstone River. Only the former

was established and named Fort Atkinson. The post was constructed on a prominent Missouri River terrace near present Fort

Calhoun in 1820 and occupied until 1827. Fort Atkinson was the only American military post west of the Missouri at that

time. The fort was critical in forging political links between the U.S. government and local Indian tribes, as well as protecting

American fur trade and frontier interests. The fort consisted of a 450-foot-square barracks quadrangle with two bastions

enclosing the parade ground, magazine, and possibly other structures. A wide assortment of structures was built on the

exterior including a council house, stables, carpentry and blacksmith shops, laundresses' quarters, and slaughterhouses. Based

on over ten seasons of archeological fieldwork, most of the fort has been reconstructed and an interpretive center established.

It is operated as a state historical park by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

Long Creek School District 8(description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

The Long Creek School District 8, located near Blair, is a one-story, one-room, frame building constructed in 1889. It is an

excellent example of a property type that illustrates a historically significant pattern of rural education. This particular pattern

persisted through the twentieth century despite many changes in educational policy and reform.

Old McDonald Farm (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

Located in Washington County, the farmhouse was constructed in 1896 with other buildings added in subsequent years. The

farmstead is significant for its association with the broad pattern of agricultural development in Washington County. The

collection of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century farm buildings retains a high degree of integrity.

Washington County Courthouse (description taken from the Nebraska State Historical Society Website)

Washington County was among the earliest organized in Nebraska, having been established in 1854. After residing in De

Soto and Fort Calhoun, the county seat was assigned to Blair in 1869. In 1889 voters passed a bond issue to help finance the

construction of a courthouse. Work began the same year, but because of some delays the Romanesque Revival-style

courthouse was not finished until 1891.

Frahm House located in Fort Calhoun, its original location, was constructed in 1905 by Fred Frahm. Today the house is

basically the same except for modernization that have taken place throughout the years including adding electricity, running

water, sewer system, and a furnace. The Frahm House is now owned and maintained by the County Historical Society.

Transportation Facilities

Approximately 690 miles of roads are in Washington County. There are several hard-surfaced State and Federal highways in

the county. U.S. Highway No. 30 crosses the Missouri River at Blair and runs west through the towns of Blair, Kennard, and

Arlington. U.S. Highway No. 75 runs north from Omaha through Fort Calhoun, Blair, and Herman. State Highway No. 133

runs south of Blair to Omaha, and State Highway No. 91 runs west of Blair across the county and into Dodge County.

Completed in 1991 was a $7.9 million four-lane bridge on Highway 30 between Blair and Nebraska, spanning the Missouri

River. Interstate 29, a major north/south route is 13 minutes to the east, while east/west Interstate 80 is only 22 minutes south.

Railroad Service

The main line of the Union Pacific railroad (previously Chicago and Northwestern) serves Washington County. There are

approximately 50 freight train trips per day through the county. The nearest piggyback service is in Omaha

Bus Service

The nearest national bus service is in downtown Omaha through Greyhound Bus lines. Local bus service in the Omaha

Metropolitan area is provided by MAT. A handicapped van service in the county is provided by the Carter House in Blair.

Airports

Public Airports

Blair Municipal Airport Blair recently acquired the Eagle Field Site, ten minutes south of Blair on Highway 133. The

Eagle Field Runway 13-31 is 3450’ x 50’. The field has lighted beacons and runway lights, and is open for aircraft operations

24 hours a day. The facility has hangers, tie downs, rest rooms, fuel, and telephone services are available.

Through state and federal grants an expansion of the airport is planned in the near future. The Blair airport with the expansion

will then provide overflow for the north Omaha and Eppley airports.

Fremont Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Fremont. There are two runways in use, the main runway

is 5,500 feet long and 100 feet wide with a concrete/asphalt surface and the other runway is 2,444 feet long and 50 feet wide

with an asphalt surface. There are 29 single engine aircraft and five multi-engine aircraft based at the airport. Annual

operations (take offs and landings) amount to 17,600.

Tekamah Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the Tekamah Airport Authority. The airport includes one main

runway with a total distance of 4,002 feet and is 75 feet wide having a concrete service. There are 18 total single engine

aircraft based at the airport. The annual airport operations (take offs and landings) amount to a total of 27,020.

Eppley Airport located in Omaha is a regional airport for the region including Washington County. In 1999 the airport

served a total of 3.77 million passengers, 77 million pounds of mail, and 172 million pounds of cargo. The airport itself is

located four miles northwest of downtown Omaha on a site encompassing approximately 2,650 acres. The terminal area

includes 368,000 square feet with 21 boarding gates. The airport includes three runways, 9,502 feet x 150 feet, 8,152 feet x

150 feet, 4,060 feet x 75 feet. Adjacent to the airport is long and short term parking in the garage, surface parking as well

economy parking located a short distance from the airport. Airlines serving Eppley include the following:

§ America West Airlines

§ American Airlines

§ Continental Airlines

§ Delta Air Lines

§ Frontier Airlines

§ Midwest Express Airlines

§ Northwest Airlines

§ Southwest Airlines

§ Trans World Airlines

§ United Airlines

§ US Airways Express

The North Omaha Airport is privately owned but is a public use airport. One main runway is utilized which is 2,480 feet in

length and 40 feet in width. There are 50 single engine aircraft, seven helicopters, and one glider based at the airport. There

are a total of 14,520 aircraft operations (take offs and landings) occur at the North Omaha Airport annually. The airport runs

from dusk to dawn.

Private Airports

Within Washington County there are numerous private airstrips. Listed below are private airstrips registered with the Federal

Aviation Administration and there associated community or general location (FAA):

§ Orum Aerodrome, Blair

§ Bil Lo, Fort Calhoun

§ Heaton, Fort Calhoun

§ Sibbernsen, Washington

§ David Mooke, County Road 18/7

River Traffic

The Missouri River has been made navigable by the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. Transportation by water is possible to

all water ports of the world via the Missouri River barge lines. The channel depth is 9 feet, and the average season is from

April to November. There are various businesses in Washington County that utilize the river for transport.

Communication Facilities

Telephone Services

Great Plains Communications, Qwest, Hooper Telco, Northeast Nebraska Telephone, and Huntel Systems’ provide local

telephone service. Huntel serves 10,000 customers in Washington County as well as 13 other counties.

Radio and Television Stations

Radio Stations

Listed below are radio stations serving Washington County:

Location Station Frequency Location Station Frequency

Bennington KTNP-FM 93.9 Blair KISP-FM 101.5

Blair KDCV-FM 91.1 Fremont KFMT-FM 105.5

Fremont KHUB-AM 1340 Omaha KBBX-AM 1420

Omaha KCRO-AM 660 Omaha KEFM-FM 96.1

Omaha KESY-FM 97.7 Omaha KEZO-FM 92.3

Omaha KFAB-AM 1110 Omaha KGBI-FM 100.7

Omaha KGOR-FM 99.9 Omaha KIO5-FM 91.5

Omaha KKAR-AM 1290 Omaha KKCD-FM 105.9

Omaha KOSR-AM 1490 Omaha KQKQ-FM 98.5

Omaha KSRZ-FM 104.5 Omaha KTNP-FM 93.3

Omaha KVNO-FM 90.7 Omaha KXKT-FM 103.7

Omaha KZFX-FM 107.7 Omaha WOW-AM 590

Omaha WOW-FM 94.1

Television

Local Television Stations

Presently there are no local television stations located in Washington County but there are four located in Omaha serving the

residents of Washington County. These stations are:

§ WOWT 6 NBC Affiliate

§ KETV 7 ABC Affiliate

§ KMTV 3 CBS Affiliate

§ KPTM 42 FOX Affiliate

Cable Television providers

There are various cable television providers in Washington County these include Huntel and Cablevision, both of which are

based out of Blair.

Internet/World Wide Web Service Providers (ISP)

Internet service for the residents of Washington County is provided primarily through local telephone companies. The City of

Blair is wired with a Digital subscriber line or DSL, all the other communities in the county use a dial up system. Local ISPs

(Internet service providers) in Washington County will generally offer connection speeds of at least 56K at prices that are

competitive with national ISPs. Many of these local providers offer one simple rate for unlimited usage, free e-mail accounts,

and a limited amount of free space for personal web pages.

Newspapers

There are various newspapers serving the residents of Washington County. The official newspaper used by Washington

County for legal notices is the Blair Enterprise. Listed below are Newspapers in circulation in or near Washington County:

§ Arlington Citizen

§ Blair Enterprise

§ Blair Pilot-Tribune

§ Burt County Plaindealer

§ Douglas County Gazette

§ Fremont Tribune

§ Missouri Valley Weekender

§ Missouri Valley Times-News

§ Omaha World Herald

Public Utilities

Electricity

The majority of Washington County is served by Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) which is a publicly owned, non-profit

utility. Their service area covers a 13-county region in southeastern Nebraska. They provide an abundant power supply by a

balance of nuclear and coal-fired generation. OPPD's 476,000-kilowatt Fort Calhoun nuclear power station, located 10 miles

south of Blair on Highway 75, went into commercial operation in September 1973. Some electricity is provided by Burt

County REA.

Natural Gas

Natural Gas is distributed in the community by Peoples Natural Gas. The community is served by a 2" line at 10 lbs. of

pressure for residential service. Northern Natural Gas is the pipeline supplier.

Natural gas with an average value of 1,000 BTU is available for residential, commercial, and industrial customers for base

and peak use on a firm basis. Interruptible service is available for customers with alternate fuel capability. Annual curtailment

of interruptible customers varies with the type of service selected by the customer.

In addition to traditional services, Peoples assists large volume users with customized services tailored to their specific needs

including firm or interruptible gas transportation series, agency services such as gas procurement, firm and interruptible

supply options, balancing, capacity management, cooperative financing on energy projects, billing metering, and winter

peaking service.

Water Supply

The communities of Arlington, Blair, and Herman all have separate community water plants. In 2000 the City of Blair began

to supply the Village of Kennard with water service via a water transmission main along Highway 30. In addition to

community based water supplies, The Papio-Missouri Natural Resource District and Logan East Rural Water District

supplies the community of Fort Calhoun and 340 rural users, and the unincorporated community of Nashville with treated

water. This Papio-Missouri Natural Resource District purchases its supply of water from the Metropolitan Utilities District

(MUD). Excluding the communities the majority of Washington County is served by individual private wells

Sanitary Sewerage Systems

Arlington, Blair, Fort Calhoun, Herman, and Kennard provide sanitary sewer service in their communities. In the rural areas

of the County, private waste disposal facilities are utilized. Types of systems that may be used are lagoons, septic tanks, and

leach fields.

Solid Waste Disposal Facilities

There are various trash collectors that serve Washington County. The only place for disposal of non-toxic solid waste is in

Douglas County just south of the Washington-Douglas County line. During this planning period the land fill received a thirty

year extension to remain open.

Health Facilities

Hospitals

Hospitals offer comprehensive care to the residents of Washington County. Although some hospitals specialize in certain

medical treatments, any hospital will be able to offer treatment for any medical condition. There is one hospital located in

Washington County, in the City of Blair. In addition to this one, there are several nationally recognized hospitals in nearby

Douglas County.

Memorial Community Hospital is located at 810 N. 22^nd Street in Blair. The facility has a total of 29 beds. The primary

health services offered at the facility include Cardiopulmonary Rehab, Diabetes management, Emergency Room services,

Food and Nutrition education, Immunization services, Labor and Delivery, Outpatient clinic, Primary Care clinic, and

Physical Rehabilitation services. The hospital operates an after hours clinic located at the Blair Clinic. The hospital is served

by MedFlight in extreme situations.

Methodist Hospital/Children’s Hospital (MCH) is located at 8303 Dodge Street, in Omaha. Methodist is a not-for-profit,

430-bed acute care facility. Areas of practice include high-risk obstetrics, oncology, cardiology, orthopedics, and urology.

Methodist also has an outstanding reputation in the areas of rehabilitation services, laparoscopic surgery, neurosurgery, and ophthalmology. Methodist Hospital obstetrical care unit averages approximately 3,000 births annually, more than any other

hospital in the region.

St. Joseph Hospital is located at 601 N. 30^th Street in Omaha. St. Joseph works in partnership with Creighton University

Medical School to provide care to eastern Nebraska and Western Nebraska. St. Joseph is a 404-bed acute care facility. Areas

of international recognition include cardiac care, osteoporosis research and treatment, angiography/vascular procedures, and

hereditary cancer. The St. Joseph Trauma Center and LifeNet medical helicopter serve a 150-mile radius in Nebraska and

Nebraska.

University of Nebraska Medical Center is located at 600 South 42^nd Street in Omaha. UNMC is internationally recognized

for excellence in the research that it does. It offers world-renowned care in many areas, and specializes in cancer treatment

and organ transplantation. UNMC offers an international jet ambulance as well as local helicopter ambulances to transfer

patients from anywhere in the world.

Medical Clinics

Medical clinics generally offer limited services, services that do not require the full availability of a hospital staff. Some

clinics offer outpatient treatment, and even short-stay inpatient treatment. Clinics generally perform procedures that

physicians cannot do in-office, but they do not perform complex or complicated procedures that require post-operative care.

There are several medical clinics in Washington County, most of which are located in Blair. The clinics can be general in

nature or more specialized, such as dental, chiropractic, or optometric. Listed here is information on three general practice

clinics in the county:

Alegent Health Clinic is located at 718 South 9^Th Street in Blair. The clinic is a part of the Alegent Health System. Since the

clinic is part of a larger overall health system, the patients are able to receive care for a large number of health issues.

Currently, the Blair location is staffed by three primary care providers.

Blair Clinic is located at 753 North 21^st Street in Blair. The clinic is associated with Memorial Community Hospital in Blair.

The clinic offers primary care and is also the location for the hospital’s after hour’s clinic. The clinic is associated with the

MCH system in Omaha.

Fort Calhoun Clinic is located at 1420 Clark Street in Fort Calhoun. The clinic is affiliated with the MCH health system in

Omaha.

Nursing Home Facilities

Nursing home facilities can range from fully staffed assisted-living arrangements to an apartment-like setting staffed by few

persons, who may have only basic medical knowledge. These facilities are designed to accommodate persons in various

health conditions in a setting that provides as much independence as possible to the resident. There are several long-term

care facilities in Washington County, most of which are located in Blair. There are many other long-term care facilities

located in nearby Douglas and Lancaster Counties.

The facilities located within Washington County are:

· Crowell Memorial Home is located at 245 South 22^nd Street in Blair.

· Shepard’s Village is located at 2290 Wright Street in Blair.

· Good Shepard Lutheran Home located at 2242 Wright Street in Blair.

· Johansen Manor Retirement Community is located at 805 N. 22^nd Street in Blair.

· Alc Carter House is located at 1028 Joann Drive in Blair.

· Clara-Ellen House is located at 501 North 13^th Street in Fort Calhoun.

Home Health Care Services

Home health care services provide medical assistance to patients in the comfort and privacy of their own home. These

services are generally staffed by nurses, but may also have a physician on-call. These services are offered mainly to elderly

patients, and those whose conditions do not require hospitalization, but that also make travel to a physician’s office difficult

or uncomfortable.

The facilities/services located within Washington County include:

· Burt Washington Home Health is located at 810 North 22^nd Street in Blair.

· Home Health Care is located at 127 South 17^th Street in Blair.

Goals & Policies

Goals and Policies

Introduction

Planning for the future land uses of the County is an ongoing process of goal setting and problem solving aimed at

encouraging and enhancing better communities and higher quality of life. Planning focuses upon ways of solving existing

problems within the County, and providing a management tool enabling Washington County citizens to achieve their vision

for the future.

Visioning is a process of evaluating present conditions, identifying problem areas, and bringing about consensus on how to

overcome existing problems and manage change. By determining Washington County’s strengths and weaknesses, the

community can decide what it wants to be, and then develop a “roadmap” guiding decisions and ultimately fulfilling the

vision of the County.

Change is continuous, therefore Washington County must decide specific criteria that will be used to judge and manage

change. Instead of reacting to development pressures after the fact, the County along with their strategic vision, can better

reinforce the desired changes, and discourage negative impacts that may undermine the vision. A shared vision permits

Washington County to focus its diverse energies and minimize conflicts in the present, and in the future.

A key component of a Comprehensive Plan, is the goals and policies. The issues and concerns of the citizens are developed

into a vision. The vision statement can then be further delineated and translated into action statements, used to guide, direct,

and base decisions for future growth, development and change within Washington County. Consensus on "what is good land

use?" and "how to manage change in order to provide the greatest benefit to the County and its residents?" is formed.

Washington County’s goals and policies attempt to address various issues, regarding the questions of “how” to plan

Washington County for the future.

Goals are desires, necessities and issues to be attained in the future. A goal should be established in a manner that allows it

to be accomplished. Goals are the end-state of a desired outcome. Goals also play a factor in the establishment of policies

within a county. In order to attain certain goals and/or policies within county government, they may need to be modified or

changed from time to time.

Policies are concerned with defining and implementing the broad goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policies are a means to achieving the goals established by the County. They are specific statements of principle or actions

that imply a clear commitment that is not mandatory. Policies are part of the value system linking goals with action. Policies

have three different elements:

1. an end that needs to be achieved,

2. a means by which to achieve that end, and

3. an administrative mechanism by which the means are carried out

These policies will synthesize the information from the goals, as well as the responses from the participants of the Town Hall

meetings in order to develop solutions that will achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, policies play an

important role in the Comprehensive Plan because they are the actions that need to be taken to meet the goals.

The goals and policies assure that the Comprehensive Plan accomplishes the desires of the residents in Washington County.

This section of the Comprehensive Plan is therefore, a compilation of local attitudes have generated through public meetings

and workshops. When followed, development proposals in the County will be evaluated as to their relationship with the

citizens’ comments. Therefore, “goals and policies” should be referred to as diligently as the Future Land Use Map or any

other part of the Comprehensive Plan, when reviewing and/or making recommendations on planning issues. Likewise, they

should be current, in order to reflect the attitudes and desires of the County and its residents.

It is important for counties to establish their goals and policies in a manner that allows for both long-term and short-term accomplishments. The short-term goals and policies serve several functions:

§ Allow for immediate feedback and success, which fuels the desire to achieve additional goals and better policies.

§ Allow for the distribution of resources over time thus assuring a balanced use of public investment.

§ Establish certain policies that need to be followed before the long-term goals can be accomplished.

Washington County Town Hall Meetings

During February and March of 2001 a total of five town hall meetings were held across the county in order to gather input on

issues (both positive and negative) facing the residents of Washington County. At each meeting the group in attendance was

asked to identify negative and positive aspects of the County. The residents were also asked to identify issues that were

affecting the County and needed action. Finally, the citizens in attendance were asked to identify specific projects they

desired to see completed in the next 5, 10, or 20 years. The attendees then ranked their three top priorities for each question.

The following information summarizes the results of each question and the corresponding percentage (i.e. importance)

residents of Washington County indicated for each question.

Note the number of points for each question may differ due to the fact that not all residents prioritized three concerns for each

question or they used all of their points to indicate one major problem that needed action. In addition, not every resident of

Washington County will agree with the order of these issues or that these were all the aspects of the County that should have

been listed, but this was taken from the participants at the town hall meetings. Another detail of note, not all issues indicated

have goals and policies identified since they do not have bearing on the land use of the County. The County, through the

appropriate governing bodies, should attend to the issues not addressed by the goals and policies due to their specific nature.

As stated before, during the town hall meetings the participants where asked four separate questions which included the

following:

Negatives

“What are the negative aspects or weaknesses facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The participants in the Town Hall Meetings were asked to respond to this question as honestly as possible. They were told

this was a brainstorming exercise, and that there was no wrong or bad response. Through brainstorming and listing every

response, the participants are more likely to engage in a discussion that can lead to more responses. The reasoning behind this

question is to identify what topics in the County are negative so that through comprehensive planning these negatives can be

turned into positives.

Positives

“What are the positives or strengths facing Washington County during the planning period?”

This question was presented to the participants just as the negative question was, as a brainstorming exercise. The reasoning

behind this question is to identify topics in the County that are positives and through comprehensive planning these positives

can remain as positives through the planning period.

Issues

“What are the issues relating to the future development of Washington County during the planning period?”

In order to respond to this question, participants were asked to think about past experiences, present concerns, and specific

problems. This question attempts to raise issues that have been, may be, or will be topics that will affect the future of

Washington County.

Projects

“What are projects that should be completed for Washington County during the planning period?”

This question asked participants to think of any potential project that they desired to see accomplished in Washington

County. This gave the participants an opportunity to dream a little and express their desires for the county.

Town Hall Meetings

Fort Calhoun Town Hall Meeting, February 21, 2001 (Fort Calhoun High School)

The first Town Hall meeting held in the County took place in Fort Calhoun at the High School. The attendance included

approximately 35 people. A few County Supervisors and Planning Commissioners made up this group with the majority

consisting of the general public.

“What are the negative aspects or weaknesses facing Washington County during the planning period?”

In total there were 20 responses provided by the group that night. The most important negative aspect of the County was that

of infrastructure problems due to growth. The concern that development was outpacing infrastructure that was serving it

gathered 19.7% of the of the total votes. Following was the negative of the changes in minimum lot size over time, with

15.3% of the total votes. This negative pointed out that minimum lot size regulations in the County were not consistent over

time. The third highest valued negative was the loss of farmland, with 9.7% of the total votes. This points out the loss of

production farmland to development.

Table 32: Negative Aspects of Washington County, Fort Calhoun

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Fort Calhoun High School

“What are the positives or strengths facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The group came up with 29 positive responses about the County. The group felt that the most important positive about the

County was the volunteer fire and rescue departments, which received 12.3% of the total votes. Following this top response

was that Washington County was a beautiful County, receiving 11.1% of the total votes. Rounding out the top three most

important positive responses was that of the low crime rate, with 9.9% of the total votes.

Table 33: Positive Aspects of Washington County, Fort Calhoun

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Fort Calhoun High School

“What are the issues relating to the future development of Washington County during the planning period?”

There were 28 responses given by the group for this question. The highest ranked response was that of zoning, with 11.7% of

the total votes. This response was representing urgency in updating the County’s zoning regulations. The second highest

ranked issue by the group was the Highway 133 corridor, with 10.8% of the total votes. The third highest ranked response to

this question was that of minimum lot size in the agricultural areas of the County, with 9.9% of the total votes. A similar

response was given to the negative question earlier in the night representing that this response will be one of the first items

the County must deal with in the future.

Table 34: Issues of Washington County, Fort Calhoun

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Fort Calhoun High School

“What are projects that should be completed for Washington County during the planning period?”

The fourth and final question of the town hall meeting received 14 responses. Again the response of infrastructure

improvements was given and received 19.4% of the total votes. This response to this question is in direct result of the

negative response given earlier in the night. Following in the same area the second highest ranked response was that of road improvements, receiving 16.1% of the total votes. To round out the top three ranked responses was that of a rural water

system, with 12.9% of the total votes. Again this follows along the lines of improving the infrastructure of the County to

handle present and future development.

Table 35: Future Projects of Washington County, Fort Calhoun

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Fort Calhoun High School

Blair Town Hall Meeting, March 1, 2001

Approximately 21 people attended the second town hall meeting, which was held at the Washington County Courthouse. The

County Supervisors and the entire Planning Commission made up half the group with the remainder of the group consisted of

the general public.

“What are the negative aspects or weaknesses facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The highest ranked negative from the group was a tie between road maintenance and protection of agricultural land, with

14.5% of the total votes for each. The second highest ranked response was that of lot splits, receiving 13.0% of the total

votes. Ranking third among those responses, at 12.2% of the total votes, was that of Boyer Chute (Federal Lands).

Table 36: Negative Aspects of Washington County, Blair

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Courthouse - Blair

“What are the positives or strengths facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The top ranked positive the group gave was that of farming receiving a fifth of the votes or 19.4%. Following that response,

with approximately the same amount of votes, was the rural atmosphere of the County, with 18.5% of the total votes.

Rounding out the top three was the response of quality of life, receiving 12.0% of the total votes.

Table 37: Positive Aspects of Washington County, Blair

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Courthouse - Blair

“What are the issues relating to the future development of Washington County during the planning period?”

Taxes became the highest ranked issue by receiving more than a fourth of the votes with 25%. A close second was road

maintenance and improvement with 21.8% of the total votes. The third highest ranked response from the group was that of lot

split and size, receiving 16.4% of the total votes. Again this response is following straight from the negative responses given

earlier in the evening.

Table 38: Issues of Washington County, Blair

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Courthouse - Blair

“What are projects that should be completed for Washington County during the planning period?”

Road improvements was a main point of discussion throughout the evening and was discussed again in the final question

receiving 49.0% of the total votes. Prime agricultural land protection was giving the second highest ranked project by the

group receiving 17.5% of the total votes. Again this was a constant topic of discussion of the group. The third highest ranked

project by the group was that of rural water with 10.5% of the total votes.

Table 39: Future Projects of Washington County, Blair

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Courthouse - Blair

Immanuel Lutheran School Town Hall Meeting, March 5, 2001

There were approximately 15 people in attendance for the third town hall meeting. This meeting consisted mostly of the

general public with a couple of County Supervisors. In difference to the first two meetings this location would be considered

to be in the rural area of the County.

“What are the negative aspects or weaknesses facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The top two responses to this question received the majority of the votes, of these the first being the differences in real estate

valuations with 34.7% of the votes. The second ranked response was the differences in the County are not reflected in the

regulations, with 31.4% of the total votes. Rounding out the top three responses was real estate assessments, with 8.3% of the

total votes.

Table 40: Negative Aspects of Washington County, Immanuel Lutheran School

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Immanuel Lutheran School

“What are the positives or strengths facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The top ranked response to this question was that of the family farm, taking almost a third of the votes at 28.0%. The second

response was the location to livestock and grain markets, with 15.0% of the total votes. The third response, taking 8.4%of the

votes, was that of prime farmland. All three of these responses reflect area of the County, being primarily rural in nature,

having a strong agricultural base.

Table 41: Positive Aspects of Washington County, Immanuel Lutheran School

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Immanuel Lutheran School

“What are the issues relating to the future development of Washington County during the planning period?”

The top three responses to this question were given approximately the same ranking at approximately 21 percent, these being

taxes, protection of the family farm, and the roads. Again, the first and third responses have been consistent with the first two

town hall meetings and the second relates to the area of which the town hall meeting was held.

Table 42: Issues of Washington County, Immanuel Lutheran School

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Immanuel Lutheran School

“What are projects that should be completed for Washington County during the planning period?”

The highest rank response to this question, roads, took almost half of the total votes at 45.5. The second project response

relates with the first as well as the first two town hall meeting responses, that being more infrastructure improvements in the

northwest portion of the County. The third response address the concerns in the rural areas and regulations set upon them,

with 15.5% of the votes.

Table 43: Future Projects of Washington County, Immanuel Lutheran School

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Immanuel Lutheran School

Herman Town Hall Meeting, March 21, 2001 (Herman Legion Hall)

The fourth town hall meeting was held at the Herman Legion Hall. The attendance was much like the first three meetings

with approximately 25 in attendance with a couple County Supervisors.

“What are the negative aspects or weaknesses facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The top voted negative response by the group was phone service in the area, with 19.1% of the total votes. This was followed

by property tax valuations, taking 13.8% of the total votes. Rounding out the top three was the permitting process as seen by

the group, receiving 12.8% of the votes. The second voted negative response, property tax valuations, agreed with other town

hall meetings and this may be trend throughout the County.

Table 44: Negative Aspects of Washington County, Herman

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Herman Legion Hall

“What are the positives or strengths facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The top ranked response to this question was electric utility service/cost, with approximately a third of the votes at 28.6%.

The second highest ranked response, of the small farm (family farm), took 11.7% percent of the votes. Following the second

highest response was tie between road maintenance and 911 services (fire and rescue) both with 10.4% of the total votes.

Table 45: Positive Aspects of Washington County, Herman

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Herman Legion Hall

“What are the issues relating to the future development of Washington County during the planning period?”

The number one issue discussed among the group was protecting agriculture with 25.6% of the total vote. This was followed

by the second highest ranked issue of taxing structure at 22.0% of the vote. The third highest ranked issue was resolving the

farm/acreage conflict taking 11.0% of the total votes.

Table 46: Issues of Washington County, Herman

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Herman Legion Hall

“What are projects that should be completed for Washington County during the planning period?”

The two top ranked projects with the group was not allowing de-regulation of utility companies in the County and increasing

the commercial tax base, both with 21.4% of the total votes. The third highest ranked future project was expansion of the

rural water service with 15.5% of the total votes. Flood control followed as the fourth highest ranked project at 14.3% percent

of the total votes.

Table 47: Future Projects of Washington County, Herman

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Herman Legion Hall

Arlington Town Hall Meeting, March 22, 2001

The fifth and final town hall meeting for Washington County took place at the community room in Arlington. The attendance

was much the same as the previous four meetings with about 20 in attendance and as well as a couple of County Supervisors.

“What are the negative aspects or weaknesses facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The top ranked response to this question was minimum lot size taking a little less than a third of the total votes at 30.4%. The

second highest response was airport expansion with 20.3% of the total votes. This was followed by water quality and

quantity, at 10.1% of the total votes.

Table 48: Negative Aspects of Washington County, Arlington

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Arlington Community Room

“What are the positives or strengths facing Washington County during the planning period?”

The first and second ranked positives were a tie between the location of the County and prime agricultural land, both taking

14.8% of the total votes. The third and fourth highest-ranking responses were also a tie between the transportation network in

the County and the agricultural base, both with 11.1% of the total votes.

Table 49: Positive Aspects of Washington County, Arlington

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Arlington Community Room

“What are the issues relating to the future development of Washington County during the planning period?”

The group felt the number one issue in the County was the airport expansion, which took 19.7% of the total votes. The next

three issues - population growth in the County, maintaining livestock with increased growth, and replacement vs.

productivity of agricultural land all tied with 14.8% of the total votes.

Table 50: Issues of Washington County, Arlington

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Arlington Community Room

“What are projects that should be completed for Washington County during the planning period?”

The group felt the number one future project for the County would be to reroute traffic around Blair, taking 23.8% of the total

votes. The second highest ranking project was increasing the communication between urban and rural, with 19.0% of the

total votes. Rounding out the top three was the fairgrounds with 15.9% of the total votes.

Table 51: Future Projects of Washington County, Arlington

Source: Town Hall Meeting, Arlington Community Room

Overall Town Hall Meetings, Washington County

This last section grouped all five town hall meetings responses into each specified area to gain an understanding of what the

overall thinking is in the County. Responses that were worded differently but were similar have been combined into one

response and ranked accordingly.

Negatives

The number one negative response overall was that of valuations of properties in the county with differences depending upon

locations or growth pressure from Omaha causing increases. This response took approximately 15.4% of the total votes. The

second most popular response was minimum lot size, taking 7.0% of the total amount of votes. The third response was the

differences in the County are not reflected in the zoning regulations also taking 7.0% of the total amount of votes.

Table 52: Negative Aspects of Washington County, Overall

Identified Negative Aspects of Washington County	% of Total Points
Valuation of Property Due to Growth from Omaha/ Valuation Differences/ Real Estate Assessments	15.4%
Lot Sizes/ Minimum Lot Size	7.0%
Differences in County are not Reflected in Regulations	7.0%
Infrastructure Problems due to Growth	5.9%
Rural Water/ Water Quantity and Quality	4.4%
Road Maintenance/ Roads	4.1%
Acreage Owner/ Farmer Conflict	4.1%
Blair Airport Expansion/ Airport Location	4.1%
Protection of Agricultural Land	3.7%
Changes in Minimum Lot Size over time	3.5%
Phone Service	3.3%
Lot Splits	3.1%
Boyer Chute (Federal land in County)	3.0%
Loss of Farm Land	2.2%
Subdivisions in Prime Agricultural Land	2.2%
No Cooperation Between County and Communities	2.2%
Permitting Process	2.2%
Complaints by New Residents	1.9%
Cargill Odors	1.7%
Future Traffic Impacts/ Increase Traffic	1.7%
Tax Base (Schools) in Fort Calhoun is Residential Only	1.5%
Animals (Dogs)	1.5%
Commercial Development	1.5%
Lack of Respect (Peoples Property)	1.3%
Lack of Future Plan/ Outdated Plan	1.3%
Supervisor Districts	1.3%
Fire and Police Protection	0.9%
Internet Service	0.9%
Rural Bridges	0.9%
Trash along Roadside	0.7%
County Engineering Services	0.7%
Cultural Differences between South Washington County and the Rest of the County	0.6%
Cities Buying Property & Affecting Properties	0.6%
Omaha Growth	0.6%
Unsure of What Zoning is in Certain Areas of the County	0.6%
Location	0.4%
ETJ’s & Residence Representation	0.4%
Courtesy of New Residents	0.4%
Lack of Development Review	0.4%
Lack of Review: Infrastructure	0.2%
Fish and Wildlife-Land Ownership	0.2%
Location to Omaha	0.2%
Cost of Living Relation to Services	0.2%
Agricultural Wages	0.2%
Fort Calhoun-Storm Runoff Disposal	0.0%
Junk vs. Antiques vs. Farm Equipment	0.0%
Traffic Congestion at Cargill	0.0%
Extraterritorial Jurisdictions	0.0%
Public Services	0.0%
Lack of Notification	0.0%
Loss in Productivity in School System	0.0%
Drug Activity in Rural Areas	0.0%
No Natural Gas Service	0.0%
Total	100.0%

Source: Town Hall Meetings, Recap

Positives

The top positive responses overall for the County were the school system, rural atmosphere, and electric utility service/cost;

all taking 5.8% of the total votes. The second rated response was the farming in Washington County. Rounding out the top

three responses was the fire and rescue services at 5.2% of the total votes.

Table 53: Positive Aspects of Washington County, Overall

Identified Positive Aspects of Washington County	% of Total Points
School System	5.8%
Rural Atmosphere	5.8%
Electric Utility Service/ Cost	5.8%
Farming	5.5%
Fire and Rescue Departments	5.2%
Prime Farmland	4.5%
Close to Market Centers (Agricultural )	4.2%
Business Base is Committed to County/Economic Base	3.4%
Basically Helpful People/High Quality of People	3.4%
Quality of Life	3.4%
Beautiful County	2.6%
Rural Water Districts	2.6%

Prepared For

Washington County, Nebraska

Comprehensive Development Plan 2005 Project Participants

Board of Supervisors

Harlo Wilcox, Chair

Kent Wilcox, Vice Chair

Ernest Abariotes

Jeff Quist

Daryl Miller

Kent Mortensen

Wesley Petznick

County Personnel

Planning Commission Board of Adjustment

Introduction

Introduction

Location

Topography and Climate

History of Washington County

The Purpose of Comprehensive Planning

The Comprehensive Planning Process

Comprehensive Plan Components

Governmental and Jurisdictional Organization

County Assessment:

Conditions and Trend Analysis

Demographic Profile

Population Trends and Analysis

Table 1: Population Trends, Washington County & Communities, 1980 to 2003

Table 2: Population Trends, Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1980 -2003

Migration Analysis

Table 3: Migration Analysis, Washington County, 1960 to 2000

Age Structure Analysis

Table 4: Age-Sex Characteristics, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Population Projections

Trend Line Analysis

Cohort Survival Analysis

Summary of Population Projections

Figure 1: Population Trends and Projections, Washington County, 1900 to 2030

Table 5: Population Projection Series, Washington County and Communities, 2000 to 2030

Housing Profile

Age of Existing Housing Stock

Figure 2: Age of Existing Housing Stock, Washington County, 2000

Table 6: Community Housing Trends, Washington County, 1990 and 2000

Table 7: Tenure of Household by Selected Characteristics, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Table 8: Composition of Household by Family Type, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Table 9: Selected Housing Conditions, Washington County, 1990 and 2000

Economic and Employment Profile

Income Statistics

Table 10: Household Income, Washington County, 1990 and 2000

Table 11: Household Income by Age (55 Years & Older) Washington County, 2000

Table 12: Housing Costs As A Percentage of Household Income, Washington County, 2000

Table 13: Age 65 and Older Costs As Percentage of Income, Washington County, 2000

Income Source and Public Assistance

Table 14: Income by Source, State, MSA, and Washington County, 1970 to 2000

Table 15: Transfer Payments, State, MSA, and Washington County, 1970 to 2000

Industry Employment

Table 16: Employment by Industry, State, MSA, and Washington County, 1970 - 2000

Commuter Trends

Table 17: Commuter Population Trends, Residents of Washington County, 1970 to 2000

Table 19: Travel Time to Work, Washington County, 1990 to 2000

Regional Basic/Non-Basic Analysis

Table 20: Basic/Non-Basic Employment by Occupation, Washington County, 2000

Table 21: Regional and State Labor Force Comparisons, Washington County, 2000

Table 22: Basic/Non-Basic Employment by Industry, Washington County, 2000

Agricultural Profile

Agriculture Trends

Table 23: Agricultural Profile, Washington County, 1987-2002

Table 24: Number of Farms by Size, Washington County, 1987-2002

Table 25: Number of Farms & Livestock by Type, Washington County, 1987 to 2002

Table 26: Number of Farms & Crops by Type, Washington County, 1987 to 2002

County Facilities

Facilities Plan

Recreational Facilities

Federal Recreational Facilities

State Recreational Facilities

Local Recreational Facilities

Other Recreational Activities

Golf Courses

Future Recreation development in Washington County

Educational Facilities

Public Schools