KILLEEN GROWTH STUDY

KILLEEN GROWTH STUDY

KILLEEN, TEXAS

Prepared by:

RKG Associates, Inc. Economic, Planning and Real Estate Consultants

300 Montgomery Street

Suite 203

Alexandria, VA 22314

Tel: (703) 739-0965

www.rkgassociates.com

October 2019

Killeen Growth Study Killeen, Texas

October 2019

Prepared for:

One Santa Fe Plaza

Killeen, TX 76541

Contact: Jennifer Hetzel [email protected] Tel: 254.526.9551 killeenchamber.com

Special Thanks:

Prepared by:

Economic, Planning and Real Estate Consultants

300 Montgomery Street, Suite 203

Alexandria, VA 22314

Tel: 703.739.0965

rkgassociates.com

http://www.rkgassociates.com/

www.killeenchamber.com

i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................ 1-1 B. Overview of Growth Study ..................................................................................................... 1-1 C. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1-2

Chapter 2 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND ANALYSIS A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 B. Regional Demographic Trends and Existing Conditions ................................................... 2-1 C. City of Killeen, Surrounding Communities and KISD Submarket Trends (2010-2s) .. 2-13 D. Demographic Characteristics and Trends .......................................................................... 2-14 E. Implications ............................................................................................................................. 2-36

Chapter 3 REGIONAL HOUSING ANALYSIS A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 B. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 C. Regional and Submarket Housing Characteristics ............................................................. 3-4 D. Implications .............................................................................................................................. 3-15

Chapter 4 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ANALYSIS A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 B. Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 C. Regional Development Trends ............................................................................................... 4-1 D. Greater Killeen/KISD Urban Submarket Development Activity (2007-2017........... 4-10 E. Implications ............................................................................................................................. 4-12 F. Appendix Tables and Maps - Development Trends ...................................................... 4-14 Chapter 5 KISD GROWTH PROJECTIONS A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 B. Methodology and Date Sources ........................................................................................... 5-1 C. Population Growth Projections by Submarket ................................................................... 5-1 D. KISD Employment Growth Projections by Submarket ....................................................... 5-6 E. Implications ................................................................................................................................. 5-8 Chapter 6 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 B. Methodology and Data Sources ............................................................................................ 6-1 C. Fiscal Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 6-1 D. Implications .............................................................................................................................. 6-24

Killeen Growth Study City of Killeen, TX October 2019

Page 1-1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The Killeen Growth Study was commissioned by the Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with the Killeen Independent School District and the City of Killeen. This study was originally conceived in order to understand demographic and growth characteristics of the region in order to better plan for the education and municipal service needs of the community in the face of rapid population growth. Since the year 2000, the soldier population at Fort Hood has ranged from 41,250 in 2000 to a peak of 53,831 in 2008 and then dropped to 37,053 in 2019 – a decline of 16,778 Soldiers since 2008 and 3,293 since 2000. During the same period of time, overall total population for the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes Bell, Coryell, and Lampasas Counties, increased substantially but at varying rates. There is some evidence that this runs counter to historical trends. Historically, enrollments in the Killeen Independent School District have been closely proportionate to the number of active duty Soldiers assigned to Fort Hood. In recent years, the number of enrollments in KISD has continued to increase while the number of active duty Soldiers has decreased. This means that the recent population growth is not directly attributable to the military population as shown in the data over this period. Communities geographically closest to Fort Hood traditionally experienced growth rates comparable to the military population of Fort Hood. However, the local communities recently have grown while the military population has dropped. The Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce (GKCC) sought the services of a professional economic consultant to facilitate the development of a Growth Analysis that will guide the GKCC and partner entities. GKCC represents a collaboration between the Chamber and Killeen Economic Development Corporation, City of Killeen, Killeen Independent School District, Heart of Texas Defense Alliance and Workforce Solutions of Central Texas. These organizations were focused on obtaining a better understanding of these regional dynamics in order to assist local leaders with short-and-long-term strategic planning and policy implementation.

B. OVERVIEW OF GROWTH STUDY This report provides a detailed understanding of the demographic and market factors that have shaped growth in the City of Killeen and the Killeen Independent School District over the past several decades. The chapters are arranged in the following order:

Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Demographic Trends Analysis Chapter 3 – Regional Housing Analysis Chapter 4 – Development Trend Analysis Chapter 5 – KISD Growth Projections Chapter 6 – Fiscal Impact Analysis


Page 1-2

C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Demographic Trends Analysis a) Regional Overview RKG analyzed the demographic trends and conditions for both the region and the Greater/KISD study area. This analysis focused mainly on the population trends, indicators, and conditions for the 50-year period between 1970-2017. To complete the population trend analysis, RKG used data obtained from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc and ESRI. Between 2000-2010, all three counties in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA experienced population growth. Additionally, since 2010, the age group with the largest growth rate in all three counties was seniors (65+ years old). This is part of a national trend of the country getting older as “Baby Boomers” hit retirement age. Also, due to immigrants migrating to the region since 1970, the MSA has experienced a 12% annual increase in the Hispanic population. Part of the region population increase can be attributed to a disproportionate rate of natural births over deaths, which far outpace the state average. In fact, natural population change resulted in nearly 30,000 net new population in Bell County between 2011 and 2017. This is a significant driver of population change, which is evidence in the area’s younger population base and increased enrollment trends in the KISD school district. In addition, movements of military personnel and their families from other locations of the country, and their desire to remain in the region after separating or retiring from the military has resulted in population increases. Finally, over the past 15 years, the rising cost of living in California has made Texas a popular destination for Californians looking for both housing affordability and employment. Based on migration data, it can be shown that the state continues to attract large numbers of people from higher cost regions of the Country. With the US entering conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s, Bell County experienced population growth in the 0-14 age group, young adult population (19-34 years old), and older adult population (45-54-year-old). The older adult population could be attributable to family members of soldiers moving to the region to support military spouses and children left behind. Even though annual growth has slowed down slightly as Fort Hood’s solider levels have decreased, Bell County has remained an attractive place for both soldiers and young adults that want to establish their family. Coryell County experienced much of its population growth during the 1970-1980 period. Similar to Bell County, Coryell experienced population growth during the early 2000s. Since then, it has experienced a decline in school age population. This decline is likely due to the families migrating to Killeen and other communities within the region. Lampasas County is the smallest county by population and has the largest percentage of seniors. The county has struggled to attract young families, which can be reflected in the fact that it has the oldest workforce of any county in the region. Additionally, Lampasas County has a large concentration of senior care facilities. The City of Killeen has experienced the most population, growth compared to the other surrounding communities in the region. Killeen experienced rapid population growth between 2000-2010, which slowed slightly after 2010 but still outpaced any other surrounding community. While Killeen experienced changes in its population it also experienced changes in the age of its residents. During the study period (2000-2017), the senior population grew enough for the median age of the population to rise. However, Killeen still has the youngest population within the region. Killeen was able to maintain a comparable young population due to its growth in the 0-14 and 34-44 age cohorts. Growth in these age cohorts shows the large concentration of young families and


Page 1-3

school aged children. This is likely due to Killeen’s affordable and diverse housing market compared to other communities. Temple is the second largest population center in the region and the most diverse economically. The population of Temple is the oldest within the region, primarily made up of the 45-64 and 65+ age cohorts. Because of this aging population, Temple is home to many 1-person households and senior care facilities. Temple’s economy is built upon a high concentration of both least-educated and most-educated persons. This can be reflected in Temple’s housing market, which has a mix of both high-value and low-value homes. Fort Hood, unsurprisingly, is most directly affected by changes at the post. Fort Hood is home to both the youngest population and highest concentration of person in group quarters within the region. This community’s education levels reflect a military installation with a large percentage of residents that have achieved mid-level educational attainment. b) KISD As the region has grown in population, the Roy J Smith and Patterson-Liberty Hill submarkets have been the recipients of most of this new population. The growth in these two submarkets reflects the demand from families seeking the best educational offerings. Also, these areas are attractive to recently separated and retired military, who want to stay in the region and are looking for places to raise their families. This is directly reflected in the large increases in school-aged children within these two submarkets. Both submarkets now share an educated workforce, as compared to other parts of the study area. Because of the pace of growth in these two submarkets, the demand for municipal services, commercial offerings and basic infrastructure has put fiscal stress on City, KISD and County. Previously developed submarkets like Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier experienced slight population growth during the study period. Both areas are aging at a slower pace, due to their lack of senior living options. These submarkets also have low educational attainment levels, which also reflects in lower median household incomes. The other submarkets - Harker Heights, Nolanville, and Killeen/Fort Hood Regional Airport – exhibit their own unique characteristics. Harker Heights has a higher than average median household income, which matches its higher valued housing market and the population’s higher education attainment levels. Nolanville did not experience growth in children or young adult cohorts because of the lack of job opportunities and affordable housing. The Killeen/Fort Hood Regional Airport submarket has a higher than average household income levels, while having below average educational attainment levels. In the future, this submarket is positioned to grow rapidly. 2. Regional Housing Analysis RKG analyzed the residential market for both the region and the Greater/KISD study area. This analysis focused mainly on the market trends, indicators, and conditions for both for-sale and for-rent housing markets for the 10-year period between 2007-2017. RKG utilized Killeen Independent School District (KISD), U.S. Census, and the 2011-2015 American Community Survey data for this analysis. The City of Killeen and Temple have the largest inventory of housing within the region. The City of Killeen’s population has grown rapidly, this has allowed for significant new housing to be built. This population growth is reflected by the fact that 33% of all housing was built in the city between the years of 2000 and 2009. Since Fort Hood’s most recent expansion phase did not include the construction of housing units, areas outside the installation took on much of the housing demand. Compared to Temple, Killeen has a larger concentration of lower value housing units for ownership and rent. Furthermore, residents of Killeen more often carry mortgage debt and spend over 50%


Page 1-4

of their household income on housing. This often indicates that residents are experiencing housing affordability issues, despite its comparatively affordable housing market. All submarkets within the Greater Killeen Study Area have a housing stock that is a majority single family detached homes. Housing demand is concentrated within the submarkets that make up the City of Killeen (submarkets 1-4) due to the services offered in the city and their proximity to Fort Hood. These submarkets are more diverse both in type and price compared to the rest of the study area. The population growth that occurred between 2000 and 2009 in the submarkets of Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith, allowed for much of the new housing units to be developed there. Most of Patterson-Liberty Hill’s resident population moved into their homes after 2000, whereas Roy J Smith, with its more diverse rent level and housing stock have a much larger percentage of long-term residents. Over the past two decades, the region has shifted from owner-occupied centric to renter-occupied. This has increased the level of moving activity within the study area. Of the 32,000-total renter-occupied units, approximately 80% of renters moved in 2010 or later. a) Owner Occupied Within the Greater Killeen Study Area’s owner-occupied housing market, 75% of homes are valued under $200,000. These houses are mainly concentrated in the Bellaire-Reeces Creek, Manor-Rancier, and Roy J Smith submarkets. Conversely, areas with large lots and suburban features like Patterson-Liberty Hill and Harker Heights submarkets have higher concentrations of homes values above $300,000. Harker Heights has been able to attract new high income-households by building large custom-built homes and rental units. Additionally, as seniors downsize, they have looked at this submarket to rent because of the vibrant long-established neighborhoods. Compared to the metro area, homeowners within the study area spend more of their household income on housing. This is most evident in submarkets like Roy J Smith, Manor-Rancier, and Nolanville, which have significant homeowners spending over 50% of their incomes on housing. In areas such as Bellaire-Reece Creek which have older houses and longer resident tenures, homeowners do not experience the same housing cost burden because they have likely paid off their mortgages. b) Renter-Occupied As the study area has grown over the past 20 years, it has experienced an increase in the amount of rental housing in all submarkets. Within the study area, 48% of units are renter occupied. This rental population is mostly concentrated in the Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier submarkets, which now account for 60% of multi-family unit inventory. This is consistent with the makeup of the population moving into these areas which are dominated by 1-person and 2-person households. Patterson-Liberty Hill, Roy J Smith, and Fort Hood have the most expensive rental markets, with gross rents near $1000 per month. This is likely due to the new multifamily developments happening in those submarkets. Bellaire-Reece Creek and Manor-Rancier with their older rental housing stock have the most affordable rental housing. These submarkets offer gross rents closer to $500 or below. 3. Development Trend Analysis RKG analyzed the residential and non-residential development activity for both the region and the Greater/KISD study area. This analysis focused mainly on the development trends for the 10-year period between 2007-2017. RKG utilized assessment records for each county analyzed in this study. a) Regional Trends- Residential Bell County’s residential market accounts for 72% of all land acreage within the county. The county’s housing mix is dominated by single family housing. Due to the population growth between 2007 and 2011, Bell County added 10,938 parcels or 20.3 Million SF of residential housing. Additionally,


Page 1-5

since 2011, the county has exceeded that growth with 18,669 new parcels and 35.9 million SF of residential housing. The 2007-2011 development phased produced larger square footages and higher square feet building value compared to the 2012-2017 phase for both single family and multi-family housing, which reflects a higher demand for less expensive housing. Copperas Cove is a low-density, rural community located in Coryell County. This community has not experienced the same population growth as other areas in the study area. Because of this, 85% of all single-family homes were built before 2007. The development that has occurred over the study period (2007-2017) has been focused on single family housing. These new are substantially larger and of higher value than those built previously in this community. This displays a demand for higher-end housing compared to previous development phases. As the City of Killeen has experienced robust population growth, its residential development market produced different types of housing choices. Between 2007 and 2011, developers invested heavily in the city’s single-family housing market. Because much of the population growth came from families with children, duplexes were not a housing type that developers focused on during this period. Additionally, the city did see a large buildup of multi-family inventory. Since 2011, 20% of the city’s multi-family properties were built, as more non-family households came to the region. b) KISD Trends- Residential Due to the significant population growth in both Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith, these submarkets have been the most active from a residential development perspective. Patterson-Liberty Hill added 4,216 residential properties between 2007 and 2017. Roy J Smith saw growth in the multi-family segment of the residential market. Additionally, both submarkets saw demand for higher-end housing increase, evident by the larger average residential unit square footage. The submarkets of Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier have not experienced the same residential development due to their lack of developable land. However, because of the proximity to the Fort Hood military post, Bellaire-Reeces Creek has experienced modest residential development of both single family and multi-family buildings. The Fort Hood submarket has only seen residential growth in mobile homes during the study period, which coincides with the lack of population of growth. Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport submarket has experienced strong demand for large single-family house since 2007, as homeowners have used this submarket to build high-value housing. c) Non-Residential Within Bell County, only 3% of all non-residential land is currently occupied by commercial properties. Most of the non-residential land within the county is vacant or farmland. In terms of development, the non-residential market has not kept pace with the residential market during the study period. With the large increase in population and a significant amount of vacant land, non-residential developments should be viable to meet commercial and public service needs. The City of Killeen non-residential market has also not kept pace with its residential market. The City of Killeen’s non-residential market added an additional 3 million SF of commercial space during the study period. The city also has a large amount of vacant commercial lots, that could be assembled to eventually meet the commercial needs of a now larger population. Within the Greater Killeen/KISD study area, most of the non-residential properties are in older submarkets like Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier. These two submarkets attract workers, shoppers, and patrons from other surrounding submarkets because of their concentrated downtowns. Though Bellaire-Reeces Creek has experienced population growth, it has not experienced commiserate growth in non-residential development. Because of that many, needs for both commercial and public services within this submarket are not being met. As the residential population


Page 1-6

has grown in the Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith submarkets, new non-residential properties have begun to be developed to support these new population centers. As the population is expected to continue to grow in these two submarkets, government officials and developers should focus their attention on making sure the commercial and public services needs are being addressed. 4. KISD Growth Projections This section details the results of a growth analysis that projected population and employment growth from 2018 to 2035. RKG Associate focused their analysis on the Killeen Independent School District (KISD) study area. a) Population The major shift in the region over the past 20 years is the lessening of dependence on the Fort Hood soldier population. Fort Hood’s population peaked in 2008, yet the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood Metropolitan area (MSA) continued to grow its population at 1.9% annually. Additionally, as the military population has deceased, student enrollment within the KISD increased during this time period. A majority of this growth will occur in the Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith submarkets. This will be a continuation of the population growth that both submarkets have experienced over recent years. Over the next 17 years, Bell County is projected to have an annual population growth rate of 1.4%. Based on these projections, the population of people between the ages of 20-54 is expected to grow by 54% over this period. This is critical to the region, as these ages contribute significantly to both the labor force and family-forming households. Additionally, like the national trend, the county is expected to see significant annual increases in the number of people aged 75 and older. b) Employment RKG projected the employment makeup of the KISD study area from 2018 to 2035 by using the 2018 employment figures for each submarket. Total employment is projected to increase at 0.9% annually, which is slower than the projected population growth. This new employment will cluster in the fast-growing and traditional employment hubs that have the infrastructure and population needed to support them. Since 2010, 80% of commercial development within the KISD happened in the City of Killeen. Traditional employment hubs such as Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier will continue to be attractive to employers. Additionally, areas south of I-14 like Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith, which have experienced significant population and employment growth this decade will also continue to be attractive to employers and commercial developers. 5. Fiscal Impact Analysis This chapter analyzes the fiscal impact of the growth projections detailed in Chapter 5-KISD Growth Projections. The purpose of this chapter is to give insight to both the City of Killeen and KISD on how the expected growth will impact their financial operations over the next 17 years. a) General Government Fiscal Impact As the City of Killeen has grown, its taxable property value experienced a 58% increase. However, the value of tax-exempt properties that are located within the city increased by 214%. In real terms, the City has lost nearly $5.9 million in ad valorem tax revenues in the current fiscal year. Within the City, disabled veterans take up the largest share of tax-exempt property value. This number has continued to increase even as Fort Hood’s force strength has declined. This reflects the rapid increase in veterans retiring within the region. The City of Killeen has experienced the most substantial growth in veteran population regionally. Military veterans and retirees from other parts


Page 1-7

of the country are moving to this region because of the quality of life, affordable housing, and military benefits. As the region is expected to grow in population over the next 17 years, it will need to build new residential and non-residential properties to accommodate that growth. Based on a model created by RKG, Bell County is expected to add an additional $1.7 billion (2018 dollars) in new residential assessed value during this study period. The largest portion of this growth will occur during the 2020-2025 period. Fast-growing submarkets such as Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith will be the areas that have the largest residential property value growth. On the non-residential side, with estimated job growth of less than 1% each year, the KISD study area is projected to add 3.6 million SF of new building space to accommodate over 7,000 new jobs. Due to the new development within both the KISD and the City of Killeen, both entities are expected to annually average an additional $12 million and $5 million respectively, in new property tax revenues. The City of Killeen, over the 17-year projection period, with the new retail and hotel offerings, would collect $28.4 million in new sales tax and $5.8 million in hotel occupancy tax. This money will help offset the new expenditures needed to accommodate this growth. RKG created a model to investigate the impact of municipal expenditures based on the expected growth in each submarket. Based on growth projections, an additional $4.5 million dollars will be spent in 2035 on municipal expenditures. As Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J. Smith are expected to account for much of the growth within the city, the model allocates most of the future expenditure changes to those submarkets. b) KISD RKG obtained detailed school attendance data for all schools within the KISD to project future school facility needs for each submarket. Overall, from 2019 to 2035, the KISD is projected to add 25% more students based on the 2019 enrollment figures. A majority of these new students will be enrolled in elementary schools. Most of this growth will occur in the submarkets of Patterson-Liberty Hill, Roy J Smith, and Harker Heights. It will be necessary for KISD to monitor these expected growth submarkets closely to have time to plan for the services needed. Taking into account the already planned new school construction and consolidations, RKG projects the following building additions to the school district:

• Year 2028 – New elementary school in the fast-growing Patterson-Liberty Hill submarket

• Year 2030 – New middle schools for Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J. Smith submarkets

• Year 2031- Robert J. Shoemaker High School is projected to exceed its capacity. New High school (No. 5) would pool students from Robert Shoemaker, Ellison, and Harker Heights attendance zones.

• Year 2033- Ellison High School is projected to exceed its capacity. New High School (No. 6) is projected to be needed to accommodate this growth.

These projected new schools based on recent school construction in Texas could exceed $250 million in today’s dollars. Additionally, based on these projections, KISD will have to hire roughly 775 new teachers (or 45 new staff per year) to accommodate this growth. Finally, KISD receives up to $50 million in Federal Impact Aid because of its high population of federally-connected students. As the number of federally-connected students has dropped over the past 10 years, KISD is expected to go below the federal threshold to receive this aid. Going below the federal threshold could be detrimental to KISD as they could lose up to $20 million from its operating budget.


Page 2-1

2 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS ANALYSIS

A. INTRODUCTION The City of Killeen is in Bell County, which is the principal city in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Additionally, Killeen is directly adjacent to Fort Hood, one of the country’s largest military installations. The city and region’s economy are largely dependent on the activities of Fort Hood, with its 36,000 military personnel and their dependents. Over the past seventeen years, Fort Hood’s population has experienced significant fluctuations depending on the nation’s war-fighting posture around the world. During the same period, the total population of the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA, which includes Bell, Coryell, and Lampasas Counties, increased substantially but at varying rates of growth. However, there is some evidence that this runs counter to historical trends. Historically, regional population changes have mirrored changes at Fort Hood, however, since 2010 there has been a divergence from historical trends. Primarily, the region’s population has continued to rise while Fort Hood’s population behind the fence has declined. Likewise, student enrollment in the Killeen Independent School District (KISD) has also risen sharply outside the installation while student enrollment has declined on post. The Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce (GKCC) retained RKG Associates, Inc. to provide a regional demographic and economic analysis to better understand the drivers of population, school enrollment and development growth in the region; particularly in the City of Killeen and the KISD region. It is hoped that the results of this analysis will help local leaders and elected officials plan for this new and emerging future. In order to complete this analysis, RKG examined a variety of housing/development activity, economic and demographic factors shaping the surrounding Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA, the City of Killeen and the KISD study area. To identify local population and development trends, RKG broke the KISD service area into eight separate submarkets. Four of the eight submarkets comprise the City of Killeen’s municipal boundaries. The other four submarkets comprise the smaller towns and suburban areas that are located within the Killeen Independent School District (KISD) boundaries. The results of this analysis are essential for understanding the future growth opportunities that exist in the KISD area.

B. REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS & EXISTING CONDITIONS

1. Methodology and Data Sources This section quantifies and compares the counties within the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA that compete against the City of Killeen for new residents and jobs. RKG analyzed nearly 50-year population trends (1970-2017) for the following counties that comprise the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA, which include: (1) Bell County, (2) Coryell County, (3) Lampasas County (Map 2-1). To complete the population trend analysis the consultant used data obtained from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., a national data analytics firm.


Page 2-2

Ma

p 2

-1


Page 2-3

2. Population Trends Comparison (1970-2017) The presence of Fort Hood contributes to the population growth patterns throughout the central Texas region. Since 1970, all three counties have experienced exceptional population growth over several decades (Figure 2-1). Coryell County had the fastest population growth (6.0% annually) during the 1970-1980 period, but growth has slowed substantially since 1980, as population growth has dropped to less than 0.05% annually. Although Lampasas County has a much smaller population, the growth has been steady since 1970, but not as fast as the other counties in the competitive region. Population growth in Bell County had averaged over 2% annually until 2010. Annual growth rates have dropped to 1.4% between 2010 and 2017. During the historical study period, Bell County’s growth outpaced the other two counties, indicating that Bell County has been more attractive to residents than other areas within the region. According to Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Bell County has a much larger population (344,450) than Coryell County (75,465) and Lampasas County (20,987), representing 78% of the total population of the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA (Table 2-

1).

Figure 2-1

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2018

Table 2-1

Regional Population Trends

Killeen-Temple, TX MSA (1970-2017)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017

Bell County 125,097 158,966 191,654 239,890 312,985 344,450

Coryell County 35,624 56,906 64,341 75,199 75,589 75,465

Lampasas County 9,433 11,988 13,520 17,900 19,756 20,987

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA 170,154 227,860 269,515 332,989 408,330 440,902

Percent Distribution of MSA

Bell County 73.5% 69.8% 71.1% 72.0% 76.7% 78.1%

Coryell County 20.9% 25.0% 23.9% 22.6% 18.5% 17.1%

Lampasas County 5.5% 5.3% 5.0% 5.4% 4.8% 4.8%

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018


Page 2-4

3. Age Distribution Trends (1970-2017) In most recent years, Bell County has continued to attract family-forming households throughout the 40-plus year study period. The data indicate that Bell County has the youngest population in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA. As shown in Table 2-2, persons below the age of 6 years account for 10% of the total population with an additional 18% comprised of school-aged children (6-18 years). This suggests that Bell County appeals to younger family-forming households more than the other two counties. Typically, the adults in these families have early career jobs, so their household income levels can be modest to low. As a result, there is a growing need for education service, child-friendly and affordable residential neighborhoods in Bell County. In addition, Fort Hood’s population is primarily comprised of young single soldiers and couples under the age of thirty with young families. The age distribution among the three counties highlights notable changes in their age cohorts since 1970 (Table 2-3). Bell County experienced the most substantial growth of young population, especially the 0-11 years cohort. The peak growth period was 2000-2010, during which this cohort was growing 2.6%-3.5% annually. This period also corresponds with the peak troop levels at Fort Hood, when the military population increased to over 56,000 personnel. This decade also saw rapid growth in two other age cohorts – young adults (19-34 years) and older adults (45-54 years). These changes reflect the Army’s personnel policies as many older and married soldiers (and their spouses/families) were enticed to re-enter the military as the U.S. ramped up its fighting force in support of military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan following the events of 9/11. Furthermore, as many of these soldiers were deployed to South Asia in mid-2000s, anecdotal evidence suggests that many parents or family members moved into the region in support of the military spouses and children left behind. Growth in the 45-54 age cohort (11,809 persons, or 4.6% annually) would seem to support that theory. After 2010, as the Army started to reduce personnel levels at Fort Hood, population growth slowed down across multiple age cohorts, with the number of people in the 19-24 years and 45-54 years cohorts declining. Coryell County’s population growth peaked at 1970-1980, mainly driven by the growth of two age cohorts: early career singles and young families (25-44 years), which grew at 9.5%-14.8% annually, and school-aged children (0-11 years), which grew at 6.8%-10.9% annually. Since 1980, Coryell has been losing young adults (19-24 years) and the growth of school-aged children also slowed considerably. Unlike Bell County, Coryell County experienced a dramatic decline of young, family-forming population (19-44 years) during 2000-2010, largely due to military deployments. However, the 45-54 age cohort grew, for the same reason as in Bell County. After 2010, Coryell County’s school-age population declined substantially, but it appears that many family forming households have begun migrating to the City of Killeen and other surrounding communities in the MSA since then.

Table 2-2 Population Age Distribution Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (2017)

Bell

County

Coryell

County

Lampasas

County

Killeen-Temple,

TX MSA

0-4 years 8.8% 7.3% 5.9% 8.4%

5 years 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.5%

6-11 years 9.2% 8.0% 7.5% 8.9%

12-14 years 4.2% 3.6% 3.9% 4.1%

15-18 years 5.4% 4.5% 5.6% 5.3%

19-24 years 9.9% 11.3% 6.4% 10.0%

25-34 years 17.0% 19.3% 10.8% 17.1%

35-44 years 12.9% 14.6% 11.8% 13.1%

45-54 years 10.8% 11.4% 13.6% 11.0%

55-64 years 9.6% 8.8% 14.1% 9.6%

65+ years 10.6% 9.8% 19.4% 10.9%

Total Population 344,450 75,465 20,987 440,902



Page 2-5

Lampasas County’s population growth peaked during the1990-2000 period, during which both established families (35-54) and school-aged persons (6-18 years) grew rapidly. Since 2000, most age cohorts except for the 55+ cohorts experienced population decline, suggesting that Lampasas County has been having difficulties attracting young families and a workforce-age population.

Table 2-3 Population Age Distribution Changes Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (1970 - 2017)

Pop Chg Annual % Pop Chg Annual % Pop Chg Annual % Pop Chg Annual % Pop Chg Annual %

Bell County

0-4 years 4,440 4.0% 3,116 2.0% 2,506 1.3% 7,451 3.5% 1,614 0.8%

5 years 492 2.4% 837 3.3% 592 1.7% 1,214 3.1% 242 0.7%

6-11 years 1,153 0.9% 4,054 2.8% 4,539 2.5% 5,892 2.6% 3,050 1.5%

12-14 years (35) -0.1% 1,464 2.3% 3,120 4.0% 2,177 2.0% 1,498 1.6%

15-18 years 3,009 3.6% (637) -0.6% 3,324 3.1% 3,431 2.4% 1,258 1.0%

19-24 years (197) -0.1% (3,829) -1.3% 2,610 1.0% 6,687 2.4% (951) -0.4%

25-34 years 12,305 8.0% 9,367 3.4% 3,631 1.0% 12,957 3.2% 4,819 1.3%

35-44 years 3,795 3.2% 9,753 6.2% 10,213 4.0% 3,557 1.0% 5,225 1.9%

45-54 years 2,181 2.1% 2,835 2.3% 10,336 6.7% 11,809 4.6% (376) -0.1%

55-64 years 2,953 3.7% 1,446 1.3% 3,211 2.6% 11,685 7.5% 5,754 3.0%

65+ years 3,773 4.3% 4,282 3.4% 4,154 2.5% 6,235 3.0% 9,332 4.9%

Coryell County

0-4 years 2,554 10.9% 649 1.3% 370 0.7% 663 1.1% (1,104) -2.4%

5 years 389 7.9% 170 1.9% 127 1.2% 80 0.7% (211) -2.4%

6-11 years 2,066 6.8% 789 1.5% 885 1.5% 291 0.4% (1,002) -2.0%

12-14 years 287 1.5% 303 1.4% 659 2.7% (36) -0.1% (403) -1.9%

15-18 years 1,180 3.4% (1,006) -2.1% 377 1.0% (233) -0.6% (455) -1.7%

19-24 years 4,261 3.9% (2,271) -1.5% (852) -0.7% (3,513) -2.9% (106) -0.2%

25-34 years 5,881 14.8% 4,400 4.5% 576 0.4% (3,995) -2.7% 3,738 4.9%

35-44 years 2,728 9.5% 2,281 4.1% 4,484 5.7% (1,589) -1.3% 246 0.3%

45-54 years 1,031 4.9% 991 3.2% 2,437 5.9% 2,372 3.6% (293) -0.5%

55-64 years 239 1.3% 714 3.3% 1,063 3.7% 1,867 4.8% 811 2.0%

65+ years 666 2.7% 415 1.3% 732 2.1% 1,423 3.3% 1,715 4.3%

Lampasas County

0-4 years 187 2.7% 177 2.0% 154 1.5% 21 0.2% (1) 0.0%

5 years 23 1.6% 37 2.2% 42 2.0% 14 0.6% (14) -0.8%

6-11 years 257 2.9% 112 1.0% 347 2.8% (44) -0.3% 2 0.0%

12-14 years 49 0.9% 50 0.9% 351 5.7% (81) -0.8% (62) -1.0%

15-18 years 189 2.5% (122) -1.3% 396 4.8% (20) -0.2% (33) -0.4%

19-24 years (18) -0.2% (2) 0.0% 163 1.8% 126 1.2% 131 1.6%

25-34 years 804 10.2% 229 1.4% 308 1.7% (73) -0.3% 202 1.4%

35-44 years 429 4.7% 486 3.6% 875 4.8% (174) -0.6% (54) -0.3%

45-54 years 121 1.1% 250 2.0% 851 5.7% 748 3.2% (248) -1.1%

55-64 years 115 1.1% 161 1.3% 433 3.2% 801 4.4% 357 2.0%

65+ years 399 2.6% 154 0.8% 460 2.2% 538 2.1% 951 4.4%

Killeen-Temple, TX MSA

0-4 years 7,181 5.0% 3,942 1.8% 3,030 1.2% 8,135 2.9% 509 0.2%

5 years 904 3.4% 1,044 2.9% 761 1.6% 1,308 2.4% 17 0.0%

6-11 years 3,476 2.0% 4,955 2.4% 5,771 2.3% 6,139 2.0% 2,050 0.8%

12-14 years 301 0.3% 1,817 2.0% 4,130 3.8% 2,060 1.4% 1,033 0.9%

15-18 years 4,378 3.5% (1,765) -1.0% 4,097 2.7% 3,178 1.6% 770 0.5%

19-24 years 4,046 1.0% (6,102) -1.3% 1,921 0.5% 3,300 0.8% (926) -0.3%

25-34 years 18,990 9.4% 13,996 3.6% 4,515 0.8% 11,949 2.1% 5,699 1.2%

35-44 years 6,952 4.4% 12,520 5.5% 15,572 4.4% 1,794 0.4% 5,417 1.5%

45-54 years 3,333 2.5% 4,076 2.4% 13,624 6.5% 14,929 4.3% (917) -0.3%

55-64 years 3,307 3.0% 2,321 1.6% 4,707 2.8% 14,353 6.8% 6,922 2.8%

65+ years 4,838 3.8% 4,851 2.8% 5,346 2.4% 8,196 2.9% 11,998 4.8%


1990 - 2000 2000 - 2010 2010 - 20171970 - 1980 1980 - 1990


Page 2-6

Coryell County has a high concentration of young families (19-44 years) and a low concentration of seniors. Young families represent 45% of the population, higher than the regional average. The percentage of senior population is low. This reflect the influence of the Fort Hood military post. Lampasas County has the largest percentages of established households and seniors, and smallest percentage of younger workforce. Persons in the 45-64 years cohort represent 28% of the population, well above the regional level. These are typically mid- to late-career adults, who are in families with older children or are empty-nesters. Compared with younger adults, these people are usually in their peak earning years and demand higher standards on housing, neighborhood amenities, and entertainment activities, but their need for education resources is lower. The share of the 65+ age cohort (19%) is also substantially higher than the regional level, indicating a demand for senior services. A notable trend shared by all three counties is the continued growth of senior population. Since 1970, at the MSA level, the 65+ age cohort has maintained an annual growth rate of 2.4% to 4.8%. The growth of the senior population accelerated after 2010 while the growth of all the other age cohorts slowed, resulting in a steady increase in the median age across the region (Figure 2-2). The gradual aging of the population is part of a national trend, as members of the “Baby Boomer” generation continue to reach retirement age. In addition, the rising median age may reflect the impact of parents of military personnel moving to the region to support their children but choosing to stay here long-term.

4. Racial Population Change (1990-2017) Approximately 51% of the total population in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA are classified as white in terms of race (Table 2-4). Persons with Hispanic origins comprise the second largest cohort (23%), closely followed by the Black/African American population (21%). Among the three counties, Bell County is most racially diverse, as it has the highest concentration of Black/African American persons (23%), the lowest percentage of White persons (48%), and the largest percentage of persons with Hispanic origin (25%). In contrast, Lampasas County has the highest concentration of White persons (74%) and the lowest concentrations of black/African American persons (4%). Since 1990, both Bell County and Lampasas County have experienced significant increases in the black/African American population and noticeable declines in the share of white population. It should be noted that the White population in these two counties was still growing, though at a slower

Figure 2-2

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, 2018


Page 2-7

pace than the total population. Coryell County is unique as its Black/African American population decreased after 2000 and its White population decreased after 2010, which resulted in a stagnation of growth. A trend shared by all three counties is the rapid growth of persons with Hispanic origin since 1970, which is the biggest driver of the MSA’s total population growth (Table 2-5). Between 1970 and 2017, persons with Hispanic origin in the MSA grew from 15,137 to 102,182, on average 12% annually, significantly outpaced the total population growth. This is largely attributed to the high concentration of immigrants migrating into the central Texas region.

Table 2-4 Population Racial Distribution Changes Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (1990 - 2017)

Population Share Population Share Population Share Population Share

Bell County

White 125,157 65% 139,818 58% 162,595 52% 164,291 48%

Black/African American 35,254 18% 50,130 21% 68,218 22% 79,539 23%

Other 6,019 3% 9,526 4% 13,944 4% 16,122 5%

Hispanic Origin 25,224 13% 40,416 17% 68,228 22% 84,498 25%

Coryell County

White 42,832 67% 46,607 62% 48,104 64% 45,725 61%


Other 1,899 3% 2,465 3% 2,860 4% 2,988 4%

Hispanic Origin 6,268 10% 9,479 13% 12,127 16% 13,593 18%

Lampasas County

White 11,358 84% 14,377 80% 15,179 77% 15,500 74%

Black/African American 237 2% 559 3% 705 4% 864 4%

Other 193 1% 248 1% 391 2% 532 3%

Hispanic Origin 1,732 13% 2,716 15% 3,481 18% 4,091 19%

Killeen-Temple, TX MSA

White 179,347 67% 200,802 60% 225,878 55% 225,516 51%


Other 8,111 3% 12,239 4% 17,195 4% 19,642 4%

Hispanic Origin 33,224 12% 52,611 16% 83,836 21% 102,182 23%


1990 2000 2010 2017

Table 2-5 Hispanic Population as a Share of Total Population Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (1970 - 2017)

Year Population Share Population Share Population Share Population Share

1970 11,826 9.5% 2,472 6.9% 839 8.9% 15,137 8.9%

1980 17,692 11.1% 4,918 8.6% 1,303 10.9% 23,913 10.5%

1990 25,224 13.2% 6,268 9.7% 1,732 12.8% 33,224 12.3%

2000 40,416 16.8% 9,479 12.6% 2,716 15.2% 52,611 15.8%

2010 68,228 21.8% 12,127 16.0% 3,481 17.6% 83,836 20.5%

2017 84,498 24.5% 13,593 18.0% 4,091 19.5% 102,182 23.2%


Coryell County Lampasas County Killeen-Temple, TX MSABell County


Page 2-8

5. Population Gender Change (1970-2017) Over the past several decades, as the Department of Defense has allowed women to assume different roles in the military, including combat roles, both Bell County and Coryell County experienced faster female population growth, resulting in a substantial shift in population gender composition in both counties (Table 2-6 and 2-7). In addition, the population at Fort Hood has changed from predominantly single soldiers to the re-enlistment of older soldiers with spouses and families. In Bell County, the percentage of females increased from 45.2% in 1970 to 50.5% in 2010. The more rapid growth between 2000 and 2010 shows the increase in married soldiers and their spouses re-entering the military and being stationed at Fort Hood. The long-term shift in Coryell County was more dramatic going from 35.4% female in 1970 to 50.9% in 2010. This was due to the exceptional growth in female population during the 1970-1980 period and the decline in male population during the 2000-2010 period when soldiers were deployed at higher numbers. Since 2010, the growth of the female population has slowed in both counties. In Lampasas County where the impact of Fort Hood is less pronounced, the female population has been growing slower than the male population since 1970, resulting in a decrease of the share of females from 52% to 50.6% in 2010.

6. Natural Population Change and Migration (2011-2017) One expected result of a younger population is more pronounced natural population growth. Since 2011, births have far exceeded deaths in all three counties. Bell County has an average birth/death ratio of 3.1, with the average number of births per year (6,195) being three times greater than deaths (1,999). Coryell County’s births were more than twice the number of deaths (2.4) during the 2011-2017 study period (Table 2-8). Lampasas County has a similar but less significant pattern.

Table 2-6 Population Gender Composition Trends Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (1970 - 2017)

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

1970 54.8% 45.2% 64.6% 35.4% 48.0% 52.0% 56.5% 43.5%

1980 52.2% 47.8% 59.0% 41.0% 48.3% 51.7% 53.7% 46.3%

1990 50.9% 49.1% 56.4% 43.6% 48.4% 51.6% 52.1% 47.9%

2000 50.2% 49.8% 51.3% 48.7% 49.0% 51.0% 50.4% 49.6%

2010 49.5% 50.5% 49.1% 50.9% 49.4% 50.6% 49.4% 50.6%

2017 49.8% 50.2% 49.5% 50.5% 49.2% 50.8% 49.7% 50.3%


Bell County Coryell County Lampasas County Killeen-Temple, TX MSA

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

'70 - '80 2.1% 3.4% 4.6% 8.5% 2.8% 2.6% 2.7% 4.2%

'80 - '90 1.8% 2.4% 0.8% 2.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 2.2%

'90 - '00 2.3% 2.7% 0.6% 3.1% 3.4% 3.1% 1.9% 2.8%

'00 - '10 2.9% 3.2% -0.4% 0.5% 1.1% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5%

'10 - '17 1.5% 1.4% 0.1% -0.1% 0.8% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1%


Bell County Coryell County Lampasas County Killeen-Temple, TX MSA

Table 2-7 Annual Population Growth Rate by Gender Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (1970 - 2017)


Page 2-9

What is significant, and perhaps explains much of Bell County’s recent population gains, is its number of births each year, which account for 92% of the County’s total population change over the past seven years. Migration is another contributing factor of total population change. During 2011-2017, both Bell County and Coryell County had residents moving out to other parts of the country in large numbers. In Bell County, the biggest domestic in-migration occurred in 2011and 2013-2014, accounting for 1% of the total population; likely due to the Army’s downsizing as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ramped down. The domestic migration trend reversed in 2016 with the addition of 339 net new persons in Bell County. In 2017, another 1,552 new persons moved to the County. These are likely people attracted to the State of Texas, and more specifically Central Texas, in search of jobs and more affordably-priced housing. Coryell County’s domestic in-migration was more notable and lasted longer (2012-2017) than in Bell County. At the peak (2013-2014), domestic immigration represented 2%-3% of total population. Lampasas County didn’t have major domestic in-migration except in 2014, when the domestic immigration in the other two counties reached their peaks and spilled over to Lampasas County.

Table 2-8 Natural Change and Migration Trends Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (2011 - 2017)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Count % Chge.

BELL COUNTY

Total Population 315,809 324,989 327,150 330,248 336,094 341,203 347,833 32,024 1.7%

Births 6,055 5,930 6,244 6,211 6,301 6,308 6,314 43,363 --

Deaths (1,817) (1,867) (1,904) (1,983) (2,007) (2,230) (2,183) (13,991) --

Net Natural Change 4,238 4,063 4,340 4,228 4,294 4,078 4,131 29,372 --

Births/Deaths Ratio 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.1

Net Migration (1,928) 3,058 (1,149) (1,733) 1,067 1,296 2,492 3,103 --

International 610 2,514 1,541 1,221 1,642 957 940 9,425 --

Domestic (2,538) 544 (2,690) (2,954) (575) 339 1,552 (6,322) --

CORYELL COUNTY

Total Population 76,641 78,488 76,779 76,225 76,231 74,943 74,913 (1,728) -0.4%

Births 978 972 976 955 1,038 1,042 962 6,923 --

Deaths (383) (388) (382) (391) (410) (477) (443) (2,874) --

Natural Change 595 584 594 564 628 565 519 4,049 --


Net Migration 231 80 (1,304) (1,549) (680) (1,372) (549) (5,143) --

International 128 1,132 400 379 573 311 157 3,080 --

Domestic 103 (1,052) (1,704) (1,928) (1,253) (1,683) (706) (8,223) --

LAMPASAS COUNTY

Total Population 19,926 20,052 20,140 20,127 20,416 20,657 21,027 1,101 0.9%

Births 217 226 224 227 258 232 220 1,604 --

Deaths (175) (175) (171) (170) (167) (183) (197) (1,238) --

Natural Change 42 51 53 57 91 49 23 366 --


Net Migration 124 156 29 (78) 238 209 447 1,125 --

International 24 31 32 24 49 46 49 255 --

Domestic 100 125 (3) (102) 189 163 398 870 --

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018

Change '11-'17


Page 2-10

7. In-migration Trends by Location (2006-2016) The population inflow and outflow patterns in Bell County and Coryell County over the 2007-2016 period reflect the Army’s personnel policy changes. In Bell County, 14,548 persons, primarily soldiers at Fort Hood, were deployed to US overseas military bases; 22,276 persons came to Bell County from US overseas military bases. The net inflow was 7,728 (Table 2-9). In Coryell County, 1,719 persons left for other destinations and 4,531 came from US overseas military bases, and the net inflow was 2,812 (Table 2-10). During this period, the Army also transferred many soldiers between Fort Hood and other domestic military bases. As shown in Table 2-9 and Table 2-10, almost all the top inflow origins and outflow destinations out of the State of Texas are places with US military bases: El Paso County, CO (Army/Air Force), Honolulu County, HI (Air Force), Pierce County, WA (Army), Cumberland County, NC (Army), Comanche County, OK (Army), San Bernardino County, CA (Air Force), Hardin County, KY (Army), Muscogee County, GA (Army/Naval), Pulaski County, MO (Army), Montgomery County, TN (Army), Maricopa County, AZ (Army/Air Force), Richland County, SC (Army/Air Force), Fairfax County, VA (Army), Denton County, TX (Army), Liberty County, GA (Army), Jefferson County, NY (Army). Some of these military bases have net population inflows into Bell County and Coryell County, some have net population outflows, but the aggregated effect was a substantial population inflow into both counties, resulting in population growth over the 10 years. Another notable demographic trend that is impacting the State of Texas is the steady outmigration of population from the State of California. Between 2007 and 2016, Texas captured the largest share out-migrating population from California (nearly 300,000 people); largely due to the state’s rising cost of living - more specifically housing costs. During this period California saw the out-migration of 6 million people and the in-migration of 5 million people, for a net out-migration of 1 million. The Californians out-migrating to Texas tend to be younger, between the ages of 26 and 35 years old, with annual incomes under $40,000 and those with incomes between $55,000 and $70,000. These are people being priced out of higher cost markets like San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego (Figure 2-3).

Source: “California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration”, Brian Uhler and Justin Garosi, Legislative Analyst’s Office, February 21, 2018.

Figure 2-3


Page 2-11

T

able

2-9

Bell C

ounty

Po

pula

tion I

nfl

ow

/Outf

low

To

p O

rigin

s and D

est

inations

2007-2

016

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

Cory

ell

Coun

ty, TX

24

,97

7

Cory

ell

Coun

ty, TX

23

,17

4

Fore

ign

- A

PO

/FP

O Z

IPs

7,7

28

El P

aso

Coun

ty, C

O2

,62

8

Fore

ign

- A

PO

/FP

O Z

IPs

22

,27

6

Fore

ign

- A

PO

/FP

O Z

IPs

14

,54

8

Cory

ell

Coun

ty, TX

1,8

03

Bexa

r C

oun

ty, TX

2,5

32

Will

iam

son

Coun

ty, TX

8,5

29

Will

iam

son

Coun

ty, TX

10

,35

9

Los

Ang

ele

s C

oun

ty, C

A6

14

W

illia

mso

n C

oun

ty, TX

1,8

30

Bexa

r C

oun

ty, TX

7,3

30

Bexa

r C

oun

ty, TX

9,8

62

Lea

venw

ort

h C

oun

ty, K

S6

05

Ta

rra

nt C

oun

ty, TX

1,4

80

Tra

vis

Coun

ty, TX

7,0

92

Tra

vis

Coun

ty, TX

8,3

40

Cook

Coun

ty, IL

55

8

Ha

rris C

oun

ty, TX

1,4

02

Mcl

enn

an

Coun

ty, TX

6,2

10

Ha

rris C

oun

ty, TX

7,5

97

Jeff

ers

on

Coun

ty, N

Y5

41

Tr

avi

s C

oun

ty, TX

1,2

48

Ha

rris C

oun

ty, TX

6,1

95

El P

aso

Coun

ty, C

O6

,91

5

Fo

reig

n -

Pue

rto R

ico

50

1

Fairfa

x C

oun

ty, V

A8

00

El P

aso

Coun

ty, TX

5,6

76

Mcl

enn

an

Coun

ty, TX

6,3

82

Sa

n D

ieg

o C

oun

ty, C

A4

99

La

mp

asa

s C

oun

ty, TX

75

2

Hono

lulu

Coun

ty, H

I5

,12

4

Ta

rra

nt C

oun

ty, TX

5,6

90

Rile

y C

oun

ty, K

S4

08

D

alla

s C

oun

ty, TX

69

5

El P

aso

Coun

ty, C

O4

,28

7

El

Pa

so C

oun

ty, TX

5,5

72

Ora

nge C

oun

ty, N

Y3

72

H

ard

in C

oun

ty, K

Y5

14

Tarr

ant

Coun

ty, TX

4,2

10

Hono

lulu

Coun

ty, H

I4

,91

1

M

ilam

Coun

ty, TX

34

5

Colu

mb

ia C

oun

ty, G

A4

79

Da

llas

Coun

ty, TX

4,0

43

Da

llas

Coun

ty, TX

4,7

38

Gea

ry C

oun

ty, K

S3

29

D

ent

on

Coun

ty, TX

43

0

Cum

berla

nd C

oun

ty, N

C3

,89

1

Pie

rce C

oun

ty, W

A3

,69

6

Bro

nx C

oun

ty, N

Y3

09

Th

urst

on

Coun

ty, W

A3

69

Pie

rce C

oun

ty, W

A3

,41

4

C

umb

erla

nd C

oun

ty, N

C3

,58

2

C

umb

erla

nd C

oun

ty, N

C3

09

M

ont

gom

ery

Coun

ty, TX

36

1

Com

anc

he C

oun

ty, O

K3

,15

2

C

om

anc

he C

oun

ty, O

K2

,86

8

M

iam

i-D

ad

e C

oun

ty, FL

29

5

Colli

n C

oun

ty, TX

36

0

Sa

n Bern

ard

ino C

oun

ty, C

A2

,66

9

La

mp

asa

s C

oun

ty, TX

2,7

70

Kin

gs

Coun

ty, N

Y2

85

M

ad

ison

Coun

ty, A

L3

59

Mus

cog

ee C

oun

ty, G

A2

,53

8

Sa

n Bern

ard

ino C

oun

ty, C

A2

,50

4

C

om

anc

he C

oun

ty, O

K2

84

A

nne A

rund

el C

oun

ty, M

D2

93

Los

Ang

ele

s C

oun

ty, C

A2

,39

6

H

ard

in C

oun

ty, K

Y2

,47

7

C

hristia

n C

oun

ty, K

Y2

63

Ric

hla

nd C

oun

ty, SC

28

4

Jeff

ers

on

Coun

ty, N

Y2

,16

9

M

usco

gee C

oun

ty, G

A2

,36

4

W

ichi

ta C

oun

ty, TX

24

4

Pie

rce C

oun

ty, W

A2

82

Mont

gom

ery

Coun

ty, TN

2,1

47

Pul

ask

i C

oun

ty, M

O2

,21

1

St. L

oui

s C

oun

ty, M

O2

42

G

uad

alu

pe C

oun

ty, TX

25

5

Ma

rico

pa

Coun

ty, A

Z2

,13

7

M

ont

gom

ery

Coun

ty, TN

2,1

61

Wa

yne

Coun

ty, M

I2

36

C

hath

am

Coun

ty, G

A2

37

Mila

m C

oun

ty, TX

2,0

94

Ma

rico

pa

Coun

ty, A

Z2

,12

0

C

off

ee C

oun

ty, A

L2

24

Fo

rt B

end

Coun

ty, TX

23

5

Lam

pa

sas

Coun

ty, TX

2,0

18

Ric

hla

nd C

oun

ty, SC

2,0

25

Lub

bock

Coun

ty, TX

21

6

Pul

ask

i C

oun

ty, M

O2

26

Pul

ask

i C

oun

ty, M

O1

,98

5

Fa

irfa

x C

oun

ty, V

A1

,98

0

H

ono

lulu

Coun

ty, H

I2

13

C

hest

erf

ield

Coun

ty, V

A2

21

Ha

rdin

Coun

ty, K

Y1

,96

3

D

ent

on

Coun

ty, TX

1,8

68

Oka

loosa

Coun

ty, FL

20

3

Ha

rnett

Coun

ty, N

C2

15

Lib

ert

y C

oun

ty, G

A2

03

Coch

ise C

oun

ty, A

Z2

03

Sourc

e: SO

I Tax S

tats -

Mig

ration D

ata

(IR

S) a

nd

RK

G A

ssoci

ate

s, Inc., 20

18

(a)

Infl

ow

- T

op 2

5 O

rigin

s(b

) O

utf

low

- T

op 2

5 D

est

inati

ons

(c)

Net

Infl

ow

- T

op 2

5 O

rigin

s(d

) N

et

Outf

low

- T

op 2

5 D

est

inati

ons

McL

enn

an

Coun

ty, TX


Page 2-12

Table

2-1

0

Cory

ell C

ounty

Po

pula

tion Infl

ow

/Outf

low

To

p O

rigin

s an

d D

est

inations

2007-2

016

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

County

/Pla

ce N

am

eC

ount

Bell

Coun

ty, TX

23

,17

4

Bell

Coun

ty, TX

24

,97

7

Fo

reig

n -

APO

/FP

O Z

IPs

2,8

12

Bell

Coun

ty, TX

1,8

03

Fore

ign

- A

PO

/FP

O Z

IPs

4,5

31

La

mp

asa

s C

oun

ty, TX

2,7

68

Je

ffers

on

Coun

ty, N

Y3

56

El

Pa

so C

oun

ty, C

O1

,00

6

Lam

pa

sas

Coun

ty, TX

2,3

72

El

Pa

so C

oun

ty, C

O2

,29

0

Cum

berla

nd C

oun

ty, N

C3

38

Fo

reig

n -

Oth

er

flow

s5

78

Mcl

enn

an

Coun

ty, TX

1,7

63

Bexa

r C

oun

ty, TX

2,1

54

M

usco

gee C

oun

ty, G

A2

46

Bexa

r C

oun

ty, TX

52

8

Bexa

r C

oun

ty, TX

1,6

26

M

clenn

an

Coun

ty, TX

2,0

18

G

ea

ry C

oun

ty, K

S2

42

W

illia

mso

n C

oun

ty, TX

45

1

El P

aso

Coun

ty, TX

1,6

24

Fo

reig

n -

Oth

er

flow

s1

,88

5

Com

anc

he C

oun

ty, O

K2

02

La

mp

asa

s C

oun

ty, TX

39

6

Hono

lulu

Coun

ty, H

I1

,50

1

Fore

ign

- A

PO

/FP

O Z

IPs

1,7

19

Sa

n Bern

ard

ino C

oun

ty, C

A1

79

M

clenn

an

Coun

ty, TX

25

5

Fore

ign

- O

ther

flow

s1

,30

7

El P

aso

Coun

ty, TX

1,5

42

D

ale

Coun

ty, A

L1

66

Th

urst

on

Coun

ty, W

A1

90

El P

aso

Coun

ty, C

O1

,28

4

Hono

lulu

Coun

ty, H

I1

,39

3

Los

Ang

ele

s C

oun

ty, C

A1

54

Tr

avi

s C

oun

ty, TX

18

6

Pie

rce C

oun

ty, W

A1

,21

2

Will

iam

son

Coun

ty, TX

1,3

35

Li

bert

y C

oun

ty, G

A1

42

H

ays

Coun

ty, TX

18

3

Ha

rris C

oun

ty, TX

1,0

96

H

arr

is C

oun

ty, TX

1,2

65

Riv

ers

ide C

oun

ty, C

A1

19

H

arr

is C

oun

ty, TX

16

9

Cum

berla

nd C

oun

ty, N

C1

,07

2

Pie

rce C

oun

ty, W

A1

,14

7

Hono

lulu

Coun

ty, H

I1

08

M

ea

de C

oun

ty, K

Y1

60

Com

anc

he C

oun

ty, O

K9

58

Tr

avi

s C

oun

ty, TX

1,0

32

Bosq

ue C

oun

ty, TX

10

7

Colu

mb

ia C

oun

ty, G

A1

52

Tarr

ant

Coun

ty, TX

89

3

Tarr

ant

Coun

ty, TX

1,0

00

M

arico

pa

Coun

ty, A

Z1

06

Fa

irfa

x C

oun

ty, V

A1

39

Will

iam

son

Coun

ty, TX

88

4

Com

anc

he C

oun

ty, O

K7

56

C

och

ise C

oun

ty, A

Z1

02

D

ent

on

Coun

ty, TX

12

1

Tra

vis

Coun

ty, TX

84

6

Ha

rdin

Coun

ty, K

Y7

47

Rile

y C

oun

ty, K

S9

3

Bra

zos

Coun

ty, TX

11

7

Mus

cog

ee C

oun

ty, G

A8

15

C

umb

erla

nd C

oun

ty, N

C7

34

Sa

n D

ieg

o C

oun

ty, C

A9

1

N

ew

port

New

s ci

ty, V

A1

17

Ha

rdin

Coun

ty, K

Y7

21

D

alla

s C

oun

ty, TX

68

8

El P

aso

Coun

ty, TX

82

Tarr

ant

Coun

ty, TX

10

7

Sa

n Bern

ard

ino C

oun

ty, C

A7

19

M

usco

gee C

oun

ty, G

A5

69

C

ook

Coun

ty, IL

80

Vern

on

Pa

rish

, LA

10

5

Jeff

ers

on

Coun

ty, N

Y7

17

C

och

ise C

oun

ty, A

Z5

67

Bur

net

Coun

ty, TX

76

Cha

tta

hooch

ee C

oun

ty, G

A9

6

Coch

ise C

oun

ty, A

Z6

69

Sa

n Bern

ard

ino C

oun

ty, C

A5

40

To

m G

reen

Coun

ty, TX

67

Da

llas

Coun

ty, TX

77

Lib

ert

y C

oun

ty, G

A6

18

M

ont

gom

ery

Coun

ty, TN

53

4

Pie

rce C

oun

ty, W

A6

5

Er

ath

Coun

ty, TX

72

Da

llas

Coun

ty, TX

61

1

Pul

ask

i C

oun

ty, M

O4

99

C

lark

Coun

ty, N

V5

3

H

arf

ord

Coun

ty, M

D7

0

Mont

gom

ery

Coun

ty, TN

52

8

Lib

ert

y C

oun

ty, G

A4

76

Fo

rt B

end

Coun

ty, TX

46

Ha

rnett

Coun

ty, N

C6

8

Gea

ry C

oun

ty, K

S4

81

H

am

ilton

Coun

ty, TX

44

3

Virg

inia

Bea

ch c

ity, V

A4

5

Le

ave

nwort

h C

oun

ty, K

S6

7

Mont

gom

ery

Coun

ty, TX

67

Sourc

e: SO

I Tax S

tats -

Mig

ration D

ata

(IR

S) a

nd

RK

G A

ssoci

ate

s, Inc., 20

18

(a)

Infl

ow

- T

op 2

5 O

rigin

s(b

) O

utf

low

- T

op 2

5 D

est

inati

ons

(c)

Net

Infl

ow

- T

op 2

5 O

rigin

s(d

) N

et

Outf

low

- T

op 2

5 D

est

inati

ons

McL

enn

an

Coun

ty, TX

McL

enn

an

Coun

ty, TX


Page 2-13

8. Implication of Regional Population Trends In the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA region, all the three counties have experienced rapid population growth since 1970. However, the differences between the three counties reflect the impacts of the Army’s changing force structure. Bell County, which has the largest population, has maintained the most consistent pace of growth, suggesting that it has been attractive to residents and still relatively affordable for middle income households. The percentage of school-aged children is particularly high, indicating a strong demand for education resources and family-oriented neighborhood amenities. Still, the changes in the population’s age cohorts and gender composition reflect the influence of the military post. The population of children, young adults and older adults grew substantially between 1990 and 2000, as many married soldiers and their spouses entered the military and were stationed at Fort Hood. The increase of older adults continued into mid- to late-2000s, when the parents of some soldiers who were deployed overseas moved here to support their children. Since 1970, as the Army allowed women to assume expanded roles in the military, the share of female population started to increase. Coryell County has a smaller population than Bell County, but since most of Fort Hood’s land area falls into Coryell County, the impacts of the Army appeared to be more direct. First, the expansion of the military post between 1970 and 1980 led to 6% annually population growth. In the mid- and late-2000s, as soldiers were deployed overseas in large numbers, the total population stagnated, and the population of young adults and middle-aged adults declined substantially. However, the population of older adults increased, for the same reason as in Bell County. After 2010, as the Army downsized, Coryell County’s total population declined. The shift in the population’s gender composition has been more dramatic in Coryell County than in Bell County: between 1970 and 2017, Coryell County changed from 34.4% female to 50.5% female. During the 2007-2016 period, both Bell County and Coryell County had substantial population migrations to and from US domestic and overseas military bases. The net effect was an inflow of population, which contributed to increased population gains in both counties. Lampasas County has the smallest population and has been less affected by the Army than the other two counties. Its population is older than the MSA average, with a lower percentage of school-aged children, a higher percentage of persons in senior career facilities and in established households, and a higher percentage of seniors/retirees. This suggests that the housing and neighborhood qualities as well as home values in Lampasas are higher than in Bell County and Coryell County. Senior facilities are also more available in Lampasas. Despite the differences, the three counties share two common demographic trends in terms of median age and racial diversity in population. The diversification in population is largely attributed to affordable living options that have surfaced throughout the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA., which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

C. CITY OF KILLEEN, SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AND KISD SUBMARKET TRENDS (2000-2022)

1. City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities

As shown in Map 2-1, RKG analyzed the demographic characteristics and trends within the surrounding communities in the metropolitan statistical area. However, the following analysis examines the City of Killeen, the adjacent communities and the eight submarket areas that comprise the Killeen Independent School District boundaries, including the Fort Hood military post. The other surrounding communities include, Temple; Fort Hood; Copperas Cove and Harker Heights.


Page 2-14

1. KISD Study Area RKG Associates, Inc., in cooperation with the Killeen Independent School District (KISD) parsed 11 existing middle school attendance zones into eight distinct housing submarkets, creating the KISD study area. These eight submarkets were identified by consolidating the KISD’s planning zone area, which are areas that comprise dozens of attendance zones for each elementary, middle and high school in the region. This approach allowed the consultants to analyze the demographic and real estate market characteristics in different areas of the KISD, which tracking that data with school attendance figures. The analysis shows that several submarkets have captured greater growth than others and RKG has been able to document these development patterns over the past decade. Map 2-2 shows the eight submarkets comprising the KISD and their place names as follows:

KISD Submarket Areas

• Submarket 1 Bellaire-Reeces Creek

• Submarket 2 Manor-Rancier

• Submarket 3 Patterson-Liberty Hill

• Submarket 4 Roy J Smith

• Submarket 5 Harker Heights

• Submarket 6 Nolanville

• Submarket 7 Fort Hood

• Submarket 8 Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 2. Methodology and Data Sources The following section details the existing population and demographic trends in the surrounding communities of the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood-MSA, the KISD study area and its submarkets since 2000. The demographic characteristics presented in this section was obtained from ESRI, a data analytics and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) company. RKG has presented the data for all submarkets in a side-by-side comparison to establish a demographic profile for each submarket. It should be noted; the KISD study area and its submarkets coincide with the KISD’s 11 middle school attendance zones. These zones contain detailed information regarding the number of school-age children and their grade level, which will support RKG’s efforts of measuring the total number of students by grade level and housing type later in the study.

D. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS 1. Population Trends

a) City of Killeen and

Surrounding Communities The City of Killeen was the most populated community (145,246 pop.) in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA in 2017 (Table 2-11). Since 2000, Killeen has experienced rapid population growth, especially during the 2000-2010 period when the annual growth rate reached 4.3% (Figure 2-4). The growth

Table 2-11 Population Trends City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities (2000 - 2017)

Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2017 2022

City of Killeen 89,279 127,921 145,246 156,817

Temple 55,691 66,284 74,401 80,173

Fort Hood 33,312 29,589 30,554 31,351

Copperas Cove 30,543 32,031 33,463 34,369

Harker Heights 18,412 26,700 29,676 32,155

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA 330,714 405,300 446,693 477,103

Source: ESRI and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018


Page 2-15

Ma

p 2

-2


Page 2-16

slowed down after 2010, but still outpaced most of the surrounding communities. The only community that has kept pace with Killeen’s population growth rate since 2000 is Harker Heights, a community located to the east of Killeen. Harker Heights had a much smaller population in 2000, but following almost two decades of rapid growth, its population is approaching that of Fort Hood and Copperas Cove, and is estimated to exceed Fort Hood by 2022. The growth in Harker Heights is mainly driven by people moving to the community for its high-quality and still relatively affordable living environment. Further east on the other side of Interstate 35, the City of Temple has the second largest population in the MSA (74,401 pop.). The population growth has been strong since 2000, but not as fast as in Killeen. This indicates that Temple is less affected by Fort Hood’s personnel changes. Consequently, Temple is faced with less pressure to adjust public services in response to the population swings. It should be noted that the majority of the new residential development occurring near the City of Temple has not been occurring within the City boundaries, but within rural areas of Bell County surrounding the City. Many of these new developments have Temple addresses but are not within the City. Similar development patterns have occurred south of the City of Killeen. The two areas west of Killeen have had limited growth in recent years. Fort Hood’s population declined from 33,312 to 29,589 during 2000-2010 (-1.1% annually). Population changes at Fort Hood are largely dicatated by decisions made by the U.S. Department of Defense as part of their force structure changes and are also affected by natural growth pressures. Copperas Cove’s population growth also has been sluggish. b) KISD Study Area Based on ESRI data, the Killeen Independent School District boundary had a population of 218,960 residents in 2017 (Table 2-12). Since 2000, the population has been growing rapidly (Figure 2-4). Growth peaked during the 2000-2010 period (3.3% annually), outpacing the Killeen-Temple-Fort

Figure 2-4


Figure 2-12

Population Trends

Greater Killeen Study Area, TX (2000-2022)

Submarkets 2000 2010 2017 2022 Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 25,501 26,349 28,272 29,898 848 0.3% 1,923 1.0% 1,626 1.2%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 36,201 37,631 39,155 40,925 1,430 0.4% 1,524 0.6% 1,770 0.9%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 10,059 23,306 30,389 34,127 13,247 13.2% 7,083 4.3% 3,738 2.5%

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 17,556 41,401 48,810 53,473 23,845 13.6% 7,409 2.6% 4,663 1.9%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 17,440 24,743 27,492 29,736 7,303 4.2% 2,749 1.6% 2,244 1.6%

SM 6 - Nolanville 3,353 6,311 7,520 8,319 2,958 8.8% 1,209 2.7% 799 2.1%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 34,312 34,436 32,522 33,385 124 0.0% (1,914) -0.8% 863 0.5%

SM 8 - Regional Airport 3,045 4,285 4,800 5,454 1,240 4.1% 515 1.7% 654 2.7%

Total 147,467 195,462 218,960 235,318 47,995 3.3% 23,498 1.7% 16,358 1.5%


Change '00-'10 Change '10-'17 Change "17-'22


Page 2-17

Hood MSA (2.3%). It has since slowed to 1.7%/yr. over the past 7 years, but still faster than the regional average (1.5%). Of the study area’s eight submarkets, Roy J. Smith (SM 4) has the largest population (48,810), accounting for 22% of the KISD study area. It is closely followed by Manor-Rancier (39,155), which accounts for 18% of the total population.

The rapid population growth at within the Greater Killeen study area was mainly driven by the exceptional growth in five of the submarkets. Over the 2000-2010 period, the annual population rate reached:

• 13.6% (Roy J Smith),

• 13.2% (Patterson-Liberty Hill),

• 8.8% (Nolanville),

• 4.2% (Harker Heights), and

• 4.1% (Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport) (Table 2-12/Figure 2-5).

The pace of growth in these areas slowed after 2010 but were still above the study area average. As a result, the pressures on development and public services created by rapid population growth are likely to continue. On the other hand, Fort Hoods submarket had limited population growth during the 2000-2010 period followed by a decline during 2010-2017, mainly due to the Army’s downsizing initiatives at Fort Hood. Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier had limited population growth between 2000 and 2010. However, population gains have accelerated in recent years, but well below the regional level. 2. Household Formation

Trends (2000-2022)

a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities

The City of Killeen had 53,867 households in 2017, accounting for 34% of all households in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA. Since 2000, the number of households in Killeen has been growing at a similar pace with population growth (Figure 2-6). In Temple and Harker Heights, the numbers of households also grew at a similar pace with the population growth in each community. ESRI projects continued growth in households in the next few years in all three communities, which creates

Figure 2-5


Figure 2-6



Page 2-18

opportunities for new residential development while intensifying the pressure on infrastructure and public services. In Fort Hood, the number of households increased at 1% annually between 2000 and 2010 despite the population decline. This was mainly due to soldiers being deployed to South Asia during the mid- to late- 2000s. During the same time, Copperas Cove also had faster household growth than population growth. As a result, the average household sizes decreased in both communities: from 3.90 to 3.66 in Fort Hood and from 2.85 to 2.58 in Copperas Cove. b) KISD Study Area The Killeen Independent School District has 75,405 households. Since 2000, the number of households has grown rapidly, especially between 2000 and 2010, during which the household formation rate (4.1%/yr.) outpaced population growth (3.3%/yr.), resulting in a decrease in average household size (from 2.85 persons to 2.78 persons) (Figure 2-7). This was mainly due to soldiers coming to the military post with their families and then being deployed overseas. The pace of household formation slowed down after 2010, but still maintained a healthy pace. Most of the submarkets experienced similar patterns of household growth with declines in average household size between 2000 and 2010. Since 2010, household growth has slowed and average household size has increased slightly. Of these areas, Manor-Rancier and Fort Hood had most significant decreases in average household sizes, indicating a greater influence from the Army’s personnel policies.

Unlike the other submarkets, Nolanville experienced an increase in average household size between 2000 and 2010, followed by a modest decline between 2010-2017 period. This is likely due to the limited and undiverse housing options within the urban submarket. However, the average household size has the potential to increase at rate of 2.93 persons per household, which may indicate retired army personnel is seeking higher-end housing opportunities that are comprised within the Nolanville urban submarket.

Figure 2-7



Page 2-19

3. Age Distribution and Median Age Comparison (2010-2022) a) City of Killeen and Surrounding

Communities Compared with the surrounding communities, Killeen has a relatively young population. The 0-14 age cohort accounts for 26% of the total population, and the 15-34 age cohort accounts for 36% of the total population, both above the regional levels (Table 2-13). The share of persons above 45 years is 18%, smaller than the regional average (21%). Of the communities surrounding Killeen, Fort Hood has the youngest popualtion while Temple has the oldest population. In 2017, persons under the age of 15 account for 33% of Fort Hood’s population, significantly higher than the regional average (23%). The share of persons between 15 and 34 years old (56%) also far exceeds the reginal average (33%). Meanwhile, only 2% of Fort Hood’s population are older than 44 years and 0.1% older than 64 years. The high concentrations of school-aged children and young families and the lack of seniors in Killeen and Fort Hood reflect the impact of the military post. This is consistent with the lower median ages in these two communities (Figure 2-8). Consequently, both communities have a strong demand for education services, housing, and neighborhood familities that cater to young adults and famlies with school-aged children.

Table 2-13

Population Trends by Age Distribution

City of Killeen & Surrounding Communities (2017)

City of

Killeen Temple

Fort

Hood

Copperas

Cove

Harker

Heights

Killeen-

Temple-Fort

Hood MSA

0-4 years 9.7% 7.7% 14.6% 8.8% 7.5% 8.4%

5-9 years 8.7% 7.1% 11.0% 8.3% 7.5% 7.7%

10-14 years 7.4% 6.5% 7.2% 7.3% 7.6% 6.9%

15-24 years 15.0% 12.5% 30.5% 13.4% 14.3% 14.9%

25-34 years 21.4% 14.8% 25.5% 18.9% 15.9% 17.7%

35-44 years 13.8% 11.9% 9.1% 13.2% 13.9% 12.9%

45-54 years 10.0% 11.7% 1.6% 10.9% 13.5% 11.1%

55-64 years 7.5% 11.8% 0.4% 9.4% 10.2% 9.7%

65--74 years 4.2% 8.4% 0.1% 6.1% 6.0% 6.4%

75-84 years 1.8% 4.7% 0.0% 3.0% 2.6% 3.0%

85+ years 0.5% 2.9% 0.0% 0.7% 0.8% 1.2%


Figure 2-8



Page 2-20

In Temple, 40% of the population clusters in the 45-64 and 65+ age cohorts, well above the regional level of 31%, resulting in a relatively high median household age. As previously explained, the 45-64 cohort represents established households that typically are looking for higher-quality housing choices and other services; the 65+ cohort indicates a demand for senior services.

Between 2010 and 2017, all communities except for Fort Hood experienced rapid growth in senior population (4.2% to 6.4% annually), causing an overall aging of the region’s population (Table 2-14). The share of the 15-24 age cohort decreased, especially in Killeen and Copperas Cove. This coincides with the downsizing of the military population at Fort Hood as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ramped down during the period. In most communities, the growth of young population (0-14 years) was slower than other age cohorts. This suggests that the region doesn’t have adequate education resources to attract families with school-aged children which coincides with the rapid population growth in the City of Killeen. b) KISD Study Area The KISD study area has a younger population than the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA average (Table 2-15). The population under the age of 15 years accounts for 26.2% of the total population, similar to the percentage in the City of Killeen (26%), but higher than the MSA avarege (23%). Persons above the age of 65 years account for 6.3% of the total population, well below the regional level (10.6%). Further, the study area also has a higher percentage of persons in the 15-44 age cohort (51.1%) and lower percentage of persons in the 45-64 age cohort (16.5%). As previously explained, a younger population with more school-aged children and young families suggests that the Greater Killeen study area and KISD schools are faced with greater pressure to provide

Table 2-14 Annual Population Change by Age Cohort City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities (2010 - 2017)

City of

Killeen Temple

Fort

Hood

Copperas

Cove

Harker

Heights

Killeen-

Temple-Fort

Hood MSA

0-14 Years 1.7% 0.8% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.8%

15-24 Years -1.0% 1.1% 0.4% -2.4% 1.0% -0.1%

24-35 Years 2.5% 1.6% 1.3% 1.7% 2.9% 2.2%

35-44 Years 3.2% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% -0.7% 1.5%

45-64 Years 2.5% 1.4% 0.5% 0.8% 2.9% 1.4%

65+ Years 6.0% 4.2% 0.5% 4.5% 6.4% 4.5%


Table 2-15

Population Age Distribution

Greater Killeen Study Area (2017)

Age Cohort

Bellaire-

Reeces

Creek

Manor-

Rancier

Patterson-

Liberty Hill

Roy J

Smith

Harker

Heights Nolanville

Fort

Hood Airport

Study

Area

0-4 years 10.1% 9.2% 8.2% 10.9% 7.5% 8.4% 14.3% 6.0% 10.0%

5-9 years 8.6% 8.0% 8.1% 9.6% 7.5% 8.5% 10.8% 6.6% 8.8%

10-14 years 6.8% 6.6% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6% 8.2% 7.2% 6.7% 7.4%

15-24 years 15.1% 15.5% 13.9% 15.2% 14.3% 12.2% 30.2% 10.8% 17.0%

25-34 years 20.8% 23.0% 16.5% 23.3% 16.1% 15.4% 25.2% 12.9% 20.9%

35-44 years 12.8% 12.1% 16.2% 14.6% 13.8% 15.1% 9.2% 12.6% 13.2%

45-54 years 9.5% 9.0% 13.6% 8.9% 13.5% 12.5% 1.9% 13.6% 9.4%

55-64 years 8.1% 8.4% 8.9% 5.5% 10.2% 10.5% 0.8% 15.4% 7.1%

65--74 years 5.1% 5.2% 4.3% 2.7% 6.0% 6.6% 0.3% 10.6% 4.1%

75-84 years 2.3% 2.3% 1.6% 1.1% 2.6% 2.1% 0.1% 3.9% 1.7%

85+ years 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5%



Page 2-21

education resources and child-friendly neighborhood amenities. This could be challenging because the property value of these neighborhoods tends to be lower than those with older households, resulting in low property tax and limited resources to fund public services. Since 2010, the study area’s older population has been growing at a faster pace than the regional average. Between 2010 and 2017 (Table 2-16), the 65+ age cohort grew (6.3% annually) faster than any other cohort, and exceeded the pace at the MSA level (4.5%) and in Killeen (6.0%). This may speak to the attractiveness of Central Texas’ affordable housing supply; particularly seniors seeking lower cost retirement housing. Meanwhile, the 15-24 age cohort has been losing population (-0.3% annually) at a greater speed than the region (0.1%). The population below the age of 15 years has also been growing slower than the population above the age of 24 years. This may eventually result in increased demand for senior services and medical facilities.

Within the KISD study area, the Roy J Smith submarket (SM 4) has the youngest median household age at 27.6 years, while the Airport submarket (SM 8 – 40.4 years), Harker Heights (SM 5 – 33.6 years) and Nolanville (SM 6 – 33.3 years) have the oldest population, which coincides with the younger median ages throughout the study area (Figure 2-9). Approximately 87.7% of Fort Hood’s population and 66.9% of Roy J Smith’s population are below the age of 35 years, substantially higher than the study area averages (64.1%). In contrast, 15.4% of the Airport’s population are in the 65+ age cohort, followed by Harker Heights (9.4%) and Nolanville (9.2%), all of which are higher than the study area level (6.3%).

Figure 2-9


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

20

10

20

17

20

22

SM 1 SM 2 SM 3 SM 4 SM 5 SM 6 SM 7 SM 8 StudyArea

Median Age of PopulationGreater Killeen Study Area

2010-2022

Table 2-16

Population Annual Change by Age Cohort

Greater Killeen Study Area (2010-2017)

Age Cohort

Bellaire-

Reeces

Manor-

Rancier

Patterson-

Liberty Hill

Roy J

Smith

Harker

Heights Nolanville

Fort

Hood Airport KISD

0-14 Years 1.9% 0.8% 2.2% 2.2% -0.4% 1.8% 0.1% 0.7% 1.2%

15-24 Years -2.4% -2.8% 3.9% -0.1% 0.8% 1.1% 0.3% -0.6% -0.3%

25-34 Years 1.9% 2.6% 3.4% 2.8% 2.9% 1.1% 1.4% 3.3% 2.4%

35-44 Years 3.1% 2.4% 3.4% 4.1% -0.3% 3.8% 0.2% 1.2% 2.3%

45-64 Years 0.5% -0.4% 7.4% 3.5% 2.7% 3.3% 0.0% 0.7% 2.4%

65+ Years 3.2% 3.6% 12.2% 8.2% 5.9% 10.6% 5.4% 8.1% 6.3%



Page 2-22

Between 2010 and 2017, all the submarkets have experienced an aging population, with the population of the 65+ cohort growing at a faster pace than any other cohort. Patterson-Liberty Hill and Nolanville were aging more rapidly than the other areas, followed by Roy J Smith. Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier were aging at a slower pace, due lack of recent development activity for senior living options and assisted living facilities. It is likely that there is a limited supply which may impact an unmet demand.

4. Racial Population Comparison (2010-2022)

a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities The City of Killeen is the most racially diverse community in the MSA region (Table 2-17). It has the highest concentration of Black/African American population (34%) and the lowest concentraion of White population (43%). Temple is the least racially diverse, with the highest concentration of White population (67%) and the lowest concentration of Black/African American population (17%). The remaining three communities’ population racial compositions are closer to the regional average.

Persons with Hispanic origin have the largest concentration in Temple (27%), followed by Killeen (26%). This population is much smaller in Copperas Cove (18%). Between 2010 and 2017, there are two trends shared by all communities; a decline in the white population share, and the increases in the percentages of persons with Hispanic origin. This indicates that the population in this region have diversified during this period and the Hispanic population continue to migrate to these communities.

a) KISD Study Area Compared with the MSA, study area’s population is more racially diverse (Table 2-18). The share of While population (47.6%) is lower, while the shares of Black/African American population (29.3%) and people with Hispanic origin (27.3%) are higher. Since 2010, the percentage of White population has declined, and the percentages of other racial groups have increased. This trend is expected to continue over the next five years. Within the study area, Nolanville has the largest share of white population (68.9%), followed by Fort Hood (60.8%), Airport (60.7%), and Harker Heights (60.0%). These four areas also have the lowest percentages of Black/African American population. On the other end of the spectrum, Roy J Smith and Bellaire-Reeces Creek have the lowest concentrations of White population and the highest concentrations of Black/African American population and people with Hispanic origin.

Table 2-17 Population Racial Composition Change City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities (2010 - 2017)

2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017

White 45% 43% 68% 67% 64% 61% 66% 65% 63% 60% 64% 61%

Black/African American 34% 34% 17% 17% 18% 19% 18% 19% 20% 21% 20% 20%

Other 21% 23% 15% 17% 18% 20% 16% 16% 17% 19% 16% 18%

Hispanic Origin 23% 26% 24% 27% 20% 24% 15% 18% 18% 22% 20% 24%


City of

Killeen Temple Fort Hood

Killeen-Temple-

Fort Hood MSA

Copperas

Cove

Harker

Heights


Page 2-23

Between 2010 and 2017, all submarket areas have seen their populations become more racially diverse. Areas that were less racially diverse (Nolanville, Fort Hood, Airport, and Harker Heights) actually experienced more dramatic shifts toward non-White populations, even though the shifts were still not significant enough to offset the differences. This trend is expected to continue, suggesting that the racial compositions of these areas are slowing getting more similar.

5. Population Gender Comparison (2010-2022)

a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities Approximately 51% of the population in Killeen are females, similar to the MSA regional average (50%) (Table 2-19). The gender composition in Killeen has remained stable since 2010 and is expected to remain so. Of the surrounding communities, only Fort Hood has a vastly different gender composition: 57.9% of the population are male, reflecting the strong presence of the Army. Temple and Copperas Cove have slightly larger concentrations of female population, suggesting that the Army’s impact in these two communities has been less significant.

b) KISD Study Area The KISD study area has a slightly larger share of male population (50.7%) and a smaller share of female population (49.3%) than the MSA regional averages (Table 2-20). The gender structure has been stable since 2010.

Table 2-18Population Racial Composition Change


2010 2017 2022 2010 2017 2022 2010 2017 2022

White 46% 42.9% 41.4% 47.3% 44.5% 43.0% 46.6% 45.1% 43.7%

Black/African American 31% 31.4% 31.5% 32.9% 33.4% 33.7% 34.2% 33.6% 33.7%

Other 23% 25.8% 27.1% 19.7% 22.1% 23.4% 19.3% 21.4% 23.6%

Hispanic Origin 27% 30.1% 32.6% 21.7% 24.8% 27.1% 21.0% 24.1% 26.5%

White 42.6% 40.2% 38.8% 63.7% 60.0% 57.8% 72.2% 68.9% 66.7%

Black/African American 36.6% 36.7% 36.7% 19.5% 20.7% 21.4% 11.9% 12.5% 12.9%

Other 20.8% 23.1% 24.5% 16.6% 19.3% 20.8% 15.9% 18.6% 20.3%

Hispanic Origin 22.7% 25.8% 28.1% 18.2% 21.6% 24.3% 21.4% 25.6% 28.9%

White 63.8% 60.8% 59.3% 63.8% 60.7% 59.3% 52.2% 49.2% 47.6%

Black/African American 18.1% 19.4% 19.7% 17.9% 19.2% 19.5% 28.3% 29.0% 29.3%

Other 18.2% 19.9% 20.9% 18.3% 20.1% 21.2% 19.5% 21.7% 23.1%

Hispanic Origin 19.7% 23.2% 25.9% 19.9% 23.4% 26.1% 21.6% 24.9% 27.3%


Patterson-Liberty HillManor-RancierBellaire-Reeces Creek

Fort Hood Airport Study Area

Roy J Smith Harker Heights Nolanville

Table 2-19 Population by Gender City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities (2010 - 2022)

2010 2017 2022 2010 2017 2022

City of Killeen 49.0% 49.1% 49.0% 51.0% 50.9% 51.0%

Temple 47.8% 48.0% 48.1% 52.2% 52.0% 51.9%

Fort Hood 57.8% 57.9% 57.8% 42.2% 42.1% 42.2%

Copperas Cove 48.5% 48.6% 48.6% 51.5% 51.4% 51.4%

Harker Heights 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 50.6% 50.6% 50.6%

Killeen-Temple- Fort Hood MSA 49.4% 50.0% 49.4% 50.6% 50.0% 50.6%


Males Females


Page 2-24

Fort Hood and Nolanville have larger percentages of male population (57.7% and 57.1%) than the other submarkets. The high concentration of male population in Fort Hood dated back to before 2010, reflecting the dominance of the military in the community. In contrast, Nolanville’s large percentage of male population partly resulted from a 12% decline in female population between 2010 and 2017.

6. Education Attainment Comparison (2017)

a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities Compared with the MSA average, Killeen has slightly lower percentages of both least-educated persons and most-educated persons (Figure 2-10): Approximately 35% of the persons 25 years or older have less than a college degree (39% for MSA), and 20% have a Bachelor’s or higher degree (23% for MSA). The share of persons with a College or Associate’s degree is larger (45%, compared with 39% for MSA), indicating that a larger portion of the jobs in Killeen require this level of education. Among the other communities, Harker Heights has the most educated population, with 32% of the persons 25 year or older have at least a Bachelor’s Degree, far exceeding the regional level (23%). In addition, only 30% have no college degree, which is lower than the regional level at 39%. Temple’s population is more evenly distributed across all education levels. It has the largest concentration of persons at or above the age of 25 without a college degree (43%), yet the share of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (27%) is only second to Harker Heights. This suggests that compared with the

Figure 2-10


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Population Education Attainment LevelsCity of Killeen & Surrounding Communities

2017

Less than High School Degree High School Degree or Equivalent

Some College, Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree

Graduate/ Professional Degree

Table 2-20

Population by Gender (2010-2022)


2010 2017 2022 2010 2017 2022

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 49.7% 49.8% 49.6% 50.3% 50.2% 50.4%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 48.9% 48.9% 48.5% 51.1% 51.1% 51.5%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 51.2% 51.2% 51.2%

SM 4 - Roy J. Smith 48.8% 49.0% 49.0% 51.2% 51.0% 51.0%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 49.3% 49.3% 49.3% 50.7% 50.7% 50.7%

SM 6 - Nolanville 49.8% 57.1% 49.3% 50.2% 42.9% 50.7%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 57.7% 57.7% 57.6% 42.3% 42.3% 42.4%

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 50.4% 50.6% 50.9% 49.6% 49.4% 49.1%

Total 50.5% 50.7% 50.3% 49.5% 49.3% 49.7%


FemalesMales


Page 2-25

other communities, Temple has a more diverse economy that provides job opportunities for a wide range of skill levels. In contrast, Fort Hood has the lowest concentration of persons at both ends of education attainment, with only 28% of the persons 25 years or older don’t have a college degree, and only 16% don’t have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher. Meanwhile, the percentage of persons with a college or Associate’s degree (57%) is higher than the other communities. This indicates that Fort Hood has a less diverse economy therefore a large portion of the jobs require similar skill levels. b) KISD Study Area The KISD Study Area’s education level is similar to the MSA regional average. About one third of the persons 25 years or older have no college or Associate’s degree and about a quarter have a Bachelor’s or higher degree. Within the study area, Bellaire-Reeces and Nolanville have the highest concentration of persons with no high school diploma (14.5% and 14.7%), followed by Manor-Rancier. Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier also have small percentages of persons with a Bachelor’s or higher degree (both 16%). Areas that have the highest concentrations of highly-educated persons are Patterson-Liberty Hill and Harker Heights. The percentages of persons with a Bachelor’s or higher degree are 27% in Patterson-Liberty Hill and 32% in Harker Heights. Fort Hood and Roy J Smith have low concentrations of persons at both ends of the education levels. As previously explained, this suggests that a large portion of the job opportunities in these two areas require similar skill levels. 7. Median Household Income

Comparison (2017-2022)

a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities

The household income levels of these communities reflect their respective education levels (Figure 2-12). In Killeen, 19.1% of the households earn less than $25,000 per year, similar to the MSA regional average (19%); 14.9% earn $100,000 or more per year, slightly lower than the regional average (19.2%); only 3.9% of the households earn $150,000 or more per year, substantially lower than the regional average (6.9%).

Figure 2-12


Figure 2-11


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Population Education Attainment LevelsGreater Killeen Study Area

2017

Less than High School Degree, No School High School Degree or Equivalent

Some College, Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree

Graduate/ Professional Degree


Page 2-26

Of the surrounding communities, Harker Heights has the largest percentage of top-earning ($150,000+) households (10.1%) and the smallest percentage of low-earning (<$15,000) households (8.5%). Temple has higher shares of both high-income and low-income households than the other communities: 11.7% of the households earn less than $15,000 and 8.9% earn more than $150,000. On the other hand, Fort Hood has more households with middle-level incomes: 46.1% of the households earn $25,000-$49,999, well above the regional level (27%). b) KISD Study Area Compared with the MSA regional level, the household income of the KISD study area is slightly more centered in the middle range (Figure 2-13): 18.4% of the households earn less than $25,000 per year (19% for MSA) and 16.3% earn $100,000 or more per year (19.2% for MSA). Within the MSA, the household income levels of most submarket areas well reflect the education levels of their populations. Low-income (<$25,000) households account for larger percentages of all the households in Bellaire-Reeces Creek (28.4%) and Manor-Rancier (22.6%) than in other areas, whereas high-income ($100,000+) households account for larger percentages of all the households in Harker Heights (27%) and Patterson-Liberty Hill (26.4%). The only exception is the Airport submarket, which has the highest concentration of high-income households (31.7%, including 13.2% with incomes at or above $150,000) even though its population’s education level is not the highest. This suggests that the Airport submarket has a sizable number of well-paid jobs that don’t require a very high levels of education. 8. Marital Status Comparison

(2017-2022) a) City of Killeen and Surrounding

Communities The population marital status of the City of Killeen is similar to that of the regional level (Figure 2-14). In Killeen, approximately 55% of the persons at or above the age of 15 are married (54% for the MSA). Compared with the rest of the MSA, Killeen has a relatively large percentage of persons that are never married (30%) and a small percentage of widowed persons. This is consistent with the previous finding that Killeen has a relatively young popoulation.

Figure 2-13


Figure 2-14



Page 2-27

Fort Hood’s population marital status is unique due to the presence of the military post. Approximately 37% of the population 15 years or older have never married and 58% are married, both above the regional levels (29% and 54%). The shares of widowed (1%) and divorced (4%) persons are much lower than the regional averages (5% and 12%). In contrast, Temple has a higher concentration of widowed population (7%), which appears to be a natural result of an older population. b) KISD Study Area The marital status of the persons at or above the age of 15 in the KISD study area is similar to that at the MSA regional level: 31% are never married, 55% are married, 3% are widowed, and the remaining 11% are divorced (Figure 2-15). Within the study area, Fort Hood has the largest percentage of persons that are never married (36.7%), and the smallest percentages of persons that are widowed (0.5%) or divorced (4.9%). This is consistent with the young population of the area. Similarly, Roy J Smith, which also has a young population, has relatively small shares of widowed (2.3%) and divorced (8.6%) persons. Nolanville and Airport submarkets, which have older population characteristics, have the largest percentages of divorced persons (18% and 14.7%) and widowed persons (6.8% and 4.5%).

9. Population by Relationship Status (2010)

a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities Compared with the other communities in the MSA region (Table 2-21), Killeen has the largest percentage of its population in households (99.9%) and the smallest percentage in group quarters (0.1%). The percentage of children in family households (35%) also exceeds the regional average (33.1%), suggesting that Killeen is an attractive location for families especially those with children. Harker Heights has similar characteristics. This is consistent with the relatively large household sizes in these two communities. As expected, Fort Hood has a high percentage of its population living in group quarters (22.2%), reflecting the presence of lower ranking soldiers. Only 77.8% of its population are in households, well below the regional level of 95.1%. Yet, the percentage of children in family households (37.3%) is the highest in the region. This explains the relatively large household size in Fort Hood. Army policies in the mid- to late- 2000s, that attracted many soldiers with families back into the military, resulted in a greater number of military family households. Finally, Fort Hood has very limited non-family households (1.1% of total population compared with 12.6% at the regional level). These are people who live alone or who share their residence with unrelated individuals. Due to the dominance of military life in Fort Hood, alternative forms of household relationship are limited on Fort Hood but many shared housing arrangements among military personnel occur outside the post. Temple also has a notable percentage of its population not in households. This includes persons in non-family households, and persons in group quarters (institutionalized). The large share of persons in non-family households is partly due to the higher concentration of mobile homes, which is common

Figure 2-15



Page 2-28

in a rural environment and the concentration of senior population. In Temple, it is possible that many of the institutionalized population are people living in medical and assisted living facilities. This is consistent with the relatively small household size in Temple as previous discussed.

b) KISD Study Area Compared with the MSA (Table 2-22), the study area has slightly larger percentages of the total population in family households (84.3%), especially those with children (35.4%), which is reflected in the KISD’s rising student enrollment level. Further, Patterson-Liberty Hill has the highest percentage of its population in family households (92.2%), especially those with children (39%). Roy J Smith also has a relatively large percentage of its population with in family households with children (37.4%). This may suggest that these areas are faced with a higher pressure to provide education resources and neighborhood amenities that cater to families with children. As previously discussed, Fort Hood has the largest percentage of its population in group quarters (non-institutionalized), mainly due to the presence of Army personnel living in barracks housing. Harker Heights has the highest concentration of institutionalized population, likely due to the large share of senior population.

Table 2-21

Population by Relationship Status and Household Type


Type of Households

City of

Killeen Temple

Fort

Hood

Copperas

Cove

Harker

Heights

Killeen-Temple-

Fort Hood MSA

Total 127,921 66,284 29,589 32,031 26,700 405,300

In Households 99.9% 97.6% 77.8% 99.1% 99.4% 95.1%

In Family Households 85.2% 80.4% 76.7% 86.8% 88.0% 82.6%

Householder 26.0% 25.1% 20.3% 27.1% 26.7% 25.4%

Spouse 17.7% 17.5% 17.3% 19.6% 19.8% 18.7%

Child 35.0% 32.0% 37.3% 34.5% 35.8% 33.1%

Other Relative 3.9% 3.6% 1.3% 3.1% 3.4% 3.3%

Non Relative 2.6% 2.2% 0.5% 2.5% 2.1% 2.1%

In Nonfamily Households 14.7% 17.2% 1.1% 12.4% 11.4% 12.6%

In Group Quarters 0.1% 2.4% 22.2% 0.9% 0.6% 4.9%

Institutionalized 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 2.7%

Noninstitutionalized Population 0.1% 0.9% 22.2% 0.3% 0.6% 2.2%


Table 2-22

Population by Relationship Status and Household Type


Bellaire-

Reeces Creek

Manor-

Rancier

Patterson-

Liberty Hill

Roy J

Smith

Harker

HeightsNolanville

Fort

HoodAirport

Study

Area

Total 26,349 37,631 23,306 41,401 24,743 6,311 31,436 4,285 195,462

In Households 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% 100.0% 99.3% 100.0% 77.7% 100.0% 96.2%

In Family Households 79.4% 82.0% 92.2% 88.1% 87.4% 89.0% 76.4% 90.5% 84.3%

Householder 24.8% 26.1% 27.0% 26.1% 26.8% 26.6% 20.3% 28.5% 25.3%

Spouse 15.1% 17.4% 20.8% 18.1% 19.7% 19.7% 17.2% 23.5% 18.1%

Child 31.9% 32.0% 39.0% 37.4% 25.4% 36.3% 36.9% 32.5% 35.4%

Other Relative 4.2% 3.9% 3.5% 3.9% 3.3% 3.8% 1.3% 3.7% 3.4%

Non Relative 3.4% 2.6% 1.8% 2.5% 2.2% 2.5% 0.6% 2.3% 2.2%

In Nonfamily Households 20.3% 17.9% 7.5% 11.9% 11.9% 11.0% 1.4% 9.5% 11.9%

In Group Quarters 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 22.3% 0.0% 3.8%

Institutionalized 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Noninstitutionalized Population 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.3% 0.0% 3.6%



Page 2-29

10. Household Distribution by Type (2010) a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities In Killeen, 75.6% of the households have two or more persons, higher than Temple (69.1%), but substantially lower than in Fort Hood (96.1%) and Harker Heights (80.7%) (Table 2-23). Approximately 22.1% of Killeen’s households are family households with no spouse present (“Other Family”), higher than in the surrounding communities, likely due to one spouse being deployed overseas during mid- to late-2000s as well as a higher concentration of single-parenting households.

Killeen also has higher percentages of multi-generational households (4.4%) and households with children (44%) than the regional averages, indicating a stronger demand for larger homes with family-focused neighborhood amenities (e.g., parks, sidewalks, schools, etc.). On the other hand, since some seniors are living with their children, the demand for independent senior housing and assisted living facilities in Killeen likely is lower than in some other communities. b) KISD Study Area Consistent with the characteristics of the population relations status, the study area has a slightly larger percentage of its households as Family Households (73%) than the MSA average (71.4%), and a higher percentage of households with children (47.3%) than at the MSA level (41.3%) (Table 2-24). Within the KISD study area, Fort Hood has the highest concentration of family households (94.7%), especially husband-wife families with related children. The percentage of all households with children (77.4%) is also well above the regional level, suggestion a strong demand for education facilities and services. Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith also have relatively higher percentages of households with children (54.3% and 51.2%), indicating a greater demand for education resources and family-friend neighborhood amenities. In contrast, Bellaire-Reeces Creek, Manor-Rancier, and Airport have the lowest concentrations of households with children, suggesting that these areas have been less attractive to young families.

Table 2-23

Household Distribution by Type


Type of Households

City of


Copperas

Cove

Harker

Heights

Killeen-

Temple-Fort

Hood MSA

Total 48,052 26,181 6,282 11,859 9,488 144,119

Households w/ 1-Person 24.4% 30.9% 3.9% 21.9% 19.3% 23.4%

Households w/ 2+ People 75.6% 69.1% 96.1% 78.1% 80.7% 76.6%

Family Households 69.2% 63.5% 95.6% 73.1% 75.2% 71.4%

Husband-Wife Families 47.1% 44.2% 81.7% 53.0% 55.8% 52.5%

Husband-Wife Families (w/ Related Children) 26.2% 20.2% 65.4% 27.5% 29.9% 26.8%

Other Family (No Spouse Present) 22.1% 19.3% 13.9% 20.1% 19.4% 18.9%

Other Family w/ Male Householder 4.9% 4.4% 2.3% 4.3% 4.7% 4.5%

Other Family w/ Male Householder (w/ Related Children) 3.3% 2.8% 2.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0%

Other Family w/ Female Householder 17.2% 14.9% 11.6% 15.8% 14.7% 14.4%

Other Family w/ Female Householder (w/ Related Children) 13.8% 10.6% 11.4% 12.0% 11.6% 11.0%

Nonfamily Households 6.3% 5.6% 0.5% 5.0% 5.5% 5.2%

All Households with Children 44.0% 34.0% 79.1% 43.0% 45.1% 41.3%

Multigenerational Households 4.4% 4.2% 2.4% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3%

Unmarried Parterner Households 6.1% 5.9% 1.3% 5.8% 5.6% 5.5%

Male-Female 5.5% 5.3% 0.6% 5.2% 5.0% 4.9%

Same-Sex 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%



Page 2-30

11. Distribution of Households by Number of Persons (2010) a) City of Killeen and Surrounding

Communities The distribution of household sizes in Killeen is similar to the regional average (Figure 2-16), though the share of 1-person households is slightly larger and the share of 5+ person households is slightly smaller. This explains the relatively small average household size in Killeen. In the surrounding communities, Fort Hood and Temple have the most unique household size characteristics. Fort Hood has much lower concentrations of 1-person and 2-person households (3.9% an 18.9%), and much higher concetrations of 3-person and larger households (77.2% total). Temple is the opposite, having high concentration of small households and limited large households. Again, this is consistent with the difference in average household sizes of these two communities.

Figure 2-16


Table 2-24

Household Characteristic Distribution by Type


Bellaire-

Reeces

Creek

Manor-

Rancier

Patterson-

Liberty Hill Roy J Smith

Harker

Heights Nolanville Fort Hood Airport Study Area

Total 10,746 15,327 7,623 14,560 8,895 2,188 6,725 1,546 67,609

Households w/ 1-Person 31.0% 29.2% 13.7% 19.8% 19.8% 17.8% 4.6% 17.1% 21.4%

Households w/ 2+ People 69.0% 70.8% 86.3% 80.2% 80.2% 82.2% 95.4% 82.9% 78.6%

Family Households 60.8% 64.3% 82.5% 74.3% 74.5% 76.4% 94.7% 78.8% 73.0%

Husband-Wife Families 37.0% 42.9% 63.4% 51.4% 54.8% 56.4% 80.3% 64.7% 52.3%

Husband-Wife Families (w/ Related Children) 18.1% 20.7% 38.6% 32.0% 28.8% 30.0% 63.4% 27.5% 30.5%

Other Family (No Spouse Present) 23.8% 21.4% 19.1% 22.9% 19.7% 19.9% 14.4% 14.1% 20.7%

Other Family w/ Male Householder 5.9% 4.7% 4.4% 4.7% 4.8% 5.8% 2.4% 4.7% 4.7%

Other Family w/ Male Householder (w/ Related Children) 3.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.4% 3.1% 3.8% 2.1% 2.7% 3.2%

Other Family w/ Female Householder 18.0% 16.6% 14.7% 18.2% 14.9% 14.2% 12.0% 9.4% 16.0%

Other Family w/ Female Householder (w/ Realed Children) 14.2% 12.8% 12.0% 15.2% 11.7% 11.1% 11.6% 6.5% 13.0%

Nonfamily Households 8.2% 6.5% 3.8% 5.9% 5.7% 5.8% 0.7% 4.1% 5.6%

All Households with Children 36.8% 37.2% 54.3% 51.2% 44.3% 45.7% 77.4% 37.1% 47.3%

Multigenerational Households 3.9% 3.9% 5.4% 4.7% 4.1% 5.9% 2.6% 6.1% 4.2%

Unmarried Parterner Households 8.2% 6.0% 4.2% 5.6% 5.8% 6.8% 1.0% 4.5% 5.6%

Male-Female 7.6% 5.4% 3.6% 4.9% 5.2% 5.8% 0.9% 3.9% 4.9%

Same-Sex 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%



Page 2-31

b) KISD Study Area As shown in Figure 2-17, the KISD study area has a smaller percentage of 1-person and 2-person households (50.4%) than the MSA regional average (55%) and a larger percentage of large households (49.5%, compared with 45% for the region). This is consistent with the larger average household size of the study area. Among the submarket areas, small households (1-person and 2-person) have the strongest presence in Bellaire-Reeces (61.7%) and Manor-Rancier (60.5%), both of which also have smaller percentages of large households. In contrast, Fort Hood has 75.6% of its households having 3 or more persons, and only 24.3% having 1 or 2 persons. Again, this reflects the different average household sizes in these areas. 12. Industry and Occupational Employment Comparison (2017)

a) City of Killeen and Surrounding

Communities In 2017 (Figure 2-18), 91.9% of the civilians at or above the age of 16 in the City of Killeen are employed, slightly lower than the regional average (93.8%). In the surrounding communities, Fort Hood has the lowest percentage of civilians at or above the age of 16 being employed (85.8%) while Temple has the highest percentage (95.5%). Of the employed civilians in Killeen (Table 2-25), 16.8% work in the Public Administration, higher than the regional average (11.9%), reflecting a strong presence of government agencies and institutional job opportunities. The shares of employment in other industries are closer to the regional levels. In the surrounding communities, Fort Hood has the highest share of employment in the Public Administration industry (37.1%), leaving the shares of employment in all the other industries well below the regional levels. This suggests that the economy is less diverse and there are limited types of jobs outside the Army. Temple has the lowest share of employment in the Public Administration industry (5.4%), indicating that its economy comprises a variety of businesses and activities. The higher percentage of

Figure 2-17


Figure 2-18



Page 2-32

employment in the Services industry (55.4%) also reflects the diverse of the economy. The percentage of manufacturing employment (9.2%) is higher than the regional level (5.1%), which explains the high concentration of low-income households in Temple. In terms of the occupation structure for persons at or above the age of 16, Killeen has a slightly higher concentration of White Collar workers (79.3%) than the regional average (78.6%), but within them, the percentages of Management/Businesses/Financial workers and Professional workers – in other words, those with higher-incomes - are lower. This explains the lack of high-income households in Killeen. The share of Blue-Collar workers is slightly smaller (20.6%) in Killeen than at the regional level (21.4%), but within this cohort, the share of Installation/Maintenance/Repair workers is larger, indicating the influence of the military post. Of the surrounding communities, Fort Hood has the highest concentration of Blue Collar workers (25.8%), especially those working in Installation/Maintenance/Repair (13.6%) and in Transportation/Material Moving (7.8%). These are mostly likely workers providing support to the operations of the military post. Harker Heights and Temple have higher concentrations of White Collar workers, especially those doing Professional work. This is consistent with the large percentages of high-income households in these two communities. b) KISD Study Area Comparatively, the KISD study area is comprised of 80,900 employees over the age of 16, which accounts for roughly 45% of the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA employed population. This is largely attributed to the submarkets concentrated within the city limits and its proximity to the military post. Simply put, approximately half of the employed population over 16 years old serve in the military or contain other service jobs with an additional 16% in public administration. This coincides with the strong school system of the KISD in which several facilities are concentrated within these submarkets. The Roy J Smith urban submarket, one of the newly developed areas, has the highest concentration of public administration workers (4,149/22% of total employed population over 16 years old) as well as the Manor Rancier, Patterson-Liberty Hill and Bellaire-Reeces-Creek Urban submarket (Table 2-26). In contrast, job opportunities in the more rural submarkets have a lower concentration of workers over the age of 16, which indicates that the existing residents commute to the employment centers near the City limits. From an occupational level, a higher concentration of the employed population over 16 years old work in white collar jobs. Nearly 80% of the employed population in the KISD study area have jobs that are considered white collar. The distribution of service and administration support is a common occupation in the City submarkets (Submarkets 1, 2, 3 and 4) as well as Harker Heights which is the nearest to the City of Killeen. To this point, the proximity to the Fort Hood military post and the substantial supply of institutional/school facilities steer the economic and employment base. Comparatively, a vast majority of the submarkets have over a 20% distribution of the employed population have blue collar jobs. This coincides with the notable concentration of lower income households and the affordability of the existing housing market.


Page 2-33

Table

2-2

5

Emplo

yed

Po

pula

tion 1

6+

by I

ndu

stry

& O

ccupa

tion (

201

7)

City o

f K

ille

en &

Surr

oun

din

g C

om

munit

ies

Co

un

t%

To

tal

Co

un

t%

To

tal

Co

un

t%

To

tal

Co

un

t%

To

tal

Co

un

t%

To

tal

Co

un

t%

To

tal

IND

UST

RY

Agricu

lture

/M

inin

g177

0.3

%170

0.5

%0

0.0

%64

0.5

%115

0.9

%1,8

00

1.0

%

Cons

truc

tion

3,1

20

5.3

%1,2

90

3.8

%96

2.5

%694

5.4

%601

4.7

%12,0

57

6.7

%

Manu

fact

urin

g1,7

07

2.9

%3,1

24

9.2

%27

0.7

%283

2.2

%409

3.2

%9,1

78

5.1

%

Who

lesa

le T

rade

530

0.9

%1,1

88

3.5

%23

0.6

%154

1.2

%192

1.5

%3,9

59

2.2

%

Reta

il Tr

ade

7,7

11

13.1

%3,9

73

11.7

%316

8.2

%1,4

27

11.1

%1,6

38

12.8

%21,5

95

12.0

%

Trans

portatio

n/U

tiliti

es

2,8

25

4.8

%1,4

26

4.2

%96

2.5

%656

5.1

%678

5.3

%8,8

18

4.9

%

Info

rmatio

n942

1.6

%543

1.6

%62

1.6

%296

2.3

%166

1.3

%2,5

19

1.4

%

Fina

nce/In

sura

nce/Real Es

tate

2,5

31

4.3

%1,5

96

4.7

%23

0.6

%784

6.1

%729

5.7

%8,8

18

4.9

%

Serv

ices

29,4

31

50.0

%18,8

11

55.4

%1,7

85

46.3

%6,3

00

49.0

%7,0

50

55.1

%89,9

78

50.0

%

Pub

lic A

dm

inistratio

n9,8

89

16.8

%1,8

34

5.4

%1,4

31

37.1

%2,1

86

17.0

%1,2

16

9.5

%21,4

15

11.9

%

Tota

l5

8,8

61

10

0.0

%3

3,9

55

10

0.0

%3

,86

01

00

.1%

12

,84

49

9.9

%1

2,7

95

10

0.0

%1

80

,13

51

00

.1%

OC

CU

PA

TIO

N

Wh

ite C

olla

r3

2,1

97

54

.7%

20

,13

55

9.3

%1

,95

95

0.8

%7

,53

45

8.6

%8

,16

36

3.8

%1

02

,75

45

7.1

%

M

ana

gem

ent

/Bus

iness

/Fi

nanc

ial

6,0

04

10.2

%3,5

99

10.6

%540

14.0

%1,4

14

11.0

%1,3

05

10.2

%20,6

95

11.5

%

Pro

fess

iona

l9,6

53

16.4

%8,7

60

25.8

%455

11.8

%2,8

03

21.8

%3,5

83

28.0

%36,7

11

20.4

%

Sale

s6,5

92

11.2

%3,2

26

9.5

%351

9.1

%1,1

83

9.2

%1,2

67

9.9

%18,3

55

10.2

%

A

dm

inistrativ

e S

upport

9,8

89

16.8

%4,5

84

13.5

%613

15.9

%2,1

21

16.5

%2,0

22

15.8

%26,9

93

15.0

%

Serv

ice

14,5

39

24.7

%7,1

31

21.0

%902

23.4

%2,9

31

22.8

%2,3

67

18.5

%38,6

90

21.5

%

Blu

e C

olla

r1

2,1

25

20

.6%

6,7

23

19

.8%

99

52

5.8

%2

,39

11

8.6

%2

,26

51

7.7

%3

8,5

10

21

.4%

Fa

rmin

g/Fo

restry

/Fi

shin

g59

0.1

%102

0.3

%0

0.0

%26

0.2

%26

0.2

%720

0.4

%

C

ons

truc

tion/

Extract

ion

2,0

01

3.4

%849

2.5

%104

2.7

%604

4.7

%550

4.3

%8,4

58

4.7

%

In

stalla

tion/

Main

tena

nce/Repair

3,7

67

6.4

%1,1

21

3.3

%524

13.6

%617

4.8

%563

4.4

%9,1

78

5.1

%

Pro

duc

tion

2,3

54

4.0

%2,3

43

6.9

%66

1.7

%321

2.5

%358

2.8

%8,2

78

4.6

%

Tr

ans

portatio

n/M

ate

rial M

ovi

ng3,9

44

6.7

%2,3

09

6.8

%301

7.8

%836

6.5

%768

6.0

%11,8

77

6.6

%

Sour

ce: ES

RI and

RKG

Ass

oci

ate

s, Inc

., 2018

Kill

een

-Tem

ple

-Fo

rt

Ho

od

MSA

City

of

Kill

een

Tem

ple

Fort

Ho

od

C

op

per

as

Co

ve

Ha

rker

Hei

gh

ts


Page 2-34

Tabl

e 2-

26

Empl

oyed

Pop

ulat

ion

16+

by

Indu

stry

& O

ccup

atio

n

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

(201

7)

Cou

nt%

Tot

alC

ount

% T

otal

Cou

nt%

Tot

alC

ount

% T

otal

Cou

nt%

Tot

alC

ount

% T

otal

Cou

nt%

Tot

alC

ount

% T

otal

Cou

nt%

Tot

al

IND

UST

RY

Agr

icul

ture

/Min

ing

360.

3%64

0.4%

250.

2%38

0.2%

108

0.9%

571.

9%0

0.0%

90.

4%32

40.

4%

Con

struc

tion

947

7.9%

949

5.9%

512

4.1%

736

3.9%

562

4.7%

207

6.9%

110

2.5%

273

12.8

%4,

288

5.3%

Man

ufac

turin

g25

22.

1%51

53.

2%37

43.

0%60

43.

2%37

03.

1%20

16.

7%40

0.9%

321.

5%2,

427

3.0%

Who

lesa

le T

rade

720.

6%17

71.

1%50

0.4%

207

1.1%

191

1.6%

108

3.6%

350.

8%53

2.5%

890

1.1%

Reta

il Tr

ade

1,76

214

.7%

2,10

613

.1%

1,31

010

.5%

2,56

513

.6%

1,57

713

.2%

364

12.1

%40

69.

2%23

511

.0%

10,3

5512

.8%

Tran

spor

tatio

n/U

tiliti

es49

14.

1%78

84.

9%79

96.

4%81

14.

3%63

35.

3%12

34.

1%10

12.

3%11

75.

5%3,

883

4.8%

Info

rmat

ion

276

2.3%

273

1.7%

237

1.9%

189

1.0%

143

1.2%

180.

6%79

1.8%

90.

4%1,

214

1.5%

Fina

nce/

Insu

ranc

e/Re

al E

state

443

3.7%

965

6.0%

487

3.9%

622

3.3%

669

5.6%

228

7.6%

571.

3%79

3.7%

3,56

04.

4%

Serv

ices

6,28

152

.4%

8,00

849

.8%

6,50

152

.1%

8,95

947

.5%

6,59

655

.2%

1,49

949

.9%

2,05

946

.7%

982

46.0

%40

,855

50.5

%

Publ

ic A

dmin

istra

tion

1,40

211

.7%

2,25

114

.0%

2,18

317

.5%

4,14

922

.0%

1,08

79.

1%20

16.

7%1,

516

34.4

%34

616

.2%

13,1

0616

.2%

Tota

l11

,962

99.8

%16

,096

100.

1%12

,477

100.

0%18

,879

100.

1%11

,937

99.9

%3,

008

100.

1%4,

404

99.9

%2,

135

100.

0%80

,900

100.

0%

OC

CU

PATI

ON

Whi

te C

olla

r9,

373

78.2

%12

,398

77.1

%10

,356

83.0

%15

,031

79.7

%9,

942

83.2

%2,

215

73.7

%3,

293

74.7

%1,

616

75.7

%64

,235

79.4

%

M

anag

emen

t/Bu

sines

s/Fi

nanc

ial

947

7.9%

1,39

98.

7%2,

009

16.1

%1,

716

9.1%

1,17

19.

8%45

115

.0%

652

14.8

%37

817

.7%

8,73

710

.8%

Pr

ofes

siona

l1,

774

14.8

%2,

251

14.0

%3,

144

25.2

%2,

659

14.1

%3,

394

28.4

%68

822

.9%

547

12.4

%40

118

.8%

14,8

8618

.4%

Sa

les

1,46

212

.2%

2,17

113

.5%

1,06

18.

5%1,

961

10.4

%1,

207

10.1

%29

49.

8%41

49.

4%21

810

.2%

8,73

710

.8%

A

dmin

istra

tive

Supp

ort

1,61

813

.5%

2,76

617

.2%

1,87

215

.0%

3,65

919

.4%

1,93

616

.2%

307

10.2

%65

214

.8%

284

13.3

%13

,106

16.2

%

Se

rvic

e 3,

572

29.8

%3,

811

23.7

%2,

271

18.2

%5,

036

26.7

%2,

234

18.7

%47

515

.8%

1,02

723

.3%

335

15.7

%18

,769

23.2

%

Blue

Col

lar

2,61

321

.8%

3,68

222

.9%

2,12

117

.0%

3,82

920

.3%

2,01

916

.9%

790

26.3

%1,

111

25.2

%52

124

.4%

16,7

4620

.7%

Fa

rmin

g/Fo

restr

y/Fi

shin

g0

0.0%

320.

2%12

0.1%

00.

0%24

0.2%

60.

2%0

0.0%

90.

4%81

0.1%

C

onstr

uctio

n/Ex

tract

ion

647

5.4%

611

3.8%

299

2.4%

472

2.5%

526

4.4%

189

6.3%

119

2.7%

199

9.3%

3,07

43.

8%

In

stalla

tion/

Mai

nten

ance

/Rep

air

791

6.6%

1,19

07.

4%76

16.

1%1,

037

5.5%

502

4.2%

156

5.2%

608

13.8

%15

87.

4%5,

178

6.4%

Pr

oduc

tion

252

2.1%

675

4.2%

424

3.4%

1,00

05.

3%29

92.

5%22

57.

5%75

1.7%

793.

7%3,

074

3.8%

Tr

ansp

orta

tion/

Mat

eria

l Mov

ing

923

7.7%

1,17

47.

3%62

45.

0%1,

320

7.0%

669

5.6%

213

7.1%

309

7.0%

773.

6%5,

339

6.6%

Sour

ce: E

SRI a

nd R

KG A

ssoc

iate

s, In

c., 2

018

Fort

Hoo

d

Kill

een-

Fort

Hoo

d

Reg

iona

l Airp

ort

Stud

y A

rea

Bella

ire-R

eece

s C

reek

Man

or-R

anci

erPa

tters

on-L

iber

ty H

illR

oy J

Sm

ithH

arke

r Hei

ghts

Nol

anvi

lle


Page 2-35

13. KISD Commute Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies, RKG analyzed the commuting patterns of the KISD Study Area. Commuting data help show economic linkages within the region’s economy based on the flow of labor between communities. It should be noted when looking at this commuting data that military jobs are not part of the labor force and the data do not include the workforce at Fort Hood. It does include government employment (e.g., local, state and federal) and DoD contractors.

The KISD Study Area has most of its workforce leaving the study area each day to go to work. The total labor force living within the study area is 57,745, yet the same area only accounts for 40,084 jobs. This data helps explain why 63.5% (or 36,657 workers) of the study area’s labor force leaves the study area each day to go to work (Figure 2-19). Conversely, the other 36.5% (or 21,088 workers) of the labor force both live and work within the KISD study area. Lastly, almost 19,000 people in-commute from outside the study area. Regarding worker leaving the study area each day, it is predominately comprised of workers between the ages of 30 and 54 looking for higher-paying jobs. Figure 2-20 shows the direction and distance of the out-commuting population. Not surprisingly, many workers travel to the east to Temple and south to Austin and its northern suburbs. While the City of Killeen is the central employment draw in the region, employing 22.5% of KISD workers, approximately 10.5% (6,061 workers) of all workers commute to the City of Temple for their employment. Temple has the most diverse economy within the MSA. Also, the KISD labor force has a strong connection with the City of Austin resulting in 7.5% of all workers commuting there each day, not including its suburbs. Additionally, 2.4% of workers living in the study area travel north to Waco for their employment. The data reflect the quality of jobs within the KISD. Additionally, it shows that residents of this study area are not able to find the same economic opportunities near their homes. Furthermore, this data could suggest many residents within the KISD settle there because they are priced out of more expensive housing markets such as Austin or Round Rock. KISD’s relatively affordable housing market supports this.

Figure 2-19 Commuting Inflow/Outflow

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, “OnTheMap.”, 2019


Page 2-36

E. IMPLICATIONS a) City of Killeen and Surrounding Communities The City of Killeen is the most populous city in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA region. Since 2000, Killeen has experienced rapid growth in population and number of households, mainly due to soldiers returning to the military post from overseas and then retiring from the Army and choosing to stay in the region. The growth slowed down after 2010, but still exceeded the paces in the surrounding communities, indicating that Killeen has been attractive to retired soldiers. Between 2000 and 2017, the growth of senior population contributed to the total population growth in Killeen, resulting in a moderate population aging, a trend that is likely to continue in the next few years. However, Killeen’s population is still young relative to the rest of the region in terms of lower median household age and the high percentages of school-aged population. Also, the percentages of older adults including empty nesters and retirees are smaller than the regional averages. Between 2000 and 2017, growth in the 0-14 and 35-44 age cohorts outpaced all the surrounding communities. Other demographic characteristics such as marital status, population relationships, and household types also lead to the conclusion that Killeen has a younger population with a higher concentration of young families and school-aged children than the regional average. This suggests that compared with the rest of the region, Killeen’s housing market is more affordable, appeals to young families with limited income and household wealth. The demand for education resources is also stronger in Killeen than in the surrounding communities. Killeen has a larger percentage of persons with low- to mid-level education than the regional average. The household income follows a similar distribution pattern: most of the households have annual income between $15,000 and $100,000. High-income households are rare. This is consistent with the finding that Killeen doesn’t have many residents at their peak earning and wealth accumulation ages and corroborates the inference that Killeen’s housing stock is relatively affordable and caters to families with school-aged children. Finally, the high concentration of low- and mid-level educated persons also indicates that the economy of Killeen is less diverse than the regional average. The majority of the jobs are low-and middle-level white collar jobs that require similar levels of skills.

Where Workers are Employed Who Live in KISD

2015

Place of Employment Count % of Total

Killeen city, TX 13,005 22.5%

Temple city, TX 6,061 10.5%

Austin city, TX 4,345 7.5%

Copperas Cove city, TX 3,961 6.9%

Harker Heights city, TX 3,019 5.2%

San Antonio city, TX 2,060 3.6%

Belton city, TX 1,769 3.1%

Houston city, TX 1,521 2.6%

Waco city, TX 1,362 2.4%

Dallas city, TX 1,203 2.1%

Fort Hood CDP, TX 1,118 1.9%

All Other Locations 18,321 31.7%

Totals - KISD Workforce 57,745 100.0%

Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for

Economic Studies, “OnTheMap.”, 2019

Table 2-27 Figure 2-20

Source: U.S. Census and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019


Page 2-37

Of all the communities in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA region, Fort Hood has been most directly affected by changes at the installation. It has the youngest population, the highest share of male population, and an exceptionally higher percentage of persons in group quarters - young soldiers living in barracks-style housing, all of which are typical features of a military base. Even though only a smaller percentage of Fort Hood’s population are in households, the majority of these are husband-wife families with children (more than 2 persons). These are typically senior soldiers with spouses and children, many of which came to the military post in the 1990s. As a result, Fort Hood’s average household size is well above the regional average. The characteristics of Fort Hood’s population education level, household income, and civilian employment situation also demonstrate the influence of the military post. Fort Hood has a limited number of persons with very low- and very high-level education, and a small percentage of its households with very high and low household incomes. Compared with the other communities, Fort Hood has a much higher percentage of its civilian population unemployed. Most of them are family members of the soldiers in the military post where their job opportunities outside the Army are limited. Of the civilians that are employed, a large share of them are blue collar workers with installation/maintenance/repair and transportation/material moving jobs, providing support to the operation of the military post. On the east side of Killeen and farther away from the military post, Temple has the second largest population and the most diverse economy of the region. The population growth since 2000 has been consistently strong, indicating that Temple has been attracting residents with its diverse job opportunities and well-developed infrastructure and public services. Temple has the oldest population in the region. The percentage of persons in the 45-64 age cohort is higher than in the other communities, indicating that Temple has high-quality housing and neighborhoods that appeal to people with greater financial capabilities. The percentage of seniors (65+ years) is also the highest in the region, which is consistent with the high concentration of 1-person households. Finally, Temple has the highest percentage of persons in institutionalized group quarters, many of which are senior facilities. Compared with the other communities, Temple has higher percentages of least-educated and most-educated persons, which is consistent with the larger shares of households with the lowest incomes and highest incomes. This indicates that Temple’s diverse economy provides a wide variety of job opportunities that require different education and skill levels. It also suggests that Temple has a mixed housing market that can meet with the needs of people at all income levels. The other two communities – Harker Heights and Copperas Cove – are much smaller and more upscale. They attract high-income individuals and households that demand high-quality housing and neighborhood amenities. The local job market is small.

b) Greater Killeen Study Area Among the eight submarket areas of the Killeen Independent School District, Roy J Smith has the largest population, followed by Manor-Rancier, Fort Hood, and Patterson-Liberty Hill. This is different from the situation in 2000, when Roy J Smith and Patterson-Liberty Hill both had much smaller populations. The notable population growth in these two submarkets was largely due to the demand from family forming households who are seeking the best educational programs for their children. Additionally, a large number of soldiers separating from the Army appear to be choosing to stay within the region. They chose this area because it had plenty of undeveloped land especially in the southern part, and it is close to the military post and Interstate 14. As a result, new development and public services in these two submarkets have been struggling to keep pace with the population growth. In contrast, Fort Hood’s population declined between 2000 and 2017 as soldiers leaving the military post. To the east of Fort Hood, Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier also had limited population growth since 2000. Both submarkets were developed earlier, so most neighborhoods are older and less attractive to the retired soldiers.


Page 2-38

The population’s age and household relationship characteristics also reflect the influence of the military post. Fort Hood has the youngest population, with high concentrations of school-aged children and young adults, and very few persons above the age of 54. The three adjacent submarkets – Roy J Smith, Bellaire-Reeces Creek, and Manor-Rancier – also have larger percentages of school-aged persons and smaller percentages of seniors than the average at the study area level. On the other hand, many of the retired soldiers that chose to stay nearby had their spouse, children and sometimes parents living with them. As they relocated to Roy J Smith and Patterson-Liberty Hill, these two areas experienced rapid growth of school-aged children, middle-aged and older adults, and seniors. Both areas also have relatively large percentages of persons in family households especially as children. As previously explained, this suggests that the demand for education resources and family-oriented housing and neighborhood amenities is stronger in these two submarkets. Since 2000, they have been under greater pressure to provide such resources than other submarkets in the KISD study area.

Despite the similarities in military influence, the four submarkets closest to the military post have different workforces, job markets, and household income levels. Patterson-Liberty Hill has one of the most educated workforce populations in the study area, which is consistent with the high concentration of upper-middle-class households and small percentage of low-income households. Roy J Smith’s workforce education level and household income level are also above the study area averages. In contrast, Bellaire-Reeces Creek’s workforce population is the least educated throughout the study area, resulting in a high concentration of low-income households. Manor-Rancier’s workforce education level and household income level are slightly higher but still below the study area averages. A lack of high-paying jobs in Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier partly explained the stagnation of population and household growth. The rest of the submarkets – Harker Heights, Nolanville, and Airport – are farther away from the military post and have been less affected by the Army’s policies. Compared with the KIDS averages, the populations in these submarkets are older and more educated, and the household income levels are higher. Since 2000, all three submarkets have experienced strong population growth, especially in the 65+ year age cohort, indicating that these areas have attracted retirees with high-quality senior facilities and services. Nolanville and Harker Heights have seen less growth of school-aged children and young adults than other age cohorts. This is due to the lack of job opportunities and affordable housing in these areas. In the Airport submarket, the growth of the young-adult population has been strong, indicating a growing job market.


Page 3-1

3 REGIONAL HOUSING ANALYSIS

A. INTRODUCTION

The following section examines the residential market climate in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and its surrounding communities in addition to submarkets that comprise the KISD Independent School District (KISD) study area. Further, the chapter provides context detailing market trends, indicators, and conditions related to the overall health and performance for-rent and for-sale housing markets. The City of Killeen’s proximity to Fort Hood has translated into consistent demand and residential market growth. These market forces have been driven by population changes and economic growth throughout the City, however, the surrounding communities and various submarket areas have not always produced the same results.

B. METHODOLOGY RKG Associates analyzed housing characteristics from a regional perspective, including those counties comprising the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA (Map 3-1). In addition, the analysis consolidated 11 existing attendance zones within the Killeen Independent School Districts (KISD) into eight submarkets representing the KISD study area. Both terms are used interchangeably in this analysis. The KISD housing analysis includes the following submarket areas:

KISD Submarket Areas

• Submarket 1 Bellaire-Reeces Creek

• Submarket 2 Manor-Rancier

• Submarket 3 Patterson-Liberty Hill

• Submarket 4 Roy J Smith

• Submarket 5 Harker Heights

• Submarket 6 Nolanville

• Submarket 7 Fort Hood

• Submarket 8 Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport (Map 3-2) The school attendance zones contain detailed information regarding the number of school-age children by grade level and allow RKG to measure the total number of students by grade level and housing type later in the study. The U.S. Census and 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates were used for the housing inventory data regarding the distribution and age of housing stock, tenure and value of owner-occupied/renter-occupied housing units as well as other indicators of the housing market.


Page 3-2

Ma

p 3

-1


Page 3-3

Ma

p 3

-2


Page 3-4

C. REGIONAL AND SUBMARKET HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 1. Housing Units by Structure Type

a) Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA Comparison The predominant housing type in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA is single family detached homes. These units constitute approximately 65% of the MSA’s total housing supply, followed by units in larger, multi-unit apartment buildings and complexes (Table 3-1). Within the MSA, the City of Killeen has the largest housing inventory and is the most populous community in the region. The mix of unit type in Killeen is slightly more diverse than the regional average: roughly 62% of the housing units are traditional single family-detached units, approximately 17% of classified as 5 or more-unit buildings and 14% are 2 to 4-unit buildings.

The City of Temple has the second largest housing inventory with similar housing characteristics as the City of Killeen. Approximately 23% of the multi-family properties have 5 or more units with an additional 8% of the inventory consisting of 2 to 4 multi-family units. The diversified housing stock in the Temple reflects the diverse household types and older, urbanized market characteristics. In contrast, Copperas Cove and Harker Heights contain smaller housing inventories dominated by single family-detached units, which reflects the more rural or small-town environments. Fort Hood distinguishes itself with the high concentration of single family-attached units (52%) and units in small 2-4-unit structures (25%), as well as a limited supply of single family-detached units (19%). Fort Hood’s housing was built for soldiers and their families, including single soldiers, many of whom live in barracks-style housing. Many of the married soldiers live in single family-attached units, but in recent years, non-military personnel have been allowed to rent some units on post. b) The KISD Study Area and Submarkets Comparisons Like the region’s housing stock, single family detached homes dominate the local housing supply within the eight submarkets that comprised the KISD study area. According to American Community Survey estimates, single family-detached units account for 59.3% of the KISD submarket area’s housing inventory or 52,933 out of the 78,937 total units (Figure 3-1). This is largely due to the high concentration of single family-detached units (77%) clustered within four submarkets that define the City of Killeen (Map 3-2). The demand for housing is substantially

Table 3-1Housing Unit Inventory by Type and Year Built

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA & Surrounding Communities (2011-2015 ACS Estimate)

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Single Family- Detached 35,902 62.4% 19,075 64.3% 1,243 19.4% 10,473 75.5% 6,937 64.6% 108,511 65.2%

Single Family- Attached 2,427 4.2% 511 1.7% 3,354 52.4% 229 1.7% 296 2.8% 7,400 4.4%

2-4 Units 8,198 14.2% 2,417 8.1% 1,592 24.9% 1,715 12.4% 1,566 14.6% 17,372 10.4%

5+ Units 9,536 16.6% 6,735 22.7% 200 3.1% 1,239 8.9% 522 4.9% 20,791 12.5%

Mobile Homes/Other 1,491 2.6% 945 3.2% 17 0.3% 221 1.6% 1,414 13.2% 12,349 7.4%

Total 57,554 100.0% 29,683 100.0% 6,406 100.0% 13,877 100.0% 10,735 100.0% 166,423 100.0%

Source: ACS Estimate (2011-2015) and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018

Killeen-Temple-Fort

Hood MSACity of Killeen Temple Fort Hood Copperas Cove Harker Heights


Page 3-5

higher within these submarkets due to the close proximity of Fort Hood. To this point, these submarkets are more diversified, in terms of housing types and price points, compared to the submarkets outside of the city limits; particularly in more rural or suburban communities. Multi-family units (both 2-4 units/5 or more units) account for roughly 27.5% of the KISD submarket area’s total housing inventory (Table 3-2). The Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier submarkets account for over 60% of the multi-family unit inventory. This is consistent with the population growth patterns in each of these submarket areas. As for mobile homes, the distribution of these units varies, however, they have historically clustered in more rural areas outside of traditional neighborhoods. A number of mobile homes are in the Harker Heights and Nolanville submarkets, which consist of nearly half (2,111 units) of the local inventory.

Table 3-2

Housing Unit Inventory by Type

Greater Killeen Study Area & Urban Submarkets (2011-2015 ACS Estimate)

Submarket Areas

Single Family

(Detached)

Single

Family

(Attached) 2 to 4 units

5 or More

Units

Mobile

Home/Other

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 6,173 764 2,397 3,710 595 13,639

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 9,309 573 2,707 4,473 705 17,767

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 8,178 164 451 50 141 8,984

SM 4 - Roy J. Smith 12,347 861 2,528 1,295 211 17,242

SM 5 - Harker Heights 6,497 296 1,554 522 1,356 10,225

SM 6 - Nolanville 1,466 70 122 25 755 2,438

SM 7 - Fort Hood 1,474 3,407 1,650 208 116 6,855

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 1,354 0 0 0 433 1,787

Total 46,798 6,135 11,409 10,283 4,312 78,937

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 13.2% 12.5% 21.0% 36.1% 13.8% 17.3%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 19.9% 9.3% 23.7% 43.5% 16.3% 22.5%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 17.5% 2.7% 4.0% 0.5% 3.3% 11.4%

SM 4 - Roy J. Smith 26.4% 14.0% 22.2% 12.6% 4.9% 21.8%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 13.9% 4.8% 13.6% 5.1% 31.4% 13.0%

SM 6 - Nolanville 3.1% 1.1% 1.1% 0.2% 17.5% 3.1%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 3.1% 55.5% 14.5% 2.0% 2.7% 8.7%

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 2.3%

Total 59.3% 7.8% 14.5% 13.0% 5.5% 100.0%


HOUSING TYPES

Total

Inventory

Figure 3-1

Source: ACS Estimates (2011-2015) and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018


Page 3-6

2. Age of Housing Stock

a) Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA Comparisons The City of Killeen has a relatively new housing supply relative to its age. Approximately 30% of total dwelling units were built before 1980, which is less than the regional average (37.8%) and an additional 34% of housing units were built since 2000, which is higher than the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA average (28%) (Table 3-3). This is reflective of the growth experienced within the City and the KISD since 2000. The rapid population growth in Killeen, especially between 2000 and 2010, was fueled by a strong demand for new housing development, much of it driven by changes occurring at Fort Hood. Similarly, Harker Heights, whose population has grown substantially since 2000 also has experienced strong housing construction with 38% of its housing stock constructed since 2000. In contrast, Copperas Cove’s housing is much older, with 61% of the units built before 1990 and only 21% built after 2000. Comparatively, Fort Hood has the oldest housing stock of the region, suggesting that the military post has been primarily the demand driver of the local housing market. Approximately 56% of all the units were built before 1980 during the military post’s peak expansion period. Since 2009, only 110 units have been built, accounting for only 2% of the housing stock, indicating a lack of demand outside the military post.

b) The KISD Study Area and Submarket Comparisons Residential development peaked between 2000 and 2009 throughout the KISD study area and its submarkets, which is somewhat consistent with the residential development growth that occurred throughout the MSA. This coincides with the rapid population growth in the City of Killeen and further expansion into several neighboring Submarkets. Roughly 33% of the housing inventory was constructed during this period but exhibited slower growth into the next decade (Table 3-4). Only 6% of the housing supply in the KISD study area has been constructed since 2010. This indicates that the study area has slowed considerably since the end of the national recession in 2010.

Table 3-3Housing Inventory by Year BuiltKilleen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA & Surrounding Communities (2011-2015 ACS Estimate)


Built 1980 or Earlier 17,117 29.8% 14,607 49.3% 3,584 55.9% 5,627 40.6% 2,480 23.1% 62,760 37.8%

Built 1980 to 1989 10,423 18.1% 4,518 15.2% 1,100 17.2% 2,773 20.0% 1,543 14.4% 28,073 16.9%

Built 1990 to 1999 10,179 17.7% 3,386 11.4% 760 11.9% 2,597 18.7% 2,638 24.6% 28,345 17.1%

Built 2000 to 2009 15,788 27.5% 5,686 19.2% 852 13.3% 2,402 17.3% 3,634 33.9% 39,020 23.5%

Built 2009 or Later 3,941 6.9% 1,435 4.8% 110 1.7% 462 3.3% 425 4.0% 7,949 4.8%

Total 57,448 100.0% 29,632 100.0% 6,406 100.0% 13,861 100.0% 10,720 100.0% 166,147 100.0%


Killeen-Temple-Fort



Page 3-7

Within the KISD study area, the Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J. Smith Submarkets had the highest number of new housing starts (Table 3-4). Combined, these Submarkets account for roughly 57% of new residential units constructed between 2000 and 2009. An additional 15% of housing units were constructed in the Harker Heights Submarket. In contrast, Submarkets such as Bellaire-Creek (59.5%), Manor-Rancier (36.8%) and Fort Hood (52.8%) are comprised of much older housing units within established residential neighborhoods.

3. Housing Tenure and Vacancy Rates

a) Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA Comparisons The Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA region has more owner-occupied housing units (49%) than renter-occupied housing units (41%), but the difference has become less significant since 2000, reflecting an increase in housing diversity (Figure 3-2). The City of Temple, Copperas Cove and Harker Heights all share similar trends. In contrast, renter-occupied housing has a stronger presence in Killeen (47%). This is consistent with the comparatively lower household income level throughout the City of Killeen, as well as the high concentration of transient, non-family households – mostly military. Since 2000, housing vacancy has been increasing in most communities. The housing vacancy rate increased most in Fort Hood (from 2% to 7%), mainly due to the Army’s policy of downsizing the military post. Killeen’s housing vacancy increased from 8% to 11%. Given that the housing stock in Killeen consists of relatively new constructed developments, the increase of vacancy suggests the demand is unmet, which is attributed to the decline in population throughout the military post as well as the City losing attraction due its notable concentration of older buildings and conditions that may be less attractive and not worth the market value. Harker Heights is the only community whose housing vacancy level has been stable. The new development in Harker Heights appeals to new residents with higher incomes, at the same time, the older housing and neighborhoods have been well-maintained.

Table 3-4

Housing Inventory Distribution by Year Built

Greater Killeen Study Area & Urban Submarkets (2011-2015 ACS Estimates)

SM 1 -

Bellaire-

Reeces Creek

SM 2 -

Manor-

Rancier

SM 3 -

Patterson-

Liberty Hill

SM 4 - Roy

J Smith

SM 5 -

Harker

Heights

SM 6 -

Nolanville

SM 7 - Fort

Hood

SM 8 - Killeen-

Fort Hood

Regional

Airport

NUMBER OF UNITS

Built 1980 or Earlier 8,115 6,538 413 2,121 2,474 712 3,619 304 24,297

Built 1980 to 1989 1,896 4,868 800 2,966 1,503 346 1,145 416 13,940

Built 1990 to 1999 1,787 3,642 2,174 2,638 2,505 334 891 322 14,293

Built 2000 to 2009 1,173 2,345 4,357 8,018 3,180 946 1,076 459 21,554

Built 2010 or Later 655 373 1,213 1,466 532 102 117 275 4,732

Total 13,639 17,767 8,984 17,242 10,225 2,438 6,855 1,787 78,816


Built 1980 or Earlier 59.5% 36.8% 4.6% 12.3% 24.2% 29.2% 52.8% 17.0% 30.8%

Built 1980 to 1989 13.9% 27.4% 8.9% 17.2% 14.7% 14.2% 16.7% 23.3% 17.7%

Built 1990 to 1999 13.1% 20.5% 24.2% 15.3% 24.5% 13.7% 13.0% 18.0% 18.1%

Built 2000 to 2009 8.6% 13.2% 48.5% 46.5% 31.1% 38.8% 15.7% 25.7% 27.3%

Built 2010 or Later 4.8% 2.1% 13.5% 8.5% 5.2% 4.2% 1.7% 15.4% 6.0%

Total 17.3% 22.5% 11.4% 21.9% 13.0% 3.1% 8.7% 2.3% 100.0%


GREATER KILLEEN SUBMARKET AREAS

Total

Inventroy


Page 3-8

b) The KISD Study Area and Submarket Comparisons Compared with the MSA region, the KISD study area and its Submarkets have a lower concentration of owner-occupied units (41%) and a higher concentration of renter-occupied units (48%), reflecting its more urban environment and lower household income level (Figure 3-3). Submarkets, such as Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier have more renter-occupied units than owner-occupied due to its higher concentration of households which earn a lower-income and may not be able to afford or own a home. In contrast, submarkets south of Business Highway 190, such as Patterson-Liberty Hill, the Killeen Fort Hood Regional Airport, Nolanville, and Harker Heights have more owner-occupied units than renter-occupied. However, since 2000, all submarkets housing tenure has shifted toward rental housing, indicating a diversification of housing opportunities. Since 2000, housing vacancy has increased in most submarkets. In Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier, it was mainly due to the established residential neighborhoods of an older housing stock as well as the difficulty to attracting residents to live and invest within the community. In Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith, it was mainly due to new housing development outpacing household growth.

Figure 3-2

Source: ESRI Community Profile Reports and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018


Page 3-9

4. Move-in Year of Occupant by Tenure

a) Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA Comparisons A vast majority of homeowners throughout the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA moved in into their respective units during the same period the housing stock peaked (2000 – 2009). Roughly 49% of the owner-occupied units were moved into during this period (Table 3-5). This is like the surrounding communities, other than Fort Hood, which contains a small inventory of owner-occupied units. Further, homeowners have continued to invest in the housing market throughout the MSA region in which a notable concentration of homeowners have moved into their units as of 2010 or later. As for renters throughout the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA, multi-family was limited prior to 2000, which indicates the low concentration of renters moving into their units between 1980 and 1999. Additionally, this coincides with the diversified housing opportunities which have surfaced throughout the surrounding communities. Since 2000, approximately 96.8% of renters moved in their units. This largely attributed to renters moving in 2010 or later (76%) as well as the high concentration of renter-occupied units clustered within the City of Killeen. Roughly 83% of renters in the City moved into their units during this period and account for 45% of the total renters in the MSA regional area. All the other communities experienced similar moving activity for renter-occupied units. Renter-occupied housing tends to be more transient in nature as some people establish themselves as renters before purchasing a home. Also, military communities tend to experience more housing turnover as people are deployed and must vacate their housing.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SM1 -Bellaire-ReecesCreek

SM 2 -Manor-Rancier

SM3 -Patterson-Liberty Hill

SM4 - RoyJ Smith

SM 5 -HarkerHeights

SM 6 -Nolanville

SM 7 - FortHood

Airport KISD

Housing Unit Occupancy and Tenure TrendGreater Killeen Study Area & Urban Submarkets

2000-2017

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Vacant

Figure 3-3



Page 3-10

b) The KISD Study Area and Submarket Comparisons Compared to the MSA regional level, the KISD study area and its Submarkets experienced contrasting moving activity for owner-occupied/renter-occupied housing units. As seen in Table 3-6, renter-occupied units are outpacing owner-occupied units by an estimated 4,000 units throughout the KISD study area. Roughly 44% (12,570 owner-occupied units) of the total homeowners moved in between 2000 and 2009 in addition to 25% of homeowners moving in the following decade. Based on the data results, a vast majority of the housing tenure is renter-

Table 3-5

Occupant Housing Tenure by Move-In Year

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA and Surrounding Communities ( 2011-2015 ACS Estimates)


OWNER-OCCUPIED

Moved in 1980-1989 2,118 10.3% 1,097 8.9% 8 18.6% 561 9.5% 466 8.4% 7,431 10.4%

Moved in 1990-1999 4,352 21.3% 2,675 21.8% 17 39.5% 1,286 21.7% 843 15.2% 15,586 21.8%

Moved in 2000-2009 8,772 42.9% 5,862 47.7% 4 9.3% 2,969 50.2% 2,720 49.0% 32,545 45.6%

Moved in 2010 or Later 5,225 25.5% 2,662 21.6% 14 32.6% 1,100 18.6% 1,523 27.4% 15,852 22.2%

Total 20,467 100.0% 12,296 100.0% 43 100.0% 5,916 100.0% 5,552 100.0% 71,414 100.0%

RENTER-OCCUPIED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Moved in 1980-1989 55 0.2% 119 1.1% 0 0.0% 22 0.5% 65 2.1% 424 0.7%

Moved in 1990-1999 357 1.5% 468 4.5% 9 0.2% 43 0.9% 123 3.9% 1,401 2.5%

Moved in 2000-2009 3,580 15.2% 3,022 29.1% 646 12.9% 990 20.8% 647 20.6% 11,852 20.8%

Moved in 2010 or Later 19,525 83.0% 6,778 65.3% 4,342 86.9% 3,696 77.8% 2,312 73.5% 43,318 76.0%

Total 23,517 100.0% 10,387 100.0% 4,997 100.0% 4,751 100.0% 3,147 100.0% 56,995 100.0%


Killeen-Temple-Fort


Table 3-6

Occupied Housing Units by Year Householder Moved Into Unit

Greater Killeen Study Area & Urban Submarkets (2011-2015 ACS Estimate)

SM 1 -

Bellaire-

Reeces Creek

SM 2 -

Manor-

Rancier

SM 3 -

Patterson-

Liberty Hill

SM 4 -

Roy J

Smith

SM 5 -

Harker

Heights

SM 6 -

Nolanville

SM 7 -

Fort Hood

SM 8 -Killeen-

Fort Hood

Regional

Airport

OWNER-OCCUPIED

No. Units

Moved in 1980 to 1989 439 895 270 518 435 107 21 236 2,921

Moved in 1990 to 1999 850 1,450 885 1,177 810 201 53 250 5,676

Moved in 2000 to 2009 1,246 1,840 2,736 3,180 2,413 599 98 458 12,570

Moved in 2010 or Later 929 822 1,634 1,750 1,553 266 77 343 7,374

Total 3,464 5,007 5,525 6,625 5,211 1,173 249 1,287 28,541

% Distribution

Moved in 1980 to 1989 12.7% 17.9% 4.9% 7.8% 8.3% 9.1% 8.4% 18.3% 10.2%

Moved in 1990 to 1999 24.5% 29.0% 16.0% 17.8% 15.5% 17.1% 21.3% 19.4% 19.9%

Moved in 2000 to 2009 36.0% 36.7% 49.5% 48.0% 46.3% 51.1% 39.4% 35.6% 44.0%

Moved in 2010 or Later 26.8% 16.4% 29.6% 26.4% 29.8% 22.7% 30.9% 26.7% 25.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

RENTER-OCCUPIED

No. Units

Moved in 1980 to 1989 19 5 0 31 65 672 0 0 792

Moved in 1990 to 1999 109 184 39 37 123 157 9 4 662

Moved in 2000 to 2009 928 1,319 246 1,106 614 0 656 70 4,939

Moved in 2010 or Later 4,702 6,891 2,072 5,706 2,215 6 4,485 186 26,263

Total 5,758 8,399 2,357 6,880 3,017 835 5,150 260 32,656

% Distribution

Moved in 1980 to 1989 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 2.2% 80.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%

Moved in 1990 to 1999 1.9% 2.2% 1.7% 0.5% 4.1% 18.8% 0.2% 1.5% 2.0%

Moved in 2000 to 2009 16.1% 15.7% 10.4% 16.1% 20.4% 0.0% 12.7% 26.9% 15.1%

Moved in 2010 or Later 81.7% 82.0% 87.9% 82.9% 73.4% 0.7% 87.1% 71.5% 80.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


GREATER KILLEEN STUDY AREA

Total

Inventory


Page 3-11

occupied households. The KISD study area and its Submarkets continue to diversify its housing opportunities. Of the 32,000-total renter-occupied units, approximately 80% of renters moved in 2010 or later.

5. Owner-Occupied Units by Value

a) Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA Comparisons Overall, the MSA regional area contains a higher concentration of owner-occupied housing priced at the lower end. Roughly 67% of the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA is priced at less than $200,000 (Figure 3-4). Comparatively, the City of Killeen has a similar distribution of lower value homes and a limited supply of higher value homes. Approximately 75% of all the owner-occupied units are valued under $200,000 while only 6% are valued above $300,000, which is less than half the percentage for the Killeen-Temple- Fort Hood MSA (14%). Harker Heights has the highest concentration of higher value homes, which is consistent with its higher household income levels. Temple has a mix of low-, mid-, and high-end homes, which reflects the diversity of its housing stock and neighborhood qualities. Copperas Cove has a high concentration of lower value housing, most of which are older homes that are less competitive with the newer homes. Fort Hood’s homes mainly fall into the lower value range ($100,000-$199,999), which is partially reflective of the average allowance for housing provided to mid-level military households.

b) The KISD Study Area and

Submarket Comparisons

The value distribution of owner-occupied housing units is predominantly on the lower value range and like the MSA’s value distribution of owner-occupied housing units. Approximately 68% of owner-occupied housing units are valued below $200,000 (Table 3-7). This is largely attributed to the concentration of units within the Bellaire-Reeces Creek, Manor-Rancier and Roy J. Smith Submarkets in which a vast majority of the housing units are older, which is reflected in the lower values. In contrast, the Patterson-Liberty Hill and Harker Heights Submarkets contain notable concentrations of owner-occupied housing units priced above $300,000. These Submarkets have more of suburban market characteristics comprised with large lots and low-density residential development.

Figure 3-4



Page 3-12

6. Renter-Occupied Units by Rent Range

a) Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood

MSA Comparisons A vast majority of renter-occupied units throughout the MSA region offer affordable rent rates. Roughly 53% of the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA rental units are priced between $500 and $999 per month (Figure 3-5). This is consistent with the surrounding communities in the region. Specifically, the majority (63%) of rental units in the City of Killeen have gross rents within the same rent ranges. In contrast, the surrounding communities and MSA region are comprised of renter-occupied units priced at $500 or less per month. This indicates that the rental market is catering to lower income earing households. In contrast, less than 20% of the renter-occupied housing units in each of the surrounding communities, other than Fort Hood, are priced at $1,000 or more per month. In fact, Fort Hood has noticeable concentrations of rental units with no cash rent accounting for 19.5% of the total rental units, which is reflective of barrack-style housing for lower ranking soldiers. The substantial number of renter-occupied units at the higher rents are largely attributed to higher ranking soldiers, which have the option to live with their families on the military post. b) The KISD Study Area and Submarket Comparisons For the most part, gross rent levels moderate throughout the KISD study area and are like the regional distribution, however, a few of the Submarkets have notable concentrations of renter-

Figure 3-5

Source: ACS Estimates (2011-2015) and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018

Table 3-7

Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Distribution by Value

Greater Killeen Study Area & Urban Submarkets (2017)

SM 1 -

Bellaire-

Reeces Creek

SM 2 -

Manor-

Rancier

SM 3 -

Patterson-

Liberty Hill

SM 4 - Roy

J Smith

SM 5 -

Harker

Heights

SM 6 -

Nolanville

SM 7 - Fort

Hood

SM 8 - Killeen-

Fort Hood

Regional

Airport

NUMBER OF UNITS

<$100,000 1,609 3,292 483 1,663 557 518 38 213 8,373

$100,000-$199,999 1,557 1,734 3,212 5,421 1,768 492 71 536 14,791

$200,000-$299,999 412 464 2,840 1,207 2,004 290 33 363 7,614

$300,000-$499,999 85 170 662 76 911 225 58 192 2,379

$500,000+ 18 206 253 76 107 96 20 135 911

Total 3,681 5,867 7,450 8,444 5,346 1,621 220 1,439 34,068


<$100,000 43.7% 56.1% 6.5% 19.7% 10.4% 32.0% 17.3% 14.8% 24.6%

$100,000-$199,999 42.3% 29.6% 43.1% 64.2% 33.1% 30.4% 32.3% 37.2% 43.4%

$200,000-$299,999 11.2% 7.9% 38.1% 14.3% 37.5% 17.9% 15.0% 25.2% 22.3%

$300,000-$499,999 2.3% 2.9% 8.9% 0.9% 17.0% 13.9% 26.3% 13.4% 7.0%

$500,000+ 0.5% 3.5% 3.4% 0.9% 2.0% 5.9% 9.1% 9.4% 2.7%

Total 10.8% 17.2% 21.9% 24.8% 15.7% 4.8% 0.6% 4.2% 100.0%


Total

Inventory



Page 3-13

occupied housing units priced at $1,000 or more per month (Table 3-8). Overall, roughly a quarter of the KISD study area is comprised of rental units within this rent range. This is largely attributed to the renter-occupied units located in the Patterson-Liberty Hill, Roy J. Smith and Fort Hood Submarkets. This coincides with the construction of new residential development within Submarkets 3 and 4 as well as the diversified housing opportunities. It is common for new multi-family developments to have higher rental rates most likely due to the tenant services and amenities as well as the size of the unit. Comparatively, the Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier Submarkets contain higher concentrations of renter-occupied units priced at $500 or less per month, which indicates there are a substantial number of older rental units that are in fair to poor conditions as well as renter households that earn lower incomes.

7. Owner-Occupied Units by Mortgage Status

a) Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA Comparisons Compared with homeowners in most of the other communities in the MSA region, Killeen’s average homeowner carries a heavier debt burden on their home. Approximately 71% of owner-occupants in Killeen have mortgages (including second mortgages and home equity loans), that are higher than the regional average (62%) (Table 3-9). This is consistent with the City’s younger population and more recent homeowners moving-in to the City of Killeen. In contrast, in Temple which is a much older community, only 60% of the homes carry a mortgage. Of the housing units that do have a mortgage, those without a second mortgage or home equity loan account for a larger percentage of Killeen’s owner-occupied housing inventory (69%) than the regional average (59%).

Table 3-8

Gross Rent Distribution

Greater Killeen Study Area & Urban Submarkets

SM 1 - Bellaire-

Reeces Creek

SM 2 -

Manor-

Rancier

SM 3 -

Patterson-

Liberty Hill

SM 4 -

Roy J

Smith

SM 5 - Harker

Heights

SM 6 -

Nolanville

SM 7 - Fort

Hood

SM 8 - Killeen-

Fort Hood

Regional Airport

NUMBER OF UNITS

With Cash Rent 6,025 8,499 2,361 7,361 3,117 833 4,376 239 32,811

Less than $300 456 369 0 113 212 41 5 6 1,202

$300 - $499 1,932 1,192 28 625 639 206 21 29 4,672

$500 - $749 2,945 3,822 161 2,019 1,098 318 165 76 10,604

$750 - $999 468 2,803 992 2,543 522 162 306 34 7,830

$1,000 or more 224 306 1,182 2,089 646 107 3,893 93 8,540

With No Cash Rent 138 318 66 22 68 25 1,042 30 1,709

Total 6,163 8,810 2,429 7,411 3,185 859 5,432 268 34,557


With Cash Rent 97.8% 96.5% 97.2% 99.3% 97.9% 97.0% 80.6% 89.2% 94.9%

Less than $300 7.4% 4.2% 0.0% 1.5% 6.7% 4.8% 0.1% 2.2% 3.5%

$300 - $499 31.3% 13.5% 1.2% 8.4% 20.1% 24.0% 0.4% 10.8% 13.5%

$500 - $749 47.8% 43.4% 6.6% 27.2% 34.5% 37.0% 3.0% 28.4% 30.7%

$750 - $999 7.6% 31.8% 40.8% 34.3% 16.4% 18.9% 5.6% 12.7% 22.7%

$1,000 or more 3.6% 3.5% 48.7% 28.2% 20.3% 12.5% 71.7% 34.7% 24.7%

With No Cash Rent 2.2% 3.6% 2.7% 0.3% 2.1% 2.9% 19.2% 11.2% 4.9%

Total 17.8% 25.5% 7.0% 21.4% 9.2% 2.5% 15.7% 0.8% 100.0%



Total

Inventory


Page 3-14

In terms of homeowner costs (Table 3-10), 13% of Killeen’s mortgage holders spend over 50% of their household incomes on housing costs, another 30% spend 25% - 50% of their household incomes, both higher than the regional averages (10.3% and 26.1%). This suggests that Killeen homeowners are faced with greater financial burden due to lower household income levels. As shown previously, home values in Killeen are relatively modest but households are still cost burdened. Typically, mortgage underwriters prefer that homeowners not spend more than 30% of their gross monthly income on housing-related expenses (e.g., mortgage principle, interest, real estate taxes and insurance). As stated above, approximately 43% of homeowners are spending more than 25% of their income on mortgage expenses.

Table 3-9

Owner-Occupied Units by Mortgage Status

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA & Surrounding Communities (2011-2015 Estimates)

City of


Copperas

Cove

Harker

Heights

Killeen-

Temple-Fort

Hood MSA

Total 22,046 13,962 47 6,729 5,804 78,557

Housing Units with a Mortgage/Contract to Purchase/Similar Debt 15,749 8,336 4 4,711 4,121 48,468

Second Mortgage Only 173 123 0 77 95 773

Home Equity Loan Only 302 149 0 257 158 1,260

Both Second Mortgage and Home Equity Loan 16 73 0 0 52 182

No Second Mortgage and No Home Equity Loan 15,258 7,991 4 4,377 3,816 46,253

Housing Units without a Mortgage 6,297 5,626 43 2,018 1,683 30,089


Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Housing Units with a Mortgage/Contract to Purchase/Similar Debt 71.4% 59.7% 8.5% 70.0% 71.0% 61.7%

Second Mortgage Only 0.8% 0.9% 0.0% 1.1% 1.6% 1.0%

Home Equity Loan Only 1.4% 1.1% 0.0% 3.8% 2.7% 1.6%

Both Second Mortgage and Home Equity Loan 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.2%

No Second Mortgage and No Home Equity Loan 69.2% 57.2% 8.5% 65.0% 65.7% 58.9%

Housing Units without a Mortgage 28.6% 40.3% 91.5% 30.0% 29.0% 38.3%


Table 3-10

Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status & Selected Month Owner Costs

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA & Surrounding Communities (2011-2015 Estimates)


With a Mortgage: Monthly Owner Costs as a % of HH Income in Past 12 Months

<10.0% 812 5.2% 710 8.5% 0 0.0% 433 9.2% 205 5.0% 3,284 6.8%

10.0% - 14.9% 2,551 16.2% 1,569 18.8% 4 100.0% 1,040 22.1% 877 21.3% 9,021 18.6%

15.0% - 19.9% 2,854 18.1% 2,045 24.5% 0 0.0% 1,005 21.3% 949 23.0% 10,053 20.7%

20.0% - 24.9% 2,533 16.1% 1,517 18.2% 0 0.0% 640 13.6% 539 13.1% 8,013 16.5%

25.0% - 49.9% 4,766 30.3% 1,789 21.5% 0 0.0% 1,143 24.3% 1,095 26.6% 12,662 26.1%

>50.0% 2,070 13.1% 658 7.9% 0 0.0% 444 9.4% 353 8.6% 4,968 10.3%

Not Computed 163 1.0% 48 0.6% 0 0.0% 6 0.1% 103 2.5% 467 1.0%

Total 15,749 100.0% 8,336 100.0% 4 100.0% 4,711 100.0% 4,121 100.0% 48,468 100.0%

Without a Mortgage: Monthly Owner Costs as a % of HH Income in Past 12 Months

<10.0% 3,047 48.4% 2,206 39.2% 9 20.9% 850 42.1% 751 44.6% 13,280 44.1%

10.0% - 14.9% 1,416 22.5% 1,304 23.2% 0 0.0% 429 21.3% 286 17.0% 6,439 21.4%

15.0% - 19.9% 588 9.3% 789 14.0% 8 18.6% 243 12.0% 189 11.2% 3,216 10.7%

20.0% - 24.9% 390 6.2% 347 6.2% 0 0.0% 221 11.0% 152 9.0% 2,028 6.7%

25.0% - 49.9% 498 7.9% 587 10.4% 0 0.0% 204 10.1% 219 13.0% 3,302 11.0%

>50.0% 200 3.2% 300 5.3% 0 0.0% 71 3.5% 29 1.7% 1,182 3.9%

Not Computed 158 2.5% 93 1.7% 26 60.5% 0 0.0% 57 3.4% 646 2.1%

Total 6,297 100.0% 5,626 100.0% 43 100.0% 2,018 100.0% 1,683 100.0% 30,093 100.0%


Killeen-Temple-

Fort Hood MSACity of Killeen Temple Fort Hood Copperas Cove Harker Heights


Page 3-15

Of homeowners with no mortgage obligation, 11% spend 25% or more of their household incomes on their homes, lower than in most surrounding communities, suggesting that Killeen has a higher concentration of low-value homes. b) The KISD Study Area and Submarket Comparisons In the KISD study area and Submarkets, 71% of the owner-occupied units carry no mortgage, which is higher than the MSA regional average of 62% (Table 3-11). Among the submarkets, Bellaire-Reeces Creek, Manor Rancier, and the Killeen Regional Airport have relatively large percentages of owner-occupied units with no mortgage. This is consistent with the finding that these submarkets have more homeowners who have lived at their current residence for a longer period, and presumably have paid off their mortgage obligation. In the Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith Submarkets, where homeowners have moved-in more recently, a larger percentage of the owner-occupied housing units carry a mortgage. Table 3-12 shows the financial burden of owning a home in the KISD study area and Submarkets. Of homeowners with mortgage obligations, 12% of homeowners spend over 50% of their household income on housing (including mortgage payment), 30% spend 25%-50% of their household income on housing, both slightly higher than the MSA regional level; the percentage of homeowners that spend less than 15% of their household income on housing is smaller than the MSA level. This suggests that KISD study area’s homeowners carry a heavier financial burden owning their homes. For homes with no mortgage, the owners in KISD on average spend less of their household income on housing than the regional average, suggesting the homes in KISD have lower value. Within KISD, Nolanville, Roy J Smith, and Manor-Rancier have the largest percentage of mortgage-carrying homeowners that spend over 50% of their household incomes on housing, indicating a greater demand for affordable housing.

D. IMPLICATIONS The City of Killeen has the largest housing inventory in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA region. Compared with the regional level, Killeen’s housing stock is newer, and the residents on average moved into their current residences more recently. This is consistent with the rapid population growth that Killeen has experienced in recent years. When measured by physical characteristics and tenure, Killeen’s housing stock is more diverse than the regional average, which reflects Killeen’s more urban and diverse neighborhoods. The financial characteristics of Killeen’s housing market are consistent with the finding from the previous chapter about Killeen’s household income level. Compared with the regional average, Killeen has a higher concentration of lower value housing units for ownership and rent, and a lower concentration of higher value housing units for ownership and rent. Killeen’s homeowners on average are also carrying a heavier financial burden in owning their homes than the regional average. A larger percentage of homeowners in Killeen carry mortgage debt, and a larger percentage spend over 50% of their household incomes on housing. This indicates that Killeen households may be experiencing housing affordability issues, despite the City’s lower-priced housing stock.

Like the City of Killeen, the KISD study area and its Submarkets have a younger and more diverse housing inventory when compared with the MSA region. Within the study area, Bellaire-Reeces Creek has the oldest housing stock. The stock is also most diverse within the study area, with a large percentage of rental units and multi-family units. This reflects the older and more urban setting of this submarket. Consistent with the low household income level of this area, the housing stock is dominated by low-value and low-rent units. Since most of the homeowners have lived in the same house for a long time and have paid off their mortgages, the financial burden of owning a home in Bellaire-Reeces Creek is not as heavy as in more expensive or newer submarkets.


Page 3-16

Tabl

e 3-

11

Ow

ner-

Occ

upie

d U

nits

by

Mor

tgag

e St

atus

Gre

ater

Kill

een

Stud

y A

rea

& U

rban

Sub

mar

kets

(201

1-20

15 A

CS E

stim

ates

)

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

t

Tota

l3,

924

100.

0%5,

618

100.

0%5,

620

100.

0%7,

083

100.

0%5,

475

100.

0%1,

210

100.

0%26

610

0.0%

1,35

710

0.0%

30,5

5310

0.0%

Hous

ing

Units

with

a M

ortg

age/

Cont

ract

to P

urch

ase/

Sim

ilar D

ebt

2,17

455

.4%

3,63

664

.7%

4,78

085

.1%

5,27

474

.5%

3,84

070

.1%

904

74.7

%16

863

.2%

771

56.8

%21

,549

70.5

%

Sec

ond

Mor

tgag

e O

nly

471.

2%91

1.6%

541.

0%0

0.0%

951.

7%0

0.0%

176.

4%19

1.4%

322

1.1%

Hom

e Eq

uity

Loa

n O

nly

922.

3%87

1.5%

631.

1%74

1.0%

158

2.9%

00.

0%9

3.4%

100.

7%49

31.

6%

Bot

h Se

cond

Mor

tgag

e an

d Ho

me

Equi

ty L

oan

00.

0%0

0.0%

160.

3%0

0.0%

520.

9%0

0.0%

00.

0%0

0.0%

680.

2%

No

Seco

nd M

ortg

age

and

No

Hom

e Eq

uity

Loa

n2,

035

51.9

%3,

459

61.6

%4,

648

82.7

%5,

200

73.4

%3,

535

64.6

%90

474

.7%

142

53.4

%74

354

.8%

20,6

6567

.6%

Hous

ing

Units

with

out a

Mor

tgag

e1,

750

44.6

%1,

982

35.3

%83

914

.9%

1,80

925

.5%

1,63

529

.9%

305

25.2

%98

36.8

%58

543

.1%

9,00

429

.5%

Sour

ce: A

CS E

stim

ate

(201

1-20

15) a

nd R

KG A

ssocia

tes,

Inc.,

201

8

Tabl

e 3-

12

Ow

ner-

Occ

upie

d H

ousi

ng U

nits

by

Mor

tgag

e St

atus

& S

elec

ted

Mon

th O

wne

r Cos

ts

Gre

ater

Kill

een

Stud

y A

rea

& U

rban

Sub

mar

kets

(201

1-20

15 A

CS E

stim

ates

)

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

tCo

unt

Perc

ent

Coun

tPe

rcen

t

With

a M

ortg

age:

Mon

thly

Ow

ner C

osts

as

a %

of H

H In

com

e in

Past

12

Mon

ths

<10

.0%

126

3.2%

233

4.1%

203

3.6%

237

3.3%

205

3.7%

242.

0%15

5.6%

564.

1%1,

099

3.6%

10.0

% -

14.9

%34

08.

7%53

29.

5%93

616

.7%

789

11.1

%78

214

.3%

168

13.9

%16

6.0%

936.

9%3,

657

12.0

%

15.0

% -

19.9

%46

411

.8%

903

16.1

%73

313

.0%

776

11.0

%90

116

.5%

111

9.2%

249.

0%17

713

.0%

4,08

813

.4%

20.0

% -

24.9

%27

16.

9%54

09.

6%94

016

.7%

853

12.0

%54

49.

9%14

311

.8%

5520

.7%

111

8.2%

3,45

811

.3%

25.0

% -

49.9

%72

918

.6%

794

14.1

%1,

471

26.2

%1,

788

25.2

%98

818

.0%

278

23.0

%48

18.0

%27

620

.3%

6,37

220

.9%

>50

.0%

190

4.8%

603

10.7

%47

68.

5%77

410

.9%

317

5.8%

161

13.3

%10

3.8%

584.

3%2,

589

8.5%

Not

Com

pute

d54

1.4%

300.

5%22

0.4%

570.

8%10

31.

9%20

1.7%

00.

0%0

0.0%

286

0.9%

With

out a

Mor

tgag

e: M

onth

ly O

wne

r Cos

ts a

s a

% o

f HH

Inco

me

in P

ast 1

2 M

onth

s

<10

.0%

808

20.6

%89

215

.9%

416

7.4%

964

13.6

%73

713

.5%

181

15.0

%47

17.7

%27

620

.3%

4,32

114

.1%

10.0

% -

14.9

%49

912

.7%

445

7.9%

143

2.5%

341

4.8%

273

5.0%

373.

1%5

1.9%

111

8.2%

1,85

46.

1%

15.0

% -

19.9

%15

33.

9%23

04.

1%12

42.

2%90

1.3%

189

3.5%

191.

6%16

6.0%

372.

7%85

82.

8%

20.0

% -

24.9

%95

2.4%

157

2.8%

450.

8%93

1.3%

131

2.4%

90.

7%0

0.0%

423.

1%57

21.

9%

25.0

% -

49.9

%13

83.

5%15

22.

7%73

1.3%

159

2.2%

219

4.0%

403.

3%4

1.5%

523.

8%83

82.

7%

>50

.0%

210.

5%51

0.9%

320.

6%96

1.4%

290.

5%19

1.6%

00.

0%9

0.7%

256

0.8%

Not

Com

pute

d36

0.9%

561.

0%6

0.1%

660.

9%57

1.0%

00.

0%26

9.8%

594.

3%30

61.

0%

Tota

l3,

924

100.

0%5,

618

100.

0%5,

620

100.

0%7,

083

100.

0%5,

475

100.

0%1,

210

100.

0%26

610

0.0%

1,35

710

0.0%

30,5

5410

0.0%

Sour

ce: A

CS E

stim

ate

(201

1-20

15) a

nd R

KG A

ssocia

tes,

Inc.,

201

8

SM 6

- N

olan

ville

SM 7

- Fo

rt Ho

od

SM 1

- Be

llaire

-Ree

ces

Cree

kSM

2 -

Man

or-R

ancie

rSM

3 -

Patte

rson

-

Libe

rty H

illSM

4 -

Roy

J Sm

ithSM

5 -

Hark

er H

eigh

tsSM

6 -

Nol

anvi

lle

SM 1

- Be

llaire

-Ree

ces

Cree

kSM

2 -

Man

or-R

ancie

rSM

3 -

Patte

rson

-

Libe

rty H

illSM

4 -

Roy

J Sm

ithSM

5 -

Hark

er H

eigh

tsSM

8 -

Kille

en-F

ort

Hood

Reg

iona

l Airp

ort

Gre

ater

Kill

een

Stud

y

Are

a

SM 7

- Fo

rt Ho

odSM

8 -

Kille

en-F

ort

Hood

Reg

iona

l Airp

ort

Gre

ater

Kill

een

Stud

y

Are

a


Page 3-17

Manor-Rancier’s housing stock bears many similarities to Bellaire-Reeces Creek’s, though it’s not that old, and is less diverse, which are consistent with the more suburban setting of Manor-Rancier. Manor-Rancier has a mix of high-end and low-end housing units, indicating that the housing and neighborhood qualities vary from neighborhood to neighborhood within the submarket. Still, the household income level of Manor-Rancier is low, resulting in a larger percentage of homeowners spending over 50% of their household incomes on housing. Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith have the youngest housing stocks, which is consistent with the rapid population growth in these two areas since 1980. Patterson-Liberty Hill is more dominated by single-family detached housing and owner-occupied homes, which reflects its more suburban setting. In addition, Patterson-Liberty Hill’s housing inventory is more centered in the middle-value or middle-rent range, indicating a less varied housing and neighborhood quality level across the submarket. Most the residents moved into their current residences after 2000. This suggests that most of the submarket was developed through rapid, homogeneous subdivision development within a short period of time to accommodate population growth. In contrast, Roy J Smith’s housing stock is more diverse when measured by physical characteristics, tenure, and value and rent levels. Roy J Smith also has a much larger percentage of long-term residents than Patterson-Liberty Hill does. Fort Hood’s housing inventory is predominately rental, which is typical of most federal installations. A relatively large percentage of the housing stock are single family-attached units and units in small (2-4 Units) multi-family buildings, which are typical of military post housing. Most of the renters moved into their current rental housing after 2010, the percentage of homeowners who moved in after 2010 is also larger than in all the other submarkets. This reflects that fact that Fort Hood housing is predominantly occupied by active-duty military and their families. However, as confirmed by the post command, a small percentage of on-post housing is occupied by local civilians. Harker Heights has a higher value housing stock, with a higher concentration of larger custom-built homes and rental units. The ownership housing inventory comprises both older and newer units, suggesting that Harker Heights has been able to attract new high-income households while maintaining the qualities of long-established neighborhoods. Most of the rental units were built in recent years, indicating an emerging demand for empty nesters and the population of older age cohorts looking to downsize for living purposes.

Killeen Growth Study Killeen, Texas October 2019

Page 4-1

4 DEVELOPMENT TREND ANALYSIS

A. INTRODUCTION The following section analyzes residential and non-residential development activity throughout the region (Bell County- City of Killeen and Coryell County-Copperas Cove) as well as the Greater Killeen study area, also known as the KISD study area. KISD study area has eight distinct submarkets. Both the residential and non-residential analyses document a 10-year period of development trends between 2007-2017. The study area and its submarkets were derived in consultation with the Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce and the Killeen Independent School Districts (KISD). Each district is broken down by “planning zones” which provides detailed information regarding the number of students as well as their current grade level. As much as possible, the existing attendance zones were closely aligned with census block group boundaries, which allowed the consultants to sync the school attendance data with demographic, housing and development-related trend data. This approach allowed RKG to be more precise in its analysis of the study area and its submarkets and will support the consultant’s efforts customizing growth projections based on the market positioning and development trends in each submarket. Map 4-1 displays the boundaries and location of the KISD study area and submarkets.

B. METHODOLOGY To understand the real estate development trends over the last 10 years, RKG Associates analyzed data obtained from the Bell and Coryell County real property appraisal offices, which included real property assessment records maintained by each County within the central Texas region. As stated previously, the data was segmented by various residential and non-residential land use types and tracked over last decade from 2007 to 2017; the latest data available. RKG parsed hundreds of thousands of real property records regionally and grouped them by their submarket boundaries for the KISD study area. The consultants then analyzed development by each structure’s “year-built” to determine the year in which new development activity occurred. C. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TREINDS 1. Bell County

a) Residential Bell County is dominated by residential development with a total inventory of over 110,000 residential properties. This accounts for 72% of all land acreages as well as 74% of the total building SF within the County. This is consistent with the property value distribution estimated at 77% of the total value of real property (including land). This is largely attributed to single-family development (88%) and smaller percentages of duplex, multi-family and mobile home properties (Table 4-1).


Page 4-2

Ma

p 4

-1


Page 4-3

Most of the residential development occurred prior to 2007, however clusters of single family homes and duplexes increased during the 10-year study period. These developments are notably concentrated in the cities of Killeen and Temple, which experienced rapid new residential development over the past decade. Between 2007 and 2011, new residential construction in Bell County experienced a 16.1% increase in the total number of residential properties (10,938 parcels) and 19.3% increase in total building square feet (20.3 million SF) (Table 4-2). Since 2011, the County has experienced even faster growth with 18,669 new parcels and 35.9 million SF of residential building square feet. Over the past decade, Bell County has added over $3 billion in residential assessed value to its tax base. Approximately 89% of all multi-family properties were built before 2007, accounting for 73% of all multi-family building square feet, higher than any other housing type. Only 12.6% of the total building square feet was built after 2011. This indicates that the demand for multi-family development is much less than other housing types throughout the County. With the lack of new multi-family construction, maintenance issues with the existing inventory could become more important. Properties built during the 2007-2011 period have the largest average building sizes and highest densities (FARs). These characteristics are shared by all residential types, but most significant for multi-family and duplex properties. Since 2011, new residential units have smaller average building sizes and densities, but for single family homes and duplexes, the average building sizes are still larger than those built before 2007. In terms of property value per SF, multi-family properties overall have the highest per square foot building value ($112.35/SF), followed by single family ($58.16/SF).

Table 4-1

Residential & Non-residential Property Inventory % Distribution

Bell County, TX (2007-2017)

Land Use Classification

% of All

Properties

% of All

Land Area

(Acreage)

% of All

Bldg. SF

% of All

Property

Value

Residential 75.5% 71.7% 73.7% 77.1%

Non-residential 24.5% 28.3% 26.3% 22.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 82.5% 8.9% 88.7% 88.2%

Multifamily 1.7% 0.1% 3.4% 6.2%

Duplex 4.0% 0.1% 5.6% 3.1%

Mobile Home 11.8% 90.9% 2.3% 2.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

NON-RESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Ag. Land 32.3% 80.8% 16.0% 29.4%

Commercial 14.9% 3.2% 75.2% 53.2%

Utilities 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Exempt 1.1% 0.6% 8.7% 9.9%

Vacant Lot 51.4% 15.3% 0.0% 7.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Bell County Appraisal Office and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018


Page 4-4

b) Non-residential The non-residential tax base comprises 22.9% of the County’s total assessed property value in 2017 and consumes 28.3% of the developed acreage. Commercial uses comprise 75.2% of non-residential building space at over 43.2 million SF. Commercial is a broad category to reflect most employment generating uses such as retail, office, industrial and other associated uses.

Table 4-2

Development Trends Analysis

Bell County, TX (2007-2017)

Land Use Classification Parcels Acreage Building SF

Avg. Bldg.

SF/Bldg Land Assessed

Building

Assessed Value

Total Assessed

Value

Avg. Land

AV/Acre

Avg. Bldg

AV/SF FAR

PRIOR TO 2007

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 61,051 53,161.4 92,947,797 1,522 $882,299,820 $5,965,198,383 $6,847,498,203 $16,597 $64.18 0.04

Multifamily 1,665 1,209.0 3,969,765 2,384 $48,396,050 $531,875,689 $580,271,739 $40,030 $133.98 0.08

Duplex 2,589 738.9 4,903,299 1,894 $25,702,291 $195,551,806 $221,254,097 $34,785 $39.88 0.15

Mobile Home 2,417 9,296.3 3,107,916 1,286 $49,922,936 $47,155,588 $97,078,524 $5,370 $15.17 0.01

Total 67,722 64,405.5 104,928,777 1,549 $1,006,321,097 $6,739,781,466 $7,746,102,563 $15,625 $64.23 0.04

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 10,222 369,585.5 7,460,124 730 $250,788,556 $539,669,750 $790,458,306 $679 $72.34 0.00

Commercial 4,307 12,034.2 34,595,094 8,032 $373,100,461 $1,003,883,571 $1,376,984,032 $31,003 $29.02 0.07

Utilities 113 249.6 53,049 469 $2,282,506 $2,055,858 $4,338,364 $9,144 $38.75 0.00

Exempt 320 2,108.9 3,725,627 11,643 $36,184,526 $249,548,879 $285,733,405 $17,158 $66.98 0.04

Vacant Lot 16,536 67,489.2 0 0 $220,453,637 $2,766,921 $223,220,558 $3,267 $0.00 0.00

Total 31,498 451,467.4 45,833,894 1,455 $882,809,686 $1,797,924,979 $2,680,734,665 $1,955 $39.23 0.00

2007 TO 2011

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 10,127 26,905.9 17,814,653 1,759 $153,006,933 $1,132,668,442 $1,285,675,375 $5,687 $63.58 0.02

Multifamily 54 109.7 810,214 15,004 $6,397,960 $61,029,408 $67,427,368 $58,305 $75.33 0.17

Duplex 611 149.1 1,409,996 2,308 $7,042,344 $63,794,448 $70,836,792 $47,234 $45.24 0.22

Mobile Home 146 304.1 246,435 1,688 $1,626,626 $4,566,795 $6,193,421 $5,350 $18.53 0.02

Total 10,938 27,468.8 20,281,298 1,854 $168,073,863 $1,262,059,093 $1,430,132,956 $6,119 $62.23 0.02

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 352 10,587.5 706,721 2,008 $10,796,808 $63,633,058 $74,429,866 $1,020 $90.04 0.00

Commercial 350 1,604.7 3,223,576 9,210 $33,826,006 $138,604,893 $172,430,899 $21,079 $43.00 0.05

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 29 484.2 500,523 17,259 $2,195,590 $18,013,217 $20,208,807 $4,534 $35.99 0.02

Vacant Lot 4 4.5 0 0 $102,431 $24,869 $127,300 $22,937 $0.00 0.00

Total 735 12,680.8 4,430,820 6,028 $46,920,835 $220,276,037 $267,196,872 $3,700 $49.71 0.01

2012 OR LATER

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 18,669 31,991.3 32,174,035 1,723 $155,306,444 $1,214,843,010 $1,370,149,454 $4,855 $37.76 0.02

Multifamily 157 87.5 686,661 4,374 $1,869,043 $22,352,465 $24,221,508 $21,364 $32.55 0.18

Duplex 1,133 259.9 2,660,648 2,348 $3,035,410 $35,392,314 $38,427,724 $11,678 $13.30 0.23

Mobile Home 10,285 1,135,159.0 409,581 40 $3,642,798 $162,877,226 $166,520,024 $3 $397.67 0.00

Total 30,244 1,167,497.7 35,930,925 1,188 $163,853,695 $1,435,465,015 $1,599,318,710 $140 $39.95 0.00

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 856 22,176.3 1,009,867 1,180 $18,807,590 $59,826,778 $78,634,368 $848 $59.24 0.00

Commercial 616 2,216.3 5,428,480 8,812 $38,607,898 $119,303,627 $157,911,525 $17,420 $21.98 0.06

Utilities 10 5.1 397 40 $60,763 $40,677 $101,440 $11,901 $102.46 0.00

Exempt 34 383.5 783,398 23,041 $1,099,240 $10,368,960 $11,468,200 $2,867 $13.24 0.05

Vacant Lot 1,643 8,889.8 0 0 $11,277,641 $0 $11,277,641 $1,269 $0.00 0.00

Total 3,159 33,670.9 7,222,142 2,286 $69,853,132 $189,540,042 $259,393,174 $2,075 $26.24 0.00

TOTAL INVENTORY

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 89,847 112,058 142,936,485 1,591 $1,190,613,197 $8,312,709,835 $9,503,323,032 $10,625 $58.16 0.03

Multifamily 1,876 1,406 5,466,640 2,914 $56,663,053 $615,257,562 $671,920,615 $40,295 $112.55 0.09

Duplex 4,333 1,148 8,973,943 2,071 $35,780,045 $294,738,568 $330,518,613 $31,170 $32.84 0.18

Mobile Home 12,848 1,144,759 3,763,932 293 $55,192,360 $214,599,609 $269,791,969 $48 $57.01 0.00

Residential Total 108,904 1,259,371.9 161,141,000 1,480 $1,338,248,655 $9,437,305,574 $10,775,554,229 $1,063 $58.57 0.00

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 11,430 402,349 9,176,712 803 $280,392,954 $663,129,586 $943,522,540 $697 $72.26 0.00

Commercial 5,273 15,855 43,247,150 8,202 $445,534,365 $1,261,792,091 $1,707,326,456 $28,100 $29.18 0.06

Utilities 123 255 53,446 435 $2,343,269 $2,096,535 $4,439,804 $9,199 $39.23 0.00

Exempt 383 2,977 5,009,548 13,080 $39,479,356 $277,931,056 $317,410,412 $13,263 $55.48 0.04

Vacant Lot 18,183 76,383 0 0 $231,833,709 $2,791,790 $234,625,499 $3,035 $0.00 0.00

Nonresidential Total 35,392 497,819.1 57,486,856 1,624 $999,583,653 $2,207,741,058 $3,207,324,711 $2,008 $38.40 0.00

BELL COUNTY TOTAL 144,296 1,757,191.1 218,627,856 -- $2,337,832,308 $11,645,046,632 $13,982,878,940 -- -- --


BELL COUNTY


Page 4-5

Approximately 51% of the non-residential properties in Bell County are classified as vacant, which accounts for 15% of the total land acreages and 23% of the total land value of non-residential properties. The vacant land offers future development opportunities but may be partially constrained by environmental conditions (e.g., wetland areas, steam corridors, steep slopes, etc.). The remaining non-residential properties are primarily farm & ranch/agricultural land, which accounts for 81% of the total land acreages and 29% of the total property value of non-residential properties. Commercial properties occupy just 3% of the total non-residential land area but represent 53% of the total non-residential assessed property value. Since 2007, non-residential development has been less active than residential in Bell County, especially between 2007 and 2011. This reflects the challenge for commercial and public services to keep up with the rapid population growth and housing development. Non-residential development accelerated slightly after 2011 but was still falling behind residential development activity. It should also be noted that, on average, commercial development since 2011 has increased relative to total land acres and building square feet developed, but total assessed value growth ($172.4 million) has not kept pace with the gains achieved during the 2007-2011 period ($169.4 million).

2. Copperas Cove (Portion of Coryell County)

a) Residential Copperas Cove is a small community located in Coryell County located west of Killeen and Fort Hood along Business Highway 190. According to the Coryell Real Property Appraisal Office, there are 10,582 residential properties accounting for 87.5% of all properties, however, only 13.6% of the land area is dedicated to residential development. This is largely due to the existing residential market characteristics, which is mainly low-density rural communities. To this point, nearly 45% of the land area developed is designated as farm and ranch/agricultural uses (Table 4-3). Much of the residential inventory is older indicating greater clusters of pre-2007 residential communities (Table 4-4). Approximately 85% (8,493 properties) of single family homes were built before 2007. Since then, development of single family homes has increased by 16.8% over the past decade (Table 4-2). Both of Copperas Cove’s residential inventory and building SF is dominated by single family homes indicating a preference for owner-occupied dwellings over rental properties, which is consistent throughout region. Multi-family and duplex properties have experienced limited growth during the 2007 to 2017 study period and overall account for only 7.6% of the total residential building SF and less than 10% of the residential building assessed value in Copperas Cove. The stagnant residential development since 2007 is mainly due to the lack of population growth throughout Coryell County as well as Copperas Cove. Unlike other communities in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood

Table 4-3

Residential & Non-residential Property Inventory % DistributionCopperas Cove (Coryell County), TX (2007-2017)

% of All

Properties

% of All

Land Area

(Acreage)

% of All

Bldg. SF

% of All

Property

ValueResidential 87.5% 13.6% 83.5% 75.2%

Nonresidential 12.5% 86.4% 16.5% 24.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 93.8% 78.6% 92.4% 89.4%

Multifamily 0.5% 13.4% 1.4% 5.6%

Duplex 5.6% 3.4% 6.2% 4.9%

Mobile Home 0.2% 4.6% 0.0% 0.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

NON-RESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agric Land 6.6% 44.5% 1.9% 1.8%

Commercial 38.5% 12.6% 83.6% 74.5%

Utilities 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Exempt 10.9% 28.0% 14.3% 17.5%

Vacant Lot 43.7% 14.7% 0.0% 5.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Coryell County Appraisal Office and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018


Page 4-6

MSA, Copperas Cove has experienced an average annual population growth rate of less than 1% between 2000 and 2017. Much of the residential demand occurred prior to 2000 and largely attributed to the rapid growth rate between1970 and 1980. Historically, residential development in Copperas Cove was notably smaller in terms of building size. However, despite the limited residential development activity since 2007, Copperas Cove’s single-family homes and duplexes have increased in size over the past ten years (Table 4-4). The average size of single family homes in Copperas Cove (1,720 SF) since 2012, are similar size to those in the City of Killeen (1,756 SF). In fact, Copperas Cove experienced higher concentration of duplex development than Killeen. Coryell County’s single-family homes and duplexes built after 2007 are substantially larger than those built prior. However, Copperas Cove’s residential market appeals to people interested in a rural, small town environment. The average building value per SF for single family homes peaked at $91.86/SF during this period in Copperas Cove, which is greater than the average value per SF in the City of Killeen and Bell County.

b) Non-residential Most of the land area for non-residential development is dedicated to farm and ranch/agricultural lands, which is consistent with the higher concentration of low-density residential development in Copperas Cove (Table 4-3). Approximately 86% of Copperas Cove’s land supply is designated in non-residential development in which 2,080 acres of land (45%) is classified as farm & ranch/agricultural land. Additionally, the higher concentration of non-residential development coincides with Copperas Cove’s limited residential development activity and notable supply of vacant land. Copperas Cove has a total of 735.5 acres of developed residential land developed while approximately 688.1 acres of vacant land. As seen in Table 4-3, a vast majority of commercial use and services are concentrated along Business Highway 190. Copperas Cove has a total of 2.5 million SF of commercial development in which nearly 75% of building SF was constructed prior to 2007. Since then, 647,751 building SF of new commercial space has been constructed in this area.


Page 4-7

Table 4-4


Coryell County (Copperas Cove), TX (2007-2017)

Parcels Acreage Building SF

Avg. Bldg.

SF/Bldg

Land

Assessed

Building

Assessed Value

Total Assessed

Value

Avg. Land

AV/Acre

Avg. Bldg

AV/SF FAR

PRIOR TO 2007

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 8,493 548.2 12,043,920 1,418 $129,381,151 $653,376,320 $782,757,471 $236,008 $54.25 0.50

Multifamily 45 72.7 205,489 4,566 $5,332,360 $51,666,580 $56,998,940 $73,307 $251.43 0.06

Duplex 506 21.1 786,692 1,555 $6,411,700 $35,931,886 $42,343,586 $303,589 $45.67 0.85

Mobile Home 23 33.9 2,575 112 $292,590 $550,130 $842,720 $8,624 $213.64 0.00

Total 9,067 676.0 13,038,676 1,438 $141,417,801 $741,524,916 $882,942,717 $209,200 $56.87 0.44

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 96 2,057.8 52,010 542 $3,422,640 $2,644,030 $6,066,670 $1,663 $50.84 0.00

Commercial 524 487.2 1,924,384 3,672 $67,526,412 $113,933,707 $181,460,119 $138,601 $59.21 0.09

Utilities 4 9.7 6,878 1,720 $750,440 $166,500 $916,940 $77,317 $24.21 0.02

Exempt 161 1,288.4 408,001 2,534 $31,626,770 $29,899,140 $61,525,910 $24,547 $73.28 0.01

Vacant Lot 662 688.1 0 0 $22,306,140 $710 $22,306,850 $32,417 $0.00 0.00

Total 1,447 4,531 2,391,273 1,653 $125,632,402 $146,644,087 $272,276,489 $27,725 $61.32 0.01

2007 TO 2011

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 833 2.3 1,369,076 1,644 $18,732,890 $107,632,512 $126,365,402 $8,036,418 $78.62 13.46

Multifamily 1 10.7 3,758 3,758 $619,730 $1,789,000 $2,408,730 $57,935 $476.05 0.01

Duplex 44 0.5 99,497 2,261 $949,500 $5,910,460 $6,859,960 $1,974,834 $59.40 4.74

Mobile Home 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 878 14 1,472,331 1,677 $20,302,120 $115,331,972 $135,634,092 $23,123 $78.33 2.50

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 2 10.0 2,040 1,020 $72,010 $113,710 $185,720 $7,203 $55.74 0.00

Commercial 32 36.0 244,641 7,645 $10,167,680 $23,606,920 $33,774,600 $282,475 $96.50 0.16

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 2 10.5 15,306 7,653 $1,151,060 $1,680,580 $2,831,640 $109,406 $109.80 0.03

Vacant Lot 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 36 57 261,987 7,277 $11,390,750 $25,401,210 $36,791,960 $316,410 $96.96 0.11

2012 OR LATER

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 597 27.5 1,026,775 1,720 $15,330,100 $94,321,957 $109,652,057 $556,919 $91.86 0.85

Multifamily 2 15.1 6,675 3,338 $2,106,640 $2,328,930 $4,435,570 $139,790 $348.90 0.01

Duplex 38 3.4 82,607 2,174 $624,500 $5,771,370 $6,395,870 $184,993 $69.87 0.56

Mobile Home 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 637 46.0 1,116,057 1,752 $18,061,240 $102,422,257 $120,483,497 $392,871 $91.77 0.56

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 2 12.2 5,567 2,784 $56,100 $452,060 $508,160 $4,609 $81.20 0.01

Commercial 28 66.0 403,110 14,397 $18,034,510 $47,280,876 $65,315,386 $273,437 $117.29 0.14

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 2 7.3 16,495 8,248 $220,690 $1,258,640 $1,479,330 $30,046 $76.30 0.05

Vacant Lot 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 32 85 425,172 13,287 $18,311,300 $48,991,576 $67,302,876 $214,240 $115.23 0.11

TOTAL INVENTORY

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 9,923 578.1 14,439,772 1,455 $163,444,141 $855,330,789 $1,018,774,930 $282,744 $59.23 0.57

Multifamily 48 98.5 215,922 4,498 $8,058,730 $55,784,510 $63,843,240 $81,809 $258.35 0.05

Duplex 588 25.0 968,796 1,648 $7,985,700 $47,613,716 $55,599,416 $319,731 $49.15 0.89

Mobile Home 23 33.9 2,575 112 $292,590 $550,130 $842,720 $8,624 $213.64 0.00

Total 10,582 735.5 15,627,065 1,477 $179,781,161 $959,279,145 $1,139,060,306 $244,442 $61.39 0.49

NONRESIDENTIAL


Commercial 584 589.2 2,572,134 4,404 $95,728,602 $184,821,503 $280,550,105 $162,486 $71.86 0.10

Utilities 4 9.7 6,878 1,720 $750,440 $166,500 $916,940 $77,317 $24.21 0.02

Exempt 165 1,306.3 439,802 2,665 $32,998,520 $32,838,360 $65,836,880 $25,261 $74.67 0.01

Vacant Lot 662 688.1 0 0 $22,306,140 $710 $22,306,850 $32,417 $0.00 0.00

Total 1,515 4,673.3 3,078,431 2,032 $155,334,452 $221,036,873 $376,371,325 $33,239 $71.80 0.02

COPPERAS COVE/CORYELL COUNTY TOTAL12,097 5,408.8 18,705,496 -- $335,115,613 $1,180,316,018 $1,515,431,631 -- -- --


COPPERAS COVE/CORYELL COUNTY


Page 4-8

3. City of Killeen

a) Residential Compared with the regional level, Killeen’s real property inventory is mostly dominated by residential development, which accounts for 91% of total properties, 99% of total land acreages, 81% of total building square footages, and 80% of total property appraised value (Table 4-5). Approximately 87% of the residential properties are single-family homes, accounting for 86% of the total residential building SF. This is substantially higher than Bell County. However, the value of single-family inventory is only 84% of total appraised residential value, indicating that despite the large quantity, Killeen’s single-family housing stock is lower value. Since 2007, residential development has been active in Killeen for most residential types, which is consistent with the rapid population growth over this period (Table 4-6). Single-family homes peak development period was 2007-2011, during which 5,420 homes were built, accounting for 16% of the total single-family building square feet and property value. The average home size (1,698 SF) was higher than those built before 2007 (1,452 SF), but the average density decreased (floor area ratio), indicating a trend toward developments on smaller lots. This period also saw active development of larger multi-family buildings, which accounted for approximately 7% of the total number of multi-family properties and roughly 16% of the total multi-family square feet. The average FAR was 0.26 and the average building size was 5,906 SF, both substantially higher than the multi-family development before 2007 (0.11 FAR and 2,301 SF). Unlike the other residential types, duplexes experienced limited development in Killeen over the past 10 years. To this point, 85% of all the duplexes were built before 2007 (76% for Bell County), and a small concentration of duplexes were built after 2011 (10% for Bell County). This suggests that despite the rapid population and household growth in Killeen over this period, the additional demand for duplexes is limited. This is attributed to the demand for family-forming household opportunities which consists of traditional single-family homes. In more recent years, single family properties have increased on an average building SF basis and various submarkets throughout the City experienced growth pressures of newly constructed single -family homes. After 2011, the development of single-family homes slowed down slightly, but the average home size continued to increase, indicating a strong demand for larger homes. This demand mainly came from retired Army officers who chose to stay in the region with their spouse and children. The demand for multi-family housing was also strong, though primarily for smaller and less dense buildings. Approximately, 20% of Killeen’s multi-family buildings were built during

Table 4-5



% of All

Properties

% of All

Land Area

(Acreage)

% of All

Bldg. SF

% of All

Property

Value

Residential 91.2% 98.5% 80.8% 79.7%

Non-residential 8.8% 1.5% 19.2% 20.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 87.3% 1.0% 86.5% 84.3%

Multifamily 4.2% 0.1% 7.1% 10.0%

Duplex 4.7% 0.0% 6.1% 5.0%

Mobile Home 3.7% 98.9% 0.3% 0.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

NON-RESIDENTIAL


Commercial 42.4% 24.7% 85.8% 75.6%

Utilities 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1%

Exempt 2.6% 7.0% 12.4% 14.2%

Vacant Lot 42.7% 14.8% 0.0% 6.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Page 4-9

this period, accounting for 19% of all multi-family building square footages; the average building size decreased to 2,496 and FAR decreased to 0.23.

Another noticeable trend in recent years is the active development of smaller mobile homes. Roughly 1,483 mobile homes have been built since 2012, accounting for 91% of the total number of mobile homes. This is largely attributed to the higher concentration of persons earning low to extremely low incomes and the demand for affordable housing opportunities. Typically, rural communities, such as Killeen, have a considerable amount of land for mobile home park developments where the demand is higher due to the notable concentration of persons with lower incomes.


Page 4-10

b) Non-residential Compared with the Bell County average, a larger percentage of Killeen’s non-residential property inventory is commercial or exempt services, and a smaller percentage is farm & ranch/agricultural land. As previously explained, this is consistent with the more densely developed environment within the city limits while communities outside of Killeen have more of a rural attributes and higher concentrations of farm & ranch/agricultural land. Like the trend at the reginal level, Killeen’s non-residential development overall has been less active than residential development, measured either by the number of new properties or by the built square footages. During the study period, the City of Killeen’s commercial development has expanded by a total of 265 properties while adding roughly 3 million SF of commercial space. In fact, vacant lots are nearly outpacing the total commercial property inventory which may indicate a high concentration of vacant commercial space and lots.

D. KISD URBAN SUBMARKET DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)

This section contains an analysis of development activity for both residential and non-residential properties during the 2007 - 2017 period in the KISD’s eight submarkets. The development trends in each of these submarkets exhibit somewhat similar growth pressures in terms of size, scale, character and pace. To locate where these clusters and patterns of new development have occurred, RKG completed a geospatial analysis for each submarket assessing the area’s development profile by residential development over the last decade between (2007-2017). The development totals for both residential and non-residential development can be found in the Appendix tables (1-9) at the end of this chapter as well as the urban submarket residential development activity maps. The data results indicate that a vast majority of residential development occurred prior to 2007 as well as the non-residential development, however, non-residential development is substantially smaller in comparison to residential growth (Appendix Table 4-9). Overall, nearly 87% of the KISD’s study area and submarkets are predominantly comprised of residential development, however, several submarkets display different market characteristics of when development activity occurred and where recent clusters of residential development are concentrated. Comparatively, non-residential development only accounts for roughly 13% of the property inventory and less than 6% of the total building SF of the KISD study area (Table 4-7). To this point, each of the submarkets have made it a priority to increase residential development due to the notable growth pressures in population in most recent years. 1. Residential Development

As seen in Appendix Maps 3 and 4, the Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith submarkets have experienced the newest residential development within the KISD study area. This is largely attributed to the construction of single-family properties. During the study period, single family development peaked between 2007 and 2011 adding approximately 2,375 properties and development continued into 2012 and later years with another 1,841 properties. Comparatively, Roy J Smith experienced similar residential development trends, however, this submarket contains a higher concentration of diverse housing opportunities. Between 2012 and 2017, multi-family development accounted for 8% of the submarkets total residential inventory while only accounting for 3% between 2007 and 2011. Additionally, these residential development trends coincide with the notable population growth pressures. Both submarkets were recently developed and have increased substantially in both population and real estate development.


Page 4-11

Prior to 2007, the average residential unit was estimated at 1,641 SF within the Patterson-Liberty Hill submarket. However, between 2007 and 2011 the average building SF for residential development increased to 1,897 SF, which is largely attributed to the increased size for single family, multi-family and duplex properties (Appendix Table 4-3). Comparatively, the Roy J Smith urban submarket experienced similar increases in average building SF for residential development at roughly 1,783 SF. This is mainly attributed to the larger multi-family and duplex developments throughout this urban submarket.

In contrast, within older and more urban areas, such as Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier, residential development has been limited. As seen in Appendix Maps 1 and 2 there have been lower concentrations of new residential development, which is largely attributed to the constraints and limitations of developable land near the downtown area and historic district. However, the City has recently identified four focus areas in their most recent Downtown Comprehensive Plan to enhance economic development and revitalize these selected areas1. Implementation of this initiative could ultimately change the surrounding residential market characteristics as well. Both submarkets are dominated by single-family homes, however, Bellaire-Reeces has a more diverse housing stock. Since 2007, while residential development has been stagnated in Manor-Rancier, Bellaire-Reeces has seen moderate development of single-family homes and multi-family buildings. This is consistent with the slightly higher population growth rate in Bellaire-Reeces Creek than in Manor-Rancier as well as those who are seeking housing options near the Fort Hood military post (Appendix Tables 4-1 and 4-2). In more established rural/submarkets, such as Harker Heights and Nolanville, there are higher concentrations of residential development that are less diverse and occurred prior to 2007, but recent development in Harker Heights has exhibited clusters of residential properties, specifically single-family homes, on the higher-end (Appendix Table 5 and 6/Map 5). Comparatively, average building SF for single family homes between 2012 and 2017 are estimated at 2,070 SF which is consistent with average building SF for single family homes in Nolanville (2,134 SF). To this point, these rural/urbanized submarkets have notable concentrations of large lot, low density residential development as well as higher concentrations of vacant land. Combined, these submarkets contain roughly 1,375.78 acres of vacant land. Although there is available land for development, it is typical for rural/urban environments to resist future growth and are content with the existing and modest development activity. Compared with the rest of the KISD study area, the Fort Hood and Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport submarkets have much lower concentrations of residential properties. They also both have smaller percentages of single-family homes, but larger percentages of mobile homes, and a lack of other types of housing. Since 2007, Fort Hood’s residential development has been limited except for mobile homes, which is consistent with the stagnation of population growth and the resulted weak housing demand. In contrast, 24% of the single-family homes in the Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport urban submarket were built after 2007, indicating a strong demand for large single-family

1 “Killeen 2010 Downtown Plan”, http://www.killeentexas.gov/220/Comprehensive-Plan

Table 4-7



% of All

Properties

% of All

Land Area

(Acreage)

% of All

Bldg. SF

% of All

Property

Value

Residential 87.1% 94.2% 81.2% 80.2%

Non-residential 12.9% 5.8% 18.8% 19.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 86.1% 4.0% 87.0% 86.8%

Multifamily 3.7% 0.1% 5.9% 7.6%

Duplex 4.6% 0.1% 5.9% 4.6%

Mobile Home 5.6% 95.8% 1.2% 1.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

NON-RESIDENTIAL


Commercial 27.3% 9.5% 82.3% 65.4%

Utilities 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Exempt 1.7% 2.4% 11.8% 15.0%

Vacant Lot 49.7% 8.6% 0.0% 8.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


http://www.killeentexas.gov/220/Comprehensive-Plan

http://www.killeentexas.gov/220/Comprehensive-Plan


Page 4-12

homes in rural areas. This also explains the presence of high-value housing in this submarket as illustrated in the previous chapter. 2. Non-residential Development

From a non-residential development perspective, commercial (17 million SF) and exempt (2.4 million SF) properties account for a vast majority of the building SF for non-residential development in the KISD study area’s non-residential property inventory. This reflects the more diverse neighborhoods in the KISD study area. To this point, commercial and exempt properties are mainly located in older, more submarkets such as Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier where the main downtown area and historical district is concentrated. The higher concentration of commercial development in these two submarkets cater to the surrounding areas established such as Harker Heights, Nolanville, Fort Hood and the Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport submarkets. Additionally, there are several small commercial corridors that serve as urban shopping centers throughout the study area along Business Highway 190 and Interstate 14. Additionally, the KISD study area is known for its higher concentration of institutional facilities and schools. In contrast, each of the submarkets contain concentrations of farm & ranch/agricultural land but is more substantial in rural areas (Table 4-7). Among the submarkets, older, and more urban areas such as Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier have the highest concentration of building SF for commercial and exempt use. This is largely due to the substantial number of schools throughout the Killeen Independent School District. Along with the recent rapid population growth patterns, the KISD study area has started to display newly constructed exempt properties, especially in the Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith submarkets, which is commensurate to the notable concentration of residential development. A vast majority of rural & farm/agricultural land is concentrated within the rural submarkets, such as the Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport urban submarket. Simply put, approximately 93% of the non-residential land is comprised of farm & ranch/agricultural land. This is the highest concentration among the other submarkets, however, Nolanville and Fort Hood have notable concentrations as well. This coincides with the limited residential development in more recent years throughout these submarkets, which already contain established residential neighborhoods. E. IMPLICATIONS Approximately 76% of Bell County’s development inventory is residential properties. Single-family is the most common residential property type, followed by mobile homes. Driven by rapid population growth, Bell County has seen active residential development since 2007. Duplex development was most active during 2007-2011, while single-family development was most active after 2011, indicating a shift of demand in recent years. A large part of the demand came from retired soldiers, many of whom are senior officers with a larger family. Nevertheless, the single-family homes and duplexes built after 2011 on average have smaller square footages and lower per square feet building value than those built during 2007-2011, reflecting a greater demand for less expensive housing. Smaller-sized multi-family development was also active in recent years, reflecting the demand from young adults and young-families that yet to have the financial capability to purchase a home. Compared with residential development, the non-residential development in Bell County has been less active since 2007. As a result, the residents in Bell County’s newly developed neighborhoods are underserved by commercial and public services. Coryell County’s real property inventory is dominated by residential properties, which reflects the more rural setting. Compared with Bell County, Coryell County has an older housing stock with limited new development since 2007. This is consistent with the finding from the previous chapter that Coryell County’s population grew substantially between 1970 and 2000, but since 2000, the population growth has been stagnated. The non-residential inventory mainly comprises commercial and exempt


Page 4-13

properties, suggesting that the non-residential development in Coryell County is primarily driven by the demand of local residents. Over the past 10 years, despite the overall stagnation of non-residential development, a sizeable number of larger, and more upscale commercial properties have been developed, indicating a strong demand for higher-end commercial services. Killeen’s real property inventory is more dominated by residential properties, especially low- to middle-end single-family housing than at the Bell County level. Over the past 10 years, the rapid population growth has created a strong housing demand, resulting in active residential development in Killeen. The construction of single-family homes and large multi-family buildings peaked during 2007-2011, when the average density of new development also reached the peak. This reflects the pressure to house the rapidly growing population and households on limited developable land and with limited capital investment. Residential development slowed down after 2011, but the housing inventory continues to grow steadily as the population continues to increase. Meanwhile, the average size of new single-family development increased, smaller and lower-density multi-family development became more popular. This coincides with the affordability of owner-occupied units throughout the City. A higher concentration of households earns moderate to lower incomes while the surrounding communities are comprised of owner-occupied units on the higher-end. The mobile home inventory also grew substantially after 2011 leading to clusters of land dedicated to mobile home parks. Consistent with the more urban setting of Killeen, commercial and exempt properties account for a larger percentage of Killeen’s non-residential property inventory than at the Bell County level. Over the past 10 years, the development of commercial and exempt properties has been the main driver of Killeen’s non-residential development. However, the growth of commercial and exempt properties was still falling behind residential development, suggesting that at least some new residents in Killeen don’t have access to adequate commercial services and public amenities. The KISD study area and its urban submarket’s real property inventory is slightly more diverse than Killeen’s, which reflects the greater diversity of the neighborhoods in the study. Like in Killeen, the rapid population growth in Greater Study Area/KISD since 2007 has resulted in a substantial increase in the inventory of single-family and multi-family properties. Nevertheless, different submarkets experienced different levels of residential development over this period. The development was most active in Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J Smith, which was consistent with the exceptional population growth in these two submarkets. But unlike Patterson-Liberty Hill whose residential development was predominantly single-family, Roy J Smith had more multi-family and duplex development. This indicates that the older, and more urban environment of Roy J Smith created more varied housing demand and developable sites. In contrast, Patterson-Liberty Hill comprises mainly suburban divisions which were built in large quantity within a relatively short period of time to house the newly added residents. Over the same period, the two submarkets have also experienced the region’s most active development of commercial and exempt properties, which was primarily driven by the demand of the new residents. Bellaire-Reeces Creek’s diverse housing inventory reflects its older and more urban environment. Over the past 10 years, Bellaire-Reeces Creek has experienced moderate growth of both single-family and multi-family inventories, which is consistent with the steady population growth over the same period. However, non-residential development has been stagnated except for exempt properties. This was mainly due to a lack of interest to invest in the neighborhoods rather than a lack of demand. As a result, the needs for commercial and public services of Bellaire-Reeces Creek’s new residents have been underserved.


Page 4-14


Page 4-15


Page 4-16


Page 4-17


Page 4-18


Page 4-19

APPENDIX TABLE 4-6




Avg. Bldg.


Building

Assessed Value

Total Assessed

Value

Avg. Land

AV/Acre

Avg. Bldg

AV/SF FAR

PRIOR TO 2007

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 1,245 1,102.3 2,176,322 1,748 $25,897,957 $168,984,078 $194,882,035 $23,494 $77.65 0.05

Multifamily 18 4.6 37,337 2,074 $158,777 $2,207,367 $2,366,144 $34,794 $59.12 0.19

Duplex 66 32.8 149,978 2,272 $929,989 $7,337,132 $8,267,121 $28,351 $48.92 0.10

Mobile Home 132 229.0 176,370 1,336 $2,604,972 $1,855,983 $4,465,066 $11,373 $10.52 0.02

Total 1,461 1,368.7 2,540,007 1,739 $29,591,695 $180,384,560 $209,976,255 $21,620 $71.02 0.04

NONRESIDENTIAL


Commercial 65 321.7 298,352 4,590 $2,743,049 $12,497,947 $15,240,996 $8,528 $41.89 0.02

Utilities 3 2.1 1 0 $34,063 $125,000 $159,063 $16,014 $125,000.00 0.00

Exempt 3 1.8 9,844 3,281 $20,169 $136,963 $157,132 $11,500 $13.91 0.13

Vacant Lot 545 764.3 0 0 $9,400,275 $679,768 $10,080,043 $12,299 $0.00 0.00

Total 797 5,129.1 422,302 530 $16,284,099 $21,060,729 $37,344,828 $3,175 $49.87 0.00

2007 TO 2011

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 256 151.5 565,266 2,208 $6,673,063 $52,920,224 $59,593,287 $44,061 $93.62 0.09

Multifamily 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Duplex 28 8.0 56,321 2,011 $379,875 $3,688,439 $4,068,314 $47,483 $65.49 0.16

Mobile Home 8 3.2 11,000 1,375 $61,816 $187,352 $249,168 $19,263 $17.03 0.08

Total 292 162.7 632,586.5 2,166 $7,114,754 $56,796,015 $63,910,769 $43,740 $89.78 0.09

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 6 234.6 9,491 1,582 $194,661 $319,948 $514,609 $830 $33.71 0.00

Commercial 6 27.3 41,966 6,994 $331,797 $495,254 $827,051 $12,138 $11.80 0.04

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 2 16.6 2,881 1,441 $27,148 $89,941 $117,089 $1,640 $31.22 0.00

Vacant Lot 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 14 278.5 54,338 3,881 $553,606 $905,143 $1,458,749 $1,988 $16.66 0.00

2012 OR LATER

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 388 464.0 828,014 2,134 $3,858,868 $34,558,100 $38,416,968 $8,317 $41.74 0.04

Multifamily 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Duplex 4 9.0 10,541 2,635 $55,050 $204,934 $259,984 $6,120 $19.44 0.03

Mobile Home 319 2,062.6 4,664 15 $9,900 $4,982,632 $4,992,532 $5 $1,068.32 0.00

Total 711 2,535.6 843,219 1,186 $3,923,818 $39,745,666 $43,669,484 $1,548 $47.14 0.01

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 20 415.7 19,115 956 $292,476 $175,240 $467,716 $704 $9.17 0.00

Commercial 10 52.0 17,887 1,789 $74,736 $292,155 $366,891 $1,436 $16.33 0.01

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 0 16.6 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Vacant Lot 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 30 484.3 37,002 1,233 $367,212 $467,395 $834,607 $758 $12.63 0.00

TOTAL INVENTORY

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 1,889 1,718 3,569,601 1,890 $36,429,888 $256,462,402 $292,892,290 $21,208 $71.85 0.05

Multifamily 18 5 37,337 2,074 $158,777 $2,207,367 $2,366,144 $34,794 $59.12 0.19

Duplex 98 50 216,840 2,213 $1,364,914 $11,230,505 $12,595,419 $27,409 $51.79 0.10

Mobile Home 459 2,295 192,034 418 $2,676,688 $7,025,967 $9,702,655 $1,166 $36.59 0.00

Total 2,464 4,067 4,015,812 1,630 $40,630,267 $276,926,241 $317,556,508 $9,990 $68.96 0.02

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 207 4,690 142,711 689 $4,573,680 $8,116,239 $12,689,919 $975 $56.87 0.00

Commercial 81 401 358,205 4,422 $3,149,582 $13,285,356 $16,434,938 $7,854 $37.09 0.02

Utilities 3 2 1 0 $34,063 $125,000 $159,063 $16,014 $125,000.00 0.00

Exempt 5 35 12,725 2,545 $47,317 $226,904 $274,221 $1,357 $17.83 0.01

Vacant Lot 545 764 0 0 $9,400,275 $679,768 $10,080,043 $12,299 $0.00 0.00

Total 841 5,892 513,642 611 $17,204,917 $22,433,267 $39,638,184 $2,920 $43.67 0.00

TOTAL 3,305 9,959 4,529,454 -- $57,835,184 $299,359,508 $357,194,692 -- -- --


NOLANVILLE


Page 4-20

APPENDIX TABLE 4-7




Avg. Bldg.

SF/Bldg

Land

Assessed

Building

Assessed Value

Total

Assessed Value

Avg. Land

AV/Acre

Avg. Bldg

AV/SF FAR

PRIOR TO 2007

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 239 442.2 503,485 2,107 $5,655,134 $42,743,696 $48,398,830 $12,789 $84.90 0.03

Multifamily 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Duplex 1 0.4 930 930 $13,016 $24,769 $37,785 $30,244 $26.63 0.05

Mobile Home 12 89.9 16,789 1,399 $475,099 $214,526 $689,625 $5,287 $12.78 0.00

Total 252 532.5 521,204 2,068 $6,143,249 $42,982,991 $49,126,240 $11,537 $82.47 0.02

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 96 5,837.2 64,761 675 $3,562,327 $4,513,250 $8,075,577 $610 $69.69 0.00

Commercial 23 90.0 100,902 4,387 $1,441,047 $2,558,578 $3,999,625 $16,018 $25.36 0.03

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 1 10.2 3,960 3,960 $83,000 $211,531 $294,531 $8,109 $53.42 0.01

Vacant Lot 51 223.0 0 0 $2,016,151 $0 $2,016,151 $9,039 $0.00 0.00

Total 171 6,160.5 169,623 992 $7,102,525 $7,283,359 $14,385,884 $1,153 $42.94 0.00

2007 TO 2011

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 6 11.8 16,168 2,695 $153,382 $1,312,305 $1,465,687 $13,049 $81.17 0.03

Multifamily 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Duplex 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Mobile Home 1 1.0 1,568 1,568 $12,500 $25,508 $38,008 $12,415 $16.27 0.04

Total 7 12.8 17,736.0 2,534 $165,882 $1,337,813 $1,503,695 $12,999 $75.43 0.03

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 4 95.4 7,169 1,792 $164,595 $1,135,700 $1,300,295 $1,725 $158.43 0.00

Commercial 3 11.7 16,627 5,542 $59,519 $1,037,700 $1,097,219 $5,104 $62.41 0.03

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Vacant Lot 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 7 107.1 23,796 3,399 $224,114 $2,173,400 $2,397,514 $32,016 $91.34 0.01

2012 OR LATER

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 10 151.5 22,661 2,266 $252,045 $965,175 $1,217,220 $1,664 $42.59 0.00

Multifamily 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Duplex 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Mobile Home 116 25,482.6 0 0 $0 $1,813,892 $1,813,892 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 126 25,634.1 22,661 180 $252,045 $2,779,067 $3,031,112 $10 $122.64 0.00

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 16 723.5 21,234 1,327 $614,135 $578,347 $614,135 $849 $27.24 0.00

Commercial 1 331.8 1 1 $0 $15,637 $0 $0 $15,637.00 0.00

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Vacant Lot 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Total 17 1,055.3 21,235 1,249 $614,135 $593,984 $1,208,119 $582 $27.97 0.00

TOTAL INVENTORY

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 255 605 542,314 2,127 $6,060,561 $45,021,176 $51,081,737 $10,010 $83.02 0.02

Multifamily 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Duplex 1 0 930 930 $13,016 $24,769 $37,785 $30,244 $26.63 0.05

Mobile Home 129 25,573 18,357 142 $487,599 $2,053,926 $2,541,525 $19 $111.89 0.00

Total 385 26,179 561,601 1,459 $6,561,176 $47,099,871 $53,661,047 $251 $83.87 0.00

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 116 6,656 93,164 803 $4,341,057 $395,257 $4,736,314 $652 $4.24 0.00

Commercial 27 433 117,530 4,353 $1,500,566 $0 $1,500,566 $3,462 $0.00 0.01

Utilities 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 1 10 3,960 3,960 $83,000 $0 $83,000 $8,109 $0.00 0.01

Vacant Lot 51 223 0 0 $2,016,151 $0 $2,016,151 $9,039 $0.00 0.00

Total 195 7,323 214,654 1,101 $7,940,774 $395,257 $8,336,031 $1,084 $1.84 0.00

TOTAL 580 33,502 776,254 -- $14,501,950 $47,495,128 $61,997,078 -- -- --


FORT HOOD


Page 4-21


Page 4-22

APPENDIX TABLE 4-9




Avg. Bldg.


Building

Assessed Value

Total Assessed

Value

Avg. Land

AV/Acre

Avg. Bldg

AV/SF FAR

PRIOR TO 2007

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 36,008 13,439.1 54,697,329 1,519 $480,521,582 $3,496,541,611 $3,977,063,193 $35,755 $63.93 0.09

Multifamily 1,517 709.9 3,473,625 2,290 $39,495,732 $362,784,312 $402,280,044 $55,636 $104.44 0.11

Duplex 2,170 524.0 4,224,062 1,947 $23,590,469 $175,859,341 $199,449,810 $45,019 $41.63 0.19

Mobile Home 742 1,838.7 991,568 1,336 $14,525,916 $11,363,282 $25,889,198 $7,900 $11.46 0.01

Total 40,437 16,511.7 63,386,583 1,568 $558,133,699 $4,046,548,546 $4,604,682,245 $33,802 $63.84 0.09

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 1,566 46,177.9 956,013 610 $83,717,991 $59,397,313 $143,115,304 $1,813 $62.13 0.00

Commercial 1,917 4,472.1 12,863,844 6,710 $284,187,780 $499,709,767 $783,897,547 $63,546 $38.85 0.07

Utilities 37 90.9 20,667 559 $938,810 $561,235 $1,500,045 $10,333 $27.16 0.01

Exempt 109 902.4 2,184,092 20,038 $25,914,562 $185,234,232 $211,148,794 $28,717 $84.81 0.06

Vacant Lot 4,162 5,520.5 0 0 $112,257,197 $6,582,551 $118,839,748 $20,335 $0.00 0.00

Total 7,791 57,163.8 16,024,616 2,057 $507,016,340 $751,485,098 $1,258,501,438 $8,870 $46.90 0.01

2007 TO 2011

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 6,624 2,136.3 11,625,862 1,755 $84,819,164 $680,639,313 $765,458,477 $39,703 $58.55 0.12

Multifamily 149 71.0 801,052 5,376 $2,719,538 $29,301,947 $32,021,485 $38,295 $36.58 0.26

Duplex 392 91.1 903,297 2,304 $6,077,374 $53,291,430 $59,368,804 $66,694 $59.00 0.23

Mobile Home 28 34.3 42,444 1,516 $420,782 $714,928 $1,135,710 $12,262 $16.84 0.03

Total 7,193 2,332.8 13,372,655.0 1,859 $94,036,858 $763,947,618 $857,984,476 $40,311 $57.13 0.13

NONRESIDENTIAL


Commercial 167 413.5 1,633,104 9,779 $18,698,398 $102,394,640 $121,093,038 $45,225 $62.70 0.09

Utilities 0 0.0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 0.00

Exempt 16 273.3 163,226 10,202 $1,017,075 $2,091,566 $3,108,641 $3,722 $12.81 0.01

Vacant Lot 1 0.4 0 0 $83,701 $21,208 $104,909 $197,581 $0.00 0.00

Total 239 2,164.9 1,897,344 7,939 $21,872,466 $113,458,630 $135,331,096 $10,103 $59.80 0.02

2012 OR LATER

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 6,215 25,924.4 11,505,345 1,851 $26,359,171 $272,681,470 $299,040,641 $1,017 $23.70 0.01

Multifamily 418 174.5 1,042,348 2,494 $0 $6,536,266 $6,536,266 $0 $6.27 0.14

Duplex 55 104.7 127,248 2,314 $509,697 $5,258,252 $5,767,949 $4,870 $41.32 0.03

Mobile Home 2,387 994,422.3 23,387 10 $106,563 $37,443,178 $37,549,741 $0 $1,601.03 0.00

Total 9,075 1,020,625.8 12,698,328 1,399 $26,975,431 $321,919,166 $348,894,597 $26 $25.35 0.00

NONRESIDENTIAL


Commercial 204 1,229.3 2,538,582 12,444 $13,536,851 $18,386,965 $31,923,816 $11,012 $7.24 0.05

Utilities 1 1.0 1 1 $0 $15,637 $15,637 $0 $15,637.00 0.00

Exempt 16 386.0 100,583 6,286 $42,144 $246,537 $288,681 $109 $2.45 0.01

Vacant Lot 1 3.9 0 0 $51,255 $13,629 $64,884 $13,304 $0.00 0.00

Total 341 5,137.5 2,777,126 8,144 $17,615,991 $22,220,936 $39,836,927 $3,429 $8.00 0.01

TOTAL INVENTORY

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family 48,847 41,500 77,828,536 1,593 591,699,917 $4,449,862,394 $5,041,562,311 $14,258 $57.18 0.04

Multifamily 2,084 955 5,317,025 2,551 42,215,270 $398,622,525 $440,837,795 $44,186 $74.97 0.13

Duplex 2,617 720 5,254,607 2,008 30,177,540 $234,409,023 $264,586,563 $41,925 $44.61 0.17

Mobile Home 3,157 996,295 1,057,399 335 15,053,261 $49,521,388 $64,574,649 $15 $46.83 0.00

Total 56,705 1,039,470 89,457,566 1,578 679,145,988 $5,132,415,330 $5,811,561,318 $653 $57.37 0.00

NONRESIDENTIAL

Farm & Ranch/Agricultural Land 1,740 51,173 1,194,988 687 $89,777,024 $71,906,697 $161,683,721 $1,754 $60.17 0.00

Commercial 2,288 6,115 17,035,529 7,446 $316,423,029 $620,491,372 $936,914,401 $51,747 $36.42 0.06

Utilities 38 92 20,668 544 $938,810 $576,872 $1,515,682 $10,222 $27.91 0.01

Exempt 141 1,562 2,447,901 17,361 $26,973,781 $187,572,335 $214,546,116 $17,273 $76.63 0.04

Vacant Lot 4,164 5,525 0 0 $112,392,153 $6,617,388 $119,009,541 $20,343 $0.00 0.00

Total 8,371 64,466 20,699,086 2,473 $546,504,797 $887,164,664 $1,433,669,461 $8,477 $42.86 0.01

TOTAL 65,076 1,103,937 110,156,652 -- $1,225,650,785 $6,019,579,994 $7,245,230,779 -- -- --



£¤190£¤190

£¤190

UV3470

UV195

UV439

E Elms Rd

Tri

mm

ier

Rd

S W

S Y

ou

ng D

r

Old

FM

440

Rd

E Central Texas Expy

Flo

ren

ce R

d

N W

S Y

oun

g D

r

Zephyr Rd

W Central Texas Expy

N 8

th S

t

Jan

is D

r

N 2

nd

St

Gilm

er

St

W Jasper Dr

Mead

ow

Dr

Terrace Dr

Tank Destroyer Blvd

N Central Texas Expy

E Jasper Dr

W Hallmark Ave

West Ln

S G

ray S

t

Old

Flo

ren

ce R

d

S 2

nd S

t

W Elms Rd

Farhills Dr

E Fowler Ave

Will

ow

Spri

ngs R

d

E Hallmark Ave

Pershing Dr

W Fowler Ave

Wale

s D

r

W C

entra

l Texa

s Exp

y


Flo

ren

ce R

d

2ND

10TH

GRAY

ELMS

RANCIER

JASPER

TRIM

MIER

LIBRA

DEAN

COLLE

GE

VEGAORION

REIN

LEO

AVENUE G

DUNCAN

GILME

R

18TH

GEMINI

ROOT

16TH

INTERSTATE 14

HALLMARK

FLORE

NCE

ATLAS

ALVIN

WHITE

FORT

HOOD

CENTRAL TEXAS

JAMES

6TH

GREEN

ARIES

DAISY

14TH

VALLEY

HOUS

TON

ANDO

VER

ADAMSSPROTT

WEISS

STAN SCHLUETER

LOWES

STAGECOACH

HALLVETERANS MEMORIAL

KERN GART

H

SKYLINE

BRYCE

28TH

LILYJEN

NIFER

POAGE

WS YO

UNG

TAURUS

BLAKE

HERC

ULES

ALEX

ANDE

R

TEXAS

HARRIS

STONE

ERIC

MINT

HORN

BELLAIRE

ATTAS

STEF

EKAVENUE B

BOTA

NICA

L

PARMER

AVENUE A

VARDEMAN

IVY

YOUNG

ELKINS

MASSE

Y

MILK

Y WAY

AUSTIN

ILLINOIS

DEOR

SAM

YORK

WEST

CULP

ORCHID

AVENUE D

HERE

FORD

CROC

KETT

PARK

ALI

WOOD

SANT

A ROS

A

DELO

RIS

MIKE

Y

4TH

DAFFODIL

24TH

WAGO

N WH

EEL

22ND

8TH

HOOVER

PRAT

HER

HALB

ERT

ALAMO

LITTLE

PRIEST

ELM

OLD F

M 44

0

REED

RIM

BREN

DA

SWOPE

LOIS

RONALD

OMAR

AVENUE C

WOLF

DRACO

JOSE

PH

COLLINS

BROOK

TOLIV

ER

20TH

VELM

A

12TH

HUB

CHAD

CATH

ERIN

E

CONSTELLATION

HARBOUR

BREWSTERAD

DIE

PRIVATE

FAIRV

IEW

CARLY

HARRISON

CART

ER

MEDIN

A

AVENUE I

CHURCH

VOELTER

CARMEN

ALPINEPA

TTON

TOLED

O

NOLAN

TOWE

R

LARR

Y

AVENUE F

SISSOM

DALLA

S

MIMI TO

RTOI

SE

GARY

LYRA

CARD

INAL

SOUT

HSIDE

AVENUE J

CARIN

A

HILLCREST

PEBBLE

LYDIA

GREENWOODRO

SIE

TOPS

EYSEV

ILLA

MULFO

RD

JOYC

E

LONG

761ST TANK BATTALION

CIRCLE M VALEN

CIA

DUNN

STEW

ART

LINDS

EY

DIMPL

E

SLADECEK

TYLER

MOCK

INGBIR

D

FISHP

OND

NATHAN

MELTO

N

MARIGOLD

TURTLE CREEKJA

CKSO

NMCARTHUR

GOOD

NIGHT

BLAIR

NORT

ON

BREMSER

BAUMANN

WASH

INGT

ON

SPOKE

SMITH

ROCK

Y

CONNER

BROOKWAY

PERSEUS

LEROY

ESTES

CANT

ABRIA

N

CURR

IE

SOUTH BROOKNANCY

ATHE

NS

ADRIA

N BA

RNES

AZALEA

RONSTAN

SUZIE

AVENUE K

PHYLLIS

NORTHSIDE

STEPHEN

JUDY

LESLIE

LITTLE DIPPER

GLEN

DA

COFF

IELD

PETUNIA

TORTUGA

CLOU

D

AVENUE E

ARLEE

BARC

ELONA

TAYLOR

PEARL

WELD

ON

WARB

LER

CASTELLON

YS PA

K

SAN A

NTON

IO

ZINNI

A

FRAN

Z

WILM

ER

CAPR

ICORN

CHEYENNE

LEIFESTER

PEGGY

CHAR

OLAIS

ROBIN

CRYS

TAL

GRANADA

SAFARI

GREENWILLOW

LILAC

GARRISON

DAHLIA

MIMOSA

GRACE POINT

MCNAIR

JON

GLEN

POPPY

PRATHERVALLEY

CHURCH

8TH

2ND

PRIVATE

FLORE

NCE

DUNN

TRIM

MIER

WS YO

UNG

LYDIA

12TH

24TH

WOLF

DEAN

PATTO

N

CART

ER

TRIM

MIER

PRIVA

TE

8TH

PARK

PRIVA

TE

PRIVATE

28TH

LOWES

AVENUE C

2ND

PARK

FORT

HOOD

PRIVATE

GRAY

12TH

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

DALLA

S

4TH

ROSIE

FORT

HOOD

PRIVA

TE

14TH

PARK

22ND

16TH

WOLF

OLD F

M 44

0

GREEN

BRYCE

0 0.35 0.7Miles

SUBMARKETONE

SUBMARKETONE

CITY OFKILLEEN

FORTHOOD

µ

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)2007 - 20112012 OR LATERBELLAIRE-REECES CREEK URBAN SUBMARKETSUBMARKET PARCELSPARKSHIGHWAY/INTERSTATEMAJOR ROADSLOCAL ROADSKISD SCHOOLSCITY OF KILLEEN

APPENDIX MAP ONE

£¤190£¤190

£¤190

UV439

UV2410

UV3470

UV3219

UV190UV190 UV190

Westcliff Rd

Tri

mm

ier

Rd

E Elms Rd

S W

S Y

ou

ng D

r


India

n T

rl

Zephyr Rd

S A

nn B

lvd

N W

S Y

oun

g D

r

N R

oy R

eyn

old

s D

r

N 3

8th

St

Old Nolanville Rd

Lake Rd

Flo

ren

ce R

d

N 8

th S

t

N 2

nd

St

Nola

Ruth

Blv

d

Gilm

er

St

S Roy Reynolds DrClore Rd

S A

my

Ln

N 6

0th

St

Terrace Dr

Hilliard Ave

S Twin

Cre

ek Dr

W FM 2410 Rd

E Jasper Dr


N T

win

Cre

ek D

r

Edwards Dr

Bra

nch D

r

S G

ray S

t

S 2

nd S

t

W Hallmark Ave

E Fowler Ave

E F

M 241

0 Rd

Vern

a L

ee B

lvd

E Beeline Ln

S Main St

E Hallmark Ave

E Centra

l Texa

s Expy




38TH

LAKE

RANCIER

WESTCLIFF

ZEPHYR

INTERSTATE 14

60TH

WS YO

UNG

CENTRAL TEXAS

ILLINOIS

ELMS

RUIZ

ESTE

LLE

WATER

VETERANS MEMORIAL

ROY R

EYNO

LDS

LEVY

TERRACE

LOWES

CORA

TWIN CREEK

ATKINSON

JOHN

RIOST

ONET

REE

COND

ER

TAFT

KIRK

ROSE

TRIM

MIER

JEFFE

RIS

HILL

GOOD

E

POLK

PINE

GOWE

N

56TH

ESTES

LITTLE NOLAN

BOYD

ROY J SMITH

HOOT

EN

SHER

MAN

46TH

BASSET

COACH

HERN

DON

BECK

ER

SEAR

CY

DICKE

NS

48TH

BUND

RANT

SANTA FE

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR

HILLIARD

CREEKSIDE

CAPR

ICE

BILLS

LISA

SCHWALD

CARRIE

OAK HILL

GREENGATE

LAGO

POAGE

MISSOURI

LIBER

TY

DAN

PRIVATE

CHISHOLM

42ND

LAZY

RIDG

E

ALTA MIRA

CHRIS

TIE

VIOLET

BRAN

CH

O W

CURR

Y

IRIS

TURNER

COY

SAUL

JOY

SCHW

ERTN

ER

GALA

XY

GREY

FOX PEAKS

SWANNERCE

DARH

ILLDIANE

SHAD

Y

JEROM

E

DAVIS

40TH

DOVER

WRIGHTNIMI

TZ

BACON RANCHHU

NT

WISTERIA

CHES

TNUT

53RD

DOGW

OOD

PHOENIX

DORIS

BIRDCREEK

LEE

MICH

ELE

WHITMIRE

LEWIS

CRESCENT

STEVE

ACRO

N

DURA

N

COMMERCE

STAN SC

HLUETER

LAKE

INKS

SAVA

GE

LAINTRIPP

SIERRA

HACKBERRY

PERSIMMON

AARON

A J HALL

IREDELL

BLAC

KBUR

N

BENT

TREE

CHAUCER

WESTVIEW

PECAN

BELT

CASEY

EL DORADO

RICHA

RD

LAUSTIN

STILLWOOD

AMBE

R

MERE

DITH

AUTO

MAX

STILLFOREST

LAKESHORE

COUNTRY MEADOWS

FRY

BARR

Y

KAYD

ENCE

BOYDSTUN

CHAR

ISSE

TRIM

MIER

PRIVA

TE

PRIVATE

PRIVA

TE

INTERSTATE 14

CENTRAL TEXAS

PRIVA

TE

PRIVA

TEPRIVATE

SCHWALD

PRIVATE

WS YO

UNG

PRIVA

TEPR

IVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVA

TE

42ND

WS YO

UNG

PRIVA

TE

µ

0 0.65 1.3Miles

SUBMARKETTWO

HARKERHEIGHTS

CITY OFKILLEEN

SKYLARKFEILD AIRPORT

APPENDIX MAP TWO

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)2007 - 20112012 OR LATERMANOR-RANCIER URBAN SUBMARKETSUBMARKET PARCELSPARKSHIGHWAY/INTERSTATEMAJOR ROADSLOCAL ROADSKISD SCHOOLSCITY OF KILLEEN

£¤190£¤190

UV3481

UV3470

UV195

UV2410

UV201

UV195

E Elms Rd Indian Trl

E F

M 241

0 Rd

Ve

rna L

ee B

lvd

E Centra

l Texa

s Expy

S W

S Y

ou

ng D

r

Tri

mm

ier

Rd

Nola

Ruth

Blv

d

S A

nn B

lvd

W FM 2410 RdW Central Texas Expy

Old

Flo

ren

ce R

d


E Central Texas ExpyW Central Texas Expy

STAGECOACH

ONION

FAWN

ELMS

SHAWN

MESA

ROSE

WOOD

TEAL

TRIMMIER

CHANTZ

WS YO

UNG

ASPEN

EXCEL

FEATHERLINE

CHAPARRAL

PYRITE

STAN SCHLUETER

GRANEX

CUNNINGHAM

SILTSTONE

CITRINE

PEPPER MILL

SHIMLA

SULFUR SPRING

VIOLA

JOSH

LOVE

MOSAICCOBALT

GLENNWOOD

LOOP

DIANA

ROWDY

GREENLEE

WATER OAK

WHITE ROCK

ADDISON

JANA

SCHORN

CURTIS

TOWER HILL

MALLARD

GROVE

TURKEY TROT

PRIVATE

TAYLOR RENEE

HOPE

MONEY PIT

RUSACK

FLAT SLATE

EMBERS

PATT

ERSO

N

LLEWELYN

SCHOTTISCHE

MIKULEC

RAINL

ILYPRESCOTT

RILEY

ZAYDEN

SUNF

LOWE

R

EVERLY

ORTS

ZINC

OSTER

KEN

ZIRCON

SHUMARD

SERPENTINE

GOLDEN

KELLEY

SPARROW

BELO

TYRE

L

PRICE

BEDROCK

GRAND OAKS

ADEELBOWFIELD

BRIARCROFT HORNE

EMILIE

BIRMINGHAMPLATINUM

DERIK

LOLLY

GRAY

SON

VAIL

BUGGY

GOLDEN OAK

HONEYSUCKLE

TUMBLEWEED

CLAYMORE

SANDPIPER

SOUTHERN BELLE

BIELS

SPC. LARAMOREJO

E

SUELLEN

COKUI

KILPATRICK

WELLS FARGO

GEMSTONE

TYROCH

SAEGERT RANCH NAPIER

LONELY OAKS

TURQUOISE

MODESTO

FLANI

GAN

ENCINO OAK

VIEWPARK

HUNTERS RIDGETENLEY

FORT HOOD

NICHOLAS

DAYBREAK

DILLON

FRATELLIINDIGO

JOSHUA

HARLAN

GINNY

TOURMALINE

BRONZE

ROSITA OAK

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

FORT

HOO

D

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVA

TE

STAN SCHLUETER

TRIMMIER

PRIVA

TE

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

µ

0 0.75 1.5Miles

SUBMARKETTHREE

CITY OFKILLEEN

HARKERHEIGHTS

APPENDIX MAP THREE

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)2007 - 20112012 OR LATERPATTERSON-LIBERTY HILL URBAN SUBMARKETSUBMARKET PARCELSPARKSHIGHWAY/INTERSTATEMAJOR ROADSLOCAL ROADSKISD SCHOOLSCITY OF KILLEEN

£¤190

£¤190

UV195

UV3470

UV201

UV439

UV17

Old

FM

440

Rd

Jan

is D

r

Robin

ett

Rd

Cody P

oe R

d

W Central Texas ExpyM

ead

ow

Dr


Edgefield St

W Jasper Dr

West Ln

Old

Flo

ren

ce R

d

Watercrest Rd

Flo

ren

ce R

d

W Elms Rd

Farhills Dr

E Elms Rd

Will

ow

Spri

ngs R

d

Pershing Dr

ELMS

FORT HOOD

BUNN

Y

CLEAR CREEK

JIM

GUS

STAN SCHLUETER

JANI

S

ROBIN

ETT

IDA

YATESWI

NDFIE

LD

JANELLE

WEST

NEWT

REESE CREEK

STALLION

LAVA

FARHILLS

NINA

BERM

UDA

CODY

POE

NETA

CLAIRIDGE

EDGEFIELD

VERDE

WATERCREST

FIELDCREST

LEADER

INDY

TALLW

OOD

WALES

FOST

ER

LAUR

A

BURK

MUSTANG

PETE

MOHAWK

JASM

INE

VAHRENKAMP

JULY

LORI

WESTWOOD

WHEELER

WILLO

W SP

RINGS

ANNA LEE

PRIVA

TE

AZUR

A

WADE

LLOYD

PREWITT RANCH

LITTLE

ROCK

HITCH

ROCK

DOFFY

CACTUS

AUBURN

TARA

LEGACY

CINCH

CAUSEWAYHO

NDO

LAVE

NDER

JOHN HELEN

MATTBR

IDLE

LANCE

ETHE

L

AGATE

LORENA

JAKE

SPOO

NBRUSHY CREEK

ESTANCIA

CORINNE

PINAR

YIMILDRED

NATURAL

WEST

RIM

KAREN

HEMLOCK

MARIA

SUNG

ATE

TIGER

LUXOR

THUNDER CREEK

COAL OIL

TIFFANY

ARMADILLONE

SSY

THAY

ER

SALT FORK

LITTLE

LEAF

SANDSTONE

BRIDG

EWOO

D

TAFFINDERWA

TERF

ALL

BIGPIN

E

COLIN

A

WINDCREST

BLAC

K ORC

HID

OLIVE

R LOV

ING

TARE

E

TATONKA

IVY MOUNTAIN

JULIE

PENN

INGT

ON

SANDS

JOYCE

JEFF S

COTT

OZARK

KATY CREEK

LAKE

CRES

TSYDNEY HARBOUR

POWDER RIVER

HEATHER

JACK BARNES HERE

DITYAL

LEGAN

Y

MONA

OAKALLA

RIMES LOYAL

CHELS

EA

JUDS

ON

BENJ

AMIN

CACTUS FLOWER

FOLLY

RONSTAN

MATTIE

JASPER

PRES

TIGE

DUST

INCA

MPUS

GALLO

P

DODGE CITY

DAUDE

BRISCOE

KATHEY

WESTOVER

TEMO

RABO

SE IK

ARD

CAMBRIDGE

ENNIS

MAXD

ALE

LATIGO

BAMBOO GOOD

HUE

NEWC

ASTLE CHIPS

MANDALAY

BOBBY LEE

AUTUMN VALLEY CRESTRIDGE

ECHO

CHET EDWARDS

OLD F

M 44

0

MAID MARIAN

TUMUT

SOL

TECOVAS SPRINGS

BELL TOWERHILLTOP

LAND

RI

STRATFORD

IMPERIAL EAGLE

KALI GARLAND

GAZE

LLE

STUDY HALL

KUM OK

PRIVATE

REESE CREEK

PRIVATE

PRIVA

TE

CAMPUS

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVA

TE

FORT

HOOD

PRIVA

TE

FORT HOOD

MOHAWK

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

0 0.7 1.4Miles

µ

SUBMARKETFOUR

KILLEEN-FORT HOODREGIONALAIRPORT

APPENDIX MAP FOUR

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)2007 - 20112012 OR LATERROY J SMITH URBAN SUBMARKETSUBMARKET PARCELSPARKSHIGHWAY/INTERSTATEMAJOR ROADSLOCAL ROADSKISD SCHOOLSCITY OF KILLEEN

£¤190

£¤190

£¤190

£¤190

£¤190UV2410

UV439

UV3481

UV3470

UV3219

UV190UV2410 UV190

UV190

India

n T

rl

E FM 2410 Rd

Zephyr Rd

S A

nn B

lvd


Old Nolanville Rd

Ve

rna L

ee B

lvd

Nola

Ruth

Blv

d

S R

oy

Reynold

s D

r

Clore Rd

S A

my

Ln

E Elms Rd

FM

Spur

43

9

W FM 2410 RdW Central Texas Expy

S Main St

Edwards Dr

N R

oy R

eyn

old

s D

r

W Avenue I

E Beeline Ln



E Centra

l Texa

s Expy

ANN AM

Y

KNIGHTS WAY

FULLER

INDIAN TRAIL

IOWA

ELK

VERN

A LEE

CENTRAL TEXAS

HARL

EY

MODOC

UTE

STILL

HOUS

E LAK

E

AZTEC

CLORE

VALLEYARLOCOX

YAK

CHEROKEE

FM 34

81

RUBY

ANTE

LOPE

ELBERT

VETERANS MEMORIAL

WARR

IORS

PATH

PIONEER

CEDAR KNOB

PROSPECTOR

ROBIN

CREEK

FOX

GRIZZLY

INDIAN OAKS

ARAPAHO

LOBLOLLY

MERL

IN

JASO

N

WACO

QUAIL HOLLOW

GAZELLE

CHAUCER

HOPI

CATTAIL

CROW

FOOT

DAKO

TA

PAWNEE

VINEYARD

DIANA

PIN OAK

TANGLEWOOD

OLD OAK

CEDAR OAKS

OLIVE

WAMPUM

SMITH

COMANCHE GAP

CARIB

OU

DANA PE

AK PARK

SHAWNEE

CARDINAL

WINDY HILL

GOMER

WICKIUP

CADDO

YUMAPIMA

HUDS

ON

LAKECLIFFE

BRIARWOOD

VALLEY OAKS

TAHUAYA

LAKEVIEW

MARY

JO

TUNDRA

TUSCAN JUBIL

ATIO

N

QUARRY

PORT

TRIBAL

DEL REY

DRAW

BRIDG

E

SIENA APACHE

BOXW

OOD

GOLD SPLASH

CORAL

QUAIL RIDGE

JUSTIN

ROCKY RIDGE

OAK BARK

MOON VALLEY

MOODY

PONTIAC

COMANCHE GAP

CENTRAL TEXAS

KNIGHTS WAY

MAIN

AVE H

1ST

10TH

AVE IUS HIGHWAY 190

FM 2410

4TH

LAKESIDE

3RD

FM 439

JACKRABBIT

HIGH

OAK

CAYUGA

HIGHVIEW

HARV

EST

PADDY HAMILTON

8TH

ELF

EAGLE RIDGE

LEVY C

ROSS

ING

RUMMEL

SHORELINE

BOXE

R

FIR

RAMP

CATH

Y

REDLEAF

BIG VA

LLEY

ORLANLAKEFRONT

SIMS R

IDGE

D N W

ATTS

NOLAN RIDGE

WYATT EARP

LAGO VISTA

PINE

RICHA

RD

WAYN

E

NOLAN

QUAN

AH VA

LLEY

TONKAWA

RYAN

NCINDY

BRANDY

FLAT R

OCK

MORNINGSIDE

ARRO

YO

SPLIT

OAK

RANC

H

FM 32

19

JORDAN

CENTRAL TEXAS

RAMP

RAMP

FM 439

FM 2410

FM 439

FM 439µ

SUBMARKETFIVE

SUBMARKETSIX

0 0.8 1.6Miles

CITY OFKILLEEN

STILLHOUSEHOLLOW LAKE

HARKERHEIGHTS

NOLANVILLE

HarkerHeights H.S.

APPENDIX MAP 5

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)2007 - 20112012 OR LATER

HARKER HEIGHTS & NOLANVILLE URBAN SUBMARKETSUBMARKET PARCELSPARKSHIGHWAY/INTERSTATEMAJOR ROADSLOCAL ROADSCITY OF KILLEEN

£¤190

£¤190

£¤190

UV439

UV2410

UV3481UV195

UV2484

UV3470

UV201

UV3219

UV17

UV190UV190UV2410

UV17

UV190

UV439

Indian Trl

Copperas Cove Rd

Westcliff Rd

E Elms Rd

Tri

mm

ier

Rd

S W

S Y

ou

ng D

r


E FM 2410 Rd

Old

FM

440

Rd

Zephyr Rd

Battalion Ave

S A

nn B

lvd

N W

S Y

oun

g D

r

Tank Destroyer Blvd

N R

oy R

eyn

old

s D

r

Flo

ren

ce R

d

N 3

8th

St

Cle

ar C

reek R

d

Alle

n S

t

Old Nolanville Rd

N Main S

t

Vern

a L

ee B

lvd

Lake Rd

N 8

th S

t

Jan

is D

r

Robin

ett

Rd

N 2

nd

St

Gilm

er

St

Cody P

oe R

d

W Jasper Dr

S R

oy R

eynold

s D

r

Clore RdS A

my

Ln

E Avenue D

Mead

ow

Dr

Terrace DrKate

St


Hilliard Ave

Edgefield St

S Twin

Cre

ek Dr

W Hallmark Ave

N T

win

Cre

ek D

r

37th

St

Will

iam

s S

t

Mann

ing D

r

S G

ray S

t

T.J

Mill

s B

lvd

Old

Flo

ren

ce R

d

Watercrest Rd

W Avenue I

E Centra

l Texa

s Expy

Flo

rence

Rd


FM 439 QUAR

RY

439

FM 32

19

CHALK

GLEN HOLLOWBLUF

F

CARTWRIGHT

FM 439FM 439

FM 439

£¤190£¤190£¤190

UV439UV3219

UV190

UV190Indian Trl

Old Nolanville Rd

Nola

Ruth

Blv

d FM

Spur

43

9

E Centra

l Texa

s Expy

S Main St

Edwards Dr

SUBMARKETSEVEN

SUBMARKETSEVEN

BELLCOUNTY

NOLANVILLE

µ

0 1 2Miles

APPENDIX MAP 6

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)2007 - 20112012 OR LATERFORT HOOD URBAN SUBMARKETSUBMARKET PARCELSHIGHWAY/INTERSTATEMAJOR ROADSLOCAL ROADSCITY OF KILLEEN

UV2484

UV195

UV3481

UV2657

UV2410

UV195

E FM 2410 Rd

MAXDA

LE

WOLFRIDGE

FORT HOOD

FM 2670

BRIGGS

CHAPARRAL

LUCILLE

FM 2484

FIRE

TRIMMIER

STATE

HIG

HWAY

195

SHAW

PECAN CR

EEK

GANN BRANCH

TRIPLE 7SLAWSON

WALNUT

CACTUS

ROCKY

HI-RIDGE

SOUKUP

CREE

K PL

ACE

CROSSFIRE

SHARP CEMETERY

SHADY

DEER RU

N

MUSTANG

LAKEVIEW

RIVER RIDGE RANCH

HICKORY

CRESTWOOD

FAY

BRENDA

MAYBERRY PARK

SCHRADER

PRIVATE

OAKALLA

IDUMA

STILL

MAN

VALLE

Y

BUCKEYE

TOOTSIE

RASPBERRY

FLEETA

RIVERSIDELAKEWAY

SCARLET OAK

ROADRUNNER

COSPER RANCH

RONNIE

WILD HORSE

OAKA

LLA

TRIMMIER

BRIGGS

OAKA

LLA

FORT

HOOD

µ

0 1.5 3Miles

SUBMARKETEIGHT

BELLCOUNTY

CITY OFKILLEEN

KILLEEN-FORT HOODREGIONAL AIRPORT

APPENDIX MAP SEVEN

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2007-2017)2007 - 20112012 OR LATER

HIGHWAY/INTERSTATEMAJOR ROADSLOCAL ROADSK-F. HOOD REG. AIRPORT URBAN SUBMARKETSUBMARKET PARCELSPARKSCITY OF KILLEEN


Page 5-1

5 KISD GROWTH PROJECTIONS A. INTRODUCTION The following section details the results of a growth analysis that projected population, household formations and employment growth for the period of 2018 to 2035. The purpose of this analysis was to project the development and growth impacts on the City of Killeen and the Killeen Independent School District (KISD), based on a set of future growth projections. The analysis was prepared using conservative assumptions and based on the best available information provided by the City of Killeen, Fort Hood and the KISD. B. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES RKG Associates used several data sources, both primary and secondary, dependent on the type of projections made. To document historical population, household and household size trends, the consultants relied on ESRI Community Profile data at the KISD submarket-level. For County-level population numbers, RKG relied on both Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (W&P) and 2018 Texas Population Projections Data Tool for 2018-2035 population projections. However, RKG used W&P because it provided more detail relative to future changes in the number of households, average household size and person living in group quarters. Both ESRI and W&P are national demographic and economic analytics firms, often used for such analyses. In addition, employment projections at the county-level were obtained from EMSI, which is a data analytics firm specializing in employment, labor force and economic impact analysis data. C. POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY SUBMARKET 1. Population Projections RKG Associates impact model is driven by changes in population, which is largely a function of new household formations and changes in average household size. Each new household will incrementally drive the demand for municipal services (e.g., police, fire, parks, etc.), as well as educational services. Depending on the pattern of growth, population often requires the construction of new facilities such as fire stations, schools and other capital improvements (e.g., water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, etc.) to support the outward expansion of development.

a. Fort Hood Population Trends Historically, personnel changes at Fort Hood have driven population growth and contraction within the KISD service area. This was largely due to the disproportionate size of Fort Hood’s population compared to the population of the immediate region and the flow of Army personnel into and out of the region during periods of deployment. The installation is the largest single-site employer in the State of Texas. The last Economic Impact Analysis, conducted by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, indicated that the economic impact of the installation on the state was more than $24.7 billion in total economic output.


Page 5-2

Since 2000, the soldier population at Fort Hood has ranged from 41,250 in 2000 to a peak of 53,831 in 2008. However, since then the force strength has declined to just over 36,480 in 2018, resulting in a decline of 17,351 (-32.2%) soldiers since 2008 (Figure 5-1).

Since 2000, the population for the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes Bell, Coryell, and Lampasas Counties, increased from 332,989 to 451,679, for a total increase of 35.6% or 1.9% annually. This suggests that the region’s growth dynamics have changed, and population fluctuations are no longer dependent on Fort Hood as a single driver. Based on the above data, this growth relationship began to change starting in 2010. Historically, student enrollments in the Killeen Independent School District (KISD) have closely correlated with the number of active duty soldiers assigned to Fort Hood. In recent years, the number of enrollments in KISD has continued to increase while the number of active duty soldiers has declined. This general population growth has not been directly attributable to the military population. As stated above, the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA has experienced population growth of 35.6% since 2000. b. KISD Submarket Population Projections During the 17-year projection period, KISD study area population is projected to increase from 223,745 in 2018 to 277,594 by 2035, resulting in an increase of 53,849 people (Figure 5-2). ESRI data was used for the individual submarkets and included population, households and average household size for these customized geographic areas (Map 5-1). However, in order to project beyond 2023 at the submarket level, RKG relied on W&P population and household projections for Bell County out to 2035. While Bell County includes more than just the KISD population, the KISD area accounts for roughly 65% of Bell County’s population. As such, RKG used Bell County’s population projections to the year 2035 to drive growth at the submarket level. RKG then used a “proportional sharing” technique to allocate future growth to each of the eight submarkets

Figure 5-1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Heart of Texas Defense Alliance, 2019

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2018

FO

RT

HO

OD

FO

RC

E S

TR

EN

GT

H

PO

PU

LAT

ION

POPULATION AND FORCE STRENGTH TRENDSKilleen-Temple-For t Hood MSA & For t Hood

(2000-2018)

Bell County Coryell County Lampasas County Fort Hood

Source: ESRI and Woods & Poole and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019

5.3%

0.0%

2.3%

1.7%

1.7%

2.8%

0.5%

1.0%

1.4%

-1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0%

SM 8

SM 7

SM 6

SM 5

SM 4

SM 3

SM 2

SM 1

KISD

Annual % Change

Population ProjectionsAverage Annual % Change

KISD Submarkets(2018-2035)

Figure 5-2


Page 5-3

Ma

p 5

-1


Page 5-4

within the KISD study area. This sharing process reflected each submarket’s share of the KISD population, as well as their rate of change since 2010. Accordingly, faster growing submarkets were allowed to continue gaining population share, but all submarkets were constrained by the County’s projected growth rate out to 2035 (average of 1.4%/yr.). As shown in Table 5-1, Submarket 3 (Patterson-Liberty Hill) and Submarket 4 (Roy J. Smith) are projected to capture the majority (55%) of future population growth by 2035 because they are larger submarkets that are growing faster than the county as a whole. Other submarkets (Manor-Rancier and Fort Hood) have effectively stopped growing or are growing slowly.

RKG is also projecting that Submarket 8 (Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport) will accelerate growth south of Killeen during the projection period. While it is difficult to project the exact pace of development, the establishment of Bell County’s MUD 2 for infrastructure financing and the KISD’s commitment to building new High School No. 5 in this southern area, the submarket should begin to grow rapidly. Currently, there is a very large subdivision proposed in Submarket 8 called Three Creeks, which is expected to reach 3,750 new housing units at build-out. The development is proposed by WB Development of Killeen, TX. RKG is projecting this area to nearly double in population from 4,989 in 2018 to 9,508 in 2035, for an increase of 4,519 in population at an average annual rate of 5.3% annually.

Regarding the City of Killeen’s population projections, the first four submarkets of Bellaire-Reeces Creek (SM 1), Manor Rancier (SM 2), Patterson-Liberty Hill (SM 3) and Roy J. Smith (SM 4) comprise the City totals. Based on RKG’s population projections, the City is expected to experience slightly faster annual population growth than the KISD study area, at roughly 1.5% annually. Killeen’s population is expected to increase from 149,536 in 2018 to 187,411 in 2035. Approximately 78% of the City’s new population is expected to occur in the Patterson-Liberty Hill (SM 3) and Roy J. Smith (SM 4) submarkets, which are located south of Interstate 14/Highway 190.

Population Projections by Submarket

KISD Study Area (2018 - 2035)

Submarkets 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 Actual Chg

% of Tot.

Chge Ann % Chge

Greater Killeen Study Area/KISD 223,745 230,712 247,154 262,792 277,565 53,820 100.0% 1.4%

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 28,998 29,764 31,442 32,767 33,909 4,911 9.1% 1.0%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 39,886 40,661 42,140 42,878 43,253 3,367 6.3% 0.5%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 31,299 32,890 37,010 41,583 46,279 14,980 27.8% 2.8%

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 49,353 51,224 55,612 59,848 63,971 14,618 27.2% 1.7%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 28,826 29,888 32,423 34,879 37,267 8,441 15.7% 1.7%

SM 6 - Nolanville 7,793 8,141 9,012 9,949 10,895 3,102 5.8% 2.3%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 32,601 32,877 33,254 33,056 32,484 -117 -0.2% 0.0%

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 4,989 5,267 6,261 7,830 9,508 4,519 8.4% 5.3%

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., ESRI and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018

Change '18 - '35

Population Change by Year Ranges by Submarkets

KISD Study Area (2018 - 2035)

Submarket '18-'20 % '18-'20 '20-'25 % '20-'25 '25-'30 % '25-'30 '30-'35 % '30-'35

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 766 1.3% 1,678 1.1% 1,326 0.8% 1,141 0.7%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 775 1.0% 1,479 0.7% 739 0.4% 374 0.2%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 1,591 2.5% 4,120 2.5% 4,574 2.5% 4,695 2.3%

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 1,871 1.9% 4,388 1.7% 4,236 1.5% 4,123 1.4%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 1,062 1.8% 2,535 1.7% 2,456 1.5% 2,388 1.4%

SM 6 - Nolanville 348 2.2% 872 2.1% 937 2.1% 946 1.9%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 276 0.4% 377 0.2% -197 -0.1% -572 -0.3%

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 278 2.8% 994 3.8% 1,568 5.0% 1,678 4.3%

Total - Greater KISD Study Area 6,967 1.6% 16,442 1.4% 15,638 1.3% 14,774 1.1%

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., ESRI and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Table 5-1


Page 5-5

c. Shifting Population Demographics RKG Associates obtained population forecasts from the 2018 Texas Population Projections Data Tool to examine forecasted changes in the local population. The data is forecasted on the county level so RKG obtained Bell County data as the area most reflective of the KISD study area. The state’s population forecast for the 2018-2035 period were nearly identical to Woods & Poole, projecting a 1.3% annual growth rate for Bell County rather than W&P’s 1.4% annual growth rate. Over the 17-year projection period, the state forecasts that Bell County will add roughly 73,343 new people, with changing demographics in terms of age and racial characteristics. The most significant changes to the population are an 88.7% growth (5.2%/yr.) in the number of people age 75 and older. The most significant number change in population is projected to occur in the 20-34 and the 35-54 age cohorts (Figure 5-3). These two age groups are expected to account for nearly 40,000 new people or 54% of the new population change during this period. These groups are important to a community’s health and vitality as they comprise a large share of the labor force and family-forming households.

The racial composition of Bell County’s population is also projected to change over time. As presented in Chapter 2 – Demographic Trends Analysis, the Hispanic population has been growing and will continue to grow into the future. According to state projections, the number of Hispanic persons in Bell County is forecasted to increase by 61.9% (3.7%/yr.) out to 2035 (Figure 5-4). As a share of the total population, Hispanics are projected to increase from roughly 25% to 34%. All other non-Hispanic (NH) populations, mostly people of Asian descent, are projected to increase by 35.4% (2.1%/yr.). The African American population is projected to increase by 21% (1.2%/yr.) and Caucasians are expected to decline by -3.5% (-0.2%/yr.)

Figure 5-3

Source: 2018 Texas Population Projections Data Tool, 2019

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

2018 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2035

Po

pu

latio

n P

roje

ctio

ns

Year

Population Age Distribution ProjectionsBell County, TX

(2018-2035)

0-19 20-34 35-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Figure 5-4

Source: 2018 Texas Population Projections Data Tool, 2019

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

2018 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2035

Po

pu

latio

n

Years

Population Projections by RaceBell County, TX

(2018-2015)

NH White Total NH Black Total Hispanic Total NH Other


Page 5-6

D. KISD EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY SUBMARKET

a. Employment Projections (2018-2035) Another important aspect of KISD growth projections involves changes in employment and the tax base resulting from this growth. In order to project KISD employment, RKG Associates obtained 2018 employment estimates for each of the eight KISD submarkets. According to ESRI Business Analyst estimates, the KISD had roughly 47,553 jobs in 2018 (Table 5-2). From this base, RKG projected employment out to 2035. In order to do that, the consultants made certain assumptions about how different submarkets would capture employment growth in the future. For example, fast growing areas like Patterson-Liberty Hill, Roy J. Smith and Harker Heights are growing rapidly in terms of population and housing but they are smaller employment areas. The traditional employment centers located in Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier are much larger, but their populations are not growing as rapidly, and these are older areas. Based on RKG’s projections, total employment in the KISD is projected to increase from 47,553 jobs to 55,377 over the 17-year projection period (Table 5-2). This results in an increase of 7,824 jobs at an annual growth rate of 0.9%. This annual growth rate is slower than the projected population growth rate of 1.4%/year. The projections assume that new employment will cluster primarily in the Patterson-Liberty Hill, Manor-Rancier and Roy J. Smith submarkets.

b. Redistribution of Employment As jobs tend to cluster in certain areas where there is population and infrastructure (i.e., roads, water/sewer, etc.) to support them, RKG conducted an analysis examining where new employment generating development has located since 2010. Once established, these patterns of growth remain stable, but can change incrementally over time as growth patterns shift. RKG’s

Table 5-2 Employment Projections

KISD Study Area (2018-2035)

Submarket 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035

Actual

Chge % of Total

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 10,707 10,856 11,241 11,643 12,063 1,356 17.3%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 13,241 13,427 13,908 14,411 14,936 1,695 21.7%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 4,657 4,831 5,279 5,748 6,239 1,582 20.2%

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 5,311 5,429 5,732 6,049 6,381 1,070 13.7%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 7,597 7,698 7,958 8,231 8,516 919 11.7%

SM 6 - Nolanville 849 896 1,016 1,142 1,274 425 5.4%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 4,718 4,738 4,788 4,841 4,896 178 2.3%

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 473 539 709 886 1,072 599 7.7%

Total 47,553 48,413 50,631 52,951 55,377 7,824 100.0%

Source: ESRI Business Analyst and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019

Employment Projections - Change by Period


Submarket

Actual Chg

'18-'20 % '18-'20

Actual Chg

'20-'25 % '20-'25

Actual Chg

'25-'30 % '25-'30

Actual Chg

'30-'35 % '30-'35

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 149 0.7% 385 0.7% 402 0.7% 421 0.7%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 186 0.7% 481 0.7% 503 0.7% 526 0.7%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 174 1.9% 448 1.9% 469 1.8% 490 1.7%

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 118 1.1% 303 1.1% 317 1.1% 332 1.1%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 101 0.7% 260 0.7% 272 0.7% 285 0.7%

SM 6 - Nolanville 47 2.8% 121 2.7% 126 2.5% 132 2.3%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 20 0.2% 50 0.2% 53 0.2% 55 0.2%

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 66 7.0% 170 6.3% 178 5.0% 186 4.2%

Total 860 0.90% 2,218 0.92% 2,320 0.92% 2,426 0.92%


Employment Projections

Employment Projection Growth Rates by Period

Employment Growth


Page 5-7

analysis looked at new development activity in each of the submarkets from 2010 to 2017 and compared that new development against the baseline building inventory for each submarket. Since 2010, the KISD Study Area has added 2.4 million SF of new employment generating uses, which includes: industrial/distribution, retail, office, hotels/restaurants, services and other employment types. This level of development reflects a 2.7% average annual change in the total building inventory, which was 12.8 million SF in 2010, according to Bell County Appraisal Office records (Table 5-3). Other than Harker Heights, which had over 2.2 million SF in 2010, 80% of the employment generating space is located in the City of Killeen, with most of that space located in the Bellaire-Reeces Creek and Manor-Rancier submarkets. These two submarkets are well established employment areas and will continue to be into the foreseeable future.

However, several areas south of I-14/Highway 190 are starting to add employment and new building square footage at rates far exceeding the KISD average of 2.7% per year. Most notable among these submarkets is the Pattern-Liberty Hill submarket that grew by 18% annually from 2010 to 2017 increasing its building base from 487,917 SF to over 1.1 million SF. Accordingly, RKG created a methodology to adjust the distribution of employment growth between established employment centers and those that are emerging based on their recent growth trends. The projection methodology gave a 60% weighting preference to submarkets based on their existing building inventory (in square feet) and a 40% weighting preference to their recent annual growth rates. The implication is that those areas that are growing will incrementally increase their share of employment in the future. Based on Bell County employment projections out to 2028, RKG projects that employment in all industries will grow by an average of 0.9% annually through 2035. However, employment

Employment Projection Analysis


Total

Building SF

(Base Year

PRE-2010)

Total

Building SF

(2010-

2017)

Avg.

Annual %

Submarket

Growth

Ratio

Annual

Growth -

Weighted

Distribution

Building SF

Distribution

Combined

Share

Submarket Areas 12,840,966 2,434,837 2.71% 1=2.71% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% 47,553

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 3,797,829 333,804 1.3% 0.46 2.8% 27.0% 17.3% 10,707

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 4,810,451 423,896 1.3% 0.46 2.8% 34.3% 21.7% 13,241

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 487,917 615,084 18.0% 6.65 39.7% 7.2% 20.2% 4,657

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 1,064,031 601,971 8.1% 2.98 17.8% 10.9% 13.7% 5,311

SM 5 - Harker Heights 2,250,052 304,699 1.9% 0.71 4.3% 16.7% 11.7% 7,597

SM 6 - Nolanville 216,724 73,819 4.9% 1.80 10.7% 1.9% 5.4% 849

SM 7 - Fort Hood 89,183 13,239 2.1% 0.78 4.7% 0.7% 2.3% 4,718

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 124,780 68,326 7.8% 2.89 17.2% 1.3% 7.7% 473

Total - KISD Study Area 12,840,966 2,434,837 45.3% 16.74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 47,553


Employment Distribution by Submarket & Projection Period

Greater Killeen Study Area/KISD (2018-2035)

Submarket Areas 2018-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 149 385 402 421 1,356 0.7% 17.3%

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 186 481 503 526 1,695 0.8% 21.7%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 174 448 469 490 1,582 2.0% 20.2%

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 118 303 317 332 1,070 1.2% 13.7%

SM 5 - Harker Heights 101 260 272 285 919 0.7% 11.7%

SM 6 - Nolanville 47 121 126 132 425 2.9% 5.4%

SM 7 - Fort Hood 20 50 53 55 178 0.2% 2.3%

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 66 170 178 186 599 7.5% 7.7%

Total - KISD Study Area 860 2,218 2,320 2,426 7,824 1.0% 100.0%

Source: EMSI - Labor Market Analytics, ESRI and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018

EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BUILDING SF GROWTH

ESRI 2018

Employment

Totals

PROJECTION PERIOD Employment

Totals

% Avg. Ann

Growth

Employ. %

of Total

Table 5-3


Page 5-8

growth varies by submarket, with areas like Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport (7.5%), Nolanville (2.9%), Patterson-Liberty Hill (2%) growing faster over the projection period. It is important to note that some areas with few jobs may grow at a faster rate on a percentage basis but are not likely to capture a large number of new jobs.

E. IMPLICATIONS While RKG Associates is projecting a slowing the of the KISD’s population growth, those areas south of Interstate 14/Highway 190 will continue to grow at above average rates during the projection period. This will continue to challenge Bell County, the City of Killeen and the KISD to provide services to areas that are just beginning to develop. Submarket 8 (Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport) is one area that is poised to grow rapidly over the next 10 years, baring a major slow-down in the financial services, housing or mortgage lending markets. The growth prospects for the Central Texas Region are not solely driven by local housing demand. The region, and Texas in general, is seen as a pro-growth state with robust employment growth and affordably-priced housing. Consequently, many people from other parts of the country are discovering Killeen as a viable place to live. As a retirement location, the City is starting to be recognized as an affordable retirement location and the proximity to the Austin–Round Rock–San Marcos MSA is a draw to people who would be inclined to commute to Austin for higher paying employment, while maintaining their housing affordability in the KISD communities.


Page 6-1

6 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. INTRODUCTION The following section details the results of fiscal impacts associated with the growth projections described in Chapter 5 – KISD Growth Projections. The purpose of this analysis was to project the fiscal impacts related to development and growth impacts on the City of Killeen and the Killeen Independent School District (KISD), based on a set of future growth projections. The analysis was prepared using conservative assumptions and focused on the primary impacts. The consultants based the analysis on the best available information obtained from the City of Killeen and the KISD. During 2018, RKG interviewed several senior staff to better understand the fiscal issues posing challenges to the City and the independent school district. B. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES KISD school attendance zone data was obtained from the KISD school planning and attendance projection office. The data cover hundreds of individual attendance zones covering the entire KISD service area. The data contain current the number of housing units, school-age children by grade and school and the ratio of children per household enrolled in elementary, middle and high school for each zone. This data were used to create a student attendance projection model, which grouped school attendance zones into the submarket boundaries presented in Chapter 2 of this study. Other data regarding annual revenues and expenditures were obtained from the City of Killeen’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the KISD Comprehensive Financial Report. Military veteran’s data was obtained from the American Community Survey and the Heart of Texas Defense Alliance.

C. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. KISD School-Age Children Projections In order to project school-age population for the KISD study area, RKG obtained detailed school attendance zone data for all elementary, middle and high schools in the KISD. The data were plotted geographically and grouped into the eight submarket areas illustrated in Map 5-1 in Chapter 5 – KISD Growth Projections. The school department’s demographer responsible for student and school projections updates this data annually and tracks the number of students attending each school at various grade levels. These student figures are compared against the number of housing units to come up with multipliers for the number of elementary, middle and high school students per housing unit.

a. Student Enrollment Multipliers The data indicate that in 2018 67,914 housing units produced 44,073 students attending KISD

schools. On average, that equated to 0.65 school-age children per housing unit (HU), when viewed

across the entire KISD. However, as shown in Table 6-1, some submarkets produce more school-age

children than the school district average. The Fort Hood (0.84 students/HU) and Killeen/Fort Hood


Page 6-2

(0.80 students/HU) submarkets produce more school-age children per household than the school

district average. Other more established submarkets like Bellaire-Reeces Creek (0.56 students/HH)

and Manor-Rancier (0.53 students/HU) produce students at a lower rate. The KISD elementary

schools account for 55% of the total school-age population, following by high schools (25%) and

middle schools (20%). The largest student multipliers are observed at the elementary school level,

where they average 0.36 students per housing unit.

Using the student enrollment multipliers shown above, RKG converted future annual population changes by submarket into new student population at the various grade levels. This new student population was then distributed to those schools currently located within each submarket. This growing student population was then compared against the estimated enrollment capacity within each submarkets’ schools. According to the KISD, capacity is determined by adding the 2019 “core capacity” of existing and proposed schools to the “planning capacity”, which includes portable classrooms. As a general policy, the KISD doesn’t start building new schools as soon as existing schools have reached their enrollment capacity. Portable classrooms are used to absorb the over-capacity for a period-of-time until the total student population exceeds the schools’ core capacity by at least 15%. This allows the school district enough time to monitor changes in annual enrollment and determine if a new school is needed and then plan for it. b. Peak Enrollment Growth

Trends (2014-2019) Over the past five school years (2014-2019), KISD peak enrollment has increased, but at different rates depending on the grade level. The greatest average annual change has occurred at the high school level, which has grown at an average annual rate of 3.6% since 2014. Middle school peak enrollment has increased by 2.2% and elementary enrollment has grown at only 0.6%, compared to the district average of 1.6%/year (Figure 6-1).

Figure 6-1

Source: KISD and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

Elementary Middle High District

Average Annual Percent ChangeKISD Peak Enrollment by Grade

(2014-2019)

Composite Household Student Multipliers by Submarket

Killeen Independent School District (2019)

Submarkets # HUs ES/unit MS/unit HS/unit Total/unit ES MS HS Total

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reece's Creek 11,078 0.32 0.11 0.13 0.56 3,536 1,250 1,449 6,235

SM 2 - Manor Rancier 12,702 0.30 0.10 0.13 0.53 3,798 1,242 1,649 6,689

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 8,766 0.36 0.17 0.22 0.75 3,123 1,497 1,919 6,539

SM 4 - Roy J. Smith 15,723 0.39 0.14 0.18 0.71 6,084 2,245 2,771 11,100

SM 5 - Harker Heights 10,739 0.30 0.13 0.19 0.62 3,213 1,447 2,004 6,664

SM 6 - Nolanville 1,940 0.36 0.13 0.15 0.64 699 247 300 1,246

SM 7 - Fort Hood 6,265 0.57 0.13 0.11 0.80 3,544 800 665 5,009

SM 8 - Killeen/Fort Hood Airport 701 0.36 0.19 0.29 0.84 255 131 205 591

Total - KISD Study Area 67,914 0.36 0.13 0.16 0.65 24,252 8,859 10,962 44,073

Source: KISD School Attendance Zone data and RKG Associates, Inc.

HU Student Multipliers by Grade Number of School-age Children

Table 6-1


Page 6-3

c. KISD School Enrollment Projections (2018-2035)

According to RKG Associates’ projections, the number of new school-age children entering the KISD over the next 17 years will equal approximately 11,109. students (Figure 6-2). New elementary school children will comprise 51% (5,612 children) of the total, followed by high school students at 28.7% (3,142 children) and middle school students at 21.0% (2,336 children). Overall, the KISD is projected to experience a 25.2% increase in its 2019 peak enrollment of 44,073. As a reference point, new school-age children will account for roughly 20% of the new population (53,849 people) projected for the KISD study area by 2035. d. School Capacity Projections by Grade Based on RKG’s enrollment projections, it was possible to overlay projected annual enrollment on current school capacity levels to project when new school construction might be needed. While elementary schools could be grouped into their respective submarkets, middle and high schools could not be sorted in the same way. This is primarily because middle and high school attendance zones are much larger and cross submarket boundaries. However, the KISD tracks the enrollment and capacity of each school, as well as the number of portable classrooms being deployed for educational purposes. RKG was able to proportionately allocate its submarket population projections to middle and high school attendance zones throughout the KISD. The capacity projections in Table 5-5 reflect the new changes adopted in the KISD’s $426 million school bond issue passed in 2018, which calls for the construction of a new high school No. 5, a new elementary school No. 36; a new elementary campus at Pershing Park, as well as several school consolidations (Table 6-1). Once the new school construction and consolidations are completed by 2022 (estimated), the KISD should not need to undertake new school construction over the next five years due to capacity issues. However, RKG’s projections indicate that additional elementary school capacity may be needed in by the Year 2028 in the fast-growing Patterson-Liberty Hill submarket. Table 6-2 denotes in light blue the year in which each school attendance zone or submarket exceeds its core school capacity by at least 15%. It is important to note that the elementary school submarkets contain between two and nine elementary schools, depending on submarket size and location. Within the past five years, the KISD has closed two elementary schools in the Fort Hood submarket (Cedar Valley and Timber Ridge) because of declining enrollment trends on Fort Hood. These schools had capacity to accommodate roughly 1,100 students

Figure 6-2

Source: KISD and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2035

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew

KIS

D S

tud

en

ts

Year

Cumulative New Student Projections by GradeKISD (2018-2035)

New ES Students New MS Students New HS Students


Page 6-4

Table 6-1 2018 KISD School Bond Issue Components

School Consolidations & Renovations

• WEST WARD ELEMENTARY CONSOLIDATION Existing West Ward campus to consolidate with new campus at current East Ward site Existing West Ward ES AGE: 64 | CAPACITY: 600

• NEW EAST WARD & WEST WARD ELEMENTARY PROP B Targeted Opening Date: 2021 Planning Capacity: 1,050 | Grades: PK-5 New campus located at East Ward site to consolidate with West Ward Elementary Existing East Ward ES AGE: 65 | CAPACITY: 610 | PORTABLES: 5

• SUGAR LOAF ELEMENTARY CONSOLIDATION Existing Sugar Loaf campus to consolidate with new campus at current Pershing Park site Existing Sugar Loaf ES AGE: 52 | CAPACITY: 487 | PORTABLES: 2

• NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #36 PROP A Targeted Opening Date: 2022 Planning Capacity: 1,050 | Grades: PK-5

• CLIFTON PARK ELEMENTARY ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS PROP B Targeted Opening Date: 2021 Major interior and exterior renovations and classroom additions to replace portables and accommodate partial Bellaire Elementary attendance zone Existing Clifton Park ES AGE: 53 | CAPACITY: 560 | PORTABLES: 8

• KILLEEN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS Phased Completion - Targeted Final Completion: 2021. Classroom additions, major interior and exterior renovations and program expansions Existing Killeen HS AGE: 53 | CAPACITY: 2,275 | PORTABLES: 5

New School Construction

• NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #36 PROP A Targeted Opening Date: 2022 Planning Capacity: 1,050 | Grades: PK-5

• NEW PERSHING PARK, SUGAR LOAF & PARTIAL BELLAIRE ELEMENTARY (PROP B) Targeted Opening Date: 2021 Planning Capacity: 1,050 | Grades: PK-5 New campus located at Pershing Park site to consolidate with Sugar Loaf & partial Bellaire Elementary Existing Pershing Park ES AGE: 55 | CAPACITY: 704 | PORTABLES: 9

• NEW HIGH SCHOOL #6 PROP A Targeted Opening Date: 2022 Planning Capacity: 2,500 | Grades: 9-12 To be located at District owned property on Chaparral Road

In 2028 and 2029, it is projected that the Roy J. Smith and Liberty Hill middle schools could exceed their core capacity by at least 15%. In addition, the first high school to exceed its core capacity is Robert J. Shoemaker High School in the Year 2032 with Ellison following in 2033. The school attendance zones or submarkets indicating negative capacity figures but not highlighted in blue, denote that portable classrooms will be required in areas until new school construction occurs. For capacity planning purposes, the KISD assumes that each portable classroom can accommodate 22 students.


Page 6-5

Table

6-2

Scho

ol C

apac

ity P

roje

ctio

ns b

y G

rade

Lev

el

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

tric

t (20

19-2

035)

ELEM

ENTA

RY

SC

HO

OLS

2019

Plan

ning

Cap

acity

(Cor

e)20

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

3220

3320

3420

35

Subm

arke

tsA

nnua

l Sch

ool C

apac

ity E

stim

ates

SM 1

- B

ella

ire-R

eece

's C

reek

1,57

922

017

713

491

496

(18)

(40)

(62)

(82)

(101

)(1

19)

(135

)(1

50)

(164

)(1

76)

(187

)

SM 2

- M

anor

Ran

cier

4,51

745

641

036

431

727

122

520

719

217

916

715

714

814

313

913

713

713

9

SM 3

- P

atte

rson

-Lib

erty

Hill

3,89

428

219

010

215

(73)

(161

)(2

63)

(365

)(4

68)

(571

)(6

76)

(780

)(8

84)

(988

)(1

,092

)(1

,195

)(1

,299

)

SM 4

- R

oy J

. Sm

ith4,

272

1,67

11,

539

1,41

91,

300

1,18

01,

061

961

863

766

669

573

479

386

295

206

118

32

SM 5

- H

arke

r H

eigh

ts2,

713

134

8027

(27)

(80)

(134

)(1

69)

(203

)(2

37)

(270

)(3

02)

(333

)(3

64)

(393

)(4

22)

(449

)(4

76)

SM 6

- N

olan

ville

1,55

038

636

634

532

530

428

426

424

422

520

518

516

614

612

710

889

70

SM 7

- F

ort H

ood

7,76

21,

007

984

961

938

915

892

892

894

897

903

909

918

929

942

957

973

991

SM 8

- K

illee

n/Fo

rt H

ood

Airp

ort

04,

156

3,74

53,

352

2,95

92,

566

2,17

21,

874

1,58

41,

301

1,02

074

547

922

2(2

9)(2

70)

(503

)(7

31)

Tota

l - K

ISD

Stu

dy A

rea

26,2

878,

312

7,49

16,

704

5,91

85,

131

4,34

53,

748

3,16

92,

601

2,04

11,

490

958

444

(58)

(539

)(1

,006

)(1

,461

)

MID

DLE

SC

HO

OLS

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

Nol

an

825

109

100

9181

7263

5853

4844

4036

3330

2724

22

Ranc

ier

850

206

194

182

169

157

145

138

130

124

117

110

104

9993

8884

79

Man

or75

0

10

798

8980

7263

5955

5249

4644

4241

3939

38

Easte

rn H

ills

800

126

114

102

9179

6759

5143

3527

2012

5(2

)(8

)(1

5)

Palo

Alto

850

193

180

166

153

139

126

115

104

9483

7262

5242

3223

14

Libe

rty H

ill85

0

11

188

6441

18(6

)(3

3)(6

1)(8

9)(1

17)

(145

)(1

73)

(201

)(2

29)

(257

)(2

85)

(313

)

Live

Oak

Rid

ge85

0

22

921

720

419

217

916

715

714

713

712

711

710

899

8980

7263

Uni

on G

rove

875

162

145

128

112

9578

6755

4433

2212

2(8

)(1

8)(2

8)(3

7)

Aud

ie M

urph

y87

5

11

110

610

196

9186

8687

8789

9092

9497

100

104

107

C. P

atte

rson

975

172

145

118

9265

388

(21)

(51)

(81)

(111

)(1

40)

(170

)(1

99)

(228

)(2

57)

(286

)

Roy

J. S

mith

1,25

0

19(5

)(2

9)(5

2)(7

6)(1

00)

(123

)(1

46)

(169

)(1

93)

(216

)(2

38)

(261

)(2

83)

(305

)(3

27)

(349

)

Tota

l - K

ISD

Stu

dy A

rea

9,75

0

1545

1382

1218

1055

891

728

589

454

320

187

55(7

4)(1

99)

(323

)(4

43)

(561

)(6

77)

HIG

H S

CH

OO

LS20

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

3220

3320

3420

35

Kille

en H

igh

Scho

ol Z

one

2,27

5

316

285

254

224

193

162

148

134

122

111

100

9183

7671

6663

Ellis

on H

igh

Scho

ol Z

one

2,17

9

332

278

224

170

116

6315

(33)

(79)

(126

)(1

72)

(218

)(2

62)

(306

)(3

49)

(391

)(4

33)

Har

ker

Hei

ght H

igh

Scho

ol Z

one

2,01

1

354

316

278

241

203

165

139

114

8964

3915

(8)

(30)

(52)

(73)

(94)

Robe

rt Sh

oem

aker

Hig

h Sc

hool

Zon

e2,

011

16

512

279

37(6

)(4

9)(8

3)(1

17)

(150

)(1

83)

(216

)(2

47)

(278

)(3

09)

(338

)(3

67)

(396

)

Hig

h Sc

hool

No.

52,

500

1,

351

1,30

61,

262

1,21

71,

173

1,12

81,

064

999

934

867

801

734

667

599

532

464

396

Tota

l - K

ISD

Stu

dy A

rea

10,9

76

2,

518

2,30

82,

099

1,88

91,

679

1,46

91,

282

1,09

791

573

355

237

520

230

(137

)(3

01)

(464

)

Tota

l - K

ISD

Stu

dy A

rea

47,0

1312

,375

11,1

8110

,021

8,86

17,

702

6,54

25,

619

4,72

03,

836

2,96

02,

097

1,25

944

6(3

50)

(1,1

20)

(1,8

68)

(2,6

02)

Souc

e: K

ISD

and

RKG

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

, 201

9


Page 6-6

e. Projected School Construction (in 2018 dollars) Based on recent construction bids for two new KISD elementary schools, which averaged roughly $28.2 million each, RKG estimates that two new elementary schools in the Patterson-Liberty Hill (SM 3) and Harker Heights (SM 5) submarkets will cost roughly $56.4 million in 2018 dollars. New high school No. 5 will provide additional capacity for the Robert Shoemaker, Ellison and Harker Heights attendance zones in the future, as the zones have been redrawn to allow the new high school to pull students from these three high schools to relieve capacity issues (Map 6-1). High school No. 5 is projected to cost approximately $171 million and will accommodate 2,500 students. However, increased enrollment at Shoemaker and Ellison High Schools in the future could exceed the available capacity, resulting in the need for high school No. 6 at around 2032-33 (Table 6-2).

Finally, future capacity issues at Liberty Hill, Charles Patterson and Roy J. Smith middle schools will likely require new construction of at least one new middle school at around the Year 2030, if population projections hold true. Based on recent middle school construction in Texas, a new middle school with an 850-student capacity (128,128 building SF) at $250/SF for construction costs would equal roughly $32 million in today’s dollars.1 While these are rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates, they indicate that during the projection period, total school construction costs could exceed $250 million in today’s dollars.

Killeen High School Zone

High School No. 5 Zone

Harker Heights High School Zone

Ellison High School Zone

Robert Shoemaker High School Zone

Map 6-1 New KISD High School Attendance Zone Boundaries

Source: KISD, 2018


Page 6-7

f. Teacher Staffing Projections In order to educate 11,109 new students in the KISD system, the school district will have to hire additional teachers. In FY 2018, the KISD employed 3,132 teaching staff to support roughly 44,000 students. In order to maintain the current student/teacher ratio of 14.2 students per teacher, the school district would have to hire roughly 782 new teachers by 2035, or roughly 46 new staff per year on average. This would amount to an increase of nearly 25% over FY 2018 staffing levels. If the KISD allows the student/teacher ratio to increase to 15.2 to 1 or 16.2 to 1, the number of new teachers would proportionately drop to 731 and 686 respectively to meet those new ratios. These staffing numbers reflect the increased demand for teaching staff and not additional administrative or other school district personnel. g. Cost to Educate New Students

(in 2018 dollars) In FY 2018, it cost an average of $9,942 to educate each student in the KISD. While such averages do change from year-to-year, they have averaged $9,583 annually over the past ten years and are considered reasonable for planning purposes. Using the 2018 cost per student, RKG projects that the total cost to educate 11,109 new students in 2035 will approach $110.4 million in 2018 dollars (Figure 6-3). This amount is roughly 25% higher than the $441.2 million incurred in FY 2018. h. Federally-Connected Students

and Impact Aid The KISD receives approximately $46 to $51 million annually in Federal Impact Aid to support the education of federally-connected children in the school district. This impact aid is available to school districts across the county serving the educational needs of large populations of military families with children. In 2012, the percentage of federally-connected students were roughly 50% of the total KISD student population. As of March 2019, this percentage had dropped to 37%, which is just above the federal threshold limit of 35% for heavily impacted communities. With Fort Hood’s population remaining steady at around 36,000 to 37,000 military personnel since 2015, the reduction in the percentage of federally-connected students are not the result of annual reductions in military personnel at the installation. Instead, the non-federally-connected KISD population continues to grow, thereby reducing the share of federally-connected children as a percentage of the total school-age population. In 2019, federal impact aid accounted for roughly 7% ($46.6 million) of the KISD’s general operations budget, and if the federally-connected population drops below the 35% threshold, the school district reports that it could potentially lose $20 million in impact aid from its operating budget.2 Federal impact aid can be used just like local tax revenues to pay for school district expenditures. The potential loss of impact aid would likely force the KISD to change how it provides education services, and will likely result in a reduction in spending and KISD staffing levels. In order to estimate the distribution of military personal throughout the KISD Study Area, RKG Associates obtained American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2012-2016). The data is derived from micro-samples of the population and can have higher margins of error than

Figure 6-3

Source: Killeen Independent School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2018

$-

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2035

Co

st

to E

du

ca

te N

ew

K

ISD

Stu

den

ts

Year

Cost to Educate Projected New StudentsKISD (2019-2035)

(In 2018 $)


Page 6-8

typically associated with census data. The number of military veterans, not including family members, is estimated and reported by for those persons 18 years or older in the population. The highest percentage of veteran population is located in the Patterson-Liberty Hill (33.8%), Roy J. Smith (31.7%) and the Killeen/Fort Hood Airport (30.9%) submarkets, which sit just outside Fort Hood (Table 6-3). These three submarkets are projected to grow at rates above the KISD average over the next 17 years.

Roughly 71% of these veteran populations are between the ages of 18 and 54 and are likely to have children living in the household. This percentage is even higher in submarkets 4 (82.8%) and 7 (81.7%). However, in the future it will be very difficult to project how these veteran populations will change as a share of the total population. If the existing active military/veteran population remains static, then their population would likely decrease as a share of the total populations. Therefore, unless the number of military households with children increases, the share of federally-connected children will eventually fall below the 35% threshold. However, this does not account for the State of Texas’ favorable treatment of disabled veterans relative to providing local property tax relief for veterans with disabilities. Anecdotally, there is local speculation that retired military veterans from other parts of the country may be attracted to Central Texas and the KISD to take advantage of these benefits. In addition, the region’s supply of affordably-priced housing and its quality of life are also positive attractors for retirees. Based on the rapid increase in property tax-exemptions reported by the City of Killeen, there may be evidence to support this theory, but no factual data to confirm this assertion. A more complete analysis of this trend is presented later in this section.

Table 6-3

Military Veteran Population and Disability Status

KISD Study Area (2012-2016) 5-Year Estimates

Submarket

Civilian Pop.

18+

Veterans

18+

% Vets.

Age 18+

Age 18-

34

Age 35-

54

Age 55-

64

Age 65-

74 Age 75+

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reece's Creek 12,540 3,023 24.1% 938 1,053 414 353 265

SM 2 - Manor Rancier 23,701 5,707 24.1% 1,464 1,928 1,418 627 270

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 20,463 6,920 33.8% 1,681 3,384 1,403 229 223

SM 4 - Roy J. Smith 31,524 9,986 31.7% 3,803 4,464 1,003 450 266

SM 5 - Harker Heights 16,194 3,805 23.5% 618 1,573 770 632 212

SM 6 - Nolanville 5,349 1,163 21.7% 212 442 330 95 84

SM 7 - Fort Hood 11,562 2,967 25.7% 1,778 645 245 236 63

SM 8 - Killeen/Fort Hood Airport 6,543 2,022 30.9% 206 980 500 276 60

Total - KISD Study Area 127,876 35,593 27.8% 10,700 14,469 6,083 2,898 1,443

Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016) Five Year Estimates and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019

Age Distribution of Veteran PopulationVeteran Population


Page 6-9

2. General Government Fiscal Impacts

a. Killeen Taxable Valuation Trends (2008-2018) The City of Killeen’s taxable value has steadily increased over the past ten years, rising from $4.3 billion in 2008 to over $6.9 billion in 2018, for a change of $2.5 billion or 58.1%. However, during the same period, the value of tax-exempt properties has increased from $371 million to roughly $1.17 billion, for an increase of $795.6 million or 214.4% (Table 6-4). The result of these changes has reduced the City’s new taxable valuation by 31% over that period. In real terms, that reduction in net taxable value results in a loss of nearly $5.9 million in ad valorem tax revenues in the current fiscal year. In 2017, the Killeen City Manager estimated that every $0.01 on the tax rate generates $572,830 in tax revenues.3 Based on $1.67 billion in tax-exempt value in 2018, the City’s ad valorem taxes were reduced by approximately $8.8 million. This equates to roughly $0.15 per $100 in property value.1 To illustrate the impacts that property tax exemptions are having on the City’s tax base, the FY 2019 Killeen Municipal Budget provides the following summary. The net effect of the tax exemptions reduced the potential tax levy from $2 million to just $463,535, for a reduction of $77.5%, after adjusting for property tax exemptions.

1 Property Tax Powerpoint Presentation, Killeen City Manager’s Office, August 8, 2019

Taxable Value Property Tax Value Tax Levy Increase in Assessed Value (FY 2018) $140,901,225 $ 1,056,478 New Taxable Value (FY 2018) $130,721,412 $ 980,149

Increase in Tax Exemptions (FY 2018 $209,275,788 ($1,569,150) Frozen Tax Levy ($ 3,942)

Property Taxes Raised in Excess of Previous Year’s Budget $ 463,535


Page 6-10

Ta

ble

6-4

City

of K

illee

n Ta

xabl

e Va

luat

ion

and

Tax

Exem

pt R

eal P

rope

rty

(200

8-20

18)

Year

Rea

l Pro

perty

Per

sona

l

Prop

erty

Less

(Tax

Exem

pt

Prop

erty

)

Tot

al T

axab

le

Asse

ssed

Value

Esti

mate

d Ac

tual

Taxa

ble

Value

Ann

. Chg

e. In

Taxa

ble

Value

Ann.

Chge

. Tax

Exem

pt V

alue

Net

Chg

e. In

Taxa

ble

Value

AV a

s % o

f

Actu

al V

alue

Tax

Exem

pt

as %

of R

eal

Prop

erty

Tota

l Dire

ct

Tax

Rate

2008

3,97

7,22

8,89

3$

370,

077,

827

$

371,

725,

172

$

3,97

5,58

1,54

8$

4,

347,

306,

720

$ --

----

90.8

7%9.

3%0.

6950

2009

4,39

9,40

5,10

1$

388,

992,

264

$

390,

286,

994

$

4,39

8,11

0,37

1$

4,

788,

397,

365

$ 44

1,09

0,64

5$

18,5

61,8

22$

422,

528,

823

$

91

.43%

8.9%

0.69

50

2010

4,69

7,34

1,55

6$

381,

864,

985

$

513,

563,

290

$

4,56

5,64

3,25

1$

5,

079,

206,

541

$ 29

0,80

9,17

6$

123,

276,

296

$

167,

532,

880

$

89

.56%

10.9

%0.

6950

2011

4,75

7,43

1,67

0$

379,

688,

426

$

538,

872,

784

$

4,59

8,24

7,31

2$

5,

137,

120,

096

$ 57

,913

,555

$

25

,309

,494

$

32

,604

,061

$

89.2

2%11

.3%

0.74

28

2012

4,91

0,12

6,64

7$

372,

499,

175

$

555,

982,

344

$

4,72

6,64

3,47

8$

5,

282,

625,

822

$ 14

5,50

5,72

6$

17,1

09,5

60$

128,

396,

166

$

89

.16%

11.3

%0.

7428

2013

5,05

6,32

2,73

0$

367,

818,

504

$

612,

203,

199

$

4,81

1,93

8,03

5$

5,

424,

141,

234

$ 14

1,51

5,41

2$

56,2

20,8

55$

85,2

94,5

57$

88

.46%

12.1

%0.

7428

2014

5,26

0,58

8,76

1$

414,

547,

783

$

670,

960,

505

$

5,00

4,17

6,03

9$

5,

675,

136,

544

$ 25

0,99

5,31

0$

58,7

57,3

06$

192,

238,

004

$

88

.15%

12.8

%0.

7428

2015

5,37

8,34

5,78

8$

405,

312,

087

$

764,

110,

031

$

5,01

9,54

7,84

4$

5,

783,

657,

875

$ 10

8,52

1,33

1$

93,1

49,5

26$

15,3

71,8

05$

86

.77%

14.2

%0.

7498

2016

5,60

1,87

7,91

1$

434,

281,

825

$

860,

867,

315

$

5,17

5,29

2,42

1$

6,

036,

159,

736

$ 25

2,50

1,86

1$

96,7

57,2

84$

155,

744,

577

$

85

.74%

15.4

%0.

7498

2017

5,88

5,04

2,12

4$

443,

095,

052

$

987,

711,

674

$

5,34

0,42

5,50

2$

6,

328,

137,

176

$ 29

1,97

7,44

0$

126,

844,

359

$

165,

133,

081

$

84

.39%

16.8

%0.

7498

2018

6,46

6,29

3,46

1$

451,

716,

724

$

1,16

7,35

2,77

8$

5,75

0,65

7,40

7$

6,

918,

010,

185

$ 58

9,87

3,00

9$

179,

641,

104

$

410,

231,

905

$

83

.13%

18.1

%0.

7498

Tota

ls2,

570,

703,

465

$ 79

5,62

7,60

6$

1,

775,

075,

859

$

Sour

ce:

City

of K

illee

n CA

FR (2

018)


Page 6-11

b. Tax-Exempt Property Value Tax-exempt status is provided to a range of property categories in the City for a variety of different reasons. The largest property exemption is provided to disabled veterans, which accounted for 52% of the City’s exempt property value in 2017, based on an estimate provided by the Bell County Tax Appraisal District (Table 6-5). c. Growth in Disabled Veteran

Property Tax Exemptions According to the City of Killeen’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (FY 2018), the value of property tax-exemptions has steadily increased over the past decade. Since 2008, the value of tax-exempt properties has increased from $371.7 million in 2008 to over $1.16 billion in 2018. As a share of total property values, tax-exempt properties have increased from a 9.3% share to over 18% in just ten years. This has occurred during a period when Fort Hood’s force strength has steadily declined (Table 6-6). However, while Fort Hood’s force strength has decreased, the number of military personnel separating and retiring from Fort Hood with disabilities has increased; as have the progression of their disabilities. Consequently, disabled veteran exemptions have experienced a rapid increase, from $50 million of taxable value in 2008 to $583 million in 2018. As a share of all tax-exempt property value, the disabled veteran exemption has increased from 13.3% to roughly 50% in just ten years (Table 6-6).

Table 6-5

City of Killeen Exempt Property Value

(2017)

Type of Exemption Exempt Prop. Val % of Total

Disabled Veterans 582,976,715$ 52.5%

Public Properties & Religious 446,370,578$ 40.2%

Over 65 72,435,754$ 6.5%

Charitable Organizations 4,444,476$ 0.4%

Armed Serv. Surviving Spouse 4,163,601$ 0.4%

Pollution Control 277,436$ 0.0%

Total 1,110,668,560$ 100.0%

Source: Tax Appraisal District of Bell County, July 17, 2017 Certified Tax Roll

Table 6-6

Change in Tax Exempt Property Value and Disabled Veteran Exemptions

City of Killeen and Fort Hood (2008-2018)

Year

Value of Tax

Exempt Property

Tax Exempt

as % of Real

Property

Fort Hood

Force

Strength

Value of

Disabled Vet

Exempt (in

Millions $)

DV Exemp as

% of Total

Exempt Value

2008 371,725,172$ 9.3% 53,831 50$ 13.5%

2009 390,286,994$ 8.9% 53,319 53$ 13.6%

2010 513,563,290$ 10.9% 50,150 95$ 18.5%

2011 538,872,784$ 11.3% 48,825 154$ 28.6%

2012 555,982,344$ 11.3% 46,800 177$ 31.8%

2013 612,203,199$ 12.1% 46,500 198$ 32.3%

2014 670,960,505$ 12.8% 41,700 225$ 33.5%

2015 764,110,031$ 14.2% 37,450 274$ 35.9%

2016 860,867,315$ 15.4% 36,678 361$ 41.9%

2017 987,711,674$ 16.8% 35,433 460$ 46.6%

2018 1,167,352,778$ 18.1% 36,480 583$ 49.9%

Source: City of Killeen CAFR (2018) and Heart of Texas Defense Alliance (2019)


Page 6-12

d. Distribution of Military Veterans Data tracked and reported by the Heart of Texas Defense Alliance, indicates that since 2009, the number of separating or retiring military personnel in the region has increased by 68.3% (11,629 personnel). Therefore, where veterans chose to live has potential fiscal implications. It’s important to note that the numbers shown in Table 6-7 only reflect military veterans and not their non-military spouses, dependent children or other relatives living in the community. Nor does it reflect the number of active-duty military personnel living in these jurisdictions. The most significant increases have occurred in the City of Killeen, which has seen its veteran population increase from 8,120 to 14,179 during that period, for a 74.6% (6,059 personnel) increase. Past surveys conducted by the Heart of Texas Defense Alliance indicate that approximately 25% to 30% of Fort Hood’s separating and retiring personnel report a preference to staying within the region once they’ve left the military. What is not clear is the actual number of veterans moving into the Central Texas region from other parts of the country. However, based on RKG’s in-migration data analysis presented Chapter 2 – Demographic Trends Analysis, there is some evidence indicating that some retirees may be moving the Central Texas from other military communities in the U.S. Almost all the top inflow origins and outflow destinations out of the State of Texas are places with US military installations:

- El Paso County, CO (Army/Air Force), - Honolulu County, HI (Air Force), - Pierce County, WA (Army), - Cumberland County, NC (Army), - Comanche County, OK (Army), - San Bernardino County, CA (Air Force), - Hardin County, KY (Army), - Muscogee County, GA (Army/Navy),

- Pulaski County, MO (Army), - Montgomery County, TN (Army), - Maricopa County, AZ (Army/Air Force), - Richland County, SC (Army/Air Force), - Fairfax County, VA (Army/DoD/Pentagon), - Denton County, TX (Army), - Liberty County, GA (Army), and - Jefferson County, NY (Army).

While it’s likely that much of this inflow and outflow activity reflects the normal movement of active military personnel and their families, some of these communities have net population inflows into Bell County and Coryell County, some have net population outflows, but the aggregated effect was a substantial population inflow into both counties, resulting in population growth over the 2007-2016 period. We suspect some of those net population gains consist of military veterans and retirees moving to Central Texas for quality of life, affordably-priced housing and military benefits.

Table 6-7

Location of Separating & Retiring Military Personnel

Change in Military Veterans (2009-2018)

Jurisdiction Jun-09 Dec-18 % Chge.

Killeen 8,120 14,179 74.6%

Copperas Cove 3,028 4,397 45.2%

Harker Heights 1,843 3,350 81.8%

Temple 1,150 2,044 77.7%

Kempner 884 1,283 45.1%

Belton 826 1,482 79.4%

Lampasas 356 504 41.6%

Gatesville 350 556 58.9%

Nolanville 266 508 91.0%

Salado 206 355 72.3%

MSA 17,029 28,658 68.3%

Source: Fort Hood Region Veterans Inventory Initiative Qtrly Report

(July-Sept 2018), Heart of Texas Defense Alliance

Number of Veterans


Page 6-13

KILLEEN, Texas - A City in Central Texas has Won the Title of a Top Retirement Destination in the Country

Where to Retire Magazine's January/February 2019 issue focuses on cities where taxes are low and residents can get the most bang for their buck. Killeen made the cut along with seven other U.S. cities. After looking at income, property, and other taxes, it made the list since Texas doesn't impose a state income tax. It also came out on top because Killeen businesses often offer discounts to the military and their families. After living in 18 different places, a military couple featured in the article says they wanted to retire close to their favorite military base where they could continue to contribute to the community.

"Being able to stay in the military community again- it's what both of us have known our entire lives,” says Ken Cox, who retired as a Deputy Commanding General for III Corps after 36 years in the military. “It gave to us for the first 58, 59 years of our lives, so this is a chance to stay connected to our roots.”

“But Fort Hood is not just another post,” adds his wife Anna Marie. “Fort Hood is very special because of the communities that surround Fort Hood and the support. It's been incredible- we just love it!”

The couple actually resides in Harker Heights which has a slightly lower tax rate than Killeen. However, they both continue to work on Fort Hood. Ken helps veterans find jobs through Workforce Solutions and Anna Marie is the manager of the Heart of Hood, a non-profit gift shop. The couple originally planned to retire near the Dallas area, but are glad they didn’t.

“If you are considering coming someplace where the community absolutely rises up to take care of soldiers, any military member, whether they are active duty or retired veterans, it’s just the place to be,” says Ken. “If somebody is living in some other military installation outside the state of Texas, I would strongly encourage them to come here because the people just absolutely love their military families.” He also adds that for the price, they couldn't get their more than three-thousand square-foot house with views overlooking the city anywhere else.

Although Anna Marie prefers to stay home, the couple also enjoys the access they have to a variety of activities.

“There's just so many opportunities here, and it's not just right outside the gates of Fort Hood, but within a one-hour drive north, south, east, west,” adds Ken. “There's just so many places to eat and visit, so that's another reason why staying here in Central Texas was just so wonderful.”

Other cities that made the list include Clearwater, Florida and Clemson, South Carolina.

Source: Where to Retire Magazine, January/February, 2019


Page 6-14

e. Real Property Tax Base Projections (2018-2035) 1.) Residential Tax Base RKG Associates prepared long-range tax base projections based on the population, household and employment projections presented earlier in this section. It was assumed that each new household would result in the demand for a new housing unit and the type of housing units produced would mirror similar development trends for the period 2000 to 2017. Each KISD submarket was analyzed and the unique residential development characteristics of each housing market was applied to the distribution of new housing units relative to the type of units, building size, land acres consumed and assessed values for land and buildings. While these submarket characteristics can change over time, they are likely to experience incremental changes over long periods. Also, although existing vacant units on the market will likely absorb some new households into the future, RKG assumes that the current level of vacancy will remain constant and as households move into new units, other households will back-fill their old living units.

To account for the impact of tax-exempt properties, RKG created an estimating methodology utilizing Bell County’s real estate appraisal records. Each property record in the database denotes the type and number of exemptions assigned to each property based on the owner’s exemption status (Table 6-8). The consultants tabulated the frequency of each exemption by property type and calculated the percentage of properties that were eligible for that exemption. For example, if 52.8% of single family properties in the Bellaire-Reeces Creek submarket were designated with a Homestead Exemption, then it was assumed that 52.8% of future single family homes in the submarket would have that same exemption. Utilizing the value of each exemption and how it’s applied in each of the local jurisdictions, RKG was able to

Table 6-8

Property Tax Exemptions by Housing Type

KISD Study Area (2017)

Disabled Vet. Status Single Family Multifamily Duplex Mobile Home Total

Disabled Vet. - 10% to 29% 1,526 5 7 12 1,550

Disabled Vet. - 30% to 49% 1,214 4 9 12 1,239

Disabled Vet. - 50% to 69% 1,701 4 13 11 1,729

Disabled Vet. - 70% to 100% 5,088 36 57 53 5,234

Homestead Exemption 23,171 39 228 347 23,785

65 or Older Exemption 5,791 4 46 131 5,972

Other 4,297 5 24 58 4,384

Total 42,788 97 384 624 43,893


Percent Distribution of Property Tax Exemptions by Type

Disabled Vet. Status Single Family Multifamily Duplex Mobile Home Total

Disabled Vet. - 10% to 29% 3.6% 5.2% 1.8% 1.9% 3.5%

Disabled Vet. - 30% to 49% 2.8% 4.1% 2.3% 1.9% 2.8%

Disabled Vet. - 50% to 69% 4.0% 4.1% 3.4% 1.8% 3.9%

Disabled Vet. - 70% to 100% 11.9% 37.1% 14.8% 8.5% 11.9%

Homestead Exemption 54.2% 40.2% 59.4% 55.6% 54.2%

65 or Older Exemption 13.5% 4.1% 12.0% 21.0% 13.6%

Other 10.0% 5.2% 6.3% 9.3% 10.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Bell County Appraisal District and RKG Associates, Inc., 2018


Page 6-15

estimate the value of each exemption. While broad assumptions were used, the purpose of the analysis was to account for a reduction in taxable value in the future. The same method was used to assign exemptions in all eight submarkets. While there were some differences in distribution rates of property exemptions between submarkets, which reflected housing and household differences in those areas, the distribution rates for KISD Study Area are very similar. The total residential tax base for all eight KISD submarkets are combined and shown in Table 6-9. The tax base projections are shown for each projection period, consistent with earlier population and employment projections. In summary, RKG projects that roughly $1.7 billion in new residential assessed value will be created between 2018 and 2035. All values are expressed in 2018 dollars to remain consistent with other parts of the analysis. These assessed value increases reflect new construction only and RKG has not included any appreciation in values due to market changes over the period. The greatest residential tax base growth is projected during the 2020-2025 period, when $575.6 million in new property value is created due to slightly higher annual growth rates. The values in Table 6-9 reflect the estimated value of the “new” residential tax base at the end of each projection period resulting from the projected growth. The $1.7 billion figure represents the value of the new tax base in 2035, before property tax exemptions. The fastest growing areas of Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J. Smith submarket are projected to capture 51.3% of the KISD’s new residential property value by 2035. Because the analysis focuses on residential and employment generating uses, it does not capture the full impact of tax-exempt properties on future assessed value. According to RKG’s projections, total residential tax-exempt property equals $224.2 million or 13% of the new taxable value. The most significant tax-exempt impacts on a percentage bases occur in the Killeen/Fort Hood Regional Airport submarket, which equals 15.6% over 17 years, but on a very small residential tax base.


Page 6-16

2.) Non-Residential Tax Base The non-residential tax base includes a variety of different employment generating uses that pay property taxes. This does not include Fort Hood or government owned properties. Relative to changes in the non-residential tax base, RKG assumed new building square feet would be constructed to support each new job created over the 17-year projection period. While it is likely that some jobs will be absorbed into existing vacant space without requiring new

Table 6-9

Total Net Residential Assessed Value and Estimated Tax Exemptions

2018-2020 Residential Value of Res. Net Residential % Value of Non-Residential Total

Submarket Areas Assessed Value Exemptions Assessed Value Exemptions Assessed Value Assessed Value

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reeces Creek 28,024,052$ (3,257,833)$ 24,766,220$ -11.6% 3,226,486$ 27,992,706$

SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 35,712,023$ (4,110,041)$ 31,601,982$ -11.5% 4,986,451$ 36,588,432$

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 52,145,232$ (7,040,314)$ 45,104,918$ -13.5% 8,280,670$ 53,385,588$

SM 4 - Roy J Smith 52,568,923$ (7,071,086)$ 45,497,837$ -13.5% 2,343,586$ 47,841,423$

SM 5 - Harker Heights 43,346,685$ (5,629,945)$ 37,716,740$ -13.0% 2,390,467$ 40,107,207$

SM 6 - Nolanville 15,563,035$ (1,635,760)$ 13,927,275$ -10.5% 864,385$ 14,791,659$

SM 7 - Fort Hood 10,995,661$ (1,437,309)$ 9,558,352$ -13.1% 361,262$ 9,919,614$

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 12,121,107$ (1,875,387)$ 10,245,720$ -15.5% 839,329$ 11,085,049$

Total 250,476,717$ (32,057,674)$ 218,419,043$ -12.8% 23,292,635$ 241,711,678$





SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 66,172,393$ (7,615,678)$ 58,556,715$ -11.5% 12,864,150$ 71,420,866$


SM 4 - Roy J Smith 122,421,988$ (16,467,074)$ 105,954,913$ -13.5% 6,046,032$ 112,000,945$


SM 6 - Nolanville 38,349,580$ (4,030,750)$ 34,318,830$ -10.5% 2,229,958$ 36,548,788$

SM 7 - Fort Hood 16,018,224$ (2,093,839)$ 13,924,385$ -13.1% 931,991$ 14,856,376$

SM 8 - Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 43,431,282$ (6,719,720)$ 36,711,562$ -15.5% 2,165,320$ 38,876,882$

Total 575,596,000$ (74,423,588)$ 501,172,412$ -12.9% 60,090,833$ 561,263,245$





SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 19,164,473$ (2,205,609)$ 16,958,863$ -11.5% 13,453,551$ 30,412,415$


SM 4 - Roy J Smith 104,947,870$ (14,116,618)$ 90,831,253$ -13.5% 6,323,045$ 97,154,298$


SM 6 - Nolanville 37,238,840$ (3,914,005)$ 33,324,834$ -10.5% 2,332,128$ 35,656,963$

SM 7 - Fort Hood (8,485,231)$ 1,109,156$ (7,376,075)$ -13.1% 974,693$ (6,401,382)$


Total 468,851,556$ (62,171,131)$ 406,680,425$ -13.3% 62,844,034$ 469,524,459$





SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 78,730$ (9,061)$ 69,669$ -11.5% 14,069,957$ 14,139,626$


SM 4 - Roy J Smith 96,905,202$ (13,034,792)$ 83,870,410$ -13.5% 6,612,750$ 90,483,160$


SM 6 - Nolanville 36,107,582$ (3,795,104)$ 32,312,478$ -10.5% 2,438,980$ 34,751,459$

SM 7 - Fort Hood (19,384,329)$ 2,533,843$ (16,850,486)$ -13.1% 1,019,351$ (15,831,135)$


Total 413,561,132$ (55,547,356)$ 358,013,776$ -13.4% 65,723,380$ 423,737,155$





SM 2 - Manor-Rancier 121,127,619$ (13,940,390)$ 107,187,229$ -11.5% 45,374,109$ 152,561,338$


SM 4 - Roy J Smith 376,843,983$ (50,689,570)$ 326,154,413$ -13.5% 21,325,412$ 347,479,825$


SM 6 - Nolanville 127,259,037$ (13,375,620)$ 113,883,417$ -10.5% 7,865,451$ 121,748,868$

SM 7 - Fort Hood (855,675)$ 111,850$ (743,824)$ -13.1% 3,287,297$ 2,543,473$


Total 1,708,485,405$ (224,199,749)$ 1,484,285,655$ -13.1% 211,950,882$ 1,696,236,537$

Total Real Property Assessed Value (Adjusted for Exemptions)






Page 6-17

construction, RKG assumed that existing vacancy rates would remain stable into the future and new space would be required to replace older, outdated building stock. The demand for non-residential building space was calculated by applying national standards for average building square foot per employee for different industry employment categories. These averages were applied to the number of new employees by industry projected for each KISD submarket. The submarket tax base characteristics were then applied to convert new building square feet into new taxable assessed value in the future. All values in the model were expressed in 2018 dollars. Over the 2018-2035 period, RKG projects that approximately $212 million in new tax base will be created by employment generating uses demanding 3.6 million SF of new building space for 7,824 new jobs (Table 6-10). The KISD’s non-residential property values are considerably smaller at only 12.5% of the new residential tax base. The Killeen Chamber of Commerce is increasing its efforts to capitalize on the KISD’s economic development opportunities. The level of job growth projected for the study area is equal to 16.5% over 2018 levels at less than 1% annual growth. f. Real Property Tax Revenue

Projections (2018-2035) The City of Killeen collects revenues from several different sources, but property and sales taxes accounted for 63.4% of the total in FY 2018. The next largest sources were Franchise Fees and Charges for Services at roughly $6.3 million each. Killeen’s general fund also receives transfers in each year to supplement revenues. In FY 2018, over $9 million was transferred from enterprise fund accounts such as water & sewer, solid waste and drainage utility. The General Fund also receives payments for franchise fees and support services from the city’s enterprise funds, such as water & sewer, solid waste, and drainage utility. Franchise fee payments are nine percent of the enterprise fund’s operating revenues, and are charged for use of city streets, alleys, grounds, and public right-of-ways. Support service payments are for services provided to the enterprise funds, such as human resource, legal, and payroll. The enterprise funds are charged for the amount of support services used. The total of both of these payments across all enterprise funds was just

Non-Residential Development Projections

KISD Study Area (2018-2035

Property Type No. of Jobs Bldg. SF

Total Assessed

Value

Retail/Service 4,234 2,091,748.6 103,187,512

Office 801 223,658.0 27,280,184

Hospitality/Restaurant 795 250,576.9 26,671,944

Industrial 1,254 812,127.3 21,769,383

Other 739 232,744.2 33,008,482

Total Jobs - All Submarkets 7,824 3,610,855.0 211,917,504


Table 6-10

Table 6-11

Municipal Revenues (FY 2018)

City of Killeen, TX

Revenues FY 2018 % of Total

Property Taxes $28,019,145 34.1%

Sales & Use Taxes $24,131,100 29.3%

Franchise Fees $6,347,457 7.7%

Total Taxes $58,497,702 71.1%

Licenses, Permits & Fees $1,189,734 1.4%

Intergovernmental Revenue $3,426,013 4.2%

Charges for Services $6,278,181 7.6%

Fines $2,797,137 3.4%

Investment Income $396,799 0.5%

Contributions $2,874 0.0%

Miscellaneous Revenues $629,810 0.8%

Transfers In

Transfer from Water & Sewer $6,133,764 7.5%

Transfer from Solid Waste $2,683,704 3.3%

Transfer from Drainage Utility $245,652 0.3%

Total Transfers In $9,063,120 11.0%

Total Revenues $82,281,370 100.0%

Source: City of Killeen Unaudited Financial Report for

the Month Ended September 30, 2018


Page 6-18

over $9 million. Such practices are common for municipalities and governed by policies and other means. RKG’s model projected property tax revenues based on the population, household and employment growth projections presented in Chapter 5 – KISD Growth Projections. The projections account for reduced taxable value from residential tax exemptions, but only modeled tax base changes derived from new residential and employment generating uses. The results indicate that over the 2018-2035 projection period, the KISD would collect approximately $205.5 million in property taxes based on the new residential and non-residential tax base projections presented earlier. In order to make this projection, RKG modeled the annual change in residential and non-residential development and converted it to assessed value, based on the 2018 values and the residential characteristics of each submarket. Finally, 2018 tax rates were then applied to the net assessed value, after adjusting for tax exemptions. The KISD’s share of property tax revenues would equal roughly 55.8% of the $368.6 million in total revenues collected. This would equate to average annual revenues of $12 million but would increase incrementally over 17 years (Figure 6-4). The City of Killeen would capture roughly $83.6 million over the projection period, which equates to an annual average of over $4.9 million, increasing incrementally over that period. All other taxing districts (i.e., Central Texas College, Harker Heights, Nolanville, MUD No. 1, MUD No. 2, Bell County RD, Bell County, etc.) would collect another $79.4 million in property tax revenues for an annual average of $4.7 million.

g. New Sales and Use and Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue Projections Texas imposes 6.25% state sales and use tax on all retail sales, leases and rentals of most goods, as well as taxable services. Local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose

Figure 6-4

Source: RKG Associates, Inc., 2019

$-

$2,500,000

$5,000,000

$7,500,000

$10,000,000

$12,500,000

$15,000,000

$17,500,000

$20,000,000

$22,500,000

$25,000,000

2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2035

An

nu

al P

rop

ert

y T

ax

Rev

en

ue

Annual Property Tax Revenue Projections (in 2018 Dollars)KISD Study Area (2018-2035)

City of Killeen KISD All Other Jurisdiction


Page 6-19

districts and transit authorities) can also impose up to 2 percent sales and use tax for a maximum combined rate of 8.25%. Retail sales taxes are a major revenue source for local governments in the KISD study area. Most jurisdictions in the study area impose the local option sales tax. As shown in Table 6-11, 29.3% of the City of Killeen’s revenues come from sales & use taxes. The City imposes at 1.5% sales tax on retail goods and Bell County imposes an additional 0.5% tax. RKG Associates projected both sales and use and hotel occupancy tax revenues out to 2035. A number of assumptions were required to prepare these projections, but both estimates were driven by future changes in employment for retail and hotel establishments. RKG also obtained retail sales data for 2019 from ESRI Business Analyst, as well as establishment and employment data for retail and establishments in the City of Killeen and other areas of Bell County outside the City. RKG’s employment projections for retail/services and hospitality/restaurants, required a downward adjustment to remove service and restaurant jobs from the projections since they are not taxed in the same way. RKG projects that over the 17-year projection period, the City of Killeen could capture nearly $2 billion in additional retail sales from new commercial development, for an average of roughly $111.3 million per year. Based on these sales levels, the City would collect a cumulative total of nearly $28.3 million over the projection period or $1.7 million annually in new sales taxes per year. Annual sales tax revenues would peak at $3.2 million in 2035 (Figure 6-5). It’s important to note that these projections only reflect sales tax revenues captured within the City of Killeen (KISD submarkets 1-4). In the remainder of the KISD study area, lower levels of retail and hotel development generate fewer tax revenues. In comparison, only $5.2 million in cumulative sale tax revenues are projected over the 2018-2035 period, for an annual average of $304,687. Local jurisdictions can impose an occupancy tax on hotel room revenues. The City of Killeen levies a 7% tax on rooms or space in hotels within the City of Killeen. In addition, the State of Texas levies a 6% hotel occupancy tax, making the combined rate 13%. By State law, revenues from the City's hotel tax must be used to promote tourism and the convention and hotel industry in Killeen.

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

An

nu

al Tax

Rev

en

ues

Sales and Use Tax Revenue ProjectionsCity of Killeen, TX

(2019-2035)

City of Killeen Rest of KISD Study Area


Figure 6-5

Figure 6-6


$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

An

nu

al Tax

Rev

en

ues

Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue ProjectionsRest of KISD Study Area

(2019-2035)

City of Killeen Rest of KISD Study Area


Page 6-20

Hotel occupancy taxes generate 20-30% of the sales and use revenues based on RKG’s projections. As such, they generate only $5.8 million over 17 years for the City and $1.5 million in the rest of the KISD study area. Occupancy tax revenues peak in 2035 with over $856,000 collected in all KISD jurisdictions. h. Municipal Expenditure Projections (2018-2035) RKG’s analysis of municipal expenditures examined how the demand for municipal services will vary by KISD submarket. The focus of this analysis was on the City of Killeen, which consists of SM 1 – Bellaire-Reeces Creek, SM 2 – Manor-Rancier, SM 3 – Patterson-Liberty Hill and SM 4 – Roy J. Smith. The municipal expenditure projections are driven by new residential, non-residential (i.e., retail/services, industrial, etc.) and all other development during the 2018-2035 period. In FY 2018, general fund expenditures totaled $71.6 million, not including debt service payments. Public safety, which includes police, fire and various other expenditures comprises more than 70% of all annual expenditures at $50.5 million (Table 6-12). Over the past decade, the City has tried hard to maintain services without raising the property tax rate. 1) Share of Municipal Expenditures by Tax Base Segment Based on FY 2018 spending, RKG allocated expenses into three different shares based on the City’s tax base segmentation. Residential comprises roughly 62% of the City’s taxable value, net of exemptions. Non-residential accounts for only 2.8% and all other uses equal 35.2%. This “sharing” of expenses implies that different segments of the tax base drive the demand for services at levels commensurate with the number of properties, households or businesses. For this analysis, assessed value has been used as a common attribute among the three tax base segments (e.g., residential, non-residential and other).

Table 6-12

City of Killeen Municipal Expenditures (General Fund)

FY 2018

Expense Category

FY 2018

Expenditures % Share

Residential

(62% Share)

Non-Residential

(2.8% Share)

Other (35.2%

Share)

General Government $3,970,437 5.5% $2,461,436 $109,961 $1,399,040

Support Services $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0

Human Resources $1,019,192 1.4% $631,839 $28,226 $359,127

Information Technology $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0

Planning & Development $637,296 0.9% $395,086 $17,650 $224,560

Non-Departmental $2,641,814 3.7% $1,637,768 $73,165 $930,881

Public Safety 0.0% $0 $0 $0

Municipal Court $866,839 1.2% $537,389 $24,007 $305,443

Building Inspection $851,770 1.2% $528,047 $23,590 $300,133

Code Enforcement $748,869 1.0% $464,255 $20,740 $263,875

Police $25,358,941 35.4% $15,721,044 $702,315 $8,935,582

Animal Services $696,285 1.0% $431,656 $19,284 $245,346

Fire $20,405,827 28.5% $12,650,406 $565,139 $7,190,282

Emergency Management/Homeland Security $84,491 0.1% $52,379 $2,340 $29,772

Bell County Communication Center $1,469,884 2.1% $911,241 $40,708 $517,934

Public Works 0.0% $0 $0 $0

Public Works $26,724 0.0% $16,567 $740 $9,417

Traffic $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0

Streets $4,132,225 5.8% $2,561,735 $114,442 $1,456,048

Engineering $174,857 0.2% $108,401 $4,843 $61,613

Community Services $5,189,772 7.2% $3,217,352 $143,731 $1,828,690

Community Development $3,312,008 4.6% $2,053,249 $91,726 $1,167,033

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $71,587,231 100.0% $44,379,851 $1,982,606 $25,224,774


Page 6-21

RKG then segmented the City’s expenditures into residential, non-residential and other for each submarket comprising the City of Killeen. Each submarket comprised a different share of the City’s total expenditures based on its assessed value totals (Table 6-13). Projecting City expenditures related to growth requires a number of key assumptions regarding how each increment of growth will change expenditures. In mature submarkets like Bellaire-Reece’s Creed and Manor Rancier, which are largely built out, one would not expect large fluctuations in municipal expenditures for each new person, household or job change. This is because much of the infrastructure and services in place today is sufficient to service incremental growth in these areas. However, in rapidly growing submarkets like Patterson-Liberty Hill and Roy J. Smith, RKG anticipates that new growth increments in these areas will put greater demands on new infrastructure and municipal services. Accordingly, RKG has assumed each new increment of growth in SM 1 and SM 2 would generate greater demand for municipal services than in the more established submarkets. This is because municipal staffing levels and additional services will be demanded by new households and employers attracted to these areas. Table 6-14 shows how changing demand for municipal services will increase during the 2018-2035 projection period. The number presented in this analysis are expressed in 2018 dollars and do not reflect increased costs associated with the City’s current population and development pattern. Over time, these areas will likely change as well. 1) Share of Municipal Expenditure Growth by Submarket For new residential development, RKG allocated $44.4 million in expenditures to the existing four submarkets based on the share allocations shown in Table 6-13. Using household change as our growth metric, RKG estimates that current households demand on average is $805.19 per year in General Fund service costs. We then made assumptions about the incremental changes likely to occur in each municipal expenditure item by submarket based on our professional judgements. Each expenditure line item was assigned a percentage of the total expenditure share. For example, police expenditures were assigned a 10% annual incremental change in SM 1 and SM 2 because policing patterns are not likely to change dramatically over time. However, SM 3 and SM4 received a 75% incremental change because of the area’s rapid growth and the need for expanding services. Each new increment of residential growth would only equal $356.24 per household on average throughout the City. However, since SM3 ($795.32/yr.) and SM4 ($528.14/yr.) are projected to grow faster than the rest of the City, their average household expenditure costs are projected to be higher per year because their demand for services would be greater. Finally, RKG took these expenditure relationships for each tax base segment (i.e., residential, non-residential and other) and projected the expenditures based on different growth metrics. Residential-related expenditures were driven by changes in the number of new households. Non-residential used employment change and Other used population change over the projection period to arrive at future expenditure costs. At the bottom of Table 6-14, RKG shows the expenditure difference between 2018 and 2035, based on the projected changes in households, jobs and population during that period. The

Table 6-13

Share of Municipal Expenditures by Tax Base and Submarket

City of Killeen (2018)

Submarket Residential Non-Residential Other

SM 1 - Bellaire-Reece's Creek 15.7% 41.2% 19.4%

SM 2 - Manor Rancier 24.5% 34.8% 26.7%

SM 3 - Patterson-Liberty Hill 28.1% 19.3% 20.9%

SM 4 - Roy J. Smith 31.8% 4.7% 33.0%

Total - City of Killeen 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Share of City's Tax Base 62.0% 2.8% 35.2%



Page 6-22

Table 6-14

Municipal Expenditure Projections from New Growth (2018-2035)

City of Killeen Submarkets (in 2018 dollars)

Residential Share of Expenditure Growth SM 1 SM 2 SM 3 SM 4 City Total

Total Expenditures (Residential) 6,949,198$ 10,857,152$ 12,468,342$ 14,105,159$ 44,379,851$

Total Households (2018 Estimate) 11,610 16,201 10,100 17,206 55,117

Incremental Fiscal Costs Per Household 598.55$ 670.15$ 1,234.49$ 819.78$ 805.19$

Residential Share of Expenditure Increase (2018)

Total Expenditures (Residential) 981,469$ 1,533,408$ 8,032,714$ 9,087,231$ 19,634,822$

Total Households (2018 Estimate) 11,610 16,201$ 10,100$ 17,206$ 55,117

Incremental Fiscal Costs Per Household 84.54$ 94.65$ 795.32$ 528.14$ 356.24$

Residential Share of Expenditure Projections (2035)

Total Expenditures (Residential) $1,091,836 $1,624,930 $9,928,414 $10,437,163 $23,082,343


Incremental Fiscal Costs Per Household 84.54$ 94.65$ 795.32$ 528.14$ 370.33$

Difference Between 2018 & 2035 Expenditures

Total Expenditures (Residential) $110,366 $91,522 $1,895,701 $1,349,932 $3,447,521

Total Households (2035 Estimate) 1,306 967 2,384 2,556 7,212

% Change from 2018 Growth Expenditures 11.2% 6.0% 23.6% 14.9% 17.6%

% Change from 2018 No. of Households 11.2% 6.0% 23.6% 14.9% 13.1%

Non-Residential Share of Expenditure Growth SM 1 SM 2 SM 3 SM 4 City Total

Total Expenditures (Non-Residential) 817,388$ 690,752$ 381,731$ 92,734$ 1,982,606$

Total Emplolyment (2018 Estimate) 10,707 13,241 4,657 5,311 33,916

Incremental Fiscal Costs Per New Job 76.34$ 52.17$ 81.97$ 17.46$ 58.46$

Non-Residential Share of Expenditure Increase (2018)

Total Expenditures (Non-Residential) 114,281$ 96,576$ 221,918$ 53,911$ 486,685$

Total Employment (2018 Estimate) 10,707 13,241 4,657 5,311 33,916


Non-Residential Share of Expenditure Projections (2035)

Total Expenditures (Non-Residential) $128,757 $108,941 $297,292 $64,769 $599,760

Total Employment (2035 Estimate) 12,063 14,936 6,239 6,381 39,619



Total Expenditures (Non-Residential) $14,476 $12,366 $75,374 $10,858 $113,075



% Change from 2018 No. of Jobs 12.7% 12.8% 34.0% 20.1% 16.8%

"Other" Share of Expenditure Growth SM 1 SM 2 SM 3 SM 4 City Total

Total Expenditures (Other) 4,891,585$ 6,728,248$ 5,279,733$ 8,325,208$ 25,224,774$

Total Population (2018 Estimate) 28,998$ 39,886$ 31,299$ 49,353$ 149,536

Incremental Fiscal Costs Per Capita 168.69$ 168.69$ 168.69$ 168.69$ 168.69$

Other Share of Expenditure Increase (2018)

Total Expenditures (Other) 489,158$ 672,825$ 791,960$ 1,248,781$ 3,202,725$

Total Population (2018 Estimate) 28,998 39,886 31,299 49,353 149,536

Incremental Fiscal Costs Per Capita 16.87$ 16.87$ 25.30$ 25.30$ $21.42

Other Share of Expenditure Projections (2035)

Total Expenditures (Other) $571,995 $729,616 $1,170,994 $1,618,655 $4,091,260


Incremental Fiscal Costs Per Capita 16.87$ 16.87$ 25.30$ 25.30$ 21.83$


Total Expenditures (Other) $82,836 $56,791 $379,034 $369,874 $888,536



% Change from 2018 Population 16.9% 8.4% 47.9% 29.6% 25.3%

Total Expenditure Growth by Submarket SM 1 SM 2 SM 3 SM 4 City Total

Total Proportional Share of Expenditures (2018) 12,658,171$ 18,276,152$ 18,129,806$ 22,523,101$ 71,587,231$

Total Incremental Expenditure Costs (2018) 1,584,909$ 2,302,809$ 9,046,591$ 10,389,923$ 23,324,232$

Total Incremental Expenditure Costs (2035) 1,792,588$ 2,463,487$ 11,396,701$ 12,120,587$ 27,773,363$

Difference Between 2018 & 2035 Expenditures 207,679$ 160,678$ 2,350,109$ 1,730,664$ 4,449,131$


Source: City of Killeen CAFR, 2018 and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019


Page 6-23

projections indicate that municipal expenditures will have increased by $4.4 million over 2018 levels as a result of RKG’s growth projections. This dollar change is directly related to each new increment of growth out to the year 2035 (in 2018 dollars) and does not reflect any service cost differences due to inflationary influences. On a citywide basis, this reflects a 19.1% change in expenditures over 2018 levels. Each submarket’s share of municipal expenditure growth will vary based on its growth projections. For example, the Patterson-Liberty Hill (SM 3) submarket is projected to increase by 26% during the projection period, while Manor-Rancier would only experience a 7% change. As a percentage of total expenditure change from new growth, the Patterson Liberty Hill and Roy J. Smith submarkets are projected to account for nearly 92% of future expenditure changes in the City. 2) Municipal Staffing Issues Maintaining proper staffing levels to provide services to a growing population base will continue to be a challenge for the City of Killeen in the future. Over the past 10 years, the City has been able to limit staffing increases to a modest rate by looking for ways to get more productivity out of existing staff and cutting positions where necessary. During the 2015-2018 period, the City has had to cut both General Fund and Enterprise Fund employees. The most severe General Fund employee losses have occurred in the in the Police Department (-14 FTEs) and the Information Technology office (-19 FTEs). However, it will be difficult to sustain additional reductions in Police staffing levels as new development moves further from the center of Killeen. Over the past three years, the General Fund departments have experienced the loss of 21.3 FTEs for a force reduction of 2%. Over the entire 2009-2018 period, General Fund staffing levels have increased by 48.2 FTEs or 6% (Table 6-15). That’s largely due to staffing increases in the Fire Department, which has increased its FTEs from 201 to 237 during the 10-year period. Fire Department staffing is particularly sensitive to growth patterns due to station response time requirements, which means that new fire stations and equipment must be positioned to serve new growth areas as they move further out. Enterprise Fund departments (e.g., Solid Waste, Water/Sewer, etc.) have experienced similar staff losses in most departments, but due to staff increases in Internal Service Funds, which did not exist in 2015, FTEs have increased by 1.8. Since 2009, staffing levels have increased by 130.8 FTEs or 42%. This is largely due to staff increases in the Drainage Utility Fund (198 new FTEs) and Internal Services (53 new FTEs). Over the past 10 years, total staffing has increased by 10% or 113.6 FTEs, but recent trends have seen a reduction in staffing 20.4 FTEs or 2%. Regarding future municipal staff changes, it is not possible to project those changes based on future expenditure increases or decreases. All the Enterprise Fund departments will be highly sensitive to growth related pressures and increased demands for service. On the General Fund side, Fire, Police, Planning and Public Works are likely to experience increasing service demands due to population, transportation and development growth. Community development related services, particularly neighborhood our housing revitalization services, could experience increased demand in older established neighborhoods. While their growth projections are modest, their overall condition may require public intervention to revitalize areas in decline.


Page 6-24

3) Future Infrastructure Investments Future infrastructure needs in Killeen’s growth areas are funded through municipal bond issues, backed by user fees or tax revenues derived from municipal utility districts (MUD). Bell County has two MUDs that collect taxes in support of infrastructure bonds. MUD 1 imposes taxes at a rate of $0.84/$100 value and MUD2 has a tax rate of $0.95/$100. These special districts levy taxes on property owners to pay for utilities such as: water & sewer, wastewater treatment, roads and stormwater drainage. The City of Killeen is also recently imposed a street maintenance fee on all taxpayers to cover the deferred maintenance on the City’s streets. A study completed in 2013 recommended dedicated budgeting of $900 per lane mile. Since 2007 the City has failed to complete $1.5 to $2 million in annual road maintenance projects and has continually deferred more than $12 million in street maintenance for future years.

D. IMPLICATIONS

While the average annual rate of growth in the KISD Study Area is projected to slow into the future (1.4%/yr.), certain submarkets are forecasted to grow at robust rates exceeding 2% annually. As a result, it may be difficult for municipal managers, professional staff and elected officials to tell the difference. The KISD growth patterns appear to be set for the future, barring any reallocation of public dollars for municipal infrastructure such as: schools, water and sewer line extensions and road construction. This will focus the future on areas south of Interstate 14 in submarkets such as: Patterson-Liberty Hill (SM 3), Roy J. Smith (SM 4), Harker Heights (SM 5) and Killeen/Fort Hood Regional Airport (SM 8). The creation of MUD2 by Bell County to cover the cost of municipal infrastructure improvements and the 2018 KISD school bond issue, which will result in the construction of High School No. 5, will provide the infrastructure needed to support growth over the next 5 to 10 years. The biggest challenge for the City and the KISD is managing the rate of growth and expanding the development community’s share of the costs.

FTE Employees Trends by Department (2009-2018)City of Killeen, Texas

General Fund 2009 2012 2015 2018 2009-12 2012-15 2015-18 2009-18 2009-12 2012-15 2015-18 2009-18

Administration 8.0 7.0 7.0 4.3 (1.0) 0.0 (2.7) (3.7) -13% 0% -39% -46%

Municipal Court 24.0 24.0 23.0 19.7 0.0 (1.0) (3.3) (4.3) 0% -4% -14% -18%

Communications 5.0 5.0 5.5 7.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 0% 10% 27% 40%

Legal 8.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 (1.0) 0.0 0.0 13% -11% 0% 0%

Finance 22.0 24.0 24.0 18.0 2.0 0.0 (6.0) (4.0) 9% 0% -25% -18%

Support Services 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) 0.0 0% 0% -100% --

Human Resources 12.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 0.0 2.0 (2.0) 0.0 0% 17% -14% 0%

Information Technology 15.0 14.0 19.0 0.0 (1.0) 5.0 (19.0) (15.0) -7% 36% -100% -100%

Community Services 102.0 94.0 92.5 92.3 (8.0) (1.5) (0.2) (9.7) -8% -2% 0% -10%

Community Development 49.5 55.5 63.0 54.3 6.0 7.5 (8.7) 4.8 12% 14% -14% 10%

Public Works 61.0 60.0 59.0 57.1 (1.0) (1.0) (1.9) (3.9) -2% -2% -3% -6%

Planning and Development 32.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 13% 0% 0% 13%

Police 316.0 338.0 372.0 358.0 22.0 34.0 (14.0) 42.0 7% 10% -4% 13%

Fire 201.0 201.0 201.0 237.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 36.0 0% 0% 18% 18%Total General Fund 855.5 879.5 925.0 903.7 24.0 45.5 (21.3) 48.2 3% 5% -2% 6%

Enterprise Funds

Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 45.0 45.0 43.0 39.6 0.0 (2.0) (3.4) (5.4) 0% -4% -8% -12%

Solid Waste Fund 101.0 112.2 113.5 102.4 11.2 1.3 (11.1) 1.4 11% 1% -10% 1%

Water/Sewer Fund 123.0 136.6 147.3 119.6 13.6 10.7 (27.7) (3.4) 11% 8% -19% -3%

Drainage Utility Fund 24.0 35.2 38.7 43.8 11.2 3.5 5.1 19.8 47% 10% 13% 83%

Special Revenue Funds 20.5 20.1 22.5 20.5 (0.4) 2.4 (2.0) 0.0 -2% 12% -9% 0%

Capital Project Funds 0.0 6.0 13.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 (13.0) 0.0 0% 117% -100% --

Internal Service Funds 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 53.0 53.0 0% 0% 0% --

Total Enterprise Funds 313.5 355.1 378.0 378.9 83.2 45.8 1.8 130.8 27% 13% 0% 42%Total - GF and Enterprise Funds 1169.0 1234.6 1303.0 1282.6 65.6 68.4 (20.4) 113.6 6% 6% -2% 10%

Source: City of Killeen CAFR, 2018 and RKG Associates, Inc., 2019

% ChangeNominal Change

Table 6-15

KILLEEN GROWTH STUDY

Documents

Transcript of KILLEEN GROWTH STUDY