Housing Needs Assessment

Home , Beech Bend Park, Bowling Green Ballpark, Kentucky, Lost River Cave

Bowling Green, Kentucky

Prepared For: FINAL City of Bowling Green

Neighborhood & Community Services Department P.O. Box 430 Bowling Green, Kentucky 42103

Prepared By: Effective Date Bowen National Research February 25, 2019 Author: Patrick M. Bowen, President Revised: April 1, 2019 155 E. Columbus Street, Ste. 220 Final: June 13, 2019

Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Job Reference Number [email protected] 18-480

www.bowennational.com Table of Contents

I. Introduction II. Executive Summary III. Community Overview and Study Areas IV. Demographic Analysis V. Economic Analysis VI. Housing Supply Analysis VII. Other Housing Market Factors VIII. Housing Gap /Demand Estimates IX. Submarket Analysis X. Stakeholder Survey Summary XI. Resident Survey Summary XII. Focus Group Summary Addendum A – Field Survey of Conventional Rentals Addendum B – Field Survey of Senior Facilities Addendum C – For-Sale Housing Inventory Addendum D – Non-Conventional Rental Survey Addendum E – Stakeholder Survey Instrument Addendum F – Resident Survey Instrument Addendum G – Qualifications Addendum H – Glossary Addendum I – Sources

I. Introduction

A. Purpose

The city of Bowling Green retained Bowen National Research in November of 2018 for the purpose of conducting a Housing Needs Assessment of the city of Bowling Green, Kentucky.

With changing demographic and employment characteristics and trends expected over the years ahead, it is important for the city and its citizens to understand the current market conditions and projected changes that are expected to occur that will influence future housing needs. Toward that end, this report intends to:

 Provide an overview of present-day Bowling Green.

 Present and evaluate past, current and projected detailed demographic characteristics.

 Present and evaluate employment characteristics and trends, as well as the economic drivers impacting the area.

 Determine current characteristics of all major housing components within the market (for-sale/ownership and rental housing alternatives).

 Calculate a housing gap by tenure and income segment.

 Evaluate ancillary factors that affect housing market conditions and development (e.g. crime, transportation, etc.).

 Conduct a supplemental analysis of a predetermined submarket (Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area).

 Compile and evaluate local stakeholder perceptions of housing market conditions and trends, opinions on future housing needs, and identify barriers to residential development in the area.

 Compile and evaluate local residents’ perceptions of their housing situations (e.g. housing costs, condition of housing, etc.), household formations (number of residents, household income, age groups, etc.) and housing needs (housing costs, number of bedrooms, features, etc.).

By accomplishing the study’s objectives, government officials, area stakeholders, and area employers can: (1) better understand the city's evolving housing market, (2) establish housing priorities, (3) modify or expand city housing policies, and (4) enhance and/or expand the city’s housing market to meet current and future housing needs.

I-1 B. Methodologies

The following methods were used by Bowen National Research:

Study Area Delineation

The primary geographic scope of this study is Bowling Green. As such, the Primary Study Area (PSA) is the area within the limits of Bowling Green. A Secondary Study Area (SSA) was established and included the balance of Warren County. Based on a request by the city, we also conducted supplemental analysis of the designated Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. County and state level data was used, when available, for a base of comparison for selected data sets.

Demographic Information

Demographic data for population, households, housing, crime, and employment was secured from ESRI, Incorporated, the 2000 and 2010 United States Census, Applied Geographic Solutions, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the American Community Survey. This data has been used in its primary form and by Bowen National Research for secondary calculations. All sources are referenced throughout the report and in Addendum I of this report. Projections of key demographic data for 2018 and 2023 were also provided.

Employment Information

Employment information was obtained and evaluated for various geographic areas that were part of this overall study. This information included data related to wages by occupation, employment by job sector, total employment, unemployment rates, identification of top employers, and identification of large- scale job expansions or contractions. Most information was obtained through the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, Bowen National Research also conducted numerous interviews with local stakeholders familiar with employment characteristics and trends of the PSA and SSA.

Other Housing Factors

We have evaluated numerous other factors that impact housing such as crime, transportation, higher education and community services. This data was provided for the city and compared with county and state level data, when available.

I-2 Housing Component Definitions

This study is concerned with two major housing components: (1) for- sale/ownership and (2) rental. For-sale/ownership housing primarily focuses on single-family homes and condominiums. Rentals include multifamily apartments (generally five+ units per building), senior care facilities (assisted living and nursing homes), and non-conventional rentals such as single-family homes, duplexes, units over storefronts, etc.

Housing Supply Documentation

From November 2018 through January 2019, Bowen National Research conducted telephone research, as well as on-line research, of the area’s housing supply. Additionally, market analysts from Bowen National Research traveled to the area in January 2019, conducting research on the housing properties identified in this study, as well as obtaining other on-site information relative to this analysis. The following data was collected on each multifamily rental property:

1. Property Information: Name, address, total units, and number of floors 2. Owner/Developer and/or Property Manager: Name and telephone number 3. Population Served (i.e. seniors vs. family, low-income vs. market-rate, etc.) 4. Available Amenities/Features: Both in-unit and within the overall project 5. Years Built and Renovated (if applicable) 6. Vacancy Rates 7. Distribution of Units by Bedroom Type 8. Square Feet and Number of Bathrooms by Bedroom Type 9. Gross Rents or Price Points by Bedroom Type 10. Property Type 11. Quality Ratings 12. GPS Locations

Information regarding for-sale housing was collected by Bowen National Research in-office staff during the aforementioned research period. Home listings were obtained through Real Estate Information Services, Inc. Information regarding the for-sale housing inventory includes property address, sales/asking price, square footage, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, price per square feet, and the number of days on market.

We also surveyed senior care facilities including assisted living facilities and nursing homes within the county. Information gathered on these communities include total beds, vacancies, fees/rents, unit mix by bedroom type, square footage, unit features/amenities, services, project/community amenities, project age and other design elements.

I-3 Stakeholder Interviews and Surveys

Bowen National Research staff conducted interviews of area stakeholders, as well as allowed stakeholders to partake in an online survey. These stakeholders included individuals from a variety of trades and areas of expertise. Questions were structured to elicit opinions on a variety of matters including current housing conditions, housing challenges for area residents, barriers to housing development, future housing needs and recommendations to improve housing in the area. These interviews afforded participants an opportunity to voice their opinions and provide anecdotal insights about the study’s subject matter. Overall, over two dozen individual interviews and/or surveys were completed and evaluated. Please note that individual names and organizations have not been disclosed in order to protect the confidentiality of participants and encourage their candor. The aggregate results from these interviews are presented and evaluated in this report in Section X. The questions used in this analysis are shown in Addendum E.

Resident Survey

Bowen National Research conducted a survey of area residents. This survey included questions relative to the family composition (e.g. household sizes, household income, etc.), current housing conditions, and housing preferences and needs of the community. This data was aggregated and evaluated to assist in establishing the housing needs of Bowling Green. The aggregate results and analysis are included in Section XI of the report. The questions used in the survey are included in Addendum F.

Focus Groups

A total of three focus group sessions were conducted in late January 2019. These included focus groups with public entities, private organizations, and education and business leaders. Participants included community leaders and civic organization representatives. Representatives of Bowen National Research lead the meetings and solicited input from participants regarding a wide range of housing topics, including issues associated with affordability, targeted markets (e.g. seniors, students, low-income households, etc.), and product types (for-sale, rental, senior-oriented, etc.). Key findings from these focus groups are included in Section XII.

Housing Demand

Based on the demographic data for both 2018 and 2023, and taking into consideration the housing data from our field survey of area housing alternatives, we are able to project the potential number of new units the PSA (Bowling Green) can support. The following summarizes the metrics used in our demand estimates.

I-4  Rental Housing – We included renter household growth, the number of units required for a balanced market, the need for replacement housing and external market support as the demand components in our estimates for new rental housing units. As part of this analysis, we accounted for vacancies reported among all rental alternatives. We concluded this analysis by providing the number of units that the market can support by different income segments and rent levels.

 For-Sale Housing – We considered potential demand from new owner- occupied household growth, renters converting to homeowners, need for replacement housing and external market support in our estimates for new for-sale housing. We accounted for the available supply of for-sale housing to yield a net support base of potential for-sale housing. Demand estimates were provided for multiple income stratifications and corresponding price points.

C. Report Limitations

The intent of this report is to collect and analyze significant levels of data for Bowling Green. Bowen National Research relied on a variety of data sources to generate this report (see Addendum I). These data sources are not always verifiable; however, Bowen National Research makes a concerted effort to assure accuracy. While this is not always possible, we believe that our efforts provide an acceptable standard margin of error. Bowen National Research is not responsible for errors or omissions in the data provided by other sources.

We have no present or prospective interest in any of the properties included in this report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. Our compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or use of this study. Any reproduction or duplication of this study without the expressed approval of the City of Bowling Green or Bowen National Research is strictly prohibited.

I-5 II. Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the housing needs of Bowling Green, Kentucky and to recommend priorities and strategies to address such housing needs. To that end, we have conducted a comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment that considered the following:

 Demographic Characteristics and Trends  Economic Conditions and Initiatives  Existing Housing Stock Costs, Performance, Conditions and Features  Various “Other” Housing Factors (Crime, Transportation, Proximity to Community Services, Western Kentucky University, and Refugees)  Input from Community Stakeholders (via Online Survey and Focus Groups)  Resident Survey  Quantifiable Housing Demand Estimates  Submarket Analysis of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area

Based on these metrics and input, we were able to identify housing needs by affordability and tenure (rental vs. ownership). Using these findings, we developed an outline of strategies that should be considered for implementation by the community. This Executive Summary provides key findings and recommended strategies. Detailed data analysis is presented within the individual sections of this Housing Needs Assessment.

II-1 Geographic Study Areas

This report focuses on the Primary Study Area (PSA), which consists of Bowling Green, with additional information provided for the BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA) and the Secondary Study Area (balance of Warren County).

Demographics

Population and Household Growth in the City have been Very Positive, Outpacing State Averages since 2000 and are Projected to Grow Rapidly Through 2023 – The city’s population increased by 17,121 (34.7%) between 2000 and 2017, while adding 7,080 (36.9%) households, far outpacing state growth trends (12.5%) population growth and (13.0%) household growth. Between 2018 and 2023, the city’s population is projected to increase by 4,875 (7.3%), while at the same time the number of households is expected to increase by 2,137 (8.1%). This is significant growth that is nearly triple the state’s projected growth rates and will add to the demand for housing. The following graph compares household numbers for the PSA (Bowling Green) with the SSA (balance of Warren County).

Total Households (2000-2023) PSA SSA 30,000 28,432 27,500 26,295 25,959 25,000 23,091 22,500 23,811 19,215 20,000 20,583

17,500 16,150 15,000 2000 2010 2018 2023

Owner- and Renter-Household Growth is Projected to be Positive, as is Growth Among all Household Sizes – While rental housing development has outpaced for- sale housing development and has led to increasing shares of renter-occupied housing in the city since 2000, it is projected between 2018 and 2023 that the number of new owner-occupied households and renter-occupied households will both increase, with slightly greater growth towards homeownership. It is projected that the number of renter households will increase by 866 and owner-occupied households will increase by 1,272. This growth will add to the need for both new for-sale and rental housing. Renter household growth is projected to primarily occur among two-person households and five-person or larger households, leading to a need for both smaller and larger unit types. Meanwhile, owner household growth is primarily projected to occur among smaller household types of one- and two-person households, leading to greater demand for smaller units. Despite this, there appears to be a need for three- bedroom units, as area stakeholders indicated such housing has limited availability. Bowen National Research’s survey of area housing alternatives confirmed the lack of available three-bedroom or larger units in the city.

II-2

The City’s Poverty Rate is Well Above the Region and State Averages, With Over 15,000 People and Over One-Fourth of All Children in the City Living in Poverty – The city had a much higher share (27.5%) of people living below the poverty level than the SSA (11.1%) and Kentucky statewide (18.9%). Of the more than 15,000 people living in poverty in the city, more than 4,800 are children under the age of 18. The children living in poverty represent over one-fourth (27.1%) of all children under the age of 18. These statistics indicate that affordable housing will remain important in the city, particularly housing affordable to low-income families.

Household Growth is Projected to Remain Positive Among Most Household Age Groups Through 2023, with Aging Millennials and Seniors (age 65+) Representing the Greatest Projected Growth – The distribution of households by age in the city is relatively balanced, with most age segments representing between 10% and 20% of the market. The largest share (20.9%) of households by age in the PSA in 2018 is among those between the ages of 25 and 34 (Millennials). The greatest growth in the number of households by age within the PSA between 2018 and 2023 is expected to occur among those between the ages of 35 and 44 (a portion representing aging Millennials), which are projected to increase by 726 (18.3%). Notable growth is also projected among those between the ages of 65 and 74 (538 increase, or 17.5%) and households ages 75 and older (438 increase, or 17.4%). Regardless of these aforementioned age groups, virtually all age groups are projected to increase between 2018 and 2023, adding to the need for a variety of housing types.

PSA - Change in Household Heads by Age (2018-2023)

<25 174

25-34 -24

35-44 726

45-54 93

55-64 192

65-74 538

75+ 438

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

II-3 Household Income Growth is Projected to Occur Among Virtually All Household Income Segments – Although most renter household income segments are projected to grow over the next five years, the greatest growth in the city is expected to occur among those earning $100,000 or more annually. This income segment is projected to increase by 351 renter households, representing a 48.8% increase. Notable growth is also projected to occur among those earning between $10,000 and $19,999 (153 households, 4.8% increase) and between $60,000 and $99,999 (140 households, 7.3% increase). During this same five-year period, the greatest owner household growth in the city is projected to occur among those earning between $10,000 and $19,999 and between $20,000 and $29,999. Combined, these two household income segments will increase by more than 500 households. This growth is likely attributed to, in part, seniors who are reaching retirement and will experience notable declines in their incomes. Notable owner-household growth in the PSA is expected to occur among those earning between $60,000 and $99,999 (196 households, 6.1% increase) and between $30,000 and $39,999 (178 households, 18.4% increase). These projected growth trends will contribute to the demand for additional product at a variety of price/rent levels.

PSA - Household Growth by Income & Tenure (2018-2023) Renter Owner 350 351 300 250 281 254 200 196 150 179 178 153 140 100 122 100 111 50 56 64 21 0 -49 -50 -20 <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

Additional demographic data and analysis are included in Section IV of this report.

Economy & Workforce

Key Economic Metrics in Bowling Green and Warren County have been Positive Over the Past Decade, Contributing to Strong Demographic Growth and Ongoing Housing Demand – The area economy has exhibited many positive characteristics for several years, with the employment base growing and the unemployment rate declining for much of the past decade. The county has added nearly 10,000 jobs since 2010, representing an overall increase of 17.8%. This is significant growth that added to demographic growth, which has contributed to the demand for additional housing.

II-4 The Bowling Green Economy is Well Balanced, which Adds to the Economic Stability and Strength of the City – The city of Bowling Green has a broad mix of employment sectors, with no sector representing over 19.0% of the city’s employment base. The four largest employment sectors in the city include Healthcare & Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Manufacturing and Accommodation & Food Service. Meanwhile, the employment base in the SSA (balance of Warren County) is primarily concentrated in Construction, Educational Services, and Manufacturing (11.3%). It is worth pointing out that many of the Manufacturing jobs in the balance of the county appear to comprise Small Goods Producing companies. We believe the city’s broad economic base and surrounding area’s complimentary employment sectors add to the city’s economic strength and stability.

The Region has a Broad Mix of Wages by Occupation, which Contributes to the Need for a Variety of Housing Affordability Levels – Most annual blue-collar jobs (typically manual labor jobs paying hourly wages) have salaries ranging from $22,000 to $42,000 within the Bowling Green MSA. White-collar jobs, such as those related to professional positions, management and medicine, have an average salary of just over $68,000. The wide range of wages by occupation contribute to the demand for a variety of housing affordability levels. However, with a majority of current occupations and future job growth having typical wages below $42,000, product that is affordable to these lower-income workers will continue to be an important component to the local housing market.

Public and Private Sector Investment has been Significant in Recent Years, with Additional Investment Planned that will Contribute to the Expanding Economy and Ongoing Housing Demand – The County has experienced a significant amount of both public and private sector investments over the past several years that have resulted in a notable amount of job growth for the area. With more than 15 notable announcements in 2018 of new or expanding businesses that are expected to create more than 600 jobs and investments totaling approximately $190 million, it appears the local economy will continue to expand for the foreseeable future. This expected economic growth will contribute to the ongoing demand for additional housing throughout the county and within Bowling Green.

Additional economic data and analysis is included in Section V of this report.

Housing Supply

More Than 500 Rental Housing Units in Bowling Green are Considered “Substandard” – Severe overcrowded households are those with 1.51 persons or more per room, which are considered “substandard” in today’s market. Additionally, projects lacking complete indoor kitchen or bathroom plumbing are considered “substandard”. Within Bowling Green, severe overcrowded households total 257 renter-occupied households. There are also potentially 303 renter-occupied units in the city that have either incomplete bathroom or kitchen plumbing. As a result, it is clear that many renter households are living in housing conditions that are considered to be below modern-day housing standards. Housing policies and strategies for the PSA should include efforts to remedy such housing.

II-5

PSA - Substandard Housing by Tenure (2012-2016)

Renter Owner 350

300 303 250 257 200

150

100

50 38 11 0 Lack Plumbing Severe Overcrowded

Despite the Inventory of Affordable Rentals and Housing Assistance Provided in the Market, Many PSA Residents are Still Housing Cost/Rent Burdened – While Bowling Green offers more than 1,400 affordable (Tax Credit and government- subsidized) rental units in the market, all of these units are occupied, and most affordable rental projects have wait lists. Additionally, there are approximately 900 households on the wait list for Housing Choice Vouchers that are used to subsidize rents for lower-income households. These are clear indications of the pent-up demand for affordable rental housing in Bowling Green. Households that are “cost burdened” (paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs) or “severe cost burdened” (paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs) often find it difficult paying for both their housing and meeting other financial obligations. An estimated 6,317 or 45.5% of renter-occupied households in the PSA are cost burdened. This is a noticeably higher share of rent burdened households than the SSA (34.9%) and slightly higher when compared with the state of Kentucky (41.7%). Among PSA’s renter households, a total of 3,436 (24.8%) are severe cost burdened. Within Kentucky, this ratio is 21.0%. With so many renters in the PSA paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards rents, it is clear that many renter households in the PSA are likely struggling to meet their housing costs. The number of cost burdened households in the PSA indicates that affordable housing programs and products will be important to help alleviate cost burdened housing situations in the city.

II-6 PSA - Rent/Cost Burdened Households by Tenure (2012-2016)

Renter Owner 7,000

6,000 6,317 5,000

4,000

3,000 3,436 2,000 2,225 1,000 833 0 Cost Burdened Severe Cost Burdened

There is Pent-Up Demand for Housing Serving Very Low- and Low-Income Renter Households – Based on Bowen National Research’s survey of multifamily apartment rentals in the county, all 22 surveyed projects offering at least some affordable units (Tax Credit or government-subsidized) are fully occupied. In fact, most of these projects, which serve low- and very-low income households, maintain wait lists for renters waiting for units to become available. As a result, there is clear pent-up demand for rental housing that serves households with incomes of up to 80% of Area Median Housing Income level (earning up to $47,120 for a family of four). The lack of available housing serving low-income households is likely contributing to the large number of renters living in substandard and/or cost burdened housing situations in the city.

The Potential Expiration of HUD Contracts on Multiple Multifamily Projects Make the Market Vulnerable to Losing Some of its Affordable Rental Housing Stock – There are two multifamily rental properties operating under HUD contracts that are scheduled to expire by the end of 2019, and two others that are scheduled to expire in 2022/2023. While it is unknown if the owners of these properties will seek to renew their HUD contracts, given the renewal of HUD contracts are subject to annual appropriations by the Federal government, it is unknown if these projects will be able to continue to serve very low-income households in the near term. In the past, vouchers were provided to displaced tenants at projects losing their subsidies. While this helped to assist displaced tenants with their housing expenses, there were no guarantees they could find housing. Regardless, given the full occupancy and wait lists at existing subsidized projects in the market, the loss of HUD contracts among existing rentals would exacerbate the shortage of affordable rental housing alternatives.

II-7 While there are Some Non-Conventional Rentals and For-Sale Housing Alternatives Available, Such Housing is Not Affordable to a Large Number of the City’s Households – Based on Bowen National Research’s research and analysis of the non-conventional rental market (e.g. single-family homes, duplexes, mobile homes, etc.), a majority of these rentals have rents over $1,000, which are not affordable to many of the low-income households in the market. Most (68.4%) of the existing inventory of for-sale housing that is available to purchase in Bowling Green primarily consists of product priced over $200,000. While this available inventory of for-sale product represents 66.9% of the available supply, only 40.0% of the households in the market have sufficient incomes to afford such product. As such, there appears to be an imbalance between available product and households that can afford it.

Based on the Relatively Low Occupancy Rates at Several Off-Campus Student Housing Rental Properties in the City, it Appears that the Student Housing Market may be Overbuilt at this Time. – According to Bowen National Research’s survey of area rental housing alternatives, it appears that several off-campus student housing rental communities are operating at occupancy rates well below 90%, indicating that there is some “softness” to the off-campus student housing market. This was confirmed by interviews with several managers of off-campus student housing projects in the city, who indicated that they had difficulty filling their units. The city and WKU should approach the development of off-campus student housing with some level of caution in the near term, until the occupancy levels of student housing projects stabilize above 90%. Should occupancies worsen significantly, owners of student housing may want to consider converting such projects to senior oriented housing with elevator service.

Given the High Occupancy Rates of the Existing Supply of Senior Care Housing Facilities in the City and the Growing Base of Seniors, Demand for Senior Care Housing is Expected to Increase – The overall occupancy rates of senior care housing facilities (e.g. assisted living, personal care homes, and nursing homes) are high and above national averages, indicating that the existing senior care housing facilities have limited availability. As shown in the Demographics portion of this report, seniors ages 65 and older are expected to increase the most over the next five years. As such, it is anticipated that the demand for senior care housing will grow over the foreseeable future.

Overall PSA (Bowling Green) Housing Needs

Based on the findings contained in this report, there are a variety of housing needs in the PSA (Bowling Green). The following is a summary of highest housing needs for the city, followed by a table summarizing overall housing needs estimates.

Rental Housing for Extremely and Very Low-income Seniors and Families (High Need) – The largest number of renter households in Bowling Green make less than $29,450 annually (HUD’s four-person income limit at 50% of Area Median Household Income). It is projected that these households will increase by 186 (2.4%) households between 2018 and 2023. Adding to the challenges facing these lower-

II-8 income households is the fact that multifamily apartments affordable to them (government-subsidized or Tax Credit) have limited availability and long wait lists. Given the fact that much of the projected demographic growth will be among seniors and that nearly 4,900 children in the PSA live in poverty, it will be important that rental housing is developed that meets the affordability needs of the lowest-income seniors and families. Product developed through various HUD programs and/or the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program should be explored.

High-End Rental Housing (High Need) – It is projected that the city’s highest income households earning $70,681 or more a year (HUD’s four-person limit at 120% of AMHI and higher) will increase by 453 renter households between 2018 and 2023. This represents an increase of 21.3% and is the largest projected increase in the number and percent of households among the different income levels evaluated in this report. Households at this income level should be able to afford rental product generally priced over $1,700 per month, though it is likely that many such households would select lower-priced product. While the highest vacancy rate in the market is among market-rate product, much of this product is priced under $1,000. Additionally, while there are nearly 1,800 rental units in the development pipeline, most of these units are priced under $1,400 per month. Therefore, there appears to be a need for additional high-end rental product in the market. It is believed that product priced at $1,400 or more could serve this market segment. Product should be designed to meet the needs and expectations of higher-income renters. This would include product with comprehensive unit and project amenity packages, high-end finishes, unique designs/floor plans, and highly desirable locations.

Entry Level For-Sale Housing (High Need) – It is projected between 2018 and 2023 that the greatest owner household growth will occur among households earning between $29,451 and $47,120 (HUD’s four-person income limits at 50% to 80% of AMHI). Many of these households would likely be first-time homebuyers. Adding to the need for additional housing affordable to these lower-income households is the fact that there are so few homes available to purchase in the market priced below $175,000 and that very few units priced at this level are in the development pipeline. Because it will likely be difficult for developers to build product within this price range, it is recommended that the city look at ways to help developers reduce their development costs so that lower-priced product can possibly be developed. This could be through waiving or reducing development fees, offering tax abatements, and possibly sharing in infrastructure costs with developers. Additionally, the city should look to offering first-time homebuyer assistance to help lower-income renter households transition into homeownership.

Moderately-Priced For-Sale Housing (High Need) – The city is projected to experience notable growth among moderate-income owner households, earning between $47,121 and $70,680 (HUD’s four-person income limits at 80% and 120% of AMHI). While there are approximately 60 housing units currently available in the city that are priced between $175,000 and $249,999 and would be affordable to these moderate-income households, these units will be insufficient to meet the nearly 200 new owner-households that are expected to be added to the market and will be seeking housing in this price range between 2018 and 2023. The limited inventory

II-9 may ultimately limit the city’s ability to retain and attract moderate-income households. The development of modern for-sale housing priced between $175,000 and $250,000 should be an area of focus in the city. Product types would include condominiums (primarily with two-bedroom units) for seniors (wishing to downsize) and young professionals, as well as single-family home product (primarily with three- bedroom units) for families.

The table below summarizes the approximate potential number of new residential units that could be supported in the PSA (Bowling Green) over the next few years, along with designation of the level of priority.

PSA (Bowling Green) Housing Needs Estimates (2018 to 2023) Number Housing Segment of Units* Priority Extremely Low-Income Rental Housing (<$442/Month Rent) ~887 High Very Low-Income Rental Housing ($442-$736/Month Rent) ~548 High Low-Income Rental Housing ($737-$1,178/Month Rent) ~331 Moderate Rentals Moderate Market-rate Rental Housing ($1,179-$1,767/Month Rent) ~198 Moderate

High-End Market-rate Rental Housing ($1,768+/Month Rent) ~608 High

Entry-Level For-Sale Homes ($100K-$174K) ~529 High

Moderately-Priced-Sale Homes ($175K-$249K) ~500 High

For-Sale For-Sale High-End For-Sale Homes ($250K-$299K) ~247 Moderate

Upscale For-Sale Homes ($300K+) ~158 Moderate ~234 Senior Care Housing (Assisted Living) Moderate (Beds)

Care ~232 Senior Senior Senior Care Housing (Nursing Care) Moderate (Beds) *Number of units assumes product is marketable, affordable and in a marketable location. Variations of product types will impact the actual number of units that can be supported. Additionally, incentives and/or government policy changes could encourage support for additional units that exceed the preceding projections.

The preceding estimates are based on current government policies and incentives, recent and projected demographic trends, current and anticipated economic trends, and available and planned residential units. Numerous factors impact a market’s ability to support new housing product. This is particularly true of individual housing projects or units. Certain design elements, pricing structures, target market segments (e.g. seniors, workforce, families, etc.), product quality and location all influence the actual number of units that can be supported. Additionally, it is highly likely that many higher-income households that have the ability to afford higher-priced product will choose lower-priced product. For example, while our demand estimates demonstrate the potential demand for over 600 units priced above $1,700, it is reasonable to expect that many of the renters that could afford such product will ultimately choose product priced much lower. Therefore, the estimates shown in the preceding table provide the approximate maximum number of units that could

II-10 potentially be supported. As such, the preceding estimates should be used as a guideline for establishing housing priorities and goals for Bowling Green. Demand estimates could exceed those shown in the preceding table if the community changes policies or offers incentives to encourage people to move into the market or for developers to develop new housing product.

Overall Housing Strategies

The following summarizes key strategies that should be considered by the city, developers and other interested parties to address housing issues and needs of the city. These strategies do not need to be done concurrently, nor do all strategies need implemented to create an impact. Instead, the following housing strategies should be used as a guide by the local government, stakeholders, developers and residents to help make housing development decisions.

Set Realistic/Obtainable Short-Term Housing Goals and Outline Long-Term Objectives – Using the housing needs estimates and recommendations provided in this report as a guide, the city should set realistic short-term (2-3 years) housing development goals along with long-term (5 years or longer) objectives to support housing. Short-term goals should be focused on establishing an Action Plan or a Housing Mission Statement that outlines priorities for the city, such as broad housing policies, initiatives, and incentives that support the preservation and development of residential units. The recommendations included in this section should serve as a guide for developing such documents. Long-term objectives should include establishing a goal for the number of housing units that should be built and broadly outline the types of housing that should be considered, such as rentals and for-sale housing, as well as geographical locations. The goals should also broadly outline affordability (e.g. income levels) objectives and market segments (e.g. families, seniors, and disabled) that should be served. From such goals, the city can monitor progress and adjust efforts to support stated goals.

Develop Regional-Level Housing Plans or Strategies – Although this study focused on city-wide demographics, economic and housing, we also conducted a cursory analysis of the balance of Warren County located outside of Bowling Green. While the city has some unique attributes and trends that differ from the rest of the county, it is clear that both areas are facing the same rapid growth trends and the corresponding housing issues associated with them (e.g. lack of availability and affordability). Additionally, it is clear from this analysis that the city and the balance of Warren County are interdependent on each other and housing decisions, incentives and policies in one part of the county will likely affect other parts of the county. As a result, it will be important that the city and the county stakeholders, including government entities, work together to address mutual housing issues and possibly develop plans and policies that compliment and support each other, whenever possible.

II-11 Consider Establishing a Housing Committee and/or Hiring a Housing Director to Help Define and Implement Housing Policies, Programs and Goals for the City – Given the scope and complexity of housing issues and needs facing the city, the city should consider establishing a housing committee to provide oversight on various housing issues and efforts. This committee would be responsible for collecting and assessing information on housing issues, providing direction and/or recommendations to the city, and helping coordinate housing efforts within the city and county. Such a committee should be comprised of a broad mix of both public and private sector representatives. The city may also want to explore hiring a Housing Director with knowledge and experience in overseeing housing programs, developing policies, and securing housing funding. This position may be merged with an existing position already within the local government and/or could be a part- time or short-term position (e.g. one- or two-year contract).

Support Efforts to Develop Residential Units Along or Near Public Transportation Corridors and/or within Walkable Communities – The national trend of developing multifamily housing near public transit routes and within walkable downtowns continues. Several areas within Bowling Green have public transit routes (See: Section VII) and/or walkable neighborhoods that would serve as ideal locals for new multifamily residential development. In addition to supporting new residential developments, local governments should work towards improving access from potential residential sites to public transit routes and/or to walkable downtowns. We believe multifamily projects, both apartments and condominiums, serving seniors, young professionals, low-income householders, and Millennials, should be encouraged in these areas.

Consider Implementing/Modifying Policies to Encourage or Support the Development of New Residential Units – One of the key findings from this report is that there is limited availability among the existing housing stock in the county. While there are a notable amount of residential units in the development pipeline, anticipated job and demographic growth over the next few years will be significant and will require a steady introduction of new residential units to keep pace with the growing housing demand. The local governments should support housing policies such as expanding residential density to allow for more units, modifying unit size requirements (allowing for smaller units), requiring fewer parking spaces, expanding tax abatements, supporting or expanding TIF districts, waving/deferring/lowering government fees, and exploring other measures specifically targeted to the types of housing (e.g. affordable, senior, etc.) and the geographic locations (e.g. near transit routes, near employment centers, in the BGRA, etc.) that lead to meeting housing goals.

II-12 Explore Programs, Funding Sources and Initiatives that Support the Development and Preservation of Housing, Particularly Affordable Housing – A significant challenge in the city is the imbalance between the costs/rents associated with the existing housing stock and the ability of households to pay for such housing. As shown in this report, there appears to be a relatively large inventory of higher priced for-sale homes and rental units that most households in the market cannot reasonably afford. In an effort to support the development and preservation of more affordable housing alternatives, the city should consider supporting projects being developed with affordable housing development programs (e.g. Tax Credit and HUD programs), providing pre-development financial assistance, implementing inclusionary zoning (requiring market-rate developers to include some affordable housing units), supporting a Housing Trust Fund, exploring the establishment of a land bank to acquire, improving and conveying tax delinquent and neglected properties, and providing low-interest or forgivable loans and grants to lower-income households that can be used for covering costs directly associated with the repairs and maintenance of the existing housing stock. Overall, focus should be placed on those programs that support low-income households (seniors and families), workforce households, and first-time homebuyers. Additional housing is needed in order to have a healthy housing market, which will ultimately contribute to the local economy, quality of life and overall prosperity of Bowling Green.

Support Efforts to Enable Area Seniors to Transition into Housing to Meet Their Changing Needs – Bowling Green has a very large base of older adults, with significant growth projected to occur among senior households ages 65 and older over the next several years. Currently, there is a very limited inventory of available housing in the market, and the few senior-restricted rental housing projects in the city are typically fully occupied with long wait lists. As a result, seniors in the city who wish to downsize into smaller, more maintenance-free housing, or seniors seeking affordable rentals will have difficulty finding housing that meet their needs. Based on the Bowen National Research survey of housing alternatives in the market, an assessment of area demographic characteristics and trends, and input from area stakeholders, it is evident that senior-oriented, independent living housing is and will be an important component to the overall housing market. New housing product for seniors that should be considered include affordable (low-income) rentals, market- rate independent living rentals, for-sale condominiums that include accessibility design elements, and senior care housing (assisted living and nursing homes).

II-13 Promote and Encourage Residential Investment and Development in Designated Opportunity Zone – There is a Census Tract in the northern part of Bowling Green that was recently designated as a Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ). QOZs were created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and are designed to spur investment in communities through tax benefits. The Tract in Bowling Green is 102.00.

QOZs provide a deferral and reduction of capital gains taxes within five to seven years and a total waiver of capital gains taxes at ten years or longer. QOZ’s can be used in conjunction with other incentive programs, such as the Federal and State Historic Tax Credit program or the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) Program.

Properties eligible for QOZ investment or Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOF) must be purchased after 12/31/2017 with any prior ownership limited to 20% of the fund.

The Bowling Green QOZ is shown in the map below. Additional details of the program and the QOZ map can be found at: http://thinkkentucky.com/OZ/.

II-14 The city may want to identify real estate investors, developers and/or opportunity zone funds specifically tied to this program. These investors and funds can be identified through private-equity firms, venture capitalists, and several on-line resources. Taking a pro-active approach to identifying resources and investors or funds could expedite investment into Bowling Green.

Preservation and Renovation of Existing Housing Should be an Area of Focus – Based on an analysis of published secondary data and Bowen National Research’s on-site observations of the city’s existing housing stock, it is evident that Bowling Green has a large inventory (more than 1,000 units) of housing that is classified as “substandard housing”. This includes units that lack complete indoor plumbing or are overcrowded. It is likely that many of these substandard housing units suffer from deferred maintenance and neglect and are likely in need of repairs and modernization. Priorities should be placed on means to preserve and renovate the existing housing stock. The city currently offers an exterior home improvement grant under its Private Property Improvement Plan (PPIP) that has been utilized to improve more than 150 existing housing units in targeted areas of the BGRA. Future housing plans and priorities should continue to support efforts to help with the weatherization, modernization and repairs of the existing housing stock. In addition to existing home repair programs, the city may want to explore establishing a low-interest revolving loan program to allow eligible homeowners to borrow the necessary funds to improve or repair their homes. Additionally, code compliance/enforcement efforts should continue to be an integral part of the county’s efforts to insure housing is brought up to and maintained at expected standards.

Monitor Performance and Stability of Housing Market Periodically, with Emphasis on Moderate Market-Rate Rentals and Off-Campus Student Housing – Because of the city’s rapid demographic and economic growth expected over the next few years and the amount of residential product in the development pipeline, it will be important that key housing market trends are evaluated periodically (e.g. annually, every two years, etc.). This is particularly true of moderate market-rate product for which there is a large number of units under construction or planned over the next two years and off-campus student housing for which there are some underperforming projects in the market. Both of these housing segments are vulnerable to increased vacancies and stagnant or declining rent growth. Key housing metrics that should be monitored are vacancy rates, rent growth trends, slow lease-up rates, and rent concessions for rental housing and stagnant or declining home prices, notable increases in available for-sale housing inventory, increased number of days on market for available inventory, and slower absorption rates. The city could outsource periodic updates of these key metrics or identify an entity within the city to obtain and evaluate such metrics.

II-15 Consider Evaluation of Code Enforcement, Residential Blight, Evictions, along with Landlord-Tenant Laws – The scope of this Housing Needs Assessment was limited and did not include a detailed analysis of such potential factors as code enforcement, evictions, residential blight or landlord-tenant laws. However, each of these items were identified during our research as possible areas that could be explored further. Based on information provided by the city, code enforcement cases have increased in four of the five past fiscal years, with roaming cases more than doubling since fiscal year 2013. Given this increased activity and the number of residents reporting in the Resident Survey that quality and blight were key housing challenges, it may benefit the city to conduct further research and analysis on the capacity of the Code Enforcement office and the identification of residential blight. Our noting of these two items does not indicate that the city is not adequately addressing blight or that code enforcement is inadequate. We are simply recommending that these items be explored further to determine if enhancements could be made to address both. For example, establishing a blight/code enforcement task force and developing a blight identification process and inventory could serve to help further address the quality/condition of housing. Through community input (e.g. stakeholder interviews and resident input), it would appear that residential evictions and the possible deficiencies in current landlord-tenant laws may be creating housing issues for both residents and property owners. The city may want to consider establishing a landlord-tenant relations task force to explore ways to better improve such relations. Additionally, the city may want to explore adopting the Kentucky Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

Educate the Public (Residents and Property Owners) on the Need for and Benefits of Affordable Housing Projects and Programs – It is not uncommon for a large number of residents in a community to have concerns or reservations about the development of housing that serves low-income individuals. Typically, part of this concern is partially due to the lack of information residents have on the need for and community benefits of having a well-rounded housing market that includes affordable housing alternatives. It is recommended that community outreach efforts be engaged to educate the community on the lack of affordable and quality housing in the city and how the lack of such housing puts pressure on the overall housing market and presents economic challenges to local employers seeking entry-level, blue-collar workers. Additionally, it appears that there may be some hesitation among some local property owners who rent out housing units to accept Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders, which limits the choices available to low-income households, particularly families. Outreach efforts should be made to property owners on the process, requirements and benefits of participating in the HCV program.

II-16 Identify and Market Bowling Green to Potential Residential Developers – Using a variety of sources, the city should attempt to identify and market itself to the residential developers active in the region. Identification could be through trade associations, published lists of developers, real estate agents or brokers and other real estate entities in the region. Marketing of the community through trade publications, direct solicitation or public venues (e.g. housing and economic conferences) should be considered. The promotion of market data (including this Housing Needs Assessment), development opportunities, housing programs and incentives should be the focus of such efforts.

Explore and Encourage Development Partnerships – Government entities within the city may want to establish formal relationships with other entities to support housing development efforts. This may include relationships with non-profit groups (e.g. Community Action Agency, Habitat for Humanity, etc.) local businesses and private sector developers. The consolidation of the public and private sectors for certain housing initiatives can lead to improved efficiencies, larger financial capacities, and more cohesive residential development efforts. For example, this could include a large employer providing financial benefits (e.g. down payment assistance) to its qualified employees (possibly those earning below a certain level) to reside at a residential development in which the city is providing tax abatements or other incentives for the developer/property owner.

Develop Next-Steps Plans – Using the findings and recommendations of this report, the city should begin to prioritize housing objectives and refine housing strategies that best fit the overarching goals of the city and its neighborhoods. Input from stakeholders and residents should be solicited. From these efforts a specific Action Plan could be put together with measurable goals and a timeline to follow.

II-17

III. Community Overview and Study Areas

A. Bowling Green, Kentucky

This report focuses on the housing needs of the city of Bowling Green, Kentucky. Bowling Green is located in the center of Warren County and serves as the county seat. The city is roughly 20 miles north of the Tennessee border. The city contains approximately 40.0 square miles and was officially incorporated in 1898.

Prior to the Civil War, Bowling Green’s economy was primarily based in agriculture, benefitting from its proximity to the Barren River and development of railroad lines that connected the city to markets in the south and north. Following the Civil War, the city began to undergo a change, with the development of several large buildings, infrastructure improvements and the establishment of manufacturing businesses. The Western Kentucky University, which has a prominent influence on the city today, was established in 1906. While additional manufacturing, retail and professional business growth occurred during the 20th century, one of the more notable economic events to impact the area during this time was the relocation of the Chevrolet Corvette Assembly plant in 1981. Today, notable employers include Western Kentucky University, The Medical Center at Bowling Green, BG Metalforming, LLC, and Fruit of the Loom. Notable highways that serve the city and surrounding area include Interstate Highway 65 and the William H. Natcher Parkway (it will be renamed “I-165” sometime in 2019), as well as US Highways 31, 68 and 231 and several state and county routes. Public bus service is operated Monday through Friday for much of the year (excludes major holidays) and provides access to most parts of the city.

The city offers several community centers, numerous museums, including the National Corvette Museum and the Historic Railpark and Train Museum, sporting venues such as the Bowling Green Ballpark and E.A. Diddle Arena, and various recreation opportunities including several playgrounds, parks, golf courses, and trails. The city offers abundant and diverse commercial opportunities within the Central Business District, in and around its mall in the southeast part of the city, and along several of its arterial corridors.

The city and the balance of Warren County have undergone significant population and household growth since 2000. With more than 67,000 people residing in the city in 2017, Bowling Green was the third most populous city in Kentucky. The city’s housing stock is more influenced by renter-occupied housing, representing over 57% of the supply. The market has a good balance of product by age, with around 50% being constructed prior to 1980, roughly 30% built between 1980 and 1999, and approximately 20% built since 2000. As shown in the supply section (Section VI) of this report, the market offers a wide variety of price points and rents, though availability is limited at certain affordability levels.

III-1

Additional information regarding the county’s demographic characteristics and trends, economic conditions, housing supply, community services and other attributes and challenges are included throughout this report.

B. Study Areas – Market Area Delineations

This report addresses the residential housing needs of the city of Bowling Green, Kentucky. To this end, we focused our evaluation on the demographic and economic characteristics, as well as the existing housing stock, of Bowling Green. Because the city is impacted by and has impact on the rest of Warren County, we have provided some additional information on the balance of the county. In order to provide an additional base of comparison, we have provided some additional data on the overall commonwealth of Kentucky. Per the city’s request, we have provided analysis on a predetermined submarket, referred to as the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. The following summarizes the various study areas used in this analysis.

Primary Study Area – The Primary Study Area (PSA) includes all of the city of Bowling Green.

Secondary Study Area – The Secondary Study Area (SSA) is the balance of Warren County, not including Bowling Green.

Submarket Study Area – The Submarket Study Area is comprised of the BG Reinvestment Area. This area includes the north-central portion of the city and includes the following Census Tracts: 101, 102, 103,104, 105, 112 and 113.

Maps delineating the boundaries of the various study areas are shown on the following pages.

III-2 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY State of Kentucky State of Kentucky

0 12.5 25 50 75 1:3,526,006 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bowling Green (PSA) Bowling Green, KY Secondary Study Area Primary and Secondary Study Areas

0 1.5 3 6 9 1:380,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community BGRA Bowling Green, KY Bowling Green (PSA) BG Reinvestment Area

0 0.475 0.95 1.9 2.85 1:120,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community IV. Demographic Analysis

A. Introduction

This section of the report evaluates key demographic characteristics for the Primary Study Area (city of Bowling Green), the Secondary Study Area (Balance of Warren County), the PSA & SSA combined, and Kentucky (statewide). Through this analysis, unfolding trends and unique conditions are often revealed regarding populations and households residing in the four selected geographic areas. Demographic comparisons among these geographies provide insights into the human composition of housing markets. Critical questions, such as the following, can be answered with this information:

 Who lives in the city of Bowling Green and what are these people like?  In what kinds of household groupings do city of Bowling Green residents live?  What share of people rent or own their city of Bowling Green residence?  Are the number of people and households living in the city of Bowling Green increasing or decreasing over time?  How do city of Bowling Green residents compare with residents in the rest of the surrounding area (SSA)?

This section is comprised of three major parts: population characteristics, household characteristics, and demographic theme maps. Population characteristics describe the qualities of individual people, while household characteristics describe the qualities of people living together in one residence. Theme maps graphically show varying levels (low to high concentrations) of a demographic characteristic across a geographic region and are included in this section of the report.

It is important to note that 2000 and 2010 demographics are based on U.S. Census data (actual count), while 2018 and 2023 data are based on calculated estimates provided by ESRI, a nationally recognized demography firm. The accuracy of these estimates depends on the realization of certain assumptions:

 Economic projections made by secondary sources materialize;  Governmental policies with respect to residential development remain consistent;  Availability of financing for residential development (i.e. mortgages, commercial loans, subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) remains consistent;  Sufficient housing and infrastructure is provided to support projected population and household growth.

Significant unforeseen changes or fluctuations among any of the preceding assumptions could have an impact on demographic projections/estimates.

IV-1 It should be noted that some total numbers and percentages may not match the totals within or between tables in this section due to rounding.

B. Population Characteristics

Population by numbers and percent change (growth or decline) for selected years is shown in the following table:

Total Population 2000 2010 Change 2000-2010 2018 Change 2010-2018 2023 Change 2018-2023 Census Census # % Estimated # % Projected # % PSA 49,298 58,902 9,604 19.5% 66,419 7,517 12.8% 71,294 4,875 7.3% SSA 43,224 54,890 11,666 27.0% 63,325 8,435 15.4% 68,937 5,612 8.9% Combined (PSA & SSA) 92,522 113,792 21,270 23.0% 129,744 15,952 14.0% 140,231 10,487 8.1% Kentucky 4,041,769 4,339,367 297,598 7.4% 4,548,018 208,651 4.8% 4,665,793 117,775 2.6% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 From 2000 to 2010, the PSA (Bowling Green) population increased by 9,604, or by 19.5%, while the SSA (balance of Warren County) increased by 11,666 or by 27.0%. During this same time, the state of Kentucky experienced a positive growth of 7.4%. During this 10-year span, population growth of the SSA outpaced the PSA and both outpaced the overall state of Kentucky.

 Over the past eight years (2010 to 2018), the PSA population base increased by 7,517 (12.8% increase). At the same time, the SSA experienced a positive increase of 8,435 people, or an increase of 15.4% over 2010 numbers. Statewide, the population increased by 4.8%.

 It is projected that the PSA population base will continue to grow at a good pace between 2018 and 2023, increasing by 4,875 people or 7.3%. It is projected that the total number of people in the SSA will experience positive growth, increasing by approximately 5,612 or by 8.9% over the next five years.

IV-2 The following graph compares percent change in population (growth) for various time periods:

Population Trends (2000-2023)

PSA SSA Kentucky

30.0%

25.0% 27.0%

20.0% 19.5% 15.0% 15.4% 12.8% 10.0% 8.9% 7.4% 7.3% 5.0% 4.8% 2.6% 0.0% 2000-2010 2010-2018 2018-2023

Population by age cohorts for selected years is shown in the following table:

Population by Age Median <25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Age 26,100 8,713 6,211 6,334 5,162 3,256 3,126 2010 (44.3%) (14.8%) (10.5%) (10.8%) (8.8%) (5.5%) (5.3%) 28.4 26,675 10,981 7,240 6,569 6,427 4,782 3,745 2018 (40.2%) (16.5%) (10.9%) (9.9%) (9.7%) (7.2%) (5.6%) 30.7 PSA 28,017 10,962 8,629 6,800 6,788 5,668 4,430 2023 (39.3%) (15.4%) (12.1%) (9.5%) (9.5%) (8.0%) (6.2%) 31.8 Change 1,342 -19 1,389 231 361 886 685 2018-2023 (5.0%) (-0.2%) (19.2%) (3.5%) (5.6%) (18.5%) (18.3%) N/A 18,224 7,181 7,836 8,665 6,926 3,765 2,293 2010 (33.2%) (13.1%) (14.3%) (15.8%) (12.6%) (6.9%) (4.2%) 37.6 19,657 8,157 8,736 8,624 8,825 6,127 3,199 2018 (31.0%) (12.9%) (13.8%) (13.6%) (13.9%) (9.7%) (5.1%) 39.3 SSA 20,819 8,359 9,703 8,963 9,144 7,522 4,427 2023 (30.2%) (12.1%) (14.1%) (13.0%) (13.3%) (10.9%) (6.4%) 40.5 Change 1,162 202 967 339 319 1,395 1,228 2018-2023 (5.9%) (2.5%) (11.1%) (3.9%) (3.6%) (22.8%) (38.4%) N/A 44,324 15,894 14,047 14,999 12,088 7,021 5,419 2010 (39.0%) (14.0%) (12.3%) (13.2%) (10.6%) (6.2%) (4.8%) 32.8 46,332 19,138 15,976 15,193 15,252 10,909 6,944 Combined 2018 (35.7%) (14.8%) (12.3%) (11.7%) (11.8%) (8.4%) (5.4%) 34.7 (PSA & 48,836 19,321 18,332 15,763 15,932 13,190 8,857 SSA) 2023 (34.8%) (13.8%) (13.1%) (11.2%) (11.4%) (9.4%) (6.3%) 36.0 Change 2,504 183 2,356 570 680 2,281 1,913 2018-2023 (5.4%) (1.0%) (14.7%) (3.8%) (4.5%) (20.9%) (27.5%) N/A Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IV-3 (continued) Median

<25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Age 1,436,172 566,216 576,662 643,097 538,993 325,314 252,913 2010 (33.1%) (13.0%) (13.3%) (14.8%) (12.4%) (7.5%) (5.8%) 37.9 1,405,446 604,374 573,348 593,116 619,240 455,918 296,576 2018 (30.9%) (13.3%) (12.6%) (13.0%) (13.6%) (10.0%) (6.5%) 39.5 Kentucky 1,413,004 583,631 600,337 574,884 612,729 522,588 358,620 2023 (30.3%) (12.5%) (12.9%) (12.3%) (13.1%) (11.2%) (7.7%) 40.6 Change 7,558 -20,743 26,989 -18,232 -6,511 66,670 62,044 2018-2023 (0.5%) (-3.4%) (4.7%) (-3.1%) (-1.1%) (14.6%) (20.9%) N/A Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The median age (30.7) for the PSA’s population in 2018 is noticeably younger than the SSA (39.3) and the overall state of Kentucky (39.5). It is projected that the PSA’s median age will increase slightly to 31.8 by 2023. The younger age of the PSA is likely influenced by the presence of Western Kentucky University.

 Excluding the under age 25 cohorts, the largest share of the PSA population in 2018 falls between the ages of 25 and 34, which comprise 16.5% of the population. By 2023, the share of this age cohort is projected to decrease to 15.4%, yet it will still be the largest share of population by age within the PSA.

 The greatest change in population by age within the PSA between 2018 and 2023 will occur among persons between the ages of 35 and 44. This age cohort is projected to increase by 1,389 (19.2%). This is different than most markets we have studied and different than the overall state of Kentucky, which is expected to experience most of its population growth among older households (generally ages 65 and older). The population between the ages of 65 and 74 is projected to increase by 886 (18.5%) and the population ages 75 and older is projected to increase by 685 (18.3%). It is worth pointing out that it is expected that the youngest population (under the age of 25) will also increase over the next five years, adding 1,342 people and representing an increase of 5.0%.

 The surrounding SSA is projected to have similar trends as the PSA, with most of the projected population growth expected to occur among those persons under the age of 25, between the ages of 35 and 44, and ages 65 and older.

IV-4 The following graph compares population age cohort shares for 2018:

Population by Age (2018) PSA SSA Kentucky 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Population by race for 2010 is shown in the following table:

Population by Race

Total Races Races African African Black or Black Race Alone Alone Race Some Other Some Asian Alone Alone Asian White Alone White Alone Two or More Two or American Alone Number 45,240 7,877 2,271 2,000 1,514 58,902 PSA Percent 76.8% 13.4% 3.9% 3.4% 2.6% 100.0% Number 49,927 2,434 913 748 868 54,890 SSA Percent 91.0% 4.4% 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% 100.0% Combined Number 95,167 10,311 3,184 2,748 2,382 113,792 (PSA & SSA) Percent 83.6% 9.1% 2.8% 2.4% 2.1% 100.0% Number 3,809,537 337,520 48,930 68,172 75,208 4,339,367 Kentucky Percent 87.8% 7.8% 1.1% 1.6% 1.7% 100.0% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 Just over three-fourths of the PSA’s population was categorized as “White Alone”. This is a lower share than the SSA and state of Kentucky. This is likely a result, in part, of the city’s acceptance of foreign refugees. We address refugees further in Section VII: Other Housing Market Factors.

IV-5 Population by marital status for 2018 is shown in the following table:

Population by Marital Status Not Married Married Total Never Married Divorced Widowed Number 26,064 6,817 2,859 20,194 55,935 PSA Percent 46.6% 12.2% 5.1% 36.1% 100.0% Number 14,122 5,316 2,434 28,986 50,858 SSA Percent 27.8% 10.5% 4.8% 57.0% 100.0% Combined Number 40,186 12,133 5,293 49,181 106,793 (PSA & SSA) Percent 37.6% 11.4% 5.0% 46.1% 100.0% Number 1,126,037 491,275 249,601 1,851,455 3,718,368 Kentucky Percent 30.3% 13.2% 6.7% 49.8% 100.0% Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The PSA has a much lower share (36.1%) of unmarried people than the SSA (57.0%) and Kentucky statewide (49.8%).

 Nearly one-half of PSA residents have never been married, which is notably higher than the surrounding area and the state.

The preceding characteristics are likely a reflection of the Western Kentucky University’s influence on the market, with a large number of students.

The following graph compares marital status shares for 2018:

Population by Marital Status (2018)

PSA SSA Kentucky 60.0% 57.0% 50.0% 49.8% 46.6% 40.0%

30.0% 36.1% 30.3% 27.8% 20.0%

10.0% 13.2% 6.7% 12.2% 10.5% 5.1% 4.8% 0.0% Never Married Divorced Widowed Married

IV-6 Population by highest educational attainment for 2018 is shown below:

Population by Educational Attainment

Degree Degree Total Degree Degree Degree Associate Associate Bachelor Bachelor Graduate Graduate No Degree Degree No Some College, Diploma Diploma School High Graduate Graduate No High School No High School Number 5,028 10,577 8,877 2,952 7,457 4,853 39,744 PSA Percent 12.7% 26.6% 22.3% 7.4% 18.8% 12.2% 100.0% Number 3,991 12,939 9,307 4,327 8,178 4,926 43,668 SSA Percent 9.1% 29.6% 21.3% 9.9% 18.7% 11.3% 100.0% Combined Number 9,019 23,516 18,184 7,279 15,635 9,779 83,412 (PSA & SSA) Percent 10.8% 28.2% 21.8% 8.7% 18.7% 11.7% 100.0% Number 433,830 996,957 681,898 281,175 451,196 297,516 3,142,572 Kentucky Percent 13.8% 31.7% 21.7% 8.9% 14.4% 9.5% 100.0% Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The PSA has a share (12.7%) of people without high school diplomas that is higher than the SSA (9.1%) but comparable to the Kentucky statewide share (13.8%).

 The 38.4% share of PSA residents that have received a college degree is very comparable to the SSA’s share of 39.9%. These are both well above the statewide share (32.8%) of people with college degrees. These higher shares in the PSA and SSA are likely reflective of the presence of Western Kentucky University.

IV-7 The following graph compares educational attainment for 2018:

Population by Educational Attainment (2018)

PSA SSA Kentucky

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% No High High School Some College, Associate Bachelor's Graduate School Graduate No Degree Degree Degree Degree Diploma

Population by poverty status is shown in the following table:

Population by Poverty Status Income below poverty level: Income at or above poverty level: <18 18 to 64 65+ <18 18 to 64 65+ Total Number 4,877 9,841 734 8,236 26,452 6,150 56,290 PSA Percent 8.7% 17.5% 1.3% 14.6% 47.0% 10.9% 100.0% Number 1,962 4,027 397 11,607 32,633 6,783 57,409 SSA Percent 3.4% 7.0% 0.7% 20.2% 56.8% 11.8% 100.0% Combined Number 6,839 13,868 1,131 19,843 59,085 12,933 113,699 (PSA & SSA) Percent 6.0% 12.2% 1.0% 17.5% 52.0% 11.4% 100.0% Number 255,223 477,123 71,793 736,577 2,175,902 558,584 4,275,202 Kentucky Percent 6.0% 11.2% 1.7% 17.2% 50.9% 13.1% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The PSA had a much higher share (27.5%) of people living below the poverty level than the SSA (11.1%) and Kentucky statewide (18.9%).

 Over one-fourth (27.1%) of the younger population under the age of 18 within the PSA was living below the poverty level. With more than 4,800 children and more than 15,000 people overall living in poverty in the PSA, affordable housing will remain an important element to the local housing stock.

IV-8 The following graph compares poverty status for each geographic area.

Poverty Rates by Age/Overall (2012-2016)

PSA SSA Kentucky 30.0%

25.0% 27.5%

20.0% 18.9% 15.0% 17.5%

10.0% 11.2% 11.1% 8.7% 5.0% 7.0% 6.0% 1.7% 3.4% 1.3% 0.7% 0.0% Under 18 18 to 64 65+ Overall

Population by migration (previous residence one year prior to survey) for years 2012-2016 is shown in the following table:

Population by Migration

Total Abroad Abroad Same House House Same Moved from from Moved In Same State In Same Different State Different Different House Different in SameCounty Different County County Different Number 42,670 10,423 5,301 3,433 852 62,679 PSA Percent 68.1% 16.6% 8.5% 5.5% 1.4% 100.0% Number 48,485 5,198 2,087 1,074 101 56,945 SSA Percent 85.1% 9.1% 3.7% 1.9% 0.2% 100.0% Combined Number 91,155 15,621 7,388 4,507 953 119,624 (PSA & SSA) Percent 76.2% 13.1% 6.2% 3.8% 0.8% 100.0% Number 3,684,624 380,507 168,097 108,723 17,878 4,359,829 Kentucky Percent 84.5% 8.7% 3.9% 2.5% 0.4% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The PSA had a much higher share (32.0%) of people changing residences annually than the SSA (14.9%) and Kentucky statewide (15.5%). This indicates a very transient population in the PSA, which is not unusual in market influenced by a university, refugees and immigrants, and a high job growth market.

IV-9  It is worth pointing out that 1.4% of the population migrated into the PSA on an annual basis from outside of the United States, which is related to the resettlement of foreign refugees.

Population densities for selected years are shown in the following table:

Population Densities Year 2000 2010 2018 2023 Population 49,298 58,902 66,419 71,294 PSA Area in Square Miles 38.54 38.54 38.54 38.54 Density 1,279.2 1,528.4 1,723.4 1,849.9 Population 43,224 54,890 63,325 68,937 SSA Area in Square Miles 509.02 509.02 509.02 509.02 Density 84.9 107.8 124.4 135.4 Population 92,522 113,792 129,744 140,231 Combined Area in Square Miles 547.56 547.56 547.56 547.56 (PSA & SSA) Density 169.0 207.8 236.9 256.1 Population 4,041,769 4,339,367 4,548,018 4,665,793 Kentucky Area in Square Miles 40,407.65 40,407.65 40,407.65 40,407.65 Density 100.0 107.4 112.6 115.5 Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The 2018 PSA population density of 1,723.4 people per square mile is noticeably greater than the SSA density of 124.4.

 The PSA population density is expected to increase by more than 120 persons per square mile by 2023. This is reflective of the very positive demographic growth expected for the city over the next several years.

C. Household Characteristics

Households by numbers and percent change (growth or decline) for selected years are shown in the following table:

Total Households 2000 2010 Change 2000-2010 2018 Change 2010-2018 2023 Change 2018-2023 Census Census # % Estimated # % Projected # % PSA 19,215 23,091 3,876 20.2% 26,295 3,204 13.9% 28,432 2,137 8.1% SSA 16,150 20,583 4,433 27.4% 23,811 3,228 15.7% 25,959 2,148 9.0% Combined (PSA & SSA) 35,365 43,674 8,309 23.5% 50,106 6,432 14.7% 54,391 4,285 8.6% Kentucky 1,590,630 1,719,965 129,335 8.1% 1,796,791 76,826 4.5% 1,842,078 45,287 2.5% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IV-10 Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 From 2000 to 2010, the number of households in the PSA increased by 3,876. This results in a growth rate of 20.2%, which is more than double the growth rate of the state of Kentucky (8.1%), but comparable to the surrounding SSA growth rate of 27.4%.

 Household growth within the PSA between 2010 and 2018 remained very positive, increasing by 3,204 (13.9%). This growth is nearly identical to the increase in households within the surrounding SSA, which increased by 3,228 or 15.7%. This recent growth in the PSA is more than triple the state of Kentucky average.

 Between 2018 and 2023, the number of households in the PSA is expected to increase by 2,137 (8.1%), while the SSA is projected to experience nearly identical growth of 2,148 (9.0%) households during this time.

The following graphs compare the change in households (growth +/decline -) for various points in time:

Household Trends (2000-2023)

PSA SSA Kentucky

30.0% 27.4% 25.0%

20.0% 20.2% 15.0% 15.7% 13.9% 10.0% 9.0% 8.1% 8.1% 5.0% 4.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2000-2010 2010-2018 2018-2023

IV-11 Total Households (2000-2023) PSA SSA 30,000 28,432 27,500 26,295 25,959 25,000 23,091 22,500 23,811 19,215 20,000 20,583 17,500 16,150 15,000 2000 2010 2018 2023

Household heads by age cohorts for selected years are shown in the following table: Household Heads by Age

<25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ 3,779 4,343 3,524 3,791 3,248 2,217 2,189 2010 (16.4%) (18.8%) (15.3%) (16.4%) (14.1%) (9.6%) (9.5%) 3,649 5,497 3,978 3,750 3,835 3,066 2,520 2018 (13.9%) (20.9%) (15.1%) (14.3%) (14.6%) (11.7%) (9.6%) PSA 3,823 5,473 4,704 3,843 4,027 3,604 2,958 2023 (13.4%) (19.2%) (16.5%) (13.5%) (14.2%) (12.7%) (10.4%) Change 174 -24 726 93 192 538 438 2018-2023 (4.8%) (-0.4%) (18.3%) (2.5%) (5.0%) (17.5%) (17.4%) 799 3,444 4,067 4,617 3,925 2,289 1,442 2010 (3.9%) (16.7%) (19.8%) (22.4%) (19.1%) (11.1%) (7.0%) 736 3,646 4,403 4,491 4,901 3,678 1,956 2018 (3.1%) (15.3%) (18.5%) (18.9%) (20.6%) (15.4%) (8.2%) SSA 763 3,700 4,817 4,593 4,990 4,429 2,667 2023 (2.9%) (14.3%) (18.6%) (17.7%) (19.2%) (17.1%) (10.3%) Change 27 54 414 102 89 751 711 2018-2023 (3.7%) (1.5%) (9.4%) (2.3%) (1.8%) (20.4%) (36.3%) 4,579 7,787 7,591 8,405 7,174 4,507 3,631 2010 (10.5%) (17.8%) (17.4%) (19.2%) (16.4%) (10.3%) (8.3%) 4,385 9,143 8,381 8,241 8,736 6,744 4,476 2018 Combined (8.8%) (18.2%) (16.7%) (16.4%) (17.4%) (13.5%) (8.9%) (PSA & SSA) 4,586 9,173 9,521 8,436 9,017 8,033 5,625 2023 (8.4%) (16.9%) (17.5%) (15.5%) (16.6%) (14.8%) (10.3%) Change 201 30 1,140 195 281 1,289 1,149 2018-2023 (4.6%) (0.3%) (13.6%) (2.4%) (3.2%) (19.1%) (25.7%) 86,558 261,938 303,509 360,266 322,747 210,851 174,096 2010 (5.0%) (15.2%) (17.6%) (20.9%) (18.8%) (12.3%) (10.1%) 78,116 269,837 292,549 319,557 356,554 284,087 196,091 2018 (4.3%) (15.0%) (16.3%) (17.8%) (19.8%) (15.8%) (10.9%) Kentucky 77,750 257,800 302,273 304,815 346,291 319,665 233,484 2023 (4.2%) (14.0%) (16.4%) (16.5%) (18.8%) (17.4%) (12.7%) Change -366 -12,037 9,724 -14,742 -10,263 35,578 37,393 2018-2023 (-0.5%) (-4.5%) (3.3%) (-4.6%) (-2.9%) (12.5%) (19.1%) Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IV-12 Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The largest share (20.9%) of households by age in the PSA in 2018 is among those between the ages of 25 and 34, with most other household age segments representing roughly 10% to 15% of the household base. Therefore, the household base by age is distributed relatively evenly among the different age groups within the PSA. By 2023, it is projected that households between the 25 to 34 age group will still represent the largest share (19.2%) of households.

 The greatest growth in the number of households by age within the PSA between 2018 and 2023 is expected to occur among those between the ages of 35 and 44, which are projected to increase by 726 (18.3%). Notable growth is also projected among those between the ages of 65 and 74 (538 increase, or 17.5%) and households ages 75 and older (438 increase, or 17.4%). Regardless of these aforementioned age groups, virtually all age groups are projected to increase between 2018 and 2023, adding to the need for a variety of housing types. Trends of the surrounding SSA are similar to the PSA.

The following graphs compare household age cohort data:

Household Heads by Age (2018) PSA SSA Kentucky 25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

IV-13 PSA - Change in Household Heads by Age (2018-2023)

<25 174

25-34 -24

35-44 726

45-54 93

55-64 192

65-74 538

75+ 438

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Households by tenure for selected years are shown in the following table:

Households by Tenure 2000 2010 2018 2023 Household Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 9,529 49.6% 10,452 45.3% 11,254 42.8% 12,526 44.1% PSA Renter-Occupied 9,686 50.4% 12,639 54.7% 15,041 57.2% 15,907 55.9% Total 19,215 100.0% 23,091 100.0% 26,295 100.0% 28,433 100.0% Owner-Occupied 13,093 81.1% 15,884 77.2% 18,670 78.4% 20,628 79.5% SSA Renter-Occupied 3,057 18.9% 4,699 22.8% 5,141 21.6% 5,330 20.5% Total 16,150 100.0% 20,583 100.0% 23,811 100.0% 25,958 100.0% Owner-Occupied 22,622 64.0% 26,336 60.3% 29,924 59.7% 33,154 61.0% Combined Renter-Occupied 12,743 36.0% 17,338 39.7% 20,182 40.3% 21,237 39.0% (PSA & SSA) Total 35,365 100.0% 43,674 100.0% 50,106 100.0% 54,391 100.0% Owner-Occupied 1,125,397 70.8% 1,181,271 68.7% 1,198,963 66.7% 1,246,708 67.7% Kentucky Renter-Occupied 465,233 29.2% 538,694 31.3% 597,828 33.3% 595,370 32.3% Total 1,590,630 100.0% 1,719,965 100.0% 1,796,791 100.0% 1,842,078 100.0% Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The 2018 57.2% share of renter households within the PSA represents a notable increase over the 54.7% share of renter households in 2010 that continues a trend from 2000. This is the result of the development of new rental housing product over the past eight years that has far outpaced owner- occupied residential development. Specifically, the PSA has added 2,402 renter-occupied households over the past eight years, while owner-occupied households have increased by 802.

 It is projected between 2018 and 2023 that the number of renter households will increase by 866 and owner-occupied households will increase by 1,272. While this projected growth by tenure is different from recent trends, it is

IV-14 expected that many Millennials (generally ages 25 to 35), which is one of the largest age groups in the market, will have increases in income, begin to make lifestyle changes (e.g. getting married, and having children), and will consider becoming homeowners in the next several years. Residential growth by tenure in the SSA has been and is projected to be more heavily concentrated towards owner-occupied households. Specifically, the SSA is projected to increase by 1,958 owner-occupied households and 866 renter- occupied households.

The following graphs compare household tenure data:

Households by Tenure (2010-2023)

PSA Owner SSA Owner PSA Renter SSA Renter 80.0% 78.4% 79.5% 70.0% 77.2% 60.0% 57.2% 50.0% 54.7% 55.9% 45.3% 40.0% 42.8% 44.1% 30.0% 20.0% 22.8% 21.6% 20.5% 10.0% 0.0% 2010 2018 2023

PSA Change in Households by Tenure (2010-2018 / 2018-2023)

PSA Owner SSA Owner PSA Renter SSA Renter 3,000

2,500 2,786 2,402 2,000 1,958 1,500

1,000 1,272 866 500 802 442 189 0 2010 to 2018 2018 to 2023

IV-15 Renter households by size for selected years are shown in the following table:

Persons Per Renter Household Average 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total H.H. Size 5,182 3,295 2,050 1,212 900 12,639 2010 (41.0%) (26.1%) (16.2%) (9.6%) (7.1%) (100.0%) 2.16 4,887 4,872 2,132 1,541 1,614 15,045 PSA 2018 (32.5%) (32.4%) (14.2%) (10.2%) (10.7%) (100.0%) 2.34 4,834 5,446 2,152 1,563 1,914 15,910 2023 (30.4%) (34.2%) (13.5%) (9.8%) (12.0%) (100.0%) 2.39 1,927 1,225 762 451 335 4,699 2010 (41.0%) (26.1%) (16.2%) (9.6%) (7.1%) (100.0%) 2.16 1,670 1,665 728 526 552 5,141 SSA 2018 (32.5%) (32.4%) (14.2%) (10.2%) (10.7%) (100.0%) 2.34 1,620 1,825 721 524 641 5,330 2023 (30.4%) (34.2%) (13.5%) (9.8%) (12.0%) (100.0%) 2.39 7,109 4,520 2,812 1,663 1,234 17,338 2010 (41.0%) (26.1%) (16.2%) (9.6%) (7.1%) (100.0%) 2.16 Combined 6,555 6,535 2,860 2,067 2,166 20,182 2018 (PSA & SSA) (32.5%) (32.4%) (14.2%) (10.2%) (10.7%) (100.0%) 2.34 6,453 7,270 2,873 2,087 2,555 21,237 2023 (30.4%) (34.2%) (13.5%) (9.8%) (12.0%) (100.0%) 2.39 207,182 143,077 85,221 59,687 43,526 538,694 2010 (38.5%) (26.6%) (15.8%) (11.1%) (8.1%) (100.0%) 2.24 224,783 162,669 95,832 66,120 48,424 597,828 Kentucky 2018 (37.6%) (27.2%) (16.0%) (11.1%) (8.1%) (100.0%) 2.25 222,619 162,693 95,638 65,845 48,575 595,370 2023 (37.4%) (27.3%) (16.1%) (11.1%) (8.2%) (100.0%) 2.25 Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 In 2018, the largest shares of renter households in the PSA are among one- person (32.5%) and two-person (32.4%) households, which is typical of a city of the same size as Bowling Green. These shares are nearly identical to the SSA and generally in line with the State of Kentucky. It is worth pointing out that the PSA has a greater share (10.7%) of five-person or larger renter households than the state of Kentucky (8.2%).

 Between 2018 and 2023, the greatest growth in renter households by size is projected to occur among households with two-persons (574 new households) and households with five or more persons (300 new households). As a result, the market will likely need to have a combination of both smaller units (one- and two-bedrooms) and larger units (three- bedroom or larger) to accommodate this anticipated growth.

 The overall median renter household sizes are expected to remain virtually unchanged over the next five years in the PSA.

IV-16 The following graph compares renter household size shares for 2018:

Persons per Renter Household (2018) PSA SSA Kentucky 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1-Person 2-Persons 3-Persons 4-Persons 5+-Persons

Owner households by size for selected years are shown on the following table:

Persons Per Owner Household Average 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total H.H. Size 2,309 4,097 1,743 1,440 862 10,452 2010 (22.1%) (39.2%) (16.7%) (13.8%) (8.3%) (100.0%) 2.47 2,596 4,293 1,955 1,457 952 11,254 PSA 2018 (23.1%) (38.1%) (17.4%) (13.0%) (8.5%) (100.0%) 2.46 2,933 4,756 2,144 1,599 1,094 12,526 2023 (23.4%) (38.0%) (17.1%) (12.8%) (8.7%) (100.0%) 2.45 3,509 6,227 2,649 2,189 1,310 15,884 2010 (22.1%) (39.2%) (16.7%) (13.8%) (8.2%) (100.0%) 2.47 4,307 7,123 3,243 2,418 1,579 18,670 SSA 2018 (23.1%) (38.2%) (17.4%) (12.9%) (8.5%) (100.0%) 2.46 4,831 7,831 3,531 2,634 1,801 20,628 2023 (23.4%) (38.0%) (17.1%) (12.8%) (8.7%) (100.0%) 2.45 5,818 10,324 4,393 3,629 2,173 26,336 2010 (22.1%) (39.2%) (16.7%) (13.8%) (8.3%) (100.0%) 2.47 Combined 6,903 11,416 5,198 3,875 2,532 29,924 2018 (PSA & SSA) (23.1%) (38.1%) (17.4%) (13.0%) (8.5%) (100.0%) 2.46 7,764 12,587 5,674 4,233 2,895 33,154 2023 (23.4%) (38.0%) (17.1%) (12.8%) (8.7%) (100.0%) 2.45 275,591 457,506 199,635 158,999 89,540 1,181,271 2010 (23.3%) (38.7%) (16.9%) (13.5%) (7.6%) (100.0%) 2.43 283,675 472,391 194,951 153,827 94,119 1,198,963 Kentucky 2018 (23.7%) (39.4%) (16.3%) (12.8%) (7.9%) (100.0%) 2.42 295,857 493,164 200,712 158,131 98,843 1,246,708 2023 (23.7%) (39.6%) (16.1%) (12.7%) (7.9%) (100.0%) 2.42 Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IV-17 Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 One- and two-person owner households represent just over 60% of all PSA owner households in 2018. The shares of household sizes are not expected to change much over the next five years.

 Median owner household sizes are projected to remain virtually unchanged through 2023 for the PSA.

 While all owner-occupied household sizes are projected to grow between 2018 and 2023, the greatest growth is projected to occur among one- and two-person households.

 The shares of owner-occupied household sizes and projected growth of the various household sizes of the SSA are similar to the PSA.

The following graph compares owner household size shares for 2018:

Persons per Owner Household (2018) PSA SSA Kentucky 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1-Person 2-Persons 3-Persons 4-Persons 5+-Persons

IV-18 The distribution of households by income is illustrated below:

Households by Income $10,000 - $20,000 - $30,000 - $40,000 - $50,000 - $60,000 - <$10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999 $100,000+ 2,675 3,894 3,433 2,930 2,325 1,529 3,631 2,674 2010 (11.6%) (16.9%) (14.9%) (12.7%) (10.1%) (6.6%) (15.7%) (11.6%) 2,602 3,826 3,444 2,846 2,414 2,202 5,113 3,852 2018 (9.9%) (14.5%) (13.1%) (10.8%) (9.2%) (8.4%) (19.4%) (14.6%) PSA 2,761 4,260 3,754 3,088 2,636 2,334 5,449 4,154 2023 (9.7%) (15.0%) (13.2%) (10.9%) (9.3%) (8.2%) (19.2%) (14.6%) Change 159 434 310 242 222 132 336 302 2018-2023 (6.1%) (11.3%) (9.0%) (8.5%) (9.2%) (6.0%) (6.6%) (7.8%) 1,435 2,312 2,459 2,531 2,318 1,790 4,839 2,899 2010 (7.0%) (11.2%) (11.9%) (12.3%) (11.3%) (8.7%) (23.5%) (14.1%) 934 1,903 2,051 2,060 2,182 2,525 6,443 5,713 2018 (3.9%) (8.0%) (8.6%) (8.7%) (9.2%) (10.6%) (27.1%) (24.0%) SSA 964 2,083 2,312 2,244 2,504 2,864 6,814 6,173 2023 (3.7%) (8.0%) (8.9%) (8.6%) (9.6%) (11.0%) (26.3%) (23.8%) Change 30 180 261 184 322 339 371 460 2018-2023 (3.2%) (9.5%) (12.7%) (8.9%) (14.8%) (13.4%) (5.8%) (8.1%) 3,848 6,026 5,949 5,511 4,698 3,361 8,615 5,666 2010 (8.8%) (13.8%) (13.6%) (12.6%) (10.8%) (7.7%) (19.7%) (13.0%) 3,535 5,730 5,497 4,904 4,596 4,727 11,552 9,565 Combined 2018 (7.1%) (11.4%) (11.0%) (9.8%) (9.2%) (9.4%) (23.1%) (19.1%) (PSA & 3,699 6,276 6,112 5,389 5,127 5,315 12,111 10,362 SSA) 2023 (6.8%) (11.5%) (11.2%) (9.9%) (9.4%) (9.8%) (22.3%) (19.1%) Change 164 546 615 485 531 588 559 797 2018-2023 (4.6%) (9.5%) (11.2%) (9.9%) (11.6%) (12.4%) (4.8%) (8.3%) 187,323 252,748 217,828 195,205 171,486 137,120 334,907 223,348 2010 (10.9%) (14.7%) (12.7%) (11.3%) (10.0%) (8.0%) (19.5%) (13.0%) 160,723 221,985 199,135 185,795 162,061 145,541 388,097 333,454 2018 (8.9%) (12.4%) (11.1%) (10.3%) (9.0%) (8.1%) (21.6%) (18.6%) Kentucky 168,469 240,211 205,298 190,077 168,006 148,431 381,179 340,407 2023 (9.1%) (13.0%) (11.1%) (10.3%) (9.1%) (8.1%) (20.7%) (18.5%) Change 7,746 18,226 6,163 4,282 5,945 2,890 -6,918 6,953 2018-2023 (4.8%) (8.2%) (3.1%) (2.3%) (3.7%) (2.0%) (-1.8%) (2.1%) Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 In 2018, the largest number of households in the PSA had incomes $60,000 and $99,999, with the next largest number making $100,000 or more. While these higher income households making $60,000 or more a year represent 34.0% of all households, those households earning below $30,000 a year comprise the largest share of 37.%. As such, it is clear the market has a broad mix of household income levels. The surrounding SSA has a greater concentration of higher-income households, with over half (51.1%) of the households in the SSA earning $60,000 or more a year.

IV-19  While all household segments by income level within the PSA are projected to grow between 2018 and 2023, it appears that the greatest growth should occur among households earning between $10,000 and $19,999. This household income segment is projected to increase by 434 (11.3%) households over the next five years. Notable growth of more than 300 households over the next five years is also projected to occur among households earning between $20,000 and $29,999 (310 households, 9.0% increase), earning between $60,000 and $99,999 (336 households, 6.6% increase) and earning $100,000 or more (302 households, 7.8% increase). The growth projections indicate a likely increase of housing at a variety of price points and rent levels.

The distribution of renter households by income is illustrated below:

Renter Households by Income $10,000 - $20,000 - $30,000 - $40,000 - $50,000 - $60,000 - <$10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999 $100,000+ 2,305 3,085 2,261 1,726 1,273 589 1,160 240 2010 (18.2%) (24.4%) (17.9%) (13.7%) (10.1%) (4.7%) (9.2%) (1.9%) 2,272 3,177 2,498 1,877 1,555 1,021 1,926 718 2018 (15.1%) (21.1%) (16.6%) (12.5%) (10.3%) (6.8%) (12.8%) (4.8%) PSA 2,252 3,330 2,554 1,941 1,655 1,043 2,066 1,069 2023 (14.2%) (20.9%) (16.1%) (12.2%) (10.4%) (6.6%) (13.0%) (6.7%) Change -20 153 56 64 100 21 140 351 2018-2023 (-0.9%) (4.8%) (2.2%) (3.4%) (6.4%) (2.1%) (7.3%) (48.8%) 895 1,154 797 650 515 213 428 48 2010 (19.0%) (24.6%) (17.0%) (13.8%) (11.0%) (4.5%) (9.1%) (1.0%) 583 1,032 797 650 656 412 759 252 2018 (11.3%) (20.1%) (15.5%) (12.6%) (12.8%) (8.0%) (14.8%) (4.9%) SSA 547 1,061 839 677 755 415 720 316 2023 (10.3%) (19.9%) (15.7%) (12.7%) (14.2%) (7.8%) (13.5%) (5.9%) Change -36 29 42 28 99 2 -39 64 2018-2023 (-6.1%) (2.8%) (5.3%) (4.2%) (15.1%) (0.6%) (-5.1%) (25.3%) 2,927 4,015 3,044 2,434 1,890 887 1,828 313 2010 (16.9%) (23.2%) (17.6%) (14.0%) (10.9%) (5.1%) (10.5%) (1.8%) 2,700 4,026 3,152 2,466 2,240 1,530 2,934 1,133 Combined 2018 (13.4%) (20.0%) (15.6%) (12.2%) (11.1%) (7.6%) (14.5%) (5.6%) (PSA & 2,600 4,125 3,262 2,568 2,440 1,612 2,997 1,633 SSA) 2023 (12.2%) (19.4%) (15.4%) (12.1%) (11.5%) (7.6%) (14.1%) (7.7%) Change -100 99 109 102 200 82 64 499 2018-2023 (-3.7%) (2.5%) (3.5%) (4.1%) (8.9%) (5.3%) (2.2%) (44.1%) 108,481 128,761 86,930 64,518 50,691 28,293 55,263 15,758 2010 (20.1%) (23.9%) (16.1%) (12.0%) (9.4%) (5.3%) (10.3%) (2.9%) 98,767 123,234 91,151 72,194 57,238 38,901 83,553 32,789 2018 (16.5%) (20.6%) (15.2%) (12.1%) (9.6%) (6.5%) (14.0%) (5.5%) Kentucky 98,027 126,091 88,879 69,761 56,297 38,828 82,043 35,443 2023 (16.5%) (21.2%) (14.9%) (11.7%) (9.5%) (6.5%) (13.8%) (6.0%) Change -740 2,857 -2,272 -2,433 -941 -73 -1,511 2,654 2018-2023 (-0.7%) (2.3%) (-2.5%) (-3.4%) (-1.6%) (-0.2%) (-1.8%) (8.1%) Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IV-20 Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 In 2018, the largest number (3,177) of renter households in the PSA earn between $10,000 and $19,999, representing 21.1% of all renter households. The next largest number (2,498) make between $20,000 and $29,999, which represents 16.6% of the renter households in the market. Although most renter household income segments are projected to grow over the next five years, the greatest growth in the PSA is expected to occur among those earning $100,000 or more. This income segment is projected to increase by 351 renter households, representing a 48.8% increase. Notable growth is also projected to occur among those earning between $10,000 and $19,999 (153 households, 4.8% increase) and between $60,000 and $99,999 (140 households, 7.3% increase).

 While the 2018 distribution of renter households by income in the SSA are similar to the PSA, the greatest growth is projected to occur among households earning between $40,000 and $49,999. These middle-income households are projected to grow by 99, representing a 15.1% increase. Notable growth is projected to occur among households earning $100,000 or more annually.

The following graphs compare renter household income data:

PSA - Renter Households by Income (2018/2023)

2018 2023 25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

IV-21 PSA - Change in Renter Households by Income (2018-2023) 350 351 300 250 200 150 153 100 140 100 50 56 64 21 0 -50 -20 <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

The distribution of owner households by income is included below:

Owner Households by Income $10,000 - $20,000 - $30,000 - $40,000 - $50,000 - $60,000 - <$10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999 $100,000+ 370 809 1,172 1,204 1,052 940 2,471 2,434 2010 (3.5%) (7.7%) (11.2%) (11.5%) (10.1%) (9.0%) (23.6%) (23.3%) 330 649 946 969 859 1,181 3,187 3,134 2018 (2.9%) (5.8%) (8.4%) (8.6%) (7.6%) (10.5%) (28.3%) (27.8%) PSA 509 930 1,200 1,147 981 1,291 3,383 3,085 2023 (4.1%) (7.4%) (9.6%) (9.2%) (7.8%) (10.3%) (27.0%) (24.6%) Change 179 281 254 178 122 111 196 -49 2018-2023 (54.3%) (43.3%) (26.8%) (18.4%) (14.2%) (9.4%) (6.1%) (-1.6%) 540 1,158 1,662 1,881 1,803 1,577 4,411 2,851 2010 (3.4%) (7.3%) (10.5%) (11.8%) (11.3%) (9.9%) (27.8%) (18.0%) 351 871 1,254 1,410 1,526 2,113 5,684 5,461 2018 (1.9%) (4.7%) (6.7%) (7.6%) (8.2%) (11.3%) (30.4%) (29.2%) SSA 417 1,022 1,473 1,567 1,749 2,449 6,094 5,857 2023 (2.0%) (5.0%) (7.1%) (7.6%) (8.5%) (11.9%) (29.5%) (28.4%) Change 66 151 219 156 223 337 410 396 2018-2023 (18.7%) (17.4%) (17.4%) (11.1%) (14.6%) (15.9%) (7.2%) (7.3%) 921 2,011 2,905 3,077 2,808 2,474 6,787 5,353 2010 (3.5%) (7.6%) (11.0%) (11.7%) (10.7%) (9.4%) (25.8%) (20.3%) 835 1,704 2,345 2,438 2,356 3,197 8,618 8,432 Combined 2018 (2.8%) (5.7%) (7.8%) (8.1%) (7.9%) (10.7%) (28.8%) (28.2%) (PSA & 1,099 2,151 2,850 2,821 2,687 3,703 9,114 8,729 SSA) 2023 (3.3%) (6.5%) (8.6%) (8.5%) (8.1%) (11.2%) (27.5%) (26.3%) Change 264 447 506 383 331 506 495 298 2018-2023 (31.6%) (26.3%) (21.6%) (15.7%) (14.1%) (15.8%) (5.7%) (3.5%) Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IV-22 (Continued) Owner Households by Income $10,000 - $20,000 - $30,000 - $40,000 - $50,000 - $60,000 - <$10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999 $100,000+ 78,842 123,987 130,898 130,687 120,795 108,827 279,644 207,590 2010 (6.7%) (10.5%) (11.1%) (11.1%) (10.2%) (9.2%) (23.7%) (17.6%) 61,956 98,751 107,984 113,601 104,823 106,640 304,544 300,665 2018 (5.2%) (8.2%) (9.0%) (9.5%) (8.7%) (8.9%) (25.4%) (25.1%) Kentucky 70,442 114,120 116,419 120,316 111,709 109,603 299,136 304,964 2023 (5.7%) (9.2%) (9.3%) (9.7%) (9.0%) (8.8%) (24.0%) (24.5%) Change 8,486 15,369 8,435 6,715 6,886 2,963 -5,407 4,299 2018-2023 (13.7%) (15.6%) (7.8%) (5.9%) (6.6%) (2.8%) (-1.8%) (1.4%) Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 In 2018, most owner-occupied households earn $60,000 or more annually. This income group totals 6,321 households, representing 56.1% of the owner households in the market. The distribution of owner households for the SSA is comparable to the PSA, with the majority of such households in the SSA also earning $60,000 or more a year.

 Between 2018 and 2023, the greatest owner household growth in the PSA is projected to occur among those earning between $10,000 and $19,999 and between $20,000 and $29,999. Combined, these two household income segments will increase by more than 500 households. This growth is likely attributed to seniors who are reaching retirement and will experience notable declines in their incomes. Notable owner household growth in the PSA is expected to occur among those earning between $60,000 and $99,999 (196 households, 6.1% increase) and between $30,000 and $39,999 (178 households, 18.4% increase).

IV-23 The following graphs compare owner household income data:

PSA - Owner Households by Income (2018/2023)

2018 2023 30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

PSA - Change in Owner Households by Income (2018-2023) 300 250 281 254 200 196 150 179 178 100 122 111 50 0 -49 -50 <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

IV-24 The following table shows the distribution of senior (age 55+) renter households by income:

Age 55+ Renter Households by Income $10,000 - $20,000 - $30,000 - $40,000 - $50,000 - $60,000 - <$10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999 $100,000+ 463 937 356 171 146 53 85 23 2010 (20.7%) (41.9%) (15.9%) (7.7%) (6.6%) (2.4%) (3.8%) (1.0%) 567 1,144 599 301 265 115 180 72 2018 (17.5%) (35.3%) (18.5%) (9.3%) (8.2%) (3.5%) (5.6%) (2.2%) PSA 546 1,233 686 363 331 178 279 191 2023 (14.3%) (32.4%) (18.0%) (9.5%) (8.7%) (4.7%) (7.3%) (5.0%) Change -21 89 87 62 66 63 99 119 2018-2023 (-3.7%) (7.8%) (14.5%) (20.5%) (25.1%) (55.3%) (54.9%) (164.7%) 178 304 110 58 45 14 24 4 2010 (24.2%) (41.2%) (14.9%) (7.9%) (6.1%) (1.9%) (3.3%) (0.5%) 185 411 191 94 89 37 62 20 2018 (17.0%) (37.7%) (17.5%) (8.7%) (8.2%) (3.4%) (5.7%) (1.9%) SSA 171 463 250 125 132 46 63 31 2023 (13.3%) (36.2%) (19.5%) (9.7%) (10.3%) (3.6%) (4.9%) (2.4%) Change -14 52 59 30 42 9 1 11 2018-2023 (-7.7%) (12.6%) (30.7%) (31.9%) (47.4%) (24.8%) (1.9%) (52.2%) 605 1,174 463 258 217 84 140 30 2010 (20.4%) (39.5%) (15.6%) (8.7%) (7.3%) (2.8%) (4.7%) (1.0%) 679 1,466 777 431 413 209 354 141 Combined 2018 (15.2%) (32.8%) (17.4%) (9.6%) (9.2%) (4.7%) (7.9%) (3.1%) (PSA & 640 1,579 973 568 522 274 431 283 SSA) 2023 (12.2%) (30.0%) (18.5%) (10.8%) (9.9%) (5.2%) (8.2%) (5.4%) Change -39 113 196 137 109 65 77 142 2018-2023 (-5.7%) (7.7%) (25.2%) (31.7%) (26.4%) (31.2%) (21.7%) (101.1%) 30,761 47,186 22,297 12,045 8,451 3,692 6,814 2,050 2010 (23.1%) (35.4%) (16.7%) (9.0%) (6.3%) (2.8%) (5.1%) (1.5%) 34,276 55,523 29,796 17,364 12,098 6,712 12,850 4,639 2018 (19.8%) (32.0%) (17.2%) (10.0%) (7.0%) (3.9%) (7.4%) (2.7%) Kentucky 34,769 60,406 29,531 16,354 11,805 6,942 13,418 5,419 2023 (19.5%) (33.8%) (16.5%) (9.2%) (6.6%) (3.9%) (7.5%) (3.0%) Change 493 4,883 -264 -1,010 -292 230 568 780 2018-2023 (1.4%) (8.8%) (-0.9%) (-5.8%) (-2.4%) (3.4%) (4.4%) (16.8%) Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 In 2018, the largest number of PSA senior renter households are earning between $10,000 and $19,999 per year, with 1,144 such households representing 35.3% of all senior renter households. On a broader scale, senior renters earning less than $30,000 a year represent nearly three- quarters (71.3%) of senior renter households.

IV-25  Between 2018 and 2023, while virtually all senior renter household income segments in the PSA are projected to grow, the greatest increase is projected to occur among senior renters earning over $60,000 and those earning between $10,000 and $29,999. This growth will increase the need for product affordable to low-income households and higher-income households.

The following graphs compare senior renter household income data:

PSA - Senior (55+) Renter Households by Income (2018/2023)

2018 2023 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

PSA - Change in Senior (55+) Renter Households by Income (2018-2023) 125 119 100 99 75 89 87

50 62 66 63

0 -21 -25 <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

IV-26 The distribution of senior (age 55+) owner households by income are below:

Age 55+ Owner Households by Income $10,000 - $20,000 - $30,000 - $40,000 - $50,000 - $60,000 - <$10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999 $100,000+ 283 686 809 689 588 461 960 944 2010 (5.2%) (12.7%) (14.9%) (12.7%) (10.8%) (8.5%) (17.7%) (17.4%) 259 560 737 638 548 642 1,445 1,350 2018 (4.2%) (9.1%) (11.9%) (10.3%) (8.9%) (10.4%) (23.4%) (21.8%) PSA 361 756 849 665 546 690 1,513 1,406 2023 (5.3%) (11.1%) (12.5%) (9.8%) (8.0%) (10.2%) (22.3%) (20.7%) Change 102 196 112 27 -2 48 68 56 2018-2023 (39.5%) (35.0%) (15.2%) (4.3%) (-0.4%) (7.4%) (4.7%) (4.2%) 352 868 1,007 954 834 628 1,378 898 2010 (5.1%) (12.5%) (14.6%) (13.8%) (12.1%) (9.1%) (19.9%) (13.0%) 281 756 972 905 911 1,056 2,451 2,117 2018 (3.0%) (8.0%) (10.3%) (9.6%) (9.6%) (11.2%) (25.9%) (22.4%) SSA 332 897 1,180 1,023 1,069 1,262 2,655 2,387 2023 (3.1%) (8.3%) (10.9%) (9.5%) (9.9%) (11.7%) (24.6%) (22.1%) Change 51 141 208 119 159 206 204 270 2018-2023 (18.2%) (18.7%) (21.4%) (13.1%) (17.4%) (19.5%) (8.3%) (12.8%) 664 1,613 1,820 1,619 1,401 1,075 2,317 1,832 2010 (5.4%) (13.1%) (14.7%) (13.1%) (11.4%) (8.7%) (18.8%) (14.8%) 612 1,407 1,723 1,505 1,400 1,641 3,780 3,418 Combined 2018 (4.0%) (9.1%) (11.1%) (9.7%) (9.0%) (10.6%) (24.4%) (22.1%) (PSA & 763 1,729 2,081 1,702 1,511 1,848 4,021 3,750 SSA) 2023 (4.4%) (9.9%) (12.0%) (9.8%) (8.7%) (10.6%) (23.1%) (21.5%) Change 151 322 358 197 111 207 241 332 2018-2023 (24.6%) (22.9%) (20.8%) (13.1%) (7.9%) (12.6%) (6.4%) (9.7%) 51,208 91,863 83,332 69,897 58,706 44,584 102,194 72,614 2010 (8.9%) (16.0%) (14.5%) (12.2%) (10.2%) (7.8%) (17.8%) (12.6%) 45,365 81,730 80,749 72,964 62,029 55,768 141,207 123,686 2018 (6.8%) (12.3%) (12.2%) (11.0%) (9.3%) (8.4%) (21.3%) (18.6%) Kentucky 53,012 97,619 88,748 77,004 66,126 58,373 146,575 133,349 2023 (7.4%) (13.5%) (12.3%) (10.7%) (9.2%) (8.1%) (20.3%) (18.5%) Change 7,647 15,889 7,998 4,040 4,096 2,605 5,368 9,663 2018-2023 (16.9%) (19.4%) (9.9%) (5.5%) (6.6%) (4.7%) (3.8%) (7.8%) Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Noteworthy observations from the preceding table include:

 The largest number of senior homeowners in the PSA in 2018 is among those making between $60,000 and $99,999 annually, with a notable number of households earning $100,000 or more. Meanwhile, it is projected that between 2018 and 2023, most of the growth among this age group of homeowners will occur among those earning below $30,000 a year. This growth is likely due to people entering retirement age and experiencing declines in income.

IV-27  In the broader SSA, most senior homeowners in 2018 earn $60,000 or more a year. Unlike the PSA, the SSA is projected to experience most of its growth among households earning $50,000 or more a year, though lower income segments will also experience some growth.

The following graphs compare senior owner household income data:

PSA - Senior (55+) Owner Households by Income (2018/2023)

2018 2023 25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

PSA - Change in Senior (55+) Owner Households by Income (2018-2023) 200 175 196 150 125 100 112 75 102 50 68 48 56 25 27 0 -2 -25 <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

IV-28 D. Demographic Theme Maps

The following demographic theme maps for the study areas are presented after this page:

 Median Household Income  Renter Household Share  Owner Household Share  Older Adult Population Share (55 + years)  Younger Adult Population Share (20 to 34 years)  Population Density

The demographic data used in these maps is based on US Census, ACS and ESRI data sets.

IV-29 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Census Block Groups 2018 Median Household Income Median Household Income <= $25,000 $25,001 - $35,000 $35,001 - $45,000 $45,001 - $55,000 $55,000 +

0 0.5 1 2 3 1:157,466 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Census Block Groups 2018 Renter Share of Households Renter Share <= 15% 15.1% - 30% 30.1% - 45% 45.1% - 60% 60% +

0 0.5 1 2 3 1:157,466 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Census Block Groups 2018 Owner Share of Households Owner Share <= 70% 70.1% - 75% 75.1% - 80% 80.1% - 85% 85.0% +

0 0.5 1 2 3 1:157,466 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Census Block Groups 2018 Older Adult (55+) Population Older Population (55+) <= 150 151 - 300 301 - 450 451 - 600 600 +

0 0.5 1 2 3 1:157,466 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Census Block Groups 2018 Younger Adult (20-34) Population Younger Population (20-34) <= 150 151 - 300 301 - 450 451 - 600 600 +

0 0.5 1 2 3 1:157,466 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Census Block Groups 2018 Population Density Persons Per Sq. Mile <= 500 501 - 1,000 1,001 - 1,500 1,501 - 2,000 2,000 +

Owner- and Renter-Household Growth is Projected to be Positive, as is Growth Among all Household Sizes – While rental housing development has outpaced for-sale housing development and has led to increasing shares of renter-occupied housing in the city since 2000, it is projected between 2018 and 2023 that the number of new owner-occupied households and renter-occupied households will both increase, with slightly greater growth towards homeownership. It is projected that the number of renter households will increase by 866 and owner-occupied households will increase by 1,272. This growth will add to the need for both new for-sale and rental housing. Renter household growth is projected to primarily occur among two-person households and five-person or larger households, leading to a need for both smaller and larger unit types. Meanwhile, owner household growth is primarily projected to occur among smaller household types of one- and two-person households, leading to greater demand for smaller units. Despite this, there appears to be a need for three-bedroom units, as area stakeholders indicated such housing has limited availability. Bowen National Research’s survey of area housing alternatives confirmed the lack of available three-bedroom or larger units in the city.

IV-36 The City’s Poverty Rate is Well Above the Region and State Averages, With Over 15,000 People and Over One-Fourth of All Children in the City Living in Poverty – The city had a much higher share (27.5%) of people living below the poverty level than the SSA (11.1%) and Kentucky statewide (18.9%). Of the more than 15,000 people living in poverty in the city, more than 4,800 are children under the age of 18. The children living in poverty represent over one-fourth (27.1%) of all children under the age of 18. These statistics indicate that affordable housing will remain important in the city, particularly housing affordable to low-income families.

Household Income Growth is Projected to Occur Among All Household Income Segments – Although most renter household income segments are projected to grow over the next five years, the greatest growth in the city is expected to occur among those earning $100,000 or more annually. This income segment is projected to increase by 351 renter households, representing a 48.8% increase. Notable growth is also projected to occur among those earning between $10,000 and $19,999 (153 households, 4.8% increase) and between $60,000 and $99,999 (140 households, 7.3% increase). During this same five-year period, the greatest owner household growth in the city is projected to occur among those earning between $10,000 and $19,999 and between $20,000 and $29,999. Combined, these two household income segments will increase by more than 500 households. This growth is likely attributed to seniors who are reaching retirement and will experience notable declines in their incomes. Notable owner-household growth in the PSA is expected to occur among those earning between $60,000 and $99,999 (196 households, 6.1% increase) and between $30,000 and $39,999 (178 households, 18.4% increase). These projected growth trends will contribute to the demand for additional product at a variety of price/rent levels.

IV-37 V. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

The need for housing within a given geographic area is influenced by the number of households choosing to live there. Although the number of households in Bowling Green at any given time is a function of many factors, one of the primary reasons for residency is job availability. In this section, the workforce and employment that affect the PSA (Bowling Green) are examined.

In Section B below, an overview of the workforce is provided through several overall metrics: employment by industry, wages by occupation, total employment, unemployment rates and in-place employment trends. When available, county employment data is evaluated in detail and compared statistically with the state of Kentucky and the United States. We also evaluated the area’s largest employers, new and expanding employers, and both contracting and closing businesses.

Finally, in Section C, conclusions of economic conditions and trends are provided, along with our opinion as to how employment factors will influence future housing needs within the PSA.

B. Workforce Analysis

While the PSA has an employment base of over 53,000 people, the market’s economy and population is influenced by the surrounding area’s economy and employment sectors. Given that the PSA (Bowling Green) and the SSA (balance of Warren County) influence each other, it is important to understand the type of employment opportunities that exist for Bowling Green residents, both within and outside of the city. Of the 53,524 persons employed in the PSA, the largest job sectors include Healthcare & Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Manufacturing and Accommodation & Food Service, each of which represent over 12% of the overall MSA’s employment base.

V-1 Employment by Industry

The distribution of employment by industry sector for the various geographic areas studied in this report is listed below:

Employment by Industry PSA SSA Combined (PSA & SSA) Kentucky NAICS Group Employees Percent Employees Percent Employees Percent Employees Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 16 0.0% 105 1.1% 121 0.2% 10,968 0.6% Mining 39 0.1% 27 0.3% 66 0.1% 12,685 0.6% Utilities 361 0.7% 2 0.0% 363 0.6% 10,713 0.5% Construction 1,307 2.4% 2,086 21.4% 3,393 5.4% 82,788 4.2% Manufacturing 8,174 15.3% 1,108 11.3% 9,282 14.7% 198,751 10.1% Wholesale Trade 2,949 5.5% 947 9.7% 3,896 6.2% 88,598 4.5% Retail Trade 9,281 17.3% 812 8.3% 10,093 15.9% 272,614 13.8% Transportation & Warehousing 841 1.6% 364 3.7% 1,205 1.9% 50,144 2.5% Information 894 1.7% 78 0.8% 972 1.5% 42,205 2.1% Finance & Insurance 1,666 3.1%93 1.0% 1,759 2.8% 75,052 3.8% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 1,203 2.2% 171 1.8% 1,374 2.2% 38,970 2.0% Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 2,009 3.8%181 1.9% 2,190 3.5% 99,329 5.0% Management of Companies & Enterprises 52 0.1%3 0.0% 55 0.1% 5,7580.3% Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services 883 1.6% 201 2.1% 1,084 1.7% 46,930 2.4% Educational Services 2,066 3.9% 1,504 15.4% 3,570 5.6% 157,875 8.0% Health Care & Social Assistance 10,116 18.9% 367 3.8% 10,483 16.6% 319,450 16.2% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 845 1.6% 111 1.1% 956 1.5% 28,163 1.4% Accommodation & Food Services 6,621 12.4% 779 8.0% 7,400 11.7% 188,049 9.5% Other Services (Except Public Administration) 2,253 4.2% 430 4.4% 2,683 4.2% 108,570 5.5% Public Administration 1,845 3.4% 382 3.9% 2,227 3.5% 136,744 6.9% Non-classifiable 103 0.2% 19 0.2% 122 0.2% 2,853 0.1% Total 53,524 100.0% 9,770 100.0% 63,294 100.0% 1,977,209 100.0% *Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the Site PSA. These employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the Site PSA.

Generally, the PSA’s employment base is well balanced, with no job sector representing more than 18.9% of the city’s overall employment base. Given that Health Care & Social Assistance represents the PSA’s largest employment sector and is less susceptible to major economic fluctuations, this sector adds to the PSA’s economic stability. The employment base in the SSA (balance of Warren County) is primarily concentrated in the Construction (21.4%), Educational Services (15.4%) and Manufacturing (11.3%) job sectors. It is worth pointing out that many of the Manufacturing jobs in the SSA appear to comprise several Small Goods Producing companies. The shares of employment for the PSA is very comparable to the state of Kentucky’s averages.

The following graph illustrates the distribution of employment by job sector for the five largest employment sectors in the PSA (Bowling Green) compared to the SSA (balance of Warren County).

V-2 PSA Top 5 Employment by Industry (vs SSA & Kentucky) PSA SSA Kentucky 20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% Health Care & Retail Manufacturing Accom. & Food Wholesale Social Assist. Trade Services Trade

While the PSA is most influenced by the Health Care & Social Assistance and Retail Trade job sectors, the surrounding SSA is most heavily influenced by the Construction and Educational Services sectors (not shown in graph). As such, it appears that the PSA and SSA employment bases are complimentary to each other and add to the overall diversity and strength of the Warren County economy as a whole.

Typical wages by job category for the Bowling Green Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are compared with those of Kentucky in the following table:

Typical Wage by Occupation Type Occupation Type Bowling Green MSA Kentucky Management Occupations $87,380 $94,030 Business and Financial Occupations $58,540 $62,060 Computer and Mathematical Occupations $57,830 $68,790 Architecture and Engineering Occupations $67,280 $72,460 Community and Social Service Occupations $38,290 $42,090 Art, Design, Entertainment and Sports Medicine Occupations $38,590 $44,220 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $69,410 $70,740 Healthcare Support Occupations $27,850 $29,610 Protective Service Occupations $34,340 $35,660 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $22,180 $21,060 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $24,410 $26,020 Personal Care and Service Occupations $23,680 $25,240 Sales and Related Occupations $31,490 $34,230 Office and Administrative Support Occupations $32,200 $33,490 Construction and Extraction Occupations $41,870 $45,740 Installation, Maintenance and Repair Occupations $41,450 $45,650 Production Occupations $36,690 $37,540 Transportation and Moving Occupations $31,770 $36,320 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics

V-3 Within the Bowling Green MSA, wages by occupation vary widely and are reflective of a diverse job base that covers a wide range of industry sectors and job skills, as well as diverse levels of education and experience. Most annual blue-collar salaries range from $22,180 to $41,870 within the Bowling Green MSA. White-collar jobs, such as those related to professional positions, management and medicine, have an average salary of $68,088. While the wide range of wages by occupations support a broad mix of housing affordability levels, the fact that most of the typical wages by occupation fall below $42,000 indicate that much of the housing stock will need to be affordable to these lower income levels.

The following tables were generated from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and reflect employment trends of the county in which the site is located.

Excluding 2018, the employment base has increased by 7.8% over the past five years in Warren County, more than the Kentucky state increase of 3.2%. Total employment reflects the number of employed persons who live within the county. The following illustrates the total employment base for Warren County, Kentucky and the United States.

Total Employment Warren County Kentucky United States Percent Percent Percent Year Total Number Change Total Number Change Total Number Change 2008 54,741 ‐ 1,900,683 ‐ 146,047,748 ‐ 2009 52,766 -3.6% 1,847,126 -2.8% 140,696,560 -3.7% 2010 52,861 0.2% 1,844,650 -0.1% 140,469,139 -0.2% 2011 54,095 2.3% 1,862,928 1.0% 141,791,255 0.9% 2012 55,795 3.1% 1,891,162 1.5% 143,621,634 1.3% 2013 56,322 0.9% 1,890,879 0.0% 145,017,562 1.0% 2014 56,015 -0.5% 1,874,516 -0.9% 147,446,676 1.7% 2015 56,277 0.5% 1,872,326 -0.1% 149,733,744 1.6% 2016 58,864 4.6% 1,909,158 2.0% 152,169,822 1.6% 2017 60,724 3.2% 1,952,066 2.2% 154,577,364 1.6% 2018* 62,279 2.6% 1,978,000 1.3% 156,301,105 1.1% Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics *Through November

V-4 Warren County Total Employment (2008-2018*) 64,000

62,000

60,000

58,000

56,000

54,000

52,000

50,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018*

*Through November

As the preceding illustrates, the Warren County employment base has increased by 9,419 employees since 2010, representing a significant increase of 17.8% over the past eight years. Growth over the past two full years (2016 and 2017) has been considerably strong, increasing by an annual rate of over 3.0%. With several recent economic expansion and relocation announcements, it is expected that job growth will remain strong in the county for the foreseeable future.

Unemployment rates for Warren County, Kentucky and the United States are illustrated as follows:

Unemployment Rate Year Warren County Kentucky United States 2008 5.4% 6.4% 5.8% 2009 9.9% 10.4% 9.3% 2010 9.2% 10.2% 9.7% 2011 8.3% 9.4% 9.0% 2012 7.0% 8.2% 8.1% 2013 6.9% 8.0% 7.4% 2014 5.6% 6.5% 6.2% 2015 4.5% 5.3% 5.3% 2016 4.0% 5.1% 4.9% 2017 4.1% 4.9% 4.4% 2018* 3.7% 4.3% 4.1% Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics *Through November

V-5 Unemployment Rate (2008-2018*)

Warren Co. Kentucky U.S. 11.0% 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018*

*Through November

Over the past decade, the highest unemployment rate in Warren County was 9.9% in 2009. Since that time, the unemployment rate in the county has declined in virtually each of the past nine years and has generally been one percentage point lower than the state average. The latest (November 2018) unemployment rate of 3.7% within the county represents a 10-year low and is a good indication of the strength of the local job market.

The following table illustrates the monthly unemployment rate in Warren County for the most recent 18-month period for which data is currently available.

Warren County Monthly Unemployment Rate (June 2017 to Nov. 2018) 5.0%

4.5%

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%

2.5% Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

V-6 While the monthly unemployment rate over the past 18 months has fluctuated slightly, it has generally remained between 3% and 4%. These are low rates and are evidence of the continued strength and stability of the local economy. According to local sources, it is not unusual to see the county’s unemployment rate climb during the summer months, as many students leave WKU for summer break.

In-place employment reflects the total number of jobs within the county regardless of the employee's county of residence. The following illustrates the total in-place employment base for Warren County.

In-Place Employment Warren County Year Employment Change Percent Change 2008 56,995 - - 2009 54,006 -2,989 -5.2% 2010 54,951 945 1.7% 2011 56,317 1,366 2.5% 2012 57,922 1,605 2.8% 2013 58,888 966 1.7% 2014 60,044 1,156 2.0% 2015 60,924 880 1.5% 2016 63,089 2,165 3.6% 2017 64,283 1,194 1.9% 2018* 64,267 -17 0.0% Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics *Through June

Data for 2017, the most recent year that year-end figures are available, indicates in-place employment in Warren County to be 105.9% of the total Warren County employment. This means that Warren County has more employed persons coming to the county from other counties for work (daytime employment) than those who both live and work there. The table also illustrates that in-place employment has grown by nearly 1,000 jobs or more on an annual basis over each of the past eight full years. This is very good job growth and a good sign of the ongoing strength of the local economy.

V-7 Economic Drivers & Major Employers

The Bowling Green area economy is diverse, representing a variety of employment sectors and industries. Eight of the largest employers within the Bowling Green area are summarized in the following table:

Employer Name Business Type Total Employed Houchens Industries Retail Grocer 5,000 Western Kentucky University Higher Education 3,455 Commonwealth Health Corporation Home Health Care Services 3,400 Warren County Public Schools Public Education 2,583 Bowling Green Metalforming, LLC Manufacturing 1,618 Fruit of the Loom Manufacturing 1,050 Henkel AG & Co. Manufacturing 930 GM Corvette Assembly Plant Manufacturing 887 Total 18,923 Source: www.southcentralky.com

According to a representative of the Bowling Green Chamber of Commerce, the area economy is doing well. The city of Bowling Green has been nationally ranked in the top ten of Site Selection Magazine’s list of high-performing metros among communities with populations less than 200,000 based on total economic development projects for the past five years. The city was ranked 2nd for the years 2016 and 2017. It is expected to be ranked again for 2018. Bowling Green is also the fastest growing city in the state of Kentucky.

This resource also stated residential development is booming and more employees that were commuting to Bowling Green over the past years have been able to move to the area as different types of housing for middle and upper incomes is becoming available. Many developers are buying huge tracts of land for residential developments and it has pushed up property values in the area.

Finally, the Chamber of Commerce representative indicated that one of Bowling Green’s Metropolitan Statistical Area’s (MSA) biggest challenges, along with the nation’s, is that as the baby boomers are retiring in large numbers there is a big gap between the available workforce and the number of jobs that need to be filled. Data shows that there are 6,000 job openings in Bowling Green’s 10 county MSA and only 1,500 people to fill them. Additionally, data for the state of Kentucky reveals there are 120,000 open jobs and only 30,000 people available to fill then. If this trend continues, the loss of income and occupational taxes available to sustain the public sector and area infrastructure will become a major problem.

V-8 While much of the area is growing and being revitalized, some areas are in need of a little more attention. There is a portion of the city between the U.S. 31-W By-Pass, the Barren River and East Eighth Avenue that has not prospered along with the rest of Bowling Green. The area stakeholders worked to find a way to bring attention and hopefully development to this portion of the city. They were successful in getting the neighborhood designated as an Opportunity Zone in 2018. This designation provides incentives for developers to build in low-income urban and rural communities and help to spur economic growth.

The city commission approved a grant application proposed by the Bowling Green Riverfront Foundation in September 2018, to create an outdoor space that will benefit all residents. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program grant would provide $750,000 to revitalize the applicant’s chosen area green space. If the city receives the grant, they would use it on two tracts of land across the Barren River from Mitch McConnell Park. The city also plans to invest $1.5 million of city funds to add to the grant. The monies would be used to build a boat ramp, fishing areas, create a disc golf course. They would also create a bouldering facility, or wall climbing without ropes or harnesses on low-level walls or boulders. The initial selection will be March 1, 2019, and once this selection is made, the state agencies for the selected projects will work with the applicants to prepare the final grant applications. Final selections could be announced by September 2019.

Each of the previously cited large employers are either stable or expanding and there have been no public announcements of any large-scale layoffs or closures, however there was one notable large-scale closure over the past year of roughly 100 jobs lost at US Bank that took effect on or before September 28, 2018. Despite this closure, the overall Bowling Green area economy has been growing rapidly over the past few years. According to the Bowling Green Chamber of Commerce, at least 16 existing businesses underwent notable expansions, relocated to the area and/or experienced significant investment in 2017. These businesses were expected to bring in nearly 800 new jobs and involve over $270 million in investment. New or expanding business activity in the area appeared to remain strong in 2018, with at least 16 new or expanding businesses totaling nearly $190 million in investments. These investments are expected to create at least 640 jobs. This ongoing economic growth and investment has contributed to Bowling Green being selected as the “Best Place to Live in Kentucky”.

V-9 The following summarizes some notable economic and infrastructure announcements in 2018:

 Alpha Incorporated, a plastic bottle and packaging manufacturer, announced in July of 2018 that it would expand its Bowling Green facility. A $6.9 million investment is expected to result in a 100,000 square-foot expansion of its existing facility and potentially create 24 full-time jobs. The new positions are expected to include process technicians, packaging operators and downstream packaging assistants.

 As part of a $100 million purchase agreement between Constellium N.V. and Tri-Arrows Aluminum Holding Incorporated (TAAH), Constellium will acquire a portion of TAAH and will contract with TAAH for the supply of cold coils from its Logan plant in Kentucky for up to five years. As part of this transaction, Bowling Green’s facility, which provides advanced alloys and other materials, is expected to reach full production in 2020. The transaction is expected to finalize in early 2019. The number of new jobs that could be created was unknown.

 Precision Strip Incorporated, a metals processing company, will invest nearly $32 million to expand its existing Bowling Green facilities with an 80,000 square-foot addition. The company processes, stores and delivers steel and aluminum for several markets, including the automotive, appliance, industrial products and beverage-can industries. The investment and expansion are expected to create 31 additional full-time jobs.

 Kobelco Aluminum Products & Extrusions Incorporated, an automotive parts manufacturer, will expand with a $42 million investment in Bowling Green. The project will create 90 new jobs and bring its total planned employment to 220 and overall investment to $95 million in the state. The expansion is expected to start in January 2019, and begin production in the expanded operation in the first half of 2020.

 Pan-Oston, a retail technology supplier of self-checkout lanes and produce weigh stations, announced plans in December of 2018 for their $3.1 million expansion in Bowling Green. This expansion will involve the purchasing of an existing building on Jody Richards Drive and is expected to create approximately 30 new jobs.

 Afni Incorporated, a customer engagement company, announced plans in the summer of 2018 to invest over $300,000 in an expanded call center in Bowling Green. The expansion was expected to create roughly 86 full-time jobs by the end of 2018.

V-10  Reinhart Foodservice, LLC, announced plans in August of 2018 for an expansion at its 70,000 square-foot facility on Mitch McConnell Way in Bowling Green's South-Central Kentucky Industrial Park. This project more than doubles the broadline foodservice distributor’s existing footprint and includes $14.2 million in capital investment and the addition of 50 new jobs.

 Bowling Green Metalforming, LLC, an automotive manufacturer of truck frame assemblies, engine cradles, body structural stampings and assemblies, suspension links, cross members and trailer hitches announced in July of 2018 its latest investment project that involves the expansion of their over one- million square-foot facility on Cosma Drive in the Kentucky Transpark. BGM is a supplier serving customers like General Motors and Ford Motor Company and currently employs over 1,600 people at the Kentucky Transpark, representing almost 70 percent of the park’s total employment. It is unknown how many jobs may be created from this expansion.

 Stryker Logistics, a Bowling Green-based transportation and storage logistics company, announced plans in June of 2018 to relocate their international headquarters to 308 Dishman Lane. According to their press release, this project is the first new construction for the technology-driven third-party logistics company and will be a $1.45 million capital investment. The investment is expected to create 50 new jobs.

 In June of 2018, Canadian-owned Crown Verity USA, Incorporated, a residential and commercial kitchen and outdoor product manufacturer, broke ground for a new facility at the Kentucky Transpark in Bowling Green. This new location is the company’s first United States location. Crown Verity USA, Incorporated is expected to create 25 new jobs in South Central Kentucky over the next five years.

 Berry Global, Incorporated, announced plans in June of 2018 to expand their existing facility located on Williamette Lane. The Bowling Green operation specializes in the production of lightweight and sustainable packaging solutions for the beverage market. This expansion project includes an investment of approximately $16.5 million and is expected to create 20 new jobs over the next five years.

 American Leather Direct, Incorporated, broke ground on a new distribution facility in May of 2018. American Leather Direct distributes full grain leather for the production of high-quality finished products. This $2.8 million project includes the construction of a 46,410 square-foot facility and will bring an estimated 11 new jobs to Warren County.

V-11  In March of 2018, Southern Recycling, LLC, broke ground on the development of its newest processing facility located on Louisville Road in Bowling Green. This new facility will include state-of-the-art scrap processing equipment, which will increase their capacity for paper, plastic and scrap metal recycling for the region. Southern Recycling specializes in recycling products such as paper and plastic to all grades of scrap metal, including iron, steel, copper, brass, stainless steel, nickel and nickel alloys. While the expansion will allow the company to expand its capacity, it is unknown how many new jobs could be created.

 The Chemico Group opened a 33,000 square-foot paint stripping facility in Bowling Green in early 2018. Chemico is a veteran and minority-owned company that operates three business lines providing chemical management services, coatings removal, paint maintenance and industrial supply solutions. Details of the number of persons to be employed at the new facility were unavailable.

 The Pink Lily Boutique, a provider of women's boutique clothing and accessories, announced plans in early 2018 to double the footprint of their state-of-the-art fulfillment center in Bowling Green's South-Central Kentucky Industrial Park, which will include additional office and industrial space. This expansion involves a $2.05 million investment that is expected to create up to 56 new jobs over the next five years.

 The City-County Planning Commission approved a hotel development plan in October 2017 submitted by Vik Patel of Laxmi Hotels LLC that calls for a four-story, 77-room hotel that combines the Mainstay and Sleep Inn brands. The project would be built within walking distance of the Corvette plant. The dual brands will be connected by a common lobby. The Mainstay side will have 41 suites and Sleep Inn will have 36 rooms on the 2.07-acre site. It is unknown how many permanent jobs will be created by the establishment of the hotel. The hotel is expected to be complete in June or July 2019.

 The Hub is a 103-acre development that will include a mix of lodging, a restaurant, and convention space along Lovers Lane. The plan also calls for a 7,500-square-foot swimming pool that will have a beach-like entrance, a putting green and a walking path in the “central park” area of the development. According to the site developer, the apartments are expected to have rents between $750 and $1,400 a month. American Bank & Trust are planning a three-story, $10 million banking structure on the site. This development is expected to encourage additional ancillary development. The first phase should be open in early 2019.

V-12  The SoDō District is a planned mixed-use development by Tin-Tin Properties that will be centered around the former Sears and Roebuck store located at 1010 State Street. The overall project, which will involve multiple adjacent properties, is expected to include an open-air plaza-like park, ground floor retail space and upper floor apartments. The park space will be known as Roebuck Square. The back of the former Sears building is being converted into retail space on the ground floor facing the square with apartments on the upper floor and is being called The Roebuck. The Mercantile building will be a five-story structure that will feature commercial space on the ground floor, with apartments on the upper floors and a rooftop plaza overlooking Roebuck Square and the downtown area. TinTin properties has also developed a project known as 511 Flats, located at 511 10th Avenue and abuts Roebuck Square. The existing building was renovated for commercial space on the ground floor and the apartments are above the retail space. The overall development will be done in phases. The Roebuck Square, 511 Flats and The Roebuck were completed in the summer and fall of 2018, with The Mercantile Building to follow next. Overall, the SoDō district will have approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial and multi-purpose space, along with a community park, green space areas, bike friendly paths, and community courtyards. More residential units could be built at the project, but nothing has been put into a proposal. This is a long-term project with multiple phases.

Infrastructure

 In October of 2018, a Memorandum of Agreement was made between the Bowling Green City Commission and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to authorize $730,000 of state funding for the design, right-of-way, and utility phases for the Southwest Parkway, from Russellville Road to Kobe Way in the South-Central Kentucky Industrial Park ("SCKIP"). The intent of the project is to relieve commercial traffic on existing local roadways as business growth continues within the park. It is believed that direct access to the SCKIP via Russellville Road in southern Warren County will allow shorter commute times and more efficient travel to companies within the park. Construction is expected to begin in late 2019.

V-13  The widening of Smallhouse Road to three lanes between Highland Way and Roselawn Way is underway. Construction includes storm sewers, curbs and gutters, and an eight-foot wide sidewalk. The anticipated completion date is May 31, 2019.

 Shive Lane Corridor Improvements will begin in summer of 2019. They will widen Shive Lane between Scottsville Road and Ken Bale Boulevard to three lanes and install a right turn lane at Scottsville Road. Other improvements will include new curb, gutter, and storm sewer. They will design and construct a single lane roundabout at the intersection of Ken Bale Boulevard.

 Single lane roundabouts are planned at the intersections of Parkside Drive and Cove Drive, and the intersection of North Sunrise Drive, Cove Drive and Woodway Street. The intersection of Crossings Boulevard, Crossings Court, and Chasefield Avenue will be converted from an existing traffic circle to a single lane roundabout. Construction is estimated to begin in Spring 2019.

 Improvements to Bowling Green’s Downtown Square will soon begin. The flow of pedestrians, bike, and car traffic will be improved. Capital Alley, Morris Alley, and Heritage Trail will be improved. Some of the improvements will include landscaping, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and parking.

 The construction of 4,200 feet of five-foot wide sidewalk along sections of Park Street, Kenton Street, Magnolia Street, and North Lee Drive is planned and the second bidding opportunity will be in spring of 2019. The project also includes construction of curbs and gutters and the installation of various drainage structures.

 The construction of five-foot sidewalks along Sandra Street between the existing Greenway and Potter Avenue, and Potter Avenue between Sandra Street and Morgantown Road is planned. Project is estimated to begin spring 2019.

WARN (layoff notices):

WARN Notices were reviewed on February 19, 2019 and according to the Kentucky Career Center there has been one WARN notice reported over the past 18 months. Below is a table summarizing this notice.

WARN Notices Company Location Jobs Notice Date Effective Date US Bank Bowling Green 100 7-26-2018 9-28-2018

A map delineating the location of the area’s largest employers is on the following page.

V-14 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Major Employers Major Employers

BG Metalforming, LLC

General Motors Corporation Houchens Food Group, Inc.

Commonweath Health Corporation

Western Kentucky University

Warren County Board of Education

Fruit of the Loom

Henkel AG & Co

0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 1:90,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community C. Conclusions

The Bowling Green Economy is Well Balanced, which Adds to the Economic Stability and Strength of the City – The city of Bowling Green has a broad mix of employment sectors, with no sector representing over 19.0% of the city’s employment base. The four largest employment sectors in the city include Healthcare & Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Manufacturing and Accommodation & Food Service. Meanwhile, the employment base in the SSA (balance of Warren County) is primarily concentrated in Construction, Educational Services, and Manufacturing (11.3%). We believe the city’s broad economic base and surrounding area’s complimentary employment sectors add to the city’s economic strength and stability.

The Region has a Broad Mix of Wages by Occupation, which Contributes to the Need for a Variety of Housing Affordability Levels – Most annual blue- collar jobs (typically manual labor jobs paying hourly wages) have salaries ranging from $22,000 to $42,000 within the Bowling Green MSA. White-collar jobs, such as those related to professional positions, management and medicine, have an average salary of just over $68,000. The wide range of wages by occupation contribute to the demand for a variety of housing affordability levels. However, with a majority of current occupations and future job growth having typical wages below $42,000, product that is affordable to these lower-income workers will continue to be an important component to the local housing market.

V-16 VI. Housing Supply Analysis

This housing supply analysis considers both rental and for-sale housing. Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition, and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market conditions and future housing potential. The housing data presented and analyzed in this section include primary data collected directly by Bowen National Research and secondary data sources including American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census housing information and data provided by various government entities and real estate professionals.

While there are a variety of housing alternatives offered in the Primary Study Area (Bowling Green), we focused our analysis on the most common alternatives. The housing structures included in this analysis are:

 Rental Housing – Rental properties consisting of multifamily apartments (generally with 8 or more units) were identified and surveyed. A sample survey of non-conventional rentals (typically with only one or two units in a structure) was also conducted and analyzed.

 For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale housing. Some of these include individual homes, while others were part of a planned development or community, as well as attached multifamily housing such as condominiums. Our analysis includes both historical sales transactions and currently available for-sale housing inventory.

 Senior Care Facilities – We surveyed senior care facilities that provide both shelter and care housing alternatives to seniors requiring some level of personal care (e.g. dressing, bathing, medical reminders, etc.)

For the purposes of this analysis, the housing supply information is presented for the Primary Study Area (PSA, city of Bowling Green) and, when applicable, compared with the broader Secondary Study Area (SSA, balance of Warren County) and the state of Kentucky. This analysis includes secondary Census housing data (renter- and owner-occupied), Bowen National Research’s survey of area rental alternatives, and for-sale housing data (both historical sales and available housing alternatives) obtained from secondary data sources. In addition, we have included data and analyses of senior care facilities (i.e. assisted living and nursing homes). Finally, other housing dynamics such as planned or proposed housing and residential foreclosures were considered for their potential impact on housing market conditions and demand. Please note, the totals in some charts may not equal the sum of individual columns or rows or may vary from the total reported in other tables due to rounding.

Maps illustrating the location of various housing types are included throughout this section.

VI-1 A. Overall Housing Supply (Secondary Data)

This section of analysis on the area housing supply is based on secondary data sources such as the U.S. Census, American Community Survey and ESRI, and is provided for the Primary Study Area (PSA), the Secondary Study Area (SSA), the PSA and SSA Combined, and the state of Kentucky, when applicable.

Housing Characteristics

The distributions of the area housing stock within each study area in 2010 are summarized in the following table:

Households by Tenure - 2010 Total Owner- Renter- Occupied Occupied Occupied Vacant Total Number 23,091 10,452 12,639 1,938 25,029 PSA % 92.3% 45.3% 54.7% 7.7% 100.0% Number 20,583 15,884 4,699 1,611 22,194 SSA % 92.7% 77.2% 22.8% 7.3% 100.0% Combined Number 43,674 26,336 17,338 3,549 47,223 (PSA & SSA) % 92.5% 60.3% 39.7% 7.5% 100.0% Number 1,719,965 1,181,271 538,694 207,199 1,927,164 Kentucky % 89.2% 68.7% 31.3% 10.8% 100.0% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, of the estimated 25,029 total occupied housing units in the PSA (Bowling Green), 54.7% were renter-occupied while the balance of 45.3% consists of owner-occupied housing. Conversely, the surrounding SSA (balance of Warren County) is dominated by owner-occupied households, which represented over three-fourths (77.2%) of the occupied units. While the Census data shows that 8.5% of the housing in the PSA was vacant, this likely includes homes that were vacation homes, abandoned/uninhabitable or were temporarily vacant for-sale or for-rent housing structures.

VI-2 Households by Tenure (2010)

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied 100.0% 22.8% 31.3% 80.0% 54.7% 60.0%

40.0% 77.2% 68.7%

20.0% 45.3%

0.0% PSA SSA Kentucky

Based on ACS data (the latest data available), the following is a distribution of all renter-occupied housing units in each study area by year of construction.

Renter-Occupied Housing by Year Built 2014 to 2010 to 2000 to 1990 to 1980 to 1970 to 1950 to 1949 or 2016 2013 2009 1999 1989 1979 1969 Earlier Total Number 16 520 2,649 2,422 1,380 2,592 2,718 1,579 13,876 PSA % 0.1% 3.7% 19.1% 17.5% 9.9% 18.7% 19.6% 11.4% 100.0% Number 0 444 1,240 1,432 870 866 512 357 5,721 SSA % 0.0% 7.8% 21.7% 25.0% 15.2% 15.1% 8.9% 6.2% 100.0% Combined Number 16 964 3,889 3,854 2,250 3,458 3,230 1,936 19,597 (PSA & SSA) % 0.1% 4.9% 19.8% 19.7% 11.5% 17.6% 16.5% 9.9% 100.0% Number 1,875 13,752 69,198 86,880 81,854 107,089 118,892 90,774 570,314 Kentucky % 0.3% 2.4% 12.1% 15.2% 14.4% 18.8% 20.8% 15.9% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

As evidenced by the table above, the largest share (19.6%) of occupied rental housing supply in the PSA was built between 1950 and 1969. A nearly equal share (19.1%) of the existing supply was built between 2000 and 2009, while just over 17% of the rental supply was built between 1990 and 1999. Based on this analysis, the PSA has a good mix of rental product by age. The shares of rental product in the surrounding SSA demonstrate slightly more modern product. It should be pointed out that the preceding table likely under-reports the number of rental units built since 2010 in part because the data only reflects through 2016. Based on multifamily residential building permit data for the PSA, there have been more than 3,000 multifamily residential units permitted in the market since 2010. While not all of these units are rentals, they still indicate that the market has introduced a large number of rental units since 2010.

VI-3 The following is a distribution of all owner-occupied housing units in each study area by year of construction.

Owner-Occupied Housing by Year Built 2014 to 2010 to 2000 to 1990 to 1980 to 1970 to 1950 to 1949 or 2016 2013 2009 1999 1989 1979 1969 Earlier Total Number 25 194 1,725 1,592 1,400 1,545 2,296 1,222 9,999 PSA % 0.3% 1.9% 17.3% 15.9% 14.0% 15.5% 23.0% 12.2% 100.0% Number 86 1,035 4,086 4,185 2,140 2,540 1,358 948 16,378 SSA % 0.5% 6.3% 24.9% 25.6% 13.1% 15.5% 8.3% 5.8% 100.0% Combined Number 111 1,229 5,811 5,777 3,540 4,085 3,654 2,170 26,377 (PSA & SSA) % 0.4% 4.7% 22.0% 21.9% 13.4% 15.5% 13.9% 8.2% 100.0% Number 3,633 25,503 199,349 216,353 138,364 183,119 233,188 148,394 1,147,903 Kentucky % 0.3% 2.2% 17.4% 18.8% 12.1% 16.0% 20.3% 12.9% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

As reported by ACS, the largest share (23.0%) of the owner-occupied housing stock in the PSA was constructed between 1950 and 1969. The ACS data also indicates that nearly 20% of the owner-occupied housing stock in the PSA was constructed since 2000. Based on this analysis, the PSA has a good mix of older and newer owner-occupied housing stock. As was the case with rental housing, we believe the preceding table underreports the amount of owner-occupied housing developed in the PSA since 2010. There have been nearly 1,100 single- family home building permits issued in the PSA since 2010, which is a more accurate reflection of owner-occupied residential development in the PSA in recent years.

The following is a distribution of all renter-occupied housing by units in structure for each study area.

Renter-Occupied Housing by Units in Structure

50+ Total 2 to 4 2 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 10 to 19 20 to 49 1; Attached 1; Attached 1; Detached 1; Detached Mobile Homes Homes Mobile Boat, RV, Vans Number 3,954 235 4,231 2,384 926 1,071 455 621 0 13,877 PSA % 28.5% 1.7% 30.5% 17.2% 6.7% 7.7% 3.3% 4.5% 0.0% 100.0% Number 2,667 112 1,132 628 198 188 49 733 13 5,720 SSA % 46.6% 2.0% 19.8% 11.0% 3.5% 3.3% 0.9% 12.8% 0.2% 100.0% Combined Number 6,621 347 5,363 3,012 1,124 1,259 504 1,354 13 19,597 (PSA & SSA) % 33.8% 1.8% 27.4% 15.4% 5.7% 6.4% 2.6% 6.9% 0.1% 100.0% Number 207,616 20,075 110,337 75,329 51,822 23,806 24,052 56,832 445 570,314 Kentucky % 36.4% 3.5% 19.3% 13.2% 9.1% 4.2% 4.2% 10.0% 0.1% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

VI-4 Nearly two-thirds (60.7%) of the renter-occupied units in the PSA are within structures of four units or less. Nearly one-third (34.9%) of the rental supply is within multifamily structures with five or more units. The distribution of the rental units in the PSA is more concentrated toward multifamily structures than the surrounding SSA and Kentucky.

Renter-Occupied Housing by Units in Structure (2012-2016)

PSA SSA Kentucky 70.0%

60.0% 65.3%

50.0% 48.6% 50.0% 40.0% 39.9% 38.4% 30.0% 30.2% 20.0%

10.0% 13.0% 4.5% 10.1% 0.0% Single-Family Multifamily Other

The following is a distribution of all owner-occupied housing by units in structure for each study area.

Owner-Occupied Housing by Units in Structure

50+ Total 2 to 4 2 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 10 to 19 20 to 49 1; Attached 1; Detached 1; Detached Mobile Homes Homes Mobile Boat, RV, Vans Number 9,013 190 200 7 9 11 46 517 8 10,001 PSA % 90.1% 1.9% 2.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 5.2% 0.1% 100.0% Number 14,944 121 53 2 0 0 0 1,256 0 16,376 SSA % 91.3% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0% Combined Number 23,957 311 253 9 9 11 46 1,773 8 26,377 (PSA & SSA) % 90.8% 1.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0% Number 968,660 24,630 8,430 5,548 3,862 1,692 1,598 132,926 557 1,147,903 Kentucky % 84.4% 2.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 11.6% 0.0% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Virtually all (92.0%) of the owner-occupied housing stock in the PSA consists of single-family homes, while a notable share (5.2%) consists of mobile homes. Based on this data, there do not appear to be many condominium units in the market. This is very comparable to the SSA. The lack of multifamily for-sale product in the PSA may represent a development opportunity.

VI-5

Owner-Occupied Housing by Units in Structure (2012-2016)

PSA SSA Kentucky 100.0% 90.0% 92.0% 92.0% 80.0% 86.5% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 11.6% 10.0% 5.3% 7.7% 2.7% 0.3% 1.9% 0.0% Single-Family Multifamily Other

The following table summarizes the distribution of owner-occupied housing values within the county using 2012-2016 American Community Survey estimates and 2018 estimates.

Home Value 2012-2016 (ACS) 2018 (Estimated) LESS THAN $20,000 491 4.9% 279 2.5% $20,000-$39,999 307 3.1% 175 1.6% $40,000-$59,999 241 2.4% 209 1.9% $60,000-$79,999 866 8.7% 933 8.3% $80,000-$99,999 751 7.5% 810 7.2% $100,000-$149,999 2,584 25.9% 3,042 27.1% $150,000-$199,999 1,950 19.6% 2,134 19.0% $200,000-$299,999 1,676 16.8% 1,960 17.5% $300,000-$399,999 491 4.9% 806 7.2% $400,000-$499,999 295 3.0% 392 3.5% $500,000-$749,999 199 2.0% 346 3.1% $750,000-$999,999 71 0.7% 48 0.4% $1,000,000 + 37 0.4% 88 0.8% Total 9,959 100.0% 11,222 100.0% Median Value $144,959 $154,206 Source: American Community Survey

Based on ACS estimates, the largest concentration of estimated home values were between $100,000 and $149,999. The estimated median home value in 2017 was $154,206. This differs from the currently available supply identified in the city and discussed in detail later in this section, which primarily consists of product priced at $250,000 or higher.

VI-6 Substandard housing is an important component to consider when evaluating a housing market and potential housing need. Substandard housing is generally considered housing that 1.) Lacks complete kitchen and/or bathroom facilities, 2.) Is overcrowded, and 3.) Has a rent/cost over-burden situation. Markets with a disproportionately high share of any of the preceding substandard housing characteristics may be in need of replacement housing. As a result, we have evaluated each of these characteristics for the various study areas.

The following table demonstrates the share of substandard renter-occupied housing found in the study areas, based on the presence or absence of kitchen and bathroom facilities:

Renter-Occupied Housing by Kitchen & Bathroom Characteristics Kitchens Bathrooms Complete Incomplete Total Complete Incomplete Total Number 13,674 202 13,876 13,776 101 13,877 PSA % 98.5% 1.5% 100.0% 99.3% 0.7% 100.0% Number 5,661 60 5,721 5,675 45 5,720 SSA % 99.0% 1.0% 100.0% 99.2% 0.8% 100.0% Combined Number 19,335 262 19,597 19,451 146 19,597 (PSA & SSA) % 98.7% 1.3% 100.0% 99.3% 0.7% 100.0% Number 562,130 8,184 570,314 566,685 3,629 570,314 Kentucky % 98.6% 1.4% 100.0% 99.4% 0.6% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Based on the 2012-2016 ACS estimates, the percentage of renter-occupied housing with incomplete kitchen facilities was 1.5% in the PSA. An additional 0.7% of renter-occupied units had incomplete bathroom plumbing facilities. While representing small shares, there are potentially 303 renter-occupied units in the PSA that have either incomplete bathrooms or kitchens.

The distribution of owner-occupied housing units that lack complete kitchen or plumbing facilities for each of the study areas is summarized below:

Owner-Occupied Housing by Kitchen & Bathroom Characteristics Kitchens Bathrooms Complete Incomplete Total Complete Incomplete Total Number 9,977 23 10,000 9,985 15 10,000 PSA % 99.8% 0.2% 100.0% 99.9% 0.2% 100.0% Number 16,377 0 16,377 16,377 0 16,377 SSA % 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Combined Number 26,354 23 26,377 26,362 15 26,377 (PSA & SSA) % 99.9% 0.1% 100.0% 99.9% 0.1% 100.0% Number 1,143,546 4,357 1,147,903 1,143,416 4,487 1,147,903 Kentucky % 99.6% 0.4% 100.0% 99.6% 0.4% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Owner-occupied housing units which lack complete kitchen or bathroom facilities comprise only 0.4% of all owner-occupied housing units in the PSA.

VI-7 PSA vs SSA Substandard Housing (2012-2016) PSA SSA 225 200 202 175 150 125 100 101 75

50 60 25 45 0 Incomplete Kitchen Incomplete Bathroom

The following table illustrates the percentage of households that are living in crowded quarters by tenure, as defined by the presence of 1.01 or more occupants per room.

Occupied Housing by Household Size (Occupants Per Owner-Occupied Room) Renter Owner < 1.0 1.01+ Total < 1.0 1.01+ Total Number 13,030 846 13,876 9,889 111 10,000 PSA % 93.9% 6.1% 100.0% 98.9% 1.1% 100.0% Number 5,313 408 5,721 16,313 64 16,377 SSA % 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% 99.6% 0.4% 100.0% Combined Number 18,343 1,254 19,597 26,202 175 26,377 (PSA & SSA) % 93.6% 6.4% 100.0% 99.3% 0.7% 100.0% Number 550,552 19,762 570,314 1,135,758 12,145 1,147,903 Kentucky % 96.5% 3.5% 100.0% 98.9% 1.1% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Of the 13,876 renter-occupied housing units in the PSA, 846 (6.1%) have 1.01 or more occupants per room and are considered overcrowded. A total of 111 (1.1%) owner-occupied housing units are considered overcrowded.

While overcrowded households were discussed above, we also evaluated severe overcrowded housing, which is considered a unit with 1.51 or more persons per room. The following table illustrates the severe overcrowded households by tenure for the various study areas.

VI-8 Overcrowded Severe Overcrowded Renter Owner Renter Owner County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent PSA 846 6.1% 111 1.1% 257 1.9% 11 0.1% SSA 408 7.1% 64 0.4% 69 1.2% 17 0.1% Combined (PSA & SSA) 1,254 6.4% 175 0.7% 326 1.7% 28 0.1% Kentucky 19,762 3.5% 12,145 1.1% 4,698 0.8% 2,247 0.2% Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey

Severe overcrowded households total 257 renter-occupied households and only 11 owner-occupied households. As such, it is clear that a notable number of renter households are struggling with severe overcrowded housing, which is considered substandard housing.

Overcrowded/Severe Overcrowded Households (2012-2016)

PSA Renter SSA Renter PSA Owner SSA Owner 900 800 846 700 600 500 400 408 300 200 111 257 100 64 69 11 17 0 Overcrowded Severe Overcrowded

VI-9 Households that are cost burdened (typically paying more than 30% of income towards housing costs) often find it difficult paying for housing and meeting other financial obligations. The following table compares the percent of household income that is applied to housing costs based on data provided by American Community Survey.

Occupied Housing by Percent of Income Paid Towards Rent Renter Owner 20%- Above 20%- Above < 20% 30% 30% Unknown Total < 20% 30% 30% Unknown Total Number 3,176 3,337 6,317 1,047 13,877 5,706 1,990 2,225 78 9,999 PSA % 22.9% 24.0% 45.5% 7.5% 100.0% 57.1% 19.9% 22.3% 0.8% 100.0% Number 1,740 1,389 1,995 596 5,720 10,209 3,461 2,673 35 16,378 SSA % 30.4% 24.3% 34.9% 10.4% 100.0% 62.3% 21.1% 16.3% 0.2% 100.0% Combined Number 4,916 4,726 8,312 1,643 19,597 15,915 5,451 4,898 113 26,377 (PSA & SSA) % 25.1% 24.1% 42.4% 8.4% 100.0% 60.3% 20.7% 18.6% 0.4% 100.0% Number 145,445 119,886 237,142 67,841 570,314 700,450 217,367 219,639 10,447 1,147,903 Kentucky % 25.5% 21.0% 41.6% 11.9% 100.0% 61.0% 18.9% 19.1% 0.9% 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

An estimated 45.5% of renter-occupied households in the PSA are paying more than 30% of their income towards rent. This is a noticeably higher share of rent burdened households than the SSA (34.9%) but slightly higher when compared with the state of Kentucky (41.7%). With nearly half of all renters in the PSA paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards rents, it is clear that many renter households in the PSA are likely struggling to meet their housing costs. The homeowner housing cost burdened challenges for PSA homeowners are less pronounced at 22.3%, which is slightly higher than the SSA (16.3%) and the state average (19.1%).

Severe cost burdened households are considered as those paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs. The following table illustrates the severe cost burdened households in the various study areas.

Cost Burdened Severe Cost Burdened Renter Owner Renter Owner County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent PSA 6,317 45.5% 2,225 22.3% 3,436 24.8% 833 8.3% SSA 1,995 34.9% 2,673 16.3% 858 15.0% 1,133 6.9% Combined (PSA & SSA) 8,312 42.4% 4,898 18.6% 4,294 21.9% 1,966 7.5% Kentucky 237,142 41.6% 219,639 19.1% 119,546 21.0% 86,628 7.5% Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey

Among PSA’s renter households, a total of 3,436, or 24.8%, are severe cost burdened, while 15.0% are severe cost burdened in the surrounding SSA. Within Kentucky, this ratio is 21.0%. The share of severe cost burden owner households is 8.3% in the county, which is slightly higher than the SSA (6.9%) and the state (7.5%).

VI-10 Cost Burdened/Severe Cost Burdened Households (2012-2016)

PSA Renter SSA Renter PSA Owner SSA Owner 7,000

6,000 6,317 5,000

4,000

3,000 3,436 2,000 2,673 1,995 2,225 1,000 858 833 1,133 0 Cost Burdened Severe Cost Burdened

Cost Burdened/Severe Cost Burdened Households (2012-2016)

PSA Renter SSA Renter PSA Owner SSA Owner 50.0%

45.5% 40.0%

30.0% 34.9%

24.8% 20.0% 22.3% 16.3% 10.0% 15.0%

8.3% 6.9% 0.0% Cost Burdened Severe Cost Burdened

VI-11 B. Housing Supply Analysis (Bowen National Survey)

1. Multifamily Rental Housing

During November and December of 2018, Bowen National Research surveyed (both by telephone and in-person) numerous multifamily rental housing projects within PSA (Bowling Green) and SSA (balance of Warren County). While these rentals do not represent all multifamily rental housing projects in the market, they provide significant insight as to the market conditions of commonly offered multifamily rental product. We believe this survey represents a good base from which characteristics and trends of multifamily rental housing can be evaluated and from which conclusions can be drawn.

Projects identified, inventoried, and surveyed operate under a number of affordable housing programs including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), HUD Section 8, and Rural Development Section 515 programs, as well as market-rate. Definitions of each housing program are included in Addendum H: Glossary.

Managers and leasing agents at each project were surveyed to collect a variety of property information including vacancies, rental rates, design characteristics, amenities, utility responsibility, and other features. Each project was also rated based on quality and upkeep. Each surveyed property was photographed and mapped as part of this survey.

Data collected during our survey is presented in aggregate format for the Primary Study Area (PSA, Bowling Green), and Secondary Study Area (SSA, balance of Warren County).

Overall, we identified and personally surveyed 90 multifamily rental housing projects within Warren County. A total of 77 of these projects containing a total of 6,553 units were within the PSA (Bowling Green), while 13 properties containing 750 units were located in the SSA (balance of Warren County). This survey was conducted to establish the overall strength of the rental market and to identify potential challenges and opportunities in the market. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of 93.7%, a good and typical rate for multifamily rental housing.

VI-12 The table below summarizes the surveyed multifamily rental supply.

PSA (Bowling Green) Project Type Projects Total Units Vacant Units Occupancy Market-rate 53 4,965 438 91.2% Market-rate/Government-Subsidized 2 168 6 96.4% Tax Credit 12 389 0 100.0% Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized 1 33 0 100.0% Government-Subsidized 9 998 0 100.0% Total 77 6,553 444 93.2%

SSA ( Balance of Warren County) Project Type Projects Total Units Vacant Units Occupancy Market-rate 9 604 17 97.2% Market-rate/Government-Subsidized 1 36 0 100.0% Tax Credit 2602 96.7% Government-Subsidized 1 50 0 100.0% Total 13 750 19 97.5%

The occupancy rate of rentals surveyed in the PSA is 93.2%. As the first table illustrates, properties operating exclusively as market-rate contain most of the vacant units (438 of 444 vacant units) in the market and operate at an overall occupancy rate of 91.2%. However, it is important to point out that there have been several multifamily market-rate rental properties opened in 2018 that are still in their initial lease-up phases that are influencing the overall market-rate occupancy level. We identified and surveyed five market-rate projects of notable size that opened in 2018 and are in their initial lease-up stage. These five projects have a combined total of 230 units, of which 155 are vacant. This results in an occupancy rate of 32.6% for these five properties. When these new projects are excluded, the overall occupancy rate of the remaining projects that operate exclusively as market-rate is 94.0%, representative of a healthy and stable rental housing market. The more than 1,400 affordable units (Tax Credit and government- subsidized) are fully occupied, indicating very strong demand. In fact, most of these projects have long wait lists, indicating pent-up demand for housing that is affordable to low-income households. Each multifamily rental housing segment is evaluated in detail in this section.

VI-13 Within the broader SSA (balance of Warren County), we identified and personally surveyed 13 conventional housing projects containing a total of 750 units. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of 97.5%, a high rate for rental housing and an indication of the limited availability among multifamily rental properties in the SSA. All surveyed rental segments have occupancy rates of 96.7% or higher and indicate that demand is strong for multifamily rentals among all affordability levels.

Market-Rate Apartments

A total of 55 multifamily projects with at least some market-rate units were surveyed in the PSA and 10 properties with market-rate units were surveyed in the SSA. Overall, these properties contain 5,602 market-rate units in the county, of which 5,069 are in the PSA and 604 are in the SSA. The tables below summarize the market-rate units by bedroom/bathroom type.

PSA (Bowling Green) Market-rate Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Median Net Rent Studio 1.0 68 1.3% 0 0.0% $515 One-Bedroom 1.0 1,493 29.5% 111 7.4% $650 One-Bedroom 1.5 25 0.5% 0 0.0% $610 Two-Bedroom 1.0 625 12.3% 22 3.5% $675 Two-Bedroom 1.5 101 2.0% 5 5.0% $650 Two-Bedroom 2.0 1,568 30.9% 134 8.5% $855 Two-Bedroom 2.5 121 2.4% 6 5.0% $925 Three-Bedroom 1.0 34 0.7% 2 5.9% $859 Three-Bedroom 1.5 37 0.7% 1 2.7% $745 Three-Bedroom 2.0 335 6.6% 19 5.7% $1,035 Three-Bedroom 2.5 98 1.9% 3 3.1% $895 Three-Bedroom 3.0 231 4.6% 60 26.0% $1,212 Three-Bedroom 3.5 11 0.2% 0 0.0% $1,250 Four-Bedroom 1.5 14 0.3% 1 7.1% $770 Four-Bedroom 2.0 72 1.4% 15 20.8% $1,596 Four-Bedroom 4.0 230 4.5% 63 27.4% $1,576 Six-Bedroom 6.0 6 0.1% 2 33.3% $2,934 Total Market-rate 5,069 100.0% 444 8.8% -

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Market-rate Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Median Net Rent Studio 1.0 36 6.0% 0 0.0% $462 One-Bedroom 1.0 149 24.7% 4 2.7% $600 One-Bedroom 1.5 2 0.3% 0 0.0% $825 Two-Bedroom 1.0 98 16.2% 4 4.1% $620 Two-Bedroom 1.5 4 0.7% 0 0.0% $650 Two-Bedroom 2.0 183 30.3% 4 2.2% $825 Two-Bedroom 2.5 50 8.3% 3 6.0% $850 Three-Bedroom 2.0 82 13.6% 2 2.4% $825 Total Market-rate 604 100.0% 17 2.8% -

VI-14 The market-rate units within the PSA are 91.2% occupied and the market- rate units within the SSA are 97.2% occupied. As stated earlier, the relatively low occupancy rate of market-rate rentals in the PSA is influenced by several recently built projects that are in their initial lease-up phase. When these projects are excluded, the market-rate rentals in the PSA have an overall occupancy rate of 94.0%. This is considered a good and typical occupancy rate and is reflective of a healthy market.

The unit mix by bedroom type within the PSA is generally well balanced when compared to similar sized markets, with shares of 31.3% for studio/one-bedroom units, 47.6% for two-bedroom units, and 21.0% for three-bedroom units. While vacancy rates by bedroom/bathroom types are generally low, the three-bedroom/three-bathroom units, four-bedroom/two- bathroom and four-bedroom/four-bathroom units have vacancy rates over 20%. These vacancies appear to be within several off-campus student housing projects. According to managers at many of these student projects, the off-campus student housing market is saturated with rental product and it is difficult for managers to find enough students to fill their units. Should vacancies among off-campus student properties worsen, the owners of such properties may want to consider converting these to other uses such as senior-oriented apartments with elevator access.

The following graph illustrates median market-rate rents among common bedroom types offered in the PSA and SSA.

PSA vs SSA Market-Rate Median Net Rents by Beds/Baths PSA SSA $1,200

$1,000 $1,035 $800 $855 $825 $825 $600 $650 $675 $600 $620 $400

$200

$0 One-Br/1.0-Ba Two-Br/1.0-Ba Two-Br/2.0-Ba Three-Br/2.0-Ba

As the preceding table illustrates, the median rents by bedroom/bathroom type within the PSA are comparable to but slightly higher than the rents for corresponding units in the SSA.

VI-15 The following is a distribution of market-rate product surveyed by year built for the PSA and SSA:

PSA (Bowling Green) Year Built – Market-rate Year Built Projects Units Share of Units Before 1970 2 216 4.3% 1970 to 1979 10 927 18.3% 1980 to 1989 3 228 4.5% 1990 to 1999 10 565 11.1% 2000 to 2009 14 1,780 35.1% 2010 to 2018 16 1,353 26.7%

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Year Built – Market-rate Year Built Projects Units Share of Units Before 1970 0 0 0.0% 1970 to 1979 1 4 0.7% 1980 to 1989 1 118 19.5% 1990 to 1999 0 0 0.0% 2000 to 2005 1 48 7.9% 2006 to 2010 1 16 2.6% 2011 to 2018 6 418 69.2%

The largest share of market-rate product in the PSA was built between 2000 and 2009, with over one-third (35.1%) of all product developed during this time. However, a notable share has been developed in 2010 or later, with 26.7% of the surveyed rental supply built over the past nine years. Overall, the PSA has a relatively modern inventory of multifamily rentals.

The distribution of surveyed market-rate units in the PSA by development period is shown in the graph on the following page.

PSA Share of Market-Rate Units by Year Built

35.0% 35.1% 30.0%

25.0% 26.7% 20.0%

15.0% 18.3%

10.0% 11.1% 5.0% 4.3% 4.5% 0.0% Before 1970 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 2010-18

VI-16 Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited the surveyed rental projects within the overall county and rated the exterior quality of each property. We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" (highest) through "F" (lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance). The following is a distribution of the surveyed market-rate supply by quality rating.

PSA (Bowling Green) Market-rate Properties Median Net Rent Quality Total Vacancy One- Two- Three- Four+- Rate Projects Units Rate Studio Br. Br. Br. Br. A 2 98 73.5% - $905 $1,005 - - A- 3 130 20.0% - $825 $1,025 $1,333 - B+ 13 1,219 8.1% - $699 $925 $1,647 $1,540 B 18 2,410 6.6% $699 $649 $799 $1,212 $1,596 B- 3 274 2.6% $490 $595 $680 $780 $770 C+ 9 611 3.8% $515 $585 $815 $859 - C 3 228 1.3% $480 $595 $685 $799 - C- 4 99 6.1% - $599 $625 - -

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Market-rate Properties Median Net Rent Quality Total Vacancy One- Two- Three- Four+- Rate Projects Units Rate Studio Br. Br. Br. Br. B+ 3 178 3.4% - $655 $850 $825 - B 4 244 3.3% - $650 $795 $895 - B- 1 48 4.2% - - $610 - - C+ 1 16 0.0% - $535 - - - C 1 118 0.8% $462 $533 $634 - -

The majority of the surveyed market-rate supply in the PSA consists of product with a “B” quality rating, with a notable amount of “B+” quality product. Vacancies are highest among the highest quality levels. This appears to be attributed to the several higher-quality market-rate projects built and opened in the market in 2018 that are still in their initial lease-up phase. Given that vacancies are low among lower quality product indicates that demand is strong regardless of the quality of housing. It is worth pointing out that median rents are appreciably higher for the highest rated properties (generally with rating of A- or better).

Vacancy rates are generally low among market-rate product in the SSA, regardless of the quality level. Rents by quality level within the SSA are generally lower than corresponding product in the PSA.

VI-17 The amenities offered at a project are often influenced by such things as target market (i.e. families, seniors, young professionals, etc.) and the household income segment the project seeks to serve. The most common amenities offered at the market-rate units in the PSA include a range, refrigerator, dishwasher, garbage disposal, central air conditioning, carpeted and/or wood floors, washer/dryer hookup, patio/balcony, and window blinds. As such, the unit amenities at a majority of the market-rate supply are comprehensive and comparable to modern rental housing standards. Project amenities are more limited, but most frequently include on-site management, fitness center, storage areas, picnic areas, and swimming pools. The common amenities offered among market-rate product, particularly newer product, should be considered for future market- rate product.

Tax Credit Apartments

Tax Credit housing is housing that is developed under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Typically, these projects serve households with income of up to 60% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), though recent legislation allows for some units to target households with incomes of up to 80% of AMHI. A total of 15 surveyed multifamily projects in the overall county offer Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC or Tax Credit) units. Of these projects, 13 are located in the PSA (Bowling Green) and two are located in the SSA (Balance of Warren County). It is worth noting that seven of the 15 properties are age-restricted, indicating that the Tax Credit market has a good mix of family-oriented and senior-restricted product. It is worth pointing out that none of the non-age restricted projects include elevator access, thereby limiting their ability to meet the needs of seniors. This section focuses only on the non-subsidized Tax Credit units, while the Tax Credit units operating with concurrent subsidies are discussed in the government-subsidized section of this report (starting on page VI-22).

The following tables summarize the breakdown of non-subsidized Tax Credit units surveyed within PSA and SSA.

PSA (Bowling Green) Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Median Net Rent One-Bedroom 1.0 83 21.3% 0 0.0% $460 Two-Bedroom 1.0 250 64.1% 0 0.0% $550 Two-Bedroom 1.5 6 1.5% 0 0.0% $560 Two-Bedroom 2.0 24 6.2% 0 0.0% $450 Three-Bedroom 1.5 6 1.5% 0 0.0% $590 Three-Bedroom 2.0 21 5.4% 0 0.0% $575 Total Tax Credit 390 100.0% 0 0.0% -

VI-18

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Median Net Rent One-Bedroom 1.0 4 6.7% 0 0.0% $515 Two-Bedroom 1.0 36 60.0% 1 2.8% $575 Three-Bedroom 1.5 8 13.3% 0 0.0% $640 Three-Bedroom 2.0 12 20.0% 1 8.3% $635 Total Tax Credit 60 100.0% 2 3.3% -

The non-subsidized Tax Credit units within the PSA are 100.0% occupied, while the non-subsidized Tax Credit units within the SSA are 96.7% occupied. These occupancy rates are high and are evidence of the county’s strong demand for affordable rental housing. In fact, there is pent-up demand for this type of housing, as all but two of the Tax Credit projects maintain a wait list, with up to 15 households on any one wait list.

The 390 Tax Credit units in the PSA consist of a broad mix of unit types. When compared with other well-balanced markets, it appears that with over 70% of the Tax Credit supply in the PSA consisting of two-bedroom units, the local market has a disproportionately high share of such product. Typically, around 50% to 60% of the Tax Credit supply consists of two- bedroom units. Conversely, the 6.9% share of three-bedroom Tax Credit units in the PSA is lower than the typical 12% to 15% seen in most well- balanced markets. While all Tax Credit units are rented in the market, the disproportionately low share of three-bedroom units likely poses a greater challenge for low-income families in Bowling Green.

In terms of rents of Tax Credit units in the PSA, the median rents by bedroom/bathroom type range from $460 to $590. These median rents are comparable to the median rents of the Tax Credit product in the SSA but are well below the median rents of the market-rate multifamily supply. As such, Tax Credit housing is a value in the overall market, which is likely contributing to its strong level of demand.

The following graph illustrates median Tax Credit rents among common bedroom types offered in the PSA and SSA.

VI-19 PSA vs SSA Tax Credit Median Net Rents by Beds/Baths PSA SSA $700

$600 $635 $500 $550 $575 $575 $515 $400 $460

$300

$200

$100

$0 One-Br/1.0-Ba Two-Br/1.0-Ba Three-Br/2.0-Ba

The following is a distribution of Tax Credit product surveyed by year built for the PSA and SSA (Note: The Tax Credit program started in 1986):

PSA (Bowling Green) Year Built – Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized Year Built Projects Units Share of Units Before 1990 0 0 0.0% 1990 to 1999 3 110 28.2% 2000 to 2005 5 102 26.2% 2006 to 2010 3 122 31.3% 2011 to 2018 2 56 14.4%

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Year Built – Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized Year Built Projects Units Share of Units Before 1990 0 0 0.0% 1990 to 1999 2 60 100.0% 2000 to 2018 0 0 0.0%

Among the surveyed Tax Credit supply, the largest share of Tax Credit units developed in the PSA was built between 2006 and 2010. It is worth pointing out that only 56 of the surveyed Tax Credit units were built since 2011. Regardless, the PSA has a relatively modern inventory of multifamily rentals.

VI-20 The distribution of Tax Credit units in the PSA by year built is shown in the following graph:

PSA Share of Tax Credit Units by Year Built 35.0%

30.0% 31.3% 25.0% 28.2% 26.2% 20.0%

15.0% 14.4% 10.0%

5.0% 0.0% 0.0% Before 1990 1990-99 2000-05 2006-10 2011-18

Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited the surveyed rental projects within the market and rated the exterior quality of each property. We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" (highest) through "F" (lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance). The following is a distribution of the Tax Credit properties by quality rating.

PSA (Bowling Green) Quality Ratings - Non-Subsidized Tax Credit Quality Rating Projects Total Units Vacancy Rate A 1 32 0.0% B+ 5 141 0.0% B 3 73 0.0% B- 3 84 0.0% C+ 1 60 0.0%

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Quality Ratings - Non-Subsidized Tax Credit Quality Rating Projects Total Units Vacancy Rate B- 1 30 6.7% C+ 1 30 0.0%

Most of the surveyed Tax Credit projects in the PSA have a quality rating of B- or better, indicating that the majority of Tax Credit product is in good condition. Regardless of quality, demand for affordable housing is strong in the PSA.

VI-21 The most common amenities offered at the Tax Credit projects in the PSA include a range, refrigerator, dishwasher, carpeted flooring, window treatments, central air conditioning, and washer/dryer hookups. As such, the existing Tax Credit supply offers relatively comprehensive modern unit amenity packages. The most common project amenities among the LIHTC supply include on-site management, laundry facilities, community space, and playgrounds.

Government-Subsidized Housing

There were a total of 14 projects surveyed within the county that offer at least some units that operate with a government-subsidy. Government- subsidized housing typically requires residents to pay 30% of their adjusted gross income towards rents and generally qualifies households with incomes of up to 50% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI). The 14 projects with a subsidy include 1,180 units, of which 32 units also operate with concurrent Tax Credits.

The government-subsidized units surveyed within PSA and SSA are summarized as follows.

PSA (Bowling Green) Subsidized Tax Credit Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant One-Bedroom 1.0 32 100.0% 0 0.0% Total Subsidized Tax Credit 32 100.0% 0 0.0% Government-Subsidized Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Studio 1.0 11 1.0% 0 0.0% One-Bedroom 1.0 394 37.1% 0 0.0% One-Bedroom 1.5 6 0.6% 0 0.0% Two-Bedroom 1.0 330 31.1% 0 0.0% Two-Bedroom 1.5 32 3.0% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.0 151 14.2% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.5 94 8.9% 0 0.0% Four-Bedroom 2.0 33 3.1% 0 0.0% Five-Bedroom 2.0 11 1.0% 0 0.0% Total Subsidized 1,062 100.0% 0 0.0%

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Government-Subsidized Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant One-Bedroom 1.0 44 51.2% 0 0.0% Two-Bedroom 1.0 34 39.5% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.0 8 9.3% 0 0.0% Total Subsidized 86 100.0% 0 0.0%

VI-22 The subsidized Tax Credit units within the PSA are 100.0% occupied. The government-subsidized units are 100.0% occupied within both the PSA and SSA. All of the subsidized projects have wait lists, with as many as 57 households on a wait list or having waits as long as eight months. Based on this research, it is evident that there is pent-up demand for housing that is affordable to very low-income renter households (making 50% or less of Area Median Household Income). Because of the very limited options available, many very low-income households must consider the non- subsidized multifamily housing options or non-conventional housing options, such as single-family homes and duplexes, or even mobile homes.

According to the Executive Director of Bowling Green’s HUD-funded Tenant Based Voucher Program, there are approximately 616 Housing Choice Vouchers in use in the market. These vouchers serve as a resource to assist low-income households in paying their rent and utilities. They maintain a waiting list of approximately 900 families for the next available vouchers. According to this representative, because of the low turnover of voucher holders (only about 10 per month), some people seeking these vouchers must wait years. This representative also stated that because of the limited availability of rental housing and/or the lack of landlords willing to accept vouchers, they have had to change their policy of giving voucher holders 60 days to find a home and extended it to 120 days to allow for them to find a place that accepts the voucher and a housing unit that meets their needs.

Eight properties in the county operate as subsidized projects under a current HUD contract. Because these contracts have a designated renewal date, it is important to understand if any of these projects are at risk of an expiring contract in the near future that could result in the reduction of affordable rental housing stock within the county. It should be pointed out that in the past HUD has issued vouchers to displaced households that were living at projects that lost their subsidies. While vouchers are issued, the voucher holder has no guarantee of finding adequate housing. These eight properties are summarized in the following table. It should be noted that there are other subsidized rental properties in the market, but these projects operate as Public Housing and are not subject to HUD contracts.

VI-23 Assisted Total Property Name City Units Units Program Type Expiration Date HUD Section 8 Abel Court Bowling Green 48 47 (General Occupancy) 5/31/2033 HUD Section 8 Garden Apts. Bowling Green 48 48 (General Occupancy) 1/31/2029 HUD Section 8 Bowling Green Towers Bowling Green 188 187 (Seniors Age 62+) 12/15/2019 HUD Section 8 Greenwood Villa Apts. Bowling Green 120 24 (General Occupancy) 2/1/2033 HUD Section 8 Par View Court Apartments Bowling Green 48 37 (General Occupancy) 7/31/2035 HUD Section 8 Northfield Acres Bowling Green 50 50 (General Occupancy) 8/31/2023 HUD Section 8 Regency Park - Bowling Green Bowling Green 120 120 (General Occupancy) 4/30/2022 HUD Sections 8 & Fort Webb Manor Bowling Green 37 36 202 (Senior Age 62+) 8/31/2019 Source: HUD.gov Assistance & Section 8 Contracts Database; Bowen National Research

While all HUD supported projects are subject to annual appropriations by the Federal Government, it appears that two projects have a renewal date in 2019 and are at potential risk of losing their government assistance. Two other projects have expiring contracts in 2022 and 2023 and are vulnerable to losing their Federal assistance a few years from now. It will be important for the city’s low-income residents that the projects with pending expiring HUD contracts be preserved in order to continue to house some of the market’s most economically vulnerable residents.

The following table is a distribution of government-subsidized product surveyed by year built for the overall market:

PSA (Bowling Green) Year Built – Government-Subsidized Year Built Projects Units Share of Units Before 1970 2 376 34.4% 1970 to 1979 6 442 40.4% 1980 to 1989 3 244 22.3% 1990 to 1999 0 0 0.0% 2000 to 2005 1 32 2.9% 2006 to 2018 0 0 0.0%

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Year Built – Government-Subsidized Year Built Projects Units Share of Units Before 1980 0 0 0.0% 1980 to 1989 1 50 58.1%% 1990 to 2010 0 0 0.0% 2011 to 2018 1 36 41.9%%

VI-24 The largest share of government-subsidized product in the PSA was built in the 1970’s, with over 40% of all product developed during this time. Overall, the PSA has a relatively old inventory of multifamily rentals.

The graph below illustrates the inventory of surveyed government- subsidized projects by development period for the PSA

PSA Share of Government Subsidized Units by Year Built

40.0% 40.4% 35.0% 34.4% 30.0% 25.0%

20.0% 22.3% 15.0%

10.0%

5.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Before 1970 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-05 2006-18

Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited the surveyed rental projects within the county and rated the exterior quality of each property. We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" (highest) through "F" (lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance). The following is a distribution of subsidized housing by quality rating, units, and vacancies for the county.

PSA (Bowling Green) Quality Ratings – Government Subsidized Year Built Projects Units Share of Units B 2 100 9.1% B- 1 148 13.5% C+ 4 365 33.4% C 4 381 34.8% C- 1 100 9.1%

SSA (Balance of Warren County) Quality Ratings – Government Subsidized Year Built Projects Units Share of Units B+ 1 36 41.9% C+ 1 50 58.1%

VI-25 While the overall PSA’s subsidized rental properties have a diverse mix of rental product by quality rating, more than three-fourths (77.3%) of the surveyed subsidized product was rated “C+” or lower, meaning that these projects are generally considered to be in fair or poor condition. As a result, some of the government-subsidized housing may need to be renovated and/or updated.

The amenity packages of the government-subsidized projects surveyed in the PSA are limited. The most common unit amenities offered among the subsidized projects include a range, refrigerator, carpet or vinyl flooring, central air conditioning, washer/dryer hookups and window blinds. Project amenities are relatively limited at the government-subsidized properties in the market but generally include on-site management, community space, playground and social services. Given that most of the surveyed subsidized product in the market is lower quality, built prior to 1980 and are relatively small, it is not surprising that project amenities are relatively limited at the subsidized projects.

A map illustrating the location of all multifamily apartments surveyed within the overall PSA and SSA is included on the following page.

VI-26 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Secondary Study Area Apartment Locations Apartments Type Govt-sub Mkt rate/Govt-sub Mkt rate Tax Credit Tax Credit/Govt-sub

81 6 83 48 52 33 3 63 32 79 62 10 7 65 39 42 70 41 59 57 56 72 85 51 46 8 14 73 54 37 53 15 13 27 21 71 75 44 4 9 16 2 28 87 19 66 1 74 64 89 36 38 18 69 82 40 20 68 17 84 49 43 88 45 31 58 47 11 90 50 86 29 25 22 35 24 80 34 12 26 23 30 60 61 78 5 76 77 55

0 1 2 4 6 1:310,442 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 2. Non-Conventional Rental Housing

Non-conventional rentals are considered rental units typically consisting of single-family homes, duplexes, units over store fronts, mobile homes, etc. For the purposes of this particular analysis, we have assumed that rental properties consisting of four or less units are non-conventional rentals.

Non-conventional rentals comprise a notable portion of the rental housing stock in the PSA, as evidenced by that fact that renter-occupied units within structures with one to four units represent just over 60% of all renter- occupied units. The following summarizes the distribution of renter- occupied units by the number of units in a structure for the PSA.

PSA – Renter-Occupied Housing by Units in Structure Units in Structure Total Units Percent 1 to 4 Units 8,420 60.7% 5 or More Units 4,836 34.8% Mobile Homes 621 4.5% Total 13,877 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

With a majority of the rental housing stock in the PSA consisting of non- conventional rentals, it is clear that this segment is significant and warrants additional analysis.

The following summarizes monthly gross rents for area rental alternatives based on American Community Survey estimates. These rents are for all rental product types including apartments, non-conventional rentals, and mobile homes. Since more than half of all rentals in the market are considered non-conventional rentals, the rents below provide insight as to likely rents for non-conventional rentals in the PSA.

Gross Rents PSA Gross Rent Number of Units Percent of Units Less than $300 443 3.2% $300 to $499 2,165 15.6% $500 to $749 5,629 40.6% $750 to $999 3,140 22.6% $1,000 to $1,499 1,511 10.9% $1,500 to $2,000 236 1.7% $2,000 and Higher 78 0.6% No Cash Rent 673 4.9% Total 13,875 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); Bowen National Research

VI-28 As the preceding table illustrates, the largest share of rental units in the PSA have rents that fall between $500 and $749, which comprise 40.6% of all rental units. Nearly one-quarter (22.6%) of PSA rental units have rents between $750 and $999. Very few rentals have rents above $1,500.

Bowen National Research identified 70 non-conventional rentals in the PSA that were listed as available for rent. While these rentals do not represent all non-conventional rentals, these units are representative of common characteristics of the various non-conventional rental alternatives available in the market. As a result, these rentals provide a good baseline to compare the rental rates, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, and other attributes of non-conventional rentals.

The table below summarizes the available non-conventional rentals identified in the PSA.

Average Average Number Average Rent Average Rent Per Bedroom Type Units of Baths Square Feet Range Rent Square Foot Studio 1 1.0 N/A $475 $475 N/A One-Bedroom 5 1.0 733 $500-$765 $613 $0.92 Two-Bedroom 20 1.0 995 $550-$1,600 $768 $0.82 Three-Bedroom 33 2.0 1,481 $795-$1,995 $1,140 $0.78 Four-Bedroom 6 2.0 2,145 $850-$2,500 $1,563 $0.84 Five-Bedroom+ 5 3.0 3,250 $1,400-$3,200 $2,182 $0.67

The identified non-conventional rentals consist of one- to seven-bedroom units. Overall, rents range from $475 to $3,200. The average collected rent by bedroom type for the most common bedroom types is $768 for a two- bedroom unit and $1,140 for a three-bedroom unit. General trends include an increase in average rent as the number of bedrooms increase, while there is a decrease in average rent per-square-foot as the number of bedrooms increase. When typical tenant utility costs are also considered, the inventoried units have gross average rents likely ranging from around $575 to $3,400, which are comparable to or higher than many of the conventional apartments surveyed in the area. As such, it is unlikely that many low- income residents would be able to afford non-conventional rental housing in the area.

A map delineating the location of identified non-conventional rentals currently available to rent in the area is on the following page.

VI-29 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Non-Convential Rentals Non-Conventional Rental Property Locations Monthly Rent <= $600 $601 - $900 $901 - $1,200 $1,201 - $1,500 $1,500 +

0 0.425 0.85 1.7 2.55 1:108,885 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community C. For-Sale Housing Supply

1. Introduction

Bowen National Research, obtained for-sale housing data from Real Estate Information Services, Inc. for all of Warren County. This included historical for-sale residential data and currently available for-sale housing stock. While this sales data does not include all for-sale residential transactions or available supply in the county, it does consist of the majority of such product and therefore, it is representative of market norms for for- sale housing product. The available supply does not include foreclosures, auctions, or for-sale by owner housing.

The following table summarizes the available and recently sold (between January 2016 to December 2018) housing stock for the PSA (Bowling Green) and the SSA (balance of county).

Sold/Currently Available For-Sale Housing Supply – PSA – Bowling Green, KY Status Homes Median Price Sold* 1,808 $165,000 Available 187 $234,900 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research *Sales from January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018

Sold/Currently Available For-Sale Housing Supply – SSA – Bowling Green, KY Status Homes Median Price Sold* 2,871 $192,000 Available 391 $279,500 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research *Sales from January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018

Within the PSA, the available for-sale housing stock consists of 187 units with a median asking price of $234,900, while the historical sales consist of 1,808 homes and had a median sales price of $165,000.

2. Historical For-Sale Analysis

The distribution of homes recently sold between January 2016 and October 2018 by price for the PSA and SSA is summarized in the table below.

PSA – Bowling Green, KY Sales History by Price (January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018) Number Percent of Average Days Sale Price Sold Supply on Market Up to $99,999 281 15.5% 87 $100,000 to $149,999 446 24.7% 72 $150,000 to $199,999 501 27.7% 89 $200,000 to $249,999 248 13.7% 95 $250,000 to $299,999 136 7.5% 110 $300,000+ 196 10.8% 140 Total 1,808 100.0% 93 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research

VI-31

SSA – Bowling Green, KY Sales History by Price (January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018) Number Percent of Average Days Sale Price Sold Supply on Market Up to $99,999 178 6.2% 105 $100,000 to $149,999 586 20.4% 86 $150,000 to $199,999 747 26.0% 86 $200,000 to $249,999 444 15.5% 105 $250,000 to $299,999 397 13.8% 113 $300,000+ 519 18.1% 133 Total 2,871 100.0% 102 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, home sales by price point within the PSA over the past three years were primarily concentrated among product priced between $150,000 and $199,999 (27.7%). A notable amount (24.7%) of product sold was priced between $100,000 and $149,999. These two price ranges have among the shortest average number of days on market, ranging from 72 to 89 days. Therefore, there appears to be a good level of demand for the lowest-priced product within the PSA. Historical sales activity in the outlying SSA (balance of county) is generally similar to the PSA’s activity. However, it does appear that the SSA has experienced slightly more sales among higher priced product than the PSA.

Recent home sales by price point in the PSA and SSA is shown in the graph below:

PSA vs SSA Share of Sales History by Price PSA SSA 30.0%

25.0% 27.7% 26.0% 24.7% 20.0% 20.4% 15.0% 18.1% 15.5% 15.5% 13.7% 13.8% 10.0% 10.8% 5.0% 7.5% 6.2% 0.0% Up to $99,999 $100k- $150k- $200k- $250k- $300,000+ $149,999 $199,999 $249,999 $299,999

VI-32 Details related to the bedroom types, number of bathrooms, square footage, and pricing of recently sold homes is provided in the tables below:

PSA – Bowling Green, KY Sales History by Bedrooms (January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Bedrooms Sold Baths Feet Range Sales Price on Market One-Br. 7 1.25 879 $35,000 -$155,000 $77,900 191 Two-Br. 171 1.25 1,121 $11,000 -$363,836 $90,000 95 Three-Br. 1,155 2.0 1,603 $12,000 -$727,023 $155,000 88 Four-Br. 418 2.5 2,486 $35,000 -$1,900,000 $225,000 100 Five-Br. 51 3.25 3,209 $96,000 -$667,500 $307,500 102 Six+-Br. 6 4.5 4,021 $128,750 -$1,070,000 $289.500 135 Total 1,808 2.0 1,813 $11,000 -$1,900,000 $165,000 93 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research

SSA – Bowling Green, KY Sales History by Bedrooms (January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Bedrooms Sold Baths Feet Range Sales Price on Market One-Br. 6 1.0 1,292 $37,000 -$147,000 $101,000 95 Two-Br. 75 1.5 1,213 $5,000 -$390,000 $92,500 103 Three-Br. 1,756 2.0 1,677 $17,900 -$716,300 $167,000 91 Four-Br. 866 2.75 2,526 $62,000 -$1,242,500 $270,538 117 Five-Br. 152 3.5 3,310 $137,500 -$1,240,000 $358,700 139 Six+-Br. 16 4.5 4,064 $210,000 -$869,000 $387,500 178 Total 2,871 2.25 2,020 $5,000 -$1,242,500 $192,000 102 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research

Three-bedroom units are the most common bedroom type sold in both the PSA (Bowling Green) and SSA (balance of county). Within the PSA, three- bedroom units represent 63.9% of the units sold over the past three years. These three-bedroom homes have a median sales price of $155,000 and have the shortest average number of days on market, averaging 88 days before selling. Two- and four-bedroom units represent the next largest shares of units sold in the PSA and also the next lowest average days on market, at 95 days for a two-bedroom unit and 100 days for a four-bedroom unit. This indicates that two- to four-bedroom units are in very high demand. The SSA has higher median prices by bedroom type than the PSA and have a slightly longer overall average days on market (102) than the PSA (93). Therefore, it appears housing is generally higher priced outside the city limits, but still takes roughly the same amount of time to sell as it does in the PSA.

Recent home sales by bedroom type in the PSA and SSA are shown in the following graph:

VI-33 PSA vs SSA Share of Sales History by Bedrooms PSA SSA 70.0%

60.0% 63.9% 61.2% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 30.2% 20.0% 23.1% 10.0% 5.3% 0.4% 0.2% 9.5% 2.6% 2.8% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% One-Br. Two-Br. Three-Br. Four-Br. Five-Br. Six+-Br.

Recent home sales by year built in the PSA is shown in the tables below. It should be noted that properties were excluded from the PSA (72 listings) and SSA (83 listings) because their year built was unknown.

PSA – Bowling Green, KY Sales History by Year Built (January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Year Built Sold Beds/Baths Feet Range Sales Price on Market Before 1950 142 3/1.5 1,630 $11,000 - $727,023 $123,000 90 1950 to 1959 184 3/1.5 1,314 $19,000 - $415,000 $100,000 85 1960 to 1969 202 3/1.75 1,706 $32,500 - $484,000 $142,655 74 1970 to 1979 111 3/2.0 1,893 $30,000 - $370,000 $164,000 80 1980 to 1989 98 3/2.25 2,057 $50,000 - $667,500 $186,500 90 1990 to 1999 147 4/2.5 2,428 $40,300 - $1,070,000 $239,900 89 2000 to 2009 336 3/2.25 1,812 $45,000 - $800,000 $158,000 78 2010 to present* 516 3/2.25 1,883 $62,000 -$1,900,000 $192,750 115 Total 1,736 3/2.0 1,825 $11,000 -$1,900,000 $167,900 92 SSA – Bowling Green, KY Sales History by Year Built (January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Year Built Sold Beds/Baths Feet Range Sales Price on Market Before 1950 46 3/1.5 1,835 $5,000 - $375,000 $116,350 98 1950 to 1959 19 3/1.75 1,529 $47,000 - $260,000 $104,800 123 1960 to 1969 48 3/1.75 1,611 $28,000 - $716,300 $127,500 110 1970 to 1979 158 3/2.0 1,687 $32,000 - $325,000 $151,000 98 1980 to 1989 253 3/2.0 1,741 $15,000 - $850,000 $143,300 97 1990 to 1999 357 3/2.25 1,880 $30,000 - $700,000 $167,500 86 2000 to 2009 683 3/2.5 2,117 $25,000 - $1,240,000 $200,000 89 2010 to present* 1,224 4/2.5 2,160 $58,300 -$980,000 $240,000 115 Total 2,788 3/2.25 2,030 $5,000 -$1,240,000 $194,900 102 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research *Includes Under Construction and New Builds

VI-34 Recent homes sales in the PSA have covered a wide range of construction periods. However, the greatest share of homes that have been sold over the past three years were primarily built since 2010. These newer home sales represent nearly one-third (29.7%) of the homes sales that have occurred over the past three years. Despite this strong interest in these newer homes, a notable amount (528 homes, representing 30.4% of the home sales) of recently sold homes have involved product built prior to 1970. These older homes are generally priced under $140,000, representing the more affordable segment of the for-sale market.

Recent home sales by year built in the PSA and SSA are shown in the following graph:

PSA vs SSA Share of Sales History by Year Built PSA SSA 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Before 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 2010 to 1950 present

A map illustrating the location of all homes sold over the past three years within the PSA and SSA is included on the following page.

VI-35 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Secondary Study Area Historical Home Sales Historical Sales Sold Price <= $100,000 $100,001 - $200,000 $200,001 - $300,000 $300,001 - $400,000 $400,000 +

Through Multiple Listing Services provided by Real Estate Information Services, Inc., we identified 187 housing units within the PSA (Bowling Green) and another 391 units in the SSA (balance of county) that were listed as available for purchase as of December 2018. Virtually all of the product we evaluated included single-family home listings, while a limited number of duplexes, condominiums and other non-conventional product were identified. While there are likely some other for-sale residential units available for purchase, such homes were not identified during our research due to the method of advertisement or simply because the product was not actively marketed. Regardless, the available inventory of for-sale product identified in this analysis provides a good baseline for evaluating the for- sale housing alternatives offered in the county.

The available for-sale data we collected and analyzed includes the following:

 Distribution of Housing by Bedrooms  Distribution of Housing by Price Point  Distribution of Housing by Year Built

The available for-sale housing by bedroom type in the PSA and SSA is summarized in the following tables.

PSA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Bedrooms (As of December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Bedrooms Available Baths Feet Range List Price on Market One-Br. 7 1.0 750 $199,000 -$399,000 $199,000 74 Two-Br. 11 1.5 1,305 $51,900 -$1,495,000 $149,500 104 Three-Br. 88 2.0 1,758 $50,000 -$1,180,000 $209,950 101 Four-Br. 68 3.0 2,779 $59,900 -$965,000 $341,700 102 Five-Br. 10 3.75 3,423 $45,000 -$1,150,000 $339,750 161 Six+-Br. 3 3.75 3,117 $245,000 -$839,900 $320,000 187 Total 187 2.5 2,176 $45,000 -$1,495,000 $234,900 105 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.

SSA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Bedrooms (As of December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Bedrooms Available Baths Feet Range List Price on Market One-Br. 2 1.0 750 $24,900 -$74,900 $49,900 27 Two-Br. 5 1.5 1,380 $79,900 -$224,900 $132,900 97 Three-Br. 176 2.25 1,857 $99,900 -$1,349,000 $219,900 112 Four-Br. 161 2.75 2,565 $114,900 -$879,900 $324,900 119 Five-Br. 40 3.75 3,900 $235,000 -$1,399,000 $452,000 129 Six+-Br. 7 6.0 5,214 $499,900 -$3,999,000 $765,000 166 Total 391 2.5 2,406 $24,900 -$3,999,000 $279,500 117 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.

VI-37 Overall, the median list price of available product in the PSA is $234,900 and has an average number of days on market of 105. Home prices in the surrounding SSA are slightly higher, with a median asking price of $279,500. The available for-sale supply in the PSA primarily consists of three-bedroom units (47.1%) and four-bedroom units (36.4%). The three- bedroom homes have a median asking price of $209,950, while the four- bedroom homes have a median list price of $341,700. These homes have an average number of days on market of 101 (three-bedroom) and 102 (four- bedroom), which is slightly below the overall average of 105 days. The surrounding SSA has similar trends, with a large majority of the available product consisting of three- and four-bedroom units and an overall average number of days on market of 117.

The number of available homes by bedroom type in the county is shown in the following graph:

PSA vs SSA Share of Available Homes by Bedrooms PSA SSA 50.0% 47.1% 40.0% 45.0% 41.2% 36.4% 30.0%

20.0%

10.0% 10.2% 3.8% 0.5%5.9% 1.3% 5.3% 1.6% 1.8% 0.0% One-Br. Two-Br. Three-Br. Four-Br. Five-Br. Six+-Br.

VI-38 The table below summarizes the distribution of available for-sale residential units by price point for the PSA:

PSA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Price (As of December 20, 2018) Number Percent of Average Days Sale Price Available Supply on Market Up to $99,999 11 5.9% 121 $100,000 to $149,999 14 7.5% 101 $150,000 to $199,999 37 19.8% 78 $200,000 to $249,999 41 21.9% 92 $250,000 to $299,999 22 11.8% 66 $300,000+ 62 33.2% 142 Total 187 100.0% 105 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.

SSA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Price (As of December 20, 2018) Number Percent of Average Days Sale Price Available Supply on Market Up to $99,999 5 1.3% 106 $100,000 to $149,999 23 5.9% 86 $150,000 to $199,999 65 16.6% 109 $200,000 to $249,999 64 16.4% 128 $250,000 to $299,999 72 18.4% 106 $300,000+ 162 41.4% 125 Total 391 100.0% 117 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.

The largest share of available homes in the PSA are priced at $300,000 or higher. These higher price homes total 62 units and represent one-third of the available supply. The market has only 25 units priced under $150,000, representing just 13.4% of the available supply. The limited supply of product priced under $150,000 may make it difficult for low-income households, including first-time homebuyers, to find affordable housing. The available inventory in the SSA is also more heavily weighted towards product priced at $300,000 or higher, as this segment represents 41.4% of the SSA’s available inventory. Additionally, lower income households seeking product under $150,000 in the SSA will have limited choices, as there are only 28 such homes in the broader SSA.

The number of available homes in the PSA and SSA by price point are illustrated in the following graph:

VI-39 PSA vs SSA Share of Available Homes by Price PSA SSA 40.0% 41.4% 35.0% 30.0% 33.2% 25.0%

20.0% 21.9% 15.0% 19.8% 18.4% 16.6% 16.4% 10.0% 11.8% 5.0% 5.9% 1.3% 7.5% 5.9% 0.0% Up to $99,999 $100k- $150k- $200k- $250k- $300,000+ $149,999 $199,999 $249,999 $299,999

The distribution of available homes by year built for the PSA is summarized in the table below.

PSA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Year Built (As of December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Year Built Available Beds/Baths Feet Range List Price on Market Before 1950 29 3/2.0 1,995 $45,000 - $935,000 $199,000 107 1950 to 1959 14 3/1.5 1,441 $50,000 - $289,000 $149,900 102 1960 to 1969 13 3/2.0 1,819 $51,900 - $695,000 $179,900 92 1970 to 1979 7 4/2.75 2,579 $85,000 - $399,900 $249,900 105 1980 to 1989 9 3/3.0 2,203 $180,000 - $1,495,000 $259,900 176 1990 to 1999 17 4/3.0 2,974 $144,900 - $965,000 $265,900 108 2000 to 2009 32 4/3.0 2,613 $127,500 - $1,150,000 $308,450 86 2010 to present* 66 3/2.5 2,017 $159,900 -$1,180,000 $238,900 107 Total 187 3/2.5 2,176 $45,000 -$1,495,000 $234,900 105 SSA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Year Built (As of December 20, 2018) Average Number Average Square Price Median Average Days Year Built Available Beds/Baths Feet Range List Price on Market Before 1950 8 3/2.75 2,109 $24,900 - $499,900 $149,950 93 1950 to 1959 2 3/1.5 1,100 $79,900 - $490,000 $284,950 206 1960 to 1969 3 3/2.25 1,983 $168,900 - $269,900 $224,900 89 1970 to 1979 21 4/2.0 1,961 $134,500 - $424,900 $199,900 91 1980 to 1989 34 3/2.25 2,000 $74,900 - $879,900 $183,400 93 1990 to 1999 43 4/2.75 2,516 $99,900 - $1,349,000 $264,900 107 2000 to 2009 80 4/3.0 2,725 $114,900 - $3,999,000 $299,400 94 2010 to present* 200 4/2.5 2,401 $139,900 -$1,290,000 $292,310 135 Total 391 4/2.5 2,406 $24,900 -$3,999,000 $279,500 117 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc. *Includes Under Construction and New Builds

VI-40 As shown in the preceding tables, just over one-third (35.3%) of the available for-sale housing product in the PSA was built in 2010 or later, representing the largest share of available product. These homes have a median asking price of $238,900, which is very comparable to the overall market’s median price of $234,900. The available inventory within the SSA is also heavily weighted towards newer product, with 200 (51.2%) of the 391 available units built in 2010 or later. These newer homes in the SSA have a median list price of $292,310, roughly $53,000 (22.4%) higher than new product in the PSA.

The share of available homes in the PSA and SSA by year built is shown in the graph below:

PSA vs SSA Share of Available Homes by Year Built PSA SSA 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Before 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 2010 to 1950 present

A map illustrating the location of available for-sale homes in the PSA and SSA is included on the following page.

VI-41 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Secondary Study Area Available For-sale Homes Available Homes Price <= $150,000 $150,001 - $300,000 $300,001 - $450,000 $450,001 - $600,000 $600,000 +

The overall county, like larger communities throughout the country, has a diverse population that has a variety of housing needs specific to certain populations. Some of these special needs populations include seniors requiring care. This portion of the Housing Needs Assessment provides an overview of housing alternatives available to meet specific needs of these seniors.

Unlike traditional rental housing alternatives, senior care housing, such as nursing homes or assisted living, often draw support from a relatively large geographic area such as a county or region. For the purpose of this analysis, we surveyed senior care housing alternatives in the entire county. The overall region has a relatively large senior population that requires a variety of senior housing alternatives to meet its diverse needs. Among seniors, generally age 65 or older, some individuals are either seeking a more leisurely lifestyle or need assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), such as assistance with bathing, dressing and medication reminders. As part of this analysis, we evaluated two levels of care that typically respond to older adults seeking, or who need, alternatives to their current living environment. They include typically assisted living (which includes personal care homes) and nursing care. These housing types, from least assisted to most assisted, are summarized below. We have also surveyed independent living and congregate care facilities (independent living with basic housekeeping or laundry services and meals) as part of this analysis.

Assisted Living Communities – The Kentucky Department for Aging and Independent Living certifies Assisted Living Communities (ALCs) throughout the state of Kentucky. An Assisted Living Community is considered a social model community and does not provide any on-site health services. ALC units are all within private apartments and are not shared with anyone, unless it is by mutual agreement, such as a spouse.

Personal Care Homes (PCH) – The Kentucky Office of Inspector General is responsible for the licensure of all Personal Care Homes throughout the state. A Personal Care Home is “an establishment with permanent facilities including resident beds. Services provided include continuous supervision of residents, basic health and health-related services, personal care services, residential care services and social and recreational activities. A resident in a personal care home shall be sixteen (16) years of age or older and be ambulatory or mobile nonambulatory, and able to manage most of the activities of daily living. Persons who are nonambulatory or nonmobile shall not be eligible for residence in a personal care home.” For the purposes of this analysis, we have included personal care homes with assisted living facilities in our analysis of senior care properties.

VI-43 Nursing Homes – A nursing home provides nursing care and related services for people who need nursing, medical, rehabilitation or other special services. These facilities are licensed by the Kentucky Office of Inspector General and may be certified to participate in the Medicaid and/or Medicare programs. Certain nursing homes may also meet specific standards for sub-acute care or dementia care.

We referenced Medicare.com and the websites for each of the departments previously discussed to identify all licensed and certified senior care facilities and cross referenced this list with other senior care facility resources. As such, we believe that we identified most licensed facilities in the region, though not all were surveyed as part of this Housing Needs Assessment.

We identified and surveyed 16 senior care facilities in the county. While these do not represent all senior care facilities in the county, they are representative of market norms and represent a good base from which to evaluate the senior care housing market. Overall, these facilities that were surveyed contain a total of 1,140 beds. The following table summarizes the surveyed facilities by property type.

Surveyed Senior Care Facilities – Warren County Occupancy National Project Type Projects Beds Vacant Rate Occupancy Rate* Independent Living 1 47 0 100.0% 92.4% Congregate Care 2 172 8 95.3% 92.4% Assisted Living 7 399 15 96.2% 90.6% Nursing Homes 6 522 14 97.3% 86.4% Total 16 1,140 37 96.8% - *Source: American Seniors Housing Association: The State of Seniors Housing 2017

The subject market is reporting overall occupancy rates of 95.3% (congregate care) to 100.0% (independent living). All of the occupancy rates among surveyed senior housing product types are well above national averages. These occupancy rates indicate that there is a very strong level of demand for such housing in the county and that it appears the existing inventory may not be meeting the current demands of the senior care market segment. With the projected growth among seniors over the next several years, there may be an opportunity to develop additional senior care housing in the market. Demand estimates for senior care housing are provided in Section VIII of this report.

It should be noted that we were unable to survey the market’s newest assisted living project, Arcadia Senior Living. This project is located along Lovers Lane, in the developing southeast portion of the city. Opened in July of 2018, this project is licensed for 79 beds. While we were unable to obtain occupancy data, we were able to determine that the project offers assisted living units with base fees starting at $3,450/month. The project does include some units without assisted living services starting at $2,800/month. This project was considered in our housing gap estimates.

VI-44 The monthly fees for senior care housing are shown below (note: some housing options that charge daily rates were converted to monthly rates).

Surveyed Senior Care Facilities – Base Monthly Rates Project Type Rent Range Independent Living $1,960-$2,630 Congregate Care $810-$2,445 Assisted Living $1,805-$5,495 Nursing Homes $7,118-$9,581

These rental rates should be considered as a base of comparison for the future projects considered in the PSA. It is important to note that many of the senior care facilities with services (e.g. assisted living and nursing care) accept Medicaid payments from eligible residents, which reduces their direct costs to residents.

A map illustrating the location of surveyed senior care facilities in the overall market area is on the following page.

VI-45 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Secondary Study Area Senior Facilities Senior Facilities Complex Type Assisted Living Nursing Care Congregate Care Independent Living

1 10 10 11 10 8 6 3 2 2 4 7 7 12

In order to assess housing development potential, we evaluated recent residential building permit activity and identified residential projects in the development pipeline within the county. Understanding the number of residential units and the type of housing being considered for development in the market can assist in determining how these projects are expected to meet the housing needs of the county.

The following tables illustrate single-family and multifamily building permits issued within the city of Bowling Green and Warren County for the past ten years:

Housing Unit Building Permits for Bowling Green, KY: Permits 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Multifamily Permits 48 93 498 485 151 184 545 631 477 1,285 Single-Family Permits 88 130 83 88 111 118 159 193 209 303 Total Units 136 223 581 573 262 302 704 824 686 1,588 Source: SOCDS Building Permits Database at http://socds.huduser.org/permits/index.html and the city of Bowling Green

Housing Unit Building Permits for Warren County: Permits 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Multifamily Permits 69 211 552 531 151 186 593 757 525 1,501 Single-Family Permits 284 362 291 385 378 417 544 578 734 752 Total Units 353 573 843 916 529 603 1,137 1,335 1,259 2,253 Source: SOCDS Building Permits Database at http://socds.huduser.org/permits/index.html and the city of Bowling Green

Residential building permits within the PSA (Bowling Green) fluctuated for much of the past decade. However, it is clear that residential building permits for the past four years (2015 to 2018) represent the greatest annual building permit activity over the past decade for the city of Bowling Green. During these past four years, multifamily residential permits issued in the PSA totaled 2,938 units which represent 77.3% of the residential units permitted in the city. This permitting activity has led to the development of many multifamily apartments over the past few years. County-wide, residential permitting activity has topped 1,000 units in each of the past four years, with the number of units being split relatively evenly among the multifamily and single-family units until this past year. When separating the PSA (Bowling Green) permitted units from the SSA (balance of the county) over the past four years, the number of units permitted in the PSA represent 63.5% of the county’s total. This demonstrates that the majority of units being developed in the county over the past few years are located in Bowling Green.

VI-47 Based on our interviews with planning representatives, it was determined that there are more than 40 rental housing projects either under construction or planned within or near the Site PSA. These developments are summarized as follows:

Project Name & Address Type Units Developer Status/Details Under Construction: Project amenities include a clubhouse, swimming pool, putting green, walking path, fitness center; One-, two-, and three-bedrooms; Rents to range from $750 to $1,400; First phase should be open in early 2019. The Hub The Hub mixed-use property will also 494 Hub Boulevard include a hotel, health facility, Bowling Green Market-rate Chandler Residential, LLC and a three-story bank building; 42103 Mixed-use 312 (David Chandler) May ultimately include 650 units The Icon Under Construction: First floor 1131 Fairview Avenue retail & restaurant space, second Bowling Green Market-rate floor offices, third floor 42101 Mixed-use 11 Design Management LLC residential; ECD May 2019 Under Construction: 48 units are completed and 240 more The Drake one-, two-, and three-bedroom 726 Cumberland Trace Road units are under construction; Bowling Green, KY SH Management, LLC Rents range from $1,008 to 42103 Market-rate 240 $1,333; ECD May 2019 Stuart Farm Apartments NE of Nashville Road & South Under construction: Also 80 McElwain Road single-family lots planned on Bowling Green, site; No additional information 42104 Market-rate 128 Luke Williams could be obtained Under Construction: Existing government subsidized property of 36 units adding 20 market-rate Fort Webb Manor units for those age 55 +; 16 one- 515 Coombs Drive bedrooms and four two- Bowling Green Market-rate Housing Authority of bedrooms; rent will be $550 and 42101 Senior 20 Bowling Green $675; ECD early spring 2019 Under Construction: 122 one- bedroom, 64 two-bedroom, and 33 four-bedroom units; Project Muse will target student population at 1801 Russellville Road Vecino Group/Taibos Western Kentucky University; Bowling Green Market-rate Landing Rent range from $680-$830 per 42101 (Student housing)219 person per month; ECD 2019 TBD Under Construction: Two- 1138 Kenton Street bedroom/2.5-bath townhomes at Bowling Green Trident Properties of BG, 1,037 square feet; Attached 42101 Market-rate 14 LLC garage; Planned rents are $895 TBD-To be determined N/A-Not Available ECD- Estimated completion date

VI-48

(continued) Project Name & Address Type Units Developer Status/Details Middle Bridge Apartments 113 Middle Bridge Stub Road Under Construction: Bowling Green J & T Property Infrastructure placement 42103 Market-rate 22 Management, Inc. underway TBD Under Construction: Two sites West of 344 Dye Ford Road ¼ mile apart; Rents for the two- Bowling Green bedroom/2.0-bath apartments are 42104 Market-rate 68 BCTA Properties, LLC expected to be $850 a month Under construction: Existing property (open in 2017) with 72 units will be adding 72 units; The Southern The current units rent from $730 441 Bourbon Street to $1,035; Plans for 275 units in Bowling Green Blake Richey & total: ECD for Phase II is late 42104 Market-rate 72 Stockyards Real Estate 2019 Under Construction The plan Charmante Cottages includes 37 one-bedroom, 45 6152 Scottsville Road two-bedroom, and five three- Bowling Green bedroom units; Also, a 4,426- 42104 Market-rate 87 Next Phase LLC square-foot clubhouse and pool TBD 5880 Scottsville Road Under Construction: Two- Bowling Green story, eight-plex buildings: ECD 42104 Market-rate 120 VGF Investments, LLC summer 2019 TBD Under Construction: Some are 1592 Collegeview Drive completed and rented; One- Bowling Green bedrooms renting for $665 and 42101 Market-rate 30 Groves & Volkert two-bedroom for $850 Under Construction: 24 units Stillwater Place were completed in 2018; 25 5878 Old Nashville Road, Loop No. more under construction; One-, 2 and two-bedrooms renting for Bowling Green Bronx Bombers, LLC & $699 to $875; Nearing 42104 Market-rate 25 Darri Pinerola completion TBD Under Construction: One-and 700 State Street two-bedrooms; Attached garages Bowing Green New Millennium Real and rolling garage door living 42121 Market-rate 15 Estate room walls; ECD summer 2019 Under Construction: Existing Creekwood Village Townhomes & project of 72 units of two- Apts. bedroom townhomes rent for 300 Mossview Street $850 and one-bedroom garden Bowling Green style units rent for $650; ECD 42101 Market-rate 16 Creekwood Village spring 2019 TBD-To be determined N/A-Not Available ECD- Estimated completion date

VI-49

(continued) Project Name & Address Type Units Developer Status/Details 1213 High Street Bowling Green Under Construction: Nearing 42101 Market-rate 6 Arvin G. & Cornelia J. Vos completion Westen Pointe Estates Under Construction: Existing 1612 Westen Street property of 76 units built in Bowling Green 1990: One-, and two-bedroom 42104 Market-rate 28 Westen Pointe Estates townhomes: ECD March 2019 Knox Manor Under Construction: Existing 550 Winfield Drive property of 40 units built in 1965 Bowling Green has 20 units off-line and under 42103 Market-rate 20 Knox Manor renovations; ECD 2020 Under Construction: One-, Payton Landing two-, and three-bedroom units 6085 Scottsville Road for those making less than 60% Bowling Green Housing Assistance & AMHI; Rents will range from 42104 Tax Credit 76 Development Services $633 to $1,144; ECD Fall 2019 Under Construction: High-end Fairview Gables one-, two-bedrooms, some two- 864 Fairview Avenue bedroom townhomes; Rents Bowling Green range from $950 to $1,500; ECD 42101 Market-rate 47 N/A May 2019 Under Construction Two- TBD bedroom units and 2,100 sq. ft. 5893 Scottsville Road of retail space in the front Bowling Green Market-rate building; Currently putting 42104 Mixed-use 25 BCTA Properties infrastructure in place Under Construction: All one- bedroom units in two-story Hillview Mills buildings; Renting for $675; 5002 Worth Way Some units have been Bowling Green South Central Property completed; Detached garages 42101 Market-rate 38 Management available for $100 Woodland Station NE of Nashville Road and South Under Construction: No McElwain information available; There are Bowling Green also 80 single family home 42104 Market-rate 128 Williams planned Keystone Commons or Fox Ridge Veterans Memorial and Under Construction: High-end Russellville Road Realtor Matthew Tabor one-, two-, and three-bedrooms; Bowling Green and Keystone Developer has approval for up to 42101 Market-rate 280 Development Group LLC 600 units Magnolia Hills Planned: No further info 400-500 Block of Plano Road available; Also 223 single family Bowling Green Rodney Rogers And Renee homes planned at 600-800 Plano 42104 Market-rate 300 Isaacs Road 220 Glasgow Road Bowling Green Planned: No further information 42101 Market-rate 8 Miller & York LLC is available TBD-To be determined N/A-Not Available ECD- Estimated completion date

VI-50

(continued) Project Name & Address Type Units Developer Status/Details Planned: Two units constructed in a duplex building; Six units TBD still planned; Marketed as 101 & 103 West 15th Avenue student housing; Three-bedroom Bowling Green units rent for $1,050 a month; 42101 Market-rate 8 Plan B Holdings, LLC Individual leases also available Planned: 9.62-acre property annexed into the City of TBD Bowling Green in September Morgantown Road & Walnut Creek 2018; Two apartment buildings, Drive Sevenplus, LLC, three stories high with Bowling Green Market-rate Morgantown Bank and 24 units each; Shopping center 42101 Mixed-use 48 Trust also planned Planned: Group home for TBD women ages 18 and older will 1415 Nutwood Street Resident Group provide addiction therapy, Bowling Green Living/Residential education courses and life skills 42104 Treatment Facility 16 Vulcan Investments, LLC training Traditions Landing Planned: 28 one-bedroom units 147 Hunters Village Lane completed in 2017: Approval for Bowling Green 88 more units; The timeline is 42103 Market-rate 88 Hunt Family Partnership unavailable TBD North side of Audley Court Planned: No activity has Bowling Green Cook Property occurred; Minimal information 42101 Market-rate 40 Management, LLC available City Center Apartment 635 College Street Planned: Minimal information Bowling Green available; Construction to begin 42101 Market-rate 50 Sky Property Management 2020 TBD Southwest corner of Richpond Road & Skees Road Planned: No activity has Bowling Green occurred; Minimal information 42104 Market-rate 25 Mike & Evon Hymer available Planned: No activity has occurred. Zoning application TBD 34 Properties, LLC (January 2018) indicates that 1011 Campbell Lane (Contract Vendee) project will consist of 33 Bowling Green Harlan-Gray Investments townhouse units with attached 42104 Market-rate 33 (Owner) garages on a 3.27-acre tract. TBD Shannon Drive (just south of 1124) Planned: No activity has Bowling Green occurred; Minimal information 42101 Market-rate 35 Legacy Built Homes available TBD-To be determined N/A-Not Available ECD- Estimated completion date

VI-51

(continued) Project Name & Address Type Units Developer Status/Details TBD Russellville Road (between 5836 and 6064) Planned: No activity has Bowling Green occurred; Minimal information 42101 Market-rate 48 John Tarter, Trustee available TBD Elrod Road, Dunbarton Avenue Planned: No activity has Bowling Green Legacy Built Homes, occurred; Minimal information 42104 Market-rate 48 LLC available 3885 Old Nashville Road Loop #1 Planned: Zone Change Bowling Green Submitted February 21 hearing 42104 Market-rate 16 Elijah Properties, LLC date TBD Planned: 120 multifamily units, 2520 Cumberland Trace Road along with 312 single family Bowling Green Luke Williams and CPR home lots; Construction likely to 42103 Market-rate 120 Farms LLC begin in 2019-2020 TBD West end of New Bond Way Planned: No construction activity Bowling Green has occurred; Minimal 42101 Market-rate 72 Woodlands Plaza, Inc. information available TBD 7433 Russellville Road/Murphy Road Construction Design Bowling Green Management, LLC & Planned: Construction likely to 42101 Market-rate 75 Sawyer Williams begin in 2019-2020 TBD Cherry Farm Lane Planned: No activity has Bowling Green Taibos Landing, LLC occurred.; Minimal information 42103 Market-rate 96 Cherry Park, LLC available’ Project may change TBD 2353 & 2361Russellville Road Planned: No activity has Bowling Green John Groves & Shane occurred; Minimal information 42101 Market-rate 120 Vanmeter available TBD Scottsville Road (behind Goodwill/Tractor Supply Co.) Planned: No activity has Bowling Green Bowling Green Partners, occurred; Minimal information 42104 Market-rate 192 LLC available TBD 1854 Three Springs Road Planned: No activity has Bowling Green GVTP Developments, occurred; Minimal information 42104 Market-rate 304 LLC available TBD Planned: No activity has Louisville Road/Stone Lane Glenbrook KY, LLC occurred; Mixture of Bowling Green HBB Jenkins, Inc. retail, office and residential; 42101 Market-rate 444 Hilda Jenkins Minimal information available TBD-To be determined N/A-Not Available ECD- Estimated completion date

VI-52

(continued) Project Name & Address Type Units Developer Status/Details TBD 265 Walnut Creek Drive Planned: No activity has Bowling Green occurred; Minimal information 42101 Market-rate 260 Vision Engineering, LLC available Planned: Approved for rezoning TBD 4.6431 acres on the site of the 2353, 2361 Russellville Road former Wah Bah Steakhouse near Bowling Green John Grove & Shane Veterans Memorial and 42101 Market-rate 120 VanMeter Russellville Road TBD-To be determined

Based on the preceding tables, there are 24 confirmed multifamily apartments under construction in or around the city with nearly 1,800 units. These units have been considered in our demand estimates. An additional 25 projects with a potential 2,800 units are in the planning stages and could be added to the market in the next few years.

SENIOR LIVING PROJECTS

Two senior rental housing projects are planned in the area and are summarized below:

Project Name and Address Units Type Developer Status/ Details Massey Springs Senior Living Planned: An existing project of 47 independent 2945 Smallhouse Road living homes, with assisted living and memory Bowling Green Independent care units; Will break ground in 2019 on an 42104 20 Living Massy Senior Living additional 20 independent living villas Arcadia Senior Living Planned: An existing project of independent 618 Lovers Lane living homes, with assisted living and memory Bowling Green Independent Arcadia Senior care units. Plans to add nine independent living 42103 9 Living Living villas

The two independent living senior properties are expected to add 29 new villas that will be rentals.

For-Sale Housing

There are currently more than 40 confirmed for-sale housing projects planned and/or under construction within Warren County. These projects are summarized in the tables that follow.

While the number of units listed in the table is the total number of lots that were approved for each subdivision, the number of homes built and sold and lots still for sale were not available for the projects listed as “Under Construction”.

VI-53

Subdivision/Condominium Units Product Type Developer Status/ Details Under Construction: Six four-bedroom homes for Autumn Grove sale from $329,900 to End of Aaron Road/Emma Lane $399,900; Several lots still Bowling Green Single Family Southside Development, vacant and starting at 42101 26 Homes LLC $59,900 Under Construction: Three Crandell Property home under construction; 810-914 Boatlanding Road Nine lots vacant; Three- Bowling Green Single Family bedroom/three bath, 1,200 42101 12 Homes Banks Crandell sq. ft; selling for $125,000 Under Construction: Large Greystone existing subdivision with End of Cedar Run Street homes for sale ranging from Bowling Green Single Family $222,900 to $239,900; Lots 42101 130 Homes Greystone Properties still vacant Under Construction: 35 Weatherstone lots sold; Lots sell for Russellville Road/Weatherstone $37,000; 17 homes for sale Boulevard from $174,900 to $229,500; Bowling Green Single Family Three- & four-bedrooms 42101 140 Homes GC Land Development from 1,247 to 1.752 sq. ft McLennan Farms Nashville Road and McLellan Road Planned: Number of lots Bowling Green Single Family could change, final plans are 42101 90 Homes GTS Properties not complete TBD 3226 Richpond-Rockfield Road Planned: Priced $185,000 Bowling Green Single Family to $225,000; Minimum of 42101 112 Homes Newport Properties 1,400 square feet Planned: Construction Price Family Farm should begin soon; 1,200 to 654 John D. Jones Road 1,400 square feet of living Bowling Green Single Family space; Homes will be priced 42101 232 Homes Pin Oak Developments from $150,000 to $250,000 Planned: Nine homes completed, 22 more planned in next phase; multi-phase project to develop a mixed- income mixed-use, green, affordable housing community as a statewide Durbin Estates Western Kentucky demonstration; Project will Glen Lily Road University and Habitat for also include a community Bowling Green Single Family Humanity, other state and center, walking trails, and 42101 49 Homes local community partners. green space ECD-Estimated Completion Date N/A – Not Available SFH-Single family home Sq. ft.-square feet

VI-54 Subdivision/Condominium Units Product Type Developer Status/ Details TBD 377 McClellan Road Bowling Green Single Family Planned: Zone Change 42101 42 Homes Southside Development Pending TBD End of Iris Hill Street Bowling Green Single Family Planned: No activity has 42101 48 Homes Dennis & Lori Causey occurred Under Construction: River’s Landing Edge Deemed affordable; McFadin Station Street Ranging from 1,000 to Bowling Green Single Family 1,200 sq. ft; Priced from 42103 140 Homes Mark Williams $125,000 to $145,000 Under Construction: 29 Lots (8 Twin Homes); Seven homes are under Burr Oaks construction, all other lots 1300 block Fairview Avenue empty; Lots 1/4 acre to 1/2 Bowling Green Single Family acre & priced $75,000 to 42103 29 Homes Robert & Doris Burr $125,000 TBD 2186-2344 Victor Lane Planned: Plat Recorded-no Bowling Green Single Family permits yet; Plan to sell lots 42103 6 Homes Tommy Kelley around $130,000 Indian Ridge SW Corner of Chippewa Drive & Scott Lane Planned: Existing Bowling Green Single Family subdivision; Six vacant lots 42103 6 Homes D & D Contracting Group for sale TBD Planned: Approved Sept. 7017 Cemetery Road 2017; 2,600 to 3,000 square Bowling Green Single Family feet of living space; Homes 42103 68 Homes James Cook will start at $360,000; TBD Alvaton-Greenhill Road/Bays Fork Bowling Green Single Family Planned: Plat recorded; No 42103 7 Homes Carroll & Aloma Moseley permits yet TBD 5863 Cemetery Road Bowling Green Single Family Donald And Mollie Planned: Plat recorded; No 42103 14 Homes Brown construction activity Planned: One acre lots; will sell some lots to other Crabtree At Hunts Lane builders; estimated the Hunts Lane & Cemetery Road homes would sell for Bowling Green Single Family $350,000 and up; To be 42103 25 Homes H & A Development under construction soon ECD-Estimated Completion Date N/A – Not Available SFH-Single family home Sq. ft.-square feet

VI-55 Subdivision/Condominium Units Product Type Developer Status/ Details Planned: 256-acre subdivision and new school approved; Homes at least Cumberland Trace 1,800 square feet: 120 2520 Cumberland Trace Road Single Family Multifamily town homes Bowling Green Homes & planned also; Construction 42103 312 Townhomes CPR Farms LLC likely to begin in 2019-2020 Greenhills Planned: No activity has Lovers Lane/Frist Boulevard Mixed-use occurred; Commercial Bowling Green Single Family Greenhills Development portion only is under 42103 450 Homes Partners, LLC construction Under Construction: Issued permits for four homes, all Matlock Farms other lots empty; Four & five Matlock Road & RT. 242 Matlock Properties, LLC bedrooms, 2,400 to 3,000 sq. Bowling Green Single Family & Harlan Construction, ft. priced $350,000 to 42104 24 Homes Inc. $450,000 Kingston Pointe Under Construction: 12 Plano Road/Royal Court homes for sale from $257,500 Bowling Green Single Family to $348,900; Some lots still 42104 30 Homes Kingston Pointe, LLC vacant Under Construction: Priced from $179,500 to $264,600; From 1,154 to 2,780 sq. ft; Magnolia Hills Community pool, clubhouse, 600-800 Block of Plano Road and basketball courts; 300 Bowling Green Single Family Rodney Rogers And multifamily units planned 42104 223 Homes Renee Isaacs also Under Construction: Three The Vining’s homes for sale- Prices range Collett Road/Vining Lane $184,100 to $258,900; 1,320 Bowling Green Single Family to 2,791 square feet: There 42104 45 Homes Jagoe Homes are no available lots Mackenzie Meadows Chevy Way/Elrod Road Under Construction: Phase Bowling Green Single Family III; Average price $276,200; 42104 75 Homes Bowling Green Builders Some lots still vacant Under Construction: Four- bedroom for sale at Legacy Pointe $274,900- $318,650; Some S of Smallhouse & Elrod Road homes being built from Bowling Green Single Family $170,000+; Some lots still 42104 76 Homes GVTP Developments vacant Under Construction: Lots for sale at $43,900; Four Stuart Farm homes currently being built Nashville Road/Stuart Farm Lane for $175,000; 128 units Bowling Green Single Family Woodland Station apartments also under 42104 80 Homes Development construction on lot. ECD-Estimated Completion Date N/A – Not Available SFH-Single family home Sq. ft.-square feet

VI-56 Subdivision/Condominium Units Product Type Developer Status/ Details Under Construction: 10 TBD homes for sale, priced Collett Road/Leon Drive $262,900 to $339,900; Three- Bowling Green Single Family four-, five -bedrooms; Lots 42104 90 Homes BCTA Properties still vacant Planned: Homes 1,600+ square feet with two-car attached garages; Developer TBD to bring sewer service and 687 and 701 Carter-Sims Road build a turn lane from Carter Bowling Green Single Family Sims Road into the 42104 64 Homes Barrett Hammer subdivision TBD Elrod Road (Across From 2836 Elrod Road) Bowling Green Single Family Planned: Zoning change 42104 355 Homes GVTP Developments pending Planned: 9.64-acre tract near Hunters Crossing and Scottish Manor Estates Scottish Manor East End of Tammy Way subdivisions; Received Bowling Green Single Family Legacy Built Homes, approval November 2017; 42104 23 Homes LLC No permits issued yet TBD SW of Matlock Road/Long Road Planned: Under Bowling Green Single Family construction soon; 1,800 to 42104 100 Homes GVTP Developments over 2,200 square feet Planned: Construction to TBD begin soon; 1,600+ square 2836 Elrod Road feet with two-car garages; Bowling Green Single Family BK Development of Priced from $250,000 to 42104 55 Homes Bowling Green $325,000. TBD SW Corner of Richpond & Skees Road Bowling Green Single Family Planned: Approved in June 42104 32 Homes Mike and Evon Hymer 2018 but no further activity Under Construction: Homes will be 1,800+ square feet; Lots priced from $49,9000 to $58,900; Poplar Grove Addition Homes will be around Alvaton Single Family Robert D. Burr and $300,000 range; Several lots 42122 129 Homes Bennie & Laura Jones still vacant Drakes Ridge Under Construction: Six Scottsville Road/Drakes Boulevard homes for sale; Priced Alvaton Single Family $364,900 to $429,900; 42122 138 Homes Alvaton Properties Several lots still vacant TBD 805-1035 Brawner Road Alvaton Single Family Planned: Plat Recorded-no 42122 6 Homes High Point Homes permits yet ECD-Estimated Completion Date N/A – Not Available SFH-Single family home Sq. ft.-square feet

VI-57 Subdivision/Condominium Units Product Type Developer Status/ Details Planned: July 2018 Commissioners recommended approval; At TBD least 1,800 square feet; 9053 Twin Bridges Road Addition to the Poplar Bowling Green Single Family Grove subdivision; Priced in 42122 60 Homes Burr and Jones LLC $300,000 range TBD South of Scottsville Road/Upton Road Planned: 1,800+ square Bowling Green Single Family feet; All lots sold; Soon to 42122 80 Homes Jody Allen be under construction TBD Old Scottsville Road Planned: Under By Alvaton Elementary construction soon; homes of Alvaton Single Family at least 1,600 square feet 42122 95 Homes Alvaton Land Partners with two-car garages ECD-Estimated Completion Date N/A – Not Available SFH-Single family home Sq. ft.-square feet

Based on the preceding tables, there are approximately 41 for-sale housing developments either under construction or planned in or around the PSA. While these developments have a total potential for more than 3,800 for-sale residential units, many of these projects include future phases and/or lots that may never be built upon. It was confirmed that 65 homes were under construction, with 38 units priced over $250,000, and the balance under $250,000. We have considered these homes in our demand estimates.

VI-58 F. Foreclosure Data

The prevalence of residential foreclosures is an important element to understand. The following table summarizes monthly residential foreclosure activity over the past 11 months within PSA (Bowling Green), according to RealtyTrac.Com.

2018 Residential Foreclosure Filings – PSA Month Filings Monthly Change January 8- February 80 March 7 -1 April 0 -7 May 8+8 June 3 -5 July 11 +8 August 8-3 September 9+1 October 2-7 November 7+5 Total Foreclosures 71 - Avg. Monthly 6.5 - Source: RealtyTrac.com Note: The number of monthly filings is approximated

PSA Residential Foreclosures (Jan. 2018 to Nov. 2018) 12

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Between January and November of 2018, there have been just 71 residential foreclosure filings in the PSA (Bowling Green), with an average of 6.5 foreclosures a month. The number of monthly residential foreclosures within the PSA have been no greater than 11 during any one month, which is considered low for a city this size.

VI-59 The overall foreclosure rates over the past 11 months for the PSA (Bowling Green), Warren County, Kentucky, and the United States are compared in the following table and graph.

Geographic Comparison Data PSA Warren Co. Kentucky National Annual Foreclosure Rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.04% Source: RealtyTrac.com (November 2018)

Foreclosure Rates (Past 11 Months) 0.05%

0.04% 0.04% 0.03%

0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01%

0.00% PSA Warren Co. Kentucky National

The 0.02% annual foreclosure rate for PSA as of November 2018 is extremely low and identical to both the Warren County and Kentucky averages. This rate is half the national average of 0.04%.

Based on the preceding analysis, residential foreclosure activity over the past 11 months appears to be minimal and likely has had little impact on housing supply trends and characteristics within PSA.

G. Summary

More Than 500 Housing Units in Bowling Green are Considered “Substandard” – Severe overcrowded households are those with 1.51 persons or more per room, which are considered “substandard” in today’s market. Additionally, projects lacking complete indoor kitchen or bathroom plumbing are considered “substandard”. Within Bowling Green, severe overcrowded households total 257 renter-occupied households. There are also potentially 303 renter-occupied units in the city that have either incomplete bathroom or kitchen plumbing. As a result, it is clear that many households are living in housing conditions that are considered to be below modern-day housing standards. Housing policies and strategies for the PSA should include efforts to remedy such housing.

VI-60 Despite the Inventory of Affordable Rentals and Housing Assistance Provided in the Market, Many PSA Residents are Still Cost/Rent Burdened – While Bowling Green offers more than 1,400 affordable (Tax Credit and government-subsidized) rental units in the market, all of these units are occupied, and most affordable rental projects have wait lists. Additionally, there are approximately 900 households on the wait list for Housing Choice Vouchers. These are clear indications of the pent-up demand for affordable rental housing in Bowling Green. Households that are “cost burdened” (paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs) or severe cost burdened (paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs) often find it difficult paying for both their housing and meeting other financial obligations. An estimated 6,317 or 45.5% of renter-occupied households in the PSA are cost burdened. This is a noticeably higher share of rent burdened households than the SSA (34.9%) and slightly higher when compared with the state of Kentucky (41.7%). Among PSA’s renter households, a total of 3,436 (24.8%) are severe cost burdened. Within Kentucky, this ratio is 21.0%. With so many renters in the PSA paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards rents, it is clear that many renter households in the PSA are likely struggling to meet their housing costs. The number of cost burdened households in the PSA indicates that affordable housing programs will be important to help alleviate cost burdened housing situations in the county.

There is Pent-Up Demand for Housing Serving Very Low- and Low-Income Renter Households – Based on Bowen National Research’s survey of multifamily apartment rentals in the county, all 22 surveyed projects offering at least some affordable units (Tax Credit or government-subsidized) are fully occupied. In fact, most of these projects, which serve low- and very-low income households, maintain wait lists for renters waiting for units to become available. As a result, it is clear that there is pent-up demand for households with incomes of up to 80% of Area Median Housing Income level (earning up to $47,120 for a family of four). The lack of available housing serving low- income households is likely contributing to the large number of renters living in substandard and/or cost burdened housing situations in the county.

VI-61 among existing rentals would exacerbate the shortage of affordable rental housing alternatives.

While There are Some Non-Conventional Rentals and For-Sale Housing Alternatives Available, Such Housing is Not Affordable to a Large Number of the City’s Households – Based on Bowen National Research’s research and analysis of the non-conventional rental market (e.g. single-family homes, duplexes, mobile homes, etc.), a majority of these rentals have rents over $1,000, which are not affordable to many of the low-income households in the market. Most (68.4%) of the existing inventory of for-sale housing that is available to purchase in Bowling Green primarily consists of product priced over $200,000. While this available inventory of for-sale product represents 66.9% of the available supply, only 40.0% of the households in the market have sufficient incomes to afford such product. As such, there appears to be an imbalance between available product and households that can afford it.

VI-62 VII. Other Housing Market Factors

A. Introduction

Factors other than demography, employment, and supply (all analyzed earlier in this study) can affect the strength or weakness of a given housing market. The following additional factors influence a housing market’s performance, and are discussed relative to the PSA (Bowling Green) and compared with the SSA (balance of county), county or state information, whenever applicable:

 Personal Mobility & Transportation  Refugees  Crime Risk  Qualified Opportunity Zone  Special Needs  Code Enforcement  Community Services  Evictions & Landlord-Tenant Laws  Western Kentucky University

B. Personal Mobility & Transportation

The ability of a person or household to travel easily, quickly, safely, and affordably throughout a market influences the desirability of a housing market. If traffic jams create long commuting times or public transit service is not available for carless people, their quality of life is diminished. Factors that lower resident satisfaction weaken housing markets. Typically, people travel frequently outside of their residences for three reasons: 1) to commute to work, 2) to run errands or 3) to recreate.

The following tables show two commuting pattern attributes (mode and time) for each study area:

Commuting Mode

Total Home Home Walked Walked Carpooled Carpooled Worked at Worked Drove Alone Drove Alone Other Means Means Other Public Transit Number 21,252 3,814 154 1,475 369 612 27,676 PSA Percent 76.8% 13.8% 0.6% 5.3% 1.3% 2.2% 100.0% Number 23,999 2,784 13 335 366 913 28,410 SSA Percent 84.5% 9.8% 0.0% 1.2% 1.3% 3.2% 100.0% Combined Number 45,251 6,598 167 1,810 735 1,525 56,086 (PSA & SSA) Percent 80.7% 11.8% 0.3% 3.2% 1.3% 2.7% 100.0% Number 1,551,679 183,154 20,408 44,888 24,897 61,603 1,886,629 Kentucky Percent 82.2% 9.7% 1.1% 2.4% 1.3% 3.3% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community

VII-1 Commuting Time

Total Home Home 15 to 29 29 to 15 44 to 30 59 to 45 Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Worked at Worked 60 or More More or 60 Less Than 15 Less Than

Number 12,937 10,102 2,179 794 1,054 612 27,678 PSA Percent 46.7% 36.5% 7.9% 2.9% 3.8% 2.2% 100.0% Number 7,080 14,239 3,920 793 1,463 913 28,408 SSA Percent 24.9% 50.1% 13.8% 2.8% 5.1% 3.2% 100.0% Combined Number 20,017 24,341 6,099 1,587 2,517 1,525 56,086 (PSA & SSA) Percent 35.7% 43.4% 10.9% 2.8% 4.5% 2.7% 100.0% Number 566,990 717,365 329,899 111,483 99,289 61,603 1,886,629 Kentucky Percent 30.1% 38.0% 17.5% 5.9% 5.3% 3.3% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community

Noteworthy observations from the preceding tables follow:

 The share (76.8%) of commuters in the PSA (Bowling Green) that drive alone is lower than the surrounding SSA (balance of Warren County) and the state of Kentucky. However, 19.7% of commuters in the PSA either carpool, walk to work or take public transportation, which is higher than the SSA (11.0%) or Kentucky (13.4%). Because of the presence of WKU and the fact that the PSA has many walkable areas, it is not surprising that the PSA has more people commuting to work by means other than driving alone.

 Most PSA workers (83.2%) have a typical commute of less than 30 minutes. Meanwhile, commuters with drive times of less than 30 minutes in the surrounding SSA represent a smaller share (75.0%). Only 6.7% of PSA commuters travel more than 45 minutes to work.

The preceding analysis indicates that a high share of Bowling Green residents have relatively short commutes to employment. While a majority of PSA residents rely on their own vehicles to commute to work, the PSA has a greater share of people carpooling, walking or using public transportation to get to work than the other areas considered in this report. Clearly, this does not mean commuting is easy for all residents, that drive-times are short for everyone or that transportation costs are affordable to all people. However, it does indicate that the PSA is generally a commuter friendly city, which positively impacts the quality of life for most residents in the city and contributes to its overall appeal.

Maps showing travel times from the center of the PSA and the location of area employment follows this page.

VII-2

VII-3 The map and data below illustrate the inflow and outflow of the daily workforce traveling in and out of Bowling Green:

As shown in the preceding map and table, there were a total of 50,802 persons employed within the city in 2015. While 13,945 (27.4%) of these employed persons also live in the city, the city has a notable inflow and outflow of employed persons. A total of 8,501 workers leave the city for employment during the day, while 36,857 people that work in the city commute from outside of the city. This inflow of 36,857 workers represents an opportunity for the city to retain such commuters as permanent residents.

VII-4 Public Transit Availability

Below is a summary of transit options available within the Bowling Green area:

GO bg Transit: GO bg Transit is a public bus service that serves Bowling Green. The bus service offers six routes that serve various portions of the city. Four of these routes extend into the downtown area, while one route primarily serves the WKU campus area and western portion of the city and another route primarily serves the far southeast portion of the city. Notable stops include the Greenwood Mall, Western Kentucky University, grocery and discount stores, doctors’ offices, Greenview Hospital, the Medical Center, the Convention Center, and Fountain Square. Bus services are open to the general public and available Monday through Friday beginning at 6:00 a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m. Besides the fixed routes, the transit service also offers specialized service for people with disabilities, and various other shuttles.

The bus fares are as follows:

Fixed Route Fares: Adults (Ages 12 and older) $2.00 Children (Ages 7 to 11) $1.00 Children under age 7 Free Seniors (Ages 60+) Free Persons with Disabilities Free Students $50/Semester

A map of the fixed bus routes is shown on the following page.

GO too: This is an on-call door-to-door shuttle service also referred to as ADA Complementary Paratransit. It is available to persons with disabilities who cannot ride the regular route buses. The hours of service are the same as the regular fixed routes. People using the service must make reservations at least one day in advance. A map illustrating the service area of the shuttle service is on

the right.

VII-5

VII-6 C. Crime Risk

Crime risk, whether perceived or real, can influence a person’s decision to move to, leave, or remain at, a particular location. The desirability of a housing market, whether citywide or neighborhood-specific, is often judged by its level of security and safety. Existing and potential residents constantly monitor crime risk, both on a “personal” and “property” basis. When certain geographic areas exhibit higher crime rates, potential residents tend to move elsewhere and existing residents relocate. Conversely, areas with lower crime rates tend to attract potential residents and retain existing ones. Stronger housing markets normally enjoy low or decreasing crime rates, while weaker housing markets usually suffer from high or increasing crime rates.

For this study, the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) was used. The FBI collects data from roughly 16,000 separate law enforcement agencies across the country and compiles it into the UCR. The most recent data shows a 95% coverage rate of all jurisdictions nationwide. Applied Geographic Solutions uses the UCR at the jurisdictional level to model seven crime types for specific geographic areas. Risk indexes are standardized based on national averages. A Risk Index value of 100 for a particular crime type in a certain area means that the probability of the risk is consistent with the national average. It should be noted that aggregate indexes for total crime, personal crime and property crime are not weighted, and a murder is no more significant statistically than petty theft. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using them.

The following table compares the UCR crime risk probabilities for the selected geographies in this study. Note that because crime risk data is only available by zip code, we have presented such data for zip codes that fall within the city, and within Warren County overall and Kentucky. As a base of comparison, the national crime risk index is 100.

Personal Crime Property Crime Total Vehicular Crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Burglary Larceny Theft Total 42101 (Bowling Green) 118 77 182 71 42 64 122 133 80 126 42103 (Bowling Green) 100 28 105 44 23 37 76 128 44 110 42104 (Bowling Green) 90 37 157 63 26 49 77 106 54 95 42122 (Alvaton) 14 14 60 3 3 9 23 13 6 15 42159 (Oakland) 25 39 73 10 12 18 58 20 8 27 42171 (Smiths Grove) 21 37 59 16 11 17 50 13 17 21 42170 (Woodburn) 39 59 159 4 19 29 48 43 9 40 42274 (Rockfield) 31 64 46 12 12 16 58 28 21 34 Warren County 100 54 153 60 32 51 96 116 61 108 Kentucky 84 93 99 73 45 59 100 85 74 87 Source: Applied Geographic Solutions

VII-7 Of the three zip codes that fall within Bowling Green, the crime indices range from 90 to 118. While the highest crime index (118) in the county falls within Bowling Green zip code 42101 (encompassing the northwest part of the city and areas beyond), this is not considered a high crime index. Therefore, there does not appear to be any discernable difference in crime indices within the city. As expected, more rural areas of Warren County, located outside of Bowling Green city limits, have crime indices below 50. As such, while crime rates do not appear to be high within Bowling Green, some residents may choose to live outside the city limits due to the lower incidents of crime.

A map illustrating crime risk within the PSA/SSA follows this page.

VII-8 Bowling Green Bowling Green, KY Secondary Study Area 2018 Crime Risk 2018 USA Crime Index ZIP Code 1 - 50 (Half of Average) 51 - 100 (Below Average) 101 - 200 (Above Average) 201 - 400 (More than 2X Average) 401 and up (More than 4X Average) No Data

N 01.25 2.5 5 7.5 1:330,000 Miles D. Special Needs

Overview

As part of this analysis, we collected and evaluated data relative to a variety of special needs populations in Bowling Green and Warren County, depending upon the availability of such data. The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the area that were considered in this report.

Special Needs Populations Special Needs Group Persons Special Needs Group Persons Homeless Population 162 Physical/Mental Disabilities 9,731 Seniors Ages 65+ 8,527 Veterans 3,162

These special needs populations should be kept in mind as policies, programs and incentives are developed to meet the overall housing needs of Bowling Green and Warren County.

Homeless Population

Warren County is located within Kentucky’s Balance of State Continuum of Care. CoCs around the United States are required to collect data for a point-in- time in January of each year. The last published point-in-time surveys were conducted in January 2018. This includes a count of persons who are classified as homeless and their subpopulation categorization. The following table summarizes the homeless population within the county by various categories.

Warren County - Homeless Persons Category Number Unsheltered 23 Emergency Shelter 139 Total 162 Subpopulation Number Unaccompanied Youth 7 Parenting Youth 3 Veterans 7 Chronically Homeless 8 Severe Mental Illness 44 Substance Abuse Disorder 38 Currently Homeless as a Result of Domestic Violence 23 Source: Kentucky Housing Corporation 2018 Point in Time Report

According to the Kentucky Housing Corporation’s 2018 Point in Time report, there were a total of 162 homeless persons in Warren County, which represents only 7.8% of the total homeless persons (2,077) counted within KHC’s Balance of State service area and only 4.4% of the state as a whole (3,688 homeless persons). Of these estimated 162 homeless persons, 23 are unsheltered and could require housing.

VII-10 There are only two homeless shelters in the county, totaling 116 beds.

Homeless Shelters Name Population Served Beds Barren River Area Safe Space (BRASS) Domestic Violence 26 Salvation Army Emergency Shelter Homeless 90 Total 116

Hope House, a local service provider, is currently in the process of developing an 8-bed facility for homeless women in Bowling Green that will open in the summer of 2019. The project will be known as Program Living for Women.

As shown on page VI-10, 3,436 renter households are severe cost burdened, meaning they pay over 50% of their income towards housing costs. This is an excessively high amount of income paid towards housing, often leaving insufficient funds for other things such as food, medical, dental, toiletries, clothing and other typical household expenditures. These households are the most vulnerable to becoming homeless. As such, affordable rentals will remain an important component to the local housing stock.

Seniors Age 65 and Older

Like much of the U.S., the PSA (Bowling Green) has a very large and growing number of seniors, many with unique housing needs. We have evaluated key population and household data and trends, as well as household income data as it relates to the area’s senior population.

The following tables compare the total senior population and households within the PSA for 2010, 2018 and 2023:

Seniors Age 65+ Population Households Year Number Percent* Number Percent* 2010 6,382 10.8% 4,406 19.1% 2018 8,527 12.8% 5,586 21.3% 2023 10,098 14.2% 6,562 23.1% Change 2018-2023 1,571 18.4% 976 14.9% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research *Percent of seniors compared to the overall market

It is projected between 2018 and 2023 that the PSA’s senior population will increase by 1,571 (18.4%) and the number of senior households will grow by 976 (14.9%). This is significant growth that will add to the demand for senior- oriented housing, including housing that will enable senior home owners to downsize into smaller, more maintenance-free housing.

VII-11 The distribution of seniors by tenure for the PSA is shown in the following table: Seniors Age 65+ Seniors Age 65+ 2010 (Census) 2018 (Estimated) 2023 (Projected) Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 3,280 74.4% 3,764 67.4% 4,104 62.5% Renter-Occupied 1,126 25.6% 1,824 32.6% 2,458 37.5% Total 4,406 100.0% 5,588 100.0% 6,562 100.0% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

While the number of both owner- and renter-occupied senior households have been growing since 2010, renter-occupied households has outpaced owner- occupied households during these past eight years. It is projected, between 2018 and 2023, that the number of senior renter households will increase by 634 (34.8%), while owner-occupied senior households are expected to increase by 340 (9.0%). As such, the need for both rental and for-sale product that meets the needs of seniors is expected to increase over the next several years.

The distribution of senior households by annual income level for the PSA is shown in the table on the following page. Data is presented for three points in time: 2010, 2018 and 2023.

Senior Households Age 65+ 2010 Census 2018 (Estimated) 2023 (Projected) Household Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent $0-$10,000 422 9.6% 444 7.9% 523 8.0% $10,000-$20,000 1,141 25.9% 1,175 21.0% 1,445 22.0% $20,000-$30,000 756 17.2% 916 16.4% 1,059 16.1% $30,000-$40,000 515 11.7% 600 10.7% 654 10.0% $40,000-$50,000 427 9.7% 499 8.9% 552 8.4% $50,000-$60,000 274 6.2% 465 8.3% 577 8.8% $60,000-$75,000 239 5.4% 338 6.0% 364 5.5% $75,000-$100,000 236 5.4% 470 8.4% 566 8.6% $100,000-$125,000 203 4.6% 329 5.9% 418 6.4% $125,000-$150,000 87 2.0% 80 1.4% 86 1.3% $150,000-$200,000 57 1.3% 115 2.1% 141 2.1% $200,000+ 49 1.1% 157 2.8% 177 2.7% TOTAL 4,406 100.0% 5,588 100.0% 6,562 100.0% Median Household Income $28,466 $34,317 $33,884 Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

VII-12 In 2018, most of the senior households in the PSA have incomes between $10,000 and $20,000, representing 21.0% of all senior households. The next greatest share of senior households is among those earning between $20,000 and $30,000, representing 16.4% of the senior households. More than half (56.0%) of all senior households in the market have annual incomes below $40,000. It is projected between 2018 and 2023 that the greatest growth by income will occur among senior households earning between $10,000 and $20,000, which are expected to increase by 270 households or by 23.0%. The next greatest projected increase is among households earning between $20,000 and $30,000, which are projected to increase by 143 households or by 15.6%. This growth among lower income senior households stresses the importance of affordable housing in the PSA.

Based on our survey of area housing alternatives, there were nine multifamily apartment properties surveyed in the market that offer age-restricted units. These units serve lower-income households, as they operate either under the Tax Credit program or with a government-subsidy. These projects are 100% and have long wait lists. As such, there is pent-up demand for affordable rentals for seniors.

Persons with Physical or Mental Disabilities

According to the American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Estimates, there are 9,731 people in the PSA (Bowling Green) that report having a disability. This represents 15.4% of the city’s population. The following table summarizes the distribution of persons with a disability by age group for the PSA.

Bowling Green, Kentucky Total With a disability Subject Estimate Number Percent Total civilian noninstitutionalized population 63,045 9,731 15.4% AGE Under 5 years 3,704 0 0.0% 5 to 17 years 9,843 1,037 10.5% 18 to 34 years 24,614 1,764 7.2% 35 to 64 years 18,114 3,984 22.0% 65 to 74 years 3,815 1,319 34.6% 75 years and over 2,955 1,627 55.1% ACS 2013-2017 Five-Year Estimates As expected, the disability rate by age among the adult population increases among the older adult populations, with more than half (55.1%) of the seniors age 75 and older having one or more disabilities. With nearly 10,000 people in the city with a disability, housing that can accommodate the special needs of the disabled population should be an important consideration in future housing development/rehabilitation decisions within the city.

VII-13 To better understand the disabled population in the market, we have provided the distribution of population within the PSA by disability type in the following table: Bowling Green, KY With a disability Disability Type Number Percent With a hearing difficulty 2,304 3.7% With a vision difficulty 1,448 2.3% With a cognitive difficulty 4,530 7.6% With an ambulatory difficulty 4,618 7.8% With a self-care difficulty 1,875 3.2% With an independent living difficulty 3,248 6.60% ACS 2013-2017 Five-Year Estimates

According to the American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year estimates, of the civilian non-institutionalized population that reported one or more disabilities, the most frequently cited disabilities are ambulatory (7.8%) and cognitive (7.6%) disabilities, with a notable share (6.6%) of the population having an independent living difficulty. It is important to note that respondents to the ACS survey may report more than one type of disability, therefore the individual counts of persons with individual disabilities exceeds the total number of disabled persons in the city. Regardless, with more than 4,500 people in the PSA having some level of physical and/or mental disability, housing product that provides housing designs, features and supportive services that serve these special needs populations are an important component to the city’s housing needs.

LifeSkills, Inc. is a private, nonprofit corporation that provides services and facilities to persons with intellectual disabilities, mental health and addiction issues within the Kentucky counties of Allen, Barren, Butler, Edmonson, Hart, Logan, Metcalfe, Monroe, Simpson, and Warren.

The following statistics were provided by LifeSkills as they relate to persons with mental health and/or substance abuse issues in Warren County:

 LifeSkills, Inc. in Warren County has 2,231 active cases of clients with mental health issues at this time.

 LifeSkills, Inc. Supported Housing Programs currently serves 33 households in Warren County with mental illness and/or substance use who were formerly homeless.

 LifeSkills, Inc. PATH Program provided outreach last year to nearly 75 households, mostly in Warren County, who have mental illness and are homeless or at-risk of homelessness.

VII-14 In addition to the housing provided by LifeSkills, some government-subsidized units in the PSA (Bowling Green) and SSA (balance of Warren County) have units set aside for persons with disabilities or who suffer from substance abuse recovery and homelessness. However, these are few in number and do not adequately serve the overall needs of the area’s residents.

Veterans

According to the American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year estimates, there are 3,162 veterans in the PSA (Bowling Green). These veterans represent 6.3% of the total PSA population. The following tables summarize key demographic data, comparing veterans with the overall PSA population:

Bowling Green, Kentucky Total Veterans Subject Number Percent Number Percent Civilian population 18 years and over 50,589 - 3,162 6.3% AGE 18 to 34 years 24,980 49.4% 462 14.6% 35 to 54 years 13,174 26.0% 655 20.7% 55 to 64 years 5,269 10.4% 528 16.7% 65 to 74 years 3,925 7.8% 819 25.9% 75 years and over 3,241 6.4% 698 22.1% MEDIAN INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Civilian population 18 years and over with income $19,425 - $31,118 - EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Civilian population 25 years and over 34,808 - 3,059 - Less than high school graduate 4,872 14.0% 155 5.1% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 9,462 27.2% 625 20.4% Some college or Associates degree 9,822 28.2% 1,110 36.3% Bachelor's degree or higher 10,652 30.6% 1,169 38.2% EMPLOYMENT STATUS Civilian population 18 to 64 years 43,423 - 1,645 - Labor force participation rate - 71.7% - 71.2% Civilian labor force 18 to 64 years 31,136 - 1,172 - Unemployment rate - 7.3% - 6.8% POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Civilian population 18+ years poverty status is determined 43,816 - 3,055 - Income in the past 12 months below poverty level 10,396 23.7% 319 10.4% Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level 33,420 76.3% 2,736 89.6% DISABILITY STATUS Civilian population 18+ years poverty status is determined 43,816 - 3,055 - With any disability 8,162 18.6% 871 28.5% Without a disability 35,654 81.4% 2,184 71.5%

VII-15

Based on the preceding data, nearly one-half of veterans in the PSA are age 65 or older. A reported 28.5% of veterans suffer from a disability. Despite having a median income of $31,118 and nearly 40% having a college degree, it appears that over one in 10 veterans are living in poverty. As such, affordable veteran housing with services (on or off site) will be important for future housing.

E. Community Services

The location, type, and number of community attributes (both services and amenities) can have a significant impact on housing market performance and the ability of a market to support existing and future residential development. Typically, a geographic area served by an abundance of amenities and services should be more desirable than one with minimal offerings, and its housing market should perform better accordingly. As a result, community attributes were examined within Bowling Green.

The city of Bowling Green is located in the center of Warren County and serves as the county seat. It is approximately 20 miles north of the Tennessee border and features several major thoroughfares that serve residents and commuters within most parts of the county. Interstate Highway 65 is located along the eastern periphery of the city and connects Bowling Green to the larger cities of Louisville and Lexington to the north and northeast and Nashville, Tennessee to the south. There are three primary interchanges for I-65, all along the east side of the city. The William H. Natcher Parkway connects with I-65 just south of the city and provides access to areas in the west and northwest parts of the county and beyond. The parkway has three primary interchanges, all located along the west side of the city. Other primary arteries include US Highway 68 (Louisville Road and Russellville Road), servicing the northeast and southeast portions of the city and county. US Highway 231 (Morgantown Road and Scottsville Road) primarily serves the northwest and southern portions of the city and county.

Public transportation within Bowling Green is provided by GO bg Transit through Community Action of Southern Kentucky. The service offers six fixed bus routes from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday throughout the year, except for major holidays. An on-call shuttle service is also provided for persons with disabilities and provides access to most of the city. The Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport is a public airport owned by the city of Bowling Green and Warren County. It is located in the southeast portion of the city, approximately two miles from the Bowling Green Central Business District.

VII-16 The area offers numerous indoor and outdoor recreation, entertainment and cultural opportunities for residents and visitors. Notable attractions include the National Corvette Museum, Beech Bend Raceway, NCM Motorsports Park, the Historic Railpark and Train Museum, Riverview at Hobson Grove (historic house museum), Beech Bend Park (amusement park), Mammoth Cave National Park, Baker Arboretum, and Lost River Cave (natural caverns/caves). The Southern Kentucky Performing Arts Center, also known as SKyPAC, is a multi- use facility located in downtown Bowling Green, KY. The facility includes an 1,800-seat state-of-the-art auditorium, several multi-functional rehearsal halls/classrooms, a children's art gallery and a main gallery.

A variety of shopping opportunities exists throughout the city. Numerous boutique shopping opportunities exist in the downtown area, including shops in and around the Fountain Square (two-acre park and town square) area of downtown. A notable antique/flea market shopping opportunity is offered at the Vette City Antique Mall, located on the far northeast portion of the city, near the National Corvette Museum and Interstate Highway 65. This antique mall offers approximately 250 individual vendor booths. The Greenwood Mall is located in the 2600 block of Scottsville Road, in the southeast portion of Bowling Green. This regional mall offers nearly 100 stores with a variety of shopping choices. There are roughly 20 grocery stores of varying sizes in the city. These appear to be located throughout all portions of the city.

Diverse eateries and drinking establishments are abundant within the city. Several restaurants, diners, pubs, and coffee shops are located in and around the previously mentioned Fountain Square area, considered the downtown area of the city. There are also several eating and drinking establishments along main corridors of the city, including along or near Scottsville Road, US Highway 31 Bypass, near the Campbell Lane and Nashville Road intersection, as well as within and near the Greenwood Mall on the far southeast portion of the city.

The city is well served by public safety services. The Medical Center, a full- service medical campus, is generally located along Park Street and High Street, between 1st Avenue and 5th Avenue, in the east side of the city. TriStar Greenview Regional Hospital is located in the south-central portion of the city and is a general medical and surgical facility. There are several other urgent care facilities and walk-in clinics scattered throughout most of the city. The Bowling Green Police Department serves the city and has its main police station centrally located within the city at 911 Kentucky Street. WKU also offers police service for the campus area and has its station located at 1906 College Heights Boulevard. The Bowling Green Fire Department is located at 701 East 7th Avenue, in the near east side of town, just east of the Central Business District. The fire department also has a station (station #4) located along Morgantown Road, on the west side of the city.

VII-17 The Bowling Green Independent School District and the Warren County School District serve the Bowling Green area. These districts include approximately 45 schools with nearly 19,000 students. The schools appear to be scattered throughout much of the city. The campus of Western Kentucky University is located in the west-central portion of the city. The WKU campus includes approximately 200 acres and had a total enrollment of approximately 20,000 students in 2018. Other higher education facilities include the Southcentral Kentucky Community and Technical College and Daymar College.

Other daily needs, such as the post office, library, banks, and pharmacies are conveniently located throughout the city, with many of these services located near the center of town and along many of the arterial roadways within the city. As such, residents seeking these daily services have convenient access to such services.

Overall PSA (Bowling Green) Community Services Evaluation

The city of Bowling Green has a comprehensive and diverse mix of community services. These include numerous daily needs, including shopping, recreation and entertainment options. Most of these daily needs providers are located near the center of town or along one of the arterial roadways in the city. Public safety services are generally located near the center of town. The public schools that serve the area are scattered throughout the city, providing convenient access to students, parents and faculty. Overall, we believe the market is well served and it does not appear that any part of town is noticeably underserved or lacks a specific community amenity or service that would limit the appeal of living within a particular part of the city.

A map of notable community services within the PSA are included on the following page.

VII-18 Bowling Green, KY Legend Community Services Bowling Green (PSA) Cinema

Elementary School

Fire

Fitness Center

Golf

High School

Hospital Library Medical Center

Middle School

Museum

Park

Police

Post Office Senior Services

Shopping

Swimming

University

Employer 1000-5000 Greenwood Mall Shopping Center Gross Leasable Area < 500,000 sq. ft. < 1,000,000 sq. ft. < 3,200,000 sq. ft.

0 0.325 0.65 1.3 1.95 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan,Miles 1:84,460 METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community F. Western Kentucky University Overview

Western Kentucky University (WKU) is a four-year, public university founded in 1906. The school is located “at the top of the hill” in the near western portion of Bowling Green. The school’s academic calendar year is based on fall and spring semesters (four months each) and a summer session. The following table is a summary of undergraduate and graduate enrollment for the fall semesters at WKU from 2014 to 2018.

Classification 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Undergraduate 17,452 17,310 17,595 17,656 17,035 Graduate 2,719 2,753 2,676 2,601 2,426 Total 20,171 20,063 20,271 20,257 19,461 Source: Western Kentucky University Common Data Set

WKU Total Enrollment (2014-2018) 21,000

20,750

20,500 20,271 20,257 20,171 20,250 20,063 20,000

19,750 19,461 19,500

19,250

19,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Since 2014, total enrollment at WKU has declined by 710 students (3.5%), but has generally remained stable.

The following is a summary of fall 2018 student enrollment on a full-time and part-time basis:

Degree Classification Status Total Students Percent of Students Undergraduates Graduates Full-Time 13,228 68.0% 12,393 835 Part-Time 6,233 32.0% 4,642 1,591 Total 19,461 100.0% 17,035 2,426 Source: Western Kentucky University Common Data Set

VII-20 As the preceding table illustrates, 68.0% of those students enrolled for the fall 2018 term were full-time, while only 32.0% had a part-time enrollment status. The share of full-time students is below the national average of around 72% among large four-year universities and colleges. However, its share is comparable to most regional universities.

The following table shows the fall 2018 total number of all registered students in each classification:

Enrollment by Classification Classification Number Percent Freshman 3,747 19.3% Sophomore 2,557 13.3% Junior 3,206 16.5% Senior 4,183 21.5% Other Undergraduate 3,342 17.2% Graduate 2,426 12.5% Total 19,461 100.0% Source: Western Kentucky University Common Data Set

The share of students is distributed relatively evenly among each student classification at WKU.

Western Kentucky University offers on-campus housing in a variety of traditional residence halls and a university-operated apartment complex. All freshmen and sophomores are required to live on campus, with some exceptions based on proximity to campus, marital status, age, etc.

Housing options at WKU consist of traditional residence halls and apartments, summarized below.

Housing Name Year Built/Renovated Capacity Barnes Campbell Hall* 1966/2003 384 Bates Runner Hall 1958/2002 147 Bemis Lawrence Hall* 1966/2003 384 Douglas Keen Hall 1968/2008 372 Gilbert Hall 1963/2009 208 Hilltopper Hall 2018 400 Hugh Poland Hall 1969 400 McCormack Hall 1961/2009 378 McLean Hall 1947/2000 120 Meredith Hall 1992 188 Minton Hall 1963/2004 406 Northeast Hall 1957/2002/2017 300 Pearce Ford Tower 1970/2009 857 Rodes Harlin Hall 1996/2009 368 Southwest Hall 1957/2002/2017 300 WKU Apartments 2012/2014 294 Zacharias Hall 1992 206 Total 5,712 *Scheduled for demolition

VII-21 Western Kentucky University has an overall on-campus housing capacity of 5,712 students. According to WKU housing officials, university-operated housing is typically 100.0% occupied and a waiting list is not kept. A representative from Housing and Residence Life does not believe that there is a need for additional student housing on or off campus at this time.

Lease rates for the 2018/2019 school year range from $2,245 to $2,807 per semester for double-occupancy rooms, which is equivalent to approximately $561 to $702 per month. WKU Apartments lease for $593 to $800 per month, dependent upon unit size. All rooms/units are furnished with basic furniture packages and appliances.

WKU also has plans for future new and improved on-campus housing, including the Bates Runner Hall Annex that will add 400 beds and will open in two phases of 200 beds each, tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2020 and 2021. In addition, Bemis Lawrence Hall and Barnes Campbell Hall will be taken offline in the summers of 2019 and 2020, respectively, as they are scheduled for demolition. McCormack Hall will also be converted from traditional to semi-suite style rooms in the fall of 2025.

Overall, WKU has a significant influence on the local market, in terms of demographics, economics and housing. While enrollment has declined slightly over the past few years, the university is generally considered to be stable. Although on-campus housing is full, a representative from the university indicated that there is not a need for additional student housing at this time. Our survey of area apartments revealed that several student housing projects are having difficulty sustaining stabilized occupancy rates above 90%. As a result, the market may have some challenges absorbing new student housing product developed in the city or county in the near future.

G. Refugees

The International Center of Kentucky is a Bowling Green-based refugee resettlement agency. The International Center works with the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and the U.S. State Department to resettle refugees from around the world. Through the Center’s work, many refugees have resettled in and around Bowling Green.

According to the International Center, during fiscal year 2018 they resettled 305 refugees, with approximately 179 people coming from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by 42 Burmese refugees. An estimated 54% were working-age adults and around 44% were children. The International Center reports that approximately 94% of the employed refugees work full-time with an average hourly wage of $11.37. According to local reports and input from area stakeholders, many refugees arrive with large families, posing a challenge for some families to find housing that is large enough to accommodate them and that they can afford.

VII-22 To help understand the number of refugees that remain in the area (Bowling Green), we have provided information on the number of limited English- Speaking Households currently residing in the BGRA (BG Reinvestment Area), PSA (Bowling Green), SSA (balance of Warren County), and the overall county:

PSA (Bowling Green) - Limited English-Speaking Households

Asian and Indo-European Pacific Island Other Spanish: Languages: Languages: Languages: Limited Limited Limited Limited Total Limited English- English- English- English- English- Speaking Speaking Speaking Speaking Speaking Total Household Household Household Household Households Households Number 189 66 79 104 438 6,726 BGRA Percent 2.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.5% 6.5% 100.0% Number 372 101 377 204 1,054 23,811 PSA Percent 1.6% 0.4% 1.6% 0.9% 4.4% 100.0% Number 110 35 154 21 320 22,632 SSA Percent 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.1% 1.4% 100.0% Combined Number 482 136 531 225 1,374 46,443 (PSA & SSA) Percent 1.0% 0.3% 1.1% 0.5% 3.0% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

There were approximately 1,054 limited English-speaking households in the PSA, representing 4.4% of the city’s households. As shown in the map below, most of these households live in the northern portion of the city, much of it in the BGRA, which contains 438 of these households. These 438 represent 41.6% of such households in the city.

VII-23 The distribution of people by citizenship status and place of birth within the PSA (Bowling Green), based on ACS estimates, is shown below:

Place of Birth by Nativity and Bowling Green, Kentucky Citizenship Status Number Percent Total 64,302 100.0% Native 55,525 86.4% Naturalized U.S. Citizen 2,419 3.8% Europe 874 1.4% Asia 895 1.4% Africa 326 0.5% Oceania 0 0.0% Latin America 274 0.4% Northern America 50 0.1% Not a U.S. Citizen 6,358 9.9% Europe 661 1.0% Asia 2,944 4.6% Africa 598 0.9% Oceania 178 0.3% Latin America 1,906 3.0% Northern America 71 0.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

As the preceding table illustrates, there are an estimated 6,358 people in the PSA that are currently not U.S. citizens, many of which are likely refugees. These people represent 9.9% of the PSA’s population. It is likely that some of the 2,419 naturalized citizens are also former refugees. With nearly one in 10 people coming to the city from outside the United States, the PSA has a large base of foreigners. According to local sources, many of these individuals continue to have financial and housing challenges that should be considered in future housing planning.

H. Qualified Opportunity Zones

There is a Census Tract in the northern part of Bowling Green that was recently designated as a Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ). QOZs were created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and are designed to spur investment in communities through tax benefits. The Tract in Bowling Green is 102.00.

VII-24

Properties eligible for QOZ investment or Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOF) must be purchased after 12/31/2017 with any prior ownership limited to 20% of the fund.

The current QOF deadlines, pending new legislation are as follows:

 12/31/19 – Last day to invest in QOF to receive ALL potential tax benefits  12/31/21 – Last day to invest in QOF to receive 10% reduction in tax liabilities  12/31/26 – Last day to invest in QOF without 5- and 7-year tax reduction.  12/31/28 – QOZs expire, pending new legislation

The Bowling Green QOZ is shown in the map below. Additional details of the program and the QOZ map can be found at: http://thinkkentucky.com/OZ/.

VII-25 The city may want to identify real estate investors, developers and/or opportunity zone funds specifically tied to this program. These investors and funds can be identified through private-equity firms, venture capitalists, and several on-line resources including the following:

 www.cremodels.com  https://eig.org/opportunityzones/resources  www.enterprisecommunity.org/opportunity360  www.novoco.com/resource-centers  www.reonomy.com  https://Smartgrowthamerica.org

Taking a pro-active approach to identifying resources and investors or funds could expedite investment into Bowling Green.

I. Code Enforcement

The city of Bowling Green’s Code Enforcement office operates within the Neighborhood & Community Services Department. Code Enforcement is responsible for enforcing city codes related to building and property upkeep and safety, removal of inoperable vehicles, debris or other nuisances, inspections of Section 8 rental properties, repair/removal of substandard structures, animal control, and addressing other public safety issues. The following table summarizes Code Enforcement activity for each of the past six fiscal years.

VII-26 Bowling Green, KY - Code Enforcement Activity by Fiscal Year Activity/Issue FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 # of Roaming Cases Created 2,341 2,784 3,200 5,160 6,365 5,855 # of Complaint Cases Created 845 602 630 689 748 483 Total 3,186 3,386 3,830 5,849 7,113 6,338 # of Roaming by Type Zoning 44 12 480 657 847 779 Nuisance 1,552 2,102 2,732 4,703 5,880 6,603 Housing 140 119 154 30 325 493 Dangerous Building 17 5 17 44 25 44 Other 93 93 111 2 0 0 # of Complaint Created by Type Zoning 44 15 4 144 0 19 Nuisance 290 279 322 343 354 303 Housing 84 79 66 132 67 147 Dangerous Building 20 21 25 32 13 19 Other 22 33 13 29 5 HUD Section 8 # of Section 8 Fails 155 183 139 88 113 112 # of Section Pass 732 770 345 402 463 477 Timing Avg. Days Closed by Citation 111 63 74 103 47 54 Avg. Days Closed by Work Order 98 81 81 50 16 16 Avg. Days Closed by NOV 20 17 16 13 12 12 Animal Control Animal Control Calls For Service 0 0 1,188 2,291 2,290 2,542 Impounds 0 0 208 683 680 659 Dogs 0 0 150 250 292 270 Cats 0 0 54 409 335 326 Other Animals 00524 10 - Financials Work Order Expenditures $28,862 $42,897 $68,671 $22,998 $39,125 $23,951 Total Expenditures $436,909 $378,751 $570,977 $561,100 $581,574 $560,942 Source: Bowling Green Code Enforcement

The number of cases addressed by Code Enforcement has increased in four of the past five fiscal years, with the number of roaming cases increasing by more than double between 2013 and 2018. Housing combined 7,113 violations originating from roaming activity and filed complaints reached six-year highs in 2017. Overall, more than 600 housing violations were recorded in 2018, indicating that many homes in the city have safety, sanitary or other substandard issues. It is worth pointing out that total expenditures for Code Enforcement has remained stable over the past four years, despite the marked increase in case activity during this time.

VII-27 While this study did not inventory blighted residential units or identify housing structures violating city codes, we did provide in the Housing Supply section of this report that there are several hundred units classified as “substandard” by using standards established by HUD. As it relates to the condition of housing, this includes housing units that lack complete kitchen and/or bathroom facilities or is overcrowded. The following graphs illustrate the several hundred housing units in the market that are lacking complete plumbing facilities or are overcrowded in the city.

PSA vs SSA Substandard Housing (2012-2016) PSA SSA 225 200 202 175 150 125 100 101 75

50 60 25 45 0 Incomplete Kitchen Incomplete Bathroom

Overcrowded/Severe Overcrowded Households (2012-2016)

PSA Renter SSA Renter PSA Owner SSA Owner 900 800 846 700 600 500 400 408 300 200 111 257 100 64 69 11 17 0 Overcrowded Severe Overcrowded

VII-28 In addition to the preceding housing data, responses from the Resident Housing Survey (see Section XI) indicated that the condition of housing, residential blight and neighborhood satisfaction are all issues that should be addressed. Therefore, we believe it would be beneficial for the city to explore code enforcement capacity to determine if it is properly staffed and adequately supported to effectively function to address code enforcement and residential blight issues. Additional efforts could include establishing a blight/code enforcement task force and developing a blight identification process and inventory that could serve to help address the quality/condition of housing.

Key Code Enforcement data is illustrated in the following graphs:

Code Enforcement Cases # of Roaming Cases Created # of Complaint Cases Created 8,000

7,000 748 6,000 483 689 5,000 4,000 630 3,000 602 6,365 5,855 845 5,160 2,000 2,784 3,200 1,000 2,341 0 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18

Roaming Cases by Type Zoning Housing Dangerous Building Nuissance 900 7,000

800 6,000 700 5,000 600 500 4,000

Code Cases Code 400 3,000

300 Nuissance Cases 2,000 200 100 1,000 0 0 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18

VII-29 Complaint Cases by Type Zoning Housing Dangerous Building Nuissance 160 400 140 350 120 300 100 250 80 200 Code Cases Code 60 150 Nuissance Cases 40 100 20 50 0 0 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18

J. Evictions and Landlord-Tenant Laws

While evictions and landlord-tenant laws were not topics specifically requested by the city to be part of this Housing Needs Assessment, we gathered input from residents and stakeholders that indicated that both evictions and landlord-tenant laws may be areas that should be explored further as potential housing issues.

As part of the Resident Survey, we allowed residents to provide open-ended input on housing issues facing the city. Nearly three dozen respondents (representing just over 10% of people answering this topic) indicated that “landlord issues” should be addressed in Bowling Green. This was the third highest open-ended answer behind “affordability of rental and for-sale housing” and “too many rentals/overbuilding of apartments.”

A publication entitled “Stories of Rental Housing Woes in the Barren River Area”, prepared by students of WKU-Glasgow in the fall of 2013, provided several summaries of interviews and stories of residents in the region as it relates to their housing conditions and situations. Many of the stories focused on the substandard rental housing conditions in which people lived, the lack of responsiveness to maintenance and repair issues, perceived landlord harassment, property sanitary and safety issues, the inability of finding or difficulty of affording legal advice, and perceived unfair or unreasonable evictions. While the publication did not include any summary or recommendations, it was clear from the seven stories/interviews that were provided that some residents believe there are property and/or landlord issues that should be addressed as they relate to rental housing.

VII-30 Landlord-tenant issues were confirmed and expanded upon through our interviews with area stakeholders. Among some of the stakeholders we interviewed, it appears a challenge many residents and landlords are facing involves shortcomings in landlord-tenant laws currently in place in Bowling Green. It was suggested by multiple interviewees that the adoption of the Kentucky Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act (URLTA) should be given consideration in Bowling Green. While the Kentucky Legislature recently passed the URLTA, the law enables local communities to choose whether or not they will adopt the law. Currently, only a limited number of Kentucky communities and counties have adopted the URLTA. Bowling Green has not adopted URLTA. Local stakeholders indicated that the adoption of the URLTA would help to provide better clarification on the obligations of tenants and landlords, increase the quality of housing by enforcement of certain housing standards, and provide a clearer understanding of recourse options for both parties. It was also suggested that a study of evictions could be helpful to understanding what areas of town they most frequently occur, the grounds for evictions, timing of evictions, and other material issues. It was also suggested that an assessment of code enforcement citations on rental properties could assist in identifying where “troubled properties” were located or concentrated, the type of housing problems that might exist (e.g. safety, sanitary, or other), and how quickly issues were resolved. Finally, it was recommended that the city consider adopting a rental registry that could require a city inspection to ensure that rental properties meet a certain standard before new residents can move in. This may be similar to the Section 8 housing inspections the Code Enforcement office currently does in order to have housing units eligible to accept Housing Choice Voucher holders.

Based on the preceding information, it is recommended that the city consider the following:

 Explore adoption of the URLTA  Research eviction process to determine if changes need to be made  Consider establishing a Landlord-Tenant Relations task force or committee to research, evaluate and address landlord-tenant issues

VII-31 VIII. Housing Gap/Demand Estimates

Introduction

This section of our report assesses the housing gap estimates for both rental and for-sale housing within the PSA. The assessment includes demand from a variety of sources and focuses on the housing demand potential of the city of Bowling Green, though consideration is given to potential support that may originate from outside the city. Since the development of new housing in the PSA (Bowling Green) could include a variety of financing options, our estimates for the number of new residential units that can be supported consider a variety of income levels. Because part of this report is intended to be used for the city’s Consolidated Plan, we have used HUD’s income and rent limits for pre-established levels of affordability to determine the income ranges considered in our housing gap estimates.

1. Rental Housing Needs

Housing to meet the housing needs of both current and future households in the market will most likely take the shape of multifamily, duplex and single- family housing alternatives. There are a variety of financing mechanisms that can support the development of rental housing alternatives such as federal and state government programs, as well as conventional financing through private lending institutions. These different financing alternatives often have specific income and rent restrictions, which affect the market they target.

We have evaluated the market’s ability to support rental housing based on five levels of income/affordability. While there may be overlap among these levels due to program targeting and rent levels charged, we have established specific income stratifications that are exclusive of each other in order to eliminate double-counting demand. We have used HUD’s published income and rent limits for the Bowling Green, KY HUD Metro FMR Area (2018).

The following table summarizes the income segments used in this analysis to estimate potential rental housing demand.

Renter Household Income/Wage & Affordability Levels Percent AMHI Income Range* Hourly Wage** Affordable Rents*** < 30% < $17,670 < $8.50 < $442 30%-50% $17,671-$29,450 $8.50-$14.16 $442-$736 50%-80% $29,451-$47,120 $14.17-$22.65 $737-$1,178 80%-120% $47,121-$70,680 $22.66-$33.98 $1,179-$1,767 120%+ $70,681+ $33.99+ $1,768+ AMHI – Area Median Household Income * Based on HUD limits for the Bowling Green, KY HUD Metro FMR Area (4-person limit) ** Assumes full-time employment 2,080 hours/year *** Based on assumption tenants pay up to 30% of income towards rent

VIII-1 While different state and federal housing programs establish income and rent restrictions for their respective programs, in reality, there is potential overlap between windows of affordability between the programs. Further, those who respond to a certain product or program type vary. This is because housing markets are highly dynamic, with households entering and exiting by tenure and economic profile. Further, qualifying policies of property owners and management impact the households that may respond to specific project types. As such, while a household may prefer a certain product, ownership/management qualifying procedures (i.e. review of credit history, current income verification, criminal background checks, etc.) may affect housing choices that are available.

Regardless, we have used the preceding income segmentations as the ranges that a typical project would use to qualify residents, based on their household income. Ultimately, any new product added to the market will be influenced by many decisions made by the developer and management. This includes eligibility requirements, design type, location, rents, amenities and other features. As such, our estimates assume that the rents, quality, location, design and features are marketable and will appeal to most renters.

There are generally six primary sources of demand for new rental housing. These sources include the following:

 New Housing Needed to Meet Projected Household Growth  Additional Units Required for a Balanced Market  New Household Formations  Replacement Housing for Demolished and Substandard Housing  Secondary Study Area (SSA)  External (Outside County) Commuter Support

Since the focus of this report is on the specific housing needs of Bowling Green, we have focused the rental housing demand estimates on the metrics that only impact the PSA (Bowling Green).

New Renter Household Growth

The first source of demand is generally easily quantifiable and includes the net change in renter households between the baseline year of 2018 and the projection year of 2023.

Units Required for a Balanced Market

The second demand component considers the number of units a market requires to offer balanced market conditions, including some level of vacancies. Healthy markets require approximately 4% to 6% of the rental market to be available in order to allow for inner-market mobility and encourage competitive rental rates. Markets with vacancy rates below a

VIII-2 healthy rate often suffer from rapid rent increases, minimal tenant turnover (which may result in deferred maintenance), and residents being forced into housing situations that do not meet their housing needs. Markets with low vacancy rates often require additional units, while markets with high vacancy rates often indicate a surplus of rental housing. The vacancy rates by program type and/or affordability level used to determine if there is a deficit or surplus of rental units are based on our survey of area rental alternatives. We used a vacancy rate of 5% to establish balanced market conditions.

New Household Formations

In market situations where there is no available housing to which people can move, households either become overcrowded as families grow through marriage or births, or they choose to leave the market. However, when new product is introduced, new households are either created (households split as a portion of the family now has available housing they can move into) or residents living outside the market move to the market now that there is available housing. This is particularly true in markets where new housing units are rarely added to the market or household growth far outpaces the introduction of new units.

Based on US Census data, an estimated 6.1% of renter households are living in overcrowded housing situations, which likely includes many multigenerational households and could create a new household if housing became available. We have applied this share to the base of renter households earning less than 80% of AMHI and 3.0% to households more than 80% of AMHI to estimate the potential support for new housing that could originate from new household formations.

Replacement Housing

Demand for new units as replacement housing takes into consider that while some properties are adequately maintained and periodically updated, a portion of the existing stock reaches a point of functional obsolescence over time and needs to be replaced. This comes in the form of either units that are substandard (lacking complete plumbing and/or are overcrowded) or units expected to be removed from the housing stock through demolitions. Based on Census demographic data included in this report, approximately 2.2% of renter households living in the county are living in substandard housing (e.g. lacking complete plumbing). We have used 2.2% or lower shares in our estimates of housing replacements.

VIII-3 Secondary Study Area (SSA)

The Secondary Study Area (SSA) includes the areas in Warren County that surround the PSA (Bowling Green). It is anticipated that some renters in the SSA would move into the PSA if affordable and marketable rental housing in a desirable area was developed. This would be particularly true of people working in the city and Millennials seeking to live closer to WKU, downtown and walkable areas of Bowling Green. We have assumed that as much as 10% to 30% of SSA renters would consider moving into the city if product that appealed to them was developed.

External Commuter Support

Market support can originate from households not currently living in the market. This is particularly true for people working in Bowling Green but commute from outside of the county and would consider moving to Bowling Green, if adequate and affordable housing that met residents’ specific needs were offered. Currently, there are few available housing options in the county. As such, external market support will likely be created if new housing product is developed in Bowling Green.

Based on our experience in evaluated rental housing in markets throughout the country, it is not uncommon for new product in a rapidly developing area such as Bowling Green to attract as much as 10% to 20% of its support from outside the county limits. As a result, we have assumed that a portion of the demand for new housing will originate from the more than 36,000 commuters traveling into the PSA from areas outside of Warren County.

The table on the following page includes demand calculations for rental units targeting the income segments considered in this analysis.

Note: We only included residential rental units currently in the development pipeline that are confirmed as planned or under construction. Conversely, we have excluded projects that have not secured financing, are under preliminary review or have not established a specific project concept (e.g. number of units, rents, target market, etc.). Any vacant housing units are accounted for in the “Units Required for a Balanced Market” portion of our demand estimates.

VIII-4 Rental Housing Demand Projections

2018 - 2023 Rental Demand Potential by Income Level & Rent Bowling Green Primary Study Area Percent AMHI < 30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-120% 120%+ Annual Income $0-$17,670 $17,671-$29,450 $29,451-$47,120 $47,121-$70,680 $70,681+ Rent Affordability < $442 $442-$736 $737-$1,178 $1,179-$1,767 $1,768+ I. Growth Demand (Household-Based): 2018 Renter Households 4,709 3,101 3,121 1,983 2,130 2023 Total Estimated Renter Households 4,806 3,190 3,259 2,072 2,583 New Renter Household Growth 97 89 138 89 453 II. Total Units Needed For Balanced Market 2018 Occupied Rental Housing Units 4,709 3,101 3,121 1,983 2,130 Balanced Market Ratio 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Estimated Vacant Units for Balanced Market 235 155 156 99 107 Estimated Vacant Units Currently in Market* -1 -163 -196 -114 -40 Units Needed for Balanced Market 234 -8 -40 -15 67 III. New Household Formations Total Occupied Rental Units in 2018 4,709 3,101 3,121 1,983 2,130 Estimated Share of Overcrowded** 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 3.0% 3.0% Total Potential Household Formation 287 189 190 60 64 IV. Replacement Housing Total Occupied Rental Units in 2018 4,709 3,101 3,121 1,983 2,130 Percent of Replacement Housing Needed *** 2.2% 1.7% 1.2% 0.7% 0.0% Total Replacement Housing Needed 104 53 37 14 0 V. Secondary Study Area Support Total SSA Renter Households 1,375 993 1,154 881 808 Secondary Market Support Ratio^ 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% Total Potential Secondary Market Support 138 199 346 243 81 VI. External (Outside County) Commuter Support Commuter Households 1,361 1,361 1,361 1,361 1,361 Estimated Share by Wages/Occupations 2.0% 15.0% 35.0% 45.0% 3.0% Workers by Wages/Occupations 27 204 476 612 41 Renter Share 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 65.0% 50.0% External Commuter Support 27 184 381 398 21 VII. Housing Needs Summary New Income-Qualified Renter Household 97 89 138 89 453 Units Needed for Balanced Market 234 -8 -40 -15 67 New Household Formations 287 189 190 60 64 Replacement Housing Needed 104533714 0 Total Secondary Market Support 138 199 346 243 81 External Commuter Support 27 184 381 398 21 Gross Demand of Units Needed 887 706 1,052 789 686 Units in the Development Pipeline -0 -158 -721 -591 -78 Total Potential Support for New Units 887 548 331 198 608 *Based on Bowen National Research’s survey of area rentals **Based on ESRI/ACS estimates for overcrowded/multigenerational households ***Based on ESRI/ACS estimates of units lacking complete indoor plumbing ^Based on Bowen National Research proprietary research and ACS migration patterns for Bowling Green

VIII-5 Based on the preceding demand estimates, it is clear that there is a notable level of demand among most household income levels within Bowling Green over the five-year projection period. There is an overall housing need for over 2,000 additional rental units in the city over the next five years, even when over 1,500 rental housing units in the development pipeline are considered. While the greatest need appears to be for the lowest income households, there is also a notable need for product affordable to moderate-income households (generally priced between $700 and $1,200) and product affordable to high- income households (generally priced over $1,700). As such, future rental housing development should consider a variety of rent and income-eligibility levels. While our estimates do not show a large need for rentals generally priced between $1,200 and $1,700, due to the large number of units (591) currently under construction. However, we do believe some lower- and higher-income households would consider such product, thus providing some support for this product. However, we would suggest caution for developers considering such product.

Based on the demographics of the market, including projected household growth estimates, it appears that approximately one-quarter to one-third of the demand for new rental housing could be specifically targeted to meet the needs of area seniors, though a project could be built to meet the housing needs of both seniors and families concurrently. A unit mix of around 25% to 35% one-bedroom units, 50% to 60% two-bedroom units, and 10% to 20% three-bedroom units should be the general goal for future rental housing. Projects targeting lower-income households (making less than 80% of AMHI) should consider a greater share (20% to 25%) three-bedroom units due to the lack of such units in the market. Senior-oriented projects should consider unit mixes closer to 50% for both one- and two-bedroom units each.

It is critical to understand that these estimates represent potential units of demand by targeted income level. The actual number of rental units that can be supported will ultimately be contingent upon a variety of factors including the location of a project, proposed features (i.e. rents, amenities, bedroom type, unit mix, square footage, etc.), product quality, design (i.e. townhouse, single-family homes, or garden-style units), management and marketing efforts. As such, each targeted segment outlined in the table above may be able to support more or less than the number of units shown in the table. The potential number of units of support should be considered a general guideline to residential development planning.

VIII-6 2. For-Sale Housing Demand Estimates

This section of the report addresses the market demand for for-sale housing alternatives in the PSA (Bowling Green). Like the rental housing demand analysis, the for-sale housing analysis considers individual household income segments and corresponding housing price ranges. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that households earning below 50% are unlikely to purchase a home, though we realize some of these households could be homebuyers. We have considered demand for households earning between 50% and 80% of AMHI, 80% to 120% of AMHI, 120% to 150% of AMHI and 150% and higher.

The following table summarizes the income segments used in this analysis to estimate potential rental housing demand.

Owner Household Income/Wage & Affordability Levels Percent AMHI Income Range Hourly Wage Affordable Price 50%-80% $24,451-$47,120 $11.75-$22.65 $100,000-$174,999 80%-120% $47,121-$70,680 $22.66-$33.98 $175,000-$249,999 120%-150% $70,681-$88,350 $33.99-$42.47 $250,000-$299,999 150%+ $88,351+ $42.48+ $300,000+ AMHI – Area Median Household Income

Naturally, there are cases where a household can afford a higher down payment to purchase a more expensive home. There are also cases in which a household purchases a less expensive home although they could afford a higher purchase price. The actual support for new housing will ultimately be based on a variety of factors such as price points, square footages, amenities, design, quality of finishes, and location. Considering these variations, this broad analysis provides the basis in which to estimate the potential sales of new for-sale housing within the PSA.

There are a variety of factors that impact the demand for new homes within an area. In particular, area and neighborhood perceptions, quality of school districts, socioeconomic characteristics, mobility patterns, demolition and revitalization efforts, and availability of existing homes all play a role in generating new home sales. Support can be both internal (households moving within the market) and external (households new to the market).

While new household growth alone is often the primary contributor to demand for new for-sale housing, the age and condition of the existing housing stock can be indicators that demand for new housing will also be generated from the need to replace some of the older housing stock. Overall, we have considered the following sources of demand for new for-sale housing in the PSA (Bowling Green).

VIII-7

 Household Growth  Units Required for a Balanced Market  New Household Formations (Renters Converting to Homeowners)  Replacement Housing for Functionally Obsolete/Substandard Housing  Secondary Study Area (SSA)  External (Outside County) Commuter Support

New Household Growth

We use owner household growth projections from 2018 to 2023 based on ESRI estimates for Bowling Green. This projected growth was evaluated for each of the targeted income segments.

It should be noted that change in the number of households within a specific income segment does not necessarily mean that households are coming to or leaving the market, but instead, many of these households are likely to experience income growth or loss that would move them into a higher or lower income segment. Additionally, should additional for-sale housing become available, either through new construction or conversion of rental units, demand for new for-sale housing could increase.

Units Required for a Balanced Market

Typically, healthy for-sale housing markets should have approximately 2% to 3% of its inventory vacant. Such vacancies allow for inner-market mobility, such as households upsizing or downsizing due to changes in family composition or income, and for people to move into the market. When markets have too few vacancies, housing prices often escalate at an abnormal rate, homes can get neglected, and potential homebuyers can leave a market. Conversely, an excess of homes can lead to stagnant or declining home prices, property neglect, or lead to such homes being converted to rentals. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed a 2.0% vacancy rate for a balanced market and accounted for for-sale housing units currently available for purchase in the market.

Renters Converting to Homeowners

A common component for for-sale housing demand originates from renters converting to homeowners. These are typically renters whose incomes have increased to a point that they can afford a home purchase and households whose housing situation has changed due to marriage and having children. Based on secondary data sources, it is estimated that approximately 4% of renters will convert to homeowners in a given year. We have used this 4% in our conversion rate of renters to owners.

VIII-8 Replacement Housing

Demand for new units as replacement housing takes into consideration that while some properties are adequately maintained and periodically updated, a portion of the existing stock reaches a point of functional obsolescence over time and needs to be replaced. This comes in the form of either units that are substandard (lacking complete plumbing or are overcrowded) or units expected to be removed from the housing stock through demolitions. Based on Census data, 1.5% of the owner households live in substandard housing. Given that it is more likely lower-income households live in such substandard housing, we have applied 1.5% share to the lowest income households and lower shares to the higher income households.

Secondary Study Area (SSA)

It is anticipated that support for new residential development in the PSA (Bowling Green) will originate in the areas within Warren County that surround the PSA. For purposes of this analysis, we have used a very conservative demand ratio of 1.0% to estimate the demand that could originate from inside the SSA.

External Commuter Support

Market support can originate from households not currently living in the market. As shown on page VII-4 of this report, over 36,000 people commute into Bowling Green on a daily basis. While these people do not live in Bowling Green, they represent potential future residents that may move to the county if adequate, desirable and marketable housing was developed in the county. We have assumed a portion of these commuters in our demand estimates.

Note: We only included residential for-sale housing currently in the development pipeline that are planned or under construction and do not have a confirmed buyer, such as a condominium unit or a spec home, in our demand estimates. Conversely, we have excluded single-family home lots that may have been platted or are being developed, as such lots do not represent actual housing units that are available for purchase. Any vacant housing units are accounted for in the “Units Required for a Balanced Market” portion of our demand estimates.

VIII-9 For-Sale Housing Demand Projections

2018-2023 For-Sale Housing Demand by Income Level & Price Point Bowling Green Primary Study Area Percent AMHI 50%-80% 80%-120% 120%-150% 150%+ Annual Income $29,451-$47,120 $47,121-$70,680 $70,681-$88,350 $88,351+ Price Affordability $100,000-$174,999 $175,000-$249,999 $250,000-$299,999 $300,000+ I. Growth of Owner-Occupied Households: 2018 Total Income-Qualified Owner-Occupied Households 1,633 2,279 1,409 4,061 2023 Total Income-Qualified Owner-Occupied Households 1,911 2,478 1,495 4,069 New Owner-Occupied Household Growth (2018 to 2023) 278 199 86 8 II. Units Required for a Balanced Market 2018 Owner Households 1,633 2,279 1,409 4,061 Vacant Units Required to Reach a Balanced Market 33 46 28 81 Estimated Vacant Units Currently in Market* 32 60 17 67 Additional/Fewer Rental Housing Units Needed for Balanced Market 1 -14 11 14 III. Renters Converting to Owners 2018 Income-Qualified Renter Households 3,121 1,983 851 1,279 Estimated Share of Renters Converting to Homeowners** 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Total Potential Household Formations 125 79 34 51 IV. Replacement of Existing For-Sale Product 2018 Total Occupied Owner Units 1,633 2,279 1,409 4,061 Percent of Replacement Housing Needed*** 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Total Replacement Housing Needed 7 5 1 0 V. Secondary Study Area Support Total SSA Owner Households 2,566 4,070 2,512 7,115 Share of Secondary Market Support ^ 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Total Potential Secondary Market Support 26 41 25 71 VI. External (Outside County) Market Support Commuter Households 1,361 1,361 1,361 1,361 Estimated Share by Wages/Occupations 35.0% 45.0% 15.0% 5.0% Workers by Wages/Occupations 476 613 204 68 Owner Share 20.0% 35.0% 50.% 60.0% External Market Support 95 214 102 40 VII. Total Demand Estimates New Owner-Occupied Household Growth (2018 to 2023) 278 199 86 8 Units Required for a Balanced Market 1 -14 11 14 Total Potential Household Formations 125 79 34 51 Total Replacement Housing 7 5 1 0 Total Secondary Market Support 26 41 25 71 Total External Commuter Support 95 214 102 40 Gross Demand of Units Needed 532 524 259 184 Units in the Development Pipeline (Planned Projects) -3 -24 -12 -26 Total Potential PSA Five-Year Support for New Units 529 500 247 158 *Based on Bowen National Research of available for-sale housing supply **Based on national estimates of renters converting to homeowners annually ***Based on share of units lacking complete indoor plumbing ^Based on typical share of owner households that move from outside a market when new product is built

VIII-10 The overall for-sale housing gap in the county is 1,434 units over the five-year projection period. There is a potential to develop up to 529 for-sale housing units priced between $100,000 and $174,999 within Bowling Green over the next five years. This represents the greatest need for for-sale housing product in the PSA. There is potential support for 500 housing units priced between $175,000 and $249,999, support for 247 units priced between $250,000 and $299,999, and support for 158 units priced at $300,000 and higher.

In most markets, if there is support for new housing at a particular price point or concept, and such product is not offered in a specific area, households may leave the area seeking this housing alternative elsewhere, defer their purchase decision, or seek another housing alternative. Additionally, households considering relocating to PSA (Bowling Green) may not move to the PSA if the housing product offered does not meet their needs in terms of pricing, quality, product design, or location. Currently, PSA’s for-sale housing stock is dominated by higher-priced product ($300,000 and higher), which will be needed to meet the large growing base of high-income households expected over the next several years. However, there appears to be a deficit of product among all price points. As such, the PSA housing stock may not be able to meet future demand, which may limit the market’s ability to serve many of the households seeking to purchase a home in Bowling Green. Based on the preceding estimates, we believe opportunities exist to develop a variety of product types and price points. The addition of such housing will better enable the PSA (Bowling Green) to attract and retain residents, including seniors, families and younger adults.

Overall, there is potential support for a variety of residential development alternatives in the PSA (Bowling Green). It is important to understand that the housing demand estimates shown in this report assume no major changes occur in the local economy and that the demographic trends and projections provided in this report materialize. As such, our demand estimates should be considered conservative and serve as a baseline for development potential. Should new product be developed, it is reasonable to believe that people currently living outside of Bowling Green will consider moving to Bowling Green, assuming the housing is aggressively marketed throughout the county and region.

In terms of product design, we believe a variety of product could be successful in Bowling Green. Based on current and projected demographics, as well as the available inventory of for-sale housing, we believe a combination of one- and two-bedroom condominium units could be successful, particularly if it is located in or near the walkable areas of the downtown or along or near a public transit corridor. Additionally, detached or attached single-story cottage-style condominium product, primarily consisting of two-bedroom units, could be successful in attracting area seniors, particularly those seeking to downsize from their single-family homes. Larger, traditional detached single-family

VIII-11 homes catering to families could be successful in this market. Such product should primarily consist of three-bedroom units, with a smaller share of four- bedroom units. Given the challenges that low-income households face in finding affordable housing in Bowling Green, it will be important that housing priced under $175,000 be supported and encouraged to support lower-income households, particularly first-time homebuyers.

Senior Care Housing Demand

Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including assisted living facilities and nursing homes. Such housing typically serves the needs of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs, often due to medical or other physical issues. However, there will be seniors seeking independent living with services, such as congregate care housing. Our analysis attempts to quantify the estimated senior care housing needed in the PSA (Bowling Green).

Our estimates account for persons age 75 and older (assisted living) and age 85 and older (nursing care) that would require some level of services or assistance with Activities of Daily Living, if not full nursing care services. While a variety of product types, bedroom/unit types and pricing structures could be offered, we have assumed a base price model of $2,500 for assisted living and $6,000 for nursing care housing based on the existing local market supply. We have used all of the PSA (Bowling Green) when assessing the base of potential support for senior care housing in Bowling Green.

Senior Care Housing Needs Estimates Assisted Living Nursing Homes Senior Care Housing Demand Components (Age 75+) (Age 85+) Household Income Requirement $37,500+ $90,000+ Household Assets Required $93,750 $225,000 Total Population by Age (2023) 8,857 4,654 Multiplied by Share of Total Income & Asset Qualified Households 76.1% 55.7% Equals Income & Asset Qualified Population 6,740 2,593 Multiplied by Share of Housing Requiring ADL or NC* 18.9% 32.7% Equals Total Senior Population with Affliction 1,274 848 Plus External Market Support (10%**) 142 94 Gross Total Senior Population with Affliction 1,416 942 Multiplied by Typical Institutionalization Rate 50% 80% Total Gross Beds Needed 708 754 Less Existing Beds -474 -522 Less Beds in the Development Pipeline 0 0 Net Total Beds Needed 234 232 ADL – Activities of Daily Living NC- Nursing Care *Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey **Assumes at least 20% of the support will originate from outside of Bowling Green

VIII-12 Based upon senior population characteristics and trends, applying the ratio of persons requiring ADL services and considering income/asset requirements, we estimate that there is potential support for up to 466 total senior care housing units that provide ADL services in Bowling Green over the next five years. There appears to be a relatively even market need for housing offering assisted living services and nursing care services.

It is recommended that any senior-oriented product developed in the market offer competitive designs and features, along with a fee structure, that are comparable to the newer inventory included in the market (see Addendum B).

VIII-13 IX. Submarket / Neighborhood Analysis

While the primary focus of this Housing Needs Assessment is on Bowling Green and to a lesser degree the surrounding portions of Warren County, this section of the report includes an overview of key demographic and housing metrics of a preselected submarket known as the BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA). This area includes the north-central portion of the city and includes the following Census Tracts: 101, 102, 103,104, 105, 112 and 113. The neighborhood contains approximately 5.7 square miles. A map of the BGRA is provided below:

The analyses on the following pages provide overviews of key demographic data within this submarket, summaries of the multifamily rental market and for-sale housing supply, general conclusions on the housing needs of this area, and areas of focus that should be considered to address housing needs. It is important to note that the demographic projections included in this section assume no significant government policies, programs or incentives are enacted that would drastically alter residential development or economic activity.

IX-1 Neighborhood Overview

The subject neighborhood is an established neighborhood in the north/northwest portion of the city of Bowling Green. While most of the submarket includes residential structures, this area also encompasses much of the city’s commercial properties, office space, government offices, medical facilities, and primary, secondary and higher education opportunities.

Primary arteries within the neighborhood include Adams Street, Kentucky Street, State Street, Veterans Memorial Lane, and Gordon Avenue. GO bg Transit provides public bus service throughout much of the neighborhood. Access to Interstate Highway 65 is approximately 3.0 miles east of the neighborhood and the William H. Natcher Parkway is roughly 4.0 miles west of the neighborhood.

The neighborhood is well served by numerous and diverse community services that add to the quality of life of its residents. Numerous restaurants, bars and diners are located in the neighborhood, with many concentrated in the street blocks around Fountain Square Park. Recreation locations include Roland Bland Park, Kummer Little Recreation Center, Circus Square Park, Bowling Green Ballpark, and several fitness centers. Warren County Public Library offers branches in the neighborhood and the area is well served by several banks, pharmacies and shopping opportunities located near the downtown and along many of the main arterial roads serving the neighborhood. Entertainment and cultural opportunities are primarily offered near the downtown area and include performing arts venues, art galleries and museums. The Southern Kentucky Performing Arts Center (SKyPAC) is a centrally located venue offering numerous entertainment opportunities. Many of the city’s government offices are also located in the downtown area. Medical services are provided at The Medical Center and other scattered offices throughout much of the BGRA. Police and fire stations are located in the neighborhood. The campus of Western Kentucky University is located in the BGRA.

Overall, community services are conveniently accessible to residents throughout much of the submarket, with a notable amount of services centrally located in and around downtown and along several of the main arterial roads that traverse the neighborhood. Adding to the convenience are the public bus routes that serve much of the neighborhood. The abundance, variety and accessibility of the community services add to the quality of life for neighborhood residents and add to the appeal of the submarket and its ability to support residential development.

A map showing the location of community services in the BGRA is on the following page:

IX-2 Bowling Green, KY Legend Community Services (BGRA) BGRA Bank Child Care Church Cinema Convenience Store Elementary School

Fire

Fitness Center Gas Golf

Grocery

Hair

High School

Hospital Laundry Library Medical Center

Middle School

Museum

Park

Pharmacy

Police

Post Office Restaurant

Shopping

Swimming

University

Employer 1000-5000

0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan,Miles 1:40,000 METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Demographics

The BGRA population bases for 2000, 2010, 2018 (estimated) and 2023 (projected) are summarized as follows:

Year 2000 2010 2018 2023 (Census) (Census) (Estimated) (Projected) Population 19,549 20,527 22,464 23,661 Population Change - 978 1,937 1,197 Percent Change - 5.0% 9.4% 5.3% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The NRSA population base increased by 978 between 2000 and 2010. This represents a 5.0% increase over the 2000 population, or an annual rate of 0.5%. Between 2010 and 2018, the population increased by 1,937, or 9.4%. It is projected that the population will increase by 1,197, or 5.3%, between 2018 and 2023. While projected growth of the NRSA is slightly slower than the growth of the city (7.3%), it is still considered rapid growth.

Household trends within the BGRA are summarized as follows:

Year 2000 2010 2018 2023 (Census) (Census) (Estimated) (Projected) Households 6,367 6,320 7,076 7,617 Household Change - -47 756 541 Percent Change - -0.7% 12.0% 7.6% Household Size 3.07 3.25 2.35 2.34 Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Within the BGRA, households declined by 47 (0.7%) between 2000 and 2010. Between 2010 and 2018, households increased by 756 or 12.0%. By 2023, there will be 7,617 households, an increase of 541 households, or 7.6% over 2018 levels. This is an increase of approximately 108 households annually over the next five years. The BGRA’s projected five-year household growth rate of 7.6% is comparable to the city’s rate of 8.1% and is considered rapid.

The BGRA household bases by age are summarized as follows:

Households 2010 (Census) 2018 (Estimated) 2023 (Projected) Change 2018-2023 by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under 25 1,181 18.7% 1,219 17.2% 1,252 16.4% 33 2.7% 25 to 34 1,167 18.5% 1,405 19.9% 1,424 18.7% 19 1.4% 35 to 44 896 14.2% 988 14.0% 1,131 14.8% 143 14.5% 45 to 54 1,038 16.4% 1,006 14.2% 1,031 13.5% 25 2.5% 55 to 64 898 14.2% 1,060 15.0% 1,135 14.9% 75 7.1% 65 to 74 620 9.8% 819 11.6% 954 12.5% 135 16.5% 75 to 84 372 5.9% 438 6.2% 522 6.9% 84 19.2% 85 & Over 148 2.3% 141 2.0% 168 2.2% 27 19.1% Total 6,320 100.0% 7,076 100.0% 7,617 100.0% 541 7.6% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IX-4 The distribution of households by age group is relatively well balanced, with no age group representing more than 18.7% of the overall household base. While all household age groups are projected to increase between 2018 and 2023, the greatest growth is expected to occur among households between the ages of 35 and 44, which are projected to increase by 143 or 14.5%. Notable growth is projected to occur among households between the ages of 65 and 74, which should increase by 135 or 16.5%. Regardless, given that all age groups are expected to grow through 2023, we expect the demand for a variety of projects serving young couples, Millennials, families, and seniors.

Households by tenure are distributed as follows:

2010 (Census) 2018 (Estimated) 2023 (Projected) Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 1,880 29.7% 1,937 27.4% 2,158 28.3% Renter-Occupied 4,440 70.3% 5,139 72.6% 5,459 71.7% Total 6,320 100.0% 7,076 100.0% 7,617 100.0% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2018, homeowners occupied 27.4% of all occupied housing units in this neighborhood, while the remaining 72.6% were occupied by renters. This is a disproportionately high share of rental product and a low share of owner households. While the shares of households by tenure are not expected to change much over the five-year projection period, the market is expected to add about 320 renter households and approximately 221 owner households. This growth will add to the demand for both rental and for-sale housing.

The distribution of households by income within the BGRA is summarized as follows:

Household 2010 (Census) 2018 (Estimated) 2023 (Projected) Income Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Less Than $10,000 1,216 19.2% 1,228 17.4% 1,447 19.0% $10,000 to $19,999 1,557 24.6% 1,671 23.6% 1,803 23.7% $20,000 to $29,999 1,054 16.7% 1,119 15.8% 1,174 15.4% $30,000 to $39,999 776 12.3% 792 11.2% 811 10.6% $40,000 to $49,999 604 9.6% 719 10.2% 736 9.7% $50,000 to $59,999 243 3.8% 408 5.8% 429 5.6% $60,000 to $74,999 307 4.9% 443 6.3% 468 6.1% $75,000 to $99,999 244 3.9% 327 4.6% 355 4.7% $100,000 to $124,999 164 2.6% 154 2.2% 166 2.2% $125,000 to $149,999 70 1.1% 78 1.1% 90 1.2% $150,000 to $199,999 69 1.1% 94 1.3% 97 1.3% $200,000 & Over 16 0.3% 43 0.6% 41 0.5% Total 6,320 100.0% 7,076 100.0% 7,617 100.0% Median Income $23,672 $25,710 $24,757 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

IX-5 As the preceding table illustrates, more than half of all households in the submarket have incomes below $30,000. The submarket’s median household income is $25,710 in 2018, which is well below the median household income ($41,787) for the overall PSA (Bowling Green). There is a notable drop off in households by income above $50,000. Between 2018 and 2023, most of the household growth will be among the lowest-income households. Households earning less than $10,000 annually are projected to increase by 219 (17.8%) during this five-year period, while another 132 (7.9%) households are expected to be added that earn $10,000 and $19,999. This will add to the need for housing that is affordable to lower-income households.

The distribution of households by income age 55 and older within the BGRA is summarized as follows:

Household 2010 (Census) 2018 (Estimated) 2023 (Projected) Income 55+ Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Less Than $10,000 351 17.2% 404 16.4% 516 18.6% $10,000 to $19,999 658 32.3% 758 30.9% 863 31.0% $20,000 to $29,999 356 17.5% 431 17.5% 463 16.7% $30,000 to $39,999 219 10.7% 236 9.6% 251 9.0% $40,000 to $49,999 170 8.3% 211 8.6% 225 8.1% $50,000 to $59,999 68 3.3% 120 4.9% 136 4.9% $60,000 to $74,999 71 3.5% 121 4.9% 130 4.7% $75,000 to $99,999 56 2.7% 91 3.7% 104 3.7% $100,000 to $124,999 40 2.0% 35 1.4% 40 1.4% $125,000 to $149,999 19 0.9% 17 0.7% 19 0.7% $150,000 to $199,999 27 1.3% 25 1.0% 26 0.9% $200,000 & Over 3 0.1% 7 0.3% 7 0.3% Total 2,038 100.0% 2,456 100.0% 2,780 100.0% Median Income $20,281 $21,531 $20,238 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Like the overall household base, older adult households (age 55+) earning below $30,000 comprise most of the market’s older adults. It is expected that most of the household growth among this cohort will occur among those making less than $20,000. Therefore, future residential development should take this lower-income segment into consideration for future development.

IX-6 The following tables illustrate renter household income by household size for 2018 and 2023 for the BGRA:

Renter 2018 (Estimated) Households 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $10,000 371 358 157 113 119 1,117 $10,000 to $19,999 565 429 188 136 142 1,459 $20,000 to $29,999 284 281 123 89 93 869 $30,000 to $39,999 158 199 87 63 66 572 $40,000 to $49,999 138 175 76 55 58 502 $50,000 to $59,999 52 75 33 24 25 209 $60,000 to $74,999 57 82 36 26 27 227 $75,000 to $99,999 27 40 18 13 13 110 $100,000 to $124,999 8 12 5 4 4 32 $125,000 to $149,999 4 6 3 2 2 17 $150,000 to $199,999 4 6 3 2 2 17 $200,000 & Over 2 3 1 1 1 8 Total 1,669 1,664 728 526 551 5,139 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group

Renter 2023 (Projected) Households 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $10,000 386 428 169 123 150 1,257 $10,000 to $19,999 552 474 187 136 166 1,515 $20,000 to $29,999 270 301 119 86 106 881 $30,000 to $39,999 150 206 81 59 72 569 $40,000 to $49,999 135 187 74 54 66 516 $50,000 to $59,999 54 83 33 24 29 222 $60,000 to $74,999 55 92 36 26 32 242 $75,000 to $99,999 31 52 21 15 18 136 $100,000 to $124,999 12 20 8 6 7 53 $125,000 to $149,999 6 11 4 3 4 29 $150,000 to $199,999 6 11 4 3 4 28 $200,000 & Over 3 5 2 1 2 12 Total 1,659 1,869 738 536 657 5,459 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group

Most renter households in the neighborhood have annual incomes below $30,000. The greatest growth by renter household income level between 2018 and 2023 is projected to occur among the poorest households in the neighborhood, with those earning less than $20,000 projected to increase by 196 households. This represents nearly two-thirds of the projected renter household growth over the five-year projection period. It is worth pointing out that 89 new renter households earning between $40,000 and $124,999 are expected to be added in the neighborhood through 2023. Therefore, while the need for housing for the poorest of households will increase over the next few years, housing demand will also increase for moderate and higher-income older adult households within the neighborhood.

IX-7 The distribution of owner-occupied households by income level for 2018 and 2023 is on the following page.

Owner 2018 (Estimated) Households 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $10,000 33 39 18 13 9 111 $10,000 to $19,999 70 70 32 24 16 212 $20,000 to $29,999 73 87 40 30 19 250 $30,000 to $39,999 51 84 38 28 19 220 $40,000 to $49,999 47 84 38 29 19 217 $50,000 to $59,999 42 78 36 27 17 199 $60,000 to $74,999 42 86 39 29 19 216 $75,000 to $99,999 40 88 40 30 19 217 $100,000 to $124,999 20 51 23 17 11 122 $125,000 to $149,999 9 25 12 9 6 61 $150,000 to $199,999 13 32 14 11 7 77 $200,000 & Over 6 15 7 5 3 35 Total 447 739 336 251 164 1,937 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group

Owner 2023 (Projected) Households 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $10,000 62 64 29 21 15 190 $10,000 to $19,999 93 97 44 33 22 288 $20,000 to $29,999 83 104 47 35 24 293 $30,000 to $39,999 52 94 42 32 22 242 $40,000 to $49,999 45 87 39 29 20 220 $50,000 to $59,999 43 81 37 27 19 207 $60,000 to $74,999 42 91 41 31 21 226 $75,000 to $99,999 41 88 40 30 20 219 $100,000 to $124,999 18 47 21 16 11 113 $125,000 to $149,999 9 26 12 9 6 61 $150,000 to $199,999 12 28 13 10 7 69 $200,000 & Over 5 12 5 4 3 29 Total 505 819 369 276 188 2,158 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group

In 2018, the distribution of owner households by income within the BGRA was relatively balanced among the different income bands falling between $10,000 to $99,999. Nearly four-fifths (79.0%) of owner households in the neighborhood have incomes falling between this broad range. Between 2018 and 2023, it is projected that the greatest growth will occur among households earning below $10,000 (79 new households, 71.2%) and between $10,000 and $19,999 (76 new households, 35.8%). As such, like the renter household growth projections, most of the owner household growth projected for the neighborhood is expected to occur among the poorest households. It is likely that part of this is attributed to many existing senior homeowners who will be retiring over the next several years and will experience a decline in their incomes.

IX-8 Graphs illustrating household incomes by tenure (renters vs. owners) for the BGRA are shown below:

Renter Households By Income (2018/2023) BGRA Submarket 1,500 2018 2023 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999 Owner Households By Income (2018/2023) BGRA Submarket 450 400 2018 2023 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 <$10,000 $10k- $20k- $30k- $40k- $50k- $60k- $100,000+ $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $99,999

Other key socio-economic data for the BGRA is summarized below:

 An estimated 7,205 people in the BGRA live in poverty, representing 44.2% of all people. This is well above the overall poverty rate for the city at 27.5% and more than double the Kentucky average 18.9%. Even more pronounced is that 58.7% of children in the BGRA live in poverty.

 The neighborhood lacks residential stability, as only 54.9% of the residents lived in the neighborhood over the past year. This is likely the result of numerous factors including the presence of WKU and students, the notable share of immigrants, the high share of renter households and the challenges residents face affording existing housing.

 Adding to the challenges of the neighborhood is the fact that nearly one-quarter (22.9%) of residents do not have a high school degree, with about half of these adults not having an education beyond the 9th grade. This is likely having an impact on the earning capacity and potential of many of the area’s residents.

IX-9 Labor Force

The BGRA is located in the north/northwest portion of the city and encompasses much of the downtown and Central Business District, with many of the area’s largest employers and employment centers. The labor force within the neighborhood is based primarily in two sectors. Health Care & Social Assistance which comprises 38.4%, and Retail Trade which comprises nearly 49% of the BGRA labor force. Besides several retail and professional employment opportunities that exist throughout the area, the BGRA is influenced by Western Kentucky University and the Medical Center campus.

Employment in the BGRA, as of 2018, was distributed as follows:

NAICS Group Establishments Percent Employees Percent E.P.E. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 1 0.1% 3 0.0% 3.0 Mining 3 0.3% 20 0.1% 6.7 Utilities 6 0.6% 339 2.2% 56.5 Construction 41 3.8% 235 1.6% 5.7 Manufacturing 26 2.4% 905 6.0% 34.8 Wholesale Trade 47 4.3% 282 1.9% 6.0 Retail Trade 136 12.6% 1,554 10.3% 11.4 Transportation & Warehousing 15 1.4% 77 0.5% 5.1 Information 32 3.0% 379 2.5% 11.8 Finance & Insurance 60 5.5% 463 3.1%7.7 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 49 4.5% 171 1.1%3.5 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 107 9.9% 811 5.4% 7.6 Management of Companies & Enterprises 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0 Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services 28 2.6% 203 1.3% 7.3 Educational Services 28 2.6% 446 2.9% 15.9 Health Care & Social Assistance 133 12.3% 5,822 38.4%43.8 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 30 2.8% 597 3.9% 19.9 Accommodation & Food Services 59 5.5% 808 5.3% 13.7 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 139 12.8% 572 3.8% 4.1 Public Administration 96 8.9% 1,444 9.5% 15.0 Nonclassifiable 46 4.3% 12 0.1% 0.3 Total 1,082 100.0% 15,143 100.0% 14.0 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the BGRA. These employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the BGRA.

While wage by occupation data is not available for an area this small, based on the types of jobs offered in the BGRA and the household income levels of the people who live here, it is reasonable to conclude that many of the employment opportunities are concentrated in lower wage-paying occupations and entry level or blue-collar jobs. While there are many professional and white-collar jobs also offered in the BGRA, based on household income of the residents living in this neighborhood it appears that many of the higher- income workers live outside of the BGRA. This may represent both a challenge and an opportunity for the neighborhood to try to retain these higher wage-earning employees.

IX-10 BGRA Employment by Industry

Health Care & Social Assistance - 38.4% 2.9% Retail Trade - 10.3% 3.1% 3.8% 11.4% Public Administration - 9.5% 3.9% 38.4% Manufacturing - 6.0%

5.3% Professional, Scientific & Tech - 5.4% Accommodation & Food Services - 5.3% 6.0% 10.3% Arts, Ent. & Recreation - 3.9% 5.4% 9.5% Other Services (Except Pub. Admin.) - 3.8% Finance & Insurance - 3.1% Educational Services - 2.9% Other Industry Groups - 11.4%

Mode of Transportation to Work & Drive Times

Because the subject neighborhood is within close proximity to downtown and numerous large employers or employment centers, residents within the BGRA have convenient access to many employment opportunities. Additionally, the GO bg Transit service has numerous public bus routes that serve the BGRA, which contributes to the ability for residents to access numerous employment opportunities and other services

Based on the American Community Survey (2012-2016), the following is a distribution of commuting patterns for BGRA workers age 16 and over:

Workers Age 16+ Mode of Transportation Number Percent Drove Alone 5,875 67.7% Carpooled 1,260 14.5% Public Transit 70 0.8% Walked 1,187 13.7% Other Means 205 2.4% Worked at Home 79 0.9% Total 8,676 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

While over two-thirds of area workers drive alone to work, notable shares of workers carpool (14.5%) or walk (13.7%) to work. The share of workers walking to work is relatively high but not unusual given the amount of employment opportunities near the central portion of the BGRA. This may represent an opportunity for residential product that serves lower-income households and/or those seeking a walkable community.

IX-11 Typical travel times to work for the BGRA residents are illustrated as follows:

Workers Age 16+ Travel Time Number Percent Less Than 15 Minutes 4,541 52.3% 15 to 29 Minutes 2,963 34.1% 30 to 44 Minutes 518 6.0% 45 to 59 Minutes 318 3.7% 60 or More Minutes 259 3.0% Worked at Home 79 0.9% Total 8,678 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Given the neighborhood’s inclusion of the downtown and Central Business District, as well as its proximity to numerous large employers, it is not surprising that a majority of workers have commute times of less than 15 minutes, and over 80% have commute times of less than 30 minutes. This adds to the appeal of living in the BGRA.

Housing Supply Overview

In 2018, it was estimated that 90.0% of the total housing stock in the BGRA was occupied. Of the occupied housing stock in the submarket, 72.6% was renter-occupied and 27.4% was owner-occupied. The share of renter-occupied units in the BGRA is notably higher than the renter share (54.7%) in the PSA (Bowling Green).

Most renter-occupied units (57.5%) in the BGRA were built prior to 1970, while an even greater share (67.7%) of owner-occupied units were built prior to 1970. The existing housing stock is much older than the age of housing in the overall PSA, as only 31.0% of the rental units and 35.2% of the owner units were built prior to 1970. While some investment and development has been done in the BGRA in recent years, only about 12.2% of the rental units and 8.1% of the owner units have been added to this submarket since 2000. The majority of the overall housing stock in this submarket consists of single- family, detached housing units (51.8%), while nearly a quarter (23.6%) of the housing units consists of structures with two to four units and most of the balance (22.5%) consists of multifamily structures with five or more units. Based on estimates from ESRI, a nationally-recognized demographic provider, the estimated median home value in this submarket is $86,783, with nearly one-third of all homes estimated to have a value between $60,000 and $79,999. The estimated home value in the BGRA is 56.3% of the overall PSA estimated home value of $154,206. As such, the age and condition of housing in the neighborhood is likely suppressing home values, causing substandard housing situations, and deterring greater investment into the area.

IX-12 Substandard housing is defined as housing that either lacks complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities or is overcrowded (1.01+ persons per room). Based on 2012 – 2016 ACS estimates, there are 52 rental units that lack complete indoor plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. The share of renter housing units that lack complete kitchen facilities (0.6%) and plumbing facilities (0.5%) are slightly lower shares than the overall PSA (1.5% and 0.7% of units, respectively). By comparison, only 8 owner-occupied units lack complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities in the submarket, representing only 0.4% of the owner- occupied housing units. There are 232 overcrowded housing units in the BGRA, representing 6.0% of the occupied housing stock. This share is comparable to the share (7.2%) of overcrowded homes in the PSA.

Finally, we evaluated the number of cost-burdened households within the submarket, which are households that spend over 30% of their income towards housing costs. Within the submarket, 46.2% of renters and 23.5% of owners are considered cost burdened. By comparison, 45.5% of renter households and 22.3% of owner-occupied households are cost burdened in the PSA. Based on this overview, the BGRA has a significant, but not unusually high share of cost burdened renter and owner households. As a result, affordability of housing is a challenge for residents living in this neighborhood.

Rental Supply

A field survey of multifamily apartment properties was conducted as part of the Bowling Green Housing Needs Assessment. Within the BGRA, a total of 24 apartment properties were surveyed. While this survey does not represent all multifamily apartment properties in the neighborhood, we believe these represent the majority of the larger properties in this market and are reflective of market norms. Nine of the properties offered at least some market-rate units, which equaled a total of 669 units. The market-rate units had a combined occupancy rate of 84.9%, a very low rate possibly indicative of an underperforming rental housing market. Seven of the surveyed projects operate under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program that generally serve households with incomes up to 60% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), though the program was recently modified to allow households at 80% of AMHI. These Tax Credit projects include 201 units, all of which are occupied. Management at most of these projects indicate that they have wait lists with up to 12 households. The remaining seven projects contain 818 government-subsidized units, which serve very low-income households earning up to 50% of AMHI. All 818 government-subsidized units are occupied and management at the government-subsidized properties have long wait lists (up to 8 months or with 30 households waiting) for available units.

Projects Total Vacant Occupancy Project Type Surveyed Units Units Rate Market-rate 9 661 98 85.2% Market-rate/Government-Subsidized 1 48 3 93.8% Tax Credit 7 201 0 100.0% Government-Subsidized 7 778 0 100.0% Total 24 1,688 101 94.0%

IX-13 All 101 vacant units in the market are among the market-rate supply. It appears that many of these vacant units are within two of the newest projects that opened in late 2018 and are still in their initial lease-up phase. There is also one large student housing project operating at an occupancy rate just below 90% that is also affecting the neighborhood’s overall occupancy. The fact that both affordable rental housing segments (government- subsidized and Tax Credit) are fully occupied and most of these project’s maintain wait lists, there is clear evidence of pent-up demand for housing affordable to low-income households. This may represent a development opportunity in the BGRA.

The following table summarizes the breakdown of market-rate and Tax Credit units surveyed within the BGRA.

Market-rate Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Median Net Rent Studio 1.0 12 1.8% 0 0.0% $719 One-Bedroom 1.0 138 20.6% 50 36.2% $775 One-Bedroom 1.5 1 0.1% 0 0.0% $990 Two-Bedroom 1.0 98 14.6% 5 5.1% $675 Two-Bedroom 2.0 149 22.3% 39 18.1% $998 Two-Bedroom 2.5 4 0.6% 2 50.0% $1,090 Three-Bedroom 1.0 20 3.0% 0 0.0% $945 Three-Bedroom 2.0 40 6.0% 0 0.0% $1,317 Three-Bedroom 2.5 72 10.8% 0 0.0% $750 Three-Bedroom 3.0 79 11.8% 34 11.4% $1,647 Four-Bedroom 4.0 50 7.5% 19 12.0% $1,540 Six-Bedroom 6.0 6 0.9% 2 33.3% $2,934 Total Market-rate 669 100.0% 101 15.1% -

The high vacancy rates among some bedroom/bathroom configurations are attributed to the previously mentioned projects in their initial lease-up and the student housing project operating below 90% occupancy. The distribution of units by bedroom type are slightly more heavily weighted towards three-bedroom units or larger than is typical in most markets, this is not unusual given the presence of student housing product. Median net rents by bedroom/bathroom configuration range from $675 to $2,934. As discussed earlier, nearly half of all renters in the BGRA are considered “rent burdened”, indicating that much of the product in the BGRA is not affordable to many neighborhood renters.

We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" through "F". All market-rate properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance). Following is a distribution by quality rating, units, vacancies, and median net rents by quality rating.

Market-rate Properties Median Net Rent Quality Total Vacancy One- Two- Three- Four+- Rate Projects Units Rate Studio Br. Br. Br. Br. A 2 98 73.5% - $905 $1,005 - - B+ 2 178 10.7% - - $1,260 $1,647 $1,540 B 2 259 1.9% $719 $610 $800 $1,317 - B- 1 14 0.0% - - $600 $700 - C+ 3 120 4.2% - $785 $918 $859 -

IX-14 As stated earlier, there are two projects, both rated A, that were opened in late 2018 and are still in their initial lease-up phases. These projects are achieving rent premiums over others established in the market. The 10.7% vacancy rate among the B+ product is attributed to the previously noted student housing project that is operating at an occupancy rate below 90%. This is not uncommon, as several student housing projects surveyed in the city have sub-90% occupancy rates and several leasing representatives indicated that they are having difficulty renting units.

As stated earlier, we surveyed seven projects that operate under the programmatic requirements of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, restricting residency to households earning no more than 80% of Area Median Household Income levels. These projects are fully occupied, and most properties have a wait list. The distribution of Tax Credit units by bedroom/bathroom is shown in the following table:

Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Median Net Rent One-Bedroom 1.0 45 22.4% 0 0.0% $415 Two-Bedroom 1.0 146 72.6% 0 0.0% $550 Two-Bedroom 1.5 6 3.0% 0 0.0% $560 Three-Bedroom 2.0 4 2.0% 0 0.0% $553 Total Tax Credit 201 100.0% 0 0.0% -

The distribution of units by bedroom type is heavily weighted towards two-bedroom units, and appears to have a limited share of three-bedroom units, when compared with balanced markets. This may pose a challenge for low-income families seeking three-bedroom or larger units. As a result, there may be an opportunity for the development of affordable family-oriented rental housing in the neighborhood. With median net rents by bedroom/bathroom type among the Tax Credit supply well below corresponding bedroom/bathroom types of the market-rate supply, the value of the Tax Credit units add to the demand for these affordable units.

We also rated each property operating under the Tax Credit program on a scale of "A" through "F". Following is a distribution by quality rating, units and vacancies.

Non-Subsidized Tax Credit Quality Rating Projects Total Units Vacancy Rate B+ 4 117 0.0% B- 3 84 0.0%

All seven Tax Credit projects surveyed in the BGRA were rated B- or better, indicating that the Tax Credit supply is in good condition. The market has responded well to these projects, as evidenced by their 100% occupancy rates.

The seven government-subsidized projects within the BGRA operate under the HUD Section 8 program or as Public Housing. They serve households with incomes of up to 50% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI) and require tenants to pay 30% of their adjusted gross income towards rent. The government-subsidized units are summarized as follows.

IX-15 Government-Subsidized Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Studio 1.0 11 1.3% 0 0.0% One-Bedroom 1.0 340 41.6% 0 0.0% Two-Bedroom 1.0 242 29.6% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.0 139 17.0% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.5 42 5.1% 0 0.0% Four-Bedroom 2.0 33 4.0% 0 0.0% Five-Bedroom 2.0 11 1.3% 0 0.0% Total Subsidized 818 100.0% 0 0.0%

All 818 of the government-subsidized units are 100.0% occupied. According to management for these properties, there are wait lists maintained at these projects that indicate there is pent-up demand for rental housing that serve very low-income households. This is clear evidence of a housing need and a residential development opportunity in the neighborhood.

A map illustrating the location of surveyed multifamily apartments in the BGRA is on the following page.

IX-16 BGRA Bowling Green, KY Apartments Apartment Locations (BGRA) Type Govt-sub Mkt rate/Govt-sub Mkt rate Tax Credit 79

32 33

42 65 10 7

41 59 14

13 57

27 73

9 15 8 21

0 0.0750.15 0.3 0.45 1:25,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community For-Sale Housing

Information was also obtained on the for-sale housing market in the BGRA. Prior sales activity was collected for the period between January 2016 and December 2018. Current listings of available homes were also obtained for the subject neighborhood. The sold and available housing inventories are evaluated separately in this section.

According to Real Estate Information Services, Incorporated, a total of 318 housing units were sold in the BGRA over the past three years. The average sales prices of homes sold in this submarket during this period was $103,699.

The distribution of homes recently sold between January 2016 and October 2018 by price for the BGRA is summarized in the table below.

BGRA – Bowling Green, KY Sales History by Price (January 1, 2016 to December 20, 2018) Number Percent of Average Days Sale Price Sold Supply on Market Up to $99,999 217 68.2% 85 $100,000 to $149,999 55 17.3% 96 $150,000 to $199,999 16 5.0% 74 $200,000 to $249,999 9 2.8% 108 $250,000 to $299,999 5 1.6% 205 $300,000+ 16 5.0% 86 Total 318 100.0% 89 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, home sales by price point within the BGRA over the past three years were primarily concentrated among product priced under $100,000, which represented two-thirds (68.2%) of the recent homes sales in the submarket. A notable amount (17.3%) of product sold was priced between $100,000 and $149,999. Homes within these price ranges have sold relatively quickly, averaging 96 days or less. Therefore, there appears to be a good level of demand for the lowest-priced product within the subject neighborhood.

Recent home sales by price point in the BGRA are shown in the graph below:

IX-18 BGRA Sales History by Price 225 200 217 175 150 125 100 75 50 55 25 16 9 5 16 0 Up to $99,999 $100k- $150k- $200k- $250k- $300,000+ $149,999 $199,999 $249,999 $299,999

The table below summarizes the distribution of available for-sale residential units by price point for the BGRA:

BGRA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Price (As of December 2018) Number Percent of Average Days Sale Price Available Supply on Market Up to $99,999 10 22.7% 128 $100,000 to $149,999 6 13.6% 111 $150,000 to $199,999 9 20.5% 65 $200,000 to $249,999 4 9.1% 269 $250,000 to $299,999 - - - $300,000+ 15 34.1% 84 Total 44 100.0% 111 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research

The largest share (34.1%) of the available for-sale housing supply in the BGRA is priced at $300,000 or higher, with the next largest share (22.7%) of available product priced below $100,000 and the next largest share (20.5%) priced between $150,000 and $199,999. The market has only 16 units priced under $150,000, representing roughly one- third of the available supply. The limited supply of product priced under $150,000 may make it difficult for low-income households, including first-time homebuyers, to find affordable housing. This is true for even moderate-income households who may find it challenging to find housing to meet their needs. As stated earlier, nearly one-quarter of homeowners are housing cost burdened, meaning they pay a disproportionately high share of income towards housing. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that 84.0% of the households in the neighborhood have incomes below $60,000 and could likely only afford product priced below $200,000. With only 25 homes representing 56.8% of the available supply and priced below $200,000, there is a lack and imbalance of affordable for-sale housing in the neighborhood.

The number of available homes in the BGRA by price point are illustrated in the following graph.

IX-19 BGRA Available Homes by Price 16 14 15 12 10 10 8 9 6 4 6 2 4 0 0 Up to $99,999 $100k- $150k- $200k- $250k- $300,000+ $149,999 $199,999 $249,999 $299,999

The distribution of available homes by year built for the BGRA is summarized in the table below.

BGRA – Bowling Green, KY Available For-Sale Housing by Year Built – (As of December 2018) Average Average Number Average Square Price Median Days on Year Built Available Beds/Baths Feet Range List Price Market Before 1950 22 3/1.75 1,775 $45,000 - $535,000 $199,000 111 1950 to 1959 8 2/1.0 969 $50,000 - $199,000 $107,400 118 1960 to 1969 2 3/1.5 1,325 $51,900 - $129,500 $90,700 49 1970 to 1979 ------1980 to 1989 ------1990 to 1999 ------2000 to 2009 ------2010 to present 12 4/2.5 2,213 $162,900 -$428,450 $339,950 117 Total 44 3/1.75 1,727 $45,000 -$535,000 $199,000 111 Source: Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Bowen National Research

As shown in the preceding tables, one-half of the available for-sale housing product in the BGRA was built prior to 1950. Interestingly, these homes have a median list price of $199,000. The second greatest share of available product in the submarket was product built since 2010, which represents over one-quarter of the available product. This newer product, which demonstrates some renewed interest in residential development in the submarket, has a median list price of $339,950, well above the median list price of $199,000 for the overall submarket. As such, few households currently living in the neighborhood will be able to afford newer for-sale housing product currently offered in the BGRA.

IX-20

The number of available homes in the BGRA by year built is shown in the graph below:

BGRA Available Homes by Year Built 25

20 22

10 12

8 5 2 0 0 Before 1950 1950-59 1960-69 1970-2009 2010 to present

A map illustrating the location of available for-sale homes in the BGRA is included on the following page.

IX-21 BGRA Bowling Green, KY For-Sale Homes Available For-Sale Homes (BGRA) Price <= $100,000 $100,001 - $150,000 $150,001 - $200,000 $200,001 - $250,000 $250,000 +

0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1:40,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Housing Gap Estimates

The following tables summarize the housing gaps by income and affordability levels for the subject submarket. Details of the methodology used in this analysis are provided in Section VIII of this report.

Rental Housing Demand Projections

2018 - 2023 Rental Demand Potential by Income Level & Rent Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area Percent AMHI < 30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-95% 95%-120% 120%+ Annual Income <$17,670 $17,671-$29,450 $29,451-$47,120 $47,121-$55,954 $55,955-$70,680 $70,681+ $442- $737- $1,179- $1,400- Rent Affordability < $442 $736 $1,178 $1,399 $1,767 $1,768+ New Income-Qualified Renter Household 183 23 8 12 15 79 Units Needed for Balanced Market 112 28 19 2 -8 -22 New Household Formations 134 70 59 16 15 15 Replacement Housing Needed 24 13 11 3 3 3 Total External Market Support (20%) 113 34 24 8 6 19 Gross Demand of Units Needed 566 168 121 41 31 94

For-Sale Housing Demand Projections

2018-2023 For-Sale Housing Demand by Income Level & Price Point Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area Percent AMHI 50%-80% 80%-120% 120%+ Annual Income $29,451-$47,120 $47,121-$70,680 $70,681+ Price Affordability $100,000-$174,999 $175,000-$249,999 $250,000+ New Owner-Occupied Household Growth 26 16 -18 Units Required for a Balanced Market -9 5 2 Renters Converting to Owners 16 21 10 Total Potential Household Formations 0 0 0 Total Replacement Housing 22 3 Total External Market Support (20%-30%) 9 11 7 Gross Demand of Units Needed 44 55 4

As the preceding tables illustrate, the projected housing gaps over the next five years cover a variety of affordability levels for both rental and for-sale housing product. The gap appears to be greater for rental housing than for-sale housing, particularly among the lowest-income households. Development within the submarket should be prioritized to the housing product showing the greatest gaps.

IX-23 Stakeholder Input

Community stakeholders (e.g. civic leaders, elected officials, government department heads, university officials, economic development representatives, etc.) were asked to provide input on a variety of housing issues, including input on the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. The following is a summary of key stakeholder findings:

 Stakeholders were asked to indicate the degree of overall housing demand within the BGRA for housing by tenure (renter vs. owner) and target market (rental, for-sale, independent senior apartments, assisted living or nursing care housing, single- person/young professionals, student, affordable workforce, homeless, or special needs/disabled). The top four responses related to high demand were affordable workforce (low- to moderate-income) (68.4%), rental housing (63.2%), homeless housing (47.4%) and independent living senior apartments (38.9%). Among the answers indicating moderate demand, the top answers included for-sale homeowner housing (63.2%) and student housing (47.4%). These results indicate that stakeholders believed that rental housing and housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income workers had the highest demand in this submarket.

 Stakeholders were asked to rank the level of demand for the following housing styles: apartments-multifamily/multi-story, apartments-townhomes/rowhomes, apartments- over retail/office space, for-sale condominiums, and for-sale single-family homes. The responses showed a broad mix of housing styles in high demand, with the greatest response of 50% for multistory/multifamily apartments. Both for-sale single-family homes and townhomes/rowhome apartments received the next highest share of responses for high demand at 38.9% each. It is worth noting that for-sale condominiums had the lowest amount of votes (11.1%) for high level of demand in the submarket. According to these results, it appears most respondents felt that traditional multifamily apartments were in the greatest need in the BGRA.

 Stakeholders were asked to provide insight on the construction types that should be given priority in the BGRA. Respondents were able to choose from adaptive reuse (i.e. warehouse conversion), renovation/revitalization of existing housing, new construction, and mixed-use. The stakeholders indicated that the renovation/ revitalization of existing housing should be a focus for this neighborhood, as 68.4% of respondents stated this should be a high priority. Mixed-use received the second highest share (42.1%) of responses as a high priority. New construction was considered a moderate priority by 73.7% of respondents.

 Stakeholders were asked to provide their opinion on the rent levels that should be expected for new rental housing developed in the BGRA. The consensus among respondents (57.9%) was that rents between $500 and $749 a month were achievable. Nearly a quarter (21.1%) of respondents indicated that rents under $500 would be appropriate for new rental product developed in the submarket. Based on survey responses, it appears that units with rents over $750 are the least needed in this submarket.

IX-24  Like the rental units discussed in the previous topic, stakeholders were asked to opine on the price point of for-sale housing in this neighborhood. Most (47.4%) stakeholder responses indicated the most likely pricing for new for-sale product developed in this neighborhood should fall under $150,000. However, a nearly equal share (42.1%) of respondents indicated that new housing product in this neighborhood should be priced between $150,0000 and $199,999. These results indicate that most respondents feel new for-sale product should be focused on homes priced below $200,000.

 Stakeholders were asked an open-ended question to provide their input on potential housing-related issues that should be addressed in the BGRA as they relate to future housing development. The answers varied greatly and included the following: Improvement and renovation of existing housing/apartments, less gentrification, provide more affordable housing, support mixed-income projects, help connect new immigrants to housing developments, demolish abandoned structures (old warehouses, storage buildings and garages) and replace with new housing, change entitlement mentality as it relates to housing, and support safety and community patrols. In short, the responses appear to support renovating existing housing, removing unwanted/unused structures and provide mixed-income housing that includes housing affordable to low-income households.

Conclusions

Despite the many socio-economic and housing challenges that a large number of residents living in the area experience, the overall BGRA continues to experience very positive population and household growth trends. Additionally, the area has experienced positive job growth, public and private sector investment, and infrastructure improvements. While efforts to improve the neighborhood continue, the BGRA continues to be impacted the large number of people in unaffordable housing, families with children living in poverty, a disproportionately high share of rental units, high resident movership/turnover rates, a high share of older and lower quality housing inventory, and the lack of available housing that is affordable to the low-income households that dominate this market. The neighborhood benefits from many community assets such as walkable neighborhoods, convenient access to public transportation, proximity to numerous community services and employment opportunities, a growing base of households of a variety of income levels and age groups that should be leveraged when addressing future housing issues.

It is our opinion that efforts should continue to be made to support neighborhood stability, assist and support efforts to improve the condition of existing housing, encourage the development of a variety of new housing alternatives with an emphasis on housing that is affordable to lower-income households, and efforts to support encourage retaining and attracting higher-income households in/to the BGRA.

IX-25 Recommendations

Based on the various market metrics evaluated and input from area stakeholders, it is suggested that the following recommendations be considered for this submarket:

Support Development of Affordable Rental Housing Alternatives – Based on Bowen National Research’s survey of multifamily apartments, none of the BGRA’s affordable rental properties operating under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program or with a government-subsidy have any vacancies. In fact, most leasing agents at these projects indicate that they have wait lists for the next available units, further evidence of the pent-up demand for affordable rental housing. Given nearly half of the renters in the neighborhood are “rent burdened,” it is clear that much of the existing rental housing stock is not affordable to many area renters. The submarket would benefit from the introduction of product that is affordable to households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income ($47,120 for a four-person household). It would appear that product with collected rents of no more than $750 per month be a targeted goal.

Support Entry-Level and Moderate Priced For-Sale Residential Product – The BGRA has a very small number of housing units available for purchase and the market is comprised of nearly three-quarters of renters, which is a disproportionately high share. It is recommended that the development of new for-sale residential units be supported, with an emphasis on product priced under $250,000 and a segment priced under $175,000. Such housing will allow existing homeowners to transition into higher-priced homes and enable lower-income renters to become first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyer assistance should be considered for lower-income households. Adding more homeownership housing alternatives will bring a better balance to the market and contribute to bringing stability to a neighborhood that is currently experiencing high movership/turnover rates.

Support Continued Efforts to Renovate/Rehabilitate Existing Housing Stock – The city offers exterior home improvement grants in selected areas of the BGRA through its Neighborhood Improvements Program (NIP). More than 100 homes have been improved through the program, which is intended to not only improve individual homes but also to encourage further investment by area home owners and the private sector at large. Such efforts have a material impact on improving neighborhoods. It is recommended that such efforts continue and consideration be given to expanding and/or moving the program to address other areas within the BGRA. Developers of larger established multifamily structures suffering from age and disrepair should be encouraged to explore funding sources through HUD or the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.

IX-26 Explore Initiatives and Efforts to Encourage the Development of Housing that will Retain and Attract Higher Wage-Earning Individuals - The BGRA has an imbalance of households by income level, with a large number of the neighborhood’s households earning less than $40,000 a year. While this lower-income household segment should be an area of focus for future housing projects, it will be important that the BGRA offers product types, quality levels and pricing that will appeal to higher-income households, including professionals, Millennials, and existing home owners wishing to downsize from their current residence. It is recommended that the development of new rental and for- sale market-rate product be supported to enable the existing higher-income residents to stay in the market, contributing to the area’s stability, and potential higher-income residents sufficient housing choices to consider moving to the neighborhood. Currently, there are very few for-sale housing choices available for purchase in the neighborhood, including higher-end product. Product priced up to $250,000 should be considered.

Support/Encourage Walkable Residential Communities and Projects – The BGRA includes a large number of the city’s community services, entertainment and cultural opportunities, and man of the area’s largest employers and employment centers. A large number of these are within walking distance of many of the neighborhood’s residents or are conveniently accessible through the city’s public bus system. It is recommended that development of new housing located in walkable neighborhoods or along public transit routes by supported. Given that a large number of the neighborhood’s residents are low- income households who face challenges affording transportation, the neighborhood could benefit from new housing built in area’s that contribute to residents’ accessibility to various community services.

IX-27

X. Stakeholder Survey Summary

Associates of Bowen National Research obtained input from over 20 stakeholders within Bowling Green and Warren County regarding the local housing market. Input from stakeholders was provided in the form of an online survey, as well as from individual interviews. The 24 total respondents represent a wide range of industries that deal with housing issues, including local government officials, the banking industry, the real estate and apartment industries, local education institutions, the building industry, and various social service organizations. The purpose of these stakeholder surveys was to gather input regarding the need for specific types and styles of housing, the income segments housing should target, identifying housing issues in the market, and establishing potential solutions to address housing within Bowling Green and Warren County. IMPORTANT: Some combined results for a specific topic could exceed 100% due to the fact that respondents had the option to select more than one answer. The following is a summary of key input gathered:

Housing Needs & Issues

 Stakeholders were asked to indicate the degree of overall housing demand within Bowling Green for housing by tenure (renter vs. owner) and target market (rental, for-sale, independent senior apartments, assisted living or nursing care housing, single-person/young professionals, student, affordable workforce, homeless, or special needs/disabled). Nearly 90% of respondents indicated that they felt affordable workforce housing was the greatest housing need in the city. In terms of rental housing versus for-sale housing, four-fifths (78.9%) of the respondents indicated that rental housing was in high demand, while 47.4% indicated for-sale housing was in high demand. The large majority of the respondents indicated that the greatest need was for rental product and affordable workforce housing.

 Stakeholders were asked to rank the level of demand for the following housing styles: apartments, duplex/triplex/townhome rentals, for-sale condominiums, for- sale single-family homes, mobile homes/manufactured housing, single-room occupancy, and units above retail. Most respondents (70.0%) indicated that the highest demand was for detached single-family homes, with 50% of respondents indicating that apartments are in the highest demand. Nearly three-quarters (70.0%) of respondents indicated that there was moderate demand for duplex/triplex/townhome units. The only other housing style to receive a notable share of responses for moderate demand was apartment units, which garnered 50% of the vote total. Based on these results, most respondents felt that single-family or detached units had the greatest need, followed by multifamily apartments.

X-1

 Stakeholders were asked to rank the level of demand for rental housing by monthly rent level: A large majority (85.0%) of respondents indicated high demand exists for rentals priced between $500 and $749 per month. A nearly equal share of 84.2% also believed there was a high need for rentals priced below $500 a month. A majority of respondents indicated that there was moderate need for rentals priced $1,000 and $1,249, which received 65.0% of the votes, while 55.0% of respondents believed there was moderate demand for product priced between $750 and $999 a month. Clearly respondents believed the greatest demand was for the lower priced rental units, with some level of moderate demand for moderately priced product.

 This survey asked stakeholders to rank the level of demand for for-sale housing by price point. Stakeholder responses indicated high demand for for-sale housing priced under $150,000, which received 95.0% of the vote. Receiving a nearly equal vote share of 85.0%, housing priced between $150,000 and $199,999 was also deemed to be in high demand. Under the category of moderate demand, 70.0% of respondents voted for housing product priced between $200,000 and $249,999 and another 60.0% voted for product priced between $250,000 and $299,999. Most respondents (60%) believed there was low demand for product priced at $300,000 or more. As these results indicate, respondents believed the high demand was for product priced under $200,000 that would be affordable to lower income households in the market, while respondents also indicated there is moderate demand for moderately priced units, generally between $200,000 and $299,999.

 Stakeholders were asked to what degree specific housing issues are experienced in Bowling Green, choosing from the following options: Not at All, Somewhat, or Often. The issues that received the greatest response from the respondents under the category of issues often experienced by residents were rent affordability (79.0%), home purchase affordability (79.0%), lack of down payment for purchase (73.7%), limited availability (68.4%), substandard housing (quality/condition) (52.6%) and high cost of renovation (52.6%). Categories that received “somewhat” for issues facing residents included foreclosures (79.0%), lack of community services (73.7%), and high cost of maintenance/upkeep (63.2%). As these results indicate, many of the greatest issues facing residents are associated with finances, whether it’s the affordability of renting or buying, homebuying down payments or costs associated with renovations. Notable shares of responses also tied to the lack of available housing and the quality or condition of housing.

 Stakeholders were also asked to rank the priority for the following types of housing construction in Bowling Green: Adaptive reuse (converting structures into housing), renovation/revitalization of existing housing, new construction, mixed- use, and product along public transit routes. Most respondents (80.0%) assigned high priority to the renovation/revitalization of existing housing. Product developed along public transit routes was the only other answer to receive over half (55.0%) of the respondents vote for high priority. Some (60%) of respondents believed there is moderate priority for new construction for housing.

X-2

Housing Programs & Resident Assistance

 Stakeholders were asked to prioritize the following types of housing assistance programs that should be considered for the city: Homebuyer assistance, project- based rental subsidy, Tax Credit financing, other rental housing assistance (Vouchers), and other homeowner/homebuyer assistance. While all but one category received around a third of the votes as a high priority, the assistance that received the greatest response (52.6%) as a high priority was other rental housing assistance (i.e. Vouchers). While all responses received some notable support from respondents, it was clear that rental housing assistance programs like the Housing Choice Voucher program was believed to be the highest program priority for the city’s residents.

 Stakeholders were also asked to provide open-ended responses as to whether there are specific housing programs that should be given priority in Bowling Green. The general consensus among respondents included assistance that would enable low- income households to afford housing in the city. Supporting mixed-income housing and exploring a housing trust fund for the city was also stressed by respondents. Efforts to support lower land costs for developers that would enable them to develop lower priced homes was also cited as an area of focus.

 Stakeholders were also asked if there are specific housing development programs at the local or state level not currently offered that should be explored. While not all of the responses cited specific programs, many of the comments received were associated with broader housing efforts or strategies. Common responses included exploring such things as establishing an affordable housing trust fund, permanent voucher-based program, first-time homebuyer assistance, and tax credits for rehabilitation of existing housing. The establishment of a land bank was cited as a potential solution to deal with neglected/abandoned housing.

Barriers to Housing Development

 Stakeholders were also asked what common barriers or obstacles exist in Bowling Green that limit residential development. Cost of land was the most frequently cited issue, receiving 84.2% of the respondents’ votes. Other barriers commonly cited included the cost of labor/materials, which received 63.2% of the votes. The only other issue cited that got more than 40% of the votes was the availability of land. As such, it appears that development and land costs, as well as the lack of available properties, were the primary barriers that are limiting residential development.

X-3

 Respondents to the previous question were also asked how they believed obstacles or barriers to development could be reduced or eliminated. Respondents were provided the opportunity for open-ended responses to this question. Stakeholder responses included: bring a greater awareness to the community of the need for and benefits of affordable housing, programs/initiatives that help bridge the financial gap for developers to build more affordable housing, allow for higher density and smaller square footage requirements, support efforts to renovate and redevelop existing housing stock, help residents in substandard housing with an emphasis on addressing energy efficiency and utility costs, explore whether or not HUD can re- evaluate or recalculate Fair Market Rents that exclude surrounding lower income counties, and consider support for mixed-use and live-work development.

BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA)

Part of this Housing Needs Assessment focused on a preselected submarket known as the BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA). This area, which includes the northcentral portion of the city and encompasses the following Census Tracts: 101, 102, 103,104, 105, 112 and 113, has been targeted by the city for investments and infrastructure improvements. Stakeholders were provided a map of this area and were asked to provide insight on this area. A map of the BGRA is provided below:

X-4

Housing Needs & Issues

 Stakeholders were asked to indicate the degree of overall housing demand within the BGRA for housing by tenure (renter vs. owner) and target market (rental, for- sale, independent senior apartments, assisted living or nursing care housing, single- person/young professionals, student, affordable workforce, homeless, or special needs/disabled). The top four responses related to high demand were affordable workforce (low- to moderate-income) (68.4%), rental housing (63.2%), homeless housing (47.4%) and independent living senior apartments (38.9%). Among the answers indicating moderate demand, the top answers included for-sale homeowner housing (63.2%) and student housing (47.4%). These results indicate that stakeholders believed that rental housing and housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income workers had the highest demand in this submarket.

 Stakeholders were asked to rank the level of demand for the following housing styles: apartments-multifamily/multi-story, apartments-townhomes/rowhomes, apartments-over retail/office space, for-sale condominiums, and for-sale single- family homes. The responses showed a broad mix of housing styles in high demand, with the greatest response of 50% for multistory/multifamily apartments. Both for-sale single-family homes and townhomes/rowhome apartments received the next highest share of responses for high demand at 38.9% each. It is worth noting that for-sale condominiums had the lowest amount of votes (11.1%) for high level of demand in the submarket. According to these results, it appears most respondents felt that traditional multifamily apartments were in the greatest need in the BGRA.

 Stakeholders were asked to provide insight on the construction types that should be given priority in the BGRA. Respondents were able to choose from adaptive reuse (i.e. warehouse conversion), renovation/revitalization of existing housing, new construction, and mixed-use. The stakeholders indicated that the renovation/revitalization of existing housing should be a focus for this neighborhood, as 68.4% of respondents stated this should be a high priority. Mixed-use received the second highest share (42.1%) of responses as a high priority. New construction was considered a moderate priority by 73.7% of respondents.

 Stakeholders were asked to provide their opinion on the rent levels that should be expected for new rental housing developed in the BGRA. The consensus among respondents (57.9%) was that rents between $500 and $749 a month were achievable. Nearly a quarter (21.1%) of respondents indicated that rents under $500 would be appropriate for new rental product developed in the submarket. Based on survey responses, it appears that rents over $750 are unlikely to be supported in this submarket.

X-5

 Like the rental units discussed in the previous topic, stakeholders were asked to opine on the price point of for-sale housing in this neighborhood. Most (47.4%) stakeholder responses indicated the most likely pricing for new for-sale product developed in this neighborhood should fall under $150,000. However, a nearly equal share (42.1%) of respondents indicated that new housing product in this neighborhood should be priced between $150,0000 and $199,999. These results indicate that most respondents feel new for-sale product should be focused on homes priced below $200,000.

Homeless Population

Participants of the survey were asked if they were knowledgeable of homelessness in Bowling Green. A total of 14 stakeholders indicated that they were knowledgeable of this population and participated in answering questions of this population.

 Stakeholders were asked to prioritize the degree of demand for various homeless subpopulations of households in Bowling Green. These included: Mentally ill, suffering from substance abuse, veterans, victims of domestic violence, unaccompanied youth, single persons, and families. Respondents indicated that the highest demand existing for homeless persons that were mentally ill (57.1%), suffering from substance abuse (57.1%), and single homeless persons (50.0%). Respondents indicated that moderate demand existed for homeless persons that experienced domestic violence (64.3%), were veterans (57.1%), and unaccompanied youths (50.0%).

 Stakeholders were also asked to indicate the level of need for type of housing for the homeless population. They were asked to choose from the following, noting that they could choose multiple answers: Emergency shelter, group homes, permanent supportive housing, and transitional housing. The responses garnering the most votes as having a high need were permanent supportive housing (85.7%) and emergency shelter (71.4%). Transitional housing also received a notable share of responses, with 64.3% of respondents indicating such housing was a high need.

X-6

 Stakeholders were allowed the opportunity to provide open-ended input on the obstacles they believed were limiting the development of housing for the homeless population. While answers varied and were not always in the form of an obstacle (some offered solutions), the most common responses included such things as having landlords that are willing to work with persons having background issues (including mental health issues or substance abuse issues), the need for community awareness, hard costs deter developers without incentives, a need for better understanding of the needs of the homeless population, lack of collaboration between government and profit/non-profit groups, affordability of housing, lack of funding sources, families that use the system and ways to end the cycle of homelessness, the cost of construction relative to the affordability of rent, reluctance of landlords to rent properties, perception issues, and lack of people to improve their lives. Based on these responses, it appears that financial/funding issues (both in terms of development and homeless persons) are a primary obstacle, along with community awareness/acceptance and support for homeless persons.

 Stakeholders were asked to provide ideas or suggestions on ways to address the needs of the homeless population in Bowling Green. Responses included: More rental housing serving this population, increased acceptance of landlords that accept vouchers, develop housing near public transportation, establish a homeless council within government that includes homeless/former homeless individuals, have shared housing for homeless with supportive services, consider dormitory- style housing as an alternative, invest in infrastructure that address issues (wages, substance abuse, mental illness, job retention, etc.) that lead to homelessness, support structured work environments, increase case management services, provide emergency shelters for families, support homeless service providers through funding, provide greater transportation services, construct a homeless shelter, development housing solutions that lead to permanent solutions, and support faith- based efforts to help motivate individuals to improve their lives.

Special Needs Populations

Stakeholders knowledgeable of veterans and/or disabled populations were asked to provide input and insight regarding housing-related issues for these populations. Only 11 of the stakeholders responded to these questions. The following is a summary of their responses.

 Stakeholders were to provide their input on the level of demand for housing for the special needs groups of veterans and disabled persons. The majority of respondents (54.6%) indicated that there was high demand for housing serving the disabled population, while a notable share (45.6%) indicated that there was high demand for housing serving veterans.

 Stakeholders were asked to indicate the level of demand for the various housing types serving the homeless or disabled populations. Their choices included: Emergency shelters, group homes, permanent supportive housing, and transitional housing. Stakeholders indicated that the housing types in high need included permanent supportive housing (83.3%) and group homes (66.7%).

X-7

 Stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide open-ended input on the obstacles that exist in Bowling Green that limit residential development of housing that serves the special needs populations of homeless and the disabled. The responses included: The lack of ADA accessible rental units, hard costs that deter developers without incentives, lack of understanding of these special needs populations, lack of collaboration between government and profit/non-profit groups, lack of community support, lack of will and interest to address this type of housing, financial resources, the price and location of supportive services.

 Recommendations of stakeholders to address the needs of special needs populations included: Add more ADA rental units that are affordable to low-income persons, create more elderly income-based housing projects, and make resources and facilities readily available to special needs populations.

X-8 XI. RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY

A. INTRODUCTION

To gain information, perspective and insight about Bowling Green housing issues and the factors influencing housing decisions by its residents, Bowen National Research (BNR) conducted a survey of area residents as part of this study. This survey was conducted during January and February of 2019 and resulted in 926 participants. The majority of this survey was conducted online through the SurveyMonkey.com website, while roughly one-quarter was conducted via paper copy distributed at local venues. The Bowling Green government contributed to our survey efforts by utilizing the city’s website and social media accounts to inform area residents of the survey.

The survey was designed to elicit resident opinions about current living conditions and future housing needs in Bowling Green. Additionally, questions were asked to identify key factors that contribute to housing decisions by area residents. Questions were grouped into four general categories:

1) Resident’s current housing situation (i.e. location, tenure, residency status, type of residence, etc.) 2) Current housing market (i.e. primary issues affecting housing choices, future housing needs and challenges, and housing types and styles needed in Bowling Green) 3) Future housing needs within the BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA) 4) Current demographic information (i.e. gender, age, ethnicity, and estimated gross annual income)

A total of 27 questions were asked. Answer choices included multiple-choice, fill- in-the-blank, and open-ended. Survey questions and tabulated results are included in Addendum F: Resident Surveys.

Bowen National Research made every effort to gather information from a broad demographic cross section of area residents that was generally proportionate to the overall composition of Bowling Green. This included both the geographic location of residences and the socioeconomic profile of residents (age, gender, income, ethnicity, etc). Based on our comparison of respondent demographics with overall area demographics, we believe our survey results accurately represent the city as a whole.

XI-1 B. SURVEY RESULTS

A total of 926 people responded to the housing survey, with the following results (Note that percentages may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding):

Resident’s Current Housing Situation

 Respondents were asked to provide their current area of residence. Distribution of locations yielded that a majority of respondents (63.0%) lived in the city of Bowling Green. The remaining respondents lived in the portion of Warren County outside of Bowling Green (32.2%), outside of Warren County (4.6%), and the Western Kentucky University campus (0.2%). A total of five survey respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked to identify the current housing tenure in which they resided. Distribution of tenure included: 58.2% owners, 35.1% renters, 0.9% caretakers that do not pay rent, and 2.4% were dependents that lived with relatives. A total of 32 respondents (3.5%) selected “other” and three respondents skipped the question. The largest number of “other” respondents, 12 stated that they were staying with family members or friends. Eleven “other” respondents stated that they were homeless.

 Respondents were asked to provide the number of people living in their current residence, including themselves. A total of 16.5% lived alone, 30.7% lived with one other person, 18.4% lived with two additional people, 21.2% lived with three additional people, and 13.2% lived with four or more other people. A total of seven respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked to provide estimates for their monthly total housing costs, including utilities. A total of 2.0% paid nothing, 10.0% paid less than $500, 14.8% paid between $500 and $749, 17.7% paid between $750 and $999, 17.6% between $1,000 and $1,249, 17.0% paid between $1,250 and $1,499, and 21.0% paid $1,500 or more per month in total housing costs. A total of 17 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked how long they had lived in their current residence. A total of 15.1% had lived at their residence less than one year, 40.3% had lived at their residence from one to five years, 16.2% had lived in their residence from five to 10 years, and 28.3% had lived in their residence for over 10 years. A total of six respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most satisfied) how satisfied they were with their current residence. Most respondents to this question (61.3%) gave their current residence a rating of 4 or 5, indicating a high level of satisfaction. The weighted average rating of satisfaction was 3.69 among all respondents. Nineteen respondents skipped this question.

XI-2

 Respondents were asked if they had personally experienced any of the following situations pertaining to housing: overcrowded housing, paying more than 30% of your income for housing, substandard housing, foreclosure, losing your lease/eviction, home mortgage rejection, housing doesn’t meet size, or other situations. A total of 511 respondents answered this question. Most respondents (54.4%) stated that they had paid more than 30% of income towards housing costs. A significant share of respondents (35.4%) stated that their housing doesn’t meet needs as it pertains to size, features, or location. Over 20.0% of respondents indicated that they have recently experienced or are currently experiencing issues with substandard housing. A total of 117 respondents (22.9% of all respondents) gave other answers apart from the choices listed. A variety of answers were provided by these “other” respondents, for reasons ranging from homelessness to affordability of rent. Several respondents noted that growth and gentrification have changed areas due to rent increases and/or increased housing density. A total of 420 respondents either skipped this question or have not experienced any of these situations.

 Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most satisfied) how satisfied they were with their current neighborhood. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (65.7%) gave their current neighborhood a rating of 4 or 5, indicating a high level of satisfaction. Overall, the weighted average rating was 3.78 among all respondents. A total of 26 respondents skipped this question.

Bowling Green’s Current Housing Market

 Respondents were asked to describe the current overall housing market in Bowling Green. Most respondents (60.7%) rated the current housing market as fair, with some issues. A significant share of respondents (27.8%) rated it as poor, with many issues. Only 11.6% of all respondents rated the housing market as good, with no issues. A total of 41 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were also asked which issues are negatively affecting the local housing market. The following is a summary of answers and the percent of respondents that indicated that a specific answer was an issue in the housing market: High prices or rents (77.6%), Limited access to public transportation (35.4%), Blighted properties (33.6%), Limited housing/rental supply (31.6%), Lack of features/amenities (25.7%), Property taxes (21.3%), High crime (16.7%), Limited employment opportunities (15.1%), Inconvenient/lack of community services (13.1%), Limited social services/ assistance programs (12.9%). A total of 125 respondents (13.1% of all respondents) gave answers apart from those choices provided as part of the survey.

XI-3 Below are the top three “other” responses received:

o Affordability of rental and for-sale housing (28 responses) o Too many rentals/overbuilding of apartments (21 responses) o Tenant/Landlord relations (11 responses)

All of the provided answer categories and the number of responses in each can be found in Addendum F. A total of 52 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked to rank on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the highest), the need for each of the housing types in Bowling Green. The four types that received the highest responses were housing for the homeless (63.0%), affordable workforce housing (59.5%), special needs/disabled housing (45.8%), and single-person/young professional housing (40.5%). Thirty-six respondents provided other answers. The “other” respondents provided answers pertaining to the need for affordable housing (11 respondents) and low-income senior housing (five respondents). A total of 39 respondents skipped this question. A complete breakdown of each housing option and its ranking can be found in Addendum F.

 Respondents were asked to what degree the following price points for future rental product are needed in Bowling Green. For each of the listed price points, respondents were asked whether there was a high need, moderate need, or low need. A large share of respondents (72.2%) indicated that there was a high need for rental product priced at less than $500 per month. Most respondents (57.7%) also stated that there was a high need for rentals in the $500 to $749 per month range. Most survey respondents noted that there was low need for rental housing priced at $1,000 or more per month. Nearly half of respondents (48.1%) stated that there was moderate need for rental product priced between $750 and $999 per month. A total of 53 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked to what degree the following price points for future for-sale housing product are needed in Bowling Green. For each of the listed price points, respondents were asked whether there was a high need, moderate need, or low need. Over three-quarters of respondents (76.3%) indicated that there was a high need of for-sale housing product priced at less than $150,000. Most respondents (50.6%) also stated that there was a high need of for-sale product in the $150,000 to $199,999 range. Most survey respondents noted that there was low need for housing priced at $250,000 and above. Nearly half of respondents (44.8%) stated that there was moderate need for housing priced between $200,000 and $250,000. A total of 63 respondents skipped this question.

XI-4  Survey respondents were asked to what degree specific housing designs were needed in Bowling Green. For each housing design, respondents were asked if there was a low need, moderate need, or high need. Most respondents (53.8%) stated that there was a high need for single-family detached houses. Over 40.0% of respondents indicated that there was a moderate need for duplex/triplex homes as well as condominiums. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63.6%) stated that there was low demand for mobile homes/manufactured housing. Twenty-five survey participants provided other responses to this question. The most popular “other” responses indicated the need for affordable/ reasonably priced housing (nine responses).

 Respondents were asked “If new rental housing was developed in the city that was in a good location and offered desirable features to you, what would you be willing to pay per month?” The largest share of respondents (34.9%) indicated that they would be willing to pay $500 to $749 per month for new rental housing. Nearly 15.0% of respondents indicated that they would pay $750 to $999 per month for new rental housing, while 12.9% of respondents stated that they would pay less than $500 per month. Only 7.5% of respondents indicated that they would pay $1,000 or more per month for new rental housing in Bowling Green that offered a good location and desirable features. Note that 30.0% of survey respondents stated that they were not interested in rental housing. A total of 38 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked “If new for-sale housing was developed in the city that was in a good location and offered desirable features to you, what would you be willing to pay per month?” Most respondents (58.3%) stated that they would be willing to pay less than $200,000 for new for-sale housing under this scenario. Note that 25.3% of respondents stated a willingness to pay $200,000 or more for new housing, while 16.5% of survey respondents stated that they were not interested in for-sale housing. A total of 40 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked to share comments/concerns about housing in Bowling Green. A total of 255 respondents shared open-ended comments and/or concerns regarding the Bowling Green housing market. Comments submitted by respondents were wide-ranging and covered several topics. Popular topics discussed by 10 or more respondents included the following:

o Affordable housing/affordability (64 responses) o Low-income housing (37 responses) o Landlord issues (29 responses) o Accessibility (11 responses)

XI-5 BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA)

The Resident Survey also included several questions pertaining to the BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA), an area in the northern portion of Bowling Green targeted for redevelopment. The BGRA represents the area outlined on the map shown on page IX-1 of this report that was also included in the Resident Survey. Questions pertaining to the BGRA are as follows:

 Respondents were asked “If new housing were developed in the BGRA that appealed to you and that you could afford, what level of interest would you have in living in this area?” Most respondents (55.6%) indicated significant interest or moderate interest for living in new housing developed within the BGRA. Over 25.0% of respondents signified no interest in residing in new housing within the BGRA. A total of 38 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked what priority level should be given to specific housing types and market segments within the BGRA. Most respondents indicated that high priority should be given to family housing, workforce housing, and housing for the homeless population. Over 30.0% of respondents indicated that low priority should be given to student housing, while over 25.0% of respondents stated that senior care housing (assisted/nursing care) should be given low priority. Over 40.0% of respondents indicated that moderate priority should be given to several types of housing: For-sale housing, senior- independent living, senior care (assisted/nursing care), young adult/ professional housing, and student housing. Twenty-two respondents provided other answers to this question. A few “other” respondents stated that the BGRA is known as a high crime area, with one respondent stating that this issue would need to be addressed before redevelopment occurs. A total of 78 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were also asked what priority level should be given to specific product types within the BGRA. A total of five product types were listed: apartments-multifamily/multi-story, apartments-townhomes/rowhouses, apartments-over retail/office space, for-sale condominiums, and for-sale single- family homes. Nearly half of respondents (48.9%) indicated that for-sale single- family homes should be given high-priority within the BGRA. Nearly 40.0% of respondents stated that apartments over retail/office space and for-sale condominium units should be given low-priority within this area. At least 35.0% of respondents indicated moderate priority for each of the five product types listed. Twenty-four respondents gave “other” statements. These statements were supportive of a variety of housing types, ranging from mixed- use projects, energy efficient housing, senior-friendly housing in one-story or elevator-served buildings, and housing for the homeless population. A total of 96 respondents skipped this question.

XI-6  Respondents were asked “If new rental housing was developed in the BGRA and was desirable to you, what would you be willing to pay per month?” The largest share of respondents (34.2%) indicated that they would be willing to pay between $500 and $749 per month for new rental housing in the BGRA. Additionally, 16.7% of respondents stated that they would pay less than $500 per month. Only 5.9% of respondents were willing to pay $1,000 or more for new rental housing in this area. Nearly 30.0% of respondents stated that they were not interested in rental housing. A total of 59 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked “If new for-sale housing was developed in the BGRA and was desirable to you, what would you be willing to pay per month?” The largest share of respondents (34.3%) indicated that they would be willing to pay less than $150,000 for new for-sale housing in the BGRA. The next largest share of respondents (26.1%) was willing to pay between $150,000 and $199,999 for new housing. Less than 20.0% of respondents were willing to pay $200,000 or more for new housing in this area. Over 20.0% of respondents stated that they were not interested in for-sale housing. A total of 69 respondents skipped this question.

 Respondents were asked if there are any issues that should be addressed in the BGRA relevant to future housing development. A total of 266 respondents provided open-ended statements covering a wide range of topics. Subjects mentioned by 10 or more respondents include the following:

o Crime (37 respondents) o Low-income housing (19 respondents) o Homeless population (16 respondents) o Local school district (14 respondents) o Landlord issues (12 respondents) o Student housing (12 respondents) o Transportation issues (12 respondents)

Personal Demographic Characteristics

 Respondent gender: 68.8% female (612 respondents) and 31.2% male (278 respondents). Forty-one respondents skipped this question.

 Distribution of respondent’s ages was: 1.3% of respondents under age 20, 16.8% between ages 20 and 29, 24.6% between ages 30 and 39, 19.7% between ages 40 and 49, 19.2% between ages 50 and 59, and 18.4% age 60 or older. Twenty-eight respondents skipped this question.

XI-7  Respondent ethnicity: 1.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 3.0% Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.3% Black or African American, 3.1% Hispanic or Latino, 76.4% White or Caucasian, and 1.7% other. A total of 54 respondents (6.0%) preferred not to answer, while 37 respondents skipped the question.

 Distribution of respondent’s annual household income was: 17.3% below $25,000, 15.4% between $25,000 and $40,000, 15.5% between $41,000 and $60,000, 9.3% between $61,000 and $75,000, 14.6% between $76,000 and $100,000, and 18.3% earn $100,000 or more. A total of 85 respondents (9.5%) preferred not to answer this question and 36 respondents skipped the question.

Survey Conclusions

Based on Resident Survey responses from Bowling Green residents, the following summary comments are provided:

 Survey Respondent Composition: A total of 926 surveys were submitted to Bowen National Research. Survey respondents represent a broad cross section of individuals/households, including a good base of representation of age, gender, income level, household sizes and current housing tenure. Most survey respondents are residents of the city of Bowling Green, part of a one- to three- person household that had lived in the area for ten years or less and have a high degree of satisfaction with their current residence and neighborhood. Most survey respondents also had total housing costs that exceeded 30% of income. We believe the survey respondents are a fair representation of the general Bowling Green area population.

 Housing Issues/Challenges: When respondents were asked to provide an opinion on the current overall Bowling Green housing market, most respondents (60.7%) rated the current housing market as fair, with some issues. Only 11.6% of respondents believed that the housing market is good with no issues. Most respondents (77.8%) also stated that high prices/rents were negatively affecting the local housing market. Over one-third of respondents stated that limited access to public transportation and blighted properties were negative factors.

 Housing Needs/Priorities: Over 70.0% of respondents indicated a high need for future rental product priced at less than $500 per month and future for-sale product priced at under $150,000. Most respondents also stated that high need exists for single-family detached houses. However, only 25.3% of respondents stated that they would pay $200,000 or more for new for-sale housing developed in the city of Bowling Green with a good location and desirable features. Only 7.5% of respondents indicated that they would pay $1,000 or more per month for new rental housing in Bowling Green.

XI-8  BG Reinvestment Area (BGRA): Several questions in the Resident Survey pertained to the BGRA, an area in the northern portion of Bowling Green slated for redevelopment. Most residents indicated significant or moderate interest in new housing developed within the BGRA, with high priority given to family housing, workforce housing, and housing for the homeless population. Nearly half or respondents also indicated that for-sale single-family homes should be given high priority within the BGRA. Most respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay under $200,000 for new for-sale housing in the BGRA, while rental product should be priced under $750/month.

XI-9 XII. Focus Group Summary

A. INTRODUCTION

A focus group is a gathering of deliberately selected people who participate in a planned discussion intended to elicit input about a particular topic or area of interest. While focus groups have a structure, in terms of the topic(s) covered and have an established series of questions that are presented by a group leader, focus groups allow for an exchange of ideas and opinions through open dialogue. Unlike individual stakeholder surveys or resident surveys, focus groups allow members of a group to interact with each other during the discussion and to take into consideration the ideas and perspectives of others when participants formulate their thoughts on discussion topics.

While the focus groups were coordinated and organized by representatives of the city of Bowling Green, Bowen National Research lead the focus group discussions for three different focus group meetings. Although the focus group meetings primarily addressed housing issues and each followed the same format, the participants of each meeting were organized to attend meetings with individuals representing similar industry segments, whenever possible. For example, one focus group was structured around individuals representing social service providers from the Bowling Green area. Another meeting involved individuals from the local economic sector and education facilities, and a third group represented individuals from the residential development, finance and real estate communities.

Three focus groups meetings were conducted with a total of 41 community stakeholders in Bowling Green during a two-day span of January 23rd and 24th and were held at the NCS Community Room located at 707 E. Main Avenue. Stakeholders included a broad section of the community, comprised of representatives from both the public and private sectors from both the city of Bowling Green and from Warren County. The meetings each lasted approximately 90 minutes and participants were encouraged to provide follow-up comments and information after the meetings.

XII-1 Format: The following summarizes the format that was generally followed for each of the three focus group meetings.

Step 1 – Identifying Issues/Attributes/Challenges (Approximately 30 minutes): Poster boards were placed on the wall covering five primary topics (1. Perception of Bowling Green, 2. Community Assets, 3. Housing Issues Impacting Residents, 4. Considerations for Future Development and 5. Factors Limiting Residential Development). The poster boards had some items already listed on them that are common in most communities, but participants were asked to provide additional items that could be added to any one of the topics.

Step 2 - Participants “Hands On” Input (Approximately 30 Minutes): The second step of the meeting allowed participants to mark the poster boards and an enlarged map of Bowling Green to provide insight on assets, issues, etc. and on geographical considerations for future residential development within the city. By marking the boards and map, participants enabled us to establish those items and areas most

relevant to residential development and served to guide discussions in Step 3.

Step 3 – Developing Solutions/Strategies (Approximately 30 Minutes): Based on the top items identified in Step 2, Bowen National Research guided discussions to clarify and refine responses from Step 2 and to identify possible solutions and strategies to address primary housing and development issues. The group worked towards establishing a consensus related to the primary solutions and strategies developed during this step. The results were used to help refine findings and recommendations for the overall study.

XII-2 Focus Group Participants: The focus group sessions were organized into three separate groups. These groups are generally described below:

Group 1: Private Industry Stakeholders – This was the first of the three stakeholders brought together for input. It was attended by 14 people, representing the Realtor’s Association of Southern Kentucky, the Builder’s Association of Southern Kentucky, the Bowling Green Apartment Association, and several area banks.

Group 2: Public Industry Stakeholders – This second stakeholder meeting was attended by 16 people representing public sector organizations such as HOTEL, INC., Habitat for Humanity, the Housing Authority of Bowling Green, HANDS, International Center of Kentucky, Lifeskill, Community Action of Southern Kentucky, the Human Rights Commission, the Salvation Army and representatives from Neighborhood Services, International Communities, and the Housing Division of the City of Bowling Green.

Group 3: Education & Economic Development Stakeholders – The last group to meet included a total of 11 participants. This included representatives from the Bowling Green Area Chamber of Commerce, South Central Area Workforce Development Board, SKYCTC, Warren County Public Schools, and Bowling Green City Schools.

XII-3 The key findings resulting from the focus group meetings are summarized below.

B. FOCUS GROUP RESULTS

Group 1: Private Industry Stakeholders Summary:

Based on participants’ input, the top answers for each topic of discussion included the following:

1. What is Bowling Green known as/for (what is the perception/reputation of Bowling Green)?

a. Growing b. College Town c. Economically Strong

2. What are Bowling Green’s best assets?

a. Small City with Many Choices/Opportunities b. Job Market c. Higher Education Opportunities d. Low Taxes

3. What are Bowling Green’s biggest housing challenges/issues impacting residents?

a. Home Prices/Rents b. Mismatch of Housing Types and Wages c. Mismatch of Housing Costs and Needs d. Lack of Availability

4. What should be the primary considerations for future residential development in Bowling Green?

a. Rents/Prices b. Management & Availability of Infrastructure c. Target Market (Seniors, Families, Students, etc.)

5. What factors are limiting/slowing residential development in Bowling Green?

a. Rising Land Costs b. Infrastructure c. Zoning Restrictions d. Construction Costs

XII-4 Summary of Discussions: Perception of BG: The consensus of the group was that the Bowling Green area was known as a growing college town that was economically strong. Comments regarding this perception of the city generally revolved around the growing economy and several business expansions underway or planned. Many people felt that its location along a major interstate highway and located between places like Louisville and Nashville contributes to its perceived strength. Lastly the diversity of the employment choices enables the area to serve a variety of education and skill levels.

Assets of BG: The group believed the biggest assets of the community include the opportunities that exist for residents, the presence of Western Kentucky University (WKU), its low taxes, and the diversity of the job market. Generally, the group believed that the city’s location between major cities created many economic and social opportunities for its residents. Attendees stated that the presence of WKU added to the city’s diversity, created cultural opportunities, and served as an economic feeder to the region. The group believed that the low property taxes are also an asset to the city’s residents and enables the city to attract people from the region. While attendees believed the job market is diverse, it is most heavily concentrated with entry-level and lower wage jobs.

Challenges/Issues Impacting Residents: This focus group indicated that the biggest challenges facing residents were home prices/rents, lack of available housing, mismatch between housing types and needs, and mismatch between housing costs and wages. Attendees stated that home prices appear to be too high for most buyers and that the market is missing product for first-time homebuyers, as well as housing affordable to middle-income households. They felt the schools were influencing land and home prices in certain parts of the city and county. The group indicated that most of the newer product being built is focused on higher-priced product and some felt it was now more expensive to rent housing than it was to buy a home. The group indicated that there is little product available priced under $760 for rentals or for-sale product priced under $300,000. Several participants believed that the development of condominium product could help to create a more affordable for-sale product. The group also believed that building codes may need to be revisited to support the development of certain bedroom types. Ultimately, the group believed a “balanced” approach of supporting the development of both rental and for-sale product would serve the community’s needs and that housing product that is affordable to many of the lower-income and middle-income households in the market is lacking. As a result, the group believed housing options that are affordable to these households should be supported.

XII-5 Future Residential Development Considerations: The overwhelming majority of participants indicated that the rents and prices of housing are the most important things to consider for future residential development in the city. Participants believed the market was lacking housing affordable to retiring seniors (generally age 65+) and empty nesters (generally age 55+) seeking to downsize into more maintenance free housing. The group believed condominium product that considers accessibility designs allowing people to age in place should be supported. Many participants also believed that Millennials (under the age 35) typically postpone buying homes and would more likely benefit from the development of modern rentals with comprehensive amenity packages and located in or near walkable areas/neighborhoods. Mixed-use product with a combination of residential units and retail space was suggested by several members, adding that convenient and walkable areas were important for such product. Some participants also mentioned that the public and private sectors should explore smaller communities. Finally, most participants agreed that the management and availability of infrastructure will be important for future residential development.

Factors Limiting Residential Development: Participants believed zoning restrictions, construction costs, and lack of interest/incentives to redevelop existing vacant structures were limiting residential development in the city. The group believed that the city should revisit policies impacting accessory apartments, the FLUM (Future Land Use Map) and zoning overall to determine if there were things limiting or discouraging residential development. The group also believed construction costs, primarily impacted by rising land costs over the past year, were high and that such costs were forcing developers to construct higher end product. Participants suggested that the city look at possible ways to reduce city fees, consider providing incentives and explore public-private partnerships as they relate to reducing costs for residential development. Several members indicated that the community should encourage projects similar to McKinney Farms, which generally included for-sale product priced under $300,000 but with unit sizes generally smaller than typical single-family homes. Support for the training and education of the workforce to be able to work construction-related jobs was suggested by participants. Finally, the group believed future development should take into consideration the possibility of supporting and encouraging the redevelopment of vacant manufacturing/warehouse structures in the city.

XII-6 Group 2: Public Sector Stakeholders Summary: Based on participants’ input, the top answers for each topic of discussion included the following: 1. What is Bowling Green known as/for (what is the perception/reputation of Bowling Green)? a. Economically Strong b. Growing c. College Town

2. What are Bowling Green’s best assets?

a. Job Market b. Community’s Diversity c. Proximity to Nashville d. Higher Education Institutions

3. What are Bowling Green’s biggest housing challenges/issues impacting residents?

a. Mismatch of Housing Costs and Wages b. Home Prices/Rents c. Limited Financial Assistance/Subsidies

4. What should be the primary considerations for future residential development in Bowling Green?

a. Rents/Prices b. Bedroom Types (Studios, 1-Br., 2-Br., etc.) c. Fair Market Rent Reductions d. Special Needs Populations e. Target Market (Seniors, Families, Students, etc.)

5. What factors are limiting/slowing residential development in Bowling Green?

a. Lack of Development Incentives b. Land Costs c. Construction Costs

XII-7 Summary of Discussions: Perception of BG: Like the first focus group, the second focus group generally believed that the Bowling Green area was known as a growing college town that was economically strong. This group believed that the growth of the population, expanding job market and the strong schools positively contributed to the perception of the city. Participants did not note any significant negative perceptions of the city.

Assets of BG: The responses of the biggest assets of the city were mixed, but the consensus was that the job market, community’s diversity, proximity to Nashville and the presence of WKU were the biggest assets. The group believed that the local job market offers a wide-range of occupations that enables it to serve a diverse set of skill levels, interests and age groups. According to the group, because of the broad choices of occupations, residents could advance and change their careers easily and stay in Bowling Green for their entire working career. Some participants believed the city’s proximity to the rapidly growing and high cost of living in Nashville contributes to Bowling Green’s growth. Attendees also stated that WKU draws people to the city, adds to the city’s cultural diversity, adds to the strength of the local economy and serves as a stable anchor to the community.

Challenges/Issues Impacting Residents: Two of the most frequently cited challenges or issues negatively impacting residents included a mismatch between housing costs and wages and the home prices/rents offered in the market. Participants indicated that there is limited availability of housing prices/rents that are affordable to people with entry level jobs. It was the consensus of the group that the mismatch between housing cost and wages were causing many people to live in housing that they couldn’t reasonably afford or was undesirable and forcing some people to live in multigenerational homes and in overcrowded housing situations. Participants mentioned that many seniors and disabled persons on social security do not have the incomes to afford most housing options in the market. In short, the group indicated that housing should be developed that better matches its workforce, seniors and disabled populations and that the lack of financial assistance and subsidies posed challenges for the most vulnerable residents of the city and should be explored further.

Future Residential Development Considerations: The group indicated by overwhelming numbers that there were two factors that should be primary considerations for future development. Participants believed that the rents/pricing of housing was the most paramount consideration as future projects are considered for development. In particular, participants believed the lack of workforce housing put the area at economic risk and may limit the city’s ability to attract large manufacturers. The bedroom types that are included in developments was the second most cited consideration for future residential development. Participants believed there was a lack of three-bedroom or larger units that made it difficult for families to find adequate housing. Participants added that the demand for larger units has caused long waits for some families, as they can take years to turnover

XII-8 and become available on the market. However, some participants stated that even single-persons seeking a studio or one-bedroom unit have difficulty finding housing. To a lesser degree, yet still relevant, participants believed special needs groups should be part of the discussion for future housing needs, as housing options to meet the needs of special needs groups is limited and there is often a long wait for such housing. Persons with disabilities were cited as being in the greatest need, while people recovering from substance abuse were also cited as having housing challenges, often attributed to difficulties in qualifying for housing. A topic cited by many participants was the lack of accessible and/or elevator-served housing choices in the market, limiting the opportunities for seniors with mobility issues. Finally, some participants noted that the recent reduction in Fair Market Rents, which are used to establish reimbursement to property owners of subsidized housing, has made it more difficult for owners of rental housing to keep their units affordable to lower-income households (including voucher holders).

Factors Limiting Residential Development: Participants indicated that construction costs (influenced by land costs) and the lack of development incentives are the primary factors limiting residential development within Bowling Green. Participants believed the city should explore implementing inclusionary zoning that would require developers to include a certain portion of a residential development with units that are affordable to lower-income households. Another suggestion recommended by participants was the consideration of developing a housing trust fund that would help finance affordable housing in the market. It was also suggested that public-private partnerships, including those that involve non-profit groups should be supported in an effort to encourage affordable housing development and projects that serve special needs populations. Finally, participants suggested that the concept of “assisted-living light”, whereby seniors needing physical assistance could have such assistance at home instead of moving into senior care housing, should be explored and possibly supported by the community.

XII-9 Group 3: Education & Economic Development Stakeholders Summary: Based on participants’ input, the top answers for each topic of discussion included the following: 1. What is Bowling Green known as/for (what is the perception/reputation of Bowling Green)?

a. Economically Strong b. College Town

2. What are Bowling Green’s best assets?

a. Job Market b. Public Schools c. Small City with Many Choices/Opportunities

3. What are Bowling Green’s biggest housing challenges/issues impacting residents?

a. Home Prices/Rents b. Mismatch of Housing Types and Wages

4. What should be the primary considerations for future residential development in Bowling Green?

a. Rents/Prices b. Matches Community Goals c. Bedroom Types (Studios, 1-Br., 2-Br., etc.)

5. What factors are limiting/slowing residential development in Bowling Green?

a. Construction Costs b. Lack of Construction Workforce

Summary of Discussions:

When asked to comment on the top answers from stakeholders, respondents generally believed the following:

Perception of BG: Participants of the third focus group echoed the general consensus of the earlier groups in that they believed that the city of Bowling Green was primarily know for its economic strength and as a college town. Several participants commented that the presence of WKU added to the stability, diversity and strength of the local economy.

XII-10 Assets of BG: The focus group members believed that the biggest assets of Bowling Green were its job market, the public schools, and that it is a small city with many choices and opportunities for residents. While participants cited the local economy as the primary asset of the city, they also stated that they believed the city’s workforce is lacking sufficient affordable housing to meet their needs. They indicated that it will be important for the city to monitor job growth by wage levels to identify what people can afford, in terms of housing. Several participants commented that they believed there was a direct link to housing and transportation, and that the cost of both should be studied. It was suggested that programs like the one provided by the South Central Workforce Development Board that provides financial assistance for housing for qualified participants be explored. Participants stated that they thought the local schools are a big draw for the area, as they often have people from outside the county coming to Bowling Green and Warren County for the schools, but typically don’t have people leaving the area because of the schools.

Challenges/Issues for Residents: According to group members, housing prices/rents and mismatch of housing costs and wages were the two most commonly cited challenges and issues facing residents of Bowling Green. Participants believed there were very few choices available or affordable to many refugees, as many of them have large families and must live in multigenerational housing that is too small to meet their needs and often is of lower quality. These refugees cannot afford many of the options offered in the market. It was stated that transportation should also be “part of the equation”, as transportation costs can impact the ability of people to afford certain housing product types or price points. Participants believe some housing priced above $300,000 sits on the market for an extended period due to the fewer number of people that can afford such product. Conversely, group members indicated that the market no longer offers modern for- sale product priced under $150,000, posing a challenge for lower-income and first- time homebuyers. It was also stated that many entry-level, blue-collar workers (e.g. hospitality, retail, restaurant workers) do not have sufficient affordable housing choices available to them.

Future Residential Development Considerations: Participants of the focus group indicated that there were two primary factors that should be considered for future residential development: Housing rents/prices, matching community goals, and bedroom types (e.g. studio, one-bedroom, etc.). According to participants, there is limited housing product available for middle-income households, particularly on the rental side. People indicated that there needs to be help for certain families, such as single-parent households and grandparents raising grandchildren. Overall, the group believed that many residents can’t afford much of the housing that is available. It was recommended that the city set specific goals for the development of both rental and for-sale housing. Several participants indicated that there is a void in housing as it relates to bedroom types, with most people indicating that there were not enough three- or four-bedroom units in the market for families. It

XII-11 was suggested that the city have a plan to monitor the housing market (e.g. vacancies, rents/prices, etc.) on a periodic basis.

Factors Limiting Residential Development: According to the focus group participants, construction/land costs, lack of skilled construction workers, and the lack of housing available to construction workers are limiting residential development within the city. Participants stated that land costs are considered high and climbing, which many people believe are contributing to higher development costs and ultimately high rents and pricing for housing. Participants also stated that the lack of skilled construction workers has resulted in higher hourly rates for such workers and has inflated construction costs. Finally, several participants stated that they believed there should be a focus on developing housing that is affordable to construction workers, as the market current lacks such housing.

XII-12