enid housing study 2015

Enid Area Housing Demand Study 2015 Update

1

ENID AREA HOUSING DEMAND STUDY 2015 UPDATE


2

ENID AREA HOUSING DEMAND STUDY

2015 UPDATE

Prepared for:

The Enid Regional Development Alliance

2020 Willow Run Suite 135

Enid, Oklahoma 73703

July 14, 2015

Prepared by:

CDS Market Research

1001 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 450

Houston, TX 77077

(713) 465-8866

www.cdsmr.com


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Message from the Enid Regional Development Alliance ............................................................................... 6 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9

The Purpose of this Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Study Area Description ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 History of the Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Cherokee Strip and the Great Land Run ...................................................................................................................... 10 Oil Booms and the 20th Century .................................................................................................................................. 11 Enid Today, More than Oil ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Demographic Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 13 Population and Households ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Population and Age ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Educational Attainment and School Enrollment ................................................................................................................ 16 Income Trends .................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Housing Characteristics and Trends ................................................................................................................................... 20

Housing Type Trends ................................................................................................................................................... 20 Age of Existing Housing ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Housing Occupancy Trends ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Housing Value Trends .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Employment Trends ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 Employment Rates and Labor Force Gains .................................................................................................................. 23 Wage and Employment Trends by Industry ................................................................................................................ 25 The Diverse Local Economy ......................................................................................................................................... 25 The Potential Impact of Lower Crude Oil Prices .......................................................................................................... 27 Garfield County Employment Projections ................................................................................................................... 28

Housing Market Trends – Single Family For-Sale Homes ................................................................................ 29 Existing Home Market ........................................................................................................................................................ 30

Sales Price Trends ........................................................................................................................................................ 30 Days on Market ........................................................................................................................................................... 31 Housing Supply and Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 32

Recent Residential Construction Trends............................................................................................................................. 32 Residential Building Permits ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Available Residential Lots ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Single Family Construction Costs ................................................................................................................................. 36 Enid Area Housing Task Force ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Housing Market Trends – Multifamily Rentals ............................................................................................... 39 Existing Multifamily Units ................................................................................................................................................... 39

Market Rate vs Affordable Housing (Income Restricted / Subsidized)........................................................................ 42 Existing Multifamily Supply and Demand .................................................................................................................... 42

New Development .............................................................................................................................................................. 43 Housing Market Trends – Single Family Rentals ............................................................................................ 45 Discussion Group Summaries ....................................................................................................................... 48

Local Employers .................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Home Builders and Developers .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Residential Realtors ............................................................................................................................................................ 49 Local Government Officials ................................................................................................................................................. 50

Enid Area Housing Survey ............................................................................................................................. 51 Understanding the Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 51 Profile of Participants ......................................................................................................................................................... 52


4

Housing Characteristics, Needs, and Preferences .............................................................................................................. 56 Housing Demand Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 62

Historical Inputs .................................................................................................................................................................. 62 Analysis and Projections ..................................................................................................................................................... 63

Notable Assumptions .................................................................................................................................................. 63 Final Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 64

Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 65 Market Demand and Opportunities ................................................................................................................................... 65

Rental Market .............................................................................................................................................................. 65 Single Family For-Sale Market ..................................................................................................................................... 67

Recommendations to Encourage Additional Housing Development ................................................................................. 69 Appendix A: Employee Survey Instrument .................................................................................................... 71

FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Enid City and Garfield County ........................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 2: Historic Images of the Great Land Run, Early Enid City, and a Mural on Randolph Ave ............................................. 11

Figure 3: Views of Enid City ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4: Enid and Garfield County Historic Population Growth ............................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: The 2014 Fireball Run in Enid ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 6: Percent of Population by Age, 2015 ........................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 7: Household Income Trends, 2000 to 2015 ................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 8: New Luxury Home Development in Unincorporated Garfield County ....................................................................... 19

Figure 9: Housing Values, 2015 .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Figure 10: Unemployment Rates, 2010 to March 2015 ............................................................................................................. 23

Figure 11: Garfield County Monthly Employment and Labor Force Gains, 2013 to March 2015 .............................................. 24

Figure 12: Size, Growth, and Location Quotient of Industries in Garfield County, 3Q 2014 ..................................................... 26

Figure 13: Garfield County Oil and Gas Employment and the Price of Crude Oil, 2004 to 2015 ............................................... 27

Figure 14: Garfield County Employment; Historical and Projected ........................................................................................... 28

Figure 15: Image of Autry Technology Center ........................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 16: Images of Single Family Residential Homes in Enid and Garfield County ................................................................. 29

Figure 17: Residential Median Sales Price, 2011 to 2015 .......................................................................................................... 30

Figure 18: Enid Area Residential Average Sales Price, 2011 to 2015 ......................................................................................... 30

Figure 19: Enid Area Residential Closed Unit Sales, 2011 to 2015 ............................................................................................ 30

Figure 20: Enid Area Residential Median Asked Price to Sold Price Percentage, 2011 to 2015 ................................................ 31

Figure 21: Enid Area Residential Median Days on Market, 2011 to 2015 ................................................................................. 31

Figure 22: Enid Area Residential Median Days on Market, Annual Average 2011 to 2014 ....................................................... 31

Figure 23: Housing Supply Measured in Months of Inventory, 2011 to 2015 ........................................................................... 32

Figure 24: Garfield Residential Building Permits and Net New Residents, 2004 to 2014 .......................................................... 33

Figure 25: Net New Residents per Single Family Building Permit Issued, 2004 to 2014 ........................................................... 34

Figure 26: Summary of Net New Residents per Single Family Building Permit Issued .............................................................. 34

Figure 27: Enid City Annual Lots Added and Building Permits Issued, 2004 to 2014 ................................................................ 35

Figure 28: Images of New Home Construction in the Enid Area ............................................................................................... 38

Figure 29: Enid Area Existing Multifamily Complexes ................................................................................................................ 39

Figure 30: Images of Multifamily Complexes in the Enid Area .................................................................................................. 41


5

Figure 31: Rental Occupancy Rates in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa, 2010 to 2015 .................................................... 42

Figure 32: Images of Tuscana Apartments ................................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 33: Images of the Clay Hall Apartments.......................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 34: Rendering of the Building Design for the Esplanade at Stonebridge Apartments .................................................... 44

Figure 35: Enid Area Sample of Currently Advertised Single Family Rentals ............................................................................. 45

Figure 36: Images of Currently Advertised Single Family Rentals in the Enid Area ................................................................... 47

Figure 37: Focus Group Meetings Took Place at the New Enid Event Center and Convention Hall .......................................... 48

Figure 38: The Enid Area Housing Survey Online and Paper Format ......................................................................................... 51

Figure 39: Northern Oklahoma College Enid Campus ............................................................................................................... 55

Figure 40: A View of Newly Constructed Entry Level Homes in the Enid Area .......................................................................... 61

TABLES

Table 1: Population and Households, 2000 to 2015 .................................................................................................................. 13

Table 2: Population by Age, 2000 to 2015 ................................................................................................................................. 15

Table 3: Garfield County Education Attainment, 2000 to 2015 ................................................................................................. 16

Table 4: School Enrollment and Performance in Garfield County, 2012 to 2015 ...................................................................... 16

Table 5: Household Income Trends, 2000 to 2015 .................................................................................................................... 18

Table 6: Housing Type Trends, 2000 to 2015 ............................................................................................................................. 20

Table 7: Age of Existing Housing Stock, 2000 to 2015 ............................................................................................................... 21

Table 8: Housing Occupancy Trends, 2000 to 2015 ................................................................................................................... 21

Table 9: Housing Value Trends, 2000 to 2015 ........................................................................................................................... 22

Table 10: Unemployment Rates, 2010 to March 2015 .............................................................................................................. 23

Table 11: Garfield County Monthly Employment and Labor Force Gains, 2013 to March 2015 ............................................... 24

Table 12: Wage and Employment Trends by Industries Tracked in Garfield County, 2010 to 2014 ......................................... 25

Table 13: Net New Residents per Single Family Building Permit Issued, 2004 to 2014 ............................................................. 33

Table 14: Enid City Residential Plat / Lot Survey, 2004 to 2014 ................................................................................................ 35

Table 15: Enid Area Additional Cost of New Home Construction .............................................................................................. 37

Table 16: Enid Area Existing Multifamily Complexes, 2015 ....................................................................................................... 40

Table 17: Enid Area Sample of Currently Advertised Single Family Rentals .............................................................................. 45

Table 18: Garfield County Historical Household and Housing Statistics .................................................................................... 62

Table 19: Garfield County Total Housing Unit and Vacancy Estimates ...................................................................................... 62

Table 20: Historical Vacancy Rates in the State and the Nation ................................................................................................ 63

Table 21: Housing Demand Estimates and Projections ............................................................................................................. 63

Table 22: Total Housing Unit Estimates and Projections ........................................................................................................... 63

Table 23: Projection of Additional Housing ............................................................................................................................... 64


6

A MESSAGE FROM THE ENID REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE

It was July of 2013 when the first “Enid Area Housing Demand Study“, sponsored by the

ERDA, was published. Since that time, a multitude of housing projects have been

planned and started in an attempt to fill the gaps identified. Developers, builders, and

lenders from across the country are investing in our community to address shortfalls

that this study illuminated. This is one of the best investments the ERDA has made in

Enid, and a new study (this document) has been prepared to provide a current update.

Enid’s recent progress does not stop with the housing market. We have also been

working with Koch Industries, who has plans to invest one billion (with a “B”) dollars in

infrastructure and plant improvements in their Enid facility. These improvements will

increase plant capacity, and employment, while freeing up 5 million gallons of

water/day for public consumption.

These are just a couple of the recent high profile successes for Enid and the ERDA, but I

can assure you there were many more. While this year may be a banner year for the

ERDA, rest assured there are many great things still on the horizon. It is a great time to

be in Enid, Oklahoma.

I would like to thank all of our members for their

continued support. We are all looking forward

to a very prosperous year!

Yours Truly,

Jimmy Stallings

Chairman – ERDA Board of Directors


7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction, page 8

CDS Market Research (CDS) was hired by the Enid Regional Development Alliance (ERDA) to complete a housing

study—updating a previous housing study completed in 2013. This study begins with a statement of purpose

and a brief history of the area. Not unlike many places in this country, the early history of Enid and Garfield

County was defined by periods of economic success followed by recession. This boom and bust pattern was

based on a few key economic activities, particularly oil and gas. Today, Garfield County’s economy is much more

diverse.

Demographic Analysis, page 12

Except for one period of significant decline in the 1980’s, Enid and Garfield County have seen consistent growth.

The population and household figures estimated for 2015 represent an all-time high for the area. The

demographic and economic trends are positive with local unemployment remaining lower than the State and

National levels despite recent layoffs in the oil and gas industry. It is anticipated that employment gains in

Garfield County will continue into the near future at a modest rate.

Housing Market Trends – Single Family For-Sale Homes, page 28

Healthy economic conditions have led to an increased demand for owner occupied housing in the Enid area. As a

result, the last four years have seen the median home sales price go up tens of thousands of dollars. A

constrained supply of new housing units has also had a significant influence on the market. From 2010 to 2014,

Garfield County added only 354 new housing units (252 single family, 104 multifamily) while adding and

estimated 3,937 new residents. This equates to roughly one housing unit for every 11.1 new residents. Over the

same period the state of Oklahoma has done a much better job meeting market demand, averaging one housing

unit for every 2.6 residents (basically one per household).

Housing Market Trends – Multifamily Rentals, page 38

The multifamily rental market has also seen significant demand pressures. CDS completed an extensive survey

covering all multifamily complexes in the Enid area, a total of 2,224 units. This survey found that occupancy

rates are at 97% on average—which is high compared to other areas. Several complexes reported being 100%

full with a waiting list, and are still getting multiple calls a day.

Housing Market Trends – Single Family Rentals, page 44

Those who manage single family rentals also report strong demand, with occupancy rates at or near 100%. This

has led to higher rental prices which reportedly range from $200 to $500 higher than what they were in 2010. In

the previous housing study completed two years ago, it was mentioned that supply was so tight that many

tenants were reportedly renting below their means and settling for lower quality. Apparently this is still an issue.

It has also been reported that some households who normally rent housing separately have chosen to jointly

rent single family homes due to lack of available options.

Discussion Group Summaries, page 47

As part of this study, ERDA arranged four different discussion groups to assist CDS in gathering information and

feedback from the community. These groups included local employers, home builders and developers, realtors,


8

and local government officials. The information gathered from these discussions corroborated the findings and

recommendations of this study. They also highlighted the challenges and possible solutions related to the local

housing shortage.

Enid Area Housing Survey, page 47

In order to get the perspective of average residents, a County wide survey was conducted reaching 504

respondents. The responses to this survey provide helpful insight into the needs and preferences of area

residents. One question asked residents about their most recent home renting or buying experience. According

to the results, it is getting harder to find housing that meets the needs and budgets of local households—

another signal that the market is constrained.

Housing Demand Analysis, page 61

CDS has estimated that the housing market in the Enid area could readily absorb 613 additional units over the

next two years. Demand for this new housing is expected to come from two sources, job growth and latent

demand. It is anticipated that total employment in Garfield County will increase by 818 jobs by 2017. This is

based on the 1.4% annual average growth rate experienced from 2010 to 2015. Given the uncertainty related to

lower crude oil prices, this projection should be considered slightly optimistic, but not unrealistic. Although new

oil and gas jobs made up a large portion of the local employment gains from 2010 to 2015, this occurred during

a period of overall financial turbulence. With an improving national economy, the Enid area is poised to do

well—especially considering its role and a regional hub of commerce for northwestern Oklahoma. In addition,

the current overall vacancy rate in the Enid area is estimated to be 6.8%, which is roughly half of the observed

rate for the state and nation. A vacancy rate this low creates housing scarcity and begins to limit the area’s

ability to grow. This vacancy rate reflects latent, or pent-up, demand that is just as important as demand created

from job growth.

Conclusions and Recommendations, page 64

In the final section of this study, CDS reviews the findings and makes several recommendations which are aimed

at improving conditions in the housing market. These recommendations not only discuss incentivizing home

building, but more importantly, focus on encouraging better communication and data exchange so that the

market can be driven by timely and accurate information rather than outdated perceptions.


9

INTRODUCTION

The Enid Regional Development Alliance (ERDA) is a non-profit (501c6) organization established to assure the

economic prosperity of Enid, Oklahoma and the surrounding area. ERDA is funded by local business memberships as

well as the City of Enid and the Garfield County Industrial Authority. Working with residents, business owners, and

local government officials, ERDA represents a public / private partnership aimed at promoting the area’s successes

while highlighting issues in need of attention.

One of ERDA’s top priorities has been to increase local employment. A

major challenge to this priority—particularly in recent years—has been the

reportedly insufficient supply of new housing. Those concerned believe

the problem has become acute enough that it may be limiting long term

economic growth by constricting the ability of existing and prospective

employers to expand and recruit their labor force in the Enid area. In

response to this concern, ERDA hired CDS Market Research (CDS)—an

expert in the housing industry—to examine the local residential market and

provide insight.

In 2013, ERDA published the “Enid Area Housing Demand Study,” which contained the initial findings and

suggestions by CDS. This study was well received by the public—particularly by those involved in the development,

construction, and selling of new residential units in the Enid area. After two years of time and still recognizing a need

for additional housing, ERDA has again hired CDS to update its assessment of the housing market.

The Purpose of this Study

This study is an update of the 2013 study and contains the most recent research, findings, analysis, and suggestions

for improvement related to the housing market in the Enid area. As in the previous study, the focus of this study

centers on the following questions:

Is the Enid-area economy generating demand for additional housing development?

What are the market conditions regarding the existing local supply of

single family and multifamily housing?

What are the types, quantities, and price ranges of new housing that are

most needed in the Enid area?

What conditions or forces are preventing new supply from being added

to the local housing market?

What actions and strategies can the Enid community take to help increase

new single family and multifamily residential development?

This study mostly follows the format of the previous study, updating the various

tables, charts, and figures with the most recent information available. As with the

previous study, this required a considerable amount of participation from local

business and government staff, for which CDS is grateful.


10

Study Area Description

This study examines two main geographies, Enid City and Garfield County, with Garfield County being

considered the market area which captures the vast majority of economic activity relevant to the Enid area

housing market. For comparison purposes, several of the tables in this study also include data for the entire

state of Oklahoma, and in some places, the United States as a whole.

Figure 1: Map of Enid City and Garfield County

Source: CDS Market Research

History of the Area

Cherokee Strip and the Great Land Run

In the nineteenth century, the United States government resettled American Indian tribes from all parts of the

country into Indian Territory. By treaty, the northern portion of what is now Oklahoma was given to the

Cherokee Nation as an outlet to hunting grounds in the west. Officially called the Cherokee Outlet, the region

became widely known as the Cherokee Strip. Following the Civil War, the government purchased the land and


11

opened the area for settlement. On Sept. 16, 1893, the Great Land Run began. By horse, train, wagon and on

foot more than 100,000 land-hungry pioneers raced for 40,000 homesteads and the valuable town lots of what

is now northwest Oklahoma.

Figure 2: Historic Images of the Great Land Run, Early Enid City, and a Mural on Randolph Ave

Source: Oklahoma Historical Society, CDS Market Research (Mural located on Randolph Avenue near 2nd Street in Downtown Enid)

Once settlers found their land, they then had to stake their claim at one of four land offices throughout the

Outlet, one of them was located in what is now known as Enid. After the land opening, approximately two

thousand residents remained to begin building the town. The first three years were drought years, and Enid

grew slowly. When the drought broke, the town began to prosper, its fortunes tied to the surrounding

agricultural community. Enid was selected as the county seat when Garfield County was initially organized as

“O” County in 1893 (the original designation).

Oil Booms and the 20th Century

Bolstered by a decade of good weather and crop harvests, Enid and Garfield County prospered. Having

established itself as regional trade center and rail hub by 1907 statehood, Enid had grown to a population of

10,087, the fourth largest in Oklahoma. The discovery of the Garber-Covington Oil Field east of town in 1916

was Enid's next milestone, making oil production and refinement a major portion of the local economy, adding

jobs and population. Unfortunately the boom time did not last as the Great Depression gripped Enid during the

1930s. Extremely depressed wheat and oil prices and a severe drought crippled the local economy, although the

industrial base and trade center status stayed relatively intact.

With the advent of World War II the U.S. Army located one of its basic flying schools at Enid. Constructed in

wheat pastures south of town, the Air Corps Basic Flying School of Enid, Oklahoma, opened in November 1941.

In 1949 the base was renamed Vance Air Force Base to honor local Medal of Honor recipient Leon R. Vance, Jr.,

who died in 1944. The location of this base in Enid had a significant impact on the local economy, and remains

one of the area’s largest employers to this day.


12

The post-World War II years brought modest but steady growth to Enid. The City’s population grew to 38,859 by

1960, spurred by expanding oil and gas activity in the region, the success of the portable drilling rig

manufacturing industry, and the emergence of Enid as a major inland grain storage terminal center. Steady

growth continued in the 1970s resulting from another major oil boom. However, an oil bust soon followed in the

early 1980s, and Enid suffered a second major economic crisis which resulted in the City and County’s first

significant intercensal population decline—a loss of roughly 10% of residents from 1980 to 1990.

Enid Today, More than Oil

Despite the decline of the 80’s, Enid's traditional role as a trade center for the region eventually led to revived

growth. Although a portion of Enid’s economy is still dependent on the fortunes of the oil and gas industry, that

portion is relatively small compared to the combined economic impact associated with food processing, medical

services, light manufacturing, agriculture, financial services, and a wide range of businesses associated with

supporting the surrounding communities located in northwestern Oklahoma.1

Figure 3: Views of Enid City

Source: Enid Regional Development Alliance, Enid News & Eagle, CDS Market Research

1 This history has been adapted from the Oklahoma Historical Society, as presented on the VisitEnid.org website.


13

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Understanding the demographic trends for the area is an important element in assessing the market demand for

new housing. Past, present and future demographic figures were collected and estimated by utilizing data from

the following sources: US Census, American Community Survey, Nielsen/Claritas 2015 Estimates – PCensus for

ArcView (hereafter referred to as “PCensus”), Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oklahoma Employment Security

Commission, Garfield County Assessor’s Office, Enid City Code Department, and primary research completed

CDS Market Research.

Population and Households

The table below provides population and household counts for 2000 and 2010, as well as estimates for 2015.

The chart which follows displays the population counts, as well as historic counts from 1900 to 1990. As can be

seen, population in the 20th century grew steadily until the oil bust of the 1980s. In the 90s population growth

resumed, although at a more moderate pace than in previous decades. The population and household figures

estimated for 2015 represent an all-time high for the area.

Table 1: Population and Households, 2000 to 2015

Population 2000 Census 2010 Census 2015 Estimate ↑ '00-'15 AAGR '00-'10 AAGR '10-'15

Enid City 47,070 49,379 51,864 4,794 0.48% 0.99%

Garfield County 57,812 60,580 63,462 5,650 0.47% 0.93%

Oklahoma 3,450,654 3,751,351 3,898,675 448,021 0.84% 0.77%

United States 281,421,942 308,745,538 319,459,991 38,038,049 0.93% 0.68%

Households 2000 Census 2010 Census 2015 Estimate ↑ '00-'15 AAGR '00-'10 AAGR '10-'15

Enid City 19,071 19,767 20,820 1,749 0.36% 1.04%

Garfield County 23,175 24,175 25,371 2,196 0.42% 0.97%

Oklahoma 1,342,293 1,460,450 1,520,327 178,034 0.85% 0.81%

United States 105,480,131 116,716,292 121,099,157 15,619,026 1.02% 0.74%

AAGR = Annual Average Growth Rate ((FV/PV)^(1/n)) – 1)

Source: US Census, American Community Survey, Nielsen/Claritas 2015 Estimates – PCensus for ArcView (hereafter referred to as PCensus)

Figure 4: Enid and Garfield County Historic Population Growth

Source: US Census

0K

10K

20K

30K

40K

50K

60K

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015


14

The table presented also provides annual average growth rates for the periods of 2000 to 2010 and 2010 to

2015. As can be seen, Enid and Garfield County grew at a rate slower than the state and the nation from 2000 to

2010. However, from 2010 to 2015, Enid and Garfield County grew at a slightly faster rate. This increase is

related to the rise in crude oil prices over the last decade, which added new local jobs in the oil and gas industry

as well as other closely related and supporting industries (as demonstrated later in this section).

The recent sharp drop in crude oil prices in early 2015 has created some concern over the short term health of

the Enid area local economy—no doubt reminding some residents of the oil bust of the 1980s. However, after

reviewing the historic population data for the City and County, it is clear that the population growth related to

the most recent oil boom—and therefore the threat of an impending oil bust—is significantly lower than that

experienced in the 1970s and 1980s. This is directly related to the fact that the local oil and gas industry makes

up a smaller portion of the overall economic activity in the Enid Area today than in the early 1980s at the height

of the last boom.

Figure 5: The 2014 Fireball Run in Enid

Source: VisitEnid.org


15

Population and Age

The following table contains a breakdown of the 2000 and 2015 populations for Enid and Garfield County by age

range. Total population, median age, and the percentage change from 2000 to 2015 are also presented. The

accompanying chart displays the 2015 percentage of total for slightly adapted age ranges, and includes data for

the Oklahoma and the nation. Noteworthy observations include the following:

Age 55 to 64 grew the most with a 50.9% increase in Enid and a 48.5% increase in Garfield County

Age 25 to 34 grew the second most with a 26.7% increase in Enid and a 23.3% increase in Garfield County;

this is significant because this age group (Gen Y) is typically the highest for first time homebuyers2

Age 35 to 44 experienced the most loss with a 15.6% decrease in Enid and a 17.7% decrease in the County

Table 2: Population by Age, 2000 to 2015

Population By Age

City of Enid Garfield County

2000 2015 % ↑ 2000 2015 % ↑

Total Population 47,070 51,864 10.2% 57,812 63,462 9.8%

Age 0 to 4 3,222 3,913 21.4% 3,876 4,644 19.8%

Age 5 to 9 3,193 3,854 20.7% 3,900 4,590 17.7%

Age 10 to 14 3,172 3,563 12.3% 4,037 4,336 7.4%

Age 15 to 17 2,110 1,949 -7.6% 2,669 2,428 -9.0%

Age 18 to 20 1,926 1,902 -1.2% 2,332 2,365 1.4%

Age 21 to 24 2,492 2,668 7.1% 2,945 3,321 12.8%

Age 25 to 34 5,819 7,375 26.7% 6,989 8,614 23.3%

Age 35 to 44 7,101 5,995 -15.6% 8,818 7,259 -17.7%

Age 45 to 54 6,034 6,051 0.3% 7,528 7,705 2.4%

Age 55 to 64 4,283 6,461 50.9% 5,457 8,106 48.5%

Age 65 to 74 3,758 4,220 12.3% 4,591 5,378 17.1%

Age 75 to 84 2,770 2,635 -4.9% 3,298 3,214 -2.5%

Age 85 and over 1,190 1,278 7.4% 1,372 1,502 9.5%

Median Age 37.3 36.2 -2.9% 37.5 38.6 3.0%

Source: US Census, American Community Survey, PCensus

Figure 6: Percent of Population by Age, 2015


2 2014 National Association of Realtors Home Buyer and Seller Generational Trends

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

0-4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

Enid Garfield County Oklahoma USA


16

Educational Attainment and School Enrollment

The following tables provide information regarding educational attainment, school enrollment, and school

performance in Garfield County. The first table provides educational attainment numbers and has a column

which denotes each category’s share of the total population (aged 25 and older). The last column in this table

contains the percent increase from the 2000 number to the 2015 number. Noteworthy observations include the

following:

Educational attainment in Garfield County has increased significantly from 2000 to 2015, with a 14.7%

increase in the total number of high school graduates and a 20.4% increase in the total number of those

with a bachelor’s degree or higher

The largest change was with those who earned an associate’s degree , followed closely by those who earned

a bachelor’s degree—which in 2015 makes up 20.4% of the population over 25 years old, or 8,981

individuals

The number of individuals with a graduate or professional degree increased by 7.4%, or 187, to a total of

2,712 individuals in 2015

Table 3: Garfield County Education Attainment, 2000 to 2015

Educational Attainment

2000 2015 Estimate % ↑

'00 - '15 Number Share % Number Share %

Population 25 Years and Older 38,053 100.0% 41,778 100.0% 9.8%

Less than 9th Grade 2,057 5.4% 1,674 4.0% -18.6%

Some High School, No Diploma 4,699 12.3% 4,205 10.1% -10.5%

High School Graduate (or GED) 13,557 35.6% 15,235 36.5% 12.4%

Some College, No Degree 8,449 22.2% 9,321 22.3% 10.3%

Associate Degree 1,830 4.8% 2,362 5.7% 29.1%

Bachelor's Degree 4,936 13.0% 6,269 15.0% 27.0%

Graduate or Professional Degree 2,525 6.6% 2,712 6.5% 7.4%

High School Graduate or Higher 31,297 82.2% 35,899 85.9% 14.7%

Bachelor's Degree or Higher 7,461 19.6% 8,981 21.5% 20.4%


Table 4: School Enrollment and Performance in Garfield County, 2012 to 2015

School Name School District Type* Enrollment

12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 2 Yr ↑

Chisholm ES Chisholm Elementary 443 463 503 13.5%

Chisholm HS Chisholm High School 262 288 296 13.0%

Chisholm MS Chisholm Middle 219 224 241 10.0%

Covington-Douglas ES Covington-Douglas Elementary 193 196 185 -4.1%

Covington-Douglas HS Covington-Douglas High School 78 82 87 11.5%


17

School Name School District Type* Enrollment

12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 2 Yr ↑

Drummond ES Drummond Elementary 230 235 224 -2.6%

Drummond HS Drummond High School 92 98 92 0.0%

Adams ES Enid Elementary 358 386 345 -3.6%

Carver E.C. Center Enid Pre-K Only - - 141 -

Coolidge ES Enid Elementary 560 541 517 -7.7%

Dewitt Waller MS Enid Middle 577 612 657 13.9%

Eisenhower ES Enid Elementary 154 151 160 3.9%

Emerson MS Enid Middle 433 408 417 -3.7%

Enid HS Enid High School 1,815 1,840 1,868 2.9%

Garfield ES Enid Elementary 594 660 709 19.4%

Glenwood ES Enid Elementary 484 475 495 2.3%

Hayes ES Enid Elementary 361 361 340 -5.8%

Hoover ES Enid Elementary 305 320 336 10.2%

Longfellow MS Enid Middle 401 463 490 22.2%

McKinley ES Enid Elementary 343 312 292 -14.9%

Monroe ES Enid Elementary 445 458 418 -6.1%

Prairie View ES Enid Elementary 375 485 517 37.9%

Taft ES Enid Elementary 343 386 349 1.7%

Garber ES Garber Elementary 268 248 264 -1.5%

Garber HS Garber High School 110 107 114 3.6%

Kremlin-Hillsdale ES Kremlin-Hillsdale Elementary 237 227 217 -8.4%

Kremlin-Hillsdale HS Kremlin-Hillsdale High School 92 87 86 -6.5%

Pioneer-P.V. ES Pioneer-P.V. Elementary 324 326 308 -4.9%

Pioneer-P.V. HS Pioneer-P.V. High School 142 157 150 5.6%

Pioneer-P.V. JHS Pioneer-P.V. Junior High 87 94 78 -10.3%

Waukomis ES Waukomis Elementary 248 257 290 16.9%

Waukomis HS Waukomis High School 91 103 106 16.5%

Total 10,664 11,050 11,292 5.9%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Education

*Note: Elementary = Pre-K to 5th, MS = 6th - 8th, HS = 9th - 12th

The previous table provides enrollment and performance data as calculated and determined by the Oklahoma

Department of Education. This table includes all public schools located within Garfield County, which has seen

total enrollment figures county-wide increase by 5.9% (628 students) from the ‘12-’13 school year to the ’14-’15

(current) school year. The Chisolm School District is the fastest growing district in the County, adding 116

students in two years and growing by 12.6%. The Enid School District added the largest total number of students

in the County, adding 503 students and growing by 6.7%. Within Garfield County there were multiple schools

that lost enrollment over the two year period measured.


18

Income Trends

The following charts and table reveal the income trends for Enid, Garfield County, and Oklahoma. Incomes in

each geography are increasing on average at a rate faster than inflation. The inflation adjusted median

household income has risen 4.6% in Enid, 5.7% in Garfield County, and 1.6% for Oklahoma from 2000 to 2015.

The $75,000 to $99,999 household income group saw the largest increase in Enid and Garfield County, roughly

doubling the share of the residents earning that amount, going from 6.3% and 6.4% of the population to 12.5%

and 13.3 % of the population, respectively. Household incomes in the ranges above $100,000 have also grown

considerably, doubling or tripling their share of the population.

Figure 7: Household Income Trends, 2000 to 2015


Table 5: Household Income Trends, 2000 to 2015

Location Enid City Garfield County Oklahoma

Year 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑

Total Households 19,091 20,820 9.1% 23,220 25,371 9.3% 1,343,504 1,520,327 13.2%

Less than $15,000 21.1% 11.1% -10.0% 20.1% 10.6% -9.5% 20.7% 14.1% -6.6%

$15,000 to $24,999 16.8% 11.6% -5.3% 16.6% 11.1% -5.5% 16.3% 12.1% -4.2%

$25,000 to $34,999 16.4% 13.5% -2.9% 16.5% 13.0% -3.5% 15.0% 11.7% -3.3%

$35,000 to $49,999 18.7% 17.9% -0.8% 19.3% 17.6% -1.7% 17.1% 15.1% -2.0%

$50,000 to $74,999 15.5% 18.0% 2.5% 16.1% 18.3% 2.2% 17.0% 18.5% 1.5%

$75,000 to $99,999 6.3% 12.5% 6.2% 6.4% 13.3% 6.9% 7.3% 11.4% 4.2%

$100,000 to $124,999 2.3% 6.6% 4.3% 2.3% 7.0% 4.7% 3.0% 7.0% 4.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

>15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50-75K 75-100K 100-125K 125-150K 150-200K 200-250K 250-500K >500K

Enid City Garfield County Oklahoma

-10%

-7%

-4%

-1%

2%

5%

8%

>15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50-75K 75-100K 100-125K 125-150K 150-200K 200-250K 250-500K >500K


% of Households, 2015

% ↑ 2000 to 2015


19

Location Enid City Garfield County Oklahoma

Year 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑

$125,000 to $149,999 1.1% 3.2% 2.1% 1.1% 3.4% 2.3% 1.3% 3.8% 2.5%

$150,000 to $199,999 0.8% 2.7% 2.0% 0.7% 2.8% 2.1% 1.1% 3.2% 2.1%

$200,000 to $249,999 0.5% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.2% 0.7% 0.6% 1.2% 0.6%

$250,000 to $499,999 0.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 1.4% 0.9%

$500,000 or more 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3%

Median HH Income $32,416 $46,607 43.8% $33,097 $48,059 45.2% $33,692 $47,049 39.6%

Inflation Adjusted Median $44,539 $46,607 4.6% $45,475 $48,059 5.7% $46,292 $47,049 1.6%

Average HH Income $41,871 $63,173 50.9% $42,048 $64,468 53.3% $44,455 $63,390 42.6%

Inflation Adjusted Avg $57,563 $63,173 9.7% $57,806 $64,468 11.5% $61,116 $63,390 3.7%


* Note: Inflation adjustment is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator ($1 in 2015 = $0.73 in 2015)

Figure 8: New Luxury Home Development in Unincorporated Garfield County



20

Housing Characteristics and Trends

The following tables and figures present information regarding the housing characteristics and trends in Enid

and Garfield County. The majority of this information is derived from the US Census and the American

Community Survey, and in some cases is self-reported data. While this can generate minor anomalies (such as

are present in the data on age of housing stock or housing values), the information presented in this section still

provides a valuable overview of the housing situation in the area. One important note to make is that the total

housing unit number used in this section is an estimate. Later in this study, more accurate numbers related to

permit activity will be reviewed.

Housing Type Trends

The following table contains a census of the type and number of housing units in Enid and Garfield County. This

data comes from the 2000 and 2010 Census as well as Census based estimates for 2015. Notable observations

include the following:

Census based numbers for total Housing units in Garfield County are estimated to have increased by 7.6%

(or 1,986 units) over this fifteen year period. As presented earlier, this is related to an increase in population

in Garfield County over the same period estimated at 5,650.

Single family detached units make up the vast majority of all housing types in both Enid and Garfield County,

accounting for over 80% of the housing stock in both geographies. When combined with single family

attached units (such as townhomes), single family homes account for roughly 85% of the housing stock.

Of the 1,986 units estimated to have been added from 2000 to 2015 in Garfield County, Enid accounts for

82% (or 1,634 units) of the growth.

The increase in single family detached homes accounts for the largest increase by number in Garfield County

from 2000 to 2015, at 1,180 new units.

Housing units in large multifamily complexes, mobile homes, and duplexes saw large increases by

percentage change, though they are still few in number when compared with single family detached units.

Table 6: Housing Type Trends, 2000 to 2015

Location Enid % Garfield County %

Year 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑

Total Housing Units 21,372 23,006 7.6% 26,047 28,033 7.6%

1 Unit Attached 504 2.4% 597 2.6% 18.5% 605 2.3% 677 2.4% 11.9%

1 Unit Detached 17,767 83.1% 18,696 81.3% 5.2% 21,771 83.6% 22,951 81.9% 5.4%

2 Units 555 2.6% 718 3.1% 29.4% 583 2.2% 755 2.7% 29.5%

3 to 19 Units 1,276 6.0% 1,450 6.3% 13.6% 1,358 5.2% 1,585 5.7% 16.7%

20 to 49 Units 380 1.8% 327 1.4% -13.9% 386 1.5% 341 1.2% -11.7%

50 or More Units 290 1.4% 408 1.8% 40.7% 294 1.1% 430 1.5% 46.3%

Mobile Home or Trailer 553 2.6% 807 3.5% 45.9% 981 3.8% 1,289 4.6% 31.4%

Boat, RV, Van, etc. 47 0.2% 3 0.0% -93.6% 69 0.3% 5 0.0% -92.8%



21

Age of Existing Housing

The following table contains a 2015 estimate of the age of the existing housing stock in Enid, Garfield County,

and Oklahoma. Notable observations include the following:

2,967 units are estimated to have been built after the year 2000 in Garfield County. This compares to the

1,986 units estimated to have been added since 2000 in the previous table. This can be explained by the

tendency of respondents surveyed to underestimate the age of their dwelling, particularly if they are

renters.

The profile of Enid and Garfield County is similar to the state of Oklahoma, except that far fewer homes are

estimated to have been built locally during the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

Table 7: Age of Existing Housing Stock, 2000 to 2015

2015 Estimate Enid Garfield County Oklahoma

Total Housing Units 23,006 28,033 1,732,484

Built 2010 or later 1,074 4.7% 1,300 4.6% 83,624 4.8%

Built 2000 to 2009 1,287 5.6% 1,667 6.0% 227,905 13.2%

Built 1990 to 1999 1,170 5.1% 1,554 5.5% 198,558 11.5%

Built 1980 to 1989 2,865 12.5% 3,498 12.5% 262,184 15.1%

Built 1970 to 1979 5,090 22.1% 6,275 22.4% 334,158 19.3%

Built 1960 to 1969 3,492 15.2% 4,166 14.9% 205,146 11.8%

Built 1950 to 1959 3,115 13.5% 3,461 12.4% 183,749 10.6%

Built 1940 to 1949 2,145 9.3% 2,416 8.6% 95,721 5.5%

Built 1939 or Earlier 2,768 12.0% 3,696 13.2% 141,439 8.2%


Housing Occupancy Trends

The following table provides 2000 Census counts and 2015 estimates for housing occupancy in Enid and Garfield

County. The main observation to note is that overall occupancy is estimated to have increased, with a moderate

increase in the portion of homes that are renter occupied.

Table 8: Housing Occupancy Trends, 2000 to 2015

Location Enid % Garfield County %

Year 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑

Total Housing Units 21,372 23,006 7.6% 26,047 28,033 7.6%

Occupied Housing Units 19,071 89.2% 20,820 90.5% 9.2% 23,175 89.0% 25,371 90.5% 9.5%

Owner Occupied 13,017 60.9% 13,531 58.8% 3.9% 16,291 62.5% 17,103 61.0% 5.0%

Renter Occupied 6,054 28.3% 7,289 31.7% 20.4% 6,884 26.4% 8,268 29.5% 20.1%



22

Housing Value Trends

The following table and chart display owner occupied housing units grouped into self-reported value ranges for

Enid, Garfield County, and Oklahoma. As can be seen, housing values have increased dramatically in all

geographies from 2000 to 2015. When adjusted for inflation, the median value increase is still significant—at

around 12% for Enid and Garfield County, and at roughly 28% for Oklahoma.

Table 9: Housing Value Trends, 2000 to 2015

Location Enid Garfield County Oklahoma

Year 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑ 2000 2015 ↑

Owner-Occupied Housing 13,017 13,531 3.9% 16,291 17,103 5.0% 918,174 1,022,814 11.4%

Less than $60K 50.8% 25.7% -25.1% 50.9% 25.6% -25.3% 43.0% 18.5% -24.6%

$60K to $80K 18.2% 13.1% -5.1% 17.4% 13.5% -3.8% 17.3% 9.4% -7.8%

$80K to $100K 12.0% 11.4% -0.6% 12.2% 11.2% -1.0% 14.2% 11.0% -3.2%

$100K to $150K 11.0% 21.3% 10.3% 11.5% 20.8% 9.3% 14.8% 22.1% 7.2%

$150K to $200K 4.8% 11.3% 6.5% 4.6% 11.5% 6.8% 5.5% 16.2% 10.6%

$200K to $300K 2.0% 9.3% 7.3% 2.1% 9.3% 7.2% 3.3% 13.1% 9.8%

$300K to $400K 0.9% 4.7% 3.7% 0.9% 4.8% 3.9% 0.9% 4.8% 3.9%

$400K to $500K 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 2.0% 1.9% 0.4% 2.1% 1.7%

$500K to $750K 0.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.3% 1.6% 1.3%

$750K to $1,000K 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5%

$1,000K or more 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5%

Median Value $59,261 $91,563 54.5% $59,125 $91,100 54.1% $68,082 $119,546 75.6%

Inflation Adjusted* $81,470 $91,563 12.4% $81,283 $91,100 12.1% $93,597 $119,546 27.7%


* Note: Inflation adjustment is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator

Figure 9: Housing Values, 2015


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

< $60K $60K-$80K $80K-$100K $100K-$150K $150K-$200K $200K-$300K $300K-$400K $400K-$500K $500K-$750K $750K-$1,000K > $1,000K

Enid Garfield County Oklahoma


23

Employment Trends

In most locations, local employment is a key indicator used in determining the demand for housing in a

community, as well as the principal driver of population and household growth. The information in this section

provides general and detailed employment statistics for the Enid area.

Employment Rates and Labor Force Gains

The table below displays unemployment rates for Garfield County, Oklahoma, and the United States from 2010

to March of 2015. Unemployment rates are calculated by subtracting the number of people in the labor force by

the number of people employed, and dividing that figure by the labor force number. According to the BLS, the

unemployed are defined as all persons who had no employment during the reference period, were available for

work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment.

Table 10: Unemployment Rates, 2010 to March 2015

Time Period Garfield County Oklahoma United States

2010 5.5% 6.8% 9.6%

2011 4.4% 5.9% 8.9%

2012 4.1% 5.3% 8.1%

2013 4.2% 5.3% 7.4%

January 2014 4.1% 5.6% 6.6%

February 2014 4.1% 5.0% 6.7%

March 2014 3.7% 4.9% 6.6%

April 2014 3.0% 4.8% 6.2%

May 2014 3.6% 4.7% 6.3%

June 2014 3.8% 4.6% 6.1%

July 2014 3.7% 4.5% 6.2%

August 2014 3.5% 4.4% 6.1%

September 2014 3.5% 4.3% 5.9%

October 2014 3.4% 4.2% 5.7%

November 2014 3.2% 4.1% 5.8%

December 2014 3.2% 4.0% 5.6%

January 2015 3.5% 3.9% 5.7%

February 2015 3.5% 3.9% 5.5%

March 2015 3.1% 3.9% 5.5%

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS; County numbers are not seasonally adjusted

Note: March numbers are preliminary

Figure 10: Unemployment Rates, 2010 to March 2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS; County numbers are not seasonally adjusted

3%

5%

7%

9%

11%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 March 2015

Garfield County Oklahoma United States


24

The overall unemployment rate for Garfield County has remained lower than the State and nation for some

time. While this is good news and speaks to the economic health of the Enid area, it does not give a clear picture

of the size or potential of the local labor force. The table and chart below do provide this information. The table

has three sections, the top left is 2013 data, the top right is 2014 data, and the bottom section contains the data

available for 2015. Each section shows the size and gains for employment and the labor force. The chart depicts

this data graphically. As can be seen, the number of individuals in Garfield County who are employed and in the

labor force has stayed relatively steady for 2013 and 2014. For 2015 the numbers show an increase from

previous years—despite layoffs in the oil and gas related industries associated with the falling price of crude oil.

While this is a good sign, the full effect of lower crude oil prices on the region will remain an uncertainty for

several more months.

Table 11: Garfield County Monthly Employment and Labor Force Gains, 2013 to March 2015

2013 Employed Monthly ↑ Labor Force Monthly ↑ 2014 Employed Monthly ↑ Labor Force Monthly ↑

Jan 28,253 - 29,542 - Jan 27,542 -187 28,724 -143

Feb 28,056 -197 29,298 -244 Feb 27,580 38 28,769 45

Mar 28,243 187 29,388 90 Mar 28,105 525 29,186 417

Apr 28,523 280 29,613 225 Apr 28,270 165 29,158 -28

May 28,559 36 29,835 222 May 28,422 152 29,485 327

Jun 28,887 328 30,304 469 Jun 28,808 386 29,949 464

Jul 28,679 -208 29,964 -340 Jul 28,777 -31 29,873 -76

Aug 28,169 -510 29,380 -584 Aug 28,652 -125 29,693 -180

Sep 28,164 -5 29,404 24 Sep 28,393 -259 29,416 -277

Oct 27,644 -520 28,906 -498 Oct 28,276 -117 29,285 -131

Nov 27,777 133 28,919 13 Nov 28,234 -42 29,176 -109

Dec 27,729 -48 28,867 -52 Dec 28,116 -118 29,031 -145

2015 Employed Monthly ↑ Labor Force Monthly ↑

Jan 28,395 279 29,436 405

Feb 28,883 488 29,936 500

Mar 29,408 525 30,355 419

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS; County numbers are not seasonally adjusted; March numbers are preliminary

Figure 11: Garfield County Monthly Employment and Labor Force Gains, 2013 to March 2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS; County numbers are not seasonally adjusted; March numbers are preliminary

27,250

27,750

28,250

28,750

29,250

29,750

30,250

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2013 Labor Force 2014 Labor Force 2015 Labor Force 2013 Employed 2014 Employed 2015 Employed


25

Wage and Employment Trends by Industry

The following table takes a closer look at the employment figures for Garfield County, with data on each tracked

NAICS coded industry sector—comparing 3rd quarter (3Q) 2010 data with 3Q 2014 data to examine the most

recent data available. It should be noted that the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, the source for

this data, does not include all jobs in Garfield County—which explains the discrepancy of a few thousand jobs

between the totals shown here and the totals in the previous table.

Table 12: Wage and Employment Trends by Industries Tracked in Garfield County, 2010 to 2014

NAICS Industry Employment Average Annual Wages

3Q 2010 3Q 2014 % ↑ 3Q 2010 3Q 2014 % ↑ Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 118 126 6.8% $27,776 $31,813 14.5%

Mining (Including Oil & Gas Extraction) 1,006 2,283 126.9% $93,108 $91,009 -2.3%

Utilities 205 255 24.2% $74,843 $74,179 -0.9%

Construction 1,026 1,466 42.8% $40,958 $51,079 24.7%

Manufacture 2,872 2,639 -8.1% $54,053 $39,984 -26.0%

Wholesale Trade 1,054 1,511 43.4% $42,204 $61,105 44.8%

Retail Trade 3,119 3,389 8.7% $25,423 $27,716 9.0%

Transportation and Warehousing 791 1,004 26.9% $45,919 $48,525 5.7%

Information 292 275 -5.8% $33,411 $34,632 3.7%

Finance and Insurance 753 729 -3.2% $41,673 $52,300 25.5%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 336 314 -6.5% $33,734 $36,201 7.3%

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 1,477 1,429 -3.2% $51,693 $58,179 12.5%

Management of Companies and Enterprises ND ND ND ND ND ND

Administrative and Support and Waste Mgt. 1,553 1,387 -10.7% $22,160 $24,087 8.7%

Educational Services 1,552 1,706 9.9% $18,840 $21,446 13.8%

Health Care and Social Assistance 3,958 3,414 -13.8% $38,041 $39,741 4.5%

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 397 440 10.8% $14,707 $16,341 11.1%

Accommodation and Food Services 1,852 2,283 23.3% $13,977 $14,331 2.5%

Other Services (except Public Administration) 605 564 -6.7% $26,234 $31,428 19.8%

Public Administration 1,837 1,416 -22.9% $38,656 $49,708 28.6%

TOTAL / AVERAGE 24,804 26,631 7.4% $37,550 $42,131 12.2%

Source: Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

Note: ND = Not discolsed; 2010 wages have been adjusted for inflation

As can be seen, there are several large and growing industries in Garfield County. While the mining industry

(which includes oil and gas extraction) has more than doubled in recent years, it still only made up around 8.5%

of the jobs tracked in this data set (even less of actual total employment) as of 3Q 2014. The following two

sections provide additional perspective on the diversity of the local economy and the potential impact of low oil

prices.

The Diverse Local Economy

Garfield County has a diverse mix of current employers across several different types of industries. Some of the

major employers include Vance Air Force Base, AdvancePierre Foods, Koch Nitrogen Company, CSC, Integris Bass

Baptist Health Center, Enid Board of Education, St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, the City of Enid, Marsau


26

Enterprises, and Walmart. There are also several mid to small sized employers which have a significant impact of

the local economy. The following figure utilizes the data presented previously to illustrate the diversity and

trends of the local economy. Each bubble corresponds with a tracked industry in Garfield County. The size

(diameter) of the bubble represents the proportionate number of employees in that industry. The location of

the bubble along the y-axis represents the Location Quotient of that industry in Garfield County, as compared

with the state of Oklahoma. The location of the bubble along the x-axis represents the percentage that the

industry has added or lost jobs locally in the last four years.

Figure 12: Size, Growth, and Location Quotient of Industries in Garfield County, 3Q 2014

Source: CDS Market Research utilizing data from the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

A word on Location Quotients (LQ): this number compares the relative concentration of an industry in a local

economy with the average concentration seen at a higher level—in this case, the state of Oklahoma. For


27

example, the Wholesale Trade industry in Garfield County has an LQ of 1.4, indicating that the local economy

has 40% more jobs per capita in that industry than witnessed at the state level. An LQ of 1.0 indicates parity, and

an LQ below 1.0 indicates a below average proportion of jobs. A high location quotient in a specific industry may

translate into a competitive advantage in that industry for the local economy. Economic development

opportunities may exist for additional growth because of the presence of an existing skilled labor pool or other

resources such as suppliers, facilities or transportation hubs in the region. An LQ less than 1.0 may indicate an

opportunity to develop businesses in the area to better meet local demand.

Combining all of this data into one chart—size of local industries, growth of local industries, and the Location

Quotient—makes it easier to assess the health and direction of the local economy. This chart demonstrates that

the Enid area and Garfield County are not dependent on any one industry and have multiple industries which

are strong and growing, or represent opportunities for economic development. This chart also demonstrates

how important Garfield County is as a regional hub of economic activity for northwestern Oklahoma.

The Potential Impact of Lower Crude Oil Prices

There has been much concern in Garfield County over the recent drop in crude oil prices and the potential

impact this may have on the local economy, despite the fact that the mining / oil and gas industry in Garfield

County accounted for less than 8% of total employment in 3Q 2014. Still, there is justification for some concern

as the local mining / oil and gas industry does have a considerably higher average wage, and affects other

industries through both direct and indirect purchases (by businesses and employees).

The chart below displays the monthly averages for the price of crude oil and for Garfield County employment in

the mining / oil and gas industry. Industry specific employment data ends at September of 2014, and although

total employment and labor force figures for Garfield County have so far been positive for early 2015, anecdotal

evidence from the community suggests that there have been modest layoffs related to mining / oil and gas.

Figure 13: Garfield County Oil and Gas Employment and the Price of Crude Oil, 2004 to 2015

Source: US Energy Information Administration; BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

How many mining / oil and gas jobs will be lost? That is a difficult question to answer, and one which will require

more time to fully measure. However, the good news is that the Enid area is more diverse than ever, and that so

far other industries have reportedly been able to absorb many of the oil and gas layoffs.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Garfield County Mining Employment (Including Oil and Gas Extraction) Montly Average $/Barrel Price


28

Garfield County Employment Projections

From 2010 to 2015, employment in Garfield County has increased by roughly two thousand jobs, resulting in an

annual average growth rate estimated at 1.4%. Over the same period, Oklahoma’s annual average growth rate

for employment has been estimated at 1.2%, and the nation at 1.6% (annual average growth rates were

calculated using the total employment annual averages for 2010 and 2015, year to date). For the purpose of

determining future housing demand, total employment figures have been projected into the short term future.

As can be seen in the following chart, total employment in Garfield County is expected to continue to grow at

1.4% annually, increasing by roughly 800 jobs (from the 2015 average) over the next two years.

Figure 14: Garfield County Employment; Historical and Projected

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, CDS Market Research

Given the uncertainty related to lower crude oil prices, this projection should be considered slightly optimistic,

but not unrealistic. Although new oil and gas jobs made up a large portion of the local employment gains from

2010 to 2015, this occurred during a period of overall financial turbulence. With an improving national economy,

the Enid area is poised to do well—especially considering its role as a regional hub of commerce for

northwestern Oklahoma. While there have so far been moderate layoffs in the oil and gas industry, several

other industries in Garfield County are still growing and seeking new employees. According to job listing sites

such as Indeed and Monster, there are currently over 600 jobs in the Enid area which have been posted within

the last 30 days. The Autry Technology Center, which periodically surveys area employers, reports a similar level

economic health. According to their most recent survey covering twenty seven local employers and 10,000

employees, there are over 100 immediate openings at a third of the companies. In addition, over 75% of the

companies report that they will have openings within the next six to eighteen months.

Figure 15: Image of Autry Technology Center

Source: Enid News and Eagle

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

30,000

Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-12 Jul-12 Jan-13 Jul-13 Jan-14 Jul-14 Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17

Actual Employment Trend / Projection


29

HOUSING MARKET TRENDS – SINGLE FAMILY FOR-SALE HOMES

As presented previously, single family detached units make up the vast majority of all housing types in both Enid

and Garfield County, accounting for over 80% of the housing stock in both geographies. When combined with

single family attached units (such as townhomes), single family homes account for roughly 85% of the housing

stock. This equals an estimated 19,293 single family homes in End and Garfield County. These homes vary in size

and price, from older and smaller tract homes in Enid’s historically working class neighborhoods, to large and

multi-million dollar custom homes in unincorporated Garfield County.

This section examines the latest market trends for single family homes in Enid and Garfield County, looking

specifically at local real estate sales statistics, new home construction and permit activity, and local market costs

associated with increasing the housing supply.

Figure 16: Images of Single Family Residential Homes in Enid and Garfield County

Source: CDS Market Research, Google Street View, Enid Metro Association of Realtors


30

Existing Home Market

The following sections contain single family residential home sale data for the bulk of Garfield County over the

last few years. This data provides insight into local real estate market trends. The source for the majority of this

data was the multiple listing service of the Enid Metro Association of Realtors, Inc.

Sales Price Trends

The following three charts depict the median sales price, average sales price, and sale volume for each month

from March 2011 to March 2015. As can be seen, the sales price is trending upward year over year for the Enid

area. The first chart compares the median sales price of the Enid area to Oklahoma, clearly showing that the

local median price is increasing at a rate faster than the state, with higher peaks in recent months. This would

indicate an increase in demand over previous years. The last chart shows that sales volume has increased only

slightly despite the price increases, suggesting that supply is constrained.

Figure 17: Residential Median Sales Price, 2011 to 2015

Source: Enid Metro Association of Realtors, Zillow

Figure 18: Enid Area Residential Average Sales Price, 2011 to 2015

Source: Enid Metro Association of Realtors

Figure 19: Enid Area Residential Closed Unit Sales, 2011 to 2015


$80K

$100K

$120K

$140K

$160K

Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-12 Jul-12 Jan-13 Jul-13 Jan-14 Jul-14 Jan-15

Oklahoma Enid Area

$90K

$110K

$130K

$150K

$170K


30

50

70

90

110



31

The following chart displays the median asked price to sold price ratio from March 2011 to March 2015. Tracking

this ratio provides insight into the level of demand and overall competition in the market, indicating the room

buyers have to negotiate on prices. Over the past several years, this ratio in the Enid area has trended upwards,

once again demonstrating that the local single family housing market is experiencing an increase in demand.

Figure 20: Enid Area Residential Median Asked Price to Sold Price Percentage, 2011 to 2015


Days on Market

The Days on Market (DOM) calculation is another helpful metric commonly used in the real estate industry to

evaluate the relative magnitude of demand. In the Enid area the DOM has dropped significantly in the last few

years. The annual average DOM in 2011 was 96.4 days. In 2014 the DOM dropped to 63.5, representing a 34%

decline. The average so far for 2015 (which includes January to March) is 66.0, which is in line with 2014

numbers over the same period.

Figure 21: Enid Area Residential Median Days on Market, 2011 to 2015


Figure 22: Enid Area Residential Median Days on Market, Annual Average 2011 to 2014

Source: Enid Metro Association of Realtors; Note: 2011 does not include January or February, and 2015 includes January to March

95.5%

96.0%

96.5%

97.0%

97.5%

98.0%

98.5%


50

70

90

110

130


60

70

80

90

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


32

Housing Supply and Inventory

Realtor’s use the term “months of supply” to describe the inventory of homes on the market. Simply put,

months of supply is the number of months it would take for the current inventory to sell out if sales continued at

the current rate and no new inventory was added. The chart below displays the months of supply for single

family residential properties in the Enid area, calculated two ways. The dark blue line calculates the Enid area

months of supply by dividing the end of month inventory by the average monthly sales over the prior twelve

months. The light blue line calculates the Enid area months of supply by dividing the end of month inventory by

the current month’s sales. The tan line calculates the US months of supply by dividing the end of month

inventory by the current month’s sales.

Figure 23: Housing Supply Measured in Months of Inventory, 2011 to 2015

Source: Enid Metro Association of Realtors, US Census Bureau / Federal Reserve Bank

As can be seen, the single family residential housing supply in the Enid area was relatively in line with national

figures for 2011. However, starting in 2012 the Enid area’s supply began to decrease and diverge from the

national figure. This trend continued throughout 2013, 2014, and into 2015. Currently, the months of supply in

the Enid area is just below four months, roughly a month and a half lower than the national figure. Generally, a

supply greater than seven months is considered a buyers’ market, between five to seven months is a balanced

market, and less than five months is a sellers’ market. The single family residential housing market in the Enid

area is clearly a sellers’ market, and has been for the last couple years.

Recent Residential Construction Trends

In the Enid area there are currently seven certified home builders and nineteen registered home builders listed

with the Enid Home Builders Association. The information in this section examines the recent residential permit

and construction activity taking place in the Enid area by these and other builders.

Residential Building Permits

Experience has shown that residential building permit activity essentially equates to new houing unit

construction. The following chart displays annual single family and multifamily residential building permit

activity for new unit construction in the Enid area from 2004 to 2014, as well as the estimated annual net new

2

4

6

8

10

Jan 2011 Jul 2011 Jan 2012 Jul 2012 Jan 2013 Jul 2013 Jan 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015

US Monthly Inventory ÷ Monthly Sales

Enid Area Monthly Inventory ÷ Monthly Sales

Enid Area Monthly Inventory ÷ 12 Mo. Prior Sales Avg.


33

residents (natural increase and in-migration minus natural decrease and out-migration). Multifamily units were

added in only two years; 48 in 2008 (Roosevelt Park Apartments) and 102 (Tuscana Apartments) in 2011.

Figure 24: Garfield Residential Building Permits and Net New Residents, 2004 to 2014

Source: Enid City Community Development, CDS Market Research, Local area developers and builders; Note: Permits are for new unit construction

As can be seen, increased residential building permit activity seems to generally follow population growth, but

not in every year. For a better understanding of whether or not enough housing units are being built in the Enid

area, the following table compares Enid City and Garfield County with the state of Oklahoma. For each

geography there is a ten year history of total permit activity (single family and multifamily), estimated net new

residents, and the ratio between the two.

Table 13: Net New Residents per Single Family Building Permit Issued, 2004 to 2014

Year


New Residents


New Residents per Permit

New Residents



New Residents



2004 35 24 1.5 20 89 0.2 20,300 17,068 1.2

2005 -138 26 -5.3 -229 74 -3.1 23,400 18,362 1.3

2006 173 93 1.9 205 97 2.1 45,500 15,840 2.9

2007 229 76 3.0 289 92 3.1 40,200 14,730 2.7

2008 494 124 4.0 619 124 5.0 34,700 10,502 3.3

2009 703 35 20.1 875 39 22.4 48,600 8,753 5.6

'04-'09 1,496 378 4.0 1,779 515 3.5 212,700 85,255 2.5

2010 1,411 71 19.9 1,805 74 24.4 33,751 8,140 4.1

2011 19 121 0.2 -138 128 -1.1 35,149 8,782 4.0

2012 465 27 17.2 603 29 20.8 30,600 11,930 2.6

2013 862 52 16.6 1,069 54 19.8 33,468 13,583 2.5

2014 570 62 9.2 598 69 8.7 27,483 14,357 1.9

'10-'14 3,327 333 10.0 3,937 354 11.1 160,451 56,792 2.8

'04-'14 4,823 711 6.8 5,716 869 6.6 373,151 142,047 2.6

Source: US Census, Enid City Code Administration Department, PCensus, CDS Market Research Notes: Permits are for new unit construction; Garfield County numbers include Enid; Garfield County does not issue building permits, numbers are based on estimated new housing units added

-300

200

700

1,200

1,700

2,200

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

New

Res

iden

ts /

Po

pu

lati

on

Bu

ildin

g P

erm

its


Net New Residents


34

The following chart depicts the ratio displayed in the previous table. This ratio was calculated by dividing the

number of estimated net new residents each year by the number of new construction building permits issued

annually. A higher number means that fewer building permits are being issued per capita (of net new residents),

suggesting that new homes are not being built in sufficient numbers.

Figure 25: Net New Residents per Building Permit Issued, 2004 to 2014

Source: US Census, Enid City Code Administration Department, PCensus, CDS Market Research

Note: Net new residents = the net increase (or decrease) of population from the previous to current year; Permits are for new unit construction

The numbers of permits for Oklahoma are a total for all jurisdictions, and have been as high as 18,362 in 2005

and as low as 8,140 in 2010. While this is a considerable variation, it corresponds closely to the rise and fall of

the number of estimated new residents or population added each year to the state. The result is a ratio of new

residents to residential building permits that has stayed fairly constant, averaging 2.6 over the last decade.

Interestingly enough, that number is fairly close to the average persons per household for the state (estimated

at 2.5). This suggests that on average the housing market in Oklahoma is aiming for roughly one new home for

every one new household added. For Enid and Garfield County, the ratio of net new residents per building

permit is higher and has a larger variation. In a smaller market such as the Enid area, this is to be expected. The

number of estimated new residents added annually in the Enid area has varied widely, with a couple of years

even experiencing a loss in population. The result is a more challenging local housing market, where builders,

developers, lenders, and investors can find it difficult to accurately gauge demand and determine the safe

amount of financial risk.

Figure 26: Summary of Net New Residents per Single Family Building Permit Issued

Source: US Census, Enid City Code Administration Department, PCensus, CDS Market Research

Note: Net new residents = the net increase (or decrease) of population from the previous to current year; Permits are for new unit construction

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Enid City

Garfield County

Oklahoma

More new homes needed

New homes may not be needed

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

2004 to 2009 2010 to 2014 2004 to 2014



35

Despite this challenge, the data in this section (as well as the data provided throughout this report) should

demonstrate that there is significant long term demand in the Enid area to justify an increased number of new

residential housing units. From 20010 to 2014, Enid and Garfield County have averaged 10.0 and 11.1 new

residents per residential building permit. With an average persons per household estimated at 2.4, that means

for every four households that were added to the Enid area over the last five years, only one new housing unit

was constructed.

Due to this lack of supply, there is a considerable amount of pent-up demand—which has affected (and will

continue to affect) the area’s ability to grow. Indeed, employers interviewed for this study have reported that

employees and potential employees have been lost due to the inability to find housing that met their needs

and/or budget.

Available Residential Lots

Residential lots are essentially real estate properties that are considered residential in nature, usually because of

zoning designations. Residential lots are often created when a larger piece of property is subdivided into smaller

pieces of property. For this to occur in the City of Enid, an application for plat approval must be submitted to the

planning commission. The following chart displays the number of lots created each year from this process, from

2004 to 2014. Single family building permits issued in Enid during this time period is also displayed. The table in

this section provides more detail on these lots, such as the associated plat and how many lots remain available.

Figure 27: Enid City Annual Lots Added and Building Permits Issued, 2004 to 2014

Source: Enid City Community Development, CDS Market Research, local area developers and builders

Table 14: Enid City Residential Plat / Lot Survey, 2004 to 2014

Plat Name Year Approved Blocks Lots Built Available

Wilderness Cove 2004 Blocks 9-12 31 9 22

Willow West 4th 2005 Blocks 6-7 6 5 1

Wilderness Cove 2005 Blocks 13-14 23 15 8

Willow West 4th 2005 Block 8 2 1 1

Heritage Garden Court (Heritage Hills B 45) 2006 Block 1 12 10 2

Pheasant Run Golf Community 2006 Blocks 22-24 25 22 3

Feightner 1st Addition 2006 Block 1 11 4 7

Hearthstone Farms 2006 Block 1 20 6 14

El Paseo 2006 N/A 16 13 3

0

50

100

150

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Lots Added

New Residential Building Permits


36

Plat Name Year Approved Blocks Lots Built Available

Feightner 1st Addition 2006 Block 2 9 2 7


Chisholm Creek Village 2006 Blocks 6-9 30 27 3

Wilderness Cove 2006 Block 15 10 10 0

Pioneer Trail 2nd 2007 N/A 2 0 2


Belle Crossing 2007 Blocks 1-4 17 6 11

Feightner 2nd 2007 Blocks 1-2 11 3 8

Skyview Estates 2007 Blocks 7-9 17 15 2

Wilderness Cove 2nd 2008 Blocks 1-4 48 31 17

Heritage Hills 2008 Block 46 23 11 12





Feightner 2nd 2008 Replat Blocks 1-2 5 1 4




NewGrange 2011 Block 1 4 2 2

No Residential Plats 2012 N/A 0 0 0





Stonebridge Village 2014 N/A 25 0 25

Tara Estates 2014 Blocks 4-5-6 31 9 22

Total 568 268 300

Source: Enid City Community Development, CDS Market Research, Local area developers and builders

The preceding table provides a helpful estimate of the number of lots currently available, and corresponds

closely to the number of total available lots estimated by Enid area home builders and developers. This table

does not include lots that were created from plat approvals before 2004, or lots that were not subdivided. So far

for 2015, the City is not reporting any new plat approvals. Enid area home builders and developers estimate that

of these total available lots, around 100 are finished are ready for immediate home construction. Depending on

the size, location, and neighborhood amenities, finished lots have a sale price which currently varies from

approximately $30,000 to $70,000.

Single Family Construction Costs

The previous housing study discussed the difference in single family construction costs for homebuilders in Enid

compared to other areas. This remains a challenge, and continues to add to the cost and price of new homes.

The following table provides a breakdown of these costs. Local developers and homebuilders provided several

examples comparing Enid to Oklahoma City, Edmond, Norman, Tulsa and Wichita, Kansas. The result is that on

average a 2,000 square foot home constructed in the Enid area costs an estimated ten to fifteen percent more,


37

totaling more than $20,000. Much of this additional cost is passed on to the prospective homebuyer, making it

particularly challenging to profitably build homes under $150,000. There is a significant amount of demand for

new homes in this price range in the Enid area, especially from first time homebuyers or those with more

moderate incomes.

Table 15: Enid Area Additional Cost of New Home Construction

Category Approximate Difference per SqFt

(Compared to other nearby metro areas) Difference per 2,000 SqFt home

Plumbing $3.00 $6,000

Electrical $1.25 $2,500

Concrete $0.25 $500

Flatwork $0.25 $500

Roofing $0.25 $500

Brick $1.25 $2,500

Framers $1.00 $2,000

HVAC (Heating and Cooling) $1.50 $3,000

Painters $1.00 $2,000

Other Trades / Materials $0.50 $1,000

Totals $10.25 $20,500

Source: CDS Market Research, Local area developers and builders

Some of the reasons for this cost difference include the following:

With the Enid subcontractor community there is a large demand from the energy sector for skilled labor

causing a shortage of workers and a surplus of demand. This imbalance in supply and demand has led to an

overall increase in labor dollars per square foot for residential construction.

Enid is limited to three main suppliers of building materials within a 50 mile radius. Only one of the local

vendors is a large chain supplier. This lack of competition for suppliers may increase the cost of materials.

Enid City code inspections seem to be unjustifiably stringent, or inconsistently applied, leading to larger

compliance costs for builders and subcontractors. For example, the City requires more rebar in the in the

slab instead of allowing for other more cost effective slab strengthening strategies. In addition, inspections

and the approval process often feel combative and lengthy, unnecessarily slowing the construction

schedule.

While not directly a component of construction costs, there were many references to challenges with

financing, specifically citing that flaws in the appraisal process were detrimental towards securing more

favorable financing terms.

Enid Area Housing Task Force

Following the previous housing study when several of these issues were first identified, ERDA put together a

housing task force with the goal of identifying opportunities to increase the number of competitive priced


38

subcontractors and suppliers in Enid. They identified several ways that local government could make a positive

impact on the issue, including the following:

Increase statewide and national awareness of subcontractor opportunities in Enid, OK.

Decrease the amount of inspections in excess of what is required by state code to remove the burden of

inconsistency in contractor expectations compared to other markets. These issues could also be address

through the adoption of a local contractor’s forum with the city code department as seen in other markets

such as Oklahoma City’s monthly contractor meeting.

Promote skills training through Autry Technology Center to increase the amount of entry level subcontractor

workforce. One possible way this can be accomplished through current or retired contractors teaming with

Autry Technology Center to provide additional trainers opportunities for lacking skills.

Incentivize subcontractors to relocate to or add branches in Enid.

Promote Enid to additional suppliers such as Home Depot, Probuild, and Stillwater Building Center to

increase competition among suppliers and improve builder discount opportunities within the community.

Figure 28: Images of New Home Construction in the Enid Area



39

HOUSING MARKET TRENDS – MULTIFAMILY RENTALS

According to the Census related housing type estimates presented earlier in this report, there are 2,903

multifamily units in Enid and 3,111 in Garfield County. Through an extensive recent survey conducted by CDS,

thirty four multifamily complexes were identified in the Enid area accounting for 2,224 units. The discrepancy

between this number and the estimated number for the County is likely related to the large number of duplexes

and other small multifamily structures that were not included in the survey presented in this section.

Existing Multifamily Units

The figure below is a map of the thirty four complexes identified in the survey presented in this section. As can

be seen, these complexes are located throughout Enid, and somewhat concentrated near commercial areas. The

table which follows contains information for each one of these complexes.

Figure 29: Enid Area Existing Multifamily Complexes



40

Table 16: Enid Area Existing Multifamily Complexes, 2015

Map # Complex Address Built Occupied Units SqFt Range Avg $/SqFt Price

Market Rate Housing

1 Colonial Plaza 613 S. Hayes 1960 95% 16 606-1,050 $0.83 $600-700

2 Edgewood Arms 1700 Mosher Drive 1963 100% 77 550-1,250 $0.60 $350-700

3 Fountain Lake 2225 Fountain Lake Ave 1980 100% 60 675-1,350 $0.81 $635-905

4 Hunter's Hills 2501 Hunters Hill Drive 1975 100% 91 700-900 $0.92 $675-795

5 Indian Oaks 1111 South Oakwood 1980 100% 165 425-1,000 $0.88 $485-625

6 La Fonda 1228 E Broadway Ave 1965 100% 37 700-800 $0.83 $600-650

7 Lakeside 1907 E Broadway 1970 100% 23 700-700 $0.86 $600-600

8 Le Chateau 4101 South La Mesa Dr. 1985 90% 72 675-940 $0.75 $530-680

9 Leona Mitchell (New View) 1726 Leona Mitchell Blvd 1968 75% 76 600-1,000 $1.03 $700-900

10 Mosher Drive 1901 Mosher Drive 1960 95% 28 840-840 $0.68 $575-575

11 Oakwood West 4810 Spring Ridge Rd 1980 100% 108 300-1,250 $0.82 $325-690

12 Randolph (Kingsbury) 707 W Randolph Ave 1960 90% 40 580-1,000 $0.84 $575-690

13 Randolph Corner 1101 E Randolph 1970 100% 14 700-700 $0.86 $600-600

14 Sandpiper 408 North Oakwood Rd 1975 95% 112 679-1,060 $0.71 $530-680

15 Seven Pines 4004 Village Drive 1982 100% 76 800-900 $0.68 $575-575

16 Sharswood 1201 E Broadway 1920 100% 13 600-750 $0.95 $625-650

17 Sunridge 4121 S Van Buren Enid 1985 100% 130 940-1,450 $0.76 $780-990

18 The Peppers (Pimientos) 1510 E Broadway 1920 100% 14 600-750 $0.92 $625-600

19 The Timbers 3002 North Cleveland 1985 100% 38 900-1,200 $0.60 $575-675

20 Tuscana 5506 West Chestnut 2011 100% 102 693-1,202 $1.02 $750-1,150

21 Winchester West 1001 S Oakwood Rd 1973 100% 121 300-1,250 $0.74 $290-650

Subtotal / Average 1977 97% 1,413 857 $0.81 $695

Market Rate Senior Housing

22 Burgundy * 1600 W Willow Rd 1985 100% 58 560-922 $2.21 $1,370-1,815

23 Golden Oaks * 5800 North Oakwood Rd 1989 85% 132 600-2,000 $1.69 $1,250-2,600

24 The Commons (Apts) * 3706 King Street 2003 100% 40 500-1,019 $3.03 $1,505-3,100

25 The Commons (Townh.) * 3706 King Street 2003 100% 35 1,400-2,100 $1.07 $1,690-1,960

Subtotal / Average 1992 93% 265 1,156 $1.92 $2,223

Affordable Housing (Income Restricted / Subsidized)

26 Cherokee Terrace 619 E Maine Ave 1938 100% 80 650-850 $0.83 $487-770

27 Civitan Homes * 1314 N Garland Road 1970 100% 46 550-500 $0.65 $340-340

28 Clay Hall * 311 Lakeview Drive 1941 99% 30 850-1,162 $0.42 $385-460

29 La Mesa Point * 4202 S La Mesa Drive 1980 95% 47 600-600 $0.83 $500-500

30 Meadows Point * 1225 S Cleveland St 1983 93% 98 576-576 $0.87 $500-500

31 Pheasant Run 6102 Chestnut Ave 2000 100% 96 692-1,000 $0.67 $495-615

32 Pine Manor 1011 South 30th Street 1980 95% 50 700-1,200 $0.68 $494-782

33 Rolling Meadows 3225 Randolph Ave 1985 98% 51 800-1,500 $0.72 $596-1,056

34 Roosevelt Park 831 Oklahoma Ave 2008 100% 48 690-1,000 $0.57 $410-540

Subtotal / Average 1978 98% 546 782 $0.72 $566

Grand Total / Average 1979 97% 2,224 874 $0.92 $806

Notes: * = Senior Housing (excludes assisted living facilities); $/SqFt values for affordable housing are averaged; Occupancy numbers exclude units that are being renovated and not currently available on the market



41

The preceding table contains information on the thirty four identified complexes in the Enid area. This

information was collected by interviewing property managers and property owners, or by collecting information

advertised online or in marketing materials.

According to the information collected, the average occupancy rate for multifamily complexes in the Enid area is

97%. This compares with 98% estimated by the 2013 housing study—which was a less complete survey

identifying only 1,613 units and not providing information on all complexes. The 2015 estimated average rental

price per unit for market rate housing (excluding senior housing) is $695—which represents a wide range.

According to interviews with property managers, in the last two years many market rates units have gone up

around $50, which represents a 14% increase from the market rate average.

Figure 30: Images of Multifamily Complexes in the Enid Area

Source: Google Street View, CDS Market Research


42

Market Rate vs Affordable Housing (Income Restricted / Subsidized)

As can be seen, the survey of existing multifamily complexes contains two main types: market rate housing and

affordable housing. Market rate housing refers to multifamily housing that was constructed with 100% private

dollars. Affordable housing is a term which includes several types of housing such as income restricted housing,

rent subsidized housing, supportive housing, public housing, and others. Like regular market rate housing, most

of the affordable housing that is developed today is privately built and owned, either by non-profit organizations

or private businesses and corporations. These organizations use a combination of private funding and public

subsidies—often in the form of tax credits and/or special loans—to construct new apartments that are

affordable for low and moderate income families. These apartments are typically regulated by state and/or

Federal agencies that determine the rent amount and designate certain occupancy standards, including the

eligible income ranges of renters.

Existing Multifamily Supply and Demand

Of the 2,224 multifamily units surveyed in the Enid area, roughly 97% are currently occupied. According to

quarterly data provided by the US Census, the occupancy rate for Enid is roughly two percentage points higher

than Oklahoma City, and five percentage points higher than Oklahoma.

Figure 31: Rental Occupancy Rates in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa, 2010 to 2015

Source: US Census Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Survey

As can be seen in the figure above, occupancy rates for Oklahoma and the two major metro areas in the state

have fluctuated over the last few years. However, in the Enid area demand for multifamily units has remained

constant. The survey completed two years ago in the previous housing study estimated an occupancy rate of

98%. From then until now, property owners and managers in Enid have reported that demand for units has been

consistently high. Other observations of the multifamily rental market in the Enid area include the following:

The larger multifamily properties are spread out across the city, with the highest concentration of larger

complexes located in the west and northwest regions of town.

The average dollar per square foot ($/SqFt) rental price for market rate units is currently $0.92. When senior

apartments are excluded, $/SqFt rental price is $0.81. That compares with $0.72 for affordable housing

units.

At many of the complexes occupancy rates remain close to 100%, with long-term vacancies generally only

occurring due to renovations or repairs.

Several of those interviewed have reported vacancies created by oil and gas employees who have been laid

off and left the area. However, so far nearly all these vacancies have been immediately re-occupied.

80%

85%

90%

95%

Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-12 Jul-12 Jan-13 Jul-13 Jan-14 Jul-14 Jan-15

Oklahoma State Oklahoma City Metro Area Tulsa Metro Area


43

As in the previous survey, interviews with property owners and managers revealed that the tenant profile at

moderately-priced properties includes a higher share of well-paid professionals than might be expected

given what such tenants could otherwise afford. Military staff from Vance AFB, medical center professional

employees, and personnel from the City of Enid were mentioned as common tenant occupations, as were

other well-paid occupations in the area. This mismatch between what these tenants are paying compared to

what they could likely afford could indicate both a general shortage of rental housing and an opportunity for

more upscale rental development.

The demand for senior housing is reportedly increasing with the aging of the Greatest Generation and the

Baby Boomers. Not only are these individuals Enid residents who are downsizing or seeking assisted living

facilities, but they are also residents of more rural areas who are moving into Enid. Those interviewed

estimate that rural move-ins account for roughly 20% of their tenants.

Several of those interviewed at senior housing complexes indicated that there is a need for more affordable

market rate, senior housing. There have reportedly been several individuals who did not qualify for senior

housing at an affordable housing complex, but were unable to afford the more expensive market rate senior

housing.

New Development

The most recent addition to the Enid multifamily market is the Tuscana Apartments which consists of 102

market rate units. This complex was constructed in October 2011 and filled within seven months. Tuscana has

12 one-bedroom units, 78 two-bedroom units, and 12 three-bedroom units. It continues to maintain 100%

occupancy with a waiting list. Rental rates are currently $750 to $1,150, having increased $50 dollars in the last

two years. According to management, this site may expand in the future, although no permits have been filed.

Figure 32: Images of Tuscana Apartments

Source: CDS Market Research, Tuscana Apartments Website

Although no additional units have been constructed since the Tuscana, multiple complexes in the Enid area have

been either partially remodeled or fully renovated in the last few years. One such complex that has undergone a

significant renovation is the Clay Hall apartments, a former dormitory originally constructed in 1941 and

previously associated with the North Oklahoma College campus. Clay Hall is currently a senior living affordable

housing complex, and is reportedly close to full occupancy of available units.


44

Figure 33: Images of the Clay Hall Apartments

Source: Google Street View, Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Listing

There are two rental projects currently planned for the Enid area. One is a thirty eight unit affordable housing

project near Brookside. The project, known as Forest Ridge, is being planned by the Carland Group and the

Community Development Support Association, a non-profit organization which owns and manages several

affordable rental units in Enid. This project recently received approval for tax credit assistance.

The second project, known as the Esplanade at Stonebridge Apartments, is a 200 unit higher end and gated

multifamily complex located on a fifteen acre site at Chestnut and Cleveland. According to the developer, plans

for this multifamily project have been directly influenced by the previous Enid housing study which not only

showed there was demand for additional housing but demonstrated a desire for more upscale multifamily

complexes. This future complex is part of the Stonebridge Village development, a mixed used project which is

planning to bring together commercial uses with single family and multifamily housing. A Neighborhood

Walmart was recently constructed in the development and future plans call for a medical facility, office building,

multiple store strip center, and large pad restaurant. The complex is scheduled for completion in mid- 2016.

Figure 34: Rendering of the Building Design for the Esplanade at Stonebridge Apartments

Source: Stonebridge Village Development Website


45

HOUSING MARKET TRENDS – SINGLE FAMILY RENTALS

According to 2015 Census based estimates presented earlier in this study, of the 28,033 estimated total housing

units in Garfield County, 8,268 are currently renter occupied. Of that amount, 3,111 are estimated to be

multifamily units. The remaining 5,157 are estimated to be single family rentals. This equates to roughly one of

every five single family homes in Garfield County. The following figure and table present a sample of fifty

currently advertised single family rentals from various sources. This information provides insight into the local

single family rental market, an important part of the overall rental market in Garfield County.

Figure 35: Enid Area Sample of Currently Advertised Single Family Rentals


Table 17: Enid Area Sample of Currently Advertised Single Family Rentals

Map # Address Region Type Beds Baths Quality SqFt Rent $/SqFt

1 4608 Daybreak NW Single Family 4 3 A 2,242 $2,200 $0.98

2 4708 Elk Run W Single Family 3 2 A 2,134 $1,800 $0.84

3 11115 Buggy Whip NW Single Family 3 2.5 A 2,200 $1,800 $0.82


46

Map # Address Region Type Beds Baths Quality SqFt Rent $/SqFt

4 1018 Qual Ridge W Single Family 4 2 B 2,178 $1,800 $0.83

5 1306 Vinita Ave SW Single Family 3 2 A 2,039 $1,750 $0.86

6 3641 Lakeshore Dr NW Single Family 3 2 B 1,926 $1,500 $0.78

7 1726 Denim N Single Family 3 2 B 1,776 $1,500 $0.84

8 1201 Creekdale W Single Family 4 2 B 1,800 $1,500 $0.83

9 4709 Wheatland St. W Single Family 3 2 B 1,800 $1,495 $0.83

10 205 N Harding W Single Family 4 2 B 1,607 $1,450 $0.90

11 4614 Pine Cone W Single Family 3 2 B 1,850 $1,450 $0.78

12 1401 Quail Creek Dr NW Single Family 3 2 B 1,500 $1,400 $0.93

13 220 N Cimaron W Single Family 4 2 B 2,085 $1,400 $0.67

14 417 Wellington W Single Family 3 2 A 1,524 $1,400 $0.92

15 1906 Ramona Dr. SW Single Family 3 2 B 2,040 $1,400 $0.69

16 2902 Candlestick N Single Family 4 3 B 2,109 $1,400 $0.66

17 1301 Gannon Ave S Single Family 3 2 B 1,500 $1,350 $0.90

18 514 Aspen Dr W Single Family 3 2 B 1,600 $1,350 $0.84

19 2821 Franklin Drive NW Single Family 3 2 B 1,458 $1,350 $0.93

20 4014 Brandywine NW Single Family 3 2 A 1,200 $1,300 $1.08

21 2057 Lantern Ln N Single Family 3 2 B 1,500 $1,300 $0.87

22 125 S La Mesa Dr W Single Family 3 2 B 1,400 $1,300 $0.93

23 4303 Wedgewood W Single Family 3 2 B 1,600 $1,300 $0.81

24 2610 Wagon Trail N Single Family 3 2 B 1,550 $1,275 $0.82

25 306 Ranch Circle W Single Family 3 2 B 1,300 $1,250 $0.96

26 2423 Franklin NW Single Family 3 2 B 1,500 $1,250 $0.83

27 2064 Buggy Whip Lane N Single Family 3 2 B 1,400 $1,200 $0.86

28 2106 Indian Drive SW Single Family 2 1.5 B 1,435 $1,200 $0.84

29 1005 Freeland Drive E Single Family 3 2 B 1,700 $1,200 $0.71

30 2420 Indian Drive SW Single Family 3 2 B 1,600 $1,150 $0.72

31 Buffalo at Hillcrest E Single Family 3 1.5 B 1,300 $1,100 $0.85

32 5113 Ridgeview W Single Family 3 2 B 1,240 $1,100 $0.89

33 101 Keystone W Single Family 3 2 B 1,400 $1,100 $0.79

34 2926 Mt Vernon NW Single Family 3 2 B 1,341 $1,100 $0.82

35 3615 Buffalo E Single Family 3 1.5 B 1,300 $1,100 $0.85

36 506 S. Coolidge W Single Family 4 2 B 1,823 $1,100 $0.60

37 1022 Bluestem W Condo 2 2.5 B 1,200 $1,065 $0.89

38 522 S. Grant W Single Family 3 1 B 1,700 $1,050 $0.62

39 5505 Fountainhead W Single Family 3 2 B 1,200 $1,050 $0.88

40 1514 W. Thompson SW Single Family 3 1.5 B 1,500 $1,000 $0.67

41 2417 W. Maine W Single Family 3 1 B 1,200 $975 $0.81

42 301 University E Single Family 3 2.5 B 1,200 $950 $0.79

43 2201 E Locust NE Single Family 3 1 B 1,521 $950 $0.62

44 1901 Meadowbrook Drive N Single Family 3 1 B 1,000 $900 $0.90

45 118 S. Keystone W Single Family 3 1.75 B 1,200 $900 $0.75

46 2310 Indian Drive SW Condo 2 2 B 1,380 $895 $0.65

47 5606 Texoma Drive W Single Family 3 2 B 1,200 $850 $0.71

48 3210 Brooks Dr E Single Family 3 2 B 1,500 $800 $0.53

49 1401 E Park Ave E Single Family 1 1 B 800 $550 $0.69

50 2014 West Randolph NW Townhouse 1 1 B 850 $500 $0.59

Average 1,548 $1,241 $0.80

Source: Enid News and Eagle, Enid Craigslist, Trulia.com, The Automated Housing Referral Network, EnidHomes.com


47

Figure 36: Images of Currently Advertised Single Family Rentals in the Enid Area

Source: Enid News and Eagle, Enid Craigslist, Trulia.com, The Automated Housing Referral Network, EnidHomes.com

In the sample presented in the table in this section, single family rental homes in the Enid area are averaging

$0.80 per square foot. This is nearly equivalent to the market rate multifamily price per square foot of $0.81

presented in the previous section (which excludes senior housing). In addition to taking a sample of currently

listed homes for rent, multiple property managers / leasing agents were contacted to provide input into the

single family rental market, particularly with properties on the east side. The following observations were made:

The single family rental market has experienced consistently high demand over the last three to four years.

Over the last two years, the market has been especially tight; when a listing would open up it would be

immediately filled. Occupancy rates have essentially stayed at or close to 100% for those interviewed.

As a comparison, at the height of the recession in 2010, those interviewed experienced vacancy rates

around 10% with overall rental prices being $200 to $500 dollars lower.

A large share of prospective tenants come through referrals and word of mouth—in addition to internet

listings—with individuals often waiting for a month or more until something opens up.

Several businesses have continued to complain that new employees have a hard time finding temporary

housing that is suitable for them or their families until they are able to purchase a home.

Since March 2015, the market seems to have opened up slightly. More listings have been reportedly

becoming available. Although most have still been leased, they took a little longer to get leased.

In the previous housing study completed two years ago, it was mentioned that supply was so tight that many

tenants were reportedly renting below their means and settling for lower quality. Apparently this is still an issue.

It has also been reported that some households that would have normally rented housing separately have

chosen to jointly rent single family homes because of lack of available options. Concerns still exist that the City is

not enforcing minimum housing standards resulting in deteriorating structures.


48

DISCUSSION GROUP SUMMARIES

As part of this study, ERDA arranged four different discussion groups to assist CDS in gathering information and

feedback. Each discussion group included participants from a different but related part of the community that is

concerned with the housing situation in the Enid area. A summary of the key points and discussion conclusions

from each discussion group are contained in this section.

Figure 37: Discussion Group Meetings Took Place at the New Enid Event Center and Convention Hall


Local Employers

All of the employers who attended reported continued growth and plans for additional hiring.

Recruiting and hiring out of state employees is becoming increasingly common as the region and state is

becoming extremely competitive for new employees.

o Employees who transfer from larger cities are surprised at the relatively high cost of living in Enid.

Employers have a hard time finding short term rental housing for newly recruited employees.

o For example, Koch rented units at the Tuscana Apartments and furnished them.

Higher level employees find it particularly challenging to find higher end, short term rental housing; this is

needed when they move into the area and need to rent something until they buy.

o If there were a larger supply of furnished, higher end, short term rentals this would be welcome.

Many new employees report that they want to buy homes but have a hard time finding what they want.

So far only the drilling sector of oil and gas industry appears to be suffering from lower oil prices.

o A large portion of oil and gas employees did not purchase homes, so the low oil prices may not

impact the single family housing market very much.

Enid needs a good affordable rental market and new housing market, because that allows new college

graduates and young professionals to locate in the area.

o New graduates, young professionals are a hard level to fill as job applicants.

o Fresh graduates may be dissuaded from the lack of attractions for this demographic.

There are around 1,000 hotel rooms in Enid.

o Occupancy rates are high with two more hotels under currently under construction.

o Average rates are higher than what is being experienced in Oklahoma City.

o Extended stay hotels may compete somewhat with rental housing.


49

Home Builders and Developers

Overall, future demand and pricing looks positive from the home builder’s perspective.

Many of the home builders in Enid are not developers, and most are building relatively few homes in a year

o Other metro areas may be able to better meet the low-end demand because they have developers

who can build hundreds of homes a year, purchase materials at a lower cost, and secure lower labor

contracts with the promise of consistent work.

o To build homes in Enid in a cost effective manner, materials have to be bought out of town and

shipped in bulk, which means building at least ten to twenty homes at a time.

Using local labor in Enid to build homes can be considerably more expensive.

o Most of the skilled workers or “trades” come from out of town.

o Licensed trade workers who live in town are making $80 to $100 dollars an hour doing service calls

on existing homes; this has been the case for four or five years.

The average cost of developing a lot to make it ready for home construction is around $20,000 to $25,000

(excluding the cost of the land which can be range from $30,000 to $70,000).

The City’s comprehensive plan discusses infill development but there are practical issues such as fire flow

requirements which make infill development unprofitable in many circumstances. The City needs to address

these issues if it is serious about infill development.

o Incentivizing infill development could make this option profitable, whereas currently some builders

don’t believe they can make the numbers work.

Local builders and developers can find it challenging to acquire financing for larger multifamily complexes.

The City of Enid is not enforcing people per housing unit standards; some feel that this is being abused by

some property managers.

While there has been improvement in the relationship between the home building industry and the City’s

code office, the relationship still feels adversarial and is reportedly affecting the cost and timing of projects.

Residential Realtors

Chisholm School District is a preferred school district for potential home buyers.

o However, the District is reportedly no longer taking transfers, meaning that new students must live

within the boundaries.

The east side of Enid is a challenging place to sell a home; there is considerable preference for the north or

northwest part of town.

There is interest for newer homes (infill development) in or close to Downtown.

There is a large amount of unmet demand for lower priced, new housing in the preferred areas of Enid.

o The highest demand is for homes priced at or near $120,000.

o Homebuyers may be expecting too much for the price they are willing or able to pay.

The health services and medical facilities in Enid are a draw for older potential homebuyers coming from

more rural areas.

Some people have chosen to build “custom” homes because they could not find “spec” housing product

they like.

o Most of the custom homes seem to be built in the unincorporated County


50

o “Barn-dominiums” are a phenomenon where people build a barn in unincorporated Garfield County

and live in it until their custom homes are constructed.

There may be a lack of HOA homes, master plan communities, with amenities

o Many of the home shoppers are coming from larger metro areas where this is a typical housing

product

Trail system of the City is a very popular amenity, celebrated by residents

Four bedrooms, even in a smaller home, is highly desired by many homebuyers.

Oil and gas employments are a relatively small amount of new homebuyers.

o Most of the demand is associated with a variety of jobs.

Local Government Officials

The City has a capital recovery ordinance in place, although it has never been utilized.

o The developer / builder can upfront the money for utility infrastructure to their site and be

reimbursed when infill development occurs (that utilizes the infrastructure which was paid for).

o The fact that this has never been utilized suggest that it may need to be looked at for potential

modifications.

Utility connection fees have not been updated in twenty years.

o Underfunding utility connections means that the City is subsidizing this cost from other funds.

The City staff acknowledge that zoning could be updated to better serve the needs of the community.

o Few if any zoning variances have been turned down in recent years; zoning could be overhauled to

pre-empt these variances and therefore streamline and speed up the process.

Multifamily units are not currently allowed in residential zones.

Depending on conditional approvals means an investor is taking a certain amount of risk on

a property when it is purchased for a development. This can discourage investment.

A dozen apartment developers came to town after the last housing study but no plans were filed with the

City. These developers reportedly said the cost of construction and development in Enid was too high to

make their numbers work.

City initiated demolitions will soon remove 30-40 low end units near downtown.

o There are a number of lots available in or near downtown that could be redeveloped.

There are currently a few issues making infill development a challenge.

o Apartments, lofts, townhomes, and other similar units are not currently allowed by the zoning in the

Central Business District; a variance is required.

o Water flow requirements related to fire suppression require retro fitting that can be cost

prohibitive.

The City is interested in doing some improvements related to this issue, and has been

exploring ways to do this while working within budget constraints.

The downtown hotel is still in progress; this could ultimately be developed as a multifamily project, but that

may take a change of ownership for this to occur.

There is currently a discussion within the Enid School District about a new elementary school that may occur

at 30th and Broadway; this would be a good investment that could spark some redevelopment in the area.


51

ENID AREA HOUSING SURVEY

As part of this study, a survey was administered by CDS and ERDA to better understand the housing needs and

preferences of Enid area residents. The survey was conducted in April and May of 2015, using both an online

and paper format. Local employers played a key role by encouraging their employees to participate. The survey

acquired 504 respondents, the vast majority of whom live in two Enid ZIP codes: 73701 and 73703.

Figure 38: The Enid Area Housing Survey Online and Paper Format


Understanding the Data

This section contains all of the questions asked by the survey, displaying percentages based on the total

responses collected for each individual question. The results from the previous housing study completed in the

spring of 2013 are also presented (with 479 respondents). This provides a comparison for the 2015 results,

adding credibility where the percentages are similar and offering insight into possible trends where the

percentages are different. In addition, all of the answers have been cross-tabbed based on how each respondent

answered the following question:

Do you currently own or rent your home?

Because owners and renters represent two segments of the housing market that generally have differing

housing needs and preferences, their answers have been separated. Each survey question in this section is

followed by two charts, the first displaying how owners responded to the question and the second displaying

how renters responded. Some of the text in the questions and responses have been slightly adapted to

maximize their presentation quality in this section. For a more detailed review of the questions and response

options, see the appendix for the exact survey instrument.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013Own Rent


52

Profile of Participants

The survey contained several questions which asked respondents for basic household demographic and

economic information. Reviewing this information provides a basis for determining how this sample represents

the Enid area.

Which of these categories matches your age in years?

The survey reached a relatively even distribution of age groups between 25 and 64. College-age respondents

were slightly under-represented in the sample compared to the overall Garfield County population

(approximately 9%). The sample significantly under-represented the 65 or older age group, but this is not

surprising given that most respondents were reached through their employers. The age profile of owners

differed from renters, as expected. Renters were weighted toward younger age groups while owners were

weighted towards older age groups.

Owners

Renters

What is your gender?

The sample was heavily weighted toward women, roughly two thirds of the total. There was little difference in

this split among owners or renters. While this ratio of women to men is obviously not representative of the total

population, it does not necessarily detract from the overall information obtained in the survey since many

women are heads of household, and others are equally or dominantly involved in renting / purchasing decisions.

Owners

Renters

0%

25%

50%

Under 25 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65 or older

2015 2013

0%

25%

50%

Under 25 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65 or older

2015 2013

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013Male Female

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013Male Female


53

Do you live with a spouse?

The majority of both owners and renters surveyed live with a spouse. Not surprisingly, this is more common

among owners than renters.

Owners

Renters

How many adults are in your household?

In 2015, approximately 86% of owners and 90% of renters live in households with either one or two adults.

Owners were heavily weighted toward two-adult households (72%) while renters were as well, but less so (63%).

Approximately 14% of owners and 10% of renters had three or more adults, which could indicate one of several

scenarios, including: a roommate situation, young adults who have not yet left the household, or an aging

parent or relative living with younger family members.

Owners

Renters

How many children are in your household?

In 2015, roughly 31% of owners and 36% renters surveyed had no children in their households. For households

with children, the percentages between owners are renters were roughly the same, with mostly one and two

children present.

Owners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013Yes No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013Yes No

0%

25%

50%

75%

1 Adult 2 Adults 3 Adults 4 Adults 5+ Adults

2015 2013

0%

25%

50%

75%

1 Adult 2 Adults 3 Adults 4 Adults 5+ Adults

2015 2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5+ Children

2015 2013


54

Renters

What best describes your employment status?

Nearly all of respondents report that they are employed full-time (notice that the x-axis starts at 90%). Almost all

the remainder is employed part time; interns and contract employees make up only a small fraction of the total

respondents.

Owners

Renters

What category best describes the annual income of your household?

More than half (57%) of owners surveyed have household incomes of $75,000 or higher. In contrast, over three

quarters (78%) of renters earned less than $75,000 per household.

Owners

Renters

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5+ Children

2015 2013

90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

2015

2013

Full time Part time Student / Intern Ind. Contractor

90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

2015

2013

Full time Part time Student / Intern Ind. Contractor

0%

10%

20%

30%

Less than$25,000

$25,000 -$34,999

$35,000 -$49,999

$50,000 -$74,999

$75,000 -$100,000

$100,000 -$150,000

Above $150,000 Rather notdisclose

2015 2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

Less than$25,000

$25,000 -$34,999

$35,000 -$49,999

$50,000 -$74,999

$75,000 -$100,000

$100,000 -$150,000

Above $150,000 Rather notdisclose

2015 2013


55

What is the highest level of educational attainment in your household?

The educational attainment of those surveyed in 2015 is above average when related to the population of

Garfield County. Compared to the County population, the respondents have a much smaller share of those who

did not finish high school (only 1% in the survey vs. 10% for the county-wide population). The total sample also

reflects a much lower share of those who attained a high school diploma or GED versus the total county adult

population (37%). The share of those with bachelor’s degrees in the survey sample is nearly double that for the

county (over 30% vs. 15%) and those with advanced degrees more than double. The share of renters and owners

with some college, associate’s degrees, and bachelor’s degrees were roughly equivalent. However, far more

renters have just a high school education and far more owners have advanced degrees (master’s degree +)

Owners

Renters

Figure 39: Northern Oklahoma College Enid Campus

Source: Google Street Images, CDS Market Research

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Less thanhigh school

High school / GED Some college Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Master's degree +

2015 2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Less thanhigh school

High school / GED Some college Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Master's degree +

2015 2013


56

Housing Characteristics, Needs, and Preferences

As previously mentioned, it was the intent of this survey to understand the housing needs and preferences of

Enid area residents. The following questions examine these subjects by looking at the situation, experiences, and

feelings of respondents regarding their current and future homes.

How long have you lived in your current residence?

The length of time respondents have lived at their current residence differs substantially by whether they

currently own or rent. Over half of home owners have lived at their current address for at least 7 years, while

over two-thirds of renters have had an experience moving homes within the last three years.

Owners

Renters

What is the amount of your monthly mortgage of rent payment?

Roughly 38% of owners and 22% of renters surveyed in 2015 pay over $1,000 per month for their mortgage or

rent. This is up from 32% and 15% in 2013. While this represents a growing number of households that are

paying more for their housing, the largest group of owners and renters are those paying $500 to $749, which in

2015 represented 28% and 44%.

Owners

Renters

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-7 years Over 7 years

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013


0%

25%

50%

Under $500 $500 - $749 $750 - $999 $1,000 -$1,249

$1,250 -$1,499

$1,500 -$1,749

$1,750 -$1,999

$2,000 ormore

Notapplicable

2015 2013

0%

25%

50%

Under $500 $500 - $749 $750 - $999 $1,000 -$1,249

$1,250 -$1,499

$1,500 -$1,749

$1,750 -$1,999

$2,000 ormore

Notapplicable

2015 2013


57

Please describe the physical structure of your current residence?

Nearly all home owners surveyed in 2015 live in single family units. For renters, just under half are living in

housing other than single family structures. Of those, only 15% of renters in 2015 reported living in 10-30 unit or

>30 unit multifamily structures.

Owners

Renters

When you last moved, did you find a home that met your needs and budget?

According to various individuals interviewed for this study, potential buyers and renters are having a difficult

time finding housing in the current market. In an attempt to measure this difficulty, this question surveyed

respondents regarding their most recent relocation experience. According to the results, only 42% of owners

and 20% of renters reported that their most recent search for housing met their needs and budget easily (“✓

Needs, ✓ Budget, Easily”). This means that for 58% of owners and 80% of renters there was some level of

difficulty, either meeting the household needs, budget, or both.

Owners

Renters

If the results of this question are cross-tabbed by the length of time spent at the current residence, insight can

be gained into whether it is becoming more difficult over time to find housing. After reviewing the following

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Single Family 2-3 Units 4-9 Units 10-30 Units >30 Units Mobile Home Other

2015 2013

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Single Family 2-3 Units 4-9 Units 10-30 Units >30 Units Mobile Home Other

2015 2013

0%10%20%30%40%50%

✓ Needs, ✓ Budget, Easily

✓ Needs, ✓ Budget, w/ Difficulty

✓ Needs, X Budget ✓ Budget, X Needs X Budget, X Needs

2015 2013

0%10%20%30%40%50%




2015 2013


58

chart, this appears to be the case. Those that conducted their search for housing more recently have

experienced a more difficult time. Of course, there are certainly other factors which affect these results—such

as the probability that at least some of those who stay in a home longer most likely do so because they find it

meets their needs and budget (while those who don’t, tend to move). Still, given that the shift in opinion over

time is rather dramatic, these results present a convincing collaboration of anecdotal reports from the Enid area.

Difficulty Finding Housing Based on Length of Time at Current Residence (2015 Only)

What would make you consider moving in the next few years? Select all that apply.

Over one quarter of home owner respondents stated that they would not consider moving in the near future. A

smaller percentage of renters took the same position. All those who selected this option were then routed to

the demographic questions at the end of the survey, skipping questions about their next home. For those that

did indicate an openness to moving in the next few years, the most popular reason for both owners and renters

was the need for a larger home.

Owners Renters

Do you plan to own or rent in your next home?

The desire to own one’s home appears to be quite strong among the respondents. About 9 out of 10 current

owners plan to continue owning, while over half of renters plan to own their next home.

0%

20%

40%

60%





0% 10% 20% 30%

Nothing, I am satisfied

Need a larger home

Relocating away from area

Want a larger lot

Dissatisfied with current location

Dissatisfied with current home

Other reason

Want a lower priced home

Want a different type of housing

Prefer another school district

Want a smaller lot

Need a smaller home

Want to be closer to work

Will be leaving current household 2013

2015

0% 10% 20% 30%

Need a larger home



Dissatisfied with current home

Relocating away from area

Dissatisfied with current location

Other reason

Nothing, I am satisfied

Want a larger lot



Will be leaving current household

Need a smaller home

Want a smaller lot 2013

2015


59

Owners

Renters

How much would you be willing to pay for your next home, per month?

Respondents would be willing to pay slightly higher monthly housing costs their next home, but the difference

from their current payments is not great. Three quarters of renters and nearly two thirds of buyers would prefer

to pay less than $1,000.

Owners

Renters

Given your expected budget for housing, what do you consider to be the most likely housing type that you

would be seeking?

Suburban, large lot, and rural single family housing dominates the expected future housing type for both current

home owners and renters. All of the other options combined represent 10% or less for both owners and renters.

Owners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013Own Rent Don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013Own Rent Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Under $500 $500 - $749 $750 - $999 $1,000 -$1,249

$1,250 -$1,499

$1,500 -$1,749

$1,750 -$1,999

$2,000 ormore

Notapplicable

2015 2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Under $500 $500 - $749 $750 - $999 $1,000 -$1,249

$1,250 -$1,499

$1,500 -$1,749

$1,750 -$1,999

$2,000 ormore

Notapplicable

2015 2013

0%

30%

60%

SuburbanSingle Family

Large Lot SingleFamily

Rural farm /ranch

Apartment Duplex ortriplex

Townhome Mobile home /RV

Other

2015 2013


60

Renters

How desirable do you find the following locations for your next home? (Percentage reflects the percentage of

those who selected “Moderately Desirable” or “Very Desirable”)

According to the results, respondents rated West Enid as the most desirable location for their next potential

home, with roughly 81% of owners and 66% of renters marking it as “Moderately Desirable” or “Very Desirable.”

Owners and renters also agree on East Enid, both considering it the least desirable.

Owners

Renters

Would you prefer new construction or existing home for your next residence?

The majority of both owners and renters showed no preference for new construction versus existing housing.

Owners

Renters

0%

30%

60%

SuburbanSingle Family

Large Lot SingleFamily

Rural farm /ranch

Apartment Duplex ortriplex

Townhome Mobile home /RV

Other

2015 2013

0%

40%

80%

West Enid RuralCounty

NorthEnid

OutlyingTowns

OutsideCounty

HistoricDistrict

South Enid East Enid

2015 2013

0%

40%

80%

West Enid NorthEnid

RuralCounty

OutlyingTowns

South Enid HistoricDistrict

OutsideCounty

East Enid

2015 2013

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013

New construction Existing home No preference

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2013

New construction Existing home No preference


61

Figure 40: A View of Newly Constructed Entry Level Homes in the Enid Area


What do you consider to be the most important factors in selecting your housing type and location? Check up

to five. (Percentage of total votes)

According to the survey results, the most selected factors for both owners and renters were price, physical

condition, and house size / number of bedrooms. The factors which were least selected among respondents

include proximity to shopping, proximity to parks, outdoor recreation, proximity to cultural amenities, and other

factors.

Owners Renters

0% 10% 20%

Price

Physical condition

Size, number of bedrooms

Floor plan, layout

Neighborhood quality

Safety, security, crime

Lot / yard size, landscaping, pool

School quality

Investment potential

Commute to work

Architectural quality, style

Proximity to schools

Proximity to shopping

Proximity to parks, recreation

Proximity to cultural amenities

Other factors

2013

2015

0% 10% 20%

Price

Physical condition

Size, number of bedrooms

Safety, security, crime

Neighborhood quality

Floor plan, layout

Lot / yard size, landscaping, pool

Commute to work

School quality

Investment potential

Architectural quality, style


Proximity to shopping

Proximity to cultural amenities

Proximity to parks, recreation

Other factors2013

2015


62

HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS

The demand for additional housing in the Enid area has been calculated and quantified based on the data

presented throughout this study. The results have been formulated to provide a projected number of housing

units needed to satisfy new demand over the next two years.

Historical Inputs

The table below presents Census based demographic statistics for Garfield County for 2010 and for 2015. The

last column shows the difference between these two periods. The moderate rate of growth experienced over

these years is the basis for the future projections in this section.

Table 18: Garfield County Historical Household and Housing Statistics

Garfield County 2010 2015 Change

2010 to 2015 # % # %

Total Population 60,580 100% 63,462 100% 2,882

Household Population 58,750 97.0% 61,657 97.2% 2,907

In Owner-Occupied Units 39,703 65.5% 41,654 65.6% 1,951

In Renter-Occupied Units 19,047 31.4% 20,003 31.5% 956

Total Housing Units 26,831 100% 28,033 100% 1,202

Occupied Housing Units (Households) 24,175 90.1% 25,371 90.5% 1,196

Owner Occupied 16,302 60.8% 17,103 61.0% 801

Renter Occupied 7,873 29.3% 8,268 29.5% 395

Vacant Housing Units 2,656 9.9% 2,662 9.5% 6

Persons per Household 2.43 2.43 -

Owner Occupied 2.44 2.44 -

Renter Occupied 2.42 2.42 -


One key statistic provided in the previous table is the number of total housing units. While Census based figures

estimate the 2015 total to be 28,033, research completed by CDS shows this number is more likely 27,233.

When the number of total occupied housing units is left unchanged (having been substantiated), the result is a

lower vacancy rate—one which is more in line with the market conditions observed in the Enid area.

Table 19: Garfield County Total Housing Unit and Vacancy Estimates

Category Housing Units Added 2010 to

2015

Total Housing Units in 2015

Total Occupied Housing Units (Households)

Vacancy Rate

Based on Census Related Estimates 1,202 28,033 25,371 9.5%

Based on Permit Data 402 27,233 25,371 6.8%

Source: US Census, American Community Survey, PCensus, Enid City Community Development, Garfield County Clerk's Office

To give an idea of just how low a vacancy rate of 6.8% is, the following table displays the vacancy rates for

Oklahoma and the nation over the last ten years. As with the number estimated for Garfield County, these


63

vacancy rates consider all types of vacant housing (including second homes, seasonal homes, uninhabitable

homes, etc.). Generally, the largest portion of vacant housing is made up of unoccupied rental units and for sale

homes currently on the market. These are both relatively few in number in the Enid area resulting in a less-than-

ideal vacancy rate—one which creates housing scarcity and begins to limit the area’s ability to grow.

Table 20: Historical Vacancy Rates in the State and the Nation

Location 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Oklahoma 15.4% 14.5% 14.7% 15.7% 16.2% 16.7% 16.0% 14.8% 14.6% 15.1%

United States 12.7% 13.0% 13.8% 14.4% 14.5% 14.3% 14.2% 13.8% 13.6% 13.4%

Source: US Census

Analysis and Projections

The following tables present the 2017 projections for employment, household population, households, and

housing units. The columns in between the years titled “Change” show the number of jobs, population,

households, and housing units added—as well as the relationship between these numbers.

Table 21: Housing Demand Estimates and Projections

Garfield County 2010 → Change → 2015 → Change → 2017

Employment 1 26,947 1,948 28,895 818 29,714

Household Population per Job 2 2.18 1.49 2.13 1.49 2.12

Household Population 58,750 2,907 61,657 1,221 62,877

Persons per Household 3 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43

Households (Occupied Housing Units) 24,175 1,196 25,371 502 25,873

Sources: US Census, American Community Survey, PCensus, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, Autry Tech, CDS Market Research

1 Projection based on a 1.4% AAGR experienced from 2010 to 2015 2 The ratio for the “Change” columns is lower because not all jobs result in additional population, some jobs are filled by existing residents 3 Assumed to remain constant

Table 22: Total Housing Unit Estimates and Projections

Garfield County 2010 → Change → 2015 → Change → 2017

Occupied Housing Units (Households) 24,175 1,196 25,371 502 25,873

% of Total Housing Units 90.1% 93.2% 92.9%

Vacant Housing Units 2,656 -794 1,862 111 1,973

% of Total Housing Units 9.9% 6.8% 7.1%

Total Housing units 26,831 402 27,233 613 27,846


Notable Assumptions

The following notable assumptions were made in order to calculate the projections provided in this section:

It is anticipated that total employment in Garfield County will increase by 818 jobs by 2017. This is based on

the 1.4% annual average growth rate experienced from 2010 to 2015. Given the uncertainty related to lower

crude oil prices, this projection should be considered slightly optimistic, but not unrealistic. Although new oil

and gas jobs made up a large portion of the local employment gains from 2010 to 2015, this occurred during


64

a time of overall financial recovery. With an improved national economy, the Enid area is poised to do

well—especially considering its role and a regional hub of commerce for northwestern Oklahoma.

• It is projected that 818 jobs will be added in Garfield County from 2015 to 2017. If all these jobs were filled

by existing residents, the new household population would be zero. If all these jobs were filled by new

residents, the new household population would be as high as a couple thousand. The more likely scenario is

that a portion of the 818 jobs will be filled by existing residents, while the majority will be filled by new

residents. This is due to the extremely low local unemployment rate, which has required local employers to

widen their search for new employees. This means that new people (and their families) are moving into the

Enid area in order to fill job positions. In order to project the household population that would be added per

job from 2015 to 2017, the rate observed from 2010 to 2015 was utilized (1.49 persons added to the

population per job).

• The persons per household rate as well at the ratio of owner occupied housing versus renter occupied

housing are held constant. These are rates which generally change rather slowly in the short term.

• The number of vacant housing units is projected to increase by 111 units from 2015 to 2017, raising the total

vacancy rate from 6.8% to 7.1%. It is assumed that over time, the vacancy rate will increase back to a

healthier rate, such as the number observed in 2010 (9.9%). This is due to pent-up demand from a lack of

sufficient supply.

Final Results

According to the analysis presented in this section, the Enid area housing market could support 613 additional

housing units over the next two years. Using past trends as a guide, it is estimated that the majority of these

new units should be constructed as for-sale homes. However, there is also significant demand for rental housing.

While the majority of this rental demand will be satisfied by a new 200 unit multifamily complex scheduled for

completion in 2016, there will likely be additional demand for small scale rental projects built incrementally over

time (such as rental townhomes). Another large scale multifamily complex would not be recommended in the

short term.

Table 23: Projection of Additional Housing

Garfield County 2015 to 2017

# %

Total New Housing Units 613 100%

Owner Occupied 413 67%

Renter Occupied 200 33%

Additional Vacant Housing Units (From Pre-Existing Stock) -111 -

Net New Occupied Housing Units 502 -


It is important to remember that these projections, while using specific numbers, provide the most value as a

general indicator of demand rather than as an exact prediction. One area where adaptability should be

particularly utilized is in the ratio of owner occupied housing versus renter occupied housing—as the difference

between these two is ultimately a decision each household makes depending on current conditions.


65

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section contains the conclusions and recommendations for the Enid area housing market based on the data

provided in this study. Many of the same points that were made in the previous housing study are reiterated in

this study. This is due to the fact that after two years since the previous study, conditions remain relatively

unchanged and there is still a need for additional housing.

Market Demand and Opportunities

The economic signs are positive for the present and future of the Enid area. Demand is high for housing at most

levels of the market, for both renter and owner occupied properties. The local economy continues to grow, with

employment generally increasing across a wide variety of industry sectors. This makes the current economic

upswing different from past “booms” that were more dependent on one cyclical industry—typically oil and gas.

In fact, the local economy in the Enid area continues to do well in spite of layoffs in the oil and gas industry. So

far, the labor force continues to grow and unemployment remains exceptionally low. While this is based on

preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, anecdotal evidence is that many of those being laid off

from oil and gas jobs have been able to find employment in one of Enid’s several other growing industries.

In the vast majority of housing markets, employment is the key driver of residential demand. As the

unemployment rate goes down, home purchases go up. And when employees are imported from other areas to

fill vacant jobs, new housing units are needed for them and their families. In addition, greater employment in an

area often translates into more wealth creation and higher pay. This creates a demand for higher end housing.

Garfield County is experiencing all three of these trends.

Rental Market

The analysis of the multifamily market in the Enid area reveals that demand continues to outpace supply. Since

the last housing study two years ago, occupancy percentage rates for multifamily complexes surveyed remain in

the upper 90’s, despite increases in rent. Many property managers have reported 100% occupancy with waiting

lists for any opening. Several employers reported that their employees have had a challenging time finding a

place to rent. Some even reported losing employees because housing needs could not be met. The best

assessment for the Enid area at this time is that the market could easily support additional multifamily housing.

There is one caveat: while demand remains high and the outlook is positive, it will be important over the next

several months to keep a close watch on the potential impacts of low oil prices. If conditions worsen, the rental

market is where it will be felt first and likely the sharpest. But, it should be remembered that even at its worse

job losses will likely remain in the hundreds. With a rental market numbering over 8,000 (with multifamily and

single family rentals combined), an industry specific recession would likely decrease occupancy rates by only a

few percentage points. And given that low oil prices are good for the rest of the economy, other industries in

Enid would be expected to continue hiring and within a short period bring occupancy rates back up.

Strong Base Demand for Affordable Rentals

A significant share of Enid’s permanent, long term labor force consists of blue collar or service sector workers

making relatively low incomes. According to Census based estimates, half of all incomes in Garfield County are


66

estimated to be below $48,059 (the 2015 median income). Most individuals making this amount or less are

required to rent. Those that can afford to buy are generally qualified for homes priced under $130,000.

According to local developers and homebuilders, this can be a challenging product to build—given Garfield

County’s inflated construction costs.

Limited Multifamily Supply Relative to Demand

Despite the employment increases and population growth over the last five years, only one new multifamily

property has been built. The Tuscana added 150 higher end units in 2011. At the time, some were skeptical that

higher end apartments would do well in Enid. Exceeding expectations, the Tuscana leased up quickly and has

reportedly remained at or near 100% occupancy since it was built. This is an indication not only of demand for

higher end rental housing in the Enid area, but also of the overall tightness of the market.

In response to these conditions, property owners and investors have begun renovating and remolding several

rental properties in the area. In a lackluster market, property owners are often weary of renovating a property.

Renovation can represent a significant cost, which is intended to be offset by higher rents upon completion.

However, property owners take the risk that when their project is complete, there may not be enough demand

for improved quality, higher rent units. In a strong market where demand for rental units is high, property

owners feel confident that the investment in their property will be worthwhile. While increasing the quality of

rental housing in the community is an overall positive act, it ultimately has the effect of raising average rents—

and is usually made possible because supply is generally constrained. Seeing this happen in the Enid area is

another sign that demand for rental housing is high and that supply is limited.

Large Role of Single Family Rentals

The multifamily properties are only one segment of the rental market in the Enid area; Census estimates show

that about two-thirds of all renter-occupied units in Garfield County are single family homes. While a small

number of these single family rentals are newer, larger homes (often rented as short term housing for business

executives or high ranking military officials), the vast majority of the single family rental market consists of

smaller, older homes which rent for a price (per square foot) similar to multifamily apartments. Multiple real

estate professionals contacted during this study indicated that the quality of these rental homes varies widely,

even to the point that some would not meet the City’s building codes. Nevertheless, they are still in high

demand, causing rents to rise. Some landlords have reported a $300 to $500 difference in prices per rental

home from 2010 to 2015. This increase combined with the overall lack of options has forced some households to

double up, resulting in two families or households squeezing into one home.

Principal Demand Opportunities: Both Upscale and Affordable Housing

The quantitative analysis in this report indicates that it would be reasonable to add 200 rental units to the Enid

area market over the next two years. As mentioned previously, these estimates provide the most value as a

general indicator of demand rather than as an exact prediction. The market would most likely be able to support

a greater number of rental units, with demand not only coming from new residents but from existing residents

who would prefer to rent something newer, nicer, bigger, or in a different location—if it were made available.

The following projects / product types would be expected to do well:


67

The Esplanade at Stonebridge Apartments, a 200 unit multifamily complex, is being planned for completion

in mid-2016. This complex will be a an upscale project, and will serve higher income renters in the area who

have more to spend on housing but do not wish to buy—owing to life stage considerations, lack of down

payment for a purchase, or other reasons. The size of the higher end rental market is considerably smaller

than the affordable segment, but is larger than some realize given the local gob growth of recent years. It is

anticipated that this complex will quickly and fully lease up, drawing initially from existing residents who will

relocate from older complexes or single family rentals. This may contribute to an increase in vacancy rates—

which the market would easily be able to support (and would likely welcome) given the extremely high

occupancy rates of multifamily complexes (currently at 97%).

Because the Esplanade at Stonebridge will be an upscale project, there is likely unmet demand for additional

housing which will serve the lower end of the market. A few small scale affordable multifamily projects

could be supported by the market. The demand for these projects would not only come from new low

earning residents, but also from existing residents who are currently living in substandard or poor quality

single family rentals, or who are “doubled up” with other renters. While projects such as these may seem

less profitable at first, they can be a rewarding investment when public subsidies are sought and a successful

partnership is made with a public or private organization aimed at providing quality affordable housing. The

Community Development Support Association, a local non-profit organization which owns and manages

several affordable rental units in Enid, is one such organization. They are currently working with the Carland

Group on a housing project near Brookside that may ultimately result in thirty eight new units. This project

recently received approval on a tax credit application. It is currently being planned as a rent-to-own

development.

One housing type for which there is currently very little supply in Enid is downtown housing. In cities the size

of Enid which boast a relatively healthy urban core, there is usually a noticeable demand for downtown

rental units. These units are often on the upper floors of commercial structures, and are frequently referred

to as urban lofts. Units such as these tend to be occupied by professional singles or couples without

children. Furnished units can also serve as corporate apartments for relocating employees or temporary

managers and executives. While the idea to develop additional downtown units in Enid has been tossed

around, the cost to do so has so far been prohibitive. The City of Enid has looking into these costs and

associated challenges, and has been working on a way to mitigate them if possible—particularly in respect

to fire prevention systems, which can be very expensive to install on a unit by unit basis.

Some builders and developers have discussed the construction of rental townhomes and duplexes, which

could be fully furnished and rented out on short term leases to individuals or businesses in need of

temporary housing. If located well, incremental amounts of infill rental housing would also be expected to

do well and could free up nicer single family homes (currently being used for this purpose), making them

available to the for-sale market.

Single Family For-Sale Market

CDS has obtained considerable evidence, both quantitative and anecdotal, that the for-sale housing market is

still experiencing high demand. Consistent job growth in multiple industries, low mortgage rates, and the

relatively small number of new homes constructed over the last several year has created an imbalanced supply

versus demand relationship. The data from the Enid Metro Association of Realtors supports this sentiment,


68

showing increased home prices, declining days on market, and decreasing supply available for sale. Although the

recent drop in oil prices has some individuals in the new home construction business worried, the research for

this study suggests that many oil and gas employees did not purchase homes in the Enid area, and those that did

are likely employed in long term positions that will not be terminated in a short term scale-down. While it is still

too early to provide definitive projections on the impact of low oil prices on the Enid area, at this point the

overall outlook for the Enid area remains positive, especially in regards to demand for new housing.

Mismatch between Price and Willingness or Ability to Pay

According to local developers and home builders, it costs more money to build a home in the Enid area than in

other areas. This is due to a variety of reasons, as detailed earlier in this report. Unfortunately, the wage and

salary levels of many jobs in the Enid area do not seem to take this into account. In addition, the expectations

that potential Enid area homebuyers have for new homes do not appear to be aligned to market pricing. The

employee survey showed that those who might consider buying a home expect generally to pay between $500

and $1,000 monthly for their housing cost. Even at today’s very low mortgage rates, this generally equates to

homes priced well under $150,000 (assuming the buyer is not contributing a high level of equity). Builders and

developers report that it is difficult or impossible to build new single family homes in this price range that meet

the quality and size expectations of buyers.

Principal Demand Opportunities: New Moderately Priced Homes

According to Census based estimates, half of all incomes in Garfield County are estimated to be above $48,059

(the 2015 median income). Assuming up to 25% of gross income is reasonable to spend on housing costs (in the

absence of other major financial commitments), incomes in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 should find new

housing in the range of $150,000 to $225,000 to be reasonably attractive. This is particularly true as long as

mortgage rates remain relatively low as compared to historical norms (below 6.5% APR). Developers and

builders contacted by CDS also sensed that this price range likely offered the best market opportunities. The

quantitative demand analysis indicates that 413 new owner occupied homes could be supported in Garfield

County by 2017. While this number represents a wide range of demand from expensive luxury homes to

affordable starter homes, most demand is concentrated around moderately priced homes.

According to the survey, buyers in Garfield County are primarily motivated by price, house size, lot size, quality,

and strongly prefer West Enid, North Enid, and rural Garfield County. Because price is often the number one

concern for a buyer, this can be a considerable challenge for local home builders. Buyers in Enid have become

accustomed to the historically lower price of homes in Enid when compared to larger metro markets. However,

this has changed in recent years as demand in the housing market has brought the average price of homes in

Enid up. With the construction costs which appear to be prevailing in Enid at present, new homes would likely

need to be sized from 1,700 to 2,100 square feet to generally stay within the desired price range. Most new

housing that can meet all of the buyers’ expectations will probably be in the range of $225,000 to $275,000. Any

ability to lower development and construction costs while still meeting quality expectations will help

marketability considerably.

The Tara Estates development has been pursuing the moderately priced home market in Enid, and has been

doing particularly well. According to the developer, the key to their success has been the location (Chisolm

School District), the design, and particularly the price point—which is currently near $90 per square foot. The


69

floor plan of these homes ranges from 1,500 to 2,000 square feet, which prices the homes from $135,000 to

$180,000 (with a median close to $165,000). At these prices there has been an intense and constant amount of

interest from potential homebuyers. With phase one already complete and phases two and three underway,

there will eventually be 74 homes in Tara Estates when the development is built out within a year or two.

Recommendations to Encourage Additional Housing Development

Despite renewed home building activity in recent years, there is still a significant amount of unmet demand for

additional renter occupied and owner occupied housing in the Enid area. There are several reasons why the

housing market has had difficulty responding to new demand. These include:

Construction and development challenges such as difficulty securing lending, inflated labor costs, and

inconsistent or unnecessary regulation. These challenges slow project timelines, decrease supply, and

increase costs.

The perception that Garfield County is overly dependent on any one industry, such as oil and gas or Vance

Air Force base. This leads the development community to underestimate demand when they focus so

narrowly on one or two industries.

An existential concern, or even outright fear, about the potential for untimely reversal of the local economy

leaving those who invest in housing suffering dire financial consequences.

With these issues in mind, CDS has formulated the following recommendations:

Communication and information exchange for those involved in the housing market should continue to be a

priority. This means regularly bringing together developers, builders, lenders, brokers, realtors, City officials,

and other interested parties. ERDA can serve as liaison between these groups and the wider business

community. It is important for economic news, especially good economic news such as job growth, to be

widely circulated among actors in the real estate development industry to maximize the chances for the

supply of housing and other development to respond in a timely manner. Furthermore, City officials need to

understand if and where their actions and policies, or lack thereof, are being a hindrance to the market.

Realtors, because they communicate directly with housing consumers, provide a unique source of

information that will be useful to the other parties involved.

ERDA, in cooperation with other agencies such as the City of Enid, the County Assessor and others, needs to

develop a data assembly and publication system that specifically addresses factors that would pique the

interest of housing developers. This report serves as an example in that it documents recent and expected

job growth and the lack of new housing development. Other examples of relevant data and information

would be an inventory of properties available and suitable for residential development, tracking available

developed lots, incentive and assistance programs for residential projects, and highlighting existing

neighborhoods that have infill development possibilities.

Developers and builders continue to express concern with the City’s code office and the permitting process.

Although home building is an industry with a long history, innovation continues to occur. The City’s code

office should see its role as a partner in innovation, working together with developers and builders to safely

introduce new technology and processes that will allow for more affordable construction. The City should

re-evaluate its operations, policies, and particularly its personnel, to insure that none of these are


70

encouraging a culture of animosity with the home building community. While some home builders may be

cutting corners in order to save costs, the majority of home builders in the Enid area take great pride in their

work and are working hard to create a safe and long lasting product.

The City of Enid should consider tools to incentivize new for-sale housing development at more broadly

accessible price ranges. While some cost issues are out of the City’s control, it may be possible through up-

front infrastructure investment or reimbursement programs for developers to help reduce the costs of both

greenfield and infill housing development. The City has a capital recovery ordinance in place that allows

developers to upfront the money for off-site infrastructure development and be reimbursed when infill

development occurs. However this ordinance has never been utilized. Perhaps this ordinance, as well as

other similar tools, could be re-examined, re-worked, and publicized in order to provide more tools for the

development community.

The City of Enid should re-evaluate its policies regarding residential habitation physical standards and tenant

behavior codes. While it is important to avoid having policies that overly interfere with the provision of

affordable rental housing, it must be balanced by the need to ensure that deteriorating structures and / or

misbehaving tenants do not drive away the potential to develop an infill housing market.

Following the previous housing study when several of these issues were first identified, ERDA put together a

housing task force with the goal of identifying opportunities to increase the number of competitive priced

subcontractors and suppliers in Enid. It would be beneficial to repeat this process and arrange for wider

participation from the business community. The goal would be to investigate more fully the exact causes of

the increased costs of construction in Enid with the hope of finding innovative and cooperative solutions.


71

APPENDIX A: EMPLOYEE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Below is the Employee Survey Instrument that was distributed to participating local area employees. It was also

administered online, with the same questions and skip-logic patterns.

ENID EMPLOYEE HOUSING SURVEY 2015 UPDATE

In 2013 the Enid Regional Development Alliance (ERDA) commissioned a housing study to better understand the demand

for housing in the greater Enid area. ERDA is a non-profit organization established to assure the economic prosperity of Enid

and the surrounding area. As part of the 2013 study, ERDA asked local residents and employees of Enid area businesses to

complete a survey regarding housing conditions and preferences. For 2015, ERDA has commissioned an update of both the

study and the survey. The results of this 2015 update will be made available to the general public and community leaders.

Many of the questions asked in this survey are similar to the 2013 survey. Whether you participated in the previous survey

or not, please complete this survey. Understanding how housing conditions and preferences have changed over the last

two years is an important part of this update. By donating a few minutes of your time, you will help decision makers in

the Enid area have the information they need to plan for the future. Information collected by this survey will be displayed

in aggregate only, keeping all individual responses private and confidential.

1. How long have you lived at your current place of residence? Less than 1 year

1-3 years

3-7 years

Over 7 years

2. Do you currently own or rent: Own

Rent

3. What is the amount of your monthly mortgage or rent payment? Under $500

$500 - $749

$750 - $999

$1,000 - $1,249


72

$1,250 - $1,499

$1,500 - $1,749

$1,750 - $1,999

$2,000 or more

Not applicable

4. Please describe the physical structure of your current residence: Single family detached home

Duplex or triplex

Small multi-unit property (4-9 units)

Moderate-sized multi-unit property (10-30 units)

Large multifamily complex (over 30 units)

Mobile home or RV

Other

5. Please state the 5-digit ZIP code of your current residence:

ZIP code:

6. When you last moved, which of these statements best describes the experience of your household, with regards to your needs and budget? Housing was EASILY found to match the needs AND budget of my household.

Housing was found to match the needs AND budget of my household WITH DIFFICULTY.

Housing was found to match the needs of my household, BUT NOT my household’s budget.

Housing was found to match the budget of my household, BUT NOT its needs.

NO housing was found to match my household’s budget NOR its needs.

7. What would make you consider moving in the next few years? Pick all that apply. Nothing, I am satisfied with my current residence and would not consider moving [SKIP TO NO. 14]

Dissatisfied with quality of current home

Will be leaving current household group / family

Need a larger home

Need a smaller home

Want a larger lot

Want a smaller lot

Dissatisfied with current home location / neighborhood




73



Will be relocating away from Enid and Garfield County

Other reason:

8. Do you plan to own or rent in your next home? Own

Rent

Don’t know

9. How much would you be willing to pay for your next home, per month? Under $500

$500 - $749

$750 - $999

$1,000 - $1,249

$1,250 - $1,499

$1,500 - $1,749

$1,750 - $1,999

$2,000 or more

Not applicable

10. Given your expected budget for housing, what do you consider to be the most likely housing type that you would be seeking: Multifamily apartment or condominium

Duplex or triplex

Attached townhouse or row-house

Single family home on town or suburban lot

Single family home on oversize lot

Rural farm / ranch

Mobile home / RV

Other


74

11. How desirable do you find the following locations for your next home? Please rank their desirability.

Not at all Moderately Moderately Very

Desirable Undesirable Neutral Desirable Desirable

Historic District ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

West Enid ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

South Enid ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

East Enid ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

North Enid ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Chisholm School District ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Outlying towns in Garfield County ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Rural Garfield County ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Outside Garfield County ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

12. What do you consider to be the most important factors in selecting your housing type and location? Check up to five. Size / number of bedrooms

Floor plan / layout

Physical condition

Lot / yard size / landscaping / pool

Price

Likelihood of price appreciation / investment potential

Architectural quality / style / details

Neighborhood quality / character / amenities

Safety / security / crime

School quality


Commute to work

Proximity to shopping and services

Proximity to entertainment and cultural amenities

Proximity to parks, open space, and outdoor recreation

Other factor (please specify):


75

13. Would you prefer new construction or an existing home for your next residence? New construction

Existing home

Either / no preference

14. Which of these categories matches your age in years? Under 25

25 – 34

35 – 44

45 – 54

55 – 64

65 or older

15. Gender: Male

Female

16. Do you live with a spouse? Yes

No

17. How many are in your household (including yourself)? Adults over age 18

Children age 18 and younger

18. What best describes your employment status? Employed full time

Employed part time

Student / intern

Independent contractor

19. What category best describes the annual income for your household? Less than $25,000

$25,000 - $34,999


76

$35,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $100,000

$100,000 - $150,000

Above $150,000

Would rather not disclose

20. What is the highest level of educational attainment in your household? Less than high school

High school / GED

Some college

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Masters degree / other advanced degree

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. As mentioned previously, by donating a

few minutes of your time, you will help decision makers in the Enid area have the information they need to

plan for the future. Please visit the website below for more information about the Enid Regional

Development Alliance (ERDA):

http:// www.growenid.com


77

CDS Market Research

1001 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 450

Houston, TX 77077

281-582-0855

www.cdsmr.com

http://www.cdsmr.com/

enid housing study 2015

Documents