Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 2018-76 - Wolf Lakes TIRZORDINANCE NO. 2018- —7 (. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, designating a certain area within the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, as Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Five ("Wolf Lakes LP"); establishing the boundaries of such Zone; creating a Board of Directors for said Reinvestment Zone, and other matters related thereto; containing findings; providing a repealing clause; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Whereas, the City Council desires to promote the development or redevelopment of a certain geographic area within its jurisdiction by the designation of a reinvestment zone, as authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Act, Chapter 311, of the Texas Tax Code (the "Act"); and Whereas, in compliance with the Act, the City called a public hearing to receive comments on the designation of the proposed reinvestment zone and its benefits to the City and the property in the proposed reinvestment zone; and Whereas, in compliance with the Act, notice of the public hearing was published in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the City, such publication date being not later than seven (7) days prior to the date of the public hearing; and Whereas, such hearing was convened at the time and place mentioned in the published notice, to -wit, on the 27th day of November, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., at the City Council chambers in the City Hall of the City of Georgetown, Texas, which hearing was then closed; and Whereas, the City, at such hearing, invited any interested person, or the person's representative, to appear and speak for or against the designation of the proposed reinvestment zone, the boundaries of the proposed reinvestment zone, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and as depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit `B", whether all or part of the territory described in Exhibit "A" and as depicted in Exhibit `B" should be included in such proposed reinvestment zone, the concept of tax increment financing, and the appointment of a board of directors for the proposed reinvestment zone; and Whereas, all owners of property located within the proposed reinvestment zone and all other taxing units and other interested persons were given the opportunity at such public hearing to protest the designation of the proposed reinvestment zone; and Whereas, the City has prepared a preliminary project and reinvestment zone financing plan attached hereto as Exhibit "C"; Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct. n �Zfl "a 0 do `7 (,P Section 2. The City Council, after conducting such public hearing and having heard such evidence and testimony has made the following findings and determinations based on the evidence and testimony presented to it: (a) That the public hearing on adoption of the reinvestment zone has been properly called, held and conducted and that notice of such hearing has been published as required by law. (b) That designation of the proposed reinvestment zone with boundaries as described in Exhibit "A" and as depicted in Exhibit `B" will result in benefits to the city, its residents and property owners, in general, and to the property, residents and property owners in the proposed reinvestment zone. (c) That the proposed reinvestment zone, as defined in Exhibit "A" and as depicted in Exhibit `B", meets the criteria for the designation of a reinvestment zone as set forth in the Act in that it is a geographic area located wholly within the corporate limits of the City and meets the requirements of Tax Code, Section 311.005. (d) That the total appraised value of all taxable real property in the proposed reinvestment zone according to the most recent appraisal roll of the City, together with the total appraised value of taxable real property in all other existing reinvestment zones within the City, according to the most recent appraisal roll of the City, does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the current total taxable value of taxable real property in the City and in the industrial districts created by the City, if any. (e) That the proposed improvements in the reinvestment zone will significantly enhance the value of all taxable real property in the reinvestment zone and will be of general benefit to the City. (f) That the development or redevelopment of the property in the proposed reinvestment zone will not occur solely through private investment in the reasonably foreseeable future. (g) That thirty percent (30%) or less of the property in the proposed reinvestment zone, excluding property dedicated to public use, is currently used for residential purposes. (h) That the proposed reinvestment zone is to be predominantly open or undeveloped and, because of obsolete platting, deterioration of structures or site improvements, or other factors, substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality or county. (i) That the proposed reinvestment zone substantially arrests or impairs the sound growth of the City, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use because of the presence of- OP-1) £ d(ZD 0 (1) The predominance of defective or inadequate sidewalk or street layout; and (2) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness. Section 3. The City hereby designates a tax increment financing reinvestment zone over the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and as depicted in the map attached as Exhibit "B", and such tax increment financing reinvestment zone shall hereafter be identified as Reinvestment Zone Number Five, City of Georgetown, Texas (hereinafter sometimes referred to herein as the "Zone"). Section 4. There is hereby established a board of directors for Reinvestment Zone Number Five, City of Georgetown, Texas, which shall consist of at least five (5) but not more than fifteen (15) members, unless more members are required to be appointed to satisfy the requirements of Section 311.009, Tax Code. The members of the Board of Directors of the Zone shall be appointed as follows: (a) The City shall be entitled to appoint a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of ten (10) members of the Board of Directors, except that if there are fewer than five (5) directors appointed by taxing units other than the City, the City Council may appoint more than ten (10) members as long as the total membership of the Board of Directors does not exceed fifteen (15) members. The City Council shall appoint its initial members to the Board of Directors within sixty (60) days after passage of this Ordinance. (b) Each taxing unit, other than the City, that levies taxes on real property in the Zone may appoint one member of the Board of Directors if the taxing unit has approved the payment of all or part of the tax increment produced by such taxing unit into the tax increment fund for the Zone. A taxing unit eligible to appoint a member to the Board of Directors may waive such right. If a taxing unit waives its right to appoint a member of the board, the City may appoint a member to the Board of Directors to such position. The governing body of each taxing unit, other than the City, eligible to appoint a member to the Board of Directors shall appoint such member within sixty (60) days after such taxing unit has entered into an agreement with the City for payment of all or part of the tax increment produced by such taxing unit into the tax increment fund for the Zone. Failure of such taxing unit to appoint a director within such sixty (60) day period shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appoint a director, and the City Council shall be entitled to appoint a person to such position. (c) The City Council shall appoint additional member(s) in order to maintain a board of at least seven (7) members. A vacancy on the Board of Directors shall be filled as set forth in the Act. Positions one through five on the Board of Directors are reserved for the City. The remaining positions are reserved for other taxing units that levy real property taxes in the Zone and if the taxing unit has approved the payment of all or part of the tax increment produced by such taxing unit into the tax increment fund for the Zone. The directors appointed by taxing units other than the City shall be assigned a Board position in the order that the City receives the appointment. All i� R,fl o�d 14i-� �ao 3 members appointed to the Board of Directors shall meet eligibility requirements as set forth in the Act. (d) The terms of office for members of the Board of Directors shall be for two (2) years. Each year the City Council shall designate a member of the Board of Directors to serve as Chairperson of the Board of Directors. The Chairperson shall serve a term of office of one year that runs from January 1 through and including December 31 of the calendar year. The Board of Directors shall elect from its members a Vice - Chairperson and other officers, as it deems appropriate. (e) The Board of Directors shall make recommendations to the City Council concerning the administration of the Zone. It shall prepare and adopt a project plan and the reinvestment zone financing plan for the Zone, and must submit such plans to the City Council for its approval. The City Council delegates to the Board of Directors all powers necessary to prepare and implement the project and the reinvestment zone financing plans for the Zone, including any required annual reports on the status of the Zone, all subject to the prior approval of the City Council. Section 5. The Zone shall take effect on adoption of this Ordinance, and the termination of the Zone shall occur on December 31, 2049, or at an earlier time designated by subsequent ordinance of the City Council, or at such time subsequent to the issuance of any tax increment bonds, if any, that all project costs, tax increment bonds, notes or other obligations of the Zone, and the interest thereon, if any, have been paid in full. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may terminate the Zone for any one or more of the following: (i) the City and the developer/owner of the real property in the Zone do not enter into a development agreement for the projects contemplated for the Zone ("Development Agreement"); (ii) if completion of construction of at least 150,000 square feet of commercial improvements in the Zone has not been achieved on or before January 1, 2027; (iii) if the County does not enter into an agreement with the City to participate in the Zone by contributing and depositing into the Tax Increment Fund fifty percent (50%) percent for a period of twenty (20) years or for such other period of time and percentage of contribution as may be set forth in the agreement with the City to participate in the Zone; and (iv) the aggregate payment of the maximum contribution of the City to the Tax Increment Fund as set forth herein and the maximum contribution of the County to the Tax Increment Fund as may be set forth in the agreement with the City to participate in the Zone. Section 6. The tax increment base for the Zone, which is the total taxable value of all taxable real property located in the Zone, is to be determined as of January 1, 2018, the year in which the Zone was designated as a tax increment financing reinvestment zone (the "Tax Increment Base"). Tax Increment Base means the total taxable value of all real property taxable by a taxing unit and located in the Zone for the 2018 year. "Tax Increment" means the total amount of real property taxes by a taxing unit for the year on the Captured Appraised Value of real property taxable by a taxing unit and located in the Zone. The "Captured Appraised Value" means the total taxable value of all real property taxable by a taxing unit and located in the Zone for the year, less �vkq La-�zes� 2z, the Tax Increment Base of the taxing unit. For purposes of this Ordinance "taxing unit" means the City and any other political subdivision or special district that taxes real property within the Zone that enters into an agreement with the City for the payment of all or part of the tax increment produced by such other taxing unit into the Tax Increment Fund for the Zone. Section 7. There is hereby created and established a Tax Increment Fund for the Zone which may be divided into such sub -accounts as may be required, into which all Tax Increments, less any of the amounts not required to be paid into the Tax Increment Fund pursuant to the Act, are to be deposited. All Tax Increments as defined herein shall be deposited in the Tax Increment Fund. The Tax Increment Fund and any sub -accounts are to be maintained at the depository bank of the City and shall be secured in the manner prescribed by law for funds of the City. Revenues to be dedicated to and used in the Zone shall be deposited into the Tax Increment Fund or sub -account from which money will be disbursed to pay project costs for the Zone or to satisfy the claims of holders of tax increment bonds, notes or certificates of obligations issued for the Zone. Section 8. The City will participate in the Zone by contributing and depositing into the Tax Increment Fund seventy percent (70%) of the City's Tax Increment from real property ad valorem taxes collected in the Zone for a period of thirty (30) years, not to exceed One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000). The Tax Increment contributed by the City and any taxing unit participating in the Zone to the Tax Increment Fund may only be expended after the commencement and completion of 150,000 square feet of commercial improvements prior to the reimbursement for eligible expenses for public infrastructure for the eligible projects set forth in the Zone Project and Financing Plan. In addition, at any point if the residential units increase beyond the initial approved Planned Unit Development of 2,500, the City will seek the approval of the County before expending tax increment funds. The County is anticipated to participate in the Zone by contributing and depositing into the Tax Increment Fund fifty percent (50%) of the County's Tax Increment from real property ad valorem taxes collected in the Zone for a period of twenty (20) years not to exceed Thirty Million Dollars ($30,000,000). Section 9. All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Georgetown, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and all other provisions of the ordinances of the City of Georgetown not in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 10. Should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this Ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance as a whole or a part or provision thereof other than the part thereof decided to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid. Section 11. The Mayor or City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any contracts or other agreements with any taxing units that elect to enter into an agreement with the City for S payment of all or part of the tax increment produced by such other taxing unit into the Tax Increment Fund for the Zone. Section 12. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and charter in such cases provide. APPROVED on First Reading on the 27th day of November, 2018. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 11th day of December, 2018. IN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Dale Ross Mayor APPROVED -A. TO FORM: hail ie McNabb City Attorney 0 R.D a0100-1�0 ATTEST: Shelley NoyvNg City SecrebW 1 Exhibit "A" Legal Description of the Zone Page 1 of 4 Approx. 164 Acres Proj No. 22506 1. P, PUlsifer Survey, A-499 May 1, 2017 C. Stubblefield Survey, A-558 Exhibit A Williamson County, Texas DESCRIPTION OF WOLF LAKES P.U.D. DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE J05EPH P. PULSIFER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 498 (PATENTED IN CONFLICT WITH THE ORVILLE PERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT 10) AND THE CLEMENT STUBBLEFIELD SURVEY, ABSTRACT 558, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF THOSE TRACTS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO WOLF LAKES, LP, OF RECORD IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013096286, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a point on the north right-of-way line of County Road 265, a variable width roadway, as dedicated in Document No. 2005080398, of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, at its intersection with the east right-of-way line of Wolf Ranch Parkway, a variable width roadway, as dedicated in Document No. 2005082790, said Official Public Records, said Wolf Ranch Parkway being that certain 5.772 acre tract of land described as Tract Five, Parcel One, Save and Except A, In said Document No. 2013096286, for the southwest corner ofthe herein described parcel; THENCE, in a northerly and easterly direction, with said east right-of-way line of Wolf Ranch Parkway, crossing those certain 202.149 acre and 2.0 acre tracts of land described in Volume 1997, Page 953, of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, said 202.149 acre and 2.0 acre tracts of land being described as part of Tract Five, Parcel One, In said Document No. 2013096286, to Its intersection with the east boundary line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, same line being the west line of THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, a map of which is recorded in Cabinet X, Slide 193, of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block C, said THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, same point being the northern most northeast corner ofthe herein described parcel; THENCE, in a southerly direction, with an east line of said 202 149 acre tract of land, same line being the western boundary line of said THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, to a point for the southwest corner of said THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, same point being the northwest corner of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE Subdivision, a map of which is recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 304, said Plat Records; THENCE, in a southerly direction, with an east line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, same line being the western boundary line of said RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE Subdivision, to the southwest corner of said RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE Subdivision, same point being the northwest corner of RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO Subdivision, a map of which is recorded In Cabinet F, Slide 65, said Plat Records, said RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO being that certain 27.69 acre tract of land described as Tract Four, Parcel Three, In said Document No. 2013096286, for an interior corner of the herein described tract; THENCE, in an easterly direction, with the common line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE and RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, the following nine (9) courses and distances: Page 2 of 4 Proj No. 22506 May 1, 2017 Exhibit A Approx. 164 Acres 1.P. Pulsifer Survey, A-498 C. Stubblefield Survey, A-558 Williamson County, Texas 1. With the common line of Lot 6, Block B, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, and Lot 5, Block B, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, crossing Oak Hollow Road, a 60 foot wide roadway dedicated on bath RIVER HILLS SECTIONS ONE and RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, to a point on the east right-of-way line of Oak Hollow Road, same line being the west boundary line of Lot 4, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 2. With the common line of said Lot 4, Block C, and the east right-of-way line of Oak Hollow Road, to a point for the southwest corner of said Lot 4, Block C, same point being the northwest comer of Lot 3, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 3. With the common line of said Lot 3, Block C and said Lot 4, Block C, and continuing with the common line of said Lot 3, Block C, and Lot 5, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION ON E, to a point on the west boundary line of Lot 8, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, same point being the northeast corner of said Lot 3, Block C, and the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block C; 4. With the common line of said Lot 5, Block C, and said Lot 8, Block C, and continuing with the common line of said Lot 5, Block C, and Lot 7, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, to a point for the northwest corner of said Lot 7, Block C, same point being the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 5. With the common line of said Lot 6, Block C, and said Lot 7, Block C, to a point on the west right-of-way line of Hillview Drive, a 60 foot wide roadway dedicated on both RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE and RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 6. With the common line of said Lot 6, Block C, and said west right-of-way line of Hillview Drive, to a point at the intersection of the projected common line of Lot 20, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, and Lot 21, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 7. Crossing said Hillview Drive, and continuing with said common line of Lot 20, Block A, and Lot 21, Block A, to a point on the west boundary line of Lot 19, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, same point being the southeast corner of said Lot 20, Block A, and the northeast corner of said Lot 21, Block A; B. With the common line of said Lot 19, Block A, and said Lot 21, Block A, continuing with the common line of said Lot 21, Block A, and Lot 18, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, and continuing with the common line of said Lot 18, Block A, and Lot 22, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, to a point for the southwest corner of said Lot 18, Block A, same point being the northwest corner of Lot 17, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 9. With the common line of said Lot 17, Block A, and said Lot 18, Block A, to a point on the west right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 35 ("IH 35"), a variable width public roadway, same point being the northeast comer of said Lot 17, Block A, and the southeast corner of said lot 18, Block A, for the eastern most northeast corner of the herein described tract; THENCE, in a southerly direction, with said west right-of-way line of IH 35, as dedicated in Volume 463, Page 339, Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and continuing with the west right-of- way line of IH 35, as dedicated in Volume 460, Page 386, said Deed Records, the following five (5) courses and distances: 1. With a circular curve to the left same line being the east boundary line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, to a point in the east boundary line of Lot 15, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, for the point of tangency of said curve to the left; urge' 0 6kVtao Page 3 of 4 Proj No. 22506 May 1, 2017 Exhibit A Approx. 164 Acres 1.P. Pulsifer Survey, A-499 C. Stubblefield Survey, A-558 Williamson County, Texas 2. Continuing with the east boundary line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, to a point on the north right-of-way line of Spring Hallow, a roadway dedicated on said RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, for the eastern most southeast corner of Lot 13, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 3. Crossing said Spring Hollow, to a point on the south right-of-way line of Spring Hollow, for the eastern most northeast corner of Lot 3, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 4. Continuing with said east boundary line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, to a point for the south corner of Lot 1, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, same point being a corner of said 202.149 acre tract of land; 5, With the east boundary line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Highway No. 29 ("SH 29"), same point being the eastern most corner of that certain 0.6B acre tract of land described in Document No. 2006063018, said Official Public Records, said 0.68 being described as part of Tract Five, Parcel One, in said Document No. 2013096286, for the southeast corner of the herein described tract; THENCE, with the north right-of-way line of SH 29, the following four (4) courses and distances; 1. With the eastern most south boundary line of said 0.68 acre tract of land, to a point for the south corner of said 0.68 acre tract of land, same point being the east corner of that certain 0,49 acre tract of land described in Document No. 2006063019, said Official Public Records, said 0.49 acres being described as Tract Two, in said Document No. 2013096286, 2. With the eastern most south boundary line of said 0.49 acre tract of land, to a point at its intersection with the northeast boundary line ofthat certain called 1.89 acre tract of land described in 2003124147, said Official Public Records, said 1.89 acre tract of land being described as Tract One, in said Document No. 2013096286, same line being the south boundary line of said 0.49 acre tract of land, same point being the northeast corner of that certain 0.506 acre tract of land described in Document No. 2004068073, said Official Public Records, said 0.506 acre tract of land being described as Tract One, Save and Except; 3. With the north boundary line of Bald 0.506 acre tract, over and across said 1.89 acre tract, to a point on the west boundary line of said 1.89 acre tract of land, same line being the east boundary line of that certain called 1.78 acre tract of land described in Document No. 2003053281, said Official Public Records, said 1.78 acre tract being described as Tract Three, Parcel Two, In said Document No. 2013096286, for the northwest corner of said 0.506 acre tract of land, same point being the eastern most northeast corner of that certain 0.307 acre tract of land described in Document No. 2004068070, said 0.307 acre tract of land being described as Tract Three, Parcel Two, Save and Except, in said Document No. 2013096286; 4. With the north boundary line of said 0.307 acre tract of land, over and across said 1.78 acre tract of land, to a point on the east boundary line of Simon Road, a variable width roadway, as dedicated in Document No. 2004068070, said Official Public Records, said Simon Road being that certain 0.634 acre tract of land described as Tract Three, Parcel Two, Further Save Except, in said Document No. 2013096286, for the northern most northeast corner of said 0,307 acre tract of land, same point being the southeast corner of said 0.634 acre tract of land; o���r�ron Page 4 of 4 Proj No. 22506 May 1, 2017 Exhibit A Approx. 164 Acres J.P. Pulsifer Survey, A-498 C. Stubblefleld Survey, A-558 Williamson County, Texas THENCE, with the east right-of-way line of Simon Road, crossing said 1.78 acre tract of land, to a point at its intersection with the south right-of-way line of aforementioned County Road 265, same line being the north boundary line of said 1.78 acre tract of land for the northeast corner of said 0.634 acre tract of land, same point being the southwest comer of that certain 0.11 acre tract of land, described In Document No. 2006063017, said Official Public Records, said 0.11 acre tract of land being described as Tract Three, Parcel One, in said Document No. 2013096286; THENCE, with the west boundary line of said 0.11 acre tract of land, crossing said County Road 265, to a point for the northwest corner of said 0.11 acre tract of land, same point being the southwest corner of aforementioned 0.68 acre tract of land; THENCE, with the west boundary line of said 0.68 acre tract of land, continuing to cross said County Road 265, to a point on the north rlght-of-way line of said County Road 265, same line being the south boundary line of aforementioned 202.149 acre tract of land, for the northwest corner of said 0.68 acre tract of land; THENCE, with said north right-of-way line of County Road 265, same line being the south boundary line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing approximately 164 acres of land, more or less, within these metes and bounds. The forgoing metes and bounds description is accompanied by and a part of survey map of the subject tract. This document was prepared under 22 TAC §663.21, does not reflect the results of an on the ground survey, and is not to be used to convey or establish interests in real property except those rights and interests implied or established by the creation or reconfiguration of the boundary of the political subdivision for which it was prepared. Steger & Bizzell Engrneeri7 inc. ala Fran Miguel A. Escobar, LSIS, RPLS Texas Reg. No. 5630 497.&South ALztimAvenup Georgetown, Texas 78626 (512930-9412 TBPLS Firm No. 10003700 P:\22000-22999\22506 wolf Lakes\Survey Data\Descrlptlons\22506•Wolf Lakes PUD general descrlptlon.dou 1978 S. Austin Ave Georgetown, TX 78626 kl Exhibit "B" Depiction of Zone ' w Rules �►e� �g Wi3 17 1 I[w[Yrnwn,w 3164 ACRES 1 1 Q COUNTY ROAD 265 �- 0.11 TW FWIELOIND HAP 15 ACSLMPANIEO BY AND APART OF A METES AND BOUNDS DESrRFMfJ OF TN! fUBIGCE TAA[T. 'TIDSOOCUMARTWASPR66L1. V/NKR77T-1&4?%SUESNOLRFAlE[TTNf RfS[kSS OF AN 0H SNC GROLL�HI SLAEyCP. AND 1S N01 DO 19 U00 TO EONVLV OR LSIAOUS'I 1NTCOWG A REAL PROK W LVMM TlJ= lftoS AND INitRlin WANILL LIR 1S7AaU$E11D 01 ME LREATILN 00 RlcoxmUAAfIpN OF " SOUNWy DF 171E 001 MCAL SOADIYNlDN Me WHICH rf WAS PREPARED GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE 1" = 600' 0 S Ocq,E 1 2 4 5 01110 � M 3 � 1 RIYfl11NIS DONE 6 4 5 6 20 6 5 BLOCK C � 21 19 m g 8 4 BLOCK C 22 18 2' m 3 23 1 2 116 IS "" LS 31 30 BLOCK A 32 . „!s 8 @ I3 BL 3OCKZA 6 4 3 til 4 r� 3 STATE HIGHWAY 29 WOLF LAKES P.U.D. EXHIBIT "B" STE6ERO517?. DATE OS/01110I7 JOB NO. 225a6��_ SHEET 1 OF 2 THE FOREGOING MAP IS ACCOMPANIED BY AND APART OF A METES ANO BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE SU9UEUTTRACT. 'THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC 5M.2L DOES NOT REFLECTTHE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE USED 70 CANVEY OR ESTABLLSN INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY EXCEPT THOSE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR RELONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POLITICAL SUBDMSION FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED' DETAIL (NOTTOSCALE) STATE HIGHWAY 29 lO. TRACTI(CALLED 1.89 ACRES( WOVE LAKES, LP. DOC N0.2013096286, OPR 3© SAME L89 AC IN DOC NO. 2003124147, OPR (D TRACT2 ICALLED 0.49 ACRES( WOLFLAKfS, L.P. © DOC N0.2033096286, OPR SAME 0.49 AC IN DDC NO, 2006063019, OPA OTRACE 3, PARCEL I(CALLED OSI ACRES) ® WOLF LAKES, LP DOC NO.2013D962B6, OPR O SAME 0.11 AC IN DOC NO. 100fi0fiAMT, OPR OTRACT3, PARCEL (CALLED I79ACRES) ® WOLF LAKES, LP. DOC NO. 202106285. OPR SANE L78 AC IN DOC N0, 2003053281, OPR OTRACT 5, "Ral 1 QINtMIATE1116HWA4I LCAT Unl 1091 ACRES AND 20ACRES) WOLF LAMS, L P. DOC NO.392B 2016fi, OPR SAW 2@249 ACRES AND 2.0 ACRES IN VOLUME 1997, PAGE 953, DR OTRACT >,'A KCEL I ICAL1ED 069 ACRES) WCIF IPA IS, I.P. DOC NO. 2013096286, ova SAME 0.68 AC IN DOC NO 2006063019, OPR 7O. 0506 ACRCS SH 29 GLOW. VARIES) DOCN0. 00D$vAm3, OPP O0307AL'RCS SH 291RA.W. VARIES) DOC NO. 2(104068U70, OPIL O 0.631 ACRES IWON RD(RO.W. VARIES) DOC NO.100106MM OPR A'N 2 WOLF LAKES P.II.D, EXHIBIT "B" ST -Ga IB IZZELL 7977,;31 DATE 05/01/1017 JOB NO 22506 SHEET 2 OF 2 5.25;ACRES CouNriROAO NO, 165 (ILO W VARIES) DOC NO.200SOB03K OPR 3© 5.772AFRE1 WOLF NANCY PARKWAY (R.O W. VARIES( DOCNO.2005082790,OPR © LOT L REOCK C THE INf"PHASE ONE UAB X, SLIDE 193, P.R. ® RLI-kH Hi1Aj 3kCTION ONE 2 CA6 0 5810E 300, P.R. O RIVER IBLLS'#01LLN IWO CAB E. SUDF A5.9111 NII ® RIVER HILLY 3fCTK1ft THREE CAB L SLIDE 135, Pr(® INTEP5FAII II16NWAY N0. 35 VOL4B A PAGE 339, 0 R QINtMIATE1116HWA4I N0.35 f VDI, 060, PA" 380, U. R A'N 2 WOLF LAKES P.II.D, EXHIBIT "B" ST -Ga IB IZZELL 7977,;31 DATE 05/01/1017 JOB NO 22506 SHEET 2 OF 2 Exhibit "C" Preliminary Project and Financing Plan Exhibit C PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLAN AND REINVESTMENT ZONE FINANCING PLAN FOR WOLF LAKES TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ZONE October 2018 Final 12.11.2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................................................... 3 A. Objectives.................................................................................................... 3 B. TIF Financing............................................................................................... 4 C. Zone Description.......................................................................................... 5 II. Project Plan........................................................................................................... 5 A. Existing Uses and Conditions...................................................................... 5 B. Proposed Uses and Conditions..................................................................... 5 C. Municipal Ordinances and Agreements........................................................ 5 D. Non -Project Costs............................................................................... .... 6 E. Relocation....................................................................................................8 III. Financing Plan...................................................................................................... 8 A. List of Estimated Project Costs.................................................................... 9 B. Kind, Number, and Location of Proposed Public Improvements to be Financed by the TIRZ......................................................................... 9 C. Economic Feasibility Study.......................................................................... 9 D. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness to be Incurred ........................................ 9 E. Time of Incurring Monetary Obligations....................................................... 9 F. Method of Financing/Sources of Revenue for Project Costs ....................... 9 G. Current Appraised Value.............................................................................. 10 H. Estimated Captured Appraised Value.......................................................... 11 I. Duration of the TIRZ.................................................................................... 11 IV. Board of Directors of the TIRZ............................................................................ 11 V. List of Exhibits. ..................................................................................................... 12 Final 12.11.2018 2 I. INTRODUCTION A. Objectives The Georgetown City Council desires to create Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone # (the "TIRE aka Wolf Lakes Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone) over 164 acres in its City limits, generally situated on the northwest corner of IH35 and its intersection with SHW29, pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Act, as codified in Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, as amended (the "Act"). The purpose of the Zone is to provide economic and qualitative benefits by facilitating a program of public improvements that provide for the development of a mixed-use development with business/corporate offices, retail, entertainment, and enhanced quality of life features for residents. Other development within the TIRZ is anticipated to include single and multifamily residential development and commercial/ retail space, as allowed by the PUD Ordinance (defined below). The Wolf Lakes village master plan and zoning have been developed with an integrated approach to retail as well as an intentional capacity to secure significant corporate office space that will be secured by walkable residential uses. Retail has three related components: (i) lifestyle retail (150K to 300K SF), (ii) standalone regional retail, and (iii) village retail including cinemas, regional specialty restaurants, boutique soft goods, etc. The plan relates the three types of retail, potential hospitality and "live -work -play" corporate office into a cohesive village context. This design/market approach is predicted to significantly drive higher property values, as the focus of the development model is on context and diversity rather than reliance on single tenant success. The City desires to have corporate office space, which is currently not available or The developers have provided projections of the build out of the PUD through the village concept compared to conventional build to suit development for individual retailers. The synergistic value of the village live -work -play is anticipated to be dramatically higher than traditional development. The scale of the development, as well as the vision for the planned unit development requires a significant investment in infrastructure that does not meet current market returns for developers. The cost of supporting public infrastructure has created a situation where the property would not develop without tax increment financing or other incentives. The structure of the tax increment is through a reimbursement basis, therefore placing the risk of the financing development costs and the risk of valuation fluctuations on the developers. Final 12.11.2018 $2,000,000,000 $1,80 ,000,000 $ ,600,000,000 $1,40 000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $800,000,000 $600,000,000 $46;; ,0OO,OOO $200,000,000 Comparative Ad Valorum Tax Base 1,874,996,121 169,445,53 200,622,036 221,502,938 244,557,142 298,113,791 322,687,955 137,637,568 $0 2020 2025 2030 2035 2045 2049 -Current PUO Plan -Past Proposed Development •---Current Land Value ---Current Ag Exemption Value `Source: Wolf Lakes LP B. TIF Financing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a tool local governments may use to finance public improvements within defined areas that have unique challenges or opportunities for economic development. A municipality may make an area eligible for tax increment financing by designating a reinvestment zone (TIRZ). Taxes on the appraised value of the zone in the year the zone was designated (the "base" year) continue flowing to the general funds of taxing units, but, for participating government units, all or part of the increased tax revenue due to greater real property values in TIF zone flows to a tax increment financing fund ("TIF or TIRZ") for a specified maximum term of years. Inclusion of a property in a TIF zone does not change the tax rate for any property. Tax rates in a TIF zone are the same as tax rates outside the zone and with the same set of taxing jurisdictions. Money flowing to the TIF/TIRZ is disbursed according to one or more development agreements. These are contracts between the City of Georgetown and a developer. A development agreement must accord with a TIF project plan and financing plan approved by the City Council subsequent to a recommendation by a Board of Directors (the TIRZ Final 12.11.2018 4 Board) as prescribed by the Act. The TIF fund may be used only as authorized by state law. Mere designation of a TIF zone is not an entitlement to future tax flow. Only if the City Council approves execution of a development agreement consistent with a TIF project plan and financing plan may cash flow from the TIF fund and then only in accord with terms of a development agreement. C. Zone Description Exhibit C -A depicts the vicinity and boundaries of the TIRZ. A metes and bounds description of all of the property located within the TIRZ is included as Exhibit C -B to this Plan. The tax increment generated within the TIRZ would be used to finance costs associated with the construction public utilities within the TIRZ, public roadways (and related improvements) within and outside of the TIRZ boundaries, and other costs that meet the definition of "project costs" under the Act and this Amended Plan. II. PROJECT PLAN A. Existing Land Uses and Conditions Exhibit C -C is a map illustrating the existing uses and conditions of the Tract, as required by Section 311.011(b)(1) of the Act. B. Proposed Land Uses and Conditions Map A map showing the proposed future uses and conditions Wolf Lakes is attached as Exhibit C -D. The proposed future uses and conditions are described in the PUD Ordinance and shown on the Preliminary Site Layout on Exhibit C -E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. C. Municipal Ordinances and Agreements Zoning Ordinances. All of the property located within the TIRZ is within the corporate limits of the City of Georgetown and within the boundaries of Williamson County, Texas. All references in this document to the "PUD Ordinance" shall mean and refer to the most recent PUD Ordinance. (See PUD Ordinance, attached as Exhibit C -F.) Final 12.11.2018 D. Non -Project Costs The Non -Project Costs include those development items that will be privately funded and for which no tax increment reimbursement is expected. Non -Project Costs represent the expenditures estimated by Wolf Lakes, Ltd, necessary to complete the development as contemplated by the master plan prepared by Wolf Lakes, Ltd, exclusive of eligible Project Costs. Non -Project private investment costs are estimated at over $978,000,000 and include construction of retail, restaurants, hotel, conference or event center, business/corporate offices and other buildings. A copy of the PUD document is attached as Exhibit GF. The PUD shows the proposed improvements to and proposed uses of the property in the Project. Values are predicted by the developer to increase significantly after the flex and office space is constructed and occupied. Phases 3-6 are estimated at a higher value, reflecting the synergistic nature of the village development. Final 12.11.2018 6 The Non -Project Cost items and their estimated costs are shown on Exhibit C -G (Table 2), below: TABLE 1 Square Footage Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 1 Total Cinema 46,500 - - - - 46,500 (Flex Total 51,677 109,661 - - 161,338 (Hotel Total 46,820 46,820 93,640 , (Hotel Conference Total - - - 499,877 499,877 (Multi Family Garden Total 552,500 - - - 552,500 _ (Multi Family Wrap Total - 302,400 291,600 280,800 874,800 =Office Total' 262,686 - 95,639 179,964 188,283 726,571 (Residential Total 44,446 - 76,096 - - 120,542 (Residential Townhome Total 166,359 197,220 - - 363,579 =Restaurant Total - 54,276 - - 54,276 (Restaurant / Retail Total - 10,735 - 43,424 1 - 54,159 Retail Total - 160,988 114,820 31,880 59,988 62,761 430,437 Site Amenity Total 29,710 - 3,968 - - 33,678 Structured Parking Total - 524,000 383,210 182,535 267,862 1,357,607 .iurface Parking Total 552,500 827,377 992,521 983,436 714,087 1,299,582 5,369,503 cost Cinema Total 1:1 ex Total Hotel Total Hotel Conference Total Multi Family Garden Total Multi Family Wrap Total Office Total Residential Total Residential Townhome Total Restaurant Total Restaurant/ Retail Total Retail Total Site Amenity Total Structured Parkins Total Estimated Value after yr 3 ,ma Total Tota l -1 Total al Conference Total ti Family Garden Total ti Family Wra2 Total ce Total dentia) Total dentia) Townhome Total irant / Retail Total Total nenity Total fired Parking Total e Parking Total Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Total - 7,672,500 - - - - 7,672,500 - 10,077,015 21,383,895 - - 31,460,910 7,491,200 7,491,200 14,982,400 - - - - 199,950,720 199,950,720 90,610,000 - - - 90,610,000 75,600.000 72,900,000 70,200,000 218,700,000 - 71,187,906 - 25,918,034 48,770,220 51,024,563 196,900,722 - 10,000,350 - 17,121,600 - - 27,121,950 - 29,944,620 35,499,600 - - 65,444,220 12,320,652 - - 12,320,652 - 2,436,845 - 9,857,135 - 12,293,980 - 36,544,276 26,064,225 7,236,647 13,617,269 14,246,711 97,709,127 - 2,971,000 - 396,825 - - 3,367,825 90,610,000 183,155,164 90,438,920 143,621,440 135,287,489 335,421,994 978,535,006 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Total • 9,207,000 - - - - 12,092,418 25,660,674 - 37,753,092 - 8,989,440 8,989,440 - 17,978,880 - - - - - 239,940,864 239,940,864 108,732,000 - - - - 108,732,000 90.720,000 87,480,000 84,240,000 262,440,000 - 85,425,487 - 31,101,640 58,524,264 61,229,476 236,280,866 12,000,420 - 20,545,920 - - 32,546,340 - 35,933,544 42,599,520 - - - 78,533,064 - 14,784,782 - - - 14,784,782 - 2,924,214 11,828,561 - 14,752,775 - 43,853,131 31,277,070 8,683,976 16,340,723 17,096,053 117,250,953 - 3,565,200 - 476,190 - - 4,041,390 108,732,000 219,786,197 108,526,704 1 172,345,727 162,344,987 402,506,392 174,24 007 Final 12.11.2018 7 E. Relocation No residential relocation will be required as a part of the creation or development of the TIRZ. III. FINANCING PLAN A. List of Estimated Project Costs' Including Administrative Expenses Exhibit C -H (Summarized in Table 2) lists the estimated costs for the public works/improvements to be constructed in the TIRZ for which reimbursement from the tax increment revenue fund is expected: TABLE 2 F-- 04.... 1 f I a a . a Man_ )nx7 Interest Costs (estimated carrying costs based upon projected available TIF funds) $ 7,708,743 TIF Plan- Net of Administrative Costs $ 109,408,907 Administrative Costs (1% of Project Costs) 5 1017,002 Total TIF Plan/Projected Revenues Available S 710,425,9119 *The estimates of total Project Costs are in year 2018 dollars (with escalation costs of 10% annually) and are subject to change. Source: Wolf Lakes, LP The construction of the public works/improvements in the TIRZ will also require professional services for the design and engineering of public improvements, including but not limited to inspecting/testing of soils and construction materials and overseeing construction operations. Professional surveying, architectural services, legal services, planning services, financial services, and other professional services will also be required for the public works/improvements in the TIRZ. The ongoing administration of the TIRZ will require services including, but not limited to, such services as accountants and bookkeepers, engineers, legal counsel, planners or other administrative services deemed necessary by the TIRZ Board to implement this Amended Plan. Other costs include organizational costs such as the costs of conducting environmental impact studies or other studies, the cost of publicizing the TIRZ, and the cost of implementing the Amended Plan. Final 12.11.2018 8 5dlem-t4SenieO 1A 2 3.4 5 6 7, 8, 9 DESCRIPTION Estimated Start Date 1/1/2022 2024 71126 VV2026 1/7./2029 Beyond 2030 Onslte lnfrmuuctum Ondudes Deml lumaj $45,667.055 $15.189.925 $3.06 527 $ 45 789 $5.239.948 510,269,648 57,446.223 Parking Structures five 535,000,000 $7,500,000 $6,500,000 $7,004000 $7,000,000 $7,00(1000 Electric Utility On-site and Off-sitej $6,22fy795 $1466,072 51004000 $1.004000 $1.000.000 $1.004000 5760.723 (Natural Gas Utility $745,995 S84000 580.000 5350,000 $80,000 $80,000 $75.995 [Fiber Optics Utility $ 24_0409 S200. DD0 $20 000 5204000 $204000 5220,000 5229.409 I:It Pro ect—Offsite Water $504000 $5 000 1CIt Pro ect—Offsite Waste Water $521.280 $521,280 Cit Pro'ect—Memorial Drive linfrastruc[ureJ $580.611 $58q 611 'fIA Identified off-site Improvements 53,045.019 550,000 5500,000 5500,000 5604000 $304000 $222,756 $871,86; L'ommpn Area Amenities $8,164000 $584000 51524000 53540011 $3,125,000 $ 000 5144000 !Subtotal of TIRZ Project Cost $101,700,IrA 51917ruBeB 515,862,522 S13356,789 $17.244.948 $19.309,648 506$67 863 Interest Costs (estimated carrying costs based upon projected available TIF funds) $ 7,708,743 TIF Plan- Net of Administrative Costs $ 109,408,907 Administrative Costs (1% of Project Costs) 5 1017,002 Total TIF Plan/Projected Revenues Available S 710,425,9119 *The estimates of total Project Costs are in year 2018 dollars (with escalation costs of 10% annually) and are subject to change. Source: Wolf Lakes, LP The construction of the public works/improvements in the TIRZ will also require professional services for the design and engineering of public improvements, including but not limited to inspecting/testing of soils and construction materials and overseeing construction operations. Professional surveying, architectural services, legal services, planning services, financial services, and other professional services will also be required for the public works/improvements in the TIRZ. The ongoing administration of the TIRZ will require services including, but not limited to, such services as accountants and bookkeepers, engineers, legal counsel, planners or other administrative services deemed necessary by the TIRZ Board to implement this Amended Plan. Other costs include organizational costs such as the costs of conducting environmental impact studies or other studies, the cost of publicizing the TIRZ, and the cost of implementing the Amended Plan. Final 12.11.2018 8 B. Kind, Number, Location of Public Works/Public Improvements to be Financed by the TIRZ Information regarding the kind, number, and location of all public works or public improvements to be financed by the tax increment generated in the TIRZ is included on Exhibit C -H. C. Economic Feasibility Study A market and economic feasibility study for the TIRZ was previously conducted by Capitol Market Research Group, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C -l. D. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness to be Incurred It is not anticipated that the City will issue debt to cover the costs of the related off-site road, storm water/drainage costs and utility costs to cover eligible costs under Chapter 501 of the Texas Local Government Code. The TIF will be reimbursement based only. E. Time of Incurring Monetary Obligations The estimated carrying costs for the private construction of public infrastructure are estimated at 4% annually. Cash flow projections are illustrated in Exhibit C -J. The projected build -out schedule for the office/tenant, multifamily apartments, and retail/commercial development, and the anticipated timeframe during which reimbursement payments from tax increment revenues from the TIRZ could be made based on revenue derived from the improvements is also shown on Exhibit C -K. F. Method of Financing/Sources of Revenue The City will establish a Tax Increment Fund (the "Fund") for the TIRZ in the ordinance designating the TIRZ. In accordance with Section 311.013 of the Act, each participating taxing jurisdiction will apply into the fund a portion of the increment generated by the taxing jurisdiction. The proposed financing plan anticipates the use of 70% of the increment for the City's ad valorem tax for 30 years with a maximum contribution from the City's increment of $100 Million and 50% of the County's increment for 20 years with a maximum contribution from the County's increment of $30 million. The tax increments deposited into the Fund will be used to pay for the approved Project Costs in accordance with the agreements approved by the TIRZ Board of Directors and/or the City of Georgetown, along with maintaining, operating and administering the TIRZ. Final 12.11.2018 9 G. Current Appraised Value The base value, from which captured appraised value is calculated, is the total assessed taxable value of all property within the TIRZ on January 1, 2018, as shown on the rolls of the Williamson County Appraisal District, was as follows: Final 12.11.2018 10 TABLE 4 ...................... . APPRAISED VALUE IN BASE YEAR 2018 Property Description R040726 Acreage 0.1900 Taxable Value $45,932.00 R307339 1.1940 $288,661.00 R481307 0.4900 $118,459.00 R450183 1.0100 $30.00 R040721 16.7200 $502.00 R397516 91.3270 $2,740.00 R089781 0.5000 $15.00 R102325 0.5000 $120,879.00 R481306 0.6800 $164,397.00 R481308 0.1100 $26,596.00 R040724 0.3890 $94,045.00 R307685 0.4500 $108,791.00 R046403 1.4920 $360,706.00 R046404 1.0400 $188,570.00 R046405 1.0460 $113,910.00 R046406 1.094 $119,138.00 R046407 1.148 $125,018.00 R046408 1.149 $125,125.00 R046409 1.149 $125,125.00 R046410 1.188 $129,373.00 R046442 12.090 $876,856.00 R046455 5.020 $364,087.00 R046460 7.500 $543,956.00 R046467 1.000 $73,027.00 R046468 1.000 $73,027.00 R046469 1.000 $73,027.00 R046470 1.000 $73,027.00 R046471 1.000 $73,027.00 R046472 1.000 $73,027.00 R046473 1.000 $73,027.00 R046474 1.000 $73,027.00 155.476 $4,627,127 .00 Final 12.11.2018 10 H. Captured Appraised Value It is anticipated that taxable property values will increase approximately 2% every year. An estimate of the captured appraised value in each year of the projected life of the TIRZ is included in Exhibit C -L, attached hereto. I. Duration of the TIRZ The TIRZ will expire on December 31, 2048, unless sooner terminated as may be allowed by law. IV. Board of Directors of the TIRZ The City Council will appoint the seven member board of Directors for the TIRZ to include: • Mayor • Councilmember District 2 City Manager City Planning Director Member of the City's 4A Board, Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Two representative to be named by Williamson County. City staff will prepare (i) an Annual TIRZ Budget; (ii) an Annual Report of TIRZ activities; and (iii) an Annual Financial Statement prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for presentation to the City Council. Final 12.11.2018 11 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit C -A Location Map Showing Boundaries of TIRZ Exhibit C -B Metes and Bounds of TIRZ Exhibit C -C Existing Conditions Map —Wolf Lakes Exhibit C -D Proposed Future Conditions Map — Wolf Lakes Uses Exhibit C -E Preliminary Site Layout Exhibit C -F Planned Unit Development Document Exhibit C -H Public Improvements Summary and Detail Exhibit C -I Market Study Exhibit C -J Cash Flow Projections Exhibit C -K Projected Build -Out Schedule Exhibit C -L Captured Appraised Value in Each Year of Projected Life Final 12.11.2018 12 Exhibit GA L.eprrd Location Map oS1Lz Pa rce is AC,uoG I (?�1 N 4 :City _ir1irs TEXAS Wolf Lakes Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone MGeorgetawr!FTJ • �'`��i1 •i,��.� fir, Ilk J5 - _ter ��"• - - � '� _}��; �,, _ � �. _.� . 4 Wv 9 Ea keg Talc kMut - L- —! —Lam' 1 T7'1 �� ! .q -. 1 r 1 lw � � M+,.nJ. w:'ti A. •:A): T.. M� � r Exhibit C -B Page 1 of 4 Proj No. 22506 May 1, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF WOLF LAKES P.U.D. Approx. 164 Acres J.P. Pulsifer Survey, A-498 C. Stubblefield Survey, A-558 Williamson County, Texas DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE JOSEPH P. PULSIFER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 498 (PATENTED IN CONFLICT WITH THE ORVILLE PERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT 10) AND THE CLEMENT STUBBLEFIELD SURVEY, ABSTRACT 558, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF THOSE TRACTS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO WOLF LAKES, LP, OF RECORD IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013096286, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a point on the north right-of-way line of County Road 265, a variable width roadway, as dedicated in Document No. 2005080398, of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, at its Intersection with the east right-of-way line of Wolf Ranch Parkway, a variable width roadway, as dedicated in Document No. 2005082790, said Official Public Records, said Wolf Ranch Parkway being that certain 5.772 acretract of land described as Tract Five, Parcel One, Save and Except A, in said Document No. 2013096286, for the southwest corner of the herein described parcel; THENCE, in a northerly and easterly direction, with said east right-of-way line of Wolf Ranch Parkway, crossing those certain 202.149 acre and 2.0 acre tracts of land described in Volume 1997, Page 953, of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, said 202.149 acre and 2.0 acre tracts of land being described as part of Tract Five, Parcel One, in said Document No. 2013096286, to its Intersection with the east boundary line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, same line being the west line of THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, a map of which is recorded in Cabinet X, Slide 193, of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block C, said THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, same point being the northern most northeast corner of the herein described parcel; THENCE, in a southerly direction, with an east line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, same line being the western boundary line of said THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, to a point for the southwest corner of said THE RIVERY PHASE ONE Subdivision, same point being the northwest corner of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE Subdivision, a map of which is recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 304, said Plat Records; THENCE, in a southerly direction, with an east line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, same line being the western boundary line of said RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE Subdivision, to the southwest corner of said RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE Subdivision, same point being the northwest corner of RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO Subdivision, a map of which is recorded in Cabinet E, Slide 65, said Plat Records, said RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO being that certain 27.69 acre tract of land described as Tract Four, Parcel Three, in said Document No. 2013096286, for an interior corner of the herein described tract; THENCE, in an easterly direction, with the common line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE and RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, the following nine (9) courses and distances: Page 2 of 4 Proj No, 22506 May 1, 2017 Approx. 164 Acres J. P. PulsiferSurvey, A-498 C. Stubblefield Survey, A-558 Williamson County, Texas 1. With the common line of Lot 6, Block B, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, and Lot 5, Block B, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, crossing Oak Hollow Road, a 60 foot wide roadway dedicated on both RIVER HILLS SECTIONS ONE and RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, to a point on the east right-of-way line of Oak Hollow Road, same line being the west boundary line of Lot 4, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 2. With the common line of said Lot 4, Block C, and the east right-of-way line of Oak Hollow Road, to a point for the southwest corner of said Lot 4, Block C, same point being the northwest corner of Lot 3, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 1 With the common line of said Lot 3, Block C and said Lot 4, Block C, and continuing with the common line of said Lot 3, Block C, and Lot S, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, to a point on the west boundary line of Lot 8, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, same point being the northeast corner of said Lot 3, Block C, and the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block C; 4. With the common line of said Lot 5, Block C, and said Lot 8, Block C, and continuing with the common line of said Lot 5, Block C, and Lot 7, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, to a point for the northwest corner of said Lot 7, Block C, same point being the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block C, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 5. With the common fine of said Lot 6, Block C, and said Lot 7, Black C, to a point on the west right-of-way line of Hillview Drive, a 6() foot wide roadway dedicated on both RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE and RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 6. With the common line of said Lot 6, Block C, and said west right-of-way line of Hillview Drive, to a point at the intersection of the projected common line of Lot 20, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, and Lot 21, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 7. Crossing said Hillview Drive, and continuing with said common line of Lot 20, Black A, and Lot 21, Block A, to a point on the west boundary line of Lot 19, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, same point being the southeast corner of said Lot 20, Block A, and the northeast corner of said Lot 21, Block A; 8. With the common line of said Lot 19, Block A, and said Lot 21, Block A, continuing with the common line of said Lot 21, Block A, and Lot 18, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, and continuing with the common line of said Lot 18, Block A, and Lot 22, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO, to a point for the southwest corner of said Lot 18, Block A, same point being the northwest corner of Lot 17, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION TWO; 9. With the common line of said Lot 17, Block A, and said Lot 18, Block A, to a point on the west right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 35 ("IH 35"), a variable width public roadway, same point being the northeast corner of said Lot 17, Block A, and the southeast corner of said lot 18, Block A, for the eastern most northeast corner of the herein described tract; THENCE, in a southerly direction, with said west right-of-way line of IH 35, as dedicated in Volume 463, Page 339, Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and continuing with the west right-of- way line of IH 35, as dedicated in Volume 460, Page 386, said Deed Records, the following five (5) courses and distances: 1. With a circular curve to the left same line being the east boundary line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, to a point in the east boundary line of Lot 15, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, for the point of tangency of said curve to the left; .44t< eo1Aa'*, Page 3 of 4 Proj No. 22506 May 1, 2017 Approx. 164 Acres J.P. Pulsifer Survey, A-498 C. Stubblefield Survey, A-558 Williamson County, Texas 2. Continuing with the east boundary line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, to a point on the north right-of-way line of Spring Hollow, a roadway dedicated on said RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, for the eastern most southeast corner of Lot 13, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 3. Crossing said Spring Hollow, to a point on the south right-of-way line of Spring Hollow, for the eastern most northeast corner of Lot 3, Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE; 4. Continuing with said east boundary line of RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, to a point for the south corner of Lot 1. Block A, RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE, same point being a corner of said 202.149 acre tract of land; 5. With the east boundary line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, to a point on the north right-of-way line of State Highway No. 29 ("SH 29"), same point being the eastern most corner of that certain 0.68 acre tract of land described In Document No. 2006063018, said Official Public Records, said 0.68 being described as part of Tract Five, Parcel One, in said Document No. 2013096286, for the southeast corner of the herein described tract; THENCE, with the north right-of-way line of SH 29, the following four (4) courses and distances; 1. With the eastern most south boundary line of said 0.68 acre tract of land, to a point for the south corner of said 0.68 acre tract of land, same point being the east corner of that certain 0.49 acre tract of land described in Document No. 2006063019, said Official Public Records, said 0.49 acres being described as Tract Two, in said Document No. 2013096286, 2. With the eastern most south boundary line of said 0.49 acre tract of land, to a point at its intersection with the northeast boundary line of that certain called 1.89 acre tract of land described in 2003124147, said Official Public Records, said 1.89 acre tract of land being described as Tract One, in said Document No. 2013096286, same line being the south boundary line of said 0.49 acre tract of land, same point being the northeast corner of that certain 0.506 acre tract of land described In Document No. 2004068073, said Official Public Records, said 0.506 acre tract of land being described as Tract One, Save and Except; 3. With the north boundary line of said 0.506 acre tract, over and across said 1.89 acre tract, to a point on the west boundary line of said 1.89 acre tract of land, same line being the east boundary line of that certain called 1.78 acre tract of land described in Document No. 2003053281, said Official Public Records, said 1.78 acre tract being described as Tract Three, Parcel Two, in said Document No. 2013096286, for the northwest corner of said 0.506 acre tract of land, same point being the eastern most northeast corner of that certain 0.307 acre tract of land described in Document No. 2004068070, said 0.307 acre tract of land being described as Tract Three, Parcel Two, Save and Except, in said Document No. 2013096286; 4. With the north boundary line of said 0.307 acre tract of land, over and across said 1.78 acre tract of land, to a point on the east boundary line of Simon Road, a variable width roadway, as dedicated in Document No. 2004068070, said Official Public Records, said Simon Road being that certain 0.634 acre tract of land described as Tract Three, Parcel Two, Further Save Except, in said Document No. 2013096286, for the northern most northeast corner of said 0.307 acre tract of land, same point being the southeast corner of said 0.634 acre tract of land; O� lor�rart Page 4 of 4 Proj No. 22506 May 1, 2017 Approx. 164 Acres J.P. Pulsifer Survey, A-498 C. Stubblefield Survey, A-558 Williamson County, Texas THENCE, with the east right-of-way line of Simon Road, crossing said 1.78 acre tract of land, to a point at its intersection with the south right-of-way line of aforementioned County Road 265, same line being the north boundary line of said 1.78 acre tract of land for the northeast corner of said 0.634 acre tract of land, same point being the southwest corner of that certain 0.11 acre tract of land, described in Document No. 2006063017, said Official Public Records, said 0.11 acre tract of land being described as Tract Three, Parcel One, in said Document No_ 2013096286; THENCE, with the west boundary line of said 0.11 acre tract of land, crossing said County Road 265, to a point for the northwest corner of said 0.11 acre tract of land, same point being the southwest corner of aforementioned 0.68 acre tract of land; THENCE, with the west boundary line of said 0.68 acre tract of land, continuing to cross said County Road 265, to a point on the north right-of-way line of said County Road 265, same line being the south boundary line of aforementioned 202.149 acre tract of land, for the northwest corner of said 0.68 acre tract of land; THENCE, with said north right-of-way line of County Road 265, same line being the south boundary line of said 202.149 acre tract of land, to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing approximately 164 acres of land, more or less, within these metes and bounds. The forgoing metes and bounds description is accompanied by and a part of survey map of the subject tract. This document was prepared under 22 TAC §663.21, does not reflect the results of an on the ground survey, and is not to be used to convey or establish interests in real property except those rights and interests implied or established by the creation or reconfiguration of the boundary of the political subdivision for which it was prepared. Steger & Bizzell Engineerininc, Miguel A. Escobar, LSLS, RPLS Texas Reg. No. 5630 -1978.5outh-Austin. Avenue--- Georgetown, venues Georgetown, Texas 78626 (512) 930-9412 TBPLS Firm No. 10003700 P:\22000-22999\22506 Wolf Lakes\$urvey Data\Descriptlons\22506-Wolf Lakes PUD general description.docx 1978 S. Austin Ave Georgetown. TX 78626 THE FOREGOING MAP IS ACCOMPANIED BY AND APART OF A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBIECT'rRACT. 'THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC 5663.21, DOES NOT REFLECT THE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE USED TO CONVEY 09 ESTABLISH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY EXCEPT THOSE RIGI4TS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POUTICALSUBDIVISrON FOR WHICH R WAS PREPARED " STEGEf94BIZZELL I I N t A tb t 1.t AA.tl -2940 awll, 1 t r Tl' -- u- •lwllu F777 l'u-'•U37i1:77 ••'; 'At U lcf '� H12_;I r'IA DATE 05 1J7.017 JOB NO. 22506 SHEET -1 OFZ GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE 1" = 600' "n 12 7C 1• rc n9s��{pK1+E • �yE'I 2�7C� Lt sS{I' iii 2 pKoC6 7 1 n�l11VIntN �L• t P 4 S 0���D 3 :F -2 L 1 IIIVER HILLS DRIVE 6 6 B L7rK 6 4 5 20 S IILOCff C 7 21 19 t 3 B 18 s 4 BLOCK C 22 f n r s 3 y 23 17 j 0 ® 2 6 r 16 S)RNL LF.GM1LY CROSSSNG t 164 ACRES ,j H1���� 7 5 31 30 BLOCK A 32 lc �r-� 14 1% 1 v @ $ OC 1 BLOCKA 1 3 4A 2 ` k. COUNTYRO AD 265 rrry I tia f L+ 17S z �Z* 0F� �plRTF9�'�/ NO Ja �•' �„ � x m1GNEtANGELES .8' 'rA• ....... C � HIGHWAY 29 STATEHIGH DETAIL (SEE SHEET 2 OF 2) THE FOREGOING MAP IS ACCOMPANIED BY AND APART OF A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBIECT'rRACT. 'THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC 5663.21, DOES NOT REFLECT THE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE USED TO CONVEY 09 ESTABLISH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY EXCEPT THOSE RIGI4TS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POUTICALSUBDIVISrON FOR WHICH R WAS PREPARED " STEGEf94BIZZELL I I N t A tb t 1.t AA.tl -2940 awll, 1 t r Tl' -- u- •lwllu F777 l'u-'•U37i1:77 ••'; 'At U lcf '� H12_;I r'IA DATE 05 1J7.017 JOB NO. 22506 SHEET -1 OFZ THE FOREGOING MAP 15 ACCOMPANIED BY AND APART OF A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT TRACT. "THIS DOCUMENT -WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC §663.2L DOES NOT REFLECT THE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE USFD TO CONVEY OR ESTABLISH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY EKCEPT THOSE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION FOR WHICH ITWAS PREPARED." DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) STATE HIGHWAY 29 �rr TRk,-T A(CALLED 1,89 ACRES) WOLF TAKES, LP. DOC NO. 2013096286, OPR 11 SAME 1.89 AC IN DOC NO.2003124147, OPR 0 TRACT 2 (CALLED 0.49 ACRES( WOLF LAW%L.P. OLOT DOC NO. 2023096286, OPR SAME 0.49 AC IN DOC NO.2006063019, OPR p. TRACT 3, PARCEL I (CALLED 0.11 ACRE5) 13 WOLF LAKES, LP. DOC NO. 2013096206, OPR 14 SAME 0.11 AC IN DOC NO.2DO5063017, OPR TEi,:CT 3, PARCEL 2 (CALLED 1.79 ACRES) 1i WOO F TAKES, LP. DOC NO. 2013096286, OPR 1® SAME 1.78 AC IN DOC NO. 2003053281, OPR S� TRACT 5,PARCEL I i© (CALLED 202.149 ACRES AND 2,0 ACRES) WOLF LAKES, L.P. DOC NO. 2 013119 6 2 8 6, OPR SAME 202,149 ACRES AND 2.0 ACRES 1N VOLUME 7997, PAGE 953, DR 6O TRACT 5, PARCEL 1(CALLED 0.58ACRES) WOLF LAKES, LP. DOC NO. 2013096286, OPR SAME 0.68 AC IN DOC NO. 2006063018, OPR Q9,506ACRFS SH 29 (R.O.W. VARIES) DOC NO. 2004D68073, OPA 18.) 0.307 ACRES V SH 29 (P.O.W. VARIES) DDC NO. 20D4068070, OPR O 0.634ACRES SIMON RD (R.O. W. VARIES) DOC NO. 20114068071), OPR 10 5.2S2 ACRE5 COUNTY ROAD NO. 265 (R.O.W. VARIES) DOC NO. 20050110398, OPR 11 5.77ZACR=S WOLF RANCH PARKWAY (R.D.W. VARIES) DOC N0, Z005082790, OPR OLOT 1 BLOCK C THE RIVERY PHASE ONE CAB N, SLIDE 193, P.R. 13 RIVER HILLS SECTION ONE CAB D, SLIDE 304, P.R. 14 RIVER HILLSSECTION TWO CAB E, SUDF 65, P.R. 1i RIVER HILLS SECTION THREE CAB E, SLIDE 135. P.R. 1® INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 35 VOL 463 PAGE 339. D. R. i© INTERSTATE HIGHWAY N0, 35 VOL 466 PAGE 386, D. R, I STEGE.BIZZELL i ""-'-. �- [•+'i'�T.::ih jai gni} q7�h. r� r!1•!1• .. ;ta gni �ia iz I twr�.xu.., •,u:� v si��[neizteu cn• DATE _ 05/01/2017 ,(OB NO. 22506_ .. SHEET -2 OF 2 Letter of Intent for the Wolf Lakes PUD Rezoning July 31, 2017 The 164 -acre property proposed forthe Wolf Lakes PUD is entirely within the city limits of Georgetown and has current zoning designations of C-3, C-1, RS, and AG. The property is located at the northwest corner of Interstate 35 and University Avenue (SH 29), bounded by Wolf Ranch Parkway to the west and the River Hills subdivision to the north. The Future Land Use designation is Moderate Density Residential, Specialty Mixed -Use and Regional Commercial. The Growth Tiers are Tier 1A and Tier 2. The proposed zoning is Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of C-3, Strategically planned bythe City for high-density mixed-use, this Planned Unit Development (PUD) seeks to realize that vision by establishing development standards that will accommodate a village land plan. The proposed PUD supports the City's future land use goals of a multi -use destination development with a dynamic mix of employment, retail, entertainment, and urban living. Wolf Lakes is a master -planned development project that brings unique ideas such as neo-retroism, the recreation of old world evolutionary characteristics in a new world development environment. The project will include retail and office to ensure day -time activity, along with high-density multi -family, amenities and public spaces. The Wolf Lakes project will be developed consistent with the Development Agreement between Wolf Legacy, L.P. and the City of Georgetown (Document 2014095878), which formed the shared development vision for most of the land: The agreement stated thatthe land "shall be reserved for large-scale mixed-use and commercial development, with an emphasis on urban character and building form." The agreement further describes a desire for a mix of uses and form -based architecture focusing on pedestrian -oriented scale and street design. This PUD proposal meets the City's Future Land Use goals of promoting sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of housing choices and well -integrated transportation, public facilities, and open space amenities. The Specialty Mixed -Use land use category describes large-scale mixed-use developments that are... well-planned "centers" designed to integrate a variety of uses, and cites the Downtown as an example. Utilities will be served to the site with off-site extensions and connections: Perimeter streets such as Wolf Ranch Parkway, University and 1-35 will handle the off-site traffic. The companion traffic study addresses intersection improvements and pro -rata contributions needed to handle the ultimate capacity. Internal traffic will be managed in an integrated street network with public and private streets and private drives. Wolf Lakes seeks to be a destination for corporate offices that desire to locate in a high-density activity area with urban housing, restaurants, and urban amenities. The goal of the project is to combine a dynamic employment, residential, and personal services with a unique architectural style that feels old-world but is very modern. We are pleased to submit the PUD rezoning for Wolf Lakes. Iva and Donald McLachlan, Wolf Lakes LP 1 . cV ��}T1�SN�•aiv }u ISO YN / I r 3tri A7[7 GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE 1" = 600' r 1140 E ] Z O(kF 7 8 5 6 ��Op�'�a 01,11100 m ("All 1 AIVER Hltls DRIVE 6 CK 8 4 5 m BUCK C 4 1 1, LEGACY 0OSSING 1 l 1� ;i !-rs F^ STATE mr.HwAY 29 WOLF LAKES ■ ■ GEORGETOWN, TXULA T "��� HALFF I-35 & TX 29, Georgetown, TX 78628 LAKES 6 20 19 1a ' C P Q do w A CALLISONTKL A DESIGN CONSULTANCY OF ADCADIS Exhibit C -C c LEGACYCItOS5ING 1 - PROPERTY BOUNDARY GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE 1" = 600' FtiA"Y ,U14 0�w 4P >h•44 c�t� Yfn��yocl-GlpV e t 164 ACRES .0.8. 5 "L1Miy ROAD 265'1 C,Ty THE FOREGOING MAP 15 ACCOMPANIED BY AND APART OF A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THESUBIECTTRACT. "THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC 4663,21, DOES NOT REFLECTTHE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE USED TO CONVEY OR ESTABUSH 114TERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY EXCEPT THOSE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POLITICALSUBDIVISION FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED." 10-0x 2 OLOG�F g 1 6 a s "° 13 2 0 1 'AWLS DRIVE 206 CKB 4 5 I6 !�- 21 22 23 , 5 aLpC1f C m 3 8 4 BLOCK C 3 2 31 30 BLOCK A BLOCK A. 6 5-11 4 s�-�Syt/ yt R��• pUa S� 14 STATE HIGHWAY 29 STEL E ROOZZE LL .. ��ta's a n•ntiil � rI, nwn,�R fix.- -- DATE 05/01/2017 JOB NO. 22506 SHEET 1 OF 2 Exhibit C -D WOLF LAKES VILLAGE DISTRICTS LEGEND W.H1 aknc Auh.Rietri-re Villaan Mi—d Vac aff c3 0 4ie51dgM1al Street Character Zorms Re;laentw ur03n Mbrid-U'r Ortlar; Highway: C-ledwev O'erfays Trails AMEMEMEMEM $trCClt ure aIle or -.freer Both SAes o(Streei V 0 100 200 300 Feet 1<SrfY�Yr' LEGEND O Apartment (S(ruclurai Parking) © Retail © RestaurantI Retail ® Central Plaza IS Garden Office ® Grocery 9 Apartment (Surface Perking) ® Holel (D Lake m Movie Theater (D Flex O SUudural Parking 0 Tom House Q) Office Above Retail ® Mix Use Building Q Office O Wedding Chapel I Complex O Amphitheater ® Residential Residential Above Retail ®' Resldentlal Above Office WOLF LAKES GEORGETOWN, TX 1-35 & TX 29, Georgetown, TX 76626 W I V rr t K W 1 CONCEPT MASTERPLAN CALLISOK-ML WOL Fk September 27, 2017 A DESIGN CONSULTANCY OF ARCARIS LAKES "; HALFF� Glohalrd CI�LLI$SOA'�TKOL EXHIBIT C -F STEGER ^ Iz7ELL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Wolf Lakes Village Planned Unit Development document was developed by Iva and Donald McLachlan with the technical assistance of Halff Associates, Inc., Blackard Global, Inc., and other key members of the project team. The following organizations and individuals are recognized for their contributions to the preparation of this document. A special debt of gratitude is owed to the City of Georgetown staff team for their guidance and key contributions throughout the creation of this document. The City's valuable partnership ensured a development framework that will allow the Wolf Lakes Village vision to become a reality. OWNER Wolf Lakes, LP Iva Wolf McLachlan, President Donald McLachlan, Vice -President MASTER DEVELOPER Iva Wolf McLachlan Donald McLachlan BLACKARD GLOBAL, INC. Jeff Blackard Jed Rollins 3DREAM STUDIOS David Keesee HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC. Jordan Maddox, AICP, PUD Project Manager Jordan Pickering Kyle Hohmann Tyler Richburg, PLA CALLISONRTKL Brian Adams, PLA, CLARB, ASLA, IFLA Will Cotton, LEED GA Emily Drake, PLA, ASLA STEGER BIZZELL Jim Cummins, PE Miguel Escobar, LSLS, RPLS Kyle Miller Johnny Powers TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................4 II. VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................ :_...:.:..:...:................ :........... 6 III. ZONING AND LAND USE FRAMEWORK..................................................8 IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.......................,..........:..................................14 V. OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND ............................. .... ................................. 18 VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.......:....................._.......::........20 VII. VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING.............................................................24 VIII. LANDSCAPING AND TREES........................ IX. ENVIRONMENTAL AND STORMWATER............:....................................32 X. UTILITIES............................................................................................................34 XI. SIGNAGE ..................... ..............................................................................36 XII. MODIFICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION.......................:...............::..40 XIII. DEFINITIONS................:..:....................................:.::...:.............:...............::.::..42 XIV. EXHIBITS............................................................................................................44 9 I. INTRODUCTION Wolf Lakes Village is a 164 -acre project located near the heart of Georgetown that seeks to combine the best of modern amenities with the charm of an old-world village, a distinctive form known as neo-retroism. The property is located at the northwest corner of Interstate 35 and University Avenue (SH 29), bounded by Wolf Ranch Parkway to the west and the River Hills subdivision to the north. Strategically planned by the City for high-density mixed-use, this Planned Unit Development (PUD) seeks to realize that vision by establishing the overarching intent of .. Wolf takes Village and provide for development standards that will accommodate the village land plan. The purpose of this document is to provide the community with certainty of the big -picture outcomes and create a sustainable lorry term _'Op framework for build -out. A �~ : • 4*T . i The Wolf Lakes Village project, as defined in "Exhibit CY' of this Development Plan, will be developed consistent with the Development Agreement between Wolf Legacy, LP and the City of Georgetown (Document 2014095878), which formed the shared development vision for most of the land. The agreement stated that the land "shall be reserved for large-scale mixed-use and commercial development, with an emphasis on urban character and building form." The agreement further describes a desire for a mix of uses and form -based architecture focusing on pedestrian -oriented scale and street design. The Wolf Lakes Village PUD Development Plan will be paired with private covenants and restrictions that will include detailed building design guidelines, enforced by a property owner's association. The internal guidelines will ensure architectural consistency but allow for flexibility for a particular user or situation. The two documents will form the regulating plan for the 164 acres that will guide predominant land use and character, while allowing for creativity in building placement, people movement, and phasing. 5 , L. a ^ hK. VISION AND . ' ' GUIDING PRINCIPLES ��\�|LxUU��� �K�|��x�l�LL.� ^0 � TheWolf Lakes Village concept isablend of n~ - _ . European village design with traditional retail ' and _ asacohesive development unit. The 164' ' ^ ac"et,actwiU contain adiverse mix ofuses, Tr ^ ' densities, andbui|�in�sca|evvithaconmmnnn . unifying architectural theme and distinct Wolf Lakes Village brand, creating rone-of'a-kind destination. The project will befocused onthe featured lake inthe heart ofthe village area, which will contain public gathering spaces oriented topedestrian activity and amenities suitable tonmixed-use environment. The Wolf Lakes Village plan envisions live - work, hve w k nmix � ' . e usedevehopmnent"vith Class /\ corporate office ypace, destination retail and regau,ants, high- quality residential, and unique recreational amenities. A �. m �Pw GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Create cohesive architectural design that integrates different uses and sub -areas. • Enhance social interaction through recreation, public spaces, and live/work/play proximity. • Generate sufficient density to promote user demand, destination identity, and a sense of place. • Orchestrate best -in -class users that create optimum conditions for a dynamic micro -economy. Design a pedestrian -oriented village to de-emphasize vehicular traffic and expansive parking lots. • Ensure sustainability through consistent focus on quality and a long-term strategic vision. ;,F To Qr 111. ZONING AND LAND - USE FRAMEWORK--,.,, Wolf Lakes Village is predicated on the idea that uses and tenants evolve over time and, thus, this PUD is designed to break apart the traditional role that single -use zoning plays in land development. Much like traditional villages, the types of businesses and composition of residential units matters less than the form and variety of the buildings and their connected public spaces. The three predominant uses throughout the site are retail/commercial, high-density residentiall' and corporate office space. Beyond those predominant uses, there will also be a focus on regional attractions such as hotels, entertainment, and public open space adding to the destination setting. This PUD plan focuses less on which uses go where and more on adaptability to adjust building types, footprints, and tenant spaces as the project evolves. BASE ZONING The base zoning for the one -hundred and sixty four acres will be C-3, General Commercial, as depicted in "Exhibit C.2." The C-3 District is most suitable for the variety and intensity of uses proposed within the project and is the optimal base zoning district for the type of development that will occur here. Many of the concepts and standards found here are drawn from the City's Mixed -Use District's Town Center and Urban Village districts to create a development plan that is unique to this project. WOLF LAKES VILLAGE DISTRICTS For the purposes of this document, the land is divided into four districts and three street character zones (depicted in "Exhibit C.3") that help define the character, density, and predominant land uses. The districts are used to distribute calculations of impervious cover, stormwater, tree preservation, and parking, as set out in this document. The districts are not intended to be exclusive with strict land uses and standards but function as a guiding framework for future refinement. The Wolf Lakes Village districts are summarized as follows: • Vi//age District - Mixed variety of office, retail, civic, hotel, entertainment, and residential uses. • Mixed -Use District - Retail and personal service, office, and high-density residential uses. • Office District - Mix of office, retail, and residential uses. • Residential District - Primarily residential with some retail, office, hotel, and civic uses. District boundaries are represented to the centerline of their defining boundary streets and include all of the area in between the boundaries. Districts can be modified as set out in Section XII. Street Character Zones, as set out in Section IV of this PUD, provide general design and setback standards for buildings located along designated streets in "Exhibit C.3." CONCEPTUAL MASTER LAND PLAN A conceptual master land plan, as depicted in "Exhibit C.4," is representative of the development vision at the time of PUD approval that will more than likely be adjusted and refined over time. This conceptual plan is not intended as a detailed site plan but is included in this PUD document as a plan to ensure big -picture elements (density, open space, impervious cover, stormwater, parking, etc.) can be accommodated on site. Due to the complexity of a project of this magnitude, precise building footprints and configurations, street alignments, and vehicle parking will be determined at the time of the City's Site Development Plan process and are not required to be located as shown in "Exhibit C.4." LAND USES All land uses governed by the C-3, General Commercial, District in the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) shall apply, except as modified in this section. Table 3.1, below, includes modifications to the UDC Chapter 5 land use tables for certain uses that are not permitted or require a Special Use Permit (SUP) in the UDC that are allowed in Wolf Lakes Village. A shaded column has been added in the table for a comparison to UDC use restrictions. Table 3.1 Land Use Modifications •� ,WOLF LAKES VILLAGE DISTRICTS UDC Village Mixed -Use Office Residential Residential S L L L L Accessory Dwelling Unit - P - P P Bed and Breakfast P P P Self -Storage, Indoor S L L L L Commercial Document Storage - P P Artisanal Production/Retail N/A P P P Horse Stable N/A L -- - Table Notes: S = Special Use Permit P = Permitted L = Limited -- = Not Allowed E LIMITED USES Residential Use Residential uses are allowed as limited in Table 3.2. Upper -story units are encouraged, but not required, in the Village, Mixed -Use, and Office Districts. Multi -unit building units may be transferred from one district to any other district except the Office district (even if the transferred units exceed that district's maximum); however, in no case shall the transferred units exceed 20% greater than a district maximum. Additionally, any residential units built in the Mixed -Use district that exceed the maximum allowed in Table 3.2 shall be limited to upper -story only. In no case shall the total residential units exceed 2500 overall, unless approved by the City Council through an amendment to this PUD. Table 3.2 Residential Use Limitations Single -Unit Residential 30 - - 50 50 Building (units) Multi -Unit Residential 300 500 500 1800 2500 Building (units) Total number of units 300 500 500 1800 2500 Note: Aggregate numbers purposely exceed the total in the far column to allow for flexibility between housing types and location. Single -Unit Residential Building (1 unit) Multi -Unit Residential 20 - 120 140 Building (2-6 units) Multi -Unit Residential 100 1000 1100 Building (7+ units) Total number of units 120 1120 1240 (Minimum) ice Self -Storage, Indoor Self -storage is allowed within each district on a limited basis to allow for urban residents and commercial tenants to have close proximity to certain belongings. These will be walk -to storage facilities used primarily by Wolf Lakes Village residents and tenants that will be located in contained areas such as structured parking garages or interior to buildings. Storage units associated with and located within a private apartment site are exempt from these limitations. Further restrictions include: • Leasable storage units shall not be located within the first 500 feet of the perimeter of the project. • One building is allowed to be 100% leasable storage units, not to exceed 50,000 square feet; for any other buildings containing leasable storage units, the units shall not exceed 30% of the structure in which they are housed. The building with 100% leasable storage shall not directly front on any segment of a street designated as a Mixed -Use Urban street character zone, as designated on "Exhibit C.3." • Drive -up loading areas are allowed only in structured parking garages. • All other storage units will be accessed through interior doors enclosed in buildings that are architecturally compatible with all other buildings within the development. • Interior individual storage doors shall not be visible from the street. • Buildings containing storage shall meet the building design and material requirements of the PUD. • For the purposes of calculating the gross floor area of non- residential in the subsequent section entitled Phased Mix of Uses, self -storage units shall not count towards the total GFA. Horse Stable Facility A horse stable is desired within the Village District to provide accommodations for the temporary, and typically seasonal, housing of horses. These animals will partake in periodic horse- drawn carriage rides and similar entertainment functions. The horses will not be used for any type of riding or agricultural activities and the stables will be used only to provide on-site shelter for the animals without transporting them daily off-site. No more than 4 horse stalls shall be constructed within the stable facility. The stable shall be located at least 150 feet away from any building housing a residential use and shall provide adequate driveway access accommodating the requisite truck and horse trailer. The stable shall not be used for commercial purposes or available for lease in any other circumstances than described here. A temporary use permit for occupancy of the stable shall be obtained when the horses will be on-site utilizing the stable and the City will facilitate a long-term automatic renewal on such a permit. A special event permit shall be required for the horses to be on public streets and the City will facilitate a long- term automatic renewal on such a permit. ALL OTHER USES Unless otherwise specified in Table 3.1, all other C-3 uses that are allowed both by -right and with limitations in the UDC are permitted by -right in the Wolf Lakes Village PUD, except a wireless transmission facility is allowed on the Bell Tower and will adhere to all applicable standards of the UDC. Any uses that require an SUP in the UDC that are not listed in Table 3.1 or in the Prohibited Land Uses section will require an SUP in accordance with City procedures. All prohibited C-3 uses not otherwise listed in Table 3.1 are prohibited. PHASED MIX OF USES To fulfill the City's vision for this property specified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the 2014 Wolf Legacy Development Agreement, this PUD identifies minimum commitments for commercial, office and entertainment space in the project. Residential uses shall be phased into the project to ensure a balance of supportive land uses, as follows: • No more than 700 residential units shall be permitted through the building permit approval process prior to the permitting of 150,000 GFA of non-residential development (including retail, office, hotel, indoor entertainment, medical, or similar use, but not including self -storage space). • No more than 950 residential units shall be permitted through the building permit approval process prior to the permitting of 250,000 GFA of non-residential development (including retail, office, hotel, indoor entertainment, medical, or similar use, but not including self -storage space). No more than 1,800 residential units shall be permitted through the building permit approval process prior to the permitting of 450,000 GFA of non-residential development (including retail, office, hotel, indoor entertainment, medical, or similar use, but not including self -storage space). No more than 2,200 residential units shall be permitted through the building permit approval process prior to the permitting of 600,000 GFA of non-residential development (including retail, office, hotel, indoor entertainment, medical, or similar use, but not including self -storage space). m RIVER HILLS TRANSITION ZONE In addition to the four districts, there is an 80 -foot transition area directly adjacent to the River Hills neighborhood. Within this transition area, graphically depicted on "Exhibit C.5," land uses are restricted to townhome, single-family, or two-family residential adjacent to the platted River Hills residential lots. TEMPORARY USES Food Trucks Food trucks, being an integral part of modern urban life, are expected to have a presence within the development. The trucks may be temporarily located in a parking lot, along a street, or in the public plaza. The intent of this PUD is not to create a magnet for food trucks, but to allow for flexibility for local food service. Food trucks locating in the public right-of-way will follow the City's adopted permitting process at the time, as will any potential established food truck courts. Food trucks located individually on private property or serving food on private streets on a temporary basis will not require a temporary use permit but will secure the necessary fire safety approvals. Horse Stable Occupancy As stated previously in this section, the construction of a horse stable within the Village District is permitted with limitations but the occupancy of the stable shall require a temporary use permit. 12 PROHIBITED LAND USES The following uses are prohibited within the project: 1. Automotive Parts and Accessories Sales, Outdoor 2. Automotive Repair and Service, General 3. Cemetery, Mortuary, or Funeral Home 4. Correctional Facility 5. Firing Range (Indoor or Outdoor) 6. Manufactured Housing 7. Manufactured Housing Sales 8. Pawn Shop 9. RV Sales, Rental or Service 10. Self -Storage, Outdoor 11. Sexually -Oriented Business 12. Transient Service Facility 13. Waste -Related Uses 14. Wrecking, Scrap and Salvage Yard 1V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Wolf Lakes Village is founded on the principle 'far" of old-world architectural design and �- craftsmanship. Site and building arrangement s_ will create a compact pedestrian -scaled environment mimicking the scale and livabili ` of a small European village that has evolved + organical over hundreds. if not thousands of; years:. V w �' s+ - *41 r� 7 l-eveloprnent Standards for th,6'property shall �.� adhere to the base standards for the C-3, General Commercial, district as prescribed in the UDC, ex. e t a -#i{c rktated in this section Vol ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Individual buildings will be designed to reinforce the pedestrian orientation of the village with four-sided building design, architectural elements and treatments within the framework of a small European village. The delivery system will be built around construction details, methods, and systems translated to modern foundation and framing construction. Closure, edge/ corner, portal, and base details will be designed to emulate European architecture and building methods. Artistic murals may be integrated into building walls throughout the project, adding color and interest. Buildings will be constructed of 95% Class I and Class II masonry projecting on all four sides with an allowance for occasional architectural wood, metal, and iron embellishments. Primary materials will be cut stone, rock, brick, architectural masonry block, and stucco (or similar mixed aggregate finish). Table 4.1 Building Materials Village Mixed -Use Office Residential Class I (minimum) 90% 50% 50% 30% Class I materials include: Stone, Rock, Brick, Thin Brick, Stone Veneer Class II (maximum) 5% 45% 45% 65% Class II materials include: Stucco, Architectural concrete masonry block Prohibited Materials: EIFS, Fiber Cement, Metal R -Paneling, Unfinished con- crete wall (except for structured parking) BUILDING ARTICULATION Articulation will be achieved through arches, balconies, oversized windows, awnings, changes in vertical or horizontal facade plane, variations in stone coursing, field stone patterning, and natural stone shelves, niches or carvings. Perpendicular and lateral offsets more than one foot from the primary facade plane at times may be disruptive to the pedestrian environment and streetscape. Calculated building articulation in UDC Section 7.03 shall apply to all buildings in the Mixed -Use District but shall not directly apply to buildings outside of the Mixed -Use District. Instead, for large facade planes the Director shall consider the building's purpose, architectural features, materials, and locational context to ensure human scale and avoid the appearance of featureless, blank walls. When secondary facades project toward a public street but have little or no activated first floor, additional thought should be put into the architecture of this facade to ensure a seamless transition to the next building. Such an approach should mimic a human scaled first floor with material or color articulation, artistic interest, landscaped screening, or similar design component to ensure that this building face does not create a street "dead" zone. STREET CHARACTER ZONES Street Character Zones are representative of the relationship between the building and the street -level in certain parts of the project. Photo examples representative of urban street character can be found in "Exhibit C.B." Character zones can be found on the Development Framework ("Exhibit C.3") along certain delineated streets. For the specific streets adjacent to the Village, some streets have required character elements only on one side of the street; other depicted streets are shown as both sides of the street. Residential Urban Residential Urban street character is intended to be generally more passive in daily activity than the Mixed -Use Urban street character. Multi -unit buildings constructed along these streets will generally be built around 10 feet of the street right-of-way with a green yard between the building and the sidewalk, if not directly to the sidewalk. A maximum setback of 20 feet (averaged along each building fa(;ade) will be adhered to along these designated blocks. Buildings along these designated zones will present their Primary Architectural Fapade towards the streets and include architectural building elements such as awnings, balconies, and pedestrian street entry. Townhouses or smaller residential units may be set back further from the roadway with no direct access from these streets. No demarcated off-street parking is allowed between these primary structures and the public streets. Buildings designed to be constructed away from the street scene are exempt from the maximum setback and parking demarcation requirements. Pedestrians are shielded from the street traffic by parallel parking for most of the street section, separated driveway breaks and street trees. IN Mixed -Use Urban Mixed -Use Urban street character is intended to be generally more active with more of a main street feel and character. This character zone is intended for pedestrian usage for walking to work, shopping, dining, entertainment, and residential. These streets will be predominantly built -to the street right-of-way, with a maximum setback of 15 feet (averaged along each block face). Exceptions to the setback are allowed for open space, public plazas, outdoor dining areas, and landscaped yards. Buildings along these zones will present their Primary Architectural Fapade towards the streets. In the Mixed -Use Urban zone, buildings shall have enhanced glazing, sidewalk lighting, street furnishings and few vehicular driveways between each block. No demarcated off-street parking is allowed between these primary structures and the public streets. Buildings designed to be constructed away from the street scene are exempt from the maximum setback and parking demarcation requirements. Pedestrians are shielded from the street traffic with street trees, parallel parking for most of the street section, and minimal driveway breaks. Highway/Gateway Highway/Gateway street character is intended to show an attractive appearance to the regional roadways from an architectural and landscape standpoint. A 25 -foot gateway landscape buffer with enhanced plantings is located along the boundary in the Gateway overlay street zone. All buildings directly facing University Avenue and IH -35 will be Class I masonry and project a primary fapade towards the major streets. Structured parking garages that directly face these roadways shall contain architectural treatments described in Section VII, Vehicle and Bicycle Parking. Table 4.2 Development Standards Building Height (feet)' 80' 60' Off ice 75' Residential 60' Building Height - River Hills Transition Zone N/A N/A N/A 35' Building Height - Bell Tower 195' - -- - Building Separation (feet) 1013 10' 10' 10' Residential Density (units/acre) 50 N/A 50 50 Residential Units per Building (max.) No limit N/A No limit No limit Residential Dwelling Unit Size (min.) No min. N/A No min. No min Minimum Lot Size None None None None Minimum Lot Width - Interior Street (feet) 15' 15' 15' 15 Interior Street Setback - Buildings (feet) 0' 10' 0' 0' Interior Street Setback - Off-street Parking (feet)' 10' 15' 15' 15' Perimeter Street Setback (feet) 25' 25' 15/25" 15'/25" Internal Side Setback (feet) 0' 0' 0' 0' Rear Setback (feet) 0' 0' 0' 0' River Hills Bufferyard (feet) 30' N/A N/A 30' Impervious Cover (max.) 90% 80% 80% 70% Table Notes: 1 A corporate office building built in any Wolf Lakes Village district shall be allowed a building height of 140 feet. 2. The River Hills Transition Zone ("Exhibit C.5") extends 80 feet from the boundary of River Hills' residential lots, 3. In the Village District, buildings may be proposed that encroach into the 10' separation to create architectural interest. At the time of Site Development Plan, the designers will work with the City's Fire Department to ensure fire safety and compliance. 4. Parking shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the property line on Wolf Ranch Parkway and on Memorial Drive. Buildings may be set back at up to 15 feet. 17 a V. OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND An urban village m.us''have public open spaces, amenities, and features that encourage human interaction in central gathering places. Historic villages found vitality in a centralized, common destination space for citizens to congregate, relax, be entertained, and enjoy the outdoors. Often that space was the town plaza, civic square, a sustaining town resource such as a water body, or a well-designed park space, each of these a place where people of all ages would use at various times as -an amenity. Wolf Lakes Village takes inspirati.onffr_om these timeless focal points and see k.Q_ n open space/parkland plan suitable to a dense environment and the urban open space expectations of the Wolf Lakes Village residents. ' - ems- y ''•} ri er OPEN SPACES AND AMENITIES Wolf Lakes Village will include public spaces and amenities open to and usable by the general public that will occupy approximately 10 percent of the property acreage and will be predominantly privately -owned and maintained, as depicted in "Exhibit C.10." The following amenities will be included on-site unless otherwise indicated. • A Performing Arts Amphitheater, projected to be up to 3,500 seats, which will sit on approximately one acre at the edge of the lake in the heart of the Village. The amphitheater may be constructed at the developer's choosing but is not required by this PUD. • Central Public Plaza (minimum 5,000 square feet) with wide concourses, landscaping, featured art displays, etc. The plaza will be set up to accommodate farmer's markets, an annual large Christmas Tree, and horse carriage rides. • Two pocket parks (minimum 3,000 square feet). • Two playgrounds (minimum 1,000 square feet) with small playscapes or open green lawn areas. • An open-air pavilion for performances and events. • At least two featured lakes, including amenities such as walking trails, landscaping, benches. • An oversized trail connection (minimum 10 -foot concrete section) to the Wolf Legacy/Wolf Ranch Parkway intersection (potential future signal) to connect pedestrians and bicyclists to the Wolf Ranch Trail and eventual connections to the South Fork Trail and North Fork Trail. Trails and sidewalks (minimum 6 -foot concrete section), as depicted in "Exhibit C.10," which will connect the predominantly residential areas to employment and activity centers. Additionally, off-street nature trails may be considered by the developer in areas not contemplated in "Exhibit C.10," which may be constructed of any size and of more natural materials such as decomposed granite, mulch, and other materials. • Urban street trees, creating linear green spaces. Sports Court/Ice Skating Rink. A sports court may be constructed, but not required by this PUD, that can serve as an all-purpose playing surface during warmer months and serve as the platform for a temporary ice skating rink during winter months. The skating rink would be a portable, unenclosed structure and not require a temporary use permit when installed. • Private common green spaces in the residential areas. • Individual residential amenities for apartment and townhouse sites meeting the UDC requirements. The preceding public spaces and amenity features will satisfy the requirements for public parkland dedication and no other dedication or improvement fees will be required. The developer will work with the City's Parks and Recreation Director to ensure that playground equipment meets acceptable safety standards. 19 `k 1 V' TRA SPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Transportation is a key component of the project. with a focus on both internal circulation and ess to perimeter streets. The main street �T .tem within the Wolf Lakes Village project ,.will be public streets in order to best serve the dense mixture of uses within the project. Private streets can also be considered within the project, primarily for secondary streets, or by mutual agreement between the City and developer, In addition, private driveways will be included to provide access and circulation to and within retail, office and residential areas. A primary emphasis regarding street and building design are safe and visible travelways for bicycle and pedestrian movement as well as consideration for future transit opportunities. Interior streets will be lined with trees, which will lower vehicle speeds and encourage walkability and street activity. INTERIOR STREETS Street Types Interior streets within the Wolf Lakes Village property include three primary street types with varying carrying capacity and contextual design standards. The cross-sections for each street type are graphically depicted in "Exhibit C.6." The streets in this PUD are assigned in context with the development and vary block -by -block based on the land use and intensity that the street is serving. The street layout is depicted in "Exhibit C.7." A Streets are 4 -lane boulevards that carry higher traffic volumes and do not provide on -street parking. Medians and wide parkways allow for shade trees and provide pedestrian separation from the street. Structures may be built to a minimum 10 -foot setback from the street right of way, but this street type is less of a pedestrian experience and more focused on vehicles. Surface parking lots may abut the street providing they are set back with a minimum 15 -foot green lawn and shade trees separating the parking areas from the street. B Streets are perimeter street connectors, which provide for an auxiliary lane to allow turning movements as needed depending on the context. The third lane may be a central left turn, a flared right-hand turn lane, dual left or dual right, where needed based on traffic movements. Striping, curbing, median and intersection design will delineate the traffic movement, as appropriate. CStreets are local urban streets that typically include on -street parking and are intended for direct access to buildings. • All internal streets will be designed and posted at 20 mph • Interior streets will generally be shared facilities for vehicles, bicycles, electric carts, and transit vehicles. ■ Certain streets are designated as flex parking on "Exhibit C.7" to accommodate the ultimate street design that will be determined based on land use and density. These flex streets typically align with Street Character Zones (as depicted in "Exhibit C.3") that reflect the pedestrian - building relationship. The flexible street designation relates only to how on -street parking is handled (whether angled, parallel, or no parking). • Interior streets and driveways will provide secondary access for public safety in accordance with the City's adopted Fire Code. • Streets may be temporarily closed periodically for events for short time periods, with the approval of a long-term, automatically -renewing Special Event permit. Median -Divided Streets Any median -divided A or B street within Wolf Lakes Village will have parking prohibited parallel to the median and will contain travelways at a minimum of 15 feet wide, measured at back -of -curb. No median will extend beyond 200 feet in length to ensure maneuverability for emergency response and no driveway access may occur for adjacent development along the length of the median. If an adjacent building dictates the need for an aerial apparatus, then a wider pavement section may be required per the fire code. Construction and Maintenance Interior streets, whether dedicated to the public or privately owned and maintained by a property owner's association, will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed City street standards. Where alternative surfaces, such as stamped concrete, do not adhere to City maintenance standards, the property owner's association will provide a maintenance agreement with the City for ongoing surface maintenance. 21 Street Lighting, Signage and Furnishings Streets will contain antique -style light poles and fixtures, reminiscent of a European village that brings ambiance and aesthetics to the streets during both the day and at night. Streets will also include sleek but classic pedestrian benches and matching waste/recycling receptacles on each block. Interior streets will contain street signage that will evoke old- world European street signs while meeting modern safety and ADA standards. "Exhibit CH' provides a general representation of the style of street lighting, signage, and furnishings. Street Naming and Addressing Interior Streets shall be named according to "Exhibit C.7." All interior public and private streets shall be addressed in accordance with the City's requirements. Driveways connecting to perimeter streets such as University Avenue and IH -35 will be signed and named for emergency services. Additional names of streets and major driveway connections to perimeter streets not shown on "Exhibit C.7" are reserved by this PUD for future use, as follows: • Via Galleria • Bella June Court • Wolf Villa Cove • Via Condotti • Bella Vita Drive • Azzurro Way • La Casa Mia • Via Gloria PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES Bicycles will be given special accommodation on part of Wolf Lakes Drive and part of Legacy Crossing (or alternative off-street routes) to ensure safety on these streets and to 22 provide external access to major roadways and regional trail connections. All other streets will have shared lanes for bicycles and vehicles. • Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of all streets at a minimum width of six (6) feet, which can be marginally reduced at the site development and construction stages to account for intermittent trees, and street furnishings. Compliance with ADA shall be met. • When a street sidewalk and a trail are designated in the same location, the shared path will be a minimum width of 10 feet, constructed of concrete, pavers, brick, or similar enhanced paving material representative of the character area on that street or block. Pedestrian pathways will extend from the street sidewalk to the primary entry of all retail, office, hotel, and entertainment structures. Pass-through landscaped pedestrian paths will be constructed in parking lots to break up large expanses of parking to provide safe pedestrian connection from parking spaces to the building entries. PERIMETER STREETS Wolf Lakes Drive Entry Wolf Lakes Drive will be partially reconstructed at the developer's expense to include a wider, landscaped median that will adequately allow for signage without obstructing vehicular visibility (see "Exhibit C.11"). The intersection of Memorial Drive and Wolf Lakes Drive will be re -aligned to the north to include a three -spoke roundabout known hereinafter as Wolf Lakes Circle, which will be within the public right-of-way. The Wolf Lakes Circle island interior will be platted as a landscape lot that will be owned and maintained by the property owner's association and will include signage, architectural features, and landscaping. Perimeter Street Right -of -Way There are five perimeter streets that frame most of the boundary of the property, some of which will require additional right-of- way to meet the City's minimum street standards. At the time that land adjacent to these streets is platted, right-of-way will be dedicated to allow for planned expansion, as follows: Table 6.1 Perimeter Street Right -of -Way Memorial Drive 47 50 3 University Ave. / SH 29 163 135 0 Wolf Lakes Drive 100 73 0 Wolf Ranch Parkway 64 73 9 Interstate 35 No right-of-way requ.red River Hills Street Connectivity Wolf Lakes Village is a direct neighbor to the low-density residential subdivision to the north called River Hills. To avert cut -through traffic through the neighborhood to Interstate 35, the Wolf Lakes Village project will not provide public street connection to the three (3) public street stubs at the common property line. Instead, an access lane will be constructed within Wolf Lakes Village to a gate that will be installed at the developer's expense adjacent to the southernmost extent of the Hillview Drive right -of way (as shown in "Exhibit C.9"). The gate will be built to standards approved by the City's Fire Department for the purpose of emergency access. Traffic Impact Analysis The Traffic Impact Analysis provides for locations where perimeter improvements will be required within the time frames set out in that document. To accommodate such improvements, additional right-of-way may be needed in those locations. MISCELLANEOUS Subdivision Plats All fee -simple lots created within the project will contain street frontage to a public or private street, regardless of land use. Flag lots shall be permitted on Interior Streets only, at a minimum width of 15 feet, to meet street frontage requirements. Ownership and maintenance of designated private streets and street features such as sidewalks, trees, landscaping, signage, benches, waste receptacles and lighting shall be the responsibility of the property owner's association. Service Delivery and Drives Delivery and service vehicles will utilize alleys, structured parking garages, and off-street parking lots where possible to minimize conflicts with pedestrians. At times, service trucks will enter driveways directly from public streets. If possible, loading areas will be located behind buildings or screening walls. Delivery trucks and services may use temporary loading zones outside of traffic lanes in the public rights-of-way or in off-street parking lots. Transit Wolf Lakes Village will be a partner with the City on potential transit locations and other alternative public transportation methods that efficiently and safely move people to Downtown and other destinations. The Wolf Lakes Village designers will work with the City staff to locate attractive facilities within the development that connect bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicles with today's and tomorrow's means of transportation. 23 VII. VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING The urban village concept in Wolf Lakes Village will not be feasible with standard minimum parking requirements. Central to the theme of pedestrian -oriented design, urban density, and shared facilities is the de -emphasis of vehicular parking within the project boundaries. Much of the parking needed to serve this enclosed site will be balanced by the mix of land uses, shared -K use, alternating peak volume structured parking garages, and the embrace of a pedestrian i, environment. Street parking will be heavily utilized to reduce expansive parking lots, slow --� traffic, and gain parking efficiency. Wolf Lakes Village will be a bicycle friendly environment, with low speeds on shady streets, bake parking amenities, and future potential for a bike share j program. _— ,e - _•.. 4d 07. fir• -- 41. -571 •-� �1` n1i - IL � �-.err .i� � .. �r r BICYCLE PARKING Bicycle and pedestrian activity within Wolf Lakes Village is a crucial part of what will make the project feel and function as a true village. The mix of uses and employment opportunities means that the site will need to accommodate bicycle parking in addition to vehicular parking. The following standards are minimum bicycle requirements for each use, regardless of district: Table 7.1 Bicycle Parking 0.25 spaces per On-site, Residential dwelling unit 4 sheltered and 2 per 2+ BR- secured 3 space per unit Office 10,000 sq. ft. 2 On-site GFA 5 spaces per 1 per 500 Retail 10,000 sq. ft. 2 On-site or GFA on -street Terms: Unit = Dwelling unit, regardless of bedrooms 1 per room GFA = Gross Floor Area square footage Amphitheater VEHICLE PARKING Vehicle Parking shall be achieved through interior street parking and off-street parking lots, including standard size parking spaces, compact, tandem, and motorcycle spaces with no numerical limitation of non-standard spaces. Street parking may be credited towards the minimum parking requirements for an adjacent site plan, when applicable. Delineation of parking spaces may be accomplished through colored or stained concrete pavers or other masonry material. The following table specifies minimum parking requirements for each district per land use. The land uses in the following table represent the Use Categories in Section 9.02 of the UDC and are intended to capture all of the specific uses within each category, unless otherwise specified. Table 7.2 Vehicular Parking 1 per 1 BR -unit; 1 per 1 BR -unit; 1 per 1 BR -unit; Residential 1 per unit 2 per 2+ BR- 2 per 2+ BR- 2 per 2+ BR - unit unit unit Commercial) Civic (GFA) 1 per 500 1 per 300 Office (GFA) 1 per 500 1 per 500 1 per 300 Hotel 1 per room — 1 per room 1 per room Amphitheater 1 per 300 — (GFA) - Terms: Unit = Dwelling unit, regardless of bedrooms GFA = Gross Floor Area square footage BR = Bedroom Room = Hotel Guest Room 25 PARKING LOT DESIGN Surface Parking Surface parking lots will have accented design materials embedded into the surface material, where appropriate, which may include stamped concrete, rock, stone, brick, and other durable surface materials. Surface parking lots will be screened from public streets in accordance with Section VIII of this PUD, and include Shade Trees to ensure shade and comfort for pedestrians and vehicles. Structured Parking Structured parking garages may be constructed of concrete materials but shall be finished with a Class I or Class II masonry on all street -facing facades, in accordance with Table 4.1. Parking garage facades abutting a street within a Residential Urban, Mixed -Use Urban, or Highway/Gateway character zone, public plaza, park, or trail shall contain, on all levels, architectural features such as arches, openings similar to windows, at least one change in texture or material, and vehicles shall be screened with an opaque wall extending 36" above the finished floor of each floor of the garage. Additionally, the street -facing garage shall be wrapped with either: 1. A habitable building space; 2. An architectural building wall giving the appearance of habitable space; or 3. A 20 -foot minimum landscaped yard with a landscape screening wall equal to the height of the first floor. 27 r •t. b x VIII. - ANDSCAPING AND TREES An urban tree canopy and integration of landscaping into the project are crucial to establishing the setting for Wolf Lakes Village. In order to provide the density and close proximity of buildings and amenities `a in the Village, some native trees will need to ti. . be removed. Most of the property consists of existing plant and tree species that are not on the City's protected list so the focus of Wolf Lakes Village will be creating a new _. tree canopy that fits in appropriately with thle development. Some existing tree preservati will be important in certain areas, like the •..�w perimeter, but this urban project requires a orf///y different perspective. New street trees will be placed along all streets within the project, using street -friendly species, and root protection techniques. Within the Village District and interior to multi -family buildings, landscaping will be context -specific and may include elements such as planters, green walls, hanging baskets, and courtyard grioundcover. I t i .� r - r - - 4 J•'f ' �r4k. low 1 i 7. low 1 PERIMETER LANDSCAPING Wolf Lakes Village will exceed the UDC landscaping and screening requirements around the perimeter of the development to provide an aesthetically pleasing front yard to these major thoroughfares. The 25 -foot Interstate 35 and University Avenue Gateway Overlay District gateway landscape buffer will contain native and adaptive plant species with seasonal interest located around the public sidewalk, signage, and landscape features. The Wolf Lakes Village gateway buffers will be planted with double the amount of UDC -required shrubs, that is, 10 for every 1,000 sq. foot area. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING Interior to the project, landscaping will be an integral part of the overall project design, yet the purpose of the high density, mixed-use environment is to collapse the separation of uses and need for buffering. As such, interior landscaping shall adhere to the following provisions: • Street yard landscaping in UDC Section 8.04 shall not apply to private driveways within the project site, but shall apply to public and private streets. • Screening of parking in UDC Section 8.04 shall not apply to parking lots facing private driveways within the project site, but shall apply to public and private streets. • Screening of mechanical equipment and waste/recycling containers shall meet the UDC requirements. Enclosures shall resemble the composition of nearby buildings and be finished with 100% Class I or Class II masonry. • There shall be no buffering or screening required between lots or uses interior to the project. • Artificial turf is allowed on a minimal basis within the site but shall not count as a pervious surface. SHADE TREES Shade trees planted in surface parking lots and along private driveways shall follow the spacing and canopy requirements in the UDC. Streets will be designed with the trees' health and vitality in mind and the trees will be planted during the construction phase, ensuring accountability and sound standards for both the infrastructure and the tree. Street trees located in public street right-of-way shall be spaced a minimum of 30 feet apart and be constructed with root barrier protections in accordance with the UDC. RIVER HILLS BUFFER Adjacent to the residential lots in the existing River Hills subdivision, Wolf Lakes Village will provide a 30 -foot wide landscaped bufferyard with a 3 -foot tall berm (3:1 slope) planted with large evergreen shrubs staggered naturally atop the berm, which may include Eastern Red Cedar or similar coniferous species. Existing mature vegetation within the bufferyard may be retained at times, which may preclude the need for the berm in certain locations. FENCING No residential boundary walls shall be required along any Perimeter or Interior Street. Any fencing that is erected as a screening device along a Perimeter Street will be constructed of masonry, if opaque, or wrought iron. No fencing or walls are required between uses or lots within the project. If fencing is erected interior to the project, it will be masonry or iron/similar material. All mechanical screening and dumpster enclosures shall meet the UDC requirements for screening. 29 TREE PRESERVATION/MITIGATION The 2017 tree survey for the property depicts all Protected and Heritage trees on site. There are 29 single -trunk Heritage Trees on the property, a total of 918 inches. Additionally, there are 77 multi -trunk trees that total 2585 inches. An effort will be made to preserve and design around as many Heritage Trees as possible, but off -sets will be required to achieve a more urban development design. Table 8.1 sets out the overall site preservation and mitigation standards Tree Preservation Table 8.1 Tree Preservation Heritage Trees - 40 80 100 80 Overall Heritage Trees— 50 70 100 70 single -trunk Heritage Trees— 20 40 100 40 multi -trunk Protected -- 20 20 20 Tree removals that exceed the allowances in Table 8.1 shall be administratively approved up to a 10% variation, in accordance with Section XII of this PUD; any additional removals will require City Council approval through a Heritage Tree Removal Permit or similar City process at the time desired. 30 Tree Mitigation Minimum preservation percentages shall be applied for each dis- trict and not for individual Site Development Plans, as follows: • 4:1 mitigation ratio per Single -Trunk Heritage Tree inch removed overall site • 2:1 mitigation ratio per Multi -Trunk Heritage Tree inch removed overall site • 1:1 mitigation ratio for 40 percent of Protected Tree inches removed overall site in accordance with the UDC Mitigation trees can be planted in common areas (whether public or privately -owned), specified parks and open space areas, and as street trees (whether on public or private streets). When a cash payment in lieu of replanting would otherwise be required, up to 30% of the payment shall be allocated towards aeration/fertilization, as directed by the City's arborist. Each Site Development Plan will include a table tracking tree removals and mitigation within the specific district. FIN, '1— Al V . . . . . . . . . . . . . ygi J.m IF oq�--ffl i IF vvw, .. . . ...... 4w U. Al V U. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL AND STORMWATER To establish the density crucial to achieving the office, retail, and entertainment components of the project, impervious surfaces will occupy a significant portion of the property upon build -out. Nevertheless, the project will provide significant open space throughout the project, particularly within the Village and Residential districts. Within the Village district, much of this open space will be in the plaza, promenade, and gathering places around the chapel and bell tower, which will be surfaced with materials considered to be impervious. To support this type of dense environment, the typical maximum impervious cover limitations will be exceeded within the project, although the lot coverage requirements are consistent with the City's MU District. The effect of higher impervious cover will be balanced �'_ .�' environmentally with the regional "lakes" concept, which provides for on-site containment of stormwater run-off, in addition to other environmental design techniques that off -set the `• ,' il■■ additional impervious cover. r' Jr n fr •.- r � r �r* STORMWATER A critical component of the Wolf Lakes Village project is the minimizing of land -intensive detention/water quality facilities interior to the project and along major community thoroughfares. The plan is to build and accentuate regional stormwater facilities known as the "lakes," that will function as both open space features and environmental features. These lakes will not be designed as vertical wall open-air bathtubs that fill only in a rain event, but rather as variable volume wet ponds that will be integrated into the built environment around them as a property enhancement. Each will meet TCEQ filtration requirements. In addition to the on-site detention and water quality ponds, portions of the property have been included with the design of existing stormwater facilities off-site. Additional volume capacity will be retained on-site in regional facilities so that no individual detention or water quality will be required for development sites or future platted lots. Necessary ponds and requisite conveyance will meet the requirements of the City's Drainage Manual. Stormwater detention/water quality facilities and any associated buffer areas will be designed and constructed in conformance with the City's regulations. The inclusion of the lakes as regional investments for the project entirety allows the remaining developable land to reach higher value potential instead of allotting "pervious" open space into structural stormwater ponds. As stated in Section IV, Development Standards, of this PUD, Impervious Cover maximums are limited by each district, as set out in Table 9.1. Table 9.1 Impervious Cover by District Impervious Cover 90 80 80 70 80 Maximum % Every Site Development Plan will include a tracking table of the impervious cover allotment per district to ensure ongoing compliance. The impervious cover maximum percentages described in Table 9.1 are assured without waivers or further calculations. An individual site may exceed the maximum percentage but only if offset by open space or if the cumulative impervious cover remains below each district's maximum number. In lieu of UDC waivers, this PUD details regional solutions and low -impact development techniques that will be utilized throughout the project. As described in the table, wet ponds will be designed and constructed as regional improvements and credited for each district. The City's Engineer will ensure that development includes these stormwater methods along with other methods below within their respective drainage basins prior to approval of Site Development Plans. Environmentally -friendly stormwater methods include: • Three wet ponds (the "lakes") • Rain gardens • Rainwater harvesting • Permeable pavement for Heritage trees • Tree islands with ribbon curbing • Bioretention • Vegetative Filter Strips • Grass -lined Swales Kiri UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS Below are specific utility provisions that apply to the development of the project: • Above -ground electrical transformers shall be located away from primary street corridors, intersections, and property entry points. • A 15 -foot public utility easement shall be provided by plat or special instrument along IH -35, University Avenue, and Wolf Ranch Parkway. Stormwater Lakes may encroach into these PUEs but no closer than ten (10) feet from the right-of-way and only the back slope portion of the pond. • For private streets, right-of-way easements shall be recorded by either plat or special instrument. • All Interior Streets, whether public or private, shall require no additional utility easements outside of the street right- of-way or right-of-way easement. • When off-street easements are necessary, the size of the easement may be reduced when space -constrained for special situations such as trees, buildings and water features. The City agrees to work with the engineer to achieve balance in this regard. • All public and private streets will follow the City's utility assignments, except for the additional parallel easements. 35 XI. SIGNAGE Signage is critical to the success of the project so that internal businesses may advertise their presence along the major roadway frontages while minimizing the signage internal to the project. The configuration of the overall site is such that the majority of businesses, both corporate and retail -oriented, will be focused inward without frontage or visibility on the major perimeter streets. Therefore, a strong branding and identification presence will be established along the Interstate 35 and University Avenue edges. In the Village area, the signage theme is predicated on old-world village aesthetics where signs are human -scaled and visible at a walking pace on a narrow street. mow: M, 0 r- PERIMETER SIGNAGE Perimeter Sign Types In order to minimize the amount of signage along the perimeter streets, the following types of monument signs are established for the perimeter of the site, as located and further described in "Exhibit C.11": • Two High -Profile Monument Signs for multi -tenants • Three Medium -Profile Monument Signs for multi -tenants • Four Low -Profile Monument Signs, potentially for multi - tenants • Three Corporate Monument Signs, potentially for multi - tenants • Four Wolf Lakes Village (branding) Monument Signs There will be no residential "Subdivision Entry" signs, as those signs are defined by the UDC The developer may choose to assign space on perimeter signs to companies located within the site that do not have frontage on the sign's adjacent roadway The welcoming feature that will be constructed in the lot interior to Wolf Lakes Circle shall be considered a landscape feature and not a sign. This feature may include Wolf Lakes Village emblems or branding lettering so long as such additions do not exceed five (5) feet in height and 12 feet in total dimensional area. No other commercial signage shall be permitted interior to the circle. The low -profile, corporate and branding signs may be interchanged as far as location to ensure flexibility and design context. For example, a Wolf Lakes Village branding sign could be placed on a sign designed with the dimensions of the corporate monument instead. Perimeter Sign Design and Materials The materials for perimeter signs will evoke the architectural style located throughout the project and may take on certain elements associated with nearby buildings; for example, the design of a corporate monument sign might include iron or more modern flavor complementary of the adjacent corporate office building. Accordingly, the signs may vary based on their location and context but will remain consistent with the general design theme. The signs shown in "Exhibit C.11" are not intended to be precise depictions of the final signage, but are representative of the character and quality of architecture and materials. Final designs will be submitted at the time of permit to the City. Sign height is measured from the predominant horizontal height of the sign and does not include minor appurtenances such as columns, caps, or similar embellishments. WOLF LAKES DRIVE ENTRY SIGNAGE The primary front door for the Wolf Lakes Village development is the Wolf Lakes Drive entryway from University Avenue to Wolf Lakes Circle. It is essential to such a large development site to have an impressive entry that creates street interest for the development and defines its sense of arrival. Signage at the Wolf Lakes Drive entry will provide a window of advertisement for the primary retail tenants that are located interior to the site. The entry feature will be a natural conduit to nearby Wolf Lakes Circle and beyond. Wolf Lakes Drive right-of-way is 100 feet wide with ample room to expand the existing center median and allow for median signage that mirrors the Wolf Ranch Town Center's High -Profile Monument Sign across University Avenue. At the developer's expense, the median and pavement east of the median will be reconstructed to allow for a 10-12 foot median and adequate traffic lanes within the existing right-of-way. On both sides 37 of the Wolf Lakes Drive right-of-way, on private property, a landscaped entry will include a stone wall and pedestrian -scale entry feature that will symbolically define that first step into the development. This branding/landscape feature will follow the standards as described and depicted in "Exhibit C.11." INTERIOR SIGNAGE Within the boundaries of the project, except as stated under the Perimeter Signage sub -section, signs will be restricted in size and sign area according to the UDC. Low -Profile Monument signs not located along the perimeter are allowed in accordance with the UDC. In addition, the following shall apply: • Branding features for Wolf Lakes Village located throughout the site will not be considered signage unless the feature exceeds five (5) feet in height and 12 feet in total dimensional area. • Free-standing signs that have messaging carved into natural stone will not be considered signage unless the stone exceeds five (5) feet in height and 12 feet in total dimensional area. • Building walls that include carved historical representations of older buildings named for a person or business shall not be considered signage unless the sign exceeds three (3) feet in height and 50 feet in total dimensional area. • Wayfinding signs and kiosks interior to the project shall be allowed to be constructed without obtaining a permit five (5) feet in height and 12 feet in total dimensional area. • On Interior Streets, light pole banners may be hung without requesting a permit from the City. K . . . ...... . ....... .... .... r won M& XII. MODIFICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION General Interpretation of Conceptual Master Plan Building footprints, parking locations, streets, trails, and stormwater features will be generally constructed in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan but exact locations will be determined at the Site Development Plan stage. Streets and drive aisles may be adjusted or re-routed as needed. Final locations of these elements that are not in the exact locations shown on the Conceptual Master Plan ("Exhibit CA") will not be considered modifications or amendments. Minor Modifications Minor Modifications are administratively approved without requiring an amendment to the PUD and include adjustments to the Wolf Lakes Village District boundaries not to exceed 20 percent in total area; ingress/egress locations on perimeter streets; and 10 percent of any numerical standards defined in this PUD Development Plan, including but not limited to building heights, setbacks, tree preservation percentages, etc. Site Planning Site Development Plans that are approved by the City shall have no expiration date to allow for the submittal of larger, more comprehensive site submittals that can better account for regional stormwater facilities, impervious cover distribution, parking allotment, tree preservation and new plantings, and allow for more complete street infrastructure construction. Graphics and Illustrations Graphic illustrations and photographic examples included in this PUD document and its corresponding exhibits are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent final designs or additional regulations. 11 XIII. DEFINITIONS All definitions in the UDC shall apply except as modified or supplemented below. Artisanal Production Production and sales of primarily hand-crafted artisanal products such as clothing, jewelry, furniture, art, food, tools, carpentry, household items, and minimal manufacturing in a primarily manual production environment. Shall be considered an office use for purposes of parking calculation. Corporate Monument Sign A low -profile sign intended for the identification of office and corporate users. Indoor Entertainment Indoor commercial entertainment venues intended for active and passive recreation, including but not limited to concert venues, performing arts, cinemas, gaming centers, etc. Perimeter Streets IH -35, West University Avenue, Memorial Drive, Wolf Ranch Parkway, and Wolf Lakes Drive (from West University Avenue to Wolf Lakes Circle). Primary Architectural Facade The building facade that distinguishes itself from a secondary, more passive facade, and typically projects a high level of detail and visual interest through materials, architectural features, lighting, entrance(s), glazing, and does not include service entries or mechanicals. Windows and door entrances can be substituted by niches and alcoves, evoking old-world European architecture. There can be more than one Primary Architectural Facade on a building. Property 164 acres in the Pulsifer and Stubblefield surveys, depicted in "Exhibit CY' and described in the survey attached to this ordinance. Medium -Profile Monument Sign A mid-size monument sign with a masonry base and side framing, as described and located on "Exhibit C.11". UDC The City of Georgetown Unified Development Code on November 12, 2014. M XIV. EXHIBITS Exhibit C.1 - Property Boundary Exhibit C.2 - Base Zoning District Exhibit C.3 - Development Framework Exhibit CA - Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit C.5 - River Hills Transition Zone Exhibit C.6 - Street Cross Sections Exhibit C.7 - Street Network Exhibit C.8 - Street Context Exhibit C.9 - River Hills Gated Connection Exhibit C.10 - Open Space, Parks and Trails Exhibit C.11 - Perimeter Signage Plan GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE 1" = 600' vS Np. p98 k� sNFzv 1D gL�y E cow. 7 4 5 01,0008 '09 �3 r✓� ti 2 c7 1 RIVER HILLS DRIVE 6 6 20 LOCK 8 q 5 5 EEO Cx C 7 21 19 m 3 8 u 4 BLOCK C 22 18 O a e 3 m c ® 23 I7 2 0 1 vot 16 t 164 ACRES is 31 30 BLOCK A ` -T O S © v 13m BLOCK A 7 6 4 3 H K��'� 2 [�ja � Q.O.E. ���5��• I m COUNTY ROAD 265 Cflry[f Pf � 2 S�4 STATE HIGHWAY 29 DETAIL ISEE SHEET 2 OF 21 THE FOREGOING MAP IS ACCOMPANIED BY AND APART OF A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT TRACE. "THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC §663.21, DOES NOT REFLECT THE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE USED TO CONVEY OR ESTABUSH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY EXCEPT THOSE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED" ommilm HALFF now VILLAGE GEORGETOWN CALLISON-RTKL (,!), C, 17 -IC ;-, pan Fi,ev ( LEGEND Wolf Lakes Sub -Districts Village Mixed -Use Office Residential Street Character Zones Residential Urban Mixed -Use Urban Highway Gateway Overlays Trails Trails u� Streets One Side of Street - Both Sides of Street ;;p HALFF V I I. < CALLISONRTKL GEORGETOWN EXHIBIT C.4 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN WOLF LAKES \ \ - 40 ?SS, all t LEGEND Bufferyard 30 -foot Depth Landscaped Berm Transition Zone 80 -foot Depth 35 -foot Height Limit Residential Use Only # n C HALFF V I L L A G E GEORGETOWN CALLISONRTKL • a ;i,., co�.s ,. rant., of —kr—s STREET TYPE A EEE HALFF VILLAGE GEORGETOWN CALLISOMKL PWY I too, I ROW - - I STREET TYPE B • pilin HALFF V I L L A G E GEORGETOWN CALLISONRTKL STREET TYPE C WITH ANGLED PARKING ail HALFF .L. VILLAGE GEORGETOWN CALLISOMTKL STREET TYPE C WITH PARALLEL PARKING • Ego HALFF' V I L L A G E GEORGETOWN CALLISOMTKL a Oi'�L i LO•.'. U: i:.v!'� Li A4C �C. � STREET TYPE C - BOULEVARD MEN HALFF VILLAGE t' GEORGETOWN CALLISONRTKL . ar.,•ati Lon. u.ni�r.. o� :. _an�> SrOVi s�'�FEr Y 3 a it 3 Q d � x 0 u z a z O LEGACY CROSSING W z 5 0 a MEMORIAL DRIVE o —� o too 200 300 Fit. S(JNs'Fr y4? 4 � _ i V,TpLF� IH -35 LEGEND Street Type Legend Street Type A Street Type B x Street Type C - Boulevard Street Type C with Angled Parking Street Type C with Parallel Parking Flex On -Street Parking ;;i HALFF VILLAGE GEORGETOWN CALLISONRTKL STREETS WITH ON -STREET PARKING •az STREETS ADJACENT TO PARKING TRAILS ADJACENT TO STREET HALFF V I L L A G E GEORGETOWN CALLISON-�TKL rrr EXHIBIT C.8 STREET CONTEXT WOLF LAKES .. fi i ; i . ■ WNW All or op rir WOLF LAKES EXHIBIT C.8 STREET CONTEXT is kxd� Ar, so sm sow Aw I crt" oil STREET FURNISHINGS 4 •4r -4 Ir HALFF' V I L i A G t GEORGETOWN CALLISON-ML LEGEND ® Gate to tiRMew Drrve VILLAGE GEORGETOWN ;N; HALFF CALLi�vnZTKL RIVE t Public safety gated entrance to River Hills neighborhood LEGEND Residential Amenities Lakes Pocket Parks / Playgrounds Amphitheatre Plaza Space = Trails • ;; HALFF' V I I L A G E GEQ&GE]OVYN CALLISONRTKL LEGEND ('-J High -Profile Monument 40 Medium -Profile Monument 0 Low -Profile Monument Corporate Monument Wolf Lakes Identification • Wolf Lakes Drive Entry Sign types and exact locations are subject to change, in accordance with Section Xl of this PUD CT-07MMU ;L HALFF V I L L A G E GEORGETOWN CALLIS0KRTKL .1 S_ 117 a w�•r•lwir'+++ �. w rC rs N -6.=w = 0 100 2W 300 Feet a] kA I _y WOLF LAKES IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN Height: 8 ft. Sign Area: 80 sq. ft. Dimensional Area: 180 sq. ft. 0 ; HALFF VILLAGE GEORGETOWN CALLISOARTKL CORPORATE MONUMENT SIGN Height: Sign Area: Dimensional Area MEDIUM MONUMENT SIGN Height: Sign Area: Dimensional Area 8 ft. 24 sq. ft. 64 sq. ft. 8 ft. - University Ave. 10 feet - IH -35 84 sq. ft. - University Av 100 sq. ft. - IH -35 118 sq. ft. - University Av 160 sq. ft. - IH -35 • ;�,;, HALFF VILLAiGE GEORGETOWN CALLISO�ZTKL zn M O Q 00 N HIGH PROFILE MONUMENT SIGN Height: 28 ft. - University Ave. 35 feet - IH -35. Sign Area: 180 sq. ft. - University Ave. 225 sq. ft. - IH -35 Dimensional Area: 340 sq. ft. - University Ave. 420 sq. ft. - IH -35 LOW PROFILE ifP ITSMONUMENT SIGN Height: 5 ft. Sign Area: 32 sq. ft. Dimensional Area: 80 sq. ft. ti" ERE HALFF VILLAGE GEORGETOWN CALLISONRTKL x nl'.•f. LGr.:u�i. n.,. �i AFc zp WOLF LAKES DRIVE GATEWAY SIGNS Wall Height: 3 - 7 ft. Entry Height: 8 ft. Dimensional Area: 190 sq. ft. each Wall Sign Area: 25 sq. ft. for one side 40 sq. ft. if both sides �=41 vow 37'"6e ACS HALFF VILLAGE GEORGETOWN CALL-,..).aN-�TKL �r H WOLF •L EKES or '- WOLF LAKES DRIVE ENTRY ;_; HALFF V I L L A G E GEORGETOWN CALLISON-ML I or;ron --s PHASE 1 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION COST EXCAVATION AND PAVING $ 6,710,000 DRAINAGE $ 5,470,000 WATER $ 600,000 'WASTE WATER t. 2,050,000 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL $ 840,000 MISCELLANIOUS ITEMS $ 2,140,000 SUB -TOTAL $ 17,810,000 .20% CONTINGENCY $ 3,562,000 15% ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, TESTING, BONDS & ETC $ 2,671,500 TOTAL COSTS $ 24,043,500 PHASE 2 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION COST (EXCAVATION AND PAVING $ 3,240,000 (DRAINAGE $ 1,530,000 WATER $ 460,000 WASTE WATER $ 900,000 (EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL S 540,000 MISCELLANIOUS ITEMS $ 760,000 SUB -TOTAL $ 7,430,000 20% CONTINGENCY $ 1,486,000 15% ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, TESTING, BONDS & ETC $ 1,114,500 TOTAL COSTS S 10,030,500 PHASE 3 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION COST EXCAVATION AND PAVING $ 2,170,000 DRAINAGE $ 560,000 'WATER $ 220,000 'WASTE WATER $ 270,000 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL $ 330,000 MISCELLANIOUS ITEMS $ 560,000 SUB -TOTAL $ 4,110,000 .20% CONTINGENCY $ 822,000 15% ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, TESTING, BONDS & ETC $ 616,500 TOTAL COSTSI $ 5,548,500 �'i WOLF LAKES ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Thursday, September 21, 2017 Item SECTION 2 Ueit Pdae No Description S 1000 1 Paving Improvements I ExcavatiordEmbankment 7 Demolition S Subgrade Preparation and Excavation 4 8' Base Matenal 5 6'' Reinforced Concrete Pavement 6 Connrele Curb & Guller S 500 5 Sidewalk 8 Pedeslnan Ramps S 500 S Total Paving Nnprb,►nx,nl Item No D-Aption 236,22111 Drainage Improvements 1 16" RCP Slorm Sewer 2 21" RCP Storm Sewer 3 24" RCP Storm Sewer 4 27' RCP Slorm Sewer 5 30' RCP Storm Sewer 6 36" RCP Storm Sewer 7 42" RCP Storm Sewer 6 48" RCP Slorm Sewer 9 54" RCP Storm Sewer 10 60" RCP Slorm Sewer 11 66" RCP Storm Sewer 12 Drainage Outfall / Headwall 13 TxS Area Inlet 14 4'x4'Area Intel 15 1 O' Curb Inlet 16 2 -4'x2' Grate Inlet (Neenah R -3362-L) 17 Slam Sana, Jw.Mn. Oa. 16 Temporary Drainage Berm 19 Access Road Reaming Wall Modification 20 Trench Surety Measures 21 Walergalhl�fg4E1n5wt PW" S 20000 $ Two Iks+ts94 InlpemttrWne rounded road length used in some quantities added - 4 200 1!110 Qty. Unit SECTION 1 Unit Price Amount Oty- Unit SECTION 2 Ueit Pdae A -int 324,164 c S 1000 1 3,241,63581 0 C 5 1000 5 LT 1 I e 1 100,000 00 3 100,00000 0 I s _ 100 000 00 S 0 26,744 sy S 500 5 133,71944 6,045 ay S 500 S 40,22556 23,622 a S 1000 5 236,22111 6,867 sy S 1000 S 66,66869 21625 s 1 4500 S 973,11000 5,855 a S 4500 S 263,47600 9,010 11 11 1300 5 117,91000 3,823 11, 1 1300 S 49,69900 48,228 sl 1 500 1 241,14000 21,324 a 3 500 S 106,62000 2D as It 150000 1 30.000 00 11 asS 1 500 00 S 16 500 00 I.I. S 7,073,73837 It 180 DO 3 65,70000 f 5<3.18p n; Otv. Unit SECTION 1 Unit Price Amount Ory. Unit SECTION 2 Unit Price Amount 1227 I7 $ 6000 S 73,62000 160 LT S 6000 1 9,60000 0 I/ S 7000 5 Amount 0 IF $ 7000 1 344,40000 643 11 S 8000 S 51,44000 1147 IT S 80 D0 i 91,76000 329 11. S 90 DO 4 29,01000 0 11. $ 9000 1 36,92000 144 1 f $ 100 DO S 14,400 00 60 I.1 $ 1 DO 00 8 6,00000 648 1 f $ 12000 S 77,76000 571 11. $ 12000 $ 66,62000 365 It S 170 00 1 62,050 00 0 I.F. 5 17000 1 I.I. 365 If It 180 DO 3 65,70000 57 If $ 16000 5 10,26000 0 11, S 20000 $ 83 11 $ 20000 S 16,60000 70 It $ 380 no S 25,20000 562 if. S 36000 S 2023200/) 141 Ir $ 45000 6 63,45000 0 11. S 46000 S 2,20000 2 - S 5,00000 S 10,00000 3 ea 5 5,000 no S 15,00000 0 ea $ 3,25000 S ee. 2 Fe. S 3,25000 S 6,50000 B ea S 3,501)00 S 20,000 00 3 as. S 3.50000 4 1050000 20 as $ 4.40000 6 88,000 00 6 as $ 4,40000 S 26,400 00 6 el S 3,50000 5 21,00000 2 ea. S 3,50000 S 7,00000 3 In $ 5,000 D0 S 15,00000 2 sa S 5,00000 $ 10,00000 2259 If. S 5000 $ 112,950 00 1.865 1.1. $ 50 DO 11 93,250 00 1 la 5 300,00000 4 300,000 DO 0 La. S 300,00000 S 3.932 If S 200 S 7,88400 2,640 If $ 200 S 5,280 DO 1 I s S 316265500 $ 316295500 0 I.S. S 3.182 655 00 1 eou t 4,29@,89900 16 12" Wei Connechon w/ Tapping Valve and Sleeve S 5M.lil Hem SECTION SECTION 1SECTION 5lscitrn: 1 2 2 Qty. Unit me 110N 2 C". Unit No Descnpl- Qty. UIQ Unit Price Amount Qty. Unit Unit Price Amount 10,00000 Water Improvements 410 S 344,40000 1 Silt Fence 4.400 IF $ 300 113.2130 go 3,600 I.F. 1 12"C900 DR -18 2207 Lt. $ 6500 $ 143,45500 5G9 If. U 6500 $ 36,92000 2 10"C900 DI'l 510 I.1 S 6000 S 31.08000 1308 Lf. 3 6000 S 76.46000 3 B"C900DRA19 1467 Lf. 3 5000 S 161,370.00 294 Id. S 5000 $ 32.34000 4 6"C900 DR -16 500 I.I. S 4000 S 50,00000 2666 If. 6 4000 S 266,00000 5 4'PVC for Irrigation 1.1. S 29.00 $ If. $ 2900 S 6 12" Gale Valve wl Valve Box 5 ea. $ 2.40000 S 12,000 00 2 ea. S 2,40000 $ 4,81000 7 10" Gale Valve wl Valve Box 1 w. S 2,200.00 $ 2,20000 6 ss. 1 2,20000 S 13,20000 6 $ GM vAfw xt y4+wif 81nt Y. 1 1,90000 S ee. $ 1,90000 $ 9 6' Gale Valve wl Valve Box 5 ee. S 1,50000 $ 7,500.00 3 ea. 1 1,50000 S 4,50000 10 4" Gale Valve w/ Valve Box 600 eat S B00 00 S 480,00000 el $ 80000 $ 11 5-1/4" Fre Hydrant Assembly 5 ee. S 4,51%100 S 22,500.00 3 ea. S 4,500 DO 6 13,50000 12 Shun DouNs Water Service 5 as 1 1,50000 5 22.50000 33 as S 1,60000 S 148.60000 13 Short Single Water Service as S 90000 S ea. S 90000 S 14 Long Double Water Service as, S 2,00000 S es. 1 2,00000 $ - 15 Long Sugle Water Service - S 1,50000 S eou 3 1,50000 S 16 12" Wei Connechon w/ Tapping Valve and Sleeve 2 ea. 1 500000 $ 10,00000 1 as. $ 5,00000 $ 5,00000 17 2" Blowoff Assembly ea. S 2,00000 $ Se. S 2,60000 S 1 Trench Safety Measures 2,725 If. S 200 $ 5,46000 1,876 If. 1 200 S 3,75200 16 16 Ga TracerWre 7771 S 025 S 00125 ISM It. I :26 1 48000 Item SECTION SECTION 1SECTION SECTION 1 2 2 Qty. Unit SECTION 2 C". Unit No Descnplion Qty. Unit Unit Price Amount City. Unit Unit Prim Amoud 10,00000 Wastewater Improvements 410 S 344,40000 1 Silt Fence 4.400 IF $ 300 113.2130 go 3,600 I.F. 1 15" SDR -26 1149 If. S 13D00 S 149,37000 1947 1.1. 11 13000 5 253,110 D0 2 12' SDR -26 284 V. S 11500 S 32,86000 0 Lt 1 11500 5 20 ea. 3 10'SDR-26 1467 1.1 $ 11000 $ 161,370.00 294 11. 1 110.00 5 32.34000 4 B' SDR -26 500 It $ 100 D0 $ 50,00000 2666 If. S 100 DO $ 266,00000 5 Shon Double Wastewater Service ea S 1,50000 S as S 1,50000 $ 6 S11an S;10% u`e,rx41 Sill ea. $ 1,20000 5 ea 1 1,230 00 S 7 Long Double Wastewater Service ea. S 1,00000 S ee S 1,81000 $ B Long Single Waalewalar Service ea. S 1,40000 $ ee. S 1,40000 S 1 Trench Safety Measures 3,400 1.1, S 200 5 6,80000 4909 11 S 200 $ g,B1B00 9 Road Bore wrh 30' Dia wl 7116' Sleel Casing 600 If S 80000 S 480,00000 I.f S 800.00 S 10 Bolted Manhole and Cover ea. S 5,00000 5 ea. 1 5,000 00 5 11 SWhdWd Murih0b and C,;Mf 5 ee. S 4.50h00 $ 22.50000 33 a$ 11 4600 f10 5 148.60000 rlem SECTION SECTION 1SECTION 2 2 Qty. Unit No Description C". Unit Unit Prim Amount Oty. Unit Urdt Price Amount Temporary Erosion 8 Sediment Control 1 LS. 1 10,00000 $ 10,00000 84,000 a S 410 S 344,40000 1 Silt Fence 4.400 IF $ 300 113.2130 go 3,600 I.F. $ 300 1 11,40000 2 Hydror lch 368,996 s.y. 5 200 1 777,99260 0 1 $ 200 S I.f. 3 Stabilized Conslrucilon Enlrance/Exn 2 as S 1,20000 S 2,40000 2 ea. 5 1,20000 1 2.40000 4 Liar 0101 Pm%K*n 20 ea. S 30000 $ 6.00000 6 as $ 30000 1 1.80000 Item No Description Miscellaneous I Slnping and Signage 2 Street Lands aping & Irrigation 3 street Lghls 4 Slreel Llghl Conduit 5 Ory Vii Allowance Total of Section Improvements S 1$167,694.22 S 2,420,967.44 SECTIONS 1 -9 GRAND TOTAL $ 29,267,968-41 5 161 OD ac C:\Users\dellio[t\App Oala\Loral\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content Outlo0k\5LGGRZM8\2018-01-20 WOLF IAKES_CoslEsrimate SECTION 'SECTION 2 Qty. Unit Unit Price Amount qty. Unit Unit Price Amount 1 Ls. S 10,000 DO S 10,00000 1 LS. 1 10,00000 $ 10,00000 84,000 a S 410 S 344,40000 36,000 It 1 410 S 147,60000 2B es $ 5,00000 f 14000 ,000 12 ea. S 5,00000 S 60,00000 4,200 I.1. b 600 i 33,60000 1,800 I.f. 1 600 1 14,40000 4,200 Ir $ 10000 3 000 42000 IOW If 1 10000 S 160.00000 S 9ill00 $ 412.00DOO S 1$167,694.22 S 2,420,967.44 SECTIONS 1 -9 GRAND TOTAL $ 29,267,968-41 5 161 OD ac C:\Users\dellio[t\App Oala\Loral\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content Outlo0k\5LGGRZM8\2018-01-20 WOLF IAKES_CoslEsrimate WOLF LAKES ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Thursday. September 21, 2017 170D Qty. unit SECTION 3 Unit Price Amount ON. Unit SECTION 4 Unit Price Amount 0 cy 5 1000 $ 3 Subgrade Preparation and Excavation 0 cy S 1000 $ 120 11 D I e S 100,000 00 5 6 Concrete Curb 8 Gutter 0 18 3 100.000 00 S Short Single Wastewater Service 0.554 ay S 500 S 42,77167 7,656 ay $ 500 S 37,77776 7,317 s y i 1000 S 73,173 33 6.361 s y S 1000 S 63.608 59 8,629 s S 4500 $ 293,81000 5,587 a 1, 4500 $ 251,43600 3,830 If 1 1300 S 47,19000 3,510 If S 1300 S 45,63000 20,288 6f S 500 s 101,34000 20,040 of 5 500 S 100,20000 B ea 1. 1.50000 $ 13-50000 14 as S 1.59000 S 21 -WO 00 5 17000 $ 1 571,78600 15 10' Curb Inlet S 519.65107 No De-1plicm Unit SECTION 3 Unit Price Paving Improvements 1 ExravalionlEmbankmenl SECTION 4 Unit Pnce 2 Demolition 480 3 Subgrade Preparation and Excavation S 6000 S 4 8'Base Material 120 11 5 6' Reinforced Concrete Pavement 7,20000 6 Concrete Curb 8 Gutter 1.f. 7 Sidewalk Short Single Wastewater Service 8 Pedestrian Ramps 5 7000 $ A Total Paving NIIpfOr*mOnl r If. item 64,64000 No Description S 8000 S Drainage Improvements D 1 1B" RCP Storm Sewer S woo $ 2 21" RCP Storm Sewer 0 11 3 24" RCP Sian Sewer Lf. 4 27' RCP Storm Sewer I.F. 5 30" RCP Storm Sewer 5 6000 i 6 36" RCP Storm Sawer S 10000 S 7 42" RCP Storm Sewer 0 B 4B"RCPSIann Sewer S 120.00 S 9 54' RCP Storm Sewer 0 If 10 60" RCP Storm Sewer 4 6'C900 DR -1B 11 66' RCP Stan Sawar I.F. 12 Dra nage DulalI I Headwall 2,40000 13 3'x3' Area Inlet 5 17000 $ 14 4'x4'Area Inlet 1,192 15 10' Curb Inlet S 180 00 $ 16 2- 4'x2'Grale inlet (Neenah R -3362-L) 0 I f. 17 Storm Sewer Junclicn Dox S 2800 $ 1B Temporary Drainage Berm I.F. 1g Acena Rost R.Leisevl Wait Mod8talion ea. 20 Trench Salely Measures 5 20000 S 21 v+74elr iyuR lerBArt Port' 0 1 W'r.' Onln9ge Imprllur�mnrns It 38000 S Oy. Unit SECTION 3 Unit Price Amount Oty, Unit SECTION 4 Unit Pnce Amount 480 LL S 6000 S 26,80000 120 11 $ 6000 S 7,20000 0 1.f. S 70.00 S Short Single Wastewater Service 0 Lf 5 7000 $ A 606 If. S 8000 S 64,64000 212 I.f. S 8000 S 16,96000 D If. S woo $ - 0 11 $ 9000 5 Lf. 0 I.F. i 10000 $ 5 6000 i 68 Lf. S 10000 S 5,800 DO 0 Lf. S 120.00 S if. 0 If $ 120 DO $ 4 6'C900 DR -1B 0 I.F. S 17000 S 2,40000 360 I.J. 5 17000 $ 61,20000 1,192 I.f. S 180 00 $ 214,560.00 0 I f. $ 180 00 S S 2800 $ 0 I.F. f 20000 $ ea. 0 I.f. 5 20000 S 1 ea. 0 IT It 38000 S � 0 J. 5 360 DO S 6,60000 0 I,f. $ 45000 $ B B" Gale Valve w/ Valve Box 0 IS $ 45000 $ 5 1,90000 $ Amount ea. S 5,000.00 $ - ea $ 5,00000 S are. 1 ea. S 3,25000 S 3,25000 1 ea, S 3,25000 S 3,25000 4 ea. $ 3,500 00 $ 14,000 00 1 W. S 3,500 00 S 3,50000 2 ea. $ 4,40000 $ 660000 4 ee. $ 4,40000 $ 17,60000 10 ea. 1, 3,50000 $ 35,00000 6 ea, S 3,50000 $ 21,00000 2 m. S 5,00000 S 10,00000 1 ea. S 5, am 00 $ 5,00000 18,55 If. S 5000 $ 62.75000 1.335 I.F. $ 5000 S 66,750 DO 0 I.e. S 300.ON 00 S 15 Long Single Water Service 0 La. $ 3D0,0� 00 $ 5 1,50000 $ 2460 Lf. $ 200 S 4,96000 760 LL $ 200 S 1,52000 U le 1 3.15265500 S $ 5,000 DO $ 0 Ia S 3.16265500 $ ea. 5 2,60000 $ 1 466.760,00 S 2,80000 S $ 210 no 00 Item S 13000 5 No SCCTION 3 I.f. Wastewater Improvements %-cTK)H 4 15" SDR -26 No Descnpbon all unit Unit Price Amount Qty Unit Unit Price Amount Water Improvements Short Single Wastewater Service ?Long Double Wastewater Service A Long Single Wastewaler Service 1Trench Safely Measures 112'C900DR-18 Road Bore Min 30, Dia w17116' Steel Casing If, 5 6500 S 11 930 LF 6500 S 60,45000 2 10" C900 DR -18 1712 Lf. 5 6000 S 102,72000 If. 5 6000 i 4,50000 3 6"C000 DRAB ee. If 5 5000 $ 3,044 if. $ 5000 i 6,06600 4 6'C900 DR -1B t If, 5 4000 $ 2,40000 If. 5 4000 4 2,40000 5 4" PVC for irrigation Cw1YJN PrcmlQce Lf S 29.00 $ 60000 If. S 2800 $ 1;20000 6 12"G eValve w/ Valve Box Tfncl Temcp4ey FAS Co"01 ea. S 2,400 00 S 1 ea. S 2,40000 S 2,40000 7 10' Gale Valve w/ Valve Box 4 ea. S 2,20000 S 6,60000 - $ 2200.00 S B B" Gale Valve w/ Valve Box Descupbon ea. 5 1,90000 $ Amount ea. 5 1,900 DO S Amount 9 6" Gale Valve w/ Valve Box 3 are. 5 1,500 00 $ 4.500 DO 1 ea. S 1,50000 $ 1,50000 10 4' 13,110 vako wValve Bok Striping and Signage ea. 5 80000 S 00 10,000 ea. S 60000 S 10,000.00 11 5-114"Fire Hydrant Assembly I ea. 5 4,50000 5 13,50000 1 ea 1 4,50000 i 450000 12 Short Double Water Service Street Lights ea 5 1,50000 S 56.66667 ea _ 1,50000 $ 56,66667 13 Sial Si1get W,11n Sell Street Light Conduit ea S 900 00 S 13,60000 ea. S 90000 5 13,60000 14 Lill Dawi;ti'4W S Ary UNiy AVlXanoo as S 2,00000 $ 170, DOB 00 ea. $ 2,00000 i 170XD-OD 15 Long Single Water Service Total Mycen4newrr ea. 5 1,50000 $ :agB%aT ea. S 1,501)00 >< 688.58? 16 12" Wel Coal nection w/ Tapping Valve and Sleeve 0 ea 5 6,00000 $ 0 ea. $ 5,000 DO $ 17 2"Bbwcr/Asembly ea. 5 2,60000 $ ea. S 2,80000 S 1 Trench Safety Measures 1,712 I.f. S 200 S 3,42400 930 If. 1 200 S 1,96000 1B 16Ga Tracer Wire 1712 Lf S 025 5 42800 930 11 5 076 S 23X 6O Item S 13000 5 No Descnptwn I.f. Wastewater Improvements 1 15" SDR -26 2 12" SDR -26 3 10SDR-26 e 6" SDR -26 6 Shod Double W.sIawaler Service 5 Short Single Wastewater Service ?Long Double Wastewater Service A Long Single Wastewaler Service 1Trench Safely Measures 9 Road Bore Min 30, Dia w17116' Steel Casing 10 Styled Manhole and Cover 11 Standard Manhole and Co - Ory. Unit UNI Plica Lf. S 13000 5 f 5 11500 S I.f. S 11000 S SECTION S 5 10000 S Olt'. Unit Unit Price Amount 772 1 If i 13000 S 100,360 00 673 Lf. S 11500 $ 100,395 00 ea. S 5,00000 5 S 11000 s S 450000 S 1399 1399 :i I.f. S 100 00 S 139,900 00 ea. S 1,50000 $ 1 ea. S 1,20000 S S 300 $ 490000 ee. 3 1,80000 S 4,50000 S ee. S 140000 $ S 200 S 3,044 IJ S 200 S 6,06600 9 t S am 00 $ $ 1,20000 $ 2,40000 M. S 5,00000 S 2,40000 Ory. Unit UNI Plica Lf. S 13000 5 f 5 11500 S I.f. S 11000 S f 5 10000 S ea. S 1,50000 $ ea. S 1,20000 S ea. 5 1,80000 S ea S 1,40000 S 0 I.F. S 200 $ ILE 5 80000 S ea. S 5,00000 5 Unit Peke S 450000 S Total of Section Improvements S 2,003,726.67 $ 1,196,140,83 C:\Users\delliotLl,4ppData\L... l\Microsok\Wiudnws\Temparary Internet Files\Contenl 0utlook\SLG6R7M8\2016-01-20 WOtr LAKES_CostEstimate i91ar1Ya5faN'alM +myarelllenry S 432.14300 S Item SECTION 3 SECTION 4 NO Desc m- OtY- Unit Unit Prim Amount City, Unit Unit Peke Amount Temporary Erosion 8, Sediment Control 1 Sill Fence 2300 If S 300 $ 490000 1,500 If, 5 300 S 4,50000 S Hydrool I 0 S.y S 200 S 0 S.Y. S 200 $ 9 Stabilized Construction EmrancelExlt 2 ea. $ 1,20000 $ 2,40000 2 ea. 5 120000 s 2,40000 4 Cw1YJN PrcmlQce 2 Sc f 31000 S 60000 1 N I 300m 1 1;20000 Tfncl Temcp4ey FAS Co"01 3 5 1,100011 itemSECTION 3 SECTION 4 No. Descupbon Ott'. Unit Unit Price Amount qty. Unit Unit Prim Amount Miscellaneous Striping and Signage 1 L., S 10,00000 S 00 10,000 1 Is 5 10,00000 1 10,000.00 2 Street Landscaping S lmgation 34,000 s.f. S 410 5 139,40000 34,000 sf 3 410 1 138,40000 3 Street Lights 11 ea $ 5,00000 S 56.66667 11 as i 5,00000 3 56,66667 4 Street Light Conduit 1,700 Lf $ 800 a 13,60000 1,700 II 1 800 1 13,60000 6 Ary UNiy AVlXanoo 1,700 1.1. S 10000 6 170, DOB 00 1,700 If S 10000 5 170XD-OD Total Mycen4newrr 1 :agB%aT S 688.58? Total of Section Improvements S 2,003,726.67 $ 1,196,140,83 C:\Users\delliotLl,4ppData\L... l\Microsok\Wiudnws\Temparary Internet Files\Contenl 0utlook\SLG6R7M8\2016-01-20 WOtr LAKES_CostEstimate WOLF LAKES ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Thursday, September 21, 2017 cor- No Description Paving Improvements I ExcavalionlEmbabol i Demolition 3 Subgrade Preparation and Excavelion 4 S Base Material 6 6 Reinforced Concrete Pavement 6 Concrete Curb fl Curb, 7 Sidewalk N Pedestrian Ramps Tolai Paving IatOtellerrtenu Item No D -r lion Drainage Improvements 1 18' RCP St.. Sewer 2 21" RCP Slonn Sewer 3 24" RCP Stan Sewer 4 CP 27' RStorm Sewer 5 30" RCP Storm Sewer 6 36" RCP Slorm Sewer 7 42" RCP Storm Sewer 6 48" RCP Storm Sewer 9 54" RCP St.. Sewer 10 50• RCP Storm Sewer 11 66" RCP Storm Sewer 12 Drainage Curtail! Hallowell 13 3'X3' Area Inlet 14 4'x4'Area Inlet 15 10Curb Inlet 16 2-4'x2 Grate Intel (Neenah R -3362-L) 17 Storm S*WrJ nctio1 BW 18 Temporary Drainage Berm 19 Aosta RW6 R140" Wal Mocificltion 2D Trench Safety Measures 21 Walnr Pond TotW OfARwOe I.np: u re i,,, Item No Descnplion Water Improvements 1 12' C9ODOR -16 2 10' Cg00 DR -18 3 B' C900 DR -18 4 6" 0900 DR -18 54" PVC for litigation 6 12' Gale Valve w/ Valve Box r 10" Gale Valve wl Valve Box 813• Gate Valve w/Valve Bax 9 B" Gate Valve w/ Valve Box 10 4" Gate Valve W Valve Bax 11 5-114' Fire Hydrant Assembly 12 Short Double Water Service 13 Soon Single Water Service 14 Long Double Water Service 15 Long Single Water Service 16 12" Wel Connection w/ Tapping Valve and Sleeve 17 2" BlowdBAssembly, 1 Trench Safety Measures 18 16 Ge Tracer Wire Ilam No Description Wastewater Improvements 15" SDR -26 7 12' SDR -26 7 10' SDR -26 A B"SDR-26 S Short Double Waslewater Service a Short Single Waslewater Service 7 LongDouble Waslewater Service Long Single Wastewater Service 1 Trench Safety Mods - 4 Road Borewith 30" Dia w! 7116" Steel Casing 10 Boiled Manhole and Cover 11 Standard Manhole and Cover Item No Descnpton Temporary Erosion & Sediment Control 1 SIII Fence 2 Hydmmulch 3 Stabilized Construction EnLrance/Exil 4 Cwlr nine FyN-- Item No. Description Miscellaneous 1 Slnping and Signage Sbeel Landscaping 4 Imgebon � Street Lights 4Street Lig hl Candua 9 n, Slhfly Ift I " Ory Unit SECTION s Una Pdpe Amount qty Unit SECTIONS Unit Price Amour7t 126076 cy S 1000 S 1 260,761 12 21U52 cy 5 1000 .€ 21 08, 520 92 o Is 5 100,000 OD S 171 If 0 Is S 10000000 'S - 7669 sy S 5 O 6 3534444 7,862 sy _ 500'5 39,311 67 6.6130 a.y S 1000 S 6679667 6,821 sy $ 1000 S 68,21111 6022 sy S 4500 S 270,98000 6,153 sy S 4500 5 27689500 2 970 If 1 13.00 $ 36,610 00 3060 If $ 13 W 5 39,780 00 16,932 s f $ 500 S 84,66000 17,736 s r 5 500 5 6868000 12 ea 5 1,50000 S 18,00000, 12 ea 5 1.50000 .5 18,00000 S 16000 .S f 1 IS3R3 1 200.00 S 3 2. W] 64 Oty. Unit SECTION 6 Unit Price Amount Qty. Unit SECTION 6 Unit Price Amount 546 11 S 6000 4 32,880 00 140 11 S 5000 S 8.400 00 171 If S 7000 1 11,970,00t 0 1.1. 'S 7000 5 95,550 00 280 II 1 BO DO S 22,40000 1,103 L1. 1 6000 .S 86,24000 0 If 1 9000 S 117400,00 0 I.f. $ go 00 S - 359 If 1 10000 4 35,90000 125 I.I. E 10000 ;F 12,50000 1.169 I I S 12000 S 14OL2Bo 00 O I C 5 120 DO 't - 352 11 1 17000 1 59 840 00 173 11 5 17000 S 2941000 0 If 1 18000 S - 0 LI. S 16000 .S - C I f 1 200.00 S - 0 Lf. 1 20000 .6 5,56200 0 1 f 1 36000 S - 0 Lf 5 360 DO S 3,00000 0 If 1 45000 S - 0 Lf, 5 45000 5 - ea S 5,00000 1 - 1 ea f 5000,00 $ 5,000.00 1 e S 3,250.00 3 3250,00 1 ea 5 3,25000 5 3,25000 3 ea 9 3,500.00 $ 10 500 00 1 s _ S 3,50D 00 S 31500, OL 12 ea S 4,40000 S 52,80400 4 ea. 5 4,40000 S 17,60000 4 ea 1 3,500.003, 14,000 DO 6 e. 5 3500.00 5 21,000 00 2 se 1 5,000,00 S 10,00000 0 sa S 5,00000 S 1605 11 1 5000 .1 90,25000 1,145 Lf. S 5000 S 57,250,00 0 Is S 300,00000 S 2,71000 0 I.S. 1 300,00000 S 2.94000 2,879 If S 200 S 5,75800 1,541 If 5 2,00 S 3082,00 0 Is 5 3162.05500 1 1 Is 1 819.65000 5 819,65000 3 489)878 OS 5 7,0ee.10C.00 qty. Unit SSC 6011 F - -- I Unit SECTION6 Amount qty• Unit Unit Price Amount qty. Unit Unit Price Amount 1355 it S 6500 S 88 075 00 1470 1 f S 6500 S 95,550 00 1.1. 1 6000 S - Lf S 6000 $ - I.f S 50,00 5 117400,00 I.f s 5000 $ - II S 4000 S 1800.00 If. 5 4000 S 1.200,00 IS S 2900 S - I1. s 2900 5 - a. S 240000 5 480000 5 ea $ 2,40000 5 720000 ea 1 2,20000 S - ea S 2200,00 $ - ea S 1,900.00 S 2,34800 so S 190000 s 5,56200 as S 1,500.00 S 3000.00 2 ea. S 1,50000 $ 3,00000 ea S 060.00 S - ea S 60000 5 - 7 ea 5 4,500.00 S 9.000AD ! ea 5 4,50000 S 9,00500 6 ea S 1,50000 S 40,000,00 be 5 150000 S - de 17 900.00 s 9,BOB 00 ea. f 90000 5 - e.1 200000 S 120,ON. 00 ea S 2,00000 5 - ea 1 1,50000 5 as s 1,50000 $ 1 sa S 5 000 00 S 500000 S as S 500000 $ it 2,80000 5 - ea S 2,60000 S - I,355 If L 200 5 2,71000 1470 Lf S 200 $ 2.94000 14717 11 Y a3S f 367 5a 3 is 32375 3 17 0.05750 qty. Unit Unit Price Amount I Unit Unit Price Amount Lf S 13000 S Amount 2476 11 s 13000 5 321,88000 11. 1 115 DO S 6,90000 11 s 115.00 $ 390000 11 S 11000 S 3025132 67 IF S 11000 $ 506,04502 1174 Lf S 10000 S 117400,00 305 I.F. S 100,00 5 30500,00 be $ 1,50000 s 1800.00 4 ea S 1,50000 S 1.200,00 as S 1 200 00 5 316,4 .67 ea. 6 1200,00 S - aa S 1 80000 S Fla. S 1,800 00 S ea € 1,40000 S - ea. 5 1400 DO $ - 1174 If S 200 s 2,34800 2,761 1.1. $ 200 S 5,56200 I.1$ a00 00 5 Amount Lf. s 00000 5 Amount ea 3 5 000 00 5 - ea. S 5,OD0 00 S 1Q00000 A ea 5 4 500 DO S 19.000 00 7 be. S 4 500 00 S 31-500 00 Total of Section Improvements S 5,112,13466 $ 5,040,825.21 C:\Users\delligtt\AppDa[a\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\ContenCOutlook\SlG6R2M8\2018-01-20 WOLF LAKES_Cost Estimate SECTION 5 SECTION 6 qty. UNI Unit Price Amount Oty. Unit Unit Price Amount 2.300 If $ 300 S 6,90000 1,300 Lt 1 300 1 390000 151,291 sy S 2 D S 3025132 67 253,023 s.y. $ 200 4 506,04502 2 ea S 1,200,00 S 2.40000 4 1,200.00 1' 2,40000 12 se S 300.00 5 1800.00 4 ea 5 30000 f 1.200,00 S 316,4 .67 S 617.546M SECTION 6 SECTION 6 Qty Unit Unit Price Amount qty. Unit Unit Price Amount 1 Is $ 1000000 1 1000000 1 1s. 5 10,00000 S 1Q00000 24,000 sf $ 4.10 1 9840000 27,000 Ls S 410 S 11 B70D 00 6 ea 5 5,00000 S 40,000,00 9 ea S 5,000.00 $ 45,00000 1,200 If $ 000 S 9,BOB 00 1,350 11, 5 BOD 5 10,80000 1,200 If $ 10000 S 120,ON. 00 1.35p 11 $ 10060 6 13a;011OU9 Total of Section Improvements S 5,112,13466 $ 5,040,825.21 C:\Users\delligtt\AppDa[a\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\ContenCOutlook\SlG6R2M8\2018-01-20 WOLF LAKES_Cost Estimate WOLF LAKES ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Thursday, September 21, 2017 Ilem No Descumon 0 cy 1 Paving Improvements 1 ExcavalionlEmbankrnenl 2 Demoheon 3 Subgrode Preparahan and Excavation 40'Bese Male nal 5 6' Reinforced Concrete Pavement 6 Ceocrem Curbs Gutter 7Sidewalk 0,808 sy B Pedesman Ramps 4,643 s -y S Total Paving hnprOvemeid Item 7686 sy No Descrlplion 4.103 3-y 5 Drainage Improvements 1 18, RCP Slonn Sewer 2 21' ROES tom Sawor 2450 I.J. 'S 24" RCP Slarm Sewer 4 27. RCP Storm Sewer 5 30' RCP Storm Ss - 6 36' RCP St.- Sewer 7 42" RCP Storm Sewer 6 46' RCP Slorm S""9 17 ea S 54' RCP Sturm Sewer 10 60" RCP Storm Sewer 11 66' RCP Storm Sewer 12 Drainage Outfall l Heedwalt 13 3'x3' Area Inlet 14 4k4AreaInlet 15 10 Curb Inlet 16 2- 4'x2 Grate Inlet(Neensh R -3362-L) 17 Storm Sewer JuncOan Bax 18 Temporary Drainage Barin 19 Access Road Retaining Wall Modification 20 Trench Safely Measures 21 5M1a!ar{brW4rlilplMAn i ea. few Cglontl" ImprlwMMnil Uaa SECTION 7 LUUt Pdce AmiluM Cit . Unit SECTION a Unk Price Amount 0 cy 1 1000 5 5,76000 0 ay S' loco s - 0 Is S 100,00000 S Water Improvements 0 Is S. 100,00000 s Wastewater Improvements 5,508 sy S 500 S 27,53869 0,808 sy 500 b 4404167 4,643 s -y S 1000 3 46,43000 7686 sy F 1000 $. 76,86000 4.103 3-y 5 4500 S. 184,64000 6,926 sy $ 4500 1 311,76500 2450 I.J. 'S 1300 S. 31,85000 3,430 If. 3: 1300 S 4459000 14,448 sf $ 500 a' 72,240 D0 20,880 s1 5,00 S 10440000 17 ea S 1,500 DO i 25,50000 6 e S 1,500 00 %00000 0 1 f S $ 3W-Ilwii: 6 12"Gate Valve w/ VaWe Box S 79067815' Unit SECTION 7 Unit Price Amount Unit SECTION B Unit Price Amount 96 1.1. 1 6000 111 5,76000 582 If S 60.00 $ 3492000 0 1.1 5 7000 i Water Improvements 0 Lf, 3 7000 $ Wastewater Improvements 50 If 58O DO i 4,00000 745 I.f S' 8000 $ 59600 DO 0 F. S 90 DO S - 0 1[ S 9000 S - 35 If i 100 DO S 3,60000 1,539 I.f 6 10000 S 153,90000 C If i 120,00 S S 11500 5 0 If. S 12000S - 0 If 5 170 D0 S 4000 S 333 I.f, S 17000 $ 5661000 0 If S 18000 S 1.1 l 0 I.f. S' 180.00 $ If. 0 1 f S 200 DO $ 6 12"Gate Valve w/ VaWe Box 0 I.f S 200.00 s 4,80000 0 1 If 3 360.00 It 4,80D 00 0 1 f 3 36000 S 2200,00 4 0 11 $ 450.00 S 1' 2,20 00 S 0 Ir S 45000 S ea S ea. E 5,000,00 1 ea. ea. S 5,00000 $ 9 6' Gale Valve 001 Valve Box 0 ea. 1 3,25000 S 3,000.00 0 ea S 3,250.00 $ - 0 ea S 3,50000 $ Boo 00 $ 3 ea. S 3,50000 S 10,50000 3 ea 5 4,40000 5 13,20000 0 ea. S 4,40000 S 3520000 0 ea. F 3,500.00 S 12 Shot Double Weler Service 4 ea 12 3,500,00 S 1400000 0 es, 3 5.00000 $ 10 2 ea. $: 5,00000 5 10 000 OD 750 I.f, S 50.00 S 37,500.00 1,306 I.J. W 5000 S 65,30000 0 I s $ 300,00 300,00000 5 :4250600 0 I e. 5: 300,000,00 $ - 1BI.F.2 5 200 1 36400 3,199 1.1 $ 200 5 6,39800 0 Is. 1 3162.55500 Y 5,00000 '7 0 Ls S 3.16255500 S 5 5,00000 $ 5,000 OC 5 54.424 OD 2,80000 $ S 27ROGOOD as. nem sECMM? (SECTION 7. MOTION t_ ue tl 11 No Desalt City. Unit Unit Price Amount City. Unit Unit Price Amount Water Improvements An - Wastewater Improvements 1 12"C900 OR 18 1166 1.1 S 6500 S 75,79000 2856 If 1 6500 $ IA5,64000 210" C900 DR -16 Il i 60.00 A 11,10000 1284 I.f. 5' 60 00 5 7-1.040 00 3 S. C900 DR -18 u 5000 $ S 11500 5 I.f. t 50 DO $ - 4 6"C900 DR -18 Lf 5 4000 S - I1. 1 4000 S - 5 4' PVC for Irrigation 1.1 l 2900 S !01[00110 If. S' 2900 S - 6 12"Gate Valve w/ VaWe Box 4 ea. i 2540000 1 4,80000 2 ea. S. 2,400 00 S 4,80D 00 7 30'.Ge" VSNa W'"I 9oa ea S 2200,00 4 Pa S 1 ea 1' 2,20 00 S 4.400.00 B 8' Gale Valve wl Valve Box ea S 1,900 DO I LongDouble Wastewater Service ea. $: 1,900.00 5 - 9 6' Gale Valve 001 Valve Box 2 ea S 150000 1 3,000.00 i ea S' 1,50000 5 12000.00 10 4' Gate Valva wI Valve Box ea S Boo 00 $ - ea S 800,00 S - 11 5-1/4" Fire Hydrant Assembly 2 ea 5� 4,500,00 7 9,00000 a e S 4,500.00 S 3SL00000 12 Shot Double Weler Service ea $ 1,50000 S - es. S 150000 S 10 13 Shot Single Water Semde ea 1 90000 3 15580000 aa. $ 900-00 $ - 14 Long Double Water Service ee. 5 2.000.00 f A.600.W S' :4250600 S. 200000 $ S 4.50000 S 15 Lang Single Water Serviceea S 1,500.00 S 1900 If S. Boo 3 1,50000 S - 16 12" Wet Connection w/ Topping Valve and Sleeve ea 1 5,00000 '7 - 7 e. 5 5,00000 $ 5,000 OC 17 2"Blowoff Assembly ea. $ 2,80000 $ S 27ROGOOD as. S 2,80000 $ - 1Trench Safety Measures 1.166 I.f, 5 200 1 2,33200 4,140 Lf. S 200 5 8,28000 16 18 On Tntn Will; 1141. ' S 0.35 S. 7➢LSO 4140 1.1 $ 025 $ 1,W15.Ci1 Ilam (SECTION 7. ue tl 11 No Description Qty. Until Unk Price Amount City. Unit Unit Price An - Wastewater Improvements 1 15' SDR -26 Lf. S 130 oft S 3,50000 if 5 130 00 $ 11,10000 2 12'SDR-26 If 5 11500 5 If S 11500 5 3 1C'SDR-2fi 1.1, S 11D 00 S 2,400.00 1090 If S 110,00 $ 419,99000 46"SDR-26 Curb Inlet Prolecliun 1031 I1. f 10000 S !01[00110 849 11. S 100.00 S 04,903' 5 Short Double Wastewater Service S 1,50000 S T, ea. S 1,50000 S 1440000 6 Short Single Waslewaler Service Pa S 120000 S ea 3 120000 S 7 LongDouble Wastewater Service a. S 1,00000 S No. 5 ISO000 5 Oly. Unit 6 Long Single Wastewater Service as S 1,40000 S Amount ea S 1,40000 5 1 Trench Safety Measures 1 031 I.I. S 110 S 2,111 1,939 f 5 2.00 $ 3,87B 0C 10,00000 S Road Bore with 30' Dia wl 7/16" Steel Casing Lf S 800 00 5 - I1 $ 000 00 S - 10 Boiled Manhole and Cover es S 5,00000 S 15580000 3 S 5,000 00 $ - 11 Standard Manhole and Cover 5 ae. F A.600.W S' :4250600 f0 en S 4.50000 S 45.00000 Item SECTION 7 SECTION 5 No Usecriplwn City. Unit Unit Price Amount City, Unit Unit Price Amount Temporary Erosion 8 Sediment Control 1 Silt Fence 1.200 1.1 S 3.00 3 3,50000 3.700 1.1. B: 300 S' 11,10000 ,Ydromulch 0 a.y. $ 200 $ 0 s y. S' 200 i 3 SitaConstruction Entranm/Exit 2 ee S 1,200 00 $ 2,400.00 2 ea. $ 1,200 00 S 2,40000 '4. Curb Inlet Prolecliun 4 ea. S 30000 1 fall 3 ea L TMPD S 9ml* 1040 fenlp4Yary I Cf1i 1 T, i 1440000 lam SECTION 7 SECTION B No. Descnplion Oly. Unit Unit Price Amount Qty. Unit Unit Price Amount Miscellaneous 1 Stnping and Signage 1 Ls : 10,00000 S 10,00000 1 Is S. 10,00000 S 10,00000 } Street Landscaping S Irrigation 24,000 1s. 3 410 S 96,40000 35,000 1s 5 410 5 15580000 3 Street Lights B ea S 5ODD 90 S 40,00000 13 ea. S: 5,00000 S 63,33333 a Street ll Conduit 1,200 If S 8011 $ 9,60000 1900 If S. Boo 3 1520000 L Dr, U t4'All i+uiea 1,200 Lf $ 10000 f 120,000,00 1900 If. 3 10000 S 19000000 Ti S 27ROGOOD 1 _77,33 33 Total Of Section Improvements 5 966,498.39 $ 2,073,691.00 C:\Users\delliott\AppOata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Bles\Content Outlook\5LGGR2M8\2018-01-20 WOLF LAKES_CoslE,hmate WOLF LAKES ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Thursday, September 21 2017 Item No Description Paving Improvements Oty. Una SECTION 9 UOItPrice Amount Amount Oty. Una Excevahon/Embankmenl 0 c.y. S 1000 S 7 Demolition 0 Ls, 5 100,000.00 5 0 Subgrade Preparation and Excavation S.Y. t' 5,00 5 i B" Base Material e.y. S. 1000 5 6 6" Reinforced Concrete Pavement S.Y. $ 45.00 S 6Concrete Curb & Gutter Lf V 13 00 5 7 Sidewalk S.F. 5 5.00 5 0 Pedestrian Ramps as 5 1.500.00 5 S: 2,20000 S . Tole] ROW* lrlworemo[IIf Item No, Description Drainage Improvements Una SECTION B Unit Price Amount Oty. Una Unit Pau Amount 1 16" RCP Storm sewer 11, $ 60.00 $ 1 12-6900 ORA8 221" RCP Storm Sewer Lf. 6 70.00 $ Lf. 3 24" RCP Storm Sewer Lt 5 6000 $ $ 50 OD L 427" RCP Slonn Sewer I.F. S 90.00 S - 5 30" RCP Slone Sewer I.f. $ 100.00 5 as 6 36' RCP Slenn Sewer I.F. 5 120.00 S S: 2,20000 S 7 42" RCP Storm Sewer Lf 5 17000 S 9 6' Gaw Valor orf valve liar 8 46" RCP Stone Sewer LF $ 16000 S as 9 54" RCP Stam Sewer Lf. $ 20000 $ 5 4,50000 S 10 60" RCP Slone Sewer I.F. S 36000 S - 11 W RCP St*,w S~ Lf. 5 450.00 S ea 12 Drainage Ouaah I Headwall S ea. S 5,000.00 S 10,00000 13 3'xTAma Intel ea. $ 3,250.00 S 17 2"Blowoff Assemblyea 14 4'x4' Area Inlet ea. S 3 500.00 S 0 Lf 15 10' Cum Inlet ea $ 4,400.00 5 S fl 25 $ 16 2 -4'x2' Grate Inlet (Neenah R -3362-L) ea $ 3.500.00 $ 17 Slorm Sewer Junction Box as $ 5,000.00 S $ J14DOAO S 16 Temporary Drainage Bonn I.F. $ 5000 S 19 Asara Rand Rste:alrrg vVe4 M.64-- L. S 300,000.00 $ 20 Trench Safety Measures 0 I.F. S 2.00 S 21 Vmilr PCTW I.s. S 3,162.655.00 $ rreAr fkmepelfnprmemenu 5 1000O.tp Ilam SECTION * No. Description Oty. Una Unit Pau Amount Water Improvements .1. Una Una Price 1 12-6900 ORA8 Lf. 5 6500 S 2 10" C900 DRA S Lf. $ 6000 S 3 6" C900 DR -18 Lf. $ 50 OD L 4 6" C9GO DR -19 Lf. 5 4000 $ 5 4" PVC for lmgalmn 11 S 2900 $ 6 12" Gana Valve w/ Valve Box as 5 2,400.00 S 7 10"Ga IS Valve wl Valve Box ee S: 2,20000 S 6 B' GYa Valva r'1 VIWN Bos as S 1,90000 .$ 9 6' Gaw Valor orf valve liar ea $ 1.50000 S 10 4" Gale Valve W/Valve Box as 5 80000 $ 11 5-V4" Fir. Rydranl Assembly as 5 4,50000 S 12 Short Double Weler Service as S 1,50000 S 13 Short Single Water Service BB S 90000 '$ 14 Long Double Water Service ea S 2,000.00! 15 Long Single Water Service as $ 1,50000 5 16 12" Wel Connection w/ Tapping Valve ane Sleeve 1 S 5,000 00 S 17 2"Blowoff Assemblyea S 200 6 S 2,00000 S 1 Trench Safely Measures 0 Lf S 200 S 1a 16 Ga Trww Alm 11 S fl 25 $ ]hem SECTEON S SECTION 9 Na. Description No Description .1. Una Una Price Amount 1 I.s. Wastewater Improvements I S 1 Fence 2,000 It 5 3 DO S 1 15' SDR -26 Lf. i 130 OD S - 2 12"SDR-26 1.1 S' 115,00 $ 4 Chlrb Inuit Pielecba+ 3 10"SDR-26 Lf. S 11000 S 4 a" SDR -26 2045 11. S. 10000 5 204,500,00 5 Short Double Wastewater Service ea. $ 1 500,00 $ - 6 S. 1,20000 5 - 7 Long Double Wastewater Service as S 1,60000 $ 6 Lang Single Wastewater Service ea, $ 1,40000 5 1 Trench Safety Measures 2,045 I.P. S 200 6 4,09000 9 Road Bare oath 30" Die W17/16" Steel Casing Lf. $ 600 00 $ - 10Bolted Manhole and Cover ea. 5 5,00000 S 11 Sem it ld Milrools mid Co 16 as $ J14DOAO S 4000 00 Rem SECTEON S No. Descrtp5on Na. Description Oty. Unit Una Price Amount Temporary Erosion & Sediment Control 1 Sloping and Signage 1 I.s. S 10,00000 S 10,00000 I S 1 Fence 2,000 It 5 3 DO S 6,00000 2 Hydromulch 0 sy $ 200 S - 3 Stabilized Construction Ennance/Exil 2 e $ 1,200 00 5 2,40000 4 Chlrb Inuit Pielecba+ 8 on 5 30000 $ Z4W 00 TWAT Fempprary E65 Comrm S loam rhe RemSECTION 9 No. Descrtp5on oly. Una Una Price Amount Miscellaneous 1 Sloping and Signage 1 I.s. S 10,00000 S 10,00000 2 SlreeL Lantlawping fl Irtigation 6 s. S 410 S 3 Street Lights 0 ea. $ 5,000,00 :$ SUset Light Coneuil 0 Lf $ 800 S 5 UMry AroH'Arco 9 Lf IF 10000 $ Tu':� !!:eud4nedia 5 10,000A6 Total of Section Improvements $ 284,390.00 C:\Users\delliou\AppDalaMewl\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOudook\5LG6RZMB\2030-01-20 WOLF LAKES_C—Fr timate Exhibit C-1 iii 1.i l.whi Wolf Lakes PUD Market Analysis Prepared for Ms. Laurie Brewer Assistant City Manager City of Georgetown 113 E. 8t" Street Georgetown, Texas 78627 Capitol Market Research, Inc. 1102 West Avenue, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78701 On February 26, 2018 w.i CAPITOL MARKET RESEARCH Real Estate Research, Land Development Economics & Market Analysis February 26, 2018 Ms. Laurie Brewer Assistant City Director City of Georgetown 113 E. 8Th Street Georgetown, Texas 78627 Re: Market Analysis for the Wolf Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD), approximately 164 acres located at the northwest intersection of Interstate 35 and University Avenue (State Highway 29) in Georgetown, Texas. Dear Ms. Brewer: As requested, we have prepared a market analysis for the Wolf Lakes PUD, which will be used determine the absorption potential and mix of uses for both commercial and residential uses at the site, and to establish the potential revenues for the TIRZ that encompasses the PUD. The results of our analysis are provided in the report that follows. The report was prepared in its entirety by Capitol Market Research and relies on data collected in the field, from comparable and competitive commercial developments in Williamson County and from secondary data sources such as the City of Georgetown, the U.S. Bureau of Census and the Austin Board of Realtors. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this analysis and welcome any questions or comments that you may have. Respectfully submitted, CAPITOL MARKET RESEARCH, INC. Charles H. Heimsath President CHH/ebr Capitol Market Research, Inc. 1102 West Avenue, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 476-5000 cheimsath@cmraustin.com TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii List of Tables v Preface vii Date Of Study vii Purpose Of Study vii Function Of The Report vii Property Identification vii Assumptions vii Methodology vii REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS & FORECASTS 1 Subject Property Analysis 2 Static Attributes 2 Legal Attributes 2 Economic Context 4 Overview 4 Employment Growth 4 Population & Household Trends 7 Household Tenure Trends 8 Austin MSA Population and Household Forecast 9 REGIONAL REAL ESTATE MARKET TRENDS & FORECASTS 10 Apartment Market Trends in the Austin MSA 11 Historical Trends 11 Current Market Conditions 11 Condominium Market Trends in the Austin MSA 14 Current Market Conditions 14 Austin Office Market Overview 16 Historical Market Trends 17 Recent Market Conditions 18 Retail Market Trends in the Austin MSA 20 Historical Market Trends 20 Recent Market Conditions 20 Austin MSA Multi -Family Demand Forecast 23 Austin MSA Condominium Demand Forecast 24 Austin MSA Office Demand Forecast 25 Austin MSA Retail Demand Forecast 26 MARKET AREA ANALYSIS 27 Subject Property Market Definition & Justification 28 Georgetown Market Area Demographic Trends 30 Georgetown Market Area Income Distribution 31 Georgetown Market Area Population Projections 32 Georgetown Apartment Market Conditions 33 Overview 33 New Construction 33 Occupancy and Absorption 33 Average Rents 33 Georgetown New Attached Housing Market Trends 37 Overview 37 Completed Projects 37 Projects Under Construction 37 Absorption Rates 37 Recorded MLS Sales 38 Georgetown Office Market Conditions 42 Overview 42 New Construction 42 Occupancy & Absorption 42 Average Rents 42 Georgetown Retail Market Conditions 47 Overview 47 New Construction 47 Occupancy & Absorption 47 Average Rents 47 Market Outlook 48 MARKET AREA FUTURE SUPPLY & DEMAND 52 Georgetown Market Area Planned Multi -Family 53 Georgetown Market Area Multi -Family Demand 56 Subject Multi -Family Absorption Forecast 57 Georgetown Market Area Planned Condominium Projects 59 Georgetown Market Area Condominium Demand 64 Subject Attached Housing Absorption Forecast 65 Georgetown Market Area Planned Office Projects 68 Georgetown Market Area Office Demand 72 Subject Office Absorption Forecast 73 Georgetown Market Area Planned Retail Projects 75 Georgetown Market Area Retail Demand 80 Subject Retail Absorption Forecast TIRZ FORECAST Wolf Lakes TIRZ Value Forecasts SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Georgetown Market Area Conditions Summary Wolf Lakes PUD Project Summary and Recommendations APPENDIX Certificate CHARLES H. HEIMSATH QUALIFICATIONS iu 81 85 86 91 92 94 100 101 102 List of Tables Page Table (1) Historical & Projected Employment Growth: Austin -Round Rock MSA 5 Table (2) Population and Household Growth: MSA, County, and City (2000 to 7 2014) Table (3) Households by Tenure: MSA, County, and City (2000 to 2014) 8 Table (4) Household Forecast: Austin -Round Rock MSA 9 Table (5) Austin MSA Apartment Summary: December 1991— December 2017 13 Table (6) Austin MSA Attached Housing Sales: December 2003 — December 2017 16 Table (7) Austin Citywide Office Market Summary: December 1991—June 2017 19 Table (8) Austin MSA Retail Market Summary: December 1991—June 2017 22 Table (9) Multi -Family Housing Demand: Austin -Round Rock MSA 23 Table (10) Condominium/Attached Housing Demand: Austin -Round Rock MSA 24 Table (11) Office Employment Growth: Austin -Round Rock MSA 25 Table (12) Multi -Tenant Retail Demand: Austin -Round Rock MSA 26 Table (13) Population and Household Trends: Georgetown Market Area 30 Table (14) Change in Income Distribution: Georgetown Market Area 31 Table (15) Population and Household Forecast: Georgetown Market Area 32 Table (16) Apartment Market Summary: Georgetown Market Area 34 Table (17) Apartment Inventory: Georgetown Market Area 35 Table (18) Attached Housing Sales: Georgetown Market Area 39 Table (19) New Condominium Sales Activity: Georgetown Market Area 40 Table (20) Office Market Summary: Georgetown Market Area 44 Table (21) Office Inventory: Georgetown Market Area 45 Table (22) Retail Market Summary: Georgetown Market Area 49 Table (23) Retail Inventory: Georgetown Market Area 50 Table (24) Planned & Under Construction Multi -Family Projects: Georgetown 53 Market Area Table (25) Planned Multi -Family Project Timing: Georgetown Market Area 54 Table (26) Multi -Family Unit Demand: Georgetown Market Area 56 Table (27) Multi -Family Demand Forecast: Wolf Lakes PUD 58 Table (28a) Multi -Family Absorption Forecast V.1: Wolf Lakes PUD 59 Table (28b) Multi -Family Absorption Forecast V.2: Wolf Lakes PUD 60 Table (29) Planned & Under Construction Condo/Townhome Projects: Georgetown 61 Market Area Table (30) Planned Attached Housing Project Timing: Georgetown Market Area 62 Table (31) Attached Housing Unit Demand: Georgetown Market Area 64 Table (32) Attached Housing Demand Forecast: Wolf Lakes PUD 66 Table (33a) Attached Housing Absorption Forecast V.1: Wolf Lakes PUD 67 v Table (33b) Attached Housing Absorption Forecast V.2: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (34) Planned & Under Construction Office Projects: Georgetown Market Area Table (35) Planned Office Project Timing: Georgetown Market Area Table (36) Historical and Forecasted Absorption: Georgetown Market Area Table (37) Office Space Absorption Forecast: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (38a) Office Space Absorption Forecast V.1: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (38b) Office Space Absorption Forecast V.2: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (39) Planned & Under Construction Retail Projects: Georgetown Market Area Table (40) Planned Retail Project Timing: Georgetown Market Area Table (41) Retail Space Demand: Georgetown Market Area Table (42) Retail Space Demand: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (43a) Retail Space Absorption Forecast V.1: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (43b) Retail Space Absorption Forecast V.2: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (44) Multi -Family Units and Value Added: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (45) Attached Housing Units and Value Added: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (46) Office Space and Value Added: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (47) Retail Space and Value Added: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (48) Land Use Summary V.1: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (49) Land Use Summary V.2: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (50) Forecast and Value Summary: Wolf Lakes PUD Table (47) Wolf Lakes PUD: Projected Assessed Value by Year (2018-2037) vi 68 69 70 72 74 75 76 77 78 80 82 83 84 87 88 89 90 96 97 98 99 Preface Date Of Study The effective date of this study is February 26, 2018. Purpose Of Study The purpose of this report is to analyze the subject property, evaluate its position with respect to current and anticipated market trends and conclude with an analysis of market support for the absorption of a mixed-use development of 164 acres in the City of Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas. Function Of The Report This report is to be utilized by the City of Georgetown and other interested parties to assist in determining absorption potential and potential revenue for the TIRZ which will encompass the planned Wolf Lakes PUD. Property Identification The subject 164 acres are located at the northwest intersection of Interstate 35 and University Avenue (SH 29) in the City of Georgetown in Williamson County, Texas. Assumptions 1. The consultant assumes that all information and data provided by the City of Georgetown and Williamson County are correct with respect to the availability of utilities, zoning and conformance with city building codes. 2. All statements of fact in the report, which are used as the basis of consultant's analyses, opinions and conclusions are true and correct to the best of consultant's knowledge and belief. Consultant shall not have responsibility for legal matters, questions of survey, opinion of title, soil or subsoil conditions, engineering or other technical matters. Any sketches prepared by the consultant and contained in the report will be included solely to aid the user of the report in visualizing the property and its location. 3. Each finding, projection, assumption or conclusion contained in the market study will be the consultant's personal opinion and will not be an assurance that such an event will or will not occur. Consultant may assume that there are no "hidden" conditions relating to the real estate that would affect consultant's analyses, opinions or conclusions. 4. The data gathered in the market study and value estimates provided in the analysis do not constitute an appraisal as defined by the Appraisal Institute. With respect to the data provided by client, consultant shall not violate the confidential information furnished to consultant. Methodology A feasibility study is a general term, implying analysis aimed at discovering whether or not a specific project can be carried out successfully, with success usually indicating a sufficient return on capital required to attract investors to carry out the development. This requires two basic and interdependent analyses: a market study to determine supply, demand and potential absorption vii rates, and a financial analysis to determine whether or not the proposed project can be economically justified over a given period of time. This market study primarily addresses the market demand, sales prices and absorption issues and will be used in combination with more detailed financial feasibility studies conducted by the client to determine overall project feasibility. viii REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS & FORECASTS Subject Property Analysis In order to fully explore the market and development feasibility of the subject property, it is necessary to analyze the site and neighborhood attributes and characteristics. These attributes can then be assessed in order to determine their relative importance to the potential for commercial development of the site. Characteristics felt to be most relevant to the subject site are outlined below and are followed by a more detailed discussion of each. 1. Static Attributes - the physical characteristics of the site and existing structures that comprise the subject property. 2. Legal Attributes - consists of public controls and potential legislation restricting and defining use, such as zoning (existing and proposed), and other restrictions that may enhance or adversely affect the subject. 3. Dynamic Attributes - characteristics with potential to affect project viability both on and off the subject site including access, exposure, public services, linkages and neighborhood characteristics. 4. Environmental Attributes - impact of physical, social and economic factors such as drainage, floodplain and compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. Static Attributes Size & Shape: The subject PUD (Planned Unit Development) is approximately 164 gross acres in size, and irregular in shape. Topography: The subject tract has gently rolling terrain with dense to medium coverage of natural vegetation, including trees, brush, and grass. Flood Plain: According to the dFirm data produced by FEMA, no portion of the subject falls within the FEMA designated 100 -year flood plain. Improvements: A majority of the property is vacant land. Legal Attributes The subject property is located within Williamson County in the City of Georgetown. The site is currently has multiple zoning designations, with the majority of land being AG (Agriculture), and also includes smaller portions of Residential Single Family, Local Commercial, and General Commercial. 2 hepJ �'u�'• SCALE UGENP rown'•'xm'E'evnn�ri°snu.�u'1 N�,yN'v J1 !.. dz..+CL� ' ���r'� M•P•- Y�", � ;x� ��•. naw uGx.t. wnv ulz�auis _� � /p° e � r.¢muurc°.aumnvrt ir�rax ar F , irmu f� I uF[cT*xEmaWn xG[d4 xwrH eur re ozsu��o. m ra swea ...M.1n.l.d:.� 3 -Y •r� e+a�w LwNm G.. k 'y wte 3 m1u • wc°a./ vrfl.w rM eum k IL I R Mt aeb•E_°Q kerryrsB r]! � � do „ / Cpo :nm 3o]xoa om°.�]� a•]r].'E 3])YP ,�,�p�e+A�yF'}. �.R �Pw� [ �"� � upn • r ` p 1Wfb M60 blFyyOL' wMTri= M4y eon NS•'s!P s •mow 0 i x • F � f f nb c� a �� ma I :+r+ a..ax nanr..r ar a A.•mrR mclE mwsue x°scm �- °x�,zmwem,o.o.. k ill iw a.s.wv.00x i f STEGE1ZELL BOUNDARY SURVEYOF WOLF (ARES FkOj.tl N0� 2250fi [ IN THE N]SEPN P-PULSIFER SURVEY A PATENTED IN CONFUCr W ITI THE MILLE PERRY SURVEYA SO SHEET O7 a.T. ! WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEAS oFOT Economic Context Overview The subject, the planned Wolf Lakes PUD, is located in the Georgetown market area, and is primarily influenced by the economic base of the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and the Austin -Round Rock MSA. The Austin MSA is comprised of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson counties According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Austin -Round Rock MSA grew by 19.8% in from 2010 through 2016 (U.S. Census estimates, July 1), and now has a population that exceeds 2 million people. The City of Georgetown is the county seat of Williamson County, and is part of the Austin -Round Rock MSA. According to the US Census Bureau's 2016 population estimates, Georgetown grew by over 41% from 2010 through 2016, and is the fifth fastest growing city in the nation (with a population over 50,000). The Austin -Round Rock MSA is anchored by employment in state and local government and higher education, including the University of Texas, St. Edward's University, Texas State University, and Southwestern University. Research and development and healthcare are also important economic influences, while high-tech and internet based companies have become an integral part of the economy. Employment Growth Employment grew rapidly in Austin in the late 1990s with annual increases ranging from 25,100 in 1996 to 38,000 in 2000. However, in 2002 the Austin area lost more than 16,000 jobs and in 2003, the loss was 5,400. In a remarkable recovery, growth resumed in 2004, and the Texas Workforce Commission reported a net increase of 108,100 jobs in from January 2004 through December 2007. For a period of time in late 2007 and early 2008 it appeared that Austin might not be affected by the national housing crisis, but eventually the lack of credit for new lot construction, retail chain expansions and business inventory additions resulted in a decrease in new job creation in the local economy, which diminished to (-16,800) in 2009. However, the economy began a modest recovery in 2010 with 11,400 jobs added and gained more momentum in 2011 with 26,300 jobs added. The recovery then accelerated, adding approximately 39,000 jobs in 2013 and again in 2014. Employment growth continued its positive trajectory through 2015 and 2016, with an average increase of 38,650 jobs a year. The most recent forecast (June 2017) shows a slower, but still positive job growth trend. Table (1) on the following page provides recent employment statistics and projections for the Austin -Round Rock MSA. Forecasted annual increases in the Austin -Round Rock MSA employment for 2017 through 2026 are expected to average 2.04%. The forecast shown is from Moody's, Economy.com, Austin -Round Rock MSA Employment Forecast, June, 21, 2017. 4 50,000 40,000 m 30,000 c - 20,000 r 10,000 a 0 (10,000) (20,000) Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Annual Average Wage& Non -Farm Salary Employment (1990-2016) Forecasted employment increase obtained from Moody's Economy. cam June 21, 2017 emp-gro_2017.xis Employment Growth �ditio�Vo°Vo tiaa�,A°c#'tiacf°,VodtiA V Tod13% Nsryo'�°sry°�o�sryoti,�°tiryoAat tioAIAtiCI 0 0+ Year Annual Change —*—Percent Change 61 7% 6% 5% 4% w m 3% m 2% c 1% `m 0% a _1% -2% -3% Table (1) Historical & Projected Employment Growth Austin -Round Rock MSA Total Wage & Year Annual Change Percent Change Salary Emp. 2000 683,900 38,000 5.88% 2001 685,300 1,400 0.20% 2002 669,300 (16,000) -2.33% 2003 663,900 (5,400) -0.81% 2004 679,100 15,200 2.29% 2005 704,600 25,500 3.75% 2006 736,300 31,700 4.50% 2007 U 772,000 35,700 4.85% 0 2008 791,000 19,000 2.46% T 2009 774,200 (16,800) -2.12% 2010 785,600 11,400 1.47% 2011 811,900 26,300 3.35% 2012 844,300 32,400 3.99% 2013 884,100 39,800 4.71% 2014 922,900 38,800 4.39% 2015 962,900 40,000 4.33% 2016 .._„__,.,_...........W_ 1,000,200 _._.._....... 37,300 3.87% 2017 1,027,800 27,600 2.76% 2018 1,053,500 25,700 2.50% 2019 1,077,600 24,100 2.29% v 2020 1,096,000 18,400 1.71% v 2021 1,114,900 18,900 1.72% 2022 1,141,300 26,400 2.37% a 2023 1,167,400 26,100 2.29% 2024 1,187, 200 19,800 1.70% 2025 1,205,200 18,000 1.52% 2026 1,224,100 18,900 1.57% 2027 1, 243, 300 19,200 1.57% 50,000 40,000 m 30,000 c - 20,000 r 10,000 a 0 (10,000) (20,000) Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Annual Average Wage& Non -Farm Salary Employment (1990-2016) Forecasted employment increase obtained from Moody's Economy. cam June 21, 2017 emp-gro_2017.xis Employment Growth �ditio�Vo°Vo tiaa�,A°c#'tiacf°,VodtiA V Tod13% Nsryo'�°sry°�o�sryoti,�°tiryoAat tioAIAtiCI 0 0+ Year Annual Change —*—Percent Change 61 7% 6% 5% 4% w m 3% m 2% c 1% `m 0% a _1% -2% -3% Population & Household Trends The Austin MSA has seen a 3.20% average annual increase in population from 2000 to 2014, while the total number of households increased by an average of 3.26% annually. Williamson County saw much higher percentage average annual increases in population (4.93%) and households (4.72%) during the same time period, as the County employment base expanded and new communities opened with a wide variety of housing options. The City of Georgetown grew by an average of 5.43% annually in population, and 5.99% in households during that same period. Household size in both the MSA and County decreased or stayed relativity flat from 2000 and 2010, but have since increased in both areas, while the City of Georgetown also increased since 2010. Table(2) Population and Household Growth MSA, County, and City (2000 to 2014) Area Population Annual Change (2000-2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA 1,249,763 1,716,289 1,942,615 3.20% Williamson County 249,967 422,679 490,619 4.93% City of Georgetown 28,339 47,400 59,436 5.43% Area Total Households Annual Change (2000- 2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA 471,855 650,459 706,066 2.92% Williamson County 86,766 152,606 165,425 4.72% City of Georgetown 10,393 18,830 23,460 5.99% Area Population in Households Annual Change (2000-2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA 1,212,806 1,675,416 1,901,359 3.26% Williamson County 245,041 417,582 486,146 5.02% City of Georgetown 26,220 44,901 57,550 5.78% Area Average HH Size Annual Change (2000-2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA 2.57 2.58 2.69 0.33% Williamson County 2.82 2.74 2.94 0.28% City of Georgetown 2.52 2.38 2.45 Source: US Bureau of the Census, 1000 & 1010, ACS 5 -Year Survey 1011-1016 d em ogra p h i cs. xl s Note: The ACS 1012-2016 is a rolling 5 -year survey, meant to represent the median year of 1014. Prepared 6y Capitol Market Research, January 2018 7 Household Tenure Trends Table (3) below shows trends in household tenure for the Austin MSA and Williamson County. Between 2000 and 2010, the percent of renter households in the Austin MSA dropped slightly, as many suburban areas saw a boom in single family housing construction. However, from 2010 to 2014, renter households have increased in the MSA as "infill' development has increased in and around the central core, and as many suburban areas have experienced apartment development and job growth. This suburban trend is seen in the 1.42% average annual increase of renter households in Williamson County from 2000 to 2014. The City of Georgetown saw a decrease in renter households from 2000 to 2014 as the area has experienced rapid growth in new single family housing, while the multi -family inventory has expanded less rapidly. Table (3) Households by Tenure MSA, County, and City (2000 to 2014) Area Total Households Annual Change (2000- 2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA 471,855 650,459 706,066 2.92% Williamson County 86,766 152,606 165,425 4.72°% City of Georgetown 10,393 18,830 23,460 5.99°% Area Owner Households Annual Change (2000- 2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA 274,712 380,448 410,054 2.90% Williamson County 64,380 105,784 113,460 4.13% City of Georgetown 7,143 13,712 17,125 6.44% Area Renter Households Annual Change (2000- 2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA Williamson County City of Georgetown 197,143 22,386 3,250 270,011 46,822 5,118 296,012 51,965 6,335 2.95% 6.20% 4.88% Area Percent Renter Annual Change (2000 - 2014) 2000 2010 2014 Austin -Round Rock MSA 41.78% 41.51% 41.92% 0.02% Williamson County 25.80% 30.68% 31.41% 1.42% City of Georgetown 31.27% 27.18% 27.00%% 1.04% Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000& 2010, ACS 5 -Year Survey 1012-2016 demographics A s Note: The ACS 1012-2016 is a rolling 5 -year survey, meant to represent the median year cf2014. Prepared by Capitol Market Research, January 2018 8 Austin MSA Population and Household Forecast As demonstrated in the previous section, population growth in Austin and other rapidly growing U.S. cities is almost always attributable to the immigration of people from other areas, often because of job opportunities. The demonstrable growth in employment and an unemployment rate of 2.7% for the Austin -Round Rock MSA (BLS, November 2017) means that as new jobs are created, people will move into the region to take those jobs. Most recently, over 67% of the population growth in the MSA was attributable to in -migration. Although CMR has utilized job growth (Shown previously in Table (1)) to forecast short-term population growth, Moody's does not predict growth past 2026. Because this is a long-term (20 year) forecast, CMR has chosen to use population forecasts for the Austin -Round Rock MSA from the Texas State Data Center (TSDC). Based on recommendations by the City of Austin Demographer, the population forecast used in this analysis is based on the most recently completed forecast available from the Texas State Data Center at Texas A&M University, (Scenario 1.0 and Scenario 0.5 blended), based on the US Census. Combining population growth with average household size (US Census 2010), CMR has estimated that the Austin -Round Rock MSA will grow by an annual average of 22,144 households per year from 2018 through 2037. Table (4) Households Forecast Austin -Round Rock MSA 7 MSA Population Household New Year Population Increase Size Households 2018 2,090,000 50,341 2.58 19,512 2019 2,140, 845 50,845 2.58 19,707 2020 2,192,419 51,575 2.58 19,990 2021 2,243,968 51,549 2.58 19,980 2022 2,296,107 52,139 2.58 20,209 2023 2,348,701 52,595 2.58 20,385 2024 2,402,027 53,326 2.58 20,669 2025 2,456,146 54,119 2.58 20,976 2026 2,510,764 54,618 2.58 21,170 2027 2,566,221 55,457 2.58 21,495 2028 2,622,812 56,591 2.58 21,934 2029 2,680,090 57,279 2.58 22,201 2030 2,738,548 58,458 2.58 22,658 2031 2,797,917 59,369 2.58 23,011 2023 2,858,655 60,738 2.58 23,542 2033 2,920,699 62,045 2.58 24,048 2034 2,983, 829 63,130 2.58 24,469 2035 3,048,564 64,735 2.58 25,091 2036 3,114,586 66,022 2.58 25,590 2037 3,182, 282 67,696 2.58 26,239 Source: Population increase based on TSDCMSA Forecast emp_gro_2017.xis (Scenerio 0.5 and 1.0 blend), Household size based on 1010 Census 7 REGIONAL REAL ESTATE MARKET TRENDS & FORECASTS Apartment Market Trends in the Austin MSA Historical Trends Traditionally, apartment projects in Austin have been clustered near activity centers, major employers and the university areas. Examples of this phenomenon include the cluster of apartments near IBM, Dell, Abbott Labs and Seton Hospital as well as the apartments surrounding the University of Texas, St. Edwards University, and the various Austin Community College campus locations. In the recent past, the Central Business District had relatively few residential rental units in inventory. However, since 2009 and 2010, several new communities were developed within the area, with construction continuing into 2016. Market conditions in the Austin area multi -family market were volatile in the eighties, when Federal Tax Policy caused dramatic overbuilding of the apartment market in 1985 and 1986, followed by several years of inactivity. After dropping to 80% occupancy in the mid -eighties, occupancy rates steadily increased, and by 1990, rapid rent escalation was underway. However, it was not until 1993 that overall market rental rates were high enough to support widespread construction activity. As Austin's economy experienced robust growth in the early nineties, the resurgence of multi -family construction began in 1991 when 148 units were constructed and 220 units were absorbed. At that time citywide occupancy was at 93.7% and apartments leased for an average $0.57 per square foot. From that period through mid-1996, average rent per square foot and absorption accelerated dramatically. Occupancy first peaked in December 1994 at 97.4%, and then again in June 2000 (at 98.2%), while new unit completions peaked in 1996 at 6,405 units and then again at 8,472 in 2001. Since 1996, the pace of new construction fluctuated from year to year but both occupancy and average rental rates increased steadily through the end of 2000. In 2001, for the first time in many years, new unit completions dramatically exceeded absorption and the market plunged from 97.6% in January to 90.0% by the end of the year. Rents dropped precipitously, but the building continued into 2002, in spite of the softness in the market. Beginning in late 2003, new construction activity began to diminish and regional apartment demand regained strength which resulted in the positive absorption trend through 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. However, in 2008 the market occupancy rate decreased 5.2 percentage points from 2007, with additional drops in 2009 occupancy (90.4%) and rental rates ($0.93). December 2010 and 2011 saw a rapid recovery, and by 20121, rental rates had increased again to $1.12, a $0.07 increase since December 2011, and occupancy also increased to reach an astonishing 97.4%. In December 2014, rental rates climbed to $1.26, and occupancy has dropped slightly to 94.0%, before reaching $1.35 at 94.5% in December 2015. Current Market Conditions There were 43,611 net units added between 2010 and 2016, including new units, renovations added back into inventory, and those units removed from inventory due to either a condo conversion or demolition, including the highest number of units added in one year since the late 1980s (10,371 units in 1 The December 2012 multi -family survey was the first year that incorporated San Marcos and Georgetown. 11 2014). From 2010 through 2013, absorption was very strong as net units added were consistently less than unit demand. The December 2014 Capitol Market Research (CMR) Survey showed 10,371 net units added in 2014, the most net units added in the area in a calendar year for over 20 years. This increased rate of construction, cumulating with the opening multiple new projects at the end of the year, resulted in a lower than expected net absorption rate and a decline in occupancy. However, the December 2015 survey showed a return to strong annual absorption, with 9,347 units absorbed, the highest rate of absorption ever recorded, and the occupancy rate rose to 94.5%. December 2016 saw a net addition of 10,780 units, topping the previous record set in 2014. Although absorption remained strong in 2016, the occupancy rate dipped to 93.8%, and rental rates increased slightly since the end of 2015 to $1.39 per square foot. The most recent survey data, completed by CMR in December 2017, shows a net addition of 10,727 units, just slightly less than the record achieved the previous year. Absorption was 5,891 units, dropping the occupancy rate to 92.2%, as 52 projects continue their lease -up. Rental rates have fallen slightly since the $1.41 seen in June 2017, back to $1.39 per square foot. Table (5), on the following page, provides apartment market conditions from December 1991 through December 2017. Historical data on occupancy, average rent, unit completions and absorption for 1991 through 2017 is taken from CMR's Austin Apartment Survey, a semi-annual survey of all projects with more than 50 units in the Austin area. 12 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Table (5) Austin Citywide Apartment Summary December 1991- December 2017 "1°' I'll 1°'°'0ti9°19'LC 11 p;;I1110Le'LCJ'110'Ie'LC�1'Le'Lp'1e'LD•y1'L�•�'L'LO•y'+�'LD•yC'LD•y�'L�•y6'L�•y1 R6eNt Net Units Added Calculated AbsorptionPercent Occupied 13 100% 95% 90% 85% Occupied Percent Net Units Calculated Rent per Year Total Units Units Occupied Added Absorption Sq.Ft. 1991 61,113 57,266 93.7% 148 220 $0.57 1992 61,118 58,448 95.6% 348 1,160 $0.64 1993 63,074 61,174 97.0"/ 594 1,229 $0.71 1994 66,379 64,662 97.4% 2,178 2,212 $0.75 1995 69,324 67,101 96.8% 3,010 3,098 $0.79 1996 77,019 71,452 92.8% 7,384 3,882 $0.81 1997 81,382 77,270 94.9% 4,770 5,697 $0.82 1998 86,428 83,683 96.89/a 4,778 5,929 $0.86 1999 89,699 87,531 97.6% 2,499 3,643 $0.91 2000 96,114 93,786 97.6% 5,923 5,773 $0.98 2001 105,162 94,651 90.0% 9,351 1,368 $0.94 2002 113,380 99,794 88.0% 8,432 4,925 $0.86 2003 120,169 107,290 89.3% 4,912 5,828 $0.81 2004 122,323 111,786 91.4% 2,262 4,133 $0.81 2005 124,325 117,389 94.49/. 1,819 6,243 $0.85 2006 126,842 120,304 94.8% 2,993 2,356 $0.91 1007 128,900 124,558 96.6% 3,416 5,562 $0.96 2008 137,005 125,284 91.49/a 8,404 1,526 $0.97 2009 145,734 131,686 90.4% 9,025 6,750 $0.93 1010 147,045 139,361 94.8% 2,906 8,773 $0.98 2011 147,648 141,614 95.9"/ 576 2,245 $1.05 1012 164,143 159,918 97.49/o 4,222 6,441 $1.12 1013 170,234 164,917 96.9% 6,087 4,589 $1.21 2014 180,519 169,732 94.0% 10,371 4,279 $1.26 2015 189,320 178,901 94.5% 8,669 9,347 $1.35 2016 200,028 187,718 93.8% 10,780 8,770 $1.39 2017 210,655 194,253 92.2% 10,727 5,891 $1.39 Source: Capitol Market Research, December 1991- 2017 Apartment Market Survey CMR estimates of new completions based an surveys ofproperty managers and owners Net Units added and Absorption are calculated numbers, and will take into accoun t new units, added older Inventory, "retired" inventory, and remodeled units. Georgetown and San Marcos included in totals starting in 2012 \Data SeWA USTIN M SA\apt sum_49tlax "1°' I'll 1°'°'0ti9°19'LC 11 p;;I1110Le'LCJ'110'Ie'LC�1'Le'Lp'1e'LD•y1'L�•�'L'LO•y'+�'LD•yC'LD•y�'L�•y6'L�•y1 R6eNt Net Units Added Calculated AbsorptionPercent Occupied 13 100% 95% 90% 85% Condominium Market Trends in the Austin MSA Historically, attached housing' projects in the Austin MSA have been clustered in the central city, mostly in neighborhoods close to downtown, the Arboretum area and the University of Texas. Over the last decade, that area has expanded to include more neighborhoods such as Tarrytown, Bouldin Creek, Travis Heights, Barton Creek, Lakeway, East Austin and the Central Business District (CBD). The combination of strong consumer demand for housing and the rapid escalation of land prices in desirable neighborhoods has provided opportunities for new, higher density housing options. The most viable, and perhaps most successful, emerging market is the CBD. Since 2000, over 2,200 new condominiums units have been completed and absorbed, and many units have sold for prices that exceed $600 per square foot. The current market trend has a solid footing in basic land economic fundamentals, unlike the condominium construction boom in the mid -eighties, which was fueled by favorable income tax treatment of "passive' real estate investments. In addition to rising single-family home prices, the demand for higher density housing has a strong demographic basis in ageing baby -boomer households and busy young professionals. In the late nineties there were almost no attached housing projects for sale in Austin. Then in 2000, suburban construction began with the Courtyard Homes at Cobblestone (59 units) and Bouldin Creek Condominiums (33 units). Both projects were enthusiastically received by the young professional homebuyer and sold out quickly. Liberty Hill was also built in 2000, and sold rapidly to both young professionals and the empty nesters that live in the Westlake area. The success of these three projects enticed other developers to explore the market, and most of the new suburban product developed since then has been well received. In roughly the same time period, the downtown condominium market emerged, expanding from two small "adaptive reuse" projects on East Fifth St., to several new condominium towers. Current Market Conditions As discussed above, the attached housing market in the Austin area is rapidly gaining strength and is emerging as an important segment of the new home market. Attached housing sales, as a percentage of total MLS home sales, have fluctuated over the past ten years (2007-2016) within a narrow range between 9% and 11%, with an average of 10.19%. Recently, in 2017, attached housing sales have increased to 11.61% of all housing sales in the Austin MSA. This percentage is likely to increase over the next few years as more product is brought to the market. Historically, as demand increased and new, more expensive units were introduced to the market, the average unit sales price of existing units also increased from $148,936 in 2003 to $210,602 in 2007. In 2009, the average price dropped to $176,026 but it has continued to rise since then, reaching $296,822 at the end of 2016. The most recent sales year, 2017, saw the average sale price of existing attached housing in the Austin MSA rise to $322,278, or $239 per square foot. ' Capitol Market Research defines "Attached Housing" as duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhome or condominium units. 14 One of the most interesting aspects of this higher density market is the degree to which urban homebuyers are accepting new innovative product, whether it is stark urban lofts in East Austin (The Pedernales), or elegant stone townhomes (Kinney Muse) and combined condo/townhome projects (Denizen) in South Austin, or expensive high-rise condominiums in downtown (The Austonian and the Residences at the Four Seasons). In suburban locations, the product of choice appears to be the small single family home built on a "pad site" in a condominium subdivision. There are currently several new projects under construction or in the initial preconstruction sales period. Most of these projects are located in central city neighborhoods on major arterials in or close to downtown, but there are also a number of new projects in suburban communities, which include Cedar Park, Georgetown, Lakeway and Round Rock. 15 Table (6) Austin MSA Attached Housing Sales December 2003 - December 2017 Year Numberof Average Sales Average Average Average Sales Price Sq.Ft. $/SF DOM 2003 1,568 $148,936 1,242 $120 64 2004 1,763 $159,662 1,275 $125 81 2005 2,399 $168,652 1,254 $134 74 2006 3,123 $188,212 1,227 $153 58 2007 2,767 $210,602 1,268 $166 53 2008 2,103 $202,649 1,215 $167 72 2009 1,860 $176,026 1,166 $151 82 2010 1,945 $191,274 1,241 $154 80 2011 1,997 $204,103 1,264 $161 89 2012 2,550 $225,877 1,311 $172 70 2013 3,177 $249,849 1,277 $196 47 2014 3,144 $267,939 1,293 $207 38 2015 3,099 $285,482 1,296 $220 39 2016 3,432 $296,822 1,312 $226 53 2017 3,830 $322,278 1,347 $239 51 Source: Austin Board of Realtors, MLS Database condo_sum_.gtn.xls Prepared by Capitol Market Research, January 1018 MLS Search Conditions: Condo, Duplex, Townhomein five county metro area 4,400 4,000 3,600 3,200 2,800 N 2,400 ° 2,000 6 Z 1,600 1,200 800 400 0 nom off` �� a�oo� o� � ti ti ti ti 1 ti ti ti1� ti ti IV ti ti Number of Sales - Average Sales Price 16 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 8 a` N N M r $200,000 "' $150,000 $100,000 Austin Office Market Overview The office market in Austin has, over the last 26 years, evolved from a relatively small government - oriented market to a much larger and more diverse multi -tenant market. In 1980 the multi -tenant office market in Austin contained approximately 5.4 million square feet of space in 77 buildings. By 1987, the market had expanded fourfold to include more than 22 million square feet in 251 buildings and it now contains 46.6 million sq. ft. in 653 buildings. Reflecting the historical focus on State government and the location of the Capitol Building, for most of the 201h century a majority of office space was concentrated in Downtown Austin. In recent years, however, suburban office development has dominated the market, since almost 100% of the space built during the nineties was constructed in the suburban market. From 1993 to 1999, a majority of leasing activity also took place in the suburbs, and until the first quarter of 2001, the suburban markets displayed remarkable strength, with almost every new building fully leased when it received a certificate of occupancy. Now, as a result of another boom in suburban office construction in 2007 and 2008 the suburban market occupancy rates have dropped dramatically and the market has become much more competitive. Historical Market Trends Austin, like many other cities in Texas, experienced an unprecedented boom in office space construction and absorption in the mid -eighties. Driven by a rapidly expanding economy and media attention associated with the formation of MCC (Microelectronics & Computer Technology Corporation, a consortium of high tech businesses, working together to create innovative technology), office absorption in 1984 surged to 2.56 million square feet. From 1983 to 1987 the inventory of general-purpose office space increased by 128%, a dramatic expansion caused by a massive construction boom. Unfortunately, the downturn in the Texas economy coupled with slow growth in the computer industry caused declines in office employment and absorption of the new space. In 1987, Austin had one of the lowest occupancy rates in the country at 62.6%. With increasing occupancy and improving rental rates, 1990 was the turnaround year for the Austin office market. Government agencies led the market recovery as entities like the Austin Independent School District, Austin Community College and the State of Texas purchased vacant multi -tenant office buildings, removing them from the available inventory. This trend continued through 1991 and 1992, and in 1993 and 1994 private companies initiated a similar trend as they bought and occupied suburban office buildings. From 1995 through the end of 2000, the market expansion gained strength as rental rates increased and new buildings were completed and fully leased at completion. Between January 2000 and December 2002, the Austin office market deteriorated rapidly as many pre -profit dot.com companies went out of business and gave up their lease space. Over the same three-year period over 6.0 million square feet were completed in 77 new buildings. In 2003 only one building was completed with 83,843 sq. ft. Four buildings were completed in 2004 with a total of 605,686 sq. ft. and in 2005 and 2006 there were no (0) new buildings added to the inventory. The December 2006 office report showed a dramatic increase in occupancy to 87.8% (including sublease space) and 88.9% occupancy of owner - offered (direct) space. But in December 2007 the occupancy rate dropped to 85.2% due to the lack of 17 leasing activity combined with the completion of 1,398,077 sq. ft. of new office space in 2007. Absorption for the year was an anemic 145,122 sq. ft., which was a dramatic slowdown from the positive trend of the prior three years. In December 2008 the office market conditions continue to decline as 2,373,710 square feet were added to the market and only 484,876 square feet were absorbed. Then, in 2009, the market experienced negative absorption of almost one million sq. ft. while 976,999 sq. ft. were added during the year. December 2010 occupancy, including sublease space, increased to 80.3% but the quoted rental rates dropped by $1.63 to $24.68. Throughout 2011, average rates continued their decline, but occupancy rates increased and in some areas, like the CBD and Southwest Austin, finding large blocks of contiguous space was increasingly difficult. At the end of 2011, average rates were down slightly from 2010 to $24.19, but occupancy including sublease space increased to 83.7%. Recent Market Conditions Throughout 2012 and 2013, the market steadily improved with strong leasing activity in the CBD, Northwest and Southwest market areas. At the end of 2015, the citywide occupancy rate surpassed 90.0% for the first time since 2000. The market has continued to gain strength through 2016, ending the year 91.6% occupancy and average rents reaching $34.05 (gross rates). In the first half of 2017, strong demand supported an increase in the average to $34.91 (gross) per square foot. The occupancy rate in June 2017 leveled off at 91.6%. Construction continues to be healthy, with 2.48 million square feet currently under construction, with the majority in the Austin CBD, Northwest (The Domain), and the Northeast market areas. 18 Table (7) Austin Citywide Office Market Summary (December 1991- June 2017) Year I Net Rentable Area Total Leased percent Occupied Additions (Sq.Ft.) Absorption (Net Sq. Ft.) Average Rent per Sq. Ft. 1991 21,010,788 16,592,251 79.0% 120,000 674,374 $12.12 1992 20,783,333 17,312,282 83.3% 0 917,967 $12.37 1993 20,979,552 18,174,152 86.6% 195,454 798,889 $12.84 1994 21,237,702 18,742,752 88.3% 0 695,813 $13.54 1995 21,343,917 19,230,407 90.1% 33,000 352,263 $14.85 1996 22,351,191 20,461,948 91.5% 448,875 588,677 $16.25 1997 23,564,021 21,952,889 93.2% 701,342 957,623 $17.89 1998 24,659,563 23,206,121 94.1% 1,077,000 1,190,829 $19.88 1999 26,841,892 25,161,595 93.7% 2,239,516 1,997,260 $21.11 2000 28,524,537 27,213,822 95.4% 1,764,244 1,867,353 $26.70 2001 31,162,686 25,531,590 81.9% 2,520,265 (1,680,818) $26.05 2002 33,198,203 24,256,957 73.1% 1,617,984 (1,274,633) $20.71 1003 33,125,064 24,840,794 75.0% 83,843 583,837 $18.35 2004 34,529,701 27,960,818 81.0% 605,686 1,572,164 $18.88 2005 34,607,839 29,402,802 85.0% 0 912,552 $20.08 2006 34,513,174 30,288,445 87.8% 0 965,954 $21.96 2007 35,630,721 30,365,399 85.2% 1,398,077 145,122 $25.47 2008 38,445,479 31,313,962 81.5% 2,373,710 484,876 $27.41 2009 39,677,836 30,584,102 77.1% 976,999 (971,414) $26.31 2010 39,274,313 31,548,225 80.3% 88,694 964,123 $24.68 2011 39,358,387 32,959,646 83.7% 0 1,361,946 $24.19 1012 39,555,890 34,070,832 86.1% 62,192 1,072,575 $25.41 2013 39,156,400 34,195,776 87.3% 101,444 485,059 $27.74 2014 42,222,619 37,626,733 89.1% 1,274,569 1,851,291 $29.78 2015 44,004,567 40,013,489 90.9% 1,768,664 2,365,751 $31.18 2016 45,977,582 42,135,826 91.6% 1,632,342 1,833,694 $34.05 Jun -17 46,599,994 42,665,875 91.6% 732,469 631,068 $34.91 Source: Capitol Market Research, Austin Area Office Survey, December 1991 -lune 1017 off -sum 0617.xis Average quoted rent for all available space on a "Gross" Lease basis Includessublease space starting in 2001 $40.00 1 - 100.0% $35.00 $30.00 0 0 $25.00 Cr a1 0 a$20.00 a` $15.00 $10.00 IMM Average Rent per Sq. Ft. Percent Occupied A 19 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% v w_ 80.0% 'C O 75.0% c d 70.0% a 65.0% 60.0% Retail Market Trends in the Austin MSA Following national trends, the Austin multi -tenant retail market has evolved from a concentration of retail space in neighborhood shopping centers and large regional malls, to a more diverse base that includes "power centers," "lifestyle centers," and off-price shopping. Approximately 17.9 million square feet of multi -tenant space have been added to the citywide inventory since 2000, an increase of 70.2%, and much of that space has been located along the Highway 183 corridor in Cedar Park, the MoPac corridor near the Arboretum, at La Frontera in Round Rock, and in Sunset Valley and South Park Meadows. It is typical for gross retail sales to increase dramatically during periods of rapid regional growth. Driven by strong growth in population and new household formation, it is not unusual for growth to exceed 10% on an annual basis. While aggregate sales growth is an important metric, the strength of the market is more accurately reflected by gross sales per capita. This data shows an average annual increase of 10.1% from 2004 through 2008, but a decline of -11.0% during the recent recession in 2009. However, since 2010 gross retail sales have continually increased at an average annual rate of 7.9%. The highest rate of change came recently, between 2015 and 2016, when gross retail sales rose by 16.5%. Historical Market Trends The combination of rapid population growth and increases in disposable income has created a healthy demand for retail space in the Austin area. In addition, the national trend toward replacement of neighborhood retail stores and malls with "big box" outlet stores and "lifestyle centers" generated a demand for new construction, even in 2001 and 2002, when the Austin economy was stagnant and there was little population growth. Among commercial property types, the relationship between new construction and absorption is most closely correlated in the retail property group. Most retail center construction is financed with a 70% prelease commitment, which means that when centers are completed, they deliver occupied space to the market, thus maintaining an annual balance between space completed and absorption. The disparities in 2008 and 2009 are due to tenant bankruptcy and downsizing, which created a higher than average vacancy rate in the market. Recent Market Conditions Occupancy rates in multi -tenant shopping centers have consistently remained in the 90% to 94% range, even in periods of slow growth. During the national recession between 2008 and 2011, store closures caused by declining activity in the global marketplace resulted in very low absorption and a decrease in occupancy rates and average rents in Austin. Since December 2010, the Austin retail market has mostly recovered from the national recession. Average rents for the Austin MSA increased between 2010 and December 2013, before declining slightly during 2014 to $19.85, and increasing to $21.01 in June 2015, which is the highest average rental rate achieved since 2008. The overall occupancy percentage has increased from 89.4% in December 2009 to 95.0% in December 2015, and to 95.4% in 2016. Currently (June 2017), multi -tenant occupancy has 091 remained high, at 95.1%. There has been 4.8 million square feet of absorption between December 2012 and December 2016, and 430,388 square feet of absorption in the first six months of 2017, showing the continuing strength of the Austin retail market. During 2015, 214,229 sq. ft. of new shop space was added to the citywide inventory, and much of that space was located in mixed-use developments, including Seaholm, Corazon, and Lamar Union, and in neighborhood centers such as The Oaks at Lakeway. One notable loss was the closing of Highland Mall (440,000 sq. ft.), which resulted in "net additions" of (-17,444), even though the Austin area added over 380,000 sq. ft. of new space. In 2016, two additions to The Domain, Rock Rose and Domain Northside, opened 625,000 sq. ft., while several mixed-use developments with first floor retail (Burnet Marketplace, Northshore, Lamar Central) were completed. In addition, two neighborhood centers, The Oaks at Lakeway (195,680 sq.ft.) in Lakeway, and Crysal Falls Town Center (93,000 sq.ft.) in Leander were added to the market. In all, there was 1.27 million square feet of new space added in 2016, resulting in 811,108 "net" square feet added (due to buildings taken out of inventory and square foot adjustments). In the first half of 2017, 575,701 square feet of new multi -tenant retail space was completed, including The Parke, a 400,000 square foot community center in Cedar Park and Mueller Aldrich Street (70,601 sq. ft.), the "Town Center" portion of the Mueller master -planned community. In addition, the first -phase of Crosscreek Market in Cedar Park was completed (37,054 sq. ft.), along with four strip centers containing 68,046 square feet. As of June 2017, there was approximately 930,000 square feet of shop space under construction, and over 2.4 million square feet planned. A large portion of the centers under construction are neighborhood centers, with square footage ranging between 30,000 and 120,000, including an anchor, in suburban areas such as Leander, Cedar Park and Dripping Springs. 21 Table (8) Austin MSA Retail Market Summary December 1991- June 2017 Year Net Rentable Area Total Leased Percent Occupied Net Additions (Sq.Ft.) Absorption (Net Sq. Ft.) Average Rent per Sq. Ft. 1991 18,615,066 14,312,101 76.9% 533,000 347,825 $9.19 1991 19,010,914 14,792,832 77.8% 395,848 568,007 $9.26 1993 19,286,206 16,105,328 83.5% 275,292 1,030,636 $9.47 1994 19,337,926 17,001,589 87.9% 51,720 840,493 $10.21 1995 21,400,556 18,973,430 88.7% 2,062,630 1,977,355 $12.94 1996 21,751,044 19,916,993 91.6% 350,488 1,081,861 $12.92 1997 21,716,879 20,336,836 93.6% (34,165) 557,335 $13.70 1998 23,319,543 21,655,479 92.9% 1,602,664 1,340,491 $15.02 1999 24,161,615 22,929,209 94.9% 842,072 1,311,473 $14.81 2000 25,615,824 24,757,048 96.6% 1,454,209 1,324,776 $16.85 2001 26,476,299 25,014,511 94.5% 860,475 557,628 $16.00 2002 26,584,952 25,212,128 94.8% 108,653 94,045 $15.96 2003 28,536,372 26,847,571 94.1% 1,951,420 1,522,224 $16.22 2004 28,583,179 26,712,487 93.5% 46,807 2,937 $15.85 2005 30,874,435 28,773,109 93.2% 2,291,256 1,743,590 $17.87 2006 32,771,340 30,310,047 92.5% 1,896,905 1,795,741 $20.06 2007 37,611,194 34,520,864 91.8% 4,839,854 4,047,740 $22.41 2008 38,779,569 35,062,096 90.41Y. 1,168,375 542,351 $22.81 2009 40,258,726 35,984,670 89.4% 1,479,157 166,397 $19.75 2010 40,754,222 36,839,716 90.4% 495,496 628,544 $19.43 2011 40,550,682 36,722,398 90.6% (203,540) 342,990 $19.44 2012 40,839,470 36,675,163 89.8% 288,788 137,424 $20.17 2013 41,287,481 37,517,184 90.9% 448,011 768,275 $20.32 2014 42,275,220 39,197,490 92.7% 987,739 1,440,832 $19.85 2015 42,257,776 40,158,957 95.0% (17,444) 1,244,971 $22.05 2016 43,068,884 41,073,219 95.4% 811,108 1,238,991 $24.49 2017 43,598,885 41,461,368 95.1% 530,001 430,388 $27.83 Source: Capital MarketResearch, Austin Area Retail Survey, December 1991 -June 2017 retail sum 0617.xls $28.00 $23.00 0 0 m `m c $18.00 N a 8 o. $13.00 $8.00 Waaea Average Rent per Sq. Ft. Percent Occupied 22 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% v w 80.0% .a O 75.0% c 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% Austin MSA Multi -Family Demand Forecast The table below provides an estimate of new multi -family rental units needed as a result of the population growth anticipated over the next twenty years. Using the household forecast shown in Table (4), and assuming the maintenance of the percent renter (41.51%) based on the Austin MSA trends seen in the US 2010 Census, the number of new renter occupied households was calculated. To estimate multi -family apartment unit demand, CMR relied on recent building permit data from the Texas A&M Real Estate Data Center, which shows multi -family units (with 5+ units) to be 95.49% of the total units built in the MSA in the past 10 years. Using this percentage in the demand forecast yields an average demand of 8,777 units per year from 2018 through 2037 needed in the Austin -Round Rock MSA. Table (9) Multi -Family Housing Demand Austin -Round Rock MSA Source: New Householdsfrom Table (4) emp_gro_2017.xls Percent Renter (41.51%) based on US Census 1010 Multi family demand based on building permits issued in the MSA over the past 10 years (95.49%) 23 New Percent New Renter Multi -Family Year Households Renter Households Demand 2018 19,512 41.51% 8,100 7,734 2019 19,707 41.51% 8,181 7,812 2020 19,990 41.51% 8,298 7,924 2021 19,980 41.51% 8,294 7,920 2022 20,209 41.51% 8,389 8,010 2023 20,385 41.51% 8,462 8,080 2024 20,669 41.51% 8,580 8,193 2025 20,976 41.51% 8,707 8,315 2026 21,170 41.51% 8,788 8,391 2027 21,495 41.51% 8,923 8,520 2028 21,934 41.51% 9,105 8,695 2029 22,201 41.51% 9,216 8,800 2030 22,658 41.51% 9,406 8,981 2031 23,011 41.51% 9,552 9,121 2023 23,542 41.51% 9,772 9,332 2033 24,048 41.51% 9,983 9,532 2034 24,469 41.51% 10,157 9,699 2035 25,091 41.51% 10,416 9,946 2036 25,590 41.51% 10,623 10,143 2037 26,239 41.51% 10,892 10,401 Source: New Householdsfrom Table (4) emp_gro_2017.xls Percent Renter (41.51%) based on US Census 1010 Multi family demand based on building permits issued in the MSA over the past 10 years (95.49%) 23 Austin MSA Condominium Demand Forecast The condominium demand forecast was also derived for the Austin MSA using the household forecast (Table (4)) and owner households in the MSA according to the US 2010 Census (58.49%). Condo, or "attached" housing demand was estimated to be 10.32% of owner demand, based on the proportion of total MLS sales attributable to all "attached" housing in the Austin MSA in the past 10 years, and will average approximately 1,337 units a year from 2018 through 2037. It is quite likely that this demand will increase as the demand for condominium/attached housing development grows and becomes a more accepted product type in and around the Austin area. Table (10) Condominium/Attached Housing Demand Austin -Round Rock MSA Source: New Householdsfrom Table (4) emp_gro_2017.x1s Percent Owner (58.49%) based on US Census 2010 Conominium demand based on % of MLS sales in the Austin MSA over the past 10 years (10.32%) 24 New Percent New Owner Condominium Year Households Owner Households Demand 2018 19,512 58.49% 11,412 1,178 2019 19,707 58.49% 11,527 1,190 2020 19,990 58.49% 11,692 1,207 2021 19,980 58.49% 11,686 1,206 2022 20,209 58.49% 11,820 1,220 2023 20,385 58.49% 11,923 1,230 2024 20,669 58.49% 12,089 1,248 2025 20,976 58.49% 12,269 1,266 2026 21,170 58.49% 12,382 1,278 2027 21,495 58.49% 12,572 1,297 2028 21,934 58.49% 12,829 1,324 2029 22,201 58.49% 12,985 1,340 2030 22,658 58.49% 13,252 1,368 2031 23,011 58.49% 13,459 1,389 2023 23,542 58.49% 13,769 1,421 2033 24,048 58.49% 14,066 1,452 2034 24,469 58.49% 14,312 1,477 2035 25,091 58.49% 14,676 1,515 2036 25,590 58.49% 14,967 1,545 2037 26,239 58.49% 15,347 1,584 Source: New Householdsfrom Table (4) emp_gro_2017.x1s Percent Owner (58.49%) based on US Census 2010 Conominium demand based on % of MLS sales in the Austin MSA over the past 10 years (10.32%) 24 Austin MSA Office Demand Forecast Total employment in the Austin area is expected to grow by an annual average of 1.96% over the next forecasted years (2018-2026) and 1.84% annually from 2027-2037. In order to determine the number of these jobs being created in need of office space, CMR utilized the Texas Workforce Commission's occupational breakdown of workers for each major industry group, including most professional, managerial, and clerical categories. CMR staff then reviewed each occupational category and assigned it an office percentage based on the type of work conducted by employees in each industry class. The results of this CMR analysis indicate that currently 41.6% of all workers in the Austin area are located in office space, however, the percentage by industry group range from a low of 4% in Hospitality to 100% in Finance. This percentage is predicted to decline slightly to 40.8% in 2036. CMR has also estimated that each office worker will need an average of 225 sq.ft. of space. The final step to determine the proportion of office demand that is likely to be absorbed in multi -tenant office buildings, by removing "build -to -suit" office buildings. It is likely that multi -tenant leasing will dominate, as a substantial amount of new office space is now available, and the desire to move rapidly into already completed and relatively affordable space drives the decision-making in many companies. Based on the Travis Central Appraisal District (TCAD) records, multi -tenant space accounts for 67% of total office space demand. By using the employment forecast shown in Table (1), CMR has concluded that the Austin MSA will absorb an average of about 1,375,000 million square feet of "multi -tenant" office space annually from 2018 to 2037. Table (11) Office Employment Growth Austin -Round Rock MSA Total 180,233 40,552,362 27,170,082 Source: Employment Forecastfrom Table (1) emp_gro_2017.xls Note: Once Employment is estimated to rangefrom 42 096to 40.896afTotol Employment, based on CMR occupation survey Employment to space ratio estimated to 6,225 sq ft. per person Multi -tenant space estimated to be 67% fthe total demand 25 Percent Multi -Tenant Total Wage & Office Annual Office Space Year Office Space Salary Emp. Employment Change Absorption Employment Absorption 2018 1,053,500 41.4% 436,527 8,863 1,994,157 1,336,085 2019 1,077,600 41.3% 444,706 8,179 1,840,377 1,233,052 2020 1,096,000 412% 451,174 6,468 1,455,206 974,988 2021 1,114,900 41.1% 458,078 6,905 1,553,581 1,040,899 2012 1,141,300 410% 467,839 9,761 2,196,219 1,471,467 2023 1,167,400 40.9% 477,685 9,846 2,215,278 1,484,237 2024 1,187, 200 409% 485,209 7,524 1,692,900 1,134, 243 1025 1,205,200 40.8% 492,077 6,868 1,545,360 1,035,391 2026 1,224,100 40.8% 499,410 7,333 1,649,840 1,105, 393 2027 1,246,601 408% 508,590 9,180 2,065,502 1,383,886 2028 1,269,516 40.8% 517,939 9,349 2,103,469 1,409,324 2029 1,292,852 40.8% 527,459 9,521 2,142,135 1,435,230 1030 1,316,616 40.8% 537,155 9,696 2,181,511 1,461,612 1031 1,340,818 40.8% 547,029 9,874 2,221,611 1,488,479 2032 1,365,465 408% 557,084 10,055 2,262,448 1,515,840 2033 1,390,564 40.891 567,324 10,240 2,304,035 1,543,704 2034 1,416,125 4081/6 577,753 10,428 2,346,387 1,572,079 2035 1,442,156 40.8% 588,373 10,620 2,389,518 1,600,977 1036 1,468,665 40.8% 599,188 10,815 2,433,441 1,630,406 1037 1,495,662 40.8% 610,202 11,014 2,478,172 1,660,375 Total 180,233 40,552,362 27,170,082 Source: Employment Forecastfrom Table (1) emp_gro_2017.xls Note: Once Employment is estimated to rangefrom 42 096to 40.896afTotol Employment, based on CMR occupation survey Employment to space ratio estimated to 6,225 sq ft. per person Multi -tenant space estimated to be 67% fthe total demand 25 Austin MSA Retail Demand Forecast There is a strong relationship between the growth in population and households and the increase in demand for retail services and space. Generally retail demand forecasts are prepared by combining the growth in households with an estimate of future household income. Historically, household growth in the region has been driven by in -migration and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Because there are no published statistics on the income level of migrants to the Austin MSA, CMR has suggested a simple but compelling alternative. Over the last 16 years, there has been a very strong correlation between total population and total occupied square feet of retail space in the Austin region. Using the US Census Annual population estimates and the Capitol Market Research database of multi -tenant retail space, CMR has concluded that this relationship is equal to approximately 20 square feet of retail space per person. There are annual anomalies based on market conditions, construction schedules, and consumer confidence, but the correlation over the long term is undeniably strong. Based on the assumption that this relationship will continue, a forecast of annual retail demand was prepared and is shows in Table (12) below. Table (12) Multi -Tenant Retail Demand Austin -Round Rock MSA Source: Population lncreasefromTable (4) emp_gro_2017As Sq.Ft. per Capita based on ratio of poplation to occupied Retail Sq. Ft. for the past 16 years 26 Sq. Ft. Multi -Tenant Population Year Demand Per Retail Demand Increase Capita S .Ft. 2018 50,341 20 1,006,820 2019 50,845 20 1,016,890 2020 51,575 20 1,031,490 2021 51,549 20 1,030,980 2022 52,139 20 1,042,770 2023 52,595 20 1,051,890 2024 53,326 20 1,066,520 2025 54,119 20 1,082,380 2026 54,618 20 1,092,350 2027 55,457 20 1,109,140 2028 56,591 20 1,131, 820 2029 57,279 20 1,145, 570 2030 58,458 20 1,169,150 2031 59,369 20 1,187, 380 2032 60,738 20 1,214,760 2033 62,045 20 1,240,890 2034 63,130 20 1,262,590 2035 64,735 20 1,294,700 2036 66,022 20 1,320,440 2037 67,696 20 1,353,920 Source: Population lncreasefromTable (4) emp_gro_2017As Sq.Ft. per Capita based on ratio of poplation to occupied Retail Sq. Ft. for the past 16 years 26 MARKET AREA ANALYSIS Subject Property Market Definition & Justification In order to accurately represent the demand for residential, office, and retail uses at the subject site, regional demand must be disaggregated to the neighborhood or market area level. This process of disaggregation is often accomplished by segmenting a geographic region into residential submarkets or neighborhoods. The neighborhood for the subject property must be small enough to capture relevant local trends and product preferences, but it also must be large enough to capture all of the current and potentially competitive properties along with important employment and activity generators. The subject PUD is located at the northwest corner of Interstate 35 and University Avenue (State Highway 29) in the southwestern portion of the City of Georgetown. The market area defined for this project is most appropriately defined as the Georgetown Market Area, and is mainly comprised of the Georgetown Independent School District. The market area is generally delineated by the Williamson County Line and FM 972 to the north, CR 156 to the east, the Round Rock City Limits, CR 107, CR 112, and FM 1431 to the south, and Ronald Reagan Boulevard and State Hwy 29 to the west. Land uses in the area include retail centers such as Wolf Ranch Town Center, light industrial uses, recreational activity centers such as Lake Georgetown, single-family residential subdivisions, multi- family apartments, and vacant land. The area immediately adjacent to the subject site includes development along Wolf Ranch Parkway and Rivery Boulevard, including the Wolf Ranch Town Center, several new apartment communities and new single family homes, and the new Sheraton Hotel and Convention Center, along with commercial uses along Interstate 35. Finally, the definition of the primary market area must take into consideration the availability of relevant information, particularly demographic area. Census Tract geography is most often used to delineate market areas because the data available from the census is critical to thorough and relevant analysis of the market. This area is made up of 2010 Census tracts 201.05, 201.06, 201.07, 201.08, 201.09, 201.10, 201.11, 201.12, 201.13, 201.14, 201.15, 206.04, 208.03, 214.01, 214.02, 214.03, 215.04, 216.02, and 216.03. It should be noted that the three southernmost Census Tracts 206.04, 208.03 and 215.04 include northern portions of the City of Round Rock as well as the City of Georgetown. 28 CAPITOL MARKET C, ! _ _ C FLORENCE i 8"9+ap Cn _ a f JARRELL R �. 216.03 i� } t 201.07 �♦{ . Yhn'r' 201.05 201.06 1 r�> >�. �3 .► f � 1 201.09201� 201.06 216IS .02 . `�'� 1' 201.11 1 _ i 201.14 201.13 ►. 201.12 GEORGETOWN A 1 •;;,�^' jam%'` '"�ti . 214.02 x9 Site 214.01 2.0 U 3 183 201.10 214.03 3 rr v� 206.04 GR - £C % v-1 130 1 r� �► ` 215.04 LEANDER - � �iv5 1431 � •� ���� - �"�� b Hurry CEDARTARK ROUND ROCK N 0 2.5 5 Miles Date: December 2017 A I t _ 2010 Census Tract Path: C:IGIStProjects12018IWolfLakeslcensus 201Qmxd Georgetown Market Area Demographic Trends The defined Georgetown market area has experienced significant population and household growth since 2000 when the area had 41,598 people living in 15,467 households. Total population in the subject area census tracts grew from 43,367 in 2000 to 88,656 in 2014, an average annual increase of 5.24%. See Table (13) below. Table (13) Population and Household Trends Georgetown Market Area Source: US Bureau of the Census, 1000, 1010, ACS 2012-2016 demca Ic.xls Note: The ACS 2012-2016 is a rolling 5 -year survey, meant to represent the median year of 2014. Prepared by Capitol Market Research, January 2018 30 2000 2010 2014 Annual Change (2000- 2014) Population 43,367 73,244 88,656 5.24% Households 15,467 27,303 32,080 5.35% Population in Households 41,598 70,711 86,725 5.39% Average HH Size 2.69 2.59 2.70 0.04% Renter Households 3,735 6,651 7,730 5.33% Percent Renter 24.15% 24.36% 24.10% -0.02% Source: US Bureau of the Census, 1000, 1010, ACS 2012-2016 demca Ic.xls Note: The ACS 2012-2016 is a rolling 5 -year survey, meant to represent the median year of 2014. Prepared by Capitol Market Research, January 2018 30 Georgetown Market Area Income Distribution According to the U.S. Census data in 1999, 52.% of the market area households reported income of more than 120% of MSA median household income (MHI), while 14.7% reported income of less than 50% of the MHI. The percentage of households reporting income less than 50% of MHI increased to 19.9% in 2014, while the percentage of middle income households (those reporting income between 50% and 100% of MHI) increased slightly from 24.0% to 24.9%. The percentage of households making more than 120% of MHI decreased the most, falling to 46.3% in 2014. However, Georgetown area households still maintain an average income that is 14.7% above the MSA median. Though the percentage of households making less than 50% of MHI captured the largest share of increase, the income distribution shown in Table (14) still favors higher income households in this market area because of the predominance of owner -occupied, single-family homes. Homeowners generally have higher incomes than those who rent. In addition, there are also relatively few students in this area to "depress" income statistics. Table (14) Change in Income Distribution Georgetown Market Area Note: TheACS2012-2016 is a rolling 5 -year survey, meant to represent the median year of2014 Note: MHI is median household income. 31 1999 2014 1999-2014 Change in Income Category Share Share Households Households Increase Share Less than 50% MHI 3,351 14.7% 6,373 19.9% 3,022 5.1 50-60% MHI 976 4.3% 1,680 5.2% 704 0.9 60-80%MHI 2,135 9.4% 3,293 10.3% 1,158 0.9 80-100%MHI 2,359 10.4% 3,020 9.4% 660 -1.0 100-120%MHI 2,106 9.3% 2,846 8.9% 740 -0.4 More than 120% MHI 11,823 52.0% 14,869 46.3% 3,046 -5.6 Total 22,750 100.0% 32,080 100.0% 9,330 Market Area MHI $60,903 $75,818 $14,915 Austin MSA MHI $48,950 $66,093 $17,143 Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000, American Community Survey, 2012-2016 demca Ic.xls Note: TheACS2012-2016 is a rolling 5 -year survey, meant to represent the median year of2014 Note: MHI is median household income. 31 Georgetown Market Area Population Projections The population growth experienced in the Georgetown market area accounted for 17.30% of the growth in Williamson County between 2000 and 2010, and 22.68% of the growth in the County from 2010 to 2014, based on the ACS 2012-2015 5 -year estimates. The increase in share of the county population growth (2000 - 2014) is expected to continue to grow at a steady pace. This escalation in the capture rate, which is supported by the current market area trends and significant propensity for new growth, was used to calculate a market area population through 2037. Using the household size in the market area from the US 2010 Census (2.59), a forecast for population and household growth in the market area is shows in Table (15) below. It is estimated that the Georgetown market area will grow at an average annual rate of 3,131 households per year, from 2018 through 2037. Table (15) Population and Household Forecast Georgetown Market Area Year Forecasted County Population Growth MARKET AREA FORECAST Capture New Household Net HH Rate Population Size Increase 2018 23,061 23.09% 5,325 2.59 2,056 2019 23,757 23.19% 5,510 2.59 2,127 2020 24,628 23.29% 5,737 2.59 2,215 2021 25,764 23.39% 6,027 2.59 2,327 2022 26,675 23.5Wo 6,267 2.59 2,420 2023 27,663 23.60% 6,528 2.59 2,520 2024 28,857 23.70% 6,839 2.59 2,641 2025 29,891 23.80% 7,114 2.59 2,747 2026 31,036 23.90% 7,418 2.59 2,864 2027 32,278 24.00% 7,748 2.59 2,991 2028 33,507 24.10% 8,076 2.59 3,118 2029 34,895 24.21% 8,446 2.59 3,261 2030 36,193 24.31% 8,797 2.59 3,397 2031 37,511 24.41% 9,156 2.59 3,535 2032 39,053 24.51% 9,572 2.59 3,696 2033 40,382 24.61% 9,938 2.59 3,837 2034 41,723 24.71% 10,311 2.59 3,981 2035 43,205 24.81% 10,721 2.59 4,139 2036 44,462 24.91% 11,078 2.59 4,277 2037 46,212 25.02% 11,560 2.59 4,464 Prepared by: Capitol Market Research,January2018 demcalc.xls Notes: County population forecast based on TSDCforecosts. Capture Rate based on historical growth as a % of the market area from 2000 to 2014, based on US Census and ACS 5 -year survey. Household size based on US Census. 32 Georgetown Apartment Market Conditions Overview In December 2017, Capitol Market Research surveyed the 21 active apartment communities in the Georgetown market area that altogether contain a total of 3,994 units. In December, the market area occupancy was 89.0%, dropping from 94.6% seen in December 2016, as two new properties opened. These occupancy rates incorporate the continued lease -up of two new properties, Hillstone at Wolf Ranch and The Retreat at Wolf Ranch, which are across the street from one another. The "stabilized" occupancy, excluding these two properties, is much higher, at 94.2%. Net average rents (including concessions) are currently $1.22 per square foot, which is up (2.5%) from December 2016 when it was $1.19. New Construction The Georgetown market area is dominated by the suburban garden style, three-story walk-up apartment community and does not yet include any of the mid -rise product commonly seen in central Austin. New multi -family construction was relatively sparse prior to 2015, with five properties that were completed before 1990, four properties built in the 1990s, and six properties delivered between 2000 and the end of 2013. The multi -family market in the Georgetown market area saw a substantial increase in multi -family construction in 2015, as four new properties opened in a single year, three market rate and one "affordable" property. This resulted in a significant dip in occupancy in 2015 as these four properties competed for tenants. Over the last two years, the new units have been absorbed and the market has recovered. Most recently, two new properties have opened, and occupancy has again dropped as the new supply exceeds market demand. Occupancy and Absorption Occupancy rates in the market area experienced healthy growth between December 2006 and December 2007 increasing from 91.0% to 96.7% during that time. However, after December 2007, occupancy rates dropped to 87.6% in December 2008, when 639 new units were added to the market area. Since that time, occupancy rose to a high of 98.3% in 2013 followed by a slight dip in 2014. The large number of units added in 2015 caused the occupancy rate to drop to 89.6% in December 2015, but it quickly recovered, continued to rise to 94.6% in December 2016. Delivery of two new properties and 228 units at the end of 2017 has caused occupancy to drop to 89.0%. Over the last ten years (2007-2016), the market area has absorbed a total of 1,891 units. Most recently (December 2017), with occupancy at 89.0%, the market area seen a slight negative absorption rate, because of the opening of two new properties, essentially across the street from one another, at the end of year, during an historically "slow" leasing period. Average Rents Average rents (net rents including concessions) in the Georgetown market area increased from $0.76 in December 2005 to $0.78 in December 2006. In December 2008, the average rate increased to $0.81 where it remained until December 2009. Since the end of 2008 rents have followed a rapid 33 upward trend, and the current average rent per square foot for the market area is $1.22 (December 2017), $0.03 higher than December 2016. Table (16) Apartment Market Summary Georgetown Market Area Year Number of Units Units Occupied Occupancy Rate Units Added Annual Absorption Rent per Sq. Ft. 2005 1,836 1,720 93.7% 0 99 $0.76 2006 1,836 1,671 91.0% 0 (49) $0.78 2007 1,906 1,844 96.7% 70 173 $0.78 2008 2,545 2,230 87.6% 639 386 $0.81 2009 2,654 2,478 93.49/a 109 248 $0.81 2010 2,654 2,507 94.5% 0 29 $0.82 2011 2,654 2,550 96.1% 0 43 $0.87 2012 2,658 2,607 98.1% 4 57 $0.91 2013 2,837 2,790 98.3% 179 183 $0.99 2014 2,837 2,749 96.9% 0 (41) $1.08 2015 3,770 3,377 89.6% 933 628 $1.14 2016 3,766 3,562 94.6% 185 $1.19 2017 3,994 3,555 89.0% 228 (7) $1.22 Source: Capitol Market Research, December2005 -December 2017 Apartment Market Survey 1,100 900 700 N V 500 0 d a E 300 Z 100 11 nm off' oti° otiti otiti otic oti°` otic' otic otic ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Units Added Annual Absorption Occupancy Rate apt_sum_gtn.xls 100.0% 34 95.0% 90.0% 6 c M CL 3 8 O 85.0% 80.0% Table (17) Apartment Inventory Georgetown Market Area Map Rentable Average Rent Project Address YOC Total Units Occupancy No. Units perSgft 1 302 North 302 Apple Creek Drive 1986 176 176 98.9% $1.37 2 401Teravista 401 Teravista Blvd 2008 320 320 90.3% $1.14 3 Anatole at Westinghouse 600 Westinghouse Rd. 2015 250 249 96.0% $1.35 4 Bell At Teravista 2100 University Blvd 2009 318 318 93.1% $1.17 5 Cypress Creek At Riverbend (AH) 120 River Bend Drive 2007 180 180 98.9% $0.92 6 Gateway Northwest (AH) 1617 Northwest Blvd 2015 197 197 94.4% $0.90 7 Georgetown Park 209 Luther Drive 1986 160 160 93.1% $1.38 8 Georgetown Place (MI) 805 Quail Valley Dr. 2001 180 180 96.7% $0.96 9 Georgian 17005 Austin Ave 1975 40 40 97.5% $1.37 10 Hillstone at Wolf Ranch* 2300 Wolf Ranch Pkwy 2017 332 227 20.7% $1.48 11 Indian Creek 600 Luther Drive 1995 240 240 97.5% $1.12 12 Oaks At Georgetown (AH) 550 22nd Street 1998 192 192 95.8% $0.98 13 Parallax at Georgetown 2000 FM 1460 2015 288 288 85.8% $1.31 14 Parkview Place 2111 N Austin Ave 1998 176 176 97.2% $1.16 15 Retreat at Wolf Ranch* 2323 Wolf Ranch Parkwa 2017 303 48 12.5% $1.35 16 Rivery Park Apartments 1400 Rivery Blvd. 1015 228 228 93.9% $1.45 17 San Gabriel (AH) 1100 Leander Rd 1978 136 136 98.5% $0.80 18 The Rail at 15th 708 West 15th Street 1985 100 20 85.0% $2.18 19 Two Rivers 105 N. Austin Ave 1013 179 179 88.8% $1.53 20 Water's Edge 25 Water's Edge Circle 2000 330 330 94.2% $1.26 21 Westwood Townhomes 200 Riverbend Drive 1997 110 110 97.3% $0.91 Total/Average 4,435 3,994 89.0.96 $1.22 Source: Capitol Market Research Apartment Survey,December2017 inventory_apt.xls *Note : Project under construction, occupancy based on "rentable" units. (AH) = Affordable Housing, (MI) = Mixed Income 35 Georgetown New Attached Housing Market Trends Overview In January 2018, Capitol Market Research surveyed seven completed and four active and under construction projects that are currently closing and "pre -selling" units in the Georgetown market area. Taken together, these eleven projects contain a total of 418 completed units and an additional 281 units planned or under construction. Seven of the eleven projects are considered "sold out" with no remaining developer inventory, and four are actively selling units, while still under construction. As of January, 445 of the total 699 units in the completed and active projects are currently under contract or sold. The weighted average unit price among completed and active projects is $281,975 for 1,916 sq. ft. which equates to $147 per square foot. The absorption rate among these projects varies, with an average rate of 1.34 units per month. Holly Street Village achieved a rate of 2.13 sales per month when it opened, followed by Village Park Condos (1.37 per month), and Gardens at Teravista with sales of 1.12 units per month.3 Completed Projects Seven of the ten surveyed projects are considered completed, and "sold out", with the developer having sold all units in their project. These projects, listed in Table (19), were built from 2006 to 2014, and range in size from 15 units to 108 units. These projects range in average price (original sales price) from $98,750 at the Ryan's Cove project to $303,000 in the Gardens at Teravista, and in average unit size from 1,139 square feet at The Villas of Katy Crossing to 2,173 square feet at University Place Townhomes. The average price for the seven completed and "sold out" projects is $182,980 for a 1,590 square foot unit ($115 a square foot). Projects Under Construction There are currently four projects under construction in the Georgetown market area, all of which are "attached" townhome style projects. Of the 342 planned units in these four projects, 65 have been completed, and 92 (26.91%) have been sold. Unit prices range from $148 per square foot at the Old Mill Crossing Townhomes to $167 per square foot at The Grove at Georgetown. The Brownstones at the Summit, located in the Summit at Rivery Park mixed-use development, are more like "custom" homes, as they are building small sections of new units as they are "pre -sold". This property, which has the highest average gross sales rate, at $482,835, is currently 39.5% "closed" or "pre -sold". Absorption Rates As a general rule, lower priced units will sell faster than higher priced units in a given market area. The average number of units sold per month among the completed projects in the market area was 0.95 units. The highest rate of absorption among completed projects was at Holly Street Village (2.13 units per month), followed by Village Park Condos (1.37 units/month), and Gardens at 3 Absorption in completed projects is based on recorded deed records, from the time the project began accepting pre -sale reservations to the date of last recorded sale. 37 Teravista (1.12 units per month). The Old Mill Crossing Townhomes, which is currently under construction, has an absorption rate at 2.14 units per month. In this market, it appears that the rate of sales are dependent on the developer's investment and sales strategy. Recorded MLS Sales Within the Georgetown market area, the MLS sales data shows an upward trend in sales velocity over the last decade as overall demand for housing in Austin has increased. The number of recorded MLS sales of townhomes, condos, and duplexes reached 63 in 2013, and has remained relatively stable since that time ranging from 60 to 64 sales per year. Average unit prices increased between 2005 and 2007, when it reached $155,498, or $122 per square foot. While total sales and prices fell in 2008 and then again in 2009, as the housing market recovered, prices began to rise at an average of 11.26% per year from 2011 through 2013. Since then, the trend for higher unit prices has continued, rising between 2013 and 2014 at a rate of 12.949, closing 2014 with an average price of $209,413. In 2015, the average sales price dropped slightly to $202,985, or $139 per square foot. In 2016, the average sales price sharply increased to $247,689 ($148 per square foot), before falling slightly to $241,162 in 2017. The average unit size in Georgetown market area has generally increased since 2005 when the average size was 1,283 square feet. Since that time, the average unit size fluctuated between a low of 1,215 and 1,676 with the current (December 2016) average unit size of 1,591 square feet. It should be noted that some of the new, larger, more expensive condominium and townhomes projects, such as The Brownstone at the Summit have on-site sales personnel and do not list all of their units on the ABOR MLS system. 38 Table (18) Attached Housing Sales Georgetown Market Area 70 60 50 W 40 r 'c o 30 6 z 20 10 0 o`, , p o� do titi titi ti3 tia ti� ti� ti� do ,Lo "0 do yo yo do ,yo ,yo do ,yo do do !Total Sales Average Sales Price 39 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 u $150,000 a` d m $100,000 $50,000 $0 Total Average Sales Average Average Average Year _ Sales Price Sq.Ft. $/Sq.Ft. DOM 2005 20 $140,400 1,283 $109 270 2006 58 $132,469 1,215 $109 78 2007 28 $155,498 1,275 $122 258 2008 13 $158,620 1,363 $116 229 2009 9 $147,439 1,405 $105 69 2010 23 $134,832 1,277 $106 130 2011 32 $153,667 1,371 $112 176 2012 57 $174,445 1,503 $116 119 2013 63 $185,420 1,561 $119 72 2014 61 $209,413 1,604 $131 64 2015 62 $202,985 1,465 $139 32 2016 60 $247,689 1,676 $148 42 2017 64 $241,162 1,591 $152 66 Source: Austin Board of Realtors, MLSDatobase, Census Tracts condo_sum_tn.xls Prepared by Capitol Market Research, January 2018 MLS Search Conditions: Condo, Townhome and Duplex 70 60 50 W 40 r 'c o 30 6 z 20 10 0 o`, , p o� do titi titi ti3 tia ti� ti� ti� do ,Lo "0 do yo yo do ,yo ,yo do ,yo do do !Total Sales Average Sales Price 39 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 u $150,000 a` d m $100,000 $50,000 $0 Table (19) New Condominium Sales Activity Georgetown Market Area Date of Initial Sales/Month 1 Gardens atTeravista 4332Teravista Club Dr. 2013 81 81 81 Dec -07 1.12 $303,000 2,097 $144 2 Holly Street Village Holly St. at Brendon Lee St. 2012 42 42 42 Aug -12 2.13 $137,500 1,353 $102 3 Ryan's Cove Westwood Ln. at Janis Dr. 2006 15 15 15 Feb -04 0.44 $98,750 1,167 $85 4 The Villas of Katy Crossing Prarie Springs Ln. at Weir Rd. 2006 108 108 108 Dec -97 0.53 $102,500 1,139 $90 5 University Park Duplexes Bergin Ct. 2012 28 28 28 Jun -01 0.17 $138,000 2,112 $65 6 University Place Townhomes' Haven Ln. 2014 30 26 26 May -12 0.58 $263,000 2,173 $121 7 Village Park Condos 3DDSan Gabriel Village Blvd. 2003 53 53 53 Apr -04 1.37 $201,900 1,435 $141 1,450 $167 Total/Averages 2019 357 353 353 25.9.6 0.95 $182,980 1,590 $115 Under Construction Projects Map Year of No Units No. Units % Date of Initial Pre- Average Average Price Per Project Address Presales No Completion Planned Complete Presold Marketing Sales/Month Price Sqft 5gft 8 The Brownstones at the Summit Adams St. at Rivery Blvd. 2019 114 42 45 39.5% Jun -12 0.67 $482,835 3,019 $160 9 Old Mill Crossing Townhomes High Tech Dr. at FM 1460 2018 99 2 14 14.1% Jul -17 2.14 $228,000 1,545 $148 O 10 The Grove at Georgetown Birch Oak Ln. at Lakeway Dr. 2018 21 5 5 23.81/6 Aug -16 0.28 $242,500 1,450 $167 11 Gardens at Verde Vista (Ph.l) 101 Red Rose Dr. 2019 108 16 28 25.9.6 Apr -17 2.80 $454,342 2,259 $201 Total/Averages 342 65 92 26.90°D $385,312 2,256 $171 Capitol Morket Research, January2018 inventory cond—k Note: Data from Developers, Real EstateAgents, CityofGeorgetown Permits, Williamson CountyAppraisal & Deed Records The date of initial marketing for "sold out"projects is the first recorded soles date •Avwogv PF}Lv reprrxsrts orlginot serer pricing obtained from historical MLS listings ' University Place Townhomes is listed as completed as the developer has no plans to initiate construction on thefour remaining planned units at the moment Georgetown Office Market Conditions Overview In December 2017, Capitol Market Research surveyed 13 multi -tenant office buildings in the Georgetown market area that together comprise a total of 291,376 square feet of rentable space. Currently, the market area occupancy is 85.4%, which is up 10.2 percentage points from December 2016 when it was 75.2%. Average rents are currently $21.10 per square foot on a "gross" lease basis, lower than December 2016 when they were $22.21. Table (20) on the following page shows market area trends by year. New Construction The Georgetown market area only contains two large (50,000 sq. ft. +) multi -tenant office buildings, Inner Visions Corporate Center and The Georgetonian, which combined have a total of 111,245 square feet of rentable space. Inner Visions Corporate Center is a recently completed (2014) value/flex office and The Georgetonian is an "adaptive reuse" of an existing retirement home that was brought to market after an extensive building renovation in 2008. Inner Visions Corporate Center is a one-story Class "B" office building, while the The Georgetonian is a five story Class "A" office building. The newest building in the market area, The Commons at Teravista, is a 15,624 square foot, one story medical office building with surface parking. This multi -tenant medical office space was completed in 2015, and is currently 94.2% occupied. Occupancy & Absorption The current (December 2017) "direct" occupancy in the market area is 85.4%, which is up 10.2 percentage points since December 2016 when it was 75.2%. The current occupancy shows the market recovering from a "direct" level of occupancy that fell below 70.0% in December 2015. Currently, there is 42,506 sq. ft. of "direct" available space, and 37,800 square foot of the available space is in the Inner Visions Corporate Center. Given the relatively small number of multi -tenant office buildings in the Georgetown market area, absorption is generally dependent upon the completion of new space. Absorption peaked in 2011, when 67,245 square feet was delivered and 37,698 sq. ft. of space was absorbed by the market that year. Since that time, the market has had a small amount of positive absorption every year, mostly driven by leasing activity in existing office buildings. In 2016, 18,213 sq. ft. of space was absorbed in the Georgetown market, and in 2017, 29,838 square feet has been absorbed. Average Rents Between December 2010 and December 2016, average rents for the Georgetown market area fluctuated between a narrow range of $15.00 to $23.00 per square foot. In December 2010 the average rate for vacant space was $17.28, decreasing to $15.46 in December 2011. The following year (2012), the average rate increased to $21.04 per square foot. Between December 2013 and 2015 average rental rates remained very stable with rents just above $20.00 per square foot. Since 42 that time, rates have trended upward, reaching $22.21 in December 2016. Currently (December 2017), the average rate for the Georgetown market area has fallen slightly to $21.104 per square foot, as the majority of space on the market is in value "flex space" . 4 Historical average rents were obtained from Xceligent. To calculate average gross rents, NNN expenses for each project were added to the average direct lease rate when available. In cases where NNN expenses were not available, they were not factored into the rate. 43 Table (20) Office Market Summary Georgetown Market Area Year1. Net Rentable Total Leased Percent Additions Absorption Average Rent Area Occupied (Sq. Ft.) (Net Sq. Ft.) per Sq. Ft.* 2010 143,890 140,962 98.0% 711 (2,217) $17.28 2011 211,135 178,660 84.6% 67,245 37,698 $15.46 2012 211,595 191,044 90.3% 460 12,384 $21.04 2013 211,595 191,161 90.3% 0 117 $20.26 2014 274,197 197,091 71.9% 62,602 5,930 $20.65 2015 291,376 200,819 68.9% 17,179 3,728 $20.68 2016 291,376 219,032 75.2% 0 18,213 $22.21 2017 291,376 248,870 85.4% 0 29,838 $21.10 Source: Xceligent, Capitol Market Research December 1017 off_sum_tn.xls Note: Average rents include NNN when available. *To calculate average gross rents, NNN expenses for each project were added to the average direct lease rate when available. In cases where NNN expenses were not available, they were not factored into the rate. $40.00 $35.00 $30.00 c $25.00 LL `m $20.00 3 Cr H a $15.00 W U a $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 -- 105.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% y 75.0% O r 70.0% 65.0% a� 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% 'Average Rent per Sq. Ft.* Percent Occupied 44 Table (21) Office Inventory Georgetown Market Area Map Project Address YOC Gass Net Rentable Leased Vacant Occupancy Low Rent High Rent Treatment Expenses Average No. .......... Area(NRA) (SISg fl 1 (S�sg. fLj' Gross Rent 1 102 W. Morrow St. 102 W Morrow St 1999 B 12,800 12,800 0 100.0% .. w .., ... ... 2 1500W. University Business Park 1500 W University Ave 2000 B 10,000 10,000 0 100.01A ... ,,, ,.. .... 3 2Sierra Way St. 2 Sierra Way St 1999 B 12,520 12,520 0 100.01A 4 5353 Williams Dr. 5353 Williams or 1996 B 17,870 17,870 0 100.0% .., ... ., .,. 5 7600 Highway 29 W. 7600 Highway 29 W 2003 C 10,602 10,602 0 10D.09A ... ., ... ,„ 6 807 Rock Street Office Condominium(Bldg. 1;807 S Rock St 2000 B 13,000 13,000 0 1170.096 ... ... ... ,,. .,.. 7 Candle Office (Ph. I) 441151-35 2012 B 11,160 11,160 0 100.096 8 Capper Oaks (Bldg. 1) 950 W University Ave 1 1986 B 16,000 16,000 0 100.01A ... ,_ .... „, 9 Inner Visions Corporate Center 275 SE Inner Loop 2014 B 60,500 22,700 37,800 37.5% $15.00 $15110 NNN $5.00 $20.00 10 Riverview Mall 20451-35 1985 B 22,000 22,000 0 1(10.0% - .,.. .. 11 Tamiro Plaza (Bldg. 1) 501SAustinAve 2007 A 38,555 37,849 706 98.21A $20.00 $27.00 NNN $7.73 $31.23 12 The Commons atTeravista 1821 Westinghouse Rd 2015 B 15,624 15,624 0 1170.09A .. .. 13 The GeorgetcnVan 205E Unlve rslty Ave 26,114 A SG,7r5 r,534$ 4,070 92.1% }'?.lo S22.00 NNN $7.75 579 75 TaWfAveraV 291,376 248,870 42,506 85,4% S158D $5.30 $Z1.1D Source [apiwl Market Research, J---2018 rent_occ,zls Note• Average Rental Ratesare°G,as indudiae evpenses. N Georgetown Retail Market Conditions Overview In December 2017, CMR surveyed 15 multi -tenant retail centers (or buildings) in the Georgetown market area with a total of 2,284,254 square feet of rentable area. The market area mostly includes a mix of small strip centers located on major arterials and larger community centers located along Interstate 35. New Construction The Georgetown market area has seen a relatively small amount (214,828 sq. ft.) of new retail construction over the last decade, with the most recent completion in 2013. The height of new construction in the area occurred between 2004 and 2006, when 1,609,848 square feet of new retail space was added to the market area. During that span of time, several major projects were completed, including the Wolf Ranch Shopping center at State Highway 29 and Interstate 35, which contains approximately 677,000 square feet of retail space. Other notable projects completed during that time include the Round Rock Premium Outlets (432,475 sq. ft.) built in 2006 and Rivery Towne Crossing (423,700 sq. ft.) built in 2004. After 2006, new construction slowed in the market area, and only in 2013 was more than 100,000 square feet added. Eleven out of 15 of the multi -tenant retail properties in the market area were built between 2000 and 2013, and most include well known national retailers as anchor tenants. Occupancy & Absorption The current (December 2017) occupancy in the Georgetown market area is 95.9%, 0.6% points lower than December 2016 (96.5%). Currently, there are approximately 92,515 square feet of available lease space among the 15 surveyed properties. Market area absorption for 2013 was 155,068 square feet, up from 2012 when absorption was 57,932 square feet. In 2014 and 2015, absorption remained positive as University Commons in Round Rock continued lease -up. In 2016 and 2017, there were small amounts of negative absorption (-64,864 sq. ft. and -13,028 sq. ft.), due in part to increased availability of smaller spaces. Average Rents Between December 2005 and December 2007 the average rental rate for the Georgetown market area decreased substantially, declining from $19.62 in 2005 to $15.71 in December 2007, a -19.9% decrease. The average rate remained steady between 2008 and 2009 rising from $19.44 and $19.45 per square foot. Following that period rents generally decreased, reaching $17.13 in December 2011, before increasing to $17.83 in December 2012. Average rents generally increased through the end of 2015, reaching $19.84. In December 2016, rental rates declined to $16.81 per square foot as the amount of vacant space dropped. Currently (December 2017), the rent per square foot in the Georgetown market area is $21.83, an increase of $5.02 from December 2016, due in large part to the increased amount of vacancy at the newer anchored centers. 47 Market Outlook The retail market in this area is rapidly expanding and diversifying to include additional Community and Regional centers. These newer centers, concentrated along Interstate 35 and Highway 29 are experiencing some increases in rental rates and absorption. It seems clear that the existing shopping center inventory will continue to expand and evolve, reflecting the changing demographics of the area. 48 Table (22) Retail Market Summary Georgetown Market Area Year Rentable Sq. Ft. Occupancy Sq.Ft. Sq. Ft. Rent per Sq.Ft. Leased Rate Additions Absorption Sq. Ft. 2005 1,653,474 1,407,748 85.1% ... ... $19.62 2006 2,068,856 1,897,845 91.7% 415,382 490,097 $17.61 2007 2,119, 032 2,003,792 94.6% 50,176 105,947 $15.71 2008 2,134,624 1,964,379 92.0% 15,592 (39,413) $19.44 2009 2,163, 624 2,025,271 93.6% 29,000 60,892 $19.45 2010 2,163, 624 2,007,784 92.8% 0 (17, 487) $18.07 2011 2,174,436 1,988,872 91.5% 10,812 (18,912) $17.13 2012 2,174,349 2,046,804 94.1% 57,932 $17.83 2013 2,359,489 2,201,872 93.3% 185,140 155,068 $18.91 2014 2,370,815 2,248,232 94.8% 11,326 46,360 $18.90 2015 2,370,815 2,269,634 95.7% 0 21,402 $19.84 2016 2,284,257 2,204,770 96.5% (86,558) (64,864) $16.81 2017 2,284,257 2,191, 742 95.9% 0 (13, 028) $21.83 Source: Capitol Market Research, Austin Area Retail Survey, December 1000- December 2017 retail_sum_tn.xlsx Note: Lake Aire (75,000 sq.ft.) removed from inventory in 1016, sold to St. Davids as private medical space. 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 d d y 200,000 i`o C 100,000 0 (100,000) (200,000) L�ph L�p6 ��p'1 ��prb L��i LOtiO L�titi LOtiL L�ti3 L�tia Lptih L�ti6 LOti1 Sq.Ft. Additions Sq. Ft. Absorption Occupancy Rate 49 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% v ai CL 85.0% O 80.0% 75.0% Table (23) Retail Inventory Georgetown Market Area Map Project Address TypeYOC Net Rentable Leased Vacant Occupancy Low Rent High Rent NNN No. _ Area (NRA) ($/sq. ft.) ($/sq. ft.) Expenses 1 Austin at University 1102 S. Austin Ave. Strip 1965 15,771 14,604 1,167 92.6% $20.00 $20.00 $7.92 2 Booty's Crossing 3303 Williams Dr. Strip 1004 15,979 14,329 1,650 89.7% $24.00 $24.00 $6.50 3 Cedar Breaks Village 105 Wildwood Dr. Strip 1004 22,470 22,470 0 100.0% 4 Copper Oaks 950W. University Ave. Strip 2005 12,000 12,000 0 100.0% 5 Georgetown Crossing 9015. IW35 Community 2100 72,613 72,613 0 100.0% 6 Georgetown HEB 4500 Williams Dr. Neighborhood 2001 109,569 109,569 0 100.01A 7 Marketplace at Sun City 1520 Sun City Blvd. Strip 2008 17,442 17,442 0 100.0% 8 Republic Square 900 N. Austin Ave. Strip 1986 117,01B 95,782 21,236 81.9% $1200 $28.00 $5.30 9 RiveryTowne Crossing 1103 Rivery Blvd. Community 2004 423,700 416,586 15,114 96.4% $20.00 $24.00 $7.49 10 Round Rock Premium Outlets 4401 N 11-135 Regional 2006 432,475 432,475 0 100.056 11 Shops at Cedar Breaks 4402WilliamsDr. Neighborhood 2004 26,000 23,600 2,400 90.8% $18.00 $18.00 $4.00 12 University Commons (GTN) 6D3 W. University Ave. Strip 1965 38,000 32,804 5,196 86.3% $15.00 $16.00 $4.85 13 University Commons (RR) 200 University Blvd. Neighborhood 2013 197,386 190,404 6,982 96.5% $30.00 $32.00 $12.94 14 Williamsburg Village 3010WTIiamsDr. Neighborhood 1990 1.06,610 89,830 16,760 84.3% $14.00 $14.00 $4.00 15 Wolf Ranch 1013 W. Univer 51ky Ave. Community 2005 677224 655,234 21,990 9E.9% $32.00 $32.00 59.99 Ln Total/Average 4284,757 2,191,742 92,515 35.995 $21.83 O Source, Capitol Market Research, December 2017 mnt_pcc.sls MARKET AREA FUTURE SUPPLY & DEMAND Georgetown Market Area Planned Multi -Family Currently (December 2017), the overall occupancy rate in the Georgetown market area is 89.0%, a drop from the December 2016 occupancy of 94.6%, due to two properties in lease -up across the street from one another. Without these two properties, the "stabilized" occupancy rate is much higher, at 94.2%x. Consequently, planned apartment units in the proposed PUD will be competing primarily with the undeveloped tracts in the market area that are zoned for multi -family use and that may be developed with apartments within the forecast time period. Recent interviews with the City of Georgetown planning department, and local brokers and apartment developers, revealed six under construction and nine planned sites, including those located in the subject PUD. In order to be considered a "competitive" site, the identified site must either be held by or under contract to a developer with known intention to move forward with a multi -family project. In addition to the competitive sites, there are several sites that are "available" for purchase, for which there are currently no definitive plans for development. Sites are defined as being "available" if the land is currently zoned appropriately for multi -family development and utilities are available. The annual additions to the market area resulting from the development of this potential inventory of competitive sites may vary based on the capacity of the apartment developer to obtain the necessary construction financing and city approvals. It is also possible that other projects not currently in the planning stage could be quickly developed and brought to the market. Thus, the list of planned additions is both actual, because it represents current plans, and representative, because it presents a position that the subject project will be competing with other new apartment projects during the anticipated development horizon. Table (24) Planned & Under Construction Multi -Family Projects Georgetown Market Area Map Project j Address Units Developer Status Zoning No Construction 1 Estraya Georgetown E University & NE Inner Loop 270 Waypoint Residential Construction C-3 2 Hillstone at Wolf Ranch 2300 Wolf Ranch Pkwy 332 Leon Capital Construction/Leasing PUD (MF -2) 3 Kaia Pointe (AH) 104Gatlin Creek Dr. 104 Saigebrook Dev. Construction PUD 4 Live Oak (AH) 4121 Williams Dr. 108 Pedcor Construction C-1 5 Mansions at Georgetown (Ph.l) 1400 Westinghouse Rd 438 Western Rim Construction M-2 6 ............- Retreat at Wolf Ranch ... 2323 Wolf Ranch Pkwy 303 McCann Realty Construction/Leasing PUD (MF -2) -... - - ----- ......... Planned -... 7 Carroll at Rivery Ranch 800 Wolf Ranch Pkwy 272 Carroll Companies Approved M-2 8 Mansions at Georgetown (Ph.11) 1400 Westinghouse Rd 418 Western Rim Submitted M-2 9 The Summit at Westinghouse Oakmont at Westinhouse Rd 385 Novak Brothers Proposed PUD 30 Villas of Georgetown 516 Wolf Ranch Pkwy 276 tbd Canceled C-3 11 Wolf Lakes Wrap Ph I Wolf Lakes PUD 336 Wolf Lakes, LP Proposed PUD 12 Wolf Lakes Wrap Ph.11 Wolf Lakes PUD 324 Wolf Lakes, LP Proposed PUD 13 Wolf Lakes Garden Ph.IV Wolf Lakes PUD 328 Wolf Lakes, LP Proposed PUD 14 Wolf Lakes Wrap Ph.V Wolf Lakes PUD 312 Wolf Lakes, LP Proposed PUD 15 Wolf Lakes Garden Ph.V Wolf Lakes PUD 322 Wolf Lakes, LP Proposed PUD Total Units 4,528 Source: Review oJcily plats, developer interviews, January 1018 53 compslte—apt x1s Table )25) Planned & Under Construction Multi-Family Project Timing Georgetown Market Area Map First Unit Units Project Name Status 21717 2018 Wig Y" 2051 M2 2M 2024 1Q25 2026 2427 2428 Future No- Delivery Planned _.,�._—•• Construction - 1 Fstraya Georgetown Construction Feb.19 270 .. ... 270 .. ... ... ..- .. .. .-. ... 2 Hillstone at Wolf Ranch Construdion/Leasing Aw17 332 227 105 .. ., „- ... ... .. .. .. ... 3 Kaia Pointe (AH) Canstructian Sep•16 104 ... 104 .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .,, ,,, 4 live Oak (AH) Construction Jul-IJP IDB ... 108 .. ... ... ... ... .. ... .. ... ... 5 Mansions at Georgetown (Ph.l) Construction May-19. 438 ... 438 6 Retreat at Wolf Ranch CanstrucHnnJleasing Nov-17 303 48 255 Planned 7 Carroll at Rivery Ranch Approved Mar-19 272. ... 272 -.- ... --. ... ... ..- -. .-. ... .,. 8 Mansions at Georgetown (Ph-II) Submitted tbd 418 .. .,, .. --. ... --. ... ... ... -. .- ... 418 9 The Summit at Westinghouse Proposed tbd 385 ... ... .. --- ... ... ... -.. ... .. .. ... 385 10 Vil las of Georgetown Canceled tbd 276 .-- .,. ... -.. -.. ... ... .. .. ... 276 11 Wolf Lakes Wrap Ph.l Proposed 2020 336 336 12 Wolf Lakes Wrap Ph. II Proposed 2021 324 ... ... --- 324 ... ... ... ... -. -. ... ... VI 13 Wolf Lakes Garden Ph.IV Proposed 2025 328 ... 328 -. 14 Wolf Lakes Wrap Ph.V Proposed 2027 312 .- ... .. .,, ..- 31.2 15 Wolf Lakes Garden Ph.V Proposed 2027322 ..- ... .. -,- 322 275 1,410 S42 336 324 0 0 0 3t8 0 634 0 Lon Totai New llniiy: x,528 5e Wee. A—pipryylprk CW000e.' M[rmrt� J-4, NIS mmpsa"Pt.xls Georgetown Market Area Multi -Family Demand In order to determine the multi -family housing demand in the market area, CMR used the Population and Household Forecast, shown previously in Table (15), to estimate total multi -family unit demand. It is assumed that the renter housing tenure will maintain a slight upward trend, as seen in the increase in tenure from the 2000 and 2010 US Census. The percentage multi -family is calcualted from new building permits issued over the past ten years in the MSA (Texas A&M Real Estate Data Center). Using these forecasts, an estimated new multi -family housing demand that averages 751 units per year from 2018 through 2037 is indicated, as shown in Table (26) below. Table (26) Multi -Family Unit Demand Georgetown Market Area Notes: New Households based on Table (15). Percent renter based on change between 1000 & 1010 Census. Percent multi family based on new building permits issued in the area over the last 10 years as a percentage ofall rental housing. 56 MARKET AREA FORECAST Net HH New Renter % Multi- Multi -Family Year Increase %Renter HH Family Demand 2018 2,056 24.53% 504 96.8% 488 2019 2,127 24.55% 522 96.8% 506 2020 2,215 24.57% 544 96.8% 527 2021 2,327 24.59% 572 96.8% 554 2022 2,420 24.61% 596 96.8% 577 2023 2,520 24.64% 621 96.8% 601 2024 2,641 24.66% 651 96.8% 630 2025 2,747 24.68% 678 96.8% 656 2026 2,864 24.70% 707 96.8% 685 2027 2,991 24.72% 739 96.8% 716 2028 3,118 24.74% 772 96.8% 747 2029 3,261 24.76% 808 96.8% 782 2030 3,397 24.78% 842 96.8% 815 2031 3,535 24.80% 877 96.8% 849 2032 3,696 24.83% 918 96.8% 889 2033 3,837 24.85% 953 96.8% 923 2034 3,981 24.87% 990 96.8% 959 2035 4,139 24.89% 1,030 96.8% 998 2036 4,277 24.91% 1,066 96.8% 1,032 2037 4,464 24.93% 1,113 96.8% 1,078 Preparedby: Capitol Market Research, January 2018 demcalcAs Notes: New Households based on Table (15). Percent renter based on change between 1000 & 1010 Census. Percent multi family based on new building permits issued in the area over the last 10 years as a percentage ofall rental housing. 56 Subject Multi -Family Absorption Forecast The forecast for multi -family demand for the Wolf Lakes PUD is shown on Table (27) on the following page. The Georgetown market area forecasts includes the additions to multi -family inventory from Table (26) that are currently under construction, and then assumes that new units will be built in the market area to accommodate the demand from 2020 through 2037. The Wolf Lakes PUD forecast is prepared by using a capture rate assessment for the subject property. The capture rate is derived from the proportional rate based on vacant land availability, and the market analyst evaluation of the competitive position of the subject site within the Georgetown market area. The proportional rate calculation is based on the available vacant land located within the subject in comparison to other planned commercial nodes in Georgetown. At the subject property, there are 156.86 acres of vacant land designated for "Regional Commercial' or "Special Area Mixed Use" in the Georgetown Future Land Use Plans. This acreage is 38.5% of the total vacant land designated for these two uses in the City (407.04 acres). The "competitive" capture rate for multi -family is estimated to be 20%, and reflects the assessment that this part of Georgetown is one of several areas of multi -family development interest and potential within the community. The resulting forecast shows a potential of 4,103 units that could be absorbed over the forecast period in the Wolf Lakes PUD, which is 28.9% of the total multi -family demand anticipated for the Georgetown market area from 2018 through 2037. Table (28a) on the following page compares the estimated demand for the subject along with the multi -family units planned on the subject site, based on the timing provided by the developer. Table (28a) illustrates that there is insufficient demand to absorb the 660 planned units in 2020 and 2021. Table (28b) shows an alternative forecast, prepared by Capitol Market Research which shows a change in the phasing and construction timeline. The two "garden style" apartment communities are recommended to be the first apartment phases in the PUD, delivering in 2022 and 2023, followed by the three additional phases of mid -rise wrap communities through 2028. 5 Vacant land is identified by the Williamson County Appraisal District under the state land use code classification, and may include incidental structures. 57 Table (27) Multi -Family Demand Forecast Wolf Lakes PUD Note: Market Area forecasted multi family demand from Table (25), supply based on currently under construction product listed in Table (26), reverting to match demand after 1019. Subject Capture Rate based on the percentage of non-agricultural, available and developable land as a percentage of the City of Georgetown, and the Competitive Rate as established by CMR. 58 Georgetown Georgetown Wolf Lakes PUD Year Multi -Family Multi -Family PUDCapture Competitive Blended Subject Cumulative Demand Additions Rate Capture Rate Capture Rate Demand Unit Demand 2018 488 1,010 38.5% 0.0910 0.0% 0 0 2019 506 270 38.5% 0.0910 0.0% 0 0 2020 527 527 38.5% 20.05va 29.3% 154 154 2021 554 554 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 162 317 2022 577 577 38.5% 20.05vo 29.3% 169 485 2023 601 601 38.55vo 20.0916 29.3% 176 661 2024 630 630 38.5% 20.0916 29.3% 185 846 2025 656 656 38.5% 20.0916 29.3% 192 1,038 2026 685 685 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 201 1,239 2027 716 716 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 210 1,448 2028 747 747 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 219 1,667 2029 782 782 38.5% 20.05va 29.3% 229 1,896 2030 815 815 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 239 2,134 2031 849 849 38.5% 20.05vo 29.3% 249 2,383 2032 889 889 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 260 2,643 2033 923 923 38.5% 20.05va 29.3% 270 2,913 1034 959 959 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 281 3,194 2035 998 998 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 292 3,486 2036 1,032 1,032 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 302 3,788 2037 1,078 1,078 38.5% 20.0% 29.3% 315 4,103 Total 15,013 14,221 18.9% 4,103 Capitol Market Research, January 1018 comps ite_a p t.As Note: Market Area forecasted multi family demand from Table (25), supply based on currently under construction product listed in Table (26), reverting to match demand after 1019. Subject Capture Rate based on the percentage of non-agricultural, available and developable land as a percentage of the City of Georgetown, and the Competitive Rate as established by CMR. 58 Table (28a) Multi -Family Absorption Forecast V.1 Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes Year Subject Cumulative New Units Cumulative Cumulative less Demand Unit Demand Added units Added Units Added 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 154 154 336 336 (182) 2021 162 317 324 660 (343) 2022 169 485 0 660 (175) 2023 176 661 0 660 1 2024 185 846 0 660 186 2025 192 1,038 328 988 50 2026 201 1,239 0 988 251 2027 210 1,448 634 1,622 (174) 2028 219 1,667 0 1,622 45 2029 229 1,896 0 1,622 274 2030 239 2,134 0 1,622 512 2031 249 2,383 0 1,622 761 2032 260 2,643 0 1,622 1,021 2033 270 2,913 0 1,622 1,291 2034 281 3,194 0 1,622 1,572 2035 292 3,486 0 1,622 1,864 2036 302 3,788 0 1,622 2,166 2037 315 4,103 0 1,622 2,481 Total 4,103 1,622 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 compsite_aptAs 59 Table (28b) Multi -Family Absorption Forecast V.2 Wolf Lakes PUD 60 Wolf Lakes Year Subject Cumulative New Units Cumulative Cumulative less Demand Unit Demand Added units Added Units Added 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 154 154 0 0 154 2021 162 317 0 0 317 2022 169 485 322 322 163 2023 176 661 328 650 11 2024 185 846 0 650 196 2025 192 1,038 336 986 52 2026 201 1,239 0 986 253 2027 210 1,448 324 1,310 138 2028 219 1,667 312 1,622 45 2029 229 1,896 0 1,622 274 2030 239 2,134 0 1,622 512 2031 249 2,383 0 1,622 761 2032 260 2,643 0 1,622 1,021 2033 270 2,913 0 1,622 1,291 2034 281 3,194 0 1,622 1,572 2035 292 3,486 0 1,622 1,864 2036 302 3,788 0 1,622 2,166 2037 315 4,103 0 1,622 2,481 Total 4,103 1,622 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 compsite_apt.As This table shows a delivery schedule prepared by CMR which balances the demand for new units with the supply offered at Wolf Lakes. The first two site to deliver are the garden product proposed on Wolf Lakes Boulevard. 60 Georgetown Market Area Planned Condominium Projects In order to accurately forecast the absorption rate for condominiums in the Wolf Lakes PUD, it is necessary to identify the other tracts in the market area that are zoned for multi -family or condominium use that may be developed with condominiums within the forecast time period. Table (29) lists the projects whose location, size and development program indicate that they may be brought to market in the Georgetown market area over the next several years. In order to be considered as "potential" competition, the proposed projects must either be held by, or under contract to, a developer with known intention to move forward with a condominium or multi -family project at a "price point" and location that will make it competitive with the subject. The proposed project timing in Table (30) combines the number of units planned for condominium development within the market area, and presents this information showing unit deliveries by year, to provide a complete picture of the potential additions to the market area. Table (29) Planned & Under Construction Condo/Townhome Projects Georgetown Market Area Map Planned Planned ... Project Name Location 41 Developer/Broker Status Zoning No The Summit at Westinghouse Oakmont at Westinghouse Rd. Units Novak Brothers Planned PUD 6 Construction Wolf Lakes PUD 104 Wolf Lakes, LP Planned PUD 1 Gardens at Verde Vista (Ph.l) ......... .............. _..... 101 Red Rose Drive .............. 108 Spicewood Dev. Construction PUD 2 Old Mill Crossing Townhomes High Tech Dr. at FM 1460 99 JimmyJacobs Construction MF -1 3 The Brownstones at the Summit Adams St. at Rivery Blvd. 114 Novak Brothers Construction PUD 4 The Grove at Georgetown Birch Oak Ln. at Lakeway Dr. 21 Georgetown Grove LLC Construction TH 61 Planned ... Gardens at Verde Vista (Ph.11) 101 Red Rose Drive 41 Spicewood Dev. Planned PUD 5 The Summit at Westinghouse Oakmont at Westinghouse Rd. 220 Novak Brothers Planned PUD 6 Wolf Lakes Townhome Ph.l Wolf Lakes PUD 104 Wolf Lakes, LP Planned PUD 7 Wolf Lakes SF Condo Ph.l Wolf Lakes PUD 10 Wolf Lakes, LP Planned PUD 8 Wolf Lakes Townhome Ph.II Wolf Lakes PUD 52 Wolf Lakes, LP Planned PUD 9 Wolf Lakes Townhome Ph.11l Wolf Lakes PUD 71 Wolf Lakes, LP Planned PUD 10 Wolf Lakes Condo Ph. IV Wolf Lakes PUD 54 Wolf Lakes, LP Planned PUD Total Units 894 Source: Capitol Market Research, January 2018 campsite_ condo As 61 Table (30) Planned Attached Housing Project Timing Georgetown Market Area Map Planned Built Project Name 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Future No, Units Units Construction 1 Gardens at Verde Vista (Ph.l) 108 16 36 36 20 .. 2 Old Mill Crossing Townhomes 99 30 40 29 ... ... 3 The Brownstones at the Summit 114 42 12 18 18 18 6 4 The Grove at Georgetown 21 5 6 6 4 .. Planned ... Gardens at Verde Vista (Ph.11) 41 0 ... ... 16 25 ... 5 The Summit at Westinghouse 220 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 40 6 Wolf Lakes Townhome Ph.l 104 0 ... ... 104 ... ... ... ... ... 7 Wolf Lakes SF Condo Ph.l 10 0 ... ... 10 ... ... ... ... ... 8 Wolf Lakes Townhome Ph.11 52 0 52 ... ... ... 9 Wolf Lakes Townhome Ph.11l 71 0 ... ... ... ... ... 71 ... ... ... CA hi 10 Wolf Lakes Condo Ph -IV 54 0 ... ... ... 54 94 89 192 115 26 91 20 74 20 20 20 40 Total New Units: S94 Source: Capitol Market Research, January 2018 comps,te_condoxis Georgetown Market Area Condominium Demand In order to determine the attached housing demand in the market area, CMR used the Population and Household Forecast, shown previously in Table (15). It is assumed that the owner housing tenure will continued to decline slightly, as seen in the trend from the 2000 to 2010 US Census. The percentage attached housing is based on the percentage of MLS sales from 2011 through 2017 (2.94%), increasing to 7.0% in 2037. It is reasonable to assume that the trend toward increasing levels of higher density product will continue throughout the forecast period, as this type of construction is growing in popularity and market acceptance. Using these forecasts, an estimated attached housing demand that averages 124 units per year from 2017 through 2037 is indicated, as shown in Table (31) below. Net HH Year Increase Table (31) Attached Housing Unit Demand Georgetown Market Area MARKET AREA FORECAST % Owner New Renter 51. Attached Attached HH Housing Demand 2018 2,056 75.47% 1,552 2.94% 46 2019 2,127 75.45% 1,605 3.15% 51 2020 2,215 75.43% 1,671 3.37% 56 2021 2,327 75.41% 1,755 3.58% 63 2022 2,420 75.39% 1,824 3.79% 69 2023 2,520 75.36% 1,900 4.01% 76 2024 2,641 75.34% 1,989 4.22% 84 2025 2,747 75.32% 2,069 4.44% 92 2026 2,864 75.30% 2,157 4.65% 100 2027 2,991 75.28% 2,252 4.86% 110 2028 3,118 75.26% 2,347 5.08% 119 2029 3,261 75.24% 2,454 5.29% 130 2030 3,397 75.22% 2,555 5.50% 141 2031 3,535 75.20% 2,658 5.72% 152 2032 3,696 75.17% 2,778 5.93% 165 2033 3,837 75.15% 2,884 6.15% 177 2034 3,981 75.13% 2,991 6.369/o 190 2035 4,139 75.11% 3,109 6.57% 204 2036 4,277 75.09% 3,212 6.79% 218 2037 4,464 75.07% 3,351 7.009/6 235 Prepared by: Capitol Market Research, January 2018 demcalc.xls Notes: New Households based on Table (15). Percent owner based on change between 2000 & 1010 Census. Percent attached based on average MLS condominium sales as a percent of all MLS housing soles from 1011- 2017 (2.94%). 64 Subject Attached Housing Absorption Forecast The forecast for attached housing demand for the Wolf Lakes PUD is shown on Table (32) on the following page. The Georgetown market area forecasts includes the additions to attached housing inventory from Table (30) that are currently under construction, and then assumes that new units will be built in the market area to accommodate the demand from 2020 through 2037. As previously demonstrated with the multi -family forecast, the Wolf Lakes PUD forecast is prepared using a capture rate assessment for the subject property, with the proportional rate based on the Future Land Use Plan, and the competitive rate based on the analysts opinion of the subject site when compared to other potential development areas. The resulting forecast shows a potential of 696 attached housing units that could be absorbed over the forecast period in the Wolf Lakes PUD, which is 29.2% of the total demand anticipated for the Georgetown market area from 2018 through 2037. Table (33a) on the following page compares the estimated demand in the subject with the multi- family units planned on the subject site, based on the timing provided by the developer. Table (33a) illustrates that there is insufficient demand to absorb the planned attached housing units when the bulk of them are planned to deliver in 2020 and 2021. Table (28b) shows an alternative forecast, prepared by Capitol Market Research which shows a change in the phasing and construction schedule for all 291 townhome, single family, and condominium units in the PUD. CMR suggests that the first ten single family condominium units be delivered in 2020, with the first phase of 104 townhome units following in 2022 and 2023. Additional townhome phases will be delivered in 2025 and 2029, allowing for enough demand to absorb units during those years. The last phase, the 54 condominiums above retail space office space will be delivered in 2030. 65 Table (32) Attached Housing Demand Forecast Wolf Lakes PUD Note: Market Area forecasted condo demand from Table (29), supply based on currently under construction product listed in Table (30), reverting to match demand after 2019. Subject Capture Rate based on the percentage of non-agricultural, available and developable land as a percentage of the City of Georgetown, and the Competitive Rate as established by CMR. 66 Georgetown Georgetown Wolf Lakes PUD Attached Attached Year PUD Capture Competitive Blended Subject Cumulative Housing Housing Rate Capture Rate Capture Rate Demand Unit Demand Demand Additions 2018 46 94 38.5% 10.0% 24.3% 11 11 2019 51 89 38.5% 10.5% 24.5% 12 23 2020 56 56 38.5% 11.1% 24.8% 14 37 2021 63 63 38.5% 11.6% 25.1% 16 53 2022 69 69 38.5% 12.1% 25.3% 18 71 2023 76 76 38.5% 12.6% 25.6% 19 90 2024 84 84 38.5% 13.2% 25.85v, 22 112 2025 92 92 38.5% 13.7% 26.1% 24 136 2026 100 100 38.5% 14.2% 26.4% 26 162 2027 110 110 38.5% 14.7% 26.65va 29 192 2028 119 119 38.55va 15.3% 26.9% 32 224 2029 130 130 38.5% 15.8% 27.2% 35 259 2030 141 141 38.5% 16.3% 27.4% 39 297 2031 152 152 38.5% 16.8% 27.7% 42 339 2032 165 165 38.5% 17.4% 28.05va 46 386 2033 177 177 38.5% 17.9% 28.2% 50 436 2034 190 190 38.5% 18.4% 28.5% 54 490 2035 204 204 38.5916 18.9% 28.7°0 59 548 2036 218 218 38.5% 19.5% 29.0916 63 612 2037 235 235 38.55vo 2a mo 29.3% 69 680 Total 2,477 2,329 29.2% 680 Capitol Market Research, January 2018 campsite_condo.xls Note: Market Area forecasted condo demand from Table (29), supply based on currently under construction product listed in Table (30), reverting to match demand after 2019. Subject Capture Rate based on the percentage of non-agricultural, available and developable land as a percentage of the City of Georgetown, and the Competitive Rate as established by CMR. 66 Table (33a) Attached Housing Absorption Forecast V.1 Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes PUD Year Subject Cumulative New Units Cumulative Cumulative Demand Demand Added Units Added Demand less Units Added 2018 11 11 0 0 11 2019 12 23 0 0 23 2020 14 37 114 114 (77) 2021 16 53 52 166 (133) 2022 18 71 0 166 (95) 2023 19 90 71 237 (147) 2024 22 112 0 237 (125) 2025 24 136 54 291 (155) 2026 26 162 0 291 (129) 2027 29 192 0 291 (99) 2028 32 224 0 291 (67) 2029 35 2S9 0 291 (32) 2030 39 297 0 291 6 2031 42 339 0 291 48 2032 46 386 0 291 95 2033 50 436 0 291 145 2034 54 490 0 291 199 2035 59 548 0 291 257 2036 63 612 0 291 321 2037 69 680 0 291 389 Total 291 Capitol Market Research, January 2018 compsite_condo.As Annual Demand is from Table (31). The delivery schedule for the 291 planned units was provided by the developer. 67 Table (33b) Attached Housing Absorption Forecast V.2 Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes PUD Year Subject Cumulative New Units Cumulative Cumulative Demand Units Added Added Units Added less Units Added 2018 11 11 0 0 11 2019 12 23 0 0 23 2020 14 37 10 10 27 2021 16 53 0 10 43 2022 18 71 50 60 11 2023 19 90 21 81 9 2024 22 112 0 81 31 2025 24 136 52 133 3 2026 26 162 0 133 29 2027 29 192 0 133 59 2028 32 224 0 133 91 2029 35 259 104 237 22 2030 39 297 54 291 6 2031 42 339 0 291 48 2032 46 386 0 291 95 2033 50 436 0 291 145 2034 54 490 0 291 199 2035 59 548 0 291 257 2036 63 612 0 291 321 2037 69 680 0 291 389 Total 291 Capitol Market Research, February 2018 compsite_condo.As This table shows a delivery schedule prepared by CMR which balances the demand for new condominium units with the supply offered at Wolf Lakes. Included above are detached single family condos and units above retail. 68 Georgetown Market Area Planned Office Projects In addition to the existing Georgetown office buildings, there are also other sites planned for office development and new buildings currently under construction. The potential additions to the defined Georgetown market resulting from the development of other planned office sites is based on the capacity of office developers to obtain the necessary construction financing and city approvals, often after a lengthy process where the developer has negotiated the land purchase with multiple ownership interests and spent many months working through the City approval process. Currently, there are two buildings under construction and several competitive sites owned or controlled by office building developers, thus indicating the potential for competitive development within the proposed project development horizon. The list of competitive sites is shown on Table (34) below. The timing for the delivery of each building is provided on Table (35). Table (34) Planned & Under Construction Office Projects Georgetown Market Area Map Name Address Developer Size Class Status No _ Construction 1 Academia East 605-701 East University McIntosh Holdings 14,358 A Construction 2 Candle Office (Ph. II) 4411S.1-35 JimmyJacobs 16,000 A Construction Planned 3 Estrella Crossing 4051 Williams Drive Retail Solutions 30,000 A Proposed 4 Tamiro Phaza (Ph.11) 501 S. Austin Ave tbd 43,000 A Proposed 5 Wolf Lakes Ph.1 Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 15,578 A Proposed 6 Wolf Lakes Ph.11 Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 106,769 A Proposed 7 Wolf Lakes Ph.111 Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 301,677 A Proposed 8 Wolf Lakes Ph.IV Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 95,639 A Proposed 9 Wolf Lakes Ph.V Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 179,964 A Proposed 10 Wolf Lakes Ph.VI Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 188,283 A Proposed Total Square Feet 991,268 Source: Capitol Market Research, City of Georgetown site plans, developer interviews, January 2018 compsite_off ce xls 69 O Table (35) Planned Office Project Timing Georgetown Market Area Map Name Delivery Size2038 201 2021 2022 X23 2024 20;n V2 6 2027 2028 Future No. I -9 7.020W Construction I Academia East 2018 14,358 14,358 2 Candle Office I Ph, it) 2018 15,000 16,000 ... ... ... Planned 3 Estrella Crossing thd 30,000 ... ... 30,000 4 Tamiro Phaza (Ph.11) tbd 43,000 ... ... ... --- 43,000 5 Wolf Lakes PH 2020 15,578 ... 15,578 --- 6 Wolf Lakes PhAl 2021 106,769 --- ... 106,769 ... ... 7 Wolf Lakes PhAll 2023 301,577 ... 301,677 ... ... 8 Wolf Lakes PhAV 2025 95,6.39 ... ... - ... 95,639 ... ... ... 9 Wolf Lakes Ph.V 2027 179,964 ... --- 179,964 — 10 Wolf Lakes Ph.Vl 2028 188,293 I --- ... ... ... 188,283 Totat 991,268 1 30,358 0 15,578 10*,769 0 301.677 0 95,639 0 179,964 199,283 73,000 Sounce., Capitol MarketResevarch, Developer Interviews, Januory2018 compsite_pffire-)ds CAPITOL MARKET RES EAR( Lake, eD + � i •,l �nr� .s,,, 1 Site I GEORGETOWN 29 1� ! r' FM.�743 5�1NNER46Q CL 0 0 J 1Y W Z z W z 1 � 1 100 50 R° 1 -n k vv cA N 0.5 Miles 0 Construction 1 Dale: February 2018 A I I , Path C:IGISIProjecfs120181WolfLakeslplanned office.mxd Proposed Georgetown Market Area Office Demand The Georgetown multi -tenant office market is relatively young, with the first large office projects in the market area built in 2011 and 2014. Over the eight years, market area occupancy rate has fluctuated from a high of 90.3% in 2012, to a low of 71.9% in 2014. Recently, office occupancy has again been on the rise, indicating an interest in new office development in the market area, as seen with the two currently new office projects. CMR has estimated that a proportionate share of regional absorption will take place in the Georgetown market area, beginning with a recent absorption capture rate of 2.0% increasing to 5.5% over the next 20 years. It is estimated that the Georgetown market area will show an average annual demand for office space of 53,223 square feet from 2018 through 2037, growing slowly from 28,934 in 2018 to 91,321 in 2037. Table (36) Historical and Forecasted Office Absorption Georgetown Market Area Source: Capital Market Research, Februory2018 off_sum.xls Employmentforecastfrom Moody's Economy. com lune 21, 2017 Absorption forecast based on employment growth and office worker estimates 72 GeorgetaWn Market Area Citywide Year Potential Absorption Market Share Absorption 2010 964,123 -0.2% (2,217) 1011 1,361,946 2.8% 37,698 2012 1,072,575 1.2% 12,384 S, 2013 769,834 0.0.0/0 117 1014 930,004 0.6% 5,930 = 2015 2,047,425 0.2% 3,728 2016 2,126o944 0.9% 18,213 2017 1,312,790 2.0% 26,241 2018 1,336,085 2.2% 28,934 2019 1,233,052 2.3% 28,759 2020 974,988 2.5% 24,365 2021 1,040,899 2.7% 27,748 2022 1,471,467 2.8% 41,679 2023 1,484,237 3.0% 44,515 2014 1,134,243 3.2% 35,909 2025 1,035,391 3.3% 34,506 2026 1,105,393 3.5% 38,682 U 2027 1,383,886 3.7% 50,734 v `0 LL 2028 1,409,324 3.8% 54,017 2029 1,435,230 4.0% 57,402 2030 1,461,612 4.2% 60,894 2031 1,488,479 4.3% 64,495 2032 1,515,840 4.5% 68,208 2033 1,543,704 4.7% 72,035 2034 1,572,079 4.8% 75,980 2035 1,600,977 5.0% 80,046 2036 1,630,406 5.2% 84,236 2037 1,660,375 5.5% 91,321 Source: Capital Market Research, Februory2018 off_sum.xls Employmentforecastfrom Moody's Economy. com lune 21, 2017 Absorption forecast based on employment growth and office worker estimates 72 Subject Office Absorption Forecast The subject (Wolf Lakes PUD) office demand forecast, shown through 2037, is shown on Table (37) on the following page. The Georgetown market area forecasts includes the additions to office space from Table (35) that are currently under construction, and then assumes that new units will be built in the market area to accommodate the demand from 2020 through 2037. As done with the previous forecasts, the Wolf Lakes PUD forecast is prepared using a capture rate assessment for the subject property, with the proportional rate based on the Future Land Use Plan, and the competitive rate based on the analysts opinion of the subject site when compared to other potential development areas. The resulting forecast shows a potential of 483,167 square feet of office space that could be absorbed over the forecast period in the Wolf Lakes PUD, which is 45.4% of the total demand anticipated for the Georgetown market area from 2018 through 2037. Table (38a) on the following page compares the estimated demand in the subject with the multi - tenant office square feet planned on the subject site, based on the timing provided by the developer. Table (38a) illustrates that there is insufficient demand to absorb the office square footage when multiple buildings are delivered yearly. Table (38b) shows an alternative forecast, prepared by Capitol Market Research which shows a change in office square footage, phasing, and construction timeline. The proposed 887,910 square feet of multi -tenant office space planned by the developer is almost twice the estimated 20 -year demand for multi -tenant space at the subject site (483,167 sq.ft.). Therefore, CMR suggests that the multi -tenant office space be reduced to 397,950 square feet which will deliver from 2020 through 2035 with sufficient demand to absorb the completed space. The additional office buildings planned, particularly in sections 1 and 5, would be well suited for a single tenant, build -to -suit opportunity which is not included in the multi -tenant forecast. 73 Table (37) Office Space Absorption Forecast Wolf Lakes PUD Georgetown Georgetown Wolf Lakes PUD Year Office Office PUD Capture Competitive Blended Subject Cumulative Demand Additions Rate Capture Rate Capture Rate Demand (Sq.Ft.) Demand (Sq.Ft.) 2018 28,934 174,358 38.5% 40.0% 39.3% 11,363 11,363 2019 28,759 0 38.5% 41.1% 39.8% 11,445 22,808 2020 24,365 24,365 38.5% 42.1% 40.3% 9,825 32,633 2021 27,748 27,748 38.5% 43.2% 40.8% 11,335 43,968 2022 41,679 41,679 38.5% 44.2% 41.4% 17,245 61,213 2023 44,515 44,515 38.5% 45.3% 41.9% 18,653 79,866 2024 35,909 35,909 38.55v. 46.3% 42.4% 15,236 95,101 2025 34,506 34,506 38.5% 47.4% 43.0% 14,822 109,923 2026 38,682 38,682 38.5% 48.4% 43.596 16,819 126,743 2027 50,734 50,734 38.5% 49.5% 44.0% 22,327 149,070 2028 54,017 54,017 38.5% 50.5% 44.5% 24,056 173,125 2029 57,402 57,402 38.5% 51.6% 45.1% 25,866 198,991 2030 60,894 60,894 38.5% 52.6% 45.6% 27,760 226,751 2031 64,495 64,495 38.5% 53.7% 46.1% 29,741 256,491 2032 68,208 68,208 38.5% 54.7% 46.6% 31,812 288,303 2033 72,035 72,035 38.5% 55.8% 47.2% 33,976 322,279 2034 75,980 75,980 38.5% 56.8% 47.7% 36,236 358,515 2035 80,046 80,046 38.5% 57.9% 48.2% 38,597 397,112 2036 84,236 84,236 38.5% 58.9% 48.7% 41,060 438,172 2037 91,37.1 91,321 1 38.5% 60.0% 49.3% 44,994 483,167 Total 1,064,466 1,181,131 45.4% 483,167 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 off_sum�tn,xls Note: Market Area office demand from Table (36), supply based on currently under construction product listed in Table (35), reverting to match demand after 2019. Subject Capture rate based on the percentage of non-agricultural, available and developable land as a percentage of the city of Georgetown, and the Competitive Rate established by CMR. 74 Table (38a) Office Space Absorption Forecast V.1 Wolf Lakes PUD 75 Wolf Lakes PUD Year Subject Cumulative New Sq.Ft. Cumulative Cumulative less Demand Sq.Ft. Added Added Sq.Ft. Added Sq.Ft. Added 2018 11,363 11,363 0 0 11,363 2019 11,445 22,808 0 0 22,808 2020 9,825 32,633 15,578 15,578 17,055 2021 11,335 43,968 106,769 122,347 (78,379) 2022 17,245 61,213 0 122,347 ( 61,134) 2023 18,653 79,866 301,677 424,024 (344,158) 2024 15,236 95,101 0 424,024 (328,923) 2025 14,822 109,923 95,639 519,663 (409,740) 2026 16,819 126,743 0 519,663 (392,920) 2027 22,327 149,070 179,964 699,627 (550,557) 2028 24,056 173,125 188,283 887,910 (714,785) 2029 25,866 198,991 0 887,910 (688,919) 2030 27,760 226,751 0 887,910 (661,159) 2031 29,741 256,491 0 887,910 (631,419) 2032 31,812 288,303 0 887,910 (599,607) 2033 33,976 322,279 0 887,910 (565,631) 2034 36,236 358,515 0 887,910 (529,395) 2035 38,597 397,112 0 887,910 (490,798) 2036 41,060 438,172 0 887,910 (449,738) 2037 44,994 483,167 0 887,910 (404,743) Total 887,910 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 off_sum--gtn.xls 75 Table (38b) Office Space Absorption Forecast V.2 Wolf Lakes PUD 76 Wolf Lakes PUD Year Subject Cumulative New Sq.Ft. Cumulative Cumulative less Demand Sq.Ft. Added Added Sq.Ft. Added Sq.Ft. Added 2018 11,363 11,363 0 0 11,363 2019 11,445 22,808 0 0 22,808 2020 9,825 32,633 15,578 15,578 17,055 2021 11,335 43,968 0 15,578 28,390 2022 17,245 61,213 0 15,578 45,635 2023 18,653 79,866 0 15,578 64,288 2024 15,236 95,101 0 15,578 79,523 2025 14,822 109,923 0 15,578 94,345 2026 16,819 126,743 106,769 122,347 4,396 2027 22,327 149,070 0 122,347 26,723 2028 24,056 173,125 0 122,347 50,778 2029 25,866 198,991 0 122,347 76,644 2030 27,760 226,751 95,639 217,986 8,765 2031 29,741 256,491 0 217,986 38,505 2032 31,812 288,303 0 217,986 70,317 2033 33,976 322,279 0 217,986 104,293 2034 36,236 358,515 0 217,986 140,529 2035 38,597 397,112 179,964 397,950 (838) 2036 41,060 438,172 0 397,950 40,222 2037 44,994 483,167 0 397,950 85,217 Tota! 397,950 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 of-sum_tn.xls 76 Georgetown Market Area Planned Retail Projects In addition to the existing retail centers and buildings in the Georgetown market area, the Wolf Lakes PUD will be competing with other retail sites and new centers and buildings under construction. The potential additions to the defined market from the development of other planned retail sites is based on the capacity of retail developers to obtain necessary construction financing and city approvals, often after a lengthy process where the developer has negotiated the land purchase with multiple ownership interests and spent many months working through the city approval process. There are currently two retail sites under construction and 12 planned sites, including the multiple phases at the subject location. The list of planned retail sites is shown on Table (39) below. The timing for the delivery of each project is provided on the following page in Table (40). Table (39) Planned & Under Construction Retail Projects Georgetown Market Area Map No Name Address Developer/ Broker Size Anchor Status Construction 1 Oak Meadows Marketplace SWC of Jim Hogg Rd. & Williams or Cypress Equities 77,050 Rondalls Construction 2 The Summit at Rivery Park Wolf Ranch Pkwy. & Rivery Blvd. Retail Connection 71,371 Woodhouse Day Spa Construction Planned 3 2150 N.1-35 2150 N. 1-35 St. Croix Capital 16,300 tbd Proposed 4 Bluebonnet Plaza NWC of Hwy. 29 & Wolf Ranch Pkwy. 1LL 110,000 tbd Proposed 5 Estrella Crossing Retail NEC of Williams Dr. & Estrella Crossing Retail Solutions 16,000 tbd Proposed 6 Tamiro Plaza Ph.11 5015. Austin Ave tbd 16,000 tbd Proposed 7 Wolf Crossing SE Corner oft-35&Hwy. 29 Available 142,900 tbd Proposed 8 Wolf Lakes Ph.l Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 178,301 tbd Proposed 9 Wolf Lakes Ph.11 Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 10,735 tbd Proposed 10 Wolf Lakes Ph.III Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 134,470 tbd Proposed 11 Wolf Lakes Ph.IV Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 75,122 tbd Proposed 12 Wolf Lakes Ph.V Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 59,988 tbd Proposed 13 Wolf Lakes Ph.VI Wolf Lakes PUD Wolf Lakes, LP 62,761 tbd Proposed 14 Wolf Ranch PUD NWC of IH -35 and SH 29 Wolf Ranch 750,000 tbd Proposed Total Square Feet 1,MS77 Source. Capitol Market Research, City ofGeargetown siteplans, developer interviews, January 1018 campsite_ retail As 77 Table (40) Planned Retail Project Timing Georgetown Market Area Map Name Delivery Size 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2018 Future No. _ Construction . 1 Oak Meadows Marketplace 2018 77,050 f 77,050 2 The Summit at Rivery Park 2018 71,371 1 71,371 Planned 3 2150 N. 1-35 tbd 16,300 4 Bluebonnet Plaza 2019 110,000 .. 110,000 ... ... 5 Estrella Crossing Retail tbd 16,000 .. 6 Tamiro Plaza Ph.11 tbd 16,000 ... 7 Wolf Crossing 2019 142,900 142,900 8 Wolf Lakes Ph.l 2020 178,301 178,301 ... 9 Wolf Lakes Ph.11 2021 10,735 10,735 10 Wolf Lakes Ph.111 2023 134,470 ... 11 Wolf Lakes Ph.IV 2025 75,122 ... ... 12 Wolf Lakes Ph.V 2027 59,988 ... 00 13 Wolf Lakes Ph.VI 2028 62,761 .. ... ... ... 14 Wolf Ranch PUD tbd 750,000 Total -1,720,9%1 148,421 252,900 175, 301 Source: Capitol Market Research, City ofGeorgelown site plans, developer interviews, January 1018T 16,300 .. ... 16,000 ... ... ... 16,000 134,470 ... ... ... 75,122 ... ... ... 59,988 ... 62,761 750,000 0 134,470 0 75,122 0 59,988 62,761 798,300 campsite_retail.xls CAPITOL MARKET pl� v.k�d Rwkw- LL Z Site GEORGETOWN T' 29 h. N 0 0.6 1 Miles Construction Date February 2018 Path: C,kGISProjects120181WoifLakesWIanned retakmd Proposed Georgetown Market Area Retail Demand The demand for retail space is a function of the demand for retail goods and services, and growth in this demand is fundamentally based upon population increase and growth in disposable income. Thus, the two most important demographic components of demand are population growth and changes in the income of the market area households. Population growth for the market area was taken from Table (15), and average household income increase was based on the market area median household income change (Table (14)). Disposable income and annual expenditures were taken from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) 2016 Consumer Expenditure survey. Gross sales per square feet were based on the change in sales reported in the 2002 and 2008 publications of the ISCS's Retail Survey. It is estimated that the market area will show an average annual demand for 306,660 square feet of retail space per year, from 2018 through 2037. Table (41) Retail Space Demand Georgetown Market Area Year New Households Average HH Income New Household Disposable Income New Consumer Expenditures Gross Sales Retail Space Demand perSq.Ft. (Sq.Ft.) 2018 2,405 $79,973 $165,349,410 $75,688,419 $274 276,655 2019 2,513 $81,047 $175,078,652 $80,141,963 $290 276,510 2020 2,634 $82,135 $185,973,176 $85,128,913 $306 278,123 2021 2,718 $83,238 $194,450,866 $89,009,562 $322 276,142 2022 2,835 $84,356 $205,541,065 $94,086,082 $339 277,882 2023 2,946 $85,488 $216,487,196 $99,096,656 $355 279,278 2024 3,075 $86,636 $228,985,084 $104,817,543 $371 282,465 2025 3,210 $87,800 $242,236,667 $110,883,433 $387 286,275 2026 3,329 $88,978 $254,629,618 $116,556,286 $404 288,805 2027 3,472 $90,173 $269,093,598 $123,177,149 $420 293,397 2028 3,636 $91,384 $285,603,569 $130,734,561 $436 299,795 2029 3,775 $92,611 $300,463,528 $137,536,683 $452 304,063 2030 3,949 $93,855 $318,531,888 $145,807,444 $469 311,169 2031 4,108 $95,115 $335,835,591 $153,728,186 $485 317,077 2032 4,303 $96,392 $356,480,429 $163,178,326 $501 325,654 2033 4,497 $97,686 $377,617,343 $172,853,714 $517 334,128 2034 4,680 $98,998 $398,226,542 $182,287,540 $534 341,633 2035 4,906 $100,327 $423,030,655 $193,641,582 $550 352,186 2036 5,112 $101,674 $446,736,093 $204,492,707 $566 361,245 2037 5,325 $103,040 $471,619,100 $215,882,862 $582 370,725 Capital Market Research, January 2018 retail demand As Notes: Household estimate based on market area increasing capture rate of Austin MSA growth, Average HH income increase based on market area 1999 ACS and 2012-2016 ACS 5 -Year estimates. Disposable income (86.0%) and Annual Expenditures, other than Housing and Transportation (49 8%), based on 1016 RLS Consumer Expenditure Survey. Gross Retail Sales per Sq. Ft. based on the ULI & ISCS "Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers" (2002-2008) Median by Retail Type & market area totals (February 1018). 80 Subject Retail Absorption Forecast The subject (Wolf Lakes PUD) retail demand forecast, shown through 2037, is shown on Table (42) on the following page. The Georgetown market area forecasts includes the additions to retail space from Table (40) that are currently under construction, and then assumes that new square footage will be built in the market area to accommodate the demand from 2020 through 2037. As done with the previous forecasts, the Wolf Lakes PUD forecast is prepared using a capture rate assessment for the subject property, with the proportional rate based on the Future Land Use Plan, and the competitive rate based on the analysts opinion of the subject site when compared to other potential development areas. The resulting forecast shows a potential of 1,876,275 square feet of retail space that could be absorbed over the forecast period in the Wolf Lakes PUD, which is 30.6% of the total demand anticipated for the Georgetown market area from 2018 through 2037. Table (43a) on the following page compares the estimated demand in the subject with the multi -tenant retail square feet planned on the subject site, based on the timing provided by the developer. Table (43a) illustrates that there is sufficient demand to absorb the retail square footage planned by the developer when it is delivered from 2019 through 2028. Table (43b) shows an alternative forecast, prepared by Capitol Market Research which shows a slight change in phasing and construction timeline. The planned retail square footage (including both retail and restaurant square footage), has more than sufficient demand in the market area. The only instance that was changed by CMR was the delivery of 75,122 square footage of retail space that is expected to have 54 condominium units above, to 2030, to coincide with the condominium delivery. 81 Ta bl a (42 ) Retail Space Demand Wolf Lakes PUD Note: Market Area retail demand from Table (41), supply based on currently under construction product listed in Table (40), reverting to match demand after 2019. Subject Capture rate based on the percentage of non-agricultural, available and developable land as a percentage of the City of Georgeto wn, and the Competitive Rate established by CMR. 82 Georgetown Georgetown Wolf Lakes PUD PUD Capture Competitive Blended Subject Demand Cumulative Year Retail Retail Demand Additions Rare Capture Rate Capture Rate (Sq.Ft.) Demand (Sq.Ft.) 1018 276,655 148,421 38.55vo 20.0% 29.3% 80,979 80,979 2019 276,510 0 38.5% 20.3% 29.4% 81,301 162,280 2020 278,123 278,123 38.5% 20.5% 29.5% 82,141 244,420 2021 276,142 276,142 38.5% 20.8% 29.7961 81,919 326,339 2022 277,882 277,882 38.5% 21.1% 29.8% 82,801 409,140 1023 279,278 279,278 38.5% 21.3% 29.9% 83,584 492,724 2024 282,465 282,465 38.55va 21.6% 30.1% 84,910 577,634 2025 286,275 286,275 38.5% 21.8% 30.2% 86,432 664,066 2026 288,805 288,805 38.5% 22.1% 30.3% 87,576 751,641 2027 293,397 293,397 38.5% 22.4% 30.5% 89,354 840,995 2028 299,795 299,795 38.55va 22.6% 30.6% 91,697 932,692 2029 304,063 304,063 38.5% 22.9% 30.7% 93,403 1,026,095 2030 311,169 311,169 38.5% 23.2% 30.8% 95,995 1,122,090 2031 317,077 317,077 38.5% 23.4% 31.0% 98,235 1,220,324 2032 325,654 325,654 38.5% 13.7% 31.1% 101,320 1,321,645 2033 334,128 334,128 38.5% 23.9% 31.2% 104,396 1,426,041 1034 341,633 341,633 38.5% 24.2% 31.4% 107,191 1,533,232 2035 352,186 352,186 38.5% 24.5% 31.5% 110,966 1,644,198 2036 361,245 361,245 38.5% 24.7% 31.6% 114,295 1,758,493 1037 370,725 370,725 38.5% 25.0% 31.8% 117,782 1,876,275 6,133,208 5,728,464 30.6% 1,876,275 Capitol Market Research, February2018 retail_demand.xls Note: Market Area retail demand from Table (41), supply based on currently under construction product listed in Table (40), reverting to match demand after 2019. Subject Capture rate based on the percentage of non-agricultural, available and developable land as a percentage of the City of Georgeto wn, and the Competitive Rate established by CMR. 82 Table (43a) Retail Space Absorption Forecast V.1 Wolf Lakes PUD 83 Wolf Lakes PUD Year Subject Demand Cumulative New Sq.Ft. Cumulative Cumulative less (Sq.Ft.) Demand (Sq.Ft.) Added Sq.Ft. Added Sq.Ft. Added 2018 80,979 80,979 0 0 80,979 2019 81,301 162,280 0 0 162,280 2020 82,141 244,420 178,301 178,301 66,119 2021 81,919 326,339 10,735 189,036 137,303 2022 82,801 409,140 0 189,036 220,104 2023 83,584 492,724 134,470 323,506 169,218 2024 84,910 577,634 0 323,506 254,128 2025 86,432 664,066 75,122 398,628 265,438 2026 87,576 751,641 0 398,628 353,013 2027 89,354 840,995 59,988 458,616 382,379 2028 91,697 932,692 62,761 521,377 411,315 2029 93,403 1,026,095 0 521,377 504,718 2030 95,995 1,122, 090 0 521,377 600,713 2031 98,235 1,220,324 0 521,377 698,947 2032 101,320 1,321,645 0 521,377 800,268 2033 104,396 1,426,041 0 521,377 904,664 2034 107,191 1,533,232 0 521,377 1,011,855 2035 110,966 1,644,198 0 521,377 1,122, 821 2036 114,295 1,758,493 0 521,377 1,237,116 2037 117,782 1,876,275 0 S21,377 1,354,898 521,377 Capitol Market Research, February2018 retail demond.xls 83 Table (43b) Retail Space Absorption Forecast V.2 Wolf Lakes PUD 84 Wolf Lakes PUD Year Subject Demand Cumulative New Sq.Ft. Cumulative Cumulative less (Sq.Ft.) Demand (Sq.Ft.) Added Sq.Ft. Added Sq.Ft. Added 2018 80,979 80,979 0 0 80,979 2019 81,301 162,280 0 0 162,280 2020 82,141 244,420 178,301 178,301 66,119 2021 81,919 326,339 10,735 189,036 137,303 2022 82,801 409,140 0 189,036 220,104 2023 83,584 492,724 134,470 323,506 169,218 2024 84,910 577,634 0 323,506 254,128 2025 86,432 664,066 0 323,506 340,560 2026 87,576 751,641 0 323,506 428,135 2027 89,354 840,995 59,988 383,494 457,501 2028 91,697 932,692 62,761 446,255 486,437 2029 93,403 1,026,095 0 446,255 579,840 2030 95,995 1,122, 090 75,122 521,377 600,713 2031 98,235 1,220,324 0 521,377 698,947 2032 101,320 1,321,645 0 521,377 800,268 2033 104,396 1,426,041 0 521,377 904,664 2034 107,191 1,533,232 0 521,377 1,011,855 2035 110,966 1,644,198 0 521,377 1,122, 821 2036 114,295 1,758,493 0 521,377 1,237,116 2037 117,782 1,876,275 0 521,377 1,354,898 521,377 Capitol Market Research, February 1018 retail demand.xls 84 TIRZ FORECAST Wolf Lakes TIRZ Value Forecasts Using the CMR suggested "V.2" absorption forecast tables for all product types, a forecast for value added for the Wolf Lakes PUD was calculated. The consultant to the developer (Wolf Lakes, LP), Blackard Gobal, furnished CMR with "Square Footage" cost estimation reports from RSMeans data from Gorian, for all types of construction expected in the PUD. These construction cost estimates were also independently verified by CMR. Tables (44) through (47) on the following pages show cost estimations by product type for the planned square footage. The 1,611 units of multi -family at the subject will result in the potential addition of over $382 million dollars of taxable value in the Wolf Lakes PUD, while the 291 planned single family, townhome and condominium products will add over $108 million of taxable value. For commercial space, the 397,950 of multi -tenant office space could add over $115 million of taxable value, and the multi -tenant retail space (521,377 sq.ft.) could add over $118 million of taxable value. 86 Table (44) Multi -Family Units and Value Added Wolf Lakes PUD Total number of units and building sq.ft. based on Wolf Lakes PUD land plan. Construction cost provided by Blackard Global using RSMeans data from Gorian, based on type of construction and area. 87 New Units Cost per Sq. Total Building Cumulative Year Bldg' q' 5 Ft. Added Ft. Cost Building Value 2018 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2019 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2020 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2021 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2022 322 $180 274,040 $49,192,920 $49,192,920 2023 328 $180 278,460 $49,986,355 $99,179,275 2024 0 $0 0 $0 $99,179,275 2025 336 $324 302,400 $97,892,928 $197,072,203 2026 0 $0 0 $0 $197,072,203 2027 324 $324 291,600 $94,402,584 $291,474,787 2028 312 $324 280,800 $90,900,576 $382,375,363 2029 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2030 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2031 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2032 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2033 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2034 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2035 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2036 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 2037 0 $0 0 $0 $382,375,363 Total 1,622 $382,375,363 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 compsite_apt.xls Total number of units and building sq.ft. based on Wolf Lakes PUD land plan. Construction cost provided by Blackard Global using RSMeans data from Gorian, based on type of construction and area. 87 Table (45) Attached Housing Units and Value Added Wolf Lakes PUD Total number of units and building sq.ft. based on Wolf Lakes PUD land plan. Construction cost provided by Blackard Global using RSMeans data from Gorion, based on type of construction and area. 88 New Units Cost per Sq. Total Building Cumulative Year Bldg Sq. Ft. Added Ft. Cost Building Value 2018 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2019 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2020 10 $166 153,262 $25,456,818 $25,456,818 2021 0 $0 0 $0 $25,456,818 2022 50 $168 84,491 $14,155,596 $39,612,414 2023 21 $168 35,486 $5,945,350 $45,557,765 2024 0 $0 0 $0 $45,557,765 2025 52 $168 77,243 $12,941,292 $58,499,057 2026 0 $0 0 $0 $58,499,057 2027 0 $0 0 $0 $58,499,057 2028 0 $0 0 $0 $58,499,057 2029 104 $168 153,262 $25,677,515 $84,176,572 2030 54 $324 76,096 $24,635,319 $108,811,892 2031 0 $0 0 $0 $108,811,892 2032 0 $0 0 $0 $108,811,892 2033 0 $0 0 $0 $108,811,892 2034 0 $0 0 $0 $108,811,892 2035 0 $0 0 $0 $108,811,892 2036 0 $0 0 $0 $108,811,892 2037 0 $0 0 $0 $108,811,892 Total 291 $108,811,892 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 comps ite_condo_gtwn.xls Total number of units and building sq.ft. based on Wolf Lakes PUD land plan. Construction cost provided by Blackard Global using RSMeans data from Gorion, based on type of construction and area. 88 Ta bl a (46) Office Space and Value Added Wolf Lakes PUD 89 New Office Land Area in Building Cost Total Building Cumulative Year Sq.Ft. Added Acres per Sq.Ft. Cost Building Value 2018 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 2019 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 2020 15,578 0.36 $259 $4,031,898 $4,031,898 2021 0 0.00 $0 $0 $4,031,898 2022 0 0.00 $0 $0 $4,031,898 2023 0 0.00 $0 $0 $4,031,898 2024 0 0.00 $0 $0 $4,031,898 2025 0 0.00 $0 $0 $4,031,898 2026 106,769 4.90 $259 $27,633,953 $31,665,851 2027 0 0.00 $0 $0 $31,665,851 2028 0 0.00 $0 $0 $31,665,851 2029 0 0.00 $0 $0 $31,665,851 2030 95,639 0.73 $259 $24,753,286 $56,419,137 2031 0 0.00 $0 $0 $56,419,137 2032 0 0.00 $0 $0 $56,419,137 2033 0 0.00 $0 $0 $56,419,137 2034 0 0.00 $0 $0 $56,419,137 2035 179,964 1.38 $329 $59,254,947 $115,674,083 2036 0 0.00 $0 $0 $115,674,083 2037 0 0.00 $0 $0 $115,674,083 Total 397,950 7.37 $115,674,083 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 off_sum_gtn.xls Building sq.ft. based on Wolf Lakes PUD land plan. Construction cost provided by Blockard Global using RSMeans data from Gorian, based on type of construction and area. 89 Table (47) Retail Space and Value Added Wolf Lakes PUD 90 New Retail Land Area in Building Cost Total Building Cumulative Year Sq.Ft. Added Acres per Sq. Ft. Cost Building Value 2018 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 2019 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 2020 178,301 4.09 $227 $40,531,155 $40,531,155 2021 10,735 0.12 $239 $2,568,939 $43,100,094 2022 0 0.00 $0 $0 $43,100,094 2023 134,470 3.09 $229 $30,763,690 $73,863,784 2024 0 0.00 $0 $0 $73,863,784 2025 0 0.00 $0 $0 $73,863,784 2026 0 0.00 $0 $0 $73,863,784 2027 59,988 1.38 $224 $13,463,107 $87,326,891 2028 62,761 1.44 $224 $14,085,451 $101,412,342 2029 0 0.00 $0 $0 $101,412,342 2030 75,122 1.21 $233 $17,504,008 $118,916,350 2031 0 0.00 $0 $0 $118,916,350 2032 0 0.00 $0 $0 $118,916,350 2033 0 0.00 $0 $0 $118,916,350 2034 0 0.00 $0 $0 $118,916,350 2035 0 0.00 $0 $0 $118,916,350 2036 0 0.00 $0 $0 $118,916,350 2037 0 0.00 $0 $0 $118,916,350 Total 521,377 11.33 $118,916,350 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 retail demand.xls Building sq.ft. based on Wolf Lakes PUD land plan. Construction cost provided by Blackard Global using RSMeans datafrom Gorian, based on type ofconstruction and area. 90 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Georgetown Market Area Conditions Summary The market conditions for new construction in the Austin metropolitan area continue to be very strong. Job growth is robust and, because the unemployment rate is currently lower than other cities in Texas and in the nation at 2.7% (BLS, December 2017) new employees and their families continue to move into the region to fill the current job vacancies or look for work. While a surge in new construction in 2007 and 2008, combined with the recession in 2009, caused occupancy to fall in both the apartment and office markets, the past several years have seen a strengthening in the Austin market and an increase in demand for all types of housing, general purpose office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. The Georgetown market area has experienced an increased level of population and housing growth as areas closer to Central Austin build out and become more expensive. As a result, while the market area captured 17.30% of the population growth in Williamson County from 2000 through 2010, with this share increasing to 22.68% from 2010 through 2014 (ACS 5 -year survey). CMR anticipates that the share of population growth will increase to 25.02% in 2037, generating an average of 3,131 new households per year over this 20 -year period. The tenure split in the market area is mostly owners, like the majority of suburban cities around the Austin MSA, although there the number of renters is slowly increasing as new apartments are delivered and new tenants move into the area. The Georgetown market area currently has 21 active apartment communities and is dominated by the suburban, garden style three-story walk up. In December 2017, the market area was currently 89.0% occupied with two properties in lease -up, and has an average rental rate of $1.22 per square foot, which has continued to increase as new, higher quality units are added to the market area. There are currently six new apartment communities in the market area under construction, two of which have delivered a portion of their units (Hillstone at Wolf Ranch and Retreat at Wolf Ranch). There are an additional nine planned apartment communities, including five in the Wolf Lakes PUD. The higher density for sale residential product in the Georgetown market area has gained momentum over the past several years. In January 2018, there were four projects under construction and selling existing inventory or "pre -selling" units at an average of $385,312, or $171 per square foot. The MLS sales in the market area, which includes resale activity, shows an average of 62 annual sales of "attached" housing over the past five years, with sales prices increasing every year besides 2017. The high density product in the market area is made up entirely of townhome, rowhouse, or detached single family condominium units, there are no higher density "stacked flat" condominiums existing in the subject market area. There are currently four communities under construction, all of which have active sales or "pre -sales" activity. An additional seven sites, including a Phase II of a currently under construction project and five projects in the Wolf Lakes PUD, are planned. The Georgetown office market, according to a survey conducted by CMR in December 2017, is relatively small, with a total of 291,376 square feet in 13 multi -tenant office buildings. The market 92 area us currently 85.4% occupied with gross average rental rates of $21.10 per square foot, across all classes of office space. Occupancy has increased continually since 2015, when the market area was only 68.9% occupied. The market area contains only two large (50,000 sq.ft. +) multi -tenant office buildings, one class "A" property built in 2008, and one class "B" property built in 2014. Currently there are two buildings under construction, both planned to deliver office space in 2018. There are an additional eight multi -tenant office projects planned, six in the Wolf Lakes PUD. The multi -tenant retail market in Georgetown is made up of 15 shopping centers with 2,284,254 square feet of space. The majority of retail space was added to the market area in 2006 through 2009, including Wolf Ranch Shopping Center, the Round Rock Premium Outlets, and Rivery Towne Crossing. According to a December 2017 survey conducted by CMR, the retail market is currently 95.9% occupied, with average rental rates at $21.83 per square foot. Two multi -tenant retail projects are under construction in the market area, and will be complete in 2018. There are an additional 12 shopping centers planned, including the six phases in the Wolf Lakes PUD. 93 Wolf Lakes PUD Project Summary and Recommendations Overview of initial Concept Plan The subject, Wolf Lakes PUD, is an approximately 164 acre site located at the northwest intersection of Interstate 35 and University Avenue (State Highway 29) in Georgetown, Texas. The initial concept plan shared with Capitol Market Research by Blackard Global, the consultant to the developer (Wolf Lakes, LP), describes a "NeoRetroism" master planned community, with high density clustered uses in an "old world village" setting. The concept plan has 1,622 multi -family units in five apartment communities, 291 town home/condominium units in five phases, 887,910 square feet of multi -tenant office space in six phases, and 521,377 square feet of multi -tenant retail (including restaurant) space in six phases. In addition, there are several phases of specialty use, including a multi -screen cinema, several hotels, and a conference center, which were not evaluated in this study. The subject PUD benefits from frontage on both Interstate 35 and State Highway 29, which provides high visibility and easy access in all directions. The Georgetown market area has continued to experience a high level of growth, as households and families, as well as developers, look for an attractive, accessible suburban location. Recommendations and Conclusions The concept plan provided to CMR was analyzed for market feasibility using both historical and anticipated future conditions in the subject market area. The phasing and timing for the planned uses was provided by the developer and was compared with the 20 -year demand forecast prepared by CMR for the Wolf Lakes PUD. In some cases, there was insufficient demand to absorb the planned use when it was to be delivered, and an alternative scenario with market-based phasing and timing was also provided. Table (48) on Page 96 summarizes the plan provided by Blackard Global, along with the annual estimates of demand prepared by Capitol Market Research. The recommendations for alterations to the construction schedule suggested by Capitol Market Research are summarized in Table (49). The five multi -family communities in the subject PUD have a total of 1,622 planned units, for which there is estimated to be sufficient demand over the next 10 years. However, CMR believes that the market conditions indicate that the first two phases built should be garden style communities in sections 24 and 26. These two sites can be built along an existing arterial with good visibility, without extensive infrastructure improvements or "place - making" investments. In addition, the garden style product rents are obtainable today, while mid - rise rents are not supportable in the market today. For the "attached housing" (town home/condominium), it is suggested that section 10, containing the detached single family condominiums, and section 23, with townhome units, be delivered first (between 2020 and 2023). These home and townhomes are contained in the "Neo-Retroism" Village that will be built in the first phase of development. The 54 condominiums above retail are projected to deliver last, in 2030. 94 The office square footage planned in_the_subject PUD, 887,910 square feet, is more than twice the estimated multi -tenant demand for the subject site over the forecasted 20 -year period. CMR suggests cutting down the square footage to 397,950 square feet by omitting sections 1 and 5, and leaving these two sections for a possible single tenant, corporate office relocation opportunity. The office delivery schedule should be expanded to more closely match the market demand, spreading out the delivery from 2020 through 2035. According to the CMR demand forecast, the retail phases as originally planned for delivery in the PUD should have more than sufficient demand to be absorbed during the expected timeline. The only suggestion that CMR has offered is that the 75,122 square foot of retail space that is expected to have condominium units above, be delivered in 2030, to coincide with the residential unit demand. Finally, Table (50) documents the additional assessed value anticipated in the Wolf Lakes PUD from 2018 through 2037 ($725,777,897), based on the CMR proposed construction of residential and commercial development shown Table (49). Table (51) shows the total assessed value, by year beginning with a January 1, 2017 value of $5,090,731. Using an inflation rate of 2.0% and building values provided by Blackard Global using RSMeans data from Gorian, and adding the planned development values in appropriate years, CMR has calculated at taxable value in the PUD of $909,391,038 in 2037. Assuming the City of Georgetown tax rate remains at 0.4240, the TIRZ will generate $41,681,029 in tax revenues over the next 20 years. The initial estimates for total taxable value furnished by Blackard Global for the Wolf Lakes PUD development plan is $1,478,421,645, including all uses and an inflation rate of 2.0%. To compare those rates derived by CMR to the rates calculated by the developer, CMR removed all uses that were not studied in this report (cinema, hotels, convention center, and amenities) from the Blackard Global taxable value, which resulted in $1,153,697,948, which is $244,306,910 higher than the value calculated by CMR. The difference between the Blackard Global and the CMR value is largely the result of the removal of 489,960 square feet of multi -tenant office space for which CMR determined there was insufficient demand. As noted earlier in the report, the proposed class "A" office building sites (sections 1 and 5) should be retained in the plan as potential locations for a large corporate user(s). The potential for enticing this type of tenant is more appropriately evaluated as part of the City of Georgetown's economic development strategy. 95 Table (48) Land Use Summary - V.1 Wolf Lakes PUD Capitol Market Research, February 2018 Demmd fmm ONR report, unit/sq ft added wa,ided'ry alarearo 3;omI Land Use and Value Summary.xls Mulh,Family Condal TownKome Multi -Tenant Office Multi -Tenant Retail Year Demand Units Added Cumulative Less Demand Units Added Cumulative Less Demand sq. Ft. Added Cumulative Less Demand Sq.Ft.Added Cumulative Less Llnits Added Units Added Sq -Ft. Added Sq.Ft.Added 1018 0 0 0 11 0 11 11,363 0 11,363 80,979 0 80,979 2019 0 0 0 12 0 23 11,445 0 22,808 81,301 0 162,280 2020 154 336 (182) 14 114 (77) 9,825 15,578 17,055 82,141 178,301 66,119 2021 162 324 (343) 16 52 (113) 11,335 106,769 (78,379) 81,919 10,735 137,303 1022 169 0 (175) 18 0 (95) 17,245 0 (61,134) 82,801 0 220,104 2023 176 0 1 19 71 (147) 18,653 301,677 (344,158) 83,584 134,470 169,218 2014 185 0 186 22 0 (125) 15,236 0 (328,923) 84,910 0 254,128 2025 192 328 50 24 54 (155) 14,822 95,639 (409,7401 86,432 75,122 265,438 2026 201 0 251 26 0 (129) 16,819 0 (392, 87,576 0 353,013 2027 210 634 (174) 29 0 (99) 22,327 179,964 89,354 59,988 382,379 2028 219 0 45 32 0 (67) 24,056 18%283 91,697 62,761 411,315 2029 229 0 274 35 0 (32) 25,866 0 93,403 0 504,718 2030 239 0 512 39 0 6 27,760 0 95,995 0 600,713 2031 249 0 761 42 0 48 29,741 0 98,235 0 698,947 2032 260 0 1,021 46 0 95 31,812 0 101,320 0 80,268 2033 270 0 1,291 s0 0 145 33,976 0 104,396 0 904,664 2034 281 0 1,572 54 0 199 36,236 0 107,191 0 1,011,855 2035 292 0 1,864 59 0 257 38,597 0 (490,798) 110,966 0 1,122,821 2036 302 0 2,166 63 0 321 41,060 0 (449,738) 114,295 0 1,237,116 7037 315 0 2,481 1 69 0 389 44,994 0 (404.7431 117,782 0 L3541898 4,103 ?,822 4481 680 291 389 483,167 889,910 i•iC4173) 1 1,876275 524377 1,354,898 Capitol Market Research, February 2018 Demmd fmm ONR report, unit/sq ft added wa,ided'ry alarearo 3;omI Land Use and Value Summary.xls Table (49) Land Use Summary - V.2 Wolf Lakes PUD Capitol Market Research, February 2018 Land Use and value Summary.xls Demand from CMR report Phasing suggested by CMR Multi -Family Condo/Townhome Multi -Tenant Office Multi -Tenant Office Year Demand Units Added Cumulative Less Demand Units Added Cumulative Less Demand Sq . Ft Added Cumulative Less Demand Sq. Ft. Added Cumulative Less Units Added Units Added Sq -Ft. Added Sa.Ft. Added 2018 0 0 0 11 0 11 11,363 0 11,363 80,979 0 80,979 2019 0 0 0 12 0 23 11,445 0 22,808 81,301 0 162,280 2020 154 0 154 14 10 27 9,825 15,578 17,055 82,141 178,301 66,119 2021 162 0 317 16 0 43 11,335 0 28,390 81,919 10,735 137,303 2022 169 322 163 18 50 11 17,245 0 45,635 82,801 0 220,104 2023 176 328 11 19 21 9 18,653 0 64,288 83,584 134,470 169,218 2024 185 0 196 22 0 31 15,236 0 79,523 84,910 0 254,128 2025 192 336 52 24 52 3 14,822 0 94,345 86,432 75,122 265,438 2026 201 0 253 26 0 29 16,819 106,769 4,396 87,576 0 353,013 1027 210 324 138 29 0 59 22,327 0 26,723 89,354 59,988 382,379 2028 219 312 45 32 0 91 24,056 0 50,778 91,697 62,761 411,315 2029 229 0 274 35 104 22 25,866 0 76,644 93,403 0 504,718 2030 239 0 512 39 54 6 27,760 95,639 8,765 95,995 0 600,713 2031 249 0 761 42 0 48 29,741 0 38,505 98,235 0 698,947 2032 260 0 1,021 46 0 95 31,812 0 70,317 101,320 0 800,268 2033 270 0 1,291 50 0 145 33,976 0 104,293 104,396 0 904,664 2034 281 0 1,572 54 0 199 36,236 0 140,529 107,191 0 1,011,855 2035 292 0 1,864 59 0 257 38,597 179,964 (838) 110,966 0 1,122,821 2036 302 0 2,166 63 0 321 41,060 0 40,222 114,295 0 1,237,116 2037 315 0 2,481 69 0 389 44,994 0 85.217 1 1.17,782 0 L354,898 4,103 1,622 2,481 680 291 389 483,167 397,950 85,217 1,876,275 521.377 1,354,898 Capitol Market Research, February 2018 Land Use and value Summary.xls Demand from CMR report Phasing suggested by CMR Table (50) Forecast and Value Summary Wolf Lakes PUD Source: Capital Market Research, February 2018 98 Land Use and Value Summary As Absorption and Value Year Multi -Family Multi -Family Attached Attached ,Office Square Retail Square Total Value Units Value Housing Housing Feet Office Value Feet Retail Value Added Units Value 2018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2019 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2020 0 $0 10 $25,456,818 15,578 $4,031,898 178,301 $40,S31,155 $70,019,871 1021 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 10,735 $2,568,939 $2,568,939 2022 322 $49,192,920 50 $14,155,596 0 $0 0 $0 $63,348,517 2023 328 $49,986,355 21 $5,945,350 0 $0 134,470 $30,763,690 $86,695,395 2014 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2025 336 $97,892,928 52 $12,941,292 0 $0 0 $0 $110,834,220 2026 0 $0 0 $0 106,769 $27,633,953 0 $0 $27,633,953 2027 324 $94,402,584 0 $0 0 $0 59,988 $13,463,107 $107,865,691 2028 312 $90,900,576 0 $0 0 $0 62,761 $14,085,451 $104,986,027 2029 0 $0 104 $25,677,515 0 $0 0 $0 $25,677,515 2030 0 $0 54 $24,635,319 95,639 $24,753,286 75,122 $17,504,008 $66,892,613 2031 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 1032 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2033 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2034 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2035 0 $0 0 $0 179,964 $59.254,947 0 $0 $59,254,947 2036 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2037 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 iota! 1,622 $382,375,363 291 $108,811,892 397,950 $115,674,083 521,377 $118,916,350 $725,777,687 Source: Capital Market Research, February 2018 98 Land Use and Value Summary As Table (51) Wolf Lakes PUD Projected Assessed Value by Year (2018 - 2037) WCAD Taxable Inflated Value at Planned WCAD Taxable City Property Tax Year Value 2.0% Development Value Revenues (at (January 1) Value (December31) 0.42400) 2017 $5,090,731 $5,192,546 $0 $5,192,546 $22,016 2018 $5,192,546 $5,296,397 $0 $5,296,397 $22,457 2019 $5,296,397 $5,402,324 $0 $5,402,324 $22,906 2020 $5,402,324 $5,510,371 $70,019,871 $75,530,242 $320,248 2021 $75,530,242 $77,040,847 $2,568,939 $79,609,786 $337,545 2022 $79,609,786 $81,201,982 $63,348,517 $144,550,499 $612,894 2023 $144,550,499 $147,441,509 $86,695,395 $234,136,903 $992,740 2024 $234,136,903 $238,819,641 $0 $238,819,641 $1,012,595 2025 $238,819,641 $243,596,034 $110,834,220 $354,430,254 $1,502,784 2026 $354,430,254 $361,518,859 $27,633,953 $389,152,812 $1,650,008 2027 $389,152,812 $396,935,868 $107,865,691 $504,801,559 $2,140,359 2028 $504,801,559 $514,897,590 $104,986,027 $619,883,617 $2,628,307 2029 $619,883,617 $632,281,290 $25,677,515 $657,958,805 $2,789,745 2030 $657,958,805 $671,117,981 $66,892,613 $738,010,594 $3,129,165 2031 $738,010,594 $752,770,806 $0 $752,770,806 $3,191,748 2032 $752,770,806 $767,826,222 $0 $767,826,222 $3,255,583 2033 $767,826,222 $783,182,746 $0 $783,182,746 $3,320,695 2034 $783,182,746 $798,846,401 $0 $798,846,401 $3,387,109 2035 $798,846,401 $814,823,329 $59,254,947 $874,078,276 $3,706,092 2036 $874,078,276 $891,559,842 $0 $891,559,842 $3,780,214 2037 $891,559,842 $909,391,038 $0 $909,391,038 $3,855,818 Total $725,777,687 $41,681,029 Source: Capitol Market Research, February 2018 Land Use and Value Summary.As 99 APPENDIX Certificate The undersigned do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this market/feasibility report: We certify that we have personally inspected the aforementioned subject property, and that our fee is in no way contingent upon the determination of feasibility reported herein. We have no present or contemplated future interest in the -real-estate -that is-the—subject of this... report. To the best of our knowledge and belief the statements of fact contained in this report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. This report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of our assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions and conclusions contained in this report. Recognition is hereby given to Erin Roberts, Camiel DeSmet, and Katherine Burley for their assistance in the preparation of this report. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in this report. Respectfully submitted, CAPITOL MARKET RESEARCH, INC. Charles H. Heimsath President 101 CHARLES H. HEIMSATH QUALIFICATIONS Charles H. Heimsath graduated from The University of Texas in 1976 with a Master of Science degree in City Planning. He has been active in the real estate market since 1976 in the areas of commercial and residential brokerage, market and feasibility studies, and real estate research. Prior to his association with Capitol Market Research, Mr. Heimsath was a senior project manager in charge of feasibility/market research with an appraisal firm, R. Robinson & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas. Between 1980 and 1983 he was responsible for managing the real estate research division at the Rice Center in Houston. Since moving to Austin in February 1984, Mr. Heimsath has conducted or managed over 500 market research and feasibility projects covering a range of property types from residential and mixed-use subdivisions through office/warehouse and service center space to downtown office buildings. His work has also included population forecasting for several cities, consultation to the General Land Office, The University of Texas System, and economic impact studies for proposed commuter and light rail systems in Austin and San Antonio. EDUCATION B.S. in Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; June 1972 M.S. in Community and Regional Planning, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas; August 1976 Post Graduate Studies, Rice University, Houston, Texas; 1980, 1981 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS & CERTIFICATIONS American Planning Association Real Estate Council of Austin, Former Board Member Texas Real Estate Broker #188355-13 Urban Land Institute, Austin Advisory Board Member Downtown Austin Alliance, Board Member, Policy Committee Chair PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Capitol Market Research Inc., President: June 1986 - Present R, Robinson & Associates, Project Manager: Real estate research, market and demographic studies, land - use forecasting: February 1984 - June 1986 South Main Center Assoc., Associate Director: Construction management, office administration, policy development, community outreach: February 1983 - February 1984 Rice Center, Senior Associate: Senior project manager responsible for real estate research, urban development and economic forecasting: October 1978 - February 1983 Mayor's Officg _ City of Houston, Urban Economist: Responsible for preparing the Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) for Houston: October 1976 - October 1978 102 Exhibit C -J Cash Flow Projections •Unying costs arc an eligible expense to the degree the developer can support the costs, but the total reimbursement is limited to the amount available in the nF Fund. This schedule projects that carrying costs will be limited to $7,708,703, based upon projected valuations and anticipated tax rates Exhibit C -K - Preliminary Build Out Schedule VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION BUILDOUT-- NEW PHASING ALLOCATION/SUBTOTALS FOR NEW PHASES ITEM PHASE PRODUCT ORIGINALPHASE NEWPHASE MAPSECTION UTIUTYSECnON SITE COVERAGE (FT21 BUILDING AREA UNITS TH SF 2 Hotel 1 SA 11 1 12,705 46,820- 6 Residential Townhome 1 1A 9 1 70,377 166,359 102 8 Retail 1 1A 3 1 160,988 160,988 10 Surface Parking 1 1A 3,11 1 42,148 - - 11 -Cinema 2 1A 8 1 46,5W 46,500- - 14 Restaurant/ Retail 2 1A 8 1 5,368 1Q735 16 Flex 1 JA 9 1 17,226 57„671 129 - - 18 'Office 3 1A 1 I 50,006 250,000 9A 'Village Lake 1 1A 12 1 20 Restaurant 3 1A 2,4 5 36,963 36,963 - - - SUBTOTAL 441,275 770,042 129 102 ITEM PHASE PRODUCT ORIGINALPHASE NEWPHASE MAP SECTION UTILITY SECTION SITE COVERAGE(FT7J BUILDING AREA (FT2) UNITS TH SF 3 (Multi Family Wrap 1 2 20 2 243,936 302,400 336 - 4 Office 1 2 21 2 12,686 12686 5 (Residential 1 2 10 1 20,558 44.446 2 10 7 Restaurant 1 2 3 1 17,313 17,313 - - 9 Amenitv--Amphitheater, Event Barn, Chapel 1 2 12,21 2 29,710 29,71 12 (Flex 2 2 7 3 53.385 106,769 15B Structured Parking 2 2 8 1 65,500 262,000 15A Surface Parking 2 2 8 1 83,826 - 22 'structured Parking 3 2 1 1 65,500 262.000 SUBTOTAL 592.414 1,037,324 336 2 10 ITEM PHASE PRODUCT ORIGINALPHASE NEWPHASE MAP SECTION UTIUTYSECHON SITE COVERAGE FT2 BUILDING AREA FT2 UNITS THSF 1 I=lex 3 3 2 1 2,892 2,892 13 Residential Townhome 2 3 19 3 25.748 77,243 - 52 - 17 Hotel 3 3 22 2 11.705 46,820 19 Residential Townhome 3 3 23 4 39,992 119,971 71 21 Retail 3 3 1,2,4 5 114.820 114,820 - - - 23 Surface Parking 3 3 4 5 131,559 - SUBTOTAL 326,716 361,752 0 123 ITEM PHASE PRODUCT ORIGINALPHASE NEWPHASE MAPSECTION UTILITY SECTION SITE COVERAGEIFRJ BUILDING AREA1FT21 UNITS TH SF 24 .Amenity --Village Core Cathedral 4 4 13 3 3,968 3,968 24A Apartment Lake 4 4 17 6 25 Multi Family Garden 4 1 15 8 548,856 278,460 328 - - 26 Multi Family Wrap 4 4 18 6 235,224 293.600 324 27 Office 4 4 13 3 31,880 95,639 - 28 Residential 4 4 13 3 38,048 76,096 54 29 Restaurant/Retail 4 4 13 3 2Q995 43,424 30 Retail 4 4 13 3 31,880 31,880 - - 31 Structured Parking 4 4 18 6 95,803 383.210 - SUBTOTAL 1,006,654 2,204,277 706 ITEM PHASE PRODUCT ORIGINALPHASE NEWPHASE1 MAPSECTION UTILITY SECTION SITE COVERAGE FT2BUILDING AREA (Fr2) UNITS TH SF 32 Multi Family Garden 5 1 24 9 1 540,144 274,040 322 - 33 iMulti Family Wrap 5 5 16 8 226,512 280,800 312 - 34 Office 5 5 5 5 59,988 179,964 - 35 Retail 5 5 5 5 59,988 59,988 - 35A 'WR Parkway Lake 5 5 26 8 36 SUBTOTAL :structured Parking 5 5 5 5 60,84 947,477 182,53 977,327 634 ITEM PHASE PRODUCT ORIGINALPHASE NEWPHASE MAP SECTION UTILITY SECTION SITE COVERAGE BUILDING AREA IM UNITS TH SF 37 38 39 40 (Hotel Conference Office _ lRetail Structured ParkinZ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 14 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 124,969 62,761 62,761 83,28 499,877 188.28 62,761- 267,86 - - I- - 41 Surface Parking 6 6 14 7 17,334 SUBTOTAL 357,11( 1,018,783 Exhibit C -L - Captured Appraised Value by Year YEAR REAL ESTATE VALUE TAX REVENUE TIRZ INCREMENT Cash F3Dut ProActIon Tial Calendar ra"Wit Valur Lind[ Development As of Jan.1 New Taxable Value pmoemw Development Asof D-11 As of Dec. 31 W�annual Inc of City Property Tax Tax Rate of County Total Tax Total Tax Rate of County TIRZ Calc on ORUVI.Ely city TIRZ Increment 70%Payment County TIRZ Increment 50% Payment City+County Reimb. Projecs TIRZ Increment Beginning Administrative Paid by Reimbursement Combined Balance In Fund Costs Developer - to To Dev Balance (Due to Dev 11% of inf. Costl bereimbursed I—ila Je Lal Annual Ending in Fund Carrying Costs' Cumulative• Balance at APRof Dueto Dev Due to Dev. 4% (if available in of balance due TI 2% 0A2 0.459429 4.251523 70fi 50% START 2018 54,627,147 1 2019 54,719,690 590,610.000 S 90.610,000 5360,562 $433,925 5227,910 5266393 5113555 5380.349 5 380,349 5 L33,900 S 366,149 $ $ 2 2020 592421200 5 92,422200 5388,173 5424,215 $231.469 $171721 $;15 234 $387.956 5 734,404 $ 33,900 5 2(1,504 $ S 3 2021 594,270,644 S 94.270.644 5395.937 5432.730 5237,116 $277,155 SIMIS59 5395.715 S 1,096,219 $ (33,900 L062A19 5 S 4 2022 596.156,057 S 96.156,057 5403.855 SW1,364 I $24).860 SZE1699 $1711930 5403629 $ 1.465.948 S (33.9001 S 19,176.888 S (1.43ZO4811 S $ 17,744,860 S 709,791 $ 1$454,634 5 2023 598.079.178 5183.155.164 S 2BL234.342 SL18 184 5 290947 5707.386 $826,629 $353,693 5118(1.522 $ 1180.522 5 33,900 S 11.146,622} $ S 17.308.012 5 692,3211 $ 1&=333 6 2021 5286,859,029 $ 286,859029 51.204.808 SL316,766 S72L534 5843,386 $360,767 5LZO4.3M 4 1214332 $ 33. 5 15.862.522 S 11.170,232 6 S 32.692622 5 1,3071705 S 38,6x1.327 7 2075 5197596109 5108.526.704 $ 401.122,914 51,684716 SL841,270 SL008.940 SL179.301 5504,670 51683,772 $ 16!3,772 S 63;,900 I S 11.649.872 S $ 32.350.456 S 3,294.018 S 33.614474 8 7026. $409.145,372 S 409,145,372 SL718,411 5 878,096 SL029,119 SL202887 5514,560 51117,447 5 1717,447 6 W,501 5 13,356789 S 11.683,547 5 5 45.317.716 5 1,812.709 S 47.130.424 9 2D17 $417 328.279 5172,345,727 $ 589.674,007 52.476 631 S4706,775 51,483,20; $L733,64Z S74L601 54475,242 $ 2,475,142 5 133,901111 S 2.443,3421 5 S 44.689.082 $ L787563 5 46.476.646 1D 7018 Shp 1167,167 5 6111,467,487 52.526.163 $1760,910 $1512.865 51768.314 5756-033 52.524,717 $ 2.524,747 $ '1900 S 17,244918 $ 7,690 7 S $ 61230.747 5 4449.230 5 63.679.977 11 2129 $613 46,E37 5162,344.987 5 775,8414823 $3258,536 $3.561.339 51,951.467 52.280.975 5975,734 53,156,709 5 3,2S6.7M $ 3,90MI S 13 8f18 $ $ 60,457,168 $ 2.418,287 $ 6237 55 12 Z030 S79L358,660 $402,506,392 51,193,865,052 55,014,233 55.480.187 53.002917 53.509,963 51503A58 55-013_4221 $ 5,011422 $ 6319001 5 4.977 5 $ 57.897,933 S 2.315.917 $ 60,213.851 33 2031 51]17,742,353 51,217,742.353 $5,114.518 55.589.791 53,062.975 53.580.163 53.53L488 55.111.550 5 5,1115561 $ 0319001 $ 19,309.648 $ 50;7,750 5 IS 74,445.749 5 2977,830 5 77 23,578 14 2032 $1212,067]00 5 6.242,1XII 0 $5215.606 $5.701.586 53,124,235 53.65L766 51.562.117 55,213.883 S 5.213.883 5 33,900 S 15,876,506 S 15,019.913F S S 8&120.101 S 3.524.804 $ 91.644,905 15 2033 SL265,939,144 51166939.141 $5,321,144 $5.815.618 $3,186,719 53.724,801 $1,593,360 55.318.161 5 5.318.161 5 33,900 $ 15,284.261f S 5 66.360645 5 3454,426 5 89,815.071 16 2431 51,292,277,927 51192,277,917 $SA17-567 $5,93L91I0 53]MAS4 53.799.237 511625.227 SSA24.524 $ 5.424.524 5 L33,900 S 15.390.5241 S $ MA24447 $ 3,376.976 6 87.801.424 17 2035 WMV3,46S $1.316,123.485 55536,13,9 Kmm![ 53,315463 $3,875,283 51657,731 55 5 io14 S (33,9001 5 5.499,114 5 $ 92,82.310 5 3,292,093 $ 65,596AD2 18 2036 51.344,485,955 51,344A85,955 55.W.1141 Sfi 17 5$D 53381772 53,952.289 $36580,886 55,643,675 $ 5,543,675 5 (33717 S 15.609.775 $ $ 79,984,618 5 3.199,385 5 63.1&1.013 19 2037 S1,371.375,674 5 1.371,375,674 55,759.778 56.295,012 $3.449,408 54.03L84a $17 743 55,796,548 $ 5,756,548 5 (53900 5 872363 5 (5.722,641i) 5 $ 78.334,228 S 3.133.369 5 81.467.597 ul ZD38' 5.1.39&803.188 51.398,603,188 S5.874.9731 56,420.912 S3,518.3961 54.112.481 S 759.198 95.871.679 S 5,871,479 $ 03,100 S 15337,7791 5 5 75529.818 5 3.025,193 5 78.655.010 21 2039 5-0426,779]51 5 1.426.779251 55,992,473 561549.331 $3.588.764 54.194,731 54.194.731 S 4194 731 S Mxlul S 14,160.831 S $ 74,494,179 S 2.979 767 5 77.473.947 22 3010 $1AS5914237 S 1,455,314,837 56,112.322 56.680.317 $3,660,539 54.278,628 54278.626 S 4,278.626 5 33,900 S 14244,7M S S 73]291221 5 2.979.169 S 76, 390 23 2041 51484,121.,13; $ I.484421,133 98,234.569 $6.813.923 $3,733,7511 54,364,198 54.364.198 5 4,364.198 5 133,9001 S la-mzml 6 5 71,628.082 5 2373.124 $ 74,70J L216 24 21142 51514,1129,556 51514,309,556 $6,359260 $6,950201 $3,808325 $+',451482 54,451.482 5 4.451.462 5 (33,9001 5 4,117,582 S $ 70,283,533 S 2,811345 $ 73,fl94979 25 2043 53,546,391717 61114,351767 5548GA45 $7-089,31$ $3.861.593 $4540512 54,540.512 S 4,540.512 $ 33,900 S 14.506,612 $ 5 66,586,367 S' 2,743,135 S 71,331.901 26 7X64 51575,279.182 S 1.575]79,562 56,616174 57,270.730 $3,962,285 54,631322 $4,631,322 5 4.631.322 .$ (33,900 S 14.597.422 5 S 66.734.480 5 1,669,379 S 69,403,859 27 2045 51.606,785,174 S 1.606.785,176 $6,748,498 57.375,610 Kot1531 $4,723,948 54,713.948 5 4723.948 S 33,900 S (4.690.046 5 5 64.713.811 S 2588552 5 67.301363 28 2046 SL638.92DB77 S I.636.910.877 $6663,168 57 .523,122 54.122.361 $4-038,127 $4318427 $ 4AM427 5 9X1 S 14.784,527 5 S 67'17,836 S 2500.713 5 65,O1B,S49 29 2047 SL671.699.295 5 !,671.699,295 57021,137 57,673,585 51,201,809 $4,414,7% $4,914,795 $ 4511,796 S [33,6001 S 14.880,896 $ $ 60,137.653 5 2-005506 S 62.543,160 30 2048 1705133.280 S 1705,333,260 57,361,560 $7,627,056 54,788.905 $S,l}1 2 $5013,092 $ 3 1 072 S 133.9001 S 14.979.192 $ $ 57.563.966 5 2.30 59 S 59.866.526 TOTAL51.119,468,974 SMJ46AS41 $242.240,91451 $77.942,168 691102.805 519,323,10411 IS 11.017,002 5 1O1.700.164 S 1109,408,907 67,575,270 City County Total *Carrying costs arc an eligible expense to the degree the developercansupport the costs, but the total reimbursement Total $130,146,864 $142,240,916 $272,387,780 is limited to the amount available in the TIF Fund. This schedule projects that carrying costs will be limited to TIF Payments .$91,102,805 -$19,323,104 -$110,425,909 $7,708,743, based upon projected valuations and anticipated tax rates Net to Govt $39,1344,059 $122,917,812 $161,961,872