Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Commuter Rail Committee-Agenda Packets-9/22/2008
~,ity r~1. v (: X 15 PUBLIC NOTICE COMMUTER RAIL COMMITTEE Monday, September 22, 2008 7:00 P.M. Colleyville Library (2"d floor) 110 Main Street The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: September 8, 2008 3. Presentation from Chad Edwards (Representative with NCTOG) 4. Discuss and review research to date regarding station impact, the proposed commuter rail project and additional concerns/issues to be addressed 5. Citizen Comment 6. Adjournment I certify that this notice was posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board on Thursday, September 18, 2008, by 5:00 pm. Joyceinne Williams Office Assistant CsitY o}' .~--- __ / -- I ~ ~ ....__. ......................-:::::--::::. S ° ,S ~ i,_ti. ~._n - COMMUTER RAIL COMMITTEE Minutes -September 8, 2008 1. Call to Order Chairman John Gooding called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: John Gooding, Fred Mills, Paul Vigiletti, Kristen O'Regan, Linda Baker, Mike Muhm, Joyce Hammill, James Day, John Leeper, Keath Hance Bart Butler, Urmesh Shah, David Grimes Absent: Roger Nelson, Rich Hendler, John Paul Burnett, Clif Davis Staff: Kelly Cooper, Mike Johnston 2. Approval of Minutes: August 25, 2008 John Gooding made a motion to approve the August 25, 2008 minutes. James Day seconded the motion, the motion carried. 3. Introduction of Mike Johnston, Interim Assistant City Manager Kelly Cooper introduced Mike Johnston as the new Interim Assistant City Manager and new staff member working with the Rail Committee due to her taking on the Interim duties of the City Manager position. 4. Presentation and question and answer with James Spriggs, Past President of the Irving Chamber of Commerce Fred Mills, Co Chair, introduced James Spriggs, Past President of the Irving Chamber of Commerce. James Spriggs discussed and answered questions regarding the implementation of two THE station stops in Irving during his tenure as Chamber president. The committee asked several questions related to economics, funding, vanpooling, demographics, and parking. 5. Discuss and review research to date regarding station impact, the proposed commuter rail project and additional concerns/issues to be addressed Chairman John Gooding led discussion regarding website updating which should include information updates of speakers and known facts. Additional committee discussion took place including all questions for the T should be passed through Kelly Cooper. Mike Johnston provided information of just under 1,000 total website hits on the rail page. The regular website averages 350 each month, so this is very good. The committee approved adding a status report to the front page of the rail website that includes: verbiage now that the EIS report is projected to be released in mid October 2008; and the Next Committee Update is September 22. 6. Discuss restructure/refocus of existing subcommittees Chairman John Gooding asked Safety and Security Subcommittee to provide additional information on Crime and a proposal for implementation of separation between hike and bike trail (Cotton Belt) and the rail line. John Leeper indicated this he thought this information would be provided in the EIS. Chairman John Gooding asked Traffic Subcommittee to request additional information on interior Colleyville street traffic flows and what proposals cold be planned for Pleasant Run and Bransford crossings. Discussion continued with regard to satellite parking and ancillary transportation. Kristen O'Regan asked Mike Johnston to enter into the minutes that the committee think outside the box and see if we can negotiate a more desirable station with a smaller parking lot. The committee requested staff to verify the station and parking footprint, how many acres and continue the search for additional information on ridership numbers. Another request was made to find more information from Grapevine regarding their station including the DFW Airport north station. 7. Citizen Comment No citizen comments were made. 8. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss; a motion was made by John Leeper to adjourn the meeting and seconded by Paul Vigiletti. The motion was approved and the meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Kelly Cooper. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page 1 of 2 Kelly Cooper From Sent: To: Michael T. Muhm~~ Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:05 PM .; Urmesh Shah; Roger H iN , Keath Hance Cc: Michael Johnston Subject: Re: The T -Vanpooling Good stuff from David...thanks for the info. If I can add quick bit of analysis to their comparisons In looking at the "Annual saving for Vanpooling" it clearly appears to be based solely on the assumption one will either ride the Vanpool or sell their car, as opposed to looking at the reduction in incremental costs related solely to the daily commute -- 45 miles or less per day. Assuming that you won't sell your car --- @ 45 miles per day, @ 15 mpg, @ $3.50 gallon, and assume $1.50 per day for wear/tear --- the total "Daily Cost of Driving alone" is approx. only $12.00 per day (a total of $3,024 per year in incremental commuting costs), not $31.05. This totals only $3,024 in savings instead of the almost $7K they show. The cost delta of $8.62 per day ($12.00 - $3.38) is still significant for folks, although not the enormous cost savings of almost $28 per day (31.05 - $3.38) they allude to and which totals $6,972 per year. Using the 2008 IRS operating costs assumption of $0.505 per mile, the total "commute" costs are $5,727, 27% less than their estimate of almost $8K. Thanks for the indulgence.......This is still a good program they offer to folks of 7 or more per van; I don't believe the "real" savings for "most" people will be as they purport....at least not for Colleyville citizens who might want to keep their cars. Michael T. Muhm tel: 817.329.3202 cell: 817.658.8862 fax: 817.488.8829 e-mail. e-mai1:,~Mla1~l ----- Original Message From: Kelly Cooper To: Cc:VMichael Johnston Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:42 PM Subject: FW: The T -Vanpooling Forwarding link below from David Grimes. Kelly Cooper Assistant City Manager City of Colleyville 100 Main Street 9/9/2008 Page 2 of 2 Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone: 817-503-1115 -----Original Message----- From: Grimes David Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:24 PM To: John Gooding Cc: Kelly Cooper Subject: The T - Vanpooling Check out the following link regarding vanpooling: http //www the-t.com/pool_vancar.html ~. 9/9/2008 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .- ~. µ-~, . . ~ ,r -~ w~ ~_ ... ~ .. _ _ a ~~a ,~. l ~ u~~, << - a,a~~ ,~{f,A'e - ~ i ~ ~ ~ , z S ~ .. ~ t ~, ~~ (`,. `.t _ _ _. _ 1 _ 1"4~ r ;. ,..~ ,. .. ;l t _ x,TS t,l ~~~'- ~,,.... I':6 <.1 a. .,-~i)i~ t_~, - ~, t c~? ?,J If171-""~~ 8t~ ^: ~3 ~. ' . ,. ...~ E i, ~ ~' T '' + ~~ it p~~"'tt" '1 J 4 l'~ 1 i,;. ~ )it~'~_ 0..., itif,+ti lWt .LI-ayyyr Tyt~N(®P' ie.a.~a_ e'.. _: t <'.' ,., ~~. v..f c. :i-?, i, L)".. ,\~. :~, L,l,t ,~_, ~, ;t~ Ji lz~tf ) 117 ~'. 77L. `~... :SR4; ~d-,~ ti~. ;ail ~~ l ~' _ i pia ~ ~, l i itt L ~~t. it ... ~% ~ .l ~.~". ~i '~"`~"` ,~... ~ ~~`~. f~~. t, ., .. t 9 c j~ ~ r E 7 i.i `~'\ ,,~~~ ~a'. .. ~ _,. . ~ _ r , . 4i, i_ u1C ~' ~ i ~ ,. ~l. ) F,kj Y~i+'R~ ..~ ... ~. , 1 ~~ i t ti E 4 [ 5 .i t (7 ~, ~t ~ ii,' i _ .. ., _. ., ~ ,sc~ .. .~ ,. e~ ~ s_ , ~ ..fti ~_ ~ r. t ~ _...rzc), ~~ i, ,.~., .~ ~ ~ __. G ~ t, °, :.'.~, ~C~4d,'3CQ~- •~`gr^~( ts~s _ ~ ,;~L-"~Ea%~'r~!'iStC~E" ` .. .. .. .t , .: ~ s.k ;.{i r .<._ ._ t.a «.7.,. ~ ~ Ti~~ ~+~ii~~'I"s"i~ait~i~tiL~i~~'aiti.~.i.n. t~~~#£{1iiy. r ,.. ._ r .. _., ~ +w «. ...% .. ~. ~, ~~~4. 'Avg ~!4~ ?~ .~ a,t... R. w «. .y.~. ~i a~ 3 wiq.'... }t•~c igr{1 ~ u~ 71~_r9 u;'. Str~'~ ,. i h`-~~(, ...,. ,... ~ ~„ii^. ,. ..Jit .. ,, ,. .. .i;,. iEitt. .~~' ..'ti . : r` ~, i ... . _,~a ~ .._ _... 'i', ,. it ~,., (.1 :._ ~. a.l ~ .... ,. ~ ... ( ._ ill" .t„ ~.... .._-... -, ... Si~J: v:.. ..,, .. k-°-""~~ ,r, ....-w_. F, -..., ~..,-cam usiness is booming in Irving, Texas! ,' ~ , Our business-friendly city provides an excellent transportation network, affordable land costs, well-developed infrastructure and a number of economic incentive packages that have helped to attract more than 10,000 businesses, including 40 Fortune 500 companies. Our diverse industrial base is represented by manufacturing, high-tech, financial, industrial and service-oriented businesses. Four Fortune 500 companies - ExxonMobil, Commercial Metals, Kimberly-Clark and Fluor -have made Irving home to their global headquarters. Irving is also home to more of the Meuoplexs largest private and public company headquarters than any other city except for Dallas, including: Citi, Microsoft, Amawn.com, Uerizon, NEC Corporation of America Inc., Allstate Insurance Company, Time Warner Cable, RIM (BlackBerry), Aviall, Flowserve, and TXU Energy. More than 75 foreign-owned companies operate subsidiaries here, giving Irving the distinction of being the third leading city in Texas for foreign business investment. The presence of so many notable companies means a low unemployment rate - 3.6% compared to 4.1 % statewide - (April, 2008) and an enviable debt ratio. In fact, Irving is one of only a small number of cities in the United States that has earned a double AAA bond rating from both Standard and Poor's and Moody's Investors' Services. A modern, 12,000-acre master-planned development provides employment to more than 120,000 business professionals in Las Colinas, located within Irving. Las Colinas offers 22:5 million square-feet of office space, 1.2 million square-feet of retail space, 8.5 million square-feet of light industrial space, plus a number of diverse housing options and recreational opportunities. Visitors come from all over to see the Dallas Cowboys football team, continued on page 18 Top Photo: Water Street, the urban town center under development by Gables Residential and Urban Partners, +•~ "~ construction in August 2008. T Lake Carolyn across North O'Connor Boulevard Square, Water Street will be a mixed-use devel~ 300, 000 square feet of retail 250, 000 squa , high-end residential units and a boutique Center Photo: Las Colinas Station, a p' development of Icon Partners. 16 Greater ~ntinued from page 12 :hedules and other information can be brained by calling 214-849-6832 (Dallas) r 817-429-3089 (Fort Worth). The DART Rail System provides ~nvenient and fast service to a number r shopping, entertainment and business estinations throughout the region. The RE commuter railway links DART riders ~ downtown Dallas, downtown Irving, id downtown Fort Worth. Free parking available at most rail stations, which also •e served by DART bus routes to expedite .ts and train transfers. As an incentive to aveling via DART to entertainment and lopping destinations, DART customers ith a valid DART or THE ticket/pass can uticipate in DART Destination Deals, a trtner program offering discounts and :her great values at a number of shops, staurants and attractions. The Destination peals guide provides a comprehensive Ming of participating partners and can be stained at a number of DART locations. y December 2011, a DART light rail line ill serve Irving's residents with the ~mpletion of the Orange Line station in e Las Colinas Urban Center. By 2013, ~e Orange Line will connect downtown alias to DFW International Airport ith several stops in Irving. If neither railway nor bus travel serves >ur needs, you may want to consider irticipating in DART's vanpool and spool programs. A free RideShare ~mputerized list can connect you with hers who want to share a ride and whose avel schedules match yours. Rush-hour rpoolers and vanpoolers can save time by ;ing DART's HOV lanes on many of the gion's Interstate highways and °Itways/loops. Several companies provide xi service to residents and visitors in the gion. There also are a number of rental car encies located at independent locations as ell as at area airports and hotels to provide avelers with more options. DFW International Airport *Pd halfway between the cities of Dallas `X/orth, Texas, DFW International ~'d for business in 1974 n service by 15 reign airlines to 135 ational destinations '-~l busiest flights per day a year. Ranked "Highest in Customer Satisfaction for Large Airports" in North America by J.D. Power and Associates, it was also named as 2006's "Best Airport for Customer Service in the Americas" by an Airports Council International survey of passengers. The airport employs more than 60,000 employees and annually provides $16.6 billion in economic output to North Texas. As the result of a $2.7 billion Capital Development Program, completed in 2005, the airport has positioned itself to handle future growth by adding International Terminal D, a two million- square foot space serving passengers with 28 departure gates, 99 ticketing stations, astate-of--the-art post 9/ 11 security system and a U.S. Customs facility capable of processing close to 3,000 passengers per hour. An attached parking garage holds 8,100 vehicles. Covering an area of close to 30 square miles, the airport has seven runways, 174 gates, plus a number of hotels, shops, boutiques, galleries and restaurants located at the airport and adjacent to it. Passengers with connecting flights can get from any of the five terminals in less than five minutes through Skylink, a system of high speed trains and the world's largest "people mover." DFW's Terminal Link van service provides transportation to passengers who have exited security, but need to get to another terminal. Other ground transportation between DFW and surrounding Metroplex-area destinations include taxi and charter bus service, hotel courtesy cars, limousines, public transportation and rental cars. Dallas Love Field Airport Love Field offers 100 daily flights to 17 destinations. Service to the airport's passengers is provided by Southwest Airlines, Continental Express and American Airlines/American Eagle. Owned and operated by the City of Dallas, Love Field is located seven miles northwest of the downtown central business district and is managed by the City's Department of Aviation. It offers both commercial and corporate airline services and is self-supported through user fees and charges, with no cost to taxpayers. Seven full service fixed base operators (FBOs) at Love Field provide general aviation users with a wide variety of services including fuel, maintenance, hangar rentals and charters. Love Field's FBOs are well equipped to handle executive needs providing first-class amenities such as meeting rooms, car rentals, limousine service and restaurants. The airport also offers 4,000 covered and valet parking spaces. A people mover transports passengers throughout the airport. zber.com 15 International Terminal D at DFW International Airport. Airport Telephone Numbers TERMINAL i -~ ,: K .~'> ti ` k~„ '~Y ~rG ~ .~~~-.4~a ~`a; ~;s ~t~ ~ t iii' ~. ~ x.5.7 ~~'~ -~ ;; ~`= n ~~ ~, f, -r `~3 ~ s s a~ s y? '~ t ' w A ~i ~fi~ .L -~'~ff _. ~ t ~, ~ ,_ ~y -'-v~ ~,~ ~+ ~ ~~~ ;• Z, r 1~ , ~F r ,; s s ~ q G~: ~," s < ~, a~ c~zooawranfl~ ._ Terminal fink - TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TERMINAL WHILE OUTSIDE SECURITY "~ Skylink Station- TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TERMINAL WHILE INSIDE SECURITY ® Pedestrian Connector ~; op, Parkltld Airport Ambassador Program 912-574.14 Airport Chaplain's Office (D 21) 972-973-26 Emergency Car Service 972-219.70 Grand Hyatt- 972-973-12 Ground Transportation -Taxi Dispatch 972-574-22 Guest ServicesCen#er{B i4) 972-574~OD Nyatt Regency DFW 972-453-84 Lost and Found.- Contact Airtine orAmericanAirlinea ;; 972-574.01' 972.425.24 PassengerPaging(Altterminals) 972-973.31 'Parking 972-5746778 or912-574.67 Police/firelAmbulance (Emergency) 9 PolicelFire (Non-emergency) 972-574-44 Traveler's Aid -Western Union (B 28, non-secured) 972-574-441 U.S. Customs 972-973-98. USO Center (B 15, secured) 972-574.611 Airline Telephone Numbers Airline Terminal Gates Baggage Claim Reservatir AitCanatla D 6-16 Customs 888-247-221 AirTran E 16-i8 E 16-17 800-247-87; Alaska Airlines E 11 E 16-17 :800-252-75; `American A 18-39 C 2-39. D 15-40 A 15-17,28-29 .04,12,15,25,26,31 D 28-30 Customs 800-433-731 800-252-44 American Eagle B 3-27,35-39 67,20,30: 'D 6-14 D18 Customs 800 433-73i :800-252-44 Briffsh Airways D 6-16 Customs 800-247.92 Champion Air D 6-:14 Customs 600-387-69 Corrtinerrtat E 7-9 E 5 800-525-t12 DeffaAirtmes E 12-15 Et4 800-221-12 FroMierAtrtines E 32 E33 800-432-t3 IO.M D 6-16 Customs 800-225-25 KoreanAirtines D 6-t6 Customs 800-438-50 Lufthansa D 6-16 Customs 800-645-38 Mesa Airlines E 36 E 32 800-837-22 McXicana b 6-i4 Customs 800-53i-79 Northwest E 4-6 E 4 800-225-25 Sun Coumry D 6-17 D 15 Customs t~0-359.61 TACA D 12 Customs 800-535.87 United B 28-30 B29 800-241-66 US Airways E 35-38 E 37-38 8g0.428-31 14 Greater Irving-L~r Colinas Chamber of Commerce DART TRANSIT SYSTEM CURRENT & FUTURE SERVICES DART's 2030 Transit System Plan Includes: ~ • 110 miles of light rail transit (DART Raiq • 60 miles of express or commuter rail cn ~'~ ~E ~'r."i f • 116 miles of managed high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes • 97_miles of enhanced and rapid bus corridors F • Mobility programs (intelligent transportation systems, , transportation system management, passenger facilities, NORTHWEST-WNO t =m travel demand management, bicycle/pedestrian integration, ~' ~ j____...~" _~ ''" _ -. _.. ' " safety and security, and system accessibility) ~ ~•~« _.. _... ______ r ,. . ----- ~ PARKER ROAD STATNXI _. , `._ 'I`w~ ,j ~~~ { ~"~,_ 1"~ L~ T~ SEE~CTR, } DOWNTOMIN PWIO STAl1IN1 _ -- ~' _,_ ~~ ~ ~~.. _.._ .....-•-~ , STATION .' i ~ j~ ~ . I f~ri ~-'~,% ,~ ` _ -~"jY` ~ ~ PTN-Ard(STA N j' Ili- ~"MORTH lARROLLTON ~~ j TRANSRCfA. ti ~e.? f • .~ ~ , \ // ~ , \ r wa a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I+rc ~ t!• ~ 4 #~ ARAPAHO CENTER STAflON ~ ~' ~.i aaw are a~ rp ran r aer rea aaa ~OIS ~TRjN51T CTR. f ~ } J ~ -Z • • ~':SPRHiGYALLETSTAflON I II3~~~ " , ~ ~~ FOREST! D(iMMiONMGARLANDSTATKIN a`'~'~u 1 ,{~nad+ar rf ' ~' _~ w~ { ~ i , LBllCENTRAL STATON ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ 's, .--'' ': ( ~r ' STATION ' ~~ ~~ :: ~.____- ~ ~ ~ ~ FARMERS BRANCH , 75 >PDRESi //~ s. - PARKLRIDE ~ ) UNE "" ~~' `~ Marc - ~ ~ NORTNIRYINb~ ~ ~, ~ gplOp ~~LB ~KI~ N ~~ TRANSIT CTR. ,r, l ~ i PARK A RIDE ~\ ~ °",~ WALNUTHILL ~// ~°a . ~;t~r~t'3~i STATION -.. a•~. ~ • PARK ~ E `'- f~ SOUTH GARLAND '' sr~rw y ~__ _~ rxANSlrcrR. `.,~.. `s~~ox , n a,_>% ; r- :~ LOVERSIANE , ~ t ~ ~~ t r r c; STAT ~! ~~~ ,. ~ - ~ / ~ 1 ._~ ~ ~ ~., o s a a,s~ e+.•. , ~ ~ ~ ; NIOCKING81 ~j ~• `' + STATNIN~ ~ RICNUND NURSTBEItI .~,. ... ~ _. m .,».. ..,.. ~- ~ . i \ HILLS STATN)N 4 ~~. ` ` • CENTREPDRT! WEST SOHTHIRVING ALEDICAE/AIARKETCENTER ~A~ j STATION ~ ~~ DYING STATN)N~ STAflON f ~ CITYPLACE ~ . `~'~ORTNnC 'dTA1HNi STATION ~1 ~.... ~ 1 -Pr ~i&PSTATION , ~~ -,_.~. .,. ,,_,YICTORYSTATIDN ~' ~ ~~ ( ~~~ .. ~~ ~ as;. '~,t~ ..., 1. Y, ` r :, ...:#.: aar arc ar rr aar aan r aaw awe ,,. ~ It JACKSON. ~. k • ( & . r > ~ TRANiIi CTI4 I ,.._. ~ ~ ~ UNIONSTAiWN ,CEDIt All~~~~r~~i•~s. ~. ,. ..q®r.wr.ss.atr ' - ,, ~,,` - - • t 0 j ~ ~aacr aw >~i GLEi1NNE1GNTS^~ PA#K6RfAE ~ c ~ . I ~T~i•~. ---___ _ I I ~'_ ,._.. GREEN LINE BIDE LINE NOV LANES HOV LANES BUS TRANSFER CEMERI BUS TRANSIT CENTERS (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) (UNOER OESIGN) OUTSIDE DART SERVICE AREA TRANSFER LOCATION (yarbng available) (NO DART FUNDING) ~.~ ~ "~ a ~~ ~~~ fUTUAE HOV IANEi ~! RAIL LINES ORANGE LINE FUTURE PARKING FUTURE TRANSR CENTER! B STATIONS THE & STATIONS (UNDER DESKiN•BU0.0) EXTENSKINS !>4i' AVAHABLE PARK & RBN: FUTURE HOV IANEi www. irvingchamber. com ' (NO OART FUNDING) f,E~' Ol 3?Ai; •~1- 13 T~RAxsnciR. ~~ Kelly Cooper From: Carl Weckenmann Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:33 PM To: Kelly Cooper Cc: Curvie Hawkins Subject: Responses to your questions Kelly, Below are your questions with our responses. We are not sure what you are requesting with question 5. Are you requesting an organization business plan from the T, or a financial model for the rail project? The latter is not yet available. The answers to all others questions are listed below. If you should have any further inquiries, please contact Curvie or me. 1. Can you give us an idea on how many sets of equipment (trains, passenger cars, etc) will be used? We anticipate with 58 stops (north and south) that you will need quite a few, can you tell us what the need will be? For planned 2030 operation, the T will need 22 total railcars. Opening day operations may include less frequent trains and thus fewer total railcars. 2. With that also, how many crews will you need also to operate the trains? The 2030 operation plan requires up to 9 crews at any one time. Determining the actual number of crews required at this stage of planning is difficult to determine, but based on projected train hours, this number would likely be 15-18. 3. In 2012, when the line opens and you begin running, how many stations do you anticipate having? There are 11 stations currently planned for the rail line. An additional 4 stations, including one in Colleyville, could be added if future funding partnerships are identified. 4. How many people can fit in a passenger car? While the T has not yet selected the exact equipment to be used for the rail line, we are currently assuming each car will seat about 100 passengers and carry an additional 150 standing passengers. 5. Can we get a copy of your business model? 6. If the City of Colleyville were interested in contracting a feeder bus system with The T, what would be estimated yearly costs for us? The cost of a feeder bus system for the City of Colleyville would be dependent on the amount of service requested. Currently, the cost of one route to the T (presuming one bus operating all day) is approximately $200,000 to $250,000 annually. 7. I spoke with John Pitstic, NRH, and he indicated that The T provided an Economic Study for them; would you be willing to assist the City of Colleyville with this type of study? Or do you have any data that could be used by the committee regarding econometrics? From the inception of the project, the T budgeted a limited amount of funding for station 1 planning, including analysis for station economic impacts, for areas outside the current T service area. The funds budgeted for this activity have now been expended. 2 Michael Johnston From Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Greetings, Kelly Cooper Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:36 AM Additional information from the T is below as requested. Please let me know if I can do anything else. This will also be provided in the next packet. Thanks Kelly Cooper Interim City Manager City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone: 817-503-1116 -----Original Message----- From: Carl Weckenmann Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:08 AM To: Kelly Cooper Subject: Re: FW: Questions for the T Kelly, The EIS will be available for the public in the very near term future - probably within the next month, with a period of public comment required by the FTA. The 2009 dates we are targeting is for FTA's concurrence with the EIS, and approval of our New Starts application. We have been assuming about 500 parking spaces for each station with the understanding that as our ridership forecasts become more finalized, parking will be expanded/reduced as appropriate to meet expected demand. For cost breakdown: Regional toll funds - $11 million Grapevine - $52 million County bond - $20 million COG Partnership Program 2 - $55 million Texas Mobility Fund - $60 million The T rail funds - $33 million Federal New Starts - $240 million Carl Weckenmann »> "Kelly Cooper" 16/2008 3:03 PM »> Carl and/or Curvie, Thanks for your responses. I have a few follow up questions below. Your time is appreciated. 1. Are you saying that the EIS will NOT be available for public review until the spring of 2009? 1 'Mike Johnston' FW: FW: Questions for the T 2. How many auto parking spaces are planned for both Haltom City proposed stops as well as both NRH stops and Grapevine's proposed stops? 3. I was expecting dollar amounts as well as the origin of those dollar amounts in response to Question No. 1 (We would like an update on funding the $ 471 million needed for the SW to NE Rail Project. We would like a breakdown of where received funds have come from, where remaining funds are anticipated to come from and the projected time frame for receiving future funds)? Again thanks so much, we look forward to hearing from you. Kelly Cooper Interim City Manager City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone: 817-503-1116 -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:34 PM To: Michael T. Muhm Cc: Kelly Cooper Subject: Questions for the T Kelly - Mike has a good question to send back to the T. Also I was expecting dollar amounts as well as the origin of those dollar amounts in response to Question No. 1 below. And as a matter of information - why don't we ask the T how many auto parking places are planned for both Haltom City proposed stops as well as both NRH's and Grapevine's proposed stops. Thanks John ---- "Michael T. Muhm" > Is this telling me that the EIS NOT be available for critical review the spring of 2009?? > Michael T. Muhm > tel: 817.329.3202 2 Page 1 of 1 Kelly Cooper From: John Gooding Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:22 AM To: `Kelly Cooper Subject: Re: No Subject Ann -Thank you for your comments on this important subject. Kelly -please put these in our Commuter Rail file. Thanks Again John Gooding On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:43 PM, I am definitely in favor of the rail system and the site. We are so darned selfish in that we want all of the perks with none of the problems. And, we are very short sighted and certainly don't think some 7 generations ahead. I was president, 1990,of CONET (future transportation of NE Tarrant cities and chambers). We were so determined to "keep Colleyville Country" (utterly and stupidly impossible by the mere location) that we have no East/West egress from Hwy 26 to Precinct Line and Davis Blvd. and you ought to see the back up traffic EVERY day at John McCain and Pleasant Run and the other E/W streets. Let us please not make the same mistakes again because of our inability to postpone gratification for a better future transportation. I do not think this is something that the general populace can make a determination, because of our inability to look, think, plan, fathom the needs of the future years a decade down the line. Ann Hardy wwvv.AnnHardy.com www.Ann_H_ardyBlogspot,_com ************** It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (htt~://information,travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv0005000000__00.47) Qi~~i~nnQ Page 1 of 2 Kelly Cooper From: Stan Hall Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:02 PM To: Kelly Cooper Subject: FW: train article Kelly, FYI....Stan From: Keith Staud Sent: Fri 8/22/2008 5:40 PM To: David Kelly; Jon Ayers; Carol Wollin; Tony Licata; Stan Hall; Tom Hart; Mike Taylor Subject: Fw: train article Mayor and Council, Please see my response to today's article in the Courier. We really do need a more "fair and balanced" coverage on this issue. So far we seem to have heard only from the 100 or so that live next to the train. One has even suggested in a blog on the issue that the City should lobby state and federal officials to stop the entire project and to litigate if neccessary. Please, please don't waste our money! Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Staudt To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:16 PM Subject: train article Scott, I read your article about the train station in the Courier today and believe you missed some key points and paint an overly negative picture about commuter rail in Colleyville. There are no doubt many people [most of whom live next to the tracks] that oppose not just the station but the train itself. There are also many people [as confirmed by the City's own survey] that have a favorable opinion of a commuter train station in Colleyville. At the community meeting I attended, the response was basically favorable but with concerns over funding. You may have missed the Committe meeting following Mr. Goodings presentation. At that meeting, Ms Bernardo and Mr. Rosenfeld spoke against it and I spoke in favor of it. If you check the addresses of all those who oppose the train, I am sure they all live within shouting distance of the train. My comments to the Committe stated that the decision on the station needs to be based on what is best for all 30,000 Colleyville citizens not just the 100 or so that live close to the tracks. I also note that you failed to mention that Councilman Taylor said that rail stations have a tendency to spur economic development and become "cash cows" for cities. The most important development regarding the proposed rail station was entirely missing from your article. You continue to mention the 3/8 sales tax and $1 million the City needs to cough up for a station. That dynamic appears to have changed based on the Rail Summit held in Las Colinas last Friday. It appears that major corporations and many politicians are supporting a regional method of financing the rail system. Apparently the thinking is that since we are trying to solve regional traffic congestion and air pollution that we should spread the cost throughout the entire region. Ideas to achieve this include doubling car registration fees and increasing the gas tax by a penny. If these measures go through, it completely turns around the major objection ["we can't afford it"] from rail opponents--at least if you look at the ad that has run in your paper. Instead of paying for the station ourselves, we would basically be subsidized by citizens from Keller, Southlake, etc. who have no station. I think this is a seismic change in how Colleyville citizens [excepting those people that live by the train] will view this rail station proposal. Ri~Si~nnR Page 2 of 2 Everyone also needs to understand that most concerns about commuter rail such as noise abatement, speed, track crossings, safety, etc. occur regardless of whether we have a station or not. Our ability to achieve remediation on noise abatement and other issues will be greatly enhanced if we are part of the Fort Worth Transit team as opposed to being an antagonist. I am also concerned that your paper has not even touched on the many positive aspects of commuter rail in Colleyville apart from the obvious reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution. Senior citizens and others with diffcuties in driving will have access to medical, cultural and entertainment venues in Fort Worth. Teenagers who can not drive [or whose parents don't want them to drive] have access to employment opportunities throughout the rail line including Fort Worth and the airport. Students and teachers will have a direct route to TCU and other educational facilities. And, of course, our citizens will have a quick and cheap way to get to DFW. So I would ask that the next time you write about this rail proposal, you try to be more "fair and balanced." There are a lot of citizens that support commuter rail in Colleyville and we are not that hard to find. We just aren't as noisy as people who happened to buy houses next to railroad tracks. Keith Staudt 7208 Belle Meade 817-488-5184 Q i~ c i~nno > cell: 817.658.8862 > fax: 817.488.8829 > e-mail: > e-mail: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kelly Cooper > To: > Cc: Michael Johnston > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:02 AM > Subject: FW: FW: Questions for the T > Greetings, > Below are answers to several questions asked of the T earlier this > month. Pease let me know if you have any questions, have a great day! > Kelly Cooper > Interim City Manager > City of Colleyville > 100 Main Street > Colleyville, TX 76034 > Phone: 817-503-1116 > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Weckenmann > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:44 PM > To: Kelly Cooper > Cc: Curvie Hawkins > Subject: Fwd: FW: Questions for the T > 3 > Kelly, > Following are the answers to your questions: > 1. The largest amount (about 50%) of the funds are federal New Starts > funding. We anticipate submitting our New Starts application early next > year, and when successful, we will be eligible for Congressional > apportionment of New Starts funds. The remainder of the project costs > are planned to come from a variety of other sources, such as sales tax > revenues, Partnership Program 2 funding allocated by NCTCOG, regional > toll revenue, Texas mobility fund, and county bond issue. > 2. The T anticipates finalizing the EIS and New Starts processes next > year, and beginning Final Design. Construction would then be able to > commence in 2010. > 3. The "other" funds are contributions from Grapevine. > Carl Weckenmann > »> Curvie Hawkins 9/9/2008 9:48 AM »> > Carl, > Can you work on compiling the responses? > Thanks, > -=-Curvie > »> "Kelly Cooper" 9/8/2008 3:46 PM »> > Curvie, we have a few more questions for you as seen below. Thanks for > your assistance on this. I appreciate it. 4 > Kelly Cooper > Assistant City Manager > City of Colleyville > 100 Main Street > Colleyville, TX 76034 > Phone: 817-503-1115 > From: John Gooding > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 8:35 PM > To: Kelly Cooper; Michael Johnston > Subject: Questions for the T > Kelly - I know we discussed directing questions to the T thru you and > I assume now Mike ) Two questions I would like to get answered are: 5 > 1) We would like an update on funding the $ 471 million needed for the > SW to NE Rail Project. We would like a breakdown of where received > funds have come from, where remaining funds are anticipated to come > from, and the projected time frame for receiving future funds. 5 > 2) With the results of the EIS delayed - can you give us an updated > estimate for the Cotton Belt commuter rail construction to begin ? > 2) Page 99 ( and again on page 115 ) of your "Business Plan and Annual > Budget for the Fiscal year 2007" shows $9 million budgeted for the SW to > NE EIS / Preliminary Engineering. The source of funding is shown as 2.4 > million Federal share, 2.6 million Sales Tax ( or local share ) and $ 4 > million "Other". Where does "other" come from? > Thanks > John 6 Riding the Rails in the Leadership ~~ Z1stCentury _ ~~ Development Riding the Rails Diana GaIIQVVav (~'~nnnnr ___ _ _ -- - -- ~ _~ __ :.~ ~ ~ ~ _ : , ..:.-...dam: /~ LOPEZGAR~IAGROUP 0 `t Welcomes Kang Huang u Electric street cars were the mode o(mass transit in Dallas Americans took 10 3 billion 1 percent over 2006 Since an increase of 2 trips in 2007 6om1889unti11956asshowninthisphototakenon . , . . Commerce Street with [he now demolished Whitmore Hotel ridershi on all modes of ublic trans ortation has increased b 32 ercent 1995 Ph°'°t°°r'esY°`'"e ~ron„d ~nrnaww4W~9P° i° , p p p . Y P , ~ ; ~.tn~__.-- Street cars were the original mode of demands of the auto-loving public But 32 percent Nationally, LRT ridership or commuter rail. LOPEZGARCIA urban "mass transit" and fueled the growth rail transportation, whether street car, Light increased by 6.1 percent and commuter GROUP has performed work for all of dries and suburbs alike from the Rail Transit (LRT) or commuter rail, is raft ridership increased by 5.5 percent in major transit agencies in the state of Texas, mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries. Tfte seeing a dramatic resurgence due to its 2007 alone. However, in 2007, Dallas/Fort pro~~ding services For LRT, commuter rail end of World War II mazked a dramatic efficiency, affordability and reliability. Worth commuter rail ridership increased and bus stations and assisting agencies increase in personal car ownership. Paved Ridership on public transportation is by 12.1 percent, and Houston's METRO with the design requirements for rapid roadways and the national highway svstem at its highest level in 50 years, according LRT ridership grew more than 6.0 percent bus service. As the major metropolitan outpaced and, ultimately, replaced public to the American Public Transportation during the 2006 to 2007 reporting period. areas expand into adjacent counties, - `^ transportation. Street cars were hardest Association. Americans took 103 billion Buses, the backbone of public LOPEZGARCIA GROUP is assisting hit and virtually disappeared from the trips in 2W7, an increase of 2.1 percent over transportation, aze still the major mode of agencies in coordinating services and landscape. Hundreds of miles of tail track 2006. Since ] 995, ridership on all modes public transportation in Texas; however, initiating or expanding public transit were removed or paved over to meet the of public transportation has increased by many transit agencies aze adding LRT options. oornwo L O P E Z G A R C I A GROUP BlJl~lrls d ~2gdC.y ~'OU~I"7 ~0~2, Pd55101"1 dllC~ ~01T71dr1C2 voi. ~ I Zoos portto~io ~, Prindpal-in-0large ~, Jerry Smiley, AICP j !, Co-Executive Editors Megan Inman Diana Galloway0'Connor Art Director DavidVelarde LOPEZGARCIA GROUP 1950 N. Stemmons Freeway Suite6000 Dallas,Texas 75207 te1:214.741.7777 fax 214.741.9413 www.lggroupcom/portfolio This newsletter is publishedfor LOPFZGARCIAGROUP'sd~erlts, partners and employees. Organizationsseeking copies maycontact Alida Carterat portfolio@Iggroupcom. ©Copyright2008 LOPEZGARCIA GROUP leadership Chief Executive Officer Wendy Lopez, PE President RurlyGarda, PE Chief Operating Officer Dev Rastogi, PE Prindpals Roger Behgam, PE Richard Carson, PE, RPIS Melinda Qary Diane Cowin Doug Guinn, PE Lyndon M. "Bud"Hodgin, RPLS Doug Mikeworth, PE Juan Sierra, PE Toni Skiles Jerry Smiley, AICP Peng Zhao, PE Assodate Prindpals FM Carroll, RLA Theron Darr, PE Stephanie Laughlin, PE Brent Lew, PE DustinOgle,PE Riding the Rails in the 21 st Century I2ianaGallovvay9'Cnnnof_ -- _ __--- -__-_. Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro), Austin,Texas Since 2001, LOPEZGARCIA GROUP has provided enviromnental and engineering services to Capital Metro. Under numerous indefinite deliver' and general engineering contracts, LOPEZGARCIA GROUP has performed environmental site and hazardous materials assessments, cultural resource investigations, NEPA evaluations and engineering feasibility studies and prepared conceptual layouts for park-and- ride facilities and designs for bus stop accessibility improvements. Capital Metro is adding commuter rail to its transit system, and intends to use diesel multiple unit (DMU) trainsets to complemem additional modes of transit along the service route. Currently in the final stages of construction, LOPEZGARCIA GROUP provided engineering design and management services to convert the former Plaza Saltillo bus stop into a commuter train station. LOPEZGARCIA GROUP also is assisting Capital Metro design a rapid bus line, featuring approximately 40 bus stops along a 33-mfle corridor, chat will use transit signal priority (TSP) technology. Team members are developing engineering plans, specifications and estimates and providing environmental, permitting and public involvement support to ensure the timely construction of this line. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Dallas,Texas From its peak of 199,(xK) bus ridership weekday trips achieved in August 1986 to the 17.9 million Light Rail Transit lLRTI passenger trips recorded in 2007, mass transit in Dallas has come a long way. DART was founded in 1983 with a mission to provide regional transportation solutions. For the past 14 years, i,OPEZGARCIA GROUP has been instrumental in assisting DART in the development and construction of the state's premier light rail transit system. Beginning with a Major Investment Study (MIS) to extend the LR1' starter system to the northeast to assisting DART transition from a planning and design organization to a constroction-focused entity and ultimately into an operating agenty, LOPEZGARCIA GROUP has served DART under four General Planning Consultant (GPC) contracts- the most recent two as the prime consultant-one General Engineering Consultant (GEC) contract and multiple individual contracts. Approximately 500 individual task orders have been completed under these contracts Under the first GPC, LOPEZGARCIA GROUP supported DART in the development of the Northeast Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) and subsequent preliminary engineering and Environmental Assessment (EA) efforts. The second GPC expanded the firm's role to include mitigation monitoring of two LRT extensions and managing various planning, economic development and natural and cultural resource tasks. LOPEZGARCIA GKOUP was assigned a major role in the development of the Southeast Corridor needs assessment, including the Northwest Corridor MI5. Prior to 2001, much of DART's funding was supplied by the federal government. As more cities viewed rail as a viable -alternative, federal funding criteria was tightened, resulting in increased competition for federal dollars. Much of the third GPC convaa was spent assisting DART in the preparation of a New Starts Application. 'This GPC culminated in the 2006 award to DART by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of a f700M full funding gram agreement. "This award was the second largest grant ever awarded to a transit agency. Under the current GPC contract, LOPEZGARCIA GROUP continues to formulate alternatives and idemify solutions for operational and funding constraints while addressing security and long-range planning issues and providing coordination with regional transit agencies. LOPEZGARCIA GROUP is also a vital contributor to the DART/ACT 21 team, which is responsible for engineering schematic preparation of LRT line sections, stations and construction of new facilities. Under previous GEC contracts, LOPEZGARCIA GROUP has provided sw a variety of services, including civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering and environmental services, for the LRT extension from Park to Parker Roads, Gne section NW-1 and ®L O P E Z G A R C I A GROUP Buikfmg a Legacy ltxotlgh People, Pasvoll and 4~lforrrx~nce the Dallas Intemrban builAing, hated at Jackson and Browder Streets, served outbound trains from theTexas EleRric Railway (1908-1948), Tarrant County Traction Company (19141931), Notlh7exaiU,ution C~r[lpMyLt2d2.1434Landle~iln[eiuthnaRailwnv 11971-1932)_,Cirra 1910 Phntn rm rte~y of the Rob Redden Cnllxtinn {or vansit pbm- I.CyPF.Z,C, ARCIA ' urihty 'aced ~LTU~Taral and N~,~r-lB and le ceenttit'.~ 2 q_ntile N~"1B }e1ttures { aerie} uack scnacmr"` le. }::nk-and-nde. facilige`. ~M1'-Z extends N'S7-lB 3 ] in[h,des '~t 3,685-lvot, A2_sPan ucmre_ the hrst 2,7~ Jest rodare tu`O LRT tracks, Then to alkrw'a crosso'`a and features .et track on the last 80l) }set of are. 'j]3cs constmction is b`'ang ~~$eted in concert with the d°uble- gait F,xpress kportion of the Trinity cuxrendv RE) OUP is ,OPEZGAgC~ G design services roviding engt°eering br N~"4 that w`tu serve the Carrollton Mivs libd't Sq",.ue Irankford andTrinrt9 rail transit station`' -pgeasela 9~` p~icesis sPcp19a record T:+~'• '- ARl [adldia _-- wre~sxo~dedrnD ~ . __ assenger taps _~ ' o of then 7 0 9 m~1C~on i1n P _ _~ nail ahgnmz°c`r 'n 2D0 , ~jltat5t}--~" ter stiuc[ion it6Pt5ltiNa~ c°mmu l j,d thz con- Aw'ardfor rts zs me `t` ` odate alre[nauv ccomm FTA with a Ridetshrp increasz ridership. {ownrown tunnel to a o Lion. med'ods to of a t crsson Y vative l,RT couv vets iun° {s o{the citizens the futtuz snrdles `. . . ng the need } res°urceS . rant lrnra for ego mzt d Tar or Coont?' R - g ty`iocth an Extensive cu rtd cored ~OntOn en~Y of the City of Fort {for the East E t,ARCIA ~tEZ Tra ~~tlOnn 9 a bounty, it is expanding operation+ co vill ultimateh perform`lETRO and LC I e minaret Bail chat ` ort. which ~ _ pCTA)~~ento ,Tex s leading GROUP received hcgh praise from t has taken a inclade co ~ International ArrP Denton Cotmh" ortation anagmg mission regional cransp cenninata at D OUP ism s Historic Com viding ently by LOpEZGARCIF' GR red Texa. FX1~rE55 ~~ role in pro IS for 'a prolrn Ra11VJay ` Xas l was honored rec of an E ahern~acives ac" Award for cts aration {tom ~r-n~~ a ~O~itVOrtnr with a Ridershl4 the prep e extending atlas an ° u} acv a the FTA ` cast ridership- mater Tait hit h the City °t V P a s r nethods- ur inct com rhrouo. a ~7orth pis gaining P nt increase it innovative r c creation of ~~utb west Fort errs dude ttr ~ _ . (Fw ]narnationai 'llte~r ~ the l2? P tans- in tv,,een e and inxo D b early under hz Ftrtnre Q' rail corridor Grapevin s A and $, including evidenced Y 207. Curt 2~ nv}z ntnrmuter Sit tTerminal jr1VV- with the Federal Aviation ridership during IB ins, l tnncd transit hub Airp°1 irh DART s rovrded Demon and a F ` to oa} ok andlJnited States constraction+v p h. P the u{nm• g coordutating LOPEZGARCIAGgQ1S as Carrollton with design seNices i-e for DCTA Admimsttation (F~t S CE)~ 'jhe roviding cnnnectnx sere `co DART hgltt (corps of Engrneers tU ~ ~ rsnna a variety of engineering re between F assengers Army a ~ocnt vzntu V ARCIA lyres of mater ucer rytl p" " erforming a'ta ' TREE rovide com comrn LOPF,7 ~ firm is P ental imP'acts, to the RT to p Carrollton- ,1A in this en'nt°"ta' vatic}, -1heT and DA Fort tad In sisted DC condrtions and evater 9 alias and OU as as air and een D GR P h Environmental land uses, endangzSed tart service betty 1A GROUp an inchding OPEZGARC of threatened and process by preparing corridor, 15) fns the $oodplains, aterials and wodh-L the consrrvetion ltaZardous m St'ttemerrt gyp' ' rat resources of the prepared designs or 7Q01'tnear fe.ex of tai to Impact ` ~ calm speeies,wetlands, nature} and ce.In suFport - atcl 3, Iin New Starts aPPhCation ntal justi inclm g znvlro OPE IA GROUP also aPproxnn' yen e cisting track. T}'o $e`ron roviding d ZGARC track studies, P blic meetings; aII EIS, I- as engineering designs double- - 1a over d an'at Krade crossing at rc, facilitating F° ineering designs relimin Y An ~ 'nn supp° unary eng prepared P facility and Y track tequtie carrot. ~ g preparing Prelin d to fulfill federal nteRance ~ ted tralbo ~ bridge is bung for a rail era' assocra trestle tort the F.LS 'an }c timber double- co sugl yard. single tree lard BNSF req rirement'. placed with a scant .reek and re er Cedar Spring funding LpPEZGAR.CIA ~rOpOl-tarl~raClSlt untY Earlier this year, the final design Authon~ °f Hance Co track bridge °° nvo existing concrete arch culverts ate GROlJp was awarded ort contract as r-~R~~r~OU~°ntT~X~S l etctended- a paces traction supF sails ![NC 1 se ridership, _ and tans for the ~~ time increa being mvas, g s URS ream lylills Eager to con c congestion g axming d LOPEZGARCIA part of the Trinity osed As traflt' global w" tai} corridor from ton. h,IETRO engage A for a Y{OP e and concerns over transit ucer en comae downtown duct anE ipcseas ,Nelcomrng Caxrolkon to ~ to con t on1Y of civil, GRO nal (1T), and, under eople are no goad in variety Termi risz, P t{e flocking to transit- 1he firm will ptO.nde'a and they , tract, the firm devel°pe chart ineering Intennod alternatives, ~.-su 1 and zlecttic'a} eng t con }evelopn1eOt areas S noon rnecl,anica xty comppnents a di$esen o Bus R'aPid t vices_ l designs for tw oriented t caned Nlockinb'bird l set ommuter reno e nenta wit4itn the concepttita one c environr vo sraitnns RT) corridors, nac'tonally rovide a cutting-e g esi n viding tnility Transit ($ ILR'I interface in D,~as--that P are the d g of xv and pro the BRT z uon dot, area. cottidor an pat+~° 13ouston ' limits of D ' p_milc cord sail urban lifesry}c' mown crty the 2 the dow atians along system for mat design modific ~,tiOn of the roncep WO~hTYans~ WOrthe Development ubtnimal of more than ten ~Ort -me~lr Fort included xhe s hives and one Authority l BRT ~igncnent attern- Texas ed by the --~"~ `She T was also recOn a _~~ r- "~ U p _-- G R ~ Z~ A p C t A L R p E New Faces at LOPEZGARCIA GROUP IJiana_~allOVVay Q~r~n~r -- - -_ Kang Huang, '=i' ., ~~ ~ ~ PE, joined "P~ LoprzG:vzcl:~ ~' GROUP in ]~1a~ as a - ~~ _ _ -_ senior project manager and chic(struttural engineer. Kung has more than 40 years of experience in civil and structural engineering, with special expertise in tunnels, bridges and rapid transit and high speed rail projects. He served as chief engineer, structures, on numerous Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) System projects and updated DART's design criteria and specifications. Kang is nationnllv and internationally renowned and has designed transit systems for agencies iu Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, D'liami, New York, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Washington, D.C. Kang was the chief stntcturaL engineer for the Department of Rapid Trutsit System (DORTS) in Taipei, 'raiwnn and designed the Transit System of Taipei and IGtohsiung in Taiwan and the Taiwan High Speed Rail s•stem_ Kung completed his doctoral studies (without dissettation) in Engineering D'lechanics at Cnlumhie Lln rrsin~ and bolds a DLS., Civil I:ngineenng from Oklahnnia Stnte 1?niaersin~ aml a B S_, Civil I-.ngiuccnng 6mn National Taman Unircrsin-. 17c is a member of the ,Dmerican Socien~ of Ci.71 Engineers, apart-presider[ of the North Texas Chinese Engineers and Architects Association and apart-director of the American Chinese VrofessionaL Association. Aubrey C. Adcock, Jr., PE, RPLS Aubrey joins LOPELGARCIA GROUP with 43 years of plamung and engineering experience in the design and connniction management of airports, streets, bridges, u[ili[ies and flood control projects. He has managed mdtidisupline, joint vera~rc projects_ Aubrerserved for ten rears in municgml goaenvnent in varied capacities, incuding director of planning, sin- engineer and director oFpublic work .lNhile see=ing as director of public works in both Texarkana, Texas and Richardson, Texas, he planned and managed two major bond programs, Employees Leading by Example Diane Cowin, principal, recently moved to Austin to - assume the role of .Austin Office Manager where she will focus on establishing LOPEZGARCIA GROUP as one of the premier consultants in this vibrant market. Previously, Diane was the environmental division manager, based in Dallas. Amy Smith, PE, was selected to participate ' in Leadership Texas 2008, a leadership -- development program from the Foundation for Women's Resources.The Foundation is a private, nonprofit, educational organization headquartered in Dallas, Texas at The Women's Museum: An Institute for the Furore. The Foundation develops programs and projects to advance and improve the personal, economic and professional slams of women. Amy will graduate as a member of the 2008 LT lass in October. LOPELGARCIA GROUP strongly supports education at all levels. We. are very proud of those emplo}'ees who invest in themselves to further their knowledge and leadership skills. Tivo employees recently completed degrees. Lori Molitor, AICP, _ ,a t graduated in December "'*~ from the Universin• " ,~. ~ 1 of Texas at Arlington y- _ with a Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA) degree. During her three years of study, she was inducted into Sigma Lambda Alpha, the honorary society of ]audscape architecture, and was recognized with the Faculty Merit Award in the spring of 2007. Demetria LeBlanc received her Bachelor of Arts in Business 'h i c..j. Administration. • ° Graduating Cum Laude from LeTourneau lJniversity's accelerated degree program, Demetria completed her degree while working full- time and raising three children. wing +tate, federal and counts funding sources to maximize ri ~ cities ratio of external timdigg ro cite fonds. Utilizing consultants to design aII but the smallest projects, Dlr. Adcock also managed the amstntcrion of these infrastructure projects, using in-house staff. Aubrey received his B.S_ in Civil Engineering from the University of Arkansas and is active in numerous profession: organizations. Manual A."Tony"Tapia, PE Tony Tapia has 18 tears of experience in dre electrical engineering field, providing ~._ design services for _ commercial, industrial, recreational, education:d, reuril and municipal facilities. He has prepared electrical plnns fora retail facilities. He has prepared designs in varien~ of electronic and recreation systems AutoCAD, Litepro2.0 and 7~abpro. including UPS, fire protection and audio/ visual s•stems. Tom• has prepared designs for systems with special requirements, including pools, ice rinks, kitchen facilities, 24/7 computer monitoring systems and Tom• received his B. S. in Engineering Technology from Texas APel~~l University° and is a member of the National Society' of Professional Engineers. °~° ~ z ~ ~~ O D ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~~ o ~ O ~ m C O C ~ v ~ m _ v O• ~ ~ c 0 f,'J-'n~O67 = ~ p~.~ ~ O) ~ Q ~~~ X ~ - rn m = a .ts C ~a `1 = i° ~ =- ~~~ D -_ w r- ~T O A C7 C7 ^~ ~ c~ to ~ ~ m a ~ D o m to ~ t7 m a a X ~' m N Kelly Cooaer From: Carl Weckenmann Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:44 PM To: Kelly Cooper Cc: Curvie Hawkins Subject: Fwd: FW: Questions for the T Kelly, Following are the answers to your questions: 1. The largest amount (about 50%) of the funds are federal New Starts funding. We anticipate submitting our New Starts application early next year, and when successful, we will be eligible for Congressional apportionment of New Starts funds. The remainder of the project costs are planned to come from a variety of other sources, such as sales tax revenues, Partnership Program 2 funding allocated by NCTCOG, regional toll revenue, Texas mobility fund, and county bond issue. 2. The T anticipates finalizing the EIS and New Starts processes next year, and beginning Final Design. Construction would then be able to commence in 2010. 3. The "other" funds are contributions from Grapevine. Carl Weckenmann »> Curvie Hawkins 9/9/2008 9:48 AM »> Carl, Can you work on compiling the responses? Thanks, -=-Curvie »> "Kelly Cooper" /8/2008 3:46 PM »> Curvie, we have a few more questions for you as seen below. Thanks for your assistance on this. I appreciate it. Kelly Cooper Assistant City Manager City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone: 817-503-1115 From: John Gooding Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 8:35 PM To: Kelly Cooper; Michael Johnston Subject: Questions for the T Kelly - I know we discussed directing questions to the T thru you ( and I assume now Mike ). Two questions I would like to get answered are: 1 1) We would like an update on funding the $ 471 million needed for the SW to NE Rail Project. We would like a breakdown of where received funds have come from, where remaining funds are anticipated to come from, and the projected time frame for receiving future funds. 2) With the results of the EIS delayed - can you give us an updated estimate for the Cotton Belt commuter rail construction to begin ? 2) Page 99 ( and again on page 115 ) of your "Business Plan and Annual Budget for the Fiscal year 2007" shows $9 million budgeted for the SW to NE EIS / Preliminary Engineering. The source of funding is shown as 2.4 million Federal share, 2.6 million Sales Tax ( or local share ) and $ 4 million "Other". Where does "other" come from? Thanks John 2 ~~ ~ ~ CAPITOL MARKET RESEARCH ~eor~e~tow~n. Passenger Raiff SCaton Economic Impact Analysis Prepared for Austin-San .Antonia Intermuncipal Commuter Rail District P.O. Box 1618 San Marcos, Texas 78667 by Capitol Market Research, Inc. 605 Brazos Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-5000 On June 27, 2005 ~;, CAPITOL l~2ARKET RESEARCH Real Estate Research, Land Development Economics & Market Analysis June 27, 2005 Mr. Ross Milloy Executive Director Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District P.O. Box 1618 San Marcos, TX 78667 Mr. Tom Shelton Carter 8~ Burgess, Inc. 2705 Bee Cave Road Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Re: Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Passenger Rail Transit Oriented Development, Economic Impact Analysis Dear Sirs: The potential for Transit Oriented Development at the Georgetown Passenger Rail Station is specified in the report that follows. The market demand for retail and multifamily development is identified, and a development forecast for the station area is prepared. The resulting absorption analysis is then translated into property values and an economic impact analysis is calculated. The analysis and forecast is shown in the report that follows. We invite you to review the report and contact us with any questions or comments you may have. Respectfully submitted, CAPfTOL MARKET RESEARCH, INC. Charles H. Heimsath, AICP President CHH/mm Capitol Market Research, Inc. 605 Brazos, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 476-5000 cheimsath@cm raustin. com TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii List of Tables iv List of Figures iv Executive Summary: Georgetown Passenger Rail Station 1 Part 1: Georgetown Station Area Economic Impact Evaluation 2 Current Conditions 2 Part 2: Demographic Trends and Forecasts 6 Historical Trends 6 Forecast 6 Part 3: Austin Retail Market Conditions 12 Retail Market Overview 12 Current Market Conditions 12 Georgetown Retail Market Conditions 15 Overview 15 New Construction 15 Occupancy & Absorption 15 Average Rents 15 Market Outlook 15 Market Area Purchasing Power 18 Estimates of Purchasing Power 19 TOD Retail Development 20 Part 4: Multifamily Market Trends in the Austin MSA 22 Apartment Market Overview 22 Current Market Conditions 22 Georgetown Apartment Market Conditions 24 Overview 24 New Construction 24 Occupancy 24 Average Rents 24 Market Outlook 24 Townhome/Condominium Market Trends in the Austin MSA 27 Current Market Conditions 27 Townhome and Condominium Demand 29 Georgetown Townhome/Condominium Market Conditions 30 Overview 30 New Construction 30 Absorption 30 Pricing 30 Market Outlook 30 Station Area TownhomeiCondominium Demand Forecast 33 Transit Oriented Development Economic Impact 34 APPENDIX 38 CERTIFICATE 39 iii List of Tables Page Table (1) Georgetown Rail Station: Parcel Values by Land Use Category 2 Table (2) Population and Household Growth by Tract: Market Area, Williamson County and Austin MSA: 1990 - 2000 7 Table (3) Market Area Household Forecast: 2000 - 2030 9 Table (4) Market Area Apartment Forecast: 2000 - 2030 10 Table (5) Station Area Apartment Forecast: 2005 - 2020 11 Table (6) Retail Market Summary: 1991 - 2004 14 Table (7) Georgetown Market Area Retail Summary 16 Table (8) Current Purchasing Power 18 Tabte (9) Estimated Purchasing Power 19 Table (10) Supply and Demand Comparison 21 Table (11) Citywide Apartment Summary: 1991 - 2004 23 Table (12) Georgetown Submarket Apartment Summary: 1995 - 2004 25 Table (13) New Townhome/Condo Sales: Austin MLS Region 28 Table (14) Market Area Townhome/Condo Demand: 2000 - 2030 29 Table (15) Georgetown Market Area Condominium/Townhome Sales: New Product Activity 31 Table (16) Georgetown Station Area TH/Condo Absorption: 2000 - 2030 33 Table (17) Georgetown Passenger Raii Station: Input Data Sheet 35 Table (18) Georgetown Transit Oriented Development: Project Value Comparison 36 Table (19) Georgetown Transit Oriented Development: Tax Collections Increment from Proposed Development 37 List of Figures Page Figure 1 Georgetown Rail Station: Parcel Land Uses - %.-mile Radius 3 Figure 2 Georgetown Rail Station: City of Georgetown Zoning Regulations 4 Figure 3 Georgetown Submarket: 2000 Census Tracts 8 Figure 4 Georgetown Submarket: Existing Retail Centers 17 Figure 5 Georgetown Submarket: Existing Apartments 26 Figure 6 Georgetown Submarket: New Condos & Townhomes 32 Executive Summary: Georgetown Passenger Rail Station The concentration of land uses near transit stations, generally referred to as "Transit-Oriented Development" (TOD), is intended to be a mixed-use pedestrian oriented environment where people can live, work, shop and be entertained within easy access to transit facilities. Because access to transit services brings people to the station area, the prospect for economic development within a 1,500-foot radius of the station is enhanced relative to other land parcels in the market area. The increased accessibility offers an opportunity to develop housing at higher density than might otherwise be feasible, while also encouraging a broader mix of uses. Overall, the benefits of TOD include the development of underutilized land uses, an increase in transit ridership, expansion of retail sales in the market area and increased local tax base. The development of a Station Area Development plan must respect the market forces active in the area and at the subject site. The proposed Georgetown Passenger Rail Station is located in an emerging suburban market area where the predominate land use is agricultural with widely scattered farms and a couple of new subdivisions. Currently, there are no improvements within the '/<-mile radius around the subject passenger rail station, but the Williamson County Juvenile Detention Center is approximately '/z-mile northeast of the proposed station location. Given the locational attributes of the station area and the predominate trends in the Georgetown market area, the land uses that appear to have the most opportunity are multifamily residential, i.e. apartments and townhomes. There is little opportunity for retail or office development at the present time, but as the market matures, demand for neighborhood and transit oriented retail uses will emerge. Georgetown is the home of Southwestern University and the location of a large active adult community, Sun City Texas, in addition to being the county seat for Williamson County. The Georgetown residential market consists of established neighborhoods and emerging new home subdivisions along with a number of multifamily communities. The multifamily occupancy is currently 88.9% and rents are below the Austin region average, at $0.74 per sq. ft. However, the market trends are positive and the area has shown a capacity to absorb up to 260 multifamily units per year. Consequently, CMR has established a market demand at the subject station of 1,345 apartment units over the next 25 years. In addition, the market should support the demand for approximately 391 townhome/condominium units over the same time period. In addition to multifamily residential, the station area should support approximately 32,799 sq. ft. of "Transit Related" retail uses with pedestrian access to the rail platform. The retail uses contemplated include restaurants, service related businesses, limited "soft goods" and convenience shopping. The proposed multifamily development will include a total of 1,345 units developed over a 25-year period beginning in 2009. The units are estimated to cost approximately $80,000 each, in 2005 dollars, with a total value of $107.6 million. To simplify the analysis, if it assumed that the units will be phased in over the next 25 years, and for the purpose of this analysis, the construction is assumed to begin in 2009 with completion in 2030. The condominium units are estimated to sell for approximately $150,000 per unit, and construction , should start in 2009. At this station, some "Transit Related" retail could be included in the ground floor of three-story residential building in close proximity to the transit stop, but it is more likely to be developed as a one-story retail street, due to the overall lower density anticipated. The estimated value of the "shell" retail building is $90 per square foot and finish-out should run approximately $50 per square foot, on average. The total estimated value of the proposed 80,062 sq. ft. of "Transit Related" retail space is $11.2 million. Based on the foregoing development summary, which is presented in Table (17), the anticipated change in local assessed value in contrast to the current market value is shown in Table (18). This table shows the market area assessed values increasing from $2.4 million, currently, to $301.3 million in 2030, an increment of $298.9 million. Finally, with respect to the potential tax impact, the total tax increment to the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District over a 25-year period is estimated to be $6.87 million, assuming that the Rail District collects 30% of the Property Taxes (not including Georgetown ISD) at $0.8459 per $100 of assessed value. Part 1: Georgetown Station Area Economic Impact Evaluation Capitol Market Research has prepared an economic development impact evaluation to determine the economic benefit that might result if passenger rail service is provided in the Austin-San Antonio corridor. Specifically, the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District, the "Rail District," is proposing to provide passenger rail service on the existing MoPac rail line, with the potential for a Georgetown station located at Inner Loop SE. The passenger rail service under consideration will utilize the existing Union Pacific Rail Right-of-Way with daily service. Most national literature identifies '/.-mile as the zone within which a majority of "Station Area Impacts" will be felt, although there is evidence to support a broader area impact of %:-mile or more. The study area used in this analysis reflects the more conservative '/.-mile distance. Since many of the parcels extend well beyond the '/.-mile radius, at this station, only the pro-rata share of the parcel area and value are included in the analysis. Current Conditions The analysis begins by identifying the current conditions with respect to land use and assessed values for the Georgetown study area. Since this analysis is being prepared in the first half of 2005, and the most current "certified" appraisal information available is from 2004, the base year for all economic benefit calculations will be 2004. Capitol Market Research (CMR) obtained from the Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD) the 2004 certified tax roll that includes a property "structure code" that can be used to establish land use. The appraisal data shows total land value within the study area of $9,488,098 and total improved property value of $21,836,594. The total assessed value of $32,291,692 is approximately 0.146% of the total value of the tax rolls for Williamson County. The existing land use map shows a concentration of commercial use (the Williamson County Juvenile Detention Center) in the northeastern quarter of the study area (on the north side of Inner Loop) and non-improved agricultural uses in the western portion of the study area and along the eastern side of the rail line, north and south of Inner Loop. Both land use and values represent the current conditions as of January 1, 2004. Table (1) Georgetown Rail Station Parcel Values by Land Use Gategory mprove ar e Land Use Category Land Market Value Value Total Market Value Vacant ~ $2,925 $0 $2,925 Unimproved Agricultural Use $786,531 $0 $786,531 Improved Farm/Ranch Land $209,364 $1,461 $210,826 Commercial $174,203 $1,258,397 $1,432,600 $1,173,024 $1,259,859 $2,432,882 Source: Williamson County Appraisal District, 2004 Tax Roll Prepared by Capitol Market Research, May 2005 georgetown parcels.xls 2 FIGURE 1 N ~ O N _ y ~ O ~ ~ N o t~- Z~ .o ~ ~ 3° a N ~ ~ p ~ o ~ L = y J ~ ~ c~ a ad 0 a~~~ v~~O e m h a e m 3 g m ~' ~ y a ~ ~ E _ ~ ~ U (6 ~ ~ 7 ~ t C ~'~ E C U E O> O (6 c0 m Q U ~ > v ~ ®'®~ g U m g FIGURE 2 c 0 R c ~ o ~ ~~ ~~ ~ o =N 33 ~ '~ O ~ O G R ~ ~ `'`. ~, r ~ _ _ r r J q'^r /V III T t •e ,i ~. ~. V i ~ ~ Sz 1 ~ V 1 a' ` 1 ~~ ~ ' ~~ /, ~. ~ 1 ~ ~~ - ~ 1 .3 ~ `'\~ ~ , ~~~ , ~ !~ O \ i ~ ~,., N ~ l'~ e 4 a.~r 0 a N O c 3 V •~ ~ y . . U. '~' ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ c; ~~~ ~ o ° C ` ° - L •~ c y ~~ ~ ~ ~y ~W~ F 0 «; ' U U I .~ g ti c'Ya o'' 4~ The next step in the process for establishing future economic impact was to identify the projects already under construction and planned that are likely to be completed within the forecasted time horizon. Within the immediate market area, there are no Private Sector (taxable) projects under construction as of June 2005. According to plats filed with the City of Georgetown Planning Department, there is one approved subdivision plat within a half mile of the proposed station location. The planned Pinnacle subdivision will contain a total of 462 lots on approximately 100 acres. Most of the lots will be relatively small 52 x 125 and the entire first phase of 119 lots is reported to be under contract to Main Street Homes. The Pinnacle subdivision plat was approved in 2003, before the possibility of a rail station was under serious discussion, and according to Ed Polasek (long range planner, City of Georgetown), this type of low density development would not be approved now by the planning department and the current city council. In fact, the council has directed the planning staff to develop a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning category that will be adopted for the area surrounding the proposed passenger rail station. Once the zoning category has been established, the city plans to annex the area and zone it for TOD. Part 2: Demographic Trends and Forecasts Historical Trends The defined Georgetown market area has experienced a significant amount of population and household growth since 1990 when the area had 21,986 people living in 7,889 households. Total population in the subject area census tracts grew from 23,283 in 1990 to 42,151 in 2000, an increase of 81.04%. The 18,868-population increase during the 1990s was approximately 17.09% of total household growth in Williamson County and 4.03°~ of the growth experienced in the Austin MSA. However, recent trends in new building permits issued in the market area suggest that the aggregate rate of growth has increased since the late nineties, with the development of several new single-family subdivisions west of IH-35. Viewed from the perspective of existing home sales, the Georgetown market area has accounted for approximately 4.47% of MLS homes sales in the Austin region since 2000 and 15.28% of sales in Williamson County. This level of activity indicates a strong market demand for housing in this part of the region. New construction in the Georgetown market area added more than 4,000 new units to the market area from 2000 through the end of 2004, and accounted for 6.3% of the growth in the Austin MSA and 17.7% in Williamson County. Forecast After reviewing the historical capture rate, new home sales and recent MLS activity in the market area, and recognizing that the market area has a substantial amount of undeveloped land in inventory, a market area population and household forecast has been prepared and is shown in Table (3) on page 9. The household forecast shows a potential growth of approximately 1,800 new households added in the market area on an annual basis. According to the 2000 census, approximately 23.1 % of the existing households were renters, and this is down by 10.6 percentage points from 33.7% in 1990. Because this area has an abundance of vacant land and a number of large scale single-family developments planned, it seems likely that the overall market will continue to be dominated by owner-occupied single-family housing. However, the increasing demand for well located rental housing and the presence of the passenger rail station in the market area should result in an increase in the demand for multifamily housing in proximity to the rail station. Consequently, CMR has assumed a modest increase in the historical tenure split (to 25% in 2030) that will result in demand of 440 new renter units on an annual basis (Table (4)). The designated station area impact zone should capture approximately 10% of the Georgetown market area demand, beginning in 2009 when the passenger rail service is scheduled to begin. b O O O r+ N l0 OOI ~ Q N C ~ M ~. 7 Q _~ ~ C N O a ~ d C F ~ V = C C p R m C - 'ar A ~ 7 m aQ a°m Y A 8 h ON o~ ~ ar, 0 ~ U `a o ~ ~ 'o m ' U ~ ~ J F-GUR~ 3 .~ v ~ ~ ~~ 3= m V ..:; oo° C9 N _ _ 0. __ ~~ ,~+: ~i ~ ~~ f _ ~ ~', r,1 r 0 4 e - ~ - w ~ N r- ~ 4 ~.~_~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O r- r- ~ U ~ N -h ~ F a° ~ N' ~ ~ ~l g` 8 ~. , (] Table (3) Market Area Household Forecast 2000 - 2030 Year Williamson County Annual Change Market Area Percent Market Area Forecast Household Size Total Households 2000 249,967 ..... 16.0% 39,983 2.66 15,006 2001 266,088 16,121 17.1 % 42,738 2.66 16,067 2002 282,209 16,121 17.1% 45,493 2.66 17,103 2003 298,331 16,121 17.1% 48,248 2.66 18,138 2004 314,452 16,121 17.1% 51,003 2.66 19,174 2005 330,573 16,121 17.1% 53,759 2.66 20,210 2006 350,263 19,690 17.1 % 57,124 2.66 21,475 2007 369,953 19,690 17.1 % 60,489 2.66 22,740 2008 389,644 19,690 17.1 % 63,854 2.66 24,005 2009 409,334 19,690 17.1 % 67,219 2.66 25,270 2010 429,024 19,690 17.1% 70,584 2.66 26,535 2011 452,973 23,949 17.1 % 74,677 2.66 28,074 2012 476,922 23,949 17.1 % 78,770 2.66 29,613 2013 500,872 23,949 17.1 % 82,863 2.66 31,151 2014 524,821 23,949 17.1% 86,956 2.66 32,690 2015 548,770 23,949 17.1% 91,048 2.66 34,229 2016 578, 336 29,566 17.1 % 96,101 2.66 36,128 2017 607,901 29,566 17.1 % 101,154 2.66 38,028 2018 637,467 29,566 17.1 % 106,207 2.66 39,927 2019 667,032 29,566 17.1 % 111,259 2.66 41,827 2020 696,598 29,566 17.1 % 116,312 2.66 43,726 2021 733,290 36,692 17.1 % 122,583 2.66 46,084 2022 769,982 36,692 17.1 % 128,854 2.66 48,441 2023 806,674 36,692 17.1% 135,124 2.66 50,799 2024 843,366 36,692 17.1 % 141,395 2.66 53,156 2025 880,058 36,692 17.1 % 147,666 2.66 55,513 2026 925,026 44,968 17.1% 155,351 2.66 58,402 2027 969,994 44,968 17.1 % 163,036 2.66 61,292 2028 1,014,963 44,968 17.1 % 170,721 2.66 64,181 2029 1,059,931 44,968 17.1 % 178,406 2.66 67,070 2030 1,104,899 44,968 17.1 % 186,091 2.66 69,959 Prepared by: Capitol Market Research, June 2005 Notes: Projections based on Texas State Data Center, June 2004 (scenario 1.0) Market area capture rate based on 1990 - 2000 growth trend. Household size based on 2000 US Census poptrend.xis Table (4) Market Area Multi-Family Forecast 2000 - 2030 Year Total Households Annual Change Percent Renter Renter % Multi- Households Family Multi-Family Demand 2000 15, 006 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2001 16,067 1,061 23.1% 245 93.6% 229 2002 17,103 1,036 23.1 % 239 93.6% 224 2003 18,138 1,036 23.1 % 239 93.6% 224 2004 19,174 1,036 23.1 % 239 93.6% 224 2005 20,210 1,036 23.1% 239 93.6% 224 2006 21,475 1,265 23.1% 292 93.6% 274 2007 22,740 1,265 23.1 % 292 93.6% 274 2008 24,005 1,265 23.1% 292 93.6% 274 2009 25,270 1,265 23.1% 292 93.6% 274 2010 26,535 1,265 23.2% 293 93.6% 275 2011 28,074 1,539 23.3% 358 93.6% 335 2012 29,613 1,539 23.4% 360 93.6% 337 2013 31,151 1, 539 23.5% 361 93.6% 338 2014 32,690 1,539 23.6% 363 93.6% 339 2015 34,229 1,539 23.7% 364 93.6% 341 2016 36,128 1,900 23.7% 451 93.6% 422 2017 38,028 1,900 23.8% 453 93.6°10 424 2018 39,927 1,900 23.9% 454 93.6% 425 2019 41,827 1,900 24.0% 456 93.6% 427 2020 43,726 1,900 24.1% 458 93.6% 428 2021 46,084 2,357 24.2% 570 93.6% 534 2022 48,441 2,357 24.3% 572 93.6% 536 2023 50,799 2,357 24.4% 574 93.6% 538 2024 53,156 2,357 24.5% 577 93.6% 540 2025 55,513 2,357 24.6% 579 93.6% 542 2026 58,402 2,889 24.6% 712 93.6% 666 2027 61,292 2,889 24.7% 714 93.6% 669 2028 64,181 2,889 24.8% 717 93.6% 671 2029 67,070 2,889 24.9% 720 93.6% 674 2030 69,959 2,889 25.0% 722 93.6% 676 Prepared by: Capitol Market Researoh, June 2005 Notes: Projections based on Texas State Data Center, June 2004 (scenario 1.0) Market area percent renter based on 2000 census data. Percent multi-family based on TAMU Real Estate Center building permit starts, 1990-2004 poptrend.xls 10 Table (5) Station Area Apartment Absorption Forecast 2005 - 2030 Market Area Station Area Station Area Cumulative Assumed Demand in Year Apt. Demand Capture Rate Unit Additions Units Density/Acre Acres 2005 224 0.0% 0 0 36 0 2006 274 0.0% 0 0 36 0 2007 274 0.0% 0 0 36 0.00 2008 274 0.0% 0 0 36 0.00 2009 274 10.0% 27 27 36 0.76 2010 275 10.0% 27 55 36 0.76 2011 335 10.0% 34 88 36 0.93 2012 337 10.0% 34 122 36 0.94 2013 338 10.0% 34 156 36 0.94 2014 339 10,0% 34 190 36 0.94 2015 341 10.0% 34 224 36 0.95 2016 422 10.0% 42 266 36 1.17 2017 424 10.0% 42 308 36 1.18 2018 425 10.0% 43 351 36 1.18 2019 427 10.0% 43 394 36 1.19 2020 428 10.0% 43 436 36 1.19 2021 534 10.0% 53 490 36 1.48 2022 536 10.0% 54 543 36 1.49 2023 538 10.0% 54 597 36 1.49 2024 540 10.0% 54 651 36 1.50 2025 542 10.0% 54 705 36 1.50 2026 666 10.0% 67 772 36 1.85 2027 669 10.0% 67 839 36 1.86 2028 671 10.0% 67 906 36 1.86 2029 674 10.0% 67 973 36 1.87 2030 676 10.0% 68 1,041 36 1.88 Total 1,041 28.92 Prepared by: Capitol Market Research, June 2005 Notes: Projections based on Texas State Data Center, June 2004 (sc enario 1.0) Market area percent owner and percent multi-fatuity based on 2000 census data. Absorption constrained by the availability of land for redevelopment to 28.7 acres poptrend.xts 11 Part 3: Austin Retail Market Conditions Retail Market Overview The Austin multi-tenant retail market has shifted away from the traditional location and concentration of retail space in neighborhood shopping centers and large regional malls to a more diverse base that includes "power centers," "super centers," and off-price shopping. Approximately 10.5 million square feet of multi-tenant space have been added to the citywide inventory since 1995, an increase of 36.6%, and much of that space has been located near Lakeline Mall, in the MoPac corridor at the Arboretum, at La Frontera in Round Rock and in Sunset Valley. Gross retail sales for the Austin MSA rose at an average of 16.54% per year from 1980-1985. Rising incomes and a rapidly expanding population base provided the growth impetus. Then in 1986, the bottom fell out of the market and retail sales dropped by almost 5%. This drop in sales persisted during 1987 and 1988, however, from 1991 to 2000 retail sales increased dramatically, growing an average of 10.9% per year from 1991 to 2000. With the "dot.com" bust in 2001, gross retail sales dropped, and recently the growth rate has been a more modest 3.3% per year (2001-2003). However, with employment and population growth forecasted to be 3% per year, the future prospects for retail development in Austin are encouraging. 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" has generated a demand for new construction, even during the late eighties, and in 2001 and 2002 when the Austin economy was stagnant and there was little population growth. Between 1986 and 1992 there was very little improvement in average occupancy and rental rates, but during that same period, a total of 1.3 million square feet of shopping center space was built and absorbed at very high rental rates. Consequently, absorption of new retail space averaged 200,000 square feet per year between 1988 and 1992 and, as a result of the new construction, the shopping center landscape began to change in response to the new retailing formats. Between 1992 and 1995, the evolution of the shopping center accelerated and the retail market improved considerably. Occupancy rates which had been stuck in the low 80% range climbed to more than 93% and, as the market improved, absorption increased to 1.0 million square feet in 1993. In 1995 the opening and lease-up of Lakeline Mall at Highway and FM 620 pushed absorption to 1.9 million square feet, however the occupancy rate for regional shopping malls dropped from 90.3% in 1994 to 88.9% in 1995 due, in part, to space availability at Lakeline Mall. Since that time occupancy rates have continued to increase and have now stabilized at approximately 94%. In recent years, annual absorption has routinely exceeded 1 million sq. ft. as major suburban "nodes" of retail activity have opened and expanded. Current Market Conditions Citywide occupancy decreased slightly from December 2003, dropping from 94.1 % in June 2003 to 93.5% in December 2004. Average rents also decreased $0.37 per square foot from $16.22 to $15.85 per square foot. In spite of these small declines, the market remains strong with the expansion of power centers, large community "super centers," new "lifestyle centers" and a growing trend of demolition and renovation. 12 The December 2004 inventory of multi-tenant retail space in the Austin area included 28.6 miNion square feet evenly distributed among the four major types of retail centers. The regional malls, which include Lakeline, Garton Creek Square, Highland and Northcross Malls, and Capital Plaza, account for more than 4.3 million square feet of retail space. Community and power centers (by definition) include at least one junior department or discount store and are concentrated on Highway 183, MoPac and IH-35. Neighborhood centers, usually anchored by a grocery store/drugstore combination, are distributed throughout the city among the various residential subdivisions. Strip centers, which generally have no "anchor" tenant, are found along every major thoroughfare in the city and surrounding suburban residential markets. 13 Table (6) Retail Market Summary Austin: 1991 - 2004 Date Total SF Occupied SF Percent SF Absorption Average Occupied Additions Rent 1991 18,615,066 14,312,101 76.9% 533,000 347,825 $9.19 1992 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% 21,000 94,045 $15.96 2003 28,536,372 26,847,571 94.1% 1,844,992 1,522,224 $16.22 2004 28,583,179 26,712,487 93.5% 301,804 2,937 $15.85 Source: Capitol Market Research, Austin Area Retail Survey, 1991-2004 retail sum.xls Retail Historical Rent 8~ Occupancy 1991-2004 $18.00 100.0% $16.00 $14.00 a~ ~° ~ $12.00 90.0% ~ a~ $10.00 ~ O a $8.00 r c ~ $6.00 80.0% C ~ $4.00 a $2.00 o o0 o°i 7o . $ ° . °~ oti°~o°`°`'000 o°°oo°o~otio000~ Average Rent t Percent Occupied 14 Georgetown Retail Market Conditions Overview In June 2005, Capitol Market Research surveyed 11 multi-tenant shopping centers in the Georgetown market area with a total of 1,033,702 square feet of net rentable area. Currently, the market area occupancy is 852%. Average rents are $18.25 per square foot. Neighborhood centers in this area have the highest average rent at $25.62, and the highest occupancy at 93.4%. Strip centers have the lowest occupancy at 67.1 % while community centers have the lowest average rent at $17.42. New Construction A majority of the retail centers in the Georgetown market area were completed since 2000. Eight of the 11 retail centers in this market area, comprising 80.0% of the net rentable area, were completed since 2000. In addition, there are two new retail projects planned for the market area. 950 W University Ave. has 12,000 sq. ft. and will be completed in July 2005. As of June 2005, 500 sq. ft. has been leased. Additionally, Simon Property Company has under construction a large "power center," Wolf Ranch, located at the southwest corner of IH 35 and SH 29, with 670,000 sq. ft. Wolf Ranch will be anchored by Target and will also include PetsMart, Linens 'N Things and Office Depot. Completion is expected in July 2005. Occupancy 8 Absorption The market area occupancy in June 2005 was 85.2%. According to brokers active in the Georgetown market, occupancy rates have remained above 90% over the last few years, but absorption has been relatively low until recently (2004) due to the small size of most of the new centers. Average Rents Average rents in the Georgetown are increasing as new product is introduced in the market at higher than average rates. The new construction product (built since 2000) has out-performed the market, achieving higher average rents ($19.03) and maintaining higher than average occupancy (94.5%). Market Outlook The high occupancy rates and strong population growth in this market area have created a strong opportunity for new retail development. With completion nearing on Wolf Ranch, the retail offerings in the area will expand dramatically. 15 A G E 7 .~ d O C o y Q r a.. m A ~ c ~ Y ~ c~ f V Gl O d U ~ ~ m ~ Z ~ C y ~. 01 U W ~ ~ C T N CO m C O /0 ~ ~ U L ~ O O _ Fdl ~ ~ A ~ m (n O N Q N a~iF ~ ~o m w ~;~ E o ~m m a~ r.Y2-pp ioJ ~~WCO L E ~. f" N N ~. vl ~ ma 2~'E•-g am d m A £ 2° ax°O=~cmn~iim OOal NaONOrM ~-O Q NOt+lraO m~AmM~pp NN t+7 C) NN N PI t70 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M! 9 d! tl! M f 9 19 19 f 9 19 M p C C Q/ N m m m m m N m m m ~ M M CCf f7 M M M M M M~ W H ~ °o o °o o° o°, aNo O dl ~ N t(1 N r M L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0( 0 ~ m N M Pl (V ~ O (V ~- a0 fV CM _ ~ !9 lN9 dl NM 19 EN9MM IAM IA v 3~0 ~ ~ o" d~2°o 0 0 O oooorn~t°.~nr~iN° v :E oo°a°or0°mr°in~i°m y o 0 0 N OON~O~Oef ^O ~ ~~~t°p~NaMO °~ V J c `~ ~~~ppoNO ~°o_M°oo ~ fh N ~ O fh N N tr ti h N r 0 a0 O g 0 ~j ~ O m ~O~pp O O VO O N O r r O c+1 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ m Q ~+ H U O zUZUZUtnUU ~~~ooo`ag~°orn 0 0 0 0 0 o rn o o rn N N N N N N N N ~y Y ~ A M m ~ m O ~ Q V m ~ m M.~ pMa~3p ~ ~°5oo~~a ob Q N f0 S T '~f N W !n t0 l+f C ~a ~ m ~ o v O md5 m NV ~5 N ~4l N N c ~ U ~gAR m _ m m ~ U m m~ m m ~~~ y ~ H m L' c ~v m ~m m ~ ~.z A U NmU~C~2 ad'D: ~S 0 a ~Nr~v~n~oraorn°~ w N D .y e f0 FIGURE 4 N. m G a f d l0 CC_y ~ ~ H ~ R ip O ~ cn.~ ~ ~U ~5 h ~ C ~ ry~ ~Y ~ ~ Q~U ~, Q to ~ m ~` ~ V ~ j a ~ wmm mc;a~~~~ ~ g ' ~ ~ _ ~vv om imp ad > `~ o 3 ii .-tV lM VUi t0 I~c0 Oi0~ ~ ~ ~' a ~ K C9 W o` ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ N ~~ ti .~ ~ 3 o s~,eej 8'e m o m O 4 Z r C 0 O V N O 17 Market Area Purchasing Power The proposed passenger rail station in Georgetown is located approximately 1.21 miles south of SH 29 and 1.63 miles east of the IH-35, in a market area that has several community shopping centers (Rivery Towne Crossing, Georgetown Market Place, and several along Williams Drive) and a large "power center" planned (Wolf Ranch). As shown below, the submarket (defined as zip codes 78626 and 78628) has a substantial population base and a significant amount of disposable income. Since 1990, the number of single-family households in the submarket has increased by 33.9%, based on the construction of 3,780 new single-family homes and two new apartment communities, Water's Edge and Georgetown Place, adding 506 units. The new households that have moved into the area to occupy the new homes and apartments have added an estimated $467.8 million in additional household income to the market since April 2000. Based on these data, CMR estimates that at the end of 2004, there is approximately $1.26 billion in disposable income among the estimated 16,913 households located in the subject submarket, surrounding the Georgetown passenger rail station. Table (8) Current Purchasing Power Georgetown Station Market Area Year Market Area Average HH Total HH Total Disposable Estimated Actual Households Income Income Income Retail Purchases Retail Purchases 2000 13,849 $71,063 $984,157,189 $910,246,984 $600,763,010 $554,903,368 2001 14,771 $78,061 $1,153,041,499 $1,066,448,082 $703,855,734 $700,173,389 2002 15,458 $85,783 $1,326,030,957 $1,226,446,032 $809,454,381 $767,113,451 2003 16,026 $80,715 $1,293,546,411 $1,196,401,076 $789,624,710 $807,300,819 2004 16,913 $80,715 $1,365,141,049 $1,262,618,956 $833,328,511 $852,871,601 Sources: (1) Household estimate based on new construction o/housing in the market area (2) Average income based on HUD annual increases in Median HN Income Ior the Austn MSA (3) Disposable income is assumed to be 92.49% of total, based on 1999 Consumer Expenditure Survey (4) Retail purchases are estimated to be 66% o/disposable income (5) Census tracts used for retail projections diner from those used for househokllorecast (pages 9-11); does not include 206.01 Retail Demand.xls I8 Estimates of Purchasing Power The previous sections have documented the current disposable income and have provided a growth trend analysis for the retail submarket based upon the documented construction of new homes and apartments in the area since 2000. Using this historical information as a base, and recognizing the growth potential of the area based on land and utility availability, CMR has provided a forecast of anticipated new population and household growth expected in the market area in Table (8). This housing forecast is then combined with a forecast of household income to create a future income estimate for the retail submarket through 2030. Since a significant portion of total income is used for housing and transportation expenses, only that portion for "Disposable Income" that is available for retail purchases is used to estimate the demand for retail from area households, as shown below in Table (9). Table (9) Estimated Purchasing Power Georgetown Station submarket Year Market Area Average HH Households Income Total HH Income Total Disposable Income Estimated Retail Purchases 2000 13,849 $71,063 $984,157,189 $910,246,984 $600,763,010 2001 14,771 $78,061 $1,153,041,499 $1,066,448,082 $703,855,734 2002 15,458 $85,783 $1,326,030,957 $1,226,446,032 $809,454,381 2003 16,026 $80,715 $1,293,546,411 $1,196,401,076 $789,624,710 2004 16,913 $80,715 $1,365,141,049 $1,262,618,956 $833,328,511 2005 18,147 $82,733 $1,501,396,297 $1,388,641,435 $916,503,347 2006 19,463 $84,802 $1,650,535,684 $1,526,580,455 $1,007,543,100 2007 20,769 $86,922 $1,805,242,430 $1,669,668,724 $1,101,981,358 2008 22,063 $89,095 $1,965,677,910 $1,818,055,499 $1,199,916,629 2009 23,346 $91,322 $2,132,007,493 $1,971,893,730 $1,301,449,862 2010 24,618 $93,605 $2,304,400,628 $2,131,340,140 $1,406,684,493 2011 25,986 $95,945 $2,493,279,575 $2,306,034,279 $1,521,982,624 2012 27,343 $98,344 $2,688,994,839 $2,487,051,327 $1,641,453,876 2013 28,687 $100,803 $2,891,741,002 $2,674,571,253 $1,765,217,027 2014 30,020 $103,323 $3,101,717,373 $2,868,778,398 $1,893,393,743 2015 31,340 $105,906 $3,319,128,084 $3,069,861,565 $2,026,108,633 2016 32,710 $108,553 $3,550,791,508 $3,284,127,065 $2,167,523,863 2017 34,067 $111,267 $3,790,581,422 $3,505,908,757 $2,313,899,780 2018 35,412 $114,049 $4,038,724,805 $3,735,416,572 $2,465,374,938 2019 36,745 $116,900 $4,295,454,044 $3,972,865,445 $2,622,091,194 2020 38,065 $119,823 $4,561,007,036 $4,218,475,407 $2,784,193,769 2021 39,463 $122,818 $4,846,817,621 $4,482,821,618 $2,958,662,268 2022 40,849 $125,889 $5,142,395,274 $4,756,201,389 $3,139,092,917 2023 42,221 $129,036 $5,448,007,897 $5,038,862,504 $3,325,649,252 2024 43,580 $132,262 $5,763,929,634 $5,331,058,518 $3,518,498,622 2025 44,925 $135,568 $6,090,440,996 $5,633,048,877 $3,717,812,259 2026 46,378 $138,957 $6,444,559,726 $5,960,573,291 $3,933,978,372 2027 47,816 $142,431 $6,810,514,164 $6,299,044,550 $4,157,369,403 2028 49,240 $145,992 $7,188,623,177 $6,648,757,577 $4,388,180,001 2029 50,649 $149,642 $7,579,212,892 $7,010,014,004 $4,626,609,242 2030 52,044 $153,383 $7,982,616,820 $7,383,122,297 $4,872,860,716 Sources: (1) Household estimate based on new construction of housing in the market area (2) Average income based on HUD annual increases in Median HH Income for the Austin MSA (3) Disposable income is assumed to be 92.49% of total, based on 1999 Consumer Expenditure Survey (4) Retai! purchases are estimated to be 66% of disposable income (5) Average HH income increase assumed to average 2.5% per year retail damend.xls 19 TOD Retail Development The 16,913 plus households that currently live in the Georgetown market area have an estimated $1.3 billion in disposable income and approximately 213 of that income is spent on retail purchases. According to records obtained from the State Comptroller's office, actual retail sales in the market area exceed estimated retail purchases based on disposable household income in the market area by 2.3%. This retail sales "excess" is due in large measure to households from outside the designated market area traveling into the market area to make purchases, which most likely occurs at those retail establishments that have a broad market penetration (e.g. Rivery Towne .Crossing). In 2004, the total demand for retail purchases was estimated to be $833 million, and an estimated $852 million was spent within the trade area. Since the volume of sales exceeds the demand generated by households in the area, there currently is no excess demand for retail that can be attributed to the local population base. Clearly, this is a unique market area where the existing retail draws consumer expenditures from an area that is larger than the existing defined population base. The high rental rates achieved at the newer centers in Georgetown (Booty's Crossing, Cedar Breaks Village and Rivery Towne Crossing) have attracted the interest of Simon Property Co., and a large shopping center is planned for the area. Simon Property Co. is developing a new "power center," Wolf Ranch, just to the northwest of the passenger rail study area. Wolf Ranch will be anchored by Target and includes a Linens N Things, PetsMart and Office Depot and will have a total of 670,000 sq. ft. when completed in July 2005. Since retail supply currently exceeds the demand for space in the market area, it is unlikely that any additional "transit related" retail space will be built at this station location, in the short term. Future retail at the station location is most likely to be dependent upon growth in the local population base as residential units are completed and occupied. 20 Table (10) Supply and Demand Comparison Georgetown Market Area Year Estimated Retail Purchases Actual Retail Sales "Leakage" in Dollars Estimated SalesJSF Add. Demand for Retail SF Total Retail Space Added Excess/Deficit in Sq. Ft. 2000 $600,763,010 $554,903,368 $45,859,642 $260 176,383 0 176,383 2001 $703,855,734 $700,173,389 $3,682,345 $260 14,163 0 14,163 2002 $809,454,381 $767,113,451 $42,340,930 $260 162,850 0 162,850 2003 $789,624,710 $807,300,819 -$17,676,109 $260 (67,985) 0 (67,985) 2004 $833,328,511 $852,871,601 -$19,543,090 $265 (73,748) 0 (73,748) 2005 $916,503,347 $874,193,391 $42,309,956 $272 155,766 682,000 (526,234) 2006 $1,007,543,100 $896,048,226 $111,494,874 $278 400,462 682,000 (281,538) 2007 $1,101,981,358 $918,449,431 $183,531,927 $285 643,123 682,000 (38,877) 2008 $1,199,916,629 . $941,410,667 $258,505,962 $293 883,750 682,000 201,750 2009 $1.,301,449,862 $964,945,934 $336,503,928 $300 1,122,341 683,815 438,526 2010 $1,406,684,493 $989,069,582 $417,614,911 $307 1,358,898 685,684 673,214 2011 $1,521,982,624 $1,013,796,322 $508,186,302 $315 1,613,281 688,023 925,258 2012 $1,641,453,876 $1,039,141,230 $602,312,646 $323 1,865,457 690,429 1,175,028 2013 $1,765,217,027 $1,065,119,760 $700,097,266 $331 2,115,425 692,901 1,422,524 2014 $1,893,393,743 $1,091,747,754 $801,645,989 $339 2,363,187 695,440 1,667,747 2015 $2,026,108,633 $1,119,041,448 $907,067,184 $348 2,608,742 698,046 1,910,696 2016 $2,167,523,863 $1,147,017,485 $1,020,506,379 $356 2,863,410 701,347 2,162,063 2017 $2,313,899,780 $1,175,692,922 $1,138,206,858 $365 3,115,768 704,731 2,411,037 2018 $2,465,374,938 $1,205,085,245 $1,260,289,693 $374 3,365,816 708,199 2,657,617 2019 $2,622,091,194 $1,235,212,376 $1,386,878,818 $384 3,613,555 711,751 2,901,804 2020 $2,784,193,769 $1,266,092,685 $1,518,101,084 $393 3,858,984 715,388 3,143,596 2021 $2,958,662,268 $1,297,745,002 $1,660,917,265 $403 4,119,044 720,007 3,399,037 2022 $3,139,092,917 $1,330,188,627 $1,808,904,290 $413 4,376,633 724,732 3,651,901 2023 $3,325,649,252 $1,363,443,343 $1,962,205,909 $424 4,631,752 729,563 3,902,189 2024 $3,518,498,622 $1,397,529,427 $2,120,969,195 $434 4,884,400 734,501 4,149,899 2025 $3,717,812,259 $1,432,467,662 $2,285,344,597 $445 5,134,577 739,547 4,395,030 2026 $3,933,978,372 $1,468,279,354 $2,465,699,018 $456 5,404,670 745,388 4,659,282 2027 $4,157,369,403 $1,504,986,338 $2,652,383,065 $468 5,672,069 749,902 4,922,167 2028 $4,388,180,001 $1,542,610,996 $2,845,569,005 $479 5,936,773 754,508 5,182,265 2029 $4,626,609,242 $1,581,176,271 $3,045,432,971 $491 6,198,784 759,207 5,439,577 2030 $4,872,860,716 $1,620,705,678 $3,252,155,038 $504 6,458,102 763,999 5,694,103 Sources: (1) Reta/l Sales persquare foot based on /CSC 'The Score', 2004 and the exlstlng inventory of 28 million sq.2 o/mulltl-tenant retail space (2) Retail Sales assumed to increase at 2.5% per year (3) Planned Shopping CenterAdditlons includes WoMRancA relall demand.xls 21 Part 4: Multifamily Market Trends in the Austin MSA Apartment Market Overview 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 Solectron as well as the apartments surrounding the University of Texas, St. Edwards University, and the various Austin Community College campus locations. The Central Business District has, until recently, had relatively few residential rental units, but several apartment communities have been developed within 1 to 2 miles of the CBD. Market conditions in the Austin area multifamily market were volatile in the eighties, when an apartment construction boom caused dramatic overbuilding in 1985 and 1986, which was 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 multifamily 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 has fluctuated from year to year but both occupancy and average rental rates have, until recently, steadily increased. 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. The building continued into 2002, in spite of the softness in the market, and by 2003 the construction boom was tapering off. Current Market Conditions Beginning in late 2003, new construction activity began to diminish and regional apartment demand regained strength and has continued the positive absorption trend through the end of 2004. Based on the CMR year-end survey of 122,323 apartment units, the market occupancy rate increased more than 2 percentage points to a current occupancy rate of 91.4% (up from 89.3% in December 2003) with rental rates remaining stable at $0.81 per square foot. Since the beginning of 1992, 57,409 apartment units in 202 complexes were completed including 27 completed in 2003 and 8 in 2004 (a total of 2,154 units). As of December 2004, 6 additional projects are currently under construction, with four partially completed and leasing. In the last six months of 2004, unit demand, as measured by absorption, exceeded new unit completions by 1,214 units, and the market gradually improved as the year ended. Rental rates remained steady at $0.81, and occupancy increased to 91.4%. New unit completions were 650 and absorption was 1,864 for the last six months of 2004. The table on the following page provides apartment market conditions from 1991-2004. Historical data on occupancy, average rent, unit completions and absorption for 1991 - 2004 is taken from CMR's Austin Apartment Survey, asemi-annual survey of all projects of more than 50 units in the Austin area. 22 Table { 11) Citywide Apartment Summary 1991 - 2004 Date Total Units Occupied Percent New Units Calculated Rent per Sq. Trends Units Occupied Added Absorption Ft. 1991 61,113 57,266 93.7% 148 220 $0.57 Positive 1992 61,118 58,448 95.6% 348 1,182 $0.64 Positive 1993 63,074 61,174 97.0% 594 2,726 $0.71 Positive 1994 66,379 64,662 97.4% 2,178 3,488 $0.75 Positive 1995 69,324 67,101 96.8% 3,010 2,439 $0.79 Positive 1996 77,019 71,452 92.8% 7,695 4,351 $0.81 Caution 1997 81,382 77,270 94.9% 4,363 5,818 $0.82 Positive 1998 86,428 83,683 96.8% 5,046 6,413 $0.86 Positive 1999 89,699 87,531 97.6% 3,271 3,848 $0.91 Positive 2000 96,114 93,786 97.6% 6,415 6,255 $0.98 Positive 2001 105,162 94,651 90.0% 9,048 865 $0.94 Caution 2002 113,380 99,794 88.0% 8,218 5,143 $0.86 Caution 2003 120,169 107,290 89.3% 6,789 7,496 $0.81 Positive 2004 122,323 111,786 91,4% 2,154 4,496 $0.81 Positive Source: Capitol Market Research, 1991-2004 Apartment Market Survey apt sum.xls CMR estimates of new completions based on a review of city documents and developer plans Absorption based on forecasted population increase from employment forecaset generaged using the three econometric forecasts for the Ausitn MSA: an historical share analysis conducted by CMR, demographicsnow.com and CAMPO. Historical Absorption and New Units Added 10000 loo°r° sooo 8000 95% 7000 - - 6000 - 90% 5000 - - 4000 85% 3000 2000 80% 1000 0 75% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ®New Units Added Calculated Absorption ~~Percent Occupied 23 Georgetown Apartment Market Conditions Overview In December 2004, Capitol Market Research surveyed 11 apartment communities in Georgetown with a total of 1,836 units. Currently, the market area occupancy is 88.3%, which is down slightly (0.8%) from December 2003 when it was 89.1%. Average rents are $0.74 per square foot, also down slightly since December 2003. Of the 1,836 total units, 984 (53.6%) have been built (completed) since the beginning of 1997. New Construction New construction has been sporadic in Georgetown, with unit completions occurring in only 4 of the last 10 years, in 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2003. Among the new completions were several class "A" market rate products, including Parkview Place, Water's Edge and Westwood Vllage. These properties are leasing relatively well at average rental rates that are 12.2% above the market average, while their occupancy is lower at 84.9%. In addition to the seven new market rate apartment projects, there were two income-restricted, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects built since 1996 with a combined total of 368 units. Since there are only 1,836 units in the market area, the lower rates offered at the 368 income-restricted units have had an effect on the market rate properties and contribute to the overall lower rental rate in Georgetown. Occupancy The market area occupancy in December 2004 was at 88.3%, down slightly from the 89.1% posted at the end of 2003. The current occupancy shows the market slowly recovering from the low of 87.9% in 2002. This market area is likely to continue to experience a slow increase in occupancy due to relatively small job base in the area "and competition from projects in Round Rock and other areas that are closer to major employment nodes. Average Rents Average rents in the Georgetown market area rose dramatically from $0.68 per sq. ft. in December 1995 to $0.84 in December 2001, a 23.5% increase over asix-year period. Since then, rents have dropped 25% back down to $0.74 per sq. ft. in December 2004. As noted above, the new class "A" product has generally out-performed the market, achieving higher rents white maintaining an occupancy rate slightly below the market average. Market Outlook The slow recovery in occupancy from a low of 87.9% in 2002 combined with very low average rental rates will result in a slower than average rate of recovery in the Austin region. This slow pace of recovery will curtail new construction until the market occupancy moves up and rental rates begin to climb again. 24 Table (12) Georgetown Submarket Apartment Summary 1995 - 2004 Date Total Units Occupied Percent New Units Calculated Rent per Trends Units Occupied Added Absorption Sq. Ft. 1995 728 651 89.4% ... ... $0.68 Positive 1996 728 720 98.9% 0 69 $0.72 Caution 1997 1,030 790 76.7% 302 70 $0.70 Positive 1998 1,030 1,015 98.5% 0 225 $0.73 Positive 1999 1,030 1,007 97.8% 0 -8 $0.74 Positive 2000 1,386 1,267 91.4% 356 260 $0.82 Positive 2001 1,386 1,275 92.09'0 0 8 $0.84 Caution 2002 1,692 1,488 87.9% 306 213 $0.77 Positive 2003 1,836. 1,636 89.1°k 144 148 $0.75 Positive 2004 1,836 1,621 88.3% 0 -15 $0.74 Positive Sours=e: Capitol Maiicet Research, 19952004 Apar6nent Market Survey GTN histocc.xls Historical Absorption and New Units Added soo 0 ioo% 400 95% 300 90% d ~ ~ ' 'a c ~ a v ° 200 85% O ~ '., ~ z v d a 100 ~ 80% 0 75% -100 70% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 New Units Added Calculated Absorption~'Percent Occupied 25 FIGURE 5 Georgetown Submarket Existing Apartments 1. Apple Creek 2. Georgetown Park 3. Georgetown Place 4. Georgetown Station 5. Georgian 6. Indian Creek 7. Oaks at Georgetown 8. Parkview Place 9. San Gabriel 10. Waters Edge 11. Westwood Village c:lProjects120051Commuter Research, May 2005 26 Townhome/Condominium Market Trends in the Austin MSA Historically, townhome and condominium 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 few years, that area has expanded to include more neighborhoods such as Tarrytown, Bouldin Creek, Travis Heights, Barton Creek, t_akeway, 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. Beginning in 1997, almost 600 new condominiums have been completed and absorbed, and many units have sold for prices that exceed $300 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 new condominium or townhome 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 who live in the Westlake area. The success of these three projects enticed other developers to explore the market, and most of the new product 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 townhome/condominium market in the Austin area is rapidly gaining strength, and is emerging as an important segment of the new home market. Since 2001, the number of new townhome/condominium permits issued by the City of Austin has increased from 73 to 358 in 2004, an increase of 390.4%. Also during that time period, the number of "new" units sold through MLS increased from 186 in 2001 to 296 in 2004, an increase of 59.1 %. While it is clear that one of the motivations to buy a condominium unit is its relatively low price, the average price of a new unit sold through MLS has generally increased and is now at $208,247for 1,526 sq. ft., or $136.47 per sq. ft. One of the most interesting aspects of this higher density market is the degree to which homebuyers are accepting new innovative product, whether it is stark urban lofts in East Austin (The Pedernales), or elegant stone townhomes in South Austin (Kinney Muse) or expensive high-rise condominiums (5 fifty- five East Fifth Street). 27 Table (13) New Townhome/Condo Sales Austin MLS Region Year Units Number of Average Sales Median Sales Average Average Permitted Sales Price Price SF S/SF 2000 213 268 $195,477 $150,975 1,440 $135.75 2001 73 186 $202,343 $169,725 1,606 $125.99 2002 91 194 $221,665 $175,625 1,659 $133.61 2003 263 219 $189,733 $153,220 1,579 $120.16 2004 358 296 $208,247 $156,112 1,526 $136.47 Source: Austin Board of Realtors, MLS Database Prepared by Capitol Market Research, May 2005 condo sum.xls 400 350 300 ~ 250 c 200 0 0 Z 150 100 50 0 $230,000 $220,000 $210,000 m .` $200,000 H m ~a $190,000 $180,000 $170,000 ®Units Permitted Number of Sales -~-Median Sales Price 28 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Townhome and Condominium Demand Townhome and condominium demand in this area historically has not been strong due to the lack of available product. The Georgetown market area accounted for 3.2% of the households and 3.4% of the population in the Austin MSA in 1990, but only 0.10% of all the existing condominiums in the MSA. Currently 4.9% of the total MLS listings in the Georgetown market area are for townhomes and condos. As of June 2, 2005, there are 22 MLS listings for condos and townhomes in the market area in addition to the new units available directly from the condominium developers. In order to develop a forecast for this market area that recognizes both the potential of the area and the current lack of available supply, we first developed a forecast for Williamson County based on the condominium percentage of total residential sales and then applied the market area- capture rate of 18.2%, based. on the average percentage of total sales between 2001 and 2004. This forecast assumes a reasonably high level of demand for condominium units over the forecast time period. Table (14) Market Area Townhome/Condo Demand 2000 - 2030 Year Williamson County Total Annual Change percent County TH/Condo Mkt. Area Mme' ~~ TH/Condo HH TH/Condos Demand Percent Demand 2000 88,641 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2001 94,358 5,717 1.5% 86 36.8% 32 2002 100,074 5,717 1.4% 78 14.3% 11 2003 105,791 5,717 2.0°k 112 2.7°~ 3 2004 111,508 5,717 1.4% 80 18.9% 15 2005 117,224 5,717 5.0% 286 18.2°k 52 2006 124,207 6,982 5.2°k 363 18.2% 66 2007 131,189 6,982 5.4°r6 377 18.2°r6 69 2008 138,171 6,982 5.6% 391 18.2% 71 2009 145,154 6,982 5.8% 405 18.2% 74 2010 152,136 6,982 6.0°k 419 18.2% 76 2011 160,629 8,493 6.2% 527 18.2% 96 2012 169,121 8,493 6.4% 544 18.2°~ 99 2013 177,614 8,493 6.6% 561 18.2% 102 2014 186,107 8,493 6.8% 577 18.2% 105 2015 194,599 8,493 7.0°r6 594 18.2% 108 2016 205,084 10,484 7.2% 755 18.2% 137 2017 215,568 10,484 7.4% 776 18.2°k 141 2018 226,052 10,484 7.6% 797 18.2°k 145 2019 236,536 10,484 7.8% 818 18.2% 149 2020 247,021 10,484 8.0% 839 18.2°,6 153 2021 260,032 13,011 8.2°k 1,067 18.2°~ 194 2022 273,043 13,011 8.4% 1,093 18.2% 199 2023 286,055 13,011 8.6% 1,119 18.2% 204 2024 299,066 13,011 8.8°k 1,145 18.2°k 208 2025 312,077 13,011 9.0% 1,171 18.2°k 213 2026 328,023 15,946 9.2°k 1,467 18.2°k 267 2027 343,970 15,946 9.4°k 1,499 18.2% 273 2028 359,916 15,946 9.6% 1,531 18.2% 279 2029 375,862 15,946 9.8% 1,563 18.2% 284 2030 391,808 15,946 10.0% 1,595 18.2% 290 Prepared by: Capitol Market Researoh, May 2005 Notes : Projections based on Texas State pate Center, June 2004 {scenario 1.0J Percent TH~ondo demand is based on the percentage of Total MLS Saks in Williamson Co. This percentage is expected to increase to 10% by 2030 Market area capture rate based on 1990 -?000 growth trend . poptrend. x/s 29 Georgetown Townhome/Condominium Market Conditions Overview In June 2005, Capitol Market Research surveyed the 5 new condominium communities in the Georgetown market area that, when completed, will have a total of 160 units. Currently, the market area has 44 new condominium units available for sale. Average sales prices are $105 per sq. ft., but the range is $40 to $167 per square foot. Of the 160 planned units, 134 (83.8%) have been built (completed) since the beginning of 1998. New Construction Prior to 1998, there were no condominium or townhome communities in the Georgetown market area. The first project, Villas of Katy's Crossing, presented a duplex style townhome product and was met with relatively good market acceptance, selling out in less than three years. After a few years of inactivity, new townhome/condominium construction in the Georgetown market area resumed in 2003. The most recent projects, such as Village Park Condos, present a high quality, higher density (two-story) "stacked flat" condominium product, which has met with reasonably good market acceptance. Despite the higher average sales price (due to the high quality of finish-out), Village Park Condos has experienced rapid absorption. In contrast, Ryan's Cove and University Park, aduplex-style townhome product, has not experienced a rapid absorption, due in part to the inferior location and lack of visibility. Old Town has four attached townhomes and four single-family style condominiums on small lots. Construction on this product began in February and marketing has just begun. Absorption Absorption rates among these three projects varies, from less than 1 unit per month to more than 2. However, the absorption potential in this market area has not yet been fully established due to the lack of new construction. Pricing The average unit price among these five projects varies from a low (estimated price) of $88,297 at Villas of Katy 's Crossing to a high of $283,000 at Old Town. As noted above, units with better access and visibility have been selling more .rapidly, and the market has responded favorably to the products at both the high and lower end of the price spectrum. Market Outlook The increasing demand for smaller, well located units combined with the lack of new product in the area should result in rapid absorption rates for those developers who offer an attractive attached product at a reasonable price. Access and visibility, whether from drive-by traffic or from commuters at a passenger rail station, will increase the viability and absorption potential of planned new projects. Currently there is only one additional project planned in the market area, the Townhomes at Katy's Crossing by Gavurnik Builders, but it is likely that there will be several more projects developed over the next few years. 30 Table (15) Georgetown Market Area Condominiumlfownhome Sales New Product Activity ProjeM Year # Units # Units Contractsl % Sold Salesl Month Average Average Price per Planned Complete Sales Ust Price Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Village Park Condos 2003 53 53 37 69.8% 2.18 $216,274 1,435 $151 Old Town~'~ 2005 8 0 1 12.5% 1.00 $283,000 1,696 $167 Ryan's Cove 2004 16 8 8 50.0% 0.67 $108,809 1,137 $96 University Park 2005 14 4 1 7.1°~ 0.20 $138,650 1,461 $95 Villas of Katy's Crossing 1998 69 69 69 100.0% 1.10 $88,297 2,187 $40 TotalslAverage 160 134 116 72.5% 1.03 $167,006 1,583 $105 Source: Capitol Merkel Research 8rokor and Developer Interviews, June 2005 Notes: (f) Initially began marketing Aug. 2004, but construction delayed. Bepen construction in February 20015 end is now starting M market the prapdty now that she has something to show. C,TN Condo Summary.xls 31 FIGURE 6 ~~ o m N W ~ O m m m / /~/ N ` \ ~!Z o U a a o W a a r e m N 2 m C ~~ Y/ A~ W y Y` O S~ U r" ~ 3 f® e w0 m .0 ~~ S o ~~ ~ ~ N ~ Oc 3 0 .\`,~ ~ ~ Q y U D W m ~ ~ . ~ (A C7 > d ~ a L OV C O ~~V~Y ~ ~ ~ o L ~ N ~- C E Z ZO~~~ ~ ~NM~tn ~ N 3 / ~ ~ 32 Station Area Townhome/Condominium Demand Forecast Based on the market area demand presented in Table (14), which assumes an increasing demand for higher density housing in the market area and for the station area, an absorption analysis for the station area can be developed and is shown in Table (16) below. This absorption forecast assumes that new townhome/condominium construction begins in 2008 with delivery of the first units in 2009, coincident with the opening of the station. Presale contracts could be taken at the time of initial groundbreaking and should continue during the construction period. The limited opportunities for employment and shopping in the area will constrain absorption initially, but as the station area development grows and more services become available, the absorption potential for high density owner occupied housing will increase. Table (16) Georgetown Station Area THlCondo Absorption 2000 - 2030 Mkt. Area Year TH/Condo Percent TOD TOD TH/Condo Cumulative Demand in Demand Capture Rate Absorption Unit Demand Acres 2005 52 0.0% 0 0 0.00 2006 66 0.0°~ 0 0 0.00 2007 69 0.0% 0 0 0.00 2008 71 0.0% 0 0 0.00 2009 74 15.0% 11 11 1.11 2010 76 15.0% 11 22 2.25 2011 96 15.0% 14 37 3.69 2012 99 15.0% 15 52 5.17 2013 102 15.0% 15 67 6.70 2014 105 15.0% 16 83 8.28 2015 108 15.0% 16 99 9.90 2016 137 15.0% 21 120 11.96 2017 141 15.0% 21 141 14.08 2018 145 15.0% 22 163 16.25 2019 149 15.0% 22 185 18.49 2020 153 15.0% 23 208 20.78 2021 194 15.0% 29 237 23.69 2022 199 15.0% 30 267 26.67 2023 204 15.0% 31 297 29.73 2024 208 15.0% 31 329 32.85 2025 213 15.0% 32 361 36.05 2026 267 15.0% 40 401 40.06 2027 273 15.0% 41 441 44.15 2028 279 15.0% 42 483 48.33 2029 284 15.0% 43 526 52.59 2030 290 15.0% 44 569 56.95 Total 4,054 569 Prepared by: Capitol Market Research, June 2005 Notes: Market area capture rate based on 2000 - 2004 growth trend. Average density assumed fo be 10 units per acre pophend.xls 33 Transit Oriented Development Economic Impact The concentration of land uses near transit stations, generally referred to as "Transit-Oriented Development" (TOD), is intended to be a mixed-use pedestrian oriented environment where people can live, work, shop and be entertained within easy access to transit facilities. Because access to transit services brings people to the station area, the prospect for economic development within a 1,500-foot radius of the station is enhanced relative to other land parcels in the market area. The increased accessibility offers an opportunity to develop housing at higher density than might otherwise be feasible, while also encouraging a broader mix of uses. Overall, the benefits of TOD include the development of underutilized land uses, an increase in transit ridership, expansion of retail sales in the market area and increased local tax base. The development of a Station Area Development plan must respect the market forces active in the area and at the subject site. The proposed Georgetown Passenger Rail Station is located in an emerging suburban market area where the predominate land use is agricultural with widely scattered farms and a couple of new subdivisions. Currently, there are no improvements within the'/.-mile radius around the subject passenger rail station, but the Williamson County Juvenile Detention Center is approximately Yz-mile northeast of the proposed station location. Given the locational attributes of the station area and the predominate trends in the Georgetown market area, the land uses that appear to have the most opportunity are multifamily residential, i.e. apartments and townhomes. There is little opportunity for retail or office development at the present time, but as the market matures, demand for neighborhood and transit oriented retail uses will emerge. Georgetown is the home of Southwestern University and the location of a large active adult community, Sun City Texas, in addition to being the county seat for Williamson County. The Georgetown residential market consists of established neighborhoods and emerging new home subdivisions along with a number of multifamily communities. The multifamily occupancy is currently 88.9°/a and rents are below the Austin region average, at $0.74 per sq. ft. However,, the market trends are positive and the area has shown a capacity to absorb up to 260 multifamily units per year. Consequently, CMR has established a market demand at the subject station of 1,345 apartment units over the next 25 years. !n addition, the market should support the demand for approximately 391 townhome/condominium units over the same time period. In addition to multifamily residential, the station area should support approximately 32,799 sq. ft. of "Transit Related" retail uses with pedestrian access to the rail platform. The retail uses contemplated include restaurants, service related businesses, limited "soft goods" and convenience shopping. The proposed multifamily development will include a total of 1,345 units developed over a 25-year period beginning in 2009. The units are estimated to cost approximately $80,000 each, in 2005 dollars, with a total value of $107.6 million. To simplify the analysis, if it assumed that the units will be phased in over the next 25 years, and for the purpose of this analysis, the construction is assumed to begin in 2009 with completion in 2030. The condominium units are estimated to sell for approximately $150,000 per unit, and construction should start in 2009. At this station, some "Transit Related" retail could be included in the ground floor of three-story residential building in close proximity to the transit stop, but it is more likely to be developed as a one-story retail street, due to the overall lower density anticipated. The estimated value of the "shell" retail building is $90 per square foot and finish-out should run approximately $50 per square foot, on average. The total estimated value of the proposed 80,062 sq. ft. of "Transit Related° retail space is $11.2 million. Based on the foregoing development summary, which is presented in Table (17), the anticipated change in local assessed value in contrast to the current market value is shown in Table (18). This table shows the market area assessed values increasing from $2.4 million, currently, to $301.3 million in 2030, an increment of $298.9 million. Finally, with respect to the potential tax impact, the total tax increment to the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District over a 25-year period is estimated to be $6.87 million, assuming that the Rail District collects 30% of the Property Taxes (not including Georgetown ISD) at $0.8459 per $100 of assessed value. 34 Table (17) Georgetown Passenger Rail Station Input Data Sheet Proposed Land Use Land Use Type Acres Building Units Sq.Ft. Per Cost per Sq. Cost per Unit Total Cost Sq.Ft. Unit Ft. Apartments* 67.24 1,210,388 1,345 900 $88.89 $80,000 $107,590,048 Townhome/Condo 34.95 471,876 350 1,350 $111.11. $150,000 $52,430,693 Transit Related Retail 7.35 80,062 n.a. n.a. $140.00 n.a. $11,208,680 Retail 0.00 0 n.a. n.a. $140.00 n.a. $0 Total 109.55 1,762,326 $171,229,421 * Assumed lower density at 20 units/acre Existing Property Information Land Use Type Accoun t Number Land Area Bldg' Land Value Building Total Value Sq.Ft. Value Vacant 9.749 0 $2,925 $0 $2,925 Unimproved Agricultural 73.999 0 $786,531 $0 $786,531 Improved Farm/Ranch L 25.916 152 $209,364 $1,461 $210,826 Commercial* 9.1928 17,994 $174,203 $1,258,397 $1,432,600 Total 118.857 18,146 $1,173,024 $1,259,859 $2,432,882 * No new development planned for Williamson County Juvenial Detention Land Development Assumptions Category Rate Unit Date Apt. Units Built Retail Sq.Ft. Built Condo Units Built each Year each Year each Year Land Appreciation Retail Sales Sales Increase Sales Tax Rate Property Tax rate (less ISD) TIF Capture Rate: 30% Project Start Date 2007 Completion Date 2.5% Year $250 Sq.Ft. 2.5% Year 1.0% per $1.00 0.8459 per $100 0.2538 per $100 2008 0 0 0 2009 27 1,815 11 2010 28 1,869 11 2011 35 2,339 14 2012 36 2,406 15 2013 37 2,472 15 2014 38 2,539 16 2015 39 2,606 16 2016 49 3,301 21 2017 50 3,384 21 2018 52 3,468 22 2019 53 3,552 22 2020 54 3,637 23 2021 69 4,619 29 2022 70 4,725 30 2023 72 4,831 31 2024 73 4,938 31 2025 75 4,527 21 2026 94 4,423 0 2027 96 4,514 0 2028 97 4,606 0 2029 99 4,699 0 2030 101 4,792 0 1,345 80,062 350 TIF Analysis.xis 35 a` ~--~ N Q ~ O ~~ N ~ O a Q (n i0 ~L (O N o N C Q. V/ N C ~ ~ o ~C °~ NU ~ `tea ~ L N A N O N N ~ ~ 7. ~ N O ~ ~ C ~ N ~ c ~ ~ U ~ `y°oN ~ N ~C M . 0 y f0 ~ p O1 L O C _ C ~ ~ ~ m . E o ~ ~ d O y ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~. C N ^' W 2 ~ ~ w N ~ L ~ ~ "' ~ tq wt„ c ~`? N N - O . U E w ~ CA ~ ( C ~ O O Q V O 7 L ~ N 'C O. U £ ~ ~ E C ~ O E v a V t m ~ o c _°vm.3 ~ y a~i ao w ° E n E .X c ~ 7 O ~ W c w m c m ~ a m ~ c ~ m ~ o v ~ c U ~ .y m ~ D m p` E ~ L c ~ _ N c ~ O U v ~- !- ~ N N O azzc~ • ~i• • 0) 0) ~ V' CO I~ (O O M O V M M CA 1~ CO V V O f~ M M Cf) In 00 .-- M f~ O) N M V' Op N f~ f~ M I~ ~ ~ C _ ~ ~ ~ O CD ~ ~ O) t0 .-- f~ ~ V' ~Y M h O N 01 M Cn CD 0 0 ~ N i a 6 0 1~ N to ~ to ~ O pj O) OO 0 a0 ~ O M O N to M 00 N D MO 69 ~ n O M 000 CMD ~ M O ~ ~ M N O ~ M ~ A M N~ O O C D M CD _ C D O MtDOMN Z ~ ~NOl~Oti O ~OnO~tq CD OI~000 ER b4 CA ~ Qj N N M ~ to t0 00 O O N ~' CD a0 O N 'c! U') f~ G7 _ ~ ~ ~ ER fA CA ER V3 b4 fA fR N N N N N N fA CA d4 b9 fA EA d9 ER 69 EA fA + O CD M In In O 00 CD O O N DO N M CD N O S O O M M CND ~ N~~ O M CO O t0 W N W 00 I~ 0 In M r- O 00 ~ M ~ M tt O (D ~ M M N CD O) ~ 00 N ~t Cn a C6 ~ 00 M CO f~ O (`') OO I~ CO h N N N 0 0 OO M CD M V' 00 (D t* ~ N ~ (D O N M f~ t~ OO h N Cn O O N ~ O CD 00 tf) (D f~ I~ CO ~ MCDON000aO~OtA to N00N ~~`NOM1~d'NOON O ~~~~~ X 0 0 O M CO M M O N N N N N O ~_ ~~ N O GO O M f~ ~ N V n CO O N E (O 00 O N M d' V' ~A I~ 00 O ~... _ Ci9 CA CH CA b9 N N N N N M EA b4 CA fR EA E,9 EA ER EA C'R b9 EA EA K3 b4 ER 69 d9 EA EA EA ~ N N N N O N CO a0 m 0 ~' N~ In O I~ to O) O 0 ~ O N N _ O O O O~ M~ 0 0~ N N O O a0 O 0 n~ M O ~ O O ~ ~ O~~~ N O~ O M ~ ~O to to ~ 00 E N O M M M M ! 'p ~. I~ ti ~ d' O) 00 CO M O In CD O N ~ N GO ~ 00 ~ f~ CA C] Cp ' C 1~ V 40 ~ N CO V O to O ~ O N O O) ~ O '~Y ~ •- ~ _ CA p~ p~ M M 00 ~ !~ CD CO cD to st ~ M N N O 0 fA CR J CA 69 fA b9 69 fA CA E~ b9 69 EA N3 CR EA V3 ER CA EA fA b4 CR EA CA _ C N O CO O O O ~ N d7 .-- O M B Q) O (D M OO O m N N OO O O) O M ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 lA f~ Cn V' t~ ~ M f~ 7 ~ ~ ~ M M O ~ ~ OO~O V CnO V 0 CDO d:OOt~~ ~ M N~ M CO f~ M O V ti~ CD O t~ ~ O~ O~ M ~ (OD ~ N~ ~ ~ O7 N t0 0 M 0 j OD C i M N ~ ~ u ~ ~ 07 M 00 I~ O to N O O) O N 0 O O N N M M !~ O ` d E O) ap Q7 00 a0 M M dj N Ct~ O_ !_~ M O) f~ 00 O M CD N ~ CD 00 O N ~ ~ O O CA 69 ~~ CA N M M~ to I~ 00 O) _ N N N N N M fA fA fA b9 EA K3 ffl EA 69 fA fA fH 69 69 ER b9 b9 fR H} CA EA w C O 0 ~ ~ N 00 ao N N CD CD M N m O O N ~ M CD O f~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ M r ~ O CD CD CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O CD lf) O to N M O O In ~ t0 h M OO N 'd_ ~ ~ 0~ O a0 ~ O N 0 n O n a ; 6~ ~ V 0 00 00 f~ f~ O H O CO 00 00 00 O) N t1') O CO V d O ~ CO !~ CO V O O O O) 00 O O to Cp N CO to M O 00 00 O (n A_ ~ ~ N M V V~ CO i~ N N M M '~t lf) CO CD f~ 00 Q1 - - - - r ~ r c ~ a - • 7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~p 00 00 00 CD 00 00 d0 OO 00 00 CO O M CO 00 00 00 M CO 00 00 Op 00 CO 00 00 Op 00 CO Cp OO CO CO M 00 00 OO 00 CO CO O 00 M OO 00 00 00 M 00 CO 00 00 ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M d' ~ ~ ~ d' ~F ~ ~ V' V '~ V V' V ~ V ~ V V ~ V V V V' ~ V O F- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V3 fA ER CA b9 EA ER EA EA CA EA EA EA CA ER to CA fA ER lA ER CA EA EA CA EA O ~ V d' V 7 V d' ~ V V V~ V V V' ~ V ~Y ~t V~~ V V~ V~ ~p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O ~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ n ti ti n ~ ti ti n ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ti ~ n ~ n ~ r ~--~ r ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ r '- ~ ~ ~- r r ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ J CA fA b9 CA b9 Ef3 EA fR CA fR fA CA fA ER EA fA fA fR EA b9 fA EA EA CR fR fA c ~ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ap 0o ao ao ao ao ao ao ao to a ~ ? ~ m o co ao co 00 00 0o ao a0 0o ao ao a0 ao ao ao DirnoiDiaiofoiaioirnoirnrnoirnrnaiaiofoirnoiornoioioi ~n~ d~ n~~n~n~n~n~n~nu~~n~n~n~n~~n~n~n~n~n~n~n~~~~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E b9 EA to ~ EA EA K3 ER EA EA 69 CA Cfl 69 69 K3 d9 fA 69 69 CR H3 69 fA EA fA C ~ °~ ~ cDCOCOmcocDCDCOCDCDCDmcDCDCDmcDCDCDCOCOmcDCDCDm ~ d' rt tt ~ ' ' ' ' V V d ~ V V ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ d' V tt V ~ ~ O 00 00 CO OO 00 CO M CO 00 CO M M M M ao CO 00 00 00 M OD 00 CO 00 M [0 -. ~ ~ r ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ r ~- r r ~- --. Q e ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r r ~ E ~ (O I~ OO m O ~ N M V' to M ~ 00 O O N M ~ to (D f~ 00 O O ~ _ _ O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N M ~ ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r N C > N ~ d C C 0 U C ~ H C 3 d C 4 ~ o~ F- T m a` c0 ~ O ~-+ o N C r c C~ ~ rn C ~ _C O ~ N y ~ a N ~' ~ Q c c O ~ N +-~ ~ rn ~ (n ~ N ~ O ~ ~ n' °O a~i Q ~ ~ ~ oa oa ~ .-. N r+ O ~ ~ 0 O L C~C ° ~ ~ ~ L M ~~-~ f.+ O m m L ~1~~1~ ~ w m W ~ U N T }~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ Q~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 'L U ~ ~ O ~ o ~ d ~ O 0 f6 •i--~ ~ K O C O O ~ cn ~ .a d> m (~ .~ tll CL C d L i-' O ~ .~ ~ a> ~ U v~° °_ ~ O o o E C d O-''c ° ~U ~~- O X ~ ~ ~ a ^' y W (~ ~ N w F- 03 n~j' ~ 3 W O C ~ ~ O O 2 ~ ~ ~ N ~ 1'~ J ~ N ~ V) .C `J O ~ ~ U S] C_ ~ "'' 7 .S a m ~ C L ~ 'o a0 O •r~~ U ~ ~ ~ E V C t- m ~ a y ~ ~ m > ~X ~ IJ.I o ~ o- p 4. ~ ~ u, > ~, U ~~a~ E ~ y a to Q N X O (~6 C1 ~ •i •I • • X N to 00 N t0 N 0 N ~t M_ 0 CD O 1~ ~ N_ N 00 O O ppj Od: NtOOtOe-~~ 0 ~MO ~~ ~ tiNN ti ~ r H- ~ O f .(O 0 e 0 N -- O CO ~ O ti 0 CO - _ 001~000OrCD~I~~LnOr1~CO~tn E 90rN ~N r r ~ o I tnMfOr ~~~rM1n000MCOOtf)0~0COMr0ptf)r0C00 r c-rrNNNMMd'~(OCOI~00000 O O ~~ ER EA EAf~9 EA b9 ER ER fA lA fA ER EH E9 KT d9 EA EA ffl EiJ p ~ ~ ~ r d> X H CO 00000I~00`-OI~NOON~Nt~~NOOM~ p~ ~' N Cp 00 ~ to O a0 t1') 0 00 ~ 0 N~ N 0 r 0 0 M Ln M In r OOCO~fiOM'~ttO~i!')OOOCfl~ttC)tONtO~taO~0000C~~t N ~ ER~rNOMO(fllnlnti~~COOCDMNInc-MOc-M000 ~ d ~ EHE+9rNMlC)~0r_~I~O'~tf~Nf~NtiN(Orll~Oln rrNNNMM~ ~lf)lnCDtpf~h Op a N M0~~~f~0000COf~(O N H ONO~N Nt~0 ~NCO~t0C0~(ONOOOa000~~taNO(000OiMMO ~ y N O O O O p~~ O N 0 M~~ N ~~~~ OhlnMrrM(OO~OrN~0M00MrOr ti M ~ ~rrNM~~C0~00N V'COOOOMln00r~1~ ~ fA EA ER EA EH EH EA EA EL? r ~ ~3 69 EH b9 (A ER 69 69 EA EA Efl ~ ~ 0NtD0COMl(~(OOOI[>I~MO~rOpfp(pNOO~p~ M ~ ~ ~~MNO~OOM~~CO~AN~~~ ~Y~O~M~~M`-O r 0 0 0 ~ r (B - _ r-NM~fN0M00~Md'~I~Nc-MOrI~I~MLnr~~M C~CflCOCONM(OCOr~f~rlnOlnOh~r00(DNOf~Or ti `-' , p EA fA K3 (f3 Ef3 EA EA EH r ~- r N N M M ~ ~ In CO CD I~ 0 0 0 - EA Efl tf? E!~ Ef3 ER E,9 Eil b9 fA EA EA 69 fA ER EA O ~ ~ ~ r 69 F ON~NrNU~~r(ptl'~(p0C~r00(p~~ti0p ~~ CO O O N N M O M (O tf) N CO 0 r 0 t0 00 I~ (O O N O N 00 ~ Op T ~ ~NM~r~000t~N000 CO (OOMCO tnOf~rN000 l1') ~M~ON(DM000 0001~f~Oln ~ ~ ~- ~ hOlnNr OOO~OrNd.(D000N~OOr~0pN1~M1~N(Or(prCp EA Eo9 EA FA ~} K3 ER b9 6FT r r r N N N M M V ~ t[') tf') (O CO f~ I~ M O `O EF3 K3 EA EA to EH 69 69 69 ff3 EA EH Ef3 69 EA fR b9 ~ a X M0~'~tC>f~0000C0f~(O N c 6 I- ONOInNrNf~0 0N(OHOCOIn(ON00000lntI~L(')NrMONtf>t~ O00OIn~COCO00MM0 Op ~ ~ OOOOp~~ONOM~~N ~~~~ OI~lnMrrM000~OrN~0M00MrOr ~ ~ M ~ rrNM~~O^00Nch(~000Mln00r~1~ ~~e»e»cflc~r~~~~»» »~ »~~N ~~~~~ r Cn- M~ X ~ d'~~'~i ~~~~trt~hd'~~'V'~V V'd'~~~~t`cY V ~'~ I~ ~ !~ h ~ n ~ ~ ti ~ !~ ti n ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ti ~ ~ ~ N lf7 ~"' r r r r r r r r r r r ~- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r (O CD CO CD (O (D CD CO Cfl (O (fl (O (O (D CO (O CO (O (O CJ <D CO (O (O CO (O (/~ EA ER ER 6f) En Efl f~ (!? EA ER fA EA fA EA ER EA Efl 69 ER EA ER EA ffl EA fA (O ~- F' ~ X 07 ~ T ~~~ V'd'd'V ~~trl'~1'~t'~td'd'V V V'~t~~~~~t~Pd' ~ ~ ~ ti r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~~~ ti ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ti ~ ~ ti N ~ t' r r r r r r ~- r r ~- r r r r r ~- r r r r ~- r r r r r o- o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ d X ns y ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EA EA 69 Ef3 EH ER Ef) 69 69 EA EA ~3 ~ EA d3 EA EA EA ~ EA EA Efl EA ER EA EA 0 EA ~ ~ ~(01~0000rNM~tn(Of~0000rN('7~~(D1~0000 O O O O O r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M ~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w, G d L C C O r;, - 0 U O ~ Q ~' ~ F- r M APPENDIX CERTIFICATE The undersigned do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this marketlfeasibility 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 Sarah Gilbreath, Meghan McCarthy and Cindy Phung for their assistance in the preparation of this report. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this report. Respectfully submitted, CAPITOL MARKET RESEARCH, INC. ~' Charles H. Heimsath, AICP President 39 ~~ A~~ ~~~~~~~' ~~~~ ~~ A~'~S Prepared for ,,, ~~« ~~~ inn 1 NTERMtJt1j IGIPAL ,l~.t~~~lC1w~~C1 At1~~t1C~}} I~-~~~~r-t~~t~t~~tl ~~~~~~~ I~c~~l ~1SICt~~` P.O. Box 1618 San Marcos, Texas 78667 by c~~ ~ uir~ss~ li~~. 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78746 and ~# ~ ~ CAPITOL ~~~ MARKET RESEARCH Cc~i~~l Ma~l~~ I~~sec~rch, Ins. 605 Brazos Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-5000 April 10, 2006 ti Austin-San Antonia Commuter Rail Project I N r e R M U w I C I n A L Economic Impact Analysis Executive Summary .. List of Tables Page Table 1 Station Area Impact Analysis: Summary Table 1 Table 2 Station Area Development Potential: Summary Table 5 List of Figures Page Figure 1 Project Map -Locally Preferred Alternative 2 Figure 2 Increment in Value by Station Location 3 Figure 3 Cumulative Tax Rate by Station Location 3 Appendices A Alternative Tax Revenue Rates for Rail District ;, CAPITOL MARKET RESEARCH lNTHRMUNl CIPA4 • - R Austin-San Antonia Commuter Rail Pro%ect Economic Impact Analysis Executive Summary Introduction The Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District <Rail District) was authorized by the 77m Texas State Legislature and was created in 2003. The initial members included the cities of Austin and San Antonio, Travis and Bexar Counties, and VIA and Capital Metro transit authorities. The Rail District is currently conducting planning studies for implementing and operating commuter rail service in a 112-mile corridor that runs from Georgetown, at the north end, to KeIIyUSA in San Antonio, at the south end. The results of this planning work will be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for potential "New Starts" federal funding and will include an evaluation of the economic development potential and a financial plan for the commuter rail system. Funding will also come from local sources. The Station Area Economic Impact Analysis focuses on the economic development potential for 15 station locations in the corridor and addresses the potential for tax base enhancement and revenue generation at each station location. Under the enabling legislation, the Rail District may create Tax Increment Finance (TIF) districts for each station area. Revenues from these TIF districts can be used to help pay for station construction, infrastructure upgrades and the operation of the commuter rail service. Consequently, it is important to quantify this potential revenue stream and calculate its contribution to the overall financing plan for the commuter rail system. The results of the station area economic impact assessment are summarized in Table 1 below. The revenue calculation for each station location is based upon 30% of the tax revenue increment over 25 years that results from development around the stations. This 30°~ capture rate is the maximum amount allowed under the current legislation and includes all ad valorem taxes with the exception of affected school districts. The revenue estimates also do not include any potential sales tax revenue sharing agreement with the affected cities. Table 1 Station Area Impact Analysis C t Property Potential Station Area urren Value in 2030 Increase in Taxes Property Tax Value Value less ISD Revenue (30%) Georgetown 52,432,882 $301,285,559 $298,852,677 $0.8459 $6,873,291 Round Rock $37,248,059 $107,495,505 $70,247,446 $0.8907 $3,227,736 McNeil Road $1,107,190 $419,369,546 $418,262,356 $1.3662 522,643,597 Braker Lane 567,166,533 $287,198,288 5220,031,755 $1.0981 $12,257,605 35th Street $43,358,457 5356,323,620 $312,965,163 $1.0981 $15,040,301 Seaholm $142,736,610 $689,928,820 $547,192,210 $1.0981 $30,312,463 Slaughter Lane $41,796,175 $462,827,707 $421,031,532 $1.0981 $12,539,042 Kyle-Buda 5610,449 $389,621,229 $389,010,781 50.7951 $8,400,021 San Marcos $36,296,335 $353,914,523 $317,618,188 $0.9340 $11,383,019 New Braunfels $18,479,540 5125,340,823 $106,861,283 $0.8272 $4,159,574 Schertz $6,624,636 $182,290,030 $175,665,394 $0.6113 $2,934,856 Loop 1604 55,182,294 $210,729,165 $205,546,872 $1.3249 $10,153,697 Loop 410 $17,324,833 $251,488,924 $234,164,091 51.2771 $11,341,315 San An. CBD $23,360,365 $294,187,758 $270,827,393 $1.2771 $9,778,935 KeIIyUSA $1,468,300 52,722,146 $1,253,846 $1.2734 $56,158 Total $445,192,658 $4,434,723,643 $3,989,530,987 $1.05 $161,101,636 Source: Capitol Market Research, April 20, 2006 ;, CAPITOL MARKET RESEARCH ,~ ~ Austin-San Antonia Commuter Rail Project I N T E N fA U N (C 1 PA L Economic Impact Analysis Executive Summary Figure 1 Project Map .~ ~° ~, ~CEOf~GE'F~ fV'~ ~~r ~- _ 1. ~~--~. .~ r - , ~~~--,, -, ~r~ Ct1MMtltEA wut, ~"~.~~~ _= -„ -~` "r"`:~ ~TAY40R ~ pOTENiIAL STATION LOCATIONS f'; ~,~ ,v '' J~, ax y 1 rZ~~ / c~`` ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~' P LUGE~iYILLE ~~~r~ r ',` , .,_ C~11~~ '' /~U`'~~f~~l~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ 4 '. ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ t4 ~ ~(1 h j ,^, . ,~;~ ~ °'~ ~ ~ SM MLLE ~ `' . ~'~~~`~ ~+~~t r / '`~ ~, ~ SAN ~~ tiy~ i ~ ,~~, ~~,.~ ~ f .r~ ~ ~ 1 ~-=. ~~--. ` --,`;NEW :f ' ~ ~~, ,`~~r ~ ,f,. ~~~~BRAUNFEL-~ ~ /.~.,~p, ~`~ t~: Y" , ~ • : SEG~1fN ~ ~_ '~ _ 1 L~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~r • ~`~. ~C3 ~~ ~- I ~ -ri ~ ~~-,, _ ~ -5 1 ~ ~`. ~ ~ y. ~ ~ ~~11 ~GUAOI1CttP,E G10._~~ l'.f-. / ~~y~,Y•-~14 ~-~~ 7.' _ t,v/~j~~~~~]~'.,.,._~ ~`, IIYHSQY;~G v ,{ NN ~ r ~r` ~ .~'r n __ ~"~ r ~~,~~ r ,.~~ -„ i 1, ` '~ {. f stir ~' ~, r ~ ~ ~1 a ~ ADOPTED LOCALLY /~ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE t~'~ JUNE 3, 2Q05 2 CAPITOL If MARKET RESEARCH ~;a Austin-San Antonia Commuter Rail Project N T ~ a N u N ~ ~ ~ P a ~ Economic Impact Analysis Executive Summary Transit-Oriented Development The concentration of land uses near transit stations, generally referred to as "Transit-Oriented Development° (fOD), is intended to be a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment where people can live, work, shop and be entertained within easy access to transit facilities. Because access to transit services brings people to the station area, the prospect for economic development within a 1,500-foot radius of the station is enhanced relative to other land parcels in the market area. The increased accessibility offers an opportunity to develop housing at higher density than might otherwise be feasible, while also encouraging a broader mix of uses. Overall, the benefits of TOD include the development of underutilized land uses, an increase in transit ridership, expansion of retail sales in the market area and increased local tax base. ~~~~ '~•. Green Space ~ , J~ ' ~~,, i r'' u, ' ~ ~ ` ~~ ~_+ l~~ `'r b~ r.1 3 sG~~ ^ , `` ~~Cornmungjrt~ + _~..-~ ~ yt~blic Plate ~ k ~- ~ f:•~ {.~ z~i ~,~ ~,~I r.;~ -;~ Pedestrian Sheet The development of a Station Area (TOD) Development plan must respect the market forces active in the area and at the subject sites. The analysis conducted by Capitol Market Research (CMR) establishes a framework for determining the scale of development and likely mix of uses that will develop around the stations. The increment in development value (over the base year value) varied widely from one station to another, based on the market opportunities and development constraints present at each station location. In addition, the variance in tax rates among various jurisdictions had a significant impact on the potential for generating revenue for the Rail District. TIF Revenue Potential Table 1 indicates the total revenue potential from property tax increments of $161.1 million based on an increase in assessed value of $3.99 billion, over the next 25 years. The average increment in value is $265.9 million per station, but the increment ranges from $547.2 million at the Seaholm Station in downtown Austin to $1.3 million at the station located near KeIIyUSA. Figure 2 shows that stations located at "Greenfield" locations had more potential for value enhancement, while "Redevelopment" infill locations offered fewer opportunities due primarily to the presence of existing single-family neighborhoods within the '/o-mile radius. The most notable exception to this rule is at the Seaholm Station in downtown Austin, where several dense infill developments are planned in close proximity to the station platform. Most of the sites in the corridor are infill/redevelopment sites; however seven of the 15 stations are Greenfield locations (Georgetown, McNeil, Braker Lane, Slaughter Lane, Kyle-Buda, Schertz and Loop 1604). Figure 3 shows the variance in the cumulative tax rates for each station location. The highest tax rate ($1.3662) is at the McNeil Road station, which has City of Austin and Williamson County taxes. The lowest rate is in Schertz ($0.6113), which has city and Comal County taxes. Consequently, the variance in value increment combined with the variance in tax rate yields a very wide range in potential for rail district revenue enhancement, 3 CAPITOL ,. MARKET RESEARCH ~, 'r Austin-San Antonia Commuter Rail Pro%ect N T e ~ ~, ~ N ~ ~ ~ P,- ~ Economic Impacf Analysis Executive Summary Figure 2 Increment in Value by Station Location y $soo 0 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 o v- a• o• e~ a 5 ~y ~ o e~o~ moo e\Q- o`~, y~e ~ro~F ~e`~c ~Ja aNo Jcs~e ar~~ ^60 o Q~~ GAO e~JSP G~ocA ~oJCa ~o~ 0~a~ ~y~•o ~~ `~JAr ~~~~ y~ ~` ~~ca g ~ooQ ~ o ~~Q<.• ~~ 5 ~e 5 Figure 3 Cumulative Tax Rate by Station Location $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 $1.10 $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.50 ov- ~a- ~c- ~~ ee~ ~co aa 5 o• ~y ^~ ~~ p~' AO 5P e` ~o e\ ~o 5~`~ o ro J `~ `~ ~o a ~ ~ a ° ~ e ^6 Q 'c G J ~ `A ,c Ca o~ a~ le ~ ~ ~. aJ oo ~ oQ 5o ~\ ~ ~~ ~oJ ~ 0~ aJ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~o ~ G \ 5 ~ ~ e ~ 5 ~ 4 CAPITOL - ;, MARKET RESEARCH