Oakdale TIF Application 4.25.13 - Final

Oakdale - Lake
Linganore
Tax Increment
Financing Application
FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND
APRIL 25, 2013
______________________________________________________
APPLICANTS:
Oakdale Investments, LLC
ADDRESS:
1355 Beverly Road

Suite 240
McLean, VA 22101
PHONE:
(703) 734-9730
FAX:
(703) 734-0322
CONTACT:
Jason Wiley, jwiley@elmstreetdev.com

John Clarke, jclarke@elmstreetdev.com
OAKDALE-LAKE LINGANORE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING APPLICATION
As stated in the Frederick County Application for Tax Increment Financing ("TIF"),
Funding infrastructure is a significant challenge to the smart and managed growth
of Frederick County. The purpose of designating Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
districts is to provide another tool for the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) to finance public infrastructure in commercial and certain residential
projects. TIF districts are located on land zoned commercial/industrial and
planned unit development (GC, GI, LI, ORI, MXD, MM, PUD or equivalent
zoning in municipalities) that is within mile of major or minor arterial routes or
expressways or within a municipality. TIF projects that are primarily residential
do not have the constraints of being near arterial routes or expressways. It is
intended that TIFs would be used as part of an overall funding package for
projects that benefit citizens and add significant income and property tax revenues
to Frederick County.
These requirements must be provided as a base of information for the Countys evaluation of the
feasibility of a TIF as a mechanism to fund public infrastructure improvements in connection
with private developer projects. The authority to make legislative findings and determinations
necessary for a particular project is vested solely in the BOCC. A TIF is not a right under
Maryland or Frederick County law and meeting any requirements set forth herein shall not create
a right or entitlement for the Applicant(s).
For the purpose of this application, the term development includes all public infrastructure and
private development within the TIF district proposed by the Applicant. The term Private
Development refers to the development within the TIF District which will not be financed by
the incremental taxes. Accordingly, only public infrastructure will qualify for funding with
incremental taxes.
(1) Provide relevant information on the Applicant's background and development
experience.
The Applicants for this TIF is Oakdale Investments, LLC, hereinafter referred to as Oakdale.
Oakdale is a joint venture of Elm Street Communities, Inc. and NVR, Inc.
Elm Street Communities, Inc. is the one of the largest land developers in the Washington and
Baltimore metropolitan areas and the State of Maryland. Since its founding in 1977, Elm Street
Development has developed over 30,000 residential units and millions of square feet of
commercial property. Elm Street Communities, Inc. has been involved in the entitlement and
development of over 5,000 residential units in Frederick County over the past decade. Privately
held by its principals, Elm Street Communities, Inc. has offices in McLean, VA, Ellicott City,
MD and Annapolis, MD. More information on Elm Street Communities, Inc. can be found at
www.elmstreetdev.com.
Page 2
NVR, Inc. is the largest homebuilder in the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan area and in
Frederick County, building homes under the Ryan Homes and NVHomes brand names. NVR,
Inc. homebuilding operations serve over 25 metropolitan areas in more than fifteen states,
including Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and Tennessee. Founded in 1948
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to provide housing in the expanding post-war economy, Ryan Homes
has constructed more than 365,000 homes. Today, Ryan Homes offers housing styles to suit a
wide range of consumers needs, including single-family, townhouse or garden condominium.
NVR, Inc. is a publicly held company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Headquartered
in Reston, Virginia, NVR, Inc. has a division office in Frederick and is one of the top 20
employers in Frederick County with its building products group in Thurmont. More information
on NVR, Inc. can be found at www.nvrinc.com.
(2) Provide resumes for the Applicant's partners and consultants involved or proposed to
be involved in the projected noting relevant experience on similar projects (i.e., civil
engineer, land use planner, Applicant's legal counsel, Applicant's financial advisor).
Provide a contact person, address, office telephone, email address and FAX for each.
Civil Engineer:
Harris, Smariga Associates
Chris Smariga
125 S Carroll St
Frederick, MD 21701
Office Telephone: (301) 668-4422

Office FAX: (301) 668-4422
Email: csmariga@harrissmariga.com
Harris, Smariga Associates has for many years been a leading engineering and planning firm in
Frederick County. In addition to representing the owners of the Lake Linganore for over 40
years, Harris, Smariga Associates has worked on many of the largest real estate developments in
Frederick, including the following:
Riverside Corporate Park

Westview South
Tuscarora Creek
Traffic Consultant:
The Traffic Group
Joe Caloggero, PE, PTOE, PTP
9900 Franklin Square Dr
Suite H
Baltimore, MD 21236

Office FAX: (410) 931-6601
Email: jcaloggero@trafficgroup.com
The Traffic Group, Inc., is a traffic engineering and transportation planning specialty firm with
offices in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Arkansas, and New York. The Traffic Group, Inc.,
provides consulting services on the movement of vehicles and pedestrians, roadway and parking
Page 3
lot design, and traffic engineering. The Traffic Group, Inc. has worked on over 6,000 projects.
Projects similar to Lake Linganore include:
Jefferson Technology Park, Frederick County

Riverside Corporate Park, Frederick County
Ft. Meade Master Plan, Anne Arundel County
Legal Counsel:
Miles & Stockbridge
John Stalfort
1801 K Street, NW
Suite 421 L
Washington, DC 20006

Office FAX: (410) 698-4490
Email: jstalfor@milesstockbridge.com
Miles & Stockbridge P.C. has been a leading law firm in the mid-Atlantic region since the firm
was founded in 1932. Miles & Stockbridge P.C. represents a wide array of companies from
different industries. Miles & Stockbridge P.C. has worked on several cases involving real estate
transactions, land use and development including the following:
Villages of Lake Linganore, Lake Linganore CDA

Villages of Urbana, Urbana Mixed Use Development CDA
Jefferson Technology Park, Jefferson Technology Park Mixed Use Development TIF & CDA
Brunswick Crossing CDA
Land Use Counsel:

Krista A. McGowan, LLC
Krista A. McGowan
228 North Second Street
Oakland, MD 21550
Krista A. McGowan, a former principal with Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., has been representing
clients in land use and entitlement matters in Frederick County since 1986. She has worked on
many cases involving real estate transactions, land use and development in Frederick County
including the following:
Villages of Urbana PUD and Urbana Mixed Use Development

Jefferson Technology Park, Mixed Use Development
Spring Ridge PUD
Page 4
Financial Consultant:
MuniCap, Inc.
Keenan Rice
8965 Guilford Road
Suite 210
Columbia, MD 21046

Office FAX: (410) 730-5703
Email: keenan.rice@municap.com
MuniCap, Inc. is a public finance consulting firm that specializes in tax increment financing and
special districts. MuniCap, Inc. has provided assistance on over 200 projects nationwide. The
following is a sample of similar projects in which MuniCap, Inc. has assisted:
Jefferson Technology Park TIF & CDA, Frederick, Maryland

Villages of Urbana CDA, Frederick, Maryland
Villages of Lake Linganore CDA, Frederick, Maryland
Mosaic at Merrifield, Fairfax, Virginia
(3) List all owners of the property proposed to be included in the TIF District. If the
Applicant does not hold legal title to the property described in number 4 below, describe
the Applicants interest in all property to be included within the TIF district.
Oakdale Investments, LLC or Lake Linganore Association, Inc. are the current title owners of all
property within the proposed TIF District. Oakdale Investments, LLC reserves the right to
transfer title to any property with the proposed TIF District or assign their rights under this
application or other TIF related documents, subject to County approval, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
(4) Describe the current land use and proposed project, including the location, size and
scope and phasing of the project. Specifically identify residential development, if any, to be
included in the project. Will any of the residential development qualify as affordable
housing components? Include a description of any proposed donated land to be designated
for schools, parks, etc. Define the boundaries of the proposed TIF area by address, tax
map, and parcel number(s). Include a map of the proposed TIF area and the zoning (GC,
GI, LI, ORI, MXD, MM, PUD or equivalent zoning in municipalities) and, for primarily
commercial projects, describe the location as satisfying the requirement to be within mile
of expressways or major or minor arterial routes. Identify the residential participation, if
any. (Note that TIF projects that are primarily residential are not subject to the same
location constraints as TIF projects that are primarily commercial.)
Current Land Use:
The property proposed to be included in the TIF district contains approximately 1,560 acres of
land and constitutes most of the remaining undeveloped land in the Eaglehead at Lake Linganore
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The land is currently used for agricultural purposes.
Page 5
Location:
The property is located on the north side of Maryland Route 144, the south side of Gas House
Pike, the east side of Linganore Road, and the west of Maryland Route 75, in the New Market
Election District, Frederick County, Maryland. A location map is shown in Exhibit A below.
Exhibit A
Location Map
Page 6
Regionally, the development is located eight miles from downtown Frederick, 45 miles from
Baltimore, 50 miles from Washington, D.C., 147 miles from Philadelphia, and 230 miles from
New York City. A regional location map is shown in Exhibit B below.
Exhibit B
Regional Location Map
Proposed Project:
The property is intended to be developed as a combination of residential and commercial uses.
Projected residential product types include single family detached units, townhouse units, twoover-two condominiums units, and multi-family rental units. The projected residential product
mix is shown in the table below.
Residential Product Types
Single family detached
Townhouse
Condos (2 over 2)
Multi-family rental
Total
Page 7
Units
1,450
1,385
200
200
3,235
In addition, 200,000 square feet of commercial space is proposed. The proposed commercial uses
include anchor space, in-line retail space and office space. The projected square feet per
commercial product type is shown in the table below.
Commercial Product Types
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
Square Feet
60,000
80,000
60,000
200,000
A site plan of the proposed Oakdale-Lake Linganore development is included below as Exhibit
C.
Exhibit C
Site Plan
The Oakdale-Lake Linganore development is proposed to be developed in phases by differing

neighborhoods. The differing neighborhoods, proposed product type, and date of delivery is
shown in the table on the following page. The information in the table is subject to change due to
the Applicant's ability to transfer units between and among various neighborhoods.
Page 8
Date of
Development Type
Completion
Woodridge
Residential
2020
Townhouse
2018
Sub-total Woodridge
Westridge
Residential
2033
Townhouse
2033
Sub-total Westridge
Hamptons West
Residential
2023
Townhouse
2023
Sub-total Hamptons West
Hamptons East
Residential
2028
Townhouse
2028
Sub-total Hamptons East
Town Center
Residential
2038
Townhouse
2038
Condos (2 over 2)
2034
Multi-family rental
2025
Sub-total residential
Commercial
Anchor
2018
In-line retail
2028
Office
2028
Sub-total commercial
Total Town Center
Alpine
Residential
2033
Other Projects
Residential
2022
Townhouse
2033
Sub-total Other Projects
Total
Units
Property Area1
Avg. Gross
SF Per Unit2
GSF
100
50
150
3,000
2,000
300,000
100,000
400,000
300
100
400
3,000
2,000
900,000
200,000
1,100,000
300
150
450
3,000
2,000
900,000
300,000
1,200,000
300
135
435
3,000
2,000
900,000
270,000
1,170,000
300
800
200
200
1,500
3,000
2,000
1,800
1,200
900,000
1,600,000
360,000
240,000
3,100,000
60,000
80,000
60,000
200,000
3,300,000
100
3,000
300,000
50
150
200
3,235
3,000
2,000
150,000
300,000
450,000
7,920,000
1,500
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC.

Additional information needed to project gross square feet per unit.
Page 9
A site plan illustrating the differing neighborhoods is shown below in Exhibit D.

Exhibit D
Site Plan By Neighborhood
The project does not include an affordable housing component. Instead, the Applicant may pay a
per dwelling unit payment in lieu for all residential units in the PUD subject to the Countys
Moderately Priced Dwelling Units regulations (MPDU) codified as Chapter 1-6A of the
Frederick County Code.
The Applicant proposes to donate the following parcels of land within the project to the County,
in accordance with the provisions of a proposed Development Rights and Responsibilities
between the Frederick Board of County Commissioner's (BOCC) and the Applicant:
1.
The Applicant shall provide an elementary school site, containing up to 15 acres of land,
at one of four possible locations within the proposed TIF District - Westridge, Woodridge,
Hamptons East or Hamptons West. A school site shall be identified by the Applicant and the
Frederick County Board of Education (BOE) after a review of the four potential sites based on
topography, developability, phasing of project infrastructure and the BOEs timing requirements.
2.
The Applicant shall make reasonable efforts to work with the County in designing the
Town Center so as to accommodate a County public library to be located in the area of the Town
Center. The final location may be wholly or partially within the proposed TIF District.
Page 10
Applicant agrees to identify a site acceptable to the County within the Town Center of
approximately 1.5 to 2.5 acres in size, to be dedicated to the County. The determination of
whether a library site will be situated in the Town Center shall be made at the time of the
Preliminary Plan or Site Plan approval for the Town Center.
3.
The Applicant shall designate and eventually convey to Frederick County a minimum
three acre, buildable site that meets Frederick County Division of Fire and Rescue guidelines for
a fire and rescue station in the Hamptons West section of the proposed TIF District. Conveyance
of this site will occur in conjunction with Phase II Preliminary Plan or Site Plan approval for any
development in Hamptons West.
TIF Boundary:
The proposed Oakdale-Lake Linganore TIF District is generally bound by Gas House Pike to the
north, Crickenberger Road, Panorama Drive, Hemlock Point Road, Lakeridge Road, Pinehurst
Drive to the east, Interstate 70 to the south and Woodridge Road to the east.
A TIF boundary map is shown below in Exhibit E.
Exhibit E
Tax Increment Financing District Boundary Map
Page 11
Tax Parcels:
A list of tax parcels comprising the proposed Oakdale-Lake Linganore TIF District are included
as Appendix A. The supporting tax parcel map is shown below in Exhibit F. It should be noted
that there are several parcels that were previously subdivided for the purposes of the
homeowners association at Lake Linganore. At the time of subdivision, the Maryland
Department of Assessments and Taxation did not assign tax accounts to homeowner association
parcels. As a result, tax account numbers for those parcels that were originally subdivided for
purposes of the homeowners association are not included in Appendix A.
Exhibit F
Tax Parcel Map
Page 12
Zoning:
Portions of the proposed TIF District containing 431 acres are currently zoned Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and have a valid PUD Phase I Plan. An application to rezone the remaining
923 acres from Agricultural to PUD and obtain approval of a PUD Phase I Concept Plan is
currently pending and is expected to be acted upon by the BOCC no later than June 18, 2013.
A current zoning map and a proposed zoning map are shown below in Exhibits G and H,
respectively. The justification statement for the amendment to the Phase I Plan approval is
provided in Appendix B, attached hereto.
Exhibit G
Current Zoning Map
Page 13
Exhibit H
Proposed Zoning Map
(5) Describe the public infrastructures necessary for the completion of the project.
The roads, water and sewer infrastructure necessary for completion of the entire Oakdale-Lake
Linganore development are described in the Adequate Public Facilities Letter of Understanding
(APFO LOU) attached hereto as Appendix C.
(6) Describe the public infrastructure that is proposed to be funded by the TIF.
The tax increment financing bonds are being issued to finance the costs associated with
constructing the Interstate 70/Meadow Road Interchange. The Interstate 70/Meadow Road
Interchange includes the cost associated with acquiring the right-of-way, sediment and erosion
control, excavating, grading, paving, and striping both the westbound on-ramp and the eastbound
off-ramp, as well as any traffic control and signalization required for the westbound on-ramp and
the eastbound off-ramp. Costs also include construction management, field engineering, survey,
stakeout, and inspections associated with the public improvements being financed by the tax
increment financing bonds. Costs do not include planning, design, and engineering associated
with the public improvements being financed by the tax increment financing bonds. The
Interstate 70/Meadow Road Interchange is being constructed as mandated by the State of
Page 14
Maryland. All actions completed for the purposes of the construction of the Interstate
70/Meadow Road Interchange will adhere to the guidelines provided by the State. As a result, the
details associated with the construction of the Interstate 70/Meadow Road Interchange are
subject to change. The table below illustrates the costs associated with the public improvements
to be financed with special obligation tax increment financing bond proceeds.
Improvement
Roads
I-70/Meadow Road west and east bound ramps
Total public improvements costs to be financed
Total
$20,702,000
$20,702,000
It is important to note that the proposed TIF is not to be used to provide infrastructure
specifically for the development of Oakdale-Lake Linganore. The TIF is proposed to be a tool to
provide funds for the construction of an interchange on I-70 that is needed and will benefit this
area of the County. Section 7 of this application includes a more in-depth discussion of the need
for this interchange in the County. Under the TIF, the developer of Oakdale-Lake Linganore is
responsible to produce additional tax revenue to pay for the interchange.
Maps illustrating the proposed public improvements to be financed by the tax increment
financing bonds are shown on the following page as Exhibit I.
Exhibit I
Public Improvement Maps
Page 15
Page 16
(7) Describe the tangible public benefit of the public infrastructure to residents outside the
proposed TIF district.
Interstate 70 is a major east-west interstate highway that runs from Cove Fort, Utah to a Park and
Ride facility just outside of Baltimore, Maryland. It intersects with numerous other interstate and
United States highways that provide north-south access, including Interstate 270 (providing
access to Washington, D.C.); Interstate 81 (providing access to Pennsylvania, New York, and
Virginia; points north to Canada; and, points south to Tennessee); and U.S. Route 15 (providing
access south to South Carolina and north to New York). Interstate 70 connects to Interstate 270
and U.S. Route 15 within the boundaries of Frederick County, approximately seven miles from
the proposed TIF District, and intersects with Interstate 81 in neighboring Washington County,
Maryland, approximately 28 miles from the project. Interstate 70 is a major carrier of local, state
and interstate commercial and commuter traffic much of which travels through Frederick
County.
Presently, there is a partial interchange along Interstate 70 in the Maryland Route 144/Meadow
Road intersection. This partial interchange includes a westbound Interstate 70 off-ramp and an
eastbound Interstate 70 on-ramp. Today, during the peak hours, local traffic has to travel three to
five miles along the secondary highway system to gain access to movements not provided by the
Maryland Route 144/Meadow Road Interchange. Also, in some instances, travelers have to
backtrack, which adds significant mileage to the everyday commute. Therefore, there are
current deficiencies due to these conditions along the secondary highway system and the existing
full movement interchanges. The lack of full movement intersections causes impacts from the
City of Frederick to the west and to the historic Town of New Market to the east.
Based on regional traffic impact studies, it is noted that with future projections of traffic in the
Frederick area, there will be greater deficiencies at the interchanges both east (Maryland Route
75 in New Market) and west (Maryland Route 144/Quinn Orchard Road and Monocacy
Boulevard in the City of Frederick) of the partial Maryland Route 144/Meadow Road
Interchange. By providing the missing westbound Interstate 70 on-ramp and eastbound
Interstate 70 off-ramp at the Maryland Route 144/Meadow Road Interchange, relief is provided
to the other two existing interchanges for the existing 6,000 regional homes and commercial area
and the future projected 9,000 regional homes, as well as both the existing and future
commercial development. Also, the miles traveled by vehicles will also be reduced to the
everyday commute.
Construction of these ramps will provide significant benefits to many residents of Frederick
County and other travelers whose travel time to and from work or their destination will be
greatly reduced and safety will be greatly enhanced. In conjunction with the ongoing Interstate
70/Interstate 270 projects in Frederick County, which will increase safety and capacity, this is a
natural improvement to move the regional traffic off the local roadway system and onto the
Interstate System where it belongs. An improved regional transportation network will improve
quality of life for numerous Frederick County residents and promote economic development in
the County by encouraging future employers to locate businesses in Frederick County.
Page 17
(8) Describe the Private Development, including identification of uses (i.e., residential,
retail, office, hotel, etc.), the density of each use, and the phasing schedule for the
development.
The proposed Oakdale-Lake Linganore development is shown in the table on the following page.
The table outlines the proposed use, the density of each use, and the timing associated with each
of the proposed neighborhoods of the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development. The phasing of the
public infrastructure to be financed by the special obligation tax increment financing bonds is
shown in the third table in Number 14.
Page 18
Date of
Development Type
Completion
Woodridge
Residential
2020
Townhouse
2018
Sub-total Woodridge
Westridge
Residential
2033
Townhouse
2033
Sub-total Westridge
Hamptons West
Residential
2023
Townhouse
2023
Hamptons East
Residential
2028
Townhouse
2028
Town Center
Residential
2038
Townhouse
2038
Condos (2 over 2)
2034
Multi-family rental
2025
Commercial
Anchor
2018
In-line retail
2028
Office
2028
Total Town Center
Alpine
Residential
2033
Other Projects
Residential
2022
Townhouse
2033
Total
Units
Property Area1
Avg. Gross
SF Per Unit2
GSF
100
50
150
3,000
2,000
300,000
100,000
400,000
300
100
400
3,000
2,000
900,000
200,000
1,100,000
300
150
450
3,000
2,000
900,000
300,000
1,200,000
300
135
435
3,000
2,000
900,000
270,000
1,170,000
300
800
200
200
1,500
3,000
2,000
1,800
1,200
900,000
1,600,000
360,000
240,000
3,100,000
60,000
80,000
60,000
200,000
3,300,000
100
3,000
300,000
50
150
200
3,235
3,000
2,000
150,000
300,000
450,000
7,920,000
1,500

Page 19
(9) Identify the property that is currently in the control of the Applicant via ownership or
option. If under option note the option expiration date and terms.
List Property Under Control of Applicant Via Ownership or Option:
At the time the application is to be submitted, Oakdale Investments, LLC, a Maryland limited
liability company, or Lake Linganore Association, Inc. are the owners of all of the property
subject to this application.
List Expiration Date and Terms for Property Under Option:
No part of the property subject to this application is under option.
(10) Include any drawings or plans which describe, illustrate or define the development.
As previously discussed, the following pages correspond to the drawings or plans associated
with the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development.
Page 6:
Page 7:
Page 8:
Page 10:
Page 11:
Page 12:
Page 13:
Page 14:
Page 15:
Exhibit A: Location map

Exhibit B: Regional location map
Exhibit C: Site plan
Exhibit D: Site plan by neighborhood
Exhibit E: Tax increment financing district boundary map
Exhibit F: Tax parcel map
Exhibit G: Current zoning map
Exhibit H: Proposed zoning map
Exhibit I: Public improvement maps
(11) Is public water and sewer available to serve the proposed development?
The entire Oakdale-Lake Linganore development will be served by public water and sewer. The
project will be served by a network of both public and private water and sewer mains and service
connections. Programmed improvements to the Countys water and sewer systems serving this
region will be provided to the project through developer-funded improvements described in the
APFO LOU.
(12) State separately the costs associated with the development of the public infrastructure
and the Private Development. Identify which of the public infrastructure costs the
Applicant proposes to fund with tax increment and the proposed time frame for repaying
that obligation. Include how public infrastructure or services not financed by the tax
increment will be financed.
Costs associated with the public infrastructure being financed by the tax increment financing
bonds is estimated to be $25,702,000. Costs associated with the private development are
estimated to be in the range of $400,000,000 and will be financed through a combination of
equity financing, conventional bank financing, potential CDA bonds and lot sales.
Page 20
(13) Provide an amortization schedule of the proposed TIF debt together with the
anticipated incremental property taxes. (The coverage must be equal to or exceed 150
percent for each year.) Use a reasonably conservative estimate of the current market
interest rate. The maximum term of the amortization schedule is 30 years.
Please see Schedule XII: Projected Payment of Debt Service and Debt Service Coverage Portion Repaid by Tax Increment and Special Tax B Revenues of Appendix D, attached hereto,
for an illustration of the projected incremental real property taxes and the net annual debt service
on the proposed tax increment financing bonds. A coupon rate of 6.5% is assumed based on
current market conditions. As illustrated on Schedule XII, there is debt service coverage greater
than 150% each year.
(14) Provide a proposed timeframe through the completion of the construction of both
public infrastructure and Private Development. This schedule should include but not be
limited to the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
Establishment of the TIF district

Establishment of the CDA
Completion of appraisals
Completion of market studies
Completion of Engineers report
Completion of State Highway Administration approvals, if necessary
Beginning of construction of public infrastructure
End of construction of public infrastructure (in the event the construction
period for the public infrastructure exceeds two years, more than one debt
issue may be necessary)
Beginning of construction of Private Development
End of construction of Private Development
Completion of regulatory approvals, if any
Completion of zoning changes, if needed
A schedule outlining the Tax Increment Financing and associated Community Development
Authority process is shown in the table on the following page.
Page 21
Action
Prepare County Resolution and Ordinance
Prepare Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes (RMA) and Special Tax Report
(STR)
Public hearing with County Council; Adopt County Resolution and Ordinance creating the
District and authorizing the issuance of bonds
Select underwriter
Due diligence checklist distributed
Prepare Market Study
Prepare Engineer's Report
Prepare Appraisal
Prepare Assessed Value and Tax Increment Report
Prepare trust indenture and forms of first tranche of bonds
Prepare construction, acquisition, and funding agreement
Select trustee
Prepare forms of legal opinions and other documents
Prepare preliminary offering memorandum (PLOM)
Prepare bond purchase agreement (BPA)
Send term sheet to potential investors and prepare short list of target investors
Site visit with potential investors
Price first tranche of bonds
Prepare final limited offering memorandum
First tranche of bonds closing
A schedule illustrating the land use approvals are shown in the table below.
Approval
Development Rights and Responsiblities Agreement
PUD Phase I Concept Plan
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Stormwater Management Plan
Forest Convervation Plan
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Woodridge
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Town Center
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Town Center Commercial
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Hamptons West
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Alpine1
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Hamptons East
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Westridge
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Nightingale
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Pinehurst
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Vistas of Pinehurst
Phase II Preliminary/Site Plan - Eaglestream
1
Anticipated Date
June 2013
June 2013
June 2013
December 2013
December 2013
June 2014
June 2014
June 2014
December 2014
December 2015
December 2015
June 2017
June 2017
June 2017
June 2017
uncertain
Related site improvement plans will be obtained following Phase II approval.
Page 22
Anticipated Date
2013
2013
2013
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
A schedule illustrating the construction and development schedule are shown in the table below.
Action
Final SHA and FHWA approvals
Begin private construction
Begin construction of westbound I-70 ramp
Complete construction of westbound I-70 ramp
Begin construction of eastbound I-70 ramp
Complete construction of eastbound I-70 ramp
Complete private construction
Anticipated Date
2016-2017
2016
2018
2019
2023
2025
2038
(15) Provide an engineers report that substantiates the cost of development of both the
public improvements and the private development.
Both an engineer's report and a traffic study are included as Appendix E and F, attached hereto.
(16) Indicate whether State funding will be needed for the development or for supporting
infrastructure improvements, and if so, whether the development is located within a
priority funding area. Do any boundaries have to be revised to qualify for a priority
funding area?
Necessary State Funding for Development or Infrastructure Improvements:
No state funding is sought for the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development.
Development Located within a Priority Funding Area:
All of the property is located within a Priority Funding Area as designated by the State of
Maryland Department of Planning pursuant to the 1997 Priority Funding Areas Act. A map
illustrating the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development designated as a Priority Funding Area is
shown on the following page in Exhibit J.
Page 23
Exhibit J
Priority Funding Map
Boundaries Needed to be Revised to Qualify for a Priority Funding Area:

No boundaries of the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development need to be revised to qualify for a
Priority Funding Area.
(17) Describe why the Development will not be economically feasible without the
establishment of a TIF district and how much TIF support will be required to make the
development economically feasible? State the need and justification for TIF assistance.
Substantiate that other alternative methods of financing have been thoroughly explored.
As stated in Section 6 of the application, the proposed TIF is not to be used to provide
infrastructure specifically for the development of Oakdale-Lake Linganore. The TIF is proposed
to be a tool to provide funds for the construction of an interchange on I-70 that is needed and will
benefit this area of the County.
Tax increment financing in the amount of approximately $32,000,000 is being sought to provide
for the construction of the Meadow Road/Interstate 70 Interchange. Although the Meadow
Road/Interstate 70 Interchange has long been a priority of both Frederick County and the State of
Maryland, the funds have not been available to complete the interchange. The TIF provides the
opportunity for the County to use the development of Oakdale-Lake Linganore to produce
additional tax revenues to pay for the construction of the interchange.
Page 24
a.
Describe your efforts to date to privately finance the public infrastructure.

Since this public infrastructure is contemplated in conjunction with a
Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement which is under negotiation
and expected to be completed in June 2013, it has been premature to seek out
financing sources until the agreement is completed.
An offsite interchange on an interstate highway would be a very difficult
improvement to privately finance.
b.
Describe private financing that is currently in place or planned to be in place.

Equity financing through Oakdale Investments, LLC is invested for the land.
Debt financing for development activities has been provided by Cardinal Bank up
to this point.
c.
Provide a list of all development costs and estimated revenues through the
proposed term of the financing.
Development costs for the site development are expected to be in the range of
$215,000,000. Financing will be provided by builder deposits, bank debt
financing, community development authority special taxes and owner equity. In
order to make the project viable, revenues must exceed expenses; however, lot
sales revenue over the course of a 25 year buildout are expected to be volatile and
are difficult to accurately estimate.
d.
Provide an explanation of the circumstances generating the need for TIF

financing in the absence of commercial/private financing.
The proposed TIF financing for this public infrastructure is justified by the fact
that the public infrastructure is not required by the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance which governs the road improvements that must be made by a
developer to add capacity to the road network needed to support the project. Less
costly improvements to the existing local road network could be made by the
developer to add capacity for the added traffic that the development will generate.
However, due to the fact that the missing Meadow Road/Interstate 70 ramps have
been a high priority of both Frederick County and Maryland State Highway
Administration (SHA) for decades, the public sector agencies have asked the
developer to consider building the missing ramps as a Public-Private Partnership
(PPP), facilitated through TIF financing. As a result of the new interchange ramp
improvements, the surface road network along Maryland Route 144 from
Frederick to New Market will be vastly improved, which will facilitate economic
development around both municipalities that otherwise would be hampered due to
limitations on the local roads.
Page 25
(18) Identify sources, amounts, and status of all debt financing and/or equity funding
available to complete the project. Does the Applicant anticipate the debt to be privately
financed by a construction lender or developer or publicly sold? Please prepare debt
financing information in the following format.
At this time specific information related to the financing is not available to complete the
information below.
Source
Amount
Term
Status
Contact
Person
Contact
Telephone #
TIF and CDA special obligation bonds are expected to be publicly sold. All other sources of
financing are expected to be private. The projected tax increment financing special obligation
bond sources and uses is shown in the table below.
TIF/Special Tax B Bonds
Series A
Series B
Proceeds
Proceeds
Total
Proceeds
Sources of funds:
Total bond proceeds
Interest earned in the improvement fund
Total sources of funds
$6,454,000
$23,875
$6,477,875
$25,498,000
$47,357
$25,545,357
$31,952,000
$71,232
$32,023,232
Uses of funds:
Public improvements
Issuance costs
Underwriter's discount
Capitalized interest
Reserve fund
Rounding
Total uses of funds
$5,000,000
$300,000
$96,810
$434,933
$645,400
$732
$6,477,875
$20,702,000
$300,000
$382,470
$1,610,320
$2,549,800
$766
$25,545,357
$25,702,000
$600,000
$479,280
$2,045,253
$3,195,200
$1,499
$32,023,232
(19) Provide evidence that substantiates that the Applicant has sufficient financial
resources to obtain the remaining private financing for the project.
As previously described in Number 1, Elm Street Communities, Inc. is the one of the largest land
developers in the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan areas and the state of Maryland. Since
its founding in 1977, Elm Street Development has developed over 30,000 residential units and
millions of square feet of commercial property. Elm Street Communities, Inc. has been involved
in the entitlement and development of over 5,000 residential units in Frederick County over the
past decade.
(20) What is the current zoning of the property described in number 4 above? Is the
property currently zoned for the proposed use? If not, what zoning change(s) or
exception(s) will be required? What process is needed for these changes and what is the
project time line in that approval process?
Page 26
Portions of the proposed TIF District containing 431 acres are currently zoned Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and have a valid PUD Phase I Plan. An application to rezone the
remaining 923 acres from Agricultural to PUD and obtain approval of a PUD Phase I Concept
Plan is currently pending and is expected to be acted upon by the BOCC no later than June 18,
2013.
(21) Will the proposed project result in the relocation of residential, commercial or
industrial facilities? If so, discuss the nature of any anticipated relocations.
The Oakdale-Lake Linganore development will not result in the relocation of residential,
commercial or industrial facilities.
(22) What other County or State land development approvals will be required for the
development? Which ones have been obtained? What is the anticipated schedule for the
remaining ones?
County or State Land Development Approval Requirements:
The Applicant must obtain Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) approval for the
project and Phase II Preliminary/Site Plans for each section of the Oakdale-Lake Linganore
development. The Applicant must also obtain approved Forest Conservation Ordinance (FCO)
Stormwater Management and Site Improvement Plans for each section of the project.
Access permits for construction of road improvements that will access State of Maryland roads
and highways must be obtained from the SHA prior to development of individual sections of the
project in accordance with the APFO approval.
No other approvals or permits are required by the State.
County or State Land Development Approval Requirements Obtained:
No development approvals have been obtained as of the date of this application.
County or State Land Development Approval Requirements Need to be Obtained:
Please see the response to Number 14 above.
Schedule for Approval Requirements That Need to be Obtained:
(23) Justify the project's compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The property is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the 2010 County
Comprehensive Plan, amended September, 2012. The PUD district is generally restricted to
Page 27
those areas that are designated for residential use on the Comprehensive Plan. The LDR
designation permits densities between one and four units per acre. The density of the project will
be within this range. The project is consistent with numerous policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, as described in Section X of Appendix B, attached hereto. Completion of
the project with the required public infrastructure, including the Interstate 70/Meadow Road
ramps, will allow the 40+ year old Lake Linganore PUD to be completed and provide numerous
benefits to residents throughout Frederick County.
(24) Provide a market study acceptable to the County supporting the economic feasibility
of the Private Development. Discuss and document information used to describe the
market feasibility of each element of the proposed project.
The Lake Linganore PUD is expected to build out over the next 25 years. Oakdale Investments
will be developing up to 3,235 additional residential units and 200,000 square feet of commercial
space. The residential units will be a mix of large single family detached, small single family
detached, active adult villas, townhouses, two-over-two condominiums, condominium flats and
rental apartments. The future assessable tax base of the new portions of Lake Linganore PUD
are expected to be in excess of $900,000,000 at full buildout.
The mix of units will be 1,450 single family detached, 1,385 single family attached (includes
villas, townhomes), 200 two-over-twos and 200 rental apartments. The information for each
product type below illustrates the differing qualities of the property and provides associated
conceptual site plans. All information provided is for illustrative purposes only.
Page 28
Large Single Family (600 units)

Lot Width:
60-80
Lot Square Footage:
8,000-10,000
House Square Footage:
2,000-3,000
Improved Value:
$400,000-$500,000
Comparables:
Woodridge Ryan Homes from the 400s
Aspen Ryan Homes from the 400s
Royal Oaks Oak Hill Properties from the $400s
Page 29
Small Single Family (850 units)

Lot Width:
50-65
Lot Square Footage:
6,000-8,000
1800-2500
Improved Value:
$350,000-$400,000
Comparables:
Orchard at New Market, Miller and Smith from the $350s
Page 30
Active Adult Villa (385 units)

Lot Width:
30-40
Lot Square Footage:
3,000-4,000
1800-2200
Improved Value:
$300,000-$350,000
Comparables:
Greenview Ryan from the $300s
Page 31
Townhouse (1,000 units)

Lot Width:
Lot Square Footage:
Improved Value:
Comparables:
18-24
2,000-3,000
1,500-2200,
$225,000-$300,000
Market Square Ryan from the $250s
Linton at Ballenger Drees from the 290s
Page 32
Two-over-Two Condominium (200 units)

Lot Width:
24'
Lot Square Footage:
n/a
1,500-2,500
Improved Value:
$210,000-$250,000
Comparables:
Market Square Ryan from the $240s
Page 33
Rental Apartments (200 units)

Lot Width:
n/a
Lot Square Footage:
n/a
800-1,800
Improved Value:
$140,000-$200,000
Comparables:
Kingsview Village apartment complex sale at $150/sf adjusted for
location
(25) Provide an estimate of any other new taxes and fees to be generated by the
development assuming no change in the Countys income, building excise, and recordation
tax rates and other fees (DPDR, impact, water and sewer, solid waste, etc.) for each year of
the term of the proposed financing obligation.
The table on the following page illustrates the total net fiscal impact to Frederick County on both
an annual and cumulative basis. The cumulative period is for a term of 39 years based on the
time frame in which the two series of tax increment financing bonds will be issued and mature.
Page 34
Surplus real property tax revenues3

Local income tax revenues - residential
Local income tax revenues - commercial
Local recordation tax revenues4
Additional revenues
Frederick County tax revenues
Frederick County expenditures
Net impact to Frederick County
One-time fee revenues5
Total net impact to Frederick County
Annual1
$10,047,395
$7,120,402
$285,453
$1,237,898
$108,784
$18,799,932
($14,321,971)
$4,477,961
$3,503,139
$7,981,101
39 Years2
$361,706,222
$256,334,488
$9,705,387
$44,564,313
$3,916,241
$676,226,651
($515,590,948)
$160,635,703
$129,616,152
$290,251,855
Represents that annual tax revenues generated by the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development at full build-out, full
phase-in (fiscal year 2039-2040), and in today's dollars.
2
Thirty-nine year revenues are shown cumulatively, assuming inflation of two percent annually.
3
Represents the real property tax revenues after debt service has been repaid. Annual surplus real property tax
revenues represent the average annual surplus over the period revenues are generated in today's dollars.
4
Annual local recordation tax revenues represent the average annual local recordation tax revenues over the period
revenues are generated in today's dollars.
5
Annual one-time fee revenues represent the average annual one-time fee revenues over the period revenues are
generated.
The estimated one-time revenues are shown in the table below for a period of 39 years.
Building excise fees2

Impact fees:
Public school fees
Library fees
School construction fees:
Sewer and water fees:
Capacity fees
Meter fees
Solid waste fees:
Residential
Commercial
DPDR/CDD Fees:
Building permit and zoning fees
Plumbing permit and license fees
Electrical permit and license fees:
Residential
Commercial
Total one-time fees to Frederick County
1
39 Years1
$0
$39,011,200
$2,273,315
$27,184,605
$48,056,832
$808,525
$7,289,580
$560,930
$2,486,146
$1,033,666
$862,798
$48,555
$129,616,152
Thirty-nine year revenues are shown cumulatively. See Schedule IX of the one-time
revenues.
2
Pursuant to a revision to the building excise tax ordinance approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on November 1, 2011, the building excise tax rate was reduced to zero for
both residential and non-residential construction.
Page 35
Details related to each of the revenues and expenses shown in the tables above can be found in
Appendix D attached hereto.
(26) Identify any proposed tenants of the development. Have leases been negotiated and
signed? What type of lease is contemplated? What are the lease rates?
Proposed Tenants:
A regional or national grocery store chain will be the likely anchor tenant. A mix of other
tenants will be recruited similar to other neighborhood commercial centers. Likely mixes will
include a bank, gas station, quick-serve restaurants, full-scale restaurants and personal service
providers.
Executed or Negotiated Leases:
There are currently no executed or negotiated leases.
Type of Leases Contemplated:
Ground lease and full-service leases are anticipated.
Lease Rates:
Lease rate are projected to be market based.
(27) List all entities that will own the property after construction of the public
infrastructure is completed.
Oakdale Investments, LLC or successors and assignees.
(28) Describe how the proposed development conforms to the Countys Comprehensive
Plan and zoning regulations.
Please see the responses to Numbers 20 and 23 above.
(29) Provide information on the number, type and wage scales for the jobs to be created
during construction and permanently retained in the TIF district. Classify by County
residents, State residents, and Other.
The table on the following page illustrates the temporary jobs and annual wages generated by the
Oakdale-Lake Linganore project. Temporary jobs are full-time equivalents and assume a oneyear duration. The table on the following page illustrates the jobs and annual wages estimated to
be generated in Frederick County. It has not been determined where employees outside of
Frederick County will reside.
Page 36
Temporary Impacts
Construction related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
Total temporary impacts
Employees assumed to reside in Frederick County1
Total temporary impacts to Frederick County
Jobs
Wages
6,896
3,788
10,684
48.79%
5,213
$363,479,421
$156,533,031
$520,012,452
48.79%
$253,725,465
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application.
The table below page illustrates the permanent jobs and annual wages generated by the OakdaleLake Linganore project. Permanent jobs are full-time equivalents. The table below illustrates the
jobs and annual wages estimated to be generated in Frederick County. It has not been determined
where employees outside of Frederick County will reside. Further information can be found in
Appendix D relating to the temporary and permanent jobs and wages associated with the
Oakdale-Lake Linganore development.
Permanent Impacts
Anchor related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
In-line retail related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
Office related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
Total direct impacts
Total indirect impacts
Total permanent impacts
Employees assumed to reside in Frederick County1
Total permanent impacts to Frederick County
Jobs
Wages
119
35
$4,008,246
$1,295,183
238
38
$4,247,633
$1,391,867
286
169
643
242
885
48.79%
432
$15,448,026
$6,429,580
$23,703,905
$9,116,630
$32,820,535
48.79%
$16,013,858
(30) Will the Private Development qualify for any county, State or Federal tax credits?
The Private Development will not qualify for any County, State or Federal tax credits.
(31) Describe the impact of the TIF district on residential property in proximity to the TIF
district.
The development is consistent with other development patterns in the proximity of the project,
which include residential, neighborhood commercial and institutional uses. No adverse effects
will be caused by the TIF District. Moreover, existing residents in proximity to the TIF District
will benefit greatly from the improved regional road network with the addition of the missing
ramps to Interstate 70 at Meadow Road.
Page 37
(32) Describe the impact of the TIF district on existing businesses in proximity to the TIF
district.
As currently proposed, the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development is to provide 3,235 additional
residential units, along with 200,000 square feet of commercial space. Based on estimates
provided by MuniCap, 8,749 new residents will move to Frederick County as a result of the
Oakdale-Lake Linganore development. These residents will be served by both existing
businesses, as well as the new commercial space proposed for the Oakdale-Lake Linganore
development. Due to the increase in population resulting from the additional units, it is
anticipated that sales for existing businesses will increase. The 200,000 square feet of additional
new commercial space should not adversely affect existing businesses based on the expected
number of new residents generated by the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development.
(33) Describe any known or suspected environmental hazards or contamination on the
property. What remedial action will be required to mitigate the environmental hazards or
contamination?
At this time, there are no known environmental hazards or contamination.
(34) Provide an outline of the costs associated with the development of the proposed
project(s) and related parcel or parcels located within the TIF district. Identify in the
outline those costs you would propose to fund with TIF financing and the proposed
payback time frame.
Please see the responses to Numbers 12 and 13 above.
(35) Identify any proposed tenants of the project. Have leases been negotiated or signed?
What type of lease is contemplated?
(36) Who will own the developed property upon completion of the build out?
Oakdale Investments, LLC or successors and assignees. The residential lots will be transferred
to homebuilders and eventually to residents.
(37) Describe the economic and quality of life benefits of the proposed project to the
County. Describe how the public improvements have application beyond the particular
project.
As currently proposed, the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development is to provide 3,235 additional
residential units, along with 200,000 square feet of commercial space. As a result of the increase
in residential units and commercial space, the County tax base is expected to increase by
approximately $900 million at full buildout. The Oakdale-Lake Linganore development will
provide residents the amenities associated with newly constructed homes, along with open space
Page 38
and access to Lake Linganore. Based on the site's location, residents will have nearby access to
Interstate 70 that provides for an easy commute to downtown Frederick, Baltimore or
Washington, D.C. Upon completion, the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development will have
achieved the kind of planned unit development that was originally envisioned for Frederick
County in the late 1960's.
In addition, the completion of the Oakdale-Lake Linganore development will yield newly
constructed ramps to Interstate 70. These improvements have long been a priority of both
Frederick County and the State of Maryland, as indicated by the project's location within the
Priority Funding Area. The construction of the Interstate 70 ramps will be expedited through the
proposed Oakdale-Lake Linganore TIF. Without the proposed funds from the Oakdale-Lake
Linganore TIF, completion would occur only when other sources of public funding are available.
(38) Include a $10,000 application fee (make checks payable to Treasurer of Frederick
County), together with such deposit as shall be requested by the County to cover costs and
expenses of the County related to evaluation of the application. Acknowledge that $15,000
will be required for administration fees at the time of the TIF approval. A set up fee and
annual administration fee may be added as appropriate. (In addition, the Applicant should
expect to forward fund resources to pay for the Countys Bond Counsel and Financial
Advisor during the application process up to and including the issuance of bonds. These
funds can be reimbursed to the Applicant out of the Cost of Issue portion of the bond
proceeds when the bonds are issued. In the event the bonds are not issued, the Applicant
will not be reimbursed for these expenses of the Countys bond counsel and financial
advisor. These funds can be more than $200,000 depending on the extent of the work
required by the Countys bond counsel and FA.)
The Applicant acknowledges that they will be responsible to reimburse the county for all
relevant expenses related to the issuance of the TIF, which may be reimbursed out of the Cost
of Issue portion of the bond proceeds.
(39) The Applicant must provide credit enhancements and performance and payment
guarantees for the public infrastructure to be financed with TIF bond proceeds in
accordance with the Countys policies for all County-owned public improvements.
Oakdale Investments, LLC or successors and assigns will provide credit enhancements and
performance and payment guarantees in accordance with County policies.
(40) Provide any other information not specifically requested which further supports how
the development meets the TIF guidelines adopted by the County.
Information available upon request.
(41) Provide any other financial, geographical, or logistical information that may be
subsequently requested.
Information available upon request.
Page 39
By signing this application, the Applicant agrees to the following:

1. The Applicant will pay all costs incurred by the county associated with processing this
application, including, without limitation, costs of consultants reviews of financial
data, outside legal counsel, and administrative expenses in reviewing the TIF
application.
2. The Applicant acknowledges the County agrees not to disclose confidential
commercial information clearly marked by the Applicant as such, except as required
by law. The Applicant understands that the County is a government agency which by
law may be required to disclose certain information and that the Applicants
designation of confidentiality is not necessarily conclusive. The Applicant may be
required to provide justification why such material should not be disclosed under
Marylands Public Information Act and/or County law. In the event of a request for
records previously designated by the Applicant as confidential, the County will
endeavor to notify the Applicant so the Applicant may take such action it deems
appropriate to protect its interests, but is not required to file suit (or to assert within
any litigation whether brought by the County or some other person) the confidentiality
of the information.
3. The Applicant certifies that all information provided in this application is accurate to
the best of its knowledge, information and belief.
4. The Applicant acknowledges that it has reviewed the TIF Guidelines.
5. The Applicant acknowledges that the ability to utilize TIF financing is not a right or
entitlement established by either State or County law or the Countys tax increment
financing guidelines.
6. The Applicant acknowledges that the County reserves the right to reject any and all
projects for any reason whatsoever, even those which satisfy all of the criteria without
regard to the viabilities of the project. Furthermore, the County reserves the right to
waiver any nonconformance and approve any project the County deems favorable to
the County.
Applicant:
_____________________________________
By:
________________________________
Name:
________________________________
Title:
________________________________
Page 40
Date:
________________________________
THIS APLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO:

THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
12 EAST CHURCH STREET
WINCHESTER HALL
FREDERICK, MD 21701
Page 41
APPENDIX A
1
Tax Parcels Comprising Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District

Total
2
Value As Of
Land
Account Identifier
Owner
Address
Acreage
27-516610
Lake Linganore Association, Inc.
Eaglehead
12.05
1/1/10
$6,000
27-516629
Eaglehead
16.90
1/1/10
$8,400
27-516645
Eaglehead
478.64
1/1/10
$239,300
Oakdale Investments LLC3
2.00
$0
1.65
$0
21.72
$0
7.81
$0
4.24
$0
6.65
$0
16.23
$0
27-519237
Oakdale Investments LLC
Eaglehead
234.76
1/1/10
$851,200
27-517315
Meadow Road
7.50
1/1/10
$3,700
27-517773
Aspen
8.13
1/1/10
$4,000
27-519210
6719 Coldstream Drive
8.40
1/1/10
$265,600
13-296049
10801 Gas House Pike
5.52
1/1/11
$136,100
13-298130
52.18
1/1/11
$194,700
13-307407
Gas House Pike
49.73
1/1/11
$347,000
13-307415
Gas House Pike
36.08
1/1/11
$153,200
27-519253
Gas House Pike
83.66
1/1/10
$873,900
27-519172
Eaglehead Drive
109.80
1/1/10
$139,100
27-519202
5715 Eaglehead Drive
97.12
1/1/10
$48,500
27-519121
Eaglehead
208.36
1/1/10
$625,000
13-301212
Linganore Road
104.00
1/1/11
$312,000
13-301220
Linganore Road
4.19
1/1/11
$135,900
13-301239
Linganore Road
1.00
1/1/11
$110,000
13-301247
Linganore Road
101.89
1/1/11
$305,600
2.65
$0
27-588759
Woodrise Road
5.60
1/1/10
$0
27-519075
Woodridge
3.13
1/1/10
$1,500
27-533922
Boyers Mills Road
11.53
1/1/10
$57,600
27-544002
6550 North Shore Way
2.76
1/1/10
$99,300
27-517897
Hunter Road
3.82
1/1/10
$1,900
27-518362
Hunter Road
0.60
1/1/10
$300
27-518958
Hunter Isle Court
0.43
1/1/10
$200
27-519245
High Beach Court
9.01
1/1/10
$4,500
27-535062
Eaglehead
29.58
1/1/10
$88,700
27-546080
Sanandrew Drive
2.76
1/1/10
$1,300
27-546099
Sanandrew Drive
1.77
1/1/10
$800
27-546102
Sanandrew Drive
2.17
1/1/10
$1,000
27-546110
Sanandrew Drive
3.05
1/1/10
$1,500
27-546129
Island Road
0.23
1/1/10
$100
27-546137
Island Road
1.08
1/1/10
$500
27-546145
Hook Court
1.14
1/1/10
$500
27-546153
Hook Court
1.17
1/1/10
$500
27-546161
Hook Court
1.24
1/1/10
$600
27-546730
Hunter Road
0.63
1/1/10
$300
1
Total Assessed Value2

Improvement
Assessed Value
$0
$6,000
$0
$8,400
$0
$239,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$851,200
$0
$3,700
$0
$4,000
$12,800
$278,400
$6,100
$142,200
$55,400
$250,100
$0
$347,000
$0
$153,200
$0
$873,900
$0
$139,100
$0
$48,500
$0
$625,000
$0
$312,000
$0
$135,900
$0
$110,000
$0
$305,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,500
$0
$57,600
$0
$99,300
$0
$1,900
$0
$300
$0
$200
$0
$4,500
$0
$88,700
$0
$1,300
$0
$800
$0
$1,000
$0
$1,500
$0
$100
$0
$500
$0
$500
$0
$500
$0
$600
$0
$300
Source: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. Tax parcels comprising the proposed Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District provided by Miles & Stockbridge.
Assumes Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District is created in 2013. As a result, the base value is based on the value as of January 1, 2012. The last triennial reassessment occurred
January 1, 2010 for some parcels and January 1, 2011 for others. As a result, the value is based on the January 1, 2010 or January 1, 2011 value, respectively.
3
According to Miles & Stockbridge, these tax parcels have been provided an account identifier and were originally established to be homeowner's association property. As such, a zero value is assumed.
APPENDIX A
1
Tax Parcels Comprising Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District

Total
Value As Of2
Account Identifier
Owner
Address
Acreage
Land
27-546730
Hunter Road
0.63
1/1/10
$300
27-546749
Mandalong Way
3.50
1/1/10
$1,700
27-546757
Mandalong Way
1.78
1/1/10
$800
27-546765
Mandalong Way
2.16
1/1/10
$1,000
27-546773
Hunter Road
1.81
1/1/10
$900
27-546781
Hunter Road
2.06
1/1/10
$1,000
27-546803
Beauty Point Court
0.27
1/1/10
$100
27-546811
Beauty Point Court
0.68
1/1/10
$300
27-546838
Hunter Road
0.72
1/1/10
$300
27-529402
Hunter Road
0.23
1/1/10
$3,000
27-529410
Hunter Road
0.22
1/1/10
$3,000
27-519199
Boyers Mills Road
40.00
1/1/10
$20,000
Total
1,818.61
$5,052,700
Total Assessed Value2

Improvement Assessed Value
$0
$300
$0
$1,700
$0
$800
$0
$1,000
$0
$900
$0
$1,000
$0
$100
$0
$300
$0
$300
$0
$3,000
$0
$3,000
$0
$20,000
$74,300
$5,127,000
Source: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. Tax parcels comprising the proposed Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District provided by Miles &
Stockbridge.
Assumes Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District is created in 2013. As a result, the base value is based on the value as of January 1, 2012. The last triennial reassessment
occurred January 1, 2010 for some parcels and January 1, 2011 for others. As a result, the value is based on the January 1, 2010 or January 1, 2011 value, respectively.
APPENDIX B
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT FOR
EAGLEHEAD at LAKE LINGANORE PUD
AMENDMENT TO PUD PHASE I PLAN APPROVAL
I.
INTRODUCTION
Oakdale Investments, L.L.C., (Applicant) is the owner of various parcels of land that constitute
the undeveloped portions of the Eaglehead-on-the Lakes Planned Unit Development in the New
Market Planning Region of Frederick County, Maryland (Property or PUD or Project).
Applicant is joined in this application by Carolyn B. Anderson, Jack R. Anderson and Merle A.
Brosius, Trustee, as to a 8.986 acre parcel of undeveloped land owned by them located on the
south side of Gas House Pike within the parcel of land identified in this application as The
Hamptons (referred to herein as the Anderson Property). The Anderson Property is included,
but only to the extent applicable, in the terms Property, PUD and Project in this
application.
The
Property, part of Eaglehead at Lake Linganore PUD (Lake Linganore PUD), the first
PUD in Frederick County, had been zoned PUD from 1967 until 2008.1 Every subsequent
County Comprehensive Plan, up to and including the 2006 New Market Region Plan, confirmed
the Propertys PUD zoning and Low Density Residential (LDR) comprehensive plan
designation.
In November 2006, a newly elected Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) immediately
initiated a review of the recently adopted New Market Region Plan, and on September 2, 2008,
adopted a revised New Market Region Plan that downzoned significant acreage in the PUD that
effectively reduced the developable density. On April 8, 2010, the BOCC adopted a Countywide Comprehensive Plan that downzoned additional land in the PUD, including the Anderson
Property, further reducing development density and property value. Since that time, the
Applicant has sought restoration of all land use entitlements that were removed from the
Property by the 2008 and 2010 downzonings.
Additional acreage was added to the PUD and rezoned by ordinance in 1998.
Pursuant to Applicants request, the BOCC voted to restore LDR comprehensive plan
designation to the Property, to designate the Property as Planned Service on the Water and
Sewerage Plan, and to include the Property in the Linganore/Holly Hills Community Growth
Area on the 2012 Countywide Comprehensive Plan adopted September 13, 2012, by Resolution
12-19. By this application, the Applicant seeks restoration of PUD Phase I zoning and PUD
Phase I Plan approval for all parcels that were downzoned by the 2008 and 2010 downzonings.
This application also seeks restoration of Phase I PUD zoning on a parcel of land in the Lake
Linganore PUD owned by Carolyn Anderson that was also downzoned by the previous Board.
The Applicant has submitted or intends to submit a proposed Development Rights and
Responsibilities Agreement (DRRA) and Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)
Letter of Understanding (LOU) for the Project for consideration by the BOCC pursuant to
Ordinance No. 12-04-599.
II.
PURPOSE AND INTENT
Section 1-19-10.500.1 provides that floating zones are established to provide for new
development and redevelopment within identified growth areas that result in an integrated
mixture of commercial, employment, residential, recreational, civic and/or cultural land uses as
provided within the appropriate Frederick County Comprehensive, Community or Corridor
Plan. These uses are intended to:
(A) Result in an efficient use of land and the efficient extension of public facilities.
Restoration of PUD zoning for the Project will allow the completion of a PUD that has been
under development for over 40 years and is approximately one-third built out. The major water
and sewer infrastructure has already been installed. The Project will utilize existing
infrastructure and community facilities that have excess capacity to serve the Project and will
construct or contribute to the cost of construction of long-programmed public improvements and
private amenities that are currently inadequate, thereby benefitting the entire PUD and
surrounding community. The Town Center portion of the Lake Linganore PUD will consist of a
mix of uses including high density residential and commercial uses.2
(B) Allow innovative design involving flexibility not permitted within Euclidean districts.
The Project design will feature a mix of unit types and density that would otherwise not be
permitted in the Euclidean residential zoning districts. It will also incorporate modifications for
height and setbacks in appropriate locations.
(C) Promote continuity of new development with existing development through building and
site design, including consideration of architectural elements, landscape design, building
placement, and street network.
New sections of the Project will be compatible with the adjoining developed sections of the Lake
Linganore PUD in terms of site design, building architecture, and landscaping elements. Roads
in the new sections will connect to existing roads as shown on the PUD Phase II Plan for the
Project approved by the Frederick County Planning Commission in 2007 and on the Concept
Plan submitted with this application.
(D) Promote building and site design that reduces dependence on vehicular movement
through the provision of bicycle, pedestrian and transit friendly elements which include
transportation circulation networks linking internal and external residential, commercial,
employment areas, and recreation, open spaces and public facilities.
The Project will include a trail system that will connect to the existing trails in the developed
parts of the Lake Linganore PUD. The completed trail system will allow pedestrian and bicycle
access throughout the entire Lake Linganore PUD, including the lakes and other recreational
areas in the community. The Project design will accommodate transit service if it becomes
available in the future.
(E) Result in an integrated mixture of [uses within the Mixed Use Development District and a
mixture of] housing types within the Planned Unit Development District.
The Town Center is not a part of this application since PUD zoning was not removed from that parcel in 2008 or
2010. However, it is an integral part of the Applicants project and is referenced several times in this Justification
Statement for contextual purposes.
The Project will contain an integrated mixture of residential unit types, including single family,
townhouse and multi-family, as well as recreational and open space uses. The Town Center will
include commercial uses to serve the residential community.
(F) Promote the protection, preservation, and integration of historic resources into the
planned development through reuse, adaptive use and rehabilitation.
Two late nineteenth century era structures are located on the Property and will be evaluated to
determine their historic significance. there is a significant archeological resource on the
Property. Indian Caves, a rock formation near Boyers Mill Road, has been documented as a
shelter for early American Indians. The Indian Caves site will be preserved and not developed.
(G) Promote the evaluation and integration of natural features into building and Property
design.
The design of the Project will incorporate existing natural features in addition to Indian Caves as
noted above, including much of the extensive green area on the Property. These areas will be
placed into forest conservation, open spaces and stormwater management areas. Development
plans will integrate topographic characteristics of the Property into site design.
(H) Provide development flexibility to respond to market demands.

Restoration of the PUD to its original plan will provide multiple housing options and
neighborhood commercial opportunities within the Lake Linganore community.
III.
SIZE AND LOCATION
The Countys 2012 Countywide Comprehensive Plan identifies the Property within the
Linganore/Holly Hills Community Growth Area and designates the Property as Low Density
Residential (LDR) as required by Section 1-19-10.500.2(A).
The Property is designated Planned Service on the Countys Water and Sewerage Plan as
required by Section 1-19-10.500.2(C).
IV.
EXISTING PROPERTY CONDITIONS
The Lake Linganore PUD is comprised of different residential villages. Not all villages have
been fully developed and still contain vacant land planned for development or addition to the
PUDs open space acreage. An overall vicinity map overlaid on an aerial photograph shows the
following parcels subject to this rezoning application:
1. Westridge/Woodridge, is part of Woodridge Village located in the northwest quadrant of

Lake Linganore. It is bounded by Gas House Pike to the north, Eaglehead Drive to the
south and bifurcated by Linganore Road. The parcel is generally wooded and punctuated
by two large stream valleys that will be included in the open area of the Project.
2. Alpine Village/Town Center is located on the south side of the lake and accessed by
Eaglehead Drive. It includes all of the original Alpine Village and a northern portion of
the Town Center surrounding a finger of the lake. The parcel is also mostly wooded and
has steep lake frontage with existing protective forest easements.
3. Indian Caves, part of Balmoral Village, on the north side of the lake adjacent to Boyers
Mill Road, is mostly developed and is known for its outstanding rock formations that
served as an Indian cave shelter. This is an important cultural resource not only for
Frederick County, but the State, and will remain as part of the open space.
4. The Hamptons located in the northeast quadrant of the Lake Linganore PUD is vacant
land situated on the north side of Gas House Pike directly across from Westwinds Golf
Club neighborhood. It also consists of adjacent parcels on the south side of Gas House
Pike with frontage on Lake Merle.
5. Pinehurst Village parcel, known as Parcel H2 on the original Lake Linganore PUD
mappings, is south of Westwinds and located within the Bens Branch stream valley.
Trails already traverse this parcel and will remain in open space.
6. The Isles of Balmoral consists of platted lots that have been consolidated into large
parcels and are situated west of Westwinds and have frontage on Lake Linganore and
Linganore Creek. Much of the parcel is located in floodplain and will remain as an open
space use.
Boundary Surveys for each parcel are included as Section V (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(2)).
An Aerial Photograph is included as Section II (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(5)).
An Environmental and Natural Features Map, included as Section VI, shows the delineation of
soil types, forests and wetlands on the Property (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(6)).
A Vicinity Map, included as Section II, Existing Conditions Maps, delineates all properties
within 2,000 feet of the Property (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(1)). The areas shown within 2,000
feet of the Property are as follows:
To the north: Gas House Pike and the agricultural lands north of the road.
To the east: Lots along Meadow, Hall and Quinn Road and Spring Ridge subdivision.
To the south: Old National Pike and I-70, and Holly Hills Golf Course south of I-70.
To the west: Yeagerstown, Crickenberger and Boyers Mill Roads, Greenview
subdivision, and agricultural lands east of Boyers Mill Road to Rt. 75.
A Land Use Map, found in Section II, Existing Conditions Map, shows the type, location,
acreage and density of all existing land uses within a distance of 500 feet from the Property, the
general street location and circulation pattern, and existing zoning and comprehensive plan
designations (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(4)).
The Transportation Map, also included in Section II, Existing Conditions Maps, indicates the
location of the Property with respect to local, collector, and arterial streets, existing easements
and rights-of-way on or abutting the Property, all existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and
existing and planned transit facilities including routes and stops (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(3)).
Two late nineteenth century era historic structures are located on the Property and will be
evaluated to determine their historic significance. Neither structure is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, Frederick County Register of Historic Places, or the Maryland
Inventory of Historic Properties (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(7)).
V.
CONCEPT PLAN
Section 1-19-10.500.5(B) of the Zoning Ordinance requires the submission of a Concept Plan
outlining the proposed development plan, including proposed easements, subdivision lots, land
use areas, bulk use requirements, surrounding land uses, zoning and comprehensive plan
designations, transportation networks and density. The Concept Plan consists of separate concept
plans for each section of the Project included in Section VII. Details on Lot and Road Standards
are found in Section III. Building and Spaces Visualization exhibit is included as Section IV.
VI.
LAND USE, MIXTURE, AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE PUD

DISTRICT
A.
Land use permitted with the PUD District.
The residential uses shown on the Concept Plan are permitted within the PUD District.
B.
Residential land use mixture within the PUD District.
The Project includes a mix of single family attached and single family detached dwelling units.
The requirement to build moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) will be satisfied by a
payment in lieu pursuant to Section 1-6A-5.1 of the Frederick County Code.
C.
Commercial land use mixture within the PUD District.
Commercial uses are planned for other sections of the Lake Linganore PUD owned by the
Applicant but not included in this application.
D.
Open space/green area within the PUD district.
Section 1-19-10.500.6(D)(1) requires a minimum of 30% of open space/green area, exclusive of

flood plain, for the PUD. The Overall Open Space/Green Area Plan for the Project, attached as
Section VI, identifies 676.6 acres of existing open space/green area in the entire 3,076.5 acre
Lake Linganore PUD. The 676.6 acres of existing open space includes the four lakes in the PUD
which contain a total of 255.5 acres. 30% of 3,076.5 acres is 923 acres, leaving a deficit of
246.4 acres of open space to be provided by the Project and other undeveloped land of Applicant
in the PUD. This calculation is based on an analysis of the entire PUD and assumes that the
lakes may be included in the open space calculation.
Although Section 1-19-10.500.6(D)(1) states that required minimum open space shall be
exclusive of floodplain, Section 1-19-10.500.6(F) states that The Board of County
Commissioners may in its sole discretion, deny, reduce, or increase the size, type, location or
mixture of the various land use components if the Board determines that the change is
appropriate for the site or overall area of the PUD. In the case of Lake Linganore, the four
lakes should not be treated as typical unusable floodplain land. They are valuable community
amenities that provide residents with many active recreational opportunities, such as swimming,
boating and fishing. Applicant requests that the BOCC determine that the lakes in Lake
Linganore be included in the open space/green area calculation for the PUD.
Applicant believes that the correct interpretation of Section 1-19-10.500.6(D)(1) as it relates to

the Lake Linganore PUD is to apply the 30% open space/green area requirement to the entire
PUD acreage and not section by section. Some sections or villages of the PUD contain more
than 30% of open area/green space, and others contain less. The lakes are not identified within
development villages, but rather are project-wide amenities. The green area requirement should
not be imposed on individual sections of a single PUD, but rather should be calculated for the
PUD as a whole, just as the transportation network, land use mix, public facilities and other
project features are planned and designed to function in an integrated manner for the entire
development.
E.
Design Requirements: density, setbacks, and height within the PUD District.
Per Section 1-19-10.500.6(H), the Project will address the design requirements as follows:
1.
Density. Gross density of the Project is 1,735 units or 1.88 units per acre. Like
the open space calculation described in section D. above, gross density is determined for
the PUD as a whole and not for individual sections. Maximum gross density of the
Anderson Property is six units per acre.
2.
Setbacks and height. Setbacks and height shall be determined by the Planning
Commission at Phase II (Execution).
VII.
A.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES
Parks and Recreation. Recreational areas and open space will be provided within the
Project as shown on the Concept Plan. Numerous parks and recreational areas already
existing throughout Lake Linganore PUD will be accessible by future residents of the
Project. (Section 1-19-10.500.8(A)).
B.
Other Public Facilities. An elementary school site is shown on the Concept Plan in the
Woodridge section of the PUD. Public water and sewer will be provided to serve the
Project pursuant to the terms of the APFO LOU.
C.
Water and Sewer. See section X.A.2. below.
VIII. PROPOSED PUD PHASING PLAN
Section 1-19-10.500.5(D) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires a phasing plan to be submitted with
a PUD floating zone reclassification application. Phasing of the Projects development will be
coordinated with the completion of infrastructure required to serve development of the various
sections of the PUD. Efficiency of design and construction as well as market demand will
dictate the timing, location and pace of development in the PUD.
IX.
A.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
A pre-application conference was held with the Division of Community Development on
April 5, 2012, as required by Section 1-19-10.500.4(A).

B.
Neighborhood meetings with the Lake Linganore Association were held on April 2, 2012,
and May 19, 2012 as required by Section 1-19-10.500.4(B).

C.
This application constitutes the request for restoration of Phase I PUD floating zone
classification and provides a justification for the Project, as required by Section 1-1910.500.4(C).
1. The Property is classified as Planned Service on the Frederick County Water and
Sewerage Plan. (Section 1-19-10.500.4(C)(1)).
2. A Concept Plan graphically illustrating the Project is included as part of this Phase I
application (Section 1-19-10.500.4(C)(2)).
X.
A.
APPROVAL CRITERIA
GENERAL CONDITIONS
An application for the PUD floating zone must address the following general approval criteria in
accordance with Section 1-19-3.110.4 of the Zoning Ordinance:
1.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The PUD district is generally restricted to those areas that are designated for residential
use on the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The Property is designated Low
Density Residential on the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The property
is currently zoned Agricultural and Resource Conservation as a result of the 2008 and
2010 downzonings. The majority of the Property had been zoned PUD for the previous
40+ years. An 82 acre portion of the Property on the south side of Gas House Pike had
been zoned PUD for 10 years prior to downzoning in 2008. This application is for
restoration of PUD zoning and Phase I Plan approval on those portions of the Lake
Linganore PUD that were downzoned. Development of the Project as proposed under the
Applicants Concept Plan would result in the fulfillment of the following County
identified Managed Growth and Diversified Economy goals and policies contained in
the Comprehensive Plan in addition to the other specific goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan referenced below:
10
Ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided concurrently with development in order

to accommodate long-term land use plans (MG-G-03).
Manage land use planning and development in a manner that is compatible with the
conservation, protection, and enhancement of the Countys Green Infrastructure. The
design and layout of our communities will draw inspiration from and not suppress or
subjugate - those natural features that define Frederick County (MG-G-05).
Facilitate the growth management strategy of increasing density in growth areas by

employing sound community design principles that enable comfortable, efficient, and
accessible communities MG-G-11).
Locate and design development so as to foster the formation of communities that respect
Frederick Countys traditional growth patterns characterized by distinct and clearlydefined neighborhoods and commercial districts, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
circulation patterns, and a vital mix of residential, business, and civic uses (MG-P-05).
Emphasize Mixed-Use Development within Community Growth Areas (MG-G-09).
Allow for flexibility throughout the development process to facilitate mixed-use
development patterns as well as to promote innovative design concepts that protect and
maintain environmental and cultural resources (MG-P-09).
Organize public space - in the form of streets, plazas, parks, and squares - to facilitate the
social, economic, and civic activities within our communities (MG-P-20).
Maximize transportation network connectivity and enhance the design of new and
redeveloped communities by providing an interconnected street and transportation
network within and between new and existing development (MG-P-22).
Include a variety of housing types in all communities (MG-P-23).
Provide sufficient land resources to accommodate long-term economic growth (ED-G03).
Sustain a balance between growth in employment and housing (ED-G-04).
These goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the objectives of the PUD
district can be met by development of the Property in the manner shown on the Concept
Plan submitted with this application. The Applicants development program, design
concepts and phasing schedule will promote a broad mix of residential unit types and
11
commercial uses. The Project will be integrated with the existing Lake Linganore PUD
and include numerous opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the
PUD. The PUD will be efficiently served by public services and facilities, much of
which has already been installed.
2.
Availability of Public Facilities.
Public facilities are or will be available to serve the Project. The Project must be tested
for adequacy of roads, schools and water and sewer, and approved under the provisions
of the APFO prior to or during the Phase II Execution Phase of the PUD floating
zone. The timing of any improvements or payments required to mitigate any inadequacy
will be phased under the APFO LOU in compliance with goal SC-G-01 of the
Comprehensive Plan: to provide for community services and facilities in an efficient and
timely manner relative to the pace of growth. The Project, located in a Community
Growth Area, will utilize public water and sewer in conformance with policy WR-P-01 of
the Comprehensive Plan to provide community water/sewer service only within
Community Growth Areas. The Project will provide adequate open space and parkland
in addition to the many recreational areas already existing in the Lake Linganore PUD.
The parks will be integrated into the Community Growth Area to maximize bicycle and
pedestrian access, and enhance a community identify in accordance with policy SC-P-18
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Frederick County Sheriffs Office and Maryland State
Police will provide police protection for the Project. The Urbana Region Library and the
C. Burr Artz Public Library in Frederick would serve the Project. A new branch library
is planned within or near the Town Center area of Lake Linganore, consistent with the
following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: SC-G-03 (Locate community
services and facilities that maximize accessibility via transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
modes of transportation); SC-G-04 (To the extent feasible, distribute public facilities and
services throughout the County on a local, regional, or centralized basis); and SC-P-01
(Place major facilities such as schools, libraries, fire / rescue facilities and senior centers
within community growth areas with an emphasis in the central portion of community
growth area, preferably adjacent to commercial centers). The Project would be served
by the Spring Ridge Fire Company and the New Market Volunteer Fire Company.
12
3.
Adequacy of Existing and Future Transportation Systems.
The APFO LOU describes numerous road improvements and escrow payments that the
Applicant has proffered to ensure that the road system will be adequate to serve the
Project. These commitments include significant private funding for regional
transportation improvements in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies TR-P-18 and
SC-P-02.
4.
Compatibility with Existing and Proposed Developments.
The Project constitutes the major undeveloped portions of the Lake Linganore PUD.
These parcels are an integral part of the original Phase I plan for Lake Linganore and will
be developed in a manner that is compatible with existing sections of the PUD. Future
residents of the Project will be members of the Lake Linganore Association and will
contribute assessments income to help maintain infrastructure and amenities for the entire
PUD.
5.
Population Change.
The Project will have a maximum of 1,735 dwelling units, which could add
approximately 4,511 residents to the population. The Anderson Property will have a
maximum density of 53 units, which could add approximately 137 residents.
6.
The Timing of Development and Facilities.
The anticipated schedule for development of the Project is for PUD Phase I and Phase II
reviews and approvals during 2012. More detailed site planning and engineering/
improvement plan approvals are anticipated during 2013 and 2014, with initial site
development and possible recordation of final plats expected to begin as soon as late
2013.
B.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
An application for the PUD floating zone must address the following specific approval
criteria in accordance with Section 1-19-10.500.3:
(A)
The proposed development is compact, employing design principles that result in
13
efficient consumption of land, efficient extension of public infrastructure, and efficient

provision of public facilities.
Development will reflect neighborhood design that focuses on the quality of life for its
residents and conservation of the natural landscape. The extension and expansion of the
existing infrastructure will be carefully considered in order to maximize efficiency, yet
still provide orderly and coordinated public services to the residents.
(B)
The proposed development design and building siting are in accordance with the
County Comprehensive Plan, and any applicable community and corridor plans.
The Project, as shown on the Concept Plan, is consistent with the LDR comprehensive
plan designation and with numerous Goals and Policies of the County Comprehensive
Plan as discussed in section X.A.1. above and elsewhere in this document.
(C)
The proposed development is compatible with existing or anticipated surrounding
land uses with regard to size, building scale, intensity, setbacks, and landscaping, or the
proposal provides for mitigation of differences in appearance or scale through such
means as setbacks, screening, landscaping or other design features in accordance with
the County Comprehensive Plan, and any applicable community or corridor plans.
Further development in the Lake Linganore PUD will utilize the same or similar
standards as those used in the existing developed areas of the PUD. Each village will
maintain its identity and cohesiveness with its building architecture and preservation of
open space. Design will take place in accordance with the Lake Linganore and County
criteria in order to preserve and enhance an aesthetic mix of residential and commercial
uses without compromising existing development within the Lake Linganore PUD.
(D)
The proposed development provides a safe and efficient arrangement of land uses,
buildings, infrastructure, and transportation circulation systems.
The design of the Project will provide a safe and efficient arrangement of land uses,
buildings, infrastructure and transportation systems. Residents will have the convenience
of the lakes and open space within walking distance of their neighborhoods and will be
14
able to utilize existing transportation and pedestrian infrastructure and newly created
connections to the surrounding neighborhoods and regional setting.
(E)
The transportation system is or will be made adequate to serve the proposed
development in addition to existing uses in the area.

The Applicant will request APFO approval for the Project concurrent with approval of this Phase
I application. The APFO LOU proffers certain road improvements and payments into escrow
funds, identified by a traffic impact study, which will cause the transportation system serving the
Project and other uses in the area to be adequate and convenient for its residents. Applicants
proposed road improvements satisfy the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
TR-G-01 (Plan a safe, coordinated and multi-model transportation system on the basis of
existing and future development needs, land uses and travel patterns); TR-G-02 (Integrate
transit, pedestrian, bicycling and ADA accessible facilities into the Countys existing roadways
and communities and the design of new roadways and communities); TR-G-03 (Maintain and
enhance the quality of the transportation system to assure an acceptable level of service, safety
and travel conditions for all roadway users); TR-P-03 (Maximize transportation network
connectivity by providing an interconnected street and transportation network within and
between new and existing development); TR-P-04 (Ensure County, State and developer funded
road designs are compatible with and sensitive to adjacent land uses by incorporating contextsensitive design and streetscape improvements where appropriate); .
(F)
The proposed development provides design and building placement that optimizes
walking, biking and use of public transit.

The design of neighborhoods and the siting of houses and commercial uses will create a
community that will allow residents and visitors to continue to walk and bicycle to all
parts of the PUD. The proposed development will provide design and building placement
that optimizes walking and biking and allows for the use of public transit should it
become available in the future. This design is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies TR-P-08 (Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian network implementation based on
providing safe and functional transportation connections between residential,
15
employment, recreational, shopping, schools and transit centers) and TR-P-15

(Accommodate safe use and access in the design and maintenance of all developer or
County funded road projects by public transportation, cyclists, pedestrians and users
with disabilities).
(G)
Existing fire and emergency medical service facilities are or will be made
adequate to serve the increased demand from the proposed development in addition to
existing uses in the area.
Existing fire and emergency medical service facilities are adequate to serve the increased
demand from the proposed development in addition to existing uses in the area. The
Spring Ridge Fire Company is 2.8 miles to Eaglehead Drive via Old National Pike.
Other fire and rescue stations serving the site include New Market, Green Valley,
Libertytown and Mount Airy.
(H)
Natural features of the Property have been adequately considered and utilized in
the design of the proposed development.
Conservation and protection of the natural resources including Lake Linganore and Linganore
Creek, stream valleys, wetlands, forest and steep slopes will be a critical component of this welldesigned community. Indian Caves, a historic Indian cave shelter, and other rock formations
will be preserved for their value to the history of the region and the enjoyment of the residents.
The portion of Indian Caves designated as Natural Resources on the Comprehensive Plan shall
be preserved. (The portion of Indian Caves designated as LDR on the Comprehensive Plan
and currently zoned PUD is not part of this application and is intended to be developed in
accordance with the County Code). Protective forest easements have been previously placed on
environmentally sensitive areas within the PUD and will continue to be so placed as
development moves forward. The significant conservation measures to be incorporated within
the Project design will further a number of goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
including: NR-G-01 (Protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas in Frederick
County); NR-G-03 (Manage growth and land development in Frederick County in a manner that
is in harmony with the conservation and protection of our natural environment); NR-P-01
16
(Promote the use of conservation/open space easements within cluster developments and
discourages random-pattern and sprawl development); NR-P-05 (Establish stream valley parks
for preservation as a component of the Green Infrastructure Plan in urban and residential
areas); NR-P-06 (Promote the establishment and protection of forested buffers along streams
and the Monocacy River); NR-P-13 (Focus a higher proportion of development within
Community Growth Areas to protect green infrastructure land); SC-P-14 (Consider stream
corridors within community growth areas for development as public linear parks to allow for
greenway / trail linkages both within and between community growth areas); and SC-P-15
(Development of parks in a manner that is sensitive to and protective of natural resources and
environmentally sensitive features).
(I)
The proposed mixture of land uses is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
underlying County Comprehensive Plan land use designation(s) and any applicable
community or corridor plans.
See response in Section X.A.1. above.
(J)
Planned developments shall be served adequately by public facilities and
services.
See response in Section X.A.2. above.
XI.
CONCLUSION
Restoration of PUD zoning for Eaglehead-on-the-Lakes PUD will allow completion of the Lake
Linganore PUD as originally envisioned in 1967. The Project retained PUD zoning for 40+
years until the last BOCC downzoned the Property. Completion of development and build-out of
the Project will utilize existing infrastructure and will allow installation of vital infrastructure to
serve the entire Lake Linganore community. It will also provide an infusion of dues revenue to
the LLA to help maintain existing and planned facilities and amenities in Lake Linganore.
Development of the Project will generate additional tax revenue and fiscal benefits for the
County and will provide more housing choices for existing and new residents. The Project is
fully consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the purpose, intent,
17
objectives and requirements of the PUD district. For all of these reasons, the Applicant
respectfully requests approval of the application for PUD Phase I approval.
18
APPENDIX C
DRAFT
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
EAGLEHEAD-ON-THE-LAKES PUD
The following Letter of Understanding (LOU) between the Board of County
Commissioners for Frederick County, Maryland (BOCC) and Oakdale Investments, L.L.C.
(Developer) and its successors and assigns, sets forth the conditions and terms under which the
BOCC deems the minimum necessary improvements dealing with roads, schools, water and
sewer service that must be in place for the property described below (Property) to be
developed in compliance with Chapter 1-20 of the Frederick County Code. Concurrent with the
processing of this LOU, the Developer is seeking approval by the BOCC of a PUD Phase I Plan,
as well as the concurrent approval by the BOCC of a Development Rights and Responsibilities
Agreement (DRRA) under Chapter 1-25 of the Frederick County Code
The Property is comprised of multiple parcels of land in the Lake Linganore PUD
totaling approximately 1,354 acres of land, zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, located on
the north side of MD Route 144, the south side of Gas House Pike, the east side of Linganore
Road, and the west of Maryland Route 75. The Property is intended to be developed with a
maximum of 3,235 residential units, including 1,450 single-family detached dwelling units, 1385
single-family attached dwelling units and 400 multifamily dwelling units (Eaglehead PUD or
Project). Existing recorded lots in the Project, which are included in the total number of units
listed above, are vested and are not, therefore, subject to further APFO review or approval. The
number of total units and unit type mix for each undeveloped section of the Project are as
follows:
Total Units/Sq. Ft.
Unit Mix1
Section
Alpine
100
100 SFD
Hamptons West
450
300 SFD, 150 TH
Hamptons East
435
300 SFD, 135 TH
Town Center
1500
300 SFD, 800 TH, 400 MF
Town Center Commercial
200,000 sq. ft.
Westridge/Woodridge
550
400 SFD, 150 TH
Miscellaneous*
200
50 SFD, 150 TH
* Eaglestream, Nightingale, Aspen, Isles of Balmoral, Pinehurst, Indian Caves, Vistas of
Pinehurst
Developer may, from time to time, request revisions to the dwelling unit mix outlined in the
above table, including revision of the unit mix within a particular section of the PUD or the
1
SFD means single family detached; TH means townhouse; and MF means multifamily.
Oakdale Investments, L.L.C.

APFO Letter of Understanding
Page 2
transfer of dwelling units or commercial density from one section of the PUD to another section
of the PUD, or to adjacent land subsequently acquired by Developer or a related entity, provided
that such transfers are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Phase I Concept Plan and the
Revised Phase II Plan, as applicable, and provided that all applicable County laws and
regulations, including but not limited to, Section 1-20-9 of the APFO, are met. Frederick
County Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management (DUSWM), Frederick County
Public Schools staff (FCPS) and Division of Community Development Planning and Zoning
staffs shall approve all such transfer requests, provided that: a) Developers civil engineer
demonstrates to the satisfaction of DUSWM that such proposed transfer will remain adequately
served by water and sewer infrastructure; b) Developers traffic engineer submits a Traffic
Memorandum certifying that the trip generation levels resulting from such transfer will not
exceed the approved AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation levels for the affected section
of the PUD approved under this LOU; c) FCPS determines that the school attendance area is the
same for both the transferring and receiving areas and that development on the receiving parcel
will generate the same or fewer students than would development of the transferring parcel; d)
Developer agrees to pay any adjusted School Construction Fee amounts resulting from a change
in unit types; e) subject to final site plan approval of all proposed uses; and f) an Amendment to
this LOU shall be executed by the Developer and the Frederick County Planning Commission.
The Developer hereby agrees and understands that compliance with the terms and
conditions of this LOU is required for the development of the PUD to proceed. While this LOU
is subject to approval by the BOCC through the process of, and concurrent with, the DRRA, it is
expressly agreed that the LOU is a document which is separate and apart from the DRRA and
that the LOU may be amended by the parties, by written amendment to be approved by the
Frederick County Planning Commission, with no requirement to amend the DRRA.
This LOU is the express evidence that APFO approval has been granted for the Eaglehead PUD,
subject to the terms of the LOU, and this APFO approval will be effective for a period of twentyfive (25) years from the date of this LOU, as set forth in section V. below.
I.
WATER AND SEWER
All of the parcels of land comprising the Property have a water and sewer classification
of PS or higher. Portions of the Property are designated W-4/S-4, indicating planned public
water and sewer service within 4-6 years. DUSWM has provided a finding of conditional
approval regarding sewer and water facilities to serve this Project, based on a Water and Sewer
Capacity Analysis prepared by Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP, dated November 2005
(WRA Study). The improvements that are necessary to serve the Project are identified on the
drawing prepared by Harris Smariga & Associates, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT A and made a part hereof. The Project will be served by a network of both public and
private water and sewer mains and service connections. Programmed improvements to the
Countys water and sewer systems serving this region will be provided to the Project through the
following developer-funded improvements:

Page 3
A.
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed the water improvements noted in

subsections 1 through 5 below, all of which are necessary to provide water service to the
Project. To clarify, a reference drawing is shown on EXHIBIT B.
1.
Lake Linganore Booster Pump Station: A booster pump station sufficient
to accommodate 550 EDUs in Westridge/Woodridge and 100 EDUs in Alpine, while
maintaining a residual of 20 psi in the system, including other applicable design
guidelines to provide domestic water and fire flow, together with a building to house the
Pump Station, to be constructed at a location at or adjacent to the Countys existing water
treatment plant along Eaglehead Drive or at such other location as may be mutually
agreed upon by Developer and DUSWM to serve lots in Westridge/Woodridge, Aspen,
and Alpine. The details of the final location of the Pump Station will be finalized at the
time of Preliminary Plan approval for the sections of the Project to be served by the Pump
Station.
2.
Aspen 12 Water Distribution Line: A twelve inch (12) water line to be
located between the pump station described in 1 above and the Aspen section of the PUD
to serve Aspen lots in the 737 zone roughly between the 510 and 636 elevations as
shown on EXHIBIT A.
3.
Water Tank with Booster Pump Station: A water storage tank estimated
to be 500,000 gallons, or as determined by DUSWM, to be supplied by the Lake
Linganore Booster Pump Station described in item 1 above, the location of which shall be
determined in accordance with the location of the Pump Station described in item 1
above.
4.
Alpine 12 Water Distribution Line: A twelve inch (12) water line to be
located between the pump station described in item 1 above and the Alpine section of the
PUD to serve lots in Alpine.
5.
Hamptons East 12 Water Distribution Line2: A twelve inch (12) water
line from Eaglehead Drive to the Westwinds portion of the PUD, for a distance of
12,000 linear feet, to provide for a water distribution loop.
6.
Alpine Booster Pump Station: A booster pump station sufficient to
accommodate all properties within the 870 zone above the 637 elevation, while
Pump Station.
2
This improvement is also known as the Linganore Water Line, Loop 2, Phase 2.

Page 4
7.
Aspen Booster Pump Station: A booster pump station sufficient to
accommodate all properties within the 870 zone above the 637 elevation, while
Pump Station.
B.
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed the sanitary sewer

improvements noted in subsections 1 through 14 below, all of which are necessary to
provide sanitary sewer service to the Project.
1.
Interceptor 2 - Upper Reach: The Developer shall design and construct the
replacement of the existing esplanade sewers and the existing eighteen inch (18)
sewer main interceptor between the esplanades from Manhole 65 to Manhole 61
with a twenty-four inch (24) sewer main, for a distance of 750 linear feet.
Developer shall be responsible for 100.00% of the cost of such improvement.
2.
Interceptor 1: The Developer may be required to replace the existing twenty-four

inch (24) sewer main interceptor from Manhole P-10C to Manhole P-3 with a
twenty-seven inch (27) sewer main, for a distance of 3,820 linear feet, to
include provision of lakeshore stabilization prior to pipe replacement, monitoring
and covering of the existing pipe, if this improvement is determined to be
necessary by the flow monitoring program described in item C.11 below.
3.
Interceptor 2 Upper Reach: Replace all existing eighteen inch (18) sewer pipe
segments from Manhole 57 to Manhole 61 with twenty-four inch (24) sewer
mains, for a distance of 3,100 linear feet, to eliminate sewers with reverse
slopes and sags, prior to the platting of the 1,401st unit in the combined areas of
the Hamptons East portion of the Project and the adjoining Casey-Blentlinger
property.3
4.
Interceptor 2 Lower Reach: Replace all existing eighteen inch (18) sewer
pipe segments from Manhole 39 to Manhole 57 with twenty-seven inch (27)
sewer mains, for a distance of 3,600 linear feet, to eliminate sewers with sags
and exposure to the lake, prior to the platting of the 1,401st unit in the combined
areas of the Hamptons East portion of the Project and the adjoining CaseyBlentlinger property.3
5.
Interceptor 2 Lower Reach: Design and lower discharge of Boyers Mill Road
siphon by approximately two feet (2) and re-install interceptor to Boyers Mill
Road Pump Station, for a distance of 360 linear feet, no later than the platting
of the 1,551st unit in the combined areas of the Hamptons East portion of the
The total number of units in Hamptons East does not exceed 1,401 units.

Page 5
Project and the adjoining Casey-Blentlinger property.
6.
Interceptor 3: Replace the existing fourteen inch (14) sewer main from
Manhole 54 to Manhole 510 with an eighteen inch (18) sewer main, for a
distance of 1,600 linear feet, prior to the platting of the 1,451st equivalent
dwelling unit (edu) in the combined areas of the Town Center portion of the
Project and the adjoining RESCO property that drain to Interceptor 3.
7.
Interceptor 3: Replace the existing fourteen inch (14) sewer main from
Manhole 510 to Manhole 500 with a twenty-one inch (21) sewer main, for a
distance of 4,223 linear feet, prior to the platting of the 1,701st edu in the
combined areas of the Town Center portion of the Project and the adjoining
RESCO property that drain to Interceptor 3.
8.
Interceptor 1 Lower Reach: Developer may be required to replace the existing

twenty-four inch (24) sewer main from Manhole 15 to Manhole X with a
twenty-seven inch (27) sewer main, for a distance of 2,222 linear feet, if this
improvement is determined to be necessary by the flow monitoring program
described in section C. 11 below.
9.
Bens Branch Pump Station: Replace the existing eighteen inch (18) sewer main
from the Bens Branch sewer force main to Interceptor 2 with a twenty-four inch
(24) sewer main, for a distance of 715 linear feet, prior to the platting of the
1,401st unit in the combined areas of the Hamptons East portion of the Project
and the adjoining Casey-Blentlinger project.
10.
Linganore Creek Interceptor: The Developer may be required to upgrade

capacity of Linganore Creek Sewer Interceptor by installing a twenty-four inch
(24) sewer main for a distance of 3,800 linear feet, including employment of a
flow monitoring program, to be installed at such time as peak flows from
Linganore gravity interceptors 1 and 3 approach 6.3 million gallons per day of
capacity, if it is determined to be necessary by the flow monitoring program
described in section C. 11 below.
11.
Meadows Sewer Main: Construct a new eight inch (8) sewer main from a new
Manhole to Manhole 3114, for a distance of 900 linear feet, to connect the
Meadows to Hamptons West.
12.
Westridge I and II Sewer Main: Construct a new sewer main from a new
Manhole to a new Manhole at the Linganore Creek interceptor near Manhole
10.
13.
Westridge II Wastewater Improvements : Construct infrastructure required by

DUSWM to convey wastewater from Westridge II.

Page 6
14.
Hamptons East Gravity Sewer. Construct a new eighteen inch (18) or smaller
gravity sewer from Hamptons East to the Bens Branch Pump Station for a
distance of 4,700 linear feet.
C.
PHASING
The number of dwelling units (DU) listed for each section of the Project on
EXHIBIT A is less than the maximum number of dwelling units or amount of
commercial square footage that can be served by public water and sewer in such section
based on the WRA study. The actual number of units or amount of square footage that
will be constructed in each section shall be determined based on approved PUD Phase II
plans for the Project. The number of residential units to be constructed in each section
may be increased from the amounts shown on EXHIBIT A provided that Developer
demonstrates to DUSWMs satisfaction that adequate water and sewer capacity is or will
be available to serve such units at the time of PUD Phase II (Preliminary) plan approval
in accordance with 1-16-106 of the Frederick County Code:
1.
ALPINE (above 510 elevation)

a.
Prior to the recordation of subdivision plats for residential units in

the Alpine portion of the Project above the 510 elevation as
identified on EXHIBIT A, the following improvements shall be
completed, funded or guaranteed, as indicated below:
Water
Developer shall construct the improvements described in
section I.A, subsection 1 above.
b.
Prior to recordation of the last plat for the Project, the following
improvements shall be completed, funded or guaranteed, as
indicated below:
Water
section 1.A, subsection 4 above.
ALPINE (above 637 elevation)
the Alpine portion of the Project above the 637 elevation as

Page 7
Water
section I.A, subsection 6 above.
2.
HAMPTONS WEST
a.

the Hamptons West portion of the Project as identified on
EXHIBIT A, the following improvements shall be completed,
funded or guaranteed, as indicated below:
Sewer
section I.B, subsection 11 above.
b.
indicated below, if and at such time as these improvements are
determined to be necessary in accordance with the provisions of
section I.C.11 of this Letter:
Sewer
Developer shall, if necessary, construct or pay the cost of
the improvements described in section 1.B, subsections 2
and 8 above.
3.
HAMPTONS EAST
a.

the Hamptons East portion of the Project as identified on
EXHIBIT A, the following improvements shall be completed,
funded or guaranteed, as indicated below:
i.
Water
Developer shall construct the improvements
described in section I.A, subsection 5 above.
ii.
Sewer
Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed

Page 8
the improvements described in section I.B,
subsections 1 and 14 above.
b.
indicated below, if and at such time as these improvements are
determined to be necessary in accordance with the provisions of
section I.C.11 of this Letter:
Sewer
Developer shall, if necessary, construct or pay the cost of
the improvements described in section 1.B, subsections 2,
3, 4, 8, and 9 above.
4.
TOWN CENTER
a.
Prior to the recordation of subdivision plats for residential units

and prior to issuance of any building permits for the commercial
lots in the Town Center portion of the Project, as identified on
EXHIBIT A, that would utilize in excess of 1,450 edus of
sewerage capacity in Interceptor 3, the following improvements
shall be completed, funded or guaranteed, as indicated below:
Sewer
Developer shall construct or pay the cost of the
improvements described in section I.B, subsection 6 above.
b.
Prior to the recordation of subdivision plats for residential units

and commercial lots in the Town Center portion of the Project, as
identified on EXHIBIT A, that would utilize in excess of 1,700
edus of sewerage capacity in Interceptor 3, the following
indicated below:
Sewer
section I.B, subsection 7 above.
5.
NIGHTINGALE
Prior to recordation of the 1,701st lot for the Project, the following

Page 9
indicated below:
Sewer
Developer shall construct the improvements described in section
1.B, subsection 7 above.
6.
WOODRIDGE4 (above the 510 elevation)

Prior to the recordation of any subdivision plats for residential units in the
Woodridge portion of the Project located above the 510 elevation, as
Water
I.A, subsection 1 above. Developer shall also guarantee the
improvements described in section I.A. subsection 3 above in the
event this improvement is to be located in the Woodridge section
of the Project and will serve lots to be developed in Woodridge.
7.
WESTRIDGE I
Westridge I portion of the Project, as identified on EXHIBIT A, the
following improvements shall be completed, funded or guaranteed, as
indicated below:
Sewer
I.B, subsection 12 above.
8.
WESTRIDGE II
Westridge II portion of the Project, as identified on EXHIBIT A, the
following improvements shall be completed, funded or guaranteed, as
indicated below:
Sewer
Woodridge, Westridge I and Westridge II are identified as Woodridge in the WRA study.

Page 10
I.B, subsections 12 and 13 above.
9.
ASPEN
Prior to the recordation of subdivision plats for residential units in the
upper section of the Aspen portion of the Project as identified on
EXHIBIT A, the following improvements shall be completed, funded or
guaranteed, as indicated below:
Water
Developer shall construct the improvements described in section I.A,
subsection 2 above. Developer shall also guarantee the improvements
described in section I.A. subsection 3 above in the event this improvement
is to be located in the Aspen section of the Project and will serve lots to be
developed in Aspen.
10.
MISCELLANEOUS PARCELS
The Project contains other lots and miscellaneous parcels of land that are
not specifically identified in subsections 1 through 9 above. These parcels
include, but are not limited to, existing recorded lots and lots anticipated to
be created by the de-platting and transfer of lots recorded prior to the
adoption of the Frederick County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
(pre-APFO recorded lots) to such new lots. The County and Developer
acknowledge that any lot or parcel of land located within the Project that
is not specifically identified in Section I.C, subsections 1 through 9 above,
but which was included in the APFO water and sewer calculations for the
Project, may be able to be developed, if capacity in all water and sewer
lines and facilities is available to serve these lots or parcels, without first
being required to construct any APFO water and sewer improvements
identified in this Letter. Notwithstanding the above, Developer shall be
required, at its sole expense, to extend water and sewer service lines and
facilities as are needed to serve such lots or parcels in accordance with all
applicable County regulations.
11.
FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM

a.
Some or all of the infrastructure improvements listed in section

I.B, subsections 2, 8, and 10 above may not be required to be
constructed prior to completion of build-out of the Project if total
sewerage flows in the service area for the respective improvements
do not support the installation of certain improvements at the time
of Project completion.

Page 11
b.
Developer agrees, at its sole expense, to work with DUSWM to
develop a procedure for monitoring sewage flows in all lines and
facilities needed to serve the Project, including the aforementioned
improvements, for the purpose of determining whether and at what
time improvements to lines and facilities may be required to be
constructed to serve the Project. Developer agrees to conduct flow
monitoring for sewer lines and facilities as identified in subsection
a. above during peak flow period, not less than thirty (30) days
prior to the fifth anniversary date of final APFO approval for the
Project; and again during peak flow period, not less than thirty (30)
days prior to the tenth anniversary date of final APFO approval of
the Project.
D.
c.
The results of each of the flow monitoring tests shall be evaluated

by DUSWM. In the event DUSWM determines that the results of
any of the flow monitoring tests indicate that one or more of the
improvements listed in subsection a. above is required, DUSWM
shall so notify Developer, and Developer shall, within thirty (30)
days of receipt of such notice, undertake the design of such
improvements. Developer shall submit such design plans to
DUSWM for review and approval and shall procure contracts for
the construction of such improvements all in accordance with thencurrent County rules and regulations. Developer shall submit the
requisite public works agreement(s) and letter(s) of credit to the
County for the cost of construction of the improvements in
accordance with the approved construction contract. Developer
acknowledges that plat recordation and building permit issuance
may be suspended pending completion of these improvements.
d.
In the event that one or more of the improvements listed in

subsection a. above is determined not to be necessary, as a result of
flow monitoring testing, to serve the Project by the date of
expiration of the APFO approval for the Project, Developer shall
have no further obligation to the County to fund or construct such
improvements.
OTHER
Should over-sizing of any of the above-described water and sewer improvements be

desired by the County to serve other projects in this service area, the Developer shall design and
construct the oversized lines or facilities, provided appropriate measures are in place to ensure
that the costs of such over-sizing are borne by others (either the County or other developers).
Developer may request water and sewer capacity fee credits pertaining to the provision of public
water and sewer to the Property, if the requirements of Section IV.D. of the Frederick County,

Page 12
Maryland Water and Sewer Rules and Regulations are satisfied.
APFO approval for water and sewer does not guarantee that plats will be recorded or
building permits issued. Plat recordation and building permit issuance is subject to compliance
with the Annotated Code of Maryland, Environment Article Section 9-512 et seq. and all
applicable County policies and regulations. Availability of record plats shall be in accordance
with the Countys current policy for Interpretation of 1-16-106 of the Frederick County Code,
attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.
Based upon these proposed water and sewer infrastructure improvements, the BOCC has
been able to make a determination that public water and sewer facilities will be adequate to serve
the Project; however, water and/or sewer capacity is not guaranteed until purchased or otherwise
contractually committed (with appropriate guarantees by the Project). Given the financial
commitment that the Developer will be making to provide sewer service adequate to serve the
Project and other master-planned build-out of this sewer shed, all in advance of receiving any
record plats or building permits for the Project, the DRRA, executed concurrently herewith,
provides assurances that sufficient treatment and discharge capacity necessary to serve the
Project is reserved, and it is intended to provide necessary assurances to both the County and to
the Developer that public infrastructure will be timely provided and that the Project, which is the
primary funding source for the public improvements, will be allowed to proceed in accordance
with an agreed-upon phasing schedule. If further assurances are deemed necessary by the
Developer, the Developer reserves the right to request multi-year water and sewer tap
agreements with the County reserving sufficient capacities to serve the Project.
E. VESTING
Upon completion of construction of the APFO public water and sewer improvements set
forth in subsections A and B above, the APFO water and sewer approvals for the Project shall be
vested for the capacity to be created by the improvements and shall not be subject to further
APFO testing unless the density or intensity of the Project increases. (Sections 1-20-41(E) and
1-20-51(E)).
II.
ROADS
A.
APFO REQUIRED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
The road improvements program based on a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by
The Traffic Group, dated February 15, 2013 and described in the following paragraphs, will
provide ultimate capacity for 1,948 am weekday peak hour vehicle trips and 2,636 pm peak hour
trips. Developer will construct the road improvements in multiple phases, with each phase of
road improvements allowing an incremental increase in development of uses in the Project.
1.
Gas House Pike at Linganore Road. Developer shall perform one signal

Page 13
warrant analysis5 when deemed necessary by the SHA/County, but no later than the
issuance of the last building permit in the Project, to determine if signalization is
warranted, justified and deemed necessary. Developer shall install a traffic signal at this
intersection within 12 months of the determination that a signal is warranted. Should the
signal still not be warranted and justified by the time of issuance of the last building
permit for the Project, then others shall thereafter be responsible for its implementation.
2.
MD 75 and Old New London Road. Developer shall perform one signal
warrant analysis when deemed necessary by the SHA/County, but no later than the
issuance of the last building permit in the Project, to determine if signalization is
warranted, justified and deemed necessary. Developer shall install a traffic signal at this
intersection within 12 months of the determination that a signal is warranted. Should the
signal still not be warranted and justified by the time of issuance of the last building
permit for the Project, then others shall thereafter be responsible for its implementation. .
3.
Gas House Pike and Boyers Mill Road. Developer shall provide a full
fee-in-lieu payment to the County prior to July 1, 2014 to be used for the Countys
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) project at this intersection. Developer shall enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the BOCC regarding this obligation.
4.
Old National Pike and Eaglehead Drive. Developer shall modify the
existing single lane roundabout to a double lane roundabout and construct four lanes from
Old National Pike at least to the entrance of Oakdale High School. Developer shall post
an acceptable financial guarantee for this improvement prior to the issuance of any
building permits in the Town Center section of the Project This improvement shall be
constructed and open to traffic prior to issuance of the 64th occupancy permit for
residential units in the Town Center (except for model homes), or the issuance of
occupancy permits for any commercial uses in the Town Center.
5.
5
MD 144 and Linganore Road. This intersection is projected to fail during
All signal warrant analyses referenced in this section shall be conducted in accordance with the
MUTCD Standards. All improvements to be constructed on State roads shall be subject to approval by
Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA). In all cases, the Developer shall be entitled, but not
required, to meet its obligations by placing with the County a letter of credit or cash payment in
the amount of 125% of the estimated cost of the signal, such estimate to be approved, and surety
accepted, by the County, prior to the issuance of any additional building permits for the Project. The
Developer shall be entitled to continue with the Project after acceptance of the surety, and shall install the
signal at such time as approved by the SHA/County. The Developer is responsible for conducting a traffic
signal warrant analysis prior to the issuance of the last building permit, when deemed necessary by the
SHA/County. Should the signal still not be warranted and justified by the time of issuance of the last
building permit for the section of the Project impacted by the intersection, then the County shall thereafter
be responsible for its implementation using the surety funds provided by the Developer, with unused
surety, if any, returned in full to the Developer upon completion of the signal work.

Page 14
the evening peak hours. Developer shall perform one signal warrant analysis when
deemed necessary by the SHA/County, but no later than the issuance of the last building
permit in the Project, to determine if signalization is warranted, justified and deemed
necessary. Developer shall install a traffic signal at this intersection within 12 months of
the determination that a signal is warranted. Should the signal still not be warranted and
justified by the time of issuance of the last building permit for the Project, then others
shall thereafter be responsible for its implementation. In addition, an auxiliary
southbound turning lane will be constructed on Linganore Road, to be guaranteed prior to
issuance of the first building permit and open to traffic prior to issuance of the 16th
building permit in the Westridge section of the Project.
6.
I70/Meadow Road Interchange Westbound On-Ramp. Developer shall
post an acceptable financial guarantee for this improvement, which may include a bond,
prior to issuance of the first building permit in the Project. After the financial guarantee is
posted, Developer shall be permitted to construct and occupy residential units and
commercial uses in the Project. Following approval of the required Interstate Access Point
(IAPA) approval by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), or the issuance of the
first building permit in the Project, whichever occurs last, Developer shall have two years
to construct or cause to be constructed the I70/Meadow Road westbound on-ramp. At the
end of this two year period, no further building permits or occupancy permits shall be
issued until the ramp is open to traffic. However, at the end of the two year period after
the IAPA approval, if the I-70/Meadow Road westbound on-ramp is not open due to
delays by Government Agencies (FHWA, SHA or the County), then the Developer may
be able to move forward with building permits/occupancy permits, so long as the
Developer has acted diligently toward ramp completion, as determined by the County.
7.
I70/Meadow Road Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp. Developer shall
post an acceptable financial guarantee for this improvement, which may include a bond,
prior to issuance of the 801st residential building permit in the Town Center section of the
Project. Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed the I70/Meadow Road
eastbound off-ramp, and it shall be open to traffic prior to the issuance of the 864th
residential building permit in the Town Center section of the Project. This improvement
shall not be required for construction of any commercial uses in the Town Center or
residential units in any sections of the Project other than the Town Center. Alternatively,
Developer, at its option, may choose to wait for this improvement to be constructed by
others before proceeding with development of the Project beyond the above limits.
8.
MD 75/I-70 Interchange Based on the 95th Percentile Queuing Analyses,
there are some projected queues that will not be contained within the existing storage
lanes within and around this interchange. The Developer will provide a $100,000
payment to Frederick County, and this money would be used to mitigate operational issues
as deemed necessary by Frederick County and the SHA. This contribution should be
made prior to the first recorded plat in Hamptons East or Hamptons West.

Page 15
B.
ESCROW ACCOUNTS6
In full satisfaction of APFO requirements to fully mitigate site-generated trips (and in

addition to the road improvements described in A. above), prior to recordation of the first
subdivision plat for lots in the Project, except as otherwise noted below, the Developer
shall pay into existing County-held or City of Frederick escrow accounts the following
pro rata contributions:
1.
Gas House Pike @ Monocacy Boulevard. The Developer shall
contribute the appropriate pro-rata share to the City of Frederick for the Escrow Account
for a new Traffic Signal. As determined by Division of Community Development
Traffic Engineering Staff (County Traffic Engineer), the Developers pro-rata
contribution to this road improvement is __% of $250,000 or $________
2.
MD 75 @ Old National Pike. The Developer shall contribute the
appropriate pro-rata share to Frederick County for Escrow Account #3553. As
determined by the County Traffic Engineer, the Developers pro-rata contribution to this
road improvement is _______% of $30,000 or $_____________.
3.
MD 75 @ I-70 Eastbound Ramps. The Developer shall contribute
the appropriate pro-rata share to Frederick County for Escrow Account #3252. As
road improvement is _____% of $120,000 or $_______________.
4.
MD 75 @ I-70 Westbound Ramps. The Developer shall contribute
the appropriate pro-rata share to Frederick County for Escrow Account #3251. As
determined by County Traffic Engineer, the Developers pro-rata contribution to this
5.
MD 75 over CSX/Bush Creek. The Developer shall contribute the
appropriate pro-rata share to Frederick County for Escrow Account #_____. As
road improvement is to be determined, based on a calculation of $17,171 per PM peak
hour assigned to MD 75 south of the I-70 Interchange. Since there are 61 PM peak hour
trips, the total contribution will be $1,047,431. The total contribution divided by 885
dwelling units in the Hamptons East and Hamptons West sections of the Project would
be $1,185 per unit. This per unit fee shall be paid at the time of lot recordation for each
recorded lot in Hamptons East and Hamptons West.
6
Should any escrow account payments detailed in this section B. not be made within one year of the
execution of this LOU, the County reserves the right to adjust the payment amount, based on an
engineering cost index.

Page 16
6.
Old National Pike @ Morning Gate Lane. At the time of recordation
of the first subdivision plat in the Hamptons sections of the Project, the Developer shall
contribute the appropriate pro-rata share to Frederick County for Escrow Account #3299.
As determined by County Traffic Engineer, the Developers pro-rata contribution to this
7.
Old National Pike @ Bartholows Road. At the time of recordation
of the first subdivision plat in the Hamptons sections of the Project, the Developer shall
contribute the appropriate pro-rata share to Frederick County for Escrow Account #3309.
As determined by County Traffic Engineer, the Developers pro-rata contribution to this
8.
Old National Pike @ Boyers Mill Road signal. At the time of
recordation of the first subdivision plat in the Aspen, Eaglestream or Nightingale sections
of the Project, the Developer shall contribute the appropriate pro-rata share to Frederick
County for Escrow Account #3322. As determined by County Traffic Engineer, the
Developers pro-rata contribution to this road improvement is _____% of $60,000 or
$_______________.
C.
NON-APFO REQUIRED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS
In addition to the road improvements and escrow payments required of the Developer in
full satisfaction of the APFO requirements to fully mitigate site-generated trips as set forth in
section A above, the Developer agrees to the following additional road improvements and/or
road infrastructure contributions to facilitate safe and adequate vehicular circulation in the area.
Because these improvements/contributions are not required to mitigate site generated trips as
identified in the TIS, and instead are more generally targeted to as well as generally improve the
road network in the area and provide excess capacity, the scope as described below may be
amended by joint agreement of the parties hereto, in writing, but outside and independent of the
APFO approval process:
1.
Eaglehead Drive Bridge Reconstruction. Developer shall reconstruct the
Eaglehead Drive bridge over Linganore Creek at the dam and upgrade to the southern
approach road to the Town Center. Developer shall post an acceptable financial
guarantee prior to issuance of the first building permit in the Alpine section of the
Project, and such improvement will be constructed and open to traffic prior to issuance of
the 50th building permit in Alpine..
2.
Linganore Road Safety Improvements. The dogleg section of Linganore Road
at Plantation Road will be relocated onto the Westridge II section of the Project to
alleviate the substandard road section in this area. This relocated portion of Linganore

Page 17
Road will be constructed as part of the site improvement plans for Westridge II .
3.
Gas House Pike Safety Improvements. Gas House Pike will be upgraded to
collector road standards from the western limits of Hamptons West to the eastern limits
of Hamptons East. Developer shall generally be responsible only for half-section
improvements along the road frontage abutting the Property within available or sitededicated right-of-way. These improvements would include the addition of safety
improvements such as guard rails and elimination of sight distance constraints as
determined at improvement plan stage. Developer shall post an acceptable financial
guarantee for improvements to Gas House Pike along the Hamptons East site frontage
prior to issuance of the first building permit in Hamptons East, and such improvements
shall be completed and open to traffic prior to issuance of the 50th building permit in
Hamptons East. Developer shall post an acceptable financial guarantee for improvements
to Gas House Pike along the Hamptons West site frontage prior to issuance of the first
building permit in Hamptons West, and such improvements shall be completed and open
to traffic prior to issuance of the 50th building permit in Hamptons West.
4. Quinn Road Connection. Development plans for the Project will not preclude a
future connection of Quinn Road through the Project to be constructed by others. At the
request of the County during plan review, on-site right-of-way will be dedicated for this
connection.
5. Pinehurst Drive Relocation. Development plans for the Project will not
preclude a future connection into the Pinehurst section of the Project across from
Yeagertown Road to be constructed by others and allow the existing Pinehurst Drive
connection to Boyers Mill Road to be closed if deemed appropriate by the County. At the
request of the County, right-of-way will be dedicated for this connection.
6.
Eaglehead Drive.
a. Construct an extension of existing Eaglehead Drive through the Hamptons West

section of the Project to connect to Gas House Pike. Developer shall post an
acceptable financial guarantee prior to issuance of the 300th building permit for
Hampton West or when construction begins on the western portion of this section,
whichever comes first. This improvement shall be open to traffic prior to issuance
of occupancy permits for more than 300 units in Hamptons West. Otherwise, this
improvement shall be part of site improvement plans for Hamptons West.
b. Construct a connector road to Gas House Pike through the Woodridge section of
the Project or Eaglehead bridge prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
Eaglestream or Aspen sections of the Project. This improvement shall be open to
traffic prior to issuance of any occupancy permits in these sections, except for model
homes.

Page 18
7.
Woodridge Connection. Construct a roadway from the Woodridge section
of the Project to connect to Gas House Pike. Construction of this improvement will begin
prior to recordation of the first lot in Woodridge and shall be completed prior to the
issuance of the first building permit in Woodridge.
8.
Eaglehead Drive Reconstruction. Developer shall construct a new twolane minor arterial road from the northern terminus of existing Eaglehead Drive to the
Town Center portion of the Project. The design of this road shall incorporate any
information necessary for both terminus points of the road to determine whether the
future extensions of the road in both directions are buildable. The length, limits and road
standard of such improvement will be determined at the improvement plan stage and
coordinated with the County.
9.
Town Center Connector. Construct appropriate portions of connector as a
minor arterial within the property limits of the Project, as defined by the County.
10.
Boyers Mill Road/Eaglehead Drive. This improvement will be constructed
by the County as a CIP project; therefore, Developer shall not be required to construct or
contribute funds towards the cost of this improvement. Developer shall dedicate land to
the County, upon request, for the right-of-way needed for the CIP project. No building
permits shall be issued in the Eaglestream or Aspen sections of the Project until July 1,
2015.
11.
Old National Pike/Boyers Mill Road. This improvement will be constructed
by the County as a CIP project; therefore, Developer shall not be required to construct or
contribute funds towards the cost of this improvement. Developer shall dedicate land to
the County, upon request, for the right-of-way needed for the CIP project. No building
permits shall be issued in the Nightingale, Eaglestream or Aspen sections of the Project
until July 1, 2015.
12.
Secondary Access to Town Center. Developer shall construct a secondary
access to the Town Center section of the Project at a location to be determined at the time
of preliminary plan approval for Town Center. Provided, however, that this obligation
may be changed or removed by the Planning Commission during the preliminary plan
review process if an acceptable secondary access to the Town Center is otherwise planned
or provided for by others. Unless determined otherwise by the Planning Commission, this
improvement shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 136th residential building permit
for the Town Center.
D.
SURPLUS CAPACITY REIMBURSEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Developer has agreed to construct certain infrastructure improvements to serve the Project
which could result in the creation of excess capacity in such improvements that could be used to

Page 19
benefit other development projects. The parties agree that the following road improvements
have been determined to be Surplus Capacity Reimbursement Improvements (SRC
Improvements) as that term is defined in Chapter 12 of the Guidelines for Preparation of Traffic
Impact Analyses for Development Applications, adopted September 6, 2011, by the BOCC by
Resolution No. 11-24 (TIA Guidelines):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Gas House Pike at Linganore Road

MD 75 and Old New London Road
Gas House Pike and Boyers Mill Road
MD 144 and Linganore Road
I70/Meadow Road Westbound on-ramp
I70/Meadow Road Eastbound off-ramp
All contributions made by other developers to Frederick County Escrow Account #3278
for improvements to the intersection of Old National Pike and Quinn Orchard Road/I70
shall be paid by the County to Developer for the construction of the Meadow Road
Interchange westbound on-ramp (improvement 5. above).
In the event that other approved development projects add trips to any offsite road
improvements listed above and thus are required to pay their pro rata share of the construction
cost of said roads into escrow, Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of the
SRC Improvements, up to but not beyond its own identified fair share (either through
reimbursement of actual construction costs incurred by Developer if the Developer constructs
said roads or through the reimbursement of the full fee-in-lieu escrow funds paid by the
Developer as provided above), subject to compliance with and in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 12 of the TIA Guidelines, from non-exempt developers of projects
identified by the County Traffic Engineer, whether or not the SRC Improvements are located
inside or outside of the contributing projects study area. If any of the off-site road
improvements listed above as a construction obligation of the Developer are constructed or
funded by others, then the Developer shall pay its fair share of the construction costs for each
constructed road into an escrow account based on trips generated by the Project the fair share
calculation methodology identified in the current TIA Guidelines.
.
E.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
Some of the public infrastructure improvements required by this DRRA to be

made by the Developer will require public right-of-way from third-party property owners.
Where securing the public right-of-way is required of the Developer, the Developer shall
exercise commercially reasonable efforts to secure such right-of-way without the assistance of
the County. In the event that the Developer is unable to secure right-of-way notwithstanding
provision to the County of evidence of commercially reasonable efforts, the County may assist in
the acquisition of the needed right-of-way at the Developers sole cost and expense. In the event,

Page 20
due to circumstances beyond the Developers control, public right-of-way is not acquired in a
manner consistent with the timely construction of public infrastructure by the Developer,
Developer shall be permitted to make a contribution equal to the anticipated project
development/construction costs of the public infrastructure to the County in lieu of actual
construction.
F.
VESTING
Upon full mitigation (construction of improvements or fair share contributions to escrow

accounts) of APFO road improvements as set forth in subsection A above within the APFO
approval period, the APFO road approval for the Project shall be vested for the capacity created
by the improvements and shall not be subject to further APFO roadway testing unless there is an
increase in site trips or a significant redistribution of site traffic because of a change in land use
or increase in site density as defined in the TIF Guidelines. (Section 1-20-31(H)).
III.
SCHOOLS
A.
ALL-AGE DEVELOPMENT
The Project is projected to generate school students in multiple school feeder patterns that
serve the PUD. Based on the number of students expected to be generated by the Project, and
considering enrollment projections from pipeline development, the Project will fail the school
adequacy test at various school levels for different sections of the PUD as shown in the table
below. Accordingly, the Developer has elected the option to mitigate the inadequacy of the
public school capacity by paying the School Construction Fee for all non-age restricted lots in
each section of the Project that fail the APFO schools test in accordance with the criteria set forth
in Section 1-20-62 of the APFO.7
SECTION OF
PUD
Alpine
Hamptons West*
Hamptons East*
7
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
OES
DCES
NMES
MIDDLE SCHOOL
P/F
F
F
F
OMS
OMS
NMMS
P/F
F
F
F
HIGH SCHOOL8
OHS
P/F
F
OHS
LHS
Developer has additionally agreed to pay the School Mitigation Fee for the projected number of pupils
from the Project who will attend Thomas Johnson Middle School even though this school passes the
APFO Schools Test. The amount of this additional fee is $958,600.00. See section 3.4(A) of the DRRA.
8
OES means Oakdale Elementary School; OMS means Oakdale Middle School; OHS means
Oakdale High School; DCES means Deer Crossing Elementary School; NMES means New Market
Elementary School; NMMS means New Market Middle School; LHS means Linganore High School;
SRES means Spring Ridge Elementary School; TJMS means Thomas Johnson Middle School; and
TJHS means Thomas Johnson High School.

Page 21
Town Center
OES
Westridge
SRES
Woodridge
DCES
Eaglestream
DCES
Nightingale
DCES
Aspen
DCES
Isles of Balmoral
DCES
Pinehurst
DCES
Vistas of Pinehurst
DCES
Indian Caves
DCES
*See subsection B. below.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
OMS
TJMS
OMS
OMS
OMS
OMS
OMS
OMS
OMS
OMS
F
P
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
OHS
TJHS
OHS
OHS
OHS
OHS
OHS
OHS
OHS
OHS
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
In accordance with Section 1-20-62 of the APFO, the Developer hereby elects to satisfy the
school adequacy standards of Section 1-20-61 of the APFO by payment to Frederick County of
School Construction Fees as described in Section 1-20-62(E) of the APFO. The School
Construction Fee was established by Ordinance 11-18-584, enacted on July 20, 2011 and
codified as Section 1-20-62 of the APFO, with a sunset provision of five years from the effective
date. Notwithstanding a sunset of the School Construction Fee Ordinance, the Developer shall
be bound to pay the School Construction Fee as a condition of APFO approval for the Project,
and this obligation shall survive the sunset of the Ordinance and shall run with the full term of
this Letter and any duly approved extensions thereof. The Developer acknowledges that School
Construction Fees shall be in addition to and not in lieu of Public School Development Impact
Fees under Chapter 1-22 of the Frederick County Code. The School Construction Fee shall be
paid at the time of record plat for subdivision lots and at the time of building permits for multifamily units in accordance with Section 1-20-62(F) of the APFO.
B.
AGE-RESTRICTED LOTS IN HAMPTONS
Developer, at its option, may develop all or some portion of the lots in the Hamptons
East and Hamptons West sections of the Project as age-restricted units. In this case, such units
would be prohibited by recorded covenants from having school-aged children as occupants and,
therefore, would have no direct impact on school enrollments. Section 1-20-7(F) of the APFO
exempts projects for housing for older persons from the school APFO test if certain prescribed
criteria are met. Provided that the age-restricted units in Hamptons East and Hamptons West
continue to meet these criteria as they exist as of the date of this LOU, the school APFO test will
be inapplicable to all age-restricted units in the Hamptons sections of the Project.
IV.
DISCLAIMER
This letter pertains to APFO approval only, and shall not be construed to provide any express or
implied rights to continue the development process. The Project remains subject to all applicable
rules and regulations including, but not limited to, those related to zoning, water and sewer, and
subdivision. The BOCCs jurisdiction is limited by State and County law, and approvals may be
required from other local or state governmental agencies before the proposed development can

Page 22
proceed.
V.
PERIOD OF VALIDITY
This APFO approval shall be valid for a period of twenty-five (25) years, pursuant to
Section 1-20-8 (E) of the APFO. The twenty-five year APFO approval is consistent with the
schedule set forth in Section 1-20-8 and referenced in Section 1-20-9 (E) of the APFO which
provides a 15 year approval for developments up to 1,751 units, or 116 units per year.
Construction of 3,235 units over a twenty-five (25) year period would equate to an average of
129 units per year. Phasing of development and infrastructure over twenty-five years is
reasonable and feasible given the large size of the Project, the projected market absorption of
residential units and commercial uses, and the requirement to finance and construct significant
public infrastructure in an orderly and staged manner to serve the Project.
The effective date of this LOU for the commencement of all APFO approvals referenced herein
shall be _____________, and it shall remain valid through __________, 2038.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on the date first above
written.
WITNESS:
OAKDALE INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.

By:
____________________________________
Name:
Title:
ATTEST:
_____________________
Lori L. Depies, CPA
County Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND
By:_________________________________
Blaine R. Young
President
STATE OF MARYLAND, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO WIT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ____ day of __________, 2013, before me, the
undersigned officer, personally appeared Blaine R. Young, President of the Board of County
Commissioners for Frederick County, Maryland, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to
be his act and deed in such capacity, and that he is authorized to make this acknowledgment.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal.

Page 23
___________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF _____________, COUNTY OF ________________, TO WIT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ______ day of _________________, 2013, before me,
the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, personally appeared
_________________, Managing Member of Oakdale Investments, L.L.C., a Maryland limited
liability company, and he acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be the act and deed of
Oakdale Investments L.L.C., in such capacity; and he did further certify that he is duly
authorized, as Managing Member of Oakdale Investments L.L.C., to make this
acknowledgement on its behalf.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal.
___________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
Oakdale - Lake Linganore

Frederick, Maryland
APPENDIX D
Tax Increment Financing Bond Projections
Fiscal Impact Analysis
One-Time Revenue Projections
Prepared By:
MuniCap
Public Finance
April 24, 2013

Frederick, Maryland
APPENDIX D
Table of Contents
S-I
Summary of Fiscal Impacts
I.
Bond Projections
Sources and Uses of Funds and Bond Issuance Assumptions
II.
Public Improvements
III.
Debt Service Projections

A. Series A
B. Series B
3
4
Details of the Capitalized Interest Account

A. Series A
B. Series B
5
6
Details of the Improvement Fund

A. Series A
B. Series B
7
8
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
S-1
Development Summary & Tax Increment Financing Projections

Development Summary
A. Project Total
B. Project Detail
9
10
Projected Market Value - Comparables

A. Residential
B. Commercial
11
13
Projected Absorption
A. Woodridge
B. Westridge
C. Hamptons West
D. Hamptons East
E. Town Center
F. Alpine
G. Other Projects
H. All Projects
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
IX.
Projected Assessed Value

A. Woodridge
B. Westridge
C. Hamptons West
D. Hamptons East
E. Town Center
F. Alpine
G. Other Projects
H. All Projects
24
25
26
27
28
32
33
34
X.
Base Value - TIF District
35
XI.
Projected Incremental Real Property Tax Revenues
37
XII.
Projected Payment of Debt Service and Debt Service Coverage - Portion Repaid by
Tax Increment and Special Tax B Revenues
38

Projected Revenues to Frederick County
XIII.
Annual County Personal Income Tax Revenues

A. Revenues from Residents
B. Revenues from Employee Residents
39
40
XIV.
Projection of Local Recordation Tax Revenues
41
XV.
Projected Additional Revenues to Frederick County

A. Annual
B. 39 Years
44
45
Total Projected Revenues to Frederick County
46
XVI.
Projected Expenditures and Net Fiscal Impacts to Frederick County

XVII.
Projected Additional Expenses to Frederick County

A. Annual
B. 39 Years
XVIII. Net Fiscal Impacts to Frederick County
47
50
52
Appendices
Appendix A: Revenues and Expenses to Frederick County (Allocation Factors)
A-1
Appendix B: Projected Employees
B-1
Appendix C: Projected Residents
C-1
Appendix D: Projected Service Population
D-1
Appendix E: Projected Students
E-1
Appendix F: Projected Sales
F-1
Appendix G-1: Anchor Jobs and Indirect Impacts

1. Anchor
2. In-Line Retail
3. Office
G-1
G-2
G-3
Appendix H: Total Projected Revenues to Frederick County - Uninflated
H-1
Appendix I: Construction Jobs and Indirect Impacts
I-1

Frederick, Maryland
Summary of Fiscal Impacts to Frederick County
Frederick County Net Fiscal Impacts
Surplus real property tax revenues3

Local income tax revenues - residential
Local income tax revenues - commercial
4
Local recordation tax revenues
Additional revenues
Frederick County tax revenues
Frederick County expenditures
Net impact to Frederick County
5
One-time fee revenues
Total net impact to Frederick County
Frederick County Permanent Employment Impacts
Annual1
39 Years2
$10,047,395
$7,120,402
$285,453
$1,237,898
$108,784
$18,799,932
($14,321,971)
$4,477,961
$3,503,139
$7,981,101
$361,706,222
$256,334,488
$9,705,387
$44,564,313
$3,916,241
$676,226,651
($515,590,948)
$160,635,703
$129,616,152
$290,251,855
Permanent Jobs
Annual Wages
119
35
$4,008,246
$1,295,183
238
38
$4,247,633
$1,391,867
286
169
643
242
885
$15,448,026
$6,429,580
$23,703,905
$9,116,630
$32,820,535
Anchor related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
In-line retail related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
Office related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
Total direct impacts
Total indirect impacts
Total permanent impacts
Frederick County Temporary Construction Related Employment Impacts
Temporary Jobs
Annual Wages
6,896
3,788
10,684
$363,479,421
$156,533,031
$520,012,452
Construction related:
Direct impacts
Indirect impacts
Total temporary impacts
MuniCap, Inc.
1
2
Represents the annual average tax revenues generated by the Oakdale development.
Thirty-nine year revenues are shown cumulatively, assuming inflation of two percent annually.
3
Represents the real property tax revenues after debt service has been repaid. Annual surplus real property tax revenues
represent the average annual surplus over the period revenues are generated in today's dollars.
4
Annual local recordation tax revenues represent the average annual local recordation tax revenues over the period
revenues are generated in today's dollars.
5
Annual one-time fee revenues represent the average annual one-time fee revenues over the period revenues are
generated.
6
Represents the new permanent jobs based on the projected development at full build-out. Permanent jobs are full-time
equivalents.
7
Temporary jobs are full-time equivalents and assume a one-year duration.
S-1

Frederick, Maryland
Summary of Fee Revenues to Frederick County
39 Years2
Building excise fees 1
Impact fees:
Public school fees
Library fees
School construction fees:
Sewer and water fees:
Capacity fees
Meter fees
Solid waste fees:
Residential
Commercial
DPDR/CDD Fees:
Building permit and zoning fees
Plumbing permit and license fees
Electrical permit and license fees:
Residential
Commercial
Total one-time fees to Frederick County
$0
$39,011,200
$2,273,315
$27,184,605
$48,056,832
$808,525
$7,289,580
$560,930
$2,486,146
$1,033,666
$862,798
$48,555
$129,616,152
MuniCap, Inc.
Pursuant to a revision to the building excise tax ordinance approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on November 1, 2011, the building excise tax rate was reduced to zero for both
residential and non-residential construction.
Thirty-nine year revenues are shown cumulatively. See Schedule IX of the one-time revenues.
S-2

Frederick, Maryland
Bond Projections

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule I: Sources and Uses of Funds and Bond Issuance Assumptions
Series A
Proceeds

Series B
Percent
Proceeds
Percent
Total
TIF/Special
Tax B Bond
Proceeds
Percent
Sources of funds:
Total bond proceeds
Interest earned in the improvement fund (see Schedule V)
Total sources of funds
$6,454,000
$23,875
$6,477,875
99.6%
0.4%
100.0%
$25,498,000
$47,357
$25,545,357
99.8%
0.2%
100.0%
$31,952,000
$71,232
$32,023,232
99.8%
0.2%
100.0%
Uses of funds:
Public improvements (see Schedule II)
Issuance costs
Underwriter's discount
Capitalized interest (see Schedule IV)
Reserve fund
Rounding
Total uses of funds
$5,000,000
$300,000
$96,810
$434,933
$645,400
$732
$6,477,875
77.5%
4.6%
1.5%
6.7%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
$20,702,000
$300,000
$382,470
$1,610,320
$2,549,800
$766
$25,545,357
81.2%
1.2%
1.5%
6.3%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
$25,702,000
$600,000
$479,280
$2,045,253
$3,195,200
$1,499
$32,023,232
80.4%
1.9%
1.5%
6.4%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Assumptions:
Maturity
Interest only
Amortization
30 years
1 years
29 years
30 years
1 years
29 years
Bond coupon rate
6.50%
6.50%
Reinvestment rates:
Reserve fund
Improvement fund
Capitalized interest account
2.00%
0.50%
0.50%
2.00%
0.50%
0.50%
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-23
January 1 and July 1

July 1
January 1 and July 1

July 1
1-Jul-19
12
1-Jul-24
12
Date bonds issued

Dates payments due:
Interest
Principal
Capitalized interest:
Interest funded through
Months interest funded
MuniCap, Inc.
LTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]I
24-Apr-13
Page 1

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule II: Public Improvements1

Series A
Series B
Improvement
Total
Roads
I-70/Meadow Road west bound ramp
$5,000,000
$0
$5,000,000
I-70/Meadow Road east bound ramp
$0
$20,702,000
$20,702,000
$5,000,000
$20,702,000
$25,702,000
Total public improvements costs to be financed

MuniCap, Inc.
1
dale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]II

24-Apr-13
Page 2

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule III-A: Debt Service Projections - Series A
Date
1-Jul-18
1-Jan-19
1-Jul-19
1-Jan-20
1-Jul-20
1-Jan-21
1-Jul-21
1-Jan-22
1-Jul-22
1-Jan-23
1-Jul-23
1-Jan-24
1-Jul-24
1-Jan-25
1-Jul-25
1-Jan-26
1-Jul-26
1-Jan-27
1-Jul-27
1-Jan-28
1-Jul-28
1-Jan-29
1-Jul-29
1-Jan-30
1-Jul-30
1-Jan-31
1-Jul-31
1-Jan-32
1-Jul-32
1-Jan-33
1-Jul-33
1-Jan-34
1-Jul-34
1-Jan-35
1-Jul-35
1-Jan-36
1-Jul-36
1-Jan-37
1-Jul-37
1-Jan-38
1-Jul-38
1-Jan-39
1-Jul-39
1-Jan-40
1-Jul-40
1-Jan-41
1-Jul-41
1-Jan-42
1-Jul-42
1-Jan-43
1-Jul-43
1-Jan-44
1-Jul-44
1-Jan-45
1-Jul-45
1-Jan-46
1-Jul-46
1-Jan-47
1-Jul-47
1-Jan-48
1-Jul-48
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Interest
Rate
Principal
$0
6.50%
$1,000
6.50%
$8,000
6.50%
$16,000
6.50%
$24,000
6.50%
$33,000
6.50%
$43,000
6.50%
$53,000
6.50%
$65,000
6.50%
$77,000
6.50%
$90,000
6.50%
$104,000
6.50%
$119,000
6.50%
$136,000
6.50%
$153,000
6.50%
$172,000
6.50%
$192,000
6.50%
$214,000
6.50%
$237,000
6.50%
$262,000
6.50%
$289,000
6.50%
$318,000
6.50%
$348,000
6.50%
$381,000
6.50%
$416,000
6.50%
$454,000
6.50%
$494,000
6.50%
$537,000
6.50%
$583,000
6.50%
$635,000
6.50%
$6,454,000
Interest
Gross
Debt Service
Payments
$209,755
$209,755
$209,755
$209,755
$209,723
$209,723
$209,463
$209,463
$208,943
$208,943
$208,163
$208,163
$207,090
$207,090
$205,693
$205,693
$203,970
$203,970
$201,858
$201,858
$199,355
$199,355
$196,430
$196,430
$193,050
$193,050
$189,183
$189,183
$184,763
$184,763
$179,790
$179,790
$174,200
$174,200
$167,960
$167,960
$161,005
$161,005
$153,303
$153,303
$144,788
$144,788
$135,395
$135,395
$125,060
$125,060
$113,750
$113,750
$101,368
$101,368
$87,848
$87,848
$73,093
$73,093
$57,038
$57,038
$39,585
$39,585
$20,638
$20,638
$209,755
$209,755
$209,755
$210,755
$209,723
$217,723
$209,463
$225,463
$208,943
$232,943
$208,163
$241,163
$207,090
$250,090
$205,693
$258,693
$203,970
$268,970
$201,858
$278,858
$199,355
$289,355
$196,430
$300,430
$193,050
$312,050
$189,183
$325,183
$184,763
$337,763
$179,790
$351,790
$174,200
$366,200
$167,960
$381,960
$161,005
$398,005
$153,303
$415,303
$144,788
$433,788
$135,395
$453,395
$125,060
$473,060
$113,750
$494,750
$101,368
$517,368
$87,848
$541,848
$73,093
$567,093
$57,038
$594,038
$39,585
$622,585
$20,638
$655,638
$9,544,015
$15,998,015
Gross Annual
Debt Service
Payments
$419,510
Capitalized
Interest
($203,301)
($233,301)
$420,510
$427,445
$434,925
$441,885
$449,325
$457,180
$464,385
$472,940
$480,715
$488,710
$496,860
$505,100
$514,365
$522,525
$531,580
$540,400
$549,920
$559,010
$568,605
$578,575
$588,790
$598,120
$608,500
$618,735
$629,695
$640,185
$651,075
$662,170
$676,275
$15,998,015
($436,602)
Reserve
Fund
Income
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($6,454)
($651,854)
($1,032,640)
Administrative
Expenses
Net Annual
Debt
Service
$30,000
$0
$30,600
$438,202
$31,212
$445,749
$31,836
$453,853
$32,473
$461,450
$33,122
$469,539
$33,785
$478,057
$34,461
$485,938
$35,150
$495,182
$35,853
$503,660
$36,570
$512,372
$37,301
$521,253
$38,047
$530,239
$38,808
$540,265
$39,584
$549,201
$40,376
$559,048
$41,184
$568,676
$42,007
$579,019
$42,847
$588,949
$43,704
$599,401
$44,578
$610,245
$45,470
$621,352
$46,379
$631,591
$47,307
$642,899
$48,253
$654,080
$49,218
$666,005
$50,203
$677,480
$51,207
$689,374
$52,231
$701,493
$53,275
$71,242
$1,217,042
$15,745,815
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]III-A
24-Apr-13
Page 3

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule III-B: Debt Service Projections - Series B
Date
1-Jul-23
1-Jan-24
1-Jul-24
1-Jan-25
1-Jul-25
1-Jan-26
1-Jul-26
1-Jan-27
1-Jul-27
1-Jan-28
1-Jul-28
1-Jan-29
1-Jul-29
1-Jan-30
1-Jul-30
1-Jan-31
1-Jul-31
1-Jan-32
1-Jul-32
1-Jan-33
1-Jul-33
1-Jan-34
1-Jul-34
1-Jan-35
1-Jul-35
1-Jan-36
1-Jul-36
1-Jan-37
1-Jul-37
1-Jan-38
1-Jul-38
1-Jan-39
1-Jul-39
1-Jan-40
1-Jul-40
1-Jan-41
1-Jul-41
1-Jan-42
1-Jul-42
1-Jan-43
1-Jul-43
1-Jan-44
1-Jul-44
1-Jan-45
1-Jul-45
1-Jan-46
1-Jul-46
1-Jan-47
1-Jul-47
1-Jan-48
1-Jul-48
1-Jan-49
1-Jul-49
1-Jan-50
1-Jul-50
1-Jan-51
1-Jul-51
1-Jan-52
1-Jul-52
1-Jan-53
1-Jul-53
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Interest
Rate
Principal
$0
6.50%
$2,000
6.50%
$31,000
6.50%
$61,000
6.50%
$94,000
6.50%
$130,000
6.50%
$169,000
6.50%
$211,000
6.50%
$255,000
6.50%
$304,000
6.50%
$356,000
6.50%
$412,000
6.50%
$472,000
6.50%
$537,000
6.50%
$606,000
6.50%
$681,000
6.50%
$760,000
6.50%
$846,000
6.50%
$938,000
6.50%
$1,037,000
6.50%
$1,142,000
6.50%
$1,255,000
6.50%
$1,377,000
6.50%
$1,506,000
6.50%
$1,645,000
6.50%
$1,794,000
6.50%
$1,952,000
6.50%
$2,122,000
6.50%
$2,304,000
6.50%
$2,499,000
6.50%
$25,498,000
Interest
Gross
Debt Service
Payments
$828,685
$828,685
$828,685
$828,685
$828,620
$828,620
$827,613
$827,613
$825,630
$825,630
$822,575
$822,575
$818,350
$818,350
$812,858
$812,858
$806,000
$806,000
$797,713
$797,713
$787,833
$787,833
$776,263
$776,263
$762,873
$762,873
$747,533
$747,533
$730,080
$730,080
$710,385
$710,385
$688,253
$688,253
$663,553
$663,553
$636,058
$636,058
$605,573
$605,573
$571,870
$571,870
$534,755
$534,755
$493,968
$493,968
$449,215
$449,215
$400,270
$400,270
$346,808
$346,808
$288,503
$288,503
$225,063
$225,063
$156,098
$156,098
$81,218
$81,218
$828,685
$828,685
$828,685
$830,685
$828,620
$859,620
$827,613
$888,613
$825,630
$919,630
$822,575
$952,575
$818,350
$987,350
$812,858
$1,023,858
$806,000
$1,061,000
$797,713
$1,101,713
$787,833
$1,143,833
$776,263
$1,188,263
$762,873
$1,234,873
$747,533
$1,284,533
$730,080
$1,336,080
$710,385
$1,391,385
$688,253
$1,448,253
$663,553
$1,509,553
$636,058
$1,574,058
$605,573
$1,642,573
$571,870
$1,713,870
$534,755
$1,789,755
$493,968
$1,870,968
$449,215
$1,955,215
$400,270
$2,045,270
$346,808
$2,140,808
$288,503
$2,240,503
$225,063
$2,347,063
$156,098
$2,460,098
$81,218
$2,580,218
$37,705,785
$63,203,785
Gross Annual
Debt Service
Payments
$1,657,370
Capitalized
Interest
($803,187)
($813,187)
$1,659,370
$1,688,240
$1,716,225
$1,745,260
$1,775,150
$1,805,700
$1,836,715
$1,867,000
$1,899,425
$1,931,665
$1,964,525
$1,997,745
$2,032,065
$2,066,160
$2,101,770
$2,136,505
$2,173,105
$2,210,115
$2,248,145
$2,285,740
$2,324,510
$2,364,935
$2,404,430
$2,445,540
$2,487,615
$2,529,005
$2,572,125
$2,616,195
$2,661,435
$63,203,785
($1,616,374)
Reserve
Fund
Income
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($25,498)
($2,575,298)
($4,079,680)
Administrative
Expenses
Net Annual
Debt
Service
$10,000
$0
$10,200
$1,618,574
$10,404
$1,647,648
$10,612
$1,675,841
$10,824
$1,705,088
$11,041
$1,735,195
$11,262
$1,765,966
$11,487
$1,797,206
$11,717
$1,827,721
$11,951
$1,860,380
$12,190
$1,892,859
$12,434
$1,925,963
$12,682
$1,959,431
$12,936
$1,994,005
$13,195
$2,028,359
$13,459
$2,064,233
$13,728
$2,099,237
$14,002
$2,136,111
$14,282
$2,173,401
$14,568
$2,211,717
$14,859
$2,249,603
$15,157
$2,288,671
$15,460
$2,329,399
$15,769
$2,369,203
$16,084
$2,410,628
$16,406
$2,453,025
$16,734
$2,494,743
$17,069
$2,538,198
$17,410
$2,582,609
$17,758
$78,397
$405,681
$57,913,412
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]III-B
24-Apr-13
Page 4

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IV-A: Details of the Capitalized Interest Account - Series A
1-Jul-18
1-Jan-19
1-Jul-19
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Disbursement
Net Withdrawal
Beginning Deposit from
for
Reserve
Administrative From Capitalized
Balance Bond Proceeds Debt Service Fund Income
Expenses
Interest Account
$0
$434,933
$434,933
($209,755)
$6,454
$203,301
$232,719
($209,755)
$6,454
($30,000)
$233,301
$434,933
($419,510)
$12,908
($30,000)
$436,602
Interest Reinvestment
Earnings
Rate
$1,087
$582
0.50%
0.50%
Ending
Balance
$434,933
$232,719
$0
$1,669
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IV-A
24-Apr-13
Page 5

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IV-B: Details of the Capitalized Interest Account - Series B
1-Jul-23
1-Jan-24
1-Jul-24
Disbursement
Net Withdrawal
Beginning Deposit from
for
Reserve
Administrative From Capitalized
Balance Bond Proceeds Debt Service Fund Income
Expenses
Interest Account
$0
$1,610,320
$1,610,320
($828,685)
$25,498
$803,187
$811,159
($828,685)
$25,498
($10,000)
$813,187
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
$1,610,320
($1,657,370)
$50,996
($10,000)
$1,616,374
Interest Reinvestment
Earnings
Rate
$4,026
$2,028
0.50%
0.50%
Ending
Balance
$1,610,320
$811,159
$0
$6,054
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IV-B
24-Apr-13
Page 6

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule V-A: Details of the Improvement Fund - Series A
Date
1-Jul-18
1-Aug-18
1-Sep-18
1-Oct-18
1-Nov-18
1-Dec-18
1-Jan-19
1-Feb-19
1-Mar-19
1-Apr-19
1-May-19
1-Jun-19
1-Jul-19
1-Aug-19
1-Sep-19
1-Oct-19
1-Nov-19
1-Dec-19
1-Jan-20
1-Feb-20
1-Mar-20
1-Apr-20
1-May-20
1-Jun-20
1-Jul-20
1-Aug-20
1-Sep-20
1-Oct-20
1-Nov-20
1-Dec-20
1-Jan-21
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Disbursement
Beginning
Deposit from
for
Balance
Bond Proceeds Construction
$0
$4,976,125
($208,333)
$4,767,791
$0
($208,333)
$4,561,445
$0
($208,333)
$4,355,012
$0
($208,333)
$4,148,493
$0
($208,333)
$3,941,888
$0
($208,333)
$3,735,197
$0
($208,333)
$3,528,420
$0
($208,333)
$3,321,557
$0
($208,333)
$3,114,608
$0
($208,333)
$2,907,572
$0
($208,333)
$2,700,450
$0
($208,333)
$2,493,242
$0
($208,333)
$2,285,948
$0
($208,333)
$2,078,567
$0
($208,333)
$1,871,100
$0
($208,333)
$1,663,546
$0
($208,333)
$1,455,906
$0
($208,333)
$1,248,179
$0
($208,333)
$1,040,366
$0
($208,333)
$832,466
$0
($208,333)
$624,480
$0
($208,333)
$416,406
$0
($208,333)
$208,247
$0
($208,333)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,976,125
($5,000,000)
Interest
Earnings
$0
$1,987
$1,901
$1,815
$1,729
$1,642
$1,556
$1,470
$1,384
$1,298
$1,211
$1,125
$1,039
$952
$866
$780
$693
$607
$520
$433
$347
$260
$174
$87
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reinvestment
Rate
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
Ending
Balance
$4,767,791
$4,561,445
$4,355,012
$4,148,493
$3,941,888
$3,735,197
$3,528,420
$3,321,557
$3,114,608
$2,907,572
$2,700,450
$2,493,242
$2,285,948
$2,078,567
$1,871,100
$1,663,546
$1,455,906
$1,248,179
$1,040,366
$832,466
$624,480
$416,406
$208,247
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,875
NG\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]V-A
24-Apr-13
Page 7

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule V-B: Details of the Improvement Fund - Series B
Date
1-Jul-23
1-Aug-23
1-Sep-23
1-Oct-23
1-Nov-23
1-Dec-23
1-Jan-24
1-Feb-24
1-Mar-24
1-Apr-24
1-May-24
1-Jun-24
1-Jul-24
1-Aug-24
1-Sep-24
1-Oct-24
1-Nov-24
1-Dec-24
1-Jan-25
1-Feb-25
1-Mar-25
1-Apr-25
1-May-25
1-Jun-25
1-Jul-25
1-Aug-25
1-Sep-25
1-Oct-25
1-Nov-25
1-Dec-25
1-Jan-26
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Disbursement
Beginning
Deposit from
for
Balance
Bond Proceeds Construction
$0 $20,654,643
($1,725,167)
$18,929,477
$0
($1,725,167)
$17,212,197
$0
($1,725,167)
$15,494,202
$0
($1,725,167)
$13,775,492
$0
($1,725,167)
$12,056,065
$0
($1,725,167)
$10,335,922
$0
($1,725,167)
$8,615,062
$0
($1,725,167)
$6,893,484
$0
($1,725,167)
$5,171,190
$0
($1,725,167)
$3,448,178
$0
($1,725,167)
$1,724,448
$0
($1,725,167)
$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
$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
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,654,643
($20,702,000)
Interest
Earnings
$0
$7,887
$7,172
$6,456
$5,740
$5,023
$4,307
$3,590
$2,872
$2,155
$1,437
$719
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reinvestment
Rate
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
Ending
Balance
$18,929,477
$17,212,197
$15,494,202
$13,775,492
$12,056,065
$10,335,922
$8,615,062
$6,893,484
$5,171,190
$3,448,178
$1,724,448
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,357
NG\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]V-B
24-Apr-13
Page 8

Frederick, Maryland
Development Summary & Tax Increment Financing Projections

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VI-A: Development Summary - Project Total
Property Area1
Development
Assessed Value3
Avg. Gross
SF Per Unit
GSF
Per Unit
Per GSF
Assessed Value4
1,450
1,385
200
200
3,235
3,000
2,000
1,800
1,200
4,350,000
2,770,000
360,000
240,000
7,720,000
$367,941
$209,709
$188,176
$107,641
$123
$105
$105
$90
$533,514,183
$290,446,889
$37,635,123
$21,528,134
$883,124,329
Commercial
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
60,000
80,000
60,000
200,000
$100
$173
$151
$5,985,290
$13,816,746
$9,068,524
$28,870,560
Total
3,235
MuniCap, Inc.
7,920,000
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC. See Schedule VI-B for a detailed break-down by project.

See Schedules VII-A and VII-B.
$911,994,889
ONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VI-A
24-Apr-13
Total
Units
Type
Residential
Townhouse
Condos (2 over 2)
Multi-family rental
Assessed value equals 100% of market value.
Page 9

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VI-B: Development Summary - Project Detail
Property Area1
Development
Date of
Assessed Value3
Avg. Gross
Total
Completion
Units
SF Per Unit
GSF
Per Unit
Per GSF
Assessed Value4
2020
2018
100
50
150
3,000
2,000
300,000
100,000
400,000
$367,941
$209,709
$123
$105
$36,794,082
$10,485,447
$47,279,529
2033
2033
300
100
400
3,000
2,000
900,000
200,000
1,100,000
$367,941
$209,709
$123
$105
$110,382,245
$20,970,894
$131,353,139
Hamptons West
Residential
2023
Townhouse
2023
300
150
450
3,000
2,000
900,000
300,000
1,200,000
$367,941
$209,709
$123
$105
$110,382,245
$31,456,342
$141,838,587
Hamptons East
Residential
Townhouse
2028
2028
300
135
435
3,000
2,000
900,000
270,000
1,170,000
$367,941
$209,709
$123
$105
$110,382,245
$28,310,708
$138,692,952
2038
2038
2034
2025
300
800
200
200
1,500
3,000
2,000
1,800
1,200
900,000
1,600,000
360,000
240,000
3,100,000
$367,941
$209,709
$188,176
$107,641
$123
$105
$105
$90
$110,382,245
$167,767,156
$37,635,123
$21,528,134
$337,312,658
2018
2028
2028
60,000
80,000
60,000
200,000
3,300,000
$100
$173
$151
$5,985,290
$13,816,746
$9,068,524
$28,870,560
$366,183,218
2033
100
3,000
300,000
$367,941
$123
$36,794,082
2022
2033
50
150
200
3,000
2,000
150,000
300,000
450,000
$367,941
$209,709
$123
$105
$18,397,041
$31,456,342
$49,853,383
Type
Woodridge
Residential
Townhouse
Sub-total Woodridge
Westridge
Residential
Townhouse
Sub-total Westridge
Town Center
Residential
Townhouse
Condos (2 over 2)
Multi-family rental
Commercial
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total Town Center
Alpine
Residential
Other Projects
Residential
Townhouse
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
3,235
Additional information needed to project gross square feet per unit

See Schedules VII-A and VII-B.
7,920,000
$911,994,889
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VI-B
24-Apr-13
Assessed value equals 100% of market value.
Page 10

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VII-A: Projected Market Value - Comparables (Residential) 1
Type
For Sale
Single Family Detached
Linton at Ballenger Creek
Average value per gross square foot
Townhouse
Market Square at Frederick
MuniCap, Inc.
Address
Account
Identifier
Year
Built
GSF
Land
Total Market Value

Improvement
Total
6198 Christian Kemp North Drive

23 458683
23 458527
23 458489
23 458519
5032 Wesley Square

5048 Wesley Square
5010 Wesley Square
5019 Wesley Square
5027 Wesley Square
2615 Egret Way
2617 Egret Way
2629 Egret Way
23 458829
23 459221
23 458756
23 458926
23 458861
02 588582
02 588581
02 588575
Total Market Value

Per GSF
Per Unit
2011
2012
2012
2011
3,618
3,333
2,638
2,658
3,062
$88,500
$89,800
$88,100
$88,000
$349,700
$336,700
$232,300
$231,100
$438,200
$426,500
$320,400
$319,100
$121
$128
$121
$120
$123
$438,200
$426,500
$320,400
$319,100
2009
2010
2010
2008
2008
2012
2012
2012
2,900
2,908
2,860
2,860
2,883
2,530
2,520
2,520
2,748
$56,000
$57,400
$57,400
$57,400
$57,400
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$214,400
$222,600
$216,300
$236,800
$235,600
$223,100
$232,800
$230,000
$270,400
$280,000
$273,700
$294,200
$293,000
$288,100
$297,800
$295,000
$93
$96
$96
$103
$102
$114
$118
$117
$105
$270,400
$280,000
$273,700
$294,200
$293,000
$288,100
$297,800
$295,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VII-A
24-Apr-13
Source: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. Comparable assessed value chosen for each type of development is underlined and shown in bold and italics.
Page 11

Frederick, Maryland
1
Schedule VII-A: Projected Market Value - Comparables (Residential) , continued

Type
For Sale, continued
Two-Over-Two
Rental
Apartment
Fairway Vista Apartments
The Reserve at Ballenger Creek
Camden Clearbrook
Apartments at Wellington Trace
Address
Account
Identifier
Year
Built
Jack Linton Drive North

202A Mill Pond Road
202B Mill Pond Road
204A Mill Pond Road
204B Mill Pond Road
206A Mill Pond Road
206B Mill Pond Road
204A Mill Pond Road
204B Mill Pond Road
23 589314
23 589315
23 589316
23 589317
02 589301
02 589302
02 589303
02 589304
02 589305
02 589306
02 589303
02 589304
2013
2013
2013
2013
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
1000 Riverwalk Place

607 Windview Way
Ballenger Creek Road
4901 Meridian Way
02 256614
02 228947
23 457180
01 036505
2006
2000
2006
2002
Building Area
GSF Per Unit
Units
Land
1,904
2,931
1,868
2,895
1,758
2,727
1,786
2,727
1,758
2,727
1,786
2,727
2,300
$60,000
$66,200
$60,000
$66,200
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$179,900
$198,700
$179,900
$198,700
$150,000
$200,000
$150,000
$200,000
$150,000
$200,000
$150,000
$200,000
$239,900
$264,900
$239,900
$264,900
$200,000
$250,000
$200,000
$250,000
$200,000
$250,000
$200,000
$250,000
$126
$90
$128
$92
$114
$92
$112
$92
$114
$92
$112
$92
$105
$239,900
$264,900
$239,900
$264,900
$200,000
$250,000
$200,000
$250,000
$200,000
$250,000
$200,000
$250,000
211,052
232,016
372,920
330,964
1,851
1,137
1,256
1,379
1,406
114
204
297
240
$1,765,700
$3,642,700
$2,030,700
$4,759,800
$14,022,500
$17,121,700
$32,709,100
$28,781,200
$15,788,200
$20,764,400
$34,739,800
$33,541,000
$75
$89
$93
$101
$90
$138,493
$101,786
$116,969
$139,754
GSF
MuniCap, Inc.
Total Market Value

Improvement
Total
Total Market Value

Per GSF
Per Unit
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VII-A.2
24-Apr-13
1
Page 12

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VII-B: Projected Market Value - Comparables (Commercial)1
Type
Address
Account
Identifier
Year
Built
GSF
Land
Anchor
Weis
Weis
Safeway
2 Old Camp Road

2 Thurmont Boulevard
927 W. 7th Street
02 118947
15 347643
02 142449
1980
2006
1987
55,574
54,070
47,297
$995,700
$1,414,400
$1,687,200
$4,554,600
$5,178,200
$5,748,500
$82
$96
$122
$100
In-Line Retail
2
Key Plaza
3
White Star Shoppes
4
Westview Promenade
5
Westview Corner
5600 Urbana Pike

Spectrum Drive
5100 Buckeystown Pike
5213 Presidents Court
28 540191
28 574215
01 045768
28 559968
2001
2010
2009
2008
50,844
18,798
99,778
22,446
$3,547,500 $5,586,900 $9,134,400

$1,484,500 $2,389,400 $3,873,900
$4,227,400 $13,713,200 $17,940,600
$631,400
$2,181,000 $2,812,400
$180
$206
$180
$125
$173
Office
Riverside Research Park
Wells Fargo/Riverside Research Park
Banner Life at Urbana
Fannie Mae at Urbana
Bechtel/Westview Corporate Center
8490 Progress Drive

8480 Progress Drive
3275 Bennett Creek Avenue
Bennett Creek Avenue
5295 Westview Drive
02 263793
02 244071
07 256876
07 246250
28 563167
2008
2007
2011
2004
2001
132,134
310,006
118,055
183,550
128,179
$2,019,700
$7,655,200
$374,000
$6,306,500
$2,100,800
$154
$152
$125
$189
$137
$151
MuniCap, Inc.
Total Market Value

Improvement
Total
$3,558,900
$3,763,800
$4,061,300
$18,272,000
$39,450,000
$14,331,500
$28,317,900
$15,458,400
$20,291,700
$47,105,200
$14,705,500
$34,624,400
$17,559,200
Total Market
Value Per GSF
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VII-B
24-Apr-13
Includes the following shops: Office Depot, Mattress Discounters, Panera Bread, Reico Kitchen & Bath, and Party City.
Includes the following shops: Verizon, Jersey Mike Subs, and Baha Fresh.
Includes the following shops: Sport Clips, Plato's Closet, Sleepy's, LOFT, Coldwater Creek, Westview Cinemas, and WOW Caf and Wingery.
Includes the following shops: Jimmy Johns, Baltimore Coffee & Tea Company, and Smoothie King.
Page 13

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-A: Projected Absorption - Woodridge1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Residential
Townhouse
(Units)
(SF)
(Units)
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
60,000
60,000
20
20
40,000
40,000
20
40
60,000
120,000
20
40
40,000
80,000
20
60
60,000
180,000
10
50
20,000
100,000
20
80
60,000
240,000
0
50
0
100,000
20
100
60,000
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
0
100
0
300,000
0
50
0
100,000
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
100
300,000
50
100,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-A
24-Apr-13
Page 14

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-B: Projected Absorption - Westridge1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Residential
Townhouse
(Units)
(SF)
(Units)
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
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
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
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
81,818
81,818
9
9
18,182
18,182
27
55
81,818
163,636
9
18
18,182
36,364
27
82
81,818
245,455
9
27
18,182
54,545
27
109
81,818
327,273
9
36
18,182
72,727
27
136
81,818
409,091
9
45
18,182
90,909
27
164
81,818
490,909
9
55
18,182
109,091
27
191
81,818
572,727
9
64
18,182
127,273
27
218
81,818
654,545
9
73
18,182
145,455
27
245
81,818
736,364
9
82
18,182
163,636
27
273
81,818
818,182
9
91
18,182
181,818
27
300
81,818
900,000
9
100
18,182
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
100
0
200,000
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
300
900,000
100
200,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-B
24-Apr-13
Page 15

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-C: Projected Absorption - Hamptons West1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Residential
Townhouse
(Units)
(SF)
(Units)
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
112,500
112,500
19
19
37,500
37,500
38
75
112,500
225,000
19
38
37,500
75,000
38
113
112,500
337,500
19
56
37,500
112,500
38
150
112,500
450,000
19
75
37,500
150,000
38
188
112,500
562,500
19
94
37,500
187,500
38
225
112,500
675,000
19
113
37,500
225,000
38
263
112,500
787,500
19
131
37,500
262,500
38
300
112,500
900,000
19
150
37,500
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
150
0
300,000
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
300
900,000
150
300,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-C
24-Apr-13
Page 16

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-D: Projected Absorption - Hamptons East1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Residential
Townhouse
(Units)
(SF)
(Units)
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
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
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
112,500
112,500
17
17
33,750
33,750
38
75
112,500
225,000
17
34
33,750
67,500
38
113
112,500
337,500
17
51
33,750
101,250
38
150
112,500
450,000
17
68
33,750
135,000
38
188
112,500
562,500
17
84
33,750
168,750
38
225
112,500
675,000
17
101
33,750
202,500
38
263
112,500
787,500
17
118
33,750
236,250
38
300
112,500
900,000
17
135
33,750
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
135
0
270,000
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
300
900,000
135
270,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-D
24-Apr-13
Page 17

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-E: Projected Absorption - Town Center1
Residential
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52

(Units)
(SF)
Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
13
39,130
39,130
13
26
39,130
78,261
13
39
39,130
117,391
13
52
39,130
156,522
13
65
39,130
195,652
13
78
39,130
234,783
13
91
39,130
273,913
13
104
39,130
313,043
13
117
39,130
352,174
13
130
39,130
391,304
13
143
39,130
430,435
13
157
39,130
469,565
13
170
39,130
508,696
13
183
39,130
547,826
13
196
39,130
586,957
13
209
39,130
626,087
13
222
39,130
665,217
13
235
39,130
704,348
13
248
39,130
743,478
13
261
39,130
782,609
13
274
39,130
821,739
13
287
39,130
860,870
13
300
39,130
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
0
300
0
900,000
Total
300
900,000
Townhouse
(Units)
(SF)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
35
69,565
69,565
35
70
69,565
139,130
35
104
69,565
208,696
35
139
69,565
278,261
35
174
69,565
347,826
35
209
69,565
417,391
35
243
69,565
486,957
35
278
69,565
556,522
35
313
69,565
626,087
35
348
69,565
695,652
35
383
69,565
765,217
35
417
69,565
834,783
35
452
69,565
904,348
35
487
69,565
973,913
35
522
69,565 1,043,478
35
557
69,565 1,113,043
35
591
69,565 1,182,609
35
626
69,565 1,252,174
35
661
69,565 1,321,739
35
696
69,565 1,391,304
35
730
69,565 1,460,870
35
765
69,565 1,530,435
35
800
69,565 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
0
800
0 1,600,000
800
1,600,000
MuniCap, Inc.
1
Condos (2 over 2)
(Units)
(SF)
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
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
20
20
36,000
36,000
20
40
36,000
72,000
20
60
36,000
108,000
20
80
36,000
144,000
20
100
36,000
180,000
20
120
36,000
216,000
20
140
36,000
252,000
20
160
36,000
288,000
20
180
36,000
324,000
20
200
36,000
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
200
360,000
Multi-Family Rental
(Units)
(SF)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
24,000
24,000
20
40
24,000
48,000
20
60
24,000
72,000
20
80
24,000
96,000
20
100
24,000
120,000
20
120
24,000
144,000
20
140
24,000
168,000
20
160
24,000
192,000
20
180
24,000
216,000
20
200
24,000
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
200
240,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-E
24-Apr-13
Page 18

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-E: Projected Absorption - Town Center, continued1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Total
Anchor
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
Commercial
In-Line Retail
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
30,000
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
60,000
80,000
MuniCap, Inc.
Office
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
60,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-E.2
24-Apr-13
1
Page 19

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-F: Projected Absorption - Alpine1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Total
Residential
Annual
(Units)
Cumulative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
9
18
9
27
9
36
9
45
9
55
9
64
9
73
9
82
9
91
9
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
100
(SF)
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
27,273
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,273
54,545
81,818
109,091
136,364
163,636
190,909
218,182
245,455
272,727
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
MuniCap, Inc. et Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-F
24-Apr-13
1
Page 20

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-G: Projected Absorption - Other Projects1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Residential
Townhouse
(Units)
(SF)
(Units)
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
30,000
30,000
9
9
18,750
18,750
10
20
30,000
60,000
9
19
18,750
37,500
10
30
30,000
90,000
9
28
18,750
56,250
10
40
30,000
120,000
9
38
18,750
75,000
10
50
30,000
150,000
9
47
18,750
93,750
0
50
0
150,000
9
56
18,750
112,500
0
50
0
150,000
9
66
18,750
131,250
0
50
0
150,000
9
75
18,750
150,000
0
50
0
150,000
9
84
18,750
168,750
0
50
0
150,000
9
94
18,750
187,500
0
50
0
150,000
9
103
18,750
206,250
0
50
0
150,000
9
113
18,750
225,000
0
50
0
150,000
9
122
18,750
243,750
0
50
0
150,000
9
131
18,750
262,500
0
50
0
150,000
9
141
18,750
281,250
0
50
0
150,000
9
150
18,750
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
0
50
0
150,000
0
150
0
300,000
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
50
150,000
150
300,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-G
24-Apr-13
Page 21

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-H: Total Projected Absorption - All Projects1
Residential
Development
Year
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Total
Tax
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52

(Units)
(SF)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
71 211,630
211,630
71
141 211,630
423,261
81
222 241,630
664,891
81
302 241,630
906,522
81
383 241,630 1,148,152
98
481 294,130 1,442,283
98
579 294,130 1,736,413
124
703 373,221 2,109,634
87
790 260,721 2,370,356
87
877 260,721 2,631,077
87
964 260,721 2,891,798
87
1,051 260,721 3,152,520
87
1,138 260,721 3,413,241
49
1,187 148,221 3,561,462
49
1,237 148,221 3,709,684
49
1,286 148,221 3,857,905
49
1,335 148,221 4,006,126
49
1,385 148,221 4,154,348
13
1,398
39,130 4,193,478
13
1,411
39,130 4,232,609
13
1,424
39,130 4,271,739
13
1,437
39,130 4,310,870
13
1,450
39,130 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
0
1,450
0 4,350,000
1,450
4,350,000
Townhouse
(Units)
(SF)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
74 147,065
147,065
74
147 147,065
294,130
73
220 145,815
439,946
63
283 125,815
565,761
63
346 125,815
691,576
80
426 159,565
851,141
80
505 159,565 1,010,707
89
594 177,747 1,188,454
70
664 140,247 1,328,701
70
734 140,247 1,468,948
70
805 140,247 1,609,195
70
875 140,247 1,749,442
70
945 140,247 1,889,689
53
998 106,497 1,996,186
53
1,051 106,497 2,102,683
53
1,105 106,497 2,209,180
53
1,158 106,497 2,315,677
53
1,211 106,497 2,422,174
35
1,246
69,565 2,491,739
35
1,281
69,565 2,561,304
35
1,315
69,565 2,630,870
35
1,350
69,565 2,700,435
35
1,385
69,565 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
0
1,385
0 2,770,000
1,385
2,770,000
MuniCap, Inc.
Condos (2 over 2)
(Units)
(SF)
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
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
20
20
36,000
36,000
20
40
36,000
72,000
20
60
36,000
108,000
20
80
36,000
144,000
20
100
36,000
180,000
20
120
36,000
216,000
20
140
36,000
252,000
20
160
36,000
288,000
20
180
36,000
324,000
20
200
36,000
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
0
200
0
360,000
200
360,000
Multi-Family Rental
(Units)
(SF)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
24,000
24,000
20
40
24,000
48,000
20
60
24,000
72,000
20
80
24,000
96,000
20
100
24,000
120,000
20
120
24,000
144,000
20
140
24,000
168,000
20
160
24,000
192,000
20
180
24,000
216,000
20
200
24,000
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
0
200
0
240,000
200
240,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-H
24-Apr-13
Page 22

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-H: Total Projected Absorption - All Projects, continued1
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Anchor
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
Commercial
In-Line Retail
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
0
50,000
30,000
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
0
80,000
60,000
80,000
Office
(SF)
Annual
Cumulative
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
0
60,000
60,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-H.2
24-Apr-13
Page 23

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-A: Projected Assessed Value - Woodridge
Residential
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Per Unit3
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498

Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
96%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$294,353
$300,240
$306,244
$312,369
$318,617
$338,530
$359,113
$380,384
$396,613
$422,134
$442,538
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,372,336
$13,541,213
$21,546,778
$30,430,681
$39,661,320
$42,213,440
$44,253,756
$45,748,816
$46,663,792
$47,597,068
$48,549,009
$49,519,989
$50,510,389
$51,520,597
$52,551,009
$53,602,029
$54,674,070
$55,767,551
$56,882,902
$58,020,560
$59,180,971
$60,364,591
$61,571,883
$62,803,320
$64,059,387
$65,340,574
$66,647,386
$67,980,334
$69,339,940
$70,726,739
$72,141,274
$73,584,099
$75,055,781
$76,556,897
$78,088,035
$79,649,796
Value
Units2
0
0
0
0
20
40
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Per Unit3
$209,709
$213,903
$218,181
$222,545
$226,996
$231,536
$236,166
$240,890
$245,707
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Townhouse
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
88%
95%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$167,767
$171,122
$174,545
$178,036
$181,597
$192,946
$207,826
$228,042
$242,431
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Total
Total
Woodridge
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,631,931
$7,717,854
$10,391,319
$11,402,111
$12,121,568
$12,531,080
$12,781,702
$13,037,336
$13,298,082
$13,564,044
$13,835,325
$14,112,031
$14,394,272
$14,682,158
$14,975,801
$15,275,317
$15,580,823
$15,892,439
$16,210,288
$16,534,494
$16,865,184
$17,202,488
$17,546,537
$17,897,468
$18,255,417
$18,620,526
$18,992,936
$19,372,795
$19,760,251
$20,155,456
$20,558,565
$20,969,736
$21,389,131
$21,816,914
$22,253,252
$22,698,317
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,004,267
$21,259,067
$31,938,097
$41,832,791
$51,782,888
$54,744,520
$57,035,458
$58,786,151
$59,961,875
$61,161,112
$62,384,334
$63,632,021
$64,904,661
$66,202,755
$67,526,810
$68,877,346
$70,254,893
$71,659,991
$73,093,190
$74,555,054
$76,046,155
$77,567,078
$79,118,420
$80,700,788
$82,314,804
$83,961,100
$85,640,322
$87,353,129
$89,100,191
$90,882,195
$92,699,839
$94,553,836
$96,444,913
$98,373,811
$100,341,287
$102,348,113
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-A
24-Apr-13
Assumes an annual inflation rate of 2%. Inflation rate accounts for annual increasing assessed value, along with the decreasing real property tax rates.
See Schedule VIII-A.
See Schedule VI-B.
Assumes property is initially assessed at 80% of its full market value with the remaining value phased-in over a three year period.
Page 24

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-B: Projected Assessed Value - Westridge
Residential
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
55
82
109
136
164
191
218
245
273
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Per Unit3
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498

Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
96%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$294,353
$300,240
$306,244
$312,369
$318,617
$324,989
$331,489
$338,119
$344,881
$351,779
$358,814
$365,991
$388,865
$412,508
$436,941
$455,584
$471,430
$485,766
$499,235
$512,197
$524,871
$537,396
$558,487
$576,689
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,981,560
$21,210,815
$33,750,648
$47,666,300
$62,125,078
$77,143,140
$92,737,075
$108,923,910
$125,721,123
$143,146,655
$161,218,921
$167,546,003
$173,006,761
$177,542,914
$181,093,773
$184,715,648
$188,409,961
$192,178,160
$196,021,723
$199,942,158
$203,941,001
$208,019,821
$212,180,217
$216,423,822
$220,752,298
$225,167,344
$229,670,691
$234,264,105
$238,949,387
Value
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
18
27
36
45
55
64
73
82
91
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Per Unit3
$209,709
$213,903
$218,181
$222,545
$226,996
$231,536
$236,166
$240,890
$245,707
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Townhouse
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
96%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$167,767
$171,122
$174,545
$178,036
$181,597
$185,228
$188,933
$192,712
$196,566
$200,497
$204,507
$208,597
$221,635
$235,110
$249,036
$259,661
$268,693
$276,864
$284,540
$291,928
$299,152
$306,291
$318,311
$328,686
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Total
Total
Westridge
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,896,340
$4,029,722
$6,412,094
$9,055,849
$11,802,790
$14,655,986
$17,618,589
$20,693,834
$23,885,041
$27,195,618
$30,629,065
$31,831,112
$32,868,570
$33,730,368
$34,404,975
$35,093,075
$35,794,936
$36,510,835
$37,241,052
$37,985,873
$38,745,590
$39,520,502
$40,310,912
$41,117,130
$41,939,473
$42,778,262
$43,633,827
$44,506,504
$45,396,634
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,877,900
$25,240,537
$40,162,742
$56,722,149
$73,927,868
$91,799,126
$110,355,664
$129,617,743
$149,606,164
$170,342,274
$191,847,986
$199,377,114
$205,875,331
$211,273,282
$215,498,748
$219,808,723
$224,204,897
$228,688,995
$233,262,775
$237,928,030
$242,686,591
$247,540,323
$252,491,129
$257,540,952
$262,691,771
$267,945,606
$273,304,519
$278,770,609
$284,346,021
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-B
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VIII-B.
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 25

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-C: Projected Assessed Value - Hamptons West
Residential
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
38
75
113
150
188
225
263
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Per Unit3
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498

Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$294,353
$300,240
$306,244
$312,369
$318,617
$338,530
$359,113
$380,384
$396,613
$410,408
$422,888
$434,614
$454,972
$472,004
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Total
Value
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,948,129
$25,389,774
$40,400,209
$57,057,526
$74,364,976
$92,341,900
$111,008,156
$130,384,125
$136,491,592
$141,601,277
$145,647,028
$148,559,968
$151,531,168
$154,561,791
$157,653,027
$160,806,087
$164,022,209
$167,302,653
$170,648,706
$174,061,681
$177,542,914
$181,093,773
$184,715,648
$188,409,961
$192,178,160
$196,021,723
$199,942,158
$203,941,001
$208,019,821
$212,180,217
$216,423,822
$220,752,298
$225,167,344
$229,670,691
$234,264,105
$238,949,387
MuniCap, Inc.
Units2
0
0
0
0
19
38
56
75
94
113
131
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
Per Unit3
$209,709
$213,903
$218,181
$222,545
$226,996
$231,536
$236,166
$240,890
$245,707
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Townhouse
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$167,767
$171,122
$174,545
$178,036
$181,597
$192,946
$204,677
$216,801
$226,051
$233,913
$241,026
$247,709
$259,313
$269,020
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Total
Total
Hamptons West
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,404,936
$7,235,488
$11,513,109
$16,260,052
$21,192,268
$26,315,268
$31,634,712
$37,156,407
$38,896,891
$40,353,031
$41,505,975
$42,336,094
$43,182,816
$44,046,473
$44,927,402
$45,825,950
$46,742,469
$47,677,318
$48,630,865
$49,603,482
$50,595,552
$51,607,463
$52,639,612
$53,692,404
$54,766,252
$55,861,577
$56,978,809
$58,118,385
$59,280,753
$60,466,368
$61,675,695
$62,909,209
$64,167,393
$65,450,741
$66,759,756
$68,094,951
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,353,065
$32,625,263
$51,913,318
$73,317,578
$95,557,244
$118,657,169
$142,642,868
$167,540,532
$175,388,483
$181,954,308
$187,153,003
$190,896,063
$194,713,984
$198,608,264
$202,580,429
$206,632,038
$210,764,678
$214,979,972
$219,279,571
$223,665,163
$228,138,466
$232,701,235
$237,355,260
$242,102,365
$246,944,413
$251,883,301
$256,920,967
$262,059,386
$267,300,574
$272,646,585
$278,099,517
$283,661,507
$289,334,738
$295,121,432
$301,023,861
$307,044,338
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-C
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VIII-C.
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 26

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-D: Projected Assessed Value - Hamptons East
Residential
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
75
113
150
188
225
263
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Per Unit3
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498

Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$294,353
$300,240
$306,244
$312,369
$318,617
$324,989
$331,489
$338,119
$344,881
$351,779
$373,765
$396,490
$419,974
$437,893
$453,124
$466,903
$479,849
$502,326
$521,131
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,191,700
$28,032,363
$44,605,095
$62,996,119
$82,104,942
$101,952,919
$122,561,974
$143,954,609
$150,697,746
$156,339,252
$160,806,087
$164,022,209
$167,302,653
$170,648,706
$174,061,681
$177,542,914
$181,093,773
$184,715,648
$188,409,961
$192,178,160
$196,021,723
$199,942,158
$203,941,001
$208,019,821
$212,180,217
$216,423,822
$220,752,298
$225,167,344
$229,670,691
$234,264,105
$238,949,387
Value
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
34
51
68
84
101
118
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
Per Unit3
$209,709
$213,903
$218,181
$222,545
$226,996
$231,536
$236,166
$240,890
$245,707
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Townhouse
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$167,767
$171,122
$174,545
$178,036
$181,597
$185,228
$188,933
$192,712
$196,566
$200,497
$213,028
$225,980
$239,365
$249,578
$258,259
$266,113
$273,491
$286,302
$297,020
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Total
Total
Hamptons East
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,383,392
$7,189,707
$11,440,262
$16,157,170
$21,058,178
$26,148,764
$31,434,550
$36,921,308
$38,650,780
$40,097,706
$41,243,355
$42,068,222
$42,909,587
$43,767,778
$44,643,134
$45,535,997
$46,446,717
$47,375,651
$48,323,164
$49,289,627
$50,275,420
$51,280,928
$52,306,547
$53,352,678
$54,419,731
$55,508,126
$56,618,288
$57,750,654
$58,905,667
$60,083,780
$61,285,456
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,575,092
$35,222,070
$56,045,357
$79,153,289
$103,163,121
$128,101,684
$153,996,524
$180,875,917
$189,348,526
$196,436,958
$202,049,443
$206,090,431
$210,212,240
$214,416,485
$218,704,815
$223,078,911
$227,540,489
$232,091,299
$236,733,125
$241,467,787
$246,297,143
$251,223,086
$256,247,548
$261,372,499
$266,599,949
$271,931,948
$277,370,586
$282,917,998
$288,576,358
$294,347,885
$300,234,843
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-D
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VIII-D.
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 27

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-E: Projected Assessed Value - Town Center
Residential
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
13
26
39
52
65
78
91
104
117
130
143
157
170
183
196
209
222
235
248
261
274
287
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Per Unit3
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498

Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
96%
97%
97%
97%
97%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
Value Per Unit

$294,353
$300,240
$306,244
$312,369
$318,617
$338,530
$359,113
$380,384
$396,613
$410,408
$422,888
$434,614
$445,898
$456,932
$467,836
$478,693
$489,562
$500,486
$511,496
$522,620
$533,876
$545,283
$556,854
$568,601
$580,537
$592,671
$605,011
$622,572
$638,737
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,155,871
$8,831,226
$14,052,247
$19,846,096
$25,866,079
$32,118,922
$38,611,532
$45,351,000
$52,344,602
$59,599,807
$67,124,282
$74,925,897
$83,012,727
$91,393,059
$100,075,400
$109,068,477
$118,381,247
$128,022,900
$138,002,867
$148,330,823
$159,016,697
$170,070,673
$181,503,202
$186,771,613
$191,621,122
$196,021,723
$199,942,158
$203,941,001
$208,019,821
$212,180,217
$216,423,822
$220,752,298
$225,167,344
$229,670,691
$234,264,105
$238,949,387
Value
Units2
0
0
0
0
35
70
104
139
174
209
243
278
313
348
383
417
452
487
522
557
591
626
661
696
730
765
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
Per Unit3
$209,709
$213,903
$218,181
$222,545
$226,996
$231,536
$236,166
$240,890
$245,707
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Townhouse
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
96%
97%
97%
97%
97%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$167,767
$171,122
$174,545
$178,036
$181,597
$192,946
$204,677
$216,801
$226,051
$233,913
$241,026
$247,709
$254,141
$260,430
$266,644
$272,833
$279,027
$285,253
$291,529
$297,869
$304,284
$310,785
$317,380
$324,076
$330,879
$337,794
$344,828
$354,837
$364,050
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,316,402
$13,422,355
$21,357,651
$30,163,575
$39,313,192
$48,816,729
$58,684,682
$68,927,827
$79,557,224
$90,584,225
$102,020,483
$113,877,958
$126,168,924
$138,905,977
$152,102,045
$165,770,393
$179,924,635
$194,578,737
$209,747,034
$225,444,232
$241,685,418
$258,486,075
$275,862,083
$283,869,407
$291,240,051
$297,928,413
$303,886,981
$309,964,721
$316,164,015
$322,487,296
$328,937,042
$335,515,782
$342,226,098
$349,070,620
$356,052,032
$363,173,073
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-E
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VIII-E.
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 28

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-E: Projected Assessed Value - Town Center, continued
Residential
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Per Unit3
$188,176
$191,939
$195,778
$199,693
$203,687
$207,761
$211,916
$216,155
$220,478
$224,887
$229,385
$233,973
$238,652
$243,425
$248,294
$253,260
$258,325
$263,491
$268,761
$274,136
$279,619
$285,211
$290,916
$296,734
$302,669
$308,722
$314,896
$321,194
$327,618
$334,171
$340,854
$347,671
$354,625
$361,717
$368,951
$376,330
$383,857
$391,534
$399,365
$407,352
Condos (2 over 2)
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
Value Per Unit

$150,540
$153,551
$156,622
$159,755
$162,950
$166,209
$169,533
$172,924
$176,382
$179,910
$183,508
$187,178
$190,922
$194,740
$206,911
$219,492
$232,492
$242,412
$250,844
$258,471
$265,638
$272,535
$279,279
$290,799
$300,651
$308,722
$314,896
$321,194
$327,618
$334,171
$340,854
$347,671
$354,625
$361,717
$368,951
$376,330
$383,857
$391,534
$399,365
$407,352
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,894,804
$8,276,458
$13,169,499
$18,599,385
$24,241,199
$30,101,245
$36,185,997
$42,502,098
$49,056,369
$55,855,810
$58,159,862
$60,130,176
$61,744,409
$62,979,297
$64,238,883
$65,523,661
$66,834,134
$68,170,817
$69,534,233
$70,924,918
$72,343,416
$73,790,284
$75,266,090
$76,771,412
$78,306,840
$79,872,977
$81,470,436
Value
Units2
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Per Unit3
$107,641
$109,793
$111,989
$114,229
$116,514
$118,844
$121,221
$123,645
$126,118
$128,641
$131,213
$133,838
$136,514
$139,245
$142,030
$144,870
$147,768
$150,723
$153,737
$156,812
$159,948
$163,147
$166,410
$169,738
$173,133
$176,596
$180,128
$183,730
$187,405
$191,153
$194,976
$198,876
$202,853
$206,910
$211,048
$215,269
$219,575
$223,966
$228,446
$233,015
Multi-Family Rental
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$86,113
$87,835
$89,591
$91,383
$93,211
$99,037
$105,058
$111,281
$116,029
$120,065
$123,715
$127,146
$130,447
$133,675
$139,189
$143,904
$147,768
$150,723
$153,737
$156,812
$159,948
$163,147
$166,410
$169,738
$173,133
$176,596
$180,128
$183,730
$187,405
$191,153
$194,976
$198,876
$202,853
$206,910
$211,048
$215,269
$219,575
$223,966
$228,446
$233,015
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,864,220
$3,961,467
$6,303,486
$8,902,461
$11,602,874
$14,407,743
$17,320,165
$20,343,322
$23,480,476
$26,734,979
$27,837,797
$28,780,873
$29,553,514
$30,144,585
$30,747,476
$31,362,426
$31,989,674
$32,629,468
$33,282,057
$33,947,698
$34,626,652
$35,319,185
$36,025,569
$36,746,080
$37,481,002
$38,230,622
$38,995,235
$39,775,139
$40,570,642
$41,382,055
$42,209,696
$43,053,890
$43,914,968
$44,793,267
$45,689,132
$46,602,915
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-E.2
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 29

Frederick, Maryland
Commercial
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
SF2
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Per SF3
$100
$102
$104
$106
$108
$110
$112
$115
$117
$119
$122
$124
$127
$129
$132
$134
$137
$140
$142
$145
$148
$151
$154
$157
$160
$164
$167
$170
$174
$177
$181
$184
$188
$192
$196
$199
$203
$208
$212
$216
Anchor
Phase-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
87%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Phased-In
Total
Value Per SF
$80
$81
$83
$85
$86
$88
$90
$99
$109
$119
$122
$124
$127
$129
$132
$134
$137
$140
$142
$145
$148
$151
$154
$157
$160
$164
$167
$170
$174
$177
$181
$184
$188
$192
$196
$199
$203
$208
$212
$216
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,392,327
$5,958,522
$6,545,207
$7,152,976
$7,296,036
$7,441,956
$7,590,795
$7,742,611
$7,897,464
$8,055,413
$8,216,521
$8,380,851
$8,548,468
$8,719,438
$8,893,827
$9,071,703
$9,253,137
$9,438,200
$9,626,964
$9,819,503
$10,015,893
$10,216,211
$10,420,535
$10,628,946
$10,841,525
$11,058,356
$11,279,523
$11,505,113
$11,735,215
$11,969,920
$12,209,318
$12,453,504
$12,702,574
$12,956,626
Value
SF2
0
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
Per SF3
$173
$176
$180
$183
$187
$191
$194
$198
$202
$206
$211
$215
$219
$223
$228
$232
$237
$242
$247
$252
$257
$262
$267
$272
$278
$283
$289
$295
$301
$307
$313
$319
$325
$332
$339
$345
$352
$359
$367
$374
In-Line Retail
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
87%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
95%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per SF
$138
$141
$144
$147
$150
$153
$156
$172
$189
$206
$211
$215
$219
$223
$228
$232
$219
$230
$241
$252
$257
$262
$267
$272
$278
$283
$289
$295
$301
$307
$313
$319
$325
$332
$339
$345
$352
$359
$367
$374
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,779,950
$8,596,845
$9,443,303
$10,320,181
$10,526,585
$10,737,117
$10,951,859
$11,170,896
$11,394,314
$11,622,200
$17,544,874
$18,379,441
$19,240,372
$20,128,389
$20,530,957
$20,941,576
$21,360,408
$21,787,616
$22,223,368
$22,667,836
$23,121,193
$23,583,616
$24,055,289
$24,536,394
$25,027,122
$25,527,665
$26,038,218
$26,558,982
$27,090,162
$27,631,965
$28,184,605
$28,748,297
$29,323,263
$29,909,728
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 30

Frederick, Maryland
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
SF2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Value
Commercial
Office
Phase-In
Phased-In
Total
Total
Town Center
Per SF3
$151
$154
$157
$160
$164
$167
$170
$174
$177
$181
$184
$188
$192
$196
$199
$203
$207
$212
$216
$220
$225
$229
$234
$238
$243
$248
$253
$258
$263
$268
$274
$279
$285
$291
$296
$302
$308
$314
$321
$327
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
87%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per SF
$121
$123
$126
$128
$131
$133
$136
$139
$142
$145
$147
$150
$153
$156
$160
$163
$166
$183
$201
$220
$225
$229
$234
$238
$243
$248
$253
$258
$263
$268
$274
$279
$285
$291
$296
$302
$308
$314
$321
$327
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,959,312
$11,005,040
$12,088,613
$13,211,127
$13,475,350
$13,744,857
$14,019,754
$14,300,149
$14,586,152
$14,877,875
$15,175,433
$15,478,941
$15,788,520
$16,104,291
$16,426,376
$16,754,904
$17,090,002
$17,431,802
$17,780,438
$18,136,047
$18,498,768
$18,868,743
$19,246,118
$19,631,040
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,336,493
$26,215,047
$54,885,660
$73,467,498
$92,770,655
$112,816,552
$132,439,001
$152,801,222
$173,924,955
$199,727,322
$224,550,798
$250,431,841
$293,055,257
$322,450,152
$352,903,621
$384,446,248
$415,697,788
$448,045,611
$481,521,068
$511,408,581
$541,895,428
$572,985,556
$604,682,670
$620,904,753
$636,130,180
$650,284,524
$663,290,214
$676,556,018
$690,087,139
$703,888,881
$717,966,659
$732,325,992
$746,972,512
$761,911,962
$777,150,202
$792,693,206
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 31

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-F: Projected Assessed Value - Alpine
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Residential
Phase-In
Phased-In
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
18
27
36
45
55
64
73
82
91
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Per Unit3
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
96%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$294,353
$300,240
$306,244
$312,369
$318,617
$324,989
$331,489
$338,119
$344,881
$351,779
$358,814
$365,991
$388,865
$412,508
$436,941
$455,584
$471,430
$485,766
$499,235
$512,197
$524,871
$537,396
$558,487
$576,689
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,327,187
$7,070,272
$11,250,216
$15,888,767
$20,708,359
$25,714,380
$30,912,358
$36,307,970
$41,907,041
$47,715,552
$53,739,640
$55,848,668
$57,668,920
$59,180,971
$60,364,591
$61,571,883
$62,803,320
$64,059,387
$65,340,574
$66,647,386
$67,980,334
$69,339,940
$70,726,739
$72,141,274
$73,584,099
$75,055,781
$76,556,897
$78,088,035
$79,649,796
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-F
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VIII-F.
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 32

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-G: Projected Assessed Value - Other Projects
Residential
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
MuniCap, Inc.
Value
Inflation1
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Per Unit3
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498

Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
96%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$294,353
$300,240
$306,244
$312,369
$318,617
$324,989
$331,489
$352,207
$373,621
$395,751
$412,636
$439,189
$460,416
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498
Total
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,314,889
$7,044,139
$11,208,634
$15,830,040
$20,631,819
$21,959,432
$23,020,804
$23,798,534
$24,274,505
$24,759,995
$25,255,195
$25,760,299
$26,275,504
$26,801,015
$27,337,035
$27,883,776
$28,441,451
$29,010,280
$29,590,486
$30,182,295
$30,785,941
$31,401,660
$32,029,693
$32,670,287
$33,323,693
$33,990,167
$34,669,970
$35,363,370
$36,070,637
$36,792,050
$37,527,891
$38,278,449
$39,044,017
$39,824,898
Value
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
19
28
38
47
56
66
75
84
94
103
113
122
131
141
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
Per Unit3
$209,709
$213,903
$218,181
$222,545
$226,996
$231,536
$236,166
$240,890
$245,707
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Townhouse
Phase-In
Phased-In
Percentage4
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
83%
87%
90%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
96%
96%
97%
97%
97%
97%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Value Per Unit

$167,767
$171,122
$174,545
$178,036
$181,597
$185,228
$188,933
$200,741
$212,946
$225,559
$235,183
$243,364
$250,764
$257,717
$264,408
$270,951
$277,417
$283,855
$290,300
$296,778
$303,307
$309,903
$320,153
$329,312
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Total
Total
Other Projects
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,771,247
$3,763,901
$5,989,119
$8,458,479
$11,024,218
$13,689,203
$16,456,377
$19,328,763
$22,309,461
$25,401,657
$28,608,616
$31,933,693
$35,380,329
$38,952,058
$42,652,503
$46,485,386
$48,022,979
$49,396,801
$50,595,552
$51,607,463
$52,639,612
$53,692,404
$54,766,252
$55,861,577
$56,978,809
$58,118,385
$59,280,753
$60,466,368
$61,675,695
$62,909,209
$64,167,393
$65,450,741
$66,759,756
$68,094,951
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,086,136
$10,808,040
$17,197,753
$24,288,519
$31,656,037
$35,648,634
$39,477,181
$43,127,297
$46,583,966
$50,161,651
$53,863,810
$57,693,991
$61,655,834
$65,753,072
$69,989,538
$74,369,161
$76,464,430
$78,407,081
$80,186,037
$81,789,758
$83,425,553
$85,094,064
$86,795,946
$88,531,865
$90,302,502
$92,108,552
$93,950,723
$95,829,737
$97,746,332
$99,701,259
$101,695,284
$103,729,190
$105,803,774
$107,919,849
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-G
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VIII-G.
See Schedule VI-B.
Page 33

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX-H: Total Projected Assessed Value - All Projects1
Tax
Year
Bond
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
Total
Projected
Inflation
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
MuniCap, Inc.
Woodridge
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,004,267
$21,259,067
$31,938,097
$41,832,791
$51,782,888
$54,744,520
$57,035,458
$58,786,151
$59,961,875
$61,161,112
$62,384,334
$63,632,021
$64,904,661
$66,202,755
$67,526,810
$68,877,346
$70,254,893
$71,659,991
$73,093,190
$74,555,054
$76,046,155
$77,567,078
$79,118,420
$80,700,788
$82,314,804
$83,961,100
$85,640,322
$87,353,129
$89,100,191
$90,882,195
$92,699,839
$94,553,836
$96,444,913
$98,373,811
$100,341,287
$102,348,113
Westridge
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,877,900
$25,240,537
$40,162,742
$56,722,149
$73,927,868
$91,799,126
$110,355,664
$129,617,743
$149,606,164
$170,342,274
$191,847,986
$199,377,114
$205,875,331
$211,273,282
$215,498,748
$219,808,723
$224,204,897
$228,688,995
$233,262,775
$237,928,030
$242,686,591
$247,540,323
$252,491,129
$257,540,952
$262,691,771
$267,945,606
$273,304,519
$278,770,609
$284,346,021
Hamptons West
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,353,065
$32,625,263
$51,913,318
$73,317,578
$95,557,244
$118,657,169
$142,642,868
$167,540,532
$175,388,483
$181,954,308
$187,153,003
$190,896,063
$194,713,984
$198,608,264
$202,580,429
$206,632,038
$210,764,678
$214,979,972
$219,279,571
$223,665,163
$228,138,466
$232,701,235
$237,355,260
$242,102,365
$246,944,413
$251,883,301
$256,920,967
$262,059,386
$267,300,574
$272,646,585
$278,099,517
$283,661,507
$289,334,738
$295,121,432
$301,023,861
$307,044,338
Hamptons East
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,575,092
$35,222,070
$56,045,357
$79,153,289
$103,163,121
$128,101,684
$153,996,524
$180,875,917
$189,348,526
$196,436,958
$202,049,443
$206,090,431
$210,212,240
$214,416,485
$218,704,815
$223,078,911
$227,540,489
$232,091,299
$236,733,125
$241,467,787
$246,297,143
$251,223,086
$256,247,548
$261,372,499
$266,599,949
$271,931,948
$277,370,586
$282,917,998
$288,576,358
$294,347,885
$300,234,843
Town Center
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,336,493
$26,215,047
$54,885,660
$73,467,498
$92,770,655
$112,816,552
$132,439,001
$152,801,222
$173,924,955
$199,727,322
$224,550,798
$250,431,841
$293,055,257
$322,450,152
$352,903,621
$384,446,248
$415,697,788
$448,045,611
$481,521,068
$511,408,581
$541,895,428
$572,985,556
$604,682,670
$620,904,753
$636,130,180
$650,284,524
$663,290,214
$676,556,018
$690,087,139
$703,888,881
$717,966,659
$732,325,992
$746,972,512
$761,911,962
$777,150,202
$792,693,206
Alpine
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,327,187
$7,070,272
$11,250,216
$15,888,767
$20,708,359
$25,714,380
$30,912,358
$36,307,970
$41,907,041
$47,715,552
$53,739,640
$55,848,668
$57,668,920
$59,180,971
$60,364,591
$61,571,883
$62,803,320
$64,059,387
$65,340,574
$66,647,386
$67,980,334
$69,339,940
$70,726,739
$72,141,274
$73,584,099
$75,055,781
$76,556,897
$78,088,035
$79,649,796
Other Projects
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,086,136
$10,808,040
$17,197,753
$24,288,519
$31,656,037
$35,648,634
$39,477,181
$43,127,297
$46,583,966
$50,161,651
$53,863,810
$57,693,991
$61,655,834
$65,753,072
$69,989,538
$74,369,161
$76,464,430
$78,407,081
$80,186,037
$81,789,758
$83,425,553
$85,094,064
$86,795,946
$88,531,865
$90,302,502
$92,108,552
$93,950,723
$95,829,737
$97,746,332
$99,701,259
$101,695,284
$103,729,190
$105,803,774
$107,919,849
Assessed Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37,693,824
$80,099,377
$143,823,211
$199,425,907
$257,308,540
$327,081,851
$398,995,433
$486,026,982
$560,216,592
$640,546,117
$721,384,700
$803,754,327
$904,927,137
$975,571,710
$1,047,029,364
$1,119,271,350
$1,190,855,154
$1,264,854,601
$1,320,000,527
$1,370,284,946
$1,419,799,251
$1,468,447,456
$1,518,053,807
$1,552,543,313
$1,586,401,512
$1,619,561,282
$1,651,952,507
$1,684,991,558
$1,718,691,389
$1,753,065,216
$1,788,126,521
$1,823,889,051
$1,860,366,832
$1,897,574,169
$1,935,525,652
$1,974,236,165
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX-H
24-Apr-13
See Schedules IX-A through IX-G.
Page 34

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule X: Base Value - TIF District 1
Account Identifier
Owner
27-516610
27-516629
27-516645
27-519237
27-517315
27-517773
27-519210
13-296049
13-298130
13-307407
13-307415
27-519253
27-519172
27-519202
27-519121
13-301212
13-301220
13-301239
13-301247
27-588759
27-519075
27-533922
27-544002
27-517897
27-518362
27-518958
27-519245
27-535062
27-546080
27-546099
27-546102
27-546110
27-546129
27-546137
27-546145
27-546153
27-546161
27-546730
MuniCap, Inc.
Address
Eaglehead
Eaglehead
Eaglehead
Eaglehead
Meadow Road
Aspen
6719 Coldstream Drive
Gas House Pike
Gas House Pike
Gas House Pike
Eaglehead Drive
5715 Eaglehead Drive
Eaglehead
Linganore Road
Linganore Road
Linganore Road
Linganore Road
Woodrise Road
Woodridge
Boyers Mills Road
6550 North Shore Way
Hunter Road
Hunter Road
Hunter Isle Court
High Beach Court
Eaglehead
Sanandrew Drive
Sanandrew Drive
Sanandrew Drive
Sanandrew Drive
Island Road
Island Road
Hook Court
Hook Court
Hook Court
Hunter Road
Total
Acreage
12.05
16.90
478.64
2.00
1.65
21.72
7.81
4.24
6.65
16.23
234.76
7.50
8.13
8.40
5.52
52.18
49.73
36.08
83.66
109.80
97.12
208.36
104.00
4.19
1.00
101.89
2.65
5.60
3.13
11.53
2.76
3.82
0.60
0.43
9.01
29.58
2.76
1.77
2.17
3.05
0.23
1.08
1.14
1.17
1.24
0.63
Value As Of
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/11
1/1/11
1/1/11
1/1/11
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/11
1/1/11
1/1/11
1/1/11
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
Land
$6,000
$8,400
$239,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$851,200
$3,700
$4,000
$265,600
$136,100
$194,700
$347,000
$153,200
$873,900
$139,100
$48,500
$625,000
$312,000
$135,900
$110,000
$305,600
$0
$0
$1,500
$57,600
$99,300
$1,900
$300
$200
$4,500
$88,700
$1,300
$800
$1,000
$1,500
$100
$500
$500
$500
$600
$300
Total Assessed Value

Improvement
Assessed Value
$0
$6,000
$0
$8,400
$0
$239,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$851,200
$0
$3,700
$0
$4,000
$12,800
$278,400
$6,100
$142,200
$55,400
$250,100
$0
$347,000
$0
$153,200
$0
$873,900
$0
$139,100
$0
$48,500
$0
$625,000
$0
$312,000
$0
$135,900
$0
$110,000
$0
$305,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,500
$0
$57,600
$0
$99,300
$0
$1,900
$0
$300
$0
$200
$0
$4,500
$0
$88,700
$0
$1,300
$0
$800
$0
$1,000
$0
$1,500
$0
$100
$0
$500
$0
$500
$0
$500
$0
$600
$0
$300
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]X
24-Apr-13
Source: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. Tax parcels comprising the proposed Oakdale Tax Increment Financing District provided by Miles & Stockbridge.
2
Assumes Oakdale Tax Increment Financing District is created in 2013. As a result, the base value is based on the value as of January 1, 2012. The last triennial reassessment occurred January 1, 2010 for
some parcels and January 1, 2011 for others. As a result, the value is based on the January 1, 2010 or January 1, 2011 value, respectively.
3
According to Miles & Stockbridge, these tax parcels have been provided an account identifier and were originally established to be homeowner's association property. As such, a zero value is assumed.
Page 35

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule X: Base Value - TIF District1, continued
Account Identifier
27-546730
27-546749
27-546757
27-546765
27-546773
27-546781
27-546803
27-546811
27-546838
27-529402
27-529410
27-519199
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
Owner
Address
Hunter Road
Mandalong Way
Mandalong Way
Mandalong Way
Hunter Road
Hunter Road
Beauty Point Court
Beauty Point Court
Hunter Road
Hunter Road
Hunter Road
Boyers Mills Road
Total
Acreage
0.63
3.50
1.78
2.16
1.81
2.06
0.27
0.68
0.72
0.23
0.22
40.00
1,818.61
Value As Of
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
1/1/10
Land
$300
$1,700
$800
$1,000
$900
$1,000
$100
$300
$300
$3,000
$3,000
$20,000
$5,052,700
Total Assessed Value

Improvement Assessed Value
$0
$300
$0
$1,700
$0
$800
$0
$1,000
$0
$900
$0
$1,000
$0
$100
$0
$300
$0
$300
$0
$3,000
$0
$3,000
$0
$20,000
$74,300
$5,127,000
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]X.2
24-Apr-13
Source: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. Tax parcels comprising the proposed Oakdale Tax Increment Financing District provided by Miles & Stockbridge.
Assumes Oakdale Tax Increment Financing District is created in 2013. As a result, the base value is based on the value as of January 1, 2012. The last triennial reassessment occurred January 1,
2010 for some parcels and January 1, 2011 for others. As a result, the value is based on the January 1, 2010 or January 1, 2011 value, respectively.
Page 36

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XI: Projected Incremental Real Property Tax Revenues
Tax
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Bond
Year
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
Total Projected
Assessed Value1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37,693,824
$80,099,377
$143,823,211
$199,425,907
$257,308,540
$327,081,851
$398,995,433
$486,026,982
$560,216,592
$640,546,117
$721,384,700
$803,754,327
$904,927,137
$975,571,710
$1,047,029,364
$1,119,271,350
$1,190,855,154
$1,264,854,601
$1,320,000,527
$1,370,284,946
$1,419,799,251
$1,468,447,456
$1,518,053,807
$1,552,543,313
$1,586,401,512
$1,619,561,282
$1,651,952,507
$1,684,991,558
$1,718,691,389
$1,753,065,216
$1,788,126,521
$1,823,889,051
$1,860,366,832
$1,897,574,169
$1,935,525,652
$1,974,236,165
Less:
Base Value2
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
($5,127,000)
Total
Incremental Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,566,824
$74,972,377
$138,696,211
$194,298,907
$252,181,540
$321,954,851
$393,868,433
$480,899,982
$555,089,592
$635,419,117
$716,257,700
$798,627,327
$899,800,137
$970,444,710
$1,041,902,364
$1,114,144,350
$1,185,728,154
$1,259,727,601
$1,314,873,527
$1,365,157,946
$1,414,672,251
$1,463,320,456
$1,512,926,807
$1,547,416,313
$1,581,274,512
$1,614,434,282
$1,646,825,507
$1,679,864,558
$1,713,564,389
$1,747,938,216
$1,782,999,521
$1,818,762,051
$1,855,239,832
$1,892,447,169
$1,930,398,652
$1,969,109,165
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Real
Property Tax
Rate Per $1003
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
$1.064
Projected
Tax Increment
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$346,511
$797,706
$1,475,728
$2,067,340
$2,683,212
$3,425,600
$4,190,760
$5,116,776
$5,906,153
$6,760,859
$7,620,982
$8,497,395
$9,573,873
$10,325,532
$11,085,841
$11,854,496
$12,616,148
$13,403,502
$13,990,254
$14,525,281
$15,052,113
$15,569,730
$16,097,541
$16,464,510
$16,824,761
$17,177,581
$17,522,223
$17,873,759
$18,232,325
$18,598,063
$18,971,115
$19,351,628
$19,739,752
$20,135,638
$20,539,442
$20,951,322
$435,365,449
Available For
Debt Service
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Tax Increment
Revenues
Available to
For Debt Service
$0
$0
$0
$0
$346,511
$797,706
$1,475,728
$2,067,340
$2,683,212
$3,425,600
$4,190,760
$5,116,776
$5,906,153
$6,760,859
$7,620,982
$8,497,395
$9,573,873
$10,325,532
$11,085,841
$11,854,496
$12,616,148
$13,403,502
$13,990,254
$14,525,281
$15,052,113
$15,569,730
$16,097,541
$16,464,510
$16,824,761
$17,177,581
$17,522,223
$17,873,759
$18,232,325
$18,598,063
$18,971,115
$19,351,628
$19,739,752
$20,135,638
$20,539,442
$20,951,322
$435,365,449
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XI
24-Apr-13
See Schedule IX-H.
See Schedule X.
Frederick County proposed tax rate for fiscal year 2014. Source: Frederick County, Maryland Finance Division.
Page 37

Frederick, Maryland
1
Schedule XII: Projected Payment of Debt Service and Debt Service Coverage - Portion Repaid by Tax Increment and Special Tax B Revenues
Tax
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Bond
Year
Ending
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
1-Jul-53
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Net Annual Debt Service2

Series A
Series B
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$438,202
$0
$438,202
$445,749
$0
$445,749
$453,853
$0
$453,853
$461,450
$0
$461,450
$469,539
$0
$469,539
$478,057
$1,618,574
$2,096,631
$485,938
$1,647,648
$2,133,586
$495,182
$1,675,841
$2,171,023
$503,660
$1,705,088
$2,208,748
$512,372
$1,735,195
$2,247,567
$521,253
$1,765,966
$2,287,219
$530,239
$1,797,206
$2,327,445
$540,265
$1,827,721
$2,367,986
$549,201
$1,860,380
$2,409,581
$559,048
$1,892,859
$2,451,907
$568,676
$1,925,963
$2,494,638
$579,019
$1,959,431
$2,538,451
$588,949
$1,994,005
$2,582,954
$599,401
$2,028,359
$2,627,760
$610,245
$2,064,233
$2,674,478
$621,352
$2,099,237
$2,720,589
$631,591
$2,136,111
$2,767,703
$642,899
$2,173,401
$2,816,300
$654,080
$2,211,717
$2,865,797
$666,005
$2,249,603
$2,915,609
$677,480
$2,288,671
$2,966,150
$689,374
$2,329,399
$3,018,772
$701,493
$2,369,203
$3,070,696
$71,242
$2,410,628
$2,481,871
$0
$2,453,025
$2,453,025
$0
$2,494,743
$2,494,743
$0
$2,538,198
$2,538,198
$0
$2,582,609
$2,582,609
$0
$78,397
$78,397
$15,745,815
$57,913,412
$73,659,227
Total
Tax Increment
3
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$346,511
$797,706
$1,475,728
$2,067,340
$2,683,212
$3,425,600
$4,190,760
$5,116,776
$5,906,153
$6,760,859
$7,620,982
$8,497,395
$9,573,873
$10,325,532
$11,085,841
$11,854,496
$12,616,148
$13,403,502
$13,990,254
$14,525,281
$15,052,113
$15,569,730
$16,097,541
$16,464,510
$16,824,761
$17,177,581
$17,522,223
$17,873,759
$18,232,325
$18,598,063
$18,971,115
$19,351,628
$19,739,752
$20,135,638
$20,539,442
$20,951,322
Surplus/
(Deficit)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$346,511
$797,706
$1,037,526
$1,621,591
$2,229,358
$2,964,150
$3,721,221
$3,020,145
$3,772,568
$4,589,837
$5,412,234
$6,249,828
$7,286,655
$7,998,087
$8,717,855
$9,444,915
$10,164,241
$10,908,863
$11,451,804
$11,942,326
$12,424,353
$12,895,252
$13,376,952
$13,696,807
$14,008,460
$14,311,784
$14,606,615
$14,907,609
$15,213,553
$15,527,367
$16,489,244
$16,898,603
$17,245,009
$17,597,440
$17,956,832
$20,872,924
Special Tax B
(Shortfall Paid
By Developer)
$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
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Net Surplus/
(Deficit)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$346,511
$797,706
$1,037,526
$1,621,591
$2,229,358
$2,964,150
$3,721,221
$3,020,145
$3,772,568
$4,589,837
$5,412,234
$6,249,828
$7,286,655
$7,998,087
$8,717,855
$9,444,915
$10,164,241
$10,908,863
$11,451,804
$11,942,326
$12,424,353
$12,895,252
$13,376,952
$13,696,807
$14,008,460
$14,311,784
$14,606,615
$14,907,609
$15,213,553
$15,527,367
$16,489,244
$16,898,603
$17,245,009
$17,597,440
$17,956,832
$20,872,924
$435,365,449
$361,706,222
$0
$361,706,222
Cumulative
Surplus
$0
$0
$0
$0
$346,511
$1,144,217
$2,181,743
$3,803,334
$6,032,693
$8,996,842
$12,718,063
$15,738,208
$19,510,776
$24,100,612
$29,512,846
$35,762,674
$43,049,329
$51,047,415
$59,765,271
$69,210,185
$79,374,426
$90,283,289
$101,735,093
$113,677,419
$126,101,771
$138,997,023
$152,373,975
$166,070,782
$180,079,243
$194,391,026
$208,997,641
$223,905,250
$239,118,802
$254,646,169
$271,135,413
$288,034,016
$305,279,025
$322,876,465
$340,833,298
$361,706,222
Debt Service Coverage

Incremental
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
464%
464%
591%
591%
742%
742%
893%
893%
244%
244%
277%
277%
311%
311%
345%
345%
378%
378%
419%
419%
444%
444%
468%
468%
492%
492%
515%
515%
537%
537%
551%
551%
562%
562%
573%
573%
582%
582%
592%
592%
595%
595%
597%
597%
599%
599%
601%
601%
603%
603%
604%
604%
606%
606%
764%
764%
789%
789%
791%
791%
793%
793%
795%
795%
26724%
26724%
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XII
24-Apr-13
Bonds are sized for public improvements. Bond coverage meets the minimum 150% debt service coverage at full buildout as stipulated by the County and illustrated above. Full buildout occurs in bond year ending 2040.
See Schedules III-A and III-B.
See Schedule XI.
Page 38

Frederick, Maryland

Projected Revenues to Frederick County

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XIII-A: Annual County Personal Income Tax Revenues - Revenues from Residents
For Sale Residential

Townhouse
Condos (2 over 2)
For Rent
13
Multi-Family Rental
$367,941
$209,709
$188,176
Assumed down payment

Less: down payment
10%
($36,794)
10%
($20,971)
10%
($18,818)
$331,147
$188,738
$169,358
5.42%
$1,864
$1,495
$414
$407
5.42%
$1,062
$852
$236
$235
5.42%
$953
$765
$212
$209
$53
$53
$53
$2,738
$1,586
$1,426
$1,253
29%
$9,441
29%
$5,470
29%
$4,919
29%
$4,321
$113,289
$65,644
$59,026
$51,848
Market value
Loan amount
2
Loan interest rate

3
Mortgage payment
Interest portion
Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
5
Property taxes
6
Insurance
Total monthly payment

7
Assumed affordability ratio

Monthly income
Gross income
Monthly mortgage deduction

8
Less: annual mortgage deduction
8
Less: standard state deduction

9
Number of exemptions
10
Less: adjustment of AGI
Adjusted net income
11
Frederick County income tax rate
11
Sub-total income tax per unit
Total units 1
Total income tax
12
$1,902
$1,087
$974
$0
$22,826
$4,000
2.73
$10,374
$80,089
2.96%
$2,371
$13,047
$4,000
2.73
$10,374
$42,224
2.96%
$1,250
$11,683
$4,000
2.73
$10,374
$36,969
2.96%
$1,094
$0
$4,000
2.47
$9,386
$38,462
2.96%
$1,138
1,450
1,385
200
200
3,235
$1,731,001
$218,858
$227,697
$5,614,957
$3,437,402
MuniCap, Inc.
Total
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XIII-A
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-A.
Loan amount assumes thirty years and conventional, fixed-rate, mortgage loan rate over a ten-year annual average. Based on informationreported by Freddie Mac.
Includes principal and interest for first annual payment. Assumes 30 year fixed rate mortgage loan
Effective October 4th, 2010, the annual rate of PMI is allowed to increase from 0.5% to 1.5% on loans with a down payment of 5% or more. Assumes an annual rate of 1.5%. Based on information reported by th
Federal Housing Administration.
Represents the total real property tax obligation including the County ($0.936), State ($0.112) and fire ($0.128) tax rates per $100 of assessed value and the solid waste systems benefit charge ($88 per single
family and $49 per multi-family).
Based on the 2008 average annual insurance value of $637 for the State of Maryland as reported by the Insurance Information Institute.
Based on information provided in Federal Housing Administration Debt Ratio's Guidelines.

Monthly mortgage deduction assumes first years mortgage interest and property tax payments. Monthly mortgage deduction does not include PMI payment. Standard state deduction assumes $4,000 for 2012 tax
year. Based on information provided by Comptroller of Maryland. Assumes residents of for sale homes take the mortgage deduction rather the standard state deduction.
8
Represents the average family household size for Frederick County, Maryland. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts. See Appendix A
10
Assumes 2012 exemption amount of $3,800 per exemption. Source: IRS.gov, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return Form 1040.
11
Represents the 2013 Frederick County local income tax rate as provided by the Comptroller of Maryland.
12
Figure assumes full build out and is expressed in current dollars.
13
Represents the median gross rent for Frederick County. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
Page 39

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XIII-B: Annual County Personal Income Tax Revenues - Revenues from Employee Residen
Anchor
1
Anchor costs of labor
2
Percent of employees assumed to reside in Frederick County
Frederick County direct income
3
Less: employees assumed to reside in project (7.39%)
Sub-total costs of labor
4
Taxable direct income (67.68%)
5
Direct Frederick County income tax
Total
$4,008,246
48.8%
$1,955,711
($144,547)
$1,811,164
$1,225,856
2.96%
$36,285
In-Line Retail
In-line retail costs of labor1
2
3
4
5
$4,247,633
48.8%
$2,072,513
($153,180)
$1,919,334
$1,299,069
2.96%
$38,452
Office
Office costs of labor1
2
3
4
Frederick County income tax rate5
$15,448,026
48.8%
$7,537,430
($557,092)
$6,980,338
$4,724,525
2.96%
$139,846
Total projected income tax from employees
$214,584
MuniCap, Inc.
Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XIII-B

24-Apr-13
See Appendices G-1 through G-3.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application. See Appendix A.

A portion of the employees will also live in the proposed Oakdale development. Income from these residents has been accounted for on
Schedule XIII-A. The population of the plan area is estimated to represent 3.70% of the Countys population. The estimated propensity of
Oakdale residents to hold Oakdale jobs is estimated to be twice the likelihood of area residents to hold jobs in the County in general, given the
closer proximity of the jobs.
4
Assumes that only 67.68% of income will be taxable, due to deductions. See Schedule XIII-A.
3
Represents the 2013 Frederick County local income tax rate as provided by the Comptroller of Maryland.
Page 40

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XIV: Projection of Local Recordation Tax Revenues
Residential
Tax
Year
Inflation
1
Beginning Factor
1-Jul-13
100%
1-Jul-14
102%
1-Jul-15
104%
1-Jul-16
106%
1-Jul-17
108%
1-Jul-18
110%
1-Jul-19
113%
1-Jul-20
115%
1-Jul-21
117%
1-Jul-22
120%
1-Jul-23
122%
1-Jul-24
124%
1-Jul-25
127%
1-Jul-26
129%
1-Jul-27
132%
1-Jul-28
135%
1-Jul-29
137%
1-Jul-30
140%
1-Jul-31
143%
1-Jul-32
146%
1-Jul-33
149%
1-Jul-34
152%
1-Jul-35
155%
1-Jul-36
158%
1-Jul-37
161%
1-Jul-38
164%
1-Jul-39
167%
1-Jul-40
171%
1-Jul-41
174%
1-Jul-42
178%
1-Jul-43
181%
1-Jul-44
185%
1-Jul-45
188%
1-Jul-46
192%
1-Jul-47
196%
1-Jul-48
200%
1-Jul-49
204%
1-Jul-50
208%
1-Jul-51
212%
1-Jul-52
216%
MuniCap, Inc.
Value Per
Unit2
$367,941
$375,300
$382,806
$390,462
$398,271
$406,236
$414,361
$422,648
$431,101
$439,723
$448,518
$457,488
$466,638
$475,971
$485,490
$495,200
$505,104
$515,206
$525,510
$536,020
$546,741
$557,676
$568,829
$580,206
$591,810
$603,646
$615,719
$628,033
$640,594
$653,406
$666,474
$679,803
$693,399
$707,267
$721,413
$735,841
$750,558
$765,569
$780,880
$796,498

Total
Initial Sale Resold
of Units3 Units4
Units4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
0
71
71
5
75
81
9
90
81
15
95
81
20
101
98
26
124
98
32
130
124
39
163
87
47
134
87
53
140
87
58
145
87
64
151
87
70
157
49
76
125
49
79
129
49
82
132
49
86
135
49
89
138
13
92
105
13
93
106
13
94
107
13
95
108
13
96
109
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
0
97
97
Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,095,420
$30,567,817
$37,271,482
$40,286,350
$43,406,904
$54,331,323
$58,349,566
$74,567,857
$62,430,498
$66,436,790
$70,578,362
$74,859,022
$79,282,678
$64,533,111
$67,554,703
$70,671,345
$73,885,630
$77,200,219
$59,933,145
$61,636,334
$63,383,678
$65,176,261
$67,015,194
$60,709,876
$61,924,074
$63,162,555
$64,425,806
$65,714,323
$67,028,609
$68,369,181
$69,736,565
$71,131,296
$72,553,922
$74,005,000
$75,485,100
$76,994,802
Value Per
Unit2
$209,709
$213,903
$218,181
$222,545
$226,996
$231,536
$236,166
$240,890
$245,707
$250,622
$255,634
$260,747
$265,962
$271,281
$276,706
$282,241
$287,885
$293,643
$299,516
$305,506
$311,616
$317,849
$324,206
$330,690
$337,304
$344,050
$350,931
$357,949
$365,108
$372,411
$379,859
$387,456
$395,205
$403,109
$411,171
$419,395
$427,783
$436,338
$445,065
$453,966
Townhouse
Initial Sale Resold
of Units3 Units4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
74
5
73
10
63
15
63
19
80
23
80
28
89
34
70
40
70
44
70
49
70
54
70
58
53
63
53
67
53
70
53
74
53
77
35
81
35
83
35
85
35
88
35
90
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
0
92
Total
Units4
0
0
0
0
74
78
83
78
82
103
108
123
110
114
119
124
128
116
120
123
127
130
116
118
120
122
125
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,691,586
$18,160,446
$19,533,779
$18,686,404
$20,090,590
$25,772,709
$27,647,840
$31,958,091
$29,186,269
$31,038,205
$32,952,545
$34,931,043
$36,975,500
$34,132,534
$35,878,437
$37,680,523
$39,540,341
$41,459,480
$37,452,814
$38,968,687
$40,530,214
$42,138,615
$43,795,140
$33,050,658
$33,711,671
$34,385,904
$35,073,622
$35,775,095
$36,490,597
$37,220,409
$37,964,817
$38,724,113
$39,498,595
$40,288,567
$41,094,339
$41,916,226
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XIV
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-A.
See Schedule VIII-H.
Assumes residential for sale units are resold approximately every 15 years.
Page 41

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XIV: Projection of Local Recordation Tax Revenues, continued
Residential
Tax
Year
Inflation
1
Beginning Factor
1-Jul-13
100%
1-Jul-14
102%
1-Jul-15
104%
1-Jul-16
106%
1-Jul-17
108%
1-Jul-18
110%
1-Jul-19
113%
1-Jul-20
115%
1-Jul-21
117%
1-Jul-22
120%
1-Jul-23
122%
1-Jul-24
124%
1-Jul-25
127%
1-Jul-26
129%
1-Jul-27
132%
1-Jul-28
135%
1-Jul-29
137%
1-Jul-30
140%
1-Jul-31
143%
1-Jul-32
146%
1-Jul-33
149%
1-Jul-34
152%
1-Jul-35
155%
1-Jul-36
158%
1-Jul-37
161%
1-Jul-38
164%
1-Jul-39
167%
1-Jul-40
171%
1-Jul-41
174%
1-Jul-42
178%
1-Jul-43
181%
1-Jul-44
185%
1-Jul-45
188%
1-Jul-46
192%
1-Jul-47
196%
1-Jul-48
200%
1-Jul-49
204%
1-Jul-50
208%
1-Jul-51
212%
1-Jul-52
216%
Value Per
Unit2
$188,176
$191,939
$195,778
$199,693
$203,687
$207,761
$211,916
$216,155
$220,478
$224,887
$229,385
$233,973
$238,652
$243,425
$248,294
$253,260
$258,325
$263,491
$268,761
$274,136
$279,619
$285,211
$290,916
$296,734
$302,669
$308,722
$314,896
$321,194
$327,618
$334,171
$340,854
$347,671
$354,625
$361,717
$368,951
$376,330
$383,857
$391,534
$399,365
$407,352
Condos (2 over 2)
Total
Initial Sale Resold
of Units3 Units4
Units4
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
20
20
1
21
20
3
23
20
4
24
20
5
25
20
7
27
20
8
28
20
9
29
20
11
31
20
12
32
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
0
13
13
MuniCap, Inc.
Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,868,505
$5,296,933
$5,740,551
$6,199,795
$6,675,113
$7,166,963
$7,675,818
$8,202,159
$8,746,484
$9,309,302
$3,956,453
$4,035,582
$4,116,294
$4,198,620
$4,282,592
$4,368,244
$4,455,609
$4,544,721
$4,635,616
$4,728,328
$4,822,894
$4,919,352
$5,017,739
$5,118,094
$5,220,456
$5,324,865
$5,431,362
Value Per
Unit2
$107,641
$109,793
$111,989
$114,229
$116,514
$118,844
$121,221
$123,645
$126,118
$128,641
$131,213
$133,838
$136,514
$139,245
$142,030
$144,870
$147,768
$150,723
$153,737
$156,812
$159,948
$163,147
$166,410
$169,738
$173,133
$176,596
$180,128
$183,730
$187,405
$191,153
$194,976
$198,876
$202,853
$206,910
$211,048
$215,269
$219,575
$223,966
$228,446
$233,015
Multi-Family Rental
Initial Sale Resold
Total
of Units3 Units5
Units5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
20
0
20
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
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
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
Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,330,274
$2,376,880
$2,424,418
$2,472,906
$2,522,364
$2,572,811
$2,624,267
$2,676,753
$2,730,288
$2,784,894
$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
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XIV.2
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-A.
Assumes residential for sale units are resold approximately every 15 years.
Assumes residential for rent units are not resold.
Page 42

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XIV: Projection of Local Recordation Tax Revenues, continued
Tax
Year
Inflation
1
Beginning Factor
1-Jul-13
100%
1-Jul-14
102%
1-Jul-15
104%
1-Jul-16
106%
1-Jul-17
108%
1-Jul-18
110%
1-Jul-19
113%
1-Jul-20
115%
1-Jul-21
117%
1-Jul-22
120%
1-Jul-23
122%
1-Jul-24
124%
1-Jul-25
127%
1-Jul-26
129%
1-Jul-27
132%
1-Jul-28
135%
1-Jul-29
137%
1-Jul-30
140%
1-Jul-31
143%
1-Jul-32
146%
1-Jul-33
149%
1-Jul-34
152%
1-Jul-35
155%
1-Jul-36
158%
1-Jul-37
161%
1-Jul-38
164%
1-Jul-39
167%
1-Jul-40
171%
1-Jul-41
174%
1-Jul-42
178%
1-Jul-43
181%
1-Jul-44
185%
1-Jul-45
188%
1-Jul-46
192%
1-Jul-47
196%
1-Jul-48
200%
1-Jul-49
204%
1-Jul-50
208%
1-Jul-51
212%
1-Jul-52
216%
Commercial
In-Line Retail
Anchor
Value
Per SF2
$100
$102
$104
$106
$108
$110
$112
$115
$117
$119
$122
$124
$127
$129
$132
$134
$137
$140
$142
$145
$148
$151
$154
$157
$160
$164
$167
$170
$174
$177
$181
$184
$188
$192
$196
$199
$203
$208
$212
$216
SF3
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,740,409
$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
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Value
Per SF2
$173
$176
$180
$183
$187
$191
$194
$198
$202
$206
$211
$215
$219
$223
$228
$232
$237
$242
$247
$252
$257
$262
$267
$272
$278
$283
$289
$295
$301
$307
$313
$319
$325
$332
$339
$345
$352
$359
$367
$374
SF3
0
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,724,937
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,112,787
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Office
Value
Per SF2
$151
$154
$157
$160
$164
$167
$170
$174
$177
$181
$184
$188
$192
$196
$199
$203
$207
$212
$216
$220
$225
$229
$234
$238
$243
$248
$253
$258
$263
$268
$274
$279
$285
$291
$296
$302
$308
$314
$321
$327
SF3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,449,140
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Total Projected
Market Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,117,281
$51,105,143
$75,695,026
$61,445,660
$66,019,858
$82,676,843
$88,621,673
$109,202,701
$94,347,054
$105,128,394
$108,827,840
$115,530,616
$142,019,899
$105,340,759
$110,600,103
$116,027,685
$121,628,131
$127,406,183
$106,695,260
$104,561,475
$107,949,475
$111,431,170
$115,008,954
$98,043,126
$100,003,989
$102,004,069
$104,044,150
$106,125,033
$108,247,534
$110,412,484
$112,620,734
$114,873,149
$117,170,612
$119,514,024
$121,904,304
$124,342,390
Local Recordation
Tax Revenues
($6.00 Per $500)4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$565,407
$613,262
$908,340
$737,348
$792,238
$992,122
$1,063,460
$1,310,432
$1,132,165
$1,261,541
$1,305,934
$1,386,367
$1,704,239
$1,264,089
$1,327,201
$1,392,332
$1,459,538
$1,528,874
$1,280,343
$1,254,738
$1,295,394
$1,337,174
$1,380,107
$1,176,518
$1,200,048
$1,224,049
$1,248,530
$1,273,500
$1,298,970
$1,324,950
$1,351,449
$1,378,478
$1,406,047
$1,434,168
$1,462,852
$1,492,109
$44,564,313
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XIV.3
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-A.
See Schedule VIII-H. Assumes commercial property is not resold.
Represents Frederick County local recordation tax rate for fiscal year 2013. Source:Frederick County, Maryland Summary of the Adopted Operating & Capital Budgets Fiscal Year 2013.
Page 43

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XV-A: Projected Additional Revenues to Frederick County - Annual
Projected
Projecting Revenues
$237,283,700
$6,513,900
$63,100
$2,348,300
$3,335,100
$38,200
$249,582,300
See Schedule XI
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Local Income tax
$171,226,300
See Schedule XIII-A & B
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0
Other Local Taxes

Admissions tax
Recordation taxes - deeds
911 fees - local
Security int. filing fee
Recordation taxes - financing
Sub-total other local taxes
$816,000
$12,900,788
$1,494,300
$500
$2,196,281
$17,407,869
resident population
See Schedule XIV
service population
not impacted
See Schedule XIV
236,745
282,958
-
$3.45
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.45
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.28
$0.00
$0.00
$5.28
8,749
9,078
-
$30,155
$0
$47,943
$0
$0
$78,098
Licenses & Permits

Traders license
Business license review
Animal licenses
Marriage licenses
7
All other licenses and permits
Sub-total licenses & permits
$201,600
$100
$44,200
$12,200
$2,586,500
$2,844,600
employee population
employee population
resident population
resident population
not impacted
90,246
90,246
236,745
236,745
-
$0.00
$0.00
$0.19
$0.05
$0.00
$0.24
$2.23
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.24
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
643
643
8,749
8,749
-
$1,437
$1
$1,633
$451
$0
$3,522
Federal Grants
$1,023,160
not impacted
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0
$2,229,400
not impacted
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0
$4,377,309
not impacted
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0
$68,500
$10,600
$75,000
$1,000
$155,100
service population
not impacted
service population
not impacted
282,958
282,958
-
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.24
$0.00
$0.27
$0.00
$0.51
9,078
9,078
-
$2,198
$0
$2,406
$0
$4,604
$400,000
not impacted
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0
$3,148,200
not impacted
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0
$3.68
$2.24
$5.79
State Grants
Service Charges
Fines and Forfeitures

Court fines
Alcohol code violation fines
Fines-false alarms
All other fines and forfeitures
Sub-total fines and forfeitures
Investment Earnings
Miscellaneous
Total
Basis for
Per Capita Revenues3

4
Resident
Employee Service Population
Current County
2
Service Factor
Annual Tax Revenues

Local Property Taxes
Real estate taxes
Public utilities tax
Payment in lieu of taxes
Interest on taxes
Tax credit - state reimbursement
Tax sales revenues & expenses
Sub-total local property taxes
Current
County Revenues1
$452,394,238
MuniCap, Inc.
Increase in
Service Factor5
Total
Revenue6
$86,224
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVA
24-Apr-13
Current county general fund revenues obtained from the Frederick County, Maryland Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2013.
Represents the current number of county residents, employees, and service population used to estimate the increase in revenues. See Appendix A for allocation factors.
Method of apportioning revenues: Per resident revenues are calculated by taking current revenues and apportioning them among total residents. Per employee revenues are calculated by taking current revenues and apportioning them among total
employees. Service population revenues are calculated by taking current revenues and apportioning them among current total service population (residents and non-residents).
4
Service population represents the combination of both residents and non-resident employees.
5
6
7
Represents proposed increase to County as a result of new development. See Appendix A

Represents total increase in revenues as a result of proposed development on an annual basis. Figures assume full build out and are expressed in current dollars.
Assumes revenues will be offset by cost of services that are also excluded from this study
Page 44

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XV-B: Projected Additional Revenues to Frederick County - 39 Years
Tax
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Inflation Anticipated
Factor
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Revenue
Population1 Per Resident2

0
$4
0
$4
0
$4
0
$4
440
$4
879
$4
1,345
$4
1,783
$4
2,221
$4
2,752
$4
3,284
$4
3,913
$5
4,388
$5
4,917
$5
5,401
$5
5,884
$5
6,367
$5
6,702
$5
7,037
$5
7,372
$5
7,707
$5
8,041
$6
8,227
$6
8,357
$6
8,488
$6
8,618
$6
8,749
$6
8,749
$6
8,749
$6
8,749
$7
8,749
$7
8,749
$7
8,749
$7
8,749
$7
8,749
$7
8,749
$7
8,749
$8
8,749
$8
8,749
$8
8,749
$8
Total Resident
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,754
$3,578
$5,580
$7,545
$9,587
$12,121
$14,752
$17,927
$20,506
$23,441
$26,259
$29,181
$32,210
$34,582
$37,036
$39,574
$42,199
$44,913
$46,866
$48,562
$50,308
$52,103
$53,950
$55,029
$56,130
$57,252
$58,398
$59,565
$60,757
$61,972
$63,211
$64,476
$65,765
$67,080
$68,422
$69,790
Additional Revenues to Frederick County

Anticipated
Revenue
Total Employee
Anticipated
Revenue Per
Total Serv.
Total
Additional
Employees3 Per Employee2

0
$2
0
$2
0
$2
0
$2
0
$2
0
$2
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
268
$3
643
$3
643
$3
643
$3
643
$3
643
$3
643
$3
643
$3
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$4
643
$5
643
$5
643
$5
643
$5
Serv. Pop.4
0
0
0
0
440
879
1,482
1,920
2,358
2,889
3,421
4,050
4,525
5,054
5,538
6,021
6,697
7,031
7,366
7,701
8,036
8,371
8,556
8,687
8,817
8,948
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
Serv. Pop.2
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$7
$7
$7
$7
$7
$7
$7
$7
$8
$8
$8
$8
$8
$8
$9
$9
$9
$9
$9
$9
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$11
$11
$11
$11
$12
$12
$12
$12
$13
Pop. Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,755
$5,619
$9,658
$12,763
$15,989
$19,987
$24,139
$29,146
$33,216
$37,846
$42,294
$46,905
$53,211
$56,989
$60,897
$64,938
$69,117
$73,437
$76,563
$79,286
$82,087
$84,968
$87,932
$89,691
$91,485
$93,315
$95,181
$97,084
$99,026
$101,007
$103,027
$105,087
$107,189
$109,333
$111,520
$113,750
Revenue
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,508
$9,197
$15,912
$20,996
$26,277
$32,823
$39,621
$47,817
$54,481
$62,061
$69,343
$76,892
$87,394
$93,584
$99,986
$106,607
$113,452
$120,529
$125,652
$130,115
$134,707
$139,430
$144,289
$147,174
$150,118
$153,120
$156,183
$159,306
$162,492
$165,742
$169,057
$172,438
$175,887
$179,405
$182,993
$186,653
$2,386,436
$3,916,241
$1,462,384
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$674
$687
$701
$715
$730
$744
$759
$774
$790
$806
$1,974
$2,013
$2,053
$2,094
$2,136
$2,179
$2,223
$2,267
$2,312
$2,359
$2,406
$2,454
$2,503
$2,553
$2,604
$2,656
$2,709
$2,764
$2,819
$2,875
$2,933
$2,991
$3,051
$3,112
$67,422
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVB
24-Apr-13
See Appendix C.
See Schedule XV-A.
See Appendix B.
See Appendix D.
Page 45

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XVI: Total Projected Revenues to Frederick County
Tax
Frederick County
Local
Frederick County Personal Income Tax3
Year
Inflation
Surplus Real
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Factor
100%
102%
104%
106%
108%
110%
113%
115%
117%
120%
122%
124%
127%
129%
132%
135%
137%
140%
143%
146%
149%
152%
155%
158%
161%
164%
167%
171%
174%
178%
181%
185%
188%
192%
196%
200%
204%
208%
212%
216%
Property Tax2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$346,511
$797,706
$1,037,526
$1,621,591
$2,229,358
$2,964,150
$3,721,221
$3,020,145
$3,772,568
$4,589,837
$5,412,234
$6,249,828
$7,286,655
$7,998,087
$8,717,855
$9,444,915
$10,164,241
$10,908,863
$11,451,804
$11,942,326
$12,424,353
$12,895,252
$13,376,952
$13,696,807
$14,008,460
$14,311,784
$14,606,615
$14,907,609
$15,213,553
$15,527,367
$16,489,244
$16,898,603
$17,245,009
$17,597,440
$17,956,832
$20,872,924
Residential
$0
$0
$0
$0
$305,142
$622,490
$978,227
$1,333,588
$1,702,772
$2,160,975
$2,636,825
$3,222,680
$3,688,450
$4,199,874
$4,700,235
$5,218,930
$5,756,493
$6,159,460
$6,576,243
$7,007,234
$7,452,833
$7,913,454
$8,220,568
$8,502,290
$8,791,993
$9,089,882
$9,396,171
$9,584,094
$9,775,776
$9,971,292
$10,170,717
$10,374,132
$10,581,614
$10,793,247
$11,009,112
$11,229,294
$11,453,880
$11,682,957
$11,916,616
$12,154,949
Commercial
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$67,928
$69,287
$70,672
$72,086
$73,527
$74,998
$76,498
$78,028
$79,588
$81,180
$294,577
$300,469
$306,478
$312,608
$318,860
$325,237
$331,742
$338,377
$345,144
$352,047
$359,088
$366,270
$373,595
$381,067
$388,689
$396,462
$404,392
$412,480
$420,729
$429,144
$437,727
$446,481
$455,411
$464,519
$361,706,222
$256,334,488
$9,705,387
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Total Projected
Recordation Tax
Additional
Frederick County
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$565,407
$613,262
$908,340
$737,348
$792,238
$992,122
$1,063,460
$1,310,432
$1,132,165
$1,261,541
$1,305,934
$1,386,367
$1,704,239
$1,264,089
$1,327,201
$1,392,332
$1,459,538
$1,528,874
$1,280,343
$1,254,738
$1,295,394
$1,337,174
$1,380,107
$1,176,518
$1,200,048
$1,224,049
$1,248,530
$1,273,500
$1,298,970
$1,324,950
$1,351,449
$1,378,478
$1,406,047
$1,434,168
$1,462,852
$1,492,109
Revenues5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,508
$9,197
$15,912
$20,996
$26,277
$32,823
$39,621
$47,817
$54,481
$62,061
$69,343
$76,892
$87,394
$93,584
$99,986
$106,607
$113,452
$120,529
$125,652
$130,115
$134,707
$139,430
$144,289
$147,174
$150,118
$153,120
$156,183
$159,306
$162,492
$165,742
$169,057
$172,438
$175,887
$179,405
$182,993
$186,653
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,221,569
$2,042,655
$3,007,933
$3,782,810
$4,821,318
$6,222,156
$7,534,654
$7,676,073
$8,724,161
$10,191,340
$11,567,334
$13,013,197
$15,129,358
$15,815,689
$17,027,764
$18,263,695
$19,508,924
$20,796,958
$21,410,109
$22,167,846
$22,991,590
$23,813,785
$24,656,607
$24,970,863
$25,507,998
$26,041,311
$26,570,733
$27,111,010
$27,661,022
$28,223,785
$29,439,591
$30,107,957
$30,718,549
$31,340,451
$31,974,704
$35,171,153
$44,564,313
$3,916,241
$676,226,651
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVI
24-Apr-13
1
2
Represents the real property tax net surplus after debt service as shown on Schedule XII.
See Schedules XIII-A and XIII-B.
See Schedule XIV.
See Schedules XV-A and XV-B.
Page 46

Frederick, Maryland

Projected Expenditures and Net Fiscal Impacts to
Frederick County

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XVII-A: Projected Additional Expenses to Frederick County - Annual
Projected
Increase in
Service Factor5
Total
Additional
Expenses6
$5.51
$9,649
$53,202
$4.84
$1.16
$2.36
$16,254
$16,254
$16,254
$78,704
$18,814
$38,392
$4.18
$80.74
$84.92
$0.00
$0.00
$5.51
$8.36
9,078
9,078
-
$37,907
$732,984
$960,003
Basis for
Projecting Expenses3
Current County
Service Factors4
Per
Resident
$524,361
$1,224,296
$973,840
$441
$991,236
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
Interagency Information Technologies

I.I.T.
GIS
$7,445,045
$1,308,302
not impacted
property taxes
$237,284
Finance
Accounting
Risk management
Budget
Purchasing
Treasurer
$2,281,685
$363,557
$545,423
$1,232,864
$1,113,011
total tax revenues

not impacted
total tax revenues
not impacted
total tax revenues
$471,218
$471,218
$471,218
Judicial
Circuit court
Circuit court master
Grand jury
Orphan's court
$1,223,472
$31,278
$85,864
$26,240
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
State's Attorney
$5,824,409
not impacted
Sheriff
Administration
Operations
Courthouse security
School crossing guard
Adult detention center
ADC central booking unit
Alternative sentencing
Work release center
Sub-total
$1,181,507
$22,846,048
$1,736,268
$203,035
$12,539,960
$388,456
$861,213
$2,706,130
$67,657,941
service population
service population
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
282,958
282,958
-
$0.00
$0.00
Annual Expenses
County Departments
Administration
Board of County commissioners
County Manager
County Attorney
Ethics Commission
Human Resources
MuniCap, Inc.
1
Expenses by Factor
Per
Per Road
Student
Mile
Current
County Expenses2
Per
Service
Employee Population
$1,000 Prop. $1,000 Total

Tax Revenues Tax Revenues
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVII-A
24-Apr-13
Not all County expenses are expected to be impacted as a result of Oakdale development.
Source: Frederick County, Maryland Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2013.

Method of apportioning expenses: Per resident expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total residents. Per employee expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total employees. Service population expenses are calculated by taking
current expenses and apportioning them among current total service population (residents and non-residents). Per student expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total students. Road mile expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among
County maintained roads. Pro rata property tax revenues are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among $1,000's of property tax expenses. Pro rata total tax revenues are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among $1,000's of total tax revenues.
Represents current statistics for County. See Appendix A.
Represents proposed increase to County as a result of new development. See Appendix A.
Represents total increase in expenses as a result of proposed development on an annual basis. Figures assume full build out and are expressed in current dollars.
Page 47

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XVII-A: Projected Additional Expenses to Frederick County - Annual, continued
Expenses by Factor
Per
Per Road
$1,000 Prop.
Projected
Increase in
Total
Additional
Student
Mile
Service Factor5
Expenses6
$1.65
$1.76
$19.11
9,078
9,078
9,078
$14,979
$15,961
$173,471
$20.30
9,078
$184,313
$7.50
8,749
$65,592
not impacted
$283,688
$13,393,534
$1,094,492
$3,875,318
$9,100,208
road miles
road miles
not impacted
not impacted
road miles
1,269
1,269
1,269
$223.55
$10,554.40
$7,171.16
3
3
3
$671
$31,663
$21,513
Parks and Recreation
$7,990,250
service population
282,958
$28.24
9,078
$256,356
Health Services
Health administration
Health core services
School health program
Mental health program
Detention centers - substance abuse
Frederick County Developmental Center
Scott Key Center
$138,444
$1,861,146
$6,165,539
$421,533
$132,572
$4,653,699
$3,183,029
service population
service population
student population
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
282,958
282,958
40,527
-
$0.49
$6.58
-
$152.13
-
9,078
9,078
1,444
-
$4,442
$59,712
$219,713
-
Transit
Sub-total
$174,676
$73,644,890
service population
282,958
$7.50
$0.00
$0.62
$78.74
$152.13
$17,949.12
$0.00
$0.00
9,078
$5,604
$1,053,992
Current
Basis for
Current County
County Expenses2
Service Factors4
$466,872
$497,494
$5,406,852
service population
service population
service population
282,958
282,958
282,958
Emergency Management
$5,744,779
service population
282,958
Animal Control
$1,774,915
resident population
236,745
Planning and development review7
$2,498,245
not impacted
Permits and inspections 7

Office of environmental sustainability
NPDES
$3,075,406
$145,168
$647,718
not impacted
not impacted
not impacted
$919,313
Public Works
Administration
Highway operations
Transportation engineering
Facilities and project services
Maintenance
Annual Expenses1
County Departments, continued
Fire and Rescue Services
Director
Fire Marshal
Volunteer fire/rescue
Per
Per
Service
Resident Employee Population
$1,000 Total
Community Development
Business Development and Retention
MuniCap, Inc.
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVII-A.2
24-Apr-13
Method of apportioning expenses: Per resident expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total residents. Per employee expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total employees. Service population expenses are calculated
by taking current expenses and apportioning them among current total service population (residents and non-residents). Per student expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total students. Road mile expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and
apportioning them among County maintained roads. Pro rata property tax revenues are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among $1,000's of property tax expenses. Pro rata total tax revenues are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among $1,000's of
4
Assumes expenditures will be offset by revenues that are also excluded from this study.
Page 48

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XVII-A: Projected Additional Expenses to Frederick County - Annual, continued
Expenses by Factor
Per
Per Road
Projected
Increase in
Total
Additional
Service Factor5
Expenses6
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
643
$10,504
$10,144
$12,021
$6,251
$213
$3,591
$10,431
$4,743
1,444
$8,475,616
8,749
$517,548
8,749
$360,023
Current
Basis for
Current County
Per
Per
Service
County Expenses2
Service Factors4
Resident
Employee
Population
Student
Mile
$284,243
$474,526
$274,488
$325,276
$169,140
$5,770
$97,180
$282,256
$665,355
resident population
not impacted
resident population
resident population
resident population
resident population
resident population
resident population
employee population
236,745
236,745
236,745
236,745
236,745
236,745
236,745
90,246
$1.20
$1.16
$1.37
$0.71
$0.02
$0.41
$1.19
-
$7.37
$237,841,221
student population
40,527
$5,868.71
Frederick Community College
$14,004,812
resident population
236,745
$59.16
Maryland School for the Blind
$2,000
not impacted
Library
$9,742,176
resident population
236,745
$41.15
Board of Elections
Annual Expenses1
County Departments, continued
Citizens Services
Citizens services administration
Department of Aging
Family partnership
Housing
Human relations
Human relations commission
Office of Children and Families
Child Advocacy Center
Workforce development
Independent and Other Non-County Agencies
Board of Education
$1,000 Prop.
$1,000 Total
$1,439,558
not impacted
Liquor License Commission
$322,537
not impacted
Internal Audit
$672,024
not impacted
Social Services
$674,796
not impacted
$1,298,000
property taxes
$237,284
$5.47
$9,649
$52,783
Weed Control
$199,509
not impacted
Extension Service
$333,001
not impacted
Grant-in-Aid Agencies
$264,421
not impacted
Non-County Agencies
$132,416
not impacted
$73,568,910
$484,376,446
not impacted
$113.88
$7.37
$163.66
$6,020.84
$17,949.12
$10.98
$8.36
$11,477,861
State Department of Assessments and Taxation
Non-Departmental
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVII-A.3
24-Apr-13

Method of apportioning expenses: Per resident expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total residents. Per employee expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total employees. Service population expenses are calculated by taking current
expenses and apportioning them among current total service population (residents and non-residents). Per student expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among total students. Road mile expenses are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among County maintained
roads. Pro rata property tax revenues are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among $1,000's of property tax expenses. Pro rata total tax revenues are calculated by taking current expenses and apportioning them among $1,000's of total tax revenues.
Page 49

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XVII-B: Projected Additional Expenses to Frederick County - 39 Years
Tax
Year
Inflation
Anticipated
Expense
Total Resident
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Factor
100.0%
102.0%
104.0%
106.1%
108.2%
110.4%
112.6%
114.9%
117.2%
119.5%
121.9%
124.3%
126.8%
129.4%
131.9%
134.6%
137.3%
140.0%
142.8%
145.7%
148.6%
151.6%
154.6%
157.7%
160.8%
164.1%
167.3%
170.7%
174.1%
177.6%
181.1%
184.8%
188.5%
192.2%
196.1%
200.0%
204.0%
208.1%
212.2%
216.5%
Population1
0
0
0
0
440
879
1,345
1,783
2,221
2,752
3,284
3,913
4,388
4,917
5,401
5,884
6,367
6,702
7,037
7,372
7,707
8,041
8,227
8,357
8,488
8,618
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
Per Resident2
$114
$116
$118
$121
$123
$126
$128
$131
$133
$136
$139
$142
$144
$147
$150
$153
$156
$159
$163
$166
$169
$173
$176
$180
$183
$187
$191
$194
$198
$202
$206
$210
$215
$219
$223
$228
$232
$237
$242
$247
Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$54,196
$110,559
$172,438
$233,177
$296,276
$374,578
$455,893
$554,016
$633,703
$724,399
$811,507
$901,810
$995,400
$1,068,702
$1,144,539
$1,222,981
$1,304,103
$1,387,981
$1,448,340
$1,500,753
$1,554,684
$1,610,171
$1,667,256
$1,700,601
$1,734,613
$1,769,305
$1,804,691
$1,840,785
$1,877,601
$1,915,153
$1,953,456
$1,992,525
$2,032,375
$2,073,023
$2,114,483
$2,156,773
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Additional Expenditures to Frederick County

Anticipated
Expense
Total Employee
Anticipated
Expense Per
Total Serv.
Employees3
0
0
0
0
0
0
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
Serv. Pop.4
0
0
0
0
440
879
1,482
1,920
2,358
2,889
3,421
4,050
4,525
5,054
5,538
6,021
6,697
7,031
7,366
7,701
8,036
8,371
8,556
8,687
8,817
8,948
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
Serv. Pop.2
$164
$167
$170
$174
$177
$181
$184
$188
$192
$196
$199
$203
$208
$212
$216
$220
$225
$229
$234
$238
$243
$248
$253
$258
$263
$268
$274
$279
$285
$291
$296
$302
$308
$315
$321
$327
$334
$341
$347
$354
Pop. Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$77,886
$158,887
$273,087
$360,881
$452,077
$565,131
$682,527
$824,088
$939,166
$1,070,076
$1,195,841
$1,326,208
$1,504,509
$1,611,333
$1,721,828
$1,836,099
$1,954,252
$2,076,396
$2,164,773
$2,241,763
$2,320,967
$2,402,443
$2,486,249
$2,535,974
$2,586,694
$2,638,428
$2,691,196
$2,745,020
$2,799,921
$2,855,919
$2,913,037
$2,971,298
$3,030,724
$3,091,339
$3,153,165
$3,216,229
Per Employee2
$7
$8
$8
$8
$8
$8
$8
$8
$9
$9
$9
$9
$9
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$11
$11
$11
$11
$11
$12
$12
$12
$12
$13
$13
$13
$13
$14
$14
$14
$14
$15
$15
$15
$16
$16
$45,192,846
Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,223
$2,268
$2,313
$2,359
$2,407
$2,455
$2,504
$2,554
$2,605
$2,657
$6,511
$6,641
$6,774
$6,909
$7,047
$7,188
$7,332
$7,479
$7,628
$7,781
$7,936
$8,095
$8,257
$8,422
$8,590
$8,762
$8,938
$9,116
$9,299
$9,485
$9,674
$9,868
$10,065
$10,266
$222,407
$67,475,411
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVII-B.
24-Apr-13
See Appendix C.
See Schedule XVII-A.
See Appendix B.
See Appendix D.
Page 50

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XVII-B: Projected Additional Expenses to Frederick County - 39 Years
Tax
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Inflation Anticipated
Factor
100.0%
102.0%
104.0%
106.1%
108.2%
110.4%
112.6%
114.9%
117.2%
119.5%
121.9%
124.3%
126.8%
129.4%
131.9%
134.6%
137.3%
140.0%
142.8%
145.7%
148.6%
151.6%
154.6%
157.7%
160.8%
164.1%
167.3%
170.7%
174.1%
177.6%
181.1%
184.8%
188.5%
192.2%
196.1%
200.0%
204.0%
208.1%
212.2%
216.5%
Total
Students1
0
0
0
0
78
157
234
302
369
454
539
633
708
783
854
925
997
1,051
1,105
1,159
1,213
1,267
1,303
1,338
1,373
1,409
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
Expense
Total Student
Anticipated
Per Student2
$6,021
$6,141
$6,264
$6,389
$6,517
$6,647
$6,780
$6,916
$7,054
$7,195
$7,339
$7,486
$7,636
$7,789
$7,944
$8,103
$8,265
$8,431
$8,599
$8,771
$8,947
$9,126
$9,308
$9,494
$9,684
$9,878
$10,075
$10,277
$10,482
$10,692
$10,906
$11,124
$11,347
$11,573
$11,805
$12,041
$12,282
$12,527
$12,778
$13,034
Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$510,610
$1,041,644
$1,589,406
$2,088,325
$2,606,565
$3,268,187
$3,955,231
$4,737,663
$5,404,203
$6,095,510
$6,783,978
$7,497,547
$8,236,945
$8,858,235
$9,501,081
$10,166,098
$10,853,915
$11,565,178
$12,125,745
$12,704,110
$13,300,758
$13,916,191
$14,550,921
$14,841,939
$15,138,778
$15,441,553
$15,750,384
$16,065,392
$16,386,700
$16,714,434
$17,048,723
$17,389,697
$17,737,491
$18,092,241
$18,454,086
$18,823,167
Road Miles3 Per Road Mile2

0
$17,949
0
$18,308
0
$18,674
0
$19,048
0
$19,429
0
$19,817
0
$20,214
1
$20,618
1
$21,030
1
$21,451
1
$21,880
1
$22,317
1
$22,764
2
$23,219
2
$23,683
2
$24,157
2
$24,640
2
$25,133
2
$25,636
3
$26,148
3
$26,671
3
$27,205
3
$27,749
3
$28,304
3
$28,870
3
$29,447
3
$30,036
3
$30,637
3
$31,250
3
$31,875
3
$32,512
3
$33,163
3
$33,826
3
$34,502
3
$35,192
3
$35,896
3
$36,614
3
$37,346
3
$38,093
3
$38,855
$389,242,632
Expense
Additional Expenditures to Frederick County

Total Road
Anticipated Prop.
Expense
Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,226
$4,729
$8,492
$11,775
$15,192
$19,312
$23,558
$28,697
$33,077
$37,820
$42,593
$47,456
$53,430
$57,601
$61,820
$66,086
$70,312
$74,681
$77,937
$80,906
$83,830
$86,702
$89,631
$91,668
$93,667
$95,625
$97,537
$99,488
$101,478
$103,507
$105,577
$107,689
$109,843
$112,039
$114,280
$116,566
Tax Revenues4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$315,968
$717,364
$1,304,293
$1,792,683
$2,282,103
$2,857,483
$3,428,083
$4,104,556
$4,645,424
$5,213,983
$5,762,544
$6,299,671
$6,959,234
$7,358,515
$7,745,499
$8,120,185
$8,472,466
$8,824,747
$9,030,177
$9,191,335
$9,337,586
$9,468,930
$9,597,605
$9,623,339
$9,640,496
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$2,426,827
Per $1,000 2
$11
$11
$11
$12
$12
$12
$12
$13
$13
$13
$13
$14
$14
$14
$14
$15
$15
$15
$16
$16
$16
$17
$17
$17
$18
$18
$18
$19
$19
$20
$20
$20
$21
$21
$22
$22
$22
$23
$23
$24
Total Property
Anticipated Total
Expense
Total Tax
Total
Additional
Tax Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,757
$8,700
$16,134
$22,618
$29,369
$37,510
$45,900
$56,056
$64,712
$74,085
$83,517
$93,127
$104,935
$113,175
$121,509
$129,935
$138,283
$146,914
$153,341
$159,199
$164,966
$170,633
$176,410
$180,421
$184,358
$188,212
$191,976
$195,816
$199,732
$203,727
$207,801
$211,957
$216,197
$220,520
$224,931
$229,429
Tax Revenues4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,124,386
$1,844,953
$3,053,958
$3,674,154
$4,494,316
$5,583,637
$6,556,426
$7,849,147
$8,549,721
$9,544,127
$10,427,340
$11,324,954
$12,672,219
$12,941,554
$13,563,759
$14,173,667
$14,761,170
$15,348,672
$15,471,598
$15,675,909
$15,907,465
$16,124,114
$16,338,093
$16,228,381
$16,245,538
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
Per $1,000 2
$8
$9
$9
$9
$9
$9
$9
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$11
$11
$11
$11
$11
$12
$12
$12
$12
$13
$13
$13
$13
$14
$14
$14
$15
$15
$15
$15
$16
$16
$16
$17
$17
$17
$18
$18
Revenue Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,177
$17,032
$28,758
$35,290
$44,030
$55,796
$66,828
$81,604
$90,665
$103,235
$115,044
$127,446
$145,460
$151,522
$161,983
$172,652
$183,405
$194,519
$199,998
$206,692
$213,940
$221,191
$228,609
$231,615
$236,497
$241,355
$246,182
$251,105
$256,127
$261,250
$266,475
$271,804
$277,241
$282,785
$288,441
$294,210
Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
$658,850
$1,341,551
$2,090,537
$2,754,333
$3,445,823
$4,322,873
$5,232,343
$6,284,579
$7,168,030
$8,107,679
$9,035,085
$9,996,252
$11,047,189
$11,867,209
$12,719,534
$13,600,760
$14,511,318
$15,452,857
$16,177,466
$16,900,902
$17,646,774
$18,415,111
$19,207,012
$19,590,313
$19,982,863
$20,382,899
$20,790,557
$21,206,369
$21,630,496
$22,063,106
$22,504,368
$22,954,455
$23,413,544
$23,881,815
$24,359,452
$24,846,641
$6,260,963
$515,590,948
$4,769,862
MuniCap, Inc.
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVII-B.2
24-Apr-13
See Appendix E.
See Schedule XVII-A.
See Appendix A for projected road miles. Assumes road miles are complete and conveyed to the County in-line with project build-out.
See Appendix H.
Page 51

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule XVIII: Net Fiscal Impacts to Frederick County
Tax
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Inflation
Factor
100.0%
102.0%
104.0%
106.1%
108.2%
110.4%
112.6%
114.9%
117.2%
119.5%
121.9%
124.3%
126.8%
129.4%
131.9%
134.6%
137.3%
140.0%
142.8%
145.7%
148.6%
151.6%
154.6%
157.7%
160.8%
164.1%
167.3%
170.7%
174.1%
177.6%
181.1%
184.8%
188.5%
192.2%
196.1%
200.0%
204.0%
208.1%
212.2%
216.5%
Total
Total Projected
Frederick County
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,221,569
$2,042,655
$3,007,933
$3,782,810
$4,821,318
$6,222,156
$7,534,654
$7,676,073
$8,724,161
$10,191,340
$11,567,334
$13,013,197
$15,129,358
$15,815,689
$17,027,764
$18,263,695
$19,508,924
$20,796,958
$21,410,109
$22,167,846
$22,991,590
$23,813,785
$24,656,607
$24,970,863
$25,507,998
$26,041,311
$26,570,733
$27,111,010
$27,661,022
$28,223,785
$29,439,591
$30,107,957
$30,718,549
$31,340,451
$31,974,704
$35,171,153
Total Projected
Frederick County
Expenses
$0
$0
$0
$0
($658,850)
($1,341,551)
($2,090,537)
($2,754,333)
($3,445,823)
($4,322,873)
($5,232,343)
($6,284,579)
($7,168,030)
($8,107,679)
($9,035,085)
($9,996,252)
($11,047,189)
($11,867,209)
($12,719,534)
($13,600,760)
($14,511,318)
($15,452,857)
($16,177,466)
($16,900,902)
($17,646,774)
($18,415,111)
($19,207,012)
($19,590,313)
($19,982,863)
($20,382,899)
($20,790,557)
($21,206,369)
($21,630,496)
($22,063,106)
($22,504,368)
($22,954,455)
($23,413,544)
($23,881,815)
($24,359,452)
($24,846,641)
Net Fiscal
Impact to
Frederick County
$0
$0
$0
$0
$562,719
$701,103
$917,396
$1,028,477
$1,375,495
$1,899,282
$2,302,311
$1,391,494
$1,556,131
$2,083,661
$2,532,249
$3,016,945
$4,082,169
$3,948,479
$4,308,230
$4,662,935
$4,997,606
$5,344,101
$5,232,642
$5,266,944
$5,344,817
$5,398,674
$5,449,595
$5,380,550
$5,525,135
$5,658,412
$5,780,176
$5,904,641
$6,030,526
$6,160,679
$6,935,223
$7,153,501
$7,305,005
$7,458,636
$7,615,252
$10,324,513
$676,226,651
($515,590,948)
$160,635,703
MuniCap, Inc.et Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]XVIII
24-Apr-13
1
See Schedule XVI.
See Schedule XVII-B.
Page 52

Frederick, Maryland

Appendices

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix A: Revenues and Expenses to Frederick County (Allocation Factors)
1
Frederick County permanent population

Frederick County: total employment within County2
2
Frederick County: total residents within workforce
Percent of Frederick County residents within workforce assumed to work in Frederick County2
Total resident employees
Non-resident workers3
4
Employee population equivalent
5
Total service population
236,745
90,246
111,942
39.3%
44,033
46,213
46,213
282,958
Live-work rates
6
Percent of newly created Frederick County employees assumed to live in Frederick County
6
Percent of newly created Frederick County employees assumed to live outside Frederick County
48.8%
51.2%
Service population rates

Resident
1.00
Employee4
1.00
Expected population increase:

7
Owner occupied units
1
Persons per household
Sub-total expected population increase
3,035
2.73
8,286
200
Renter occupied units

8
93.8%
188
2.47
463
8,749
Vacancy rate
Occupied apartment units
1
Persons per household
Sub-total expected population increase
Total expected population increase (owner and renter occupied units)
Expected employee increase:
9
643
329
Projected new employees

10
Projected non-resident employees
Expected service population increase (new residents and non-resident employees)
9,078
11
1,269
3
Current Frederick County road miles

12
Projected increase in County maintained roads
Current Frederick County Public School students13
14
Projected increase in students to Frederick County
40,527
1,444
Current real property tax revenues to Frederick County15

16
Projected increase in real property tax revenues to Frederick County
$237,283,700
$9,649,074
Current total tax revenues to Frederick County15

16
Projected increase in total tax revenues to Frederick County
$471,218,324
$16,254,116
MuniCap, Inc.
ct Analysis No. 2.xlsx]A

24-Apr-13
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey. Persons per household represents the average household size for owner and renteroccupied units.

Represents total employment within Frederick County less Frederick County residents also estimated to be employed within Frederick County. Source: U.S.
Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application.
Service rate for employee is assumed to be same as resident population rate.
Represents the employee population equivalent plus the Frederick County population.
See Schedule VI-A.
Assumes a 6.2% vacancy in apartments. Based on the average vacancy loss for master metered garden apartments. Source:National Apartment Association
2012 Survey of Operating Income & Expenses in Rental Apartment Communities.
See Appendices G-1 through G-3. Expected employees were calculated using IMPLAN software.
10
Represents the projected employees expected work but not live in Frederick County. Calculated by multiplying total employees (643) by the percentage of
employees proposed to work but not live in the County (51.2%).
11
Source: Frederick County Public Works, Department of Highways and Transportation.
12
Additional information needed to project new public road miles created by the project.
13
Represents the September 2012 actual student enrollment for Frederick County schools. Source:Frederick County Public Schools September 30, 2013
Enrollment Projections.
14
See Appendix E.
15
Source: Frederick County, Maryland Summary of the Adopted Operating & Capital Budgets Fiscal Year 2013.
16
See Appendix H. Revenues shown are at full build-out, excluding inflation. Real property tax revenues are prior to payment of debt service.
A-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix B: Projected Employees
Development
Year
Anchor
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Employees
Per 1,000 SF2
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.99
In-Line Retail
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
MuniCap, Inc.
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
Commercial
Employees
Per 1,000 SF2
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
2.97
Office
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Total
Projected
Employees
Per 1,000 SF2
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
Employees
0
0
0
0
0
0
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
643
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]B
24-Apr-13
Jobs were calculated using IMPLAN software by MIG, Inc. See Appendix G.
B-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix C: Projected Residents
Development
Year
Single Family
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Detached
0
0
0
0
71
141
222
302
383
481
579
703
790
877
964
1,051
1,138
1,187
1,237
1,286
1,335
1,385
1,398
1,411
1,424
1,437
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
1,450
MuniCap, Inc.
Townhouses
0
0
0
0
74
147
220
283
346
426
505
594
664
734
805
875
945
998
1,051
1,105
1,158
1,211
1,246
1,281
1,315
1,350
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
Owner Occupied Units 1

Condos
Total Owner- Residents
Sub-Total
Multi-Family
2
Occupied Units Per Unit
0
2.73
0
2.73
0
2.73
0
2.73
144
2.73
288
2.73
442
2.73
585
2.73
729
2.73
906
2.73
1,084
2.73
1,297
2.73
1,454
2.73
1,631
2.73
1,809
2.73
1,986
2.73
2,163
2.73
2,285
2.73
2,408
2.73
2,531
2.73
2,653
2.73
2,776
2.73
2,844
2.73
2,892
2.73
2,939
2.73
2,987
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
3,035
2.73
Residents
0
0
0
0
393
787
1,206
1,597
1,989
2,474
2,960
3,542
3,971
4,454
4,937
5,421
5,904
6,239
6,574
6,908
7,243
7,578
7,763
7,894
8,024
8,155
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
8,286
Rental
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
(2 over 2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Renter Occupied Units1

Percent
Total RenterResidents
Occupied3
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
Occupied Units
0
0
0
0
19
38
56
75
94
113
131
150
169
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
Per Unit2
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
Sub-Total
Total
Projected
Residents
0
0
0
0
46
93
139
185
232
278
324
371
417
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
Residents
0
0
0
0
440
879
1,345
1,783
2,221
2,752
3,284
3,913
4,388
4,917
5,401
5,884
6,367
6,702
7,037
7,372
7,707
8,041
8,227
8,357
8,488
8,618
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]C
24-Apr-13

2
Represents the average household size for owner and renter occupied units in Frederick County. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
3
Assumes a 6.2% vacancy in apartments. Based on the average vacancy loss for master metered garden apartments. Source:National Apartment Association 2012 Survey of Operating Income & Expenses in Rental Apartment Communities.
C-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix D: Projected Service Population
Year
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Total
Projected
Service Population Increase
Development
Projected Service Employees1

Service %3
Employees
Service Employees
0
51.2%
0
0
51.2%
0
0
51.2%
0
0
51.2%
0
0
51.2%
0
0
51.2%
0
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
268
51.2%
137
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
643
51.2%
329
2
Projected
Residents4
0
0
0
0
440
879
1,345
1,783
2,221
2,752
3,284
3,913
4,388
4,917
5,401
5,884
6,367
6,702
7,037
7,372
7,707
8,041
8,227
8,357
8,488
8,618
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
8,749
Service
Population 5
0
0
0
0
440
879
1,482
1,920
2,358
2,889
3,421
4,050
4,525
5,054
5,538
6,021
6,697
7,031
7,366
7,701
8,036
8,371
8,556
8,687
8,817
8,948
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
9,078
MuniCap, Inc. Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]D
24-Apr-13
1
Service employees represent the percentage of employees who work, but do not live in the proposed project.
2
See Appendix B.
3
See Appendix A. Represents the percentage of new employees who work but do not live in the proposed project.
See Appendix C.
Represents the increase in employees who work but do not live in the County and new occupants as a result of the proposed development.
D-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix E: Projected Students1
Development
Year
Projected
2
Ending
Units
31-Dec-12
0
31-Dec-13
0
31-Dec-14
0
31-Dec-15
0
31-Dec-16
71
31-Dec-17
141
31-Dec-18
222
31-Dec-19
302
31-Dec-20
383
31-Dec-21
481
31-Dec-22
579
31-Dec-23
703
31-Dec-24
790
31-Dec-25
877
31-Dec-26
964
31-Dec-27
1,051
31-Dec-28
1,138
31-Dec-29
1,187
31-Dec-30
1,237
31-Dec-31
1,286
31-Dec-32
1,335
31-Dec-33
1,385
31-Dec-34
1,398
31-Dec-35
1,411
31-Dec-36
1,424
31-Dec-37
1,437
31-Dec-38
1,450
31-Dec-39
1,450
31-Dec-40
1,450
31-Dec-41
1,450
31-Dec-42
1,450
31-Dec-43
1,450
31-Dec-44
1,450
31-Dec-45
1,450
31-Dec-46
1,450
31-Dec-47
1,450
31-Dec-48
1,450
31-Dec-49
1,450
31-Dec-50
1,450
31-Dec-51
1,450
Projected Student Increase from Single Family Detached

ES
MS
HS
ES
MS
HS
Per HH3 Per HH3 Per HH3
Total
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
0
0
0
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
0
0
0
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
0
0
0
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
0
0
0
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
17
9
13
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
34
19
27
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
51
28
40
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
66
36
51
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
81
44
63
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
99
54
77
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
118
65
92
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
138
76
108
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
155
85
121
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
171
94
134
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
187
103
146
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
204
112
159
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
220
121
172
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
233
128
182
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
245
135
191
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
257
141
201
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
270
148
211
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
282
155
220
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
290
159
227
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
298
164
233
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
306
168
239
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
315
173
246
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
0.233
0.128
0.182
0.543
323
177
252
Total
Students
0
0
0
0
40
80
119
154
188
231
274
323
361
399
437
475
513
542
571
600
629
658
677
695
714
733
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
752
MuniCap, Inc.
Projected
Units2
0
0
0
0
74
147
220
283
346
426
505
594
664
734
805
875
945
998
1,051
1,105
1,158
1,211
1,246
1,281
1,315
1,350
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
Projected Student Increase from Townhouses

ES
MS
HS
ES
MS
HS
Total
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
0
0
0
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
0
0
0
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
0
0
0
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
0
0
0
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
18
7
9
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
36
15
19
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
54
22
28
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
69
29
36
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
84
35
45
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
104
43
55
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
123
51
65
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
145
60
77
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
162
67
86
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
179
74
95
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
196
81
104
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
213
88
113
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
231
95
122
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
244
101
129
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
257
106
136
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
270
112
142
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
283
117
149
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
296
122
156
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
304
126
161
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
312
129
165
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
321
133
170
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
329
136
174
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
0.244
0.101
0.129
0.474
338
140
179
Total
Students
0
0
0
0
35
70
104
134
164
202
240
282
315
348
381
415
448
473
498
524
549
574
591
607
624
640
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
656
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]E1
24-Apr-13
Student generation rates based on theFrederick County Public School Pupils Per Household as provided in the Board of Education Approved Educational facilities Master Plan Annual Update Including: Capital Improvement Program FY 2014-2019.
Represents the total elementary, middle and high school students projected to be generated as a result of the proposed development.
E-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix E: Projected Students, continued1
Development
Year
Projected
2
Ending
Units
31-Dec-12
0
31-Dec-13
0
31-Dec-14
0
31-Dec-15
0
31-Dec-16
0
31-Dec-17
0
31-Dec-18
0
31-Dec-19
0
31-Dec-20
0
31-Dec-21
0
31-Dec-22
0
31-Dec-23
0
31-Dec-24
0
31-Dec-25
20
31-Dec-26
40
31-Dec-27
60
31-Dec-28
80
31-Dec-29
100
31-Dec-30
120
31-Dec-31
140
31-Dec-32
160
31-Dec-33
180
31-Dec-34
200
31-Dec-35
200
31-Dec-36
200
31-Dec-37
200
31-Dec-38
200
31-Dec-39
200
31-Dec-40
200
31-Dec-41
200
31-Dec-42
200
31-Dec-43
200
31-Dec-44
200
31-Dec-45
200
31-Dec-46
200
31-Dec-47
200
31-Dec-48
200
31-Dec-49
200
31-Dec-50
200
31-Dec-51
200
Projected Student Increase from Condos

ES
MS
HS
ES
MS
HS
Total
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
1
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
2
1
1
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
3
1
1
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
4
1
2
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
5
2
2
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
6
2
3
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
8
2
3
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
9
3
3
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
11
3
4
Total
Students
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
7
9
11
13
15
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Projected
Units2
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
MuniCap, Inc.
Percent
Occupied5
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
Occupied
Units
0
0
0
0
19
38
56
75
94
113
131
150
169
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
Projected Student Increase from Multi-Family Rental

ES
MS
HS
ES
MS
HS
Total
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
0
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
1
0
0
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
2
1
1
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
3
1
1
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
4
1
2
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
5
2
2
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
6
2
2
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
7
2
3
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
8
3
3
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
9
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
0.054
0.017
0.021
0.092
10
3
4
Total
Students
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
7
9
10
12
14
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Total
Projected
Students
0
0
0
0
78
157
234
302
369
454
539
633
708
783
854
925
997
1,051
1,105
1,159
1,213
1,267
1,303
1,338
1,373
1,409
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]E2
24-Apr-13
Student generation rates based on the Frederick County Public School Pupils Per Household as provided in the
Board of Education Approved Educational facilities Master Plan Annual Update Including: Capital Improvement Program FY 2014-2019.
2
3
Represents the total elementary, middle and high school students projected to be generated as a result of the proposed development.
Assumes a 6.2% vacancy in apartments. Based on the average vacancy loss for master metered garden apartments. Source:National Apartment Association 2012 Survey of Operating Income & Expenses in Rental Apartment Communities.
E-2

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix F: Projected Sales 1
Adjusted
1
Development Type
Sales PSF
Type of SF
Sales PSF
Avg. SF Per Store
Anchor
Safeway
Weis Markets
Weighted average psf
$551
$349
Gross
Gross
$551
$349
$448
47,000
49,000
In-Line Retail
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group
Panera Bread
Shoe Carnival
Dollar General
Men's Warehouse
Body Central
Cache Stores
Weighted average psf
$719
$448
$468
$221
$213
$451
$253
$367
Selling
Selling
Selling
Gross
Selling
Selling
Gross
Gross
$539
$336
$351
$221
$213
$338
$253
$367
$312
5,800
6,600
447
8,500
7,200
5,705
4,287
2,000
MuniCap, Inc.
Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]F

24-Apr-13
Sales data provided by 2013 Bizminer Sales Report . Additional information regarding potential tenants needed to project sales.
Selling square footage assumes 75% of gross square footage is selling space.
F-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix G-1: Anchor Jobs and Indirect Impacts
Total
1
Anchor square feet
60,000
2
Sales per square foot

Anchor sales
$448
$26,873,750
Total cost of labor
$4,008,246
Average anchor wage -- annual3
$33,654
Total anchor jobs3

Total anchor jobs per 1,000 square feet
119
1.99
Multiplier for anchor wages3

Total earnings
Indirect earnings
1.3231
$5,303,429
$1,295,183
Multiplier for anchor jobs3

Total jobs
Indirect jobs
1.2930
154
35
Multiplier for anchor output3

Total economic output
Direct output
Indirect output
MuniCap, Inc.
1.5548
$11,741,377
$7,551,523
$4,189,854
Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]App G (Anchor)
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-A.
See Appendix F.
Anchor wages, jobs, and output were calculated using IMPLAN software by MIG, Inc. The software calculates labor
income and the number of jobs based on industry multipliers derived from National Income and Product Accounts data
published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. This data is then indexed to local industry data compiled by the
U.S. Census Bureau. For ease of interpretation, multipliers are shown to illustrate the effects anchor development within
the project will have in Frederick County, Maryland. The multiplier for anchor jobs is 1.2930, meaning that for each
anchor job at the development, 1.2930 jobs will be created in Frederick County, including the job at the new
development. Similarly, the multiplier for anchor wages is 1.3231, meaning that for every $1.00 paid in anchor wages at
the development, $1.3231 will be paid in Frederick County, including the $1.00 at the development. The multiplier for
anchor output is 1.5548, meaning that for each dollar of anchor economic activity at the development, the economic
activity in Frederick County will be $1.5548, including the $1.00 at the development.
G-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix G-2: In-Line Retail Jobs and Indirect Impacts
Total
1
In-line retail square feet
80,000
Sales per square foot

In-line retail sales
$312
$24,988,429
Total cost of labor
$4,247,633
Average in-line retail wage -- annual3
$17,855
Total in-line retail jobs3

Total in-line retail jobs per 1,000 square feet
238
2.97
Multiplier for in-line retail wages3

Total earnings
Indirect earnings
1.3277
$5,639,500
$1,391,867
Multiplier for in-line retail jobs3

Total jobs
Indirect jobs
1.1585
276
38
Multiplier for in-line retail output3

Direct output
Indirect output
MuniCap, Inc.
1.3997
$15,809,479
$11,294,770
$4,514,709
le\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]App G (In-Line Retail)

24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-A.
See Appendix F.
In-line retail wages, jobs and output were calculated using the IMPLAN software. Multipliers function in the same
manner as with anchor impacts.
G-2

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix G-3: Office Jobs and Indirect Impacts
Total
1
Office square feet
60,000
2
Square feet per office worker
210
Total office employees

Office employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
286
4.77
Office operating revenue
$40,600,262
Total cost of labor
$15,448,026
4
Average office wage -- annual
$53,965
Multiplier for office wages

Total earnings
Indirect earnings
1.4162
$21,877,606
$6,429,580
Multiplier for office jobs4

Total jobs
Indirect jobs
1.5902
455
169
4
Multiplier for office output

Indirect output
MuniCap, Inc.
1.4724
$59,779,731
$19,179,469
scal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]App G (Office)
24-Apr-13
See Schedule VI-A.
Represents the average square feet per office worker for suburban Baltimore, Maryland. Based on information
provided by the 2012 BOMA Experience Exchange Report.
Office operating revenue based on direct economic output as calculated by IMPLAN software by MIG, Inc.
based on selected representative sectors. Output is calculated in the same manner as with anchor output impacts.
Office wages, jobs and output were calculated using the IMPLAN software. Multipliers function in the same
G-3

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix H: Total Projected Revenues to Frederick County - Uninflated
Tax
Year
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Inflation
1
Factor
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Projected Real
Property Tax
(Before Debt Service)2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$315,968
$717,364
$1,304,293
$1,792,683
$2,282,103
$2,857,483
$3,428,083
$4,104,556
$4,645,424
$5,213,983
$5,762,544
$6,299,671
$6,959,234
$7,358,515
$7,745,499
$8,120,185
$8,472,466
$8,824,747
$9,030,177
$9,191,335
$9,337,586
$9,468,930
$9,597,605
$9,623,339
$9,640,496
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$9,649,074
$258,234,087
Frederick County Personal Income Tax

Residential
Commercial
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$281,904
$0
$563,808
$0
$868,637
$60,318
$1,160,968
$60,318
$1,453,299
$60,318
$1,808,207
$60,318
$2,163,115
$60,318
$2,591,883
$60,318
$2,908,318
$60,318
$3,246,639
$60,318
$3,562,190
$60,318
$3,877,742
$60,318
$4,193,293
$214,584
$4,398,856
$214,584
$4,604,418
$214,584
$4,809,981
$214,584
$5,015,543
$214,584
$5,221,105
$214,584
$5,317,384
$214,584
$5,391,778
$214,584
$5,466,171
$214,584
$5,540,564
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$5,614,957
$214,584
$153,055,202
$5,753,190
Local
Recordation Tax
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$522,349
$555,450
$806,580
$641,906
$676,168
$830,163
$872,408
$1,053,932
$892,704
$975,212
$989,735
$1,030,091
$1,241,446
$902,765
$929,252
$955,740
$982,227
$1,008,714
$828,176
$795,699
$805,374
$815,049
$824,724
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
$689,277
Additional
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,165
$8,330
$14,130
$18,278
$22,427
$27,465
$32,503
$38,458
$42,958
$47,975
$52,553
$57,132
$63,662
$66,834
$70,006
$73,178
$76,350
$79,522
$81,276
$82,513
$83,750
$84,987
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
$86,224
Total Projected
Frederick County
Revenues - Uninflated
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,124,386
$1,844,953
$3,053,958
$3,674,154
$4,494,316
$5,583,637
$6,556,426
$7,849,147
$8,549,721
$9,544,127
$10,427,340
$11,324,954
$12,672,219
$12,941,554
$13,563,759
$14,173,667
$14,761,170
$15,348,672
$15,471,598
$15,675,909
$15,907,465
$16,124,114
$16,338,093
$16,228,381
$16,245,538
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$16,254,116
$28,896,465
$2,335,587
$448,274,532
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]App H
24-Apr-13
Assumes an no inflation.
Represents the new real property tax revenues generated to the County from the project. Revenues shown exclude inflation and are before debt service.
H-1

Frederick, Maryland
Appendix I: Construction Jobs and Indirect Impacts
Total
Vertical construction costs1
$683,996,167
Infrastructure costs
$48,052,000
2
Land development costs

Total costs
$215,053,750
$947,101,917
Total cost of labor
$363,479,421
3
Average construction wage -- annual
$52,710
Total construction jobs3
6,896
Multiplier for construction wages3

Total earnings
Indirect earnings
1.4307
$520,012,452
$156,533,031
Multiplier for construction jobs3

Total jobs
Indirect jobs
1.5493
10,684
3,788
Multiplier for construction output3

Indirect output
1.4582
$1,381,028,284
$433,926,367
MuniCap, Inc.
act Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]App I

24-Apr-13
Represents 75% of the total projected assessed value shown on Schedule VI-A. Figure assumes no inflation at full
buildout.
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC. Figure assumes no inflation at full buildout.
Construction wages, jobs and output were calculated using the IMPLAN software. Multipliers function in the same
I-1

Frederick, Maryland
Projected Fee Revenues to Frederick County

Frederick, Maryland
Projected Fee Revenues to Frederick County
Table of Contents
I.
Projected Impact Fees

A. Public School
B. Library
1
2
II.
Projected School Construction Fees
III.
Projected Sewer and Water Capacity Fees

A. Residential
B. Commercial
C. Total
5
6
7
IV.
Projected Meter Fees
V.
Solid Waste Benefit Charges

A. Residential
B. Commercial
9
10
VI.
Projected Building Permit and Zoning Fees
11
VII.
Projected Plumbing Permits
12
VIII.
Projected Electrical Permits

A. Residential
B. Commercial
13
14
Total Projected Fee Revenues to Frederick County
15
IX.

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule I-A: Projected Impact Fees - Public School
Residential
Development
Year
Tax
Year
Inflation
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total

Projected
Impact
Fee
Units1
0
0
0
71
71
81
81
81
98
98
124
87
87
87
87
87
49
49
49
49
49
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,450
Fee2
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
$14,426
Projected
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$1,017,660
$1,017,660
$1,161,920
$1,161,920
$1,161,920
$1,414,375
$1,414,375
$1,794,697
$1,253,722
$1,253,722
$1,253,722
$1,253,722
$1,253,722
$712,747
$712,747
$712,747
$712,747
$712,747
$188,165
$188,165
$188,165
$188,165
$188,165
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units1
0
0
0
74
74
73
63
63
80
80
89
70
70
70
70
70
53
53
53
53
53
35
35
35
35
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$20,917,700
1,385
Townhouse
Impact
Fee2
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
$12,380
Fee
Projected
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$910,334
$910,334
$902,596
$778,796
$778,796
$987,709
$987,709
$1,100,254
$868,129
$868,129
$868,129
$868,129
$868,129
$659,217
$659,217
$659,217
$659,217
$659,217
$430,609
$430,609
$430,609
$430,609
$430,609
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units1
$17,146,300
200
MuniCap, Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Condos (2 over 2)
Impact
Fee2
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
Fee
Projected
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units1
$473,600
200
Multi-Family Rental
Impact
Fee
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
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
0
Fee2
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
$2,368
Total Public
School Impact
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$47,360
$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
$0
Fee Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$1,975,354
$1,975,354
$2,111,876
$1,988,076
$1,988,076
$2,449,444
$2,449,444
$2,942,311
$2,169,211
$2,216,571
$2,169,211
$2,169,211
$2,169,211
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$666,134
$618,774
$618,774
$618,774
$618,774
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$473,600
$39,011,200
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]I-A
24-Apr-13
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC. Impact fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit or zoning certificate. Building permit is assumed to occur one year prior to building completion. As a result, units are shown at the time of building permit, not development completion.
Represents the fiscal year 2012 public school impact fee. According to the County, impact fees have not increased in several years. Source: Frederick County Community Development Division Department of Permits and Inspections.
Page 1

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule I-B: Projected Impact Fees - Library
Residential
Development
Year
Tax
Year
Inflation
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total

Projected
Impact
Fee
Units1
0
0
0
71
71
81
81
81
98
98
124
87
87
87
87
87
49
49
49
49
49
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,450
Fee2
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
$759
Projected
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$53,543
$53,543
$61,133
$61,133
$61,133
$74,415
$74,415
$94,425
$65,963
$65,963
$65,963
$65,963
$65,963
$37,500
$37,500
$37,500
$37,500
$37,500
$9,900
$9,900
$9,900
$9,900
$9,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units1
0
0
0
74
74
73
63
63
80
80
89
70
70
70
70
70
53
53
53
53
53
35
35
35
35
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$1,100,550
1,385
Townhouse
Impact
Fee2
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
$709
Fee
Projected
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$52,135
$52,135
$51,691
$44,601
$44,601
$56,566
$56,566
$63,011
$49,718
$49,718
$49,718
$49,718
$49,718
$37,753
$37,753
$37,753
$37,753
$37,753
$24,661
$24,661
$24,661
$24,661
$24,661
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$981,965
200
MuniCap, Inc.
Condos (2 over 2)
Impact
Fee2
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
Fee
Projected
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units1
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
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
0
$95,400
200
Multi-Family Rental
Impact
Fee
Fee2
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
$477
Total
Library Impact
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$9,540
$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
$0
Fee Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$115,217
$115,217
$122,364
$115,274
$115,274
$140,521
$140,521
$166,976
$125,220
$134,760
$125,220
$125,220
$125,220
$84,793
$84,793
$84,793
$84,793
$84,793
$44,101
$34,561
$34,561
$34,561
$34,561
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$95,400
$2,273,315
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]I-B
24-Apr-13
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC. Impact fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit or zoning certificate. Building permit is assumed to occur one year prior to building completion. As a result, units are shown at the time of building permit, not development completion.
Represents the fiscal year 2012 public school impact fee. According to the County, impact fees have not increased in several years. Source: Frederick County Community Development Division Department of Permits and Inspections.
Page 2

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule II: Projected School Construction Fees1
Residential
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Inflation
Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Projected
Units2
0
0
0
71
71
81
81
81
98
98
124
87
87
87
87
87
49
49
49
49
49
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ES
Fee
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870
$3,870

Total School Construction Fee3
MS
HS
Fee
Fee
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
$2,530
$3,646
Total
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
$10,046
1,450
Fee
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$708,680
$708,680
$809,140
$809,140
$809,140
$984,945
$984,945
$1,249,794
$873,069
$873,069
$873,069
$873,069
$873,069
$496,344
$496,344
$496,344
$496,344
$496,344
$131,035
$131,035
$131,035
$131,035
$131,035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Projected
Units2
0
0
0
74
74
73
63
63
80
80
89
70
70
70
70
70
53
53
53
53
53
35
35
35
35
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$14,566,700
1,385
ES
Fee
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
$4,053
Townhouse
MS
HS
Fee
Fee
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
$1,996
$2,584
Total
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
$8,633
Fee
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$634,807
$634,807
$629,411
$543,081
$543,081
$688,763
$688,763
$767,245
$605,376
$605,376
$605,376
$605,376
$605,376
$459,694
$459,694
$459,694
$459,694
$459,694
$300,278
$300,278
$300,278
$300,278
$300,278
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,956,705
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]II.
24-Apr-13
A developer may elect to satisfy the school adequacy standards of Section 1-20-61 by the payment to Frederick County of school construction fees. School construction fees are paid in addition to public school development impact fees. Assumes developer elects
to pay school construction fees.
2
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC. Construction fees must be paid at the time the building permit is issued or the plat is recorded. Building permit is assumed to occur one year prior to building completion. As a result, units are shown at the time of building
permit, not development completion.
3
Represents the fiscal year 2012 school construction fee. Source: Section 1-20-62 of the APFO from the Memo to the Frederick County Planning Commission dated June 29, 2011. Assumes the school construction fees do not increased.
Page 3

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule II: Projected School Construction Fees, continued1
Residential
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Total
Inflation
Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Projected
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
ES
Fee
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
Condos (2 over 2)
MS
HS
Fee
Fee
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
Total
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
Fee
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$330,600
MuniCap, Inc.
Projected
Units2
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
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
0
ES
Fee
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
$897
Multi-Family Rental
MS
HS
Fee
Fee
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
$336
$420
Total
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
$1,653
200
Fee
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$33,060
$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
$0
Total School
Construction
Fee Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$1,376,547
$1,376,547
$1,471,611
$1,385,281
$1,385,281
$1,706,768
$1,706,768
$2,050,099
$1,511,505
$1,544,565
$1,511,505
$1,511,505
$1,511,505
$989,098
$989,098
$989,098
$989,098
$989,098
$464,373
$431,313
$431,313
$431,313
$431,313
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$330,600
$27,184,605
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]II.2
24-Apr-13
A developer may elect to satisfy the school adequacy standards of Section 1-20-61 by the payment to Frederick County of school construction fees. School construction fees are paid in addition to public school development impact fees. Assumes developer elects
to pay school construction fees.
2
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC. Construction fees must be paid at the time the building permit is issued or the plat is recorded. Building permit is assumed to occur one year prior to building completion. As a result, units are shown at the time of building permit, not development
completion.
3
Represents the fiscal year 2012 school construction fee. Source: Section 1-20-62 of the APFO from the Memo to the Frederick County Planning Commission dated June 29, 2011. Assumes the school construction fees do not increased.
Page 4

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule III-A: Projected Sewer and Water Capacity Fees - Residential
Development
Year
Tax
Year
Inflation
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Factor1
100%
102%
104%
107%
109%
112%
114%
116%
119%
122%
124%
127%
130%
133%
136%
139%
142%
145%
148%
151%
155%
158%
161%
165%
169%
172%
176%
180%
184%
188%
192%
196%
201%
205%
210%
214%
219%
224%
229%
234%
Total

Projected
Capacity
Fee
Units2
0
0
0
71
71
81
81
81
98
98
124
87
87
87
87
87
49
49
49
49
49
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,450
Fee3
$11,700
$11,958
$12,221
$12,490
$12,765
$13,046
$13,334
$13,627
$13,928
$14,234
$14,548
$14,868
$15,196
$15,530
$15,872
$16,222
$16,579
$16,944
$17,318
$17,699
$18,089
$18,487
$18,894
$19,310
$19,736
$20,170
$20,615
$21,069
$21,533
$22,007
$22,492
$22,987
$23,493
$24,011
$24,539
$25,080
$25,632
$26,197
$26,774
$27,363
Projected
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$881,102
$900,508
$1,050,805
$1,073,948
$1,097,601
$1,365,507
$1,395,581
$1,809,850
$1,292,153
$1,320,612
$1,349,697
$1,379,423
$1,409,804
$819,132
$837,173
$855,611
$874,455
$893,714
$241,137
$246,448
$251,876
$257,423
$263,092
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units2
0
0
0
74
74
73
63
63
80
80
89
70
70
70
70
70
53
53
53
53
53
35
35
35
35
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$21,866,649
1,385
Residential
Townhouse
Capacity
Fee3
$11,700
$11,958
$12,221
$12,490
$12,765
$13,046
$13,334
$13,627
$13,928
$14,234
$14,548
$14,868
$15,196
$15,530
$15,872
$16,222
$16,579
$16,944
$17,318
$17,699
$18,089
$18,487
$18,894
$19,310
$19,736
$20,170
$20,615
$21,069
$21,533
$22,007
$22,492
$22,987
$23,493
$24,011
$24,539
$25,080
$25,632
$26,197
$26,774
$27,363
Fee
Fee
Total
Water and Sewer
Capacity Fee
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$303,913
$310,607
$317,448
$324,439
$331,585
$338,888
$346,351
$353,979
$361,775
$369,743
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$1,799,539
$1,839,172
$2,001,989
$1,912,743
$1,954,870
$2,476,684
$2,531,231
$3,102,765
$2,334,764
$2,690,099
$2,749,346
$2,809,898
$2,871,783
$2,033,536
$2,078,323
$2,124,096
$2,170,878
$2,218,690
$1,253,912
$903,642
$923,544
$943,884
$964,672
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,358,728
$46,690,059
Condos (2 over 2)
Projected
Capacity
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$918,437
$938,665
$951,184
$838,795
$857,269
$1,111,177
$1,135,650
$1,292,915
$1,042,611
$1,065,574
$1,089,042
$1,113,027
$1,137,541
$882,820
$902,263
$922,134
$942,444
$963,200
$643,032
$657,194
$671,668
$686,461
$701,580
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Units2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$21,464,682
200
Fee3
$11,700
$11,958
$12,221
$12,490
$12,765
$13,046
$13,334
$13,627
$13,928
$14,234
$14,548
$14,868
$15,196
$15,530
$15,872
$16,222
$16,579
$16,944
$17,318
$17,699
$18,089
$18,487
$18,894
$19,310
$19,736
$20,170
$20,615
$21,069
$21,533
$22,007
$22,492
$22,987
$23,493
$24,011
$24,539
$25,080
$25,632
$26,197
$26,774
$27,363
MuniCap, Inc.
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]III-A.
24-Apr-13
1
Pursuant to the Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rules and Regulations (last amended March 14, 2013), capacity charges are subject to an annual increase based on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics Consumer
Price Index: CPI-U Series ID: CUURA311SA0. Index shown is as provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics and represents the annual increase from 2011 to 2012 (1.022). Assumes the same annual increase occurs each
year.
2
Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC. Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit or zoning certificate. Building permit is assumed to occur one year prior to building completion. As a result, units are shown at the time of
building permit, not development completion.
Represents the fiscal year 2013 sewer ($6,816) and water ($4,884) capacity fees. Source: Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rules and Regulations (Last Amended March 14, 2013
Page 5

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule III-B: Projected Sewer and Water Capacity Fees - Commercial
Development
Type
Multi-family rental
Anchor
Property Area1
(units)
200
(square feet)
60,000
In-line retail
80,000
Office
60,000
Projected Fixtures
Estimated
Sub-Total
Fixtures2
Fixtures2
(per unit)
10
2,000
(per building)
84
84
(per 20,000 sf tenant)
32
128
(per 10,000 sf)
135
810
First 10
Fixtures Billed
at Full Value3
Adjusted Fixtures Billed at Full Value3

Remaining
Capacity
Adjusted
Fixtures
Adjustment Factor4
Fixtures
Total
Fixtures Billed
at Full Value5
Sewer & Water

Capacity Fees6
Total
Fee Revenues7
30
1,970
0.37
729
759
$1,170
$887,913
10
74
0.27
20
30
$1,170
$35,077
10
118
0.25
30
40
$1,170
$46,215
10
800
0.16
128
138
$1,170
$161,460
$1,130,665
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]III-B.
24-Apr-13
2
Source: Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rule and Regulations (last amended March 14, 2013). Assumes the following: 3 apartment buildings with 10 fixtures per unit as provided in the regulations. Does not include possible amenity space in
the apartment buildings that could create additional fixtures. Anchor assumes 2 water fountains, 2 kitchen sinks, 6 toilets, 4 bathroom sinks, and 2 mop sinks per building. In-line retail assumes 1 water fountain, 1 kitchen sink, 2 toilets, 2 bathroom sinks, and
1 mop sinks per 20,000 square foot tenant. Office assumes 2 water fountains, 3 kitchen sinks, 10 toilets, 6 bathroom sinks, and 3 mop sinks per 10,000 square feet.
3
According to the Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management, the first 10 fixtures per building are billed at the full billing rate. Each adjusted fixture is billed at the full billing rate thereafter.
4
Source: Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rule and Regulations (last amended March 14, 2013). Total fixtures over the first 10 are adjusted by the provided capacity adjustment factor prior to applying the billing rate.
According to the Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management, the first 10 fixtures per building are billed at the full billing rate. Each adjusted fixture is billed at the full billing rate thereafter. Represents the total fixtures (first 10 plus the adjusted
fixtures) billed at full value.
6
Source: Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rule and Regulations (last amended March 14, 2013). Represents the FY13 sewer ($681.60 per fixture) and water ($488.40 per fixture) commercial capacity fees.
7
Revenues shown are at full build-out in today's dollars.
Page 6

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule III-C: Projected Sewer and Water Capacity Fees - Total
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Inflation
Factor
100%
102%
104%
107%
109%
112%
114%
116%
119%
122%
124%
127%
130%
133%
136%
139%
142%
145%
148%
151%
155%
158%
161%
165%
169%
172%
176%
180%
184%
188%
192%
196%
201%
205%
210%
214%
219%
224%
229%
234%
Capacity Fee Revenues

Residential1
Commercial2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,799,539
$94,788
$1,839,172
$96,876
$2,001,989
$170,331
$1,912,743
$101,190
$1,954,870
$103,419
$2,476,684
$105,696
$2,531,231
$108,024
$3,102,765
$110,403
$2,334,764
$112,835
$2,690,099
$115,320
$2,749,346
$0
$2,809,898
$0
$2,871,783
$247,892
$2,033,536
$0
$2,078,323
$0
$2,124,096
$0
$2,170,878
$0
$2,218,690
$0
$1,253,912
$0
$903,642
$0
$923,544
$0
$943,884
$0
$964,672
$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
$0
$0
$0
$46,690,059
$1,366,774
Total
Water and Sewer
Capacity Fee
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$1,894,327
$1,936,048
$2,172,320
$2,013,933
$2,058,288
$2,582,380
$2,639,255
$3,213,168
$2,447,599
$2,805,419
$2,749,346
$2,809,898
$3,119,675
$2,033,536
$2,078,323
$2,124,096
$2,170,878
$2,218,690
$1,253,912
$903,642
$923,544
$943,884
$964,672
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$48,056,832
ULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]III-C.
24-Apr-13
See Schedule II-A.
See Schedule II-B. Pursuant to the Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rules and Regulations (last amended March 14, 2013),
capacity charges are subject to an annual increase based on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics Consumer Price Index: CPIU Series ID: CUURA311SA0. Index shown is as provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics and represents the
annual increase from 2011 to 2012 (1.022). Assumes the same annual increase occurs each year.
Page 7

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IV: Projected Meter Fees
Development
Type
Residential - For Sale
Multi-Family Rental
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Estimated
1
Property Area
(units)
3,035
(units)
200
(square feet)
60,000
80,000
60,000
Meters
(per unit)
3,035
(per building)
3
(per building)
1
2
1
Estimated
Estimated
4
Total
Meter Fee
Fee Revenues5
Model 40 1" Meter
$255
$773,925
Badger FSA 4"
$4,200
$12,600
Badger FSA 6"

Badger FSA 6"
Badger FSA 6"
$5,500
$5,500
$5,500
$5,500
$11,000
$5,500
$808,525
Meter Size
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IV
24-Apr-13
Assumes one meter per for sale unit and one meter per commercial building. Apartments are required to include a sprinkler system. As a result, they are assumed to be commercial
with a per building meter fee. Apartments are assumed to be constructed in three separate buildings. Additional information needed to project number of apartment buildings. To be
conservative, all property types are not assumed to include a master meter and individual meter.
Additional information regarding the actual engineering and construction plans is needed to estimate meter size. Based on meter size categories as provided in Appendix B of the
Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rule and Regulations (last amended March 14, 2013).
4
Source: Frederick County, Maryland Water and Sewer Rule and Regulations (last amended March 14, 2013).
5
Page 8

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule V-A: Solid Waste Benefit Charges - Residential
Residential
Development
Tax
Year
Year
Ending
Beginning
31-Dec-12
1-Jul-13
31-Dec-13
1-Jul-14
31-Dec-14
1-Jul-15
31-Dec-15
1-Jul-16
31-Dec-16
1-Jul-17
31-Dec-17
1-Jul-18
31-Dec-18
1-Jul-19
31-Dec-19
1-Jul-20
31-Dec-20
1-Jul-21
31-Dec-21
1-Jul-22
31-Dec-22
1-Jul-23
31-Dec-23
1-Jul-24
31-Dec-24
1-Jul-25
31-Dec-25
1-Jul-26
31-Dec-26
1-Jul-27
31-Dec-27
1-Jul-28
31-Dec-28
1-Jul-29
31-Dec-29
1-Jul-30
31-Dec-30
1-Jul-31
31-Dec-31
1-Jul-32
31-Dec-32
1-Jul-33
31-Dec-33
1-Jul-34
31-Dec-34
1-Jul-35
31-Dec-35
1-Jul-36
31-Dec-36
1-Jul-37
31-Dec-37
1-Jul-38
31-Dec-38
1-Jul-39
31-Dec-39
1-Jul-40
31-Dec-40
1-Jul-41
31-Dec-41
1-Jul-42
31-Dec-42
1-Jul-43
31-Dec-43
1-Jul-44
31-Dec-44
1-Jul-45
31-Dec-45
1-Jul-46
31-Dec-46
1-Jul-47
31-Dec-47
1-Jul-48
31-Dec-48
1-Jul-49
31-Dec-49
1-Jul-50
31-Dec-50
1-Jul-51
31-Dec-51
1-Jul-52
Inflation
Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total

Projected System Benefit
Fee
1
Charge2
Revenues
Units
0
$88
$0
0
$88
$0
0
$88
$0
0
$88
$0
71
$88
$6,208
141
$88
$12,416
222
$88
$19,503
302
$88
$26,591
383
$88
$33,679
481
$88
$42,307
579
$88
$50,935
703
$88
$61,883
790
$88
$69,530
877
$88
$77,178
964
$88
$84,826
1,051
$88
$92,474
1,138
$88
$100,122
1,187
$88
$104,470
1,237
$88
$108,817
1,286
$88
$113,165
1,335
$88
$117,513
1,385
$88
$121,861
1,398
$88
$123,009
1,411
$88
$124,157
1,424
$88
$125,304
1,437
$88
$126,452
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
1,450
$88
$127,600
$3,528,800
Townhouse
Units1
Charge2
0
$88
0
$88
0
$88
0
$88
74
$88
147
$88
220
$88
283
$88
346
$88
426
$88
505
$88
594
$88
664
$88
734
$88
805
$88
875
$88
945
$88
998
$88
1,051
$88
1,105
$88
1,158
$88
1,211
$88
1,246
$88
1,281
$88
1,315
$88
1,350
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
1,385
$88
Fee
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,471
$12,942
$19,358
$24,893
$30,429
$37,450
$44,471
$52,292
$58,463
$64,634
$70,805
$76,975
$83,146
$87,832
$92,518
$97,204
$101,890
$106,576
$109,637
$112,697
$115,758
$118,819
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$121,880
$3,231,580
MuniCap, Inc.
1
Condos (2 over 2)
Fee
Units1
Charge2
Revenues
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
20
$49
$980
40
$49
$1,960
60
$49
$2,940
80
$49
$3,920
100
$49
$4,900
120
$49
$5,880
140
$49
$6,860
160
$49
$7,840
180
$49
$8,820
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
Multi-Family Rental
Fee
Units1
Charge2
Revenues
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
0
$49
$0
20
$49
$980
40
$49
$1,960
60
$49
$2,940
80
$49
$3,920
100
$49
$4,900
120
$49
$5,880
140
$49
$6,860
160
$49
$7,840
180
$49
$8,820
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
200
$49
$9,800
$220,500
$308,700
Total Solid
Waste Benefit
Charge Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,659
$27,317
$41,801
$55,405
$69,008
$85,637
$102,266
$122,015
$136,813
$152,592
$167,391
$182,189
$196,988
$207,002
$217,015
$227,029
$237,043
$247,057
$252,245
$256,454
$260,663
$264,871
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$269,080
$7,289,580
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]V-A.
24-Apr-13
Source: Ordinance No. 08-13-2008 re: solid waste system benefit charges as enacted and ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County, Maryland. According to Frederick County Department of Utilities, system benefit charges are paid annually and rates have not increased since FY
11. As a result, rates are shown assuming no inflation.
Page 9

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule V-B: Solid Waste Benefit Charges - Commercial
Development
Year
Tax
Year
Inflation
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
1
Projected
Anchor
System Benefit
Fee
Projected
SF1
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Charge2
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
$372
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
$11,160
SF1
0
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
Commercial
In-Line Retail
System Benefit
Charge2
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$125
$379,440
Fee
Projected
Office
System Benefit
Fee
Total Solid
Waste Benefit
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$3,125
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
SF1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Charge2
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
$42
Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
$1,260
Charge Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$14,285
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$17,420
$30,240
$560,930
$151,250
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]V-B.
24-Apr-13
Source: Ordinance No. 08-13-2008 re: solid waste system benefit charges as enacted and ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County, Maryland. According to Frederick County Department of Utilities, system benefit charges are
paid annually and rates have not increased since FY 11. As a result, rates are shown assuming no inflation.
Page 10

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VI: Projected Building Permit and Zoning Fees
Table 1: Per Permit Building Permit Fees
Development
Type
Townhouse
Condos (2 over 2) - units
Multi-family rental - parent structures
Multi-family rental - units
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Property Area1
(units)
1,450
1,385
200
(square feet)
240,000
(units)
200
(square feet)
60,000
80,000
60,000
Building Permit and Zoning Fees - Per Permit Fees3

Zoning
Health Department
Estimated
Automation
Filing
Site
Building
Total Fees
Sub-Total
Permits2
(per unit)
1,450
1,385
200
(per building)
3
(per unit)
200
(per building)
1
2
1
Enhancement Fee
(per permit)
$10
$10
$10
Fee
(per permit)
$25
$25
$25
Fee
(per permit)
$65
$65
$65
Review Fee
(per permit)
$50
$50
Compliance Fee
(per permit)
-
Per Permit
Permit Fee Revenues
$841
$694
$545
$1,219,450
$961,190
$109,000
$10
$25
$40
$50
$322
$966
$10
(per permit)
$10
$10
$10
$25
(per permit)
$25
$25
$25
$65
(per permit)
$150
$150
$150
(per permit)
$50
$50
$50
(per permit)
$200
$200
$200
Fee
(per unit)
$741
$544
$395
(per building)
$197
(per unit)
$395
(per square foot)
-
$495
$99,000
$435
$435
$435
$435
$870
$435
$2,391,346
Total
Table 2: Per Square Foot Building Permit Fees
Building Permit and Zoning Fees - Per Square Foot Fees3
Building
Fire & Life
Total Fees
Development
Type
Townhouse
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Property Area1
(units)
1,450
1,385
200
(square feet)
240,000
(units)
200
(square feet)
60,000
80,000
60,000
Fee
(per unit)
(per building)
(per unit)
(per square foot)
$0.21
$0.21
$0.21
Safety Fee
(per square foot)
(per square foot)
$0.12
(per square foot)
(per square foot)
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
Sub-Total
Per Square Foot
Permit Fee Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,800
$0
$0
$0.33
$0.33
$0.33
$19,800
$26,400
$19,800
$94,800
Total
Table 3: Total Estimated Building Permit Fees
Building Permit and Zoning Fees
Per Square
Building Permit and
Development
Per Permit
Type
Fees
Foot Fees
Zoning Fee Revenues4
$1,219,450
$961,190
$109,000
$966
$99,000
$435
$870
$435
$2,391,346
$0
$0
$0
$28,800
$0
$19,800
$26,400
$19,800
$94,800
$1,219,450
$961,190
$109,000
$29,766
$99,000
$20,235
$27,270
$20,235
$2,486,146

Townhouse
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
ent Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VI

24-Apr-13
Assumes one permit per residential unit and one permit per building for non-residential. Apartments are assumed to include three buildings each and in-line retail is assumed to include two buildings. Additional information needed to estimate building permits.
Source: Resolution No. 12-07 re: Adjustment of Fee Schedule for the Department of Permits and Inspections and the Development Review Functions of the Community Development Division. Fee Schedule is effective as of July 1, 2012. Assumes one permit per residential unit, one per apartment building
one per non-residential building. Additional information needed to project actual permits.
4
Page 11

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VII: Projected Plumbing Permits
Table 1: Plumbing Permit Fees - Per Permit

3
Development
Type
Townhouse
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Plumbing Permit Fees - Per Permit

Automation
Permit
Total
Estimated
1
Property Area
(units)
1,450
1,385
200
(square feet)
240,000
(units)
200
(square feet)
60,000
80,000
60,000
Permits2
(per unit)
1,450
1,385
200
(per building)
3
(per unit)
200
(per building)
1
2
1
Enhancement Fee
(per permit)
$10
$10
$10
(per permit)
$10
(per permit)
$10
(per permit)
$10
$10
$10
Plumbing
Sub-Total
Plumbing Permit
Fee
(per unit)
$302
$302
$302
(per building)
$110
(per unit)
$302
(per building)
$110
$110
$110
Total
Sub-Total
Plumbing Permit
Fees Per Permit
Fees Per Permit
$312
$312
$312
$452,400
$432,120
$62,400
$120
$360
$312
$62,400
$120
$120
$120
$120
$240
$120
$1,010,160
Table 2: Plumbing Permit Fees - Per Fixture

Development
Type
Townhouse
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Fixtures
(units)
0
0
0
(per building)
0
(per unit)
0
(per building)
84
128
810
Fixture Fee
(per fixture)
$0
$0
$0
(per fixture)
$0
(per fixture)
$0
(per fixture)
$23
$23
$23
Total
Fees Per Fixture

(per fixture)
$0
$0
$0
(per fixture)
$0
(per fixture)
$0
(per fixture)
$1,932
$2,944
$18,630
$23,506
Table 3: Plumbing Permit Fees - Total Fees

Development
Per Permit
Plumbing
Total Plumbing
Type
Plumbing Fees
Fixture Fee
Permit Fee Revenues

Townhouse
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
$452,400
$432,120
$62,400
$360
$62,400
$120
$240
$120
$1,010,160
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,932
$2,944
$18,630
$23,506
$452,400
$432,120
$62,400
$360
$62,400
$2,052
$3,184
$18,750
$1,033,666
MuniCap, Inc.
ration\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VII

24-Apr-13
Assumes one permit per residential unit and one permit per building for non-residential. Apartments are assumed to include three buildings each and in-line retail is assumed to include two buildings.
Additional information needed to estimate permits.
Source: Resolution No. 12-07 re: Adjustment of Fee Schedule for the Department of Permits and Inspections and the Development Review Functions of the Community Development Division. Fee
Schedule is effective as of July 1, 2012.
See Schedule II-B.
Plumbing fixture fees are $23 per fixture or $110 minimum. Additional information needed to project plumbing fixtures. Source: Resolution No. 12-07 re: Adjustment of Fee Schedule for the
Department of Permits and Inspections and the Development Review Functions of the Community Development Division. Fee Schedule is effective as of July 1, 2012.
6
Page 12

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-A: Projected Electrical Permits - Residential
Development
Type
Townhouse
Total
Electrical Permit Fees3

Automation
Building
Estimated
Property Area1
(units)
1,450
1,385
200
(square feet)
240,000
(units)
200
MuniCap, Inc.
Permits2
(per unit)
1,450
1,385
200
(per building)
3
(per unit)
200
Enhancement Fee
(per permit)
$10
$10
$10
(per permit)
$10
(per permit)
$10
Fee
(per unit)
$246
$246
$330
(per building)
$336
(per unit)
$330
Total
Total
Electrical Permit
Fees Per Permit
Fee Revenues4
$256
$256
$340
$371,200
$354,560
$68,000
$346
$1,038
$340
$68,000
$862,798
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-A.
24-Apr-13
Assumes one permit per residential unit and one permit per building for apartments. Additional information needed to estimate permits.
Source: Resolution No. 12-07 re: Adjustment of Fee Schedule for the Department of Permits and Inspections and the Development Review Functions of the Community Development Division. Fee
Schedule is effective as of July 1, 2012.
Page 13

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule VIII-B: Projected Electrical Permits - Commercial
Table 1: Electrical Permit Fees - Per Permit

3
Development
Type
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
Electrical Permit Fees

Service Meter
Temporary
Estimated
Automation
Permits2
(per building)
1
2
1
Enhancement Fee
(per permit)
$10
$10
$10
Fee
(amp fee)
$218
$218
$218
Estimated
Wiring Fixtures
Total
Estimated
Increments of 25 Fixtures
Over the First
(Includes Low Voltage)5

(fixtures per 10,000 sf)
175
175
175
Fixtures
50 Fixtures
10,500
14,000
10,500
418
558
418
Central Heating
Central Heating
Sub-Total
Electrical Permit
& AC Units5
& AC Fees3
(per unit)
$33
$33
$33
Property Area
(square feet)
60,000
80,000
60,000
Construction Fee
(per building)
$147
$147
$147
Total Fees
Sub-Total
Electrical Permit
Per Permit
Fees per Permit
$375
$375
$375
$375
$750
$375
$1,500
Table 2: Electrical Permit Fees - Per Fixture

Development
Type
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
Property Area
(square feet)
60,000
80,000
60,000
Electrical Permit Fixture Fees3

Wiring & Fixture
Wiring & Fixture Fee
Fee (First 50)6
(fixture fee)
$219
$219
$219
(Each Additional 25)6

(fixture fee)
$33
$33
$33
Sub-Total
Electrical Permit
Fees per Fixture
$14,013
$18,633
$14,013
$46,659
Table 3: Electrical Permit Fees - Per Heating/AC Unit

Development
Type
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
Property Area
(square feet)
60,000
80,000
60,000
4
4
4
Fees per Unit

$132
$132
$132
$396
Table 4: Electrical Permit Fees - Total Fees
Type
Anchor
In-line retail
Office
Total
MuniCap, Inc.
Total
Electrical Permit
Central Heating
Development
Per Permit
$375
$750
$375
$1,500
Per Fixture
$14,013
$18,633
$14,013
$46,659
Per Heating/AC Unit

$132
$132
$132
$396
Fee Revenues
$14,520
$19,515
$14,520
$48,555
TING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]VIII-B.
24-Apr-13
Assumes one permit per building for non-residential. Additional information needed to estimate building permits.
Source: Resolution No. 12-07 re: Adjustment of Fee Schedule for the Department of Permits and Inspections and the Development Review Functions of the Community Development Division. Fee Schedule is effective as of July 1, 2012.
Assumes meter size to serve 1,000 to 2,000 amps. Additional information needed to project meter size.
Wiring fixtures includes all switches, lighting and receptacles to be counted as outlets including low voltage (fire protection, security, alarms, central vac, intercom, etc..). Assumes 175 fixtures per 10,000 square feet and four heating/AC units
per property type. Additional information needed to estimate electrical fixtures and heating and air conditioning units.
Electrical fee is $219 on the first 50 fixtures and $33 for each additional 25 fixtures.
Page 14

Frederick, Maryland
Schedule IX: Total Projected Fee Revenues to Frederick County
Development
Year
Tax
Year
Inflation
Ending
31-Dec-12
31-Dec-13
31-Dec-14
31-Dec-15
31-Dec-16
31-Dec-17
31-Dec-18
31-Dec-19
31-Dec-20
31-Dec-21
31-Dec-22
31-Dec-23
31-Dec-24
31-Dec-25
31-Dec-26
31-Dec-27
31-Dec-28
31-Dec-29
31-Dec-30
31-Dec-31
31-Dec-32
31-Dec-33
31-Dec-34
31-Dec-35
31-Dec-36
31-Dec-37
31-Dec-38
31-Dec-39
31-Dec-40
31-Dec-41
31-Dec-42
31-Dec-43
31-Dec-44
31-Dec-45
31-Dec-46
31-Dec-47
31-Dec-48
31-Dec-49
31-Dec-50
31-Dec-51
Beginning
1-Jul-13
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-16
1-Jul-17
1-Jul-18
1-Jul-19
1-Jul-20
1-Jul-21
1-Jul-22
1-Jul-23
1-Jul-24
1-Jul-25
1-Jul-26
1-Jul-27
1-Jul-28
1-Jul-29
1-Jul-30
1-Jul-31
1-Jul-32
1-Jul-33
1-Jul-34
1-Jul-35
1-Jul-36
1-Jul-37
1-Jul-38
1-Jul-39
1-Jul-40
1-Jul-41
1-Jul-42
1-Jul-43
1-Jul-44
1-Jul-45
1-Jul-46
1-Jul-47
1-Jul-48
1-Jul-49
1-Jul-50
1-Jul-51
1-Jul-52
Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
Impact Fee Revenues

Public School
Library
School
Construction Fee
Revenues
Sewer and Water

Capacity Fee
Revenues
Meter Fee
Revenues
Solid Waste Benefit Charge

Residential
Commercial
Building Permit
and Zoning Fee
Revenues
(Schedule V-A) (Schedule V-B)

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,659
$0
$27,317
$0
$41,801
$14,285
$55,405
$14,285
$69,008
$14,285
$85,637
$14,285
$102,266
$14,285
$122,015
$14,285
$136,813
$14,285
$152,592
$14,285
$167,391
$14,285
$182,189
$14,285
$196,988
$17,420
$207,002
$17,420
$217,015
$17,420
$227,029
$17,420
$237,043
$17,420
$247,057
$17,420
$252,245
$17,420
$256,454
$17,420
$260,663
$17,420
$264,871
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
$269,080
$17,420
(Schedule VI)
$0
$0
$0
$118,593
$118,593
$172,844
$118,121
$118,121
$153,976
$144,054
$170,801
$128,366
$153,376
$133,554
$133,554
$164,037
$92,533
$92,533
$92,533
$92,533
$92,533
$51,169
$36,081
$36,081
$36,081
$36,081
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
(Schedule I-A)
$0
$0
$0
$1,975,354
$1,975,354
$2,111,876
$1,988,076
$1,988,076
$2,449,444
$2,449,444
$2,942,311
$2,169,211
$2,216,571
$2,169,211
$2,169,211
$2,169,211
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$1,419,324
$666,134
$618,774
$618,774
$618,774
$618,774
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
(Schedule I-B)
$0
$0
$0
$115,217
$115,217
$122,364
$115,274
$115,274
$140,521
$140,521
$166,976
$125,220
$134,760
$125,220
$125,220
$125,220
$84,793
$84,793
$84,793
$84,793
$84,793
$44,101
$34,561
$34,561
$34,561
$34,561
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
(Schedule II)
$0
$0
$0
$1,376,547
$1,376,547
$1,471,611
$1,385,281
$1,385,281
$1,706,768
$1,706,768
$2,050,099
$1,511,505
$1,544,565
$1,511,505
$1,511,505
$1,511,505
$989,098
$989,098
$989,098
$989,098
$989,098
$464,373
$431,313
$431,313
$431,313
$431,313
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
(Schedule III-C)
$0
$0
$0
$1,894,327
$1,936,048
$2,172,320
$2,013,933
$2,058,288
$2,582,380
$2,639,255
$3,213,168
$2,447,599
$2,805,419
$2,749,346
$2,809,898
$3,119,675
$2,033,536
$2,078,323
$2,124,096
$2,170,878
$2,218,690
$1,253,912
$903,642
$923,544
$943,884
$964,672
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
(Schedule IV)
$0
$0
$0
$36,739
$36,739
$55,430
$36,580
$36,580
$49,546
$45,346
$54,387
$40,043
$49,343
$45,143
$45,143
$55,043
$31,277
$31,277
$31,277
$31,277
$31,277
$17,296
$12,196
$12,196
$12,196
$12,196
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$39,011,200
$2,273,315
$27,184,605
$48,056,832
$808,525
MuniCap, Inc.
$7,289,580
$560,930
$2,486,146
Plumbing
Permit Fee
Revenues
Electrical Permit Fee Revenues

Residential
Commercial
Total
Projected Fee
Revenues to
(Schedule VII) (Schedule VIII-A) (Schedule VIII-B) Frederick County

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$51,192
$44,481
$0
$5,612,450
$51,192
$44,481
$0
$5,667,829
$67,429
$47,279
$26,705
$6,275,176
$50,997
$44,318
$0
$5,808,666
$50,997
$44,318
$0
$5,866,625
$61,842
$53,654
$0
$7,281,424
$61,722
$53,308
$0
$7,340,339
$72,784
$62,580
$0
$8,849,658
$55,234
$47,869
$0
$6,661,346
$61,594
$53,446
$0
$7,170,171
$55,234
$46,300
$0
$7,002,389
$55,234
$46,300
$0
$7,077,740
$66,027
$46,300
$21,850
$7,475,343
$38,269
$32,079
$0
$4,935,317
$38,269
$32,079
$0
$4,990,117
$38,269
$32,079
$0
$5,045,904
$38,269
$32,079
$0
$5,102,700
$38,269
$32,079
$0
$5,160,525
$21,162
$17,739
$0
$2,800,361
$14,922
$12,508
$0
$2,333,661
$14,922
$12,508
$0
$2,357,771
$14,922
$12,508
$0
$2,382,320
$14,922
$12,508
$0
$2,407,317
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$0
$0
$0
$286,500
$1,033,666
$862,798
$48,555
$129,616,152
Z:\CONSULTING\Elm Street Development Corporation\Oakdale\Fiscal Impact Analysis\[Fiscal Impact Analysis No. 2.xlsx]IX
24-Apr-13
Revenues assumed to increase with inflation are inflated on previous schedules. Assumes all fee rates remain constant unless otherwise inflated on previous schedules.
Page 15
APPENDIX E
Harris,Smariga &Associates,Inc.
Planners/Engineers/Surveyors
125 South Carroll Street, Suite 100 Frederick, MD 21701
(301) 662-4488, FAX (301) 662- 4906
INTRODUCTION
Harris,SmarigaandAssociates,Inc.isafullserviceplanning,engineeringandsurveyingfirm
locatedinFrederick,Maryland.Thefirmwasestablishedin1978andforthepast35yearshas
beenactiveinlanddevelopmentprojectsinFrederickCounty,Marylandandsurrounding
counties.Thefirmsprojectresumeincludesresidentialandindustrialmasterplanning,
subdivisionandsitedesign,andinstitutionalpropertydesignincludingpublicandprivate
schools,collegecampusesandhealthcarefacilities.
Harris,SmarigaandAssociateswasengagedbythePhoenixCompaniesinthe1970stoassistin
theplanning,designengineeringandsurveyingoftheLakeLinganorePlannedUnit
Development.ThefirmhascontinuallybeeninvolvedinthedevelopmentofthePUDandis
nowengagedbyOakdaleInvestments,L.L.C.,ownersofmultipleundevelopedparcelsinthe
PUD.ThefirmiscurrentlyassistinginthePhaseIfloatingzonereclassificationprocessandthe
PhaseII,executionphaseassetforthintheFrederickCountyZoningOrdinanceforamaximum
of3,235residentialunitssituatedonapproximately1,354acresofland.
AdequatePublicFacilitiesLettersofUnderstanding(LOU)havebeenfiledwithFrederickCounty
aspartoftherezoningprocess.Thedocumentoutlinesconditionsandtermsforminimum
improvementnecessarybyOakdaleInvestmentforroads,schools,andwaterandsewer
service.
ThefollowingimprovementsarerequiredbytheAdequatePublicFacilitiesOrdinance(APFO)or
theDevelopmentRightsandResponsibilitiesAgreement(DRRA)andareoutlinedintheLetter
ofUnderstanding:
ROADS
EagleheadBridgeandRoad:OakdaleInvestmentswillberequiredtorebuildthe
bridgeacrossLinganoreCreekthatwaslosttoHurricaneAgnesin1976.Eaglehead
DrivefromLinganoreHighSchooltothebridgeiscurrentlyimpassableandmustbe
upgradedtoFrederickCountyRoadStandards.
EstimatedCost:$5,000,000
EagleheadRoundabout:OakdaleInvestmentswillberesponsibleformodifyingthe
existingroundaboutlocatedatEagleheadDriveandOldNationalPikefromaone
laneroadtotwolanes.EagleheadDrivefromtheroundabouttotheentranceofthe
existingOakdaleHighSchoolmustbeconstructedasa4laneroad.
EstimatedCost:$500,000
WoodridgetoGasHousePike:ExistingWoodridgeRoadmustbeextendedtoGas
HousePikeinordertoprovideforasecondaryaccessfromWoodridgeVillagetoa
publicroad.
GasHousePike/BoyersMillRoad:Thisexistingintersectionisinneedofupgradeby
FrederickCounty.OakdaleInvestmentsmustcontributeafeeinlieupaymenttothe
CountytobeusedintheCountysCapitalImprovementsProgramforthis
intersectionredesignandconstruction.
GasHousePikeGeometry:TheFrederickCountyComprehensivePlanincludesa
realignmentofGasHousePiketoeliminatedangerouscurvesandprovidearoad
designedandconstructedforahighercapacityoftraffic.
75/OldNewLondonRoad:AsignalwarrantanalysisbyOakdaleInvestments
consultanttobereviewedbyMarylandStateHighwayAdministrationmustbe
completed.Ifasignalisdeterminedtobewarranted,atrafficsignalmustbe
installedatthisintersection.
LinganoreRoadGeometry:ExistingLinganoreRoadisplannedtoberealignedby
theOakdaleInvestmentsinordertoprovidesaferaccessthroughtheareawhere
thereispresentlyasubstandardhorizontalcurveattheintersectionofPlantation
Road.
GasHousePike/LinganoreRoad:AspartofthedevelopmentofWestridge,
LinganoreRoadanditsintersectionwithGasHousePikewillrequireupgradingto
FrederickCountyroadstandards.
EstimatedCosts:$750,000
UTILITIES
RegionalBoosterPump:Inordertoprovidebothdomesticwaterserviceandfire
flowtoparcelsinAspen,AlpineandWestridge,apumpstationmustbeconstructed
atalocationagreeduponbyOakdaleInvestmentsandFrederickCountyDepartment
ofUtilitiesandSolidWasteManagement.
WaterTank:Anestimated500,000gallonwaterstoragetankwithwatersuppliedby
theRegionalBoosterPumpmustbeconstructedinordertoprovidesufficient
pressureinthewatersystemservingAspen,AlpineandWestridge.
Aspen/AlpineWater:Twelveinchwaterdistributionlinesmustbeconstructedin
bothAlpineandAspentoservebuildinglots.
HamptonsWaterLoop:A12inchdistributionwaterlinemustbeconstructedfrom
EagleheadDrivetotheWestindsportionofthePUD,foradistanceofanestimated
12,000linearfeettoprovideawaterdistributionlooptotheresidential
development.
HamptonsOutfallSewer:Anew18orsmallergravitysewermustbeconstructed
fromHamptonsEasttoBensBranchPumpStationforanestimateddistanceof
4,700linearfeetinordertoprovidesanitarysewerservicetotheHamptons
development.
WestridgePump/Outfall:Asanitarysewerpumpingstationandassociatedforce
mainsandgravityoutfallsewersystemmustbeconstructedtoconnectthe
WestridgesectionintotheLinganoreCreekInterceptor.
EstimatedCost$:4,500,000
APPENDIX F
April 8, 2013
Mr. Jason A. Wiley

Oakdale Investments, LLC
1355 Beverly Road, Suite 240
McLean, VA 22101
RE:
CORPORATE OFFICE
Baltimore, MD
Suite H
9900 Franklin Square Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21236
410.931.6600
fax: 410.931.6601
1.800.583.8411
FIELD OFFICE LOCATIONS

Arkansas
Maryland
New York
Texas
Virginia
I-70/Meadow Road Interchange

Frederick County, Maryland
Our Job No: 2002-0701
Dear Mr. Wiley:

As part of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Application process for the I-70
Meadow Road Interchange Missing Ramps, we have prepared an Engineers Report
discussing the project and potential costs. Presently, there is a partial interchange
along I-70 in the MD 144/Meadow Road area. This partial interchange includes a
westbound I-70 off-ramp and an eastbound I-70 on-ramp. Today, during the peak
hours, local traffic has to travel 3 to 5 miles along the secondary highway system to
gain access to movements not provided by the Meadow Road interchange. Also, in
some instances, travelers have to backtrack which adds significant mileage to the
everyday commute.
Therefore, there are deficiencies today due to these
conditions along the secondary highway system and the existing full movement
interchanges.
Based on regional traffic impact studies, it is noted that with future projections of
traffic in the Frederick Area, there will be greater deficiencies at the interchanges
both east (MD 75) and west (MD 144/Quinn Orchard Road and Monocacy
Boulevard) of the partial MD 144/Meadow Road Interchange. By providing the
missing westbound I-70 on-ramp and eastbound I-70 off-ramp at the MD
144/Meadow Road Interchange, relief is provided to the other two interchanges for
the existing 6,000 plus homes and commercial area in the New Market Region and
the future projected 9,000 plus homes and existing/future commercial. Also,
vehicle-miles traveled will also be reduced to the everyday commute. The lack of
full movement intersections causes impacts from the City of Frederick to the west
and to the historic Town of New Market to the east.
Merging Innovation and Excellence
www.trafficgroup.com
Construction of these ramps will provide significant benefits to many residents of

Frederick County and other travelers whose travel time to and from work or their
destination will be greatly reduced and safety will be greatly enhanced. In
conjunction with the on-going I-70/I-270 projects in Frederick County which will
increase safety and capacity, this is a natural improvement to move the regional
traffic off the local roadway system and onto the Interstate System where it
belongs. An improved regional transportation network will improve quality of life
for numerous Frederick County residents and promote economic development in
the County by encouraging future employers to locate businesses in Frederick County.

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has prepared preliminary cost estimates for
both of these missing ramps at this interchange. The Eastbound I-70 on-ramp construction cost
is projected at $5 Million while the Westbound I-70 off-ramp construction cost is projected at
$20 Million for a total construction cost of $25 Million. We concur with these estimates. If you
have any questions, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Joseph Caloggero, P.E., PTOE, PTP

Vice President
JJC/clg
(F:\2002\2002-0701\Wp\Wiley.docx)

I-70 @ Meadow Road
Schedule:
S
h d l
To be determined once additional funds are
identified
Funding:
Planning - $1.6 million (unfunded)
Design - $3.7 million (unfunded)
Right-of-way - $755,000 (unfunded)
Construction - $25.0
$25 0 million (unfunded)
Frederick County has proposed to contribute
$500,000 if SHA matches.
Project:
Construction of a westbound on-ramp and an
eastbound off-ramp
Construction of Missing Movements
I-70 @ Meadow Road

Oakdale TIF Application 4.25.13 - Final

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Oakdale TIF Application 4.25.13 - Final

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Oakdale - Lake

Oakdale Investments, LLC

1355 Beverly Road

Jason Wiley, jwiley@elmstreetdev.com

Office Telephone: (301) 668-4422

Riverside Corporate Park

Office Telephone: (410) 931-6600

Jefferson Technology Park, Frederick County

Office Telephone: (202) 465-8414

Villages of Lake Linganore, Lake Linganore CDA

Land Use Counsel:

Office Telephone: (301) 788-2159

Villages of Urbana PUD and Urbana Mixed Use Development

Office Telephone: (410) 703-5702

Jefferson Technology Park TIF & CDA, Frederick, Maryland

The Oakdale-Lake Linganore development is proposed to be developed in phases by differing

Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC.

A site plan illustrating the differing neighborhoods is shown below in Exhibit D.

Provided by Oakdale Investments, LLC.

Exhibit A: Location map

Establishment of the TIF district

Related site improvement plans will be obtained following Phase II approval.

Boundaries Needed to be Revised to Qualify for a Priority Funding Area:

Describe your efforts to date to privately finance the public infrastructure.

Describe private financing that is currently in place or planned to be in place.

Provide an explanation of the circumstances generating the need for TIF

Large Single Family (600 units)

Small Single Family (850 units)

Active Adult Villa (385 units)

Townhouse (1,000 units)

Two-over-Two Condominium (200 units)

Rental Apartments (200 units)

Surplus real property tax revenues3

Building excise fees2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application.

By signing this application, the Applicant agrees to the following:

THIS APLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO:

Tax Parcels Comprising Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District

Total Assessed Value2

Tax Parcels Comprising Oakdale-Lake Linganore Tax Increment Financing District

Total Assessed Value2

PURPOSE AND INTENT

mix of uses including high density residential and commercial uses.2

(H) Provide development flexibility to respond to market demands.

SIZE AND LOCATION

EXISTING PROPERTY CONDITIONS

1. Westridge/Woodridge, is part of Woodridge Village located in the northwest quadrant of

An Aerial Photograph is included as Section II (Section 1-19-10.500.5(A)(5)).

LAND USE, MIXTURE, AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE PUD

Land use permitted with the PUD District.

Residential land use mixture within the PUD District.

Commercial land use mixture within the PUD District.

Open space/green area within the PUD district.

Section 1-19-10.500.6(D)(1) requires a minimum of 30% of open space/green area, exclusive of

Applicant believes that the correct interpretation of Section 1-19-10.500.6(D)(1) as it relates to

Commission at Phase II (Execution).

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES

Water and Sewer. See section X.A.2. below.

VIII. PROPOSED PUD PHASING PLAN

REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES

A pre-application conference was held with the Division of Community Development on

April 5, 2012, as required by Section 1-19-10.500.4(A).

and May 19, 2012 as required by Section 1-19-10.500.4(B).