HomeMy WebLinkAbout48-98 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO 4 8- 9 8
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE TO APPLY TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION FOR A
GRANT FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF
ARKANSAS FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND
SEWER LINES AND STREETS NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THE
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK.
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville, in conjunction with the University of Arkansas and
the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, employed the firm of Hammer, Siler, George Associates
to develop market potentials, site planning, and costs associated with the Research and Technology
Park Development; and
WHEREAS, the study has been completed, and it is now time to improve the Research and
Technology Park by constructing the required streets and water and sewer lines necessary for the
development of the Park; and
WHEREAS, the cost of these developments are estimated at $9,214,300; and
WHEREAS, the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration has funds available
through the Economic Development of Arkansas Fund Commission, to which we may apply for
either a grant or loan, and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 7(a)3 of the Economic Development of Arkansas Fund Commission
Regulations requires an ordinance, resolution, or other specific authorizing instrument or action
reflecting the applicant's authority for making application to the Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. Mayor Fred Hanna or his authorized representative is designated as the
authority for making application on behalf of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for a grant to aid
in the construction of the water and sewer lines and streets at the Research and Technology Park.
- F. riCN
PASSEHAND APPROVED this 21 St day of April , 1998.
t. v,
:
, 4 4,:ty
ATT $T't ‘• •
By:
Heather Woodruff, C Clerk
APPROVE
By.
Fred Hanna, Mayor
1
1
•
Market Potentials, Site Planning, Costing
and Cash Flow for Arkansas Research and
Technology Park Development
Prepared for:
The City of Fayetteville and The University of Arkansas
HAMMER • SILER • GEORGE • ASSOCIATES
ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
v
Market otentials, Site
Planning, Costing and
Cash Flow for rkansas
esearch and Technology
Park Devclopmcnt
Prepared for:
The City of Fayetteville and
The University of Arkansas
January 1998
Hammer Siler George Associates
EDAW
McClelland Consulting Engineers
Hammer Stier George Associates
Table of Contents
Page #
Executive Summary
II. Assessment of the Research 1
Resource
III. Projected Range of Probable 13
Absorption
IV. Recommended Development 24
Program
V. Location and Site Assessment 26
VI Site Planning and Costing 35
VII. Phase I Financial Costs and 43
Revenues
Appendix. Survey Results
Hammer Siler George Associates
L IFXILL:,CUTIVF
SUMM Y
Hammer Siler George Associates
at:
Executive Summary
• 1. THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTANT WORK IS TO TEST THE
FEASIBILITY OF RESEARCH PARK DEVELOPMENT
• 2. THIS REQUIRES RESEARCH RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, MARKET
ANALYSIS, SITE PLANNING, SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTING AND CASH
FLOW ANALYSIS.
• 3. THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS HAS A STRONG RESEARCH
PROGRAM WHICH IS GROWING AT AN IMPRESSIVE RATE.
• 4 ENGINEERING, AGRICULTURE AND THE SCIENCES ARE
PARTICULAR STRENGTHS OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM.
• 5. THE UNIVERSITY IS UNDERTAKING IMPORTANT INITIATIVES TO
FURTHER BUILD THE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAMS.
• 6. POTENTIAL FLOOR SPACE ABSORPTION IN A RESEARCH PARK IN
FAYETTEVILLE IS ESTIMATED, BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF
RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE
AMOUNT OF RESEARCH AND THE AMOUNT OF FLOOR SPACE
ABSORPTION WHICH HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AT COMPARABLE LAND
GRANT UNIVERSITIES WITH RESEARCH PARKS.
• 7. DIRECT, RESEARCH -BASED FLOOR SPACE ABSORPTION AT THE
RESEARCH PARK IN FAYETTEVILLE, NAMED THE ARKANSAS
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK, WILL BE IN THE 30,000 TO
50,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA RANGE, DURING THE FIRST
FIVE YEARS IN WHICH BUILDING SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR
MARKETING. ABSORPTION WILL INCREASE IN SUBSEQUENT FIVE
YEAR PERIODS.
SIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1......................
Hammer Siler George Associates
•
Executive Summary
• 8. RESEARCH PARKS ALSO ATTRACT OTHER UNIVERSITY,
GOVERNMENTAL AND COMPATIBLE PRIVATE BUSINESS USES. IN THE
ARKANSAS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK, IT IS ASSUMED THAT
THIS ADDITIONAL FLOOR SPACE DEMAND VVILL BE ROUGHLY EQUAL
TO THE RESEARCH -BASED ABSORPTION.
• 9. THE LOCAL REAL ESTATE MARKET IS STRONG, AND THIS WILL HELP
GENERATE ABSORPTION FROM THESE OTHER USES.
• 10. A SURVEY OF 240 BUSINESSES FAMILIAR WITH THE RESEARCH
RESOURCES AT THE UNIVERSITY, YIELDED A 15 PERCENT RESPONSE
AND STRONG INDICATIONS OF INTEREST IN HAVING A CLOSE
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSITY.
• 11. THE PROPOSED RESEARCH PARK SITE IS AT US ROUTE 71 AND
STATE ROUTE 112. THE SITE IS CONVENIENT TO THE CAMPUS, OF
ADEQUATE SIZE FOR THE EARLY PHASES OF THE PARK AND
EXPANSION, WELL SERVED BY EXPRESSWAYS, HAS FIBER OPTIC
LINKAGES AND IS NEAR NEEDED SERVICE USES; AND THUS WILL
SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK WELL.
• 12. WHEN DEVELOPED TO THE QUALITY STANDARDS SHOWN IN THE
SITE PLAN, THE RESEARCH PARK WILL PROVIDE A QUALITY LEVEL OF
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT NOT NOW AVAILABLE, AND VVILL MARKET
WELL WITH THE EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK.
• 13. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WILL CREATE PARCELS OF VARIOUS
SIZES TO MEET THE MARKET, PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT,
FACILITATE EFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING AND
CONSTRUCTION AND PROVIDE A HIGH AMENITY ENVIRONMENT THE
SITE PLAN IS PRESENTED IN THE REPORT.
• 14. PHASE I SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS WILL TOTAL $1,314,100, IN
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND $310,800 IN SOFT COSTS. A TOTAL OF
$1,918,100 HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SPENT ON THE PURCHASE OF THE
LAND AND THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC LINKAGES
ii Hammer Slier George Associates
-
Executive Summary
• 15. THE ESTIMATED TOTAL SITE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
COSTS FOR THE FIVE PHASE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE $9,214,100.
• 16. PHASE I SITE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED SOFT
COSTS WILL TOTAL $1,516,240, AND LAND SALES REVENUES FOR
PHASE I WILL BE $1,808,200.
• 17. IN PHASE I, THE COSTS WILL BE GREATEST IN THE EARLY YEARS
WHEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BEING INSTALLED, AND MUCH OF
THE LAND SALE REVENUES WILL COME IN THE LATER YEARS. THIS
WILL RESULT IN A MAXIMUM NEGATIVE CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW OF
$956,100 FROM THESE SOURCES.
18. THE UNIVERSITY, THE CITY, THE CHAMBER AND THE STATE WILL
MAKE A STRONG PARTNERSHIP TO MAKE THIS PROJECT A SUCCESS.
iii Hammer Siler George Associates
II. ASSESSMENT OF
THE RESEARCH
RESOURCE
1
1
Trends in U of Arkansas
R&D Expenditures (Table1)
1
1
1
1
• External+Internal Expenditures
totaled $57.8 million in 1994
• R&D Expenditures at Arkansas
Increased by Almost 42% from
1991 to 1994, Led by Agriculture
and Engineering
1
• Ag. R&D Spending Increased by
1 53 Percent from '91 to '94
• Engineering R&D Spending
1 Increased by 79 Percent
1 • Other R&D Spending Increased
1 by Two Percent
1
1
1
1 Hammer Siler George Associates
Table 1. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
EXPENDITURES, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
Expenditures in Thousands of Dollars 1991-1994 Change
Discipline 1991 1992 1993 1994 Amount Percent
Agriculture $22,997 $24,867 $35,160 $35,176 $12,179 53.0%
Engineering $5,710 $7,981 $8,733 $10,220 $4,510 79.0%
Other $12,124 $11,920 $14,432 $12,419 $295 2.4%
Total $40,831 $44,768 $58,325 $57,815 $16,984 41.6%
Note: Includes all internal and external R&D expenditures as compiled by the
National Science Foundation.
Sources: National Science Foundation and Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
U of Arkansas Research by
Source and Program
(Tables 2,3)
• Among External, Non -Ag
Awards, Federal Sources
Account for 59%; Major Awards
from Defense and Education
• State of Arkansas Accounts for
33%; Corporate is 4%
• External R&D Funding Totals
$43.4 million, Most from Federal
Sources
• Agricultural, Food and Life
Sciences Receives $16.8 Million,
or about 39% of Arkansas R&D
3
Hammer Siler George Associates
Source
Table 2. UNIVERSITY OR ARKANSAS AWARDS FOR NON -AG RESEARCH
AND SPONSORED PROGRAMS BY SPONSOR TYPE, 1995
Dollar Amount Percent
Federal/Other State Government
Department of Energy $273,000 1.0%
Department of the Interior $786,000 2.9%
Department of Defense $3,782,000 13.7%
Department of Health and Human Services $1,433,000 5.2%
Department of Agriculture $16,000 0.1%
Department of Education $3,776,000 13.7%
Department of Commerce $1,023,000 3.7%
Department of Transportation $1,000,000 3.6%
National Science Foundation $2,345,000 8.5%
Tennessee Valley Foundation $13,000 0.0%
Agency for International Development $18,000 0.1%
National Aeronautics and Space Admin $181,000 0.7%
Enivironmental Protection Agency $45,000 0.2%
National Endowment for the Humanities $261,000 0.9%
Corporation for Public Broadcasting $106,000 0.4%
US Postal Service $980,000 3.6%
Other State Governments $183 000 0 7%
Subtotal $16,221,000 59.0%
Arkansas State Government
Department of Higher Education $1,039,000 3.8%
Department of Health $45,000 0.2%
Department of Education $1,063,000 3.9%
Department of Human Services $3,408,000 12.4%
Department of Pollution Control/Ecology $84,000 0.3%
Highway and Transportation Department $984,000 3.6%
AR Energy Office $10,000 0.0%
AR Science and Technology Authority $764,000 2.8%
AR Game and Fish Commission $303,000 1.1%
AR Early Childhood Commission $15,000 0.1%
AR Soil and Water Conservation Commission $1,154,000 4.2%
AR State Plant Board $133,000 0.5%
AR Space Grant Consortium $24,000 0.1%
AR Arts/Humanities Councils $14,000 0.1%
AR State Parks S11 000 0 0%
Subtotal $9,051,000 32.9%
Private Sources
Foundation/Non-Profit $726,000 2.6%
Corporate $1,072,000 3.9%
Institution/Other 5444 000 1.6%
Subtotal $2,242,000 8.1%
Total Non -Agriculture
$27,514,000 100.0%
Notes: Individual grant amounts have been rounded. Total reflects rounding of individual grant
amounts. Institution includes both public and private educational institutions. Does not include
Division of Agriculture award activity.
Sources: University of Arkansas and Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
Table 3.
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AWARDS FOR RESEARCH AND
SPONSORED PROGRAMS BY PROGRAM AREA, FISCAL YEAR 1995
Program Area
Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences
Arts & Sciences
Business Administrations
Education
Engineering
HIDEC
Other Interdisciplinary Programs
Other
Total
Source
Federal State
$9,967,700
4,708,400
275,500
3,156,000
3,590,100
2,398,500
407,100
1,400,800
$810,900
5,224,000
229,900
1,569,500
753,000
0
97,500
1,158,000
Other
$6,066,300
571,000
26,600
32,900
584,400
171,300
15,000
194,200
$25,904,100 $9,842,800 $7,661,700
Notes: Other includes Administration, Student Services and the Law School.
Totals reflect rounding of dollar awards by source.
Includes all Division of Agriculture awards.
Sources: University of Arkansas and Arkansas Experiment Station.
Total
$16,844,900
10,503,400
532,000
4,758,400
4,927,500
2,569,800
519,600
2,753,000
$43,408,600
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
Table 4. MAJOR RESEARCH
AWARDS, UNIVERSITY of
ARKANSAS, 1994-1995
HIDEC
Ark. Tech Trans Center
Ark Neuro Center
Non Androgenic Reg/
Cotton Prodtn Bmp Impacts
Somatic Genetic Instability
Peptide Transport Systems
$2,600,000
1,300,000
80,000
125,000
298,000
177,000
100,000
Dimorphism Genes of Candida
Albicans 95,000
Gas Electron Diffraction 117,000
Ion Transport Through Membrane
Channels 127,000
6 Hammer Siler George Associates
Table 48 MAJOR AWARDS
(cont.)
• Electron Transfer 211,000
• Non Linear Optical Materials 208,000
• Real Time Sensing of Composite
Material Stress 120,000
• Quantum Coherence in Multi -Level
Media 298,000
• Low Cost Multi -Chip Module
Manufacture 1,287,000
• Poultry Science 1,900,000
• Ground/Surface Waters Pesticide
Contamination 284,000
7 Hammer Siler George Associates
Comparable University
Research (Tables 6,7)
• U of Arkansas is 9th out of 10
Comparable Universities in Total
Research Expenditures
• Arkansas Receives the Smallest
Share from Federal Sources; But
the Highest Share from State
Government; and Second
Highest Share from Industry
• Arkansas has the Highest Overall
R&D Expenditure Growth
Among the 10 Comparables
• Arkansas was Highest in Growth
for Engineering R&D and Second
for Ag R&D
8 Hammer Siler George Associates
Institution
Table 6. R & D EXPENDITURES AT COMPARABLE LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS
WITH DEVELOPING RESEARCH PARKS, FY94
Sources of Funding
Federal State/Local Private
Total Government Government Industry Instutional Other
Dollar Amount
University of Wisconsin $392,718 $225,403 $61,099 $13,729 $51,534 $40,953
Texas A&M $355,750 $136,942 $82,353 $28,576 $100,496 $7,383
NC State University $173,407 $69,608 $61,700 $22,101 $18,289 $1,709
Iowa State University $155,982 $56,439 $42,811 $8,185 $43,601 $4,946
VA Polytechnical Inst $148,313 $73,490 $33,147 $12,580 $25,593 $3,503
Washington State Univ. $94,632 $43,354 $6,698 $7,988 $27,684 $8,908
Arizona State University $62,563 $30,699 $997 $5,780 $23,137 $1,950
University of Arkansas $57,815 816,040 822,672 85,605 $11,531 81,967
University of Delaware $50,734 $26,250 $2,180 $4,117 $13,946 $4,241
Percent of Total
University of Wisconsin - 100% 57% 16% 3% 13% 10%
Texas A&M 100% 38% 23% 8% 28% 2%
NC State University 100% 40% 36% 13% 11% 1%
Iowa State University 100% 36% . 27% 5% 28% 3%
VA Polytechnical Inst 100% 50% 22% 8% 17% 2%
Washington State Univ. 100% 46% 7% 8% 29% 9%
Arizona State University 100% 49% 2% 9% 37% 3%
University of Arkansas 100% 28% 39% 10% 20% 3%
University of Delaware 100% 52% 4% 8% 27% 8%
Note: Total R&D expenditures as compiled through surveys by the National Science Foundation.
Sources: National Science Foundation/SRS and Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
Institution
Table 7. TOTAL AND FEDERAL R&D EXPENDITURES BY SELECTED DISCIPLINES
AMONG COMPARABLE INSTITUTIONS, FY9I AND FY94
Expenditures in Thousands
Total Federal
FY91$ FY94$ % Change FY91$ FY94$ % Change
All Disciplines
University of Arkansas $40,831 $57,815 41.6% 512,371 516,040 29.7%
Washington State Univ. $75,244 $94,166 25.1% $32,257 $45,513 41.1%
Texas A&M 5288,005 5355,750 23.5% $97,727 5136,942 40.1%
NC State University $142,606 $173,407 21.6% $46,894 $69,608 48.4%
University of Wisconsin $326,489 $392,718 20.3% $183,652 $225,403 22.7%
VA Polytechnical Inst $125,256 $148,313 18.4% $47,866 $73,490 53.5%
Iowa State University $134,657 $155,982 15.8% $42,793 $56,439 31.9%
University of Delaware $44,696 $50,734 13.5% $20,053 $26,250 30.9%
Arizona State University $63,489 $62,563 -1.5% $26,246 $30,699 17.0%
Agricultural Sciences
Arizona State University $158 $1,183 648.7% $65 $85 30.8%
University of Arkansas 522,997 535,176 53.0% $7,158 58,202 14.6%
Texas A&M $40,244 $55,362 37.6% $6,065 $10,955 80.6%
Iowa State University $25,216 $32,919 30.5% $8,558 $10,219 19.4%
University of Delaware $9,309 $11,378 22.2% $1,398 $2,201 57.4%
NC State University $37,659 $45,258 20.2% $7,797 $12,641 62.1%
VA Polytechnical Inst $35,933 $41,310 15.0% $7,011 $10,073 43.7%
University of Wisconsin $23,154 $25,999 12.3% $8,269 $7,709
Washington State Univ. $24,581 $23,735 -3.4% $8,082 $6,864 -15.1%
Engineering
University of Arkansas $5,710 $10,220 79.0% $2,457 $3,675 49.6%
Washington State Univ. $6,792 $9,185 35.2% $2,774 $5,575 101.0%
NC State University $46,343 $58,871 27.0% $17,192 $26,734 55.5%
University of Wisconsin $43,341 $55,021 26.9% $25,715 $34,375 33.7%
Texas A&M $65,627 $82,565 25.8% $12,826 $22,788 77.7%
Iowa State University $36,768 $44,152 20.1% $12,747 $20,444 60.4%
University of Delaware $12,528 $14,668 17.1% $4,561 $6,926 51.9%
Arizona State University $20,129 $19,555 -2.9% $5,400 $6,637 22.9%
VA Polytechnical Inst $48,407 $43,623 -9.9% $24,273 $21,304 -12.2%
Note: Includes internal and external R&D expenditures, as compiled by the National Science Foundation.
Sources: National Science Foundation and Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
Important University
Initiatives
• Increasing Research Funding
Emphasis in Faculty Recruitment
• Aggressive Business School Role
in Entrepreneurial and Small
Business Development
• Incubator Expansion and
Aesthetic and Functional
Upgrading of the Engineering
Research Center
• More Extensive Use of College
and Departmental Councils
11 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
I
I
I
I
Important University
Initiatives (cont.)
1 ♦ Poultry Science Center
1 ♦ Energized Other Animal Science
1 ____Research Funding Efforts
i ♦ Coordination and More Effective
1 Industry Marketing of Materials
1 Handling Programs
i'I
TI
I
I
I
I
I
♦ Increased Emphasis on Joint
University/ Private Industry
Research Proposals and Efforts
12 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
rl
L
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
:i
I
[1
I
I
I
I
Ill. PROJECTED
RANGE OF
PROBABLE
ABSORPTION
Hammer Siler George Associates
I
i
I Floor Space Absorption
Methodology
♦ Calculate comparable park
1 floor space absorption
1 experience
1 ♦ Relate absorption by type to
1 funded research of that type
• and calculate ratios
1 ♦ Apply the ratios to Arkansas
1 research funding and calculate
1 absorption by type
I
I
I
♦ Combine these into total
technology -based absorption
estimates
13 Hammer Slier George Associates
11
I
Table 8. TOTAL AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING -RELATED
ABSORPTION AT COMPARABLE RESEARCH PARKS
fl
I"I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
Total
Agriculture -Based
Absorption
(Sq. Ft.)
Total
Engineering -Based
Absorption
(Sq. Ft.)
All
Technology -Based
Absorption
(Sq. Ft.)
NC State University I/ 40,000 70,000 270,000
VA Polytechnical Inst 22,000 19,700 191,000
Iowa State University 43,600 61,000 145,000
Washington State Univ 12,300 10,200 50,000
University of Delaware 10,800 30,000 50,000
Note: Includes 3 pre -leased buildings scheduled for opening in 1996.
Sources: Research parks and Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
Table 9. ANNUALTECHNOLOGY-BASED ABSORPTION PER MILLION
DOLLARS RESEARCH FUNDING AT COMPARABLE RESEARCH
PARKS
Annual Annual Absorption
1994 Technology -Based Per Million
Absorption R&D Funding Dollars of Research
(Sq. Ft.) (In Millions) (Sq. Ft.)
University of Delaware 12,500 $51 246
VA Polytechnical Inst 20,600 $148 139
NC State University j/ 27,000 $173 156
Iowa State University 16,100 $156 103
Washington State Univ 7,100 $94 75
Note: Includes 3 pre -leased buildings scheduled for completion in 1996.
R&D Funding is total internal and external expenditures as determined by NSF.
Sources: National Science Foundation (NSF), research parks and Hammer, Siler,
George Associates.
J
I
n
Table 10. ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL R&D ABSORPTION PER MILLION
DOLLARS OF AG RESEARCH FUNDING AT COMPARABLE
RESEARCH PARKS
Annual Agricultural Annual Absorption
Agricultural -Based Sciences Per Million
Absorption R&D Funding Dollars of Research
(Sq. Ft.) (In Millions) (Sq. Ft.)
University of Delaware 2,200 $11 193
' Iowa State University 4,800 $33 146
Washington State Univ 1,800 $24 76
VA Polytechnical Inst 2,000 $41 48
' NC State University j/ 4,000 $45 88
I
I/ NC State University has a 60,000 SF Bio-Ag research building under development.
Two-thirds of this space is estimated to be pre -leased.
' Sources: National Science Foundation (NSF), research parks and Hammer, Siler,
George Associates.
I
Table 11. ANNUAL ENGINEERING R&D ABSORPTION PER MILLION
DOLLARS OF ENG. RESEARCH FUNDING AT COMPARABLE
RESEARCH PARKS
Annual Annual Absorption
Engineering -Based Engineering Per Million
Absorption R&D Funding Dollars of Research
(Sq. Ft.) (In Millions) (Sq. Ft.)
' University of Delaware 6,000 $15 409
Washington State Univ 1,500 $9 163
Iowa State University 6,800 $44 154
NC State University 1/ 7,000 $59 119
VA Polytechnical Inst 1,800 $44 41
' 1/ Computer Sciences are.not included in VA Tech Engineering absorption.
I Sources: National Science Foundation (NSF), research parks and Hammer, Siler,
George Associates.
I
Table 12. ANNUAL R&D ABSORPTION FOR OTHER DISCIPLINES
PER MILLION DOLLARS OF OTHER RESEARCH FUNDING AT
COMPARABLE RESEARCH PARKS
Annual Other
Annual Absorption
Research -Related
Other
Per Million
Absorption
R&D Funding
Dollars of Research
(Sq. Ft.)
(In Millions)
(Sq. Ft.)
University of Delaware
4,300
$25
174
Washington State Univ
3,800
$61
62
Iowa State University
4,500
$79
57
NC State University 1/
12,000
$69
173
VA Polytechnical Inst
16,800
$63
265
Notes: Other absorption includes all non -agriculture, non -engineering -related
technology -based absorption.
Sources: National Science Foundation (NSF), research parks and Hammer, Siler,
George Associates.
I
Table 13. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS RESEARCH PARK ABSORPTION
RANGE, BASED ON COMPARABLE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS
Annual U Arkansas Arkansas
Discipline/ Absorption Research Research Park
Comparable Per $Million Funding in Annual
Research Park (Square Feet) $Thousands Absorption
Agricultural -Related $35,176
' Washington State 76 2,673
Iowa State 146 5,136
Delaware 154 5,431
INC State 80 2,818
Virginia Tech 48 1,688
' Engineering -Related $10,220
Washington State 163 1,666
Iowa State 154 1,584
Delaware 327 3,344
NC State 107 1,095
Virginia Tech 41 419
Other $12,419
' Washington State 62 770
Iowa State 57 708
Delaware 139 1,726
'• NC State 156 1,937
Virginia Tech 265 3,291
Total $57,815
• Washington State 5,109
Iowa State 7,418
1 Delaware 10,501
NC State 5,850
Virginia Tech 5,398
Notes: NC State absorption adjusted down by 10 percent to account for proximity
to the Research Triangle.
Delaware absorption adjusted down by 20 percent to account for major
corporate anchor tenant advantage.
' Research "funding" used in the forecast process in 1994 R&D expenditures
as determined by the National Science Foundation.
' Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
I
I
L
I
I
L
I
I
I
Projected Research -
Related Absorption
♦ Table 13 Shows Total Research -Related
Absorption Falls in Probable Range of 25,000
to 50,000 Sq. Ft of Floor Area in First 5 Years.
♦ Engineering, Agricultural and Other Research -
Related Uses Will All be Important to the
Success of the Park's Marketing.
♦ Experience in Parks Shows that Absorption in
the Subsequent Five Year Periods, When the
Park Is Established, Is Stronger.
♦ Research Park Marketing also Derives Success
From Non -Research -Related Tenants Attracted
to the Research and Quality Environment.
' ♦ University Facilities Play a Key Role in Many
Successful Parks.
♦ Federal, State and Local Research Facilities
Have also been Important to Many Parks.
' 18 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
I
J
I
S
H
ni
I
I
I
H
I
H
H
H
I
I
I
Overview of Total Use Mix at
Comparable Research Parks
♦ From 40 to 60 Percent of Private Space
• in Direct Research -Related
♦ Computer Software, Consulting,
Communications Services, Medical,
Financial and Business Services
♦ Non Profits
♦ University Contractors
♦ Day Care; Other Employee Services
♦ Broader Tenant Target Base Results in
Stronger Market Response
♦ Strengthens the Total Economic
Development Marketing Effort by
Providing Quality Environment
♦ Increases the Effectiveness of Broker
Participation
19 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
Overview of Local
Development Market
♦ Northwest Arkansas One of
Hottest Growth Markets
♦ University, Existing and
Protected Quality of Life
♦ Continued Growth by Major
Firms
♦ Productive Labor Force
20 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
Overview of Local
Development Market
• (cont.)
♦ Major Industrial Firm Growth
i and Physical Expansion
1 ♦ Small Industrial Firm Growth
1 ♦ Local Population Serving
1 Business Growth
1 ♦ Importing Labor to Serve Growth
1 ♦ Housing Production Strong,
1 Responding to In -migration
♦ Popular Price Emphasis
I
I
1
21 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
Overview of Local
Development Market
(cont.)
J
I
I
1
1
1
1
♦ Area Retail Expanding, Diversifying
♦ Downtown Working Hard, Healthy
♦ Substantial Fringe Construction
♦ Strong Genesis Incubator Program
♦ Very Little Research and Technology -
Compatible Space
♦ Retards Business Growth of Incubator
Graduates and Other Start -Up Firms
♦ But Also Means There Is Little
Competition for the Research -Based
Demand: The Focus of the Park
♦ Large, Growing or Relocating Firms
Often Seek Free -Standing Facility/Site
22 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
Final Projected
Absorption Range
♦ First 5 -Year Private, Research -Related
Tenancy in 30,000 - 50,000 Sq. Ft Range
♦ Second and Third 5 -Year Absorption
' Should Exceed First 5 -year Absorption
' ♦ Similar Absorption from Other
Traditional Research Park Uses, i.e.:
Professional, Financial, and Business
Services; Non Profits; University
Contractors, etc.
♦ University Should Locate New
Facilities in the Park, When Needed
' ♦ There Will also be Market Potential for
Residential, Retail and Service Uses.
I
I
I
23 Hammer Slier George Associates
I
I
I
I
I
i IV. RECOMMENDED
DEVELOPMENT
I
I
I
Li
H
C]
'[I
I
I
I
PROGRAM
Hammer Siler George Associates
Proposed Approach to
Development Programs
♦ Research -Based Development As.
Foundation
♦ Research -Related and Total
Quality Business Focus
24 Hammer Siler George Associates
Research -Related and
Total Quality Business
Focus
♦ Broader, Traditional Research Park
Use Mix
♦ University and Private Anchor
Facilities Still Important
♦ Quality Environment Essential
♦ Greater Total and Early Project Success
♦ Ten to Fifteen Percent Gross Coverage
♦ Recommended 200 Acre Project Size
♦ 70 Acres of Research -Related
♦ 90 Acres of Business Park Uses
♦ 20 Acres of University, State and
Federal
♦ 20 Acres of Supporting Services
25 Hammer Slier George Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
__ V. LOCATION AND
SITE ASSESSMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hammer Siler George Associates
Introduction
♦ Other Par
Yardstick
k Experience as
♦ Review of Existing Materials
26 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
I
[I
L
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
Proximity of University
Research
♦ Travel Time Important to Accessing
"Value Added"
• Researchers
• Equipment
• Facilities and Services
• Student Employees
♦ Walking Distance Ideal
♦ Successful Parks at Comparable
Distances
♦ ERC/Genesis Link to Benefit from
Improvements
♦ Proposed Location Meets the Test
27 Hammer Siler George Associates
Size of Parcel
♦ Successful Parks of Many Sizes
• Availability
• Tightness of Focus
♦ Over 250 Acres Best
Accommodates Cost Effective
Development
♦ Diversified Parks Start Fastest
♦ Land Reserve Strategy Important
♦ Proposed Site Meets the Test
28 Hammer Siler George Associates
Adjacent Uses,
Expansion Potential,
Road Exposure and
Image
♦ Sites With Good Present Visual
Exposure Seem Limited
♦ Some Portal Conflicting Uses
♦ Need to Protect Rt. 112 Frontage
♦ And Reinforce With Screening
and Approach and Portal
Signage
29 Hammer Siler George Associates
Proximity to
Supporting Uses
♦ Important Tenant Attraction
Factor
♦ In Early Years Lack Market
Support for Captive Uses
♦ US 62/ US 71 Interchange With
Full Service
♦ Others Proximate
♦ Reasonably Well Meets the Need
30 Hammer Siler George Associates
Physical Characteristics
Supporting Efficient
Development
♦ Review of Available Materials
♦ Soils, Drainage and
Environmental Issues Seem
Resolved
♦ Should Support Cost Effective
Development
31 Hammer Siler George Associates
Special Capabilities and
Anchors
♦ Important Fiber Optic Linkages
♦ Federal Anchor: Need to Work
With Delegation
♦ Corporate Anchor: State
Incentive Package Key
♦ University Anchor: Important
ERC/Genesis Role and Lobby
for on -Site University Facility
32 Hammer Siler George Associates
Total Economic
Development Land
Resource Offering
♦ Operating Environment Quality
Not Now Offered
♦ Fayetteville P
Industry
ark Tuned to Heavy
♦ Important Business
Research Role
As Well As
♦ Two Parks Combine to Make
Strong Offering
33 Hammer Siler George Associates
Summary:
Location and Site
Assessment
♦ Proposed Property Meets
Research Park Needs
♦ Vicinity Needs to be
Polished and Focused
♦ Expansion Strategy
Recommended
34 Hammer Siler George Associates
r]
I
[1
�. V1. SITE PLANNING
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
AND COSTING
Hammer Siler George Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[1
[1
I
I
I
Objectives of the
Site Planning
♦ Create parcels of various marketable
sizes with a number visible from major
roads and expressways
♦ Protect the environment and take
advantage of site features to create
amenity
♦ Create a plan which can be efficiently
served by streets, utilities and other
infrastructure and makes maximum
use of existing capacity
♦ Create a plan that can be phased so
' that infrastructure dollars are only
spent in close anticipation of market
absorption
I
I
35 Hammer Slier George Associates
I
I
I
I
I
II
Objectives of Site
Planning (cont.)
♦ Create a central amenity pond for
aesthetics and storm water
U____ management
1 ♦ Identify a high amenity location
I for a project -serving retail and
1 service center in later project
phases
♦ Preserve existing trees and the
hedge row to define and enhance
•
the various uses
1 ♦ Minimize the amount of new
1 streets required to access parcels
1
II
36 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
I
El
I
r
L
THE OVERALL SITE
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
PLAN
Hammer Siler George Associates
• u. n \
�t6ly r14"
: ._ •
1 I • / rl
- •It a
• �..
I p :.4 y
li � O i
TL
U1flT'
H: I __ -
FAYETTEVILLE
CRY OF PAYE. .RYILL& ARKANSAS
SCALE r • LSVV
FEBRUARY IM
RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PARK - HAMMER SD.ER OEOROE MARKET ANALm
EDAW. LAND PLANNER
SITE PLAN MCCLLELAPDCONSULnNO ENOINEER:ENOLMEER
I
I
1 objectives of the
Site Plan
First Phase Features
♦ Create an impressive entrance and a
formal boulevard to initially portray
1 the larger scale of the full project.
1 ♦ Locate parking to the rear of buildings
Ito project the image of a quality park
♦ Effectively and generously use
1 landscaping for screening, edge
1 definition and tree canopy over
roadways
♦ Design buildings to be flexible and
1 phased in construction with the market
1 ♦ Flexibility to combine parcels if that
better meets the needs of a specific
large tenant
1
I
38 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
21
FAYETTEVILLE
Cm OP PAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
RESEARCH &
TECHNOLOGY PARK
HAMMER SILER GEORGE MARKET ANALYST
SCALE: I- • 130'4'
EDAW: LAND MANNER
FEBRUARY IAT
PHASE
I SITE PLAN
MCCLLELA NOCONSUL1I NG ENGIN HHRI ENGINEER
Site Development
Costs
♦ I. Expenditure to date:
Land Acquisition $1,308,100
Fiber Optics Installation $ 610,000
Total $1,918,100
♦ II. Estimated Costs of
Development (Infrastructure)
Phase I: (See next table)
Phase II: Add southbound off -ramp
with overpass. Relocate Frontage Road
entrance and widen to 4 lanes. Acquire
Daugherty Property.
Phase III: Complete street network
within the Park and add water and
sewer..
$1,314,100
$2,750,000
$1,250,000
40 Hammer Siler George Associates
Site Development
Costs (cont.)
Phase IV: Construct a boulevard
from Truckers' Lane to connect with $2,600,000
the boulevard constructed in Phase I.
Acquire ABF property.
Phase V: Improve Deane Solomon
Road from Park entrance to Mount
Comfort Road and Mount Comfort
Road to Highway 71 interchange $1,300,000
Total Estimated Cost $9,214,100
41 Hammer Siler George Associates
V11. Phase I Financial
Costs and Revenues
Hammer Siler George Associates
I
FAYETTEVILLE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PARK
' PHASE I CONSTRUCTION
' COST ESTIMATE
(Including 20% Contingency)
' September 10, 1997
SEWER FACILITIES
New Pump Station 100-150 gpm Capacity
10 -inch Gravity Line 2100 LF
' 8 -inch Gravity Line 3500 LF
4 -inch Gravity Line 3200 LF
16 -inch Hwy 71 Boring 1 EA
Manholes 14 EA
Subtotal
' WATER LINE
• 12 -inch Line 4500 LF
8 -inch Line 0 LF
Fire Hydrants 6 EA
' 8 & 12 -inch Valves 10 EA
Subtotal
' STREETS
Tech Park Boulevard 2-24 Ft. Lanes w/Median
Street (West End) 31 Ft. Back to Back width
Subtotal
Phase I Construction Total
' Source: McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Note: Does not include design and construction services fees.
$50,000
$57,400
$75,600
$46,000
$30,000
525.200
$284,200
$157,200
$0
$14,400
14.700
$186,300
$638,400
5232.200
$870,600
$1,341,100
IPhase I Land Sales Revenue
' Parcel Price/ft2 Area/ft2 Revenue Project
' Year
1 $1.25 152,460 $190,575 1
' 2 $1.00 152,460 $152,460 1
3 $1.25 152,460 $190,575 4
' 4 $1.00 152,460 $152,460 4
5 $1.30 172,240 $223,912 7
6 $1.30 172,240 $223,912 6
7 $1.20 392,040 $470,450 5
1 29 $1.20 169,880 $203,856 7
1 Phase I Total 1,516,240 $1,808,200
1
'Note: 1) Land sales pace required to meet market absorption potential. 2) Dollar figures in
constant 1997 dollars.
1
1
Building Site Development and Marketing
Phase I Costs and Revenues
Infrastructure Costs
Soft Costs
Subtotal
$1,341,100
$310,800
$1,651,900
Land Sales Revenues $1,808,200
Note: Does not include sunk costs of land acqusition and installation of fiber.
OOO
00
00
'n
OOO
'o
'.0
'o
•--'
•--'
N
a
n
N
\O
.
t
N
O
O
N
N
M
OO--c
O
O
a
a
M
00
00
M
'n
b
N
N'
N
-r
-
r
OOOOO
'n
OOO'n'n
—
O
'.0
\O
7
00
Cl
L
a
.00;n
M
N
O
O
n
v
V1
O
O
M
M
'O
OOOOO
ClCNCflIn
'
M
M
OOOOOO
OOO
OO
O
00
00rnifloo
00¼0
M 00
7
N
N
'n
Q
M
7
v�
OOOOO
OO OO
OO Cm
R n O
oD
O O O 'n 'n O �O U„
O O O M 'O O
• O M M O N MV
n O- 000 M O� I ccCCw a
L U
T p y
ro C)
o aU
a > s E
y fY cd 7 N
O h ccd N Q x
d
_ _�
U
UcnFaQU z cnn
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
Appendix
i Survey Results
El
I
LII
I
I
I
I
Hammer Slier George Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Survey Results
♦ 243 surveys sent out
♦ 15% response rate
♦ Firms mainly focused on
product development and
research
� ♦ Most had multiple locations
across the coup ty, mostly in
business park! campus
I settings
1
I
I
I
I Hammer Siler George Associates
I
I
1
• Survey Results
• University Interaction
1
1 A majority of companies felt
• they benefited from:
1 ♦ Interaction with faculty and staff
in problem solving and research
relationship
i 1 ♦ Sharingof relevant research
♦ University -sponsored seminars
1 ♦ Library facilities
1
♦ Laboratory equipment
1 ♦ Access to top-notch students and
i graduates
1
1
2 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
J
,. Survey Results
I
Increased interaction with
1 University would be
1 important to companies
1 through:
1 ♦ Increased relationships with
1 faculty experts
i ♦ Increased access to top-notch
1 students and graduates
1 ♦ Increased assess to publications
and facilities
I
1
3 Hammer Siler George Associates
1
I
I
• Survey Results
Other Observations
1
I Most respondents indicated:
1
• ♦ A closer location to the
• University would increase
their interaction with various
• University departments
♦ They would consider
• pursuing additional research
• relationships in research and
• development park setting
I
I
I
4 Hammer Siler George Associates
I
Fayeflev3lle
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
November 3, 1998
Our 109th Year
Mr. Bobby Ferrell
SOUTHWESTERN BELL
FAX: 442-3359
SUBJECT: Arkansas Research & Technology Park
Dear Bobby:
Just a note to apprise you regarding progress on the new 289 -
acre Arkansas Research & Technology Park. Fayetteville is
the site of the first high-tech "FiberPark" installed by
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in Arkansas. This first
of several projects for our state is intended to make
Northwest Arkansas and the state more attractive to new
industry. Installation of the new $610,000 "Fiber Optics
Hub" instrumentation was completed at the Park in December,
1995.
Similar to an industrial park, a "FiberPark" is a location
served by high-speed, high -capacity communications links.
These links are intended to serve as magnets for recruiting
high -wage, information -based companies. Fayetteville was
among the first of four locations selected for development
across the state -- other sites being Camden, Magnolia, and
Jonesboro. The "Fiber Optics Hub" strategically positions
future Research & Technology Park tenants for entry onto the
highly touted telecommunications "information super highway."
The Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce Economic Development
Department wrote the successful grant application which re-
sulted in the "FiberPark" designation. The department simul-
taneously is guiding overall development of the Research and
Technology Park. A subcommittee has prepared proposed
"Protective Covenants, Design Standards, and Agreements" and
a proposed "Conceptual Plan" for the Research Park as well:
Page 1 of 2 Pages
123 WEST MOUNTAIN • P.O. Box 4216 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-4216 • (501) 521-1710 • FAX (501) 521-1791
Mr. Bobby Ferrell
Subject: Research & High -Technology FiberPark Progress
November 3, 1998
Page 2 of 2 Pages
the "Covenants, Design Standards and A?reements" have
undergone review by the City Attorney's Office; and,
the "Conceptual Plan" was utilized as a vehicle with which
to formulate a basis for assembling a professional multi-
disciplinary team to implement a master planning process
for the park. Essentially, the firm of Hammer, Siler,
George and Associates (Silver Spring, Maryland) has been
hired to accomplish this master planning task.
On March 6th, 1996 the Fayetteville City Council approved a
resolution awarding a contract to Hammer, Siler, George &
Associates for Phase I consulting services in the develop-
ment and marketing of the Arkansas Research and Technology
Park. The entire project (costing $184,500) consists of
three phases: Phase I - Market Potentials & Development
Program (completed); Phase II - Master Plan & Financial
Analysis (now completed); and Phase III - Development and
Marketing Strategy.
Eventually, these two separate endeavors should come into
confluence before the Fayetteville City Council for approval
in the Spring of 1999. At that point, infusion of capital
for development of park infrastructure (i.e., landscaping,
roads, utilities, and etc.) will begin in tandem with
marketing the complex worldwide. Preliminary cost estimates
for basic infrastructure approach $9.2 million.
The bottom line is that ground -breaking for the new Arkansas
Research & Technology Park should take place prior to SPRING
1999. It is hoped that our commuinity can depend on the
Economic Development of Arkansas Fund Commission for funding
to assist with infrastructure in Phase I ($1,341,000). The
City of Fayetteville recently committed $300,000 toward a new
entry boulevard. Should you have questions, or if I can be
of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
call.
S' c rely,
James V. Crider, Director
Economic Development
PROJECT COST AND FUNDING
I. Expenditures To Date:
City of Fayetteville:
Land Acquisition $1,300,000
Economic Development 200,000
Water Line Installation 150,000
Master Plan 100,000
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company:
Fiber Optics Hub Installation S 600,000
Total Expended $2,350,000
Future Project Funds:
City of Fayetteville:
Capital Improvements $ 500,000
Economic Development 200,000
Ozarks Electric Cooperative
Sub -station & Trans. Line $1.300.000
Future Commitment 2 0$ .00,000
TOTAL FUNDS COMMITTED $4,350,000
6
II. Estimated Costs of Development (Infrastructure), which is expected to cover
several years for all phases (does not include cost of design or construction
engineering).
Phase I: (including 20% Contingency as of 9/10/97)
SEWER FACILITIES
New Pump Station
10 -inch Gravity Line
8 -inch Gravity Line
4 -inch Gravity Line
16 -inch Hwy 71 Boring
Manholes
WATER LINE
100-150 gpm Capacity $ 50,000
2100 LF
57,400
3500 LF
75,600
3200 LF
46,000
1 EA
30,000
14 EA
25.200
Subtotal
$284,200
12 -inch Line 4500 LF $157,200
8 -inch Line 0 LF -0-
Fire Hydrants 6 EA 14,400
8- & 12 -inch Valves 10 EA 14.700
Subtotal $186,300
STREETS
Tech Park Boulevard 2024 Ft. Lanes w/Median $638,400
Street (West End) 31 Ft. Back to Back width 232.200
Subtotal $870,600
Phase I Construction Total $1,341,100
It is anticipated the time necessary to provide streets, water & sewer will be
approximately 12 months from the time funds are made available.
Phase II: Add southbound off -ramp with overpass. $2,750,000
Relocate Frontage Road entrance and widen
To 4 lanes. Acquire Daugherty Property.
Phase III: Complete street network within the Park and $1,250,000
Add water and sewer.
Phase IV: Construct a boulevard Truckers' Lane to $2,600,000
Connect with boulevard constructed in Phase I.
Acquire ABF property.
WA
Phase V: Improve Deane Solomon Road from Park
Entrance to Mount Comfort Road and Mount
Comfort Road to Highway 71 Interchange. $1,300,000
Total Estimated Cost $9,214,100