See Full Corridor Study Volumes I and II as separate attachments.

See Full Corridor Study Volumes I and II as separate attachments.

See Housing Values 2000-2010 and 2000-2013 as separate attachments.

2013 2 nd Quarter and Mid-Year Market Report The voice of real estate in Central Virginia CAAR Member Copy Expanded Edition Charlottesville Area 2 nd Quarter 2013 Highlights: Overall sales in Greater Charlottesville were up 11.2% over the same quarter last year, the seventh consecutive quarter with year-over-year gains. The median sales price of $273,200 in the 2 nd Quarter was up 20.1% from last quarter and 6.3% from one year ago. Half of the homes sold in Q2-2013 were on the market 40 days or less, representing a 20-day improvement over the median days on market (DOM) in the same quarter last year. Copyright (c) 2013 RealEstate Business Intelligence, LLC. All Rights Reserved Data Source: CAAR MLS. Statistics calculated July 3, 2013. 2 nd Quarter 2013 Sales Activity There were 815 homes sold in the Charlottesville area in the second quarter, which was up 11.2% (+82 sales) from the second quarter last year and the highest Q2 sales rate since 2010. This increase in sales volume, coupled with a 7% increase in the average sales price compared to Q2-2012, resulted in an 18.9% jump in sold dollar volume (+$42.9M) to

$269,423,585. Compared to the 635 sales in Q2-2009, the lowest second quarter sales on record, there were 28.3% more sales (+180) and an increase of 37.7% in sold dollar volume (+73.7M). Four of the six jurisdictions in the Charlottesville area experienced double-digit percent increases in the number of sales compared to Q2-2012. Louisa County (+59% or 23 more sales), Nelson (+20% or seven more sales), Albemarle (+14% or 54 more sales) and Greene (+14% or six more sales) each showed the strongest year-over-year gains. After experiencing a 22% year-over-year decrease in sales in the first quarter, Charlottesville rebounded in the second quarter with 164 sales, representing a 7% increase over Q2-2012 (+11 sales). Fluvanna was the only county to post a decline in sales, with 19 fewer closed sales than Q2-2012 representing a 22% dip. Prices Climbing The $273,200 median sales price in the 2 nd Quarter is the highest level since 2008 and is 6.3% above the Q2-2012 median of $257,000. Not surprisingly, the average amount of original list price received at time of sale also has increased to 94.2% from 92.5% in Q2-2012. This is the highest average sale-to-original-listprice ratio since the 4 th Quarter of 2007. Copyright (c) 2013 RealEstate Business Intelligence, LLC. All Rights Reserved Data Source: CAAR MLS. Statistics calculated July 3, 2013. Louisa ($200,250) and Nelson ($243,500) both saw double-digit year-over-year gains in median sales price, up 30% and 21.8% respectively. Both Charlottesville ($262,750) and Albemarle ($325,000) reached their highest median sales price levels since 2008. The Charlottesville median sales price was 6.2% above the Q2-2012 level while Albemarle was up 8.4%. Seeing the steady rise in pricing in most of the localities across Greater Charlottesville is exactly what drives the confidence of both buyers and sellers in achieving their individual property ownership goals, reports CAAR 2013 President Denise Ramey, GRI. Fluvanna pricing ($185,000) was essentially unchanged with a 0.7% year-overyear decrease. At $198,000, Greene was the only county with significant declines in median sales price, down 16.4% from last year s level.

New Contracts and Inventory Movement The 1,031 new pending sales in the Greater Charlottesville area this quarter represented a 16.7% increase over the 883 in Q2-2012. This is only the fifth time on record that new pending sales reached the 4- digit level, so obviously buyer demand heated up over the first half of 2013. This was the ninth consecutive quarter with year-over-year gains in new contract activity. In analyzing the results of this quarter, all indicators point to a healthy housing market in our region. The local market has consistently gained momentum over the past few quarters, adds Denise Ramey. There were 1,420 new listings added in the quarter, 3.7% more than Q2-2012, the third consecutive quarter with increased listing activity. This signifies that potential sellers are coming off the sidelines of late, but the fact that the growth in new contracts is outpacing the growth in new listings could bode well for the health of the market as inventory levels continue to decline. With 11 months of active inventory at the end of June, Greater Charlottesville remains a buyer s market, but this is down substantially from the 14.5 months of supply level in June 2011. There were 15.6% fewer distressed properties listed throughout the quarter compared to Q2-2012, while the 1,323 non-distressed new listings represented a 5.5% increase. The heightened activity surrounding high-end purchases is more evidence of a strengthening market. We ve seen the sales over $1 million nearly double, to 19 sales in Q2-2013 from 10 this same timeframe last year, says CAAR 2013 President-Elect John Ince. Where do these shifts in new listing and contract activity leave the active inventory level heading into the second half of the year? The 2,179 active listings at the end of the quarter are down 4.8% from the same period last year. This is 14.1% lower than the five-year June 30 th average. Nine of every 10 active listings (95.3%) are non-distressed properties. Of active listings, 103 are foreclosures or short sales, 29 fewer than this time last year and 71 fewer than at the end of Q2-2011 (-40.8%). The 51 active foreclosure listings at the end of Q2 represent a 27.1% decrease from this time last year, and the 52 active short sales are 16.1% lower than Q2-2011. Copyright (c) 2013 RealEstate Business Intelligence, LLC. All Rights Reserved Data Source: CAAR MLS. Statistics calculated July 3, 2013.

Days on Market (DOM) As detailed in the 1 st Quarter report, homes typically sell faster in the 2 nd Quarter than the 1 st Quarter, and this year was no exception. In fact, the median DOM of 40 days represents a 57% decrease from the 94-day median DOM of the previous quarter (that s nearly two months faster). This is the lowest quarterly level for the region in six years and is 20 days lower than the same period last year. The average DOM is down to 117 days, a 33-day improvement over Q2-2012 and 53-day improvement over last quarter. Homes sold fastest in Charlottesville, where the 16-day median DOM for the quarter matched the previous record low back in 2005. This was a 33-day improvement over the 49-day level in Q2-2012. Remarkably, the median DOM for Charlottesville homes sold in June was only eight days, which is actually a day lower than the median DOM in Washington, DC (one of the hottest markets in the county). Albemarle (31 days) experienced a 20-day drop in median DOM compared to Q2-2012. Fluvanna s median DOM improved slightly (-4 days) to 67 days. Louisa (74 days), Greene (83 days) and Nelson (186 days) each had higher median DOM levels versus Q2-2012. Distressed Sales and Pricing Only 58 of the 815 sales in the 2 nd Quarter, or 7.7%, were foreclosures. This represents 11 fewer foreclosure sales versus Q2-2012, when foreclosures accounted for 9.4% of sales. The 31 short sales were two fewer than the same quarter last year and represent an identical share of the sold market at 4.5%. Non-distressed properties accounted for 87.9% of all homes sold, up from 86.1% in Q2-2012. The median sale price for non-distressed sales was up 4.8% from Q2-2012 to $285,000 while the foreclosure median level was up 1.7% to $137,500. The median price for the short sale segment was up 5.6%, to $190,000. Market Share by Bank-Mediated Status Three-Year June Snapshot

Detached vs. Attached Homes in Greater Charlottesville Sales of attached homes (condos and townhomes) in the region during Q2-2013 were up 25.5% (+41) to 202 from Q2-2012. The 613 detached homes sold represented a 7.2% increase from the 572 sold in Q2-2012. At $220,500, the median sales price for attached homes had the largest year-over-year increase, +16.7%, since Q1-2008. Detached homes showed a 4.4% increase in median sales price, up $12,710 to $300,000. RBI Key Housing Trend Metrics [Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS (CAAR)] All Residential Q2-13 % Q-O-Q Q1-13 % Y-O-Y Q2-12 % Y-O-2Y Q2-11 % Y-O-3Y Q2-10 Average Sales Price (Closed) $330,581 19.4% $276,795 7.0% $309,070 8.2% $305,606 5.0% $314,888 Median Sales Price (Closed) $273,200 20.1% $227,500 6.3% $257,000 6.7% $256,000 3.9% $262,838 Units Sold (Closed) 815 65.7% 492 11.2% 733 20.7% 675-4.8% 856 Average DOM (Closed) 117-31.2% 170-22.0% 150-19.3% 145-11.4% 132 Listing Discount (Average) 5.8% 9.1% 7.5% 8.3% 6.1% Ratio Avg SP/Avg OLP 94.2% 91.0% 92.5% 91.7% 93.9% Avg SP/Sq Ft 143 10.9% 129 2.1% 140 3.6% 138-1.4% 145 Detached Q2-13 % Q-O-Q Q1-13 % Y-O-Y Q2-12 % Y-O-2Y Q2-11 % Y-O-3Y Q2-10 Average Sales Price (Closed) $358,768 20.3% $298,318 6.6% $336,600 7.3% $334,370 3.9% $345,252 Median Sales Price (Closed) $300,000 22.7% $244,500 4.4% $287,290 7.9% $277,950 2.4% $293,000 Units Sold (Closed) 613 58.0% 388 7.2% 572 16.1% 528-3.5% 635 Average DOM (Closed) 124-24.8% 165-19.5% 154-19.0% 153-11.4% 140 Listing Discount (Average) 6.4% 9.4% 8.0% 9.1% 7.3% Ratio Avg SP/Avg OLP 93.6% 90.6% 92.0% 91.0% 92.7% Avg SP/Sq Ft 141 11.0% 127 0.7% 140 3.7% 136-3.4% 146 Attached Q2-13 % Q-O-Q Q1-13 % Y-O-Y Q2-12 % Y-O-2Y Q2-11 % Y-O-3Y Q2-10 Average Sales Price (Closed) $245,045 24.7% $196,498 16.0% $211,263 21.1% $202,289 7.6% $227,642 Median Sales Price (Closed) $220,500 20.2% $183,520 16.7% $189,000 13.7% $194,000 0.2% $220,000 Units Sold (Closed) 202 94.2% 104 25.5% 161 37.4% 147-8.6% 221 Average DOM (Closed) 98-48.4% 190-27.9% 136-15.5% 116-10.9% 110 Listing Discount (Average) 4.0% 7.8% 5.6% 5.5% 2.6% Ratio Avg SP/Avg OLP 96.0% 92.2% 94.5% 94.5% 97.4% Avg SP/Sq Ft 149 8.8% 137 4.9% 142 2.1% 146 4.9% 142 Copyright (c) 2013 RealEstate Business Intelligence, LLC. All Rights Reserved Data Source: CAAR MLS. Statistics calculated July 3, 2013. If you plan to sell a home in 2013, be sure to have a REALTOR prepare a comparative market analysis (CMA) so that you can price it to sell. And, if you are looking to buy, a REALTOR can help you understand the current market and evaluate your options. This 2013 2 nd Quarter Market Report is produced by the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS using data from the CAAR MLS. For more information on this report or the real estate market, pick up a copy of the CAAR Real Estate Weekly, visit www.caar.com, or contact your REALTOR.

9 Year Average (2004-2012) Per Capita Spending for Operations As a Percent of State Average - All Cities Source: Exhibit C, Auditor of Public Accounts Comparative Reports 300 Percent of State Average 250 200 150 100 50 0

COMPARATIVE REPORT SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES - CITIES Health and Welfare Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Public Safety Percent Rank - Percent Rank - Percent Rank - Per of Per Capita Per of Per Capita Per of Per Capita Amount Capita Average Spending Amount Capita Average Spending Amount Capita Average Spending FY12 46,384,770 1,043.03 249.64 1 11,904,224 267.69 181.12 4 36,350,898 817.41 127.77 8 FY11 46,015,518 1,058.44 245.85 1 11,507,675 264.70 178.87 2 35,410,465 814.50 128.34 10 FY10 47,246,855 1,171.88 266.40 1 10,610,700 263.18 174.68 3 37,245,902 923.82 144.28 4 FY09 46,779,712 1,160.29 261.39 1 10,792,078 267.68 168.80 3 36,256,131 899.27 138.63 6 FY08 40,382,740 1,018.80 227.49 1 10,861,975 274.03 169.80 3 35,551,886 896.92 138.06 6 FY07 36,155,964 876.00 211.77 1 10,341,567 250.56 165.38 2 31,389,532 760.52 125.59 10 FY06 36,380,284 915.04 238.10 1 8,837,457 222.28 163.44 8 29,315,194 737.34 129.80 7 FY05 35,558,612 891.19 240.91 1 8,716,845 218.47 166.56 3 32,225,812 807.66 153.76 3 FY04 33,369,393 844.79 243.83 1 8,142,979 206.15 161.93 3 28,461,266 720.54 146.94 4 CHARLOTTESVILLE AVG 997.72 242.82 1.00 of 39 248.30 170.07 3.44 of 39 819.78 137.02 6.44 of 39 STATE AVERAGE FY12 417.81 147.79 639.74 Administration Community Development Judicial Administration Percent Rank - Percent Rank - Percent Rank - Per of Per Capita Per of Per Capita Per of Per Capita Amount Capita Average Spending Amount Capita Average Spending Amount Capita Average Spending FY12 11,008,597 247.55 166.10 6 15,397,227 346.23 216.37 2 3,322,752 74.72 112.16 18 FY11 9,788,706 225.16 154.16 8 5,779,705 166.28 121.88 6 3,266,244 75.13 114.70 16 FY10 10,200,734 253.01 163.01 6 5,108,530 126.71 83.56 14 2,924,011 72.53 110.64 20 FY09 11,629,386 288.45 179.06 5 8,539,657 211.81 135.61 6 3,135,029 77.76 115.39 15 FY08 10,243,017 258.42 167.87 5 7,826,373 197.45 129.84 6 3,091,090 77.98 116.98 15 FY07 9,298,893 225.30 155.73 8 3,905,524 94.62 83.97 20 2,894,062 70.12 111.77 16 FY06 9,081,692 228.42 159.06 9 5,382,993 135.39 129.69 10 2,891,304 72.72 129.24 13 FY05 7,844,126 196.59 153.50 11 5,168,668 129.54 122.97 10 2,712,859 67.99 125.71 14 FY04 7,553,879 191.24 138.01 9 3,188,803 80.73 89.78 20 2,498,823 63.26 127.84 12 CHARLOTTESVILLE AVG 234.90 159.61 7.44 of 39 165.42 123.74 10.44 of 39 72.47 118.27 15.44 of 39 STATE AVERAGE FY12 149.03 160.02 66.62 Education Public Works Percent Rank - Percent Rank - Per of Per Capita Per of Per Capita Amount Capita Average Spending Amount Capita Average Spending FY12 73,696,985 1,657.19 101.19 21 13,311,447 299.33 98.89 23 FY11 72,353,655 1,664.26 103.69 18 14,272,846 328.30 110.08 20 FY10 66,464,497 1,648.54 99.71 18 12,583,955 312.12 104.35 25 FY09 67,799,282 1,681.65 99.33 16 14,087,533 349.42 114.81 22 FY08 67,762,374 1,709.55 101.99 16 13,252,022 334.33 110.40 22 FY07 62,445,823 1,512.96 93.61 24 9,756,150 236.38 85.38 34 FY06 60,352,625 1,518.00 100.85 19 10,994,966 276.55 102.19 22 FY05 56,961,139 1,427.60 99.46 21 9,838,240 246.57 99.11 25 FY04 52,922,141 1,339.80 100.04 20 9,398,154 237.93 90.05 29 CHARLOTTESVILLE AVG 1,573.28 99.98 19.22 of 39 291.21 101.70 24.67 of 39 STATE AVERAGE FY12 1,637.71 302.69

City of Charlottesville City Manager s Office MEMO TO: Gary O Connell, City Manager FROM: Leslie Beauregard, Budget Manager DATE: July 28, 2006 SUBJECT: Auditor of Public Accounts State Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures Analysis and Issues America s #1 City! Some questions came up during the budget process and more recently regarding the Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) State Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures specifically, the General Government Administrative costs for the City shown in the report and what that means. Per your request, I have done some analysis on this aspect of the report but also in general how the report should be read and interpreted if it s to be used. What is the APA State Comparative Report and What Does It Mean? The APA State Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures is supposed to provide the user with useful comparative data for the revenues and expenditures of every city, county and town in the Commonwealth. The report requires localities to classify expenses by line item, which are then shown in various functional activity areas, such as Public Safety, Health and Welfare, Education, etc. that on the surface, seem to be comparable among the other localities. However, once you start to delve into what is behind the numbers and try to compare with other localities in terms of what is actually included in each of those functional areas, the complications begin. The Executive Memo of the report even comes with a warning: we caution users not to base conclusions solely on the report s data. The report does not include other factors such as the efficiency of various government functions or differences in the quantity of quality of services, which vary among localities. In addition, when you get behind the numbers, you find that 1

localities do not include items in a uniform way within the functional areas, which adds to the confusion of what the report means. In other words, localities have discretion as to how they categorize items within functional areas, which I will illustrate in the example with Roanoke. Analysis of General Government Administration Since the main question seems to focus on General Government Administration expenditures, the first thing we did was to find out how much of a percentage these expenditures are to the total expenditures. The attached spreadsheet shows that we are about, but a bit better, than the middle of the pack. This data should resolve any alarm that somehow our administrative costs are high in comparison to others. Second, we took a look at one other city for comparison and dug into the figures for General Government Administration. I chose Roanoke for a few reasons: It is a member of the First Cities Coalition; It is about twice our size in population, employee county count and budget; I know the Assistant Finance Director and she did not mind being the guinea pig, and The percentage of General Government Administration to their total expenditures is actually lower than ours (4.94% compared to 3.94%). While there are many similarities in the departments that are included, there are several differences as well regarding what each city includes in this functional area. They are summarized below (I have also attached the spreadsheet showing the details): Roanoke includes a print shop, citizens service center, billing and collections, municipal auditing (this is an internal audit function), occupational health, general services and some special purpose grants. Charlottesville includes organizational memberships, Public Works administration, General Gov t projects and engineering, several items from the CIP such as cable TV equipment, Downtown Mall repair expenditures, Council Chamber Improvements, technology improvements, etc. 2

The fact that we include these items under administration, and they are large dollar amounts, explains in part why the percentage as compared to the total expenditures is higher than Roanoke. Roanoke, for example, includes Public Works Administration under Public Works functional area rather than considering it administrative in nature. I hope that this information is helpful in trying to explain this report. Getting one city s information and getting this far has taken at least 4 hours within the past week or so. I would appreciate any feedback you have in terms of going forward with this research. Thank you! 3