Central Business District

Office Market Report PRESENTED BY

Downtown Little Rock Partnership WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF

Doyle Rogers Company Flake & Kelley Commercial Colliers International

We

want your business in Downtown Little Rock. This Office Market Report will show you some of the many possibilities to suit your office needs, whether you are looking for 100,000 square feet or 1000 square feet. Your business may be new, expanding, or an established corporation. Downtown Little Rock can work for you. Join us as we hold the vision of a Downtown where we can work, live, go to school and play.

EXPLORE DOWNTOWN! Sharon Priest, Executive Director Downtown Little Rock Partnership

Central Business District

Office Market Report PRESENTED BY

DOWNTOWN LITTLE ROCK PARTNERSHIP 423 Main Street, First Floor Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.375.0121 501.375.1377 FAX Contact: Sharon Priest, Executive Director

DOYLE ROGERS COMPANY 111 Center Street, Suite 1510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.978.8899 501.978.2510 FAX Contact: Ryan Lasiter, Associate

FLAKE & KELLEY COMMERCIAL 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.375.3200 501.374.9527 Contact: Maggie Wilson, Property Manager

COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.372.6161 501.272.0671 FAX Contact: Isaac Smith, Principal

Table of Contents 1 Overview

2 Articles on Downtown Little Rock

3 Statistics

4 Properties

Sources of Reference “The Green Issue,” Preservation, January/February 2008. Wilson, Sally R. and Steven Dunn. “Green Downtown Office Markets: A Future Reality.” CB Richard Ellis, Inc. Summer 2007. “SubTrend Futures – Office -3rd Quarter 2008, Metro: Little Rock, Submarket: CBD.” Reis, Inc. 2008. “SubTrend Class Cuts– Office -3rd Quarter 2008, Metro: Little Rock, Submarket: CBD.” Reis, Inc. 2008. “Economic Development.” Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce. (Online) 2005. http://www.littlerockchamber.com/ industry.htm (visited January 21, 2009).

Downtown Occupancy Downtown’s office occupancy rate remains steady at about 82%. Downtown holds about 4.1 million square feet of office space with 761,364 square feet available for lease. Vacant office properties available are mainly in six properties: ♦Bank of America Plaza ♦One Union National Plaza ♦Victory Building ♦Former KARK-TV Building ♦Metropolitan Tower ♦Pyramid Building

Hank Kelley, CEO of Flake and Kelley Commercial, said, “The good news is there is no spec building space with appreciable amounts of space on the market. Absorption is slow and construction nil. It’s a good time to be a tenant, if you fit the size space available.” “Downtown Little Rock office space is a bargain,” said Tommy Lasiter of Doyle Rogers Company. “Rental rates are most competitive; amenities are very good; the geography of downtown Little Rock to all of Central Arkansas and to anywhere else is excellent. Building owners are accommodating, and the market conditions are right for prospective users to make their move to Downtown Little Rock.” Kevin Hutchingson of Colliers International adds, “The downtown office market continues to gain momentum with positive absorption in the last few years coupled with the continued River Market revitalization. Despite the national trends in the economy, we expect the Little Rock urban office core to maintain its upward trending growth pattern and remain a desirable place to conduct business for years to come. Although rental rates have edged upward recently, they are still far below the average of larger cities.” “Over the past decade we have witnessed downtown Little Rock’s transformation into an attractive, busy community ripe with new business, tourism and residential neighbors,” said Wyck Nisbet, president of Downtown Little Rock Partnership. “The progress made has truly been an accomplishment of our community’s most dedicated leaders who have supported the vision of a renewed Downtown.”

Downtown Little Rock Central Business District (CBD) By the Numbers (2008 estimate) County County Population City Population City Size Avg. Household Income Hotel rooms Clinton Library visitors

Pulaski 369,569 184,853 119.5 square miles $57,463 1,961 1 million + since 11.2004

Central Business District (CBD) CBD size (72201) Households Population Employees Median age Avg. Household Income Establishments

1.3 square miles 2,772 4,716 38,943 41.7 $37,191 2,289

Office Market Report Area: Little Rock Central Business District

Central Business District Borders: Arkansas River - Cumberland - I-630 - Chester Street

Pulaski Empowerment Zone Pulaski County is one of seven urban areas to receive an Empowerment Zone (EZ) designation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development . The designation is designed to support growth and revitalization opportunities for distressed areas of communities, and is part of a business tax incentive package valued at $17 to $22 billion nationwide. The designation period is presently from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2009. The Pulaski County designation is a collaborative partnership effort among Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Government, University of Arkansas Little Rock, Pulaski Enterprise Community, Rose Law Firm, Arkansas Department of Economic Development, Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, private businesses, and local financial institutions. Empowerment Zone benefits are for the For-Profit business owner with an office within the EZ who also has an employee/s living within the EZ. The tax incentives available can make a substantial difference to the bottom line and be a defining factor in the selection of a business location. Each EZ incentive offered is designed to meet the specific needs of a business and offer inducements to locate and hire additional workers. The Pulaski County Empowerment Zone (PEZA) is proud to have Community Bakery Owner, Joe Fox, as an advocate for taking advantage of the federal tax Incentives. Fox said, “I encourage all businesses to research the possibility of using the incentives to help their bottom line.” Fox noted during a recent EZ Workshop that the credits helped his bottom line so much that he established a “bonus pool” for his employees with the money he saved. PEZA salutes Fox’s commitment to downtown Little Rock and employment of residents within the zone. Other companies taking advantage of the credits include Mr. Klean Carpet & Janitorial, Mountaire Feeds Inc., and many more. “It’s easy to file for credits” said Eyona Mitchell, director of the Pulaski Empowerment Zone. “Just check with you accountant.” The PEZA boundary area is comprised of 15 census tracts within downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock that will receive tax breaks and regulatory relief to help businesses provide more jobs and promote community

revitalization. There are also three “EZ Developable Site” areas in addition to the primary designation area. They are: Little Rock Port site; Downtown Little Rock Riverfront site; and the University/Asher site. AVAILABLE TAX BENEFITS THROUGH PEZA TAX CREDITS Wage credits are especially attractive to growing businesses. A business is able to enjoy up to a $3,000 credit against its federal tax liability for every newly hired or existing employee who lives in the EZ. Work Opportunity Credits allow EZ businesses up to $2,400 against their Federal tax liability for each employee hired from groups with traditionally high unemployment rates or other special employment needs, including youth who live in the EZ. Welfare to Work Credits offer EZ businesses a credit of up to $3,500 (in the first year of employment) and $5,000 (in the second year) for each newly hired long-term welfare recipient. TAX DEDUCTIONS A business located within an EZ may claim an increased expense deduction of up to $35,000 for depreciable property such as equipment and machinery acquired after December 31, 2001. Environmental Cleanup Cost Deductions allow businesses to deduct costs for cleanup in Brownfields. CAPITAL GAINS Businesses located within EZs can postpone or partially recognize the gain on the sale of certain assets including stock and partnership interests. This incentive can significantly reduce the capital gains tax liability on businesses located in the EZ. BOND FINANCING Tax-Exempt Facility Bonds help EZ businesses to receive lower-cost loans to finance property, purchase equipment, and develop business sites. Qualified Zone Academy Bonds allow state and local governments to match no-interest loans with private funding sources to finance public school renovations and programs. State or local government can issue the bonds at

zero per cent interest cost to them to finance certain public school programs with private business partnerships. The private business must contribute money, equipment, or services equal to ten per cent of the bond proceeds which may qualify as a charitable contribution.

OTHER INCENTIVES New Markets Tax Credits provide a credit for investors against their federal taxes of 5 to 6 percent of the amount invested in a distressed area. Low Income Housing Tax Credit provides credit against federal taxes for owners of newly constructed or renovated rental housing.

For further information contact: Downtown Little Rock Partnership: Eyona Scott Mitchell, 501- 375-0212 or email: [email protected] PEZA – www.empowerpulaski.com HUD – http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/ program/s/rc/index.cfm

Downtown’s Diverse Economy I

t was a hectic couple of days recently for the 28 employees of Stephens Media: Putting out seven Pulaski and Lonoke county newspapers, producing special sections and keeping up with the latest Central Arkansas happenings at the News Bureau, all while settling into their new 9,100-square-foot digs at the corner of Main and Second streets. Just steps away from President Clinton Avenue, the quickly growing Arkansas media outlet’s new office is in a neighborhood that’s already home to several other newspaper notables: The Arkansas “The Times, Arkansas Business and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Stephens Media publisher and bureau chief, Dennis Byrd, said he’s hoping to bring a “synergy” to the company’s operations. “Downtown is vibrant and full of positive energy,” he said. “We hope we can feed off that and contribute to it as well. Downtown is traditionally the center of activity. Although that wasn’t the case for either Downtown Little Rock or the Argenta area of North Little Rock for many years, both areas are seeing a resurgence that should carry the day for the foreseeable future.” “We’re glad to have them,”said Sharon Priest, executive director of the Downtown Little Rock Partnership, which is located a couple of blocks further down Main Street. While Downtown’s museums, restaurants, residences and attractions are essential to

10 d o w n t o w n

l i t t l e r o c k pa r t n e r s h i p • 2 0 0 8

its development as a diverse and vibrant neighborhood, the foundation that supports all those amenities is Downtown’s growing economic viability. Recruiting new businesses to Little Rock’s urban center is a never-ending job for city leaders and organizations like the Downtown Little Rock Partnership. “For businesses wanting to locate Downtown, we’ve got great demographic information they can use to help apply for other loans and to

the convenience for any company that does business with the State of Arkansas. There are economic incentives available to businesses that are considering locating Downtown. The Pulaski Empowerment Zone program, for instance, offers federal tax incentives for certain businesses that locate within a designated area. There are also grants from Pulaski County available to help pay for cleaning up contaminated property, also known as Brownfields, like the one that is now home to

m o r e p e o p l e w e h a v e d o w n t o w n t h e b e tt e r . ” create a business plan,” Priest said. In some ways, the neighborhood sells itself, she added. The airport’s proximity has always been convenient for business travelers working in Downtown since the airport is only 4 ½ miles away. Having an airport so close to the central business district is unusual for a city the size of Little Rock. “The walkability is a huge benefit, too,” she said. “In West Little Rock, unless there’s a restaurant in your building, you’re getting in your car to go to lunch.” From the Partnership office, she continued, there are more than dozen restaurants within easy walking distance, and that number continues to grow. Office rental prices are competitive with other areas of town, and there’s no beating

Heifer International’s world headquarters. Some of the biggest news on the economic front is the AT&T Cost Center, which added about 125 jobs to Downtown, and the Entergy Corporation and Science Applications International Corporation’s purchase of the former Central Arkansas Library System’s main branch building on the corner of Seventh and Louisiana streets. Plans are to convert the 76,000-square-foot building into one of Entergy’s two primary data centers. The purchase and renovations will total about $41 million, and will be home to 20 employees and will also create about 100 new professional jobs in Little Rock with an annual payroll of about $8 million. “The more people we have Downtown the better,” Priest said.

This is part of a series of bi-weekly updates from the Mayor addressing various topics of interest to the citizens of Little Rock. Message from the Mayor March 31, 2009 Little Rock’s Economy Strong amid National Recession Not a day has gone by in the last 6 months without a headline in the newspaper proclaiming our economic woes, the stock market is reeling, banks are bellying up, and bailout after bailout is being requested. Like many of you, I have watched closely as communities around the country confront dire situations in which they have proposed severe budget cuts and even layoffs of police officers. The City of Atlanta laid off 441 employees and cut an additional 347 vacant positions when it faced a projected $60 million budget deficit. The City of Memphis faces a $12 million deficit this fiscal year and a $25 million deficit next fiscal year and is offering a buyout to its city employees. The City of Austin has seen a 4% fall in sales tax revenue, is cutting $15 million from its budget and has implemented a hiring freeze. Detroit, New York, Philadelphia and other cities are looking at huge deficits, massive layoffs and sales tax increases. Nationwide, 2 of 3 state or local law enforcement agencies have reported budget cuts or hiring freezes. The number of police officers per capita across the country has been reduced by 9% since 2000. Not so in Little Rock. No layoffs are planned and we are currently advertising for new recruits to our police and fire departments. I am pleased to report that the City of Little Rock is maintaining a stable financial outlook, and increasing tax revenue, during these uncertain times. While many cities face falling revenues and massive cuts in city services, Little Rock continues to buck the national trend with a modestly healthy economy, housing market and low unemployment rate despite the economic crisis we find ourselves in. The city’s sales tax collections for 2008 rose 3.6% as compared to 2007’s collections and 1% over the 2008 budget. And while sales tax revenue for January 2009 was down 1.79% from the previous year, this is much less of a negative impact than other cities have experienced and only slightly increases the sales tax growth rate we need to meet our 2009 budget. Additionally, our Advertising and Promotion Commission collected 6% more revenue in 2008 than in 2007, which means that our restaurants and hotels have been attracting guests and tourists throughout the national economic downtown. As a result of this success, the A&P Commission was able to put $1.4 million into its reserve accounts earlier this year

A Good Stock Over the past year, many companies have announced plans to open new businesses in Little Rock or to expand their current businesses here, which will create 1,912 new jobs and, while some companies have closed or announced layoffs, Little Rock has seen a net gain of 950 jobs from the previous year. Some of the biggest announcements of the past year include: Polymarin Composites – 630 jobs; Dassault Falcon Jet – 319 jobs; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation – 150 jobs; Wind and Water Technology – 200 jobs; Southwest Power Pool – 124 jobs; Sage V Foods – 60 jobs; Cameron Valves – 50 jobs. Thanks to our economic development successes, Little Rock has been recognized nationally. Earlier this year, Southern Business and Development magazine placed Little Rock at the top of its list of Southern cities that are having banner years in economic development. The magazine proclaimed, “If Little Rock were a stock, I’d buy shares in it.” Additionally, earlier this month, Site Selection magazine named Little Rock as one of four cities – along with Austin, TX; Baton Rouge, LA; and Oklahoma City, OK – that is “shining through a cloudy economy,” citing these four cities as some of the best examples of how to navigate through a recession. The magazine recognized Little Rock’s success in attracting businesses in the wind industry as one of the leading factors in our economic growth. In February, the front page of USA Today ballyhooed Little nd Rock’s stable economy and the Los Angeles Times proclaimed Little Rock “on a roll” in a story on March 22 .

While many cities across the country are suffering from falling housing markets, Little Rock has mostly avoided that calamitous situation. In January, Forbes magazine named Little Rock as one of the country’s 25 strongest housing markets. Earlier this year, U.S. home resales hit a 12-year low, while the median sales price of previously owned homes in the Little Rock metropolitan area rose 3%. Compare this to the National Association of Realtors announcement last week the national median home price had fallen 15.5% in February as compared to the same time a year ago. While other cities have encountered devastating foreclosure rates and other housing problems, Little Rock has mostly avoided the crisis as compared to other parts of the country. As the national economy has worsened, unemployment rates have risen in many communities across the country. Thanks to aggressive economic development efforts, Little Rock’s employment rate is 94.1%, according to the latest figures. Our unemployment rate of 5.9% is lower than the state-wide rate of 7.3% and is considerably lower than many other cities in the state, including Fort Smith (7.7%), Hot Springs (7.2%), Jonesboro (6.2%) and Pine Bluff (9.4%). Other cities in our neighboring states are experiencing unemployment rates much higher than our own, including Memphis (8.3%), Jackson, MS (7.1%), Nashville, TN (8.0%), Austin, TX (6.4%), Shreveport, LA (7.3%) and Birmingham, AL (7.4%). According to the latest Manpower Employment Outlook Survey released two weeks ago, the employment outlook for the Little Rock nd area is ranked among the top 10 in the nation. Area employers expect to hire at a healthy pace during the 2 quarter of 2009. 22% of area companies interviewed said they plan to hire more employees and another 62% expect to maintain their current staff levels. Little Rock has to date been weathering the economic storm quite nicely.

Sincerely,

Mark Stodola Mayor

Arkansas Cities Recognized as Among Best for Business Environment By Arkansas Business Staff - 3/31/2009 8:36:01 AM Three Arkansas cities are among the top 75 metropolitan areas for business as recognized by Forbes, including Fayetteville at No. 4. Forbes' annual list of the "Best Places for Businesses and Careers" also included Little Rock at No. 22 and Fort Smith at No. 72. The list recognizes the nation's best environments for business and careers. The Fayetteville metropolitan statistical area includes Springdale, Rogers and Bentonville and encompasses Washington, Benton and Madison counties in Arkansas and McDonald County, Missouri. The Little Rock MSA includes Conway and encompasses Pulaski, Lonoke, Saline, Grant, Perry and Faulkner counties. The Fort Smith MSA includes Sebastian, Crawford and Franklin counties in Arkansas and LeFlore and Sequoyah counties in Oklahoma. Fayetteville rated 8th in income growth, 16th in projected job growth and 11th in cost of doing business. It ranked 143rd in educational attainment (number of residents with fouryear college degrees and high school diplomas). The median household income of the area is $52,700. Its unemployment rate is 3.6 percent. The U.S. Census Bureau-estimated 2007 population of the Fayetteville MSA is 442,000. The Little Rock MSA has an estimated 2007 population of 674,000. It ranks 7th in income growth, 29th in projected job growth, and 31st in cost of doing business. Little Rock's unemployment rate is 4.2 percent, it ranks 104th in educational attainment, and its median household income is $55,300. The Fort Smith MSA has an estimated population of 293,000. It ranked 8th in cost of living, 9th in cost of doing business, 14th in income growth, 70th in projected job growth and 198th in educational attainment. The median household income is $43,800 and the unemployment rate is 4.7 percent. Raleigh, N.C. topped the list, followed by Fort Collins, Col. and Durham, N.C. Lincoln, Neb. rounded out the top 5.

Copyright © 2009, Arkansas Business Limited Partnership. All Rights Reserved.

Downtown’s Charitable Side A

lthough it’s best known as the state’s seat of government, the financial center, and the home of a growing population who refer to themselves as Arkansas’s first true urbanites, Downtown Little Rock also has a gentler, more caring face. Following the lead of former President Bill Clinton, who insisted that the $165 million William J. Clinton Presidential Center and his nonprofit foundation be headquartered Downtown, other nonprofit organizations such as Heifer International, the Charles A. Frueauff Foundation and Winrock International have made their homes Downtown, and have found a warm welcome there. Now, those nonprofit giants are awaiting new neighbors, including Lions World Services for the Blind and CareLink. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world visit the Clinton Library each year, and its next-door neighbor, Heifer International, hopes to draw a quarter-million more when its Global Village educational center is complete. For now, Heifer’s Public Information Director Ray White said, two or three groups a day visit the organization’s $17.5 million headquarters, many of them there to see the building’s award-winning “green” design. The building earned an Honor Award from the American Institute of Architects’ Gulf States region in 2007, as well as a platinum LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating from the U.S. Green Building Council. It has also been named one of the National American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment’s (COTE) Top Ten Green Projects of 2007; received the Chicago Institute of Architects American Architecture Award in 2007; was named the American Institute of Steel Construction (AICS) Awards Program’s National Winner; and won a regional award from the Environmental Protection Agency for Brownfield redevlopment. Heifer additionally received five other state and regional awards for the building. But the nonprofit isn’t content to rest on its laurels. It recently began construction on the second phase of its Downtown complex, the

16 d o w n t o w n

l i t t l e r o c k pa r t n e r s h i p • 2 0 0 8

$10 million Murphy Keller Education Center, scheduled for completion in spring 2009. It will house interactive exhibits on Heifer’s efforts to combat hunger around the world, and will include meeting space for use by local and national hunger and development organizations. Like Heifer’s headquarters, the education center will be built using “green” construction principles. Plans even call for a roof topped off with a layer of grass, which will help keep the building cool. The third phase of Heifer’s building plans is the Global Village complex, which will showcase the realities of life in eight third-world countries as well as North America. Construction will begin once the educational center is complete. The organization’s officials have said they hope to draw about 250,000 people each year to learn about global poverty and how Heifer works to eradicate it. The Frueauff Foundation is the first of the new nonprofits — the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, which awards money to Arkansas nonprofits, has been on Eighth Street since 1976 — to relocate from West Little Rock to Downtown. The foundation, which awards grants to other nonprofits in the education, health and social services sectors, came to Little Rock in 1996. Its new office in the Capital Commerce Building on South Commerce Street opened last year. The Frueauff Foundation purchased close to 4,300 square feet on the building’s ground floor, formerly occupied by Arvest Bank. Its administrative offices occupy some of the space, but a large portion of it is set aside for a “nonprofit incubator,”providing low-cost space and technical support to smaller, growing charitable organizations. “We wanted to be Downtown,” said Anna Kay F. Williams, the foundation’s vice president of programs and communications.“We knew we wanted to be

in that area supporting the nonprofit growth. That was definitely our focus. “We are thinking that nonprofits will come in for probably a minimum of two years, potentially up to four, to have office space,” Williams said. Already, the Frueauff Foundation has made room for four other nonprofits. The River Market District location should make it easier for budding nonprofits to get

Heifer International World Headquarters

noticed, Williams said. Convenience was a factor when Lions World Services for the Blind decided to build its new facilities in Downtown’s growing nonprofit corridor. The nonprofit worked for two years to acquire all the Downtown property it needed, at a total cost of between $3 million and $4 million. Now, the 62-year-old agency, currently

operating out of a small complex on Fair Park Boulevard, is in the very earlier stages of what its president and CEO, Romona Sangalli, called the “Campus Campaign.” The goal is to build an approximately $25 million, 167,000-square-foot campus on Sixth Street, between Collins and College streets. It’s the highest point in the area just east of I-30, and the nonprofit organization hopes to benefit from the number of people who will see the headquarters as they drive by. Lions provides a range of services to the visually impaired from around the world, including work training, household management classes, specialized education and counseling. The organization has the resources to fly clients in from other countries, but currently has a waiting list because it doesn’t have enough room to accommodate everyone who needs its services. At its current location, Sangalli said, the organization can house 70. After the first of three phases of the new campus is complete, that number will grow to 100. “We will be able to offer more services,” Sangalli said. The new complex will have more dormitory rooms, additional classroom and office space, a 300-seat

auditorium and room for outdoor activities. Special attention will be given to architectural features designed for the benefit of the vision-impaired. Sangalli said that the Downtown area offers Lions’ clients convenience: It’s close to the airport and I-30, as well as Downtown activities and entertainment. Just across the street from Heifer’s complex sits a warehouse at the corner of Shall Street and World Avenue that will eventually be replaced with the new headquarters of CareLink, an Arkansas agency providing a host of services for senior citizens. CareLink bought the property in 2004 for $2 million, and details are still developing, but the new building will probably be about 55,000 square feet, said Jeanie Frauenthal, CareLink’s communications officer. It will consolidate the nonprofit’s operations from its current headquarters on Riverfront Drive in North Little Rock and 10 other spaces. Relocating to a larger, centralized space will allow CareLink to expand both the size and scope of its services, including its daycare for the elderly, caregiver support and meals-onwheels programs. Agency officials hope to be able to serve an additional 10,000 people once the new building is complete and plan to add another 100 employees to the 650 it already has. It plans to update its daycare program, add a fitness center and meeting space in the new headquarters. Formed in 1979, CareLink’s mission“is to help people over 50 stay active and independent,” Frauenthal said. With all the nonprofit activity, Downtown Little Rock is making a name for itself as a center for global nonprofit organizations. “We think of nonprofits as not making money, but nonprofits make money,” said Sharon Priest, executive director of the Downtown Little Rock Partnership. “They need lawyers and many other services.” Not many Downtowns can claim to be home to the softer side of the corporate world, but, Priest said, it’s ideal for Little Rock. “It’s a good fit here,” she said. “People in Arkansas, in Little Rock, are very giving.” w w w . d o w n t o w n l r. c o m

17

Greening Our Downtown “The most responsible way to buy clothes is to shop at Goodwill. And the most responsible way to build is to recycle an old building.” Yvon Chouinard, founder of outdoor clothing manufacturer Patagonia

“The greenest building is the one already built.” Carl Elefante, architect

Much has been written about green buildings. In fact, Downtown Little Rock has two platinum rated LEEDS certified buildings. The challenge now is to re-use the existing vacant buildings in an environmentally responsible way. Follows are some statistics that appeared in an article in Preservation magazine*, the magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Buildings constructed annually Buildings demolished annually Waste generated annually from construction & demolition Portion of construction waste recycled or reused Percentage of landfill waste resulting from construction and demolition

1,770,000 290,000 136 million tons 20-30% 10-30%

If we were to adapt an historic building for use, we would save dollars and extend the life of our landfills. We would save dollars and the cost of fuel used to demolish buildings, as well as the additional cost of energy used to manufacture brick, sheet metal and other materials needed to replace the demolished buildings. The property values of these formerly vacant buildings would increase as would the property taxes that fund roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, police and firefighters’ pension funds. The property owners would earn more money and pay higher taxes. The support services for the people employed in these buildings would result in more employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. The old Gazette Building at Louisiana and Third has been readapted for use as a school. The employment multiplier for this building with an estimated 60 jobs is 1.29. This would be the equivalent to a small business. All these things together are a piece of the puzzle that will not solve the problems of irreplaceable energy and resources but can certainly be a part of the solution. *Preservation, “The Green Issue” January/February 2008

Green Downtown Office Markets: A Future Reality Summer 2007

Green Downtown Office Markets: A Future Reality

Green Building Reality: Industry Perception vs. Acceptance

The need for environmental change in U.S. production practices is no longer disputable. From automobiles to commercial construction, it has become clear that environmentally friendly—or green—design, materials and production methods are here to stay. It has become a prevalent issue in many businesses, yet the commercial real estate industry has been slow to accept and adopt green construction practices. One of the leading hurdles is the unfamiliar: definable short-term office construction costs compared to long-term benefits and advantages. Research on green building presently constitutes an estimated 0.2% of all federally funded research, an average of $193 million per year. This is roughly equivalent to only 0.02% of the estimated $1 trillion value of annual U.S. building construction, despite the fact that the building construction industry represents 9% of the U.S. GDP. At the same time, the construction industry reinvests only 0.6% of sales back into research—significantly less than the average for other U.S. industries and private sector construction research investments in other countries.1 The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) suggests that without significant increases and improvements in green building practices, the negative impact of the built environment on human and environmental health is likely to increase dramatically in future decades. Building operation accounts for 38% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 71% of electricity use and 40% of total energy use.1 This number increases to an estimated 48% when the energy required to make building materials and construct buildings is included.2 Buildings consume 12% of the country’s water3 and rapidly increasing quantities of land.4 Waste from demolition, construction and remodeling amounts to 136 million tons of landfill additions annually, making up more than 35% of all non-industrial waste (1996).5 Construction and remodeling of buildings account for 3 billion tons, or 40%, of raw material use globally each year.6 They also cause negative impacts on human health; up to 30% of new and remodeled buildings may experience acute indoor air quality problems.7

Drivers of green building

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Research & Analytics, 2006

Increasing Energy Costs

75%

Government Regulations/Tax Incentives

40%

Global Influences

26%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Level of agreement (%)

 | CB Richard Ellis

60

70

80

Summer 2007 Title: Subtitle

Despite these realities, the U.S. commercial real estate industry has witnessed only a small amount of completed green office construction, primarily in institutional and corporate headquarters buildings. As of 2007, there are more than 6,000 LEED registered or certified buildings throughout the country. Currently, there are three LEED-certified towers in Manhattan: 7 World Trade Center, One Bryant Park and Eleven Times Square. As of July 2007, the USGBC had over 896 million square feet of new commercial construction registered with its LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System™. Although this represents a small percentage of the overall U.S. building stock, it is a massive increase from just three years ago. LEED – New Construction, Registered Square Feet LEED – New Construction, Certified Square Feet

LEED New Construction Numbers*

LEED-NC: LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations (new commercial construction, institutional, and high rise residential).

1000 900

Square Feet, in Millions

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

*As of July 2007; all numbers are cumulative

A lack of clear data on development, construction costs and the time needed to recoup costs are the most obvious obstacles in the industry’s slow acceptance of green construction, making education the most important tool in promoting the green construction initiative. Understanding the LEED rating system used to evaluate a green building is critical to increasing acceptance for the implementation of green construction. With office developers like Hines and Silverstein currently constructing and leasing LEED-rated towers, a greater industry awareness of the overall cost and benefits is expected to increase. Department of Energy. 2006 DOE Buildings Energy Data Book. Mazria, Ed. Architecture 2030 Challenge. www.architecture2030.org/building_sector/index.html 18 December 2006. 3 Estimated Water Use in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey. water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/ 18 December 2006. 4 Estimated Water Use in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey. water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/ 18 December 2006. 5 Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures. Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2003. www.epa.gov/garbage/pubs/msw2001.pdf 18 December 2006. 6 Lenssen and Roodman, 1995, “Worldwatch Paper 124: A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming Construction,” Worldwatch Institute. 7 Indoor Air Facts No. 4 (revised): Sick Building Syndrome (SBS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1 2

CB Richard Ellis | 

Green Downtown Office Markets: A Future Reality

The LEED Rating System

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings. LEED promotes a wholebuilding approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. The LEED Rating System provides the building industry with consistent and credible benchmarking on what constitutes a green building. The rating system is developed and continuously refined via an open, member consensus-based process that has made LEED the green building standard-of-choice for federal agencies and state and local governments nationwide. LEED rating systems are available for all building types including new construction, core and shell development, existing building operation and maintenance, commercial interiors, homes and even residential development. The LEED for commercial interiors rating system is designed to guide and distinguish high-performance interiors for commercial and institutional projects. LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project meets the highest performance standards. LEED-certified buildings have lower operating costs and may qualify for tax rebates, zoning allowances and other incentives. If a LEED-certified building costs less to operate and thus has increased longterm value, why aren’t all new buildings constructed under LEED guidelines? The answer may lie in perceived additional building costs. Source: U.S. Green Building Council

Green Benefits vs. Costs: Marble Floors or Air Quality?

The benefits of developing and owning a green building are undeniable. Currently, more than 65 local governments have made a commitment to LEED standards in building construction, with some reducing the entitlement process by as much as one year and offering advantageous tax credits. Annual energy costs—a major office building expense—are reduced by as much as 30%, perhaps more with forthcoming technology. Green building tenant attraction and retention continues to grow stronger, as major tenants increasingly favor healthier air quality over luxury amenities in premium properties, making a green building a better long-term value than an “SUV property.”

 | CB Richard Ellis

Summer 2007 Title: Subtitle

“Tenants are no longer looking at base-line rental costs. Instead, they are considering how their real estate impacts their business. Tenants will pay higher rents if the building’s performance reduces absenteeism and turnover, and increases productivity, as these benefits are far greater to a business than lowerpriced rents. Committing to occupy a green building is a smart business decision,” said Sally Wilson, CB Richard Ellis’ Global Director of Environmental Strategy. Given these tenant advantages, all developers should consider developing green office buildings. Why is there a delay in accepting a better performing, more efficient product?

Obstacles to green building

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Research & Analytics, 2006

Too Multi-Disciplinary

41%

Not Convinced of Increased ROI

37%

Lack of Understanding Benefits

26%

Lack of Service Providers

20%

Too Difficult

17%

Greenwashing

16%

Lack of Shareholder Support

10%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Level of agreement (%)

Many developers build to sell, meaning they construct or revamp an office building, lease space to tenants, and anticipate selling the asset within a three- to five-year time frame to repay their debt and secure a profit. The cost to achieve that goal directly relates to time. How quickly the process is completed often affects the profit generated upon sale of the building. The perceived increased cost of green construction spurs fears for developers who are already concerned about the cost of short-term debt and conventional building materials. However, studies have shown that LEED-certified buildings constructed at the Certified or Silver level have been built without an increase in preliminary costs. Gold-and Platinum-level projects are seeing an increase of 1-5%. Two percent is the average increased additional first cost. But, during the life cycle of the building, the costs are typically offset within one to two years by operational savings resulting from decreased energy and water use. A 2003 report completed for the California Sustainable Building Task Force surveyed 33 LEED buildings and concluded that eight Certified buildings had an average cost premium of

CB Richard Ellis | 

Green Downtown Office Markets: A Future Reality

less than 1%. Eighteen Silver-level buildings averaged a 2.1% cost premium. The six Gold-level buildings had an average premium of 1.8%, and the one Platinum-level building recorded 6.5%. The average reported cost premium for all 33 buildings was less than 2%. While the size of the data is fairly small, analysis provides meaningful insight into the cost premium for green buildings.8 Peter Morris, a principal with Davis Langdon, an international construction cost analysis firm, says the team approach is critical for green development. “All parties have to be involved in the process—from the financing, to the architect and contractor—for a green building to perform from inception to a fully operating building. When that happens and success is realized, green office buildings will become commonplace.” 8

Government Legislation: Green Building Codes and Incentives

Greg Kats, The Cost and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings

Perhaps a harbinger for the future is a change in both the state and local governments’ approach to newly constructed buildings. On the federal level, effective legislation has been slow to address the green building issue. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides an Energy Efficient Commercial Building Tax Deduction, which serves as an important incentive for commercial developers to construct energy-efficient buildings. Recently, Congress has been considering a possible increase of this deduction, as well as an important extension. While the federal government is encouraging the private sector to follow its lead, and further legislative proposals are forthcoming, perhaps the most significant movement has been the creation of new building codes and incentives on the state and local levels. Code changes and building standards are nothing new for the commercial real estate industry. Indeed, in the early 1990s, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed into law and owners were forced to adhere to new building codes in every newly constructed building. Existing buildings had to be retrofitted for improved access, as new buildings codes were strictly enforced. California and New York building codes are among the national leaders in sustainable development. Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order #S20-04 on December 14, 2004, requiring the design, construction and operation of all new and renovated state-owned facilities to be LEED Silver-certified. The state is pursuing LEED Silver-certification for new construction projects, and LEED certification for existing buildings and facilities. Governor Pataki issued Executive Order #111 in June 2001, encouraging but not requiring state projects to incorporate LEED criteria and seek LEED

 | CB Richard Ellis

Summer 2007 Title: Subtitle

certification where possible. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) offers incentives and technical assistance to help state agencies achieve the Executive Order objective. NYSERDA also offers incentives to owners and design teams of privately owned and operated buildings in the state. They are awarded incentives for energy efficiency measures and buildings that achieve a LEED rating with at least two points in Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1, Optimizing Energy Performance. The NYSERDA program funds up to $800,000 per building in Upstate New York and up to $1.5 million per project in New York City. NYSERDA will also buy down the interest rate on loans (4% below market rate) for energy efficiency measures and measures that assist in attaining a LEED credit. A low-interest loan may cover up to $1.5 million in energy and green measures. With the state governments of major U.S. population centers leading the way on green building codes, other first- and second-tier cities are following suit. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon have the most extensive, documented experience with green building and LEED certification per capita than other states. Therefore, despite the general deficiency of published data on the cost of green office construction, there is substantial recent evidence from these and other entities to indicate that building green is less expensive than perceived by the commercial real estate industry.

Summary

Despite an overall hesitance to readily adopt green building practices by the commercial real estate industry, it is clear that change is not only needed but may soon be mandatory. According to a Brookings Institute study, by 2030, 50% of U.S. building stock will have been built after the year 2000. New building stock will represent 127 billion additional square feet, with the majority of growth in the West and South. While the financial aspects of green development will undoubtedly remain a debatable concern in the short term, it is indisputable that the methods we use to construct our future facilities will be critical to the sustainability and long-term endurance of our resources. Sources: U.S. Green Building Council, McGraw Hill Construction, Brookings Institute, Davis Langdon, Greg Kats.

CB Richard Ellis | 

Sally R. Wilson, AIA, LEED AP Global Director of Environmental Strategy T 202.585.5771 [email protected] Steven Dunn Chief of Global Research, Publications CBRE Research T 949.725.8604 [email protected] www.cbre.com/environment

© 2007, CB Richard Ellis, Inc. We obtained the information above from sources we believe to be reliable. However, we have not verified its accuracy and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is submitted subject to the possibility of errors, omissions, change of price, rental or other conditions, prior sale, lease or financing, or withdrawal without notice. We include projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates for example only, and they may not represent current or future performance of the property. You and your tax and legal advisors should conduct your own investigation of the property and transaction.

3 Statistics

Business & Industry Strong, Diverse Economy Powers Region Arkansas Right to Work Law In 1944, the people of Arkansas amended the state Constitution to ensure that all people in Arkansas would have the right to work, regardless of their affiliation or non-affiliation with any type of labor organization. Another important law governs peaceful labor relations. Act 193 provides that any violence that takes place on any picket line or in conjunction with a labor dispute becomes a felony and not a misdemeanor, and the person committing the act of violence is liable for confinement in the state penitentiary for not less than one year. Labor Force The Arkansas Department of Workforce Services reports the following average labor pool estimates as of March 2006: March 2006 Labor Pool – Central Arkansas Counties

County Little Rock/ North Little Rock MSA Conway Faulkner Garland

Total Labor Force

Total Employment

Non-Farm Payroll Jobs

Goods Producing

Manufacturing

Service Providing

349,200

333,750

339,000

43,400

25,300

295,600

9,975 53,700 43,225

9,500 51,475 41,100

6,700 ** 37,700

1,600 ** 5,800

NA* ** 3,300

5,100 ** 31,900

9,075 15,600 38,500

8,675 14,775 35,500

** 8,050 40,200

** 2,175 8,700

31,350 5,225 200,875 48,975 33,725

30,100 4,975 191,625 46,900 31,825

** ** ** ** 25,275

** ** ** ** 5,000

Hot Springs MSA Grant Hot Spring Jefferson

** NA* 6,800

** 5,875 31,500

Pine Bluff MSA Lonoke Perry Pulaski Saline White

** ** ** ** NA*

*County manufacturing data is included in the goods producing number at a county level. It is calculated for the larger MSAs. **Pulaski, Faulkner, Lonoke, Perry, Grant & Saline counties are a combined labor area for r eporting purposes – see Little Rock/North Little Rock MSA for the combined counties’ totals. Leading Non-Manufacturing Employers in Pulaski County (1,000 employees and up Employer State of Arkansas Federal Government University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Pulaski County Public School Districts (3) Baptist Health Little Rock Air Force Base Acxiom St. Vincent Health System Entergy Arkansas Central Arkansas Veterans HealthCare System Alltel Corporation Arkansas Children’s Hospital Dillard's Inc. Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield University of Arkansas at Little Rock AT&T Fidelity Information Services Union Pacific Railroad

Product/Service Government Government Education/Medical Services Education Medical Services Government Data Processing Medical Services Utility (Electric) Medical Services Telecommunications Medical Services Department Store Headquarters Insurance Education Utility (Telephone) Data Processing Transportation

Employees 23,377 12,000 8,500 8,434 7,000 4,500 4,388 3,500 2,862 2,785 2,734 2,503 2,400 2,163 2,150 1,600 1,300 1,227

*Information provided by “Economic Development.” Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce. (Online) 2005. http://www.littlerockchamber.com/industry.htm (visited January 21, 2009).

** ** ** ** 20,275

Leading Manufacturing Employers in Pulaski County Firm

Product

3-M Co. A.G.L. Corp. AFCO Steel Inc. Affiliated Foods Southwest Ameron-Protective Coatings Group Arkansas Democrat-Gazette BEI Precision Systems & Space Division Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Coleman Dairy Inc. Conestoga Wood Specialties Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. Deluxe Media Services Inc. Democrat Printing & Lithographing Co. Franklin Pump Systems George Fischer Sloane Inc. Interstate Highway Sign Co. Iowa Paint JM Products Inc. Kimberly-Clark Corp. L'Oreal USA Products Leisure Arts Inc. Lomanco Inc. Molex Inc. Odom's Tennessee Pride Sausage Inc. Orbit Valve Co. Pepsi-Cola of Little Rock Pirelli Tire LLC Prospect Steel Co. Quality PFG Raytheon Corporate Jets Ryerson-Tull AFCO Metals Scheuck Steel Co. Smith Fibercast Smurfit-Stone Container (Jacksonville) Smurfit-Stone Container (Little Rock) SYSCO Food Service of Arkansas Timex Corp. Tyson Foods Unilever Foods Vestcom Retail Solutions Group, Inc. WELSCO Inc. Weyerhaeuser Wheatland Tube-Omega Division

Roofing Granules Pipe, Tunneling & General Construction Laser, Agri Lasers Structural Steel & Metal Grocers High Solids Baking Enamels, etc. Daily & Sunday Newspapers Precision Positioning Electronics Bottled Soft Drinks Milk, Dairy Products Moldings, Hardwood Cabinets Falcon Aircraft Models 900C, 50EX, 2000 & 900EX Video Tape Duplication Commercial Printing Water Pumps & Related Equipment Plastic Pipe & Fittings Traffic, Warning & Regulatory Signs Paints Hair Care Products Baby wipes Cosmetics Needlecraft Instruction Leaflets, Needlecraft Kits Aluminum Shutters, Vents Wire Connectors Pork, Pork Products Steel Valves Bottled, Canned, Pre-Mix & Post-Mix Soft Drinks Rubber Inner tubes, Curing Bladders Custom structural metal fabrication Meat & Poultry Holiday Baskets Aircraft Avionics, Interior Design and Installation Metals Distribution Custom structural metal fabrication Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Pipe Corrugated Board, Boxes Corrugated Board, Boxes Food & Food Products Watches Frozen Prepared Chicken & Corn Dogs Peanut Butter Pressure sensitive labels, microfilm, microfiche Oxygen, Industrial Gases Corrugated Boxes, Shipping Containers Steel Tubing & Electrical Conduit

NAICS Code 423330 335999 332312 422490 325510 511110 333314 312111 311411, 321911 336411 334613 323114, 333911 326122 339950 325510 325620, 325620, 325611 511199 332322 335931 311611 332912 312111, 326291, 332312, 311999 541710 332312 332312, 326122 322211, 322211, 424420 334518 311615 311911 322222 333992, 321211, 331210

311511, 311514

323117, 511199

322291 322291

312112 314911 332313, 332999

332313, 332999 322224 322224

325120 321219, 321912

Leading Non-Government Employers in Pulaski County (700 Employees and Up) Employer University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Baptist Health Acxiom St. Vincent Health System Entergy Arkansas ALLTEL Corp. Arkansas Children's Hospital Dillard's Inc. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. AT&T Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Union Pacific Railroad L'Oreal USA Products Fidelity Information Services Molex Deluxe Media Services Affiliated Foods Nuvell Windstream Communications Cingular Wireless

Product Medical Services Medical Services Data Processing Medical Services Utility (Electric) Telecommunications Medical Services Department Store Insurance Falcon Aircraft Models Utility (Telephone) Daily & Sunday Newspaper Transportation (Railroad) Cosmetics Data Processing Wire Connectors Video Duplication Grocers Financial Services Utility (Telephone) Customer Service

Employees 8,500 7,571 4,388 3,500 2,881 2,734 2,503 2,400 2,163 1,600 1,600 1,235 1,227 1,100 1,000 1,000 950 925 800 750 700

*Information provided by “Economic Development.” Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce. (Online) 2005. http://www.littlerockchamber.com/industry.htm (visited January 21, 2009).

Employe es 182 135 292 945 180 1,235 161 300 185 205 1,600 1,050 220 110 140 130 120 115 500 850 300 175 750 350 281 130 250 400 500 600 140 400 190 240 134 349 500 248 140 125 105 172 200

Current Little Rock CBD Rent Details Asking Rent by Age Year Built

Asking Rent Distribution

Rent

Before 1970 1970-1 979

$13.27 $15.73

1980-1 989

$16.56

1990-1999

n/a

After 1999

$19.50

All

$14.79

Asking Rent Growth Rate Distribution

Low

25%

Mean

Median

75%

High

Low

25%

Mean

Median

75%

High

$ 9.78

$13.29

$14.79

$15.60

$16.58

$17.55

- 0.1%

- 0.1%

1.0%

0.8%

1.0%

3.6%

Rent Growth Comparisons Asking Rent Growth Quarterly 3Q08

2Q08

YTD Avg

1 Year

3 Year

5 Year

5 Yr Forecast

1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6%

- 1.1% - 0.3% 1.7% 1.0%

0.2% 0.5% 1.6% 1.1%

3.3% 1.5% 8.6% 9.6%

1.9% 1.9% 5.4% 6.4%

0.9% 1.1% 2.0% 2.9%

1.7% 1.7% 2.5% 2.2%

09/30/08

06/30/08

09/30/08

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/12

Total Subs

3Q08

2Q08

YTD

1 Year

3 Year

5 Year

5 Yr Forecast

4 63 617

3 20 153

4 63 579

4 55 436

2 44 359

2 54 436

2 42 426

3 46 341

CBD Little Rock Southwest United States Average over period ending:

Submarket Rank Compared to:

Little Rock Southwest United States

Annualized

Submarket Ranks

Period ending 12/31/12

Asking Rent Growth Rate Trends and Forecast

%

8.0 6.0

CBD

4.0

Little Rock

2.0

Southwest

0.0

US

-2.0 -4.0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Data information provided by Reis, Inc. © 2008

Current Submarket Vacancy Details Vacancy Rate By Age

Vacancy Rate Distribution

Year Built Before 1970

Vac Rate 27.5%

1970-1979

6.9%

1980-1989

8.8%

1990-1999

n/a

After 1999

n/a

All

Low

25%

Mean

Median

75%

High

0.0%

4.2%

16.0%

7.4%

22.4%

93.9%

11

6

16.0% As of 09/30/08

4 3 2 1

1 0

Under 5.1% 10.1% 15.1% 20.1% 25.1% 30.1% 35.1% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Over

As of 09/30/08

Vacancy Rate Comparisons Vacancy Rates

Quarterly 2Q08

YTD Avg

1 Year

3 Year

5 Year

5 Yr Forecast

16.0% 10.9% 16.7% 13.7%

15.1% 10.6% 16.3% 13.1%

14.2% 10.4% 16.3% 13.2%

12.0% 10.8% 16.2% 13.0%

13.0% 11.9% 18.1% 14.2%

12.4% 11.9% 19.0% 15.0%

15.1% 11.5% 17.8% 15.1%

09/30/08

06/30/08

09/30/08

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/12

Total Subs

3Q08

2Q08

YTD

1 Year

3 Year

5 Year

5 Yr Forecast

4 63 617

4 33 387

4 31 370

4 28 327

3 17 252

3 16 268

2 6 197

4 28 286

Average over period ending:

Submarket Rank Compared to:

Little Rock Southwest United States

Annualized

3Q08

Submarket Ranks

Period ending 12/31/12

Vacancy Rate Trends and Forecast

%

20.0 CBD

18.0

Little Rock

16.0

Southwest

14.0

US

12.0 10.0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Data information provided by Reis, Inc. ©2008

CBD Inventory Detail Inventory By Building Age

Office Stock Traits

Percent

Year Built

Before 1970

36.0%

1970-1979

19.0%

1980-1989

44.0%

1990-1999

0.0%

After 1999

1.0%

All

Submarket Mean Median 1956 1974 128,438 50,000 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.9 2.9

Low 1900 12,000 0 0.2 2.6

Year Built Size (Sq. ft.) Distance to Highway (miles) Distance to CBD (miles) Distance to Landmark (miles)

High 1986 600,000 0.3 0.6 3.1

As of 09/30/08 Landmark =Adams Field

100.0% As of 09/30/08

Current Inventory Level Properties 28 18.0%

CBD Share of Metro

Square Feet 4,070,000 40.0% As of 09/30/08

Average Submarket Lease Terms CRD %

Free Rent Expenses $ (mos) (Commercial)

- 5.9%

2.5

Lease Term (yrs)

$ 6.30

Leasing Commission %

Tenant Improvements $

3.7%

4.0

$ 8.78

Inventory Growth Comparison Inventory Growth Rates Quarterly CBD Little Rock Southwest United States Average over period ending:

CBD Rank Compared to:

Total Subs

4 Little Rock Southwest United States

Annualized

3Q08

2Q08

YTD Avg

1 Year

3 Year

5 Year

5 Yr Forecast

- 0.3% - 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%

0.0% - 0.8% 0.4% 0.2%

- 0.1% - 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

- 4.1% - 1.9% 0.9% 0.6%

- 2.7% - 1.0% 0.2% 0.2%

- 1.6% - 0.7% 0.3% 0.4%

0.1% 0.5% 1.4% 1.1%

09/30/08

06/30/08

09/30/08

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/12

Submarket Ranks 3Q08

2Q08

YTD

1 Year

3 Year

5 Year

5 Yr Forecast

4

1

2

4

4

4

3

63

58

36

52

58

60

59

47

617

531

307

475

580

568

558

491

Data information provided by Reis, Inc. ©2008

Construction/Absorption Change CBD/Little Rock Construction and Absorption Quarterly 3Q08 Sq Ft Built

Con/Abs Rati

0 0

-47,000 -48,000

0.0 0.0

09/30/08

09/30/08

CBD Little Rock Average over period ending:

2Q08

Sq Ft Absorbed

Con/Abs Rati

0 0

-152,000 -180,000

0.0 0.0

06/30/08

06/30/08

Sq Ft Built

09/30/08

YTD Avg

Sq Ft Absorbed

Sq Ft Absorbed

Con/Abs Ratio

0 0

-59,000 -71,000

0.0 0.0

09/30/08

09/30/08

09/30/08

Sq Ft Built

06/30/08

Annualized 1 Year History Sq Ft Built

Con/Abs Rati

0 0

-151,000 48,000

12/31/07

12/31/07

CBD Little Rock Average over period ending:

3 Year History

Sq Ft Absorbed

5 Year History

Sq Ft Built

Sq Ft Absorbed

Con/Abs Rati

Sq Ft Built

Sq Ft Absorbed

Con/Abs Ratio

0.0 0.0

0 48,000

-88,000 18,000

0.0 2.6

4,000 35,000

-57,000 -17,000

-0.1 -2.1

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

12/31/07

Annualized 5 Year Forecast Sq Ft Built

Sq Ft Absorbed

Con/Abs Ratio

CBD Little Rock

7,000 75,000

-4,000 27,000

-1.5 2.8

Average over period ending:

12/31/12

12/31/12

12/31/12

Period ending 12/31/12

Construction/Absorption and Vacancy 100,000 15 0 10 -100,000 5 -200,000 0 2003

2004

2005

2006 Vacancy Rate

2007

2008 Construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

Absorption

Data information provided by Reis, Inc. ©2008

CBD Comparison Data 2007-2008 Year

Qtr

Inventory SF/Units

Completions

G r o w t h %

InventoryVacancy Vacant Stock

Vacancy Change(%)

Rate

Occupied Stock

Net Absorption

Asking Rent Ask Rent % Chg

2007

1

4,159,000

0

-2.3%

395,000

9.5%

-2.5%

3,764,000

16,000

$14.61

2.5%

2007

2

4,083,000

0

- 1.8%

416,000

10.2%

0.7%

3,667,000

-97,000

$14.65

0.3%

2007

3

4,083,000

0

0.0%

437,000

10.7%

0.5%

3,646,000

-21,000

$14.75

0.7%

2007

4

4,083,000

0

0.0%

486,000

11.9%

1.2%

3,597,000

-49,000

$14.72

-0.2%

2007

Y

4,083,000

0

-4.1%

486,000

11.9%

-0.1%

3,597,000

-151,000

$14.72

3.3%

2008

1

4,083,000

0

0.0%

465,000

11.4%

- 0.5%

3,618,000

21,000

$14.82

0.7%

2008

2

4,083,000

0

0.0%

617,000

15.1%

3.7%

3,466,000

-152,000

$14.65

- 1.1%

2008

3

4,070,000

0

- 0.3%

651,000

16.0%

0.9%

3,419,000

-47,000

$14.79

1.0%

2008

Y

4,070,000

0

- 0.3%

685,000

16.8%

4.9%

3,385,000

-212,000

$14.79

0.5%

Year

Qtr

Effective Rent

Eff Rent % Cons/Abs Chg

Abs/Occ Stock%

2007

1

$12.33

3.9%

0.0

0.4%

2007

2

$12.22

- 0.9%

0.0

- 2.6%

2007

3

$12.17

- 0.4%

0.0

- 0.6%

2007

4

$12.19

0.2%

0.0

- 1.4% -4.2%

2007

Y

$12.19

2.7%

0.0

2008

1

$12.39

1.6%

0.0

0.6%

2008

2

$12.03

-2.9%

0.0

-4.4%

2008

3

$11.94

- 0.7%

0.0

- 1.4%

2008

Y

$12.02

- 1.4%

0.0

- 6.3%

CBD Asking Rent Rate Data

Asking Rent Distribution

Asking Rent Growth Rate Distribution

6 5

12 $10.76-11.72 $11.73-12.69

4

$12.70-13.66

3

$13.67-14.63

2 1 0

Under -0.1%

Under $10.75

$14.64-15.60 $15.61-16.57 $16.58 +

Number of Properties

Number of Properties

7

10 8 6 4 2

0.0-0.4% 0.5-0.9% 1.0-1.4% 1.5-1.9% 2.0-2.4% 2.5-2.9% 3.0% +

0

Data information provided by Reis, Inc. ©2008

Market Data by Building Class - Class A Properties Year

Quarter

2007

1

Inventory (Sq Ft)

Completions

1,844,000

Vac %

0

5.3%

Vacant Stock

98,000

Occupied Stock 1,746,000

Net Abs

Asking Rent($)

37,000

$15.95

Rent Change 2.6%

Constr/ Abs 0.0

Abs/Occ Stock % 2.1

Gr Rev. Unit ($) $15.10

2007

2

1,844,000

0

4.7%

87,000

1,757,000

11,000

$16.25

1.9%

0.0

0.6

$15.48

2007

3

1,844,000

0

5.5%

101,000

1,743,000

-14,000

$16.41

1.0%

0.0

-0.8

$15.51

2007

4

1,844,000

0

6.1%

112,000

1,732,000

-11,000

$16.43

0.1%

0.0

-0.6

$15.43

2007

Y

1,844,000

0

6.1%

112,000

1,732,000

23,000

$16.43

5.7%

0.0

1.3

$15.43

2008

1

1,844,000

0

6.3%

116,000

1,728,000

-4,000

$16.63

1.2%

0.0

-0.2

$15.58

2008

2

1,844,000

0

10.1%

186,000

1,658,000

-70,000

$16.26

-2.2%

0.0

-4.2

$14.62

2008

3

1,844,000

0

9.9%

182,000

1,662,000

4,000

$16.32

0.4%

0.0

0.2

$14.71

Market Data by Building Class - Class B/C Properties Year

Quarter

Inventory (Sq Ft)

Completions

Vac %

Vacant Stock

Occupied Stock

Net Abs

Asking Rent($)

Rent Change

Constr/ Abs

Abs/Occ Stock %

Gr Rev. Unit ($)

2007

1

2,315,000

0

12.8%

297,000

2,018,000

-20,000

$13.54

2.1%

0.0

-1.0

$11.80

2007

2

2,239,000

0

14.7%

329,000

1,910,000

-108,000

$13.34

- 1.5%

0.0

-5.7

$11.38

2007

3

2,239,000

0

15.0%

336,000

1,903,000

-7,000

$13.38

0.3%

0.0

-0.4

$11.37

2007

4

2,239,000

0

16.7%

374,000

1,865,000

-38,000

$13.31

-0.5%

0.0

-2.0

$11.09

2007

Y

2,239,000

0

16.7%

374,000

1,865,000

-173,000

$13.31

0.4%

0.0

-9.3

$11.09

2008

1

2,239,000

0

15.6%

349,000

1,890,000

25,000

$13.33

0.2%

0.0

1.3

$11.25

2008

2

2,239,000

0

19.2%

431,000

1,808,000

-82,000

$13.32

-0.1%

0.0

-4.5

$10.76

2008

3

2,226,000

0

21.1%

469,000

1,757,000

-51,000

$13.52

1.5%

0.0

-2.9

$10.67

Data information provided by Reis, Inc. © 2008

Date: 01/15/09 Current Geography Selection: (3 Selected) 1,3,5 mile radii: 423 S MAIN ST, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 * Current Index Base: Entire US

Lat: 34.744917 Long: -92.270746 City: Little Rock Pop: 181,437 County: Pulaski County Pop: 369,569 Zip: 72201 Pop: 493

Executive Summary Report with Charts Population Demographics

The number of households in the study area in 1990 was 55,198 and changed to 52,786 in 2000, representing a change of -4.4%. The household count in 2008 was 50,708 and the household projection for 2013 is 50,236, a change of -0.9%. The population in the study area in 1990 was 133,529 and in 2000 it was 122,938, roughly a -7.9% change. The population in 2008 was 115,038 and the projection for 2013 is 112,114 representing a change of -2.5%.

Percent Change

Total Population Total Households

Population by Age

1990 Census

2000 Census

2008 Estimate

2013 Projection

1990 to 2000

2008 to 2013

133,529

122,938

115,038

112,114

-7.9%

-2.5%

55,198

52,786

50,708

50,236

-4.4%

-0.9%

In 1990, the median age of the total population in the study area was 33.6, and in 2000, it was 35.5. The median age in 2008 is 38.3 and it is predicted to change in five years to 39.7 years. In 2008, females represented 52.9% of the population with a median age of 40.4 and males represented 47.1% of the population with a median age of 36.0 years. In 2008, the most prominent age group in this geography is Age 45 to 54 years. The age group least represented in this geography is 15 to 19 years.

Age Groups

Percent Change 1990 Census

0 to 4 5 to 14

9,271 18,337

% 6.9% 13.7%

2000 Census 8,264 15,993

% 6.7% 13.0%

2008 Estimate 8,317 15,309

% 7.2% 13.3%

2013 Projection 6,992 15,372

%

1990 to 2000

2008 to 2013

6.2%

-10.9%

-15.9%

13.7%

-12.8%

0.4%

15 to 19

9,284

7.0%

8,551

7.0%

7,430

6.5%

7,619

6.8%

-7.9%

2.5%

20 to 24

9,765

7.3%

9,174

7.5%

7,581

6.6%

7,367

6.6%

-6.1%

-2.8%

25 to 34

23,135

17.3%

18,575

15.1%

14,061

12.2%

12,747

11.4%

-19.7%

-9.3%

35 to 44

19,144

14.3%

18,474

15.0%

15,170

13.2%

13,364

11.9%

-3.5%

-11.9%

45 to 54

12,014

9.0%

16,603

13.5%

16,025

13.9%

14,608

13.0%

38.2%

-8.8%

55 to 64

11,188

8.4%

9,993

8.1%

13,649

11.9%

14,555

13.0%

-10.7%

6.6%

65 to 74

11,744

8.8%

8,319

6.8%

8,899

7.7%

10,831

9.7%

-29.2%

21.7%

9,650

7.2%

8,992

7.3%

8,601

7.5%

8,663

7.7%

-6.8%

0.7%

75 +

Population by Race/Ethnicity

In 2008, the predominant race/ ethnicity category in this study area is Black. The race & ethnicity category least represented in this geography is American Indian, Alaska Native.

Race & Ethnicity

Percent Change 1990 Census

%

2000 Census

%

2008 Estimate

White

77,439

58.0%

62,466

50.8%

53,066

46.1%

Black

54,660

40.9%

56,351

45.8%

56,739

49.3%

%

2013 Projection

%

1990 to 2000

2008 to 2013

48,755

43.5%

-19.3%

-8.1%

57,472

51.3%

3.1%

1.3%

American Indian or Alaska Native

382

0.3%

408

0.3%

742

0.7%

940

0.8%

6.8%

26.6%

Asian or Pacific Islander

733

0.6%

1,085

0.9%

1,833

1.6%

2,246

2.0%

48.1%

22.5%

Other Race

324

0.2%

1,136

0.9%

1,122

1.0%

1,363

1.2%

250.6%

21.6%

1,493

1.2%

1,536

1.3%

1,338

1.2%

2,586

2.1%

4,111

3.6%

4,974

4.4%

165.7%

21.0%

95.6%

-9.2%

-3.4%

Two or More Races Hispanic Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino

973 132,558

Households by Income

0.7% 99.3%

120,352

97.9%

110,927

96.4%

107,140

-12.9%

In 2008 the predominant household income category in this study area is $0 - $15K, and the income group that is least represented in this geography is $150K +.

HH Income Categories

Percent Change 1990 Census

%

2000 Census

%

2008 Estimate

%

1990 to 2000

2008 to 2013

$0 - $15,000

19,295

35.0%

12,735

24.1%

9,445

18.6%

8,563

17.0%

-34.0%

-9.3%

$15,000 - $24,999

11,462

20.8%

8,758

16.6%

7,259

14.3%

6,212

12.4%

-23.6%

-14.4%

$25,000 - $34,999

8,639

15.7%

7,439

14.1%

6,474

12.8%

6,112

12.2%

-13.9%

-5.6%

$35,000 - $49,999

7,478

13.5%

8,642

16.4%

8,176

16.1%

7,581

15.1%

15.6%

-7.3%

$50,000 - $74,999

5,430

9.8%

$75,000 - $99,999

1,337

2.4%

8,056

15.3%

8,772

17.3%

9,179

18.3%

48.4%

4.6%

3,278

6.2%

4,307

8.5%

4,817

9.6%

145.1%

11.8%

$100,000 - $149,999

984

1.8%

2,232

4.2%

3,691

7.3%

4,451

8.9%

126.7%

20.6%

$150,000 +

588

1.1%

1,647

3.1%

2,585

5.1%

3,320

6.6%

180.2%

28.4%

%

2013 Projection

Average Hhld Income

$29,606

$44,750

$52,421

$57,096

51.2%

8.9%

Median Hhld Income

$21,899

$31,492

$38,900

$42,946

43.8%

10.4%

Per Capita Income

$12,425

$19,214

$24,483

$27,155

54.6%

10.9%

*Reports requiring summarization use only the largest Radius or Drive Time around each center point to calculate results.

Current year data is for the year 2008, 5 year projected data is for the year 2013. More About Our Data. Demographic data © 2008 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions. Traffic Count data © 2008 by DataMetrix. All rights reserved. © 2008. DDR is brought to you by SRC, LLC. SRC, DemographicsNow.com and the SRC and DemographicsNow.com logos are trademarks of SRC, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement | License Agreement

4 Properties

Regions Center - 400 W. Capitol Ave. Avail SF: 47,443 Total SF: 535,514 Subtype: Retail-Multi-Tenant Office-Multi-Tenant

Lyon Building - 401 W. Capitol Ave. Avail SF: 19,802 Total SF: 154,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant

Metropolitan Tower-425 W. Capitol Ave. Total Space Available: 35,680 624,500 Total SF: Subtype: Retail-Multi-Tenant Office-Multi-Tenant

Lease Info: Min SF: $15.50 Max SF: $16.50 Status: For Lease

Deann Voss Kim Battle Colliers International 501-372-6161

Lease Info: Min SF: $12.50 Max SF: $15.00 Status: For Lease

Gaines Bonner Phyllis Glaze Colliers International 501-372-6161

Lease Info: $15.50-18.00 SF Status: For Lease

Mike South Flake & Kelley Commercial 501-375-3200

One Union National Plaza - 124 W. Capitol Ave. Avail SF: 78,277 Lease Info: Min SF: $12.00 Total SF: 234,860 Status: For Lease Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant

John Martin Robert Tucker Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

Stephens Building: 111 Center Street Avail SF: 13,573 Total SF: 397,771 Subtype: Office-Warehouse

Lease Info: Min SF: $16.50 Max SF: $17.50 Status: For Lease

Diana Lacy Stephens Building Property Manager (501) 688-8400

Bank of America: 200 W. Capitol Ave Total Space Available: 86,258 Total SF: 315,372 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Lease Info: Min SF: $13.00 Status: For Lease

James Harkins Todd Hart Hart Lazenby Commercial (501) 519-5601 (501) 228-3200

323 Center Street- Tower Building Total Space Available:20,000 Building Size: 194,490 Subtype: Office-Multi Tenant

Lease Info: $12 SF Status: For Lease

Brenda McKown Rusty Arnold (501) 375-4621 Catlett Tower Partnership

219 W. Capitol Ave. Avail SF: 5,000 Total SF: 5,000 Subtype: Retail-Multi-Tenant Office-Multi-Tenant Retail-Restaurant Office-Condo

Sterling Building: 229 W. Capitol Ave Total SF: 36,000 Subtype: Retail-Multi-Tenant Office-Multi-Tenant Office-Warehouse Apartment Retail-Restaurant,

325 W Capitol Ave. Avail SF: 38,500 Total SF: 77,860 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant

Capitol Center - 303 W. Capital Ave. Avail SF: 6,612 Total SF: 45,973 Subtype: Retail-Multi-Tenant Office-Multi-Tenant

Lease Info: Min SF: $5.00 Status: For Sale $235,000 For Lease

Wes Lacewell John Martin Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

Sale Info: : $575,000, Lease Info: Min SF: $15.97 SF Status: For Sale, For Lease

Wes Lacewell John Martin Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

Lease Info: Min SF: $10.50 Max SF: $16.50 Status: For Lease

Drew Holbert Dickson Flake Colliers International 501-372-6161

Lease Info: Min SF: $10.00 Status: For Lease

Wes Lacewell John Martin Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

USAble Corporate Center- 320 W. Capitol Ave. Total Space Available: 1,362 Lease Info: $17.69 SF Building Size: 254,562 Status: For Lease Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant Retail- Restaurant

Francie Escovedo Dru English Colliers International 501-372-6161

The Victory Building- 1401 West Capitol Ave Total Space Available: 60,433 Building Size: 282,500 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant

Lease Info: Min SF: $15.50 Status: For Lease

Greg Joslin Jeff Yates Irwin Partners (501)225-5700

Gans Building - 217 W. Second Street Avail SF: 12,657 Total SF: 12,657 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant Office-Condo

Lease Info: $270-$390 per month per suite Sale Info: $799,000 Status: For Sale, For Lease

Wes Lacewell Robert Tucker Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

Pyramid Place- 221 West Second Street Avail SF: 50,000 Total SF: 96,500 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant Retail-Multi-Tenant

1021 W. Second Street Total Space Available: 2,532 Building Size: 2,532 Subtype: Office-Freestanding

Lease Info: Min SF: $12.00 Status: For Lease

Amanda Judd (501) 374-0841

Sale Price: $199,000 Status: For Sale

Johnny McKay Crye-Leike Realtors (501) 975-6700

Old Federal Reserve Bank - 123 West Third Street Avail SF: 17,500 Lease Info: Min SF: $12.00 Total SF: 48,000 Status: For Lease, For Sale Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant Sale Info: $1,590,000

KARK TV Building (East)- 201 W. Third St. Available SF: 57,750 ± Total SF: 57,750 ± Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant

KARK Building (West)-3rd & Center Available SF: 45,000 Building Size: 45,000 Subtype: Office-Freestanding Office-Multi Tenant

720 W Third Street Total Space Available: 15,640 Total SF: 18,120 Subtype: Office: Freestanding, Office: Multi-Tenant

620 W. Third Street Avail SF: 2,357 Total SF: 27,781 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant

Jamie Moses John Martin Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

Sale Price: $1,732,500 Status: For Sale, Lease Lease Info: Min $2.75 SF

Jim Hathaway Ed Penick The Hathaway Group (501) 663-5400

Sale Price: $900,000 Lease Info: $20.00 SF Status: For Lease, For Sale

Dickson Flake Drew Holbert (501) 372-6161 Colliers International

Lease Info: $10.00 SF Status: For Lease

Nolan Rushing Gaines Bonner Colliers International 501-372-6161

Lease Info: $15.00 SF Status: For Lease

Vada Reynolds The Hathaway Group (501) 978-4979

1000 W. Third Street Total Space Available: 5,000 Building Size: 5,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant

Sale Price: $425,000 Status: For Sale

Isaac Smith Drew Holbert (501) 372-6161 Colliers International

1500-1512 W Third Street Total Space Available: 10,000 Building Size: 10,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Lease Info: Min SF: $8.13 Status: For Lease

Nolan Rushing Gaines Bonner Colliers International 501-372-6161

1516 W. Third Street Total Space Available: 2,500 Building Size: 2,500 Subtype: Office Freestanding

Lease Price: $10 SF Status: For Lease

Destin McCracken (501) 664-7807 Rector Phillips Morse

Comcast Building, 1020 Fourth Street Total Space Available: 10,670 Building Size: 47,100 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Lease Info: Min SF: $14.75 Status: For Lease

Chris Samuel Flake & Kelley Commercial (501) 375-3200

Lease Info: Min SF: $11.50 Status: For Lease

Todd Rice William Porterfield The Hathaway Group 501-663-5400

310 Center Street Total Space Available: 2,413 Building Size: 2,413 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant Office-Retail

Sale Price: $270,000 Lease Price: $2800.00/month Status: For Sale, For Lease (501) 376-6555

Pete Hornibrook Destin McCracken Rector Phillips Morse (501) 664-7807

513 Center Street Total Space Available: 3,500 Building Size: 11,154 Subtype: Office-Multi Tenant

Lease Info: $12 SF Sale Price: $775,000 Status: For Sale, For Lease

John Hathaway The Hathaway Group (501) 529-4972

Lease Price: $12 SF Status: For Lease

Robert Tucker (501) 376-6555 Moses Tucker Real Estate

801 Louisiana Street Avail SF: 15,478 Total SF: 15,478 Subtype: Office-Freestanding Retail-Multi-Tenant

614 Center Street Total Space Available: 2,335 Building Size: 2,335 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant Restaurant Space

1302 Cumberland Total Space Available: 3,800 Building Size: 3,800 Subtype: Office-Freestanding

Lease Info: $4,375.00/month Status: For Lease

Vaughn McQuary (501) 664-7807 (501) 916-8287 Rector Phillips Morse

1111 W. Sixth Street Avail SF: 48,000 Total SF: 48,000 Subtype: Warehouse-Free Standing Industrial- Free Standing

Lease Info: Min SF: $5.50 Max SF: $10.00 Sale Price: $2,000,000 Status: For Sale, For Lease

Jim Carmani Bill Ross Rector Phillips Morse (501) 664-7807

Blass Building: 324 Main Street Total Space Available: 112,000 Building Size: 112,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Info: Price: Neg. Status: For Sale

Ryan Lasiter Doyle Rogers Company (501) 978-8899

Blass Building Annex: 324 Main Street Total Space Available: 30,000 Building Size: 30,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Info: Price: Neg. Status: For Sale

Ryan Lasiter Doyle Rogers Company (501) 978-8899

Sale Price: $585,000 Lease Price: $4 SF Status: For Sale, For Lease

Drew Holbert (501) 372-6161 Colliers International

Rose Building: 307 Main Street Total Space Available: 20,000 Building Size: 20,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Lease Info: Min SF: $12.00 Status: For Lease

Ryan Lasiter Doyle Rogers Company (501) 978-8899

Heritage East - 201 East Markham Avail SF: 6,502 Total SF: 26,702 Subtype: Retail-Restaurant, Office-Multi-Tenant

Lease Info: Min SF: $14.50 Status: For Lease

John Martin Wes Lacewell Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

Heritage West - 201 East Markham Avail SF: 2,250 Total SF: 49,270 Subtype: Retail-Restaurant, Office-Multi-Tenant

Lease Info: Min SF: $8.00 Status: For Lease

John Martin Wes Lacewell Moses Tucker Real Estate 501-376-6555

823 S. Main St, Little Rock, AR Total Space Available: 28,000 Building Size: 28,000 Subtype: Office-Freestanding Warehouse Freestanding Retail- Freestanding

615 W. Markham Total Space Available: 15,300 Building Size: 15,300 Subtype: Office-Freestanding Office-Multi Tenant

Sale Price: $1,200,000 Lease Info: $10.00 SF Status: For Lease, For Sale

Jeff Hathaway (501) 978-46969 The Hathaway Group

Union Station, 1400 West Markham Total Space Available: 8,349 Building Size: 90,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Lease Info: Min SF: $11.50-15.00 Status: For Lease

Jeff Hathaway Todd Rice The Hathaway Group 501-663-5400

Sale Price: $1,390,000 Status: For Sale Dickson Flake or Drew Holbert

Dickson Flake Drew Holbert (501) 372-6161 Colliers International

Sale Price: $975,000 Status: For Sale

Jeremiah Oltmans (501) 412-6923 Crey-Leike Realtors

Sale Price:$2,250,000 Status: For Sale

Wes Lacewell John Martin (501) 376-5555 Moses Tucker Real Estate

Lease Info: $7.92 SF Status: For Lease

Melanie Gibson (501) 372-6161 Colliers International

523 S. Ringo, Little Rock, AR Total Space Available: 10,060 Building Size: 10,600 Subtype: Office Freestanding

201 Izard Street Total Space Available: 8,068 Building Size: 8,068 Subtype: Office-Freestanding Office-Multi Tenant

906 S. Broadway Total Space Available: 10,080 Building Size: 10,080 Subtype: Office-Freestanding Office-Multi Tenant Retail-Freestanding Retail-Multi Tenant

Welch Cherry House 700 South Rock Street Total Space Available: 5,000 Building Size: 5,000 Subtype: Office-Freestanding

106 S State Street Total Space Available: 3,100 Building Size: 6,720 Subtype: Office-Freestanding Office-Multi Tenant

Lease Info: $9.00SF Status: For Lease

Stuart Mackey (501) 978-4965 The Hathaway Group

Sale Price: $2,250,000 Status: For Sale

Dickson Flake Drew Holbert (501) 372-6161 Colliers International

415 Main Street Total Space Available: 10,050 Building Size: 10,050 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: N/A Status: For Sale

415 Main Place Partnership

417 Main Street Total Space Available: 5,630 Building Size: 5,630 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: N/A Status: For Sale

Robert Schulte Real Properties, Inc. (501) 377-2000

421 Main Street Total Space Available: 7,588 Building Size: 7,588 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: N/A Status: For Sale

Robert Schulte Real Properties, Inc. (501) 377-2000

420 Main Street Total Space Available: 22,260 Building Size: 22,260 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: $287,000 Status: For Sale

Ronald Clark DMT Ventures, Inc. (501) 377-0315

412 Main Street Total Space Available: 10,000 Building Size: 10,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: N/A Status: For Sale

Joseph Flaberty Our House, Inc. (501) 375-2416

406 Main Street Total Space Available: 5,575 Building Size: 5,575 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: $320,000 Status: For Sale

Kevin Burns 406 Main Street, LLC (501) 377-0324

400 Main Street Total Space Available: 31,500 Building Size: 31,500 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: $675,000 Status: For Sale

Kevin Burns 125 West Fourth Street, LLC (501) 377-0324

304 Main Street Total Space Available: 10,500 Building Size: 10,500 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: N/A Status: For Sale

Taylor Trust (501) 375-8322

300 Main Street Total Space Available: 21,000 Building Size: 21,000 Subtype: Office-Multi-Tenant,

Sale Price: N/A Status: For Sale

Joseph Kaufman Kaufman Family, LLC (501) 375-2944

202 Main Street Total Space Available: 42,000 Lot Size: 42,000

Sale Price: $1,499,000 Status: For Sale

LRDP, Ltd. (501) 377-2000

114 Main Street Total Space Available: 194,384 Building Size: 194,384

Sale Price: $4,499,000 Status: For Sale

100 Main Building, LLC (501) 377-2000

YMCA (former) 524 S. Broadway Total Space Available: 43,151 Building Size: 43,151 Subtype: Retail-Freestanding Retail-Multi Tenant Office-Freestanding