UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
ý ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
MACK-CALI REALTY CORPORATION
(Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
|
Maryland |
|
22-3305147 |
|
(State or other
jurisdiction of |
|
(IRS Employer |
|
|
|
|
|
11 Commerce Drive, Cranford, New Jersey |
|
07016-3599 |
|
(Address of principal executive offices) |
|
(Zip code) |
(908) 272-8000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
(Title of Each Class) |
|
(Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered) |
Common Stock, $0.01 par value |
|
New York Stock Exchange |
|
Preferred Share Purchase Rights |
|
Pacific Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ý No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o No ý
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendments to this Form 10-K. ý
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One):
Large accelerated filer ý Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.) Yes o No ý
As of June 30, 2005, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $2,768,957,517. As of February 17, 2006, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $2,855,247,112. The aggregate market values were computed with references to the closing prices on the New York Stock Exchange on such dates. These calculations do not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purpose.
As of February 17, 2006, 62,150,563 shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, of the Company (“Common Stock”) were outstanding.
LOCATION OF EXHIBIT INDEX: The index of exhibits is contained herein on page number 124.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 to be issued in conjunction with the registrant’s annual meeting of shareholders expected to be held on May 24, 2006 are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. The definitive proxy statement will be filed by the registrant with the SEC not later than 120 days from the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.
FORM 10-K
Table of Contents
2
Mack-Cali Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company”), is a fully-integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust (“REIT”) that owns and operates a real estate portfolio comprised predominantly of Class A office and office/flex properties located primarily in the Northeast. The Company performs substantially all commercial real estate leasing, management, acquisition, development and construction services on an in-house basis. Mack-Cali Realty Corporation was incorporated on May 24, 1994. The Company’s executive offices are located at 11 Commerce Drive, Cranford, New Jersey 07016-3599, and its telephone number is (908) 272-8000. The Company has an internet website at www.mack-cali.com.
As of December 31, 2005, the Company owned or had interests in 270 properties, aggregating approximately 30.0 million square feet, plus developable land (collectively, the “Properties”). The Properties are comprised of: (a) 267 wholly-owned or Company-controlled properties consisting of 161 office buildings and 96 office/flex buildings aggregating approximately 29.1 million square feet, six industrial/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 387,400 square feet, two stand-alone retail properties totaling approximately 17,300 square feet, and two land leases (collectively, the “Consolidated Properties”); and (b) one office building and one office/flex building aggregating approximately 538,000 square feet, and a 350-room hotel, which are owned by unconsolidated joint ventures in which the Company has investment interests. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to square feet represent net rentable area. As of December 31, 2005, the office, office/flex, industrial/warehouse and stand-alone retail properties included in the Consolidated Properties were 91.0 percent leased to approximately 2,200 tenants. Percentage leased includes all leases in effect as of the period end date, some of which have commencement dates in the future (including, at December 31, 2005, leases with commencement dates substantially in the future consisting of 15,125 square feet scheduled to commence in 2009 and 10,205 square feet scheduled to commence in 2011), and leases that expire at the period end date. Leases that expire as of the period end date aggregate 311,623 square feet, or 1.1 percent of the net rentable square footage. The Properties are located in seven states, primarily in the Northeast, and the District of Columbia. See Item 2: Properties.
The Company’s strategy has been to focus its operations, acquisition and development of office properties in high-barrier-to-entry markets and sub-markets where it believes it is, or can become, a significant and preferred owner and operator. The Company plans to continue this strategy by expanding through acquisitions and/or development in Northeast markets where it has, or can achieve, similar status. The Company believes that its Properties have excellent locations and access and are well-maintained and professionally managed. As a result, the Company believes that its Properties attract high quality tenants and achieve among the highest rental, occupancy and tenant retention rates within their markets. The Company also believes that its extensive market knowledge provides it with a significant competitive advantage, which is further enhanced by its strong reputation for, and emphasis on, delivering highly responsive, professional management services. See “Business Strategies.”
As of December 31, 2005, executive officers and directors of the Company and their affiliates owned approximately 9.2 percent of the Company’s outstanding shares of Common Stock (including Units redeemable into shares of Common Stock). As used herein, the term “Units” refers to limited partnership interests in Mack-Cali Realty, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) through which the Company conducts its real estate activities. The Company’s executive officers have been employed by the Company and/or its predecessor companies for an average of approximately 19 years.
BUSINESS STRATEGIES
Operations
Reputation: The Company has established a reputation as a highly-regarded landlord with an emphasis on delivering quality tenant services in buildings it owns and/or manages. The Company believes that its continued success depends in part on enhancing its reputation as an operator of choice, which will facilitate the retention of current tenants and the
3
attraction of new tenants. The Company believes it provides a superior level of service to its tenants, which should in turn allow the Company to outperform the market with respect to occupancy rates, as well as improve tenant retention.
Communication with tenants: The Company emphasizes frequent communication with tenants to ensure first-class service to the Properties. Property managers generally are located on site at the Properties to provide convenient access to management and to ensure that the Properties are well-maintained. Property management’s primary responsibility is to ensure that buildings are operated at peak efficiency in order to meet both the Company’s and tenants’ needs and expectations. Property managers additionally budget and oversee capital improvements and building system upgrades to enhance the Properties’ competitive advantages in their markets and to maintain the quality of the Company’s properties.
Additionally, the Company’s in-house leasing representatives develop and maintain long-term relationships with the Company’s diverse tenant base and coordinate leasing, expansion, relocation and build-to-suit opportunities within the Company’s portfolio. This approach allows the Company to offer office space in the appropriate size and location to current or prospective tenants in any of its sub-markets.
Growth
The Company plans to continue to own and operate a portfolio of properties in high-barrier-to-entry markets, with a primary focus in the Northeast. The Company’s primary objectives are to maximize operating cash flow and to enhance the value of its portfolio through effective management, acquisition, development and property sales strategies, as follows:
Internal Growth: The Company seeks to maximize the value of its existing portfolio through implementing operating strategies designed to produce the highest effective rental and occupancy rates and lowest tenant installation cost within the markets that it operates. The Company continues to pursue internal growth through re-leasing space at higher effective rents with contractual rent increases and developing or redeveloping space for its diverse base of high credit tenants, including IBM Corporation, Morgan Stanley and Allstate Insurance Company. In addition, the Company seeks economies of scale through volume discounts to take advantage of its size and dominance in particular sub-markets, and operating efficiencies through the use of in-house management, leasing, marketing, financing, accounting, legal, development and construction services.
Acquisitions: The Company also believes that growth opportunities exist through acquiring operating properties or properties for redevelopment with attractive returns in its core Northeast sub-markets where, based on its expertise in leasing, managing and operating properties, it believes it is, or can become, a significant and preferred owner and operator. The Company intends to acquire, invest in or redevelop additional properties that: (i) are expected to provide attractive initial yields with potential for growth in cash flow from operations; (ii) are well-located, of high quality and competitive in their respective sub-markets; (iii) are located in its existing sub-markets or in sub-markets in which the Company can become a significant and preferred owner and operator; and (iv) it believes have been under-managed or are otherwise capable of improved performance through intensive management, capital improvements and/or leasing that should result in increased effective rental and occupancy rates.
Development: The Company seeks to selectively develop additional properties where it believes such development will result in a favorable risk-adjusted return on investment in coordination with the above operating strategies. Such development primarily will occur: (i) when leases have been executed prior to construction; (ii) in stable core Northeast sub-markets where the demand for such space exceeds available supply; and (iii) where the Company is, or can become, a significant and preferred owner and operator.
Property Sales: While management’s principal intention is to own and operate its properties on a long-term basis, it periodically assesses the attributes of each of its properties, with a particular focus on the supply and demand fundamentals of the sub-markets in which they are located. Based on these ongoing assessments, the Company may, from time to time, decide to sell any of its properties.
Financial
The Company currently intends to maintain a ratio of debt-to-undepreciated assets (total debt of the Company as a percentage of total undepreciated assets) of 50 percent or less. As of December 31, 2005, the Company’s total debt
4
constituted approximately 42.8 percent of total undepreciated assets of the Company. The Company has three investment grade credit ratings. Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (“S&P”) and Fitch, Inc. (“Fitch”) have each assigned their BBB rating to existing and prospective senior unsecured debt of the Operating Partnership. S&P and Fitch have also assigned their BBB- rating to existing and prospective preferred stock offerings of the Company. Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has assigned its Baa2 rating to existing and prospective senior unsecured debt of the Operating Partnership and its Baa3 rating to existing and prospective preferred stock offerings of the Company. Although there is no limit in the Company’s organizational documents on the amount of indebtedness that the Company may incur or a requirement for the maintenance of investment grade credit ratings, the Company has entered into certain financial agreements which contain covenants that limit the Company’s ability to incur indebtedness under certain circumstances. The Company intends to conduct its operations so as to best be able to maintain its investment grade rated status. The Company intends to utilize the most appropriate sources of capital for future acquisitions, development, capital improvements and other investments, which may include funds from operating activities, proceeds from property and land sales, short-term and long-term borrowings (including draws on the Company’s revolving credit facility), and the issuance of additional debt or equity securities.
EMPLOYEES
As of December 31, 2005, the Company had approximately 350 full-time employees.
COMPETITION
The leasing of real estate is highly competitive. The Properties compete for tenants with lessors and developers of similar properties located in their respective markets primarily on the basis of location, rent charged, services provided, and the design and condition of the Properties. The Company also experiences competition when attempting to acquire or dispose of real estate, including competition from domestic and foreign financial institutions, other REITs, life insurance companies, pension trusts, trust funds, partnerships, individual investors and others.
REGULATIONS
Many laws and governmental regulations are applicable to the Properties and changes in these laws and regulations, or their interpretation by agencies and the courts, occur frequently.
Under various laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, an owner of real estate may be held liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances located on or in the property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner was responsible for, or even knew of, the presence of such substances. The presence of such substances may adversely affect the owner’s ability to rent or sell the property or to borrow using such property as collateral and may expose it to liability resulting from any release of, or exposure to, such substances. Persons who arrange for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances at another location may also be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of such substances at the disposal or treatment facility, whether or not such facility is owned or operated by such person. Certain environmental laws impose liability for the release of asbestos-containing materials into the air, and third parties may also seek recovery from owners or operators of real properties for personal injury associated with asbestos-containing materials and other hazardous or toxic substances.
In connection with the ownership (direct or indirect), operation, management and development of real properties, the Company may be considered an owner or operator of such properties or as having arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances and, therefore, potentially liable for removal or remediation costs, as well as certain other related costs, including governmental penalties and injuries to persons and property.
There can be no assurance that (i) future laws, ordinances or regulations will not impose any material environmental liability, (ii) the current environmental condition of the Properties will not be affected by tenants, by the condition of land or operations in the vicinity of the Properties (such as the presence of underground storage tanks), or by third parties unrelated to the Company, or (iii) the Company’s assessments reveal all environmental liabilities and that there are no material environmental liabilities of which the Company is aware. If compliance with the various laws and regulations, now existing or hereafter adopted, exceeds the Company’s budgets for such items, the Company’s ability to make expected distributions to stockholders could be adversely affected.
5
There are no other laws or regulations which have a material effect on the Company’s operations, other than typical federal, state and local laws affecting the development and operation of real property, such as zoning laws.
INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
The Company operates in only one industry segment — real estate. The Company does not have any foreign operations and its business is not seasonal. Please see our financial statements attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for financial information relating to our industry segment.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
As a result of the economic climate since 2001, substantially all of the real estate markets the Company operates in materially softened. Demand for office space declined significantly and vacancy rates increased in each of the Company’s core markets over the period. Through February 22, 2006, the Company’s core markets continued to be weak. The percentage leased in the Company’s consolidated portfolio of stabilized operating properties decreased to 91.0 percent at December 31, 2005 as compared to 91.2 percent at December 31, 2004 and 91.5 percent at December 31, 2003. Percentage leased includes all leases in effect as of the period end date, some of which have commencement dates in the future (including, at December 31, 2005, leases with commencement dates substantially in the future consisting of 15,125 square feet scheduled to commence in 2009 and 10,205 square feet scheduled to commence in 2011), and leases that expire at the period end date. Leases that expire as of the period end date aggregate 311,623 square feet, or 1.1 percent of the net rentable square footage. Excluded from percentage leased at December 31, 2004 was a non-strategic, non-core 318,224 square foot property acquired through a deed in lieu of foreclosure, which was 12.7 percent leased at December 31, 2004 and subsequently sold on February 4, 2005. Market rental rates have declined in most markets from peak levels in late 2000 and early 2001. Rental rates on the Company’s space that was re-leased (based on first rents payable) during the year ended December 31, 2005 decreased an average of 8.2 percent compared to rates that were in effect under expiring leases, as compared to a 8.7 percent decrease in 2004 and a 7.8 percent decrease in 2003. The Company believes that vacancy rates may continue to increase in most of its markets in 2006. As a result, the Company’s future earnings and cash flow may continue to be negatively impacted by current market conditions.
In 2005, the Company:
• acquired six office properties, aggregating 1,832,251 square feet, at a total cost of approximately $387.8 million and;
• sold seven office properties, aggregating 1,081,389 square feet, for aggregate net sales proceeds of approximately $115.0 million.
Additionally, in 2005, the Company sold its interest in an unconsolidated joint venture which owned two office properties aggregating 298,000 square feet, for aggregate net sales proceeds of approximately $2.7 million. See Note 4 to the Financial Statements for further information regarding joint venture activity.
Property Acquisitions
The Company acquired the following office properties during the year ended December 31, 2005:
|
Acquisition |
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
# of |
|
Rentable |
|
Acquisition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/02/05 |
|
101 Hudson Street (a) |
|
Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
1,246,283 |
|
$ |
330,302 |
|
|
03/29/05 |
|
23 Main Street (a)(b) |
|
Holmdel, Monmouth County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
350,000 |
|
23,948 |
|
|
|
07/12/05 |
|
Monmouth Executive Center (c) |
|
Freehold, Monmouth County, NJ |
|
4 |
|
235,968 |
|
33,561 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Property Acquisitions: |
|
|
|
6 |
|
1,832,251 |
|
$ |
387,811 |
|
||
(a) Transaction was funded primarily through borrowing on the Company’s revolving credit facility.
(b) In addition to its initial investment, the Company intends to make additional investments related to the property of approximately $12.1 million, of which the Company has incurred $6.2 million through December 31, 2005.
(c) Transaction was funded primarily through available cash and assumption of mortgage debt.
6
In November 2005, the Company announced that it entered into a contract to acquire all the interests in Capital Office Park, a seven-building office complex totaling approximately 842,300 square feet in Greenbelt, Maryland for aggregate purchase consideration of approximately $161.7 million. The purchase consideration for the acquisition, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2006, will consist of the issuance of approximately $97.9 million of common operating partnership units in Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. and the assumption of approximately $63.8 million of mortgage debt. At closing, the sellers may elect to receive approximately $27.9 million in cash in lieu of common operating partnership units.
On February 16, 2006, the Company announced it had reached agreements in principle with each of SL Green Realty Corp. (“SL Green”) and The Gale Company, a privately-owned real estate services company based in New Jersey (“Gale”), pursuant to which the Company plans to acquire interests in certain assets and operations of SL Green and Gale.
Pursuant to the contemplated transactions, the Company is expected to:
• Purchase the Gale Real Estate Services Company for up to $40 million. The purchase price is expected to be based on an earn-out formula with an initial payment of $10 million in common operating partnership units in Mack-Cali Realty, L.P., and $12 million in cash, with a total consideration of up to $40 million.
• Acquire substantially all the ownership interests in 12 office properties valued at approximately $337 million and totaling 1.7 million square feet in Northern and Central New Jersey; and
• Acquire approximately one-half of the ownership interests in eight office properties valued at approximately $168 million and totaling 1.1 million square feet, also in Northern and Central New Jersey.
The Company plans to finance the transactions through a combination of approximately $240 million in drawings on its revolving credit facility, the assumption of existing and placement of new mortgage debt, and the issuance of common operating partnership units.
These planned acquisitions are subject to the execution of definitive acquisition agreements with Gale and SL Green in one instance, and with Gale alone in the other instance, which agreements shall contain mutually acceptable terms and customary closing conditions to be negotiated in good faith with such parties and entered into as soon as practicable. While the Company is confident that these transactions will be completed in accordance with the terms outlined above, there can be no assurance that either or both will close or that the structure or terms of one or both acquisition agreements may not reflect changes from the current agreements in principle.
Property Sales
The Company sold the following office properties during the year ended December 31, 2005:
|
Sale |
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
# of |
|
Rentable |
|
Net |
|
Net |
|
Realized |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
02/04/05 |
|
210 South 16th Street |
|
Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska |
|
1 |
|
318,224 |
|
$ |
8,464 |
|
$ |
8,210 |
|
$ |
254 |
|
|
02/11/05 |
|
1122 Alma Road |
|
Richardson, Dallas County, Texas |
|
1 |
|
82,576 |
|
2,075 |
|
2,344 |
|
(269 |
) |
|||
|
02/15/05 |
|
3 Skyline Drive |
|
Hawthorne, Westchester County, New York |
|
1 |
|
75,668 |
|
9,587 |
|
8,856 |
|
731 |
|
|||
|
05/11/05 |
|
201 Willowbrook Blvd. |
|
Wayne, Passaic County, New Jersey (a) |
|
1 |
|
178,329 |
|
17,696 |
|
17,705 |
|
(9 |
) |
|||
|
06/03/05 |
|
600 Community Drive/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
111 East Shore Road |
|
North Hempstead, Nassau County, New York |
|
2 |
|
292,849 |
|
71,593 |
|
59,609 |
|
11,984 |
|
|||
|
12/29/05 |
|
3600 South Yosemite |
|
Denver, Denver County, Colorado |
|
1 |
|
133,743 |
|
5,566 |
|
11,121 |
|
(5,555 |
) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Total Office Property Sales: |
|
7 |
|
1,081,389 |
|
$ |
114,981 |
|
$ |
107,845 |
|
$ |
7,136 |
|
||||
(a) In connection with the sale, the Company provided a mortgage loan to the buyer of $12 million which bears interest at 5.74 percent, matures in five years with a five year renewal option, and requires monthly payments of principal and interest.
In 2005, the Company purchased approximately 1.5 million shares of common stock in CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, which carried a value of approximately $50.8 million at December 31, 2005. From January 1 through January 25, 2006, the Company purchased an additional 336,500 shares in CarrAmerica for a total purchase price of approximately $11.9 million.
7
FINANCING ACTIVITY
On January 25, 2005, the Company issued $150 million face amount of 5.125 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2015 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The proceeds from the issuance (net of selling commissions and discount) of approximately $148.1 million were used primarily to reduce outstanding borrowings under the Company’s unsecured facility.
On April 15, 2005, the Company issued $150 million face amount of 5.05 percent senior unsecured notes due April 15, 2010 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The proceeds from the issuance (net of selling commissions and discount) of approximately $148.8 million were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under the 2004 unsecured facility.
On November 15, 2005, the Company issued $100 million face amount of 5.80 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2016 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The proceeds from the issuance (net of selling commissions and discount) of approximately $99 million were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under the 2004 unsecured facility.
On January 24, 2006, the Company issued $100 million face amount of 5.80 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2016 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears, and $100 million face amount of 5.25 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2012 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The total proceeds from the issuances, including accrued interest on the 5.80 percent notes of approximately $200.8 million, were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under the Company’s unsecured facility.
Revolving Credit Facility
In 2004, the Company refinanced its unsecured revolving credit facility. The $600 million unsecured facility, which is expandable to $800 million, currently carries an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 65 basis points, representing a reduction of five basis points from the previous facility. The credit facility was refinanced for a three-year term with a one-year extension option. The interest rate and facility fee are subject to adjustment, on a sliding scale, based upon the Operating Partnership’s unsecured debt ratings.
On September 16, 2005, the Company extended and modified its unsecured facility with a group of 23 lenders (reduced from 27). The facility was extended for an additional two years and now matures in November 2009, with an extension option of one year, which would require a payment of 25 basis points of the then borrowing capacity of the facility upon exercise. In addition, the facility fee was reduced by five basis points to 15 basis points at the current BBB/Baa2 pricing level.
The Company’s internet website is www.mack-cali.com. The Company makes available free of charge on or through its website its annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after it electronically files or furnishes such materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Company’s internet website includes other items related to corporate governance matters, including, among other things, the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, charters of various committees of the Board of Directors, and the Company’s code of business conduct and ethics applicable to all employees, officers and directors. The Company intends to disclose on its internet website any amendments to or waivers from its code of business conduct and ethics as well as any amendments to its corporate governance principles or the charters of various committees of the Board of Directors. Copies of these documents may be obtained, free of charge, from our internet website. Any shareholder also may obtain copies of these documents, free of charge, by sending a request in writing to: Mack-Cali Investor Relations Department, 11 Commerce Drive, Cranford, NJ 07016-3501.
We consider portions of this report, including the documents incorporated by reference, to be forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 21E of such act. Such forward-looking statements relate to, without limitation, our future economic performance, plans and
8
objectives for future operations and projections of revenue and other financial items. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “may,” “will,” “plan,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “continue” or comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which we cannot predict with accuracy and some of which we might not even anticipate. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions at the time made, we can give no assurance that such expectations will be achieved. Future events and actual results, financial and otherwise, may differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.
Among the factors about which we have made assumptions are:
• changes in the general economic climate and conditions, including those affecting industries in which our principal tenants compete;
• the extent of any tenant bankruptcies or of any early lease terminations;
• our ability to lease or re-lease space at current or anticipated rents;
• changes in the supply of and demand for office, office/flex and industrial/warehouse properties;
• changes in interest rate levels;
• changes in operating costs;
• our ability to obtain adequate insurance, including coverage for terrorist acts;
• the availability of financing;
• changes in governmental regulation, tax rates and similar matters; and
• other risks associated with the development and acquisition of properties, including risks that the development may not be completed on schedule, that the tenants will not take occupancy or pay rent, or that development or operating costs may be greater than anticipated.
For further information on factors which could impact us and the statements contained herein, see Item 1A: Risk Factors. We assume no obligation to update and supplement forward-looking statements that become untrue because of subsequent events.
Our results from operations and ability to make distributions on our equity and debt service on our indebtedness may be affected by the risk factors set forth below. All investors should consider the following risk factors before deciding to purchase securities of the Company. The Company refers to itself as “we” or “our” in the following risk factors.
Declines in economic activities in the Northeastern office markets could adversely affect our operating results.
A majority of our revenues are derived from our properties located in the Northeast, particularly in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Adverse economic developments in this region could adversely impact the operations of our properties and, therefore, our profitability. Because our portfolio consists primarily of office and office/flex buildings (as compared to a more diversified real estate portfolio), a decline in the economy and/or a decline in the demand for office space may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
The continued economic downturn in the real estate market has resulted in the relocation of companies and an uncertain economic future for many businesses. We are uncertain how long the current downturn will last. The current economic downturn may also be having a negative economic impact on many industries, including securities, insurance services,
9
telecommunications and computer systems and other technology, businesses in which many of our tenants are involved. Such economic impact may cause our tenants to have difficulty or be unable to meet their obligations to us.
Our performance is subject to risks associated with the real estate industry.
General: Our business and our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors depend on the ability of our properties to generate funds in excess of operating expenses (including scheduled principal payments on debt and capital expenditure requirements). Events or conditions that are beyond our control may adversely affect our operations and the value of our properties. Such events or conditions could include:
• changes in the general economic climate;
• changes in local conditions such as an oversupply of office space, a reduction in demand for office space, or reductions in office market rental rates;
• decreased attractiveness of our properties to tenants;
• competition from other office and office/flex properties;
• our inability to provide adequate maintenance;
• increased operating costs, including insurance premiums, utilities and real estate taxes, due to inflation and other factors which may not necessarily be offset by increased rents;
• changes in laws and regulations (including tax, environmental, zoning and building codes, and housing laws and regulations) and agency or court interpretations of such laws and regulations and the related costs of compliance;
• changes in interest rate levels and the availability of financing;
• the inability of a significant number of tenants to pay rent;
• our inability to rent office space on favorable terms; and
• civil unrest, earthquakes, acts of terrorism and other natural disasters or acts of God that may result in uninsured losses.
Financially distressed tenants may be unable to pay rent: If a tenant defaults, we may experience delays and incur substantial costs in enforcing our rights as landlord and protecting our investments. If a tenant files for bankruptcy, a potential court judgment rejecting and terminating such tenant’s lease could adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
Renewing leases or re-letting space could be costly: If a tenant does not renew its lease upon expiration or terminates its lease early, we may not be able to re-lease the space. If a tenant does renew its lease or we re-lease the space, the terms of the renewal or new lease, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to the tenant, may be less favorable than the current lease terms which could adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
Our insurance coverage on our properties may be inadequate: We currently carry comprehensive insurance on all of our properties, including insurance for liability, fire and flood. We cannot guarantee that the limits of our current policies will be sufficient in the event of a catastrophe to our properties. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to renew or duplicate our current insurance coverage in adequate amounts or at reasonable prices. In addition, while our current insurance policies insure us against loss from terrorist acts and toxic mold, in the future insurance companies may no longer offer coverage against these types of losses, or, if offered, these types of insurance may be prohibitively expensive. If any or all of the foregoing should occur, we may not have insurance coverage against certain types of losses and/or there may be decreases in the limits of insurance available. Should an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of our insured limits occur, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a property or properties, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the property or properties. Nevertheless, we might remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property or properties. We cannot guarantee that material losses in excess of insurance proceeds will not occur in the future. If any of our properties were to experience a catastrophic loss, it could seriously disrupt our operations, delay revenue and result in large expenses to repair or rebuild the property. Such events could adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
Illiquidity of real estate limits our ability to act quickly: Real estate investments are relatively illiquid. Such illiquidity may limit our ability to react quickly in response to changes in economic and other conditions. If we want to sell an investment, we might not be able to dispose of that investment in the time period we desire, and the sales price of that
10
investment might not recoup or exceed the amount of our investment. The prohibition in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and related regulations on a real estate investment trust holding property for sale also may restrict our ability to sell property. In addition, we acquired a significant number of our properties from individuals to whom we issued limited partnership units as part of the purchase price. In connection with the acquisition of these properties, in order to preserve such individual’s tax deferral, we contractually agreed not to sell or otherwise transfer the properties for a specified period of time, except in a manner which does not result in recognition of any built-in-gain (which may result in an income tax liability) or which reimburses the appropriate individuals for the tax consequences of the recognition of such built-in-gains. As of December 31, 2005, 56 of our properties, with an aggregate net book value of approximately $1.3 billion, were subject to these restrictions, which expire periodically through 2010. For those properties where such restrictions have lapsed, we are generally required to use commercially reasonable efforts to prevent any sale, transfer or other disposition of the subject properties from resulting in the recognition of built-in gain to the appropriate individuals. 74 of our properties, with an aggregate net book value of approximately $667.7 million, have lapsed restrictions and are subject to these conditions. The above limitations on our ability to sell our investments could adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
Americans with Disabilities Act compliance could be costly: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), all public accommodations and commercial facilities must meet certain federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. Compliance with the ADA requirements could involve removal of structural barriers from certain disabled persons’ entrances. Other federal, state and local laws may require modifications to or restrict further renovations of our properties with respect to such accesses. Although we believe that our properties are substantially in compliance with present requirements, noncompliance with the ADA or related laws or regulations could result in the United States government imposing fines or private litigants being awarded damages against us. Such costs may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
Environmental problems are possible and may be costly: Various federal, state and local laws and regulations subject property owners or operators to liability for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances located on or in the property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator was responsible for or even knew of the presence of such substances. The presence of or failure to properly remediate hazardous or toxic substances (such as toxic mold) may adversely affect our ability to rent, sell or borrow against contaminated property and may impose liability upon us for personal injury to persons exposed to such substances. Various laws and regulations also impose liability on persons who arrange for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances at another location for the costs of removal or remediation of such substances at the disposal or treatment facility. These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for such disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. Certain other environmental laws and regulations impose liability on owners or operators of property for injuries relating to the release of asbestos-containing or other materials into the air, water or otherwise into the environment. As owners and operators of property and as potential arrangers for hazardous substance disposal, we may be liable under such laws and regulations for removal or remediation costs, governmental penalties, property damage, personal injuries and related expenses. Payment of such costs and expenses could adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
Competition for acquisitions may result in increased prices for properties: We plan to acquire additional properties in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania and in the Northeast generally. We may be competing for investment opportunities with entities that have greater financial resources. Several office building developers and real estate companies may compete with us in seeking properties for acquisition, land for development and prospective tenants. Such competition may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors by:
• reducing the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us;
• increasing the bargaining power of property owners;
• interfering with our ability to attract and retain tenants;
• increasing vacancies which lowers market rental rates and limits our ability to negotiate rental rates; and/or
• adversely affecting our ability to minimize expenses of operation.
Development of real estate could be costly: As part of our operating strategy, we may acquire land for development or
11
construct on owned land, under certain conditions. Included among the risks of the real estate development business are the following, which may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors:
• financing for development projects may not be available on favorable terms;
• long-term financing may not be available upon completion of construction; and
• failure to complete construction on schedule or within budget may increase debt service expense and construction costs.
Property ownership through joint ventures could subject us to the contrary business objectives of our co-venturers: We, from time to time, invest in joint ventures or partnerships in which we do not hold a controlling interest. These investments involve risks that do not exist with properties in which we own a controlling interest, including the possibility that our co-venturers or partners may, at any time, have business, economic or other objectives that are inconsistent with our objectives. Because we lack a controlling interest, our co-venturers or partners may be in a position to take action contrary to our instructions or requests or contrary to our policies or objectives. While we seek protective rights against such contrary actions, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in procuring any such protective rights, or if procured, that the rights will be sufficient to fully protect us against contrary actions. Our organizational documents do not limit the amount of available funds that we may invest in joint ventures or partnerships. If the objectives of our co-venturers or partners are inconsistent with ours, it may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors.
Debt financing could adversely affect our economic performance.
Scheduled debt payments and refinancing could adversely affect our financial condition: We are subject to the risks normally associated with debt financing. These risks, including the following, may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors:
• our cash flow may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest;
• payments of principal and interest on borrowings may leave us with insufficient cash resources to pay operating expenses;
• we may not be able to refinance indebtedness on our properties at maturity; and
• if refinanced, the terms of refinancing may not be as favorable as the original terms of the related indebtedness.
As of December 31, 2005, we had total outstanding indebtedness of $2.1 billion comprised of $1.4 billion of senior unsecured notes, outstanding borrowings of $227.0 million under our $600.0 million revolving credit facility and approximately $468.7 million of mortgage loans payable and other obligations indebtedness. We may have to refinance the principal due on our current or future indebtedness at maturity, and we may not be able to do so.
If we are unable to refinance our indebtedness on acceptable terms, or at all, events or conditions that may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors include the following:
• we may need to dispose of one or more of our properties upon disadvantageous terms;
• prevailing interest rates or other factors at the time of refinancing could increase interest rates and, therefore, our interest expense;
• if we mortgage property to secure payment of indebtedness and are unable to meet mortgage payments, the mortgagee could foreclose upon such property or appoint a receiver to receive an assignment of our rents and leases; and
• foreclosures upon mortgaged property could create taxable income without accompanying cash proceeds and, therefore, hinder our ability to meet the real estate investment trust distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.
We are obligated to comply with financial covenants in our indebtedness that could restrict our range of operating activities: The mortgages on our properties contain customary negative covenants, including limitations on our ability, without the prior consent of the lender, to further mortgage the property, to enter into new leases outside of stipulated guidelines or to materially modify existing leases. In addition, our credit facility contains customary requirements,
12
including restrictions and other limitations on our ability to incur debt, debt to assets ratios, secured debt to total assets ratios, interest coverage ratios and minimum ratios of unencumbered assets to unsecured debt. The indentures under which our senior unsecured debt have been issued contain financial and operating covenants including coverage ratios and limitations on our ability to incur secured and unsecured debt. These covenants limit our flexibility in conducting our operations and create a risk of default on our indebtedness if we cannot continue to satisfy them.
Rising interest rates may adversely affect our cash flow: As of December 31, 2005, outstanding borrowings of approximately $227 million under our revolving credit facility bear interest at variable rates. We may incur additional indebtedness in the future that also bears interest at variable rates. Variable rate debt creates higher debt service requirements if market interest rates increase. Higher debt service requirements could adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors and/or cause us to default under certain debt covenants.
Our degree of leverage could adversely affect our cash flow: We fund acquisition opportunities and development partially through short-term borrowings (including our revolving credit facility), as well as from proceeds from property sales and undistributed cash. We expect to refinance projects purchased with short-term debt either with long-term indebtedness or equity financing depending upon the economic conditions at the time of refinancing. Our Board of Directors has a general policy of limiting the ratio of our indebtedness to total undepreciated assets (total debt as a percentage of total undepreciated assets) to 50 percent or less, although there is no limit in Mack-Cali Realty, L.P.’s or our organizational documents on the amount of indebtedness that we may incur. However, we have entered into certain financial agreements which contain financial and operating covenants that limit our ability under certain circumstances to incur additional secured and unsecured indebtedness. The Board of Directors could alter or eliminate its current policy on borrowing at any time at its discretion. If this policy were changed, we could become more highly leveraged, resulting in an increase in debt service that could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to make distributions or payments to our investors and/or could cause an increased risk of default on our obligations.
We are dependent on external sources of capital for future growth: To qualify as a real estate investment trust, we must distribute to our shareholders each year at least 90 percent of our net taxable income, excluding any net capital gain. Because of this distribution requirement, it is not likely that we will be able to fund all future capital needs, including for acquisitions and developments, from income from operations. Therefore, we will have to rely on third-party sources of capital, which may or may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends on a number of things, including the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings. Moreover, additional equity offerings may result in substantial dilution of our shareholders’ interests, and additional debt financing may substantially increase our leverage.
Competition for skilled personnel could increase our labor costs.
We compete with various other companies in attracting and retaining qualified and skilled personnel. We depend on our ability to attract and retain skilled management personnel who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of our company. Competitive pressures may require that we enhance our pay and benefits package to compete effectively for such personnel. We may not be able to offset such added costs by increasing the rates we charge our tenants. If there is an increase in these costs or if we fail to attract and retain qualified and skilled personnel, our business and operating results could be harmed.
We are dependent on our key personnel whose continued service is not guaranteed.
We are dependent upon our executive officers for strategic business direction and real estate experience. While we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, loss of their services could adversely affect our operations. We have entered into an employment agreement (including non-competition provisions) which provides for a continuous four-year employment term with each of Mitchell E. Hersh, Barry Lefkowitz and Roger W. Thomas, and a continuous one-year employment term with Michael A. Grossman. We do not have key man life insurance for our executive officers.
Certain provisions of Maryland law and our charter and bylaws as well as our stockholder rights plan could hinder, delay or prevent changes in control.
Certain provisions of Maryland law, our charter and our bylaws, as well as our stockholder rights plan have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing transactions that involve an actual or threatened change in control. These provisions include the following:
13
Classified Board of Directors: Our Board of Directors is divided into three classes with staggered terms of office of three years each. The classification and staggered terms of office of our directors make it more difficult for a third party to gain control of our board of directors. At least two annual meetings of stockholders, instead of one, generally would be required to affect a change in a majority of the board of directors.
Removal of Directors: Under our charter, subject to the rights of one or more classes or series of preferred stock to elect one or more directors, a director may be removed only for cause and only by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all votes entitled to be cast by our stockholders generally in the election of directors. Neither the Maryland General Corporation Law nor our charter define the term “cause.” As a result, removal for “cause” is subject to Maryland common law and to judicial interpretation and review in the context of the facts and circumstances of any particular situation.
Number of Directors, Board Vacancies, Term of Office: We have, in our bylaws, elected to be subject to certain provisions of Maryland law which vest in the Board of Directors the exclusive right to determine the number of directors and the exclusive right, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors, even if the remaining directors do not constitute a quorum, to fill vacancies on the board. These provisions of Maryland law, which are applicable even if other provisions of Maryland law or the charter or bylaws provide to the contrary, also provide that any director elected to fill a vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the full term of the class of directors in which the vacancy occurred, rather than the next annual meeting of stockholders as would otherwise be the case, and until his or her successor is elected and qualifies.
Stockholder Requested Special Meetings: Our bylaws provide that our stockholders have the right to call a special meeting only upon the written request of the stockholders entitled to cast not less than a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast by the stockholders at such meeting.
Advance Notice Provisions for Stockholder Nominations and Proposals: Our bylaws require advance written notice for stockholders to nominate persons for election as directors at, or to bring other business before, any meeting of stockholders. This bylaw provision limits the ability of stockholders to make nominations of persons for election as directors or to introduce other proposals unless we are notified in a timely manner prior to the meeting.
Exclusive Authority of the Board to Amend the Bylaws: Our bylaws provide that our board of directors has the exclusive power to adopt, alter or repeal any provision of the bylaws or to make new bylaws. Thus, our stockholders may not effect any changes to our bylaws.
Preferred Stock: Under our charter, our Board of Directors has authority to issue preferred stock from time to time in one or more series and to establish the terms, preferences and rights of any such series of preferred stock, all without approval of our stockholders.
Duties of Directors with Respect to Unsolicited Takeovers: Maryland law provides protection for Maryland corporations against unsolicited takeovers by limiting, among other things, the duties of the directors in unsolicited takeover situations. The duties of directors of Maryland corporations do not require them to (a) accept, recommend or respond to any proposal by a person seeking to acquire control of the corporation, (b) authorize the corporation to redeem any rights under, or modify or render inapplicable, any stockholders rights plan, (c) make a determination under the Maryland Business Combination Act or the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, or (d) act or fail to act solely because of the effect of the act or failure to act may have on an acquisition or potential acquisition of control of the corporation or the amount or type of consideration that may be offered or paid to the stockholders in an acquisition. Moreover, under Maryland law the act of a director of a Maryland corporation relating to or affecting an acquisition or potential acquisition of control is not subject to any higher duty or greater scrutiny than is applied to any other act of a director. Maryland law also contains a statutory presumption that an act of a director of a Maryland corporation satisfies the applicable standards of conduct for directors under Maryland law.
Ownership Limit: In order to preserve our status as a real estate investment trust under the Code, our charter generally prohibits any single stockholder, or any group of affiliated stockholders, from beneficially owning more than 9.8 percent of our outstanding capital stock unless our Board of Directors waives or modifies this ownership limit.
14
Maryland Business Combination Act: The Maryland Business Combination Act provides that unless exempted, a Maryland corporation may not engage in business combinations, including mergers, dispositions of 10 percent or more of its assets, certain issuances of shares of stock and other specified transactions, with an “interested stockholder” or an affiliate of an interested stockholder for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder became an interested stockholder, and thereafter unless specified criteria are met. An interested stockholder is generally a person owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, 10 percent or more of the voting power of the outstanding stock of the Maryland corporation. Our board of directors has exempted from this statute business combinations between the Company and certain affiliated individuals and entities. However, unless our board adopts other exemptions, the provisions of the Maryland Business Combination Act will be applicable to business combinations with other persons.
Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act: Maryland law provides that “control shares” of a corporation acquired in a “control share acquisition” shall have no voting rights except to the extent approved by a vote of two-thirds of the votes eligible to cast on the matter under the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. “Control Shares” means shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock previously acquired by the acquirer, would entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power in electing directors within one of the following ranges of the voting power: one-tenth or more but less than one-third, one-third or more but less than a majority or a majority or more of all voting power. A “control share acquisition” means the acquisition of control shares, subject to certain exceptions.
If voting rights of control shares acquired in a control share acquisition are not approved at a stockholder’s meeting, then subject to certain conditions and limitations, the issuer may redeem any or all of the control shares for fair value. If voting rights of such control shares are approved at a stockholder’s meeting and the acquirer becomes entitled to vote a majority of the shares of stock entitled to vote, all other stockholders may exercise appraisal rights. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act any acquisitions of shares by certain affiliated individuals and entities, any directors, officers or employees of the Company and any person approved by the board of directors prior to the acquisition by such person of control shares. Any control shares acquired in a control share acquisition which are not exempt under the foregoing provisions of our bylaws will be subject to the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act.
Stockholder Rights Plan: We have adopted a stockholder rights plan that may discourage any potential acquirer from acquiring more than 15 percent of our outstanding common stock since, upon this type of acquisition without approval of our board of directors, all other common stockholders will have the right to purchase a specified amount of common stock at a substantial discount from market price.
Consequences of failure to qualify as a real estate investment trust could adversely affect our financial condition.
Failure to maintain ownership limits could cause us to lose our qualification as a real estate investment trust: In order for us to maintain our qualification as a real estate investment trust, not more than 50 percent in value of our outstanding stock may be actually and/or constructively owned by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code to include certain entities). We have limited the ownership of our outstanding shares of our common stock by any single stockholder to 9.8 percent of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Our Board of Directors could waive this restriction if they were satisfied, based upon the advice of tax counsel or otherwise, that such action would be in our best interests and would not affect our qualifications as a real estate investment trust. Common stock acquired or transferred in breach of the limitation may be redeemed by us for the lesser of the price paid and the average closing price for the 10 trading days immediately preceding redemption or sold at the direction of us. We may elect to redeem such shares of common stock for limited partnership units, which are nontransferable except in very limited circumstances. Any transfer of shares of common stock which, as a result of such transfer, causes us to be in violation of any ownership limit will be deemed void. Although we currently intend to continue to operate in a manner which will enable us to continue to qualify as a real estate investment trust, it is possible that future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may cause our Board of Directors to revoke the election for us to qualify as a real estate investment trust. Under our organizational documents, our Board of Directors can make such revocation without the consent of our stockholders.
In addition, the consent of the holders of at least 85 percent of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P.’s partnership units is required: (i) to merge (or permit the merger of) us with another unrelated person, pursuant to a transaction in which Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. is not the surviving entity; (ii) to dissolve, liquidate or wind up Mack-Cali Realty, L.P.; or (iii) to convey or otherwise transfer all or substantially all of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P.’s assets. As of February 17, 2006, as general partner,
15
we own approximately 82.0 percent of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P.’s outstanding partnership units.
Tax liabilities as a consequence of failure to qualify as a real estate investment trust: We have elected to be treated and have operated so as to qualify as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax purposes since our taxable year ended December 31, 1994. Although we believe we will continue to operate in such manner, we cannot guarantee that we will do so. Qualification as a real estate investment trust involves the satisfaction of various requirements (some on an annual and some on a quarterly basis) established under highly technical and complex tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Because few judicial or administrative interpretations of such provisions exist and qualification determinations are fact sensitive, we cannot assure you that we will qualify as a real estate investment trust for any taxable year.
If we fail to qualify as a real estate investment trust in any taxable year, we will be subject to the following:
• we will not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to shareholders;
• we will be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates, including any alternative minimum tax, if applicable; and
• unless we are entitled to relief under certain statutory provisions, we will not be permitted to qualify as a real estate investment trust for the four taxable years following the year during which we were disqualified.
A loss of our status as a real estate investment trust could have an adverse effect on us. Failure to qualify as a real estate investment trust also would eliminate the requirement that we pay dividends to our stockholders.
Other tax liabilities: Even if we qualify as a real estate investment trust, we are subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and property and, in some circumstances, certain other state and local taxes. In addition, our taxable REIT subsidiaries will be subject to federal, state and local income tax for income received in connection with certain non-customary services performed for tenants and/or third parties.
Risk of changes in the tax law applicable to real estate investment trusts: Since the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department and Congress frequently review federal income tax legislation, we cannot predict whether, when or to what extent new federal tax laws, regulations, interpretations or rulings will be adopted. Any of such legislative action may prospectively or retroactively modify our and Mack-Cali Realty, L.P.’s tax treatment and, therefore, may adversely affect taxation of us, Mack-Cali Realty, L.P., and/or our investors.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
16
PROPERTY LIST
As of December 31, 2005, the Company’s Consolidated Properties consisted of 263 in-service office, office/flex and industrial/warehouse properties, as well as two stand-alone retail properties and two land leases. The Consolidated Properties are located primarily in the Northeast. The Consolidated Properties are easily accessible from major thoroughfares and are in close proximity to numerous amenities. The Consolidated Properties contain a total of approximately 29.5 million square feet, with the individual properties ranging from 6,216 to 1,246,283 square feet. The Consolidated Properties, managed by on-site employees, generally have attractively landscaped sites and atriums in addition to quality design and construction. The Company’s tenants include many service sector employers, including a large number of professional firms and national and international businesses. The Company believes that all of its properties are well-maintained and do not require significant capital improvements.
17
Office Properties
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW JERSEY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantic County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egg Harbor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 Decadon Drive |
|
1987 |
|
40,422 |
|
100.0 |
|
951 |
|
857 |
|
0.18 |
|
23.53 |
|
21.20 |
|
|
200 Decadon Drive |
|
1991 |
|
39,922 |
|
100.0 |
|
923 |
|
801 |
|
0.17 |
|
23.12 |
|
20.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bergen County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Lawn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-17 Route 208 North |
|
1987 |
|
143,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
3,449 |
|
2,945 |
|
0.64 |
|
24.12 |
|
20.59 |
|
|
Fort Lee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Bridge Plaza |
|
1981 |
|
200,000 |
|
92.2 |
|
4,778 |
|
4,384 |
|
0.88 |
|
25.91 |
|
23.77 |
|
|
2115 Linwood Avenue |
|
1981 |
|
68,000 |
|
82.6 |
|
1,297 |
|
954 |
|
0.24 |
|
23.09 |
|
16.98 |
|
|
Little Ferry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200 Riser Road |
|
1974 |
|
286,628 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,907 |
|
1,742 |
|
0.35 |
|
6.65 |
|
6.08 |
|
|
Montvale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95 Chestnut Ridge Road |
|
1975 |
|
47,700 |
|
100.0 |
|
796 |
|
729 |
|
0.15 |
|
16.69 |
|
15.28 |
|
|
135 Chestnut Ridge Road |
|
1981 |
|
66,150 |
|
92.1 |
|
1,535 |
|
1,242 |
|
0.28 |
|
25.20 |
|
20.39 |
|
|
Paramus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 East Midland Avenue |
|
1988 |
|
259,823 |
|
100.0 |
|
6,201 |
|
6,122 |
|
1.14 |
|
23.87 |
|
23.56 |
|
|
140 East Ridgewood Avenue |
|
1981 |
|
239,680 |
|
90.4 |
|
4,625 |
|
3,923 |
|
0.85 |
|
21.35 |
|
18.11 |
|
|
461 From Road |
|
1988 |
|
253,554 |
|
98.6 |
|
6,064 |
|
6,045 |
|
1.12 |
|
24.26 |
|
24.18 |
|
|
650 From Road |
|
1978 |
|
348,510 |
|
99.1 |
|
8,114 |
|
7,182 |
|
1.50 |
|
23.49 |
|
20.79 |
|
|
61 South Paramus Avenue |
|
1985 |
|
269,191 |
|
93.3 |
|
6,609 |
|
5,998 |
|
1.22 |
|
26.31 |
|
23.88 |
|
|
Rochelle Park |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120 Passaic Street |
|
1972 |
|
52,000 |
|
99.6 |
|
1,398 |
|
1,318 |
|
0.26 |
|
26.99 |
|
25.45 |
|
|
365 West Passaic Street |
|
1976 |
|
212,578 |
|
94.5 |
|
4,062 |
|
3,531 |
|
0.75 |
|
20.22 |
|
17.58 |
|
|
Upper Saddle River |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Lake Street |
|
1973/94 |
|
474,801 |
|
100.0 |
|
7,465 |
|
7,465 |
|
1.38 |
|
15.72 |
|
15.72 |
|
|
10 Mountainview Road |
|
1986 |
|
192,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
4,032 |
|
3,758 |
|
0.74 |
|
21.00 |
|
19.57 |
|
|
Woodcliff Lake |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 Chestnut Ridge Road |
|
1982 |
|
89,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,950 |
|
1,456 |
|
0.36 |
|
21.86 |
|
16.32 |
|
|
470 Chestnut Ridge Road |
|
1987 |
|
52,500 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,192 |
|
1,192 |
|
0.22 |
|
22.70 |
|
22.70 |
|
|
530 Chestnut Ridge Road |
|
1986 |
|
57,204 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,166 |
|
1,166 |
|
0.22 |
|
20.38 |
|
20.38 |
|
|
50 Tice Boulevard |
|
1984 |
|
235,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
6,041 |
|
5,432 |
|
1.12 |
|
25.71 |
|
23.11 |
|
|
300 Tice Boulevard |
|
1991 |
|
230,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
6,099 |
|
5,343 |
|
1.13 |
|
26.52 |
|
23.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Burlington County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moorestown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
224 Strawbridge Drive |
|
1984 |
|
74,000 |
|
85.4 |
|
1,371 |
|
1,252 |
|
0.25 |
|
21.69 |
|
19.81 |
|
|
228 Strawbridge Drive |
|
1984 |
|
74,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,043 |
|
896 |
|
0.19 |
|
14.09 |
|
12.11 |
|
|
232 Strawbridge Drive |
|
1986 |
|
74,258 |
|
98.8 |
|
1,131 |
|
1,127 |
|
0.21 |
|
15.42 |
|
15.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Essex County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Millburn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 J.F. Kennedy Parkway |
|
1980 |
|
247,476 |
|
100.0 |
|
7,009 |
|
6,079 |
|
1.29 |
|
28.32 |
|
24.56 |
|
18
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roseland |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101 Eisenhower Parkway |
|
1980 |
|
237,000 |
|
94.8 |
|
5,395 |
|
4,953 |
|
1.00 |
|
24.01 |
|
22.05 |
|
|
103 Eisenhower Parkway |
|
1985 |
|
151,545 |
|
82.2 |
|
3,054 |
|
2,608 |
|
0.56 |
|
24.52 |
|
20.94 |
|
|
105 Eisenhower Parkway |
|
2001 |
|
220,000 |
|
71.6 |
|
3,848 |
|
2,927 |
|
0.71 |
|
24.43 |
|
18.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hudson County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey City |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harborside Financial Center Plaza 1 |
|
1983 |
|
400,000 |
|
44.8 |
|
2,609 |
|
2,403 |
|
0.48 |
|
14.56 |
|
13.41 |
|
|
Harborside Financial Center Plaza 2 |
|
1990 |
|
761,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
18,577 |
|
17,518 |
|
3.43 |
|
24.40 |
|
23.01 |
|
|
Harborside Financial Center Plaza 3 |
|
1990 |
|
725,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
17,045 |
|
16,035 |
|
3.15 |
|
23.49 |
|
22.10 |
|
|
Harborside Financial Center Plaza 4-A |
|
2000 |
|
207,670 |
|
97.5 |
|
6,659 |
|
5,834 |
|
1.23 |
|
32.89 |
|
28.81 |
|
|
Harborside Financial Center Plaza 5 |
|
2002 |
|
977,225 |
|
94.7 |
|
30,183 |
|
25,832 |
|
5.58 |
|
32.62 |
|
27.91 |
|
|
101 Hudson Street (g) |
|
1992 |
|
1,246,283 |
|
99.5 |
|
23,254 |
|
20,084 |
|
4.29 |
|
22.44 |
|
19.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercer County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hamilton Township |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
600 Horizon Drive |
|
2002 |
|
95,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,373 |
|
1,373 |
|
0.25 |
|
14.45 |
|
14.45 |
|
|
Princeton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103 Carnegie Center |
|
1984 |
|
96,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,983 |
|
1,818 |
|
0.37 |
|
20.66 |
|
18.94 |
|
|
100 Overlook Center |
|
1988 |
|
149,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
4,102 |
|
3,607 |
|
0.76 |
|
27.42 |
|
24.11 |
|
|
5 Vaughn Drive |
|
1987 |
|
98,500 |
|
94.0 |
|
2,339 |
|
2,080 |
|
0.43 |
|
25.26 |
|
22.46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middlesex County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East Brunswick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
377 Summerhill Road |
|
1977 |
|
40,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
363 |
|
357 |
|
0.07 |
|
9.08 |
|
8.93 |
|
|
Piscataway |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 Knightsbridge Road, Bldg 3 |
|
1977 |
|
160,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,464 |
|
2,464 |
|
0.45 |
|
15.40 |
|
15.40 |
|
|
30 Knightsbridge Road, Bldg 4 |
|
1977 |
|
115,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,771 |
|
1,771 |
|
0.33 |
|
15.40 |
|
15.40 |
|
|
30 Knightsbridge Road, Bldg 5 |
|
1977 |
|
332,607 |
|
43.6 |
|
169 |
|
166 |
|
0.03 |
|
1.17 |
|
1.14 |
|
|
30 Knightsbridge Road, Bldg 6 |
|
1977 |
|
72,743 |
|
47.2 |
|
30 |
|
30 |
|
0.01 |
|
0.87 |
|
0.87 |
|
|
Plainsboro |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500 College Road East |
|
1984 |
|
158,235 |
|
100.0 |
|
4,365 |
|
4,187 |
|
0.81 |
|
27.59 |
|
26.46 |
|
|
South Brunswick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Independence Way |
|
1983 |
|
111,300 |
|
38.8 |
|
414 |
|
377 |
|
0.08 |
|
9.59 |
|
8.73 |
|
|
Woodbridge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
581 Main Street |
|
1991 |
|
200,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
4,924 |
|
4,667 |
|
0.91 |
|
24.62 |
|
23.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monmouth County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freehold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Paragon Way (g) |
|
1989 |
|
44,524 |
|
86.9 |
|
336 |
|
263 |
|
0.06 |
|
18.32 |
|
14.34 |
|
|
3 Paragon Way (g) |
|
1991 |
|
66,898 |
|
69.3 |
|
288 |
|
258 |
|
0.05 |
|
13.11 |
|
11.74 |
|
|
4 Paragon Way (g) |
|
2002 |
|
63,989 |
|
100.0 |
|
545 |
|
411 |
|
0.10 |
|
17.97 |
|
13.55 |
|
|
100 Willbowbrook (g) |
|
1988 |
|
60,557 |
|
73.6 |
|
390 |
|
345 |
|
0.07 |
|
18.46 |
|
16.33 |
|
|
Holmdel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 Main Street (g) |
|
1977 |
|
350,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
3,782 |
|
3,610 |
|
0.70 |
|
14.19 |
|
13.54 |
|
19
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middletown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One River Center Bldg 1 |
|
1983 |
|
122,594 |
|
89.2 |
|
2,099 |
|
1,950 |
|
0.39 |
|
19.19 |
|
17.83 |
|
|
One River Center Bldg 2 |
|
1983 |
|
120,360 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,769 |
|
2,736 |
|
0.51 |
|
23.01 |
|
22.73 |
|
|
One River Center Bldg 3 |
|
1984 |
|
214,518 |
|
94.7 |
|
4,362 |
|
4,311 |
|
0.81 |
|
21.47 |
|
21.22 |
|
|
Neptune |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3600 Route 66 |
|
1989 |
|
180,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,400 |
|
2,171 |
|
0.44 |
|
13.33 |
|
12.06 |
|
|
Wall Township |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1305 Campus Parkway |
|
1988 |
|
23,350 |
|
92.4 |
|
361 |
|
337 |
|
0.07 |
|
16.73 |
|
15.62 |
|
|
1350 Campus Parkway |
|
1990 |
|
79,747 |
|
99.9 |
|
1,599 |
|
1,454 |
|
0.30 |
|
20.07 |
|
18.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morris County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florham Park |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
325 Columbia Turnpike |
|
1987 |
|
168,144 |
|
99.4 |
|
3,972 |
|
3,634 |
|
0.73 |
|
23.77 |
|
21.74 |
|
|
Morris Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 Johnson Road |
|
1977 |
|
75,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,587 |
|
1,473 |
|
0.29 |
|
21.16 |
|
19.64 |
|
|
201 Littleton Road |
|
1979 |
|
88,369 |
|
88.9 |
|
1,783 |
|
1,582 |
|
0.33 |
|
22.70 |
|
20.14 |
|
|
Morris Township |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
412 Mt. Kemble Avenue |
|
1986 |
|
475,100 |
|
— |
|
2,984 |
|
2,984 |
|
0.55 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
|
Parsippany |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Campus Drive |
|
1983 |
|
147,475 |
|
91.1 |
|
3,482 |
|
3,282 |
|
0.64 |
|
25.92 |
|
24.43 |
|
|
6 Campus Drive |
|
1983 |
|
148,291 |
|
67.9 |
|
2,038 |
|
1,696 |
|
0.38 |
|
20.24 |
|
16.84 |
|
|
7 Campus Drive |
|
1982 |
|
154,395 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,037 |
|
1,924 |
|
0.38 |
|
13.19 |
|
12.46 |
|
|
8 Campus Drive |
|
1987 |
|
215,265 |
|
100.0 |
|
6,282 |
|
5,588 |
|
1.16 |
|
29.18 |
|
25.96 |
|
|
9 Campus Drive |
|
1983 |
|
156,495 |
|
92.5 |
|
3,659 |
|
3,142 |
|
0.68 |
|
25.28 |
|
21.71 |
|
|
4 Century Drive |
|
1981 |
|
100,036 |
|
68.2 |
|
1,163 |
|
1,163 |
|
0.21 |
|
17.05 |
|
17.05 |
|
|
5 Century Drive |
|
1981 |
|
79,739 |
|
97.3 |
|
2,073 |
|
2,073 |
|
0.38 |
|
26.72 |
|
26.72 |
|
|
6 Century Drive |
|
1981 |
|
100,036 |
|
3.0 |
|
125 |
|
125 |
|
0.02 |
|
41.65 |
|
41.65 |
|
|
2 Dryden Way |
|
1990 |
|
6,216 |
|
100.0 |
|
108 |
|
108 |
|
0.02 |
|
17.37 |
|
17.37 |
|
|
4 Gatehall Drive |
|
1988 |
|
248,480 |
|
78.8 |
|
4,895 |
|
4,416 |
|
0.90 |
|
25.00 |
|
22.55 |
|
|
2 Hilton Court |
|
1991 |
|
181,592 |
|
100.0 |
|
5,019 |
|
4,518 |
|
0.93 |
|
27.64 |
|
24.88 |
|
|
1633 Littleton Road |
|
1978 |
|
57,722 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,131 |
|
1,131 |
|
0.21 |
|
19.59 |
|
19.59 |
|
|
600 Parsippany Road |
|
1978 |
|
96,000 |
|
65.7 |
|
1,179 |
|
982 |
|
0.22 |
|
18.69 |
|
15.57 |
|
|
1 Sylvan Way |
|
1989 |
|
150,557 |
|
100.0 |
|
3,502 |
|
3,106 |
|
0.65 |
|
23.26 |
|
20.63 |
|
|
5 Sylvan Way |
|
1989 |
|
151,383 |
|
98.0 |
|
3,683 |
|
3,403 |
|
0.68 |
|
24.83 |
|
22.94 |
|
|
7 Sylvan Way |
|
1987 |
|
145,983 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,927 |
|
2,509 |
|
0.54 |
|
20.05 |
|
17.19 |
|
|
5 Wood Hollow Road |
|
1979 |
|
317,040 |
|
88.1 |
|
4,274 |
|
4,167 |
|
0.79 |
|
15.30 |
|
14.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passaic County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
777 Passaic Avenue |
|
1983 |
|
75,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,532 |
|
1,338 |
|
0.28 |
|
20.43 |
|
17.84 |
|
|
Totowa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
999 Riverview Drive |
|
1988 |
|
56,066 |
|
100.0 |
|
880 |
|
797 |
|
0.16 |
|
15.70 |
|
14.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somerset County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basking Ridge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
222 Mt. Airy Road |
|
1986 |
|
49,000 |
|
60.7 |
|
597 |
|
466 |
|
0.11 |
|
20.07 |
|
15.67 |
|
|
233 Mt. Airy Road |
|
1987 |
|
66,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,315 |
|
1,103 |
|
0.24 |
|
19.92 |
|
16.71 |
|
20
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106 Allen Road |
|
2000 |
|
132,010 |
|
93.2 |
|
2,714 |
|
2,066 |
|
0.50 |
|
22.06 |
|
16.79 |
|
|
Bridgewater |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
721 Route 202/206 |
|
1989 |
|
192,741 |
|
87.8 |
|
3,923 |
|
3,792 |
|
0.72 |
|
23.18 |
|
22.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 Walnut Avenue |
|
1985 |
|
182,555 |
|
99.5 |
|
4,551 |
|
3,996 |
|
0.84 |
|
25.05 |
|
22.00 |
|
|
Cranford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 Commerce Drive |
|
1973 |
|
56,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,234 |
|
1,116 |
|
0.23 |
|
22.04 |
|
19.93 |
|
|
11 Commerce Drive (c) |
|
1981 |
|
90,000 |
|
97.1 |
|
1,242 |
|
1,068 |
|
0.23 |
|
14.21 |
|
12.22 |
|
|
12 Commerce Drive |
|
1967 |
|
72,260 |
|
95.1 |
|
873 |
|
700 |
|
0.16 |
|
12.70 |
|
10.19 |
|
|
14 Commerce Drive |
|
1971 |
|
67,189 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,341 |
|
1,335 |
|
0.25 |
|
19.96 |
|
19.87 |
|
|
20 Commerce Drive |
|
1990 |
|
176,600 |
|
98.4 |
|
3,522 |
|
3,191 |
|
0.65 |
|
20.27 |
|
18.36 |
|
|
25 Commerce Drive |
|
1971 |
|
67,749 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,395 |
|
1,319 |
|
0.26 |
|
20.59 |
|
19.47 |
|
|
65 Jackson Drive |
|
1984 |
|
82,778 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,948 |
|
1,729 |
|
0.36 |
|
23.53 |
|
20.89 |
|
|
New Providence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
890 Mountain Avenue |
|
1977 |
|
80,000 |
|
89.6 |
|
1,830 |
|
1,721 |
|
0.34 |
|
25.53 |
|
24.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total New Jersey Office |
|
|
|
16,918,908 |
|
89.7 |
|
331,860 |
|
300,619 |
|
61.29 |
|
22.36 |
|
20.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dutchess County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fishkill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 Westage Business Center Drive |
|
1987 |
|
118,727 |
|
82.1 |
|
2,134 |
|
1,822 |
|
0.39 |
|
21.89 |
|
18.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rockland County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suffern |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 Rella Boulevard |
|
1988 |
|
180,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
4,209 |
|
3,656 |
|
0.78 |
|
23.38 |
|
20.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Westchester County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elmsford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 Clearbrook Road (c) |
|
1975 |
|
60,000 |
|
99.5 |
|
1,135 |
|
1,046 |
|
0.21 |
|
19.01 |
|
17.52 |
|
|
101 Executive Boulevard |
|
1971 |
|
50,000 |
|
45.3 |
|
678 |
|
611 |
|
0.13 |
|
29.93 |
|
26.98 |
|
|
555 Taxter Road |
|
1986 |
|
170,554 |
|
100.0 |
|
3,897 |
|
3,321 |
|
0.72 |
|
22.85 |
|
19.47 |
|
|
565 Taxter Road |
|
1988 |
|
170,554 |
|
92.8 |
|
3,836 |
|
3,491 |
|
0.71 |
|
24.24 |
|
22.06 |
|
|
570 Taxter Road |
|
1972 |
|
75,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,800 |
|
1,635 |
|
0.33 |
|
24.00 |
|
21.80 |
|
|
Hawthorne |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Skyline Drive |
|
1980 |
|
20,400 |
|
99.0 |
|
392 |
|
369 |
|
0.07 |
|
19.41 |
|
18.27 |
|
|
2 Skyline Drive |
|
1987 |
|
30,000 |
|
87.9 |
|
424 |
|
364 |
|
0.08 |
|
16.08 |
|
13.80 |
|
|
7 Skyline Drive |
|
1987 |
|
109,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,421 |
|
2,239 |
|
0.45 |
|
22.21 |
|
20.54 |
|
|
17 Skyline Drive |
|
1989 |
|
85,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,360 |
|
1,335 |
|
0.25 |
|
16.00 |
|
15.71 |
|
|
19 Skyline Drive |
|
1982 |
|
248,400 |
|
100.0 |
|
4,471 |
|
4,174 |
|
0.83 |
|
18.00 |
|
16.80 |
|
21
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tarrytown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200 White Plains Road |
|
1982 |
|
89,000 |
|
94.7 |
|
1,935 |
|
1,770 |
|
0.36 |
|
22.96 |
|
21.00 |
|
|
220 White Plains Road |
|
1984 |
|
89,000 |
|
88.0 |
|
1,929 |
|
1,774 |
|
0.36 |
|
24.63 |
|
22.65 |
|
|
White Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Barker Avenue |
|
1975 |
|
68,000 |
|
97.3 |
|
1,773 |
|
1,650 |
|
0.33 |
|
26.80 |
|
24.94 |
|
|
3 Barker Avenue |
|
1983 |
|
65,300 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,747 |
|
1,583 |
|
0.32 |
|
26.75 |
|
24.24 |
|
|
50 Main Street |
|
1985 |
|
309,000 |
|
99.5 |
|
8,999 |
|
7,926 |
|
1.67 |
|
29.27 |
|
25.78 |
|
|
11 Martine Avenue |
|
1987 |
|
180,000 |
|
95.9 |
|
4,822 |
|
4,260 |
|
0.89 |
|
27.93 |
|
24.68 |
|
|
1 Water Street |
|
1979 |
|
45,700 |
|
86.0 |
|
1,025 |
|
911 |
|
0.19 |
|
26.08 |
|
23.18 |
|
|
Yonkers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Executive Boulevard |
|
1982 |
|
112,000 |
|
98.0 |
|
2,776 |
|
2,479 |
|
0.51 |
|
25.29 |
|
22.59 |
|
|
3 Executive Plaza |
|
1987 |
|
58,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,460 |
|
1,269 |
|
0.27 |
|
25.17 |
|
21.88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total New York Office |
|
|
|
2,333,635 |
|
95.7 |
|
53,223 |
|
47,685 |
|
9.85 |
|
23.83 |
|
21.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PENNSYLVANIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chester County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berwyn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1000 Westlakes Drive |
|
1989 |
|
60,696 |
|
95.7 |
|
1,563 |
|
1,496 |
|
0.29 |
|
26.91 |
|
25.75 |
|
|
1055 Westlakes Drive |
|
1990 |
|
118,487 |
|
96.8 |
|
2,741 |
|
2,264 |
|
0.51 |
|
23.90 |
|
19.74 |
|
|
1205 Westlakes Drive |
|
1988 |
|
130,265 |
|
58.8 |
|
2,804 |
|
2,573 |
|
0.52 |
|
36.61 |
|
33.59 |
|
|
1235 Westlakes Drive |
|
1986 |
|
134,902 |
|
91.3 |
|
2,648 |
|
2,341 |
|
0.49 |
|
21.50 |
|
19.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lester |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 Stevens Drive |
|
1986 |
|
95,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,551 |
|
2,356 |
|
0.47 |
|
26.85 |
|
24.80 |
|
|
200 Stevens Drive |
|
1987 |
|
208,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
5,598 |
|
5,251 |
|
1.03 |
|
26.91 |
|
25.25 |
|
|
300 Stevens Drive |
|
1992 |
|
68,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,087 |
|
915 |
|
0.20 |
|
15.99 |
|
13.46 |
|
|
Media |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1400 Providence Road - Center I |
|
1986 |
|
100,000 |
|
84.8 |
|
1,911 |
|
1,723 |
|
0.35 |
|
22.54 |
|
20.32 |
|
|
1400 Providence Road - Center II |
|
1990 |
|
160,000 |
|
97.6 |
|
3,488 |
|
3,072 |
|
0.64 |
|
22.34 |
|
19.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montgomery County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bala Cynwyd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 Monument Road |
|
1981 |
|
125,783 |
|
70.0 |
|
2,118 |
|
2,110 |
|
0.39 |
|
24.06 |
|
23.96 |
|
|
Blue Bell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Sentry Parkway |
|
1982 |
|
63,930 |
|
94.1 |
|
1,373 |
|
1,370 |
|
0.25 |
|
22.82 |
|
22.77 |
|
|
16 Sentry Parkway |
|
1988 |
|
93,093 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,408 |
|
2,347 |
|
0.44 |
|
25.87 |
|
25.21 |
|
|
18 Sentry Parkway |
|
1988 |
|
95,010 |
|
97.6 |
|
2,176 |
|
2,121 |
|
0.40 |
|
23.47 |
|
22.87 |
|
|
King of Prussia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2200 Renaissance Boulevard |
|
1985 |
|
174,124 |
|
91.1 |
|
3,501 |
|
3,252 |
|
0.65 |
|
22.07 |
|
20.50 |
|
|
Lower Providence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1000 Madison Avenue |
|
1990 |
|
100,700 |
|
36.0 |
|
698 |
|
580 |
|
0.13 |
|
19.25 |
|
16.00 |
|
|
Plymouth Meeting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1150 Plymouth Meeting Mall |
|
1970 |
|
167,748 |
|
100.0 |
|
2,960 |
|
2,514 |
|
0.55 |
|
17.65 |
|
14.99 |
|
22
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Sentry Parkway East |
|
1984 |
|
91,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,952 |
|
1,896 |
|
0.36 |
|
21.31 |
|
20.70 |
|
|
Five Sentry Parkway West |
|
1984 |
|
38,400 |
|
69.8 |
|
709 |
|
691 |
|
0.13 |
|
26.45 |
|
25.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Pennsylvania Office |
|
|
|
2,025,738 |
|
88.8 |
|
42,286 |
|
38,872 |
|
7.80 |
|
23.50 |
|
21.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONNECTICUT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fairfield County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greenwich |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500 West Putnam Avenue |
|
1973 |
|
121,250 |
|
99.1 |
|
3,347 |
|
3,125 |
|
0.62 |
|
27.85 |
|
26.01 |
|
|
Norwalk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 Richards Avenue |
|
1985 |
|
145,487 |
|
69.9 |
|
2,429 |
|
2,107 |
|
0.45 |
|
23.89 |
|
20.72 |
|
|
Shelton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1000 Bridgeport Avenue |
|
1986 |
|
133,000 |
|
88.1 |
|
2,069 |
|
1,681 |
|
0.38 |
|
17.66 |
|
14.35 |
|
|
Stamford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1266 East Main Street |
|
1984 |
|
179,260 |
|
70.3 |
|
3,752 |
|
3,622 |
|
0.69 |
|
29.77 |
|
28.74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Connecticut Office |
|
|
|
578,997 |
|
80.3 |
|
11,597 |
|
10,535 |
|
2.14 |
|
24.94 |
|
22.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW |
|
1940 |
|
169,549 |
|
86.2 |
|
5,219 |
|
4,930 |
|
0.96 |
|
35.71 |
|
33.73 |
|
|
1400 L Street, NW |
|
1987 |
|
159,000 |
|
87.3 |
|
3,347 |
|
3,182 |
|
0.62 |
|
24.11 |
|
22.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total District of Columbia Office |
|
|
|
328,549 |
|
86.7 |
|
8,566 |
|
8,112 |
|
1.58 |
|
30.06 |
|
28.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARYLAND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prince George’s County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lanham |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4200 Parliament Place |
|
1989 |
|
122,000 |
|
93.7 |
|
2,767 |
|
2,562 |
|
0.51 |
|
24.21 |
|
22.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Maryland Office |
|
|
|
122,000 |
|
93.7 |
|
2,767 |
|
2,562 |
|
0.51 |
|
24.21 |
|
22.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLORADO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arapahoe County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denver |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 South Colorado Boulevard |
|
1983 |
|
125,415 |
|
87.9 |
|
1,710 |
|
1,379 |
|
0.32 |
|
15.51 |
|
12.51 |
|
|
Englewood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9359 East Nichols Avenue |
|
1997 |
|
72,610 |
|
100.0 |
|
779 |
|
642 |
|
0.14 |
|
10.73 |
|
8.84 |
|
|
5350 South Roslyn Street |
|
1982 |
|
63,754 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,036 |
|
864 |
|
0.19 |
|
16.25 |
|
13.55 |
|
23
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Boulder County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Broomfield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
105 South Technology Drive |
|
1997 |
|
37,574 |
|
81.1 |
|
202 |
|
82 |
|
0.04 |
|
6.63 |
|
2.69 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
303 South Technology Drive-A |
|
1997 |
|
34,454 |
|
100.0 |
|
270 |
|
193 |
|
0.05 |
|
7.84 |
|
5.60 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
303 South Technology Drive-B |
|
1997 |
|
40,416 |
|
100.0 |
|
316 |
|
225 |
|
0.06 |
|
7.82 |
|
5.57 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Louisville |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
248 Centennial Parkway |
|
1996 |
|
39,266 |
|
100.0 |
|
305 |
|
168 |
|
0.06 |
|
7.77 |
|
4.28 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
1172 Century Drive |
|
1996 |
|
49,566 |
|
100.0 |
|
384 |
|
211 |
|
0.07 |
|
7.75 |
|
4.26 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
285 Century Place |
|
1997 |
|
69,145 |
|
100.0 |
|
761 |
|
711 |
|
0.14 |
|
11.01 |
|
10.28 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Denver County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Denver |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
8181 East Tufts Avenue |
|
2001 |
|
185,254 |
|
98.6 |
|
4,256 |
|
3,592 |
|
0.79 |
|
23.30 |
|
19.66 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Douglas County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Centennial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
5975 South Quebec Street (c) |
|
1996 |
|
102,877 |
|
94.7 |
|
1,271 |
|
855 |
|
0.23 |
|
13.05 |
|
8.78 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Englewood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
67 Inverness Drive East |
|
1996 |
|
54,280 |
|
100.0 |
|
338 |
|
200 |
|
0.06 |
|
6.23 |
|
3.68 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
384 Inverness Parkway |
|
1985 |
|
51,523 |
|
97.5 |
|
694 |
|
597 |
|
0.13 |
|
13.82 |
|
11.88 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
400 Inverness Parkway |
|
1997 |
|
111,608 |
|
98.3 |
|
1,631 |
|
1,299 |
|
0.30 |
|
14.87 |
|
11.84 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
9777 Pyramid Court |
|
1995 |
|
120,281 |
|
95.1 |
|
1,489 |
|
1,149 |
|
0.27 |
|
13.02 |
|
10.04 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
El Paso County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Colorado Springs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
8415 Explorer |
|
1998 |
|
47,368 |
|
97.1 |
|
547 |
|
511 |
|
0.10 |
|
11.89 |
|
11.11 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
1975 Research Parkway |
|
1997 |
|
115,250 |
|
98.7 |
|
1,151 |
|
760 |
|
0.21 |
|
10.12 |
|
6.68 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
2375 Telstar Drive |
|
1998 |
|
47,369 |
|
100.0 |
|
548 |
|
510 |
|
0.10 |
|
11.57 |
|
10.77 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Jefferson County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Lakewood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
141 Union Boulevard |
|
1985 |
|
63,600 |
|
96.3 |
|
1,155 |
|
998 |
|
0.21 |
|
18.86 |
|
16.29 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Total Colorado Office |
|
|
|
1,431,610 |
|
96.9 |
|
18,843 |
|
14,946 |
|
3.47 |
|
13.59 |
|
10.78 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
CALIFORNIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
San Francisco County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
San Francisco |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
795 Folsom Street |
|
1977 |
|
183,445 |
|
85.3 |
|
4,358 |
|
3,455 |
|
0.80 |
|
27.85 |
|
22.08 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
760 Market Street |
|
1908 |
|
267,446 |
|
78.5 |
|
7,397 |
|
6,936 |
|
1.37 |
|
35.23 |
|
33.04 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Total California Office |
|
|
|
450,891 |
|
81.3 |
|
11,755 |
|
10,391 |
|
2.17 |
|
32.08 |
|
28.36 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
TOTAL OFFICE PROPERTIES |
|
|
|
24,190,328 |
|
90.2 |
|
480,897 |
|
433,722 |
|
88.81 |
|
22.38 |
|
20.17 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
24
Office/Flex Properties
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
NEW JERSEY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Burlington County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Burlington |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
3 Terri Lane |
|
1991 |
|
64,500 |
|
82.5 |
|
459 |
|
374 |
|
0.08 |
|
8.63 |
|
7.03 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
5 Terri Lane |
|
1992 |
|
74,555 |
|
91.7 |
|
598 |
|
418 |
|
0.11 |
|
8.75 |
|
6.11 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Moorestown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
2 Commerce Drive |
|
1986 |
|
49,000 |
|
76.3 |
|
256 |
|
231 |
|
0.05 |
|
6.85 |
|
6.18 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
101 Commerce Drive |
|
1988 |
|
64,700 |
|
100.0 |
|
275 |
|
249 |
|
0.05 |
|
4.25 |
|
3.85 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
102 Commerce Drive |
|
1987 |
|
38,400 |
|
87.5 |
|
175 |
|
146 |
|
0.03 |
|
5.21 |
|
4.35 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
201 Commerce Drive |
|
1986 |
|
38,400 |
|
75.0 |
|
157 |
|
107 |
|
0.03 |
|
5.45 |
|
3.72 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
202 Commerce Drive |
|
1988 |
|
51,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
303 |
|
233 |
|
0.06 |
|
5.92 |
|
4.55 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
1 Executive Drive |
|
1989 |
|
20,570 |
|
81.1 |
|
156 |
|
100 |
|
0.03 |
|
9.35 |
|
5.99 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
2 Executive Drive |
|
1988 |
|
60,800 |
|
73.3 |
|
339 |
|
290 |
|
0.06 |
|
7.61 |
|
6.51 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
101 Executive Drive |
|
1990 |
|
29,355 |
|
90.5 |
|
269 |
|
251 |
|
0.05 |
|
10.13 |
|
9.45 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
102 Executive Drive |
|
1990 |
|
64,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
399 |
|
358 |
|
0.07 |
|
6.23 |
|
5.59 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
225 Executive Drive |
|
1990 |
|
50,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
378 |
|
330 |
|
0.07 |
|
7.47 |
|
6.52 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
97 Foster Road |
|
1982 |
|
43,200 |
|
75.5 |
|
199 |
|
182 |
|
0.04 |
|
6.10 |
|
5.58 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
1507 Lancer Drive |
|
1995 |
|
32,700 |
|
100.0 |
|
55 |
|
52 |
|
0.01 |
|
1.68 |
|
1.59 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
1510 Lancer Drive |
|
1998 |
|
88,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
413 |
|
413 |
|
0.08 |
|
4.69 |
|
4.69 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
1245 North Church Street |
|
1998 |
|
52,810 |
|
100.0 |
|
397 |
|
383 |
|
0.07 |
|
7.52 |
|
7.25 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
1247 North Church Street |
|
1998 |
|
52,790 |
|
100.0 |
|
350 |
|
337 |
|
0.06 |
|
6.63 |
|
6.38 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
1256 North Church Street |
|
1984 |
|
63,495 |
|
100.0 |
|
415 |
|
357 |
|
0.08 |
|
6.54 |
|
5.62 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
840 North Lenola Road |
|
1995 |
|
38,300 |
|
100.0 |
|
326 |
|
270 |
|
0.06 |
|
8.51 |
|
7.05 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
844 North Lenola Road |
|
1995 |
|
28,670 |
|
100.0 |
|
143 |
|
95 |
|
0.03 |
|
4.99 |
|
3.31 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
915 North Lenola Road |
|
1998 |
|
52,488 |
|
100.0 |
|
296 |
|
224 |
|
0.05 |
|
5.64 |
|
4.27 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
2 Twosome Drive |
|
2000 |
|
48,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
391 |
|
391 |
|
0.07 |
|
8.05 |
|
8.05 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
30 Twosome Drive |
|
1997 |
|
39,675 |
|
75.8 |
|
191 |
|
173 |
|
0.04 |
|
6.35 |
|
5.75 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
31 Twosome Drive |
|
1998 |
|
84,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
452 |
|
452 |
|
0.08 |
|
5.37 |
|
5.37 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
40 Twosome Drive |
|
1996 |
|
40,265 |
|
86.1 |
|
261 |
|
207 |
|
0.05 |
|
7.53 |
|
5.97 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
41 Twosome Drive |
|
1998 |
|
43,050 |
|
91.6 |
|
218 |
|
214 |
|
0.04 |
|
5.53 |
|
5.43 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
50 Twosome Drive |
|
1997 |
|
34,075 |
|
100.0 |
|
265 |
|
249 |
|
0.05 |
|
7.78 |
|
7.31 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Gloucester County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
West Deptford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
1451 Metropolitan Drive |
|
1996 |
|
21,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
148 |
|
148 |
|
0.03 |
|
6.85 |
|
6.85 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Mercer County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Hamilton Township |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
100 Horizon Center Boulevard |
|
1989 |
|
13,275 |
|
100.0 |
|
188 |
|
150 |
|
0.03 |
|
14.16 |
|
11.30 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
200 Horizon Drive |
|
1991 |
|
45,770 |
|
100.0 |
|
591 |
|
537 |
|
0.11 |
|
12.91 |
|
11.73 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
300 Horizon Drive |
|
1989 |
|
69,780 |
|
95.7 |
|
1,116 |
|
981 |
|
0.21 |
|
16.71 |
|
14.69 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
500 Horizon Drive |
|
1990 |
|
41,205 |
|
100.0 |
|
610 |
|
577 |
|
0.11 |
|
14.80 |
|
14.00 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
25
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monmouth County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wall Township |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1325 Campus Parkway |
|
1988 |
|
35,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
495 |
|
256 |
|
0.09 |
|
14.14 |
|
7.31 |
|
|
1340 Campus Parkway |
|
1992 |
|
72,502 |
|
100.0 |
|
613 |
|
484 |
|
0.11 |
|
8.45 |
|
6.68 |
|
|
1345 Campus Parkway |
|
1995 |
|
76,300 |
|
100.0 |
|
825 |
|
633 |
|
0.15 |
|
10.81 |
|
8.30 |
|
|
1433 Highway 34 |
|
1985 |
|
69,020 |
|
59.3 |
|
578 |
|
499 |
|
0.11 |
|
14.12 |
|
12.19 |
|
|
1320 Wyckoff Avenue |
|
1986 |
|
20,336 |
|
100.0 |
|
178 |
|
168 |
|
0.03 |
|
8.75 |
|
8.26 |
|
|
1324 Wyckoff Avenue |
|
1987 |
|
21,168 |
|
100.0 |
|
221 |
|
191 |
|
0.04 |
|
10.44 |
|
9.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passaic County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totowa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Center Court |
|
1999 |
|
38,961 |
|
100.0 |
|
534 |
|
415 |
|
0.10 |
|
13.71 |
|
10.65 |
|
|
2 Center Court |
|
1998 |
|
30,600 |
|
55.5 |
|
267 |
|
220 |
|
0.05 |
|
15.72 |
|
12.95 |
|
|
11 Commerce Way |
|
1989 |
|
47,025 |
|
100.0 |
|
547 |
|
487 |
|
0.10 |
|
11.63 |
|
10.36 |
|
|
20 Commerce Way |
|
1992 |
|
42,540 |
|
85.9 |
|
473 |
|
460 |
|
0.09 |
|
12.94 |
|
12.59 |
|
|
29 Commerce Way |
|
1990 |
|
48,930 |
|
100.0 |
|
659 |
|
535 |
|
0.12 |
|
13.47 |
|
10.93 |
|
|
40 Commerce Way |
|
1987 |
|
50,576 |
|
100.0 |
|
684 |
|
640 |
|
0.13 |
|
13.52 |
|
12.65 |
|
|
45 Commerce Way |
|
1992 |
|
51,207 |
|
64.5 |
|
302 |
|
252 |
|
0.06 |
|
9.14 |
|
7.63 |
|
|
60 Commerce Way |
|
1988 |
|
50,333 |
|
100.0 |
|
645 |
|
562 |
|
0.12 |
|
12.81 |
|
11.17 |
|
|
80 Commerce Way |
|
1996 |
|
22,500 |
|
88.7 |
|
303 |
|
268 |
|
0.06 |
|
15.18 |
|
13.43 |
|
|
100 Commerce Way |
|
1996 |
|
24,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
331 |
|
293 |
|
0.06 |
|
13.46 |
|
11.91 |
|
|
120 Commerce Way |
|
1994 |
|
9,024 |
|
100.0 |
|
109 |
|
103 |
|
0.02 |
|
12.08 |
|
11.41 |
|
|
140 Commerce Way |
|
1994 |
|
26,881 |
|
99.5 |
|
324 |
|
307 |
|
0.06 |
|
12.11 |
|
11.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total New Jersey Office/Flex |
|
|
|
2,277,531 |
|
92.7 |
|
18,877 |
|
16,252 |
|
3.49 |
|
8.95 |
|
7.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Westchester County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elmsford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 Clearbrook Road |
|
1974 |
|
31,800 |
|
100.0 |
|
441 |
|
420 |
|
0.08 |
|
13.87 |
|
13.21 |
|
|
75 Clearbrook Road |
|
1990 |
|
32,720 |
|
100.0 |
|
730 |
|
730 |
|
0.13 |
|
22.31 |
|
22.31 |
|
|
125 Clearbrook Road |
|
2002 |
|
33,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
712 |
|
592 |
|
0.13 |
|
21.58 |
|
17.94 |
|
|
150 Clearbrook Road |
|
1975 |
|
74,900 |
|
84.9 |
|
893 |
|
829 |
|
0.16 |
|
14.04 |
|
13.04 |
|
|
175 Clearbrook Road |
|
1973 |
|
98,900 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,559 |
|
1,425 |
|
0.29 |
|
15.76 |
|
14.41 |
|
|
200 Clearbrook Road |
|
1974 |
|
94,000 |
|
99.8 |
|
1,221 |
|
1,120 |
|
0.23 |
|
13.02 |
|
11.94 |
|
|
250 Clearbrook Road |
|
1973 |
|
155,000 |
|
97.3 |
|
1,380 |
|
1,250 |
|
0.25 |
|
9.15 |
|
8.29 |
|
|
50 Executive Boulevard |
|
1969 |
|
45,200 |
|
95.2 |
|
405 |
|
389 |
|
0.07 |
|
9.41 |
|
9.04 |
|
|
77 Executive Boulevard |
|
1977 |
|
13,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
220 |
|
208 |
|
0.04 |
|
16.92 |
|
16.00 |
|
|
85 Executive Boulevard |
|
1968 |
|
31,000 |
|
50.4 |
|
243 |
|
230 |
|
0.04 |
|
15.55 |
|
14.72 |
|
|
300 Executive Boulevard |
|
1970 |
|
60,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
581 |
|
550 |
|
0.11 |
|
9.68 |
|
9.17 |
|
|
350 Executive Boulevard |
|
1970 |
|
15,400 |
|
98.8 |
|
296 |
|
272 |
|
0.05 |
|
19.45 |
|
17.88 |
|
|
399 Executive Boulevard |
|
1962 |
|
80,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,024 |
|
997 |
|
0.19 |
|
12.80 |
|
12.46 |
|
|
400 Executive Boulevard |
|
1970 |
|
42,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
771 |
|
688 |
|
0.14 |
|
18.27 |
|
16.30 |
|
|
500 Executive Boulevard |
|
1970 |
|
41,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
684 |
|
622 |
|
0.13 |
|
16.44 |
|
14.95 |
|
26
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
525 Executive Boulevard |
|
1972 |
|
61,700 |
|
83.6 |
|
811 |
|
722 |
|
0.15 |
|
15.72 |
|
14.00 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
1 Westchester Plaza |
|
1967 |
|
25,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
327 |
|
312 |
|
0.06 |
|
13.08 |
|
12.48 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
2 Westchester Plaza |
|
1968 |
|
25,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
492 |
|
483 |
|
0.09 |
|
19.68 |
|
19.32 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
3 Westchester Plaza |
|
1969 |
|
93,500 |
|
100.0 |
|
730 |
|
636 |
|
0.13 |
|
7.81 |
|
6.80 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
4 Westchester Plaza |
|
1969 |
|
44,700 |
|
99.8 |
|
643 |
|
597 |
|
0.12 |
|
14.41 |
|
13.38 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
5 Westchester Plaza |
|
1969 |
|
20,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
327 |
|
289 |
|
0.06 |
|
16.35 |
|
14.45 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
6 Westchester Plaza |
|
1968 |
|
20,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
326 |
|
304 |
|
0.06 |
|
16.30 |
|
15.20 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
7 Westchester Plaza |
|
1972 |
|
46,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
721 |
|
708 |
|
0.13 |
|
15.61 |
|
15.32 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
8 Westchester Plaza |
|
1971 |
|
67,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
904 |
|
815 |
|
0.17 |
|
13.45 |
|
12.13 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Hawthorne |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
200 Saw Mill River Road |
|
1965 |
|
51,100 |
|
88.8 |
|
607 |
|
553 |
|
0.11 |
|
13.38 |
|
12.19 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
4 Skyline Drive |
|
1987 |
|
80,600 |
|
92.2 |
|
1,378 |
|
1,245 |
|
0.25 |
|
18.54 |
|
16.75 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
5 Skyline Drive |
|
1980 |
|
124,022 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,580 |
|
1,531 |
|
0.30 |
|
12.74 |
|
12.34 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
6 Skyline Drive |
|
1980 |
|
44,155 |
|
100.0 |
|
394 |
|
394 |
|
0.07 |
|
8.92 |
|
8.92 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
8 Skyline Drive |
|
1985 |
|
50,000 |
|
98.7 |
|
897 |
|
349 |
|
0.17 |
|
18.18 |
|
7.07 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
10 Skyline Drive |
|
1985 |
|
20,000 |
|
49.4 |
|
164 |
|
157 |
|
0.03 |
|
16.60 |
|
15.89 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
11 Skyline Drive |
|
1989 |
|
45,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
803 |
|
760 |
|
0.15 |
|
17.84 |
|
16.89 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
12 Skyline Drive |
|
1999 |
|
46,850 |
|
85.1 |
|
600 |
|
371 |
|
0.11 |
|
15.05 |
|
9.31 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
15 Skyline Drive |
|
1989 |
|
55,000 |
|
54.7 |
|
862 |
|
806 |
|
0.16 |
|
28.65 |
|
26.79 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Yonkers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
100 Corporate Boulevard |
|
1987 |
|
78,000 |
|
98.2 |
|
1,493 |
|
1,405 |
|
0.28 |
|
19.49 |
|
18.34 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
200 Corporate Boulevard South |
|
1990 |
|
84,000 |
|
99.8 |
|
1,370 |
|
1,340 |
|
0.25 |
|
16.34 |
|
15.98 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
4 Executive Plaza |
|
1986 |
|
80,000 |
|
99.0 |
|
1,036 |
|
861 |
|
0.19 |
|
13.08 |
|
10.87 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
6 Executive Plaza |
|
1987 |
|
80,000 |
|
98.0 |
|
1,174 |
|
1,118 |
|
0.22 |
|
14.97 |
|
14.26 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
1 Odell Plaza |
|
1980 |
|
106,000 |
|
99.9 |
|
1,470 |
|
1,378 |
|
0.27 |
|
13.88 |
|
13.01 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
3 Odell Plaza |
|
1984 |
|
71,065 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,597 |
|
1,481 |
|
0.29 |
|
22.47 |
|
20.84 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
5 Odell Plaza |
|
1983 |
|
38,400 |
|
99.6 |
|
656 |
|
609 |
|
0.12 |
|
17.15 |
|
15.92 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
7 Odell Plaza |
|
1984 |
|
42,600 |
|
99.6 |
|
714 |
|
686 |
|
0.13 |
|
16.83 |
|
16.17 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Total New York Office/Flex |
|
|
|
2,348,812 |
|
95.6 |
|
33,236 |
|
30,232 |
|
6.11 |
|
14.80 |
|
13.46 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
CONNECTICUT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Fairfield County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Stamford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
419 West Avenue |
|
1986 |
|
88,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
1,161 |
|
992 |
|
0.21 |
|
13.19 |
|
11.27 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
500 West Avenue |
|
1988 |
|
25,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
463 |
|
419 |
|
0.09 |
|
18.52 |
|
16.76 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
550 West Avenue |
|
1990 |
|
54,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
884 |
|
879 |
|
0.16 |
|
16.37 |
|
16.28 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
600 West Avenue |
|
1999 |
|
66,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
804 |
|
767 |
|
0.15 |
|
12.18 |
|
11.62 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
650 West Avenue |
|
1998 |
|
40,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
555 |
|
424 |
|
0.10 |
|
13.88 |
|
10.60 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Total Connecticut Office/Flex |
|
|
|
273,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
3,867 |
|
3,481 |
|
0.71 |
|
14.16 |
|
12.75 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
TOTAL OFFICE/FLEX PROPERTIES |
|
|
|
4,899,343 |
|
94.5 |
|
55,980 |
|
49,965 |
|
10.31 |
|
12.09 |
|
10.79 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
27
Industrial/Warehouse, Retail and Land Lease Properties
|
Property Location |
|
Year |
|
Net |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
Percentage |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
NEW YORK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Westchester County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Elmsford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
1 Warehouse Lane |
|
1957 |
|
6,600 |
|
100.0 |
|
81 |
|
79 |
|
0.01 |
|
12.27 |
|
11.97 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
2 Warehouse Lane |
|
1957 |
|
10,900 |
|
100.0 |
|
166 |
|
138 |
|
0.03 |
|
15.23 |
|
12.66 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
3 Warehouse Lane |
|
1957 |
|
77,200 |
|
100.0 |
|
324 |
|
293 |
|
0.06 |
|
4.20 |
|
3.80 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
4 Warehouse Lane |
|
1957 |
|
195,500 |
|
96.7 |
|
2,166 |
|
1,963 |
|
0.40 |
|
11.46 |
|
10.38 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
5 Warehouse Lane |
|
1957 |
|
75,100 |
|
97.1 |
|
989 |
|
887 |
|
0.18 |
|
13.56 |
|
12.16 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
6 Warehouse Lane |
|
1982 |
|
22,100 |
|
100.0 |
|
512 |
|
508 |
|
0.09 |
|
23.17 |
|
22.99 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Total Industrial/Warehouse Properties |
|
|
|
387,400 |
|
97.8 |
|
4,238 |
|
3,868 |
|
0.77 |
|
11.19 |
|
10.21 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Westchester County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Tarrytown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
230 White Plains Road |
|
1984 |
|
9,300 |
|
100.0 |
|
195 |
|
183 |
|
0.04 |
|
20.97 |
|
19.68 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Yonkers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
2 Executive Boulevard |
|
1986 |
|
8,000 |
|
100.0 |
|
108 |
|
108 |
|
0.02 |
|
13.50 |
|
13.50 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Total Retail Properties |
|
|
|
17,300 |
|
100.0 |
|
303 |
|
291 |
|
0.06 |
|
17.51 |
|
16.82 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Westchester County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Elmsford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
700 Executive Boulevard |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
114 |
|
114 |
|
0.02 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Yonkers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
1 Enterprise Boulevard |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
170 |
|
169 |
|
0.03 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Total Land Leases |
|
|
|
— |
|
284 |
|
283 |
|
0.05 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
TOTAL PROPERTIES |
|
|
|
29,494,371 |
|
91.0 |
|
541,702 |
|
488,129 |
|
100.00 |
|
20.45 |
|
18.40 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
(a) Percentage leased includes all leases in effect as of the period end date, some of which have commencement dates in the future (including leases with commencement dates substantially in the future consisting of 15,125 square feet scheduled to commence in 2009 and 10,205 square feet scheduled to commence in 2011), and leases expiring December 31, 2005 aggregating 311,623 square feet (representing 1.1 percent of the Company’s total net rentable square footage) for which no new leases were signed.
(b) Total base rent for 2005, determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). Substantially all of the leases provide for annual base rents plus recoveries and escalation charges based upon the tenant’s proportionate share of and/or increases in real estate taxes and certain operating costs, as defined, and the pass through of charges for electrical usage.
(c) Excludes space leased by the Company.
(d) Total base rent for 2005 minus total 2005 amortization of tenant improvements, leasing commissions and other concessions and costs, determined in accordance with GAAP.
(e) Base rent for 2005 divided by net rentable square feet leased at December 31, 2005. For those properties acquired during 2005, amounts are annualized, as per Note g.
(f) Effective rent for 2005 divided by net rentable square feet leased at December 31, 2005. For those properties acquired during 2005, amounts are annualized, as described in Note g.
(g) As this property was acquired by the Company during 2005, the amounts represented in 2005 base rent and 2005 effective rent reflect only that portion of the year during which the Company owned the property. Accordingly, these amounts may not be indicative of the property’s full year results. For comparison purposes, the amounts represented in 2005 average base rent per sq. ft. and 2005 average effective rent per sq. ft. for this property have been calculated by taking 2005 base rent and 2005 effective rent for such property and annualizing these partial-year results, dividing such annualized amounts by the net rentable square feet leased at December 31, 2005. These annualized per square foot amounts may not be indicative of the property’s results had the Company owned the property for the entirety of 2005.
28
The following table sets forth the year-end percentages of square feet leased in the Company’s stabilized operating Consolidated Properties for the last five years:
|
December 31, |
|
|
Percentage of |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
91.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 (b) |
|
|
91.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
91.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
92.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
94.6 |
|
(a) Percentage of square-feet leased includes all leases in effect as of the period end date, some of which have commencement dates in the future (including, at December 31, 2005, leases with commencement dates substantially in the future consisting of 15,125 square feet scheduled to commence in 2009 and 10,205 square feet scheduled to commence in 2011), and leases that expire at the period end date.
(b) Excluded from percentage leased at December 31, 2004 is a non-strategic, non-core 318,224 square foot property acquired through a deed in lieu of foreclosure, which was 12.7 percent leased at December 31, 2004 and subsequently sold on February 4, 2005.
29
SIGNIFICANT TENANTS
The following table sets forth a schedule of the Company’s 50 largest tenants for the Consolidated Properties as of December 31, 2005 based upon annualized base rental revenue:
|
|
|
Number
of |
|
Annualized |
|
Percentage
of |
|
Square |
|
Percentage |
|
Year of |
|
|
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC |
|
3 |
|
11,274,462 |
|
1.9 |
|
456,190 |
|
1.8 |
|
2014 |
(b) |
|
Morgan Stanley D.W., Inc. |
|
5 |
|
9,375,915 |
|
1.6 |
|
381,576 |
|
1.5 |
|
2013 |
(c) |
|
Credit Suisse First Boston |
|
1 |
|
9,196,912 |
|
1.5 |
|
271,953 |
|
1.0 |
|
2012 |
(d) |
|
Merrill Lynch |
|
1 |
|
8,327,484 |
|
1.5 |
|
489,564 |
|
1.9 |
|
2012 |
(e) |
|
Keystone Mercy Health Plan |
|
2 |
|
7,790,929 |
|
1.4 |
|
303,149 |
|
1.1 |
|
2015 |
|
|
National Union Fire Insurance |
|
1 |
|
7,711,023 |
|
1.4 |
|
317,799 |
|
1.2 |
|
2012 |
|
|
Prentice-Hall, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
7,694,097 |
|
1.4 |
|
474,801 |
|
1.8 |
|
2014 |
|
|
Forest Laboratories Inc. |
|
2 |
|
6,961,107 |
|
1.2 |
|
202,857 |
|
0.8 |
|
2017 |
(f) |
|
Cendant Operations Inc. |
|
2 |
|
6,839,418 |
|
1.2 |
|
296,934 |
|
1.1 |
|
2011 |
(g) |
|
Allstate Insurance Company |
|
10 |
|
6,076,187 |
|
1.1 |
|
264,550 |
|
1.0 |
|
2010 |
(h) |
|
Toys ‘R’ Us – NJ, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
6,072,651 |
|
1.1 |
|
242,518 |
|
0.9 |
|
2012 |
|
|
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants |
|
1 |
|
5,817,181 |
|
1.0 |
|
249,768 |
|
0.9 |
|
2012 |
|
|
TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
5,572,716 |
|
1.0 |
|
184,222 |
|
0.7 |
|
2015 |
|
|
IBM Corporation |
|
3 |
|
5,529,841 |
|
1.0 |
|
310,263 |
|
1.2 |
|
2012 |
(i) |
|
Garban LLC |
|
1 |
|
5,495,470 |
|
1.0 |
|
148,025 |
|
0.6 |
|
2017 |
|
|
United States of America-GSA |
|
7 |
|
5,384,893 |
|
1.0 |
|
170,920 |
|
0.6 |
|
2015 |
(j) |
|
KPMG, LLP |
|
3 |
|
4,784,243 |
|
0.9 |
|
181,025 |
|
0.7 |
|
2012 |
(k) |
|
AT&T Corp. |
|
3 |
|
4,691,911 |
|
0.8 |
|
311,967 |
|
1.2 |
|
2014 |
(l) |
|
National Financial Services |
|
1 |
|
4,346,765 |
|
0.8 |
|
112,964 |
|
0.4 |
|
2012 |
|
|
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. |
|
1 |
|
4,228,795 |
|
0.8 |
|
137,076 |
|
0.5 |
|
2009 |
|
|
Vonage America, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
3,830,750 |
|
0.7 |
|
350,000 |
|
1.3 |
|
2017 |
|
|
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. |
|
5 |
|
3,455,193 |
|
0.6 |
|
132,475 |
|
0.5 |
|
2016 |
(m) |
|
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
3,420,667 |
|
0.6 |
|
207,300 |
|
0.8 |
|
2010 |
|
|
SSB Realty, LLC |
|
1 |
|
3,321,051 |
|
0.6 |
|
114,519 |
|
0.4 |
|
2009 |
|
|
URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde |
|
1 |
|
3,252,691 |
|
0.6 |
|
120,550 |
|
0.5 |
|
2011 |
|
|
Dow Jones & Company Inc. |
|
3 |
|
3,168,843 |
|
0.6 |
|
96,873 |
|
0.4 |
|
2012 |
(n) |
|
Montefiore Medical Center |
|
5 |
|
3,155,950 |
|
0.6 |
|
147,457 |
|
0.6 |
|
2019 |
(o) |
|
Sankyo Pharma Inc. |
|
2 |
|
2,843,876 |
|
0.5 |
|
90,366 |
|
0.3 |
|
2012 |
(p) |
|
SunAmerica Asset Management |
|
1 |
|
2,680,409 |
|
0.5 |
|
69,621 |
|
0.3 |
|
2018 |
|
|
American Home Assurance Co. |
|
2 |
|
2,679,704 |
|
0.5 |
|
131,174 |
|
0.5 |
|
2019 |
(q) |
|
Regus Business Centre Corp. |
|
3 |
|
2,650,376 |
|
0.5 |
|
107,608 |
|
0.4 |
|
2011 |
|
|
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. |
|
2 |
|
2,580,155 |
|
0.5 |
|
71,153 |
|
0.3 |
|
2016 |
|
|
United States Life Insurance Co. |
|
1 |
|
2,520,000 |
|
0.5 |
|
180,000 |
|
0.7 |
|
2013 |
|
|
New Jersey Turnpike Authority |
|
1 |
|
2,455,463 |
|
0.4 |
|
100,223 |
|
0.4 |
|
2016 |
|
|
Barr Laboratories Inc. |
|
2 |
|
2,450,087 |
|
0.4 |
|
109,510 |
|
0.4 |
|
2015 |
(r) |
|
BT Harborside |
|
1 |
|
2,354,850 |
|
0.4 |
|
90,000 |
|
0.3 |
|
2007 |
|
|
Moody’s Investors Service |
|
1 |
|
2,290,374 |
|
0.4 |
|
79,537 |
|
0.3 |
|
2010 |
(s) |
|
Merck & Company Inc. |
|
3 |
|
2,289,288 |
|
0.4 |
|
100,146 |
|
0.4 |
|
2008 |
(t) |
|
Movado Group, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
2,275,175 |
|
0.4 |
|
90,050 |
|
0.3 |
|
2013 |
|
|
Lonza, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
2,236,200 |
|
0.4 |
|
89,448 |
|
0.3 |
|
2007 |
|
|
Computer Sciences Corporation |
|
3 |
|
2,180,913 |
|
0.4 |
|
109,825 |
|
0.4 |
|
2007 |
(u) |
|
Deloitte & Touche USA LLP |
|
1 |
|
2,171,275 |
|
0.4 |
|
86,851 |
|
0.3 |
|
2007 |
|
|
High Point Safety & Insurance |
|
1 |
|
2,095,629 |
|
0.4 |
|
88,237 |
|
0.3 |
|
2015 |
|
|
Nextel of New York Inc. |
|
2 |
|
2,093,440 |
|
0.4 |
|
97,436 |
|
0.4 |
|
2014 |
(v) |
|
Pfizer, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
2,072,046 |
|
0.4 |
|
89,912 |
|
0.3 |
|
2007 |
|
|
Xerox Corporation |
|
4 |
|
2,057,047 |
|
0.4 |
|
83,789 |
|
0.3 |
|
2010 |
(w) |
|
UBS Financial Services, Inc. |
|
4 |
|
2,057,007 |
|
0.4 |
|
76,915 |
|
0.3 |
|
2016 |
(x) |
|
Mellon HR Solutions LLC |
|
1 |
|
2,044,590 |
|
0.4 |
|
68,153 |
|
0.3 |
|
2006 |
|
|
GAB Robins North America, Inc. |
|
2 |
|
2,028,512 |
|
0.4 |
|
84,649 |
|
0.3 |
|
2009 |
(y) |
|
PR Newswire Association, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
1,912,908 |
|
0.3 |
|
56,262 |
|
0.2 |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
|
|
209,796,469 |
|
37.6 |
|
8,828,160 |
|
33.4 |
|
|
|
See footnotes on subsequent page.
30
Significant Tenants Footnotes
(a) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006, annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, historical results may differ from those set forth above.
(b) 383,805 square feet expire in 2013; 72,385 square feet expire in 2014.
(c) 19,500 square feet expire in 2008; 7,000 square feet expire in 2009; 48,906 square feet expire in 2010; 306,170 square feet expire in 2013.
(d) 190,000 feet expire in 2011; 81,953 square feet expire in 2012.
(e) 311,053 square feet expire in 2007; 178,511 square feet expire in 2012.
(f) 22,785 square feet expire in 2010; 180,072 square feet expire in 2017.
(g) 150,951 square feet expire in 2008; 145,983 square feet expire in 2011.
(h) 22,444 square feet expire in 2006; 93,541 square feet expire in 2007; 59,562 square feet expire in 2008; 22,185 square feet expire in 2009; 66,818 square feet expire in 2010.
(i) 61,864 square feet expire in 2010; 248,399 square feet expire in 2012.
(j) 6,610 square feet expire in 2006; 4,950 square feet expire in 2007; 19,702 square feet expire in 2008; 4,879 square feet expire in 2014; 134,779 square feet expire in 2015.
(k) 57,204 square feet expire in 2007; 46,440 square feet expire in 2009; 77,381 square feet expire in 2012.
(l) 4,786 square feet expire in 2007; 32,181 square feet expire in 2009; 275,000 square feet expire in 2014.
(m) 19,668 square feet expire in 2007; 59,711 square feet expire in 2009; 26,834 square feet expire in 2014; 26,262 square feet expire in 2016.
(n) 4,561 square feet expire in 2006; 92,312 square feet expire in 2012.
(o) 19,000 square feet expire in 2007; 48,542 square feet expire in 2009; 5,850 square feet expire in 2014; 3,000 square feet expire in 2016; 71,065 square feet expire in 2019.
(p) 5,315 square feet expire in 2011; 85,051 square feet expire in 2012.
(q) 14,056 square feet expire in 2008; 117,118 square feet expire in 2019.
(r) 20,000 square feet expire in 2007; 89,510 square feet expire in 2015.
(s) 43,344 square feet expire in 2009; 36,193 square feet expire in 2010.
(t) 97,396 square feet expire in 2006; 2,750 square feet expire in 2008.
(u) 82,850 square feet expire in 2006; 26,975 square feet expire in 2007.
(v) 62,436 square feet expire in 2010; 35,000 square feet expire in 2014.
(w) 34,901 square feet expire in 2006; 2,875 square feet expire in 2007; 1,500 square feet expire in 2008; 44,513 square feet expire in 2010.
(x) 3,665 square feet expire in 2006; 21,554 square feet expire in 2010; 17,383 square feet expire in 2013; 34,313 square feet expire in 2016.
(y) 75,049 square feet expire in 2008; 9,600 square feet expire in 2009.
31
The following table sets forth a schedule of lease expirations for the total of the Company’s office, office/flex, industrial/warehouse and stand-alone retail properties included in the Consolidated Properties beginning January 1, 2006, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal or termination options:
|
Year
Of |
|
Number Of |
|
Net Rentable |
|
Percentage Of |
|
Annualized |
|
Average |
|
Percentage Of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 (c) |
|
400 |
|
2,005,042 |
|
7.6 |
|
44,391,023 |
|
22.14 |
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
391 |
|
2,603,375 |
|
9.9 |
|
52,885,133 |
|
20.31 |
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
417 |
|
3,058,780 |
|
11.6 |
|
58,917,395 |
|
19.26 |
|
10.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
347 |
|
2,385,673 |
|
9.0 |
|
51,050,483 |
|
21.40 |
|
9.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
337 |
|
2,811,274 |
|
10.6 |
|
55,703,986 |
|
19.81 |
|
10.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
256 |
|
3,063,930 |
|
11.6 |
|
66,227,673 |
|
21.62 |
|
11.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012 |
|
146 |
|
2,250,372 |
|
8.5 |
|
50,700,147 |
|
22.53 |
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013 |
|
105 |
|
2,245,910 |
|
8.5 |
|
49,011,976 |
|
21.82 |
|
8.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 |
|
53 |
|
1,279,798 |
|
4.8 |
|
28,744,046 |
|
22.46 |
|
5.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 |
|
56 |
|
2,338,945 |
|
8.9 |
|
48,649,113 |
|
20.80 |
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016 |
|
34 |
|
719,206 |
|
2.7 |
|
13,992,211 |
|
19.46 |
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017 and thereafter |
|
44 |
|
1,659,844 |
|
6.3 |
|
37,142,228 |
|
22.38 |
|
6.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals/Weighted Average |
|
2,586 |
|
26,422,149 |
(d) |
100.0 |
|
557,415,414 |
|
21.10 |
|
100.0 |
|
(a) Includes office, office/flex, industrial/warehouse and stand-alone retail property tenants only. Excludes leases for amenity, retail, parking and month-to-month tenants. Some tenants have multiple leases.
(b) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006, annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, historical results may differ from those set forth above.
(c) Includes leases expiring December 31, 2005 aggregating 306,733 square feet and representing annualized rent of $4,688,871 for which no new leases were signed.
(d) Reconciliation to the Company’s total net rentable square footage is as follows:
|
|
|
Square Feet |
|
|
Square footage leased to commercial tenants |
|
26,422,149 |
|
|
Square footage used for corporate offices, management offices, building use, retail tenants, food services, other ancillary service tenants and occupancy adjustments |
|
427,109 |
|
|
Square footage unleased |
|
2,645,113 |
|
|
Total net rentable square footage (does not include land leases) |
|
29,494,371 |
|
32
SCHEDULE OF LEASE EXPIRATIONS: OFFICE PROPERTIES
The following table sets forth a schedule of lease expirations for the office properties beginning January 1, 2006, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal or termination options:
|
Year
Of |
|
Number Of |
|
Net Rentable |
|
Percentage Of |
|
Annualized |
|
Average |
|
Percentage Of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 (c) |
|
341 |
|
1,663,997 |
|
7.7 |
|
39,787,414 |
|
23.91 |
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
316 |
|
1,936,407 |
|
9.0 |
|
44,519,145 |
|
22.99 |
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
331 |
|
2,182,701 |
|
10.2 |
|
50,027,179 |
|
22.92 |
|
10.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
285 |
|
1,854,119 |
|
8.7 |
|
44,043,432 |
|
23.75 |
|
8.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
262 |
|
1,992,300 |
|
9.3 |
|
44,611,712 |
|
22.39 |
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
210 |
|
2,547,985 |
|
11.9 |
|
60,496,453 |
|
23.74 |
|
12.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012 |
|
111 |
|
1,902,057 |
|
8.9 |
|
45,889,698 |
|
24.13 |
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013 |
|
82 |
|
1,971,356 |
|
9.2 |
|
44,958,470 |
|
22.81 |
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 |
|
43 |
|
1,170,339 |
|
5.5 |
|
27,046,621 |
|
23.11 |
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 |
|
43 |
|
2,176,794 |
|
10.2 |
|
46,681,350 |
|
21.45 |
|
9.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016 |
|
25 |
|
507,107 |
|
2.4 |
|
11,441,170 |
|
22.56 |
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017 and thereafter |
|
37 |
|
1,503,779 |
|
7.0 |
|
35,035,878 |
|
23.30 |
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals/Weighted Average |
|
2,086 |
|
21,408,941 |
|
100.0 |
|
494,538,522 |
|
23.10 |
|
100.0 |
|
(a) Includes office tenants only. Excludes leases for amenity, retail, parking and month-to-month tenants. Some tenants have multiple leases.
(b) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006, annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, historical results may differ from those set forth above.
(c) Includes leases expiring December 31, 2005 aggregating 240,688 square feet and representing annualized rent of $3,791,513 for which no new leases were signed.
33
SCHEDULE OF LEASE EXPIRATIONS: OFFICE/FLEX PROPERTIES
The following table sets forth a schedule of lease expirations for the office/flex properties beginning January 1, 2006, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal or termination options:
|
Year
Of |
|
Number Of |
|
Net Rentable |
|
Percentage Of |
|
Annualized |
|
Average |
|
Percentage Of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 (c) |
|
59 |
|
341,045 |
|
7.3 |
|
4,603,609 |
|
13.50 |
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
72 |
|
654,318 |
|
14.2 |
|
8,147,033 |
|
12.45 |
|
13.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
83 |
|
784,710 |
|
17.0 |
|
8,417,367 |
|
10.73 |
|
14.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
56 |
|
473,271 |
|
10.3 |
|
6,023,326 |
|
12.73 |
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
74 |
|
790,974 |
|
17.1 |
|
10,798,274 |
|
13.65 |
|
18.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
45 |
|
508,345 |
|
11.0 |
|
5,640,020 |
|
11.09 |
|
9.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012 |
|
35 |
|
348,315 |
|
7.5 |
|
4,810,449 |
|
13.81 |
|
8.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013 |
|
16 |
|
219,318 |
|
4.8 |
|
3,366,333 |
|
15.35 |
|
5.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 |
|
10 |
|
109,459 |
|
2.4 |
|
1,697,425 |
|
15.51 |
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 |
|
13 |
|
162,151 |
|
3.5 |
|
1,967,763 |
|
12.14 |
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016 |
|
7 |
|
77,017 |
|
1.7 |
|
1,132,680 |
|
14.71 |
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017 and thereafter |
|
6 |
|
148,065 |
|
3.2 |
|
1,881,350 |
|
12.71 |
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals/Weighted Average |
|
476 |
|
4,616,988 |
|
100.0 |
|
58,485,629 |
|
12.67 |
|
100.0 |
|
(a) Includes office/flex tenants only. Excludes leases for amenity, retail, parking and month-to-month tenants. Some tenants have multiple leases.
(b) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006, annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, historical results may differ from those set forth above.
(c) Includes leases expiring December 31, 2005 aggregating 66,045 square feet and representing annualized rent of $897,358 for which no new leases were signed.
34
SCHEDULE OF LEASE EXPIRATIONS: INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE PROPERTIES
The following table sets forth a schedule of lease expirations for the industrial/warehouse properties beginning January 1, 2006, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal or termination options:
|
Year
Of |
|
Number Of |
|
Net Rentable |
|
Percentage Of |
|
Annualized |
|
Average |
|
Percentage Of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
3 |
|
12,650 |
|
3.3 |
|
218,955 |
|
17.31 |
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
3 |
|
91,369 |
|
24.1 |
|
472,849 |
|
5.18 |
|
11.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
5 |
|
48,983 |
|
12.9 |
|
788,725 |
|
16.10 |
|
19.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
1 |
|
28,000 |
|
7.4 |
|
294,000 |
|
10.50 |
|
7.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
1 |
|
7,600 |
|
2.0 |
|
91,200 |
|
12.00 |
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013 |
|
7 |
|
55,236 |
|
14.6 |
|
687,173 |
|
12.44 |
|
17.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016 |
|
2 |
|
135,082 |
|
35.7 |
|
1,418,361 |
|
10.50 |
|
35.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals/Weighted Average |
|
22 |
|
378,920 |
|
100.0 |
|
3,971,263 |
|
10.48 |
|
100.0 |
|
(a) Includes industrial/warehouse tenants only. Excludes leases for amenity, retail, parking and month-to-month industrial/warehouse tenants. Some tenants have multiple leases.
(b) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006, annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, the historical results may differ from those set forth above.
SCHEDULE OF LEASE EXPIRATIONS: STAND-ALONE RETAIL PROPERTIES
The following table sets forth a schedule of lease expirations for the stand-alone retail properties beginning January 1, 2006, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal or termination options:
|
Year
Of |
|
Number Of |
|
Net Rentable |
|
Percentage Of |
|
Annualized |
|
Average |
|
Percentage Of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
1 |
|
9,300 |
|
53.8 |
|
195,000 |
|
20.97 |
|
46.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017 and thereafter |
|
1 |
|
8,000 |
|
46.2 |
|
225,000 |
|
28.13 |
|
53.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals/Weighted Average |
|
2 |
|
17,300 |
|
100.0 |
|
420,000 |
|
24.28 |
|
100.0 |
|
(a) Includes stand-alone retail property tenants only.
(b) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006 annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, historical results may differ from those set forth above.
35
The following table lists the Company’s 30 largest industry classifications based on annualized contractual base rent of the Consolidated Properties:
|
Industry Classification (a) |
|
Annualized |
|
Percentage of |
|
Square |
|
Percentage of |
|
|
Securities, Commodity Contracts & Other Financial |
|
98,372,782 |
|
17.6 |
|
3,772,027 |
|
14.3 |
|
|
Manufacturing |
|
50,950,692 |
|
9.1 |
|
2,592,720 |
|
9.8 |
|
|
Insurance Carriers & Related Activities |
|
44,139,749 |
|
7.9 |
|
2,026,110 |
|
7.7 |
|
|
Telecommunications |
|
28,433,504 |
|
5.1 |
|
1,369,986 |
|
5.2 |
|
|
Computer System Design Svcs. |
|
27,608,346 |
|
5.0 |
|
1,344,921 |
|
5.1 |
|
|
Health Care & Social Assistance |
|
26,245,100 |
|
4.7 |
|
1,376,719 |
|
5.2 |
|
|
Legal Services |
|
22,942,652 |
|
4.1 |
|
933,071 |
|
3.5 |
|
|
Credit Intermediation & Related Activities |
|
22,930,882 |
|
4.1 |
|
971,011 |
|
3.7 |
|
|
Wholesale Trade |
|
22,670,061 |
|
4.1 |
|
1,459,230 |
|
5.5 |
|
|
Scientific Research/Development |
|
19,660,248 |
|
3.5 |
|
922,943 |
|
3.5 |
|
|
Accounting/Tax Prep. |
|
18,788,958 |
|
3.4 |
|
799,421 |
|
3.0 |
|
|
Retail Trade |
|
16,160,001 |
|
2.9 |
|
960,653 |
|
3.6 |
|
|
Advertising/Related Services |
|
13,373,820 |
|
2.4 |
|
579,199 |
|
2.2 |
|
|
Other Professional |
|
13,318,926 |
|
2.4 |
|
563,405 |
|
2.1 |
|
|
Public Administration |
|
12,159,567 |
|
2.2 |
|
474,866 |
|
1.8 |
|
|
Information Services |
|
11,979,116 |
|
2.1 |
|
579,968 |
|
2.2 |
|
|
Architectural/Engineering |
|
11,259,351 |
|
2.0 |
|
489,609 |
|
1.9 |
|
|
Other Services (except Public Administration) |
|
11,064,687 |
|
2.0 |
|
653,181 |
|
2.5 |
|
|
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation |
|
10,647,111 |
|
1.9 |
|
666,991 |
|
2.5 |
|
|
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing |
|
9,829,809 |
|
1.8 |
|
551,307 |
|
2.1 |
|
|
Broadcasting |
|
6,829,985 |
|
1.2 |
|
457,600 |
|
1.7 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
6,457,926 |
|
1.2 |
|
320,522 |
|
1.2 |
|
|
Publishing Industries |
|
5,752,461 |
|
1.0 |
|
255,973 |
|
1.0 |
|
|
Data Processing Services |
|
5,657,322 |
|
1.0 |
|
253,808 |
|
1.0 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
5,652,997 |
|
1.0 |
|
321,717 |
|
1.2 |
|
|
Construction |
|
5,605,538 |
|
1.0 |
|
285,170 |
|
1.1 |
|
|
Educational Services |
|
4,624,838 |
|
0.8 |
|
245,133 |
|
0.9 |
|
|
Management of Companies & Finance |
|
4,448,341 |
|
0.8 |
|
191,135 |
|
0.7 |
|
|
Admin & Support, Waste Mgt. & Remediation Svcs. |
|
3,331,989 |
|
0.6 |
|
221,867 |
|
0.8 |
|
|
Specialized Design Services |
|
3,223,136 |
|
0.6 |
|
153,661 |
|
0.6 |
|
|
Other |
|
13,295,519 |
|
2.5 |
|
628,225 |
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
557,415,414 |
|
100.0 |
|
26,422,149 |
|
100.0 |
|
(a) The Company’s tenants are classified according to the U.S. Government’s North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) which has replaced the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) system.
(b) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December, 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006, annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, historical results may differ from those set forth above.
(c) Includes office, office/flex, industrial/warehouse and stand-alone retail tenants only. Excludes leases for amenity, retail, parking and month-to-month tenants. Some tenants have multiple leases.
(d) Includes leases in effect as of the period end date, some of which have commencement dates in the future (including, at December 31, 2005, leases with commencement dates substantially in the future consisting of 15,125 square feet scheduled to commence in 2009 and 10,205 square feet scheduled to commence in 2011), and leases expiring December 31, 2005 aggregating 306,733 square feet and representing annualized rent of $4,688,871 for which no new leases were signed.
36
The following table lists the Company’s markets (MSAs), based on annualized contractual base rent of the Consolidated Properties:
|
Market (MSA) |
|
Annualized Base |
|
Percentage Of |
|
Total Property |
|
Percentage Of |
|
|
Jersey City, NJ |
|
103,376,501 |
|
18.6 |
|
4,317,978 |
|
14.7 |
|
|
Newark, NJ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Essex-Morris-Union Counties) |
|
102,277,027 |
|
18.3 |
|
5,674,820 |
|
19.2 |
|
|
New York, NY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Westchester-Rockland Counties) |
|
91,165,468 |
|
16.4 |
|
4,968,420 |
|
16.8 |
|
|
Bergen-Passaic, NJ |
|
89,493,867 |
|
16.1 |
|
4,351,762 |
|
14.8 |
|
|
Philadelphia, PA-NJ |
|
55,169,038 |
|
9.9 |
|
3,617,994 |
|
12.3 |
|
|
Monmouth-Ocean, NJ |
|
25,164,573 |
|
4.5 |
|
1,620,863 |
|
5.5 |
|
|
Trenton, NJ (Mercer County) |
|
17,227,825 |
|
3.1 |
|
767,365 |
|
2.6 |
|
|
Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ |
|
15,170,097 |
|
2.7 |
|
791,051 |
|
2.7 |
|
|
Denver, CO |
|
14,652,941 |
|
2.6 |
|
951,202 |
|
3.2 |
|
|
Stamford-Norwalk, CT |
|
12,813,911 |
|
2.3 |
|
706,510 |
|
2.4 |
|
|
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV |
|
11,625,066 |
|
2.1 |
|
450,549 |
|
1.5 |
|
|
San Francisco, CA |
|
8,268,000 |
|
1.5 |
|
450,891 |
|
1.5 |
|
|
Bridgeport, CT |
|
2,412,796 |
|
0.4 |
|
145,487 |
|
0.5 |
|
|
Boulder-Longmont, CO |
|
2,323,387 |
|
0.4 |
|
270,421 |
|
0.9 |
|
|
Colorado Springs, CO |
|
2,288,040 |
|
0.4 |
|
209,987 |
|
0.7 |
|
|
Dutchess County, NY |
|
2,062,226 |
|
0.4 |
|
118,727 |
|
0.4 |
|
|
Atlantic-Cape May, NJ |
|
1,924,651 |
|
0.3 |
|
80,344 |
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
557,415,414 |
|
100.0 |
|
29,494,371 |
|
100.0 |
|
(a) Annualized base rental revenue is based on actual December 2005 billings times 12. For leases whose rent commences after January 1, 2006, annualized base rental revenue is based on the first full month’s billing times 12. As annualized base rental revenue is not derived from historical GAAP results, historical results may differ from those set forth above.
(b) Includes leases in effect as of the period end date, some of which have commencement dates in the future (including, at December 31, 2005, leases with commencement dates substantially in the future consisting of 15,125 square feet scheduled to commence in 2009 and 10,205 square feet scheduled to commence in 2011), and leases expiring December 31, 2005 aggregating 306,733 square feet and representing annualized rent of $4,688,871 for which no new leases were signed.
(c) Includes office, office/flex, industrial/warehouse and stand-alone retail tenants only. Excludes leases for amenity, retail, parking and month-to-month tenants. Some tenants have multiple leases.
37
On February 12, 2003, the NJSEA selected The Mills Corporation and the Company to redevelop the Continental Airlines Arena site (“Arena Site”) for mixed uses, including retail. In March 2003, Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc., (“Hartz”), filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, for Bergen County, seeking to enjoin NJSEA from entering into a contract with the Meadowlands venture for the redevelopment of the Continental Airlines Arena site. In May 2003, the court denied Hartz’s request for an injunction and dismissed its suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In June 2003, the NJSEA held hearings on Hartz’s protest, and on a parallel protest filed by another rejected developer, Westfield, Inc. (“Westfield”). On September 10, 2003, the NJSEA ruled against Hartz’s and Westfield’s protests, Hartz and Westfield, as well as Elliot Braha and three other taxpayers (collectively “Braha”), thereafter filed appeals from the NJSEA’s final decision. By decision dated May 14, 2004, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey rejected the appellants’ contention that the NJSEA lacks statutory authority to allow retail development of its property. The Appellate Division also remanded Hart’s claim under the Open Public Records Acts, seeking disclosure of additional documents from NJSEA, to the Law Division for further proceedings. The Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to review the Appellate Division’s decision. On August 19, 2004, the Law Division issued a decision resolving Hartz’s Open Public Records Act claim and ordered NJSEA to disclose some, but not all, of the documents Hartz was seeking. The Appellate Division, in a decision rendered on November 24, 2004, upheld the findings of the Law Division in the remand proceeding. The Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to review the Appellate Division’s decision. At Hartz’s request, the NJSEA thereafter held further hearings on December 15 and 16, 2004, to review certain additional facts in support of Hartz’s and Westfield’s bid protest. Braha, as a taxpayer, did not have standing to participate in the supplemental protest hearing. On March 4, 2005, the Hearing Officer rendered his Supplemental Report and Recommendation to the NJSEA, finding no merit in the protests presented by Hartz and Westfield. The NJSEA accepted the Hearing Officer’s Supplemental Report and Recommendation on March 30, 2005 and Hartz and Braha have appealed that decision to the Appellate Division.
In January 2004, Hartz and Westfield also appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Jersey from the NJSEA’s December 2003 approval and execution of the Redevelopment Agreement with the Meadowlands Venture.
In November 2004, Hartz and Westfield filed additional appeals in the Appellate Division challenging NJSEA’s resolution authorizing the execution of the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement with Meadowlands Venture and the ground lease with the Meadowlands Venture.
All of the above appeals have been consolidated by the Appellate Division and are pending.
On September 30, 2004, the Borough of Carlstadt filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, challenging Meadowlands Xanadu, which asserts claims that are substantially the same as claims asserted by Hartz and Braha in the above appeals. By Order dated November 19, 2004, the Law Division transferred that matter to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. The matter is pending.
Several appeals filed by Hartz, Westfield and others, including certain environmental groups, that challenge certain approvals received by the Meadowlands Venture from the NJSEA, the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (“NJMC”) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) remain pending before the Appellate Division. Some of these appeals challenge NJDEP’s issuance of a stream encroachment permit, waterfront development permit, and coastal zone consistency determination for Meadowlands Xanadu. Other of these appeals are from NJDEP’s and NJMC’s issuance of reports in connection with a consultation process the NJSEA was statutorily required to undertake in connection with any NJSEA-development project.
A Hartz affiliate and a trade association have filed an appeal from an advisory opinion favorable to the Meadowlands Venture issued by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control concerning the availability of special concessionaire permits. That appeal is also pending in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Three separate lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) in connection with the project. The first suit was filed on March 30, 2005, by the Sierra Club, the New Jersey Public Interest Group, Citizen Lobby, Inc. and the New Jersey Environmental Federation. Additional suits were filed on May 16 and May 31, 2005, respectively, by Hartz (together
38
with one of its officers as an individual named plaintiff) and the Borough of Carlstadt. The Sierra Club also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop certain construction activities on the project, which the Court denied on July 6, 2005. The parties are currently briefing cross motions for summary judgment on the merits of the Sierra Club’s claims. A decision is expected sometime in the latter part of 2006. On October 26, 2005, the court granted the motions of the Meadowlands Venture and the USACE to dismiss the Hartz complaint for lack of standing. The deadline for appealing that decision has passed, so the Hartz action is ended. On October 31, 2005, the USACE filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Borough of Carlstadt for lack of standing. On February 7, 2006, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Borough of Carlstadt complaint in its entirety. Subject to any appeal that may be brought within 60 days after this order of dismissal, the Borough of Carlstadt action is ended.
On April 5, 2005, the New York Football Giants (“Giants”) filed an emergent application with the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, seeking an injunction stopping all work on the Meadowlands Xanadu as being in violation of its existing lease with the NJSEA. The court heard an oral argument on the application on August 5, 2005, and denied the Giants’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The Giants’ claim for permanent injunction relief remains pending. However, the parties to this dispute have reached a tentative settlement. In September 2005, the Giants and Meadowlands Venture executed a settlement agreement. NJSEA subsequently proposed modifications to the settlement agreement, and the parties have not yet executed a final agreement. The proposed settlement agreement provides, among other things, for the Meadowlands Venture to pay the Giants approximately $15 million as compensation for claims of construction interference and for the Giants to otherwise withdraw the assertion of the right to object to the project.
The New Jersey Builders’ Association (“NJBA”) has commenced an action, which is pending in the Appellate Division, alleging that the NJSEA has failed to meet a purported obligation to provide affordable housing at the Meadowlands Complex and seeking, among other relief, an order enjoining the construction of Meadowlands Xanadu. NJBA filed an application for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin further construction of Meadowlands Xanadu, which the Appellate Division denied on July 28, 2005. The Meadowlands Venture is not a party to that action.
On January 25, 2006, the Bergen Cliff Hawks Baseball Club, LLC (the “Cliff Hawks”), filed a complaint against the Company and Mills, alleging that the Company and Mills breached an agreement to provide the Cliff Hawks with a minor league baseball park as part of the Xanadu Project. This matter remains pending.
The Company believes that the Meadowlands Venture’s proposal and the planned project comply with applicable laws, and the Meadowlands Venture intends to continue its vigorous defense of its rights under the Redevelopment Agreement and Ground Lease. Although there can be no assurance, the Company does not believe that the pending lawsuits will have any material affect on its ability to develop the Meadowlands Xanadu project.
There are no other material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business, to which the Company is a party or to which any of the Properties is subject.
Not applicable.
39
|
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
The shares of the Company’s Common Stock are traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and the Pacific Exchange under the symbol “CLI.”
The following table sets forth the quarterly high, low, and closing price per share of Common Stock reported on the NYSE for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively:
For the Year Ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
High |
|
Low |
|
Close |
|
|||
|
First Quarter |
|
$ |
45.97 |
|
$ |
41.53 |
|
$ |
42.35 |
|
|
Second Quarter |
|
$ |
46.99 |
|
$ |
41.00 |
|
$ |
45.30 |
|
|
Third Quarter |
|
$ |
48.25 |
|
$ |
43.22 |
|
$ |
44.94 |
|
|
Fourth Quarter |
|
$ |
44.80 |
|
$ |
40.21 |
|
$ |
43.20 |
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
High |
|
Low |
|
Close |
|
|||
|
First Quarter |
|
$ |
45.00 |
|
$ |
39.07 |
|
$ |
44.91 |
|
|
Second Quarter |
|
$ |
45.31 |
|
$ |
34.16 |
|
$ |
41.38 |
|
|
Third Quarter |
|
$ |
46.08 |
|
$ |
39.70 |
|
$ |
44.30 |
|
|
Fourth Quarter |
|
$ |
47.01 |
|
$ |
42.44 |
|
$ |
46.03 |
|
On February 17, 2006, the closing Common Stock price reported on the NYSE was $46.41 per share.
HOLDERS
On February 17, 2006, the Company had 639 common shareholders of record.
RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES; USES OF PROCEEDS FROM REGISTERED SECURITIES
During the three months ended December 31, 2005, the Company issued 77,000 shares of common stock to holders of common units in the Operating Partnership upon the redemption of such common units in private offerings pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. The holders of the common units were limited partners of the Operating Partnership and accredited investors under Rule 501 of the Securities Act. The common units were converted into an equal number of shares of common stock. The Company has registered the resale of such shares under the Securities Act.
During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Company declared four quarterly common stock dividends and common unit distributions of $0.63 per share and per unit from the first to the fourth quarter. Additionally, in 2005, the Company declared quarterly preferred stock dividends of $50.00 per preferred share from the first to the fourth quarter. The Company also declared one quarterly preferred unit distribution of $18.1818 per preferred unit for the first quarter.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company declared four quarterly common stock dividends and common unit distributions of $0.63 per share and per unit from the first to the fourth quarter. Additionally, in 2004, the Company declared quarterly preferred stock dividends of $50.00 per preferred share from the first to the fourth quarter. The Company also declared four quarterly preferred unit distributions of $18.1818 per preferred unit from the first to the fourth quarter.
40
The declaration and payment of dividends and distributions will continue to be determined by the Board of Directors in light of conditions then existing, including the Company’s earnings, financial condition, capital requirements, applicable REIT and legal restrictions and other factors.
SECURITIES AUTHORIZED FOR ISSUANCE UNDER EQUITY COMPENSATION PLANS
Information regarding securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans is disclosed in Item 12: Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY THE ISSUER AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS
None.
The following table sets forth selected financial data on a consolidated basis for the Company. The consolidated selected operating, balance sheet and other data of the Company as of December 31, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001, and for the years then ended have been derived from the Company’s financial statements for the respective periods.
|
Operating Data (a) |
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||||||||
|
In thousands, except per share data |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
2002 |
|
2001 |
|
|||||
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
643,405 |
|
$ |
577,749 |
|
$ |
558,924 |
|
$ |
534,071 |
|
$ |
536,404 |
|
|
Property expenses (b) |
|
$ |
227,074 |
|
$ |
186,446 |
|
$ |
173,794 |
|
$ |
158,191 |
|
$ |
164,621 |
|
|
General and administrative |
|
$ |
33,090 |
|
$ |
31,761 |
|
$ |
31,284 |
|
$ |
26,883 |
|
$ |
28,328 |
|
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
119,337 |
|
$ |
109,649 |
|
$ |
115,430 |
|
$ |
105,861 |
|
$ |
109,434 |
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
88,484 |
|
$ |
92,928 |
|
$ |
128,557 |
|
$ |
125,368 |
|
$ |
125,077 |
|
|
Net income available to common shareholders |
|
$ |
93,488 |
|
$ |
100,453 |
|
$ |
141,381 |
|
$ |
139,722 |
|
$ |
131,659 |
|
|
Income from continuing operations per share – basic |
|
$ |
1.41 |
|
$ |
1.50 |
|
$ |
2.20 |
|
$ |
2.23 |
|
$ |
2.03 |
|
|
Income from continuing operations per share – diluted |
|
$ |
1.40 |
|
$ |
1.49 |
|
$ |
2.18 |
|
$ |
2.22 |
|
$ |
2.02 |
|
|
Net income per share – basic |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
$ |
1.66 |
|
$ |
2.45 |
|
$ |
2.44 |
|
$ |
2.33 |
|
|
Net income per share – diluted |
|
$ |
1.51 |
|
$ |
1.65 |
|
$ |
2.43 |
|
$ |
2.43 |
|
$ |
2.32 |
|
|
Dividends declared per common share |
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
$ |
2.50 |
|
$ |
2.46 |
|
|
Basic weighted average shares outstanding |
|
61,477 |
|
60,351 |
|
57,724 |
|
57,227 |
|
56,538 |
|
|||||
|
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding |
|
74,189 |
|
68,743 |
|
65,980 |
|
65,475 |
|
64,787 |
|
|||||
|
Balance Sheet Data |
|
December 31, |
|
|||||||||||||
|
In thousands |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
2002 |
|
2001 |
|
|||||
|
Rental property, before accumulated depreciation and amortization |
|
$ |
4,491,752 |
|
$ |
4,160,959 |
|
$ |
3,954,632 |
|
$ |
3,857,657 |
|
$ |
3,378,071 |
|
|
Rental property held for sale, net |
|
— |
|
$ |
19,132 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
384,626 |
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
4,247,502 |
|
$ |
3,850,165 |
|
$ |
3,749,570 |
|
$ |
3,796,429 |
|
$ |
3,746,770 |
|
|
Total debt (c) |
|
$ |
2,126,181 |
|
$ |
1,702,300 |
|
$ |
1,628,584 |
|
$ |
1,752,372 |
|
$ |
1,700,150 |
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
2,335,396 |
|
$ |
1,877,096 |
|
$ |
1,779,983 |
|
$ |
1,912,199 |
|
$ |
1,867,938 |
|
|
Minority interests |
|
$ |
400,819 |
|
$ |
427,958 |
|
$ |
428,099 |
|
$ |
430,036 |
|
$ |
446,244 |
|
|
Stockholders’ equity |
|
$ |
1,511,287 |
|
$ |
1,545,111 |
|
$ |
1,541,488 |
|
$ |
1,454,194 |
|
$ |
1,432,588 |
|
(a) Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts in order to conform with current period presentation.
(b) Property expenses is calculated by taking the sum of real estate taxes, utilities and operating services for each of the periods presented.
(c) Total debt is calculated by taking the sum of senior unsecured notes, revolving credit facilities, and mortgages, loans payable and other obligations.
41
|
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation and the notes thereto (collectively, the “Financial Statements”). Certain defined terms used herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Financial Statements.
Executive Overview
Mack-Cali Realty Corporation (the “Company”) is one of the largest real estate investment trusts (REITs) in the United States, with a total market capitalization of approximately $5.4 billion at December 31, 2005. The Company has been involved in all aspects of commercial real estate development, management and ownership for over 50 years and has been a publicly-traded REIT since 1994. The Company owns or has interests in 270 properties (collectively, the “Properties”), primarily class A office and office/flex buildings, totaling approximately 30.0 million square feet, leased to approximately 2,200 tenants. The properties are located primarily in suburban markets of the Northeast, some with adjacent, Company-controlled developable land sites able to accommodate up to 10.6 million square feet of additional commercial space.
The Company’s strategy is to be a significant real estate owner and operator in its core, high-barriers-to-entry markets, primarily in the Northeast.
As an owner of real estate, almost all of the Company’s earnings and cash flow is derived from rental revenue received pursuant to leased office space at the Properties. Key factors that affect the Company’s business and financial results include the following:
• the general economic climate;
• the occupancy rates of the Properties;
• rental rates on new or renewed leases;
• tenant improvement and leasing costs incurred to obtain and retain tenants;
• the extent of early lease terminations;
• operating expenses;
• cost of capital; and
• the extent of acquisitions, development and sales of real estate.
Any negative effects of the above key factors could potentially cause a deterioration in the Company’s revenue and/or earnings. Such negative effects could include: (1) failure to renew or execute new leases as current leases expire; (2) failure to renew or execute new leases with rental terms at or above the terms of in-place leases; and (3) tenant defaults.
A failure to renew or execute new leases as current leases expire or to execute new leases with rental terms at or above the terms of in-place leases may be affected by several factors such as: (1) the local economic climate, which may be adversely impacted by business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, changing demographics and other factors; and (2) local real estate conditions, such as oversupply of office and office/flex space or competition within the market.
As a result of the economic climate since 2001, substantially all of the real estate markets the Company operates in materially softened. Demand for office space declined significantly and vacancy rates increased in each of the Company’s core markets over the period. Through February 22, 2006, the Company’s core markets continued to be weak. The percentage leased in the Company’s consolidated portfolio of stabilized operating properties decreased to 91.0 percent at December 31, 2005 as compared to 91.2 percent at December 31, 2004 and 91.5 percent at December 31, 2003. Percentage leased includes all leases in effect as of the period end date, some of which have commencement dates in the future (including, at December 31, 2005, leases with commencement dates substantially in the future consisting of 15,125 square feet scheduled to commence in 2009 and 10,205 square feet scheduled to commence in 2011), and leases that expire at the period end date. Excluded from percentage leased at December 31, 2004 was a non-strategic, non-core 318,224 square foot property acquired through a deed in lieu of foreclosure, which was 12.7 percent leased at December
42
31, 2004 and subsequently sold on February 4, 2005. Leases that expired as of December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 aggregate 311,623, 439,697 and 143,059 square feet, respectively, or 1.1, 1.5 and 0.5 percentage of the net rentable square footage, respectively. Market rental rates have declined in most markets from peak levels in late 2000 and early 2001. Rental rates on the Company’s space that was re-leased (based on first rents payable) during the year ended December 31, 2005 decreased an average of 8.2 percent compared to rates that were in effect under expiring leases, as compared to a 8.7 percent decrease in 2004 and a 7.8 percent decrease in 2003. The Company believes that vacancy rates may continue to increase in most of its markets in 2006. As a result, the Company’s future earnings and cash flow may continue to be negatively impacted by current market conditions.
The remaining portion of this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations should help the reader understand:
• property transactions during the period;
• critical accounting policies and estimates;
• results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to the same period last year;
• results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2004, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2003; and
• liquidity and capital resources.
Property Acquisitions
The Company acquired the following office properties during the year ended December 31, 2005:
|
Acquisition |
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
# of |
|
Rentable |
|
Acquisition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/02/05 |
|
101 Hudson Street (a) |
|
Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
1,246,283 |
|
$ |
330,302 |
|
|
03/29/05 |
|
23 Main Street (a) (b) |
|
Holmdel, Monmouth County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
350,000 |
|
23,948 |
|
|
|
07/12/05 |
|
Monmouth Executive Center (c) |
|
Freehold, Monmouth County, NJ |
|
4 |
|
235,968 |
|
33,561 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Office Property Acquisitions: |
|
|
|
6 |
|
1,832,251 |
|
$ |
387,811 |
|
||
(a) Transaction was funded primarily through borrowing on the Company’s revolving credit facility.
(b) In addition to its initial investment, the Company intends to make additional investments related to the property of approximately $12.1 million, of which the Company spent $6.2 million through December 31, 2005.
(c) Transaction was funded primarily through available cash and assumption of mortgage debt.
In November 2005, the Company announced that it entered into a contract to acquire all the interests in Capital Office Park, a seven-building office complex totaling approximately 842,300 square feet in Greenbelt, Maryland for aggregate purchase consideration of approximately $161.7 million. The purchase consideration for the acquisition, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2006, will consist of the issuance of approximately $97.9 million of common operating partnership units in Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. and the assumption of approximately $63.8 million of mortgage debt. At closing, the sellers may elect to receive approximately $27.9 million in cash in lieu of common operating partnership units.
On February 16, 2006, the Company announced it had reached agreements in principle with each of SL Green Realty Corp. (“SL Green”) and The Gale Company, a privately-owned real estate services company based in New Jersey (“Gale”), pursuant to which the Company plans to acquire interests in certain assets and operations of SL Green and Gale.
43
Pursuant to the contemplated transactions, the Company is expected to:
• Purchase the Gale Real Estate Services Company for up to $40 million. The purchase price is expected to be based on an earn-out formula with an initial payment of $10 million in common operating partnership units in Mack-Cali Realty, L.P., and $12 million in cash, with a total consideration of up to $40 million.
• Acquire substantially all the ownership interests in 12 office properties valued at approximately $337 million and totaling 1.7 million square feet in Northern and Central New Jersey; and
• Acquire approximately one-half of the ownership interests in eight office properties valued at approximately $168 million and totaling 1.1 million square feet, also in Northern and Central New Jersey.
The Company plans to finance the transactions through a combination of approximately $240 million in drawings on its revolving credit facility, the assumption of existing and placement of new mortgage debt and the issuance of common operating partnership units.
These planned acquisitions are subject to the execution of definitive acquisition agreements with Gale and SL Green in one instance, and with Gale alone in the other instance, which agreements shall contain mutually acceptable terms and customary closing conditions to be negotiated in good faith with such parties and entered into as soon as practicable. While the Company is confident that these transactions will be completed in accordance with the terms outlined above, there can be no assurance that either or both will close or that the structure or terms of one or both acquisition agreements may not reflect changes from the current agreements in principle.
Property Sales
The Company sold the following office properties during the year ended December 31, 2005:
|
Sale |
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
# of |
|
Rentable |
|
Net |
|
Net |
|
Realized |
|
|||
|
02/04/05 |
|
210 South 16th Street |
|
Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska |
|
1 |
|
318,224 |
|
$ |
8,464 |
|
$ |
8,210 |
|
$ |
254 |
|
|
02/11/05 |
|
1122 Alma Road |
|
Richardson, Dallas County, Texas |
|
1 |
|
82,576 |
|
2,075 |
|
2,344 |
|
(269 |
) |
|||
|
02/15/05 |
|
3 Skyline Drive |
|
Hawthorne, Westchester County, New York |
|
1 |
|
75,668 |
|
9,587 |
|
8,856 |
|
731 |
|
|||
|
05/11/05 |
|
201 Willowbrook Blvd. |
|
Wayne, Passaic County, New Jersey (a) |
|
1 |
|
178,329 |
|
17,696 |
|
17,705 |
|
(9 |
) |
|||
|
06/03/05 |
|
600 Community Drive/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
111 East Shore Road |
|
North Hempstead, Nassau County, New York |
|
2 |
|
292,849 |
|
71,593 |
|
59,609 |
|
11,984 |
|
|||
|
12/29/05 |
|
3600 South Yosemite |
|
Denver, Denver County, Colorado |
|
1 |
|
133,743 |
|
5,566 |
|
11,121 |
|
(5,555 |
) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Total Office Property Sales: |
|
|
|
7 |
|
1,081,389 |
|
$ |
114,981 |
|
$ |
107,845 |
|
$ |
7,136 |
|
||
(a) In connection with the sale, the Company provided a mortgage loan to the buyer of $12 million which bears interest at 5.74 percent, matures in five years with a five-year renewal option, and requires monthly payments of principal and interest.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
The Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of the Financial Statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the Financial Statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reported period. These estimates and assumptions are based on management’s historical experience that are believed to be reasonable at the time. However, because future events and their effects cannot be determined with certainty, the determination of estimates requires the exercise of judgment. The Company’s critical accounting policies are those which require assumptions to be made about matters that are highly uncertain. Different estimates could have a material effect on the Company’s financial results. Judgments and uncertainties affecting the application of these policies and estimates may result in materially different amounts being reported under different conditions and circumstances.
Rental Property:
Rental properties are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Costs directly related to the acquisition, development and construction of rental properties are capitalized. Capitalized development and construction costs include pre-construction costs essential to the development of the property, development and construction costs,
44
interest, property taxes, insurance, salaries and other project costs incurred during the period of development. Interest capitalized by the Company for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was $5.5 million, $3.9 million and $7.3 million, respectively. Ordinary repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred; major replacements and betterments, which improve or extend the life of the asset, are capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful lives. Fully-depreciated assets are removed from the accounts.
The Company considers a construction project as substantially completed and held available for occupancy upon the completion of tenant improvements, but no later than one year from cessation of major construction activity (as distinguished from activities such as routine maintenance and cleanup). If portions of a rental project are substantially completed and occupied by tenants, or held available for occupancy, and other portions have not yet reached that stage, the substantially completed portions are accounted for as a separate project. The Company allocates costs incurred between the portions under construction and the portions substantially completed and held available for occupancy and capitalizes only those costs associated with the portion under construction.
45
Properties are depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The estimated useful lives are as follows:
|
Leasehold interests |
|
Remaining lease term |
|
|
Buildings and improvements |
|
5 to 40 years |
|
|
Tenant improvements |
|
The shorter of the term of the |
|
|
|
|
related lease or useful life |
|
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
5 to 10 years |
|
Upon acquisition of rental property, the Company estimates the fair value of acquired tangible assets, consisting of land, building and improvements, and identified intangible assets and liabilities generally consisting of the fair value of (i) above and below market leases, (ii) in-place leases and (iii) tenant relationships. The Company allocates the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their relative fair values. In estimating the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired, the Company considers information obtained about each property as a result of its due diligence and marketing and leasing activities, and utilizes various valuation methods, such as estimated cash flow projections utilizing appropriate discount and capitalization rates, estimates of replacement costs net of depreciation, and available market information. The fair value of the tangible assets of an acquired property considers the value of the property as if it were vacant.
Above-market and below-market lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value (using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to each in-place lease and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for each corresponding in-place lease, measured over a period equal to the remaining term of the lease for above-market leases and the initial term plus the term of any below-market fixed rate renewal options for below-market leases. The capitalized above-market lease values are amortized as a reduction of base rental revenue over the remaining term of the respective leases, and the capitalized below-market lease values are amortized as an increase to base rental revenue over the remaining initial terms plus the terms of any below-market fixed rate renewal options of the respective leases.
Other intangible assets acquired include amounts for in-place lease values and tenant relationship values which are based on management’s evaluation of the specific characteristics of each tenant’s lease and the Company’s overall relationship with the respective tenant. Factors to be considered by management in its analysis of in-place lease values include an estimate of carrying costs during hypothetical expected lease-up periods considering current market conditions, and costs to execute similar leases. In estimating carrying costs, management includes real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rentals at market rates during the expected lease-up periods, depending on local market conditions. In estimating costs to execute similar leases, management considers leasing commissions, legal and other related expenses. Characteristics considered by management in valuing tenant relationships include the nature and extent of the Company’s existing business relationships with the tenant, growth prospects for developing new business with the tenant, the tenant’s credit quality and expectations of lease renewals. The value of in-place leases are amortized to expense over the remaining initial terms of the respective leases. The value of tenant relationship intangibles will be amortized to expense over the anticipated life of the relationships.
On a periodic basis, management assesses whether there are any indicators that the value of the Company’s rental properties may be impaired. A property’s value is impaired only if management’s estimate of the aggregate future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) to be generated by the property is less than the carrying value of the property. To the extent impairment has occurred, the loss shall be measured as the excess of the carrying amount of the property over the fair value of the property. The Company’s estimates of aggregate future cash flows expected to be generated by each property are based on a number of assumptions that are subject to economic and market uncertainties including, among others, demand for space, competition for tenants, changes in market rental rates, and costs to operate each property. As these factors are difficult to predict and are subject to future events that may alter management’s assumptions, the future cash flows estimated by management in its impairment analyses may not be achieved. Management does not believe that the value of any of the Company’s rental properties is impaired.
46
Rental Property Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations:
When assets are identified by management as held for sale, the Company discontinues depreciating the assets and estimates the sales price, net of selling costs, of such assets. If, in management’s opinion, the net sales price of the assets which have been identified as held for sale is less than the net book value of the assets, a valuation allowance is established. Properties identified as held for sale and/or sold are presented in discontinued operations for all periods presented.
If circumstances arise that previously were considered unlikely and, as a result, the Company decides not to sell a property previously classified as held for sale, the property is reclassified as held and used. A property that is reclassified is measured and recorded individually at the lower of (a) its carrying amount before the property was classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation (amortization) expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used, or (b) the fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell.
Revenue Recognition:
Base rental revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the respective leases. Unbilled rents receivable represents the amount by which straight-line rental revenue exceeds rents currently billed in accordance with the lease agreements. Above-market and below-market lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value (using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to each in-place lease and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for each corresponding in-place lease, measured over a period equal to the remaining term of the lease for above-market leases and the initial term plus the term of any below-market fixed rate renewal options for below-market leases. The capitalized above-market lease values are amortized as a reduction of base rental revenue over the remaining term of the respective leases, and the capitalized below-market lease values are amortized as an increase to base rental revenue over the remaining initial terms plus the terms of any below-market fixed rate renewal options of the respective leases. Parking and other revenue includes income from parking spaces leased to tenants, income from tenants for additional services provided by the Company, income from tenants for early lease terminations and income from managing and/or leasing properties for third parties. Escalations and recoveries are received from tenants for certain costs as provided in the lease agreements. These costs generally include real estate taxes, utilities, insurance, common area maintenance and other recoverable costs.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts:
Management periodically performs a detailed review of amounts due from tenants to determine if accounts receivable balances are impaired based on factors affecting the collectibility of those balances. Management’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts requires management to exercise significant judgment about the timing, frequency and severity of collection losses, which affects the allowance and net income.
Results From Operations
The following comparisons for the year ended December 31, 2005 (“2005”), as compared to the year ended December 31, 2004 (“2004”), and for 2004, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2003 (“2003”), make reference to the following: (i) the effect of the “Same-Store Properties,” which represents all in-service properties owned by the Company at December 31, 2003, (for the 2005 versus 2004 comparison) and which represents all in-service properties owned by the Company at December 31, 2002, (for the 2004 versus 2003 comparison), excluding properties sold or held for sale through December 31, 2005, and (ii) the effect of the “Acquired Properties,” which represents all properties acquired by the Company or commencing initial operations from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005 (for the 2005 versus 2004 comparison) and which represent all properties acquired by the Company or commencing initial operation from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004 (for the 2004 versus 2003 comparison).
47
Year Ended December 31, 2005 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
|||||
|
(dollars in thousands) |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
Change |
|
Change |
|
|||
|
Revenue from rental operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Base rents |
|
$ |
541,702 |
|
$ |
498,392 |
|
$ |
43,310 |
|
8.7 |
% |
|
Escalations and recoveries from tenants |
|
84,082 |
|
66,451 |
|
17,631 |
|
26.5 |
|
|||
|
Parking and other |
|
17,621 |
|
12,906 |
|
4,715 |
|
36.5 |
|
|||
|
Total revenues |
|
643,405 |
|
577,749 |
|
65,656 |
|
11.4 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Property expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Real estate taxes |
|
82,056 |
|
69,085 |
|
12,971 |
|
18.8 |
|
|||
|
Utilities |
|
55,843 |
|
41,649 |
|
14,194 |
|
34.1 |
|
|||
|
Operating services |
|
89,175 |
|
75,712 |
|
13,463 |
|
17.8 |
|
|||
|
Sub-total |
|
227,074 |
|
186,446 |
|
40,628 |
|
21.8 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
General and administrative |
|
33,090 |
|
31,761 |
|
1,329 |
|
4.2 |
|
|||
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
155,370 |
|
127,826 |
|
27,544 |
|
21.5 |
|
|||
|
Interest expense |
|
119,337 |
|
109,649 |
|
9,688 |
|
8.8 |
|
|||
|
Interest income |
|
(856 |
) |
(1,367 |
) |
511 |
|
37.4 |
|
|||
|
Total expenses |
|
534,015 |
|
454,315 |
|
79,700 |
|
17.5 |
|
|||
|
Income from continuing operations before minority interest and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
109,390 |
|
123,434 |
|
(14,044 |
) |
(11.4 |
) |
|||
|
Minority interest in Operating Partnership |
|
(21,042 |
) |
(27,691 |
) |
6,649 |
|
24.0 |
|
|||
|
Minority interest in consolidated joint ventures |
|
(74 |
) |
— |
|
(74 |
) |
(100.0 |
) |
|||
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest), net |
|
179 |
|
(3,452 |
) |
3,631 |
|
105.2 |
|
|||
|
Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest) |
|
31 |
|
637 |
|
(606 |
) |
(95.1 |
) |
|||
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
88,484 |
|
92,928 |
|
(4,444 |
) |
(4.8 |
) |
|||
|
Discontinued operations (net of minority interest): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations |
|
2,578 |
|
10,144 |
|
(7,566 |
) |
(74.6 |
) |
|||
|
Realized gains (losses) and unrealized losses on disposition of rental property, net |
|
4,426 |
|
(619 |
) |
5,045 |
|
815.0 |
|
|||
|
Total discontinued operations, net |
|
7,004 |
|
9,525 |
|
(2,521 |
) |
(26.5 |
) |
|||
|
Net income |
|
95,488 |
|
102,453 |
|
(6,965 |
) |
(6.8 |
) |
|||
|
Preferred stock dividends |
|
(2,000 |
) |
(2,000 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Net income available to common shareholders |
|
$ |
93,488 |
|
$ |
100,453 |
|
$ |
(6,965 |
) |
(6.9 |
)% |
48
The following is a summary of the changes in revenue from rental operations and property expenses in 2005 as compared to 2004 divided into Same-Store Properties and Acquired Properties (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
Total Company |
|
Same-Store Properties |
|
Acquired Properties |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
|||
|
Revenue from rental operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Base rents |
|
$ |
43,310 |
|
8.7 |
% |
$ |
(805 |
) |
(0.2% |
) |
$ |
44,115 |
|
8.9 |
% |
|
Escalations and recoveries from tenants |
|
17,631 |
|
26.5 |
|
7,039 |
|
10.6 |
|
10,592 |
|
15.9 |
|
|||
|
Parking and other |
|
4,715 |
|
36.5 |
|
2,872 |
|
22.3 |
|
1,843 |
|
14.2 |
|
|||
|
Total |
|
$ |
65,656 |
|
11.4 |
% |
$ |
9,106 |
|
1.6 |
% |
$ |
56,550 |
|
9.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Property expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Real estate taxes |
|
$ |
12,971 |
|
18.8 |
% |
$ |
3,923 |
|
5.7 |
% |
$ |
9,048 |
|
13.1 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
14,194 |
|
34.1 |
|
9,003 |
|
21.6 |
|
5,191 |
|
12.5 |
|
|||
|
Operating services |
|
13,463 |
|
17.8 |
|
4,800 |
|
6.3 |
|
8,663 |
|
11.5 |
|
|||
|
Total |
|
$ |
40,628 |
|
21.8 |
% |
$ |
17,726 |
|
9.5 |
% |
$ |
22,902 |
|
12.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
OTHER DATA: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Number of Consolidated Properties |
|
267 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|||
|
Square feet (in thousands) |
|
29,494 |
|
|
|
25,252 |
|
|
|
4,242 |
|
|
|
|||
Base rents for the Same-Store Properties decreased $0.8 million, or 0.2 percent, due primarily to decreased rental rates for new leases in 2005 as compared to 2004. Escalations and recoveries from tenants for the Same-Store Properties increased $7.0 million, or 10.6 percent, for 2005 over 2004, due primarily to an increased amount of total property expenses in 2005. Parking and other income for the Same-Store Properties increased $2.9 million, or 22.3 percent, due primarily to an increase in lease termination fees in 2005 as compared to 2004.
Real estate taxes on the Same-Store Properties increased $3.9 million, or 5.7 percent, for 2005 as compared to 2004, due primarily to property tax rate increases in certain municipalities in 2005, partially offset by lower assessments on certain properties in 2005. Utilities for the Same-Store Properties increased $9.0 million, or 21.6 percent, for 2005 as compared to 2004, due primarily to increased electric rates and increased usage in 2005. Operating services for the Same-Store Properties increased $4.8 million, or 6.3 percent, due primarily to increases in 2005 as compared to 2004 in snow removal costs of $2.0 million, repairs and maintenance expenses of $1.1 million, property management compensation and related expenses of $0.8 million, and building engineer costs of $0.8 million.
General and administrative expense increased by $1.3 million, or 4.2 percent, for 2005 as compared to 2004. This was due primarily to increases in 2005 as compared to 2004 in compensation costs and related expenses of $0.9 million and state income tax expense of $0.5 million, as well as compensation costs and related expenses in 2005 of $0.6 million in connection with the resignation of a non-executive officer, and a write-down in 2005 of a technology investment of $0.5 million. These increases were partially offset by compensation costs and related expenses incurred in 2004 in connection with the resignation of the Company’s president of $1.3 million.
Depreciation and amortization increased by $27.5 million, or 21.5 percent, for 2005 over 2004. Of this increase, $6.5 million, or 5.1 percent, was attributable to the Same-Store Properties primarily on account of the amortization of additional tenant installation costs in 2005 and $21.0 million, or 16.4 percent, was due to the Acquired Properties.
Interest expense increased $9.7 million, or 8.8 percent, for 2005 as compared to 2004. This increase was primarily as a result of higher average debt balances in 2005, as well as an overall increase in interest rates on the Company’s debt.
Interest income decreased $0.5 million, or 37.4 percent, for 2005 as compared to 2004. This decrease was due primarily to lower interest income from mortgage notes receivable in 2005 and lower average cash balances in 2005.
49
Income from continuing operations before minority interest and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures decreased to $109.4 million in 2005 from $123.4 million in 2004. The decrease of approximately $14.0 million was due to the factors discussed above.
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest) increased $3.6 million, or 105.2 percent, for 2005 as compared to 2004. This increase was due primarily to the following: an increase of $5.2 million in 2005 on account of the Ashford Loop joint venture having a loss in 2004, with no activity in 2005 due to the Company’s sale of its interest in the venture in early 2005; an increase of $0.8 million from increased earnings in 2005 at the Harborside South Pier Hyatt Hotel Venture; and an increase of $0.6 million in 2005 on account of equity in loss in 2004 at the Ramland Realty joint venture, with no equity in earnings in 2005. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in equity in earnings of $1.9 million at the G&G Martco joint venture on account of equity in loss in 2005; and a decrease of $0.7 million in 2005 on account of equity in earnings in the HPMC joint venture in 2004, with no activity in 2005 due to the joint venture’s sale of the Pacific Plaza I & II complex in 2004.
Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest) amounted to $31,000 in 2005 from the sale of the Company’s interest in the Ashford Loop joint venture. Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint venture (net of minority interest) amounted to $0.6 million in 2004 on account of the receipt of additional contingent purchase consideration from the Harborside North Pier sale.
Net income available to common shareholders decreased by $7.0 million, or 6.9 percent, from $100.5 million in 2004 to $93.5 million in 2005. This decrease was primarily the result of a decrease in 2005 from 2004 in income from continuing operations before minority interest and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures of $14.0 million, a decrease in income from discontinued operations of approximately $7.6 million, a gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint ventures of $0.6 million in 2004, and minority interest in consolidated joint ventures of $0.1 million in 2005. These were partially offset by a decrease in minority interest in Operating Partnership of $6.7 million, realized gains on disposition of rental property of $4.4 million in 2005, an increase in equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures of $3.6 million, and realized gains and unrealized losses on disposition of rental property of $0.6 million in 2004.
50
Year Ended December 31, 2004 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2003
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
|||||
|
(dollars in thousands) |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
Change |
|
Change |
|
|||
|
Revenue from rental operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Base rents |
|
$ |
498,392 |
|
$ |
480,292 |
|
$ |
18,100 |
|
3.8 |
% |
|
Escalations and recoveries from tenants |
|
66,451 |
|
59,885 |
|
6,566 |
|
11.0 |
|
|||
|
Parking and other |
|
12,906 |
|
18,747 |
|
(5,841 |
) |
(31.2 |
) |
|||
|
Total revenues |
|
577,749 |
|
558,924 |
|
18,825 |
|
3.4 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Property expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Real estate taxes |
|
69,085 |
|
62,462 |
|
6,623 |
|
10.6 |
|
|||
|
Utilities |
|
41,649 |
|
40,037 |
|
1,612 |
|
4.0 |
|
|||
|
Operating services |
|
75,712 |
|
71,295 |
|
4,417 |
|
6.2 |
|
|||
|
Sub-total |
|
186,446 |
|
173,794 |
|
12,652 |
|
7.3 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
General and administrative |
|
31,761 |
|
31,284 |
|
477 |
|
1.5 |
|
|||
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
127,826 |
|
113,202 |
|
14,624 |
|
12.9 |
|
|||
|
Interest expense |
|
109,649 |
|
115,430 |
|
(5,781 |
) |
(5.0 |
) |
|||
|
Interest income |
|
(1,367 |
) |
(1,098 |
) |
(269 |
) |
(24.5 |
) |
|||
|
Loss on early retirement of debt, net |
|
— |
|
2,372 |
|
(2,372 |
) |
(100.0 |
) |
|||
|
Total expenses |
|
454,315 |
|
434,984 |
|
19,331 |
|
4.4 |
|
|||
|
Income from continuing operations before minority interest and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
123,434 |
|
123,940 |
|
(506 |
) |
(0.4 |
) |
|||
|
Minority interest in Operating Partnership |
|
(27,691 |
) |
(28,364 |
) |
673 |
|
2.4 |
|
|||
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest), net |
|
(3,452 |
) |
11,873 |
|
(15,325 |
) |
(129.1 |
) |
|||
|
Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest) |
|
637 |
|
21,108 |
|
(20,471 |
) |
(97.0 |
) |
|||
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
92,928 |
|
128,557 |
|
(35,629 |
) |
(27.7 |
) |
|||
|
Discontinued operations (net of minority interest): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations |
|
10,144 |
|
11,376 |
|
(1,232 |
) |
(10.8 |
) |
|||
|
Realized gains (losses) and unrealized losses on disposition of rental property, net |
|
(619 |
) |
3,120 |
|
(3,739 |
) |
(119.8 |
) |
|||
|
Total discontinued operations, net |
|
9,525 |
|
14,496 |
|
(4,971 |
) |
(34.3 |
) |
|||
|
Net income |
|
102,453 |
|
143,053 |
|
(40,600 |
) |
(28.4 |
) |
|||
|
Preferred stock dividends |
|
(2,000 |
) |
(1,672 |
) |
(328 |
) |
(19.6 |
) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Net income available to common shareholders |
|
$ |
100,453 |
|
$ |
141,381 |
|
$ |
(40,928 |
) |
(28.9 |
)% |
51
The following is a summary of the changes in revenue from rental operations and property expenses in 2004 as compared to 2003 divided into Same-Store Properties and Acquired Properties (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
Total Company |
|
Same-Store Properties |
|
Acquired Properties |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
Dollar |
|
Percent |
|
|||
|
Revenue from rental operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Base rents |
|
$ |
18,100 |
|
3.8 |
% |
$ |
2,356 |
|
0.5 |
% |
$ |
15,744 |
|
3.3 |
% |
|
Escalations and recoveries from tenants |
|
6,566 |
|
11.0 |
|
4,937 |
|
8.2 |
|
1,629 |
|
2.8 |
|
|||
|
Parking and other |
|
(5,841 |
) |
(31.2 |
) |
(5,834 |
) |
(31.2 |
) |
(7 |
) |
— |
|
|||
|
Total |
|
$ |
18,825 |
|
3.4 |
% |
$ |
1,459 |
|
0.3 |
% |
$ |
17,366 |
|
3.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Property expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Real estate taxes |
|
$ |
6,623 |
|
10.6 |
% |
$ |
4,443 |
|
7.1 |
% |
$ |
2,180 |
|
3.5 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
1,612 |
|
4.0 |
|
1,124 |
|
2.8 |
|
488 |
|
1.2 |
|
|||
|
Operating services |
|
4,417 |
|
6.2 |
|
3,240 |
|
4.5 |
|
1,177 |
|
1.7 |
|
|||
|
Total |
|
$ |
12,652 |
|
7.3 |
% |
$ |
8,807 |
|
5.1 |
% |
$ |
3,845 |
|
2.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
OTHER DATA: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Number of Consolidated Properties |
|
261 |
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|||
|
Square feet (in thousands) |
|
27,662 |
|
|
|
25,050 |
|
|
|
2,612 |
|
|
|
|||
Base rents for the Same-Store Properties increased $2.4 million, or 0.5 percent, for 2004 as compared to 2003, due primarily to increases in occupancies at the properties in 2004 from 2003. Escalations and recoveries from tenants for the Same-Store Properties increased $4.9 million, or 8.2 percent, for 2004 over 2003, due primarily to an increased amount of total property expenses in 2004. Parking and other income for the Same-Store Properties decreased $5.8 million, or 31.2 percent, due primarily to a decrease in lease termination fees of $3.9 million in 2004 as compared to 2003 and a construction management fee of $1.2 million in 2003.
Real estate taxes on the Same-Store Properties increased $4.4 million, or 7.1 percent, for 2004 as compared to 2003, due primarily to property tax rate increases in certain municipalities in 2004, partially offset by lower assessments on certain properties in 2004. Utilities for the Same-Store Properties increased $1.1 million, or 2.8 percent, for 2004 as compared to 2003, due primarily to increased electric rates in 2004. Operating services for the Same-Store Properties increased $3.2 million, or 4.5 percent, due primarily to increased repairs and maintenance expenses of $2.6 million, increased insurance costs of $2.1 million, and property management salaries and related expenses of $0.6 million in 2004 as compared to 2003, partially offset by a decrease in snow removal costs in 2004 of $2.0 million.
General and administrative increased by $0.5 million, or 1.5 percent, for 2004 as compared to 2003. This increase was due primarily to compensation costs incurred in connection with the 2004 resignation of the Company’s president of $1.3 million and an increase in other salaries and related expenses of $0.9 million in 2004, partially offset by costs for transactions not consummated of $1.7 million in 2003.
Depreciation and amortization increased by $14.6 million, or 12.9 percent, for 2004 over 2003. Of this increase, $9.3 million, or 8.3 percent, was attributable to the Same-Store Properties primarily on account of the amortization of additional tenant installation costs and $5.3 million, or 4.6 percent, was due to the Acquired Properties.
Interest expense decreased $5.8 million, or 5.0 percent, for 2004 as compared to 2003. This decrease was primarily as a result of the Company’s ability to refinance maturing debt at lower rates, as well as lower average debt balances in 2004.
Interest income increased $0.3 million, or 24.5 percent, for 2004 as compared to 2003. This decrease was due primarily to higher average cash balances in 2004.
52
Loss on early retirement of debt, net, amounted to $2.4 million in 2003, which was due to costs incurred with the exchange in 2003 of $25.0 million face amount of 7.18 percent senior unsecured notes due December 31, 2003 for $26.1 million face amount of 5.82 percent senior unsecured notes due March 15, 2003, with interest payable semi-annually in arrears.
Income from continuing operations before minority interest and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures decreased to $123.4 million in 2004 from $123.9 million in 2003. The decrease of approximately $0.5 million was due to the factors discussed above.
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest) decreased $15.3 million, or 129.1 percent, for 2004 as compared to 2003. This decrease was due primarily to the sale of the Company’s investment in the American Financial Exchange in late 2003 resulting in a reduction of $11.3 million in 2004, the Company’s share of a valuation allowance taken by the Ashford Loop joint venture of $4.9 million in 2004, and a reduction in 2004 of $1.7 million as a result of the sale in 2003 of a property in Anaheim, California, partially offset by an increase from operations of the Hyatt Hotel at Harborside South Pier of $2.2 million for 2004 as compared to 2003.
Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint venture (net of minority interest) amounted to $0.6 million in 2004 on account of the receipt of additional contingent purchase consideration from the Harborside North Pier sale. Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint venture (net of minority interest) amounted to $21.1 million in 2003 on account of the sale of the Company’s investment in the American Financial Exchange joint venture in 2003.
Net income available to common shareholders decreased by $40.9 million, or 28.9 percent, from $141.4 million in 2003 to $100.5 million in 2004. This decrease was primarily the result of the Company having realized a $21.1 million gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint venture in 2003 for the sale of its investment in the American Financial Exchange venture, a decrease in equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures of $15.3 million, realized gains on disposition of rental property of $3.1 million in 2003, a decrease in income from discontinued operations of $1.2 million for 2004 as compared to 2003, realized gains (losses) and unrealized losses on disposition of rental property of $0.6 million in 2004, a decrease in income from continuing operations before minority interest and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures of $0.5 million, and an increase in preferred stock dividends of $0.3 million. These were partially offset by a decrease in minority interest in Operating Partnership of approximately $0.6 million and a gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint venture of $0.6 million in 2004.
Overview:
Historically, rental revenue has been the principal source of funds to pay operating expenses, debt service, capital expenditures and dividends, excluding non-recurring capital expenditures. To the extent that the Company’s cash flow from operating activities is insufficient to finance its non-recurring capital expenditures such as property acquisitions, development and construction costs and other capital expenditures, the Company has and expects to continue to finance such activities through borrowings under its revolving credit facility and other debt and equity financings.
The Company believes that with the general downturn in the economy in recent years, and the softening of the Company’s markets specifically, it is reasonably likely that vacancy rates may continue to increase, effective rental rates on new and renewed leases may continue to decrease and tenant installation costs, including concessions, may continue to increase in most or all of its markets in 2006. As a result of the potential negative effects on the Company’s revenue from the overall reduced demand for office space, the Company’s cash flow could be insufficient to cover increased tenant installation costs over the short-term. If this situation were to occur, the Company expects that it would finance any shortfalls through borrowings under its revolving credit facility and other debt and equity financings.
The Company expects to meet its short-term liquidity requirements generally through its working capital, net cash provided by operating activities and from its revolving credit facility. The Company frequently examines potential
53
property acquisitions and development projects and, at any given time, one or more of such acquisitions or development projects may be under consideration. Accordingly, the ability to fund property acquisitions and development projects is a major part of the Company’s financing requirements. The Company expects to meet its financing requirements through funds generated from operating activities, proceeds from property sales, long-term and short-term borrowings (including draws on the Company’s revolving credit facility) and the issuance of additional debt and/or equity securities.
REIT Restrictions:
To maintain its qualification as a REIT, the Company must make annual distributions to its stockholders of at least 90 percent of its REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and by excluding net capital gains. Moreover, the Company intends to continue to make regular quarterly distributions to its common stockholders which, based upon current policy, in the aggregate would equal approximately $156.6 million on an annualized basis. However, any such distribution, whether for federal income tax purposes or otherwise, would only be paid out of available cash, including borrowings and other sources, after meeting operating requirements, preferred stock and unit dividends and distributions, and scheduled debt service on the Company’s debt.
Property Lock-Ups:
The Company may not dispose of or distribute certain of its properties, currently comprising 56 properties with an aggregate net book value of approximately $1.3 billion, which were originally contributed by members of either the Mack Group (which includes William L. Mack, Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors; David S. Mack, director; Earle I. Mack, a former director; and Mitchell E. Hersh, president, chief executive officer and director), the Robert Martin Group (which includes Martin S. Berger, director; Robert F. Weinberg, a former director; and Timothy M. Jones, former president), the Cali Group (which includes John R. Cali, director, and John J. Cali, a former director) or certain other common unitholders, without the express written consent of a representative of the Mack Group, the Robert Martin Group, the Cali Group or the specific certain other common unitholders, as applicable, except in a manner which does not result in recognition of any built-in-gain (which may result in an income tax liability) or which reimburses the appropriate Mack Group, Robert Martin Group, Cali Group members or the specific certain other common unitholders for the tax consequences of the recognition of such built-in-gains (collectively, the “Property Lock-Ups”). The aforementioned restrictions do not apply in the event that the Company sells all of its properties or in connection with a sale transaction which the Company’s Board of Directors determines is reasonably necessary to satisfy a material monetary default on any unsecured debt, judgment or liability of the Company or to cure any material monetary default on any mortgage secured by a property. The Property Lock-Ups expire periodically through 2010. Upon the expiration of the Property Lock-Ups, the Company generally is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to prevent any sale, transfer or other disposition of the subject properties from resulting in the recognition of built-in gain to the appropriate Mack Group, Robert Martin Group, Cali Group members or the specific certain other common unitholders. 74 of our properties, with an aggregate net book value of approximately $667.7 million, have lapsed restrictions and are subject to these conditions.
Unencumbered Properties:
As of December 31, 2005, the Company had 250 unencumbered properties, totaling 24.7 million square feet, representing 83.7 percent of the Company’s total portfolio on a square footage basis.
Credit Ratings:
The Company has three investment grade credit ratings. Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (“S&P”) and Fitch, Inc. (“Fitch”) have each assigned their BBB rating to existing and prospective senior unsecured debt of the Operating Partnership. S&P and Fitch have also assigned their BBB- rating to existing and prospective preferred stock offerings of the Company. Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has assigned its Baa2 rating to existing and prospective senior unsecured debt of the Operating Partnership and its Baa3 rating to its existing and prospective preferred stock offerings of the Company.
Cash and cash equivalents increased by $48.1 million to $60.4 million at December 31, 2005, compared to $12.3 million at December 31, 2004. This increase is comprised of the following net cash flow items:
54
1) $242.9 million provided by operating activities.
2) $421.5 million used in investing activities, consisting primarily of the following:
(a) $451.3 million used for additions to rental property;
(b) $17.8 million used for investments in unconsolidated joint ventures;
(c) $51.6 million used for the purchase of marketable securities; partially offset by:
(d) $103.0 million received from proceeds from sale of rental properties.
(3) $226.7 million provided by financing activities, consisting primarily of the following:
(a) $1.04 billion from borrowings under the unsecured credit facility;
(b) $398.5 million from proceeds from the sale of senior unsecured notes;
(c) $58.5 million from proceeds received from mortgages;
(d) $16.6 million from proceeds received from stock options and warrants exercised; partially offset by:
(e) $921.6 million used for repayments of borrowings under the Company’s unsecured credit facility;
(f) $191.9 million used for payments of dividends and distributions; and
(g) $169.9 million used for repayments of mortgages, loans payable and other obligations.
The following is a breakdown of the Company’s debt between fixed and variable-rate financing as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
Weighted Average Maturity |
|
|
|
|
|
($000’s) |
|
% of Total |
|
Interest Rate (a) |
|
in Years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed Rate Unsecured Debt |
|
$ |
1,430,509 |
|
67.28 |
% |
6.42 |
% |
6.13 |
|
|
Fixed Rate Secured Debt and Other Obligations |
|
468,672 |
|
22.04 |
% |
5.96 |
% |
3.67 |
|
|
|
Variable Rate Unsecured Debt |
|
227,000 |
|
10.68 |
% |
4.84 |
% |
3.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals/Weighted Average: |
|
$ |
2,126,181 |
|
100.00 |
|
6.15 |
% |
5.35 |
|
Debt Maturities:
Scheduled principal payments and related weighted average annual interest rates for the Company’s debt as of December 31, 2005 are as follows:
|
|
|
Scheduled |
|
Principal |
|
|
|
Weighted Avg. |
|
|||
|
|
|
Amortization |
|
Maturities |
|
Total |
|
Interest Rate of |
|
|||
|
Period |
|
($000’s) |
|
($000’s) |
|
($000’s) |
|
Future Repayments (a) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
2006 |
|
$ |
18,276 |
|
$ |
160,189 |
|
$ |
178,465 |
|
6.90 |
% |
|
2007 |
|
17,098 |
|
9,364 |
|
26,462 |
|
5.69 |
% |
|||
|
2008 |
|
16,292 |
|
— |
|
16,292 |
|
4.97 |
% |
|||
|
2009 |
|
7,175 |
|
527,000 |
|
534,175 |
|
6.33 |
% |
|||
|
2010 |
|
1,480 |
|
315,000 |
|
316,480 |
|
5.19 |
% |
|||
|
Thereafter |
|
9,781 |
|
1,050,033 |
|
1,059,814 |
|
5.98 |
% |
|||
|
Sub-total |
|
70,102 |
|
2,061,586 |
|
2,131,688 |
|
6.15 |
% |
|||
|
Adjustment for unamortized debt discount/premium, net, as of December 31, 2005 |
|
(5,507 |
) |
— |
|
(5,507 |
) |
— |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Totals/Weighted Average |
|
$ |
64,595 |
|
$ |
2,061,586 |
|
$ |
2,126,181 |
|
6.15 |
% |
(a) Actual weighted average LIBOR contract rates relating to the Company’s outstanding debt as of December 31, 2005 of 4.36 percent was used in calculating revolving credit facility.
55
Senior Unsecured Notes:
On January 25, 2005, the Company issued $150 million face amount of 5.125 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2015 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The proceeds from the issuance (net of selling commissions and discount) of approximately $148.1 million was used primarily to reduce outstanding borrowings under the unsecured facility.
On April 15, 2005, the Company issued $150 million face amount of 5.05 percent senior unsecured notes due April 15, 2010 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The proceeds from the issuance (net of selling commissions and discount) of approximately $148.8 million were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under the 2004 unsecured facility.
On November 15, 2005, the Company issued $100 million face amount of 5.80 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2016 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The proceeds from the issuance (net of selling commissions and discount) of approximately $99 million were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under the 2004 unsecured facility.
On January 24, 2006, the Company issued $100 million face amount of 5.80 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2016 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears, and $100 million face amount of 5.25 percent senior unsecured notes due January 15, 2012 with interest payable semi-annually in arrears. The Company’s total proceeds from the issuances, including accrued interest on the 5.80 percent notes of approximately $200.8 million, were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under the total unsecured facility.
The terms of the Company’s senior unsecured notes (which totaled approximately $1.4 billion as of December 31, 2005) include certain restrictions and covenants which require compliance with financial ratios relating to the maximum amount of debt leverage, the maximum amount of secured indebtedness, the minimum amount of debt service coverage and the maximum amount of unsecured debt as a percent of unsecured assets.
Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility:
In 2004, the Company obtained an unsecured revolving credit facility with a borrowing capacity of $600 million (expandable to $800 million), which replaced a credit facility of the same size. The interest rate on outstanding borrowings (not electing the Company’s competitive bid feature) under the unsecured facility is currently LIBOR plus 65 basis points. The facility has a competitive bid feature, which allows the Company to solicit bids from lenders under the facility to borrow up to $300 million at interest rates less than the current LIBOR plus 65 basis point spread. As of December 31, 2005, the Company’s outstanding borrowings carried a weighted average interest rate of LIBOR plus 49 points. The Company may also elect an interest rate representing the higher of the lender’s prime rate or the Federal Funds rate plus 50 basis points. The unsecured facility, which also required a 20 basis point facility fee on the current borrowing capacity payable quarterly in arrears, was scheduled to mature in November 2007.
On September 16, 2005, the Company extended and modified its unsecured facility with a group of 23 lenders (reduced from 27). The facility was extended for an additional two years and now matures in November 2009, with an extension option of one year, which would require a payment of 25 basis points of the then borrowing capacity of the facility upon exercise. In addition, the facility fee was reduced by five basis points to 15 basis points at the BBB/Baa2 pricing level.
The interest rate and the facility fee are subject to adjustment, on a sliding scale, based upon the operating partnership’s unsecured debt ratings. In the event of a change in the Operating Partnership’s unsecured debt rating, the interest and facility fee rates will be adjusted in accordance with the following table:
56
|
Operating Partnership’s |
|
Interest Rate – |
|
|
|
|
Unsecured Debt Ratings: |
|
Applicable Basis Points |
|
Facility Fee |
|
|
S&P Moody’s/Fitch (a) |
|
Above LIBOR |
|
Basis Points |
|
|
No ratings or less than BBB-/Baa3/BBB- |
|
112.5 |
|
25.0 |
|
|
BBB-/Baa3/BBB- |
|
80.0 |
|
20.0 |
|
|
BBB/Baa2/BBB (current) |
|
65.0 |
|
15.0 |
|
|
BBB+/Baa1/BBB+ |
|
55.0 |
|
15.0 |
|
|
A-/A3/A- or higher |
|
50.0 |
|
15.0 |
|
(a) If the Operating Partnership has debt ratings from two rating agencies, one of which is Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (“S&P”) or Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”), the rates per the above table shall be based on the lower of such ratings. If the Operating Partnership has debt ratings from three rating agencies, one of which is S&P or Moody’s, the rates per the above table shall be based on the lower of the two highest ratings. If the Operating Partnership has debt ratings from only one agency, it will be considered to have no rating or less than BBB-/Baa3/BBB- per the above table.
The terms of the unsecured facility include certain restrictions and covenants which limit, among other things, the payment of dividends (as discussed below), the incurrence of additional indebtedness, the incurrence of liens and the disposition of real estate properties (to the extent that: (i) such property dispositions cause the Company to default on any of the financial ratios of the facility described below, or (ii) the property dispositions are completed while the Company is under an event of default under the facility, unless, under certain circumstances, such disposition is being carried out to cure such default), and which require compliance with financial ratios relating to the maximum leverage ratio, the maximum amount of secured indebtedness, the minimum amount of tangible net worth, the minimum amount of fixed charge coverage, the maximum amount of unsecured indebtedness, the minimum amount of unencumbered property interest coverage and certain investment limitations. The dividend restriction referred to above provides that, except to enable the Company to continue to qualify as a REIT under the Code, the Company will not during any four consecutive fiscal quarters make distributions with respect to common stock or other common equity interests in an aggregate amount in excess of 90 percent of funds from operations (as defined in the facility agreement) for such period, subject to certain other adjustments.
The lending group for the unsecured facility consists of: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent; Bank of America, N. A., as syndication agent; The Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency; Wachovia Bank, National Association; and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as documentation agents; SunTrust Bank, as senior managing agent; US Bank National Association; Citicorp North America, Inc.; and PNC Bank National Association, as managing agents; and Bank of China, New York Branch; The Bank of New York; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.; The Royal Bank of Scotland, plc; Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd.; UFJ Bank Limited, New York Branch; The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland; Bank Hapoalim B.M.; Comerica Bank; Chang Hwa Commercial Bank, Ltd., New York Branch; First Commercial Bank, New York Agency; Chiao Tung Bank Co., Ltd., New York Agency; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; and Hua Nan Commercial Bank, New York Agency.
Mortgages, Loans Payable and Other Obligations:
The Company has mortgages, loans payable and other obligations which consist principally of various loans collateralized by certain of the Company’s rental properties. Payments on mortgages, loans payable and other obligations are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest, or interest only.
Debt Strategy:
The Company does not intend to reserve funds to retire the Company’s senior unsecured notes or its mortgages, loans payable and other obligations upon maturity. Instead, the Company will seek to refinance such debt at maturity or retire such debt through the issuance of additional equity or debt securities on or before the applicable maturity dates. If it cannot raise sufficient proceeds to retire the maturing debt, the Company may draw on its revolving credit facility to retire the maturing indebtedness, which would reduce the future availability of funds under such facility. As of December 31, 2005, the Company had $227 million of outstanding borrowings under its $600 million unsecured revolving credit facility. The Company is reviewing various refinancing options, including the purchase of its senior unsecured notes in privately-negotiated transactions, the issuance of additional, or exchange of current, unsecured debt, preferred stock, and/or obtaining additional mortgage debt, some or all of which may be completed during 2006. The Company
57
anticipates that its available cash and cash equivalents and cash flows from operating activities, together with cash available from borrowings and other sources, will be adequate to meet the Company’s capital and liquidity needs both in the short and long-term. However, if these sources of funds are insufficient or unavailable, the Company’s ability to make the expected distributions discussed below may be adversely affected.
Equity Financing and Registration Statements
Equity Activity:
The following table presents the changes in the Company’s issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock and the Operating Partnership’s common units and preferred units (as converted) since December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
Common |
|
Common |
|
Preferred Units, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock |
|
Units |
|
as Converted (a) |
|
Total |
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2004 |
|
61,038,875 |
|
7,616,447 |
|
6,205,426 |
|
74,860,748 |
|
|
Stock options exercised |
|
574,506 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
574,506 |
|
|
Preferred units converted into common units |
|
— |
|
6,205,426 |
|
(6,205,426 |
) |
— |
|
|
Common units redeemed for Common Stock |
|
234,762 |
|
(234,762 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
|
Common units issued |
|
— |
|
63,328 |
|
— |
|
63,328 |
|
|
Shares issued under Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan |
|
8,922 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
8,922 |
|
|
Shares issued under deferred compensation plan |
|
4,921 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
4,921 |
|
|
Restricted shares issued, net of cancellations |
|
157,660 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
157,660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2005 |
|
62,019,646 |
|
13,650,439 |
|
— |
|
75,670,085 |
|
(a) On June 13, 2005, 215,018 Series B preferred units were converted into 6,205,426 common units.
Share Repurchase Program:
On September 13, 2000, the Board of Directors authorized an increase to the Company’s repurchase program under which the Company was permitted to purchase up to an additional $150.0 million of the Company’s outstanding common stock (“Repurchase Program”). From that date through its last purchases on January 10, 2003, the Company purchased and retired, under the Repurchase Program, 3.7 million shares of its outstanding common stock for an aggregate cost of approximately $104.5 million. The Company has a remaining authorization to repurchase up to an additional $45.5 million of its outstanding common stock, which it may repurchase from time to time in open market transactions at prevailing prices or through privately negotiated transactions.
Shelf Registration Statements:
The Company has an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for an aggregate amount of $2.0 billion in common stock, preferred stock, depositary shares, and/or warrants of the Company, under which no securities have been sold.
The Company and the Operating Partnership also have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC for an aggregate amount of $2.5 billion in common stock, preferred stock, depositary shares and guarantees of the Company and debt securities of the Operating Partnership, under which $600 million of securities have been sold through February 17, 2006 and $1.9 billion remains available for future issuances.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Unconsolidated Joint Venture Debt:
The debt of the Company’s unconsolidated joint ventures aggregating $118.8 million, at December 31, 2005, is non-recourse
58
to the Company except for customary exceptions pertaining to such matters as intentional misuse of funds, environmental conditions and material misrepresentations. The Company has severally guaranteed repayment of approximately $3.8 million on a mortgage at the Harborside South Pier joint venture. The Company has also posted a $7.6 million letter of credit in support of the Harborside South Pier joint venture, $3.8 million of which is indemnified by Hyatt.
The Company’s off-balance sheet arrangements are further discussed in Note 4: Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures to the Financial Statements.
Contractual Obligations
The following table outlines the timing of payment requirements related to the Company’s debt (principal and interest), PILOT agreements, and ground lease agreements as of December 31, 2005 (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 1 |
|
1 – 3 |
|
4 – 5 |
|
6 – 10 |
|
After 10 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
Total |
|
year |
|
years |
|
years |
|
years |
|
years |
|
||||||
|
Senior unsecured notes |
|
$ |
1,790,776 |
|
$ |
89,444 |
|
$ |
178,889 |
|
$ |
607,476 |
|
$ |
812,067 |
|
$ |
102,900 |
|
|
Revolving credit facility (1) |
|
270,068 |
|
10,996 |
|
21,992 |
|
237,080 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||
|
Mortgages, loans payable and other obligations |
|
538,793 |
|
193,516 |
|
59,696 |
|
173,722 |
|
56,574 |
|
55,285 |
|
||||||
|
Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) |
|
71,064 |
|
8,228 |
|
12,580 |
|
8,587 |
|
22,514 |
|
19,155 |
|
||||||
|
Ground lease payments |
|
22,216 |
|
530 |
|
1,544 |
|
1,020 |
|
2,606 |
|
16,516 |
|
||||||
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,692,917 |
|
$ |
302,714 |
|
$ |
274,701 |
|
$ |
1,027,885 |
|
$ |
893,761 |
|
$ |
193,856 |
|
(1) Interest payments assume current credit facility borrowings and interest rates remain at the December 31, 2005 level until maturity.
Other Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings:
On February 12, 2003, the NJSEA selected The Mills Corporation and the Company to redevelop the Continental Airlines Arena site (“Arena Site”) for mixed uses, including retail. In March 2003, Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc., (“Hartz”), filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, for Bergen County, seeking to enjoin NJSEA from entering into a contract with the Meadowlands Venture for the redevelopment of the Continental Airlines Arena site. In May 2003, the court denied Hartz’s request for an injunction and dismissed its suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In June 2003, the NJSEA held hearings on Hartz’s protest, and on a parallel protest filed by another rejected developer, Westfield, Inc. (“Westfield”). On September 10, 2003, the NJSEA ruled against Hartz’s and Westfield’s protests, Hartz and Westfield, as well as Elliot Braha and three other taxpayers (collectively “Braha”), thereafter filed appeals from the NJSEA’s final decision. By decision dated May 14, 2004, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey rejected the appellants’ contention that the NJSEA lacks statutory authority to allow retail development of its property. The Appellate Division also remanded Hart’s claim under the Open Public Records Acts, seeking disclosure of additional documents from NJSEA, to the Law Division for further proceedings. The Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to review the Appellate Division’s decision. On August 19, 2004, the Law Division issued a decision resolving Hartz’s Open Public Records Act claim and ordered NJSEA to disclose some, but not all, of the documents Hartz was seeking. The Appellate Division, in a decision rendered on November 24, 2004, upheld the findings of the Law Division in the remand proceeding. The Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to review the Appellate Division’s decision. At Hartz’s request, the NJSEA thereafter held further hearings on December 15 and 16, 2004, to review certain additional facts in support of Hartz’s and Westfield’s bid protest. Braha, as a taxpayer, did not have standing to participate in the supplemental protest hearing. On March 4, 2005, the Hearing Officer rendered his Supplemental Report and Recommendation to the NJSEA, finding no merit in the protests presented by Hartz and
59
Westfield. The NJSEA accepted the Hearing Officer’s Supplemental Report and Recommendation on March 30, 2005 and Hartz and Braha have appealed that decision to the Appellate Division.
In January 2004, Hartz and Westfield also appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Jersey from the NJSEA’s December 2003 approval and execution of the Redevelopment Agreement with the Meadowlands Venture.
In November 2004, Hartz and Westfield filed additional appeals in the Appellate Division challenging NJSEA’s resolution authorizing the execution of the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement with Meadowlands Venture and the ground lease with the Meadowlands Venture.
All of the above appeals have been consolidated by the Appellate Division and are pending.
On September 30, 2004, the Borough of Carlstadt filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, challenging Meadowlands Xanadu, which asserts claims that are substantially the same as claims asserted by Hartz and Braha in the above appeals. By Order dated November 19, 2004, the Law Division transferred that matter to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. The matter is pending.
Several appeals filed by Hartz, Westfield and others, including certain environmental groups, that challenge certain approvals received by the Meadowlands Venture from the NJSEA, the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (“NJMC”) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) remain pending before the Appellate Division. Some of these appeals challenge NJDEP’s issuance of a stream encroachment permit, waterfront development permit, and coastal zone consistency determination for Meadowlands Xanadu. Other of these appeals are from NJDEP’s and NJMC’s issuance of reports in connection with a consultation process the NJSEA was statutorily required to undertake in connection with any NJSEA-development project.
A Hartz affiliate and a trade association have filed an appeal from an advisory opinion favorable to the Meadowlands Venture issued by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control concerning the availability of special concessionaire permits. That appeal is also pending in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Three separate lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) in connection with the project. The first suit was filed on March 30, 2005, by the Sierra Club, the New Jersey Public Interest Group, Citizen Lobby, Inc. and the New Jersey Environmental Federation. Additional suits were filed on May 16 and May 31, 2005, respectively, by Hartz (together with one of its officers as an individual named plaintiff) and the Borough of Carlstadt. The Sierra Club also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop certain construction activities on the project, which the Court denied on July 6, 2005. The parties are currently briefing cross motions for summary judgment on the merits of the Sierra Club’s claims. A decision is expected sometime in the latter part of 2006. On October 26, 2005, the court granted the motions of the Meadowlands Venture and the USACE to dismiss the Hartz complaint for lack of standing. The deadline for appealing that decision has passed, so the Hartz action is ended. On October 31, 2005, the USACE filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Borough of Carlstadt for lack of standing. On February 7, 2006, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Borough of Carlstadt complaint in its entirety. Subject to any appeal that may be brought within 60 days after this order of dismissal, the Borough of Carlstadt action is ended.
On April 5, 2005, the New York Football Giants (“Giants”) filed an emergent application with the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, seeking an injunction stopping all work on the Meadowlands Xanadu as being in violation of its existing lease with the NJSEA. The court heard an oral argument on the application on August 5, 2005, and denied the Giants’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The Giants’ claim for permanent injunction relief remains pending. However, the parties to this dispute have reached a tentative settlement. In September 2005, the Giants and Meadowlands Venture executed a settlement agreement. NJSEA subsequently proposed modifications to the settlement agreement, and the parties have not yet executed a final agreement. The proposed settlement agreement provides, among other things, for the Meadowlands Venture to pay the Giants approximately $15 million as compensation for claims of construction interference and for the Giants to otherwise withdraw the assertion of the right to object to the project.
60
The New Jersey Builders’ Association (“NJBA”) has commenced an action, which is pending in the Appellate Division, alleging that the NJSEA has failed to meet a purported obligation to provide affordable housing at the Meadowlands Complex and seeking, among other relief, an order enjoining the construction of Meadowlands Xanadu. NJBA filed an application for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin further construction of Meadowlands Xanadu, which the Appellate Division denied on July 28, 2005. The Meadowlands Venture is not a party to that action.
On January 25, 2006, the Bergen Cliff Hawks Baseball Club, LLC (the “Cliff Hawks”), filed a complaint against the Company and Mills, alleging that the Company and Mills breached an agreement to provide the Cliff Hawks with a minor league baseball park as part of the Xanadu Project. This matter remains pending.
The Company believes that the Meadowlands Venture’s proposal and the planned project comply with applicable laws, and the Meadowlands Venture intends to continue its vigorous defense of its rights under the Redevelopment Agreement and Ground Lease. Although there can be no assurance, the Company does not believe that the pending lawsuits will have any material affect on its ability to develop the Meadowlands Xanadu project.
There are no other material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business, to which the Company is a party or to which any of the Properties is subject.
Inflation
The Company’s leases with the majority of its tenants provide for recoveries and escalation charges based upon the tenant’s proportionate share of, and/or increases in, real estate taxes and certain operating costs, which reduce the Company’s exposure to increases in operating costs resulting from inflation.
We consider portions of this information, including the documents incorporated by reference, to be forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 21E of such act. Such forward-looking statements relate to, without limitation, our future economic performance, plans and objectives for future operations and projections of revenue and other financial items. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “may,” “will,” “plan,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “continue” or comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which we cannot predict with accuracy and some of which we might not even anticipate. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions at the time made, we can give no assurance that such expectations will be achieved. Future events and actual results, financial and otherwise, may differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.
Among the factors about which we have made assumptions are:
• changes in the general economic climate and conditions, including those affecting industries in which our principal tenants compete;
• any failure of the general economy to recover from the current economic downturn;
• the extent of any tenant bankruptcies or of any early lease terminations;
• our ability to lease or re-lease space at current or anticipated rents;
• changes in the supply of and demand for office, office/flex and industrial/warehouse properties;
• changes in interest rate levels;
61
• changes in operating costs;
• our ability to obtain adequate insurance, including coverage for terrorist acts;
• the availability of financing;
• changes in governmental regulation, tax rates and similar matters; and
• other risks associated with the development and acquisition of properties, including risks that the development may not be completed on schedule, that the tenants will not take occupancy or pay rent, or that development or operating costs may be greater than anticipated.
For further information on factors which could impact us and the statements contained herein, see Item 1A: Risk Factors. We assume no obligation to update and supplement forward-looking statements that become untrue because of subsequent events.
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Market risk is the exposure to loss resulting from changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices and equity prices. In pursuing its business plan, the primary market risk to which the Company is exposed is interest rate risk. Changes in the general level of interest rates prevailing in the financial markets may affect the spread between the Company’s yield on invested assets and cost of funds and, in turn, its ability to make distributions or payments to its investors.
Approximately $1.9 billion of the Company’s long-term debt bears interest at fixed rates and therefore the fair value of these instruments is affected by changes in market interest rates. The following table presents principal cash flows (in thousands) based upon maturity dates of the debt obligations and the related weighted-average interest rates by expected maturity dates for the fixed rate debt. The interest rate on the variable rate debt as of December 31, 2005 was LIBOR plus 65 basis points.
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Debt, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
including current portion |
|
2006 |
|
2007 |
|
2008 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
Thereafter |
|
Total |
|
Fair Value |
|
||||||||
|
($’s in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Fixed Rate |
|
$ |
177,487 |
|
$ |
25,485 |
|
$ |
15,314 |
|
$ |
306,383 |
|
$ |
315,775 |
|
$ |
1,058,737 |
|
$ |
1,899,181 |
|
$ |
1,938,567 |
|
|
Average Interest Rate |
|
6.90 |
% |
5.69 |
% |
4.97 |
% |
7.43 |
% |
5.19 |
% |
6.13 |
% |
6.30 |
% |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Variable Rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
227,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
227,000 |
|
$ |
227,000 |
|
|||||
While the Company has not experienced any significant credit losses, in the event of a significant rising interest rate environment and/or economic downturn, defaults could increase and result in losses to the Company which could adversely affect its operating results and liquidity.
The Company has also invested in the marketable securities of another REIT and is primarily exposed to equity price risk from adverse changes in market rates and conditions. All marketable securities are classified as available for sale and are carried at fair value.
62
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The information required by Item 8 is contained in the Consolidated Financial Statements, together with the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the report of independent registered public accounting firm.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Company’s management, with the participation of the Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective in recording, processing, summarizing and reporting, on a timely basis, information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act.
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act, is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the Company’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Company’s management, with the participation of the Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer, has established and maintained policies and procedures designed to maintain the adequacy of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, and includes those policies and procedures that:
(1) Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;
(2) Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Company; and
(3) Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
The Company’s management has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 based on the criteria established in a report entitled Internal Control—Integrated Framework, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on our assessment and those criteria, the Company’s management has concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2005.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
63
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree or compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which appears herein.
Changes In Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There have not been any changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fourth fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Not Applicable.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The information required by Item 10 is incorporated by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement for its annual meeting of shareholders expected to be held on May 24, 2006.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The information required by Item 11 is incorporated by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement for its annual meeting of shareholders expected to be held on May 24, 2006.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
The information required by Item 12 is incorporated by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement for its annual meeting of shareholders expected to be held on May 24, 2006.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
The information required by Item 13 is incorporated by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement for its annual meeting of shareholders expected to be held on May 24, 2006.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
The information required by Item 14 is incorporated by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement for its annual meeting of shareholders expected to be held on May 24, 2006.
64
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
(a) 1. |
Financial Statements and Report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) 2. |
Financial Statement Schedules |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule III - Real Estate Investments and Accumulated Depreciation as of December 31, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other schedules are omitted because they are not required or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes thereto. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) 3. |
Exhibits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The exhibits required by this item are set forth on the Exhibit Index attached hereto. |
|
65
To Board of Directors and Shareholders
of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation:
We have completed integrated audits of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation’s 2005 and 2004 consolidated financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and an audit of its 2003 consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Our opinions, based on our audits, are presented below.
Consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the index appearing under Item 15(a)(1) present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) at December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the index appearing under Item 15(a)(2) presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Internal control over financial reporting
Also, in our opinion, management’s assessment, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A, that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on those criteria. Furthermore, in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the COSO. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on management’s assessment and on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit of internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.
66
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
|
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
|
|
New York, New York |
|
|
February 22, 2006 |
|
67
MACK-CALI REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (in thousands, except per share
amounts)
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
||||
|
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
||
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rental property |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Land and leasehold interests |
|
$ |
637,653 |
|
$ |
593,606 |
|
|
Buildings and improvements |
|
3,539,003 |
|
3,296,789 |
|
||
|
Tenant improvements |
|
307,664 |
|
262,626 |
|
||
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
7,432 |
|
7,938 |
|
||
|
|
|
4,491,752 |
|
4,160,959 |
|
||
|
Less – accumulated depreciation and amortization |
|
(722,980 |
) |
(641,626 |
) |
||
|
|
|
3,768,772 |
|
3,519,333 |
|
||
|
Rental property held for sale, net |
|
— |
|
19,132 |
|
||
|
Net investment in rental property |
|
3,768,772 |
|
3,538,465 |
|
||
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
60,397 |
|
12,270 |
|
||
|
Marketable securities available for sale at fair value |
|
50,847 |
|
— |
|
||
|
Investments in unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
62,138 |
|
46,743 |
|
||
|
Unbilled rents receivable, net |
|
92,692 |
|
82,586 |
|
||
|
Deferred charges and other assets, net |
|
197,634 |
|
155,060 |
|
||
|
Restricted cash |
|
9,221 |
|
10,477 |
|
||
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $1,088 and $1,235 |
|
5,801 |
|
4,564 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
4,247,502 |
|
$ |
3,850,165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Senior unsecured notes |
|
$ |
1,430,509 |
|
$ |
1,031,102 |
|
|
Revolving credit facilities |
|
227,000 |
|
107,000 |
|
||
|
Mortgages, loans payable and other obligations |
|
468,672 |
|
564,198 |
|
||
|
Dividends and distributions payable |
|
48,178 |
|
47,712 |
|
||
|
Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
85,481 |
|
57,002 |
|
||
|
Rents received in advance and security deposits |
|
47,685 |
|
47,938 |
|
||
|
Accrued interest payable |
|
27,871 |
|
22,144 |
|
||
|
Total liabilities |
|
2,335,396 |
|
1,877,096 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Minority interests: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Operating Partnership |
|
400,819 |
|
416,855 |
|
||
|
Consolidated joint ventures |
|
— |
|
11,103 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total minority interests |
|
400,819 |
|
427,958 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stockholders’ equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 5,000,000 shares authorized, 10,000 and 10,000 shares outstanding, at liquidation preference |
|
25,000 |
|
25,000 |
|
||
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 190,000,000 shares authorized, 62,019,646 and 61,038,875 shares outstanding |
|
620 |
|
610 |
|
||
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
1,682,141 |
|
1,650,834 |
|
||
|
Unamortized stock compensation |
|
(6,105 |
) |
(3,968 |
) |
||
|
Dividends in excess of net earnings |
|
(189,579 |
) |
(127,365 |
) |
||
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
(790 |
) |
— |
|
||
|
Total stockholders’ equity |
|
1,511,287 |
|
1,545,111 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity |
|
$ |
4,247,502 |
|
$ |
3,850,165 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
68
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
|||
|
REVENUES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Base rents |
|
$ |
541,702 |
|
$ |
498,392 |
|
$ |
480,292 |
|
|
Escalations and recoveries from tenants |
|
84,082 |
|
66,451 |
|
59,885 |
|
|||
|
Parking and other |
|
17,621 |
|
12,906 |
|
18,747 |
|
|||
|
Total revenues |
|
643,405 |
|
577,749 |
|
558,924 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
EXPENSES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Real estate taxes |
|
82,056 |
|
69,085 |
|
62,462 |
|
|||
|
Utilities |
|
55,843 |
|
41,649 |
|
40,037 |
|
|||
|
Operating services |
|
89,175 |
|
75,712 |
|
71,295 |
|
|||
|
General and administrative |
|
33,090 |
|
31,761 |
|
31,284 |
|
|||
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
155,370 |
|
127,826 |
|
113,202 |
|
|||
|
Interest expense |
|
119,337 |
|
109,649 |
|
115,430 |
|
|||
|
Interest income |
|
(856 |
) |
(1,367 |
) |
(1,098 |
) |
|||
|
Loss on early retirement of debt, net |
|
— |
|
— |
|
2,372 |
|
|||
|
Total expenses |
|
534,015 |
|
454,315 |
|
434,984 |
|
|||
|
Income from continuing operations before minority interest and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
109,390 |
|
123,434 |
|
123,940 |
|
|||
|
Minority interest in Operating Partnership |
|
(21,042 |
) |
(27,691 |
) |
(28,364 |
) |
|||
|
Minority interest in consolidated joint ventures |
|
(74 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
|||
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest), net |
|
179 |
|
(3,452 |
) |
11,873 |
|
|||
|
Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest) |
|
31 |
|
637 |
|
21,108 |
|
|||
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
88,484 |
|
92,928 |
|
128,557 |
|
|||
|
Discontinued operations (net of minority interest): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income from discontinued operations |
|
2,578 |
|
10,144 |
|
11,376 |
|
|||
|
Realized gains (losses) and unrealized losses on disposition of rental property, net |
|
4,426 |
|
(619 |
) |
3,120 |
|
|||
|
Total discontinued operations, net |
|
7,004 |
|
9,525 |
|
14,496 |
|
|||
|
Net income |
|
95,488 |
|
102,453 |
|
143,053 |
|
|||
|
Preferred stock dividends |
|
(2,000 |
) |
(2,000 |
) |
(1,672 |
) |
|||
|
Net income available to common shareholders |
|
$ |
93,488 |
|
$ |
100,453 |
|
$ |
141,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Basic earnings per common share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.41 |
|
$ |
1.50 |
|
$ |
2.20 |
|
|
Discontinued operations |
|
0.11 |
|
0.16 |
|
0.25 |
|
|||
|
Net income available to common shareholders |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
$ |
1.66 |
|
$ |
2.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Diluted earnings per common share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.40 |
|
$ |
1.49 |
|
$ |
2.18 |
|
|
Discontinued operations |
|
0.11 |
|
0.16 |
|
0.25 |
|
|||
|
Net income available to common shareholders |
|
$ |
1.51 |
|
$ |
1.65 |
|
$ |
2.43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Dividends declared per common share |
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Basic weighted average shares outstanding |
|
61,477 |
|
60,351 |
|
57,724 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding |
|
74,189 |
|
68,743 |
|
65,980 |
|
|||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
69
MACK-CALI REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional |
|
Unamortized |
|
Dividends in |
|
Other |
|
Total |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
Preferred Stock |
|
Common Stock |
|
Paid-In |
|
Stock |
|
Excess of |
|
Comprehensive |
|
Stockholders’ |
|
Comprehensive |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Shares |
|
Amount |
|
Shares |
|
Par Value |
|
Capital |
|
Compensation |
|
Net Earnings |
|
Income (Loss) |
|
Equity |
|
Income |
|
||||||||||
|
Balance at January 1, 2003 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
57,318 |
|
$ |
573 |
|
$ |
1,525,479 |
|
$ |
(2,892 |
) |
$ |
(68,966 |
) |
— |
|
$ |
1,454,194 |
|
— |
|
|||||
|
Net income |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
143,053 |
|
— |
|
143,053 |
|
$ |
143,053 |
|
|||||||||
|
Preferred stock dividends |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(1,672 |
) |
— |
|
(1,672 |
) |
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Common stock dividends |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(147,136 |
) |
— |
|
(147,136 |
) |
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Issuance of preferred stock |
|
10 |
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(164 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
24,836 |
|
— |
|
|||||||||
|
Redemption of common units for common stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
44 |
|
1 |
|
1,384 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,385 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Shares issued under Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan |
|
— |
|
— |
|
4 |
|
— |
|
148 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
148 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock options exercised |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,421 |
|
14 |
|
47,182 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
47,196 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock warrants exercised |
|
— |
|
— |
|
443 |
|
4 |
|
16,577 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
16,581 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock options expense |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
189 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
189 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Directors Deferred comp. plan |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
227 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
227 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Issuance of Restricted Stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
225 |
|
2 |
|
7,233 |
|
(5,649 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
1,586 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Amortization of stock comp. |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,931 |
|
— |
|
|
|
1,931 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Adj. to fair value of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
575 |
|
(575 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Cancellation of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(15 |
) |
15 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Repurchase of common stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(35 |
) |
— |
|
(1,030 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(1,030 |
) |
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Balance at December 31, 2003 |
|
10 |
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
59,420 |
|
$ |
594 |
|
$ |
1,597,785 |
|
$ |
(7,170 |
) |
$ |
(74,721 |
) |
— |
|
$ |
1,541,488 |
|
$ |
143,053 |
|
|||
|
Net income |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
102,453 |
|
— |
|
102,453 |
|
102,453 |
|
||||||||||
|
Preferred stock dividends |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(2,000 |
) |
— |
|
(2,000 |
) |
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Common stock dividends |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(153,097 |
) |
— |
|
(153,097 |
) |
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Redemption of common units for common stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
179 |
|
2 |
|
4,642 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
4,644 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Shares issued under Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan |
|
— |
|
— |
|
12 |
|
— |
|
481 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
481 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock options exercised |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,251 |
|
13 |
|
40,507 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
40,520 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock warrants exercised |
|
— |
|
— |
|
149 |
|
1 |
|
4,924 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
4,925 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock options expense |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
415 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
415 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Directors Deferred comp. plan |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
265 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
265 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Issuance of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
47 |
|
— |
|
2,106 |
|
(578 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
1,528 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Amortization of stock comp. |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
3,489 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
3,489 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Adj. to fair value of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
284 |
|
(284 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Cancellation of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(19 |
) |
— |
|
(575 |
) |
575 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Balance at December 31, 2004 |
|
10 |
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
61,039 |
|
$ |
610 |
|
$ |
1,650,834 |
|
$ |
(3,968 |
) |
$ |
(127,365 |
) |
— |
|
$ |
1,545,111 |
|
$ |
102,453 |
|
|||
|
Net income |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
95,488 |
|
— |
|
95,488 |
|
95,488 |
|
||||||||||
|
Preferred stock dividends |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(2,000 |
) |
— |
|
(2,000 |
) |
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Common stock dividends |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(155,702 |
) |
— |
|
(155,702 |
) |
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Redemption of common units for common stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
235 |
|
2 |
|
6,788 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
6,790 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Shares issued under Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan |
|
— |
|
— |
|
9 |
|
— |
|
390 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
390 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock options exercised |
|
— |
|
— |
|
574 |
|
6 |
|
16,597 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
16,603 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Stock options expense |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
448 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
448 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Comprehensive Loss: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Unrealized holding loss on marketable securities available for sale |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(790 |
) |
(790 |
) |
(790 |
) |
||||||||||
|
Directors Deferred comp. plan |
|
— |
|
— |
|
5 |
|
— |
|
288 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
288 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Issuance of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
166 |
|
2 |
|
7,189 |
|
(7,191 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Amortization of stock comp. |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
4,661 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
4,661 |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Adj. to fair value of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(37 |
) |
37 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Cancellation of restricted stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(8 |
) |
— |
|
(356 |
) |
356 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
||||||||||
|
Balance at December 31, 2005 |
|
10 |
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
62,020 |
|
$ |
620 |
|
$ |
1,682,141 |
|
$ |
(6,105 |
) |
$ |
(189,579 |
) |
$ |
(790 |
) |
$ |
1,511,287 |
|
$ |
94,698 |
|
||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
70
MACK-CALI REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (in thousands)
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Net income |
|
$ |
95,488 |
|
$ |
102,453 |
|
$ |
143,053 |
|
|
||||||||
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
155,370 |
|
127,826 |
|
113,202 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization on discontinued operations |
|
729 |
|
4,748 |
|
6,558 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Stock options expense |
|
448 |
|
415 |
|
189 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Amortization of stock compensation |
|
4,661 |
|
3,489 |
|
1,931 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs and debt discount |
|
3,271 |
|
4,163 |
|
4,713 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Write-off of unamortized interest rate contract |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,540 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Discount on early retirement of debt |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(2,008 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint venture (net of minority interest), net |
|
(179 |
) |
3,452 |
|
(11,873 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint ventures (net of minority interest) |
|
(31 |
) |
(637 |
) |
(21,108 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
(Realized gains) unrealized losses on disposition of rental property (net of minority interest) |
|
(4,426 |
) |
619 |
|
(3,120 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Minority interest in Operating Partnership |
|
21,042 |
|
27,691 |
|
28,364 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Minority interest in consolidated joint ventures |
|
74 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Minority interest in income from discontinued operations |
|
420 |
|
1,305 |
|
1,539 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Increase in unbilled rents receivable, net |
|
(13,283 |
) |
(11,230 |
) |
(10,120 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Increase in deferred charges and other assets, net |
|
(40,566 |
) |
(48,306 |
) |
(23,681 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable, net |
|
(1,237 |
) |
(106 |
) |
1,832 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
15,674 |
|
15,579 |
|
(9,351 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Increase (decrease) in rents received in advance and security deposits |
|
(253 |
) |
7,839 |
|
1,061 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Increase (decrease) in accrued interest payable |
|
5,727 |
|
(860 |
) |
(1,944 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
242,929 |
|
$ |
238,440 |
|
$ |
220,777 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Additions to rental property |
|
$ |
(451,335 |
) |
$ |
(200,033 |
) |
$ |
(113,926 |
) |
|
||||||||
|
Repayment of mortgage note receivable |
|
81 |
|
850 |
|
3,542 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Investment in unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
(17,788 |
) |
(27,945 |
) |
(13,472 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Distributions from unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
— |
|
25,942 |
|
14,624 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Proceeds from sale of investment in unconsolidated joint venture |
|
2,676 |
|
720 |
|
164,867 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Acquisition of minority interest in consolidated joint venture |
|
(7,713 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Proceeds from sales of rental property |
|
102,980 |
|
110,141 |
|
18,690 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Purchase of marketable securities available for sale |
|
(51,637 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Funding of note receivable |
|
— |
|
(13,042 |
) |
— |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Decrease (increase) in restricted cash |
|
1,256 |
|
(2,388 |
) |
(312 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities |
|
$ |
(421,480 |
) |
$ |
(105,755 |
) |
$ |
74,013 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
CASH FLOW FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Proceeds from senior unsecured notes |
|
$ |
398,480 |
|
$ |
202,363 |
|
$ |
124,714 |
|
|
||||||||
|
Borrowings from revolving credit facility |
|
1,041,560 |
|
612,475 |
|
297,852 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Repayment of senior unsecured notes |
|
— |
|
(300,000 |
) |
(95,284 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Repayment of revolving credit facility |
|
(921,560 |
) |
(505,475 |
) |
(370,852 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Repayment of mortgages, loans payable and other obligations |
|
(169,935 |
) |
(58,553 |
) |
(78,687 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Net proceeds from preferred stock issuance |
|
— |
|
— |
|
24,836 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Repurchase of common stock |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(1,030 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Payment of financing costs |
|
(5,071 |
) |
(5,648 |
) |
(577 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
Proceeds from mortgages |
|
58,500 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised |
|
16,603 |
|
40,520 |
|
47,196 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Proceeds from stock warrants exercised |
|
— |
|
4,925 |
|
16,581 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Payment of dividends and distributions |
|
(191,899 |
) |
(189,397 |
) |
(182,331 |
) |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
$ |
226,678 |
|
$ |
(198,790 |
) |
$ |
(217,582 |
) |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
48,127 |
|
$ |
(66,105 |
) |
$ |
77,208 |
|
|
||||||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
|
12,270 |
|
78,375 |
|
$ |
1,167 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
|
$ |
60,397 |
|
$ |
|
12,270 |
|
$ |
78,375 |
|
||||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
71
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (dollars in thousands, except per share/unit amounts)
1. ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
ORGANIZATION
Mack-Cali Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation, together with its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”), is a fully-integrated, self-administered, self-managed real estate investment trust (“REIT”) providing leasing, management, acquisition, development, construction and tenant-related services for its properties. As of December 31, 2005, the Company owned or had interests in 270 properties plus developable land (collectively, the “Properties”). The Properties aggregate approximately 30.0 million square feet, which are comprised of 162 office buildings and 97 office/flex buildings, totaling approximately 29.6 million square feet (which include one office building and one office/flex building aggregating 538,000 square feet owned by unconsolidated joint ventures in which the Company has investment interests), six industrial/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 387,400 square feet, two retail properties totaling approximately 17,300 square feet, one hotel (which is owned by an unconsolidated joint venture in which the Company has an investment interest) and two parcels of land leased to others. The Properties are located in seven states, primarily in the Northeast, plus the District of Columbia.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include all accounts of the Company, its majority-owned and/or controlled subsidiaries, which consist principally of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”) and variable interest entities for which the Company has determined itself to be the primary beneficiary, if any. See Note 2: Significant Accounting Policies — Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures, Net for the Company’s treatment of unconsolidated joint venture interests. Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts in order to conform with current period presentation.
2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Rental
Property Rental properties are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Costs directly related to the acquisition, development and construction of rental properties are capitalized. Capitalized development and construction costs include pre-construction costs essential to the development of the property, development and construction costs, interest, property taxes, insurance, salaries and other project costs incurred during the period of development. Included in total rental property is construction and development in-progress of $118,816 and $86,916 (including land of $58,883 and $53,705) as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Ordinary repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred; major replacements and betterments, which improve or extend the life of the asset, are capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful lives. Fully-depreciated assets are removed from the accounts.
The Company considers a construction project as substantially completed and held available for occupancy upon the completion of tenant improvements, but no later than one year from cessation of major construction activity (as distinguished from activities such as routine maintenance and cleanup). If portions of a rental project are substantially completed and occupied by tenants, or held available for occupancy, and other portions have not yet reached that stage, the substantially completed portions are accounted for as a separate project. The Company allocates costs incurred between the portions under construction and the portions substantially completed and held
72
available for occupancy, and capitalizes only those costs associated with the portion under construction.
Properties are depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The estimated useful lives are as follows:
|
Leasehold interests |
|
Remaining lease term |
|
Buildings and improvements |
|
5 to 40 years |
|
Tenant improvements |
|
The shorter of the term of the related lease or useful life |
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
5 to 10 years |
Upon acquisition of rental property, the Company estimates the fair value of acquired tangible assets, consisting of land, building and improvements, and identified intangible assets and liabilities, generally consisting of the fair value of (i) above and below market leases, (ii) in-place leases and (iii) tenant relationships. The Company allocates the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their relative fair values. In estimating the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired, the Company considers information obtained about each property as a result of its due diligence and marketing and leasing activities, and utilizes various valuation methods, such as estimated cash flow projections utilizing appropriate discount and capitalization rates, estimates of replacement costs net of depreciation, and available market information. The fair value of the tangible assets of an acquired property considers the value of the property as if it were vacant.
Above-market and below-market lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value, (using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to each in-place lease and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for each corresponding in-place lease, measured over a period equal to the remaining term of the lease for above-market leases and the initial term plus the term of any below-market fixed rate renewal options for below-market leases. The capitalized above-market lease values are amortized as a reduction of base rental revenue over the remaining term of the respective leases, and the capitalized below-market lease values are amortized as an increase to base rental revenue over the remaining initial terms plus the terms of any below-market fixed rate renewal options of the respective leases.
Other intangible assets acquired include amounts for in-place lease values and tenant relationship values, which are based on management’s evaluation of the specific characteristics of each tenant’s lease and the Company’s overall relationship with the respective tenant. Factors to be considered by management in its analysis of in-place lease values include an estimate of carrying costs during hypothetical expected lease-up periods considering current market conditions, and costs to execute similar leases. In estimating carrying costs, management includes real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rentals at market rates during the expected lease-up periods, depending on local market conditions. In estimating costs to execute similar leases, management considers leasing commissions, legal and other related expenses. Characteristics considered by management in valuing tenant relationships include the nature and extent of the Company’s existing business relationships with the tenant, growth prospects for developing new business with the tenant, the tenant’s credit quality and expectations of lease renewals. The value of in-place leases are amortized to expense over the remaining initial terms of the respective leases. The value of tenant relationship intangibles are amortized to expense over the anticipated life of the relationships.
On a periodic basis, management assesses whether there are any indicators that the value of the Company’s real estate properties held for use may be impaired. A property’s value is impaired only if management’s estimate of the aggregate future cash flows (undiscounted and without
73
interest charges) to be generated by the property is less than the carrying value of the property. To the extent impairment has occurred, the loss shall be measured as the excess of the carrying amount of the property over the fair value of the property. The Company’s estimates of aggregate future cash flows expected to be generated by each property are based on a number of assumptions that are subject to economic and market uncertainties including, among others, demand for space, competition for tenants, changes in market rental rates, and costs to operate each property. As these factors are difficult to predict and are subject to future events that may alter management’s assumptions, the future cash flows estimated by management in its impairment analyses may not be achieved. Management does not believe that the value of any of the Company’s rental properties is impaired.
Rental Property
Held for Sale and
Discontinued
Operations When assets are identified by management as held for sale, the Company discontinues depreciating the assets and estimates the sales price, net of selling costs, of such assets. If, in management’s opinion, the net sales price of the assets which have been identified as held for sale is less than the net book value of the assets, a valuation allowance is established. Properties identified as held for sale and/or sold are presented in discontinued operations for all periods presented. See Note 7: Discontinued Operations.
If circumstances arise that previously were considered unlikely and, as a result, the Company decides not to sell a property previously classified as held for sale, the property is reclassified as held and used. A property that is reclassified is measured and recorded individually at the lower of (a) its carrying amount before the property was classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation (amortization) expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used, or (b) the fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell.
Investments in
Unconsolidated
Joint Ventures, Net The Company accounts for its investments in unconsolidated joint ventures for which Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46”) does not apply under the equity method of accounting as the Company exercises significant influence, but does not control these entities. These investments are recorded initially at cost, as Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures, and subsequently adjusted for equity in earnings and cash contributions and distributions.
FIN 46 provides guidance on the identification of entities for which control is achieved through means other than voting rights (“variable interest entities” or “VIEs”) and the determination of which business enterprise, if any, should consolidate the VIE (the “primary beneficiary”). Generally, FIN 46 applies when either (1) the equity investors (if any) lack one or more of the essential characteristics of a controlling financial interest, (2) the equity investment at risk is insufficient to finance that entity’s activities without additional subordinated financial support or (3) the equity investors have voting rights that are not proportionate to their economic interests and the activities of the entity involve or are conducted on behalf of an investor with a disproportionately small voting interest.
The Company has evaluated its joint ventures with regards to FIN 46. As of December 31, 2005, the Company has identified its Meadowlands Xanadu joint venture with the Mills Corporation as a VIE, but is not consolidating such venture as the Company is not the primary beneficiary. Disclosure about this VIE is included in Note 4: Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures.
On a periodic basis, management assesses whether there are any indicators that the value of the Company’s investments in unconsolidated joint ventures may be impaired. An investment is
74
impaired only if management’s estimate of the value of the investment is less than the carrying value of the investment, and such decline in value is deemed to be other than temporary. To the extent impairment has occurred, the loss shall be measured as the excess of the carrying amount of the investment over the value of the investment. Management does not believe that the value of any of the Company’s investments in unconsolidated joint ventures is impaired. See Note 4: Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures.
Cash and Cash
Equivalents All highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased are considered to be cash equivalents.
Marketable
Securities The Company classifies its marketable securities among three categories: Held-to-maturity, trading and available-for-sale. Unrealized holding gains and losses are excluded from earnings and reported as other comprehensive income (loss) in stockholders’ equity until realized.
A decline in the market value of any marketable security below cost that is deemed to be other than temporary results in a reduction in the carrying amount to fair value. Any impairment would be charged to earnings and a new cost basis for the security established.
The Company’s marketable securities at December 31, 2005 carried a value of $50,847 and consisted of 1,468,300 shares of common stock in CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, which were all acquired in 2005. From January 1, 2006 through January 25, 2006, the Company purchased an additional 336,500 shares of common stock in CarrAmerica for a total purchase price of $11,912.
The Company’s marketable securities at December 31, 2005 are all classified as available-for-sale and are carried at fair value based on quoted market prices. The Company recorded an unrealized holding loss of $790 as other comprehensive loss in 2005.
Deferred
Financing Costs Costs incurred in obtaining financing are capitalized and amortized on a straight-line basis, which approximates the effective interest method, over the term of the related indebtedness. Amortization of such costs is included in interest expense and was $3,271, $4,163 and $4,713 for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Deferred
Leasing Costs Costs incurred in connection with leases are capitalized and amortized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the related leases and included in depreciation and amortization. Unamortized deferred leasing costs are charged to amortization expense upon early termination of the lease. Certain employees of the Company are compensated for providing leasing services to the Properties. The portion of such compensation, which is capitalized and amortized, approximated $3,855, $3,907 and $3,783 for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Derivative
Instruments The Company measures derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, at fair value and records them as an asset or liability, depending on the Company’s rights or obligations under the applicable derivative contract. For derivatives designated and qualifying as fair value hedges, the changes in the fair value of both the derivative instrument and the hedged item are recorded in earnings. For derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portions of the derivative are reported in other comprehensive income (“OCI”) and are subsequently reclassified into earnings when the hedged item affects earnings. Changes in fair value of derivative instruments not designated as hedging and ineffective portions of hedges are recognized in earnings in the affected period.
75
Revenue
Recognition Base rental revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the respective leases. Unbilled rents receivable represents the amount by which straight-line rental revenue exceeds rents currently billed in accordance with the lease agreements. Above-market and below-market lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value (using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to each in-place lease and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for each corresponding in-place lease, measured over a period equal to the remaining term of the lease for above-market leases and the initial term plus the term of any below-market fixed-rate renewal options for below-market leases. The capitalized above-market lease values for acquired properties are amortized as a reduction of base rental revenue over the remaining term of the respective leases, and the capitalized below-market lease values are amortized as an increase to base rental revenue over the remaining initial terms plus the terms of any below-market fixed-rate renewal options of the respective leases. Escalations and recoveries from tenants are received from tenants for certain costs as provided in the lease agreements. These costs generally include real estate taxes, utilities, insurance, common area maintenance and other recoverable costs. See Note 15: Tenant Leases. Parking and other revenue includes income from parking spaces leased to tenants, income from tenants for additional services arranged for the Company, income from tenants for early lease terminations and income from managing and/or leasing properties for third parties
Allowance for
Doubtful Accounts Management periodically performs a detailed review of amounts due from tenants to determine if accounts receivable balances are impaired based on factors affecting the collectibility of those balances. Management’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts requires management to exercise significant judgment about the timing, frequency and severity of collection losses, which affects the allowance and net income.
Income and
Other Taxes The Company has elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). As a REIT, the Company generally will not be subject to corporate federal income tax (including alternative minimum tax) on net income that it currently distributes to its shareholders, provided that the Company satisfies certain organizational and operational requirements including the requirement to distribute at least 90 percent of its REIT taxable income to its shareholders. The Company has elected to treat certain of its corporate subsidiaries as taxable REIT subsidiaries (each a “TRS”). In general, a TRS of the Company may perform additional services for tenants of the Company and generally may engage in any real estate or non-real estate related business (except for the operation or management of health care facilities or lodging facilities or the providing to any person, under a franchise, license or otherwise, rights to any brand name under which any lodging facility or health care facility is operated). A TRS is subject to corporate federal income tax. If the Company fails to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, the Company will be subject to federal income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on its taxable income at regular corporate tax rates. The Company is subject to certain state and local taxes.
Earnings
Per Share The Company presents both basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”). Basic EPS excludes dilution and is computed by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common stock, where such exercise or conversion would result in a lower EPS amount.
76
Dividends and
Distributions
Payable The dividends and distributions payable at December 31, 2005 represents dividends payable to preferred shareholders (10,000 shares) and common shareholders (62,028,306 shares), and distributions payable to minority interest common unitholders of the Operating Partnership (13,650,439 common units) for all such holders of record as of January 5, 2006 with respect to the fourth quarter 2005. The fourth quarter 2005 preferred stock dividends of $50.00 per share, common stock dividends and common unit distributions of $0.63 per common share and unit were approved by the Board of Directors on December 6, 2005. The common stock dividends and common unit distributions payable were paid on January 13, 2006. The preferred stock dividends payable were paid on January 17, 2006.
The dividends and distributions payable at December 31, 2004 represents dividends payable to preferred shareholders (10,000 shares) and common shareholders (61,118,025 shares), distributions payable to minority interest common unitholders (7,616,447 common units) and preferred distributions payable to preferred unitholders (215,018 preferred units) for all such holders of record as of January 5, 2005 with respect to the fourth quarter 2004. The fourth quarter 2004 preferred stock dividends of $50.00 per share, common stock dividends and common unit distributions of $0.63 per common share and unit, as well as the fourth quarter 2004 preferred unit distributions of $18.1818 per preferred unit, were approved by the Board of Directors on December 7, 2004. The preferred stock dividends, common stock dividends, and common and preferred unit distributions payable were paid on January 18, 2005.
Costs Incurred
For Preferred
Stock Issuances Costs incurred in connection with the Company’s preferred stock issuances are reflected as a reduction of additional paid-in capital.
Stock
Compensation The Company accounts for stock options and restricted stock awards granted prior to 2002 using the intrinsic value method prescribed in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related Interpretations (“APB No. 25”). Under APB No. 25, compensation cost for stock options is measured as the excess, if any, of the quoted market price of the Company’s stock at the date of grant over the exercise price of the option granted. Compensation cost for stock options is recognized ratably over the vesting period. The Company’s policy is to grant options with an exercise price equal to the quoted closing market price of the Company’s stock on the business day preceding the grant date. Accordingly, no compensation cost has been recognized under the Company’s stock option plans for the granting of stock options made prior to 2002. Restricted stock awards granted prior to 2002 are valued at the vesting dates of such awards with compensation cost for such awards recognized ratably over the vesting period.
In 2002, the Company adopted the provisions of FASB No. 123, which requires, on a prospective basis, that the estimated fair value of restricted stock (“Restricted Stock Awards”) and stock options at the grant date be amortized ratably into expense over the appropriate vesting period. For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, the Company recorded restricted stock and stock options expense of $5,109, $5,432 and $4,353, respectively. FASB No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure, was issued in December 2002 and amends FASB No. 123, Accounting for Stock Based Compensation. FASB No. 148 provides alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock based compensation. In addition, this Statement amends the disclosure requirements of FASB No. 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. FASB No. 148 disclosure requirements are presented below:
77
The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share if the fair value based method had been applied to all outstanding and unvested stock awards in each period:
|
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
||||
|
|
|
Basic EPS |
|
Basic EPS |
|
Basic EPS |
|
||||
|
Net income, as reported |
|
$ |
95,488 |
|
$ |
102,453 |
|
$ |
143,053 |
|
|
|
Add: |
Stock-based compensation expense included in reported net income (net of minority interest) |
|
4,260 |
|
4,813 |
|
3,835 |
|
|||
|
Deduct: |
Total stock-based compensation expense determined under fair value based method for all awards |
|
(5,391 |
) |
(6,308 |
) |
(5,094 |
) |
|||
|
Add: |
Minority interest on stock-based compensation expense under fair value based method |
|
896 |
|
719 |
|
607 |
|
|||
|
Pro forma net income |
|
95,253 |
|
101,677 |
|
142,401 |
|
||||
|
Deduct: Preferred stock dividends |
|
(2,000 |
) |
(2,000 |
) |
(1,672 |
) |
||||
|
Pro forma net income available to common shareholders – basic |
|
$ |
93,253 |
|
$ |
99,677 |
|
$ |
140,729 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Earnings Per Share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Basic – as reported |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
$ |
1.66 |
|
$ |
2.45 |
|
|
|
Basic – pro forma |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
$ |
1.65 |
|
$ |
2.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Diluted – as reported |
|
$ |
1.51 |
|
$ |
1.65 |
|
$ |
2.43 |
|
|
|
Diluted – pro forma |
|
$ |
1.51 |
|
$ |
1.64 |
|
$ |
2.42 |
|
|
Other
Comprehensive
Income Other comprehensive income (loss) includes items that are recorded in equity, such as unrealized holding gains or losses on marketable securities available for sale.
3. REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
The Company acquired the following office properties during the year ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition |
|
|
|
Acquisition |
|
|
|
|
|
# of |
|
Rentable |
|
Cost |
|
|
|
Date |
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
Bldgs. |
|
Square Feet |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03/02/05 |
|
101 Hudson Street (a) |
|
Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
1,246,283 |
|
$ |
330,302 |
|
|
03/29/05 |
|
23 Main Street (a) (b) |
|
Holmdel, Monmouth County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
350,000 |
|
23,948 |
|
|
|
07/12/05 |
|
Monmouth Executive Center (c) |
|
Freehold, Monmouth County, NJ |
|
4 |
|
235,968 |
|
33,561 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Office Property Acquisitions: |
|
|
6 |
|
1,832,251 |
|
$ |
387,811 |
|
|||
(a) Transaction was funded primarily through borrowing on the Company’s revolving credit facility.
(b) In addition to its initial investment, the Company intends to make additional investments related to the property of approximately $12.1 million, of which the Company spent $6.2 million through December 31, 2005.
(c) Transaction was funded primarily through available cash and assumption of mortgage debt.
In November 2005, the Company announced that it entered into a contract to acquire all the interests in Capital Office Park, a seven-building office complex totaling approximately 842,300 square feet in Greenbelt, Maryland for aggregate purchase consideration of approximately $161,700. The purchase consideration for the acquisition, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2006, will consist of the issuance of approximately $97,900 of common operating partnership
78
units in Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. and the assumption of approximately $63,800 of mortgage debt. At closing, the sellers may elect to receive approximately $27,900 in cash in lieu of common operating partnership units.
Property Sales
The Company sold the following operating properties during the year ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
Net |
|
Realized |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentable |
|
Sales |
|
Book |
|
Gain/ |
|
|||||||||||
|
Sale |
|
|
|
|
|
# of |
|
|
Proceeds |
|
Value |
|
(Loss) |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
(in thousands) |
|
(in thousands) |
|
||||||||||||||
|
02/04/05 |
|
210 South 16th Street |
|
Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska |
|
1 |
|
318,224 |
|
$ |
8,464 |
|
$ |
8,210 |
|
$ |
254 |
|
||||||||
|
02/11/05 |
|
1122 Alma Road |
|
Richardson, Dallas County, Texas |
|
1 |
|
82,576 |
|
2,075 |
|
2,344 |
|
(269 |
) |
|||||||||||
|
02/15/05 |
|
3 Skyline Drive |
|
Hawthorne, Westchester County, New York |
|
1 |
|
75,668 |
|
9,587 |
|
8,856 |
|
731 |
|
|||||||||||
|
05/11/05 |
|
201 Willowbrook Blvd. |
|
Wayne, Passaic County, New Jersey (a) |
|
1 |
|
178,329 |
|
17,696 |
|
17,705 |
|
(9 |
) |
|||||||||||
|
06/03/05 |
|
600 Community Drive/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
111 East Shore Road |
|
North Hempstead, Nassau County, New York |
|
2 |
|
292,849 |
|
71,593 |
|
59,609 |
|
11,984 |
|
|||||||||||
|
12/29/05 |
|
3600 South Yosemite |
|
Denver, Denver County, Colorado |
|
1 |
|
133,743 |
|
5,566 |
|
11,121 |
|
(5,555 |
) |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Total Office Property Sales: |
|
|
7 |
|
1,081,389 |
|
$ |
114,981 |
|
$ |
107,845 |
|
$ |
7,136 |
|
|||||||||||
(a) In connection with the sale, the Company provided a mortgage loan to the buyer of $12,000 which bears interest at 5.74 percent, matures in five years with a five year renewal option, and requires monthly payments of principal and interest.
The Company acquired the following office properties during the year ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment by |
|
|
|
Acquisition |
|
|
|
|
|
# of |
|
Rentable |
|
Company |
|
|
|
Date |
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
Bldgs. |
|
Square Feet |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/14/04 |
|
5 Wood Hollow Road (a) |
|
Parsippany, Morris County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
317,040 |
|
$ |
34,187 |
|
|
05/12/04 |
|
210 South 16th Street (b) |
|
Omaha, Douglas County, NE |
|
1 |
|
318,224 |
|
8,507 |
|
|
|
06/01/04 |
|
30 Knightsbridge Road (c) |
|
Piscataway, Middlesex County, NJ |
|
4 |
|
680,350 |
|
49,205 |
|
|
|
06/01/04 |
|
412 Mt. Kemble Avenue (c) |
|
Morris Township, Morris County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
475,100 |
|
39,743 |
|
|
|
10/21/04 |
|
232 Strawbridge Road (a) |
|
Moorestown, Burlington County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
74,258 |
|
8,761 |
|
|
|
11/23/04 |
|
One River Centre (d) |
|
Middletown, Monmouth County, NJ |
|
3 |
|
457,472 |
|
69,015 |
|
|
|
12/20/04 |
|
4, 5 & 6 Century Drive (a) |
|
Parsippany, Morris County, NJ |
|
3 |
|
279,811 |
|
30,860 |
|
|
|
12/30/04 |
|
150 Monument Road (a) |
|
Bala Cynwyd, Montgomery County, PA |
|
1 |
|
125,783 |
|
18,904 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Office Property Acquisitions: |
|
15 |
|
2,728,038 |
|
$ |
259,182 |
|
||||
(a) Transaction was funded primarily through borrowing on the Company’s revolving credit facility.
(b) Property was acquired through Company’s receipt of a deed in lieu of foreclosure in satisfaction of the Company’s mortgage note receivable, which was collateralized by the acquired property. The property was subsequently sold on February 4, 2005.
79
(c) Properties were acquired from AT&T Corporation (“AT&T”), a tenant of the Company, for cash and assumed obligations, as follows:
(1) Acquired 30 Knightsbridge Road, a four-building office complex, aggregating 680,350 square feet and located in Piscataway, New Jersey. AT&T, which occupied the entire complex, has leased back from the Company two of the buildings in the complex, totaling 275,000 square feet, for 10 years and seven months, and leased back the remaining 405,350 square feet of the complex through October 2004;
(2) Acquired Kemble Plaza II, a 475,100 square foot office building located in Morris Township, New Jersey, which the Company had previously sold to AT&T in June of 2000. AT&T, which occupied the entire building, leased back the entire property from the Company for one year from the date of acquisition;
(3) Signed a lease extension at the Company’s Kemble Plaza I property in Morris Township, New Jersey, extending AT&T’s lease for the entire 387,000 square foot building for an additional five years to August 2014. Under the lease extension, the Company agreed, among other things, to fund up to $2.1 million of tenant improvements to be performed by AT&T at the property; which was subsequently sold on October 5, 2004;
(4) Paid cash consideration of approximately $12.9 million to AT&T; and
(5) Assumed AT&T’s lease obligations with third-party landlords at seven office buildings, aggregating 922,674 square feet, which carry a weighted average remaining term of 4.5 years as of the date of acquisition. At acquisition, the Company estimated that the obligations, net of estimated sub-lease income, total approximately $84.8 million, with a net present value of approximately $76.2 million utilizing a weighted average discount rate of 4.85 percent. The net present value of the assumed obligations as of December 31, 2005 is included in mortgages, loans payable and other obligations (see Note 10: Mortgages, Loans Payable and Other Obligations).
(d) The Company acquired a 62.5 percent interest in the property through the Company’s conversion of its note receivable with a balance of $13.0 million into a controlling equity interest. The property was subject to a $45.5 million mortgage, which was subsequently paid off on April 1, 2005. The Company acquired the remaining 37.5 percent interest in March 2005 for $10.5 million (not included in Investment by Company amount presented).
On May 14, 2004, the Company acquired approximately five acres of land in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. Previously, the Company leased this land parcel, upon which the Company owns a 167,748 square foot office building. The land was acquired for approximately $6,094.
On June 25, 2004, the Company acquired approximately 59.9 acres of developable land located in West Windsor, New Jersey for approximately $20,572.
Property Sales
The Company sold the following operating properties during the year ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Sales |
|
Net Book |
|
Realized |
|
||||||
|
Sale |
|
|
|
|
|
# of |
|
Rentable |
|
Proceeds |
|
Value |
|
Gain/(Loss) |
|
||||||
|
Date |
|
Property/Address |
|
Location |
|
Bldgs. |
|
Square Feet |
|
(in thousands) |
|
(in thousands) |
|
(in thousands) |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Office: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
10/05/04 |
|
340 Mt. Kemble Avenue |
|
Morris Township, Morris County, NJ |
|
1 |
|
387,000 |
|
$ |
75,017 |
|
$ |
62,787 |
|
$ |
12,230 |
|
|||
|
11/23/04 |
|
Texas Portfolio (a) |
|
Dallas and San Antonio, TX |
|
2 |
|
554,330 |
|
35,124 |
|
36,224 |
|
(1,100) |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Total Office Property Sales: |
|
|
|
3 |
|
941,330 |
|
$ |
110,141 |
|
$ |
99,011 |
|
$ |
11,130 |
|
|||||
(a) On November 23, 2004, the Company sold 3030 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, Dallas County and 84 N.E. Loop 410, San Antonio, Bexar County in a single transaction with one buyer.
4. INVESTMENTS IN UNCONSOLIDATED JOINT VENTURES
The debt of the Company’s unconsolidated joint ventures aggregating $118,758 as of December 31, 2005 is non-recourse to the Company, except for customary exceptions pertaining to such matters as intentional misuse of funds, environmental conditions and material misrepresentations, and except as otherwise indicated below.
On November 25, 2003, the Company and affiliates of The Mills Corporation (“Mills”) entered into a joint venture agreement (“Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement”) to form Meadowlands Mills/Mack-Cali Limited Partnership (“Meadowlands Venture”) for the purpose of developing a $1.3 billion family entertainment, recreation and retail
80
complex with an office and hotel component to be built at the Meadowlands sports complex in East Rutherford, New Jersey (“Meadowlands Xanadu”). The First Amendment to the Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement was entered into as of June 30, 2005. Meadowlands Xanadu’s approximately 4.76 million-square-foot complex is expected to feature a family entertainment, recreation and retail destination comprising five themed zones: sports; entertainment; children’s education; fashion; and food and home, in addition to four office buildings, aggregating approximately 1.8 million square feet, and a 520-room hotel.
On December 3, 2003, the Meadowlands Venture entered into a redevelopment agreement (the “Redevelopment Agreement”) with the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (“NJSEA”) for the redevelopment of the area surrounding the Continental Airlines Arena in East Rutherford, New Jersey and the construction of the Meadowlands Xanadu project. The Redevelopment Agreement provides for a 75-year ground lease and requires the Meadowlands Venture to pay the NJSEA a $160,000 development rights fee and fixed rent over the term. Fixed rent will be in the amount of $1 per year for the first 15 years, increasing to $7,500 from the 16th to the 18th years, increasing to $8,447 in the 19th year, increasing to $8,700 in the 20th year, increasing to $8,961 in the 21st year, then to $9,200 in the 23rd to 26th years, with additional increases over the remainder of the term, as set forth in the ground lease. The ground lease also allows for the potential for participation rent payments by the Meadowlands Venture, as described in the ground lease agreement. The First Amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement and the ground lease, itself, were signed on October 5, 2004. The Meadowlands Venture received all necessary permits and approvals from the NJSEA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in March 2005 and commenced construction in the same month. As a condition to the commencement of work to fill wetlands pursuant to the permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement, as amended, the Meadowlands Venture conveyed certain vacant land, known as the Empire Tract, to a conservancy trust. On June 30, 2005, the $160,000 development rights fee was deposited into an escrow account by the Meadowlands Venture in accordance with the terms of the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement. On such date, the following amounts were paid from escrow: (i) approximately $37,197 to defease certain debt obligations of the NJSEA; and (ii) $26,800 to the NJSEA, which, in turn, paid such amount to the Meadowlands Venture for the Empire Tract. Subsequently, additional monies were released from the escrow account to the NJSEA, such that a total of $130,000 has been released to the NJSEA. The escrow balance of $30,000 is to be released and paid in accordance with the terms of the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement.
The Company and Mills own a 20 percent and 80 percent interest, respectively, in the Meadowlands Venture. These interests were subject to certain participation rights by The New York Giants, which were subsequently terminated in April 2004. The Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement required the Company to make an equity contribution up to a maximum of $32,500, which it fulfilled in April 2005. Pursuant to the Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement, Mills has received subordinated capital credit in the venture of approximately $118,000, which represents certain costs incurred by Mills in connection with the Empire Tract prior to the creation of the Meadowlands Venture. However, under the First Amendment to the Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement, the Company and Mills agreed that due to the expected receipt by the Meadowlands Venture of certain other sums and certain development costs savings in connection with Meadowlands Xanadu, Mills’ subordinated capital credit in the venture for the Empire Tract should be reduced to $60,000 as of the date of the First Amendment to the Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement. The Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement requires Mills to contribute the balance of the capital required to complete the entertainment phase, subject to certain limitations. The Company will receive a 9 percent preferred return on its equity investment, only after Mills receives a 9 percent preferred return on its equity investment. Residual returns, subject to participation by other parties, will be in proportion to each partner’s respective percentage interest.
Mills will develop, lease and operate the entertainment phase of the Meadowlands Xanadu project. The Meadowlands Venture has formed and owns, directly and indirectly, all of the partnership interests in and to the component ventures which were formed for the future development of the office and hotel phases, which the Company will develop, lease and operate. Upon the Company’s exercise of its rights under the Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement to develop the office and hotel phases, the Meadowlands Venture will convey ownership of the component ventures to the Company and Mills or its affiliate, and the Company or its affiliate will own an 80 percent interest and Mills or its affiliate will own a 20 percent interest in such component ventures. However, under the First Amendment to the Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement, if the Meadowlands Venture develops a hotel that has video lottery terminals (or “slots”), or any other legalized form of gaming on or in its premises, then the Company or its affiliate will own a 50 percent interest in such component venture and Mills or its affiliate will own a 50 percent interest. The Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement requires that the Company must exercise its rights with respect to the first office and hotel phase no later than
81
four years after the grand opening of the entertainment phase, and requires that the Company exercise all of its rights with respect to the office and hotel phases no later than 10 years from such date, but does not require that any or all components be developed. However, under the Meadowlands Xanadu Venture Agreement, Mills has the right to accelerate such exercise schedule, subject to certain conditions. Should the Company fail to meet the time schedule described above for the exercise of its rights with respect to the office and hotel phases, the Company will forfeit its rights to control future development. If this occurs, Mills will have the right to develop the additional phases, subject to the Company’s right to participate, or to cause the Meadowlands Venture to sell such components to a third party, subject to a sales price limitation of 95 percent of the value that would have been required to form such component ventures.
Commencing three years after the grand opening of the entertainment phase of the Meadowlands Xanadu project, either Mills or the Company may sell its partnership interest to a third party subject to the following provisions:
• Mills has certain “drag-along” rights and the Company has certain “tag-along” rights in connection with such sale of interest to a third party; and
• Mills has a right of first refusal with respect of a sale by the Company of its partnership interests.
In addition, commencing on the sixth anniversary of the opening, the Company may cause Mills to purchase, and Mills may cause the Company to sell to Mills, all of the Company’s partnership interests at a price based on the then fair market value of the project. Notwithstanding the exercise by Mills or the Company of any of the foregoing rights with respect to the sale of the Company’s partnership interest to Mills or a third party, the Company will retain its right to component ventures for the future development of the office and hotel phases.
On February 12, 2003, the NJSEA selected The Mills Corporation and the Company to redevelop the Continental Airlines Arena site (“Arena Site”) for mixed uses, including retail. In March 2003, Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc., (“Hartz”), filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, for Bergen County, seeking to enjoin NJSEA from entering into a contract with the Meadowlands Venture for the redevelopment of the Continental Airlines Arena site. In May 2003, the court denied Hartz’s request for an injunction and dismissed its suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In June 2003, the NJSEA held hearings on Hartz’s protest, and on a parallel protest filed by another rejected developer, Westfield, Inc. (“Westfield”). On September 10, 2003, the NJSEA ruled against Hartz’s and Westfield’s protests, Hartz and Westfield, as well as Elliot Braha and three other taxpayers (collectively “Braha”), thereafter filed appeals from the NJSEA’s final decision. By decision dated May 14, 2004, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey rejected the appellants’ contention that the NJSEA lacks statutory authority to allow retail development of its property. The Appellate Division also remanded Hart’s claim under the Open Public Records Acts, seeking disclosure of additional documents from NJSEA, to the Law Division for further proceedings. The Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to review the Appellate Division’s decision. On August 19, 2004, the Law Division issued a decision resolving Hartz’s Open Public Records Act claim and ordered NJSEA to disclose some, but not all, of the documents Hartz was seeking. The Appellate Division, in a decision rendered on November 24, 2004, upheld the findings of the Law Division in the remand proceeding. The Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to review the Appellate Division’s decision. At Hartz’s request, the NJSEA thereafter held further hearings on December 15 and 16, 2004, to review certain additional facts in support of Hartz’s and Westfield’s bid protest. Braha, as a taxpayer, did not have standing to participate in the supplemental protest hearing. On March 4, 2005, the Hearing Officer rendered his Supplemental Report and Recommendation to the NJSEA, finding no merit in the protests presented by Hartz and Westfield. The NJSEA accepted the Hearing Officer’s Supplemental Report and Recommendation on March 30, 2005 and Hartz and Braha have appealed that decision to the Appellate Division.
In January 2004, Hartz and Westfield also appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Jersey from the NJSEA’s December 2003 approval and execution of the Redevelopment Agreement with the Meadowlands Venture.
In November 2004, Hartz and Westfield filed additional appeals in the Appellate Division challenging NJSEA’s resolution authorizing the execution of the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement with Meadowlands Venture and the ground lease with the Meadowlands Venture.
All of the above appeals have been consolidated by the Appellate Division and are pending.
82
On September 30, 2004, the Borough of Carlstadt filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, challenging Meadowlands Xanadu, which asserts claims that are substantially the same as claims asserted by Hartz and Braha in the above appeals. By Order dated November 19, 2004, the Law Division transferred that matter to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. The matter is pending.
Several appeals filed by Hartz, Westfield and others, including certain environmental groups, that challenge certain approvals received by the Meadowlands Venture from the NJSEA, the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (“NJMC”) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) remain pending before the Appellate Division. Some of these appeals challenge NJDEP’s issuance of a stream encroachment permit, waterfront development permit, and coastal zone consistency determination for Meadowlands Xanadu. Other of these appeals are from NJDEP’s and NJMC’s issuance of reports in connection with a consultation process the NJSEA was statutorily required to undertake in connection with any NJSEA-development project.
A Hartz affiliate and a trade association have filed an appeal from an advisory opinion favorable to the Meadowlands Venture issued by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control concerning the availability of special concessionaire permits. That appeal is also pending in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Three separate lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) in connection with the project. The first suit was filed on March 30, 2005, by the Sierra Club, the New Jersey Public Interest Group, Citizen Lobby, Inc. and the New Jersey Environmental Federation. Additional suits were filed on May 16 and May 31, 2005, respectively, by Hartz (together with one of its officers as an individual named plaintiff) and the Borough of Carlstadt. The Sierra Club also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop certain construction activities on the project, which the Court denied on July 6, 2005. The parties are currently briefing cross motions for summary judgment on the merits of the Sierra Club’s claims. A decision is expected sometime in the latter part of 2006. On October 26, 2005, the court granted the motions of the Meadowlands Venture and the USACE to dismiss the Hartz complaint for lack of standing. The deadline for appealing that decision has passed, so the Hartz action is ended. On October 31, 2005, the USACE filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Borough of Carlstadt for lack of standing. On February 7, 2006, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Borough of Carlstadt complaint in its entirety. Subject to any appeal that may be brought within 60 days after this order of dismissal, the Borough of Carlstadt action is ended.
On April 5, 2005, the New York Football Giants (“Giants”) filed an emergent application with the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, seeking an injunction stopping all work on the Meadowlands Xanadu as being in violation of its existing lease with the NJSEA. The court heard an oral argument on the application on August 5, 2005, and denied the Giants’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The Giants’ claim for permanent injunction relief remains pending. However, the parties to this dispute have reached a tentative settlement. In September 2005, the Giants and Meadowlands Venture executed a settlement agreement. NJSEA subsequently proposed modifications to the settlement agreement, and the parties have not yet executed a final agreement. The proposed settlement agreement provides, among other things, for the Meadowlands Venture to pay the Giants approximately $15 million as compensation for claims of construction interference and for the Giants to otherwise withdraw the assertion of the right to object to the project.
The New Jersey Builders’ Association (“NJBA”) has commenced an action, which is pending in the Appellate Division, alleging that the NJSEA has failed to meet a purported obligation to provide affordable housing at the Meadowlands Complex and seeking, among other relief, an order enjoining the construction of Meadowlands Xanadu. NJBA filed an application for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin further construction of Meadowlands Xanadu, which the Appellate Division denied on July 28, 2005. The Meadowlands Venture is not a party to that action.
On January 25, 2006, the Bergen Cliff Hawks Baseball Club, LLC (the “Cliff Hawks”), filed a complaint against the Company and Mills, alleging that the Company and Mills breached an agreement to provide the Cliff Hawks with a minor league baseball park as part of the Xanadu Project. This matter remains pending.
The Company believes that the Meadowlands Venture’s proposal and the planned project comply with applicable laws, and the Meadowlands Venture intends to continue its vigorous defense of its rights under the Redevelopment Agreement
83
and Ground Lease. Although there can be no assurance, the Company does not believe that the pending lawsuits will have any material affect on its ability to develop the Meadowlands Xanadu project.
On July 21, 1998, the Company entered into a joint venture with HCG Development, L.L.C. and Summit Partners I, L.L.C. to form HPMC Development Partners II, L.P. (formerly known as HPMC Lava Ridge Partners, L.P.). HPMC Development Partners II, L.P.’s efforts focused on three development projects, commonly referred to as Lava Ridge, Pacific Plaza I & II and Stadium Gateway. Lava Ridge was sold in 2002.
Stadium Gateway was a development joint venture project, located in Anaheim, California between HPMC Development Partners II, L.P. and a third-party entity. The venture constructed a six-story, 273,194 square foot office building, which commenced initial operations in January 2002. On April 1, 2003, the venture sold the office property for approximately $52,500.
Pacific Plaza I & II was a two-phase development joint venture project, located in Daly City, California between, HPMC Development Partners II, L.P. and a third-party entity. Phase I of the project, which commenced initial operations in August 2001, consisted of a nine-story office building, aggregating 364,384 square feet. Phase II, which comprised a three-story retail and theater complex, commenced initial operations in June 2002. On August 27, 2004, the venture sold the Pacific Plaza I & II complex for approximately $143,000. The Company performed management services for the property while it was owned by the venture and recognized $0, $203 and $318 in fees for such services in the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
The Company has a 50 percent ownership interest and HCG Development, L.L.C. and Summit Partners I, L.L.C. (both of which are not affiliated with the Company) collectively have a 50 percent ownership interest in HPMC Development Partners II, L.P. Significant terms of the applicable partnership agreements, among other things, call for the Company to provide 80 percent and HCG Development, L.L.C. and Summit Partners I, L.L.C. to collectively provide 20 percent of the development equity capital. As the Company agreed to fund development equity capital disproportionate to its ownership interest, it was granted a preferred return of 10 percent on its invested capital as a priority. Profits and losses are allocated to the partners based upon the priority of distributions specified in the respective agreements and entitle the Company to a preferred return, as well as 50 percent of residual profits above the preferred returns. Equity in earnings recognized by the Company consists of preferred returns and the Company’s equity in earnings (loss) after giving effect to the payment of such preferred returns.
The Company holds a 50 percent interest in G&G Martco, which owns Convention Plaza, a 305,618 square foot office building, located in San Francisco, California. The venture has a mortgage loan with a $46,588 balance at December 31, 2005 collateralized by its office property. The loan also provides the venture the ability to increase the balance of the loan up to an additional $1,050 for the funding of qualified leasing costs. The loan bears interest at a rate of the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) (4.39 percent at December 31, 2005) plus 162.5 basis points and matures in August 2006. The Company performs management and leasing services for the property owned by the joint venture and recognized $161, $143 and $225 in fees for such services in the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
PLAZA VIII AND IX ASSOCIATES, L.L.C./AMERICAN FINANCIAL EXCHANGE L.L.C.
On May 20, 1998, the Company entered into a joint venture with Columbia Development Company, L.L.C. (“Columbia”) to form American Financial Exchange L.L.C. (“AFE”). The venture was formed to acquire land for future development, located on the Hudson River waterfront in Jersey City, New Jersey, adjacent to the Company’s Harborside Financial Center office complex. Among other things, the partnership agreement provides for a preferred return on the Company’s invested capital in the venture, in addition to the Company’s proportionate share of the venture’s profit, as defined in the agreement. The joint venture acquired land on which it initially constructed a parking facility. In the fourth quarter 2000, the joint venture started construction of Plaza 10, a 577,575 square foot office building, which was 100 percent pre-leased to Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. (“Schwab”) for a 15-year term, on certain of the land owned by the venture. The lease agreement with Schwab obligated the venture, among other things, to deliver space to the tenant by required timelines and offers expansion options, at the tenant’s election.
84
On September 29, 2003, the Company sold its interest in AFE, in which it held a 50 percent interest, and received approximately $162,145 in net sales proceeds from the transaction, which the Company used primarily to repay outstanding borrowings under its revolving credit facility. The Company recognized a gain on the sale of approximately $23,952, which is recorded in gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint venture for the year ended December 31, 2003. Following completion of the sale of its interest, the Company no longer has any remaining obligations to Schwab.
In advance of the transaction, AFE distributed its interests in Plaza VIII and IX Associates, L.L.C., which owned the undeveloped land currently used as a parking facility, to its then partners, the Company and Columbia. The Company and Columbia subsequently entered into a new joint venture to own and manage the undeveloped land and related parking operations through Plaza VIII and IX Associates, L.L.C. The Company and Columbia each hold a 50 percent interest in the new venture.
The Company performed management, leasing and development services for the Plaza 10 property when it was owned by the venture and recognized $0, $0 and $2,692 in fees from the venture for such services in the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
On August 20, 1998, the Company entered into a joint venture with S.B. New York Realty Corp. to form Ramland Realty Associates L.L.C. The venture was formed to own, manage and operate One Ramland Road, a 232,000 square foot office/flex building and adjacent developable land, located in Orangeburg, New York. In August 1999, the joint venture completed redevelopment of the property and placed the office/flex building in service. The Company holds a 50 percent interest in the joint venture. The venture has a mortgage loan with a $14,936 balance at December 31, 2005 secured by its office/flex property. The mortgage bears interest at a rate of LIBOR plus 175 basis points and matures in January 2007, with two one-year extension options, subject to certain conditions.
In 2001, the property’s then principal tenant, Superior Bank, was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was named receiver. The tenant continued to meet its rental payment obligations through June 2002. In July 2002, the tenant vacated the premises and the FDIC notified the joint venture that it was rejecting the lease as of July 16, 2002. As a result of the uncertainty regarding the tenant’s ability to meet its obligations through the remainder of the term of its lease, the joint venture wrote off unbilled rents receivable of $1,573 and deferred lease costs of $705, which was included in the Company’s equity in earnings for the year ended December 31, 2002. Subsequently, the venture’s management determined it was unlikely a prospective tenant would retain tenant improvements previously made to Superior Bank’s space and, accordingly, the venture accelerated amortization of those tenant improvements and recorded a charge of $3,586, which is included in the Company’s equity in earnings for the year ended December 31, 2003.
The Company performs management, leasing and other services for the property owned by the joint venture and recognized $93, $165 and $12 in fees for such services in the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 respectively.
On September 18, 1998, the Company entered into a joint venture with Prudential to form Ashford Loop Associates L.P. The venture was formed to own, manage and operate 1001 South Dairy Ashford, a 130,000 square foot office building acquired on September 18, 1998, and 2100 West Loop South, a 168,000 square foot office building acquired on November 25, 1998, both located in Houston, Texas. The Company held a 20 percent interest in the joint venture. Included in depreciation and amortization in the results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2004 presented herein for the joint venture is a valuation allowance of $24,575 on account of the carrying value of the venture’s assets exceeding the net realizable value as of December 31, 2004. Included in the Company’s equity in earnings (loss) of unconsolidated joint venture for the year ended December 31, 2004 was a $4,915 loss representing the Company’s share of the valuation allowance. On February 25, 2005, the Company sold its interest in the venture to Prudential for $2,664 and recognized a gain on the sale of $31 (net of minority interest of $4).
85
SOUTH PIER AT HARBORSIDE — HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
On November 17, 1999, the Company entered into a joint venture with Hyatt Corporation (“Hyatt”) to develop a 350-room hotel on the South Pier at Harborside Financial Center, Jersey City, New Jersey, which was completed and commenced initial operations in July 2002. The Company owns a 50 percent interest in the venture.
The venture had a mortgage loan with a commercial bank with a $62,902 balance at December 31, 2003 collateralized by its hotel property. The debt bore interest at a rate of LIBOR plus 275 basis points, which was scheduled to mature in December 2003, and was extended through January 29, 2004. On that date, the venture repaid the mortgage loan using the proceeds from a new $40,000 mortgage loan, (with a balance as of December 31, 2005 of $39,590) collateralized by the hotel property, as well as capital contributions from the Company and Hyatt of $10,750 each. The new loan carries an interest rate of LIBOR plus 200 basis points and matures in February 2007. The loan provides for three one-year extension options subject to certain conditions. The final two one-year extension options require payment of a fee. On May 25, 2004, the venture obtained a second mortgage loan with a commercial bank for $20,000 (with a balance as of December 31, 2005 of $7,500) collateralized by the hotel property, in which each partner, including the Company, has severally guaranteed repayment of approximately $3,785. The loan carries an interest rate of LIBOR plus 175 basis points and matures in February 2006. The loan provides for three one-year extension options subject to certain conditions. The final two one-year extension options require payment of a fee. The proceeds from this loan were used to make distributions to the Company and Hyatt in the amount of $10,000 each. Additionally, the venture has a loan with a balance as of December 31, 2005 of $7,570 with the City of Jersey City, provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The loan currently bears interest at fixed rates ranging from 6.09 percent to 6.62 percent and matures in August 2020. The Company has posted a $7,570 letter of credit in support of this loan, $3,785 of which is indemnified by Hyatt.
On April 3, 2001, the Company sold its North Pier at Harborside Financial Center, Jersey City, New Jersey to an entity which planned on developing residential housing on the site. At the time, the Company received net sales proceeds of approximately $3,357 (which included a note receivable of $2,027 subsequently repaid in 2002), and recognized a gain of $439 (before minority interest) from the transaction. On March 31, 2004, the Company received additional purchase consideration of $720, for which the Company recorded a gain of $637 (net of minority interest of $83) in gain on sale of investment in unconsolidated joint ventures for the year ended December 31, 2004.
86
SUMMARIES OF UNCONSOLIDATED JOINT VENTURES
The following is a summary of the financial position of the unconsolidated joint ventures in which the Company had investment interests as of December 31, 2005 and 2004:
|
|
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American |
|
Plaza |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
Meadowlands |
|
|
|
G&G |
|
Financial |
|
VIII & IX |
|
Ramland |
|
Ashford |
|
Harborside |
|
Combined |
|
||||||
|
|
|
Xanadu |
|
HPMC |
|
Martco |
|
Exchange |
|
Associates |
|
Realty |
|
Loop |
|
South Pier |
|
Total |
|
||||||
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Rental Property, net |
|
$ |
407,322 |
|
— |
|
$ |
10,632 |
|
— |
|
$ |
12,024 |
|
$ |
12,511 |
|
— |
|
$ |
74,306 |
|
$ |
516,795 |
|
|
Other assets |
|
171,029 |
|
— |
|
6,427 |
|
— |
|
1,662 |
|
1,188 |
|
— |
|
11,772 |
|
192,078 |
|
||||||
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
578,351 |
|
— |
|
$ |
17,059 |
|
— |
|
$ |
13,686 |
|
$ |
13,699 |
|
— |
|
$ |
86,078 |
|
$ |
708,873 |
|
|
Liabilities and partners/members’ capital (deficit): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mortgages and loans payable |
|
$ |
— |
|
— |
|
$ |
46,588 |
|
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
14,936 |
|
— |
|
$ |
57,234 |
|
$ |
118,758 |
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
76,875 |
|
— |
|
875 |
|
— |
|
1,361 |
|
220 |
|
— |
|
4,170 |
|
83,501 |
|
||||||
|
Partners’/members’ capital |
|
501,476 |
|
— |
|
(30,404 |
) |
— |
|
12,325 |
|
(1,457 |
) |
— |
|
24,674 |
|
506,614 |
|
||||||
|
Total liabilities and partners/ members’ capital |
|
$ |
578,351 |
|
— |
|
$ |
17,059 |
|
— |
|
$ |
13,686 |
|
$ |
13,699 |
|
— |
|
$ |
86,078 |
|
$ |
708,873 |
|
|
Company’s net investment in unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
$ |
34,640 |
|
— |
|
$ |
6,438 |
|
— |
|
$ |
6,084 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
$ |
14,976 |
|
$ |
62,138 |
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American |
|
Plaza |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Meadowlands |
|
|
|
G&G |
|
Financial |
|
VIII & IX |
|
Ramland |
|
Ashford |
|
Harborside |
|
Combined |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Xanadu |
|
HPMC |
|
Martco |
|
Exchange |
|
Associates |
|
Realty |
|
Loop |
|
South Pier |
|
Total |
|
|||||||
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Rental Property, net |
|
$ |
235,254 |
|
— |
|
$ |
8,571 |
|
— |
|
$ |
12,629 |
|
$ |
13,030 |
|
$ |
11,256 |
|
$ |
79,721 |
|
$ |
360,461 |
|
|
Other assets |
|
1,420 |
|
— |
|
4,589 |
|
— |
|
1,463 |
|
1,559 |
|
539 |
|
12,034 |
|
21,604 |
|
|||||||
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
236,674 |
|
— |
|
$ |
13,160 |
|
— |
|
$ |
14,092 |
|
$ |
14,589 |
|
$ |
11,795 |
|
$ |
91,755 |
|
$ |
382,065 |
|
|
Liabilities and partners/members’ capital (deficit): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Mortgages and loans payable |
|
$ |
— |
|
— |
|
$ |
43,236 |
|
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
14,936 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
66,191 |
|
$ |
124,363 |
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
8,205 |
|
— |
|
963 |
|
— |
|
1,376 |
|
334 |
|
670 |
|
4,009 |
|
15,557 |
|
|||||||
|
Partners’/members’ capital |
|
228,469 |
|
— |
|
(31,039 |
) |
— |
|
12,716 |
|
(681 |
) |
11,125 |
|
21,555 |
|
242,145 |
|
|||||||
|
Total liabilities and partners/ members’ capital |
|
$ |
236,674 |
|
— |
|
$ |
13,160 |
|
— |
|
$ |
14,092 |
|
$ |
14,589 |
|
$ |
11,795 |
|
$ |
91,755 |
|
$ |
382,065 |
|
|
Company’s net investment in unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
$ |
17,359 |
|
— |
|
$ |
7,157 |
|
— |
|
$ |
6,279 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
2,664 |
|
$ |
13,284 |
|
$ |
46,743 |
|
87
The following is a summary of the results of operations of the unconsolidated joint ventures in which the Company had investment interests for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American |
|
Plaza |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest in |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Meadowlands |
|
|
|
G&G |
|
Financial |
|
VIII & IX |
|
Ramland |
|
Ashford |
|
Harborside |
|
Operating |
|
Combined |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Xanadu |
|
HPMC |
|
Martco |
|
Exchange |
|
Associates |
|
Realty |
|
Loop |
|
South Pier |
|
Partnership |
|
Total |
|
|||||||
|
Total revenues |
|
— |
|
— |
|
$ |
6,767 |
|
— |
|
$ |
396 |
|
$ |
2,028 |
|
— |
|
$ |
35,101 |
|
— |
|
$ |
44,292 |
|
||
|
Operating and Other expenses |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(3,662 |
) |
— |
|
(172 |
) |
(1,407 |
) |
— |
|
(22,147 |
) |
— |
|
(27,388 |
) |
|||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(1,200 |
) |
— |
|
(616 |
) |
(638 |
) |
— |
|
(5,484 |
) |
— |
|
(7,938 |
) |
|||||||
|
Interest expense |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(2,270 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
(759 |
) |
— |
||||||||||||||