e10vq
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission file number: 1-11718
EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Maryland
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
36-3857664
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|
Two North Riverside Plaza, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
|
|
60606
(Zip Code) |
(312) 279-1400
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
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 þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes o No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non- accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of large
accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if smaller reporting company) |
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock, as
of the latest practicable date:
25,278,455
shares of Common Stock as of May 4, 2009.
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
Table of Contents
2
Part I Financial Information |
Item 1. Financial Statements |
Index To Financial Statements |
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008
(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
2008 |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in real estate: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land |
|
$ |
546,398 |
|
|
$ |
541,979 |
|
Land improvements |
|
|
1,742,811 |
|
|
|
1,725,752 |
|
Buildings and other depreciable property |
|
|
227,788 |
|
|
|
223,290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,516,997 |
|
|
|
2,491,021 |
|
Accumulated depreciation |
|
|
(579,455 |
) |
|
|
(561,233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment in real estate |
|
|
1,937,542 |
|
|
|
1,929,788 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
16,679 |
|
|
|
45,312 |
|
Notes receivable, net |
|
|
30,209 |
|
|
|
31,799 |
|
Investment in joint ventures |
|
|
9,522 |
|
|
|
9,676 |
|
Rent and other customer receivables, net |
|
|
1,293 |
|
|
|
1,040 |
|
Deferred financing costs, net |
|
|
12,620 |
|
|
|
12,408 |
|
Inventory, net |
|
|
10,286 |
|
|
|
12,934 |
|
Deferred commission expense |
|
|
5,137 |
|
|
|
3,644 |
|
Escrow deposits and other assets |
|
|
43,827 |
|
|
|
45,046 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
2,067,115 |
|
|
$ |
2,091,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage notes payable |
|
$ |
1,609,703 |
|
|
$ |
1,569,403 |
|
Unsecured lines of credit |
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
|
93,000 |
|
Accrued payroll and other operating expenses |
|
|
75,855 |
|
|
|
66,656 |
|
Deferred revenue sale of right-to-use contracts |
|
|
15,774 |
|
|
|
10,611 |
|
Accrued interest payable |
|
|
8,546 |
|
|
|
8,335 |
|
Rents and other customer payments received in advance and
security
deposits |
|
|
41,822 |
|
|
|
41,302 |
|
Distributions payable |
|
|
7,638 |
|
|
|
6,106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
|
1,760,638 |
|
|
|
1,795,413 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling interests Perpetual Preferred OP Units |
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $.01 par value
10,000,000 shares authorized; none issued |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $.01 par value
100,000,000 shares authorized; 25,268,229 and 25,051,322
shares issued and outstanding for March 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, respectively |
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
Paid-in capital |
|
|
321,817 |
|
|
|
320,084 |
|
Distributions in excess of accumulated earnings |
|
|
(234,279 |
) |
|
|
(241,609 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Stockholders Equity |
|
|
87,776 |
|
|
|
78,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling interests Common OP Units |
|
|
18,701 |
|
|
|
17,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Equity |
|
|
106,477 |
|
|
|
96,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Equity |
|
$ |
2,067,115 |
|
|
$ |
2,091,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
3
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Operations
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Property Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Community base rental income |
|
$ |
63,184 |
|
|
$ |
61,034 |
|
Resort base rental income |
|
|
35,458 |
|
|
|
34,597 |
|
Right-to-use annual payments |
|
|
12,895 |
|
|
|
|
|
Right-to-use contracts current period, gross |
|
|
5,577 |
|
|
|
|
|
Right-to-use contracts, deferred, net of prior period amortization |
|
|
(5,163 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Utility and other income |
|
|
12,404 |
|
|
|
10,791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating revenues |
|
|
124,355 |
|
|
|
106,422 |
|
Property operating and maintenance |
|
|
42,004 |
|
|
|
33,769 |
|
Real estate taxes |
|
|
8,456 |
|
|
|
7,440 |
|
Sales and marketing, gross |
|
|
3,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sales and marketing, deferred commissions, net |
|
|
(1,493 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Property management |
|
|
8,704 |
|
|
|
5,294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating expenses (exclusive of
depreciation shown separately below) |
|
|
60,743 |
|
|
|
46,503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from property operations |
|
|
63,612 |
|
|
|
59,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home Sales Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross revenues from inventory home sales |
|
|
1,211 |
|
|
|
6,195 |
|
Cost of inventory home sales |
|
|
(2,117 |
) |
|
|
(6,750 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from inventory home sales |
|
|
(906 |
) |
|
|
(555 |
) |
Brokered resale revenues, net |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
Home selling expenses |
|
|
(1,072 |
) |
|
|
(1,513 |
) |
Ancillary services revenues, net |
|
|
1,156 |
|
|
|
1,448 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from home sales operations and other |
|
|
(636 |
) |
|
|
(253 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income and (Expenses): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
|
1,383 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
Income from other investments, net |
|
|
2,523 |
|
|
|
6,910 |
|
General and administrative |
|
|
(6,157 |
) |
|
|
(5,399 |
) |
Rent control initiatives |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(1,347 |
) |
Interest and related amortization |
|
|
(24,550 |
) |
|
|
(24,984 |
) |
Depreciation on corporate assets |
|
|
(168 |
) |
|
|
(98 |
) |
Depreciation on real estate assets |
|
|
(17,399 |
) |
|
|
(16,274 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expenses, net |
|
|
(44,514 |
) |
|
|
(40,805 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
|
1,903 |
|
|
|
884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated income from continuing operations |
|
|
20,365 |
|
|
|
19,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations |
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
Loss on sale from discontinued real estate |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations |
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated net income |
|
|
20,471 |
|
|
|
19,761 |
|
Income allocated to non-controlling interests: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common OP Units |
|
|
(2,794 |
) |
|
|
(3,004 |
) |
Perpetual Preferred OP Units |
|
|
(4,033 |
) |
|
|
(4,032 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available for Common Shares |
|
$ |
13,644 |
|
|
$ |
12,725 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
4
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Operations (Continued)
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Earnings per Common Share Basic: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
$ |
0.53 |
|
Income from discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available for Common Shares |
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
$ |
0.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per Common Share Fully Diluted: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
0.54 |
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
Income from discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available for Common Shares |
|
$ |
0.54 |
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions declared per Common Share outstanding |
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average Common Shares outstanding basic |
|
|
24,945 |
|
|
|
24,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average Common Shares outstanding fully diluted |
|
|
30,523 |
|
|
|
30,386 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
5
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2009
(amounts in thousands)
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excess of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
Non-controlling |
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
interests |
|
|
|
|
Stock |
|
Paid-in Capital |
|
Earnings |
|
Common OP Units |
|
Total Equity |
Balance, December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
238 |
|
|
$ |
320,084 |
|
|
$ |
(241,609 |
) |
|
$ |
17,521 |
|
|
$ |
96,234 |
|
Conversion of OP Units to
common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
706 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(706 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock
through exercise of
options |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
Issuance of common stock
through employee stock
purchase plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
332 |
|
Compensation expense
related to stock options
and restricted stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,185 |
|
Repurchase of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(108 |
) |
Adjustment for Common OP
Unitholders in the
Operating Partnership |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(399 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,644 |
|
|
|
2,794 |
|
|
|
16,438 |
|
Distributions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,314 |
) |
|
|
(1,307 |
) |
|
|
(7,621 |
) |
|
|
|
Balance, March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
238 |
|
|
$ |
321,817 |
|
|
$ |
(234,279 |
) |
|
$ |
18,701 |
|
|
$ |
106,477 |
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
6
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
(amounts in thousands)
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Cash Flows From Operating Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated net income |
|
$ |
20,471 |
|
|
$ |
19,749 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to
Cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on sale of properties and other |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Depreciation expense |
|
|
18,459 |
|
|
|
16,961 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
749 |
|
|
|
704 |
|
Debt premium amortization |
|
|
(257 |
) |
|
|
(320 |
) |
Equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
|
(2,229 |
) |
|
|
(1,476 |
) |
Distributions from unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
|
2,011 |
|
|
|
1,006 |
|
Amortization of stock-related compensation |
|
|
1,185 |
|
|
|
1,593 |
|
Revenue recognized from right-to-use contract sales |
|
|
(414 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Amortized commission expense related to right-to-use contract sales |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued long term incentive plan compensation |
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
274 |
|
Increase in provision for uncollectible rents receivable |
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
Increase in provision for inventory reserve |
|
|
855 |
|
|
|
314 |
|
Changes in assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent and other customer receivables, net |
|
|
(517 |
) |
|
|
84 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
563 |
|
Deferred commissions expense |
|
|
(1,629 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Escrow deposits and other assets |
|
|
1,414 |
|
|
|
(4,798 |
) |
Accrued payroll and other operating expenses |
|
|
2,206 |
|
|
|
(216 |
) |
Deferred revenue sales of right-to-use contracts |
|
|
5,577 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rents received in advance and security deposits |
|
|
5,586 |
|
|
|
5,398 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
54,858 |
|
|
|
40,040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows From Investing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of real estate |
|
|
(5,048 |
) |
|
|
(3,984 |
) |
Net tax-deferred exchange withdrawal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,124 |
|
Joint Ventures: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,108 |
) |
Distributions from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net repayment (borrowings) of notes receivable |
|
|
1,590 |
|
|
|
(85 |
) |
Capital improvements |
|
|
(6,523 |
) |
|
|
(4,184 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(9,981 |
) |
|
|
(11,237 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows From Financing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from stock options and employee stock purchase plan |
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
2,309 |
|
Distributions to Common Stockholders, Common OP Unitholders, and
Perpetual Preferred OP Unitholders |
|
|
(10,122 |
) |
|
|
(8,557 |
) |
Stock repurchase and Unit redemption |
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Lines of credit: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds |
|
|
38,700 |
|
|
|
39,800 |
|
Repayments |
|
|
(130,400 |
) |
|
|
(60,700 |
) |
Principal repayments and mortgage debt payoff |
|
|
(28,106 |
) |
|
|
(4,841 |
) |
New financing proceeds |
|
|
56,813 |
|
|
|
|
|
Debt issuance costs |
|
|
(636 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(73,510 |
) |
|
|
(32,021 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(28,633 |
) |
|
|
(3,218 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
|
|
45,312 |
|
|
|
5,785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
|
$ |
16,679 |
|
|
$ |
2,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
7
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (continued)
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
(amounts in thousands)
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
March 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
Supplemental Information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the period for interest |
|
$ |
24,325 |
|
|
$ |
24,295 |
|
Non-cash activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate acquisition and disposition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage debt assumed and financed on acquisition of real estate |
|
$ |
11,851 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other assets and liabilities, net, acquired on acquisition of real estate |
|
$ |
941 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory reclassified to Buildings and other depreciable property |
|
$ |
1,830 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of operations of Privileged Access |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumption of assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Escrow deposits and other assets |
|
$ |
1,652 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Accrued payroll and other operating expenses |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
Rents received in advance and security deposits |
|
$ |
(125 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
8
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements |
Definition of Terms:
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation, together with MHC Operating Limited
Partnership (the Operating Partnership) and other consolidated subsidiaries (Subsidiaries), are
referred to herein as the Company, ELS, we, us, and our. Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein are as defined in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K (2008 Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2008.
Presentation:
These unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared pursuant to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules and regulations and should be read in conjunction
with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the 2008 Form 10-K. The following
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements highlight significant changes to the Notes included in
the 2008 Form 10-K and present interim disclosures as required by the SEC. The accompanying
Consolidated Financial Statements reflect, in the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary
for a fair presentation of the interim financial statements. All such adjustments are of a normal
and recurring nature. Revenues are subject to seasonal fluctuations and as such quarterly interim
results may not be indicative of full year results.
Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
(a) Basis of Consolidation
The Company consolidates its majority-owned subsidiaries in which it has the ability to
control the operations of the subsidiaries and all variable interest entities with respect to which
the Company is the primary beneficiary. The Company also consolidates entities in which it has a
controlling direct or indirect voting interest. All inter-company transactions have been
eliminated in consolidation. The Companys acquisitions on or prior to December 31, 2008 were all
accounted for as purchases in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141,
Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141). For business combinations for which the acquisition date
is on or after January 1, 2009, the purchase price of Properties will be accounted for in
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 141R, Business Combinations,
(SFAS No. 141R).
The Company has applied the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued
Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (FIN 46R) an
interpretation of ARB 51. The objective of FIN 46R is to provide guidance on how to identify a
variable interest entity (VIE) and determine when the assets, liabilities, non-controlling
interests, and results of operations of a VIE need to be included in a companys consolidated
financial statements. A company that holds variable interests in an entity will need to
consolidate such entity if the company absorbs a majority of the entitys expected losses or
receives a majority of the entitys expected residual returns if they occur, or both (i.e., the
primary beneficiary). The Company has also applied Emerging Issues Task Force 04-5 Accounting for
investments in limited partnerships when the investor is the sole general partner and the limited
partners have certain rights (EITF 04-5) which determines whether a general partner or the
general partners as a group controls a limited partnership or similar entity and therefore should
consolidate the entity. The Company will apply FIN 46R and EITF 04-5 to all types of entity
ownership (general and limited partnerships and corporate interests).
The Company applies the equity method of accounting to entities in which the Company does not
have a controlling direct or indirect voting interest or is not considered the primary beneficiary,
but can exercise influence over the entity with respect to its operations and major decisions. The
cost method is applied when (i) the investment is minimal (typically less than 5%) and (ii) the
Companys investment is passive.
(b) Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States 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.
9
Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)
(c) Markets
We manage all our operations on a property-by-property basis. Since each Property has similar
economic and operational characteristics, the Company has one reportable segment, which is the
operation of land lease Properties. The distribution of the Properties throughout the United
States reflects our belief that geographic diversification helps insulate the portfolio from
regional economic influences. We intend to target new acquisitions in or near markets where the
Properties are located and will also consider acquisitions of Properties outside such markets.
(d) Inventory
Inventory primarily consists of new and used Site Set homes and is stated at the lower of cost
or market after consideration of the N.A.D.A. (National Automobile Dealers Association)
Manufactured Housing Appraisal Guide and the current market value of each home included in the home
inventory. Inventory sales revenues and resale revenues are recognized when the home sale is
closed. The expense for the inventory reserve is included in the cost of home sales in our
Consolidated Statements of Operations. (See Note 6 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Form 10-Q)).
(e) Real Estate
In accordance with SFAS No. 141R, which is effective for acquisitions on or after January 1,
2009, we recognize all the assets acquired and all the liabilities assumed in a transaction at the
acquisition-date fair value with limited exceptions. We also recognize transaction costs as they
are incurred.
Acquisitions prior to December 31, 2008 were accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 141,
and we allocated the purchase price of Properties we acquired to net tangible and identified
intangible assets acquired based on their fair values. In making estimates of fair values for
purposes of allocating purchase price, we utilize a number of sources, including independent
appraisals that may be available in connection with the acquisition or financing of the respective
Property and other market data. We also consider information obtained about each Property as a
result of our due diligence, marketing and leasing activities in estimating the fair value of the
tangible and intangible assets acquired.
Real estate is recorded at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is computed on
the straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the
assets. We generally use a 30-year estimated
life for buildings acquired and structural and land improvements
(including site development), a ten-year estimated
life for building upgrades and a five-year estimated life for furniture, fixtures and
equipment. Used manufactured homes held for rent are depreciated based on its model year with a
minimum of 15 years and new manufactured homes held for rent are depreciated using a 20-year
estimated life from its model year down to a salvage value of 40% of the original costs.
Depreciation on rental homes is included in ancillary services, net. In connection with the PA
Transaction, we acquired approximately $2.0 million in used resort cottages. The used resort
cottages are depreciated using a 20-year estimated life and are included in corporate and other
depreciation.
The values of above-and below-market leases are amortized and recorded as either an increase
(in the case of below-market leases) or a decrease (in the case of above-market leases) to rental
income over the remaining term of the associated lease. The value associated with in-place leases
is amortized over the expected term, which includes an estimated probability of lease renewal.
Expenditures for ordinary maintenance and repairs are expensed to operations as incurred and
significant renovations and improvements that improve the asset and extend the useful life of the
asset are capitalized over their estimated useful life.
The Company periodically evaluates its long-lived assets, including its investments in real
estate, for impairment indicators. Our judgments regarding the existence of impairment indicators
are based on factors such
as operational performance, market conditions and legal factors. Future events could occur which
would cause us to conclude that impairment indicators exist and an impairment loss is warranted.
10
Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)
For Properties to be disposed of, an impairment loss is recognized when the fair value of the
Property, less the estimated cost to sell, is less than the carrying amount of the Property
measured at the time the Company has a commitment to sell the Property and/or is actively marketing
the Property for sale. A Property to be disposed of is reported at the lower of its carrying
amount or its estimated fair value, less costs to sell. Subsequent to the date that a Property is
held for disposition, depreciation expense is not recorded. The Company accounts for its
Properties held for disposition in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
144 Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets (SFAS No. 144).
Accordingly, the results of operations for all assets sold or held for sale have been classified as
discontinued operations in all periods presented.
(f) Identified Intangibles and Goodwill
We record acquired intangible assets and acquired intangible liabilities at their estimated
fair value separate and apart from goodwill. We amortize identified intangible assets and
liabilities that are determined to have finite lives over the period the assets and liabilities are
expected to contribute directly or indirectly to the future cash flows of the property or business
acquired. Intangible assets subject to amortization are reviewed for impairment whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. An impairment
loss is recognized if the carrying amount of an intangible asset is not recoverable and its
carrying amount exceeds its estimated fair value.
The excess of the cost of an acquired entity over the net of the amounts assigned to assets
acquired (including identified intangible assets) and liabilities assumed is recorded as goodwill.
Goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment at a level of reporting referred to as a
reporting unit on an annual basis, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the asset might be impaired.
As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the carrying amounts of identified intangible
assets, a component of Escrow deposits and other assets on our consolidated balance sheets, were
approximately $4.3 million and $4.2 million, respectively. Amortization of identified intangibles
assets was approximately $218,000 and $129,000 as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively.
(g) Cash and Cash Equivalents
We consider all demand and money market accounts and certificates of deposit with a maturity
date, when purchased, of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The cash and cash
equivalents as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 include approximately $0.4 million of
restricted cash.
(h) Notes Receivable
Notes receivable generally are stated at their outstanding unpaid principal balances net of
any deferred fees or costs on originated loans, unamortized discounts or premiums, and an
allowance. Interest income is accrued on the unpaid principal balance. Discounts or premiums are
amortized to income using the interest method. In certain cases we finance the sales of homes to
our customers (referred to as Chattel Loans) which loans are secured by the homes. The allowance
for the Chattel Loans is calculated based on a review of loan agings and a comparison of the
outstanding principal balance of the Chattel Loans compared to the current estimated market value
of the underlying manufactured home collateral.
Beginning August 14, 2008, as a result of the PA Transaction, the Company also now provides
financing for nonrefundable upfront payments on sales of right-to-use contracts (Contracts
Receivable). Based upon historical collection rates and current economic trends, when a sale is
financed, a reserve is established for a portion of the Contracts Receivable balance estimated to
be uncollectible. The allowance and the rate at which the Company provides for losses on its
Contracts Receivable could be increased or decreased in the future based on the Companys actual
collection experience. (See Note 7 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in
this Form 10-Q).
11
Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)
(i) Investments in Joint Ventures
Investments in joint ventures in which the Company does not have a controlling direct or
indirect voting interest, but can exercise significant influence over the entity with respect to
its operations and major decisions, are accounted for using the equity method of accounting whereby
the cost of an investment is adjusted for the Companys share of the equity in net income or loss
from the date of acquisition and reduced by distributions received. The income or loss of each
entity is allocated in accordance with the provisions of the applicable operating agreements. The
allocation provisions in these agreements may differ from the ownership interests held by each
investor. Differences between the carrying amount of the Companys investment in the respective
entities and the Companys share of the underlying equity of such unconsolidated entities are
amortized over the respective lives of the underlying assets, as applicable. (See Note 5 in the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q).
(j) Income from Other Investments, net
Income from other investments, net, primarily includes revenue relating to the Companys
former ground leases with Privileged Access. The ground leases were terminated on August 14, 2008
due to the PA Transaction. The ground leases with Privileged Access were for approximately 24,300
sites at 82 of the Companys Properties and were accounted for in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 13, Accounting for Leases. The Company recognized income
related to these ground leases of approximately $0.0 million and $6.4 million for the quarters
ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
(k) Insurance Claims
The Properties are covered against fire, flood, property damage, earthquake, windstorm and
business interruption by insurance policies containing various deductible requirements and coverage
limits. Recoverable costs are classified in other assets as incurred. Insurance proceeds are
applied against the asset when received. Recoverable costs relating to capital items are treated
in accordance with the Companys capitalization policy. The book value of the original capital
item is written off once the value of the impaired asset has been determined. Insurance proceeds
relating to the capital costs are recorded as income in the period they are received.
Approximately 70 Florida Properties suffered damage from the five hurricanes that struck the
state during 2004 and 2005. As of April 15, 2009, the Company estimates its total claim to exceed
$21.0 million and has made claims for full recovery of these amounts, subject to deductibles.
The Company has received proceeds from insurance carriers of approximately $10.5 million
through March 31, 2009. The proceeds were accounted for in accordance with the Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No.5, Accounting for Contingencies (SFAS No. 5). During the
quarter ended March 31, 2009, approximately $1.6 million has been recognized as a gain on insurance
recovery, which is net of approximately $0.1 million of contingent legal fees and included in
income from other investments, net.
On June 22, 2007, the Company filed a lawsuit related to some of the unpaid claims against
certain insurance carriers and its insurance broker. See Note 13 in the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for further discussion of this lawsuit.
(l) Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The Companys financial instruments include short-term investments, notes receivable, accounts
receivable, accounts payable, other accrued expenses, and mortgage notes payable. The fair values
of all financial instruments, including notes receivable, were not materially different from their
carrying values at March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008.
12
Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)
(m) Deferred Financing Costs, net
Deferred financing costs, net include fees and costs incurred to obtain long-term financing.
The costs are being amortized over the terms of the respective loans on a level yield basis.
Unamortized deferred financing fees are written-off when debt is retired before the maturity date.
Upon amendment of the lines of credit, unamortized deferred financing fees are accounted for in
accordance with, Emerging Issues Task Force No. 98-14, Debtors Accounting for Changes in
Line-of-Credit or Revolving-Debt Arrangements (EITF No. 98-14). Accumulated amortization for
such costs was $13.3 million and $13.1 million at March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively.
(n) Revenue Recognition
The Company accounts for leases with its customers as operating leases. Rental income is
recognized over the term of the respective lease or the length of a customers stay, the majority
of which are for a term of not greater than one year. We will reserve for receivables when we
believe the ultimate collection is less than probable. Our provision for uncollectible rents
receivable was approximately $1.8 million and $1.5 million as of March 31, 2009 and December 31,
2008, respectively.
The sales of right-to-use contracts are recognized in accordance with Staff Accounting
Bulletin 104, Revenue Recognition in Consolidated Financial Statements, Corrected (SAB 104). The
Company will recognize the upfront non-refundable payments over the estimated customer life which,
based on historical attrition rates, the Company has estimated to be between one to 31 years. The
current period sales of upfront non-refundable payments are reported on the Income Statement in the
line item titled Right-to-use contracts current period, gross. The cumulative deferral of the
upfront non-refundable payments are reported on the Balance Sheet in the line item titled Deferred
revenue sale of right-to use contracts. The deferral of current period sales, net of
amortization of prior period sales, is reported on the Income Statement in the line item titled
Right-to-use contracts, deferred, net of prior period amortization. The decision to recognize
this revenue in accordance with SAB 104 was made after corresponding with the Office of the Chief
Accountant at the SEC during September and October of 2008. The commissions paid on the sale of
right-to-use contracts will be deferred and amortized over the same period as the related sales
revenue. The current period commissions paid are reported on the Income Statement in the line item
titled Sales and marketing, gross. The cumulative deferrals of commissions paid are reported on
the Balance Sheet in the line item titled Deferred commissions expense. The deferral of current
period commissions, net of amortization of prior period commissions is reported on the Income
Statement in the line item titled Sales and marketing, deferred commissions, net.
Annual payments paid by customers under the terms of the right-to-use contracts are deferred
and recognized ratably over the one-year period in which the services are provided.
Income from home sales is recognized when the earnings process is complete. The earnings
process is complete when the home has been delivered, the purchaser has accepted the home and title
has transferred.
(o) Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In June 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position on Emerging Issues Task Force Issue 03-6,
Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating
Securities (FSP EITF 03-6-1). FSP EITF 03-6-1 states that unvested share-based payment awards
that contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid)
are participating securities and shall be included in the computation of earnings per share (EPS)
pursuant to the two-class method. FSP EITF 03-6-1 was effective for financial statements issued for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim periods within those years. All
prior-period EPS data presented shall be adjusted retrospectively (including interim financial
statements, summaries of earnings, and selected financial data) to conform with the provisions of
FSP EITF 03-6-1. Early
application was not permitted. Adoption on January 1, 2009 did not materially impact our earnings
per share calculation.
13
Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (continued)
In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 160,
Non-controlling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements (SFAS No. 160), an amendment of
Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51. SFAS No. 160 seeks to improve uniformity and transparency in
reporting of the net income attributable to non-controlling interests in the consolidated financial
statements of the reporting entity. The statement requires, among other provisions, the
disclosure, clear labeling and presentation of non-controlling interests in the Consolidated
Balance Sheet and Consolidated Income Statement. Per SFAS 160, a non-controlling interest is the
portion of equity (net assets) in a subsidiary not attributable, directly or indirectly, to a
parent. The ownership interests in the subsidiary that are held by owners other than the parent are
non-controlling interests. Under SFAS 160, such non-controlling interests are reported on the
consolidated balance sheets within equity, separately from the Companys equity.
However, per FASB Emerging Issues Task Force Topic No. D-98, Classification and Measurement
of Redeemable Securities (EITF D-98), securities that are redeemable for cash or other assets at
the option of the holder, not solely within the control of the issuer, must be classified outside
of permanent equity. This would result in certain outside ownership interests being included as
redeemable non-controlling interests outside of permanent equity in the consolidated balance sheets.
The Company makes this determination based on terms in applicable agreements, specifically in
relation to redemption provisions. Additionally, with respect to non-controlling interests for which
the Company has a choice to settle the contract by delivery of its own shares, the Company
considered the guidance in EITF 00-19 Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to,
and Potentially Settled in, a Companys Own Stock to evaluate whether the Company controls the
actions or events necessary to issue the maximum number of shares that could be required to be
delivered under share settlement of the contract.
Effective
January 1, 2009, the Company, for all periods presented, has
reclassified the non-controlling interest for Common OP
Units from the mezzanine section under Total Liabilities to the Equity section of the consolidated
balance sheets. The caption Common OP Units on the consolidated
balance sheets also includes $0.5
million of private REIT Subsidiaries preferred stock. Based on the Companys analysis, Perpetual Preferred OP Units will remain in the
mezzanine section. The presentation of income allocated to Common OP Units and Perpetual Preferred
OP Units on the consolidated statements of operations has been moved to the bottom of the statement
prior to Net income available to Common Shares.
(p) Reclassifications
Certain 2008 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2009 presentation. This
reclassification had no material effect on the consolidated balance sheets or statements of
operations of the Company.
14
Note 2 Earnings Per Common Share
Earnings per common share are based on the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during each year. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, Earnings Per
Share (SFAS No. 128) defines the calculation of basic and fully diluted earnings per share.
Basic and fully diluted earnings per share are based on the weighted average shares outstanding
during each period and basic earnings per share exclude any dilutive effects of options, warrants
and convertible securities. The conversion of OP Units has been excluded from the basic earnings
per share calculation. The conversion of an OP Unit to a share of Common Stock has no material
effect on earnings per common share.
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share
for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Numerators: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations basic |
|
$ |
13,556 |
|
|
$ |
12,712 |
|
Amounts allocated to dilutive securities |
|
|
2,776 |
|
|
|
3,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations fully diluted |
|
$ |
16,332 |
|
|
$ |
15,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Discontinued Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations basic |
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
Amounts allocated to dilutive securities |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations fully diluted |
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income Available for Common Shares Fully Diluted: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available for Common Shares basic |
|
$ |
13,644 |
|
|
$ |
12,725 |
|
Amounts allocated to dilutive securities |
|
|
2,794 |
|
|
|
3,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available for Common Shares fully diluted |
|
$ |
16,438 |
|
|
$ |
15,729 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average Common Shares outstanding basic |
|
|
24,945 |
|
|
|
24,200 |
|
Effect of dilutive securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemption of Common OP Units for
Common Shares |
|
|
5,261 |
|
|
|
5,828 |
|
Employee stock options and restricted shares |
|
|
317 |
|
|
|
358 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average Common Shares outstanding
fully diluted |
|
|
30,523 |
|
|
|
30,386 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 3 Common Stock and Other Equity Related Transactions
On April 10, 2009, the Company paid a $0.25 per share distribution for the quarter ended March
31, 2009 to stockholders of record on March 27, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the Operating Partnership
paid distributions of 8.0625% per annum on the $150 million Series D 8% Units and 7.95% per annum
on the $50 million of Series F 7.95% Units.
15
Note 4 Investment in Real Estate
Investment in real estate is comprised of (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Properties Held for Long Term |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Investment in real estate: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land |
|
$ |
544,121 |
|
|
$ |
539,702 |
|
Land improvements |
|
|
1,732,741 |
|
|
|
1,715,627 |
|
Buildings and other depreciable property (a) |
|
|
227,184 |
|
|
|
222,699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,504,046 |
|
|
|
2,478,028 |
|
Accumulated depreciation |
|
|
(575,352 |
) |
|
|
(557,130 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment in real estate |
|
$ |
1,928,694 |
|
|
$ |
1,920,898 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
As of March 31, 2009, balance includes approximately $44.9 million of new
manufactured rental homes and approximately $14.8 million of used manufactured rental homes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Properties Held for Sale |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Investment in real estate: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land |
|
$ |
2,277 |
|
|
$ |
2,277 |
|
Land improvements |
|
|
10,070 |
|
|
|
10,125 |
|
Buildings and other depreciable property |
|
|
604 |
|
|
|
591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,951 |
|
|
|
12,993 |
|
Accumulated depreciation |
|
|
(4,103 |
) |
|
|
(4,103 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment in real estate |
|
$ |
8,848 |
|
|
$ |
8,890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land improvements consist primarily of improvements such as grading, landscaping and
infrastructure items such as streets, sidewalks or water mains. Buildings and other depreciable
property consists of permanent buildings in the Properties such as clubhouses, laundry facilities,
maintenance storage facilities, as well as rental units, furniture, fixtures and equipment.
Included in the PA Transaction were approximately $3.9 million of land improvements and $3.1
million of Resort Cottage and RV rental units. See Note 12 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for further discussion regarding the PA Transaction.
On February 13, 2009, the Company acquired the remaining 75 percent interests in three
Diversified Portfolio joint ventures known as (i) Robin Hill, a 270-site property in Lenhartsville,
Pennsylvania, (ii) Sun Valley, a 265-site property in Brownsville, Pennsylvania, and (iii) Plymouth
Rock, a 609-site property in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin. The gross purchase price was approximately
$19.2 million, and we assumed mortgage loans of approximately $12.9 million with a value of
approximately $11.9 million and a weighted average interest rate of 6.0 percent per annum.
16
Note 4 Investment in Real Estate (continued)
On April 17, 2009, we sold Caledonia, a 247-site Property in Caledonia, Wisconsin, for proceeds of
approximately $2.2 million. The Company recognized a gain on sale of approximately $0.8 million.
In order to defer the taxable gain on the sale, the sales proceeds, net of transaction costs, were
deposited in a tax-deferred exchange account. In addition, we received approximately $0.3 million
of deferred rent due from the previous tenant.
All acquisitions have been accounted for utilizing the purchase method of accounting, and,
accordingly, the results of operations of acquired assets are included in the statements of
operations from the dates of acquisition. Certain purchase price adjustments may be recorded
within one year following the acquisitions.
The Company actively seeks to acquire additional Properties and currently is engaged in
negotiations relating to the possible acquisition of a number of Properties. At any time these
negotiations are at varying stages, which may include contracts outstanding, to acquire certain
Properties, which are subject to satisfactory completion of our due diligence review.
As of March 31, 2009, the Company had two Properties designated as held for disposition
pursuant to SFAS No. 144. The Company determined that these Properties no longer met its
investment criteria. As such, the results from operations of these two Properties are classified
as income from discontinued operations. The Company expects to sell these Properties for proceeds
greater than their net book value. The Properties that were classified as held for disposition as
of March 31, 2009 are listed in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property |
|
Location |
|
Sites |
Casa Village |
|
Billings, MT |
|
|
490 |
|
Creekside |
|
Wyoming, MI |
|
|
165 |
|
The sale of the property, Caledonia, discussed above during the second quarter of 2009, did
not meet the criteria as held for sale during the quarter ended March 31, 2009.
The following table summarizes the combined results of operations of the two Properties held
for sale for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively (amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Rental income |
|
$ |
540 |
|
|
$ |
537 |
|
Utility and other income |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating revenues |
|
|
578 |
|
|
|
579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating expenses |
|
|
(242 |
) |
|
|
(288 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from property operations |
|
|
336 |
|
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from home sales operations |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and Amortization |
|
|
(223 |
) |
|
|
(231 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on sale of property |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations |
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
Note 5 Investment in Joint Ventures
The Company recorded approximately $1.9 million and $0.9 million of net income from joint
ventures, net of approximately $0.3 million and $0.6 million of depreciation expense for the
quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The Company received approximately $2.0
million and $1.0 million in distributions from such joint ventures for each of the quarters ended
March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Approximately $2.0 million and $1.0 million of such
distributions were classified as a return on capital and were included in operating activities on
the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. The remaining distributions were classified as return of capital and classified as
investing activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Approximately $1.1 million and
$0.8 million of the distributions received in the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, exceeded the Companys basis in its joint venture and as such were recorded in income
from unconsolidated joint ventures. Of these distributions, $1.1 million relates to the gain on
the sale of the Companies 25% interest in two Diversified joint ventures.
On February 13, 2009, the Company sold its 25 percent interest in two Diversified Portfolio
joint ventures known as (i) Pine Haven, a 625-site property in Ocean View, New Jersey and (ii)
Round Top, a 319-site property in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A gain on sale of approximately $1.1
million was recognized during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and is included in Equity in income
of unconsolidated joint ventures.
The following table summarizes the Companys investments in unconsolidated joint ventures
(with the number of Properties shown parenthetically as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively with dollar amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JV Income for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment as of |
|
|
Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
|
Economic |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
Investment |
|
Location |
|
of Sites |
|
|
Interest(a) |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Meadows Investments |
|
Various (2,2) |
|
|
1,027 |
|
|
|
50 |
% |
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
$ |
258 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
Lakeshore
Investments |
|
Florida (2,2) |
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
90 |
% |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
691 |
|
Voyager |
|
Arizona (1,1) |
|
|
1,706 |
|
|
|
50 |
%(b) |
|
|
8,937 |
|
|
|
8,953 |
|
|
|
430 |
|
|
|
425 |
|
Other Investments |
|
Various (0,5)(c) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
|
|
1,143 |
|
|
|
(288 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
9,522 |
|
|
$ |
9,676 |
|
|
$ |
1,903 |
|
|
$ |
884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
The percentages shown approximate the Companys economic interest as of March 31,
2009. The Companys legal ownership interest may differ. |
|
(b) |
|
Voyager joint venture primarily consists of a 50% interest in Voyager RV Resort. A
25% interest in the utility plant servicing the Property is included in Other Investments. |
|
(c) |
|
As noted above, the Company sold its interest in two Diversified Portfolio joint
ventures and purchased the remaining 75% interest in three Diversified Portfolio joint
ventures during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (see Note 4 in the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q). |
18
Note 6 Inventory
The following table sets forth Inventory as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 (amounts
in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
New homes (a) |
|
$ |
7,321 |
|
|
$ |
7,944 |
|
Used homes (b) |
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
312 |
|
Other (c) |
|
|
3,963 |
|
|
|
5,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventory (d) |
|
|
11,606 |
|
|
|
13,399 |
|
Inventory reserve |
|
|
(1,320 |
) |
|
|
(465 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory, net of reserves |
|
$ |
10,286 |
|
|
$ |
12,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Includes 243 and 253 new units as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. |
|
(b) |
|
Includes 41 and 27 used units as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. |
|
(c) |
|
Other inventory primarily consists of merchandise inventory. |
|
(d) |
|
Includes $0.3 million of Properties currently held for sale as of March 31, 2009
and December 31, 2008. |
Note 7 Notes Receivable
As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the Company had approximately $30.2 million and
$31.8 million in notes receivable, respectively. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the
Company had approximately $11.6 and $12.0 million, respectively, in Chattel Loans receivable, which
yield interest at a per annum average rate of approximately 8.8%, have an average term and
amortization of approximately of five to 15 years, require monthly principal and interest payments
and are collateralized by homes at certain of the Properties. These notes are recorded net of
allowances of $0.3 million and $0.2 million as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, approximately $0.3 million was repaid and
an additional $0.1 million was loaned to customers.
In connection with the PA Transaction, we acquired approximately $19.6 million of Contracts
Receivable. As of March 31, 2009, the Company had approximately $18.5 million of Contracts
Receivables, including allowances of approximately $0.6 million plus discount amortization of
approximately $0.3 million. These Contracts Receivables represent loans to customers who have
purchased right-to-use contracts. The Contracts Receivable yield interest at a per annum weighted
average rate of 16.2%, have a weighted average term remaining of approximately four years and
require monthly payments of principal and interest. During the quarter ended March 31, 2009,
approximately $2.6 million was repaid and an additional $1.9 million was loaned to customers.
As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the Company had a $0.4 million note receivable,
which bears interest at a per annum rate of prime plus 0.5% and matures on December 31, 2011. The
note is collateralized with a combination of Common OP Units and partnership interests in certain
joint ventures.
19
Note 8 Long-Term Borrowings
As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the Company had outstanding mortgage indebtedness
on Properties held for long-term investment of approximately $1,596 million and $1,555 million,
respectively, and approximately $14 million of mortgage indebtedness as of March 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008 on Properties held for sale. The weighted average interest rate on this mortgage
indebtedness for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 and the year ending December 31, 2008, was
approximately 6.0% and 5.9% per annum, respectively. The debt bears interest at rates of 5.0% to
10.0% per annum and matures on various dates ranging from 2009 to 2019. Included in our debt
balance are three capital leases with balances of approximately $6.7 million at March 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008 with imputed interest rates of 13.1% per annum. The debt encumbered a total of
154 and 151 of the Companys Properties as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively,
and the carrying value of such Properties was approximately $1,711 million and $1,694 million,
respectively as of such dates.
As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the $370.0 million bank commitment had $368.7
million and $277.0 million, respectively, available for future borrowings. The weighted average
interest rate for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 and the year ending December 31, 2008 was 3.5%
and 3.6% per annum, respectively.
Note 9 Deferred Revenue-sale of right-to-use contracts and Deferred Commission Expense
The sales of right-to-use contracts are recognized in accordance with SAB 104. The Company
will recognize the upfront non-refundable payments over the estimated customer life which, based on
historical attrition rates, the Company has estimated to be between one to 31 years. The
commissions paid on the sale of right-to-use contracts will be deferred and amortized over the same
period as the related sales revenue.
Components of the change in deferred revenue-sale of right-to-use contracts and deferred commission
expense are as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred revenue-sale of right-to-use contracts-December
31, 2008 |
|
$ |
10,611 |
|
|
Deferral of new right-to-use contracts |
|
|
5,577 |
|
Deferred revenue recognized |
|
|
(414 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net increase in deferred revenue |
|
|
5,163 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred revenue- sale of right-to-use contracts-March 31,
2009 |
|
$ |
15,774 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred commission expense-December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
3,644 |
|
|
Costs deferred |
|
|
1,629 |
|
Amortization of deferred costs |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net increase in deferred sales and marketing |
|
|
1,493 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred commission expense-March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
5,137 |
|
|
|
|
|
20
Note 10 Stock-Based Compensation
The Company accounts for its stock-based compensation in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share Based Payment (SFAS 123(R)), which was adopted
on July 1, 2005.
Stock-based compensation expense was approximately $1.2 million and $1.6 million for the
quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Pursuant to the Stock Option Plan as discussed in Note 13 to the 2008 Form 10-K, certain
officers, directors, employees and consultants have been offered the opportunity to acquire shares
of common stock of the Company through stock options (Options). During the quarter ended March
31, 2009, Options for 1,000 shares of common stock were exercised for gross proceeds of
approximately $17,000.
On January 9, 2009, 2,818 shares of common stock were repurchased at the open market price and
represent common stock surrendered to the Company to satisfy income tax withholding obligations of
approximately $0.1 million due as a result of the vesting of certain Restricted Share Grants.
On
February 2, 2009, the Company awarded restricted stock grants for 11,000 shares of common
stock at a fair market value of approximately $0.4 million, and awarded Options to purchase 100,000
shares of common stock with an exercise price of $37.70 per share to certain members of the Board
of Directors for services rendered in 2008. One-third of the Options to purchase common stock and
the shares of restricted common stock covered by these awards vests on each of December 31, 2009,
December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2011.
Note 11 Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan
On May 15, 2007, the Companys Board of Directors approved a Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan
(the Plan) to provide a long-term cash bonus opportunity to certain members of the Companys
management and executive officers. Such Board approval was upon recommendation by the Companys
Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the Committee).
The total cumulative payment for all participants (the Eligible Payment) is based upon
certain performance conditions being met. Such performance conditions include meeting certain
property revenue and net operating income benchmarks and the Companys Compounded Annual Funds From
Operations Per Share Growth Rate as determined by the Committee (FFO/Share CAGR) over the
three-year period ending December 31, 2009, which is further adjusted upward or downward based on
the Companys Total Return compared to a selected peer group.
21
Note 11 Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (continued)
The amount of the Eligible Payment shall be determined by taking the FFO/Share CAGR, as
determined by the Committee, and selecting the Eligible Payment from the table below associated
with such FFO/Share CAGR. The FFO/Share CAGR shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number
percentage because the FFO/Share CAGR shall not include the expense effects of the Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
FFO/Share CAGR |
|
Eligible Payment |
7.00% |
|
$ |
|
|
8.00% |
|
$ |
545,000 |
|
9.00% |
|
$ |
1,075,000 |
|
10.00% |
|
$ |
2,825,000 |
|
11.00% |
|
$ |
3,525,000 |
|
12.00% |
|
$ |
4,225,000 |
|
13.00% |
|
$ |
4,925,000 |
|
14.00% |
|
$ |
5,625,000 |
|
15.00% |
|
$ |
6,325,000 |
|
The Eligible Payment shall be further adjusted upward, to a maximum of 200%, or downward based
on the Companys Total Return for the three years ended December 31, 2009 compared to a selected
peer group. The Committee shall have the right to make such adjustments in its discretion to
address any anomalies or unintended outcomes in the computation of total return (for example,
without limitation, low returns or negative returns). The Plan includes approximately 20
participants. Certain executive officers are not eligible for a payment under the Plan until
10.00% or higher FFO/Share CAGR is achieved. The Companys Chief Executive Officer and President
are not participants in the Plan. The Eligible Payment will be paid in cash upon completion of the
Companys annual audit for the 2009 fiscal year and upon satisfaction of the vesting conditions as
outlined in the Plan. The Committee has responsibility for administering the Plan and may use its
reasonable discretion to adjust the performance criteria or Eligible Payments to take into account
the impact of any major or unforeseen transaction or events.
The Company accounts for the Plan in accordance with SFAS 123(R). As of March 31, 2009, the
Company had accrued compensation expense of approximately $2.6 million related to the Plan,
including approximately $0.8 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The amounts accrued
reflect the Committees evaluation of the Plan based on forecasts and other information presented
to the Committee and are subject to performance in line with forecasts and final evaluation and
determination by the Committee. There can be no assurances that our estimates of the probable
outcome will be representative of the actual outcome. The actual Eligible Payment may range from
$0 to approximately $12.7 million.
22
Note 12 Transactions with Related Parties
Privileged Access
On August 14, 2008, the Company closed on the PA Transaction by acquiring substantially all of
the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Privileged Access for an unsecured note payable of
$2.0 million. Prior to the purchase, Privileged Access had a 12-year lease with the Company for 82
Properties that terminated upon closing. At closing, approximately $4.8 million of Privileged
Access cash was deposited into an escrow account for liabilities that Privileged Access has
retained. The balance in the escrow account as of March 31, 2009 was approximately $2.4 million.
In approximately two years, the excess cash in the escrow account, if any, will be paid to the
Company.
The preliminary purchase price allocation has been recorded as of August 14, 2008. The
preliminary allocation does not include a receivable for the contingent cash as the amount and
timing of collection is uncertain. Further adjustments to the purchase price allocation may be
necessary within the one-year allocation period allowed by SFAS No. 141.
Mr. McAdams, the Companys President effective January 1, 2008, owns 100 percent of Privileged
Access. The Company has entered into an employment agreement effective as of January 1, 2008 (the
Employment Agreement) with Mr. McAdams which provides for an initial term of three years, but
such Employment Agreement can be terminated at any time. The Employment Agreement provides for a
minimum annual base salary of $0.3 million, with the option to receive an annual bonus in an amount
up to three times his base salary. Mr. McAdams is also subject to a non-compete clause and to
mitigate potential conflicts of interest shall have no authority, on behalf of the Company and its
affiliates, to enter into any agreement with any entity controlling, controlled by or affiliated
with Privileged Access. Prior to forming Privileged Access, Mr. McAdams was a member of our Board
of Directors from January 2004 to October 2005. Simultaneous with his appointment as president of
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., Mr. McAdams resigned as Privileged Accesss Chairman, President
and CEO. However, he was on the board of PATT Holding Company, LLC (PATT), Thousand Trails
parent entity and a subsidiary of Privileged Access, until the entity was dissolved in 2008.
Mr. Heneghan, the Companys CEO, was a member of the board of PATT, pursuant to the Companys
rights under its resort Property leases with Privileged Access to represent the Companys interests
from April 14, 2006 to August 13, 2008. Mr. Heneghan did not receive compensation in his capacity
as a member of such board.
In connection with the PA Transaction, the Company hired most of the property employees and
certain property management and corporate employees of Privileged Access. Subsequent to the PA
Transaction, the Company has reimbursed Privileged Access for services provided by Privileged
Access employees retained by Privileged Access, which were necessary for the transition of the
former Privileged Access operations to the Company.
Privileged Access had the following substantial business relationships with the Company, which
were all terminated with the closing of the PA Transaction on August 14, 2008. As of both March
31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, there were no payments owed to the Company or by the Company with
respect to the relationships described below.
|
|
|
Prior to August 14, 2008, we were leasing approximately 24,300 sites at 82 resort
Properties (which includes 60 Properties operated by a subsidiary of Privileged Access
known as the TT Portfolio) to Privileged Access or its subsidiaries. For the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, and 2008, we recognized $0.0 million and $6.4 million in rent,
respectively, from these leasing arrangements. The lease income is included in Income from
other investments, net in the Companys Consolidated Statement of Operations. During the
quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company made no reimbursements to Privileged
Access for capital improvements. |
23
Note 12 Transactions with Related Parties (continued)
|
|
|
Effective January 1, 2008, the leases for these Properties provided for the following
significant terms: a) annual fixed rent of approximately $25.5 million, b) annual rent
increases at the higher of Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a renegotiated amount based upon
the fair market value of the Properties, c) expiration date of January 15, 2020, and d) two
five-year extension terms at the option of Privileged Access. The January 1, 2008 lease for
the TT Portfolio also included provisions where the Company paid Privileged Access $1 million
for entering into the amended lease. The $1 million payment was being amortized on a
pro-rata basis over the remaining term of the lease as an offset to the annual lease payments
and the remaining balance at August 14, 2008 of $0.9 million was expensed and is included in
Income from other investments, net during the year ended December 31, 2008. |
|
|
|
|
The Company had subordinated its lease payment for the TT Portfolio to a bank that
loaned Privileged Access $5 million. The Company acquired this loan as part of the PA
Transaction and paid off the loan during the year ended December 31, 2008. |
|
|
|
|
From June 12, 2006 through July 14, 2008, Privileged Access had leased 130 cottage sites
at Tropical Palms, a resort Property located near Orlando, Florida. For the quarters ended
March 31, 2009 and 2008, we earned no rent and $0.3 million, respectively, from this
leasing arrangement. The lease income is included in the Resort base rental income in the
Companys Consolidated Statement of Operations. The Tropical Palms lease expired on July
15, 2008, and the entire property was leased to a new independent operator for 12 years. |
|
|
|
|
On April 14, 2006, the Company loaned Privileged Access approximately $12.3 million at a
per annum interest rate of prime plus 1.5%, maturing in one year and secured by Thousand
Trails membership sales contract receivables the loan was fully paid off during the quarter
ended September 30, 2007. |
|
|
|
|
The Company previously leased 40 to 160 sites at three resort Properties in Florida, to
a subsidiary of Privileged Access from October 1, 2007 until August 14, 2008. The sites
varied during each month of the lease term due to the seasonality of the resort business in
Florida. For the quarter ended March 31, 2008, we recognized less than $0.1 million in
rent from this leasing arrangement. The lease income is included in the Resort base rental
income in the Companys Consolidated Statement of Operations. |
|
|
|
|
The Company previously leased 40 to 160 sites at Lake Magic, a resort Property in
Clermont, Florida, to a subsidiary of Privileged Access from December 15, 2006 until
September 30, 2007. The sites varied during each month of the lease term due to the
seasonality of the resort business in Florida. For the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and
2008, we recognized no amounts in rent from this leasing arrangement. |
|
|
|
|
The Company had an option to purchase the subsidiaries of Privileged Access, including
TT, beginning on April 14, 2009, at the then fair market value, subject to the satisfaction
of a number of significant contingencies (ELS Option). The ELS Option terminated with
the closing of the PA Transaction on August 14, 2008. The Company had consented to a fixed
price option where the Chairman of PATT could acquire the subsidiaries of Privileged Access
anytime before December 31, 2011. The fixed price option also terminated on August 14,
2008. |
|
|
|
|
Privileged Access and the Company previously agreed to certain arrangements in which we
utilized each others services. Privileged Access assisted the Company with functions such
as: call center management, property management, information technology, legal, sales and
marketing. During the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company incurred no
expense and approximately $0.1 million, respectively for the use of Privileged Access
employees. The Company received approximately $0.1 million from Privileged Access for
Privileged Access use of certain Company information technology resources during
the year ended December 31, 2008. The Company and Privileged Access engaged a third party to
evaluate the fair market value of such employee services. |
24
Note 12 Transactions with Related Parties (continued)
In addition to the arrangements described above, the Company had the following smaller
arrangements with Privileged Access. In each arrangement, the amount of income or expense, as
applicable, recognized by the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 is zero and were less
than $0.2 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, and there were no amounts due under these
arrangements as of March 31, 2009 or December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
Since November 1, 2006, the Company leased 41 to 44 sites at 22 resort Properties to
Privileged Access (the Park Pass Lease). The Park Pass Lease terminated with the closing
of the PA Transaction on August 14, 2008. |
|
|
|
|
The Company and Privileged Access entered into a Site Exchange Agreement beginning
September 1, 2007 and ending May 31, 2008. Under the Site Exchange Agreement, the Company
allowed Privileged Access to use 20 sites at an Arizona resort Property known as
Countryside. In return, Privileged Access allowed the Company to use 20 sites at an
Arizona resort Property known as Verde Valley Resort (a property in the TT Portfolio). |
|
|
|
|
The Company and Privileged Access entered into a Site Exchange Agreement for a one-year
period beginning June 1, 2008 and ending May 31, 2009. Under the Site Exchange Agreement,
the Company allowed Privileged Access to use 90 sites at six resort Properties. In return,
Privileged Access allowed the Company to use 90 sites at six resort Properties leased to
Privileged Access. The Site Exchange Agreement was terminated with the closing of the PA
Transaction on August 14, 2008. |
|
|
|
|
On September 15, 2006, the Company and Privileged Access entered into a Park Model Sales
Agreement related to a Texas resort Property in the TT Portfolio known as Lake Conroe.
Under the Park Model Sales Agreement, Privileged Access was allowed to sell up to 26 park
models at Lake Conroe. Privileged Access was obligated to pay the Company 90% of the site
rent collected from the park model buyer. All 26 homes have been sold as of December 31,
2007. The Park Model Sales Agreement terminated with the closing of the PA Transaction on
August 14, 2008. |
|
|
|
|
The Company advertises in Trailblazer magazine that was published by a subsidiary of
Privileged Access prior to August 14, 2008. Trailblazer is an award-winning recreational
lifestyle magazine for active campers, which is read by more than 65,000 paid subscribers.
Beginning on August 14, 2008, the Company began publishing Trailblazer in accordance with
the terms of the PA Transaction. |
|
|
|
|
On July 1, 2008, the Company and Privileged Access entered into an agreement, where
Privileged Access sold the Companys used resort cottages at certain Properties leased to
Privileged Access. The Company paid Privileged Access a commission for selling the
inventory and the agreement was terminated on August 14, 2008. |
|
|
|
|
On April 1, 2008, the Company entered into a lease for a corporate apartment located in
Chicago, Illinois for use by Mr. McAdams and other employees of the Company and Privileged
Access. The Company paid monthly rent payments, plus utilities and housekeeping expenses
and Mr. McAdams reimbursed the Company for a portion of the rent. Prior to August 14,
2008, Privileged Access reimbursed the Company for a portion of the rent and utilities and
housekeeping expenses. Such lease terminated on December 31, 2008. |
Corporate headquarters
The Company leases office space from Two North Riverside Plaza Joint Venture Limited
Partnership, an entity affiliated with Mr. Zell, the Companys Chairman of the Board. Fees paid to
this entity amounted to approximately $0.4 million and $0.2 million for the quarters ended March
31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, approximately $0 and
$62,000, respectively, were accrued with respect to this office lease.
25
Note 12 Transactions with Related Parties (continued)
Other
In January 2009, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with the son of Mr. Howard
Walker, to provide assistance with the Companys internet web marketing strategy. Mr. Walker is
Vice-Chairman of the Companys Board of Directors. The consulting agreement is for a term of six
months at a total cost of $48,000.
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies
California Rent Control Litigation
As part of the Companys effort to realize the value of its Properties subject to rent
control, the Company has initiated lawsuits against several municipalities in California. The
Companys goal is to achieve a level of regulatory fairness in Californias rent control
jurisdictions, and in particular those jurisdictions that prohibit increasing rents to market upon
turnover. Regulations in California allow tenants to sell their homes for a premium representing
the value of the future discounted rent-controlled rents. In the Companys view, such regulation
results in a transfer of the value of the Companys stockholders land, which would otherwise be
reflected in market rents, to tenants upon the sales of their homes in the form of an inflated
purchase price that cannot be attributed to the value of the home being sold. As a result, in the
Companys view, the Company loses the value of its asset and the selling tenant leaves the Property
with a windfall premium. The Company has discovered through the litigation process that certain
municipalities considered condemning the Companys Properties at values well below the value of the
underlying land. In the Companys view, a failure to articulate market rents for sites governed by
restrictive rent control would put the Company at risk for condemnation or eminent domain
proceedings based on artificially reduced rents. Such a physical taking, should it occur, could
represent substantial lost value to stockholders. The Company is cognizant of the need for
affordable housing in the jurisdictions, but asserts that restrictive rent regulation does not
promote this purpose because the benefits of such regulation are fully capitalized into the prices
of the homes sold. The Company estimates that the annual rent subsidy to tenants in these
jurisdictions may be in excess of $15 million. In a more well balanced regulatory environment, the
Company would receive market rents that would eliminate the subsidy and homes would trade at or
near their intrinsic value.
In connection with such efforts, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the City
of Santa Cruz, California and that, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the City amended its rent
control ordinance to exempt the Companys Property from rent control as long as the Company offers
a long term lease which gives the Company the ability to increase rents to market upon turnover and
bases annual rent increases on the CPI. The settlement agreement benefits the Companys
stockholders by allowing them to receive the value of their investment in this Property through
vacancy decontrol while preserving annual CPI based rent increases in this age-restricted Property.
The Company has filed two lawsuits in federal court against the City of San Rafael,
challenging its rent control ordinance on constitutional grounds. The Company believes that one of
those lawsuits was settled by the City agreeing to amend the ordinance to permit adjustments to
market rent upon turnover. The City subsequently rejected the settlement agreement. The Court
initially found the settlement agreement was binding on the City, but then reconsidered and
determined to submit the claim of breach of the settlement agreement to a jury. In October 2002,
the first case against the City went to trial, based on both breach of the settlement agreement and
the constitutional claims. A jury found no breach of the settlement agreement; the Company then
filed motions asking the Court to rule in its favor on that claim, notwithstanding the jury
verdict. The Court postponed decision on those motions and on the constitutional claims, pending a
ruling on certain property rights issues by the United States Supreme Court.
The Company also had pending a claim seeking a declaration that the Company could close the
Property and convert it to another use which claim was not tried in 2002. The United States
Supreme Court issued the property rights rulings in 2005 and subsequently on January 27, 2006, the
Court hearing the San Rafael cases issued a ruling that granted the Companys motion for leave to
amend to assert alternative takings theories in light of the United States Supreme Courts
decisions. The Courts ruling also denied the Companys post trial motions related to the
settlement agreement and dismissed the park closure claim without prejudice to the Companys
ability to reassert
such claim in the future. As a result, the Company filed a new complaint challenging the Citys
ordinance as violating the takings clause
26
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
and substantive due process. The City of San Rafael filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 5, 2006, the Court denied portions of the Citys motion to dismiss that had
sought to eliminate certain of the Companys taking claims and substantive due process claims. The
Companys claims against the City were tried in a bench trial during April 2007. On July 26,
2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued Preliminary
Findings of Facts and Legal Standards, Preliminary Conclusions of Law and Request for Further
Briefing (Preliminary Findings) in this matter. The Company filed the Preliminary Findings on
Form 8-K on August 2, 2007. In August 2007, the Company and the City filed the further briefs
requested by the Court. On January 29, 2008, the Court issued its Findings of Facts, Conclusions
of Law and Order Thereon (the Order). The Company filed the Order on Form 8-K on January 31,
2008. On March 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for attorneys fees incurred in the amount
of approximately $6,800,000 plus costs of approximately $1,274,000. The City also filed a petition
for attorneys fees incurred in the amount of approximately $763,000 plus costs of approximately
$58,000 in connection with the jury verdict that found no breach of the settlement agreement (as
described above). While the City alleges it is the prevailing party on the settlement agreement
issue, the Company asserts that the outcome of the entirety of the case finding the ordinance
unconstitutional means that the Company is the prevailing party in the case. The parties submitted
briefs with respect to the petitions for attorneys fees and costs.
On April 17, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
issued its Order for Entry of Judgment (April 2009 Order), and its Order relating to the
parties requests for attorneys fees (the Fee Order). The Company filed the April 2009 Order
and the Fee Order on Form 8-K on April 20, 2009. In the April 2009 Order, the Court stated that
the judgment to be entered will gradually phase out the Citys site rent regulation scheme that the
Court has found unconstitutional. Existing residents of the Companys property in San Rafael will
be able to continue to pay site rentals as if the Ordinance were to remain in effect for a period
of ten years. Enforcement of the Ordinance will be immediately enjoined with respect to new
residents of the property and expire entirely ten years from the date of judgment. Enforcement of
the Ordinance will be enjoined as to site lessees of the property who come into possession after
the date of judgment so that all current site lessees at the property shall be allowed to continue
their leases at rents regulated by the Ordinance. When a current site lessee at the property
transfers his leasehold to a new resident upon the sale of the accompanying mobilehome, the
Ordinance shall be enjoined as to the next resident and any future resident. The Ordinance shall
be enjoined as to all residents ten years from the entry of judgment. The Court directed the
Company to submit a proposed form of judgment, which the Company submitted on April 21, 2009, the
form of which was agreed to by all parties. The Fee Order awarded certain amounts of attorneys
fees to the Company with respect to its constitutional claims, certain amounts to the City with
respect to the Companys contract claims, the net effect of which was that the City must pay the
Company approximately $1.8 million. In the Fee Order the Court also directed the parties to confer
and agree if they can on an allocation and award of costs in accordance with the courts
determinations on the attorneys fees.
The Companys efforts to achieve a balanced regulatory environment incentivize tenant groups
to file lawsuits against the Company seeking large damage awards. The homeowners association at
Contempo Marin (CMHOA), a 396 site Property in San Rafael, California, sued the Company in
December 2000 over a prior settlement agreement on a capital expenditure pass-through after the
Company sued the City of San Rafael in October 2000 alleging its rent control ordinance is
unconstitutional. In the Contempo Marin case, the CMHOA prevailed on a motion for summary judgment
on an issue that permits the Company to collect only $3.72 out of a monthly pass-through amount of
$7.50 that the Company believed had been agreed to by the CMHOA in a settlement agreement. The
CMHOA continued to seek damages from the Company in this matter. The Company reached a settlement
with the CMHOA in this matter which allows the Company to recover $3.72 of the requested monthly
pass-through and does not provide for the payment of any damages to the CMHOA. Both the CMHOA and
the Company brought motions to recover their respective attorneys fees in the matter, which
motions were heard by the Court in January 2007. On January 12, 2007, the Court granted CMHOAs
motion for attorneys fees in the amount of $347,000 and denied the Companys motion for attorneys
fees. The Company appealed both decisions. On September 19, 2008, the Court of Appeal affirmed
the attorneys fees rulings. The Company filed a Petition for Rehearing of that appellate
decision. On October 17, 2008, the Court of Appeal issued an order modifying its original opinion
in
certain respects without changing its judgment. The Company petitioned the California
Supreme Court for review of the decision, which was denied. Accordingly, the Company has paid the
CMHOAs attorneys fees as previously ordered by the trial court and,
27
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
pursuant to an agreement of the parties, incurred on appeal. The Company believes that such
lawsuits will be a consequence of the Companys efforts to change rent control since tenant groups
actively desire to preserve the premium value of their homes in addition to the discounted rents
provided by rent control. The Company has determined that its efforts to rebalance the regulatory
environment despite the risk of litigation from tenant groups are necessary not only because of the
$15 million annual subsidy to tenants, but also because of the condemnation risk.
In June 2003, the Company won a judgment against the City of Santee in California Superior
Court (case no. 777094). The effect of the judgment was to invalidate, on state law grounds, two
(2) rent control ordinances the City of Santee had enforced against the Company and other property
owners. However, the Court allowed the City to continue to enforce a rent control ordinance that
predated the two invalid ordinances (the prior ordinance). As a result of the judgment the
Company was entitled to collect a one-time rent increase based upon the difference in annual
adjustments between the invalid ordinance(s) and the prior ordinance and to adjust its base rents
to reflect what the Company could have charged had the prior ordinance been continually in effect.
The City of Santee appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court refused
to stay enforcement of these rent adjustments pending appeal. After the City was unable to obtain
a stay, the City and the tenant association each sued the Company in separate actions alleging the
rent adjustments pursuant to the judgment violate the prior ordinance (Case Nos. GIE 020887 and GIE
020524). They seek to rescind the rent adjustments, refunds of amounts paid, and penalties and
damages in these separate actions. On January 25, 2005, the California Court of Appeal reversed
the judgment in part and affirmed it in part with a remand. The Court of Appeal affirmed that one
ordinance was unlawfully adopted and therefore void and that the second ordinance contained
unconstitutional provisions. However, the Court ruled the City had the authority to cure the
issues with the first ordinance retroactively and that the City could sever the unconstitutional
provisions in the second ordinance. On remand, the trial court was directed to decide the issue of
damages to the Company from these ordinances, which the Company believes is consistent not only
with the Company receiving the economic benefit of invalidating one of the ordinances, but also
consistent with the Companys position that it is entitled to market rent and not merely a higher
amount of regulated rent. The remand action was tried to the court in the third quarter of 2007.
On January 25, 2008, the trial court issued a preliminary ruling determining that the Company had
not incurred any damages from these ordinances and actions primarily on the grounds that the
ordinances afforded the Company a fair rate of return. The Company sought clarification of this
ruling. On April 9, 2008, the court issued a final statement of decision that included a
clarification stating that the constitutional issues were not resolved on the merits and that the
court had not determined that the ordinances afforded the Company a fair rate of return outside the
remand period. The trial court granted a motion for restitution filed by the City in Case No. GIE
020524. The Company filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2008. In order to avoid further trial and
the related expenses, the Company agreed to a stipulated judgment, which requires the Company to
put into escrow after entry of the judgment, pending appeal, funds sufficient to pay the judgment
with prejudgment interest while preserving the Companys appellate rights. The parties also
disputed whether the trial courts decision to award restitution encompassed an award of
prejudgment interest, as to which the parties submitted additional briefs to the trial court for
decision. On October 31, 2008, the court awarded the City some but not all of the prejudgment
interest it sought. The stipulated judgment was entered on November 5, 2008, and the Company
deposited into the escrow the amounts required by the judgment and continues to deposit monthly
disputed amounts until the disputes are resolved on appeal. The appeal is proceeding and briefing
is anticipated to commence in the near future. The tenant association continued to seek damages,
penalties and fees in their separate action based on the same claims made on the tenants behalf by
the City in the Citys case. The Company moved for judgment on the pleadings in the tenant
associations case on the ground that the tenant associations case is moot in light of the
stipulated judgment in the Citys case. On November 6, 2008, the Court granted the Companys
motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The tenant association sought
reconsideration of that ruling, which was denied. The tenant association has filed a notice of
appeal. Briefing on that appeal has not yet commenced.
In addition, the Company has sued the City of Santee in federal court alleging all three of
the ordinances are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Thus, it is the Companys position that the ordinances are subject to invalidation
as a matter of law in the federal court action. Separately, the Federal District Court granted the
Citys Motion for Summary Judgment in the Companys federal
court lawsuit. This decision was based not on the merits, but on procedural grounds,
including that the Companys claims were moot given its success in the state court case. The
Company appealed the decision, and on May 3, 2007 the
28
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Courts decision on
procedural grounds. The Company intends to continue to pursue an adjudication of its rights on the
merits in Federal Court through claims that are not subject to such procedural defenses.
In October 2004, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in State of Hawaii vs.
Chevron USA, Inc., a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case that upheld the standard that a
regulation must substantially advance a legitimate state purpose in order to be constitutionally
viable under the Fifth Amendment. On May 24, 2005 the United States Supreme Court reversed the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion that clarified the standard of review for regulatory
takings brought under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the heightened scrutiny
applied by the Ninth Circuit is not the applicable standard in a regulatory takings analysis, but
is an appropriate factor for determining if a due process violation has occurred. The Court
further clarified that regulatory takings would be determined in significant part by an analysis of
the economic impact of the regulation. The Company believes that the severity of the economic
impact on its Properties caused by rent control will enable it to continue to challenge the rent
regulations under the Fifth Amendment and the due process clause.
As a result of the Companys efforts to achieve a level of regulatory fairness in California,
a commercial lending company, 21st Mortgage Corporation, a Delaware corporation, sued
MHC Financing Limited Partnership. Such lawsuit asserts that certain rent increases implemented by
the partnership pursuant to the rights afforded to the property owners under the City of San Joses
rent control ordinance were invalid or unlawful. 21st Mortgage has asserted that it
should benefit from the vacancy control provisions of the Citys ordinance as if 21st
Mortgage were a homeowner and contrary to the ordinances provision that rents may be increased
without restriction upon termination of the homeowners tenancy. In each of the disputed cases,
the Company believes it had terminated the tenancy of the homeowner (21st Mortgages
borrower) through the legal process. The Court, in granting 21st Mortgages motion for
summary judgment, has indicated that 21st Mortgage may be a homeowner within the
meaning of the ordinance. The Company does not believe that 21st Mortgage can show that
it has ever applied for tenancy, entered into a rental agreement or been accepted as a homeowner in
the communities. A bench trial in this matter concluded in January 2008 with the trial court
determining that the Company had validly exercised its rights under the rent control ordinance,
that the Company had not violated the ordinance and that 21st Mortgage was not entitled
to the benefit of rent control protection in the circumstances presented. In April 2008, the
Company filed a petition for attorneys fees and costs. On August 22, 2008, the Court granted the
Company $0.4 million in attorneys fees and costs. On October 20, 2008, the Company entered a
Post-Judgment Agreement with 21st Mortgage pursuant to which 21st Mortgage
paid the Company the $0.4 million in attorneys fees and costs that the court had awarded, and the
parties agreed to let the trial courts judgment stand, to otherwise end the litigation, and
exchanged releases.
Countryside at Vero Beach
On January 12, 2006, the Company was served with a complaint filed in Indian River County
Circuit Court on behalf of a purported class of homeowners at Countryside at Vero Beach. The
complaint includes counts for alleged violations of the Florida Mobile Home Act and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and claims that the Company required homeowners to pay
water and sewer impact fees, either to the Company or to the County, as a condition of initial or
continued occupancy in the Park, without properly disclosing the fees in advance and
notwithstanding the Companys position that all such fees were fully paid in connection with the
settlement agreement described above. On February 8, 2006, the Company served its motion to
dismiss the complaint. In May 2007, the Court granted the Companys motion to dismiss, but also
allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the
Company has also moved to dismiss. Before any ruling on the Companys motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, the plaintiff asked for and received leave to file a second amended complaint,
which the plaintiff filed on April 11, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the Company filed an answer and a
motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment was denied with leave to resubmit
the motion after further discovery. On or about February 4, 2009, the Company accepted the
Plaintiffs offer to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice in exchange for the Companys
waiver of any claim for attorneys fees.
29
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
Colony Park
On December 1, 2006, a group of tenants at the Companys Colony Park Property in Ceres,
California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Stanislaus County alleging that
the Company has failed to properly maintain the Property and has improperly reduced the services
provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company has answered the complaint by
denying all material allegations and filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief and damages. The
case will proceed in Superior Court because the Companys motion to compel arbitration was denied
and the denial was upheld on appeal. Discovery has commenced. The Company filed a motion for
summary adjudication of various of the plaintiffs claims and allegations, which was denied. The
Court has set a trial date for August 4, 2009. The Company believes that the allegations in the
first amended complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Californias Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a Notice of
Violation dated August 21, 2006 regarding the sewer system at Colony Park. The notice ordered the
Company to replace the Propertys sewer system or show justification from a third party explaining
why the sewer system does not need to be replaced. The Company has provided such third party
report to HCD and believes that the sewer system does not need to be replaced. Based upon
information provided by the Company to HCD to date, HCD has indicated that it agrees that the
entire system does not need to be replaced.
Rancho Mesa
On December 31, 2003, the tenants association at the Companys Rancho Mesa Property in El
Cahon, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for San Diego County alleging
that the Company had failed to properly maintain the Property and had improperly increased rents,
among other allegations. The case was settled in May 2006 pursuant to an agreement to offer
favorable long-term leases to residents. The association repudiated the settlement agreement and
appealed the trial courts decision that the case was settled. The California Court of Appeal
remanded the case with directions to the trial court to clarify the pleadings and move forward with
pretrial and trial proceedings. Discovery has proceeded and the case is currently set for trial on
June 5, 2009. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
California Hawaiian
On April 30, 2009, a group of tenants at the Companys California Hawaiian Property in San
Jose, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County alleging
that the Company has failed to properly maintain the Property and has improperly reduced the
services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Hurricane Claim Litigation
On June 22, 2007 the Company filed suit, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case
No. 07CH16548), against its insurance carriers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Essex Insurance
Company, Lexington Insurance Company, and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, regarding a
coverage dispute arising from losses suffered by the Company as a result of hurricanes that
occurred in Florida in 2004 and 2005. The Company also brought claims against Aon Risk Services,
Inc. of Illinois, the Companys insurance broker, regarding the procurement of appropriate
insurance coverage for the Company. The Company is seeking declaratory relief establishing the
coverage obligations of its carriers, as well as a judgment for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair settlement practices and, as to Aon, for failure to
provide ordinary care in the selling and procuring of insurance. The claims involved in this action
exceed $11 million.
In response to motions to dismiss, the trial court dismissed: (1) the requests for declaratory
relief as being duplicative of the claims for breach of contract and (2) certain of the breach of
contract claims as being not ripe until
the limits of underlying insurance policies have been exhausted. On or about January 28,
2008, the Company filed its Second Amended Complaint. Aon filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint in its entirety as against
30
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
Aon, and the insurers moved to dismiss portions of the Second Amended Complaint as against them.
The insurers motion was denied and they have now answered the Second Amended Complaint. Aons
motion was granted, with leave granted to the Company to file an amended pleading containing
greater factual specificity. The Company did so by adding to the Second Amended Complaint a new
Count VII against Aon, which the Company filed on August 15, 2008. Aon then answered the new Count
VII in part and moved to strike certain of its allegations. The Court left Count VII undisturbed,
except for ruling that the Companys alternative claim that Aon was negligent in carrying out its
duty to give notice to certain of the insurance carriers on the Companys behalf should be
re-pleaded in the form of a breach of contract theory. On February 2, 2009, the Company filed such
a claim in the form of a new Count VIII against Aon. Aon has answered Count VIII. Written
discovery proceedings have commenced.
Since filing the lawsuit, the Company has received additional payments from Essex Insurance
Company, Lexington Insurance Company, and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, of
approximately $2.6 million. In January 2008 the Company entered a settlement with Hartford Fire
Insurance Company pursuant to which Hartford paid the Company the remaining disputed limits of
Hartfords insurance policy, in the amount of approximately $516,000, and the Company dismissed and
released Hartford from additional claims for interest and bad faith claims handling.
California and Washington Wage Claim Class Actions
On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in California state
court filed by a single named plaintiff. The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA Transaction,
the Company and other named defendants willfully failed to pay former California employees of
Privileged Access and its affiliates (PA) who became employees of the Company all of the wages
they earned during their employment with PA, including accrued vacation time. The suit also
alleges that the Company improperly stripped those employees of their seniority. The suit
asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor Code; alleged violation of the
California Business & Professions Code and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of
contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and for alleged unjust
enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory and statutory damages;
restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorneys fees, expenses and costs;
penalties; and exemplary and punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a dollar amount
sought. On December 18, 2008, the Company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the complaint in
its entirety without leave to amend. The demurrer has been fully briefed. The hearing on the
demurrer has been set for May 13, 2009. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in Washington state
court filed by a single named plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the
California class action. The complaint asserts on behalf of a putative class of Washington
employees of PA who became employees of the Company substantially similar allegations as are
alleged in the California class action. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion
to dismiss was fully briefed by the parties. On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first
cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for failure to pay accrued
vacation time; (2) the second cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor
Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of action, which alleged a claim under
the Washington Labor Code for payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of
action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The court did not
dismiss the fifth cause of action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action of the breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and the seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Cascade
On December 10, 2008, the King County Hospital District No. 4 (the Hospital District) filed
suit against the Company seeking a declaratory judgment that it had properly rescinded an agreement
to acquire the Companys Thousand Trails Cascade property (Cascade) located 20 miles east of
Seattle, Washington. The agreement was entered into after the Hospital District had passed a
resolution authorizing the condemnation of Cascade. Under the agreement, in lieu of a formal
condemnation proceeding, the Company agreed to accept from the Hospital District
31
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
$12.5 million for the property with an earnest money deposit of $350,000. The Company has not
included in income the $350,000 earnest money deposit received. The closing of the transaction was
originally scheduled in January 2008, and was extended to April 2009. The Company has filed an
answer to the Hospital Districts suit and a counterclaim seeking recovery of the amounts owed
under the agreement. On February 27, 2009, the Hospital District filed a summary judgment motion
arguing that it was entitled to rescind the agreement because the property is zoned residential and
the Company did not provide the Hospital District a residential real estate disclosure form. On
April 2, 2009, the Court denied the Hospital Districts summary judgment motion, ruling that a real
property owner who is compelled to transfer land under the power of eminent domain is not legally
required to provide a disclosure form. The Hospital District filed a motion for reconsideration of
the summary judgment ruling. On April 22, 2009, the Court reaffirmed its ruling that a real
property owner that is compelled to transfer land under eminent domain is not legally required to
provide a disclosure form. The Company will vigorously pursue its rights under the agreement. Due
to the anticipated transfer of the property, the Company closed Cascade in October 2007.
Brennan Beach
The Law Enforcement Division of the New York Department of Environmental Compliance (DEC)
has investigated certain allegations relating to the operation of the onsite wastewater treatment
plant and the use of adjacent wetlands at Brennan Beach, which is located in Pulaski, New York.
The allegations included assertions of unlawful point source discharges, permit discharge
exceedances, and placing material in a wetland buffer area without a permit. Representatives of
the Company attended meetings with the DEC in November 2007, April 2008, May 2008 and June 2008, at
which the alleged violations were discussed, and the Company has cooperated with the DEC
investigation. No formal notices have been issued to the Company asserting specific violations,
but the DEC has indicated that it believes the Company is responsible for certain of the alleged
violations. As a result of discussions with the DEC, the Company has agreed to enter into a civil
consent order pursuant to which the Company will pay a penalty of $50,000 and undertake an
environmental benefit project at a cost of $150,000 in connection with the alleged violations. The
consent order is being prepared but has not yet been sent by the DEC pursuant to that agreement and
the amounts expected to be paid under the consent order were accrued as property operating expenses
during the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Appalachian RV
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook an investigation of potential lead
contamination at Appalachian RV, which is located in Shartlesville, Pennsylvania, reportedly
stemming from observations of remnants of old auto battery parts at the Property. In late November
and early December 2007, the EPA conducted an assessment by taking samples of surface soil,
sediment, surface water, and well water at the Property. The Company is cooperating with the EPA.
In March 2008, the EPA issued a report regarding the findings of the sampling (EPA Report).
The EPA Report found no elevated concentrations of lead in either the sediment samples, surface
water samples, or well water samples. However, out of the more than 800 soil samples the EPA took,
which were collected from locations throughout the Property, the EPA Report identified elevated
levels of lead in 61 samples.
Following issuance of the EPA Report, the EPA sent the Company a Notice of Potential Liability
for a cleanup of the elevated lead levels at the Property, and a proposed administrative consent
order seeking the Companys agreement to conduct such a cleanup. On April 9, 2008, the Company
submitted a response suggesting that the Company conduct additional soil testing, which the EPA
approved, to determine what type of cleanup might be appropriate.
The EPA also advised the Company that, because elevated arsenic levels were detected at six
locations at the Property during the EPAs testing for lead, at the suggestion of the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the EPA further analyzed for potentially elevated
arsenic levels the samples it previously collected. As a result of that analysis, the Company
engaged a laboratory to analyze those samples for elevated
arsenic levels. In light of these results, the additional soil testing the Company is
conducting will test for arsenic as well as lead.
32
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
The additional soil testing commenced in July 2008 and was completed in August 2008. Based on
the results of the additional soil testing, the Company entered a contract with an environmental
consulting company to remediate the site and, with the permission of the EPA, submitted a notice of
intent to remediate the site under the supervision of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP). The contaminated soil has been excavated and delivered to facilities
approved for receiving such contaminated waste, and has been replaced at the property by clean
fill. On February 20, 2009, the Company submitted a Remedial Investigation/Final Report to PADEP
regarding the cleanup of the Property. On April 17, 2009, PADEP issued its Approval of Final
Report, Appalachian RV Resort, which concluded that [p]ost excavation sampling of the areas of
concern demonstrate attainment of the Residential Statewide Health Standard for lead and arsenic in
soils.
In addition, the local township in which the Property is located issued a notice of violation
regarding the operation of the wastewater system with respect to various sites at the Property.
The Company has reached agreement with the township regarding connecting portions of the property
to the townships sewer system, pursuant to which the issues raised by the townships notice of
violation have been resolved and the township has agreed to waive any potential penalties
associated with the notice of violation.
As a result of these circumstances, the Company decided not to open the Property until these
issues were resolved. The Company expects to re-open the Property in time for the 2009 season.
Gulf View in Punta Gorda
In 2004, the Company acquired ownership of various property owning entities, including an
entity owning a property called Gulf View, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Gulf View continues to be held
in a special purpose entity. At the time of acquisition of the entity owning Gulf View, it was
financed with a secured loan that was cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted with a loan on
another property whose ownership entity was not acquired. At the time of acquisition, the
Operating Partnership guaranteed certain obligations relating to exceptions from the non-recourse
nature of the loans. Because of certain penalties associated with repayment of these loans, the
loans have not been restructured and the terms and conditions remain the same today. The
approximate outstanding amount of the loan secured by Gulf View is $1.4 million and of the crossed
loan secured by the other property is $5.5 million. The Company is not aware of any notice of
default regarding either of the loans; however, should the owner of the cross-collateralized
property default, the special purpose entity owning Gulf View and the Operating Partnership may be
impacted to the extent of their obligations.
Florida Utility Operations
The Company received notice from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
that as a result of a compliance inspection it is alleging violations of Florida law relating to
the operation of onsite water plants and wastewater treatment plants at seven properties in
Florida. The alleged violations relate to record keeping and reporting requirements, physical and
operating deficiencies and permit compliance. The Company has investigated each of the alleged
violations, including a review of a third party operator hired to oversee such operations. The
Company met with the DEP in November 2007 to respond to the alleged violations and as a follow-up
to such meeting provided a written response to the DEP in December 2007. In light of the Companys
written response, in late January 2008 the DEP conducted a follow-up compliance inspection at each
of the seven properties. In early March 2008, the DEP provided the Company comments in connection
with the follow-up inspection, which made various recommendations and raised certain additional
alleged violations similar in character to those alleged after the initial inspection. The Company
has investigated and responded to the additional alleged violations. While the outcome of this
investigation remains uncertain, the Company expects to resolve the issues raised by the DEP by
entering into a consent decree in which the Company will agree to make certain improvements in its
facilities and operations to resolve the issues and pay certain costs and penalties associated with
the violations. In August 2008, the DEP provided the Company a proposed consent order for
resolving the issues raised by the DEP, the details of which the Company negotiated with the DEP.
On December 2, 2008, a Consent Order was entered resolving the issues raised by the DEP. Pursuant
to the Consent Order, the Company paid $5,000 for costs incurred by the DEP.
The Company also agreed to pay a penalty of $113,499, which is subject to reduction in the event
the Company elects to perform in-kind capital
33
Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies (continued)
improvement projects that the DEP approves. The Company has proposed one such project and may
propose another, subject to DEP approval. Accordingly, the amount of the $113,499 penalty that the
Company will ultimately be required to pay is not yet certain. The Company also replaced its third
party operator hired to oversee onsite water and wastewater operations at each of the seven
properties. The Company is evaluating the costs of any improvements to its facilities, which would
be capital expenditures depreciated over the estimated useful life of the improvement. During the
course of this investigation, one permit for operation of a wastewater treatment plant expired. The
Company applied for renewal of the permit and expects the DEP to grant the application after
certain determinations and capital improvements are made. In the meantime, the Company is
permitted to operate the wastewater treatment plant pursuant to the Consent Order.
Other
The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of
business. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, notices, consent decrees, additional
permit requirements and other similar enforcement actions by governmental agencies relating to the
Companys water and wastewater treatment plants and other waste treatment facilities.
Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, the Companys operations are subject to audit by
various taxing authorities. Management believes that all proceedings herein described or referred
to, taken together, are not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company. In
addition, to the extent any such proceedings or audits relate to newly acquired Properties, the
Company considers any potential indemnification obligations of sellers in favor of the Company.
34
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Overview
The Company is a self-administered, self-managed, real estate investment trust (REIT) with
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. The Company is a fully integrated owner and operator of
lifestyle-oriented properties (Properties). The Company leases individual developed areas
(sites) with access to utilities for placement of factory built homes, cottages, cabins or
recreational vehicles (RVs). Customers may lease individual sites or purchase right-to-use
contracts providing the customer access to specific Properties for limited stays. The Company was
formed to continue the property operations, business objectives and acquisition strategies of an
entity that had owned and operated Properties since 1969. As of March 31, 2009, the Company owned
or had an ownership interest in a portfolio of 309 Properties located throughout the United States
and Canada containing 111,102 residential sites. These Properties are located in 28 states and
British Columbia (with the number of Properties in each state or province shown parenthetically, as
follows): Florida (86), California (48), Arizona (35), Texas (15), Washington (14), Pennsylvania
(13), Colorado (10), Oregon (9), North Carolina (8), Delaware (7), Nevada (6), Virginia (6),
Wisconsin (6), New York (6), Indiana (5), Maine (5), Illinois (4), New Jersey (4), Massachusetts
(4), Michigan (3), South Carolina (3), New Hampshire (2), Ohio (2), Tennessee (2), Utah (2),
Alabama (1), Kentucky (1), Montana (1), and British Columbia (1).
This report includes certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used, words such as anticipate, expect,
believe, project, intend, may be and will be and similar words or phrases, or the
negative thereof, unless the context requires otherwise, are intended to identify forward-looking
statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and
uncertainties, including, but not limited to:
|
|
|
in the age-qualified properties, home sales results could be impacted by the ability of
potential homebuyers to sell their existing residences as well as by financial, credit and
capital markets volatility; |
|
|
|
|
in the all-age properties, results from home sales and occupancy will continue to be
impacted by local economic conditions, lack of affordable manufactured home financing, and
competition from alternative housing options including site-built single-family housing; |
|
|
|
|
in the properties we recently started operating as a result of the PA Transaction, our
ability to control costs, property market conditions, the actual rate of decline in
customers, the actual use of sites by customers and our success in acquiring new customers; |
|
|
|
|
our ability to maintain rental rates and occupancy with respect to properties currently
owned or pending acquisitions; |
|
|
|
|
our assumptions about rental and home sales markets; |
|
|
|
|
the completion of pending acquisitions and timing with respect thereto; |
|
|
|
|
ability to obtain financing or refinance existing debt; |
|
|
|
|
the effect of interest rates; |
|
|
|
|
the effect of accounting for the sale of agreements to customers representing a
right-to-use the properties previously leased by Privileged Access under Staff Accounting
Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition in Consolidated Financial Statements, Corrected; and |
|
|
|
|
other risks indicated from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. |
These forward-looking statements are based on managements present expectations and beliefs about
future events. As with any projection or forecast, these statements are inherently susceptible to
uncertainty and changes in circumstances. The Company is under no obligation to, and expressly
disclaims any obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements whether as a result of
such changes, new information, subsequent events or otherwise.
35
The following chart lists the Properties acquired, invested in, or sold since January 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property |
|
Transaction Date |
|
Sites |
Total Sites as of January 1, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
112,779 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property or Portfolio (# of Properties in parentheses): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grandy Creek (1) |
|
January 14, 2008 |
|
|
179 |
|
Lake George Schroon Valley Resort (1) |
|
January 23, 2008 |
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expansion Site Development and other: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sites added (reconfigured) in 2008 |
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dispositions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morgan Portfolio JV (5) |
|
2008 |
|
|
(1,134 |
) |
Round Top JV (1) |
|
February 13, 2009 |
|
|
(319 |
) |
Pine Haven JV (1) |
|
February 13, 2009 |
|
|
(625 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sites as of March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
111,102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since December 31, 2007, the gross investment in real estate has increased from $2,396 million
to $2,517 million as of March 31, 2009.
36
Outlook
Occupancy in our Properties as well as our ability to increase rental rates directly affects
revenues. Our revenue streams are predominantly derived from customers renting our sites on a
long-term basis. Revenues are subject to seasonal fluctuations and as such quarterly interim
results may not be indicative of full fiscal year results.
We have approximately 65,700 annual sites, approximately 9,000 seasonal sites, which are
leased to customers generally for three to six months, and approximately 9,000 transient sites,
occupied by customers who lease sites on a short-term basis. The revenue from seasonal and
transient sites is generally higher during the first and third quarters. We expect to service over
100,000 customers at our transient sites and we consider this revenue stream to be our most
volatile. It is subject to weather conditions, gas prices, and other factors affecting the
marginal RV customers vacation and travel preferences. Finally, we have approximately 24,300
sites designated as right-to-use sites which are utilized to service the approximately 116,000
customers who own right-to-use contracts. We also have interests in Properties containing
approximately 3,100 sites for which revenue is classified as Equity in income from unconsolidated
joint ventures in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sites as of |
|
Total Sites as of |
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
(rounded to 000s) |
|
(rounded to 000s) |
Community sites (1) |
|
|
44,900 |
|
|
|
44,800 |
|
Resort sites : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual |
|
|
20,800 |
|
|
|
20,100 |
|
Seasonal |
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
|
8,800 |
|
Transient |
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
|
8,800 |
|
Right-to-use |
|
|
24,300 |
|
|
|
24,300 |
|
Joint Ventures (2) |
|
|
3,100 |
|
|
|
5,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111,100 |
|
|
|
112,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total includes 655 sites from discontinued operations. |
|
(2) |
|
Joint Venture income is included in Equity in income of unconsolidated joint
ventures. |
Our home sales volumes and gross profits have been declining since 2005. We believe that the
disruption in the site-built housing market may be contributing to the decline in our home sales
operations as potential customers are not able to sell their existing site-built homes as well as
increased price sensitivity for seasonal and second homebuyers. We believe that our potential
customers are also having difficulty obtaining financing on resort homes, resort cottages and RV
purchases. The continued decline in homes sales activity in 2008 resulted in our decision to
significantly reduce our new home sales operation during the last couple months of 2008 and until
such time as new home sales markets improve. We believe that renting our vacant new homes may
represent an attractive source of occupancy and potentially convert to a new homebuyer in the
future. We also believe that some customers that are capable of purchasing are opting instead to
rent due to the current economic environment.
One trend that emerged in 2008 and is continuing in the economic environment is a desire for
simplification in both financial and social interactions. We have adjusted our business to respond
to our customers desire to spend more wisely and preserve capital while still engaging in an
active and vibrant lifestyle. These changes include new membership and affinity products in our
resort Properties and a focus on smaller, more energy efficient and more affordable homes in our
manufactured home Properties. We have also adjusted our business model with the introduction of
low-cost internet and alternate distribution channels that focus on the installed base of almost
eight million RV owners.
RV manufacturers and dealers experienced the second year of declining volumes in 2008 with current
monthly activity reflecting precipitous declines over the prior year. Availability of financing
for both floor plan inventory and retail customers has been severely constrained and there is
little hope for improvement in 2009. Although industry experts are predicting shipments of
approximately 180,000 RV units in 2009, down from the estimated 237,000 in 2008, the current
annualized run rate is less than 100,000 units. As with the decline experienced by the
manufactured home
industry, the remaining participants survival depends on their ability to react to the new
environment. We believe that the aggregate demand for housing in 2009 will be negatively impacted
by job losses, economic uncertainty and
37
dislocation in the credit markets, while the huge overhang of supply would continue to negatively
impact pricing of both for sale and for rent housing. Although, with this backdrop we believe 2009
will present challenges we also believe we are well positioned to continue delivering stable
performance.
With respect to community rental rate growth, we have indicated that a significant portion of
our rental agreements are directly or indirectly tied to published CPI statistics that are issued
during June through September each year. During June to September 2008, CPI was increasing at an
annualized rate of excess of 5%. Due to the disruption we saw in the housing markets, we mitigated
some of our 2009 rental increases despite these higher CPI figures. These next six months have
important implications for 2010 rental rate growth. To the extent the unprecedented monetary and
fiscal stimulus create inflation, the timing of when these measures take hold could significantly
impact the published CPI measures and our rent increase notice process. A continued decline in the
overall housing markets would likely also impact our 2010 rent increase notice process. To
evaluate a low or no inflation environment, we have modeled our portfolio assuming CPI statistics
reflect zero or even negative price changes. Under these flat to slightly negative index
assumptions, we currently expect 2010 rent growth of approximately 1%.
Government Stimulus
In response to recent market disruptions, legislators and financial regulators implemented a
number of mechanisms designed to add stability to the financial markets, including the provision of
direct and indirect assistance to distressed financial institutions, assistance by the banking
authorities in arranging acquisitions of weakened banks and broker-dealers, implementation of
programs by the Federal Reserve to provide liquidity to the commercial paper markets and temporary
prohibitions on short sales of certain financial institution securities. On October 3, 2008, the
then President of the United States signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
(EESA). The EESA provided the U.S. Secretary of Treasury with the authority to establish a
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), to purchase from financial institutions up to $700 billion
of residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that
are based on, or related to, such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or
before March 14, 2008, as well as any other financial instrument that the U.S. Secretary of
Treasury, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, upon
transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress.
In addition, the U.S. Secretary of Treasury has the authority to establish a program to guarantee,
upon request from a financial institution, the timely payment of principal and interest on these
financial assets.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) into law, which is more commonly known as the economic stimulus or economic recovery
package. ARRA includes a wide variety of programs intended to stimulate the economy and provide for
extensive infrastructure, energy, health, and education needs. In addition, ARRA imposes certain
new executive compensation and corporate expenditure limits on all current and future TARP
recipients, that are in addition to those previously announced by the U.S. Treasury, until the
institution has repaid the U.S. Treasury, which is now permitted under ARRA without penalty and
without the need to raise new capital, subject to the U.S. Treasurys consultation with the
recipients appropriate regulatory agency.
EESA and ARRA followed, and have been followed by, numerous actions by the Federal Reserve,
Congress, U.S. Treasury, the SEC and others to address the current liquidity and credit crisis that
has followed the sub-prime crisis that commenced in 2007. These measures include, but are not
limited to, homeowner relief that encourages loan restructuring and modification; the establishment
of significant liquidity and credit facilities for financial institutions and investment banks; the
lowering of the federal funds rate, including two 50 basis point decreases in October of 2008;
emergency action against short selling practices; a temporary guaranty program for money market
funds; the establishment of a commercial paper funding facility to provide back-stop liquidity to
commercial paper issuers; and coordinated international efforts to address illiquidity and other
weaknesses in the banking sector. It is not clear at this time what impact the EESA, ARRA, the
Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the TARP, other liquidity and funding initiatives of the Federal
Reserve and other agencies that have been previously announced, and any additional programs that
may be initiated in the future will have on the financial markets, including the extreme levels of
volatility and limited credit availability currently being experienced, or on the U.S. banking and
financial industries and the broader U.S. and global economies.
38
The overall effects of these and other legislative and regulatory efforts on the financial
markets is uncertain, and they may not have the intended stabilization effects. Should these or
other legislative or regulatory initiatives fail to stabilize and add liquidity to the financial
markets, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially
and adversely affected. Even if legislative or regulatory initiatives or other efforts
successfully stabilize and add liquidity to the financial markets, we may need to modify our
strategies, businesses or operations, and we may incur increased capital requirements and
constraints or additional costs in order to satisfy new regulatory requirements or to compete in a
changed business environment. It is uncertain what effects recently enacted or future legislation
or regulatory initiatives will have on us. Given the volatile nature of the current market
disruption and the uncertainties underlying efforts to mitigate or reverse the disruption, we may
not timely anticipate or manage existing, new or additional risks, contingencies or developments,
including regulatory developments and trends in new products and services, in the current or future
environment. Our failure to do so could materially and adversely affect our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
Privileged Access
Privileged Access is owned by Mr. McAdams, the Companys President since January 1, 2008. On
August 14, 2008, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of
Privileged Access for an unsecured note payable of $2.0 million. Prior to the purchase, Privileged
Access had a 12-year lease with the Company that terminated upon closing. The $2.0 million
unsecured note payable matures on August 14, 2010 and accrues interest at 10 percent per annum.
At the closing, Privileged Access put its excess cash of
approximately $4.8 million into an escrow
account for liabilities that Privileged Access has retained. The balance in the escrow account as
of March 31, 2009 was approximately $2.4 million. The excess cash in the escrow account, if any,
will be paid to the Company after a period of two years.
The preliminary purchase price allocation has been recorded as of August 14, 2008. The
preliminary allocation does not include a receivable for the contingent cash in the escrow as the
amount and timing of collection is uncertain. Further adjustments to the purchase price allocation
may be necessary within the one-year allocation period allowed by FAS 141.
Privileged Access owned Thousand Trails (TT) from April 14, 2006 until August 13, 2008. The
Company assumed TTs operations in connection with the PA Transaction. TTs primary business
consists of selling right-to-use contracts that entitle the purchasers to use certain properties
(the Agreements), a business that TT has been engaged in for almost 40 years. Our 82 Properties
utilized to service the Agreements generally contain designated sites for the placement of
recreational vehicles which service the customer base of over 100,000 families. The PA Transaction
included all of the existing Agreements that require the customer to make annual payments to
maintain the Agreement.
Several different Agreements are currently offered to new customers. These front-line
Agreements are generally distinguishable from each other by the number of Properties a customer can
access. The Agreements generally grant the customer the contractual right-to-use designated space
within the Properties on a continuous basis for up to 14 days. The Agreements are generally for
three years and require nonrefundable upfront payments as well as annual payments. The Company has
recently introduced one-year memberships that require smaller upfront and/or annual payments that
can be purchased through the internet and other alternate distribution channels.
Existing customers may be offered an upgrade Agreement from time-to-time. The upgrade
Agreement is currently distinguishable from the new Agreement by (1) increased length of
consecutive stay by 50 percent (i.e. up to 21 days); (2) ability to make earlier advance
reservations and (3) access to additional properties. Each upgrade requires an additional
nonrefundable upfront payment. The Company may finance the upfront nonrefundable payment under any
Agreement.
The PA Transaction also included the purchase of the operations of Resort Parks International
(RPI) and Thousand Trails Management Services, Inc. (TTMSI). Since 1983, RPI has provided a
member-only RV reciprocal camping program in North America. The RPI network offers access to 200
private RV resorts, 450 public RV campgrounds, cabins and hundreds of condominiums world wide.
TTMSI manages approximately 200 public campgrounds for the U.S. Forest Service.
39
Refer to Note 12 Transactions with Related Parties included in the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements in this Form 10-Q for a description of all agreements between the Company and
Privileged Access.
Supplemental Property Disclosure
We provide the following disclosures with respect to certain assets:
|
|
|
Tropical Palms - Beginning on July 15, 2008, Tropical Palms, a 541-site Property
located in Kissimmee, Florida, was leased to a new operator for 12 years. The lease
provides for an initial fixed annual lease payment of $1.6 million, which escalates at the
greater of CPI or three percent. Percentage rent payments are provided for beginning in
2010, subject to gross revenue floors. The Company will match the lessees capital
investment in new rental units at the Property up to a maximum of $1.5 million. The
lessee will pay the Company additional rent equal to 8 percent per year on the Companys
capital investment. The lease income recognized during the quarter ended March 31, 2009
was approximately $0.5 million and is included in income from other investments, net.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, the Company spent approximately $0.6 million to
match the lessees investment in new rental units at the Property. |
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Refer to the 2008 Form 10-K for a discussion of our critical accounting policies, which
includes impairment of real estate assets and investments, investments in unconsolidated joint
ventures, and accounting for stock compensation. During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, there
were no changes to these policies.
40
Results of Operations
The results of operations for the two Properties designated as held for disposition as of
March 31, 2009 pursuant to SFAS No. 144. See Note 4 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements for summarized information for these Properties.
Comparison of the Quarter Ended March 31, 2009 to the Quarter Ended March 31, 2008
The following table summarizes certain financial and statistical data for the Property
Operations for all Properties owned and operated for the same period in both years (Core
Portfolio) and the Total Portfolio for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 (amounts in
thousands). The Core Portfolio may change from time-to-time depending on acquisitions,
dispositions and significant transactions or unique situations. The Core Portfolio in this Form
10-Q includes all Properties acquired prior to December 31, 2007 and which were owned and operated
during the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core Portfolio |
|
|
Total Portfolio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase / |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase / |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
Change |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
% Change |
|
Community base rental income |
|
$ |
63,184 |
|
|
$ |
61,034 |
|
|
$ |
2,150 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
% |
|
$ |
63,184 |
|
|
$ |
61,034 |
|
|
$ |
2,150 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
% |
Resort base rental income |
|
|
32,629 |
|
|
|
33,194 |
|
|
|
(565 |
) |
|
|
(1.7 |
%) |
|
|
35,458 |
|
|
|
34,597 |
|
|
|
861 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
% |
Right-to-use annual payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,895 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,895 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
Right-to-use contracts current
period, gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,577 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,577 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
Right-to-use contracts,
deferred,
net of prior period
amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,163 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,163 |
) |
|
|
(100.0 |
%) |
Utility and other income |
|
|
11,378 |
|
|
|
10,662 |
|
|
|
716 |
|
|
|
6.7 |
% |
|
|
12,404 |
|
|
|
10,791 |
|
|
|
1,613 |
|
|
|
14.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating revenues |
|
|
107,191 |
|
|
|
104,890 |
|
|
|
2,301 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
% |
|
|
124,355 |
|
|
|
106,422 |
|
|
|
17,933 |
|
|
|
16.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating and
Maintenance |
|
|
32,145 |
|
|
|
32,722 |
|
|
|
(577 |
) |
|
|
(1.8 |
%) |
|
|
42,004 |
|
|
|
33,769 |
|
|
|
8,235 |
|
|
|
24.4 |
% |
Real estate taxes |
|
|
7,471 |
|
|
|
7,370 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
% |
|
|
8,456 |
|
|
|
7,440 |
|
|
|
1,016 |
|
|
|
13.7 |
% |
Sales and marketing, gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,072 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
Sales and
marketing, deferred commissions, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,493 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,493 |
) |
|
|
(100.0 |
%) |
Property management |
|
|
5,322 |
|
|
|
5,218 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
% |
|
|
8,704 |
|
|
|
5,294 |
|
|
|
3,410 |
|
|
|
64.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating expenses |
|
|
44,938 |
|
|
|
45,310 |
|
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
(0.8 |
%) |
|
|
60,743 |
|
|
|
46,503 |
|
|
|
14,240 |
|
|
|
30.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from property operations |
|
$ |
62,253 |
|
|
$ |
59,580 |
|
|
$ |
2,673 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
% |
|
$ |
63,612 |
|
|
$ |
59,919 |
|
|
$ |
3,693 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property Operating Revenues
The 2.2% increase in the Core Portfolio property operating revenues reflects: (i) a 3.5%
increase in rates in our community base rental income (ii) a 1.7% decrease in revenues for our
resort base income comprised of a decrease in seasonal and transient resort revenue, offset by an
increase in annual resort revenue and (iii) an increase in utility income due to increased
pass-throughs at certain Properties. The Total Portfolio property operating revenues increase of
16.9.% is primarily due to the consolidation of the Properties formerly leased to Privileged Access
beginning August 14, 2008 as a result of the PA Transaction. The right-to-use annual
payments represent the annual payments earned on right-to-use contracts acquired in the PA
Transaction or sold since the PA Transaction on August 14, 2008. The right-to-use contracts
current period, gross represents all right-to-use contract sales during the quarter ended March 31,
2009. The right-to-use contracts, deferred represents the deferral of current period sales into
future periods, offset by the amortization of revenue deferred in prior periods.
41
Property Operating Expenses
The 0.8% decrease in property operating expenses in the Core Portfolio reflects a 1.8%
decrease in property operating and maintenance expenses offset by a 2.0% increase in property
management expenses. The Core property operating and maintenance expense decrease is primarily due
to a decrease in administrative expenses and insurance offset by an increase in utility expenses.
Our Total Portfolio property operating and maintenance expenses increased due to the consolidation
of the Properties formerly leased to Privileged Access beginning August 14, 2008 as a result of the
PA Transaction. Total Portfolio sales and marketing expense are all related to the costs incurred
for the sale of right-to-use contracts. Core Portfolio and Total Portfolio property management
expenses primarily increased due to the PA Transaction. Sales and marketing, deferred commissions,
net represents commissions on right-to-use contract sales deferred until future periods to match
the deferral of the right-to-use contract sales, offset by the amortization of prior period
commission.
Home Sales Operations
The following table summarizes certain financial and statistical data for the Home Sales
Operations for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 (dollars in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Variance |
|
|
% Change |
|
Gross revenues from new home sales |
|
$ |
826 |
|
|
$ |
5,800 |
|
|
$ |
(4,974 |
) |
|
|
(85.6 |
%) |
Cost of new home sales |
|
|
(1,769 |
) |
|
|
(6,229 |
) |
|
|
4,460 |
|
|
|
71.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross loss from new home sales |
|
|
(943 |
) |
|
|
(429 |
) |
|
|
(514 |
) |
|
|
(119.8 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross revenues from used home sales |
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(2.5 |
%) |
Cost of used home sales |
|
|
(348 |
) |
|
|
(521 |
) |
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
33.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit (loss)from used home sales |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
(126 |
) |
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
129.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brokered resale revenues, net |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
(181 |
) |
|
|
(49.3 |
%) |
Home selling expenses |
|
|
(1,072 |
) |
|
|
(1,513 |
) |
|
|
441 |
|
|
|
29.1 |
% |
Ancillary services revenues, net |
|
|
1,156 |
|
|
|
1,448 |
|
|
|
(292 |
) |
|
|
(20.2 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from home sales operations |
|
$ |
(636 |
) |
|
$ |
(253 |
) |
|
$ |
(383 |
) |
|
|
(151.4 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home sales volumes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New home sales (1) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
(83.9 |
%) |
Used home sales |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
% |
Brokered home resales |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
(34.2 |
%) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes third party home sales of three and 24 for the quarters ending March 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively. |
Income from home sales operations decreased as a result of lower new and brokered resale
volumes and reduced gross profits per home sold, partially offset by increased volumes and gross
profits per home sold on used home sales. Gross loss from new home sales includes an increase in
the manufactured home inventory reserve of approximately $0.9 million. Home selling expenses for
2009 were down as a result of lower sales volumes and decreased advertising costs. Ancillary
services revenues, net decreased by 20.2% primarily due to $0.6 million of depreciation expense on
new and used rental homes that we started depreciating during the second quarter of 2008.
42
Rental Operations
The following table summarizes certain financial and statistical data for manufactured home
Rental Operations for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 (dollars in thousands). Except as
otherwise noted, the amounts below are included in Ancillary services revenue, net in the Home
Sales Operations table in previous section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Variance |
|
|
Change |
|
Manufactured homes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Home |
|
$ |
1,582 |
|
|
$ |
778 |
|
|
$ |
804 |
|
|
|
103.3 |
% |
Used Home |
|
|
2,126 |
|
|
|
1,689 |
|
|
|
437 |
|
|
|
25.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental operations revenue (1) |
|
|
3,708 |
|
|
|
2,467 |
|
|
|
1,241 |
|
|
|
50.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating and maintenance |
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
355 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
40.3 |
% |
Real estate taxes |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
131.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental operations expenses |
|
|
572 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
47.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from rental operations |
|
|
3,136 |
|
|
|
2,080 |
|
|
|
1,056 |
|
|
|
50.8 |
% |
Depreciation |
|
|
582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
582 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from rental operations, net of
depreciation |
|
$ |
2,554 |
|
|
$ |
2,080 |
|
|
$ |
474 |
|
|
|
22.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of occupied rentals new, end of period |
|
|
508 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
101.6 |
% |
Number of occupied rentals used, end of period |
|
|
897 |
|
|
|
804 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Approximately $2.7 million and $1.8 million as of March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively,
are included in Community base rental income in the Property Operations table. |
The increase in rental operations revenue is primarily due to the increase in the number of
occupied rentals. The increase in depreciation is due to the depreciation of the rental units
starting during the quarter ending June 30, 2008.
In the ordinary course of business, the Company acquires used homes from customers through
purchase, lien sale or abandonment. In a vibrant new home sale market the older homes may be
removed from the site to be replaced by a new home. In other cases because of the nature of
tenancy rights afforded a purchaser, the used homes are rented in order to control the site either
in the condition received or after warranted rehabilitation.
Other Income and Expenses
The following table summarizes other income and expenses for the quarters ended March 31, 2009
and 2008 (amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Variance |
|
|
Change |
|
Interest income |
|
$ |
1,383 |
|
|
$ |
387 |
|
|
$ |
996 |
|
|
|
257.4 |
% |
Income from other investments, net |
|
|
2,523 |
|
|
|
6,910 |
|
|
|
(4,387 |
) |
|
|
(63.5 |
%) |
General and administrative |
|
|
(6,157 |
) |
|
|
(5,399 |
) |
|
|
(758 |
) |
|
|
(14.0 |
%) |
Rent control initiatives |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(1,347 |
) |
|
|
1,201 |
|
|
|
89.2 |
% |
Interest and related amortization |
|
|
(24,550 |
) |
|
|
(24,984 |
) |
|
|
(434 |
) |
|
|
(1.7 |
%) |
Depreciation on corporate assets |
|
|
(168 |
) |
|
|
(98 |
) |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(71.4 |
%) |
Depreciation on real estate assets |
|
|
(17,399 |
) |
|
|
(16,274 |
) |
|
|
(1,125 |
) |
|
|
(6.9 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expenses, net |
|
$ |
(44,514 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,805 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,709 |
) |
|
|
(9.1 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income is higher primarily due to interest income on Contracts Receivable purchased
in the PA Transaction. Income from other investments, net decreased primarily due to lower
Privileged Access lease income of $6.4 million received during 2008, offset by $1.2 million of
incremental net insurance proceeds
43
received during 2009 as compared to 2008, and $0.5 million in Tropical Palms lease payments
recognized during 2009. General and administrative expense increased due to higher compensation
costs and professional fees. Rent control initiatives decreased due to the 2008 activity regarding
the City of San Rafael briefing, the City of Santee decision and 21st Mortgage trial.
(See Note 13 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for a
detailed discussion of this activity). Interest and related amortization decreased due to lower
rates and lines of credit amounts outstanding. The Company has determined that certain depreciable
assets acquired during the last three years were inadvertently omitted from prior year depreciation
expense calculations. Since the total amounts involved were immaterial to the Companys financial
position and results of operations, the Company has decided to record additional depreciation
expense in 2009 to reflect this adjustment. As a result, the quarter ended March 31, 2009 includes
approximately $1.1 million of prior period depreciation expense.
Equity in Income of Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures
increased primarily due to approximately a $1.1 million gain on the sale of a 25% interest in two
Diversified joint ventures by the Company since the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity
As of March 31, 2009, the Company had $16.7 million in cash and cash equivalents and $368.7
million available on its lines of credit. The Company expects to meet its short-term liquidity
requirements, including its distributions, generally through its working capital, net cash provided
by operating activities, proceeds from the sale of Properties and availability under the existing
lines of credit. The Company expects to meet certain long-term liquidity requirements such as
scheduled debt maturities, property acquisitions and capital improvements by long-term
collateralized and uncollateralized borrowings including borrowings under its existing lines of
credit and the issuance of debt securities or additional equity securities in the Company, in
addition to net cash provided by operating activities. The Company has approximately $48 million
of remaining scheduled debt maturities in 2009 (excluding scheduled principal payments on debt
maturing in 2010 and beyond). The Company is currently evaluating refinancing options and expects
to be able to satisfy the maturing debt with some combination of refinancing proceeds, net cash
provided by operating activities and/or its available lines of credit. During 2008 and 2009, we
received financing proceeds from Fannie Mae secured by mortgages on individual manufactured home
Properties. The terms of the Fannie Mae financings were relatively attractive as compared to other
potential lenders. If financing proceeds are no longer available from Fannie Mae for any reason or
if Fannie Mae terms are no longer attractive, it may adversely affect cash flow and our ability to
service debt and make distributions to stockholders.
The table below summarizes cash flow activity for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
(amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the quarters ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
54,858 |
|
|
$ |
40,040 |
|
Cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(9,981 |
) |
|
|
(11,237 |
) |
Cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(73,510 |
) |
|
|
(32,021 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash |
|
$ |
(28,633 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,218 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities
Net cash provided by operating activities increased $14.8 million for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.
44
Investing Activities
Net cash used in investing activities reflects the impact of the following investing
activities:
Acquisitions
2009 Acquisitions
|
|
On February 13, 2009, the Company acquired the remaining 75 percent interests in three
Diversified Portfolio joint ventures known as (i) Robin Hill, a 270-site property in
Lenhartsville, Pennsylvania, (ii) Sun Valley, a 265-site property in Brownsville, Pennsylvania,
and (iii) Plymouth Rock, a 609-site property in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin. The gross purchase
price was approximately $19.2 million, and we assumed mortgage loans of approximately $12.9
million with a value of approximately $11.9 million and a weighted average interest rate of 6.0
percent per annum. |
2008 Acquisitions
|
|
On January 14, 2008, we acquired a 179-site Property known as Grandy Creek located on 63 acres
near Concrete, Washington. The purchase price was $1.8 million and the Property was leased to
Privileged Access from January 14, 2008 through August 14, 2008. |
|
|
|
On January 23, 2008, we acquired a 151-site resort Property known as Lake George Schroon Valley
Resort on approximately 20 acres in Warrensburg, New York. The purchase price was approximately
$2.1 million. |
We continue to look at acquiring additional assets and are at various stages of negotiations
with respect to potential acquisitions. Funding is expected to come from either proceeds from
potential dispositions, lines of credit draws, or other financing.
Dispositions
On February 13, 2009, the Company sold its 25 percent interest in two Diversified Portfolio
joint ventures known as (i) Pine Haven, a 625-site property in Ocean View, New Jersey and (ii)
Round Top, a 319-site property in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A gain on sale of approximately $1.1
million was recognized during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and is included in Equity in income
of unconsolidated joint ventures.
On April 17, 2009, we sold Caledonia, a 247-site Property in Caledonia, Wisconsin, for proceeds of
approximately $2.2 million. The Company recognized a gain on sale of approximately $0.8 million.
In order to defer the taxable gain on the sale, the sales proceeds, net of transaction costs, were
deposited in a tax-deferred exchange account. In addition, we received approximately $0.3 million
of deferred rent due from the previous tenant.
We currently have two Properties held for disposition, which are in various stages of
negotiations. We plan to reinvest the proceeds or reduce outstanding lines of credit with the
proceeds from these dispositions.
Notes Receivable Activity
The notes receivable activity during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of $1.6 million in cash
outflow reflects net repayments of $0.1 million from our Chattel Loans and net repayments of $0.8
million from our Contract Receivables.
The notes receivable activity during the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of $0.1 million in cash
outflow reflects net lending from our Chattel Loans.
45
Investments in and distributions from unconsolidated joint ventures
During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, the Company received approximately $2.0 million in
distributions from our joint ventures. Approximately $2.0 million of these distributions were
classified as return on capital and were included in operating activities. Of these distributions,
approximately $1.1 million relates to the gain on sale of the Companys 25% interest in two
Diversified joint ventures.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2008, the Company invested approximately $5.5 million in
its joint ventures to increase the Companys ownership interest in Voyager RV Resort to 50%. The
Company also received approximately $0.4 million held for the initial investment in one of the
Morgan Properties.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2008, the Company received approximately $1.0 million in
distributions from our joint ventures which were classified as return on capital and were included
in operating activities. Of these distributions, $0.6 million relates to the gain on the payoff of
our share of seller financing in excess of our basis on one Lakeshore investment.
Capital Improvements
The table below summarizes capital expenditures activity for the quarters ended March 31, 2009
and 2008 (amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the quarters ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Recurring Cap Ex (1) |
|
$ |
4,199 |
|
|
$ |
2,087 |
|
New construction expansion |
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
165 |
|
New construction upgrades (2) |
|
|
1,651 |
|
|
|
1,130 |
|
Home site development |
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
719 |
|
Hurricane related |
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Property |
|
|
6,366 |
|
|
|
4,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capital expenditures |
|
$ |
6,523 |
|
|
$ |
4,184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Recurring capital expenditures (Recurring CapEx) are primarily
comprised of common area improvements, furniture, and mechanical improvements. |
|
(2) |
|
New construction upgrades primarily represents costs to improve
and upgrade Property infrastructure or amenities. |
Financing Activities
Financing, Refinancing and Early Debt Retirement
2009 Activity
|
|
During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, the Company closed on approximately $57 million of
financing with Fannie Mae on two manufactured home Properties at a stated interest rate of 6.38
percent per annum. The Company also paid off two maturing mortgages totaling approximately $22
million with a weighted average interested rate of 5.43 percent per annum. |
46
|
|
During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, we had approximately $6.1 million in principal
repayments on mortgage debt. |
|
|
|
On April 1, 2009, the Company paid off approximately $5 million of maturing mortgage debt on Old
Chatham in South Dennis, Massachusetts that had a stated interest rate of 4.99 percent per
annum. |
|
|
|
On April 10, 2009, the Company refinanced approximately $5 million of maturing mortgage debt on
Kloshe Illahee in Federal Way, Washington with a stated interest rate of 7.15 percent per annum
for approximately $18 million with a stated interest rate of 5.79 percent per annum, maturing in
2019. |
2008 Activity
|
|
During the quarter ended March 31, 2008, we had approximately $4.8 million in principal
repayments on mortgage debt. |
Secured Debt
As of March 31, 2009, our secured long-term debt balance was approximately $1.6 billion, with
a weighted average interest rate in 2009 of approximately 6.0% per annum. The debt bears interest
at rates between 5.0% and 10.0% per annum and matures on various dates primarily ranging from 2009
to 2019. Included in our debt balance are three capital leases with an imputed interest rate of
13.1% per annum. The Company has $48 million of secured debt currently outstanding that matures in
2009 and approximately $213.9 million maturing in 2010.
Unsecured Debt
We have two unsecured Lines of Credit (LOC) with a maximum borrowing capacity of $350
million and $20 million which bear interest at a per annum rate of LIBOR plus a maximum of 1.20%
per annum, have a 0.15% facility fee, mature on June 30, 2010, and have a one-year extension
option. The weighted average interest rate for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 for our unsecured
debt was approximately 3.5% per annum. During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, we borrowed $38.7
million and paid down $130.4 million on the lines of credit for a net pay down of $91.7 million.
The balance outstanding as of March 31, 2009 was approximately $1.3 million.
Contractual Obligations
As of March 31, 2009, we were subject to certain contractual payment obligations as described
in the table below (dollars in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
2009 |
|
2010 (2) |
|
2011 |
|
2012 |
|
2013 |
|
Thereafter |
Long Term
Borrowings (1) |
|
$ |
1,610,819 |
|
|
$ |
74,411 |
|
|
$ |
232,404 |
|
|
$ |
75,347 |
|
|
$ |
21,359 |
|
|
$ |
130,972 |
|
|
$ |
1,076,326 |
|
Weighted
average interest rates |
|
|
6.15 |
% |
|
|
6.06 |
% |
|
|
5.93 |
% |
|
|
5.81 |
% |
|
|
5.77 |
% |
|
|
5.77 |
% |
|
|
5.70 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Balance excludes net premiums and discounts of $0.2 million. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes lines of credit repayment in 2010 of $1.3 million. We have an option to
extend this maturity for one year to 2011. |
Included in the above table are certain capital lease obligations totaling approximately $6.7
million. These agreements expire in June 2009 and are paid semi-annually at an imputed interest
rate of 13.1% per annum.
The Company does not include preferred OP Unit distributions, interest expense, insurance,
property taxes and cancelable contracts in the contractual obligations table above.
47
The Company also leases land under non-cancelable operating leases at certain of the
Properties expiring in various years from 2013 to 2054, with terms which require twelve equal
payments per year plus additional rents calculated as a percentage of gross revenues. Minimum
future rental payments under the ground leases are approximately $1.9 million per year for each of
the next five years and approximately $20.0 million thereafter.
With respect to maturing debt, the Company has staggered the maturities of its long-term
mortgage debt over an average of approximately six years, with no more than approximately $578
million, in 2015, in principal maturities coming due in any single year. The Company believes that
it will be able to refinance its maturing debt obligations on a secured or unsecured basis;
however, to the extent the Company is unable to refinance its debt as it matures, we believe that
we will be able to repay such maturing debt from asset sales and/or the proceeds from equity
issuances. With respect to any refinancing of maturing debt, the Companys future cash flow
requirements could be impacted by significant changes in interest rates or other debt terms,
including required amortization payments.
Equity Transactions
2009 Activity
The 2009 quarterly distribution per common share is $0.25 per share, up from $0.20 per share
in 2008. On April 10, 2009, the Company paid a $0.25 per share distribution for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 to stockholders of record on March 27, 2009.
On March 31, 2009, the Operating Partnership paid distributions of 8.0625% per annum on the
$150 million Series D 8% Units and 7.95% per annum on the $50 million of Series F 7.95% Units
During the quarter ended March 31, 2009, we received approximately $0.3 million in proceeds
from the issuance of shares of common stock through stock option exercises and the Companys
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP).
2008 Activity
On April 11, 2008, the Company paid a $0.20 per share distribution for the quarter ended March
31, 2008 to stockholders of record on March 28, 2008.
On March 31, 2008, the Operating Partnership paid distributions of 8.0625% per annum on the
$150 million Series D 8% Units and 7.95% per annum on the $50 million of Series F 7.95% Units
During the quarter ended March 31, 2008, we received approximately $2.3 million in proceeds
from the issuance of shares of common stock through stock option exercises and the Companys ESPP.
Inflation
Substantially all of the leases at the Properties allow for monthly or annual rent increases
which provide us with the opportunity to achieve increases, where justified by the market, as each
lease matures. Such types of leases generally minimize the risks of inflation to the Company. In
addition, our resort Properties are not generally subject to leases and rents are established for
these sites on an annual basis. Our right-to-use contracts generally provide for an annual dues
increase, but dues may be frozen under the terms of certain contracts if the customer is over 61
years old.
48
Funds From Operations
Funds from Operations (FFO) is a non-GAAP financial measure. We believe FFO, as defined by
the Board of Governors of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), to
be an appropriate measure of performance for an equity REIT. While FFO is a relevant and widely
used measure of operating performance for equity REITs, it does not represent cash flow from
operations or net income as defined by GAAP, and it should not be considered as an alternative to
these indicators in evaluating liquidity or operating performance.
FFO is defined as net income, computed in accordance with GAAP, excluding gains or losses from
sales of properties, plus real estate related depreciation and amortization, and after adjustments
for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. Adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships
and joint ventures are calculated to reflect FFO on the same basis. The Company receives up-front
non-refundable payments from the sale of right-to-use contracts. In accordance with GAAP, the
upfront non-refundable payments and related commissions are deferred and amortized over the
estimated customer life. Although the NAREIT definition of FFO does not address the treatment of
nonrefundable right-to-use payments, the Company believes that it is appropriate to adjust for the
impact of the deferral activity in our calculation of FFO. The Company believes that FFO is
helpful to investors as one of several measures of the performance of an equity REIT. The Company
further believes that by excluding the effect of depreciation, amortization and gains or losses
from sales of real estate, all of which are based on historical costs and which may be of limited
relevance in evaluating current performance, FFO can facilitate comparisons of operating
performance between periods and among other equity REITs. The Company believes that the adjustment
to FFO for the net revenue deferral of upfront non-refundable payments and expense deferral of
right-to-use contract commissions also facilitates the comparison to other equity REITs. Investors
should review FFO, along with GAAP net income and cash flow from operating activities, investing
activities and financing activities, when evaluating an equity REITs operating performance. The
Company computes FFO in accordance with our interpretation of standards established by NAREIT,
which may not be comparable to FFO reported by other REITs that do not define the term in
accordance with the current NAREIT definition or that interpret the current NAREIT definition
differently than we do. FFO does not represent cash generated from operating activities in
accordance with GAAP, nor does it represent cash available to pay distributions and should not be
considered as an alternative to net income, determined in accordance with GAAP, as an indication of
our financial performance, or to cash flow from operating activities, determined in accordance with
GAAP, as a measure of our liquidity, nor is it indicative of funds available to fund our cash
needs, including our ability to make cash distributions.
The following table presents a calculation of FFO for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and
2008 (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Computation of funds from operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available for common shares |
|
$ |
13,644 |
|
|
$ |
12,725 |
|
Income allocated to common OP Units |
|
|
2,794 |
|
|
|
3,004 |
|
Right-to-use contract sales, deferred, net |
|
|
5,163 |
|
|
|
|
|
Right-to-use contract commissions, deferred, net |
|
|
(1,493 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation on real estate assets |
|
|
17,399 |
|
|
|
16,274 |
|
Depreciation on unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
592 |
|
Loss on sale of property |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds from operations available for common shares |
|
$ |
37,853 |
|
|
$ |
32,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding fully
diluted |
|
|
30,523 |
|
|
|
30,386 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure of Market Risk
Market risk is the risk of loss from adverse changes in market prices and interest rates. Our
earnings, cash flows and fair values relevant to financial instruments are dependent on prevailing
market interest rates. The primary market risk we face is long-term indebtedness, which bears
interest at fixed and variable rates. The fair value of our long-term debt obligations is affected
by changes in market interest rates. At March 31, 2009, approximately 99% or approximately $1.6
billion of our outstanding debt had fixed interest rates, which minimizes the market risk until the
debt matures. For each increase in interest rates of 1% (or 100 basis points), the fair value of
the total outstanding debt would decrease by approximately $91.1 million. For each decrease in
interest rates of 1% (or 100 basis points), the fair value of the total outstanding debt would
increase by approximately $96.7 million.
At March 31, 2009, approximately 1% or approximately $1.3 million of our outstanding debt was
short-term and at variable rates. Earnings are affected by increases and decreases in market
interest rates on this debt. For each increase/decrease in interest rates of 1% (or 100 basis
points), our earnings and cash flows would increase/decrease by approximately $13,000 annually.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Companys management, with the participation of the Companys Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer), has
evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31,
2009. Based on that evaluation, the Companys Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
concluded that the Companys disclosure controls and procedures were effective to give reasonable
assurances to the timely collection, evaluation and disclosure of information relating to the
Company that would potentially be subject to disclosure under the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder as of March 31, 2009.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can
provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that it will detect or uncover failures within the
Company to disclose material information otherwise required to be set forth in the Companys
periodic reports.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
As previously announced and discussed in this Form 10-Q, we acquired substantially all of the
assets and certain liabilities of Privileged Access on August 14, 2008 in the PA Transaction. We
are in the process of integrating the operations of Privileged Access with those of the Company and
incorporating the internal controls and procedures of Privileged Access into our internal control
over financial reporting. We do not expect this acquisition to materially affect our internal
control over financial reporting. The Company will report on its assessment of the combined
operations within the one-year time period provided by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the
applicable SEC rules and regulations concerning business combinations.
Excluding the operations of Privileged Access, there were no material changes in the Companys
internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended March 31, 2009.
50
Part II Other Information
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
See Note 13 in the Consolidated Financial Statements contained herein.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
With the exception of the following there have been no material changes to the factors
disclosed in Item 1A. Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2008.
Some Potential Losses Are Not Covered by Insurance. We carry comprehensive insurance coverage for
losses resulting from property damage, liability claims and business interruption on all of our
Properties. In addition we carry liability coverage for other activities not specifically related
to property operations. These coverages include, but are not limited to, Directors & Officers
liability, Employer Practices liability and Fiduciary liability. We believe that the policy
specifications and coverage limits of these policies should be adequate and appropriate. There are,
however, certain types of losses, such as lease and other contract claims that generally are not
insured. Should an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of coverage limits occur, we could lose all
or a portion of the capital we have invested in a Property or the anticipated future revenue from a
Property. In such an event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other
financial obligations related to the Property.
We have a $100 million loss limit with respect to our all-risk property insurance program including
Named Windstorm and a $25 million loss limit for California Earthquake. Policy deductibles
primarily range from $100,000 to five percent of insurable values specifically for Named Windstorm,
Named Storm Flood and California Earthquake. Losses in a 100-year Flood zone are subject to
varying deductibles with maximum exposure of $500,000. A deductible indicates ELS maximum
exposure, subject to policy sub-limits, in event of a loss.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
None.
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities
None.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
None.
Item 5. Other Information
None.
Item 6. Exhibits
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |
|
|
32.1 |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
|
|
32.2 |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
51
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly
caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.
|
|
Date: May 11, 2009 |
By: |
/s/ Thomas P. Heneghan
|
|
|
|
Thomas P. Heneghan |
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: May 11, 2009 |
By: |
/s/ Michael B. Berman
|
|
|
|
Michael B. Berman |
|
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial and accounting officer) |
|
|
52