UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
FORM 10-K
☒ | |
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
or
☐ | |
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from
toCommission File Number 1-12298 (Regency Centers Corporation)
Commission File Number 0-24763 (Regency Centers, L.P.)
REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION
REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Florida (REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION) |  | 59-3191743 |
Delaware (REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.) |
| 59-3429602 |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | |
One Independent Drive, Suite 114 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 | (904) 598-7000 | |
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code) | (Registrant's telephone number, including area code) |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Regency Centers Corporation
Title of each class | Trading Symbol | Name of each exchange on which registered | ||
Common Stock, $.01 par value | REG | The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC |
Regency Centers, L.P.
Title of each class | Trading Symbol | Name of each exchange on which registered | ||
None | N/A | N/A |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Regency Centers Corporation: None
Regency Centers, L.P.:
Units of Partnership InterestIndicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Regency Centers Corporation YES
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act
Regency Centers Corporation YES
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.
Regency Centers Corporation YES
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files).
Regency Centers Corporation YES
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Regency Centers Corporation:
Large accelerated filer | ☒ | Accelerated filer | ☐ | Emerging growth company | ☐ |
Non-accelerated filer | ☐ | Smaller reporting company | ☐ |
Regency Centers, L.P.:
Large accelerated filer | ☐ | Accelerated filer | ☒ | Emerging growth company | ☐ |
Non-accelerated filer | ☐ | Smaller reporting company | ☐ |
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.
Regency Centers Corporation YES
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
Regency Centers Corporation YES
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrants' most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
Regency Centers Corporation $10.4$11.1 billion Regency Centers, L.P.
The number of shares outstanding of the Regency Centers Corporation’s common stock was 167,506,148167,715,882 as of February 13, 2019.
Documents Incorporated by Reference
Portions of Regency Centers Corporation's proxy statement in connection with its 20192020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
This report combines the annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20182019 of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to “Regency Centers Corporation” or the “Parent Company” mean Regency Centers Corporation and its controlled subsidiaries;subsidiaries and references to “Regency Centers, L.P.” or the “Operating Partnership” mean Regency Centers, L.P. and its controlled subsidiaries. The term “the Company”, "Regency Centers"“Regency Centers” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively.
The Parent Company is a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and the general partner of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership's capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units (“Units”). As of December 31, 2018,2019, the Parent Company owned approximately 99.8%99.6% of the Units in the Operating Partnership. The remaining limited Units are owned by investors. As the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company has exclusive control of the Operating Partnership's day-to-day management.
The Company believes combining the annual reports on Form 10-K of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership into this single report provides the following benefits:
• | Enhances investors' understanding of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership by enabling investors to view the business as a whole in the same manner as management views and operates the business; |
• | Eliminates duplicative disclosure and provides a more streamlined and readable presentation; and |
• | Creates time and cost efficiencies through the preparation of one combined report instead of two separate reports. |
Management operates the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership as one business. The management of the Parent Company consists of the same individuals as the management of the Operating Partnership. These individuals are officers of the Parent Company and employees of the Operating Partnership.
The Company believes it is important to understand the key differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership in the context of how the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership operate as a consolidated company. The Parent Company is a REIT, whose only material asset is its ownership of partnership interests of the Operating Partnership. As a result, the Parent Company does not conduct business itself, other than acting as the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, issuing public equity from time to time and guaranteeing certain debt of the Operating Partnership. Except for $500 million of unsecured public and private placement debt, the Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured debt of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership is also the co-issuer and guarantees the $500 million of unsecured public and private placement debt of the Parent Company.Company debt. The Operating Partnership holds all the assets of the Company and retains the ownership interests in the Company's joint ventures. Except for net proceeds from public equity issuances by the Parent Company, which are contributed to the Operating Partnership in exchange for partnership units, the Operating Partnership generates all remaining capital required by the Company's business. These sources include the Operating Partnership's operations, its direct or indirect incurrence of indebtedness, and the issuance of partnership units.
Stockholders' equity, partners' capital, and noncontrolling interests are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company and those of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership's capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units. The limited partners' units in the Operating Partnership owned by third parties are accounted for in partners' capital in the Operating Partnership's financial statements and outside of stockholders' equity in noncontrolling interests in the Parent Company's financial statements.
In order to highlight the differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, there are sections in this report that separately discuss the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, including separate financial statements, controls and procedures sections, and separate Exhibit 31 and 32 certifications. In the sections that combine disclosure for the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, this report refers to actions or holdings as being actions or holdings of the Company.
As general partner with control of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company consolidates the Operating Partnership for financial reporting purposes, and the Parent Company does not have assets other than its investment in the Operating Partnership. Therefore, while stockholders' equity and partners' capital differ as discussed above, the assets and liabilities of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership are the same on their respective financial statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| ||
|
|
|
Item No. |
| Form 10-K Report Page |
|
|
|
| PART I |
|
|
|
|
1. | 1 | |
|
|
|
1A. | 6 | |
|
|
|
1B. | 18 | |
|
|
|
2. | 18 | |
|
|
|
3. | 34 | |
|
|
|
4. | 34 | |
|
|
|
| PART II |
|
|
|
|
5. | 34 | |
|
|
|
6. | 36 | |
|
|
|
7. | Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations | 38 |
|
|
|
7A. | 57 | |
|
|
|
8. | 58 | |
|
|
|
9. | Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure | 124 |
|
|
|
9A. | 124 | |
|
|
|
9B. | 125 | |
|
|
|
| PART III |
|
|
|
|
10. | 125 | |
|
|
|
11. | 125 | |
|
|
|
12. | Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters | 126 |
|
|
|
13. | Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence | 126 |
|
|
|
14. | 126 | |
|
|
|
| PART IV |
|
|
|
|
15. | 127 | |
|
|
|
| SIGNATURES |
|
|
|
|
16. | 133 | |
| Item No. | Form 10-K Report Page | |
| PART I | ||
| 1. | ||
| 1A. | ||
| 1B. | ||
| 2. | ||
| 3. | ||
| 4. | ||
| PART II | ||
| 5. | ||
| 6. | ||
| 7. | ||
| 7A. | ||
| 8. | ||
| 9. | ||
| 9A. | ||
| 9B. | ||
| PART III | ||
| 10. | ||
| 11. | ||
| 12. | ||
| 13. | ||
| 14. | ||
| PART IV | ||
| 15. | ||
| SIGNATURES | ||
| 16. | ||
Forward-Looking Statements
In addition to historical information, information in this Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements as defined under federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements include statements about anticipated changes in our revenues, the size of our development and redevelopment program, earnings per share and unit, returns and portfolio value, and expectations about our liquidity. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about the real estate industry and markets in which the Company operates, and management's beliefs and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Known risks and uncertainties are described further in the Item 1A.
Risk Factors below. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. appearing elsewhere herein. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to such forward-looking statements to reflect events or uncertainties after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of uncertain events.PART I
Item 1. Business
Regency Centers Corporation is a fully integrated real estate company and self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust that began its operations as a publicly-traded REIT in 1993,1993. Regency Centers L.P. is the entity through which Regency Centers Corporation conducts substantially all of its operations and owns substantially all of its assets. Our business consists of acquiring, developing, owning and operating income-producing retail real estate principally located in many of the top markets in the United States. We generate revenues by leasing space to retail tenants such as highly productive grocers, restaurants, service providers, and best-in-class retailers. Following our merger with Equity One Inc. (“Equity One”) in 2017, Regency became an S&P 500 Index member.
As of December 31, 2018,2019, we had full or partial ownership interests in 425419 properties, primarily anchored by market leading grocery stores. Our properties are principally located in affluent and infill trade areas of the United States, and contain 53.6stores, encompassing 52.6 million square feet ("SF"(“SF”) of gross leasable area ("GLA"(“GLA”). Our ownershipPro-rata share of this GLA is 43.442.8 million square feet, including our share of the partially owned properties. All of our operating, investing, and financing activities are performed through the Operating Partnership, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, and through our co-investment partnerships.
Our mission is to be the preeminent national owner, operator, and developer of shopping centers, connectingcreating places that provide a thriving environment for outstanding retailers and service providers to connect with the surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Our goals are to:
• | Own and manage a portfolio of high-quality neighborhood and community shopping centers anchored by market leading grocers and located in affluent suburban and near urban trade areas in the country’s most desirable metro areas. We expect that this combination will produce highly desirable and attractive centers with best-in-class retailers. These centers should command higher rental and occupancy rates resulting in excellent prospects to grow net operating income (“NOI”); |
• | Maintain an industry leading and disciplined development and redevelopment platform to deliver exceptional retail centers at higher returns as compared to acquisitions; |
• | Support our business activities with a conservative capital structure, including a strong balance sheet; |
• | Attain best-in-class environmental, social, and governance practices; |
• | Engage an exceptional and diverse team that is guided by our strong values and special culture, while fostering an environment of innovation and continuous improvement that will deploy industry-leading operating standards; and |
• | Increase earnings per share and dividends and generate total returns at or near the top of our shopping center peers. |
Key strategies to achieve our goals are to:
• | Sustain same property NOI growth that over the long-term consistently ranks at or near the top of our shopping center peers; |
• | Develop and redevelop high quality shopping centers at attractive returns on investment; |
• | Maintain a conservative balance sheet providing financial flexibility to cost effectively fund investment opportunities and debt maturities on a favorable basis, and to weather economic downturns; |
• | Maintain the highest standards for corporate governance and act as good stewards of our communities and the environment; and |
• | Attract and motivate an exceptional team of employees who operate efficiently and are recognized as industry leaders. |
Corporate Responsibility
Our vision is to be the preeminent national owner, operator and developer of shopping centers, connecting outstanding retailers and service providers with itstheir neighborhoods and communities while practicing best-in-class corporate responsibility. OurWe have established four pillars for our corporate responsibility report highlightsprogram that we believe support our commitmentvision and mission:
• | Our People; |
• | Our Communities; |
• | Ethics and Governance; and |
• | Environmental Stewardship. |
Our people are our greatest asset and we work to stakeholderssupport our highly engaged team that drives our business and is critical to achieving our strategic objectives. We maintain a safe and pleasant workspace, promote employee well-being, and empower our employees by focusing on health and benefits, training and education, safety, and diversity.
Our team is also passionate about investing in and connecting with the critical role Regency's core values have on howcommunities in which we practice corporate responsibility. Welive and work. Philanthropy and giving back are cornerstones of what we do and who we are. Our local teams personally customize and cultivate our centers by bringing tenants and shoppers together and continually engage with the communities in which we operate.
As stewards of our investors’ capital, we are committed to transparentbest-in-class corporate governance practice. We place great emphasis on integrity and transparency, which extends to our reporting on sustainabilitypractices, long-term value creation for our stakeholders, and corporate responsibility efforts in accordance with the guidelinesstrong culture of the Global Reporting Initiative. A copy of our corporate responsibility report is available on our website, www.regencycenters.com.
We believe sustainability is in the best interest of our tenants, investors, employees, and the communities in which we operateoperate. We have five strategic priorities when it comes to identifying and are committed to reducingimplementing sustainable business practices and minimizing our environmental impact, includingimpact: green building, energy and water use,efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, water conservation, and waste.waste minimization and management. We believe this commitment isthese commitments are not only the right thing to do to address material environmental topics such as air pollution, climate change, and resource scarcity, but also supports the Companysupport us in achieving key strategic objectives in operations and development.
We are committed to transparency with regard to our corporate responsibility and sustainability performance, risks and opportunities, and will continue to enhance disclosuredisclosures using industry accepted reporting frameworks. More information about our sustainabilitycorporate responsibility strategy, goals, performance, and formal disclosures are available on our website at www.regencycenters.com.
Competition
We are among the largest owners of shopping centers in the nation based on revenues, number of properties, GLA, and market capitalization. There are numerous companies and individuals engaged in the ownership, development, acquisition, and operation of shopping centers that compete with us in our targeted markets, including grocery store chains that also anchor some of our shopping centers. This results in competition for attracting tenants, as well as the acquisition of existing shopping centers and new development sites. We believe that our competitive advantages are driven by:
• | our locations within our market areas; |
• | the design and high quality of our shopping centers; |
• | the strong demographics surrounding our shopping centers; |
• | our relationships with our anchor tenants and our side-shop and out-parcel retailers; |
• | our practice of maintaining and renovating our shopping centers; and |
• | our ability to source and develop new shopping centers. |
Employees
Our corporate headquarters are located at One Independent Drive, Suite 114, Jacksonville, Florida. We presently maintain 22 market offices nationwide, including our corporate headquarters, where we conduct management, leasing, construction, and investment activities. We have 446450 employees throughout the United States and we believe that our relations with our employees are good.
Compliance with Governmental Regulations
Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be liable for the cost to remove or remediate certain hazardous or toxic substances at our shopping centers.centers that generally arise from dry cleaners, gas stations, and historic land use practices. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of required remediation and the owner's liability for remediation could exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the owner. The presence of such substances, or the failure to properly remediateaddress such substances, may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease the property or borrow using the property as collateral. Although we have a number of properties that could require or are currently undergoing varying levels of environmental remediation,clean up, known environmental remediation iscorrective actions are not currently expected to have a material financial impact on us due to our environmental insurance programs, designed to mitigate the cost of remediation, various state-regulated programs that shift the responsibility and cost to the state, and existing accrued liabilities for remediation.
Executive Officers
Our executive officers are appointed each year by our Board of Directors. Each of our executive officers has been employed by us for more than five years.years and, as of December 31, 2019, included the following:
Name | Age | Title | Executive Officer in Position Shown Since |
Martin E. Stein, Jr. | 67 | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 1993(1) |
Lisa Palmer | 52 | President | 2016 (2) |
Michael J. Mas | 44 | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer | 2019 (3) |
Dan M. Chandler, III | 52 | Executive Vice President, Chief Investment Officer | 2019 (4) |
James D. Thompson | 64 | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer | 2019 (5) |
(1) | Mr. Stein was appointed Executive Chairman of the Board effective January 1, 2020. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Stein served as Chief Executive Officer since 1993 and Chairman of the Board since 1999. |
| Name | Age | Title | Executive Officer in Position Shown Since |
| Martin E. Stein, Jr. | 66 | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 1993 |
| Lisa Palmer | 51 | President and Chief Financial Officer | 2016 (1) |
| Dan M. Chandler, III | 51 | Executive Vice President of Investments | 2016 (2) |
| James D. Thompson | 63 | Executive Vice President of Operations | 2016 (3) |
(1) Ms. Palmer assumed the responsibilities of President, effective January 1, 2016 in addition to her responsibilities as Chief Financial Officer, which position she has held since January 2013. Prior to that, Ms. Palmer served as Senior Vice President of Capital Markets since 2003 and has been with the Company since 1996. | |||
(2) Mr. Chandler assumed the role of Executive Vice President of Investments on January 1, 2016 and previously served as Managing Director since 2006. Prior to that, Mr. Chandler served in various investment officer positions since the merger with Pacific Retail Trust in 1999. | |||
(3) Mr. Thompson assumed the role of Executive Vice President of Operations on January 1, 2016 and previously served as our Managing Director - East since our initial public offering in 1993. Prior to that time, Mr. Thompson served as Executive Vice President of our predecessor real estate division beginning in 1981. | |||
(2) | Ms. Palmer was named Chief Executive Officer effective January 1, 2020, in addition to her responsibilities as President, which position she has held since January 2016. Prior to this appointment, Ms. Palmer served as Chief Financial Officer since January 2013. Prior to that, Ms. Palmer served as Senior Vice President of Capital Markets since 2003 and has been with the Company since 1996. |
(3) | Mr. Mas assumed the responsibilities of Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective August 2019. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Mas served as Managing Director, Finance, since February 2017, and Senior Vice President, Capital Markets, since 2013. |
(4) | Mr. Chandler assumed the role of Chief Investment Officer, effective August 2019, and Executive Vice President of Investments in 2016. Mr. Chandler previously served as Managing Director since 2006. Prior to that, Mr. Chandler served in various investment officer positions since 1999. |
(5) | Mr. Thompson assumed the role of Chief Operating Officer, effective August 2019, and Executive Vice President of Operations in 2016. Mr. Thompson previously served as our Managing Director - East since 1993. |
Company Website Access and SEC Filings
Our website may be accessed at
www.regencycenters.com. All of our filings with the Securities and Exchange CommissionGeneral Information
Our registrar and stock transfer agent is Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc. ("Broadridge"(“Broadridge”), Philadelphia, PA. We offer a dividend reinvestment plan ("DRIP"(“DRIP”) that enables our shareholders to reinvest dividends automatically, as well as to make voluntary cash payments toward the purchase of additional shares. For more information, contact Broadridge toll free at (855) 449-0975 or our Shareholder Relations Department at (904) 598-7000.
The Company's common stock commenced tradingis listed on NASDAQ on November 13, 2018, and continues to tradetrades under the stock symbol "REG"“REG”.
Our independent registered public accounting firm is KPMG LLP, Jacksonville, Florida. Our legal counsel is Foley & Lardner LLP, Jacksonville, Florida.
Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Our 20192020 annual meeting of shareholders will be held at the Ponte Vedra Inn and Club, 200 Ponte Vedra Blvd., Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, at 2:45 p.m.9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2019.
Defined Terms
In addition to the required Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"(“GAAP”) presentations, we use certain non-GAAP performance measures as we believe these measures improve the understanding of the Company'sour operational results. We continually evaluate the usefulness, relevance, limitations, and calculation of our reported non-GAAP performance measures to determine how best to provide relevant information to the public, and thus such reported measures could change.
The following terms, as defined, are commonly used by management and the investing public to understand and evaluate our operational results:
• | Development Completion is a property in development that is deemed complete upon the earliest of: (i) 90% of total estimated net development costs have been incurred and percent leased equals or exceeds 95%, or (ii) the property features at least two years of anchor operations, or (iii) three years have passed since the start of construction. Once deemed complete, the property is termed a Retail Operating Property the following calendar year. |
• | Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio is defined as Operating EBITDAre divided by the sum of the gross interest and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our lenders. |
• | NAREIT EBITDAre is a measure of REIT performance, which the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”) defines as net income, computed in accordance with GAAP, excluding (i) interest expense, (ii) income tax expense, (iii) depreciation and amortization, (iv) gains on sales of real estate, (v) impairments of real estate, and (vi) adjustments to reflect the Company's share of unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. We provide a reconciliation of Net Income to NAREIT EBITDAre. |
• | NAREIT Funds from Operations (“NAREIT FFO”) is a commonly used measure of REIT performance, which NAREIT defines as net income, computed in accordance with GAAP, excluding gains on sales and impairments of real estate, net of tax, plus depreciation and amortization, and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. We compute NAREIT FFO for all periods presented in accordance with NAREIT's definition in effect during that period. Effective January 1, 2019, we prospectively adopted the NAREIT FFO White Paper – 2018 Restatement (“2018 FFO White Paper”), and elected the option of excluding gains on sale and impairments of land, which are considered incidental to our main business. Prior period amounts were not restated to conform to the current year presentation, and therefore are calculated as described above, and also include gains on sale and impairments of land. |
Companies use different depreciable lives and methods, and real estate values historically fluctuate with market conditions. Since NAREIT FFO excludes depreciation and amortization and gains and losses from depreciable property dispositions,on sales and impairments of real estate, it provides a performance measure that, when compared year over year, reflects the impact on operations from trends in occupancy rates, rental rates, operating costs, acquisition and development activities, and financing costs. This provides a perspective of our financial performance not immediately apparent from net income determined in accordance with GAAP. Thus, NAREIT FFO is a supplemental non-GAAP financial measure of our operating performance, which does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with GAAP; and, therefore, should not be considered a substitute measure of cash flows from operations. The Company providesWe provide a reconciliation of Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Common Stockholders to NAREIT FFO.
• | Net Operating Income (“NOI”) is the sum of base rent, percentage rent, recoveries from tenants, other lease income, and other property income, less operating and maintenance expenses, real estate taxes, ground rent, and uncollectible lease income / provision for doubtful accounts. NOI excludes straight-line rental income and expense, above and below market |
rent and ground rent amortization, tenant lease inducement amortization, and other fees. We also provide disclosure of NOI excluding termination fees, which excludes both termination fee income and expenses. |
• | Non-Same Property is any property, during either calendar year period being compared, that was acquired, sold, a Property in Development, a Development Completion, or a property under, or being positioned for, significant redevelopment that distorts comparability between periods. Non-retail properties and corporate activities, including the captive insurance program, are part of Non-Same Property. |
• | Operating EBITDAre begins with the NAREIT EBITDAre and excludes certain non-cash components of earnings derived from above and below market rent amortization and straight-line rents. We provide a reconciliation of Net Income to NAREIT EBITDAre to Operating EBITDAre. |
• | Pro-rata information includes 100% of our consolidated properties plus our economic share (based on our ownership interest) in our unconsolidated real estate investment partnerships. |
We provide Pro-rata financial information because we believe it assists investors and analysts in estimating our economic interest in our consolidated and unconsolidated partnerships, when read in conjunction with the Company’s reported results under GAAP. We believe presenting our Pro-rata share of assets, liabilities, operating results, and certain operating metrics, along with other non-GAAP measures, makes comparisons of other REITs' operating results to ours more meaningful. The Pro-rata information provided is not, nor is it intended to be, presented in accordance with GAAP. The Pro-rata supplemental details of assets and liabilities and supplemental details of operations reflect our proportionate economic ownership of the assets, liabilities and operating results of the properties in our portfolio
The Pro-rata information is prepared on a basis consistent with the comparable consolidated amounts and is intended to more accurately reflect our proportionate economic interest in the assets, liabilities, and operating results of properties in our portfolio. We do not control the unconsolidated investment partnerships, and the Pro-rata presentations of the assets and liabilities, and revenues and expenses do not represent our legal claim to such items. The partners are entitled to profit or loss allocations and distributions of cash flows according to the operating agreements, which generally provide for such allocations according to their invested capital. Our share of invested capital establishes the ownership interests we use to prepare our Pro-rata share.
The presentation of Pro-rata information has limitations which include, but are not limited to, the following:
o | The amounts shown on the individual line items were derived by applying our overall economic ownership interest percentage determined when applying the equity method of accounting or allocating noncontrolling interests, and do not necessarily represent our legal claim to the assets and liabilities, or the revenues and expenses; and |
o | Other companies in our industry may calculate their Pro-rata interest differently, limiting the comparability of Pro-rata information. |
Because of these limitations, the Pro-rata financial information should not be considered independently or as a substitute for our financial statements as reported under GAAP. We compensate for these limitations by relying primarily on our GAAP financial statements, using the Pro-rata information as a supplement.
• | Property In Development includes properties in various stages of ground-up development. |
• | Property In Redevelopment includes Retail Operating Properties under redevelopment or being positioned for redevelopment. Unless otherwise indicated, a Property in Redevelopment is included in the Same Property pool. |
• | Retail Operating Property is any retail property not termed a Property in Development. A retail property is any property where the majority of the income is generated from retail uses. |
• | Same Property is a Retail Operating Property that was owned and operated for the entirety of both calendar year periods being compared. This term excludes Properties in Development, prior year Development Completions, and Non-Same Properties. Properties in Redevelopment are included unless otherwise indicated. |
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Risk Factors Related to the Retail Industry
Economic and market conditions may adversely affect the retail industry and consequently reduce our revenues and cash flow, and increase our operating expenses.
Our properties are leased primarily to retail tenants from whom we derive most of our revenue in the form of minimumbase rent, expense recoveries and other income. Therefore, our performance and operating results are directly linked to the economic and market conditions occurring in the retail industry. We are subject to the risks that, upon expiration, leases for space in our properties are not renewed by existing tenants, vacant space is not leased to new tenants, or tenants demand new lease terms, including costs for renovations or concessions. The market for leasing retail space in our properties may be adversely affected by any of the following:
• | changes in national, regional and local economic conditions; |
• | changes in population and migration patterns to/from the markets in which we operate; |
• | deterioration in the competitiveness and creditworthiness of our retail tenants; |
• | increased competition from the use of e-commerce by retailers and consumers as well as other concepts such as super-stores and warehouse clubs; |
• | tenant bankruptcies and subsequent rejections of our leases; |
• | reductions in consumer spending and retail sales; |
• | reduced tenant demand for retail space; |
• | oversupply of retail space; |
• | reduced consumer demand for certain retail categories; |
• | consolidation within the retail sector; |
• | increased operating costs; |
• | perceptions by retailers and shoppers of the safety, convenience and attractiveness of our properties; and |
• | acts of terrorism and war, natural disasters and other physical and weather-related damages to our properties. |
To the extent that any of these conditions occur they are likely to impact the retail industry, our retail tenants, the demand and market rents for retail space, the occupancy levels of our properties, our ability to sell, acquire or develop properties, our operating results and our cash available for distributions to stock and unit holders.
Shifts in retail sales and delivery methods between brick and mortar stores, e-commerce, home delivery, and e-commerce by retailers and a continued shift in retail sales towards e-commercecurbside pick-up may adversely impact our revenues and cash flows.
Retailers are increasingly impacted by e-commerce and changes in customer buying habits, including the delivery or curbside pick-up of items ordered online. Retailers are considering these e-commerce trends when making decisions regarding their bricks and mortar stores and how they will compete and innovate in a rapidly changing e-commerceretail environment. Many retailers in our shopping centers provide services or sell goods, which have historically been less likely to be purchased online; however, the continuing increase in e-commerce sales in all retail categories may cause retailers to adjust the size or number of retail locations in the future or close stores. Our grocer tenants are incorporating e-commerce concepts through home delivery and curbside pick-up, which could reduce foot traffic at our centers. In certain higher-income markets, foot traffic at our centers may be impacted more by these alternative delivery methods if consumers are willing to pay premiums for such services. This shift may adversely impact our occupancy and rental rates, which would impact our revenues and cash flows. Changes in shopping trends as a result of the growth in e-commerce may also impact the profitability of retailers that do not adapt to changes in market conditions. These conditions may adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows if we are unable to meet the needs of our tenants or if our tenants encounter financial difficulties as a result of changing market conditions.
Changing economic and retail market conditions in geographic areas where our properties are concentrated may reduce our revenues and cash flow.
Economic conditions in markets where our properties are concentrated can greatly influence our financial performance. During the year ended December 31, 2018,2019, our properties in California, Florida, Texas, New York and TexasVirginia accounted for 28.1%29.0%,
Our success depends on the success and continued presence of our “anchor” tenants.
“Anchor Tenants ("Anchor Tenants" or "Anchors"Tenants” (tenants occupying 10,000 square feet or more) occupy large stores in our shopping centers, pay a significant portion of the total rent at a property and contribute to the success of other tenants by attracting shoppers to the property.
• | becomes bankrupt or insolvent; |
• | experiences a downturn in its business; |
• | materially defaults on its leases; |
• | does not renew its leases as they expire; |
• | renews at lower rental rates and/or requires a tenant improvement allowance; or |
• | renews but reduces its store size, which results in down-time and additional tenant improvement costs to the landlord to re-lease the vacated space. |
Some anchors have the right to vacate their space and may prevent us from re-tenanting by continuing to comply and pay rent in accordance with their lease agreement. Vacated anchor space, including space owned by the anchor, can reduce rental revenues generated by the shopping center in other spaces because of the loss of the departed anchor's customer drawing power. If a significant tenant vacates a property, co-tenancy clauses in select lease contracts may allow other tenants to modify or terminate their rent or lease obligations. Co-tenancy clauses have several variants: they may allow a tenant to postpone a store opening if certain other tenants fail to open their stores; they may allow a tenant to close its store prior to lease expiration if another tenant closes its store prior to lease expiration; or more commonly, they may allow a tenant to pay reduced levels of rent until a certain number of tenants open their stores within the same shopping center.
Additionally, many of our shopping centers are anchored by retailers who own their space whose location is within or immediately adjacent to our shopping center (“shadow anchors”). In those cases, the shadow anchors appear to the consumer as a retail tenant of the shopping center and, as a result, attract additional consumer traffic to the center. In the event that a shadow anchor were to close, it could negatively impact our center as consumer traffic would likely be reduced.
A significant percentage of our revenues are derived from smaller shop space“shop space” tenants and our net income may be adversely impacted if our smaller shop tenants are not successful.
“Shop Space Tenants"Tenants” (tenants occupying less than 10,000 square feet). Shop Space Tenants may be more vulnerable to negative economic conditions as they have more limited resources than Anchor Tenants. Shop Space Tenants may be facing reduced sales as a result of an increase in competition including from e-commerce retailers. Certain Shop Space Tenants are incorporating e-commerce into their business strategies and may seek to reduce their store sizes upon lease expiration as they adjust to and implement alternative distribution channels. The types of Shop Space Tenants vary from retail shops and restaurants to service providers. If we are unable to attract the right type or mix of Shop Space Tenants into our centers, our revenues and cash flow may be adversely impacted.
At December 31, 2018,2019, Shop Space Tenants represent approximately 35.3%36.0% of our GLA leased at average base rents of $33.75$34.86 per square foot ("PSF"(“PSF”). A one-percent decline in our shop space occupancy may result in a reduction to minimumbase rent of approximately $4.8$5.0 million.
We may be unable to collect balances due from tenants in bankruptcy.
Although minimumlease income (including base rent and recoveries from tenantstenants) are supported by long-term lease contracts, tenants who file for bankruptcy have the legal right to reject any or all of their leases and close related stores. Any unsecured claim we hold against a
bankrupt tenant for unpaid rent might be paid only to the extent that funds are available and only in the same percentage as is paid to all other holders of unsecured claims. As a result, it is likely that we would recover substantially less than the full value of any unsecured claims we hold. Additionally, we may incur significant expense to recover our claim and to re-lease the vacated space. In the event that a tenant with a significant number of leases in our shopping centers files for bankruptcy and rejects its leases, we may experience a significant reduction in our revenues and may not be able to collect all pre-petition amounts owed by the bankrupt tenant.
Risk Factors Related to Real Estate Investments and Operations
We are subject to numerous laws and regulations that may adversely affect our operations or expose us to liability.
Our properties are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations, some of which may conflict with one another or be subject to varying judicial or regulatory interpretations. These laws and regulations may include zoning laws, building codes, competition laws, rules and agreements, landlord-tenant laws, property tax regulations or changes in real estate assessments, including changes in laws related thereto, and other laws and regulations generally applicable to business operations. Noncompliance with such laws and regulations, and any associated litigation may expose us to liability.
Our real estate assets may decline in value and be subject to impairment losses which may reduce our net income.
Our real estate properties are carried at cost unless circumstances indicate that the carrying value of these assets may not be recoverable. We evaluate whether there are any indicators, including property operating performance and general market conditions, such that the value of the real estate properties (including any related tangible or intangible assets or liabilities, including goodwill) may not be recoverable. Through the evaluation, we compare the current carrying value of the asset to the estimated undiscounted cash flows that are directly associated with the use and ultimate disposition of the asset. Our estimated cash flows are based on several key assumptions, including rental rates, costs of tenant improvements, leasing commissions, anticipated holding periods, and assumptions regarding the residual value upon disposition, including the exit capitalization rate. These key assumptions are subjective in nature and may differ materially from actual results. Changes in our disposition strategy or changes in the marketplace may alter the holding period of an asset or asset group, which may result in an impairment loss and such loss may be material to the Company's financial condition or operating performance. To the extent that the carrying value of the asset exceeds the estimated undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over fair value.
The fair value of real estate assets is subjective and is determined through the use of comparable sales information and other market data if available, or through use of an income approach such as the direct capitalization method or the traditional discounted cash flow approach. Such cash flow projections take into account expected future operating income, trends and prospects, as well as the effects of demand, competition and other relevant criteria, and therefore are subject to management judgment. Changes in these factors may impact the determination of fair value. In estimating the fair value of undeveloped land, we generally use market data and comparable sales information.
These subjective assessments have a direct impact on our net income because recording an impairment charge results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income, which may be material. There can be no assurance that we will not record impairment charges in the future related to our assets.
We face risks associated with development, redevelopment and expansion of properties.
We actively pursue opportunities for new retail development, or existing property redevelopment or expansion. Development and redevelopment activities require various government and other approvals for entitlements and any delay in such approvals may significantly delay this process. We may not recover our investment in development or redevelopment projects for which approvals are not received. We are subject to other risks associated with these activities, including the following risks:
• | we may be unable to lease developments or redevelopments to full occupancy on a timely basis; |
• | the occupancy rates and rents of a completed project may not be sufficient to make the project profitable; |
• | actual costs of a project may exceed original estimates, possibly making the project unprofitable; |
• | delays in the development or construction process may increase our costs; |
• | construction cost increases may reduce investment returns on development and redevelopment opportunities; |
• | we may abandon development or redevelopment opportunities and lose our investment due to adverse market conditions; |
• | the size of our development and redevelopment pipeline may strain our labor or capital capacity to complete the development and redevelopment projects within targeted timelines and may reduce our investment returns; |
• | a reduction in the demand for new retail space may reduce our future development and redevelopment activities, which in turn may reduce our net operating income; and |
• | changes in the level of future development and redevelopment activity may adversely impact our results from operations by reducing the amount of internal overhead costs that may be capitalized. |
We face risks associated with the development or construction process may increaseof mixed-use commercial properties.
We are expanding our costs;
• | If we decide to develop the non-retail components ourselves, we would be exposed not only to those risks typically associated with the development of commercial real estate, but also to risks associated with developing, owning, operating or selling non-retail real estate, including but not limited to more complex entitlement processes and multiple-story buildings. These unique risks may adversely impact our return on investment in these mixed-use development projects. |
• | If we sell the non-retail components, our retail component will be impacted by the decisions made by the other owners, and actions of those occupying the non-retail spaces in these mixed-use properties. |
• | If we partner with a developer, it makes us dependent upon the partner's ability to perform and to agree on major decisions that impact our investment returns of the project. In addition, there is a risk that the non-retail developer may default on its obligations necessitating that we complete the other components ourselves, including providing necessary financing. |
In addition, redevelopment of existing shopping centers into mixed-use projects generally includes tenant vacancies before and during the redevelopment, which could result in inconsistent deliveries, adversely impacting annual NOI and earnings growth;
We face risks associated with the acquisition of properties.
Our investment strategy includes investing in high-quality shopping centers that are leased to market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, or restaurants located in areas with high barriers to entry and above average household incomes and population densities. The acquisition of properties and/or real estate entities entails risks that include, but are not limited to, the following, any of which may adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows:
• | properties we acquire may fail to achieve the occupancy or rental rates we project, within the time frames we estimate, which may result in the properties' failure to achieve the investment returns we project; |
• | our investigation of an entity, property or building prior to our acquisition, and any representation we may have received from such seller, may fail to reveal various liabilities including defects, necessary repairs or environmental matters requiring corrective action, which may increase our costs; |
• | our estimate of the costs to improve, reposition or redevelop a property may prove to be too low, or the time we estimate to complete the improvement, repositioning or redevelopment may be too short, either of which may result in the property failing to achieve our projected return, either temporarily or permanently; |
• | we may not recover our costs from an unsuccessful acquisition; |
• | our acquisition activities may distract or strain our management capacity; and |
• | we may not be able to successfully integrate an acquisition into our existing operations platform. |
We face risks if we expand into new markets.
If opportunities arise, we may acquire or develop properties in markets where we currently have no presence. Each of the risks applicable to acquiring or developing properties in our current markets are applicable to acquiring, developing and integrating properties in new markets. In addition, we may not possess the same level of familiarity with the dynamics and conditions of the new markets we may enter, which may adversely affect our operating results and investment returns in those markets.
We may be unable to sell properties when desired because of market conditions.
Our properties, including their related tangible and intangible assets, represent the majority of our total consolidated assets and they may not be readily convertible to cash. As a result, our ability to sell one or more of our properties, including properties held in joint ventureventures, in response to changes in economic, industry, or other conditions may be limited. The real estate market is affected by many factors, such as general economic conditions, availability and terms of financing, interest rates and other factors, including supply and demand for space, that are beyond our control. There may be less demand for lower quality properties that we have identified for ultimate disposition in markets with uncertain economic or retail environments, and where buyers are more reliant on the availability of third party mortgage financing. If we want to sell a property, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to dispose of it in the desired time period or at all or that the sales price of a property will be attractive at the relevant time or even exceed the carrying value of our investment. Moreover, if a property is mortgaged, we may not be able to obtain a release of the lien on that property without the payment of a substantial prepayment penalty, which may restrict our ability to dispose of the property, even though the sale might otherwise be desirable.
Certain properties we own have a low tax basis, which may result in a taxable gain on sale. We intend to utilize 1031 exchanges to mitigate taxable income; however, there can be no assurance that we will identify properties that meet our investment objectives for acquisitions. In the event that we do not utilize 1031 exchanges, we may be required to distribute the gain proceeds to shareholders or pay income tax, which may reduce our cash flow available to fund our commitments.
Certain of the properties in our portfolio are subject to ground leases; if we are unable to renew a ground lease, purchase the fee simple interest, or are found to be in breach of a ground lease, or are unable to renew a ground lease, we may be materially and adversely affected.
We have 2928 properties in our portfolio that are either partially or completely on land subject to ground leases with third parties. Accordingly, we only own a long-term leasehold or similar interest in those properties. If we are foundunable to be in breach of a ground lease, we may lose our interest in the improvements and the right to operate the property that is subject to the ground lease. In addition, unless we can purchase a fee interest in the underlying land or extend the terms of these leases before or upon their expiration, as to which no assurance can be given, we will lose our interest in the improvements and the right to operate such properties. In addition, if we are found to be in breach of a ground lease, we may lose our interest in the improvements and the right to operate the property that is subject to the ground lease. The existing lease terms, including renewal options, were taken into consideration when making our investment decisions. The purchase price and subsequent improvements are being depreciated over the shorter of the remaining
Climate change may adversely impact our properties directly and may lead to additional compliance obligations and costs as well as additional taxes and fees.
To the extent climate change causes adverse changes in weather patterns, our properties in certain markets may experience increases in storm intensity and rising sea‑levels. Climate change may result in volatile or decreased demand for retail space at certain of our properties or, in extreme cases, our inability to operate certain properties at all. Climate change may also have indirect effects on our business by increasing the cost of insurance, or making insurance unavailable. Moreover, compliance with new laws or regulations related to climate change, including compliance with “green” building codes, may require us to make improvements to our existing properties or pay additional taxes and fees assessed on us or our properties. Although we strive to identify, analyze, and respond to the risk and opportunities that climate change presents, at this time, there can be no assurance that climate change will not have an adverse effect on us.
Geographic concentration of our properties makes our business more vulnerable to natural disasters, severe weather conditions and climate change. An uninsured loss or a loss that exceeds the insurance coverage on our properties may subject us to loss of capital and revenue on those properties.
A significant number of our properties are located in areas that are susceptible to earthquakes, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, sea-level rise, and other natural disasters. As ofAt December 31, 2018, 25%2019, 28% of the total insured value of our portfolio is located in the state of California, including a number of properties in the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas. Additionally, 19%18% and 6%7% of the total insured value of our portfolio is located in the states of Florida and Texas, respectively. Recent intense weather conditions may cause property insurance premiums to increase significantly in the future. We recognize that the frequency and / or intensity of extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and other climatic changes may continue to increase, and as a result, our exposure to these events may increase. These weather conditions may disrupt our business and the business of our tenants, which may affect the ability of some tenants to pay rent and may reduce the willingness of tenants or residents to remain in or move to these affected areas. Therefore, as a result of the geographic concentration of our properties, we face risks, including higher costs, such as uninsured property losses and higher insurance premiums, and disruptions to our business and the businesses of our tenants.
An uninsured loss or a loss that exceeds the insurance coverage on our properties may subject us to loss of capital and revenue on those properties.
We carry comprehensive liability, fire, flood, terrorism, rental loss,business interruption, and environmental insurance for our properties with policy specifications and insured limits customarily carried for similar properties. Some types of losses, such as losses from named wind storms,windstorms, earthquakes, terrorism, or wars may have limited coverage or be excluded from insurance coverage. Although we carry
specific insurance coverage for named windstorm and earthquake losses, the policies are subject to deductibles up to 2% to 5% of the total insured value of each property, up to a $10 million maximum deductible per occurrence for each of these perils, with limits of $300 million per occurrence for all perils except earthquake, which has a total annual aggregate limit of $300 million. Terrorism coverage is limited to $200 million per occurrence related to property damage. Liability claims are limited to $151 million per occurrence. Should a loss occur at any of our properties that is subject to a substantial deductible or is in excess of the property or casualty insurance limits of our policies, we may lose part or all of our invested capital and revenues from such property, which may have a material adverse impact on our operating results, financial condition, and our ability to make distributions to stock and unit holders.
Terrorist activities or violence occurring at our properties also may directly affect the value of our properties through damage, destruction or loss. Insurance for such acts may be unavailable or cost more resulting in an increase to our operating expenses and adversely affect our results of operations. To the extent that our tenants are affected by such attacks and threats of attacks, their businesses may be adversely affected, including their ability to continue to meet obligations under their existing leases.
Loss of our key personnel may adversely affect our business and operations.
The success of our business depends, in part, on the leadership and performance of our executive management team and key employees, and our ability to attract, retain and motivate talented employees may significantly impact our future performance. Competition for these individuals is intense, and we cannot be assured that we will retain all of our executive management team and other key employees or that we will be able to attract and retain other highly qualified individuals for these positions in the future. Losing any one or more of these persons may have a materialan adverse effect on us.
We face competition from numerous sources, including other REITs and other real estate owners.
The ownership of shopping centers is highly fragmented. We face competition from other public REITs, large private investors, institutional investors, and from numerous small owners in the acquisition, ownership, and leasing of shopping centers. We also compete to develop shopping centers with other REITs engaged in development activities as well as with local, regional, and national real estate developers. This competition may:
• | reduce the number of properties available for acquisition or development; |
• | increase the cost of properties available for acquisition or development; and |
• | hinder our ability to attract and retain tenants, leading to increased vacancy rates and/or reduced rents. |
If we cannot successfully compete in our targeted markets, our cash flow, and therefore distributions to stock and unit holders, may be adversely affected.
Costs of environmental remediation may reduce our cash flow available for distribution to stock and unit holders.
Under various federal, state, and local laws, an owner or manager of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediationaddressing the presence of hazardous or toxic substances on the property.property, generally arising from dry cleaners, gas stations, and historic land use practices. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of any required remediation may exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the owner or the responsible party. The presence of, or the failure to properly remediate,address the presence of, hazardous or toxic substances may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease a contaminatedthe property or to useborrow using the property as collateral for a loan.collateral. We can provide no assurance that we are aware of all potential environmental liabilities; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental condition not known to us; that our properties will not be affected by tenants or nearby properties or other unrelated third parties; and that future uses or conditions, or changes in environmental laws and regulations will not result in additional material environmental liabilities to us.
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire, safety and other regulations may require us to make unintendedunexpected expenditures.
All of our properties are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements may require removal of access barriers, and noncompliance may result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. While the tenants to whom we lease space in our properties are obligated by law to comply with the ADA provisions, and typically under tenant leases are obligated to cover costs associated with compliance, if required changes involve greater expenditures than anticipated, or if the changes must be made on a more accelerated basis than anticipated, the ability of these tenants to cover costs may be adversely affected. In addition, we are required to operate the properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations, as they may be adopted by governmental entities and become applicable to the properties. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with these requirements, and these expenditures may have a materialan adverse effect on our ability to meet our financial obligations and make distributions to our stock and unit holders.
The unauthorized access, use, theft or destruction of tenant or employee personal, financial or other data or of Regency’s proprietary or confidential information stored in our information systems or by third parties on our behalf could impact our reputation and brand and expose us to potential liability and loss of revenues.
Many of our information technology systems (including those we use for administration, accounting, and communications, as well as the systems of our co-investment partners and other third-party business partners and service providers, whether cloud-based or hosted in proprietary servers) contain personal, financial or other information that is entrusted to us by our tenants and employees. Many of our information technology systems also contain our proprietary Regency information and other confidential information related to our business. We are frequently subject to attempts to compromise our information technology systems. To the extent we or a third party were to experience a material breach of our or such third party’s information technology systems that result in the unauthorized access, theft, use, destruction or other compromises of tenants’ or employees' data or our confidential information of the Company stored in such systems, including through cyber-attacks or other external or internal methods, such a breach may damage our reputation and cause us to lose tenants and revenues, generateincur third party claims and the potentialcause disruption to our business and plans. Such security breaches also could result in a violation of applicable U.S. privacy and other laws, and subject us to private consumer, business partner, or securities litigation and governmental investigations and proceedings, any of which could result in our exposure to material civil or criminal liability, and we may not be able to recover these expenses from our service providers, responsible parties, or insurance carriers.
Additionally, federal, state and local authorities continue to develop laws to address data privacy protection. Monitoring such changes, and taking steps to comply, involves significant costs and effort by management, which may adversely affect our operating results and cash flows.
The techniques and sophistication used to conduct cyber-attacks and breaches of information technology systems, as well as the sources and targets of these attacks, change frequently and are often not recognized until such attacks are launched or have been in place for a period of time. The Company managesWe manage cyber risk by evaluating the impact of a potential cyber breach on our business and determining the level of investment in the prevention, detection and response to a breach. We continue to make significant investments in technology, third-party services and personnel to develop and implement systems and processes that are designed to anticipate cyber-attacks and to prevent or minimize breaches of our information technology systems or data loss, but these security measures cannot provide assurance that we will be successful in preventing such breaches or data loss.
Despite the implementation of security measures for our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, our systems are vulnerable to damages from multiple sources, including computer viruses, unauthorized access, energy blackouts, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication failure. Any system failure or accident that causes interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption to our business and cause us to incur additional costs to remedy such damages.
Risk Factors Related to Our Partnerships and Joint Ventures
We do not have voting control over all of the properties owned in our co-investment partnerships and joint ventures, so we are unable to ensure that our objectives will be pursued.
We have invested substantial capital as a partner in a number of partnerships and joint ventures to acquire, own, lease, develop or redevelop properties. These activities are subject to the same risks as our investments in our wholly-owned properties. These investments, and other future similar investments may involve risks that would not be present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or other owners might become bankrupt, suffer a deterioration in their creditworthiness, or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or other owners may have economic or other business interests or goals that are inconsistent with our own business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives.
These investments, and other future similar investments, also have the potential risk of creating impasses on decisions, such as a sale or financing, because neither we nor our partner or other owner has full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or other owners might result in litigation or arbitration that may increase our expenses and prevent management from focusing their time and efforts on our business. Consequently, actions by, or disputes with, partners or other owners might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we risk the possibility of being liable for the actions of our partners or other owners. These factors may limit the return that we receive from such investments or cause our cash flows to be lower than our estimates.
The termination of our partnerships may adversely affect our cash flow, operating results, and our ability to make distributions to stock and unit holders.
If partnerships owning a significant number of properties were dissolved for any reason, we could lose the asset, property management, leasing and construction management fees from these partnerships as well as the operating income of the properties, which may adversely affect our operating results and our cash available for distribution to stock and unit holders. Certain of our partnership operating agreements provide either member the ability to elect buy/sell clauses. The election of these dissolution provisions could require us to invest additional capital to acquire the partners’ interest or to sell our share of the property thereby losing the operating income and cash flow.
Risk Factors Related to Funding Strategies and Capital Structure
Our ability to sell properties and fund acquisitions and developments may be adversely impacted by higher market capitalization rates and lower NOI at our properties may adversely impact our ability to sell properties and fund developments and acquisitions, andwhich may dilute earnings.
As part of our funding strategy, we sell operating properties that no longer meet our investment standards or those with a limited future growth profile. These sales proceeds are used to fund debt repayment, acquisition of operating properties, and the construction of new developments redevelopments, and repay debt and acquisitions.redevelopments. An increase in market capitalization rates or a decline in NOI may cause a reduction in the value of centers identified for sale, which would have an adverse impact on the amount of cash generated. In order to meet the cash requirements of our development program, we may be required to sell more properties than initially planned, which may have a negative impact on our earnings. Additionally, the sale of properties resulting in significant tax gains may require higher distributions to our stockholders or payment of additional income taxes in order to maintain our REIT status.
We intendmay acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax-deferred contribution transactions, which may result in stockholder dilution and limit our ability to utilize 1031 exchanges to mitigate taxable income, however there can be no assurancesell such assets.
We may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in our operating partnership, which may result in stockholder dilution. This acquisition structure may have the effect of, among other things, reducing the amount of tax depreciation we may deduct over the tax life of the acquired properties, and may require that we will identifyagree to protect the contributors’ ability to defer recognition of taxable gain through restrictions on our ability to dispose of the acquired properties and/or the allocation of partnership debt to the contributors to maintain their tax bases. These restrictions may limit our ability to sell an asset at a time, or on terms, that meet our investment objectives for acquisitions.
We depend on external sources of capital, which may not be available in the future on favorable terms or at all.
To qualify as a REIT, the Parent Company must, among other things, distribute to its stockholders each year at least 90% of its REIT taxable income (excluding any net capital gains). Because of these distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund all future capital needs with income from operations. We therefore will have toIn such instances, we would rely on third-party sources of capital, which may or may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends on a number of things, including the market's perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings. Our access to debt depends on our credit rating, the willingness of creditors to lend to us and conditions in the capital markets. In addition to finding creditors willing to lend to us, we are dependent upon our joint venture partners to contribute their pro rata share of any amount needed to repay or refinance existing debt when lenders reduce the amount of debt our partnerships and joint ventures are eligible to refinance.
In addition, our existing debt arrangements also impose covenants that limit our flexibility in obtaining other financing. Additional equity offerings may result in substantial dilution of stockholders' interests and additional debt financing may substantially increase our degree of leverage.
Without access to external sources of capital, we would be required to pay outstanding debt with our operating cash flows and proceeds from property sales. Our operating cash flows may not be sufficient to pay our outstanding debt as it comes due and real estate investments generally cannot be sold quickly at a return we believe is appropriate. If we are required to
Our debt financing may adversely affect our business and financial condition.
Our ability to make scheduled payments or to refinance our indebtedness will depend primarily on our future performance, which to a certain extent is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. In addition, we do not expect to generate sufficient operating cash flow to make balloon principal payments on our debt when due. If we are unable to refinance our debt on acceptable terms, we may be forced (i) to dispose of properties, which might result in losses, or (ii) to obtain financing at unfavorable terms, either of which may reduce the cash flow available for distributions to stock and unit holders. If we cannot make required mortgage payments, the mortgagee may foreclose on the property securing the mortgage.
Covenants in our debt agreements may restrict our operating activities and adversely affect our financial condition.
Our unsecured notes, unsecured term loans, and unsecured line of credit contain customary covenants, including compliance with financial ratios, such as ratio of total debtindebtedness to grosstotal asset value and fixed charge coverage ratio. Fixed charge coverage ratio is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") divided by the sum of interest expense and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our lenders plus dividends paid to our preferred stockholders, if any. These covenants may limit our operational flexibility and our acquisitioninvestment activities. Moreover, if we breach any of the covenants in our debt agreements, and do not cure the breach within the applicable cure period, our lenders may require us to repay the debt immediately, even in the absence of a payment default. Many of our debt arrangements, including our unsecured notes, unsecured term loans,loan, and unsecured line of credit are cross-defaulted, which means that the lenders under those debt arrangements can put us in default and require immediate repayment of their debt if we breach and fail to cure a default under certain of our other material debt obligations. As a result, any default under our debt
covenants may have an adverse effect on our financial condition, our results of operations, our ability to meet our obligations, and the market value of our stock.
Increases in interest rates would cause our borrowing costs to rise and negatively impact our results of operations.
Although a significant amount of our outstanding debt has fixed interest rates, we do borrow funds at variable interest rates under our credit facilitiesfacility and term loans.loan. As of December 31, 2018, 4.9%2019, 6.5% of our outstanding debt was variable rate debt.debt not hedged to fixed. Increases in interest rates would increase our interest expense on any variable rate debt to the extent we have not hedged our exposure to changes in interest rates. In addition, increases in interest rates will affect the terms under which we refinance our existing debt as it matures, to the extent we have not hedged our exposure to changes in interest rates. This would reduce our future earnings and cash flows, which may adversely affect our ability to service our debt and meet our other obligations and also may reduce the amount we are able to distribute to our stock and unit holders.
Hedging activity may expose us to risks, including the risks that a counterparty will not perform and that the hedge will not yield the economic benefits we anticipate, which may adversely affect us.
We manage our exposure to interest rate volatility by using interest rate hedging arrangements. These arrangements that involve risk, such as the risk that counterparties may fail to honor their obligations under these arrangements, and that these arrangements may not be effective in reducing our exposure to interest rate changes. There can be no assurance that our hedging arrangements will qualify for hedge accounting or that our hedging activities will have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations. Should we desire to terminate a hedging agreement,arrangement, there may be significant costs and cash requirements involved to fulfill our obligations under the hedging agreement. Failurearrangement. In addition, failure to effectively hedge effectively against interest rate changes may adversely affect our results of operations.
The interest rates on our Unsecured Credit facilities as well as on our variable rate mortgages and interest rate swaps might change based on changes to the method in which LIBOR or its replacement rate is determined.
In July 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) that regulates LIBOR announced it intends to stop compelling banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021. As a result, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York organized the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (“ARRC”) which identified the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) as its preferred alternative to USD-LIBOR in derivatives and other financial contracts. We may acquire propertiesare not able to predict when LIBOR will cease to be available or portfolios of properties through tax-deferred contribution transactions, whichwhen there will be sufficient liquidity in the SOFR markets. Any changes adopted by FCA or other governing bodies in the method used for determining LIBOR may result in stockholder dilutiona sudden or prolonged increase or decrease in reported LIBOR. If that were to occur, our interest payments could change. In addition, uncertainty about the extent and limit our ability to sell such assets.
We have contracts that are indexed to LIBOR, including our $1.25 billion unsecured revolving credit facility, $265 million term loan, and fifteen mortgages within our consolidated and unconsolidated portfolio totaling $225.5 million on a Pro-rata basis, as well as interest rate swaps to fix these variable cash flows with notional amounts totaling $442.0 million on a Pro-rata basis. These LIBOR based instruments mature between 2020 and 2028. We are monitoring and evaluating the related risks, which include interest on loans or amounts received and paid on derivative instruments. These risks arise in connection with transitioning contracts to a new alternative rate, including any resulting value transfer that may haveoccur. The value of loans, securities, or derivative instruments tied to LIBOR could also be impacted if LIBOR is limited or discontinued. For some instruments, the effectmethod of among other things, reducing the amount of tax depreciation wetransitioning to an alternative rate may deduct over the tax life of the acquired properties, andbe challenging, as they may require that we agreenegotiation with the respective counterparty.
If a contract is not transitioned to protectan alternative rate and LIBOR is discontinued, the contributors’ abilityimpact is likely to defer recognitionvary by contract. If LIBOR is discontinued or if the methods of taxable gain through restrictionscalculating LIBOR change from their current form, interest rates on our abilitycurrent or future indebtedness and related interest rate swaps may be adversely affected.
While we expect LIBOR to disposebe available in substantially its current form until the end of the acquired properties and/or the allocation of partnership debt2021, it is possible that LIBOR will become unavailable prior to that point. This could result, for example, if sufficient banks decline to make submissions to the contributorsLIBOR administrator. In that case, the risks associated with the transition to maintain their tax bases. These restrictions may limit our ability to sell an asset at a time, or on terms, that wouldalternative reference rate will be favorable absent such restrictions.accelerated and magnified.
Risk Factors Related to our Company and the Market Price for Our Securities
Changes in economic and market conditions may adversely affect the market price of our securities.
The market price of our debt and equity securities may fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, many of which are out of our control, including:
• | actual or anticipated variations in our operating results; |
• | changes in our funds from operations or earnings estimates; |
• | publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry in general and recommendations by financial analysts or actions taken by rating agencies with respect to our securities or those of other REITs; |
• | the ability of our tenants to pay rent and meet their other obligations to us under current lease terms and our ability to re-lease space as leases expire; |
• | increases in market interest rates that drive purchasers of our stock to demand a higher dividend yield; |
• | changes in market valuations of similar companies; |
• | adverse market reaction to any additional debt we incur in the future; |
• | any future issuances of equity securities; |
• | additions or departures of key management personnel; |
• | strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings; |
• | actions by institutional stockholders; |
• | reports by corporate governance rating companies; |
• | increased investor focus on sustainability-related risks, including climate change; |
• | changes in our dividend payments; |
• | potential tax law changes on REITs; |
• | speculation in the press or investment community; and |
• | general market and economic conditions. |
These factors may cause the market price of our securities to decline, regardless of our financial condition, results of operations, business or prospects. It is impossible to ensure that the market price of our securities, including our common stock, will not fall in the future. A decrease in the market price of our common stock may reduce our ability to raise additional equity in the public markets. Selling common stock at a decreased market price would have a dilutive impact on existing stockholders.
There is no assurance that we will continue to pay dividends at historical rates.
Our ability to continue to pay dividends at historical rates or to increase our dividend rate will depend on a number of factors, including, among others, the following:
• | our financial condition and results of future operations; |
• | the terms of our loan covenants; and |
• | our ability to acquire, finance, develop or redevelop and lease additional properties at attractive rates. |
If we do not maintain or periodically increase the dividend on our common stock, it may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock and other securities.
Enhanced focus on corporate responsibility and sustainability, specifically related to environmental, social and governance factors,matters, may impose additional costs and expose us to new risks.
We, as well as increasing numbers of investors, are focused on corporate responsibility and sustainability, specifically related to environmental, social and governance factors.matters (“ESG”). Some investors may use these factorsmatters to guide their investment strategies. Third-party providers of corporate responsibility ratings and reports on companies have increased to meet growing investor demand for measurement of corporate responsibility performance. Although we have generally scored highly in these metrics to date, there can be no assurance that we will continue to score highly in the future. In addition, the criteria by which companies are rated may change, which could cause us to perform worsereceive lower scores than in the past. We may face reputational damage in the event our corporate responsibility and sustainability procedures or standards do not meet the standards set by various constituencies. Furthermore, should our competitors outperform us in such metrics, potential or current investors may elect to invest with our competition instead. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have an adverse effect on the price of our shares and our business, financial condition and results of operations, including increased capital expenditures and and/or increased operating expenses.
Risk Factors Related to Laws and Regulations
If the Parent Company fails to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, it would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates.
We believe that the Parent Company qualifies for taxation as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, and we plan to operate so that we can continue to meet the requirements for taxation as a REIT. If the Parent Company continues to qualify as a REIT, it generally will not be subject to federal income tax on income that we distribute to our stockholders. Many REIT requirements, however, are highly technical and complex. The determination that the Parent Company is a REIT requires an analysis of various factual matters and circumstances, some of which may not be totally within our control and some of which involve questions of interpretation. For example, to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income must come from specific passive sources, like rent, that are itemized in the REIT tax laws. There can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or a court would agree with the positions we have taken in interpreting the REIT requirements. We are also required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains. We will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed taxable income and net capital gain and to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on any amount by which distributions we pay with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income, 95% of our capital gain net income and 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. The fact that we hold many of our assets through co-investment partnerships and their subsidiaries further complicates the application of the REIT requirements. Furthermore, Congress and the IRS might make changes to the tax laws and regulations, and the courts might issue new rulings, that make it more difficult for the Parent Company to remain qualified as a REIT.
Also, unless the IRS granted relief under certain statutory provisions, the Parent Company would remain disqualified as a REIT for four years following the year it first failed to qualify. If the Parent Company failed to qualify as a REIT (currently and/or with respect to any tax years for which the statute of limitations has not expired), we would have to pay significant income taxes, reducing cash available to pay dividends, which would likely have a significant adverse effect on the value of our securities. In addition, we would no longer be required to pay any dividends to stockholders in order to maintain our REIT status. Although we believe that the Parent Company qualifies as a REIT, we cannot be assured that the Parent Company will continue to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT for tax purposes.
Even if the Parent Company qualifies as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we are required to pay certain federal, state, and local taxes on our income and property. For example, if we have net income from “prohibited transactions,” that income will be subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions include sales or other dispositions of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The determination as to whether a particular sale is a prohibited transaction depends on the facts and circumstances related to that sale. While we have undertaken a significant number of asset sales in recent years, we do not believe that those sales should be considered prohibited transactions, but there can be no assurance that the IRS would not contend otherwise.
New legislation, as well as new regulations, administrative interpretations, or court decisions may be introduced, enacted, or promulgated from time to time, that may change the tax laws or interpretations of the tax laws regarding qualification as a REIT, or the federal income tax consequences of that qualification, in a manner that is adverse to our stockholders.
Recent changes to the U.S. tax laws may have a significant negative impact on the overall economy, our tenants, our investors, and our business.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 made significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"“Code”). While the changes in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act generally appear to be favorable with respect to REITs, the extensive changes to non-REIT provisions in the Code may have unanticipated effects on us or our stockholders, including our taxable income, the amount of distributions to our stockholders required in order to maintain our REIT status, and our relative tax advantage as a REIT. The long-term impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on the overall economy, government revenues, our tenants, us, and the real estate industry cannot be reliably predicted at this stage of the new law’s implementation. Furthermore, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act may negatively impact certain of our tenants’ operating results, financial condition, and future business plans. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act may also
result in reduced government revenues, and therefore reduced government spending, which may negatively impact some of our tenants that rely on government funding. There can be no assurance that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will not negativelyadversely impact our operating results, financial condition, and future business operations.
Dividends paid by REITs generally do not qualify for reduced tax rates.
Subject to limited exceptions, dividends paid by REITs (other than distributions designated as capital gain dividends, qualified dividends or returns of capital) are not eligible for reduced rates for qualified dividends paid by "C"“C” corporations and are taxable at ordinary income tax rates. The more favorable tax rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends may cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which may adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including the shares of our capital stock.
Under the recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the rate brackets for non-corporate taxpayer’s ordinary income are adjusted, the top tax rate is reduced from 39.6% to 37% (excluding the 3.8% Medicare tax on net investment income), and ordinary REIT dividends are taxed at even lower effective rates. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, distributions from REITs that are treated as dividends but are not designated as qualified dividends or capital gain dividends are generally taxed as ordinary income after deducting 20% of the amount of the dividend in the case of non-corporate stockholders. At the maximum ordinary income tax rate of 37% applicable for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, the maximum tax rate on ordinary REIT dividends for non-corporate stockholders is generally 29.6% (plus the 3.8% Medicare tax on net investment income).
Certain foreign stockholders may be subject to U.S. federal income tax on gain recognized on a disposition of our common stock if we do not qualify as a "domestically controlled"“domestically controlled” REIT.
A foreign person disposing of a U.S. real property interest, including shares of a U.S. corporation whose assets consist principally of U.S. real property interests is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax on any gain recognized on the disposition. This tax does not apply, however, to the disposition of stock in a REIT if the REIT is "domestically“domestically controlled."” In general, we will be a domestically controlled REIT if at all times during the five-year period ending on the applicable stockholder’s disposition of our stock, less than 50% in value of our stock was held directly or indirectly by non-U.S. persons. If we were to fail to qualify as a domestically controlled REIT, gain recognized by a foreign stockholder on a disposition of our common stock would be subject to U.S. federal income tax unless our common stock was traded on an established securities market and the foreign stockholder did not at any time during a specified testing period directly or indirectly own more than 10% of our outstanding common stock.
Legislative or other actions affecting REITs may have a negative effect on us.
The rules dealing with federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Changes to the tax laws, with or without retroactive application, may adversely affect Regency or our investors. We cannot predict how changes in the tax laws might affect Regency or our investors. New legislation, Treasury Regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may significantly and negatively affect our ability to qualify as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification, or the federal income tax consequences of an investment in us. Also, the law relating to the tax treatment of other entities, or an investment in other entities, may change, making an investment in such other entities more attractive relative to an investment in a REIT.
Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.
The REIT provisions of the Code limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Generally, income from a hedging transaction that constitutes “qualifying income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests applicable to REITs, does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests, provided that we properly identify the
Restrictions on the ownership of the Parent Company's capital stock to preserve its REIT status may delay or prevent a change in control.
Ownership of more than 7% by value of our outstanding capital stock is prohibited, with certain exceptions, by the Parent Company's articles of incorporation, for the purpose of maintaining its qualification as a REIT. This 7% limitation may discourage a change in control and may also (i) deter tender offers for our capital stock, which offers may be attractive to our stockholders, or (ii) limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their capital stock that might otherwise exist if an investor attempted to assemble a block in excess of 7% of our outstanding capital stock or to affect a change in control.
The issuance of the Parent Company's capital stock may delay or prevent a change in control.
The Parent Company's articles of incorporation authorize our Board of Directors to issue up to 30,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of special common stock and to establish the preferences and rights of any shares issued. The issuance of preferred stock or special common stock may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control. The provisions of the Florida Business Corporation Act regarding affiliated transactions may also deter potential acquisitions by preventing the acquiring party from consummating a merger or other extraordinary corporate transaction without the approval of our disinterested stockholders.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2. Properties
The following table is a list of the shopping centers, summarized by state and in order of largest holdings by number of properties, presented for Consolidated Properties (excludes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships):
|
| December 31, 2019 |
|
| December 31, 2018 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Location |
| Number of Properties |
|
| GLA (in thousands) |
|
| Percent of Total GLA |
|
| Percent Leased |
|
| Number of Properties |
|
| GLA (in thousands) |
|
| Percent of Total GLA |
|
| Percent Leased |
| ||||||||
Florida |
|
| 89 |
|
|
| 10,629 |
|
|
| 28.3 | % |
|
| 94.0 | % |
|
| 90 |
|
|
| 10,745 |
|
|
| 28.3 | % |
|
| 94.7 | % |
California |
|
| 57 |
|
|
| 8,633 |
|
|
| 23.0 | % |
|
| 96.8 | % |
|
| 54 |
|
|
| 8,168 |
|
|
| 21.5 | % |
|
| 96.6 | % |
Texas |
|
| 23 |
|
|
| 3,050 |
|
|
| 8.1 | % |
|
| 90.7 | % |
|
| 23 |
|
|
| 3,019 |
|
|
| 8.0 | % |
|
| 97.3 | % |
Georgia |
|
| 21 |
|
|
| 2,048 |
|
|
| 5.5 | % |
|
| 94.6 | % |
|
| 21 |
|
|
| 2,048 |
|
|
| 5.4 | % |
|
| 95.5 | % |
Connecticut |
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 1,453 |
|
|
| 3.9 | % |
|
| 95.0 | % |
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 1,453 |
|
|
| 3.8 | % |
|
| 95.6 | % |
Colorado |
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 1,146 |
|
|
| 3.1 | % |
|
| 96.5 | % |
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 1,146 |
|
|
| 3.0 | % |
|
| 96.2 | % |
New York |
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 1,367 |
|
|
| 3.6 | % |
|
| 93.4 | % |
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 1,367 |
|
|
| 3.6 | % |
|
| 97.8 | % |
North Carolina |
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 901 |
|
|
| 2.4 | % |
|
| 95.5 | % |
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 895 |
|
|
| 2.3 | % |
|
| 96.8 | % |
Massachusetts |
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 931 |
|
|
| 2.5 | % |
|
| 91.7 | % |
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 907 |
|
|
| 2.4 | % |
|
| 98.9 | % |
Washington |
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 857 |
|
|
| 2.3 | % |
|
| 98.3 | % |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 825 |
|
|
| 2.2 | % |
|
| 99.4 | % |
Ohio |
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 1,209 |
|
|
| 3.2 | % |
|
| 98.6 | % |
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 1,205 |
|
|
| 3.2 | % |
|
| 99.4 | % |
Virginia |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 1,256 |
|
|
| 3.3 | % |
|
| 84.2 | % |
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 1,332 |
|
|
| 3.5 | % |
|
| 83.8 | % |
Oregon |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 741 |
|
|
| 2.0 | % |
|
| 95.4 | % |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 741 |
|
|
| 2.0 | % |
|
| 96.1 | % |
Illinois |
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 1,081 |
|
|
| 2.9 | % |
|
| 95.5 | % |
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 1,075 |
|
|
| 2.8 | % |
|
| 91.2 | % |
Missouri |
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 408 |
|
|
| 1.1 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 408 |
|
|
| 1.1 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
Maryland |
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 334 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
|
| 93.4 | % |
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 372 |
|
|
| 1.0 | % |
|
| 85.4 | % |
Tennessee |
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 318 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 318 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 99.1 | % |
Pennsylvania |
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 317 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 97.6 | % |
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 317 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 98.1 | % |
Indiana |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 279 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 254 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 98.4 | % |
Delaware |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 232 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 95.3 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 232 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 95.6 | % |
New Jersey |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 218 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 99.0 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 218 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 96.9 | % |
Michigan |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 97 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 97 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
South Carolina |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
| 0.1 | % |
|
| 97.4 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
| 0.1 | % |
|
| 94.8 | % |
Louisiana |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 753 |
|
|
| 2.0 | % |
|
| 92.8 | % |
Total |
|
| 303 |
|
|
| 37,556 |
|
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 94.7 | % |
|
| 305 |
|
|
| 37,946 |
|
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 95.5 | % |
| December 31, 2018 | December 31, 2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Location | Number of Properties | GLA (in thousands) | Percent of Total GLA | Percent Leased | Number of Properties | GLA (in thousands) | Percent of Total GLA | Percent Leased | ||||||||||||||||
| Florida | 90 | 10,745 | 28.3 | % | 94.7 | % | 96 | 11,255 | 29.1 | % | 94.7 | % | ||||||||||||
| California | 54 | 8,168 | 21.5 | % | 96.6 | % | 56 | 8,549 | 22.1 | % | 96.5 | % | ||||||||||||
| Texas | 23 | 3,019 | 8.0 | % | 97.3 | % | 23 | 3,018 | 7.8 | % | 97.4 | % | ||||||||||||
| Georgia | 21 | 2,048 | 5.4 | % | 95.5 | % | 21 | 2,047 | 5.3 | % | 95.2 | % | ||||||||||||
| Connecticut | 14 | 1,453 | 3.8 | % | 95.6 | % | 14 | 1,458 | 3.8 | % | 96.9 | % | ||||||||||||
| Colorado | 14 | 1,146 | 3.0 | % | 96.2 | % | 14 | 1,146 | 3.0 | % | 97.2 | % | ||||||||||||
| New York | 11 | 1,367 | 3.6 | % | 97.8 | % | 9 | 1,198 | 3.1 | % | 99.0 | % | ||||||||||||
| North Carolina | 10 | 895 | 2.3 | % | 96.8 | % | 10 | 895 | 2.3 | % | 97.0 | % | ||||||||||||
| Massachusetts | 9 | 907 | 2.4 | % | 98.9 | % | 9 | 907 | 2.3 | % | 99.1 | % | ||||||||||||
| Ohio | 8 | 1,205 | 3.2 | % | 99.4 | % | 8 | 1,196 | 3.1 | % | 99.5 | % | ||||||||||||
| Virginia | 8 | 1,332 | 3.5 | % | 83.8 | % | 8 | 1,420 | 3.7 | % | 86.3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Washington | 7 | 825 | 2.2 | % | 99.4 | % | 7 | 825 | 2.1 | % | 99.4 | % | ||||||||||||
| Oregon | 7 | 741 | 2.0 | % | 96.1 | % | 7 | 741 | 1.9 | % | 94.8 | % | ||||||||||||
| Illinois | 6 | 1,075 | 2.8 | % | 91.2 | % | 6 | 1,069 | 2.8 | % | 88.3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Louisiana | 5 | 753 | 2.0 | % | 92.8 | % | 5 | 753 | 1.9 | % | 94.2 | % | ||||||||||||
| Missouri | 4 | 408 | 1.1 | % | 100.0 | % | 4 | 408 | 1.1 | % | 99.7 | % | ||||||||||||
| Maryland | 3 | 372 | 1.0 | % | 85.4 | % | 3 | 372 | 1.0 | % | 86.6 | % | ||||||||||||
| Tennessee | 3 | 318 | 0.8 | % | 99.1 | % | 3 | 317 | 0.8 | % | 97.6 | % | ||||||||||||
| Pennsylvania | 3 | 317 | 0.8 | % | 98.1 | % | 3 | 317 | 0.8 | % | 93.2 | % | ||||||||||||
| Indiana | 1 | 254 | 0.7 | % | 98.4 | % | 1 | 254 | 0.7 | % | 97.7 | % | ||||||||||||
| Delaware | 1 | 232 | 0.6 | % | 95.6 | % | 1 | 232 | 0.6 | % | 95.6 | % | ||||||||||||
| New Jersey | 1 | 218 | 0.6 | % | 96.9 | % | 1 | 218 | 0.6 | % | 86.7 | % | ||||||||||||
| Michigan | 1 | 97 | 0.3 | % | 100.0 | % | 1 | 97 | 0.3 | % | 98.6 | % | ||||||||||||
| South Carolina | 1 | 51 | 0.1 | % | 94.8 | % | 1 | 51 | 0.1 | % | 71.2 | % | ||||||||||||
| Total | 305 | 37,946 | 100.0 | % | 95.5 | % | 311 | 38,743 | 100.0 | % | 95.5 | % | ||||||||||||
Certain Consolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $525.2$486.3 million, excluding debt issuance costs and premiums and discounts, as of December 31, 2018.
The weighted average annual effective rent for the consolidated portfolio of properties, net of tenant concessions, is $21.51$22.38 and $21.01$21.51 PSF as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, and 2017, respectively.
The following table is a list of the shopping centers, summarized by state and in order of largest holdings by number of properties, presented for Unconsolidated Properties (includes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships):
|
| December 31, 2019 |
|
| December 31, 2018 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Location |
| Number of Properties |
|
| GLA (in thousands) |
|
| Percent of Total GLA |
|
| Percent Leased |
|
| Number of Properties |
|
| GLA (in thousands) |
|
| Percent of Total GLA |
|
| Percent Leased |
| ||||||||
California |
|
| 22 |
|
|
| 3,017 |
|
|
| 20.1 | % |
|
| 93.8 | % |
|
| 22 |
|
|
| 3,017 |
|
|
| 19.3 | % |
|
| 94.2 | % |
Virginia |
|
| 15 |
|
|
| 2,075 |
|
|
| 13.8 | % |
|
| 96.4 | % |
|
| 17 |
|
|
| 2,403 |
|
|
| 15.4 | % |
|
| 94.8 | % |
Maryland |
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 1,066 |
|
|
| 7.1 | % |
|
| 94.1 | % |
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 1,184 |
|
|
| 7.6 | % |
|
| 96.2 | % |
Florida |
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 1,045 |
|
|
| 6.9 | % |
|
| 97.7 | % |
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 1,045 |
|
|
| 6.7 | % |
|
| 98.8 | % |
North Carolina |
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 1,269 |
|
|
| 8.4 | % |
|
| 94.8 | % |
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 1,417 |
|
|
| 9.1 | % |
|
| 94.1 | % |
Texas |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 933 |
|
|
| 6.2 | % |
|
| 98.1 | % |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 933 |
|
|
| 6.0 | % |
|
| 98.2 | % |
Washington |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 878 |
|
|
| 5.8 | % |
|
| 96.7 | % |
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 859 |
|
|
| 5.5 | % |
|
| 95.1 | % |
Colorado |
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 854 |
|
|
| 5.7 | % |
|
| 93.1 | % |
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 854 |
|
|
| 5.5 | % |
|
| 93.2 | % |
Pennsylvania |
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 669 |
|
|
| 4.5 | % |
|
| 86.5 | % |
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 666 |
|
|
| 4.2 | % |
|
| 94.4 | % |
Minnesota |
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 665 |
|
|
| 4.4 | % |
|
| 97.0 | % |
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 665 |
|
|
| 4.2 | % |
|
| 99.0 | % |
Illinois |
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 671 |
|
|
| 4.5 | % |
|
| 97.7 | % |
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 671 |
|
|
| 4.3 | % |
|
| 97.1 | % |
New Jersey |
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 353 |
|
|
| 2.3 | % |
|
| 94.1 | % |
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 353 |
|
|
| 2.3 | % |
|
| 96.4 | % |
Massachusetts |
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 726 |
|
|
| 4.8 | % |
|
| 97.0 | % |
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 726 |
|
|
| 4.6 | % |
|
| 98.4 | % |
Indiana |
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 139 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
|
| 88.4 | % |
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 139 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
District of Columbia |
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 40 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 92.5 | % |
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 40 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 84.4 | % |
Connecticut |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 186 |
|
|
| 1.2 | % |
|
| 95.8 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 186 |
|
|
| 1.2 | % |
|
| 80.1 | % |
New York |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 141 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 141 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
Oregon |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
Georgia |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 86 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 93.8 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 86 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 83.8 | % |
South Carolina |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 80 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 80 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 100.0 | % |
Delaware |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
| 0.4 | % |
|
| 89.7 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
| 0.4 | % |
|
| 90.1 | % |
Total |
|
| 116 |
|
|
| 15,050 |
|
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 95.2 | % |
|
| 120 |
|
|
| 15,622 |
|
|
| 100.0 | % |
|
| 95.4 | % |
| December 31, 2018 | December 31, 2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Location | Number of Properties | GLA (in thousands) | Percent of Total GLA | Percent Leased | Number of Properties | GLA (in thousands) | Percent of Total GLA | Percent Leased | ||||||||||||||||
| California | 22 | 3,017 | 19.3 | % | 94.2 | % | 21 | 2,791 | 18.4 | % | 97.0 | % | ||||||||||||
| Virginia | 17 | 2,403 | 15.4 | % | 94.8 | % | 18 | 2,554 | 16.9 | % | 94.3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Maryland | 11 | 1,184 | 7.6 | % | 96.2 | % | 11 | 1,184 | 7.8 | % | 95.8 | % | ||||||||||||
| Florida | 10 | 1,045 | 6.7 | % | 98.8 | % | 10 | 1,040 | 6.9 | % | 97.4 | % | ||||||||||||
| North Carolina | 9 | 1,417 | 9.1 | % | 94.1 | % | 8 | 1,326 | 8.8 | % | 91.6 | % | ||||||||||||
| Texas | 7 | 933 | 6.0 | % | 98.2 | % | 7 | 933 | 6.2 | % | 97.4 | % | ||||||||||||
| Washington | 7 | 859 | 5.5 | % | 95.1 | % | 5 | 621 | 4.1 | % | 96.5 | % | ||||||||||||
| Colorado | 6 | 854 | 5.5 | % | 93.2 | % | 5 | 836 | 5.5 | % | 96.2 | % | ||||||||||||
| Pennsylvania | 6 | 666 | 4.2 | % | 94.4 | % | 6 | 666 | 4.4 | % | 95.7 | % | ||||||||||||
| Minnesota | 5 | 665 | 4.2 | % | 99.0 | % | 5 | 674 | 4.4 | % | 98.3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Illinois | 4 | 671 | 4.3 | % | 97.1 | % | 4 | 671 | 4.4 | % | 95.5 | % | ||||||||||||
| New Jersey | 4 | 353 | 2.3 | % | 96.4 | % | 3 | 287 | 1.9 | % | 98.2 | % | ||||||||||||
| Massachusetts | 2 | 726 | 4.6 | % | 98.4 | % | 2 | 726 | 4.8 | % | 95.7 | % | ||||||||||||
| Indiana | 2 | 139 | 0.9 | % | 100.0 | % | 2 | 139 | 0.9 | % | 99.1 | % | ||||||||||||
| District of Columbia | 2 | 40 | 0.3 | % | 84.4 | % | 2 | 40 | 0.3 | % | 91.8 | % | ||||||||||||
| Connecticut | 1 | 186 | 1.2 | % | 80.1 | % | 1 | 186 | 1.2 | % | 100.0 | % | ||||||||||||
| New York | 1 | 141 | 0.9 | % | 100.0 | % | 1 | 141 | 0.9 | % | 100.0 | % | ||||||||||||
| Oregon | 1 | 93 | 0.6 | % | 100.0 | % | 1 | 93 | 0.6 | % | 98.4 | % | ||||||||||||
| Georgia | 1 | 86 | 0.5 | % | 83.8 | % | 1 | 86 | 0.6 | % | 97.5 | % | ||||||||||||
| South Carolina | 1 | 80 | 0.5 | % | 100.0 | % | 1 | 80 | 0.5 | % | 100.0 | % | ||||||||||||
| Delaware | 1 | 64 | 0.4 | % | 90.1 | % | 1 | 64 | 0.4 | % | 90.1 | % | ||||||||||||
| Total | 120 | 15,622 | 100.0 | % | 95.4 | % | 115 | 15,138 | 100.0 | % | 95.6 | % | ||||||||||||
Certain Unconsolidated Properties are encumbered by non-recourse mortgage loans of $1.6 billion, excluding debt issuance costs and premiums and discounts, as of December 31, 2018.
The weighted average annual effective rent for the unconsolidated portfolio of properties, net of tenant concessions, is $21.46$21.69 and $20.63$21.46 PSF as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, and 2017, respectively.
The following table summarizes the largestour top tenants occupying our shopping centers for Consolidated Properties plus our pro-rataPro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties, as of December 31, 2018,2019, based upon a percentage of total annualized base rent (GLA and dollars in thousands):
Tenant |
| GLA |
|
| Percent of Company Owned GLA |
|
| Annualized Base Rent |
|
| Percent of Annualized Base Rent |
|
| Number of Leased Stores |
| |||||
Publix |
|
| 2,757 |
|
|
| 6.4 | % |
| $ | 29,869 |
|
|
| 3.2 | % |
|
| 68 |
|
Kroger Co. |
|
| 2,855 |
|
|
| 6.7 | % |
|
| 27,716 |
|
|
| 3.0 | % |
|
| 56 |
|
Albertsons Companies, Inc. |
|
| 1,819 |
|
|
| 4.3 | % |
|
| 25,960 |
|
|
| 2.8 | % |
|
| 46 |
|
TJX Companies, Inc. |
|
| 1,345 |
|
|
| 3.1 | % |
|
| 22,519 |
|
|
| 2.4 | % |
|
| 62 |
|
Whole Foods |
|
| 1,062 |
|
|
| 2.5 | % |
|
| 22,482 |
|
|
| 2.4 | % |
|
| 33 |
|
CVS |
|
| 654 |
|
|
| 1.5 | % |
|
| 15,053 |
|
|
| 1.6 | % |
|
| 57 |
|
Ahold/Delhaize |
|
| 475 |
|
|
| 1.1 | % |
|
| 11,471 |
|
|
| 1.2 | % |
|
| 13 |
|
L.A. Fitness Sports Club |
|
| 453 |
|
|
| 1.1 | % |
|
| 9,299 |
|
|
| 1.0 | % |
|
| 13 |
|
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. |
|
| 498 |
|
|
| 1.2 | % |
|
| 9,235 |
|
|
| 1.0 | % |
|
| 19 |
|
Ross Dress For Less |
|
| 573 |
|
|
| 1.3 | % |
|
| 8,840 |
|
|
| 1.0 | % |
|
| 26 |
|
Nordstrom |
|
| 320 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 8,839 |
|
|
| 1.0 | % |
|
| 9 |
|
Trader Joe's |
|
| 271 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 8,732 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
|
| 27 |
|
Gap, Inc |
|
| 246 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 8,012 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
|
| 20 |
|
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc |
|
| 308 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 7,393 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 37 |
|
JPMorgan Chase Bank |
|
| 127 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 7,027 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 39 |
|
JAB Holding Company (1) |
|
| 181 |
|
|
| 0.4 | % |
|
| 6,964 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 61 |
|
Starbucks |
|
| 137 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 6,824 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 97 |
|
Bank of America |
|
| 131 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 6,697 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 42 |
|
Wells Fargo Bank |
|
| 128 |
|
|
| 0.3 | % |
|
| 6,561 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 49 |
|
Target |
|
| 570 |
|
|
| 1.3 | % |
|
| 6,365 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 6 |
|
Walgreens Boots Alliance |
|
| 262 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 6,175 |
|
|
| 0.7 | % |
|
| 25 |
|
Kohl's |
|
| 612 |
|
|
| 1.4 | % |
|
| 5,859 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 8 |
|
H.E. Butt Grocery Company |
|
| 347 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 5,858 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 5 |
|
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. |
|
| 340 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 5,516 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 7 |
|
Ulta |
|
| 170 |
|
|
| 0.4 | % |
|
| 5,110 |
|
|
| 0.6 | % |
|
| 19 |
|
Wal-Mart |
|
| 660 |
|
|
| 1.5 | % |
|
| 4,746 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 7 |
|
AT&T, Inc |
|
| 102 |
|
|
| 0.2 | % |
|
| 4,720 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 53 |
|
Best Buy |
|
| 214 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 4,686 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 6 |
|
Barneys New York (2) |
|
| 57 |
|
|
| 0.1 | % |
|
| 4,500 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 1 |
|
Staples, Inc. |
|
| 204 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 4,487 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 11 |
|
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. |
|
| 344 |
|
|
| 0.8 | % |
|
| 4,231 |
|
|
| 0.5 | % |
|
| 4 |
|
Top Tenants |
|
| 18,222 |
|
|
| 42.3 | % |
| $ | 311,746 |
|
|
| 33.7 | % |
|
| 926 |
|
(1) | JAB Holding Company includes Panera, Einstein Bagels, Peet’s Coffee & Tea, and Krispy Kreme |
| Tenant | GLA | Percent of Company Owned GLA | Annualized Base Rent | Percent of Annualized Base Rent | Number of Leased Stores | |||||||
| Publix | 2,839 | 6.5% | $ | 29,341 | 3.2% | 70 | ||||||
| Kroger Co. | 2,855 | 6.6% | 27,632 | 3.0% | 56 | |||||||
| Albertsons Companies, Inc. | 1,833 | 4.2% | 25,871 | 2.8% | 47 | |||||||
| Whole Foods | 1,053 | 2.4% | 21,845 | 2.4% | 32 | |||||||
| TJX Companies | 1,282 | 3.0% | 21,277 | 2.3% | 59 | |||||||
| CVS | 662 | 1.5% | 14,222 | 1.6% | 57 | |||||||
| Ahold/Delhaize | 563 | 1.3% | 13,202 | 1.4% | 16 | |||||||
| Bed Bath & Beyond | 594 | 1.4% | 9,956 | 1.1% | 22 | |||||||
| Nordstrom | 320 | 0.7% | 8,755 | 1.0% | 9 | |||||||
| Ross Dress For Less | 551 | 1.3% | 8,548 | 0.9% | 25 | |||||||
| PETCO | 352 | 0.8% | 8,443 | 0.9% | 43 | |||||||
| L.A. Fitness Sports Club | 423 | 1.0% | 8,389 | 0.9% | 12 | |||||||
| Trader Joe's | 258 | 0.6% | 8,039 | 0.9% | 26 | |||||||
JAB Holding Company (1) | 181 | 0.4% | 6,733 | 0.7% | 62 | |||||||
| Starbucks | 140 | 0.3% | 6,697 | 0.7% | 101 | |||||||
| Wells Fargo Bank | 132 | 0.3% | 6,620 | 0.7% | 52 | |||||||
| Gap | 196 | 0.5% | 6,592 | 0.7% | 15 | |||||||
| Walgreens | 288 | 0.7% | 6,412 | 0.7% | 27 | |||||||
| Target | 570 | 1.3% | 6,365 | 0.7% | 6 | |||||||
| Bank of America | 119 | 0.3% | 6,167 | 0.7% | 40 | |||||||
| JPMorgan Chase Bank | 108 | 0.2% | 5,940 | 0.7% | 34 | |||||||
| H.E.B. | 344 | 0.8% | 5,844 | 0.6% | 5 | |||||||
| Kohl's | 612 | 1.4% | 5,645 | 0.6% | 8 | |||||||
| Dick's Sporting Goods | 340 | 0.8% | 5,388 | 0.6% | 7 | |||||||
| Ulta | 169 | 0.4% | 5,049 | 0.6% | 19 | |||||||
| Top 25 Tenants | 16,784 | 38.7% | 278,972 | 30.4% | 850 | |||||||
(1) JAB Holding Company includes Panera, Einstein Bros Bagels, Peet's' Coffee & Tea, and Krispy Kreme | ||||||||||||
(2) | Barneys filed for bankruptcy in July 2019. Lease income for Barneys is being recognized on a cash basis effective June 30, 2019 and the lease is expected to terminate in February 2020. |
Our leases for tenant space under 10,000 square feet generally have initial terms ranging from three to seven years. Leases greater than 10,000 square feet generally have initial lease terms in excess of five years, mostly comprised of anchor tenants. Many of the anchor leases contain provisions allowing the tenant the option of extending the term of the lease at expiration. Our leases typically provide for the payment of fixed minimumbase rent, the tenant's pro-rataPro-rata share of real estate taxes, insurance, and common area maintenance (“CAM”) expenses, and reimbursement for utility costs if not directly metered.
The following table summarizes pro-rataPro-rata lease expirations for the next ten years and thereafter, for our Consolidated and Unconsolidated Properties, assuming no tenants renew their leases (GLA and dollars in thousands):
Lease Expiration Year |
| Number of Tenants with Expiring Leases |
|
| Pro-rata Expiring GLA |
|
| Percent of Total Company GLA |
|
| In Place Base Rent Expiring Under Leases |
|
| Percent of Base Rent |
|
| Pro-rata Expiring Average Base Rent |
| ||||||
(1) |
|
| 157 |
|
|
| 369 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
| $ | 8,285 |
|
|
| 0.9 | % |
| $ | 22.47 |
|
2020 |
|
| 1,097 |
|
|
| 3,317 |
|
|
| 8.3 | % |
|
| 80,053 |
|
|
| 8.9 | % |
|
| 24.13 |
|
2021 |
|
| 1,274 |
|
|
| 4,598 |
|
|
| 11.5 | % |
|
| 99,884 |
|
|
| 11.1 | % |
|
| 21.72 |
|
2022 |
|
| 1,353 |
|
|
| 5,297 |
|
|
| 13.3 | % |
|
| 124,189 |
|
|
| 13.7 | % |
|
| 23.45 |
|
2023 |
|
| 1,123 |
|
|
| 4,633 |
|
|
| 11.6 | % |
|
| 111,510 |
|
|
| 12.3 | % |
|
| 24.07 |
|
2024 |
|
| 1,091 |
|
|
| 5,406 |
|
|
| 13.5 | % |
|
| 118,650 |
|
|
| 13.1 | % |
|
| 21.95 |
|
2025 |
|
| 616 |
|
|
| 3,221 |
|
|
| 8.1 | % |
|
| 76,748 |
|
|
| 8.5 | % |
|
| 23.83 |
|
2026 |
|
| 372 |
|
|
| 2,209 |
|
|
| 5.5 | % |
|
| 56,602 |
|
|
| 6.3 | % |
|
| 25.62 |
|
2027 |
|
| 303 |
|
|
| 1,892 |
|
|
| 4.7 | % |
|
| 44,557 |
|
|
| 4.9 | % |
|
| 23.55 |
|
2028 |
|
| 310 |
|
|
| 2,165 |
|
|
| 5.4 | % |
|
| 52,093 |
|
|
| 5.8 | % |
|
| 24.06 |
|
2029 |
|
| 307 |
|
|
| 1,718 |
|
|
| 4.3 | % |
|
| 35,103 |
|
|
| 3.9 | % |
|
| 20.43 |
|
Thereafter |
|
| 343 |
|
|
| 5,128 |
|
|
| 12.9 | % |
|
| 96,186 |
|
|
| 10.6 | % |
|
| 18.76 |
|
Total |
|
| 8,346 |
|
|
| 39,953 |
|
|
| 100.0 | % |
| $ | 903,860 |
|
|
| 100.0 | % |
| $ | 22.62 |
|
(1) | Leases currently under month-to-month rent or in process of renewal. |
| Lease Expiration Year | Number of Tenants with Expiring Leases | Pro-rata Expiring GLA | Percent of Total Company GLA | In Place Base Rent Expiring Under Leases | Percent of Base Rent | Pro-rata Expiring Average Base Rent | ||||||||||||||
| (1) | 549 | 321 | 0.8 | % | $ | 8,569 | 1.0 | % | $ | 26.72 | ||||||||||
| 2019 | 1,014 | 3,146 | 7.7 | % | 65,555 | 7.4 | % | 20.84 | ||||||||||||
| 2020 | 1,335 | 4,815 | 11.9 | % | 103,395 | 11.7 | % | 21.47 | ||||||||||||
| 2021 | 1,301 | 5,102 | 12.6 | % | 105,970 | 11.9 | % | 20.77 | ||||||||||||
| 2022 | 1,271 | 5,535 | 13.6 | % | 121,984 | 13.8 | % | 22.04 | ||||||||||||
| 2023 | 1,136 | 4,456 | 11.0 | % | 106,188 | 12.0 | % | 23.83 | ||||||||||||
| 2024 | 620 | 3,573 | 8.8 | % | 78,781 | 8.9 | % | 22.05 | ||||||||||||
| 2025 | 373 | 1,888 | 4.6 | % | 49,747 | 5.6 | % | 26.35 | ||||||||||||
| 2026 | 325 | 1,972 | 4.8 | % | 48,486 | 5.4 | % | 24.59 | ||||||||||||
| 2027 | 291 | 1,892 | 4.7 | % | 42,762 | 4.8 | % | 22.60 | ||||||||||||
| 2028 | 359 | 2,182 | 5.4 | % | 50,727 | 5.7 | % | 23.25 | ||||||||||||
| Thereafter | 351 | 5,738 | 14.1 | % | 104,319 | 11.8 | % | 18.18 | ||||||||||||
| Total | 8,925 | 40,620 | 100.0 | % | $ | 886,483 | 100.0 | % | $ | 21.82 | ||||||||||
(1) Leases currently under month-to-month rent or in process of renewal. | ||||||||||||||||||||
During 2019,2020, we have a total of 1,0141,097 leases expiring, representing 3.13.3 million square feet of GLA. These expiring leases have an average base rent of $20.84$24.13 PSF. The average base rent of new leases signed during 20182019 was $27.15$28.38 PSF. During periods of recessioneconomic weakness or when occupancy is low, tenants have more bargaining power, which may result in rental rate declines on new or renewal leases. In periods of recovery and/or when occupancy levels are high, landlords have more bargaining power, which generally results in rental rate growth on new and renewal leases. Based on current economic trends and expectations, the quality and mix of tenants in our centers, and pro-rataPro-rata percent leased of 95.6%94.8%, we expect average base rent on new and renewal leases during 20192020 to meet or exceed average rental rates on leases expiring in 2019.2020. Exceptions may arise in certain geographic areas or at specific shopping centers based on the local economic situation, competition, location, quality, and size of the space being leased, among other factors. Additionally, significant changes or uncertainties affecting micro- or macroeconomic climates may cause significant changes to our current expectations.
The following property table lists information about our Consolidated and alsoUnconsolidated Properties. For further information, see Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis, for further information about our Consolidated and Unconsolidated Properties.
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF | ||||||||||
| 200 Potrero | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2017 | 1928 | $— | 31 | 100.0% | $12.98 | -- | |||||||||||
| 4S Commons Town Center | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 85% | 2004 | 2004 | 85,000 | 240 | 100.0% | 33.67 | Ralphs, Jimbo's...Naturally! | ||||||||||
| Amerige Heights Town Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2000 | 2000 | — | 89 | 100.0% | 29.75 | Albertsons, (Target) | |||||||||||
| Balboa Mesa Shopping Center | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 2012 | 1969 | — | 207 | 100.0% | 25.83 | Von's Food & Drug, Kohl's | |||||||||||
| Bayhill Shopping Center | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1990/2018 | 19,964 | 122 | 95.7% | 25.02 | Mollie Stone's Market | ||||||||||
| Blossom Valley | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara | CA | 20% | 1999 | 1990 | 22,300 | 93 | 96.7% | 26.77 | Safeway | ||||||||||
Brea Marketplace (6) | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1987 | 45,026 | 352 | 99.2% | 19.24 | Sprout's Markets, Target, 24 Hour Fitness | ||||||||||
| Circle Center West | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2017 | 1989 | 9,864 | 64 | 100.0% | 27.67 | -- | |||||||||||
| Clayton Valley Shopping Center | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2003 | 2004 | — | 260 | 91.5% | 22.29 | Grocery Outlet, Orchard Supply Hardware | |||||||||||
| Corral Hollow | Stockton-Lodi | CA | 25% | 2000 | 2000 | — | 167 | 100.0% | 17.48 | Safeway, Orchard Supply & Hardware | ||||||||||
| Costa Verde Center | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 1999 | 1988 | — | 179 | 89.5% | 34.68 | Bristol Farms | |||||||||||
| Culver Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2017 | 1950 | — | 217 | 95.7% | 31.59 | Ralphs, Best Buy, LA Fitness | |||||||||||
| Diablo Plaza | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 1999 | 1982 | — | 63 | 100.0% | 40.11 | (Safeway) | |||||||||||
| El Camino Shopping Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 1999 | 1995 | — | 136 | 97.7% | 37.41 | Bristol Farms, Trader Joe's | |||||||||||
| El Cerrito Plaza | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2000 | 2000 | — | 256 | 97.0% | 29.83 | (Lucky's), Trader Joe's | |||||||||||
| El Norte Pkwy Plaza | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 1999 | 1984 | — | 91 | 97.0% | 18.53 | Von's Food & Drug | |||||||||||
| Encina Grande | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 1999 | 1965 | — | 106 | 100.0% | 31.43 | Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Five Points Shopping Center | Santa Maria-Santa Barbara | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1960 | 25,495 | 145 | 98.7% | 28.66 | Smart & Final | ||||||||||
| Folsom Prairie City Crossing | Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade | CA | 1999 | 1999 | — | 90 | 100.0% | 20.90 | Safeway | |||||||||||
| French Valley Village Center | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario | CA | 2004 | 2004 | — | 99 | 98.6% | 26.79 | Stater Bros. | |||||||||||
| Friars Mission Center | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 1999 | 1989 | — | 147 | 99.1% | 35.09 | Ralphs | |||||||||||
| Gateway 101 | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2008 | 2008 | — | 92 | 100.0% | 32.05 | (Home Depot), (Best Buy), Target, Nordstrom Rack | |||||||||||
| Gelson's Westlake Market Plaza | Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura | CA | 2002 | 2002 | — | 85 | 95.7% | 27.98 | Gelson's Markets | |||||||||||
| Golden Hills Plaza | San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande | CA | 2006 | 2006 | — | 244 | 97.5% | 7.58 | Lowe's | |||||||||||
| Granada Village | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1965 | 50,000 | 226 | 98.8% | 23.88 | Sprout's Markets | ||||||||||
| Hasley Canyon Village | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 20% | 2003 | 2003 | 16,000 | 66 | 100.0% | 25.43 | Ralphs | ||||||||||
| Heritage Plaza | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 1999 | 1981 | — | 230 | 100.0% | 37.39 | Ralphs | |||||||||||
| Jefferson Square | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario | CA | 2007 | 2007 | — | 38 | 48.9% | 16.07 | -- | |||||||||||
| Laguna Niguel Plaza | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1985 | — | 42 | 100.0% | 28.54 | (Albertsons) | ||||||||||
| Marina Shores | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 20% | 2008 | 2001 | 10,489 | 68 | 100.0% | 36.21 | Whole Foods | ||||||||||
| Mariposa Shopping Center | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1957/2018 | 19,309 | 127 | 97.7% | 19.98 | Safeway | ||||||||||
| Morningside Plaza | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 1999 | 1996 | — | 91 | 95.7% | 23.12 | Stater Bros. | |||||||||||
| Navajo Shopping Center | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1964 | 7,870 | 102 | 100.0% | 14.55 | Albertsons | ||||||||||
| Newland Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 1999 | 1985 | — | 152 | 100.0% | 26.17 | Albertsons | |||||||||||
Property Name |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||
Amerige Heights Town Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
| $ | — |
|
|
| 89 |
|
| 98.9% |
|
| $ | 29.91 |
|
| Albertsons, (Target) |
Brea Marketplace |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1987 |
|
| 43,882 |
|
|
| 352 |
|
| 99.2% |
|
|
| 19.94 |
|
| Sprout's, Target, 24 Hour Fitness, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Childtime Childcare, Golf Galaxy, Old Navy | |
Circle Center West |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1989 |
|
| 9,513 |
|
|
| 64 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 28.42 |
|
| Marshalls |
Circle Marina Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2019 |
| 1959 |
|
| 24,000 |
|
|
| 118 |
|
| 94.1% |
|
|
| 30.45 |
|
| Staples, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Centinela Feed & Pet Supplies |
Culver Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1950 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 217 |
|
| 95.7% |
|
|
| 31.91 |
|
| Ralphs, Best Buy, LA Fitness, Sit N' Sleep, Tuesday Morning |
Culver Public Market (7) |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2019 |
| 2019 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 27 |
|
| 49.4% |
|
|
| 56.17 |
|
| Urbanspace |
El Camino Shopping Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 136 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 38.81 |
|
| Bristol Farms, CVS |
Granada Village |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1965 |
|
| 50,000 |
|
|
| 226 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 24.71 |
|
| Sprout's Markets, Rite Aid, Stein Mart, PETCO, Homegoods | |
Hasley Canyon Village |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 20% |
|
| 2003 |
| 2003 |
|
| 16,000 |
|
|
| 66 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 25.83 |
|
| Ralphs | |
Heritage Plaza |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1981 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 230 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 38.61 |
|
| Ralphs, CVS, Daiso, Mitsuwa Marketplace, Total Woman |
Laguna Niguel Plaza |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 42 |
|
| 94.1% |
|
|
| 28.43 |
|
| (Albertsons), CVS | |
Marina Shores |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 20% |
|
| 2008 |
| 2001 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 68 |
|
| 98.3% |
|
|
| 36.12 |
|
| Whole Foods, PETCO | |
Morningside Plaza |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1996 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 91 |
|
| 99.1% |
|
|
| 23.76 |
|
| Stater Bros. |
Newland Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 152 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 26.84 |
|
| Albertsons |
Plaza Hermosa |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 95 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 26.92 |
|
| Von's, CVS |
Ralphs Circle Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1983 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 60 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 18.56 |
|
| Ralphs |
Rona Plaza |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1989 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 52 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 21.25 |
|
| Superior Super Warehouse |
Seal Beach |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 20% |
|
| 2002 |
| 1966 |
|
| 2,200 |
|
|
| 97 |
|
| 94.8% |
|
|
| 25.81 |
|
| Safeway, CVS | |
South Bay Village |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2012 |
| 2012 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 108 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 20.31 |
|
| Wal-Mart, Orchard Supply Hardware, Homegoods |
Talega Village Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 102 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 22.40 |
|
| Ralphs |
Town and Country Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 18% |
|
| 2018 |
| 1962 |
|
| 90,000 |
|
|
| 230 |
|
| 38.3% |
|
|
| 49.99 |
|
| Whole Foods, CVS, Citibank | |
Tustin Legacy |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2016 |
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 112 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 32.06 |
|
| Stater Bros, CVS |
Twin Oaks Shopping Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1978 |
|
| 9,283 |
|
|
| 98 |
|
| 97.1% |
|
|
| 21.22 |
|
| Ralphs, Rite Aid | |
Valencia Crossroads |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2002 |
| 2003 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 173 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.96 |
|
| Whole Foods, Kohl's |
Village at La Floresta |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 2014 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 87 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 34.23 |
|
| Whole Foods |
Von's Circle Center |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1972 |
|
| 7,083 |
|
|
| 151 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 22.14 |
|
| Von's, Ross Dress for Less, Planet Fitness |
Woodman Van Nuys |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1992 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 108 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.42 |
|
| El Super |
Silverado Plaza |
| Napa |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1974 |
|
| 9,413 |
|
|
| 85 |
|
| 99.0% |
|
|
| 18.26 |
|
| Nob Hill, CVS | |
Gelson's Westlake Market Plaza |
| Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2002 |
| 2002 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 85 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 29.07 |
|
| Gelson's Markets, John of Italy Salon & Spa |
Oakbrook Plaza |
| Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 83 |
|
| 99.0% |
|
|
| 21.70 |
|
| Gelson's Markets, (Longs Drug) |
Westlake Village Plaza and Center |
| Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1975 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 201 |
|
| 95.1% |
|
|
| 38.76 |
|
| Von's, Sprouts, (CVS) |
French Valley Village Center |
| Rvrside-San Bernardino-Ontario |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2004 |
| 2004 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 99 |
|
| 98.6% |
|
|
| 27.28 |
|
| Stater Bros, CVS |
Jefferson Square |
| Rvrside-San Bernardino-Ontario |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 38 |
|
| 48.9% |
|
|
| 16.51 |
|
| CVS |
Folsom Prairie City Crossing |
| Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 21.09 |
|
| Safeway |
Oak Shade Town Center |
| Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2011 |
| 1998 |
|
| 6,954 |
|
|
| 104 |
|
| 99.3% |
|
|
| 22.60 |
|
| Safeway, Office Max, Rite Aid |
Raley's Supermarket |
| Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade |
| CA |
| 20% |
|
| 2007 |
| 1964 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 63 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 12.50 |
|
| Raley's | |
The Marketplace (fka The Marketplace Shopping Center) |
| Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 111 |
|
| 97.1% |
|
|
| 25.74 |
|
| Safeway,CVS, Petco |
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF | ||||||||||
| Oak Shade Town Center | Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade | CA | 2011 | 1998 | 7,570 | 104 | 96.3% | 22.67 | Safeway | |||||||||||
| Oakbrook Plaza | Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura | CA | 1999 | 1982 | — | 83 | 98.8% | 20.83 | Gelson's Markets | |||||||||||
| Parnassus Heights Medical | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 50% | 2017 | 1968 | — | 146 | 99.6% | 83.75 | Central Parking System | ||||||||||
| Persimmon Place | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2014 | 2014 | — | 153 | 100.0% | 35.03 | Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack | |||||||||||
| Plaza Escuela | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2017 | 2002 | — | 155 | 98.8% | 44.89 | -- | |||||||||||
| Plaza Hermosa | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 1999 | 1984 | — | 95 | 92.8% | 26.11 | Von's Food & Drug | |||||||||||
| Pleasant Hill Shopping Center | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1970 | 50,000 | 227 | 100.0% | 22.77 | Target, Burlington | ||||||||||
| Pleasanton Plaza | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2017 | 1981 | — | 163 | 76.8% | 11.08 | JCPenney | |||||||||||
| Point Loma Plaza | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1987 | 24,901 | 205 | 98.8% | 22.70 | Von's Food & Drug | ||||||||||
| Potrero Center | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2017 | 1968 | — | 227 | 83.5% | 33.82 | Safeway | |||||||||||
| Powell Street Plaza | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2001 | 1987 | — | 166 | 91.2% | 34.56 | Trader Joe's | |||||||||||
| Raley's Supermarket | Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade | CA | 20% | 2007 | 1964 | — | 63 | 100.0% | 12.50 | Raley's | ||||||||||
| Ralphs Circle Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2017 | 1983 | — | 60 | 100.0% | 18.33 | Ralphs | |||||||||||
| Rancho San Diego Village | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1981 | 21,468 | 153 | 94.6% | 22.23 | Smart & Final | ||||||||||
| Rona Plaza | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 1999 | 1989 | — | 52 | 100.0% | 21.04 | Superior Super Warehouse | |||||||||||
| San Carlos Marketplace | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2017 | 1999 | — | 154 | 100.0% | 35.23 | TJ Maxx, Best Buy | |||||||||||
| Scripps Ranch Marketplace | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 2017 | 2017 | 27,000 | 132 | 100.0% | 30.49 | Vons | |||||||||||
| San Leandro Plaza | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 1999 | 1982 | — | 50 | 100.0% | 36.54 | (Safeway) | |||||||||||
| Seal Beach | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 20% | 2002 | 1966 | 2,200 | 97 | 95.7% | 25.62 | Von's Food & Drug | ||||||||||
| Sequoia Station | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 1999 | 1996 | — | 103 | 100.0% | 40.70 | (Safeway) | |||||||||||
| Serramonte Center | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2017 | 1968 | — | 1,074 | 97.4% | 24.74 | Macy's, Target, Dick's Sporting Goods, JCPenney, Dave & Buster's, Nordstrom Rack | |||||||||||
| Shoppes at Homestead | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara | CA | 1999 | 1983 | — | 113 | 100.0% | 23.10 | (Orchard Supply Hardware) | |||||||||||
| Silverado Plaza | Napa | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1974 | 9,639 | 85 | 99.0% | 17.77 | Nob Hill | ||||||||||
| Snell & Branham Plaza | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1988 | 12,867 | 92 | 100.0% | 19.20 | Safeway | ||||||||||
| South Bay Village | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2012 | 2012 | — | 108 | 100.0% | 20.31 | Wal-Mart, Orchard Supply Hardware | |||||||||||
| Talega Village Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2017 | 2007 | — | 102 | 100.0% | 22.43 | Ralphs | |||||||||||
| Tassajara Crossing | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 1999 | 1990 | — | 146 | 99.3% | 24.29 | Safeway | |||||||||||
| The Hub Hillcrest Market | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 2012 | 1990 | — | 149 | 95.2% | 38.78 | Ralphs, Trader Joe's | |||||||||||
| The Marketplace Shopping Ctr | Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade | CA | 2017 | 1990 | — | 111 | 96.7% | 24.80 | Safeway | |||||||||||
| Town and Country Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 9.4% | 2018 | 1962/1992 | 90,000 | 230 | 40.0% | 38.88 | Whole Foods | ||||||||||
| Tustin Legacy | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2016 | 2017 | — | 112 | 100.0% | 31.57 | Stater Bros. | |||||||||||
| Twin Oaks Shopping Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1978/2018 | 9,507 | 98 | 98.2% | 20.16 | Ralphs | ||||||||||
| Twin Peaks | San Diego-Carlsbad | CA | 1999 | 1988 | — | 208 | 100.0% | 20.84 | Target, Atlas International Market | |||||||||||
| Valencia Crossroads | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2002 | 2003 | — | 173 | 100.0% | 26.63 | Whole Foods, Kohl's | |||||||||||
| Village at La Floresta | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2014 | 2014 | — | 87 | 100.0% | 33.89 | Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Von's Circle Center | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 2017 | 1972 | 7,699 | 151 | 100.0% | 21.87 | Von's, Ross Dress for Less | |||||||||||
| West Park Plaza | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara | CA | 1999 | 1996 | — | 88 | 100.0% | 18.13 | Safeway | |||||||||||
Property Name |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||
4S Commons Town Center |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
| 85% |
|
| 2004 |
| 2004 |
|
| 85,000 |
|
|
| 240 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 33.85 |
|
| Ralphs, Jimbo's...Naturally!, Bed Bath & Beyond, Cost Plus World Market, CVS, Ace Hardware, Ulta | |
Balboa Mesa Shopping Center |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2012 |
| 1969 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 207 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 26.98 |
|
| Von's, Kohl's, CVS |
Costa Verde Center |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 179 |
|
| 84.3% |
|
|
| 33.55 |
|
| Bristol Farms, Bookstar, The Boxing Club |
El Norte Pkwy Plaza |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 91 |
|
| 96.0% |
|
|
| 18.79 |
|
| Von's, CVS, Children's Paradise |
Friars Mission Center |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1989 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 147 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 35.55 |
|
| Ralphs, CVS |
Navajo Shopping Center |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1964 |
|
| 7,685 |
|
|
| 102 |
|
| 99.1% |
|
|
| 14.77 |
|
| Albertsons, Rite Aid, O'Reilly Auto Parts | |
Point Loma Plaza |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1987 |
|
| 24,319 |
|
|
| 205 |
|
| 94.9% |
|
|
| 22.96 |
|
| Von's, 24 Hour Fitness, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Marshalls | |
Rancho San Diego Village |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1981 |
|
| 20,974 |
|
|
| 153 |
|
| 98.3% |
|
|
| 22.36 |
|
| Smart & Final, (Longs Drug), 24 Hour Fitness | |
Scripps Ranch Marketplace |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2017 |
|
| 27,000 |
|
|
| 132 |
|
| 98.7% |
|
|
| 31.75 |
|
| Vons, CVS |
The Hub Hillcrest Market |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2012 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 149 |
|
| 99.4% |
|
|
| 39.39 |
|
| Ralphs, Trader Joe's |
Twin Peaks |
| San Diego-Carlsbad |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 208 |
|
| 99.5% |
|
|
| 21.12 |
|
| Atlas International Market, Target |
200 Potrero |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1928 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 31 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 13.37 |
|
| Gizmo Art Production, INC. |
Bayhill Shopping Center |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1990 |
|
| 19,494 |
|
|
| 122 |
|
| 97.1% |
|
|
| 26.04 |
|
| Mollie Stone's Market, CVS | |
Clayton Valley Shopping Center |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2003 |
| 2004 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 260 |
|
| 92.3% |
|
|
| 22.68 |
|
| Grocery Outlet, Orchard Supply Hardware, CVS, Dollar Tree, Ross Dress For Less |
Diablo Plaza |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 63 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 40.90 |
|
| (Safeway), (CVS), Beverages & More! |
El Cerrito Plaza |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 256 |
|
| 95.4% |
|
|
| 30.27 |
|
| (Lucky's), Trader Joe's, (CVS), Bed Bath & Beyond, Barnes & Noble, Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less |
Encina Grande |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1965 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 106 |
|
| 99.1% |
|
|
| 33.04 |
|
| Whole Foods, Walgreens |
Gateway 101 |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2008 |
| 2008 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 92 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 32.95 |
|
| (Home Depot), (Best Buy), Target, Nordstrom Rack |
Parnassus Heights Medical |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
| 50% |
|
| 2017 |
| 1968 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 146 |
|
| 99.1% |
|
|
| 86.09 |
|
| University of CA | |
Persimmon Place |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 2014 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 153 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 35.20 |
|
| Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack, Homegoods |
Plaza Escuela |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2002 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 154 |
|
| 96.4% |
|
|
| 46.40 |
|
| The Container Store, Uniqlo, Forever 21, The Cheesecake Factory,Trufusion |
Pleasant Hill Shopping Center |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1970 |
|
| 50,000 |
|
|
| 227 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 23.10 |
|
| Target, Burlington, Ross Dress for Less, Homegoods | |
Pleasanton Plaza |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1981 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 163 |
|
| 73.8% |
|
|
| 10.53 |
|
| JCPenney, OfficeMax, Cost Plus World Market |
Potrero Center |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1968 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 227 |
|
| 99.8% |
|
|
| 32.97 |
|
| Safeway, Decathlon Sport, 24 Hour Fitness, Ross Dress for Less, Petco, Party City |
Powell Street Plaza |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2001 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 166 |
|
| 98.9% |
|
|
| 35.03 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Beverages & More!, Ross Dress For Less, Marshalls, Burlington Coat Factory |
San Carlos Marketplace |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 154 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 35.32 |
|
| TJ Maxx, Best Buy, PetSmart, Bassett Furniture |
San Leandro Plaza |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 50 |
|
| 86.3% |
|
|
| 38.52 |
|
| (Safeway), (CVS) |
Sequoia Station |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1996 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 103 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 42.69 |
|
| (Safeway), CVS, Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Pier 1 |
Serramonte Center |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1968 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 1,140 |
|
| 97.8% |
|
|
| 25.79 |
|
| Macy's, Target, Dick's Sporting Goods, Dave & Buster's, Nordstrom Rack, JCPenney, Regal Cinemas, Buy Buy Baby, Cost Plus World Market, Crunch Gym, DAISO, Forever 21, H&M, Old Navy, Part City, Ross, TJ Maxx, Uniqlo |
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||||||||||||
| Westlake Village Plaza and Center | Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura | CA | 1999 | 1975 | — | 201 | 97.4% | 45.50 | Von's Food & Drug and Sprouts | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tassajara Crossing |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 146 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 24.74 |
|
| Safeway, CVS, Alamo Hardware | ||||||||||||||||||||
Willows Shopping Center (6) | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 2017 | 2015 | — | 249 | 88.9% | 29.53 | -- |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2015 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 249 |
|
| 86.4% |
|
|
| 30.17 |
|
| REI, UFC Gym, Old Navy, Pier 1 Imports, Ulta, ClaimJumper, The Jungle Fun Concord | |||||||||||
| Woodman Van Nuys | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | CA | 1999 | 1992 | — | 108 | 100.0% | 15.90 | El Super | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Woodside Central | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 1999 | 1993 | — | 81 | 98.5% | 25.08 | (Target) |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 81 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 25.98 |
|
| (Target),Chuck E. Cheese, Marshalls | |||||||||||
| Ygnacio Plaza | San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward | CA | 40% | 2005 | 1968 | 26,179 | 110 | 100.0% | 37.44 | Sports Basement |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1968 |
|
| 25,563 |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 37.81 |
|
| Sports Basement,TJ Maxx | |||||||||||
| Applewood Shopping Center | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 40% | 2005 | 1956 | — | 353 | 90.9% | 13.27 | King Soopers, Hobby Lobby | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alcove On Arapahoe (fka Arapahoe Village) | Boulder | CO | 40% | 2005 | 1957 | 13,428 | 159 | 95.0% | 18.53 | Safeway | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blossom Valley |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara |
| CA |
| 20% |
|
| 1999 |
| 1990 |
|
| 22,300 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.81 |
|
| Safeway, CVS | |||||||||||||||||||||
Mariposa Shopping Center |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1957 |
|
| 18,864 |
|
|
| 127 |
|
| 94.7% |
|
|
| 21.22 |
|
| Safeway, CVS Ross Dress for Less | |||||||||||||||||||||
Shoppes at Homestead |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1983 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 113 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 23.72 |
|
| (Orchard Supply Hardware), CVS, Crunch Fitness | ||||||||||||||||||||
Snell & Branham Plaza |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1988 |
|
| 12,566 |
|
|
| 92 |
|
| 98.1% |
|
|
| 19.25 |
|
| Safeway | |||||||||||||||||||||
The Pruneyard |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2019 |
| 1969 |
|
| 2,200 |
|
|
| 258 |
|
| 97.0% |
|
|
| 38.93 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Sports Basement, Pruneyard Cinemas, Marshalls | ||||||||||||||||||||
West Park Plaza |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1996 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 88 |
|
| 97.6% |
|
|
| 18.40 |
|
| Safeway, Rite Aid | ||||||||||||||||||||
Golden Hills Plaza |
| San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande |
| CA |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 244 |
|
| 95.4% |
|
|
| 7.60 |
|
| Lowe's, Bed Bath & Beyond, TJ Maxx | ||||||||||||||||||||
Five Points Shopping Center |
| Santa Maria-Santa Barbara |
| CA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1960 |
|
| 24,899 |
|
|
| 145 |
|
| 98.7% |
|
|
| 30.40 |
|
| Smart & Final, CVS, Ross Dress for Less, Big 5 Sporting Goods, PETCO | |||||||||||||||||||||
Corral Hollow |
| Stockton-Lodi |
| CA |
| 25% |
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 167 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 17.54 |
|
| Safeway, Orchard Supply & Hardware, CVS | |||||||||||||||||||||
Alcove On Arapahoe |
| Boulder |
| CO |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1957 |
|
| 13,151 |
|
|
| 159 |
|
| 91.7% |
|
|
| 18.88 |
|
| Safeway, Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Pier 1 Imports, HomeGoods | |||||||||||||||||||||
Crossroads Commons |
| Boulder |
| CO |
| 20% |
|
| 2001 |
| 1986 |
|
| 34,500 |
|
|
| 143 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 28.17 |
|
| Whole Foods, Barnes & Noble, Bicycle Village | |||||||||||||||||||||
Crossroads Commons II |
| Boulder |
| CO |
| 20% |
|
| 2018 |
| 1995 |
|
| 5,500 |
|
|
| 20 |
|
| 65.8% |
|
|
| 36.16 |
|
| (Whole Foods), (Barnes & Noble, Bicycle Village) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Falcon Marketplace |
| Colorado Springs |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 2005 |
| 2005 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 22 |
|
| 93.8% |
|
|
| 23.47 |
|
| (Wal-Mart) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Marketplace at Briargate |
| Colorado Springs |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 29 |
|
| 95.6% |
|
|
| 32.74 |
|
| (King Soopers) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Monument Jackson Creek |
| Colorado Springs |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 85 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 12.40 |
|
| King Soopers | ||||||||||||||||||||
Woodmen Plaza |
| Colorado Springs |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 116 |
|
| 92.2% |
|
|
| 13.09 |
|
| King Soopers | ||||||||||||||||||||
Applewood Shopping Ctr |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1956 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 354 |
|
| 91.2% |
|
|
| 14.94 |
|
| King Soopers, Hobby Lobby, Applejack Liquors, PetSmart, Homegoods, Sierra Trading Post, Ulta | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Belleview Square | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 2004 | 1978 | — | 117 | 100.0% | 20.06 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 2004 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 117 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 20.56 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||
| Boulevard Center | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 1999 | 1986 | — | 79 | 74.2% | 30.47 | (Safeway) |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 79 |
|
| 77.0% |
|
|
| 30.92 |
|
| (Safeway), One Hour Optical | |||||||||||
| Buckley Square | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 1999 | 1978 | — | 116 | 96.4% | 11.40 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 116 |
|
| 96.1% |
|
|
| 11.61 |
|
| King Soopers, Ace Hardware | |||||||||||
| Centerplace of Greeley III Phase I | Greeley | CO | 2007 | 2007 | — | 119 | 100.0% | 12.07 | Hobby Lobby | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cherrywood Square | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 40% | 2005 | 1978 | 4,145 | 97 | 96.3% | 10.24 | King Soopers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Crossroads Commons | Boulder | CO | 20% | 2001 | 1986 | 15,922 | 143 | 98.7% | 27.55 | Whole Foods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Crossroads Commons II | Boulder | CO | 20% | 2018 | 1995 | — | 20 | 47.0% | 29.24 | (Whole Foods, Barnes & Noble) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Falcon Marketplace | Colorado Springs | CO | 2005 | 2005 | — | 22 | 93.8% | 23.01 | (Wal-Mart) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cherrywood Square Shop Ctr |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1978 |
|
| 4,060 |
|
|
| 97 |
|
| 94.2% |
|
|
| 10.44 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Hilltop Village | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 2002 | 2003 | — | 100 | 100.0% | 11.23 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 2002 |
| 2003 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 100 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 11.48 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||
| Kent Place | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 50% | 2011 | 2011 | 8,250 | 48 | 100.0% | 20.76 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
| 50% |
|
| 2011 |
| 2011 |
|
| 8,250 |
|
|
| 48 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 20.94 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||
| Littleton Square | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 1999 | 1997 | — | 99 | 95.4% | 10.36 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1997 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 99 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 11.36 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||
| Lloyd King Center | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 1998 | 1998 | — | 83 | 98.3% | 12.06 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 83 |
|
| 95.0% |
|
|
| 11.88 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||
| Marketplace at Briargate | Colorado Springs | CO | 2006 | 2006 | — | 29 | 90.0% | 32.24 | (King Soopers) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monument Jackson Creek | Colorado Springs | CO | 1998 | 1999 | — | 85 | 100.0% | 12.10 | King Soopers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ralston Square Shopping Center | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 40% | 2005 | 1977 | 4,145 | 83 | 97.0% | 11.48 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1977 |
|
| 4,060 |
|
|
| 83 |
|
| 97.0% |
|
|
| 11.74 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||
| Shops at Quail Creek | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 2008 | 2008 | — | 38 | 92.5% | 28.91 | (King Soopers) |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 2008 |
| 2008 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 38 |
|
| 96.3% |
|
|
| 26.11 |
|
| (King Soopers) | |||||||||||
| Stroh Ranch | Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | CO | 1998 | 1998 | — | 93 | 100.0% | 13.32 | King Soopers |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 13.42 |
|
| King Soopers | |||||||||||
| Woodmen Plaza | Colorado Springs | CO | 1998 | 1998 | — | 116 | 94.4% | 13.21 | King Soopers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Centerplace of Greeley III |
| Greeley |
| CO |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 119 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 11.37 |
|
| Hobby Lobby, Best Buy, TJ Maxx | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 Crescent Road | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1984 | — | 4 | 100.0% | 60.00 | -- |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 4 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 60.00 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| 91 Danbury Road | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1965 | — | 5 | 100.0% | 27.45 | -- |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1965 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.45 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Black Rock | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 80% | 2014 | 1996 | 20,000 | 98 | 97.8% | 29.14 | -- |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
| 80% |
|
| 2014 |
| 1996 |
|
| 19,767 |
|
|
| 98 |
|
| 94.7% |
|
|
| 30.71 |
|
| Old Navy, The Clubhouse | |||||||||||
Brick Walk (6) | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 80% | 2014 | 2007 | 33,000 | 123 | 88.3% | 47.76 | -- |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
| 80% |
|
| 2014 |
| 2007 |
|
| 32,952 |
|
|
| 122 |
|
| 90.2% |
|
|
| 44.97 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Brookside Plaza | Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford | CT | 2017 | 1985 | — | 217 | 91.4% | 14.57 | ShopRite | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Compo Acres Shopping Center | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1960 | — | 43 | 100.0% | 49.45 | Trader Joe's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copps Hill Plaza | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1979 | 13,293 | 185 | 100.0% | 14.19 | Stop & Shop, Kohl's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Corbin's Corner | Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford | CT | 40% | 2005 | 1962 | 37,899 | 186 | 80.1% | 34.53 | Trader Joe's, Best Buy, The Tile Shop | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Danbury Green | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1985 | — | 124 | 100.0% | 23.99 | Trader Joe's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darinor Plaza (6) | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1978 | — | 153 | 100.0% | 18.96 | Kohl's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fairfield Center (6) | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 80% | 2014 | 2000 | — | 94 | 89.6% | 34.74 | -- | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post Road Plaza | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1978 | — | 20 | 100.0% | 53.92 | Trader Joe's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF | ||||||||||
| Southbury Green | New Haven-Milford | CT | 2017 | 1979 | — | 156 | 96.4% | 22.66 | ShopRite | |||||||||||
| The Village Center | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1973 | 13,434 | 90 | 84.5% | 40.72 | The Fresh Market | |||||||||||
| Walmart Norwalk | Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk | CT | 2017 | 1956 | — | 142 | 100.0% | 0.56 | Wal-Mart | |||||||||||
| Shops at The Columbia | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | DC | 25% | 2006 | 2006 | — | 23 | 85.8% | 41.19 | Trader Joe's | ||||||||||
| Spring Valley Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | DC | 40% | 2005 | 1930 | 12,008 | 17 | 82.4% | 113.49 | -- | ||||||||||
| Pike Creek | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | DE | 1998 | 1981 | — | 232 | 95.6% | 14.88 | Acme Markets, K-Mart | |||||||||||
| Shoppes of Graylyn | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | DE | 40% | 2005 | 1971 | — | 64 | 90.1% | 23.78 | -- | ||||||||||
| Alafaya Village | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 2017 | 1986 | — | 38 | 93.9% | 21.93 | (Lucky's) | |||||||||||
| Anastasia Plaza | Jacksonville | FL | 1993 | 1988 | — | 102 | 95.9% | 13.67 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Atlantic Village | Jacksonville | FL | 2017 | 1984 | — | 105 | 92.5% | 16.88 | LA Fitness | |||||||||||
| Aventura Shopping Center | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 1994 | 1974 | — | 97 | 98.9% | 36.74 | Publix | |||||||||||
Aventura Square (6) | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1991 | 7,083 | 144 | 79.3% | 37.88 | Bed, Bath & Beyond | |||||||||||
| Banco Popular Building | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1971 | — | 33 | 33.4% | 25.74 | -- | |||||||||||
| Berkshire Commons | Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island | FL | 1994 | 1992 | — | 110 | 97.5% | 14.29 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Bird 107 Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1962 | — | 40 | 100.0% | 20.25 | -- | |||||||||||
| Bird Ludlum | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1988 | — | 192 | 98.5% | 23.22 | Winn-Dixie | |||||||||||
| Bloomingdale Square | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 1998 | 1987/2018 | — | 254 | 90.8% | 15.34 | Publix, Bealls | |||||||||||
| Bluffs Square Shoppes | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1986 | — | 124 | 96.3% | 14.33 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Boca Village Square | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1978 | — | 92 | 97.6% | 22.19 | Publix Greenwise | |||||||||||
| Boynton Lakes Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 1997 | 1993 | — | 110 | 94.9% | 16.62 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Boynton Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1978 | — | 105 | 94.4% | 21.59 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Brooklyn Station on Riverside | Jacksonville | FL | 2013 | 2013 | — | 50 | 100.0% | 26.21 | The Fresh Market | |||||||||||
| Caligo Crossing | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2007 | 2007 | — | 11 | 35.0% | 54.73 | (Kohl's) | |||||||||||
| Carriage Gate | Tallahassee | FL | 1994 | 1978 | — | 73 | 100.0% | 22.60 | Trader Joe's | |||||||||||
| Cashmere Corners | Port St. Lucie | FL | 2017 | 2001 | — | 86 | 83.7% | 13.65 | Wal-Mart | |||||||||||
| Charlotte Square | Punta Gorda | FL | 2017 | 1980 | — | 91 | 78.3% | 10.38 | Wal-Mart | |||||||||||
| Chasewood Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 1993 | 1986 | — | 151 | 99.0% | 25.60 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Concord Shopping Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1962 | 27,750 | 309 | 95.4% | 12.22 | Winn-Dixie, Home Depot | |||||||||||
| Coral Reef Shopping Center | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1968 | — | 75 | 98.8% | 31.12 | Aldi | |||||||||||
| Corkscrew Village | Cape Coral-Fort Myers | FL | 2007 | 1997 | — | 82 | 95.3% | 13.84 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Country Walk Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 30% | 2017 | 1985 | 16,000 | 101 | 91.0% | 19.85 | Publix | ||||||||||
| Countryside Shops | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1986 | — | 193 | 93.2% | 18.65 | Publix, Stein Mart | |||||||||||
| Courtyard Shopping Center | Jacksonville | FL | 1993 | 1987 | — | 137 | 100.0% | 3.50 | (Publix), Target | |||||||||||
| Fleming Island | Jacksonville | FL | 1998 | 2000 | — | 132 | 97.5% | 15.96 | Publix, (Target) | |||||||||||
| Fountain Square | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2013 | 2013 | — | 177 | 96.4% | 25.80 | Publix, (Target) | |||||||||||
| Garden Square | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 1997 | 1991 | — | 90 | 100.0% | 18.01 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Glengary Shoppes | North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton | FL | 2017 | 1995 | — | 93 | 100.0% | 21.93 | Best Buy | |||||||||||
Property Name |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||
Compo Acres Shopping Center |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1960 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 43 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 50.42 |
|
| Trader Joe's |
Copps Hill Plaza |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1979 |
|
| 12,306 |
|
|
| 185 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 14.24 |
|
| Stop & Shop, Kohl's, Rite Aid |
Danbury Green |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 124 |
|
| 97.6% |
|
|
| 24.08 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Hilton Garden Inn, DSW, Staples, Rite Aid, Warehouse Wines & Liquors |
Darinor Plaza (6) |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 153 |
|
| 97.8% |
|
|
| 18.42 |
|
| Kohl's, Old Navy, Party City |
Fairfield Center (6) |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
| 80% |
|
| 2014 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 94 |
|
| 99.4% |
|
|
| 32.33 |
|
| Fairfield University Bookstore, Merril Lynch | |
Post Road Plaza |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 20 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 53.92 |
|
| Trader Joe's |
The Village Center |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1973 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 81.7% |
|
|
| 41.56 |
|
| The Fresh Market |
Walmart Norwalk |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1956 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 142 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 0.56 |
|
| WalMart, HomeGoods |
Brookside Plaza |
| Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 217 |
|
| 89.7% |
|
|
| 14.67 |
|
| ShopRite, Bed, Bath & Beyond, TJ Maxx, PetSmart, Walgreens, Staples |
Corbin's Corner |
| Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford |
| CT |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1962 |
|
| 37,026 |
|
|
| 186 |
|
| 95.8% |
|
|
| 28.74 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Best Buy, Edge Fitness, Old Navy, The Tile Shop, Total Wine and More | |
Southbury Green |
| New Haven-Milford |
| CT |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1979 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 156 |
|
| 94.1% |
|
|
| 22.67 |
|
| ShopRite, Homegoods |
Shops at The Columbia |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| DC |
| 25% |
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 23 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 41.68 |
|
| Trader Joe's | |
Spring Valley Shopping Center |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| DC |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1930 |
|
| 11,727 |
|
|
| 17 |
|
| 82.4% |
|
|
| 114.09 |
|
|
| |
Pike Creek |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| DE |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1981 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 232 |
|
| 95.3% |
|
|
| 14.90 |
|
| Acme Markets, K-Mart |
Shoppes of Graylyn |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| DE |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1971 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 64 |
|
| 89.7% |
|
|
| 24.01 |
|
| Rite Aid | |
Corkscrew Village |
| Cape Coral-Fort Myers |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 1997 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 82 |
|
| 93.2% |
|
|
| 14.25 |
|
| Publix |
Shoppes of Grande Oak |
| Cape Coral-Fort Myers |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 79 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.52 |
|
| Publix |
Millhopper Shopping Center |
| Gainesville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1993 |
| 1974 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 83 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 17.96 |
|
| Publix |
Newberry Square |
| Gainesville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1994 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 181 |
|
| 45.7% |
|
|
| 10.10 |
|
| Publix, Dollar Tree |
Anastasia Plaza |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1993 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 102 |
|
| 96.2% |
|
|
| 13.78 |
|
| Publix |
Atlantic Village |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 95.0% |
|
|
| 17.19 |
|
| LA Fitness, Pet Supplies Plus |
Brooklyn Station on Riverside |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2013 |
| 2013 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 50 |
|
| 97.2% |
|
|
| 26.28 |
|
| The Fresh Market |
Courtyard Shopping Center |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1993 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 137 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 3.50 |
|
| (Publix), Target |
Fleming Island |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 132 |
|
| 96.8% |
|
|
| 16.10 |
|
| Publix, (Target), PETCO, Planet Fitness |
Hibernia Pavilion |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 51 |
|
| 92.0% |
|
|
| 16.21 |
|
| Publix |
John's Creek Center |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
| 20% |
|
| 2003 |
| 2004 |
|
| 9,000 |
|
|
| 75 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 15.75 |
|
| Publix | |
Julington Village |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
| 20% |
|
| 1999 |
| 1999 |
|
| 10,000 |
|
|
| 82 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.44 |
|
| Publix, (CVS) | |
Mandarin Landing |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1976 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 140 |
|
| 89.1% |
|
|
| 18.02 |
|
| Whole Foods, Office Depot, Aveda Institute |
Nocatee Town Center |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 20.91 |
|
| Publix |
Oakleaf Commons |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 74 |
|
| 98.1% |
|
|
| 15.39 |
|
| Publix |
Old St Augustine Plaza |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1996 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 248 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 10.94 |
|
| Publix, Burlington Coat Factory, Hobby Lobby, LA Fitness, Ross Dress for Less |
Pablo Plaza |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1974 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 161 |
|
| 98.4% |
|
|
| 17.32 |
|
| Whole Foods, Office Depot, Marshalls, HomeGoods, PetSmart |
Pine Tree Plaza |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 63 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 14.68 |
|
| Publix |
Seminole Shoppes |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
| 50% |
|
| 2009 |
| 2009 |
|
| 8,567 |
|
|
| 87 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 23.34 |
|
| Publix | |
Shoppes at Bartram Park |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
| 50% |
|
| 2005 |
| 2004 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 135 |
|
| 95.4% |
|
|
| 20.28 |
|
| Publix, (Kohl's), (Tutor Time) | |
Shops at John's Creek |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2003 |
| 2004 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 15 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 23.92 |
|
|
|
South Beach Regional |
| Jacksonville |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 308 |
|
| 97.3% |
|
|
| 15.14 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Home Depot, Stein Mart, Ross Dress for Less, Bed Bath & Beyond, Staples |
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF | ||||||||||
| Shoppes of Grande Oak | Cape Coral-Fort Myers | FL | 2000 | 2000 | — | 79 | 100.0% | 16.26 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Greenwood Shopping Centre | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1982 | — | 133 | 92.0% | 15.32 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Hammocks Town Center | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1987 | — | 184 | 98.7% | 17.22 | Publix, Metro-Dade Public Library, (Kendall Ice Arena) | |||||||||||
| Hibernia Pavilion | Jacksonville | FL | 2006 | 2006 | — | 51 | 89.6% | 15.95 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Homestead McDonald's | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 2014 | — | 4 | 100.0% | 27.74 | -- | |||||||||||
| John's Creek Center | Jacksonville | FL | 20% | 2003 | 2004 | 9,000 | 75 | 100.0% | 15.35 | Publix | ||||||||||
| Julington Village | Jacksonville | FL | 20% | 1999 | 1999 | 10,000 | 82 | 100.0% | 16.19 | Publix | ||||||||||
| Kirkman Shoppes | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 2017 | 1973 | — | 115 | 96.7% | 23.34 | LA Fitness | |||||||||||
| Lake Mary Centre | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 2017 | 1988 | — | 360 | 93.7% | 15.65 | Academy Sports, Hobby Lobby, LA Fitness | |||||||||||
| Lantana Outparcels | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1976 | — | 17 | 100.0% | 18.28 | -- | |||||||||||
| Mandarin Landing | Jacksonville | FL | 2017 | 1976 | — | 140 | 90.0% | 18.06 | Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Millhopper Shopping Center | Gainesville | FL | 1993 | 1974 | — | 83 | 100.0% | 17.40 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Naples Walk Shopping Center | Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island | FL | 2007 | 1999 | — | 125 | 91.8% | 16.42 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Newberry Square | Gainesville | FL | 1994 | 1986 | — | 181 | 91.5% | 7.70 | Publix, K-Mart | |||||||||||
| Nocatee Town Center | Jacksonville | FL | 2007 | 2007 | — | 107 | 100.0% | 19.77 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Northgate Square | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 2007 | 1995 | — | 75 | 100.0% | 15.02 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Oakleaf Commons | Jacksonville | FL | 2006 | 2006 | — | 74 | 98.1% | 14.96 | Publix | |||||||||||
Ocala Corners (6) | Tallahassee | FL | 2000 | 2000 | 4,148 | 87 | 98.6% | 14.90 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Old St Augustine Plaza | Jacksonville | FL | 1996 | 1990 | — | 256 | 100.0% | 9.97 | Publix, Burlington Coat Factory, Hobby Lobby | |||||||||||
| Pablo Plaza | Jacksonville | FL | 2017 | 1974 | — | 158 | 100.0% | 16.63 | Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Pavillion | Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island | FL | 2017 | 1982 | — | 168 | 90.2% | 21.23 | LA Fitness | |||||||||||
| Shoppes of Pebblebrook Plaza | Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island | FL | 50% | 2000 | 2000 | — | 77 | 100.0% | 15.27 | Publix | ||||||||||
| Pine Island | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1999 | — | 255 | 96.9% | 14.58 | Publix, Burlington Coat Factory | |||||||||||
| Pine Ridge Square | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1986 | — | 118 | 97.0% | 17.86 | The Fresh Market | |||||||||||
| Pine Tree Plaza | Jacksonville | FL | 1997 | 1999 | — | 63 | 90.4% | 14.07 | Publix | |||||||||||
Pinecrest Place (6) (7) | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 2017 | — | 70 | 87.3% | 38.79 | Whole Foods, (Target) | |||||||||||
| Plaza Venezia | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 20% | 2016 | 2000 | 36,500 | 202 | 99.5% | 26.29 | Publix | ||||||||||
| Point Royale Shopping Center | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1970 | — | 202 | 98.2% | 15.28 | Winn-Dixie, Burlington Coat Factory | |||||||||||
| Prosperity Centre | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1993 | — | 124 | 93.5% | 21.54 | Bed, Bath & Beyond | |||||||||||
| Regency Square | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 1993 | 1986 | — | 352 | 97.5% | 18.48 | AMC Theater, (Best Buy), (Macdill) | |||||||||||
| Ryanwood Square | Sebastian-Vero Beach | FL | 2017 | 1987 | — | 115 | 88.8% | 11.25 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Salerno Village | Port St. Lucie | FL | 2017 | 1987 | — | 5 | 100.0% | 16.53 | -- | |||||||||||
| Sawgrass Promenade | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1982 | — | 107 | 91.5% | 12.51 | Publix | |||||||||||
| Seminole Shoppes | Jacksonville | FL | 50% | 2009 | 2009 | 8,865 | 87 | 98.4% | 22.85 | Publix | ||||||||||
| Sheridan Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1973 | — | 506 | 94.1% | 18.21 | Publix, Kohl's, LA Fitness | |||||||||||
| Shoppes @ 104 | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 1998 | 1990/2018 | — | 112 | 100.0% | 18.93 | Winn-Dixie | |||||||||||
Property Name |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||
Aventura Shopping Center |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1994 |
| 1974 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 97 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 37.55 |
|
| Publix, CVS |
Aventura Square (6) |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1991 |
|
| 6,008 |
|
|
| 144 |
|
| 79.3% |
|
|
| 39.44 |
|
| Bed, Bath & Beyond, DSW, Jewelry Exchange, Old Navy |
Banco Popular Building |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1971 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 33 |
|
| 0.0% |
|
| - |
|
|
| |
Bird 107 Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1962 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 40 |
|
| 92.9% |
|
|
| 20.04 |
|
| Walgreens |
Bird Ludlam |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 192 |
|
| 98.5% |
|
|
| 23.75 |
|
| Winn-Dixie, CVS, Goodwill |
Boca Village Square |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 92 |
|
| 97.6% |
|
|
| 22.60 |
|
| Publix, CVS |
Boynton Lakes Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 94.9% |
|
|
| 16.72 |
|
| Publix, Citi Trends, Pet Supermarket |
Boynton Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 105 |
|
| 97.2% |
|
|
| 21.22 |
|
| Publix, CVS |
Caligo Crossing |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 11 |
|
| 61.0% |
|
|
| 47.83 |
|
| (Kohl's) |
Chasewood Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1993 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 151 |
|
| 97.1% |
|
|
| 26.32 |
|
| Publix, Pet Smart |
Concord Shopping Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1962 |
|
| 27,750 |
|
|
| 309 |
|
| 95.4% |
|
|
| 12.61 |
|
| Winn-Dixie, Home Depot, Big Lots, Dollar Tree, YouFit Health Club |
Coral Reef Shopping Center |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1968 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 75 |
|
| 98.8% |
|
|
| 32.70 |
|
| Aldi, Walgreens |
Country Walk Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
| 30% |
|
| 2017 |
| 1985 |
|
| 16,000 |
|
|
| 101 |
|
| 90.3% |
|
|
| 19.79 |
|
| Publix, CVS | |
Countryside Shops |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 193 |
|
| 93.7% |
|
|
| 19.01 |
|
| Publix, Stein Mart, Ross Dress for Less |
Fountain Square |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2013 |
| 2013 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 177 |
|
| 92.5% |
|
|
| 26.10 |
|
| Publix,(Target), Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Ulta |
Gardens Square |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1991 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 18.45 |
|
| Publix |
Greenwood Shopping Centre |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 133 |
|
| 93.2% |
|
|
| 15.66 |
|
| Publix, Beall's |
Hammocks Town Center |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 187 |
|
| 98.1% |
|
|
| 17.25 |
|
| Publix, Metro-Dade Public Library, (Kendall Ice Arena), YouFit Health Club, Goodwill, CVS |
Homestead McDonald's |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2014 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 4 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.74 |
|
|
|
Lantana Outparcels |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1976 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 17 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 18.53 |
|
|
|
Pine Island |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 255 |
|
| 97.9% |
|
|
| 14.76 |
|
| Publix, Burlington Coat Factory, Beall's, YouFit Health Club |
Pine Ridge Square |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 118 |
|
| 97.0% |
|
|
| 18.09 |
|
| The Fresh Market, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Marshalls, Ulta |
Pinecrest Place (6) |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 70 |
|
| 92.0% |
|
|
| 39.58 |
|
| Whole Foods, (Target) |
Point Royale Shopping Center |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1970 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 202 |
|
| 98.4% |
|
|
| 15.92 |
|
| Winn-Dixie, Burlington Coat Factory, Pasteur Medical Center, Tuesday Morning, Planet Fitness |
Prosperity Centre |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 124 |
|
| 93.5% |
|
|
| 21.92 |
|
| Bed, Bath & Beyond, Office Depot, TJ Maxx, CVS |
Sawgrass Promenade |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 107 |
|
| 90.3% |
|
|
| 12.32 |
|
| Publix, Walgreens, Dollar Tree |
Sheridan Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1973 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 506 |
|
| 92.8% |
|
|
| 18.78 |
|
| Publix, Kohl's, LA Fitness, Office Depot, Ross Dress for Less, Pet Supplies Plus |
Shoppes @ 104 |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 112 |
|
| 97.5% |
|
|
| 19.31 |
|
| Winn-Dixie, CVS |
Shoppes at Lago Mar |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 83 |
|
| 93.9% |
|
|
| 15.23 |
|
| Publix, YouFit Health Club |
Shoppes of Jonathan's Landing |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1997 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 27 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 25.10 |
|
| (Publix) |
Shoppes of Oakbrook |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1974 |
|
| 3,670 |
|
|
| 200 |
|
| 94.1% |
|
|
| 16.47 |
|
| Publix, Stein Mart, Tuesday Morning, Bassett Furniture, Duffy's Sports Bar, CVS |
Shoppes of Silver Lakes |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 127 |
|
| 91.7% |
|
|
| 19.35 |
|
| Publix, Goodwill |
Shoppes of Sunset |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1979 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 22 |
|
| 85.9% |
|
|
| 25.71 |
|
|
|
Shoppes of Sunset II |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1980 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 28 |
|
| 74.2% |
|
|
| 22.71 |
|
|
|
Shops at Skylake |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 287 |
|
| 93.6% |
|
|
| 23.98 |
|
| Publix, LA Fitness, TJ Maxx, Goodwill |
Tamarac Town Square |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 125 |
|
| 75.8% |
|
|
| 12.69 |
|
| Publix, Dollar Tree |
University Commons (6) |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2015 |
| 2001 |
|
| 35,824 |
|
|
| 180 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 31.71 |
|
| Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack, Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath & Beyond |
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||||||||||||
| Shoppes at Bartram Park | Jacksonville | FL | 50% | 2005 | 2004 | — | 134 | 99.0% | 20.26 | Publix, (Kohl's) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes at Lago Mar | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1995 | — | 83 | 95.8% | 15.51 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes at Sunlake Centre | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 2017 | 2008 | — | 98 | 100.0% | 21.11 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes of Jonathan's Landing | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1997 | — | 27 | 100.0% | 24.61 | (Publix) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes of Oakbrook | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1974 | 4,626 | 200 | 98.2% | 16.69 | Publix, Stein Mart | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes of Silver Lakes | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1995 | — | 127 | 92.6% | 19.06 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes of Sunset | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1979 | — | 22 | 77.7% | 25.95 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes of Sunset II | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1980 | — | 28 | 67.6% | 22.92 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shops at John's Creek | Jacksonville | FL | 2003 | 2004 | — | 15 | 100.0% | 23.11 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shops at Skylake | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1999 | — | 287 | 91.4% | 22.44 | Publix, LA Fitness | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| South Beach Regional | Jacksonville | FL | 2017 | 1990 | — | 308 | 98.8% | 14.97 | Trader Joe's, Home Depot, Steain Mart | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| South Point | Sebastian-Vero Beach | FL | 2017 | 2003 | — | 65 | 95.7% | 16.80 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Starke (6) | Other | FL | 2000 | 2000 | — | 13 | 100.0% | 25.56 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Suncoast Crossing (6) | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 2007 | 2007 | — | 118 | 97.6% | 5.29 | Kohl's, (Target) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tamarac Town Square | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1987 | — | 125 | 73.8% | 12.97 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Grove | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 30% | 2017 | 2004 | 22,500 | 152 | 100.0% | 16.77 | Publix, LA Fitness | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Plaza at St. Lucie West | Port St. Lucie | FL | 2017 | 2006 | — | 27 | 81.7% | 24.02 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Village at Hunter's Lake (7) | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 2018 | 2018 | — | 72 | 68.4% | 21.54 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Town and Country | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 2017 | 1993 | — | 78 | 100.0% | 10.54 | Ross Dress for Less | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Town Square | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 1997 | 1999 | — | 44 | 100.0% | 31.91 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Treasure Coast Plaza | Sebastian-Vero Beach | FL | 2017 | 1983 | 2,746 | 134 | 94.7% | 16.12 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Unigold Shopping Center | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 2017 | 1987 | — | 115 | 95.0% | 14.91 | Lucky's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
University Commons (6) | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2015 | 2001 | 36,425 | 180 | 100.0% | 31.62 | Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Veranda Shoppes | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 30% | 2017 | 2007 | 9,000 | 45 | 100.0% | 27.50 | Publix |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
| 30% |
|
| 2017 |
| 2007 |
|
| 9,000 |
|
|
| 45 |
|
| 97.3% |
|
|
| 27.05 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Village Center | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 1995 | 1993 | — | 187 | 95.7% | 20.15 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Waterstone Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 2005 | — | 61 | 100.0% | 16.69 | Publix |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2005 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 61 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.97 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Welleby Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 1996 | 1982 | — | 110 | 97.0% | 13.55 | Publix |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1996 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 91.3% |
|
|
| 13.45 |
|
| Publix, Dollar Tree | |||||||||||
| Wellington Town Square | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 1996 | 1982 | — | 112 | 100.0% | 25.46 | Publix |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1996 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 112 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 30.98 |
|
| Publix, CVS | |||||||||||
| West Bird Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1977 | — | 100 | 86.5% | 18.38 | Publix |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1977 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 99 |
|
| 98.5% |
|
|
| 24.14 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| West Lake Shopping Center | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1984 | — | 101 | 95.8% | 18.84 | Winn-Dixie |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 101 |
|
| 96.8% |
|
|
| 19.32 |
|
| Winn-Dixie, CVS | |||||||||||
Westport Plaza |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2002 |
|
| 2,385 |
|
|
| 47 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 20.34 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
Young Circle Shopping Center |
| Miami-Ft Lauderdale-W Palm Bch |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1962 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 65 |
|
| 59.0% |
|
|
| 20.80 |
|
| Walgreens | ||||||||||||||||||||
Berkshire Commons |
| Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1994 |
| 1992 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 98.6% |
|
|
| 14.63 |
|
| Publix, Walgreens | ||||||||||||||||||||
Naples Walk Shopping Center |
| Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 125 |
|
| 98.6% |
|
|
| 17.44 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pavillion |
| Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1982 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 168 |
|
| 96.5% |
|
|
| 21.50 |
|
| LA Fitness, Paragon Theaters, J. Lee Salon Suites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shoppes of Pebblebrook Plaza |
| Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island |
| FL |
| 50% |
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 77 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 15.47 |
|
| Publix, (Walgreens) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Glengary Shoppes |
| North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 19.72 |
|
| Best Buy, Barnes & Noble | ||||||||||||||||||||
Alafaya Village |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 38 |
|
| 93.9% |
|
|
| 22.59 |
|
| (Lucky's) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Kirkman Shoppes |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1973 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 115 |
|
| 96.7% |
|
|
| 23.67 |
|
| LA Fitness, Walgreens | ||||||||||||||||||||
Lake Mary Centre |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 360 |
|
| 94.7% |
|
|
| 16.29 |
|
| The Fresh Market, Academy Sports, Hobby Lobby, LA Fitness, Ross Dress for Less, Office Depot | ||||||||||||||||||||
Plaza Venezia |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
| 20% |
|
| 2016 |
| 2000 |
|
| 36,500 |
|
|
| 202 |
|
| 99.8% |
|
|
| 27.11 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||||||||||||
The Grove |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
| 30% |
|
| 2017 |
| 2004 |
|
| 22,500 |
|
|
| 152 |
|
| 98.4% |
|
|
| 21.64 |
|
| Publix, LA Fitness | |||||||||||||||||||||
Town and Country |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 78 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 10.68 |
|
| Ross Dress for Less | ||||||||||||||||||||
Unigold Shopping Center |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 115 |
|
| 95.0% |
|
|
| 15.19 |
|
| Lucky's, YouFit Health Club, Ross Dress for Less | ||||||||||||||||||||
Willa Springs |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford |
| FL |
| 20% |
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| 16,700 |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 95.4% |
|
|
| 21.03 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||||||||||||
Starke (6) |
| Other |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 13 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 25.56 |
|
| CVS | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cashmere Corners |
| Port St. Lucie |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2001 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 86 |
|
| 83.7% |
|
|
| 14.05 |
|
| WalMart | ||||||||||||||||||||
Salerno Village |
| Port St. Lucie |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.53 |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
The Plaza at St. Lucie West |
| Port St. Lucie |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 27 |
|
| 93.6% |
|
|
| 23.42 |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Charlotte Square |
| Punta Gorda |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1980 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 91 |
|
| 78.7% |
|
|
| 10.72 |
|
| WalMart | ||||||||||||||||||||
Ryanwood Square |
| Sebastian-Vero Beach |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 115 |
|
| 87.8% |
|
|
| 11.32 |
|
| Publix, Beall's, Harbor Freight Tools | ||||||||||||||||||||
South Point |
| Sebastian-Vero Beach |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2003 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 65 |
|
| 97.8% |
|
|
| 16.07 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
Treasure Coast Plaza |
| Sebastian-Vero Beach |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1983 |
|
| 2,388 |
|
|
| 134 |
|
| 94.6% |
|
|
| 16.60 |
|
| Publix, TJ Maxx | ||||||||||||||||||||
Carriage Gate |
| Tallahassee |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1994 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 73 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 23.58 |
|
| Trader Joe's, TJ Maxx | ||||||||||||||||||||
Ocala Corners (6) |
| Tallahassee |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| 3,891 |
|
|
| 87 |
|
| 98.6% |
|
|
| 15.05 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
Bloomingdale Square |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 254 |
|
| 93.7% |
|
|
| 17.46 |
|
| Publix, Bealls, Dollar Tree, Home Centric, LA Fitness | ||||||||||||||||||||
Northgate Square |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 75 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 15.31 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
Regency Square |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1993 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 352 |
|
| 93.1% |
|
|
| 18.71 |
|
| AMC Theater, (Best Buy), (Macdill), Dollar Tree, Five Below, Marshall's, Michael's, PETCO, Shoe Carnival, Staples, TJ Maxx, Ulta | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shoppes at Sunlake Centre |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2008 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 98 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 21.54 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
Suncoast Crossing (6) |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 118 |
|
| 97.6% |
|
|
| 6.90 |
|
| Kohl's, (Target) | ||||||||||||||||||||
The Village at Hunter's Lake (7) |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2018 |
| 2018 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 72 |
|
| 95.1% |
|
|
| 27.15 |
|
| Sprouts | ||||||||||||||||||||
Town Square |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 44 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 32.18 |
|
| PETCO, Pier 1 Imports | ||||||||||||||||||||
Village Center |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 1995 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 187 |
|
| 99.9% |
|
|
| 20.51 |
|
| Publix, Walgreens, Stein Mart | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Westchase | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | FL | 2007 | 1998 | — | 79 | 100.0% | 16.73 | Publix |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
| FL |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 79 |
|
| 95.2% |
|
|
| 16.58 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Westport Plaza | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 2002 | 2,651 | 47 | 100.0% | 18.93 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Willa Springs | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford | FL | 20% | 2000 | 2000 | 16,700 | 90 | 100.0% | 21.07 | Publix | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Young Circle Shopping Center | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach | FL | 2017 | 1962 | — | 65 | 94.8% | 15.12 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ashford Place | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1993 | — | 53 | 100.0% | 21.75 | -- |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 53 |
|
| 96.7% |
|
|
| 22.10 |
|
| Harbor Freight Tools | |||||||||||
| Briarcliff La Vista | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1962 | — | 43 | 100.0% | 20.43 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briarcliff Village (6) | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1990 | — | 190 | 98.4% | 16.38 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||||||||||||
Briarcliff La Vista |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1962 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 43 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 21.83 |
|
| Michael's | ||||||||||||||||||||
Briarcliff Village (6) |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 190 |
|
| 98.4% |
|
|
| 16.63 |
|
| Publix, Office Depot, Party City, Shoe Carnival, TJ Maxx | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Bridgemill Market | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2017 | 2000 | 5,109 | 89 | 86.1% | 16.03 | Publix |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2000 |
|
| 4,582 |
|
|
| 89 |
|
| 82.4% |
|
|
| 16.98 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Brighten Park | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1986 | — | 137 | 95.7% | 25.90 | The Fresh Market |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 137 |
|
| 97.1% |
|
|
| 26.16 |
|
| The Fresh Market, Tuesday Morning, Dance 101 | |||||||||||
| Buckhead Court | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1984 | — | 49 | 98.2% | 26.44 | -- |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 49 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 28.65 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Buckhead Station | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2017 | 1996 | — | 234 | 100.0% | 24.12 | Nordstrom Rack, TJ Maxx, Bed, Bath & Beyond |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1996 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 234 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 24.17 |
|
| Nordstrom Rack, TJ Maxx, Bed Bath & Beyond, Saks Off Fifth, DSW, Cost Plus World Market, Old Navy, Ulta | |||||||||||
| Cambridge Square | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1996 | 1979 | — | 71 | 100.0% | 15.59 | Kroger |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1996 |
| 1979 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 71 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.19 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||
| Chastain Square | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2017 | 1981 | — | 92 | 98.4% | 21.83 | Publix |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1981 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 92 |
|
| 93.7% |
|
|
| 21.62 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Cornerstone Square | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1990 | — | 80 | 100.0% | 17.24 | Aldi |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 80 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 17.42 |
|
| Aldi, CVS, HealthMarkets Insurance, Diazo Specialty Blueprint | |||||||||||
| Sope Creek Crossing | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1998 | 1991 | — | 99 | 91.9% | 16.24 | Publix |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1991 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 99 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.41 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Dunwoody Hall | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 20% | 1997 | 1986 | 13,800 | 86 | 83.8% | 19.89 | Publix |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
| 20% |
|
| 1997 |
| 1986 |
|
| 13,800 |
|
|
| 86 |
|
| 93.8% |
|
|
| 20.02 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Dunwoody Village | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1975 | — | 121 | 94.3% | 19.93 | The Fresh Market |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1975 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 121 |
|
| 94.0% |
|
|
| 19.76 |
|
| The Fresh Market, Walgreens, Dunwoody Prep | |||||||||||
Howell Mill Village (6) | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2004 | 1984 | — | 92 | 98.6% | 22.81 | Publix |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2004 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 92 |
|
| 95.9% |
|
|
| 23.70 |
|
| Publix, Walgreens | |||||||||||
Paces Ferry Plaza (6) | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1987 | — | 82 | 99.9% | 36.70 | 365 by Whole Foods |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 82 |
|
| 99.9% |
|
|
| 38.39 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Piedmont Peachtree Crossing | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2017 | 1978 | — | 152 | 84.3% | 21.30 | Kroger |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 152 |
|
| 83.5% |
|
|
| 20.71 |
|
| Kroger, Binders Art Supplies & Frames | |||||||||||
| Powers Ferry Square | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1987 | — | 101 | 100.0% | 31.67 | -- |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 101 |
|
| 91.0% |
|
|
| 33.07 |
|
| HomeGoods, PETCO | |||||||||||
| Powers Ferry Village | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1997 | 1994 | — | 79 | 100.0% | 10.89 | Publix |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1994 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 79 |
|
| 87.3% |
|
|
| 9.68 |
|
| Publix, The Juice Box | |||||||||||
| Russell Ridge | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 1994 | 1995 | — | 101 | 98.6% | 13.17 | Kroger |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 1994 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 101 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 13.38 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||
| Sandy Springs | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2012 | 2006 | — | 116 | 92.2% | 22.79 | Trader Joe's |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2012 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 116 |
|
| 94.4% |
|
|
| 24.42 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Pier 1 Imports, Fox's, Flynn O'Hara Uniforms | |||||||||||
| The Shops at Hampton Oaks | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2017 | 2009 | — | 21 | 56.3% | 11.18 | -- |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2009 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 21 |
|
| 37.8% |
|
|
| 12.44 |
|
| (CVS) | |||||||||||
| Williamsburg at Dunwoody | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell | GA | 2017 | 1983 | — | 45 | 81.3% | 25.48 | -- |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell |
| GA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1983 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 45 |
|
| 85.4% |
|
|
| 25.62 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Civic Center Plaza | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 40% | 2005 | 1989 | 22,000 | 265 | 97.1% | 11.29 | Super H Mart, Home Depot |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1989 |
|
| 22,000 |
|
|
| 265 |
|
| 97.1% |
|
|
| 11.30 |
|
| Super H Mart, Home Depot, O'Reilly Automotive, King Spa | |||||||||||
| Clybourn Commons | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 2014 | 1999 | — | 32 | 83.3% | 37.09 | -- |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 32 |
|
| 73.2% |
|
|
| 36.70 |
|
| PETCO | |||||||||||
| Glen Oak Plaza | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 2010 | 1967 | — | 63 | 96.6% | 23.98 | Trader Joe's |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
|
|
|
|
| 2010 |
| 1967 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 63 |
|
| 96.6% |
|
|
| 24.15 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Walgreens, Northshore University Healthsystems | |||||||||||
| Hinsdale | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 1998 | 1986 | — | 179 | 93.7% | 15.43 | Whole Foods |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1986 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 185 |
|
| 96.9% |
|
|
| 15.56 |
|
| Whole Foods, Goodwill, Charter Fitness, Petco | |||||||||||
Mellody Farm | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 2017 | 2017 | — | 259 | 78.1% | 26.46 | Whole Foods |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 259 |
|
| 94.4% |
|
|
| 27.92 |
|
| Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack, REI, HomeGoods, Barnes & Noble, West Elm | |||||||||||
| Riverside Sq & River's Edge | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 40% | 2005 | 1986 | 14,369 | 169 | 94.6% | 17.88 | Mariano's Fresh Market |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1986 |
|
| 14,030 |
|
|
| 169 |
|
| 96.2% |
|
|
| 17.21 |
|
| Mariano's Fresh Market, Dollar Tree, Party City | |||||||||||
| Roscoe Square | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 40% | 2005 | 1981 | 10,847 | 140 | 100.0% | 21.43 | Mariano's Fresh Market |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1981 |
|
| 10,591 |
|
|
| 140 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 21.57 |
|
| Mariano's Fresh Market, Walgreens | |||||||||||
| Stonebrook Plaza Shopping Center | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 40% | 2005 | 1984 | 7,676 | 96 | 96.9% | 12.34 | Jewel-Osco |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1984 |
|
| 7,499 |
|
|
| 96 |
|
| 98.3% |
|
|
| 12.32 |
|
| Jewel-Osco, Blink Fitness | |||||||||||
| Westchester Commons | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 2001 | 1984 | — | 139 | 91.5% | 17.95 | Mariano's Fresh Market |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
|
|
|
|
| 2001 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 139 |
|
| 94.3% |
|
|
| 18.05 |
|
| Mariano's Fresh Market, Goodwill | |||||||||||
Willow Festival (6) | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IL | 2010 | 2007 | 39,505 | 404 | 98.2% | 17.92 | Whole Foods, Lowe's |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IL |
|
|
|
|
| 2010 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 404 |
|
| 97.6% |
|
|
| 17.94 |
|
| Whole Foods, Lowe's, CVS, HomeGoods, REI, Best Buy, Ulta | |||||||||||
| Shops on Main | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | IN | 93% | 2013 | 2013 | — | 254 | 98.4% | 15.81 | Whole Foods, Dick's Sporting Goods |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin |
| IN |
| 93% |
|
| 2013 |
| 2013 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 279 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.05 |
|
| Whole Foods, Dick's Sporting Goods, Ross Dress for Less, HomeGoods, DSW, Nordstrom Rack, Marshalls | |||||||||||
| Willow Lake Shopping Center | Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson | IN | 40% | 2005 | 1987 | — | 86 | 100.0% | 17.48 | (Kroger) |
| Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson |
| IN |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 86 |
|
| 83.1% |
|
|
| 17.67 |
|
| (Kroger), Tuesday Morning | |||||||||||
| Willow Lake West Shopping Center | Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson | IN | 40% | 2005 | 2001 | 10,000 | 53 | 100.0% | 25.99 | Trader Joe's |
| Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson |
| IN |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 2001 |
|
| 10,000 |
|
|
| 53 |
|
| 97.0% |
|
|
| 26.17 |
|
| Trader Joe's | |||||||||||
| Ambassador Row | Lafayette | LA | 2017 | 1980 | — | 195 | 93.5% | 12.17 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ambassador Row Courtyards | Lafayette | LA | 2017 | 1986 | — | 150 | 81.2% | 10.03 | Bed Bath & Beyond | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bluebonnet Village | Baton Rouge | LA | 2017 | 1983 | — | 102 | 88.7% | 13.54 | Rouses Market | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elmwood Oaks Shopping Center | New Orleans-Metairie | LA | 2017 | 1989 | — | 136 | 100.0% | 10.11 | Academy Sports | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Siegen Village | Baton Rouge | LA | 2017 | 1988 | — | 170 | 98.9% | 11.28 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fellsway Plaza |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
| 75% |
|
| 2013 |
| 1959 |
|
| 37,166 |
|
|
| 155 |
|
| 97.0% |
|
|
| 24.32 |
|
| Stop & Shop, Modells Sporting Goods, Planet Fitness | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||||||||||||
| Fellsway Plaza | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 75% | 2013 | 1959 | 37,500 | 155 | 100.0% | 23.19 | Stop & Shop | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Northborough Crossing | Worcester | MA | 30% | 2017 | 2011 | 61,964 | 646 | 98.2% | 13.13 | Wegmans, BJ's Wholesale Club, Kohl's,Dick's Sporting Goods, Pottery Barn Outlet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Old Connecticut Path | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 30% | 2017 | 1994 | — | 80 | 100.0% | 21.30 | Stop & Shop |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
| 30% |
|
| 2017 |
| 1994 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 80 |
|
| 93.2% |
|
|
| 21.68 |
|
| Stop & Shop | |||||||||||
| Shaw's at Plymouth | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2017 | 1993 | — | 60 | 100.0% | 17.58 | Shaw's |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 60 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 17.58 |
|
| Shaw's | |||||||||||
| Shops at Saugus | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2006 | 2006 | — | 87 | 94.7% | 29.69 | Trader Joe's |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 87 |
|
| 93.3% |
|
|
| 30.12 |
|
| Trader Joe's, La-Z-Boy, PetSmart | |||||||||||
| Star's at Cambridge | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2017 | 1953 | — | 66 | 100.0% | 37.44 | Star Market |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1953 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 66 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 37.44 |
|
| Star Market | |||||||||||
| Star's at Quincy | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2017 | 1965 | — | 101 | 100.0% | 21.48 | Star Market |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1965 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 101 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 21.48 |
|
| Star Market | |||||||||||
| Star's at West Roxbury | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2017 | 1973 | — | 76 | 100.0% | 24.71 | Star Market |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1973 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 76 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 24.84 |
|
| Shaw's | |||||||||||
| The Abbot (fka The Collection at Harvard Square) | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2017 | 1906 | — | 41 | 86.9% | 58.16 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Abbot |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1906 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 65 |
|
| 0.0% |
|
| - |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Twin City Plaza | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2006 | 2004 | — | 285 | 100.0% | 20.19 | Shaw's, Marshall's |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2004 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 285 |
|
| 99.5% |
|
|
| 20.56 |
|
| Shaw's, Marshall's, Extra Space Storage, Walgreens, K&G Fashion, Dollar Tree, Gold's Gym, Formlabs | |||||||||||
| Whole Foods at Swampscott | Boston-Cambridge-Newton | MA | 2017 | 1967 | — | 36 | 100.0% | 24.95 | Whole Foods |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton |
| MA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1967 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 36 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.20 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
Northborough Crossing |
| Worcester |
| MA |
| 30% |
|
| 2017 |
| 2011 |
|
| 60,344 |
|
|
| 646 |
|
| 97.5% |
|
|
| 13.23 |
|
| Wegmans, BJ's Wholesale Club, Kohl's,Dick's Sporting Goods, Pottery Barn Outlet, TJ Maxx, Michael's, PetSmart, Homegoods, Old Navy, Homesense | |||||||||||||||||||||
Festival at Woodholme |
| Baltimore-Columbia-Towson |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1986 |
|
| 19,494 |
|
|
| 81 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 40.62 |
|
| Trader Joe's | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parkville Shopping Center |
| Baltimore-Columbia-Towson |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1961 |
|
| 10,818 |
|
|
| 165 |
|
| 97.1% |
|
|
| 16.20 |
|
| Giant, Parkville Lanes, Dollar Tree, Petco, The Cellar Parkville | |||||||||||||||||||||
Southside Marketplace |
| Baltimore-Columbia-Towson |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1990 |
|
| 13,455 |
|
|
| 125 |
|
| 95.5% |
|
|
| 21.12 |
|
| Shoppers Food Warehouse | |||||||||||||||||||||
Valley Centre |
| Baltimore-Columbia-Towson |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1987 |
|
| 17,652 |
|
|
| 220 |
|
| 81.5% |
|
|
| 17.19 |
|
| Aldi,TJ Maxx, Ross Dress for Less, PetSmart, Michael's | |||||||||||||||||||||
Village at Lee Airpark (6) |
| Baltimore-Columbia-Towson |
| MD |
|
|
|
|
| 2005 |
| 2005 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 121 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 28.53 |
|
| Giant, (Sunrise) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Burnt Mills (6) | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 20% | 2013 | 2004 | 7,000 | 31 | 89.1% | 37.65 | Trader Joe's |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
| 20% |
|
| 2013 |
| 2004 |
|
| 7,000 |
|
|
| 31 |
|
| 94.6% |
|
|
| 38.97 |
|
| Trader Joe's | |||||||||||
| Cloppers Mill Village | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1995 | — | 137 | 99.0% | 18.23 | Shoppers Food Warehouse |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 137 |
|
| 94.0% |
|
|
| 17.83 |
|
| Shoppers Food Warehouse, CVS | |||||||||||
| Festival at Woodholme | Baltimore-Columbia-Towson | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1986 | 19,964 | 81 | 98.5% | 39.03 | Trader Joe's | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Firstfield Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1978 | — | 22 | 100.0% | 40.29 | -- |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1978 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 22 |
|
| 93.7% |
|
|
| 43.27 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| King Farm Village Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 25% | 2004 | 2001 | — | 118 | 93.5% | 25.38 | Safeway | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Parkville Shopping Center | Baltimore-Columbia-Towson | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1961 | 11,077 | 165 | 89.9% | 16.71 | Giant Food | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Southside Marketplace | Baltimore-Columbia-Towson | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1990 | 13,773 | 125 | 95.5% | 20.79 | Shoppers Food Warehouse | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Takoma Park | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1960 | — | 104 | 99.2% | 13.44 | Shoppers Food Warehouse |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1960 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 104 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 13.79 |
|
| Shoppers Food Warehouse | |||||||||||
| Valley Centre | Baltimore-Columbia-Towson | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1987 | 18,024 | 220 | 97.3% | 16.99 | Aldi, TJ Maxx | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Village at Lee Airpark (6) | Baltimore-Columbia-Towson | MD | 2005 | 2005 | — | 117 | 99.0% | 28.95 | Giant Food, (Sunrise) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Watkins Park Plaza | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1985 | — | 111 | 98.5% | 26.31 | LA Fitness |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 111 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.12 |
|
| LA Fitness, CVS | |||||||||||
| Westwood - Manor Care | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 2017 | 1976 | — | 41 | —% | — | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Westwood Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 2017 | 1960 | — | 213 | 94.3% | 51.30 | Giant Food | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Westbard Square- Manor Care |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1976 |
|
| — |
|
|
| - |
|
| 0.0% |
|
| - |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Westbard Square |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1960 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 213 |
|
| 89.7% |
|
|
| 32.31 |
|
| Giant, Citgo, Bowlmor AMF | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Woodmoor Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | MD | 40% | 2005 | 1954 | 5,985 | 69 | 98.1% | 32.37 | -- |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| MD |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1954 |
|
| 19,000 |
|
|
| 69 |
|
| 99.4% |
|
|
| 33.45 |
|
| CVS | |||||||||||
| Fenton Marketplace | Flint | MI | 1999 | 1999 | — | 97 | 100.0% | 8.43 | Family Farm & Home |
| Flint |
| MI |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 97 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 8.53 |
|
| Family Farm & Home, Michael's | |||||||||||
| Apple Valley Square | Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington | MN | 25% | 2006 | 1998 | — | 176 | 100.0% | 14.72 | Jo-Ann Fabrics, Experience Fitness, (Burlington Coat Factory) |
| Minneapol-St. Paul-Bloomington |
| MN |
| 25% |
|
| 2006 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 176 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 15.59 |
|
| Jo-Ann Fabrics, Experience Fitness, (Burlington Coat Factory), (Aldi), Savers, PETCO | |||||||||||
| Calhoun Commons | Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington | MN | 25% | 2011 | 1999 | 667 | 66 | 100.0% | 24.46 | Whole Foods |
| Minneapol-St. Paul-Bloomington |
| MN |
| 25% |
|
| 2011 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 66 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.39 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Colonial Square | Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington | MN | 40% | 2005 | 1959 | 9,282 | 93 | 98.6% | 24.28 | Lund's |
| Minneapol-St. Paul-Bloomington |
| MN |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1959 |
|
| 9,091 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 98.6% |
|
|
| 24.72 |
|
| Lund's | |||||||||||
| Rockford Road Plaza | Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington | MN | 40% | 2005 | 1991 | 20,000 | 204 | 100.0% | 12.99 | Kohl's |
| Minneapol-St. Paul-Bloomington |
| MN |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1991 |
|
| 20,000 |
|
|
| 204 |
|
| 96.4% |
|
|
| 13.15 |
|
| Kohl's, PetSmart, HomeGoods, TJ Maxx | |||||||||||
| Rockridge Center | Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington | MN | 20% | 2011 | 2006 | 14,500 | 125 | 95.9% | 13.89 | Cub Foods |
| Minneapol-St. Paul-Bloomington |
| MN |
| 20% |
|
| 2011 |
| 2006 |
|
| 14,500 |
|
|
| 125 |
|
| 90.8% |
|
|
| 13.37 |
|
| CUB Foods | |||||||||||
| Brentwood Plaza | St. Louis | MO | 2007 | 2002 | — | 60 | 100.0% | 10.81 | Schnucks |
| St. Louis |
| MO |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2002 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 60 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 10.86 |
|
| Schnucks | |||||||||||
| Bridgeton | St. Louis | MO | 2007 | 2005 | — | 71 | 100.0% | 12.13 | Schnucks, (Home Depot) |
| St. Louis |
| MO |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2005 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 71 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 12.19 |
|
| Schnucks, (Home Depot) | |||||||||||
| Dardenne Crossing | St. Louis | MO | 2007 | 1996 | — | 67 | 100.0% | 10.93 | Schnucks |
| St. Louis |
| MO |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 1996 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 67 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 11.02 |
|
| Schnucks | |||||||||||
| Kirkwood Commons | St. Louis | MO | 2007 | 2000 | 8,742 | 210 | 100.0% | 10.14 | Wal-Mart, (Target), (Lowe's) |
| St. Louis |
| MO |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2000 |
|
| 8,050 |
|
|
| 210 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 10.15 |
|
| Walmart, (Target), (Lowe's), TJ Maxx, HomeGoods, Famous Footwear | |||||||||||
Carmel Commons |
| Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1979 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 135 |
|
| 77.6% |
|
|
| 22.20 |
|
| The Fresh Market, Chuck E. Cheese, Party City | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cochran Commons |
| Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia |
| NC |
| 20% |
|
| 2007 |
| 2003 |
|
| 4,386 |
|
|
| 66 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.94 |
|
| Harris Teeter, (Walgreens) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Providence Commons |
| Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia |
| NC |
| 25% |
|
| 2010 |
| 1994 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 74 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 18.74 |
|
| Harris Teeter | |||||||||||||||||||||
Willow Oaks |
| Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 2014 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 69 |
|
| 94.9% |
|
|
| 17.27 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shops at Erwin Mill |
| Durham-Chapel Hill |
| NC |
| 55% |
|
| 2012 |
| 2012 |
|
| 10,000 |
|
|
| 91 |
|
| 96.4% |
|
|
| 18.52 |
|
| Harris Teeter | |||||||||||||||||||||
Southpoint Crossing |
| Durham-Chapel Hill |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 103 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.98 |
|
| Harris Teeter | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||||||||||||
Village Plaza |
| Durham-Chapel Hill |
| NC |
| 20% |
|
| 2012 |
| 1975 |
|
| 8,000 |
|
|
| 73 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 22.11 |
|
| Whole Foods, PTA Thrift Shop | |||||||||||||||||||||
Woodcroft Shopping Center |
| Durham-Chapel Hill |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 1996 |
| 1984 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 97.3% |
|
|
| 13.61 |
|
| Food Lion,Triangle ACE Hardware | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cameron Village | Raleigh | NC | 30% | 2004 | 1949 | 60,000 | 558 | 98.1% | 23.13 | Harris Teeter, The Fresh Market |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
| 30% |
|
| 2004 |
| 1949 |
|
| 60,000 |
|
|
| 558 |
|
| 93.7% |
|
|
| 24.02 |
|
| Harris Teeter, The Fresh Market, Wake Public Library, Walgreens, Talbots, Great Outdoor Provision Co., York Properties, K&W Cafeteria, Pier 1 Imports,The Cheshire Cat Gallery, Crunch Fitness Select Club, Bailey's Fine Jewelry | |||||||||||
| Carmel Commons | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia | NC | 1997 | 1979 | — | 133 | 98.5% | 20.75 | The Fresh Market | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cochran Commons | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia | NC | 20% | 2007 | 2003 | 4,691 | 66 | 97.4% | 16.43 | Harris Teeter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Market at Colonnade Center | Raleigh | NC | 2009 | 2009 | — | 58 | 100.0% | 27.47 | Whole Foods |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 2009 |
| 2009 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 58 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.62 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Glenwood Village | Raleigh | NC | 1997 | 1983 | — | 43 | 100.0% | 16.68 | Harris Teeter |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1983 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 43 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 17.03 |
|
| Harris Teeter | |||||||||||
| Harris Crossing | Raleigh | NC | 2007 | 2007 | — | 65 | 96.0% | 8.98 | Harris Teeter |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 65 |
|
| 98.3% |
|
|
| 9.23 |
|
| Harris Teeter | |||||||||||
| Holly Park | Raleigh | NC | 99% | 2013 | 1969 | — | 160 | 89.6% | 17.33 | Trader Joe's |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 2013 |
| 1969 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 160 |
|
| 99.9% |
|
|
| 17.57 |
|
| DSW, Trader Joe's, Ross Dress For Less, Staples, US Fitness Products, Jerry's Arystsms, Pet Supplies Plus, Ulta | ||||||||||
| Lake Pine Plaza | Raleigh | NC | 1998 | 1997 | — | 88 | 96.8% | 12.73 | Kroger |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1997 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 88 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 13.20 |
|
| Harris Teeter | |||||||||||
Midtown East (7) | Raleigh | NC | 50% | 2017 | 2017 | 14,384 | 174 | 84.8% | 19.02 | Wegmans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Phillips Place | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia | NC | 50% | 2012 | 2005 | 40,000 | 133 | 84.3% | 33.81 | -- | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Providence Commons | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia | NC | 25% | 2010 | 1994 | — | 74 | 100.0% | 18.55 | Harris Teeter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Midtown East |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
| 50% |
|
| 2017 |
| 2017 |
|
| 26,408 |
|
|
| 159 |
|
| 93.4% |
|
|
| 22.96 |
|
| Wegmans | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Ridgewood Shopping Center | Raleigh | NC | 20% | 2018 | 1951 | 10,182 | 93 | 90.4% | 16.99 | Whole Foods |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
| 20% |
|
| 2018 |
| 1951 |
|
| 9,972 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 89.4% |
|
|
| 16.89 |
|
| Whole Foods, Walgreens | |||||||||||
| Shops at Erwin Mill | Durham-Chapel Hill | NC | 55% | 2012 | 2012 | 10,000 | 87 | 100.0% | 18.10 | Harris Teeter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shoppes of Kildaire | Raleigh | NC | 40% | 2005 | 1986 | 20,000 | 145 | 96.7% | 18.69 | Trader Joe's, Aldi |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1986 |
|
| 20,000 |
|
|
| 145 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 19.28 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Aldi, Fitness Connection, Staples | |||||||||||
| Southpoint Crossing | Durham-Chapel Hill | NC | 1998 | 1998 | — | 103 | 100.0% | 16.34 | Kroger | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sutton Square | Raleigh | NC | 20% | 2006 | 1985 | — | 101 | 98.7% | 19.36 | The Fresh Market |
| Raleigh |
| NC |
| 20% |
|
| 2006 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 101 |
|
| 89.7% |
|
|
| 20.37 |
|
| The Fresh Market, Walgreens | |||||||||||
| Village Plaza | Durham-Chapel Hill | NC | 20% | 2012 | 1975/2018 | 8,000 | 73 | 86.8% | 19.77 | Whole Foods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Willow Oaks Crossing | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia | NC | 2014 | 2014 | — | 69 | 94.9% | 17.13 | Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Woodcroft Shopping Center | Durham-Chapel Hill | NC | 1996 | 1984 | — | 90 | 98.4% | 13.45 | Food Lion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chimney Rock (6) | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NJ | 2016 | 2016 | — | 218 | 96.9% | 34.56 | Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NJ |
|
|
|
|
| 2016 |
| 2016 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 218 |
|
| 99.0% |
|
|
| 36.53 |
|
| Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack, Saks Off 5th, The Container Store, Cost Plus World Market, Ulta | |||||||||||
District at Metuchen (6) | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NJ | 20% | 2018 | 2017 | 16,000 | 67 | 100.0% | 29.29 | 0 |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NJ |
| 20% |
|
| 2018 |
| 2017 |
|
| 16,000 |
|
|
| 67 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 29.50 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Haddon Commons | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | NJ | 40% | 2005 | 1985 | — | 54 | 100.0% | 13.78 | Acme Markets | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaza Square | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NJ | 40% | 2005 | 1990 | 12,887 | 104 | 92.9% | 22.51 | Shop Rite |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NJ |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1990 |
|
| 12,621 |
|
|
| 104 |
|
| 89.0% |
|
|
| 22.64 |
|
| Shop Rite | |||||||||||
| Riverfront Plaza | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NJ | 30% | 2017 | 1997 | 24,000 | 129 | 95.9% | 25.45 | ShopRite |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NJ |
| 30% |
|
| 2017 |
| 1997 |
|
| 24,000 |
|
|
| 129 |
|
| 92.8% |
|
|
| 26.75 |
|
| ShopRite | |||||||||||
Haddon Commons |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| NJ |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 54 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 13.84 |
|
| Acme Markets | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 101 7th Avenue | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 1930 | — | 57 | 100.0% | 79.13 | Barney's New York |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1930 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 57 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 79.13 |
|
| Barney's New York | |||||||||||
| 1175 Third Avenue | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 1995 | — | 25 | 100.0% | 116.62 | The Food Emporium |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 25 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 116.62 |
|
| The Food Emporium | |||||||||||
| 1225-1239 Second Ave | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 1964 | — | 18 | 100.0% | 116.47 | -- |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1964 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 18 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 125.79 |
|
| CVS | |||||||||||
| 90 - 30 Metropolitan Avenue | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 2007 | — | 60 | 93.9% | 34.27 | Trader Joe's |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 60 |
|
| 93.9% |
|
|
| 34.27 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Staples, Michaels | |||||||||||
Broadway Plaza (6) | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 2014 | — | 147 | 97.2% | 35.59 | Aldi |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2014 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 147 |
|
| 91.8% |
|
|
| 39.70 |
|
| Aldi, Bob's Discount Furniture, TJ Maxx, F21 Red, Blink Fitness | |||||||||||
Clocktower Plaza Shopping Ctr (6) | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 1985 | — | 79 | 93.6% | 48.09 | Stop & Shop |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 79 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 47.33 |
|
| Stop & Shop | |||||||||||
| Gallery At Westbury Plaza | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 2013 | — | 312 | 99.5% | 48.47 | Trader Joe's, Nordstrom Rack | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Gallery at Westbury Plaza |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2013 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 312 |
|
| 97.9% |
|
|
| 48.68 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Nordstrom Rack, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bloomingdale's, The Container Store, HomeGoods, Old Navy, Gap Outlet, Bassett Home Furnishings, Famous Footwear | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Hewlett Crossing I & II | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2018 | 1954 | 9,559 | 53 | 96.3% | 35.75 | Petco |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2018 |
| 1954 |
|
| 9,400 |
|
|
| 53 |
|
| 96.3% |
|
|
| 39.75 |
|
| Petco | |||||||||||
| Rivertowns Square | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2018 | 2016 | — | 116 | 89.8% | 35.97 | Brooklyn Harvest Market, Ipic Theaters |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2018 |
| 2016 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 116 |
|
| 58.4% |
|
|
| 37.31 |
|
| Brooklyn Harvest Market, Ulta Beauty, The Learning Experience | |||||||||||
The Point at Garden City Park (6) | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2016 | 1965 | — | 105 | 97.8% | 21.37 | King Kullen |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2016 |
| 1965 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 105 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 24.57 |
|
| King Kullen, Ace Hardware | |||||||||||
| Lake Grove Commons | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 40% | 2012 | 2008 | 50,000 | 141 | 100.0% | 33.96 | Whole Foods, LA Fitness |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
| 40% |
|
| 2012 |
| 2008 |
|
| 50,000 |
|
|
| 141 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 34.20 |
|
| Whole Foods, LA Fitness, PETCO | |||||||||||
| The Gallery at Westbury Plaza | New York-Newark-Jersey City | NY | 2017 | 1993 | 88,000 | 394 | 100.0% | 24.45 | Wal-Mart, Costco, Marshalls, Total Wine and More | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Westbury Plaza |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City |
| NY |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 1993 |
|
| 88,000 |
|
|
| 394 |
|
| 95.4% |
|
|
| 25.41 |
|
| Wal-Mart, Costco, Marshalls, Total Wine and More, Olive Garden | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cherry Grove | Cincinnati | OH | 1998 | 1997 | — | 196 | 98.2% | 12.04 | Kroger |
| Cincinnati |
| OH |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1997 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 196 |
|
| 97.8% |
|
|
| 12.17 |
|
| Kroger, Shoe Carnival, TJ Maxx, Tuesday Morning | |||||||||||
Hyde Park |
| Cincinnati |
| OH |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 401 |
|
| 99.5% |
|
|
| 16.47 |
|
| Kroger, Remke Markets, Walgreens, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ace Hardware, Staples, Marshalls | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||||||||||||
| East Pointe | Columbus | OH | 1998 | 1993 | — | 107 | 100.0% | 10.53 | Kroger | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hyde Park | Cincinnati | OH | 1997 | 1995 | — | 397 | 99.5% | 16.29 | Kroger, Remke Markets | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kroger New Albany Center | Columbus | OH | 50% | 1999 | 1999 | — | 93 | 100.0% | 12.78 | Kroger | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Northgate Plaza (Maxtown Road) | Columbus | OH | 1998 | 1996 | — | 114 | 100.0% | 11.51 | Kroger, (Home Depot) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Bank Village | Cincinnati | OH | 2006 | 2006 | — | 176 | 100.0% | 7.51 | Wal-Mart |
| Cincinnati |
| OH |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 176 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 7.56 |
|
| Wal-Mart | |||||||||||
| Regency Commons | Cincinnati | OH | 2004 | 2004 | — | 34 | 95.2% | 25.46 | -- |
| Cincinnati |
| OH |
|
|
|
|
| 2004 |
| 2004 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 34 |
|
| 74.3% |
|
|
| 26.16 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| West Chester Plaza | Cincinnati | OH | 1998 | 1988 | — | 88 | 100.0% | 9.95 | Kroger |
| Cincinnati |
| OH |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 88 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 10.08 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||
East Pointe |
| Columbus |
| OH |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1993 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 107 |
|
| 98.7% |
|
|
| 10.51 |
|
| Kroger | ||||||||||||||||||||
Kroger New Albany Center |
| Columbus |
| OH |
| 50% |
|
| 1999 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 12.94 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||||||||||||
Northgate Plaza (Maxtown Road) |
| Columbus |
| OH |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1996 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 114 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 11.63 |
|
| Kroger, (Home Depot) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Corvallis Market Center | Corvallis | OR | 2006 | 2006 | — | 85 | 100.0% | 21.18 | Trader Joe's |
| Corvallis |
| OR |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 85 |
|
| 90.9% |
|
|
| 21.52 |
|
| Trader Joe's, TJ Maxx, Michael's | |||||||||||
Northgate Marketplace |
| Medford |
| OR |
|
|
|
|
| 2011 |
| 2011 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 81 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 23.49 |
|
| Trader Joe's, REI, PETCO | ||||||||||||||||||||
Northgate Marketplace Ph II |
| Medford |
| OR |
|
|
|
|
| 2015 |
| 2015 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 177 |
|
| 97.4% |
|
|
| 16.96 |
|
| Dick's Sporting Goods, Homegoods, Marshalls | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Greenway Town Center | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro | OR | 40% | 2005 | 1979 | 11,311 | 93 | 100.0% | 14.61 | Whole Foods |
| Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro |
| OR |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1979 |
|
| 11,023 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 15.69 |
|
| Whole Foods, Rite Aid, Dollar Tree | |||||||||||
| Murrayhill Marketplace | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro | OR | 1999 | 1988 | — | 150 | 86.0% | 18.59 | Safeway |
| Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro |
| OR |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 150 |
|
| 87.5% |
|
|
| 19.29 |
|
| Safeway, Planet Fitness | |||||||||||
| Northgate Marketplace | Medford | OR | 2011 | 2011 | — | 81 | 100.0% | 23.40 | Trader Joe's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Northgate Marketplace Ph II | Medford | OR | 2015 | 2015 | — | 177 | 96.2% | 16.08 | Dick's Sporting Goods | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sherwood Crossroads | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro | OR | 1999 | 1999 | — | 88 | 98.4% | 11.35 | Safeway |
| Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro |
| OR |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 88 |
|
| 98.4% |
|
|
| 11.61 |
|
| Safeway | |||||||||||
Tanasbourne Market (6) | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro | OR | 2006 | 2006 | — | 71 | 100.0% | 30.11 | Whole Foods |
| Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro |
| OR |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 71 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 30.14 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Walker Center | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro | OR | 1999 | 1987 | — | 90 | 100.0% | 21.08 | Bed, Bath & Beyond |
| Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro |
| OR |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 98.4% |
|
|
| 21.65 |
|
| Bed Bath & Beyond | |||||||||||
| Allen Street Shopping Center | Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton | PA | 40% | 2005 | 1958 | — | 46 | 100.0% | 15.10 | Ahart's Market | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allen Street Shopping Ctr |
| Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton |
| PA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1958 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 46 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 15.54 |
|
| Ahart's Market | |||||||||||||||||||||
Lower Nazareth Commons |
| Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton |
| PA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 97.8% |
|
|
| 26.14 |
|
| (Wegmans), (Target), Burlington Coat Factory, PETCO | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stefko Boulevard Shopping Center (6) |
| Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton |
| PA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1976 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 134 |
|
| 95.1% |
|
|
| 10.79 |
|
| Valley Farm Market, Dollar Tree, Retro Fitness | |||||||||||||||||||||
Hershey (6) |
| Other |
| PA |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 6 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 28.00 |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| City Avenue Shopping Center | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | PA | 40% | 2005 | 1960 | — | 162 | 94.2% | 21.08 | Ross Dress for Less |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| PA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1960 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 162 |
|
| 93.5% |
|
|
| 21.24 |
|
| Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Dollar Tree | |||||||||||
| Gateway Shopping Center | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | PA | 2004 | 1960 | — | 221 | 97.9% | 31.86 | Trader Joe's |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| PA |
|
|
|
|
| 2004 |
| 1960 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 221 |
|
| 97.5% |
|
|
| 32.19 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Staples, TJ Maxx, Jo-Ann Fabrics | |||||||||||
Hershey (6) | Other | PA | 2000 | 2000 | — | 6 | 100.0% | 28.00 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lower Nazareth Commons | Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton | PA | 2007 | 2007 | — | 90 | 98.7% | 25.74 | (Wegmans), (Target) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mercer Square Shopping Center | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | PA | 40% | 2005 | 1988 | 10,454 | 91 | 96.7% | 24.12 | Weis Markets |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| PA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1988 |
|
| 10,238 |
|
|
| 91 |
|
| 98.0% |
|
|
| 24.10 |
|
| Weis Markets | |||||||||||
| Newtown Square Shopping Center | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | PA | 40% | 2005 | 1970 | 10,273 | 143 | 88.2% | 18.71 | Acme Markets |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| PA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1970 |
|
| 10,061 |
|
|
| 143 |
|
| 86.5% |
|
|
| 18.83 |
|
| Acme Markets, Michael's | |||||||||||
Stefko Boulevard Shopping Center (6) | Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton | PA | 40% | 2005 | 1976 | — | 134 | 96.1% | 10.58 | Valley Farm Market | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Warwick Square Shopping Center | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington | PA | 40% | 2005 | 1999 | 9,192 | 90 | 97.1% | 21.24 | Giant Food |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington |
| PA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1999 |
|
| 9,002 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 44.3% |
|
|
| 28.16 |
|
| 0 | |||||||||||
Indigo Square (7) | Charleston-North Charleston | SC | 2017 | 2017 | — | 51 | 94.8% | 28.59 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Indigo Square |
| Charleston-North Charleston |
| SC |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 51 |
|
| 97.4% |
|
|
| 28.80 |
|
| Publix | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Merchants Village | Charleston-North Charleston | SC | 40% | 1997 | 1997 | 9,000 | 80 | 100.0% | 16.68 | Publix |
| Charleston-North Charleston |
| SC |
| 40% |
|
| 1997 |
| 1997 |
|
| 9,000 |
|
|
| 80 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.95 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Harpeth Village Fieldstone | Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin | TN | 1997 | 1998 | — | 70 | 100.0% | 15.59 | Publix |
| Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin |
| TN |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 70 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 15.68 |
|
| Publix | |||||||||||
| Northlake Village | Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin | TN | 2000 | 1988 | — | 138 | 98.0% | 13.98 | Kroger |
| Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin |
| TN |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 1988 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 138 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 14.11 |
|
| Kroger, PETCO | |||||||||||
| Peartree Village | Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin | TN | 1997 | 1997 | — | 110 | 100.0% | 19.84 | Kroger |
| Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin |
| TN |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
| 1997 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 19.90 |
|
| Kroger, PETCO | |||||||||||
| Alden Bridge | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 20% | 2002 | 1998 | 26,000 | 139 | 98.8% | 20.26 | Kroger | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hancock |
| Austin-Round Rock |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 410 |
|
| 52.9% |
|
|
| 20.82 |
|
| H.E.B, Twin Liquors, PETCO, 24 Hour Fitness | ||||||||||||||||||||
Market at Round Rock |
| Austin-Round Rock |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 123 |
|
| 97.5% |
|
|
| 18.78 |
|
| Sprout's Markets, Office Depot, Tuesday Morning | ||||||||||||||||||||
North Hills |
| Austin-Round Rock |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1995 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 145 |
|
| 98.3% |
|
|
| 23.43 |
|
| H.E.B. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shops at Mira Vista |
| Austin-Round Rock |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 2002 |
|
| 215 |
|
|
| 68 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 23.38 |
|
| Trader Joe's, Champions Westlake Gymnastics & Cheer | ||||||||||||||||||||
Tech Ridge Center |
| Austin-Round Rock |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2011 |
| 2001 |
|
| 4,554 |
|
|
| 215 |
|
| 88.1% |
|
|
| 22.92 |
|
| H.E.B., Pinstack | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Bethany Park Place | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 20% | 1998 | 1998 | 10,200 | 99 | 100.0% | 11.83 | Kroger |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
| 20% |
|
| 1998 |
| 1998 |
|
| 10,200 |
|
|
| 99 |
|
| 98.0% |
|
|
| 11.79 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||
| CityLine Market | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 2014 | 2014 | — | 81 | 100.0% | 27.35 | Whole Foods |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 2014 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 81 |
|
| 98.0% |
|
|
| 27.59 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| CityLine Market Phase II | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 2014 | 2015 | — | 22 | 100.0% | 26.66 | -- |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 2015 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 22 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.08 |
|
| CVS | |||||||||||
| Cochran's Crossing | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 2002 | 1994 | — | 138 | 95.5% | 18.86 | Kroger | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hancock | Austin-Round Rock | TX | 1999 | 1998 | — | 410 | 98.9% | 16.09 | H.E.B., Sears | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hickory Creek Plaza | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 2006 | 2006 | — | 28 | 100.0% | 26.79 | (Kroger) |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 28 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 27.64 |
|
| (Kroger) | |||||||||||
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||||||||||||
| Hillcrest Village | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 1999 | 1991 | — | 15 | 100.0% | 47.33 | -- |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1991 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 15 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 47.53 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Indian Springs Center | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 2002 | 2003 | — | 137 | 100.0% | 24.38 | H.E.B. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Keller Town Center | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 1999 | 1999 | — | 120 | 99.0% | 16.09 | Tom Thumb |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1999 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 120 |
|
| 99.0% |
|
|
| 16.77 |
|
| Tom Thumb | |||||||||||
| Lebanon/Legacy Center | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 2000 | 2002 | — | 56 | 96.5% | 26.33 | (Wal-Mart) |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
| 2002 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 56 |
|
| 87.8% |
|
|
| 26.87 |
|
| (Wal-Mart) | |||||||||||
| Market at Preston Forest | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 1999 | 1990 | — | 96 | 98.9% | 20.77 | Tom Thumb |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 96 |
|
| 98.9% |
|
|
| 20.93 |
|
| Tom Thumb | |||||||||||
| Market at Round Rock | Austin-Round Rock | TX | 1999 | 1987 | — | 123 | 98.6% | 18.44 | Sprout's Markets | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Market at Springwoods Village | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 53% | 2016 | 2016 | 10,309 | 167 | 94.3% | 15.88 | Kroger | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mockingbird Common | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 1999 | 1987 | — | 120 | 93.8% | 17.92 | Tom Thumb |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 120 |
|
| 95.4% |
|
|
| 18.18 |
|
| Tom Thumb, Ogle School of Hair Design | |||||||||||
| North Hills | Austin-Round Rock | TX | 1999 | 1995 | — | 144 | 96.4% | 22.81 | H.E.B. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Panther Creek | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 2002 | 1994 | — | 166 | 98.6% | 22.81 | Randall's Food | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Prestonbrook | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 1998 | 1998 | — | 92 | 93.1% | 14.08 | Kroger |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 92 |
|
| 98.5% |
|
|
| 14.70 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||
Preston Oaks (6) | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 2013 | 1991 | — | 104 | 99.5% | 33.58 | H.E.B. Central Market |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2013 |
| 1991 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 104 |
|
| 98.1% |
|
|
| 33.96 |
|
| H.E.B. , Central Market, Talbots | |||||||||||
| Shiloh Springs | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | TX | 20% | 1998 | 1998 | — | 110 | 91.8% | 14.21 | Kroger |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington |
| TX |
| 20% |
|
| 1998 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 110 |
|
| 89.8% |
|
|
| 14.28 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||
| Shops at Mira Vista | Austin-Round Rock | TX | 2014 | 2002 | 225 | 68 | 100.0% | 22.86 | Trader Joe's | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alden Bridge |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
| 20% |
|
| 2002 |
| 1998 |
|
| 26,000 |
|
|
| 139 |
|
| 98.8% |
|
|
| 20.50 |
|
| Kroger, Walgreens | |||||||||||||||||||||
Cochran's Crossing |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2002 |
| 1994 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 138 |
|
| 94.3% |
|
|
| 19.19 |
|
| Kroger, CVS | ||||||||||||||||||||
Indian Springs Center |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2002 |
| 2003 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 137 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 24.69 |
|
| H.E.B. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Market at Springwoods Village |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
| 53% |
|
| 2016 |
| 2016 |
|
| 7,350 |
|
|
| 167 |
|
| 96.3% |
|
|
| 16.53 |
|
| Kroger | |||||||||||||||||||||
Panther Creek |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2002 |
| 1994 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 166 |
|
| 94.7% |
|
|
| 22.58 |
|
| Randalls Food, CVS, The Woodlands Childrens Museum, Gold's Gym | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Southpark at Cinco Ranch | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 2012 | 2012 | — | 265 | 98.8% | 13.61 | Kroger, Academy Sports |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2012 |
| 2012 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 265 |
|
| 99.3% |
|
|
| 13.71 |
|
| Kroger, Academy Sports, PETCO, Spec's Liquor and Finder Foods | |||||||||||
| Sterling Ridge | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 2002 | 2000 | — | 129 | 98.5% | 20.79 | Kroger |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2002 |
| 2000 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 129 |
|
| 97.2% |
|
|
| 20.92 |
|
| Kroger,CVS | |||||||||||
| Sweetwater Plaza | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 20% | 2001 | 2000 | 10,489 | 134 | 100.0% | 17.79 | Kroger |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
| 20% |
|
| 2001 |
| 2000 |
|
| 20,000 |
|
|
| 134 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 18.17 |
|
| Kroger, Walgreens | |||||||||||
| Tech Ridge Center | Austin-Round Rock | TX | 2011 | 2001 | 5,694 | 185 | 96.6% | 23.91 | H.E.B. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Village at Riverstone (7) | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 2016 | 2016 | — | 167 | 91.3% | 14.97 | Kroger | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Village at Riverstone |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2016 |
| 2016 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 167 |
|
| 94.8% |
|
|
| 16.23 |
|
| Kroger | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Weslayan Plaza East | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 40% | 2005 | 1969 | — | 169 | 100.0% | 19.87 | Berings |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1969 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 169 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 20.49 |
|
| Berings, Ross Dress for Less, Michaels, The Next Level Fitness, Spec's Liquor, Bike Barn | |||||||||||
| Weslayan Plaza West | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 40% | 2005 | 1969 | 36,288 | 186 | 96.8% | 20.26 | Randall's Food |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1969 |
|
| 35,439 |
|
|
| 186 |
|
| 98.9% |
|
|
| 19.99 |
|
| Randalls Food, Walgreens, PETCO, Jo-Ann's, Tuesday Morning, Homegoods | |||||||||||
| Westwood Village | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 2006 | 2006 | — | 187 | 96.4% | 19.43 | (Target) |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
|
|
|
|
| 2006 |
| 2006 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 187 |
|
| 99.2% |
|
|
| 19.94 |
|
| (Target), Gold's Gym, PetSmart, Office Max, Ross Dress For Less, TJ Maxx | |||||||||||
| Woodway Collection | Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | TX | 40% | 2005 | 1974 | 8,321 | 97 | 100.0% | 29.06 | Whole Foods |
| Houston-Woodlands-Sugar Land |
| TX |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1974 |
|
| 8,126 |
|
|
| 97 |
|
| 98.5% |
|
|
| 29.39 |
|
| Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Ashburn Farm Market Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 2000 | 2000 | — | 92 | 98.3% | 26.50 | Giant Food | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Carytown Exchange (7) |
| Richmond |
| VA |
| 31% |
|
| 2018 |
| 2018 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 116 |
|
| 49.5% |
|
|
| 18.40 |
|
| Publix, CVS | |||||||||||||||||||||
Hanover Village Shopping Center |
| Richmond |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1971 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 90 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 9.22 |
|
| Aldi, Tractor Supply Company, Harbor Freight Tools, Tuesday Morning | |||||||||||||||||||||
Village Shopping Center |
| Richmond |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1948 |
|
| 14,717 |
|
|
| 114 |
|
| 90.4% |
|
|
| 24.81 |
|
| Publix, CVS | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Ashburn Farm Village Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1996 | — | 89 | 100.0% | 14.66 | Global Food |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1996 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 92 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.01 |
|
| Patel Brothers, The Shop Gym | |||||||||||
| Belmont Chase | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 2014 | 2014 | — | 91 | 100.0% | 30.78 | Whole Foods |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
|
|
|
|
| 2014 |
| 2014 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 91 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 31.37 |
|
| Whole Foods, Cooper's Hawk Winery | |||||||||||
| Braemar Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 25% | 2004 | 2004 | 10,558 | 96 | 97.9% | 22.26 | Safeway | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Carytown Exchange (7) | Richmond | VA | 8% | 2018 | 2018 | — | 107 | 46.3% | 14.37 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Braemar Village Center |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 25% |
|
| 2004 |
| 2004 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 104 |
|
| 98.1% |
|
|
| 22.64 |
|
| Safeway | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Centre Ridge Marketplace | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1996 | 12,726 | 107 | 98.9% | 19.34 | --- |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1996 |
|
| 12,427 |
|
|
| 107 |
|
| 98.9% |
|
|
| 19.54 |
|
| United States Coast Guard Ex | |||||||||||
| Point 50 (fka Fairfax Shopping Center) | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 2007 | 1955 | — | 48 | 62.4% | 22.00 | 365 by Whole Foods | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point 50 |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 1955 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 48 |
|
| 71.2% |
|
|
| 26.10 |
|
| Whole Foods | ||||||||||||||||||||
Festival at Manchester Lakes (6) | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1990 | 22,079 | 169 | 93.9% | 28.02 | Shoppers Food Warehouse |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1990 |
|
| 21,623 |
|
|
| 169 |
|
| 92.8% |
|
|
| 27.90 |
|
| Shoppers Food Warehouse | |||||||||||
| Fox Mill Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1977 | 15,286 | 103 | 98.1% | 25.19 | Giant Food |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1977 |
|
| 14,926 |
|
|
| 103 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 26.11 |
|
| Giant | |||||||||||
| Gayton Crossing | Richmond | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1983 | — | 158 | 86.3% | 16.12 | (Kroger) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Greenbriar Town Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1972 | 47,853 | 340 | 98.0% | 26.32 | Giant Food |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1972 |
|
| 46,867 |
|
|
| 340 |
|
| 96.1% |
|
|
| 27.63 |
|
| Giant, Bob's Discount Furniture, CVS,Ross Dress for Less, Marshalls, Planet Fitness | |||||||||||
| Hanover Village Shopping Center | Richmond | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1971 | — | 90 | 100.0% | 9.18 | Aldi | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kamp Washington Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1960 | — | 72 | 99.1% | 37.67 | Earth Fare |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1960 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 71 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 38.13 |
|
| Earth Fare | |||||||||||
Kings Park Shopping Center (6) | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1966 | 12,917 | 93 | 98.0% | 29.14 | Giant Food |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1966 |
|
| 12,613 |
|
|
| 96 |
|
| 98.1% |
|
|
| 31.68 |
|
| Giant, CVS | |||||||||||
Lorton Station Marketplace |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 20% |
|
| 2006 |
| 2005 |
|
| 9,875 |
|
|
| 132 |
|
| 90.5% |
|
|
| 24.25 |
|
| Shoppers Food Warehouse | |||||||||||||||||||||
Market Common Clarendon |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
|
|
|
|
| 2016 |
| 2001 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 422 |
|
| 72.6% |
|
|
| 36.08 |
|
| Whole Foods, Crate & Barrel, The Container Store, Barnes & Noble, Pottery Barn, Ethan Allen, The Cheesecake Factory, Jumping Joeys, Equinox | ||||||||||||||||||||
Saratoga Shopping Center |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1977 |
|
| 10,326 |
|
|
| 113 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 21.53 |
|
| Giant | |||||||||||||||||||||
Property Name |
| CBSA (1) |
| State |
| Owner- ship Interest (2) |
|
| Year Acquired |
| Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation |
| Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) |
|
| Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) |
|
| Percent Leased (3) |
|
| Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) (4) |
|
| Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF (5) | ||||
Shops at County Center |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
|
|
|
|
| 2005 |
| 2005 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 97 |
|
| 91.4% |
|
|
| 19.96 |
|
| Harris Teeter |
Shops at Stonewall |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007 |
| 2011 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 315 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 19.11 |
|
| Wegmans, Dick's Sporting Goods, Staples, Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath & Beyond, Michaels |
The Field at Commonwealth |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 167 |
|
| 99.0% |
|
|
| 21.83 |
|
| Wegmans |
Village Center at Dulles |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 20% |
|
| 2002 |
| 1991 |
|
| 38,194 |
|
|
| 301 |
|
| 96.2% |
|
|
| 27.31 |
|
| Giant, Gold's Gym, CVS, Advance Auto Parts, Chuck E. Cheese, HomeGoods, Goodwill, Furniture Max | |
Willston Centre I |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1952 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 105 |
|
| 91.7% |
|
|
| 26.84 |
|
| CVS, Fashion K City | |
Willston Centre II |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandri |
| VA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1986 |
|
| 26,075 |
|
|
| 136 |
|
| 98.8% |
|
|
| 26.07 |
|
| Safeway, (Target) | |
6401 Roosevelt |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 2019 |
| 1929 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 8 |
|
| 69.0% |
|
|
| 18.31 |
|
|
|
Aurora Marketplace |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1991 |
|
| 10,660 |
|
|
| 107 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 16.87 |
|
| Safeway, TJ Maxx | |
Ballard Blocks I |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
| 50% |
|
| 2018 |
| 2007 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 132 |
|
| 96.5% |
|
|
| 24.93 |
|
| Trader Joe's, LA Fitness, Ross Dress for Less | |
Ballard Blocks II |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
| 50% |
|
| 2018 |
| 2018 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 115 |
|
| 94.8% |
|
|
| 34.65 |
|
| PCC Community Markets, Bright Horizons, West Marine,Trufusion, Kaiser Permanente, Prokarma | |
Broadway Market (6) |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
| 20% |
|
| 2014 |
| 1988 |
|
| 21,500 |
|
|
| 140 |
|
| 97.9% |
|
|
| 28.09 |
|
| Quality Food Centers, Gold's Gym, Urban Outfitters | |
Cascade Plaza |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
| 20% |
|
| 1999 |
| 1999 |
|
| 560 |
|
|
| 206 |
|
| 95.6% |
|
|
| 12.33 |
|
| Safeway, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ross Dress For Less, Big Lots, Fitness Evolution, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Dollar Tree | |
Eastgate Plaza |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1956 |
|
| 9,532 |
|
|
| 85 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 28.27 |
|
| Safeway, Rite Aid | |
Grand Ridge Plaza |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 2012 |
| 2012 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 331 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 25.19 |
|
| Safeway, Regal Cinemas, Dick's Sporting Goods, Marshalls, Ulta , Bevmo! |
Inglewood Plaza |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1985 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 17 |
|
| 80.3% |
|
|
| 41.70 |
|
|
|
Klahanie Shopping Center |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 2016 |
| 1998 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 67 |
|
| 98.4% |
|
|
| 33.81 |
|
| (QFC) |
Melrose Market |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 2019 |
| 1926 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 21 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 34.52 |
|
|
|
Overlake Fashion Plaza |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
| 40% |
|
| 2005 |
| 1987 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 93 |
|
| 93.3% |
|
|
| 28.42 |
|
| Marshalls, Bevmo!, Whole Foods | |
Pine Lake Village |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1989 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 103 |
|
| 94.3% |
|
|
| 24.37 |
|
| Quality Food Centers, Rite Aid |
Roosevelt Square |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 2017 |
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 150 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 26.19 |
|
| Whole Foods, Bartell, Guitar Center, LA Fitness |
Sammamish-Highlands |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1992 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 101 |
|
| 98.3% |
|
|
| 34.77 |
|
| Trader Joe's, (Safeway), Bartell Drugs |
Southcenter |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue |
| WA |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
| 1990 |
|
| — |
|
|
| 58 |
|
| 100.0% |
|
|
| 30.84 |
|
| (Target) |
Regency Centers Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| $ | 2,071,636 |
|
|
| 52,606 |
|
| 94.8% |
|
| $ | 22.73 |
|
|
|
(1) | CBSA refers to Core Based Statistical Area. |
(2) | Represents our ownership interest in the property, if not wholly owned. |
(3) | Includes properties where we have not yet incurred at least 90% of the expected costs to complete and 95% occupied or the anchor has not yet been open for at least two calendar years (“development properties” or “properties in development”). If development properties are excluded, the total percentage leased would be 95.0% for our Combined Portfolio of shopping centers. |
(4) | Average base rent PSF is calculated based on annual minimum contractual base rent per the tenant lease, excluding percentage rent and recovery revenue. |
(5) | Retailers in parenthesis are shadow anchors at our centers. We have no ownership or leasehold interest in their space, which is within or adjacent to our property. |
(6) | The ground underlying the building and improvements is not owned by Regency or its unconsolidated real estate partnerships, but is subject to a ground lease. |
(7) | Property in development. |
| Property Name | (1) CBSA | State | (2) Owner-ship Interest | Year Acquired | Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation | Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's) | Gross Leasable Area (GLA) (in 000's) | (3) Percent Leased | (4) Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft) | (5) Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SF | ||||||||||
| Lorton Station Marketplace | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 20% | 2006 | 2005 | 9,875 | 132 | 90.5% | 23.76 | Shoppers Food Warehouse | ||||||||||
| Market Common Clarendon | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 2016 | 2001 | — | 422 | 71.5% | 33.63 | Whole Foods, Crate & Barrel | |||||||||||
| Saratoga Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1977 | 10,544 | 113 | 100.0% | 20.78 | Giant Food | ||||||||||
| Shops at County Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 2005 | 2005 | — | 97 | 87.8% | 19.64 | Harris Teeter | |||||||||||
| Shops at Stonewall | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 2007 | 2011 | — | 308 | 100.0% | 18.36 | Wegmans, Dick's Sporting Goods | |||||||||||
| The Field at Commonwealth | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 2017 | 2017 | — | 167 | 95.8% | 20.92 | Wegmans | |||||||||||
| Town Center at Sterling Shopping Center | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1980 | — | 187 | 85.6% | 21.71 | Giant Food | ||||||||||
| Village Center at Dulles | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 20% | 2002 | 1991 | 39,118 | 301 | 92.6% | 27.87 | Gold's Gym, Giant | ||||||||||
| Village Shopping Center | Richmond | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1948 | 15,064 | 111 | 93.8% | 24.42 | Publix | ||||||||||
| Willston Centre I | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1952 | — | 105 | 90.8% | 26.07 | -- | ||||||||||
| Willston Centre II | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | VA | 40% | 2005 | 1986 | 26,588 | 136 | 99.1% | 25.78 | Safeway, (Target) | ||||||||||
| Aurora Marketplace | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 40% | 2005 | 1991 | 10,917 | 107 | 100.0% | 16.37 | Safeway | ||||||||||
| Ballard Blocks I | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 50% | 2018 | 2007 | — | 132 | 94.6% | 23.89 | Trader Joe's, LA Fitness | ||||||||||
Ballard Blocks II (7) | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 50% | 2018 | 2018 | — | 114 | 79.1% | 33.60 | PCC Community Markets | ||||||||||
Broadway Market (6) | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 20% | 2014 | 1988 | 21,500 | 140 | 98.4% | 24.40 | Quality Food Centers | ||||||||||
| Cascade Plaza | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 20% | 1999 | 1999 | 13,672 | 206 | 95.6% | 12.20 | Safeway | ||||||||||
| Eastgate Plaza | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 40% | 2005 | 1956 | 9,733 | 79 | 100.0% | 27.50 | Safeway | ||||||||||
| Grand Ridge Plaza | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 2012 | 2012 | — | 331 | 100.0% | 24.64 | Safeway, Regal Cinemas | |||||||||||
| Inglewood Plaza | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 1999 | 1985 | — | 17 | 93.7% | 40.38 | -- | |||||||||||
| Klahanie Shopping Center | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 2016 | 1998 | — | 67 | 98.4% | 32.60 | (QFC) | |||||||||||
| Overlake Fashion Plaza | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 40% | 2005 | 1987 | — | 81 | 100.0% | 24.92 | (Sears) | ||||||||||
| Pine Lake Village | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 1999 | 1989 | — | 103 | 97.0% | 24.01 | Quality Food Centers | |||||||||||
| Roosevelt Square | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 2017 | 2017 | — | 148 | 100.0% | 23.21 | Whole Foods | |||||||||||
| Sammamish-Highlands | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 1999 | 1992 | — | 101 | 100.0% | 33.80 | (Safeway) | |||||||||||
| Southcenter | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue | WA | 1999 | 1990 | — | 58 | 100.0% | 29.95 | (Target) | |||||||||||
| Regency Centers Total | $2,145,538 | 53,568 | 95.6% | $21.82 | ||||||||||||||||
(1) CBSA refers to Core Based Statistical Area. | ||||||||||||||||||||
(2) Represents our ownership interest in the property, if not wholly owned. | ||||||||||||||||||||
(3) Includes properties where we have not yet incurred at least 90% of the expected costs to complete and 95% occupied or the anchor has not yet been open for at least two calendar years ("development properties" or "properties in development"). If development properties are excluded, the total percentage leased would be 95.9% for our Combined Portfolio of shopping centers. | ||||||||||||||||||||
(4) Average base rent PSF is calculated based on annual minimum contractual base rent per the tenant lease, excluding percentage rent and recovery revenue. | ||||||||||||||||||||
(5) Retailers in parenthesis are shadow anchors at our centers. We have no ownership or leasehold interest in their space, which is within or adjacent to our property. | ||||||||||||||||||||
(6) The ground underlying the building and improvements is not owned by Regency or its unconsolidated real estate partnerships, but is subject to a ground lease. | ||||||||||||||||||||
(7) Property in development. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are a party to various legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently involved in any litigation, nor to our knowledge is any litigation threatened against us, the outcome of which would, in our judgment based on information currently available to us, have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
N/A
PART II
Item 5. Market for the Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Since November 13, 2018, our common stock has traded on NASDAQ under the symbol "REG."“REG.” Before November 13, 2018, our common stock traded on the NYSE, also under the symbol "REG".
As of February 7, 2019,2020, there were 70,48765,795 holders of common equity.
We intend to pay regular quarterly distributions to Regency Centers Corporation's common stockholders. Future distributions will be declared and paid at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon cash generated by operating activities, our financial condition, capital requirements, annual dividend requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and such other factors as our Board of Directors deems relevant. In order to maintain Regency Centers Corporation's qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we are generally required to make annual distributions at least equal to 90% of our real estate investment trust taxable income for the taxable year. Under certain circumstances, which we do not expect to occur, we could be required to make distributions in excess of cash available for distributions in order to meet such requirements. We have a dividend reinvestment plan under which shareholders may elect to reinvest their dividends automatically in common stock. Under the plan, we may elect to purchase common stock in the open market on behalf of shareholders or may issue new common stock to such stockholders.
Under the revolving credit agreement of our line of credit, in the event of any monetary default, we may not make distributions to stockholders except to the extent necessary to maintain our REIT status.
There were no unregistered sales of equity securities during the quarter ended December 31, 2018.
The following table represents information with respect to purchases by the Parent Company of its common stock during the months in the three month period ended December 31, 2018:2019:
Period |
| Total number of shares purchased (1) |
|
| Total number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced plans or programs (2) |
|
| Average price paid per share |
|
| Maximum number or approximate dollar value of shares that may yet be purchased under the plans or programs (2) |
| ||||
October 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019 |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
| $ | — |
|
| $ | 250,000,000 |
|
November 1, 2019, through November 30, 2019 |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
| $ | — |
|
| $ | 250,000,000 |
|
December 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019 |
|
| 640 |
|
|
| — |
|
| $ | 60.91 |
|
| $ | 250,000,000 |
|
(1) | Represents shares repurchased to cover payment of withholding taxes in connection with restricted stock vesting by participants under Regency's Long-Term Omnibus Plan. |
| Period | Total number of shares purchased (1) | Total number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced plans or programs (2) | Average price paid per share | Maximum number or approximate dollar value of shares that may yet be purchased under the plans or programs (2) | ||||||
| October 1, 2018, through October 31, 2018 | — | — | $ | — | $125,009,963 | |||||
| November 1, 2018, through November 30, 2018 | — | — | $ | — | $125,009,963 | |||||
| December 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018 | — | 2,107,124 | $ | 57.70 | $3,371,220 | |||||
(1) Represents shares repurchased to cover payment of withholding taxes in connection with restricted stock vesting by participants under Regency's Long-Term Omnibus Plan. | ||||||||||
(2) On February 7, 2018, the Company's Board authorized a common share repurchase program under which the Company may purchase, from time to time, up to a maximum of $250 million of its outstanding common stock through open market purchases and/or in privately negotiated transactions. Any shares purchased will be retired. The program is scheduled to expire on February 6, 2020. Through December 31, 2018, the Company has repurchased 4,252,333 shares for $246.5 million. On February 5, 2019, the Company's Board authorized a new repurchase program under which the Company may purchase, from time to time, up to a maximum of $250 million under terms and conditions similar to the predecessor plan. Any additional shares purchased will be under the new program. | ||||||||||
(2) | On February 4, 2020, the Company's Board authorized a new common share repurchase program under which the Company may purchase, from time to time, up to a maximum of $250 million of its outstanding common stock through open market purchases and/or in privately negotiated transactions. Any shares purchased will be retired. The program is scheduled to expire on February 5, 2021. No shares have been repurchased under this new share repurchase program and no shares have been purchased under the program that expired in 2020. |
The performance graph furnished below shows Regency's cumulative total stockholder return to the S&P 500 Index, the FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index, and the FTSE NAREIT Equity Shopping Centers index since December 31, 2013. 2014. The stock performance graph should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other filing made by us under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate the stock performance graph by reference in another filing.
|
| 12/31/14 |
|
| 12/31/15 |
|
| 12/31/16 |
|
| 12/31/17 |
|
| 12/31/18 |
|
| 12/31/19 |
| ||||||
Regency Centers Corporation |
| $ | 100.00 |
|
|
| 110.03 |
|
|
| 114.39 |
|
|
| 118.50 |
|
|
| 104.26 |
|
|
| 116.17 |
|
S&P 500 |
|
| 100.00 |
|
|
| 101.38 |
|
|
| 113.51 |
|
|
| 138.29 |
|
|
| 132.23 |
|
|
| 173.86 |
|
FTSE NAREIT Equity REITs |
|
| 100.00 |
|
|
| 103.20 |
|
|
| 111.99 |
|
|
| 117.84 |
|
|
| 112.39 |
|
|
| 141.61 |
|
FTSE NAREIT Equity Shopping Centers |
|
| 100.00 |
|
|
| 104.72 |
|
|
| 108.57 |
|
|
| 96.23 |
|
|
| 82.23 |
|
|
| 102.81 |
|
| 12/31/13 | 12/31/14 | 12/31/15 | 12/31/16 | 12/31/17 | 12/31/18 | |||||||||
| Regency Centers Corporation | $ | 100.00 | 142.54 | 156.83 | 163.05 | 168.90 | 148.61 | |||||||
| S&P 500 | 100.00 | 113.69 | 115.26 | 129.05 | 157.22 | 150.33 | ||||||||
| FTSE NAREIT Equity REITs | 100.00 | 130.14 | 134.30 | 145.74 | 153.36 | 146.27 | ||||||||
| FTSE NAREIT Equity Shopping Centers | 100.00 | 129.96 | 136.10 | 141.10 | 125.06 | 106.87 | ||||||||
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following table sets forth Selected Financial Data for the Company on a historical basis for the five years ended December 31, 20182019 (in thousands, except per share and unit data, number of properties, and ratio of earnings to fixed charges). This historical Selected Financial Data has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements. This information should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. (including the related notes thereto) and Management's Discussion and Analysis of the Financial Condition and Results of Operations, each included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.
Parent Company
|
| 2019 |
|
| 2018 |
|
| 2017 (1) |
|
| 2016 |
|
| 2015 |
| |||||
Operating data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
| $ | 1,133,138 |
|
|
| 1,120,975 |
|
|
| 984,326 |
|
|
| 614,371 |
|
|
| 569,763 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
| 763,226 |
|
|
| 740,806 |
|
|
| 744,763 |
|
|
| 403,152 |
|
|
| 365,098 |
|
Total other expense (income) |
|
| 187,610 |
|
|
| 170,818 |
|
|
| 113,661 |
|
|
| 100,745 |
|
|
| 74,630 |
|
Income from operations before equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships and income taxes |
|
| 182,302 |
|
|
| 209,351 |
|
|
| 125,902 |
|
|
| 110,474 |
|
|
| 130,035 |
|
Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships |
|
| 60,956 |
|
|
| 42,974 |
|
|
| 43,341 |
|
|
| 56,518 |
|
|
| 22,508 |
|
Deferred income tax benefit of taxable REIT subsidiary |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
|
| (9,737 | ) |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
Net income |
|
| 243,258 |
|
|
| 252,325 |
|
|
| 178,980 |
|
|
| 166,992 |
|
|
| 152,543 |
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interests |
|
| (3,828 | ) |
|
| (3,198 | ) |
|
| (2,903 | ) |
|
| (2,070 | ) |
|
| (2,487 | ) |
Net income attributable to the Company |
|
| 239,430 |
|
|
| 249,127 |
|
|
| 176,077 |
|
|
| 164,922 |
|
|
| 150,056 |
|
Preferred stock dividends and issuance costs |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
|
| (16,128 | ) |
|
| (21,062 | ) |
|
| (21,062 | ) |
Net income attributable to common stockholders |
| $ | 239,430 |
|
|
| 249,127 |
|
|
| 159,949 |
|
|
| 143,860 |
|
|
| 128,994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per common share - diluted |
| $ | 1.43 |
|
|
| 1.46 |
|
|
| 1.00 |
|
|
| 1.42 |
|
|
| 1.36 |
|
NAREIT FFO (2) |
|
| 654,362 |
|
|
| 652,857 |
|
|
| 494,843 |
|
|
| 277,301 |
|
|
| 276,515 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
| $ | 621,271 |
|
|
| 610,327 |
|
|
| 469,784 |
|
|
| 297,177 |
|
|
| 285,543 |
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
| (282,693 | ) |
|
| (106,024 | ) |
|
| (1,007,230 | ) |
|
| (408,632 | ) |
|
| (139,346 | ) |
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities |
|
| (268,206 | ) |
|
| (508,494 | ) |
|
| 568,948 |
|
|
| 88,711 |
|
|
| (223,117 | ) |
Cash dividends paid to common stockholders and unit holders |
|
| 391,649 |
|
|
| 376,755 |
|
|
| 323,285 |
|
|
| 201,336 |
|
|
| 181,691 |
|
Common dividends declared per share |
|
| 2.34 |
|
|
| 2.22 |
|
|
| 2.10 |
|
|
| 2.00 |
|
|
| 1.94 |
|
Common stock outstanding including exchangeable operating partnership units |
|
| 168,318 |
|
|
| 168,254 |
|
|
| 171,715 |
|
|
| 104,651 |
|
|
| 97,367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance sheet data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation (3) |
| $ | 11,564,816 |
|
|
| 11,326,163 |
|
|
| 11,279,125 |
|
|
| 5,230,198 |
|
|
| 4,852,106 |
|
Total assets |
|
| 11,132,253 |
|
|
| 10,944,663 |
|
|
| 11,145,717 |
|
|
| 4,488,906 |
|
|
| 4,182,881 |
|
Total debt |
|
| 3,919,544 |
|
|
| 3,715,212 |
|
|
| 3,594,977 |
|
|
| 1,642,420 |
|
|
| 1,864,285 |
|
Total liabilities |
|
| 4,842,292 |
|
|
| 4,494,495 |
|
|
| 4,412,663 |
|
|
| 1,864,404 |
|
|
| 2,100,261 |
|
Total stockholders’ equity |
|
| 6,213,348 |
|
|
| 6,397,970 |
|
|
| 6,692,052 |
|
|
| 2,591,301 |
|
|
| 2,054,109 |
|
Total noncontrolling interests |
|
| 76,613 |
|
|
| 52,198 |
|
|
| 41,002 |
|
|
| 33,201 |
|
|
| 28,511 |
|
(1) | 2017 reflects the results of our merger with Equity One on March 1, 2017, and therefore only includes ten months of operating results for the Equity One portfolio, but also includes merger and integration related costs within Operating expenses. |
| 2018 | 2017 (1) | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||
| Operating data: | ||||||||||||||||
| Revenues | $ | 1,120,975 | 984,326 | 614,371 | 569,763 | 537,898 | ||||||||||
| Operating expenses | 740,806 | 744,763 | 403,152 | 365,098 | 353,348 | |||||||||||
| Total other expense (income) | 170,818 | 113,661 | 100,745 | 74,630 | 27,969 | |||||||||||
| Income from operations before equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships and income taxes | 209,351 | 125,902 | 110,474 | 130,035 | 156,581 | |||||||||||
| Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships | 42,974 | 43,341 | 56,518 | 22,508 | 31,270 | |||||||||||
| Deferred income tax benefit of taxable REIT subsidiary | — | (9,737 | ) | — | — | (996 | ) | |||||||||
| Net income | 252,325 | 178,980 | 166,992 | 152,543 | 188,847 | |||||||||||
| Income attributable to noncontrolling interests | (3,198 | ) | (2,903 | ) | (2,070 | ) | (2,487 | ) | (1,457 | ) | ||||||
| Net income attributable to the Company | 249,127 | 176,077 | 164,922 | 150,056 | 187,390 | |||||||||||
| Preferred stock dividends and issuance costs | — | (16,128 | ) | (21,062 | ) | (21,062 | ) | (21,062 | ) | |||||||
| Net income attributable to common stockholders | $ | 249,127 | 159,949 | 143,860 | 128,994 | 166,328 | ||||||||||
| Income per common share - diluted | $ | 1.46 | 1.00 | 1.42 | 1.36 | 1.80 | ||||||||||
NAREIT FFO (2) | 652,857 | 494,843 | 277,301 | 276,515 | 269,149 | |||||||||||
| Other information: | ||||||||||||||||
Net cash provided by operating activities (3) | $ | 610,327 | 469,784 | 297,177 | 285,543 | 277,742 | ||||||||||
Net cash used in investing activities (3) | (106,024 | ) | (1,007,230 | ) | (408,632 | ) | (139,346 | ) | (210,290 | ) | ||||||
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities (3) | (508,494 | ) | 568,948 | 88,711 | (223,117 | ) | (34,360 | ) | ||||||||
| Dividends paid to common stockholders and unit holders | 376,755 | 323,285 | 201,336 | 181,691 | 172,900 | |||||||||||
| Common dividends declared per share | 2.22 | 2.10 | 2.00 | 1.94 | 1.88 | |||||||||||
| Common stock outstanding including exchangeable operating partnership units | 168,254 | 171,715 | 104,651 | 97,367 | 94,262 | |||||||||||
| Balance sheet data: | ||||||||||||||||
| Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation | $ | 11,326,163 | 11,279,125 | 5,230,198 | 4,852,106 | 4,743,053 | ||||||||||
| Total assets | 10,944,663 | 11,145,717 | 4,488,906 | 4,182,881 | 4,197,170 | |||||||||||
| Total debt | 3,715,212 | 3,594,977 | 1,642,420 | 1,864,285 | 2,021,357 | |||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 4,494,495 | 4,412,663 | 1,864,404 | 2,100,261 | 2,260,688 | |||||||||||
| Total stockholders’ equity | 6,397,970 | 6,692,052 | 2,591,301 | 2,054,109 | 1,906,592 | |||||||||||
| Total noncontrolling interests | 52,198 | 41,002 | 33,201 | 28,511 | 29,890 | |||||||||||
(1) 2017 reflects the results of our merger with Equity One on March 1, 2017, and therefore only includes ten months of operating results for the Equity One portfolio, but also includes merger and integration related costs within Operating expenses. | ||||||||||||||||
(2) See Item 1, Defined Terms, for the definition of NAREIT FFO and Item 7, Supplemental Earnings Information, for a reconciliation to the nearest GAAP measure. | ||||||||||||||||
(3) On January 1, 2018, the Company retrospectively adopted Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash, which changed the classification and presentation of changes in the total of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Amounts presented for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were restated to conform presentation. | ||||||||||||||||
(2) | See Item 1, Defined Terms, for the definition of NAREIT FFO and Item 7, Supplemental Earnings Information, for a reconciliation to the nearest GAAP measure. |
(3) | Includes our Investments in real estate partnerships. |
Operating Partnership
|
| 2019 |
|
| 2018 |
|
| 2017 (1) |
|
| 2016 |
|
| 2015 |
| |||||
Operating data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
| $ | 1,133,138 |
|
|
| 1,120,975 |
|
|
| 984,326 |
|
|
| 614,371 |
|
|
| 569,763 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
| 763,226 |
|
|
| 740,806 |
|
|
| 744,763 |
|
|
| 403,152 |
|
|
| 365,098 |
|
Total other expense (income) |
|
| 187,610 |
|
|
| 170,818 |
|
|
| 113,661 |
|
|
| 100,745 |
|
|
| 74,630 |
|
Income from operations before equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships and income taxes |
|
| 182,302 |
|
|
| 209,351 |
|
|
| 125,902 |
|
|
| 110,474 |
|
|
| 130,035 |
|
Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships |
|
| 60,956 |
|
|
| 42,974 |
|
|
| 43,341 |
|
|
| 56,518 |
|
|
| 22,508 |
|
Deferred income tax (benefit) of taxable REIT subsidiary |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
|
| (9,737 | ) |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
Net income |
|
| 243,258 |
|
|
| 252,325 |
|
|
| 178,980 |
|
|
| 166,992 |
|
|
| 152,543 |
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interests |
|
| (3,194 | ) |
|
| (2,673 | ) |
|
| (2,515 | ) |
|
| (1,813 | ) |
|
| (2,247 | ) |
Net income attributable to the Partnership |
|
| 240,064 |
|
|
| 249,652 |
|
|
| 176,465 |
|
|
| 165,179 |
|
|
| 150,296 |
|
Preferred unit distributions and issuance costs |
|
| — |
|
|
| — |
|
|
| (16,128 | ) |
|
| (21,062 | ) |
|
| (21,062 | ) |
Net income attributable to common unit holders |
| $ | 240,064 |
|
|
| 249,652 |
|
|
| 160,337 |
|
|
| 144,117 |
|
|
| 129,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per common unit - diluted: |
| $ | 1.43 |
|
|
| 1.46 |
|
|
| 1.00 |
|
|
| 1.42 |
|
|
| 1.36 |
|
NAREIT FFO (2) |
|
| 654,362 |
|
|
| 652,857 |
|
|
| 494,843 |
|
|
| 277,301 |
|
|
| 276,515 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
| $ | 621,271 |
|
|
| 610,327 |
|
|
| 469,784 |
|
|
| 297,177 |
|
|
| 285,543 |
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
| (282,693 | ) |
|
| (106,024 | ) |
|
| (1,007,230 | ) |
|
| (408,632 | ) |
|
| (139,346 | ) |
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities |
|
| (268,206 | ) |
|
| (508,494 | ) |
|
| 568,948 |
|
|
| 88,711 |
|
|
| (223,117 | ) |
Distributions paid on common and limited partnership units |
|
| 391,649 |
|
|
| 376,755 |
|
|
| 323,285 |
|
|
| 201,336 |
|
|
| 181,691 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance sheet data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation (3) |
| $ | 11,564,816 |
|
|
| 11,326,163 |
|
|
| 11,279,125 |
|
|
| 5,230,198 |
|
|
| 4,852,106 |
|
Total assets |
|
| 11,132,253 |
|
|
| 10,944,663 |
|
|
| 11,145,717 |
|
|
| 4,488,906 |
|
|
| 4,182,881 |
|
Total debt |
|
| 3,919,544 |
|
|
| 3,715,212 |
|
|
| 3,594,977 |
|
|
| 1,642,420 |
|
|
| 1,864,285 |
|
Total liabilities |
|
| 4,842,292 |
|
|
| 4,494,495 |
|
|
| 4,412,663 |
|
|
| 1,864,404 |
|
|
| 2,100,261 |
|
Total partners’ capital |
|
| 6,249,448 |
|
|
| 6,408,636 |
|
|
| 6,702,959 |
|
|
| 2,589,334 |
|
|
| 2,052,134 |
|
Total noncontrolling interests |
|
| 40,513 |
|
|
| 41,532 |
|
|
| 30,095 |
|
|
| 35,168 |
|
|
| 30,486 |
|
(1) | 2017 reflects the results of our merger with Equity One on March 1, 2017, and therefore only includes ten months of operating results for the Equity One portfolio, but also includes merger and integration related costs within Operating expenses. |
(2) | See Item 1, Defined Terms, for the definition of NAREIT FFO and Item 7, Supplemental Earnings Information, for a reconciliation to the nearest GAAP measure. |
(3) | Includes our Investments in real estate partnerships. |
| 2018 | 2017 (1) | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||
| Operating data: | ||||||||||||||||
| Revenues | $ | 1,120,975 | 984,326 | 614,371 | 569,763 | 537,898 | ||||||||||
| Operating expenses | 740,806 | 744,763 | 403,152 | 365,098 | 353,348 | |||||||||||
| Total other expense (income) | 170,818 | 113,661 | 100,745 | 74,630 | 27,969 | |||||||||||
| Income from operations before equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships and income taxes | 209,351 | 125,902 | 110,474 | 130,035 | 156,581 | |||||||||||
| Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships | 42,974 | 43,341 | 56,518 | 22,508 | 31,270 | |||||||||||
| Deferred income tax (benefit) of taxable REIT subsidiary | — | (9,737 | ) | — | — | (996 | ) | |||||||||
| Net income | 252,325 | 178,980 | 166,992 | 152,543 | 188,847 | |||||||||||
| Income attributable to noncontrolling interests | (2,673 | ) | (2,515 | ) | (1,813 | ) | (2,247 | ) | (1,138 | ) | ||||||
| Net income attributable to the Partnership | 249,652 | 176,465 | 165,179 | 150,296 | 187,709 | |||||||||||
| Preferred unit distributions and issuance costs | — | (16,128 | ) | (21,062 | ) | (21,062 | ) | (21,062 | ) | |||||||
| Net income attributable to common unit holders | $ | 249,652 | 160,337 | 144,117 | 129,234 | 166,647 | ||||||||||
| Income per common unit - diluted: | $ | 1.46 | 1.00 | 1.42 | 1.36 | 1.80 | ||||||||||
NAREIT FFO (2) | 652,857 | 494,843 | 277,301 | 276,515 | 269,149 | |||||||||||
| Other information: | ||||||||||||||||
Net cash provided by operating activities (3) | $ | 610,327 | 469,784 | 297,177 | 285,543 | 277,742 | ||||||||||
Net cash used in investing activities (3) | (106,024 | ) | (1,007,230 | ) | (408,632 | ) | (139,346 | ) | (210,290 | ) | ||||||
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities (3) | (508,494 | ) | 568,948 | 88,711 | (223,117 | ) | (34,360 | ) | ||||||||
| Distributions paid on common units | 376,755 | 323,285 | 201,336 | 181,691 | 172,900 | |||||||||||
| Balance sheet data: | ||||||||||||||||
| Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation | $ | 11,326,163 | 11,279,125 | 5,230,198 | 4,852,106 | 4,743,053 | ||||||||||
| Total assets | 10,944,663 | 11,145,717 | 4,488,906 | 4,182,881 | 4,197,170 | |||||||||||
| Total debt | 3,715,212 | 3,594,977 | 1,642,420 | 1,864,285 | 2,021,357 | |||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 4,494,495 | 4,412,663 | 1,864,404 | 2,100,261 | 2,260,688 | |||||||||||
| Total partners’ capital | 6,408,636 | 6,702,959 | 2,589,334 | 2,052,134 | 1,904,678 | |||||||||||
| Total noncontrolling interests | 41,532 | 30,095 | 35,168 | 30,486 | 31,804 | |||||||||||
(1) 2017 reflects the results of our merger with Equity One on March 1, 2017, and therefore only includes ten months of operating results for the Equity One portfolio, but also includes merger and integration related costs within Operating expenses. | ||||||||||||||||
(2) See Item 1, Defined Terms, for the definition of NAREIT FFO and Item 7, Supplemental Earnings Information, for a reconciliation to the nearest GAAP measure. | ||||||||||||||||
(3) On January 1, 2018, the Company retrospectively adopted Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash, which changed the classification and presentation of changes in the total of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Amounts presented for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were restated to conform presentation. | ||||||||||||||||
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Executing on our Strategy
We reportedhad Net income attributable to common stockholdersthe Company of $239.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2019, as compared to $249.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to $159.9 million, net of $80.7 million of merger costs, during the same period in 2017.
We sustained superior same property NOI growth:
• | We attained Pro-rata same property NOI growth, excluding termination fees, of 2.1%. |
• | We executed 1,702 leasing transactions representing 6.1 million Pro-rata SF of new and renewal leasing with trailing twelve month rent spreads of 8.5% on comparable retail operating property spaces. |
• | At December 31, 2019, our total property portfolio was 94.8% leased while our same property portfolio was 95.1% leased. |
We achieved pro-rata same property NOI growth, as adjusted, excluding termination fees,continued our development and redevelopment of 3.4%.
• | We started a new development representing a total Pro-rata investment of $27.3 million upon completion with a projected return on investment of 6.0%. |
• | We started 11 new redevelopments representing a total incremental Pro-rata investment of $237.2 million upon completion with a weighted average projected return on investment of 6.9%, including $74.7 million for two future phases at Serramonte Center. |
• | Including these projects, a total of 22 properties were in the process of development or redevelopment as of December 31, 2019 representing a Pro-rata investment upon completion of $350.8 million. |
• | We completed six new developments during 2019 representing a total Pro-rata investment of $223.2 million with a weighted average return on investment of 7.2%. |
• | We completed three new redevelopments during 2019 representing a total incremental Pro-rata investment of $7.6 million with a weighted average return on investment of 7.0%. |
We maintained a conservative balance sheet providing financial flexibility to cost effectively fund investment opportunities and debt maturities:
• | On March 6, 2019, we issued $300.0 million of 4.65% senior unsecured public notes, which priced at 99.661%, and mature in March 2049. The net proceeds of the offering were used to repay in full our $250 million 4.8% notes due April 15, 2021, including a make-whole premium of approximately $9.6 million and accrued interest. The remaining proceeds were used toward repaying in full two mortgages for $52.7 million with interest rates ranging between 6.25% and 7.25%, including a repayment premium of $1.0 million. |
• | On August 13, 2019, we issued $425.0 million of 2.95% senior unsecured public notes, which priced at 99.903% and mature in September 2029. The net proceeds of the offering were used to repay in full our $300.0 million term loan that was due to mature in December 2020, including an interest rate swap breakage fee of approximately $1.1 million, and to reduce the outstanding balance on our Line. |
• | During September 2019, we entered into forward sale agreements under our ATM program through which we will issue 1,894,845 shares of common stock at an average offering price of $67.99. The shares under the forward sales agreements may be settled at any time before the required settlement date of September 12, 2020. Proceeds from the issuance of shares are expected to be used to fund acquisitions of operating properties, to fund developments and redevelopments, and for general corporate purposes. No shares have been settled through December 31, 2019. |
• | At December 31, 2019, our annualized net debt-to-operating EBITDAre ratio on a Pro-rata basis was 5.4x. |
Leasing Activity and Significant Tenants
We believe our high-quality, grocery anchored shopping centers located in densely populated, desirable infill trade areas create attractive spaces for retail tenants.
Pro-rata Occupancy
The following table summarizes pro-rataPro-rata occupancy rates of our combined Consolidated and Unconsolidated shopping center portfolio:
|
| December 31, 2019 |
|
| December 31, 2018 |
| ||
% Leased – All properties |
|
| 94.8 | % |
|
| 95.6 | % |
Anchor space |
|
| 97.3 | % |
|
| 98.4 | % |
Shop space |
|
| 90.6 | % |
|
| 90.9 | % |
| December 31, 2018 | December 31, 2017 | |||
| % Leased – All properties | 95.6% | 95.5% | ||
| Anchor space | 98.4% | 98.1% | ||
| Shop space | 90.9% | 91.1% | ||
The decline in both anchor and shop space percent leased is driven by strategic vacancies in preparation for redevelopments.
Pro-rata Leasing Activity
The following table summarizes leasing activity, including our pro-rataPro-rata share of activity within the portfolio of our co-investment partnerships:
|
| Year ended December 31, 2019 |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| Leasing Transactions |
|
| SF (in thousands) |
|
| Base Rent PSF |
|
| Tenant Allowance and Landlord Work PSF |
|
| Leasing Commissions PSF (1) |
| |||||
Anchor Leases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
|
| 32 |
|
|
| 633 |
|
| $ | 20.78 |
|
| $ | 48.64 |
|
| $ | 4.88 |
|
Renewal |
|
| 107 |
|
|
| 2,756 |
|
|
| 13.89 |
|
|
| 0.60 |
|
|
| 0.13 |
|
Total Anchor Leases |
|
| 139 |
|
|
| 3,389 |
|
| $ | 15.18 |
|
| $ | 9.57 |
|
| $ | 1.02 |
|
Shop Space |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
|
| 506 |
|
|
| 921 |
|
| $ | 33.60 |
|
| $ | 29.75 |
|
| $ | 9.67 |
|
Renewal |
|
| 1,057 |
|
|
| 1,819 |
|
|
| 33.59 |
|
|
| 1.04 |
|
|
| 0.61 |
|
Total Shop Space Leases |
|
| 1,563 |
|
|
| 2,740 |
|
| $ | 33.59 |
|
| $ | 10.69 |
|
| $ | 3.65 |
|
Total Leases |
|
| 1,702 |
|
|
| 6,129 |
|
| $ | 23.41 |
|
| $ | 10.07 |
|
| $ | 2.20 |
|
(1) | On January 1, 2019, the Company adopted ASC Topic 842, Leases, under which non-contingent internal leasing costs can no longer be capitalized. |
| Year Ended December 31, 2018 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year ended December 31, 2018 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Leasing Transactions (1) | SF (in thousands) | Base Rent PSF | Tenant Allowance and Landlord Work PSF | Leasing Commissions PSF |
| Leasing Transactions |
|
| SF (in thousands) |
|
| Base Rent PSF |
|
| Tenant Allowance and Landlord Work PSF |
|
| Leasing Commissions PSF |
| |||||||||||||||||
| Anchor Leases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| New | 38 | 625 | $ | 18.75 | $ | 29.78 | $ | 6.96 |
|
| 38 |
|
|
| 625 |
|
| $ | 18.75 |
|
| $ | 29.78 |
|
| $ | 6.96 |
| ||||||||
| Renewal | 99 | 2,886 | 15.18 | 0.60 | 0.35 |
|
| 99 |
|
|
| 2,886 |
|
|
| 15.18 |
|
|
| 0.60 |
|
|
| 0.35 |
| |||||||||||
Total Anchor Leases (1) | 137 | 3,511 | $ | 15.82 | $ | 5.79 | $ | 1.52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Anchor Leases |
|
| 137 |
|
|
| 3,511 |
|
| $ | 15.82 |
|
| $ | 5.79 |
|
| $ | 1.52 |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Shop Space |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| New | 519 | 890 | $ | 33.05 | $ | 28.17 | $ | 13.86 |
|
| 519 |
|
|
| 890 |
|
| $ | 33.05 |
|
| $ | 28.17 |
|
| $ | 13.86 |
| ||||||||
| Renewal | 1,146 | 1,838 | 33.65 | 0.83 | 2.13 |
|
| 1,146 |
|
|
| 1,838 |
|
|
| 33.65 |
|
|
| 0.83 |
|
|
| 2.13 |
| |||||||||||
Total Shop Space Leases (1) | 1,665 | 2,728 | $ | 33.45 | $ | 9.75 | $ | 5.96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Shop Space Leases |
|
| 1,665 |
|
|
| 2,728 |
|
| $ | 33.45 |
|
| $ | 9.75 |
|
| $ | 5.96 |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Total Leases | 1,802 | 6,239 | $ | 23.53 | $ | 7.52 | $ | 3.46 |
|
| 1,802 |
|
|
| 6,239 |
|
| $ | 23.53 |
|
| $ | 7.52 |
|
| $ | 3.46 |
| ||||||||
(1) Number of leasing transactions reported at 100%; all other statistics reported at pro-rata share. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year ended December 31, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||
Leasing Transactions (1)(2) | SF (in thousands) | Base Rent PSF | Tenant Allowance and Landlord Work PSF | Leasing Commissions PSF | ||||||||||||
| Anchor Leases | ||||||||||||||||
| New | 39 | 895 | $ | 17.34 | $ | 29.56 | $ | 4.92 | ||||||||
| Renewal | 87 | 2,465 | 14.47 | 0.02 | 0.46 | |||||||||||
Total Anchor Leases (1) | 126 | 3,360 | $ | 15.24 | $ | 7.89 | $ | 1.65 | ||||||||
| Shop Space | ||||||||||||||||
| New | 548 | 952 | $ | 32.45 | $ | 26.81 | $ | 13.17 | ||||||||
| Renewal | 1,175 | 2,005 | 31.31 | 1.47 | 2.40 | |||||||||||
Total Shop Space Leases (1) | 1,723 | 2,957 | $ | 31.68 | $ | 9.63 | $ | 5.87 | ||||||||
| Total Leases | 1,849 | 6,317 | $ | 22.93 | $ | 8.70 | $ | 3.62 | ||||||||
(1) Number of leasing transactions reported at 100%; all other statistics reported at pro-rata share. | ||||||||||||||||
(2) For the year ending December 31, 2017, amounts include leasing activity of properties acquired from Equity One beginning March 1, 2017. | ||||||||||||||||
Total weighted average base rent on signed shop space leases during 20182019 was $33.45$33.59 PSF and exceeds the average annual base rent of all shop space leases due to expire during the next 12 months of $30.62$32.56 PSF.
Significant Tenants and Concentrations of Risk
We seek to reduce our operating and leasing risks through geographic diversification and by avoiding dependence on any single property, market, or tenant. The following table summarizes our most significant tenants, based on their percentage of annualized base rent:
|
| December 31, 2019 |
| |||||||||
Anchor |
| Number of Stores |
|
| Percentage of Company- owned GLA (1) |
|
| Percentage of Annualized Base Rent (1) |
| |||
Publix |
|
| 68 |
|
|
| 6.4 | % |
|
| 3.2 | % |
Kroger Co. |
|
| 56 |
|
|
| 6.7 | % |
|
| 3.0 | % |
Albertsons Companies, Inc. |
|
| 46 |
|
|
| 4.3 | % |
|
| 2.8 | % |
TJX Companies, Inc. |
|
| 62 |
|
|
| 3.1 | % |
|
| 2.4 | % |
Whole Foods |
|
| 33 |
|
|
| 2.5 | % |
|
| 2.4 | % |
(1) | Includes Regency's Pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties and excludes those owned by anchors. |
| December 31, 2018 | ||||||
| Anchor | Number of Stores | Percentage of Company- owned GLA (1) | Percentage of Annualized Base Rent (1) | |||
| Publix | 70 | 6.5% | 3.2% | |||
| Kroger Co. | 56 | 6.6% | 3.0% | |||
| Albertsons Companies, Inc. | 47 | 4.2% | 2.8% | |||
| Whole Foods | 32 | 2.4% | 2.4% | |||
| TJX Companies | 59 | 3.0% | 2.3% | |||
(1) Includes Regency's pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties and excludes those owned by anchors. | ||||||
Bankruptcies and Credit Concerns
Our management team devotes significant time to researching and monitoring retail trends, consumer preferences, customer shopping behaviors, changes in retail delivery methods, and changing demographics in order to anticipate the challenges and opportunities impacting the retail industry. A greater shift to e-commerce large-scale retail business failures, unemployment, and tight credit markets could negatively impact consumer spending andour tenants’ sales potentially resulting in large scale business failures, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. We seek to mitigate these potential impacts through tenant diversification, re-tenantingreplacing weaker tenants with stronger operators, anchoring our centers with market leading grocery stores that drive foot traffic, and maintaining a presence in affluent suburbs and dense infill trade areas. As a result of our research and findings, we may reduce new leasing, suspend leasing, or curtail allowances for construction of leasehold improvements within a certain retail category or to a specific retailer in order to reduce our risk from bankruptcies and store closings.
We closely monitor the operating performance and rent collections of tenants in our shopping centers as well as those retailers experiencing significant changes to their business models as a result of reduced customer traffic in their stores and increased competition from e-commerce sales. Retailers whothat are unable to withstand these and other business pressures, such as significant debt maturities, may file for bankruptcy. Although base rent is supported by long-term lease contracts, tenants who filefiling for bankruptcy protection generally have the legal right to reject any or all of their leases and close related stores. Any unsecured claim we hold against a bankrupt tenant for unpaid rent might be paid only to the extent that funds are available and only in the same percentage as is paid to all other holders of unsecured claims. As a result, it is likely that we would recover substantially less than the full value of any unsecured claims we hold. For operating leases in which collectability of lease income is not probable, lease income is recognized on a cash basis and all previously recognized lease income is reversed in the period in which the lease income is determined not to be probable of collection. Additionally, we may incur significant expense to recoveradjudicate our claim and to release the vacated space. In the event that a tenant with a significant numberamount of leases in our shopping centersannualized base rent files bankruptcy and cancels its leases, we could experience a significant reduction in our revenues. Tenants who have filed forare currently in bankruptcy and continue to occupy space at December 31, 2018 in our shopping centers at December 31, 2019, represent an aggregate of 0.4%0.6% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.
Results from Operations
Comparison of the years ended December 31, 20182019 and 2017:
Our total revenues increasedchanged as summarized in the following table:
(in thousands) |
| 2019 |
|
| 2018 |
|
| Change |
| |||
Lease income (1) |
| $ | 1,094,301 |
|
|
| 1,083,770 |
|
|
| 10,531 |
|
Other property income |
|
| 9,201 |
|
|
| 8,711 |
|
|
| 490 |
|
Management, transaction, and other fees |
|
| 29,636 |
|
|
| 28,494 |
|
|
| 1,142 |
|
Total revenues |
| $ | 1,133,138 |
|
|
| 1,120,975 |
|
|
| 12,163 |
|
(1) | As discussed in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Regency adopted ASC Topic 842, Leases, using the modified retrospective adoption method as of January 1, 2019, and elected to apply the transition provisions of the standard at the beginning of the period of adoption. As such, the prior period amounts prepared and presented under the former ASC Topic 840, Leases, were not restated, but were reclassified to conform with the current year presentation. Part of the practical expedients in ASC Topic 842 allow management to avoid separating lease and non-lease components of Lease income, therefore all lease income earned pursuant to tenant leases, including recoveries from tenants and percentage rent, in 2019 and as reclassified for 2018 and 2017, is reflected in Lease income in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
| (in thousands) | 2018 | 2017 | Change | |||||||
| Minimum rent | $ | 818,483 | 728,078 | 90,405 | ||||||
| Percentage rent | 7,486 | 6,635 | 851 | |||||||
| Recoveries from tenants | 245,196 | 206,675 | 38,521 | |||||||
| Other income | 21,316 | 16,780 | 4,536 | |||||||
| Management, transaction, and other fees | 28,494 | 26,158 | 2,336 | |||||||
| Total revenues | $ | 1,120,975 | 984,326 | 136,649 | ||||||
Lease income increased $10.5 million, driven by the following contractually billable components of rent changed as follows:
$12.6 million increase from acquisitions of operating properties; andbillable Base rent, as follows:
• | $12.4 million increase from rent commencing at development properties; |
• | $6.2 million increase from acquisitions of operating properties; and |
• | $13.5 million net increase from same properties due to rental rate growth on new and renewal leases and rent steps in existing leases; reduced by |
• | $19.5 million decrease from the sale of operating properties. |
$77.41.8 million increase at same properties, including $64.1 million from properties acquired through our merger with Equity One which only includes ten months of 2017 operating results. The remaining increase is driven by redevelopments, rental rate growth on new and renewal leases, and rent commencements;
• | $4.0 million increase from rent commencing at development properties; and |
• | $3.5 million increase from acquisitions of operating properties; reduced by |
• | $520,000 decrease from same properties, due to a net decrease in the amount of recoverable expenses; and |
• | $5.2 million decrease from the sale of operating properties. |
$4.48.7 million decrease in Straight-line rent driven by a $4.8 million decrease for known or expected early lease terminations and a $3.9 million net decrease driven by timing of contractual rent steps.
$10.5 million increase fromin Above and below market rent commencing at development properties;accretion, as follows:
• | $2.8 million increase primarily driven by accelerated below-market rent accretion for an early lease termination at a recently acquired property; |
• | $7.4 million increase from same properties primarily driven by $8.8 million of accelerated below-market rent accretion for expected early lease terminations; and |
• | $352,000 increase from the sale of operating properties, which had greater above market rent amortization in 2018. |
$2.95.4 million increase from acquisitionsdecrease related to uncollectible lease income recorded as a direct charge against Lease income beginning on January 1, 2019, with the adoption of ASC 842, Leases. During the year ended December 31, 2018, uncollectible lease income of $5.0 million was recorded as Provision for doubtful accounts included in Other operating properties; andexpenses below.
Management, transaction and other fees increased $2.3$1.1 million primarily due partially to an increase in development fees from active developmentsprojects within unconsolidated partnerships, along with an increase in leasing and property management fees earned fromour unconsolidated partnerships.
Changes in our operating expenses are summarized in the following table:
(in thousands) |
| 2019 |
|
| 2018 |
|
| Change |
| |||
Depreciation and amortization |
| $ | 374,283 |
|
|
| 359,688 |
|
|
| 14,595 |
|
Operating and maintenance |
|
| 169,909 |
|
|
| 168,034 |
|
|
| 1,875 |
|
General and administrative |
|
| 74,984 |
|
|
| 65,491 |
|
|
| 9,493 |
|
Real estate taxes |
|
| 136,236 |
|
|
| 137,856 |
|
|
| (1,620 | ) |
Provision for doubtful accounts (1) |
|
| — |
|
|
| 4,993 |
|
|
| (4,993 | ) |
Other operating expenses |
|
| 7,814 |
|
|
| 4,744 |
|
|
| 3,070 |
|
Total operating expenses |
| $ | 763,226 |
|
|
| 740,806 |
|
|
| 22,420 |
|
(1) | Beginning with the adoption of ASC 842, Leases, on January 1, 2019, uncollectible lease income is a direct charge against Lease income, which totaled $5.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2019. |
| (in thousands) | 2018 | 2017 | Change | |||||||
| Depreciation and amortization | $ | 359,688 | 334,201 | 25,487 | ||||||
| Operating and maintenance | 168,034 | 143,990 | 24,044 | |||||||
| General and administrative | 65,491 | 67,624 | (2,133 | ) | ||||||
| Real estate taxes | 137,856 | 109,723 | 28,133 | |||||||
| Other operating expenses | 9,737 | 89,225 | (79,488 | ) | ||||||
| Total operating expenses | $ | 740,806 | 744,763 | (3,957 | ) | |||||
Depreciation and amortization costs changed as follows:
• | $5.8 million increase as we began depreciating costs at development properties where tenant spaces were completed and became available for occupancy; |
• | $8.9 million net increase from acquisitions of operating properties; and |
• | $10.6 million net increase at same properties, primarily attributable to additional depreciation at redevelopment properties; reduced by |
• | $10.7 million decrease from the sale of operating properties. |
Operating and maintenance costs changed as follows:
• | $3.6 million increase from operations commencing at development properties; and |
• | $1.9 million increase at same properties, primarily attributable to $2.7 million of increases in recoverable costs, offset by a reduction in termination fee expense; reduced by |
• | $3.7 million decrease from the sale of operating properties. |
General and administrative changed as follows:
• | $8.2 million increase due to eliminating capitalization of non-contingent internal leasing costs and legal costs associated with leasing activities upon the adoption of ASC 842, Leases, on January 1, 2019; and |
• | $6.3 million increase in the value of participant obligations within the deferred compensation plan; reduced by |
• | $3.4 million decrease from higher development overhead capitalization based on the timing and size of current development and redevelopment projects; and |
• | $1.6 million net decrease in compensation and other corporate overhead costs, primarily driven by lower incentive compensation. |
Real estate taxes changed as follows:
• | $2.7 million increase from development properties where capitalization ceased as tenant spaces became available for occupancy; and |
• | $1.9 million increase from acquisitions of operating properties; offset by |
• | $3.7 million decrease at same properties from successful tax appeals with refunds received in 2019 and 2018 including increases for post-merger tax reassessments; and |
• | $2.5 million decrease from the sale of operating properties. |
Provision for doubtful accounts was $5.0 million increase from development properties where capitalization ceased as tenant spaces became available for occupancy;
Other operating expenses decreased $79.5increased $3.1 million, primarily attributable to transactionenvironmental remediation costs related to the Equity One merger in 2017.
The following table presents the components of other expense (income):
(in thousands) |
| 2019 |
|
| 2018 |
|
| Change |
| |||
Interest expense, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest on notes payable |
| $ | 131,357 |
|
|
| 129,299 |
|
|
| 2,058 |
|
Interest on unsecured credit facilities |
|
| 17,604 |
|
|
| 18,999 |
|
|
| (1,395 | ) |
Capitalized interest |
|
| (4,192 | ) |
|
| (7,020 | ) |
|
| 2,828 |
|
Hedge expense |
|
| 7,564 |
|
|
| 8,408 |
|
|
| (844 | ) |
Interest income |
|
| (1,069 | ) |
|
| (1,230 | ) |
|
| 161 |
|
Interest expense, net |
|
| 151,264 |
|
|
| 148,456 |
|
|
| 2,808 |
|
Provision for impairment |
|
| 54,174 |
|
|
| 38,437 |
|
|
| 15,737 |
|
Gain on sale of real estate, net of tax |
|
| (24,242 | ) |
|
| (28,343 | ) |
|
| 4,101 |
|
Early extinguishment of debt |
|
| 11,982 |
|
|
| 11,172 |
|
|
| 810 |
|
Net investment (income) loss |
|
| (5,568 | ) |
|
| 1,096 |
|
|
| (6,664 | ) |
Total other expense (income) |
| $ | 187,610 |
|
|
| 170,818 |
|
|
| 16,792 |
|
| (in thousands) | 2018 | 2017 | Change | |||||||
| Interest expense, net | ||||||||||
| Interest on notes payable | $ | 129,299 | 119,301 | 9,998 | ||||||
| Interest on unsecured credit facilities | 18,999 | 14,677 | 4,322 | |||||||
| Capitalized interest | (7,020 | ) | (7,946 | ) | 926 | |||||
| Hedge expense | 8,408 | 8,408 | — | |||||||
| Interest income | (1,230 | ) | (1,811 | ) | 581 | |||||
| Interest expense, net | 148,456 | 132,629 | 15,827 | |||||||
| Provision for impairment | 38,437 | — | 38,437 | |||||||
| Gain on sale of real estate, net of tax | (28,343 | ) | (27,432 | ) | (911 | ) | ||||
| Early extinguishment of debt | 11,172 | 12,449 | (1,277 | ) | ||||||
| Net investment income | 1,096 | (3,985 | ) | 5,081 | ||||||
| Total other expense (income) | $ | 170,818 | 113,661 | 57,157 | ||||||
The $15.8$2.8 million net increase in total interest expense is primarily due to:
• | $2.1 million net increase in • $ • $ • $0.7 million decrease as a result of a previously settled forward hedge for a ten year unsecured note issuance fully amortizing in early 2019. During 2019, we recognized $54.2 million During 2019, we sold five operating properties and six land parcels for Net investment income Our equity in income (losses) of investments in real estate partnerships
The
The following represents the remaining components that comprise net income attributable to the common stockholders and unit holders:
Comparison of the years ended December 31, For a comparison of our results from operations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, see “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
Supplemental Earnings Information We use certain non-GAAP performance measures, in addition to certain performance metrics determined under GAAP, as we believe these measures improve the understanding of Pro-rata Same Property NOI: Our Pro-rata same property NOI
Billable Base rent increased Operating and Termination expense decreased $1.2 million due to Real estate taxes decreased $3.5 million Same Property Rollforward: Our same property pool includes the following property count,
NAREIT FFO: Our reconciliation of net income attributable to common stock and unit holders to NAREIT FFO is as follows:
Reconciliation of Same Property NOI to Nearest GAAP Measure: Our reconciliation of Net income attributable to common stockholders to Same Property NOI, on a
Liquidity and Capital Resources General We use cash flows generated from operating, investing, and financing activities to strengthen our balance sheet, finance our development and redevelopment projects, fund our investment activities, and maintain financial flexibility. We continuously monitor the capital markets and evaluate our ability to issue new debt or equity, to repay maturing debt, or fund our capital commitments. Except for $500 million of unsecured public and private placement debt, our Parent Company has no capital commitments other than its guarantees of the commitments of our Operating Partnership. In addition to our
Our dividend distribution policy is set by our Board of Directors, who monitors our financial position. Our Board of Directors recently declared a common stock dividend of We expect to generate sufficient cash flow from operations to fund our dividend distributions. We generated cash flow from operations of approximately We borrowings from our Line, proceeds from the sale of real estate, when the capital markets are favorable, proceeds from the sale of equity or the issuance of new If we start new developments We closed on the purchase in January 2020. We endeavor to maintain a high percentage of unencumbered assets. As of December 31, Our annualized Fixed charge coverage ratio, including our Our Line, Term Summary of Cash Flow Activity The following table summarizes net cash flows related to operating, investing, and financing activities of the Company:
Net cash provided by operating activities: Net cash provided by operating activities increased by
Net cash used in investing activities: Net cash used in investing activities changed by
Significant investing and divesting activities included:
During the same period in 2018,
We plan to continue developing and redeveloping shopping centers for long-term investment purposes. During
The following table summarizes our
The following table summarizes our
Net cash activities: Net cash flows
Significant financing activities during the years ended December 31,
Contractual Obligations We have debt obligations related to our mortgage loans, unsecured notes, unsecured credit facilities, The following table of Contractual Obligations summarizes our debt maturities, including our
Critical Accounting Estimates Knowledge about our accounting policies is necessary for a complete understanding of our financial statements. The preparation of our financial statements requires that we make certain estimates that impact the balance of assets and liabilities as of a financial statement date and the reported amount of income and expenses during a financial reporting period. These accounting estimates are based upon, but not limited to, our judgments about historical and expected future results, current market conditions, and interpretation of industry accounting standards. They are considered to be critical because of their significance to the financial statements and the possibility that future events may differ from those judgments, or that the use of different assumptions could result in materially different estimates. We review these estimates on a periodic basis to ensure reasonableness; however, the amounts we may ultimately realize could differ from such estimates. Accounts Receivable and Straight Line Rent Lease income, which includes base rent, percentage rent, and expense recoveries from tenants for common area maintenance costs, insurance and real estate taxes are the Company's principal source of revenue. As a result of generating this revenue, we will routinely have accounts receivable due from tenants. Lease income for operating leases with fixed payment terms is recognized on a straight-line basis over the expected term of the lease for all leases for which collectibility is considered probable at the commencement date. At lease commencement, the Company generally expects that collectibility is probable due to the Company’s credit assessment of tenants and other creditworthiness analysis undertaken before entering into a new lease; therefore, income from most operating leases is initially recognized on a straight-line basis. For operating leases in which collectibility of Lease income is not considered probable, Lease income is recognized on a cash basis and all previously recognized uncollectible Lease income is reversed in the period in which the Lease income is determined not to be probable of collection. In addition to the lease-specific collectibility assessment performed under Topic 842, the Company also recognizes a general reserve, as a reduction to Lease income, for its portfolio of operating lease receivables which are not expected to be fully collectible based on the Company’s historical collection experience. Although we estimate uncollectible receivables and provide for them through charges against income, actual experience may differ from those estimates. Real Estate Investments Acquisition of Real Estate Investments Upon acquisition of real estate operating properties, the Company estimates the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, building, building improvements and tenant improvements) and identified intangible assets and liabilities (consisting of above and below-market leases and in-place leases), assumed debt, and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the date of acquisition, based on evaluation of information and estimates available at that date. Based on these estimates, the Company allocates the estimated fair value to the applicable assets and liabilities. Transaction costs associated with asset acquisitions are capitalized, while such costs are expensed for business combinations in the period incurred. Beginning in July 2017, the Company adopted Accounting Standard Update 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business, under which the acquisition of operating properties are generally considered asset acquisitions. If, however, the acquisition is determined to be a business combination, any excess consideration above the fair value allocated to the applicable assets and liabilities results in goodwill. Fair value is determined based on an exit price approach, which contemplates the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The Company's methodology for determining fair value of the acquired tangible and intangible assets and liabilities includes estimating an “as-if vacant” fair value of the physical property, which includes land, building, and improvements. In addition, the Company determines the estimated fair value of identifiable intangible assets and liabilities, considering the following categories: (i) value of in-place leases, and (ii) above and below-market value of in-place leases. The value of in-place leases is estimated based on the value associated with Above-market and below-market in-place lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (ii) management's estimate of fair market lease rates for comparable in-place leases, measured over a period equal to the remaining non-cancelable term of the lease, including below-market renewal options, if applicable. The value of above-market leases is amortized as a reduction of Lease income over the remaining terms of the respective leases and the value of below-market leases is accreted to Lease income over the remaining terms of the respective leases, including below-market renewal options, if applicable. Changes to these assumptions could result in a different pattern of recognition. If tenants do not remain in their lease through the expected term or exercise an assumed renewal option, there could be a material impact to earnings. Development and Redevelopment of Real Estate Assets and Cost Capitalization We have a development program, which includes development of new shopping centers and redevelopment of our existing
Valuation of Real Estate Investments In accordance with GAAP, we evaluate our real estate for impairment whenever there are indicators, including property operating performance and general market conditions, that the carrying value of our real estate properties (including any related amortizable intangible assets or liabilities) may not be recoverable. If such indicators occur, we compare the current carrying value of the asset to the estimated undiscounted cash flows that are directly associated with the use and ultimate disposition of the asset. Our estimated cash flows are based on several key assumptions, including rental rates, expected leasing activity, costs of tenant improvements, leasing commissions, anticipated hold period, comparable sales information, and assumptions regarding the residual value upon disposition, including the exit capitalization rate. These key assumptions are subjective in nature and the resulting impairment, if any, could differ from the actual gain or loss recognized upon ultimate sale in an arm's length transaction. If the carrying value of the asset exceeds the estimated undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over fair value. The fair value of real estate assets is subjective and is determined through comparable sales information and other market data if available, as well as the use of an income approach such as the direct capitalization method or the discounted cash flow approach. Such cash flow projections consider factors such as expected future operating income, trends and prospects, as well as the effects of demand, competition and other factors, and therefore is subject to management judgment and changes in those factors could impact the determination of fair value. In estimating the fair value of undeveloped land, we generally use market data and comparable sales information. Changes in our disposition strategy or changes in the marketplace may alter the hold period of an asset or asset group, which may result in an impairment loss and such loss could be material to the Company's financial condition or operating performance. We evaluate our investments in real estate partnerships for impairment whenever there are indicators, including underlying property operating performance and general market conditions, that the value of our investments in real estate partnerships may be impaired. An investment in a real estate Recent Accounting Pronouncements See Note 1 to Consolidated Financial Statements. Environmental Matters We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining primarily to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, As of December 31, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements We do not have off-balance sheet arrangements, financings, or other relationships with other unconsolidated entities (other than our unconsolidated investment partnerships) or other persons, also known as variable interest entities, not previously discussed. repayment guarantees. Inflation/Deflation Inflation has been historically low and has had a minimal impact on the operating performance of our shopping centers; however, inflation may become a greater concern in the near future. Most all of our long-term leases contain provisions designed to mitigate the adverse impact of inflation, which require tenants to pay their Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk We are exposed to two significant components of interest rate risk:
We continuously monitor the capital markets and evaluate our ability to issue new debt, to repay maturing debt, or fund our commitments. Based upon the current capital markets, our Our interest rate risk is monitored using a variety of techniques. The table below presents the principal cash flows, weighted average interest rates of remaining debt, and the fair value of total debt as of December 31, Further, the table below incorporates only those exposures that exist as of December 31, The table below presents the principal cash flow payments associated with our outstanding debt by year, weighted average interest rates on debt outstanding at each year-end, and fair value of total debt as of December 31, 2019.
Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. Index to Financial Statements
All other schedules are omitted because of the absence of conditions under which they are required, materiality or because information required therein is shown in the consolidated financial statements or notes thereto. Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Stockholders and Board of Directors Regency Centers Corporation: Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries (the We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) Change in Accounting Principle As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has changed its method of accounting for leases as of January 1, 2019 due to the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases. Basis for Opinion These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Critical Audit Matters The critical audit matters communicated below are matters arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matters below, providing separate opinions on the critical audit matters or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate. Evaluation of real estate properties for impairment As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements and presented on the consolidated balance sheet, real estate assets, less accumulated depreciation was $9.3 billion as of December 31, 2019. The Company evaluates real estate properties for impairment whenever there are indicators that the carrying value of the real estate properties may not be recoverable. To the extent that the carrying value of a real estate property exceeds the estimate of its undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over its fair value. Fair value of real estate properties is determined through a comparable sales approach or a discounted cash flow approach. As discussed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company determined that one property’s carrying value exceeded its fair value through the use of a discounted cash flow analysis, and recorded an impairment charge of $40.3 million. We identified the evaluation of real estate properties for impairment as a critical audit matter. Evaluating the Company’s judgments regarding the identification of potential indicators that the carrying value of the real estate properties may not be recoverable involved a high degree of subjective auditor judgment. Changes in assumptions regarding property conditions, occupancy rates, net operating income, and anticipated hold periods could have an impact on the determination of the existence of impairment indicators and the need to further evaluate the real estate properties for impairment. In addition, the evaluation of the fair value of the real estate property that resulted in the $40.3 million impairment charge, in particular, the key assumptions over the property’s highest and best use, terminal capitalization rate, and the hold period, required a high degree of auditor judgment. The evaluation of these key assumptions required an increased extent of effort, including the need to involve valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge. The primary procedures we performed to address these critical audit matters included the following. We tested certain internal controls over the Company’s process to evaluate real estate properties for impairment, including the identification of potential indicators of impairment and the fair value measurement of impaired real estate properties. Internal controls tested included the evaluation of changes in property condition, occupancy rates, net operating income and anticipated hold periods, as well as the development of the key assumptions used in the discounted cash flow analysis. Using property financial information, we performed an independent assessment of changes in occupancy rates and net operating income for individual real estate properties and compared the results to the Company’s assessment. In addition, to identify a change in property condition or a shortened hold period we inquired of Company officials, attended Company quarterly meetings and inspected documents such as meeting minutes of the board of directors. With respect to the property impairment, our valuation professionals evaluated the Company’s highest and best use conclusion for the impaired property based on the location of the property and current market conditions. Further, our valuation professionals independently developed an estimated range of fair values for the property based on market information and published third-party industry reports with consideration of property specific factors such as location and development requirements. We compared the Company’s estimated fair value of the impaired property to the range of fair values independently developed by our valuation professionals. Evaluation of the discount rates used to initially measure the operating lease liabilities upon adoption of ASC 842. As discussed in Note 1 and Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company’s operating lease liabilities related to leases of land upon adoption of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases (“ASC 842”) on January 1, 2019, were approximately $204 million. To measure the operating lease liabilities for the Company’s 22 properties with ground leases, it is necessary for the Company to determine a discount rate for each operating lease and apply that discount rate to the remaining unpaid minimum rental payments for each lease. We identified the evaluation of the discount rates used to initially measure the operating lease liabilities related to leases of land upon adoption of ASC 842 as a critical audit matter. The Company determined that the rates implicit in the lease contracts were not readily determinable and therefore developed discount rates using Company and market-based interest rates that correspond with the remaining term of the respective leases. The Company made adjustments to those market-based interest rates to reflect the Company’s credit spread and collateralized payment terms present in the respective leases. Evaluating the information used to develop the discount rates and the adjustments made to the market-based interest rates required auditor judgment and the use of valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge. The primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter included the following. We tested certain internal controls over the Company’s process for developing the discount rates. We involved valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge, who assisted in evaluating the Company’s discount rates. The valuation professionals independently developed a range of reasonable discount rates using market-based interest rates for the Company and other similar companies, and then made adjustments to those market-based interest rates to reflect the maturities of the respective leases, level of collateral, and the Company’s credit spread. We evaluated the discount rates used by the Company by comparing those rates to the ranges of discount rates independently developed by the valuation professionals. /s/ KPMG LLP We have served as the Company's auditor since 1993. Jacksonville, Florida February Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Stockholders and Board of Directors Regency Centers Corporation: Opinion on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting We have audited Regency Centers We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) Basis for Opinion The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Definition and Limitations of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. /s/ KPMG LLP Jacksonville, Florida February Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors and Partners, Regency Centers Corporation, and Regency Centers, L.P.: Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries (the We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) Change in Accounting Principle As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Partnership has changed its method of accounting for leases as of January 1, 2019 due to the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases. Basis for Opinion These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Partnership in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Critical Audit Matters The critical audit matters communicated below are matters arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matters below, providing separate opinions on the critical audit matters or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate. Evaluation of real estate properties for impairment As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements and presented on the consolidated balance sheet, real estate assets, less accumulated depreciation was $9.3 billion as of December 31, 2019. The Partnership evaluates real estate properties for impairment whenever there are indicators that the carrying value of the real estate properties may not be recoverable. To the extent that the carrying value of a real estate property exceeds the estimate of its undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over its fair value. Fair value of real estate properties is determined through a comparable sales approach or a discounted cash flow approach. As discussed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, the Partnership determined that one property’s carrying value exceeded its fair value through the use of a discounted cash flow analysis, and recorded an impairment charge of $40.3 million. We identified the evaluation of real estate properties for impairment as a critical audit matter. Evaluating the Partnership’s judgments regarding the identification of potential indicators that the carrying value of the real estate properties may not be recoverable involved a high degree of subjective auditor judgment. Changes in assumptions regarding property conditions, occupancy rates, net operating income, and anticipated hold periods could have an impact on the determination of the existence of impairment indicators and the need to further evaluate the real estate properties for impairment. In addition, the evaluation of the fair value of the real estate property that resulted in the $40.3 million impairment charge, in particular, the key assumptions over the property’s highest and best use, terminal capitalization rate, and the hold period, required a high degree of auditor judgment. The evaluation of these key assumptions required an increased extent of effort, including the need to involve valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge. The primary procedures we performed to address these critical audit matters included the following. We tested certain internal controls over the Partnership’s process to evaluate real estate properties for impairment, including the identification of potential indicators of impairment and the fair value measurement of impaired real estate properties. Internal controls tested included the evaluation of changes in property condition, occupancy rates, net operating income and anticipated hold periods, as well as the development of the key assumptions used in the discounted cash flow analysis. Using property financial information, we performed an independent assessment of changes in occupancy rates and net operating income for individual real estate properties and compared the results to the Partnership’s assessment. In addition, to identify a change in property condition or a shortened hold period we inquired of Partnership officials, attended Partnership quarterly meetings and inspected documents such as meeting minutes of the general partners' board of directors. With respect to the property impairment, our valuation professionals evaluated the Partnership’s highest and best use conclusion for the impaired property based on the location of the property and current market conditions. Further, our valuation professionals independently developed an estimated range of fair values for the property based on market information and published third-party industry reports with consideration of property specific factors such as location and development requirements. We compared the Partnership’s estimated fair value of the impaired property to the range of fair values independently developed by our valuation professionals. Evaluation of the discount rates used to initially measure the operating lease liabilities upon adoption of ASC 842. As discussed in Note 1 and Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements, the Partnership’s operating lease liabilities related to leases of land upon adoption of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases (“ASC 842”) on January 1, 2019, were approximately $204 million. To measure the operating lease liabilities for the Partnership’s 22 properties with ground leases, it is necessary for the Partnership to determine a discount rate for each operating lease and apply that discount rate to the remaining unpaid minimum rental payments for each lease. We identified the evaluation of the discount rates used to initially measure the operating lease liabilities related to leases of land upon adoption of ASC 842 as a critical audit matter. The Partnership determined that the rates implicit in the lease contracts were not readily determinable and therefore developed discount rates using Partnership and market-based interest rates that correspond with the remaining term of the respective leases. The Partnership made adjustments to those market-based interest rates to reflect the Partnership’s credit spread and collateralized payment terms present in the respective leases. Evaluating the information used to develop the discount rates and the adjustments made to the market-based interest rates required auditor judgment and the use of valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge. The primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter included the following. We tested certain internal controls over the Partnership’s process for developing the discount rates. We involved valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge, who assisted in evaluating the Partnership’s discount rates. The valuation professionals independently developed a range of reasonable discount rates using market-based interest rates for the Partnership and other similar companies, and then made adjustments to those market-based interest rates to reflect the maturities of the respective leases, level of collateral, and the Partnership’s credit spread. We evaluated the discount rates used by the Partnership by comparing those rates to the ranges of discount rates independently developed by the valuation professionals. /s/ KPMG LLP We have served as the Partnership's auditor since 1998. Jacksonville, Florida February Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors and Partners, Regency Centers Corporation, and Regency Centers, L.P.: Opinion on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting We have audited Regency Centers, L.P. We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) Basis for Opinion The Partnership’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Partnership in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Definition and Limitations of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. /s/ KPMG LLP Jacksonville, Florida February REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION Consolidated Balance Sheets December 31, 2019 and 2018(in thousands, except share data)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION Consolidated Statements of Operations For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands, except per share data)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION Consolidated Statements of Equity For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands, except per share data)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Consolidated Balance Sheets December 31, 2019 and 2018 (in thousands, except unit data)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Consolidated Statements of Operations For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands, except per unit data)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Consolidated Statements of Capital For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 (in thousands)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
General Regency Centers Corporation (the “Parent Company”) began its operations as a REIT in 1993 and is the general partner of Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). The Parent Company primarily engages in the ownership, management, leasing, acquisition, development and redevelopment of shopping centers through the Operating Partnership, As of December 31, On March 1, 2017, Regency completed its merger with Equity One, whereby Equity One merged with and into Regency, with Regency continuing as the surviving public company. Estimates, Risks, and Uncertainties The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires the Company's management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of commitments and 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. The most significant estimates in the Company's financial statements relate to the net carrying values of its real estate investments, collectability of accounts receivable and straight line rent receivable, goodwill, and acquired lease intangible assets and acquired lease intangible liabilities. It is possible that the estimates and assumptions that have been utilized in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements could change significantly if economic conditions were to weaken. Consolidation The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and consolidated partnerships in which the Company has a controlling interest. Investments in real estate partnerships not controlled by the Company are accounted for under the equity method. All significant inter-company balances and transactions are eliminated in the consolidated financial statements. The Company consolidates properties that are wholly owned or properties where it owns less than 100%, but which it 79 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Ownership of the Parent Company The Parent Company has a single class of common stock outstanding. Ownership of the Operating Partnership The Operating Partnership's capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units. As of December 31, Real Estate Partnerships Regency has a partial ownership interest in
The net difference in the carrying amount of investments in real estate partnerships and the underlying equity in net assets is accreted to earnings and recorded in Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations over the expected useful lives of the properties and other intangible assets, which range in lives from 10 to 40 years.
80 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The majority of the operations of the VIEs are funded with cash flows generated by the properties, or in the case of developments, with capital contributions or third party construction loans. The major classes of assets, liabilities, and noncontrolling equity interests held by the Company's consolidated VIEs, exclusive of the Operating Partnership,
Noncontrolling Interests Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company The consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company include the following ownership interests held by owners other than the common stockholders of the Parent Company: (i) the limited Partnership Units in the Operating Partnership held by third parties In accordance with ASC Topic 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity, securities that are redeemable for cash or other assets at the option of the holder, not solely within the control of the issuer, are to be classified as redeemable noncontrolling interests outside of permanent equity in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Parent Company has evaluated the conditions as specified under ASC Topic 480 as it relates to exchangeable operating partnership units outstanding and concluded that it has the right to satisfy the redemption requirements of the units by delivering unregistered common stock. Each outstanding exchangeable operating partnership unit is exchangeable for one share of common stock of the Parent Company, and the unit holder cannot require redemption in cash or other assets.Limited partners' interests in consolidated partnerships are not redeemable by the holders. The Parent Company also evaluated its fiduciary duties to itself, its shareholders, and, as the managing general partner of the Operating Partnership, to the Operating Partnership, and concluded its fiduciary duties are not in conflict with each other or the underlying agreements. Therefore, the Parent Company classifies such units and interests as permanent equity in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Equity. Noncontrolling Interests of the Operating Partnership The Operating Partnership has determined that limited partners' interests in consolidated partnerships are noncontrolling interests. Subject to certain conditions and pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Company generally has the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the other member’s interest or sell its own interest in these consolidated partnerships. The Operating Partnership has included these noncontrolling interests in permanent capital, separate from partners' capital, in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Capital. The portion of net income (loss) or comprehensive income (loss) attributable to these noncontrolling interests is included in net income and comprehensive income in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Statements Comprehensive Income of the Operating Partnership. 81 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
Leasing Income and Tenant The Company leases space to tenants under agreements with varying Lease terms generally range from three to seven years for tenant space under 10,000 square feet (“Shop Space”) and in excess of five years for spaces greater than 10,000 square feet (“Anchor Tenants”). Many leases also provide the option for the tenants to extend their lease beyond the initial term of the lease. If a tenant does not exercise its option or otherwise negotiate to renew, the lease expires and the lease contains an obligation for the tenant to relinquish its space so it can be leased to a new tenant. This generally involves some level of cost to prepare the space for re-leasing, which is capitalized and depreciated over the shorter of the life of the subsequent lease or the life of the improvement. On January 1, 2019, the Company adopted the new accounting guidance in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 842, Leases, including all related Accounting Standard Updates (“ASU”). The Company elected to use the alternative modified retrospective transition method provided in ASU 2018-11 (the “effective date method”). Under this method, the effective date of January 1, 2019 is the date of initial application. In connection with the adoption of Topic 842, the Company elected a package of practical expedients, transition options, and accounting policy elections as follows:
The Company's existing leases were not re-evaluated and continue to be classified as operating leases, as per the practical expedient package elected above. New and modified leases will now require evaluation of specific classification criteria, which, based on the customary terms of the Company's leases, should continue to be classified as operating leases. However, certain longer-term leases (both lessee and lessor leases) may be classified as direct financing or sales type leases, which may result in selling profit and an accelerated pattern of earnings recognition. At December 31, 2019, all of the Company’s leases were classified as operating leases. CAM Lease income for operating leases with fixed payment terms is recognized for all leases for which collectibility is considered probable at the commencement date. At lease commencement, 82 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 the Company generally expects that collectibility is probable due to the Company’s credit checks on tenants and other creditworthiness analysis undertaken before entering into a new lease; therefore, income from most operating leases is initially recognized on a straight-line basis. For operating leases in which collectibility of Lease income is not considered probable, Lease income is recognized on a cash basis and all previously recognized uncollectible Lease income is reversed in the period in which the Lease income is determined not to be probable of collection. In addition to the lease-specific collectibility assessment performed under Topic 842, the Company also recognizes a general reserve, as a reduction to Lease income, for its portfolio of operating lease receivables which are not expected to be fully collectible based on the Company’s historical collection experience. The following table represents the components of Tenant and other receivables
The Company estimates the collectibility of the accounts receivable related to base rents, straight-line rents, expense reimbursements, and other revenue taking into consideration the Company's historical write-off experience, tenant credit-worthiness, current economic trends, and remaining lease
Real Estate Sales On January 1, 2018, the Company adopted the new accounting guidance for sales of nonfinancial assets (“Subtopic 610-20”) earnings on January 1, 2018, of $30.9 million of previously deferred gains from property sales to the Company's Investments in real estate partnerships. Prior to January 1, 2018, the Company recognized profits from sales of real estate under the full accrual method by the Company when: (i) a sale was consummated; (ii) the buyer's initial and continuing investment was adequate to demonstrate a commitment to pay for the property; (iii) the Company's receivable, if applicable, was not subject to future subordination; (iv) the Company had transferred to the buyer the usual risks and rewards of ownership; and (v) the Company did not have substantial continuing involvement with the property. 83 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Management Services On January 1, 2018, the Company adopted the new accounting guidance for revenue recognition (Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, “Topic 606”)Subsequent to the adoption of Topic 606, the Company recognizes revenue when or as control of the promised services are transferred to its customers, in an amount that reflects the consideration the Company expects to be entitled to in exchange for those services. The following is a description of the Company's revenue from contracts with customers Property and Asset Management Services The Company is engaged under agreements with its joint venture partnerships, which are generally perpetual in nature and cancellable through unanimous partner approval, absent an event of default. Under these agreements, the Company is to provide asset management, property management, and leasing services for the joint ventures' shopping centers. The fees are market-based, generally calculated as a percentage of either revenues earned or the estimated values of the properties managed or the proceeds received, and are recognized over the monthly or quarterly periods as services are rendered. Property management and asset management services represent a series of distinct daily services. Accordingly, the Company satisfies its performance obligation as service is rendered each day and the variability associated with that compensation is resolved each day. Amounts due from the partnerships for such services are paid during the month following the monthly or quarterly service periods. Several of the Company’s partnership agreements provide for incentive payments, generally referred to as “promotes” or “earnouts,” to Regency for appreciation in property values in Regency's capacity as manager. The terms of these promotes are based on appreciation in real estate value over designated time intervals. The Company evaluates its expected promote payout at each reporting period, which generally does not result in revenue recognition until the measurement period has completed, when the amount can be reasonably determined and the amount is not probable of significant reversal. The Company did not recognize any promote revenue during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, 2017. Leasing Services Leasing service fees are based on a percentage of the total rent due under the lease. The leasing service is considered performed upon successful execution of an acceptable tenant lease for the joint ventures’ shopping centers, at which time revenue is recognized. Payment of the first half of the fee is generally due upon lease execution and the second half is generally due upon tenant opening or rent payments commencing. Transaction Services The Company also receives transaction fees, as contractually agreed upon with each joint venture, which include acquisition fees, disposition fees, and financing service fees. Control of these services is generally transferred at the time the related transaction closes, which is the point in time when the Company recognizes the related fee revenue. Any unpaid amounts related to transaction-based fees are included in Tenant and other receivables, net, within the Consolidated Balance Sheets. 84 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 All income from management service contracts is included within Management, transaction and other fees on the Consolidated Statements of
The accounts receivable for management services, which is included within Tenant and other receivables
The following table details the components of Real estate assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
Capitalization and Depreciation Maintenance and repairs that do not improve or extend the useful lives of the respective assets are recorded in operating and maintenance expense. As part of the leasing process, the Company may provide the lessee with an allowance for the construction of leasehold improvements. These leasehold improvements are capitalized and recorded as tenant improvements, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the remaining lease term. If the allowance represents a payment for a purpose other than funding leasehold improvements, or in the event the Company is not considered the owner of the improvements, the allowance is considered to be a lease incentive and is recognized over the lease term as a reduction of Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over estimated useful lives of approximately 15 years for land improvements, 40 years for buildings and improvements, and the shorter of the useful life or the remaining lease term subject to a maximum of 10 years for tenant improvements, and three to seven years for furniture and equipment. Development and Redevelopment Costs Land, buildings, and improvements are recorded at cost. All specifically identifiable costs related to development and redevelopment activities are capitalized into Real estate assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets, and are included in Construction in progress within the above table. The capitalized costs include pre-development costs essential to the development or redevelopment of the property, development / redevelopment costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, and allocated direct employee costs incurred during the period of 85 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 costs are capitalized into each development and redevelopment project based upon applying the Company's weighted average borrowing rate to that portion of the actual development or redevelopment costs expended. The Company discontinues interest and real estate tax capitalization when the property is no longer being developed or is available for occupancy upon substantial completion of tenant improvements, but in no event would the Company capitalize interest on the project beyond 12 months after substantial completion of the building shell. Pre-development costs represent the costs the Company incurs prior to land acquisition or pursuing a redevelopment including contract deposits, as well as legal, engineering, and other external professional fees related to evaluating the feasibility of developing or redeveloping a shopping center. As of December 31, Acquisitions Through June 30, 2017, the Company and its real estate partnerships accounted for operating property acquisitions as business combinations using the acquisition method. Effective July 1, 2017, upon the adoption of Accounting Standards Update The Company's methodology includes estimating an “as-if vacant” fair value of the physical property, which includes land, building, and improvements. In addition, the Company determines the estimated fair value of identifiable intangible assets and liabilities, considering the following categories: (i) value of in-place leases, and (ii) above and below-market value of in-place leases. The value of in-place leases is estimated based on the value associated with the costs avoided in originating leases compared to the acquired in-place leases as well as the value associated with lost rental and recovery revenue during the assumed lease-up period. The value of in-place leases is recorded to Depreciation and amortization expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations over the remaining expected term of the respective leases. Above-market and below-market in-place lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (ii) management's estimate of fair market lease rates for comparable in-place leases, measured over a period equal to the remaining non-cancelable term of the lease, including below-market renewal options, if applicable. The value of above-market leases is amortized as a reduction of relationship intangibles if it has pre-existing business relationships with the major retailers at the acquired property since they do not provide incremental value over the Company's existing relationships. Held for Sale The Company classifies land, an operating property, or a property in development as held-for-sale upon satisfaction of the following criteria: (i) management commits to a plan to sell a property (or group of properties), (ii) the property is available for immediate sale in its present condition subject only to terms that are usual and customary for sales of such properties, (iii) an active program to locate a buyer and other actions required to complete the plan to sell the property have been initiated, (iv) the sale of the property is probable and transfer of the asset is expected to be completed within one year, (v) the property is being actively marketed for sale, and (vi) actions required to complete the plan indicate that it is unlikely that significant changes to the plan will be made or that the plan will be withdrawn. Properties held-for-sale are carried at the lower of cost or fair value less costs to sell. Impairment We evaluate whether there are any indicators, including property operating performance and general market conditions, that the value of the real estate properties (including any related amortizable intangible assets or liabilities) may not be recoverable. For those properties with such indicators, management evaluates recoverability of the property's carrying amount. Through the evaluation, we compare the current carrying value of the asset to the estimated undiscounted cash 86 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 flows that are directly associated with the use and ultimate disposition of the asset. Our estimated cash flows are based on several key assumptions, including rental rates, expected leasing activity, costs of tenant improvements, leasing commissions, anticipated hold period, and assumptions regarding the residual value upon disposition, including the exit capitalization rate. These key assumptions are subjective in nature and could differ materially from actual results. Changes in our disposition strategy or changes in the marketplace may alter the hold period of an asset or asset group which may result in an impairment loss and such loss could be material to the Company's financial condition or operating performance. To the extent that the carrying value of the asset exceeds the estimated undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over fair value. If such indicators are not identified, management will not assess the recoverability of a property's carrying value. If a property previously classified as held and used is changed to The fair value of real estate assets is subjective and is determined through comparable sales information and other market data if available, or through use of an income approach such as the direct capitalization method or the A loss in value of investments in real estate partnerships under the equity method of accounting, other than a temporary decline, must be recognized in the period in which the loss occurs. If management identifies indicators that the value of the Company's investment in real estate partnerships may be impaired, it evaluates the investment by calculating the fair value of the investment by discounting estimated future cash flows over the expected term of the investment. Tax Basis The net book basis of the Company's real estate assets exceeds the net tax basis by approximately $2.8 billion at both December 31,
Any instruments which have an original maturity of 90 days or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018,
Goodwill Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price consideration for the Equity One merger over the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The Company accounts for goodwill in accordance with ASC Topic 350, Intangibles - Goodwill andThe goodwill impairment evaluation is completed using either a qualitative or quantitative approach. Under a qualitative approach, the impairment review for goodwill consists of an assessment of whether it is more-likely-than-not that the reporting unit’s fair value is less than its carrying value, including goodwill. If a qualitative approach indicates it is more likely-than-not that the estimated carrying value of a reporting unit (including goodwill) exceeds its fair value, or if the Company chooses to bypass the qualitative approach for any reporting unit, the Company will perform the quantitative approach described below. The quantitative approach consists of estimating the fair value of each reporting unit using discounted projected future cash flows and comparing those estimated fair values with the carrying values, which include the allocated goodwill. If the estimated fair value is less than the carrying value, the Company would then recognize a goodwill impairment charge for the 87 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value, not to exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. Investments The Company determines the appropriate classification of its investments in debt and equity securities at the time of purchase and reevaluates such determinations at each balance sheet date. The fair value of securities is determined using quoted market prices. Debt securities are classified as held to maturity when the Company has the positive intent and ability to hold the securities to maturity. Debt securities that are bought and held principally for the purpose of selling them in the near term are classified as trading securities and are reported at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses recognized through earnings in Investment income in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Debt securities not classified as held to maturity or as trading, are classified as available-for-sale, and are carried at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, included in the determination of comprehensive income and reported in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. Equity securities with readily determinable fair values are measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income and presented within Investment income in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Deferred leasing costs consist of The adoption of Topic 842 on January 1, 2019 changed the treatment of leasing costs, such that non-contingent internal leasing and legal costs associated with leasing activities can no longer be capitalized. The Company, as a
The Company manages economic risks, including interest rate, liquidity, and credit risk primarily by managing the amount, sources, and duration of its debt funding and the use of derivative financial instruments. Specifically, the Company enters into derivative financial instruments to manage exposures that arise from business activities that result in the receipt or future payment of known and uncertain cash amounts, the amount of which are determined by interest rates. The Company's derivative financial instruments are used to manage differences in the amount, timing, and duration of the Company's known or expected cash payments principally related to the Company's borrowings. All derivative instruments, whether designated in hedging relationships or not, are recorded on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at their fair value. The accounting for changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the intended use of the derivative, whether the Company has elected to designate a derivative in a hedging relationship and apply hedge accounting, and whether the hedging relationship has satisfied the criteria necessary to apply hedge accounting. Derivatives designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows, or other types of forecasted transactions, are considered cash flow hedges. Hedge accounting generally provides for the matching of the timing of gain or loss recognition on the hedging instrument with the earnings effect of the hedged forecasted transactions in a cash flow hedge. The Company may enter into derivative contracts that are intended to economically hedge certain risks, even though hedge accounting does not apply or the Company elects not to apply hedge accounting. The Company uses interest rate swaps to mitigate its interest rate risk on a related financial instrument or forecasted transaction, and the Company designates these interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges. Interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges generally involve the receipt of variable-rate amounts from a counterparty in exchange for the Company making fixed-rate payments over the life of the agreements without exchange of the underlying notional amount. The Company also utilizes cash flow hedges to lock U.S. Treasury rates in anticipation of future fixed-rate debt issuances. The gains or losses resulting from changes in fair value of derivatives that qualify as cash flow hedges are recognized in Accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”). Upon the settlement of a hedge, gains and losses remaining in AOCI are amortized through earnings over the underlying term of the hedged transaction. The cash receipts or payments related to 88 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 interest rate swaps are presented in cash flows provided by operating activities in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The Company formally documents all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk management objectives and strategies for undertaking various hedge transactions. The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows and/or forecasted cash flows of the hedged items. In assessing the valuation of the hedges, the Company uses standard market conventions and techniques such as discounted cash flow analysis, option pricing models, and termination costs at each balance sheet date. All methods of assessing fair value result in a general approximation of value, and such value may never actually be realized.
The Parent Company believes it qualifies, and intends to continue to qualify, as a REIT under the Code. As a REIT, the Parent Company will generally not be subject to federal income tax, provided that distributions to its stockholders are at least equal to REIT taxable income. Each wholly-owned corporate subsidiary of the Operating Partnership has elected to be a TRS as defined in Section 856(l) of the Code. The TRS's are subject to federal and state income taxes and file separate tax returns. As a pass through entity, the Operating Partnership generally does not pay taxes, but its taxable income or loss is reported by its partners, of which the Parent Company, as general partner and approximately The Company accounts for income taxes related to its TRS’s under the asset and liability approach, which requires the recognition of the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year and deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in the financial statements. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the financial statement and tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. The Company records net deferred tax assets to the extent it believes it is more likely than not that these assets will be realized. A valuation allowance is recorded to reduce deferred tax assets when it is believed that it is more likely than not that all or some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. The Company considers all available positive and negative evidence, including forecasts of future taxable income, the reversal of other existing temporary differences, available net operating loss carryforwards, tax planning strategies and recent and projected results of operations in order to make that determination. In addition, tax positions are initially recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely than not the position will be sustained upon examination by the tax authorities. Such tax positions shall initially and subsequently be measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the tax authority assuming full knowledge of the position and relevant facts. The Company believes that it has appropriate support for the income tax positions taken and to be taken on its tax returns and that its accruals for tax liabilities are adequate for all open tax years (2015 and forward for federal and state) based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax laws applied to the facts of each matter. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) was signed into law in December 2017. Key provisions in the Act have significant financial statement effects. These effects include remeasurement of deferred taxes, recognition of liabilities for taxes on mandatory deemed repatriation and certain other foreign income, and reassessment of the realizability of deferred tax assets. Because the asset and liability approach under ASC 740 requires companies to recognize the effect of tax law changes in the period of enactment, the effects were recognized in the Company's December 2017 financial statements, even though the effective date of the law for most provisions is January 1, 2018. The Company calculated the tax impact of the change in tax law. The revaluation of the deferred tax assets and liabilities at the appropriate tax rate resulted in a $9.7 million benefit recognized in earnings for 2017. To the extent that all information necessary was not available, prepared or analyzed, companies were allotted a measurement period to make adjustments for the effect of the law. The Company completed its analysis of the Act during 2018 and recorded an immaterial benefit in earnings. 89 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019
The Company has certain properties within its consolidated real estate portfolio that are either partially or completely on land subject to ground leases with third parties, which are all classified as operating leases. Accordingly, the Company owns only a long-term leasehold or similar interest in these properties. The building and improvements constructed on the leased land are capitalized as Real estate assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the lease term. In addition, the Company has non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which it conducts its business. Leasehold improvements are capitalized as tenant improvements, included in Other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the lease term. Upon the adoption of Topic 842, the Company recognized Lease liabilities on its Consolidated Balance Sheets for its ground and office leases of $225.4 million at January 1, 2019, and corresponding Right of use assets of $297.8 million, net of or including the opening balance for straight-line rent and above / below market ground lease intangibles related to these same ground and office leases. A key input in estimating the Lease liabilities and resulting Right of use assets is establishing the discount rate in the lease, which since the rates implicit in the lease contracts are not readily determinable, requires additional inputs for the longer-term ground leases, including market-based interest rates that correspond with the remaining term of the lease, the Company's credit spread, and a securitization adjustment necessary to reflect the collateralized payment terms present in the lease. This discount rate is applied to the remaining unpaid minimum rental payments for each lease to measure the operating lease liabilities. The ground and office lease expenses continue to be recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the leases, including management's estimate of expected option renewal periods. For ground leases, the Company generally assumes it will exercise options through the latest option date of that shopping center's anchor tenant lease.
Basic earnings per share of common stock and unit are computed based upon the weighted average number of common shares and units, respectively, outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share and unit reflect the conversion of obligations and the assumed exercises of securities including the effects of shares issuable under the Company's share-based payment arrangements, if dilutive. Dividends paid on the Company's share-based compensation awards are not participating securities as they are forfeitable.
The Company grants stock-based compensation to its employees and directors. The Company recognizes the cost of stock-based compensation based on the grant-date fair value of the award, which is expensed over the vesting period. When the Parent Company issues common stock as compensation, it receives a like number of common units from the Operating Partnership. The Company is committed to contributing to the Operating Partnership all proceeds from the share-based awards granted under the Parent Company's Long-Term Omnibus Plan (the “Plan”). Accordingly, the Parent Company's ownership in the Operating Partnership will increase based on the amount of proceeds contributed to the Operating Partnership for the common units it receives. As a result of the issuance of common units to the Parent Company for stock-based compensation, the Operating Partnership records the effect of stock-based compensation for awards of equity in the Parent Company.
The Company's business is investing in retail shopping centers through direct ownership or partnership interests. The Company actively manages its portfolio of retail shopping centers and may from time to time make decisions to sell lower performing properties or developments not meeting its long-term investment objectives. The proceeds from sales are generally reinvested into higher quality retail shopping centers, through acquisitions, new developments, or redevelopment of existing centers, which management believes will generate sustainable revenue growth and attractive returns. It is management's intent that all retail shopping centers will be owned or developed for investment purposes; however, the Company may decide to sell all or a portion of a development upon completion. The Company's revenues and net income are generated from the operation of its investment portfolio. The Company also earns fees for services provided to manage and lease retail shopping centers owned through joint ventures. The Company's portfolio is located throughout the United States. Management does not distinguish or group its operations on a geographical basis for purposes of allocating resources or capital. The Company reviews operating and financial data 90 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 for each property on an individual basis; therefore, the Company defines an operating segment as its individual properties. The individual properties have been aggregated into one reportable segment based upon their similarities with regard to both the nature and economics of the centers, tenants and operational processes, as well as long-term average financial performance.
Grocer anchor tenants represent approximately
Fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fair value measurement is determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, the Company uses a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from independent sources (observable inputs that are classified within Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy) and the Company's own assumptions about market participant assumptions (unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy). The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:
The Company also remeasures nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, initially measured at fair value in a business combination or other new basis event, at fair value in subsequent periods if a remeasurement event occurs.
Certain prior year amounts Operations. 91 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
The following table provides a brief description of recent accounting pronouncements and expected impact on our financial statements:
92 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019
93 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
Acquisitions The following tables detail the shopping centers acquired or land acquired for development or
Equity One Merger General On March 1, 2017, Regency completed its merger with Equity One, a NYSE listed shopping center company, whereby Equity One merged with and into Regency, with Regency continuing as the surviving public company. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Equity One stockholder received 0.45 of a newly issued share of Regency common stock for each share of Equity One common stock owned immediately prior to the effective time of the merger resulting in approximately 65.5 million Regency common shares being issued to effect the
of $5.2 billion. As part of the merger, Regency acquired 121 properties, including 8 properties held through co-investment partnerships. The consolidated net assets and results of operations of Equity One are included in the consolidated financial statements from the closing date, March 1, 2017, going forward and resulted in the following impact to Revenues and Net income attributable to common stockholders:
94 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The Company incurred $80.7 million
Operations. Pro forma Information (unaudited)The following unaudited pro forma financial data includes the incremental revenues, operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, and costs of the Equity One acquisition as if it had occurred on January 1, 2016:
The pro forma financial data is not necessarily indicative of what the actual results of operations would have been assuming the transaction had been completed as set forth above, nor does it purport to represent the results of operations for future periods.
Dispositions The following table provides a summary of consolidated shopping centers and land parcels disposed
At December 31, in January 2020. 95 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
The Company invests in real estate partnerships, which consist of the following:
96 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The summarized balance sheet information for the investments in real estate partnerships, on a combined basis, is as follows:
The following table reconciles the Company's capital recorded by the unconsolidated partnerships to the Company's investments in real estate partnerships reported in the accompanying
The revenues and expenses for the investments in real estate partnerships, on a combined basis, are summarized as follows:
97 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Acquisitions The following table provides a summary of shopping centers and land parcels acquired through our unconsolidated real estate
Dispositions The following table provides a summary of shopping centers and land parcels disposed of through our unconsolidated real estate partnerships:
Notes Payable Scheduled principal repayments on notes payable held by our unconsolidated investments in real estate partnerships as of December 31,
98 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 These fixed and variable rate loans are all non-recourse to the partnerships, and mature through 2034, with Management fee income In addition to earning our
The following table represents the components of Other assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets:
The following table presents the goodwill balances and activity during the year to date periods ended:
During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recognized a $3.0 million provision for impairment of goodwill on 2 reporting units due to changes in the use and expected hold period of the operating properties. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recognized As the Company identifies properties 99 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
The Company had the following acquired lease intangibles:
The following table provides a summary of amortization and net accretion amounts from acquired lease intangibles:
The estimated aggregate amortization and net accretion amounts from acquired lease intangibles for the next five years are as follows:
100 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
Lessor Accounting The Company's Lease income is comprised of both fixed and variable income, as follows: Fixed and in-substance fixed lease income includes stated amounts per the lease contract, which are primarily related to base rent, and in some cases stated amounts for CAM, real estate taxes, and insurance. Income for these amounts is recognized on a straight- line basis. Variable lease income includes the following two main items in the lease contracts:
The following table provides a disaggregation of lease income recognized under ASC Topic 842, Leases, as either fixed or variable lease income based on the criteria specified in ASC 842:
Future minimum rents under non-cancelable operating leases, excluding variable lease payments, are as follows:
Lessee Accounting The Company has shopping centers that are subject to non-cancelable, long-term ground leases where a third party owns the underlying land and has leased the land to the Company to construct and/or operate a shopping center. 101 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The Company has 22 properties within its consolidated real estate portfolio that are either partially or completely on land subject to ground leases with third parties. Accordingly, the Company owns only a long-term leasehold or similar interest in these properties. These ground leases expire through the year 2101, and in most cases, provide for renewal options. In addition, the Company has non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which it conducts its business. Office leases expire through the year 2029, and in many cases, provide for renewal options. The ground and office lease expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the leases, including management's estimate of expected option renewal periods. Operating lease expense under the Company's ground and office leases was as follows, including straight-line rent expense and variable lease expenses such as CPI increases, percentage rent and reimbursements of landlord costs:
Operating lease expense under the Company's ground and office leases was $20.5 million, $19.1 million and $18.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 respectively, which includes fixed and variable rent expense. The following table summarizes the undiscounted future cash flows by year attributable to the operating lease liabilities under ground and office leases as of December 31, 2019, and provides a reconciliation to the Lease liability included in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets:
102 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The following table summarizes the future obligations under non-cancelable operating leases, excluding unexercised renewal options, as of December 31, 2018:
The Company has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code with certain of its subsidiaries treated as The following table summarizes the tax status of dividends paid on our common shares:
Our consolidated expense (benefit) for income taxes for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018,
103 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The TRS entities are subject to federal and state income taxes and file separate tax returns. Income tax expense (benefit) differed from the amounts computed by applying the U.S. Federal income tax rate to pretax income of the TRS entities, as follows:
The tax effects of temporary differences
The net deferred tax liability decreased during 104 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019
The Company’s outstanding debt consists of the following:
Notes Payable Notes payable consist of mortgage loans secured by properties and unsecured public and private debt. Mortgage loans may be prepaid, but could be subject to yield maintenance premiums, and are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest or interest only. Unsecured public debt may be prepaid subject to accrued and unpaid interest through the proposed redemption date and a make-whole premium. Interest on unsecured public and private debt is payable semi-annually. The Company is required to comply with certain financial covenants for its unsecured public debt as defined in the indenture agreements such as the following ratios: Consolidated Debt to Consolidated Assets, Consolidated Secured Debt to Consolidated Assets, Consolidated Income for Debt Service to Consolidated Debt Service, and Unencumbered Consolidated Assets to Unsecured Consolidated Debt. As of December 31, Unsecured Credit Facilities The Company has an unsecured line of credit commitment (the The Line has a borrowing capacity of $1.25 billion, which is reduced by the balance of outstanding borrowings and commitments under outstanding letters of credit. The Line bears interest at a variable rate of LIBOR plus 0.875% and is subject to a commitment fee of 0.15%, both of which are based on the Company's corporate credit rating. The Term 10. The Company is required to comply with certain financial covenants as defined in the Line and Term Loan credit agreements, such as Ratio of Indebtedness to Total Asset Value 105 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Scheduled principal payments and maturities on notes payable and unsecured credit facilities were as follows:
The Company has
The following table summarizes the terms and fair values of the Company's derivative financial instruments, as well as their classification on the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
These derivative financial instruments are all interest rate swaps, which are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges. The Company does not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes and, as of December 31, 106 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The changes in the fair value of derivatives designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income
As of December 31,
All financial instruments of the Company are reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at amounts which, in management's estimation, reasonably approximates their fair values, except for the following:
The above fair values represent management's estimate of the amounts that would be received from selling those assets or that would be paid to transfer those liabilities in an orderly transaction between market participants as of December 31, The Company develops its judgments based on the best information available at the measurement date, including expected cash flows, appropriately risk-adjusted discount rates, and available observable and unobservable inputs. Service providers involved in fair value measurements are evaluated for competency and qualifications on an ongoing basis. As considerable judgment is often necessary to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments, the fair values presented above are not necessarily indicative of amounts that will be realized upon disposition of the financial instruments.
The following financial instruments are measured at fair value on a recurring basis: Securities The Company has investments in marketable securities that are included within 107 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Available-for-Sale Debt Securities Available-for-sale debt securities consist of investments in certificates of deposit and corporate bonds, and are recorded at fair value using matrix pricing methods to estimate fair value, which are considered Level 2 inputs of the fair value hierarchy. Unrealized gains or losses on these debt securities are recognized through other comprehensive income. Interest Rate Derivatives The fair value of the Company's interest rate derivatives is determined using widely accepted valuation techniques including discounted cash flow analysis on the expected cash flows of each derivative. This analysis reflects the contractual terms of the derivatives, including the period to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves and implied volatilities. The Company incorporates credit valuation adjustments to appropriately reflect both its own nonperformance risk and the respective counterparty's nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements. Although the Company has determined that the majority of the inputs used to value its derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the credit valuation adjustments associated with its derivatives utilize Level 3 inputs, such as estimates of current credit spreads, to evaluate the likelihood of default by the Company and its counterparties. The Company has assessed the significance of the impact of the credit valuation adjustments on the overall valuation of its derivative positions and has determined that the credit valuation adjustments are not significant to the overall valuation of its interest rate swaps. As a result, the Company determined that its interest rate swaps valuation in its entirety is classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The following table presents the placement in the fair value hierarchy of assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
108 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 The following tables present the placement in the fair value hierarchy of assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis:
During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recorded a $50.5 million Provision for impairment on two operating properties which are classified as held and used. One property was remeasured to fair value based on its expected selling price, which is reflected in the above Level 2 category, and resulted in a $10.2 million Provision for impairment. The second property impairment was triggered as a result of an expected early move out of a tenant at a single-tenant retail center that has declared bankruptcy, resulting in the Company re-evaluating the highest and best use of the asset and its expected hold period. The fair value of the property was derived using a discounted cash flow model, which included assumptions around redevelopment of the asset to its highest and best use as a mixed-use project and re-leasing the space. The discount rate of 8.58% and terminal capitalization rate of 4.75% used in the discounted cash flow model are considered significant inputs and assumptions to estimating the non-recurring fair value measurement of $43.0 million, which is considered a Level 3 input per the fair value hierarchy. The amount by which the carrying value exceeded the fair value resulted in a $40.3 million Provision for impairment. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recognized a $38.4 million provision for impairment, net of tax, which included $31.8 million on real estate sold or held and used and $6.6 million on
Common Stock of the Parent Company At the Market Under the Parent Company's ATM equity offering program, the Parent Company may sell up to $500.0 million of common stock at prices determined by the market at the time of sale. During September 2019, the Company entered into forward sale agreements under its ATM program through which the Company will issue 1,894,845 shares of its common stock at an average offering price of $67.99. The shares under the forward sales agreements may be settled at any time before the settlement date, which is September 12, 2020. NaN shares have been settled at December 31, 2019. Proceeds from the issuance of shares are expected to be used to fund acquisitions of operating properties, to fund developments and redevelopments, and for general corporate purposes. There were program, before settlement of the forward shares described above. Share Repurchase Program On February 109 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 In January 2019, the Company settled 563,229 shares, which were repurchased in December 2018 under a previously active repurchase program, for $32.8 million at an average price of $58.17 per share. The program closed in February 2019, with a newly authorized program that ended February 2020 with 0 repurchases made under it. Common Units of the Operating Partnership Common units In September 2019, the Operating Partnership issued 396,531 exchangeable operating partnership units, valued at $25.9 million, as partial purchase price consideration for the acquisition of an operating shopping center. General Partners The Parent Company, as general partner, owned the following Partnership Units outstanding:
The Company recorded stock-based compensation in
The Company established its stock awards. Restricted Stock Awards The Company grants restricted stock under the Plan to its employees as a form of long-term compensation and retention. The terms of each restricted stock grant vary depending upon the participant's responsibilities and position within the Company. The Company's stock grants can be categorized as either time-based awards, performance-based awards, or market-based awards. All awards are valued at fair value, earn dividends throughout the vesting period, and have no voting rights. Fair value is measured using the grant date market price for all time-based or performance-based awards. Market based awards are valued using a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the fair value based on the probability of satisfying the market conditions and the projected stock price at the time of payout, discounted to the valuation date over a three year performance period. Assumptions include historic volatility over the previous three year period, risk-free interest rates, and Regency's historic daily return as compared to the market index. Since the award payout includes dividend equivalents and the total shareholder return includes the value of dividends, no dividend yield assumption is required for the valuation. 110 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Compensation expense is measured at the grant date and recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite vesting period for the entire award. The following table summarizes non-vested restricted stock activity:
111 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
401(k) Retirement Plan The Company maintains a 401(k) retirement plan covering substantially all employees and permits participants to defer eligible compensation up to the maximum allowable amount determined by the IRS. This deferred compensation, together with Company matching contributions equal to 100% of employee deferrals up to a maximum of $5,000 of their eligible compensation, is fully vested and funded as of December 31, Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (“NQDCP”) The Company maintains a The following table reflects the balances of the assets and deferred compensation liabilities of the Rabbi trust and related participant account obligations in the accompanying Consolidated Balance
Realized and unrealized gains and losses on securities held in the NQDCP are recognized within Net investment income in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. Changes in participant obligations, which is based on changes in the value of their investment elections, is recognized within General and administrative expenses within the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. Investments in shares of the Company's common stock are included, at cost, as
Parent Company Earnings per Share The following summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share:
112 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Income allocated to noncontrolling interests of the Operating Partnership has been excluded from the numerator and exchangeable Operating Partnership units have been omitted from the denominator for the purpose of computing diluted earnings per share since the effect of including these amounts in the numerator and denominator would be anti-dilutive. Weighted average exchangeable Operating Partnership units outstanding for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017, were 464,286 , 349,902, and Operating Partnership Earnings per Unit The following summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per unit:
Litigation The Company is involved in litigation on a number of matters and is subject to certain claims, which arise in the normal course of business, none of which, in the opinion of management, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. Environmental The Company is Letters of Credit The Company has the right to issue letters of credit under the Line up to an amount not to exceed $50.0 million, which reduces the credit availability under the Line. These letters of credit are primarily issued as collateral on behalf of its captive insurance program and to facilitate the construction of development projects. As of Purchase Commitments The Company enters purchase and sale agreements to buy or sell real estate assets in the normal course of business, which generally provide limited recourse if either party ends the contract. 35%. We closed on the purchase in January 2020 for $18.1 million. 113 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31,
The following table summarizes selected Quarterly Financial Data for the Company on a historical basis for the years ended December 31,
114 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
115 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
116 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
117 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
118 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
119 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
120 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
121 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands)
See accompanying report of independent registered public accounting firm. 122 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION AND REGENCY CENTERS, L.P. Schedule III - Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation December 31, 2019 (in thousands) Depreciation and amortization of the Company's investment in buildings and improvements reflected in the statements of operations is calculated over the estimated useful lives of the assets, which are up to 40 years. The aggregate cost for federal income tax purposes was approximately 2019. The changes in total real estate assets for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018,
The changes in accumulated depreciation for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018,
See accompanying report of independent registered public accounting firm. Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure None. Item 9A. Controls and Procedures Controls and Procedures (Regency Centers Corporation) Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures Under the supervision and with the participation of the Parent Company's management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, the Parent Company conducted an evaluation of its disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting The Parent Company's management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, the Parent Company conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on its evaluation under the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013), the Parent Company's management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31,2019. KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K and, as part of their audit, has issued a report, included herein, on the effectiveness of the Parent Company's internal control over financial reporting. The Parent Company's system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Changes in Internal Controls There have Controls and Procedures (Regency Centers, L.P.) Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures Under the supervision and with the participation of the Operating Partnership's management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, the Operating Partnership conducted an evaluation of its disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act. Based on this evaluation, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner concluded that its disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this annual report on Form 10-K to ensure information required to be disclosed in the reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time period specified in the SEC's rules and forms. These disclosure controls and procedures include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Operating Partnership in the reports it files or submits is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting The Operating Partnership's management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, the Operating Partnership conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on its evaluation under the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013), the Operating Partnership's management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31,2019. KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K and, as part of their audit, has issued a report, included herein, on the effectiveness of the Operating Partnership's internal control over financial reporting. The Operating Partnership's system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Changes in Internal Controls There have Item 9B. Other Information Not applicable PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance Information concerning our directors, executive officers, and corporate governance is incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to the Code of Ethics. We have a code of ethics applicable to our Board of Directors, principal executive officers, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and persons performing similar functions. The text of this code of ethics may be found on our web site at www.regencycenters.com. We will post a notice of any waiver from, or amendment to, any provision of our code of ethics on our web site. Item 11. Executive Compensation Incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to the Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters Equity Compensation Plan Information (as of December 31, 2019)
Information about security ownership is incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to the Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence Incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to the Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services Incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to the PART IV Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.
In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this report, please remember they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about the Company, its subsidiaries or other parties to the agreements. The Agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and:
Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. We acknowledge that, notwithstanding the inclusion of the foregoing cautionary statements, we are responsible for considering whether additional specific disclosures of material information regarding material contractual provisions are required to make the statements in this report not misleading. Additional information about the Company may be found elsewhere in this report and the Company's other public files, which are available without charge through the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov.Unless otherwise indicated below, the Commission file number to the exhibit is No. 001-12298.
The certifications in this exhibit 32 are being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
133 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
