Toggle SGML Header (+)


Section 1: 10-K (FORM 10-K)

Form 10-K
Table of Contents

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-K

 

 

(Mark One)

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

 

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File number 1-12254

 

 

SAUL CENTERS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

Maryland   52-1833074

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1500, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-6522

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (301) 986-6200

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Title of each class

 

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, Par Value $0.01 Per Share   New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares each representing 1/100th of a share of 8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, Par Value $0.01 Per Share   New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares each representing 1/100th of a share of 9% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, Par Value $0.01 Per Share   New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares each representing 1/100th of a share of 6.875% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, Par Value $0.01 Per Share   New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: N/A

 

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act    Yes  ¨    No  x.

Indicate by check mark whether registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    YES  x    NO  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in the definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “accelerated filer,” “large accelerated filer” and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

Large accelerated filer   ¨    Accelerated filer   x
Non-accelerated filer   ¨      Smaller reporting company   ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x.

The number of shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding as of March 1, 2013 was 19,973,600.

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 29, 2012 was $478.8 million.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Registrant incorporates by reference into Part III (Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K portions of registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A. The definitive Proxy Statement will be filed with the Commission not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

 


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

          Page Numbers  
   PART I   

Item 1.

  

Business

     3   

Item 1A.

  

Risk Factors

     14   

Item 1B.

  

Unresolved Staff Comments

     25   

Item 2.

  

Properties

     25   

Item 3.

  

Legal Proceedings

     32   

Item 4.

  

Mine Safety Disclosures

     32   
   PART II   

Item 5.

  

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

     32   

Item 6.

  

Selected Financial Data

     34   

Item 7.

  

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition And Results of Operations

     36   

Item 7A.

  

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

     58   

Item 8.

  

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

     58   

Item 9.

  

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

     58   

Item 9A.

  

Controls and Procedures

     59   

Item 9B.

  

Other Information

     60   
   PART III   

Item 10.

  

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

     61   

Item 11.

  

Executive Compensation

     61   

Item 12.

  

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management And Related Stockholder Matters

     61   

Item 13.

  

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

     61   

Item 14.

  

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

     61   
   PART IV   

Item 15.

  

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

     61   
   FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE   

Schedule III.

  

Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

     F-35   

 

2


Table of Contents

PART I

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained herein constitute forward-looking statements as such term is defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. Our future results, financial condition and business may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. You can find many of these statements by looking for words such as “plans,” “intends,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “believes” or similar expressions in this Form 10-K. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Many of the factors that will determine these items are beyond our ability to control or predict. For further discussion of these factors, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Form 10-K.

For these statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K or the date of any document incorporated by reference. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Form 10-K.

 

Item 1. Business

General

Saul Centers, Inc. (“Saul Centers”) was incorporated under the Maryland General Corporation Law on June 10, 1993. Saul Centers operates as a real estate investment trust (a “REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Company is required to annually distribute at least 90% of its REIT taxable income (excluding net capital gains) to its stockholders and meet certain organizational and other requirements. Saul Centers has made and intends to continue to make regular quarterly distributions to its stockholders. Saul Centers, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries and the limited partnerships of which Saul Centers or one of its subsidiaries is the sole general partner, are referred to collectively as the “Company.” B. Francis Saul II serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Saul Centers.

The Company’s principal business activity is the ownership, management and development of income-producing properties. The Company’s long-term objectives are to increase cash flow from operations and to maximize capital appreciation of its real estate.

Saul Centers was formed to continue and expand the shopping center business previously owned and conducted by the B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust, the B.F. Saul Company and certain other affiliated entities, each of which is controlled by B. Francis Saul II and his family members (collectively, “The Saul Organization”). On August 26, 1993, members of The Saul Organization transferred to Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, a newly formed Maryland limited partnership (the “Operating Partnership”), and two newly formed subsidiary limited partnerships (the “Subsidiary Partnerships,” and collectively with the Operating Partnership, the “Partnerships”), shopping center and mixed-use properties, and the management functions related to the transferred properties. Since its formation, the Company has developed and purchased additional properties.

 

3


Table of Contents

The following table lists the properties acquired, developed and/or disposed of by the Company since January 1, 2010.

 

Name of Property

  

Location

  

Type

   Square
Footage
     Year of
Acquisition/
Development/
Disposal

Acquisitions

           

11503 Rockville Pike

   Rockville, MD    Shopping Center      20,000       2010

Metro Pike Center

   Rockville, MD    Shopping Center      67,000       2010

4469 Connecticut Ave

   Washington, D.C.    Mixed-Use      3,000       2011

Kentlands Square II

   Gaithersburg, MD    Shopping Center      241,000       2011

Severna Park MarketPlace

   Severna Park, MD    Shopping Center      254,000       2011

Cranberry Square

   Westminster, MD    Shopping Center      141,000       2011

1500 Rockville Pike

   Rockville, MD    Shopping Center      52,700       2012

5541 Nicholson Lane

   Rockville, MD    Shopping Center      20,100       2012

Developments

           

Clarendon Center North

   Arlington, VA    Mixed-Use      108,000       2010/2011

Clarendon Center South

   Arlington, VA    Mixed-Use      294,000       2010/2011

Dispositions

           

Lexington

   Lexington, KY    Shopping Center      314,500       2010

West Park

   Oklahoma City, OK    Shopping Center      77,000       2012

Belvedere

   Baltimore, MD    Shopping Center      54,900       2012

As of December 31, 2012, the Company’s properties (the “Current Portfolio Properties”) consisted of 50 shopping center properties (the “Shopping Centers”), seven mixed-use properties which are comprised of office, retail and multi-family residential uses (the “Mixed-Use Properties”) and two (non-operating) development properties. Shopping Centers and Mixed-Use Properties represent reportable business segments for financial reporting purposes. Revenue, net income, total assets and other financial information of each reportable segment are described in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

 

4


Table of Contents

Organizational Structure

The Company conducts its business through the Operating Partnership and/or directly or indirectly owned subsidiaries. The following diagram depicts the Company’s organizational structure and beneficial ownership of the common and preferred stock of Saul Centers calculated pursuant to Rule 13d-3 of the Exchange Act as of December 31, 2012.

 

LOGO

 

(1) The Saul Organization’s ownership percentage in Saul Centers reported above does not include units of limited partnership interest of the Operating Partnership held by The Saul Organization. In general, most units are convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock on a one-for-one basis. However, not all of the units may be convertible into the Company’s common stock because (i) the articles of incorporation limit beneficial and constructive ownership (defined by reference to various Code provisions) to 39.9% in value of the Company’s issued and outstanding equity securities, which comprise the ownership limit and (ii) the convertibility of some of the outstanding units is subject to approval of the Company’s stockholders.

Management of the Current Portfolio Properties

The Operating Partnership manages the Current Portfolio Properties and will manage any subsequently acquired or developed properties. The management of the properties includes performing property management, leasing, design, renovation, development and accounting duties for each property. The Operating Partnership provides each property with a fully integrated property management capability, with approximately 60 employees at its headquarters office and with an extensive and mature network of relationships with tenants and potential tenants as well as with members of the brokerage and property owners’ communities. The Company currently does not, and does not intend to, retain third party managers or provide management services to third parties.

The Company augments its property management capabilities by sharing with The Saul Organization certain ancillary functions, at cost, such as information technology and payroll services, benefits administration and in-house legal services. The Company also shares insurance administration expenses on a pro rata basis with The Saul Organization. Management believes that these arrangements result in lower costs than could be obtained by contracting with third parties. These arrangements permit the Company to capture greater economies of scale in purchasing from third party vendors than would otherwise be available to the Company alone and to capture internal economies of scale by avoiding payments representing profits with respect to functions provided internally. The terms of all sharing arrangements with The Saul Organization, including payments related thereto, are specified in a written agreement and are reviewed annually by the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

 

5


Table of Contents

The Company subleases its corporate headquarters space from The Saul Organization at the Company’s share of the cost. A discussion of the lease terms are provided in Note 7, Long Term Lease Obligations, of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Principal Offices

The principal offices of the Company are located at 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1500, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-6522, and the Company’s telephone number is (301) 986-6200. The Company’s internet web address is www.saulcenters.com. Information contained on the Company’s website is not part of this report. The Company makes available free of charge on its website its annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Alternatively, you may access these reports at the SEC’s website: www.sec.gov.

Policies with Respect to Certain Activities

The following is a discussion of the Company’s operating strategy and certain of its investment, financing and other policies. These strategies and policies have been determined by the Board of Directors and, in general, may be amended or revised from time to time by the Board of Directors without a vote of the Company’s stockholders.

Operating Strategies

The Company’s primary operating strategy is to focus on its community and neighborhood shopping center business and to operate its properties to achieve both cash flow growth and capital appreciation. Community and neighborhood shopping centers typically provide reliable cash flow and steady long-term growth potential. Management actively manages its property portfolio by engaging in strategic leasing activities, tenant selection, lease negotiation and shopping center expansion and reconfiguration. The Company seeks to optimize tenant mix by selecting tenants for its shopping centers that provide a broad spectrum of goods and services, consistent with the role of community and neighborhood shopping centers as the source for day-to-day necessities. Management believes that such a synergistic tenanting approach results in increased cash flow from existing tenants by providing the Shopping Centers with consistent traffic and a desirable mix of shoppers, resulting in increased sales and, therefore, increased cash flows.

Management believes there is potential for long term growth in cash flow as existing leases for space in the Shopping Centers expire and are renewed, or newly available or vacant space is leased. The Company intends to renegotiate leases where possible and seek new tenants for available space in order to optimize the mix of uses to improve foot traffic through the Shopping Centers. As leases expire, management expects to revise rental rates, lease terms and conditions, relocate existing tenants, reconfigure tenant spaces and introduce new tenants with the goals of increasing occupancy, improving overall retail sales, and ultimately increasing cash flow as economic conditions improve. In those circumstances in which leases are not otherwise expiring, management selectively attempts to increase cash flow through a variety of means, or in connection with renovations or relocations, recapturing leases with below market rents and re-leasing at market rates, as well as replacing financially troubled tenants. When possible, management also will seek to include scheduled increases in base rent, as well as percentage rental provisions, in its leases.

The Company will also seek growth opportunities in its Washington, D.C. metropolitan area mixed-use portfolio, primarily through development and redevelopment, as evidenced by the recent completion of the development of Clarendon Center in Arlington County, Virginia. Management also intends to negotiate lease renewals or to re-lease available space in the Mixed-Use Properties, while considering the strategic balance of optimizing short-term cash flow and long-term asset value.

It is management’s intention to hold properties for long-term investment and to place strong emphasis on regular maintenance, periodic renovation and capital improvement. Management believes that characteristics such

 

6


Table of Contents

as cleanliness, lighting and security are particularly important in community and neighborhood shopping centers, which are frequently visited by shoppers during hours outside of the normal work-day. Management believes that the Shopping Centers and Mixed-Use Properties generally are attractive and well maintained. The Shopping Centers and Mixed-Use Properties will undergo expansion, renovation, reconfiguration and modernization from time to time when management believes that such action is warranted by opportunities or changes in the competitive environment of a property. During 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company developed two new shopping centers, Westview Village and Northrock and completed the construction of Clarendon Center, a mixed-use development containing ground floor retail, office and multi-family residential units. The Company will continue its practice of expanding existing properties by undertaking new construction on outparcels suitable for development as free standing retail or office facilities.

Investment in Real Estate or Interests in Real Estate

The Company’s redevelopment and renovation objective is to selectively and opportunistically redevelop and renovate its properties, by replacing below-market-rent leases with strong, traffic-generating anchor stores such as supermarkets and drug stores, as well as other desirable local, regional and national tenants. The Company’s strategy remains focused on continuing the operating performance and internal growth of its existing Shopping Centers, while enhancing this growth with selective retail redevelopments and renovations.

The Company recently acquired two properties located along the Rockville Pike corridor in Montgomery County, Maryland. In December 2012, the Company purchased for $23.0 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 52,700 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike near the Twinbrook Metro Station. The property, which was 90.5% leased to multiple tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 745,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan.

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $12.2 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,100 square feet of mixed-use space, which was 40.5% leased to multiple tenants, located on the east side of Rockville Pike and adjacent to 11503 Rockville Pike, which was purchased in 2010. The property, when combined with 11503 Rockville Pike, will provide zoning for up to 325,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space for a total development potential of up to 622,000 square feet. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

In 2011, the Company acquired three Giant Food-anchored shopping centers located in the Maryland suburbs of the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan area. The three centers, Kentlands Square II, Severna Park MarketPlace and Cranberry Square, total 636,000 square feet of leasable area, of which 98% is leased. The $170.9 million purchase price, including acquisition costs, was financed with (1) $60.0 million from two bridge loans secured by Kentlands Square II and Cranberry Square; (2) a $38.0 million non-recourse permanent loan secured by Severna Park MarketPlace; (3) approximately $17.1 million in cash and borrowings from the Company’s revolving credit facility; and (4) $55.8 million from the issuance of equity to a related party.

In light of the limited amount of quality properties for sale and the escalated pricing of properties that the Company has been presented with or has inquired about over the past year, management believes acquisition opportunities for investment in existing and new Shopping Center and Mixed-Use Properties in the near future is uncertain. Because of the Company’s conservative capital structure, including its cash and capacity under its revolving credit facility, management believes that the Company is positioned to take advantage of additional investment opportunities as attractive properties are located and market conditions improve. (See “Item 1. Business - Capital Policies”). It is management’s view that several of the sub-markets in which the Company operates have, or are expected to have in the future, attractive supply/demand characteristics. The Company will continue to evaluate acquisition, development and redevelopment as integral parts of its overall business plan.

In evaluating a particular redevelopment, renovation, acquisition, or development, management will consider a variety of factors, including (i) the location and accessibility of the property; (ii) the geographic area (with an emphasis on the Washington, D.C./Baltimore metropolitan area and the southeastern region of the United States) and demographic characteristics of the community, as well as the local real estate market, including potential for growth and potential regulatory impediments to development; (iii) the size of the property; (iv) the purchase price; (v) the non-financial terms of the proposed acquisition; (vi) the availability of funds or other consideration for the proposed acquisition and the cost thereof; (vii) the “fit” of the property with the Company’s existing portfolio;

 

7


Table of Contents

(viii) the potential for, and current extent of, any environmental problems; (ix) the current and historical occupancy rates of the property or any comparable or competing properties in the same market; (x) the quality of construction and design and the current physical condition of the property; (xi) the financial and other characteristics of existing tenants and the terms of existing leases; and (xii) the potential for capital appreciation.

The Company recently completed negotiation of lease termination agreements with the tenants of Van Ness Square and expects the building will be vacant on or about April 30, 2013. Costs incurred related to those termination arrangements are being amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the remaining terms of the leases, are included in “Predevelopment Expenses” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, totaled $2.7 million in 2012 and are expected to total approximately $3.3 million over the first two quarters of 2013. The Company intends to develop a primarily residential project with street-level retail and will recognize additional predevelopment expenses in future periods when the existing improvements of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue are demolished, the timing of which is uncertain and dependent on the issuance of various governmental approvals and permits.

During the second quarter of 2012, the Company’s French Market property suffered roof damage during a hail storm. The Company is in the process of obtaining bids to repair the damage and estimates that the cost will be approximately $2.2 million, which is fully covered by insurance, subject to a $50,000 deductible. The Company recognized a gain of approximately $219,000, equal to the excess of the amount of estimated insurance proceeds over the carrying value of the replaced assets. All tenants remained open for business throughout the aftermath of the hail storm.

Although it is management’s present intention to concentrate future acquisition and development activities on community and neighborhood shopping centers and mixed-use properties in the Washington, D.C./Baltimore metropolitan area and the southeastern region of the United States, the Company may, in the future, also acquire other types of real estate in other areas of the country as opportunities present themselves. While the Company may diversify in terms of property locations, size and market, it does not set any limit on the amount or percentage of assets that may be invested in any one property or any one geographic area.

The Company intends to engage in such future investment or development activities in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of its status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and that will not make the Company become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. Equity investments in acquired properties may be subject to existing mortgage financings and other indebtedness or to new indebtedness which may be incurred in connection with acquiring or refinancing these investments.

Investments in Real Estate Mortgages

While the Company’s current portfolio and business objectives emphasize equity investments in commercial and neighborhood shopping centers and mixed-use properties, the Company may, at the discretion of the Board of Directors, invest in mortgages, participating or convertible mortgages, deeds of trust and other types of real estate interests consistent with its qualification as a REIT. The Company does not presently invest, nor does it intend to invest, in real estate mortgages.

Investments in Securities of or Interests in Persons Engaged in Real Estate Activities and Other Issues

Subject to the requirements to maintain REIT qualification, the Company may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities. The Company does not presently invest, nor does it intend to invest, in any securities of other REITs.

Dispositions

In 2012, the Company sold for $2.0 million the 77,000 square foot West Park shopping center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and recognized a $1.1 million gain and sold for $4.0 million the 54,900 square feet Belvedere shopping center in Baltimore, Maryland and recognized a gain of $3.4 million.

In 2010, the Company sold its Lexington property for $8.1 million and recognized a gain of $3.6 million.

 

8


Table of Contents

The Company may elect to dispose of other properties if, based upon management’s periodic review of the Company’s portfolio, the Board of Directors determines that such action would be in the best interest of the Company’s stockholders.

Capital Policies

The Company has established a debt capitalization policy relative to asset value, which is computed by reference to the aggregate annualized cash flow from the properties in the Company’s portfolio rather than relative to book value. The Company has used a measure tied to cash flow because it believes that the book value of its portfolio properties, which is the depreciated historical cost of the properties, does not accurately reflect the Company’s ability to incur indebtedness. Asset value, however, is somewhat more variable than book value, and may not at all times reflect the fair market value of the underlying properties. As a general policy, the Company intends to maintain a ratio of its total debt to total asset value of 50% or less and to actively manage the Company’s leverage and debt expense on an ongoing basis in order to maintain prudent coverage of fixed charges. Given the Company’s current debt level, it is management’s belief that the ratio of the Company’s debt to total asset value is below 50% as of December 31, 2012.

The organizational documents of the Company do not limit the absolute amount or percentage of indebtedness that it may incur. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, reevaluate the Company’s debt capitalization policy in light of current economic conditions, relative costs of capital, market values of the Company property portfolio, opportunities for acquisition, development or expansion, and such other factors as the Board of Directors then deems relevant. The Board of Directors may modify the Company’s debt capitalization policy based on such a reevaluation without shareholder approval and consequently, may increase or decrease the Company’s debt to total asset ratio above or below 50% or may waive the policy for certain periods of time, subject to maintaining compliance with financial covenants within existing debt agreements. The Company selectively continues to refinance or renegotiate the terms of its outstanding debt in order to achieve longer maturities, and obtain generally more favorable loan terms, whenever management determines the financing environment is favorable.

The Company intends to finance future acquisitions and developments and to make debt repayments by utilizing the sources of capital then deemed to be most advantageous. Such sources may include undistributed operating cash flow, secured or unsecured bank and institutional borrowings, proceeds from the Company’s Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan, proceeds from the sale of properties and private and public offerings of debt or equity securities. Borrowings may be at the Operating Partnership or Subsidiary Partnerships’ level and securities offerings may include (subject to certain limitations) the issuance of Operating Partnership interests convertible into common stock or other equity securities.

Other Policies

The Company has the authority to offer equity or debt securities in exchange for property and to repurchase or otherwise acquire its common stock or other securities in the open market or otherwise, and may engage in such activities in the future. The Company expects, but is not obligated, to issue common stock to holders of units of the Operating Partnership upon exercise of their redemption rights. The Company has not engaged in trading, underwriting or agency distribution or sale of securities of other issuers other than the Operating Partnership and does not intend to do so. The Company has not made any loans to third parties, although the Company may in the future make loans to third parties. In addition, the Company has policies relating to related party transactions discussed in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

Competition

As an owner of, or investor in, community and neighborhood shopping centers and mixed-use properties, the Company is subject to competition from an indeterminate number of companies in connection with the acquisition, development, ownership and leasing of similar properties. These investors include investors with access to significant capital, such as domestic and foreign corporations and financial institutions, publicly traded and privately held REITs, private institutional investment funds, investment banking firms, life insurance companies and pension funds.

 

9


Table of Contents

Competition may reduce properties available for acquisition or development or increase prices for raw land or developed properties of the type in which the Company invests. The Company faces competition in providing leases to prospective tenants and in re-letting space to current tenants upon expiration of their respective leases. If tenants decide not to renew or extend their leases upon expiration, the Company may not be able to re-let the space. Even if the tenants do renew or the Company can re-let the space, the terms of renewal or re-letting, including the cost of required renovations, may be less favorable than current lease terms or than expectations for the space. This risk may be magnified if the properties owned by our competitors have lower occupancy rates than the Company’s properties. As a result, these competitors may be willing to make space available at lower prices than the space in the Current Portfolio Properties.

Management believes that success in the competition for ownership and leasing property is dependent in part upon the geographic location of the property, the tenant mix, the performance of property managers, the amount of new construction in the area and the maintenance and appearance of the property. Additional competitive factors impacting the Company’s properties include the ease of access to the properties, the adequacy of related facilities such as parking, and the demographic characteristics in the markets in which the properties compete. Overall economic circumstances and trends and new properties in the vicinity of each of the Current Portfolio Properties are also competitive factors.

Finally, retailers at our Shopping Centers face increasing competition from outlet stores, discount shopping clubs and other forms of marketing goods, such as direct mail, internet marketing and telemarketing. This competition may reduce percentage rents payable to us and may contribute to lease defaults or insolvency of tenants.

Environmental Matters

The Current Portfolio Properties are subject to various laws and regulations relating to environmental and pollution controls. The impact upon the Company from the application of such laws and regulations either prospectively or retrospectively is not expected to have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s property operations. As a matter of policy, the Company requires an environmental study be performed with respect to a property that may be subject to possible environmental hazards prior to its acquisition to ascertain that there are no material environmental hazards associated with such property.

Employees

As of March 1, 2013, the Company employed approximately 60 persons at its headquarters office, including seven leasing officers. None of the Company’s employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Management believes that its relationship with employees is good.

Recent Developments

After several challenging years in the financial and real estate markets, there have been recent signs of economic improvement. During the last several quarters, the Company has seen modestly improved retail sales and retail leasing activity across its portfolio; however, rents remain under pressure. Office space demand throughout the Company’s properties slowed during 2012 and early 2013, primarily due to uncertainty surrounding federal government spending levels.

While overall consumer confidence appears to have improved, retailers continue to be cautious about capital allocation when implementing store expansion. Vacancies continue to remain elevated compared to pre-recession levels; however, the Company’s overall leasing percentage on a comparative same property basis, which excludes the impact of properties not in operation for the entirety of the comparable periods, at December 31, 2012 increased to 91.9% from 90.7% at December 31, 2011, an increase in space leased of approximately 107,000 square feet, primarily caused by the leasing of a portion of the space vacated by major shopping center tenants in 2011.

In February 2013, Saul Centers sold, in an underwritten public offering, 5.6 million depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 6.875% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, providing net cash proceeds of approximately $134.8 million. The depositary shares may be redeemed at the Company’s option, in whole or in part, at the $25.00 liquidation preference, plus accumulated dividends to but not including the redemption date, on or after February 12, 2018. The depositary shares pay an annual dividend of $1.71875 per share, equivalent to 6.875% of the $25.00 liquidation preference. The first dividend is scheduled to be paid on April 15,

 

10


Table of Contents

2013 and cover the period from February 12, 2013 through March 31, 2013. The Series C preferred stock has no stated maturity, is not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and is not convertible into any other securities of the Company except in connection with certain changes in control or delisting events. Investors in the depositary shares generally have no voting rights, but will have limited voting rights if the Company fails to pay dividends for six or more quarters (whether or not declared or consecutive) and in certain other events. The proceeds from the offering were used to (a) partially redeem the Company’s 8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and related depositary shares and (b) redeem in full all of the Company’s 9% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and related depositary shares.

The Company had access to debt and preferred equity at attractive terms and pricing during 2012 and early 2013. The Company maintains a ratio of total debt to total asset value of under 50%, which allows it to obtain additional secured borrowings if necessary. And, as of December 31, 2012, amortizing fixed-rate mortgage debt with staggered maturities from 2013 to 2027, represented approximately 93.6% of the Company’s notes payable, thus minimizing refinancing risk. The Company has two fixed-rate debt maturities scheduled for 2013, one of which was refinanced on February 27, 2013. Management currently expects to repay in full the $6.8 million remaining balance on the second loan on or before its maturity in July 2013. The floating-rate debt of the Company is comprised of a $14.9 million loan secured by Northrock shopping center, which was refinanced on February 27, 2013 and $38.0 million outstanding under the $175.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility.

Acquisition and Development Activity

A significant contributor to the Company’s recent growth in its Shopping Center portfolio has been its land acquisitions and subsequent development, redevelopment of existing centers and operating property acquisition activities. Redevelopment activities reposition the Company’s centers to be competitive in the current retailing environment. These redevelopments typically include an update of the facade, site improvements and reconfiguring tenant spaces to accommodate tenant size requirements and merchandising evolution. During the period January 1, 2010 through February 28, 2013, the Company acquired eight operating neighborhood shopping center properties. Since January 1, 2010, the Company’s leasable area has grown by approximately 13.1% (1.1 million square feet), from 8.4 million square feet to approximately 9.5 million square feet.

2012 / 2011 / 2010 Acquisitions, Developments and Redevelopments

Ashland Square Phase I

On December 15, 2004, the Company purchased for $6.3 million, a 19.3 acre parcel of land in Manassas, Prince William County, Virginia. The Company has an approved site plan to develop a grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping center totaling approximately 160,000 square feet. Capital One Bank operates a branch on the site and the Company previously executed a lease with CVS. During 2012, the Company completed site work for two pads, constructed a 6,500 square foot building that has been leased to a restaurant and CVS constructed a 13,000 square foot pharmacy building. Both facilities have opened for business and the cost to the Company was approximately $3.0 million. The balance of the center is being marketed to grocers and other retail businesses, with a development timetable yet to be finalized.

Clarendon Center

In late 2010, the Company substantially completed construction of a mixed-use project which includes approximately 42,000 square feet of retail space, 171,000 square feet of office space, 244 apartments and 600 underground parking spaces, on two city blocks, adjacent to the Clarendon Metro Station in Arlington County, Virginia. Development costs are expected to total approximately $195.0 million upon the completion of final office tenant improvements. As of December 31, 2012, 208,900 square feet (97.9%) of the commercial space (comprising of all of the retail space and 167,200 square feet (97.4 %) of the office space) as well as 244 apartments (100.0%), were leased.

Westview Village

In November 2007, the Company purchased for $5.0 million, a 10.4 acre site in the Westview development on Buckeystown Pike (MD Route 85) in Frederick, Maryland. Construction was substantially completed in 2009 on a development that totals approximately 98,000 square feet of commercial space, including 60,000 square feet of retail shop space, 11,000 square feet of retail pads and 30,000 square feet of office space. Total construction and development costs, including land, lease-up and tenant improvement costs, are projected to be approximately $26.5 million. As of December 31, 2012, 56,600 square feet of retail space and 26,700 square feet of office space, or approximately 85.4% of the total space, had been leased.

 

11


Table of Contents

Northrock

In January 2008, the Company purchased for $12.5 million, approximately 15.4 acres of undeveloped land in Warrenton, Virginia, located at the southwest corner of the U. S. Route 29/211 and Fletcher Drive intersection. The Company constructed Northrock shopping center, a neighborhood shopping center totaling approximately 100,000 square feet of leasable area. Approximately 80.6% of the project was leased at December 31, 2012, including a 52,700 square foot Harris Teeter supermarket store, 27,800 square feet of small shop space, and pad leases with Capital One Bank and Longhorn Steakhouse. Total construction and development costs, including land, lease-up and tenant improvement costs, are projected to be approximately $27.9 million.

Seven Corners

During 2010, the Company expanded the Seven Corners shopping center by approximately 6,000 square feet. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers opened in November 2010 in a newly-constructed, free-standing building. The Company also completed construction of parking lot, landscaping and site lighting improvements to enhance the common areas.

11503 Rockville Pike

On October 1, 2010, the Company purchased for $15.6 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike (Route 355), near the White Flint Metro Station in Montgomery County, Maryland. The property, which was fully leased to two tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 297,000 square feet of rentable mixed use space. The Company intends to redevelop the property but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

Metro Pike Center

On December 17, 2010, the Company purchased for $34.3 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 67,000 square feet of retail space located on the west side of Rockville Pike (Route 355) near the White Flint Metro Station in Montgomery County, Maryland. The property was acquired subject to the assumption of a $16.2 million mortgage loan and a corresponding interest rate swap with a fair value of $0.5 million. The property, which was 83.6% leased at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 807,000 square feet of rentable mixed use space. The Company does not anticipate redeveloping the property in the foreseeable future.

4469 Connecticut Ave

On February 17, 2011, the Company purchased for $1.7 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 3,000 square feet of retail space located adjacent to the Company’s Van Ness Square in Washington D.C. The property is unoccupied and will be included in the project to redevelop Van Ness Square.

Kentlands Square II

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $74.5 million Kentlands Square II, and incurred acquisition costs of $1.1 million. Kentlands Square II is a 241,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in Montgomery County, the state’s most populous and affluent county. More than 38,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $114,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. The center was constructed in 1993, is 95.8% leased and is anchored by a 61,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 104,000 square foot Kmart. The property is adjacent to the Company’s Kentlands Square I, which is anchored by Lowe’s Home Improvement and Kentlands Place.

Severna Park MarketPlace

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $61.0 million Severna Park MarketPlace, and incurred acquisition costs of $0.8 million. Severna Park MarketPlace is a 254,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Severna Park, Maryland, in Anne Arundel County. More than 15,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $112,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. The center was constructed in 1974 and renovated in 2000, is 100% leased and is anchored by a 63,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 92,000 square foot Kohl’s.

Cranberry Square

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $33.0 million Cranberry Square, and incurred acquisition costs of $0.5 million. Cranberry Square is a 140,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Westminster, Maryland, in Carroll County. More than 12,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $72,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. The center was constructed in 1991, is 92.2% leased and is anchored by a 56,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 24,000 square foot Staples.

 

12


Table of Contents

1500 Rockville Pike

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $23.0 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 52,700 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike near the Twinbrook Metro Station. The property, which was 90.5% leased to multiple tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 745,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

5541 Nicholson Lane

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $12.2 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,100 square feet of mixed-use space, which was 40.5% leased to multiple tenants, located on the east side of Rockville Pike and adjacent to 11503 Rockville Pike, which was purchased in 2010. The property, when combined with 11503 Rockville Pike, will provide zoning for up to 331,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space for a total development potential of up to 622,000 square feet. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

Van Ness Square

The Company recently completed negotiation of lease termination agreements with the tenants of Van Ness Square and expects the building will be vacant on or about April 30, 2013. Costs incurred related to those termination arrangements are being amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the remaining terms of the leases, are included in “Predevelopment Expenses” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, totaled $2.7 million in 2012 and are expected to total approximately $3.3 million over the first two quarters of 2013. The Company intends to develop a primarily residential project with street-level retail and will recognize additional predevelopment expenses in future periods when the existing improvements of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue are demolished, the timing of which is uncertain and dependent on the issuance of various governmental approvals and permits.

 

13


Table of Contents
Item 1A. Risk Factors

RISK FACTORS

Carefully consider the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. If any of the events or developments described below were actually to occur, the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

In this section, unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Saul Centers, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including the Operating Partnership.

The global financial crisis and economic slowdown may have an adverse impact on our business, our tenants’ business and our results of operations.

The continuation or worsening of the recent credit market disruption and global economic crisis may continue to have an adverse effect on the fundamentals of our business and results of operations, including overall market occupancy and rental rates. While recent economic data appear to reflect some stabilization of the economy and credit markets, a continuation of these challenging economic conditions could have a negative effect on the financial condition of our tenants or lenders, which may expose us to increased risks of default by these parties.

In the event of a continuation of this disruption in the economy and capital markets, there can be no assurance we will not experience material adverse effects on our business, financial condition, results of operations or real estate values.

Potential consequences of a continuation of the credit crisis and global economic slowdown include:

 

   

the financial condition of our tenants, many of which operate in the retail industry, may be adversely affected, which may result in tenant defaults under their leases due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failures or for other reasons;

 

   

the ability to borrow on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, or at all, may be limited, which could reduce our ability to pursue acquisition and development opportunities and refinance existing debt, reduce our returns from acquisition and development activities and increase our future interest expense;

 

   

reduced values of our properties may limit our ability to dispose of assets at attractive prices and may reduce the ability to refinance loans; and

 

   

one or more lenders under our credit facility could fail and we may not be able to replace the financing commitment of any such lenders on favorable terms, or at all.

Revenue from our properties may be reduced or limited if the retail operations of our tenants are not successful.

The global and domestic economies have recently experienced a significant contraction of credit markets and resulting slowdown in business and consumer spending. We believe that consumers in recent years have cut back their discretionary spending in response to credit constraints, unemployment, a reduction in home equity values, highly volatile fuel and other commodity prices, and general economic uncertainty. Revenue from our properties depends primarily on the ability of our tenants to pay the full amount of rent due under their leases on a timely basis. The amount of rent we receive from our tenants generally will depend in part on the success of our tenants’ retail operations, making us vulnerable to general economic downturns and other conditions affecting the retail industry. Some tenants may terminate their occupancy due to an inability to operate profitably for an extended period of time, impacting the Company’s ability to maintain occupancy levels.

Any reduction in our tenants’ ability to pay base rent or percentage rent may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Small business tenants and anchor retailers which lease space in the Company’s properties may experience a deterioration in their sales or other revenue, or experience a constraint on the availability of credit necessary to fund operations, which in turn may adversely impact those tenants’ ability to pay contractual base rents and operating expense recoveries. Some of our leases provide for the payment, in addition to base rent, of additional rent above the base amount according to a specified percentage of the gross sales generated by the tenants. Decreasing sales revenue by retail tenants could adversely impact the Company’s receipt of percentage rents required to be paid by tenants under certain leases.

 

14


Table of Contents

Our ability to increase our net income depends on the success and continued presence of our shopping center “anchor” tenants and other significant tenants.

Our net income could be adversely affected in the event of a downturn in the business, or the bankruptcy or insolvency, of any anchor store or anchor tenant. Our largest shopping center anchor tenant is Giant Food, which accounted for 5.0% of our total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2012. The closing of one or more anchor stores prior to the expiration of the lease of that store or the termination of a lease by one or more of a property’s anchor tenants could adversely affect that property and result in lease terminations by, or reductions in rent from, other tenants whose leases may permit termination or rent reduction in those circumstances or whose own operations may suffer as a result. This could reduce our net income.

We may experience difficulty or delay in renewing leases or leasing vacant space.

We derive most of our revenue directly or indirectly from rent received from our tenants. We are subject to the risks that, upon expiration, leases for space in our properties may not be renewed, the space and other vacant space may not be re-leased, or the terms of renewal or re-lease, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be less favorable than previous lease terms. Constraints on the availability of credit to office and retail tenants, necessary to purchase and install improvements, fixtures and equipment, and fund start-up business expenses, could impact the Company’s ability to procure new tenants for spaces currently vacant in existing operating properties or properties under development. As a result, our results of operations and our net income could be reduced.

We have substantial relationships with members of The Saul Organization whose interests could conflict with the interests of other stockholders.

Influence of Officers, Directors and Significant Stockholders.

Three of our executive officers, Mr. Saul, and our President, Thomas H. McCormick, and our Executive Vice President-Real Estate, J. Page Lansdale, are members of The Saul Organization, and persons associated with The Saul Organization constitute four of the 14 members of our Board of Directors. In addition, as of December 31, 2012, Mr. Saul had the potential to exercise control over 8,696,000 shares of our common stock representing 43.8% of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock. Mr. Saul also beneficially owned, as of December 31, 2012, 6,914,000 units of the Operating Partnership. In general, these units are convertible into shares of our common stock on a one-for-one basis. The ownership limitation set forth in our articles of incorporation is 39.9% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities (which includes both common and preferred stock). As of December 31, 2012, Mr. Saul and members of The Saul Organization owned common stock representing approximately 36.0% in value of all our issued and outstanding equity securities. Members of the Saul Organization are permitted under our articles of incorporation to convert Operating Partnership units into shares of common stock or acquire additional shares of common stock until The Saul Organization’s actual ownership of common stock reaches 39.9% in value of our equity securities. As of December 31, 2012, 987,000 of the 6,914,000 units of the Operating Partnership would have been permitted to convert into additional shares of common stock, and would have resulted in Mr. Saul and members of The Saul Organization owning common stock representing approximately 39.9% in value of all our issued and outstanding equity securities.

As a result of these relationships, members of The Saul Organization will be in a position to exercise significant influence over our affairs, which influence might not be consistent with the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders. Except as discussed below, we do not have any written policies or procedures for the review, approval or ratification of transactions with related persons.

Management Time.

Our Chief Executive Officer, President, Executive Vice President-Real Estate and Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer are also officers of various entities of The Saul Organization. Although we believe that these officers spend sufficient management time to meet their responsibilities as our officers, the amount of management time devoted to us will depend on our specific circumstances at any given point in time. As a result, in a given period, these officers may spend less than a majority of their management time on our matters. Over extended periods of time, we believe that our Chief Executive Officer will spend less than a majority of his management time on Company matters, while our President, Executive Vice President-Real Estate and Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer may or may not spend less than a majority of their time on our matters.

 

15


Table of Contents

Exclusivity and Right of First Refusal Agreements.

We will acquire, develop, own and manage shopping center properties and will own and manage other commercial properties, and, subject to certain exclusivity agreements and rights of first refusal to which we are a party, The Saul Organization will continue to develop, acquire, own and manage commercial properties and own land suitable for development as, among other things, shopping centers and other commercial properties. Therefore, conflicts could develop in the allocation of acquisition and development opportunities with respect to commercial properties other than shopping centers and with respect to development sites, as well as potential tenants and other matters, between us and The Saul Organization. The agreement relating to exclusivity and the right of first refusal between us and The Saul Organization generally requires The Saul Organization to conduct its shopping center business exclusively through us and to grant us a right of first refusal to purchase commercial properties and development sites in certain market areas that become available to The Saul Organization. The Saul Organization has granted the right of first refusal to us, acting through our independent directors, in order to minimize potential conflicts with respect to commercial properties and development sites. We and The Saul Organization have entered into this agreement in order to minimize conflicts with respect to shopping centers and certain of our commercial properties.

Shared Services.

We share with The Saul Organization certain ancillary functions, such as computer and payroll services, benefits administration and in-house legal services. The terms of all sharing arrangements, including payments related thereto, are reviewed periodically by our Audit Committee, which is comprised solely of independent directors. Included in our general and administrative expenses or capitalized to specific development projects, for the year ended December 31, 2012, are charges totaling $6.0 million, related to such shared services, which included rental payments for the Company’s headquarters lease, which were billed by The Saul Organization. Although we believe that the amounts allocated to us for such shared services represent a fair allocation between us and The Saul Organization, we have not obtained a third party appraisal of the value of these services.

The B. F. Saul Insurance Agency of Maryland, Inc., a subsidiary of the B. F. Saul Company and a member of The Saul Organization, is a general insurance agency that receives commissions and counter-signature fees in connection with our insurance program. Such commissions and fees amounted to approximately $373,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Related Party Rents.

We sublease space for our corporate headquarters from a member of The Saul Organization, the building of which is owned by another member of The Saul Organization. The lease commenced in March 2002, was extended for five years through March 2017, and provides for base rent escalated at 3% per year, with payment of a pro-rata share of operating expenses over a base year amount. The Company and The Saul Organization entered into a Shared Services Agreement whereby each party pays a portion of the total rental payments based on a percentage proportionate to the number of employees employed by each party. The Company’s rent expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $850,000. Although the Company believes that this lease has terms comparable to what would have been obtained from a third party landlord, it did not seek bid proposals from any independent third parties when entering into its new corporate headquarters lease.

Conflicts Based on Individual Tax Considerations.

The tax basis of members of The Saul Organization in our portfolio properties which were contributed to certain partnerships at the time of our initial public offering in 1993 was substantially less than the fair market value thereof at the time of their contribution. In the event of our disposition of such properties, a disproportionately large share of the gain for federal income tax purposes would be allocated to members of The Saul Organization. In addition, future reductions of the level of our debt, or future releases of the guarantees or indemnities with respect thereto by members of The Saul Organization, would cause members of The Saul Organization to be considered, for federal income tax purposes, to have received constructive distributions. Depending on the overall level of debt and other factors, these distributions could be in excess of The Saul Organization’s bases in their Partnership units, in which case such excess constructive distributions would be taxable.

Consequently, it is in the interests of The Saul Organization that we continue to hold the contributed portfolio properties, that a portion of our debt remains outstanding or is refinanced and that The Saul Organization guarantees and indemnities remain in place, in order to defer the taxable gain to members of The Saul Organization. Therefore, The Saul Organization may seek to cause us to retain the contributed portfolio properties, and to refrain from reducing our debt or releasing The Saul Organization guarantees and indemnities, even when such action may

 

16


Table of Contents

not be in the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders. In order to minimize these conflicts, decisions as to sales of the portfolio properties, or any refinancing, repayment or release of guarantees and indemnities with respect to our debt, will be made by the independent directors.

Ability to Block Certain Actions.

Under applicable law and the limited partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, consent of the limited partners is required to permit certain actions, including the sale of all or substantially all of the Operating Partnership’s assets. Therefore, members of The Saul Organization, through their status as limited partners in the Operating Partnership, could prevent the taking of any such actions, even if they were in the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders.

The amount of debt we have and the restrictions imposed by that debt could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $827.8 million of debt outstanding, $774.9 million of which was long-term fixed-rate debt secured by 35 of our properties and $52.9 million of which was variable-rate debt due under a secured bank loan ($14.9 million) and our revolving credit facility ($38.0 million).

We currently have a general policy of limiting our borrowings to 50 percent of asset value, i.e., the value of our portfolio, as determined by our Board of Directors by reference to the aggregate annualized cash flow from our portfolio. Our organizational documents contain no limitation on the amount or percentage of indebtedness which we may incur. Therefore, the Board of Directors could alter or eliminate the current limitation on borrowing at any time. If our debt capitalization policy were changed, we could increase our leverage, resulting in an increase in debt service that could adversely affect our operating cash flow and our ability to make expected distributions to stockholders, and in an increased risk of default on our obligations.

We have established our debt capitalization policy relative to asset value, which is computed by reference to the aggregate annualized cash flow from the properties in our portfolio rather than relative to book value. We have used a measure tied to cash flow because we believe that the book value of our portfolio properties, which is the depreciated historical cost of the properties, does not accurately reflect our ability to borrow. Asset value, however, is somewhat more variable than book value, and may not at all times reflect the fair market value of the underlying properties.

The amount of our debt outstanding from time to time could have important consequences to our stockholders. For example, it could:

 

   

require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our debt, thereby reducing funds available for operations, property acquisitions and other appropriate business opportunities that may arise in the future;

 

   

limit our ability to obtain any additional financing we may need in the future for working capital, debt refinancing, capital expenditures, acquisitions, development or other general corporate purposes;

 

   

make it difficult to satisfy our debt service requirements;

 

   

limit our ability to make distributions on our outstanding common and preferred stock;

 

   

require us to dedicate increased amounts of our cash flow from operations to payments on our variable rate, unhedged debt if interest rates rise;

 

   

limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the factors that affect the profitability of our business, which may place us at a disadvantage compared to competitors with less debt or debt with less restrictive terms; and

 

   

limit our ability to obtain any additional financing we may need in the future for working capital, debt refinancing, capital expenditures, acquisitions, development or other general corporate purposes.

Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on, or to refinance, our indebtedness will depend primarily on our future performance, which to a certain extent is subject to economic,

 

17


Table of Contents

financial, competitive and other factors described in this section. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow from our business in the future to service our debt or meet our other cash needs, we may be required to refinance all or a portion of our existing debt, sell assets or obtain additional financing to meet our debt obligations and other cash needs. Our ability to refinance, sell assets or obtain additional financing may not be possible on terms that we would find acceptable.

We are obligated to comply with financial and other covenants in our debt that could restrict our operating activities, and the failure to comply could result in defaults that accelerate the payment under our debt.

Our secured debt generally contains customary covenants, including, among others, provisions:

 

   

relating to the maintenance of the property securing the debt;

 

   

restricting our ability to assign or further encumber the properties securing the debt; and

 

   

restricting our ability to enter into certain new leases or to amend or modify certain existing leases without obtaining consent of the lenders.

Our unsecured debt generally contains various restrictive covenants. The covenants in our unsecured debt include, among others, provisions restricting our ability to:

 

   

incur additional unsecured debt;

 

   

guarantee additional debt;

 

   

make certain distributions, investments and other restricted payments, including distribution payments on our outstanding stock;

 

   

create certain liens;

 

   

increase our overall secured and unsecured borrowing beyond certain levels; and

 

   

consolidate, merge or sell all or substantially all of our assets.

Our ability to meet some of the covenants in our debt, including covenants related to the condition of the property or payment of real estate taxes, may be dependent on the performance by our tenants under their leases.

In addition, our line of credit requires us and our subsidiaries to satisfy financial covenants. The material financial covenants require us, on a consolidated basis, to:

 

   

maintain tangible net worth, as defined in the loan agreement, of at least $503.3 million plus 80% of the Company’s net equity proceeds received after May 2012;

 

   

limit the amount of debt as a percentage of gross asset value, as defined in the loan agreement, to less than 60% (leverage ratio);

 

   

limit the amount of debt so that interest coverage will exceed 2.0x on a trailing four-quarter basis (interest expense coverage);

 

   

limit the amount of debt so that interest, scheduled principal amortization and preferred dividend coverage exceeds 1.3x on a trailing four-quarter basis (fixed charge coverage); and

 

   

limit the amount of variable rate debt and debt with initial loan terms of less than five years to no more than 40% of total debt.

As of December 31, 2012, we were in compliance with all such covenants. If we were to breach any of our debt covenants and did not cure the breach within any applicable cure period, our lenders could require us to repay the debt immediately, and, if the debt is secured, could immediately begin proceedings to take possession of the property securing the loan. Some of our debt arrangements 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 covenant under certain of our other debt obligations. As a result, any default under our debt covenants could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, our results of operations, our ability to meet our obligations and the market value of our shares.

 

18


Table of Contents

Our development activities are inherently risky.

The ground-up development of improvements on real property, which is different from the renovation and redevelopment of existing improvements, presents substantial risks. In addition to the risks associated with real estate investment in general as described elsewhere, the risks associated with our remaining development activities include:

 

   

significant time lag between commencement and completion subjects us to greater risks due to fluctuation in the general economy;

 

   

failure or inability to obtain construction or permanent financing on favorable terms;

 

   

expenditure of money and time on projects that may never be completed;

 

   

inability to achieve projected rental rates or anticipated pace of lease-up;

 

   

higher-than-estimated construction costs, including labor and material costs; and

 

   

possible delay in completion of the project because of a number of factors, including weather, labor disruptions, construction delays or delays in receipt of zoning or other regulatory approvals, or acts of God (such as fires, earthquakes or floods).

Redevelopments and acquisitions may fail to perform as expected.

Our investment strategy includes the redevelopment and acquisition of community and neighborhood shopping centers that are anchored by supermarkets, drugstores or high volume, value-oriented retailers that provide consumer necessities. The redevelopment and acquisition of properties entails risks that include the following, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to meet our obligations:

 

   

our estimate of the costs to improve, reposition or redevelop a property may prove to be too low, and, as a result, the property may fail to achieve the returns we have projected, either temporarily or for a longer time;

 

   

we may not be able to identify suitable properties to acquire or may be unable to complete the acquisition of the properties we identify;

 

   

we may not be able to integrate new developments or acquisitions into our existing operations successfully;

 

   

properties we redevelop or acquire may fail to achieve the occupancy or rental rates we project at the time we make the decision to invest, which may result in the properties’ failure to achieve the returns we projected;

 

   

our pre-acquisition evaluation of the physical condition of each new investment may not detect certain defects or identify necessary repairs until after the property is acquired, which could significantly increase our total acquisition costs; and

 

   

our investigation of a property or building prior to our acquisition, and any representations we may receive from the seller, may fail to reveal various liabilities, which could reduce the cash flow from the property or increase our acquisition cost.

Our ability to grow will be limited if we cannot obtain additional capital.

Our growth strategy includes the redevelopment of properties we already own and the acquisition of additional properties. Because we are required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our taxable income each year to continue to qualify as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes, in addition to our undistributed operating cash flow, we rely upon the availability of debt or equity capital to fund our growth, which financing may or may not be available on favorable terms or at all. The debt could include mortgage loans from third parties or the sale of debt securities. Equity capital could include our common stock or preferred stock. Additional financing, refinancing or other capital may not be available in the amounts we desire or on favorable terms. Our access to debt or equity capital depends on a number of factors, including the general state of the capital markets, the market’s perception of our growth potential, our ability to pay dividends, and our current and potential future earnings. Depending on the outcome of these factors, we could experience delay or difficulty in implementing our growth strategy on satisfactory terms, or be unable to implement this strategy.

 

19


Table of Contents

Our performance and value are subject to general risks associated with the real estate industry.

Our economic performance and the value of our real estate assets, and, consequently, the value of our investments, are subject to the risk that if our properties do not generate revenue sufficient to meet our operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, our cash flow and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders will be adversely affected. As a real estate company, we are susceptible to the following real estate industry risks:

 

   

economic downturns in the areas where our properties are located;

 

   

adverse changes in local real estate market conditions, such as oversupply or reduction in demand;

 

   

changes in tenant preferences that reduce the attractiveness of our properties to tenants;

 

   

zoning or regulatory restrictions;

 

   

decreases in market rental rates;

 

   

weather conditions that may increase energy costs and other operating expenses;

 

   

costs associated with the need to periodically repair, renovate and re-lease space; and

 

   

increases in the cost of adequate maintenance, insurance and other operating costs, including real estate taxes, associated with one or more properties, which may occur even when circumstances such as market factors and competition cause a reduction in revenue from one or more properties, although real estate taxes typically do not increase upon a reduction in such revenue.

Many real estate costs are fixed, even if income from our properties decreases.

Our financial results depend primarily on leasing space in our properties to tenants on terms favorable to us. Costs associated with real estate investment, such as real estate taxes and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced even when a property is not fully occupied, rental rates decrease, or other circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment. As a result, cash flow from the operations of our properties may be reduced if a tenant does not pay its rent or we are unable to rent our properties on favorable terms. Under those circumstances, we might not be able to enforce our rights as landlord without delays, and may incur substantial legal costs. Additionally, new properties that we may acquire or develop may not produce any significant revenue immediately, and the cash flow from existing operations may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and debt service associated with that property until the property is fully leased.

Competition may limit our ability to purchase new properties and generate sufficient income from tenants.

Numerous commercial developers and real estate companies compete with us in seeking tenants for properties and properties for acquisition. This competition may:

 

   

reduce properties available for acquisition;

 

   

increase the cost of properties available for acquisition;

 

   

reduce rents payable to us;

 

   

interfere with our ability to attract and retain tenants;

 

   

lead to increased vacancy rates at our properties; and

 

   

adversely affect our ability to minimize expenses of operation.

Retailers at our shopping center properties also face increasing competition from outlet stores, discount shopping clubs, and other forms of marketing of goods, such as direct mail, internet marketing and telemarketing. This competition may reduce percentage rents payable to us and may contribute to lease defaults and insolvency of tenants. If we are unable to continue to attract appropriate retail tenants to our properties, or to purchase new properties in our geographic markets, it could materially affect our ability to generate net income, service our debt and make distributions to our stockholders.

 

20


Table of Contents

We may be unable to sell properties when appropriate because real estate investments are illiquid.

Real estate investments generally cannot be sold quickly. In addition, there are some limitations under federal income tax laws applicable to real estate and to REITs in particular that may limit our ability to sell our assets. We may not be able to alter our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions. Our inability to respond quickly to adverse changes in the performance of our investments could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our obligations and make distributions to our stockholders.

Our insurance coverage on our properties may be inadequate.

We carry comprehensive insurance on all of our properties, including insurance for liability, fire, flood, terrorism and rental loss. These policies contain coverage limitations. We believe this coverage is of the type and amount customarily obtained for or by an owner of real property assets. We intend to obtain similar insurance coverage on subsequently acquired properties.

As a consequence of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and other significant losses incurred by the insurance industry, the availability of insurance coverage has decreased and the prices for insurance have increased. As a result, we may be unable to renew or duplicate our current insurance coverage in adequate amounts or at reasonable prices. In addition, insurance companies may no longer offer coverage against certain types of losses, such as losses due to terrorist acts and toxic mold, or, if offered, the expense of obtaining these types of insurance may not be justified. We therefore may cease to have insurance coverage against certain types of losses and/or there may be decreases in the limits of insurance available. If an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of our insured limits occurs, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a property, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the property, but still remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property. Material losses in excess of insurance proceeds may occur in the future. Also, due to inflation, changes in codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors, it may not be feasible to use insurance proceeds to replace a building after it has been damaged or destroyed. Events such as these could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to meet our obligations, including distributions to our stockholders.

Environmental laws and regulations could reduce the value or profitability of our properties.

All real property and the operations conducted on real property are subject to federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to hazardous materials, environmental protection and human health and safety. Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, we and our tenants may be required to investigate and clean up certain hazardous or toxic substances released on or in properties we own or operate, and also may be required to pay other costs relating to hazardous or toxic substances. This liability may be imposed without regard to whether we or our tenants knew about the release of these types of substances or were responsible for their release. The presence of contamination or the failure to properly remediate contamination at any of our properties may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease those properties or to borrow using those properties as collateral. The costs or liabilities could exceed the value of the affected real estate. We are not aware of any environmental condition with respect to any of our properties that management believes would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets or results of operations taken as a whole. The uses of any of our properties prior to our acquisition of the property and the building materials used at the property are among the property-specific factors that will affect how the environmental laws are applied to our properties. If we are subject to any material environmental liabilities, the liabilities could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to meet our obligations.

We cannot predict what other environmental legislation or regulations will be enacted in the future, how existing or future laws or regulations will be administered or interpreted or what environmental conditions may be found to exist on the properties in the future. Compliance with existing and new laws and regulations may require us or our tenants to spend funds to remedy environmental problems. Our tenants, like many of their competitors, have incurred, and will continue to incur, capital and operating expenditures and other costs associated with complying with these laws and regulations, which will adversely affect their potential profitability. Generally, our tenants must comply with environmental laws and meet remediation requirements. Our leases typically impose obligations on our tenants to indemnify us from any compliance costs we may incur as a result of the environmental conditions on the property caused by the tenant. If a tenant fails to or cannot comply, we could be forced to pay these costs. If not addressed, environmental conditions could impair our ability to sell or re-lease the affected properties in the future or result in lower sales prices or rent payments.

 

21


Table of Contents

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) could require us to take remedial steps with respect to newly acquired properties.

The properties, as commercial facilities, are required to comply with Title III of the ADA. Investigation of a property may reveal non-compliance with the ADA. The requirements of the ADA, or of other federal, state or local laws, also may change in the future and restrict further renovations of our properties with respect to access for disabled persons. Future compliance with the ADA may require expensive changes to the properties.

The revenue generated by our tenants could be negatively affected by various federal, state and local laws to which they are subject.

We and our tenants are subject to a wide range of federal, state and local laws and regulations, such as local licensing requirements, consumer protection laws and state and local fire, life-safety and similar requirements that affect the use of the properties. The leases typically require that each tenant comply with all regulations. Failure to comply could result in fines by governmental authorities, awards of damages to private litigants, or restrictions on the ability to conduct business on such properties. Non-compliance of this sort could reduce our revenue from a tenant, could require us to pay penalties or fines relating to any non-compliance, and could adversely affect our ability to sell or lease a property.

Failure to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes would cause us to be taxed as a corporation, which would substantially reduce funds available for payment of distributions.

We believe that we are organized and qualified as a REIT, and currently intend to operate in a manner that will allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes under the Code. However, the IRS could successfully assert that we are not qualified as such. In addition, we may not remain qualified as a REIT in the future. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions. The complexity of these provisions and of the applicable income tax regulations that have been issued under the Code by the United States Department of Treasury is greater in the case of a REIT that holds its assets in partnership form. Certain facts and circumstances not entirely within our control may affect our ability to qualify as a REIT. For example, in order to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income in any year must be derived from qualifying rents and other income. Satisfying this requirement could be difficult, for example, if defaults by tenants were to reduce the amount of income from qualifying rents. Also, we must make annual distributions to stockholders of at least 90% of our net taxable income (excluding capital gains). In addition, new legislation, new regulations, new administrative interpretations or new court decisions may significantly change the tax laws with respect to qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification. If we fail to qualify as a REIT:

 

   

we would not be allowed a deduction for dividend distributions to stockholders in computing taxable income;

 

   

we would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates;

 

   

we could be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax;

 

   

unless we are entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, we could not elect to be taxed as a REIT for four taxable years following the year during which we were disqualified;

 

   

we could be required to pay significant income taxes, which would substantially reduce the funds available for investment and for distribution to our stockholders for each year in which we failed to qualify; and

 

   

we would no longer be required by law to make any distributions to our stockholders.

We believe that the Operating Partnership is treated as a partnership, and not as a corporation, for federal income tax purposes. If the IRS were to challenge successfully the status of the Operating Partnership as a partnership for federal income tax purposes:

 

   

the Operating Partnership would be taxed as a corporation;

 

   

we would cease to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes; and

 

   

the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders would be substantially reduced.

 

22


Table of Contents

We may be required to incur additional debt to qualify as a REIT.

As a REIT, we must make annual distributions to stockholders of at least 90% of our REIT taxable income. We are subject to income tax on amounts of undistributed REIT taxable income and net capital gain. In addition, we would be subject to a 4% excise tax if we fail to distribute sufficient income to meet a minimum distribution test based on our ordinary income, capital gain and aggregate undistributed income from prior years. We intend to make distributions to stockholders to comply with the Code’s distribution provisions and to avoid federal income and excise tax. We may need to borrow funds to meet our distribution requirements because:

 

   

our income may not be matched by our related expenses at the time the income is considered received for purposes of determining taxable income; and

 

   

non-deductible capital expenditures or debt service requirements may reduce available cash but not taxable income.

In these circumstances, we might have to borrow funds on unfavorable terms and even if our management believes the market conditions make borrowing financially unattractive.

The structure of our leases may jeopardize our ability to qualify as a REIT.

If the IRS were to challenge successfully the characterization of one or more of our leases of properties as leases for federal income tax purposes, the Operating Partnership would not be treated as the owner of the related property or properties for federal income tax purposes. As a result, the Operating Partnership would lose tax depreciation and cost recovery deductions with respect to one or more of our properties, which in turn could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT. Although we will use our best efforts to structure any leasing transaction for properties acquired in the future so the lease will be characterized as a lease and the Operating Partnership will be treated as the owner of the property for federal income tax purposes, we will not seek an advance ruling from the IRS and do not intend to seek an opinion of counsel that the Operating Partnership will be treated as the owner of any leased properties for federal income tax purposes. Thus, the IRS could successfully assert that future leases will not be treated as leases for federal income tax purposes, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

To maintain our status as a REIT, we limit the amount of shares any one stockholder can own.

The Code imposes certain limitations on the ownership of the stock of a REIT. For example, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding shares of capital stock may be owned, actually or constructively, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code). To protect our REIT status, our articles of incorporation restrict beneficial and constructive ownership (defined by reference to various Code provisions) to no more than 2.5% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities by any single stockholder with the exception of members of The Saul Organization, who are restricted to beneficial and constructive ownership of no more than 39.9% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities.

The constructive ownership rules are complex. Shares of our capital stock owned, actually or constructively, by a group of related individuals and/or entities may be treated as constructively owned by one of those individuals or entities. As a result, the acquisition of less than 2.5% or 39.9% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities, by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity (or another) to own constructively more than 2.5% or 39.9% in value of the outstanding stock. If that happened, either the transfer or ownership would be void or the shares would be transferred to a charitable trust and then sold to someone who can own those shares without violating the respective ownership limit.

As of December 31, 2012, Mr. Saul and members of The Saul Organization owned common stock representing approximately 36.0% in value of all our issued and outstanding equity securities. In addition, members of The Saul Organization beneficially owned Operating Partnership units that are, in general, convertible into our common stock on a one-for-one basis. Members of the Saul Organization are permitted under our articles of incorporation to convert Operating Partnership units into shares of common stock or acquire additional shares of common stock until The Saul Organization’s actual ownership of common stock reaches 39.9% in value of our equity securities.

The Board of Directors may waive these restrictions on a case-by-case basis. The Board has authorized the Company to grant waivers to look-through entities, such as mutual funds, in which shares of equity stock owned by

 

23


Table of Contents

the entity are treated as owned proportionally by individuals who are the beneficial owners of the entity. Even though these entities may own stock in excess of the 2.5% ownership limit, no individual beneficially or constructively would own more than 2.5%. The Board of Directors has agreed to waive the ownership limit with respect to certain mutual funds and similar investors. In addition, the Board of Directors has agreed to waive the ownership limit with respect to certain bank pledgees of shares of our common stock and units issued by the Operating Partnership and held by members of The Saul Organization.

The ownership restrictions may delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of our control that might involve a premium price for our equity stock or otherwise be in the stockholders’ best interest.

The lower tax rate on dividends of regular corporations may cause investors to prefer to hold stock of regular corporations instead of REITs.

On May 28, 2003, the President signed into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (as extended by subsequent legislation, which we refer to collectively as the Acts). Under the Acts, the maximum tax rate on the long-term capital gains of non-corporate taxpayers was reduced to 15% (applicable to sales occurring from May 7, 2003 through December 31, 2012). The Acts also reduced the tax rate on “qualified dividend income” to the maximum capital gains rate and reduced the maximum tax rate on ordinary income to 35%. Because, as a REIT, we are not generally subject to tax on the portion of our REIT taxable income or capital gains distributed to our stockholders, our distributions have generally not been eligible for the lower tax rate on dividends. As a result, our ordinary REIT dividends have generally been taxed at the higher tax rates applicable to ordinary income. The lower rates scheduled to expire in 2012 under the Acts were permanently extended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (which we refer to as the 2012 Relief Act). The 2012 Relief Act, however, does not extend all of the reduced rates for high-income taxpayers. Beginning January 1, 2013, in the case of married couples filing joint returns with taxable income in excess of $450,000, heads of households with taxable income in excess of $425,000, and other individuals with taxable income in excess of $400,000, the maximum rates on ordinary income are 39.6% (as compared to 35% prior to 2013) and the maximum rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividend income are 20% (as compared to 15% prior to 2013). Estates and trusts have more compressed rate schedules. The changes enacted by the Acts (as modified by the 2012 Relief Act), or future legislation, could cause shares in non-REIT corporations to be a more attractive investment to individual investors than shares in REITs, and could have an adverse effect on the value of the Company’s common stock.

We cannot assure you we will continue to pay dividends at historical rates.

Our ability to continue to pay dividends on our common stock at historical rates or to increase our common stock dividend rate will depend on a number of factors, including, among others, the following:

 

   

our financial condition and results of future operations;

 

   

the performance of lease terms by tenants;

 

   

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 increase the dividend rate on our common stock, it could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock and other securities. Payment of dividends on our common stock may be subject to payment in full of the dividends on any preferred stock or depositary shares and payment of interest on any debt securities we may offer.

Certain tax and anti-takeover provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws may inhibit a change of our control.

Certain provisions contained in our articles of incorporation and bylaws and the Maryland General Corporation Law may discourage a third party from making a tender offer or acquisition proposal to us. If this were to happen, it could delay, deter or prevent a change in control or the removal of existing management. These provisions also may delay or prevent the stockholders from receiving a premium for their stock over then-prevailing market prices. These provisions include:

 

   

the REIT ownership limit described above;

 

24


Table of Contents
   

authorization of the issuance of our preferred stock with powers, preferences or rights to be determined by the Board of Directors;

 

   

a staggered, fixed-size Board of Directors consisting of three classes of directors;

 

   

special meetings of our stockholders may be called only by the Chairman of the Board, the president, by a majority of the directors or by stockholders possessing no less than 25% of all the votes entitled to be cast at the meeting;

 

   

the Board of Directors, without a stockholder vote, can classify or reclassify unissued shares of preferred stock;

 

   

a member of the Board of Directors may be removed only for cause upon the affirmative vote of 75% of the Board of Directors or 75% of the then-outstanding capital stock;

 

   

advance notice requirements for proposals to be presented at stockholder meetings; and

 

   

the terms of our articles of incorporation regarding business combinations and control share acquisitions.

We may amend or revise our business policies without your approval.

Our Board of Directors may amend or revise our operating policies without stockholder approval. Our investment, financing and borrowing policies and policies with respect to all other activities, such as growth, debt, capitalization and operations, are determined by the Board of Directors or those committees or officers to whom the Board of Directors has delegated that authority. The Board of Directors may amend or revise these policies at any time and from time to time at its discretion. A change in these policies could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, and the market price of our securities.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

We have received no written comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission staff regarding our periodic or current reports in the 180 days preceding December 31, 2012 that remain unresolved.

 

Item 2. Properties

Overview

As of December 31, 2012, the Company is the owner, developer and operator of a real estate portfolio composed of 58 operating properties, totaling approximately 9.5 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”), and two development parcels. The properties are located primarily in the Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Maryland metropolitan area. The portfolio is composed of 50 neighborhood and community Shopping Centers, and seven predominantly Mixed-Use Properties totaling approximately 7.9 million and 1.6 million square feet of GLA, respectively. No single property accounted for more than 6.5% of the total gross leasable area. A majority of the Shopping Centers are anchored by several major tenants. Thirty-three of the Shopping Centers were anchored by a grocery store and offer primarily day-to-day necessities and services. Two retail tenants, Giant Food (5.0%), a tenant at ten Shopping Centers and Safeway (2.7%), a tenant at eight Shopping Centers, individually accounted for more than 2.5% of the Company’s total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2012. The average rent, calculated using annualized base rent for leased space as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, excluding residential, was $17.96 per square foot and $17.31 per square foot, respectively, for the Company’s Current Portfolio Properties.

The Company expects to hold its properties as long-term investments, and it has no maximum period for retention of any investment. It plans to selectively acquire additional income-producing properties and to expand, renovate, and improve its properties when circumstances warrant. See “Item 1. Business—Operating Strategies” and “Business—Capital Policies.”

The Shopping Centers

Community and neighborhood shopping centers typically are anchored by one or more grocery stores, discount department stores or drug stores. These anchors offer day-to-day necessities rather than apparel and luxury goods and, therefore, generate consistent local traffic. By contrast, regional malls generally are larger and typically are anchored by one or more full-service department stores.

 

25


Table of Contents

In general, the Shopping Centers are seasoned community and neighborhood shopping centers located in well established, highly developed, densely populated, middle and upper income areas. The 2012 average estimated population within a one- and three-mile radius of the Shopping Centers is approximately 15,300 and 93,600, respectively. The 2012 average household income within the one- and three-mile radius of the Shopping Centers is approximately $112,400 and $114,000, respectively, compared to a national average of $68,200. Because the Shopping Centers generally are located in highly developed areas, management believes that there is little likelihood that significant numbers of competing centers will be developed in the future.

The Shopping Center properties range in size from approximately 20,000 to 575,000 square feet of GLA, with six in excess of 300,000 square feet, and average approximately 154,000 square feet. A majority of the Shopping Centers are anchored by several major tenants and other tenants offering primarily day-to-day necessities and services. Thirty-three of the Shopping Centers are anchored by a grocery store.

Lease Expirations of Shopping Center Properties

The following table sets forth, by year of expiration, the aggregate amount of base rent and leasable area for leases in place at the Shopping Centers that the Company owned as of December 31, 2012, for each of the next ten years beginning with 2013, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal options and excluding an aggregate of 522,500 square feet of unleased space, which represented 6.6% of the GLA of the Shopping Centers as of December 31, 2012.

Lease Expirations of Shopping Center Properties

 

Year of Lease Expiration

   Leasable
Area
Represented
by Expiring
Leases
    Percentage of
Leasable
Area
Represented
by Expiring
Leases
    Annual Base
Rent Under
Expiring Leases
(1)
     Percentage
of Annual
Base Rent
Under
Expiring
Leases
 

2013

     801,450  sf      10.2   $ 12,847,135         11.3

2014

     902,750        11.5     16,930,769         14.9

2015

     804,644        10.2     13,243,763         11.7

2016

     1,243,980        15.8     14,096,323         12.4

2017

     861,598        10.9     16,505,576         14.5

2018

     408,794        5.2     6,412,468         5.6

2019

     424,532        5.4     5,183,222         4.6

2020

     143,256        1.8     2,895,798         2.5

2021

     158,754        2.0     2,321,444         2.0

2022

     603,210        7.7     6,831,873         6.0

Thereafter

     1,001,666        12.7     16,352,247         14.4
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

     7,354,634  sf      93.4   $ 113,620,618         100.0
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(1) Calculated using annualized contractual base rent payable as of December 31, 2012 for the gross leasable area expiring, and excluding expenses payable by or reimbursable from tenants.

 

26


Table of Contents

The Mixed-Use Properties

Six of the seven Mixed-Use Properties are located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and contain an aggregate GLA of approximately 1.2 million square feet, comprised of 1.1 million and 131,000 square feet of office and retail space, respectively, and 244 apartments. The seventh Mixed-Use Property is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and contains GLA of 197,000 square feet. The Mixed-Use Properties represent three distinct styles of facilities, are located in differing commercial environments with distinctive demographic characteristics, and are geographically removed from one another. Accordingly, management believes that the Washington, D.C. area mixed-use properties compete for tenants in different commercial and geographic sub-markets of the metropolitan Washington, D.C. market and do not compete with one another.

601 Pennsylvania Avenue is a nine-story, 227,000 square foot Class A office building (with a small amount of street level retail space) built in 1986 and located in a prime location in downtown Washington, D.C. Washington Square at Old Town is a 235,000 square foot Class A mixed-use office/retail complex completed in 2000 and located on a two-acre site along Alexandria’s main street, North Washington Street, in historic Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. Avenel Business Park is a 391,000 square foot research park located in the suburban Maryland, I-270 biotech corridor. The business park consists of twelve one-story buildings built in six phases, completed between 1981 and 2000. Clarendon Center is a recently constructed mixed-use Class A commercial and residential project located at the Clarendon Metro station in Arlington County, Virginia. This development contains 171,500 square feet of office, 42,000 square feet of retail and 244 apartment units.

Crosstown Business Center is a 197,000 square foot flex office/warehouse property located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The property is located in close proximity to Tulsa’s international airport and major roadways and has attracted tenants requiring light industrial and distribution facilities.

The economic downturn of the last five years has negatively affected retail and office property operating performance. While the impact in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, where the majority of the Company’s properties are located, has generally been less severe, issues facing the Federal government relating to spending cuts and budget policies cloud our current economic recovery with uncertainty. Overall operating trends have been encouraging, but both retail and office real estate fundamentals continue to be vulnerable to adverse developments in the housing and public and private sector job markets.

The Company recently completed negotiation of lease termination agreements with the tenants of Van Ness Square and expects the building will be vacant on or about April 30, 2013. Costs incurred related to those termination arrangements are being amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the remaining terms of the leases, are included in “Predevelopment Expenses” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, totaled $2.7 million in 2012 and are expected to total approximately $3.3 million over the first two quarters of 2013. The Company intends to develop a primarily residential project with street-level retail and will recognize additional predevelopment expenses in future periods when the existing improvements of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue are demolished, the timing of which is uncertain and dependent on the issuance of various governmental approvals and permits.

Lease Expirations of Mixed-Use Properties

The following table sets forth, by year of expiration, the aggregate amount of base rent and leasable area for commercial leases in place at the Mixed-Use Properties that the Company owned as of December 31, 2012, for each of the next ten years beginning with 2013, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal options and excluding an aggregate of 245,100 square feet of unleased office and retail space, which represented 17.2% of the GLA of the commercial space within the Mixed-Use Properties as of December 31, 2012.

 

27


Table of Contents

Commercial Lease Expirations of Mixed-Use Properties

 

Year of Lease Expiration

   Leasable
Area
Represented
by Expiring
Leases
    Percentage of
Leasable
Area
Represented
by Expiring
Leases
    Annual Base
Rent Under
Expiring
Leases (1)
     Percentage
of Annual
Base Rent
Under
Expiring
Leases
 

2013

     176,835  sf      12.4   $ 3,909,384         10.9

2014

     234,604        16.5     9,680,872         27.1

2015

     63,056        4.4     1,659,700         4.6

2016

     141,045        9.9     3,293,279         9.2

2017

     115,077        8.1     1,983,124         5.6

2018

     44,491        3.1     1,470,047         4.1

2019

     38,842        2.7     1,747,461         4.9

2020

     98,829        6.9     1,463,617         4.1

2021

     75,417        5.3     3,888,164         10.9

2022

     75,559        5.3     2,484,204         7.0

Thereafter

     114,615        8.1     4,134,620         11.6
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

     1,178,370  sf      82.8   $ 35,714,472         100.0
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(1) Calculated using annualized contractual base rent payable as of December 31, 2012 for the gross leasable area expiring, and excluding expenses payable by or reimbursable from tenants.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 244 apartment leases, 233 of which will expire in 2013, nine of which will expire in 2014, and two of which will expire in 2015. Annual base rent due under these leases is $7.1 million, $241,000, and $72,000 for the years ending December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.

 

28


Table of Contents

Current Portfolio Properties

The following table sets forth, at the dates indicated, certain information regarding the Current Portfolio Properties:

Saul Centers, Inc.

Schedule of Current Portfolio Properties

December 31, 2012

 

Property

  

Location

   Leasable
Area
(Square

Feet)
     Year Acquired
or Developed

(Renovated)
   Land
Area

(Acres)
     Percentage Leased (1)    

Anchor / Significant Tenants

               Dec-12     Dec-11    

Shopping Centers

                  

Ashburn Village

   Ashburn, VA      221,273       1994/00/01/02/06      26.4         92     88   Giant Food, Hallmark Cards, McDonalds, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, Kinder Care

Ashland Square Phase I

   Dumfries, VA      23,120       2007      2.0         100     100   Capital One Bank, CVS Pharmacy, All American Steakhouse

Beacon Center

   Alexandria, VA      358,015       1972 (1993/99/07)      32.3         100     100   Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, Giant Food, Office Depot, Outback Steakhouse, Marshalls, Hancock Fabrics, Party Depot, Panera Bread, TGI Fridays, Starbucks, Famous Dave’s, Chipotle

BJ’s Wholesale Club

   Alexandria, VA      115,660       2008      9.6         100     100   BJ’s Wholesale Club

Boca Valley Plaza

   Boca Raton, FL      121,269       2004      12.7         87     80   Publix, Wachovia Bank, Jaco Hybrid Training, Subway

Boulevard

   Fairfax, VA      49,140       1994 (1999/09)      5.0         100     100   Panera Bread, Party City, Petco

Briggs Chaney MarketPlace

   Silver Spring, MD      194,347       2004      18.2         99     99   Safeway, Ross Dress For Less, Family Dollar, Advance Auto. McDonalds, Wendy’s, Chuck E Cheese’s

Broadlands Village

   Ashburn, VA      159,734       2003/4/6      24.0         85     91   Safeway, The All American Steakhouse, Bonefish Grill, Starbucks, LA Boxing

Countryside Marketplace

   Sterling, VA      141,696       2004      16.0         92     90   Safeway, CVS Pharmacy, Starbucks, McDonalds

Cranberry Square

   Westminster, MD      141,569       2011      18.9         92     91   Giant Food, Staples, Party City, Pier 1 Imports, Jos A Banks, Wendy’s’, Giant Gas

Cruse MarketPlace

   Cumming, GA      78,686       2004      10.6         84     88   Publix, Subway

Flagship Center

   Rockville, MD      21,500       1972, 1989      0.5         100     100   Capital One Bank

French Market

   Oklahoma City, OK      244,724       1974 (1984/98)      13.8         87     94   Burlington Coat Factory, Bed Bath & Beyond, Staples, Lakeshore Learning Center, Alfred Angelo, Dollar Tree

Germantown

   Germantown, MD      27,241       1992      2.7         81     82   Jiffy Lube

Giant

   Milford Mill, MD      70,040       1972 (1990)      5.0         94     94   Giant Food

The Glen

   Woodbridge, VA      136,440       1994 (2005)      14.7         96     96   Safeway Marketplace, The All American Steakhouse, Panera Bread, Five Guys, Chipotle

Great Eastern

   District Heights, MD      255,398       1972 (1995)      31.9         75     98   Fresh World, Pep Boys, Big Lots, No Excuse Workout

Great Falls Center

   Great Falls, VA      91,666       2008      11.0         98     95   Safeway, CVS Pharmacy, Capital One Bank, Starbucks, Subway, Walpole Woodworkers

Hampshire Langley

   Takoma Park, MD      131,700       1972 (1979)      9.9         100     98   Expo E Mart, Radio Shack, Starbucks, Footlocker, Chuck E. Cheese’s

Hunt Club Corners

   Apopka, FL      101,522       2006      13.1         94     94   Publix, Walgreens, Radio Shack, Hallmark

Jamestown Place

   Altamonte Springs, FL      96,372       2005      10.9         93     90   Publix, Carrabas Italian Grill

Kentlands Square I

   Gaithersburg, MD      114,381       2002      11.5         100     100   Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, Chipotle

Kentlands Square II

   Gaithersburg, MD      240,683       2011      22.3         96     100   Giant Food, Kmart, Party City, Panera Bread, Not Your Average Joe’s, Payless Shoes, Hallmark, Chick-Fil-A, Coal Fire Pizza

Kentlands Place

   Gaithersburg, MD      40,648       2005      3.4         100     97   Elizabeth Arden’s Red Door Salon, Bonefish Grill, Subway

 

29


Table of Contents

Saul Centers, Inc.

Schedule of Current Portfolio Properties

December 31, 2012

 

Property

  

Location

   Leasable
Area
(Square

Feet)
     Year Acquired
or Developed

(Renovated)
   Land
Area

(Acres)
     Percentage Leased (1)    

Anchor / Significant Tenants

               Dec-12     Dec-11    

Shopping Centers (continued)

                  

Lansdowne Town Center

   Leesburg, VA      189,352       2006      23.4         93     96   Harris Teeter, CVS Pharmacy, Panera Bread, Not Your Average Joes, Starbucks, Velocity 5, Capital One Bank

Leesburg Pike Plaza

   Baileys Crossroads, VA      97,752       1966 (1982/95)      9.4         100     95   CVS Pharmacy, Party Depot, FedEx Kinko’s, Radio Shack, Verizon Wireless

Lumberton Plaza

   Lumberton, NJ      193,044       1975 (1992/96)      23.3         93     76   Bottom Dollar Food, Rite Aid, Virtua Health Center, Radio Shack, Family Dollar, Retro Fitness, Big Lots

Metro Pike Center

   Rockville, MD      67,488       2010      4.6         84     76   McDonalds, Jennifer Convertibles, Fed ExKinko’s, Dunkin Donuts, Seven Eleven

Shops at Monocacy

   Frederick, MD      109,144       2004      13.0         92     91   Giant Food, Giant Gas Station, Panera Bread, Starbucks, Five Guys, California Tortilla

Northrock

   Warrenton, VA      99,789       2009      15.4         81     81   Harris Teeter, Longhorn Steakhouse, Ledo’s Pizza, Capital One Bank

Olde Forte Village

   Ft. Washington, MD      143,577       2003      16.0         96     94   Safeway, Advance Auto, Dollar Tree, Radio Shack, McDonalds, Wendy’s, Ledo’s Pizza

Olney

   Olney, MD      53,765       1975 (1990)      3.7         94     96   Rite Aid, Olney Grill, Ledo’s Pizza, Popeye’s

Orchard Park

   Dunwoody, GA      87,885       2007      10.5         92     90   Kroger, GNC, Subway

Palm Springs Center

   Altamonte Springs, FL      126,446       2005      12.0         98     94   Albertson’s, Office Depot, Mimi’s Cafe, Toojay’s Deli

Ravenwood

   Baltimore, MD      93,328       1972 (2006)      8.0         91     93   Giant Food, Starbucks

11503 Rockville Pike/5541 Nicholson Lane

   Rockville, MD      40,249       2010/2012      3.6         70     100   Staples, Casual Male

1500 Rockville Pike

   Rockville, MD      52,681       2012      6.7         91     na      Party City

Seabreeze Plaza

   Palm Harbor, FL      146,673       2005      18.4         97     95   Publix, Earth Origins Health Food, Petco, Planet Fitness, Vision Works

Marketplace at Sea Colony

   Bethany Beach, DE      21,677       2008      5.1         90     95   Seacoast Realty, Armand’s Pizza, Candy Kitchen, Turquoise Restaurant

Seven Corners

   Falls Church, VA      574,831       1973 (1994-7/07)      31.6         100     91   The Home Depot, Shoppers Food & Pharmacy, Michaels Arts & Crafts, Barnes & Noble, Ross Dress For Less, Ski Chalet, G Street Fabrics, Off-Broadway Shoes, JoAnn Fabrics, Dress Barn, Starbucks, Dogfishhead Ale House, Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Chipotle, Wendy’s, Burlington Coat Factory

Severna Park Marketplace

   Severna Park, MD      254,174       2011      20.6         100     100   Giant Food, Kohl’s, Office Depot, A.C. Moore, Goodyear, Chipotle, McDonalds, Jos. A Banks, Radio Shack, Atlanta Bread Company, Five Guys, Unleashed

Shops at Fairfax

   Fairfax, VA      68,762       1975 (1993/99)      6.7         100     95   Super H Mart

Smallwood Village Center

   Waldorf, MD      173,281       2006      25.1         70     68   Safeway, CVS Pharmacy, Family Dollar    

Southdale

   Glen Burnie, MD      484,115       1972 (1986)      39.6         93     83   The Home Depot, Food Valu, Michaels Arts & Crafts, Marshalls, PetSmart, Value City Furniture, Athletic Warehouse, Starbucks, Gallo Clothing, Office Depot

Southside Plaza

   Richmond, VA      371,761       1972      32.8         92     92   Community Supermarket, Maxway, Citi Trends, City of Richmond, McDonalds, Burger King, Kool Smiles, Anna’s Linens

South Dekalb Plaza

   Atlanta, GA      163,418       1976      14.6         88     88   Maxway, Big Lots, Emory Clinic, Deal$(Dollar Tree)

Thruway

   Winston-Salem, NC      362,547       1972 (1997)      30.5         93     87   Harris Teeter, Trader Joe’s, Stein Mart, Talbots, Hanes Brands, Jos. A Banks, Bonefish Grill, Chico’s, Ann Taylor Loft, Coldwater Creek, Rite Aid, FedEx/Kinkos, Plow & Hearth, New Balance, Aveda Salon, Christies Hallmark, Carter’s Kids, McDonalds, Chick-Fil-A, Wells Fargo Bank, Francesca’s Collections, Great Outdoor Provision Company, White House / Black Market

Village Center

   Centreville, VA      146,309       1990      17.2         99     90   Giant Food, Tuesday Morning, Starbucks, McDonalds, Pet Supplies Plus

Westview Village

   Frederick, MD      97,611       2009      10.4         85     57   Mimi’s Cafe, Sleepy’s, Music & Arts, Firehouse Subs, CiCi’s Pizza, Café Rio, Regus

White Oak

   Silver Spring, MD      480,676       1972 (1993)      28.5         100     99   Giant Food, Sears, Walgreens, Radio Shack, Boston Market, Sarku
     

 

 

       

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   
   Total Shopping Centers      7,877,159            757.1         93.4     91.6  
     

 

 

       

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

30


Table of Contents

Saul Centers, Inc.

Schedule of Current Portfolio Properties

December 31, 2012

 

Property

  

Location

   Leasable
Area
(Square

Feet)
     Year
Acquired  or
Developed

(Renovated)
   Land
Area

(Acres)
     Percentage Leased (1)    

Anchor / Significant Tenants

               Dec-12     Dec-11    

Mixed-Use Properties

                  

Avenel Business Park

   Gaithersburg, MD      390,683       1981-2000      37.1         83     80   General Services Administration, SeraCare Life Sciences, Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc, Direct Buy

Clarendon Center-North Block

   Arlington, VA      108,387       2010      0.6         96     86   Pete’s New Haven Pizza, AT&T, BGR, Airline Reporting Corporation, Personnel Decisions

Clarendon Center-South Block

   Arlington, VA      104,894       2010      1.3         44     68   Trader Joe’s, Circa, Burke Herbert Bank, Cannon Design, Winston Partners, Keppler Speakers Bureau, ECG Management Co., Leadership Institute, Capital One

Clarendon Center Residential-South Block (244 units)

        188,671       2010         83     86  

Crosstown Business Center

   Tulsa, OK      197,127       1975 (2000)      22.4         77     87   Compass Group, Roxtec, Keystone Automotive, Freedom Express, Direct TV, Auto Panels Plus

601 Pennsylvania Ave.

   Washington, DC      226,604       1973 (1986)      1.0         95     95   National Gallery of Art, American Assn. of Health Plans, Credit Union National Assn., Southern Company, HQ Global, Freedom Forum, Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn., Capital Grille

Van Ness Square

   Washington, DC      159,411       1973 (1990)      1.4         44     67   Office Depot, Pier One

Washington Square

   Alexandria, VA      236,376       1975 (2000)      2.0         89     92   Vanderweil Engineering, AECOM, Freeman Decorating Services, Tauri Group, Cooper Carry, Bank of America, Marketing General, Alexandria Economic Development, Trader Joe’s, Fed Ex/Kinko’s, Talbots, Teaism Restaurant, Starbucks, The Business Bank
     

 

 

       

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   
   Total Mixed-Use Properties      1,612,153            65.8         82.8 %(2)      85.8  
     

 

 

       

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   
   Total Portfolio      9,489,312            822.9         91.7 %(2)      90.7 %   
     

 

 

       

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

Land and Development Parcels

                  

Ashland Square Phase II

   Manassas, VA       2004      17.3        
 
Marketing to grocers and other retail businesses, with a
development timetable yet to be finalized.

New Market

   New Market, MD       2005      35.5        
 
 
Parcel will accommodate retail development in excess of
120,000 SF near I-70, east of Frederick, Maryland. A
development timetable has not been determined.
           

 

 

        
   Total Development Properties            52.8          
           

 

 

        

 

(1) Percentage leased is a percentage of rentable square feet leased for commercial space and a percentage of units leased for apartments.
(2) Total percentage leased is for commercial space only.

 

 

31


Table of Contents

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of business, the Company is involved in litigation, including litigation arising out of the collection of rents, the enforcement or defense of the priority of its security interests, and the continued development and marketing of certain of its real estate properties. In the opinion of management, litigation that is currently pending should not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition or future operations of the Company.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Shares of Saul Centers common stock are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “BFS”. The composite high and low closing sale prices for the Company’s shares of common stock were reported by the New York Stock Exchange for each quarter of 2012 and 2011 as follows:

 

Period

   Share Price  
     High      Low  

October 1, 2012 – December 31, 2012

   $ 45.34       $ 40.81   

July 1, 2012 – September 30, 2012

   $ 45.83       $ 40.59   

April 1, 2012 – June 30, 2012

   $ 43.32       $ 39.01   

January 1, 2012– March 31, 2012

   $ 40.62       $ 33.44   

October 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011

   $ 36.66       $ 32.26   

July 1, 2011 – September 30, 2011

   $ 41.72       $ 31.54   

April 1, 2011 – June 30, 2011

   $ 44.29       $ 37.16   

January 1, 2011 – March 31, 2011

   $ 48.40       $ 42.30   

On March 1, 2013, the closing price was $44.34 per share.

Holders

The approximate number of holders of record of the common stock was 220 as of March 1, 2013.

Dividends and Distributions

Under the Code, REITs are subject to numerous organizational and operating requirements, including the requirement to distribute at least 90% of REIT taxable income. The Company distributed amounts greater than the required amount in 2012 and 2011. Distributions by the Company to common stockholders and holders of limited partnership units in the Operating Partnership were $38.1 million and $35.4 million in 2012 and 2011, respectively. Distributions to preferred stockholders were $15.1 million in both 2012 and 2011. See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, No. 14, “Distributions.” The Company may or may not elect to distribute in excess of 90% of REIT taxable income in future years.

The Company’s estimate of cash flow available for distributions is believed to be based on reasonable assumptions and represents a reasonable basis for setting distributions. However, the actual results of operations of the Company will be affected by a variety of factors, including but not limited to actual rental revenue, operating expenses of the Company, interest expense, general economic conditions, federal, state and local taxes (if any), unanticipated capital expenditures, the adequacy of reserves and preferred dividends. While the Company intends to

 

32


Table of Contents

continue paying regular quarterly distributions, any future payments will be determined solely by the Board of Directors and will depend on a number of factors, including cash flow of the Company, its financial condition and capital requirements, the annual distribution amounts required to maintain its status as a REIT under the Code, and such other factors as the Board of Directors deems relevant. We are obligated to pay regular quarterly distributions to holders of depositary shares of Series A preferred stock, 60% of which was redeemed on March 2, 2013, at the rate of $2.00 per annum per depositary share, to holders of depositary shares of Series B preferred stock at the rate of $2.25 per annum per depositary share through its March 15, 2013 redemption, and to holders of depositary shares of Series C preferred stock at the rate of $1.71875 per annum per depositary share beginning February 12, 2013, prior to distributions on the common stock.

The Company paid four quarterly distributions totaling $1.44 per common share during each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012. The annual distribution amounts paid by the Company exceed the distribution amounts required for tax purposes. Distributions to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for federal income tax purposes generally will be taxable to a stockholder as ordinary dividend income. Distributions in excess of current and accumulated earnings and profits will be treated as a nontaxable reduction of the stockholder’s basis in such stockholder’s shares, to the extent thereof, and thereafter as taxable gain. Distributions that are treated as a reduction of the stockholder’s basis in its shares will have the effect of deferring taxation until the sale of the stockholder’s shares. Of the $1.44 per common share dividend paid in 2012, 66% was treated as a taxable dividend and 34% was treated as a return of capital. Of the $1.44 per common share dividend paid in 2011, 50% was treated as a taxable dividend income and 50% was treated as a return of capital. Of the $1.44 per common share dividend paid in 2010, 70.0% was taxable dividend income and 30.0% was considered return of capital. No assurance can be given regarding what portion, if any, of distributions in 2013 or subsequent years will constitute a return of capital for federal income tax purposes. All of the preferred stock dividends paid are treated as ordinary dividend income.

Acquisition of Equity Securities by The Saul Organization

Through participation in the Company’s Dividend Reinvestment Plan, during the quarter ended December 31, 2012, (a) B. Francis Saul II, the Company’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, (b) his spouse, (c) B. F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust and B. F. Saul Company, for each of which Mr. Saul II serves as either President or Chairman, and (d) B. F. Saul Property Company, Avenel Executive Park Phase II, LLC and Dearborn, L.L.C., which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of either B. F. Saul Company or B. F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust, acquired an aggregate of 118,513 shares of common stock at an average price of $42.23 per share, in respect of the October 31, 2012 dividend distribution.

No shares were acquired pursuant to a publicly announced plan or program.

Performance Graph

Rules promulgated under the Exchange Act require the Company to present a graph comparing the cumulative total stockholder return on its Common Stock with the cumulative total stockholder return of (i) a broad equity market index, and (ii) a published industry index or peer group. The following graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return of the Company’s common stock, based on the market price of the common stock and assuming reinvestment of dividends, with the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trust Equity Index (“NAREIT Equity”), the S&P 500 Index (“S&P 500”) and the Russell 2000 Index (“Russell 2000”). The graph assumes the investment of $100 on January 1, 2008.

 

33


Table of Contents

 

LOGO

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The selected financial data of the Company contained herein has been derived from the consolidated financial statements of the Company. The data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report.

 

34


Table of Contents

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

(In thousands, except per share data)

 

     Years Ended December 31,  
     2012     2011     2010     2009     2008  

Operating Data:

          

Total revenue

   $ 190,092      $ 173,878      $ 163,108      $ 160,539      $ 159,775   

Total operating expenses

     153,867        139,908        119,121        115,177        113,149   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating income

     36,225        33,970        43,987        45,362        46,626   

Non-operating income:

          

Acquisition related costs

     (1,129     (2,534     (1,179     —          —     

Change in fair value of derivatives

     36        (1,332     —          —          —     

Loss on early extinguishment of debt

     —          —          (5,405     (2,210     —     

Gain on casualty settlements

     219        245        2,475        329        1,301   

Discontinued operations

     4,429        (55     3,307        (251     (261
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income

     39,780        30,294        43,185        43,230        47,666   

Income attributable to the noncontrolling interests

     (6,406     (3,561     (6,422     (6,517     (7,972
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income attributable to Saul Centers, Inc.

     33,374        26,733        36,763        36,713        39,694   

Preferred dividends

     (15,140     (15,140     (15,140     (15,140     (13,453
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income available to common stockholders

   $ 18,234      $ 11,593      $ 21,623      $ 21,573      $ 26,241   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Per Share Data (diluted):

          

Net income available to common stockholders

   $ 0.93      $ 0.61      $ 1.18      $ 1.20      $ 1.46   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Basic and Diluted Shares Outstanding:

          

Weighted average common shares - basic

     19,649        18,888        18,267        17,904        17,816   

Effect of dilutive options

     51        61        110        39        145   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average common shares - diluted

     19,700        18,949        18,377        17,943        17,961   

Weighted average convertible limited partnership units

     6,914        5,791        5,416        5,416        5,416   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average common shares and fully converted limited partnership units - diluted

     26,614        24,740        23,793        23,359        23,377   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Dividends Paid:

          

Cash dividends to common stockholders (1)

   $ 28,134      $ 27,062      $ 26,186      $ 27,358      $ 33,450   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Cash dividends per share

   $ 1.44      $ 1.44      $ 1.44      $ 1.50      $ 1.88   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance Sheet Data:

          

Real estate investments (net of accumulated depreciation)

   $ 1,112,763      $ 1,091,448      $ 927,250      $ 834,914      $ 774,718   

Total assets

     1,207,309        1,192,569        1,013,888        925,574        853,873   

Total debt, including accrued interest

     831,121        835,459        713,997        639,405        570,184   

Preferred stock

     179,328        179,328        179,328        179,328        179,328   

Total stockholders’ equity

     307,289        293,206        239,813        226,063        227,887   

Other Data

          

Cash flow provided by (used in):

          

Operating activities

   $ 78,423      $ 55,669      $ 62,887      $ 68,344      $ 73,101   

Investing activities

   $ (46,873   $ (201,500   $ (98,239   $ (80,469   $ (115,070

Financing activities

   $ (31,740   $ 145,186      $ 27,713      $ 19,726      $ 49,210   

Funds from operations (2):

          

Net income

   $ 39,780      $ 30,294      $ 43,185      $ 43,230      $ 47,666   

Real property depreciation and amortization

     40,112        35,298        28,379        28,061        29,570   

Real property depreciation - discontinued operations

     77        102        198        203        213   

Gain on property dispositions and casualty settlements

     (4,729     (245     (6,066     (329     (1,301
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Funds from operations

     75,240        65,449        65,696        71,165        76,148   

Preferred dividends

     (15,140     (15,140     (15,140     (15,140     (13,453
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Funds from operations available to common shareholders

   $ 60,100      $ 50,309      $ 50,556      $ 56,025      $ 62,695   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

1) During 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008, shareholders reinvested $23,124, $19,751, $16,696, $4,136, and $3,941, respectively, in newly issued common stock through the Company’s dividend reinvestment plan.
2) Funds from operations (FFO) is a non-GAAP financial measure and is defined in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Funds From Operations.”

 

35


Table of Contents

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) begins with the Company’s primary business strategy to give the reader an overview of the goals of the Company’s business. This is followed by a discussion of the critical accounting policies that the Company believes are important to understanding the assumptions and judgments incorporated in the Company’s reported financial results. The next section, beginning on page 40, discusses the Company’s results of operations for the past two years. Beginning on page 44, the Company provides an analysis of its liquidity and capital resources, including discussions of its cash flows, debt arrangements, sources of capital and financial commitments. Finally, on page 55, the Company discusses funds from operations, or FFO, which is a non-GAAP financial measure of performance of an equity REIT used by the REIT industry.

The MD&A should be read in conjunction with the other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto appearing in Item 8 of this report. Historical results set forth in Selected Financial Information, the Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplemental Data included in Item 6 and Item 8 and this section should not be taken as indicative of the Company’s future operations.

Overview

The Company’s principal business activity is the ownership, management and development of income-producing properties. The Company’s long-term objectives are to increase cash flow from operations and to maximize capital appreciation of its real estate investments.

The Company’s primary operating strategy is to focus on its community and neighborhood shopping center business and to operate its properties to achieve both cash flow growth and capital appreciation. Management believes there is potential for long term growth in cash flow as existing leases for space in the Shopping Centers and Mixed-Use properties expire and are renewed, or newly available or vacant space is leased. The Company intends to renegotiate leases where possible and seek new tenants for available space in order to optimize the mix of uses to improve foot traffic through the Shopping Centers. As leases expire, management expects to revise rental rates, lease terms and conditions, relocate existing tenants, reconfigure tenant spaces and introduce new tenants with the goals of increasing occupancy, improving overall retail sales, and ultimately increasing cash flow as economic conditions improve. In those circumstances in which leases are not otherwise expiring, management selectively attempts to increase cash flow through a variety of means, or in connection with renovations or relocations, recapturing leases with below market rents and re-leasing at market rates, as well as replacing financially troubled tenants. When possible, management also will seek to include scheduled increases in base rent, as well as percentage rental provisions, in its leases.

The Company’s redevelopment and renovation objective is to selectively and opportunistically redevelop and renovate its properties, by replacing leases that have below market rents with strong, traffic-generating anchor stores such as supermarkets and drug stores, as well as other desirable local, regional and national tenants. The Company’s strategy remains focused on continuing the operating performance and internal growth of its existing Shopping Centers, while enhancing this growth with selective retail redevelopments and renovations.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Company acquired two properties along the Rockville Pike corridor of Rockville, Maryland, one of which is adjacent to one of the Company’s existing properties. In December 2012, the Company purchased for $23.0 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 52,700 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike near the Twinbrook Metro Station. The property, which was 90.5% leased to multiple tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 745,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $12.2 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,100 square feet of mixed-use space, which was 40.5% leased to multiple tenants, located on the east side of Rockville Pike and adjacent to 11503 Rockville Pike, which was purchased in 2010. The property, when combined with 11503 Rockville Pike, will provide zoning for up to 331,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space for a total development potential of up to 622,000 square feet. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

 

36


Table of Contents

In 2011, the Company acquired three Giant Food-anchored shopping centers located in the Maryland suburbs of the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan area. The three centers, Kentlands Square II, Severna Park MarketPlace and Cranberry Square, total 636,000 square feet of leasable area, of which 98% is leased. The $170.9 million purchase price, including acquisition costs, was financed with (1) $60.0 million from two bridge loans secured by Kentlands Square II and Cranberry Square, each with an initial term of six months and accruing interest, payable monthly, at a rate equal to LIBOR plus 175 basis points; (2) a $38.0 million non-recourse permanent loan secured by Severna Park MarketPlace; (3) approximately $17.1 million in cash and borrowings from the Company’s revolving credit facility; and (4) $55.8 million from the issuance of equity to a related party.

In light of the limited amount of quality properties for sale and the escalated pricing of properties that the Company has been presented with or has inquired about over the past year, management believes acquisition opportunities for investment in existing and new Shopping Center and Mixed-Use Properties in the near future is uncertain. Because of its conservative capital structure, including its cash and capacity under its revolving credit facility, management believes that the Company is positioned to take advantage of additional investment opportunities as attractive properties are located and market conditions improve. (See “Item 1. Business - Capital Policies”). It is management’s view that several of the sub-markets in which the Company operates have, or are expected to have in the future, attractive supply/demand characteristics. The Company will continue to evaluate acquisition, development and redevelopment as integral parts of its overall business plan.

Although there has been a downturn in the national real estate market, to date, the effects on the office and retail markets in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area, where the majority of the Company’s properties are located, have generally been less severe. However, continued economic stress in the local economies where the Company’s properties are located may lead to increased tenant bankruptcies, increased vacancies and decreased rental rates.

While overall consumer confidence appears to have improved, retailers continue to be cautious about capital allocation when implementing store expansion. Vacancies continue to remain elevated compared to pre-recession levels; however, the Company’s overall leasing percentage on a comparative same property basis, which excludes the impact of properties not in operation for the entirety of the comparable periods, at December 31, 2012 increased to 91.9% from 90.7% at December 31, 2011, an increase in leased space of approximately 107,000 square feet, primarily caused by the leasing of a portion of the space vacated by major shopping center tenants in 2011.

Because of the Company’s conservative capital structure, its liquidity has not been significantly affected by the recent turmoil in the credit markets. The Company maintains a ratio of total debt to total asset value of under 50%, which allows the Company to obtain additional secured borrowings if necessary. As of December 31, 2012, amortizing fixed-rate mortgage debt with staggered maturities from 2013 to 2027 represented approximately 93.6% of the Company’s notes payable, thus minimizing refinancing risk. The Company has two fixed-rate debt maturities scheduled for 2013, one of which was refinanced on February 27, 2013. Management currently expects to repay in full the $6.8 million remaining balance on the second loan when it matures in July 2013. The Company’s variable-rate debt consists of a $14.9 million bank term loan for the Northrock shopping center, which was refinanced on February 27, 2013, and $38.0 million outstanding under its line of credit. As of December 31, 2012, the Company has loan availability of approximately $136.8 million under its $175.0 million unsecured revolving line of credit.

Although it is management’s present intention to concentrate future acquisition and development activities on community and neighborhood shopping centers and office properties in the Washington, D.C./Baltimore metropolitan area and the southeastern region of the United States, the Company may, in the future, also acquire other types of real estate in other areas of the country as opportunities present themselves. While the Company may diversify in terms of property locations, size and market, the Company does not set any limit on the amount or percentage of Company assets that may be invested in any one property or any one geographic area.

Critical Accounting Policies

The Company’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”), which requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reporting of financial position and results of operations. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this report. The Company has identified the following policies that, due to estimates and assumptions inherent in those policies, involve a relatively high degree of judgment and complexity.

 

37


Table of Contents

Real Estate Investments

Real estate investment properties are stated at historic cost less depreciation. Although the Company intends to own its real estate investment properties over a long term, from time to time it will evaluate its market position, market conditions, and other factors and may elect to sell properties that do not conform to the Company’s investment profile. Management believes that the Company’s real estate assets have generally appreciated in value since their acquisition or development and, accordingly, the aggregate current value exceeds their aggregate net book value and also exceeds the value of the Company’s liabilities as reported in the financial statements. Because the financial statements are prepared in conformity with GAAP, they do not report the current value of the Company’s real estate investment properties.

The Company purchases real estate investment properties from time to time and records assets acquired and liabilities assumed, including land, buildings, and intangibles related to in-place leases and customer relationships based on their fair values. The fair value of buildings generally is determined as if the buildings were vacant upon acquisition and subsequently leased at market rental rates and considers the present value of all cash flows expected to be generated by the property including an initial lease up period. The Company determines the fair value of above and below market intangibles associated with in-place leases by assessing the net effective rent and remaining term of the in-place lease relative to market terms for similar leases at acquisition taking into consideration the remaining contractual lease period, renewal periods, and the likelihood of the tenant exercising its renewal options. The fair value of a below market lease component is recorded as deferred income and accreted as additional lease revenue over the remaining contractual lease period and any renewal option periods included in the valuation analysis. The fair value of above market lease intangibles is recorded as a deferred asset and is amortized as a reduction of lease revenue over the remaining contractual lease term. The Company determines the fair value of at-market in-place leases considering the cost of acquiring similar leases, the foregone rents associated with the lease-up period and carrying costs associated with the lease-up period. Intangible assets associated with at-market in-place leases are amortized as additional expense over the remaining contractual lease term. To the extent customer relationship intangibles are present in an acquisition, the fair value of the intangibles are amortized over the life of the customer relationship. From time to time the Company may purchase a property for future development purposes. The property may be improved with an existing structure that would be demolished as part of the development. In such cases, the fair value of the building may be determined based only on existing leases and not include estimated cash flows related to future leases.

If there is an event or change in circumstance that indicates a potential impairment in the value of a real estate investment property, the Company prepares an analysis to determine whether the carrying value of the real estate investment property exceeds its estimated fair value. The Company considers both quantitative and qualitative factors in identifying impairment indicators including recurring operating losses, significant decreases in occupancy, and significant adverse changes in legal factors and business climate. If impairment indicators are present, the Company compares the projected cash flows of the property over its remaining useful life, on an undiscounted basis, to the carrying value of that property. The Company assesses its undiscounted projected cash flows based upon estimated capitalization rates, historic operating results and market conditions that may affect the property. If the carrying value is greater than the undiscounted projected cash flows, the Company would recognize an impairment loss equivalent to an amount required to adjust the carrying amount to its then estimated fair value. The fair value of any property is sensitive to the actual results of any of the aforementioned estimated factors, either individually or taken as a whole. Should the actual results differ from management’s projections, the valuation could be negatively or positively affected.

When incurred, the Company capitalizes the cost of improvements that extend the useful life of property and equipment. All repair and maintenance expenditures are expensed when incurred. Leasehold improvements expenditures are capitalized when certain criteria are met, including when we supervise construction and will own the improvement. Tenant improvements we own are depreciated over the life of the respective lease or the estimated useful life of the improvements, whichever is shorter.

Interest, real estate taxes, development-related salary costs and other carrying costs are capitalized on projects under construction. Once construction is substantially complete and the assets are placed in service, rental income, direct operating expenses, and depreciation associated with such properties are included in current operations. Commercial development projects are substantially complete and available for occupancy upon completion of tenant improvements, but no later than one year from the cessation of major construction activity. Residential development projects are considered substantially complete and available for occupancy upon receipt of

 

38


Table of Contents

the certificate of occupancy from the appropriate licensing authority. Substantially completed portions of a project are accounted for as separate projects. Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method and estimated useful lives of generally between 35 and 50 years for base buildings, or a shorter period if management determines that the building has a shorter useful life, and up to 20 years for certain other improvements.

Deferred Leasing Costs

Certain initial direct costs incurred by the Company in negotiating and consummating successful commercial leases are capitalized and amortized over the term of the leases. Deferred leasing costs consist of commissions paid to third-party leasing agents as well as internal direct costs such as employee compensation and payroll-related fringe benefits directly related to time spent performing successful leasing-related activities. Such activities include evaluating prospective tenants’ financial condition, evaluating and recording guarantees, collateral and other security arrangements, negotiating lease terms, preparing lease documents and closing transactions. In addition, deferred leasing costs include amounts attributed to in-place leases associated with acquisition properties.

Revenue Recognition

Rental and interest income are accrued as earned except when doubt exists as to collectability, in which case the accrual is discontinued. Recognition of rental income commences when control of the space has been given to the tenant. When rental payments due under leases vary from a straight-line basis because of free rent periods or scheduled rent increases, income is recognized on a straight-line basis throughout the term of the lease. Expense recoveries represent a portion of property operating expenses billed to tenants, including common area maintenance, real estate taxes and other recoverable costs. Expense recoveries are recognized in the period when the expenses are incurred. Rental income based on a tenant’s revenue, known as percentage rent, is accrued when a tenant reports sales that exceed a specified breakpoint specified in the lease agreement.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts - Current and Deferred Receivables

Accounts receivable primarily represent amounts accrued and unpaid from tenants in accordance with the terms of the respective leases, subject to the Company’s revenue recognition policy. Receivables are reviewed monthly and reserves are established with a charge to current period operations when, in the opinion of management, collection of the receivable is doubtful. In addition to rents due currently, accounts receivable include amounts representing minimum rental income accrued on a straight-line basis to be paid by tenants over the remaining term of their respective leases. Reserves are established with a charge to income for tenants whose rent payment history or financial condition casts doubt upon the tenant’s ability to perform under its lease obligations.

Legal Contingencies

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, which are generally covered by insurance. While the resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the final outcome of current matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or the results of operations. Once it has been determined that a loss is probable to occur, the estimated amount of the loss is recorded in the financial statements. Both the amount of the loss and the point at which its occurrence is considered probable can be difficult to determine.

Results of Operations

Same property revenue and operating income were $160.1 million and $119.7 million, respectively, in 2012 representing increases of $1.5 million (0.9%) and $1.9 million (1.6%) over 2011. Same property comparisons for 2012 and 2011 include 46 Shopping Centers and 5 Mixed-Use Properties which were in operation for the entirety of 2012 and 2011.

Same property revenue and operating income were $151.8 million and $112.6 million, respectively, in 2011 representing decreases of $8.9 million (5.6%) and $6.7 million (5.6%) compared to 2010. Same property comparisons for 2011 and 2010 include 44 Shopping Centers and 5 Mixed-Use Properties which were in operation for the entirety of 2011 and 2010.

 

39


Table of Contents

The following is a discussion of the components of revenue and expense for the entire Company.

 

Revenue

 
(Dollars in thousands)    For the year ended December 31,      Percentage Change  
     2012      2011      2010      2012 to
2011
    2011 to
2010
 

Base rent

   $ 152,777       $ 138,486       $ 126,163         10.3     9.8

Expense recoveries

     30,391         28,368         29,488         7.1     -3.8

Percentage rent

     1,545         1,503         1,447         2.8     3.9

Other

     5,379         5,521         6,010         -2.6     -8.1
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

      

Total revenue

   $ 190,092       $ 173,878       $ 163,108         9.3     6.6
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

      

Note: (Dollars in thousands)

Base rent includes $3,796, $3,694, and $227, for the years 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively, to recognize base rent on a straight-line basis. In addition, base rent includes $1,495, $1,119, and $1,024, for the years 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively, to recognize income from the amortization of in-place leases.

Total revenue increased 9.3% in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to $14.5 million of aggregate revenue generated by Clarendon Center and the three Shopping Center Properties acquired in 2011 (collectively, the “New 2012 Properties”).

Total revenue increased 6.6% in 2011 compared to 2010. The increased revenue resulted primarily from (a) rental income generated by a development property (Clarendon Center) and five acquisition properties (11503 Rockville Pike, Metro Pike Center, Kentlands Square II, Severna Park MarketPlace and Cranberry Square), defined as the “2011 Acquisition Properties” and together with Clarendon Center, the “2011 Development and Acquisition Properties” (approximately $19.1 million), offset in part by (b) (x) decreased revenue from rental properties fully in operation during both 2011 and 2010 (approximately $8.9 million), comprised primarily of a decline in revenue generated by the Mixed-Use Properties (approximately $4.1 million) due to a decrease in occupancy that occurred in the latter part of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, (y) a decrease in other income compared to 2010, when the collection of rent and other damages arising from a long-standing dispute with a tenant over the non-payment of rent over a period of time was recorded ($1.9 million), and (z) reduced expense recovery income resulting from substantial snow removal expenses incurred in 2010.

A discussion of the components of revenue follows.

Base rent

The $14.3 million increase in base rent in 2012 compared to 2011 was attributable to $12.4 million of increased base rent generated by the New 2012 Properties and $2.3 million of increased base rent in the remainder of the portfolio.

The $12.3 million increase in base rent in 2011 compared to 2010 was primarily attributable to the 2011 Development and Acquisition Properties (approximately $16.8 million) which was offset in part by decreases at same center Mixed-Use Properties (approximately $3.0 million) and the Shopping Centers (approximately $1.9 million).

Expense recoveries

Expense recovery income increased $2.0 million in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to $1.7 million of increased expense recovery income generated by the New 2012 Properties.

Expense recovery income decreased $1.1 million in 2011 compared to 2010 due primarily to recovery in 2010 of snow removal expenses incurred as a result of severe winter weather impacting the Mid-Atlantic states during January and February 2010.

 

40


Table of Contents

Other revenue

The decline in operating income in 2012 compared to 2011 is primarily due to the collection in 2011 of $325,000 of past due rents from a former tenant, partially offset by increased parking income at the Mixed-Use Properties.

Other revenue decreased in 2011 primarily due to the collection during 2010 of past due rents and other damages arising from a long-standing dispute with a tenant over the non-payment of rent over a period of time (approximately $1.9 million) partially offset by increased residential tenant fees and parking income (combined $755,000) at Clarendon Center.

 

Operating expenses

 
(Dollars in thousands)    For the year ended December 31,      Percentage Change  
     2012      2011      2010      2012 to
2011
    2011 to
2010
 

Property operating expenses

   $ 23,794       $ 24,715       $ 22,897         -3.7     7.9

Provision for credit losses

     1,151         1,880         1,334         -38.8     40.9

Real estate taxes

     22,325         18,435         17,744         21.1     3.9

Interest expense and amortization of deferred debt

     49,544         45,324         34,799         9.3     30.2

Depreciation and amortization

     40,112         35,298         28,379         13.6     24.4

General and administrative

     14,274         14,256         13,968         0.1     2.1

Predevelopment Expense

     2,667         —           —           N/A        N/A   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

      

Total operating expenses

   $ 153,867       $ 139,908       $ 119,121         10.0     17.5
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

      

Total operating expenses increased 10.0% in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to increased real estate taxes, interest expense, depreciation expense and predevelopment expense. Total operating expenses increased 17.5% in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to increased interest and depreciation expense arising from the operation of the 2011 Development and Acquisition Properties.

Property operating expenses

Property operating expenses decreased $900,000 in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to lower snow removal costs.

Property operating expenses increased $1.8 million in 2011 primarily due to operating expenses arising from the operation of the 2011 Development and Acquisition Properties ($3.3 million) and modest increases in non-snow removal same property operating expenses offset in part by a $2.3 million decrease in snow removal expense.

Provision for credit losses

The provision for credit losses represents the Company’s estimate of amounts owed by tenants that may not be collectible. The $729,000 decrease in 2012 compared to 2011 reflects a general improvement in the retail economy and lack of significant bankruptcy losses among the Company’s various tenants. The $546,000 increase in 2011 compared to 2010 reflects the continued stress of a stagnant housing market and slowly recovering jobs market in the local economies where the Current Portfolio Properties are located. Approximately $505,000 of the increase was caused by the SuperFresh and Borders Bookstore bankruptcies and a local grocery store vacancy.

Real estate taxes

The $3.9 million increase in real estate taxes in 2012 compared to 2011 is comprised of increased property taxes charged by the District of Columbia and taxes related to the New 2012 Properties. The $691,000 increase in real estate taxes in 2011 over 2010 resulted primarily from the operation of the 2011 Development and Acquisition Properties.

 

41


Table of Contents

Interest and amortization of deferred debt

Interest expense increased $4.2 million in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to approximately $4.1 million of interest related to $67.2 million of higher average debt balances and $1.9 million of reduced capitalized interest, partially offset by $2.1 million of lower interest resulting from lower average cost of debt.

Interest expense increased $10.5 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to Clarendon Center, because more than 85% of the project was placed in service during 2011, which caused an $8.9 million increase in interest expense, net of amounts capitalized, as well as increased interest expense arising from the refinancing in March 2011 of the project’s construction loan with a higher fixed-rate, 15 year mortgage. Interest expense also increased in 2011 by $1.3 million from debt incurred to finance the 2011 Acquisition Properties.

Depreciation and amortization

Depreciation and amortization of deferred leasing costs increased $4.8 million in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to the New 2012 Properties.

Depreciation and amortization of deferred leasing costs increased $6.9 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily as a result of depreciation commencement for the 2011 Development and Acquisition Properties placed in service during 2011.

General and administrative

General and administrative expenses increased $288,000 in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to increased local taxes.

Predevelopment Expenses

Predevelopment expenses represent costs incurred, primarily lease termination costs, in preparation of the potential repositioning of Van Ness Square.

Acquisition Related Costs

Acquisition related costs in 2012 totaling approximately $1.1 million arose from the December 2012 purchases of 1500 Rockville Pike and 5541 Nicholson Lane.

Acquisition related costs in 2011 totaling approximately $2.5 million arose from the Company’s September 23, 2011, purchase of Kentlands Square II, Severna Park MarketPlace and Cranberry Square and the February 17, 2011 purchase of a 3,000 square foot retail property located adjacent to the Company’s Van Ness Square in Washington, D.C.

Acquisition related costs totaling approximately $1.2 million in 2010 relate to the Company’s October 1, 2010 purchase of a 20,000 square foot property and December 17, 2010 purchase of a 67,500 square foot property, both located near the White Flint Metro Station in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Gain on Casualty Settlement

Gain on casualty settlement in 2012 reflects insurance proceeds received in excess of the carrying value of assets damaged during a hail storm at French Market in 2012. Gain on casualty settlement in 2011 and 2010 reflects insurance proceeds received in excess of the carrying value of assets damaged during a severe hail storm at French Market in May 2010. In each instance, the insurance proceeds funded substantially all of the restoration of the damaged property.

Loss on Early Extinguishment of Debt

In June 2010, the Company refinanced its Thruway shopping center, located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The $45.6 million loan requires principal and interest payments calculated using a 5.83% interest rate and a 25-year amortization schedule, and matures in ten years. In December 2010, the Company refinanced its Ravenwood shopping center, located in Baltimore, Maryland. The $17.0 million loan requires principal and interest

 

42


Table of Contents

payments calculated using a 6.18% interest rate and a 25-year amortization schedule, and matures in 15 years. These loans refinanced a portion of a 7.67%, multi-property loan that was scheduled to mature in October 2012. In conjunction with the refinancings, the Company incurred costs to retire the previous Thruway debt totaling $4.5 million (approximately $4.4 million to defease the original loan and write-offs of unamortized deferred debt costs of approximately $54,000) and to retire the previous Ravenwood debt totaling $926,000 (approximately $912,000 to defease the original loan and write-offs of unamortized deferred debt costs of approximately $14,000). The transactions reduced the Company’s future refinancing risk by decreasing the amount of debt maturing in 2012 from $95.7 million to $62.0 million, and provided net cash proceeds of approximately $17.4 million.

Gain on Sale of Property

Gain on sales of properties in 2012 resulted from the July 2012 sale of West Park shopping center and the December 2012 sale of the Belvedere shopping center.

Gain on sale of property in 2010 resulted from the sale of the Lexington Center land parcel and Lexington pads.

Impact of Inflation

Inflation has remained relatively low during 2012 and 2011. The impact of rising operating expenses due to inflation on the operating performance of the Company’s portfolio would have been mitigated by terms in substantially all of the Company’s leases which contain provisions designed to increase revenues to offset the adverse impact of inflation on the Company’s results of operations. These provisions include upward periodic adjustments in base rent due from tenants, usually based on a stipulated increase and to a lesser extent on a factor of the change in the consumer price index, commonly referred to as the CPI.

In addition, substantially all of the Company’s properties are leased to tenants under long-term leases, which provide for reimbursement of operating expenses by tenants. These leases tend to reduce the Company’s exposure to rising property expenses due to inflation. Inflation and increased costs may have an adverse impact on the Company’s tenants if increases in their operating expenses exceed increases in their revenue.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash and cash equivalents were $12.1 million and $12.3 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The changes in cash and cash equivalents during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 were attributable to operating, investing and financing activities, as described below.

 

(Dollars in thousands)    For the year ended December 31,  
     2012     2011  

Net cash provided by operating activities

   $ 78,423      $ 55,669   

Net cash used in investing activities

     (46,873     (201,500

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

     (31,740     145,186   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Decrease in cash and cash equivalents

   $ (190   $ (645
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating Activities

Net cash provided by operating activities increased $22.7 million to $78.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $55.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, primarily reflecting the full year operating effect of properties acquired in September 2011. Net cash provided by operating activities represents, in each year, cash received primarily from rental income, plus other income, less property operating expenses, normal recurring general and administrative expenses and interest payments on debt outstanding.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities decreased $154.6 million to $46.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $201.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Investing activities in 2012 primarily reflect (a) the purchases of 1500 Rockville Pike and 5541 Nicholson Lane (b) tenant improvements and

 

43


Table of Contents

capital expenditures and (c) Clarendon Center and Ashland Square Phase I development costs partially offset by (d) proceeds from the sales of West Park and Belvedere and (e) proceeds from casualty settlement. Investing activities for 2011 primarily reflect the purchase of Cranberry Square, Kentlands Square II and Severna Park MarketPlace and Clarendon Center construction costs.

Tenant improvement and property capital expenditures totaled $12.7 million and $11.6 million for 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Financing Activities

Net cash used in financing activities was $31.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011, was $145.2 million. Net cash used in financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2012 primarily reflects:

 

   

the repayment of mortgage notes payable totaling $117.6 million;

 

   

distributions made to common stockholders and holders of convertible limited partnership units in the Operating Partnership during the year totaling $38.1 million;

 

   

distributions made to preferred stockholders during the year totaling $15.1 million;

 

   

repayments of $8.0 million on the revolving credit facility; and

 

   

payments of $2.2 million for financing costs of new mortgage loans;

which was partially offset by:

 

   

proceeds received from one new and one modified mortgage notes payable totaling $83.5 million;

 

   

proceeds of $38.0 million from the revolving credit facility; and

 

   

$27.8 million of proceeds received from the issuance of common stock under the dividend reinvestment program and from the exercise of stock options.

Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011 primarily reflects:

 

   

proceeds of $226.0 million received from mortgage notes payable;

 

   

proceeds of $60.0 million received from secured bridge financing loans;

 

   

proceeds of $13.4 million received from construction loan draws;

 

   

proceeds of $16.0 million received from revolving credit facility draws;

 

   

proceeds of $55.8 million from an equity offering of common stock and limited partnership units in the Operating Partnership; and

 

   

proceeds of $20.9 million from the issuance of common stock under the dividend reinvestment program, directors deferred plan and the exercise of stock options;

which was partially offset by:

 

   

the repayment of mortgage notes payable totaling $22.7 million;

 

   

the repayment of secured bridge financing loans totaling $60.0 million;

 

   

the repayment of construction loans payable totaling $104.2 million;

 

   

the repayment of amounts borrowed under the revolving credit facility of $8.0 million;

 

   

distributions to common stockholders totaling $27.1 million;

 

   

distributions to holders of convertible limited partnership units in the Operating Partnership totaling $8.3 million;

 

   

distributions made to preferred stockholders totaling $15.1 million; and

 

   

payments of $1.4 million for financing costs of mortgage notes payable.

 

44


Table of Contents

Liquidity Requirements

Short-term liquidity requirements consist primarily of normal recurring operating expenses and capital expenditures, debt service requirements (including debt service relating to additional and replacement debt), distributions to common and preferred stockholders, distributions to unit holders and amounts required for expansion and renovation of the Current Portfolio Properties and selective acquisition and development of additional properties. In order to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, the Company must distribute to its stockholders at least 90% of its “real estate investment trust taxable income,” as defined in the Code. The Company expects to meet these short-term liquidity requirements (other than amounts required for additional property acquisitions and developments) through cash provided from operations, available cash and its existing line of credit.

Long-term liquidity requirements consist primarily of obligations under our long-term debt and dividends paid to our preferred shareholders. We anticipate that long-term liquidity requirements will also include amounts required for property acquisitions and developments. Management anticipates that during the coming years the Company will commence activities related to the redevelopment of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue and may redevelop certain of the Current Portfolio Properties and may develop additional freestanding outparcels or expansions within certain of the Shopping Centers.

Acquisition and development of properties are undertaken only after careful analysis and review, and management’s determination that such properties are expected to provide long-term earnings and cash flow growth.

During the coming year, developments, expansions or acquisitions are expected to be funded with available cash, bank borrowings from the Company’s credit line, construction and permanent financing, proceeds from the operation of the Company’s dividend reinvestment plan or other external debt or equity capital resources available to the Company.

Any future borrowings may be at the Saul Centers, Operating Partnership or Subsidiary Partnership level, and securities offerings may include (subject to certain limitations) the issuance of additional limited partnership interests in the Operating Partnership which can be converted into shares of Saul Centers common stock. The availability and terms of any such financing will depend upon market and other conditions.

Contractual Payment Obligations

As of December 31, 2012, the Company had unfunded contractual payment obligations of approximately $110.6 million, excluding operating obligations, due within the next 12 months. The table below shows the total contractual payment obligations as of December 31, 2012.

 

     Payments Due By Period  
(Dollars in thousands)    One Year or
Less
     2 - 3 Years      4 - 5 Years      After 5
Years
     Total  

Notes Payable:

              

Interest

   $ 44,095       $ 81,751       $ 75,052       $ 185,757       $ 386,655   

Scheduled Principal

     19,212         39,886         43,369         148,817         251,284   

Balloon Payments

     37,305         28,295         38,000         472,892         576,492   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Subtotal

     100,612         149,932         156,421         807,466         1,214,431   

Ground Leases (1)

     176         352         352         9,538         10,418   

Corporate Headquarters Lease (1)

     818         1,711         1,045         —            3,574   

Development Obligations

     8,953         —            —            —            8,953   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total Contractual Obligations

   $ 110,559       $ 151,995       $ 157,818       $ 817,004       $ 1,237,376   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(1) See Note 7 to Consolidated Financial Statements. Corporate Headquarters Lease amounts represent an allocation to the Company based upon employees’ time dedicated to the Company’s business as specified in the Shared Services Agreement. Future amounts are subject to change as the number of employees employed by each of the parties to the lease fluctuates.

 

45


Table of Contents

Management believes that the Company’s cash flow from operations and its capital resources, which at December 31, 2012 included cash balances of $12.1 million and borrowing availability of approximately $136.8 million on its revolving line of credit, will be sufficient to meet its contractual obligations for the foreseeable future.

Preferred Stock Issues

In November 2003, the Company sold 4,000,000 depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock. The depositary shares may be redeemed at the Company’s option, in whole or in part from time to time, at the $25.00 liquidation preference plus accrued but unpaid dividends. The depositary shares pay an annual dividend of $2.00 per share, equivalent to 8% of the $25.00 liquidation preference. The Series A preferred stock has no stated maturity, is not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and is not convertible into any other securities of the Company. Investors in the depositary shares generally have no voting rights, but will have limited voting rights if the Company fails to pay dividends for six or more quarters (whether or not declared or consecutive) and in certain other events. On January 31, 2013, the Company issued a notice to redeem 60% of the outstanding depositary shares at a price of $25.00 per depositary share, plus accrued dividends. The redemption was completed on March 2, 2013.

In March 2008, the Company sold, in an underwritten public offering, 3,173,115 depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 9% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, providing net cash proceeds of $76.3 million. The depositary shares may be redeemed at the Company’s option, in whole or in part, at the $25.00 liquidation preference plus accrued but unpaid dividends on or after March 15, 2013. The depositary shares pay an annual dividend of $2.25 per share, equivalent to 9% of the $25.00 liquidation preference. The first dividend was paid on July 15, 2008 and covered the period from March 27, 2008 through June 30, 2008. The Series B preferred stock has no stated maturity, is not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and is not convertible into any other securities of the Company. Investors in the depositary shares generally have no voting rights, but will have limited voting rights if the Company fails to pay dividends for six or more quarters (whether or not declared or consecutive) and in certain other events. On February 12, 2013, the Company issued a notice to redeem all of the outstanding depositary shares at a price of $25.00 per depositary share, plus accrued dividends. The redemption date is March 15, 2013.

In February 2013, the Company sold, in an underwritten public offering, 5.6 million depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 6.875% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, providing net cash proceeds of approximately $135.0 million. The depositary shares may be redeemed at the Company’s option, in whole or in part, at the $25.00 liquidation preference plus accrued but unpaid dividends on or after March 15, 2018. The depositary shares pay an annual dividend of $1.71875 per share, equivalent to 6.875% of the $25.00 liquidation preference. The first dividend is scheduled to be paid on April 15, 2013 and covers the period from February 12, 2013 through March 31, 2013. The Series C preferred stock has no stated maturity, is not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and is not convertible into any other securities of the Company except in connection with certain changes of control or delisting events. Investors in the depositary shares generally have no voting rights, but will have limited voting rights if the Company fails to pay dividends for six or more quarters (whether or not declared or consecutive) and in certain other events.

Dividend Reinvestments

In December 1995, the Company established a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”) to allow its common stockholders and holders of limited partnership interests an opportunity to buy additional shares of common stock by reinvesting all or a portion of their dividends or distributions. The Plan provides for investing in newly issued shares of common stock at a 3% discount from market price without payment of any brokerage commissions, service charges or other expenses. All expenses of the Plan are paid by the Company. The Company issued 586,838 and 489,890 shares under the Plan at a weighted average discounted price of $38.85 and $39.64 per share during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company also credited 8,551 and 8,358 shares to directors pursuant to the reinvestment of dividends specified by the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan at a weighted average discounted price of $38.76 and $39.94 per share, during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

 

46


Table of Contents

Capital Strategy and Financing Activity

As a general policy, the Company intends to maintain a ratio of its total debt to total asset value of 50% or less and to actively manage the Company’s leverage and debt expense on an ongoing basis in order to maintain prudent coverage of fixed charges. Asset value is the aggregate fair market value of the Current Portfolio Properties and any subsequently acquired properties as reasonably determined by management by reference to the properties’ aggregate cash flow. Given the Company’s current debt level, it is management’s belief that the ratio of the Company’s debt to total asset value was below 50% as of December 31, 2012.

The organizational documents of the Company do not limit the absolute amount or percentage of indebtedness that it may incur. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, reevaluate the Company’s debt capitalization policy in light of current economic conditions, relative costs of capital, market values of the Company property portfolio, opportunities for acquisition, development or expansion, and such other factors as the Board of Directors then deems relevant. The Board of Directors may modify the Company’s debt capitalization policy based on such a reevaluation without shareholder approval and consequently, may increase or decrease the Company’s debt to total asset ratio above or below 50% or may waive the policy for certain periods of time. The Company selectively continues to refinance or renegotiate the terms of its outstanding debt in order to achieve longer maturities, and obtain generally more favorable loan terms, whenever management determines the financing environment is favorable.

 

47


Table of Contents

The following is a summary of notes payable as of December 31, 2012 and 2011:

 

Notes Payable    December 31,      Interest
Rate*
    Scheduled
Maturity*
 
(Dollars in thousands)    2012     2011       

Fixed rate mortgages:

   $ —    (a)    $ 64,844         7.67     Oct-2012   
     —    (b)      10,244         6.12     Jan-2013   
     —    (c)      24,598         7.88     Jan-2013   
     15,750  (d)      16,032         4.67     Jun-2013   
     6,936  (e)      7,203         5.77     Jul-2013   
     13,875  (f)      14,335         5.40     May-2014   
     16,798  (g)      17,415         7.45     Jun-2015   
     34,373  (h)      35,435         6.01     Feb-2018   
     38,388  (i)      39,757         5.88     Jan-2019   
     12,418  (j)      12,860         5.76     May-2019   
     17,145  (k)      17,755         5.62     Jul-2019   
     17,040  (l)      17,627         5.79     Sep-2019   
     15,176  (m)      15,713         5.22     Jan-2020   
     11,421  (n)      11,670         5.60     May-2020   
     10,288  (o)      10,636         5.30     Jun-2020   
     43,424  (p)      44,333         5.83     Jul-2020   
     8,934  (q)      9,204         5.81     Feb-2021   
     6,359  (r)      6,477         6.01     Aug-2021   
     36,699  (s)      37,377         5.62     Jun-2022   
     11,129  (t)      11,317         6.08     Sep-2022   
     11,989  (u)      12,172         6.43     Apr-2023   
     16,247  (v)      16,858         6.28     Feb-2024   
     17,469  (w)      17,791         7.35     Jun-2024   
     15,140  (x)      15,409         7.60     Jun-2024   
     26,635  (y)      16,494         7.02     Jul-2024   
     31,709  (z)      32,281         7.45     Jul-2024   
     31,490  (aa)      32,044         7.30     Jan-2025   
     16,419  (bb)      16,731         6.18     Jan-2026   
     120,822  (cc)      123,372         5.31     Apr-2026   
     36,986  (dd)      37,858         4.30     Oct-2026   
     41,970  (ee)      42,923         4.53     Nov-2026   
     19,569  (ff)      20,000         4.70     Dec-2026   
     72,233  (gg)      —           5.84     May-2027   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total fixed rate

     774,831        808,765         5.82     10.0 Years   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Variable rate loans:

         

Revolving credit facility

     38,000  (hh)      8,000         LIBOR + 1.90     May-2016   

Northrock bank term loan

     14,945  (ii)      15,106         LIBOR + 3.00     May-2013   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total variable rate

     52,945        23,106         2.80     3.4 Years   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total notes payable

   $ 827,776      $ 831,871         5.77     9.7 Years   
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

* Interest rate and scheduled maturity data presented as of December 31, 2012. Totals computed using weighted averages.
(a) The loan was collateralized by seven shopping centers (Seven Corners, White Oak, Hampshire Langley, Great Eastern, Southside Plaza, Belvedere and Giant) and required equal monthly principal and interest payments of $734,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $62.0 million at loan maturity. The loan was repaid in full in 2012.

 

48


Table of Contents
(b) The loan was collateralized by Smallwood Village Center and required equal monthly principal and interest payments of $71,000 based upon a 30-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $10.1 million at loan maturity. The loan was repaid in full in 2012.
(c) The loan was collateralized by 601 Pennsylvania Avenue and required equal monthly principal and interest payments of $294,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $23.0 million at loan maturity. The loan was repaid in full in 2012.
(d) The loan, together with a corresponding interest-rate swap, was assumed with the December 17, 2010 acquisition of, and is collateralized by, Metro Pike Center. On a combined basis, the loan and the swap required interest only payments of $63,000 until August 1, 2011, then equal monthly payments of $86,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $15.6 million at loan maturity. Principal of $282,000 was amortized during 2012.
(e) The loan is collateralized by Cruse MarketPlace and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $56,000 based upon an amortization schedule of approximately 24 years and a final payment of $6.8 million at loan maturity. Principal of $267,000 was amortized during 2012.
(f) The loan is collateralized by Seabreeze Plaza and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments totaling $102,000 based upon a weighted average 26-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $13.3 million is due at loan maturity. Principal of $460,000 was amortized during 2012.
(g) The loan is collateralized by Shops at Fairfax and Boulevard shopping centers and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments totaling $156,000 based upon a weighted average 23-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $15.2 million is due at loan maturity. Principal of $617,000 was amortized during 2012.
(h) The loan is collateralized by Washington Square and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $264,000 based upon a 27.5-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $28.0 million at loan maturity. Principal of $1.1 million was amortized during 2012.
(i) The loan is collateralized by three shopping centers, Broadlands Village, The Glen and Kentlands Square I, and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $306,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $28.4 million at loan maturity. Principal of $1.4 million was amortized during 2012.
(j) The loan is collateralized by Olde Forte Village and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $98,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $9.0 million at loan maturity. Principal of $442,000 was amortized during 2012.
(k) The loan is collateralized by Countryside and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $133,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $12.3 million at loan maturity. Principal of $610,000 was amortized during 2012.
(l) The loan is collateralized by Briggs Chaney MarketPlace and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $133,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $12.2 million at loan maturity. Principal of $587,000 was amortized during 2012.
(m) The loan is collateralized by Shops at Monocacy and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $112,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $10.6 million at loan maturity. Principal of $537,000 was amortized during 2012.
(n) The loan is collateralized by Boca Valley Plaza and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $75,000 based upon a 30-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $9.1 million at loan maturity. Principal of $249,000 was amortized during 2012.
(o) The loan is collateralized by Palm Springs Center and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $75,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $7.1 million at loan maturity. Principal of $348,000 was amortized during 2012.
(p) The loan and a corresponding interest-rate swap closed on June 29, 2010 and are collateralized by Thruway. On a combined basis, the loan and the interest-rate swap require equal monthly principal and interest payments of $289,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $34.8 million at loan maturity. Principal of $909,000 was amortized during 2012.

 

49


Table of Contents
(q) The loan is collateralized by Jamestown Place and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $66,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $6.1 million at loan maturity. Principal of $270,000 was amortized during 2012.
(r) The loan is collateralized by Hunt Club Corners and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $42,000 based upon a 30-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $5.0 million, at loan maturity. Principal of $118,000 was amortized during 2012.
(s) The loan is collateralized by Lansdowne Town Center and requires monthly principal and interest payments of $230,000 based on a 30-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $28.2 million at loan maturity. Principal of $678,000 was amortized during 2012.
(t) The loan is collateralized by Orchard Park and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $73,000 based upon a 30-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $8.6 million at loan maturity. Principal of $188,000 was amortized during 2012.
(u) The loan is collateralized by BJ’s Wholesale and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $80,000 based upon a 30-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $9.3 million at loan maturity. Principal of $183,000 was amortized during 2012.
(v) The loan is collateralized by Great Falls shopping center. The loan consists of three notes which require equal monthly principal and interest payments of $138,000 based upon a weighted average 26-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $6.3 million at maturity. Principal of $611,000 was amortized during 2012.
(w) The loan is collateralized by Leesburg Pike and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $135,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $11.5 million at loan maturity. Principal of $322,000 was amortized during 2012.
(x) The loan is collateralized by Village Center and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $119,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $10.1 million at loan maturity. Principal of $269,000 was amortized during 2012.
(y) The loan is collateralized by White Oak and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $193,000 based upon a 24.4 year weighted amortization schedule and a final payment of $18.5 million at loan maturity. The loan was previously collateralized by Van Ness Square. During 2012, the Company substituted White Oak as the collateral and borrowed an additional $10.5 million. Principal of $359,000 was amortized during 2012.
(z) The loan is collateralized by Avenel Business Park and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $246,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $20.9 million at loan maturity. Principal of $572,000 was amortized during 2012.
(aa) The loan is collateralized by Ashburn Village and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $240,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $20.5 million at loan maturity. Principal of $554,000 was amortized during 2012.
(bb) The loan is collateralized by Ravenwood and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $111,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $10.1 million at loan maturity. Principal of $312,000 was amortized during 2012.
(cc) The loan is collateralized by Clarendon Center and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $753,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $70.5 million at loan maturity. Principal of $2.6 million was amortized during 2012.
(dd) The loan is collateralized by Severna Park MarketPlace and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $207,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $20.3 million at loan maturity. Principal of $872,000 was amortized during 2012.
(ee) The loan is collateralized by Kentlands Square II and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $240,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $23.1 million at loan maturity. Principal of $953,000 was amortized during 2012.
(ff) The loan is collateralized by Cranberry Square and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $113,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $10.9 million at loan maturity. Principal of $431,000 was amortized during 2012.

 

50


Table of Contents
(gg) The loan in the original amount of $73.0 million closed in May 2012, is collateralized by Seven Corners and requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $463,200 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $42.3 million at loan maturity. Principal of $767,000 was amortized during 2012.
(hh) The loan is a $175.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility. Interest accrues at a rate equal to the sum of one-month LIBOR plus a spread of 1.90 %. The line may be extended at the Company’s option for one year with payment of a fee of 0.20%. Monthly payments, if required, are interest only and vary depending upon the amount outstanding and the applicable interest rate for any given month.
(ii) The loan is collateralized by Northrock and requires monthly principal and interest payments of $13,409 and a final payment of $14.9 million at maturity. Principal of $161,000 was amortized during 2012.

The carrying value of properties collateralizing the mortgage notes payable totaled $916.1 million and $997.5 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company’s credit facility requires the Company and its subsidiaries to maintain certain financial covenants, which are summarized below. As of December 31, 2012, the Company was in compliance with all such covenants:

 

   

maintain tangible net worth, as defined in the loan agreement, of at least $503.3 million plus 80% of the Company’s  net equity proceeds received after May 2012;

 

   

limit the amount of debt as a percentage of gross asset value, as defined in the loan agreement, to less than 60% (leverage ratio);

 

   

limit the amount of debt so that interest coverage will exceed 2.0x on a trailing four-quarter basis (interest expense coverage);

 

   

limit the amount of debt so that interest, scheduled principal amortization and preferred dividend coverage exceeds 1.3x on a trailing four-quarter basis (fixed charge coverage); and

 

   

limit the amount of variable rate debt and debt with initial loan terms of less than five years to no more than 40% of total debt.

2013 Financing Activity

On February 27, 2013, the Company closed on a three-year $15.6 million mortgage loan secured by Metro Pike Center. The loan matures in 2016, bears interest at a variable rate equal to the sum of one-month LIBOR and 165 basis points, requires monthly principal and interest payments based on a 25-year amortization schedule and requires a final payment of $14.7 million at maturity. The loan may be extended for up to two years. Proceeds were used to pay-off the $15.9 million remaining balance of existing debt secured by Metro Pike Center, and to extinguish the related swap agreement, both of which were scheduled to mature in June 2013.

On February 27, 2013, the Company closed on a three-year $15.0 million mortgage loan secured by Northrock. The loan matures in 2016, bears interest at a variable rate equal to the sum of one-month LIBOR and 165 basis points, requires monthly principal and interest payments based on a 25-year amortization schedule and requires a final payment of $14.2 million at maturity. The loan may be extended for up to two years. Proceeds were used to pay-off the $15.0 million remaining balance of existing debt secured by Northrock, which was scheduled to mature in May 2013.

2012 Financing Activity

On April 11, 2012, the Company closed on a 15-year non-recourse mortgage loan in the amount of $73.0 million secured by Seven Corners shopping center. The loan matures in May 2027, bears interest at a fixed rate of 5.84%, requires equal monthly principal and interest payments totaling $463,226 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $42.5 million at maturity. Proceeds from the loan were used to pay-off the $63 million remaining balance of existing debt secured by Seven Corners and six other Shopping Center properties, which was scheduled to mature in October 2012, and to provide cash of approximately $10 million.

On April 26, 2012, the Company substituted the White Oak shopping center for Van Ness Square as collateral for one of its existing mortgage loans which will allow the Company to analyze the feasibility of repositioning Van Ness Square. The terms of the original loan, including its 8.11% interest rate, are unchanged and, in conjunction with the collateral substitution, the Company borrowed an additional $10.5 million, also secured by

 

51


Table of Contents

White Oak. The new borrowing requires equal monthly payments based upon a fixed 4.90% interest rate and 25-year amortization schedule, and will mature in July 2024, conterminously with the original loan. The consolidated loan requires equal monthly payments based upon a blended fixed interest rate of 7.0% and will require a final payment of $18.5 million at maturity.

On May 21, 2012, the Company replaced its existing unsecured revolving credit facility with a new $175.0 million facility that expires on May 20, 2016. The facility, which provides working capital and funds for acquisitions, certain developments, redevelopments and letters of credit, may be extended for one year, at the Company’s option, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. Loans under the facility bear interest at a rate equal to the sum of LIBOR and a margin, based on the Company’s leverage ratio, ranging from 160 basis points to 250 basis points. Based on the leverage ratio of December 31, 2012, the margin was 190 basis points.

2011 Financing Activity

On March 23, 2011, the Company closed on a 15-year non-recourse mortgage loan in the amount of $125.0 million, secured by Clarendon Center. The loan matures April 5, 2026, bears interest at a fixed rate of 5.31%, requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $753,000, based upon a 25-year amortization schedule, and requires a final principal payment of approximately $70.5 million at maturity. Proceeds from the loan were used to repay $104.2 million outstanding on the Clarendon Center construction loan.

On September 23, 2011, the Company closed on a 15-year non-recourse mortgage loan in the amount of $38.0 million, secured by Severna Park MarketPlace. The loan matures October 1, 2026, bears interest at a fixed rate of 4.30%, requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $207,000, based upon a 25-year amortization schedule, and requires a final principal payment of approximately $20.3 million at maturity. Proceeds from the loan were used to purchase Severna Park MarketPlace.

Also on September 23, 2011, the Company closed on two six-month bridge financing loans in the total amount of $60.0 million, secured by Kentlands Square II and Cranberry Square. Proceeds from the loans were used to purchase Kentlands Square II and Cranberry Square.

On October 5, 2011, the Company closed on a new 15-year non-recourse mortgage loan in the amount of $43.0 million, secured by Kentlands Square II. The loan matures November 5, 2026, bears an interest at a fixed rate of 4.53%, requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $240,000, based upon a 25-year principal amortization, and requires a final principal payment of approximately $23.1 million at maturity. Proceeds from the loan were used to repay the $40.0 million bridge financing used to acquire Kentlands Square II.

On November 6, 2011, the Company closed on a new 15-year non-recourse mortgage loan in the amount of $20.0 million, secured by Cranberry Square. The loan matures December 1, 2026, bears interest at a fixed rate of 4.70%, requires equal monthly principal and interest payments of $113,000, based upon a 25-year principal amortization, and requires a final principal payment of approximately $10.9 million at maturity. Proceeds from the loan were used to repay the $20.0 million bridge financing used to acquire Cranberry Square.

2010 Financing Activity

On June 29, 2010, the Company closed on a new 10-year mortgage loan in the amount of $45.6 million, secured by Thruway. The loan matures July 1, 2020, and bears interest at a variable rate equal to the sum of one-month LIBOR and 260 basis points. In conjunction with the financing, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement with a $45.6 million notional amount to manage the interest rate risk associated with the above $45.6 million of variable-rate mortgage debt. The swap agreement was effective June 29, 2010, terminates on July 1, 2020 and effectively fixes the interest rate on the mortgage debt at 5.83%. The Company has designated this agreement as a cash flow hedge for accounting purposes. The Company recognizes interest expense on the combined variable-rate debt and the interest-rate swap at the effective fixed rate of 5.83%. On a combined basis, the loan and the interest-rate swap require equal monthly principal and interest payments of approximately $289,000, based upon an assumed interest rate of 5.83% and a 25-year principal amortization, and requires a final principal payment of approximately $34.8 million at maturity.

Prior to the refinancing, Thruway was one of nine properties securing debt included in a collateralized mortgage-backed security (CMBS) with an outstanding balance of $108.3 million, an interest rate of 7.67% and due to mature October 2012. In order to release Thruway, the Company defeased $30.2 million of the outstanding balance at a cost of approximately $4.4 million, using proceeds from the new mortgage financing.

 

 

52


Table of Contents

On August 24, 2010, the Company entered into an amendment to its Northrock construction loan to provide an option to extend the loan for two years. The extension is available at the Company’s option subject to notice to the bank, and to a principal repayment in an amount required to cause property operating income to meet certain debt service coverage levels.

On December 9, 2010, the Company closed on a new 15-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan in the amount of $17.0 million secured by Ravenwood. The loan matures January 2026, requires monthly interest and principal payments of approximately $111,000 based upon a fixed interest rate of 6.18% and a 25-year principal amortization and requires a final principal payment of approximately $10.1 million at maturity.

Prior to the refinancing, Ravenwood was one of eight remaining properties securing debt included in a CMBS with an outstanding balance of $76.3 million, an interest rate of 7.67% and due to mature October 2012. In order to release Ravenwood, the Company defeased $7.8 million of the outstanding balance at a cost of approximately $900,000, using proceeds from the new mortgage financing.

On December 17, 2010, the Company purchased Metro Pike Center, a 67,000 square foot retail property located in Rockville, Maryland. In conjunction with the acquisition, the Company assumed a mortgage loan with a principal balance of $16.2 million. The loan matures June 30, 2013, bears interest at a variable rate equal to the sum of one-month LIBOR and 245 basis points. In conjunction with the loan assumption, the Company assumed a corresponding interest rate swap agreement with a $16.2 million notional amount to manage the interest rate risk associated with the variable-rate mortgage debt. The swap agreement was effective at closing, terminates on June 30, 2013 and effectively fixes the interest rate on the mortgage debt at 4.67%. On a combined basis, the loan and the interest-rate swap require interest-only payments of approximately $63,000 until August 1, 2011, followed by equal monthly principal and interest payments of approximately $86,000 based upon a 25-year amortization schedule and a final payment of $15.6 million at loan maturity.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The Company has no off-balance sheet arrangements that are reasonably likely to have a current or future material effect on the Company’s financial condition, revenue or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

 

53


Table of Contents

Funds From Operations

In 2012, the Company reported Funds From Operations (FFO)1 available to common shareholders (common stockholders and limited partner unitholders) of $60.1 million, a 19.5% increase from 2011 FFO available to common shareholders of $50.3 million. The following table presents a reconciliation from net income to FFO available to common shareholders for the periods indicated:

 

     Year ended December 31,  
(Dollars in thousands)    2012     2011     2010     2009     2008  

Net income

   $ 39,780      $ 30,294      $ 43,185      $ 43,230      $ 47,666   

Subtract:

          

Gains on property sales

     (4,510     —           (3,591     —           —      

Gain on casualty settlement

     (219     (245     (2,475     (329     (1,301

Add:

          

Real estate depreciation - discontinued operations

     77        102        198        203        213   

Real estate depreciation and amortization

     40,112        35,298        28,379        28,061        29,570   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

FFO

     75,240        65,449        65,696        71,165        76,148   

Subtract:

          

Preferred dividends

     (15,140     (15,140     (15,140     (15,140     (13,453
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

FFO available to common shareholders

   $ 60,100      $ 50,309      $ 50,556      $ 56,025      $ 62,695   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Average shares and units used to compute FFO per share

     26,614        24,740        23,793        23,359        23,377   

FFO per share

   $ 2.26      $ 2.03      $ 2.12      $ 2.40      $ 2.68   

Acquisitions, Redevelopments and Renovations

Management anticipates that during the coming year the Company will commence activities related to the redevelopment of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue and may develop additional freestanding outparcels or expansions within certain of the Shopping Centers. Although not currently planned, it is possible that the Company may redevelop additional Current Portfolio Properties and may develop expansions within certain of the Shopping Centers. Acquisition and development of properties are undertaken only after careful analysis and review, and management’s determination that such properties are expected to provide long-term earnings and cash flow growth. During the coming year, any developments, expansions or acquisitions are expected to be funded with borrowings from the Company’s credit line, construction financing, proceeds from the operation of the Company’s dividend reinvestment plan or other external capital resources available to the Company.

The Company has been selectively involved in acquisition, development, redevelopment and renovation activities. It continues to evaluate the acquisition of land parcels for retail and office development and acquisitions of operating properties for opportunities to enhance operating income and cash flow growth. The following describes the acquisitions, developments, redevelopments and renovations which affected the Company’s financial position and results of operations in 2012, 2011, and 2010.

 

1  The National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT) developed FFO as a relative non-GAAP financial measure of performance of an equity REIT in order to recognize that income-producing real estate historically has not depreciated on the basis determined under GAAP. FFO is defined by NAREIT as net income, computed in accordance with GAAP, plus real estate depreciation and amortization, and excluding extraordinary items, impairment charges on depreciable real estate assets and gains or losses from property dispositions. FFO does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with GAAP and is not necessarily indicative of cash available to fund cash needs, which is disclosed in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the applicable periods. There are no material legal or functional restrictions on the use of FFO. FFO should not be considered as an alternative to net income, its most directly comparable GAAP measure, as a indicator of the Company’s operating performance, or as an alternative to cash flows as a measure of liquidity. Management considers FFO a meaningful supplemental measure of operating performance because it primarily excludes the assumption that the value of the real estate assets diminishes predictably over time (i.e. depreciation), which is contrary to what we believe occurs with our assets, and because industry analysts have accepted it as a performance measure. FFO may not be comparable to similarly titled measures employed by other REITs.

 

54


Table of Contents

Ashland Square Phase I

On December 15, 2004, the Company purchased for $6.3 million, a 19.3 acre parcel of land in Manassas, Prince William County, Virginia. The Company has an approved site plan to develop a grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping center totaling approximately 160,000 square feet. Capital One Bank operates a branch on the site and the Company previously executed a lease with CVS. During 2012, the Company completed the site work for two pads, constructed a 6,500 square foot building that has been leased to a restaurant and CVS constructed a 13,000 square foot pharmacy building. Both facilities have opened for business, and the cost to the Company was approximately $3.0 million. The balance of the center is being marketed to grocers and other retail businesses, with a development timetable yet to be finalized.

Clarendon Center

In late 2010, the Company substantially completed construction of a mixed-use project which includes approximately 42,000 square feet of retail space, 171,000 square feet of office space, 244 apartments and 600 underground parking spaces, on two city blocks, adjacent to the Clarendon Metro Station in Arlington County, Virginia. Development costs are expected to total approximately $195.0 million upon the completion of final office tenant improvements which are expected to total approximately $2.9 million. As of December 31, 2012, 208,900 square feet (97.9%) of the commercial space (comprising of all of the retail space and 167,200 square feet (97.4%) of the office space) as well as 244 apartments (100.0%), were leased.

Seven Corners

During 2010, the Company expanded the Seven Corners shopping center by approximately 6,000 square feet. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers opened in November 2010 in a newly-constructed, free-standing building. The Company also completed construction of parking lot, landscaping and site lighting improvements to enhance the common areas.

11503 Rockville Pike

On October 1, 2010, the Company purchased for $15.6 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike (Route 355), near the White Flint Metro Station in Montgomery County, Maryland. The property, which was fully leased to two tenants at December 31, 2011, is zoned for up to 297,000 square feet of rentable mixed use space. The Company intends to redevelop the property but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

Metro Pike Center

On December 17, 2010, the Company purchased for $34.3 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 67,000 square feet of retail space located on the west side of Rockville Pike (Route 355) near the White Flint Metro Station in Montgomery County, Maryland. The property was acquired subject to the assumption of a $16.2 million mortgage loan and a corresponding interest rate swap with a fair value of $0.5 million. The property, which was 83.6% leased to multiple tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 807,000 square feet of rentable mixed use space. The Company does not anticipate redeveloping the property in the foreseeable future.

4469 Connecticut Avenue

On February 17, 2011, the Company purchased for $1.7 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 3,000 square feet of retail space located adjacent to the Company’s Van Ness Square in Washington D.C. The property is unoccupied and will be included in the project to redevelop Van Ness Square.

Kentlands Square II

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $74.5 million Kentlands Square II, and incurred acquisition costs of $1.1 million. Kentlands Square II is a 241,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in Montgomery County, the state’s most populous and affluent county. More than 38,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $114,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. As of December 31, 2012, the center was 95.8% leased and anchored by a 61,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 104,000 square foot Kmart. The property is adjacent to the Company’s Kentlands Square I, which is anchored by Lowe’s Home Improvement, and Kentlands Place.

Severna Park MarketPlace

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $61.0 million Severna Park MarketPlace, and incurred acquisition costs of $0.8 million. Severna Park MarketPlace is a 254,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Severna Park, Maryland, in Anne Arundel County. More than 15,000 households, with annual household

 

55


Table of Contents

incomes averaging over $112,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. As of December 31, 2012, the center was 100% leased and anchored by a 63,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 92,000 square foot Kohl’s.

Cranberry Square

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $33.0 million Cranberry Square, and incurred acquisition costs of $0.5 million. Cranberry Square is a 140,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Westminster, Maryland, in Carroll County. More than 12,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $72,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. As of December 31, 2012, the center was 92.2% leased and anchored by a 56,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 24,000 square foot Staples.

1500 Rockville Pike

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $23.0 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 52,700 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike near the Twinbrook Metro Station. The property, which was 90.5% leased to multiple tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 745,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

5541 Nicholson Lane

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $12.2 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,100 square feet of mixed-use space, which was 40.5% leased to multiple tenants, located on the east side of Rockville Pike and adjacent to 11503 Rockville Pike, which was purchased in 2010. The property, when combined with 11503 Rockville Pike, will provide zoning for up to 331,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space for a total development potential of up to 622,000 square feet. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

Van Ness Square

The Company recently completed negotiation of lease termination agreements with the tenants of Van Ness Square and expects the building will be vacant on or about April 30, 2013. Costs incurred related to those termination arrangements are being amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the remaining terms of the leases, are included in “Predevelopment Expenses” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, totaled $2.7 million in 2012 and are expected to total approximately $3.3 million over the first two quarters of 2013. The Company intends to develop a primarily residential project with street-level retail and will recognize additional predevelopment expenses in future periods when the existing improvements of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue are demolished, the timing of which is uncertain and dependent on the issuance of various governmental approvals and permits.

Property Sales

West Park

On July 25, 2012, the Company sold for $2.0 million the 77,000 square foot West Park shopping center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and recorded a $1.1 million gain. As of June 30, 2012, West Park was 11.7% leased and the carrying amounts of the associated assets and liabilities were $1.0 million and $207,000, respectively. There was no debt associated with the property.

Belvedere

In December 2012, the Company sold for $4.0 million, the 54,900 square foot Belvedere shopping center in Baltimore, Maryland and recorded a $3.4 million gain. As of September 30, 2012, Belvedere was 34% leased and the carrying amounts of the associated assets and liabilities were $488,000 and $22,000, respectively. There was no debt associated with the property.

 

56


Table of Contents

Portfolio Leasing Status

The following chart sets forth certain information regarding commercial leases at our properties for the periods indicated.

 

     Total Properties      Total Square Footage      Percentage Leased  

As of December 31,

   Shopping
Centers
     Mixed-Use      Shopping
Centers
     Mixed-Use      Shopping
Centers
    Mixed-Use  

2012

     50         7         7,877,200         1,612,200         93.4     91.7

2011

     51         7         7,930,000         1,610,400         90.8     85.8

2010

     48         6         7,293,000         1,608,000         92.0     81.5

The 2012 shopping center leasing percentages include 1500 Rockville Pike and 5541 Nicholson Lane, which were acquired in December 2012, and exclude West Park and Belvedere, which were sold during 2012. The 2012 mixed-use leasing percentages include Clarendon Center commercial area, which was 97.9% leased at December 31, 2012. The Clarendon Center residential component was 100% leased at December 31, 2012. On a same property basis, which excludes the impact of properties not in operation for the entirety of the comparable periods, Shopping Center leasing percentages increased to 93.5% from 91.6% and Mixed-Use leasing percentages decreased to 82.8% from 85.8%. The overall portfolio leasing percentage, on a comparative same center basis, ended the year at 91.9%, an increase from 90.7% at yearend 2011. The 2012 shopping center leasing percentages were impacted by a net increase of approximately 151,000 square feet of leased space, the majority of which resulted from the leasing of space vacated by major tenants during 2011. The 2012 mixed-use leasing percentages were adversely impacted by a net decrease of approximately 44,000 square feet of leased space, the majority of which resulted from the early termination of leases at Van Ness Square in preparation for redevelopment.

The 2011 shopping center percentages leased included three centers acquired September 23, 2011, Kentlands Square II (100% leased), Severna Park MarketPlace (100% leased) and Cranberry Square (91% leased). The 2011 and 2010 mixed-use percentages include Clarendon Center commercial area, which was 92.4% and 58.6% leased at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Clarendon Center residential component was 100% and 43.9% leased at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. On a same property basis, Shopping Center leasing percentages decreased to 90.2% from 92.0% and Mixed-Use leasing percentages decreased to 84.9% from 85.5%. Overall portfolio leasing percentage, on a comparative same center basis, ended the year at 89.4%, a decrease from 91.1% at year end 2010. The 2011 commercial leasing percentages were adversely impacted by a net decrease of approximately 140,000 square feet of leased space, of which approximately 98,000 square feet was caused by the Syms, SuperFresh and Borders Books bankruptcies and the balance resulting from the early lease termination of a local grocer. As of March 1, 2012, a total of 61,000 square feet of these four vacant spaces had been leased.

The 2010 shopping center percentage leased included recently constructed but not yet fully leased Northrock and Westview Village, which were 72.3% and 36.1% leased as of December 31, 2010, respectively. On a same property basis, shopping center leasing percentages increased to 93.1% from 93.0%. The 2010 mixed-use percentage leased included Clarendon Center, whose construction was substantially completed at year end 2010 and whose residential component was 43.9% leased and office and retail component was 58.6% leased as of December 31, 2010. Including Clarendon Center, overall mixed-use property leasing percentages decreased to 81.5% from 90.6%. On a comparative same property basis, overall property leasing ended the year at 92.0%, a decrease from 92.7% at year end 2009, a space leased reduction of approximately 55,000 square feet. Shopping center same property leasing was 93.1% and 93.0%, and mixed-use same property leasing was 85.5% and 90.5%, as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

The following table shows selected data for leases executed in the indicated periods. The information is based on executed leases without adjustment for the timing of occupancy, tenant defaults, or landlord concessions. The base rent for an expiring lease is the annualized contractual base rent, on a cash basis, as of the expiration date of the lease. The base rent for a new or renewed lease is the annualized contractual base rent, on a cash basis, as of the expected rent commencement date. Because tenants that execute leases may not ultimately take possession of their space or pay all of their contractual rent, the changes presented in the table provide information only about trends in market rental rates. The actual changes in rental income received by the Company may be different.

 

                   Base Rent per Square Foot  

Year ended December 31,

   Square Feet      Number
of Leases
     New/Renewed
Leases
     Expiring
Leases
 

2012

     1,579,000         256       $ 16.39       $ 16.30   

2011

     1,178,000         245         15.21         16.41   

2010

     1,336,000         253         13.19         14.62   

 

57


Table of Contents

During 2012, the Company entered into 216 new or renewed apartment leases. The monthly rent per square foot for these leases increased to $3.31 from $3.11.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

The Company is exposed to certain financial market risks, the most predominant being fluctuations in interest rates. Interest rate fluctuations are monitored by management as an integral part of the Company’s overall risk management program, which recognizes the unpredictability of financial markets and seeks to reduce the potentially adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company may, where appropriate, employ derivative instruments, such as interest rate swaps, to mitigate the risk of interest rate fluctuations. The Company does not enter into derivatives or other financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. On June 29, 2010, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement with a $45.6 million notional amount to manage the interest rate risk associated with $45.6 million of variable-rate mortgage debt. The swap agreement was effective July 1, 2010, terminates on July 1, 2020 and effectively fixes the interest rate on the mortgage debt at 5.83%. In conjunction with the purchase of Metro Pike Center, and the assumption of the related variable-rate mortgage loan, the Company assumed an interest-rate swap agreement with a $16.7 million notional amount to manage the interest rate risk associated with the loan. The swap agreement was effective as of the closing date, terminates on June 30, 2013 and effectively fixes the interest rate on the mortgage debt at 4.67%. The aggregate fair value of these swaps at December 31, 2012 was approximately $5.9 million and is reflected in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet.

The Company is exposed to interest rate fluctuations which will affect the amount of interest expense of its variable rate debt and the fair value of its fixed rate debt. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had variable rate indebtedness totaling $52.9 million. If the interest rates on the Company’s variable rate debt instruments outstanding at December 31, 2012 had been one percent higher, our annual interest expense relating to these debt instruments would have increased by $529,000, based on those balances. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had fixed-rate indebtedness totaling $774.9 million with a weighted average interest rate of 5.82%. If interest rates on the Company’s fixed-rate debt instruments at December 31, 2012 had been one percent higher, the fair value of those debt instruments on that date would have decreased by approximately $44.9 million.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

The financial statements of the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries are included in this report on the pages indicated, and are incorporated herein by reference:

 

Page

    
F-1   

(a)     Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm – Ernst & Young LLP.

F-3   

(b)    Consolidated Balance Sheets - December 31, 2012 and 2011.

F-4   

(c)     Consolidated Statements of Operations - Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.

F-5   

(d)     Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income – Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.

F-6   

(e)     Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity - Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.

F-7   

(f)      Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows - Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.

F-8   

(g)    Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

 

58


Table of Contents

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Quarterly Assessment.

The Company carried out an assessment as of December 31, 2012 of the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures and its internal control over financial reporting. This assessment was done under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, and its Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer as appropriate. Rules adopted by the SEC require that the Company present the conclusions of the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer about the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and the conclusions of the Company’s management about the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

CEO and CFO Certifications.

Included as Exhibits 31 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forms of “Certification” of the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer. The forms of Certification are required in accordance with Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This section of the Annual Report on Form 10-K that you are currently reading is the information concerning the assessment referred to in the Section 302 certifications and this information should be read in conjunction with the Section 302 certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented.

Disclosure Controls and Procedures and Internal Control over Financial Reporting.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. Disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act, such as this Annual Report on Form 10-K, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures are also designed to provide reasonable assurance that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, and its Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, and its Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer, and effected by the Company’s Board of Directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U. S. GAAP and includes those policies and procedures that:

 

   

pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the Company’s assets;

 

   

provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with U. S. GAAP, and that the Company’s receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management or the Company’s Board of Directors; and

 

   

provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements.

Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls.

Management, including the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, and its Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer, does not expect that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no assessment of controls can

 

59


Table of Contents

provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management’s override of the control. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Scope of the Assessments.

The assessment by the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, and its Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and the assessment by the Company’s management of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting included a review of procedures and discussions with the Company’s Disclosure Committee and others in the Company. In the course of the assessments, management sought to identify data errors, control problems or acts of fraud and to confirm that appropriate corrective action, including process improvements, were being undertaken. Management used the criteria issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control - Integrated Framework to assess the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The evaluation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting is done on a quarterly basis so that the conclusions concerning the effectiveness of disclosure controls can be reported in the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is also evaluated on an ongoing basis by management, other personnel in the Company’s accounting department and the Company’s internal audit function. The effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is audited by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. We consider the results of these various assessment activities as we monitor the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting and when deciding to make modifications as necessary. Management’s intent in this regard is that the disclosure controls and procedures and the internal control over financial reporting will be maintained and updated (including improvements and corrections) as conditions warrant.

Assessment of Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Based upon the assessments, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, and its Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer have concluded that, as of December 31, 2012, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

Assessment of Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Management used the criteria issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control - Integrated Framework to assess the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Based upon the assessments, the Company’s management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2012, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective. The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm has issued a report on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, which appears on page F-2 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.

During the three months ended December 31, 2012, there was no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information

None.

 

60


Table of Contents

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

The information this Item requires is incorporated by reference to the information under the captions “The Board of Directors,” “Corporate Governance – Ethical Conduct Policy and Senior Financial Officer Code of Ethics,” “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance,” “Corporate Governance – Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee – Selection of Director Nominees,” and “Corporate Governance – Audit Committee” of the Company’s Proxy Statement to be filed with the SEC for its annual stockholders’ meeting to be held on May 10, 2013 (the “Proxy Statement”).

Item 11. Executive Compensation

The information this Item requires is incorporated by reference to the information under the captions “Corporate Governance – Compensation of Directors,” “Report of the Compensation Committee,” and “Executive Compensation” of the Proxy Statement.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters

The information this Item requires is incorporated by reference to the information under the captions “Equity Compensation Plan Information” and “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” of the Proxy Statement.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence

The information this Item requires is incorporated by reference to the information under the captions “Certain Relationships and Transactions” and “Corporate Governance – Board of Directors” of the Proxy Statement.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The information this Item requires is incorporated by reference to the information contained in the Proxy Statement under the caption “Audit Committee Report – 2012 and 2011 Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Fee Summary” of the Proxy Statement.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

 

  (a)   The following documents are filed as part of this report:
  1.      Financial Statements
       The following financial statements of the Company and their consolidated subsidiaries are incorporated by reference in Part II, Item 8.
    (a)    Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm – Ernst & Young LLP
    (b)    Consolidated Balance Sheets - December 31, 2012 and 2011
    (c)    Consolidated Statements of Operations - Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.
    (d)    Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income – Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.
    (e)    Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity - Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.
    (f)    Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows - Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.
    (g)    Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

 

61


Table of Contents
  2.      Financial Statement Schedule and Supplementary Data
    (a)    Selected Quarterly Financial Data for the Company are incorporated by reference in Part II, Item 8
    (b)   

Scheduleof the Company:

       Schedule III - Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

All other schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission are not required under the related instructions or are inapplicable and therefore have been omitted.

       Exhibits
  3.   (a)    First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Saul Centers, Inc. filed with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation on August 23, 1994 and filed as Exhibit 3.(a) of the 1993 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K are hereby incorporated by reference. Articles of Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Saul Centers, Inc., filed with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation on May 28, 2004 and filed as Exhibit 3.(a) of the June 30, 2004 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference. Articles of Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Saul Centers, Inc., filed with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation on May 26, 2006 and filed as Exhibit 3.(a) of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 30, 2006 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (b)    Amended and Restated Bylaws of Saul Centers, Inc. as in effect at and after August 24, 1993 and as of August 26, 1993 and filed as Exhibit 3.(b) of the 1993 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K are hereby incorporated by reference. Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restate Bylaws of Saul Centers, Inc. adopted November 29, 2007 and filed as Exhibit 3(b) of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 3, 2007 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (c)    Articles Supplementary to First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Company, dated October 30, 2003, filed as Exhibit 2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-A dated October 31, 2003, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (d)    Articles Supplementary to First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Company, as amended, dated March 26, 2008, filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed March 27, 2008, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (e)    Articles Supplementary to First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Company, dated February 6, 2013, filed as Exhibit 3.2 to Saul Centers’ Registration Statement on Form 8-A, filed February 7, 2013, is hereby incorporated by reference.
  4.   (a)    Deposit Agreement, dated November 5, 2003, among the Company, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as Depositary, and the holders of depositary receipts, each representing 1/100th of a share of 8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of Saul Centers, Inc. and filed as Exhibit 4 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A on October 31, 2003 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (b)    Deposit Agreement, dated March 27, 2008, among the Company, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as Depositary, and the holders of depositary receipts, each representing 1/100th of a share of 9% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of Saul Centers, Inc. and filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A on March 27, 2008 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (c)    Deposit Agreement, dated February 6, 2013, among the Company, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as Depositary, and the holders of depositary receipts, each representing 1/100th of a share of 6.875% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of Saul Centers, Inc. filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Saul Centers’ Registration Statement on Form 8-A on February 7, 2013 is hereby incorporated by reference.

 

62


Table of Contents
    (d)    Form specimen of receipt representing the depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of Saul Centers, Inc. and included as part of Exhibit 4 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A on October 31, 2003 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (e)    Form specimen of receipt representing the depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 9% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of Saul Centers, Inc. and included as part of Exhibit 4.2 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A on March 27, 2008 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (f)    Form specimen of receipt representing the depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 6.875% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of Saul Centers, Inc. and included as part of Exhibit 4.1 to Saul Centers’ Registration Statement on Form 8-A on February 7, 2013 is hereby incorporated by reference.
  10.   (a)    First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit No. 10.1 to Registration Statement No. 33-64562 is hereby incorporated by reference. The First Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, the Second Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, and the Third Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the 1995 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K is hereby incorporated by reference. The Fourth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the March 31, 1997 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference. The Fifth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 4.(c) to Registration Statement No. 333-41436, is hereby incorporated by reference. The Sixth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the September 30, 2003 Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q is hereby incorporated by reference. The Seventh Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the December 31, 2003 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K is hereby incorporated by reference. The Eighth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the December 31, 2007 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K is hereby incorporated by reference. The Ninth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the March 31, 2008 Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q is hereby incorporated by reference. The Tenth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the March 31, 2008 Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q is hereby incorporated by reference. The Eleventh Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10 (a) of the September 30, 2011 Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q is hereby incorporated by reference. The Twelfth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Holdings Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.1 of the Current Report of the Company on Form 8-K dated February 12, 2013 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (b)    First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary I Limited Partnership and Amendment No. 1 thereto filed as Exhibit 10.2 to Registration Statement No. 33-64562 are hereby incorporated by reference. The Second Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary I Limited Partnership, the Third Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary I Limited Partnership and the Fourth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary I Limited Partnership as filed as Exhibit 10.(b) of the 1997 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K are hereby incorporated by reference.

 

63


Table of Contents
    (c)    First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary II Limited Partnership and Amendment No. 1 thereto filed as Exhibit 10.3 to Registration Statement No. 33-64562 are hereby incorporated by reference. The Second Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary II Limited Partnership filed as Exhibit 10.(c) of the June 30, 2001 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference. The Third Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary II Limited Partnership as filed as exhibit 10.(c) of the 2006 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K are hereby incorporated by reference. The Fourth Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Saul Subsidiary II Limited Partnership as filed as Exhibit 10.(c) of the 2009 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K are hereby incorporated by reference.
    (d)    Property Conveyance Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.4 to Registration Statement No. 33- 64562 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (e)    Management Functions Conveyance Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.5 to Registration Statement No. 33-64562 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (f)    Registration Rights and Lock-Up Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.6 to Registration Statement No. 33-64562 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (g)    Exclusivity and Right of First Refusal Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.7 to Registration Statement No. 33-64562 is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (h)    Agreement of Assumption dated as of August 26, 1993 executed by Saul Holdings Limited Partnership and filed as Exhibit 10.(i) of the 1993 Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (i)    Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors, dated as of April 23, 2004 and filed as Exhibit 10.(k) of the June 30, 2004 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (j)    Credit Agreement, dated as of May 21, 2012, by and among Saul Holdings Limited Partnership as Borrower; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent and Sole Lead Arranger; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Syndication Agent; and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Capital One, N.A. and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania as Lenders, as filed as Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated May 24, 2012, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (k)    Guaranty, dated as of May 21, 2012, by and between Saul Centers, Inc., as Guarantor, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent and Sole Lead Arranger for itself and other financial institutions as Lenders, as filed as Exhibit 10.2 of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated May 24, 2012, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (l)    The Saul Centers, Inc. 2004 Stock Plan, as filed as Annex A to the Proxy Statement of the Company for its 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, is hereby incorporated by reference. The Amendment to Saul Centers, Inc. 2004 Stock Plan, as filed as Annex A to the Proxy Statement of the Company for its 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (m)    Form of Director Stock Option Agreements, as filed as Exhibit 10.(j) of the September 30, 2004 Quarterly Report of the Company, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (n)    Form of Officer Stock Option Grant Agreements, as filed as Exhibit 10.(k) of the September 30, 2004 Quarterly Report of the Company, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (o)    Promissory Note, dated as of March 23, 2011, by Clarendon Center LLC to The Prudential Life Insurance Company of America as filed as Exhibit 10.(a) of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 28, 2011, is hereby incorporated by reference.

 

64


Table of Contents
    (p)    Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing, dated as of March 23, 2011, by Clarendon Center LLC to Lawyers Title Realty Services, Inc. as trustee for the benefit of The Prudential Insurance Company of America, as beneficiary, as filed as Exhibit 10.(b) of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 28, 2011, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (q)    Shared Services Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2004, between B. F. Saul Company and Saul Centers, Inc., as filed as Exhibit 10.(c) of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8- K dated August 11, 2010, is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (r)    Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 9, 2011, by and among the Company, Saul Holdings Limited Partnership and B. F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust and filed as Exhibit 10.(r) of the September 30, 2011 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (s)    Agreement of Purchase and Sale, dated as of August 9, 2011, between Cranberry Retail, Inc. and Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, as amended and filed as Exhibit 2.(a) of the September 30, 2011 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (t)    Agreement of Purchase and Sale, dated as of August 9, 2011, between Kentlands Retail, Inc. and Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, as amended and filed as Exhibit 2.(b) of the September 30, 2011 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (u)    Agreement of Purchase and Sale, dated as of August 9, 2011, between Severna Retail, Inc. and Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, as amended and filed as Exhibit 2.(c) of the September 30, 2011 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference.
    (v)    Consulting Agreement, dated as of September 4, 2012, by and among Saul Centers, Inc. its subsidiary entities and B. Francis Saul III and filed as Exhibit 10.(v) of the September 30, 2012 Quarterly Report of the Company is hereby incorporated by reference.
  21.      Subsidiaries of Saul Centers, Inc. is filed herewith.
  23.      Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm is filed herewith.
  24.      Power of Attorney (included on signature page).
  31.      Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are filed herewith.
  32.      Section 1350 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are filed herewith.
  101.      The following financial statements from the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”): (i) consolidated balance sheets, (ii) consolidated statements of operations, (iii) consolidated statements of changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, (iv) consolidated statements of cash flows, and (v) the notes to the consolidated financial statements. Under Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, this exhibit is deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, is deemed not filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and otherwise is not subject to liability under those sections.

 

65


Table of Contents

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.

 

      SAUL CENTERS, INC.
     

(Registrant)

Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ B. Francis Saul II

      B. Francis Saul II
      Chairman of the Board of Directors & Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this Report has been signed below by the following persons in the capacities indicated. Each person whose signature appears below hereby constitutes and appoints each of B. Francis Saul II, Thomas H. McCormick and Scott V. Schneider as his attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution for him in any and all capacities, to sign any or all amendments to this Report and to file same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, granting unto such attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary in connection with such matters and hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact and agent or his substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Thomas H. McCormick

      Thomas H. McCormick, President and Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Philip D. Caraci

      Philip D. Caraci, Vice Chairman
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Scott V. Schneider

      Scott V. Schneider, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Joel A. Friedman

      Joel A. Friedman, Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ John E. Chapoton

      John E. Chapoton, Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ G. Patrick Clancy, Jr.

      G. Patrick Clancy, Jr., Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Gilbert M. Grosvenor

      Gilbert M. Grosvenor, Director

 

66


Table of Contents
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Philip C. Jackson Jr.

      Philip C. Jackson Jr., Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ General Paul X. Kelley

      General Paul X. Kelley, Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Charles R. Longsworth

      Charles R. Longsworth, Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Patrick F. Noonan

      Patrick F. Noonan, Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ H. Gregory Platts

      H. Gregory Platts, Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ Mark Sullivan III

      Mark Sullivan III, Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ James W. Symington

      James W. Symington, Director
Date:   March 13, 2013    

/s/ John R. Whitmore

      John R. Whitmore, Director

 

67


Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Saul Centers, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Saul Centers, Inc. as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a)2(b). These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Saul Centers, Inc. at December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Saul Centers, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 13, 2013 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/S/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia

March 13, 2013

 

F-1


Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Saul Centers, Inc.

We have audited Saul Centers, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Saul Centers, Inc.’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 Assessment of Effectiveness of 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 conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

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.

In our opinion, Saul Centers, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Saul Centers, Inc. as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012 of Saul Centers, Inc. and our report dated March 13, 2013 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia

March 13, 2013

 

F-2


Table of Contents

Saul Centers, Inc.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

     December 31,  

(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

   2012     2011  

Assets

    

Real estate investments

    

Land

   $ 353,890      $ 324,183   

Buildings and equipment

     1,109,911        1,092,533   

Construction in progress

     2,267        1,129   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
     1,466,068        1,417,845   

Accumulated depreciation

     (353,305     (326,397
  

 

 

   

 

 

 
     1,112,763        1,091,448   

Cash and cash equivalents

     12,133        12,323   

Accounts receivable and accrued income, net

     41,406        39,094   

Deferred leasing costs, net

     26,102        25,876   

Prepaid expenses, net

     3,895        3,868   

Deferred debt costs, net

     7,713        7,090   

Other assets

     3,297        12,870   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total assets

   $ 1,207,309      $ 1,192,569   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Liabilities

    

Mortgage notes payable

   $ 789,776      $ 823,871   

Revolving credit facility payable

     38,000        8,000   

Dividends and distributions payable

     13,490        13,219   

Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities

     27,434        22,992   

Deferred income

     31,320        31,281   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities

     900,020        899,363   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Stockholders' equity

    

Preferred stock, 1,000,000 shares authorized:

    

Series A Cumulative Redeemable, 40,000 shares issued and outstanding

     100,000        100,000   

Series B Cumulative Redeemable, 31,731 shares issued and outstanding

     79,328        79,328   

Common stock, $0.01 par value, 30,000,000 shares authorized, 20,045,452 and 19,291,845 shares issued and outstanding, respectively

     201        193   

Additional paid-in capital

     246,557        217,829   

Accumulated deficit

     (154,830     (144,659

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

     (3,553     (2,863
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Saul Centers, Inc. stockholders' equity

     267,703        249,828   

Noncontrolling interest

     39,586        43,378   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total stockholders' equity

     307,289        293,206   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities and stockholders' equity

   $ 1,207,309      $ 1,192,569   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

The Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.

 

F-3


Table of Contents

Saul Centers, Inc.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS