GETTY REALTY CORP /MD/ - Quarter Report: 2007 June (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D. C. 20549
FORM
10-Q
(Mark
one)
x
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For
the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007
OR
o
|
TRANSITION PERIOD PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For
the
transition period from __________ to __________
Commission
file number 001-13777
GETTY
REALTY CORP.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
MARYLAND
|
11-3412575
|
|
(State
or other jurisdiction
|
(I.R.S.
Employer
|
|
of
incorporation or
|
Identification
No.)
|
|
organization)
|
125
Jericho Turnpike, Suite 103
Jericho,
New York 11753
(Address
of principal executive offices)
(Zip
Code)
(516)
478 - 5400
(Registrant's
telephone number, including area code)
_________________________________________________________________
(Former
name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
report)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to
be
filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements
for
the past 90 days.
Yes x No
o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated
filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act.
Large
Accelerated Filer o Accelerated
Filer x Non-Accelerated
Filer o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No
x
Registrant
had outstanding 24,764,875 shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share,
as
of August 9, 2007.
GETTY
REALTY CORP.
INDEX
Part
I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
Page
Number
|
|
Item
1. Financial Statements (unaudited)
|
||
|
||
Part
II. OTHER INFORMATION
|
||
GETTY
REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
||||||||
(in
thousands, except share data)
|
||||||||
(unaudited)
|
||||||||
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||
Assets:
|
2007
|
2006
|
||||||
Real
Estate:
|
||||||||
Land
|
$ |
222,300
|
$ |
180,409
|
||||
Buildings
and
improvements
|
250,917
|
203,149
|
||||||
473,217
|
383,558
|
|||||||
Less
–
accumulated
depreciation
and amortization
|
(118,829 | ) | (116,089 | ) | ||||
Real
estate,
net
|
354,388
|
267,469
|
||||||
Deferred
rent receivable
|
33,648
|
32,297
|
||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
1,844
|
1,195
|
||||||
Recoveries
from state underground storage tank funds, net
|
4,147
|
3,845
|
||||||
Mortgages
and accounts receivable, net
|
4,317
|
3,440
|
||||||
Prepaid
expenses and other assets
|
6,744
|
1,037
|
||||||
Total
assets
|
$ |
405,088
|
$ |
309,283
|
||||
Liabilities
and Shareholders' Equity:
|
||||||||
Debt
|
$ |
131,678
|
$ |
45,194
|
||||
Environmental
remediation costs
|
18,392
|
17,201
|
||||||
Dividends
payable
|
11,538
|
11,284
|
||||||
Accounts
payable and accrued expenses
|
19,520
|
10,029
|
||||||
Total
liabilities
|
181,128
|
83,708
|
||||||
Commitments
and contingencies
|
--
|
--
|
||||||
Shareholders'
equity:
|
||||||||
Common
stock, par value $.01 per
share; authorized
|
||||||||
50,000,000
shares; issued
24,764,875 at June 30, 2007and 24,764,765 at December 31,
2006
|
248
|
248
|
||||||
Paid-in
capital
|
258,769
|
258,647
|
||||||
Dividends
paid in excess of
earnings
|
(34,866 | ) | (32,499 | ) | ||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive
loss
|
(191 | ) | (821 | ) | ||||
Total
shareholders'
equity
|
223,960
|
225,575
|
||||||
Total
liabilities and
shareholders' equity
|
$ |
405,088
|
$ |
309,283
|
||||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
-1-
GETTY
REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
||||||||||||||||
(in
thousands, except per share amounts)
|
||||||||||||||||
(unaudited)
|
||||||||||||||||
Three
months ended June 30,
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|||||||||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
from rental properties
|
$ |
20,727
|
$ |
18,152
|
$ |
38,710
|
$ |
36,191
|
||||||||
Expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Rental
property expenses
|
2,366
|
2,488
|
4,785
|
4,972
|
||||||||||||
Environmental
expenses, net
|
3,055
|
810
|
4,024
|
1,911
|
||||||||||||
General
and administrative expenses
|
1,780
|
1,333
|
3,233
|
2,740
|
||||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
2,706
|
1,995
|
4,569
|
3,910
|
||||||||||||
Total
expenses
|
9,907
|
6,626
|
16,611
|
13,533
|
||||||||||||
Operating
income
|
10,820
|
11,526
|
22,099
|
22,658
|
||||||||||||
Other
income, net
|
276
|
477
|
391
|
559
|
||||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
(2,224 | ) | (918 | ) | (3,188 | ) | (1,628 | ) | ||||||||
Net
earnings before discontinued operations
|
8,872
|
11,085
|
19,302
|
21,589
|
||||||||||||
Discontinued
operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations
|
(20 | ) |
27
|
(13 | ) |
54
|
||||||||||
Gains
on dispositions of real estate from
|
||||||||||||||||
discontinued
operations
|
1,172
|
-
|
1,172
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Net
earnings
|
$ |
10,024
|
$ |
11,112
|
$ |
20,461
|
21,643
|
|||||||||
Basic
earnings (loss) per common share:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
earnings before discontinued operations
|
$ |
.35
|
$ |
.45
|
$ |
.78
|
$ |
.88
|
||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
.05
|
-
|
.05
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Net
earnings
|
$ |
.40
|
$ |
.45
|
$ |
.83
|
$ |
.88
|
||||||||
Diluted
earnings (loss) per common share:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
earnings before discontinued operations
|
$ |
.35
|
$ |
.45
|
$ |
.78
|
$ |
.87
|
||||||||
Discontinued
operations
|
.05
|
-
|
.05
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Net
earnings
|
$ |
.40
|
$ |
.45
|
$ |
.83
|
$ |
.87
|
||||||||
Weighted
average shares outstanding:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
|
24,765
|
24,725
|
24,765
|
24,721
|
||||||||||||
Stock
options and restricted stock units
|
22
|
22
|
21
|
25
|
||||||||||||
Diluted
|
24,787
|
24,747
|
24,786
|
24,746
|
||||||||||||
Dividends
declared per share
|
$ |
.465
|
$ |
.455
|
$ |
.920
|
$ |
.910
|
||||||||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
-2-
GETTY
REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(in
thousands)
(unaudited)
Three
months ended June 30,
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|||||||||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||||||||
Net
earnings
|
$ |
10,024
|
$ |
11,112
|
$ |
20,461
|
$ |
21,643
|
||||||||
Other
comprehensive loss:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
unrealized gain on interest rate swap
|
815
|
177
|
630
|
177
|
||||||||||||
Comprehensive
income
|
$ |
10,839
|
$ |
11,289
|
$ |
21,091
|
$ |
21,820
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
-3-
GETTY
REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||
(unaudited)
|
||||||||
Six
months ended June 30,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||
Net
earnings
|
$ |
20,461
|
$ |
21,643
|
||||
Adjustments
to reconcile net earnings to
|
||||||||
net cash flow provided by operating activities:
|
||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
expense
|
4,572
|
3,912
|
||||||
Deferred
rental
revenue
|
(1,351 | ) | (1,596 | ) | ||||
Net
amortization of above-market and below-market leases
|
(554 | ) |
-
|
|||||
Gains
on dispositions of real
estate
|
(1,438 | ) | (457 | ) | ||||
Accretion
expense
|
384
|
348
|
||||||
Stock-based
employee compensation expense
|
120
|
87
|
||||||
Changes
in assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||
Recoveries
from state
underground storage tank funds, net
|
(134 | ) |
416
|
|||||
Mortgages
and accounts
receivable, net
|
(1,075 | ) | (659 | ) | ||||
Prepaid
expenses and other
assets
|
244
|
229
|
||||||
Environmental
remediation
costs
|
639
|
(1,109 | ) | |||||
Accounts
payable and accrued
expenses
|
86
|
(791 | ) | |||||
Net
cash flow provided by operating activities
|
21,954
|
22,023
|
||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||
Property
acquisitions and
capital expenditures
|
(86,201 | ) | (15,358 | ) | ||||
Collection
of mortgages
receivable, net
|
198
|
(120 | ) | |||||
Proceeds
from dispositions of
real estate
|
1,649
|
826
|
||||||
Net
cash flow used in investing activities
|
(84,354 | ) | (14,652 | ) | ||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||
Borrowings
under credit
agreement, net
|
86,500
|
14,300
|
||||||
Cash
dividends
paid
|
(22,574 | ) | (22,273 | ) | ||||
Credit
agreement origination costs
|
(863 | ) |
-
|
|||||
Repayment of
mortgages
payable, net
|
(16 | ) | (15 | ) | ||||
Proceeds
from stock options
exercised
|
2
|
232
|
||||||
Net
cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities
|
63,049
|
(7,756 | ) | |||||
Net
increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
649
|
(385 | ) | |||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
1,195
|
1,247
|
||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$ |
1,844
|
$ |
862
|
||||
Supplemental
disclosures of cash flow information
|
||||||||
Cash
paid (refunded) during the
year for:
|
||||||||
Interest
|
$ |
1,747
|
$ |
1,362
|
||||
Income
taxes, net
|
329
|
328
|
||||||
Recoveries
from state underground storage tank funds
|
(871 | ) | (859 | ) | ||||
Environmental
remediation costs
|
2,434
|
2,030
|
||||||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial
statements.
|
-4-
GETTY
REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(Unaudited)
1.
General:
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
of
America (“GAAP”). The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Getty Realty Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (the "Company"). The
Company is a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) specializing in the ownership
and leasing of retail motor fuel and convenience store properties and petroleum
distribution terminals. The Company manages and evaluates its operations
as a
single segment. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have
been
eliminated.
The
financial statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP, which requires
management to make its best estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect
the
reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets
and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and revenues and
expenses during the period reported. While all available information has
been
considered, actual results could differ from those estimates, judgments and
assumptions. Estimates, judgments and assumptions underlying the accompanying
consolidated financial statements include, but are not limited to, deferred
rent
receivable, recoveries from state underground storage tank funds, environmental
remediation costs, real estate, depreciation and amortization, impairment
of
long-lived assets, litigation, accrued expenses, and income taxes.
The
operating results and gains from the dispositions of real estate are
reclassified as discontinued operations for properties that have been sold.
The
operating results of the properties disposed of in 2007 for the three and
six
months ended June 30, 2006 have been reclassified to discontinued operations
to
conform to the 2007 presentation. Discontinued operations for the quarter
and
six months ended June 30, 2007 are primarily comprised of gains from two
property sales. The revenue from rental properties and expenses related to
these
properties are insignificant for the three and six months ended June 30,
2007
and 2006.
The
consolidated financial statements are unaudited but, in the opinion of
management, reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals)
necessary for a fair statement of the results for the periods presented.
These
statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial
statements and related notes, which appear in the Company’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
2.
Commitments and Contingencies:
In
order
to minimize the Company’s exposure to credit risk associated with financial
instruments, the Company places its temporary cash investments with high
credit
quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are held in an
institutional money market fund and federal agency discount notes.
-5-
As
of June
30, 2007, the Company leased nine hundred four of its one thousand ninety-five
properties on a long-term net basis to Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc.
(“Marketing”) under a master lease (“Master Lease”) and supplemental leases for
four properties (collectively the “Marketing Leases”) (see note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements which appear in the Company’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006). Marketing operated
substantially all of the Company’s petroleum marketing businesses when it was
spun-off to the Company’s shareholders as a separate publicly held company in
March 1997 (the “Spin-Off”). In December 2000, Marketing was acquired by a
subsidiary of OAO Lukoil, one of Russia’s largest integrated oil companies. The
Company’s financial results depend largely on rental income from Marketing, and
to a lesser extent on rental income from other tenants, and are therefore
materially dependent upon the ability of Marketing to meet its obligations
under
the Marketing Leases. A substantial portion of the deferred rental revenue,
$31,761,000 of the $33,648,000 recorded as of June 30, 2007, is due to
recognition of rental revenue on a straight-line basis under the Marketing
Leases. Marketing’s financial results depend largely on retail petroleum
marketing margins and rental income from its dealers. The petroleum marketing
industry has been and continues to be volatile and highly competitive. Marketing
has made all required monthly rental payments under the Marketing Leases
when
due. The Company has noted a continuing significant decline in Marketing’s
annual financial results based on the financial statements and other financial
data Marketing has provided to date. No assurance can be given that Marketing
will have the ability to pay its debts and meet its rent and other financial
obligations under the Marketing Leases as they become due. Although Marketing
is
wholly owned by a subsidiary of Lukoil and Lukoil has provided capital, and
we
believe currently provides credit enhancement, to Marketing, Lukoil is not
a guarantor of the Marketing Leases and no assurance can be given that Lukoil
will provide any credit enhancement or additional capital to Marketing for
the remainder of the terms of the Marketing Leases, or otherwise cause
Marketing to fulfill any of its rental or other financial obligations under
the Marketing Leases.
Under
the
Master Lease, the Company has also agreed to provide limited environmental
indemnification to Marketing, capped at $4,250,000 and expiring in 2010,
for
certain pre-existing conditions at six of the terminals which are owned by
the
Company. Under the agreement, Marketing will pay the first $1,500,000 of
costs
and expenses incurred in connection with remediating any such pre-existing
conditions, Marketing and the Company will share equally the next $8,500,000
of
those costs and expenses and Marketing will pay all additional costs and
expenses over $10,000,000. The Company has accrued $300,000 as of June 30,
2007
and December 31, 2006 in connection with this indemnification
agreement.
The
Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in
the
ordinary course of its business. In addition, the Company has retained
responsibility for certain legal proceedings and claims relating to the
petroleum marketing business that were identified at the time of the spin-off.
As of June 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006 the Company had accrued $2,432,000
and
$2,822,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which it believes
were
appropriate based on information then currently available. The ultimate
resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect
on
the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.
-6-
In
September 2003, the Company was notified by the State of New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection that the Company is one of approximately sixty
potentially responsible parties for natural resource damages resulting from
discharges of hazardous substances into the Lower Passaic River. The definitive
list of potentially responsible parties and their actual responsibility for
the
alleged damages, the aggregate cost to remediate the Lower Passaic River,
the
amount of natural resource damages and the method of allocating such amounts
among the potentially responsible parties have not been determined. In September
2004, the Company received a General Notice Letter from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) (the “EPA Notice”), advising the
Company that it may be a potentially responsible party for costs of remediating
certain conditions resulting from discharges of hazardous substances into
the
Lower Passaic River. ChevronTexaco received the same EPA Notice regarding
those
same conditions. Additionally, the Company believes that ChevronTexaco is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company, pursuant to an indemnification
agreement, for most of the conditions at the property identified by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA. Accordingly, the
ultimate legal and financial liability of the Company, if any, cannot be
estimated with any certainty at this time.
From
October 2003 through June 2007 the Company was notified that the Company
was
made party to forty-eight cases, in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts,
New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and West
Virginia brought by local water providers or governmental agencies. These
cases
allege various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater
with
MTBE as the basis for claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Each
case names as defendants approximately fifty petroleum refiners, manufacturers,
distributors and retailers of MTBE, or gasoline containing MTBE. The accuracy
of
the allegations as they relate to the Company, its defenses to such claims,
the
aggregate amount of damages, the definitive list of defendants and the method
of
allocating such amounts among the defendants have not been determined.
Accordingly, the ultimate legal and financial liability of the Company, if
any,
cannot be estimated with any certainty at this time.
Prior
to
the spin-off, the Company was self-insured for workers’ compensation, general
liability and vehicle liability up to predetermined amounts above which
third-party insurance applies. As of June 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006,
the
Company’s consolidated balance sheets included, in accounts payable and accrued
expenses, $313,000 and $332,000, respectively, relating to self-insurance
obligations. The Company estimates its loss reserves for claims, including
claims incurred but not reported, by utilizing actuarial valuations provided
annually by its insurance carriers. The Company is required to deposit funds
for
substantially all of these loss reserves with its insurance carriers, and
may be
entitled to refunds of amounts previously funded, as the claims are evaluated
on
an annual basis. Although loss reserve adjustments may have a significant
impact
on results of operations for any single fiscal year or interim period, the
Company currently believes that such adjustments will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company’s long-term financial position. Since the
spin-off, the Company has maintained insurance coverage subject to certain
deductibles.
In
order
to qualify as a REIT, among other items, the Company must pay out substantially
all of its “earnings and profits” (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code) in
cash distributions to shareholders each year. Should the Internal Revenue
Service successfully assert that the Company’s earnings and profits were greater
than the amounts required to be distributed, the Company may fail to qualify
as
a REIT; however, the Company may avoid losing its REIT status by paying a
deficiency dividend to eliminate any remaining earnings and profits. The
Company
may have to borrow money or sell assets to pay such a deficiency dividend.
The
Company accrues for this and other uncertain tax matters when appropriate
based
on information currently available. The accrual for uncertain tax positions
is
adjusted as circumstances change and as the uncertainties become more clearly
defined, such as when audits are settled or exposures expire. Accordingly,
an
income tax benefit of $700,000 was recorded in the third quarter of 2006
due to
the elimination of the amount accrued for uncertain tax positions since the
Company believes that the uncertainties regarding these exposures have been
resolved or that it is no longer likely that the exposure will result in
a
liability upon review. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters
may
have a significant impact on the results of operations for any single fiscal
year or interim period. In June 2006 the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(“FASB”) issued FASB Interpretation No. 48 (“FIN 48”) “Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes.” FIN 48 addresses the recognition and measurement
of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The adoption
of
FIN 48 in January 2007 did not have any impact on the Company’s financial
position or results of operation.
-7-
3.
Environmental Expenses
The
Company is subject to numerous existing federal, state and local laws and
regulations, including matters relating to the protection of the environment
such as the remediation of known contamination and the retirement and
decommissioning or removal of long-lived assets including buildings containing
hazardous materials, USTs and other equipment. Environmental expenses are
principally attributable to remediation costs which include installing,
operating, maintaining and decommissioning remediation systems, monitoring
contamination, and governmental agency reporting incurred in connection with
contaminated properties. Environmental remediation liabilities and related
assets are measured at fair value based on their expected future cash flows
which have been adjusted for inflation and discounted to present value. For
the
three and six months ended June 30, 2007, and 2006 the net
changes in estimated
remediation costs included in environmental expenses in the Company’s
consolidated statements of operations were $1,638,000 and $2,069,000,
respectively, as compared to $150,000 and $478,000, respectively, for the
comparable prior year period, which amounts were net of changes in estimated
recoveries from state underground storage tank (“UST”) remediation funds.
Environmental expenses also include project management fees, legal fees and
provisions for environmental litigation loss reserves.
In
accordance with the leases with certain tenants, the Company has agreed to
bring
the leased properties with known environmental contamination to within
applicable standards and to regulatory or contractual closure (“Closure”) in an
efficient and economical manner. Generally, upon achieving Closure at each
individual property, the Company’s environmental liability under the lease for
that property will be satisfied and future remediation obligations will be
the
responsibility of the Company’s tenant. Generally the liability for the
retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs and other equipment is
the
responsibility of the Company’s tenants. The Company is contingently liable for
these obligations in the event that the tenants do not satisfy their
responsibilities. A liability has not been accrued for obligations that are
the
responsibility of the Company’s tenants.
Of
the
nine hundred four properties leased to Marketing, the Company has agreed
to pay
all costs relating to, and to indemnify Marketing for, certain environmental
liabilities and obligations for two hundred nineteen properties that have
not
achieved Closure as of June 30, 2007 and are scheduled in the Master Lease.
The
Company will continue to seek reimbursement from state UST remediation funds
related to these environmental expenditures where available.
-8-
The
estimated future costs for known environmental remediation requirements are
accrued when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable
estimate of fair value can be made. The environmental remediation liability
is
estimated based on the level and impact of contamination at each property.
The
accrued liability is the aggregate of the best estimate of the fair value
of
cost for each component of the liability. Recoveries of environmental costs
from
state UST remediation funds, with respect to both past and future environmental
spending, are accrued at fair value as income, net of allowance for collection
risk, based on estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with
the
funds when such recoveries are considered probable.
Environmental
exposures are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons, including
the extent of contamination, alternative treatment methods that may be applied,
location of the property which subjects it to differing local laws and
regulations and their interpretations, as well as the time it takes to remediate
contamination. In developing the Company’s liability for probable and reasonably
estimable environmental remediation costs, on a property by property basis,
the
Company considers among other things, enacted laws and regulations, assessments
of contamination and surrounding geology, quality of information available,
currently available technologies for treatment, alternative methods of
remediation and prior experience. These accrual estimates are subject to
significant change, and are adjusted as the remediation treatment progresses,
as
circumstances change and as these contingencies become more clearly defined
and
reasonably estimable. As of June 30, 2007, the Company had remediation action
plans in place for two hundred seventy-three (93%) of the two hundred ninety
five properties for which it retained environmental responsibility and has
not
received a “no further action” letter and the remaining twenty-two properties
(7%) remain in the assessment phase.
As
of June
30, 2007, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, the Company had accrued
$18,392,000, $17,201,000 and $17,350,000, respectively, as management’s best
estimate of the fair value of reasonably estimable environmental remediation
costs. As of June 30, 2007, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, the
Company
had also recorded $4,147,000, $3,845,000 and $4,264,000, respectively, as
management’s best estimate for recoveries from state UST remediation funds, net
of allowance, related to environmental obligations and liabilities. Accrued
environmental remediation costs and recoveries from state UST remediation
funds
have been accreted for the change in present value due to the passage of
time
and, accordingly, $384,000 and $348,000 of net accretion expense is included
in
environmental expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006,
respectively.
In
view of
the uncertainties associated with environmental expenditures, however, the
Company believes it is possible that the fair value of future actual net
expenditures could be substantially higher than these estimates. Adjustments
to
accrued liabilities for environmental remediation costs will be reflected
in the
Company’s financial statements as they become probable and a reasonable estimate
of fair value can be made. Although future environmental expenses may have
a
significant impact on results of operations for any single fiscal year or
interim period, the Company currently believes that such costs will not have
a
material adverse effect on the Company’s long-term financial
position.
-9-
4. Shareholders'
Equity:
A
summary
of the changes in shareholders' equity for the six months ended June 30,
2007 is
as follows (in thousands, except share amounts):
Dividends
|
Accumulated
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Paid
In
|
Other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Common
Stock
|
Paid-in
|
Excess
Of
|
Comprehensive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Earnings
|
Loss
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance,
December 31, 2006
|
24,764,765
|
$ |
248
|
$ |
258,647
|
$ | (32,499 | ) | $ | (821 | ) | $ |
225,575
|
|||||||||||
Net
earnings
|
20,461
|
20,461
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends
|
(22,828 | ) | (22,828 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock-based
employee
compensation
expense
|
120
|
120
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
unrealized gain on
interest
rate swap
|
630
|
630
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock
issued
|
110
|
-
|
2
|
2
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Balance,
June 30,2007
|
24,764,875
|
$ |
248
|
$ |
258,769
|
$ | (34,866 | ) | $ | (191 | ) | $ |
223,960
|
The
Company is authorized to issue 20,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par
value
$.01 per share, of which none were issued as of June 30, 2007 or December
31,
2006.
5.
Debt
On
March
27, 2007, the Company entered into an amended and restated senior unsecured
revolving credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a group of domestic
commercial banks.
The
Credit
Agreement, among other items, increases the aggregate amount of the Company’s
credit facility by $75,000,000 to $175,000,000; reduces the interest rate
margin
on LIBOR based borrowings by 0.25% and extends the term of the Credit Agreement
from June 2008 to March 2011. The Credit Agreement permits borrowings at
an
interest rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus a margin ranging from
0.0% to
0.25% or a LIBOR rate plus a margin ranging from 1.0% to 1.5%. The applicable
margin is based on the Company's leverage ratio, as defined in the Credit
Agreement.
Subject
to
the terms of the Credit Agreement, the Company has options to extend the
term of
the Credit Agreement for one additional year and/or increase the amount
of the
credit facility available pursuant to the Credit Agreement by $125,000,000
to
$300,000,000, subject to approval by the Company’s Board of Directors and the
Bank Syndicate. The Credit Agreement contains customary terms and conditions,
including customary financial covenants such as leverage and coverage ratios
and
other customary covenants, including limitations on the Company’s ability to
incur debt and pay dividends and maintenance of tangible net worth, and
events
of default, including change of control and failure to maintain REIT status.
The
Company believes that the Credit Agreement’s terms, conditions and covenants
will not limit its current business practices.
-10-
6.
Acquisitions
On
February 28, 2006, the Company acquired eighteen retail motor fuel and
convenience store properties located in Western New York for $13,389,000.
Simultaneous with the closing on the acquisition, the Company entered into
a
triple-net lease with a single tenant for all of the properties. The lease
provides for annual rentals at a competitive rate and provides for escalations
thereafter. The lease has an initial term of fifteen years and provides the
tenant options for three renewal terms of five years each. The lease also
provides that the tenant is responsible for all existing and future
environmental conditions at the properties.
Effective
March 31, 2007 the Company acquired fifty-nine convenience store and retail
motor fuel properties in ten states for approximately $79,335,000 from various
subsidiaries of FF-TSY Holding Company II, LLC (the successor to Trustreet
Properties, Inc.) (“Trustreet”), a subsidiary of General Electric Capital
Corporation, for cash with funds drawn under its Credit Agreement. Effective
April 23, 2007, the Company acquired five additional properties from Trustreet
for approximately $5,200,000. The aggregate cost of the acquisitions, including
transaction costs, is approximately $84,535,000. Substantially all of the
properties are triple-net-leased to tenants who previously leased the properties
from the seller. The leases generally provide that the tenants are responsible
for substantially all existing and future environmental conditions at the
properties.
The
Company's allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and
liabilities assumed as of June 30, 2007 is preliminary and subject to change.
The purchase price has been allocated between assets, liabilities and intangible
assets based on the initial estimates of fair value. These allocations are
preliminary and may not be indicative of the final allocations. The Company
continues to evaluate the existence of pre-acquisition contingencies and
the
assumptions used in valuing the real estate. The Company anticipates finalizing
these allocations during the latter part of 2007. A change in the final
allocation from what is presented may result in an increase or decrease in
identified intangible assets and changes in depreciation, amortization or
other
expenses.
The
Company estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting
of
land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant” and identified intangible
assets and liabilities (consisting of leasehold interests, above-market and
below-market leases and in-place leases) and assumed liabilities.
-11-
Based
on
these estimates, the Company allocated the purchase price to the applicable
assets and liabilities as follows (in thousands):
Consideration:
|
||||
Purchase
price paid to Trustreet
|
$ |
83,404
|
||
Allocated
transaction costs
|
1,131
|
|||
Total
Consideration
|
$ |
84,535
|
||
Assets
Acquired:
|
||||
Real
estate investment properties
|
$ |
89,908
|
||
Above-market
leases
|
1,955
|
|||
Leases
in place
|
3,396
|
|||
Total
|
95,259
|
|||
Liabilities
Assumed:
|
||||
Below-market
leases
|
10,724
|
|||
Net
assets acquired
|
$ |
84,535
|
The
following unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial information
has
been prepared utilizing the historical financial statements of Getty Realty
Corp. and the historical financial information of the properties acquired
which
was derived from the consolidated books and records of Trustreet. The unaudited
pro forma condensed consolidated statements of earnings assume that the
acquisitions had occurred as of the beginning of each of the periods presented,
after giving effect to certain adjustments including (a) rental income
adjustments resulting from (i) the straight-lining of scheduled rent increases;
and (ii) the net amortization of the intangible assets relating to above-market
leases and intangible liabilities relating to below-market leases over the
remaining lease terms which average eleven years and (b) depreciation and
amortization adjustments resulting from (i) the depreciation of real estate
assets over their useful lives which average seventeen years and (ii) the
amortization of intangible assets relating to leases in place over
the remaining lease terms. The following information also gives effect to
the
additional interest expense resulting from the assumed increase in borrowing
outstanding drawn under the Credit Agreement to fund the acquisition. The
unaudited pro forma condensed financial information is not indicative of
the
results of operations that would have been achieved had the acquisition from
Trustreet reflected herein been consummated on the dates indicated or that
will
be achieved in the future.
Three
Months Ended June
|
Six
Months Ended June
|
|||||||||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
|
$ |
20,784
|
$ |
20,716
|
$ |
41,489
|
$ |
41,499
|
||||||||
Net
income
|
$ |
10,033
|
$ |
11,554
|
$ |
21,021
|
$ |
22,655
|
||||||||
Net
earnings per share
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
|
$ |
0.41
|
$ |
0.47
|
$ |
0.85
|
$ |
0.92
|
||||||||
Diluted
|
$ |
0.41
|
$ |
0.47
|
$ |
0.85
|
$ |
0.91
|
-12-
This
discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations
should
be read in conjunction with the sections entitled “Part I, Item 1A. Risk
Factors” and “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations,” which appear in our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, and the unaudited consolidated
financial statements and related notes which appear in this Quarterly Report
on
Form 10-Q.
Recent
Developments
On
March
31, 2007, we acquired fifty-nine convenience store and retail motor fuel
properties in ten states from various subsidiaries of FF-TSY Holding Company
II,
LLC (the successor to Trustreet Properties, Inc.) (“Trustreet”), a subsidiary of
General Electric Capital Corporation, for cash with funds drawn under our
credit
facility. On April 23, 2007 we acquired five additional properties from
Trustreet. The aggregate cost of the acquisitions, including transaction
costs,
is approximately $84.5 million. Substantially all of the properties are
triple-net leased to tenants who previously leased the properties from the
seller. The leases generally provide that the tenants are responsible for
substantially all existing and future environmental conditions at the
properties. For more information with respect to the acquisition from Trustreet,
see note 6 to our unaudited consolidated financial statements included in
this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
General
We
are a
real estate investment trust specializing in the ownership and leasing of
retail
motor fuel and convenience store properties and petroleum distribution
terminals. We elected to be treated as a REIT under the federal income tax
laws
beginning January 1, 2001. As a REIT, we are not subject to federal corporate
income tax on the taxable income we distribute to our shareholders. In order
to
continue to qualify for taxation as a REIT, we are required, among other
things,
to distribute at least ninety percent of our taxable income to shareholders
each
year.
We
lease
or sublet our properties primarily to distributors and retailers engaged
in the
sale of gasoline and other motor fuel products, convenience store products
and
automotive repair services. These tenants are responsible for the payment
of
taxes, maintenance, repair, insurance and other operating expenses and for
managing the actual operations conducted at these properties. As of June
30,
2007, we leased nine hundred four of our one thousand ninety-five properties
on
a long-term basis under a master lease (the “Master Lease”) and supplemental
leases for four properties, (collectively the “Marketing Leases”) to Getty
Petroleum Marketing Inc. (“Marketing”) which was spun-off to our shareholders as
a separate publicly held company in March 1997. In December 2000, Marketing
was
acquired by a subsidiary of OAO Lukoil (“Lukoil”), one of Russia’s largest
integrated oil companies.
A
substantial portion of our revenues (80% for the six months ended June 30,
2007), are derived from the Marketing Leases. Accordingly, our revenues are
dependent to a large degree on the economic performance of Marketing and
of the
petroleum marketing industry and any factor that adversely affects Marketing
or
our other lessees may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition
and results of operations. Marketing’s financial results depend largely on
retail petroleum marketing margins and rental income from subtenants who
operate
their businesses at our properties. The petroleum marketing industry has
been
and continues to be volatile and highly competitive. Factors that could
adversely affect Marketing or our other lessees include those described under
“Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors”, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K. In the event
that Marketing cannot or will not perform its monetary obligations under
the
Marketing Leases, our financial condition and results of operations would
be
materially adversely affected. Although Marketing is wholly owned by a
subsidiary of Lukoil and Lukoil has provided capital, and we believe currently
provides credit enhancement, to Marketing, Lukoil is not a guarantor of the
Marketing Leases and no assurance can be given that Lukoil will provide any
credit enhancement or additional capital to Marketing of the
Marketing Leases, or otherwise cause Marketing to fulfill any of its rental
ofor other financial obligations under the Marketing Leases. Marketing continues
to pay timely its monetary obligations under the Marketing Leases, as it
has
since the inception of the Master Lease in 1997, although there is no assurance
can be given that they will continue to do so.
-13-
We
periodically receive and review Marketing’s financial statements and other
financial data. We receive this information from Marketing pursuant to the
terms
of the Master Lease. Certain of this information is not publicly available
and
the terms of the Master Lease prohibit us from including this financial
information in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on
Form
10-Q or in our Annual Reports to Shareholders. The financial performance
of
Marketing may deteriorate, and Marketing may ultimately default on its monetary
obligations to us before we receive financial information from Marketing
that
would indicate the deterioration.
Certain
financial and other information concerning Marketing is available from Dun
&
Bradstreet and may be accessed by their web site (www.dnb.com) upon payment
of
their fee.
Selected
balance sheet data of Marketing at December 31, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002
and
selected operating data of Marketing for each of the three years in the period
ending December 31, 2004, which is publicly available, has been provided
in
“Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations,” which appears in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2006. You should not rely on the selected balance
sheet data or operating data related to prior years as representative of
Marketing’s current financial condition or current results of operations.
We
have
noted a continuing significant decline in Marketing’s annual
financial results from the prior periods presented based on the financial
statements and other financial data Marketing has provided to us to date.
Accordingly, no assurance can be given that Marketing will have the ability
to
pay its debts and meet its rental and other financial obligations under the
Marketing Leases as they become due.
As
part of
a periodic review by the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities
and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003, we received and responded to a number of comments. The
only
comment that remains unresolved pertains to the SEC’s position that we must
include the financial statements and summarized financial data of Marketing
in
our periodic filings. The SEC subsequently indicated that, unless we file
Marketing’s financial statements and summarized financial data with our periodic
reports: (i) it will not consider our Annual Reports on Forms 10-K for the
years
beginning with 2000 to be compliant; (ii) it will not consider us to
be current in our reporting requirements; (iii) it will not be in a position
to
declare effective any registration statements we may file for public offerings
of our securities; and (iv) we should consider how the SEC’s conclusion impacts
our ability to make offers and sales of our securities under existing
registration statements and if we have a liability for such offers and sales
made pursuant to registration statements that did not contain the financial
statements of Marketing.
-14-
We
believe
that the SEC’s position is based on their interpretation of certain provisions
of their internal Accounting Disclosure Rules and Practices Training Material,
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 71 and Rule 3-13 of Regulation S-X. We do not
believe that any of this guidance is clearly applicable to our particular
circumstances and that, even if it were, we believe that we should be entitled
to certain relief from compliance with such requirements. Marketing subleases
our properties to approximately nine hundred independent, individual service
station/convenience store operators (subtenants), most of whom were our tenants
when Marketing was spun-off to our shareholders. Consequently, we believe
that
we, as the owner of these properties and the Getty brand, and our prior
experience with Marketing’s tenants, could relet these properties to the
existing subtenants who operate their businesses at our properties or others
at
market rents. Because of this particular aspect of our landlord-tenant
relationship with Marketing, we do not believe that the inclusion of Marketing’s
financial statements in our filings is necessary to evaluate our financial
condition. Our position was included in a written response to the SEC. To
date,
the SEC has not accepted our position regarding the inclusion of Marketing’s
financial statements in our filings. We are endeavoring to achieve a resolution
of this issue that will be acceptable to the SEC. We can not accurately predict
the consequences if we are ultimately unsuccessful in achieving an acceptable
resolution.
We
do not
believe that offers or sales of our securities made pursuant to existing
registration statements that did not or do not contain the financial statements
of Marketing constitute, by reason of such omission, a violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Additionally, we
believe that, if there ultimately is a determination that such offers or
sales,
by reason of such omission, resulted in a violation of those securities laws,
we
would not have any material liability as a consequence of any such
determination.
We
manage
our business to enhance the value of our real estate portfolio and, as a
REIT,
place particular emphasis on minimizing risk and generating cash sufficient
to
make required distributions to shareholders of at least ninety percent of
our
taxable income each year. In addition to measurements defined by generally
accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), our management also focuses on funds
from operations available to common shareholders (“FFO”) and adjusted funds from
operations available to common shareholders (“AFFO”) to measure our performance.
FFO is generally considered to be an appropriate supplemental non-GAAP measure
of the performance of REITs. FFO is defined by the National Association of
Real
Estate Investment Trusts as net earnings before depreciation and amortization
of
real estate assets, gains or losses on dispositions of real estate, non-FFO
items reported in discontinued operations and extraordinary items and cumulative
effect of accounting change. Other REITS may use definitions of FFO and/or
AFFO
that are different than ours and, accordingly, may not be
comparable.
-15-
We
believe
that FFO is helpful to investors in measuring our performance because FFO
excludes various items included in GAAP net earnings that do not relate to,
or
are not indicative of, our fundamental operating performance such as gains
or
losses from property dispositions and depreciation and amortization of real
estate assets. In our case, however, GAAP net earnings and FFO include the
significant impact of deferred rental revenue (straight-line rental revenue)
and
the net amortization of above-market and below-market leases on our recognition
of revenues from rental properties. Deferred rental revenue results primarily
from fixed rental increases scheduled under certain leases with our tenants.
In
accordance with GAAP, the aggregate minimum rent due over the initial term
of
these leases are recognized on a straight-line basis rather than when due.
The
present value of the difference between the fair market rent and the contractual
rent for in-place leases at the time properties are acquired is amortized
into
revenue from rental properties over the remaining lives of the in-place leases.
GAAP net earnings and FFO may also include income tax benefits recognized
due to
the elimination of, or a net reduction in, amounts accrued for uncertain
tax
positions related to being taxed as a C-corp., prior to 2001. Income taxes
did
not have a significant impact on our earnings for the periods presented,
and
accordingly, do not appear as a separate item in our statement of operations
or
reconciliation of AFFO from net earnings. As a result, management pays
particular attention to AFFO, a supplemental non-GAAP performance measure
that
we define as FFO less straight-line rental revenue, net amortization of
above-market and below-market leases and income tax benefit. In management’s
view, AFFO provides a more accurate depiction than FFO of the impact of
scheduled rent increases under these leases, rental revenue from in-place
leases
and our election to be treated as a REIT under the federal income tax laws
beginning in 2001. Neither FFO nor AFFO represent cash generated from operating
activities calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and therefore these measures should not be considered an alternative
for GAAP net earnings or as a measure of liquidity.
A
reconciliation of net earnings to FFO and AFFO for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 is as follows (in thousands, except per share
amounts):
-16-
Three
months ended
June
30,
|
Six
months ended
June
30,
|
|||||||||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||||||||
Net
earnings
|
$ |
10,024
|
$ |
11,112
|
$ |
20,461
|
$ |
21,643
|
||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization of real estate assets
|
2,706
|
1,995
|
4,569
|
3,910
|
||||||||||||
Gains
on dispositions of real estate
|
(220 | ) | (423 | ) | (266 | ) | (457 | ) | ||||||||
Non-FFO
items reported in discontinued operations:
|
||||||||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization of real estate assets
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
||||||||||||
Gains
on dispositions of real estate
|
(1,172 | ) |
-
|
(1,172 | ) |
-
|
||||||||||
Funds
from operations
|
11,339
|
12,685
|
23,595
|
25,098
|
||||||||||||
Deferred
rental revenue (straight-line rent)
|
(901 | ) | (772 | ) | (1,320 | ) | (1,594 | ) | ||||||||
Deferred
rental revenue (straight-line rent) reported in
|
||||||||||||||||
discontinued
operations
|
32
|
(1 | ) | (31 | ) | (2 | ) | |||||||||
Net
amortization of above-market and below-market leases
|
(554 | ) |
-
|
(554 | ) |
-
|
||||||||||
Adjusted
funds from operations
|
$ |
9,916
|
$ |
11,912
|
$ |
21,690
|
$ |
23,502
|
||||||||
Diluted
per share amounts:
|
||||||||||||||||
Earnings
per share
|
$ |
0.40
|
$ |
0.45
|
$ |
.83
|
$ |
0.87
|
||||||||
Funds
from operations per share
|
$ |
0.46
|
$ |
0.51
|
$ |
.95
|
$ |
1.01
|
||||||||
Adjusted
funds from operations per share
|
$ |
0.40
|
$ |
0.48
|
$ |
.88
|
$ |
0.95
|
||||||||
Diluted
weighted average shares outstanding
|
24,787
|
24,747
|
24,786
|
24,746
|
||||||||||||
-17-
Results
of
operations
Three
months ended June 30, 2007 compared to the three months ended June 30,
2006
Revenues
from rental properties were $20.7 million for the three months ended June
30,
2007 as compared to $18.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2006.
We
received approximately $15.0 million for both the three months ended June
30,
2007 and three months ended June 30, 2006 from properties leased to Marketing
under the Marketing Leases. We also received rent of $4.2 million in the
three
months ended June 30, 2007 and $2.4 million in the three months ended June
30,
2006 from other tenants. The increase in rent received was primarily due
to rent
from properties acquired in 2007 and rent escalations, partially offset by
the
effect of dispositions of real estate and lease expirations. In addition,
revenues from rental properties include deferred rental revenues of $0.9
million
for the three months ended June 30, 2007 as compared to $0.8 million for
the
three months ended June 30, 2006, recorded as required by GAAP, related to
the
fixed rent increases scheduled under certain leases with tenants. The aggregate
minimum rent due over the initial term of these leases are recognized on
a
straight-line basis rather than when due. Revenues from rental properties
also
include $0.6 million of net amortization of above-market and below-market
leases
due to the properties acquired in 2007. The present value of the difference
between the fair market rent and the contractual rent for in-place leases
at the
time properties are acquired is amortized into revenue from rental properties
over the remaining lives of the in-place leases.
Rental
property expenses, which are primarily comprised of rent expense and real
estate
and other state and local taxes, were $2.4 million for the three months ended
June 30, 2007 and were comparable to $2.5 million recorded for the three
months
ended June 30, 2006.
Environmental
expenses, net for the three months ended June 30, 2007 were $3.1 million
as
compared to $0.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2006. The increase
was primarily due to a $1.5 million increase in change in estimated
environmental costs, net of estimated recoveries from state underground storage
tank funds, and a $0.7 million increase in environmental related litigation
expenses as compared to the prior year period. The increase in the change
in
estimated environmental costs for the three months ended June 30, 2007 was
due
to the increase in project scope and cost forecasts at a limited number of
properties, including one site where the estimated cost to complete the
remediation was increased by approximately $1.3 million during the second
quarter as a result of recently discovered off-site contamination and the
decision to treat on-site contamination more aggressively than had been
previously planned.
General
and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2007 were
$1.8
million as compared to $1.3 million recorded for the three months ended June
30,
2006. The increase was caused by approximately $0.3 million of higher
professional fees in 2007 and a credit of $0.2 million to insurance loss
reserves recorded in 2006. The insurance loss reserves were established under
our self funded insurance program that was terminated in 1997.
Depreciation
and amortization expense was $2.7 million for the three months ended June
30,
2007 as compared to $2.0 million recorded for the three months ended June
30,
2006. The increase was primarily due to properties acquired in 2007 offset
by
the effect of dispositions of real estate and lease
expirations.
-18-
As
a
result, total operating expenses increased by approximately $3.3 million
for the
three months ended June 30, 2007, as compared to the three months ended June
30,
2006.
Other
income, net, which includes certain gains on dispositions of real estate,
was
$0.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007 and $0.5 million for
the
three months ended June 30, 2006. Gains on dispositions of real estate from
discontinued operations was $1.2 million for three months ended June 30,
2007.
Gains on dispositions of real estate increased by an aggregate of $1.0
million to $1.4 million, as compared to the prior year
period.
Interest
expense was $2.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007 as compared
to
$0.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2006. The increase was
primarily due to increased borrowings used to finance the acquisition of
properties in 2007.
As
a
result, net earnings were $10.0 million for the three months ended June 30,
2007
as compared to the $11.1 million for the prior year period. For the same
period,
FFO decreased to $11.3 million as compared to $12.7 million for prior year
period and AFFO decreased by $2.0 million, to $9.9 million. The decrease
in FFO
for the quarter was primarily due to the changes in net earnings described
above
but excludes the $0.7 million increase in depreciation and amortization expense
and the $1.0 million increase in gains on dispositions of real estate. The
decrease in AFFO for the quarter also excludes adjustments which increased
revenue from rental properties by $0.7 million comprised of a $0.1 million
increase in deferred rental revenue and the $0.6 million of net amortization
of
above-market and below-market leases (which are included in net earnings
and FFO
but are excluded from AFFO) recorded for the three months ended June 30,
2007 as
compared to the three months ended June 30, 2006.
Diluted
earnings per share for the three months ended June 30, 2007 was $0.40 per
share,
a decrease of $0.05 per share as compared to the three months ended June
30,
2006. Diluted FFO per share for the three months ended June 30, 2007 was
$0.46
per share, a decrease of $0.05 per share, as compared to the three months
ended
June 30, 2006. Diluted AFFO per share for the three months ended June 30,
2007
was $0.40 per share, a decrease of $0.08 per share as compared to the three
months ended June 30, 2006.
Results
of
operations
Six
months ended June 30, 2007 compared to the six months ended June 30,
2006
Revenues
from rental properties were $38.7 million for the six months ended June 30,
2007
as compared to $36.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. We received
approximately $30.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and $30.1
million in the six months ended June 30, 2006 from properties leased to
Marketing under the Marketing Leases. We also received rent of $6.6 million
in
the six months ended June 30, 2007 and $4.5 million in the six months ended
June
30, 2006 from other tenants. The increase in rent received was primarily
due to
rent from properties acquired in March and April 2007 and February 2006 and
rent
escalations, partially offset by the effect of dispositions of real estate
and
lease expirations. In addition, revenues from rental properties include deferred
rental revenues of $1.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 as
compared to $1.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006, recorded
as
required by GAAP, related to the fixed rent increases scheduled under certain
leases with tenants. The aggregate minimum rent due over the initial term
of
these leases are recognized on a straight-line basis rather than when due.
Revenues from rental properties also include $0.6 million of net amortization
of
above-market and below-market leases due to the properties acquired in 2007.
The
present value of the difference between the fair market rent and the contractual
rent for in-place leases at the time properties are acquired is amortized
into
revenue from rental properties over the remaining lives of the in-place
leases.
-19-
Rental
property expenses, which are primarily comprised of rent expense and real
estate
and other state and local taxes, were $4.8 million for the six months ended
June
30, 2007 and was comparable to $5.0 million recorded for the six months ended
June 30, 2006.
Environmental
expenses, net for the six months ended June 30, 2007 were $4.0 million as
compared to $1.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The increase
was primarily due to a $1.6 million increase in change in estimated
environmental costs, net of estimated recoveries from state underground storage
tank funds, and a $0.5 million increase in environmental related litigation
expenses as compared to the prior year period. Legal fees and litigation
related
expenses were $1.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 compared
to
$0.7 million for 2006. The increase in the change in estimated environmental
costs for the six months ended June 30, 2007 was due to the increase in project
scope and cost forecasts at a limited number of properties, including one
site
where the estimated cost to complete the remediation was increased by
approximately $1.3 million during the second quarter as a result of recently
discovered off-site contamination and the decision to treat on-site
contamination more aggressively than had been previously planned.
General
and administrative expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2007 were $3.2
million as compared to $2.7 million recorded for the six months ended June
30,
2006. The increase was caused by approximately $0.3 million of higher
professional fees and a credit of $0.2 million to insurance loss reserves
recorded in 2006. The insurance loss reserves were established under our
self
funded insurance program that was terminated in 1997.
Depreciation
and amortization expense for the six months ended June 30, 2007 was $4.6
million
as compared to $3.9 million recorded for the six months ended June 30, 2006.
The
increase was primarily due to properties acquired in 2007 offset by the effect
of dispositions of real estate and lease expirations.
As
a
result, total operating expenses increased by approximately $3.1 million
for the
six months ended June 30, 2007, as compared to the six months ended June
30,
2006.
Other
income, net, which includes certain gains on disposition of real
estate, was $0.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and $0.6
million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. Gains on dispositions of
real
estate from discontinued operations was $1.2 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2007. Gains on dispositions of real estate increased by an aggregate
of
$1.0 million as compared to the prior year period.
Interest
expense was $3.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 as compared
to
$1.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The increase was primarily
due to increased borrowings used to finance the acquisition of properties
in
March and April 2007 and February 2006.
-20-
As
a
result, net earnings were $20.5 million for the six months ended June 30,
2007,
as compared to the $21.6 million for the prior year period. For the same
period,
FFO decreased to $23.6 million as compared to $25.1 million for prior year
period and AFFO decreased by $1.8 million, to $21.7 million. The decrease
in FFO
for the six months was primarily due to the changes in net earnings described
above but excludes the $0.7 million increase in depreciation and amortization
expense and the $1.0 million increase in gains on dispositions of real estate.
The decrease in AFFO for the six months also excludes net adjustments which
increased revenue from rental properties by $0.3 million comprised of the
$0.6
million net amortization of above-market and below-market leases offset by
a
$0.3 million decrease in deferred rental revenue (which are included in net
earnings and FFO but are excluded from AFFO) recorded for the three months
ended
June 30, 2007 as compared to the three months ended June 30, 2006.
Diluted
earnings per share for the six months ended June 30, 2007 was $0.83 per share,
a
decrease of $0.04 per share as compared to the six months ended June 30,
2006.
Diluted FFO per share for the six months ended June 30, 2007 was $0.95 per
share, a decrease of $0.06 per share, as compared to the six months ended
June
30, 2006. Diluted AFFO per share for the six months ended June 30, 2007 was
$0.88 per share, a decrease of $0.07 per share as compared to the six months
ended June 30, 2006.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Our
principal sources of liquidity are the cash flows from our business, funds
available under a revolving credit agreement that expires in 2011 and available
cash and equivalents. Management believes that dividend payments and cash
requirements for our business for the next twelve months, including
environmental remediation expenditures, capital expenditures and debt service,
can be met by cash flows from operations, borrowings under the credit agreement
and available cash and cash equivalents.
On
March
27, 2007, we entered into an amended and restated senior unsecured revolving
credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a group of domestic commercial
banks (the “Bank Syndicate”).
The
Credit
Agreement, among other items, increases the aggregate amount of our credit
facility by $75,000,000 to $175,000,000; reduces the interest rate margin
on
LIBOR based borrowings by 0.25% and extends the term of the Credit Agreement
from July 2008 to March 2011. The Credit Agreement permits borrowings at
an
interest rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus a margin ranging from
0.0% to
0.25% or a LIBOR rate plus a margin ranging from 1.0% to 1.5%. The applicable
margin is based on our leverage ratio, as defined in the Credit
Agreement.
Subject
to
the terms of the Credit Agreement, we have the options to extend the term
of the
Credit Agreement for one additional year and/or increase the amount of the
credit facility available pursuant to the Credit Agreement by $125,000,000
to
$300,000,000, subject to approval by our Board of Directors and the Bank
Syndicate. The Credit Agreement contains customary terms and conditions,
including customary financial covenants such as leverage and coverage ratios
and
other customary covenants, including limitations on our ability to incur
debt
and pay dividends and maintenance of tangible net worth, and events of default,
including change of control and failure to maintain REIT status. We believe
that
the Credit Agreement’s terms, conditions and covenants will not limit our
current business practices.
-21-
In
April
2006 we entered into a $45.0 million LIBOR based interest rate swap, effective
May 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011. The interest rate swap is intended to
hedge
$45.0 million of our current exposure to variable market interest rate risk
by
effectively fixing, at 5.44%, the LIBOR component of the interest rate
determined under our existing credit agreement or future exposure to variable
interest rate risk due to borrowing arrangements that may be entered into
prior
to the expiration of the interest rate swap. As of June 30, 2007, $45.0 million
of our LIBOR based borrowings under the Credit Agreement bear interest at
an
effective rate of 6.44%.
On
March
31, 2007, we acquired fifty-nine convenience store and retail motor fuel
properties in ten states for approximately $79.3 million from Trustreet for
cash
with funds drawn under our Credit Agreement. Total borrowings outstanding
under
the Credit Agreement at June 30, 2007 were $131.5 million, bearing interest
at
an average effective rate of 6.40% per annum. Total borrowings were $133.5
million as of August 1, 2007. Accordingly, we had $41.5 million available
under
the terms of the Credit Agreement as of August 1, 2007 or $166.5 million
available assuming our Board of Directors and the Bank Syndicate were to
approve
our request to increase the Credit Agreement by $125.0 million. Increasing
the
Credit Agreement is also contingent upon the existing members of the Bank
Syndicate increasing their commitment to the Credit Agreement, and/or additional
members joining the Bank Syndicate to increase the availability committed
under
the line.
We
elected
to be treated as a REIT under the federal income tax laws with the year
beginning January 1, 2001. As a REIT, we are required, among other things,
to
distribute at least ninety percent of our taxable income to shareholders
each
year. Payment of dividends is subject to market conditions, our financial
condition and other factors, and therefore cannot be assured. In particular,
our
Credit Agreement prohibits the payment of dividends during certain events
of
default. Dividends paid to our shareholders aggregated $22.6 million for
the six
months ended June 30, 2007 and $22.3 million for the prior year period. We
presently intend to pay common stock dividends of $0.465 per share each quarter
($1.86 per share on an annual basis), and commenced doing so with the quarterly
dividend declared in May 2007.
As
part of
our overall growth strategy, we regularly review opportunities to acquire
additional properties and we expect to continue to pursue acquisitions that
we believe will benefit our financial performance. To the extent that our
current sources of liquidity are not sufficient to fund such acquisitions
we
will require other sources of capital, which may or may not be available
on
favorable terms or at all.
Critical
Accounting Policies
-22-
Our
accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements include
the
accounts of Getty Realty Corp. and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. The
preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management
to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect amounts reported
in its
financial statements. Although we have made our best estimates, judgments
and
assumptions regarding future uncertainties relating to the information included
in our financial statements, giving due consideration to the accounting policies
selected and materiality, actual results could differ from these estimates,
judgments and assumptions. We do not believe that there is a great likelihood
that materially different amounts would be reported related to the application
of the accounting policies described below.
Estimates,
judgments and assumptions underlying the accompanying consolidated financial
statements include, but are not limited to, deferred rent receivable, recoveries
from state underground storage tank funds, environmental remediation costs,
real
estate, depreciation and amortization, impairment of long-lived assets,
litigation, accrued expenses, income taxes, allocation of the purchase price
of
properties acquired to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, and exposure
to paying an earnings and profits deficiency dividend. The information included
in our financial statements that is based on estimates, judgments and
assumptions is subject to significant change and is adjusted as circumstances
change and as the uncertainties become more clearly defined. Our accounting
policies are described in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements
that
appear in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2006.
We believe that the more critical of our accounting policies relate to revenue
recognition, impairment of long-lived assets, income taxes, environmental
costs
and recoveries from state underground storage tank funds and litigation,
each of
which is discussed in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2006.
Environmental
Matters
We
are
subject to numerous existing federal, state and local laws and regulations,
including matters relating to the protection of the environment such as the
remediation of known contamination and the retirement and decommissioning
or
removal of long-lived assets including buildings containing hazardous materials,
USTs and other equipment. In accordance with the leases with certain of our
tenants, we have agreed to bring the leased properties with known environmental
contamination to within applicable standards and to regulatory or contractual
closure (“Closure”) in an efficient and economical manner. Generally, upon
achieving Closure at an individual property, our environmental liability
under
the lease for that property will be satisfied and future remediation obligations
will be the responsibility of our tenant. We will continue to seek
reimbursement from state UST remediation funds related to these environmental
liabilities where available. Generally the liability for the retirement and
decommissioning or removal of USTs and other equipment is the responsibility
of
our tenants. We are contingently liable for these obligations in the event
that
our tenants do not satisfy their responsibilities. A liability has not been
accrued for obligations that are the responsibility of our tenants.
As
of June
30, 2007, we had remediation action plans in place for two hundred seventy-three
(93%) of the two hundred ninety five properties for which we retained
environmental responsibility and the remaining twenty-two properties (7%)
remain
in the assessment phase. As of June 30, 2007, we had accrued $18.4 million
as
management’s best estimate of the fair value of reasonably estimable
environmental remediation costs. As of June 30, 2007 we had also recorded
$4.1
million as management’s best estimate for net recoveries from state UST
remediation funds, net of allowance, related to environmental obligations
and
liabilities. Environmental expenditures and recoveries from underground storage
tank funds were $2.4 million and $0.9 million, respectively, for the six
month
period ended June 30, 2007.
-23-
Environmental
liabilities and related assets are currently measured at fair value based
on
their expected future cash flows which have been adjusted for inflation and
discounted to present value. We also use probability weighted alternative
cash
flow forecasts to determine fair value. We assumed a 50% probability
factor that the actual environmental expenses will exceed engineering estimates
for an amount assumed to equal one year of net expenses aggregating $6.3
million. Accordingly, the environmental accrual as of June 30, 2007 was
increased by $2.5 million, net of assumed recoveries and before inflation
and
present value discount adjustments. The resulting net environmental accrual
as
of June 30, 2007 was then further increased by $1.0 million for the assumed
impact of inflation using an inflation rate of 2.75%. Assuming a credit-adjusted
risk-free discount rate of 7.0%, we then reduced the net environmental accrual,
as previously adjusted, by a $2.2 million discount to present value. Had
we
assumed an inflation rate that was 0.5% higher and a discount rate that was
0.5%
lower, net environmental liabilities as of June 30, 2007 would have increased
by
$0.2 million and $0.1 million, respectively, for an aggregate increase in
the
net environmental accrual of $0.3 million. However, the aggregate net change
in
environmental estimates recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2007
would
not have changed significantly if these changes in the assumptions were made
effective December 31, 2006.
In
view of
the uncertainties associated with environmental expenditures, however, we
believe it is possible that the fair value of future actual net expenditures
could be substantially higher than these estimates. Adjustments to accrued
liabilities for environmental remediation costs will be reflected in our
financial statements as they become probable and a reasonable estimate of
fair
value can be made. For the six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, the
aggregate of the net change in estimated remediation costs, including accretion
expense, included in our consolidated statement of operations amounted to
$2.5
million and $0.8 million, respectively, which amounts were net of probable
recoveries from state UST remediation funds. Although future environmental
costs
may have a significant impact on results of operations for any single fiscal
year or interim period, we believe that such costs will not have a material
adverse effect on our long-term financial position.
We
cannot
predict what environmental legislation or regulations may be enacted in the
future or how existing laws or regulations will be administered or interpreted
with respect to products or activities to which they have not previously
been
applied. We cannot predict if state underground storage tank fund programs
will
be administered and funded in the future in a manner that is consistent with
past practices and if future environmental spending will continue to be eligible
for reimbursement at historical recovery rates under these programs. Compliance
with more stringent laws or regulations, as well as more vigorous enforcement
policies of the regulatory agencies or stricter interpretation of existing
laws,
which may develop in the future, could have an adverse effect on our financial
position, or that of our tenants, and could require substantial additional
expenditures for future remediation.
-24-
Our
discussion of environmental matters should be read in conjunction with “Item 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations” which appears in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2006 and the unaudited consolidated financial statements
and related notes (including notes 2 and 3) which appear in this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q.
Forward
Looking Statements
Certain
statements in this Quarterly Report may constitute “forward-looking statements”
within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
When
we use the words “believes,” “expects,” “plans,” “projects,” “estimates” and
similar expressions are used, we intend to identify forward-looking statements.
Examples of forward-looking statements include statements regarding our
expectations regarding future payments from Marketing; the expected effect
of
regulations on our long-term performance; our expected ability to maintain
compliance with applicable regulations; our
ability to renew expired leases; the adequacy of our current and anticipated
cash flows; our belief that we do not have a material liability for
offers and sales of our securities made pursuant to registration statements
that
did not contain the financial statements or summarized financial data of
Marketing; our expectations regarding future acquisitions; the impact of
the
covenants included in the Credit Agreement on our current business practices;
our expected ability to increase our available funding under the Credit
Agreement; our ability to maintain our REIT status; the probable
outcome of litigation or regulatory actions; our expected recoveries from
underground storage tank funds; our exposure to environmental remediation
costs;
our estimates regarding remediation costs; our expectations as to the long-term
effect of environmental liabilities on our financial condition; our exposure
to
interest rate fluctuations and the manner in which we expect to manage this
exposure; the expected reduction in interest-rate risk resulting from our
interest-rate swap agreement and our expectation that we will not settle
the
interest-rate swap prior to its maturity; our expectations regarding corporate
level federal income taxes; the indemnification obligations of the Company
and
others; our intention to consummate future acquisitions; our assessment of
the
likelihood of future competition; assumptions regarding the future applicability
of accounting estimates, assumptions and policies; our intention to pay future
dividends and the amounts thereof; our expectation that we will finalize
the
allocation of the purchase price for the properties acquired from Trustreet
during the later portion of 2007; and our beliefs about the reasonableness
of
our accounting estimates, judgments and assumptions, including the preliminary
allocation of the purchase price for the properties acquired from
Trustreet.
These
forward-looking statements are based on our current beliefs and assumptions
and
information currently available to us and involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors, which may cause our actual results, performance
and achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance
or achievements, expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements.
Information concerning factors that could cause our actual results to materially
differ from those forward looking results can be found in “Part I, Item 1A. Risk
Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006,
as well as in other filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and include, but are not limited to risks associated with owning and leasing
real estate generally; dependence on Marketing as a tenant and on rentals
from
companies engaged in the petroleum marketing and convenience store businesses;
our unresolved SEC comment; competition for properties and tenants; risk
of
tenant non-renewal; the effects of taxation and other regulations; potential
litigation exposure; costs of completing environmental remediation and of
compliance with environmental regulations; the risk of loss of our management
team; the impact of our electing to be treated as a REIT, including subsequent
failure to qualify as a REIT; risks associated with owning real estate
concentrated in one region of the United States; risks associated with potential
future acquisitions; losses not covered by insurance; future dependence on
external sources of capital; the risk that our business operations may not
generate sufficient cash for distributions or debt service; our potential
inability to increase our available funding under the Credit Agreement; our
potential inability to pay dividends; the risk that our estimates of the
fair
value of the properties acquired from Trustreet may be revised or that other
accounting judgments or assumptions used in the allocation of the purchase
price
thereof may prove incorrect; and terrorist attacks and other acts of violence
and war.
-25-
As
a
result of these and other factors, we may experience material fluctuations
in
future operating results on a quarterly or annual basis, which could materially
and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results
and
stock price. An investment in our stock involves various risks, including
those
mentioned above and elsewhere in this report and those that are detailed
from
time to time in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
You
should
not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect our
view
only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation to publicly release
revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect future events or
circumstances or reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
-26-
Prior
to
April 2006, we had not used derivative financial or commodity instruments
for
trading, speculative or any other purpose, and had not entered into any
instruments to hedge our exposure to interest rate risk. We do not have
any foreign operations, and are therefore not exposed to foreign currency
exchange rate risks.
We
are
exposed to interest rate risk, primarily as a result of our $175.0 million
Credit Agreement. Our Credit Agreement, which expires in June 2011,
permits borrowings at an interest rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus
a
margin ranging from 0.0% to 0.25% or a LIBOR rate plus a margin ranging from
1.0% to 1.5%. The applicable margin is based on our leverage ratio, as defined
in the Credit Agreement. At June 30, 2007, we had borrowings outstanding
of
$131.5 million under our Credit Agreement bearing interest at an average
rate of
6.38% per annum (or an average effective rate of 6.40% including the impact
of
the interest rate swap discussed below). We use borrowings under the Credit
Agreement to finance acquisitions and for general corporate
purposes.
We
manage
our exposure to interest rate risk by minimizing, to the extent feasible,
our
overall borrowing and monitoring available financing alternatives. Our interest
rate risk as of June 30, 2007 increased significantly due to increased
borrowings under the Credit Agreement as compared to December 31, 2006. In
April
2006, we entered into a $45.0 million LIBOR based interest rate swap, effective
May 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, to manage a portion of our interest rate
risk. The interest rate swap is intended to hedge $45.0 million of our current
exposure to variable interest rate risk by effectively fixing, at 5.44%,
the
LIBOR component of the interest rate determined under our existing Credit
Agreement or future exposure to variable interest rate risk due to borrowing
arrangements that may be entered into prior to the expiration of the interest
rate swap. As of June 30, 2007, $45.0 million of our LIBOR based borrowings
under the Credit Agreement bear interest at an effective rate of 6.44%. As
a
result, we will be exposed to interest rate risk to the extent that our
borrowings exceed the $45.0 million notional amount of the interest rate
swap.
As of June 30, 2007, our borrowings exceeded the notional amount of the interest
rate swap by $86.5 million. As a result of the increase in the funding available
under the Credit Agreement from $100.0 million to $175.0 million, and the
subsequent increase in our total borrowings, the interest rate swap covers
a
smaller percentage of our total borrowings that it did previously. We do
not
foresee any additional significant changes in our exposure or in how we manage
this exposure in the near future.
We
entered
into the $45.0 million notional five year interest rate swap agreement
designated and qualifying as a cash flow hedge to reduce our exposure to
the
variability in future cash flows attributable to changes in the LIBOR rate.
Our
primary objective when undertaking hedging transactions and derivative positions
is to reduce our variable interest rate risk by effectively fixing a portion
of
the interest rate for existing debt and anticipated refinancing transactions.
This in turn, reduces the risks that the variability of cash flows imposes
on
variable rate debt. Our strategy partially protects us against future increases
in interest rates. While this agreement is intended to lessen the
impact of rising interest rates, it also exposes us to the risk that the
other party to the agreement will not perform, the agreement will be
unenforceable and the underlying transactions will fail
to qualify as a highly-effective cash flow hedge for accounting
purposes.
-27-
In
the
event that we were to settle the interest rate swap prior to its maturity,
if
the corresponding LIBOR swap rate for the remaining term of the agreement
is
below the 5.44% fixed strike rate at the time we settle the
swap, we would be required to make a payment to the swap counter-party; if
the corresponding LIBOR swap rate is above the fixed strike rate at the
time we settle the swap, we would receive a payment from the swap
counter-party. The amount that we would either pay or receive would
equal the present value of the basis point differential between the fixed
strike
rate and the corresponding LIBOR swap rate at the time we settle the
swap.
Based
on
our projected average outstanding borrowings under the Credit Agreement for
2007, if market interest rates increase by an average of 0.5% more than the
market interest rates as of June 30, 2007, the additional annualized interest
expense caused by market interest rate increases since December 31, 2006
would
decrease 2007 net income and cash flows by approximately $216,000. This amount
is the effect of a hypothetical interest rate change on the portion of our
average outstanding borrowings of $86.5 million projected for the remainder
of
2007 under our Credit Agreement that is not covered by our $45.0 million
interest rate swap. The projected average outstanding borrowings are before
considering additional borrowings required for future
acquisitions. The calculation also assumes that there are no other
changes in our financial structure or the terms of our borrowings. Management
believes that the fair value of its debt equals its carrying value at June
30,
2007 and December 31, 2006. Our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates
will
increase or decrease in the future with increases or decreases in the amount
of
borrowings outstanding under our Credit Agreement.
In
order
to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments,
we place our temporary cash investments with high-credit-quality
institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are held in an
institutional money market fund and short-term federal agency discount
notes.
The
Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to
ensure
that information required to be disclosed in the Company's reports filed
or
furnished pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified
in the Commission's rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated
and communicated to the Company's management, including its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure
controls and procedures, management recognized that any controls and procedures,
no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance
of achieving the desired control objectives, and management necessarily was
required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship
of possible controls and procedures.
As
required by Rule 13a-15(b), the Company carried out an evaluation, under
the
supervision and with the participation of the Company's management, including
the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company's disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the quarter covered by this report.
Based on the foregoing, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer have concluded that the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level as of June 30,
2007.
-28-
There
have
been no changes in the Company's internal control over financial reporting
during the latest fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting.
-29-
PART
II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item
1. Legal Proceedings
In
December 2005, an action was commenced against us in the Superior Court
in
Providence, Rhode Island, by the owner of a pier that is adjacent to one
of our
terminals that is leased to Marketing seeking monetary damages of approximately
$500,000 representing alleged costs related to the ownership and maintenance
of
the pier for the period from January 2003 through September 2005. We do
not
believe that we have any legal, contractual or other responsibility for
such
costs. Additionally, we believe that, under the terms of the Master
Lease that covers the property, Marketing is responsible for such costs
and
tendered the matter to them for defense and indemnification. It is noted
that Marketing has declined to accept the tender and have denied liability
for
the claim. We have filed a third party claim against Marketing seeking
defense
and indemnification that has been tolled, pending resolution of the underlying
litigation. In that regard, it is noteworthy that, at the pre-trial
conference held in this matter, the Court advised the owner that there
is
binding legal precedent from prior litigation involving the pier that likely
will defeat its claim.
In
August
2006, we were notified by the New Jersey Schools Corporation (NJCC) of
their
discovery of abandoned USTs, and soil contamination, at a property that
they
acquired from our subsidiary, by condemnation. Prior to the taking, the
property
was leased to and operated by Marketing. NJCC is demanding reimbursement
of
costs allegedly incurred in connection with removal of the USTs and soil
remediation (in the approximate amount of $950,000 in the
aggregate). We believe that, under the terms of the Master Lease that
covered the property, Marketing is responsible for such costs and tendered
the
matter to them for defense and indemnification. It is noted that they
have declined to accept the tender and have denied liability for the
claim. We have filed a compulsory third party claim against Marketing
seeking defense and indemnification. Subsequent to end of the
quarter, Marketing filed a claim against the Company seeking defense and
indemnification.
In
May
2007, the Company’s subsidiary received a lease default notice from its
sublandlord pertaining to an alleged underpayment of rent by our subsidiary
for
a period of time exceeding 15 years. In June 2007, the Company
commenced an action against the sublandlord seeking an injunction that
would
preclude the sublandlord from taking any action to terminate its sublease
with
our subsidiary or collect the alleged underpayment of rent. In
support of the Company’s action for an injunction, the Company submitted a
Memorandum of Law that fully briefed the issue of the limitation upon the
sublandlord’s claim imposed by the applicable statute of
limitations. This limitation was informally acknowledged by the Court
at the preliminary Court conference in the matter. Additionally,
further investigation of the relevant facts supports the claim by our subsidiary
that parties agreed in writing to a modification of the rental provisions
under
the sublease and that there has been no underpayment of rent by our subsidiary
or that any underpayment would have been the result of a mutual mistake
by the
parties upon which our subsidiary relied, in either case making it probable
that
our subsidiary would not suffer any loss in connection with this
matter.
In
July
2007, subsidiaries of the Company were notified of the commencement of
three
actions by the State of New Jersey (“NJDEP”) seeking “Natural Resource Damanges”
(“NRDs”) arising out of petroleum releases years ago. The accuracy of
the allegations as they relate to us, the legal right of the NJDEP to claim
NRDs
in these actions, the viability of our defenses to such claims, the legal
basis
for determining the amount of the NRDs, and the method of allocating damages,
if
any, between defendants has not been determined.
In
September 1999, we brought a case against one of our tenants in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, seeking the return of the
property we leased to them and the cleanup of all contamination caused
by them.
Our tenant filed a counterclaim alleging that all or part of the contamination
was attributable to contamination from underground storage tanks for which
we
were responsible. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(the “NJDEP”) has notified the tenant that it is responsible for the cleanup and
remediation of contamination resulting from a petroleum release. The case
has
been settled without any payment by the Company. As a part of the
settlement, the tenant will buy the subject property, assume responsibility
for
the remediation of all environmental conditions and fully indemnify the
Company
and its affiliates respecting all environmental liability.
In
September 2005, we received a demand from a property owner for reimbursement
of
cleanup and soil removal costs claimed to have been incurred by it in connection
with the development of its property located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
that, in part, is a former retail motor fuel property supplied by us with
gasoline. The current owner claims that the costs are reimbursable pursuant
to
an Indemnity Agreement that we entered into with the prior property owner.
Although we acknowledged responsibility for a portion of the contaminated
soil,
and were engaged in the remediation of the same, we denied responsibility
for
the full extent of the costs estimated to be incurred. The matter was
settled on June 29, 2007, in consideration for a payment by the Company
of
$985,000 on that date.
In May 2006, we were advised of an action in the Superior Court of New
Jersey,
Middlesex County, against our subsidiary, filed by a property owner claiming
damages for remediation of contaminated soil. The litigation is still in
the
initial discovery phase. Although, initially, it was not clear from
the pleadings in the matter that there was any basis at all for the claim
against us, we have determined that it is likely that corporate successor
liability could be the basis for prosecuting the claim against our
subsidiary. The Company believes that it has defenses to the claim
and will vigorously defend the matter.
From
January 2007 through June 2007 we have been made party to nine
additional actions that are nearly identical to the thirty-five cases
pending as of December 31, 2006 in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West
Virginia, brought by local water providers or governmental agencies. These
cases
allege various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater
with
MTBE as the basis for claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Each
case names as defendants approximately fifty petroleum refiners, manufacturers,
distributors and retailers of MTBE, or gasoline containing MTBE. The accuracy
of
the allegations as they relate to us, our defenses to such claims, the aggregate
amount of damages, the definitive list of defendants and the method of
allocating such amounts among the defendants have not been
determined. Accordingly, our ultimate legal and financial liability,
if any, cannot be estimated with any certainty at this time.
Please
refer to “Item 3. Legal Proceedings” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2006, and note 3 to our consolidated financial
statements in such Form 10-K and to note 2 to our accompanying
unaudited consolidated financial statements which appear in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for additional information.
-30-
See
“Part
I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 for factors that could affect the Company’s results of
operations, financial condition and liquidity. There has been no material
change
in such factors since December 31, 2006.
We
held
our annual meeting of stockholders on May 15, 2007. There were 24,764,815
shares
of our common stock outstanding and entitled to vote at our annual meeting,
and
23,603,345 shares were represented in person or by proxy. The following matters
were voted upon at the annual meeting:
The
five
directors listed below were elected to serve an additional one-year
term:
Nominee
|
Votes
For
|
Votes
Withheld
|
||||||
Milton
Cooper
|
23,483,651
|
119,693
|
||||||
Philip
E. Coviello
|
23,488,157
|
115,187
|
||||||
Leo
Liebowitz
|
23,478,778
|
124,566
|
||||||
Howard
Safenowitz
|
22,454,758
|
1,148,586
|
||||||
David
B. Driscoll
|
23,536,814
|
66,530
|
The
appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public
accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007 was
ratified:
Votes
For
|
Votes
Against
|
Abstentions
|
||||||||
23,243,518
|
66,683
|
293,144
|
Exhibit
No.
|
Description
of Exhibit
|
|
31(i).1
|
Rule
13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer
|
|
31(i).2
|
Rule
13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer
|
|
32.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(a)
|
|
32.2
|
Certifications
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(a)
|
(a)
These
certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated
by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the
date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
-31-
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant
has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto
duly authorized.
GETTY
REALTY CORP.
(Registrant)
Dated:
August 9, 2007
|
BY:
|
/s/
Thomas J. Stirnweis
|
(Signature)
|
||
THOMAS
J. STIRNWEIS
|
||
Vice
President, Treasurer and
|
||
Chief Financial Officer
|
||
Dated:
August 9, 2007
|
BY:
|
/s/
Leo Liebowitz
|
(Signature)
|
||
LEO
LIEBOWITZ
|
||
Chairman
and Chief Executive
|
||
Officer
|
-32-