SP Plus Corp - Quarter Report: 2010 June (Form 10-Q)
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010
Commission file number: 000-50796
STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
Delaware (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) |
16-1171179 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60611-1542
(Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)
Chicago, Illinois 60611-1542
(Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)
(312) 274-2000
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES þ NO o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES o NO o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of large
accelerated filer, accelerated filer, and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer o | Accelerated filer þ | Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
Smaller reporting company 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 þ
As of July 30, 2010, there were 15,633,764 shares of common stock of the registrant
outstanding.
STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION
FORM 10-Q INDEX
FORM 10-Q INDEX
3 | ||||||||
4 | ||||||||
5 | ||||||||
6 | ||||||||
17 | ||||||||
29 | ||||||||
30 | ||||||||
30 | ||||||||
31 | ||||||||
32 | ||||||||
33 | ||||||||
EX-3.1.1 | ||||||||
EX-3.1.2 | ||||||||
EX-3.1.3 | ||||||||
EX-3.1.4 | ||||||||
Exhibit 31.1 | ||||||||
Exhibit 31.2 | ||||||||
Exhibit 31.3 | ||||||||
Exhibit 32.1 |
2
Table of Contents
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. | Financial Statements |
STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands, except for share and per share data)
June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | |||||||
(Unaudited) | (see Note) | |||||||
ASSETS |
||||||||
Current assets: |
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ | 8,282 | $ | 8,256 | ||||
Notes and accounts receivable, net |
54,600 | 44,490 | ||||||
Prepaid expenses and supplies |
2,893 | 5,401 | ||||||
Deferred taxes |
3,457 | 3,457 | ||||||
Total current assets |
69,232 | 61,604 | ||||||
Leasehold improvements, equipment and construction in progress, net |
17,191 | 17,175 | ||||||
Advances and deposits |
4,796 | 4,904 | ||||||
Long-term receivables, net |
12,051 | 10,325 | ||||||
Intangible and other assets, net |
8,446 | 6,765 | ||||||
Cost of contracts, net |
13,374 | 12,879 | ||||||
Goodwill |
128,190 | 126,853 | ||||||
Total assets |
$ | 253,280 | $ | 240,505 | ||||
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
||||||||
Current liabilities: |
||||||||
Accounts payable |
$ | 47,548 | $ | 48,502 | ||||
Accrued and other current liabilities |
32,903 | 33,156 | ||||||
Current portion of long-term borrowings |
654 | 662 | ||||||
Total current liabilities |
81,105 | 82,320 | ||||||
Deferred taxes |
9,185 | 8,151 | ||||||
Long-term borrowings, excluding current portion |
110,518 | 112,549 | ||||||
Other long-term liabilities |
27,555 | 22,808 | ||||||
Standard Parking Corporations stockholders equity: |
||||||||
Preferred stock, par value $.01 per share; 5,000,000 shares
authorized and no shares issued |
| | ||||||
Common stock, par value $.001 per share; 50,000,000 shares
authorized; 15,620,355 and 15,385,428 shares issued and
outstanding as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009,
respectively |
16 | 15 | ||||||
Additional paid-in capital |
95,065 | 91,793 | ||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) |
(80 | ) | 313 | |||||
Accumulated deficit |
(70,019 | ) | (77,372 | ) | ||||
Total Standard Parking Corporation stockholders equity |
24,982 | 14,749 | ||||||
Noncontrolling interest |
(65 | ) | (72 | ) | ||||
Total equity |
24,917 | 14,677 | ||||||
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
$ | 253,280 | $ | 240,505 | ||||
Note: | The balance sheet at December 31, 2009 has been derived from the audited financial
statements at that date but does not include all of the information and footnotes required by
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial
statements. |
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Interim Financial Statements.
3
Table of Contents
STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(in thousands, except for share and per share data, unaudited)
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, 2010 | June 30, 2009 | June 30, 2010 | June 30, 2009 | |||||||||||||
Parking services revenue: |
||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
$ | 34,162 | $ | 35,687 | $ | 67,278 | $ | 70,387 | ||||||||
Management contracts |
42,081 | 37,311 | 82,156 | 75,604 | ||||||||||||
76,243 | 72,998 | 149,434 | 145,991 | |||||||||||||
Reimbursed management contract revenue |
100,757 | 97,595 | 206,812 | 200,152 | ||||||||||||
Total revenue |
177,000 | 170,593 | 356,246 | 346,143 | ||||||||||||
Cost of parking services: |
||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
31,217 | 32,932 | 62,988 | 65,881 | ||||||||||||
Management contracts |
22,278 | 19,938 | 44,542 | 40,329 | ||||||||||||
53,495 | 52,870 | 107,530 | 106,210 | |||||||||||||
Reimbursed management contract expense |
100,757 | 97,595 | 206,812 | 200,152 | ||||||||||||
Total cost of parking services |
154,252 | 150,465 | 314,342 | 306,362 | ||||||||||||
Gross profit: |
||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
2,945 | 2,755 | 4,290 | 4,506 | ||||||||||||
Management contracts |
19,803 | 17,373 | 37,614 | 35,275 | ||||||||||||
Total gross profit |
22,748 | 20,128 | 41,904 | 39,781 | ||||||||||||
General and administrative expenses (1) |
12,218 | 10,320 | 23,778 | 23,081 | ||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
1,570 | 1,413 | 3,030 | 2,900 | ||||||||||||
Operating income |
8,960 | 8,395 | 15,096 | 13,800 | ||||||||||||
Other expenses (income): |
||||||||||||||||
Interest expense |
1,398 | 1,528 | 2,888 | 2,964 | ||||||||||||
Interest income |
(52 | ) | (95 | ) | (105 | ) | (162 | ) | ||||||||
1,346 | 1,433 | 2,783 | 2,802 | |||||||||||||
Income before income taxes |
7,614 | 6,962 | 12,313 | 10,998 | ||||||||||||
Income tax expense |
3,021 | 2,692 | 4,868 | 4,266 | ||||||||||||
Net income |
4,593 | 4,270 | 7,445 | 6,732 | ||||||||||||
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
85 | 42 | 92 | 106 | ||||||||||||
Net income attributable to Standard Parking Corporation |
$ | 4,508 | $ | 4,228 | $ | 7,353 | $ | 6,626 | ||||||||
Common stock data: |
||||||||||||||||
Net income per share: |
||||||||||||||||
Basic |
$ | 0.29 | $ | 0.28 | $ | 0.48 | $ | 0.43 | ||||||||
Diluted |
$ | 0.28 | $ | 0.27 | $ | 0.46 | $ | 0.42 | ||||||||
Weighted average shares outstanding: |
||||||||||||||||
Basic |
15,531,726 | 15,251,310 | 15,461,904 | 15,273,796 | ||||||||||||
Diluted |
15,877,258 | 15,601,643 | 15,841,713 | 15,642,234 |
(1) | Non-cash stock based compensation expense of $729 and $1,237 for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2010, respectively, and $545 and $1,073 for the three and six months ended June
30, 2009, respectively, is included in general and administrative expenses. |
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Interim Financial Statements.
4
Table of Contents
STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(in thousands, except for share and per share data, unaudited)
Six Months Ended | ||||||||
June 30, 2010 | June 30, 2009 | |||||||
Operating activities: |
||||||||
Net income |
$ | 7,445 | $ | 6,732 | ||||
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operations: |
||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
2,998 | 2,691 | ||||||
Loss on sale of assets |
37 | 193 | ||||||
Amortization of debt issuance costs |
319 | 321 | ||||||
Non-cash stock-based compensation |
1,237 | 1,073 | ||||||
Excess tax benefit related to stock option exercises |
(968 | ) | | |||||
(Reversal) provision for losses on accounts receivable |
(55 | ) | 143 | |||||
Deferred income taxes |
1,034 | 2,098 | ||||||
Change in operating assets and liabilities |
(10,044 | ) | (5,418 | ) | ||||
Net cash provided by operating activities |
2,003 | 7,833 | ||||||
Investing activities: |
||||||||
Purchase of leasehold improvements and equipment |
(1,560 | ) | (2,131 | ) | ||||
Cost of contracts purchased |
(121 | ) | (604 | ) | ||||
Capitalized interest |
(71 | ) | (89 | ) | ||||
Contingent purchase payments |
(104 | ) | (259 | ) | ||||
Net cash used in investing activities |
(1,856 | ) | (3,083 | ) | ||||
Financing activities: |
||||||||
Repurchase of common stock |
| (3,885 | ) | |||||
Proceeds from exercise of stock options |
1,069 | | ||||||
Tax benefit related to stock option exercises |
968 | | ||||||
(Payments on) proceeds from senior credit facility |
(1,700 | ) | 2,150 | |||||
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
(85 | ) | (108 | ) | ||||
Payments on long-term borrowings |
(63 | ) | (59 | ) | ||||
Payments on capital leases |
(276 | ) | (571 | ) | ||||
Net cash used in financing activities |
(87 | ) | (2,473 | ) | ||||
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
(34 | ) | (57 | ) | ||||
Increase in cash and cash equivalents |
26 | 2,220 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
8,256 | 8,301 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
$ | 8,282 | $ | 10,521 | ||||
Supplemental disclosures: |
||||||||
Cash paid during the period for: |
||||||||
Interest |
$ | 2,691 | $ | 3,005 | ||||
Income taxes |
3,032 | 1,770 |
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Interim Financial Statements.
5
Table of Contents
STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(In thousands except for share and per share data, unaudited)
1. Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Standard Parking
Corporation have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article
10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and notes required by
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements.
In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting only of adjustments of a normal and
recurring nature) considered necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position and
results of operations have been included. Operating results for the three-month and six-month
periods ended June 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the results that might be expected
for any other interim period or the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010. The financial statements
presented in this report should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements
and footnotes thereto included in our 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed March 12, 2010.
Principles of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, its wholly owned
subsidiaries, and variable interest entities in which the Company is the primary beneficiary.
Noncontrolling interest recorded in the consolidated statement of income is the interest in
consolidated VIEs not controlled by the Company. We have interests in twelve joint ventures and one
limited liability company. The twelve joint ventures each operate between one and thirty parking
facilities. The limited liability company collects and distributes parking facility data for a fee.
Of the thirteen variable interest entities, six are consolidated into our financial statements, and
seven are single purpose entities where the Company is not the primary beneficiary and therefore
has a noncontrolling interest as power is shared. Investments in variable interest entities where
the Company is not the primary beneficiary are accounted for under the equity method. All
significant intercompany profits, transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.
Financial Instruments
The carrying values of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable are
reasonable estimates of their fair value due to the short-term nature of these financial
instruments. Long-term debt, including capital lease obligations, have a carrying value that
approximates fair value because these instruments bear interest at market rates.
Interest Rate Caps
We do not enter into derivative instruments for any purpose other than cash flow hedging
purposes.
On February 22, 2010, we entered into interest rate cap agreements with Wells Fargo Bank
N.A. (Wells Fargo) and Fifth Third Bank (Fifth Third), allowing us to limit our exposure on a
portion of our borrowings under our senior credit facility (Rate Cap Transactions). Pursuant to
two separate letter agreements between the Company and Wells Fargo and Fifth Third, respectively,
we will receive payments from Wells Fargo and Fifth Third each quarterly period to the extent that
the prevailing three month LIBOR during that period exceeds our cap rate of 3.25%. The Rate Cap
Transactions are effective March 31, 2010, and will settle each quarter on a date that is intended
to coincide with our quarterly interest payment dates under our senior credit facility. The Rate
Cap Transactions cap our LIBOR interest rate on a notional amount of $50,000 at 3.25% for a total
of 39 months. These Rate Cap Transactions are classified as a cash flow hedge, and we calculate the
effectiveness of the hedge on a quarterly basis. The ineffective portion of the cash flow hedge is
recognized in current period earnings as an increase of interest expense. The fair value of the
interest rate cap at June 30, 2010 is $206 and is included in prepaid expenses.
2. Common and Preferred Stock
On April 28, 2010, our stockholders approved the charter amendment increasing the Companys
number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance under the certificate of incorporation by
28,700,000 shares, and increasing the number of shares of preferred stock from ten to 5,000,000.
The amount of total authorized capital stock following the amendment is 55,000,000 shares, which
includes 50,000,000 shares of common stock with a $0.001 par value and 5,000,000 shares of
preferred stock with a $0.01 par value. The amendment was filed with the State of Delaware on April
29, 2010.
6
Table of Contents
3. Stock-Based Compensation
We measure share-based compensation expense at the grant date, based on the fair value of the
award, and the expense is recognized over the requisite employee service period (generally the
vesting period) for awards expected to vest (considering estimated forfeitures).
The Company has an amended and restated Long-Term Incentive Plan that was adopted in
conjunction with our initial public offering. On February 27, 2008, our Board approved an amendment
to our Long-Term Incentive Plan, subject to shareholder approval, that increased the maximum number
of shares of common stock available for awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan from 2,000,000 to
2,175,000 and extended the Plans termination date. Our shareholders approved this Plan amendment
on April 22, 2008, and the Plan now terminates twenty years from the date of such approval, or
April 22, 2028. At June 30, 2010, 109,872 shares remained available for award under the Plan.
Stock Options and Grants
We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of each option grant
as of the date of grant. The volatilities are based on the 90 day historical volatility of our
common stock as of the grant date. The risk free interest rate is based on zero-coupon U.S.
government issues with a remaining term equal to the expected life of the option. For options
granted prior to 2008, the expected life for options was calculated using the simplified method.
The simplified method was calculated as the vesting term plus the contractual term divided by two.
There were no options granted during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009.
On April 28, 2010, we authorized vested stock grants to certain directors totaling 12,892. The
total value of the grant was $220 and is included in general and administrative expenses.
The Company recognized no stock-based compensation expense related to stock options for the
six months ended June 30, 2010, as all options previously granted were fully vested. The Company
recognized $30 of stock based compensation expense for the three and six months ended June 30,
2009. As of June 30, 2010, there were no unrecognized compensation costs related to unvested
options.
Performance-Based Incentive Program
In December 2006, the Board of Directors adopted a performance-based incentive program under
our Long-Term Incentive Plan. This program provided participating executives with the opportunity
to earn a combination of stock (50%) and cash (50%) if certain performance targets for pre-tax
income and pre-tax free cash flow were achieved. During 2007, certain participating executives
became entitled to performance restricted stock based on the stock price at the commencement of the
three year performance cycle (2007-2009), and as a result, 29,698 shares were issued subject to
vesting upon the achievement of the performance goals. The plan was completed as of December 31,
2009, at which time a total of 17,677 shares had been released free of restrictions in accordance
with the achievement of the cumulative program performance goals. The remaining 12,021 shares were
not awarded under the performance-based incentive program and were returned to the pool of shares
generally available for future use under the Long-Term Incentive Plan as of June 30, 2010.
We record stock-based compensation expense for awards with performance conditions based on the
probable outcome of that performance condition. The Company recognized no stock-based compensation
expense and no cash compensation expense related to the performance-based incentive program for the
six months ended June 30, 2010. The Company recognized $11 and $21 of stock-based compensation
expense and $11 and $21 of cash compensation expense related to the performance-based incentive
program for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively, which is included in
general and administrative expenses.
Restricted Stock Units
In March 2008, the Companys Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors authorized a
one-time grant of 750,000 restricted stock units that subsequently were awarded to members of our
senior management team on July 1, 2008. In November 2008, an additional 5,000 restricted stock
units were awarded. The restricted stock units vest in one-third installments on each of the tenth,
eleventh and twelfth anniversaries of the grant date. The restricted stock unit agreements provide
for accelerated vesting upon the recipient reaching their retirement age.
7
Table of Contents
The cost of restricted stock units is determined using the fair value of our common stock on
the date of the grant, and compensation expense is recognized over the vesting period. In
accordance with the guidance related to share-based payments, we estimated forfeitures at the time
of the grant and revise those estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from
those estimates. We use historical data to estimate pre-vesting forfeitures and record stock-based
compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest.
The Company recognized $509 and $1,017 of stock based compensation expense related to the
restricted stock units for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively, which is
included in general and administrative expenses. The Company recognized $504 and $1,022 of stock
based compensation expense related to restricted stock units for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2009, respectively, which is included in general and administrative expenses. As of June
30, 2010, there was $8,848 of unrecognized stock-based compensation costs, net of estimated
forfeitures, related to the restricted stock units that are expected to be recognized over a
weighted average period of approximately 7.0 years.
4. Net Income Per Common Share
Companies are required to present basic and diluted earnings per share. Basic net income per
share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted daily average number of shares of common
stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per share is based upon the weighted daily
average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period plus dilutive potential common
shares, including stock options and restricted stock units using the treasury-stock method.
A reconciliation of the weighted average basic common shares outstanding to the weighted
average diluted common shares outstanding is as follows (Unaudited):
Three Months Ended June 30 | Six Months Ended June 30 | |||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
Weighted average common basic shares outstanding |
15,531,726 | 15,251,310 | 15,461,904 | 15,273,796 | ||||||||||||
Effect of dilutive stock options and restricted stock units |
345,532 | 350,333 | 379,809 | 368,438 | ||||||||||||
Weighted average common diluted shares outstanding |
15,877,258 | 15,601,643 | 15,841,713 | 15,642,234 | ||||||||||||
Net income per share: |
||||||||||||||||
Basic |
$ | 0.29 | $ | 0.28 | $ | 0.48 | $ | 0.43 | ||||||||
Diluted |
$ | 0.28 | $ | 0.27 | $ | 0.46 | $ | 0.42 |
There were 19,068 anti-dilutive options excluded in the computation of diluted earnings per
share for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 because the options exercise
prices were greater than the average market price of the common stock.
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, 18,777 shares of performance based
restricted stock were not included in the computation of weighted diluted common share amounts
because the number of shares ultimately issued is contingent on the Companys performance goals,
which were not achieved as of that date. The plan was completed as of December 31, 2009, and all
non-awarded shares were returned to the pool of shares generally available for future use under the
Long-Term Incentive Plan as of June 30, 2010.
There are no additional securities that could dilute basic EPS in the future that were not
included in the computation of diluted EPS, other than those disclosed.
5. Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements
Accounting Standards Net Yet Adopted
In October 2009, the FASB issued updated accounting guidance that amends the guidance related
to revenue recognition-multiple-element arrangements. The standards enable companies to account for
certain products and services (deliverables) separately rather than as a combined unit. This
accounting guidance provides amendments to the criteria for separating deliverables, measuring and
allocating arrangement consideration to one or more units of accounting. The amendments also
establish a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable.
Significantly enhanced disclosures are also required to provide information about a vendors
multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements, including information about the nature and terms,
significant deliverables, and its performance within arrangements. The amendments also require
providing information about the significant judgments made and changes to those judgments and about
how the application of the relative selling-price method affects the timing or amount of revenue
recognition. The amendments are effective prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or
materially modified in the fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. A company may adopt
the new standard retroactively and early application is permitted. The Company currently does not
have any multiple-element arrangements.
8
Table of Contents
Accounting Standards Adopted
In June 2009, the FASB updated the accounting standards related to the consolidation of
variable interest entities. This new guidance requires a qualitative approach to identifying a
controlling financial interest in a VIE, and requires an ongoing assessment of whether an entity is
a VIE and whether an interest in a VIE makes the holder the primary beneficiary of the VIE. The
updated accounting guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after November 15,
2009. The Companys adoption of this updated accounting guidance on January 1, 2010 did not impact
the financial condition or results of operations of the Company.
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a new accounting
standard which requires new disclosures and clarifies certain existing disclosure requirements
about fair value measurements. The majority of the provisions of this update are effective for
interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009. The adoption of this
standard did not have a material impact on our financial statements.
6. Acquisitions
2009 Acquisitions
On July 1, 2009, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of Gameday Management
Group U.S. Gameday Management, based in Orlando, Florida, which plans and operates transportation
and parking systems for major stadiums and sporting events in the amount of $7,590, of which $2,450
was paid in cash, net of a hold back of $50, and $5,090 of potential earn-out payments. Among the
assets acquired is Gamedays Click and Park online parking and traffic management system, which
enables customers to purchase reserved parking online in advance of an event. The acquisition
represents an acquisition of a business and was accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting. This acquisition is not considered material to the Company.
The purchase price allocations are based on preliminary estimates of intangibles with finite
lives is $3,820 and goodwill of $3,770. The Company engaged a third party valuation firm to provide
a fair value analysis. These estimates are subject to revision after the Company completes its fair
value analysis. The Company financed the acquisition through additional term borrowings under the
senior credit facility and existing cash. The results of operations of this acquisition are
included in the Companys consolidated statement of income from the date of acquisition.
The Company expensed acquisition related costs of $15 in 2010 and $178 in 2009. These costs
are included in general and administrative expenses in the income statement.
7. Leasehold Improvements, Equipment and Construction in Progress, Net
A summary of leasehold improvements, equipment, and construction in progress and related
accumulated depreciation and amortization is as follows:
Ranges of Estimated | ||||||||||||
useful life | June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | ||||||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||||||
Equipment |
2-10 years | $ | 31,378 | $ | 28,568 | |||||||
Leasehold improvements |
Shorter of lease term or economic life up to 10 years | 9,631 | 9,708 | |||||||||
Construction in progress |
5,817 | 7,543 | ||||||||||
46,826 | 45,819 | |||||||||||
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization |
(29,635 | ) | (28,644 | ) | ||||||||
Leasehold improvements, equipment and
construction in progress, net |
$ | 17,191 | $ | 17,175 | ||||||||
9
Table of Contents
Depreciation expense was $946 and $1,865 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010,
respectively, and $964 and $1,930 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively.
Depreciation includes losses on abandonments of leasehold improvements and equipment of $19 and $37
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively, and $96 and $193 for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively.
8. Cost of Contracts, Net
Cost of contracts represents the contractual rights associated with providing parking services
at a managed or leased facility. Cost consists of either capitalized payments made to third parties
or the value ascribed to contracts acquired through acquisition. Cost of contracts is amortized
over the estimated life of the contracts, including anticipated renewals and terminations.
The balance of cost of contracts is comprised of the following:
June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | |||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||
Cost of contracts |
$ | 20,017 | $ | 18,885 | ||||
Accumulated amortization |
(6,643 | ) | (6,006 | ) | ||||
Cost of contracts, net |
$ | 13,374 | $ | 12,879 | ||||
During 2010, we retired fully amortized contracts in the amount of $169 that had expired.
Amortization expense related to cost of contracts was $450 and $806 for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2010, respectively, and $402 and $799 for the three and six months ended June
30, 2009, respectively. The weighted average useful life is 9 years for 2010 and 10 years for 2009.
9. Goodwill
Goodwill is assigned to reporting units based upon the specific Region where the assets
acquired and associate goodwill resided.
The following table reflects the changes in the carrying amounts of goodwill by reported
segment for the six months ended June 30, 2010 (unaudited).
Region | Region | Region | Region | |||||||||||||||||
One | Two | Three | Four | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Balance as of January 1, 2010 |
$ | 61,849 | $ | 7,200 | $ | 35,227 | $ | 22,577 | $ | 126,853 | ||||||||||
Acquisitions |
| | | | | |||||||||||||||
Adjustments to purchase price* |
| 1,270 | | | 1,270 | |||||||||||||||
Contingency payments related to acquisitions |
93 | | 11 | | 104 | |||||||||||||||
Foreign currency translation |
| (37 | ) | | | (37 | ) | |||||||||||||
Balance as of June 30, 2010 |
$ | 61,942 | $ | 8,433 | $ | 35,238 | $ | 22,577 | $ | 128,190 | ||||||||||
* | The Company engaged a third-party valuation firm to provide a fair value analysis. These
estimates are subject to revision after the Company completes its fair value analysis. |
10
Table of Contents
10. Long-Term Receivables, Net
Amount Outstanding | ||||||||
June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | |||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||
Bradley International Airport |
||||||||
Deficiency payments |
$ | 11,332 | $ | 9,606 | ||||
Other Bradley related, net |
3,203 | 3,203 | ||||||
Valuation allowance |
(2,484 | ) | (2,484 | ) | ||||
Total long-term receivables, net |
$ | 12,051 | $ | 10,325 | ||||
Agreement
We entered into a 25-year agreement with the State of Connecticut that expires on
April 6, 2025, under which we operate the surface parking and 3,500 garage parking
spaces at Bradley International Airport located in the Hartford, Connecticut
metropolitan area. The Company manages the facility for which it is expected to receive
a management fee.
The parking garage was financed on April 6, 2000 through the issuance of $53,800 of
State of Connecticut special facility revenue bonds, representing $47,700 non-taxable
Series A bonds and a separate taxable issuance of $6,100 Series B bonds. The Series B
bonds were retired on July 1, 2006 according to the terms of the indenture. The Bradley
agreement provides that we deposit with a trustee for the bondholders all gross revenues
collected from operations of the surface and garage parking, and from these gross
revenues, the trustee pays debt service on the special facility revenue bonds, operating
and capital maintenance expenses of the surface and garage parking facilities and
specific annual guaranteed minimum payments to the State. Principal and interest on the
Bradley special facility revenue bonds increase from approximately $3,600 in lease year
2002 to approximately $4,500 in lease year 2025. Annual guaranteed minimum payments to
the State will increase from approximately $8,300 in lease year 2002 to approximately
$13,200 in lease year 2024. The annual minimum guaranteed payment to the State by the
trustee for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 was $4,925 and $4,823,
respectively.
All of the cash flow from the parking facilities is pledged to the security of the
bonds and is collected and deposited with the bond trustee. Each month the bond trustee
makes certain required monthly distributions, which are characterized as Guaranteed
Payments. To the extent the monthly gross receipts generated by the parking facilities
are not sufficient for the trustee to make the required Guaranteed Payments, we are
obligated to deliver the deficiency amount to the trustee. Additionally, the Guaranteed
Payments are required to be paid before we are reimbursed for deficiency payments or
management fees.
The following is the list of Guaranteed Payments:
| Garage and surface operating expenses, |
| Principal and interest on bonds, |
| Trustee expenses |
| Major maintenance and capital improvement deposits |
| State Minimum Guarantee |
However, to the extent there is a cash surplus in any month during the term of the
lease, we have the right to be repaid the principal amount of any and all deficiency
payments previously made, together with actual interest expenses and a premium, not to
exceed 10% of the initial deficiency payment. We calculate and record interest income
and premium income in the period the associated deficiency payment is received from the
trustee.
11
Table of Contents
Deficiency Payments
To the extent that monthly gross receipts are not sufficient for the trustee to
make the required payments, we are obligated pursuant to our agreement to deliver the
deficiency amount to the trustee within three business days of being notified. We are
responsible for these deficiency payments regardless of the amount of utilization for
the Bradley parking facilities. The deficiency payments represent contingent interest
bearing advances to the trustee to cover operating cash flow requirements. To the extent
sufficient funds are available in the appropriate fund, the trustee is then directed by
the State to reimburse us for deficiency payments up to the amount of the calculated
surplus.
In the six months ended June 30, 2010, we made deficiency payments of $1,726 and we
did not record or receive any interest and premium income deficiency repayments from the
trustee. In the six months ended June 30, 2009, we made deficiency payments of $1,540
and we did not record or receive any interest and premium income related to deficiency
repayments from the trustee. The receivable from the trustee for interest and premium
income related to deficiency repayments was $0 as of June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2009.
The deficiency payments, if any, are recorded as a receivable by us for which we
are reimbursed from time to time as provided in the trust agreement. As of June 30, 2010
and December 31, 2009, we have a receivable of $11,332 and $9,606, respectively,
compromised of cumulative deficiency payments to the trustee, net of reimbursements. We
believe these advances to be fully recoverable and therefore have not recorded a
valuation allowance for them. We do not guarantee the payment of any principal or
interest on any debt obligations of the State of Connecticut or the trustee.
The Construction, Financing and Operating Special Facility Lease Agreement, which
governs reimbursement of Guarantor Payments, places no time restriction or limits on our
right to reimbursement.
The following table reconciles the beginning and ending balance of the receivable
for each period presented:
June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | |||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||
Deficiency payments: |
||||||||
Balance at beginning of period |
$ | 9,606 | $ | 5,961 | ||||
Deficiency payments made |
1,726 | 3,645 | ||||||
Deficiency repayment received |
| | ||||||
Balance at end of period |
11,332 | 9,606 | ||||||
Other Bradley related |
3,203 | 3,203 | ||||||
Valuation allowance |
(2,484 | ) | (2,484 | ) | ||||
Total long-term receivables |
$ | 12,051 | $ | 10,325 | ||||
Compensation
In addition to the recovery of certain general and administrative expenses
incurred, our agreement provides for an annual management fee payment which is based on
three operating profit tiers calculated for each year during the term of the agreement.
The management fee is further apportioned 60% to us and 40% to an un-affiliated entity.
To the extent that funds are available for the trustee to make a distribution, the
annual management fee is paid when sufficient cash is paid after the Guaranteed Payments
(as defined in our agreement), and after the repayment of all deficiency payments,
including accrued interest and premium. However, our right to the management fee accrues
each year during the term of the agreement and is paid when sufficient cash is available
for the trustee to make a distribution.
The annual management fee is paid after the repayment of all deficiency payments,
including accrued interest and premium. Therefore, due to the existence and length of
time for repayment of the deficiency amounts to the Company, no management fees have
been recognized. Management fees will be recognized in accordance with SAB 104 when
collectibility is reasonably assured.
Cumulative management fees of $4,500 have not been recognized as of June 30,
2010 and no management fee income was recognized during the six months ending June 30,
2010 and 2009.
12
Table of Contents
11. Borrowing Arrangements
Long-term borrowings, in order of preference, consist of:
Amount Outstanding | ||||||||||||
Due Date | June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | ||||||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||||||
Senior credit facility |
June 2013 | $ | 108,150 | $ | 109,850 | |||||||
Capital lease obligations |
Various | 1,779 | 2,056 | |||||||||
Obligations on seller notes and other |
Various | 1,243 | 1,305 | |||||||||
111,172 | 113,211 | |||||||||||
Less current portion |
654 | 662 | ||||||||||
$ | 110,518 | $ | 112,549 | |||||||||
Senior Credit Facility
On July 15, 2008, we amended and restated our credit facility.
The $210,000 revolving senior credit facility will expire in July 2013. The revolving senior
credit facility includes a letter of credit sub-facility with a sublimit of $50,000 and a swing
line sub-facility with a sublimit of $10,000.
This revolving senior credit facility bears interest, at our option, at either (1) LIBOR plus
an applicable LIBOR margin of between 2.00% and 3.50% depending on the ratio of our total funded
indebtedness to our EBITDA from time to time (Total Debt Ratio) or (2) the Base Rate (as defined
below) plus an applicable Base Rate Margin of between 0.50% and 2.00% depending on our Total Debt
Ratio. We may elect interest periods of one, two, three or six months for LIBOR based borrowings.
The Base Rate is the greater of (i) the rate publicly announced from time to time by Bank of
America, N.A. as its prime rate, or (ii) the overnight federal funds rate plus 0.50%.
Our senior credit facility includes a fixed charge ratio covenant, a total debt to EBITDA
ratio covenant, a limit on our ability to incur additional indebtedness, issue preferred stock or
pay dividends, and certain other restrictions on our activities. We are required to repay
borrowings under our senior credit facility out of the proceeds of future issuances of debt or
equity securities and asset sales, subject to certain customary exceptions. Our senior credit
facility is secured by substantially all of our assets and all assets acquired in the future
(including a pledge of 100% of the stock of our existing and future domestic guarantor subsidiaries
and 65% of the stock of our existing and future foreign subsidiaries).
We are in compliance with all of our financial covenants as of June 30, 2010.
The weighted average interest rate on our senior credit facility at June 30, 2010 and December
31, 2009 was 2.9% and 3.2%, respectively. The rate includes all outstanding LIBOR contracts,
interest rate cap effect and letters of credit. The weighted average interest rate on outstanding
borrowings, not including letters of credit, was 3.0% and 3.3% at June 30, 2010 and December 31,
2009, respectively.
At June 30, 2010, we had $16,884 of letters of credit outstanding under the senior credit
facility, borrowings against the senior credit facility aggregated $108,150, and we had $23,680
available under the senior credit facility.
We have entered into various financing agreements, which were used for the purchase of
equipment.
13
Table of Contents
12. Stock Repurchases
In July 2008, our Board of Directors authorized us to repurchase shares of our common stock,
on the open market or through private purchases, up to $60,000 in aggregate.
During the first quarter of 2009, we repurchased 213,301 shares at an average price of $18.21
per share, including average commissions of $0.01 per share, on the open market. The total value of
the first quarter transactions was $3,884. We retired 200,650 shares during the first quarter of
2009, and retired the remaining 12,651 shares in April 2009.
We did not make any share repurchases subsequent to the first quarter of 2009. As of June 30,
2010, $18,973 remained available for repurchase under the July 2008 authorization by the Board of
Directors.
13. Business Unit Segment Information
An operating segment is defined as a component of an enterprise that engages in business
activities from which it may earn revenue and incur expenses, and about which separate financial
information is regularly evaluated by our chief operating decision maker, in deciding how to
allocate resources. Our chief operating decision maker is the Companys President and Chief
Executive Officer.
Each of the operating segments is directly responsible for revenue and expenses related to
their operations including direct regional administrative costs. Finance, information technology,
human resources, and legal are shared functions that are not allocated back to the four operating
segments. The CODM assesses the performance of each operating segment using information about its
revenue and operating income (loss) before interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization, but
does not evaluate segments using discrete asset information. There are no inter-segment
transactions and the Company does not allocate interest and other income, interest expense,
depreciation and amortization or taxes to operating segments. The accounting policies for segment
reporting are the same as for the Company as a whole.
Our business is managed based on regions administered by executive vice presidents. Regions
one and three are generally organized geographically. The following is a summary of revenues
(excluding reimbursed management contract revenue) and gross profit by regions for the three months
ended June 30, 2010 and 2009. Information related to prior periods has been recast to conform to
the current region alignment.
14
Table of Contents
The Company has provided this business unit segment information for all comparable prior
periods. Segment information is summarized as follows (in thousands):
For the three months ended | For the six months ended | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
June 30, | Gross | June 30, | Gross | June 30, | Gross | June 30, | Gross | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | Margin | 2009 | Margin | 2010 | Margin | 2009 | Margin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenues: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
$ | 18,309 | $ | 20,107 | $ | 35,344 | $ | 39,320 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
12,000 | 13,301 | 23,951 | 26,907 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region One |
30,309 | 33,408 | 59,295 | 66,227 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region Two |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
561 | 669 | 1,307 | 1,289 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
4,856 | 2,661 | 12,947 | 4,818 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region Two |
5,417 | 3,330 | 14,254 | 6,107 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region Three |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
5,171 | 4,878 | 10,126 | 9,784 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
12,884 | 13,234 | 25,374 | 27,428 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region Three |
18,055 | 18,112 | 35,500 | 37,212 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region Four |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
10,110 | 10,023 | 20,485 | 19,936 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
12,312 | 8,048 | 19,873 | 16,366 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region Four |
22,422 | 18,071 | 40,358 | 36,302 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
11 | 10 | 16 | 58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
29 | 67 | 11 | 85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Other |
40 | 77 | 27 | 143 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reimbursed revenue |
100,757 | 97,595 | 206,812 | 200,152 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total revenues |
$ | 177,000 | $ | 170,593 | $ | 356,246 | $ | 346,143 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Profit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
$ | 1,610 | 9 | % | $ | 1,773 | 9 | % | $ | 1,762 | 5 | % | $ | 2,507 | 6 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
7,126 | 59 | % | 6,802 | 51 | % | 13,397 | 56 | % | 13,927 | 52 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region One |
8,736 | 8,575 | 15,159 | 16,434 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region Two |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
58 | 10 | % | 25 | 4 | % | 133 | 10 | % | 41 | 3 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
1,518 | 31 | % | 982 | 37 | % | 3,724 | 29 | % | 1,794 | 37 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region Two |
1,576 | 1,007 | 3,857 | 1,835 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region Three |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
432 | 8 | % | 418 | 9 | % | 800 | 8 | % | 830 | 8 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
6,484 | 50 | % | 6,006 | 45 | % | 12,285 | 48 | % | 12,272 | 45 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region Three |
6,916 | 6,424 | 13,085 | 13,102 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region Four |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
840 | 8 | % | 596 | 6 | % | 1,522 | 7 | % | 1,108 | 6 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
4,252 | 35 | % | 3,814 | 47 | % | 7,883 | 40 | % | 7,904 | 48 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total Region Four |
5,092 | 4,410 | 9,405 | 9,012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contracts |
5 | 45 | % | (57 | ) | (570 | )% | 73 | 456 | % | 20 | 34 | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Management contracts |
423 | 1,458 | % | (231 | ) | (345 | )% | 325 | 2,954 | % | (622 | ) | (732 | )% | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Other |
428 | (288 | ) | 398 | (602 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit |
22,748 | 20,128 | 41,904 | 39,781 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General and administrative expenses |
12,218 | 10,320 | 23,778 | 23,081 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General and administrative expense
percentage of gross profit |
54 | % | 51 | % | 57 | % | 58 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
1,570 | 1,413 | 3,030 | 2,900 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income |
8,960 | 8,395 | 15,096 | 13,800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other expenses (income): |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest expense |
1,398 | 1,528 | 2,888 | 2,964 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest income |
(52 | ) | (95 | ) | (105 | ) | (162 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,346 | 1,433 | 2,783 | 2,802 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income before income taxes |
7,614 | 6,962 | 12,313 | 10,998 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income tax expense |
3,021 | 2,692 | 4,868 | 4,266 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
4,593 | 4,270 | 7,445 | 6,732 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Less: Net income attributable to
noncontrolling interest |
85 | 42 | 92 | 106 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income attributable to
Standard Parking Corporation |
$ | 4,508 | $ | 4,228 | $ | 7,353 | $ | 6,626 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One encompasses operations in Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
15
Table of Contents
Region Two encompasses our Canadian operations, event planning and transportation, and our
technology based parking and traffic management systems.
Region Three encompasses operations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Nevada, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Region Four encompasses all major airport and transportation operations nationwide.
Other consists of ancillary revenue that is not specifically identifiable to a region and
insurance reserve adjustments related to prior years.
The CODM does not evaluate segments using discrete asset information.
14. Comprehensive Income
Comprehensive income consists of the following components, net of tax (Unaudited):
For the three months ended | For the six months ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, 2010 | June 30, 2009 | June 30, 2010 | June 30, 2009 | |||||||||||||
Net income |
$ | 4,593 | $ | 4,270 | $ | 7,445 | $ | 6,732 | ||||||||
Revaluation of interest rate cap |
(201 | ) | | (360 | ) | | ||||||||||
Effect of foreign currency translation |
(176 | ) | 177 | 280 | (57 | ) | ||||||||||
Comprehensive income |
4,216 | 4,447 | 7,365 | 6,675 | ||||||||||||
Less: comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
85 | 42 | 92 | 106 | ||||||||||||
Comprehensive income attributable to Standard Parking Corporation |
$ | 4,131 | $ | 4,405 | $ | 7,273 | $ | 6,569 | ||||||||
15. Income Taxes
For the three months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recognized income tax expense of $3,021
on pre-tax earnings of $7,614 compared to $2,692 income tax expense on pre-tax earnings of $6,962
for the three months ended June 30, 2009. For the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company
recognized income tax expense of $4,868 on pre-tax earnings of $12,313 compared to $4,266 income
tax expense on pre-tax earnings of $10,998 for the six months ended June 30, 2009. Income tax
expense is based on a projected annual effective tax rate of approximately 39.5% for the six months
ended June 30, 2010 compared to approximately 38.8% for the six months ended June 30, 2009. The
change in the Companys effective tax rate resulted primarily from a decrease in the Companys
state effective tax rate.
In July 2006, the FASB issued accounting guidance for uncertainty in income taxes. The
accounting guidance for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprises financial
statements also prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial
statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax
return. The Company recognizes potential interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions,
if any, in income tax expense. Upon adoption, the Company completed a detailed analysis of its tax
positions and determined that the implementation of this guidance did not have an impact on the
Companys financial position or results from operations. As of June 30, 2010, the Company has not
identified any uncertain tax positions that would have a material impact on the Companys financial
position.
The tax years that remain subject to examination for the Companys major tax jurisdictions at
June 30, 2010 are shown below:
2004 2009 | United States federal income tax |
|
2003 2009 | United States state and local income tax |
|
2006 2009 | Canada |
16
Table of Contents
16. Legal Proceedings
We are subject to litigation in the normal course of our business. The outcomes of legal
proceedings and claims brought against us and other loss contingencies are subject to significant
uncertainty. We accrue a charge against income when our management determines that it is probable
that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated. In addition, we accrue for the authoritative judgments or assertions made
against us by government agencies at the time of their rendering regardless of our intent to
appeal. In determining the appropriate accounting for loss contingencies, we consider the
likelihood of loss or impairment of an asset or the incurrence of a liability, as well as our
ability to reasonably estimate the amount of loss. We regularly evaluate current information
available to us to determine whether an accrual should be established or adjusted. Estimating the
probability that a loss will occur and estimating the amount of a loss or a range of loss involves
significant judgment.
As previously disclosed in our Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, John
V. Holten, a former director and former indirect controlling shareholder of the Company, filed a
lawsuit against us. On May 20, 2010, we filed an answer to this lawsuit, denying Mr. Holtens claim
for breach of his employment agreement. We asserted a separate counterclaim seeking a declaratory
judgment that Mr. Holtens employment agreement is voidable and void. The counterclaim further
seeks, among other relief, restitution of all payments made to Mr. Holten and his affiliates
pursuant to his employment agreement. Mr. Holten has not answered the counterclaim as of the date
this report was filed.
Item 2. | Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations |
The following discussion of our results of operations should be read in conjunction with the
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto contained in this Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q and the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in our Annual Report
on our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Overview
Our Business
We manage parking facilities in urban markets and at airports across the United States and in
four Canadian provinces. We do not own any facilities, but instead enter into contractual
relationships with property owners or managers.
We operate our clients properties through two types of arrangements: management contracts and
leases. Under a management contract, we typically receive a base monthly fee for managing the
facility, and we may also receive an incentive fee based on the achievement of facility performance
objectives. We also receive fees for ancillary services. Typically, all of the underlying revenue
and expenses under a standard management contract flow through to our clients rather than to us.
However, some management contracts, which are referred to as reverse management contracts,
usually provide for larger management fees and require us to pay various costs. Under lease
arrangements, we generally pay to the property owner either a fixed annual rent, a percentage of
gross customer collections or a combination thereof. We collect all revenue under lease
arrangements and we are responsible for most operating expenses, but we are typically not
responsible for major maintenance, capital expenditures or real estate taxes. Margins for lease
contracts vary significantly, not only due to operating performance, but also due to variability of
parking rates in different cities and varying space utilization by parking facility type and
location. As of June 30, 2010, we operated approximately 90% of our locations under management
contracts and approximately 10% of our locations under leases. For the six months ended June 30,
2010, we derived approximately 90% of our gross profit under management contracts and approximately
10% of our gross profit under leases.
In evaluating our financial condition and operating performance, managements primary
focus is on our gross profit, total general and administrative expenses and general and
administrative expenses as a percentage of our gross profit. Although the underlying economics to
us of management contracts and leases are similar, the manner in which we are required to account
for them differs. Revenue from leases includes all gross customer collections derived from our
leased locations (net of parking tax), whereas revenue from management contracts only includes our
contractually agreed upon management fees and amounts attributable to ancillary services. Gross
customer collections at facilities under management contracts, therefore, are not included in our
revenue. Accordingly, while a change in the proportion of our operating agreements that are
structured as leases versus management contracts may cause significant fluctuations in reported
revenue and expense of parking services, that change will not artificially affect our gross profit.
For example, as of June 30, 2010, we operated approximately 90% of our locations under management
contracts, and for the six months ended June 30, 2010, we derived approximately 90% of our gross
profit under management contracts. Only approximately 55% of total revenue (excluding reimbursed
management contract revenue), however, was from management contracts because under those contracts
the revenue collected from parking customers belongs to our clients. Therefore, gross profit and
total general and administrative expenses, rather than revenue, are managements primary focus.
17
Table of Contents
General Business Trends
We believe that sophisticated commercial real estate developers and property managers and
owners recognize the opportunity for parking and related services to be a profit generator rather
than a cost center. Often, the parking experience makes both the first and the last impressions on
their properties tenants and visitors. By outsourcing these services, they are able to capture
additional profit by leveraging the unique operational skills and controls that an experienced
parking management company can offer. Our ability to consistently deliver a uniformly high level of
parking and related services and maximize the profit to our clients improves our ability to win
contracts and retain existing locations. Our location retention rate for the twelve-month period
ended June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2009 was approximately 89%, which also reflects our decision not
to renew, or to terminate, unprofitable contracts.
For the three months ended June 30, 2010 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2009,
average gross profit per location increased by 10.6% from $9.4 thousand to $10.4 thousand due to
cost savings on non-operating items and increased profit on our 2009 acquisition.
Summary of Operating Facilities
We focus our operations in core markets where a concentration of locations improves customer
service levels and operating margins. The following table reflects our facilities operated at the
end of the periods indicated:
June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | June 30, 2009 | ||||||||||
Managed facilities |
1,966 | 1,921 | 1,919 | |||||||||
Leased facilities |
210 | 208 | 223 | |||||||||
Total facilities |
2,176 | 2,129 | 2,142 | |||||||||
Revenue
We recognize parking services revenue from lease and management contracts as the related
services are provided. Substantially all of our revenue comes from the following two sources:
| Parking services revenuelease contracts. Parking services revenue related to lease
contracts consist of all revenue received at a leased facility, including parking receipts
(net of parking tax), consulting and real estate development fees, gains on sales of contracts
and payments for exercising termination rights. |
| Parking services revenuemanagement contracts. Management contract revenue consists of
management fees, including both fixed and performance-based fees, and amounts attributable to
ancillary services such as accounting, equipment leasing, payments received for exercising
termination rights, consulting, developmental fees, gains on sales of contracts, as well as
insurance and other value-added services with respect to managed locations. We believe we
generally purchase required insurance at lower rates than our clients can obtain on their own
because we effectively self-insure for all liability and workers compensation claims by
maintaining a large per-claim deductible. As a result, we have generated operating income on
the insurance provided under our management contracts by focusing on our risk management
efforts and controlling losses. Management contract revenue does not include gross customer
collections at the managed locations as this revenue belongs to the property owner rather than
to us. Management contracts generally provide us with a management fee regardless of the
operating performance of the underlying facility. |
Conversions between type of contracts (lease or management) are typically determined by our
client and not us. Although the underlying economics to us of management contracts and leases are
similar, the manner in which we account for them differs substantially.
Reimbursed Management Contract Revenue
Reimbursed management contract revenue consists of the direct reimbursement from the property
owner for operating expenses incurred under a management contract, which is reflected in our
revenue.
18
Table of Contents
Cost of Parking Services
Our cost of parking services consists of the following:
| Cost of parking serviceslease contracts. The cost of parking services under a lease
arrangement consists of contractual rental fees paid to the facility owner and all operating
expenses incurred in connection with operating the leased facility. Contractual fees paid to
the facility owner are generally based on either a fixed contractual amount or a percentage
of gross revenue or a combination thereof. Generally, under a lease arrangement we are not
responsible for major capital expenditures or real estate taxes. |
| Cost of parking servicesmanagement contracts. The cost of parking services under a
management contract is generally the responsibility of the facility owner. As a result,
these costs are not included in our results of operations. However, our reverse management
contracts, which typically provide for larger management fees, do require us to pay for
certain costs. |
Reimbursed Management Contract Expense
Reimbursed management contract expense consists of direct reimbursed costs incurred on behalf
of property owners under a management contract, which is reflected in our cost of parking services.
Gross Profit
Gross profit equals our revenue less the cost of generating such revenue. This is the key
metric we use to examine our performance because it captures the underlying economic benefit to us
of both lease contracts and management contracts.
General and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses include salaries, wages, payroll taxes, insurance, travel
and office related expenses for our headquarters, field offices, supervisory employees, and board
of directors.
Depreciation and Amortization
Depreciation is determined using a straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the
various asset classes or in the case of leasehold improvements, over the initial term of the
operating lease or its useful life, whichever is shorter. Intangible assets determined to have
finite lives are amortized over their remaining useful life.
Seasonality
During the first quarter of each year, seasonality impacts our performance with regard to
moderating revenue, with the reduced levels of travel most clearly reflected in the parking
activity associated with our airport and hotel businesses as well as increases in certain costs of
parking services, such as snow removal, both of which negatively affect gross profit. Although our
revenue and profitability are affected by the seasonality of the business, general and
administrative costs are relatively stable throughout the fiscal year.
Results of Operations
Segments
An operating segment is defined as a component of an enterprise that engages in business
activities from which it may earn revenue and incur expenses, and about which separate financial
information is regularly evaluated by our chief operating decision maker, in deciding how to
allocate resources. Our chief operating decision maker is our president and chief executive
officer.
Our business is managed based on regions administered by executive vice presidents. The
following is a summary of revenues (excluding reimbursed management contract revenue) by region for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009. Information related to prior years has been
recast to conform to the new region alignment.
19
Table of Contents
Region One encompasses Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Region Two encompasses our Canadian operations, event planning and transportation, and our
technology based parking and traffic management systems.
Region Three encompasses Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, Texas,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Region Four encompasses all major airport and transportation operations nationwide.
Other consists of ancillary revenue that is not specifically identifiable to a region and
reserve adjustments related to prior years.
The following tables present the material factors that impact our financial statements on an
operating segment basis.
Three Months ended June 30, 2010 Compared to Three Months ended June 30, 2009
Segment revenue information is summarized as follows:
Three Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One | Region Two | Region Three | Region Four | Other | Total | Variance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | Amount | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contract revenue: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 0.4 | $ | 0.2 | $ | | $ | | $ | 0.9 | $ | | $ | 0.2 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 1.5 | $ | 0.3 | $ | 1.2 | 400.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 1.5 | | 0.2 | | 0.4 | | | | | | 2.1 | (2.1 | ) | (100.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
17.9 | 18.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 9.9 | 9.5 | | | 32.7 | 32.9 | (0.2 | ) | (0.6 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | 0.4 | | | | 0.4 | (0.4 | ) | (100.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total lease contract revenue |
$ | 18.3 | $ | 20.1 | $ | 0.6 | $ | 0.7 | $ | 5.2 | $ | 4.9 | $ | 10.1 | $ | 10.0 | $ | | $ | | $ | 34.2 | $ | 35.7 | $ | (1.5 | ) | (4.2 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management contract revenue: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 1.9 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 2.2 | $ | | $ | 0.9 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 4.7 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 9.7 | $ | 0.2 | $ | 9.5 | 4750.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
0.1 | 1.8 | | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.3 | | 0.2 | | | 0.3 | 3.4 | (3.1 | ) | (91.2 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
10.0 | 11.4 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 7.6 | 7.8 | | | 32.1 | 33.7 | (1.6 | ) | (4.7 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total management contract
revenue |
$ | 12.0 | $ | 13.3 | $ | 4.9 | $ | 2.7 | $ | 12.9 | $ | 13.3 | $ | 12.3 | $ | 8.0 | $ | | $ | | $ | 42.1 | $ | 37.3 | $ | 4.8 | 12.9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parking services revenuelease contracts. Lease contract revenue decreased $1.5 million,
or 4.2%, to $34.2 million in the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $35.7 million for
the three months ended June 30, 2009. The decrease resulted primarily from contract expirations and
conversions exceeding increases in revenue from new locations. Same location revenue for those
facilities, which as of June 30, 2010 are the comparative periods for the two years presented,
decreased 0.6%. The decrease in same location revenue was due to decreases in monthly parking
revenue of $0.3 million, or 3.2%, partially offset by increases in short-term parking revenue of
$0.1 million, or 0.4%. Revenue associated with contract expirations relates to contracts that
expired during the current period.
Parking services revenuemanagement contracts. Management contract revenue increased $4.8
million, or 12.9%, to $42.1 million for three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $37.3 million
for the three months ended June 30, 2009. The increase resulted primarily from new locations,
partially offset by decreases in revenue from contract expirations. Same locations revenue for
those facilities, which as of June 30, 2010 are the comparative for the two years presented,
decreased 4.7%.
Reimbursed management contract revenue. Reimbursed management contract revenue increased $3.2
million, or 3.3%, to $100.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $97.6
million for the three months ended June 30, 2009. This increase resulted from an increase in
reimbursed costs incurred on behalf of owners.
Lease contract revenue decreased primarily due to region one same location revenue and regions
one and two contract expirations, partially offset by increases in region three new location
revenue and region four same location revenue. Same location revenue decreased in region one and
three compared to the prior year primarily due to decreases in monthly parking revenue.
Management contract revenue increased primarily due to new locations in regions one, two,
three and four, partially offset by contract expirations in regions one, two, three and four and
decreases in same locations for regions one, three and four. Same location revenue decreased
primarily due to decreased fees from reverse management locations and ancillary services.
20
Table of Contents
Segment cost of parking services information is summarized as follows:
Three Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One | Region Two | Region Three | Region Four | Other | Total | Variance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | Amount | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of parking
services lease
contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 0.3 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 0.8 | $ | | $ | 0.2 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 1.3 | $ | 0.2 | $ | 1.1 | 550.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 1.3 | | 0.2 | | 0.4 | | | | | | 1.9 | (1.9 | ) | (100.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
16.4 | 16.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 0.1 | | 29.9 | 30.4 | (0.5 | ) | (1.6 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | 0.4 | | | | 0.4 | (0.4 | ) | (100.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total cost of parking
services lease
contracts |
$ | 16.7 | $ | 18.3 | $ | 0.5 | $ | 0.7 | $ | 4.7 | $ | 4.5 | $ | 9.2 | $ | 9.4 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | 31.2 | $ | 32.9 | $ | (1.7 | ) | (5.2 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of parking
services management
contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 0.8 | $ | | $ | 1.8 | $ | | $ | 0.5 | $ | | $ | 4.2 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 7.3 | $ | | $ | 7.3 | 100..0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 1.4 | | | 0.1 | 0.8 | | 0.1 | | | 0.1 | 2.3 | (2.2 | ) | (95.7 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
4.0 | 5.1 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 5.8 | 6.4 | 3.9 | 4.1 | (0.4 | ) | 0.3 | 14.9 | 17.6 | (2.7 | ) | (15.3 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total cost of parking
services management
contracts |
$ | 4.8 | $ | 6.5 | $ | 3.4 | $ | 1.7 | $ | 6.4 | $ | 7.2 | $ | 8.1 | $ | 4.2 | $ | (0.4 | ) | $ | 0.3 | $ | 22.3 | $ | 19.9 | $ | 2.4 | 12.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of parking serviceslease contracts. Cost of parking services for lease contracts
decreased $1.7 million, or 5.2%, to $31.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010,
compared to $32.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009. The decrease resulted primarily
from decreases in costs related to contract expirations and conversions, partially offset by
increases in costs related to new locations. Same locations costs for those facilities which as of
June 30, 2010 are the comparative for the two years presented, decreased 1.6%. Same location costs
decreased $0.3 million due to rent expense, primarily as a result of contingent rental payments on
the decrease in revenue for same locations and $0.1 million due to payroll and payroll related and
other operating costs of $0.1 million.
Cost of parking servicesmanagement contracts. Cost of parking services for management
contracts increased $2.4 million, or 12.1%, to $22.3 million for the three months ended June 30,
2010, compared to $19.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009. The increase resulted
primarily from increases in costs related to new locations, partially offset by decreases in costs
related to contract expirations. Same location costs for those facilities, which as of June 30,
2010 are the comparative period for the two years presented, decreased 15.3%. Same location
decrease in operating expenses for management contracts primarily result from decreases in costs
associated with reverse management contracts and the cost of providing management services.
Reimbursed management contract expense. Reimbursed management contract expense increased $3.2
million, or 3.3%, to $100.8 million, for the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $97.6
million for the three months ended June 30, 2009. This increase resulted from an increase in
reimbursed cost incurred on the behalf of owners.
Cost of parking services lease contracts decreased primarily due to fewer contract expirations
in regions one, two and three, decreases in same location costs in region one and three and
decreases in conversions in region four, partially offset by increases in new locations for regions
one, three and four. Same location costs decreased primarily due to decreases in rent expense
primarily as a result of contingent rental payments on the decrease in revenue for some locations
and a reduction in payroll and payroll related.
Cost of parking services management contracts primarily increased due to new locations in
regions one, two, three and four, partially offset by fewer contract expirations in regions one,
three and four and decreases in same location in regions one, two, three and four. The other region
amounts in same location costs primarily represent prior year insurance reserve adjustments.
21
Table of Contents
Segment gross profit/gross profit percentage information is summarized as follows:
Region One | Region Two | Region Three | Region Four | Other | Total | Variance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | Amount | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit lease contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 0.1 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | | $ | 0.2 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.1 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 0.2 | | | | | | | | | | 0.2 | (0.2 | ) | (100.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
1.5 | 1.5 | 0.1 | | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.6 | (0.1 | ) | | 2.8 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 12.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit lease contracts |
$ | 1.6 | $ | 1.8 | $ | 0.1 | $ | $ | 0.5 | $ | 0.4 | $ | 0.9 | $ | 0.6 | $ | (0.1 | ) | | $ | 3.0 | $ | 2.8 | $ | 0.2 | 7.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(percentages) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit percentage lease
contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
25.0 | 50.0 | | | 11.1 | | | | | | 13.3 | 33.3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 13.3 | | | | | | | | | | 9.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
8.4 | 8.2 | 16.7 | | 9.3 | 8.9 | 9.1 | 6.3 | | | 8.6 | 7.6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit percentage |
8.7 | 9.0 | 16.7 | | 9.6 | 8.2 | 8.9 | 6.0 | | | 8.8 | 7.8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit management contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 1.1 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.4 | $ | | $ | 0.4 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.5 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 2.4 | $ | 0.2 | $ | 2.2 | 1100.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
0.1 | 0.4 | | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | | 0.1 | | | 0.2 | 1.1 | (0.9 | ) | (81.8 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
6.0 | 6.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 0.4 | (0.3 | ) | 17.2 | 16.1 | 1.1 | 6.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit management
contracts |
$ | 7.2 | $ | 6.8 | $ | 1.5 | $ | 1.0 | $ | 6.5 | $ | 6.1 | $ | 4.2 | $ | 3.8 | $ | 0.4 | (0.3 | ) | $ | 19.8 | $ | 17.4 | $ | 2.4 | 13.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(percentages) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit percentage
management contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
57.9 | 100.0 | 18.2 | | 44.4 | 100.0 | 10.6 | | | | 24.7 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
100.0 | 22.2 | | 100.0 | 50.0 | 38.5 | | 50.0 | | | 66.7 | 32.4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
60.0 | 55.3 | 40.7 | 34.6 | 50.8 | 46.2 | 48.7 | 47.4 | | | 53.6 | 47.8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit percentage |
60.0 | 51.1 | 30.6 | 37.0 | 50.4 | 45.9 | 34.1 | 47.5 | | | 47.0 | 46.6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profitlease contracts. Gross profit for lease contracts increased $0.2 million,
or 7.1%, to $3.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $2.8 million for the
three months ended June 30, 2009. Gross profit percentage for lease contracts increased to 8.8% for
the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to 7.8% for the three months ended June 30, 2009.
Gross profit lease contracts increases on same locations were primarily the result of a decrease in
cost related to rent expense, primarily as a result of contingent rental payments on the decrease
in revenue for same locations.
Gross profitmanagement contracts. Gross profit for management contracts increased $2.4
million, or 13.8%, to $19.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $17.4
million for the three months ended June 30, 2009. Gross profit percentage for management contracts
increased to 47.0% for the three months ended June 30, 2010 compared to 46.6% in the three months
ended June 30, 2009. Gross profit for management contracts increases were primarily the result of
our same locations, and our contract expirations, partially offset by decreases in our new
locations. Gross profit percentage on contract expirations accounted for most of the increase on a
percentage basis.
Gross profit for lease contracts increased primarily due to same locations in regions one and
four due to decreases in cost related to rent expense, primarily as a result of contingent rental
payments on the decrease in revenue for same locations.
Gross profit for management contracts increased primarily due to our same locations in regions
two, three and other and our new locations in regions one, two, three and four.
General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses increased $1.9
million, or 18.4%, to $12.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $10.3
million for the three months ended June 30, 2009. This increase resulted primarily due to the
restoration of performance-based compensation programs in 2010 of $2.2 million, partially offset by
a decrease of $0.3 million in legal-related expenses.
Interest expense. Interest expense was $1.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010
and did not change significantly compared to the three months ended June 30, 2009.
Interest income. Interest income was $0.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and
did not change significantly compared to the three months ended June 30, 2009.
22
Table of Contents
Income tax expense. Income tax expense increased $0.3 million, or 11.1%, to $3.0 million for
the three months ended June 30, 2010, as compared to $2.7 million for the three months ended June
30, 2009. An increase in our pre-tax income resulted in a $0.3 million increase in income tax
expense. Our effective tax rate was 39.7% for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 38.7% for
the three months ended June 30, 2009.
Six Months ended June 30, 2010 Compared to Six Months ended June 30, 2009
Segment revenue information is summarized as follows:
Six Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One | Region Two | Region Three | Region Four | Other | Total | Variance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | Amount | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lease contract revenue: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 0.7 | $ | 0.2 | $ | | $ | | $ | 1.6 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.5 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 2.8 | $ | 0.4 | $ | 2.4 | 600.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 3.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | | 0.8 | | | | | 0.2 | 4.3 | (4.1 | ) | (95.3 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
34.7 | 36.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 8.5 | 8.9 | 19.7 | 19.0 | | 0.1 | 64.0 | 65.0 | (1.0 | ) | (1.5 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | 0.3 | 0.7 | | | 0.3 | 0.7 | (0.4 | ) | (57.1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total lease contract revenue |
$ | 35.4 | $ | 39.3 | $ | 1.3 | $ | 1.4 | $ | 10.1 | $ | 9.8 | $ | 20.5 | $ | 19.8 | $ | | $ | 0.1 | $ | 67.3 | $ | 70.4 | $ | (3.1 | ) | (4.4 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management contract revenue: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 3.0 | $ | 0.2 | $ | 8.0 | $ | | $ | 2.0 | $ | 0.4 | $ | 5.0 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 18.0 | $ | 0.7 | $ | 17.3 | 2471.4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
0.4 | 4.1 | | 0.2 | 0.6 | 3.5 | | 0.5 | | | 1.0 | 8.3 | (7.3 | ) | (88.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
20.6 | 22.6 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 22.8 | 23.5 | 14.9 | 15.9 | | | 63.2 | 66.6 | (3.4 | ) | (5.1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total management contract
revenue |
$ | 24.0 | $ | 26.9 | $ | 12.9 | $ | 4.8 | $ | 25.4 | $ | 27.4 | $ | 19.9 | $ | 16.5 | $ | | $ | | $ | 82.2 | $ | 75.6 | $ | 6.6 | 8.7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parking services revenuelease contracts. Lease contract revenue decreased $3.1 million,
or 4.4%, to $67.3 million in the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $70.4 million for the
six months ended June 30, 2009. The decrease resulted primarily from contract expirations and
conversions exceeding increases in revenue from new locations. Same location revenue for those
facilities, which as of June 30, 2010 are the comparative periods for the two years presented,
decreased 1.5%. The decrease in same location revenue was due to decreases in short-term parking
revenue of $0.2 million, or 0.4%, and a decrease in monthly parking revenue of $0.8 million, or
3.9%. Revenue associated with contract expirations relates to contracts that expired during the
current period.
Parking services revenuemanagement contracts. Management contract revenue increased $6.6
million, or 8.7%, to $82.2 million for six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $75.6 million
for the six months ended June 30, 2009. The increase resulted primarily from new locations,
partially offset by decreases in revenue from contract expirations. Same locations revenue for
those facilities, which as of June 30, 2010 are the comparative for the two years presented,
decreased 5.1%.
Reimbursed management contract revenue. Reimbursed management contract revenue increased $6.6
million, or 3.3%, to $206.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $200.2
million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. This increase resulted from an increase in
reimbursed costs incurred on behalf of owners.
Lease contract revenue decreased primarily due to region one and three same location revenue,
decreases in contract expirations in region one, two, and three, decreases in conversions in region
four, partially offset by new location increases in region one, three, and four. Same location
revenue decreased compared to the prior year primarily due to decreases in short-term and monthly
parking revenue.
Management contract revenue increased primarily due to new locations in regions one, two,
three and four, partially offset by contract expirations in regions one, two, three and four and
decreases in same locations for regions one, two and four. Same location revenue decreased
primarily due to decreased fees from reverse management locations and ancillary services.
23
Table of Contents
Segment cost of parking services information is summarized as follows:
Six Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One | Region Two | Region Three | Region Four | Other | Total | Variance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | Amount | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of parking
services lease
contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 0.6 | $ | 0.2 | $ | | $ | | $ | 1.5 | $ | | $ | 0.4 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 2.5 | $ | 0.3 | $ | 2.2 | 733.3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 3.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | | 0.8 | | | | | 0.2 | 4.1 | (3.9 | ) | (95.1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
33.0 | 33.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 18.2 | 18.0 | | | 60.0 | 60.8 | (0.8 | ) | (1.3 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | 0.3 | 0.7 | | | 0.3 | 0.7 | (0.4 | ) | (57.1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total cost of parking
services lease
contracts |
$ | 33.6 | $ | 37.0 | $ | 1.2 | $ | 1.2 | $ | 9.3 | $ | 8.9 | $ | 18.9 | $ | 18.8 | $ | | $ | | $ | 63.0 | $ | 65.9 | $ | (2.9 | ) | (4.4 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of parking
services management
contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 1.2 | $ | | $ | 6.3 | $ | | $ | 1.2 | $ | 0.3 | $ | 4.5 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 13.2 | $ | 0.3 | $ | 12.9 | 4300.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
0.2 | 2.5 | | | 0.3 | 2.2 | | 0.2 | | | 0.5 | 4.9 | (4.4 | ) | (89.8 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
9.2 | 10.6 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 11.6 | 12.7 | 7.5 | 8.2 | (0.4 | ) | 0.6 | 30.8 | 35.1 | (4.3 | ) | (12.3 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total cost of parking
services management
contracts |
$ | 10.6 | $ | 13.1 | $ | 9.2 | $ | 3.0 | $ | 13.1 | $ | 15.2 | $ | 12.0 | $ | 8.4 | $ | (0.4 | ) | $ | 0.6 | $ | 44.5 | $ | 40.3 | $ | 4.2 | 10.4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of parking serviceslease contracts. Cost of parking services for lease contracts
decreased $2.9 million, or 4.4%, to $63.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared
to $65.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. The decrease resulted primarily from
decreases in costs related to contract expirations and conversions, partially offset by increases
in costs related to new locations. Same locations costs for those facilities which as of June 30,
2010 are the comparative for the two years presented, decreased 1.3%. Same location costs decreased
$0.7 million due to rent expense, primarily as a result of contingent rental payments on the
decrease in revenue for same locations and $0.1 million due to payroll and payroll related.
Cost of parking servicesmanagement contracts. Cost of parking services for management
contracts increased $4.2 million, or 10.4%, to $44.5 million for the six months ended June 30,
2010, compared to $40.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. The increase resulted
primarily from increases in costs related to new locations, partially offset by decreases in costs
related to contract expirations. Same location costs for those facilities, which as of June 30,
2010 are the comparative period for the two years presented, decreased 12.3%. Same location
decrease in operating expenses for management contracts primarily result from decreases in costs
associated with reverse management contracts and the cost of providing management services.
Reimbursed management contract expense. Reimbursed management contract expense increased $6.6
million, or 3.3%, to $206.8 million, for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $200.2
million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. This increase resulted from an increase in
reimbursed cost incurred on the behalf of owners.
Cost of parking services lease contracts decreased primarily due to fewer contract expirations
in regions one, two and three, decreases in same location costs in region one and three, partially
offset by increases in new locations for regions one, three and four. Same location costs decreased
primarily due to decreases in rent expense primarily as a result of contingent rental payments on
the decrease in revenue for some locations and a reduction in payroll and payroll related.
Cost of parking services management contracts primarily increased due to new locations in
regions one, two, three and four, partially offset by fewer contract expirations in regions one,
three, and four, decreases in same location in regions one, two, three and four. The other region
amounts in same location costs primarily represent prior year insurance reserve adjustments.
24
Table of Contents
Segment gross profit/gross profit percentage information is summarized as follows:
Six Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region One | Region Two | Region Three | Region Four | Other | Total | Variance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | Amount | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit lease contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 0.3 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.2 | 200.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 0.1 | | 0.1 | | | | | | | | 0.2 | (0.2 | ) | (100.0 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
1.7 | 2.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.0 | | 0.1 | 4.0 | 4.2 | (0.2 | ) | (4.8 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit lease contracts |
$ | 1.8 | $ | 2.3 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.2 | $ | 0.8 | $ | 0.9 | $ | 1.6 | $ | 1.0 | $ | | $ | 0.1 | $ | 4.3 | $ | 4.5 | $ | (0.2 | ) | (4.4 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(percentages) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit percentage lease contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
14.3 | | | | 6.3 | 100.0 | 20.0 | | | | 10.7 | 25.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
| 3.2 | | 25.0 | | | | | | | | 4.7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
4.9 | 6.1 | 9.1 | 10.0 | 8.2 | 9.0 | 7.6 | 5.3 | | 100.0 | 6.3 | 6.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit percentage |
5.1 | 5.9 | 7.7 | 14.3 | 7.9 | 9.2 | 7.8 | 5.1 | | 100.0 | 6.4 | 6.4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit management contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
$ | 1.8 | $ | 0.2 | $ | 1.7 | $ | | $ | 0.8 | $ | 0.1 | $ | 0.5 | $ | 0.1 | $ | | $ | | $ | 4.8 | $ | 0.4 | $ | 4.4 | 1,100.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
0.2 | 1.6 | | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.3 | | 0.3 | | | 0.5 | 3.4 | (2.9 | ) | (85.3 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
11.4 | 12.0 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 11.2 | 10.8 | 7.4 | 7.7 | 0.4 | (0.6 | ) | 32.4 | 31.5 | 0.9 | 2.9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit management contracts |
$ | 13.4 | $ | 13.8 | $ | 3.7 | $ | 1.8 | $ | 12.3 | $ | 12.2 | $ | 7.9 | $ | 8.1 | $ | 0.4 | $ | (0.6 | ) | $ | 37.7 | $ | 35.3 | $ | 2.4 | 6.8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(percentages) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profit percentage management
contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New location |
60.0 | 100.0 | 21.3 | | 40.0 | 25.0 | 10.0 | 100.0 | | | 26.7 | 57.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract expirations |
50.0 | 39.0 | | 100.0 | 50.0 | 37.1 | | 60.0 | | | 50.0 | 41.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Same location |
55.3 | 53.1 | 40.8 | 34.8 | 49.1 | 46.0 | 49.7 | 48.4 | | | 51.3 | 47.3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conversions |
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross profit percentage |
55.8 | 51.3 | 28.7 | 37.5 | 48.4 | 44.5 | 39.7 | 49.1 | | | 45.9 | 46.7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross profitlease contracts. Gross profit for lease contracts decreased $0.2 million,
or 4.4%, to $4.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $4.5 million for the
six months ended June 30, 2009. Gross profit percentage for lease contracts remained flat at 6.4%
for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2009. Gross profit lease contracts decreases on
same locations were primarily the result of a decrease in short-term and monthly parking revenue,
without an equal and corresponding decrease in costs.
Gross profitmanagement contracts. Gross profit for management contracts increased $2.4
million, or 6.8%, to $37.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $35.3
million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. Gross profit percentage for management contracts
decreased to 45.9% for the six months ended June 30, 2010 compared to 46.7% in the six months ended
June 30, 2009. Gross profit for management contracts increases were primarily the result of our
same locations, and our new locations, partially offset by decreases in our contract expirations.
Gross profit percentage on new locations and same locations accounted for most of the decline on a
percentage basis.
Gross profit for lease contracts declined primarily due to same locations in regions one and
three due to decreases in short-term and monthly parking revenue, without an equal and
corresponding decrease in costs. The other region amounts in same location primarily represent
prior year insurance reserve adjustments.
Gross profit for management contracts increased primarily due to our same locations in regions
two, three and other and our new locations in regions one, two, three and four, partially offset by
contract expirations in regions one, two, three and four.
General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses increased $0.7
million, or 3.0%, to $23.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $23.1
million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. This increase resulted primarily due to the
restoration of performance-based compensation programs in 2010 of $2.0 million, partially offset by
a decrease of $1.0 million in legal-related expenses and a decrease of $0.3 million in other costs.
Interest expense. Interest expense was $2.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and
did not change significantly compared to the six months ended June 30, 2009.
Interest income. Interest income was $0.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and
did not change significantly compared to the six months ended June 30, 2009.
25
Table of Contents
Income tax expense. Income tax expense increased $0.6 million, or 14.0%, to $4.9 million for
the six months ended June 30, 2010, as compared to $4.3 million for the six months ended June 30,
2009. An increase in our pre-tax income resulted in a $0.5 million increase in income tax expense.
Our effective tax rate was 39.5% for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 38.8% for the six
months ended June 30, 2009.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Outstanding Indebtedness
On June 30, 2010, we had total indebtedness of approximately $111.2 million, a decrease of
$2.0 million from December 31, 2009. The $111.2 million includes:
| $108.2 million under our senior credit facility; and |
| $3.0 million of other debt including capital lease obligations and obligations on seller
notes and other indebtedness. |
We believe that our cash flow from operations, combined with availability under our senior
credit facility, which amounted to $23.7 million at June 30, 2010, will be sufficient to enable us
to pay our indebtedness, or to fund other liquidity needs. We may need to refinance all or a
portion of our indebtedness on or before their respective maturities. We believe that we will be
able to refinance our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms.
Senior Credit Facility
On July 15, 2008, we amended and restated our credit facility.
The $210.0 million revolving senior credit facility will expire in July 2013. The revolving
senior credit facility includes a letter of credit sub-facility with a sublimit of $50.0 million
and a swing line sub-facility with a sublimit of $10.0 million.
Our revolving senior credit facility bears interest, at our option, at either (1) LIBOR plus
an applicable LIBOR margin of between 2.00% and 3.50% depending on the ratio of our total funded
indebtedness to our EBITDA from time to time (Total Debt Ratio) or (2) the Base Rate (as defined
below) plus an applicable Base Rate Margin of between 0.50% and 2.00% depending on our Total Debt
Ratio. We may elect interest periods of one, two, three or six months for LIBOR based borrowings.
The Base Rate is the greater of (i) the rate publicly announced from time to time by Bank of
America, N.A. as its prime rate, or (ii) the overnight federal funds rate plus 0.50%.
Our senior credit facility includes a fixed charge ratio covenant, a total debt to EBITDA
ratio covenant, a limit on our ability to incur additional indebtedness, issue preferred stock or
pay dividends, and certain other restrictions on our activities. We are required to repay
borrowings under our senior credit facility out of the proceeds of future issuances of debt or
equity securities and asset sales, subject to certain customary exceptions. Our senior credit
facility is secured by substantially all of our assets and all assets acquired in the future
(including a pledge of 100% of the stock of our existing and future domestic guarantor subsidiaries
and 65% of the stock of our existing and future foreign subsidiaries).
We are in compliance with all of our financial covenants.
The weighted average interest rate on our senior credit facility at June 30, 2010 and December
31, 2009 was 2.9% and 3.2%, respectively. The rate includes all outstanding LIBOR contracts,
interest rate cap effect and letters of credit. The weighted average interest rate on outstanding
borrowings, not including letters of credit, was 3.0% and 3.3% at June 30, 2010 and December 31,
2009, respectively.
At June 30, 2010, we had $16.9 million of letters of credit outstanding under the senior
credit facility, borrowings against the senior credit facility aggregated $108.2 million and we had
$23.7 million available under the senior credit facility.
26
Table of Contents
Interest Rate Cap Transactions
We do not enter into derivative instruments for any purpose other than cash flow hedging
purposes.
On February 22, 2010, we entered into interest rate cap agreements with Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
(Wells Fargo) and Fifth Third Bank (Fifth Third), allowing us to limit our exposure on a
portion of our borrowings under our senior credit facility (Rate Cap Transactions). Pursuant to
two separate letter agreements between the Company and Wells Fargo and Fifth Third, respectively,
we will receive payments from Wells Fargo and Fifth Third each quarterly period to the extent that
the prevailing three-month LIBOR during that period exceeds our cap rate of 3.25%. The Rate Cap
Transactions are effective March 31, 2010, and will settle each quarter on a date that is intended
to coincide with our quarterly interest payments dates under our senior credit facility. The Rate
Cap Transactions cap our LIBOR interest rate on a notional amount of $50 million at 3.25% for a
total of 39 months. These Rate Cap Transactions are classified as a cash flow hedge, and we
calculate the effectiveness of the hedge on a quarterly basis. The ineffective portion of the cash
flow hedge is recognized in current period earnings as an increase of interest expense. The fair
value of the interest rate cap at June 30, 2010 is $0.2 million and is included in prepaid
expenses.
Stock Repurchases
In July 2008, our Board of Directors authorized us to repurchase shares of our common stock,
on the open market or through private purchases, up to $60.0 million in aggregate.
During the first quarter of 2009, we repurchased 213,301 shares at an average price of $18.21
per share, including average commissions of $0.01 per share, on the open market. The total value of
the first quarter transactions was $3.9 million. We retired 200,650 shares during the first quarter
of 2009 and retired the remaining 12,651 shares in April 2009.We did not make any share repurchases
since the first quarter of 2009. As of June 30, 2010, $19.0 million remained available for
repurchase under the July 2008 authorization by the Board of Directors.
Letters of Credit
At June 30, 2010, we have provided letters of credit totaling $16.5 million to our casualty
insurance carrier to collateralize our casualty insurance program.
As of June 30, 2010, we provided $0.4 million in letters to collateralize other obligations.
Deficiency Payments
Pursuant to our obligations with respect to the parking garage operations at Bradley
International Airport, we are required to make certain payments for the benefit of the State of
Connecticut and for holders of special facility revenue bonds. The deficiency payments represent
contingent interest bearing advances to the trustee to cover operating cash flow requirements. The
payments, if any, are recorded as a receivable by us for which we are reimbursed from time to time
as provided in the trust agreement. As of June 30, 2010, we have a receivable of $11.3 million,
comprised of cumulative deficiency payments to the trustee, net of reimbursements. We believe these
advances to be fully recoverable and therefore have not recorded a valuation allowance for them. We
do not guarantee the payment of any principal or interest on any debt obligations of the State of
Connecticut or the trustee.
We made deficiency payments of $1.7 million in the first six months of 2010 compared to $1.5
million in the first six months of 2009. We did not receive any payments for interest and premium
income related to deficiency payments in the first six months of 2010 and 2009.
Daily Cash Collections
As a result of day-to-day activity at our parking locations, we collect significant
amounts of cash. Lease contract revenue is generally deposited into our local bank accounts, with a
portion remitted to our clients in the form of rental payments according to the terms of the
leases. Under management contracts, some clients require us to deposit the daily receipts into one
of our local bank accounts, with the cash in excess of our operating expenses and management fees
remitted to the clients at negotiated intervals. Other clients require us to deposit the daily
receipts into client accounts and the clients then reimburse us for operating expenses and pay our
management fee subsequent to month-end. Some clients require a segregated account for the receipts
and disbursements at locations. Our working capital and liquidity may be adversely affected if a
significant number of our clients require us to deposit all parking revenue into their respective
accounts.
Our liquidity also fluctuates on an intra-month and intra-year basis depending on the contract
mix and timing of significant cash payments. Additionally, our ability to utilize cash deposited
into our local accounts is dependent upon the availability and movement of that cash into our
corporate account. For all these reasons, from time to time, we carry a significant cash balance,
while also utilizing our senior credit facility.
27
Table of Contents
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities
Our primary sources of funds are cash flows from operating activities and changes in working
capital. Net cash provided by operating activities totaled $2.0 million for the first six months of
2010. Cash provided included $12.0 million from operations, which was offset by a net decrease in
working capital of $10.0 million. The decrease in working capital resulted primarily from (i) an
increase of $11.7 million in notes and accounts receivable, which primarily related to an increase
in business from new locations, acquisitions and deficiency payments related to Bradley
International Airport guarantor payments as described under Deficiency Payments (ii) an
increase of $0.4 million in other assets primarily related to an increase in the cash surrender
values related to the non-qualified deferred compensation plan; (iii) a decrease of $1.0 million
in accounts payable due primarily to the timing on payments to our clients and new business under
management contracts as described under Daily Cash Collections (iv) offset by a decrease of
$2.1 million in prepaid assets primarily related to timing of payroll taxes paid in 2009 relating
to 2010 payroll and timing of insurance premium payments; and (v) an increase in other liabilities
of $1.0 million primarily related to increases in the performance-based compensation accrual,
insurance loss estimates and long-term contractual obligations, offset by decreases in deferred
revenue due to timing of certain events and a reduction in accrued taxes related to a federal tax
payment.
Our primary sources of funds are cash flows from operating activities and changes in working
capital. Net cash provided by operating activities totaled $7.8 million for the first six months of
2009. Cash provided included $13.3 million from operations which was offset by a net decrease in
working capital of $5.4 million. The decrease in working capital resulted primarily from an
increase of $1.5 million in notes and accounts receivable, which primarily related to Bradley
International Airport guarantor payments as described under Deficiency Payments, and a decrease
of $3.9 million in other liabilities, which primarily related to a reduction in accruals related to
payments under employee incentive program.
Net Cash Used in Investing Activities
Net cash used in investing activities totaled $1.9 million in the first six months of 2010.
Cash used in investing activities for the first six months of 2010 included capital expenditures of
$1.6 million for capital investments needed to secure and/or extend leased facilities, cost of
contract purchases of $0.1 million, contingent payments on previously acquired contracts of $0.1
million and capitalized interest of $0.1 million.
Net cash used in investing activities totaled $3.1 million in the first six months of 2009.
Cash used in investing activities for the first six months of 2009 included capital expenditures of
$2.1 million for capital investments needed to secure and/or extend leased facilities, investment
in information system enhancements and infrastructure, cost of contract purchases of $0.6 million,
capitalized interest of $0.1 million and $0.3 million for contingent payments on previously
acquired contracts.
Net Cash Used in Financing Activities
Net cash used in financing activities totaled $0.1 million in the first six months of 2010.
Cash used in financing activities for 2010 included $0.3 million for payments on capital leases,
$1.7 million for payments on our senior credit facility, partially offset by $1.1 million from the
exercise of stock options and $1.0 million from the tax benefit related to stock option exercises.
Net cash used in financing activities totaled $2.5 million in the first six months of 2009.
Cash used in financing activities for 2009 included $3.9 million to repurchase our common stock,
$0.6 million for payments on capital leases, $0.1 million in distribution to noncontrolling
interests and $0.1 million for payments on long-term borrowings, partially offset by $2.2 million
from our senior credit facility.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
We had cash and cash equivalents of $8.3 million at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. The
cash balances reflect our ability to utilize funds deposited into our local accounts and which
based upon availability, timing of deposits and the subsequent movement of that cash into our
corporate accounts may result in significant changes to our cash balances.
28
Table of Contents
Forward-Looking Information
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor provisions for
forward-looking information. These statements relate to analyses and other information that are
based on forecasts of future results and estimates of amounts not yet determinable. These
statements also relate to our future prospects, developments and business strategies. The
statements contained in this Form 10-Q that are not statements of historical fact may include
forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties.
We have used the words anticipate, believe, could, estimate, expect, intend,
may, plan, predict, project, will and similar terms and phrases, including references to
assumptions in this Form 10-Q, to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking
statements are made based on our managements expectations and beliefs concerning future events
affecting us and are subject to uncertainties and factors relating to our operations and business
environment, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. These
uncertainties and factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those matters
expressed in or implied by these forward-looking statements.
All of our forward-looking statements should be considered in light of these factors. All of
our forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were made, and we undertake no
obligation to update our forward-looking statements or risk factors to reflect new information,
future events or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities laws and
regulations. You should review any additional disclosures we make in our press releases and Forms
10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K filed with or furnished to the SEC. We also suggest that you listen to our
quarterly earnings release conference calls with financial analysts.
Risk Factors
While it is not possible to identify all risk factors, we continue to face many risks and
uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from our forward-looking statements and
could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of
operations, and consolidated financial condition. Information related to risk factors is described
in our most recent Form 10-K under Risk Factors, as supplemented or amended from time to time in
our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and our current reports on Form 8-K.
Item 3. | Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk |
Interest Rates
Our primary market risk exposure consists of risk related to changes in interest rates. We use
a variable rate senior credit facility to finance our operations. This facility exposes us to
variability in interest payments due to changes in interest rates. If interest rates increase,
interest expense increases and conversely, if interest rates decrease, interest expense also
decreases. We believe that it is prudent to limit the exposure of an increase in interest rates.
We do not enter into derivative instruments for any purpose other than cash flow hedging
purposes.
On February 22, 2010, we entered into interest rate cap agreements with Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
(Wells Fargo) and Fifth Third Bank (Fifth Third), allowing us to limit our exposure on a
portion of our borrowings under our senior credit facility (Rate Cap Transactions). Pursuant to
two separate letter agreements between the Company and Wells Fargo and Fifth Third, respectively,
we will receive payments from Wells Fargo and Fifth Third each quarterly period to the extent that
the prevailing three month LIBOR during that period exceeds our cap rate of 3.25%. The Rate Cap
Transactions are effective March 31, 2010, and will settle each quarter on a date that is intended
to coincide with our quarterly interest payments dates under our senior credit facility. The Rate
Cap Transactions cap our LIBOR interest rate on a notional amount of $50 million at 3.25% for a
total of 39 months. These Rate Cap Transactions are classified as a cash flow hedge, and we
calculate the effectiveness of the hedge on a quarterly basis. The ineffective portion of the cash
flow hedge is recognized in current period earnings as an increase of interest expense. The fair
value of the interest rate cap at June 30, 2010 is $0.2 million and is included in prepaid
expenses.
Our $210.0 million senior credit facility provides for a $210.0 million variable rate
revolving facility. In addition, the credit facility includes a letter of credit sub-facility with
a sublimit of $50.0 million and swing line sub-facility with a sublimit of $10.0 million. Interest
expense on such borrowing is sensitive to changes in the market rate of interest. If we were to
borrow the entire $220.0 million available under the facility, a 1% increase in the average market
rate would result in an increase in our annual interest expense of $2.2 million.
29
Table of Contents
This amount is determined by considering the impact of the hypothetical interest rates on our
borrowing cost, but does not consider the effects of the reduced level of overall economic activity
that could exist in such an environment. Due to the uncertainty of the specific changes and their
possible effects, the foregoing sensitivity analysis assumes no changes in our financial structure.
Foreign Currency Risk
Our exposure to foreign exchange risk is minimal. All foreign investments are denominated in
U.S. dollars, with the exception of Canada. We had approximately $0.8 million of Canadian dollar
denominated cash instruments at June 30, 2010. We had no Canadian dollar denominated debt
instruments at June 30, 2010. We do not hold any hedging instruments related to foreign currency
transactions. We monitor foreign currency positions and may enter into certain hedging instruments
in the future should we determine that exposure to foreign exchange risk has increased.
Item 4. | Controls and Procedures |
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Within the 90-day period prior to the filing date of this report, our chief executive officer,
chief financial officer and corporate controller carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of
the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rule 13a-14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). Based upon their evaluation, our chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and corporate controller concluded that our disclosure
controls and procedures were adequate and effective and designed to ensure that material
information relating to us (including our consolidated subsidiaries) required to be disclosed by us
in the reports we file under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported
within the required time periods.
Changes in Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
There have been no significant changes in our internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the last fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal controls over financial reporting.
Limitations of the Effectiveness of Internal Control
A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not
absolute, assurance that the objectives of the internal control system are met. Because of the
inherent limitations of any internal control system, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute
assurance that all control issues, if any, within a company have been detected.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. | Legal Proceedings |
We are subject to litigation in the normal course of our business. The outcomes of legal
proceedings and claims brought against us and other loss contingencies are subject to significant
uncertainty. We accrue a charge against income when our management determines that it is probable
that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated. In addition, we accrue for the authoritative judgments or assertions made
against us by government agencies at the time of their rendering regardless of our intent to
appeal. In determining the appropriate accounting for loss contingencies, we consider the
likelihood of loss or impairment of an asset or the incurrence of a liability, as well as our
ability to reasonably estimate the amount of loss. We regularly evaluate current information
available to us to determine whether an accrual should be established or adjusted. Estimating the
probability that a loss will occur and estimating the amount of a loss or a range of loss involves
significant judgment.
As previously disclosed in our Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, John
V. Holten, a former director and former indirect controlling shareholder of the Company, filed a
lawsuit against us. On May 20, 2010, we filed an answer to this lawsuit, denying Mr. Holtens claim
for breach of his employment agreement. We asserted a separate counterclaim seeking a declaratory
judgment that Mr. Holtens employment agreement is voidable and void. The counterclaim further
seeks, among other relief, restitution of all payments made to Mr. Holten and his affiliates
pursuant to his employment agreement. Mr. Holten has not answered the counterclaim as of the date
this report was filed.
30
Table of Contents
Item 6. | Exhibits |
Exhibit | ||||
Number | Description | |||
3.1.1 | Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Standard Parking Corporation as filed on June 2, 2004. |
|||
3.1.2 | Certificate of Amendment of Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of Standard Parking Corporation
as filed on January 7, 2008. |
|||
3.1.3 | Certificate of Amendment of Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of Standard Parking Corporation
as filed on April 29, 2010. |
|||
3.1.4 | Certificate of Amendment of Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of Standard Parking Corporation
as filed on May 6, 2010. |
|||
31.1 | Section 302 Certification dated August 6, 2010 for James A.
Wilhelm, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer. |
|||
31.2 | Section 302 Certification dated August 6, 2010 for G. Marc
Baumann, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer). |
|||
31.3 | Section 302 Certification dated August 6, 2010 for Daniel R.
Meyer, Senior Vice President, Corporate Controller and
Assistant Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer). |
|||
32.1 | Certification pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
dated August 6, 2010. |
31
Table of Contents
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION |
||||
Dated: August 6, 2010 | By: | /s/ JAMES A. WILHELM | ||
James A. Wilhelm | ||||
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
||||
Dated: August 6, 2010 | By: | /s/ G. MARC BAUMANN | ||
G. Marc Baumann | ||||
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) |
||||
Dated: August 6, 2010 | By: | /s/ DANIEL R. MEYER | ||
Daniel R. Meyer | ||||
Senior Vice President, Corporate Controller and Assistant Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer and Duly Authorized Officer) |
||||
32
Table of Contents
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
Exhibit | ||||
Number | Description | |||
3.1.1 | Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Standard Parking Corporation as filed on June 2, 2004. |
|||
3.1.2 | Certificate of Amendment of Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of Standard Parking Corporation
as filed on January 7, 2008. |
|||
3.1.3 | Certificate of Amendment of Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of Standard Parking Corporation
as filed on April 29, 2010. |
|||
3.1.4 | Certificate of Amendment of Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of Standard Parking Corporation
as filed on May 6, 2010. |
|||
31.1 | Section 302 Certification dated August 6, 2010 for James A.
Wilhelm, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer. |
|||
31.2 | Section 302 Certification dated August 6, 2010 for G. Marc
Baumann, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer). |
|||
31.3 | Section 302 Certification dated August 6, 2010 for Daniel R.
Meyer, Senior Vice President, Corporate Controller and
Assistant Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer). |
|||
32.1 | Certification pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
dated August 6, 2010. |
33