PART I
ITEM 1
. BUSINESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During 2012, the Company took advantage of improved economic conditions and revived capital markets to execute transactions that improved the overall quality of the portfolio. Specifically, the Company completed the disposition of five operating properties, one in Charlotte, North Carolina; two in Newport News, Virginia; and two in suburban Chicago, Illinois, during the year that created value in the form of gains totaling
$43.6 million
realized from the sales. The net proceeds from the transactions were used by the Company to provide additional capital for investment in the Company's ongoing development projects and to reduce non-property-specific debt levels outstanding by paying off the balance on the Company's revolving credit facility. The outstanding balance on the credit facility was related to past acquisitions and previous capital contributions to the development projects. Lease up of two of the developments began as those projects neared completion of construction at year end.
The Company shifted its focus solely from maintaining high occupancy levels at its properties in an effort to maximize operating revenue during the down economy of the past years to a balanced strategy that included increasing rent levels in markets that would accept rent increases due mainly to improved underlying economic conditions in the market. We were able to achieve targeted rent increases and maintain occupancy levels in the mid-90% range for most properties, which is consistent with the average occupancy levels of the Company's Same Portfolio Properties ("Same Store") from the prior year. In order to identify markets where rent increases might be accepted, the Company utilizes revenue management software at most properties in the portfolio resulting in a systematic process of identifying and maximizing rental revenue increase opportunities. Additionally, the Company continues to employ a strategy of increasing the value of its portfolio by implementing property management efficiencies, physical asset improvements at its properties and replacement of existing properties with higher quality assets through dispositions, acquisitions and ground up development.
In 2012, on a national basis, the multifamily sector continued to exhibit strong fundamentals and improved performance due to sustained increases in rents and stable occupancies resulting from continued favorable apartment unit supply and demand dynamics. Decreased levels of new units constructed and reduced home ownership rates have driven demand in the apartment sector which contributed to a 10-year low in the national vacancy rate. Capital markets improvements have had a favorable impact on sales of multifamily assets with transaction volumes reaching five-year highs in the third quarter of 2012. With the continued improvement in the economy, the Company was able to continue to modify its operating model and continue to implement increased rental rates in select submarkets that exhibited positive indicators suggesting increased rental rates would be accepted by tenants.
The Company will continue to take advantage of acquisition and disposition investment opportunities that meet the desired investment objectives of the portfolio as they become available. The Company's investment strategy continues to focus on transactions that yield higher quality properties utilizing sourcing strategies that include market, non-market/seller direct, bank and lender owned real estate, foreclosure auctions within limitations of the credit and equity markets and ground up development of properties. The Company will consider placing available funds in qualified investment opportunities in the form of acquisition of new properties, property development projects and renovation of established properties.
BUSINESS
In 2002, the Company filed a registration statement on Form S-11 with the SEC with respect to its offers (the "Offering") to issue its 9% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Preferred Shares") in exchange for interests ("Interests") in various mortgage funds (collectively, the "Mortgage Funds"). For each Interest in the Mortgage Funds validly tendered and not withdrawn in the Offering, the Company offered to issue its Preferred Shares based on an exchange ratio applicable to each Mortgage Fund. The registration statement was declared effective on January 9, 2003. Offering costs incurred in connection with the Offering have been reflected as a reduction of Preferred Shares reflected in the financial statements of the Company. On April 4, 2003 and April 18, 2003, the Company issued 2,667,717 and 310,393 Preferred Shares, respectively, with a $25 liquidation preference per share. Simultaneously with the completion of the Offering on April 4, 2003, KRF Company, L.L.C. ("KRF Company") contributed its ownership interests in five multifamily apartment communities to our operating partnership, Berkshire Income Realty-OP, L.P. (the "Operating Partnership"), in exchange for common limited partner interests in the Operating Partnership. KRF Company then contributed an aggregate of $1,283,213, or 1% of the fair value of the total net assets of the Operating Partnership, to the Company, which together with the $100 contributed prior to the Offering, resulted in the issuance of 1,283,313 shares of common stock of the Company to KRF Company. This amount was contributed by the Company to its wholly owned subsidiary, BIR GP, L.L.C., who then contributed the cash to the Operating Partnership in exchange for the sole general partner interest in the Operating Partnership.
The Company's financial statements include the accounts of the Company, its subsidiary, the Operating Partnership, as well as the various subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership. The Company owns preferred and general partner interests in the Operating Partnership. The remaining common limited partnership interests in the Operating Partnership owned by KRF Company and affiliates are reflected as "Noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership" in the financial statements of the Company.
The Company does not have any employees. Its day-to-day business is managed by Berkshire Advisor, an affiliate of KRF Company, the holder of the majority of our common stock, which has been retained pursuant to the advisory services agreement ("Advisory Services Agreement") described under
Part III, Item 13 - Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
. Our principal executive offices are located at One Beacon Street, Suite 1500, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 and our telephone number at that address is (617) 523-7722.
We are required to file annual, quarterly, current reports, and other documents with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The public may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Also, the SEC maintains an internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, including the Company, that file electronically with the SEC. The public can obtain any documents that we file with the SEC at
http://www.sec.gov
. The Company voluntarily provides, free of charge, paper or electronic copies of all filings upon request. Additionally, all filings are available free of charge on our website. Our Internet address is
http://www.berkshireincomerealty.com
.
ITEM 1A
.
RISK FACTORS
RISK FACTORS
The following risk factors should be read carefully in connection with evaluating our business and the forward-looking statements contained in this report and other statements we or our representatives make from time to time. Any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, our operating results, our financial condition and the actual outcome of matters as to which forward-looking statements are made in this report. In connection with the forward-looking statements that appear in this report, you should also carefully review the cautionary statement referred to herein under "Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements."
Risk Factors Relating to Our Business
Operating risks and lack of liquidity may adversely affect our investments in real property.
Varying degrees of risk affect real property investments. The investment returns available from equity investments in real estate depend in large part on the amount of income earned and capital appreciation generated by the related properties as well as the expenses incurred. If our assets do not generate revenue sufficient to meet operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, our income and ability to service our debt and other obligations could be adversely affected. Some significant expenditures associated with an investment in real estate, such as mortgage and other debt payments, real estate taxes and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in revenue from the investment. In addition, income from properties and real estate values are also affected by a variety of other factors, such as interest rate levels, governmental regulations and applicable laws and the availability of financing.
Equity real estate investments, such as ours, are relatively illiquid. This illiquidity limits our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic or other conditions. We cannot be certain that we will recognize full value for any property that we are required to sell for liquidity reasons. Our inability to respond rapidly to changes in the performance of our investments could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Our properties are subject to operating risks common to apartment ownership in general. These risks include: our ability to rent units at the properties; competition from other apartment communities; excessive building of comparable properties that might adversely affect apartment occupancy or rental rates; increases in operating costs due to inflation and other factors, which increases may not necessarily be offset by increased rents; increased affordable housing requirements that might adversely affect rental rates; inability or unwillingness of residents to pay rent increases; and future enactment of rent control laws or other laws regulating apartment housing, including present and possible future laws relating to access by disabled persons or the right to convert a property to other uses, such as condominiums or cooperatives. If operating expenses increase, the local rental market may limit the extent to which rents may be increased to meet increased expenses without decreasing occupancy rates. If any of the above were to occur, our ability to meet our debt service and other obligations could be adversely affected.
In order to achieve or enhance our desired financial results, we may make investments that involve more risk than market rate core and core-plus acquisitions.
In many of the markets where we may seek to acquire multifamily apartment communities, we may face significant competition from well capitalized real estate investors, including private investors, publicly traded REITs and institutional investors. This competition can result in sellers obtaining premiums on their real estate, which sometimes pushes the price beyond what we may consider to be a prudent purchase price. To mitigate these factors, our sourcing strategy also includes non-market/seller direct deals, bank and lender owned real estate and foreclosure auctions. Some of these acquisition strategies can involve more risk than market rate core and core-plus acquisitions. The additional risks associated with these broader sourcing strategies could result in lower profits, or higher losses, than would be realized in market rate acquisitions.
We may renovate our properties, which could involve additional operating risks.
We expect to renovate certain multifamily properties that we acquire. We may also acquire completed multifamily properties. The renovation of real estate involves risks in addition to those involved in the ownership and operation of established multifamily properties, including the risks that specific project approvals may take longer to obtain than expected, that construction may not be completed on schedule or budget and that the properties may not achieve anticipated rent or occupancy levels.
We may not be able to pay the costs of necessary capital improvements on our properties, which could adversely affect our financial condition.
We anticipate funding any required capital improvements on our properties using cash flow from operations, cash reserves or additional financing if necessary. However, the anticipated sources of funding may not be sufficient to make the necessary improvements. If our cash flow from operations and cash reserves proves to be insufficient, we might have to finance the capital improvements. If we are unable to obtain financing on favorable terms, or at all, we may not be able to make necessary capital improvements, which could harm our financial condition.
Our tenants-in-common or future joint venture partners may have interests or goals that
conflict with ours, which may restrict our ability to manage some of our investments and adversely affect our results of operations.
One or more of the properties that we own, or properties we acquire in the future may be owned through tenancies-in-common or by joint venture partnerships between us and the seller of the property, an independent third party or another investment entity sponsored by our affiliates. Our investment through tenancies-in-common or in joint venture partnerships that own properties may, under certain circumstances, involve risks that would not otherwise be present. For example, our tenant-in-common or joint venture partner may experience financial difficulties and may at any time have economic or business interests or goals that are inconsistent with our economic or business interests or our policies or goals. In addition, actions by, or litigation involving, any tenant-in-common or joint venture partner might subject the property owned through a tenancy-in-common or by the joint venture to liabilities in excess of those contemplated by the terms of the tenant-in-common or joint venture agreement. Also, there is a risk of impasse between the parties since generally either party may disagree with a proposed transaction involving the property owned through a tenancy-in-common or joint venture partnership and impede any proposed action, including the sale or other disposition of the property.
Our inability to dispose of a property we own or may acquire in the future without the consent of a tenant-in-common or joint venture partner would increase the risk that we could be unable to dispose of the property, or dispose of it promptly, in response to economic or other conditions. The inability to respond promptly to changes in performance of the property could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We may face significant competition and we may not compete successfully.
We may face significant competition in seeking investments including competition from our affiliate BVF III or other entities formed by our affiliates in the future. Certain acquisition restrictions placed on the Company by BVF III are applicable during the investment period of BVF III. The investment period of BVF III will end on the third anniversary of the final closing date, which is yet to be determined. In addition, we may be unable to acquire a desired property because of competition from other well capitalized real estate investors, such as publicly traded REITs, institutional investors and other investors, including companies that may be affiliated with Berkshire Advisor. When we are successful in acquiring a desired property, competition from other real estate investors may significantly increase our purchase price. Some of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than us and may have better relationships with lenders and sellers, and we may not be able to compete successfully for investments.
We plan to borrow, which may adversely affect our return on our investments and may reduce income available for distribution.
Where possible, we may obtain financing to increase the rate of return on our investments and to allow us to make more investments than we otherwise could. Financing presents an element of risk if the cash flow from our properties and other investments is insufficient to meet our debt service and other obligations. A property encumbered by debt has an increased risk that the property will operate at a loss and may not meet its debt service obligations and be subject to foreclosure by the lender. Loans that do not fully amortize during the term, such as “bullet” or “balloon-payment” loans, present refinancing risks. Variable rate loans increase the risk that the property may become unprofitable in adverse economic conditions. Loans that require guaranties, including full principal and interest guaranties, master leases, debt service guaranties and indemnities for liabilities such as hazardous waste, may result in significant liabilities for us.
Under our current investment policies, we may not incur indebtedness if by doing so our ratio of debt to total assets, at fair market value, exceeds 75%. However, we may re-evaluate our borrowing policies from time to time, and the Board may change our investment policies without the consent of our stockholders.
Our insurance on our real estate may not cover all losses.
We carry comprehensive liability, fire, terrorism, extended coverage and rental loss insurance covering all of our properties, with policy specifications and insured limits that we believe are adequate and appropriate under the circumstances. Many insurance carriers are excluding asbestos-related claims and mold remediation-related claims from standard policies, pricing asbestos and mold remediation endorsements at prohibitively high rates or adding significant restrictions to this coverage. Because of our inability to obtain specialized coverage at rates that correspond to the perceived level of risk, we have not obtained insurance for asbestos-related claims or mold remediation-related risks. We continue to evaluate the availability and cost of additional insurance coverage from the insurance market. If we decide in the future to purchase coverage for asbestos or mold remediation insurance, the cost could have a negative impact on our results of operations. If an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occurs on a property, we could lose our capital invested in the property, as well as the anticipated future revenues from the property and, in the case of debt that has recourse to the Company, we would remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations not satisfied by cash flow generated from operation or sale of the property. Any loss of this nature could adversely affect us.
Additionally, the policy specifications of our insurance coverage on our properties include deductibles related to an insured loss. The deductibles applicable to an insured loss caused by "Named Storms", a term as defined in the insurance policy, which are usually in the form of a hurricane, at certain properties we operate, are higher than deductibles for other insured losses covered by the policy. Specifically, the deductibles for "Named Storms" are based on a percentage of the insured property value with a specific minimum amount. Both the percentage and the related minimum amounts are higher than the standard policy deductibles for insured losses caused by a "Named Storm" in certain higher risk counties of certain states, including Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia and highest in the counties of Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, Florida. Losses resulting from "Named Storms" could adversely affect us. The "Named Storms" that occurred during the year ended
December 31, 2012
, including superstorm Sandy that made landfall in the United States on October 29, 2012, did not have a significant impact on the Company's properties.
As part of our risk management program, our property and general liability insurance loss coverage is subject to a deductible amount, which varies by type of claims. In addition to the deductible exposure, the Company has elected to balance insurance costs by assuming limited amounts of additional loss risk in the form of self insurance. The self insurance participation is the primary layer of loss coverage and is funded up to the applicable deductible prior to the traditional insurance coverage becoming applicable. Additionally, the property and general liability insurance policies cover a pool of operating real estate properties and administrative activities owned by multiple ownership funds, but under the common management of Berkshire Advisor. The pooling of the insurance activities results in the sharing of any loss exposure across the real estate portfolios.
Environmental compliance costs and liabilities with respect to our real estate may adversely affect our results of operations.
Our operating costs may be affected by our obligation to pay for the cost of complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future legislation with respect to the assets, or loans collateralized by assets, with environmental problems that materially impair the value of assets. Under various federal, state or local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, an owner of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances located on or in the property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the hazardous or toxic substances.
The costs of any required remediation or removal of these substances may be substantial. In addition, the owner's liability as to any property is generally not limited under these laws, ordinances and regulations and could exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the owner. The presence of hazardous or toxic substances, or the failure to remediate properly, may also adversely affect the owner's ability to sell or rent the property or to borrow using the property as collateral. Under these laws, ordinances and regulations, an owner or any entity who arranges for the disposal of hazardous or toxic substances, such as asbestos, at a disposal facility may also be liable for the costs of any required remediation or removal of the hazardous or toxic substances at the facility, whether or not the facility is owned or operated by the owner or entity. In connection with the ownership of any of our properties, or participation in joint ventures, or the disposal of hazardous or toxic substances, we may be liable for any of these costs.
Other federal, state and local laws may impose liability for the release of hazardous material, including asbestos-containing materials, into the environment, or require the removal of damaged asbestos containing materials in the event of remodeling or renovation, and third parties may seek recovery from owners of real property for personal injury associated with exposure to released asbestos-containing materials or other hazardous materials. We do not currently have insurance for asbestos-related claims.
Recently there has been an increasing number of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties alleging personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold in residential real estate. Some of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. We do not currently have insurance for all mold-related risks. Environmental laws may also impose restrictions on the manner in which a property may be used or transferred or in which businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require additional expenditures. In connection with the ownership of properties, we may be potentially liable for any of these costs. The cost of defending against claims of liability or remediating contaminated property and the cost of complying with environmental laws could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
We have been notified of the presence of asbestos in certain structural elements in our properties, which we are addressing in accordance with various operations and maintenance plans. The asbestos operations and maintenance plans require that all structural elements that contain asbestos not be disturbed. In the event the asbestos containing elements are disturbed either through accident, such as a fire, or as a result of planned renovations at the property, those elements would require removal by a licensed contractor, who would provide for containment and disposal in an authorized landfill. The property managers of our properties have been directed to work proactively with licensed ablation contractors whenever there is any question regarding possible exposure.
We are not aware of any environmental liability relating to our properties that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets or results of operations. Nevertheless, it is possible that there are material environmental liabilities of which we are unaware with respect to our properties. Moreover, we cannot be certain that future laws, ordinances or regulations will not impose material environmental liabilities or that the current environmental condition of our properties will not be affected by residents and occupants of our properties, by the uses or condition of properties in the vicinity of our properties, such as leaking underground storage tanks, or by third parties unaffiliated with us.
We face risks associated with climate change regulations.
Growing concerns about the change in the climate have resulted in new laws and regulations that are intended to limit the amount of carbon emission into the atmosphere. The Company believes that the proposal and enactment of such laws and regulations could increase operating costs of our properties, including energy costs for electricity, heating and cooling as well as increased cost of waste removal at our properties. The Company does not currently believe that increased costs, if any, would have a material impact on the results of operations and anticipates that any increased costs would be passed through to our residents by use of the utility recovery programs employed by the Company.
Our failure to comply with various regulations affecting our properties could adversely affect our financial condition.
Various laws, ordinances, and regulations affect multifamily residential properties, including regulations relating to recreational facilities, such as activity centers and other common areas. We believe that each of our properties has all material permits and approvals to operate its business.
Our multifamily residential properties must comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") to the extent that such properties are public accommodations and/or commercial facilities as defined by the ADA. Compliance with the ADA requires removal of structural barriers to handicapped access in certain public areas of our properties where such removal is readily achievable. The ADA does not, however, consider residential properties to be public accommodations or commercial facilities, except to the extent portions of such facilities, such as a leasing office, are open to the public. We believe that our properties
comply in all material respects with all current requirements under the ADA and applicable state laws. Noncompliance with the ADA could result in imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. The cost of defending against any claims of liability under the ADA or the payment of any fines or damages could adversely affect our financial condition.
The Fair Housing Act (the "FHA") requires, as part of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, apartment communities first occupied after March 13, 1990 to be accessible to the handicapped. Noncompliance with the FHA could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. We believe that our properties that are subject to the FHA are in compliance with such law. The cost of defending against any claims of liability under the FHA or the payment of any related fines or damages could adversely affect our financial condition.
We face risks associated with property acquisitions.
We intend to acquire additional properties in the future, either directly or by acquiring entities that own properties. These acquisition activities are subject to many risks. We may acquire properties or entities that are subject to liabilities or that have problems relating to environmental condition, state of title, physical condition or compliance with zoning laws, building codes, or other legal requirements. In each case, our acquisition may be without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, with respect to unknown liabilities or conditions.
As a result, if any liability were asserted against us relating to those properties or entities, or if any adverse condition existed with respect to the properties or entities, we might have to pay substantial sums to settle or cure it, which could adversely affect our cash flow and operating results. Unknown liabilities to third parties with respect to properties or entities acquired might include: liabilities for clean-up of undisclosed environmental contamination; claims by residents, vendors or other persons dealing with the former owners of the properties; liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business; and claims for indemnification by general partners, directors, officers and others indemnified by the former owners of the properties.
We may acquire multifamily apartment communities through foreclosure auctions, which limit our ability to perform due diligence.
One of our acquisition strategies seeks to acquire multifamily apartment communities through foreclosure auctions. Generally when a property is foreclosed on by a lender, there is minimal time between the announcement of foreclosure and the auction to dispose of the property and access to the property for due diligence is either severely limited or unavailable. The lack of time and access for due diligence can result in only limited knowledge of problems, including environmental issues, that are identified after the acquisition has taken place. While the Company generally includes provisions for unforeseen problems into its underwriting models, there is no assurance that these provisions will be sufficient to remediate all of the issues identified after closing. If significant issues are identified after closing, which were not provided for during the underwriting, this sourcing strategy could result in lower profits, or higher losses, than would be realized in market rate acquisitions, where full due diligence is possible.
Development risks could affect available capital and operating profitability.
We intend to develop new apartment units on property that we own or may acquire in the future. These development projects are subject to many risks including governmental approvals, which we have no assurance will be obtained. We may develop properties that have problems relating to environmental conditions, compliance with zoning laws, building codes, or other legal requirements or may be subject to unknown liabilities to third parties with respect to undisclosed environmental contamination, claims by vendors or claims by other persons. The cost to construct the projects may require capital in excess of projected amounts and could possibly affect the economic viability of the project. The apartment units in the completed project may command rents and occupancy rates at less than anticipated levels and result in operating expenses at higher than forecasted levels.
We may also develop properties with joint venture partners. Joint ventures, as previously discussed, have their own risks and those risks may compound the risks associated with a development.
We face valuation and liquidity risk.
The Company may invest in real estate and real estate related investments for which no liquid market exists. The market prices for such investments may be volatile and may not be readily ascertainable. In addition, while market conditions have improved during 2012, the economy has not yet fully recovered from the significant disruptions in the global capital, credit and real estate markets. These disruptions have led to, among other things, significant declines in the volume of transaction activity, in the fair value of many real estate and real estate related investments, and a significant contraction in short-term and long-term debt and equity funding sources. This contraction in capital includes sources that the Company may depend on to finance certain investments.
As a result, amounts ultimately realized by the Company from investments sold may differ from the fair values presented, and the differences could be material.
We face financing and/or refinancing risk.
There is no guarantee that the Company's borrowing arrangements or other arrangements for obtaining leverage will continue to be available, or if available, will be available on terms and conditions acceptable to the Company. Unfavorable economic conditions also could increase funding costs, limit access to the capital markets or result in a decision by lenders not to extend credit to the Company. In addition, a decline in market value of the Company's assets may have particular adverse consequences in instances where the Company borrowed money based on the fair value of those assets. A decrease in market value of those assets may result in the lender requiring the Company to post additional collateral or otherwise sell assets at a time when it may not be in the Company's best interest to do so. In the event the Company is required to liquidate all or a portion of its portfolio quickly, the Company may realize significantly less than the value at which it previously recorded those investments. As of
December 31, 2012
, the Company does not have significant exposure to financing in which the lender can require the Company to post additional collateral or otherwise sell assets to settle the financing obligations.
We face loan covenant risk.
In the normal course of business, the Company enters into loan agreements with certain lenders to finance its real estate investment transactions. These loan agreements contain, among other conditions, events of default and various operational covenants and representations. The Company believes it was in compliance with all these covenants during
2012
. However, if the lenders determine we were not in compliance, the lenders may decide to curtail or limit extension of credit, and the Company may be forced to repay its loans. For the year ended
December 31, 2012
, no loan agreements were terminated as a result of non-compliance with covenants. In the event the Company's current credit facilities are not extended and/or the Company is forced to repay its loans, the Company may be required to sell assets at potentially unfavorable prices. In addition, if the Company is required to liquidate all or a portion of its portfolio quickly, the Company may realize significantly less than the value at which it previously recorded those investments.
We face development financing risk.
In order to fund new real estate investments, as well as refurbish and improve existing investments, both the Company as well as potential owners must periodically spend money. The availability of funds for new investments and maintenance of existing investments depends in large measure on capital markets and liquidity factors over which management can exert little control. Events over the past several years, including failures and near failures of a number of large financial service companies, have made the capital markets increasingly volatile, a state from which they have not fully recovered. As a result, many current and prospective owners are finding financing to be increasingly difficult to obtain. In addition, such failures may prevent some projects that are in construction or development from drawing on existing financing commitments, and replacement financing may not be available or may only be available on less favorable terms. Delays, increased costs and other impediments to restructuring such projects may affect our ability to execute our investment strategy in connection with such projects. This contraction in capital sources has not had a significant adverse impact on the Company's liquidity position, results of operations and financial condition but may adversely impact the Company if market conditions were to deteriorate.
We face diversification risk.
The assets of the Company are concentrated in the real estate sector, specifically garden style and mid-rise multifamily apartment communities. Accordingly, the investment portfolio of the Company may be subject to more rapid change in value than would be the case if the Company were to maintain a wide diversification among investments or industry sectors. Furthermore, even within the real estate sector, the investment portfolio may be relatively concentrated in terms of geography and type of real estate investment. The Company is engaged primarily in the acquisition, ownership, operations, development and rehabilitation of multifamily apartment communities in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C., Southeast, Southwest and Northwest areas of the United States. This lack of diversification may subject the investments of the Company to more rapid change in value than would be the case if the assets of the Company were more widely diversified.
We face concentrations of market, interest rate and credit risk.
Concentrations of market, interest rate and credit risk may exist with respect to the Company's investments and its other assets and liabilities. Market risk is a potential loss the Company may incur as a result of changes in the fair value of its investment. The Company may also be subject to risk associated with concentrations of investments in geographic regions and industries. Interest rate risk includes the risk associated with changes in prevailing interest rates. Derivatives may be used for managing
interest rate risk associated with the Company's portfolio of investments. Credit risk includes the possibility that a loss may occur from the failure of counterparties or issuers to make payments according to the terms of a contract. The Company's exposure to credit risk at any point in time is generally limited to amounts recorded as assets on the consolidated balance sheet.
Certain Federal Income Tax Risks
Our failure to qualify as a REIT would result in higher taxes and reduced cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
We intend to operate in a manner to allow us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Although we believe that we have been organized and will operate in this manner, we cannot be certain that we will be able to operate so as to qualify as a REIT under the Tax Code, or to remain so qualified. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex provisions of the Tax Code for which there are only limited judicial or administrative interpretations. The determination of various factual matters and circumstances, not entirely within our control, may affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.
The complexity of these provisions and of the applicable income tax regulations under the Tax Code is greater in the case of a REIT that holds its assets through a partnership, as we do. Moreover, our qualification as a REIT depends upon the qualification of certain of our investments as REITs. In addition, we cannot be certain that legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions will not significantly change the tax laws with respect to the qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of this qualification. We are not aware of any proposal currently being considered by Congress to amend the tax laws in a manner that would materially and adversely affect our ability to operate as a REIT.
If for any taxable year we fail to qualify as a REIT, we would not be allowed a deduction for distributions to our stockholders in computing our taxable income and we would be subject to federal income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. In addition, we would normally be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year of losing our REIT status. This would likely result in significant increased costs to us. Any corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and for investment, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of, and trading prices for, our publicly traded securities.
Although we intend to operate in a manner designed to qualify as a REIT, future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may cause our Board and the holders of our common stock to determine that it is in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders to revoke our REIT election.
We believe that our Operating Partnership will be treated for federal income tax purposes as a partnership and not as a corporation or an association taxable as a corporation. If the Internal Revenue Service were to determine that our Operating Partnership were to be treated as a corporation, our Operating Partnership would be required to pay federal income tax at corporate rates on its net income, its partners would be treated as stockholders of the Operating Partnership and distributions to partners would constitute dividends that would not be deductible in computing the Operating Partnership's taxable income. In addition, we would fail to qualify as a REIT, with the resulting consequences described above.
As of
December 31, 2012
, the Company is in compliance under the Tax Code to qualify as a REIT.
REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our liquidity.
To obtain the favorable tax treatment for REITs qualifying under the Tax Code, we generally are required each year to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our real estate investment trust taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and by excluding net capital gains. We are subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which distributions paid by us with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of: (1) 85% of our ordinary income for the calendar year; (2) 95% of our capital gain net income for the calendar year, unless we elect to retain and pay income tax on those gains; and (3) 100% of our undistributed amounts from prior years.
Failure to comply with these requirements would result in our income being subject to tax at regular corporate rates.
We intend to distribute our income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax. Differences in timing between the recognition of income and the related cash receipts or the effect of required debt amortization payments could require us to borrow money or sell assets to distribute enough of our taxable income to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a given year.
Legislative or regulatory action could adversely affect holders of our securities.
In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made to the federal income tax laws applicable to investments in REITs and similar entities. Additional changes to tax laws are likely to continue to occur in the future, and we cannot be certain that any such changes will not adversely affect the taxation of a holder of our securities.
Risk Factors Relating to Our Management
We are dependent on Berkshire Advisor and may not find a suitable replacement at the same cost if Berkshire Advisor terminates the Advisory Services Agreement.
We have entered into a contract with Berkshire Advisor (which we refer to as the Advisory Services Agreement) under which Berkshire Advisor is obligated to manage our portfolio and identify investment opportunities consistent with our investment policies and objectives, as the Board may adopt from time to time.
Although the Board has continuing exclusive authority over our management, the conduct of our affairs and the management and disposition of our assets, the Board initially has delegated to Berkshire Advisor, subject to the supervision and review of our Board, the power and duty to make decisions relating to the day-to-day management and operation of our business. We generally utilize officers of Berkshire Advisor to provide our services and employ only a few individuals as our officers, none of whom are compensated by us for their services to us as our officers. We believe that our success depends to a significant extent upon the experience of Berkshire Advisor's officers, whose continued service is not guaranteed. We have no separate facilities and are completely reliant on Berkshire Advisor, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies. We face the risk that Berkshire Advisor could terminate the Advisory Services Agreement and we may not find a suitable replacement at the same cost with similar experience and ability. However, we believe that so long as KRF Company, which is an affiliate of Berkshire Advisor, continues to own a significant amount of our common stock, Berkshire Advisor will not terminate the Advisory Services Agreement. Although KRF Company currently owns most of our common stock, we cannot be certain that KRF Company will continue to do so.
Our relationship with Berkshire Advisor may lead to general conflicts of interest that adversely affect the interests of holders of our Series A Preferred Stock.
Berkshire Advisor is an affiliate of KRF Company, which owns the majority of our common stock. All of our directors and executive officers, other than our three independent directors, are also officers or directors of Berkshire Advisor. As a result, our Advisory Services Agreement with Berkshire Advisor was not negotiated at arm's-length and its terms, including the fees payable to Berkshire Advisor, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party. Asset management fees and acquisition fees for new investments are payable to Berkshire Advisor under the Advisory Services Agreement regardless of the performance of our portfolio and may create conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest also may arise in connection with any decision to renegotiate, renew or terminate our Advisory Services Agreement. In order to mitigate these conflicts, the renegotiation, renewal or termination of the Advisory Services Agreement requires the approval of the Audit Committee (which committee is comprised of our three directors who are independent under applicable rules and regulations of the SEC and the NYSE AMEX Equities) ("Audit Committee").
Berkshire Advisor and its affiliates may engage in other businesses and business joint ventures, including business activities relating to real estate or other investments, whether similar or dissimilar to those made by us, or may act as advisor to any other person or entity (including other REITs). The ability of Berkshire Advisor and its officers and employees to engage in these other business activities may reduce the time Berkshire Advisor spends managing us. Berkshire Advisor and its affiliates may have conflicts of interest in the allocation of management and staff time, services and functions among us and its other investment entities presently in existence or subsequently formed. However, under our Advisory Services Agreement with Berkshire Advisor, Berkshire Advisor is required to devote sufficient resources as may be required to discharge its obligations to us under the Advisory Services Agreement.
Our Advisory Services Agreement with Berkshire Advisor provides that neither Berkshire Advisor nor any of its affiliates is obligated to present to us all investment opportunities that come to their attention, even if any of those opportunities might be suitable for investment by us. It is within the sole discretion of Berkshire Advisor to allocate investment opportunities to us as it deems advisable. However, it is expected that, to the extent possible, the resolution of conflicting investment opportunities between us and others will be based upon differences in investment objectives and policies, the makeup of investment portfolios, the amount of cash and financing available for investment and the length of time the funds have been available, the estimated income tax effects of the investment, policies relating to leverage and cash flow, the effect of the investment on diversification of investment portfolios and any regulatory restrictions on investment policies.
Our Board of Directors has approved investment guidelines for Berkshire Advisor, but might not approve each multifamily residential property investment decision made by Berkshire Advisor within those guidelines.
Berkshire Advisor is authorized to follow investment guidelines adopted from time to time by the Board in determining the types of assets it may decide to recommend to the Board as proper investments for us. The Board periodically reviews our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio. In conducting periodic reviews, the Board relies primarily on information provided by Berkshire Advisor. However, Berkshire Advisor may make investments in multifamily residential property on our behalf within the Board approved guidelines without the approval of the Board.
We may change our investment strategy without stockholder consent, which could result in our making different and potentially riskier investments.
We may change our investment strategy at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in our making investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, our initial plan to primarily acquire, own, operate, develop and rehabilitate multifamily residential properties. In addition, the methods of implementing our investment policies may vary as new investment techniques are developed. A change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate and real estate market fluctuations.
ITEM 1B
.
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2
.
PROPERTIES
A summary of the multifamily apartment communities in which the Company had an interest as of
December 31, 2012
is presented below. Schedule III included in Item 15 to this report contains additional detailed information with respect to individual properties consolidated by the Company in the financial statements contained herein and is incorporated by reference herein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Location
|
Year Acquired
|
Total # of Units
|
Ownership Interest
|
|
|
Average Apt Size (Sq Ft)
|
2012 Avg Monthly Rent Rate Per Apt (2)
|
2011 Avg Monthly Rent Rate Per Apt (2)
|
|
Average Physical Occupancy (1)
|
|
|
2012
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berkshires of Columbia
|
Columbia, Maryland
|
1983
|
316
|
91.38
|
%
|
96.13
|
%
|
96.88
|
%
|
1,035
|
|
$
|
1,529
|
|
$
|
1,495
|
|
|
Seasons of Laurel
|
Laurel, Maryland
|
1985
|
1,088
|
100.00
|
%
|
94.80
|
%
|
94.62
|
%
|
844
|
|
1,278
|
|
1,236
|
|
|
Walden Pond (5)
|
Houston, Texas
|
1983
|
416
|
100.00
|
%
|
94.25
|
%
|
94.81
|
%
|
714
|
|
629
|
|
586
|
|
|
Gables of Texas (5)
|
Houston, Texas
|
2003
|
140
|
100.00
|
%
|
96.56
|
%
|
96.50
|
%
|
894
|
|
735
|
|
710
|
|
|
Laurel Woods
|
Austin, Texas
|
2004
|
150
|
100.00
|
%
|
97.40
|
%
|
98.00
|
%
|
841
|
|
804
|
|
751
|
|
|
Bear Creek
|
Dallas, Texas
|
2004
|
152
|
100.00
|
%
|
95.89
|
%
|
96.24
|
%
|
856
|
|
729
|
|
667
|
|
|
Bridgewater
|
Hampton, Virginia
|
2004
|
216
|
100.00
|
%
|
94.17
|
%
|
94.50
|
%
|
997
|
|
1,012
|
|
1,027
|
|
|
Reserves at Arboretum
|
Newport News, Virginia
|
2009
|
143
|
100.00
|
%
|
95.88
|
%
|
95.82
|
%
|
1,073
|
|
1,259
|
|
1,272
|
|
|
Country Place I
|
Burtonsville, Maryland
|
2004
|
192
|
58.00
|
%
|
95.62
|
%
|
97.05
|
%
|
1,033
|
|
1,430
|
|
1,366
|
|
|
Country Place II
|
Burtonsville, Maryland
|
2004
|
120
|
58.00
|
%
|
95.05
|
%
|
95.68
|
%
|
1,041
|
|
1,415
|
|
1,373
|
|
|
Yorktowne
|
Millersville, Maryland
|
2004
|
216
|
100.00
|
%
|
94.89
|
%
|
96.18
|
%
|
932
|
|
1,295
|
|
1,239
|
|
|
Berkshires on Brompton
|
Houston, Texas
|
2005
|
362
|
100.00
|
%
|
96.13
|
%
|
97.62
|
%
|
733
|
|
936
|
|
876
|
|
|
Lakeridge
|
Hampton, Virginia
|
2005
|
282
|
100.00
|
%
|
95.77
|
%
|
96.43
|
%
|
1,088
|
|
1,173
|
|
1,174
|
|
|
Berkshires at Citrus Park
|
Tampa, Florida
|
2005
|
264
|
100.00
|
%
|
93.67
|
%
|
94.54
|
%
|
957
|
|
927
|
|
886
|
|
|
Briarwood Village
|
Houston, Texas
|
2006
|
342
|
100.00
|
%
|
95.29
|
%
|
96.18
|
%
|
819
|
|
717
|
|
666
|
|
|
Chisholm Place
|
Dallas, Texas
|
2006
|
142
|
100.00
|
%
|
97.45
|
%
|
96.32
|
%
|
1,149
|
|
955
|
|
930
|
|
|
Standard at Lenox Park
|
Atlanta, Georgia
|
2006
|
375
|
100.00
|
%
|
96.82
|
%
|
96.56
|
%
|
930
|
|
1,122
|
|
1,035
|
|
|
Berkshires at Town Center
|
Towson, Maryland
|
2007
|
199
|
100.00
|
%
|
94.40
|
%
|
93.34
|
%
|
835
|
|
1,348
|
|
1,335
|
|
|
Sunfield Lakes
|
Sherwood, Oregon
|
2007
|
200
|
100.00
|
%
|
93.63
|
%
|
94.33
|
%
|
1,024
|
|
1,005
|
|
988
|
|
|
Executive House
|
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
|
2008
|
302
|
100.00
|
%
|
95.53
|
%
|
96.69
|
%
|
938
|
|
1,475
|
|
1,429
|
|
|
Estancia Townhomes
|
Dallas, Texas
|
2011
|
207
|
100.00
|
%
|
94.91
|
%
|
95.09
|
%
|
1,683
|
|
2,051
|
|
1,956
|
|
|
2020 Lawrence (3)
|
Denver, Colorado
|
2011
|
231
|
91.08
|
%
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
841
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Walnut Creek (4)
|
Walnut Creek, California
|
2011
|
N/A
|
98.00
|
%
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
854
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Total/Average
|
|
|
6,055
|
|
95.44
|
%
|
95.88
|
%
|
961
|
|
$
|
1,134
|
|
$
|
1,095
|
|
All of the properties in the above table are encumbered by mortgages as of
December 31, 2012
, with the exception of the Walnut Creek property.
|
|
(1)
|
Physical occupancy represents the actual number of units leased divided by the total number of units available over a period of time.
|
|
|
(2)
|
Average monthly rent rate per unit is the gross potential rent for all units less vacancy and concessions, divided by the total number of units available.
|
|
|
(3)
|
2020 Lawrence received a temporary certificate of occupancy from the City of Denver on December 12, 2012 and permission to occupy 7 of the 11 completed floors (99 units) from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") on December 24, 2012. Permission to occupcy the remaining floors (132 units) was received on January 18, 2013. As of
December 31, 2012
, twenty of the 99 units were occupied.
|
|
|
(4)
|
Property was under development as of
December 31, 2012
.
|
|
|
(5)
|
Walden Pond and Gables of Texas are operated as one property.
|
ITEM 3
.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
None.
ITEM 4
.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
PART III
ITEM 10
.
DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The Company's executive officers and directors are as follows:
|
|
|
|
Name and Age
|
|
Position or Offices Held
|
|
|
|
Douglas Krupp (66)
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors
|
David C. Quade (69)
|
|
President, Principal Executive Officer and Director
|
Shereen P. Jones (51)
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
Randolph G. Hawthorne (63)
|
|
Director
|
Robert M. Kaufman (63)
|
|
Director
|
Richard B. Peiser (64)
|
|
Director
|
Christopher M. Nichols (48)
|
|
Senior Vice President, Principal Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary
|
Mary Beth Bloom (39)
|
|
Vice President and Secretary
|
Douglas Krupp, Director and Chairman of the Board of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since January 28, 2005. Mr. Krupp is also the co-founder and Vice-Chairman of our affiliate, the Berkshire Group, an integrated real estate and financial services firm engaged in real estate acquisitions, property management and investment sponsorship. The Berkshire Group was established as The Krupp Companies in 1969. Mr. Krupp served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of both Krupp Government Income Trust I & Krupp Government Income Trust II from 1991-2005. Formerly, Mr. Krupp served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Berkshire Realty Company, Inc. and Harborside Healthcare Company, two publicly traded companies on the NYSE Amex Equities. Mr. Krupp is a member of the Anti-Defamation League's National Executive Committee, a member of its Board of Trustees and Vice President of the ADL Foundation. Mr. Krupp is on the Board of Directors for The Commonwealth Shakespeare Company, a Member of the Corporation of Partners HealthCare System and a past member of the Board of Directors for Brigham & Women's Hospital. Mr. Krupp is a graduate of Bryant College. In 1989, he received an Honorary Doctorate of Science in Business Administration from this institution and was elected trustee in 1990.
David C. Quade, Director, President of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since July 19, 2002. Until the appointment of Ms. Jones in March 2011, Mr. Quade was also Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since July 19, 2002. Since December of 1998, Mr. Quade has been Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Berkshire Group and Berkshire Property Advisors, LLC, both affiliates of Berkshire Income Realty. During that period, he led the efforts to acquire, finance and asset manage the initial properties contributed by KRF Company in connection with the Offering. Previously, Mr. Quade was a Principal and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Leggat McCall Properties from 1981-1998, where he was responsible for strategic planning, corporate and property financing and asset management. Before that, Mr. Quade worked in senior financial
capacities for two NYSE Amex listed real estate investment trusts, North American Mortgage Investors and Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors. He also worked at Coopers & Lybrand, LLP (now known as PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP), an international accounting and consulting firm. He has a Professional Accounting Program degree from Northwestern University Graduate School of Business. Mr. Quade also holds a Bachelor of Science degree and a Master of Business Administration degree from Central Michigan University. Mr. Quade also serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Marblehead/Swampscott YMCA and Director of the North Shore YMCA.
Shereen P. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since March 15, 2011 and Treasurer since February 2012. Most recently, Ms. Jones was Chief Financial Officer of Boykin Lodging Company, a NYSE-listed REIT. Previously, Ms. Jones held senior positions with the investment banking firms Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, Kidder, Peabody and Oppenheimer, specializing in real estate finance and mergers and acquisitions. Ms. Jones' involvement with Berkshire began in the early 1990's, having served as banker on multiple transactions with the Company's affiliates. Ms. Jones is a graduate of Duke University and holds an MBA from the Harvard Business School.
Randolph G. Hawthorne, Director of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since October 15, 2002. Mr. Hawthorne is currently the Principal of a private investment and consulting firm known as RGH Ventures and has served as such since January of 2001. Mr. Hawthorne is a member of the Multifamily Council Gold Flight of the Urban Land Institute, and is active in the National Multi Housing Council, which he led as the Chairman from 1996-1997. He also presently serves on the Board of Directors of the National Housing Conference and is a member of the Harvard Real Estate Academic Initiative Alumni Advisory Board. He previously served as an independent member of the Advisory Board of Berkshire Mortgage Finance, a former affiliate of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. Mr. Hawthorne also previously served as President of the National Housing and Rehabilitation Association and has served on the Editorial Board of the Tax Credit Advisor and Multi-Housing News. From 1973-2001, Mr. Hawthorne was a Principal and Owner of Boston Financial, a full service real estate firm, which was acquired in 1999 by Lend Lease, a major global real estate firm, which at that time was the largest U.S. manager of tax-exempt real estate assets. During his 28 years with Boston Financial and then Lend Lease, Mr. Hawthorne served in a variety of senior leadership roles including on the Boston Financial Board of Directors. Mr. Hawthorne holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard University and a Bachelor of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Hawthorne is a member of the Emeritus Board of Berkshire Theatre Group, and serves on the Board of Directors of The Boston Home and the Board of Overseers of the Celebrity Series of Boston.
Robert M. Kaufman, Director of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since October 15, 2002. Mr. Kaufman is currently the President and Chief Operating Officer of Oakley Investment, Inc., a private investment firm, a role he has held since April 2012, and a role he formerly held from 2003 through 2007 and has served on the Board of Cancer Genetics since 2011. He was the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Outcome Sciences, Inc. (sold to Quintiles Transnational Holdings, Inc.) from April 1, 2007 through April 1, 2012. Mr. Kaufman was a founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Medeview, Inc., a healthcare technology company, from 2000-2002. From 1996-1999, Mr. Kaufman served as Chief Executive Officer of a senior housing company known as Carematrix Corp. and in 1999 served as a consultant to Carematrix Corp. Prior to that, Mr. Kaufman worked for Coopers & Lybrand, LLP (now known as PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP), an international accounting and consulting firm, from 1972-1996. During his tenure at Coopers & Lybrand, he was a partner from 1982-1996 primarily servicing real estate and healthcare industry clients and served as a member of the National Board of Partners. In addition, while a partner at Coopers & Lybrand, Mr. Kaufman was a member of the Mergers and Acquisitions and Real Estate Groups, the Associate Chairman of the National Retail and Consumer Products Industry Group and was a National Technical Consulting Partner. Mr. Kaufman received his Bachelor of Arts from Colby College and his Master of Business Administration degree from Cornell University.
Richard B. Peiser, Director of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since October 15, 2002. Mr. Peiser is currently the Michael D. Spear Professor of Real Estate Development at Harvard University and has worked in that position since 1998. Mr. Peiser is also a member of the Department of Urban Planning and Design in the Harvard University Graduate School of Design and has served as such since 1998. Before joining the faculty of Harvard University in 1998, Mr. Peiser served as Director of the Lusk Center of Real Estate Development from 1987-1998 as well as Founder and Academic Director of the Master of Real Estate Development Program at the University of Southern California from 1986-1998. Mr. Peiser has also worked as a real estate developer and consultant since 1978. In addition, Mr. Peiser has published numerous articles relating to various aspects of the real estate industry. Mr. Peiser taught at Southern Methodist University from 1978-1984, the University of Southern California from 1985-1998 and at Stanford University in the fall of 1981. Mr. Peiser was the Chairman of Kailong REIT, a real estate investment and asset management company based in Shanghai, China. Mr. Peiser served as a trustee of the Urban Land Institute from 1997 to 2004 and as a Director of the firm American Realty Advisors from 1998 to 2005. Additionally, Mr. Peiser served as a faculty representative on the Harvard University Board of Overseer's Committee on Social Responsibility from 1999-2002 and as co-editor of the Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management from 2003 to 2007. Mr. Peiser holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale University, a Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in land economics from Cambridge University.
Christopher M. Nichols, Senior Vice President, Principal Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since July 19, 2002. Mr. Nichols currently holds the position of Senior Vice President, Controller and Assistant Secretary of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. Mr. Nichols is also the Company's Principal Accounting Officer. Mr. Nichols joined The Berkshire Group in 1999 as the Assistant Corporate Controller. Before joining the Company, Mr. Nichols served as the Accounting Manager and then as the Corporate Controller for Mac-Gray Corporation from 1997-1999, a NYSE-listed company. At Mac-Gray, Mr. Nichols had primary oversight of the accounting and financial reporting systems. Mr. Nichols worked as a Senior Staff Auditor for Mullen & Company from 1994-1997. Mr. Nichols has a Bachelor of Science degree in Accountancy from Bentley College (now Bentley University) as well as Associate Degrees in Computer Information Systems and in Electrical Engineering. Mr. Nichols is a Certified Public Accountant.
Mary Beth Bloom, Senior Vice President and Secretary of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. since August 9, 2005. Ms. Bloom currently serves and has served as Vice President and General Counsel to The Berkshire Group, an affiliate of Berkshire Income Realty, Inc., since 2005. From 2000-2005, Ms. Bloom served as the Assistant General Counsel to The Berkshire Group and from 2003-2005, she served as Assistant Secretary to Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. Prior to joining The Berkshire Group, Ms. Bloom was an attorney with John Hancock Financial Services. She received a Bachelor of Arts from the College of the Holy Cross and a Juris Doctor from New England School of Law. Ms. Bloom is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts and New York and is a member of the American, Massachusetts and New York Bar Associations.
The Board has determined that Robert Kaufman, Randolph Hawthorne and Richard Peiser, a majority of our directors, are independent under applicable SEC and NYSE Amex Equities rules and regulations. Such persons act as the Company's Audit Committee. The Board has determined that Robert Kaufman qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under applicable SEC rules and regulations.
The Company does not currently have a nominating committee as the Board has determined, given its relatively small size, that Robert Kaufman, Randolph Hawthorne and Richard Peiser, (the "Independent Directors") shall perform this function. Nominees for positions on the Board are identified and recommended by a majority of the Independent Directors on the Board (as defined in the NYSE Amex Equities listing requirements). Director candidates, including directors up for re-election and those nominated by shareholders entitled to vote for the election of directors, are considered based upon various criteria, including broad-based business and professional skills and experience, personal integrity, sound business judgment, community involvement, and time available to devote to Board activities. The 5 nominees approved by the Board are directors standing for re-election. The Company has not paid a fee to any third party to identify or evaluate or assist in identifying or evaluating potential nominees. The Board did not receive a director candidate recommendation from a shareholder that beneficially owned more than 5% of the Company's common voting shares or from a group of shareholders that beneficially owned, in the aggregate, more than 5% of the Company's common voting shares. The Board will consider director candidates recommended by shareholders entitled to vote for the election of directors.
A shareholder entitled to vote for the election of directors, who wishes to recommend a prospective nominee for the Board should notify the Company's Secretary in writing at One Beacon Street, Suite 1500, Boston, MA 02108 with the identity of the nominator and nominee, the biographical information for each nominee, a description of business and personal experience for each nominee, a written consent from the nominee to serve as a director if so elected and any other information that the voting shareholder considers appropriate at least 90 days prior to the annual meeting at which directors are to be elected.
The Company has adopted a code of ethics (the "Code") that applies to all of its employees (including its principal executive officers, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) and directors. The Company intends to satisfy the disclosure requirement under Item 10 of Form 8-K regarding an amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of the Code applicable to certain enumerated executive officers by posting such information on its website at
http://www.berkshireincomerealty.com
. The Company shall provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of the Code. Any such request must be made in writing to the Company, c/o Stephen Lyons, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108.
SECTION 16 (a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE
Based solely on a review of reports furnished to the Company or written representations from the Company's directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders during or with respect to the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012
, none of the Company's directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders failed to file on a timely basis any reports required to be filed pursuant to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with the exception of the following.
David Olney, a deemed executive officer, filed a Form 4 on an untimely basis on January 23, 2013 that covered his indirect purchase on November 21, 2011 of 200 shares of the Company's 9% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock.
ITEM 11
.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Company does not currently have a compensation committee as the Board has determined that such a committee is unnecessary, in light of the fact that, except for our Independent Directors identified above, our executive officers and directors are not compensated by us for their services to us as officers and directors. However, certain of our officers and directors are compensated by our advisor, Berkshire Advisor, for their services to Berkshire Advisor. The Company has no employees under any employment or other agreement either formal or implied. The Company pays Berkshire Advisor, an affiliate, property, asset management, construction management and acquisition fees for services related to the management of the Company. The Company also reimburses Berkshire Advisor for the salaries of employees of Berkshire Advisor who work directly at our properties. The Company does not bear risk associated with compensation policies and practices of employees as employee related costs incurred by Berkshire Advisor are limited to the fixed management fees or cost reimbursements paid by the Company. Refer to
Part IV, Item 15 - Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 13 - Related Party transaction
for additional information.
The Company reimbursed Berkshire Advisor for cash basis compensation paid to its named executive officer. No other compensation or benefits are paid to named executive officer whose salary is reimbursed by the Company. The Company does not reimburse for benefits. Cash basis compensation paid to named executive officer and reimbursed by the Company totaled $252,741 and $237,323 for the years ended
December 31, 2012
and
December 31, 2011
, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
Year
|
Salary
($)
|
Bonus
($)
|
Stock Awards
($)
|
Option Awards
($)
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)
|
Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings
($)
|
All Other Compensation ($)
|
Total
($)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
The Board has determined that Robert Kaufman, Randolph Hawthorne and Richard Peiser, a majority of our directors, are independent under applicable SEC and NYSE Amex Equities rules and regulations. The Board has determined that the Independent Directors will be compensated at the rate of $30,000 per year, payable in cash, for their service as directors and receive reimbursement for their travel expenses incurred in connection with Board duty. There were no other arrangements to compensate the directors for Board or committee involvement in
2012
.
|
|
ITEM 12
.
|
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
|
The following table sets forth information regarding the beneficial ownership of our equity securities as of
December 31, 2012
by (1) each person who is known by us to beneficially own five percent or more of any class of our equity securities, (2) each of our directors and executive officers and (3) all of our directors and executive officers as a group. The address for each of the persons named in the table is One Beacon Street, Suite 1500, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title of Class
|
|
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner (1)
|
|
Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership
|
|
Percent of Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
Douglas Krupp
|
|
1,283,313
|
|
(2)
|
|
91%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
George Krupp
|
|
1,283,313
|
|
(3)
|
|
91%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
Douglas Krupp 1980 Family Trust
|
|
1,283,313
|
|
(4)
|
|
91%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
George Krupp 1980 Family Trust
|
|
1,283,313
|
|
(5)
|
|
91%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94
|
|
1,283,313
|
|
(6)
|
|
91%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
KRF Company
|
|
1,283,313
|
|
|
|
91%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
Thomas Shuler
|
|
63,560
|
|
|
|
5%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
David J. Olney
|
|
59,323
|
|
(7)
|
|
4%
|
Class B Common Stock
|
|
All directors and executive officers as a group
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
(8)
|
|
100%
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
Douglas Krupp
|
|
3,981
|
|
(9)
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
George Krupp
|
|
3,981
|
|
(10)
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
Berkshire Companies Limited Partnership
|
|
3,981
|
|
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
Robert M. Kaufman
|
|
65,931
|
|
(11)
|
|
2%
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
Thomas Shuler
|
|
6,760
|
|
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
Randolph G. Hawthorne
|
|
4,600
|
|
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
Richard B. Peiser
|
|
2,955
|
|
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
David C. Quade
|
|
1,434
|
|
(12)
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
Mary Beth Bloom
|
|
1,150
|
|
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
David J. Olney
|
|
200
|
|
(7)
|
|
*
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
All directors and executive officers as a group
|
|
87,011
|
|
(13)
|
|
3%
|
* - Represents less than 1% of preferred shares outstanding.
|
|
(1)
|
c/o The Berkshire Group, One Beacon Street, Suite 1500, Boston, MA 02108.
|
|
|
(2)
|
Includes 1,283,313 shares owned by KRF Company. The Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94 owns 100% of the limited liability company interests in KRF Company. The general partners of Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94 are Douglas Krupp and George Krupp, who each own 50% of the general partnership interests in Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94. By virtue of their interests in the Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94, Douglas Krupp and George Krupp may each be deemed to beneficially own the 1,283,313 shares of Class B common stock owned by KRF Company. Douglas Krupp is a director of the Company. George Krupp is a former director of the Company.
|
|
|
(3)
|
Includes 1,283,313 shares owned by KRF Company that may be deemed to be beneficially owned by George Krupp, as described in Footnote (2).
|
|
|
(4)
|
Includes 1,283,313 shares owned by KRF Company. The Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94 owns 100% of the limited liability company interests in KRF Company. The Douglas Krupp 1980 Family Trust owns 50% of the limited partnership interests in Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94. By virtue of its interest in The Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94, The Douglas Krupp 1980 Family Trust may be deemed to beneficially own the 1,283,313 shares of Class B common stock owned by KRF Company. The trustee of the Douglas Krupp 1980 Family Trust is Robert Dombroff. The trustee controls the power to dispose of the assets of the trust and thus may be deemed to beneficially own the 1,283,313 shares of Class B common stock owned by KRF Company; however, the trustee disclaims beneficial ownership of all of those shares that are or may be deemed to be beneficially owned by Douglas Krupp.
|
|
|
(5)
|
Includes 1,283,313 shares owned by KRF Company. The Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94 owns 100% of the limited liability company interests in KRF Company. The George Krupp 1980 Family Trust owns 50% of the limited partnership interests in Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94. By virtue of its interest in The Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94, The George Krupp 1980 Family Trust may be deemed to beneficially own the 1,283,313 shares of Class B common stock owned by KRF Company. The trustee of the George Krupp 1980 Family Trust is Robert Dombroff. The trustee controls the power to dispose of the assets of the trust and thus may be deemed to beneficially own the 1,283,313 shares of Class B common stock owned by KRF Company; however, the trustee disclaims beneficial ownership of all of those shares that are or may be deemed to be beneficially owned by George Krupp.
|
|
|
(6)
|
Includes 1,283,313 shares owned by KRF Company. Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94 owns 100% of the limited liability company interests in KRF Company. By virtue of its interest in KRF Company, Krupp Family Limited Partnership-94 is deemed to beneficially own the 1,283,313 shares of Class B common stock owned by KRF Company.
|
|
|
(7)
|
David J. Olney owns 59,323 shares of Class B common stock. Additionally, 200 shares of the Preferred Shares are owned by Mr. Olney's spouse and may be deemed to be beneficially owned by Mr. Olney.
|
|
|
(8)
|
Includes 1,283,313 shares owned by KRF Company that may be deemed to be beneficially owned by Douglas Krupp, as described in Footnote (2) plus all shares owned by Thomas Shuler and David Olney.
|
|
|
(9)
|
Includes 3,981of the Preferred Shares owned by Berkshire Companies Limited Partnership ("BCLP"). KELP-1987 owns 100% of the limited partnership interests in BCLP, and each of KGP-1, Incorporated and KGP-2 Incorporated owns 50% of the general partnership interests in BCLP. Douglas Krupp and certain of his affiliates are the limited partners of KELP-1987, and Douglas Krupp owns 50% of the stock of each of KGP-1, Incorporated and KGP-2 Incorporated . By virtue of such interests, Douglas Krupp may be deemed to beneficially own indirectly the 3,981 shares of the Preferred Shares owned by BCLP.
|
|
|
(10)
|
Includes 3,981of the Preferred Shares owned by Berkshire Companies Limited Partnership ("BCLP"). KELP-1987 owns 100% of the limited partnership interests in BCLP, and each of KGP-1, Incorporated and KGP-2 Incorporated owns 50% of the general partnership interests in BCLP. George Krupp and certain of his affiliates are the limited partners of KELP-1987, and George Krupp owns 50% of the stock of each of KGP-1, Incorporated and KGP-2 Incorporated . By virtue of such interests , George Krupp may be deemed to beneficially own indirectly the 3,981 shares of the Preferred Shares owned by BCLP.
|
|
|
(11)
|
Robert M. Kaufman does not own shares of Class B common stock. Mr. Kaufman does own 64,774 shares of the Preferred Shares of the Company. Additionally, 1,157 shares of the Preferred Shares are owned Mr. Kaufman's spouse and may be deemed to be beneficially owned by Mr. Kaufman.
|
|
|
(12)
|
David C. Quade does not own shares of Class B common stock. Mr. Quade does own 874 shares of the Preferred Shares of the Company. Additionally, 560 shares of the Preferred Shares are owned Mr. Quade's spouse and may be deemed to be beneficially owned by Mr. Quade.
|
|
|
(13)
|
Includes 3,981 shares owned by BCLP that may be deemed to be beneficially owned by Douglas Krupp, as described in Footnote (9) plus all shares owned by the other directors and officers listed in the preceding table.
|
Under our charter, we are authorized to issue 10,000,000 shares of our common stock, of which 5,000,000 shares have been classified as Class A common stock and 5,000,000 shares have been classified as Class B common stock. As of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, we had 1,406,196 shares of our Class B common stock outstanding, the majority of which is owned by KRF Company, and no outstanding shares of Class A common stock.
Each share of Class B common stock entitles the holder to ten votes per share, and each share of Class A common stock entitles the holder to one vote per share, on all matters to be submitted to the stockholders for vote. Each share of Class B common stock is convertible, at the option of the holder at any time, into one share of Class A common stock. The exclusive voting power of the Company's stockholders for all purposes (including amendments to the charter) is vested in the holders of our common stock. We may not issue shares of our Class A common stock unless the issuance has been approved by the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our outstanding Class B common stock.
The holders of our common stock are entitled to receive ratably such distributions as may be authorized from time to time on our common stock by the Board in its discretion from funds legally available for such distribution. In the event our liquidation, dissolution, winding-up or termination, after payment of all debt and other liabilities, each holder of our common stock is entitled
to receive, ratably with each other holder of our common stock, all our remaining assets available for distribution to the holders of our common stock. Holders of our common stock have no subscription, redemption, appraisal or preemptive rights.
Under Maryland law, a Maryland corporation generally cannot dissolve, amend its charter, merge, sell all or substantially all of its assets, engage in a share exchange or engage in similar transactions outside the ordinary course of business, unless approved by the affirmative vote of stockholders holding at least two thirds of the shares entitled to vote on the matter. However, a Maryland corporation may provide in its charter for approval of these matters by a lesser percentage, but not less than a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. Our charter provides for approval of these matters by the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter.
The holders of our common stock have the exclusive right (except as otherwise provided in our charter) to elect or remove directors. The outstanding shares of our common stock are fully paid and nonassessable.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table sets forth information as of
December 31, 2012
about shares of our equity securities outstanding and available for issuance under equity compensation plans. The Company does not have equity securities outstanding or available for issuance under an equity compensation plan as of
December 31, 2012
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Category
|
Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights
|
|
Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights
|
|
Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
|
|
Column (a)
|
|
Column (b)
|
|
Column (c)
|
Equity compensation plan approved by security holders
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
|
ITEM 13
.
|
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
|
Management Fees
We have entered into an Advisory Services Agreement with Berkshire Advisor. Douglas Krupp, one of our directors, together with his brother George Krupp (formerly a director of the Company and former Chairman of the Board), indirectly own all of the member interests in Berkshire Advisor. Under the Advisory Services Agreement, the Company will pay Berkshire Advisor an annual asset management fee equal to 0.40%, up to a maximum of $1,600,000 in any calendar year, as per an amendment to the management agreement, of the purchase price of real estate properties owned by us, as adjusted from time to time to reflect the then current fair market value of the properties. The purchase price is defined as the capitalized basis of an asset under GAAP including renovation of new construction costs, costs of acquisition or other items paid or received that would be considered an adjustment to basis. The purchase price does not include acquisition fees and capital costs of a recurring nature. Berkshire Advisor may propose adjustments to the asset management fee, subject to the approval of the Audit Committee.
The asset management fees payable to Berkshire Advisor are payable quarterly, in arrears, and may be paid only after all distributions currently payable on the Company's Preferred Shares have been paid. Berkshire Advisor earned asset management fees of
$1,649,259
,
$1,649,259
and
$1,649,259
during the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. The amounts in excess of the $1,600,000 maximum payable by the Company represent fees incurred and paid by the noncontrolling partners in the properties. In addition to the fixed fee, effective January 1, 2010, the Company may also pay Berkshire Advisor an incentive advisory fee based on increases in the value of the Company, as explained below, that would not be subject to the $1,600,000 maximum as detailed below. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, $824,629 and $412,315 of the asset management fees are payable to Berkshire Advisor.
On November 12, 2009, the Audit Committee and the Board approved an amendment to the Advisory Services Agreement (the "Advisory Services Amendment") with Berkshire Advisor which included an incentive advisory fee component to the existing asset management fees paid to Berkshire Advisor. The Advisory Services Amendment, which was effective January 1, 2010,
provides for the incentive advisory fee which is based on the increase in fair value of the Company, as calculated and approved by management, over the base value established as of December 31, 2009 ("Base Value"). The Company is required to accrue incentive advisory fees payable to Berkshire Advisor up to 12% of the increase in fair value of the Company above the established Base Value. The Company has recorded
$3,113,100
,
$1,696,485
and
$2,207,795
of incentive advisory fees during the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. As of
December 31, 2012
and
December 31, 2011
, the accrued liability of
$6,634,261
and
$3,904,280
, respectively, was included in "Due to affiliate, incentive advisory fees" on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Payments from the plan will approximate the amounts Berkshire Advisor pays to its employees. Payments to employees by Berkshire Advisor pursuant to the plan are generally paid over a four-year period in quarterly installments. Additional limits have been placed on the total amount of payments that can be made by the Company in any given year, with interest accruing at the rate of 7% on any payments due but not yet paid. The Company made $383,119, $0 and $0 of incentive advisory fee payments during the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively.
During
2012
,
2011
and
2010
, Berkshire Advisor acted as property manager under property management agreements between the Company and Berkshire Advisor. Under the property management agreement, Berkshire Advisor is entitled to receive a property management fee, payable monthly, equal to 4% of the gross rental receipts, including rentals and other operating income, received each month with respect to all managed properties. The total amount of property management fees paid or accrued to Berkshire Advisor under the property management agreements was
$3,448,399
,
$3,292,761
and
$3,052,447
for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, $27,242 and $89,513 of the 2012 and 2011 property management fees are payable to Berkshire Advisor.
Berkshire Advisor is also entitled to receive an acquisition fee equal to 1% of the purchase price (as defined above) of any new property acquired directly or indirectly by us. Berkshire Advisor may propose adjustments to the acquisition fee, subject to the approval of the Audit Committee.
Berkshire Advisor received acquisition fees for
2012
,
2011
and
2010
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition Fees
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estancia Townhomes
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
420,000
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
420,000
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
The Company pays a construction management fee to Berkshire Advisor for services related to the management and oversight of renovation and rehabilitation projects at its properties. The Company paid or accrued
$194,737
,
$288,859
and
$253,845
in construction management fees for the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. The fees are capitalized as part of the project cost in the year they are incurred.
The Company pays development fees to an affiliate, Berkshire Residential Development, L.L.C. ("BRD"), for property development services. During the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company has incurred fees totaling
$278,820
,
$209,115
and
$0
, respectively on the 2020 Lawrence Project. As of
December 31, 2012
, $487,935 has been paid to BRD and construction is ongoing. The Company did not incur any development fees on the Walnut Creek Project and NoMa Project to BRD.
Under the Advisory Services Agreement and the property management agreements, Berkshire Advisor is reimbursed at cost for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them, including the actual cost of goods, materials and services that are used in connection with the management of us and our properties.
Berkshire Advisor is also reimbursed for administrative services rendered by it that are necessary for our prudent operation, including legal, accounting, data processing, transfer agent and other necessary services. Expense reimbursements paid were
$180,758
,
$213,300
and
$210,000
for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. Salary reimbursements paid were
$9,749,185
,
$9,820,522
and
$9,700,806
for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively.
In addition to the fees listed above, the unconsolidated multifamily entities paid construction management fees of $783,248, $578,979 and $525,252, property management fees of $5,348,359, $5,699,984 and $5,764,238 and asset management fees of $4,008,469, $4,371,676 and $4,480,969 to Berkshire Advisor during 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Related party arrangements are approved by the Independent Directors of the Company and are evidenced by a written agreement between the Company and the affiliated entity providing the services.
The Company does not have written policies and procedures for the review, approval or ratification of transactions with related persons. The Audit Committee reviews and approves all related-party transactions. The review and approval responsibility of the Audit Committee is evidenced by the Audit Committee Charter.
Director Independence
The Board has determined that Robert Kaufman, Randolph Hawthorne and Richard Peiser, a majority of our directors, are independent under applicable SEC and NYSE Amex Equities rules and regulations. Such persons act as the Company's Audit Committee, which does not include any non-independent directors of the Company.
ITEM 14
.
PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
Audit Fees
The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P., was $430,000 and $407,500 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for the audit of the Company's annual financial statements included in the Company's Form 10K and review of financial statements included in the Company's Forms 10Q.
Audit-Related Fees
The aggregate fees billed for assurance and related services by our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., was $25,000 and $12,500 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively for Sarbanes-Oxley readiness procedures and the audit of certain subsidiaries.
Tax Fees
The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., was $57,000 and $55,000 for the years December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning.
All Other Fees
The aggregate fees billed for other services rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P. was
$0
and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Before the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., is engaged by the Company or its subsidiaries to render audit services, the engagement is approved by the Audit Committee. All audit-related fees, tax fees and other fees are pre-approved by such Audit Committee and are subject to a fee cap, which cannot exceed 5% of the total amount of the Company's revenues.
The services described above in the captions "Audit-Related Fees," "Tax Fees" and "All Other Fees" were 100% approved by the Audit Committee.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
1.
|
ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
|
Berkshire Income Realty, Inc., (the "Company"), a Maryland corporation, was incorporated on July 19, 2002 and 100 Class B common shares were issued upon organization. The Company is in the business of acquiring, owning, operating, developing and rehabilitating multifamily apartment communities. The Company conducts its business through Berkshire Income Realty-OP, L.P. (the "Operating Partnership").
The Company's consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, its subsidiary, the Operating Partnership, as well as the various subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership. The Company owns preferred and general partner interests in the Operating Partnership. The remaining common limited partnership interests in the Operating Partnership, owned by KRF Company, L.L.C. ("KRF Company") and affiliates, are reflected as "Noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership" in the financial statements of the Company.
Properties
A summary of the multifamily apartment communities in which the Company owns an interest at
December 31, 2012
is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Location
|
Year Acquired
|
Total # of Units (Unaudited)
|
Ownership Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berkshires of Columbia
|
Columbia, Maryland
|
1983
|
316
|
91.38
|
%
|
Seasons of Laurel
|
Laurel, Maryland
|
1985
|
1,088
|
100.00
|
%
|
Walden Pond (3)
|
Houston, Texas
|
1983
|
416
|
100.00
|
%
|
Gables of Texas (3)
|
Houston, Texas
|
2003
|
140
|
100.00
|
%
|
Laurel Woods
|
Austin, Texas
|
2004
|
150
|
100.00
|
%
|
Bear Creek
|
Dallas, Texas
|
2004
|
152
|
100.00
|
%
|
Bridgewater
|
Hampton, Virginia
|
2004
|
216
|
100.00
|
%
|
Reserves at Arboretum
|
Newport News, Virginia
|
2009
|
143
|
100.00
|
%
|
Country Place I
|
Burtonsville, Maryland
|
2004
|
192
|
58.00
|
%
|
Country Place II
|
Burtonsville, Maryland
|
2004
|
120
|
58.00
|
%
|
Yorktowne
|
Millersville, Maryland
|
2004
|
216
|
100.00
|
%
|
Berkshires on Brompton
|
Houston, Texas
|
2005
|
362
|
100.00
|
%
|
Lakeridge
|
Hampton, Virginia
|
2005
|
282
|
100.00
|
%
|
Berkshires at Citrus Park
|
Tampa, Florida
|
2005
|
264
|
100.00
|
%
|
Briarwood Village
|
Houston, Texas
|
2006
|
342
|
100.00
|
%
|
Chisholm Place
|
Dallas, Texas
|
2006
|
142
|
100.00
|
%
|
Standard at Lenox Park
|
Atlanta, Georgia
|
2006
|
375
|
100.00
|
%
|
Berkshires at Town Center
|
Towson, Maryland
|
2007
|
199
|
100.00
|
%
|
Sunfield Lakes
|
Sherwood, Oregon
|
2007
|
200
|
100.00
|
%
|
Executive House
|
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
|
2008
|
302
|
100.00
|
%
|
Estancia Townhomes
|
Dallas, Texas
|
2011
|
207
|
100.00
|
%
|
2020 Lawrence (1)
|
Denver, Colorado
|
2011
|
231
|
91.08
|
%
|
Walnut Creek (2)
|
Walnut Creek, California
|
2011
|
N/A
|
98.00
|
%
|
Total
|
|
|
6,055
|
|
All of the properties in the above table are encumbered by mortgages as of
December 31, 2012
with the exception of the Walnut Creek property.
|
|
(1)
|
2020 Lawrence received a temporary certificate of occupancy from the City of Denver on December 12, 2012 and permission to occupy 7 of the 11 completed floors (
99
units) from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") on December 24, 2012. Permission
|
to occupy the remaining floors (
132
units) was received on January 18, 2013. As of
December 31, 2012
,
twenty
of the
99
units were occupied.
|
|
(2)
|
Property was under development as of
December 31, 2012
.
|
|
|
(3)
|
Walden Pond and Gables of Texas are operated as one property.
|
Discussion of dispositions for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
On December 22, 2011, the Company, through the joint venture, BIR Holland JV, LLC ("JV BIR/Holland"), of its subsidiary, BIR Glo, L.L.C. with Holland Glo, LLC, closed on the sale of Glo to an unaffiliated buyer for
$68,500,000
. The outstanding bonds were assumed by the buyer. The Company's share of the proceeds from the transaction were used to reduce the outstanding balance of the revolving credit facility.
On March 23, 2012, the Operating Partnership completed the sale of Riverbirch, a 210-unit multifamily apartment community located in Charlotte, North Carolina, to an unaffiliated buyer. The sale price of the property was
$14,200,000
and was subject to normal operating prorations and adjustments as provided for in the purchase and sale agreement. The proceeds were used to reduce the outstanding balance of the revolving credit facility and other general uses.
On November
5
, 2012, the Company completed the sale of Silver Hill and Arboretum, both located in Newport News, Virginia, to an unaffiliated buyer. The combined sale price was
$25,425,000
and was subject to normal operation prorations and adjustments as provided for in the purchase and sale agreement.
On November 30, 2012, the Company completed the sale of Arrowhead and Moorings, both located in Chicago, Illinois, to an unaffiliated buyer. The combined total sale price was
$37,000,000
and was subject to normal operation prorations and adjustments as provided for in the purchase and sale agreement.
There were no dispositions during the year ended
December 31, 2010
.
|
|
2.
|
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
|
Principles of combination and consolidation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, its wholly-owned subsidiaries and entities which it controls including those entities subject to Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 810-10. Variable interest entities ("VIEs") are entities in which the equity investors do not have a controlling financial interest or do not have sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support. In accordance with ASC 810-10, the Company consolidates VIEs for which it has a variable interest (or a combination of variable interests) that will absorb a majority of the entity's expected losses, receive a majority of the entity's expected residual returns, or both, based on an assessment performed at the time the Company becomes involved with the entity. The Company reconsiders this assessment only if the entity's governing documents or the contractual arrangements among the parties involved change in a manner that changes the characteristics or adequacy of the entity's equity investment at risk, some or all of the equity investment is returned to the investors and other parties become exposed to expected losses of the entity, the entity undertakes additional activities or acquires additional assets beyond those that were anticipated at inception or at the last reconsideration date that increase its expected losses, or the entity receives an additional equity investment that is at risk, or curtails or modifies its activities in a way that decreases its expected losses.
For entities not deemed to be VIEs, the Company consolidates those entities in which it owns a majority of the voting securities or interests, except in those instances in which the noncontrolling voting interest owner effectively participates through substantive participative rights, as discussed in ASC 810-10 and ASC 970-323. Substantive participatory rights include the ability to select, terminate, and set compensation of the investee's management, the ability to participate in capital and operating decisions of the investee (including budgets), in the ordinary course of business.
The Company also evaluates its ownership interests in entities not deemed to be VIEs, including partnerships and limited liability companies, to determine if its economic interests result in the Company controlling the entity as promulgated in ASC 810-20, as amended by Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2009-17.
Real estate
Real estate assets are recorded at depreciated cost. The cost of acquisition (exclusive of transaction costs), development and rehabilitation and improvement of properties are capitalized. Interest costs are capitalized based on qualifying assets and liabilities on development projects until construction is substantially complete. There was
$1,833,158
,
$481,958
and
$0
of interest capitalized in
2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. Recurring capital improvements typically include appliances, carpeting, flooring, HVAC equipment, kitchen and bath cabinets, site improvements and various exterior building improvements. Non-recurring upgrades include kitchen and bath upgrades, new roofs, window replacements and the development of on-site fitness, business and community centers.
The Company accounts for its acquisitions of investments in real estate in accordance with ASC 805-10, which requires the fair value of the real estate acquired to be allocated to the acquired tangible assets, consisting of land, building, furniture, fixtures and equipment and identified intangible assets and liabilities, consisting of the value of the above-market and below-market leases, the value of in-place leases and value of other tenant relationships, based in each case on their fair values. The Company considers acquisitions of operating real estate assets to be businesses as that term is contemplated in ASC 810-10.
The Company allocates purchase price to the fair value of the tangible assets of an acquired property (which includes land, building, furniture, fixtures and equipment) determined by valuing the property as if it were vacant. The as-if-vacant value is allocated to land and buildings, furniture, fixtures and equipment based on management's determination of the relative fair values of these assets.
Costs directly associated with the development of properties are capitalized. Additionally, the Company capitalizes interest, real estate taxes, insurance and project management/development fees. We use judgment to determine when a development project commences and capitalization begins and when a development project is substantially complete and capitalization ceases. Generally, cost capitalization begins during the pre-construction period, defined as activities that are necessary to start the development of the property. A development property is considered substantially complete after major construction has ended and the property is available for occupancy. For properties that are built in phases, capitalization stops on each phase when it is considered substantially complete and ready for use and costs continue to be capitalized only on those phases under construction.
Above-market and below market in-place lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value (using an interest rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (ii) management's estimate of fair market lease rates for the corresponding in-place leases, measured over a period equal to the remaining non-cancelable term of the lease. The capitalized above-market lease values are amortized as a reduction of rental income over the remaining non-cancelable terms of the respective leases. The capitalized below-market lease values are amortized as an increase to rental income over the initial term and any fixed-rate renewal periods in the respective leases.
Management may engage independent third-party appraisers to perform these valuations and those appraisals may use commonly employed valuation techniques, such as discounted cash flow analyses. Factors considered in these analyses include an estimate of carrying costs during hypothetical expected lease-up periods considering current market conditions, and costs to execute similar leases. The Company also considers information obtained about each property as a result of its pre-acquisition due diligence, marketing and leasing activities in estimating the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired. In estimating carrying costs, management also includes real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rentals at market rates during the expected lease-up periods depending on specific local market conditions and depending on the type of property acquired.
The total amount of other intangible assets acquired is further allocated to in-place leases, which includes other tenant relationship intangible values based on management's evaluation of the specific characteristics of the residential leases and the Company's tenant retention history.
The value of in-place leases and tenant relationships is determined based on the specific expiration dates of the in-place leases and amortized over a period of 12 months and the tenant relationships are based on the straight line method of amortization over a 24-month period.
Expenditures for ordinary maintenance and repairs are charged to operations as incurred. Depreciation is computed on the straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets, as follows:
|
|
|
Rental property
|
25 to 27.5 years
|
Improvements
|
5 to 20 years
|
Appliances and equipment
|
3 to 8 years
|
When a property is sold, its costs and related depreciation are removed from the accounts with the resulting gains or losses reflected in net income or loss for the period.
Pursuant to ASC 360-10, management reviews its long-lived assets used in operations for impairment when there is an event or change in circumstances that indicates impairment in value. An asset is considered impaired when the undiscounted future cash flows are not sufficient to recover the asset's carrying value. If such impairment is present, an impairment loss is recognized based on the excess of the carrying amount of the asset over its fair value. The evaluation of anticipated cash flows is highly subjective and is based in part on assumptions regarding future rental occupancy, rental rates and capital requirements that could differ materially from actual results in future periods. The Company did not recognize an impairment loss in
2012
or
2011
and no such losses have been recognized to date.
Our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures are reviewed for impairment periodically and we record impairment charges when events or circumstances change indicating that a decline in the fair values below the carrying values has occurred and such decline is other-than-temporary. The ultimate realization of our investment in unconsolidated joint ventures is dependent on a number of factors, including the performance of each investment and market conditions. We will record an impairment charge if we determine that a decline in the value of an investment in an unconsolidated joint venture is other than temporary. The Company did not recognize an other-than-temporary impairment charge in
2012
or
2011
.
Cash and cash equivalents
The Company participates in centralized cash management whereby cash receipts are deposited in specific property operating accounts and are then transferred to the Company's central operating account. Bills are paid from a central disbursement account maintained by an affiliate of the Company, which is reimbursed from the Company's central operating account. In management's opinion, the cash and cash equivalents presented in the consolidated financial statements are available and required for normal operations.
The Company invests its cash primarily in deposits and money market funds with commercial banks. All short-term investments with maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition are included in cash and cash equivalents. The cash investments are recorded at cost, which approximates current market values.
Concentration of credit risk
The Company maintains cash deposits with major financial institutions, which from time to time may exceed federally insured limits. The Company does not believe that this concentration of credit risk represents a material risk of loss with respect to its financial position as the Company invests with creditworthy institutions including national banks and major financial institutions.
Cash restricted for tenant security deposits
Cash restricted for tenant security deposits represents security deposits held by the Company under the terms of certain tenant lease agreements.
Replacement reserve escrows
Certain lenders require escrow accounts for capital improvements. The escrows are funded from operating cash, as needed.
Deferred expenses
Fees and costs incurred to obtain long-term financing have been deferred and are being amortized over the terms of the related loans, on the straight line method which approximates the effective interest method.
Indebtness
Mortgage notes payable and note payable - other consist of property level mortgage indebtedness collaterized by respective multifamily apartment communities. Revolving credit facility to an affiliate consists of indebtedness related to the Company's revolving credit facility. The Company states its mortgage notes payable, note payable - other and revolving credit facility to an affiliate at the outstanding principal balance, exclusive of transaction costs such as prepayment penalties, except in the case of assumed debt where the mortgage is recorded at fair value.
Noncontrolling interest in properties
Unaffiliated third parties have ownership interests in five, seven and six of the Company's multifamily apartment communities at
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. Such interests are accounted for as "Noncontrolling interest in properties" in the accompanying financial statements. Allocations of earnings and distributions are made to the Company and noncontrolling holders based upon their respective share allocations.
Noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
In accordance with ASC 974-810, KRF Company and affiliates' common limited partnership interest in the Operating Partnership is being reflected as "Noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership" in the financial statements of the Company.
The net equity to the common and general partner interests in the Operating Partnership is less than zero after an allocation to the Company and affiliates' preferred interest in the Operating Partnership. Further, KRF Company and affiliates have no obligation to fund such deficit. Accordingly, for financial reporting purposes prior to January 1, 2009, KRF Company and affiliates' noncontrolling interest in the Operating Partnership had been reflected as zero with common stockholders' equity being reduced for the deficit amount. As of January 1, 2009, in accordance with ASC 810-10, KRF Company and affiliates' noncontrolling interest in the Operating Partnership have been reduced for their share of the current year deficit and are reflected as negative amounts on the balance sheet.
In accordance with ASC 974-810, earnings of the Operating Partnership are first being allocated to the preferred interests held by the Company. The remainder of earnings, if any, is allocated to the Company's general partner and KRF Company and affiliates' common limited partnership interests in accordance with their relative ownership percentages.
Stockholders' equity (deficit)
Capital contributions, distributions and profits and losses are allocated in accordance with the terms of the individual partnership and/or limited liability company agreements. Distributions and dividends are accrued and recorded in the period declared.
Equity offering costs
Underwriting commissions and offering costs have been reflected as a reduction of proceeds from issuance of the Preferred Shares.
Debt extinguishment costs
In accordance with ASC 470-50, the Company has determined that debt extinguishment costs do not meet the criteria for classification as extraordinary pursuant to ASC 225-20. Accordingly, costs associated with the early extinguishment of debt for discontinued operations are included in "Income (loss) from discontinued operations" in the Statements of Operations for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
. Costs associated with the early extinguishment of debt for continuing operations are included in "Interest, inclusive of amortization of deferred financing fees".
Rental revenue
The properties are leased with terms of generally one year or less. Rental revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis over the related lease term. As a result, deferred rents receivable are created when rental revenue is recognized during the concession period of certain negotiated leases and amortized over the remaining term of the lease. Recoveries from tenants for utility expenses are recognized in the period the applicable costs are incurred.
Other income
Other income, which consists primarily of income from damages, laundry, cable, phone, pool, month to month tenants, relet fees and pet fees, is recognized when earned.
Income taxes
The Company elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") under Section 856 of the Tax Code (the "Code"), with the filing of its first tax return. As a result, the Company generally is not subject to federal corporate income tax on its taxable income that is distributed to its stockholders.
A REIT is subject to a number of organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement that it currently distribute at least 90% of its annual taxable income. The Company's policy is to make sufficient distributions of its taxable income to meet the REIT distribution requirements.
The Company must also meet other operational requirements with respect to its investments, assets and income. The Company monitors these various requirements on a quarterly basis and believes that as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, it was in compliance on all such requirements. Accordingly, the Company has made no provision for federal income taxes in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The Company is subject to certain state level taxes based on the location of its properties.
The net difference between the tax basis and the reported amounts of the Company's assets and liabilities is approximately
$101,913,025
and
$78,105,708
as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively. The Company believes that due to its structure and the terms of the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, if the net difference is realized under the Code, any impact would be substantially realized by the common partners of the Operating Partnership and the impact on the common and preferred shareholders would be negligible.
The Company monitors the impact of ASC 740-10, which clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in the Company's financial statements in accordance with ASC 740-10. As of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, the Company has determined it does not have a liability related to a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return and therefore has not recorded any adjustments to its financial statements.
The Company files tax returns as prescribed by the tax laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates. In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to examination by federal, state, local, and foreign jurisdictions, where applicable. As of
December 31, 2012
, the Company is subject to examination for the tax years
2009
,
2010
,
2011
and
2012
by the major tax jurisdictions under the statute of limitations (with limited exceptions).
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standard Board ("FASB") issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs. ASU 2011-04 clarifies some existing concepts, eliminates wording differences between accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") and International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS"), and in some limited cases, changes some principles to achieve convergence between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. ASU 2011-04 results in a consistent definition of fair value and common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. ASU 2011-04 also expands the disclosures for fair value measurements that are estimated using significant unobservable (Level 3) inputs. ASU 2011-04 became effective for the Company on January 1, 2012. The adoption of ASU 2011-04 did not have a material effect on the Company's operating results, financial position, or disclosures.
In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income, which requires an entity to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate but consecutive statements. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of equity. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in ASU 2011-05, which deferred the new requirement to present components of reclassifications of other comprehensive income on the face of the income statement. Both ASU 2011-05 and ASU 2011-12 became effective for the Company on January 1, 2012. The adoption of ASU 2011-05 and ASU 2011-12 did not have any effect on the Company's operating results, financial position, or disclosures.
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)
For the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, comprehensive income (loss) equaled net income (loss). Therefore, the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income and Loss required to be presented has been omitted from the consolidated financial statements.
Use of estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, contingent assets and liabilities at the date of financial statements and revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Such estimates include the amortization of acquired in-place leases and tenant relationships, the allowance for depreciation, impairment of unconsolidated joint ventures, variable asset management fees and the fair value of the accrued participating note interest. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Reclassifications
Certain prior period balances have been reclassified in order to conform to the current period presentation.
|
|
3.
|
MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITIES
|
The following summarizes the carrying value of the Company's multifamily apartment communities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2012
|
|
December 31,
2011
|
Land
|
$
|
63,749,991
|
|
|
$
|
68,745,583
|
|
Buildings, improvement and personal property
|
575,074,865
|
|
|
581,516,746
|
|
Multifamily apartment communities
|
638,824,856
|
|
|
650,262,329
|
|
Accumulated depreciation
|
(235,825,752
|
)
|
|
(227,600,092
|
)
|
Multifamily apartment communities, net
|
$
|
402,999,104
|
|
|
$
|
422,662,237
|
|
The Company accounts for its acquisitions of investments in real estate in accordance with ASC 805-10, which requires the fair value of the real estate acquired to be allocated to the acquired tangible assets, consisting of land, building, furniture, fixtures and equipment and identified intangible assets and liabilities, consisting of the value of the above-market and below-market leases, the value of in-place leases and the value of other tenant relationships, based in each case on their fair values. The value of in-place leases and tenant relationships is determined based on the specific expiration dates of the in-place leases and amortized over a period of 12 months and the tenant relationships are based on the straight-line method of amortization over a 24-month period.
The Company evaluated the carrying value of its multifamily apartment communities for impairment pursuant to ASC 360-10. The Company did not record an impairment adjustment at
December 31, 2012
or
2011
.
Refer to
Note 1 - Organization and Basis of Presentation
for discussion of dispositions for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
.
The operating results of discontinued operations for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental
|
$
|
7,176,259
|
|
|
$
|
12,634,868
|
|
|
$
|
12,412,250
|
|
Utility reimbursement
|
343,367
|
|
|
431,263
|
|
|
371,276
|
|
Other
|
470,495
|
|
|
1,063,315
|
|
|
1,033,992
|
|
Total revenue
|
7,990,121
|
|
|
14,129,446
|
|
|
13,817,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
|
2,427,647
|
|
|
4,090,614
|
|
|
4,290,264
|
|
Maintenance
|
607,418
|
|
|
961,948
|
|
|
856,684
|
|
Real estate taxes
|
670,245
|
|
|
1,363,867
|
|
|
1,665,826
|
|
General and administrative
|
40,696
|
|
|
83,709
|
|
|
65,224
|
|
Management fees
|
304,734
|
|
|
487,657
|
|
|
472,811
|
|
Depreciation
|
1,842,075
|
|
|
3,617,534
|
|
|
4,005,178
|
|
Interest, inclusive of deferred financing fees and prepayment penalties
|
3,528,154
|
|
|
2,549,487
|
|
|
2,870,988
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
83,235
|
|
|
363,412
|
|
|
—
|
|
Amortization of acquired in-place leases and tenant relationships
|
—
|
|
|
8,916
|
|
|
73,298
|
|
Total expenses
|
9,504,204
|
|
|
13,527,144
|
|
|
14,300,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
$
|
(1,514,083
|
)
|
|
$
|
602,302
|
|
|
$
|
(482,755
|
)
|
4. INVESTMENTS IN UNCONSOLIDATED MULTIFAMILY ENTITIES
Investment in Unconsolidated Limited Partnership
On August 12, 2005, the Company, together with affiliates and other unaffiliated parties, entered into a subscription agreement to invest in the Berkshire Multifamily Value Fund, L.P. ("BVF"), an affiliate of Berkshire Property Advisors, L.L.C. ("Berkshire Advisor" or the "Advisor"). Under the terms of the agreement and the related limited partnership agreement, the Company and its affiliates agreed to invest up to
$25,000,000
, or approximately
7%
, of the total capital of the partnership. The Company's final commitment under the subscription agreement with BVF totals
$23,400,000
. BVF's investment strategy is to acquire middle-market properties where there is an opportunity to add value through repositioning or rehabilitation.
In accordance with ASC 810-10 issued by the FASB as amended by ASU No. 2009-17 related to the consolidation of variable interest entities, the Company has performed an analysis of its investment in BVF to determine whether it would qualify as a VIE and whether it should be consolidated or accounted for as an equity investment in an unconsolidated joint venture. As a result of the Company's qualitative assessment to determine whether its investment in BVF is a VIE, the Company determined that the investment is a VIE based upon the holders of the equity investment at risk lacking the power, through voting rights or similar rights to direct the activities of BVF that most significantly impact BVF's economic performance. Under the terms of the limited partnership agreement of BVF, the general partner of BVF has the full, exclusive and complete right, power, authority, discretion, obligation and responsibility to make all decisions affecting the business of BVF.
After making the determination that its investment in BVF was a VIE, the Company performed an assessment of which partner would be considered the primary beneficiary of BVF and therefore would be required to consolidate BVF's balance sheets and result of operations. This assessment was based upon which entity (1) had the power to direct matters that most significantly impact the activities of BVF, and (2) had the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of BVF that could potentially be significant to the entity based upon the terms of the partnership and management agreements of BVF. As a result of fees paid to the general partner of BVF for asset management and other services, the Company has determined that the general partner of BVF has the obligation to absorb the losses or the right to receive benefits of BVF while retaining the power to make significant decisions for BVF. Based upon this understanding, the Company concluded that the general partner of BVF should consolidate BVF and as such, the Company accounts for its investment in BVF as an equity investment in an unconsolidated joint venture.
As of
December 31, 2012
, the Company had invested
100%
of its total committed capital amount of
$23,400,000
in BVF for an ownership interest of approximately
7%
.
During the year ended
December 31, 2012
, the Company received distributions of
$1,400,150
, or approximately
6%
, of its committed capital.
The summarized statement of assets, liabilities and partners' capital of BVF is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2012
|
|
December 31,
2011
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
Multifamily apartment communities, net
|
$
|
807,747,897
|
|
|
$
|
951,400,492
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
16,851,009
|
|
|
10,904,452
|
|
Other assets
|
16,927,659
|
|
|
21,751,914
|
|
Total assets
|
$
|
841,526,565
|
|
|
$
|
984,056,858
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage notes payable
|
$
|
800,968,937
|
|
|
$
|
890,099,238
|
|
Revolving credit facility
|
16,300,000
|
|
|
39,000,000
|
|
Other liabilities
|
22,050,147
|
|
|
26,872,432
|
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
(9,478,084
|
)
|
|
(2,313,162
|
)
|
Partners’ capital
|
11,685,565
|
|
|
30,398,350
|
|
Total liabilities and partners’ capital
|
$
|
841,526,565
|
|
|
$
|
984,056,858
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company’s share of partners’ capital
|
$
|
818,078
|
|
|
$
|
2,128,113
|
|
Basis differential (1)
|
604,395
|
|
|
604,395
|
|
Carrying value of the Company’s investment in unconsolidated limited partnership (2)
|
$
|
1,422,473
|
|
|
$
|
2,732,508
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
This amount represents the difference between the Company’s investment in BVF and its share of the underlying equity in the net assets of BVF (adjusted to conform with GAAP). At
December 31, 2012
and
December 31, 2011
, the differential related mainly to the
$583,240
which represents the Company’s share of syndication costs incurred by BVF that the Company was not required to fund via a separate capital call.
|
|
|
(2)
|
Per the partnership agreement of BVF, the Company’s liability is limited to its investment in BVF. The Company does not guarantee any third-party debt held by BVF. The Company has fully funded its obligations under the partnership agreement as of
December 31, 2012
and has no commitment to make additional contributions to BVF.
|
The Company evaluates the carrying value of its investment in BVF for impairment periodically and records impairment charges when events or circumstances change indicating that a decline in the fair values below the carrying values has occurred and such decline is other-than-temporary. No such other-than-temporary impairment charges have been recognized as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
The summarized statements of operations of BVF for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
$
|
133,860,364
|
|
|
$
|
142,470,274
|
|
|
$
|
144,259,830
|
|
Expenses (1)
|
(179,003,696
|
)
|
|
(211,049,488
|
)
|
|
(229,114,505
|
)
|
Gain on property sales and extinguishment of debt (2)
|
41,920,335
|
|
|
14,242,762
|
|
|
7,105,709
|
|
Net loss
|
(3,222,997
|
)
|
|
(54,336,452
|
)
|
|
(77,748,966
|
)
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
4,510,212
|
|
|
6,979,361
|
|
|
19,466,226
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to investment
|
$
|
1,287,215
|
|
|
$
|
(47,357,091
|
)
|
|
$
|
(58,282,740
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income (loss) in unconsolidated limited partnership (1)(2)
|
$
|
90,115
|
|
|
$
|
(3,315,350
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4,080,225
|
)
|
|
|
(1)
|
BVF recorded an impairment charge on their real estate in accordance with ASC 360-10 in the amount of
$16,813,090
during the year ended December 31, 2010, which is included in Expenses on the summarized statement of operations of BVF. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company identified that the real estate impairment charge recorded at BVF related to prior periods and should have been reflected in previously reported consolidated financial statements
|
of the Company. The Company has concluded that the impact of this error to the prior periods and to the year ended December 31, 2010 is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements and has recorded the additional equity in loss expense in the year ended December 31, 2010. Had this error been recorded in the proper periods, the impact on the adjustment on 2010 would have been a decrease in equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities and net loss of approximately
$590,000
.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, BVF recorded an impairment charge on its real estate in accordance with ASC 360-10 in the amount of
$11,629,342
, which is included in Expenses on the summarized statement of operations of BVF. The Company’s share was approximately
$407,000
and is reflected in the equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities recognized for the year ended December 31, 2011.
There were no impairment indicators and impairment writeoffs in the year ended
December 31, 2012
.
The Company has determined that its valuation of the real estate was categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy in accordance with ASC 820-10, as it utilized significant unobservable inputs in its assessment.
|
|
(2)
|
During the year ended December 31, 2011, BVF recorded a net gain on the disposition of a long lived asset, pursuant to a short sale on behalf of the lender, that previously experienced an impairment charge. In accordance with ACS 360-10, BVF adjusted the cost basis of the asset to the carrying value at the time of the impairment charge and computed the resulting gain on the new cost basis. The loss on the sale was
$428,614
, of which the Company's share was approximately
$15,000
and is reflected in the equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities recognized for the year ended December 31, 2011. Additionally, concurrent with the short sale, the Company also recognized a gain from forgiveness of debt related to the extinguishment of the mortgage by the lender on the disposed real estate. The gain on the forgiveness of debt was
$12,991,979
of which the Company's share was approximately
$455,000
and is also reflected in the equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities recognized for the year ended December 31, 2011.
|
During the year ended December 31, 2011, BVF prepaid a mortgage note which was recorded at fair value at acquisition in accordance with ASC 805-10, and recorded a gain of
$1,679,397
as a result. The Company’s share of the gain was approximately
$118,000
and is reflected in the equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities recognized for the year ended December 31, 2011.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, BVF recorded a net gain on the disposition of
eight
properties. The gain on the sale was
$41,920,335
, of which the Company's share was approximately
$2,934,000
and is reflected in the equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities recognized for the year ended December 31, 2012.
Investment in Unconsolidated Limited Liability Company
On March 2, 2011, the Operating Partnership executed an agreement with Berkshire Multifamily Value Fund II, LP ("BVF II"), an affiliated entity, to create a joint venture, BIR/BVF-II NoMa JV, L.L.C. ("NoMa JV"), to participate in and take an ownership position in a real estate development project. BVF II is the managing member of NoMa JV and has a percentage ownership interest of approximately
67%
while the Operating Partnership has a percentage ownership interest of approximately
33%
.
Also on March 2, 2011, NoMa JV acquired a
90%
interest in NOMA Residential West I, LLC. ("NOMA Residential"). NOMA Residential will develop and subsequently operate a
603
-unit multifamily apartment community in Washington, D.C. (the "NoMa Project"). The remaining
10%
interest in NOMA Residential is owned by the developer, an unrelated third party (the "NoMa Developer"). The governing agreements for NOMA Residential give the NoMa Developer the authority to manage the construction and development of, and subsequent to completion, the day-to-day operations of NOMA Residential. The agreement also provides for fees to the NoMa Developer, limits the authority of the NoMa Developer and provides for distributions based on percentage interest and thereafter in accordance with achievement of economic hurdles.
In accordance with ASC 810-10, as amended by ASU No. 2009-17, related to the consolidation of variable interest entities, the Company has performed an analysis of its investment in NoMa JV to determine whether it would qualify as a VIE and whether it should be consolidated or accounted for as an equity investment in an unconsolidated joint venture. As a result of the Company's qualitative assessment to determine whether its investment is a VIE, the Company determined that the investment is a VIE based upon the holders of the equity investment at risk lacking the power, through voting rights or similar rights to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly impact the entity's economic performance. Under the terms of the limited partnership agreement of NoMa JV, the managing member has the full, exclusive and complete right, power, authority, discretion, obligation and responsibility to make all decisions affecting the business of NoMa JV.
After making the determination that its investment in NoMa JV was a VIE, the Company performed an assessment of which partner would be considered the primary beneficiary of NoMa JV and would be required to consolidate the VIE's balance sheet and results of operations. This assessment was based upon which entity (1) had the power to direct matters that most significantly impact the activities of NoMa JV, and (2) had the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of NoMa JV that could potentially be significant to the VIE based upon the terms of the partnership and management agreements of NoMa JV. Because the managing member owns two-thirds of the entity and all profits and losses are split pro-rata in accordance with capital accounts, the Company has determined that the managing member has the obligation to absorb the losses or the right to receive benefits of the VIE while retaining the power to make significant decisions for NoMa JV. Based upon this understanding, the Company concluded that the managing member should consolidate NoMa JV and as such, the Company accounts for its investment in NoMa JV as an equity investment in an unconsolidated joint venture.
As of December 31, 2012, the Company had invested
100%
of its total committed capital amount of
$14,520,000
in NoMa JV for an ownership interest of approximately
33%
and had recorded
$1,405,152
of capitalized interest on the investment. The Company's maximum exposure to loss in NoMa JV is its committed capital amount of
$14,520,000
, which has been fully funded.
The summarized statement of assets, liabilities and partners’ capital of NoMa JV is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2012
|
|
December 31,
2011
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
Multifamily apartment communities, net
|
$
|
114,349,590
|
|
|
$
|
62,699,213
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
565,453
|
|
|
577,190
|
|
Other assets
|
738,983
|
|
|
1,215,989
|
|
Total assets
|
$
|
115,654,026
|
|
|
$
|
64,492,392
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND MEMBERS’ CAPITAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage notes payable
|
$
|
63,413,844
|
|
|
$
|
11,973,905
|
|
Other liabilities
|
5,419,184
|
|
|
4,500,703
|
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
4,682,100
|
|
|
4,801,778
|
|
Members’ capital
|
42,138,898
|
|
|
43,216,006
|
|
Total liabilities and members’ capital
|
$
|
115,654,026
|
|
|
$
|
64,492,392
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company’s share of members’ capital
|
$
|
14,046,299
|
|
|
$
|
14,405,335
|
|
Basis differential (1)
|
1,405,152
|
|
|
584,116
|
|
Carrying value of the Company’s investment in unconsolidated limited liability company (2)
|
$
|
15,451,451
|
|
|
$
|
14,989,451
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
This amount represents capitalized interest, pursuant to ASC 835-20, related to the Company's equity investment in NoMa JV. The capitalized interest was computed on the amounts borrowed by the Company to finance its investment in NoMa JV and was not an item required to be funded via a capital call.
|
|
|
(2)
|
Per the limited partnership agreement of NoMa JV, the Company's liability is limited to its investment in NoMa JV. The Company has fully funded its maximum obligation under the limited partnership agreement as of
December 31, 2012
and has no commitment to make additional contributions to NoMa JV.
|
The Company evaluates the carrying value of its investment in NoMa JV for impairment periodically and records impairment charges when events or circumstances change indicating that a decline in the fair values below the carrying values has occurred and such decline is other-than-temporary. No such other-than-temporary impairment charges have been recognized as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
The summarized statements of operations of NoMa JV for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended December 31,
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
$
|
91,033
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Expenses
|
(1,287,819
|
)
|
|
(382,216
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
Net loss
|
(1,196,786
|
)
|
|
(382,216
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
119,678
|
|
|
38,222
|
|
|
—
|
|
Net loss attributable to investment
|
$
|
(1,077,108
|
)
|
|
$
|
(343,994
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in loss of unconsolidated limited liability company
|
$
|
(359,036
|
)
|
|
$
|
(114,665
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
|
5.
|
MORTGAGE NOTES PAYABLE
|
Mortgage notes payable consists of the following at
December 31, 2012
and
2011
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateralized Property
|
|
Original Principal Balance
|
|
Principal December 31, 2012
|
|
Annual Interest
Rate at
December 31, 2012 (1)
|
|
Final Maturity Date
|
|
Monthly Payment
|
|
Principal December 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berkshires of Columbia
|
|
|
$
|
26,600,000
|
|
|
$
|
23,947,436
|
|
|
4.86
|
%
|
|
2013
|
|
$
|
140,527
|
|
|
$
|
24,399,036
|
|
Berkshires of Columbia
(2nd note)
|
|
|
4,563,000
|
|
|
4,133,035
|
|
|
6.12
|
%
|
|
2013
|
|
27,711
|
|
|
4,200,375
|
|
Berkshires of Columbia
(3rd note)
|
|
|
5,181,000
|
|
|
4,950,417
|
|
|
6.37
|
%
|
|
2014
|
|
32,306
|
|
|
5,010,393
|
|
Seasons of Laurel
|
|
|
99,200,000
|
|
|
99,200,000
|
|
|
6.10
|
%
|
|
2021
|
|
521,076
|
|
|
99,200,000
|
|
Laurel Woods
|
|
|
4,100,000
|
|
|
3,779,771
|
|
|
5.17
|
%
|
|
2015
|
|
22,438
|
|
|
3,848,379
|
|
Laurel Woods (2nd note)
|
|
|
1,900,000
|
|
|
1,831,007
|
|
|
7.14
|
%
|
|
2015
|
|
12,820
|
|
|
1,851,130
|
|
Bear Creek
|
|
|
3,825,000
|
|
|
3,749,028
|
|
|
5.83
|
%
|
|
2016
|
|
22,516
|
|
|
3,795,505
|
|
Walden Pond
|
|
|
12,675,000
|
|
|
10,588,183
|
|
|
4.86
|
%
|
|
2013
|
|
66,962
|
|
|
10,839,684
|
|
Gables of Texas
|
|
|
5,325,000
|
|
|
4,448,289
|
|
|
4.86
|
%
|
|
2013
|
|
28,132
|
|
|
4,553,950
|
|
Bridgewater
|
|
|
14,212,500
|
|
|
12,878,110
|
|
|
5.11
|
%
|
|
2013
|
|
77,254
|
|
|
13,128,993
|
|
Reserves at Arboretum
|
|
|
12,950,000
|
|
|
12,661,729
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
|
2015
|
|
79,315
|
|
|
12,823,011
|
|
Country Place I & II
|
|
|
15,520,000
|
|
|
14,037,125
|
|
|
5.01
|
%
|
|
2015
|
|
83,410
|
|
|
14,315,313
|
|
Country Place I & II
(2nd note)
|
|
|
9,676,278
|
|
|
8,942,697
|
|
|
6.43
|
%
|
|
2015
|
|
60,965
|
|
|
9,084,594
|
|
Yorktowne
|
|
|
16,125,000
|
|
|
14,661,448
|
|
|
5.13
|
%
|
|
2015
|
|
87,848
|
|
|
14,942,930
|
|
Yorktowne (2nd note)
|
|
|
7,050,000
|
|
|
6,537,135
|
|
|
6.12
|
%
|
|
2015
|
|
42,814
|
|
|
6,640,631
|
|
Brompton
|
|
|
18,600,000
|
|
|
18,563,736
|
|
|
5.71
|
%
|
|
2014
|
|
108,072
|
|
|
18,600,000
|
|
Lakeridge
|
|
|
13,130,000
|
|
|
12,047,494
|
|
|
5.07
|
%
|
|
2014
|
|
71,047
|
|
|
12,272,728
|
|
Lakeridge (2nd note)
|
|
|
12,520,000
|
|
|
11,489,637
|
|
|
5.08
|
%
|
|
2014
|
|
67,824
|
|
|
11,704,062
|
|
Savannah at Citrus Park
|
|
|
16,428,100
|
|
|
15,921,808
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
2045
|
|
78,257
|
|
|
16,114,155
|
|
Briarwood
|
|
|
13,200,000
|
|
|
12,904,504
|
|
|
6.43
|
%
|
|
2018
|
|
82,826
|
|
|
13,049,626
|
|
Chisholm
|
|
|
6,953,000
|
|
|
6,853,211
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
|
2016
|
|
42,811
|
|
|
6,923,321
|
|
Standard at Lenox
|
|
|
35,000,000
|
|
|
34,553,897
|
|
|
5.80
|
%
|
|
2016
|
|
205,364
|
|
|
35,000,000
|
|
Berkshires at Town Center
|
|
|
20,000,000
|
|
|
19,865,277
|
|
|
5.77
|
%
|
|
2017
|
|
116,969
|
|
|
20,000,000
|
|
Sunfield Lakes
|
|
|
19,440,000
|
|
|
19,388,268
|
|
|
6.29
|
%
|
|
2017
|
|
120,265
|
|
|
19,440,000
|
|
Executive House
|
|
|
27,000,000
|
|
|
25,655,735
|
|
|
5.52
|
%
|
|
2016
|
|
153,557
|
|
|
26,047,891
|
|
Executive House (2nd note)
|
|
|
3,617,790
|
|
|
3,564,032
|
|
|
4.24
|
%
|
|
2016
|
|
17,776
|
|
|
3,617,790
|
|
Estancia
|
|
|
29,004,000
|
|
|
28,340,552
|
|
|
5.15
|
%
|
|
2021
|
|
158,369
|
|
|
28,745,522
|
|
2020 Lawrence
|
(2)
|
|
42,692,437
|
|
|
42,692,437
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
2053
|
|
177,885
|
|
|
14,070,892
|
|
Silver Hill
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
3,178,640
|
|
Arboretum
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,435,296
|
|
Arrowhead
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,081,537
|
|
Arrowhead (2nd note)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,918,049
|
|
Moorings
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,325,930
|
|
Moorings (2nd note)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
3,067,693
|
|
Riverbirch
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,521,302
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
496,488,105
|
|
|
$
|
478,185,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
484,748,358
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
All interest rates are fixed as of
December 31, 2012
.
|
|
|
(2)
|
December 31, 2012
balance represents amounts drawn on construction loan as of
December 31, 2012
.
|
All mortgage notes are collateralized by the referenced property, which are all multifamily residential apartment communities. All payments on the outstanding mortgage notes have been made timely and all mortgage loans were current as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
. Also, there were no amounts of principal on the notes that were subject to delinquent principal or interest as of
December 31, 2012
.
Combined aggregate principal maturities of mortgage notes payable at
December 31, 2012
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
2013
|
$
|
60,520,888
|
|
2014
|
50,322,100
|
|
2015
|
63,145,320
|
|
2016
|
72,987,162
|
|
2017
|
39,773,990
|
|
Thereafter
|
191,436,538
|
|
|
$
|
478,185,998
|
|
The Company determines the fair value of the mortgage notes payable in accordance with authoritative guidance related to fair value measurement and is based on the discounted future cash flows at a discount rate that approximates the Company's current effective borrowing rate for comparable loans (other observable inputs or Level 3 inputs, as defined by the authoritative guidance). For purposes of determining fair value the Company groups its debt by similar maturity date for purposes of obtaining comparable loan information in order to determine fair values. In addition, the Company also considers the loan-to-value percentage of individual loans to determine if further stratification of the loans is appropriate in the valuation model. Debt in excess of
80%
loan-to-value is considered similar to mezzanine debt and is valued using a greater interest spread than the average debt pool. Based on this analysis, the Company has determined that the fair value of the mortgage notes payable approximates
$543,557,000
and
$528,295,000
at
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
On December 22, 2011, the Company, through JV BIR/Holland, closed on the sale of Glo to an unaffiliated party for
$68,500,000
. The outstanding bonds were assumed by the buyer. The Company recognized
$23,916,947
in gain on the sale, which included
$4,637,097
of loss related to the write-off of the fair value adjustment as a result of buyer's assumption of the mortgage note.
|
|
6.
|
REVOLVING CREDIT FACILITY - AFFILIATE
|
On June 30, 2005, the Company obtained new financing in the form of a revolving credit facility. The revolving credit facility in the amount of
$20,000,000
was provided by an affiliate of the Company. The credit facility was amended on May 31, 2007 to add additional terms to the credit facility ("Amendment No. 1"), on February 17, 2011 to add an amendment period with a temporary increase in the commitment amount to
$40,000,000
("Amendment No. 2"), and on May 24, 2011 to increase the commitment fee ("Amendment No. 3"). The credit facility provides for interest on borrowings at a rate of
5% above the 30 day LIBOR rate, as announced by Reuter's
, and fees based on borrowings under the credit facility and various operational and financial covenants, including a maximum leverage ratio and a maximum debt service ratio. The agreement has a maturity date of December 31, 2006, with a one-time six-month extension available at the option of the Company. The terms of the credit facility were agreed upon through negotiations and were approved by the Audit Committee. Subsequent to its exercise of extension rights, the Company on May 31, 2007 executed Amendment No.1 that provides for an extension of the maturity date by replacing the current maturity date of June 30, 2007 with a
60
-day notice of termination provision by which the lender can affect a termination of the commitment under the agreement and render all outstanding amounts due and payable. Amendment No. 1 also added a clean-up requirement to the agreement, which requires the borrower to repay in full all outstanding loans and have no outstanding obligations under the agreement for a
14
consecutive day period during each
365
-day period. The clean-up requirement for the current 365-day period was satisfied on November 20, 2012.
On February 17, 2011, the Company executed Amendment No. 2 which provides for a temporary modification of certain provisions of the credit facility during a period commencing with the date of execution and ending on July 31, 2012 (the "Amendment Period"), subject to extension. During the Amendment Period, certain provisions of the facility were modified and included: an increase in the amount of the commitment from
$20,000,000
to
$40,000,000
; elimination of the leverage ratio covenant and clean-up requirement (each as defined in the revolving credit facility agreement) and computation and payment of interest on a quarterly basis. At the conclusion of the Amendment Period, including extensions, the provisions modified pursuant to Amendment No. 2 reverted back to the provisions of the revolving credit facility agreement prior to the Amendment Period.
On May 24, 2011, the Company executed Amendment No. 3 which limits the total commitment fee provided for in the agreement to be no greater than
$400,000
in the aggregate.
On July 31, 2012, the provisions of the Amendment Period, as described above, expired as the Company did not exercise the extension provision to the Amendment Period of the revolving credit facility, as provided for in Amendment No. 2. As a result, the specific provisions, which had been modified pursuant to Amendment No. 2, reverted back to the original provisions of the revolving credit facility agreement prior to the Amendment Period.
During the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company borrowed
$1,691,000
,
$34,028,500
and
$0
under the revolving credit facility, respectively, and repaid advances of
$10,040,422
,
$25,679,078
and
$15,720,000
, respectively, during the same periods. The Company incurred interest of
$160,778
,
$1,532,426
and
$321,212
related to the facility during the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively, of which
$160,778
,
$764,286
and
$0
were capitalized pursuant to ASC 835-20, respectively, during the same periods. The Company also paid a commitment fee of
$0
,
$140,285
and
$0
, respectively, during the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
. There were
$0
and
$8,349,422
borrowings outstanding as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
The Company determines the fair value of the revolving credit facility in accordance with authoritative guidance related to fair value measurement. The Company has determined that as a result of the
60
-day termination notice provision of the revolving credit facility that requires payment of all outstanding balances upon notification by the lender (other observable inputs or level 3 inputs, as defined by the authoritative guidance), that the fair value of the revolving credit facility approximates the outstanding principal balance of the revolving credit facility at
December 31, 2012
and
December 31, 2011
.
On June 12, 2012, Zocalo Community Development, Inc. ("Zocalo"), the managing member of the joint venture ("JV 2020 Lawrence") formed with the Operating Partnership's subsidiary, BIR 2020 Lawrence, L.L.C. ("BIR 2020") and JB 2020, LLC, entered into a financing agreement with the State of Colorado (the "Colorado Energy Loan"), through the Colorado Energy Office, for
$1,250,000
to be used for inclusion of energy efficient components in the construction of JV 2020 Lawrence's multifamily apartment building ("2020 Lawrence Project"). The Colorado Energy Loan has a term of
10
years and an interest rate of
5%
per annum and a maturity date of
June 11, 2022
. Zocalo has pledged all of its membership interests, both currently owned and subsequently acquired, in JV 2020 Lawrence as collateral for the Colorado Energy Loan. Pursuant to an authorizing resolution adopted by the members of JV 2020 Lawrence, Zocalo advanced the proceeds of the Colorado Energy Loan, as received from time to time, to JV 2020 Lawrence for application to the 2020 Lawrence Project. Such advances to JV 2020 Lawrence will not be considered contributions of capital to JV 2020 Lawrence. Also, Zocalo is authorized and directed to cause JV 2020 Lawrence to repay such advances, including principal and interest, made by Zocalo at such times as required by the Colorado Energy Loan. Any payments pursuant to the authorizing resolution shall be payable only from surplus cash of the 2020 Lawrence Project as defined by HUD in the governing regulatory agreement of the primary financing on the project as described above. If surplus cash is not available to satisfy Zocalo's payment obligations under the Colorado Energy Loan, then either Zocalo or BIR 2020 may issue a funding notice, pursuant to the JV 2020 Lawrence limited liability company agreement, for payment obligation amounts due and payable. As of
December 31, 2012
, the outstanding balance on the Colorado Energy Loan was
$1,250,000
.
Combined aggregate principal maturities of note payable - other at
December 31, 2012
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
2013
|
$
|
—
|
|
2014
|
—
|
|
2015
|
18,545
|
|
2016
|
38,493
|
|
2017
|
40,442
|
|
Thereafter
|
1,152,520
|
|
|
$
|
1,250,000
|
|
Based on the fair value analysis using the same method as described in
Note 5 - Mortgage Notes Payable
, the Company has determined that the fair value of the note payable - other approximates
$1,357,000
and
$0
at
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
|
|
8.
|
DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND AND DISTRIBUTIONS
|
On March 25, 2003, the Board declared a dividend at an annual rate of
9%
, on the stated liquidation preference of
$25
per share of the outstanding Preferred Shares which is payable quarterly in arrears, on February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15 of each year to shareholders of record in the amount of $0.5625 per share per quarter. For the years ended
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, the Company's aggregate dividends totaled
$6,700,777
and
$6,700,763
, respectively, of which $837,607 were payable and included on the balance sheet in Dividends and Distributions Payable as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
For the year ended
December 31, 2011
, the Company did not declare a distribution to its common shareholders.
On November 6, 2012, the Board authorized the general partner of the Operating Partnership to make a special distribution of
$15,000,000
from the proceeds of the sale of Silver Hill and Arboretum to common general partner and noncontrolling interest partners in Operating Partnership, which was paid on November 7, 2012. On the same day, in respect of the special distribution to the common general partner, the Board declared a common dividend of
$0.254943
per share on the Company's Class B common stock. Concurrently with the Operating Partnership distributions, the common dividend was paid from the special distribution proceeds of the common general partner.
On December 19, 2012, the Board authorized the general partner of the Operating Partnership to make a special distribution of
$9,000,000
from the proceeds of the sale of Arrowhead and Moorings to common general partner and noncontrolling interest partners in Operating Partnership, which was paid on the same day. Also on December 19, 2012, the Board declared a common dividend of
$0.152966
per share on the Company's Class B common stock in respect to the special distribution to the common general partner. Concurrently with the Operating Partnership distributions, the common dividend was paid from the special distribution proceeds of the common general partner.
During the year ended
December 31, 2012
, the Company made tax payments of
$419,820
on behalf of the noncontrolling interest partners in Operating Partnership as required by the taxing authorities of the jurisdictions in which the Company owns and operates properties, in addition to
$1,300,000
of tax distributions to the noncontrolling interest partners in Operating Partnership related to the sale of Glo. The payments were treated as distributions attributable to the noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership and are reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Deficit.
There was no dividend payable outstanding at
December 31, 2012
or
December 31, 2011
. The Company's policy is to provide for common distributions is based on available cash and Board approval.
Holders of the Company's stock receiving distributions are subject to tax on the dividends received and must report those dividends as either ordinary income, capital gains, or non-taxable return of capital.
The Company paid
$2.25
of distributions per preferred share (CUSIP 84690205) and
$0.407909
of distribution per Class B common share, which is not publicly traded, during the year ended
December 31, 2012
. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 857 (b)(3)(C), for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company determined the taxable composition of the following cash distributions as set forth in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Year Ended December 31,
|
|
Dividend
2012
|
|
%
2012
|
|
Dividend
2011
|
|
%
2011
|
|
Dividend
2010
|
|
%
2010
|
Preferred Stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable ordinary dividend paid per share
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
2.17
|
|
|
96.3
|
%
|
Taxable capital gain dividend paid per share
|
2.25
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
Non-taxable distributions paid per share
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
0.08
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
Total
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable ordinary dividend paid per share
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
Taxable capital gain dividend paid per share
|
0.407909
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
Non-taxable distributions paid per share
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
Total
|
$
|
0.407909
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
%
|
Refer to
Note 2 - Significant Accounting Policies
for additional information regarding the tax status of the Company.
Net income (loss) per common share, basic and diluted, is computed as net income (loss) available to common shareholders divided by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the applicable period, basic and diluted.
The reconciliation of the basic and diluted earnings per common share for the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
Net loss from continuing operations
|
$
|
(13,047,628
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,596,950
|
)
|
|
$
|
(25,243,756
|
)
|
Add:
|
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest in properties
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
18,981
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
|
—
|
|
|
10,819,718
|
|
|
31,633,734
|
|
Less:
|
Preferred dividends
|
(6,700,777
|
)
|
|
(6,700,763
|
)
|
|
(6,700,765
|
)
|
|
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest in properties
|
(9,797,304
|
)
|
|
(6,306,178
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
|
(12,223,771
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Loss from continuing operations attributable to the Company
|
$
|
(41,769,480
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,784,173
|
)
|
|
$
|
(291,806
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) from discontinued operations attributable to the Company
|
$
|
42,068,782
|
|
|
$
|
24,519,249
|
|
|
$
|
(482,755
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
|
$
|
299,302
|
|
|
$
|
(264,924
|
)
|
|
$
|
(774,561
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss from continuing operations attributable to the Company per common share, basic and diluted
|
$
|
(29.71
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17.63
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.21
|
)
|
Net income (loss) from discontinued operations attributable to the Company per common share, basic and diluted
|
$
|
29.92
|
|
|
$
|
17.44
|
|
|
$
|
(0.34
|
)
|
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders per common share, basic and diluted
|
$
|
0.21
|
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.55
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
For the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company did not have any common stock equivalents; therefore basic and dilutive earnings per share were the same.
|
|
10.
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|
The Company is party to certain legal actions arising in the ordinary course of its business, such as those relating to tenant issues. All such proceedings taken together are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. While the resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the final outcome of such legal proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, financial position or results of operations.
On November 12, 2009, the Audit Committee and the Board approved an amendment to the Advisory Services Agreement (the "Advisory Services Amendment") with Berkshire Advisor which included a variable incentive fee component to the existing asset management fees paid to Berkshire Advisor. The Advisory Services Amendment, which was effective as of January 1, 2010, provides for the incentive advisory fee which is based on the increase in fair value of the Company, as calculated and approved by management, over the base value established as of December 31, 2009 ("Base Value") and requires the Company to accrue incentive advisory fees payable to Berkshire Advisor up to 12% of the increase in value of the Company above the established Base Value. Refer to
Note 13 - Related Party Transactions
on page 79 for further discussion.
The Company has made commitments to three joint venture multifamily development projects as of
December 31, 2012
and
December 31, 2011
. The 2020 Lawrence Project is to construct a
231
-unit (unaudited) mid-rise multifamily apartment building in Denver, Colorado. The Company has a
91.08%
interest in the joint venture and has made a commitment to invest
$8.0 million
to the 2020 Lawrence Project. As of
December 31, 2012
, the Company has made capital contributions totaling approximately
$7.1 million
. The Company consolidates its investment in the 2020 Lawrence Project.
The NoMa Project is to construct a
603
-unit (unaudited) mid-rise multifamily apartment building in Washington, D.C. The Company has a
30%
interest in the joint venture and has made a commitment to invest approximately
$14.5 million
to the project. As of
December 31, 2012
, the Company has invested
100%
of its total committed capital amount. The Company accounts for its investment in the NoMa Project as an equity method investment.
The Walnut Creek Project is to construct a
154
-unit (unaudited) apartment building in Walnut Creek, California. The Company will own a
98%
interest in the project once fully committed and its commitment to the joint venture is approximately
$16.9 million
. As of
December 31, 2012
, the Company has made capital contributions totaling approximately
$716,000
. The Company consolidates its investment in the Walnut Creek Project.
Business Risks and Uncertainties
Though the United States economy continues to be challenged by the high unemployment rate, slow but reasonably steady growth is still seen in many parts of the economy. The multifamily sector continues to exhibit strong fundamentals and improved performance on a national basis, evidenced by improved occupancy levels and increases in effective rents. These improvements are due, in large part, to favorable supply and demand dynamics, as construction of new apartment units and single family homes has decreased significantly, home ownership has declined, and the home buying market has weakened due to stricter mortgage qualification standards and declining home values.
Credit worthy borrowers in the multifamily sector continue to be able to access capital through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other sources, at historically low interest rates. Though there is no assurance that under existing or future regulatory restrictions this source of capital, unique to multifamily borrowers, will continue to be available.
The Company continues to believe that projected demographic trends will favor the multifamily sector, driven primarily by the continued flow of echo boomers (children of baby boomers, age 20 to 29), the fastest growing segment of the population, and an increasing number of immigrants who are often renters by necessity. In many cases, the current economic climate has delayed many potential residents from entering the rental market as many have chosen to remain at home or to share rental units instead of renting their own space. This trend may be creating a backlog of potential residents who will enter the market as the economy begins to rebound and unemployment rates begin to trend back to historical norms. The Company's properties are generally located in markets where zoning restrictions, scarcity of land and high construction costs create significant barriers to new development. The Company believes it is well positioned to manage its portfolio through the remainder of this economic downturn and is prepared to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves during such times.
|
|
11
.
|
DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
|
ASC 815-10 amends and expands the disclosure requirements of ASC 815-10 with the intent to provide users of financial statements with an enhanced understanding of: (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under ASC 815-10 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity's financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. ASC 815-10 requires qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about the fair value of and gains and losses on derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative instruments. ASC 815-10, as amended and interpreted, establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, and for hedging activities. As required by ASC 815-10, derivatives are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value. The accounting for changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the intended use of the derivative and the resulting designation. Derivatives used to hedge the exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset, liability, or firm commitment attributable to a particular risk, such as interest rate risk, are considered fair value hedges. Derivatives used to hedge the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows, or other types of forecasted transactions, are considered cash flow hedges.
For derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of changes in the fair value of the derivative is initially reported in other comprehensive income (outside of earnings) and subsequently reclassified to earnings when the hedged transaction affects earnings, and the ineffective portion of changes in the fair value of the derivative is recognized directly in earnings. Hedge ineffectiveness is measured by comparing the changes in fair value or cash flows of the derivative hedging instrument with the changes in fair value or cash flows of the designated hedged item or transaction. For derivatives not designated as hedges, changes in fair value are recognized in earnings.
We do not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes. When viewed in conjunction with the underlying and offsetting exposure that the derivatives are designed to hedge, we have not sustained a material loss from these hedges. We have utilized interest rate caps to add stability to interest expense, to manage our exposure to interest rate movements and as required by our lenders when entering into variable interest mortgage debt. Interest rate caps designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable-rate amounts if interest rates rise above a certain level in exchange for an upfront premium.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we acquired an interest rate cap through our investment in JV BIR/Holland. The derivative instrument was obtained as a requirement by the lender under the terms of the financing and limits increases in interest costs of the variable rate debt. The interest rate cap was assumed by the buyer of the Glo property on December 22, 2011.
The Company did not own any derivative instruments as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
.
|
|
12.
|
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST IN OPERATING PARTNERSHIP
|
The following table sets forth the calculation of net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership for the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended December 31,
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
Net income (loss)
|
$
|
29,021,154
|
|
|
$
|
1,922,299
|
|
|
$
|
(25,726,511
|
)
|
Adjust: Noncontrolling common interest in properties
|
(9,797,304
|
)
|
|
(6,306,178
|
)
|
|
18,981
|
|
Income (loss) before noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
|
19,223,850
|
|
|
(4,383,879
|
)
|
|
(25,707,530
|
)
|
Preferred dividend
|
(6,700,777
|
)
|
|
(6,700,763
|
)
|
|
(6,700,765
|
)
|
Income (loss) available to common equity
|
12,523,073
|
|
|
(11,084,642
|
)
|
|
(32,408,295
|
)
|
Noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
|
97.61
|
%
|
|
97.61
|
%
|
|
97.61
|
%
|
Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
|
$
|
12,223,771
|
|
|
$
|
(10,819,718
|
)
|
|
$
|
(31,633,734
|
)
|
The following table sets forth a summary of the items affecting the noncontrolling interest in the Operating Partnership:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended
December 31,
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
Balance at beginning of period
|
$
|
(76,785,818
|
)
|
|
$
|
(65,806,083
|
)
|
Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
|
12,223,771
|
|
|
(10,819,718
|
)
|
Distributions to noncontrolling interest partners in Operating Partnership
|
(25,146,220
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
Syndication costs allocated to noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership
|
—
|
|
|
(160,017
|
)
|
Balance at end of period
|
$
|
(89,708,267
|
)
|
|
$
|
(76,785,818
|
)
|
As of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, noncontrolling interest in Operating Partnership consisted of 5,242,223 Operating Partnership units held by parties other than the Company.
|
|
13.
|
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
|
The Company generally pays property management fees to an affiliate for property management services. The fees are payable at a rate of 4% of gross income.
The Company pays asset management fees to an affiliate, Berkshire Advisor, for asset management services. These fees are payable quarterly, in arrears, and may be paid only after all distributions currently payable on the Company's Preferred Shares have been paid. Effective April 4, 2003, under the Advisory Services Agreement, the Company will pay Berkshire Advisor an annual asset management fee equal to
0.40%
, up to a maximum of
$1,600,000
in any calendar year, as per an amendment to management agreement, of the purchase price of real estate properties owned by the Company, as adjusted from time to time to reflect the then current fair market value of the properties. The purchase price is defined as the capitalized basis of an asset under GAAP, including renovation or new construction costs, or other items paid or received that would be considered an adjustment to basis. Annual asset management fees earned by the affiliate in excess of the
$1,600,000
maximum payable by the Company represent fees incurred and paid by the noncontrolling partners in the properties. In addition to the fixed fee, effective January 1, 2010, the Company may also pay Berkshire Property Advisor an incentive advisory fee based on increases in value of the Company, as explained below, that would not be subject to the
$1,600,000
maximum.
The Company also reimburses affiliates for certain expenses incurred in connection with the operation of the properties, including administrative expenses and salary reimbursements.
On November 12, 2009, the Audit Committee and the Board approved the Advisory Services Amendment with Berkshire Advisor which included a variable incentive fee component to the existing asset management fees paid to Berkshire Advisor. The Advisory Services Amendment, which was effective January 1, 2010, provides for the incentive advisory fee which is based on the increase in fair value of the Company, as calculated and approved by management, over the Base Value. The Company is required to accrue incentive advisory fees payable to Berkshire Advisor up to
12%
of the increase in fair value of the Company above the established Base Value. The Company has recorded
$3,113,100
,
$1,696,485
and
$2,207,795
of incentive advisory fees during the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. As of
December 31, 2012
and
December 31, 2011
, the accrued liability of
$6,634,261
and
$3,904,280
, respectively, was included in "Due to affiliate, incentive advisory fees" on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Payments from the plan will approximate the amounts Berkshire Advisor pays to its employees. Payments to employees by Berkshire Advisor pursuant to the plan are generally paid over a four-year period in quarterly installments. Additional limits have been placed on the total amount of payments that can be made by the Company in any given year, with interest accruing at the rate of 7% on any payments due but not yet paid. The Company made
$383,119
,
$0
and
$0
of incentive advisory fee payments during the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively.
The Company pays acquisition fees to an affiliate, Berkshire Advisor, for acquisition services. These fees are payable upon the closing of an acquisition of real property. The fee is equal to
1%
of the purchase price of any new property acquired directly or indirectly by the Company. The purchase price is defined as the capitalized basis of an asset under GAAP, including renovations or new construction costs, or other items paid or received that would be considered an adjustment to basis. The purchase price does not include acquisition fees and capital costs of a recurring nature. The Company paid a fee on the acquisitions of Estancia Townhomes in 2011. Pursuant to the Company's adoption of ASC 805-10 as of January 1, 2009, the acquisition fee was charged to operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2011.
During the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company incurred acquisition fees on the following acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition Fees
|
Acquisition
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estancia Townhomes
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
420,000
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
420,000
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
The Company pays a construction management fee to an affiliate, Berkshire Advisor, for services related to the management and oversight of renovation and rehabilitation projects at its properties. The Company paid or accrued
$194,737
,
$288,859
and
$253,845
in construction management fees for the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively. The fees are capitalized as part of the project cost in the year they are incurred.
The Company pays development fees to an affiliate, Berkshire Residential Development, L.L.C. ("BRD"), for property development services. During the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company has incurred fees totaling
$278,820
,
$209,115
and
$0
, respectively on the 2020 Lawrence Project. As of
December 31, 2012
,
$487,935
has been paid to BRD and construction is ongoing. The Company did not incur any development fees on the Walnut Creek Project and NoMa Project to BRD.
Amounts accrued or paid to the Company's affiliates for the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
Property management fees
|
$
|
3,448,399
|
|
|
$
|
3,292,761
|
|
|
$
|
3,052,447
|
|
Expense reimbursements
|
180,758
|
|
|
213,300
|
|
|
210,000
|
|
Salary reimbursements
|
9,749,185
|
|
|
9,820,522
|
|
|
9,700,806
|
|
Asset management fees
|
1,649,259
|
|
|
1,649,259
|
|
|
1,649,259
|
|
Incentive advisory fee
|
3,113,100
|
|
|
1,696,485
|
|
|
2,207,795
|
|
Acquisition fees
|
—
|
|
|
420,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
Construction management fees
|
194,737
|
|
|
288,859
|
|
|
253,845
|
|
Development fees
|
278,820
|
|
|
209,115
|
|
|
—
|
|
Interest on revolving credit facility
|
160,778
|
|
|
1,532,426
|
|
|
321,212
|
|
Commitment fee on revolving credit facility
|
—
|
|
|
140,285
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total
|
$
|
18,775,036
|
|
|
$
|
19,263,012
|
|
|
$
|
17,395,364
|
|
Amounts due to affiliates of
$3,446,460
and
$1,245,147
are included in "Due to affiliates, net" at
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively, and represent intercompany development fees, expense reimbursements, asset management fees and shared services,
which are consisted of amounts due to affiliates of
$6,505,338
and
$4,405,705
at
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively, and amounts due from affiliates of
$3,058,878
and
$3,160,558
at
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
During 2010, the Company identified an error in its previously reported consolidated financial statements related to its 2009 accrual of the bonus expense which was understated by
$205,983
. The Company has concluded that the impact of this error to the prior periods and to the year ended December 31, 2010 is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements and has recorded the additional bonus expense in 2010. Had this error been recorded in the proper periods, the impact of the adjustment on 2010 would have been a decrease in operating expenses and net loss of
$205,983
.
During the year ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company borrowed
$1,691,000
,
$34,028,500
and
$0
, respectively, under the revolving credit facility, and repaid advances of
$10,040,422
,
$25,679,078
and
$15,720,000
, respectively, during the same periods. The Company incurred interest of
$160,778
,
$1,532,426
and
$321,212
related to the credit facility during the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively, of which
$160,778
,
$764,286
and
$0
were capitalized pursuant to ASC 835-20, respectively, during the same periods. The Company also paid a commitment fee of
$0
,
$140,285
and
$0
, respectively, during the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
. There were
$0
and
$8,349,422
borrowings outstanding as of
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, respectively.
In addition to the fees listed above, the unconsolidated multifamily entities paid or accrued construction management fees of $
783,248
,
$578,979
and
$525,252
, property management fees of
$5,348,359
,
$5,699,984
and
$5,764,238
and asset management fees of
$4,008,469
,
$4,371,676
and
$4,480,969
to Berkshire Advisor during 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Related party arrangements are approved by the Independent Directors of the Company and are evidenced by a written agreement between the Company and the affiliated entity providing the services.
|
|
14.
|
SELECTED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
|
The operating results have been revised to reflect the sale of Glo in 2011 and Arboretum, Arrowhead, Moorings, Riverbirch and Silver Hill in 2012. The operating results for all quarters have been reclassed to discontinued operations to provide comparable information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012 Quarter Ended
|
|
March 31,
|
|
June 30,
|
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
$
|
19,413,553
|
|
|
$
|
19,660,190
|
|
|
$
|
19,922,042
|
|
|
$
|
19,959,763
|
|
Loss before equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities
|
(4,765,332
|
)
|
|
(2,750,348
|
)
|
|
(2,212,657
|
)
|
|
(3,050,370
|
)
|
Net loss from continuing operations
|
(3,642,521
|
)
|
|
(3,465,920
|
)
|
|
(2,865,767
|
)
|
|
(3,073,420
|
)
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
(934,846
|
)
|
|
150,429
|
|
|
163,415
|
|
|
(893,081
|
)
|
Gain on disposition of real estate assets
|
6,589,323
|
|
|
32,887
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
36,960,655
|
|
Net income from discontinued operations
|
5,654,477
|
|
|
183,316
|
|
|
163,415
|
|
|
36,067,574
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
2,011,956
|
|
|
(3,282,604
|
)
|
|
(2,702,352
|
)
|
|
32,994,154
|
|
Preferred dividend
|
(1,675,194
|
)
|
|
(1,675,195
|
)
|
|
(1,675,194
|
)
|
|
(1,675,194
|
)
|
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
|
$
|
5,945
|
|
|
$
|
(121,605
|
)
|
|
$
|
(107,675
|
)
|
|
$
|
522,637
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss from continuing operations attributable to the Company
|
$
|
(4.02
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.20
|
)
|
|
$
|
(25.28
|
)
|
Net income from discontinued operations attributable to the Company
|
4.02
|
|
|
0.13
|
|
|
0.12
|
|
|
25.65
|
|
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(0.09
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 Quarter Ended
|
|
March 31,
|
|
June 30,
|
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
$
|
18,102,226
|
|
|
$
|
18,739,417
|
|
|
$
|
18,958,812
|
|
|
$
|
19,063,439
|
|
Loss before equity in loss of unconsolidated multifamily entities
|
(5,684,857
|
)
|
|
(4,638,980
|
)
|
|
(4,728,389
|
)
|
|
(4,114,709
|
)
|
Net loss from continuing operations
|
(7,021,683
|
)
|
|
(5,134,732
|
)
|
|
(5,530,406
|
)
|
|
(4,910,129
|
)
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
368,584
|
|
|
232,680
|
|
|
140,109
|
|
|
(139,071
|
)
|
Gain on disposition of real estate assets
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
23,916,947
|
|
Net income from discontinued operations
|
368,584
|
|
|
232,680
|
|
|
140,109
|
|
|
23,777,876
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
(6,653,099
|
)
|
|
(4,902,052
|
)
|
|
(5,390,297
|
)
|
|
18,867,747
|
|
Preferred dividend
|
(1,675,187
|
)
|
|
(1,675,187
|
)
|
|
(1,675,195
|
)
|
|
(1,675,194
|
)
|
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
|
$
|
(199,479
|
)
|
|
$
|
(159,604
|
)
|
|
$
|
(170,975
|
)
|
|
$
|
265,134
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss from continuing operations attributable to the Company
|
$
|
(0.40
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.28
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(16.72
|
)
|
Net income from discontinued operations attributable to the Company
|
0.26
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
|
16.91
|
|
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.11
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.12
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
1,406,196
|
|
|
|
15.
|
PROFORMA CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
|
During the years ended
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, the Company did not acquire any properties deemed to be individually significant in accordance with Regulation S-X, Rule 3-14 "Special Instructions for Real Estate Operations to be Acquired".
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries acquired interests in Estancia Townhomes during 2011. The following unaudited proforma information was prepared as if the 2011 transaction related to the acquisition of Estancia Townhomes occurred as of January 1, 2010. The proforma financial information is based upon the historical consolidated financial statements and is not necessarily indicative of the consolidated results which actually would have occurred if the transactions had been consummated at January 1, 2010, nor does it purport to represent the results of operations for future periods. Adjustments to the proforma financial information for the year ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 consist principally of providing net operating activity and recording interest, depreciation and amortization from January 1, 2010 to the acquisition date as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
(unaudited)
|
Revenues from rental property
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
85,047,184
|
|
|
$
|
81,636,004
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,801,350
|
|
|
$
|
(27,015,145
|
)
|
Net loss attributable to common shareholders
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(385,873
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,063,194
|
)
|
Net loss attributable to common shareholders, per common share, basic and diluted
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(0.27
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.47
|
)
|
Included in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2011 are total revenues of
$4,085,255
and net loss of
$(1,700,169)
since the respective date of acquisition through December 31, 2011 for Estancia Townhomes.
|
|
16.
|
DISCLOSURES ABOUT FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
|
The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of financial instruments:
Cash and cash equivalents
For those cash equivalents with maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition, the carrying amount of the investment is a reasonable estimate of fair value.
Mortgage notes payable and note payable - other
Market fixed rate mortgage notes payable - For fixed rate mortgages that have been obtained in the open market, the fair value is based on the borrowing rates currently available to the Company with similar terms and average maturities. The Company's carrying and estimated fair value amounts of the mortgages are disclosed in
Note 5 - Mortgage Notes Payable
and
Note 7 - Note Payable - Other
.
Assumed fixed rate mortgage notes payable - For fixed rate mortgage notes payable that the Company has assumed as part of various property acquisitions, the net present value of future cash flows method was used to determine the fair value of the liabilities when recorded by the Company. At
December 31, 2012
and
2011
, the carrying amount is the fair value of the assumed mortgage notes payable less any principal amortization, plus amortization of fair value adjustment since assumption.
The Company and our properties are not subject to any other material pending legal proceedings and we are not aware of any such proceedings contemplated by governmental authorities.
On February 6, 2013, the Company borrowed
$1,627,000
on the revolving credit facility available from an affiliate. The proceeds of the borrowing were used to fund the ongoing development activities of the Company.
BERKSHIRE INCOME REALTY, INC
.
SCHEDULE III - REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
AS OF
December 31, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
Encumbrances
|
|
Initial Costs Buildings and Land
|
|
Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition
|
|
Total Costs at December 31, 2012
|
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
|
Total Cost
Net of Accumulated Depreciation
|
|
Year Acquired
|
|
Depreciable Lives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berkshire of Columbia
|
|
$
|
33,030,888
|
|
|
$
|
13,320,965
|
|
|
$
|
11,173,121
|
|
|
$
|
24,494,086
|
|
|
$
|
17,608,845
|
|
|
$
|
6,885,241
|
|
|
1983
|
|
|
(1)
|
Seasons of Laurel
|
|
99,200,000
|
|
|
63,083,489
|
|
|
29,701,683
|
|
|
92,785,172
|
|
|
66,767,661
|
|
|
26,017,511
|
|
|
1985
|
|
|
(1)
|
Walden Pond (3)
|
|
10,588,183
|
|
|
21,285,902
|
|
|
2,319,825
|
|
|
23,605,727
|
|
|
15,538,494
|
|
|
8,067,233
|
|
|
1983
|
|
|
(1)
|
Gables of Texas (3)
|
|
4,448,289
|
|
|
7,071,351
|
|
|
1,038,703
|
|
|
8,110,054
|
|
|
3,476,334
|
|
|
4,633,720
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
(1)
|
Laurel Woods
|
|
5,610,778
|
|
|
5,216,275
|
|
|
1,243,632
|
|
|
6,459,907
|
|
|
2,574,511
|
|
|
3,885,396
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
(1)
|
Bear Creek
|
|
3,749,028
|
|
|
4,845,550
|
|
|
1,240,320
|
|
|
6,085,870
|
|
|
2,570,952
|
|
|
3,514,918
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
(1)
|
Bridgewater
|
|
12,878,110
|
|
|
18,922,831
|
|
|
1,281,790
|
|
|
20,204,621
|
|
|
7,074,712
|
|
|
13,129,909
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
(1)
|
Reserves at Arboretum
|
|
12,661,729
|
|
|
1,529,123
|
|
|
17,204,243
|
|
|
18,733,366
|
|
|
2,964,158
|
|
|
15,769,208
|
|
|
2009
|
(2)
|
|
(1)
|
Country Place I
|
|
13,922,538
|
|
|
13,844,787
|
|
|
2,403,159
|
|
|
16,247,946
|
|
|
5,772,587
|
|
|
10,475,359
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
(1)
|
Country Place II
|
|
9,057,284
|
|
|
8,657,461
|
|
|
1,492,614
|
|
|
10,150,075
|
|
|
3,827,219
|
|
|
6,322,856
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
(1)
|
Yorktowne
|
|
21,198,583
|
|
|
21,616,443
|
|
|
8,242,145
|
|
|
29,858,588
|
|
|
12,762,248
|
|
|
17,096,340
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
(1)
|
Berkshires on Brompton
|
|
18,563,736
|
|
|
14,500,528
|
|
|
8,744,807
|
|
|
23,245,335
|
|
|
11,458,483
|
|
|
11,786,852
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
(1)
|
Lakeridge
|
|
23,537,131
|
|
|
34,411,075
|
|
|
2,109,628
|
|
|
36,520,703
|
|
|
11,661,708
|
|
|
24,858,995
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
(1)
|
Berkshires at Citrus Park
|
|
15,921,808
|
|
|
27,601,083
|
|
|
1,680,934
|
|
|
29,282,017
|
|
|
9,476,911
|
|
|
19,805,106
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
(1)
|
Briarwood Village
|
|
12,904,504
|
|
|
13,929,396
|
|
|
2,758,248
|
|
|
16,687,644
|
|
|
5,676,746
|
|
|
11,010,898
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(1)
|
Chisholm Place
|
|
6,853,211
|
|
|
9,600,527
|
|
|
2,346,922
|
|
|
11,947,449
|
|
|
4,338,859
|
|
|
7,608,590
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(1)
|
Berkshires at Lenox Park
|
|
34,553,897
|
|
|
47,040,404
|
|
|
7,854,151
|
|
|
54,894,555
|
|
|
18,080,447
|
|
|
36,814,108
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(1)
|
Berkshires at Town Center
|
|
19,865,277
|
|
|
20,254,316
|
|
|
13,561,397
|
|
|
33,815,713
|
|
|
12,355,640
|
|
|
21,460,073
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(1)
|
Sunfield Lakes
|
|
19,388,268
|
|
|
23,870,680
|
|
|
2,506,529
|
|
|
26,377,209
|
|
|
7,109,397
|
|
|
19,267,812
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(1)
|
Executive House
|
|
29,219,767
|
|
|
50,205,199
|
|
|
3,097,409
|
|
|
53,302,608
|
|
|
10,757,188
|
|
|
42,545,420
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(1)
|
Estancia Townhomes
|
|
28,340,552
|
|
|
41,394,920
|
|
|
797,144
|
|
|
42,192,064
|
|
|
3,972,652
|
|
|
38,219,412
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(1)
|
2020 Lawrence
|
|
42,692,437
|
|
|
7,472,054
|
|
|
44,824,374
|
|
|
52,296,428
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
52,296,428
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(1)
|
Walnut Creek
|
|
—
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
|
1,177,719
|
|
|
1,527,719
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,527,719
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(1)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
478,185,998
|
|
|
$
|
470,024,359
|
|
|
$
|
168,800,497
|
|
|
$
|
638,824,856
|
|
|
$
|
235,825,752
|
|
|
$
|
402,999,104
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Depreciation of buildings are calculated over useful lives ranging from 25 to 27.5 years and depreciation of improvements are calculated over useful lives ranging from 5 to 20 years.
|
|
|
(2)
|
Property was acquired as raw land in 2004. Development of the multifamily apartment community on the land was completed and fully leased during the year ended December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
(3)
|
Walden Pond and Gables of Texas are operated as one property.
|
A summary of activity for real estate and accumulated depreciation is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real Estate
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
650,262,329
|
|
|
$
|
619,577,347
|
|
|
$
|
610,702,698
|
|
Acquisitions and improvements
|
|
40,507,577
|
|
|
73,808,067
|
|
|
8,993,814
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
(51,945,050
|
)
|
|
(43,123,085
|
)
|
|
(119,165
|
)
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
$
|
638,824,856
|
|
|
$
|
650,262,329
|
|
|
$
|
619,577,347
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
227,600,092
|
|
|
$
|
200,045,487
|
|
|
168,718,977
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
27,484,139
|
|
|
31,312,085
|
|
|
31,326,510
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
(19,258,479
|
)
|
|
(3,757,480
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
$
|
235,825,752
|
|
|
$
|
227,600,092
|
|
|
$
|
200,045,487
|
|
The aggregate cost of the Company's multifamily apartment communities for federal income tax purposes was
$449,001,683
,
$490,584,110
and
$487,726,557
as of
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively and the aggregate accumulated depreciation for federal income tax purposes was
$147,915,604
,
$146,027,581
and
$131,138,618
as of
December 31, 2012
,
2011
and
2010
, respectively.