Use these links to rapidly review the document
Table of Contents Form 10-K
CORPORATE OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST AND SUBSIDIARIES INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark one) | ||
ý |
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 |
||
or |
||
o |
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|
For the transition period from to |
Commission file number 1-14023
Corporate Office Properties Trust
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Maryland | 23-2947217 | |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
(IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|
6711 Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 300 Columbia, MD |
21046 |
|
(Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code) |
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (443) 285-5400
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
(Title of Each Class) | (Name of Exchange on Which Registered) | |
---|---|---|
Common Shares of beneficial interest, $0.01 par value | New York Stock Exchange | |
Series G Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Shares of beneficial interest, $0.01 par value | New York Stock Exchange | |
Series H Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Shares of beneficial interest, $0.01 par value | New York Stock Exchange | |
Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Shares of beneficial interest, $0.01 par value | New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ý Yes o No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. o Yes ý No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. ý Yes o No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). ý Yes o No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ý
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One):
Large accelerated filer ý | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
Smaller reporting company o |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.) o Yes ý No
The aggregate market value of the voting and nonvoting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $2.2 billion, as calculated using the closing price of the common shares of beneficial interest on the New York Stock Exchange and our outstanding shares as of June 30, 2011. For purposes of calculating this amount only, affiliates are defined as Trustees, executive owners and beneficial owners of more than 10% of the registrant's outstanding common shares of beneficial interest, $0.01 par value. At January 27, 2012, 72,019,987 of the registrant's common shares of beneficial interest were outstanding.
Portions of the annual shareholders' report of the registrant for the year ended December 31, 2011 are incorporated by reference into Parts I and II of this Form 10-K and portions of the proxy statement of the registrant for its 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.
2
This Form 10-K contains "forward-looking" statements, as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that are based on our current expectations, estimates and projections about future events and financial trends affecting the financial condition and operations of our business. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may," "will," "should," "could," "believe," "anticipate," "expect," "estimate," "plan" or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which we cannot predict with accuracy and some of which we might not even anticipate. Although we believe that the expectations, estimates and projections reflected in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions at the time made, we can give no assurance that these expectations, estimates and projections will be achieved. Future events and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Important factors that may affect these expectations, estimates and projections include, but are not limited to:
For further information on factors that could affect the company and the statements contained herein, you should refer to the section below entitled "Item 1A. Risk Factors." We undertake no obligation to update or supplement forward-looking statements.
3
OUR COMPANY
General. We are an office real estate investment trust ("REIT") that focuses primarily on serving the specialized requirements of strategic customers in the United States Government and defense information technology sectors. We acquire, develop, manage and lease office and data center properties that are typically concentrated in large office parks primarily located adjacent to government demand drivers and/or in office markets that we believe possess growth opportunities. As of December 31, 2011, our investments in real estate included the following:
We conduct almost all of our operations through our operating partnership, Corporate Office Properties, L.P. (the "Operating Partnership"), a Delaware limited partnership, of which we are the managing general partner. The Operating Partnership owns real estate both directly and through subsidiary partnerships and limited liability companies ("LLCs"). The Operating Partnership also owns 100% of a number of entities that provide real estate services such as property management, construction and development services primarily for our properties but also for third parties.
Interests in our Operating Partnership are in the form of common and preferred units. As of December 31, 2011, we owned 94.4% of the outstanding common units and 95.8% of the outstanding preferred units in our Operating Partnership. The remaining common and preferred units in our Operating Partnership were owned by third parties, which included certain of our Trustees.
We believe that we are organized and have operated in a manner that permits us to satisfy the requirements for taxation as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and we intend to continue to operate in such a manner. Provided we continue to qualify for taxation as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to Federal income tax on our taxable income that is distributed to our shareholders. A REIT is subject to a number of organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement that it distribute to its shareholders at least 90% of its annual taxable income (excluding net capital gains).
Our executive offices are located at 6711 Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 300, Columbia, Maryland 21046 and our telephone number is (443) 285-5400.
Our Internet address is www.copt.com. We make available on our Internet website free of charge our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") as soon as reasonably possible after we file such material with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). In addition, we have made available on our Internet website under the heading "Corporate Governance" the charters for our Board of Trustees' Audit, Nominating and Corporate Governance, Compensation and Investment Committees, as well as our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
4
and Code of Ethics for Financial Officers. We intend to make available on our website any future amendments or waivers to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Code of Ethics for Financial Officers within four business days after any such amendments or waivers. The information on our Internet site is not part of this report.
The SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. This Internet website can be accessed at www.sec.gov. The public may also read and copy paper filings that we have made with the SEC at the SEC's Public Reference Room, located at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling (800) SEC-0330.
Significant 2011 Developments
During 2011, we:
5
as CEO and as a member of our Board of Trustees effective April 1, 2012. We expect Mr. Griffin to continue to serve as a member of our Board of Trustees. We also appointed Stephen E. Budorick as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer effective September 29, 2011.
Business and Growth Strategies
Our primary objectives are to achieve sustainable long-term growth in results of operations and to maximize long-term shareholder value. This section sets forth key components of our business and growth strategies that we have in place to support these objectives.
Business Strategies
Customer Strategy: We believe that we differentiate ourselves by being a real estate company that does not view space in properties merely as a commodity. We focus on providing a level of service that exceeds customer expectations both in terms of the quality of the space we provide and our level of responsiveness to their needs. We believe that operating with such an emphasis on service enables us to be the landlord of choice with high quality customers and contributes to high levels of customer loyalty and retention.
Our focus on customers in the United States Government and defense information technology sectors is a key aspect of our customer strategy. A high percentage of our revenue is concentrated with these customers, and we expect to further increase this concentration level through our:
Market Strategy: We focus on owning properties where our tenants need to be, which in the case of the United States Government and defense information technology customers is mostly near government demand drivers. We also concentrate our operations in markets and submarkets that are located where we believe we already possess, or can effectively achieve, the critical mass necessary to maximize management efficiencies, operating synergies and competitive advantages through our acquisition, property management, leasing and development activities. The attributes we look for in selecting markets and submarkets include, among others: (1) proximity to large demand drivers; (2) strong demographics; (3) attractiveness to high quality tenants; (4) potential for growth and stability in economic down cycles; (5) future acquisition and development opportunities; and (6) minimal competition from other property owners. We typically focus on owning and operating office properties in large business parks located outside of central business districts. We believe that such parks generally attract long-term, high-quality tenants seeking to attract and retain quality work forces because they are typically situated along major transportation routes with easy access to support services, amenities and residential communities.
6
Capital Strategy: Our capital strategy is aimed at maintaining a flexible capital structure in order to facilitate growth and performance in the face of differing market conditions in the most cost-effective manner by:
Sustainability Strategy: We are focused on developing and operating our properties in a manner that minimizes global impact for the environment and have been committed to this effort since 2003. Our strategy includes:
We believe that our commitment to sustainability is evident in that as of December 31, 2011, we had 15 buildings certified LEED Gold, 13 buildings certified LEED Silver, two buildings certified LEED and three buildings certified LEED-EB, and all of our buildings that were under construction or redevelopment were registered in the LEED program. In addition, we had 18 professionals on staff who hold the LEED Accredited Professional designation at December 31, 2011. We believe that this strategy is important not just because our customers will demand it, but also because it is the right thing to do.
7
Growth Strategies
Acquisition and Property Development Strategy: We pursue acquisition and property development opportunities for properties that support our customer and market strategies discussed above. As a result, the focus of our acquisition and development activities includes properties that are either: (1) located near demand drivers that we believe are attractive to customers in the United States Government and defense information technology sectors or (2) located in markets or submarkets that we believe meet the criteria set forth above in our market strategy. We may also acquire or develop properties that do not align with our customer or market strategies but which we believe provide opportunity for favorable returns on investment given the associated risks.
We typically seek to make acquisitions at attractive yields and below replacement cost, or that otherwise meet our strategic objectives. We also seek to increase operating cash flow of certain acquisitions by repositioning the properties and capitalizing on existing below market leases and expansion opportunities. We pursue development activities as market conditions and leasing opportunities support favorable risk-adjusted returns on investment.
Disposition Strategy: In 2011, we implemented our Strategic Reallocation Plan to dispose of office properties and land that are no longer closely aligned with our strategy. We believe that the timely disposition of assets that no longer meet our strategic objectives is important for us to maximize our return on invested capital and be better positioned for long term growth.
Internal Growth Strategy: We aggressively manage our portfolio to maximize the operating performance of each property through: (1) proactive property management and leasing; (2) achieving operating efficiencies through increasing economies of scale and, where possible, aggregating vendor contracts to achieve volume pricing discounts; and (3) renewing tenant leases and re-tenanting at increased rents where market conditions permit.
Industry Segments
We operate in two primary industries: commercial office properties and our wholesale data center. We classify our properties containing data center space as commercial office real estate when tenants significantly funded the data center infrastructure costs. At December 31, 2011, our commercial office real estate operations were in geographical segments, as set forth below:
As of December 31, 2011, 203 of our office properties, or 83% of our square feet in operations, were located in the Greater Washington, DC/Baltimore region, which includes all the segments set forth
8
above except for San Antonio, Colorado Springs and Greater Philadelphia. Our wholesale data center, which is comprised of one property in Manassas, Virginia, is reported as a separate segment.
For information relating to our segments, you should refer to Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements, which is included in a separate section at the end of this Annual Report on Form 10-K beginning on page F-1.
Employees
As of December 31, 2011, we had 428 employees, none of whom were parties to collective bargaining agreements. We believe that our relations with our employees are good.
Competition
The commercial real estate market is highly competitive. Numerous commercial properties compete with our properties for tenants. Some of the properties competing with ours may be newer or in more desirable locations, or the competing properties' owners may be willing to accept lower rents than are acceptable to us. We also compete with our own tenants, many of whom have the right to sublease their space. The competitive environment for leasing is affected considerably by a number of factors including, among other things, changes in economic factors and supply of and demand for space. These factors may make it difficult for us to lease existing vacant space and space associated with future lease expirations at rental rates that are sufficient to meeting our short-term capital needs.
We also compete for the acquisition of commercial properties with many entities, including other publicly-traded commercial REITs. Many of our competitors for such acquisitions have substantially greater financial resources than ours. In addition, our competitors may be willing to accept lower returns on their investments. If our competitors prevent us from buying properties that we have targeted for acquisition, we may not be able to meet our property acquisition goals.
In addition, we also compete with other sellers of commercial properties for a limited number of buyers of properties. This competition could adversely affect our ability to complete property dispositions under the Strategic Reallocation Plan.
Set forth below are risks and uncertainties relating to our business and the ownership of our securities. You should carefully consider each of these risks and uncertainties and all of the information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and its Exhibits, including our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2011, which are included in a separate section at the end of this report beginning on page F-1.
Our performance and value are subject to risks associated with our properties and with the real estate industry. Real estate investments are subject to various risks and fluctuations in value and demand, many of which are beyond our control. Our economic performance and the value of our real estate assets may decline due to conditions in the general economy and the real estate business which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders. These conditions include, but are not limited to:
9
We may suffer adverse consequences as a result of adverse economic conditions. Our business may be affected by adverse economic conditions in the United States economy or real estate industry as a whole or by the local economic conditions in the markets in which our properties are located, including the impact of high unemployment and constrained credit. Adverse economic conditions could increase the likelihood of tenants encountering financial difficulties, including bankruptcy, insolvency or general downturn of business, and as a result could increase the likelihood of tenants defaulting in their lease obligations to us. Such conditions also could increase the likelihood of our being unsuccessful in renewing tenants, renewing tenants on terms less favorable to us or being unable to lease newly constructed properties. In addition, such conditions could increase the level of risk that we may not be able to obtain new financing for development activities, acquisitions, refinancing of existing debt or other capital requirements at reasonable terms, if at all. As a result, adverse economic conditions could collectively have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may suffer adverse consequences as a result of our reliance on rental revenues for our income. We earn revenue from renting our properties. Our operating costs do not necessarily fluctuate in relation to changes in our rental revenue. This means that our costs will not necessarily decline and may increase even if our revenues decline.
For new tenants or upon lease expiration for existing tenants, we generally must make improvements and pay other leasing costs for which we may not receive increased rents. We also make building-related capital improvements for which tenants may not reimburse us.
If our properties do not generate revenue sufficient to meeting our operating expenses and capital costs, we may have to borrow additional amounts to cover these costs. In such circumstances, we would likely have lower profits or possibly incur losses. We may also find in such circumstances that we are unable to borrow to cover such costs, in which case our operations could be adversely affected. Moreover, there may be less or no cash available for distributions to our shareholders.
10
In addition, the competitive environment for leasing is affected considerably by a number of factors including, among other things, changes due to economic factors such as supply and demand. These factors may make it difficult for us to lease existing vacant space and space associated with future lease expirations at rental rates that are sufficient to meeting our short-term capital needs.
We rely on the ability of our tenants to pay rent and would be harmed by their inability to do so. Our performance depends on the ability of our tenants to fulfill their lease obligations by paying their rental payments in a timely manner. If one or more of our major tenants, or a number of our smaller tenants, were to experience financial difficulties, including bankruptcy, insolvency, government shutdown, or general downturn of business, there could be an adverse effect on financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may be adversely affected by developments concerning some of our major tenants and sector concentrations, including shutdowns of the United States Government and actual, or potential, reductions in government spending targeting tenants in the United States Government and defense information technology sectors. As of December 31, 2011, our 20 largest tenants accounted for 60.3% of the total annualized rental revenue of our office properties, and the four largest of these tenants accounted for 65% of that total. We computed the annualized rental revenue by multiplying by 12 the sum of monthly contractual base rents and estimated monthly expense reimbursements under active leases in our portfolio of office properties as of December 31, 2011. Information regarding our four largest tenants is set forth below:
Tenant
|
Annualized Rental Revenue at December 31, 2011 |
Percentage of Total Annualized Rental Revenue of Office Properties |
Number of Leases |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|||||||
United States of America |
$ | 104,517 | 22.2 | % | 79 | |||||
Northrop Grumman Corporation(1) |
32,326 | 6.9 | % | 17 | ||||||
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. |
24,178 | 5.1 | % | 8 | ||||||
Computer Sciences Corporation(1) |
22,355 | 4.8 | % | 7 |
Most of our leases with the United States Government provide for a series of one-year terms or provide for early termination rights. The United States Government may terminate its leases if, among other reasons, the United States Congress fails to provide funding. If any of our four largest tenants fail to make rental payments to us, including as a result of a government shutdown, or if the United States Government elects to terminate some or all of its leases and the space cannot be re-leased on satisfactory terms, there would be an adverse effect on our financial performance and ability to make distributions to our shareholders.
As of December 31, 2011, our properties that were occupied primarily by tenants in the United States Government and defense information technology sectors accounted for 59.9% of the total annualized rental revenue of our office properties. We expect to increase our reliance on these sectors for revenue. A reduction in government spending targeting these sectors could affect the ability of these tenants to fulfill lease obligations, decrease the likelihood that these tenants will renew their leases or enter into new leases and limit our future growth from these sectors. Moreover, uncertainty regarding the potential for future reduction in government spending targeting these sectors could also decrease or delay leasing activity from tenants in these sectors. The Budget Control Act passed in 2011, which imposed caps on the Federal budget in order to achieve targeted spending levels over the 2013-2021 fiscal years, has fueled further uncertainty regarding future government spending reductions. A reduction in government spending targeting the United States Government and defense information technology sectors and/or uncertainty regarding the potential for future spending reductions could have
11
an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our shareholders.
We generally classify the revenue from our leases into this sector grouping based solely on our management's knowledge of the tenants' operations in leased space. Occasionally, classifications require subjective and complex judgments. We do not use independent sources such as Standard Industrial Classification codes for classifying our revenue into sector groupings and if we did, the resulting groupings would be materially different.
We may be unable to successfully execute plans to dispose of properties, such as our Strategic Reallocation Plan. In 2011, we implemented our Strategic Reallocation Plan to dispose of office properties and land that are no longer closely aligned with our strategy. We expect to complete the office property dispositions by the end of 2013 and use the proceeds to invest in properties that will serve customers in the United States Government, defense information technology and related data sectors, to repay borrowings and for general corporate purposes. Current economic conditions overall, and for suburban office properties in particular, could make it difficult for us to locate buyers for the properties on favorable terms, if at all. We also do not have significant experience in completing property disposition plans of the scale contemplated under the Strategic Reallocation Plan. Our failure to successfully execute the Strategic Reallocation Plan, and other similar property disposition plans, could adversely affect our ability to effectively execute our business strategy, which in turn could affect our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to shareholders.
We may suffer adverse consequences due to our inexperience in developing, managing and leasing wholesale data centers. We have significant experience in developing, managing and leasing single user data center space. However, we do not have the same depth and length of experience in relation to wholesale data centers, having acquired our one existing wholesale data center in 2010 and having completed no new leasing on that center through December 31, 2011. This may increase the likelihood of us being unsuccessful in executing our plans with respect to our existing wholesale data center or any such centers that we may acquire or develop in the future. If we are unsuccessful in executing our wholesale data center plans, it could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
Most of our properties are geographically concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic region, particularly in the Greater Washington, DC/Baltimore region, or in particular office parks. We may suffer economic harm in the event of a decline in the real estate market or general economic conditions in those regions or parks. Most of our properties are located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States and, as of December 31, 2011, our properties located in the Greater Washington, DC/Baltimore region accounted for a combined 84.7% of our total annualized rental revenue from office properties. Our properties are also typically concentrated in office parks in which we own most of the properties. Consequently, we do not have a broad geographic distribution of our properties. As a result, a decline in the real estate market or general economic conditions in the Mid-Atlantic region, the Greater Washington, DC region or the office parks in which our properties are located could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We would suffer economic harm if we were unable to renew our leases on favorable terms. When leases expire, our tenants may not renew or may renew on terms less favorable to us than the terms of their original leases. If a tenant vacates a property, we can expect to experience a vacancy for some period of time, as well as incur higher leasing costs than we would likely incur if a tenant renews. As a result, our financial performance and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders could be adversely affected if we experience a high volume of tenant departures at the end of their lease terms.
12
We may be adversely affected by trends in the office real estate industry. Some businesses are rapidly evolving to make employee telecommuting, flexible work schedules, open workplaces and teleconferencing increasingly common. These practices enable businesses to reduce their space requirements. A continuation of the movement towards these practices could over time erode the overall demand for office space and, in turn, place downward pressure on occupancy, rental rates and property valuations, each of which could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may encounter a decline in the value of our real estate. The value of our real estate could be adversely affected by general economic and market conditions connected to a specific property, a market or submarket, a broader economic region or the office real estate industry. Examples of such conditions include a broader economic recession, declining demand and decreases in market rental rates and/or market values of real estate assets. If our real estate assets decline in value, it could result in our recognition of impairment losses. Moreover, a decline in the value of our real estate could adversely affect the amount of borrowings available to us under credit facilities and other loans, which could, in turn, adversely affect our cash flows and financial condition.
We may not be able to compete successfully with other entities that operate in our industry. The commercial real estate market is highly competitive. We compete for the purchase of commercial property with many entities, including other publicly traded commercial REITs. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial resources than we do. If our competitors prevent us from buying properties that we target for acquisition, we may not be able to meet our property acquisition goals. Moreover, numerous commercial properties compete for tenants with our properties. Some of the properties competing with ours may be newer or in more desirable locations, or the competing properties' owners may be willing to accept lower rates than are acceptable to us. Competition for property acquisitions, or for tenants for properties that we own, could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We are dependent on external sources of capital for future growth. Because we are a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our annual taxable income to our shareholders. Due to this requirement, we are not able to significantly fund our acquisition, construction and development activities using cash flow from operations. Therefore, our ability to fund these activities is dependent on our ability to access capital funded by third parties. Such capital could be in the form of new debt, equity issuances of common shares, preferred shares, common and preferred units in our Operating Partnership or joint venture funding. These capital sources may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Moreover, additional debt financing may substantially increase our leverage and subject us to covenants that restrict management's flexibility in directing our operations, and additional equity offerings may result in substantial dilution of our shareholders' interests. Our inability to obtain capital when needed could have a material adverse effect on our ability to expand our business and fund other cash requirements.
We use our Revolving Credit Facility to initially finance much of our investing and financing activities. We also use other credit facilities to fund a significant portion of our construction activities. Our lenders under these and other facilities could, for financial hardship or other reasons, fail to honor their commitments to fund our requests for borrowings under these facilities. In the event that one or more lenders under these facilities are not able or willing to fund a borrowing request, it would adversely affect our ability to access borrowing capacity under these facilities, which would in turn adversely affect our financial condition, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may be unable to successfully execute our plans to acquire existing commercial real estate properties. We intend to acquire existing commercial real estate properties to the extent that suitable
13
acquisitions can be made on advantageous terms. Acquisitions of commercial properties entail risks, such as the risks that we may not be in a position, or have the opportunity in the future, to make suitable property acquisitions on advantageous terms and/or that such acquisitions will fail to perform as expected. The failure of our acquisitions to perform as expected could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may be exposed to unknown liabilities from acquired properties. We may acquire properties that are subject to liabilities in situations where we have no recourse, or only limited recourse, against the prior owners or other third parties with respect to unknown liabilities. As a result, if a liability were asserted against us based upon ownership of those properties, we might have to pay substantial sums to settle or contest it, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow. Examples of unknown liabilities with respect to acquired properties include, but are not limited to:
We may suffer economic harm as a result of making unsuccessful acquisitions in new markets. We may pursue selective acquisitions of properties in regions where we have not previously owned properties. These acquisitions may entail risks in addition to those we face in other acquisitions where we are familiar with the regions, such as the risk that we do not correctly anticipate conditions or trends in a new market and are therefore not able to operate the acquired property profitably. If this occurs, it could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may be unable to execute our plans to develop and construct additional properties. Although the majority of our investments are in currently leased properties, we also develop, construct and redevelop properties, including some that are not fully pre-leased. When we develop, construct and redevelop properties, we assume the risk that actual costs will exceed our budgets, that we will experience conditions which delay or preclude project completion and that projected leasing will not occur, any of which could adversely affect our financial performance, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders. In addition, we generally do not obtain construction financing commitments until the development stage of a project is complete and construction is about to commence. We may find that we are unable to obtain financing needed to continue with the construction activities for such projects.
Our data centers may become obsolete. Data centers are much more expensive investments on a per square foot basis than office properties due to the level of infrastructure required to operate the centers. At the same time, technology, industry standards and service requirements for data centers are rapidly evolving and, as a result, the risk of investments we make in data centers becoming obsolete is higher than office properties. Our data centers may become obsolete due to the development of new systems to deliver power to or eliminate heat from the servers housed in the properties. Our data centers could also become obsolete from new server technology that requires less critical load and heat removal than our facilities are designed to provide. In addition, we may not be able to efficiently upgrade or change power and cooling systems to meet new demands or industry standards without incurring significant costs that we may not be able to pass on to our tenants. The obsolescence of our data centers could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
14
Certain of our properties containing data centers contain space not suitable for lease other than as data centers, which could make it difficult or impractical to reposition them for alternative use. Certain of our properties contain data center space, which is highly specialized space containing extensive electrical and mechanical systems that are designed uniquely to run and maintain banks of computer servers. As a result, in the event that we needed to reposition such data center space for another use, major renovations and expenditures could be required.
Real estate investments are illiquid, and we may not be able to sell our properties on a timely basis when we determine it is appropriate to do so. Real estate investments can be difficult to sell and convert to cash quickly, especially if market conditions are not favorable, and we may find that to be increasingly the case under the current economic conditions due to a lack of credit availability for potential buyers. Such illiquidity could limit our ability to quickly change our portfolio of properties in response to changes in economic or other conditions. Moreover, under certain circumstances, the Internal Revenue Code imposes certain penalties on a REIT that sells property held for less than two years and limits the number of properties it can sell in a given year. In addition, for certain of our properties that we acquired by issuing units in our Operating Partnership, we are restricted by agreements with the sellers of the properties for a certain period of time from entering into transactions (such as the sale or refinancing of the acquired property) that will result in a taxable gain to the sellers without the seller's consent. Due to these factors, we may be unable to sell a property at an advantageous time.
We may suffer adverse effects as a result of the indebtedness that we carry and the terms and covenants that relate to this debt. Some of our properties are pledged by us to support repayment on indebtedness. In addition, we rely on borrowings to fund some or all of the costs of new property acquisitions, construction and development activities and other items. Our organizational documents do not limit the amount of indebtedness that we may incur.
Payments of principal and interest on our debt may leave us with insufficient cash to operate our properties or pay distributions to our shareholders required to maintain our qualification as a REIT. We are also subject to the risks that:
Some of our debt is cross-defaulted, which means that failure to pay interest or principal on the debt above a threshold value will create a default on certain of our other debt. In addition, some of our debt which is cross-defaulted also contains cross-collateralization provisions, which means that the collateral of the debt can also be used as collateral for certain of our other debt. Any foreclosure of our properties could result in loss of income and asset value that would negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders. In addition, if we are in default and the value of the properties securing a loan is less than the loan balance, we may be required to pay the resulting shortfall to the lender using other assets.
If short-term interest rates were to rise, our debt service payments on debt with variable interest rates would increase, which would lower our net income and could decrease our distributions to our
15
shareholders. We use interest rate swap agreements from time to time to reduce the impact of changes in interest rates. Decreases in interest rates would result in increased interest payments due under interest rate swap agreements in place and, in the event we decided to unwind such agreements, could result in our recognizing a loss and remitting a payment.
We must refinance our debt in the future. As of December 31, 2011, our scheduled debt payments over the next five years, including maturities, were as follows:
Year
|
Amount(1) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(in thousands) |
|||
2012 |
$ | 66,063 | ||
2013 |
163,003 | |||
2014 |
820,780 | |||
2015 |
806,104 | |||
2016 |
278,642 |
Our operations likely will not generate enough cash flow to repay some or all of this debt without additional borrowings, equity issuances and/or property sales. If we cannot refinance our debt, extend the repayment dates, or raise additional equity prior to the dates when our debt matures, we would default on our existing debt, which would have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We have certain distribution requirements that reduce cash available for other business purposes. As a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our annual taxable income (excluding capital gains), which limits the amount of cash we can retain for other business purposes, including amounts to fund acquisitions and development activity. Also, it is possible that because of the differences between the time we actually receive revenue or pay expenses and the period during which we report those items for distribution purposes, we may have to borrow funds to meet the 90% distribution requirement.
We may be unable to continue to make shareholder distributions at expected levels. We declared a first quarter 2012 common share dividend to shareholders of record on March 31, 2012 of $0.275 per share, a 33% decrease from the fourth quarter 2011 dividend of $0.4125 per share, and expect to continue to pay dividends at this reduced rate at least through the remainder of 2012. We expect to make regular quarterly cash distributions to our shareholders. However, our ability to make such distributions depends on a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control. Some of our loan agreements contain provisions that could restrict future distributions. Our ability to make distributions at expected levels will also be dependent, in part, on other matters, including, but not limited to:
16
In addition, we can make distributions to the holders of our common shares only after we make preferential distributions to holders of our preferred shares.
Our ability to pay dividends may be limited, and we cannot provide assurance that we will be able to pay dividends regularly. Because we conduct substantially all of our operations through our Operating Partnership, our ability to pay dividends will depend almost entirely on payments and distributions received on our interests in our Operating Partnership, the payment of which depends in turn on our ability to operate profitably and generate cash flow from our operations. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to pay dividends on a regular quarterly basis in the future. Additionally, the terms of some of the debt to which our Operating Partnership is a party limit its ability to make some types of payments and other distributions to us. This in turn limits our ability to make some types of payments, including payment of dividends on common or preferred shares, unless we meet certain financial tests or such payments or dividends are required to maintain our qualification as a REIT. As a result, if we are unable to meet the applicable financial tests, we may not be able to pay dividends on our shares in one or more periods. Furthermore, any new shares of beneficial interest issued will substantially increase the cash required to continue to pay cash dividends at current levels. Any common or preferred shares that may in the future be issued for financing acquisitions, share-based compensation arrangements or otherwise would have a similar effect.
We may incur additional indebtedness, which may harm our financial position and cash flow and potentially impact our ability to pay dividends on any series of preferred shares. Our governing documents do not limit us from incurring additional indebtedness and other liabilities. As of December 31, 2011, we had $2.4 billion of indebtedness outstanding. We may incur additional indebtedness and become more highly leveraged, which could harm our financial position and potentially limit our cash available to pay dividends. As a result, we may not have sufficient funds remaining to satisfy our dividend obligations relating to any series of preferred shares if we incur additional indebtedness.
Our ability to pay dividends on preferred shares is further limited by the requirements of Maryland law. As a Maryland REIT, we may not under applicable Maryland law make a distribution if either of the following conditions exist after giving effect to the distribution: (1) the REIT would not be able to pay its debts as the debts become due in the usual course of business; or (2) the REIT's total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus the amount that would be needed, if the REIT were dissolved at the time of the distribution, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholders whose preferential rights are superior to those receiving the distribution. Therefore, we may not make a distribution on any series of preferred shares if either of the above described conditions exists after giving effect to the distribution.
We may issue additional common or preferred shares that dilute our shareholders' interests. We may issue additional common shares and preferred shares without shareholder approval. Similarly, we may cause the Operating Partnership to issue its common or preferred units for contributions of cash or property without approval by the limited partners of the Operating Partnership or our shareholders. Our existing shareholders' interests could be diluted if such additional issuances were to occur.
We may suffer economic harm as a result of the actions of our partners in real estate joint ventures and other investments. We invest in certain entities in which we are not the exclusive investor or principal decision maker. Investments in such entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present when a third party is not involved, including the possibility that the other parties to these investments might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Our partners in these entities may have economic, tax or other business interests or goals
17
which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives. Such investments may also lead to impasses, for example, as to whether to sell a property, because neither we nor the other parties to these investments may have full control over the entity. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of the other parties to these investments. Each of these factors could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may need to make additional cash outlays to protect our investment in loans we make that are subordinate to other loans. We have made and may in the future make loans under which we have a secured interest in the ownership of a property that is subordinate to other loans on the property. If a default were to occur under the terms of any such loans with us or under the first mortgage loans related to the properties on such loans, we may be in a position where, in order to protect our investment, we would need to either (1) purchase the other loan or (2) foreclose on the ownership interest in the property and repay the first mortgage loan, either of which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may be subject to possible environmental liabilities. We are subject to various Federal, state and local environmental laws, including air and water quality, hazardous or toxic substances and health and safety. These laws can impose liability on current and prior property owners or operators for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous substances released on a property, even if the property owner was not responsible for, or even aware of, the release of the hazardous substances. Costs resulting from environmental liability could be substantial. The presence of hazardous substances on our properties may also adversely affect occupancy and our ability to sell or borrow against those properties. In addition to the costs of government claims under environmental laws, private plaintiffs may bring claims for personal injury or other reasons. Additionally, various laws impose liability for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous substances at the disposal or treatment facility. Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at such a facility is potentially liable under such laws. These laws often impose liability on an entity even if the facility was not owned or operated by the entity.
Although most of our properties have been subject to varying degrees of environmental assessment, many of these assessments are limited in scope and may not include or identify all potential environmental liabilities or risks associated with the property. Identification of new compliance concerns or undiscovered areas of contamination, changes in the extent or known scope of contamination, discovery of additional sites, human exposure to the contamination or changes in cleanup or compliance requirements could result in significant costs to us that could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
Terrorist attacks, such as those of September 11, 2001, may adversely affect the value of our properties, our financial position and cash flows. We have significant investments in properties located in large metropolitan areas and near military installations. Future terrorist attacks could directly or indirectly damage our properties or cause losses that materially exceed our insurance coverage. After such an attack, tenants in these areas may choose to relocate their businesses to areas of the United States that may be perceived to be less likely targets of future terrorist activity, and fewer customers may choose to patronize businesses in these areas. This in turn would trigger a decrease in the demand for space in these areas, which could increase vacancies in our properties and force us to lease space on less favorable terms. As a result, the occurrence of terrorist attacks could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
18
We may be subject to other possible liabilities that would adversely affect our financial position and cash flows. Our properties may be subject to other risks related to current or future laws, including laws benefiting disabled persons, state or local laws relating to zoning, construction, fire and life safety requirements and other matters. These laws may require significant property modifications in the future and could result in the levy of fines against us. In addition, although we believe that we adequately insure our properties, we are subject to the risk that our insurance may not cover all of the costs to restore a property that is damaged by a fire or other catastrophic events, including acts of war or, as mentioned above, terrorism. The occurrence of any of these events could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
We may be subject to increased costs of insurance and limitations on coverage, particularly regarding acts of terrorism. Our portfolio of properties is insured for losses under our property, casualty and umbrella insurance policies through September 30, 2012. These policies include coverage for acts of terrorism. Future changes in the insurance industry's risk assessment approach and pricing structure may increase the cost of insuring our properties and decrease the scope of insurance coverage, either of which could adversely affect our financial position and operating results. Most of our loan agreements contain customary covenants requiring us to maintain insurance. Although we believe that we have adequate insurance coverage for purposes of these agreements, we may not be able to obtain an equivalent amount of coverage at reasonable costs, or at all, in the future. In addition, if lenders insist on greater coverage than we are able to obtain, it could adversely affect our ability to finance and/or refinance our properties and execute our growth strategies, which, in turn, would have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders.
Our business could be adversely affected by a negative audit by the United States Government. Agencies of the United States, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency and various agency Inspectors General, routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor's performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards. The United States Government also reviews the adequacy of, and a contractor's compliance with, its internal control systems and policies. Any costs found to be misclassified may be subject to repayment. If an audit or investigation uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines, and suspension or prohibition from doing business with the United States Government. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us.
Our ownership limits are important factors. Our Declaration of Trust limits ownership of our common shares by any single shareholder to 9.8% of the number of the outstanding common shares or 9.8% of the value of the outstanding common shares, whichever is more restrictive. Our Declaration of Trust also limits ownership by any single shareholder of our common and preferred shares in the aggregate to 9.8% of the aggregate value of the outstanding common and preferred shares. We call these restrictions the "Ownership Limit." Our Declaration of Trust allows our Board of Trustees to exempt shareholders from the Ownership Limit. The Ownership Limit and the restrictions on ownership of our common shares may delay or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common shares or otherwise be in the best interest of our shareholders.
Our Declaration of Trust includes other provisions that may prevent or delay a change of control. Subject to the requirements of the New York Stock Exchange, our Board of Trustees has the authority, without shareholder approval, to issue additional securities on terms that could delay or prevent a change in control. In addition, our Board of Trustees has the authority to reclassify any of our unissued
19
common shares into preferred shares. Our Board of Trustees may issue preferred shares with such preferences, rights, powers and restrictions as our Board of Trustees may determine, which could also delay or prevent a change in control.
The Maryland business statutes impose potential restrictions that may discourage a change of control of our company. Various Maryland laws may have the effect of discouraging offers to acquire us, even if the acquisition would be advantageous to shareholders. Resolutions adopted by our Board of Trustees and/or provisions of our bylaws exempt us from such laws, but our Board of Trustees can alter its resolutions or change our bylaws at any time to make these provisions applicable to us.
Our failure to qualify as a REIT would have adverse tax consequences, which would substantially reduce funds available to make distributions to our shareholders. We believe that since 1992 we have qualified for taxation as a REIT for Federal income tax purposes. We plan to continue to meet the requirements for taxation as a REIT. Many of these requirements, however, are highly technical and complex. The determination that we are a REIT requires an analysis of various factual matters and circumstances that may not be totally within our control. For example, to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income must come from certain sources that are specified in the REIT tax laws. We are also required to distribute to shareholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (excluding capital gains). The fact that we hold most of our assets through our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries further complicates the application of the REIT requirements. Even a technical or inadvertent mistake could jeopardize our REIT status. Furthermore, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service might make changes to the tax laws and regulations and the courts might issue new rulings that make it more difficult or impossible for us to remain qualified as a REIT.
If we fail to qualify as a REIT, we would be subject to Federal income tax at regular corporate rates. Also, unless the Internal Revenue Service granted us relief under certain statutory provisions, we would remain disqualified as a REIT for four years following the year we first fail to qualify. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, we would have to pay significant income taxes and would therefore have less money available for investments or for distributions to our shareholders. In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will no longer be required to pay dividends. As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital and would likely have a significant adverse effect on the value of our securities.
We could face possible adverse changes in tax laws, which may result in an increase in our tax liability. From time to time changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted, which may result in an increase in our tax liability. The shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in recent years may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes. If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional taxes on our assets or income. These increased tax costs could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the amount of cash available for payment of dividends.
A number of factors could cause our security prices to decline. As is the case with any publicly-traded securities, certain factors outside of our control could influence the value of our common and preferred shares. These conditions include, but are not limited to:
20
We may experience significant losses and harm to our financial condition if financial institutions holding our cash and cash equivalents file for bankruptcy protection. We believe that we maintain our cash and cash equivalents with high quality financial institutions. We have not experienced any losses to date on our deposited cash. However, we may incur significant losses and harm to our financial condition in the future if any of these financial institutions files for bankruptcy protection.
Certain of our Trustees have potential conflicts of interest. Certain members of our Board of Trustees own partnership units in our Operating Partnership. These individuals may have personal interests that conflict with the interests of our shareholders. For example, if our Operating Partnership sells or refinances certain of the properties that these Trustees contributed to the Operating Partnership, the Trustees could suffer adverse tax consequences. Their personal interests could conflict with our interests if such a sale or refinancing would be advantageous to us. We have certain policies in place that are designed to minimize conflicts of interest. We cannot, however, provide assurance that these policies will be successful in eliminating the influence of such conflicts, and if they are not successful, decisions could be made that might fail to reflect fully the interests of all of our shareholders.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None
21
The following table provides certain information about our office properties as of December 31, 2011:
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baltimore/Washington Corridor: |
||||||||||||||||||
2730 Hercules Road |
National Business Park | 1990 | 238,007 | 100.0 | % | $ | 8,745,038 | $ | 36.74 | |||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
300 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2009 | 193,296 | 98.6 | % | 6,205,914 | 32.57 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
304 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2005 | 162,483 | 100.0 | % | 5,149,530 | 31.69 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
2720 Technology Drive |
National Business Park | 2004 | 158,929 | 100.0 | % | 5,289,305 | 33.28 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
306 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2006 | 155,367 | 100.0 | % | 4,838,585 | 31.14 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
302 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2007 | 153,566 | 99.6 | % | 5,250,120 | 34.34 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
2711 Technology Drive |
National Business Park | 2002 | 152,209 | 100.0 | % | 5,013,808 | 32.94 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
308 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2010 | 151,207 | 100.0 | % | 5,002,689 | 33.09 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
318 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2005 | 125,635 | 100.0 | % | 4,385,786 | 34.91 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
322 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2006 | 125,487 | 100.0 | % | 5,064,611 | 40.36 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
320 Sentinel Drive |
National Business Park | 2007 | 125,325 | 100.0 | % | 5,058,121 | 40.36 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
316 Sentinel Way |
National Business Park | 2011 | 125,150 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
324 Sentinel Way |
National Business Park | 2010 | 125,118 | 100.0 | % | 3,638,688 | 29.08 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
140 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 2003 | 119,466 | 100.0 | % | 4,219,827 | 35.32 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
132 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 2000 | 118,150 | 100.0 | % | 3,906,628 | 33.06 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
2721 Technology Drive |
National Business Park | 2000 | 117,242 | 100.0 | % | 3,821,020 | 32.59 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
2701 Technology Drive |
National Business Park | 2001 | 117,068 | 100.0 | % | 3,833,914 | 32.75 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
2691 Technology Drive |
National Business Park | 2005 | 103,578 | 100.0 | % | 3,588,956 | 34.65 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
134 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 1999 | 92,327 | 100.0 | % | 2,982,958 | 32.31 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
133 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 1997 | 88,057 | 100.0 | % | 2,883,341 | 32.74 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
141 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 1990 | 87,364 | 100.0 | % | 2,760,773 | 31.60 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
135 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 1998 | 86,437 | 100.0 | % | 3,023,246 | 34.98 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
131 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 1990 | 69,702 | 100.0 | % | 2,291,554 | 32.88 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
430 National Business Pkwy |
National Business Park | 2011 | 61,299 | 100.0 | % | 2,094,317 | 34.17 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
114 National Business Parkway |
National Business Park | 2002 | 10,113 | 100.0 | % | 234,857 | 23.22 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
314 Sentinel Way |
National Business Park | 2008 | 4,462 | 100.0 | % | 237,872 | 53.31 | |||||||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
22
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7740 Milestone Parkway(4) |
Arundel Preserve | 2009 | 144,610 | 6.0 | % | 283,691 | 32.77 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1550 West Nursery Road |
Airport Square | 2009 | 161,689 | 100.0 | % | 3,457,038 | 21.38 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1306 Concourse Drive |
Airport Square | 1990 | 116,259 | 66.3 | % | 1,853,742 | 24.05 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
870 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1981 | 105,456 | 100.0 | % | 2,506,436 | 23.77 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
920 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1982 | 103,415 | 100.0 | % | 2,010,637 | 19.44 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1304 Concourse Drive |
Airport Square | 2002 | 101,124 | 79.0 | % | 2,152,439 | 26.95 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
900 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1982 | 101,005 | 100.0 | % | 2,447,840 | 24.23 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1199 Winterson Road |
Airport Square | 1988 | 100,104 | 100.0 | % | 2,741,631 | 27.39 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1302 Concourse Drive |
Airport Square | 1996 | 83,717 | 78.5 | % | 1,748,380 | 26.61 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
881 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1986 | 75,385 | 100.0 | % | 2,005,117 | 26.60 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1099 Winterson Road |
Airport Square | 1988 | 71,675 | 34.8 | % | 580,362 | 23.28 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
849 International Drive |
Airport Square | 1988 | 69,018 | 70.7 | % | 1,276,037 | 26.14 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1190 Winterson Road |
Airport Square | 1987 | 69,016 | 100.0 | % | 1,838,589 | 26.64 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
911 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1985 | 68,373 | 100.0 | % | 1,610,324 | 23.55 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1201 Winterson Road |
Airport Square | 1985 | 67,903 | 100.0 | % | 1,485,615 | 21.88 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
999 Corporate Boulevard |
Airport Square | 2000 | 67,083 | 34.8 | % | 603,933 | 25.83 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
891 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1984 | 57,987 | 80.0 | % | 1,277,213 | 27.52 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
901 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1984 | 57,872 | 51.7 | % | 870,301 | 29.09 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
900 International Drive |
Airport Square | 1986 | 57,140 | 100.0 | % | 920,936 | 16.12 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
930 International Drive |
Airport Square | 1986 | 56,685 | 99.8 | % | 1,090,061 | 19.27 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
800 International Drive |
Airport Square | 1988 | 56,585 | 59.9 | % | 760,515 | 22.43 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
921 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1983 | 56,452 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
938 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1984 | 56,270 | 100.0 | % | 1,269,166 | 22.55 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
939 Elkridge Landing Road |
Airport Square | 1983 | 54,224 | 86.9 | % | 834,431 | 17.71 | |||||||||||
Linthicum, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5520 Research Park Drive |
UMBC | 2009 | 103,333 | 91.0 | % | 2,378,463 | 25.31 | |||||||||||
Catonsville, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5522 Research Park Drive |
UMBC | 2007 | 23,925 | 100.0 | % | 841,112 | 35.16 | |||||||||||
Catonsville, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
7467 Ridge Road |
BWI South | 1990 | 74,545 | 65.5 | % | 1,156,254 | 23.70 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
7240 Parkway Drive |
BWI South | 1985 | 74,475 | 92.8 | % | 1,447,466 | 20.94 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
7272 Park Circle Drive |
BWI South | 1991/1996 | 60,041 | 79.8 | % | 1,011,682 | 21.11 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
23
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7318 Parkway Drive |
BWI South | 1984 | 59,204 | 100.0 | % | 1,372,041 | 23.17 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
7320 Parkway Drive |
BWI South | 1983 | 56,964 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1340 Ashton Road |
BWI South | 1989 | 45,867 | 100.0 | % | 860,760 | 18.77 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1362 Mellon Road |
BWI South | 2006 | 43,232 | 86.5 | % | 865,221 | 23.14 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1334 Ashton Road |
BWI South | 1989 | 38,128 | 100.0 | % | 868,745 | 22.78 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1331 Ashton Road |
BWI South | 1989 | 28,906 | 29.1 | % | 150,416 | 17.87 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1341 Ashton Road |
BWI South | 1989 | 15,314 | 100.0 | % | 331,569 | 21.65 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1343 Ashton Road |
BWI South | 1989 | 9,903 | 100.0 | % | 140,047 | 14.14 | |||||||||||
Hanover, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
2500 Riva Road |
Annapolis | 2000 | 155,000 | 100.0 | % | 2,262,067 | 14.59 | |||||||||||
Annapolis, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
7125 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1973/1999 | 479,976 | 70.1 | % | 6,522,562 | 19.40 | |||||||||||
9140 Route 108 |
Howard County Perimeter | 1974/1985 | 171,436 | 100.0 | % | 7,389,857 | 43.11 | |||||||||||
7200 Riverwood Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1986 | 160,000 | 100.0 | % | 4,756,599 | 29.73 | |||||||||||
7000 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1999 | 145,386 | 100.0 | % | 2,440,493 | 16.79 | |||||||||||
6721 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2009 | 131,451 | 100.0 | % | 3,970,916 | 30.21 | |||||||||||
6711 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2006 - 2007 | 124,048 | 100.0 | % | 3,654,044 | 29.46 | |||||||||||
6731 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2002 | 123,576 | 87.5 | % | 3,152,831 | 29.17 | |||||||||||
6950 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1998 | 112,861 | 100.0 | % | 2,344,172 | 20.77 | |||||||||||
6940 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1999 | 108,652 | 81.0 | % | 2,434,265 | 27.66 | |||||||||||
7067 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2001 | 85,393 | 98.3 | % | 2,042,058 | 24.33 | |||||||||||
8621 Robert Fulton Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2005 - 2006 | 83,734 | 100.0 | % | 1,919,859 | 22.93 | |||||||||||
6700 Alexander Bell Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1988 | 76,359 | 75.8 | % | 1,416,089 | 24.45 | |||||||||||
6750 Alexander Bell Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2001 | 75,328 | 86.4 | % | 1,774,692 | 27.27 | |||||||||||
6740 Alexander Bell Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1992 | 63,161 | 100.0 | % | 1,834,668 | 29.05 | |||||||||||
7015 Albert Einstein Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1999 | 62,216 | 100.0 | % | 1,309,964 | 21.06 | |||||||||||
7160 Riverwood Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2000 | 62,041 | 94.6 | % | 1,709,961 | 29.14 | |||||||||||
8671 Robert Fulton Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2002 | 55,688 | 100.0 | % | 916,624 | 16.46 | |||||||||||
6716 Alexander Bell Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1990 | 52,114 | 66.8 | % | 914,617 | 26.28 | |||||||||||
8661 Robert Fulton Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2002 | 48,666 | 100.0 | % | 970,805 | 19.95 | |||||||||||
7142 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1994 | 47,668 | 100.0 | % | 735,841 | 15.44 |
24
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9020 Mendenhall Court |
Howard County Perimeter | 1982/2005 | 47,603 | 88.2 | % | 679,199 | 16.18 | |||||||||||
7130 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1989 | 45,882 | 100.0 | % | 900,939 | 19.64 | |||||||||||
9140 Guilford Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1983 | 40,288 | 55.8 | % | 343,054 | 15.25 | |||||||||||
7150 Riverwood Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2000 | 39,496 | 100.0 | % | 799,144 | 20.23 | |||||||||||
9720 Patuxent Woods Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1986/2001 | 39,480 | 100.0 | % | 727,532 | 18.43 | |||||||||||
6708 Alexander Bell Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1988 | 39,128 | 100.0 | % | 948,041 | 24.23 | |||||||||||
7065 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2000 | 38,560 | 100.0 | % | 790,810 | 20.51 | |||||||||||
7138 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1990 | 38,285 | 100.0 | % | 906,894 | 23.69 | |||||||||||
9740 Patuxent Woods Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1986/2001 | 37,520 | 100.0 | % | 581,409 | 15.50 | |||||||||||
9160 Guilford Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1984 | 36,919 | 100.0 | % | 751,420 | 20.35 | |||||||||||
7063 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2000 | 36,295 | 100.0 | % | 981,167 | 27.03 | |||||||||||
6760 Alexander Bell Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1991 | 36,227 | 64.4 | % | 538,056 | 23.06 | |||||||||||
7150 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1991 | 34,734 | 85.0 | % | 604,614 | 20.49 | |||||||||||
9700 Patuxent Woods Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1986/2001 | 31,117 | 100.0 | % | 678,387 | 21.80 | |||||||||||
7061 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2000 | 30,730 | 82.7 | % | 609,680 | 24.00 | |||||||||||
9730 Patuxent Woods Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1986/2001 | 30,495 | 78.1 | % | 407,350 | 17.09 | |||||||||||
6724 Alexander Bell Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2001 | 28,107 | 80.3 | % | 575,448 | 25.51 | |||||||||||
7170 Riverwood Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2000 | 27,891 | 41.4 | % | 187,906 | 16.29 | |||||||||||
7134 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1990 | 21,931 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
9150 Guilford Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1984 | 18,405 | 100.0 | % | 380,283 | 20.66 | |||||||||||
10280 Old Columbia Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1988/2001 | 16,145 | 90.2 | % | 252,562 | 17.33 | |||||||||||
10270 Old Columbia Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1988/2001 | 15,914 | 60.6 | % | 162,122 | 16.80 | |||||||||||
9710 Patuxent Woods Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 1986/2001 | 14,778 | 72.2 | % | 202,964 | 19.02 | |||||||||||
9130 Guilford Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1984 | 13,647 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
10290 Old Columbia Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 1988/2001 | 10,229 | 77.2 | % | 163,482 | 20.70 | |||||||||||
6741 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard County Perimeter | 2008 | 4,592 | 100.0 | % | 144,372 | 31.44 | |||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
8,859,080 | 87.9 | % | $ | 214,359,486 | $ | 27.53 | |||||||||||
Northern Virginia: |
||||||||||||||||||
15000 Conference Center Drive |
Dulles South | 1989 | 444,869 | 85.3 | % | $ | 9,652,813 | $ | 25.42 | |||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
15010 Conference Center Drive |
Dulles South | 2006 | 220,906 | 100.0 | % | 7,296,046 | 33.03 | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
25
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15049 Conference Center Drive |
Dulles South | 1997 | 152,993 | 100.0 | % | 4,708,200 | 30.77 | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
15059 Conference Center Drive |
Dulles South | 2000 | 146,801 | 98.8 | % | 4,551,549 | 31.37 | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
14900 Conference Center Drive |
Dulles South | 1999 | 125,357 | 89.7 | % | 3,174,811 | 28.24 | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
14280 Park Meadow Drive |
Dulles South | 1999 | 112,916 | 100.0 | % | 2,861,504 | 25.34 | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
4851 Stonecroft Blvd. |
Dulles South | 2004 | 88,099 | 100.0 | % | 2,666,224 | 30.26 | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
14850 Conference Center Drive |
Dulles South | 2000 | 72,194 | 33.4 | % | 334,537 | 13.89 | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
14840 Conference Center Drive |
Dulles South | 2000 | 71,517 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
Chantilly, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
13200 Woodland Park Road |
Herndon | 2002 | 396,837 | 100.0 | % | 12,531,612 | 31.58 | |||||||||||
Herndon, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
13454 Sunrise Valley |
Herndon | 1998 | 112,284 | 86.1 | % | 2,421,055 | 25.05 | |||||||||||
Herndon, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
13450 Sunrise Valley |
Herndon | 1998 | 53,572 | 100.0 | % | 1,443,882 | 26.95 | |||||||||||
Herndon, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
2900 Towerview Road |
Route 28 South | 1982/2008 | 151,497 | 51.1 | % | 1,491,098 | 19.25 | |||||||||||
Herndon, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
1751 Pinnacle Drive |
Tyson's Corner | 1989/1995 | 260,150 | 91.6 | % | 8,394,841 | 35.24 | |||||||||||
McLean, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
1753 Pinnacle Drive |
Tyson's Corner | 1976/2004 | 184,480 | 100.0 | % | 7,171,364 | 38.87 | |||||||||||
McLean, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
1550 Westbranch Drive |
Tyson's Corner | 2002 | 160,461 | 100.0 | % | 4,719,440 | 29.41 | |||||||||||
McLean, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
3120 Fairview Park Drive |
Merrifield | 2008 | 180,853 | 24.9 | % | 1,649,957 | 36.58 | |||||||||||
Falls Church, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
2,935,786 | 84.8 | % | $ | 75,068,931 | $ | 30.16 | |||||||||||
San Antonio: |
||||||||||||||||||
7700 Potranco Road |
San Antonio | 1982/1985 | 508,412 | 100.0 | % | $ | 17,636,099 | $ | 34.69 | |||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
8000 Potranco Road |
San Antonio | 2010 | 125,157 | 100.0 | % | 3,298,570 | 26.36 | |||||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
8030 Potranco Road |
San Antonio | 2010 | 125,155 | 100.0 | % | 3,298,570 | 26.36 | |||||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
1101 Sentry Gateway |
San Antonio | 2011 | 94,920 | 1.2 | % | 19,635 | 17.00 | |||||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
1560B Cable Ranch Road |
San Antonio | 1985/2006 | 77,040 | 100.0 | % | 1,833,802 | 23.80 | |||||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
1560A Cable Ranch Road |
San Antonio | 1985/2007 | 45,935 | 100.0 | % | 598,969 | 13.04 | |||||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
7700-5 Potranco Road |
San Antonio | 2009 | 25,056 | 100.0 | % | 362,110 | 14.45 | |||||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
7700-1 Potranco Road |
San Antonio | 2007 | 8,674 | 100.0 | % | 292,755 | 33.75 | |||||||||||
San Antonio, TX |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
1,010,349 | 90.7 | % | $ | 27,340,510 | $ | 29.83 | |||||||||||
Washington DCCapitol Riverfront: |
||||||||||||||||||
1201 M Street |
Washington DCCapitol Riverfront | 2001 | 202,273 | 83.9 | % | $ | 7,312,766 | $ | 43.09 | |||||||||
1220 12th Street, SE |
Washington DCCapitol Riverfront | 2003 | 158,913 | 96.9 | % | 6,974,988 | 45.28 | |||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
361,186 | 89.6 | % | $ | 14,287,754 | $ | 44.13 | |||||||||||
26
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
St Mary's & King George Counties: |
||||||||||||||||||
16480 Commerce Drive |
King George County | 2000 | 70,875 | 100.0 | % | $ | 1,347,091 | $ | 19.01 | |||||||||
Dahlgren, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
16541 Commerce Drive |
King George County | 1996 | 37,292 | 100.0 | % | 716,644 | 19.22 | |||||||||||
Dahlgren, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
16539 Commerce Drive |
King George County | 1990 | 32,257 | 100.0 | % | 603,238 | 18.70 | |||||||||||
Dahlgren, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
16442 Commerce Drive |
King George County | 2002 | 25,606 | 73.5 | % | 359,078 | 19.08 | |||||||||||
Dahlgren, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
16501 Commerce Drive |
King George County | 2002 | 22,833 | 100.0 | % | 493,127 | 21.60 | |||||||||||
Dahlgren, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
16543 Commerce Drive |
King George County | 2002 | 17,286 | 87.3 | % | 392,699 | 26.02 | |||||||||||
Dahlgren, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
22309 Exploration Drive |
St. Mary's County | 1984/1997 | 98,860 | 100.0 | % | 1,517,477 | 15.35 | |||||||||||
Lexington Park, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
45310 Abell House Lane |
St. Mary's County | 2011 | 82,842 | 100.0 | % | 2,426,201 | 29.29 | |||||||||||
California, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
46591 Expedition Drive |
St. Mary's County | 2005 | 59,843 | 100.0 | % | 1,468,324 | 24.54 | |||||||||||
Lexington Park, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
46579 Expedition Drive |
St. Mary's County | 2002 | 58,989 | 100.0 | % | 1,501,990 | 25.46 | |||||||||||
Lexington Park, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
44425 Pecan Court |
St. Mary's County | 1997 | 58,694 | 97.1 | % | 1,267,067 | 22.23 | |||||||||||
California, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
22289 Exploration Drive |
St. Mary's County | 2000 | 58,633 | 87.5 | % | 1,230,427 | 23.97 | |||||||||||
Lexington Park, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
22299 Exploration Drive |
St. Mary's County | 1998 | 58,132 | 62.2 | % | 914,070 | 25.27 | |||||||||||
Lexington Park, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
44408 Pecan Court |
St. Mary's County | 1986 | 49,808 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
California, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
23535 Cottonwood Parkway |
St. Mary's County | 1984 | 46,656 | 100.0 | % | 593,488 | 12.72 | |||||||||||
California, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
22300 Exploration Drive |
St. Mary's County | 1997 | 45,093 | 100.0 | % | 755,412 | 16.75 | |||||||||||
Lexington Park, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
44417 Pecan Court |
St. Mary's County | 1989 | 29,053 | 100.0 | % | 313,914 | 10.80 | |||||||||||
California, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
44414 Pecan Court |
St. Mary's County | 1986 | 25,444 | 100.0 | % | 266,144 | 10.46 | |||||||||||
California, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
44420 Pecan Court |
St. Mary's County | 1989 | 25,338 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
California, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
903,534 | 87.3 | % | $ | 16,166,393 | $ | 20.50 | |||||||||||
Greater Baltimore: |
||||||||||||||||||
210 Research Blvd |
Harford County | 2010 | 79,573 | 34.6 | % | $ | 842,182 | $ | 30.57 | |||||||||
Aberdeen, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
209 Research Blvd |
Harford County | 2010 | 77,192 | 100.0 | % | 2,253,075 | 29.19 | |||||||||||
Aberdeen, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
11311 McCormick Road |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1984/1994 | 214,705 | 97.6 | % | 4,891,897 | 23.35 | |||||||||||
10150 York Road |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1985 | 175,207 | 84.1 | % | 2,998,959 | 20.35 | |||||||||||
9690 Deereco Road |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1988 | 134,950 | 100.0 | % | 3,359,741 | 24.90 | |||||||||||
200 International Circle |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1987 | 125,352 | 93.7 | % | 2,647,860 | 22.55 | |||||||||||
375 Padonia Road West |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1986 | 104,885 | 100.0 | % | 1,950,274 | 18.59 | |||||||||||
226 Schilling Circle |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1980 | 97,309 | 100.0 | % | 2,128,651 | 21.88 |
27
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
201 International Circle |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1982 | 78,243 | 73.2 | % | 1,332,066 | 23.25 | |||||||||||
222 Schilling Circle |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1978/1997 | 28,617 | 64.4 | % | 386,543 | 20.96 | |||||||||||
224 Schilling Circle |
Hunt Valley/RTE 83 Corridor | 1978/1997 | 27,575 | 88.8 | % | 490,013 | 20.01 | |||||||||||
8110 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 2001 | 79,091 | 100.0 | % | 1,551,584 | 19.62 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8140 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 2003 | 76,271 | 78.5 | % | 1,667,279 | 27.85 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8031 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1988/2004 | 66,000 | 100.0 | % | 1,111,740 | 16.84 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
9910 Franklin Square Drive |
White Marsh | 2005 | 57,812 | 100.0 | % | 1,317,180 | 22.78 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
7941-7949 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1996 | 57,782 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8020 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1997 | 50,796 | 100.0 | % | 1,116,441 | 21.98 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
4940 Campbell Drive |
White Marsh | 1990 | 50,415 | 85.5 | % | 1,016,477 | 23.59 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
4979 Mercantile Road |
White Marsh | 1985 | 49,590 | 72.8 | % | 484,857 | 13.43 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8094 Sandpiper Circle |
White Marsh | 1998 | 49,585 | 88.7 | % | 843,149 | 19.17 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
4969 Mercantile Road |
White Marsh | 1983 | 47,132 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8098 Sandpiper Circle |
White Marsh | 1998 | 46,485 | 100.0 | % | 806,540 | 17.35 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8114 Sandpiper Circle |
White Marsh | 1986 | 45,803 | 72.8 | % | 862,119 | 25.84 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5020 Campbell Blvd. |
White Marsh | 1986 - 1988 | 43,623 | 76.3 | % | 488,330 | 14.68 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
9920 Franklin Square Drive |
White Marsh | 2006 | 42,891 | 88.2 | % | 914,414 | 24.18 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8007 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1995 | 41,799 | 78.0 | % | 606,248 | 18.60 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
9930 Franklin Square Drive |
White Marsh | 2001 | 39,750 | 100.0 | % | 733,020 | 18.44 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8010 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1998 | 38,487 | 100.0 | % | 732,922 | 19.04 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8615 Ridgely's Choice |
White Marsh | 2005 | 37,746 | 91.7 | % | 693,998 | 20.04 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5355 Nottingham Drive |
White Marsh | 2005 | 35,930 | 79.6 | % | 558,846 | 19.54 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5325 Nottingham Drive |
White Marsh | 2002 | 35,678 | 100.0 | % | 785,058 | 22.00 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
9900 Franklin Square Drive |
White Marsh | 1999 | 33,800 | 85.7 | % | 529,855 | 18.29 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5024 Campbell Blvd. |
White Marsh | 1986 - 1988 | 33,710 | 73.3 | % | 387,022 | 15.66 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8019 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1990 | 32,424 | 75.9 | % | 519,112 | 21.10 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
9940 Franklin Square Drive |
White Marsh | 2000 | 32,242 | 49.4 | % | 298,101 | 18.72 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5026 Campbell Blvd. |
White Marsh | 1986 - 1988 | 30,163 | 77.8 | % | 380,216 | 16.20 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8013 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1990 | 29,995 | 27.6 | % | 135,117 | 16.31 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
28
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7939 Honeygo Blvd. |
White Marsh | 1984 | 28,208 | 80.7 | % | 503,596 | 22.13 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8133 Perry Hall Blvd. |
White Marsh | 1988 | 27,995 | 81.1 | % | 457,830 | 20.16 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5022 Campbell Blvd. |
White Marsh | 1986 - 1988 | 26,748 | 92.6 | % | 401,005 | 16.19 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8029 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1988/2004 | 25,000 | 100.0 | % | 449,990 | 18.00 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
7923 Honeygo Blvd. |
White Marsh | 1985 | 23,481 | 89.1 | % | 370,936 | 17.72 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8003 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1999 | 17,599 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8015 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1990 | 15,669 | 68.9 | % | 210,349 | 19.49 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
8023 Corporate Drive |
White Marsh | 1990 | 9,486 | 100.0 | % | 182,267 | 19.21 | |||||||||||
White Marsh, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
1501 South Clinton Street |
Baltimore City | 2006 | 481,277 | 92.6 | % | 14,757,194 | 33.11 | |||||||||||
Baltimore, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
2,984,071 | 84.5 | % | $ | 59,154,055 | $ | 23.46 | |||||||||||
Suburban Maryland: |
||||||||||||||||||
110 Thomas Johnson Drive |
Frederick | 1987/1999 | 120,318 | 91.0 | % | $ | 2,710,260 | $ | 24.76 | |||||||||
Frederick, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
400 Professional Drive |
Gaithersburg | 2000 | 129,853 | 66.7 | % | 2,114,604 | 24.41 | |||||||||||
Gaithersburg, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
4230 Forbes Boulevard |
Lanham | 2003 | 55,866 | 43.0 | % | 375,808 | 15.65 | |||||||||||
Lanham, MD(4) |
||||||||||||||||||
11800 Tech Road |
North Silver Spring | 1989 | 239,776 | 82.5 | % | 3,309,988 | 16.74 | |||||||||||
Silver Spring, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
45 West Gude Drive |
Rockville | 1987 | 122,555 | 54.3 | % | 1,497,285 | 22.50 | |||||||||||
Rockville, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
15 West Gude Drive |
Rockville | 1986 | 108,485 | 100.0 | % | 2,739,649 | 25.25 | |||||||||||
Rockville, MD |
||||||||||||||||||
5850 University Research Court |
College Park | 2008 | 123,449 | 100.0 | % | 3,757,009 | 30.43 | |||||||||||
College Park, MD(4) |
||||||||||||||||||
5825 University Research Court |
College Park | 2008 | 118,620 | 79.5 | % | 2,784,416 | 29.53 | |||||||||||
College Park, MD(4) |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
1,018,922 | 79.6 | % | $ | 19,289,019 | $ | 23.80 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs: |
||||||||||||||||||
3535 Northrop Grumman Point |
Colorado Springs East | 2008 | 124,305 | 100.0 | % | $ | 2,451,462 | $ | 19.72 | |||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
985 Space Center Drive |
Colorado Springs East | 1989 | 104,028 | 94.6 | % | 2,128,568 | 21.63 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
655 Space Center Drive |
Colorado Springs East | 2008 | 103,970 | 100.0 | % | 2,185,622 | 21.02 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
565 Space Center Drive |
Colorado Springs East | 2009 | 89,899 | 8.6 | % | 36,980 | 4.78 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
1670 North Newport Road |
Colorado Springs East | 1986/1987 | 67,500 | 56.2 | % | 805,032 | 21.22 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
1055 North Newport Road |
Colorado Springs East | 2007 - 2008 | 59,763 | 100.0 | % | 1,235,529 | 20.67 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
745 Space Center Drive |
Colorado Springs East | 2006 | 51,500 | 100.0 | % | 1,405,270 | 27.29 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
1915 Aerotech Drive |
Colorado Springs East | 1985 | 37,946 | 15.8 | % | 83,937 | 14.02 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
1925 Aerotech Drive |
Colorado Springs East | 1985 | 37,946 | 60.1 | % | 527,177 | 23.11 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
29
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Year Built/ Renovated |
Rentable Square Feet |
Occupancy(1) | Annualized Rental Revenue(2) |
Annualized Rental Revenue per Occupied Square Foot(2)(3) |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
980 Technology Court |
Colorado Springs East | 1995 | 33,207 | 100.0 | % | 682,857 | 20.56 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
525 Babcock Road |
Colorado Springs East | 1967 | 14,000 | 100.0 | % | 198,430 | 14.17 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
5725 Mark Dabling Blvd. |
Colorado Springs Northwest | 1984 | 108,976 | 100.0 | % | 2,046,254 | 18.78 | |||||||||||
5775 Mark Dabling Blvd. |
Colorado Springs Northwest | 1984 | 108,640 | 61.6 | % | 1,152,156 | 17.22 | |||||||||||
5755 Mark Dabling Blvd. |
Colorado Springs Northwest | 1989 | 104,848 | 88.4 | % | 1,991,314 | 21.48 | |||||||||||
10807 New Allegiance Drive |
I-25 North Corridor | 2009 | 145,723 | 41.2 | % | 1,296,364 | 21.61 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
9965 Federal Drive |
I-25 North Corridor | 1983/2007 | 74,749 | 100.0 | % | 1,372,347 | 18.36 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
9945 Federal Drive |
I-25 North Corridor | 2009 | 74,005 | 0.0 | % | | | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
9950 Federal Drive |
I-25 North Corridor | 2001 | 66,223 | 100.0 | % | 1,046,628 | 15.80 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
12515 Academy Ridge View |
I-25 North Corridor | 2006 | 61,372 | 100.0 | % | 1,585,824 | 25.84 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
9925 Federal Drive |
I-25 North Corridor | 2008 | 53,788 | 90.8 | % | 768,341 | 15.74 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
9960 Federal Drive |
I-25 North Corridor | 2001 | 46,948 | 78.3 | % | 781,262 | 21.24 | |||||||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
1,569,336 | 74.9 | % | $ | 23,781,354 | $ | 20.22 | |||||||||||
Greater Philadelphia: |
||||||||||||||||||
785 Jolly Road |
Greater Philadelphia | 1991 - 1996 | 219,065 | 100.0 | % | $ | 2,884,072 | $ | 13.17 | |||||||||
Blue Bell, PA |
||||||||||||||||||
801 Lakeview Drive |
Greater Philadelphia | 1991 - 1996 | 218,653 | 99.4 | % | 5,341,961 | 24.58 | |||||||||||
Blue Bell, PA |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
437,718 | 99.7 | % | $ | 8,226,033 | $ | 18.85 | |||||||||||
Other Region: |
||||||||||||||||||
11751 Meadowville Lane |
Richmond Southwest | 2007 | 193,000 | 100.0 | % | 5,366,053 | 27.80 | |||||||||||
Richmond, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
201 Technology Drive |
Southwest Virginia | 2007 | 102,842 | 100.0 | % | 3,559,958 | 34.62 | |||||||||||
Lebanon, VA |
||||||||||||||||||
310 The Bridge Street |
Huntsville | 2009 | 138,466 | 100.0 | % | 3,558,174 | 25.70 | |||||||||||
Huntsville, AL |
||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
434,308 | 100.0 | % | $ | 12,484,186 | $ | 28.75 | |||||||||||
Total/Average |
20,514,290 | 86.2 | % | $ | 470,157,772 | $ | 26.59 | |||||||||||
30
The following table provides certain information about our office properties that were under construction or redevelopment as of December 31, 2011:
Property and Location
|
Submarket | Estimated Rentable Square Feet Upon Completion |
Percentage Leased at December 31, 2011 |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under Construction |
|||||||||
Baltimore/Washington Corridor: |
|||||||||
7205 Riverwood Road |
Howard County Perimeter | 89,295 | 0 | % | |||||
Columbia, MD |
|||||||||
410 National Business Parkway |
BWI Airport | 110,362 | 0 | % | |||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
|||||||||
430 National Business Parkway |
BWI Airport | 109,559 | 73 | % | |||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
|||||||||
Subtotal/Average |
309,216 | 26 | % | ||||||
Northern Virginia: |
|||||||||
7770 Backlick Road (Patriot Ridge) |
Springfield | 237,000 | 44 | % | |||||
Springfield, VA |
|||||||||
Greater Baltimore: |
|||||||||
206 Research Boulevard |
Harford County | 128,119 | 0 | % | |||||
Aberdeen, MD |
|||||||||
Huntsville: |
|||||||||
1000 Redstone Gateway |
Huntsville | 114,891 | 0 | % | |||||
Huntsville, AL |
|||||||||
Total Under Construction |
789,226 | 23 | % | ||||||
Under Redevelopment |
|||||||||
Greater Philadelphia: |
|||||||||
751 Arbor Way (Hillcrest I) |
Greater Philadelphia | 113,291 | 39 | % | |||||
Blue Bell, PA |
|||||||||
Total Under Redevelopment |
113,291 | 39 | % | ||||||
31
The following table provides certain information about our land held or under pre-construction as of December 31, 2011:
Land Location
|
Submarket | Acres | Estimated Developable Square Feet |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baltimore/Washington Corridor: |
|||||||||
National Business Park North |
BWI Airport | 183 | 1,674,000 | ||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
|||||||||
National Business Park |
BWI Airport | 12 | 385,000 | ||||||
Annapolis Junction, MD |
|||||||||
1243 Winterson Road (AS 22) |
BWI Airport | 2 | 30,000 | ||||||
Linthicum, MD |
|||||||||
940 Elkridge Landing Road (AS 7) |
BWI Airport | 2 | 54,000 | ||||||
Linthicum, MD |
|||||||||
West Nursery Road |
BWI Airport | 1 | 5,000 | ||||||
Linthicum, MD |
|||||||||
Arundel Preserve |
BWI Airport | 84 | 1,382,000 | ||||||
Hanover, MD |
|||||||||
1460 Dorsey Road |
BWI Airport | 6 | 60,000 | ||||||
Hanover, MD |
|||||||||
Columbia Gateway Parcel T-11 |
Howard Co. Perimeter | 14 | 220,000 | ||||||
Columbia, MD |
|||||||||
7125 Columbia Gateway Drive |
Howard Co. Perimeter | 8 | 300,000 | ||||||
Columbia, MD |
|||||||||
Riverwood |
Howard Co. Perimeter | 5 | 27,000 | ||||||
Columbia, MD |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
318 | 4,137,000 | |||||||
Northern Virginia: |
|||||||||
Westfields Corporate Center |
Dulles South | 23 | 400,000 | ||||||
Chantilly, VA |
|||||||||
WestfieldsPark Center |
Dulles South | 33 | 400,000 | ||||||
Chantilly, VA |
|||||||||
Woodland Park |
Herndon | 5 | 225,000 | ||||||
Herndon, VA |
|||||||||
Patriot Ridge |
Springfield | 11 | 739,000 | ||||||
Springfield, VA |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
72 | 1,764,000 | |||||||
San Antonio: |
|||||||||
8100 Potranco Road |
San Antonio Northwest | 9 | 125,000 | ||||||
San Antonio, TX |
|||||||||
Northwest Crossroads |
San Antonio Northwest | 31 | 375,000 | ||||||
San Antonio, TX |
|||||||||
Military Drive |
San Antonio Northwest | 41 | 752,000 | ||||||
San Antonio, TX |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
81 | 1,252,000 | |||||||
32
Land Location
|
Submarket | Acres | Estimated Developable Square Feet |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
St. Mary's & King George Counties |
|||||||||
Dahlgren Technology Center |
King George County | 38 | 64,000 | ||||||
Dahlgren, MD |
|||||||||
Expedition VII |
St. Mary's County | 6 | 45,000 | ||||||
Lexington Park, MD |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
44 | 109,000 | |||||||
Greater Baltimore: |
|||||||||
Canton Crossing |
Baltimore | 10 | 773,000 | ||||||
Baltimore, MD |
|||||||||
White Marsh |
White Marsh | 138 | 1,352,000 | ||||||
White Marsh, MD |
|||||||||
North Gate Business Park |
Harford County | 39 | 567,000 | ||||||
Aberdeen, MD |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
187 | 2,692,000 | |||||||
Suburban Maryland |
|||||||||
Thomas Johnson Drive |
Frederick | 6 | 170,000 | ||||||
Frederick, MD |
|||||||||
Route 15 / Biggs Ford Road |
Frederick | 107 | 1,000,000 | ||||||
Frederick, MD |
|||||||||
Rockville Corporate Center |
Rockville | 10 | 220,000 | ||||||
Rockville, MD |
|||||||||
M Square Research Park |
College Park | 49 | 510,000 | ||||||
College Park, MD |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
172 | 1,900,000 | |||||||
Colorado Springs: |
|||||||||
InterQuest |
I-25 North Corridor | 94 | 1,450,000 | ||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
|||||||||
9965 Federal Drive |
I-25 North Corridor | 4 | 30,000 | ||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
|||||||||
Patriot Park |
Colorado Springs East | 71 | 1,000,000 | ||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
|||||||||
Aerotech Commerce |
Colorado Springs East | 6 | 90,000 | ||||||
Colorado Springs, CO |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
175 | 2,570,000 | |||||||
Greater Philadelphia: |
|||||||||
Arborcrest |
Blue Bell | 8 | 722,000 | ||||||
Blue Bell, PA |
|||||||||
Other: |
|||||||||
Redstone Gateway |
Huntsville, AL | 465 | 4,485,000 | ||||||
Huntsville, AL |
|||||||||
Indian Head |
Charles County, MD | 217 | 967,000 | ||||||
Charles County, MD |
|||||||||
Fort Ritchie |
Fort Ritchie | 591 | | ||||||
Cascade, MD |
|||||||||
Subtotal |
1,273 | 5,452,000 | |||||||
Total Land Held and Under Preconstruction |
2,330 | 20,598,000 | |||||||
33
The following table provides certain information about our wholesale data center property as of December 31, 2011:
Property and Location
|
Year Built |
Gross Building Area |
Raised Floor Square Footage(1) |
Initial Stabilization Critical Load (in MWs)(2) |
Critical Load Upon Completion Leased at December 31, 2011 |
MW Operational |
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9651 Hornbaker Road |
2010 | 233,000 | 100,000 | 18 | 17 | % | 17 | % | |||||||||||
Manassas, Virginia |
Lease Expirations
The following table provides a summary schedule of the lease expirations for leases in place at our office properties as of December 31, 2011, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal options. This analysis includes the effect of early renewals completed on existing leases but excludes the effect of new tenant leases on 399,802 square feet executed but yet to commence as of December 31, 2011.
Year of Lease Expiration(1)
|
Number of Leases Expiring |
Square Footage of Leases Expiring |
Percentage of Total Occupied Square Feet |
Annualized Rental Revenue of Expiring Leases(2) |
Percentage of Total Annualized Rental Revenue Expiring(2) |
Total Annualized Rental Revenue of Expiring Leases Per Occupied Square Foot |
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|||||||||||||
2012 |
171 | 2,349,450 | 13.3 | % | $ | 58,048 | 12.3 | % | $ | 24.71 | |||||||||
2013 |
118 | 2,021,184 | 11.4 | % | 59,678 | 12.7 | % | 29.53 | |||||||||||
2014 |
131 | 2,147,570 | 12.1 | % | 57,535 | 12.2 | % | 26.79 | |||||||||||
2015 |
116 | 2,688,720 | 15.2 | % | 68,954 | 14.7 | % | 25.65 | |||||||||||
2016 |
99 | 1,843,069 | 10.4 | % | 46,445 | 9.9 | % | 25.20 | |||||||||||
2017 |
60 | 1,338,885 | 7.6 | % | 36,769 | 7.8 | % | 27.46 | |||||||||||
2018 |
46 | 1,115,484 | 6.3 | % | 29,522 | 6.3 | % | 26.46 | |||||||||||
2019 |
27 | 886,856 | 5.0 | % | 22,395 | 4.8 | % | 25.25 | |||||||||||
2020 |
26 | 1,285,972 | 7.3 | % | 32,410 | 6.9 | % | 25.20 | |||||||||||
2021 |
22 | 662,096 | 3.7 | % | 17,765 | 3.8 | % | 26.83 | |||||||||||
2022 |
11 | 737,163 | 4.2 | % | 20,911 | 4.4 | % | 28.37 | |||||||||||
2023 |
2 | 52,899 | 0.3 | % | 1,176 | 0.3 | % | 22.24 | |||||||||||
2024 |
| | 0.0 | % | | 0.0 | % | | |||||||||||
2025 |
4 | 555,370 | 3.1 | % | 18,550 | 3.9 | % | 33.40 | |||||||||||
Total/Weighted Average |
833 | 17,684,718 | 100.0 | % | $ | 470,158 | 100.0 | % | $ | 26.59 | |||||||||
34
The following table provides a summary schedule of the lease expirations for leases in place at our wholesale data center property as of December 31, 2011:
Year of Lease Expiration
|
Number of Leases Expiring |
Raised Floor Square Footage Expiring |
Critical Load Leased (in megawatts) |
Critical Load Used (in megawatts) |
Annualized Rental Revenue of Expiring Leases(2) |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|||||||||||
2019 |
1 | 7,172 | 1 | 1.00 | $ | 2,057 | ||||||||||
2020 |
1 | 19,023 | 2 | 1.25 | 2,570 | |||||||||||
Total/Weighted Average |
2 | 26,195 | 3 | 2.25 | $ | 4,627 | ||||||||||
We are not currently involved in any other material litigation nor, to our knowledge, is any material litigation currently threatened against the Company (other than routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, substantially all of which is expected to be covered by liability insurance).
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
35
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information
Our common shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "OFC." The table below shows the range of the high and low sale prices for our common shares as reported on the NYSE, as well as the quarterly common share dividends per share declared:
|
Price Range | |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dividends Per Share |
|||||||||
2010
|
Low | High | ||||||||
First Quarter |
$ | 32.69 | $ | 42.44 | $ | 0.3925 | ||||
Second Quarter |
$ | 34.82 | $ | 43.61 | $ | 0.3925 | ||||
Third Quarter |
$ | 35.04 | $ | 39.85 | $ | 0.4125 | ||||
Fourth Quarter |
$ | 33.33 | $ | 38.96 | $ | 0.4125 |
|
Price Range | |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dividends Per Share |
|||||||||
2011
|
Low | High | ||||||||
First Quarter |
$ | 33.83 | $ | 36.90 | $ | 0.4125 | ||||
Second Quarter |
$ | 30.63 | $ | 36.79 | &nb |