| Lease Negotiation
Tips
|
|
|
Capital
Expenditures—Includable or Not? |
One of the most
hotly debated items regarding operating expense clauses in
leases is the includability of capital expenditures in
tenant pass-throughs. This article will explore why
these expenditures should not be included in
operating expenses and why tenants should do their best to
keep such expenditures out of their leases.
What are Capital Expenditures?
According to GAAP (Generally
Accepted Accounting Practices), capital expenditures are the
acquisition costs for items that:
- Last beyond the current
accounting period (the current year); and
- Increase the value or the life of
an asset
The best way to understand capital
expenditures is to think of them as "investments"
in its building that are intended to yield long-term
benefits.
Where Capital Expenditures Appear
in Leases
Most leases have operating expense /
CAM (common area maintenance) provisions that require the
tenant to share in the "pot" of building operating
expenses. Operating expenses typically include
maintenance costs, operation costs and other normal costs of
the building. When it comes to capital expenditures,
most leases have language that specifically addresses how
they are to be treated.
The language may vary from lease to
lease. This is partly because capital expenditures can
take several forms including improvements, replacements
and extraordinary repairs such as refurbishments and
overhauls.
The Rent Already Covers Capital
Expenditures
What is fair when it comes to
capital expenditures? In most cases, the costs of
capital expenditures should be borne entirely by the
landlord. In order to understand why, one must
first understand how the lease is structured financially.
Base rent is intended to compensate
a landlord for the use of its building. The building
consists of the entire structure, including all of its
physical improvements, systems, equipment and other
attributes. The owner's investment in the
building is allocated to each year through depreciation.
The key economic model for owning commercial real estate
assumes that the negotiated (base) rent being collected is
sufficient to cover the annual "use" as reflected
by the owner's debt service and the building's depreciation.
Capital Replacements
Over the years, the many component
parts of a building will wear out. Therefore, every
component will, eventually, need to be replaced. So
when a landlord spends money replacing a component of the
building, it is simply replacing part of what the rent is
already covering. There is no justification for
including these replacement costs in the building operating
expenses; to do so would be to charge the tenant twice
for the item-once in the rent and again in the operating
expenses.
Many leases contain a general
capital expenditure exclusion, but then allow the inclusion
of the costs of replacing an item where the expense of
continued maintenance is greater than the cost to replace it.
At some point in the lives of all assets, the wear and tear
of normal use will become so great, or the passage of time
will make them so obsolete, that the cost to repair and
maintain them will be prohibitive as compared to their
outright replacement.
Don't be fooled. This
is exactly the reason assets are replaced. They have reached
the end of their useful lives and need to be discarded and
new, and perhaps more efficient, assets need to be acquired.
This repair vs. replacement argument should not be used by a
landlord to circumvent a lease's capital expenditure
exclusion. When an asset is replaced, the replacement is a
capital expenditure that should not be included in operating
expenses.
Extraordinary Repairs
What about repairs? Aren't
they different from replacements? In many cases, they are.
Small, routine repairs neither increase the value nor extend
the life of the asset. However, if a repair is
non-routine and rises to a level where the expenditure
increases the value or life of the asset, then this
constitutes what accountants call a "betterment"
and the costs should be capitalized.
Capital Improvements
Capital improvements are
expenditures for new items in a building, such as a new
sidewalk (where one didn't exist before), a new security
system, etc. Should any of these be included in
operating expenses? Let's examine the various
circumstances for these kinds of expenditures.
Straight Improvements
If a landlord puts in a new
sidewalk, one can argue that the tenants are all benefiting
from it, and that they therefore should pay for it.
However, if these items can be included in operating
expenses at the landlord's discretion, then the landlord is
essentially improving its building using the tenants' money.
Even though the tenant may receive a benefit from the new
item, the tenant should, at a minimum, have the option of
deciding whether it wants to spend its money on it.
The landlord should first obtain the tenants' written
agreement that if such an improvement is made, they are
willing to pay for their share of it by allowing inclusion
in the operating expenses. Without such approval,
inclusion in the operating expenses is inappropriate.
Improvements Intended to Save
Operating Expenses
Landlords are often faced with the
prospect of buying equipment that can improve the efficiency
of their buildings. For example, energy management
systems can vastly reduce utility costs by managing the
hours and extent of electrical equipment usage in a
building.
Tenants should have no problem in
including these costs in operating expenses provided the
expenditure is spread out (amortized) over the improvement's
useful life, and to the extent that the annual amortization
charge is no greater than the money actually saved.
Thus, it is acceptable for capital expenditures to be
allowed for items that actually save other operating
expenses to the extent of such savings.
Beware of clauses that say that
capital expenditures are allowable if they are intended to
save money, because almost anything can fit into that
category. The expenditure must actually save money,
and the landlord must be able to document such
savings.
Improvements Required by New Laws
From time to time, laws are passed
that require building owners to make improvements to their
buildings (e.g., ADA, fire safety codes). These are
unexpected expenditures on the part of the landlord, and a
good argument can be made that the tenant should pay for
them because they are not factored into the existing rent
structure. However, an equally good argument can be
made that having to fund such improvements is one of the
risks of building ownership, and that the tenant should be
insulated from such risk. The tenant may enjoy use of
the new improvement for a short time (during the balance of
its lease term), but it is the landlord that now owns the
new improvement forever. Why should the tenant be
required to pay for it?
Spreading the Cost Out over the
Useful Life
In any case, any time that capital
expenditures are allowed to be included in operating
expenses, the cost must be spread out over the useful life
of the expenditure. Remember that these expenditures
are essentially investments in the building, and are
expected to yield benefits for many years. Sound
accounting principles require that in order to accurately
measure and report the financial performance of an
investment in real estate, the cost of such items must be
allocated to the time periods they benefit. Doing so
also avoids the inequitable result of having a tenant pay
for the entire cost of such an expenditure in one year even
though it may not be in occupancy to enjoy the benefits
thereof in future years.
Conclusion
Capital expenditures can take the
form of extraordinary repairs (such as refurbishments and
overhauls), replacements and improvements. Except
where the expenditure actually saves other operating
expenses (and therefore has no net impact on the tenant),
tenants should not allow the inclusion of such expenditures
in operating expenses. These are investments in the
building. They are already anticipated and covered by
the existing rent and are yield long-term benefits to the
landlord almost exclusively. If, through negotiation,
any of such expenditures are allowed, at a minimum they must
be spread out over their useful lives so as to minimize the
single-year impact they may impose.
|