UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): March 19, 2007
UDR, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
         
Maryland
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation)
  1-10524
(Commission File Number)
  54-0857512
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200, Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80129
(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (720) 283-6120
     Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
      o   Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
      o   Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
      o   Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
      o   Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
 
 

 


 

ITEM 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
     The information included as Exhibit 99.1 to this report will be made available to investors beginning March 19, 2007.
     Beginning March 19, 2007, the information included as Exhibit 99.2 to this report will be available on the website of UDR, Inc.
ITEM 8.01. Other Events.
      Attached to this report as Exhibit 99.3 is the form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement for awards of UDR, Inc. restricted stock outside of the UDR, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
ITEM 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
     (d) Exhibits.
     
Exhibit No.   Description
 
   
99.1
  Presentation Materials.
 
   
99.2
  Materials Relating to Mature Market Trends as of February 2007.
 
   
99.3
  Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement.
Signatures
     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
         
  UDR, INC.
 
 
Date: March 19, 2007  /s/ David L. Messenger    
  David L. Messenger   
  Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer   
 

 


 

EXHIBIT INDEX
     
   
Exhibit No.   Description
 
   
99.1
  Presentation Materials.
 
   
99.2
  Materials Relating to Mature Market Trends as of February 2007.
 
   
99.3
  Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement.

 

 

Exhibit 99.1
UDR Investor Day March 19, 2007 Tom Toomey, CEO


 

Today, UDR is announcing a new vision and identity Vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice New name and identity Why this? Why now?


 

Why this mark? UDR is focused on the future Logo represents a door or window to the future Every home has a door


 

Why now? Our new name and identity symbolize our future We have built a strong team, capital base and infrastructure We have a new vision and the right strategies to deliver growth


 

Our vision To be the innovative real estate investment of choice


 

Our vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice "Innovation is the fuel for growth." Gary Hamel and Gary Getz, in 'Funding Growth in an Age of Austerity' "Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things." Theodore Levitt


 

UDR has demonstrated innovation: Internet marketing Development Full-scale redevelopment Kitchen and bath program 1.1 million unique visitors went to our website in 2006. 34% of 2006 leases were initiated via the Internet. Our vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice


 

UDR has demonstrated innovation: Internet marketing Development Full-scale redevelopment Kitchen and bath program Our vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice $2B Development Pipeline


 

UDR has demonstrated innovation: Internet marketing Development Full-scale redevelopment Kitchen and bath program 100% Growth in Cash Flow Our vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice


 

UDR has demonstrated innovation: Internet marketing Development Full-scale redevelopment Kitchen and bath program 10% Targeted ROI Our vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice


 

"of choice" Our vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice


 

"of choice" means: Preferred employer Preferred partner Preferred investment Our vision: To be the innovative real estate investment of choice


 

We have the right growth strategies to deliver superior value creation We have the management bench, discipline and capital resources to implement our plan We can improve our strong past performance to deliver future growth Today, we will demonstrate our vision, strategies and team


 

We have the right strategies ...


 

Florida: 16% California: 27% Texas: 12% D.C. Corridor: 14% Strategy 1: Strengthen our research-driven portfolio


 

Expand development, redevelopment, land entitlement and short-term hold investments Agility Innovation Opportunity Strategy 2: Expand RE3


 

Grow net operating income through automation and efficiency. Strategy 3: Transform operations to grow NOI


 

Leverage research capabilities and operating, financial and investment platforms to attract a variety of low cost capital Strategy 4: Source low-cost capital


 

Favorable fundamentals: long-term trends for apartments (demographic, employment, immigration, etc.) Value-creation competencies in all phases of the real estate cycle Where we want to be in terms of team expertise "Targeted" national footprint focused on future opportunity Pace is accelerating; focused on the future UDR is unique: This is the right time ...


 

We have a clear vision and the right growth strategies to deliver superior value creation We have the management bench, discipline and capital resources to implement our plan We can improve our strong past performance to deliver future growth In summary ...


 

Mike Ernst Chief Financial Officer Executive Vice President Martha Carlin Executive Vice President Property Operations Mark Wallis Senior Executive Vice President Legal, Acquisitions, Dispositions, Development & Asset Quality We have the right team ...


 

UDR Investor Day


 


 


 


 

Mark Wallis Senior EVP Acquisitions, Dispositions, Asset Quality & Development


 

Leverage our capacity and infrastructure with quality assets in selected markets Strategy: Strengthen our research-driven portfolio


 

"Research-driven" is more complex than high-barrier markets For us, "research-driven" incorporates rigorous analysis to measure 2 key factors and determine where: Home affordability index is low The demand/supply ratio for multi-family housing is favorable Demographic trends are favorable Job growth expectations are high


 

Strategy: Expand RE3 Solve the market cycle puzzle by expanding development, redevelopment, land entitlement and condo conversions. Why now? What is the objective? How do we measure success?


 

Why now? The time is right to expand RE3 In the past: REITs have expanded significantly over the last 15 years They traditionally have been required to hold assets for 4 years or more Today: REITs must have the flexibility to compete in the marketplace or they will miss significant opportunities RE3 solves the puzzle of market cycles by enabling us to sell assets sooner RE3 allows us to generate more income through innovative fee structures


 

Our objective is to outperform the industry To accelerate growth in FFO and outperform the industry To diversify income base To supplement profits from traditional operations To reach a goal of 20% of FFO from RE3


 

We have a strong team with over 150 years of experience Richard Giannotti EVP Redevelopment Matt Akin SVP Acquisitions and Dispositions Les Boeckel SVP Condominiums Mark Culwell SVP Development Doug Walker SVP Asset Quality Scott St. Clair VP Kitchen and Bath Program


 

We expect our development & redevelopment efforts to create $800M-$1.2B in value We have a four-pronged approach: In-house development Pre-sale development Joint ventures Redevelopment


 

Two research-driven examples that emphasize different drivers "Research-driven" incorporates rigorous analysis to measure 2 key factors and determine where: Home affordability index is low The demand/supply ratio for multi-family housing is favorable Demographic trends are favorable Job growth expectations are high


 

Home affordability index (low) is the key driver Example: Caroline Village, Woodbridge, VA


 

The supply/demand ratio for multi-family housing (favorable) is the key driver Surprise, AZ 382 Homes $46 million Budget $120,000 Cost per Home Expected 6.25% to 6.75% Return Expected Start Date: 4Q07 Expected Completion Date: 1Q10


 

Our pipeline is robust, with a high percentage of our Q4 shadow pipeline under contract Warner Center - Los Angeles, CA 438 Stadium Village - Surprise, AZ 382 Woodlands - Houston, TX 324 North Hyde Park - Tampa, FL 250 Woodbridge - Woodbridge, VA 322 Bennet - Dallas, TX 460 Carolina Corporate Center - Raleigh, NC 300 Baseline - Rancho Cucamonga, CA 593 Lake Elsinore - Lake Elsinore, CA 590 Box Springs - Monero Valley, CA 240 Centennial Plaza - Richardson, TX 330 Addison - Dallas, TX 993 Total Future Development - Under Contract / Investigation 5,222 Estimated UDR Investment $779M Purchased/Under Contract Deletion Estimated # of Homes


 

We bring expertise and innovation to a variety of product types Garden Wrap Podium Mid rise Mixed-use High rise


 

We bring expertise and innovation to a variety of product types Garden Wrap Podium Mid rise Mixed-use High rise


 

We bring expertise and innovation to a variety of product types Garden Wrap Podium Mid rise Mixed-use High rise


 

We bring expertise and innovation to a variety of product types Garden Wrap Podium Mid rise Mixed-use High rise


 

We bring expertise and innovation to a variety of product types Garden Wrap Podium Mid rise Mixed-use High rise


 

We bring expertise and innovation to a variety of product types Garden Wrap Podium Mid rise Mixed-use High rise


 

RE3: innovative land acquisition and development Brookhaven - Addision, TX Addison: Day time population: 100,000 Night time population: 16,000 Potential to triple density to 5,000 + homes Retail, office and other zoning Estimated Start: 4Q 2007 Return on Costs: 6.5% - 7.0%


 

RE3: innovative land acquisition and development


 

RE3: innovative JV structures 989 Elements - Bellevue, WA 166 Homes High-Rise Closed Joint Venture in Jan '07 Structure: 49% UDR / 51% Su Development Managed by UDR Ground Floor Retail Total Cost of $58 million - UDR interest $28 million


 

Kitchen and bath program: innovative capital improvements Before After


 

Our goal for condos is to harvest value from existing properties 54 Townhomes (new development) 176 Condos (Phase I) 400 Apartments (redeveloped) 320 Condos (Phase II) Value Creation Opportunity: Townhomes: ~ $6 million Condos: ~ $20 million Redevelopment: ~ $10 million Total: ~$36 Million Island Walk, Tampa, FL


 

Both acquisitions and dispositions create value for RE3 purchased mid-2006, forecasted sale in 2007


 

Both acquisitions and dispositions create value for RE3 Las Colinas, TX 367 Homes $32 million Cost $85,200 Cost per Home Sold in Q4 for $45 million


 

In summary, our strategies are working and we're accelerating our pace. Our research-driven portfolio is positioned to outperform the industry Our innovative redevelopment program creates significant value We bring innovation and expertise to many product types RE3 supplements and diversifies our traditional business and accelerates FFO growth


 

UDR Investor Day


 

Mike Ernst EVP and CFO


 

We have an experienced finance and accounting team Stacy Riffe SVP, CFO of RE3 Dave Messenger SVP, Chief Accounting Officer Larry Thede VP, Investor Relations VPs managing Treasury, Risk, Legal and Tax, with average experience in excess of 23 years


 

Strategy: Source a variety of low-cost capital Leverage research capabilities and operating, investment and financial infrastructure to attract low-cost capital alternatives and optimize ROIC Why now? What is the benefit? How do we measure success?


 

Why now? We have a great platform to support growth and value creation Experienced team Broad market knowledge Ability to create value in many ways Ability to co-invest significant capital Research capabilities Transparency Flexibility


 

What is the benefit? This strategy produces higher returns with lower risk Reduces need to access common equity Generates fee income to supplement property income Increases potential for dividend increases Lowers overall corporate risk


 

How do we measure success? Increased ROIC Stabilized Investment Development Unleveraged IRR 7.5% - 8.5% 8 - 9% Leveraged IRR 11 - 13% 15 - 20% Leveraged IRR w/ profit from fees @ 20% interest 13 - 15% 22 - 28% Leveraged IRR w/ profit from fees and promote @ 20% interest 13 - 20% 22 - 38%


 

How do we measure success? We have closed or expect to close a number of ventures in the next 12 months JPI - Marina Del Rey John Su - Bellevue, Washington Pre-sale program Texas stabilized portfolio - selling 80% interest Development


 

In summary, we have the right strategy to create value Allocating capital to value creating investments Optimizing return on invested capital Managing risk


 

Martha Carlin EVP Operations


 

Strategy: Transform operations to grow NOI Grow NOI through Automation and efficiency


 

We have a strong team Pat Gregory CIO Erin Ditto SVP, Property Operations Tom Spangler SVP, Business Opportunities Jerry Davis VP, Area Director, So. CA and AZ Louis Kovalsky VP, Area Director, MD, VA, DC Dennis Sandidge VP, Area Director, FL, NC, SC Steve Taraborelli VP, Marketing Steve Lefkovits Joshua Tree Consulting


 

We've given this strategy a name Operations 2.0


 

UDR's new operating model: "Operations 2.0"


 

UDR's new operating model: "Operations 2.0" new banking model


 

UDR's new operating model: "Operations 2.0" Phase 1: Planning - 2007 Phase 2 : Testing and implementation - starts in 2008


 

UDR's new operating model: "Operations 2.0" We create competitive advantage in this landscape through: Marketing Labor efficiencies Self-service Yield management Process reengineering


 

Operations 2.0: Customized offerings drive a unique model What we mean by transformational change: We will merge these technologies to create a new operating model


 

Why expand our vision now? Customers expect it Current model not responsive to the times Market is saturated with undifferentiated investment platforms The cost of technology is dropping If we don't change, "generation Y" will change our model for us


 

Why do we believe UDR can deliver this new operating model? Parts of this model are already in place Here are some examples of the new world of marketing ...


 

(Video)


 

Steve Taraborelli VP, Marketing


 

Low Cost of Customer Acquisition


 

Organic Search Engine Visitors 2003 82,000 2004 271,000 2005 427,000 2006 645,000 Tot. 1,425,000 We've significantly increased visits at no cost to UDR 1.4 million search engine visitor referrals cost UDR $0.00 61,000 free leads generated from Google, Yahoo & MSN 20% closing rate translates into 12,200 lease sales $117,000,000 earned last four years at zero marketing cost Website Visitors & ROI


 

Online Traffic Generation examples


 

Our content is passed along for free UDR content placed in social communities who share same interests Helps in search engine marketing efforts No marketing cost to UDR


 

UDR Microsites - private label apartment websites Capture organic search engine searchers Results: 2004-06 25 Microsites Search engine optimized for free visitor traffic 175,000 Unique Visitors 3,000 Online Reservations Cost: $4,400 over three years


 

Blogging increases search engine penetration Content distribution at no cost to UDR Use Blogs to dominate the search engine rankings Search engine optimized No marketing cost to UDR


 

2003 49,000 2004 162,000 2005 268,000 2006 386,000 Lead Stream Up 44% in '06 vs '05 Email, phone and udrt.com leads are up 44%


 

Innovation at almost zero cost


 

Skype-In & Skype-Out Reach out to customers around the world 88,000 website visitors are outside USA Use Voice-Over-IP technology to engage with international apartment prospects No marketing cost to UDR


 

Instant Messaging - Meebo UDR associates cans handle multiple IM accounts for enhanced online support Using Instant Messaging technology Simplifies online instant messaging with multiple prospects who use different IM accounts Enhances the online customer experience No marketing cost to UDR


 

Really Simple Syndication (RSS) enables automatic price & incentive updates Users will get automatic pricing & incentive email updates when this content changes. RSS bypasses email spam filters for users who opt-in for such content.


 

NextRentals.com Non-branded Internet Listing Services Website 2005-06 Results 186,000 Unique Visitors 1,800 Coupon Downloads (leads) 1,000's of email, phone and drive-by leads generated. Reduces UDR payments to Rent.com by $125


 

We are leveraging existing technologies to extend reach, at little or no cost Technologies used to extend our marketing communications reach at little or no cost to UDR: Social Search Marketing Microsites Blogging Skype Meebo RSS NextRentals.com ILS Website


 

Marketing Summary High yield, low cost results - easily scalable with velocity Leveraging technology to increase lead stream and sales Using technology to make it easier to make a sales transaction with UDR


 

The new model of property management Operations 2.0


 

In summary, we're improving both the customer experience and our margins Utilizing technology to improve customer experience and reduce costs Taking a fresh approach to all areas of operations Enhancing and extending best-of-breed technologies to fit our needs Providing industry-leading platform to RE3 Improving margins by 200-300 basis points


 

UDR Investor Day


 

UDR 2007 Investor Day March 19, 2007 Value Creation Initiatives Development, Redevelopment


 

Statements contained in this presentation, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements, as the term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can identify these forward-looking statements by the Company's use of words such as, "expects," "plans," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "believes," and similar expressions that do not relate to historical matters. Such forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties which can cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated, due to a number of factors, which include, but are not limited to, unfavorable changes in the apartment market, changing economic conditions, the impact of competition and competitive pricing, acquisitions or new developments not achieving anticipated results, delays in completing developments and lease-ups on schedule, difficulties in selling existing apartment communities, and other risk factors discussed in documents filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. All forward-looking statements in this presentation are made as of today, based upon information known to management as of the date hereof. The Company assumes no obligation to update or revise any of its forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes show that indicated results or events will not be realized. Mill Creek San Ramon, CA The Mandolin Dallas, TX Parker's Landing Tampa, FL Safe Harbor Statement


 

Garden Wrap Podium Mid Rise Mixed Use High Rise Executive Summary UDR Development


 

Development Pipeline $1.9 Billion Identified, In Process 21 Communities 11,069 Homes $170 million Budgeted, $357 million Total Investment 13 Communities 4,635 Homes Redevelopment Pipeline Pipeline


 

Economics Why develop/redevelop? Value Creation: Gaining new assets/redeveloped communities at cost in high performance markets Growth: 150 to 200 basis point spread between build and buying retail Future deliveries offer greater promise of future NOI growth Focus on high growth markets with stronger operating metrics Product: Replacing aging, capital intensive assets with little rent growth potential


 

Value Created Plus, an additional $300 million or $2 per share of redevelopment value creation $3 to $6 per Share


 

Development Process Approach Identifying Opportunities - Research Driven Product - Appropriately Designed to Fit Opportunity Utilized For Best Execution: Wholly Owned - Joint Ventures - Pre Sales Annual Deliveries - $300-$500M - Requires Pipeline of $2.5B Research Driven Analysis Permit Trends Job Formation SF Trends Income Trends Occupancy Trends Rental Rate Growth


 

Development Process Lease Up & Stabilization Construction Qualified 3rd party GC GC input in design Guaranteed maximum price Managed by UDR project manager Independent progress inspections Target Neighborhood Strong local demographics Near employment centers Product deliveries Sites Infill locations Mature/emerging neighborhoods "Forever Great" locations Feasability Best 3rd party consultants Independent market analysis Local UDR operations Financial analysis Approvals Weekly pipeline meetings Senior VP review Investment committee Design Review Design coordinator Operations Senior VP


 

Development The Team: Experience approaching 150 years Diverse background including Finance, Operations, Analysis, Construction, Brokerage, Urban Planning and Development Competent leadership Defined focus Results driven


 

Intentionally Left Blank


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Development Summary


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Completed Wholly Owned Development - Verano at Town Square Rancho Cucamonga, CA 414 Homes $68 million Cost $164,250 Cost per Home 7.5% to 8.0% Return as Apartment Homes In Lease-Up: 90.8% Leased Estimated $38 million Value Created


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Wholly Owned Development - Lincoln at Towne Square Phase II Plano, TX 302 Homes $26 million Budget $86,100 Cost per Home 6.5% to 7.0% Return Expected Completion - 3Q08 Estimated $8 million Value Created


 

Wholly Owned Development - Northwest Houston Houston, TX 340 Homes $22 million Budget $64,700 Cost per Home 6.8% Return Est. Completion: 2Q 2008 UDR Value Creation Initiatives


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Wholly Owned Development - Riachi at One21 (Ridgeview) Plano, TX 202 Homes $18 million Budget $89,100 Cost per Home 6.5% to 7.0% Return Expected Completion - 3Q07 Estimated $6 million Value Created


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Completed Wholly Owned Development - Mandalay on the Lake Las Colinas, TX 367 Homes $32 million Cost $85,200 Cost per Home Sold in Q4 for $45 million SOLD


 

Pre-Sale Summary UDR Value Creation Initiatives


 

Developer Pre-Sale Program Developer identifies site and presents preliminary underwriting to UDR UDR reviews and agrees to proceed UDR and Developer sign binding Pre-Development Letter Pre-Development letter includes Pre-Development Budget-UDR funds approved budget on a monthly draw basis Certain Go/No-Go Decisions are agreed to in letter Letter outlines terms of Pre-sale Purchase Contract to be signed If deal does not go forward Developer refunds UDR for 50% of Pre-Development dollars spent Upon signing of Pre-Development Agreement Developer and UDR negotiate a formal Pre-Sale Contract General Terms of Pre-Sale: Developer obtains construction loan UDR agrees to purchase the development upon final C.O. at cost UDR provides take-out to construction loan Developer receives the following fees for developing and constructing the project: Development Fee equal to 3% of Project Total Costs If Developer acts as General Contractor-5% of Hard Cost Developer shall be responsible for all cost overruns At Project Stabilization (generally 24 to 30 months from completion)-Developer and UDR agree to the value of the project and Developer is then paid a fee in the amount of 50% of the difference between value and cost If Developer and UDR cannot agree on value an appraisal process is used and if that fails then both agree to market and sell the property on the open market


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Development Pre-Sale - The Place at Millenia Orlando, Florida 371 Homes $53 million Budget Expected returns of 7.0% to 7.5% Expected completion date: 3Q07 Millenia


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Development Pre-Sale - The Waterford Phoenix, Arizona 200 Homes $24 million Budget Expected returns of 7.0% to 7.5% Expected completion date: 1Q08


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Development Pre-Sale - Mustang Park Dallas, TX 289 Homes $28 million Budget Expected Returns of 7.0% to 7.5% Expected Completion Date: 3Q08


 

Intentionally Left Blank


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Joint Venture Summary


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Joint Venture - Jefferson at Marina del Rey JPI - National Apartment Developer Negotiated new development in Marina Del Rey, CA 298 homes $138 million budget $463,000 cost per home Expected 6.0% to 6.5% Return


 

Bellevue Plaza Development Site UDR Value Creation Initiatives Joint Venture - Bellevue Plaza Proposed High Rise Development 400 Homes $135 million Budget $270,000 Cost per Home Ground Floor Retail Expected 6.0% - 6.5% Return Structure: 49% UDR/51% SU Development


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Joint Venture - Bellevue Plaza 989 Elements - Bellevue, WA 166 Homes High-Rise Closed Joint Venture in Jan '07 Structure: 49% UDR / 51% Su Development Managed by UDR Ground Floor Retail Total Cost of $58 million - UDR interest $28 million


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment Summary


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment Reinvest with Exterior Upgrades and Interior Renovations 13 Communities Underway - 4,635 Homes $170 million Budgeted Cost - $357 million Total Investment Targeting 8% to 10% Stabilized ROI


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Legacy at Mayland Richmond, VA Built in 1973, Purchased by UDR in December 1991. 576 Homes Redevelopment Completed 4Q06 100% Growth in Cash Flow to $4.6M in 33 Months 11% Cash on Cash Return Value Created: > $36 million After Before


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Altamira Place Altamira Springs, FL Built in 1984, Purchased by UDR in April 1994 360 Homes Full Scope Redevelopment Approaching Completion Projected Benefits 57% Growth in Cash Flow to Nearly $2.3 million 7% - 8% Cash on Cash Return Value Created: ~ $13 million After Before


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Dominion Great Oaks Ellicott City, MD Built in 1974, Purchased by UDR in July 1994. 300 Homes Full Scope Redevelopment Beginning 1Q07 Projected Benefits: 52% Growth in Cash Flow to $3.2 million 7% - 8% Cash on Cash Return > $15 million Value Created After Before


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Gayton Crossing Richmond, VA Built in 1973, Purchased by UDR in September 1995 253 Homes Full Scope Redevelopment Expected Completion 4Q07 Projected Benefits: 100% Growth in Cash Flow to $3.0 million 8% Cash on Cash Return > $14 million Value Created After Before


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Dover Village Orlando, FL Built in 1981, Purchased by UDR in March 1993. 296 Homes Full Scope Redevelopment Expected Completion 4Q07 Projected Benefits: 57% Growth in Cash Flow to $2.6 million 6% - 7% Cash on Cash Return ~ $10 million Value Created After Before


 

Redevelopment - Wellington Place Manassas, VA Built in 1987, Purchased by UDR in September 2005 372 Homes Full Scope Redevelopment Construction Began November 2006 Projected Benefits: 36% Growth in Cash Flow to $4.0 million 7% - 8% Cash on Cash Return $14 million Value Created UDR Value Creation Initiatives After Before


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Taylor Place Arlington, VA Built in 1964, Purchased by UDR in April 2002 218 Homes Full Scope Redevelopment Completion Expected 1Q08 Projected Benefits: 50% Growth in Cash Flow to $2.6 million 9% Cash on Cash Return > $13 million Value Created After Before


 

Intentionally Left Blank


 

Remington on the Green - Raleigh, NC UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Kitchen/Bath Program Goals of K/B Program Increase NAV Low-Risk Redevelopment Attract Higher-Grade Resident Higher rent Better care of asset Neighborhood quality Flexibility/Modernization Standardization --> Lower cost maintenance After Before


 

Providence Court - Charlotte, NC After Before UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Kitchen/Bath Program Upgraded Appliances, Cabinets, Lighting, Flooring, Etc. Targeting 8% to 10% Stabilized ROI 14,000 Completed; > 20,000 in Pipeline Rent Increase Examples: Before After So. California $1,270 $1,408 No. California $1,189 $1,325 Monterey $996 $1,093 Baltimore $953 $1,035 Portland $764 $907 Orlando $769 $895 Tampa $779 $889 We are Absorbing Dilution from Homes Out of Service


 

Legacy at Mayland - Richmond, VA UDR Value Creation Initiatives Redevelopment - Kitchen/Bath Program How We Are Doing It Better? Complexity of execution Cross department cohesion Start with good location Cutting edge design Better cabinets Granite Stainless Steel New lighting Flexibility/adaptation Reconfiguration/modernization Flexible resource allocation After Before


 

Intentionally Left Blank


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Owned


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Waterside Towers Purchased December 2003 Located in SW Washington D.C., 15 Minute Walk from National Mall Ten-Story Mid-Rise Structure 550 Existing Homes Current Rent: Studio - $1,129 1 Bed - $1,395 2 Bed - $1,772 3 Bed - $1,985


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Waterside Towers Planned Expansion on Existing Property 11 story tower 200 homes 12,000 to 18,000 sq. ft. for retail Estimated cost: $70 million Timing: Zoning - 18 mos. Pre-Construction - 14 mos. Construction - 24 mos. Contingency - 4 mos. Total - 60 mos.


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Grandview Glendale, CA 218 Homes $67 million Budget $307,000 Cost per Home Expected 6.0% to 6.5% Return Expected Start Date: 4Q07 Expected Completion: 3Q09


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Summit at Mission Bay San Diego, CA 486 Homes $165 million Budget $340,000 Cost per Home Expected 5.5% to 6.0% Return Expected Start Date: TBD


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Foxborough Orange, CA 260 Homes $77 million Budget $296,000 Cost per Home Expected 6.0% to 6.5% Return Expected Start Date: TBD


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Under Contract / Investigation


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Stadium Village Surprise, AZ 382 Homes $46 million Budget $120,000 Cost per Home Expected 6.25% to 6.75% Return Expected Start Date: 4Q07 Expected Completion Date: 1Q10


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - The Woodlands Montgomery County, TX 324 Homes $24 million Budget $77,200 Cost per Home Expected 7.0% Return Expected Start Date: 3Q07 Expected Completion Date: 3Q09 Woodlands Site I-45


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Carolina Corporate Center Raleigh, NC 360 Homes $45 million Budget $125,000 Cost per Home Expected 6.5% to 7.0% Return Expected Start Date: 3Q07 Expected Completion Date: 3Q08 Carolina Corporate Center


 

UDR Value Creation Initiatives Future Development - Caroline Village Woodbridge, VA 322 Homes $70 million Budget $217,000 Cost per Home Expected 6.0% Return Expected Start Date: 4Q07 Expected Completion Date: 1Q09 Caroline Village I -95


 

Intentionally Left Blank


 

UDR Value Creation Case Study Island Walk (FKA Parker's Landing) - Tampa, FL Built in 1991, Purchased by UDR in December 1998 896 Homes Original Investment: $39.8 million ($44,420 per home) The Puzzle: Large community requires traffic of 160 each month to stay fully occupied Well located property in need of renovation Community includes vacant land with median homes selling for $733,000 The Solution: Redevelop 400 homes (kitchen/bath, exterior renovation, etc.) Convert 496 homes into condominiums Develop 54 town homes on adjacent land


 

54 Townhomes (new development) 176 Condos (Phase I) 400 Apartments (redeveloped) 320 Condos (Phase II) Value Creation Opportunity: Townhomes: ~ $6 million Condos: ~ $20 million Redevelopment: ~ $10 million Total: ~$36 Million UDR Value Creation Case Study


 

UDR Value Creation Case Study Island Walk - Tampa, FL 400 Homes Full Scope Redevelopment Cash Flow Expected to Grow by 40% to Nearly $5 million Value Created: $10 million After Before


 

UDR Value Creation Case Study Island Walk - Condo Conversion The Gallery at Bayport Phase I 176 homes sold at average price of $155,500 The Gallery at Bayport Phase II 320 homes First closings expected in 2007 Value Created: $20M


 

UDR Value Creation Case Study Island Walk - Town Homes 54 Town Homes Expected Sales Price: $400,000 per Home First Closings Expected in 2007/2008 Value Created: > $6 million


 

UDR - Summary Compelling Value Creation Strategy Creating Value and Making Money 5 Ways Strong Operator Delivering Stable, Predictable Returns, 6.0% 2006 Same Store Revenue Growth Disciplined Approach to Buying Communities Capturing Value through Sales, created by Demand for Institutional-quality Apartments in Job Growth Markets Creating Value through Development and Redevelopment $1 billion investment totaling 7,775 homes $1.3 billion annual future investment totaling 8,368 homes $75+ million invested in 2006 for over 7,500 kitchen and bath renovations


 

Statements contained in this presentation, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements, as the term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can identify these forward-looking statements by the Company's use of words such as, "expects," "plans," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "believes," and similar expressions that do not relate to historical matters. Such forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties which can cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated, due to a number of factors, which include, but are not limited to, unfavorable changes in the apartment market, changing economic conditions, the impact of competition and competitive pricing, acquisitions or new developments not achieving anticipated results, delays in completing developments and lease-ups on schedule, difficulties in selling existing apartment communities, and other risk factors discussed in documents filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. All forward-looking statements in this presentation are made as of today, based upon information known to management as of the date hereof. The Company assumes no obligation to update or revise any of its forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes show that indicated results or events will not be realized. Mill Creek San Ramon, CA The Mandolin Dallas, TX Parker's Landing Tampa, FL Safe Harbor Statement
 

Exhibit 99.2

Mature Market Trends As of February 2007 P R E D I C T A B I L I T Y through H I G H P E R F O R M A N C E


 

Safe Harbor Statement Statements contained in this presentation, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements, as the term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can identify these forward-looking statements by the Company's use of words such as, "expects," "plans," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "believes," and similar expressions that do not relate to historical matters. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties which can cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated, due to a number of factors, which include, but are not limited to, unfavorable changes in apartment demand or supply in the Company's markets and the effect on occupancy and rental rates; changing economic conditions; changes in household growth or population; the impact of competition and competitive pricing; acquisitions or new developments may not achieve anticipated results; delays in completing developments and lease-ups on schedule; difficulties in selling existing apartment communities on favorable terms or the timing and closing of planned dispositions under agreement; the shortage of available acquisition candidates; the imposition of federal taxes if we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year; failure to generate sufficient revenue, which could create refinancing risk and impair debt service payments and shareholder distributions; increases in property and liability insurance costs; risks arising from environmental issues or natural disasters; effects of the Company's accounting or other policies and other risk factors discussed in documents filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. All forward-looking statements in this presentation are made as of today, based upon information known to management as of the date hereof, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise any of its forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes show that indicated results or events will not be realized.


 

Definitions 3


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Rental Income and Fees by Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                                 
    Units     Feb-06     Mar-06     Apr-06     May-06     Jun-06     Jul-06     Aug-06     Sep-06     Oct-06     Nov-06     Dec-06     Jan-07     Feb-07  
Net Rent
                                                                                                               
Atlanta GA
    1,426       866,689       887,123       873,996       872,166       881,204       901,647       890,184       887,552       892,944       909,286       918,578       924,215       916,145  
Austin TX
    1,075       720,900       739,464       734,389       737,089       755,414       769,657       770,844       771,174       758,640       770,561       760,369       775,827       782,482  
Baltimore
    1,819       1,717,453       1,761,368       1,792,236       1,811,960       1,844,227       1,815,359       1,777,789       1,804,587       1,783,525       1,791,992       1,783,018       1,799,315       1,784,916  
Charlotte NC
    1,226       797,033       795,010       780,577       794,863       806,307       814,373       858,532       852,172       858,166       862,069       850,610       858,030       855,101  
Columbia SC
    1,584       918,682       942,187       940,694       946,084       957,391       946,192       975,830       987,209       961,679       970,753       975,581       955,449       978,841  
Columbus OH
    2,530       1,620,863       1,648,627       1,607,986       1,617,746       1,645,009       1,629,851       1,641,150       1,655,380       1,663,623       1,656,918       1,673,118       1,667,988       1,697,628  
Dallas TX
    987       781,542       799,417       786,626       792,576       806,592       806,644       821,565       809,446       796,744       794,615       791,301       800,988       818,634  
Denver, CO
    884       541,010       547,476       559,015       560,066       559,572       575,390       596,588       613,793       604,470       602,475       596,686       576,001       580,752  
Ft Worth TX
    1,828       1,117,847       1,114,466       1,089,924       1,101,204       1,116,515       1,135,387       1,130,885       1,131,076       1,119,594       1,102,791       1,096,581       1,101,831       1,124,233  
Inland Empire
    660       608,623       623,835       618,510       622,941       628,713       634,619       614,067       634,652       633,064       604,093       639,516       609,736       628,081  
Houston TX
    5,447       3,316,785       3,341,356       3,325,139       3,287,430       3,346,110       3,354,543       3,364,334       3,363,731       3,354,963       3,328,467       3,316,814       3,317,386       3,355,639  
Jacksonville FL
    1,557       1,144,133       1,167,631       1,189,829       1,201,555       1,179,835       1,189,374       1,233,797       1,215,793       1,190,809       1,173,534       1,166,499       1,157,651       1,157,187  
LA County
    933       1,191,626       1,186,492       1,182,607       1,202,288       1,190,185       1,125,517       1,163,227       1,236,946       1,261,785       1,261,511       1,258,517       1,241,148       1,242,075  
Metro DC
    2,098       2,327,430       2,328,499       2,319,698       2,342,410       2,331,645       2,353,742       2,392,927       2,401,637       2,403,240       2,405,412       2,426,502       2,408,870       2,445,150  
Monterey (Salinas)
    1,568       1,266,391       1,286,548       1,277,262       1,303,663       1,327,081       1,336,213       1,350,250       1,348,117       1,373,244       1,349,379       1,274,111       1,249,960       1,302,732  
Nashville TN
    2,580       1,743,792       1,762,710       1,770,531       1,771,579       1,799,221       1,788,737       1,813,710       1,827,738       1,829,912       1,822,466       1,824,018       1,836,197       1,850,925  
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    1,438       1,167,894       1,194,227       1,183,682       1,197,460       1,207,129       1,190,546       1,201,169       1,216,344       1,188,678       1,204,459       1,205,253       1,202,123       1,182,901  
Orange County
    3,352       4,354,312       4,387,608       4,375,709       4,386,169       4,408,663       4,432,329       4,487,328       4,532,068       4,584,531       4,603,786       4,613,070       4,592,195       4,579,599  
Orlando
    2,820       2,258,550       2,324,292       2,298,384       2,333,703       2,343,104       2,381,119       2,421,212       2,407,947       2,404,459       2,391,723       2,371,903       2,370,452       2,372,759  
Other Florida
    2,192       1,819,642       1,854,814       1,844,902       1,867,790       1,837,291       1,835,189       1,859,230       1,839,946       1,832,879       1,831,953       1,824,974       1,828,900       1,831,846  
Other MidAtlantic
    1,156       936,215       943,868       914,236       931,654       946,248       936,661       955,637       947,745       964,172       943,806       919,915       942,971       914,815  
Other Midwestern
    444       286,403       296,680       275,829       283,338       280,843       281,684       299,210       296,797       290,194       296,188       301,638       292,325       292,254  
Other North Carolina
    841       475,800       504,039       492,516       501,768       513,023       505,591       507,439       513,276       506,628       506,047       492,056       491,921       473,545  
Other Southeastern
    168       63,707       64,332       66,424       64,914       66,661       66,337       63,547       69,780       67,824       67,966       67,638       67,882       71,765  
Other Southwestern
    2,302       1,487,977       1,535,837       1,529,345       1,521,400       1,548,301       1,563,676       1,586,033       1,579,484       1,587,991       1,610,840       1,599,231       1,590,317       1,593,431  
Other Virginia
    820       744,651       747,544       777,326       793,039       807,897       803,240       777,530       777,619       792,067       797,236       781,113       752,590       754,222  
Phoenix, AZ
    914       750,769       765,342       767,775       762,883       774,992       774,977       773,562       795,312       786,603       781,219       772,670       777,848       781,160  
Portland, OR
    1,365       899,659       900,948       883,505       878,033       920,506       930,107       954,527       949,880       928,189       919,578       954,414       957,337       960,801  
Raleigh Durham
    3,463       2,146,822       2,171,623       2,150,483       2,178,448       2,154,125       2,162,278       2,193,150       2,204,295       2,196,333       2,200,137       2,143,177       2,190,409       2,216,847  
Richmond Petersburg
    1,807       1,448,883       1,454,737       1,439,458       1,451,655       1,488,889       1,470,556       1,472,407       1,494,941       1,446,643       1,461,369       1,478,117       1,472,088       1,495,444  
Sacramento
    914       688,702       705,895       674,872       694,393       701,705       704,790       693,946       679,303       718,178       699,824       703,035       702,996       705,530  
San Diego County
    1,588       1,816,144       1,785,696       1,785,861       1,790,884       1,838,355       1,851,431       1,808,593       1,872,079       1,916,400       1,931,365       1,887,000       1,922,840       1,914,266  
Seattle,WA
    1,074       851,670       911,671       905,382       913,257       929,741       931,345       954,685       969,485       939,812       947,068       938,377       932,865       919,712  
SF Bay Area
    1,775       2,487,195       2,494,327       2,499,997       2,510,939       2,579,226       2,569,593       2,624,843       2,600,069       2,596,356       2,624,386       2,627,716       2,668,964       2,662,601  
Tampa FL
    2,873       2,355,998       2,393,047       2,375,649       2,377,509       2,389,132       2,441,215       2,464,526       2,486,799       2,454,342       2,407,569       2,410,080       2,415,140       2,446,990  
Ventura County
    119       147,348       149,118       146,108       150,182       149,827       152,309       150,598       148,066       149,048       152,111       154,344       138,154       147,630  
Wilmington NC
    1,868       1,253,865       1,290,497       1,264,142       1,285,638       1,319,008       1,298,377       1,336,731       1,323,464       1,328,235       1,314,559       1,305,014       1,283,068       1,272,896  
Total
    61,495       49,123,006       49,808,349       49,500,604       49,840,673       50,379,688       50,460,595       50,981,581       51,245,701       51,165,965       51,099,512       50,902,554       50,873,975       51,111,533  

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Rental Income and Fees by Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                                 
    Units   Feb-06   Mar-06   Apr-06   May-06   Jun-06   Jul-06   Aug-06   Sep-06   Oct-06   Nov-06   Dec-06   Jan-07   Feb-07
Concessions As a % of Net Rent
                                                                                                               
Atlanta GA
    1,426       1.91 %     3.03 %     2.13 %     2.16 %     2.29 %     2.16 %     1.56 %     2.79 %     2.70 %     3.02 %     2.03 %     1.24 %     1.31 %
Austin TX
    1,075       2.56 %     2.06 %     1.95 %     1.67 %     0.94 %     0.52 %     0.56 %     0.28 %     0.24 %     0.43 %     0.71 %     0.50 %     0.31 %
Baltimore
    1,819       1.34 %     2.11 %     0.42 %     0.41 %     0.50 %     0.14 %     1.16 %     1.81 %     1.01 %     1.18 %     1.30 %     1.18 %     1.50 %
Charlotte NC
    1,226       2.81 %     3.23 %     3.42 %     3.04 %     3.94 %     2.86 %     2.69 %     1.23 %     1.38 %     1.72 %     2.58 %     1.83 %     1.70 %
Columbia SC
    1,584       2.01 %     2.08 %     1.60 %     2.16 %     2.16 %     2.28 %     2.52 %     1.00 %     1.42 %     1.38 %     1.54 %     2.15 %     1.56 %
Columbus OH
    2,530       2.40 %     2.13 %     2.32 %     3.16 %     3.41 %     2.58 %     3.05 %     2.57 %     2.08 %     2.02 %     1.54 %     1.15 %     1.27 %
Dallas TX
    987       0.83 %     0.55 %     0.58 %     1.05 %     0.53 %     0.67 %     0.50 %     0.53 %     0.39 %     0.96 %     1.63 %     1.08 %     0.44 %
Denver, CO
    884       1.67 %     5.13 %     4.43 %     4.38 %     4.71 %     3.27 %     3.78 %     3.00 %     2.05 %     1.90 %     1.59 %     3.39 %     3.65 %
Ft Worth TX
    1,828       2.00 %     1.69 %     2.09 %     2.14 %     2.69 %     1.35 %     1.61 %     1.58 %     1.44 %     1.48 %     2.96 %     3.03 %     2.30 %
Inland Empire
    660       1.62 %     1.40 %     1.26 %     1.31 %     1.35 %     1.37 %     1.74 %     1.33 %     1.42 %     1.60 %     0.94 %     0.87 %     0.93 %
Houston TX
    5,447       3.75 %     3.19 %     3.65 %     4.53 %     4.78 %     4.39 %     5.13 %     3.90 %     3.97 %     4.30 %     4.99 %     5.48 %     6.65 %
Jacksonville FL
    1,557       0.41 %     0.67 %     0.26 %     0.52 %     0.59 %     0.40 %     0.29 %     0.35 %     0.69 %     0.66 %     0.87 %     0.81 %     0.88 %
LA County
    933       0.84 %     2.00 %     3.26 %     2.26 %     2.01 %     4.33 %     4.51 %     1.46 %     0.75 %     1.05 %     1.52 %     1.26 %     2.03 %
Metro DC
    2,098       1.02 %     1.58 %     1.42 %     1.54 %     2.09 %     2.67 %     3.06 %     0.93 %     0.78 %     1.11 %     1.59 %     1.48 %     0.91 %
Monterey (Salinas)
    1,568       2.32 %     2.78 %     2.38 %     3.24 %     2.67 %     4.22 %     2.90 %     2.32 %     1.70 %     1.57 %     2.26 %     2.45 %     2.27 %
Nashville TN
    2,580       0.78 %     0.88 %     0.63 %     0.72 %     0.65 %     0.52 %     0.72 %     0.67 %     0.48 %     0.43 %     0.48 %     0.42 %     0.67 %
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    1,438       0.65 %     0.66 %     0.49 %     0.60 %     0.23 %     0.55 %     0.94 %     0.39 %     0.55 %     0.84 %     0.71 %     0.28 %     0.95 %
Orange County
    3,352       2.58 %     2.74 %     4.16 %     6.25 %     3.66 %     5.16 %     6.08 %     4.02 %     2.63 %     3.01 %     2.30 %     3.20 %     4.65 %
Orlando
    2,820       0.13 %     0.69 %     1.26 %     0.53 %     1.47 %     2.11 %     2.76 %     1.96 %     3.07 %     5.84 %     5.95 %     4.52 %     3.85 %
Other Florida
    2,192       0.33 %     1.68 %     1.96 %     2.24 %     2.33 %     3.18 %     2.37 %     3.49 %     9.32 %     9.65 %     14.75 %     8.12 %     8.31 %
Other MidAtlantic
    1,156       2.10 %     6.11 %     2.01 %     3.57 %     4.78 %     4.72 %     5.73 %     3.51 %     2.71 %     4.87 %     2.05 %     2.74 %     6.90 %
Other Midwestern
    444       14.18 %     19.56 %     11.12 %     17.64 %     19.27 %     14.60 %     15.56 %     4.15 %     3.23 %     1.57 %     2.99 %     5.02 %     3.31 %
Other North Carolina
    841       0.33 %     0.07 %     0.03 %     0.05 %     0.05 %     0.04 %     0.13 %     0.07 %     0.01 %     0.06 %     0.44 %     1.25 %     2.09 %
Other Southeastern
    168       0.31 %     0.22 %     0.03 %     0.14 %     0.31 %     0.23 %     0.16 %     0.06 %     0.05 %     0.02 %     0.11 %     0.07 %     0.06 %
Other Southwestern
    2,302       5.56 %     1.96 %     1.18 %     2.54 %     3.33 %     2.89 %     2.07 %     1.09 %     1.46 %     1.93 %     2.03 %     1.99 %     3.10 %
Other Virginia
    820       3.64 %     3.49 %     2.69 %     1.84 %     0.59 %     0.98 %     0.93 %     0.79 %     1.54 %     1.45 %     2.00 %     2.41 %     2.53 %
Phoenix, AZ
    914       2.66 %     2.51 %     2.02 %     1.95 %     2.26 %     2.33 %     2.05 %     1.54 %     1.67 %     1.72 %     2.50 %     2.16 %     1.90 %
Portland, OR
    1,365       1.82 %     2.06 %     2.98 %     3.88 %     2.24 %     2.03 %     1.92 %     1.64 %     2.25 %     4.59 %     1.95 %     1.98 %     2.19 %
Raleigh Durham
    3,463       5.86 %     6.80 %     5.95 %     7.74 %     7.23 %     7.97 %     8.55 %     4.31 %     4.22 %     6.11 %     9.01 %     6.19 %     4.71 %
Richmond Petersburg
    1,807       2.74 %     2.09 %     6.16 %     3.70 %     3.49 %     2.79 %     4.04 %     2.74 %     6.03 %     6.44 %     5.34 %     6.37 %     5.09 %
Sacramento
    914       1.98 %     2.32 %     4.47 %     3.57 %     2.62 %     3.17 %     3.50 %     2.93 %     1.57 %     3.13 %     2.13 %     1.75 %     2.89 %
San Diego County
    1,588       0.40 %     0.68 %     0.76 %     0.75 %     0.76 %     0.78 %     1.38 %     0.73 %     0.46 %     0.44 %     0.38 %     0.54 %     0.57 %
Seattle,WA
    1,074       3.94 %     2.77 %     2.48 %     1.35 %     1.67 %     1.41 %     1.16 %     1.19 %     0.67 %     1.77 %     1.93 %     1.03 %     3.44 %
SF Bay Area
    1,775       3.37 %     2.83 %     2.23 %     1.93 %     0.77 %     1.10 %     1.22 %     0.74 %     1.38 %     1.71 %     1.01 %     1.39 %     1.50 %
Tampa FL
    2,873       0.60 %     0.35 %     0.25 %     0.24 %     0.43 %     0.45 %     0.16 %     0.12 %     0.46 %     0.42 %     0.54 %     0.55 %     1.09 %
Ventura County
    119       0.48 %     0.54 %     0.88 %     0.08 %     0.00 %     0.08 %     0.00 %     0.00 %     0.00 %     0.39 %     0.33 %     0.54 %     1.65 %
Wilmington NC
    1,868       0.48 %     0.95 %     0.55 %     0.75 %     0.58 %     0.29 %     0.46 %     0.34 %     0.35 %     0.69 %     0.97 %     1.93 %     2.07 %
Total
    61,495       1.71 %     1.86 %     1.78 %     1.95 %     1.78 %     1.85 %     2.08 %     1.43 %     1.40 %     1.74 %     1.77 %     1.73 %     1.97 %

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Monthly Occupancy By Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                         
            Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec  
Atlanta GA
    2002       90.53 %     91.37 %     91.65 %     90.87 %     89.55 %     89.43 %     87.41 %     86.75 %     86.55 %     86.34 %     90.15 %     92.09 %
Atlanta GA
    2003       92.55 %     92.08 %     92.13 %     91.53 %     90.90 %     89.94 %     91.08 %     90.62 %     89.74 %     90.49 %     90.25 %     90.81 %
Atlanta GA
    2004       90.36 %     90.67 %     90.13 %     90.79 %     92.71 %     93.50 %     93.10 %     92.55 %     92.90 %     91.37 %     90.62 %     91.46 %
Atlanta GA
    2005       91.70 %     92.76 %     92.74 %     92.86 %     93.22 %     91.47 %     90.57 %     91.49 %     91.99 %     94.28 %     95.39 %     96.21 %
Atlanta GA
    2006       95.39 %     95.69 %     96.28 %     96.30 %     95.83 %     94.74 %     95.42 %     95.09 %     94.16 %     94.06 %     95.50 %     96.25 %
Atlanta GA
    2007       95.13 %     94.81 %                                                                                
Austin TX
    2002       85.24 %     86.32 %     86.81 %     86.06 %     89.11 %     88.69 %     92.80 %     92.45 %     89.25 %     86.54 %     83.87 %     82.46 %
Austin TX
    2003       80.57 %     80.44 %     81.43 %     84.91 %     85.62 %     82.66 %     82.42 %     84.61 %     85.24 %     86.20 %     89.56 %     91.94 %
Austin TX
    2004       92.01 %     90.79 %     90.95 %     92.33 %     91.67 %     91.60 %     94.07 %     96.53 %     96.04 %     94.13 %     94.41 %     94.58 %
Austin TX
    2005       94.71 %     95.50 %     94.62 %     94.74 %     94.62 %     94.78 %     95.61 %     96.86 %     96.89 %     96.61 %     96.33 %     96.21 %
Austin TX
    2006       95.19 %     95.95 %     96.39 %     96.42 %     96.44 %     96.74 %     96.63 %     97.04 %     97.81 %     96.26 %     96.14 %     95.84 %
Austin TX
    2007       97.07 %     97.93 %                                                                                
Baltimore
    2002       97.38 %     96.57 %     96.20 %     96.36 %     96.71 %     95.97 %     95.32 %     94.97 %     94.64 %     95.60 %     96.34 %     95.86 %
Baltimore
    2003       96.01 %     96.23 %     96.19 %     95.45 %     95.78 %     95.76 %     95.74 %     95.53 %     95.32 %     95.71 %     96.07 %     95.70 %
Baltimore
    2004       96.60 %     97.01 %     96.63 %     97.25 %     96.67 %     96.48 %     96.39 %     95.97 %     97.12 %     96.70 %     96.72 %     97.28 %
Baltimore
    2005       96.16 %     95.88 %     96.08 %     96.27 %     95.35 %     96.03 %     96.12 %     96.36 %     96.86 %     97.06 %     97.43 %     96.34 %
Baltimore
    2006       95.66 %     95.57 %     96.78 %     96.85 %     96.88 %     97.35 %     96.21 %     94.99 %     95.19 %     95.64 %     96.04 %     95.55 %
Baltimore
    2007       95.62 %     95.54 %                                                                                
Charlotte NC
    2002       89.41 %     89.07 %     86.53 %     85.97 %     88.51 %     89.89 %     91.22 %     92.51 %     91.95 %     92.42 %     96.25 %     96.74 %
Charlotte NC
    2003       96.86 %     95.68 %     95.30 %     95.88 %     96.16 %     96.21 %     95.35 %     94.31 %     92.93 %     91.82 %     91.34 %     91.62 %
Charlotte NC
    2004       90.93 %     92.16 %     91.75 %     91.23 %     91.38 %     90.25 %     91.03 %     93.12 %     92.81 %     92.88 %     93.05 %     92.49 %
Charlotte NC
    2005       94.31 %     96.29 %     96.50 %     94.82 %     93.76 %     93.41 %     94.13 %     93.98 %     93.63 %     93.52 %     93.95 %     94.36 %
Charlotte NC
    2006       93.95 %     93.89 %     93.73 %     93.28 %     92.81 %     92.87 %     93.08 %     94.59 %     94.72 %     94.72 %     95.19 %     94.64 %
Charlotte NC
    2007       94.43 %     94.38 %                                                                                
Columbia SC
    2002       94.23 %     94.38 %     94.35 %     94.31 %     94.93 %     93.72 %     93.88 %     96.69 %     96.37 %     95.38 %     96.32 %     95.68 %
Columbia SC
    2003       94.12 %     93.69 %     93.64 %     93.55 %     93.29 %     92.09 %     92.89 %     94.43 %     93.83 %     91.87 %     90.88 %     90.64 %
Columbia SC
    2004       91.30 %     91.62 %     92.12 %     92.99 %     94.49 %     94.14 %     93.70 %     94.78 %     92.80 %     92.31 %     92.15 %     92.41 %
Columbia SC
    2005       93.11 %     94.00 %     94.26 %     95.66 %     96.04 %     96.05 %     96.46 %     97.16 %     96.29 %     95.24 %     94.67 %     94.46 %
Columbia SC
    2006       94.41 %     94.03 %     94.07 %     93.89 %     95.56 %     94.84 %     95.11 %     94.59 %     95.82 %     94.89 %     94.73 %     94.52 %
Columbia SC
    2007       93.43 %     94.22 %                                                                                

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Monthly Occupancy By Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                         
            Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec  
Columbus OH
    2002       93.87 %     94.77 %     95.60 %     95.30 %     95.32 %     94.10 %     92.70 %     93.36 %     93.21 %     93.04 %     93.06 %     93.36 %
Columbus OH
    2003       93.74 %     93.46 %     92.83 %     93.17 %     93.56 %     93.56 %     93.85 %     94.51 %     95.17 %     94.27 %     92.96 %     91.55 %
Columbus OH
    2004       90.64 %     90.86 %     92.51 %     92.38 %     91.86 %     92.05 %     91.38 %     92.10 %     92.69 %     91.52 %     91.56 %     92.20 %
Columbus OH
    2005       93.45 %     93.69 %     93.25 %     91.98 %     91.60 %     90.72 %     90.42 %     91.71 %     92.91 %     93.49 %     93.72 %     94.28 %
Columbus OH
    2006       94.17 %     94.44 %     94.55 %     93.61 %     93.70 %     93.76 %     92.12 %     92.21 %     93.81 %     92.82 %     93.16 %     93.72 %
Columbus OH
    2007       93.82 %     94.93 %                                                                                
Dallas TX
    2002       94.52 %     94.37 %     93.81 %     93.78 %     93.91 %     93.36 %     93.41 %     92.78 %     91.94 %     93.12 %     93.63 %     94.41 %
Dallas TX
    2003       95.48 %     95.78 %     95.50 %     95.42 %     95.37 %     95.08 %     95.28 %     95.50 %     94.93 %     94.51 %     94.34 %     95.11 %
Dallas TX
    2004       96.17 %     95.91 %     96.07 %     95.88 %     96.17 %     96.20 %     96.67 %     95.88 %     95.59 %     95.66 %     95.70 %     96.04 %
Dallas TX
    2005       96.62 %     96.19 %     95.61 %     94.81 %     94.78 %     95.66 %     96.22 %     96.69 %     96.49 %     96.98 %     97.34 %     96.64 %
Dallas TX
    2006       96.39 %     96.04 %     95.98 %     95.19 %     96.14 %     96.54 %     96.29 %     96.69 %     96.46 %     94.97 %     94.61 %     95.01 %
Dallas TX
    2007       94.86 %     95.61 %                                                                                
Denver CO
    2002       82.96 %     82.37 %     82.19 %     83.20 %     88.01 %     88.01 %     85.78 %     84.18 %     83.52 %     82.88 %     83.54 %     84.21 %
Denver CO
    2003       84.41 %     85.83 %     86.83 %     88.11 %     88.78 %     90.68 %     91.32 %     90.94 %     90.63 %     89.47 %     89.91 %     89.40 %
Denver CO
    2004       91.81 %     93.23 %     93.70 %     93.36 %     92.69 %     92.62 %     93.53 %     94.73 %     93.98 %     92.33 %     92.30 %     92.99 %
Denver CO
    2005       92.33 %     92.32 %     91.73 %     91.11 %     90.57 %     90.88 %     91.17 %     92.14 %     93.24 %     92.36 %     90.87 %     89.35 %
Denver CO
    2006       89.32 %     88.26 %     89.14 %     90.70 %     90.93 %     90.64 %     91.71 %     94.03 %     95.96 %     94.99 %     94.43 %     92.19 %
Denver CO
    2007       92.35 %     92.72 %                                                                                
Ft Worth TX
    2002       94.92 %     94.69 %     95.30 %     94.74 %     95.04 %     94.57 %     93.96 %     93.92 %     93.33 %     93.41 %     94.74 %     95.45 %
Ft Worth TX
    2003       94.84 %     94.61 %     94.87 %     94.46 %     94.92 %     94.87 %     93.90 %     94.40 %     93.69 %     93.96 %     93.46 %     93.90 %
Ft Worth TX
    2004       93.76 %     94.08 %     93.19 %     92.82 %     91.96 %     91.71 %     92.96 %     93.01 %     93.45 %     93.52 %     93.02 %     94.15 %
Ft Worth TX
    2005       94.35 %     94.21 %     94.36 %     93.12 %     93.22 %     93.56 %     94.35 %     96.33 %     95.52 %     94.58 %     95.07 %     95.28 %
Ft Worth TX
    2006       96.37 %     96.59 %     95.14 %     93.75 %     94.50 %     94.95 %     95.12 %     94.85 %     94.89 %     92.87 %     92.21 %     92.72 %
Ft Worth TX
    2007       93.14 %     93.82 %                                                                                
Inland Empire
    2002       97.79 %     95.55 %     97.84 %     98.17 %     99.04 %     98.08 %     97.21 %     98.32 %     97.36 %     99.33 %     99.64 %     99.28 %
Inland Empire
    2003       95.63 %     95.09 %     93.75 %     93.39 %     93.42 %     93.02 %     92.77 %     94.48 %     95.87 %     96.43 %     94.98 %     95.93 %
Inland Empire
    2004       96.07 %     96.15 %     95.48 %     96.47 %     95.76 %     96.21 %     94.96 %     95.20 %     95.71 %     95.54 %     95.41 %     94.30 %
Inland Empire
    2005       92.65 %     91.13 %     91.16 %     92.40 %     93.26 %     92.07 %     90.55 %     91.11 %     78.00 %     64.79 %     63.98 %     65.23 %
Inland Empire
    2006       66.79 %     70.34 %     73.56 %     75.98 %     79.11 %     81.16 %     83.25 %     85.96 %     87.23 %     87.68 %     89.41 %     87.77 %
Inland Empire
    2007       85.63 %     87.45 %                                                                                

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Monthly Occupancy By Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                         
            Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec  
Houston TX
    2002       94.85 %     95.31 %     95.44 %     96.07 %     95.92 %     95.27 %     94.89 %     93.40 %     91.57 %     91.12 %     91.29 %     90.10 %
Houston TX
    2003       89.13 %     89.60 %     90.11 %     91.42 %     92.17 %     90.74 %     90.21 %     89.66 %     89.30 %     90.37 %     90.28 %     89.37 %
Houston TX
    2004       90.35 %     90.23 %     90.79 %     91.26 %     91.59 %     90.98 %     91.76 %     91.24 %     90.84 %     90.81 %     90.67 %     90.68 %
Houston TX
    2005       91.72 %     92.42 %     93.68 %     93.96 %     93.36 %     93.23 %     93.11 %     93.27 %     95.09 %     94.91 %     95.24 %     95.08 %
Houston TX
    2006       95.07 %     95.35 %     95.27 %     94.51 %     94.39 %     94.58 %     94.28 %     94.63 %     94.20 %     93.83 %     93.39 %     92.94 %
Houston TX
    2007       92.50 %     93.42 %                                                                                
Jacksonville FL
    2002       93.71 %     95.05 %     94.73 %     94.49 %     95.10 %     93.86 %     94.45 %     95.29 %     95.20 %     95.26 %     96.52 %     96.69 %
Jacksonville FL
    2003       96.85 %     96.28 %     96.31 %     96.08 %     96.09 %     96.46 %     95.45 %     95.98 %     95.94 %     95.90 %     95.33 %     94.53 %
Jacksonville FL
    2004       94.57 %     93.47 %     93.71 %     93.22 %     93.52 %     93.60 %     93.90 %     93.39 %     93.07 %     91.08 %     92.01 %     93.99 %
Jacksonville FL
    2005       95.37 %     96.02 %     96.54 %     96.50 %     95.85 %     95.49 %     95.72 %     94.95 %     95.10 %     93.88 %     95.31 %     95.12 %
Jacksonville FL
    2006       94.94 %     94.45 %     94.04 %     94.47 %     94.59 %     94.60 %     94.35 %     95.02 %     94.79 %     93.50 %     92.64 %     92.02 %
Jacksonville FL
    2007       91.52 %     91.32 %                                                                                
LA County
    2002       96.58 %     96.99 %     94.62 %     92.15 %     90.66 %     91.46 %     91.14 %     93.67 %     97.47 %     98.86 %     98.73 %     98.42 %
LA County
    2003       98.86 %     99.53 %     98.73 %     98.48 %     97.78 %     95.73 %     95.95 %     94.94 %     93.04 %     92.53 %     92.72 %     94.30 %
LA County
    2004       93.80 %     95.41 %     95.89 %     95.82 %     95.89 %     96.99 %     95.70 %     91.14 %     91.27 %     95.25 %     94.28 %     92.42 %
LA County
    2005       90.89 %     91.02 %     92.25 %     93.06 %     94.62 %     94.37 %     93.13 %     93.97 %     94.07 %     95.34 %     95.81 %     94.98 %
LA County
    2006       94.94 %     93.54 %     93.03 %     94.73 %     93.99 %     92.35 %     89.87 %     92.59 %     94.91 %     95.26 %     94.79 %     95.28 %
LA County
    2007       93.57 %     93.53 %                                                                                
Metro DC
    2002       96.38 %     96.04 %     96.84 %     96.34 %     96.74 %     97.48 %     95.89 %     95.39 %     95.64 %     95.71 %     95.27 %     95.33 %
Metro DC
    2003       95.08 %     95.68 %     96.52 %     96.28 %     96.02 %     95.99 %     95.90 %     96.45 %     96.53 %     95.63 %     95.96 %     95.43 %
Metro DC
    2004       96.41 %     95.72 %     96.06 %     96.13 %     96.89 %     96.96 %     97.77 %     97.40 %     97.11 %     96.32 %     96.22 %     96.02 %
Metro DC
    2005       96.56 %     96.47 %     96.87 %     97.19 %     96.90 %     97.55 %     96.78 %     97.35 %     97.13 %     96.15 %     96.99 %     96.98 %
Metro DC
    2006       97.38 %     97.41 %     96.11 %     95.53 %     95.66 %     95.42 %     96.27 %     96.82 %     96.23 %     95.99 %     96.14 %     95.90 %
Metro DC
    2007       96.05 %     96.84 %                                                                                
Monterey (Salinas)
    2002       92.16 %     91.46 %     91.53 %     92.54 %     91.76 %     91.69 %     90.80 %     91.57 %     92.47 %     94.01 %     92.67 %     92.10 %
Monterey (Salinas)
    2003       93.14 %     92.98 %     91.75 %     93.12 %     93.67 %     93.90 %     94.11 %     93.73 %     92.66 %     91.74 %     90.38 %     90.67 %
Monterey (Salinas)
    2004       91.08 %     90.00 %     90.13 %     93.70 %     93.99 %     94.48 %     94.01 %     94.64 %     95.19 %     93.95 %     91.27 %     87.88 %
Monterey (Salinas)
    2005       88.95 %     90.00 %     90.66 %     93.57 %     93.38 %     92.56 %     93.08 %     93.72 %     93.81 %     92.73 %     90.95 %     88.09 %
Monterey (Salinas)
    2006       88.09 %     88.44 %     88.39 %     88.30 %     89.71 %     89.54 %     90.72 %     91.72 %     92.12 %     92.24 %     90.54 %     86.97 %
Monterey (Salinas)
    2007       87.20 %     89.54 %                                                                                

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Monthly Occupancy By Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                         
            Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec  
Nashville TN
    2002       94.16 %     93.77 %     93.02 %     93.03 %     92.64 %     91.39 %     91.23 %     90.73 %     91.43 %     91.55 %     92.43 %     93.27 %
Nashville TN
    2003       93.70 %     93.45 %     92.95 %     93.77 %     94.19 %     94.19 %     92.45 %     92.40 %     92.53 %     92.11 %     91.63 %     91.67 %
Nashville TN
    2004       92.52 %     93.36 %     94.64 %     94.49 %     94.93 %     94.73 %     94.80 %     95.37 %     94.95 %     93.99 %     93.86 %     94.32 %
Nashville TN
    2005       94.83 %     95.44 %     95.54 %     95.21 %     94.82 %     94.92 %     94.23 %     94.84 %     95.61 %     94.96 %     95.24 %     94.87 %
Nashville TN
    2006       94.61 %     95.07 %     95.50 %     95.34 %     95.38 %     94.83 %     94.27 %     94.98 %     95.53 %     95.19 %     95.17 %     95.19 %
Nashville TN
    2007       94.89 %     95.45 %                                                                                
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    2002       94.66 %     96.49 %     96.61 %     97.57 %     98.37 %     98.66 %     98.41 %     98.28 %     97.83 %     97.37 %     96.82 %     97.08 %
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    2003       96.08 %     94.84 %     94.66 %     94.85 %     95.43 %     95.79 %     95.98 %     96.56 %     97.67 %     97.83 %     97.88 %     97.15 %
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    2004       96.50 %     96.49 %     96.70 %     96.70 %     97.08 %     96.30 %     96.55 %     96.70 %     96.51 %     95.74 %     95.09 %     95.34 %
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    2005       95.12 %     95.48 %     94.91 %     94.07 %     95.51 %     96.36 %     95.55 %     95.76 %     95.84 %     95.69 %     95.22 %     94.21 %
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    2006       95.02 %     95.31 %     96.21 %     95.62 %     96.29 %     95.65 %     95.11 %     96.61 %     95.43 %     94.25 %     94.48 %     94.80 %
Norfolk Va Beach NN
    2007       94.04 %     93.38 %                                                                                
Orange County
    2002                                                                                                  
Orange County
    2003                                               94.15 %     95.47 %     95.61 %     96.05 %     95.63 %     95.05 %     94.02 %
Orange County
    2004       93.89 %     93.18 %     93.24 %     93.82 %     93.24 %     92.63 %     93.15 %     93.03 %     94.56 %     95.22 %     94.81 %     94.14 %
Orange County
    2005       92.97 %     91.97 %     92.44 %     94.08 %     94.64 %     94.66 %     93.43 %     94.72 %     94.65 %     93.99 %     93.89 %     94.43 %
Orange County
    2006       94.83 %     95.11 %     95.11 %     94.62 %     95.08 %     94.35 %     94.29 %     95.11 %     95.09 %     95.09 %     95.92 %     95.39 %
Orange County
    2007       94.89 %     94.31 %                                                                                
Orlando
    2002       90.06 %     90.87 %     91.19 %     92.51 %     93.18 %     92.54 %     92.60 %     92.02 %     91.18 %     91.07 %     91.81 %     92.92 %
Orlando
    2003       93.16 %     92.73 %     92.82 %     93.60 %     94.64 %     94.13 %     94.10 %     93.95 %     92.80 %     92.57 %     93.22 %     93.03 %
Orlando
    2004       92.51 %     92.69 %     93.60 %     93.93 %     93.68 %     93.80 %     93.94 %     95.05 %     96.92 %     97.26 %     96.69 %     96.37 %
Orlando
    2005       95.86 %     95.94 %     95.53 %     95.63 %     95.73 %     94.93 %     95.87 %     96.51 %     96.65 %     95.72 %     95.58 %     95.56 %
Orlando
    2006       95.60 %     95.57 %     95.65 %     95.58 %     95.16 %     94.30 %     93.89 %     93.77 %     93.92 %     93.30 %     93.89 %     92.83 %
Orlando
    2007       91.64 %     91.37 %                                                                                
Other Florida
    2002       93.93 %     95.14 %     95.05 %     94.07 %     93.60 %     92.84 %     93.78 %     93.19 %     92.77 %     93.32 %     94.99 %     95.27 %
Other Florida
    2003       95.66 %     95.77 %     95.64 %     94.97 %     94.22 %     92.79 %     92.55 %     94.15 %     94.12 %     93.84 %     93.21 %     92.99 %
Other Florida
    2004       91.97 %     94.05 %     95.14 %     94.21 %     94.10 %     93.07 %     94.13 %     95.10 %     96.69 %     97.16 %     97.71 %     97.75 %
Other Florida
    2005       97.44 %     96.68 %     96.68 %     97.07 %     96.64 %     95.35 %     95.19 %     95.91 %     97.57 %     97.60 %     97.14 %     96.19 %
Other Florida
    2006       96.34 %     96.38 %     96.74 %     96.45 %     95.79 %     94.72 %     93.48 %     94.11 %     93.40 %     93.27 %     92.74 %     92.71 %
Other Florida
    2007       92.11 %     91.65 %                                                                                
Other MidAtlantic
    1999       97.47 %     97.40 %     96.57 %     96.28 %     96.28 %     95.61 %     95.13 %     96.18 %     97.64 %     96.86 %     95.57 %     94.29 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2000       93.62 %     94.97 %     95.22 %     95.61 %     97.25 %     97.88 %     97.38 %     97.65 %     97.21 %     96.35 %     96.04 %     93.73 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2001       94.24 %     95.35 %     96.22 %     97.04 %     97.96 %     97.19 %     97.06 %     95.80 %     97.08 %     97.32 %     97.47 %     97.95 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2002       97.27 %     96.52 %     97.36 %     97.37 %     97.88 %     97.17 %     97.32 %     97.69 %     96.69 %     96.63 %     96.84 %     96.37 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2003       96.26 %     96.39 %     96.78 %     95.87 %     95.96 %     95.22 %     93.74 %     94.90 %     94.25 %     92.91 %     94.64 %     94.29 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2004       92.82 %     92.97 %     92.65 %     94.19 %     95.52 %     95.29 %     94.72 %     95.05 %     94.81 %     93.45 %     94.08 %     93.53 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2005       93.51 %     95.11 %     95.13 %     95.20 %     96.17 %     96.35 %     95.72 %     95.14 %     93.86 %     93.03 %     95.16 %     95.26 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2006       94.20 %     94.62 %     94.90 %     94.16 %     94.71 %     93.45 %     94.16 %     94.48 %     95.87 %     94.03 %     93.72 %     91.44 %
Other MidAtlantic
    2007       90.19 %     91.45 %                                                                                

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Monthly Occupancy By Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                         
            Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec  
Other Midwestern
    2002       93.62 %     93.67 %     94.11 %     94.48 %     94.87 %     93.49 %     93.67 %     93.42 %     94.30 %     95.84 %     94.73 %     94.54 %
Other Midwestern
    2003       94.68 %     95.39 %     94.55 %     95.39 %     95.27 %     92.72 %     91.29 %     91.38 %     91.89 %     92.51 %     92.43 %     92.26 %
Other Midwestern
    2004       94.41 %     92.40 %     93.36 %     95.45 %     94.26 %     92.85 %     92.48 %     95.05 %     93.51 %     93.36 %     94.37 %     95.38 %
Other Midwestern
    2005       94.23 %     93.64 %     93.92 %     93.07 %     93.75 %     93.15 %     92.40 %     92.48 %     91.95 %     93.32 %     91.25 %     91.27 %
Other Midwestern
    2006       91.44 %     91.95 %     93.07 %     91.61 %     91.22 %     89.64 %     90.82 %     93.33 %     92.62 %     90.60 %     90.68 %     89.86 %
Other Midwestern
    2007       90.79 %     90.53 %                                                                                
Other North Carolina
    2002       93.75 %     95.14 %     94.90 %     95.65 %     97.32 %     97.20 %     96.15 %     95.81 %     94.93 %     94.03 %     93.98 %     93.89 %
Other North Carolina
    2003       93.90 %     92.86 %     91.60 %     91.47 %     93.61 %     95.06 %     96.33 %     96.92 %     96.50 %     96.24 %     96.17 %     95.76 %
Other North Carolina
    2004       95.87 %     96.28 %     96.35 %     96.87 %     96.24 %     95.55 %     96.02 %     95.95 %     95.88 %     95.88 %     95.19 %     94.82 %
Other North Carolina
    2005       94.00 %     94.49 %     94.64 %     94.14 %     93.67 %     92.39 %     92.39 %     93.49 %     93.61 %     94.61 %     95.39 %     94.51 %
Other North Carolina
    2006       93.60 %     95.78 %     95.96 %     96.40 %     96.67 %     96.28 %     96.05 %     95.74 %     95.18 %     94.95 %     94.24 %     93.82 %
Other North Carolina
    2007       92.94 %     92.59 %                                                                                
Other Southeastern
    2002       88.02 %     88.90 %     90.23 %     92.28 %     92.86 %     91.77 %     91.00 %     90.57 %     89.74 %     88.31 %     87.95 %     88.11 %
Other Southeastern
    2003       88.98 %     90.21 %     90.82 %     90.96 %     91.18 %     90.51 %     90.34 %     89.72 %     90.82 %     91.29 %     92.38 %     92.66 %
Other Southeastern
    2004       93.51 %     95.08 %     95.99 %     95.71 %     94.86 %     94.33 %     93.81 %     94.42 %     93.56 %     92.92 %     93.51 %     94.96 %
Other Southeastern
    2005       94.64 %     95.18 %     95.93 %     95.02 %     94.52 %     94.94 %     94.24 %     94.69 %     95.74 %     94.66 %     95.27 %     94.17 %
Other Southeastern
    2006       97.02 %     98.21 %     98.36 %     97.47 %     97.50 %     97.77 %     97.02 %     97.38 %     97.62 %     97.02 %     97.26 %     97.47 %
Other Southeastern
    2007       96.47 %     97.86 %                                                                                
Other Southwestern
    2002       89.55 %     90.48 %     90.67 %     89.64 %     91.83 %     91.46 %     94.15 %     93.98 %     92.12 %     90.34 %     88.51 %     87.59 %
Other Southwestern
    2003       86.19 %     86.04 %     86.95 %     89.19 %     89.43 %     87.32 %     87.27 %     88.81 %     89.34 %     89.94 %     92.25 %     93.83 %
Other Southwestern
    2004       95.92 %     95.18 %     95.32 %     95.77 %     94.85 %     95.10 %     95.30 %     95.81 %     95.57 %     95.30 %     94.90 %     94.82 %
Other Southwestern
    2005       94.49 %     94.28 %     94.90 %     95.14 %     94.90 %     95.05 %     94.75 %     95.20 %     95.80 %     95.52 %     95.83 %     94.93 %
Other Southwestern
    2006       95.53 %     95.36 %     95.82 %     95.32 %     94.50 %     95.24 %     96.31 %     96.39 %     95.44 %     95.75 %     96.86 %     96.38 %
Other Southwestern
    2007       96.44 %     96.34 %                                                                                
Other Virginia
    2002       97.34 %     96.68 %     96.68 %     96.29 %     95.43 %     96.31 %     97.00 %     97.01 %     97.10 %     97.17 %     96.25 %     95.37 %
Other Virginia
    2003       95.37 %     94.82 %     95.64 %     95.51 %     94.60 %     95.76 %     95.29 %     95.27 %     94.88 %     94.12 %     94.60 %     92.13 %
Other Virginia
    2004       90.37 %     91.98 %     93.02 %     91.78 %     91.10 %     91.86 %     92.90 %     93.54 %     94.20 %     93.72 %     92.90 %     93.66 %
Other Virginia
    2005       91.98 %     91.65 %     92.71 %     92.90 %     94.21 %     94.80 %     93.57 %     94.83 %     95.21 %     94.15 %     94.27 %     93.23 %
Other Virginia
    2006       93.10 %     94.18 %     95.37 %     97.13 %     97.63 %     97.77 %     97.50 %     95.73 %     94.73 %     96.01 %     95.63 %     94.42 %
Other Virginia
    2007       93.89 %     93.81 %                                                                                

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Monthly Occupancy By Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                         
            Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec  
Phoenix, AZ
    2002       93.45 %     93.75 %     94.23 %     93.48 %     93.17 %     92.61 %     92.17 %     92.81 %     94.37 %     94.47 %     92.86 %     91.48 %
Phoenix, AZ
    2003       91.50 %     91.68 %     92.14 %     92.50 %     92.46 %     92.07 %     91.94 %     91.58 %     90.46 %     90.33 %     89.45 %     88.33 %
Phoenix, AZ
    2004       92.03 %     91.63 %     92.87 %     93.01 %     92.86 %     91.82 %     91.41 %     91.36 %     92.10 %     93.28 %     93.55 %     93.94 %
Phoenix, AZ
    2005       92.69 %     93.55 %     94.39 %     94.11 %     94.57 %     94.39 %     95.58 %     95.55 %     95.25 %     94.70 %     95.06 %     95.42 %
Phoenix, AZ
    2006       96.08 %     97.24 %     96.91 %     96.09 %     95.84 %     95.84 %     95.92 %     96.15 %     96.39 %     95.95 %     94.77 %     94.78 %
Phoenix, AZ
    2007       95.09 %     94.78 %                                                                                
Portland OR
    2002       92.11 %     91.68 %     91.73 %     90.46 %     89.79 %     90.29 %     90.54 %     91.65 %     90.74 %     94.08 %     95.07 %     94.22 %
Portland OR
    2003       92.72 %     91.62 %     91.60 %     90.26 %     90.92 %     88.96 %     87.71 %     88.78 %     88.86 %     87.22 %     88.51 %     90.54 %
Portland OR
    2004       92.15 %     91.35 %     90.79 %     91.57 %     90.52 %     91.30 %     91.39 %     90.37 %     92.92 %     94.34 %     93.78 %     93.36 %
Portland OR
    2005       93.58 %     94.25 %     93.41 %     93.30 %     92.06 %     93.00 %     92.98 %     93.72 %     93.41 %     92.93 %     93.79 %     93.93 %
Portland OR
    2006       95.19 %     94.38 %     93.81 %     94.40 %     94.43 %     94.05 %     94.34 %     95.28 %     94.18 %     92.82 %     95.47 %     95.35 %
Portland OR
    2007       94.75 %     94.05 %                                                                                
Raleigh Durham
    2002       86.56 %     86.62 %     87.03 %     87.29 %     88.24 %     87.76 %     88.68 %     90.19 %     91.05 %     92.90 %     94.36 %     94.43 %
Raleigh Durham
    2003       92.78 %     92.75 %     93.43 %     94.22 %     94.49 %     92.72 %     91.73 %     92.19 %     93.27 %     93.25 %     93.64 %     93.24 %
Raleigh Durham
    2004       93.39 %     92.67 %     92.45 %     93.22 %     93.28 %     92.78 %     93.25 %     93.27 %     93.34 %     94.98 %     95.48 %     94.82 %
Raleigh Durham
    2005       94.16 %     93.76 %     94.10 %     93.95 %     94.03 %     93.04 %     92.81 %     93.23 %     93.15 %     93.54 %     93.31 %     93.84 %
Raleigh Durham
    2006       93.45 %     93.49 %     94.10 %     94.85 %     94.98 %     93.53 %     93.53 %     94.18 %     93.68 %     93.10 %     93.18 %     92.72 %
Raleigh Durham
    2007       93.28 %     93.60 %                                                                                
Richmond Petersburg
    2002       96.14 %     95.60 %     95.09 %     95.62 %     94.39 %     93.61 %     91.80 %     92.89 %     94.72 %     94.69 %     94.50 %     95.20 %
Richmond Petersburg
    2003       95.13 %     95.85 %     96.47 %     95.62 %     95.46 %     94.31 %     93.41 %     92.90 %     92.16 %     92.88 %     94.99 %     93.38 %
Richmond Petersburg
    2004       93.16 %     94.82 %     94.42 %     95.19 %     94.15 %     94.00 %     94.38 %     94.39 %     93.84 %     93.79 %     94.08 %     95.04 %
Richmond Petersburg
    2005       94.74 %     94.60 %     95.58 %     95.44 %     95.34 %     96.36 %     96.18 %     96.63 %     95.66 %     96.47 %     97.38 %     96.54 %
Richmond Petersburg
    2006       96.65 %     96.69 %     96.49 %     96.50 %     96.50 %     96.94 %     96.58 %     96.51 %     95.67 %     94.89 %     95.20 %     94.84 %
Richmond Petersburg
    2007       94.75 %     95.48 %                                                                                
Sacramento
    2002       92.65 %     92.37 %     92.40 %     94.38 %     95.60 %     93.90 %     93.94 %     94.99 %     95.82 %     95.82 %     93.98 %     93.27 %
Sacramento
    2003       92.12 %     92.94 %     94.61 %     94.95 %     94.64 %     91.60 %     91.20 %     92.12 %     92.61 %     92.89 %     92.94 %     91.49 %
Sacramento
    2004       90.61 %     91.68 %     91.58 %     92.84 %     94.50 %     93.35 %     93.50 %     93.68 %     93.09 %     91.99 %     92.93 %     92.29 %
Sacramento
    2005       91.68 %     91.55 %     91.00 %     92.04 %     91.82 %     92.23 %     91.41 %     92.89 %     91.71 %     90.81 %     91.47 %     91.96 %
Sacramento
    2006       92.78 %     91.66 %     91.58 %     93.27 %     93.79 %     92.53 %     92.26 %     92.21 %     91.14 %     92.29 %     94.16 %     94.09 %
Sacramento
    2007       94.35 %     94.84 %                                                                                
San Diego County
    2002       96.74 %     98.78 %     99.59 %     99.46 %     99.32 %     99.73 %     99.35 %     99.59 %     99.05 %     99.67 %     95.24 %     94.43 %
San Diego County
    2003       93.15 %     91.85 %     91.98 %     95.22 %     95.79 %     93.75 %     96.41 %     98.23 %     96.88 %     95.11 %     91.85 %     90.63 %
San Diego County
    2004       90.65 %     93.07 %     96.06 %     96.30 %     96.47 %     96.88 %     95.69 %     93.42 %     92.86 %     91.63 %     94.36 %     94.42 %
San Diego County
    2005       93.65 %     93.26 %     93.23 %     94.25 %     95.50 %     94.89 %     95.15 %     94.86 %     94.74 %     94.04 %     94.69 %     94.10 %
San Diego County
    2006       95.11 %     95.21 %     93.39 %     93.78 %     94.12 %     93.66 %     93.43 %     94.31 %     94.22 %     94.76 %     95.17 %     94.76 %
San Diego County
    2007       95.37 %     95.23 %                                                                                

 


 

United Dominion Realty Trust
Monthly Occupancy By Market (Mature Communities)
                                                                                                         
            Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec  
Seattle,WA
    2002       92.75 %     93.07 %     93.76 %     94.38 %     95.36 %     89.10 %     91.46 %     90.94 %     89.21 %     89.27 %     90.30 %     90.52 %
Seattle,WA
    2003       91.11 %     90.32 %     91.92 %     92.11 %     92.87 %     93.57 %     93.26 %     92.78 %     92.37 %     93.46 %     92.44 %     93.02 %
Seattle,WA
    2004       94.08 %     93.62 %     92.95 %     94.58 %     94.40 %     93.40 %     92.48 %     91.62 %     92.85 %     92.70 %     91.72 %     91.87 %
Seattle,WA
    2005       92.24 %     92.43 %     95.05 %     95.22 %     93.75 %     93.42 %     92.87 %     92.72 %     91.92 %     92.22 %     94.30 %     95.14 %
Seattle,WA
    2006       94.41 %     95.11 %     95.78 %     96.08 %     96.63 %     96.35 %     94.97 %     95.63 %     96.65 %     94.97 %     95.97 %     96.23 %
Seattle,WA
    2007       94.71 %     93.78 %                                                                                
SF Bay Area
    2002       95.96 %     97.14 %     96.99 %     98.04 %     98.75 %     97.37 %     96.41 %     97.19 %     97.53 %     97.45 %     96.07 %     97.17 %
SF Bay Area
    2003       97.00 %     96.05 %     95.61 %     95.27 %     95.77 %     95.23 %     94.86 %     95.41 %     93.62 %     94.88 %     96.22 %     96.02 %
SF Bay Area
    2004       96.80 %     95.99 %     95.61 %     95.53 %     95.18 %     95.87 %     96.04 %     96.15 %     95.71 %     95.07 %     96.18 %     96.08 %
SF Bay Area
    2005       95.53 %     96.31 %     96.17 %     96.24 %     95.72 %     96.27 %     96.49 %     96.93 %     96.18 %     97.03 %     97.65 %     97.60 %
SF Bay Area
    2006       97.19 %     96.65 %     96.79 %     96.69 %     97.19 %     97.35 %     96.97 %     97.50 %     96.48 %     95.93 %     96.54 %     96.58 %
SF Bay Area
    2007       97.09 %     96.58 %                                                                                
Tampa FL
    2002       92.43 %     93.02 %     92.29 %     92.14 %     91.50 %     90.09 %     90.23 %     90.72 %     90.63 %     90.92 %     91.92 %     92.90 %
Tampa FL
    2003       93.26 %     93.65 %     93.80 %     93.91 %     94.14 %     92.96 %     92.64 %     93.35 %     93.14 %     92.55 %     93.09 %     93.34 %
Tampa FL
    2004       93.73 %     94.04 %     94.28 %     94.91 %     94.72 %     94.89 %     95.40 %     95.49 %     95.17 %     94.87 %     94.64 %     94.38 %
Tampa FL
    2005       93.90 %     95.73 %     96.22 %     95.51 %     94.52 %     94.19 %     94.28 %     94.36 %     94.96 %     94.71 %     94.71 %     94.87 %
Tampa FL
    2006       96.13 %     97.00 %     96.50 %     96.65 %     96.27 %     95.37 %     94.82 %     95.43 %     95.71 %     95.50 %     94.57 %     93.80 %
Tampa FL
    2007       93.69 %     94.40 %                                                                                
Venutra County
    2002                                                                                                  
Venutra County
    2003                                                                                                  
Venutra County
    2004                                                                                       95.38 %     95.80 %
Venutra County
    2005       92.94 %     91.81 %     91.39 %     90.55 %     93.91 %     93.11 %     90.34 %     90.59 %     93.70 %     92.61 %     95.80 %     97.27 %
Venutra County
    2006       95.97 %     98.32 %     96.64 %     96.01 %     97.98 %     96.85 %     95.80 %     95.63 %     94.96 %     94.75 %     95.80 %     96.22 %
Venutra County
    2007       91.82 %     94.82 %                                                                                
Wilmington NC
    2002       92.21 %     90.81 %     91.73 %     91.55 %     92.06 %     90.35 %     91.91 %     92.97 %     90.93 %     89.67 %     91.41 %     91.58 %
Wilmington NC
    2003       91.08 %     91.31 %     91.05 %     91.66 %     92.00 %     90.58 %     91.02 %     92.34 %     92.41 %     92.31 %     93.60 %     93.99 %
Wilmington NC
    2004       94.30 %     93.80 %     93.44 %     94.50 %     95.07 %     94.62 %     96.09 %     97.93 %     98.45 %     97.62 %     96.80 %     96.76 %
Wilmington NC
    2005       96.26 %     95.84 %     96.08 %     96.41 %     96.68 %     96.84 %     96.41 %     97.37 %     96.80 %     96.12 %     96.00 %     95.01 %
Wilmington NC
    2006       94.13 %     94.49 %     94.62 %     94.74 %     94.78 %     95.03 %     95.10 %     96.37 %     96.03 %     96.17 %     95.75 %     94.70 %
Wilmington NC
    2007       94.14 %     94.15 %                                                                                
Total Mature
    2002       93.02 %     93.21 %     93.19 %     93.28 %     93.53 %     92.73 %     92.57 %     92.64 %     92.50 %     92.80 %     93.28 %     93.43 %
Total Mature
    2003       93.33 %     93.33 %     93.41 %     93.70 %     93.96 %     93.23 %     92.91 %     93.07 %     92.89 %     92.83 %     92.96 %     92.77 %
Total Mature
    2004       93.21 %     93.29 %     93.53 %     93.92 %     93.88 %     93.60 %     93.87 %     94.26 %     94.42 %     94.20 %     94.05 %     94.15 %
Total Mature
    2005       94.01 %     94.40 %     94.74 %     94.70 %     94.47 %     94.25 %     94.12 %     94.70 %     94.88 %     94.64 %     94.85 %     94.57 %
Total Mature
    2006       94.80 %     94.98 %     95.01 %     94.91 %     95.00 %     94.66 %     94.45 %     94.94 %     94.83 %     94.38 %     94.44 %     94.00 %
Total Mature
    2007       93.72 %     94.01 %                                                                                

 

 

EXHIBIT 99.3
FORM OF
UDR, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
             
 
  Grantee:        
 
     
 
   
 
           
 
  Number of Shares:        
 
     
 
   
 
           
 
  Date of Grant:        
 
     
 
   
 
           
 
  Value as of Grant Date:   $            per share
 
   
1. Grant of Shares . UDR, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby grants to the Grantee named above (the “Grantee”), as additional compensation for services to be rendered, and subject to the restrictions and the other terms and conditions set forth in this Restricted Stock Award Agreement (this “Agreement”), the number of shares indicated above of the Company’s $0.01 par value common stock (the “Shares”).
2. Vesting of Restricted Stock . Unless the exercisability of this Agreement is accelerated in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement, 100% of the Shares subject to this Agreement shall vest (become exercisable) under the following terms: 1/4 of the Shares shall vest on                ; 1/4 of the Shares shall vest on                ; 1/4 of the Shares shall vest on                ; and the remaining 1/4 of the Shares shall vest on                .
3. Restrictions .
     (a) The Shares are subject to each of the following restrictions. “Restricted Shares” means those Shares that are subject to the restrictions imposed hereunder which restrictions have not then expired or terminated. Restricted Shares may not be sold, transferred, exchanged, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise encumbered. If the Grantee’s employment with the Company or any Parent or Subsidiary terminates for any reason other than as set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 4 hereof, then the Grantee shall forfeit all of the Grantee’s right, title and interest in and to the Restricted Shares as of the date of employment termination and such Restricted Shares shall be re-conveyed to the Company without further consideration or any act or action by the Grantee. Whether military, government or other service or other leave of absence shall constitute a termination of employment shall be determined in each case by the Committee at its discretion, and any determination by the Committee shall be final and conclusive. A termination of employment shall not occur (i) in a circumstance in which a Grantee transfers from the Company to one of its Parents or Subsidiaries, transfers from a Parent or Subsidiary to the Company, or transfers from one Parent or Subsidiary to another Parent or Subsidiary, or (ii) in the discretion of the Committee as specified at or prior to such occurrence, in the case of a spin-off, sale or disposition of the Grantee’s employer from the Company or any Parent or Subsidiary.
Restricted Stock Agreement — [Grantee]
[Date of Grant] — Page 1 of 7

 


 

     (b) The restrictions imposed under this Section 3 shall apply to all shares of the Company’s stock or other securities issued with respect to Restricted Shares hereunder in connection with any merger, reorganization, consolidation, re-capitalization, stock dividend or other change in corporate structure affecting the common stock of the Company.
4. Expiration and Termination of Restrictions . The restrictions imposed under Section 3 will expire on the earliest to occur of the following:
     (a) On the date of termination of the Grantee’s employment with the Company or any Parent or Subsidiary because of his or her death or Disability; or
     (b) On the date specified by the Committee in the event of an acceleration of vesting under Section 5 of this Agreement (including, without limitation, upon the occurrence of a Change in Control).
5. Acceleration Provisions .
          (a) Upon the Grantee’s death or Disability during his employment or service as a director or consultant, all restrictions on the Award shall lapse.
          (b) Upon the Grantee’s Retirement, all restrictions on the Award shall lapse.
          (c) Upon the occurrence of a Change of Control, all restrictions on the Award shall lapse.
          (d) In the event of the occurrence of any circumstance, transaction or event not constituting a Change of Control but which the Board deems to be, or to be reasonably likely to lead to, an effective change in control of the Company of a nature that would be required to be reported in response to Item 6(e) of Schedule 14A of the 1934 Act, the Committee may in its sole discretion declare all restrictions on the Award to have lapsed as of such date as the Committee may, in its sole discretion, declare, which may be on or before the consummation of such transaction or event.
          (e) Regardless of whether an event has occurred as described in clauses (c) and (d) above, the Committee may in its sole discretion at any time determine that all or part of the restrictions on all or a portion of the Award shall lapse as of such date as the Committee may, in its sole discretion, declare.
          (f) If an Award is accelerated under clause (c) or (d) above, the Committee may, in its sole discretion, provide (i) that the Award will be settled in cash rather than Stock, (ii) that the Award will be assumed by another party to the transaction giving rise to the acceleration or otherwise be equitably converted in connection with such transaction, or (iii) any combination of the foregoing.
     6.  Delivery of Shares . The Shares will be registered in the name of the Grantee as Restricted Stock and may be held by the Company prior to the lapse of the restrictions thereon as provided in Section 4 hereof (the “Restricted Period”). Any certificate for Shares issued during
Restricted Stock Agreement — [Grantee]
[Date of Grant] — Page 2 of 7

 


 

the Restricted Period shall be registered in the name of the Grantee and shall bear a legend in substantially the following form:
THIS CERTIFICATE AND THE SHARES OF STOCK REPRESENTED HEREBY ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS (INCLUDING FORFEITURE AND RESTRICTIONS AGAINST TRANSFER) CONTAINED IN A RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT DATED                      BETWEEN THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE SHARES REPRESENTED HEREBY AND UDR, INC. RELEASE FROM SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BE MADE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENT, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF UDR, INC.
     If requested, the Grantee shall deposit with the Company, a stock power, or powers, executed in blank and sufficient to re-convey the Restricted Shares to the Company upon termination of the Grantee’s employment during the Restricted Period, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. New stock certificates shall be delivered to the Grantee as soon as practicable after the lapse of the restrictions on the Shares, but delivery may be postponed for such period as may be required for the Company with reasonable diligence to comply if deemed advisable by the Company, with registration requirements under the 1933 Act, listing requirements under the rules of any stock exchange, and requirements under any other law or regulation applicable to the issuance or transfer of the Shares.
7. Voting and Dividend Rights . The Grantee, as beneficial owner of the Shares, shall have full voting rights with respect to the Shares and shall receive dividends on the Shares during the Restricted Period. Dividends on the Shares are not eligible for participation in the Company’s Dividend Reinvestment Plan during the Restricted Period.
8. Restrictions on Transfer and Pledge . The Restricted Shares may not be pledged, encumbered, or hypothecated to or in favor of any party other than the Company or a Parent or Subsidiary, or be subject to any lien, obligation, or liability of the Grantee to any other party other than the Company or a Parent or Subsidiary. The Restricted Shares are not assignable or transferable by the Grantee other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution.
9. Changes in Capital Structure . In the event a stock dividend is declared upon the Stock, the shares of Stock then subject to this Agreement shall be increased proportionately. In the event the Stock shall be changed into or exchanged for a different number or class of shares of stock or securities of the Company or of another corporation, whether through reorganization, re-capitalization, reclassification, share exchange, stock split-up, combination of shares, merger or consolidation, there shall be substituted for each such share of Stock then subject to this Agreement the number and class of shares into which each outstanding share of Stock shall be so exchanged, or there shall be made such other equitable adjustment as the Committee shall approve.
10. Stop Transfer Notices . In order to ensure compliance with the restrictions on transfer set forth in this Agreement, the Company may issue appropriate “stop transfer” instructions to its
Restricted Stock Agreement — [Grantee]
[Date of Grant] — Page 3 of 7

 


 

transfer agent, if any, and, if the Company transfers its own securities, it may make appropriate notations to the same effect in its own records.
11. Refusal to Transfer . The Company shall not be required (a) to transfer on its books any Restricted Shares that have been sold or otherwise transferred in violation of any of the provisions of this Agreement or (b) to treat as owner of such Restricted Shares or to accord the right to vote or pay dividends to any purchaser or other transferee to whom such Restricted Shares shall have been so transferred.
12. No Right of Continued Employment . Nothing in this Agreement shall interfere with or limit in any way the right of the Company or any Parent or Subsidiary to terminate the Grantee’s employment at any time, nor confer upon the Grantee any right to continue in the employ of the Company or any Parent or Subsidiary.
13. Payment of Taxes .
     (a) The Grantee upon issuance of the Shares hereunder, shall be authorized to make an election to be taxed upon such award under Section 83(b) of the Code. To effect such election, the Grantee must file an appropriate election with the Internal Revenue Service within thirty (30) days after award of the Shares and otherwise in accordance with applicable Treasury Regulations.
     (b) The Grantee will, no later than the date as of which any amount related to the Shares first becomes includable in the Grantee’s gross income for federal income tax purposes, pay to the Company, or make other arrangements satisfactory to the Committee regarding payment of, any federal, state and local taxes of any kind required by law to be withheld with respect to such amount. In satisfaction of such tax obligation, the Grantee authorizes the Company, upon the exercise of the Company’s sole discretion, to withhold from those Shares issuable to the Grantee the whole number of Shares sufficient to satisfy the Grantee’s minimum tax withholding obligation. The obligations of the Company under this Agreement will be conditional on such payment or arrangements, and the Company, and, where applicable, its Subsidiaries will, to the extent permitted by law, have the right to deduct any such taxes from any payment of any kind otherwise due to the Grantee.
14. Grantee’s Covenant . The Grantee hereby agrees to use his best efforts to provide services to the Company in a workmanlike manner and to promote the Company’s interests.
15. Amendment . The Committee may amend, modify or terminate this Agreement without approval of the Grantee; provided, however, that such amendment, modification or termination shall not, without the Grantee’s consent, reduce or diminish the value of this award determined as if it had been fully vested on the date of such amendment or termination.
16. Successors . This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor of the Company, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
17. Severability . If anyone or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the other provisions of this Agreement will be construed and enforced as if the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been included.
Restricted Stock Agreement — [Grantee]
[Date of Grant] — Page 4 of 7

 


 

18. Notice . Notices and communications under this Agreement must be in writing and either personally delivered or sent by registered or certified United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. Notices to the Company must be addressed to:
UDR, Inc.
1745 Shea Center Dr., Suite 200
Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80129
Attn: Corporate Secretary
or any other address designated by the Company in a written notice to the Grantee. Notices to the Grantee will be directed to the address of the Grantee then currently on file with the Company, or at any other address given by the Grantee in a written notice to the Company.
19. Dispute Resolution . The provisions of this Section 19 shall be the exclusive means of resolving disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement. The Company, the Grantee, and the Grantee’s assignees (the “parties”) shall attempt in good faith to resolve any disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement by negotiation between individuals who have authority to settle the controversy. Negotiations shall be commenced by either party by notice of a written statement of the party’s position and the name and title of the individual who will represent the party. Within thirty (30) days of the written notification, the parties shall meet at a mutually acceptable time and place, and thereafter as often as they reasonably deem necessary, to resolve the dispute. If the dispute has not been resolved by negotiation, the parties agree that any suit, action, or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (or should such court lack jurisdiction to hear such action, suit or proceeding, in a state court in Colorado) and that the parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of such court. The parties irrevocably waive, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection the party may have to the laying of venue for any such suit, action or proceeding brought in such court. THE PARTIES ALSO EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT THEY HAVE OR MAY HAVE TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING. If any one or more provisions of this Section 19 shall for any reason be held invalid or unenforceable, it is the specific intent of the parties that such provisions shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid and enforceable.
20. Administration . This Agreement shall be administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board or, at the discretion of the Board from time to time, by the Board. During any time that the Board is acting as administrator of this Agreement, it shall have all the powers of the Committee hereunder, and any reference herein to the Committee shall include the Board. The Committee’s interpretation of this Agreement and all decisions and determinations by the Committee with respect to this Agreement are final, binding, and conclusive on all parties.
21. Definitions .
     (a) “Award” means any Restricted Stock Award, Performance Unit Award, or Other Stock-Based Award, or any other right or interest relating to Stock or cash, granted to a Grantee under the Agreement.
     (b) “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Company.
Restricted Stock Agreement — [Grantee]
[Date of Grant] — Page 5 of 7

 


 

     (c) “Change of Control” means and includes each of the following:
          (i) a merger or consolidation in which the Company is not the surviving entity, except for a transaction the principal purpose of which is to change the state in which the Company is incorporated;
          (ii) the transfer or sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company other than to an affiliate or Subsidiary of the Company;
          (iii) the liquidation of the Company; or
          (iv) the acquisition by any person, or by a group of persons acting in concert, of more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding voting securities of the Company, which results in the resignation or addition of fifty percent (50%) or more independent members of the Board.
     (d) “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time.
     (e) “Committee” means the Compensation Committee of the Board.
     (f) “Disability” shall mean any illness or other physical or mental condition of a Grantee that renders the Grantee incapable of performing his customary and usual duties for the Company, or any medically determinable illness or other physical or mental condition resulting from a bodily injury, disease or mental disorder which, in the judgment of the Committee, is permanent and continuous in nature. The Committee may require such medical or other evidence as it deems necessary to judge the nature and permanency of the Grantee’s condition.
     (g) “Fair Market Value”, on any date, means the closing sales price on the New York Stock Exchange on such date or, in the absence of reported sales on such date, the closing sales price on the immediately preceding date on which sales were reported.
     (h) “Parent” means a corporation that owns or beneficially owns a majority of the outstanding voting stock or voting power of the Company.
     (i) “Retirement” means a Grantee’s termination of employment with the Company, Parent or Subsidiary after attaining any normal or early retirement age specified in any pension, profit sharing or other retirement program sponsored by such company, or, in the event of the inapplicability thereof with respect to the person in question, as determined by the Committee in its reasonable judgment.
     (j) “Stock” means the $0.01 par value common stock of the Company, and such other securities of the Company as may be substituted for Stock pursuant to Section 9 of the Agreement.
     (k) “Subsidiary” means any corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other entity that is directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlled by or under common control with the Company.
Restricted Stock Agreement — [Grantee]
[Date of Grant] — Page 6 of 7

 


 

     (l) “1933 Act” means the Securities Act of 1933, as amended from time to time.
     (m) “1934 Act” means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended from time to time.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Grantee have executed this Agreement and agree that the Shares are to be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
         
  UDR, INC.
 
 
  By:      
  Name:      
  Title:      
 
The Grantee acknowledges receipt of a copy of this Agreement and represents that he or she is familiar with the terms and provisions thereof, and hereby accepts the Shares subject to all of the terms and provisions hereof. The Grantee has reviewed this Agreement in its entirety, has had an opportunity to obtain the advice of counsel prior to executing this Agreement and fully understands all provisions of this Agreement. The Grantee hereby agrees that all disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with Section 19 of this Agreement. The Grantee further agrees to notify the Company upon any change in the residence address indicated in this Agreement.
             
    GRANTEE:    
 
           
         
 
  Name:        
 
     
 
   
Restricted Stock Agreement — [Grantee]
[Date of Grant] — Page 7 of 7