Good day. Welcome to The Macerich Company second quarter 2018 earnings conference call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Michelle Raff, AVP, Corporate Governance. Please go ahead.
Thank you everyone for joining us today on our second quarter 2018 earnings call. During the course of this call, management may make certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking within the meaning of the safe harbor of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially due to a variety of risks, uncertainties, and other factors. We refer you to our press release and SEC filings for a detailed discussion of forward-looking statements. Reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in the earnings release and supplemental filed on Form 8-K with the SEC, which are posted in the investors section of the company's website at macerich.com. Joining us today are Arthur Coppola, CEO; Thomas O'Hern, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Doug Healey, Executive Vice President, Leasing.
With that, I will turn the call over to Tom.
Thank you, Michelle. The second quarter reflected generally good operating results as evidenced by the strength of most of our portfolio's key operating metrics. As we mentioned several times on our last two earnings calls, that the bankruptcies and early terminations in 2017 tempered growth in the first half of 2018 as we've worked through leasing that space up. That being said, the first half of 2018 reflected an improved leasing environment with strong retailer sales, far fewer bankruptcies, and a more positive tone from the retailer community. FFO per share adjusted to add back the costs related to activism for the quarter was $0.96 and was in line with our guidance. Occupancy was 94.3% at June 30th. That was up quarter-over-quarter, 30 basis points from last quarter, and down only modestly from 94.4% a year ago.
The leasing activity was good during the quarter. The economic benefit of that leasing will be reflected in the third and fourth quarter. Doug will be getting into leasing in more detail in a few minutes. Same-center net operating income was down for the quarter -1.6%, primarily due to large lease termination revenues of $9 million in the second quarter of last year, compared to only $2.4 million in the second quarter of this year. Same-center NOI growth for the quarter excluding lease term fees was up 1.45%. As indicated on the last earnings call, we expect acceleration in same-center growth in the second half of the year. Bad debt expense for the quarter was $2.6 million, essentially the same as a year ago. REIT G&A expense was $5 million, down significantly from $7.4 million in 2017.
This decrease was largely due to our reduction of workforce that occurred in the first quarter of 2018. We expect to continue to see this positive reduction in expense in the second half of the year. This is a good run rate for the balance of the year, the $5 million that we saw for the second quarter. Management company expense was at $21 million, down significantly from $26 million in the second quarter of last year. This was also primarily due to our reduction in workforce that we went through in the first quarter. At June 30th, the average interest rate was 30 basis points higher at 3.8% compared to a year ago. Balance sheet continues to be in good shape. At quarter end, our debt to market cap was 47%. The average debt maturity was 5.6 years.
Net debt to EBITDA on a forward basis, 8.1 times. The remaining 2020 maturities are very insignificant at $9 million. During June, we sold a power center, Grande outside of Phoenix. In July, we sold another power center in Phoenix, The Market at Estrella Falls. Both were joint ventures, and our pro rata share of the total proceeds was $45 million, net of debt, $35 million. On March 1st, we sold a 75% interest in Westside Pavilion in L.A. An office building in Philadelphia was also sold in March. None of those assets were in our original guidance for 2018. I mentioned on our first quarter call that we would address dilution from asset sales in the second quarter guidance update.
The dilutive impact of the two power centers recently sold, as well as Westside Pavilion and the office in Philadelphia, amounted to $0.05 per share of total earnings dilution for 2018. Guidance has been modified accordingly. We've also reduced our guidance based on our current estimate of lease termination revenue for the remainder of the year. As a result of a stronger leasing environment and good tenant sales growth, there has been less demand than forecast from retailers to terminate leases early. Accordingly, our guidance for lease termination revenue is being reduced from $22 million to $15 million for 2018. Our assumption for same-center net operating income for the full year is also being modified to a range of 1.5%-2%. Excluding the impact of lease termination revenue on same-center growth, that same-center growth range assumption would be 2.25%-2.75%.
Our new guidance for the full year, adjusted to exclude costs related to activism, is $3.82-$3.92. More details on the guidance assumptions can be found in the 8-K. Lastly, just a reminder, the lease rules change starting in 2019. Currently, internal leasing costs are capitalized. Starting in January of 2019, those costs will have to be expensed. In our case, we estimate that will have an impact of $0.12-$0.15 per share that will now be reflected through the income statement rather than capitalized. No change in cash flow, but it will change FFO and net income. I will turn it over to Doug Healey, who many of you had the chance to meet at Nareit in June. Doug is a 25-year veteran of the mall industry and our Executive Vice President. He will be discussing the current leasing environment.
Thanks, Tom. In the second quarter, sales remained strong and leasing was brisk. Portfolio sales ended the second quarter at $692 per square foot, which represented a 7.1% increase on a year-over-year basis. Economic sales per square foot, which are weighted based on NOI, were $805 per square foot, and that is up from $700 per square foot a year ago. 12-month spreads came in at 12.3%. Although down from last quarter, they included a large package of 11 with one particular tenant averaging over 4,300 square feet. If that package were excluded out, the spreads would have been consistent with the first quarter rate of 14.7% and 15.2% at the end of 2017. These deals were disproportionately in the bottom quartile of our assets. Average rent for the portfolio was $58.84 per square foot, up 4% from $56.80 per square foot at June 30th, 2017. Leasing volumes have been strong.
During the second quarter, a total of 756,000 square feet of leases were signed, bringing the total activity during the first two quarters to 1.4 million square feet. The average term for the lease to sign in the second quarter was 5.4 years, which was an increase over Q1 average of 5.2 years. We remain active with the digitally native brands, executing several leases in the second quarter, including Bonobos at Broadway Plaza, Madison Reed at The Village at Corte Madera, two new 100% PURE leases at Kierland Commons in Scottsdale Fashion Square, and three new b8ta leases at Northbridge, Tysons Corner Center, and Washington Square. In the experiential category, we signed leases with Escape The Room at Chandler Fashion Center and XLanes at Fresno Fashion Square, and we anxiously await the opening of the Cayton Children's Museum at Santa Monica Place in November.
Tenant bankruptcies have been far fewer through June than we have seen in 2016 and 2017. Through the second quarter, we have had eight tenant bankruptcies. Excluding Bon-Ton, these affect 79 stores containing 118,000 square feet. Of this amount, we are forecasting that only 14 stores, totaling 20,000 square feet, have closed or will close. This compares with year-to-date June 2017, when we had 12 tenant bankruptcies affecting 146 stores and 551,000 square feet. Turning to redevelopment leasing, construction is now complete on the $100 million redevelopment of Kings Plaza in Brooklyn, New York. As most of you know, this was a redevelopment of a former Sears box, which was approximately 300,000 square feet on 4 levels. This project was designed to significantly improve the merchandise mix, the shopper experience, and to transform the presence of Kings Plaza from Flatbush Avenue.
In July, we opened Brooklyn's first Primark store, a new Burlington, and a new JCPenney. Zara is slated to open on August 23rd, at which point the Sears building will be repurposed in its entirety. Combined, these retailers are expected to add over $100 million in annual sales to the property. Redevelopment continues on the Fashion District of Philadelphia. It's a three-level retail hub spanning over 800,000 sq ft across three city blocks in the heart of downtown Philadelphia. The scope of this project has increased with the addition of numerous entertainment and dining elements. Estimated project costs are now expected to be in the range of $400 million-$420 million, or $200 million-$210 million at the company's pro rata share. We've signed leases or are in active negotiations with tenants for over 80% of the leasable area.
Noteworthy commitments include Century 21, Burlington, a flagship H&M, Polo Ralph Lauren, Forever 21, Columbia Sportswear, AMC Theatres, City Winery, and Dallas BBQ. The grand opening is planned for September 2019. In conclusion, our leasing metrics, including sales, occupancy, and spreads, remain solid. The level of bankruptcies is significantly lower than last year, and we continued to lease space to new, exciting, and cutting-edge retailers. In doing so, our merchandise offerings continue to be among the best in the industry. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Art.
Thanks, Doug and Tom. Again, welcome to the call. As I look at the quarter, there's a lot to like. Our sales continue to grow very well across the board. Occupancy is not only holding up but improving. Leasing spreads, which this now goes back multiple years, continue in the low teens to mid-teens area, which is extremely powerful.
As Doug outlined very well, much lower levels of tenant failures than the last few years. We continue to resale out of non-core assets. We don't see much more of that activity, but certainly Westside Pavilion in particular was something that had to be addressed, and we feel that we found an optimal solution for that situation. Leasing volume, if you look at it for the first six months, is up about 10% in terms of square footage, and the quality of the leasing has been very good. Our ABRs, average base rents in place, are up 4% year-over-year. As Doug mentioned, we had a terrific opening of Primark at Kings Plaza. JCPenney recently soft opened. Burlington Coat, which is up on the fourth level of the Sears building, not connected to the mall, had a very good opening. They're all reporting terrific results.
Primark, in particular, sees this location as their new flagship for the U.S., early results based upon traffic and observed sales are outstanding. A couple of days ago, we had a terrific opening of an Apple store at Broadway Plaza that I'll touch on later. There's been lots of good activity in the leasing side, with particular strength in the beauty category, there are a number of new beauty concepts that are emerging that we're very excited about. The experiential retail area of our company, there are tons of new ideas that are evolving. We think these are important elements that we are going to be adding to our centers. We've announced our first co-working tenant and location at Scottsdale Fashion Square in partnership with Industrious. We're very excited about that.
We had alluded to co-working about a year ago with you all, we said that we see that in a number of our centers, we've announced that it's at Scottsdale, there'll be others to be announced on that in the future. There's a lot to like. Obviously, the one thing none of you like or that I don't like is when a company has to reduce guidance. When you look at the two reasons that we had to adjust our guidance, I think they were fairly well telegraphed in our last call, that as the dispositions became realities, that we would address the impact of those if they happened on this call, which we're doing. The other obvious point that caused a reduction in our range is the fact that the leasing environment and the tenant failure rate has improved.
To me, these are both very good things. As I move away from that and I think about what we're doing in the development side of the business, I actually want to talk a little bit about Broadway Plaza again. That continues to evolve and do terrific. Sales are outstanding there. We're virtually 100% leased. Just a few days ago, Apple opened one of their next-generation stores at Broadway Plaza. This features a store that integrates outdoor spaces with the indoor spaces, it's really intended by them and us to be a place for folks to gather. The outdoor spaces will be gathering and will integrate the store with the rest of the center. Inside the store, it features a gathering space that Apple, I believe, calls Today at Apple, where they host educational, creative sessions all meant towards creating a community gathering location.
The Apple store footprint and prototype continues to evolve and continues to be even more of a draw to our properties. As Doug mentioned, the Kings Plaza complete remerchandising of the Sears box has been extremely well received. Early reviews as we look at our traffic in that center compared to traffic at Queens Center, for example, and even Green Acres, is that since Primark has opened, traffic at Kings Plaza is actually up about 7% on a comp basis compared to Queens and Green Acres, which both have had very good traffic, it just shows you that we're reestablishing this as a very important retail location. We're very excited about what we've done there. New to the developer pipeline is Scottsdale Fashion Square. This is a little bit of a different type of development because it's a series of developments.
When we looked at it and we took a look at the dollars involved with the series of developments, we felt that it was appropriate to put it into the supplement. It is not one area. It is not one expansion wing. It's not one new building. The intent of what we're doing there is to elevate Scottsdale's position and to further enhance its position in the luxury marketplace. We have a terrific lineup of luxury tenants there already, and with more to come. We also are repurposing the Barneys anchor spot with a co-working location of Industrious and a new tenant to be announced in the very near future. We're adding 72,000 sq ft of new exterior GLA, including eight critically acclaimed restaurants, two of which are luxury flagship locations as well as Equinox.
This is a center that's performing extremely well, and it's always great to go ahead and take a center that's doing great already and to even accelerate its growth and to set it up to even be more dominant for the future. Look, overall, I think we had a very good quarter, a very good first six months, and my outlook for the rest of the year is very positive, and I'd like to open it up for questions.
Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a smartphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off for your signal to reach our equipment. Again, press star one to ask a question, and please limit yourself to one question to ensure everyone's questions get answered. We will now take our first question from Jim Sullivan. Please go ahead, sir.
Hello, Jim.
Thank you. Hi, Art. Quick question just regarding the interplay between the indicated guidance for 2019 regarding the expensing versus capitalizing of leasing costs on hand with there are significant positive variances here in the second quarter 2018 of both the management company operating expense and the G&A line. I guess it's kind of confusing, but my basic question is, what's the run rate for the balance of this year for both management company operating expense and G&A expense? Then for that $0.13 negative impact next year, is that going to be between both line items, or is it primarily the operating expense line?
Jim, you're breaking up a little bit there, but I think I've got the essence of your question. In terms of the positive impact on expenses in both REIT G&A and the management company expense, this quarter is a pretty good run rate to use going forward. In terms of leasing, that would be at the property level rather than in the management company expense level, as the leasing personnel would be allocated each property. It's just a change in the accounting rules. They're not finalized yet in terms of how that'll happen, but as long as they're internal leasing costs and it's got a salary or even a bonus, it's got to be expensed rather than capitalized. We expect that to be in the range I mentioned of $0.12 to $0.15. Coincidentally, they're approximately the same size, the savings from the reduction in force and expense.
That won't change the cash flow from each asset. It just moves it from the balance sheet to the income statement.
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Thanks, Jim.
We will now take our next question from Jeff Donnelly from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead, sir.
Go ahead, Jeff.
Good afternoon, guys. Good afternoon. Just a question concerning the reduction in lease termination fees. I understand the reason that you guys had given in your release. I'm just curious, are those fees budgeted on a space-by-space basis? Meaning, you pick situations where you thought tenants might be open to termination, and then later were not, or is the fee just budgeted as a general estimate? I guess I'm just wondering if these are situations that could come around again for you guys, or you think that's sort of past?
Jeff, that's a general estimate. We base it on history. Occasionally, as we come into a year, we have some specific knowledge about a tenant who's interested or where we're negotiating, but that tends to be a very small percentage of the total. As we came into this year, we used roughly the same lease termination assumptions as we had actual expense in 2016 and 2017 of $22 million. As we are now midway through the year and we look out there, we just don't think that's realistic. There's fewer tenants that are interested in negotiation for early termination. The environment's better. We decided to make the revision based on our view of the balance of the year.
Maybe just one follow-up, if I could.
Sure.
Art, I think, mentioned last quarter that your partner had realized a pretty impressive cap rate on Broadway. Do you see any other mall assets or portfolios coming to the market that would extend that pricing in the market?
You should talk to your brother-in-laws at Eastdil. They'll tell you all about it.
Okay.
I don't know what the exact relation is, but you're affiliated.
Cousin.
You're cousins. I don't know. I can't comment on that. I do see the trade on Broadway as being a very positive multiple. That transaction, I believe, is scheduled to close potentially later this month.
Okay. Thanks, guys.
We will now take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb, Sandler O'Neill. Please go ahead, sir.
Go ahead, Alex.
Hey, Art. Hey, Tom. I hope you're out there. The first question is, the $19 million of activist expense. Taubman spent $5 million. That was against Jonathan Litt, who actually succeeded against the board. There wasn't anyone trying to counter and run against the slate. Curious, it's four times the amount they spent. Can you just walk us through what this $19 million was about? It's obviously a big number, especially in comparison to what Taubman spent with their activists.
Alex, I'm not going to try to compare ourselves to our friends at Taubman, although their expenses, I think, will come in over more than one quarter. Ours, I believe, will be isolated to just this quarter. Those costs were almost entirely legal and advisory costs. We have been well-advised, and we think it's best practices for a company to be well-advised. It's not only good for us, but our stockholders to continue to be well-advised, and that advice can be expensive at times.
That sounds like those people providing the advice. Tom, you're saying it was just you, we won't see any lingering contractual payments beyond the second quarter?
No, I think that includes everything, Alex.
Okay. Then if I could just ask a follow-up. Can you just go through the $0.05 dilution? Because I'm coming up with, like, a $0.01 Hudson, on their call yesterday, a positive $0.005, and you guys have I would think the impact to you would be the same. Can you just walk through the $0.05?
Yeah. I'm not sure how you could have possibly calculated the power centers if you didn't have a cap rate. The power centers are close to two and a half-
I guess-
The power centers are close to $0.025 of dilution. They were sold non-core assets, very tertiary markets, Casa Grande's 25 miles from Phoenix, and those were a blended double-digit cap rate. Obviously there was dilution there. Westside Pavilion, we're selling off 75% of the FFO that was generated there. That's roughly $0.02 for us. I'd be happy to walk you through the minutia of that offline, though. Feel free to call me after the call. The Philly office was about $0.005, none of those individually were headline news, but you combine them all and it's about $0.05.
Thank you, Tom.
Thanks.
We will now take our next question from Christy McElroy of Citi. Please go ahead.
Hey, it's Michael Bilerman. Tom, I was wondering if you can maybe just give a little bit more color about when the $20 million was spent. Taubman did have $26 million actually over their two different proxy campaigns, as well dealing with two different activists. $19 million, even if they're paid hourly, seems like a lot of hours for lawyers and bankers on something that was not even public. Give a little bit more color.
Let me see what I've got here, Michael.
Yeah.
For starters, they're not paid hourly. That's not really how it works. As you know from observing the public filings, we had significant activists in the stock starting in November of 2017. The work really started the end of last year. Just ultimately, the expenses all came through in the second quarter. In some respects, that work had been going on for six, seven, eight months, the advice and the legal services.
I guess, what's the breakdown between banker fees and lawyer fees, is there any executive management retention? That's the other thing that Taubman had in their numbers was retaining management. They expensed through that line.
No. 90% of the cost was legal and advisory. I'm not going to break it out between the two. In the remaining amounts, nothing was material, there was nothing for retainage.
This was never something you wanted to disclose as it was going on? Because I think there was a lot of questions that came up on these calls about activists and campaigns and things like that, and you guys pretty much said, you'd always have conversations. You didn't feel like this was a necessary thing to talk about given the size of the expense?
Michael, I think you've probably followed some other companies that have had activists involved, and obviously there are expenses that are included in that, and we were no exception. It's just you don't expense until you've incurred it. We disclosed
Okay. Thank you.
When it was
We will now take our next question from Todd Thomas, KeyBanc Capital Markets. Go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon. This is Drew on for Todd today. There's been a bit of volatility and some in the C-suite, obviously. Do you see any areas of the company where you might need senior level executives in the future? You kind of foresee anything of that nature? If you could just comment on that'd be great. Thank you.
I think that we have an incredibly deep bench here. We've got a lot of terrific folks. Well, Doug, for example, who's new to this call and new to meeting with you all, has been in the industry for 25 years. He's been with us for the last almost 15 years. We've got a terrific bench here. We don't see anything significant in that area at all. A great team. There's an opportunity here for people that have been contributing here to really help take this company to the next level. Tom, if you want to add to that, please do.
No, I think I went through some of the team members on the last call and their experience, we've got a lot of people who have been in the business a long time and are very capable. For much of our public life, we did not, for example, have a chief operating officer, we feel no reason to do that now given the talent of not just Doug, but Olivia Li, Ken Volk, and a number of other people at the SVP level.
That's it. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
Thanks, Todd.
We will now take our next question from Michael Mueller, JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Hi, two questions. First of all, the line keeps cutting in and out. I didn't catch what you said, Tom, about the geography of the new lease expense of the 12-15. I was wondering if you can repeat that. Then also, it just seems kind of late for a scope change at Philly, just given how close you were to the original opening date. Wondering what drove it all, and then also, how well-leased was it before you expanded the scope?
Yeah, Mike, on the leasing costs, that'll be at the property level. Each leasing member of the staff is allocated to a property, so that will be at the property level, shopping center expenses.
Okay.
In terms of Philly, Doug may comment and Art a little bit, the scope evolved because that project was originally going to be almost exclusively fashion outlet. As we spoke to retailers, we found out there was a very significant demand for full price. There were entertainment users that had a high interest in being there, it was really leasing driven and that evolved and moved the scope to a direction more of a hybrid center that contained uses in all those areas, entertainment, restaurant, some discount with Burlington and Century 21, full price as well as some fashion outlets. We really let the retailers dictate where we went with the scope and the design of that project.
Yeah, I'll just add a little bit, then we'll move on. We apologize, by the way, to all of you for the reception. I just got an email from our IT department that it's evidently on the vendor's side, the host side of this. Sorry about that. I'll speak up. Maybe that'll help the reception. Tom brings up a very good point of when you're opening something that is more of a pure fashion outlet center, it's fine to open it up in stages. When you're opening up something that is reliant on so many interchangeable pieces that are all complementary and synergistic with each other, we just came to the conclusion, especially with some new demand from some anchor tenants that came in relatively late to the game, that it would be best to have them all open up at once.
Again, to some degree, it was new demand from folks in the last couple of months to take significant blocks of space, they just wouldn't have been in a position, couldn't have been in a position to get open this year. We sat down and looked at it and determined that it would be best to go ahead and have a cohesive opening, and we've had a terrific opening. It's really just an evolution of the tenant mix there. We feel very comfortable, I know you'll hear a lot more from our partner on their call tomorrow about where we're headed. We just came to the conclusion that a great opening for a center like this is really important, and this was the best way to deliver that.
Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
We will now take our next question from Wes Golladay, RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
I just want to look at the guidance for the back half of the year. Is that just a function of temporary tenants to permanent tenants? Do you see any risk in delays of opening just because of the construction shortage, labor shortages that are going on throughout many industries right now?
Wes, we don't see delays in that regard, we continue to push from temporary tenants to perm with success. That'll continue throughout the year and into 2019 as well. I don't believe we're expecting any build-out delays with the deals we've signed that haven't opened yet.
Okay. Is it fair to assume that's the big driver, there's nothing on the expense side from operating, it's mainly just the conversion there?
That's correct.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
We will now take our next question from Linda Tsai, Barclays. Please go ahead.
Hi. The indoor-outdoor next generation Apple Store at Broadway Plaza, is that over 10,000 sq ft? If so, would it be excluded from sales productivity calculations?
I believe it is over 10,000 ft.
Okay. Then, it sounds like Primark has.
Linda, I'll get back to you with the exact on that. I was up there about a couple of weeks ago, it's probably pretty close to 10,000, but it might be under. I believe it probably is over, in which case it would be excluded, but I'll get back to you on that if that's not correct.
Okay. Is that kind of a format going forward for Apple stores, where it might be over 10,000 sq ft? Do you have any sense?
The one thing I do know is that we're not empowered to speak on behalf of Apple. We can tell you what they've done, but we can't tell you what they're about to do.
Of the next generation Apple Stores that exist, are they over 10,000 square feet?
I can't comment on what they're going to do in the future. Look, the most important thing here is what it does for the center. If it's over 10,000 feet with our protocol, it wouldn't be included in our sales reporting. What it does for the center, which is really the important thing, is it creates a new community gathering spot, and really creates a new anchor. That is what I focus on. It's not whether or not I'm going to include it in my sales per foot reporting, which by the way, if we were including it in that, would obviously most likely increase the reported sales per foot. Look, the important thing is what does it do for the real estate? What does it do for traffic? What does it do for the cross leasing?
That's what I focus on, and I'm very excited about this particular store that we just opened. I'm very excited about other potential new stores that we're talking to them about, and as they open, we'll talk about them after they open.
It sounds like Primark also has a decent impact on traffic. Is there opportunity to add them to any of your other centers?
We have a terrific relationship with them. As I mentioned, our store with them in Kings Plaza is likely their flagship location for the U.S., and we're both very pleased with the relationship with each other. We're very pleased with what it's done for traffic. It's absolutely measurable, as well as leasing, and we definitely are talking to them about other locations. Absolutely. We think they're terrific.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks, Linda.
We will now take our next question from Caitlin Burrows, Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Hi team. I guess I was just wondering, with the strong sales growth that you guys can post, I was surprised to see the leasing spreads come in a little low. You mentioned that that could have been due to a package deal. At this point, I was just wondering how you're balancing the pushing pricing you can see and the ability that you do have to push when leases come up for renewal or you're signing new leases.
Well, please take this the right way, when you have the leading leasing spreads in the industry, it's a little hard to view that as a bad thing. I've always said, and it is absolutely true, that sales and leasing have a very strong correlation, but it is not an absolute solid line of connectivity. It has more to do with the productivity of the center. Frankly, I believe that as a forecast for you, even though I'm very happy to be able to report great sales. I've said this on other calls. Sales per foot are Look, they're a two-dimensional measure. We know that you want to hear them. We give it to you. When I think about sales, I think about, frankly, the commerce that's being generated from the campus.
Frankly, I would rather own a center that does $1 billion of business and does $500 a square foot than a center that does $2,000 a square foot, but only does $50 million of sales of, let's say, a specialty center. You have to think about the economic engine. Again, look, we're thrilled at the sales that we're generating. We think about campus sales, meaning total sales, really at least as much as we think about sales per foot. Look, these are great things. Industry leading leasing spreads, very strong sales growth, both on a sales per foot as well as total sales. These are all very positives, and they do become reflected in the demand that we get for our centers, and the demand that we get for our centers is picking up nicely. Thank you.
Just another quick one. In terms of the lease termination fees we're still expecting for the second half of the year, would you say those are still kind of a bigger estimate that could change? Or is it more, since we're to the end of the year now, specific tenants that you're expecting to move out?
It's about half and half at this point, Caitlin. We do have some specific tenants we're negotiating with that we expect to see the lease termination agreements come to fruition, and some of it is also just an assumption that hasn't been specifically identified. It's about half and half at this point, but at this point, we're pretty comfortable with that $15 million revised guidance.
Got it. Thanks.
Thank you.
We will now take our next question from Ki Bin Kim, SunTrust. Please go ahead.
Thanks. Going back to the Fashion District development, I know it's evolved from the initial onset of being something similar to the Chicago version, where it's kind of a discounted luxury outlet to what it is today, and you guys announced the scope by $75 million. I think the increase ROIC on that is about 4%. I know get the whole story by just looking at the numbers on Excel, and there's a definitely real estate element to it to make the center more viable longer term. Could you talk about the factors that weighed on your decision to change the mix of the tenants and to change the scope?
Well, first of all, we added square footage to the project that was not previously in the project. When we first announced the project, we did not intend to develop the third level above the street. It was the concourse, which is connected to the subway stations, street plus one. We added to the scope in terms of size. I did see your note, and it's a legitimate question, but it's not a binary answer about the incremental cost and the interpolation of the return on the incremental dollars. It didn't work that way. Look, we're just bringing everybody up to date on the status of the leasing, the status of the opening, the status of the spend, and the status of our projected return. We're very pleased with the demand that we're getting. It's all demand driven.
We are excited about the opening that's scheduled for next year.
Is Eataly still a tenant there potentially?
They never were. No, they were talked about early days, but that was three years ago.
Okay. All right, thanks.
Thank you.
We will now take our next question from Jeremy Metz, BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. I jumped on a little late. Hopefully you didn't go over this. You spent a lot of time talking about digitally native tenants and using space more as a sort of laboratory. You previously indicated that some of that work should start showing up in 2019 and forward. As you do this, should we expect to see temp or some of the leasing activity tick up from where it's been running? How do you protect yourself from a cost or CapEx perspective in terms of potentially increasing churn as a result?
You were breaking up a little bit during the question. I'll try and answer it for you. Look, our overall outlook is very positive in terms of what we see with the digitally native brands. We are actually creating laboratory space within our properties. We're starting it at Tysons Corner later this year, where we're taking an 11,000 square foot location. We're going to allow digitally native brands. We have it configured with modular walls and modular spaces in the space so that we can break up that 11,000 feet into 18 different configurations. On that one, that entire space is intended to be temp. Not temp from the viewpoint of the type of tenant that you put in there. The idea is that it's a testing lab for digital brands to test the traffic and the business they can do in a property.
If they do well, which we hope they do, they will take a permanent location. By doing that, by doing it in a modular way, it reduces the cost of opening a store and the investment that the brand and we have to make dramatically. It makes it far easier for us to allow people to do something that we call a pop-in as opposed to a pop-up. Which to me is they can come in for three months to six months to a year. If they like it, they can go ahead and take a permanent location with us. We will likely be adding these, say, 10,000-foot laboratory spaces, which we call BrandBox, to many of our centers over the next couple of years. Look, we're very bullish on what's happening here.
I will say that overall, that with the digital brands, that they are looking for permanent locations. We're going to be willing to let them go ahead and test the market with a temporary type of lease. We're actually dedicating locations within the center as laboratories for them to do so. I'm very bullish on what's happening in this space, and it's clear to me that as the brands begin to get confidence in their ability to operate stores, then the same energy that they put into creating their fundamental business when they were born online, and they raced against the clock to get as big as they could as fast as they could, that they're going to begin to do the same thing when they go offline.
There's definitely going to be a hockey stick graph that is going to track the store openings of digital brands. It'll be slow in the beginning. They'll try a pop-up here and a pop-up there, try a store here and a store there. We see absolute tangible evidence that as they get that confidence, that then they want to talk about, how many stores can we get open? That's happening with a number of our tenants, and we're very bullish on it.
Appreciate the call.
Thank you.
We will now take our next question from Christy McElroy of Citi. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. Thanks for allowing the follow-up. Just wanted to follow up on Ki Bin's question on Philly. If it wasn't a lower yield on the incremental spend and the added square footage, was it a function of the longer carry without NOI flow because of the delay, or are rents on the project coming in lower than expected? Just related to that, presumably you had previously expected some NOI contribution from Philly in 2018 in the fourth quarter. Did that factor into the guidance decrease also?
I'll let Tom go ahead and address that question, and I'll come back to the return after he finishes.
Right. Philly was in our thinking. It was not a real significant amount of NOI that would've been coming in this year. It was a little bit, and when I adjusted the range, we factored that in as well.
As far as the returns, Christy, let's not hold us to a standard that's different than everybody else in the universe. Nobody gets into that level of detail of saying, "Well, this tenant is paying this, and that tenant is paying that." There must be 55 different elements that went into as we expanded the size of the project, the scope of the project, and the identity of the tenants that we brought into the project. We're just doing our best to report to you the exact timing, the exact cost, and our exact expected returns. To give you color on the names of the tenants, which I believe that our partner has been provided a significant amount of color on that as recently as today, or they will tomorrow on the names and the types of uses.
We feel very good about where we are. There must be 50 factors that go into the question that you asked, and you can't just look at the incremental spend and the incremental return and then try and draw a solid line. It can't be done. It's not reality.
Sure. I totally get that. I guess we're just trying to wrap our arms around whether it's on the rent side or the cost side, especially just given the environment for construction costs. My follow-up question is, it's actually a follow-up from Caitlin's on the term fees. I appreciate you were providing the same store to calculate excluding lease term fees. I'm just trying to look at your revised guidance range of 1.5%-2%. What would that guidance be excluding the lease term fees? I think we have kind of the moving parts on the whole. You're expecting another $9 million-$10 million of lease term fees in the back half of the year, and that's roughly in line with what you had in the second half of 2017. I'm just not clear on how much of that was attributable to the same-store pool.
If that makes sense.
Well, again, it's an assumption. It's not necessarily assigned to a specific center or tenant. You can assume all of it is. I think I gave the range. We expect our same-center growth excluding lease term fees to be 2.25%-2.75%, somewhere in that range for the year.
Okay. All of the $10 million that you booked in the back half of last year, that was all same-store?
Yes, I believe so. If not, I'll get back to you, but I believe it is.
Okay. Thank you so much.
Well, thank you everyone. We appreciate you joining us on the call today, and look forward to talking to you over the remainder of the year