Bill Crooker: Yes. So one thing, I’m not going to comment on where the sell side comes, and I think you guys have your own models there. But for this year, our same-store cash NOI came in at 5.6%, which was a record for us. And our CAD available for distribution, just on a gross number, was up 5.4%. So pretty consistent with our cash same-store NOI. Every year, you’ve got some nuances in that number with — in terms of CapEx, but CapEx has averaged anywhere from $0.25 to $0.30 per square foot. That seems pretty consistent. Going forward. I think when you think about it as a percentage of NOI, it’s around 7% of NOI. So that number should be pretty consistent. So I think we can still drive some pretty strong CAD growth and CAD per share growth going forward.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Michael Carroll with RBC. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Carroll: I know Bill that STAG is pursuing a lot of active development projects, I mean, I guess, a few right now. Guess what’s the opportunity set here? I believe earlier in the prepared remarks, you said there was, what, 25% of the pipeline developments. I think you threw around a lot of numbers, so I’m not sure if that was the exact number tied to the development projects. But what is the activity? I mean, how many do you think you can really pursue in 2024? Or how many do you want to pursue in 2024?
Bill Crooker: It’s a good question, Mike. I did throw around a lot of numbers, so I apologize if some information got kind of lost there. Our pipeline is $3.1 billion. Of that, call it, 15% to 25%, it’s a pretty wide range, but is some sort of mix of developments, value-add redevelopments. Part of the wider range is the $3.1 billion only includes land cost. So if it’s a $50 million project, it’s $10 million of — that’s in our pipeline today. We haven’t guided to specific development projects, more starts, right? So we’ve got two that are on — three that are ongoing now, wrapping up that Port 290. We’ve got the Tampa development. And then we’ve got the one we just acquired here that’s almost complete and should be ready by the end of Q2.
So those are underway. And for the year right now, there’s — we don’t have anything that we’re negotiating price agreement for. We do anticipate there’ll be some opportunities there. And we’re evaluating some opportunities in our own portfolio as well, that we have some excess land and looking to potentially subdivide some of those parcels. So, as we have more clarity into that, we will guide to it. We’re just not, at this point, as we ramp up this initiative, we’re not comfortable giving specific guidance for 2024. But as we have more insight into these projects, we’ll certainly let you and everyone know of those projects.
Michael Carroll: Okay. Great. And then can you remind us on what your limit of developments that you want to pursue within the portfolio? I believe you provided to us before. And does that limit change based on leasing? So some of these developments are in process to get leased. Does that give you more capacity to pursue more starts?
Bill Crooker: Yes. We do have some soft kind of limits internally. I mean, it’s certainly less than some of our peers just as we’re ramping up that opportunity. The way we view it is outstanding developments, obviously, build-to-suit is less risky, depending on the rights that the tenant has to bow out of that in case something were delayed. And then as we lease up a project and it stabilized, it drops off of that cap. So, we’re not close to the cap, Mike, right now, guidance for starts and caps, certainly will be something we’ll be providing in the future more specifically. But right now, we’re not close to any sort of soft internal caps we have. But the riskier of the project, obviously, it impacts the capital a little bit more than a build-to-suit with very limited rights for the tenant to bow out of that.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Nick Thillman with Baird. Please proceed with your question.
Nick Thillman: Maybe just touching a little bit on the dispositions and kind of the composition or write-down of that, is the bulk of that is going to be that non-CBRE Tier 1 market that you guys are trying to basically concentrate in and just kind of basically putting the portfolio here? Or are we — are you kind of viewing this more as like sources for the acquisition pipeline?
Matts Pinard: Nick, this is Matts. Yes. So our disposition guidance of $75 million to $125 million, as you accurately noted, is a mix between opportunistic capital recycling in non-core dispositions. If you think about the mix in 2023, it was roughly 50-50. Look, there’s always the bottom 5%, and to the extent we just don’t think it’s a good part of our portfolio we’ll disclose. And on the flip side, on the opportunistic, those are generally reverse inquiries from users. They view the real estate a little differently. They kind of have different expectations, corporate mandates, et cetera. So, those reverse inquiries happen every single year. They’re a little unpredictable. So, there is called the unidentified opportunistic within that number. But I think a 50-50 split is relatively reasonable, given our history.
Bill Crooker: And Nick, I think you correctly pointed out. The non-core dispositions are primarily those non-CBRE Tier 1 markets that were legacy properties.
