NOTE 1. — DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

Getty Realty Corp. (“Getty Realty”) (NYSE: GTY), a Maryland corporation, is a publicly traded, net lease real estate investment trust (“REIT”) specializing in the acquisition, financing and development of convenience, automotive and other single tenant retail real estate. Our predecessor was founded in 1955 and our common stock was listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) in 1997. Unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise requires, the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” as used herein refer to Getty Realty and its owned and controlled subsidiaries.

Our portfolio includes convenience stores, car wash properties, automotive service centers (gasoline and repair, oil and maintenance, tire and battery, and collision), and certain other freestanding retail properties, including drive-thru quick service restaurants and automotive parts retailers. Our 1,080 properties as of September 30, 2023 are located in 40 states and Washington, D.C., and our tenants operate under a variety of national and regional retail brands. We are internally managed by our management team, which has extensive experience acquiring, owning and managing convenience, automotive and other single tenant retail real estate, and our company is headquartered in New York, New York.

NOTE 2. — ACCOUNTING POLICIES

NOTE 3. — LEASES

As Lessor

As of September 30, 2023, our portfolio included 1,080 properties of which we owned 1,042 properties and leased 38 properties from third-party landlords. These 1,080 properties are located in 40 states across the United States and Washington, D.C. Substantially all of our properties are leased on a triple-net basis to convenience store retailers, petroleum distributors, car wash operators and other automotive-related and retail tenants.

7

Our tenants either operate their businesses at our properties directly or, in the case of certain convenience stores and gasoline and repair stations, sublet our properties and supply fuel to third parties who operate the businesses. Our triple-net lease tenants are responsible for the payment of all taxes, maintenance, repairs, insurance and other operating expenses relating to our properties, and are also responsible for environmental contamination occurring during the terms of their leases and in certain cases also for environmental contamination that existed before their leases commenced. For additional information regarding environmental obligations, see Note 6 – Environmental Obligations.

The majority of our tenants’ financial results depend on convenience store sales, the sale of refined petroleum products and/or the sale of automotive services and parts. As a result, our tenants’ financial results can be dependent on the performance of the convenience retail, petroleum marketing, and automobile maintenance industries, each of which are highly competitive and can be subject to variability. During the terms of our leases, we monitor the credit quality of our triple-net lease tenants by reviewing their published credit rating, if available, reviewing publicly available financial statements, or reviewing financial or other operating statements which are delivered to us pursuant to applicable lease agreements, monitoring news reports regarding our tenants and their respective businesses, and monitoring the timeliness of lease payments and the performance of other financial covenants under their leases.

Pursuant to lease accounting standards, which we adopted on January 1, 2019, for leases in which we are the lessor, we (i) retained the classification of our historical leases as we were not required to reassess classification upon adoption of the new standard, (ii) expense indirect leasing costs in connection with new or extended tenant leases, the recognition of which would have been deferred under prior accounting guidance and (iii) aggregate revenue from our lease components and non-lease components (comprised of tenant reimbursements) into revenue from rental properties.

Revenues from Rental Properties

Revenues from rental properties were $48,848,000 and $134,873,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2023, respectively, and $41,533,000 and $121,330,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, respectively. Rental income included in revenues from rental properties, which includes base rental income and additional income, if any, based on the aggregate volume of fuel sold at certain properties, was $41,244,000 and $120,206,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2023, respectively, and $37,396,000 and $110,995,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, respectively.

In accordance with GAAP, we recognize rental revenue in amounts that vary from the base rental amount contractually due from tenants during the periods presented. Revenues from rental properties include (i) non-cash adjustments recorded for deferred rental revenue due to the recognition of rental income on a straight-line basis over the current lease term, (ii) the net amortization of above-market and below-market leases, (iii) rental income recorded under direct financing leases using the effective interest method which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investments in the leased properties and (iv) the amortization of deferred lease incentives (collectively, “Revenue Recognition Adjustments”). Revenue Recognition Adjustments included in revenues from rental properties resulted in an increase in revenue for the three months ended September 30, 2023 of $66,000, a reduction in revenue of $380,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2023, and reductions in revenue of $505,000 and $1,530,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, respectively.

Tenant reimbursements, which are also included in revenues from rental properties and which consist of real estate taxes and other municipal charges paid by us and reimbursed by our tenants pursuant to the terms of triple-net lease agreements, were $7,538,000 and $15,047,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2023, respectively, and $4,642,000 and $11,865,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, respectively.

Investment in Direct Financing Leases

In accordance with ASU 2016-13, as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we had recorded an allowance for credit losses of $895,000 on investment in direct financing leases.

8

Minimum Rents Due

As Lessee

For leases in which we are the lessee, lease accounting standards require leases with durations greater than twelve months to be recognized on our consolidated balance sheets. We elected the package of transition provisions available for expired or existing contracts, which allowed us to carry forward our historical assessments of (i) whether contracts are or contain leases, (ii) lease classification and (iii) initial direct costs.

As of January 1, 2019, we recognized operating lease right-of-use assets of $25,561,000 (net of deferred rent expense) and operating lease liabilities of $26,087,000, both of which were presented on our consolidated financial statements. The right-of-use assets and lease liabilities are carried at the present value of the remaining expected future lease payments. When available, we use the rate implicit in the lease to discount lease payments to present value; however, our current leases did not provide a readily determinable implicit rate. Therefore, we estimated our incremental borrowing rate to discount the lease payments based on information available and considered factors such as interest rates available to us on a fully collateralized basis and terms of the leases. ASU 2016-02 did not have a material impact on our consolidated balance sheets or on our consolidated statements of operations. The most significant impact was the recognition of right-of-use assets and lease liabilities for operating leases, while our accounting for finance leases remained substantially unchanged.

9

Major Tenants

10

Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc.

Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. (“Marketing”) was our largest tenant from 1997 until 2012 under a unitary triple-net master lease that was terminated in April 2012 as a consequence of Marketing’s bankruptcy, at which time we either sold or re-leased these properties. As of September 30, 2023, 325 of the properties we own or lease were previously leased to Marketing, of which 300 properties are subject to long-term triple-net leases with petroleum distributors across 12 separate portfolios and 22 properties are leased as single unit triple-net leases (an additional two properties are under redevelopment and one is vacant). The portfolio leases covering properties previously leased to Marketing are unitary triple-net lease agreements with an average remaining lease term of approximately 5.0 years and multiple renewal terms. Rent is scheduled to increase at varying intervals during both the initial and renewal terms of these leases. Several of the leases provide for additional rent based on the aggregate volume of fuel sold. In addition, the majority of the portfolio leases require the tenants to invest capital in our properties, substantially all of which is related to the replacement of USTs that are owned by our tenants. As of September 30, 2023, we have a remaining commitment to fund up to $6,523,000 in the aggregate with our tenants for our portion of such capital improvements. Our commitment provides us with the option to either reimburse our tenants or to offset rent when these capital expenditures are made. This deferred expense is recognized on a straight-line basis as a reduction of rental revenue in our consolidated statements of operations over the life of the various leases.

As part of the triple-net leases for properties previously leased to Marketing, we transferred title of the USTs to our tenants, and the obligation to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful lives, or earlier if circumstances warranted, was fully or partially transferred to our new tenants. We remain contingently liable for this obligation in the event that our tenants do not satisfy their responsibilities. Accordingly, through September 30, 2023, we have removed $13,813,000 of asset retirement obligations and $10,808,000 of net asset retirement costs related to USTs from our balance sheet. The cumulative change of $726,000 (net of accumulated amortization of $2,279,000) is recorded as deferred rental revenue and will be recognized on a straight-line basis as additional revenues from rental properties over the terms of the various leases.

NOTE 4. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Credit Risk

In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, may exceed federally insurable limits.

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we had accrued $0 and $285,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River, and our methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) litigations in the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River

In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued General Notice Letters (“GNL”) to over 100 entities, including us, alleging that they are potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) with respect to a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River from Dundee Dam to the Newark Bay and its tributaries (the Lower Passaic River Study Area or “LPRSA”). The LPRSA is part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (“Superfund Site”) that includes the former Diamond Shamrock Corporation manufacturing facility located at 80-120 Lister Ave. in Newark, New Jersey (the “Diamond Shamrock Facility”), the LPRSA, and the Newark Bay Study Area (i.e., Newark Bay and portions of surrounding rivers and channels). One of the GNL recipients is Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”), the predecessor to the former owner/operator of the Diamond Shamrock Facility responsible for the discharge of 2,3,8,8-TCDD (“dioxin”) and other hazardous substances. In May 2007, over 70 GNL recipients, including us, entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the LPRSA to address investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the entire 17-mile LPRSA, which EPA has designated Operable Unit 4 or “OU4”. Many of the parties to the AOC, including us, are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”). In 2015, the CPG submitted a draft RI/FS to EPA setting forth various alternatives for remediating the LPRSA. In October 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for just the upper 9-miles of the LPRSA based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. On December 4, 2020, the CPG submitted a Final Draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study (“IR/FS”) to the EPA which identified various targeted dredge and cap alternatives for the upper 9-miles of the LPRSA. On September 28, 2021, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the upper 9-mile IR/FS (“Upper 9-mile IR ROD”) consisting of dredging and capping to control sediment sources of dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls at an estimated cost of $441,000,000.

In addition to the RI/FS activities, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) with the EPA to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing, which remedial work has been completed. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8.3-miles of the LPRSA. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a ROD for the lower 8.3-miles (“Lower 8-mile ROD”) selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $1,380,000,000.

On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”) to more than 100 PRPs, including us, which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental (who the EPA considers the primary contributor of dioxin and other pesticides generated from the production of Agent Orange at its Diamond Shamrock Facility and a discharger of other contaminants of concern (“COCs”) to the Superfund Site) requiring Occidental to prepare the remedial design of the remedy selected in the Lower 8-mile ROD. The EPA has designated the lower 8.3 miles of the LPRSA as Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”, which is geographically subsumed within OU4. On September 30, 2016, Occidental entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for OU2.

By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with certain PRPs who the EPA stated did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as a COC in the Lower 8-mile ROD to resolve their alleged liability for OU2. Cash out settlements were finalized in 2018 and 2021 with a total of 21 PRPs. EPA’s March 30, 2017 Letter also stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the COCs posing the greatest risk to the river) may also be eligible for cash out settlements, and that the EPA would begin a process for identifying such other PRPs for negotiation of future cash out settlements and to initiate negotiations with Occidental and other major PRPs for the implementation and funding of the OU2 remedy.

12

In August 2017, the EPA appointed an independent third-party allocation expert to conduct a confidential allocation proceeding that would assign non-binding shares of responsibility to PRPs identified by EPA for cash out settlements. Most of the PRPs identified by EPA, including the Company, participated in the allocation process. Occidental did not participate in the allocation proceedings, but filed a complaint on June 30, 2018, listing over 120 defendants, including us, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for response costs incurred and to be incurred relating to the LPRSA, including the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the OU2 remedy (the “Occidental Lawsuit”). We continue to defend the claims asserted in the Occidental Lawsuit individually and in coordination with a group of several other named defendants known as the “Small Parties Group” or “SPG” consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings. On December 20, 2022, the parties filed an uncontested motion to stay the Occidental Lawsuit proceedings for six months while the court considers a proposed consent decree, discussed below, which, if approved, would bar the claims asserted against us for past and/or future response costs relating to the LPRSA, including the OU2 remedy.

The allocator issued a final Allocation Recommendation Report in December 2020, which was based upon an allocation methodology approved by EPA that contains associated allocation shares for each of the parties invited to participate in the allocation, including Occidental - who the allocator concluded was responsible for more than 99% of the costs to implement the OU2 remedy. As a result of the allocation process, the EPA and 85 parties (the “Settling Parties”), including us, began settlement negotiations and reached an agreement on a cash-out settlement to resolve their alleged liability for the remediation of the entire LPRSA. The EPA concluded that the Settling Parties, individually and collectively, were responsible for only a minor share of the response costs incurred and to be incurred at or in connection with implementing the OU2 and OU4 remedies for the entire 17-mile Lower Passaic River.

In December 2022, the EPA and the Settling Parties finalized their agreement in a proposed consent decree (“CD”), pursuant to which and without admitting liability, the Settling Parties agree to pay EPA the collective sum of $150,000,000 in exchange for contribution protection from claims by non-settling PRPs (including Occidental) for the matters addressed in the CD and the issuance of a notice of completion by EPA of both the 2007 RI/FS AOC and the 10.9 AOC, upon completion of certain defined tasks in the CD. All 85 Settling Parties contributed an agreed upon share of the settlement amount, which are subject to a confidentiality agreement. Our settlement contribution is in line with our legal reserves previously established and transferred to an escrow account based on likelihoods reasonably known to us at this time. On December 16, 2022, the United States filed an action in the New Jersey District Court against the Settling Defendants which included lodging of the proposed CD to resolve claims against the Settling Parties for costs associated with cleaning up the LPRSA. This action (the “CD Action”) is subject to public comment and court approval. On December 22, 2022, the EPA published a notice of lodging of the proposed CD in the Federal Register, opening a 45-day public comment period, which was subsequently extended to 90-days. On December 23, 2022, Occidental filed a motion to intervene in the CD Action contending that it intends to challenge the proposed CD and seek to preserve its contribution claims against the Settling Parties in the pending Occidental Lawsuit.

If the CD Action is approved in its current form, our alleged liability to the EPA as well as any non-settling parties, including Occidental, for the remediation of the entire 17-mile Lower Passaic River and its tributaries will be resolved. In the event the District Court does not approve the proposed CD, based on currently known facts and circumstances, including, among other factors, the EPA’s conclusion that we are individually and collectively with numerous other parties only responsible for a minor share of the response costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the LPRSA, our relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and 10.9 AOC, our belief that there was not any use or discharge of dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls in connection with our former petroleum storage operations at our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal, and that there are numerous other parties who will likely bear the costs of remediation and/or damages, we do not believe that resolution of the Lower Passaic River proceedings as relates to us is reasonably likely to have a material impact on our results of operations. Nevertheless, if the proposed CD is not approved by the District Court in its current form, performance of the EPA’s selected remedies for the LPRSA may be subject to future negotiation, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation and, on this basis, our ultimate liability in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the LPRSA remains uncertain and subject to contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. We have established an estimated legal reserve and transferred funds to an escrow account based on likelihoods reasonably known to us at this time, however it is possible that circumstances may change and losses related to the Lower Passaic River proceedings could exceed the amounts we have accrued.

MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania

On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The named plaintiff is the State, by and through (then) Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane (as Trustee of the waters of the State), the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (which governs and administers the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (vested with the authority to protect the environment) and the Pennsylvania Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund. The complaint names us and more than 50 other petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE who are alleged to have distributed, stored and sold MTBE gasoline in Pennsylvania.

13

The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and act in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law.

The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations against the defendants. We joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us, which was granted in part and denied in part. We are vigorously defending the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland

On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code.

On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. We are vigorously defending the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

NOTE 5. — DEBT

Revolving Credit Facility

In October 2021, we entered into a second amended and restated credit agreement (as amended, the “Second Restated Credit Agreement”). The Second Restated Credit Agreement provides for an unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Credit Facility”) in an aggregate principal amount of $300,000,000 and includes an accordion feature to increase the revolving commitments or add one or more tranches of term loans up to an additional aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000,000, subject to certain conditions, including one or more new or existing lenders agreeing to provide commitments for such increased amount and that no default or event of default shall have occurred and be continuing under the terms of the Second Restated Credit Agreement.

14

The Revolving Credit Facility matures October 27, 2025, subject to two six-month extensions (for a total of 12 months) exercisable at our option. Our exercise of an extension option is subject to the absence of any default and our compliance with certain conditions, including the payment of extension fees to the lenders under the Revolving Credit Facility.

In December 2022, we entered into the First Amendment to the Second Restated Credit Agreement to transition the applicable interest rates and default rate thereunder from LIBOR-based rates to SOFR-based rates. Borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility bear interest at a rate equal to (i) the sum of a SOFR rate plus a SOFR adjustment of 0.10% plus a margin of 1.30% to 1.90% or (ii) the sum of a base rate plus a margin of 0.30% to 0.90% based on our consolidated total indebtedness to total asset value ratio at the end of each quarterly reporting period

The per annum rate of the unused line fee on the undrawn funds under the Revolving Credit Facility is 0.15% to 0.25% based on our daily unused portion of the available Revolving Credit Facility.

Senior Unsecured Notes

In February 2022, we entered into a sixth amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “Prudential”) (the "Sixth Amended and Restated Prudential Agreement") pursuant to which, in January 2023, we issued $80,000,000 of 3.65% Series Q Guaranteed Senior Notes due January 20, 2033 (the “Series Q Notes”) to Prudential and used the proceeds to repay the $75,000,000 of 5.35% Series B Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 2, 2023 (the “Series B Notes”) outstanding under its fifth amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with Prudential (the "Fifth Amended and Restated Prudential Agreement"). The other senior unsecured notes outstanding under the Fifth Amended and Restated Prudential Agreement, including (i) $50,000,000 of 4.75% Series C Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 25, 2025 (the “Series C Notes”), (ii) $50,000,000 of 5.47% Series D Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 21, 2028 (the “Series D Notes”), (iii) $50,000,000 of 3.52% Series F Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029 (the “Series F Notes”) and (iv) $100,000,000 of 3.43% Series I Guaranteed Senior Notes due November 25, 2030 (the “Series I Notes”), remain outstanding under the Sixth Amended and Restated Prudential Agreement.

In February 2022, we entered into a second amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with American General Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “AIG”) (the “Second Amended and Restated AIG Agreement”) pursuant to which it issued $55,000,000 of 3.45% Series L Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 22, 2032 (the “Series L Notes”) to AIG. The other senior unsecured notes outstanding under our first amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with AIG (the “First Amended and Restated AIG Agreement”), including (i) $50,000,000 of 3.52% Series G Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029 (the “Series G Notes”) and (ii) $50,000,000 of 3.43% Series J Guaranteed Senior Notes due November 25, 2030 (the “Series J Notes”), remain outstanding under the Second Amended and Restated AIG Agreement.

In February 2022, we entered into a second amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “MassMutual”) (the “Second Amended and Restated MassMutual Agreement”) pursuant to which it issued $20,000,000 of 3.45% Series M Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 22, 2032 (the “Series M Notes”) and, in January 2023, $20,000,000 of 3.65% Series O Guaranteed Senior Notes due January 20, 2033 (the “Series O Notes”) to MassMutual. The other senior unsecured notes outstanding under our first amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with MassMutual (the “First Amended and Restated MassMutual Agreement”), including (i) $25,000,000 of 3.52% Series H Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029 (the “Series H Notes”) and (ii) $25,000,000 of 3.43% Series K Guaranteed Senior Notes due November 25, 2030 (the “Series K Notes”), remain outstanding under the Second Amended and Restated MassMutual Agreement.

In February 2022, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement with New York Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “New York Life”) (the “New York Life Agreement”) pursuant to which it issued $25,000,000 of 3.45% Series N Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 22, 2032 (the “Series N Notes”) and, in January 2023, $25,000,000 of 3.65% Series P Guaranteed Senior Notes due January 20, 2033 (the “Series P Notes”) to New York Life.

On June 21, 2018, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement with MetLife and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "MetLife") (the “MetLife Agreement”) pursuant to which it issued $50,000,000 of 5.47% Series E Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 21, 2028 (the “Series E Notes”) to MetLife.

The funded and outstanding Series C Notes, Series D Notes, Series E Notes, Series F Note, Series G Notes, Series H Notes, Series I Notes, Series J Notes, Series K Notes, Series L Notes, Series M Notes, Series N Notes, Series O Notes, Series P Notes, and Series Q Notes are collectively referred to the (“Senior Unsecured Notes”).

Covenants

The Revolving Credit Facility and our Senior Unsecured Notes contain customary financial covenants such as leverage, coverage ratios and minimum tangible net worth, as well as limitations on restricted payments, which may limit our ability to incur additional debt or pay dividends. The Revolving Credit Facility and our Senior Unsecured Notes also contain customary events of default, including cross defaults to each other, change of control and failure to maintain REIT status (provided that the senior unsecured notes require a mandatory offer to prepay the notes upon a change in control in lieu of a change of control event of default).

15

Any event of default, if not cured or waived in a timely manner, would increase by 200 basis points (2.00%) the interest rate we pay under the Revolving Credit Facility and our Senior Unsecured Notes, and could result in the acceleration of our indebtedness under the Revolving Credit Facility and our Senior Unsecured Notes. We may also be prohibited from drawing funds under the Revolving Credit Facility if there is any event or condition that constitutes an event of default or that, with the giving of any notice, the passage of time, or both, would be an event of default.

As of September 30, 2023, we are in compliance with all of the material terms of the Revolving Credit Facility and our Senior Unsecured Notes, including the various financial covenants described herein.

Debt Maturities

NOTE 6. — ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS

We are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations, including matters relating to the protection of the environment such as the remediation of known contamination and the retirement and decommissioning or removal of long-lived assets including buildings containing hazardous materials, USTs and other equipment. Environmental costs are principally attributable to remediation costs which are incurred for, among other things, removing USTs, excavation of contaminated soil and water, installing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning remediation systems, monitoring contamination and governmental agency compliance reporting required in connection with contaminated properties.

We enter into leases and various other agreements which contractually allocate responsibility between the parties for known and unknown environmental liabilities at or relating to the subject properties. We are contingently liable for these environmental obligations in the event that our tenant does not satisfy them, and we are required to accrue for environmental liabilities that we believe are allocable to others under our leases if we determine that it is probable that our tenant will not meet its environmental obligations. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in material adjustments to the amounts recorded for environmental litigation accruals and environmental remediation liabilities. We assess whether to accrue for environmental liabilities based upon relevant factors including our tenants’ histories of paying for such obligations, our assessment of their financial capability, and their intent to pay for such obligations. However, there can be no assurance that our assessments are correct or that our tenants who have paid their obligations in the past will continue to do so. As the property owner, we may ultimately be responsible for the payment of environmental liabilities if our tenant fails to pay them.

The estimated future costs for known environmental remediation requirements are accrued when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The accrued liability is the aggregate of our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability, net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds.

For substantially all of our triple-net leases, our tenants are contractually responsible for compliance with environmental laws and regulations, removal of USTs at the end of their lease term (the cost of which is mainly the responsibility of our tenant, but in certain cases partially paid for by us) and remediation of any environmental contamination that arises during the term of their tenancy. In addition, for substantially all of our triple-net leases, our tenants are contractually responsible for known environmental contamination that existed at the commencement of the lease and for preexisting unknown environmental contamination that is discovered during the term of the lease.

16

For the subset of our triple-net leases which cover properties previously leased to Marketing (substantially all of which commenced in 2012), the allocation of responsibility differs from our other triple-net leases as it relates to preexisting known and unknown contamination. Under the terms of our leases covering properties previously leased to Marketing, we agreed to be responsible for environmental contamination that was known at the time the lease commenced, and for unknown environmental contamination which existed prior to commencement of the lease and which is discovered (other than as a result of a voluntary site investigation) during the first 10 years of the lease term (or a shorter period for a minority of such leases) (a “Lookback Period”). Similarly, for certain properties previously leased to Marketing which we have sold, we have agreed to be responsible for environmental contamination that was known at the time of the sale and for unknown environmental contamination which existed prior to the sale and which is discovered (other than as a result of a voluntary site investigation) within 5 years of the closing (also, a “Lookback Period”). Substantially all of these Lookback Periods have now expired, therefore responsibility for all newly discovered contamination at these properties, even if it relates to periods prior to commencement of the lease or sale, is the contractual responsibility of our tenant or buyer, as the case may be.

Based on the expiration of the Lookback Periods, together with other factors which have significantly mitigated our potential liability for preexisting environmental obligations, including the absence of any contractual obligations relating to properties which have been sold, quantifiable trends associated with types and ages of USTs at issue, expectations regarding future UST replacements, and historical trends and expectations regarding discovery of preexisting unknown environmental contamination and/or attempted pursuit of the Company therefor, we concluded that there is no material continued risk of having to satisfy contractual obligations relating to preexisting unknown environmental contamination at certain properties. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2022, we had removed $23,543,000 of unknown reserve liabilities which had previously been accrued for these properties. There were no additional removals of unknown reserve liabilities for the nine months ended September 30, 2023.

We continue to anticipate that our tenants under leases where the Lookback Periods have expired will replace USTs in the years ahead as these USTs near the end of their expected useful lives. At many of these properties the USTs in use are fabricated with older generation materials and technologies and we believe it is prudent to expect that upon their removal preexisting unknown environmental contamination will be identified. Although contractually these tenants are now responsible for preexisting unknown environmental contamination that is discovered during UST replacements, because the applicable Lookback Periods have expired before the end of the initial term of these leases, together with other relevant factors, we believe there remains continued risk that we will be responsible for remediation of preexisting environmental contamination associated with future UST removals at certain properties. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate at this time to maintain $11,167,000 of unknown reserve liabilities for certain properties with respect to which the Lookback Periods have expired as of September 30, 2023.

In the course of UST removals and replacements at certain properties previously leased to Marketing where we retained responsibility for preexisting unknown environmental contamination until expiration of the applicable Lookback Period, environmental contamination has been and continues to be discovered. As a result, we developed an estimate of fair value for the prospective future environmental liability resulting from preexisting unknown environmental contamination and accrued for these estimated costs. These estimates are based primarily upon quantifiable trends which we believe allow us to make reasonable estimates of fair value for the future costs of environmental remediation resulting from the anticipated removal and replacement of USTs. Our accrual of this liability represents our estimate of the fair value of the cost for each component of the liability, net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience. In arriving at our accrual, we analyzed the ages and expected useful lives of USTs at properties where we would be responsible for preexisting unknown environmental contamination and we projected a cost to closure for remediation of such contamination.

We measure our environmental remediation liabilities at fair value based on expected future net cash flows, adjusted for inflation (using a range of 2.0% to 2.75%), and then discount them to present value (using a range of 4.0% to 7.0%). We adjust our environmental remediation liabilities quarterly to reflect changes in projected expenditures, changes in present value due to the passage of time and reductions in estimated liabilities as a result of actual expenditures incurred during each quarter. As of September 30, 2023, we had accrued a total of $22,717,000 for our prospective environmental remediation obligations, consisting of (i) $10,289,000 of known reserve liabilities which was our estimate of reasonably estimable environmental remediation liability, including obligations to remove USTs for which we are responsible, net of estimated recoveries, and (ii) $12,428,000 of unknown reserve liabilities, which was our estimate of future environmental liabilities related to preexisting unknown contamination. As of December 31, 2022, we had accrued a total of $23,155,000 for our prospective environmental remediation obligations, consisting of (i) $10,797,000 of known reserve liabilities and (ii) $12,358,000 of unknown reserve liabilities.

Environmental liabilities are accreted for the change in present value due to the passage of time and, accordingly, $422,000 and $1,037,000 of net accretion expense was recorded for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively, which is included in environmental expenses. In addition, during the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, we recorded credits to environmental expenses aggregating $176,000 and $17,927,000, respectively (of which $37,000 and $1,816,000, respectively, were related to property that were previously disposed by us), where decreases in estimated remediation costs exceeded the depreciated carrying value of previously capitalized asset retirement costs. Environmental expenses also include project management fees, legal fees and environmental litigation accruals.

17

During the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, we increased the carrying values of certain of our properties by $3,222,000 and $1,714,000, respectively, due to changes in estimated environmental remediation costs. The recognition and subsequent changes in estimates in environmental liabilities and the increase or decrease in carrying values of the properties are non-cash transactions which do not appear on our consolidated statements of cash flows.

Capitalized asset retirement costs are being depreciated over the estimated remaining life of the UST, a 10-year period if the increase in carrying value is related to environmental remediation obligations or such shorter period if circumstances warrant, such as the remaining lease term for properties we lease from others. Depreciation and amortization expense related to capitalized asset retirement costs in our consolidated statements of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022 was $2,225,000 and $2,808,000, respectively. Capitalized asset retirement costs were $33,850,000 (consisting of $25,380,000 of known environmental obligations and $8,470,000 of reserves for future environmental obligations related to preexisting unknown contamination) as of September 30, 2023, and $33,213,000 (consisting of $24,742,000 of known environmental obligations and $8,471,000 of reserves for future environmental obligations related to preexisting unknown contamination) as of December 31, 2022. We recorded impairment charges aggregating $2,325,000 and 1,532,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively, for capitalized asset retirement costs.

Environmental exposures are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons, including the amount of data available upon initial assessment of contamination, alternative treatment methods that may be applied, location of the property which subjects it to differing local laws and regulations and their interpretations, changes in costs associated with environmental remediation services and equipment, the availability of state UST remediation funds and the possibility of existing legal claims giving rise to allocation of responsibilities to others, as well as the time it takes to remediate contamination and receive regulatory approval. In developing our liability for estimated environmental remediation obligations on a property by property basis, we consider, among other things, laws and regulations, assessments of contamination and surrounding geology, quality of information available, currently available technologies for treatment, alternative methods of remediation and prior experience. Environmental accruals are based on estimates derived upon facts known to us at this time, which are subject to significant change as circumstances change, and as environmental contingencies become more clearly defined and reasonably estimable.

Any changes to our estimates or our assumptions that form the basis of our estimates may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental remediation liabilities.

In July 2012, we purchased a 10-year pollution legal liability insurance policy covering substantially all of our properties at that time for discovery of preexisting unknown environmental liabilities and for new environmental events. The policy had a $50,000,000 aggregate limit and was subject to various self-insured retentions and other conditions and limitations. This policy expired in July 2022, although claims made prior to such expiration remain subject to coverage. In September 2022, we purchased a 5-year pollution legal liability insurance policy to cover a subset of our properties which we believe present the greatest risk for discovery of preexisting unknown environmental liabilities and for new environmental events. The policy has a $25,000,000 in aggregate limit and is subject to various self-insured retentions and other conditions and limitations. Our intention in purchasing this policy was to obtain protection for certain properties which we believe have the greatest risk of significant environmental events.

In light of the uncertainties associated with environmental expenditure contingencies, we are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty; however, we believe that it is possible that the fair value of future actual net expenditures could be substantially higher than amounts currently recorded by us. Adjustments to accrued liabilities for environmental remediation obligations will be reflected in our consolidated financial statements as they become probable and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made.

NOTE 7. — STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY