10QSB 1 jcip.txt JCIP UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 Form 10-QSB (Mark One) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 [ ] TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT For the transition period from _________to _________ Commission file number 0-16010 JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS (Exact Name of Small Business Issuer as Specified in Its Charter) California 94-3004963 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089 Greenville, South Carolina 29602 (Address of principal executive offices) (864) 239-1000 (Issuer's telephone number) Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No ___ PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data) June 30, 2005
Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 42 Receivables and deposits 63 Restricted escrow 35 Other assets 212 Investment property: Land $ 213 Buildings and related personal property 5,380 5,593 Less accumulated depreciation (4,227) 1,366 $ 1,718 Liabilities and Partners' Deficit Accounts payable $ 74 Tenant security deposit liabilities 27 Accrued property taxes 40 Other liabilities 98 Due to affiliates (Note B) 195 Mortgage notes payable 5,393 Partners' Deficit General partner $ (289) Corporate limited partner on behalf of the Unitholders (128,810 units issued and outstanding) (3,820) (4,109) $ 1,718
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) (in thousands, except per unit data)
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended June 30, June 30, 2005 2004 2005 2004 Revenues: Rental income $ 261 $ 260 $ 515 $ 517 Other income 29 27 57 52 Casualty gain (Note C) 25 92 124 92 Total revenues 315 379 696 661 Expenses: Operating 145 115 284 241 General and administrative 45 38 84 77 Depreciation 65 68 131 138 Interest 105 71 204 140 Property taxes 20 20 39 39 Total expenses 380 312 742 635 Net (loss) income $ (65) $ 67 $ (46) $ 26 Net (loss) income allocated to general partner (1%) $ (1) $ 1 $ -- $ -- Net (loss) income allocated to limited partners (99%) (64) 66 (46) 26 $ (65) $ 67 $ (46) $ 26 Net (loss) income per Unit of Depositary Receipt $ (0.50) $ 0.51 $ (0.36) $ 0.20
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data)
Unitholders Units of Units of Depositary Depositary General Receipt Receipt Partner (Note A) Total Original capital contributions 129,266 $ 1 $32,317 $32,318 Partners' deficit at December 31, 2004 128,810 $ (289) $(3,774) $(4,063) Net loss for the six months ended June 30, 2005 -- -- (46) (46) Partners' deficit at June 30, 2005 128,810 $ (289) $(3,820) $(4,109)
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (in thousands)
Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 2004 Cash flows from operating activities: Net (loss) income $ (46) $ 26 Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: Depreciation 131 138 Amortization of loan costs 14 3 Casualty gain (124) (92) Change in accounts: Receivables and deposits (36) (64) Other assets 5 (10) Accounts payable 8 (9) Tenant security deposit liabilities -- (4) Accrued property taxes 40 39 Other liabilities 3 (47) Due to affiliates 59 -- Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 54 (20) Cash flows from investing activities: Insurance proceeds received 130 74 Property improvements and replacements (223) (174) Net deposits to restricted escrow (25) -- Net cash used in investing activities (118) (100) Cash flows from financing activities: Payments on mortgage note payable (14) (52) Loan costs paid -- (69) Advances from affiliate 67 7 Payments on advances from affiliate -- (7) Proceeds from mortgage note payable -- 1,830 Net cash provided by financing activities 53 1,709 Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents (11) 1,589 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 53 79 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 42 $ 1,668 Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information: Cash paid for interest $ 167 $ 137 Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity: Property improvements and replacements in accounts payable $ 50 $ --
At December 31, 2004, approximately $20,000 of property improvements and replacements were included in accounts payable, which are included in property improvements and replacements for the six months ended June 30, 2005. See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) Note A - Basis of Presentation The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-QSB and Item 310(b) of Regulation S-B. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. The Partnership's general partner is ConCap Equities, Inc. (the "General Partner"). In the opinion of the General Partner, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005. For further information, refer to the financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. The General Partner is a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. Units of Depositary Receipt Johnstown/Consolidated Depositary Corporation (the "Corporate Limited Partner"), an affiliate of the General Partner, serves as a depositary of certain units of depositary receipt ("Units"). The Units represent economic rights attributable to the limited partnership interests in the Partnership and entitle the unitholders thereof ("Unitholders") to certain economic benefits, allocations and distributions of the Partnership. For this reason, partners' deficit is herein represented as an interest of the Unitholders. Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties The Partnership has no employees and depends on the General Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities. The Partnership Agreement provides for (i) certain payments to affiliates for services and (ii) reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership. The Partnership Agreement provides that the Partnership shall pay in monthly installments to the General Partner, or an affiliate, a yearly asset management fee equal to: (i) 3/8 of 1% of the original principal balance of mortgage loans outstanding at the end of the month preceding the installment payment; (ii) 1/8 of 1% of the market value of guaranteed mortgage-backed securities as of the end of the Partnership quarter immediately preceding the installment payment; and (iii) 5/8 of 1% of the purchase price of the properties plus improvements for managing the Partnership's assets. In the event the property was not owned at the beginning or end of the year, such fee shall be pro-rated for the short-year period of ownership. Under this provision, fees of approximately $27,000 and $23,000 were incurred to the General Partner and its affiliates for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, which are included in general and administrative expenses. Approximately $43,000 in asset management fees are owed to the General Partner at June 30, 2005 and are included in due to affiliates. Affiliates of the General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership's investment property as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $28,000 for both of the six month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. These amounts are included in operating expenses. Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $55,000 and $33,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, which are included in general and administrative expenses and investment property. The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 are fees related to construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $25,000 and $1,000, respectively. The construction management service fees are calculated based on a percentage of additions to investment property. Approximately $40,000 of the accountable administrative expenses remain unpaid as of June 30, 2005, and are included in due to affiliates. In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, during the six months ended June 30, 2005, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $67,000 to fund casualty repairs related to the fire that occurred at the property in January 2005 (see "Note C - Casualty Events" for further discussion) and partnership expenses. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $7,000 to fund a Partnership audit invoice. Principal and interest was repaid in full during the six months ended June 30, 2004. Interest accrues at the prime rate plus 2% (8.25% at June 30, 2005). Interest expense was approximately $2,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and less than $1,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2004. At June 30, 2005, the total amount of advances and related accrued interest due to an affiliate of the General Partner was approximately $112,000 and is included in due to affiliates. The Partnership insures its property up to certain limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a portion of losses and liabilities related to workers' compensation, property casualty, general liability and vehicle liability. The Partnership insures its property above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the General Partner. During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $16,000 and $15,000, respectively, for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration. Note C - Casualty Events On January 7, 2005, a fire occurred at Cedar Brooke Apartments causing damage to two apartment units. The property incurred damages of approximately $140,000. During the six months ended June 30, 2005, insurance proceeds of approximately $130,000 were received to cover the damages. After writing off the undepreciated cost of the damaged asset of approximately $6,000, the Partnership recognized a casualty gain of approximately $124,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005. During reconstruction of the damaged units approximately $5,000 of interest, approximately $1,000 of property taxes and approximately $2,000 of operating expenses were capitalized related to this project. On February 25, 2004, a fire occurred at Cedar Brooke Apartments, causing damage to four apartment units. The property incurred damages of approximately $144,000. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, insurance proceeds of approximately $99,000 were received to cover the damages to the property, $25,000 of which was held on deposit with the mortgage lender at June 30, 2004. After writing off the undepreciated cost of the damaged asset, the Partnership recognized a casualty gain of approximately $92,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004. Note D - Additional Financing On June 25, 2004, the Partnership obtained a second mortgage, in the amount of $1,830,000 on Cedar Brooke Apartments. The second mortgage requires monthly payments of interest beginning on August 1, 2004 until the loan matures July 1, 2007, with interest being equal to the one month LIBOR rate plus 300 basis points (6.34% at June 30, 2005). Loan costs of approximately $69,000 that were paid in connection with the second mortgage have been capitalized during the six months ended June 30, 2004 and are included in other assets. In connection with the new financing, the Partnership agreed to certain modifications on the existing mortgage loan encumbering Cedar Brooke Apartments. The modification of terms consisted of an interest rate of 7.74%, monthly payments of approximately $26,000, commencing August 1, 2004 through its maturity of July 1, 2014, with a balloon payment of approximately $3,088,000 due at maturity. The previous terms consisted of monthly payments of approximately $31,000 with a stated interest rate of 7.44% through its maturity of July 1, 2021, at which time the loan was scheduled to be fully amortized. Note E - Contingencies In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the "Appeal") seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees. On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review". With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April 26, 2005, the Court of Appeals lifted the stay of a pending appeal related to the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the complaint. On April 28, 2005, the Objector filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and remanding for further findings. On June 10, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied Objector's Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. The parties intend to ask the trial court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the Court of Appeal's remand order. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the first amended complaint. The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership's overall operations. As previously disclosed, AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call". Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. On June 23, 2005 the Court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues. The Court ruling allows plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the present. Those employees will have the opportunity to opt-in to the collective action. Defendants have asked the Court to reconsider its ruling or in the alternative certify the ruling for appeal on that issue. After the notice goes out, defendants will have the opportunity to move to decertify the collective action. The Court further denied plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of the state subclass. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's financial condition or results of operations. The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation matters involving it or its investment property that are not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary course of business. Environmental Various Federal, state and local laws subject property owners or operators to liability for management, and the costs of removal or remediation, of certain hazardous substances present on a property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release or presence of the hazardous substances. The presence of, or the failure to manage or remedy properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect occupancy at affected apartment communities and the ability to sell or finance affected properties. In addition to the costs associated with investigation and remediation actions brought by government agencies, and potential fines or penalties imposed by such agencies in connection therewith, the presence of hazardous substances on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also impose liability for the cost of removal, remediation or disposal of hazardous substances through a licensed disposal or treatment facility. Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances is potentially liable under such laws. These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of its property, the Partnership could potentially be liable for environmental liabilities or costs associated with its property. Mold The Partnership is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure. Affiliates of the General Partner have implemented a national policy and procedures to prevent or eliminate mold from it s properties and the General Partner believes that these measures will minimize the effects that mold could have on residents. To date, the Partnership has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions. Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change the General Partner can make no assurance that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's financial condition or results of operations. SEC Investigation The Central Regional Office of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") continues its formal investigation relating to certain matters. Although the staff of the SEC is not limited in the areas that it may investigate, AIMCO believes the areas of investigation have included AIMCO's miscalculated monthly net rental income figures in third quarter 2003, forecasted guidance, accounts payable, rent concessions, vendor rebates, capitalization of payroll and certain other costs, tax credit transactions and tender offers for limited partnership interests. AIMCO is cooperating fully. AIMCO is not able to predict when the investigation will be resolved. AIMCO does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's financial condition or results of operations. ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks, including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending claims and any adverse outcomes, and possible environmental liabilities. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Partnership's investment property consists of one apartment complex. The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for each of the six month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004.
Average Occupancy Property 2005 2004 Cedar Brooke Apartments 92% 89% Independence, Missouri
The General Partner attributes the increase in occupancy at Cedar Brooke Apartments to increased marketing efforts. The Partnership's financial results depend upon a number of factors including the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the investment property, interest rates on mortgage loans, costs incurred to operate the investment property, general economic conditions and weather. As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the General Partner monitors the rental market environment of its investment property to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership from the burden of inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a high overall occupancy level. However, the General Partner may use rental concessions and rental rate reductions to offset softening market conditions; accordingly, there is no guarantee that the General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Further, a number of factors that are outside the control of the Partnership such as the local economic climate and weather can adversely or positively affect the Partnership's financial results. Results of Operations The Partnership's net loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 was approximately $65,000 and $46,000, respectively, as compared to net income of approximately $67,000 and $26,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, respectively. The increase in net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2005 is due to a decrease in total revenues and an increase in total expenses. The increase in net loss for the six months ended June 30, 2005 is due to an increase in total expenses partially offset by an increase in total revenues. The decrease in total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2005 is due to a decrease in casualty gain recognized during the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the casualty gain recognized during the three months ended June 30, 2004. The increase in total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 is due to an increase in casualty gain recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the casualty gain recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2004. Both rental and other income remained relatively constant for the comparable periods. On January 7, 2005, a fire occurred at Cedar Brooke Apartments causing damage to two apartment units. The property incurred damages of approximately $140,000. During the six months ended June 30, 2005, insurance proceeds of approximately $130,000 were received to cover the damages. After writing off the undepreciated cost of the damaged asset of approximately $6,000, the Partnership recognized a casualty gain of approximately $124,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005. During reconstruction of the damaged units approximately $5,000 of interest, approximately $1,000 of property taxes and approximately $2,000 of operating expenses were capitalized related to this project. On February 25, 2004, a fire occurred at Cedar Brooke Apartments, causing damage to four apartment units. The property incurred damages of approximately $144,000. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, insurance proceeds of approximately $99,000 were received to cover the damages to the property, $25,000 of which was held on deposit with the mortgage lender at June 30, 2004. After writing off the undepreciated cost of the damaged asset, the Partnership recognized a casualty gain of approximately $92,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004. The increase in total expenses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 is due to increases in operating, general and administrative and interest expenses. Depreciation and property tax expenses remained relatively constant for the comparable periods. The increase in operating expense is due to increases in maintenance, property, administrative and insurance expenses. The increase in maintenance expense is primarily due to increases in environmental expense and contract services. The increase in property expense is primarily due to increases in salaries and related benefit expenses. The increase in administrative expense is primarily due to increased legal fees. The increase in insurance expense is due to higher insurance premiums. The increase in interest expense is primarily due to the second mortgage obtained on Cedar Brooke Apartments, resulting in a higher debt balance, the modification of terms of the existing mortgage encumbering the property at a higher interest rate (as discussed in "Liquidity and Capital Resources"), and increased loan cost amortization expense. General and administrative expenses increased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 primarily due to an increase in the costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and increased asset management fees which are paid to the General Partner per the Partnership Agreement. The increase in general and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2005 is also due to an increase in the costs associated with the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expenses are management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Liquidity and Capital Resources At June 30, 2005, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $42,000, compared to approximately $1,668,000 at June 30, 2004. The decrease in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $11,000 from December 31, 2004 is due to approximately $118,000 of cash used in investing activities, partially offset by approximately $54,000 and $53,000 of cash provided by operating and financing activities, respectively. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements and net deposits to an escrow account maintained by the mortgage lender, partially offset by insurance proceeds received related to the January 2005 fire at Cedar Brooke Apartments. Cash provided by financing activities consisted of advances from affiliates partially offset by payments of principal made on the first mortgage encumbering Cedar Brooke Apartments. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts. The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital expenditures required at the investment property to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state and local legal and regulatory requirements. The General Partner monitors developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates or suggests additional compliance measures with regard to governance, disclosure, audit and other areas. In light of these changes, the Partnership expects that it will incur higher expenses related to compliance. Capital improvements planned for the Partnership's property are discussed below. During the six months ended June 31, 2005, the Partnership completed approximately $253,000 of capital improvements at Cedar Brooke Apartments consisting primarily of reconstruction related to the fire that occurred at the property in January 2005 (as discussed in "Results of Operations"), floor covering replacements and structural improvements. These improvements were funded from operations, insurance proceeds and advances from affiliates. The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property. While the Partnership has no material commitments for property improvements and replacements, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2005. Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as replacement reserves and anticipated cash flow generated by the property. Capital improvements will be made only to the extent of cash available from operations and Partnership reserves. To the extent that capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term. The Partnership's assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term needs, exclusive of capital improvements, of the Partnership. On June 25, 2004, the Partnership obtained a second mortgage, in the amount of $1,830,000, on Cedar Brooke Apartments. The second mortgage requires monthly payments of interest beginning on August 1, 2004 until the loan matures July 1, 2007, with interest being equal to the one month LIBOR rate plus 300 basis points (6.34% at June 30, 2005). In connection with the new financing, the Partnership agreed to certain modifications on the existing mortgage loan encumbering Cedar Brooke Apartments. The modification terms consisted of an interest rate of 7.74%, monthly payments of approximately $26,000, commencing August 1, 2004 through its maturity of July 1, 2014, with a balloon payment of approximately $3,121,000 due at maturity. The previous terms consisted of monthly payments of approximately $31,000 with a stated interest rate of 7.44% through its maturity of July 1, 2021, at which time the loan was scheduled to be fully amortized. There were no distributions to the partners during the six months ended June 30, 2005 or 2004. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations, the timing of debt maturities, refinancings and/or property sale. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. There can be no assurance, however, that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after planned capital expenditures, to permit any distributions to its partners during 2005 or subsequent periods. Other In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 73,046 units of depositary receipt (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 56.71% of the outstanding Units at June 30, 2005. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unitholders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 56.71% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates The financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets The Partnership's investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless considered impaired. If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a property may be impaired, the Partnership will make an assessment of its recoverability by estimating the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding interest charges, of the property. If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the property. Real property investments are subject to varying degrees of risk. Several factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the Partnership's investment property. These factors include, but are not limited to, changes in national, regional and local economic climate; local conditions, such as an oversupply of multifamily properties; competition from other available multifamily property owners and changes in market rental rates. Any adverse changes in these factors could cause impairment of the Partnership's asset. Revenue Recognition The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less. The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area. Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The Partnership evaluates all accounts receivable from residents and establishes an allowance, after the application of security deposits, for accounts greater than 30 days past due on current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants. ITEM 3. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (a) Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Partnership's management, with the participation of the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures are effective. (b) Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There have not been any changes in the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting. PART II - OTHER INFORMATION ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the "Appeal") seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees. On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review". With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April 26, 2005, the Court of Appeals lifted the stay of a pending appeal related to the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the complaint. On April 28, 2005, the Objector filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and remanding for further findings. On June 10, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied Objector's Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. The parties intend to ask the trial court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the Court of Appeal's remand order. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the first amended complaint. The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership's overall operations. As previously disclosed, AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call". Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. On June 23, 2005 the Court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues. The Court ruling allows plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the present. Those employees will have the opportunity to opt-in to the collective action. Defendants have asked the Court to reconsider its ruling or in the alternative certify the ruling for appeal on that issue. After the notice goes out, defendants will have the opportunity to move to decertify the collective action. The Court further denied plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of the state subclass. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's financial condition or results of operations. ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION On July 5, 2005 (the "Effective Date"), Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners, a California limited partnership (the "Partnership"), entered into an agreement (the "Purchase Agreement"), with a third party, First Pacific Investments, Ltd., a Colorado corporation (the "Purchaser"). Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Purchaser agreed to purchase Cedar Brooke Apartments, a 158-unit apartment complex located in Independence, Missouri (the "Property"), for a gross purchase price of $7,300,000, subject to certain conditions (the "Purchase Price"). Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Purchaser may terminate the Purchase Agreement at any time prior to the expiration of the feasibility period as defined in the Purchase Agreement, acting in their sole discretion and for any reason or no reason, upon written notice to the Partnership and the escrow agent. On August 10, 2005, the Purchaser delivered written notice to the Partnership and the escrow agent of its election to terminate the Purchase Agreement pursuant to its terms. ITEM 6. EXHIBITS See Exhibit Index. SIGNATURES In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS By: CONCAP EQUITIES, INC. General Partner By: /s/Martha L. Long Martha L. Long Senior Vice President By: /s/Stephen B. Waters Stephen B. Waters Vice President Date: August 15, 2005 JOHNSTOWN CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 3 Certificate of Limited Partnership, as amended to date, incorporated herein by reference to the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1991. 10.40 Multifamily Note dated June 27, 2001, by and between Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners, a California limited partnership, and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation relating to Cedar Brooke Apartments. (Incorporated by reference to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2001). 10.41 Allonge and Amendment to Multifamily Note dated June 25, 2004, by and among Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners, a California limited partnership, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. (Incorporated by reference to the Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 25, 2004) 10.42 Multifamily Note dated June 25, 2004, by and between Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners, a California limited partnership, and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Bank. (Incorporated by reference to the Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 25, 2004) 10.43 Purchase and Sale Contract between Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners, a California limited partnership and First Pacific Investments, Ltd., a Colorado Corporation, dated July 5, 2005. (Incorporated by reference to the Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 5, 2005.) 31.1 Certification of equivalent of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 31.2 Certification of equivalent of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 32.1 Certification of the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Martha L. Long, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 15, 2005 /s/Martha L. Long Martha L. Long Senior Vice President of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 15, 2005 /s/Stephen B. Waters Stephen B. Waters Vice President of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership Exhibit 32.1 Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. /s/Martha L. Long Name: Martha L. Long Date: August 15, 2005 /s/Stephen B. Waters Name: Stephen B. Waters Date: August 15, 2005 This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.