UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant þ

Filed by a party other than the Registrant o

Check the appropriate box:

o		Preliminary Proxy Statement
o		Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
þ		Definitive Proxy Statement
o		Definitive Additional Materials
o		Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-12

The St. Joe Company

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

N/A

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

þ		No fee required.
o		Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

	(1)		Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
	(2)		Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
	(3)		Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
	(4)		Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
	(5)		Total fee paid:

o		Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
o		Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

	(1)		Amount Previously Paid:
	(2)		Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
	(3)		Filing Party:
	(4)		Date Filed:

 

THE ST. JOE COMPANY
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

To Be Held May 17, 2011

 

 

The 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of The St. Joe Company will be held at the WaterColor Inn at 34 Goldenrod Circle, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., Central Daylight Time.

 

Shareholders will vote on the following matters:

 

 

Shareholders of record as of the close of business on March 18, 2011 are entitled to vote at the meeting. Your vote is important. If you are unable to attend the annual meeting, we urge you to cast your vote over the internet (as instructed in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials) or by telephone as promptly as possible. You may also request a paper proxy card to submit your vote by mail, if you prefer.

 

Even if you have voted over the internet, by telephone or by returning a completed proxy card, you may still attend the meeting and vote in person. Please note, however, that if your shares are held of record by a broker, bank or other nominee and you wish to vote at the meeting, you must obtain a legally valid proxy issued in your name from that record holder.

 

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Reece B. Alford
Senior Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary

Dated: April 6, 2011

 

Table of Contents

 

 

The St. Joe Company
133 South WaterSound Parkway
WaterSound, Florida 32413

 

PROXY STATEMENT

 

 

This proxy statement contains information about the 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of The St. Joe Company (the “Company”). The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, beginning at 10:30 a.m., Central Daylight time, at the WaterColor Inn at 34 Goldenrod Circle, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459. This proxy statement is first being made available to our shareholders on or about April 6, 2011, in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors for the meeting.

 

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 17, 2011: Our proxy statement and 2010 Annual Report are available at www.proxyvote.com.

 

 

 

You are entitled to vote at the annual meeting if our records show that you held shares of common stock of the Company as of March 18, 2011. At the close of business on March 18, 2011, a total of 92,325,319 shares of common stock of the Company were outstanding and entitled to vote. Each share of common stock has one vote. Your Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice”) shows the number of shares you are entitled to vote. Your individual vote is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law.

 

A proxy is your legal designation of another person to vote the stock you own. That other person is called a proxy. If you designate someone as your proxy in a written document, that document may also be called a proxy or a proxy card. Our Chairman, Bruce R. Berkowitz, and our General Counsel and Secretary, Reece B. Alford, will serve as the proxies for the annual meeting. This means that when you submit a proxy card, these two individuals will vote your shares on your behalf.

 

If your shares are registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, you are considered the “shareholder of record” for those shares. We are mailing a Notice to you directly.

 

If your shares are held in a brokerage account or by a bank or other nominee, you are considered the “beneficial owner” of shares held in “street name,” and the Notice will be forwarded to you by your bank, broker or other nominee. The bank, broker or other nominee is the shareholder of record of those shares. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your bank, broker or other nominee how to vote. Beneficial owners that receive a

Notice by mail from the shareholder of record should follow the instructions included in the Notice to view the proxy statement and transmit voting instructions.

 

Our shareholders will be voting on the following matters:

 

 

We are not aware of any other matters to be presented at the meeting except for those described in this proxy statement. If any other matters are properly presented at the meeting, the appointed proxies will use their own judgment to determine how to vote your shares. If the meeting is continued or postponed, your common stock may be voted by the proxies at the new meeting as well, unless you revoke your proxy instructions.

 

In accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), instead of mailing a printed copy of our proxy materials to each shareholder, we may furnish proxy materials via the internet. All shareholders of record will receive from us a Notice Regarding Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. If you are a beneficial owner, you will receive a Notice from your bank, broker or other nominee. The Notice will be mailed on or about April 6, 2011.

 

On the date of mailing of the Notice, shareholders will be able to access all of the proxy materials on www.proxyvote.com, the web site referred to in the Notice. The proxy materials will be available free of charge. The Notice will instruct you as to how you may access and review all of the important information contained in the proxy materials (including our 2010 Annual Report) over the internet. The Notice also instructs you as to how you may submit your proxy over the internet. If you received a Notice and would like to receive printed copies of the proxy materials, you should follow the instructions in the Notice for requesting such materials.

 

Beneficial owners that request a printed copy of the proxy materials also may receive a voting direction card and voting instructions from their bank, broker or other nominee. Those beneficial owners may mail the voting direction card, or may vote by telephone or over the internet as instructed by their bank, broker or other nominee.

 

Shareholders of record may vote using any of the methods described below. If your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker or other nominee, your nominee will provide you with voting instructions.

 

By Internet or Telephone.  Our internet and telephone voting procedures for shareholders of record are designed to authenticate your identity, allow you to give your voting instructions and confirm that those instructions are properly recorded.

 

You may access the internet voting site at www.proxyvote.com to complete an electronic proxy card. Please have your Notice in hand when you go online. You will receive instructional screen prompts to guide you through the voting process. You also will have the ability to confirm your voting selections before your vote is recorded.

 

You can vote by calling toll free 1-800-690-6903 within the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico. Please have your Notice in hand when you call. You will receive voice prompts to guide you through the process, and will have an opportunity to confirm your voting selections before your vote is recorded.

 

Internet and telephone voting facilities for shareholders of record will be available 24 hours a day until 11:59 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on May 16, 2011.

 

The availability of internet and telephone voting for beneficial owners will depend on the voting processes of your bank, broker or other nominee. You should follow the voting instructions in the materials that you receive from your nominee.

 

By Mail.  If you request a paper copy of the proxy materials, you should mark, date and sign the proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope provided. The named proxies will vote any signed but unmarked proxy cards per the Board’s recommendations. If you are a shareholder of record and the prepaid envelope is missing, please mail your completed proxy card to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717.

 

In Person at the Annual Meeting.  All shareholders may vote in person at the annual meeting. Voting your proxy by internet, telephone or mail does not limit your right to vote at the annual meeting. You also may be represented by another person at the annual meeting by executing a legally valid proxy designating that person to vote on your behalf.

 

If you are a beneficial owner of shares, you must obtain a legally valid proxy from your bank, broker or other nominee and present it to the inspector of elections with your ballot to be able to vote at the annual meeting. A legally valid proxy is an authorization from your bank, broker or other nominee to vote the shares held in the nominee’s name that satisfies Florida and SEC requirements for proxies.

 

Yes. If you are a shareholder of record, you can change your proxy vote or revoke your proxy at any time before the annual meeting by:

 

 

 

If you are a beneficial owner of shares, you may submit new voting instructions by contacting your bank, broker or other nominee. You may also vote in person at the annual meeting if you obtain a legally valid proxy from the shareholder of record as described in the answer to the previous question.

 

Your personal attendance at the annual meeting does not revoke your proxy. Your last vote, prior to or at the annual meeting, is the vote that will be counted.

 

Proxies and voting direction cards that are signed and returned but do not contain voting instructions will be voted:

 

 

In order for us to conduct our annual meeting, a majority of the shares outstanding and entitled to vote as of March 18, 2011 must be present in person or by proxy. This is referred to as a quorum. Your shares are counted as present at the annual meeting if you attend the annual meeting and vote in person or if you properly return a proxy by internet, telephone or mail. We will count abstentions and broker non-votes (as defined below) for purposes of determining a quorum.

 

If you are a shareholder of record, your shares will not be voted unless you provide a proxy or vote in person at the annual meeting. If you hold shares through an account with a bank, broker or other nominee and you do not provide voting instructions on a voting direction card, your shares may still be voted on certain matters.

 

Brokerage firms have authority under New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules to vote shares on routine matters for which their customers do not provide voting instructions at least 10 days before the meeting. The ratification of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2011 fiscal year is the only routine matter. The election of directors and the non-binding votes on executive compensation and on the frequency of future executive compensation votes are not considered routine matters. If a proposal is not routine and the brokerage firm does not receive voting instructions from the beneficial owner, the

brokerage firm cannot vote the shares on that proposal. Shares that a broker is not authorized to vote are known as “broker non-votes.” We do not count broker non-votes as votes for or against any proposal. Broker non-votes, however, count for quorum purposes.

 

An “abstention” will occur at the annual meeting if you mark your vote for Proposal 1, 2, 3 or 4 as “abstain” or if you attend the annual meeting, but do not vote on any proposal or other matter which is required to be voted on by our shareholders at the annual meeting. We do not count abstentions as votes for or against any proposal. Abstentions, however, count for quorum purposes.

 

 

A representative of Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. will tabulate the votes and act as inspector of elections for the annual meeting.

 

We will pay the cost of this proxy solicitation. In addition to soliciting proxies by mail, our employees may solicit proxies personally and by telephone. No employee will receive any additional or special compensation for doing this. We will, upon request, reimburse brokers, banks and other nominees for their reasonable expenses in sending proxy materials to their principals and obtaining their proxies.

 

If you and other residents at your mailing address are beneficial owners of shares held in street name, your bank, broker or other nominee may have given you notice that each household will receive only one annual report and proxy statement or Notice, as applicable, for each company in which you hold stock through that broker or bank. This practice is known as “householding.” Unless you responded that you do not wish to participate in

householding, you will be deemed to have consented to participating, and only one copy of our Notice will be sent to that address.

 

If you wish to receive your own Notice for this year or for future years, or if you share an address with another shareholder and would like to receive only one Notice, please contact our Corporate Secretary at The St. Joe Company, 133 South WaterSound Parkway, WaterSound, Florida 32413 (850-588-2300), being sure to supply the names of all shareholders at the same address, the name of the bank or brokerage firm, and the account number(s). The revocation of a consent to householding will be effective 30 days after the revocation notice is received.

 

If you would like a paper copy of our proxy statement, proxy card and 2010 Annual Report (which includes our 2010 Form 10-K), we will provide them without charge, upon request, to any holder of record or beneficial owner of common stock entitled to vote at the annual meeting. Requests for paper copies should be made by telephone or over the internet according to the instructions provided in the Notice.

 

Yes. Although the information contained on our website is not part of this proxy statement, you will find information about the Company, including our Board, charters of Board committees, our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, Amended and Restated Bylaws, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and Governance Principles at www.joe.com by clicking “About JOE” at the top of the page, then clicking the “Corporate Governance” link (or you may access this information directly at http://ir.joe.com/governance.cfm). Our filings with the SEC, including our 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K and this proxy statement, and information about insider transactions are available on our website at www.joe.com by clicking “About JOE” at the top of the page, then clicking “SEC filings” under the “Investor Relations” link (or you may access this information directly at http://ir.joe.com/sec.cfm). Additional information about insider transactions may be found on our website at www.joe.com by clicking “About JOE” at the top of the page, then clicking “Insider Transactions” under the “Corporate Governance” link (or you may access this information directly at http://ir.joe.com/transactions.cfm).

 

Shareholders may obtain, without charge, paper copies of any of the above documents by writing to: The St. Joe Company, 133 South WaterSound Parkway, WaterSound, Florida 32413, Attn: Investor Relations.

 

Eight directors are to be elected at the annual meeting to serve on our Board of Directors, and the nominees are described below. Each director elected at the annual meeting will hold office until the next annual meeting and the election of a successor. All of the nominees, except Thomas P. Murphy, Jr., are current directors of the Company. Each has agreed to be named in this proxy statement and to serve if elected.

 

Our Board has undergone a significant change since the 2010 Annual Meeting. Fairholme Capital Management, L.L.C. (“Fairholme”) and related entities own approximately 29% of the common stock of the Company. Bruce R. Berkowitz and Charles M. Fernandez, the Managing Member and President, respectively, of Fairholme, accepted an invitation to join the Board effective January 1, 2011. Once having become involved with the Board, Messrs. Berkowitz and Fernandez raised a number of matters regarding St. Joe’s business strategy, management, corporate governance and compensation practices. Mr. Berkowitz discussed with management and the Board the level of St. Joe’s spending, anticipated future losses, and whether the compensation structure properly aligns management’s interests with those of the shareholders. Mr. Berkowitz also raised with the Board his views of St. Joe’s corporate governance structure, including the composition of the Board and management. The Board’s Governance and Nominating Committee agreed with Mr. Berkowitz that the addition of new, highly-qualified independent directors was desirable and in the best interests of St. Joe and its shareholders. However, the Committee did not agree with him as to the most appropriate way to effect changes to the Board or management, or the timing of those changes.

 

Messrs. Berkowitz and Fernandez resigned from the Board on February 14, 2011 and announced that they would begin a process to replace the existing Board. As a result of discussions with the Board, on February 25, 2011, Wm. Britton Greene resigned from the Board and on March 3, 2011, Mr. Greene resigned as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John S. Lord, Walter L. Revell and Michael L. Ainslie resigned from the Board. Messrs. Berkowitz and Fernandez were reappointed to the Board and Howard S. Frank and Governor Charles J. Crist were also appointed to the Board. On March 4, 2011, Mr. Durden was empowered with the duties of an interim Chief Executive Officer while serving in his capacity as a director, Mr. Berkowitz was elected Chairman of the Board, Mr. Fernandez was elected Vice-Chairman of the Board, an Executive Committee was established and the memberships of the various committees were reconfigured to reflect the change in Board membership and Mr. Durden’s role as interim CEO.

 

The biographies of each of the nominees below contains information regarding the person’s service as a director, business experience, director positions held currently or at any time in the last five years and the experiences, qualifications, attributes or skills that caused the Board to determine that the person should serve as one of our directors.

 

 

The Board recommends the shareholders vote FOR election of each of the eight director nominees listed above to serve until the next annual meeting and the election of a successor.

 

We are asking shareholders to vote in an advisory, non-binding manner on the compensation paid to our named executive officers, as disclosed in this proxy statement pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K (including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and accompanying narrative discussion). Item 402 of Regulation S-K is the SEC regulation that sets forth what companies must include in their proxy statement as to compensation. In Proposal No. 3, we are seeking your advice on the frequency of such votes in the future. This proposal, commonly known as a “Say on Pay” proposal, gives you as a shareholder the opportunity to vote on our executive pay program through the following resolution:

 

“Resolved, that the compensation paid to the Company’s Named Executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion is hereby APPROVED.”

 

Because the majority of the Board were not members of the Board at the time these programs and policies were implemented, and because the Board change described above was partly the result of the concern expressed by Messrs. Berkowitz and Fernandez concerning past compensation practices and the need to align management compensation with shareholder returns, the Board is not making any recommendation with respect to this advisory vote on past executive compensation programs and policies. The Compensation Committee of the Board anticipates that it will undertake a study of the prior compensation practices in order to more closely align compensation and shareholder returns in future compensation determinations.

 

Pursuant to recently adopted Section 14A of the Exchange Act, our shareholders are being asked to vote in an advisory, non-binding manner on how frequently our shareholders should have a Say on Pay vote in the future. Although this frequency vote is advisory and is not binding on the Board, the Compensation Committee will take into account the outcome of the vote when considering how frequently to hold Say on Pay votes. You may choose from the following alternatives: every year, every two years, every three years or you may abstain. We will ask you to vote on an advisory basis on the frequency of Say on Pay votes at least once every six years.

 

After careful consideration, the Board recommends that future Say on Pay votes occur each year. We believe that more frequent Say on Pay votes will permit the Board to receive current feedback on a timely basis from our shareholders regarding our compensation program for our named executive officers, which will enable us to implement more quickly any modifications that the Board determines to be appropriate.

 

The Board recommends the shareholders vote to conduct future Say on Pay votes each year.

 

The Audit and Finance Committee has appointed the firm of KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, to audit our consolidated financial statements for the 2011 fiscal year and has directed that such appointment be submitted to our shareholders for ratification at the annual meeting. If the shareholders do not ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm, the Audit and Finance Committee will reconsider the appointment.

 

KPMG LLP has served as our independent accountants since 1990. A representative of KPMG LLP will be present at the annual meeting to answer pertinent shareholder questions and will be given an opportunity to make a statement. For more information regarding KPMG’s 2010 engagement, see “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Information” on page 21.

 

The Board recommends the shareholders vote FOR ratification of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2011 fiscal year.

 

The Board of Directors does not know of any other business to be presented at the meeting. If, however, any other matters come before the meeting, it is the intention of the proxies to vote your shares in accordance with their own judgment in such matters.

 

Our Board of Directors has adopted corporate governance principles to provide, along with the charters of the Board committees, a framework for the governance and management of the Company in accordance with high ethical standards and in recognition of its responsibilities to various constituencies. These principles are intended to reflect the Board’s long-standing commitment to the ethical conduct of our business in compliance with the letter and the spirit of applicable laws, regulations and accounting principles. Recognizing that corporate governance is subject to on-going debate, the Board periodically reviews these principles and other aspects of the Company’s governance.

 

Our corporate governance principles address the role of the Board, the composition of the Board, Board leadership, the functioning of the Board, the committees of the Board, management succession, ethics and conflicts of interest. These principles specifically provide that two-thirds of the members of the Board must be outside directors who meet the independence criteria established by the NYSE and that no more than one member of the Board will be an employee of the Company unless the Board, in its discretion, determines that an additional employee-director would facilitate the Company’s succession plan.

 

We recently amended our Bylaws to provide that directors must receive a majority of the votes cast to be elected in non-contested elections. We also adopted a resignation policy requiring a director who does not receive a majority of votes cast to tender his or her resignation to the Board.

 

Our Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applicable to all directors, officers and employees. Its purpose is to promote our commitment to the Company’s standards for ethical business practices. The Code provides that it is our policy that our business be conducted in accordance with the highest legal and ethical standards. Our reputation for integrity is one of our most valuable assets, and each director, officer and employee is expected to contribute to the care and preservation of that asset. Our Code addresses a number of issues, including conflicts of interest, corporate opportunities, protection of company assets, confidentiality, insider trading, accounting matters, record keeping, working with governments, antitrust, legal compliance and fair dealing. Our directors review the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics annually to ensure that it appropriately addresses the business practices of the Company.

 

Our corporate governance principles and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics are available on our website at www.joe.com by clicking “About JOE” at the top of the page, then clicking the “Corporate Governance” link (or you may access this information directly at http://ir.joe.com/governance.cfm). We intend to post on our website information regarding any amendment to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics or any waiver granted under the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics covered by Item 5.05 of Form 8-K. Please note that the information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this proxy statement.

 

Copies of our corporate governance principles and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics are also available upon request by contacting us at the following address: The St. Joe Company, 133 South WaterSound Parkway, WaterSound, Florida 32413, Attn: Corporate Secretary.

 

The Board met nine times in 2010. Each member of the Board attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and committees on which he or she served in 2010. Non-management directors meet in executive session without management at each regularly scheduled Board meeting. Our Chairman of the Board presides during such sessions. Board members are expected to attend our annual meetings. At our 2010 annual meeting, all members of the Board were present.

 

The Board of Directors has determined that, at this time, having an independent director serve as Chairman of the Board is in the best interests of the shareholders. The Board elected an experienced, independent Chairman in 2008 in connection with the departure of a long-serving Chairman and CEO and the transition of the new CEO. In connection with the Board change this year and Mr. Durden taking on the duties of an interim CEO, Mr. Berkowitz was elected Chairman and Mr. Fernandez Vice-Chairman. This structure also ensures a greater role for the independent directors in the oversight of the Company. The Board will continue to evaluate this structure from time to time.

 

The Board annually determines the independence of directors based on a review by the directors and, typically, the recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee. The Governance and Nominating Committee considers director independence when making its

recommendations regarding director nominees. No director is considered independent unless the Board has determined that he or she has no material relationship with the Company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder, or officer of an organization that has a material relationship with the Company. Material relationships can include commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable, and familial relationships, among others.

 

To evaluate the materiality of any director relationship with the Company, the Board applies the categorical independence standards found in the NYSE listing standards. The NYSE standards state that a director will not be deemed independent in any of the following circumstances:

 

 

In addition to the NYSE standards for director independence, the Board has adopted an additional categorical standard for director independence. The Board has determined that transactions with the Company involving a director or candidate for director or an entity with whom the director or candidate is affiliated that are conducted on an arm’s-length basis in the ordinary course of business will not be deemed to affect a director’s independence. This categorical standard for independence may be found in our Governance Principles on our website at www.joe.com by clicking “About JOE” at the top of the page, then clicking the “Corporate Governance” link (or you may access this information directly at http://ir.joe.com/governanceprinciples.cfm).

 

Members of the Audit and Finance Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee must also meet all applicable independence tests of the NYSE, the SEC and the Internal Revenue Service.

 

In its independence review, the Board considered for Mr. Fanning an option for the sale of land between the Company and a subsidiary of The Southern Company and the sale of wetlands mitigation credits to another subsidiary of The Southern Company, neither of which exceeded the NYSE requirements listed above. The Board also considered Mr. Durden’s service as interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company and concluded that such service would preclude an independence finding for Mr. Durden.

 

All directors also completed questionnaires in 2011 which asked them about their relationships with the Company (and those of their immediate family members) and other potential conflicts of interest. The responses to these questionnaires did not reveal any transaction or relationship between the directors and the Company requiring board consideration in connection with the determination of director independence.

 

Based on its independence review, the Board determined that all of the nominees, other than Mr. Durden, are independent as required by the NYSE in that they have no material relationships with the Company, either directly or indirectly. The Board also determined that all the members of the Audit and Finance, Compensation and Governance and Nominating Committees also meet the applicable independence tests.

 

The Board has the following four standing committees: Governance and Nominating Committee, Audit and Finance Committee, Compensation Committee and Executive Committee. Each committee is further described below.

 

The Board of Directors has adopted a written charter for each committee, other than the newly established Executive Committee, whose charter will be adopted in the near future. These charters are available on our website at www.joe.com by clicking “About JOE” at the top of the page, then clicking the “Corporate Governance” link (or you may access this information directly at http://ir.joe.com/governance.cfm). Please note that the information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this proxy statement. Copies of our Board committee charters are also available upon request by contacting us at the following address: The St. Joe Company, 133 South WaterSound Parkway, WaterSound, Florida 32413, Attn: Corporate Secretary.

 

The current members of the Governance and Nominating Committee are Charles J. Crist (Chair), Delores M. Kesler and Howard S. Frank. Each member is independent as required by the NYSE. The Governance and Nominating Committee met two times in 2010.

 

The primary functions of the Governance and Nominating Committee are to:

 

 

In fulfilling its duty to recommend nominees for election as directors, the Committee seeks a diverse group of candidates (in the broadest sense, including with respect to age, gender, ethnic background and national origin) who combine a broad spectrum of backgrounds, experience, skills and expertise and who would make a significant contribution to the Board, the Company and our shareholders. In addition to diversity, the Committee considers, among other things, the following criteria:

 

 

The Governance and Nominating Committee has generally identified director candidates through the business relationships, experience and networking of our directors and executive officers and may on occasion utilize the services of professional search firms.

 

The Governance and Nominating Committee would consider qualified candidates for director suggested by our shareholders and would evaluate such candidates according to the same criteria used for other director nominees. Shareholders can suggest qualified candidates for director by writing to The St. Joe Company, 133 South WaterSound Parkway, WaterSound, Florida 32413, Attn: Corporate Secretary. Submissions that meet the criteria outlined above, on our website and in the Committee charter will be forwarded to the Chair of the Governance and Nominating Committee for further review and consideration.

 

The Governance and Nominating Committee conducts an annual assessment of the performance of the Board in which each director evaluates the effectiveness of the Board, its Committees and each director.

 

The current members of the Audit and Finance Committee are Mr. Fanning (Chair), Howard S. Frank and Delores M. Kesler. Each of the Committee members is independent as required by the NYSE. During 2010, the Audit and Finance Committee met nine times. Mr. Frank will become the chair of the Audit and Finance Committee following the annual meeting.

The primary functions of the Audit and Finance Committee are to:

 

 

The Board has determined that:

 

 

See the “Audit and Finance Committee Report” on page 20 for more information on the responsibilities of the Audit and Finance Committee.

 

The current members of the Compensation Committee are Delores M. Kesler (Chair), Charles J. Crist and Howard S. Frank. The Committee met five times in 2010. Each member is independent as required by the NYSE.

 

The Compensation Committee reviews and approves compensation and benefits for our senior officers, reviews and approves director compensation and supervises the administration of all employee benefit plans.

 

Committee agendas are established in consultation with the Committee chair, the Committee’s compensation consultant and management. The Committee meets in executive session following each regular meeting to discuss compensation issues.

 

The Committee has engaged a compensation consulting firm, Towers Watson, to advise the Committee on evaluating executive and director compensation programs and in setting executive and director compensation. Towers Watson has advised the Committee since May 2005. A senior representative from Towers Watson participates in most Committee meetings and is available between meetings to act as a resource for the Committee and management. The use of a compensation consultant provides additional assurance that our compensation programs are reasonable and consistent with Company objectives and balanced with the marketplace where we compete for talent. The consultant also provides valuable information and advice regarding compensation trends and best practices, plan design and the appropriateness of individual awards. Towers Watson did not provide any non-executive compensation consulting services to the Company in 2010.

Our former President and CEO and Senior Vice President — Corporate Development, in consultation with the Committee’s compensation consultant, formulated recommendations on base salaries, bonus awards and equity incentives for senior officers (other than the CEO) in 2010. The former President and CEO provided the Committee with a performance assessment for each of the other senior officers in order to assist the Committee in making decisions with respect to compensation recommendations. The Committee performed an annual written assessment of the performance of our President and CEO for 2010.

 

In 2010, the President and CEO, the Executive Vice President and CFO, the Senior Vice President — Corporate Development and our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary generally attended Committee meetings but were not present for the executive sessions or for any specific discussion of their own compensation.

 

See the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” on page 24, the “Compensation Committee Report” on page 36 and “Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” on page 36 for more information regarding the Compensation Committee.

 

The current members of the Executive Committee are Bruce R. Berkowitz (Chair), Charles M. Fernandez and Hugh M. Durden. The Executive Committee was created in March 2011. The Executive Committee may exercise all the powers and authority of the Board in the management of the business and affairs of the Company, except that the Executive Committee may not:

 

 

The Company is exposed to a number of significant risks and members of senior management meet quarterly to update and evaluate these risks, identify new or emerging risks, and discuss strategies to manage them effectively. A member of senior management is assigned to monitor and manage each identified risk. This process is facilitated by our risk manager, who reports directly to the Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee, with day-to-day administrative oversight by the Executive Vice President and CFO.

 

The Board and its Committees oversee our risk management program. Each quarter the Audit and Finance Committee reviews and discusses with management an update regarding the Company’s overall risk profile. Each identified risk is also assigned to one of the Board Committees or the full Board for in-depth discussion and review on an annual basis. Matters discussed at Committee meetings are also reported to the full Board by the Committee Chairs at meetings of the Board.

During the first quarter of 2011, management conducted an assessment of the risks associated with our compensation policies and practices, and reviewed and discussed this assessment with the Compensation Committee. This process included:

 

 

Although we reviewed all of our compensation programs, we paid particular attention to programs that allow for variable payouts where an employee might be able to influence payout factors, such as our annual short-term incentive plan and our long-term equity incentive plan. Overall, we believe that our compensation programs are designed to incentivize employees to achieve Company objectives without encouraging excessive risk taking. In this regard, our compensation structure contains various features intended to mitigate risk. For example:

 

 

 

Based on the assessment described above, management and the Compensation Committee concluded that the risks associated with our compensation policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

 

Any shareholder or other interested party who desires to contact any member of the Board of Directors (including our independent Chairman, Mr. Berkowitz, or the non-management directors as a group) may do so in one of the following three ways:

 

 

Communications relating to relevant business matters are distributed by the Corporate Secretary to the members of the Board as appropriate depending on the facts and circumstances outlined in the communication received. For example, any complaints regarding accounting, internal accounting controls and auditing matters would be forwarded by the Corporate Secretary to the Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee for review.

 

The role of the Audit and Finance Committee is to provide independent and objective oversight of the Company’s accounting and financial reporting functions and internal controls and to monitor the objectivity of the Company’s financial statements.

 

In the performance of its oversight function, the Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements with management and our independent registered public accounting firm, KPMG LLP. The Committee has also discussed with KPMG LLP the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, Communication with Audit Committees, as currently in effect, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”). The Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from KPMG LLP required by PCAOB Rule 3526, Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence, as currently in effect, and has discussed with KPMG LLP its independence.

Finally, the Committee also has discussed with management the non-audit services provided by KPMG LLP to the Company and has considered whether the provision of non-audit services by KPMG LLP to the Company is consistent with maintaining KPMG LLP’s independence. The Committee has concluded that such services do not impair KPMG LLP’s independence and has advised them of that conclusion.

 

As described in the Audit and Finance Committee Charter, the Committee’s responsibility is one of oversight. Members of the Committee rely on the information provided to them and on the representations made by management, internal auditors and the independent auditors.

 

Based on the review and discussions described in this report, and subject to the limitations on the role and responsibilities of the Committee referred to above and in the Audit and Finance Committee Charter, the Audit and Finance Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Company’s audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the SEC.

 

This report was approved and submitted by the Audit and Finance Committee on February 25, 2011. The following persons were members of the Audit and Finance Committee on such date:

 

Thomas A. Fanning, Chair
Michael L. Ainslie
Delores M. Kesler
John S. Lord
Walter L. Revell

 

The Audit and Finance Committee is responsible for approving every engagement of KPMG LLP to perform audit or permitted non-audit services on behalf of the Company or any of its subsidiaries before KPMG LLP is engaged to provide those services, subject to the de minimis exceptions permitted by the rules of the SEC.

 

In accordance with Audit and Finance Committee policy and legal requirements, all services to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm, including audit services, audit-related services, tax services and any other services, are required to be pre-approved by the Audit and Finance Committee prior to engagement. In most cases, pre-approval is provided by the full Audit and Finance Committee for a particular defined task or scope of work and is subject to a specific budget. For unexpected matters, the Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee has been delegated authority to pre-approve additional services, subject to certain dollar limitations, and the Audit and Finance Committee is then informed of each such service.

 

The following table sets forth fees billed to the Company by KPMG LLP in or for the fiscal years 2010 and 2009. The aggregate fees included in the Audit Fees category are fees billed for the fiscal years, and the aggregate fees included in each of the other categories are

fees billed in the fiscal years. All fees described in the table below were approved by the Audit and Finance Committee in accordance with our pre-approval policy.

 

 

 

 

KPMG LLP also serves as independent auditor for two joint ventures in which the Company is a partner in 2010 and served as independent auditor for three joint ventures in 2009. These joint ventures paid KPMG LLP audit fees in the amount of $25,000 in 2010 and $46,500 in 2009; and tax fees of $9,000 in 2010 and $9,000 in 2009.

 

Related Person Transactions Policy and Procedures.  The Board has adopted a policy prohibiting transactions involving the Company and its employees, officers and directors (“related persons”), with certain exceptions. The policy is part of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. The policy states that related persons may not have any direct or indirect material interest in any transaction, arrangement or relationship in which the Company, or a competitor of the Company, is a participant. Indirect interests include those through: (1) an immediate family member; (2) any person acting on the related person’s behalf; or (3) any entity in which the related person or any of his or her immediate family members are an employee, officer, partner or principal or with which a related person or his or her immediate family members have a significant business relationship.

 

Our policy prohibiting related person transactions does not apply to interests in transactions arising from: (1) arms-length purchases or sales of goods, real property or services; (2) a related person’s position as a director of another corporation or organization that is a party to the transaction; (3) the direct or indirect ownership of less than a 5% equity interest in a public company which is a party to the transaction; and (4) our benefit policies and programs.

 

Executive officers must disclose to the compliance officer any proposed related person transaction. The compliance officer will then report such proposed transaction to the Board. For related person transactions involving a director, the director must notify the Chairman of the Governance and Nominating Committee and the compliance officer, who will then bring the matter before the full Board. The Board will resolve any conflict of interest question involving an executive officer or director without compromising the Company’s interests. During its review, the Board will consider the nature of the related person’s interest in the transaction; the material terms of the transaction; whether or not the transaction would qualify for an exception to the policy; and any other matters the Board deems appropriate. Any director or executive officer involved in the transaction would be recused from all decisions about the transaction.

Our legal staff is primarily responsible for the development and implementation of processes and controls to monitor and obtain information with respect to related person transactions. Although shareholders are not subject to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, we do apply the policy against related person transactions to shareholders owning five percent or more of our outstanding common stock.

 

Reportable Transactions.  In August 2010, the Company purchased a home from Wm. Britton Greene, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, for $1.925 million. The purchase was required pursuant to the terms of Mr. Greene’s relocation agreement pursuant to which Mr. Greene agreed to relocate from Jacksonville to Northwest Florida. The purchase price was established by appraisals. The Company paid all closing costs on the transaction.

 

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our directors, executive officers and beneficial owners of more than 10% of our common stock to file reports with the SEC reporting ownership of and transactions in common stock and to furnish copies of the reports to the Company. We believe all such reports were timely filed during 2010.

 

You may submit proposals on matters appropriate for shareholder action for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. These proposals must be made in accordance with the rules of the SEC and our Bylaws. A proposal for the 2012 annual meeting must be received by our Corporate Secretary at The St. Joe Company, 133 South WaterSound Parkway, WaterSound, Florida 32413 as follows:

 

 

Wm. Britton Greene, 56, served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company from May 2008 to March 2011 and as President from October 2007 to March 2011. He was promoted to Chief Operating Officer in August 2006. He joined the Company in January 1998 as Vice President of West Florida residential and resort operations and was appointed President of West Florida in 2000, President of St. Joe Towns & Resorts in February 2004 and President of St. Joe Commercial in March 2006.

 

William S. McCalmont, 55, has served since May 2007 as Chief Financial Officer and was promoted to Executive Vice President in January 2009. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. McCalmont served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Ace Cash Express, Inc. from August 2003 to January 2007. Mr. McCalmont is a director of LaSalle Hotel Properties, a real estate investment trust, and a Trustee of The St. Joe Community Foundation.

 

Roderick T. Wilson, 66, has been with the Company since 2001 and has held various senior leadership positions in the Company’s Northwest Florida operations. He is currently the President of the West Bay Sector, the Company’s largest real estate project. Mr. Wilson is a Trustee and President of The St. Joe Community Foundation and is on the Board of Sacred Heart Hospital of the Emerald Coast.

 

Rusty A. Bozman, 40, is the Company’s Senior Vice-President — Corporate Development and is responsible for human resources and strategic initiatives. He has been with the Company since 2000 and has served as the head of human resources since January 2007.

 

Park Brady, 63, was appointed as the Company’s Chief Operating Officer, effective March 21, 2011. Mr. Brady served as President and Chief Executive Officer of ResortQuest, the nation’s largest vacation rental company, from June 2007 to March 2011. Mr. Brady began his career at ResortQuest in 1998 as the Regional Manager of the Western U.S., later serving as the Corporate Vice President and as Chief Operating Officer.

 

Due to the decreased size and scope of operations of the Company, Messrs. Greene, McCalmont, Wilson and Bozman were our only executive officers in 2010. Messrs. Greene, McCalmont, Wilson and Bozman are included in the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 37 and are sometimes referred to herein as our “named executives.”

 

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) contains a discussion of our compensation policies and practices and the material elements of compensation awarded to the named executives for 2010.

 

We are one of the largest real estate development companies in Florida. We own approximately 574,000 acres concentrated primarily in Northwest Florida and are engaged in residential and commercial real estate development and rural land sales. We also have significant interests in timber.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations were adversely affected during 2010 by the ongoing real estate downturn and challenging economy in the United States in general, and Florida in particular. Adverse market conditions included, among others, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, minimal gains in employment and consumer confidence from recessionary levels, a large number of homes for sale or in various stages of foreclosure, decreased availability of mortgage loans, historically low housing starts, stagnant household income levels, and a slow recovery in business investments.

 

This challenging environment has exerted negative pressure on the demand for all of our real estate products. Despite these challenging conditions, we successfully continued our efforts to reduce cash expenditures, eliminate certain expenses, increase our financial flexibility and develop strategic relationships. We accomplished important strategic objectives in 2010 to help position the Company for the future, including the following:

 

 

In the difficult and challenging operating environment of recent years, our compensation program has been focused primarily on retaining key executives while motivating them to optimize the operational performance of the Company, to focus on long-term value creation and to increase recurring revenues for our shareholders. For these reasons, our compensation program is designed to:

 

 

To accomplish these objectives, we have implemented a compensation program for our executive officers consisting of base salaries, annual performance-based cash bonuses, service and performance-based long-term equity awards and certain retirement, health and welfare benefits. Each element of total compensation is linked to a compensation objective:

 

 

The Compensation Committee has the authority to determine and establish executive compensation components and respective component levels. The committee often seeks input from the Company executives and from its independent consultant, Towers Watson, when setting compensation. The Compensation Committee also has the discretion to delegate certain compensation determinations to a sub-committee or Company executives.

 

As part of our analysis in determining executive officer compensation, we look to compensation practices at other companies to determine if we are in-line with market compensation practices. In 2009, with the assistance of the Compensation Committee’s compensation consultant, Towers Watson, we created a custom peer group consisting of companies with significant real estate or real estate-related activities, such as development companies, large property owners, companies with significant timber holdings, homebuilders and real estate investment trusts. We believe that these types of companies employ management with similar set of skills as our management team, and they could be competitors for executive talent. Importantly, we also included only public companies in the peer group as there are management issues and concerns unique to operating as a public company. Finally, when establishing the peer group, we limited the peer group to public companies with a market capitalization in the range of one-half to two times the market capitalization of our Company as we believe that companies of a similar size would be more likely to experience similar strategic and operational goals and challenges.

The companies in the peer group included the following:

 

AMB Property Corporation (AMB),
Developers Diversified Realty Corporation (DDR),
Duke Realty Corporation (DRE),
Highwoods Properties, Inc. (HIW),
Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL),
Kimco Realty Corporation (KIM),
The Macerich Company (MAC),
MDC Holdings Inc. (MDC),
NVR, Inc. (NVR),
Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. (PCL),
Regency Centers Corporation (REG),
Rayonier Inc. (RYN),
Toll Brothers Inc. (TOL), and
WP Carey & Co. LLC (WPC).

 

In 2009, we reviewed information regarding these peer group companies for general comparative purposes, but did not establish any formal benchmarks or guidelines. After review, we determined that our compensation practices were generally consistent with the practices of the peer group. In 2010, we continued to informally refer to this peer group for compensation data, but we did not undertake extensive additional peer group analysis in 2010.

 

Factors Considered.  When structuring the compensation levels of the named executives as compared to each other, we consider various factors, including the following:

 

 

In addition, current market dynamics may exert pressure from time to time as competing organizations attempt to attract talented individuals with the skills to navigate the challenges related to the real estate and economic downturn. Such methods could include recruiting executives with underwater stock options to a competing company with large stock option grants offered at lower stock prices.

Discussion of Named Executives.  Prior to his resignation as President and CEO of the Company in March of 2011, Mr. Greene had been with the Company since 1998. His knowledge of the Company and depth of operational experience was valuable in his role as President and CEO. Mr. Greene’s compensation reflected our desire to retain his services and motivate his performance. Further, Mr. Greene exercised direct oversight of many operational areas of the Company. In addition, as President and CEO, he held the highest level of operational, organizational and strategic responsibilities within the Company’s management.

 

Mr. McCalmont has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company since May 2007. During that time, Mr. McCalmont served an important role in managing and responding to our current operating conditions. For example, Mr. McCalmont worked to reduce our cash expenditures, eliminate expenses and increase our financial flexibility. Mr. McCalmont also assumed significant operational responsibilities, including management of the Company’s commercial, resort and clubs and information services operations.

 

Mr. Wilson has been with the Company since 2001. Mr. Wilson’s skills were demonstrated in connection with the Company’s efforts to relocate the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport, which opened on May 23, 2010, as well as his role in securing Southwest Airlines air service to the new airport. Mr. Wilson was also instrumental in securing the Master Airport Access Agreement regarding through-the-fence access for companies to be located at VentureCrossings. Mr. Wilson’s compensation reflects our recognition of his responsibility to promote development of the West Bay Sector, the Company’s largest real estate project.

 

Mr. Bozman has been with the Company since 2000. He has served as the head of human resources since January 2007. Mr. Bozman has been involved in senior staffing decisions and the Company’s headcount reductions. Mr. Bozman also led the relocation of our corporate headquarters from Jacksonville to Northwest Florida. He recently assumed significant additional responsibilities in the area of corporate development, including strategic transactions and operating decisions. Mr. Bozman’s compensation reflects the recognition of his role within the executive management team.

 

The base salaries of our named executives at December 31, 2010 were as follows:

 

 

We believe that a base salary of approximately 25% to 50% of an executive officer’s target total direct compensation (base salary + target bonus + target equity award) reflects an appropriate mix of fixed compensation and performance-based compensation. We believe having a significant percentage, or even a majority, of an executive’s total compensation linked to the performance of the Company serves to more effectively align executives’ and shareholders’ interests. For 2010, the proportion of base salary to target total direct

compensation for our named executives ranged from 26% (for Mr. Greene) to 44% (for Mr. Bozman). Mr. Greene, Mr. McCalmont and Mr. Wilson each received a 2.5% increase to base salary in 2010. This is the same percentage that was the standard merit increase for general employees. Mr. Bozman received a 36% salary increase in connection with his promotion to Senior Vice President and his assumption of significant additional responsibilities.

 

We adopted in 2010 an annual incentive plan designed to reward short-term performance by linking cash bonus awards with the achievement of annual Company performance goals. We believe that making such compensation “at risk” provides significant motivation for increasing individual and Company performance.

 

Mechanics of the Plan.  Before 2009, we had formulas for determining the payout under an award based on the percentage of goal achievement. In 2009, we purposefully moved away from formulas in favor of allowing the Compensation Committee to retain greater discretion regarding the evaluation of Company performance, the weighting of goal achievement and the degree of award payouts. We believe that this type of model more accurately reflects the type of value-creation business initiatives and goals needed in the current difficult operating environment.

 

In early 2010, we assigned each named executive a designated target award calculated as a percentage of their base salary. The target awards, expressed as a percentage of base salary with the corresponding dollar amount, were 100% ($717,500) for Mr. Greene; 75% ($307,500) for Mr. McCalmont; 60% ($207,308) for Mr. Wilson; and 50% ($140,000) for Mr. Bozman. The actual awards could range from 0% to 100% of the target awards based on the Compensation Committee’s determination of the percentage achievement of the Company’s performance goals. The Compensation Committee retained the discretion, however, to pay more than 100% of the target awards for exceptional Company performance.

 

2010 Performance Goals.  At the beginning of 2010, we expected that our real estate markets would continue to experience low levels of activity due to the ongoing real estate downturn and recessionary economic conditions. In this difficult operating environment, we knew that we would need to focus on a variety of activities necessary to strengthen the Company to withstand the current adverse market conditions and to create long-term shareholder value, none of which could be measured solely by traditional operating metrics such as earnings per share, revenues or EBITDA.

 

We could have used earnings or revenues goals for our short-term incentive plan, but we believe that such measures could have been detrimental to our long-term value creation efforts. For example, if we had used a revenues goal, we could have been incentivized to sell large tracts of rural land that could be more valuable to the Company and our shareholders in the future.

 

The performance goals established for the 2010 plan, the rationale behind the goals and the achievement of the goals, are described as follows:

 

1. Achieve the 2010 business plan and maintain a strong liquidity position. Specifically, we established a goal to end 2010 with at least $289 million of liquidity, including cash and available capacity on our revolving credit facility.

Rationale:  With greatly diminished revenues and income from operations as a result of the current difficult operating environment, the creation and conservation of significant cash reserves are needed to sustain the Company. Focusing on cash and liquidity as an operating metric also enables us to have the resources to accomplish important strategic transactions that would be beneficial to the Company.

 

Achievement:  We exceeded this goal by ending 2010 with liquidity of approximately $309 million, including approximately $184 million of cash and $125 million of available capacity on our revolving credit facility. The achievement of the quantitative goal was due in part to the receipt of an approximately $67.7 million tax refund from the U.S. Department of Treasury, further headcount reductions, and the collection of approximately $6.2 million from an outstanding note receivable.

 

2. Advance economic development in the West Bay Sector. In this area, we established specific goals for 2010 to: (i) complete Phase I infrastructure at our VentureCrossings development; (ii) complete a comprehensive marketing campaign and toolkit for VentureCrossings; and (iii) pre-lease 25% of the speculative flex space and 25% of the speculative office space beyond occupancy of the Company.

 

Rationale:  We own 71,000 acres in the West Bay Sector Plan in Bay County, Florida surrounding the new Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport, opened in May 2010. In order to realize benefits from the expected demand for our real estate adjacent to the new airport, it is critically important that we successfully promote development activities around the new airport and that we have commercial and industrial sites ready and available for sale, lease or joint venture.

 

Achievement:  In April 2010, we successfully launched VentureCrossings Enterprise Center, a 1,000 acre commercial development adjacent to the new airport. VentureCrossings will be developed in three phases, and we completed the infrastructure for the first phase in 2010. We also entered into a Master Airport Access Agreement with the Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial District, which outlines the process for implementing the through-the-fence access rights originally established when we donated the land for the new airport. We also commenced construction of a covered parking facility to serve the airport and executed a ground lease for an 11-acre airside parcel benefiting end-users outside-the-fence needing early access to runways and taxiways. During 2010, we also obtained approvals for a permit providing access to phase two of VentureCrossings, accelerating future development opportunities. This achievement prompted us to reevaluate our flex building strategy for Phase I of VentureCrossings and refocus our efforts on creating a larger flex building than originally planned, leading to postponement of pre-leasing activity for that project. Furthermore, in an effort to preserve capital, we decided to reduce the office space in the building planned for the Company’s headquarters, which eliminated any leasing opportunities.

 

3. Re-program existing and advance new residential communities in preparation for a market recovery. Specifically, we established goals for 2010 to (i) focus repositioning efforts on WindMark Beach, WaterSound and East San Marco by completing new master plans, economic plans and financial plans for each and presenting a new strategy for each project, and (ii) launch Breakfast Point by completing a master plan and beginning development of horizontal lot inventory and vertical construction of new homes.

Rationale:  In light of current market conditions, we recognized the need to reposition certain projects and to prioritize capital spending to be prepared for the return of demand for residential real estate when markets begin to recover.

 

Achievement:  We successfully achieved these goals by completing each of the new master plans, economic plans and financial models for future implementation as our markets recover. We completed a master plan and design for our new Breakfast Point community in Panama City Beach, but decided to conserve capital by deferring capital expenditures on development until 2011. We accomplished other residential real estate achievements beyond the stated goals in 2010, including successfully re-launching our Rivertown community in Jacksonville to reflect current market conditions, expanding our homebuilder relationships and reduced costs through more efficient management of our homeowner associations and community development districts.

 

4. Optimize forestry operations to generate additional revenue from new sources by year end, 2010. Specifically, we established a goal to generate an additional $2 million in revenue from new sources.

 

Rationale:  During the current real estate downturn, our forestry operations have become a more important source of capital for the Company. We believed that there could be additional revenue opportunities in our forestry operations.

 

Achievement:  We generated additional forestry revenues from new sources of approximately $2.7 million. This additional revenue resulted in part from our participation in the federal Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which allowed us to capture payments from the federal government on sales of fiber. We also obtained approvals from permitting agencies for the expansion of the service areas of our existing wetlands mitigation banks, which allowed us to complete the sale of additional mitigation bank credits. We also renegotiated our pulpwood fiber supply agreement with Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, generating additional revenue. We also increased hunting lease rates.

 

Award Payouts Under the Plan.  In order to determine the award payouts under the short-term incentive plan, the Compensation Committee evaluated the achievements for all of the goal categories, using its discretion to determine the weighting and relative achievement of the performance goals, and also considered additional Company achievements during 2010. In light of the significant goal achievements described above, the Compensation Committee approved a bonus pool under the plan of 110% of the targeted bonus pool amount. The Compensation Committee then delegated authority to Mr. Lord to determine specific individual payouts under the plan, with input from Mr. Greene and Mr. Bozman. Through this process, Mr. Greene was awarded $775,000 (a 108% payout), Mr. McCalmont was awarded $361,000 (a 117% payout), Mr. Wilson was awarded $261,000 (a 126% payout) and Mr. Bozman was awarded $170,000 (a 121% payout). Mr. McCalmont’s increased payment reflects his significant responsibility in achieving the Company’s liquidity objectives. Mr. Wilson’s increased payment reflects his contributions to the 2010 opening of the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport. Mr. Bozman’s increased payment reflects his successful implementation of the relocation of the Company’s corporate headquarters to Northwest Florida. See the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 37 and “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2010” on page 41 for more information regarding the 2010 awards under the short-term incentive plan.

 

Our long-term incentive program is designed to align executive and shareholder interests and encourage long-term executive performance and retention. Our Equity Incentive Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee.

 

Equity Grant Practices.  Our practice has been to make at least one equity award each year to our named executives as part of their total annual compensation. These awards are based on an established percentage of their base salaries. The target award percentages for the named executives for 2010 were as follows: 185% for Mr. Greene; 125% for Mr. McCalmont; 75% for Mr. Wilson; and 75% for Mr. Bozman. These award percentages were determined to be in line with the peer group practices described above. The internal pay equity factors described above also support the higher target percentages for Mr. Greene and Mr. McCalmont, who were generally considered to have more impact on the performance of the Company as a whole than the other named executive officers.

 

Annual equity awards are granted in February at the regular quarterly meeting of the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee’s quarterly meetings are scheduled in September of the prior year. The Compensation Committee meetings are scheduled without regard to anticipated earnings announcements, the release of other material or non-public information. Generally, the date the Compensation Committee takes action with respect to an award is the same date as the grant date for the awards. Generally, awards of restricted stock are initially denominated in dollars, which amounts are then converted to shares by dividing the approved dollar value of the award by the closing share price on the date of grant. We do not backdate stock options.

 

2010 Equity Grants.  Each named executive was granted an annual equity award that included both (1) restricted stock that may vest depending upon Company performance over a three year performance period, and (2) restricted stock vesting in equal annual installments over four years. The target awards for the named executives were initially calculated based on the target award percentages described above with the two types of awards equally weighted. For the restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions, the targeted shares were then doubled in order to provide upside potential to the executives in the event of exceptional Company performance.

 

The restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions will vest according to how well our total shareholder return during the performance period compares to the total shareholder returns of companies within two peer groups established by reference to the S&P 500 Index and a group consisting of the same peer group of real estate companies that we look to in evaluating our executive compensation described above. See “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2010” on page 41 for more information about these equity grants and the performance-based vesting conditions.

 

We believe that restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions provide the perceived certainty of restricted stock awards and align the financial interests of executives with shareholders by promoting stock price appreciation. Because of the fluctuations in our stock price due to uncertainties in the financial markets and the current difficult operating environment, another form of equity award, such as stock options, may not have provided the same level of perceived value as restricted stock with performance-based conditions. Restricted stock grants also deliver value more efficiently than stock options by delivering intended value with fewer shares. This benefits existing shareholders through less dilution of their ownership and the delivery of value while using fewer authorized shares under our equity incentive plans.

We also included restricted stock with time-based vesting in our 2010 grants in order to provide our executives with a strong retention incentive and the stability of incentive payouts during the current down business cycle. Although less effective than stock options or restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions, restricted stock with time-based vesting also serves to motivate performance as its value increases with stock price increases.

 

Policies Regarding Equity Ownership.  We have a Stock Ownership Policy in order to promote the alignment of the financial interests of our senior management and directors with our shareholders. The policy requires senior management, including the named executives, to own a minimum amount of Company stock (either a minimum number of shares or a minimum value of owned shares) ranging from 5,000 shares or $275,000 to 100,000 shares or $5.5 million. For directors, the minimum amount of Company stock required to be owned under the policy is 5,000 shares or $275,000.

 

The executives subject to the policy have five years from the date of adoption to reach the minimum ownership thresholds. The thresholds for those aged 55 or older will be reduced by 10% per year up to 50% because the Compensation Committee thought it reasonable to allow for a certain amount of investment diversification as the executives approach retirement age in light of the volatility of stock prices in the real estate industry.

 

We do not re-price stock options to account for decreases in our share price after the date of grant. We prohibit short sales on our stock, and the purchase or sale of options, puts, calls or other derivative securities that are directly linked to our stock, by named executives and other officers and directors. Certain members of management, including the named executives and directors, are required to receive permission from our legal department prior to conducting transactions in Company securities. We have quarterly “blackout” periods, and unscheduled blackout periods from time-to-time, during which no trading is permitted by these persons.

 

The Company provides retirement benefits to the named executives through a cash balance defined benefit pension plan (the “Pension Plan”), a 401(k) retirement plan, a non-qualified supplemental executive retirement plan (“SERP”) and a non-qualified deferred capital accumulation plan (“DCAP”). The terms of these plans and the benefits accrued to the named executives under the plans are described under “Pension Benefits in 2010” on page 47 and “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2010” on page 49. We believe that these retirement benefits are important tools for retaining and rewarding executive officers’ service by providing meaningful retirement savings through tax-favorable plans. Although we have no target percentage for retirement plans to contribute to total compensation, we do consider retirement benefits when setting an executive officer’s total compensation.

 

We provide our named executives with other benefits, reflected in the All Other Compensation column in the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 37 and more fully described in the footnote to that column, that we believe are reasonable, competitive, supported by a clear business rationale and consistent with our overall executive compensation program. The costs of these benefits constitute only a small percentage of each named executive’s total compensation, and include, among other things, financial planning expenses, premiums paid on life insurance policies and the cost of an annual physical.

 

Each named executive officer has an employment agreement with the Company, the primary purpose of which is to provide compensation to the executive in the event of termination without cause. Each executive has substantially the same form of employment agreement which provides for payments in the event of certain termination events occurring either before or after a “Change in Control” within the meaning of such employment agreement. Prior to a “Change in Control”, if Mr. Greene had terminated his employment for good reason or he was terminated without cause, he would have received, among other payments, a lump sum payment equal to two times the sum of his base salary plus target bonus (a “2.0 multiple”). In the same circumstances, Mr. McCalmont’s, Mr. Wilson’s and Mr. Bozman’s agreements provided for a lump sum payment calculated using a “1.5 multiple.” All employment agreements provide for a “2.0 multiple” for termination events occurring after a “Change in Control”. The employment agreements have “double triggers” in that a “Change in Control” alone will not require payments, unless a termination event occurred as well.

 

These employment agreements are intended to promote two objectives beneficial to the Company. First, they provide executives with the financial security needed to allow them to fully focus on their operational responsibilities. The Company is facing a very challenging operating environment, which requires full management attention. Secondly, we believe that the benefits provided by these employment agreements are in line with current compensation practices of other public companies that could be competitors for our executive talent. Without these employment agreements, we believe we could have difficulty retaining our named executives.

 

Other than termination benefits, the employment agreements provide that the named executives were entitled to receive at least the base salary in effect for the executive on the date of the employment agreement, together with guaranteed participation in our annual bonus plan and other incentive, retirement and savings plans. The agreements also provide for an annual physical and up to $10,000 per year for financial planning expenses. The employment agreements automatically renew annually unless terminated by the Company.

 

The termination provisions of the employment agreements of the named executives and the potential or actual payments under these agreements in connection with specific termination events, whether before or after a “Change in Control”, are more specifically described under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” on page 50.

 

The following is a summary of significant compensation actions that occurred at the beginning of 2011 and that impacted our named executive officers. The compensation disclosure set forth in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy and the accompanying tables do not reflect the impact of these actions because that disclosure is required to reflect compensation through December 31, 2010. Accordingly, that disclosure should be read in conjunction with the following additional disclosure.

 

On February 25, 2011, in connection with the changes to the Board of Directors described under “Election of Directors” on page 7, the Company entered into a Separation Agreement with Mr. Greene in connection with his resignation as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Under the Separation Agreement, Mr. Greene received the

following, in place of what is shown under the Potential Termination Payments Table, which assumed a hypothetical December 31, 2010 termination of employment:

 

 

The changes to the Board of Directors described under “Election of Directors” on page 7 triggered a “Change in Control” within the meaning of the Company’s 2009 Equity Incentive Plan and the applicable award agreements. Consequently, the restricted stock awards outstanding under the Plan vested immediately on March 3, 2011 (except for the February 2011 awards of restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions, which vested at 50%). The number of shares that vested for the named executives, other than Mr. Greene, are as follows: Mr. McCalmont, 47,896 shares; Mr. Wilson, 22,700 shares; and Mr. Bozman, 15,907 shares. Those changes to the Board of Directors also triggered a “Change in Control” within the meaning of the employment agreements of our named executive officers.

 

Also, in February 2011, the Compensation Committee approved an amendment to the Pension Plan to increase the benefits payable from the Pension Plan and simultaneously reduce benefits payable from the SERP in order to take advantage of the surplus of funds in

the Pension Plan. The increase in benefits under the Pension Plan (and the corresponding decrease in SERP benefits) for the named executives are as follows: Mr. Greene, $934,542; Mr. McCalmont, $228,933; Mr. Wilson, $271,661; Mr. Bozman, $7,721.

 

The following members of the Board of Directors who served on the Compensation Committee as of December 31, 2010 have reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this proxy statement. Based on their review and discussions with management, they recommended to our Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s 2011 proxy statement.

 

This report is provided by the following members of the Board of Directors, who comprised three of the four members of the Compensation Committee (the fourth is no longer a member of the Board), and were independent, as of December 31, 2010:

 

Hugh M. Durden
Thomas A. Fanning
Delores M. Kesler

 

During 2010, the Compensation Committee consisted of, and it currently consists of, independent members of the Board. No current or former member of the Committee is or was during 2010 an executive officer of another company on whose board or its comparable committee one of our executive officers serves.

 

The table below summarizes the total compensation paid or awarded to each of the named executives for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, calculated in accordance with SEC rules.

 

 

 

 

A discussion of the 2010 base salaries of the named executives is set forth under “Base Salaries” in the CD&A on page 38. The discussion under “Internal Pay Equity” in the CD&A on page 26 provides information regarding the varying salary levels of the named executives.

 

For a discussion of our long-term incentive program and our 2010 equity grants, refer to “Long-Term Incentive Program” in the CD&A on page 31.

 

Since these amounts reflect the grant date fair value for these awards, they may not correspond to the actual value that will be realized by the named executives after the awards vest and when the related common stock is sold. To see the value actually received by the named executives in 2010 from equity awards in prior years, refer to “Option Exercises and Stock Vested in 2010” on page 47.

 

The amounts reported in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column reflect the bonus amounts earned by the named executives under our short-term incentive plan in 2010. The material provisions of that plan are described in the CD&A under “Annual Performance-Based Bonuses” on page 29. These amounts are the actual amounts earned by each named executive under the awards described under “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2010” on page 41. Payments under the short-term incentive plan were based on the Company’s performance during 2010 as described in the CD&A under “Annual Performance-Based Bonuses — 2010 Performance Goals” on page 29.

 

The amounts reported in this column represent the sum of (1) the change in present values of the pension plan benefits for each named executive and (2) the above-market interest earned on each named executive’s account in the DCAP. The following table summarizes the amounts attributable to each category for the named executives:

 

 

The changes in pension values shown reflect the changes in the present value of pension benefits from one year end to the next. Factors affecting the changes in present values include

the impact of the value of benefits earned in the current year, the growth in the value of benefits earned in prior years due to the passage of time and the impact of changes in assumptions. This present value calculation is based on actuarial assumptions and discounting and is not a direct reflection of the change in each participant’s actual account balance in the pension plan during the year.

 

The assumptions used to calculate the change in present values include a discount rate of 5.04% at December 31, 2010, 5.63% at December 31, 2009 and 6.35% at December 31, 2008; future interest crediting rate of 4.0% at December 31, 2010 and 4.25% at each of December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008; lump sum form of payment; and a normal retirement age of 65. Turnover, disability, future salary increases, pre-retirement mortality and increases in IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limits were ignored for calculation purposes.

 

Refer to “Pension Benefits in 2010” on page 47 for more information about the pension benefits available to the named executives.

 

We pay 7% interest on participants’ accounts in the DCAP. The amounts shown above reflect the portion of the interest payment in excess of 5.27% or 120% of the applicable federal long-term interest rate. These payments are deemed by the SEC to be above-market interest payments. The total interest payment to the DCAP for each named executive is shown under “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2010” on page 49.

 

The following table describes each component of the amounts shown in the All Other Compensation column for 2010:

 

 

Company Contributions to SERP, 401(k) and DCAP.  We make annual contributions to each named executive’s account maintained in connection with the SERP, DCAP and 401(k) plan. A discussion of these retirement plans is found in the CD&A under “Retirement Plans” on page 31. More information regarding the SERP and DCAP is found under “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2010” on page 49. With respect to the Company contributions to the 401(k) plan, the Company contributed $8,575 to each named executive’s account in the 401(k) plan (based on Company matching contributions equal to 100% of the first 1% of eligible compensation contributed to the plan and 50% of the next 6% of eligible compensation contributed, up to a maximum match of 31/2% of eligible compensation. There were no DCAP contributions in 2010.

 

Financial Planning Expenses.  Each named executive may be reimbursed for up to $10,000 annually for financial planning expenses. We believe that this benefit helps the named executives to optimize the value received from all of the compensation elements offered by the Company.

Term Life Insurance Premiums.  These amounts represent life insurance premiums paid by the Company on behalf of the named executive officers for term life insurance premiums for policies providing coverage based on their base salaries up to $600,000. These policies are available to all full-time employees and are considered to be part of a baseline competitive welfare benefits package.

 

Annual Physical Exam.  Each named executive may be reimbursed for up to $5,000 annually for the cost of a physical exam. The purpose of these exams is to encourage the named executives to routinely attend to their personal health for the benefit of the Company.

 

Relocation Benefits.  During 2010, we relocated our corporate headquarters from Jacksonville to Northwest Florida. To encourage certain named executives to participate in the relocation and to compensate them for the personal and family issues arising from the relocation, the Company chose to pay the relocation benefits described below. Mr. Greene’s relocation benefits included a resettlement payment of $100,000 to defray the incidental costs of a household move; the reimbursement of closing costs on a new home in the amount of $32,979; maintenance and mortgage costs associated with his residences in the amount of $65,360; the payment of household moving costs of $30,589; a tax gross-up payment of $59,539; and club membership fees waived by the Company in the aggregate amount of $35,000. Please also refer to “Reportable Transactions” on page 23 for a description of the Company’s purchase of Mr. Greene’s Jacksonville residence.

 

Mr. Bozman’s relocation benefits included a $102,500 relocation bonus; a resettlement payment of $15,000 to defray the incidental costs of a household move; reimbursement for temporary lodging of $16,032; reimbursement of closing costs for a homesite purchase of $4,650; the payment of household moving costs of $9,652; and a tax gross-up payment of $10,869.

 

The amount for Mr. McCalmont reflects reimbursement made in 2010 of closing costs in the amount of $28,719 related to his purchase of a residence in Northwest Florida in 2008 in connection with his commencement of employment with the Company in 2007, together with a tax gross-up payment of $16,472.

 

Other Benefits.  The Company purchases hours of flight time from a corporate aircraft service for business purposes. We did not provide hours of personal flight time at our expense to any named executive in 2010. Infrequently, however, spouses of named executives may accompany named executives during business flights. This spousal use has no incremental cost to the Company.

 

The named executives may have received additional incidental perquisites not subject to SEC reporting.

 

The following table provides information about equity and non-equity awards granted to the named executives in 2010:

 

 

This column shows the 2010 target payout for each named executive under our short-term incentive plan. There were no threshold or maximum amounts payable under the plan. The plan was structured such that the named executives could have earned between 0% and 100% of the target awards depending on the achievement of the performance goals, but the plan also stated that the Compensation Committee, in its discretion, could choose to pay more than 100% of the target awards for exceptional Company performance. The performance goals and salary multiples for determining the target payouts are described in the CD&A under “Annual Performance-Based Bonuses” on page 29.

 

The amounts shown represent cash payouts that were possible under our short-term incentive plan assuming achievement of target. The potential payouts were performance-based and completely at risk. The actual payouts under the 2010 short-term incentive plan are found in the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 37.

 

The awards shown were grants of restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions. These awards vested in full on March 3, 2011 in connection with the “Change in Control” described under “Significant 2011 Developments in Compensation” on page 34. The vesting of these shares would have been based on the performance of our stock price from February 8, 2010 through January 31, 2013. The total shareholder return of our stock during the performance period would have been measured and compared to the total shareholder

return of companies in certain peer groups established by reference to the S&P 500 Index and a selected peer group of real estate related companies. Our total shareholder return and the total shareholder return for each company in the peer groups would have been calculated based on the change in each company’s stock price, plus any dividends paid, divided by the beginning stock price for each company.

 

Once our percentile rank is determined with respect to each peer group, our overall percentile rank would have been determined by averaging the two ranks, weighting the percentile rank for the S&P 500 peer group at 40% and for the selected peer group of real estate related companies at 60%. Our weighted composite percentile rank would have then been used to determine the number of the shares awarded that actually vested, if any, according to a graduated vesting schedule. The vesting schedule for these awards is as follows:

 

 

The threshold amount shown in the table represents 12.5% vesting based on the achievement of a 25th percentile rank. The maximum amount shown represents 100% vesting based on the achievement of a 75th or greater percentile rank. There is no target amount specified in the vesting schedule for these awards. At December 31, 2010, given the Company’s performance, 0% of the shares would vest according to our percentile rank.

 

During the restricted period, each share of restricted stock entitles the named executive to receive any dividends that we may declare with respect to our common stock. We, however, do not currently pay any quarterly dividends.

 

For more information regarding the 2010 grants of restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions, refer to the discussion in the CD&A under the heading “Long-Term Incentive Program — 2010 Equity Grants” on page 32.

 

The stock awards shown were grants of restricted stock with time-based vesting. The February 8, 2010 awards were granted with a vesting schedule of 25% annually beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date. These awards, however, vested in full on March 3, 2011 in connection with the “Change in Control” described under “Significant 2011 Developments in Compensation” on page 34.

During the restricted period, each share of restricted stock entitles the named executive to receive any dividends that we may declare with respect to our common stock. We, however, do not currently pay any quarterly dividends.

 

For more information regarding the 2010 grants of restricted stock, refer to the discussion in the CD&A under the heading “Long-Term Incentive Program — 2010 Equity Grants” on page 32.

 

This column shows the grant date fair value under FASB ASC Topic 718 of the restricted stock granted to the named executives in 2010, excluding any contingency for forfeitures. Generally, the grant date fair value is the amount that we would expense in our financial statements over the award’s vesting schedule. For restricted stock with time-based vesting conditions, the fair value is calculated using the closing price of our common stock on the grant date.

 

For restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions, the fair value is determined using a Monte Carlo simulation pricing model. This model is based upon the closing price of our common stock on the grant date, and takes into account assumptions regarding a number of other variables including expected stock price volatility over the term of the awards, the relative performance of our stock price and shareholder returns compared to those companies in our peer groups and a risk-free interest rate assumption. For additional information regarding the valuation assumptions, refer to note 2 of our financial statements in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the SEC on March 3, 2011.

 

The grant date fair values of the restricted stock with performance-based vesting conditions were calculated based on the probable outcome of the performance conditions on the date of grant, consistent with the applicable accounting literature. If we assume that the highest level of performance conditions are probable, the maximum values of the performance awards as of the date of grant would be $1,295,036 for Mr. Greene; $500,038 for Mr. McCalmont; $252,854 for Mr. Wilson; and $150,039 for Mr. Bozman.

 

The amounts shown reflect the grant date fair values for the awards, and do not necessarily correspond to the actual value that will be recognized by the named executives from the awards. Whether, and to what extent, a named executive realizes value will depend on our stock price at the time of vesting and at the time of sale of the related common stock.

 

The following table provides information on the holdings of restricted stock and stock options by the named executives at December 31, 2010. Each equity grant is shown separately for each named executive. The vesting schedule for each grant is shown in the footnotes to the table.