The following tables describe the Company’s Portfolio as of December 31, 2011.
The first table describes the Company’s communities and the second table describes the Company’s other real estate assets.
(See Note 7 of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for more information about the Company’s secured mortgage debt and Schedule III for a list of secured mortgage loans related to the Company’s Portfolio. )
## Table 0 ##
As of December 31, 2011, the Company had ownership interests in 159 communities, comprising 32,753 apartment units, and the apartment communities are located in the following major West Coast regions: Southern California (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Ventura counties) Northern California (the San Francisco Bay Area) Seattle Metro (Seattle metropolitan area) As of December 31, 2011, the Company also had ownership interests in five commercial buildings (with approximately 315,900 square feet).
As of December 31, 2011, the Company’s development pipeline was comprised of five unconsolidated joint venture projects under development, one unconsolidated joint venture predevelopment project and three consolidated land parcels held for future development or sale aggregating 2,014 units, with total incurred costs of $227.1 million, and estimated remaining project costs of approximately $282.6 million for total estimated project costs of $422.6 million.
By region, the Company's operating results for 2010 and 2011 and projections for 2012 new housing supply, job growth, and rental income as follows: Southern California Region: As of December 31, 2011, this region represented 48% of the Company’s consolidated apartment units.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, revenues for “2011/2010 SameProperties” (as defined below), or “Same-Property revenues,” increased 2.7% in 2011 as compared to 2010.
In 2012, the Company expects new residential supply (excluding Santa Barbara and Riverside counties) of 5,400 multifamily and 5,100 single family homes, which represents a total new supply of 0.2% and 0.1% of existing stock, respectively.
The Company assumes an increase of 78,800 jobs or 1.2%, and an increase in rental income of 3.0% to 5.0% in 2012.
Northern California Region: As of December 31, 2011, this region represented 30% of the Company’s consolidated apartment units.
Same-Property revenues increased 5.7% in 2011 as compared to 2010.
In 2012, the Company expects new residential supply of 3,000 multifamily and 2,200 single family homes, which represents a total new supply of 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively, of existing stock.
The Company assumes an increase of 48,000 jobs or 1.7%, and an increase in rental income of 7.0% to 9.0% in 2012.
Seattle Metro Region: As of December 31, 2011, this region represented 22% of the Company’s consolidated apartment units.
Same-Property revenues increased 4.6% in 2011 as compared to 2010.
In 2012, the Company expects new residential supply of 1,800 multifamily and 3,400 single family homes, which represents a total new supply of 0.5% of existing stock.
The Company assumes an increase of 25,000 jobs or 1.8%, and an increase in rental income of 7.0% to 9.0% in 2012.
The Company expects 2012 same-property revenues to increase between 5% and 7% compared to 2011 results, as renewal leases and new leases are signed at higher rents than 2011 during 2012.
The Company expects sameproperty financial occupancy to be consistent with 2011 at 96.4%, thus 2012 revenues will increase 5% to 7% due to a similar increase in scheduled rent.
Same-property operating expenses are expected to increase from 1.1% in 2011, to a range of 2% and 3% in 2012.
Finally, same-property net operating income (“NOI”) which is defined as sameproperty revenues less same-property operating expenses is expected to increase from 5.5% for 2011 to a range of 7% to 9% in 2012.
The Company’s consolidated communities are as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Co-investments including Fund II and Wesco I communities, Essex Skyline at MacArthur Place, and preferred equity co-investment communities are not included in the table presented above for both years.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (continued) Liquidity and Capital Resources Snap-on’s growth has historically been funded by a combination of cash provided by operating activities and debt financing.
Snap-on believes that its cash from operations and collections of finance receivables, coupled with its sources of borrowings and available cash on hand, are sufficient to fund its currently anticipated requirements for scheduled debt payments (including the March 2014 repayment of $100.0 million of 5.85% unsecured notes upon maturity), payments of interest and dividends, new receivables originated by our financial services businesses, capital expenditures, working capital, restructuring activities, the funding of pension plans, and funding for additional share repurchases and acquisitions, if any.
Due to Snap-on’s credit rating over the years, external funds have been available at an acceptable cost.
As of the close of business on February 7, 2014, Snap-on’s long-term debt and commercial paper were rated, respectively, A3 and P-2 by Moody’s Investors Service; A- and A-2 by Standard & Poor’s; and A- and F2 by Fitch Ratings.
Snap-on believes that its current credit arrangements are sound and that the strength of its balance sheet affords the company the financial flexibility to respond to both internal growth opportunities and those available through acquisitions.
However, Snap-on cannot provide any assurances of the availability of future financing or the terms on which it might be available, or that its debt ratings may not decrease.
The following discussion focuses on information included in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.
As of 2013 year end, working capital (current assets less current liabilities) of $1,080.8 million increased $1.0 million from $1,079.8 million as of 2012 year end.
The following represents the company’s working capital position as of 2013 and 2012 year end:
## Table 2 ##
Cash and cash equivalents of $217.6 million as of 2013 year end compared to cash and cash equivalents of $214.5 million at 2012 year end.
The $3.1 million net increase in cash and cash equivalents includes the impacts of (i) $508.8 million of cash from collections of finance receivables; (ii) $392.6 million of cash generated from operations, net of $24.3 million of discretionary cash contributions to the company’s pension plans; (iii) $29.2 million of cash proceeds from stock purchase and option plan exercises; and (iv) $8.4 million of cash proceeds from the sale of property and equipment.
These increases in cash and cash equivalents were largely offset by (i) the funding of $651.3 million of new finance receivables; (ii) dividend payments to shareholders of $92.0 million; (iii) the repurchase of 926,000 shares of the company’s common stock for $82.6 million; (iv) the funding of $70.6 million of capital expenditures; and (v) the May 2013 acquisition of Challenger for a cash purchase price of $38.2 million.
Of the $217.6 million of cash and cash equivalents as of 2013 year end, $124.3 million was held outside of the United States.
Snap-on considers these non-U.
S.  funds as permanently invested in its foreign operations to (i) provide adequate working capital; (ii) satisfy various regulatory requirements; and/or (iii) take advantage of business expansion opportunities as they arise; as such, the company does not presently expect to repatriate these funds to fund its U. S.  operations or obligations.
The repatriation of cash from certain foreign subsidiaries could have adverse net tax consequences on the company should Snap-on be required to pay and record U. S.  income taxes and foreign withholding taxes on funds that were previously considered permanently invested.
Alternatively, the repatriation of such cash from certain other foreign subsidiaries could result in favorable net tax consequences for the company.
Snap-on periodically evaluates opportunities to repatriate certain foreign cash amounts to the extent that it does not incur additional unfavorable net tax consequences.

['

Communities-1	Location	Units	RentableSquareFootage	YearBuilt	YearAcquired	Occupancy-2
Southern California
Alpine Country	Alpine, CA	108	81,900	1986	2002	95%
Alpine Village	Alpine, CA	301	254,400	1971	2002	97%
Anavia	Anaheim, CA	250	312,343	2009	2010	92%
Barkley, The-3(4)	Anaheim, CA	161	139,800	1984	2000	97%
Bonita Cedars	Bonita, CA	120	120,800	1983	2002	96%
Camarillo Oaks	Camarillo, CA	564	459,000	1985	1996	96%
Camino Ruiz Square	Camarillo, CA	160	105,448	1990	2006	98%
Cielo -5	Chatsworth, CA	119	125,400	2009	2009	96%
Cambridge	Chula Vista, CA	40	22,100	1965	2002	96%
Mesa Village	Clairemont, CA	133	43,600	1963	2002	98%
Parcwood-5	Corona, CA	312	270,000	1989	2004	95%
Tierra del Sol/Norte	El Cajon, CA	156	117,000	1969	2002	97%
Regency at Encino	Encino, CA	75	78,487	1989	2009	96%
Valley Park-6	Fountain Valley, CA	160	169,700	1969	2001	97%
Capri at Sunny Hills-6	Fullerton, CA	100	128,100	1961	2001	97%
Wilshire Promenade	Fullerton, CA	149	128,000	1992	1997	97%
Montejo-6	Garden Grove, CA	124	103,200	1974	2001	96%
CBC Apartments	Goleta, CA	148	91,538	1962	2006	96%
Chimney Sweep Apartments	Goleta, CA	91	88,370	1967	2006	83%
416 on Broadway	Glendale, CA	115	126,782	2009	2010	93%
Hampton Court	Glendale, CA	83	71,500	1974	1999	97%
Hampton Place	Glendale, CA	132	141,500	1970	1999	97%
Devonshire	Hemet, CA	276	207,200	1988	2002	94%
Huntington Breakers	Huntington Beach, CA	342	241,700	1984	1997	96%
Axis 2300	Irvine, CA	115	170,714	2010-7	2010	96%
Hillsborough Park	La Habra, CA	235	215,500	1999	1999	97%
Trabuco Villas	Lake Forest, CA	132	131,000	1985	1997	97%
Marbrisa	Long Beach, CA	202	122,800	1987	2002	97%
Pathways	Long Beach, CA	296	197,700	1975-8	1991	96%
Belmont Station	Los Angeles, CA	275	225,000	2008	2008	97%
Bellerive	Los Angeles, CA	63	79,296	2011	2011	99%
Bunker Hill	Los Angeles, CA	456	346,600	1968	1998	96%
Cochran Apartments	Los Angeles, CA	58	51,400	1989	1998	97%
Kings Road	Los Angeles, CA	196	132,100	1979-9	1997	97%
Marbella, The	Los Angeles, CA	60	50,108	1991	2005	97%
Park Place	Los Angeles, CA	60	48,000	1988	1997	97%
Renaissance, The-5	Los Angeles, CA	169	154,268	1990-10	2006	97%
Santee Court	Los Angeles, CA	165	132,040	2004	2010	93%
Santee Village	Los Angeles, CA	73	69,817	2011	2010	99%
Windsor Court	Los Angeles, CA	58	46,600	1988	1997	97%
Marina City Club-11	Marina Del Rey, CA	101	127,200	1971	2004	98%
Mirabella	Marina Del Rey, CA	188	176,800	2000	2000	97%
Mira Monte	Mira Mesa, CA	355	262,600	1982-12	2002	97%
Hillcrest Park	Newbury Park, CA	608	521,900	1973	1998	96%
Fairways-13	Newport Beach, CA	74	107,100	1972	1999	98%
Muse	North Hollywood, CA	152	135,292	2011	2011	99%
Country Villas	Oceanside, CA	180	179,700	1976	2002	96%
Mission Hills	Oceanside, CA	282	244,000	1984	2005	96%
Mariners Place	Oxnard, CA	105	77,200	1987	2000	97%
Monterey Villas	Oxnard, CA	122	122,100	1974	1997	96%
Tierra Vista	Oxnard, CA	404	387,100	2001	2001	97%
Arbors Parc Rose-14	Oxnard, CA	373	503,196	2001	2011	94%
Monterra del Mar	Pasadena, CA	123	74,400	1972	1997	96%
Monterra del Rey	Pasadena, CA	84	73,100	1972	1999	97%
Monterra del Sol	Pasadena, CA	85	69,200	1972	1999	97%
Villa Angelina-6	Placentia, CA	256	217,600	1970	2001	97%

', '

As of December 31, 2011	As of December 31, 2010
Apartment Units	%	Apartment Units	%
Southern California	13,205	48%	13,076	49%
Northern California	8,106	30%	7,696	29%
Seattle Metro	6,108	22%	5,980	22%
Total	27,419	100%	26,752	100%

', '

(Amounts in millions)	2013	2012
Cash and cash equivalents	$217.6	$214.5
Trade and other accounts receivable – net	531.6	497.9
Finance receivables – net	374.6	323.1
Contract receivables – net	68.4	62.7
Inventories – net	434.4	404.2
Other current assets	169.6	166.6
Total current assets	1,796.2	1,669.0
Notes payable and current maturities of long-term debt	-113.1	-5.2
Accounts payable	-155.6	-142.5
Other current liabilities	-446.7	-441.5
Total current liabilities	-715.4	-589.2
Working capital	$1,080.8	$1,079.8

']

Question: What's the average of Working capital of 2012, and Monterra del Sol of RentableSquareFootage ?
Answer: 35139.9