Skip to main content

A $1.4 billion boon? The mystery of the ESDC's fiscal impact calculus

The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) claims that the Atlantic Yards project would provide a huge fiscal boost, $1.4 billion in new city and state revenues in excess of "the public contribution" over the next 30 years.

The problem: there's no way to see how the ESDC, in the General Project Plan (GPP), arrives at that calculation.

How exactly is "the public contribution" toted up? Does it consist of direct subsidies? Yes. Some tax breaks? Yes. Costs for public safety, education, and sanitation services? Subsidies for housing? There's no evidence that it does.

The GPP, along with the associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), goes into great detail about the projected benefits of Atlantic Yards. But they provide scant information on the costs, rendering these lengthy documents much less useful than previous reports by the Independent Budget Office and even Forest City Ratner consultant Andrew Zimbalist.

Professor Tom Angotti of the Hunter College Center for Community Preservation and Development points out that the ESDC “gives us no information about the public costs, and we need to know that to assess the costs and benefits.”

ESDC: not yet

The ESDC hasn't been forthcoming. When I asked for the documents that explained how the fiscal impact was calculated, s spokeswoman Jessica Copen responded: "When we go back to our Board with the final GPP and EIS, we will release supplementary info on the economic benefits with a more detailed explanation."

In other words, only when the ESDC is ready to vote on the project--and a 'yes' vote is inevitable--would the public be able to scrutinize the claims made for the project.

Perhaps, as noted below, this issue deserves scrutiny from State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who has conducted independent audits of other economic development projects.

What the GPP says

A section of the GPP, headlined "Economic Impact," states:
ESDC has performed an independent economic impact analysis of the Project. ESDC has Projected that the Project will have the following impacts during construction and for the first 40 years of operations:

[Note: 40 years? The standard period for analysis is 30 years. Copen told me weeks ago that it's a typo. But it hasn't been corrected yet.]

(i) Construction of the Project will generate 15,344 new direct job years and 26,803 total job years (direct, indirect and induced);
(ii) Direct personal income related to construction activities will be $721.0 million and total personal income will be $1.5 billion (direct, indirect and induced);
(iii) Total construction employment will generate $50.4 million in City personal income tax and sales tax on consumption expenditures and $109.5 million for New York State;
(iv) Operations at the Arena and additional spending in the region will support an annual average 6,573 new jobs in New York City (direct, indirect and induced) and an annual average 7,378 jobs (direct, indirect and induced) in New York State (inclusive of New York City); and
(v) On a present value basis, the Project will generate $845.5 million of City tax revenues and $1.1 billion of State tax revenues. Thus the Project will generate $1.4 billion in net tax revenues in excess of the public contribution to the Project.


The Thus in the last paragraph glides over some complicated issues. Even if the benefits calculated are accurate, we don't know the costs. Note that the $1.4 billion is expressed in present value, which is the value of the money as if it were in hand today.

Public contribution vs. public costs

In a section headlined ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AND PUBLIC FINANCING FOR PROPOSED PROJECT, the DEIS Executive Summary cites jobs, taxes, and other benefits, citing a total effect on the local economy, measured as economy output or demand, is projected at between $5.1 and $5.2 billion in New York City and between $6.7 and $6.8 billion overall in New York State.

It discusses both direct contributions and tax breaks, but not public costs for additional public services like schools and public safety:
The City and the State would each provide $100 million in funding to the proposed project. State funding would be used for infrastructure improvements necessary to construct the arena and for the redevelopment of the rail yard. City funding would also be used for necessary infrastructure and rail yard improvements. The City’s contribution could also be used for acquisition costs related to the arena site...

Also discussed: an exemption from sales taxes on construction materials; exemptions from State and City mortgage recording taxes (customary for affordable housing developments); and tax-exempt and taxable bonds for construction, issued by a local development corporation.

$200 million in capital investment

Despite acknowledgement of tax breaks, the document reverts to the narrow analysis that the project would require only $200 million, at least as expressed in capital investment rather than public costs.

It states:
As noted above, the public benefits generated by the operation of the proposed project would be substantial, including thousands of direct and indirect jobs as well as substantial tax revenues over and above real estate tax revenues. The proposed project would generate substantial revenues for the City and State exceeding their combined $200 million capital investment after the second year of operations.
(Emphasis added)

$492.9 million in subsidies?

A 7/24/06 article in the Bond Buyer, headlined NEW YORK TALLYING ARENA AID, quoted the ESDC as saying that the total in subsidies would be $492.9 million, including $200 million in direct assistance plus $292.9 million from mortgage recording and sales tax exemptions.

That number, however, significantly underestimates the total costs of public contributions. According to the IBO:
In his analysis of the Atlantic Yards proposal, Andrew Zimbalist provides a present value estimate of $321.4 million for the combined costs for sanitation and education services over 30 years. (Zimbalist assumes that the new police and fire expenses would be negligible.) IBO’s present value estimate for these costs is $475 million.

Subsidized housing costs

None of the documents estimated the public subsidy for affordable housing, which could be substantial. The Brooklyn Papers reported last 7/16/05:
[O]fficials from the Housing Development Corporation, a city housing fund that finances development projects, committed $67.5 million in subsidies. An article this week in the New York Sun estimated as much as $76 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

FCR's numbers

Zimbalist concluded that "there is a net positive fiscal impact with a present value of $1.55 billion in the General Project Plan," which is $150 million more than what the ESDC calculated.

Zimbalist's conclusion, however, deserves some major footnotes. First, as the IBO estimated, public costs likely would be much higher than his estimate. Second, Zimbalist's revenue figures depend on calculating the income taxes paid by new residents, a dubious tactic which the ESDC explicitly chose to ignore, as noted in Chapter 4, Socioeconomic Conditions:
For either variation, projected tax receipts do not include income tax paid by the residents at the proposed project or income tax from secondary employment generated by such residents. Such revenue would be additional.

The ESDC came up with a fiscal impact figure much like Zimbalist's total by using a completely different methodology.

Can Hevesi help?

More insight is needed, and perhaps it's a job for State Comptroller Hevesi. On August 10, he took a skeptical look at a proposal to build a major resort complex at Belleayre Mountain in Catskill Park. The proposal, Hevesi charged, understates the potential environmental impacts and economic risks of the project and is based on faulty assumptions regarding profitability and comparable developments in other areas.

He continued:
There are simply too many unknowns in the Belleayre proposal as it stands now. Information put forth by the developer to date has not adequately acknowledged the huge environmental impacts and economic risks of this planned resort complex, and appears to have been skewed to discourage consideration of scaled-down options,” Hevesi said, citing worries that state taxpayers would have to pay for "filtration systems for the New York City water supply and other major infrastructure improvements.

Hevesi's report points out that a Department of Environmental Conservation administrative law judge has identified deficiencies in the developer’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and permit application materials, and set 12 issues for further adversarial proceedings.

Most of the issues are environmental, but some are economic. For example, the judge found that the DEIS lacked sufficient economic detail to permit adequate analysis of development alternatives.

What triggers an audit?

I contacted Hevesi's office and asked how the report came about. It was "based on our ongoing interest in economic development issues around the state,"
Deputy Press Secretary Dan Weiller told me.

The Comptroller, who serves as the state's chief fiscal officer, is charged with auditing government operations, including
Conducting management and financial audits of State agencies and public benefit corporations;
Issuing reports on State finances;
Overseeing the fiscal affairs of local governments, including New York City;
Reviewing State contracts, payrolls and payments before they are issued;
OSC monitors, reports on, and coaches other public entities, and works to ensure that governments at all levels are discharging their responsibilities in an efficient, effective, and timely manner.


Weiller said audits by the comptroller's office can be triggered by a range of things, including press and public interest. He said the office welcomes citizen input, though a request from the public does not guarantee an investigation.

Comments

  1. Norman, you included the following two paragraphs:

    "(v) On a present value basis, the Project will generate $845.5 million of City tax revenues and $1.1 billion of State tax revenues. Thus the Project will generate $1.4 billion in net tax revenues in excess of the public contribution to the Project."

    and:

    "The Thus in the last paragraph glides over some complicated issues. Even if the benefits calculated are accurate, we don't know the costs. Note that the $1.4 billion is expressed in present value, which is the value of the money as if it were in hand today."

    Present value calculations are very simple. The missing items are the interest rates used to complete the present value calculation.

    In other words, the present value (today's value of a stream of payments to be made over the coming 30 years) is $845.5 million of city taxes plus $1.1 billion of state taxes, or $1.945.5 billion.

    The report cites NET tax revenue of $1.4 billion.

    Therefore, the number you are looking for is the difference between the two, or $1.945.5 billion minus $1.4 billion, which equals $545.5 million.

    However, what is not clear is whether the $1.4 billion figure is a present-value figure. You have assumed it is. But it is not identified as such.

    Of course that "typo" -- is it a 30-year period or a 40-year period -- makes a lot of difference in calculations of this sort.

    In any case, presenting streams of cash flows occuring over many years as a single figure in today's dollars is standard stuff.

    There are two key rates embedded in the calculation.

    First, the discount rate used to bring all the future payments back to the present.

    Second, the escalation rate for taxes. Taxes will rise over the next 30 oe 40 years.

    Meanwhile, all claims about future revenue are no more than estimates and projections. As always, estimates and projections reflect no more than what is known today about the future. That's not to suggest the numbers are picked from thin air.

    To estimate the interest rates in the calculation I would do the following.

    I would base the discount rate on the 30-year Treasury Bond rate. That's around 5%.

    I would base the tax escalation rate on the historical rate of increase seen over the last 30 years.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.