Skip to main content

Reading between the lines: Ratner may seek $163M (or more) in subsidies for the railyard

What did Chuck Ratner, president of Forest City Enterprises (FCE), mean when he told investment analysts two weeks ago that "we still need more" subsidies for Atlantic Yards?

I can't be sure, but documents submitted by FCE's subsidiary Forest City Ratner (FCR) hint that the developer might seek reimbursement for $163 million (likely more) spent on "extraordinary infrastructure costs"--mainly the platform, but also including planned open space--at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard.

Why do I draw that conclusion? Because FCR once claimed that it was absorbing those extraordinary infrastructure costs, part of its investment in the project.

In a court document, FCR dropped that claim. Thus it's reasonable to speculate that the developer will seek reimbursement from the public.

The MTA bid

Let's look at the developer's 2005 bid for the Vanderbilt Yard, a document included last year as part of the litigation over the Atlantic Yards environmental review.

In the document submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, FCR estimated the total value of the bid at $492.4 million. (Click to enlarge.)

That included $182 million for a new railyard, $20 million for environmental remediation, $25.4 million in compensation for increased operating costs, $29 million in mass transit improvements, and $23 million in sales tax revenue. That's $279.4 million. With $50 million in cash (the original proposal), the total reaches $329.4 million.

Then FCR added $163 million in "extraordinary infrastructure costs incurred by the developer to build on the MTA parcels," including a new platform and public open space. The total: $492.4 million.

Given that FCR eventually upped its cash bid to $100 million, the total value might be adjusted to $542.4 million.

What they told the court

However, that $542.4 million figure was not to be found in former FCR executive Jim Stuckey's affidavit filed on 4/27/07 in the same lawsuit.

The affidavit omits the $163 million.

Stuckey stated: While petitioners are correct that FCRC's bid contained an offer of $100 million in cash while Extell's bid offered the MTA $150 million in cash, the petition fails to advise the Court that FCRC's bid also offered to (1) build a new Vanderbilt yard for the MTA at an estimated cost to FCRC of $182 million, (2) conduct environmental remediation and clean-up of the MTA's property at an estimated cost to FCRC of $20 million, (3) compensate MTA for increased operating costs that had an estimated present value of $25,400,000, (4) construct additional mass transit improvements relating to the nearby subway station at an estimated cost to FCRC of $29,000,000, and (5) share with the MTA sales tax revenues from the project that had an estimated present value of $23,000,000 (see Ex. H, at p. 2.1). FCRC's bid thus reasonably could be valued at $379.4 million dollars.

(Was Extell's bid a better deal, as Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn contends, or was Stuckey correct? Stay tuned for another look.)

Doing the math

Given that the $379.4 million claim is $163 million short of the total that assumed "extraordinary infrastructure costs," it's reasonable to conclude that FCR no longer considers itself contributing that $163 million total.

Indeed, given the huge increase in construction costs--the cost of the arena has more than doubled, from $435 million to $950 million since 2005--it's likely that $163 million figure has grown significantly.

"Blank check"

Why did FCR give up the claim? (Could it simply have been an oversight? Not impossible, but I doubt it.)

I don't know, but it could be because Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) in 2005 blew the whistle on the "extraordinary infrastructure costs," pointing out that the term appears in the Atlantic Yards Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the city and state, leaving room for further reimbursement by public parties.

Both the city and state, according to the MOU (right), agreed to “consider making additional contributions for extraordinary infrastructure costs relating to the mixed-use development on the Project Site (excluding the Arena Building Site)."

DDDB calls this a “blank check.” Indeed, given the use of the term "extraordinary infrastructure costs" in both the MTA bid and the MOU, it's not hard to connect the dots.

More hints in the GPP

Some different language that also hints at a "blank check" appears on p. 27 of the Modified General Project Plan approved in December 2006 by the Empire State Development Corporation.

It defines advances of pledged State and City funds ($200 million at the time) under the Funding Agreements as "Additional Fundings" that would go to a variety of uses until the announced contributions are exhausted.

Then, the document continues:
In addition, Additional Fundings shall be made taking into account monies expended by FCRC, provided that (1) at no time will (i) the costs reimbursed to FCRC by the City and State, in the aggregate, exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total costs incurred and paid by FCRC, and (ii) the amounts funded by the State exceed the amounts funded by the City, and (2) such Additional Fundings shall be made upon other terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the parties.

In other words, the term "Additional Fundings" is first used as a definition for pledged contributions, then used as a definition for further new contributions.

If those contributions shall be made, as the document states, "taking into account monies expended by FCRC," then money spent on "extraordinary infrastructure" for the railyard seems the most obvious candidate.

Comments

  1. What did he mean by "we still need more" subsidies for Atlantic Yards?"

    1. He meant that the project is a loser and he wants someone to play back-stop.

    2. He sense that the politicos really want this project and he can make it more profitable for himself.

    3. He senses that the politicos want out and this is a graceful way for all to kill it.

    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.