Skip to main content

Another potential snag for AY arena financing: foregone property tax may severely cap tax-exempt bonds

Even if the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and the City of New York succeed in getting tax-exempt financing for the Atlantic Yards arena under the more lenient rules that applied to the new Yankees and Mets stadiums, bonding for the arena faces another potential snag: tax-exempt bond payments, given the cost escalation of the arena, threaten to significantly exceed the amount of foregone property tax, which would cap the bond payments.

If so, that would limit the amount of tax-exempt bonds issued by the state on behalf of the $950 million arena. That suggests that developer Forest City Ratner, which aims to have $800 million in tax-exempt bonds issued--at a savings of an estimated $165 million over taxable bonds--might have to accept a smaller amount of tax-exempt bonds.

The more taxable bonds, the more the deal would cut into the developer’s profit. Thus, should Atlantic Yards proceed, the city’s tax assessment on the arena site will deserve a close look, given that the assessment would regulate the amount of tax-exempt bonds issued and thus the amount of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) used to pay back the bonds.

That figure remains unknown, but if it bears any relation to the foregone property tax for Madison Square Garden, it might be a big problem for Forest City Ratner. Tax assessments, of course, are subject to many factors, so it’s also possible a revised assessment might line up neatly with the amount of tax-exempt bonds that Forest City Ratner ultimately seeks.

ESDC aims to maximize tax-exempt bonds

“Our goal is to maximize the amount of tax-exempt bonds,” ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston stated by email. “We have not determined the dollar amount of the annual PILOT payment. However, PILOT payments will not exceed full taxes, which is based on the assessment.”

[Note the comment below, which suggests the term "full" implies the absence of various exemptions, and thus potentially a significant sum.]

The assessed value of the premises will be determined by the city assessor, he noted, and that has not yet occurred. “Consequently, the maximum amount of tax-exempt financing that is permissible may be impacted by the assessment,” he said.

Bettina Damiani of the watchdog group Good Jobs New York has taken a close look at the Yankee Stadium project; she said that the expected PILOT payments for the arena and the stadiums should have been announced “long ago--when a project is proposed.”

She acknowledged that numbers change regarding such projects, but they can be updated. “People want to be engaged in these large projects,” she said. “It makes it easier to think it a done deal when people on the ground aren't given figures they should have.”

Looking at the rules

Let’s recap. Tax-exempt financing for stadiums, according to a 1986 law, appears limited to bonds backed by general governmental revenues, such as a sales tax. Such a plan may not be popular with voters, so lawyers for the city, along with the three New York-area teams, came up with a more creative idea: the tax-exempt bonds would be bonds instead backed by PILOTs.

Why PILOTs? Because the land is tax-exempt. So the team owners get to pay off the arena by paying off bond payments that would not be larger than the property tax on the site that would be assessed were the property not tax-exempt.

That’s the reason that Yankee Stadium and the Atlantic Yards arena would be nominally publicly-owned--it’s another discount for the AY developer, since Forest City Ratner has to pay only PILOTs rather than the combination of bond payments and property taxes.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which apparently had not agreed to such PILOT deals before, claims that it was compelled to do so regarding the Yankees and Mets in 2006 because of 1997 regulations. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, chair of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, disagrees strenuously.

Narrowing the regulation

However, to close what the IRS chief counsel admits is a “loophole,” the IRS in 2006 proposed narrowing--but hardly eliminating--the opportunity to use PILOTs to pay off tax-exempt bonds. Rather than allow the PILOTs to be a fixed sum--which makes it much easier to sell the bonds, since bond buyers seek predictability--the PILOTs would have to be keyed to fluctuating property tax assessments.

In other words, they really would have to look like payments in lieu of taxes.

The city and ESDC oppose such a limit. They are currently lobbying to get grandfathered in both the Yankees and Mets deals, given that both teams want to sell additional PILOT bonds this year, as well as the Atlantic Yards arena, given that plans were in process before the revised regulation was proposed.

The regulation was supposed to be finalized early last year, but Kucinich’s subcommittee held two hearings relating to the issue, and lobbying continues. On May 23, Kucinich asked the IRS and Treasury Department to desist from approving any more sports facility deals based on PILOTs, pending further clarification of their policies.

Damiani warned that the financing plans in New York may become a national issue. “Is this going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back on public financing?” she mused. Unless Congress fixes the rules, “what prevents all the stadiums in the future from hiring the Yankees’ attorneys?”

The Yankee Stadium example

For some $943 million in tax-exempt bonds were issued by the city, the Yankees would make PILOT payments of $56.7 million. (See chart at right, from page marked 6 of this 23MB+ PDF. Click on graphic to enlarge.)

How would those numbers relate to property taxes? In a 4/25/06 analysis, the Independent Budget Office estimated the projected initial property tax bill for the new Yankee Stadium to $39.6 million.

Some two weeks earlier, in testimony before the City Council, the IBO noted:
The solution devised by the project’s planners is a payment in lieu of taxes, which according to the Industrial Development Agency documents will be calculated in a manner similar to the city’s regular property tax. (The stadium will actually be exempt from property tax because it will be publicly owned and leased to the Yankees, rather than being owned outright by the Yankees, in part to help qualify the deal for tax exempt financing.)

Given the large annual payments needed to service the $866 million of tax exempt bonds proposed in the financing plan, it is not clear that a property tax-based PILOT would be sufficient. Assuming an interest rate of 6.5 percent, annual debt service payments for 30 year, level payment bonds would be about $66 million. Based on the $736 million estimated construction cost for the new stadium plus the existing land value, IBO estimates that a regular property tax bill would be about $37 million (before exemptions)—considerably below the annual debt service payments.

(Emphasis added)

Note that the amount of tax-exempt bonds has already gone up to $943 million, a nearly nine percent increase, so we can assume that the property tax bill would have risen from $39.6 million to well over $40 million.

But does it reach $56.7 million, the amount of the PILOTs? That’s a question that should be asked at the State Assembly hearing planned on these stadium deals.

The Atlantic Yards arena example

Extrapolating from the amount of bonds and the PILOT payments for the Yankees, a similar 6% ratio suggests annual PILOT payments on $800 million in tax-exempt Atlantic Yards arena bonds would be about $48 million.

In 1/7/08 testimony to the City Council Finance Committee, Theresa Devine of the Independent Budget Office stated that owners of Madison Square Garden, who benefit from a full property tax exemption, were saving $11 million in the current fiscal year.

That’s a lot less than $48 million.

In its September 2005 report on Atlantic Yards, the IBO estimated the value of the Atlantic Yards arena at $100 a square foot, compared to Madison Square Garden at $125/sf. Based on the $100 figure, the IBO had calculated the foregone property tax at the Atlantic Yards arena at only $3.85 million.

The value of Madison Square Garden, IBO’s George Sweeting told me in a recent email, is now calculated for tax purposes at $250/sf. So even if doubled to $200/sf, the foregone property tax for the AY arena would be less than $8 million a year--a reasonable ratio if the figure for Madison Square Garden is $11 million.

Sweeting noted that the agency’s 2005 analysis “was based loosely on the Department of Finance’s official market value for MSG at the time, discounting for differences in land value. It is probably true that neither the MSG value assigned by the city, nor the AY arena value estimated by IBO, reflect the actual cost somebody would pay to buy the land and build a new arena. We based our value on an assumption that whatever the Finance Department is doing when valuing MSG, they would do for AY.”

If so, there would have to be a lot more taxable bonds than currently contemplated.

Will PILOTs track property tax?

In a footnote to its September 2005 report on Atlantic Yards, the IBO noted:
Under IRS regulations, there are a number of tests concerning the use of revenue from sports facilities to back private activity bonds. Essentially, in order to qualify for tax-exempt status, debt service can be paid from arena-generated revenue only if it is collected as payment of an existing tax or tax-equivalent (that is, a PILOT). This seems to imply that the PILOT payments cannot be significantly discounted or increased from the regular property tax amount or they will not pass the IRS test.


So what would be the regular property tax amount for the AY arena? That issue becomes ever more worthy of scrutiny as the question of PILOTs for Atlantic Yards emerges. How can the foregone property tax--which would seem to be less than $10 million--match up with PILOTs that could well exceed $40 million?

Then again, maybe there’s some wiggle room to calculate what ESDC said was “full taxes.” Would some other calculation be added to suggest that the foregone property taxes for the AY arena would be larger than those forgone by Madison Square Garden, which, while older, is somewhat larger and clearly located at a more valuable intersection?

Comments

  1. I think there is a basic misunderstanding of what others have said and how pilots and other tax exemptions work.
    PILOTS payment in lieu of taxes are the full property tax that would be payable on the property without consideration of any tax exemptions program such as J-51 or any other reduction available. So the 11 million dollars that would be payable on Madison Square Garden assumes the "normal" tax reductions available to others would be used-not the special no taxes that MSG pays. But I do believe that for PILOT purposes the unreduced property tax is available to fund the bonds and this amount is much more than the 11 million that MSG would be liable to pay.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Our goal is to maximize the amount of tax-exempt bonds,” ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston stated by email.- (This is a quote from the above post.)- Let me repeat: “Our goal is to maximize the amount of tax-exempt bonds,” ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston stated by email.

    “Our goal is to maximize the amount of tax-exempt bonds!” How out of control is this process? It seems as if this public official is forgetting a lot. He is obviously forgetting that every dollar `maximized’ with this kind of subsidy doesn’t go anywhere except straight into Forest City Ratner’s pocket: Nothing goes to the public- The way that ESDC is negotiating subsidies with Ratner actually precludes the negotiation of any tittle or jot back to the public. Such maximization doesn’t even mean that Ratner will spend more money on construction or otherwise inject it into the economy.

    For more on ESDC’s predilection to negotiate for Ratner rather than for the public see the comment at: http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/as-irs-moves-to-close-loophole-esdc.html
    Rather than serving the public, ESDC likes to put itself in service toward setting Ratner up as a monopolistic juggernaut.

    Michael D. D. White
    Noticing New York

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Barclays Center/Levy Restaurants hit with suit charging discrimination on disability, race; supervisors said to use vicious slurs, pursue retaliation

The Daily News has an article today, Barclays Center hit with $5M suit claiming discrimination against disabled, while the New York Post headlined its article Barclays Center sued over taunting disabled employees.

While that's part of the lawsuit, more prominent are claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, with black employees claiming repeated abuse by white supervisors, preferential treatment toward Hispanic colleagues, and retaliation in response to complaints.

Two individual supervisors, for example, are charged with  referring to black employees as “black motherfucker,” “dumb black bitch,” “black monkey,” “piece of shit” and “nigger.”

Two have referred to an employee blind in one eye as “cyclops,” and “the one-eyed guy,” and an employee with a nose disorder as “the nose guy.”

There's been no official response yet though arena spokesman Barry Baum told the Daily News they, but take “allegations of this kind very seriously” and have "a zero tolerance policy for…

Behind the "empty railyards": 40 years of ATURA, Baruch's plan, and the city's diffidence

To supporters of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, it's a long-awaited plan for long-overlooked land. "The Atlantic Yards area has been available for any developer in America for over 100 years,” declared Borough President Marty Markowitz at a 5/26/05 City Council hearing.

Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, mused on 11/15/05 to WNYC's Brian Lehrer, “Isn’t it interesting that these railyards have sat for decades and decades and decades, and no one has done a thing about them.” Forest City Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco, in a 12/19/04 New York Times article ("In a War of Words, One Has the Power to Wound") described the railyards as "an empty scar dividing the community."

But why exactly has the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard never been developed? Do public officials have some responsibility?

At a hearing yesterday of the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee, Kate Suisma…

Barclays Center event June 11 to protest plans to expand Israeli draft; questions about logistics

At right is a photo of a poster spotted in Hasidic Williamsburg right. Clearly there's an event scheduled at the Barclays Center aimed at the Haredi Jewish community (strict Orthodox Jews who reject secular culture), but the lack of English text makes it cryptic.

The website Matzav.com explains, Protest Against Israeli Draft of Bnei Yeshiva Rescheduled for Barclays Center:
A large asifa to protest the drafting of bnei yeshiva in Eretz Yisroel into the Israeli army that had been set to take place this month will instead be held on Sunday, 17 Sivan/June 11, at the Barclays Center in Downtown Brooklyn, NY. So attendees at a big gathering will protest an apparent change of policy that will make it much more difficult for traditional Orthodox Jewish students--both Hasidic (who follow a rebbe) and non-Hasidic (who don't)--to get deferments from the draft. Comments on the Yeshiva World website explain some of the debate.

The logistical questions

What's unclear is how large the ev…

Atlanta's Atlantic Yards moves ahead

First mentioned in April, the Atlantic Yards project in Atlanta is moving ahead--and has the potential to nudge Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn further down in Google searches.

According to a 5/30/17 press release, Hines and Invesco Real Estate Announce T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards:
Hines, the international real estate firm, and Invesco Real Estate, a global real estate investment manager, today announced a joint venture on behalf of one of Invesco Real Estate’s institutional clients to develop two progressive office projects in Atlanta totalling 700,000 square feet. T3 West Midtown will be a 200,000-square-foot heavy timber office development and Atlantic Yards will consist of 500,000 square feet of progressive office space in two buildings. Both projects are located on sites within Atlantic Station in the flourishing Midtown submarket.
Hines will work with Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture (HPA) as the design architect for both T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards. DLR Group will be t…

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…

Not quite the pattern: Greenland selling development sites, not completed condos

Real Estate Weekly, reporting on trends in Chinese investment in New York City, on 11/18/15 quoted Jim Costello, a senior vice president at research firm Real Capital Analytics:
“They’re typically building high-end condos, build it and sell it. Capital return is in a few years. That’s something that is ingrained in the companies that have been coming here because that’s how they’ve grown in the last 35 years. It’s always been a development game for them. So they’re just repeating their business model here,” he said. When I read that last November, I didn't think it necessarily applied to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, now 70% owned (outside of the Barclays Center and B2 modular apartment tower), by the Greenland Group, owned significantly by the Shanghai government.
A majority of the buildings will be rentals, some 100% market, some 100% affordable, and several--the last several built--are supposed to be 50% market/50% subsidized. (See tentative timetable below.)

Selling development …

"There is no alternative": DM Glen on de Blasio's affordable housing strategy

As I've written, Mayor Bill de Blasio sure knows how to steer and spin coverage of his affordable housing initiatives.

Indeed, his latest announcement, claiming significant progress, came with a pre-press release op-ed in the New York Daily News and then a friendly photo-op press conference with an understandably grateful--and very lucky--winner of an affordable housing lottery.

To me, though, the most significant quote came from Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen, who, as the Wall Street Journal reported:
said public housing had been “starved” of federal support for years now, leaving the city with fewer ways of creating affordable housing. “Are we relying too heavily on the private sector?” she said. “There is no alternative.” Though Glen was using what she surely sees as a common-sense phrase, it recalls the slogan of a politician with whom I doubt de Blasio identifies: former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative who believed in free markets.

It suggests the limits to …