Skip to main content

New Treasury Department regulations would grandfather in tax-free bonds for Atlantic Yards arena

[updated 9:21 pm]
In a big boost for developer Forest City Ratner, worth perhaps $165 million, the U.S. Treasury Department has issued a regulation (also below) that would grandfather in tax-exempt bonds for the planned Atlantic Yards arena under a rule the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service (a bureau of the Treasury Department) called a “loophole.”

The Treasury Department, not heeding a request from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to delay action until his inquiries into sports facility finance issues are concluded, on Monday filed a new regulation that, in fact, would eliminate the loophole for new projects. However, a “transitional rule for certain projects substantially in progress” would allow tax-free bonds for the arena, as well additional tax-free bonds for new stadiums under construction for the Yankees and Mets, as requested by city and state economic development agencies.

(That’s my reading of p. 13 and p. 20-21 the document; Treasury Department spokesman Andrew DeSouza told me “we wouldn’t be able to comment on a specific taxpayer.” Let’s expect a statement soon from Forest City Ratner and an acknowledgement in the press that the arena is not nearly as doomed as some believed. The Observer, which got confirmation from an unnamed state official, puts the gain at perhaps $100 million.)


"The IRS's attempt to favor Bruce Ratner to the tune of an estimated $165 million on the backs of federal taxpayers, for a project that does nothing for those taxpayers, is obscene and offensive in the midst of an historic $700 billion bailout and a national fiscal crisis," commented Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) spokesman Daniel Goldstein. (DDDB claimed the regulation doesn't apply to the AY arena, though that's a minority view.)

Bettina Damiani, Project Director of Good Jobs New York, noted that part of the regulation seems written to help the three sports teams: "The mumbo jumbo language that will help the NYC applicants borders on the comical. Isn’t it interesting that in the midst of what some people have called a global economic crisis, officials found the time to give more tax breaks to rich sports franchises?"

"This is another example of powerful special interests getting access to public dollars under this administration," Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a critic of the Yankees deal, told the AP. "The rules don't apply if you've got enough juice."

Forest City spokesman Joe DePlasco gave a statement to the Observer: “We are of course very pleased with the Treasury Department regulation. The tax exempt financing was always part of the plan for the development of the arena and the regulation released today acknowledges that. The regulation will help us move forward with a project that is critical to the on-going economic vitality of Brooklyn and the City.”

While tax-exempt financing (updated 8:12 a.m Wednesday: backed by PILOTs) was long part of the plan for the development of the arena, it certainly wasn't at first. The regulation, in effect, acknowledges projects for which tax-exempt financing had been planned, but it doesn't say anything specific about Atlantic Yards, nor anything about financing being "always part of the plan."

Potential snags

Forest City Ratner has said it expects $800 million in triple (city/state/federal) tax-exempt bonds for the $950 million arena, but even with the new regulation, there are some potential snags.

For one thing, the new regulation requires that bonds for the project be issued on or before December 31, 2009. While major litigation should be concluded by then, giving the developer a cushion, it’s possible that some new legal challenge might emerge.

Also, should the pending challenge to the project’s environmental impact statement (EIS) be successful, the courts could require a new such EIS—or declare the finding of blight illegitimate.

"We will consider all options if Ratner attempts to have issued a tax-exempt bond under this rule," Goldstein said.

Another potential roadblock involves whether city officials have “gamed” tax assessments for the arena, inflating them to be commensurate with the large PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) needed to pay off the arena bonds.

Kucinich, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has scheduled a hearing Friday to look into charges that the city did “game” such assessments for the new Yankee Stadium. The new regulation may well be under discussion, as well.

Can the regulation be challenged? Treasury Department spokesman DeSouza said, "Again, I want to emphasize that there was a long comment period for the proposed regulations when they were issued in October 2006. We took all of the comments into consideration when moving forward with the final regulations. I'll also note that the area in the tax code that deals with PILOTs is well established--back to the 1970s, and the tax code provides us very broad regulatory authority. That said, like any other piece of regulation or law, should someone have problems with the final regulations they have the ability to go to court."

When it started

The new regulation was promulgated on October 19, 2006, after the IRS—reluctantly, officials have said—provided private letter rulings (PLRs) allowing the issuance of fixed PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) for the new stadiums for the Mets and Yankees.

While property taxes typically fluctuate, the PLRs allowed fixed PILOTs, which make it much easier to sell bonds. (The new regulation, while it allows for some adjustment of PILOTs, requires them to more closely resemble taxes.)

“Substantially in progress”?

In agreeing to allow fixed PILOTs for the Atlantic Yards arena, the Treasury Department essentially agreed with arguments from the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) that the Atlantic Yards arena was “substantially in progress” by October 19, 2006—surely a debatable issue.

DDDB's Goldstein commented, "It is clear that the IRS has written the 'Transitional rule for certain projects, substantially in progress,' in an attempt to specifically qualify Ratner for the tax-exempt bond, but that attempt fails as it does not apply to Ratner; no official action was taken on his arena prior to the IRS's Oct. 19, 2006 date.

City/state request

In the 5/8/08 letter to the Treasury Department, the city and state agencies had said that the proposed 120-day transitional period to complete ongoing transactions was insufficient:
Finally, the new regulations should not apply to bonds issued to finance a project that was described in a resolution, memorandum of understanding, or other preliminary approval adopted by a governmental entity prior to October 19, 2006. As we discussed, the Atlantic Yards project fits into this last category. The bonds for the Atlantic Yards project are expected to be issued in 2008, although there are several ongoing litigation appeals and there could be additional litigation-related delays.

Along with the deadline for issuing the bonds, the new regulations provide two other requirements for projects “substantially in progress”:
(i) A governmental person (as defined in §1.141-1) took official action evidencing its preliminary approval of the project before October 19, 2006, and the plan of finance for the project in place at that time contemplated financing the project with tax-exempt bonds to be paid or secured by PILOTs.
(ii) Before October 19, 2006, significant expenditures were paid or incurred with respect to the project or a contract was entered into to pay or incur significant expenditures with respect to the project.

Matter of debate

Whether Atlantic Yards was “substantially in progress” as of October 19, 2006, the date of the proposed regulations, remains a matter of significant debate. The project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in July 2006, at the same time the appointed board of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC)--a governmental entity, though not an elected one--approved the General Project Plan. The project was formally approved by the ESDC board, however, only in December 2006.

DDDB earlier pointed out that the $47 million related to the Arena spent before 2007, as cited in the city/state letter, is a little less than 5% of the cost of the $950 million arena, and that the “expenditures are for needed basic infrastructure in the area, independently necessary for public purposes without regard to the proposed development.”

Timing issues

DDDB earlier also challenged the chronology in the city/state letter, which, in attempting to illustrate “substantial progress,” offered this claim:
The Project commenced in 2003; the Arena is anticipated to be completed in 2010, and the balance of the Project is expected to be built over the next decade.

DDDB argued:
These claims are palpably, self-servingly and cynically false.... This is one example of why the IRS should be reviewing all the assertions in the Ratner Arena Letter with rigorous skepticism and rejecting many of them.

Indeed, the developer now says that the arena would open in 2011, though 2012 is a more likely best-case scenario. Few believe that the project could be completed in a decade.

Indeed, as DDDB earlier pointed out, when the project was announced, the arena completion was set for 2006. DDDB also noted that the city/state letter fails to cite the State Funding Agreement that allows 6-plus years to build the arena after the close of litigation and delivery of property by eminent domain, 12-plus years to build the rest of Phase 1, and no timeline to build Phase 2, which would contain most of the project.

2008 Treasury Regulations on PILOTs


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…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

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…