Skip to main content

IBO responds to ESDC critique of fiscal analysis: "we remain confident in our methodology and results"

One intriguing mini-drama during the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) board meeting on September 17 concerned the agency's response to a New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO) report concluding that the Atlantic Yards arena would be a loss for the city.

The ESDC's dismissal of the IBO's report was noted both verbally and in a Response to Comments document, but the ESDC's logic was sketchy, as I'll describe below.

And, after I forwarded the critique to the IBO, the official behind the report told me "we remain confident in our methodology and results."

Indeed, as I'll describe, I think the IBO could've been considered too conservative.

Report issued

On September 10, the IBO issued its report The Proposed Arena at Atlantic Yards: An Analysis of City Fiscal Gains and Losses. Opponents and critics seized on the agency's finding that the arena would be a loss for the city, a modest gain for the state, and an opportunity for developer to gain $726 million in subsidies and tax breaks.

In the New York Times's CityRoom blog, representatives of the New York City Economic Development Corporation and Forest City Ratner criticized the study for not looking at the project as a whole.

Curiously enough, in 2005, Forest City Ratner had no problem with the IBO’s methodology, praising it for concluding that the arena was a “win-win” situation for the city and the state.

At the ESDC meeting

During the board meeting, Richard Neiman, the New York State Superintendent of Banks, brought up the issue: "With reference to the recent Independent Budget Office report--it makes several assessments of the various costs and benefits. I'd like to hear from the staff how that correlates to the analysis done by the ESDC."

"Sure," responded ESDC Senior Counsel Steven Matlin. "We did take a look at the IBO report, which did recently come out. What the IBO did was: they looked at an arena-only project and, as someone indicated, their conclusion was that the arena, as a standalone, was a negative. It would cost the city money and there would be modest benefits to the state. Our approach, which we think is the proper approach, is to look at the project as an entirety. Our bargain is not just for an arena; our bargain is for an arena and the 16 towers that are also included in the project. So the analysis that we've done, and the analysis that we've shown to the directors, is for the entire project. The other thing I do want to mention too is that, when you look at the IBO report, there are certain assumptions that we think are flawed and I'm not sure that that report, even looking at the arena alone, is a report that--it certainly is not a report that we would agree with their conclusions."

Neiman followed up: "And the major assumption that you believe was flawed?"

Matlin didn't mention any flawed assumptions regarding the arena alone: "The primary difference between the analysis that we've done and the analysis that the IBO did is: we looked at the entire project. They looked just at what type of fiscal benefits would be generated from an arena."

ESDC hypocrisy

Matlin's statement was more than a little hypocritical. The IBO makes a reasonable case that most of the direct subsidies go to the arena, as the other subsidies would be as-of-right.

More importantly, the IBO shows--at least in part--how it arrives at its calculations. The ESDC just provides an "economic benefit analysis", a successor to an "economic impact analysis," without any explanation of how it was calculated, nor with any subsidies and tax breaks factored in.

Also, the IBO didn't look at an "arena-only project," as Matlin suggested; had it looked at the project as a whole, it would've had to factor in many more tax breaks, though they are as of right.

Still, even the ESDC acknowledged in June that “prolonged adverse economic conditions” could slow all buildings after the arena and just one tower.

The ESDC's "economic benefit analysis" assumes a full buildout of the project in a decade; that's very unlikely.

The written response

The Response to Comments document distributed to the board also addressed the issue.

Comment 2: Numerous commenters stated that a preliminary report from the New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO) showed that the Arena would be a financial loss and thus requested that ESDC extend the public comment period beyond August 31st in order to consider an updated IBO report on the Arena.

Response: ESDC received the IBO report on the Arena after the close of the public comment period but has nevertheless considered the report. The analysis was done without consultation with or inputs from the City, State, or FCRC. The report’s fiscal estimates focus on the Arena but are based on a number of materially inaccurate assumptions. The report incorrectly assumes that all direct city and state subsidies for the Project are solely for the Arena and also eliminates from consideration the fiscal benefits from the non-Arena portion of the Project. ESDC believes that this methodology does not account for the full fiscal and civic benefits of the Project and does not accurately characterize the direct subsidies. The opportunity cost analysis also contains a number of incorrect assumptions. For example, it relies on a claim that the MTA land sale was below market and uses the difference in the purchase price offered by Extell and FCRC without taking into account the difference in the value of the yard and other improvements that were part of the selected FCRC bid. It also attributes a value of $3.7 million to the City streets contributed to the Project based on $60 per square foot; however, the streets do not have development rights and therefore should not be valued according to other land comparables. The report incorrectly states that the Arena site will be leased to an FCRC affiliate for 99 years for $1.00. The lease will include the obligation to make significant payments in lieu of real estate taxes (PILOT), which will be applied to the payment of debt service on the bonds to be issued by the Local Development Corporation (LDC) for the construction of the Arena. After the term of the bonds (approximately 35 years), the lease would be for fair market value. The option to purchase the Arena would also be at fair market value, and if purchased, the Arena would return to the tax rolls. Revenue assumptions for the Arena, which are used to estimate tax receipts, are inaccurate, relying on a presumed average ticket price of $60. Across the entire NBA today, the average ticket price exceeds $60, and in major markets like New York City, the average ticket price exceeds $100.

The IBO response

After I forwarded that critique, IBO Deputy Director George Sweeting responded, "After reviewing ESDC’s comments on IBO’s fiscal impact analysis of the Atlantic Yards Arena, we remain confident in our methodology and results. The arena portion of the larger project accounts for the large majority of the non-as-of-right incentives being offered by the city and state and therefore it is appropriate to consider the public sector’s return from activity at the arena alone. This was the same analytic framework used in our 2005 report."

"ESDC correctly points out an error made by IBO in our report regarding the rent to be paid after the term of the tax exempt bonds expires," he continued. "We regret the error, but because it pertains to years beyond the 30 year time span used in our fiscal benefit calculations, it has no effect on our findings."

Other issues

Sweeting did not reply directly to the other criticisms, but I think they're worth a closer look.

1. Was the IBO correct in concluding that the MTA land sale was below market? Well, it was below the appraisal.

The ESDC says it "uses the difference in the purchase price offered by Extell and FCRC without taking into account the difference in the value of the yard and other improvements that were part of the selected FCRC bid." Well, Extell never got a chance to flesh out its bid, so we don't know the value of the yard it was to build. Nor do we know how that yard would compare to the downsized railyard Forest City Ratner now plans. In other words, the value of Forest City Ratner's bid should be downsized to encompasses the revised railyard.

2. The ESDC's claim that city streets should not be valued because they don't have development rights is odd. First, the $3.7 million is minor component of the calculations. Moreover, the streets are crucial to the construction of open space, which is a project requisite. The land would have to come from somewhere. Forest City didn't pay less for other land because it would go only to open space.

3. The ESDC's claim about PILOTs does not suggest additional revenue; actually, PILOTs allow the developer to divert the equivalent of real estate taxes to pay for arena construction.

4. The ESDC erroneously claims the average ticket price in New York exceeds $100. According the October 2007 Team Marketing Report, the average ticket price for the Knicks was $70.51 and for the Nets $60.98. According to the October 2008 Team Marketing Report, the average ticket price for the Knicks remained at $70.51, while for the Nets it dipped to $54.98.

The average price for the Nets has likely declined, given the number of giveaways and special deals to which the team has resorted. Surely the average ticket price would rise upon a move to a new arena in Brooklyn. Still, the ticket price for the Knicks remains a legitimate guideline and upper bound.

Naming rights

Shouldn't IBO have considered the arena naming rights--reported at $400 million over 20 years--as another lost (in part) opportunity cost and thus a benefit to the developer?

In other words, the ESDC gave Forest City Ratner the opportunity to sell naming rights. The ESDC could have kept some or all of that.

Here's the ESDC's explanation: that the naming rights were part of the financing for the project. However, no ESDC document confirms that claim.

In other words, the IBO may have been too conservative.


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…