Skip to main content

Forest City Ratner's 2005 PILOTs dodge and the IBO's 2009 recognition that tax-exempt status did not drive a higher railyard price

In its 5/26/05 presentation (above) to the City Council, Forest City Ratner claimed it would voluntarily pay taxes on the Atlantic Yards arena, even though the building would qualify for an as-of-right tax abatement under ICIP, or the Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program (now ICAP).

That sounds civic-minded. From a corporate perspective, it almost sounds foolhardy: why would a profit-seeking corporation voluntarily pay taxes when it could get away with not paying them?

Taxes vs. PILOTs

Well, because they're not actually taxes. And because the savings are much greater if Forest City voluntarily pays such "taxes."

A payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is not a tax payment. The PILOT wouldn't go into city coffers. Rather, it would be used to fund arena construction.

Why go through this Rube Goldberg exercise? Because by maintaining the site as tax-exempt, but having voluntary PILOTs, the city and state allow for the issuance of tax-exempt bonds to build the arena.

Forest City Ratner would save nearly $200 million on tax-exempt bonds, with almost all of the loss absorbed by the federal treasury, not the state or city, according to the New York City Independent Budget Office.

(Sports economist Andrew Zimbalist, in his 2004 report for Forest City Ratner on Atlantic Yards, ignored his 2003 observation that there is no justification for the federal government to subsidize a "financial tug-of-war" between cities.)

Tax exemption raises land value?

The presence of the tax exemption, said the New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO) in its September 2005 report on Atlantic Yards, should have increased the price of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority land destined for the arena:
IBO’s estimate of new property tax revenue lost to the arena PILOT does not include a loss of property taxes for the MTA land that would be part of the arena building foot print. The city currently receives no tax payment from the MTA for the rail yard because the MTA, like other state entities, is exempt from local property tax. Under the MTA’s Request for Proposals, any developer acquiring the development rights to the site would probably enter into a long-term lease, leaving the MTA in place as the owner. Therefore, the property would likely remain off the city’s tax roll, resulting in no impact on the city budget. Indeed, the MTA has an incentive to make a deal that maintains the tax exemption in order to maximize the price it receives for the development rights.
(Emphasis added)

As I wrote in June 2008, that hardly happened, given Forest City Ratner paid $100 million in cash on property appraised at $214.5 million, and it expected tax breaks worth $165 million--not to mention naming rights, reported at $400 million.

IBO changes tune

The IBO now apparently agrees, perhaps having observed the MTA's willingness to further accommodate Forest City Ratner by requiring only a $20 million payment upfront, with the rest of the payment coming over 22 years at a generous 6.5% interest rate.

So, in its September 2009 report, the IBO revised its conclusion, adding up $146 million in lost property taxes to the city:
This estimate of the cost to the city of the arena’s property tax exemption is considerably larger than we estimated in 2005. The MTA portion of the land is currently tax-exempt because the land is publicly owned. IBO’s latest estimates assume that if FCRC or any alternative developer operating solely with as-of-right benefits purchased the rail yard from the MTA, the exemption would expire. In our 2005 report we had assumed that the exemption would continue through a leasing arrangement—even if the arena site were transferred to another developer—because that would maximize the proceeds for the MTA. It is clear that the MTA’s ability to maximize its return from property sales has been constrained. Moreover, the latest modified project plan stipulates that FCRC must pay the equivalent of full property tax to the city for all but the arena portion of the project.
(Emphasis added)

Constrained is a euphemism, perhaps, to refer to a deal in which neither private bidders nor government overseers fostered competition.

Yankees vs. Nets

Sports facility expert Neil deMause explained that the city's financing scheme for new baseball stadiums and the arena was questioned by tax experts but did pass legal muster.

And that led to situations, as he explained, like this: "You had this City Council Finance Committee hearing for the Yankees, where the Yankees were simultaneously saying This isn’t private money, this is tax money, so therefore we can use tax-exempt bonds, and you should go ahead with this project because it wouldn’t require any tax money. And nobody questioned them on it."

Regarding Atlantic Yards, it seems, Forest City Ratner was suggesting it was paying taxes.

Brodsky's critique

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has gone over this issue again and again with city officials, asserting that the payments to build sports facilities are a city subsidy. So far, however, he's focused on the already-built Yankee Stadium, unwilling to insert himself into a controversy where his advocacy might make more of a difference.

To get the Yankee Stadium bonds approved, as Brodsky pointed out at an Assembly hearing last January, the city told the Internal Revenue Service: “The city has determined to use its property taxes to finance the construction and operation of the stadium.”

Sparring with Pinsky

Brodsky and Seth Pinsky, who heads the New York City Economic Development Corporation, sparred themselves into a stalemate.

RB: Do you recall representations made by the IRS by the IDA as to whether or not the money that is going to repay bondholders is taxpayer money or not taxpayer money?

(The IDA, or Industrial Development Authority, issued the bonds for the stadiums, while a subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corporation would issue bonds for the arena.)

SP: The substance of your question is--

RB: No, no--

SP: --No, I’m going to answer my question the way I want to answer it. You asked the question; I heard what you asked.

RB: Then answer if you want but don’t characterize the substance--

SP: That’s fine, I’m telling you that I think--I don’t think you can tell me what to think--I think that the substance of your question is: is the PILOT structure that we described a net payment from the city to--

RB: --No, no.

SP: --I’m going to answer it this way anyway. Is it a payment from the city to the IRS... The facts are these, the way this structure works is that, in order to make the bonds that are financing the stadium tax-exempt, they have to be backed by payments of generally applicable taxes or payments in lieu of generally applicable taxes, which is the case here, PILOTs, so the simple answer to your question is yes. The payments are payments in lieu of taxes to the city. And those payments are in turn being used to pay the bondholders. But I think that it’s very important to look at effectively what is happening here.

RB: Can you explain 'effectively,' so I understand what you mean by 'effectively'?

SP: Why don’t you let me finish and you can tell me if you don’t understand. Effectively what is happening here is that the city currently into its general funds receives nothing from the New York Yankees and the stadium. We also receive nothing from the property where new stadium is being constructed. The reason we don’t at the current stadium is that it’s city owned. The reason we don’t at the new stadium is that it used to be parkland. After the project is completed, we will be paid PILOTs… by the Yankees. Those payments will not go to the city’s general fund, but instead will go to repay the bonds. So effectively, the city will be in exactly the same position with respect to real estate taxes, both before and after this transaction, that is, it has not received money in real estate taxes from the Yankees and will not receive money from real estate taxes from the Yankees.

The AY contrast

In the case of the Atlantic Yards arena, should it be built, the city would take a loss regarding taxes on the arena block, given the presence of taxpaying homes and businesses on part of the site. Presumably city officials would argue that the arena, and the project as a whole, are worth it.

Then again, the IBO says the arena would be a loss for the city.

Comments

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.