Skip to main content

The wild card regarding arena financing; could Build America Bonds take up the slack if tax-exempt bonds were insufficient?

There might be a way around a potential financing snag for the Atlantic Yards arena (or, perhaps, the affordable housing): new Build America Bonds authorized by federal stimulus funding.

(I have no inside information about this; a tipster suggested it was worth airing.)

On his Field of Schemes blog yesterday, Neil deMause wondered about limits on tax-exempt financing for the arena:
There's one other wild card here, which is that the New York City Independent Budget Office has projected that even under the expiring IRS rules, the arena project wouldn't generate enough property tax value to justify $700 million in tax-free bonds. (If you really want to know what property tax valuations have to do with tax-free bonds, start here.) It'll be interesting to see if Ratner has to take out bond insurance for the possibility of the IRS rejecting some of his tax-exempt bonds as well — and if at some point he needs to find another Russian billionaire to pay for it.

Another option?

Build America Bonds aren't tax-exempt--but they are subsidized. So they can achieve the same goal for the developer: a lower interest rate than the taxable market. And, if the foregone taxes on the arena block could only support PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) for, say, $500 million in tax-exempt bonds, perhaps Build America Bonds could take up the slack.

The popularity of such bonds has shifted more than a quarter of state and local government debt into the taxable bond market, according to the Bond Buyer. New York City has sold $800 million in such bonds.

The official word

An April 3 fact sheet from the Treasury Department doesn't mention sports facilities but it does mention transportation infrastructure:
BUILD AMERICA BONDS
First, Treasury announces the implementation of the Build America Bond program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to provide much-needed funding for state and local governments at lower borrowing costs. This will enable them to pursue necessary capital projects, such as work on public buildings, courthouses, schools, roads, transportation infrastructure, government hospitals, public safety facilities and equipment, water and sewer
projects, environmental projects, energy projects, governmental housing projects and public utilities.

Traditionally, tax-exempt bonds provide a critical source of capital for state and local governments, but the recession has sharply reduced their ability to finance new projects. Supplementing this existing market, the Build America Bond program is designed to provide a federal subsidy for a larger portion of the borrowing costs of state and local governments than traditional tax-exempt bonds in order to stimulate the economy and encourage investments in capital projects in 2009 and 2010.

HOW BUILD AMERICA BONDS WORK
Build America Bonds are a new financing tool for state and local governments. The bonds, which allow a new direct federal payment subsidy, are taxable bonds issued by state and local governments that will give them access to the conventional corporate debt markets. At the election of the state and local governments, the Treasury Department will make a direct payment to the state or local governmental issuer in an amount equal to 35 percent of the interest payment on the Build America Bonds. As a result of this federal subsidy payment, state and local governments will have lower net borrowing costs and be able to reach more sources of borrowing than with more traditional tax-exempt or tax credit bonds. For example, if a state or local government were to issue Build America Bonds at a 10 percent taxable interest rate, the Treasury Department would make a payment directly to the government of 3.5 percent of that interest, and the government’s net borrowing cost would thus be only 6.5 percent on a bond that actually pays 10 percent interest.

This feature will make Build America Bonds attractive to a broader group of investors, and therefore create a larger market than typically invest in more traditional state and local tax- exempt bonds, where interest rates, due to the federal tax exemption, have historically been about 20 percent lower than taxable interest rates. They should be attractive to investors without regard to their tax status or income tax bracket (e.g., pension funds and other tax-exempt investors, investors in low tax brackets, and foreign investors).


According to the IRS:
In general, Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) may be issued to finance any governmental purpose for which tax-exempt governmental bonds (excluding private activity bonds under § 141) could be issued under § 103 (“tax-exempt governmental bonds”) and must comply with all requirements applicable to the issuance of tax-exempt governmental bonds. Accordingly, Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) may be issued to finance the same kinds of expenditures (e.g., capital expenditures and working capital expenditures) and may involve the same kinds of financings (e.g., original new money financings, current refundings, and one advance refunding) as tax-exempt governmental bonds. Similarly, Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) may not be issued for any purposes for which tax-exempt governmental bonds could not be issued under § 103 (e.g., prohibited second advance refunding issues or pension annuity issues).

Comments

  1. Build America Bonds have not been used for private projects to date, and the wording you cite gives an idea why: "In general, Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) may be issued to finance any governmental purpose for which tax-exempt governmental bonds (excluding private activity bonds under § 141)". It is far from certain that AY, as a private project, albeit with purported public benefit, would qualify. It might be possible for the Feds to pay the interest subsidy to the issuer the BALDC, and for the issuer to pay that subsidy to the project company. But the project company, which will be leasing the project from the issuer in return for PILOT payments, is a tax-payer and might have to pay tax on that subsidy income. Not very efficient. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's tricky.

    Notwithstanding the pittance that FCR paid for the site, and the higher interest rates that the project might have to pay than three years ago, I don't see the project struggling to get sufficient PILOT treatment to meet debt service. As you're reported before, the fix seems pretty easy to put in.

    I'm also not convinced by the idea that bond insurers can insure against unfavorable tax rulings. Their function is essentially to protect bondholders against credit events, not developers against tax rulings. They can do a little bit of funky stuff - say ensuring that a borrower pays a lump-sum payment at the end of the life of bonds. They might event even be willing to insure a prepayment penalty, though as thinly-staffed entities they are no more enthusiastic than pension funds and life insurance companies about spending several months working on a deal that only brings in income for a couple of months.

    I have the utmost respect for deMause, but I think this falls outside the insurers' remit.

    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.