Skip to main content

Given no 2009 feasibility study of AY after changes, DDDB calls for new PACB review of project financing

Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) has sent a letter to State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, State Senator Bill Perkins, and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (chairs of the respective committees on public authorities) arguing that the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) needs to convene and vote on whether to approve the Atlantic Yards project’s financing.

Crucially, the letter points out that, before project approval in 2006, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) hired KPMG to do a report about the feasibility of the project, no such analysis was conducted before the ESDC passed the 2009 Modified General Project Plan (MGPP) in September.

Unmentioned in the letter is that the ESDC did ask KPMG for an update, but only on the feasibility of the housing market over a ten-year buildout--a market study that was highly dubious.

Is project feasible?


The letter states:
Since the time of the 2006 approval, the ESDC has issued and approved a Modified General Project Plan, the MTA and FCRC have struck a new deal for the sale of the MTA Vanderbilt Yards to the develope and, as per the above, the arena financing, along with the rest of the project has been radically altered.

This mandates a new PACB review for Atlantic Yards as the changes since 2006 raise serious questions about the availability of funds to finance the project. The tax-exempt arena bond, which has yet to be issued—but is scheduled to be authorized on Tuesday, November 24 is of specific and urgent concern. These bonds are technically non-recourse to the State, but it is generally understood that should a default occur the State and its taxpayers will be on the hook. The PACB was formed specifically to guard against reckless borrowing by ESDC that could result in defaults and place the State in a moral obligation to support the bonds.

There is no way for the PACB to know if the current Atlantic Yards proposal is financially sound and feasible.
Significant changes

The letter continues:
Since December 2006 the following substantial changes have occurred:

* The Project was approved at $4 billion is now at least $4.9 billion.

* The arena price tag shot up from $637 million to $900 million.

* In 2006 it was uncertain what the amount of the arena bond would be, but it is now at least $700 million.

* It is unknown if or when housing bonds will be available for the project’s proposed affordable housing component.

* Financing agreements were signed more than one year after the 2006 PACB approval and new financing agreements are reportedly still under negotiation. Both these old and new agreements have never been vetted by the PACB (or the Comptroller).

* It is unknown what rating the arena bond may get, but it has been reported that FCRC is having trouble getting a credible rating.

Changes in the project revenue model:

a. The number of arena luxury boxes has been substantially reduced from 170 to 100 since the 2006 approval. It is unknown what the rental of these suites would be since the economy has changed, but in 2006 FCRC projected a range of $58,000 to $580,000 and KPMG, in consultation, projected a range of $65,000 to $450,000.

b. Whatever the suite rental projection is now, the total number of suites would be reduced by 41%, and a reduction of suite revenue would be at least 41%.

c. The suites went on sale on May 5, 2008, since that time, over 21 months, only 20% have sold according to Nets President Brett Yormark.

d. The new Yankees and Mets stadiums having major trouble filling expensive seats and suites, and their bond issues have been devalued. The Nets are not nearly as popular and beloved as the Yankees and Mets.

e. The terms of the Barclays naming rights deal are unknown. At the end of 2008 Barclays and FCRC reportedly renegotiated the sponsorship, which had previously been reported to be either $300 million or $400 million. This revenue stream is not publicly available.

f. There is an unknown timeline for construction of the project, the sale and cost of condos, and the leasing and rents of rentals.

g. It is unknown if the commercial office building will ever be built, and whether the income from it, will ever be realized.

h. Assumptions about the housing market, condo sale prices and rental prices were made at the height of the real estate boom/bubble, assumptions that could only make sense if there is another real estate boom/bubble throughout the life of the project.
Lack of new analysis

The letter continues:
In 2006, the PACB had the benefit of a report from KPMG, which attempted to review the revenue and income assumptions supporting the project. KPMG found that the FCRC’s projected internal rate of return (IRR) was overly optimistic and reduced the likely IRR, but nevertheless found that the project was economically feasible, despite the fact that many of FCRC’s income projections were on the optimistically high side.

There has not been any new analysis by KPMG or anyone else about the current feasibility of the project given the enormous increase in construction costs, reduced revenues and extended project timeline. Moreover, in 2006, the PACB only approved the issuance of approximately $100 million in bonds and did not authorize the approval of the approximately $700 million required to finance the arena. The December 2006 PACB resolution, and a subsequent April 25, 2007 affidavit by Todd L. Scheuermann (at the time the Governor’s designated representative to the PACB) made it clear that the PACB only approved the $100 million bonds associated with infrastructure improvements and approved a revenue stream associated with ESDC acquiring title to the real estate necessary for the project. The PACB has never approved the issuance by an ESDC subsidiary of bonds for the arena construction.

These are just some of the changes impacting the questions of project finance and feasibility. Clearly the financing structure, the figures and the overall economy are far different today than they were in 2006.

The PACB needs to convene to vote on the project again if ESDC is to be permitted to approve a new bond issue. Given the current dire financial circumstances facing the State, as Comptroller and Committee chairs with oversight of the ESDC, we urgently ask for your concerted effort to make this happen to force compliance with the law and to assure that ESDC does not issue moral obligation bonds without doing the necessary due diligence.

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.