Skip to main content

Transit connection to arena now said to be less delayed than was reported last month. How so? Construction monitor fudged the timetable.

Barclays Center bondholders take note: they moved the goalposts again regarding project construction. And while that may not make it less likely you'll get the interest you expect, it sure raises questions about the credibility of the reports you're getting.

Once a month, real estate consultant Merritt & Harris, the real estate consultant that "strives to be the leader in providing consistently excellent construction-related services to the real estate lending and investment community," issues a Site Observation Report report to the arena PILOT Bond Trustee (Bank of New York Mellon), Forest City Ratner, and the Empire State Development Corporation.

In the latest report is dated 4/2/12 and based on a visit of 2/23/12 and documents made available 3/20/12, Merritt and Harris began fudging the schedule for the new Transit Connection.

In other words, as with the arena, Merritt and Harris declared the Transit Connection less behind schedule than previously estimated, all because it extended the schedule, with no real explanation.

Transit connection

The text of the report contains some standard language:
The document seems to be updated elsewhere, since it provides a later date:

Note that the Construction Schedule did not slip because of "early delays." Such delays had no significant impact, because the transit connection was well ahead of schedule for many months, as the graphics below indicate.

But given that there is slack in the schedule--the arena will open in September--the delay should not be fatal.

Transit connection progress

If the Construction Schedule had slipped by about two months, it should be finished in June, right? That's what all previous graphs marking progress have noted, as indicated below. The graphs measure projected spending (the solid circle) vs. actual spending, with the percentage difference noted in the bottom row.

In last month's report, as indicated in the graphic below, as of October 2011, the transit connection was behind 0.35%. As of January 2012, the transit connection was behind 3.42%. (Click on graphics to expand.)

Merritt & Harris report, March 2012
But let's look at the April report, below. In that report, as of October 2011, the transit connection was ahead 4.36%, not behind 0.35%.

In the April report, as of January 2012, the transit connection was behind only 0.22%, not behind 3.42%.

Merritt & Harris report, April 2012

What's behind the recalculation? The secret is extending the timetable through an additional month, to July 2012. By extending the timetable, the spending is stretched out through another month.

Thus, the projected spending per month diminishes and, voila, the actual spending becomes more prominent. Thus the graph gets revised to make the project look more certain.

But that technique is not explained anywhere in the report.

Indeed, the graphic contradicts the text of the report, which nowhere suggests that the transit connection would be finished in July. And that date presumably would exceed the "approximately 2 months" the schedule is said to have slipped from the original target of 4/2/12.


Arena progress

The document states that the arena is still expected to be substantially complete by 9/5/12:

However, there's still no documentation on a final completion date. The report mentions a new GMP2 (Guaranteed Maximum Price) schedule to be issued in February that would establish the final completion date. As with many promised documents in the past, it has not emerged as scheduled.
The latest chart of arena construction, below, suggests that actual spending handily outpaces projected spending. But, as I pointed out in February, the chart accompanying the January report indicated that the arena had been slightly behind for three months.


How to fudge

The solution, in the reports beginning in February (and indicated above in the latest report), was to stretch out the timetable for the hard cost spending total of $485 million-plus, thus portraying current spending as outpacing the projected spending.

In the January report, as of the June 2013 final completion date, there was to be $485,012,000 spent, or 100% percent of the total.

In the February 2012 report, that timetable was relaxed. As of June 2013, there was to be $479,818,000 spent, or 98.88% of the total. The March 2012 report put the June 2013 total at $480,131,000, or 98.88% of the total. The latest report puts the June 2013 total at $480,186,000, or 98.88% of the total

Given the longer period to spend the total, each previous month has a target completion percentage lower than in the January chart, with less spending needed to keep pace. Oddly, unlike with the chart regarding the transit connection, there's no indication of when the 100% mark would be met.

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.