In most recent IRS filing, Pacific Park Conservancy shows cash on hand, new spending on maintenance, & key vacancies on board. Money for dog run revamp?

Welcome to 2025! My 2024 retrospective is coming soon. 

In light of questions over the Pacific Park Conservancy's management of the project's open space (aka "Pacific Park"), notably the noisy dog run (my coverage), I took a look at the nonprofit's most recent filing with the IRS, for the 2023 calendar year. (Also here, thanks to ProPublica.)

Looking east along Dean Street; the
phone number still needs to be updated

It's not too illuminating, but it suggests that no longer do any board members represent the three local community boards or the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. 

That suggests limited accountability to public entities. (I say "suggests" because actions in 2024, not yet reported, may supersede the 2023 data.)

It also suggests that the Conservancy has a decent chunk of funds on hand, which are contributed by the various project buildings, and presumably could use some of that money to manage noise from the dog run.

(Note that the New York State Attorney General's Charities Database does not have a Conservancy filing for 2023, which means it's either still being processed or was never filed.)

Note that a contractor was supposed to soon fabricate the new phone number (646-930-4852) to attach on the entrance signage to the open space, according to Greenland rep Jen Kuang's statement Nov. 6.

Nov. 2019 revision

 

That hasn't happened yet, so the existing number visible, 347-292-6479, remains inoperative.

In May, when I tried the Conservancy's email address, it bounced back. 

 

A recent query didn't bounce back, but didn't get an answer in two business days, either. 

 

(Try conservancy@pacificparkbrooklyn.nyc.)

Below is the 2015 concept plan for the open space, by Thomas Balsley, which was superseded somewhat when the design of B12 and B13 was revised, creating a larger lawn between B12 and B13 and, among other things, moving a dog run to the west of B13.

The Conservancy board

As I wrote, the 2009 Modified General Project Plan from Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority overseeing/shepherding the project, establishes that the Conservancy would be funded by the Project Sponsors and owners of the surrounding towers.

The Conservancy board would include representatives "of the Project Sponsors, civic group(s) active in park matters, the owners of surrounding properties and, on an ex officio basis, the local community boards and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation."

For several years, until all eight acres of open space are completed, the Sponsor would appoint seven members, while the Owners Association will appoint just one director. After the project is completed, the Association appoints up to eight directors.

Keep in mind that the Sponsor, formerly Greenland Forest City Partners when B11 and B14 were built and currently Greenland USA, is expected to lose control of six unbuilt sites over the railyard, the font of future open space, and thus may not care so much about the Conservancy. 

Rather, Greenland is pursuing a project at Site 5, catercorner to the arena.

So, a rejiggering of project obligations means that--perhaps--the expected incoming joint venture, including Related Companies, may take over a (revised) responsibility for the project's affordable housing obligation, as well as the Conservancy.

Beyond the Sponsor appointments, there should be two Directors appointed by Empire State Development, and three ex oficio, representing Community Boards, 2, 6, and 8. Directors serve for a year but can be reappointed indefinitely.

List shows board vacancies

The mashup below compares the Conservancy board in the 2022 IRS return to that in the 2023 return. (The Conservancy has no web site, so we don't know how much as changed since that 2023 report, which was filed July 25, 2024.)

Despite superficial differences, the two lists actually pretty close, since only nine active directors are described both years, with five additional directors oddly listed in 2022 as "former directors."

The board includes two people appointed by ESD:

• Alyson Beha, former ESD staffer, now a consultant on parks
• Suma Mandel, former Chief Administrative Officer at Gateway Program Development Corp. and now a partner in Blue Raven LLP. a strategic legal advisory firm

Neither are connected to state government any more. Are they still involved? Do they feel any distance from this obligation?

The others are presumably appointed by the Sponsor:

• Ashley Cotton, a former executive at original developer Forest City Ratner and a Principal at MAG Partners, founded by former Forest City CEO MaryAnne Gilmartin. She lives at 550 Vanderbilt (B11)
• Josie Mok, former Forest City executive and now Chief Financial Officer, G&S Investors. She lives at 550 Vanderbilt
• Scott Solish, former Greenland USA executive, now at The Brodsky Organization, which built B15 and partnered with Greenland on B4
• Rick Stein, perhaps an erroneous reference to Rick Mason, another executive at Brodsky
• Amir "Stenin," actually Stein, an executive at TF Cornerstone, which built B12/B13
• Renduo Cheng, a Design Associate at Greenland USA
• Jen Kuang, Design Director at Greenland USA

Presumably if the expected new joint venture, involving Related, gets the right to develop the six towers over the railyard, with the associated completion of the 8 acres of open space, they will control the appointments, and at minimum the Greenland board members would leave.

Who's missing?

Note that there are no longer representatives of the community boards, nor the Parks Department. That seems a lapse, which detracts from accountability.

I wrote in 2019 that Community Board 2 hadn't bothered, because, according to the District Manager, "no open space had been constructed in Community District 2 and none would be for the foreseeable future."

Board member commitment

Note the average hours or work per week for the board members with titles, a half-hour per week, or 30 minutes. So that's 26 hours per year.

For the rest of the board, it's one-tenth of that, or three minutes. That's a little more than 15 minutes per month, or little more than 2.5 hours per year.

If accurate, that's remarkably candid and suggests those board meetings--presumably online and/or asynchronous--move pretty quickly.

Spending questions

I wrote in May that, while the Conservancy had raised $1.6 million over three years, in assessments from project buildings, it had, by the end of 2022, spent a paltry amount on program services, instead over two fiscal years spending $533,259 on insurance and $256,730 on legal expenses.

However, as I acknowledged, new organizations may front-load such professional expenses.

In its IRS filings, the Conservancy cited its maintenance activities: "plant trees, flowers, and shrubs, install and maintain trash containers, mow the grass, remove litter, and take other actions necessary or desirable for the maintenance of Pacific Park."

Indeed, in 2023, it seemed to be spending more on that.

In its 2023 return, the Conservancy disclosed that its program service revenue rose from $444,075 to $1,024,043, likely a result of two new buildings, B12 & B13 (known as 595 Dean) opening, with new open space adjacent.

Given existing assets and then expenses, the Conservancy's net assets by the end of the year rose from $401,113 to $774,549.

In 2023, it spent only $3,046 on legal expenses, and $16,681 on accounting expenses. It spent $228,317 on insurance, moderately less than in previous years ($533,259 divided by two).

And it spent $401,177 on "Other," which might be broadly described as maintenance.

That's detailed in the final page as $231,816 on property maintenance, $65,840 on landscaping, $42,493 on security, $31,384 on cleaning, $12,441 on pest control, $7,087 on repair and maintenance, $4,744 on utilities, $1,080 on supplies and equipment, and $4,292 on irrigation.

Current and future spending?

This year's spending hasn't yet shown up in a report, but, as detailed in November, dog owners had complained about poor maintenance, finally getting a commitment for weekly power washing, daily inspection of waste bins, and weekly inspection to ensure replenishment of dog waste bags.

Dog owner Ian White also was told that a damaged water fountain and bench armrest in the large dog run have already been repaired, while the Conservancy was waiting for a contractor's quote to complete the playground gate repairs.

Even with that spending, it seems clear that--given a start of $775,549 in net assets, plus additional fundraising from project buildings--the Conservancy should have some cash on hand.