Frances Bula header image 2

Numbers on Olympic village loss, Millennium assets taken over, and receiver fees

April 10th, 2011 · 15 Comments

Some confusion is still swirling around the news the city released Friday about the assets it has recovered from Millennium Developments, the loss it has said it is likely to declare, and more. There’s too much information to digest all at once, but here is the city’s PowerPoint and here are the highlights as I see them.

– In financial statements to be issued April 21, the city will declare a $40-50 million write-down (exact number to be firmed up by then) of its Olympic village debt. That debt, as of April 1, was $579.5 million on the construction loan and $178.4 million owing on the land.

– As I read it, that means the city expects at this point to get back all the money it needs to pay off the loan that it borrowed from elsewhere (at 2.5 per cent interest) but will not get the full price it expected for the land.

– That $40-50 million is attempting to take into account everything likely to be paid out to the receiver, to be paid out in interest, to be paid out to fix deficiencies, but there are no firm numbers attached to any of those yet.

– It also takes into account the fact that the city has now taken over all Millennium assets that were originally pledged as security that are actually worth something, estimated at $56-70 million. It hasn’t bothered lining up to get money from three properties because they’re judged to be underwater — mortgaged for more than they’re worth: the Evelyn Drive property in West Vancouver, the numerous parts of the Hermitage development downtown that Millennium still owned, and a small Whistler condo.

– However, the city is now the proud owner of the Province building, some large blocks of assembled land in West Van and North Van, a property on Pender and some key properties in Burnaby, including the current FedEx site that has been rezoned for a residential tower. It also has a $5-million “mortgage” on the controversial Alexandra building in the West End. If the building makes enough of a profit to pay off its two other lenders first, the city will get that $5 million. Expect people who didn’t like the STIR program in the West End to be deeply suspicious about that.

– The receiver fees aren’t known. CBC had a story saying they are running at $35-50,000 a month and extrapolated out from that to $8 million if that continues for the three years Bob Rennie has said it might take to sell off the whole project. A representative from the receiver said their normal fees (which I understand can go up to $630 an hour) are being discounted 15-25 per cent from standard rates. Presumably rates will go down somewhat as the project moves along, although receiver fees on major projects are never small.

– We don’t know how much the city is going to spend to fix deficiencies, because the receiver and city will try to recover as much as possible from warranty and insurance programs. As well, some problems are being fixed by the contractors at their cost.

– The receiver has rented out 22 of the 127 condos that were originally intended for sale and then were slated for rental, in order to get the village populated. Because the sales program seems to be successful, no more of those condos will be rented out.

– 118 condos are considered sold, as buyers have now passed the recision period.

Happy to take questions, but some are not answerable yet.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • jesse

    $50MM, as far as I can ascertain, assumes similar sales prices to those received most recently. It also seems to ignore the loan on the land.

    I see the City as off on its estimate by $100MM + land, at least. They better be careful: obvious accounting fudges won’t get past the usual suspects and is difficult to defend from fiscally conservative onslaughts when an election is looming.

  • rf

    Can someone clarify if the $50mil loss assumes that they sold the land from the land endowment for $190mil?

    Was the original poor choice to use Millenium not based on/clouded by them paying about $50mil more for the land than anyone else was willing to pay?

    And if that is the case, is it really a loss?

    I ask because I’m wondering if Vision should perhaps be taking credit for getting out of this thing at breakeven (if the above is true).

    Is the $50mil loss more about Vision being insecure and wanting to still just take shots at the NPA?

    Ironically…..I think they would serve themselves better to spin the positive on this which they can legitimately take credit for.

    Perhaps the worst decision in the entire fiasco was choosing Millenium. The previous council got suckered into the high price for the land and ultimately didn’t get paid the premium for it.

    The current council might want to learn from that before choosing a arguably similar player (Paragon) in the BC Place/Casino project….

    Take less money and get a competent and deeper pocketed developer/operator.

    Is Vision so conditioned to blaming everyone else that they don’t even know when to take credit?

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Night

    “Vision’s Credit rating is so low, not even ‘Alpine Credit’ is inclined to give them…credit.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uiUYF81wwc

    And trust me, they are throwing monies as if they were growing on Alpine trees.

    Are you an 82 years old fart on life support? Check.
    Are you a freshly off the boat, Tamil freedom fighter? Check.
    Are your names Basi and Virk that lived happily ever after in Victoria? Check.
    They even advanced money to a Black and White cat named Sylvester having Tweety as a guarantor.

    To Vision Vancouver? Not so much.
    A spokesperson for Alpine said that ‘it would take a Village Idiot to come forward with the request and a sign from God’ in order for them to do that.

    So, yeah, I think it’s possible.

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Michael Geller

    “Perhaps the worst decision in the entire fiasco was choosing Millenium. The previous council got suckered into the high price for the land and ultimately didn’t get paid the premium for it.”

    RF, hindsight is a wonderful thing. While I did publicly tell Jeff Lee at the time of the bid that it was a phenominal amount of money for the land, (see Frances Bula’s April 2006 story) http://tinyurl.com/3j59z3 Millennium officials and Bob Rennie who was working closely with them. thought it was a very astute bid. Indeed, Bob Rennie told a UDI audience at its Annual that “It was the buy of the century”.

    What you probably don’t know is that Millennium had been the high bidder on at least one other city property…paying a price others considered too high, but they did very well on the project. Millennium had also been the high bidder on the Woodwards project, but were rejected because, amongst other things, were proposing a very tall tower.

    Personally, I think it is wrong to keep focussing on the selection of Millennium as the main culprit in this story. I could list you dozens more, indeed, I have previously done so on my blog.

    However, I do agree with Frances that the information provided on Friday…(why is it always a Friday?) is extremely confusing, and possibly misleading. Since the wire story that accompanied the Press Release indicated that the new estimate of losses was much less than predicted by some ‘development experts’, (which I took to include UBC’s Tsur Sommerville and me), I did spend some time going through the two reports released by the city.

    From reading these reports, it was not clear if the ‘losses’ included the outstanding land payment or not. Jesse posted his above comment on my website on Saturday. This, combined with some comments I heard on the golf course, prompted me to realize the loss calculation probably did not likely include the entire outstanding land payment, but rather a portion of the costs associated with servicing the land.

    In this regard, RF asks whether the foregone revenue is really a loss. I’d say no, if we didn’t spend it, but yes, if we did. And we did. That’s right. Once city officials realized the city would be getting more for the land than expected, they started to spend the money…the park and seawall and ‘environmental island’ and other amenities were all either ‘upgraded’ or allowed to proceed as designed, despite cost overruns. In other words…I’m told the City spent the $178 they were expecting from Millennium and more. Admittedly, some of this money will eventually be recovered from the future sale or lease of land in the next phases, but none of us knows how much.

    In conclusion (for now) I have two blog postings that you can find by clicking on my name above that attempt to address the confusion with the numbers. Based on some subsequent correspondence with a city official, I’m still not clear whether the $40 to $50 million estimate is the total potential loss, or an initial loan write-down.

    What I do know is that it doesn’t include any of the $64 million (and counting) subsidies now going towards the rental and social housing (of which 144 of the 252 units remain empty….yes they are still empty.

    I also suspect it doesn’t include the losses on the 20 or 22 condominium units that IMO, the city has foolishly rented out, nor does it include the property taxes that we are not receiving on all the empty units.

    So for these reasons, I stand by my public statements that the city stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars on the Olympic Village transactions. I’m not happy about this…it is not the fault of any one city administration, and I hope that one day I will be wrong.

    But suffice it to say, just like you shouldn’t believe the headline in today’s Sun that non-religious people live longer than religious people, you shouldn’t believe the headline that the City will only lose $40 to 50 million dollars on the Olympic Village.

  • Frances Bula

    @rf. Yes, the $50-million loss is predicated on the assumption that the city was still trying to get its full $200 million purchase price for the land. So, yes, you could argue that the city will end up getting a purchase price that is right where some thought it should have been in the first place. Of course, no one has tried to put a price tag on the money spent paying city staff to oversee this project. When I think of the person-hours that have gone into overseeing this, it’s boggling.

    And, yes, clearly the problem was in choosing a company like Millennium, that only put in $29 million of its own money as a down payment for the land and then went out to get 100 per cent financing for the $750 million needed for construction costs. If there had been another company, one that put some of its own equity into the construction money, many of them problems could have been avoided, i.e. no need to go to a hedge fund for financing, no need for a guarantee from the city, and so on.

  • Michael Geller

    The above should say the City spent the $193 million it expected from Millenniium… approximately $20 million down, and the balance to come after the Olympics…and Rennie’s remarks were made at the May 2006 UDI Annual General Meeting.

  • Michelle

    The City of Vancouver should have never entered in this ‘undertaking’. Full stop. With Ballem, Robertson, Johnston, Vision…at the helm COV have become, developer, builder, marketeer, renter, seller, financier and ultimately…executioner. Way to go Penny @ company of…happy planet people.

  • AW

    Am I correct to assume that the potential writedown is $40-$50M AFTER they take into consideration the estimated $50-$70M in other assets, meaning the losses on the Olympic Village itself are in the $100-$120M range? The land wasn’t over valued by that much. This wasn’t just an issue with Millennium then. The whole structure of the development was flawed from the beginning, and I personally believe it lays mainly at the feet of the City (and that includes everyone there from Staff to Campbell to Sullivan to Robertson).

  • Bill

    I can’t believe it – 50 pages of a powerpoint presentation and they can’t make a simple statement as to whether the writedown includes the selling price of the land or not. I agree with rf – if the writedown is based on $193 million for the land, then we got off pretty lucky but I would have expected that to be highlighted in the report which leads me to suspect it doesn’t.

  • Jason King

    Michael Geller – thank you for continuing to provide insight into the entire Olympic Village fiasco. As hard as it is to watch, it’s nice to have some detailed insight into what’s going on.

  • Michael Geller

    “As I read it, that means the city expects at this point to get back all the money it needs to pay off the loan that it borrowed from elsewhere (at 2.5 per cent interest) but will not get the full price it expected for the land.” Frances Bula

    Well Frances, according to Gary Mason in this morning’s Globe and Mail, you read it wrong. He claims the losses are $230 million and counting. ($5 M on the loans, and $180 on the land) http://tinyurl.com/3tmdxvg

    But don’t feel bad. As others have correctly posted above, notwithstanding the 58 pages of documents released by the city on Friday, and its own press release, the true picture wasn’t clear to any of us.

    So, given the current administration’s constant criticism of the NPA’s handling of the file, and its commitment to openness and full disclosure, here are 10 questions that I think we need to have answered. (I would note that I do not consider any privileged commercial information.)

    1. What is the current balance on the loan(s) taken out by the city to finance the completion of the Olympic Village condos, 119 unit rental building and retail space?

    2. What is the amount owing on the initial $193M land payment promised by Millennium?

    3. How much has the city spent on creating the OV site, including shoreline works, parks, environmental features, servicing, and providing the related amenities?

    4. How much has the city spent to create the social/rental housing? How many of the units have currently been leased? What are the current monthly carrying costs? What is latest projected ‘normalized’ cost and required subsidy to keep these as 50% social housing, 50% market rental for the foreseeable future?

    5. Is it true that 22 of the condos have now been rented out, as recommended by the receiver? If so, what is the monthly cost of maintaining these units based on their previous sales price amortized at an annual interest rate of 2.5%, applicable strata fees and property taxes? What is the monthly rent being received for these units? In other words, how much are we losing each month on these 22 units?

    6. What are the estimated revenue projections for the remaining unsold condominium units? How many square feet remain unsold? What is the approximate average price per square foot for the different buildings?

    7. What is the estimated sales period? What are the estimated carrying costs during the sales period?

    8. What are the estimated revenues from the sale of the 119 unit rental building and the retail space?

    9. The city is reported to have placed $5M in a reserve fund for future repairs. How much has been spent on fixing deficiencies. How much more is estimated over the next few years, and how much does the city expect to recover from the Home Warranty Program?

    10. How much has been paid to the receivers to date for their fees, and related studies? What is the estimated cost to complete their assignment? What are the per diem rates being charged to the city by the receivers and lawyers working on the file?

    As I have repeatedly said, one day the Olympic Village will be a wonderful, vibrant community. The problems associated with the project are not the fault of any one administration. Many administrations have been culpable. However, there is no doubt that this became a political football prior to the last election, and early in the current administration’s term of office.

    It is clear that the announcement last Friday has confused a lot of people in the media, including Jeff Lee, Gary Mason, CKNW, CBC, and Frances Bula. Whether intentionally or accidentally, the OV continues to be tossed around as a political football. I think most of us now agree it is time to end the game.

    By sharing the answers to these questions, and refraining from continuing to boast about the $93 million in interest costs this administration supposedly ‘saved’ taxpayers, the current administration can do all taxpayers a great service. And start to put an end to the ongoing publicity and notoriety that is continuing to seriously affect the sales program.

  • Michael Geller

    That should read $50 M on the loan(s) not $5 M

  • Lucy

    So why did the City of Vancouver choose to pay off Fortress up front and with interest, when they failed to fulfill their obligation to lend all the money for the project after their line of credit with Lehman Brothers was frozen?

    They had a few hundred million lent, and were in the position of first loss. The city of Vancouver could have just come in and made an additional loan with seniority and let Fortress eat any loss from the project, or used that option to negotiate a better deal for taxpayers (albeit probably not one that saved a faint hope for the developer Millennium to escape bankruptcy.)

    The city of Vancouver retained ownership of the land, it held all the trump cards, and it ended up in the position of bearing a loss despite brining all the money as well.

    There is corruption that needs to be explained

  • MB

    @ Michael 11: “As I have repeatedly said, one day the Olympic Village will be a wonderful, vibrant community. The problems associated with the project are not the fault of any one administration. Many administrations have been culpable. However, there is no doubt that this became a political football prior to the last election, and early in the current administration’s term of office.”

    ***

    Let’s not forget the 7 1/2-year, three-council developmental megathrust of the Olympics and all its attendant impacts, and the two-year and counting economic megathrust of the worldwide financial crises.

    Talk about complications!

  • Bill McCreery

    Yes MB, but there were / are choices which could have / can been made by this Vision Council which would have vastly reduced Vancouver taxpayers’ financial losses. Gregor and this Council chose instead to sit in their ideological nest and watch the water come up. They also did not have their eyes on the ball, also as in:

    1) refusing to do the responsible thing — sell the social housing at a lower price point which would not compete with the Millennium sales in order to ‘save’ the social housing component;
    2) not even starting to think about renting the units until June of last year, 4 months after the boat left the dock;
    3) mismanaging the social housing management process;
    4) not expediting the rental process;
    5) deciding to rent condo units, which devalues them at resale;

    and, now:

    6) we find they are misrepresenting and with-holding the project’s accounting information, which prevents the public as well as those managing the project from being able to make reasoned assessments and wise decisions.

    Penny Ballem, Gregor robertson and the Vision Council have rewritten the “Disaster Management Manual” from the inside out!