Saturday, October 21, 2017

Adjudicatory Hearing Round III – Day Three

June 3, 2011 by · Leave a Comment 


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1997

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1997

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 2009

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 2036

By Dan McClelland, Tupper Lake Free Press

Round III Day 3 of the Adirondack Club and Resort adjudicatory hearings at the Tupper Lake Train Station
Friday, June 3, 2011

Those present same as before. Newcomers: Jack Delehanty, Mr. and Mrs Russell Cronin, Bridgett LaPierre, Jim LaValley, Bruce Richards, Jim Lanthier, Trustee Charles Perham, Bob Fuller, Brian Houseal representing Adirondack Council (his second day), Peter Littlefield, Fred Schuller, Phyllis Thompson,

Judge: On record. 10a.m. Third day of hearings at train station.

Mr. Caffry was going to review notes and decide if would continue cross.

Caffry (attorney for Protect the Adirondacks): Documents identified supposed to be delivered May 20 were e-mailed May 30. Had chance to review documents. Mostly relate to Issue No. 1. Ones that are in intersection (e-mails between Kevin Franke and Michael Foxman). Like to question Kevin Franke. Scheduled to testify later. More efficient to question him later this month.

At same time sent you letter served on all parties, renewing opposition to continue testimony on issue No. 1 because of reluctance to provide me with all my discovery requests. Revealed more documents this week. Reference to notes and map of ownership. It’s an ongoing problem. Every time turn around find documents they failed to give me. So renew that motion

Judge: Reserve on motion.

Tom Ulasewicz: Like to discuss that.

Judge: You and everyone else will have that opportunity.

TU: Did my best to go over documents provided to Mr. Caffry as to his demands (Nov. 2010). Came up with eight responses that dealt with issues 5 and 6 where documents provided to Mr. Caffry. Won’t take time to identify. They are in list of exhibits. I don’t know any charts. No of no charts haven’t provided. Remember “notes” from Mr. Elsemore’s testimony. Were documents about regional quarterly census of employment and wages for 2010. At back of that document -30 pages- five pages of handwritten notes by Mr. Martin dated June 19, 2010 “ACR employment.” All I could find. All notes from Mr. Martin and all other LA Group members provided to Mr. Caffry.

Judge: BG Read entered proceedings.

Tom U: In light of what occurred at end of yesterday’s proceedings, request you direct parties copies of any material first for identification, before distributed to anyone. Effort to discredit character of individuals. Gives parties to seek in camera review by you and possibly close arguments. Purpose here not only to seek protection of people I represent. You responsibility to determine how to proceed on all documents from now on.
Only documents produced for first time at hearing.

Caffry: Understand concern. May have been some errors concerning payment of county taxes. Extremely unrealistic.

Tom U: All documents go to judge.

Caffry: Any such procedure unusual and unwarranted in proceeding such as this.

Dr. Thompson: Willing to assume that nothing was done to discredit anyone. Talking about fiscal reliability of project. These documents could be relevant. In this case, as matter of cold fact, 95% of people in this room knew those facts. Underlying themes of papers known for years. In papers for years. Not done to hurt anyone…public record.

Tom U: Talking about procedural motion.

Not talking about particular document…talking about all documents to you first for your inspection. General motion request, not on any document

Caffry: Documents offered yesterday all public records…no secrets there. This procedure is trying to elevate certain parties among others pertaining to ability to introduce documents. You’ve been very fair everyone on equal footing, Judge. So everyone has chance to comment. Mr. U putting his clients above others. Don’t believe appropriate. Don’t know how can offer proof in camera.

Brian Houseal: Agree with Mr. Caffry’s position, however, in some motions intellectual property may be effected, so like an in-camera review by you. Any research not published yet.

Judge: Procedure in regs to address. If motion to be made…can make those motions.
Relating to new documents. Whole purpose of this proceeding and discovery, there are to be no surprises. I loath surprises at these proceedings.
Have discussion about new materials.

Deny motion about new procedure and follow established procedure.

TU: Concerned by it. Once to distributed to all parties it’s all out there. Like you to review yet…need some insulation from wide open unfettered distribution. Could show to all opposing parties.

Caffry: All parties or opposing parties?

Judge: Opposing parties.

Caffry: You are creating a new process. They elected not to serve any discovery demands on me. I have no obligation to give them any documents unless I enter them into evidence.

Judge: Want procedures followed that we started with. Any party could approach me. I’ll take it under advisement.

Caffry: Let me clarify so don’t make errors. Say over weekend discover documents I wish to use to cross applicants witnesses next week. When do I have to offer it?

Judge: When moment comes.

Tom U: In light of what occurred at end of yesterday’s proceedings- effort to impune integrity of individual member, request I be heard on record to clarify all documents.

Judge: Going to hear from you Monday.

Also present Bill Lewis, Town Supervisor Roger Amell,

Judge: Letter yesterday sent out by town and village planning board. Mr. Gagnier sent it to everyone via e-mail.

Kirk Gagnier: Letter speaks for itself. Planning Board, after review, granted preliminiary approval already. If this project moves forward, project will come to planning board for final review at local level.

Return of Jim Martin and Terry Elsemore to stand.

John Caffry: Hopefully won’t take much longer. Mr. Martin you testified yesterday on Front St. project, your firm partly involved.

Jim: Yes, also personally involved.

Caffry: Amenities, club house, all ski in ski out housing

Jim: Most of it ski in ski out
Adjoins Gore Mt. ski area
Number of private trails as part of project that connect to Gore Mt.
Formal connection is at ski bowl,

C: Gore much larger?
Jim: Yes. Several chair lifts.

Caffry: Any requirement for Front St. project that homeowners will pay $1,000 in support of ski area.

Jim: Yes, but vastly different situation. Private ski area versus public one.

Caffry: Those people would have access to larger ski area without paying $1,000.

Jim: Yes.

TU: Objection

Caffry: Front St. property adjoins town park in walking distance, town beach?

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: River rafting common activity.

TU: Object.

Caffry: Seen rafting companies on road?

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: so activity nearby available to homeowners there?

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: Close to downtown North Creek?

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: Fitness center and anything else?

Jim:

TU: Question the relevancy. Beyond scope of pre-file.

Judge: Identified as something Martin worked on.

Caffry: Info from panel about amenities offered to homeowners. Statements that unique or better than average. Exploring similar project in Adirondack to see that this project is truly unique or this is comparable.

TU: Withdraw objection.

Caffry: Any other amenities?

Jim: Was equestrian center and nine hole golf course.

Jim: This project will have greatest economic impact to this area than the 1980 winter Olympics?

Caffry: After Jim read said: Did you write that?

Jim: No I did not…someone else in firm.

Caffry: Ms. Ratner said wasn’t clear if developer going to build residences or private. Where is intent to build expressed in application.

Jim: Assumption used in my objections.

Caffry:

Jim: Repayment of bond and taxes to taxing jurisdiction is two part. Understand that to be correct.

Caffry: Refer to exhibit 193. Statement of repayment of bonds. Bonds get paid first, taxes come second.

TU: Yes

Caffry: Want to clear up erroneous statement.
Do we have large sheet of plans that referred to yesterday.

Caffry: Eight great camps served by private road. Taking existing logging road and upgrading.

Jim: Yes, but not familiar with engineering.

Caffry: Upgrade?
Also building by-pass road and building to town standards.

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: Also in phase 1 16 other smaller great camp lots?

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: Approximately dozen of those. Take look at.

Jim: looking at plan in that area.

Caffry: How many accessible from those two roads? Have access on them?
TU: What mean by accessible?

Caffry: Didn’t hear objection.
How many lots?

Jim: Seeing lot 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 29, 16, 15, as having frontage or driveway on By-Pass Road.

Caffry: Couple with access to Lake Simond Road?

Jim: Lot 27 and 28…so total 11.

Caffry: up to 19 lots that can be sold without building roads to town standards?

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: Anything in application document that would provide applicant from building these roads, selling lots and then abandoning the project?

TU: Objection…outside scope.

Caffry: He prepared fiscal plan

TU: It is a question of design, not question of fiscal impact.

Judge:

Caffry: Give you a document?

Judge: Yes.

TU: Moment to confer with client.

Judge: Yes.

TU:

Jack and Susan Delehanty’s tax bill for 2011 for $5101. $460,000 assessment.
Document introduced.

Caffry: Chance to look at. Appear to be 2011 tax bill for property owned by Delehantys?

Jim: yes it does.

Caffry: states assessment and tax rate?

Jim: Yes.

Caffry: Delehantys are parties. Mr. Martin testified about his assumption on tax rates and calculations he made, based on certain assumptions. What assessment would be.

Judge: Objections to my receipt.

TU: Object. Not area of expertise of Mr. Martin. Outside of scope of issues. And foundation doesn’t justify this document rolling into record.

Mr. Caffry: Witness testified what this document said. Could subpoena tax collector. Not outside his scope of expertise.
Judge: purpose is to establish tax rate for town for 2011.

Caffry: One purpose. He said he assumed would be 100% assessment.

Judge: Do we have to rely on this tax bill…lots of other residents?
Why not stipulate to this tax information?

Caffry: Lot of points to this document.

Caffry: Goes to discussion about whether 70% fair market value or 100% used.

Judge: Extensive testimony about why he chose 100%?

Caffry: He chose 100%. His assumption is incorrect. This year based on 70%. Other issue if assessment goes to 100%, tax rate will go down. He said tax rate will not necessarily go down. Changes revenue considerations if had used actual fair market value.

Judge: Mr. Martin also talked about school budget.

Caffry: Town has set tax rate yet.
If fair market used this year, tax rate will go down. So town would get lower share of PILOT payment because rate is down. This document helps demonstrate all those things.

Kirk Gagnier: Tax roll for every year fixed. 2011 tax assessment is 100%. 2011 tax bill based on 2010 assessment. School tax based one 2011 roll. Rate will be calculated on budget and tax roll.

Judge: Think getting extremely far away from projection offered. Understand looking at solid example, but continuing to have fluctuations will continue to happen.

Caffry: Effects his testimony and calculations.

Judge: Think at this point not going to let Delehanty tax bill in. If agency changes mind happy to reconvene. Getting too far a field from actual focus.

Next witness Phyllis Thompson (owns large shoreline property on South Bay of Lake Simond) Professor in Texas.

Thompson: Notice question on page 3, numbers were achievable if current recovery continues. Success dependent on recovery continuing or people getting back to where five years ago.

Terry Elsemore: Not going to deny this is unusual downturn. Believe lot of trouble existed on residential side than on second home side. Optimistic that within three to five year period, we’ll be back. No reason to believe world has ended.

Thompson: Some parameters…as optimistic if no current agreement between Orvis and applicant? Dormant.

Terry: Understand there is a signed agreement. Provides access to lot of wealthy clientele. Can access their data base. They will advertise the project. Every amenity they service, basicly arrows in my belt.

Thompson: Agreement is dormant, but can talk about? So takes away extra push You said good marketing plan, is applicant’s web site current?

Terry: Been while since looked at it.

Thompson: Is down?

Terry: Not ready to sell right now.
Why spend lot of money on marketing when nothing to sell yet.

Thompson:

Terry: Not an analyst…lot I’ve read over the years about predictions. Lot of it is boiler plate. Look to see if projects are located in good areas, have significant and unique amenities…that’s what attract buyers.

Thompson: Popularity of Adirondacks..how extensive do you find popularity of Adirondacks. Done water survey.

Terry: Area most Americans can identify with. Guarded piece of country, so limited, so more valuable. Involved with Whiteface Lodge, got 150 deposits on a project. Spread to outskirts of LP, so logical assumption will continue to grow.

Thompson: Provincial attitude when take entire continent… Belize, Hawaii, Colarado, Calif., etc. Where two adult children have gone in last 18 months. Current buyers going to limit themselves to small piece of east.

Terry: You have home here.

Thompson: Father’s desire to buy in 1981. Children come here for one week.

TU: Objection…she’s testifying.

Terry: Do you remember my testimony, individuals who will buy great camps and spend $3 million. Those people will be drawn from entire country. Smaller lots live more regionally.

Thompson: Ski area said there were better places. How about the golf course?

Terry: Said closer ski areas to populated centers.

Thompson: World class golf course?

Terry: Don’t believe it is…but there are plans.

Thompson: Classification?

Terry: Don’t know.

Terry: No sales prospects at this point. More amenities, more potential prospects.

Thompson: Miles of hiking?

Terry: Do not.

Thompson: Opportunities for mountain climbing?

Terry: Don’t know.
Half an hour.

Phyllis: Approx. an hour.
Given takes hour and half, consider that close?

Terry: Really can’t answer. Mt. climbing not one of amenities I considered.

Phyllis: Mentioned regional airport. Given size and number of flights, will people without private planes, be able to use airport service?

TU: Object.

Phyllis: What sort of clientele will use the airport.

Terry: Airport on first visit, Gulf Stream parked to my commuter. $40 million aircraft. People in that class have these. Many private jets in area. Many people may have smaller planes come in from regional basis. My objective is to find those people. In speaking with applicant, seven or eight people of substantial wealth have viewed those lots from all over the country. Waiting to go.
Don’t have to sell everyone to have significant impact.

PT: Most people don’t have private planes. Aware of size of airplanes that don’t come in to Adirondack Airport?

Terry: Fairly large runway so can handle fairly large airplane.

Phyllis: He flew in on Cessna that holds nine people.

Judge: You are testifying.

Phyllis: He doesn’t know what airport offers. Do you know what commercial flights are available?

Terry: No.

Phyllis: Will clients be flying in. All lots are vacant. Will people buy vacant lots. Understanding they will buy lot and arrange for someone to build the house.
Easier to sell standing houses or vacant lots\?

Terry: People who buy great camp lots, will build very unique structure. Anticipate developer will build few spec homes. Bigger property, more customization of homes.
Duplexes and triplexes build for people to move right in.

Phyllis: People will want to see houses?

Terry: People like to see models. Don’t know developers exact plans.

Phyllis: Local arts?

Terry: Not familiar with artists

Phyllis: Talking about arts.

Terry: More things here better for sales.

Phyllis: Most buyers are middle age or older. What is your demographics?

Terry: 30 to 60…young professionals…early retirees trying to set aside something for their children.

Phyllis: Aware of medical services here?

Terry: I’m not.

:P hyllis: Given fact ACR will not be built out for 15 years. Reasonable to sell to someone who is 60 and have them wait until they are 75 to get all services.

Terry: Lot earlier than 15 years services will be here.

Phyllis: Have you found high fees in addition to mortgage. If fees high, is that a deal breaker?

Terry: Based on numbers looked at, not unusually high.

Phyllis: Average carrying fees $24,000, are you aware?

TU: Numbers in application…can read those numbers.
Caffry: Those numbers are in Shanna Ratner’s pre-file…pulled out those numbers and totaled them up.

Terry: Starting sixth project in NYS. Any of these locations, taxes and carrying costs hasn’t stopped me.

Phyllis: Reason for difficulty of selling vacation home?

Terry: Not as expensive as used to be.

Phyllis: If this resort is popular, given your description of people living here, effect of community of having two distinct socio-economic populations?

TU: Object…no foundation for two separate populations.

Phyllis: Given you have said great camps being purchased by people who would arrive on private planes. Does this sound like the group of people who live in Tupper Lake full time.

Terry: Sure it’s not. Been involved in many resort communities. Those people who have those incomes share funds with community through spending. Allow communities to grow and prosper by their funds.

Phyllis: In your opinion, prospective buyer prefer already built on lake as opposed to vacant lot without water access or mountain home?

Terry: Speaking with applicant, many lots have no waterfront. But have unique waterfalls, ponds…each lot unique. I’ve also seen happen, if bring sizable marketing dollars. Some will buy real estate that exists.

Phyllis: Fair to say your analysis and con clusions based on saleability of great camps or lack of salability.

Terry: Great camps are logical first step. As market improves and amenities occur, other types will be logical as time goes on.

Phyllis: If market improves or when?

Terry: May have said “if”

Phyllis: Buyers affluent?

Terry: Yes.

Phyllis: familiar with internet?

Terry: Probably.

Phyllis: When go on internet and see in number of publications in ADE and Adiorndack Explorer that developers been in arrears in their taxes, what will potential buyers feel?
Why will fiscal capabilities of developers not effect sale of properties?

TU: Expert not qualified to answer. Question relevancy.

Judge: Sustain. Please rephrase.
When people do research, look at details of developer

Phyllis: To Mr. Martin on page 12 Master HOA will pay road maintenance for 9.8 miles.
Jim: Yes.

Phyllis: If not built out, who will fund?

Jim: Through phasing entire road won’t be built all at once.

Phyllis: Won’t sell lot at end of future road?

Jim: Lots can’t outpace road construction.

Phyllis: When no HOA?

Jim: When lots created. Then system in place to have revenue stream in place (to build road). Either be developer or lot owners who will pick up road maintenance.

Phyllis: What retail expenditures would be realistic for homeowners?

Jim: Categories considered in June 2010 fiscal report where occupants of seasonal unit…groceries, retail, gas and oil…quantified there. Both in terms of residents and visitors.

Phyllis: In your experience, how much goes into other?

Jim: A citation. Difficulty to find spending patterns of seasonal homeowners. Found one in Michigan. Based on that.

Phyllis: See visitors buying clothes?

Jim: Yes.

Phyllis: How many benefits shared by general population?

Jim: Ski area will be. Inn will be public. Not sure exactly of gym membership. Can’t say.

Phyllis:

Jim: speaking to examples. Ski area, main lodge, both available, learning center, multi-purpose facility…lockers, etc. artist cabins total of eight. Retail their wares to public. Club house will have lounge, card room. Some restriction to residents. Gym, fitness center, basketball court…not sure if will be available to public. West face Inn will be available for lodging. Not sure about marina facility.

Phyllis: Don’t know about gym?

Jim: Could go either way.

Phyllis: Ski slope…the big interest for residents of TL. And understandably so. Assurance ski slope will be open for 50 years for TL people.

Jim: Yes.

Phyllis: Any assurance it will be reasonably priced?

Jim: No specific knowledge.

Phyllis: Listed categories of employment. Want to know given all opportunities for employment, how many jobs will really be full time and pay livable wage?

Jim: Referring to jobs at resort?

Phyllis: Yes.

Jim: 2010 update page 43, 524 jobs. Positions 100 full-time, 151 part-time year round, 114 part-time seasonal and others. 443 with full-time equivalency of 200 f-t.

Phyllis: A wage a person could live on?
Or minimum wage.

Jim: Across the board because of nature of facility and its various aspects. From full time management (higher end) to seasonal part-time positions more to lower scale. Run across employment gamut.

Phyllis: Some of full-time jobs at minimum wage?

Jim: No.

Phyllis: Full-time jobs more than minimum wage?

Jim: Can’t exactly attest to that. Objective of payroll ($4 million…substantial increase to economy.)

Phyllis: Who can live on part-time job?

Jim: Significant occurrence who are living on circumstance.

Phyllis: One reason we are living on lower economic level?

Caffry: Objection, no foundation.

Phyllis: Any plans for Resource Management lands to implement forest management plans?

Jim: Don’t know.

Phyllis: Several questions on the PILOT. The home or lot is assessed for the PILOT. Is that assessment the assessment that last for entire duration of PILOT. Or get reassessed when reassessment?

Jim: Will be reassessed when community reval.

Phyllis: Taxes collected on new assessment?

Jim: PILOT does adjust with tax rate.

Phyllis: If property sold, new assessment done?

Jim: If that is the practice of the community, yes.
Don’t know practice here.

Denis Zicah: On page 2 of your pre-file, lines eight and nine. State been in resort industry since 1988 with more than $500 million in projects. In those years, what has been involvement in resort development in past three years.

Terry: Partner in Sunrise Development. Development hired my company. Hour south of Buffalo. $46 million sell out.

Denis: Feel number are achievable if market continues its recovery. Also said would recommend delay until some conditions improve. Seem contradictory.

Terry: Believe great camps will sell now because of prospects. Some people more isolated from current economic conditions.
Lower density, larger parcels will sell well in this economy. Ski resort properties…market will have to recover..ski facility will have to have some improvements. Great camps first and ski properties would be last.

Denis: Relative disposable income of buyers?

Terry: In some respects..if people buying for skiing lot of ski areas they will have to drive by.
Most will buy for the alternative seasons beyond skiing.

Dennis: Question 24 on page 9. Comparable resorts within 3 hours. Answer: Not to my knowledge. Who said.

Terry: Aware of Gore…misspoke.

Dennis: Page 4 line 14 and 14 talk about resort being successful properties are priced competitively. Familiar with LP prices?

Terry: Years ago was. Prior to offering want to take look at comparables and what is to be constructed.. Don’t know costs yet. Start with costs and costs to construct and then establish a margin.

Dennis: Know prices of North Creek and LP?

Terry: Don’t know.

Dennis: Page 27 Second home sales compared with increases in prior years…data stops at 2003. In 2010 vacation home sales down 1.8% from 2009. Cushman Wakefield report…checked national association of realtors on web.

Judge: What trying to reference?

Dennis: Curve is …have www reference. Two numbers from that reference. Like Mr. Elsemore opinion how current number would impact on report.

Judge: Ask Mr. Elsemore to presume the numbers.

Dennis: Assuming that in 2010 that vacation sales slipped 1.8% and median price decreased 11.2 % compared with 2009 and median price was $150,000- if you assume those trends, how do see those trends affecting sales in report.

Terry: Trends reflect certain point in time.
May effect the type of product type the developer will build. Many want to build smaller properties to get certain price point. May also limit margins to get project going.

Dennis Anything to your knowledge in project proposal that dictates what homeowner must build, minimum size?

Terry: Not knowledgeable of covenants and restrictions.

Dan McClelland asked about dozen questions on Okemo and its abilitity to improve Ludlow. He said a resort here would improve appearance of main streets and their businesses.

Dan Plumley: In risk adverse market?

Terry: Overall yes but believe certain clientele exists.

Dan:

Terry: Lot of projects developers preparing right now.

Plumley: Unsure of your role in this project. Principle expertise is in fractional property sales?
Terry: Yes. 23 years.

Plumley: Any fractional uses proposed in ACR for great camps?

Terry: No.

Plumley: What role did you play in great camp design?

Terry: None.

Plumley: Role in phasing strategy?

Terry: None.

Plumley: No influence of developing product design?

Terry: No.

Plumley: Given expertise, core interest be in market potential around Mt. Morris?

Terry: Marketing fractional RE, can do other types. No discussion with developer about coming on.

Plumley: Generally in your experience, more in line with those aspects that would be fractional.

Terry: Yes, but other types at Stowe and Hunter (36 sold in two months). Done whole project and those sales. Have experience..but specialized in fractionalized condo style units at base areas.

Plumley: What mean of appeal of Adirondacks?

Terry: Many visits…area has character like no other place in northeast. Scenery, lakes…certain aspects of area very appealing.

Plumley: Agree wild undeveloped nature is key feature?

Terry: Yes…it would an amenity.

Plumley: For fractional owners, those features a key amenity?

Terry: Any type of amenity.

Plumley: Access to open space an amenity?

Terry: People who live in cities would enjoy that.

Plumley: Protecting undeveloped open space as part of resort project, significant positive point that would have marketing importance?

TU: Object…what type of lands,- public or private?

Plumley: If developer set aside certain amount of lands for open space for hiking, bird watching, etc. would have value?

Terry: Anything I can put in package would help. If significant amount of land allocated for development, developer can provide certain thngs. If land available that doesn’t interfere, then that’s an amenity. Lot of available public land that would serve as that amenity.

Plumley: What about immediate access from unit by foot, significant amenity?

Terry: It could.

Plumley: Could you perceive positive impact from design of project where they would maintain open space in 6 to 8 great camps, not sold off, but made available to public with trails and outdoor recreation and access to state land in future…as an alternative…realize not part of project design. Could have positive fiscal impact, especially for would be fractional owners.

Terry: Think when get to point of selling on ski slope, many will be for skiing…possible snowshoing. Sounds nice but have to understand how that would impact revenue they would generate by selling those lots and that will fund a lot of amenities and services. Have to weight advantages and disadvantages.

Plumley: Many more fractional home owners in project than in western area?

Terry: Yes.

Plumley: How significant would be to owners to walk out of their condo on Mt. Morris or Cranberry Pond and access a trail that would lead them to Follensby Property to highest peak in Adirondacks, Mt. Marcy….first ever in western gateway to High Peaks.

TU: Object.

Plumley: Have expert brought to this hearing who is specialist in fractional economics? Fairly new opportunity for Adirondacks, interested in getting his opinion in this concept and other natural resource concepts.

Judge: Mr. Elsemore’s testimony relates to application.

Plumley: Potential fractional value of units west of Read Road.

Terry: I don’t.

Plumley: Read Prospective Magazine. Magazine of fractional professionals. Any trends in conservation design or conservation principles for resorts in US.

Terry: Numerous national conferences. More green construction…oncoming trend. People have conservation mentality. Don’t think right for all projects, but certainly on radar screen right now.

Terry Elsemore excused.

Hour Lunch Break

Dennis Zicha questioning Jim Martin: Could number be more?

Jim: Could be more or less.

Dennis: Any additional bus runs required?

Jim: No.

Dennis: Any idea of number of bus runs?

Jim: No

Dennis: 100,000 skier visits per year. To ski area only?

Jim: Yes. From 2010 fiscal report. Information provided by Scott Brandi.

Dennis: Number reasonable based on size of mt. and trails and lifts versus bigger ski area closer to Northway?

Jim: As citation, refer you to Mr. Brandi. Can answer better than I could. Don’t know his basis. Part of visitor spending numbers on page 45, footnoted to Scott Brandi (President of Ski Areas of New York).

Dennis: Any black diamond trails at Big Tupper?

Jim: No, I don’t.

Dennis: Testimony that ski area open to public for 50 year limit?

Jim: Yes.

Dennis: Any discussion to extending to in perpetuity?

Jim: Not to my knowledge.

Dennis: Think it might be an APA condition?

Jim: No idea.

Dennis: Gut reaction?

Judge: Don’t need reactions, just facts.

Laughter from crowd.

Dennis: In page 4, all infrastructure and ski area improvements will be complete with exception to road, sewer and water lines attached to remainder of project. No costs…any costs?

Jim: In 2010 fiscal report, narrative of infrastructure finances for two pages and it does provide summary “all infrastructure, etc….costs $35.9 million…see table 2-4.”

Dennis: Cost per infrastructure for page 4?
Withdrawn.

Dennis: Referenced table 2-11 on page 37 which gives total different set of costs…correct?

Jim: yes.

Dennis: Costs of phases 1 to 3 comes to $19.2 million. Subtract that from $35.9 come up with $16 million plus…correct?

Jim: Correct.

Dennis: Prior reference to exception of roads and sewer to remaining areas (Cranberry, East Village and Westface Expansion. Means portion of those?

Jim: Yes.

Dennis: Difference is greater than any of the other phases. Explain why?

Jim: Right here at moment best info I can give you is to direct you to table 2-4 of 2010 report that completely lays out infrastructure costs of entire project. Subject of costs associated with bonding. Grand total for all infrastructure $51.7 million. Infrastructure broken out by phase and by year. Can see how costs were assigned for each development area for each year over 15 year period.

Dennis: Bond proceeds only for infrastructure?

Jim: My understanding.

Dennis: Like to try to compare infra. Costs in pre-filed testimony by phase with bonding requirements table 2-11.
Phase 1 costs $8.6 million. Bonding $10.3 million
Phase 2 $8.2 million. Bonding of $12.3 million
Phase 3 of $2.5 million. Bonding of $8.0 million
If bonding only used for infrastructure, why bonding so much greater than stated costs.

Jim: Need to read 2010 update. Table 2-4. Initial start up costs in addition to narrative discussion. Reference in pre-file are excerpts from report. Table 2-4 outlines difference.
Steve Erman requested full size copy…very small.

First lines. Will provide explanation.

Dennis: State total of infrastructure indicates total infrastructure of $35.9 million. Bonding requirements match. No you tell me total pool is $51.9…that is something else.

Jim: Given bond opinion written addressed allowability…only certain aspects of infrastructure not eligible for not for profit bonding.
Storm water controls, etc.

Dennis: Bond amount given for phase 1. Does that include construction of Lake Simond Extension?

Jim: Is specified in break down…Lake Simond View listed and road considerations for each are included. Includes Lake Simond Road Extension improvements. Listed as cost in year 1, phase 1 at cost of over $700,000.

Dennis: Lake Simond Road Extension private road?

Jim: Yes.

Dennis: No plans for town to take over?

Jim: Yes.

Dennis: plans for gate?

Jim: Not to my knowledge.

Dennis: Private road to service few places?

Jim: Yes.

Dennis: constructed potentially with bond money before public roads?

Jim: Think I pull off those sections subject to public use and segmented out those costs.

Dennis: So not sure if Lake Simond Road Extension not included.

Jim: I’d say that.

Dennis: $35.9 million for bonding; $51.7 million better number for all infrastructure. Do you recall Scott Pierce testimony…you had spread sheet, he had one..both different. Number was $57.8 million.

Jim: Was earlier version that was refined. Resulting in adjustment costs. Numbers in fiscal update most accurate at this time. In my opinion.

Dennis: Do you know if any of these infrastructure cost numbers, any include anything for ski area, ski lifts, etc.

Jim: Not in my treatment of infrastructure numbers. Accounted for separately. Another table that addresses those.

Dennis: table addresses payments to be made to county IDA based on amount of bonding. Assume they are additive? For year one, if get $10.3 million, payment $914,000. Same in year 2 and 3. Things change in year 4 because another $10.2 million added to bond.

Jim: Correct.

Dennis: Therefore total payment for first three years equal $2.7 million. Four through eight, little more than $10 million in payments.

Jim: Table 2-11 total annual payment in year 4 to 8 is $2.5 million. Gratified people read this stuff.

Dennis: Spent hours.

Jim: In third column, years 9 to 12, (payments for 25 years at 7.5% both assumptions). As payments kick in, payments grow so by time get to fourth phase, over $3 million per year. If extend table, start to exhaust as bonds are paid off.

Dennis: Used totals and numbers match. See any problems making these payments?

Jim: Said yes but meant no.

Dan McClelland asked questions about pricing and how they were determined.

Dan Plumley: Clarify some points. Testifying as expert in fiscal analysis. By your projections 524 positions and $4.6 million payroll annually. Page 20 line 13. Estimate payroll at $4.6 million. Is this your projection?

Jim: I worked on methodology.

Dan: Based on maintaining starting retail sales?
Actual salary annually based in part on retail sales over first 15 years?

Judge: Real estate sales.

Dan: Yes.

Jim: Based on 15 years build out.

Dan: How critical are sales in each phase of supporting payroll and staffing?

Jim: Difficult to do that. There are resort amenities which result where employment generated. If they get phased in over time, didn’t look at relationship between residential development and non-residential.

Plumley: Payroll value is not based on expected real estate sales each year?

Jim: Some sort of relationship…can’t say exact relationship.

Plumley: Said no knowledge of how original sale prices developed. Correct?

Jim: In 2005 didn’t know how formulated.

Plumley: In 2010 update, couldn’t explain how pricing increased from 21% to 97%.

Jim: Correct. Gave brief explanation a minute ago.

Plumley: With respect to projections you worked on for salary and positions at build out, no knowledge of % roll of real estate development? No knowledge of 2005 report sale prices and no knowledge of why increased.

Jim: Yes, correct.

Plumley: Move to another part. In general to form a fiscal impact analysis of something going to go on private market. Important to understand value of those products?

Jim: Not necessarily. Various input to fiscal analysis. Depending on subject matter- agencies, statistics, like studies, in terms of pricing, rather unique aspect of analysis that can come from many sources. Many approaches to setting price.

Plumley: In project seeking significant public base of PILOTS or bonding authority, appropriate for public to appreciate how you placed values?

Jim: Yes, but important public or not. Need to make sure you are accurate. Referencing public financing, not putting any government agency at risk. Public entity is IDA…means to obtaining bond financing, held by private bond holders.

Plumley: Beyond my question. Back to page 28. Question 19 You say project uses conservation designs within defined limits of development. What mean?

Jim: Referenced that, project uses conservation designs, when design achieving….

Plumley: Conservation design is actually an industry term relates to prior testimony…

Judge: If have question about this definition?

Plumley: Aware of conservation design quoted in Michael Klemons testimony that avoids intrusion on 75% of space?

TU: Objection.

Judge: Getting to0 far a field.
Sustained.

Plumley: Aware of term conservation design as voiced by Michael Klemons?

Jim: No

No further questions.

Discussion for next week: TU: advised that Mr. Brandi on Wednesday and rest of week. Not sure we would have gotten to him until after Tuesday.

Judge: Can get here by 10:30 am. Monday.

TU: Maybe if Norden available start with him on Tuesday, and pick up after Brandi.

Caffry: Monday-

TU: Bouck and Wilson on Monday, then IDA reps. Curts and Hernandez. Can finish two panelists starting at 10:30 Monday. Tuesday morning Dr. Klemons first thing.

Judge: Dr. Klemons first, then Norden…cover all of Tuesday.

TU: Norden starts Tuesday. Could put Brandi on rest of week.

Caffry: Like to have Norden rebut Brandi.
Norden available through noon on Thursday.

TU: Start Brandi first thing Wednesday.
Then Norden comes back on.

Judge: Brandi to Wed. or Thursday.
Applicant has concern about rebuttal of Norden. Still concern?

Caffry: Believe you made ruling rebuttal wouldn’t have to be for pre-file.
Judge: Caffry like to use same pattern as Ms. Ratner.

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday

Judge: May start earlier, except Monday when 10:30

Summarize: Finished off record discussion. Monday reconvene at 10:30 begin with ACR panel Bouck and Wilson, followed by Kurtz and Hernandez

Tuesday: Dr. Klemons and Norden.

Wednesday: Brandi, then Norden.

Thursday, continue with Mr. Norden, if necessary.

All begin, except Monday, at 10a.m.

Bouck and Wilson.

Caffry: No rebuttal of Monday witnesses…Martin and Elsemore first.

Adjourn: 3:50p.m.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1938