Belleayre fail says Catskill Heritage Alliance

ScottySkis wrote

I am for something that will not work.

Coach Z wrote

What's with the funky symbols?  Your posts are tough to read try some spacing please

Adk Jeff wrote

ScottySkis wrote

I am for something that will not work.

Huh?

ScottyJack wrote

Adk Jeff wrote

ScottySkis wrote

I am for something that will not work.

Huh?

hahahahahaahah  A big Huh?  4sure!  

Coach Z wrote

Have you been to Lake Placid on a weekday in June thru August?

It's not dead but Orda is only a small part of that.

ScottySkis wrote

As before, HVS has utilized improper, unrealistic, incomplete, and inconsistent assumptions for itsnew feasibility analysis. The new version evidences conflicting and contradictory statements, falselogic and bias. It relies upon an even lower unit construction cost than previously applied, anamount that was already unrealistically low. And, it may significantly under-estimate manydepartmental expenses. Notably, HVS omits an assurance that the construction costs applied are “within reason” andsupported by “similar” projects. When compared to reported construction costs of some of theRocky Mountain set, the unit cost applied by HVS is one-half to two-thirds lower. Consistent withearlier comments, HVS’ co-Consultant (Ragatz 200 shows HVS to have omitted hundreds of millions of dollars from the estimated construction cost of the hotel elements.As before, HVS’ new analysis is critically flawed and unreliable for decision-making purposes.Rather than reflecting a realistic assessment of the proposed resort’s prospects, HVS’ analysisreflects confusion, contradiction, error, yield optimization and/or goal-seeking. On balance, HVS’ flawed analysis appears to favor the proposed resort, retaining its more problematic Highmount element, and all detached units. As documented in earlier comments, themarket for the detached units has collapsed, while this report shows the Highmount element wouldlikely fail HVS’ feasibility analysis were realistic construction costs, RevPar, departmental expense,and other factors herein considered. Rather than being necessary as HVS and the Applicant contend,were it to be built the Highmount resort elements’ failure could well-trigger that of the Wildacreselement.Subject to further analysis, it appears that a less capital-intensive and smaller-scale resort of about250 (+/-) overnight lodging units in the Wildacres area might be feasible when realistic factors areapplied and taking into account its ability to capture nearly as much cash flows from more limitedreal estate product sales as the Wildacres+Highmount scenario.At about 250 units, a more appropriately-scaled resort would rank among the largest base areadevelopments in the Northeastern region. It would increase the Route 28 corridors’ room count byabout 80 percent. And, it would maintain the viability of the existing lodging sector in the Route 28corridor along with the character of its existing communities, hamlets, and villages that aredependent thereon.Finally, a more appropriately-sized resort would enable the State to forego taxpayer-supportedoutlays to acquire the adjoining defunct Highmount ski area and avoid imposing additional operatingcosts on BMSC.
http://www.watershedpost.com/2014/belleayre-resort-will-fail-unless-scaled-back-catskill-heritage-allian?fb_action_ids=798819416817390&fb_action_types=og.comments http://www.scribd.com/doc/235458964/PEFA-2014-Analysis-of-Belleayre-Resort Lots of pages on this link. I agree no need for this on route 28 lots of lies i feel. This is the last page: Conclusion As before, HVS has utilized improper, unrealistic, incomplete, and inconsistent assumptions for itsnew feasibility analysis. The new version evidences conflicting and contradictory statements, falselogic and bias. It relies upon an even lower unit construction cost than previously applied, anamount that was already unrealistically low. And, it may significantly under-estimate manydepartmental expenses. Notably, HVS omits an assurance that the construction costs applied are “within reason” andsupported by “similar” projects. When compared to reported construction costs of some of theRocky Mountain set, the unit cost applied by HVS is one-half to two-thirds lower. Consistent withearlier comments, HVS’ co-Consultant (Ragatz 200 shows HVS to have omitted hundreds of millions of dollars from the estimated construction cost of the hotel elements.As before, HVS’ new analysis is critically flawed and unreliable for decision-making purposes.Rather than reflecting a realistic assessment of the proposed resort’s prospects, HVS’ analysisreflects confusion, contradiction, error, yield optimization and/or goal-seeking. On balance, HVS’ flawed analysis appears to favor the proposed resort, retaining its more problematic Highmount element, and all detached units. As documented in earlier comments, themarket for the detached units has collapsed, while this report shows the Highmount element wouldlikely fail HVS’ feasibility analysis were realistic construction costs, RevPar, departmental expense,and other factors herein considered. Rather than being necessary as HVS and the Applicant contend,were it to be built the Highmount resort elements’ failure could well-trigger that of the Wildacreselement.Subject to further analysis, it appears that a less capital-intensive and smaller-scale resort of about250 (+/-) overnight lodging units in the Wildacres area might be feasible when realistic factors areapplied and taking into account its ability to capture nearly as much cash flows from more limitedreal estate product sales as the Wildacres+Highmount scenario.At about 250 units, a more appropriately-scaled resort would rank among the largest base areadevelopments in the Northeastern region. It would increase the Route 28 corridors’ room count byabout 80 percent. And, it would maintain the viability of the existing lodging sector in the Route 28corridor along with the character of its existing communities, hamlets, and villages that aredependent thereon.Finally, a more appropriately-sized resort would enable the State to forego taxpayer-supportedoutlays to acquire the adjoining defunct Highmount ski area and avoid imposing additional operatingcosts on BMSC.
Above: A rendering of the planned hotel and lodge buildings at Highmount -- part of the proposed Belleayre Resort project -- from a supplemental draft environmental impact statement released in April 2014 by the DEC.
The Catskill Heritage Alliance, a local environmental group that has long been critical of the proposed Belleayre Resort project in Highmount, has released a study that claims the resort will fail unless scaled back.
The study, commissioned by Washington, D.C.-based firm Public and Environmental Finance Associates, takes aim at another study commissioned last year from national hotel consultants HVS by resort developer Crossroads Ventures. In documents prepared in 2013 for the state's ongoing review of the project, Crossroads relied on the HVS study to make a case for the resort's financial viability and economic benefits to the region.
At the time, HVS issued a glowing review of the Belleayre project, stating that if built, the resort would be "an extraordinary asset that can reasonably be expected to gain recognition as one of the premier destinations and vacation ownership communities in the world, and the top-quality facility of this sort in the Northeastern United States."
The Catskill Heritage Alliance now claims that HVS's study was flawed. In an analysis of the HVS study (embedded below), PEFA's Michael Siegel writes that Crossroads is "seeking to charge champagne prices for a resort that is to be built on a beer budget," and relying on grossly inflated estimates of the resort's potential revenue.
The PEFA study recommends that Crossroads build only the lower portion of its two-part proposed development -- the "Wildacres" site -- and scrap plans to develop a hotel and lodge at the upper elevation Highmount site.
"A Wildacres-only scenario would be more supportive of the regions’ existing communities and lodging sector. It would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and allow the State to focus its resources on improvements to the existing Belleayre Mountain Ski Center," Siegel writes.
Among the criticisms Siegel lobs at the HVS study is that it assumes potential revenue for the Belleayre resort will be on par with the revenue made by top-flight five-star ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains. Compared to Belleayre, the Rocky Mountain resorts have longer ski seasons, better terrain and natural snow, proximity to commercial airports and interstate highways, and are not dependent on the state government for upgrades to ski centers, Siegel writes.
In a statement issued in response to the PEFA study, Belleayre project coordinator Gary Gailes questioned PEFA's credentials and expertise, and characterized the firm as an "anti-development consultant."
"In response to the so-called economic analysis contracted by the Catskill Heritage Alliance to support their longstanding opposition to the Belleayre Resort project, I would only ask readers of this report to compare the credentials of the internationally renowned consulting firms of HVS, Inc and Ragatz Associates employed by Crossroads to evaluate the economic viability of the project versus the firm of PEFA (an anti-development consultant) hired by the financial backers of the Catskill Heritage Alliance," Gailes wrote. "Perhaps if the Catskill Heritage Alliance revealed the source of their funding to hire PEFA, one might better understand the conclusions reached by PEFA."
The majority of ORDA’s operang revenue is earned in the last ve months of its scal year, from
November through March. This along with ORDA’s lack of adequate cash reserves and need to
borrow in ancipaon of grant funding cause it to borrow from a Line of Credit (LOC) to meet its nancial obligaons. For example, ORDA borrowed $900,000 from its LOC on February 1, 2013, to pay its annual State Rerement System bill. In addion, it borrowed $130,000 on October 25,
2011, to cover its payroll costs. It borrowed another $100,000 for payroll on June 4, 2013, despite
reporng that the 2013 ski season was highly successful. Given its cash situaon, ORDA relies on outside contribuons and loans to cover cash shortages. Consequently, ORDA’s outstanding LOC balance on June 18, 2013, was over $3.4 million, and it reported balances at the end of scal years 2007-08 through 2012-13 ranging from $2 million to almost $4.6 million. Because ORDA has connued to maintain LOC balances, it has incurred
$531,518 in interest and fees between January 2008 and June 2013.
When discussing ORDA’s cash situaon, ORDA ocials indicated their organizaon is unlike most public authories because it has very cyclical revenue streams. They emphasized ORDA earns nearly 85 percent of its annual revenues over a ve-month period of winter business. They also
indicated that revenues are largely dependent on uncontrollable factors such as weather and tourism trends.
While many factors contribute to ORDA’s cash situaon, we believe management and the Board
of Directors (Board) can take certain steps to improve ORDA’s cash and grant management, a Another $123,781 is owed by ESDC for the construcon of the Lake Placid Convenon Center. We were advised this amount is not collecble, but ORDA has not wrien it o. The remaining
$13,000 was charged to ESDC’s account but has not been paid.
Further, ORDA should take more proacve collecon measures when it provides venue vouchers and ckets to area businesses to sell on its behalf. The businesses sell the vouchers and ckets at
a discounted value and keep an agreed upon amount with the balance due to ORDA. In one case,
Belleayre had an agreement with an area ski shop during scal 2012-13 to sell discounted ckets redeemable on specic days. Belleayre issued 1,500 cket vouchers to this ski shop, and ORDA received payment for only 1,173 ckets totaling $35,190. However, ORDA did not bill the shop unl aer the purchasers actually redeemed the ckets at Belleayre. ORDA did not require the ski shop to return the unsold ckets or to pay ORDA its share of ckets sold which may not have been used. Also, ORDA did not aempt to account for why 327 ckets were not redeemed. By
not doing so, ORDA cannot determine whether the ski shop gave ORDA all the monies it collected
for ckets that were purchased but never redeemed. ORDA should have a roune cyclical credit and collecon process where it determines whether accounts receivable are collecble, sends accounts for collecon where necessary, writes o uncollecble accounts, and determines whether to connue to extend credit to others. ORDA did not maintain evidence that sta had periodically reviewed whether accounts receivable were collecble. In response to our ndings, management indicated ORDA will implement a formal, documented quarterly review process to beer ensure it collects and properly classies past due accounts. Failing to take proacve measures to collect accounts receivable may contribute to ORDA not having sucient cash reserves to pay its bills.

PeeTex wrote

Dude, I don't get what you are trying to say. Spend a few minutes, collect your thoughts and make a coherent argument.