Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

Snowballs
Banned User
http://poststar.com/news/local/insurance-detail-holds-up-ski-resort-project/article_0790bf72-b279-11e0-8ada-001cc4c002e0.html

From the Post Star.....

" Town Attorney and local Assemblyman Tony Jordan, in partnership with engineers from Delaware Engineering who were hired by the town, estimated Front Street would have to take on a five-year bond of $236,000 just to cover the construction costs. That was 10 times the developer's recommended amount. Town officials also estimated a bond of $81,300 over the five-year term for operational costs, significantly more than the $22,300 Front Street had proposed."

Really?

Front Street honestly thinks a  sewage system w/treatment plant for 13 townhouses could be built for $23,600.00 ? It could be operated for 5 years for $22,300.00?

How the hell would you do that? Bury a bunch of 55 gallon drums and pay Joe Smoe $4,400 a year to just drive by fast and look real quick once a year ?

" Yup. It looked good  to me. " signed - Joe Smoe.

Bonds aren't that expensive, unless you're a total screw up or your project is.

FS should just get the bonds and git a going.

They're starting to look very shakey. Seems they don't have the money unt they're hoping to build a little to get some cash to cover their ash.

NC better protect NC's booty.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

endoftheline
Snowballs, Bonds can be very expensive especially for speculative projects. It's my understanding that bonding companies are basically guaranteeing that the person doing the job will actually do it or they will step in and finish the job by paying another contractor/whatever to do the work. The ACR will most likely be facing the same scenario, under the APA's list of draft permit conditions they listed "performance bonds" for various infrastructure components to guarnatee that the work will get done. This may prove problematic for the ACR as bonding companies make sure the project sponsor has the requisite capabilities to do the job, the cash to finance it and they also look to the character of the person backing the project. Good Luck on that last item.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

Snowballs
Banned User
Expensive, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If FS balks at these small bonds, which they knew before hand were statutory, then they are very naive or trying to divert attention from themselves and/or any problems they have. Notice Crikelair balked at discussing it publicly.

Anybody who proposes a mega money deal like this one is and then squeals at these very small bonds is simply ridiculous. FS is supposed to buy the town a new fire truck,,,,what till they see the price of that. Perhaps a Tonka truck will be offered.

I've bought bonds before. They're not that bad.

You used the term speculative, which at some point becomes a " yea suuurreee!!!" notion, not just because of the project itself, but because of a developer's ineptness or shadyness or complete inability(financial, unproven track record, workmanship) to complete his commitments.

Is that the case here?

It's disappoiting that this FS project and the ACR project are fading under the light of day, failing on some of their basic commitments.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

x10003q
This post was updated on .
I cannot comment on who is right or wrong but the developer's reaction leads me to believe this was an ambush. It is never a good plan to ambush somebody when you are trying to do a deal. At some point the ambushed party bails and the land will sit empty for another 10 years and North Creek will continue to fade away.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

poindexter
I really do not understand the town's apparent disinterest in having the FS project succeed.  It seems to me that this project, if successful, would go a great way toward revitalizing North Creek.  Not to mention the increase in potential revenue for Gore Mountain.  I'm not indicating that FS shouldn't have to buy the necessary bonds and abide by APA standard policies.  But in reading prior threads about the FS project, it seems to me that the town officials have made every effort to stall the project.  Just get it done already!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

Darkside Shaman
This post was updated on .
It is not the town stalling. FS, being the business people that they are, are of course going to try to cut every corner possible (which they have done every step of the way thus far). And the town officials are trying to protect their taxpayers from any undue burden that would be brought on by a failed development.
In regards to the differences in the bond figures, once again FS is lowballing their numbers so as to leave more room for negotiations. Jim and Tom Suozzo, of Delaware Engineering who represent the town, are very knowledgeable in this type of project, and I know they will stick to their guns on their numbers, so FS will eventually be coughing up the $$ or they will be SOL.
BTW, FS's sewer treatment plant is there on premises just waiting to be installed, and the second duplex is moving along with construction as well.
This project, as with most other real estate related projects in in slow motion right now, but it is headed forward. The town officials, business owners, and residents alike, want to see FS succeed, but we want it done right!
Many out of towners (aka all of you flatlanders) think that we are all a bunch of podunks up here, so keep right on thinking it, and see how far it gets you.
Gotta go to know
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

Snowballs
Banned User
In reply to this post by x10003q
I dunno X. To me, it seems rather silly for FS to think it can be done for their very low numbers.

Crikelair reaction strikes me just the opposite as it did you.

JMO.

Hopefully, Shaman is right and all will be honky dory.
CMR
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

CMR
In reply to this post by poindexter
I absolutely agree with PD.  I'm from the NYC area and spend every weekend and most winter holidays up at Gore at my family's townhouse.  We love the mountain and enjoy spending time in the community, frequenting the restaurants and bars.  That said, it is upsetting to see that several NC businesses have closed over the last few years due to, I expect, poor revenue.  Wouldn't more townhouses and an on-mountain hotel benefit everyone in the area?  More weekenders means more local restaurant and bar patrons.   More townhouses?  More profits at Grand Union.  

Most of our friends go to Stratton, Okemo, or Mount Snow because they are well known and have abundant lodging.  Build more lodging and people will come to Gore.  I expect that after experiencing Gore they will return for more, as we have.  NC does want the business, right??  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insurance detail holds up ski resort project

adkskier
In reply to this post by Snowballs
The truth behind the headlines is that the town supervisor seems to have very mixed feelings about development and hates FS. Terrible communications from both the developer, the town and their attorneys have dragged the permitting and bonding on for months longer than necessary. The wastewater system should have been approved 18-24 months ago. Along the way the town hired the Suozzo team away from FS with the prospect of engineering a wastewater treatment system for North Creek. This dealt FS a bit of a setback. Seems as if they might have finished one project before changing sides! The town planning board is often confused and misses communication deadlines resulting in long timelines for project permits. Within the last few months, they were unable to conduct a meeting for lack of a quorum. Meanwhile the applicants paid attorneys to travel to the meeting for nothing!
In fairness to the town, FS seems to approach this project more as a hobby than a professional project so they make progress when it's convenient.
I Think, Therefore I Ski