Killington golf course profits on the rise in 2013

By JOSH O’GORMAN STAFF WRITER

Rutland Herald

 

   ‍KILLINGTON — The Green Mountain National Golf Course is projected to turn a higher-than-expected profit this year.    A report released Monday by the town of Killing-ton shows the town-owned golf course is projected to generate a net profit of $52,609, slightly more than the $52,000 net profit projected in the 2013-14 town budget.    “The goal was to make the golf course self-sustaining when the debt is retired. The last two seasons demonstrate that the plan is working,” said Town Manager Seth Webb. “Course revenues are fully funding the operations and capital needs, and excess revenues are being used to help pay down debt.”    The town is projecting budget revenues of $1,202,850, and expenses    — both capital and operational — of $1,150,241.    David Soucy, general manager of the golf course, noted a number of new events as contributing factors to the golf course turning a profit.    “Through the successful recruitment of a number of new tournaments this year we were able to bring in previously untapped revenue while carefully controlling operating expenses,” Soucy said.    New events at the golf course this year included the Cairo Shriners Tournament, the General Electric Employees Tournament and the Table 24 Golf Tournament, a fundraiser benefiting the Carly Ferro Purple Angels Foundation.    The golf course was also the location of the Killing-ton Junior Golf Championship — hosted by the American Junior Golf Association — and the New England Amateur Championship. These sorts of out-of-state visits contributed an estimated $225,000 to the local economy, according to the report.    The net profit will be transferred into the town’s general fund and will be used for annual debt payments on the golf course. The 2014 debt payment will be $561,244.    In 1993, Sherburne voters approved a $5.5 million bond to purchase 230 acres of land and construct a golf course. josh.ogorman    @ rutlandherald.com  

Comment: The taxpayers are still on the hook for over a half million
(and that's just this year). It's getting pretty old seeing these fluff pieces on the golf course. If this was a normal business at least the interest on the debt payments would come out of reported net income never mind that their cash flow would be totally inadequate to meet its debt obligations. It is only because the taxpayers are footing the bill that the course can even remain open 
Vito 

Word Games

Below is correspondence between Jim Barlow and Seth Webb regarding the setting

aside of undesignated funds last year for the retirement of the golf course debt

balloon payment. If the money was voted to be set aside for this why is a

separate vote needed to set up a restricted fund for this purpose.

The very definition of a sinking fund is that its use is restricted for a

certain purpose. This legal jockeying seems to me is just an attempt to preempt

these funds being set aside. The town administration waited this long to even

address this issue when the money should have been set aside thirty days after

the March vote.

The question is what happens if the vote is against setting up a restricted fund. 

Logically the money would then be fair game to be reassigned.

Vito

From: Jim Barlow [jbarlow@vlct.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:20 AM 

To: sethwebb@town.killington.vt.us 

Subject: RE: budget 

Good Morning Seth,

To make clear, Jim Haff's question of January 22nd asked how to allocate funds to a designated fund for golf course repayment and whether it can be done with a special line vote (i.e., a special article) or through the town budget (i.e., a budget line item). My response was that either method was acceptable. Your question of September 18th was whether a special article was required to create this designated fund for golf course repayment. My recommendation was to ask the voters for specific authorization to create a sinking fund to retire the golf course debt on the ballot at town meeting in 2014. I think that this is the best practice The question of how to create a reserve fund (i.e., your question) is separate and distinct from how to appropriate money to that reserve fund (i.e., Jim Haff's question). My opinion was, and remains to be, that money can be appropriated to a reserve fund by a special article or through the town budget at town meeting. My opinion was, and remains to be, that the best way to create a reserve fund (or sinking fund) is to present the question of creating the fund to the voters at town meeting. There is nothing inconsistent about these opinions.

Jim Barlow

Senior Staff Attorney

VLCT Municipal Assistance Center

Jbarlow@VLCT.org

229-9111 x 1914 229-2211 (Fax) SKYPE - Jim.Barlow9 

Comment: There may be nothing inconsistent about these opinions in and of themselves, however the need for the second opinion seems redundant as stated in my introduction. Its obvious to me, and I would assume most people, that when you vote to appropriate money for a certain purpose, the money will be used for that purpose without the need for another vote to confirm the previous vote. All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, the intent of the voters was clear. Now that we the taxpayers have assumed the responsibility for paying off the golf course debt we do not want further demands on our taxes in the form of interest to rollover this debt or to have funds set aside for the balloon payment raided for some other purpose. This is what this ruse is all about: the hope is to confuse the voters with all this legal monkeying around so they'll vote against a restricted fund and undo last March's vote.

Vito

Chamber has new home in Killington

Rutland Herald

October 17,2013

 

KILLINGTON — The Killington Chamber of Commerce has a new home.

The organization has moved into the Route 4 location previously occupied by Bill’s Country Store and is open for business providing information on dining, lodging and shopping in the area.

The chamber is open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday.

For more information, visit killingtonchamber.com.

 

 

Comment: You would think they'd try to be open when most visitors are here on Saturday and Sunday. They're only open 9 am to 1pm on Saturday.

Vito

Killington Village traffic study requirement questioned

By Josh O’Gorman
Staff Writer | October 09,2013

Rutland Herald

 

KILLINGTON — Some parties involved in the proposed Killington Village are celebrating that the project received permits, but a town official is questioning a permit requirement for a wide-ranging traffic study.

Killington-based developer SP Land Company received two Act 250 permits Monday from the District 1 Environmental Commission to build 193 residential units, a 32-unit subdivision, 31,622 square feet of commercial and retail space, and a 77,000-square-foot skier services building to replace the Ramshead and Snowshed base lodges.

The permits will also allow for construction of a 1,276-car parking lot and realignment of Killington Road and the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort Hotel.

SP Land President Steven Selbo said Monday he was excited to receive the permit and was “cautiously optimistic” about the project going forward.

“I called Steve Selbo to congratulate him on getting the permit,” Select Board Chairman Chris Bianchi said Tuesday. “The Select Board has been unanimous in supporting the village project. I will continue to support SP Land on the board as a select person, and I hope the board will continue to support the village, because we need it.”

The Select Board expressed its support for the project in letters to the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, one of the parties in the permit process. Kris Hughes, executive director of the RRPC, also celebrated the issuance of the permit.

“We’re delighted the permit has been issued and it’s moving forward,” Hughes said. “I think good planning is a good idea but I wouldn’t want it to get in the way of the project. We need economic development in this area and it’s important this project goes forward.”

The RRPC made suggestions to the commission. One recommended that, upon completion of the first phase, SP Land conduct a corridor study looking at the traffic impact on Killington Road, and as well as on Route 4 and Route 103 as far as I-89 and I-91, respectively.

The other planning groups with party status — the Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission — suggested to the District 1 Environmental Commission that the corridor study be required. In fact, the corridor study was made a condition of the permit.

Tom Kennedy, executive director of the SWRPC, said the corridor study — which was opposed by SP Land throughout the Act 250 process — has been part of permits for similar projects in the past.

“We have a precedent for this,” he said “We started this back in the 1990s with the expansion of Killington and Okemo. It’s a process where the parties need to sit down and see what needs to be done.”

Kennedy added. “I’m a skier and I ski at Killington and I think everyone wants to see Killington succeed in what they’re trying to do.”

David Rosenblum, chairman of the Killington Planning Commission, expressed satisfaction that the permit was issued, but was less than thrilled by the corridor study requirement.

“I’m very happy to see it was issued, and for the most part it seems workable,” Rosenblum said. “I still don’t think a developer should be burdened with a traffic study.”

Calling a traffic study the “domain” of the state Agency of Transportation, he also suggested the study covers a larger geographical area than is needed.

“How much traffic SP Land’s project creates from Killington Road down to Route 4 seems appropriate, but the scope of this study seems too broad,” he said.

Rosenblum also noted that it took 20 months for the permit to be issued.

“I’m embarrassed it took so long and people should probably look at why it took as long as it did,” he said.

josh.ogorman

Killington Village developer gets Act 250 permit

Killington Village developer gets Act 250 permit

By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | October 08,2013

Provided Photo

Killington Village Ski Plaza is shown at dusk in this architect’s rendering in which the contemporary style for the village is featured.

KILLINGTON — A local developer has received a permit to begin a $100 million project, but the permit conditions might prompt the developer to appeal.

On Monday, the District 1 Environmental Commission issued an Act 250 permit to SP Land Company to allow the developer to begin the first phase of Killington Village. The permit has been a long time coming, and SP Land President Steven Selbo expressed a reserved form of celebration Monday night.

“I’m excited to take this step, is the best way to put it,” Selbo said, noting SP Land filed the permit application in February 2012. “I’m happy we’ve gotten to this step.”

SP Land actually received two permits Monday.

The first was to construct a 1,276-car parking lot and to realign Killington Road and the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort Hotel.

The second permit allows SP Land to construct 193 residential units; a 32-unit subdivision; 31,622 square feet of commercial and retail space; and a 77,000-square-foot skier services building to replace the Ramshead and Snowlodge base lodges.

The proposed conditions surrounding the second permit have proven the most contentious for SP Land and the three organizations with party status including: Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission.

In January, the three commissions sent a letter to the District 1 Environmental Commission, suggesting that after the completion of phase one, SP Land be compelled to conduct a traffic corridor study along Killington Road, Route 4, Route 100 and Route 103 arteries from Killington to Interstate 89 and I-91.

SP Land objected to this condition, asserting in a letter in January the proposed permit conditions “as a whole are well outside the scope of what is permissible under Act 250.”

During hearings in 2012, the Agency of Transportation, SP Land and the three planning commissions agreed with the findings of a traffic study showing no mitigation measures would be required for phase one.

The Rutland Regional Planning Commission withdrew its support of making the condition mandatory, but the other two planning commissions maintained their collective position.

In issuing the permit, the District 1 Environmental Commission decided to make the study mandatory. SP Land would be obligated to pay for as much as 50 percent of the study, with a cap of $25,000. The Agency of Transportation and the three regional planning commissions would fund the balance of the study.

The scope of the study is unclear; it refers to studying “traffic impacts from the Phase I development upon the Killington Road/US4/VT103 corridors from Killington to I-91 and I-89.” There is no reference to Route 100.

Selbo said he has not decided if he will appeal the decision.

“We’re just letting this sink in right now,” Selbo said. “I’m cautiously optimistic we will find a way to work with everyone.”

SP Land has 15 days from the date the permit was issued to file a motion to alter the permit.

A last-minute suggestion from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission to force SP Land to include 495 units of affordable housing was not included as a permit condition.

josh.ogorman

@rutlandherald.com

Comment:

This is good news on the economic development front. Now, as long as a certain party in town does not continue trying to extort millions from SP Land by litigating every imaginable issue and appealing the permit, our town and region can move forward and enjoy the fruits of this development.
It seems certain select board member(s) are sympathetic to this litigating extortionist. When Jim Haff brought up the question as to why the town is supporting, through contract awards, 1.) Someone who sues the town, and 2.) who stifles economic development. And this is someone who was actually on the original Economic Development and Tourism Commission. The hypocrisy and ludicrousness in this town is sometimes unbelievable. Anyway, Patty McGrath, in response to Jim Haff's uery stated, "What are we supposed to do black ball him? Well, no, but who in their right mind does business with somebody who sues them and stifles their efforts for growth and economic well being.

Vito

Killington mulls $1.4M loan for capital improvements

By Josh O’Gorman
Staff Writer | October 04,2013

Rutland Herald

KILLINGTON — Town officials are looking at taking out a loan to pay for bridge, culvert and road repairs.

Chet Hagenbarth, director of the highway department, discussed the need to fund urgent projects during a meeting of the Select Board this week.

Hagenbarth noted that the highway department’s capital budget has dropped over the years, from $339,000 in the 1980s to $261,000 in 2013-14. In addition, he said, his department had to defer some projects in order to complete repairs following Tropical Storm Irene without raising taxes.

In 2014, the town is looking to repave Killington Road, from Route 4 up to West Hill Road, as well as West Hill Road itself. Other projects on the immediate horizon include bridge repairs on River Road, and bridge and culvert work on Thundering Brook Road.

In addition to the work itself, town officials would like more money in reserve funds for future bridge, culvert and road repairs.

Such funding would be difficult to accomplish without “making the tax rate go crazy,” said Town Manager Seth Webb, who suggested taking out a loan in an effort to keep the tax rate stable.

The town could borrow $1.4 million over a 10-year period at an interest rate of 3.25 percent from People’s United Bank, Webb told the Board.

In 2014, the first year of the loan, there would be no impact to the tax rate. During the second year, the loan would add 1.1 cents to the tax rate.

Beginning in 2016, declining annual payments on the debt for the Green Mountain National Golf Course would offset increases to the tax rate.

There is a significant drop in the annual debt payments on the golf course, from $609,298 in 2015 to $394,660 in 2016. From 2016 until 2025, annual debt payments range from $310,000 to $394,000.

Selectman Bernard Rome expressed support for the loan, saying it is common for cities and towns to borrow money for capital improvements such as road and bridge repairs.

Webb told the board he would plan the 2014-15 budget with the loan in mind. The Select Board is expected to receive a preliminary draft budget in November.

josh.ogorman@rutlandherald.com

Comment: What  the article doesn't say is that the town  had other priorities like the golf course and hay bales, thus let what should have been it's primary responsibilities, like roads and building maintenance, take a back seat. Now all that neglect needs to be addressed.

The question remains do we need to incur interest charges on a loan versus accumulating the funds over time. 

Vito

Killington votes on fire dept. taxes

• October 03,2013

   

  KILLINGTON — Killington residents will head to the polls next month to vote on a property-tax exemption for the fire department.
  
  Tuesday night, the Select Board unanimously approved a motion to warn a vote to renew the tax-exempt status of Killington Fire and Rescue. The department is currently exempt from paying taxes on the property it occupies, but that exemption expires at the end of the year.
  
  Per state statute, residents must approve the property-tax exemption every five years.
  
  There will be an informational meeting at 7 p.m. Oct. 29 at the Town Offices. Residents will return to the Town Offices to vote Nov. 5. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Residents have until 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 30 to register to vote.

Officials: No need to rush Killington Road decision

• By Josh O’Gorman
  STAFF WRITER | October 03,2013

  KILLINGTON — When it comes to planning for the future of Killington Road, a town official wants to wait for winter.
  
  David Rosenblum, chairman of the Planning Commission, updated the Select Board this week on a recent public forum discussing the changes that could make the road’s commercial district more attractive to visitors.
  
  At last week’s Planning Commission meeting, Patrick Olstad, a landscape architect with LandWorks, shared ideas for how the road — and the road’s surroundings — could be improved.
  
  The commission heard suggestions to plant trees on the grassy knoll near the north end of the road, upgrade the lighting and make zoning changes to encourage clustered development.
  
  But the biggest topic of discussion — both last week and Tuesday night — was the road itself, and whether two downhill, northbound lanes are needed.
  
  Olstad suggested the inner northbound lane be repurposed as a dedicated left-turn lane for traffic coming from each direction. He said traffic studies show one lane in each direction could handle the volume of traffic seen on the road, even in the winter.
  
  It was the second time this year a consultant hired by the town has said both northbound lanes are not needed. In January, Lucy Gibson, project engineer with Dubois & King of Rutland, told the Select Board a traffic study by her firm showed a single lane going downhill from the resort would handle current traffic loads.
  
  “When those consultants say we don’t need both lanes, they may be right,” Rosenblum said, noting recent traffic volume is a third less than it was when the second lane was installed.
  
  Olstad said a dedicated left-turn lane would make the road safer, make it easier for drivers to turn off Killington Road, and be safer for drivers trying to turn onto the road.
  
  Select Board Chairman Chris Bianchi said when the second lane was installed, dedicated left-turn lanes weren’t common or popular, and were referred to at the time as “suicide lanes.” However, he said a left-turn lane could eliminate the need to install traffic signals.
  
  And how would the town keep drivers coming off the mountain from just using the turn lane as a driving lane? Selectwoman Patty McGrath suggested installing islands to break up traffic, while at the same time noting how such a move would make snow plowing more difficult.
  
  And what portion of the road should have the left-turn lane? Bianchi suggested the portion of the road between Dean Hill and West Park roads, while McGrath and Chet Hagenbarth, director of the Highway and Facilities Department, suggested that, in the interest of consistency, having the turn lane for the length of the road.
  
  Bianchi said there was no immediate hurry to make any decisions. The study is being paid for with a planning grant from the state Department of Economic, Housing and Community Development. That grant expires in May, and Bianchi suggested waiting at least until winter to firm up any plans.
  
  josh.ogorman@rutlandherald.com

Revote on golf course sinking fund money set aside by last town meeting vote?

Well the weasels are at it again. I just read the current correspondence for tonight's (October 1, 2013) Select Board meeting. And guess what, Seth Webb is jockeying to get a revote on the $217,500 that was supposed to be set aside in a restricted sinking fund to pay off the million dollar balloon payment on the loan that refinanced the shortfalls on bond payments for the golf course.
Why was this money not set aside already? It's 9 months since the start of the year and 6 plus since the vote on the budget. Now the town manager decides the vote needs to be clarified. There were other funds allocated to reserve funds such as the fire dept.'s capital fund. One hundred thousand dollars was set aside. Why wasn't the additional $75,000 voted to be set aside not put in a restricted fund? So selected items were funded and others were not. Why, incompetence or scheming to reverse the will of the voters? Why no legal opinion on the fire department hundred grand put in the restricted fund and the 75 k not put in the fund?
This issue came up in a previous Select Board meeting and Chris Bianchi stated the board requested an opinion from Jim Barlow, attorney for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, who stated there was no issue with setting the money aside based upon the budget vote. Now we have a different opinion from the same person.
The 2012 Town Report clearly states what the money is for. On page 3 under the heading "2013 Budget" the last bullet point states, "Setting aside an additional $217,500 of undesignated funds to be used against a future Golf debt liability of $1.1 million, which is due for payment in 2022." On page 27 under the heading "Undesignated Funds Allocation", the last item is Golf Debt Balloon Payment in the amount of $217,000. I think these are pretty unequivocal statements and with the elimination of the Town Meeting forum, the Town Report is where a majority of voters get the information they base their votes on.
So, what the hell is going on?
I'll tell you what's going on, the select board and the town manager are trying to pull the wool over the voters eyes to get them to reverse the funding that they already voted on.
 Below is the correspondence between Webb and Barlow.

From: Jim Barlow [jbarlow@vlct.org]

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:29 PM

To: Seth Webb

Subject: RE: golf debt payment



Seth, 



My recommendation would be to ask the voters for specific authorization to create a sinking fund to 

retire the golf course debt on the ballot at town meeting in 2014.  



As we discussed, with such a vote there will be no question about the use legal status of these funds, 

the town's authority to carry them forward from year to year, or the voters' intent that they be 

applied to the golf course debt.   



If such a vote is not taken, the passage of time will only make the voters' intent in 2012 less clear.



Jim Barlow

Senior Staff Attorney

VLCT Municipal Assistance Center

Jbarlow@VLCT.org

229-9111 x 1914 

229-2211 (Fax)

SKYPE - Jim.Barlow9 



This transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the 

person(s) to whom it  is addressed above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is  prohibited.  If you are not the 

intended recipient, pleaFrom: Seth Webb [mailto:sethwebb@town.killington.vt.us]  

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 3:53 PM 

To: Jim Barlow 

Subject: golf debt payment



Jim –



Thank you for chatting with me earlier. I’m writing to summarize our question:



- At Town Meeting in 2013, voters passed the budget which included a line item for $217,500 for 

“Golf Debt Balloon Payment”.  



- Due to the structure of the debt (which the appropriation is intended to pay down), we cannot 

make that payment until 2022.  As a result the money needs to roll over and be placed in a 

restricted sinking fund



- Realizing we did not ask the voters for the specific authorization to create the restricted fund, 

the Board was considering placing the question (of creating a restricted fund for the 2013 

appropriation) on the ballot at town meeting in 2014.  



- Our question is: do we need to create a separate ballot initiative, or was the voters’ intent 

understood with the 2013 vote (allowing us to create a the restricted fund now)?



Please let us know your opinion.



Thank you,



Seth





Seth Webb

Town Manager

Town of Killington

2706 River Road

Killington, VT 05751

sethwebb@town.killington.vt.us 

802.422.3241 (office) 

917.693.7216 (cell)


           www.killingtontown.com

 Comment: Jim Barlow's statement "the passage of time will only make the voters' intent in 2012 less clear.",

 says it all. Apparently it took only 6 months for the voters intent to become ill defined. The delay in setting 

aside the money has created this lack of clarity and I believe this is what the 

powers that be are counting on.  

Vito