Comments on: Snow Park Continues Slippery Slope

By: alQpoe

alQpoe — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:30:37 +0000

Where’s the details?
What’s to stop them from offering lifetime memberships for $500/person(not a ticket sale.) Then members get $1.00 tickets for life?
BTW JJ, 10% return of investment would be great on the $240K, but the land itself is worth a lot more.
I think Eagle is looking at the overall income it would generate by bringing people in from other cities and states to spend money locally.

By: Eric T.

Eric T. — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:45:16 +0000

You all do realize that most ski areas lease the areas from the forest service or state?

EDITOR NOTE–Eric, as we understand it the proposed deal at Eagle gives the operator exclusive use with a 10% cut of ticket sales. There is no fixed rent and no proven track record with regard to finances. It looks like he has cut a deal with the state park at Eagle Island that was announced today. More to come on that.

By: Shocked Voter

Shocked Voter — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:08:21 +0000

10% of what? Who knows what the park would take in. Just a S.W.A.G. Most people know what that means. What about when the new wears off? I hope the Commishes say no to selling the land to Eagle. Seems like the City Council has lots of extra money to blow after getting the vote to buy the City Hall. There are better places to put tax payer money to use.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:17:11 +0000

For one I think the noise and traffic it will create makes it a bad deal all around. Living here in Eagle I’m not interested in Eagle spending $250,000 of my money to support a privately owned business. Can’t help but wonder if this is a relative of some one running Eagle?

By: Zippo

Zippo — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:39:02 +0000

If TeamDave had a brain among them they’d support installation of a for-profit tramway from Boise to Bogus Basin.

http://www.pstramway.com/index.html

By: JJ

JJ — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:29:09 +0000

Without discussing the politics of the situation, I will counter the “only 10% back” claim.

Neighbors may have come to the conclusion that 10% back is a poor investment, but it lacks the framework to come to that conclusion. If the City is investing $240K, but 10% comes to $24K a year or more, seems like a 10% return is pretty good, especially if the opportunity cost is the .11% the LGIP fund might pay the City for investment of their reserves. In short we need to know the gross revenue expectations and the assumptions the developer is using to determine their viability. 10% may not be enough, or it may be a home run, financially speaking.

I think the deal has a lot of questions, like the need for a competitive bid, will residents be charged for use of the city funded improvements, or just the optional developer funded improvements like a lift?