Another IVGID giveaway?
AT THE NOVEMBER 18 2020 6PM MEETING, (GENERAL BUSINESS ITEM K.1) IVGID TRUSTEES WILL CONSIDER A REQUEST BY THE NON-PROFIT DIAMOND PEAK SKI EDUCATION FOUNDATION (DPSEF) TO NEGOTIATE A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT AT DIAMOND PEAK FOR AN UNDISCLOSED SUM. WILL IT BE ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR LIKE PARASOL AND THE VISITORS CENTER?.
There have been a few mentions of DP staff working with Diamond Peak Ski Education Foundation to look at needs for which there might be opportunities for collaboration. But the proposal to seek a long term ground lease so that the DPSEF, a private non-profit, can build a new facility on public property comes as a surprise to many. The 2018 agreement between IVGID and DPSEF calls for collaborating on facilities needed by both DPSR (Diamond Peak Ski Resort) and DPSEF. There is no discussion in the proposal about what is needed by DPSR, only what is “needed” by DPSEF.
This is not a criticism of DPSEF board or coaches. They do a very good job of running a ski race program, but it doesn’t really serve that many community members. It seems a small percentage of the community would be receiving a very large commitment of resources, beyond what the community has already been providing for years. And now that our comfortable carrying capacity, even before COVID-19, is exceeded on almost a daily basis, we certainly don’t have a need to market Diamond Peak through a race team.
Trustees have the responsibility to make decisions in the best interests of the entire community. This project was never mentioned in the Diamond Peak Master Plan, approved only 5 years ago. This is the first the public has had any notice of the options given by DPSEF. Recommending an agreement be drafted before publishing a notice and holding a public hearing on a matter of such significance and long term consequences would violate the fiduciary duties of the IVGID Board.
And for years we have been told our facility fees have paid to make facilities available for our use. Giving the DPSEF exclusive use of this land for what will likely be several decades or more, appears to violate that covenant. There is not sufficient justification to give away public assets (although not explicitly stated, if this request is similar to past ones, the lease will be for $1 a year) for a non-public use. NRS prohibits such behavior for counties, cities and towns. Do we need to get the legislature involved to once again correct one of the shortcomings of NRS318?
We have seen the unintended consequences of long term leases. Parasol wanted to sell us the building for which we had given the land 99 years. The Parasol building and the IV Visitors Center were both essentially donated without considering the long term needs of the District and now cannot be undone for many years. We wouldn’t be looking for a place for a dog park today if IVGID still had possession of those properties. . If 10 years from now DPSEF doesn’t want the building (where have we seen that before?) we are going to be asked to buy if from them. What if the global warming predictions come true and dictate the closure of Diamond Peak during the term of the lease? We might want to sell the property, but having a long term lease would not be helpful.
Alternatives (none were given in the proposal):
- Consider this along with the other projects in the Diamond Peak Master Plan.
On first glance option 2 seems to be a good proposal to improve safety for those being dropped off. But instead of leasing the land to DPSEF, this project should be considered with other components of the Diamond Peak Master Plan which is supposed to be re-evaluated and updated; if there is enough community support/private support, it can be pursued, but as a community asset, not a private one on public land
- Look for other existing facilities at DP.
We have 2000 square feet of office space in the skier services building. Now that many office workers can work from home, why does IVGID staff even need to be located at Diamond Peak? Couldn’t we share this facility with DPSEF? We have a large room in the main lodge that is empty much of the time. Couldn’t that be a study center for the ski team during the week?
- Compare the cost of providing a race program in-house.
Other ski areas in the region that used to have similar non-profits for their race program, have been running their own race program for years. They are either cost neutral or alternatively profit generating. We have not compared the cost of running our own program to having DPSEF run it. Staff should come back with estimates of costs to run this “in-house”, making sure to include comparing soft costs (all the things we currently give away to DPSEF).
And with so many projects in the “pipeline”, our staff has limited bandwidth. They will most certainly be involved in this project since they have all the historical documents and drawings relating to the site.
Questions that need to be answered:
- How many/what age athletes primarily use the existing off-site facility?
- How many IVGID residents/parcel owners and their children are participants?
- How many non-resident/non parcel owners are participants?
- How many season passes were sold (by category: sr. adult, child, student) were sold to non-resident/non parcel owners?
- What will the use of the property be during the summer?