• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Haystack Update

vcunning

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
550
Points
0
From the Deerfield Valley News:

Delinquencies, doubts cloud Haystack’s future
by Mike Eldred

WILMINGTON- The status of the Haystack Club, a planned private ski resort at the former Haystack ski area, is still up in the air.

This spring, the town of Wilmington received notice that the assets of original developer 1 Cornell Way had been transferred to Alt Charities, a real estate holding company. In a letter asking the town to transfer the lease of town-owned land at the ski area to Alt Charities, the company’s president, G. Tyler Henshaw, told the town that Alt Charities planned to continue developing the real estate and would “evaluate the lifts for use or replacement.”

Although Haystack was a popular family ski area since the 1960s, it was plagued with managerial and financial turmoil. Mount Snow purchased Haystack in 1992 and secured rights to Haystack’s snowmaking water. Mount Snow ran Haystack as a “downscale” family alternative to their main mountain for several years, but eventually they, too, ran into financial problems and reduced the ski area to a weekends-only operation. In 2005, 1 Cornell Inc. purchased Haystack from Mount Snow. They planned to turn the mountain into an upscale private ski resort.

The Haystack Club was an ambitious project that included hundreds of four-unit town houses, two 80-plus-unit condominium complexes, a 162-unit hotel, and numerous on-mountain amenities and improvements. Dozens of local jobs would be created by the project. But, with only one unit completed, work on the development came to an abrupt halt in January 2007. At the time, 1 Cornell representatives blamed the season’s lack of snowfall and a nationwide decline in real estate sales for the decision. Employees were given severance packages, and a number of customer deposits were returned.

Subsequently, 1 Cornell failed to pay on their lease of town-owned land, which includes the upper portions of Haystack’s ski trails, and let the taxes lapse on a parcel that includes the base lodge. After 1 Cornell missed two tax payments on the base lodge property, the town took it to tax sale to recover the $63,390 in back taxes. When no one else bid on the property, the town bought it. “Technically, we own it now, but it’s in limbo,” said Wilmington Town Manager Bob Rusten. “1 Cornell has a year to redeem it.”

To redeem the property, 1 Cornell will have to pay the tax owed on the property, plus interest and fees.

For Wilmington officials, Alt Charities’ vow to continue work on the project seemed to be a promising development in the continuing saga of the ski area. But now officials say that Alt Charities and 1 Cornell appears one and the same. The two companies share a number of the same officers, including Thomas E. Cross, a Keene resident who is listed as treasurer of both corporations.

Rusten sent a reply to Alt Charities’ request for the lease of the town-owned parcel that included a list of “expectations” for use of the land. If Alt Charities wanted the lease, they’d have to acquire the base lodge parcel owned by the town as well as the surrounding parcels that were part of the ski area, and present a plan to build and operate a “fully-functioning ski resort.”

“We never heard back from Alt Charities,” Rusten said. “But we did receive a check from 1 Cornell for the lease, so the land stays with 1 Cornell for now.”

One of the stipulations the town put on the transfer of their lease was a requirement for Alt Charities to resolve several issues between the developers and the Coldbrook Fire District. When 1 Cornell’s Haystack Club was in its initial phases, they entered into an agreement with Coldbrook Fire District for the upgrade of their sewer plant. The upgrade would be necessary to handle wastewater from the large number of units at the resort. “Everyone at Coldbrook was extremely supportive of 1 Cornell’s project,” said Coldbrook board member Susan Haughwout. “Nobody wanted to see them succeed more than we did.”

Coldbrook administrator Roberta Carey says 1 Cornell initially asked for, and received, sewer allocation for 20 units. Four of the units have been completed, but are unoccupied, and a foundation for four more has been poured. Coldbrook has withdrawn the allocation for the 12 unbuilt units, but Carey says the company refuses to pay for their remaining sewer allocations, including that of the base lodge that now belongs to the town.

Carey says 1 Cornell has argued that, since they aren’t using their allocation, they shouldn’t have to pay. Not only are the completed units not occupied, the base lodge has been gutted and is unusable. “That isn’t how it works,” Carey says. “When you request and receive the allocation, you either hook in or you don’t – either way you pay the fees for the allocation. They knew all this ahead of time, but they’ve chosen not to follow our rules and to make their own.”

Coldbrook says 1 Cornell owes them about $140,000 for services. The figure includes $42,000 that a judge has ordered 1 Cornell to pay the sewer district, but which still hasn’t been paid. Carey says 1 Cornell is delinquent on all of their sewer payments, except those associated with the country club at the Haystack Golf Course. She says 1 Cornell’s failure to pay has left Coldbrook Fire District in financial difficulty. “We’re in deficit,” she says. “We’re in worse shape than we were. We’re not in a position where we’re going to shut down, but we’re using reserve funds to keep going.”

Carey says the Coldbrook board of directors hopes the project will be sold to another investor, but she says Alt Charities and G. Tyler Henshaw aren’t “new” owners. “We were told during litigation that he’s an associate (of 1 Cornell’s Bob Foisie).”

Until the issues with the town and the sewer district are worked out, the project appears to be at a standstill.

A lone four-unit town house complex sits just below the base lodge. It sticks out like a surreal piece of suburbia plopped down amid a moonscape of boulders, rubble, and foundation holes. The wind tugs at torn bits of plastic covering missing windows at the base lodge, and the lifts have been left to weather the elements.

Representatives of 1 Cornell and Alt Charities did not return calls asking for comment.
 

Glenn

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,691
Points
38
Location
CT & VT
I'd really hate to see another ski are go under. Even if it's private, I hope they can get it revived. You can see the empty snow covered trails from Mt. Snow.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
19,215
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
With each passing day the chances of Haystack ever reopening decreases - imho there's now just a 0.01% of it happening
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
17,569
Points
0
I'd really hate to see another ski are go under. Even if it's private, I hope they can get it revived. You can see the empty snow covered trails from Mt. Snow.

Mount Snow..Peaks..should just buy them..but not many people want to drive all the way to Vermont to ski a little hill..
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
19,215
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
Mount Snow..Peaks..should just buy them..but not many people want to drive all the way to Vermont to ski a little hill..

So many people say this, that Peak should just buy Haystack, but in reality, it's such an economically daunting idea that I'm suprised everytime it comes up.

First off, as the bird flies it's a little over 1.5 miles between the Southern most point at Mount Snow from which you could install a lift/trail pod and the Northern most part of Haystack where you could do the same. In theory, it could be done with 2 lifts to get folks up the ridgeline that seperates the two.

Second, snowmaking water. Under Mount Snow's currently in permitting West Lake project, the end result is enough water to cover Mount Snow's 450 or so acres with roughly 1,000,000 million gallons per acre(the current industry "standard" for seasonal snowmaking needs). There's not nearly enough water available in Haystack's pond(which theoretically goes out of Mount Snow's water supply once West Lake is done) to cover Haystack's existing terrain and the acreage that would need to be developed for the interconnect - and just withdrawing that all those extra million of gallons of water out of the Deerfield River just won't be happening anytime soon.

Third - cost - Haystack was sold off for $5 million however many years ago that ASC jetisonned it from their stable. The now unsuccessful developers of Haystack spent a bunch of $$ in the site prep work/initial construction and I'd bet that they won't let it go for pennies on the dollar, and then the existing infastructure needs a decent amount of work from going unused for these last now 4 seasons, and the entire base area alone needs a large amount of earth moving to make it's roads/parking lots safe + useable for potential patrons.


My guess is when all is said and done, that you'd be looking at a 25 to 30 Million dollar price tag(and that's making the assumption that there WON'T be any significant hurdles in the land acquistion and permiting process to accomplish the interconnect - yah like that would be the case), and that also doesn't factor in the pricetag for The NEEDED West Lake project, the lift upgrades that Peak is considering in the next few years at Mount Snow and the potential base area redevelopment at Mount Snow that Peak has on the horizon. Add all of that together, and you could easily be talking a pricetag North of $75 million :eek:

To somewhat steal a bit from Highwaystar ( :rolleyes: ) Haystack = DEAD
 

vcunning

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
550
Points
0
Mount Snow..Peaks..should just buy them..but not many people want to drive all the way to Vermont to ski a little hill..

I'd rather see any Peak investments $ stay at Mount Snow.

Although, I've been tempted during those couple of powder days we had last season to drive to the base lodge (about 25% of the way up the mountain) and ski down to Handle/Coldbrook road. It always looks so pristine as I drove by.
 

Highway Star

Active member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
2,921
Points
36
So many people say this, that Peak should just buy Haystack, but in reality, it's such an economically daunting idea that I'm suprised everytime it comes up.

First off, as the bird flies it's a little over 1.5 miles between the Southern most point at Mount Snow from which you could install a lift/trail pod and the Northern most part of Haystack where you could do the same. In theory, it could be done with 2 lifts to get folks up the ridgeline that seperates the two.

Second, snowmaking water. Under Mount Snow's currently in permitting West Lake project, the end result is enough water to cover Mount Snow's 450 or so acres with roughly 1,000,000 million gallons per acre(the current industry "standard" for seasonal snowmaking needs). There's not nearly enough water available in Haystack's pond(which theoretically goes out of Mount Snow's water supply once West Lake is done) to cover Haystack's existing terrain and the acreage that would need to be developed for the interconnect - and just withdrawing that all those extra million of gallons of water out of the Deerfield River just won't be happening anytime soon.

Third - cost - Haystack was sold off for $5 million however many years ago that ASC jetisonned it from their stable. The now unsuccessful developers of Haystack spent a bunch of $$ in the site prep work/initial construction and I'd bet that they won't let it go for pennies on the dollar, and then the existing infastructure needs a decent amount of work from going unused for these last now 4 seasons, and the entire base area alone needs a large amount of earth moving to make it's roads/parking lots safe + useable for potential patrons.


My guess is when all is said and done, that you'd be looking at a 25 to 30 Million dollar price tag(and that's making the assumption that there WON'T be any significant hurdles in the land acquistion and permiting process to accomplish the interconnect - yah like that would be the case), and that also doesn't factor in the pricetag for The NEEDED West Lake project, the lift upgrades that Peak is considering in the next few years at Mount Snow and the potential base area redevelopment at Mount Snow that Peak has on the horizon. Add all of that together, and you could easily be talking a pricetag North of $75 million :eek:

To somewhat steal a bit from Highwaystar ( :rolleyes: ) Haystack = DEAD

Just throwing it out there................................

They don't need to buy Haystack, just work out some sort of deal to operate it and get it on it's feet....

Based on the geography, it is in theory possible to run criss-cross traversing trails from the top of Haystack to Carinthia, and from the top of Mt. Snow to the base of Haystack. They would be 6% grade or steeper, similar to Solitude at Killington. Make them wide enough for a small snowcat. This would require minimal permitting and leasing of land.

Get one top to bottom lift running on Haystack. No snowmaking. Remove as many rocks and gnar as possible from most trails. Never groom over there. Repair the lodge and parking to basic levels.

Open it up on days where there is sufficient natural snow to make it skiable. Can't imagine that would cost much money, and it would add a whole new dimension to skiing at mount snow, especially on a powder day.

Don't make me draw you a map.
 
Last edited:

Greg

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
31,154
Points
0
Get one top to bottom lift running on Haystack. No snowmaking. Remove as many rocks and gnar as possible from most trails. Never groom over there. Repair the lodge and parking to basic levels.

Open it up on days where there is sufficient natural snow to make it skiable. Can't imagine that would cost much money, and it would add a whole new dimension to skiing at mount snow, especially on a powder day.

Don't make me draw you a map.

I still think you're a tool, but I would ski there. :razz:
 

Highway Star

Active member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
2,921
Points
36
I still think you're a tool, but I would ski there. :razz:

I think enough people would to make it worthwhile, and it would add a large chunk of natural terrain, on a limited basis.
 

Greg

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
31,154
Points
0
I think enough people would to make it worthwhile, and it would add a large chunk of natural terrain, on a limited basis.

I agree it would be a nice asset, sort of a signature "expert" area, although with that flat section in the middle, "expert" is used loosely. Still, untouched Witches would be fun. Of course, one running lift wouldn't get you over there, but I've hiked to the top of the Witches from the summit of Haystack, and it's not bad. Would kinda make the Witches extra extra special I suppose. The problem is all this at what price? ROI is a tough sell here. Would be cool though.
 

Glenn

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,691
Points
38
Location
CT & VT
Every year that passes makes it harder to get an area back up to snuff. Take a look at Maple Valley. A few years ago, this would have been viable to reopen. But after those lifts have sat for a few years, it goes from a simple "lube, oil and filter"...to a major overhaul. Haystack is probably still within that window, but if sits idle for a few more years...

There was always a rumor of an interconnect trail between the two mountains. Although, there technically is a trail that connects the two. However, it's more of a hiking/cross country skiing/snoeshowing/snowmobile trail in the winter. IIRC, it's right off of Big Dipper.
 

arik

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
295
Points
16
Location
outside Boston nowadays
I would definately ski Haystack

BTW, I had a feeling Alt Charities was a shell for 1 Cornell to get out of the unpaid taxes.

"But now officials say that Alt Charities and 1 Cornell appears one and the same"
 

sedlmi

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
6
Points
0
Maybe something like this?

haystack.jpg
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
19,215
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
Maybe something like this?

haystack.jpg

Is that 4 or 5 lifts that they drew into that proposal?? Can't quite make out if it's one or 2 on the Haystack side of the connect.

Definately the most intriguing lift IMHO on that proposal is the one that basically goes from the bottom of the Sunbrook Quad almost due West upto the ridgeline. I'm very often looking over at that area when I'm skiing down Beartrap and also riding up the Sunbrook Quad.
 

marcski

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
4,576
Points
36
Location
Westchester County, NY and a Mountain near you!
It sounds good, but I'm not buying it! With its' relative low elevation, lack of north facing trails and lack of consistent, substantial snowfall, I don't think it would work too well for any of its "expert" terrain to be open on any consistent basis without snowmaking.
 
Top