Time to speak up

Dear Cris,

I have been silent about the foreclosure of Oak Mt. by the IDA, but I feel it is time the taxpayers of Hamilton County know what Mr. Farber and the IDA did to get possession of Oak Mt.

My wife Nancy and I owned and operated Oak Mt. for about 27 years. We knew that to stay in business we had to update the ski area. In the early 1990s we attempted to do so.

We needed two things to go ahead with our project, access to the river for inexpensive water and sewer. We were not able to get either. That was when we decided to shut down.

In the late 1990s village, town and county officials met with us to see what could be done to reopen Oak Mt. We sold stock in the company to raise money and Mr. Farber (chairman county Board of Supervisors) applied for a grant for Oak Mt.

Hamilton County got a grant for Oak Mt. for $730,000. Oak Mt. got $710,000 of the grant. Mr. Farber had the money diverted to the Hamilton County IDA. Mr. Farber is also co-chairman of the IDA.

We were in the middle of construction and we had already spent approximately $800,000 on improvements. Mr. Farber informed us the money would not be a grant or a no-interest loan like all their other loans, but a high interest loan. We had no choice but to accept his terms since no other funding was available at the time.

We had a bank loan for $350,000 that the bank wanted to sell. The IDA bought it for $175,000. They did not have the money so two of my stockholders loaned the IDA the money.

Mr. Farber told us we would repay the IDA $175,000. Approximately one year later we tried to settle our finances with the IDA. For the $175,000 loan the IDA would not take anything less than $491,000 at 12-3/4 percent. The IDA would not take anything less than 10 percent interest on the loan that was intended to be a grant.

I owned a cell tower site we had put up for collateral. The income from the cell site could pay the lien against it, but the IDA wanted to take it. The IDA has sold the cell site to an out-of-state company. The income from the cell site now goes out of state. When we owned it the money was spent locally.

The IDA had $175,000 plus $65,000 a total of $245,000 invested in Oak Mt. The IDA would not settle for less than $1.6 million. I went to an IDA meeting and asked why they were charging so much for the loan.

Mr. Faber’s reply was “That’s what the paperwork says.” It was obvious they were not going to let me keep it or sell it. That was when we decided it was hopeless to fight the IDA.

I just read last week’s Hamilton County Express and what the IDA is doing makes me angry. We spent $1.75 million updating Oak Mt. and now they are giving it away for $1. The IDA is paying a major bill and who knows what else.

If Mr. Farber and the IDA used the grant money as it was intended and loaned us money like all their other loans we probably would still be at Oak. The money the Village of Speculator spent and the enormous amount the IDA has spent would have been unnecessary.

The members of the IDA should look hard at the legality of their actions instead of rubber-stamping Mr. Faber’s wishes. I believe when the IDA changes the terms of a lease or sale they are required by law to re-bid the project.

Mr. Farber has stretched the law on other items concerning Oak Mt. There is too much to put in this letter. Government at the state level should investigate Mr. Farber and the IDA concerning their actions with Oak Mt.

The ski business is a very difficult business to be in at this time. I wish the new operators good luck; they are going to need it.

My wife Nancy and I have accepted our losses and moved on. What I have said here is well documented.

Norman Germain,

Lake Pleasant