Dozens of protestors opposing the Village at Wolf Creek were met in Creede on Friday, April 7, by an army of police and sheriff’s deputies from nine counties. Forty-five officers from Rio Grande, Pueblo, Alamosa, Conejos, Saquache, Mineral, Hinsdale, Gunnison and Archuleta counties and a command station RV outnumbered protestors three to one. The protests were peaceful and most of those who traveled from Pagosa Springs sat quietly and endured the four-hour presentation by Village developers Bob Honts and Billy Joe “Red” McCombs. The forum, sponsored by the Upper Rio Grande Economic Development Council (URGEDC) was a one-sided presentation. The panel consisted of Honts, McCombs, and Les Cahill, Mineral County Commissioner. Peter Clark, U.S. Forest Service Supervisor for Rio Grande National Forest answered questions from the audience, but refused to sit on the panel. State Representative Mark Larson (R-Cortez) and State Senator Jim Isgar (D-Durango) both boycotted the event along with Davey Pitcher, representative of the Wolf Creek ski area.

“A one-sided forum is not an appropriate venue to address the public’s concerns about the Village,” Isgar said in a press release last week. “There are important issues related to the Village that need to be addressed fairly and openly.”

URGEDC said they did not invite Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council because they are not an owner or public agency involved in the decision making process. URGEDC is a vocal supporter of the Village and their Vice President, Dusty Hicks is a paid consultant for the Village. Hicks was not on the panel. The URGEDC board fielded all questions and decided which were answered and which were not. All questions were submitted in writing and no public comment or outburst was allowed. Because all questions were required to be handwritten, follow-up questions were not possible. Pagosa Springs resident Juana Lee Park was removed from the crowd for speaking out and telling Mr. Honts and McCombs that they were ignoring the effects their development would have on Archuleta County. She was escorted from the standing room only 275 capacity meeting room by a Mineral County sheriff’s deputy.

URGEDC claims that all questions were answered, except those that duplicated questions already asked, but following the four-hour meeting people were asking Jon Boyd, URGEDC president and moderator of the forum, why their question had not been asked.

The developers had charts, graphs and renderings of the Village and were prepared to answer every question. Cahill traced the history of the development and said that the density of the project had always been over 2,000 units. “The original application by Leavell-McCombs in 1986 was for 2,151 units. The new application in 1999 was for 2,172 units,” Cahill said.

Seventy-eight year old billionaire, Billy Joe “Red” McCombs left halfway through the four-hour meeting because he was not feeling well. But before he left he addressed the density of the development. “These are the maximum numbers,” McCombs said. “The public will ultimately decide what the density will be. We don’t know if we can market 500 units. We’re not going to build until we find out if we can sell some.”

Later, Honts said: “We will never build all 2,172 units.” But he went on to say: “I wouldn’t take Mr. McCombs statement as pessimistic. I have never seen a man that could sell better than Red McCombs.” Honts said that together he and McCombs would invest over $100 million during the first phase of the development.

When asked what letters of support they had received, Mr. Cahill stated that Mineral County had received a number of letters and resolutions of support for the Village from Del Norte and South Fork. “We don’t have one from Archuleta County.” Cahill went on to say that Mineral County had listened to the concerns raised by Archuleta County and Pagosa Springs. “However, this development is under the purview of Mineral County and Archuleta County has not consulted us about the significant development going on over there.”

“We have only received resolutions asking questions,” Mr. Honts added. “There are no resolutions opposing the Village and we have answered those questions.”

However, Town Manager Mark Garcia told the SUN that the Town did not receive any feedback from Mr. Honts regarding their resolution. The County could not confirm any official correspondence or response from the developer either concerning their resolution. However, it appears that many of the issues raised by the Town of Pagosa Springs and Archuleta County are somewhat addressed in the EIS Appendix A.

Mr. Honts stated that the Village would have no negative fiscal impact on Mineral County and that the only impact would be on employee housing, but that the influx of workers would be a tax boon and a sales tax boon for Rio Grande, Mineral and Alamosa counties. He also stated that the impact on the Alamosa airport would be substantial. He claimed that Archuleta and Rio Grande counties were courting the Village developers for the health care contracts.

When probed during a press conference about the impacts of the Village, Honts clarified that no resolutions from general government had been received and repeated: “I’m not aware of any negative fiscal impacts that the Village will cause for Rio Grande or Archuleta County.”

Honts pointed out that an appendix to the EIS includes projected economic impacts based upon an IMPLAN model result. In year six, the IMPLAN model suggests that tax revenues from construction and operations in the tri-county area will peak at nearly $23 million and that the project will provide 3,700 new jobs.

“Per capita, Mineral County will be the wealthiest County in Colorado,” Honts said. “The tri-county area will be one of the wealthiest. We will see an increase [in income] of 80 percent for Southwest Colorado.”

Honts announced that the Village at Wolf Creek will include a major university conference center and said they will soon unveil plans for a golf course either east or west of the Village, but most likely in Rio Grande County.

“I have always wondered why there is such antagonism toward developers,” McCombs said before he left. “Without developers we wouldn’t have highways and airports and I wouldn’t have my business. Most areas of the world are looking for development. After the Village has been opened a few years, it will be hard to find anyone opposed to it.”

However, according the IMPLAN model and the EIS the development which is now outlined to include 120 single family homes, 1,600 timeshare units, 400 condominiums, 6 hotels with a total of 1,100 rooms, 4 bed and breakfasts, 141,700 square feet of multi-family units and a maximum of 222,100 square feet of commercial space, impacts will be felt in Archuleta County.

Pagosa Springs currently services most of the visitors to the Wolf Creek area, especially during the winter skiing season. The EIS states: “With the availability of lodging, food, and shopping services at the Village, some of those establishments would likely experience a de crease in visitor volume and could potentially either downsize or terminate business completely.”

The schools in Archuleta will also be impacted. According to the EIS, by year six, the projected increase in student population from in-migrating construction and operations
workers with families is 239 new school-age children. Mineral County schools are already operating beyond capacity. Rio Grande County schools have some capacity, as do some Archuleta County schools.

“Finding enough financial assistance to make the necessary changes to accommodate the new students could prove challenging,” the EIS states.

The EIS acknowledges that the Village would result in an increased demand for housing and public services because of the influx of workers needed to fill construction and operation jobs who will likely commute from established communities such as Pagosa Springs, Del Norte, Monte Vista and South Fork. The EIS states: “Although Government revenues would be significantly increased through various tax sources, including property and sales taxes, the regions’ ability to absorb the expanded population would depend on how additional revenues were allocated and the capacity of local governments to plan for a continued increase in residential and tourist population over the 20-year build out period.”

In 2004, Mineral County approved the Village at Wolf Creek final development plan, approval that was later revoked on the grounds of insufficient year-round access by 12th District Judge O. John Kuenhold. In his decision, Kuenhold called Mineral County’s approval of the final plan, “an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority,” and said the county’s approval “misconstrued state statute and Mineral County subdivision regulations.”

As part of the ruling, Kuenhold decreed that once the developer obtained adequate year-round access and received a Colorado Department of Transportation permit to access U.S. 160, they could seek re-approval of their final plan from Mineral County.

With the EIS complete, step one of Kuenhold’s mandate is essentially complete.

According to the EIS, year-round access, and the main access point to the Village, will be provided by the construction of a new 750-foot road called Snowshed Road. The second access point is a 250-foot extension to the existing Tranquility Road, which will provide access between the ski area and the village. The Wolf Creek Ski Corporation will pay to complete the 250-foot Tranquility Road extension, in spite of the fact that they are involved in litigation with the developer of the Village.
Honts estimated that the Snowshed Road would cost the developers an additional $10 million dollars. Mr. Honts also stated that the NEPA process and EIS cost the Village $2.5 million. Honts and Peter Clark both vehemently denied any wrongdoing, political pressure or special treatment. “The decision is mine and I own it,” Clark said.

Honts suggested that construction could begin as soon as the 90-day appeals and response process for the EIS is complete. According to Judge Kuenhold’s order the developers will also need to have an access permit from Highway 160 from CDOT. “We’ve already begun working on that,” Honts said. “At that point we will come back to the county and ask for access and approval on the plat. Obviously these will require quite a bit of time.”

WOLF CREEK, Colo. — With the recent U.S. Forest Service approval of the “Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities for the Village at Wolf Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement,” the Village at Wolf Creek is one step closer to becoming a reality.

In 2004, Mineral County approved the Village at Wolf Creek final development plan, approval that was later revoked on the grounds of insufficient year-round access by 12th District Judge O. John Kuenhold. In his decision, Kuenhold called Mineral County’s approval of the final plan, “an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority,” and said the county’s approval “misconstrued state statute and Mineral County subdivision regulations.”

As part of the ruling, Kuenhold decreed that once the developer obtained adequate year-round access and received a Colorado Department of Transportation permit to access U.S. 160, they could seek re-approval of their final plan from Mineral County.

With the EIS complete, step one of Kuenhold’s mandate is essentially complete.

According to the EIS, year-round access, and the main access point to the village, will be provided by the construction of a new 750-foot road called Snowshed Road. The second access point is a 250-foot extension to the existing Tranquility Road, which will provide access between the ski area and the village. The Wolf Creek Ski Corporation will pay to complete the 250-foot Tranquility Road extension, in spite of the fact that they are involved in litigation with the developer of the Village.

At an April 7 forum in Creede, president of the Village at Wolf Creek, Bob Honts, estimated that the Snowshed Road would cost the developers an additional $10 million. Honts also stated that the NEPA process and EIS cost the Village $2.5 million.
Honts suggested that construction could begin as soon as the 90- day appeals and rebuttal process for the EIS is complete. According to Kuenhold’s order, the developers will also need to have an access permit from Highway 160 from CDOT. “We’ve already begun working on that,” Honts said. “At that point we will come back to the county and ask for access and approval on the plat. Obviously these will require quite a bit of time.”

Honts and McCombs had clearly been provided all questions beforehand and came to the forum with charts, graphs and an outline of their legal case defending the village. Opponents of the village were either not invited or chose not to attend the forum. In a press release dated April 4, Colorado State Representative Mark Larson (R-Cortez) said, “This ostensibly unbiased forum is a sham. The Upper Rio Grande Economic Development Council (URGEDC) hosting this forum has already come out in favor of the Village, is stacking the participant list to promote the village, and has refused to address numerous biases in how the forum would be carried out.”

“A one-sided forum is not an appropriate venue to address the public’s concerns about the village,” stated state Sen. Jim Isgar (D-Durango). “There are important issues related to the village that need to be addressed fairly and openly.”

URGEDC President Jon Boyd facilitated the forum. Vice president Dusty Hicks, a paid consultant for the village, did not sit on the panel. URGEDC members said that it was unfortunate all opponents to the development declined to attend and that Colorado Wild had not been invited because they were not an owner or public agency involved in the decision making process. All questions were presented in writing and went through the URGEDC board.

No political statements were allowed. The URGEDC claimed to have read every question, but people approached Jon Boyd after the four-hour meeting asking why their question had not been read. No public comment or outbursts were allowed or speeches from the audience. Pagosa Springs resident Juana Lee Park was removed from the crowd for speaking out and telling Honts and McCombs that they were ignoring the effects their development would have on Archuleta County. She was escorted from the standing-room-only 275-capacity meeting room by a Mineral County sheriff’s deputy.

Seventy-eight year old billionaire, Billy Joe “Red” McCombs left halfway through the four-hour meeting because he was not feeling well. But before he left he addressed the density of the 2,172 units and 222,100 square feet of retail space. “These are the maximum numbers,” McCombs said. “The public will ultimately decide what the density will be. We don’t know if we can market 500 units. We’re not going to build until we find out if we can sell some.”

Later, Honts said, “We will never build all 2,172 units.” But he went on to say, “I wouldn’t take Mr. McCombs statement as pessimistic. I have never seen a man that could sell better than Red McCombs.” Honts said that together he and McCombs would invest more than $100 million during the first phase of the development.

Honts pointed out that an appendix to the EIS includes projected economic impacts based upon an IMPLAN model result. In year six, the IMPLAN model suggests that tax revenues from construction and operations in the tri-county area will peak at nearly $23 million and that the project will provide 3,700 new jobs.

“Per capita, Mineral County will be the wealthiest county in Colorado,” Honts said. “The tri-county area will be one of the wealthiest. We will see an increase [in income] of 80 percent for southwest Colorado.”

Honts announced that the Village at Wolf Creek will include a major university conference center and said they will soon unveil plans for a golf course either east or west of the village, but most likely in Rio Grande County.

“I have always wondered why there is such antagonism toward developers,” McCombs said before he left. “Without developers we wouldn’t have highways and airports and I wouldn’t have my business. Most areas of the world are looking for development. After the village has been opened a few years, it will be hard to find anyone opposed to it.”

PAGOSA SPRINGS, Colo. — A contract is a mutual exchange of a promise. In a contract, each party promises to do or not to do something in exchange for the other party’s promise to do or not to do something. This exchange happens verbally all the time and is legally valid, except when involving the purchase of land.

However, an oral contract is very difficult to enforce because it is nearly impossible to prove that the two parties actually had an agreement. Written contracts are more binding. An exchange of letters or e-mails can create a binding contract. Service contracts that will take more than a year to complete and the sale of goods over $500 must be in writing.

Many small business owners are creative individuals: artists, writers, photographers, crafters, and contracts can protect them when working with a buyer purchasing artisan goods, or when creating a commission such as a mural or mosaic installed in a custom home.

The two most important terms in a contract are price and delivery. Other elemental terms include: Offer, acceptance, and consideration. An offer is a proposal that invites acceptance in the form of a return promise. Specific terms (subject, price, etc.) must be stated. Acceptance comes from the person to whom an offer is made.

Contracts cannot be entered into with minors, intoxicated people or people with mental disabilities who are generally considered incompetent. (The choice of trying to make a living as an artist or writer does not automatically deem the party incompetent.)

Copyright law requires that any transfer of a copyright or an exclusive right in a copyright must be in writing.

Conditions stated in the contract must be followed. Sometimes the parties perform simultaneously and sometimes one party must perform a duty before the other party is obligated. In other words, a work of art or piece of writing must be completed before the buyer will pay. The UCC covers the sale of “goods” like a painting or photograph, but it does not cover the sale of “services,” an actor or musician performing at an event. Warranties can be created orally, even if the contract must be written.
Warranties are often made during contract negotiations. An implied warranty can include an artist given the right to convey title in the artwork to a purchaser or that the artwork is fit for the particular purpose for which it is sold. An express warranty occurs when an artist asserts either facts or promises relating to a work or describes the work in such a way that the purchaser relies on the facts, promises or description as a basis for making a purchase. If a writer promises an article will be 500 words and only submits an article of 450 words then the express warranty is violated.

An as-is clause just means buyer beware. Many artists and photographers and those creating digital work claim that the inks they use are archival, but 20 years from now if that giclee print on canvas you purchased begins to fade, it may be another case of the collectors who purchased work by Julian Schnabel for millions of dollars only for them to decay and crumble. The question legally becomes what is the implied purpose of a work of art?

Breach of contract involves some detriment or loss caused by the breach before recovery of damages is allowed. Damages generally include reasonably foreseeable losses (out-of pocket costs, lost profits). The injured party must take steps to minimize damages. Substantial performance — an artist will usually be able to get paid if the requirements of a contract have been substantially performed, but not if partially performed. The difference? Well, that depends on the detailed terms of the contract. Attorney Chris Beall from Faegre & Benson in Denver recommends that every commission agreement should anticipate the buyer not liking the work, when all points of the contract agreement have been met.

Statute of Limitations — there are specific time limits within which an injured party must bring a suit to have the injury remedied. Limits for contracts falling under the UCC (sale of goods) is four years from the time of the breach under federal law. A limit for contracts for services (employment contracts) varies by state: In Colorado it is three years. Limits in many states are longer for written contracts than for contracts that are oral, partly written or implied.