Gunstock Mountain Resort continues negotiations with county on annual payments

By ROGER AMSDEN, LACONIA DAILY SUN

GILFORD  — The Gunstock Recreation Area would pay $175,000 a year plus 3 percent of its net profits to Belknap County under a proposed memorandum of understanding that is being negotiated by the Gunstock Area Commission and members of the Belknap County Delegation.

But the agreement will only take effect if the delegation members who have sponsored a bill which would give the delegation approval power over Gunstock’s annual budget agree to having the bill labeled as inexpedient to legislate when it comes before the Municipal and County Government Committee of the New Hampshire House for a public hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 13, at 1:30 p.m.

The commission attached that provision to a text of the proposed agreement when it discussed the memorandum Tuesday night. Commission Chairman Steve Nix and Commissioner Russ Dumais said the dollar amount of the agreement was reached in a negotiating session last Friday with three members of the delegation, reps. Valerie Fraser (R-New Hampton), the chief sponsor of HB 1702, and Ray Howard (R-Alton) and John Plumer (R-Belmont), who are also sponsors.

The commission also went on record Tuesday night as being opposed to House Bill 1702 in its present form and approved a statement that outlines its objections to the bill, which will be read into the record at Tuesday’s hearing if HB 1702 is referred to a committee.

The statement objects to the proposed shift in power and responsibility over Gunstock’s operations from the commission to the delegation.

Control of the Gunstock Mountain Resort’s annual budget currently is exercised by the commission, a five-member body established by legislation in 1959 as an independent political entity, empowered to manage Gunstock’s operations. Its members are appointed by the delegation.

The County Delegation currently has no control over the commission’s budget, which is funded from the operations of the recreation area. The delegation’s major role has to do with Gunstock’s debt, which is a county responsibility. The 1959 enabling legislation prohibits Gunstock from borrowing any money without approval by the county delegation.

Nix said at the outset of Friday’s negotiating session that it was agreed that the memorandum would first be discussed and then HB 1702 would be taken up. He said there was a back and forth on the memorandum, with the commission starting with its previous position calling for $100,000 a year and five percent of Gunstock’s operating profits. At one point, the legislators asked for $175,000 a year and 10 percent of Gunstock’s operating profits.

Nix said that, once the $175,000 and 3 percent of profits was agreed to, the legislators started to leave the room but were reminded that HB 1702 had not yet been discussed.

During the ensuing discussion, the legislators verbally agreed to put the bill on hold, and to other conditions the commission wanted, Nix said, including no attempts to file legislation affecting Gunstock’s management for the five years the agreement is to be in place.

Conditions attached to the proposed agreement provide that the agreement will be terminated immediately if legislation affecting Gunstock is filed or revenue anticipation notes within the statutory limit are not approved by the delegation.

Commissioner Robert Durfee said that he did not think the legislators had been negotiating in good faith and questioned whether or not the entire county delegation would be receiving a copy of the new proposed memorandum and vote on it.

Durfee recalled that, during last year’s negotiations on the agreement, legislators had proposed a five-year moratorium on new projects at Gunstock that would require a bond issue, which he said would keep Gunstock from making improvements needed to compete in the skiing and recreation markets.

Gunstock Commissioner Ruth Larson voted against the memorandum as proposed by Nix, maintaining that HB 1702 was not proposed in good faith and was being used as a weapon to force concessions from the commission. She said that the legislators should first withdraw HB 1702 as a sign of good faith before she would support the proposed agreement.

When Nix later proposed that the commission go on record as opposed to HB 1702, Commissioner Brian Gallagher said he was opposed at the present time and would make a ‘’leap of faith” that legislators would keep their word on it, effectively putting a hold on HB 1702 in this session of the legislature.

He said that if they do not do as they had said they would, he would change his position.

“We’re taking positions that are not necessary. There could be amendments to the bill which is only in draft form,” said Gallagher.

Nix said that taking a vote at this time is important. “We object to it as it is right now. We can’t just wait. The hearing is next Tuesday.”

Durfee said it was important that the commission take an official position on the bill.

The position statement was endorsed by a 4-0 vote, with Gallagher abstaining.