SMVC tries to turn up the heat on timing of $50 million judgment

By Douglas McDaniel

Not resting on its $50 million jury award in Delta County, the San Miguel Valley Corporation is putting pressure on the Town to pickup the speed at which it makes payment to the court.
According to a brief filed by the SMVC’s Denver-based legal team on Tuesday, Feb. 20, in San Miguel County District Court, the Town should pay up in 44 days.
The brief states Town Attorney Kevin Geiger, at an instruction conference on Feb. 13, told the court the Town didn’t have the funds to pay the judgment. The document states the town’s request for 45 to 90 days to raise the funds is “excessive.”
In filing the brief, the SMVC attempted to cast doubt on the Town’s ability to raise the funds.
“Yet even now, after all these years, the Town still doesn’t have the money to pay for this condemnation,” states the brief filed by Patricia Campbell, an attorney for Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff & Ragonetti. “According to Mr. Geiger, the Town still needs approximately 45-90 days to raise the money, and even then it is not certain whether they will be able to raise enough money to pay the judgment. Indeed, reports after the trial indicate that the Town is still at least $16.5 million short.
“While the Town is legally entitled to a reasonable amount of time in which to deposit funds, 90 days is excessive. It is absolutely unprecedented for a condemning authority to pursue the acquisition of private property for seven years without ever having the money to pay for it.”
While Geiger refused to comment on any new developments Wednesday, during a Town Council meeting on Tuesday he said it would take 45 to 60 days for the public funding component.
However, the SMVC legal representation has asked for “a reasonable time limit of at most 44 days.”
The time limit is consistent with state requirements for condemnation cases, the SMVC argues.
“Forty-five days will allow the Town time to raise additional funds based on Mr. Geiger’s estimate, but will also allow the Respondents to make a reasoned decision about whether an appeal is necessary before the deadline to file a notice of appeal,” the brief states. “If the Town cannot deposit the funds by that time, this proceeding should be declared abandoned.”
The document concludes with one last stinging barb.“The jury’s verdict should be given its full effect. Respondents should not be penalized by the Town’s lack of planning and failure to act in good faith. The Town should therefore be required to either pay the full award or cease its years-long assault on this property.”

Town plays beat the clock to acquire the Valley Floor

By Douglas McDaniel

Imagine having one month to come up with $15 million. Who would you contact? What would you say?
I need a few million, fast? And tell your rich friends the same?
With the Town apparently unwilling to appeal or attempt to set aside the decision by the Delta County jury that awarded the San Miguel Valley Corporation $50 million for the condemnation of the Valley Floor, Telluride officials are hoping the various fund raising efforts will complete the pricey proposition of getting $15 million in private donations by March 15.
Tuesday, Feb. 20, the first community meeting since the Delta jury rendered its judgment in favor of the SMVC’s $50 appraisal, as opposed to the Town’s $26 million figure, the Telluride Town Council had an unprecedented number of issues on its table.
And just as the council discussed what to do about what Mayor John Pryor called a “disappointing” outcome to the Final Valuation Trial in Delta last week, San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles Greenacre made that day, Feb. 20, the official date of entry for the judgment.
This means that due to the statutory requirement of 8 percent interest on the $50 million due the San Miguel Valley Corporation, it’s costing the Town $330,000 per month, $11,000 a day, $458 per hour, $7.60 per minute, 13 cents per second, until the jury award is paid in full.
The rush to get the Town’s 20 million bonding mechanism in place, and timed with the collection of nearly $15 million in private donations, will result in the Town accruing interest on the public debt at a variable rate of approximately four percent: cutting the interest rate portion of the debt in half.
But now the conundrum rests in the what-comes-first, the-chicken-or-the-egg situation the Town finds itself in.
“We are not going to issue the public debt until we have all of the money,” Pryor said.
With grim resignation council members said an appeal would return the issue into the realm of uncertainty; and in that realm, the Town has already been “surprised,” as the Mayor put it.
Town Attorney Kevin Geiger told those in attendance that the Town’s legal representation in the trial, Leslie Fields, considered making a motion to set aside the verdict because it “was not consistent with the evidence.”
However, Town officials are in no mood to return to the courtroom for another trial against such a formidable foe basking in a booming real estate market. Especially considering that, as Geiger noted, during the trial a recent sale was entered into the record of $5.6 million for a 35-acre-parcel on Sunnyside East, just north of the Valley Floor. If that sale were applied to the 14-parcel alternative the Town was looking at, the price tag would be nearly $80 million, Geiger said.
Better, the council members agreed, to swallow the bitter pill and move forward.
“There is certainty for the first time,” Pryor said. “If you can come up with $50 million: That certainty is valuable.”
The other council members agreed.
“For the easy way out of this, we should come up with the money,” said Council member Bob Saunders. “If we can do that, then it’s done, and we don’t have higher costs.”
Council Member Mark Buchsieb was even more direct.
“Get the money and get it over with,” he said. Then, refuting a comment during the meeting that the Town should drop the entire attempt to condemn the Valley Floor because it was “pissing away” municipal funds, Buchsieb responded that the council is morally obligated to represent the will of the voting public.
“If it’s peeing it away, it’s peeing it away, but they chose to do it,” he said.
Town officials are looking to the Valley Floor Advisory Board, which is heading up various fund raising efforts, such as the Valley Floor Preservation Partners, to put the Valley Floor War to an end.
So far, the outlook is optimistic, according to Jane Hickcox, Valley Floor Advisory Board spokeswoman.
“It’s very exciting and I’m very encouraged,” Hickcox told the Town Council on Tuesday.
As of the date of the verdict, Feb. 16, she said the Valley Floor Preservation Partners had received $8.1 million in donations from the private sector.
“That represents checks coming from 72 cities in 23 states,” she said.
But after a mind-boggling weekend and one business day of trying to digest the verdict and take action, that figure had increased to $9.2 million. Hickcox said fund raising effort was working hard to get as many matching donations as possible to reach the $15 million figure.
“Our matching funds could reach that quite quickly,” she said.
At the same time, there is also the more harried urgency of the moment, as all of the members of the grass roots effort are burning the midnight oil to bring in donors, especially wealthy donors. As Hickcox said, “This is what a 60-year-old fundraiser looks like with very little sleep.”

Jury alternate says six-member panel wanted Town to pay $65 million

By Douglas McDaniel

In the parlance of the Old West, it was an ambush, a good, old-fashioned appraiser whoopin’.
After hearing the $50 million jury award for the Final Valuation Trial for the Town of Telluride condemnation case over the Valley Floor, the Town’s legal team responded to the decision by immediately leaving the scene of the severe legal defeat without comment.
On Friday the jury in the Final Valuation Trial for the Town’s Valley Floor rendered a verdict: $50 million for the 570-acre property, thrashing the Town’s effort to keep the price at almost half as much.
It took the jury just three hours of deliberations to reach a verdict in the nine-day trial.
After two working weeks at the Delta County Courthouse, the six-member jury sided completely with the price set by San Miguel Valley Corporation expert appraiser Larry Stark, apparently disregarding the Town of Telluride’s expert appraiser’s price of $26 million. On the ninth day of the trial, Thursday, the jury had gone into deliberations at 2:35 p.m., and had come to a verdict at 10 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 16.
The Town should feel lucky. At the beginning of the day Friday, the jury had a price of $65 million written on the board. According to jury alternate Maxine Isley; the other jurors were supporting additional amounts. But she said the jury changed its mind when the question of whether or not there would be a mistrial declared if they went above the SMVC’s $50 million price tag.
Isley said the town’s case was given very little credence at all.
“There was not a lot of debate and I was disgusted with that,” said the resident of Hotchkiss who was able to participate in the discussions but not vote. “After we first went into deliberations everybody (the six voting jurors) asked for a show of hands, and they showed their hands that the corporation had proven its case. They pretty much had their minds made up when they left last night. I thought they would at least consider the evidence more.”
On Friday morning, the jury considered giving them more than $65 million, she said.
“They felt like the property was worth at least that much,” Isley said. “They all felt like $50 million was not enough.”
She said at one point in their deliberations the jury sent a question to San Miguel District Court Judge Charles Greenacre asking whether the Town had plans to develop the Valley Floor itself, or, whether it had the ability to develop it in the future. But the judge refused to have the question posed to the court on the basis of its irrelevancy, she said.
Many of the members of the jury, all property owners in Delta County, voiced strong opinions against government use of eminent domain to take land from the property owner, she said.
“There were people who were very aggressive in their opinions before we even went into deliberations,” Isley said. “They really had problems with the whole taking thing, that the government was taking land and not wanting to pay anything for it.”
In its closing statement Thursday, Feb. 15, the SMVC lawyers had disputed the Town’s assertion that the plan for one-unit per 35-acre lots was the highest and best use for the property. SMVC attorney Mikaela Rivera said the so-called “B plan,” 77 lots or approximately one unit per seven acres on the south side at a cost of $56.8 million, was preferred by San Miguel County and fit in with the Telluride Regional Master Plan.
Rather than believing Telluride attorney Leslie Fields’ closing statement that the landowner’s appraisal was a puffed up piece of fantasy, the jury (with the exception of the $6 million lopped off Stark’s highest appraisal) sided with the SMVC that such plans were realistic.“It’s a playground, a playground for the super rich,” SMVC lead attorney Darrell Waas said in his closing statement, adding that if the Town wants it for a playground, it will have to pay playground prices.
The jury was completely unmoved by Town appraiser Richard Chase’s rationale for his $26 million appraisal.
Apparently, it was not a playground price.
“They were not interested,” Isley said of the jury’s response to Chase and his calculations. “His comps were too old, they said. He knocked down the price for one (Sunnyside East) because he thought something was wrong with it (the final price). One guy (jurist) said that really ‘stuck in his craw.’ ”
In cross examination of Chase, SMVC attorney Darrell Waas successfully sought to portray the Town appraiser’s valuation approach as a mere attempt to play lowball, with oversimplified calculations drawn from a narrow field of comparable sales in the region.
Waas then critiqued Chase’s three appraisals for the Town beginning with a $15.5 million price in 2000, followed $19.5 million in 2003 and $25.9 million in 2006. Waas brought to light that there was a large increase in values between 2000 and 2006, and questioned why Chase did not use any sales in the Telluride Region after April of 2001. Chase’s comparable sales were an average of approximately six years old, while Stark’s were approximately two.
The jury decided to believe Stark. The Town’s efforts to show how many hurdles the SMVC would have to go through also left the jury unconvinced.
“They certainly didn’t spend time deliberating,” Isley said. “They didn’t go through the evidence of the town, or thought their point mattered … it seemed like they didn’t really like the town, that’s all I could tell you.”
While Telluride Mayor John Pryor said he was “disappointed in the jury’s award,” he discounted any talk about the Delta jury being tainted or unfair.
He said an appeal at this juncture is unlikely because of the expense.
“The award starts accruing interest at 8 percent,” he said. “If we went to trial again in another year that would be a half-million dollars.
“We can’t go through another trial. We just need to get more fundraising done.”
The Town has already approved the bonding for $20 million, and has approximately another $10 million in available from various fund raising efforts.
Immediately after the award was announced representatives for the San Miguel Preservation Partners, which is leading the outside fund raising efforts, were in a meeting to discuss the developments and prepared to release a joint public statement.The Telluride Town Council will meet in executive session on Tuesday, Feb. 20, to discuss the Valley Floor issue with its legal counsel.“Our community values this property greatly,” Pryor said. “We have a large fund raising effort ahead of us.”

###

Go figure!

Valley Floor Valuation
Trial Jury Goes Into
Deliberations

By Douglas McDaniel

It comes down to the jury now.
The lawyer versus lawyer, land planner versus land planner, and especially appraiser versus appraiser phase of the Valley Floor War is over, at least for the time being.
With the possibility of an appeal hanging like an overcast cloud bank over the Delta County Courthouse during the entire Final Valuation Trial for the Valley Floor, the six-member jury is in their final deliberations today. Unless they are able to render the mind-numbing flood of calculations, contradictory factors and figures into a Solomon-esque simplicity, their deliberations will likely go on into the weekend.
There is nothing left but the score now. Something with at least six zeroes attached to the back end. Something on a single sheet of paper. A final price. An astonishing figure, either way. Somewhere between $26 million, what the town’s appraiser says, and $56 million (rounded off to $50 million), what the San Miguel Valley Corporation believes it can get for the 570-acre parcel.
On day eight of the trial, the town rested its case.
The week began with the legal team led by Leslie Fields launching into the attack mode, chipping away at what they hoped were to be viewed by the jury as “speculative” planning by Peter Jamar, the SMVC land planner, and pie-in-sky pricing by Larry Stark, the SMVC’s appraiser.
But by Wednesday, Feb. 14, in cross-examination, SMVC attorney Darrell Waas tried to portray the town appraiser’s valuation approach as a mere attempt to play lowball, with oversimplified calculations drawn from a narrow field of comparable sales in the region. Sales, in fact, that have already been eclipsed in the booming Telluride real estate market, according to SMVC.
The town’s appraiser, Richard Chase, was kept hopping Wednesday with questions about such differences of opinion and approaches, and at one point seemed to have difficulty operating his calculator.
Waas scored at least one major victory: Getting a $5 million-plus sale for a property in Sunnyside East, on the mesa to the north of the Valley Floor, entered into the court record.
Throughout the day, Fields had successfully neutralized Waas’s efforts to get Chase to acknowledge the recent sale, getting it stricken off the record when he mentioned the transaction in court. But after Chase made a broad statement characterizing the sales in the Sunnyside developments (his comparable sales figures for Sunnyside involved 811.62 acres for $20.8 million, or, $861,000 per 35-acre lot), San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles Greenacre allowed Chase to answer Waas’s question about the sale.
“Actually, it was $5.8 million,” Chase admitted.

The clash of comparables

Attempting to defeat the criticism by Chase about Stark’s use of comparable prices outside the Telluride region, Waas questioned the town’s appraiser about the international cast of buyers who might be wealthy enough to buy land in Telluride, compared to other destination resorts such as Aspen, Vail, Breckenridge and Jackson Hole.
Asking about the latter, Waas questioned Chase about whether or not Jackson Hole was an appropriate region to draw comparables. In Chase’s previous testimony, he argued it was not, since Jackson Hole was regarded as a world-class mega resort like Aspen, Vail and Breckenridge. But Waas got Chase to admit Jackson Hole has fewer skier visits each year than Telluride, and that Telluride’s junior status among larger resort areas and relative isolation actually made it more attractive for the super rich buyers looking for exclusivity.
Chase answered “yes” to Waas’s statement that the “desirability of location and the fact that it has fewer people than Breckenridge is something people might be looking for.”
Chase admitted that it was acceptable to go outside a sales area for “outside” comparable if adequate sales data was not available, but he felt “very comfortable” that he had enough comparable sales in the Telluride region to value the Valley Floor.
“There’s no problem with going out of your area as long as the fruits of your labor are really comparable,” he said. “I felt strongly that sales that occur in the region set a benchmark.”
Waas then reviewed Chase’s three appraisals for the town beginning with a $15.5 million price in 2000, followed $19.5 million in 2003 and $25.9 million in 2006. But Waas asserted there was a large increase in values between 2000 and 2006, and questioned why Chase did not use any sales in the Telluride region after April of 2001. Chase’s comparable sales are an average of approximately six years old, while Stark’s are approximately two.
“There has been an upturn since 9/11,” Chase admitted.
Chase said no large comparable sales were available after 2001. Instead, he used time adjustment calculation to address the market increase and apply it to the comparable sales.

Room for Wal-Mart?

Shortly after this the Sunnyside East sale of $5.8 million was allowed to be entered in the record, possibly to stick in the jury’s ear like a de facto additional comparable.
Waas then tried to poke holes in Chase’s assertion that any development other than the one-unit per 35 acres option was “speculative.” He said if it wanted to, the entire town of Telluride could be moved into the Valley Floor.
“Isn’t it clear,” Waas asked, “with the future of their (SMVC’s) property, that that’s where this town has to grow?”
“That’s true,” Chase responded.
“Is there room for a hospital?”
“That’s true.”
“A Wal-Mart?” asked Waas.
“I think a Wal-Mart would drive people in Telluride crazy,” Chase responded.
But after going back and forth in this manner, Chase insisted Stark’s appraisals and the SMVC’s land planners were “out on speculative limb by a good measure.”
After Fields rested the town’s case, SMVC brought in rebuttal witnesses, starting with Jim Felt, a water attorney for SMVC since the 1980s.
He said an augmentation plan established in Water Court in 2004 would have to be amended if SMVC were to develop water amenities on the site, but it was a far simpler process than made out by several of the town’s witnesses. All SMVC would have to change is the evaporative component for the ponds on the plan, and that was the only significant hurdle, Felt said.
On day nine, Thursday, Feb. 15, the landowners presented additional rebuttal testimony from Johnnie Stevens, Jamar and Stark, all brought back to assert that the SMVC’s pricing, and planning, were realistic, not “speculative.”

Valley Floor field trip

Of course, everything rests on the point of view of the Delta County-based jury members who are mostly retired landowners, a group predominantly made up of females.
To the possible good fortune of the Town of Telluride on day seven of the trial, Tuesday, Feb. 13, the sun was not shining too brightly on those jurors on an overcast, then snowy afternoon over the Valley Floor.A sunshine-brilliant clear day might have been of little benefit to the town when the six jurors and four alternates were shepherded by Telluride Chief Marshal James Kolar around the 570-acre parcel.The Valley Floor looked beautiful, if not too beautiful, as early afternoon snow flurries made the view of the east end of property from the Gondola cabin look like a spackled grayish blob, those all-important pricey vistas a whitewash of merged mountaintops and sky.The trial started on its seven day with a snocat tour of the property in question, lunch on the second floor of the Shell Station (in the trial, it’s still referred to as the Texaco station), followed by a tour by a Telluride Galloping Goose bus up to Mountain Village, and then, a gondola ride. The jurors, led in a line through the Mountain Village center, were all smiles and seemed to be enjoying themselves as they awaited lift-off from the gondola.Any time mingling with Telluride culture or residents (and of course, the press) was avoided. Though their Galloping Goose led them around the traffic circle at the gateway to town to head up to Mountain Village, they spent little more time in town than enough to get off the Telluride gondola station and back on another bus to continue their tour.

The value of views
On the previous day of the trial in Delta, Monday, Feb. 12, the comparative views on and around the Valley Floor became an aspect of the town’s attack. On the stand, Chase said he focused his comparative sales strictly to the region, as opposed to Stark, who also compared Telluride’s prices to other ski towns such as Aspen and Steamboat Springs.Chase said the issue of views from lots, one of the factors used for determining price, showed that the Valley Floor’s low-lying vistas were less desirable than for such mesa-top plots found on Grayhead, Diamond Ranch and Sunnyside.All three properties are perched on mesas on the northern slopes near the Telluride Regional Airport. “Views are what sell in this market,” Chase said. “Grayhead has superior views to the Valley Floor. The mesa-tops offer multi-dimensional views versus the one-to-two dimensional views of the Valley Floor.”Fields asked Chase about the possible development scenarios as they related to the town, Mountain Village and San Miguel County. Chase told the court the most likely scenario which he based his analysis on was that any development would likely occur under the county’s jurisdiction. “Certain issues suggested Telluride and Mountain Village wouldn’t be able to annex,” he said. Telluride couldn’t annex a developed Valley Floor, he said, because of limitations to its water supply. Mountain Village couldn’t annex, Chase said, because of the obstacles of trying to connect utility systems between two vastly different elevations. In addition, he said, “The Mountain Village never had a Master Plan that incorporated the Valley Floor … so it would be with the county.”The most likely development scenario, which he based his calculations on, was under the one per 35-acre option. “The highest and best use was for 35-acre home sites,” Chase said. “It’s a relatively easy, straightforward process, an expedient process at the county level.”That’s because, as Chris Dunn, the town’s expert land planner testified earlier in the day, the development option required minimal development infrastructure, no affordable housing requirements, no transportation mitigation, no school sites or public parks, and so on.

Which scenario to choose?
This view of the most likely development scenario differed greatly than Stark’s appraisal, which focused on three possibilities. Stark based his value conclusions for the two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as follows: $40.6 million for Alternative A and $56.8 million for Alternative B. Alternative A involves 15 units under a one unit per 35-acre analysis; Alternative B involves 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side.
An Alternative C with a plan of up to 1,200 people on the south side of the Valley Floor with up to 800 units of density was developed by Stark, but it was not used in his final calculation. To arrive at his estimate for the south side of the Valley Floor, Stark indicated that the final figure reconciled the two prices from Alternatives A and B. Regarding the choice to use a calculation that used 40 percent of Alternative A and 60 percent of B to come up with a $50 million price tag, Chase said the approach was highly unusual. “I only heard about stories like that in Las Vegas, to tell you the truth,” Chase said.For Alternative A, Stark reviewed his 10 comparable sales of property. The locations were from the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyo., Aspen and Steamboat Springs. The range of value for these comparables was approximately $20,000 per acre up to $160,000 per acre.For Alternative B, Stark reviewed his four comparable sales of property. The location of the comparables include: the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyoming, Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge. The range of value for these comparable was approximately $87,000 per acre up to $185,000 per acre.But Chase criticized the need to compare the Valley Floor to sales outside the region. He said mega-resorts with twice to three-times more skier days than Telluride, such towns as Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs, shouldn’t be compared to a relatively new resort area. "The Telluride area, if you try to compare to other international resorts, is up and coming, but is in my opinion still in its infancy,” he said. “Telluride hasn’t hit the mega-resort status yet.”

Appraisal versus appraisal
Chase’s first comparable sale, Grayhead/Ruffner Peak, is a 1,368-acre property that sold for more than $19 million, or, $14,368 per acre, in 1997. The second comparable sale, the 432-acre Diamond Ranch, went for $9.3 million, or, $775,000 per 35-acre lot. The third comparable sale, Sunnyside, just north of the Valley Floor, but at a higher elevation, involved 811.62 acres for $20.8 million, or, $861,000 per 35-acre lot.Chase’s bottom line price after his analysis: a total “take” value of $25,983,800 as of Jan. 9, 2006, the so-called “date of value.”Meanwhile, the SMVC’s price stands at $50 million.
How the jury will be able to reconcile the gap is now the greatest question of them all.

Delta jurors get a snocat, bus and gondola tour of the Valley Floor

By Douglas McDaniel

It may be to the good fortune of the Town of Telluride that the sun was not shining too brightly on an overcast, then snowy Tuesday over the Valley Floor.
A sunshine brilliant clear day could be of little benefit to the Town during its Final Valuation Trial as the six jurors and four alternates from Delta were shepherded by a tight-lipped Town of Telluride Police Chief James Kolar around the 540-acre parcel.
So if you are looking for clues on how Day Seven of the trial went: The Valley Floor looked beautiful, if not too beautiful as early afternoon snow flurries made the view of the east end of property from the Gondola cabin look like a spackled grayish blob, and those all important pricey vistas bearing nothing more than a whitewash of merged mountaintops and sky.
The trial started on its seven day with a snocat tour of the property in question, lunch on the second floor of the Shell Station (in the trial, it’s still referred to as the Texaco station), followed by a tour by a Telluride Galloping Goose bus up to Mountain Village, and then, a gondola ride. The jurors, led in a line through the Mountain Village core, were all smiles and seemed to be enjoying themselves as they awaited lift-off from the gondola.
Any time mingling with Telluride culture or residents was avoided. Though their Galloping Goose led them around the traffic circle at the gateway to Town to head up to Mountain Village, they spent little more time in town than enough to get off the Telluride gondola station and back on another bus to continue their tour.
On the previous day of the trial in Delta, comparative views on and around the Valley Floor became an aspect of the Town of Telluride’s attack.
On the stand, the Town’s appraiser, Richard Chase, said he focused his comparative sales strictly to the region, as opposed to the San Miguel Valley Corporation’s appraiser, Larry Stark, who also compared Telluride’s prices to other ski towns such as Aspen and Steamboat Springs.
Chase said the issue of views from lots, one of the factors used for determining price, showed that the Valley Floor’s low-lying vistas were less desirable – and therefore less expensive – than for such mesa-top plots found on Grayhead, Diamond Ranch and Sunnyside.
All three properties are perched on mesas on the northern slopes near the Telluride Regional Airport.
“Views are what sell in this market,” Chase said. “Grayhead has superior views to the Valley Floor. The mesa-tops offer multi-dimensional views versus the one-to-two dimensional views of the Valley Floor.”
Telluride’s lead attorney in the trial, Leslie Fields, asked Chase about the possible development scenarios as they related to the Town, Mountain Village and San Miguel County. Chase told the court the most likely scenario which he based his analysis on was that any development would likely occur under the county’s jurisdiction.
“Certain issues suggested Telluride and Mountain Village wouldn’t be able to annex,” he said. Telluride couldn’t annex a developed Valley Floor, he said, because of limitations to its water supply. Mountain Village couldn’t annex, Chase said, because of the obstacles of trying to connect utility systems between two vastly different elevations. In addition, he said, “The Mountain Village never had a Master Plan that incorporated the Valley Floor … so it would be with the county.”
The most likely development scenario, which he based his calculations on, was under the one per 35-acre option.
“The highest and best use was for 35-acre home sites,” Chase said. “It’s a relatively easy, straightforward process, an expedient process at the county level.”
That’s because, as Chris Dunn, the Town’s expert land planner testified earlier in the day, the development option required minimal development infrastructure, no affordable housing requirements, no transportation mitigation, no school sites or public parks, and so on.
This development scenario differed greatly than Stark’s appraisal, which focused on three possibilities. Stark based his value conclusions for the two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as follows: $40,600,000 for Alternative A and $56,750,000 for Alternative B.
Alternative A involves 15 units under a one unit per 35-acre analysis; Alternative B involves 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side; and, Alternative C involves a plan of up to 1,200 people on the south side of the Valley Floor with up to 800 units of density.
To arrive at his estimate for the south side of the Valley Floor, Stark indicated that the final figure reconciled the two prices from Alternatives A and B.
Regarding the choice to use a calculation that used 40 percent of Alternative A and 60 percent of B to come up with a $50 million price tag, Chase said the approach was highly unusual.
“I only heard about stories like that in Las Vegas, to tell you the truth,” he said.
For Alternative A, Stark reviewed his 10 comparable sales of property. The locations were from the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyo., Aspen and Steamboat Springs. The range of value for these comparables was approximately $20,000 per acre up to $160,000 per acre.
For Alternative B, Stark reviewed his four comparable sales of property. The location of the comparables include: the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyoming, Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge. The range of value for these comparable was approximately $87,000 per acre up to $185,000 per acre.
But Chase criticized the need to compare the Valley Floor to sales outside the region. He said mega-resorts with twice to three-times more skier days than Telluride, such towns as Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs, shouldn’t be compared to a relatively new resort area.
"The Telluride area, if you try to compare to other international resorts, is up and coming, but is in my opinion still in its infancy,” he said. “Telluride hasn’t hit the mega-resort status yet.”
His first comparable sale, Grayhead/Ruffner Peak, is a 1,368-acre property that sold for more than $19 million, or, $14,368 per acre, in 1997. The second comparable sale, the 432-acre Diamond Ranch, went for $9.3 million, or, $775,000 per 35-acre lot. The third comparable sale, Sunnyside, just north of the Valley Floor, but at a higher elevation, involved 811.62 acres for $20.8 million, or, $861,000 per 35-acre lots.
Chase’s bottom line price after his analysis: a total “take” value of $25,983,800 as of Jan. 9, 2006, the so-called “date of value.”
This was based on the 35-acre lot value of $1.8 million per lot under Alternative A, which he viewed as the most reasonable development scenario to base the price on.
The trial will return to Delta on Wednesday with more testimony by Chase, and then a likely cross-examination by SMVC attorneys Darrell Waas and Mikaela Rivera.

Valley Floor War Scoreboard

Who: Town of Telluride vs. The San Miguel Valley Corporation

What: Valuation trial for Valley Floor condemnation by Town of Telluride. The Valley Floor consists of 573 acres located to the south of the Highway 145 Spur (the east-west road that leads into Telluride, "the Spur"), 121 acres located to the north of the Spur; and 20 acres located at Society Turn, at the southwest corner formed by the intersection of Highway 145 and the Spur. These parcels are commonly referred to respectively as "the South Side," "the North Side," and "the Society Turn parcel."

How the SMVC got the land: In 1967 Joe Oberto sold his Valley Floor property to Newmont Mining, owner of Idarado, for $300,000. Sixteen years later, the Cordillera Corporation, the predecessor to the San Miguel Valley Corporation, purchased approximately 860 acres from the Telluride Valley Corporation.

At Stake: 540-acre parcel west of Telluride, east of Society Turn. The Town of Telluride Town Council voted to file legal action condemning the Valley Floor in January 2004, after the Town voted in June 2002 to acquire the South Side of the Valley Floor through condemnation. Votes were 609 in favor, 385 opposed.

Condemnation Means?: Also referred to as the power of eminent domain, it’s a legal process by which a governmental entity may take title to property owned by a private party, provided that just compensation is paid.

Value to be Determined by: A panel of six jurors from Delta, all of whom are property owners, will render a verdict with a determination of value on a one-page jury verdict form that will include the legal description of the property.

Value in this case means: The reasonable market value of the Valley Floor under an analysis of what is the most advantageous use or development.

When and Where: Delta County Courthouse, starting Feb. 5, ending within a three-week outside time range.

Why is it in Delta?: The case is being heard in Delta County after the SMVC requested a change of venue of the jury trial to another county in August of 2004.

Featured Lawyers: Town represented by Leslie Fields, Esq. and Jack Sperber, Esq., two partners with the Denver law firm of Faegre & Benson, and the San Miguel Valley Corporation, represented by Darrell Waas, Esq., Mikaela Rivera, Esq., and Patricia Campbell, Esq., of the Denver law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti.

Presiding Judge: San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles R. Greenacre

Witnesses for the SMVC:
Johnnie Stevens, long-time Telluride resident and frequent player for the SMVC over Valley Floor development issues
Peter Jamar, of Peter Jamar Associates Land Planning
Larry Stark, a land appraiser for National Valuation Consultants, Inc.
Wayne Hunsperger, an expert appraiser who will be offering rebuttal testimony to the testimony of Stark
Mike Rozycki, San Miguel County Planning Director

SMVC’s estimated value: $50 million.

Based on What Sort of Analysis: Stark based his value conclusions for the two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as follows: $40,600,000 for Alternative A and $56,750,000 for Alternative B.
Jamar testified to three development alternatives for the South Side: Alternative A, which involves 15 units under a one unit per 35-acre analysis; Alternative B, which involves 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side; and, Alternative C, which involves a plan of up to 1,200 people on the south side of the Valley Floor with up to 800 units of density.
To arrive at his $50 million estimate for the south side of the Valley Floor, Stark indicated that the final figure was a “reconciliation” between his two prices.
For Alternative A, Stark reviewed his 10 comparable sales of property. The locations from the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyo., Aspen and Steamboat Springs. The range of value for these comparables was approximately $20,000 per acre up to $160,000 per acre.
For Alternative B, Mr. Stark reviewed his four comparable sales of property. The location of the comparables include: the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyoming, Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge. The range of value for these comparable was approximately $87,000 per acre up to $185,000 per acre.

Town of Telluride’s estimated value of the Valley Floor: $26 million.

Based on what appraisal?: In Feb. 2001, an appraisal prepared by Chase and Company for Telluride valued SMVC’s 714.14 acres at $22.6 million. In 2003, another appraisal by Chase and Company valued the Valley Floor at $19.3 million, and in 2005 at $26 million.

Where the Money is Coming from: On Nov. 7, 2006, Telluride voted 585-333 to approve an additional $10 million Open Space bond capacity increasing Town’s acquisition funds to $30 million. Additional funds are being obtained from donors and various grass roots fund raising efforts, such as those by the Valley Floor Preservation Partners (www.valleyfloor.org).

Strategy of Town’s attorney, Fields, in cross examining the lineup of SMVC testimony: To point out the hypothetical nature of the appraisal and development plans and rule out or diminish the significance of speculative forecasts.
For example, the cross examination of Jamar reviewed the assumptions necessary for his development scenarios.
According to Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger: “These development assumptions for Alternative B included receiving approval from San Miguel County for a PUD on the south side, which includes completion of the County’s five step review process for PUD approval. The Forest Service would have to approve a possible gondola from the Valley Floor across the U.S. Forest Service parcel of property known locally as the ‘Wedge’ before cresting out on Coonskin ridge in Mountain Village near the Peaks Hotel and Spa. The State of Colorado Water Court must approve an augmentation plan to permit the creation of certain water features on the Valley Floor including the creation of the approximately 24 acre Blue Lake. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would have to approve a new individual Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, which would include a new comprehensive delineation of the Valley Floor’s wetlands since the prior delineation expired in 2000. It is also anticipated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be involved in the Landowners’ proposal to improve the fish habitat of the San Miguel River by extensively rerouting the San Miguel River in an attempt to return the river to a more natural meandering state as opposed to the current channeled alignment. Finally, the Town of Telluride would have to approve access to Colorado Avenue, sewer service and possibly water service.”
On cross examination of Stark for the Town, Fields questioned the reconciliation of value at $50 million, which he acknowledged as a subjective number between the two ranges of possible value. She also challenged both standard and extraordinary assumptions of Stark’s appraisal. Fields inquired on a number of specific adjustments made for Stark’s possible development scenarios.

Possible Appeals: Either party can make an appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

What this is all leading to: A conservation easement binding the majority of the Valley Floor as undeveloped in perpetuity. On Feb. 5, the Town requested letters of interest and statements of qualifications from land trusts and conservation management entities who might be interested in holding and managing the conservation easement. In addition to the initial conservation easement, a management plan is anticipated to be adopted by the town in partnership with local stakeholders.

The Town will own the Valley Floor when: Funds for the anticipated jury award will be needed to be paid within 90 days. This is currently projected to be in May. Once the deposit is made, a Court “Rule of Order” will convey the Valley Floor to the Town. From that time, the Town will be in possession of the property, pending an appeal. If an appeal is filed, the SMVC cannot take the jury award. If the jury award is withdrawn from the Court registry, then any possible appeals will be dismissed.

Appraiser: Valley Floor worth $50 million

By Douglas McDaniel

If the San Miguel Valley Corporation has its say, every man and woman in Telluride would pay the kind of prices either Ross Perot or Ophrah Winfrey might pay for the Valley Floor.
“I came in at fifty million,” said Larry Stark, a land appraiser for National Valuation Consultants, Inc., on the stand as a witness for the SMVC during the third day of the Valley Floor Valuation Trial in Delta.
That was his opinion price on the “take” portion of the Valley Floor, based on his assessment of what the uber-elite pay for their exclusive mountain meadow and ranch properties.
Such as the $87,038 per acre that Winfrey paid for an 85 acre tract near Telluride in 2004, or the $67,422 per acre Perot paid as part of a $90 million deal for a ranch near Jackson Hole, Wyo.
Assessing the overall value of the 540-acre parcel at anywhere from $40 million to $56 million, Stark laid out an appraisal of the Valley Floor that would likely benefit from the skyrocketing real estate market, as well as its exploitation as a future development Disneyland.
The setting of the trial itself was hardly the Greenpeace Rally one might of inspected, based on San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles R. Greenacre’s “decorum order” no doubt anticipating a showing of town resident support for the condemnation, and, a low, low price.
With the exception of Telluride Town Mayor John Pryor in attendance, the court pews on Wednesday were filled with a scattered collection of men in business suits as they watched the proceedings dominated by charts upon charts of figures, maps and aerial photographs displayed on an overhead projector.
And as the real and imaginary astronomical dollar amounts flew through the courtroom to be considered by the six-member jury of Delta property owners, the sharp-dressed attorneys on both sides of the room did every thing they could to point the final valuation meter up or down.
As Stark took the court for a slide-show tour of the West, where prices for some of the most pristine mountain properties go for anywhere from $16,000 per acre in Steamboat Springs to $23,000 in Aspen, it was the sales for land adjacent to the Valley Floor, development properties at Sunnyside East and West, that cast some of the darkest clouds over the Town’s hope to keep it around $45,000 per acre.
One property on Sunnyside East, which overlooks the Valley Floor from the north, originally sold for $23,741 but two years later was resold at $56,940 per acre, he said. Another recent sale by yet another high-profile buyer, Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay, included a price tag of $114,701 per acre for 157 acres of land near Highway 145 south of Telluride.
“We’ve seen a 100 percent appreciation over a five-year period,” Stark said. “The property owner is due to paid for its highest and best use. If not for this condemnation, this would be put to the highest and best use.”
At the extremes, the property might be worth as much as $96 million, if developed under one scenario, he said. Stark stated the Valley Floor south side has attributes that buyers look for, such as proximity to the Town of Telluride, approximately 3.5 miles of frontage on the San Miguel River, senior water rights, a potential gondola site, wetlands and mountain views. He explained his methodology for analysis, detailing the adjustments he made for such things as the condition of the properties, their location, property rights conveyed, market conditions and especial allowable zoning densities.
Stark then addressed his value conclusions for two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as $40.6 million for Alternative A, $56.8 million for Alternative B. The $50 million estimate wasa “reconciliation” between the two alternatives, he said.
The latter was a point that Telluride attorney Leslie Fields tried to chip away at during Wednesday’s cross-examination, asking whether he gave more weight to the development alternative that would lead to the highest possible value of $50 million.
“You put more weight on the riskier development option,” Fields asked Stark.
“Yes, I did,” he answered.
She also tried to create a sense of uncertainty about how the $50 million price was based on a wide range of hypothetical factors, including a long list of governmental approvals for everything from zoning density to the ability to, again, hypothetically, realign the San Miguel River.
The second day of the Final Valuation Trial for the Valley Floor condemnation began with the SMVC attorney, Darrell Waas, calling longtime local resident Johnnie Stevens as a witness. Stevens testified extensively as to the changes in Telluride in the last 50 years, including everything from the closing of the Idarado mine to the opening of the ski area in the late ’70s.
He was followed as a witness by Peter Jamar, a land planner, who testified to three development alternatives he explored for the south side of the Valley Floor. The first, Alternative A, included 15 units under a one-unit-per 35-acre plan, the second, Alternative B, planned for 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side. The final plan, Alternative C, looked at more than 1,200 people living in 800 units on the south side of the Valley Floor.
The current population of Telluride is estimated to be just over 2,000 full-time residents.
Fields cross examined Jamar on a number of the assumptions necessary for the three development scenarios, including the need for various approvals from San Miguel County, the U.S. Forest Service, a State of Colorado Water Court and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Town of Telluride's Final Valuation Trial for the condemnation of the Valley Floor property began Monday, Feb. 5, with two whole teams of lawyers and a jury pool of 150-plus people filing into the Delta County Courthouse.
By Tuesday, both sides, the Town represented by Fields and Jack Sperber, Esq., two partners with the Denver law firm of Faegre & Benson, and the San Miguel Valley Corporation, represented by Waas, Mikaela Rivera, Esq., and Patricia Campbell, Esq., of the Denver law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti, had made their opening statements.
According to the daily update provided to the town by Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger, most potential jurors already completed a pre-trial jury questionnaire addressing employment and residency issues, or whether any they had any knowledge or strongly held opinions about the case.
"Following a number of preliminary matters," Geiger stated, "potential jurors and counsel for the parties convened in the Courtroom to begin the jury voir dire process, which means 'to see them say' or 'to see them speak.' Eighteen potential members of the jury were 'called' at random from the audience into the jury box.
"The voir dire process involves the Judge asking potential members of the jury specific questions that are designed to reveal, among other things, the background, education and interests of potential jury members.
"The Court excused a number of potential jurors for a variety of reasons, including medical hardship, financial hardship, advanced knowledge of the issues in the case or strongly held beliefs that would interfere with a juror being impartial and fair. By noon, the Court had assembled a full panel of eighteen potential jurors with no additional Court identified cause for challenge."
After Monday's lunch break, the court continued with counsel asking questions of potential jurors, whittling the potential jurors from 18 down to a total of eight "with each side using five peremptory challenges, which are jury dismissals without stating a reason," Geiger stated.
The jury was impaneled by mid-afternoon Feb. 5, taking an oath of jury service for the trial's duration, which is expected to be three weeks. The jury of six regular members and two alternate members consists of six females and two males.
Opening statements were made by Waas for the SMVC, who is pitching to keep the final determined value high, and by Fields for the Town, who is arguing to keep it within the approximately $25 million the Town is intending to pay.
The difference is anywhere from $45,500 per square acre to $87,000 per acre for the 540-acre parcel.

Jury selected in Valley Floor Valuation Trial

By Douglas McDaniel

The Town of Telluride’s Final Valuation Trial for the condemnation of the Valley Floor property began Monday, Feb. 5 in Delta with two whole teams of lawyers and a jury pool of 150-plus people filing into the Delta County Courthouse.
By Tuesday, both sides, the Town represented by Leslie Fields, Esq. and Jack Sperber, Esq., two partners with the Denver law firm of Faegre & Benson; the San Miguel Valley Corporation represented by Darrell Waas, Esq., Mikaela Rivera, Esq., and Patricia Campbell, Esq. of the Denver law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti; had made their opening statements.
According to the daily update provided to the town by Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger, most potential jurors already completed a pre-trial jury questionnaire addressing employment and residency issues, or whether any they had any knowledge or strongly held opinions about the case.
“Following a number of preliminary matters,” Geiger stated, “potential jurors and counsel for the parties convened in the Courtroom to begin the jury voir dire process, which means ‘to see them say’ or ‘to see them speak.’ Eighteen potential members of
the jury were ‘called’ at random from the audience into the jury box.
“The voir dire process involves the Judge asking potential members of the jury specific questions that are designed to reveal, among other things, the background, education and interests of potential jury members.
“The Court excused a number of potential jurors for a variety of reasons, including medical hardship, financial hardship, advanced knowledge of the issues in the case or strongly held beliefs that would interfere with a juror being impartial and fair. By noon, the Court had assembled a full panel of eighteen potential jurors with no additional Court identified cause for challenge.”
After Monday’s lunch break, the court continued with counsel for the asking questions of potential jurors, whittling the potential jurors from eighteen down to a total of eight “with
each side using five peremptory challenges, which are jury dismissals without stating a reason,” Geiger states.
The jury was impaneled by mid-afternoon Feb. 5, taking an oath of jury service for the
trial’s duration, expected to be three weeks. The jury of six regular members and two
alternate members consists of six females and two males.
The opening statement, made by Waas for the SMVC, who is pitching for keep the final determined value high, while the Town’s opening statement was made by Leslie Fields, who is arguing to keep it within the approximately $25 million the Town is intending to pay. The difference is reportedly anywhere from $45,500 per square acre to $87,000 per acre for the 540-acre parcel.
Day Two, Tuesday, Feb. 6, was the first day the parties actually introduce evidence to the jury with the presentation and examination of witnesses, Geiger states.