Year in review: TSV, rezoning, co-op mark year’s action

It was a year that saw activity not only at the Ski Valley, but throughout the town of Taos.

The Blake

This year saw the first major renovation at Taos Ski Valley’s resort base area under new owner Louis Bacon: a top-rate hotel that promises to be the flagship of a new era at the property.

Bacon had already built a chairlift to the top of Kachina Peak since announcing he would buy the resort at the end of 2013. But Bacon and company tackled their first major project in the base area starting last year, and the hotel took shape over the course of 2016.

The state-of-the-art hotel sits on a piece of property that formerly housed a building that looked like a concrete bunker. Taos Ski Valley (TSV) ownership has insisted that the base area desperately needs to be modernized and made clear that a hotel would require a bigger investment than condos or other residential real estate, but a hotel would help TSV increase the number of beds available at the mountain and improve the general atmosphere at the resort.

Bacon’s purchase of the hotel prompted what some called the “Bacon bounce,” a sudden surge in purchase of properties in TSV. Most local real estate experts say that bounce generally meant low-end properties were bought up by speculators hoping prices would appreciate over the next few years.

The Blake is the first step in what is supposed to be a $350 million investment over 10 years.

The Blake might seem swanky compared to the more dated buildings at TSV, but the resort insists it has no intention of turning Taos into some kind of exclusive destination that caters only to the wealthy. Instead, the resort is pushing its image as family friendly and its “mystique” (a favorite word of the resort’s new marketing team) as a world-class ski area in an area that’s culturally rich.

Rezoning flop

A proposal to rezone about 20 acres near the center of Taos prompted what was probably the biggest controversy of the year in town.

In late 2015, the town government petitioned itself to rezone an area south of the Plaza to make it easier to build large commercial buildings. The town manager — a primary proponent of the rezone — insisted the move was meant to proactively attract development and was not to accommodate any specific builder.

However, emails and other public records showed town officials, including the manager, had been discussing plans to build a new, larger Smith’s grocery store in the location slated for rezoning. Emails showed the manager talking with a developer representing Smith’s immediately before and after public meetings on the rezoning. It wasn’t until these emails became public that the manager acknowledged that the town was in discussions with Smith’s, though the manager maintained that the rezone was not aimed at helping Smith’s alone.

Adding to the controversy were revelations that the town attorney was related to the owners of a property in the rezone area, and the attorney had failed to disclose this relationship. If the deal with Smith’s went through, these relatives may have been in line for a piece of the sale. The attorney eventually denied he knew about his relatives’ stake in the property.

The unusual circumstances of the plan even turned off some who supported plans to revitalize an unattractive strip leading to the heart of downtown Taos.

Through it all, the town manager insisted some kind of rezoning was necessary to spur economic development and bring life to an “arguably blighted” stretch of Taos’ main drag. But the idea died before the town council. One councilor said the idea may have merit, but the way it had been presented was “flawed.”

Co-op escapes contract, gets increase

For followers of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative, 2016 was an eventful year.

First, the co-op managed to find a way out of a long-term contract with its power supplier — an exit that could open the door to substantially more locally generated solar power.

In a contract that didn’t expire until 2040, Tri-State Generation and Transmission limited the amount of local energy production to just 5 percent of the co-op’s total usage. The co-op has long fought this provision, arguing it was stifling the proliferation of green energy in a region that was prime for solar.

After months of secret negotiations, Tri-State and the co-op jointly announced they struck a deal in June: Kit Carson would pay Tri-State $37 million to get out of its contract (Tri-State said the payment would make up for whatever it would lose in power sales without Kit Carson). To pay the fee, Kit Carson struck a deal with another power supplier — Guzman Renewable Energy Partners — which agreed to front the $37 million for the co-op. Co-op customers are now paying back that money with a surcharge for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they use.

For proponents of solar energy, the Tri-State exit is a watershed moment. The co-op can now go hog wild on solar, and that’s exactly what it plans to do. Last month, the co-op unveiled a plan under which it would build dozens of small solar arrays across its service territory over the next six years. The co-op says that, by 2022, it wants to power every home and business using the sun during certain times of the year. The co-op is confident that outside investors (possibly Guzman) will pay to build the solar arrays, and all the co-op has to do is agree to buy energy from those arrays for decades.

But, as with anything related to the co-op, the exit and solar plan have their critics.

For one, the Tri-State exit was announced while the co-op was in the midst of asking for a rate increase. The co-op said it was in dire financial condition because of slumping sales, and it was asking state regulators to approve a rate hike.

Critics of Kit Carson’s management allege that the co-op has wasted money on side ventures, like its telecom and propane companies, and has been irresponsible by taking on more than $100 million in debt. They saw the additional $37 million to pay off Tri-State as another step toward insolvency.

The rate case was finally decided this month after almost a year of contentious back-and-forth arguments and procedures.

And the co-op made news when a literal fist fight broke out between two of the co-op’s board members in November — one of whom was the only trustee to vote against the rate increase, although it is unclear whether the altercation was directly related to rate increase matters.