Socal Mt. Waterman info..

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

snowave

Active member
Been a long time since I've been around.. Partly becuase I got lost and couldn't find the link here (all my old links were deleted)..

Anway, good to be back and I hope to contribute a more the rest of this winter.. if you want to call it winter down here in socal..thank god for Mammoth!

I remember a semi- decent Waterman interest last year when I ws around.. and I found out interesting news today via an email from my boss ( I work for the USFS)..in that Lynn Newcomb Jr. Has expressed interest in buying Waterman and Kratka...again! I don't have much information right now, but I'll nose around a little more for some details, if there are any...and keep you all posted! Obviosuly, we need snow to open that place, but remember last year? Lifts BURIED? It can happen, and would be awesome to see the little hill operating again.

Obviosuly, Waterman news has been nothing but dissapointments the last 3 years, including the death of former owner Barry Stubblefiled last year...but I have to feel somewhat optimistic that someone of the likes of Lynn Newcomb Jr., (who I have met personally, and can assure you he cares about these socal mountains as much as anyone) might buy the place and at least get the lifts certified and insurance paid for to open. They did get the place cleaned up alot this past summer and did some minor repairs..

take care, and pray for some socal snow!! (or at least toast Ullr with a few beers)

off to Mammoth Monday!!
 
New info... permit completely revoked, area must be vacated or sold by June 1 or else land area is permanently reverted back to USFS with no permit.
 
snowave":3e8gxk34 said:
New info... permit completely revoked, area must be vacated or sold by June 1 or else land area is permanently reverted back to USFS with no permit.
Click to expand...

Bummer.

Does this mean if the place is sold by June 1 its permit to operate as a ski area remains active?
 
Not necessarily..but the chances are alot better if they sell before that date. It really sounds to me like the USFS is serious and tired of thd BS that Waterman is giving them. There is some offical litigation going down right now to clear out the whole area.

They (USFS) have put up with complete violations of the special use permit (including illegal operation in 99, 2000, 2001). As much as I hate to say it, its the truth.. and something needs to be done. I honestly thingk the USFS woudl be willing to extend the permit and issue a new lease to a viable owner.

I just hope they sell before its too late.. otherwise, this summer the entire area will be dismantled, and probably forever... however, there is talk of legal action on the other side..which I woudl be shocked they would make the effort being how much effor they have showed in getting the place operating in the past 4 years.

I wish them luck as I would hate to see this area gone forever.
 
I made a mistake in the date above.. June 30 is the date set by the USFS for a sale or compliance in their permit terms to take place.. otherwise, the area is going to be dismantled and probably never going to be a ski area again. So if anyone had 500k + let me know and I can try and get you in contact with the current owner.
 
snowave":2z542u7h said:
I made a mistake in the date above.. June 30 is the date set by the USFS for a sale or compliance in their permit terms to take place.. otherwise, the area is going to be dismantled and probably never going to be a ski area again. So if anyone had 500k + let me know and I can try and get you in contact with the current owner.
Click to expand...

Just for perspective's sake, what does a viable, recently successful resort cost?
 
A ski resort like any business would be valued based upon the expected net income it can produce.

Under Lynn Newcomb Waterman was a good example of a minimalist, low revenue/low expense area. You can survive the drought years if you don't have any debt, then have modest expenses when you're actually operating. That doesn't mean that there is much equity value in the operation/franchise.

The problem arises if you have some upfront expenses, like renewing permits, installing snowmaking or upgrading facilities. So if anyone thinks that a prospective new owner is going to shell out 500K and then incur the expenses of getting Waterman going again, they are sadly delusional IMHO. I think Lynn Newcomb wanted $2 million when he sold the area while it was up and running, and I don't think he got even a modest fraction of that.

Baldy during the outstanding 2004-05 season had only ~50,000 skier visits, and it also gets some revenue from scenic rides year round. The potential revenue for the much smaller and less convenient (to most of SoCal) Waterman is not great.

I would like to see Waterman open again, but unless I'm missing something here I don't think its prospects are very good.
 
pretty much right on IMO Tony.. As you mentioned, there's alot more to it than the up front cost. I have contacted 2 prospects that might be interested in buying the operation.. and got a favorable reply from one of them.. I think at this point, I would think the focus on opening a snowplay area at kratka might be something that looks more promising (at first anyway) than trying to get Waterman goign again.. but I am not clued in on all aspects of that as I realize there's still some major costs involved.. We'll see what happens..and spread the word to anyone/group that might have some interest.
 
I managed MW for Lynn for many years and talked to him today. He is working with a group interested in taking over Waterman/Kratka again but it sounds like the Forest Service would rather have it go away. Lynn said the FS would only give a 1 year permit at this time while they evaluate what will happen to the area. Obviously it would be hard to put up money to buy area and make necessary repairs at the risk of losing it in a year.

Those of us that are non Forest Service, but involved in the Angeles area have felt for years that the goal of the current ANF administration is to close down the forest and remove all public facilities. Supporting that claim is the closure of the road between Chilao and Little Rock, and now the Cooper Canyon area for frog protection. The closure of Hwy 2 to Wrightwood for over a year now for road work that should have been completed quite some time ago. Slowly bits of the Angeles are being closed to the Public and Waterman and Kratka will be the next pieces in the puzzle unless the public stands up and fights this trend. We need to write letters to our congressman, senators, and especially the Bush Administration that is not so enviromentally minded. We as skiers and boarders need to make our voice heard and get the word out that we need to save these fantastic little ski areas.

As more and more people move to SoCal and Bear, Summit, and Mt. High become even more crowded there is a niche for Baldy and Waterman.
_________________
Save Mt. Waterman
 
Tom,,how can ihelp.i am interested in gettin these areas up and running,the patrol at waterman is bullshit,they are the ones that operated the resort for themselves.Any word on how much they will sell kratka alone for?
 
I would strongly recommend anyone pursuing this to concentrate on Waterman. Kratka has avalanche lift damage and its base lodge burned down and was not replaced. It's going to be tough enough to drum up interest in Waterman. Kratka is even smaller.
 
Agreed!
Kratka is basically a throw in to the purchase price of Waterman. It needs much more cash to get it up and running than Waterman. Also don't be fooled by a low purchase price, both resorts need operating capital as well as some modernization. Both Rental shops need to be completely outfitted with new equipment, kitchen facilities need to be updated, grooming equipment repaired and so forth. I'm guessing about $2 million at least to get both resorts started and another $2-3 million if you want to make it a viable business and add snowmaking.

I like the idea of starting a Foundation to get started, but it needs to be done more like Mt. Ashland in Oregon did it (see link).

http://mtashland.com/Page.asp?ID=51

If anyone has any ideas or interest in making this happen, you can contact me at (951)445-3625 or TomMoriarty@HomeSmart-Inland.com
 
elmcompany,

What is your issue with the Mt. Waterman Patrol? Do you have some experience with the Mt. Waterman Patrol running the hill for themselves? I do not understand why you are associating the ski patrol with the failures of the hill management. Please explain your comments.

Jeff
 
The Forest Service said that if the resort does is not sold by June the entire area will be bulldozed and the lifts sold at auction.
 
COOPSTER":2t7jk2c8 said:
The Forest Service said that if the resort does is not sold by June the entire area will be bulldozed and the lifts sold at auction.
Click to expand...

This has already been mentioned in the thread. :roll:
 
Not sure how true it is, but I heard Tuesday from a pretty reliable Waterman/Kratka interest that the deal fell through to sell Waterman. Apparently, it was the short term FS permit that was the sticking point. I'll dig around for more info next week..
 
Tony Crocker":1ywo0pfz said:
A ski resort like any business would be valued based upon the expected net income it can produce.

Under Lynn Newcomb Waterman was a good example of a minimalist, low revenue/low expense area. You can survive the drought years if you don't have any debt, then have modest expenses when you're actually operating. That doesn't mean that there is much equity value in the operation/franchise.

The problem arises if you have some upfront expenses, like renewing permits, installing snowmaking or upgrading facilities. So if anyone thinks that a prospective new owner is going to shell out 500K and then incur the expenses of getting Waterman going again, they are sadly delusional IMHO. I think Lynn Newcomb wanted $2 million when he sold the area while it was up and running, and I don't think he got even a modest fraction of that.

Baldy during the outstanding 2004-05 season had only ~50,000 skier visits, and it also gets some revenue from scenic rides year round. The potential revenue for the much smaller and less convenient (to most of SoCal) Waterman is not great.

I would like to see Waterman open again, but unless I'm missing something here I don't think its prospects are very good.
Click to expand...
 
:?
I don't know where the other reply went. I think L.A. local areas are hot midweek and when mother nature provides. I would like to see an airport near Mammoth and service from Burbank. I think business is too agressive in California to think anyone would buy these small potatoes. Big Bear has potential for other activities. Not so much for Baldy and Waterman. Nothing like Tahoe for night life and food!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top