Easy fix. Make the term of the existing leases the same as the head lease with rent baked in (minus one day).
Why would an operator sign such a head lease that takes away a golden goose? A head lease that allows them to eventually put overwhelming pressure on clubs would be worth much more. NPWS is motivated to get as much for a head lease as they can. Follow the money.
Probably because the head lessor would insist on it. As they did with the latest renewal. At the same time NPWS offered all clubs a new lease that expired on the same date as Perisher's lease.
AHL only pays $8000pa for the Thredbo head lease.
That poo works is unique in Australia. There isn't anyone else in the country who could run it better.
My understanding is Vail was offered the opportunity to run sewer and everything else & they said no thanks.
I love the sentiment but unfortunately it’s about five years too late. Vale are a money making machine.
What would they, it costs them money and can’t be managed out of head office. Right now it’s someone else problem.
The cost of the actual lease is not the expensive bit, it's the running the poo farm, maintaining the roads, clearing the roads, collecting the garbage, fixing the burst pipes in winter. All that stuff that the taxpayer/pass buyer pays at the moment. And there is no money from club lodges to cover that.
It's a percentage of taxable income. Creative accounting rules.
History renewed 2007. Government should have got a much better deal and return for unique public lands on behalf of its tax payers. Friends in high places I suppose!
Yes, but the renewal option was set in the original agreement. There was a lease option, with signed terms between the co and th government, and the co took it up. The alternative would be the government offering a process (sum of $$) to break the lease. There's no skulduggery. The SMH basically says 'its an agreement and some people now dont like it and want the law changed so the government doesn't have to meet its end of the agreement'.
Didn't they reseal the road along FF a year or three back?
'Skulduggery' / 'creative accounting'
???
KT have the head lease. The lease is a proportion of KT's taxable income. KT, I suspect, has service agreements with other associated corporate entities which are paid handsomely for what they provide to KT. Classic transfer pricing. KT has a minimal taxable income (at least as far as the lease is concerned) while associated entities make the profits. All under a single ownership.'Skulduggery' / 'creative accounting'
Pretty sweet deal when a private company with an annual turnover of over $36.6M (2004) can occupy prime real estate and environmentally sensitive public lands and pay $8K/yr for the privilege. Yet the tennant still whinges to the landlord about meeting basic obligations and cries hard done by to the public.
All i'm saying is government/public sector is not very good at negotiating the best outcomes on behalf of tax payers on leasing of public lands / infrastructure. Particularly when the veil of politics/ big business relationships are cast over the top of those negotiations.
There was no option to negotiate. It wasn't a negotiation. There was an option to renew the lease period, contained within the original agreement. The option was taken up. It was essentially AHL ticking a box saying 'yes, we will take up our option to the second term of the lease as per the terms of our legal agreement with the Government. Thank you'. It wasn't a new lease.
NPWS certainly played a harder game with Blyton Group in negotiating the new Charlotte Pass lease.
Sure - it's a great deal from AHL's perspective in terms of lease costs. As @Telezacski aid, the aim from a government perspective at the time was to get private sector involvement in the tourism industry (moving from the formerly government run places like Sponars, etc). It did really well at that. Of course many such leases failed (eg Main Range tows and lodging).
Never understood the governance of the various State/Territory Parks and Wildlife Services. Perhaps the remit of some is bigger than managing the flora and fauna. And tracks. And collecting fees. And parking cops.
And so they should. It just always amuses me that they, (government/parks) get criticised by some in the community for often being the perceived barrier, or playing the gate keeper in trying to get the best outcome and return for public assets and not letting private interests just exploit for profit and take us all for a ride.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that the NSW Government will announce that they secretly leased Perisher 5 years ago, just to get it off the books, like they did with TAHE?
Jokes aside, I should clarify that I have no issue with Vail making money. That's their imperative.
(That said, they do need to charge a reasonable price for reasonable delivery of skiing experiences, but that's more of a recent concern imported here direct from the current US winter...)
But no matter whether it's Vail or KT or whoever else as the Perisher head lessor, it's just not a good fit to put any money making machine in charge of providing local municipal services.
Remember though that the clubs are not-for-profit cooperatives, not corporations. They are bound by their constitutions to deliver services and amenities to their members, not to deliver profits.
If the head lessor was a not-for-profit cooperative organisation, then it could be charged with delivering services and amenities to everyone - to the clubs, businesses, ski hill, volunteer groups like ski patrol, downhill skiers, cross country and ski tourers, snow players, etc. More importantly, it could also bring all these different groups together to produce a collective vision for Perisher Valley, and a plan for how to achieve it.
Whilst I agree the Thredbo head lease model may be a better and appear to be a more convenient option to government than the mish mash of Perisher and provision of expensive municipal services, as others have commented here that model may not be particularly attractive to entities such as club lodges or small business, to be at the behest of a large private company only responsible to share holders and not the wider community as governments are. I agree it is not an even playing field. Not sure I fully agree with your statement that the money collected from those travelling to Thredbo goes to managing Perisher and other NPWS costs is completely accurate. The costs of Thredbo both financial and environmental to the public and hence government/parks do not stop at the boundary of their lease area.
The KNP winter surcharge fee was literally and publicly set up for this exact purpose.
Some of the worst shitfights I have witnessed have been in not for profits running large enterprises. A profit motive gives a measure of effectiveness that swamps petty politicking.
At Perisher its more like piss farming due to all the selfish day drippers who make their daily deposit in Jindabyne rather than at Perisher.
My long held theory is that the managers of whoever runs the poo farm should be required to take a drink from downstream of the farm every day. It applies to every resort.
With sensitive downstream waterways in a national park with unique ecosystems.
In Sydney yes with millions of people getting into waterways downstream of treatment plants. Perisher is a different beast as what you are most concerned with protecting are aquatic species that live in the waterway. They will be constantly exposed day and night rather than a bit of a dip and swallow now and then over the warmer months. They will have different responses to different substances (and mixtures of), bioaccumulation through the system that humans won't get due to our short sporadic exposures and of course you have the whole ecosystem business so impacts on one will flow on to the rest.
I must interprete the IPART recommendations around apportioning winter surcharge and park use fees differently to everyone else:
Then why is the price on the Summit Rd the same as the price on the Alpine Way?
