Update 11/14: The Judge upheld the local’s appeal, further derailing Vail Resort’s plans. Vail Resorts can appeal to Utah’s appellate court, which seems likely.
One of the biggest stories in the North American ski industry last year was the blocking of two lift projects at Park City Mountain Resort. The Utah ski resort planned to replace the Eagle, Eaglet, and Silverlode chairlifts during the 2022 season. Eagle and Eaglet would have been replaced with a high-speed six-pack chairlift, and Silverlode would have been replaced with a high-speed eight-pack chairlift.
After the city planning director initially approved the lift replacements, four locals appealed the decision. Based on their experiences on what had become a packed mountain, they believed that the Utah ski resort was constantly above their comfortable carrying capacity. In addition, they believed that Park City’s parking plan, which needed to be implemented in order for the new lifts to be installed, was insufficient in handling the area’s traffic issues.
After hearing the local’s arguments, the planning commission granted the appeal, leading to the delay of these lift replacements. The lift parts, which arrived at the ski resort, were eventually moved up to Whistler Blackcomb for some lift replacements up there. Vail Resorts appealed the decision made by Park City Municipal, and over a year after the locals were granted the appeal, the case will finally be heard by Utah’s Third District Court.
Today, the appeal is being heard by Judge Richard Mrazik, who will hear arguments from Vail Resorts versus Park City Municipal and the four locals. Vail Resorts is arguing that by granting the appeal, the Planning Commission was acting outside of its power, believing that the decision was arbitrary and illegal. They argued that new chairlifts wouldn’t grow visitation.
Park City Municipal argued that the decision wasn’t arbitrary, arguing that it was within its powers to grant the appeal. In addition, they argued that the Eagle replacement lift was different from the original proposal in the 1998 development plan and that their parking plan was insufficient.
The four locals, who joined the case as intervenors, have joined the defense. Their argument is for the judge to rule in favor of Vail, the corporation needs to overwhelmingly show that the decision was arbitrary and illegal. The locals are arguing Vail Resorts can’t reach that threshold. The appellants have set up a GoFundMe to pay for a portion of the extensive legal fees incurred when Vail brought the matter to Utah’s Third District Court.
Their main goal is to figure out how Park City’s comfortable carrying capacity is determined and if Park City Mountain is adhering to its maximum of 12,570 skiers. Comfortable Carrying Capacity is a ski resort planning metric developed in the 1960s by Snow Engineering. Snow Engineering now goes by the name SE Group and is considered one of the leading firms for ski resort master development plans.
According to a master development plan produced by Waterville Valley Resort, Comfortable Carrying Capacity is “the optimum number of skiers and riders that can utilize a ski area in a day while providing a pleasant recreational experience and at the same time preserving the quality of the environment.” What the appellants are aiming for with this case is to determine how Park City determined its comfortable carrying capacity and prove that it has been past this limit.
SE Group says the calculations to determine a resort’s Comfortable Carrying Capacity are proprietary. Vail argues Park City Mountain’s Development Agreement should be considered a dynamic roadmap rather than a precise blueprint.
The locals maintain Comfortable Carrying Capacity is a matter of public safety that ought to be transparent like building standards. They also believe that the Development Agreement is a binding document that becomes code. They want to expose decades-old Comfortable Carrying Capacity calculations to determine their relevance at present-day resorts operating on mega passes and force Park City Mountain to confirm it operates within capacity limits.
Here’s a core point brought up in the local’s GoFundMe regarding what it could mean if they’re successful:
“If we beat Vail Resorts in court, then not only will it have to justify its CCC calculations, it will also have to prove Park City Mountain is in compliance with capacity limits going forward. And if this precedent is established in Park City, then communities like Breckenridge, Leavenworth, Stowe, Tahoe, Truckee, Vail and Whistler will similarly be able to rein in capacity and traffic at their local Vail-owned resorts.”
Who will win this battle? Who knows, but it’ll be a fascinating story to watch this week.
Image Credits: Ian Wood, Park City Mountain Resort
