• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

Vail Wins The Rights To (most of) Park City MTN Resort

ski diva

Administrator
Staff member
Pretty amazing stuff.

From the Denver Post:

A Utah District Court ruled Wednesday that Park City Mountain Resort officials failed to renew their historic lease for a majority of their ski terrain and the landowner is allowed to lease the ski area's upper terrain to a new operator.

That means Vail Resorts just won the rights to more than two-thirds of the land beneath Utah's most popular ski area. And it means that Park City Mountain Resort owner Powdr Corp. will go down in history as captaining the ski industry's most costly clerical error: a days-late filing to renew their decades-old, sweetheart lease could forever change their flagship ski area, which has seen Powdr invest more than $100 million.

Powdr Corp. argued it was an "honest mistake" when the resort operator was a couple days late filing paperwork to renew its lease for land beneath Park City Mountain Resort. It was paying landowner Talisker Corp. about $150,000 a year for the land, per the series of 20-year leases first forged in the 1970s. For comparison, Vail Resorts is paying Talisker $25 million a year plus a percentage of revenue every year to lease the adjacent 4,000-acre Canyons ski area.

Talisker refused to sign a new lease with Powdr and went looking for a new tenant. Powdr sued Talisker to force a new deal. Talisker leased Canyons to Vail Resorts on the condition that the continent's largest resort operator takes over the Park City Mountain Resort legal battle, calling Vail Resorts a "dramatically better operator" than Powdr.

Things turned fiery when Vail Resorts tried to evict Powdr from the Park City ski area. Vail chief Rob Katz launched a letter-writing campaign, publicly lobbying Powdr chief John Cumming to sell his base area land. Cumming said he would rip out his chairlifts on the upper land if Vail won the lawsuit. He might, he said, convert his remaining acreage at the base of the ski area into a full-time Camp Woodward, modeled after the action sports training facility founded at Copper Mountain, which Powdr acquired in 2009.

In an 82-page ruling, District Court Judge Ryan Harris said Powdr's plea that there are "enormous public consequences" with ending their lease of the land did not warrant making exceptions to legal rules and precedent set in several previous Utah lease disputes. Harris ruled on eight motions, siding almost entirely with Talisker and Vail Resorts.

Vail Resorts on Wednesday issued a brief statement saying it was pleased.

Talisker attorney John Lund said his client was pleased the court not only confirmed that Park City Mountain Resort's lease had expired when it failed to renew on April 30, 2011, but also that Talisker did not violate any lease terms regarding Park City Mountain Resort's rights.

"Talisker looks forward to bringing in Vail Resorts as its new tenant and operator of the terrain," Lund said in a statement.

Cumming has said that he would not allow Vail Resorts to access his private land at the base of Park City ski area if the court ruled against him.

"It's now time for Park City Mountain Resort to move on and work out a realistic solution for access to the ski terrain from Park City," Lund said.

A defiant Cumming on Wednesday said: "We will not walk away and allow a Vail takeover."

Cumming, who founded Powdr Corp. in 1994 with the acquisition of the 3,300-acre Park City Mountain Resort, said his company's "repeated offers to buy or lease" the Talisker-owned land beneath the ski area "for far in excess of market value" were rebuffed.

In a statement, Cumming said Vail's hope to gain operating ownership of Park City ski area demonstrates "a fundamental misunderstanding of what this litigation could yield for them."

Vail can't operate a resort on the land, Cumming said, because it does not have access to the Powdr-owned base area or parking lots essential for ski operations.

"And they are not for sale," Cumming said.

Park City Mountain Resort attorney Alan L. Sullivan said they would appeal the decision.

"We are committed to ensuring that Park City Mountain Resort has its day in court so it can show that it acted responsibly and in good faith and that its right to use the lands at issue has been extended," Sullivan said in a statement.

Lund pointed out that all of Park City Mountain Resort's claims over the three-year battle have been dismissed, including its recent request to have the court reconsider a previous ruling.

"We do not believe an appeal by Park City Mountain Resort has any merit and we sincerely believe that it would be best for all concerned for Park City Mountain Resort to stop using the legal system to cause further delay and uncertainty and refocus instead on a positive and constructive solution," Lund said. "We look forward to the Court proceeding expeditiously on the next steps in the process."

The next steps involve a potential trial on Powdr's claim that Talisker fraudulently failed to tell Powdr that its Park City ski area lease had expired after March 1, 2011. Harris wrote in his decision that he had hoped the parties would "resolve the situation amicably for the good of everyone, including the community."

And indeed, if Vail Resorts hopes to access the Powdr-owned base area village of Park City, it will require negotiations between the two operators.

Sullivan said the appeals process will likely last a year, meaning Wednesday's decision will not disrupt the 2014-15 ski season at Park City Mountain Resort.
 

Christy

Angel Diva
Wow. I hadn't been following this. Is it true that the resort can't operate without access through the Powder owner land at the bottom?
 

BackCountryGirl

Angel Diva
I actually read the decision; it is not true that there is only one way to access the trails. They may not be able to do it from the base lodge area (owned by Powdr), but they can still do it. Also, the only claim left is for negligent failure to disclose that the lease had not renewed, not fraudulent failure to disclose. That matters because Powdr made some improvements following its non-renewal of the lease. Although my legal skills are rusty these days, it read to me as if it was a very solid and well-reasoned decision.
 

Magnatude

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Definitely doesn't look good for PCMR/Powdr. Incidentally, Ian Cumming (founder of Powdr and father of its CEO) also bought a majority shareholding in Snowbird within the last couple of weeks -- in his own name, not Powdr's.

I hope we don't regret this: we bought 2014/15 Park City season's passes last week for our entire family, on the last day of the spring sale. We knew this (^^^) was in the works, but we are definitely crossing our fingers that they'll still open next season. PCMR sent out emails to passholders this week to say they're appealing and it'll be business as usual for at least the next season, but they would, wouldn't they? They'll also supposedly refund passholders if they can't open, but if they're declared bankrupt I'd imagine passholders will be at the bottom of the financial pile.

I suppose we'll try and get Epic/Canyons passes if worst comes to worst. Would be very disappointed though as one of the major drawcards for us was the Wasatch benefit, with free days at Snowbird and Alta (oh, and Deer Valley too).

There's a map somewhere showing who owns what -- it looks like Powdr doesn't own the land that the Town Lift is on, so that might be one way of accessing the upper mountain for an alternative operator. Nasty queues, no doubt, but perhaps theoretically it could be done.

I heard Powdr are threatening to start up a park operation using their base facilities and what little land they own around that area, if they lose the case.
 

mustski

Angel Diva
It sounds like a mess but my money is on Vail Resorts. They seem to prevail in every situation. My guess is that they are just too big to beat and Powder is just hoping for the best deal possible.
 

altagirl

Moderator
Staff member
It sounds like a mess but my money is on Vail Resorts. They seem to prevail in every situation. My guess is that they are just too big to beat and Powder is just hoping for the best deal possible.

Not to mention - I don't think PWDR corp has a leg to stand on legally.

You forgot to renew your lease? Your lease for a ridiculously low rate, thousands of times below market value? Too bad so sad, but I can't think of many situations where a landlord would say oh, yeah, we don't mind giving up what, 24.85 million dollars a year for the next 20 years because we just... like you so much? Don't really care about making money? Like to support businesses who can't handle the fundamentals of running a business? Can't even think of what to do with a half a BILLION dollars we could be making on this 20 year lease with Vail resorts, and would rather stick with the three million we could make to continue your lease that you didn't bother to renew...

Yeah, Vail Resorts is the big guy and all, but renewing your lease is pretty much a key part of keeping your business going. And when you have a ridiculously low rent rate, it's pretty much THE key to keeping your business going. I don't doubt it was an "honest mistake", but those kinds of mistakes still put you out of business when they are serious enough.
 
Last edited:

RachelV

Administrator
Staff member
You forgot to renew your lease? Your lease for a ridiculously low rate, thousands of times below market value? Too bad so sad, but I can't think of many situations where a landlord would say oh, yeah, we don't mind giving up what, 24.85 million dollars a year for the next 20 years because we just... like you so much?

The thread on this topic over at Epic is incredibly long, but there were a few speculations that whoever forgot to mail in the lease renewal on time didn't actually forget, but was paid a pretty generous sum to be a few days late by Vail resorts. It's like a skiing soap opera! :smile:

I also think Pwdr made their own bed here, but I'm not thrilled at the idea of Vail operating yet another resort.
 

Jenny

Angel Diva
The thread on this topic over at Epic is incredibly long, but there were a few speculations that whoever forgot to mail in the lease renewal on time didn't actually forget, but was paid a pretty generous sum to be a few days late by Vail resorts. It's like a skiing soap opera! :smile:

I also think Pwdr made their own bed here, but I'm not thrilled at the idea of Vail operating yet another resort.
Oooh, I hadn't read THAT part of the tale!
 

altagirl

Moderator
Staff member
The thread on this topic over at Epic is incredibly long, but there were a few speculations that whoever forgot to mail in the lease renewal on time didn't actually forget, but was paid a pretty generous sum to be a few days late by Vail resorts. It's like a skiing soap opera! :smile:

I also think Pwdr made their own bed here, but I'm not thrilled at the idea of Vail operating yet another resort.
I understand the speculation, but that doesn't seem like it would be THAT difficult to prove if it happened, no?
 

RachelV

Administrator
Staff member
Ha, yeah, I don't take it very seriously, but there are a lot of Vail Resorts conspiracy theories floating around in conjunction with this whole thing.
 

Christy

Angel Diva
From the article:
A group of local business owners and developers has begun trying to explain the economic harm of a lost ski season.

“It’s damaging to real estate values — it’s damaging to lease rates, not to mention a couple thousand people who won’t have jobs,” said Hans Fuegi, who runs the Grub Steak Restaurant. “There are huge consequences. We’ve never faced anything like this.”

With DV and the Canyons there, would the loss of PCMR really be that drastic to the town (of course it would be to the laid off employees)? And does PCMR really need snowmaking to exist?
 

altagirl

Moderator
Staff member
From the article:


With DV and the Canyons there, would the loss of PCMR really be that drastic to the town (of course it would be to the laid off employees)? And does PCMR really need snowmaking to exist?
I agree, I personally doubt the effects will extend to businesses outside the actual resort. We go out to eat, shop, etc. in Park City a bunch. But I have NEVER skied PCMR. I think the Park City customer base is WAY broader than PCMR customers.

I feel for the employees, though.

But honestly, if it looks less crowded than usual, we'd be even more likely to go out to eat up there.
 

abc

Banned
The thread on this topic over at Epic is incredibly long, but there were a few speculations that whoever forgot to mail in the lease renewal on time didn't actually forget, but was paid a pretty generous sum to be a few days late by Vail resorts. It's like a skiing soap opera! :smile:
I didn't read the thread at Epic.

But yes, I thought it's extremely odd such a thing can be "forgot"!

(A more personal touch here. My apartment in New York is a rent stablized unit, below market rate. I'll NEVER forget to send in the lease renewal form! In fact, every year when it gets close to that time, I count the days when the renewal form coming from the landlord! I know others in the same position do the same. Forgeting to send in the renewal form? No way!)
 

ski diva

Administrator
Staff member
The CEO's of both Vail and Powdr were interviewed on Here and Now on PBS this afternoon. If you're interested in hearing what they had to say, you can go here and listen.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,284
Messages
499,087
Members
8,563
Latest member
LaurieAnna
Top