• Disclosure
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
  • CCPA
  • Medical Disclaimer
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
Provo Online News
  • Home
  • News
  • Business
  • Technology
    • Crytpocurrency
    • Gaming
    • Gadgets
  • Sports
  • Health
  • General
    • Business Services
  • Travel
  • Press Releases
  • Popular
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Business
  • Technology
    • Crytpocurrency
    • Gaming
    • Gadgets
  • Sports
  • Health
  • General
    • Business Services
  • Travel
  • Press Releases
  • Popular
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Home News Local News

PCMR Project Dispute: The Word ‘Vail’ Is A Favorite For The Critics – The Park Record

pcmr-project-dispute:-the-word-‘vail’-is-a-favorite-for-the-critics-–-the-park-record
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
svg%3E
Vail Mountain in Colorado, shown in 2020, is commonly referred to as “Vail,” which is also the name of the community there. Vail Resorts, meanwhile, is a Colorado-based firm that owns Park City Mountain Resort. Some of the critics of a development proposal at the base of PCMR allude to Vail Resorts in their written input to City Hall even though a Provo developer, rather than Vail Resorts itself, is pursuing the project.

Courtesy of Jay Hamburger

It is a Provo firm that wants to develop the parking lots at Park City Mountain Resort.

But it is a Colorado firm that is a target of some of the critics of the proposal.

As it appears the Park City Planning Commission is readying for a momentous vote on the project in coming months, the opposition continues to press a variety of issues in testimony to the panel and in written correspondences to City Hall. The correspondences, which are regularly released by the municipal government as Planning Commission meetings about the project approach, show that certain opponents appear as displeased with Colorado-based Vail Resorts, which owns PCMR, as they are with PEG Companies, the Provo developer that intends to acquire the base-area land from Vail Resorts for the project.



The criticism of Vail Resorts itself as the potential seller of the land is a sidebar to the core issues like the project designs and the traffic concerns. It illustrates, though, the continuing distrust of Vail Resorts by some segments of the community nearly eight years after it acquired PCMR in a deal that settled a bitter lease dispute between the former owner and the firm that owns most of the land underlying the resort terrain. Some in Park City see Vail Resorts as bringing a corporate vibe to the community and, at some level, they pin issues like affordability and traffic on the company.

Vail Resorts as a business strategy has shifted away from pursuing major developments like the one envisioned at the PCMR base area on its own. It instead reached an agreement to sell the land to PEG Companies for the project. The deal is not expected to be finalized until after the talks about the development proposal are completed.



The two sides are working closely even as it is PEG Companies that is leading the efforts. The project would essentially create a new base area for PCMR, altering the complexion of the Park City side of the resort. Vail Resorts, then, has a large stake in the project even if it is not the developer. Both parties, as an example, see issues like transportation and parking as crucial since the topics will impact a PEG Companies development as well as the operations of the Vail Resorts-owned PCMR.

The public input — both testimony during Planning Commission meetings and in written correspondences — has been overwhelmingly in opposition to the development proposal. The critics claim the project would loom over the neighborhood and traffic would overwhelm nearby streets. The PEG Companies side counters that steps would be taken to guard against the traffic issues and sees the overall design as something that works in the location.

The 10-acre proposal involves a hotel, retailers, restaurants and condominiums on land that currently serves as the PCMR parking lots. Large garages would be built in place of the parking spots there now. A former owner of PCMR in the 1990s secured an overall development approval on the land, but another vote is needed before the work could start. The 1990s-era development rights went to Vail Resorts when it acquired PCMR, and the company later reached the agreement with PEG Companies for a sum that has not been released. The acquisition of PCMR was priced at $182.5 million, but the value of the land that would be sold to PEG Companies within the total figure is not known.

There are only scattered references to Vail Resorts in the written correspondences, but they are telling nonetheless as people in Park City continue to express frustration with the firm.

“I apologize in advance for the broken record, but our community is suffering the consequences of poor management by Vail of PCMR. How can we believe it will be any better with the proposed development? We can’t,” Deb Rentfrow, one of the leading critics of the development proposal, wrote in a correspondence to the Planning Commission on Feb. 7. “PEG has made it clear they are building, then selling/turning back over to Vail.”

She also contends in the correspondence that “Vail needs to become a better community partner and the City needs to demand it before we enter into any further transactions with them.”

The Planning Commission appears to be in the final stages of the talks about the PEG Companies’ development proposal at the PCMR base. It is possible a vote could be cast as early as the spring. A decision by the Planning Commission is likely to be put to the Park City Council as critics would want the involvement of the elected officials in the case of a “Yea” vote by the lower panel while the developers could ask for their involvement under the scenario of a “Nay” vote.

The written input to the Planning Commission was submitted during what has been a challenging ski season at PCMR. There was the threat of a strike earlier in the winter by the union that represents PCMR ski patrollers, before the sides eventually reached an agreement preventing a walkout. There have also been widespread complaints about the experience on the PCMR slopes this year with limited terrain open and long lift lines, culminating in early February with a crowd bringing a list of grievances to Mayor Nann Worel and the Park City Council. Many see Vail Resorts as being culpable alongside PCMR regarding the various disputes and concerns.

Provo Online News

© 2021 Provo Onlinr News

Navigate Site

  • Disclosure
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
  • CCPA
  • Medical Disclaimer

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • DMCA Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclosure
  • CCPA
  • Terms of Use

© 2021 Provo Onlinr News

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT