Commissioners press Alterra on patroller pay, rescue liability and seasonal-worker food supports

Routt County commissioners and staff described a year‑long, unresolved dispute with Alterra (the ski‑area operator) over whether ski patrollers will be paid during off‑premises search and rescue responses and who bears liability and equipment costs when patrollers respond.

County officials told the commission they have repeatedly sought an enforceable agreement that clarifies who is in charge of off‑premises rescue operations, who covers workers' compensation and equipment damage, and whether ski‑area ticketing or rescue fees deter people from calling for help. The county said it has drafted an agreement intended to comply with state law and insurers’ limits but has not received a signed version from Alterra.

Why it matters: County officials and the sheriff say clear, lawful agreements are needed so volunteer or contracted rescuers can respond quickly without exposing themselves or the county to uncovered injury or equipment claims. Search and rescue leaders told the commission they are frustrated because operational problems and delays can endanger public safety.

What commissioners heard: County counsel and the sheriff said ski patrollers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that, according to Alterra, requires payment when patrollers are on responses; Alterra has resisted treating patrollers as unpaid volunteers and wants them paid “on the clock.” That position, county attorneys said, removes the patrollers from the statutory volunteer definitions that would make them eligible for county workers' comp and governmental immunity for responses conducted under sheriff authority.

County staff warned that if patrollers remain classified as paid employees for off‑premises responses, the county cannot provide statutory volunteer protections and would not be able to assume responsibility for another entity's equipment. County insurance advisers told commissioners the county’s policy will not cover damage to Alterra‑owned equipment used during a response.

Search and rescue representatives told the board that inconsistent communications and operational disputes (for example, air assets versus drone use) have compromised safety during responses. Commissioners were also told that Alterra in some instances has levied steep fines on clients involved in rescues, a practice search‑and‑rescue leaders say discourages people from calling for help and creates a public‑safety risk.

Seasonal workers and food assistance: County staff and representatives of Lift Up Routt County reported ongoing discussions with Alterra about providing food assistance for seasonal employees. Lift Up said it is open to fiscal‑sponsorship arrangements to operate a pantry at the mountain base but noted capacity and funding trade‑offs — for example, bringing in an external food bank could duplicate services and alter local funding flows. The county said it will pursue recurring meetings with Lift Up, Alterra and other partners to develop an operational plan.

Next steps: Commissioners asked staff and the sheriff to continue negotiations, to consult Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) for broader industry context, and to explore convening a broader multistakeholder meeting (Alterra leadership, search and rescue, sheriff, county staff) later this year. Commissioners signaled willingness to support staff in pressuring Alterra to come back to the table on a timely schedule.

Ending: County staff said they will keep the board apprised, and that the sheriff and search‑and‑rescue leadership may return with proposed operational fixes and any formal requests for county assistance or policy changes.