Lake County commissioners approve Ski Cooper master plan edits; remove port-of-entry and accelerate ski school

Lake County commissioners approved edits to the Ski Cooper Master Development Plan (MDP) at a special meeting, adopting two changes requested by county leaders: removal of a proposed port-of-entry checkpoint from page 66 of the draft MDP and advancing the ski school project from a later phase to Phase 1 (pages 70–72).

The vote came after more than an hour of public comment and discussion among resort operators, adaptive-ski advocates and county officials about accessibility, public-land access and safety. The board approved the MDP with the two edits and directed staff to produce an editable version for timely submittal to the U.S. Forest Service for its required review and approval.

The change to the ski school timing was described during the meeting as an alignment of the written MDP with a May 8 presentation to Colorado Mountain College staff that already showed that element moved forward. Several speakers said the phase change reflects an operational priority for Ski Cooper and does not itself authorize construction without Forest Service approval. A county official noted the MDP can be amended later or replaced before the 10-year horizon.

Public commenters divided over the port-of-entry proposal. Mike Madison, founder of Ski Cooper’s adaptive program and followthefootsteps.org, said the checkpoint aided people with mobility impairments and other disabilities by creating a staffed location to assist with heavy adaptive equipment and early rental access. “We’re disheartened, with the removal of the port of entry, because it provides a lot easier access for our people that are in, mobile device aids and individuals that are arriving to do adaptive lessons,” Madison said, describing how staff at the checkpoint helped transport monoski and other adaptive gear and opened rental facilities early for quieter customer service.

Several Ski Cooper board members and longtime resort volunteers urged keeping the port-of-entry language in the plan as an option for future consideration and technology changes. Jane Harrelson, who identified herself as a Ski Cooper board member, called the MDP “a pretty good plan” and thanked county staff for meeting the MDP filing deadline. Board member Scott Adams said the checkpoint had been especially appreciated by parents with small children during busy days.

Opponents raised concerns that the port-of-entry created a visible barrier on public land and might not function consistently with RFID systems used at other resorts. Kevin Schafer and other commenters noted inconsistent scanner performance and said the checkpoint’s orange-and-white barriers could be perceived as unwelcoming. Jerry Andrew, also a Ski Cooper board member, said the checkpoint served as a guest-service point and estimated it processed “roughly 90,000 to 100,000 people per season,” saying final decisions about whether elements move forward rest with the U.S. Forest Service and any required environmental review.

Dan Torsal, who spoke as the resort operator, emphasized operational safety for the lodge’s north-side loading area and said that specific area must remain closed for deliveries and emergency access. “As the operator, it is our responsibility to maintain safety,” Torsal said, adding that the north-side loading and unloading area would remain restricted because of deliveries, ambulance access and close calls when skiers pass through an open loading area.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the Ski Cooper MDP with the edits removing the port-of-entry language from page 66 and moving the ski school to Phase 1 on pages 70–72; another commissioner seconded the motion and the board approved it. The transcript does not include a complete roll call or final vote tally. County staff and resort representatives said they will provide an editable version of the MDP (Word) so the agreed edits can be applied and the document submitted to the U.S. Forest Service by the stated deadline.

The approval does not bypass federal review. Multiple speakers noted that all elements in the MDP remain subject to Forest Service acceptance; if the Forest Service rejects any item, it will not proceed. Speakers also emphasized that the MDP is intended as a 10-year planning framework that may be amended or resubmitted before that period ends.

The meeting concluded after the vote and brief closing remarks thanking community participants.