Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County, Ski Cooper discuss master plan, proposed lease amendment as Forest Service deadline looms
Summary
Lake County commissioners and Ski Cooper board members met in a work session to discuss sending Ski Cooper’s Master Development Plan to the U.S. Forest Service to resolve a notice of noncompliance and to review a Ski Cooper‑proposed amendment to the ski area lease.
Lake County commissioners and the board of Ski Cooper met in a work session to discuss next steps on Ski Cooper’s Master Development Plan and a proposed amendment to the ski area’s lease as they try to address a Forest Service notice of noncompliance.
The discussion centered on whether the county will formally sign and transmit the Master Development Plan — described in the meeting as the MDP — to the U.S. Forest Service in time for a July 31 deadline noted by Ski Cooper. Ski Cooper presented a written proposed lease amendment and asked the county to discuss that amendment before the county advances the MDP to the Forest Service.
Why it matters: Ski Cooper and county leaders said resolving the Forest Service noncompliance is a prerequisite for moving forward on infrastructure projects and lodge improvements described in the MDP. Ski Cooper warned that inconsistency from the Forest Service has complicated planning and compliance efforts.
County Commissioner Andy (Lake County commissioner) said the county would like Ski Cooper to formally approve and sign the MDP so the county can deliver it to the Forest Service, noting a previously discussed internal May timeline. Andy said getting the signed MDP to the Forest Service could “possibly” offset outstanding noncompliance items identified in Forest Service correspondence, but he also acknowledged that the Forest Service has changed expectations in prior interactions.
John (Ski Cooper board member) told the commissioners that Ski Cooper had not signed the MDP and that the Ski Cooper board would prefer a conversation about the proposed lease amendment before the county forwards the MDP. John said, “We’re proposing an amendment to the lease. We want to have that conversation first before we approve the MDP.”
Ski Cooper board members described specific compliance issues in Forest Service letters. Scott (Ski Cooper board member) said the Forest Service identified several portable or non‑descript buildings in the permit and that Ski Cooper had discussed assigning some of those buildings under the older permit to reduce the number of outstanding noncompliant structures. Ski Cooper representatives said the Forest Service had indicated some flexibility for three of the main buildings but disallowed using one building (the “port of entry”) for certain offsets.
County staff and Ski Cooper discussed practical steps the county might take to help Ski Cooper cure the noncompliance, including removing county‑owned equipment from Ski Cooper property. Ski Cooper said some equipment is already staged for removal and that county public works had started coordinating the effort.
A proposed lease amendment: Ski Cooper presented a written amendment to the county and asked for a conversation about its contents before the MDP is advanced. Commissioners said they were willing to discuss the amendment but signaled concern about timing and process; one county participant said they had expected the amendment earlier and expressed frustration at the meeting timing. No formal vote or vote schedule was set.
Deadlines and risks: Ski Cooper said July 31 is a hard deadline for curing the Forest Service noncompliance in order to proceed without further enforcement action. Commissioners and Ski Cooper board members agreed they would continue discussions; Ski Cooper said it would not leave buildings in place if the Forest Service required their removal but warned that removing assets could affect guest services in the near term.
No formal action taken: The county and Ski Cooper did not adopt or approve the MDP or the lease amendment at the session. Commissioners said they would bring material — including responses to prior public‑meeting comments and the proposed amendment — into upcoming meetings for further consideration.
What’s next: Both sides agreed to continue talks. Ski Cooper said it would provide the written responses from a prior community meeting, and the county said staff would route the proposed amendment to the appropriate meeting calendar for discussion.
