Alan Theis has been a Park City Mountain skier for years and has held an Epic Pass, a Vail Resorts season-pass product.

He lives in Prospector. And Theis, according to a filing in Third District Court, at some point suffered injuries in a collision while skiing. The injuries necessitated surgery and a hospitalization, the filing says.

Theis filed a petition in court centered on planned upgrades to the resort’s Silverlode and Eagle lifts that the Park City municipal government previously approved through its process. The Park City municipal government is the defendant in the case. The petition wants a judicial review of the approval.

On Tuesday, Theis declined an interview request. He indicated any comment would be issued via a prepared statement with the requirement that his answers be published verbatim.

The Park City Planning Commission late in the spring approved the upgrades. The Planning Commission approval led to an appeal by six individuals, including Theis. The municipal hearing officer who officiated the appeal ruled in favor of the improvements in late July.

Although Theis declined to comment on Tuesday, he submitted an opinion piece to The Park Record in June explaining the reasoning for the appeal. The opinion piece provides some insight into his thoughts about the upgrades sought by Park City Mountain.

Theis’ opinion piece said the people who filed the appeal did not oppose the improvements. He pointed to Park City Mountain owner Vail Resorts in the commentary.

“The public is being told faster lifts will solve congestion. They won’t. People aren’t standing in long lift lines because chairs are small or slow. They are standing in lines (for lifts, parking, barbecue, bathrooms, etc.) because Vail’s Epic Pass overcrowds our mountain,” he said.

Theis added: “Faster lifts simply move more skiers onto the same terrain. Unless additional infrastructure and amenities are added alongside increased lift capacity, the result is more crowding on runs, not less.”

Theis wrote that he was worried that the “Planning Department and legal staff told the commission to discard court rulings, ignore governing documents, and defer analysis to a future application. The commission acquiesced.”

“If this precedent stands, Park City has no defense left against developers. Not against Vail, Alterra, Columbus Pacific, Extell, MIDA or anyone who shows up with renderings and a stack of checks for local nonprofits. That should worry everyone. The appeal, like the one before, is not about chairlifts. It’s about whether the city will enforce its own rules,” he said in the opinion piece.

Other points in the submittal included:

• “Our request is simple: Follow the rules, the same governing agreements that have bound Park City Mountain for decades, and the same land use law that binds every property owner in town. Operate by those rules or leave our local ski hill to some one who will.”
• “If analysis shows the lift upgrades can proceed under those rules, great. Alternatively, if they put the capacity equation out of balance, the Vail can invest in other meaningful upgrades to rebalance the equation and apply for the lifts once more under a legitimate and transparent process. That is how the system is supposed to work.”

The post Park City man challenging lift improvements previously outlined concerns  appeared first on Park Record.

A Prospector resident who was previously part of a group that challenged lift upgrades at Park City Mountain is seeking a judicial review of the approval.

Alan Theis filed a petition in Third District Court over the approved upgrades to the resort’s Silverlode and Eagle lifts. The Park City municipal government is the defendant.

Park City Mountain intends to replace the existing Eagle and Eaglet lifts with a six-passenger lift and install an eight-passenger lift to replace the current six-passenger Silverlode Express lift.

The Park City Planning Commission in late May approved the upgrades. That approval triggered an appeal by six individuals, including Theis. The municipal hearing officer who officiated the appeal, Tim Pack, ruled in favor of the improvements in late July.

Theis’ filing asks the court to reverse the lift approvals. If that does not happen, the petition asks for the approvals to be remanded “with instructions for the Planning Commission to consider and mitigate all reasonably anticipated detrimental effects.” It wants the Planning Commission in that scenario to consider certain data points related to the resort’s comfortable carrying capacity, an industry metric sometimes referred to as CCC, which measures the size of crowds a resort can accommodate. The data points include:

• “The pre-project and post-project CCC for each affected lift.”
• “The data underlying the CCC calculations for independent verification by the Planning Commission.”
• “An updated resort-wide CCC table demonstrating that the aggregate of all individual lift and trail CCCs does not exceed the resort-wide ceiling” that was established in a Mountain Upgrade Plan for the resort.
• And, “if the ceiling is to be raised, identification of the public process by which” a 1990s-era development agreement governing growth on the Park City side of the resort would be amended.

The court document says Theis has skied at Park City Mountain for years and has held a pass sold by resort owner Vail Resorts. It says Theis was “involved in a ski collision that required extensive hospitalization and surgery.”

It describes the argument in the appeal itself, saying that the people who filed the appeal argued “that if uphill capacity increased at the already overcrowded Resort, and the downhill terrain remains the same, this would result in an increased number of active skiers on the downhill trails. It is the increased number of active skiers on the downhill trails that would increase safety risks. Put another way, if the lift upgrades increase circulation by more than 15% and 20% on each lift, this means that skiers who would otherwise be waiting in line at the bottom of the lift would instead become active skiers on the trails.”

The petition is the latest move in a dispute about the upgrades dating to 2022. There were early questions about procedural matters centered on the municipal review process the upgrades would go through. There was later a community split about the improvements, with supporters saying the upgrades would better manage the crowds on the slopes and critics expressing worries about the potential impacts of additional traffic, parking issues and larger crowds.

The Park City municipal government had not been served with the petition by Monday afternoon and declined to comment.

A Park City Mountain spokesperson issued a statement that did not directly address the Theis petition.

The statement said: “The Hearing Officer’s decision affirms what the Planning Commission concluded unanimously in May: these projects meet the appropriate requirements and will make the mountain better for the people who ski and ride it. We’re grateful to the city staff and commissioners who gave this a thorough review, and to the many community members who spoke up in support.”

An attorney for Theis declined to comment.

The post Park City man seeks court reversal of Park City Mountain lift upgrades approval appeared first on Park Record.

Park City Mountain has released its plan for 2026-27 season parking, and early access season passes for the Canyons Village and Mountain Village garages are available now for those who had 2025-26 parking passes and an active Epic Pass. Passes will be available for general public sale on Sept. 1.

The 2026-27 plan includes free and paid parking options. Passes will only be available for Epic Pass holders who have Park City Mountain included in their pass. 

The pricing structure is largely the same as last year, combining free and paid options, according to resort officials. Season passes are $825 for each garage. Individual day parking passes are available at the surface lots in the Canyons Village and Mountain Village areas. Day passes are $29 before noon or free after noon. For carpool groups, parking is free all day. 

Before noon, reservations will be required for everyone at Mountain Village, including season pass holders. At Canyons Village, reservations will be requested for pass holders but not required for anyone. 

According to the resort website, purchasing passes doesn’t guarantee availability through reservations, though it says “inventory will be monitored and additional reservations may be released as capacity changes.”

The Canyons Village garage has been under construction since March 2025. The five-story structure is expected to be completed early in December. Last season, the first two levels were open for use. This year the garage will be closed until all construction is finalized. 

Parking in the surrounding surface lots will still be available until then, which will be free for season pass holders. The Canyons Village garage and Skyway gondola stand in place of the old Cabriolet lot and lift. While garage construction remains ongoing, the gondola is set to begin operations on opening day. 

On Aug. 18, the resort announced Nov. 20 as its target opening day for this season. Passes for the 2026-27 season range from $829-$1,119 for adults, depending on resort access.

The post Park City Mountain season parking passes on sale appeared first on Park Record.

Tim Pack is not an elected official in Park City.

Nor is he a member of one of the municipal government’s boards or commissions.

But Pack in recent weeks was a central figure in a long-running dispute about lift improvements at Park City Mountain.

Pack is the hearing officer for development-related matters for Park City, and the lift improvements were put before him through an appeal of a Park City Planning Commission decision in the spring approving the upgrades.

He ruled in favor of the improvements this week, affirming the decision by the Planning Commission after officiating the appeal itself two weeks earlier.

Although the decision about the lift improvements was a high-profile one, Pack, as the hearing officer, is tasked with any other appeals of Planning Commission decisions as part of his duties with the municipal government.

Pack was not known to have been widely involved in the public discourse of Park City prior to the appeal of the lift improvements. He has declined interview requests about his role as the hearing officer and his background, saying making public comments would be inappropriate given his position.

Pack grew up in the Park City area and is a 2000 graduate of Park City High School. He is an attorney with Clyde Snow & Sessions in Salt Lake City and lives in the Salt Lake Valley.

Pack’s three-page proposal for the post, submitted to the municipal government in July of 2025, provides at least some details about his background and what he saw as the skills he would bring to the position. The municipal government provided a copy of the proposal in response to Park Record request under state open-records laws. His work as an attorney includes land use and he had experience as the officer for appeals and variances in Draper.

“My litigation practice focuses on commercial litigation, land use, construction and water rights. I have represented clients in land use applications and appeals before local governments and district courts throughout the state,” he said in the proposal, adding that he has deep knowledge of an important state land use act.

He also said he is familiar with the procedures of administrative hearings and the role of an appeals or hearing officer. Pack mentioned he has experience reviewing the municipal government’s detailed development rules and would study those rules.

Some of the other points Pack mentioned:

• “I have litigated land use issues at every stage of the process, from planning commission hearings, administrative appeals, district court appeals, and appeals to Utah’s appellate courts.”

• “I am experienced with conducting hearings, taking evidence, and listening to the parties’ arguments in an impartial and professional manner. I am an experienced trial lawyer, I’ve participated in over 45 bench and jury trials, and understand the proper and professional way to communicate with parties and their counsel.”

• “I am very proficient at analyzing the arguments of the parties, applying the facts to the applicable law and standards of review, and issuing clear and well-reasoned written decisions. I usually complete a written decision within three-five days after a hearing.”

Deputy City Manager Jodi Emery said in a statement:

“When the city transitioned to a more typical land use appeals process by appointing an independent hearing officer, it conducted a competitive public procurement process.

“To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, the Park City Attorney’s Office did not participate in the evaluation or selection. Instead, the Summit County Attorney’s Office participated on the selection committee.

“Tim Pack was selected through that competitive process based on the qualifications and evaluation criteria established in the city’s request for proposals. His extensive land use litigation experience, service as a municipal land use appeals officer and demonstrated ability to conduct quasi-judicial hearings and issue decisions aligned directly with the qualifications the city sought for this independent role.”

The post Hearing officer who made lift-upgrade ruling is a land-use attorney, Park City High School alum appeared first on Park Record.

A municipal hearing officer on Wednesday ruled in favor of a set of long-disputed lift improvements at Park City Mountain, affirming a Park City Planning Commission decision in the spring that triggered a challenge from a group of individuals saying they were worried about the impacts of new lifts.

Tim Pack issued the 16-page decision two weeks after he officiated a three hour-plus appeal of the approvals of the improvements.

Park City Mountain is bidding to replace the existing Eagle and Eaglet lifts with a six-passenger lift and install an eight-passenger lift to replace the current six-passenger Silverlode Express lift. The efforts became mired in procedural matters prior to a Planning Commission process this year that resulted in a unanimous approval.

The group of individuals — Frode Jensen, Catherine Jensen, Alan Theis, Marvin Kabatznick, Andrea Griffis and Allan Inglis — subsequently appealed the decision.

Pack’s decision was a wide-ranging nod in favor of the process. He covered key issues in the dispute, such as the sort of municipal route employed to review the improvements, safety on the slopes and the comfortable carrying capacity, or CCC, which is an industry metric measuring the size of crowds that a resort believes it can accommodate. A 1990s-era development approval involving the Park City-side base of Park City Mountain, including a mountain upgrade plan referred to as the MUP, helped guide the decision.

Some of the important passages, with the resort referred to as PCM, include:

• “Appellants contend that because the lift upgrades will increase lift capacity, this will result in a proportional rise in the number of skiers who visit the resort, and this boost in skiers on the mountain will exacerbate overcrowding and downhill trail congestion thereby creating unsafe conditions. However, the evidence does not support the existence of a casual relationship between increased lift capacity and an increase in skiers on the trails.”
• “Appellants contend the evidence that would show a causal connection between increased lift capacity and skier visitation is contained in PCM’s CCC data, which it did not submit and which the commission did not require. While the CCC may have been helpful to better understand that casual relationship, or indeed whether such a relationship even exists, I cannot speculate as to what that data says or means. That data is not in the record and therefore cannot be considered.”
• “Even if the evidence led to the conclusion that more skiers would visit the resort as a direct result of the lift upgrades, the record still does not support the conclusion that skier safety would be adversely affected. … CCC, as it is described in the MUP, does not address skier safety. Rather, it is ‘the optimal level of utilization for the ski area … which guarantees a pleasant recreational experience .…’ The purpose of the CCC calculation is ‘to balance the uphill capacity of the lift systems with the downhill capacity of ski trails.’ The MUP does not claim that skier safety will be impacted if recommended CCC numbers are exceeded. While the MUP supports the conclusion that exceeded CCC numbers may decrease the quality of the skier experience, it does not necessarily support the conclusion that skier safety will be adversely affected.”

Pack also wrote there is “substantial evidence” supporting the Planning Commission’s finding “that safety will be improved by the lift upgrades.” He mentioned testimony addressing increased safety, including comments by Ted Ligety, a Winter Olympic skiing champion who hails from Park City.

Mayor Ryan Dickey thanked the Planning Commission and staffers in the Planning Department for the work.

“As we look to the future, investments like these are essential to delivering a world-class recreation experience in Park City for locals and visitors alike,” Dickey said in a statement, indicating he wants to “work cooperatively” with the mountain resort and other unspecified partners.

Park City Mountain sees the upgrades as modernizing the resort’s infrastructure and improving the guest experience with better circulation and reduced congestion on the slopes. Wait times would be reduced as well, the resort has indicated.

The Park Record was unable to immediately contact a representative of the individuals who filed the appeal. The next possible step for the group would be litigation in Third District Court.

The post Park City Mountain lift improvements approval upheld appeared first on Park Record.

The dispute about a set of lift improvements sought by Park City Mountain has stretched for more than four years.

And the resort, as well as the wider community, could have to wait up to another 15 business days for a crucial next step.

A hearing officer tapped by the municipal government, civil trial lawyer Tim Pack, on Thursday officiated an appeal of a Park City Planning Commission approval of the lift upgrades. He did not render a decision after a hearing that stretched longer than three hours.

Pack indicated a decision will be made within 15 business days, putting it during the first workweek of August. He also said that he would like to issue the decision before then.

Park City Mountain wants to replace the existing Eagle and Eaglet lifts with a six-passenger lift and install an eight-passenger lift to replace the current six-passenger Silverlode Express lift. The efforts became mired in procedural matters and were taken to state court before returning to the Marsac Building earlier this year. The Planning Commission in late May ultimately approved the upgrades, prompting the appeal that was heard on Thursday.

Six individuals — Frode Jensen, Catherine Jensen, Alan Theis, Marvin Kabatznick, Andrea Griffis and Allan Inglis — filed the appeal. It seeks a reversal of the approvals of the improvements and for the upgrades to be sent back to the Planning Commission with instructions to address the impacts the new lifts would have.

The appeal wants the Planning Commission to address the resort’s comfortable carrying capacity, commonly called CCC, an industry metric measuring the size of crowds that a resort can accommodate. The group is concerned about safety on the slopes and parking issues. 

Park City Mountain has argued the upgrades are meant to modernize the resort’s infrastructure and improve the guest experience with better circulation and reduced congestion on the slopes. Wait times for skiers and snowboarders would be reduced, the resort has indicated.

Hyrum Bosserman, an attorney representing the individuals who filed the appeal, reviewed the history of the 1990s-era development approvals at the Park City side of Park City Mountain, including a plan for mountain upgrades. He spoke about the comfortable carrying capacity, saying that metric drives lots of the planning for the resort’s services. He spoke about a balance between uphill and downhill capacity, asserting that the uphill capacity would increase substantially with the upgrades.

“It’s illogical for you to say that we are upgrading our lifts, that we’re going to have X amount, 600 more people per hour going in a certain lift, right? Twenty percent more, 55% more here. And to say that isn’t going to be more skiers on the mountain. The Court of Appeals said that’s illogical and odd for them to even suggest that … And that’s why the CCC analysis is so important here,” Bosserman said.

He also said the individuals “just want the city to follow its own regulations. The city was obviously aware of the CCCs. It was a central point of the last litigation. It was expressly talked about by the Court of Appeals, the district court and the Planning Commission last go around. And this time, what we’re seeing here, we believe, is just an attempt to end run the (mountain upgrade plan) and … all of the analysis required to even know whether you can sufficiently mitigate these detrimental impacts.”

Christopher Hogle, an attorney representing Park City Mountain, argued the Planning Commission worked within the municipal government’s detailed development rules.

“It followed that, and that should be the end of it,” he said. “But what the appellants do is they say, well, yeah, but in addition, you have to follow an agreement that they’re strangers to, and you have to follow a master plan approved by a Planning Commission, and you have to follow the 2022 Planning Commission, their grant of an appeal. Those aren’t land-use ordinances or land-use regulations. They can’t form the basis for the appellants’ appeal.”

He also claimed the people involved in the appeal “lack standing. They’re not adversely affected parties. They don’t have adjoining property, property adjoining the resort … There’s no record of any damage that they will suffer as a result of the land-use decision.”

Pack answered that the people appealing the approval argue that they are regular skiers at Park City Mountain and say they will suffer damage as a result of safety impacts. Hogle countered that the Planning Commission made findings associated with safety, circulation and the way skiers are dispersed on the slopes.

The testimony at the May meeting, when the Planning Commission approved the upgrades, tilted heavily in favor of the improvements, as speakers mentioned the aging infrastructure at the resort and an anticipation that new lifts would not lead to overcrowding on the slopes.

The post Appeals hearing held on Park City Mountain lift-improvements; ruling to follow in next few weeks appeared first on Park Record.

Neither the attorneys nor the hearing officer involved in an appeal of lift upgrades at Park City Mountain have name recognition in Park City. The six individuals mounting the appeal are not widely known, either.

But one of the names referenced during a lengthy hearing on Thursday regarding the appeal is recognizable across the community and in international winter-sports circles.

Ted Ligety, an Olympic champion skier who hails from Park City, was mentioned as the parties spent time discussing the potential impact on safety on the slopes should the improvements proceed. His name was an unexpected sidenote to a hearing that otherwise focused on issues like 1990s-era development approvals at Park City Mountain and the resort’s comfortable carrying capacity, which is a metric in the industry measuring the size of crowds that a resort can accommodate.

Ligety is regarded as a hometown hero in Park City who rose to the top echelons of ski racing. He is seen as one of the greatest successes from the community’s storied efforts to groom winter-sports athletes for international-level competitions like the World Cup circuit and the Winter Olympics. Ligety is an ambassador for Deer Valley Resort.

The sides on Thursday spent time discussing affidavits from people regarding safety at the resort, with an attorney representing the Park City municipal government also speaking about testimony addressing the topic.

“Olympic Alpine skier Ted Ligety testified lift replacements make sense to improve safety by alleviating the chokepoints and moving people out of the base area,” said Lara Swensen, the attorney for the municipal government.

The hearing officer, Tim Pack, responded using Ligety’s name.

“This is (meant) to increase safety. That’s the finding. What is the evidence to support that? Is it … the testimony from Ted Ligety? What is it? Should I value his testimony over another person who visits the resort, even though he’s an Olympic athlete?” he said.

Swensen replied, talking about the affidavits. She said the people who submitted the affidavits do not manage a ski resort and “none of them were Olympic athletes.”

“I don’t know if you were unimpressed with Mr. Ligety. That’s fine. I do think an Olympic skier who has spent a lot of time on the mountain brings something to it,” she said.

Ligety in May spoke in favor of the lift improvements at a Park City Planning Commission meeting. He said new lifts would help youth who are training.

“I’ve spent countless hours on a painfully slow triple lift that is Eagle, growing up as a ski racer here. And I really support these upgrades. Alleviating the chokepoints. Getting people out of the base area,” Ligety told the Planning Commission in May.

The appeal centers on a Planning Commission approval of the lift upgrades. Pack said a decision will be made within 15 business days.

Park City Mountain wants to replace the existing Eagle and Eaglet lifts with a six-passenger lift and install an eight-passenger lift as a replacement for the current six-passenger Silverlode Express lift. The efforts have been mired in procedural matters for several years.

The post Olympic champion skier referenced in hearing about Park City Mountain lift upgrades appeared first on Park Record.

Discussions about a package of lift upgrades Park City Mountain wants to pursue are scheduled to continue this week with an important step in the long-running process.

An appeal of a Park City Planning Commission approval of the upgrades, which was filed in late May, is slated to be heard at 10 a.m. on Thursday. The appeal will be held online.

Tim Pack, a civil trial lawyer selected through a competitive process, has been tapped as the administrative hearing officer.

Park City Mountain is seeking to replace the existing Eagle and Eaglet lifts with a six-passenger lift and install an eight-passenger lift to replace the current six-passenger Silverlode Express lift.

The Planning Commission cast a unanimous vote and received testimony from the public in broad support of the upgrades before the decision.

Six individuals — Frode Jensen, Catherine Jensen, Alan Theis, Marvin Kabatznick, Andrea Griffis and Allan Inglis — subsequently filed the appeal. They want the hearing officer to reverse the Planning Commission approvals and send the issue back to that panel with instructions to “consider and mitigate all reasonably anticipated detrimental effects and to consider all mandatory requirements.”

There have been concerns that the upgrades could lead to safety issues, as more skiers and snowboarders are attracted to the slopes. Park City Mountain disputes the contention that the upgrades could lead to safety issues.

The appeal, though, wants the Planning Commission to address the comfortable carrying capacity at the mountain resort, an industry metric measuring the size of crowds that a resort can accommodate. It wants the Planning Commission to address the “consideration of safety, downhill capacity and other detrimental effects.”

Jensen, one of the people who filed the appeal, said on Monday that he and the others challenging the approval support the lift upgrades even as they want the comfortable carrying capacity addressed.

“I think Vail Resorts and the city would be far better served if they addressed, up front and transparently, the capacity issues we have raised,” he said, referring to the Colorado-based owner of Park City Mountain.

Park City Mountain did not immediately respond to a Park Record request for availability by Deirdra Walsh, the vice president and chief operating officer of the resort.

Walsh has previously expressed confidence. In a June prepared statement, she said: “The Park City Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Eagle and Silverlode lift upgrades followed a rigorous and transparent public process that clearly demonstrated that these projects comply with all permit requirements. More than 80 community members — including Olympic athletes and industry leaders — spoke or submitted comments in support, underscoring the broad recognition that these projects will meaningfully improve the experience for skiers and riders, residents and guests. We believe that the city’s process for land use appeals will confirm that the Planning Commission reached the correct decision. We remain committed to the Park City community and to continuing to invest in improving the experience for all Park City Mountain guests.”

A link to the online hearing is available on the municipal website: parkcity.gov/government/city_council/public_meeting_listen_live.php. The direct link: us02web.zoom.us/j/87256823928.

The post Park City Mountain lift appeal heads to municipal hearing officer this week appeared first on Park Record.

Alpine Infrastructure crews were installing towers and detonation chambers on Thursday for a new remote control avalanche system near the top of Limelight Bowl on the Canons Village side of Park City Mountain.

The system will be operational for the 2026-27 ski season. It allows Park City Mountain Ski Patrol to remotely detonate an explosion that could trigger a controlled slide to the west of the Quick Silver gondola.

Ski patrol snow safety manager Toph White explained that this system will allow the resort’s team to mitigate avalanche risk without placing patrollers in dangerous situations along Pinecone Ridge. The system could also potentially allow the Quick Silver gondola to run sooner on a powder day.

This is the first remote control system in the Wasatch Back, though similar systems are in use at Snowbasin Resort as well as Alta Ski Area in the Little Cottonwood Canyon.

The post Remote avalanche control systems installed in Limelight Bowl at Canyons Village appeared first on Park Record.

The Park City municipal government on Monday afternoon received an appeal of the recent approval of lift improvements at Park City Mountain.

It will be put before a land use hearing officer, who decides whether to grant or deny the appeal. A date had not been set by midday Tuesday. The city has 45 days to hear an appeal.

Six individuals — Frode Jensen, Catherine Jensen, Alan Theis, Marvin Kabatznick, Andrea Griffis, and Allan Inglis — filed the appeal.

They want the hearing officer to reverse the approvals and send the issue back to the Planning Commission with instructions to “consider and mitigate all reasonably anticipated detrimental effects and to consider all mandatory requirements.” The appeal wants the Planning Commission to address the Park City Mountain comfortable carrying capacity, an industry metric measuring the size of crowds that a resort can accommodate. It also wants the Planning Commission to address the “consideration of safety, downhill capacity, and other detrimental effects.”

The appeal centers on a Park City Planning Commission decision in late May in favor of the improvements. Park City Mountain wants to replace the existing Eagle and Eaglet lifts with a six-passenger lift and install an eight-passenger lift to replace the current six-passenger Silverlode Express lift.

The Park City Planning Commission cast a unanimous vote on May 27 and heard broad public support before the decision.

Deirdra Walsh, the vice president and chief operating officer of Park City Mountain, expressed confidence in a prepared statement in response to the filing.

“The Park City Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Eagle and Silverlode lift upgrades followed a rigorous and transparent public process that clearly demonstrated that these projects comply with all permit requirements. More than 80 community members — including Olympic athletes and industry leaders — spoke or submitted comments in support, underscoring the broad recognition that these projects will meaningfully improve the experience for skiers and riders, residents and guests,” the statement said. “We believe that the city’s process for land use appeals will confirm that the Planning Commission reached the correct decision. We remain committed to the Park City community and to continuing to invest in improving the experience for all Park City Mountain guests.”

The appeal will be another step in a long-running debate about the lift improvements that has illustrated a divide between those supporting the upgrades and the critics. The supporters argue the upgrades would benefit skiers and snowboarders by better managing the crowds. Critics worry about potential impacts of additional traffic, parking issues and larger crowds.

The discussions became entangled in procedural matters, and the issue was eventually brought to state court. A three-judge Utah Court of Appeals panel in 2025 supported an earlier district court ruling in favor of the Park City government and three citizens concerned about the potential community impacts if the improvements were allowed. That ruling led to the Planning Commission process that resulted in the recent approval and subsequent appeal.

The post Park City Mountain lift approvals appealed; resort says process was ‘rigorous and transparent’ appeared first on Park Record.