A Utah Court of Appeals panel of judges on Tuesday heard arguments in a case stemming from a dispute dating to 2022 that centers on lift upgrades sought by Park City Mountain.The case pits Park City Mountain owner Vail Resorts against City Hall and also involves four citizens who are worried about p ossible effects on the community if the improvements are made.The judges on Tuesday did not render a decision and instead indicated they would take the arguments under advisement. A decision would be made as soon as the judges are able, they said at the end of the arguments.Park City Mountain three years ago became entangled in a dispute when it attempted to press ahead with improvements to the Eagle lift and the Silverlode Express lift. There was concern that the improvements could exacerbate issues at Park City Mountain that led to widespread complaints about the way the 2021-22 ski season was managed at the resort.Critics of the upgrades claimed the new lifts would lead to skier-snowboarder numbers that would exceed a metric known as the comfortable carrying capacity. There were also concerns about Park City Mountain’s plan to address parking needs related to the upgrades.The Park City Mountain side argued the upgrades would not attract additional people to the slopes. There is no such thing as tourism driven by lifts, the resort claimed.A Third District Court judge in 2023 essentially backed the Park City Planning Commission in that panel’s overturning of an earlier staff-level approval at City Hall of the lift upgrades. The overturning of the staff-level approval prompted Park City Mountain to bring the case to state court.One of the judges on Tuesday, David Mortensen, raised the parking issues, asking whether the judge at the district court level misunderstood the topic regarding the potential increase in parking demand.An attorney on the Park City Mountain side, Ryan Cooke, later in the hearing described there was no evidence regarding the impact on parking that was not speculative in nature. He also said Park City Mountain is attempting to move forward in the interest of all parties.One of the four citizens involved in the case, Angela Moschetta, provided a written quote after the arguments. It reads: “Since the Park City Planning Commission revoked Park City Mountain’s permit in 2022, citing Comfortable Carrying Capacity as a key concern, Vail Resorts has had two clear paths: apply for new permits, comply with the capacity limits in their Development Agreement, and proceed with the resort improvements they claim to support or challenge the decision, halt infrastructure investments, and continue shielding their actual capacity and daily skier counts as proprietary data. Regardless of the court’s ruling, one thing is clear: Vail Resorts has prioritized overcrowding over guest experience, employee safety, and long-term stewardship. This season, the Park City Mountain ski patrol strike highlighted the dangers of overcrowded slopes, and infrastructure failures across multiple resorts caused preventable injuries. It’s time for Vail Resorts to stop stonewalling and start acting like a responsible operator putting safety, compliance, and transparency ahead of profit.”Deirdra Walsh, vice president and chief operating officer of Park City Mountain, reiterated Vail Resorts’ belief that the Planning Commission was wrong to revoke the permit to upgrade the lifts, “supported by an extensive, four-month long analysis and the advice of three outside experts.” She said the investments were intended to reduce skier congestion, as requested by visitors and the community experiencing longer lift lines. “We are always working to improve the guest experience at Park City Mountain and have invested $144 million in the resort over the past 10 years,” she said. “We look forward to additional transformational investments that we are making in Canyons Village, including the new Sunrise Gondola, and remain committed to continued improvements at Park City Mountain.” The post Appeals Court takes up bid for lift upgrades on Park City Mountain, delays ruling appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less