WTF Rusty?

**~mikey b** · 07-01-2012, 10:02 AM

http://mammothtimes.com/content/greg...d-facts-sooner

Gregory: 'Irresponsible of me to have not faced facts sooner'
June 29, 2012
By
Wendilyn Grasseschi
wendilyn@mammothtimes.com

Rusty Gregory knows people are not happy with him for closing June Mountain.

In the end, facing a loss of an average of $1.5 million a year, that wasn’t enough to stop him.

“Personally, I’m incredibly disappointed as well,” he said. ” I realize that the people in June are shocked and very disappointed, and angry with me. But the idea of subsidizing June without a view of an end result is not sustainable.”

He also said skier visits have gone from an average of 80,000 per season to 45,000 last season.

And, he said that another criticism—that the decision was “abrupt”— is not altogether true.
“In normal circumstances, we could avoid facing the issue, and it was probably irresponsible of me to have not faced the facts sooner,” he said. “But the fact is, we’ve had a long dialogue with the community about the viability of June Mountain, and we felt this was an appropriate time, at the beginning of summer.

“From our perspective, June is not going to find a sustainable business in the short term,” he said. “In the long term, we’ll see. There is a better way. There’s still a reason to believe that June can be a part of a destination resort. With air service, we’re looking for people to come up for more than just a long weekend. For the people who book a four-to-five-day stay, June offers a nice alternative. But with the economy—with the state and with the Town of Mammoth Lakes—it is a constant and stark financial reminder that we just can’t keep going this way.”

Although Gregory didn’t mention it directly, June Lake residents are well aware that June Mountain faces another challenge that could make a ski area less viable over time—as much as 30 percent of the mountain is now covered in red, dead, bark-beetle-killed trees. The infestation, which is spreading every year, is both dangerous and unattractive, adding another negative to the whole scenario.

MMSA is not the only player in this game
Mammoth Mountain is not the only player when it comes to whether June Mountain opens again.
It might not even be the most critical player.

With all the talk about other parties buying June Mountain (see accompanying story on p.1), with the emerging protests, the bottom line is June Mountain is built on land that does not belong to any single person. Every citizen in the country owns it. It is not private land, but public land.

The only thing MMSA owns is the developed properties on the mountain.

The ski area was built before WWII on United States Forest Service Inyo National Forest land. Today, MMSA holds what is known as a “special use permit” that allows it to operate a ski area on federal land. Gregory signed it on Jan. 2, 2006, and it is good for 50 years.

The catch is that the permit is valid only if MMSA operates the ski area under the criteria and conditions established by the Forest Service.

The permit is 16 pages and makes clear that in the end, what the Inyo National Forest giveth, the Inyo National forest can taketh away.

“This use (as a ski area) shall normally be exercised at least 365 days a year or season,” the permit reads. “Failure of the holder to exercise this minimum use may result in termination…”

The permit further reads: “The Forest Service may suspend or revoke this permit in whole or part” for several reasons, including “failure of the holder to exercise the privileges granted by this permit,” amidst other reasons.

Nancy Upham, the public information officer for the forest, said Thursday that every permit is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That means sitting down and talking to Gregory and/or other MMSA representatives.

“We need to discuss this with them, understand their plans and know that they fully understand that their permitted use could be terminated,” she said, adding that the meeting would probably not occur until the week of July 9, since both Gregory and the forest’s supervisor, Ed Armenta, are out of the area until that week.

But closing the ski area temporarily does not trigger a specific penalty, and, there are no definite deadlines associated with closing the ski area, she said.

“There is nothing that says that they cannot keep the permit even though they are not operating, except for the clause [referenced above],” she said. “This is what we plan to have full discussions with them about.”

She said that the forest will want to immediately assure several conditions are met, including “a business plan that addresses timelines, status check-ins, or other relevant information as determined by the forest supervisor.”

She also said that the ski area’s insurance must “remain valid up to the amount identified in their special use permit,” that “security/patrol procedures are in place for both winter and summer,” and that “legal access to the area is in place.”

When asked if the public would have an opportunity to be involved in the process, she said, “In light of the amount of public interest in this, we will express to MMSA officials that we would like their planning process to be transparent and that we would expect them to take the lead on this. Mono County has definitely expressed interest, but it would be premature for us to answer this question at this time.”

If MMSA does want to sell its improvements, the forest service would be deeply involved in that process, she said.

“Appropriate documentation would have to be submitted to the forest service regarding the sale and application for a new ski area permit and the forest service would have to make the determination that a new permittee has both the financial and technical ability to hold the permit,” she said.

**masterofgreenbeans** · 07-02-2012, 10:26 PM

Who isn't going to miss June....nobody

TOML file for bankruptcy today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4573711.story

**MakersTeleMark** · 07-03-2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by masterofgreenbeans

Who isn't going to miss June....nobody

TOML file for bankruptcy today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4573711.story

Not a master of the double negative I see.

**DBdude** · 07-06-2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by hutash

Money may not lie, but accountants do. The town and mountain could survive with out 780 condo units, at least they do not need to be built as a high rise eyesore at the Rodeo Grounds. A real euro-style village, not that faux crap in Mammoth or Winter Park could work well. They certainly do throughout hundreds of small European ski hills.

None of us are privy to the numbers Mammoth, Rusty and Starweed use, but there are many small hills that do well enough to survive if ran and positioned right. No June will not be a West Yellowstone Club, or a Beaver Creek, but it could be a Brian Head or MRG and the town could survive, and maybe even thrive.

you seem to have all the answers, sack up and buy the place

**MtnRA** · 07-06-2012, 06:28 PM

June Lake, California-A Community Threatening to Become Extinct

**userA** · 07-06-2012, 08:49 PM

tele heaven?

**~mikey b** · 07-07-2012, 12:53 AM

http://www.mammothtimes.com/content/...ntain-closures

Community expresses concerns about June Mountain closures
July 6, 2012
By
Wendilyn Grasseschi
wendilyn@mammothtimes.com

“If you think you can wait until November to decide to reopen this mountain, you can’t,” said June Mountain Ski Area’s general manager, Carl Williams, to a packed room of citizens at the Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting in Bridgeport on Tuesday.

Williams’ comments capped an emotional hour and a half as residents and June Mountain aficionados spoke at length about the impact Mammoth Mountain Ski Area’s closure of June for the summer and coming winter (announced publicly June 21) would have on the unincorporated community of June Lake.

They spoke about themselves and their friends and neighbors losing jobs, they spoke about their love of riding or skiing June, they spoke about their frustration that the whole thing happened so fast that they had very little time to prepare. The short notice made the entire issue even worse, they said.

They talked about knowing people who were interested in buying the resort and they talked about their frustration that (they believed) June was never prioritized or marketed properly as a ski area by MMSA.
They asked the county supervisors to support them in all this (see breakout box below), noting the county, too, would suffer if June Mountain shut down.

Williams spoke after most of them had vowed to fight for June, to find a solution that would reverse the news that came out two weeks ago.
If June Lake residents were looking for reassurance, they didn’t get it from Williams.

“If anyone has brilliant idea and very deep pockets and doesn’t want a return, that would be great,” he said.

“Dave McCoy called me the other day to ask me how I was doing,” Williams said. “I told him a very wise man (McCoy) once told me that when it stops being fun, it’s time to do something else. Well, it has stopped being fun.

“I know the numbers, probably better than anyone, better than Rusty. If you want to keep this mountain open, it starts today. We cannot decide in November to open a ski area.”

It’s not possible, he said. There is too much that needs to be done in advance of the fall, to get the mountain open again.

No answers
Even the Inyo National Forest, the agency that holds the special use permit that allows MMSA to operate the ski area, vented frustration.
“I found out about this on June 20,” said Mammoth and Mono Lake District Ranger Jon Reggelbrugge. “We advised them that we were somewhat disappointed, both in terms of our relationship with them and because they did not benefit from consultation with us.

“They said they had pressing reasons for this (abrupt decision),” he said, but then added that he did not know the details of why MMSA made such a drastic, eleventh hour decision to close June the very day it was supposed to open for the summer season.

In fact, Reggelbrugge seemed as mystified about what had happened—and why—as was most of the audience. If the audience had hoped for concrete answers from the forest service, they didn’t get that either.

Reggelbrugge reiterated comments made last week by the Forest Service that operating the ski area is a “privilege not a right” and he said MMSA was clearly violating its permit.

But he didn’t give any specifics about how long such an action could continue before the Forest Service forces the MMSA’s hand, and he didn’t say what the consequences would be to MMSA if it didn’t reopen the resort anytime soon.

Instead, he said that he and Ed Armenta, the forest supervisor, would meet with Gregory next Tuesday and begin discussion.

“After that, I will know more,” he said.

Even Ron Cohen, executive a tMMSA, didn’t have much information to add to the discussion. He deferred most questions to Gregory, saying that until Gregory and Armenta met, he was not at liberty to add to anything that MMSA has already said about the situation.

The county supervisors vowed to support the June Lake community and put pressure on MMSA and the Forest Service to be involved in upcoming discussions, but it was clear they didn’t have many answers either—and not much power.

June Mountain Ski Area is on public land. MMSA is a private corporation. Both of those facts severely limit what a county government can do, something that Tim Hansen, the county supervisor for Lee Vining and areas north, was well aware of.

“It’s not like we can go tell a private company what to do with their money,” he said.

County Supervisor Larry Johnston was defiant.

“Closure is not an option,” he said. “This is on public lands. This is our land. They shouldn’t be meeting in private.

“We are going to hold their feet to the fire,” he said to applause.
County supervisor Hap Hazard was subdued.

“It’s natural we are here today, we will do everything we can do to help but it’s premature,” he said. “We simply don’t know what the heck Mammoth Mountain is thinking about or what they are going to do.”

The county did agree to address a list of demands by the citizens and to prioritize the June Mountain issue by making sure county supervisors were involved in various meetings, such as the upcoming June Lake meeting next Tuesday when Gregory is scheduled to speak to the June Lake Citizens Advisory Committee. The JLCAC meeting is Tuesday, July 10, at 7 p.m. at the June Lake Community Center.

Local business owners, such as Double Eagle Resort and Spa owner Connie Black and other members of the JLCAC said the CAC group would be the primary citizen action group related to the closure issue from here on.

**nachos supreme** · 07-07-2012, 04:29 AM

I wish I had more to add as things unfold but the question is as per the threads title.At face value,sure I can see the fiscal reasoning but fuck the it can't keep running at a loss like this talk was around when I first spent time there in 98..
. I feel for the staff.Carl is a fantastic guy and to see this happening in the way it's happening to him and everyone else involved is just bullshit.
I wonder if Rusty,given that things are so dire financially,decided not to accept his bonus and plow that into MMSA's operating capital...

**bodywhomper** · 07-07-2012, 03:14 PM

one of the frustrating things about this to me is why mmsa is supposedly specifically looking at june mtn as a separate and stand-alone revenue generator. it does not seem like the best way to do it, imo.

**MtnRA** · 07-11-2012, 12:57 PM

From last night's meeting at June Lake

**OFF!lax** · 07-11-2012, 04:32 PM

That meeting was a cluster-fuck to say the least. Rusty is saying Bankers forced his hand.
Sounds like June is about to be closed forever? Actually heard some grumblings about Mammoth ( The Mountain not the town ) having shit the bed with spending $$ on improvements and now they are defaulting on some loans.

**MtnRA** · 07-13-2012, 10:10 PM

June Lake Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Recap (with videos)

**Cedrik** · 07-16-2012, 09:37 PM

I’m sorry to hear June is temporarily closed. I’ve had some fine ski days there and it’s a great community. I don’t know what the solution is, but below are some comments, questions, and recommendations.

There’s an inherent conflict within the Firm between Mammoth and June. I’ll bet the Firm makes a lot more money per visitor at Mammoth than June. Selling June would instantly bring in competition, which the Firm doesn’t want. News says Vail Resorts is calling daily. The last thing the Firm wants is Vail Resorts running June Mountain.

What do the books say are the biggest cost and profit centers? Maybe eliminating things like rentals, lessons, some grooming, some lifts, could reduce the money loss, but would people still want to come?

Does June need 1,000 beds? Maybe not, but it sure needs better lodging. The few places I’ve stayed or seen, suck. The proprietors maybe think it’s Rustic Charm, but it’s really just lousy expensive worn out lodging. What I’d like to see is a nice hostel, like the Banff or Lake Louise hostels, though I know hostels aren't popular in the States. Many SoCal folks and out of state visitors surely want nicer lodging than the current offerings.

I don’t think a Silverton or Mad River Glen model would work. Not enough easily accessible good terrain (Silverton) or a low overhead (e.g., single chairlift) skiers mountain (MRG).

What about having the Firm run it as a snowmobile park in the winter and dirtbike park in the summer? I’m not a motorhead, so I don’t know if the terrain or activities would be a draw, but at least those uses would not compete with skiing/mtn biking at Mammoth. I think somehow June needs to be a complement to MMSA rather than a competitor.

Rather than complaining about what Capital “owes” the community, the community needs to figure out how Capital can at least break even, and maybe make a little, which might get them back to the table. People over profit? How quaint a concept.

Regarding the sudden nature of the decision: having worked in Finance in a previous life, I can easily see a nervous senior banker or bankers (they have a strong herd instinct) panicking and forcing the Firm to do Something to show “good faith” to the lenders.

The Sheet article said June’s vision is clear and Rusty should just ask. Well, I followed the link and June’s vision ain’t clear. I browsed through a bunch of the documents and all I found was plannerspeak and recommendations like “Decide what you want.” If the vision is so clear, why hasn’t a single article summarized it?

There's a lot of Rusty hate out there, but I give him credit for coming into hostile territory and talking, though who knows what’s fact and what’s fiction.

So far the most creative comment has been to partner with the tribe and build a casino. I don’t like casinos, but at least that’s a new idea to think about.

**MtnRA** · 07-19-2012, 10:55 AM

Skiing: Sierra residents rally to save June Mountain

Summit County Citizens Voice

**MtnRA** · 07-25-2012, 01:49 PM

June Lake frets over June Mountain ski resort closure

LA Times, July 25, 2012

**MtnRA** · 07-26-2012, 02:40 PM

July 25th Community Update Meeting

Friends Of June Mountain

**bodywhomper** · 07-26-2012, 06:43 PM

the community group should contact the sierra nevada conservancy. Keeping the resort open could fall within the purview and mission of the agency, http://sierranevadaconservancy.ca.gov/

**SkiBusBum** · 07-26-2012, 08:43 PM

It's really sad to see June go, for the time being at least. Say what you will about Stewpot Slims, but June had plenty of awesome things going for it.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't see it coming though, it was always blissfully empty at June. And Mammoth is definitely not doing so hot either, not that they didn't make stupid decisions to get there. As a now former bus driver for MMSA, I won't be given a ski pass anymore because the ski area has handed the vast majority of the bus lines over to ESTA. We had shitty buses and not enough drivers to keep people happy when it got busy, not a shocker that we got the ax.

This thread is about June, and I don't want to detract from that. But the whole area is in a general slump. Major bummer.

**wolfelot** · 07-26-2012, 09:59 PM

Sorry to hear this.

**hutash** · 07-27-2012, 10:54 AM

I don't know why all the hate on Stew Pot Slims. I loved the place. Sure it was not gourmet dinning, but it was a nice place to take a break and get out of the cold.

It looks like June will not open next season no matter what. Mammoth is still in control and they made it clear it is not happening.

Now the big question is can we tour there? My guess is no, not without pouching at least.

**MtnRA** · 07-30-2012, 01:45 PM

Friends of June Mountain Needs Your Help

**~mikey b** · 08-10-2012, 06:59 PM

http://mammothtimes.com/content/mmsa...ountain-permit

MMSA says it is not out of compliance with June Mountain permit
August 10, 2012
By
Wendilyn Grasseschi
wendilyn@mammothtimes.com

There’s only room for two in the ongoing June Mountain boxing match.

Mono County found neither precedent nor legal language it can use to put pressure on Mammoth Mountain Ski Area to keep June Mountain Ski Area open this winter. The special use permit MMSA operates under gives almost all of the discretionary power with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service.

In addition, MMSA does not believe it is out of compliance with its special use permit with the Inyo National Forest.

These two realities will shape the relationship between all three entities as they seek a solution to the JMSA closure.

At Tuesday’s Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting, county head attorney Marshall Rudolph said a several-week review of the county’s legal options in regards to helping keep the ski area open came up short on answers.

Rudolph said he had poured through documents and looked at applicable laws and found little to nothing that showed a path of legal involvement for the county in such a situation.

To make things even less clear, the special use permit allows much room for interpretation.

“It is a contract, that much I believe,” Rudolph said. “But we don’t have standing in this. It is just between MMSA and the forest service.”

The permit does require certain standards of safety and sanitation be met at all times, but it is far less detailed on other issues, he said.

Applicable federal law allows the operator opportunity to appeal any decision made by the forest service, he said.

The situation means some delicate negotiations ahead for the forest.

Inyo National Forest Mammoth District Ranger Jon Reggelbrugge confirmed this week that the forest service believes MMSA is out of compliance regarding the ski area special use permit. The public also discovered this week that MMSA believes it is not.

“They have told us that they believe they are not out of compliance now because they are not in normal operating season and will not be until the snow comes,” Reggelbrugge said.

But the forest service sees it differently.

“They have said they are not going to operate this winter and we are taking them at their word,” he said.

“To us, it’s something like what (Marshall) Rudolph calls an ‘anticipatory breach of a contract.’ That’s our take.”

He said the forest is “proceeding carefully” and has not yet sent a letter of non compliance.

“We want to do a careful review with our legal counsel to be sure we are on track,” he said. “We do expect MMSA to use their appeal rights.”

The forest service is in a fairly unique situation, historically, with the June Mountain/MMSA issue, he said.
“Usually, when these things happen, it’s a relatively small operator running a relatively small ski area, and the operator is facing bankruptcy or other serious financial difficulties. But in this case, this is a fairly large corporation running another successful ski area. This is a very different situation.”

**~mikey b** · 10-23-2012, 03:29 PM

Mammoth Mountain sends winter operating plan for June Mountain to forest service

By Wendilyn Grasseschi
wendilyn@mammothtimes.com

October 19, 2012

On Sept. 27, the Inyo National Forest sent a “letter of non-compliance” to Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, putting the ski area on notice that leaving June Mountain closed indefinitely was not acceptable.

The letter gave MMSA until Oct. 15 to respond. This week, it did, said Jon Reggelbrugge, the district ranger for the Mammoth and Mono Lake districts.

“MMSA met the deadline and submitted an operating plan,” he said. “We are reviewing that plan. We may request some changes as we have some questions about some aspects.”

The plan is about 20 pages long, he said. There are no other deadlines as to how long the forest and MMSA can take to work out the details of the plan at this time, he said.

He added that the decision to send the letter of non-compliance is subject to appeal by MMSA, and an appeal has to be postmarked within 45 days of the date of the letter (Sept. 27).

So far, no appeal has been filed, he said.

Here is a list of the “corrective actions” the forest service required from MMSA in the letter it sent out:

Provide Forest Supervisor Ed Armenta with a list of actions and a schedule by which MMSA intends to analyze and plan for the sustainable future of June Mountain Ski Area.

Provide a 2012-2013 winter operating plan that identifies how MMSA will provide for public safety and ensure infrastructure, equipment, and supplies are secured and monitored. The plan has to address monitoring, avalanche control, signage, and emergency notification procedures.

By June 30, 2013, provide a summary report documenting MMSA’s plan for sustainable operation of June Mountain.