BRECKENRIDGE — Breckenridge Town Council members railed Tuesday against an alleged move by Vail Resorts regarding the proposed Peak 6 expansion. Council members said the company threatened not to sign on to a hard-won “memorandum of understanding” concerning the social impacts of Breckenridge Ski Resort's expansion to Peak 6 if the town supports an alternative to the proposed expansion presented in the recently released U.S. Forest Service study.

Council members said Vail Resorts would pull out of the intergovernmental agreement created to help address some of the expected social impacts of the expansion if the town supported a less extensive third option to develop new terrain on the resort's existing mountains rather than the Forest Service's preferred second alternative, which would grant the resort full license to expand to Peak 6.

The study, a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) released last month, also presented a first alternative of no action at all, which would effectively shut down the expansion proposal.

“There are (ski area) people that believe they can hold us hostage,” Mayor John Warner said of the situation. “If we say, ‘we don't like (alternative) 2, we like (alternative) 3, in simplistic terms, they said then the (social-impacts agreement) could be off the table.”

Vail Resorts did not respond to the question of whether it would withdraw support for the MOU if the town backed alternative 3.

“We worked with the town council for many years in successfully developing mutual commitments regarding our proposal for Peak 6 that were incorporated in our MOU,” director of mountain public affairs Kristin Williams said. “We continue to support the MOU and feel that it was an excellent outcome for the community.”

The MOU

Officials from the town, county and Forest Service, along with local residents and representatives of the ski area, spent several years leading up to the release of the Forest Service's EIS developing the memorandum of understanding in response to a public outcry over the expansion's potential impacts on social programs, quality of life, parking and housing issues.

Forest Service officials will not incorporate the MOU into the final decision on the project — making it binding on the resort — unless it is signed by all parties involved, town officials said Tuesday night.

Breckenridge council members said through the two-and-a-half year process of negotiating the MOU, they reserved the right to comment on the environmental impact statement, which, in addition to laying out action alternatives, analyzes the possible environmental consequences of each option.

“What kind of public servants would we be if we didn't get to comment?” Councilman Eric Mamula said at the work session. “Now I'm just mad. The ski area does not run this town, and they're going to lose a lot of good faith and a lot of work that we've done up here to make this a decent relationship.”

The release of the draft EIS June 10 opened a 45-day public comment period. Forest Service officials said public feedback will be incorporated into the final EIS.

An official decision on the proposed expansion could be delivered by early next year, Forest Service officials said.

The preferred alternative in the EIS, granting the ski resort's application request for the project, includes 550 new acres of lift-served and hike-to terrain on Peak 6 within the ski area boundaries, the installation of a six-person detachable lift based on Peak 7 with a mid-point station on Peak 6, as well as the construction of a warming hut at the top of the mountain and a 150-seat guest building with a restaurant at the lift mid-point.

The expansion would allow Breckenridge to accommodate an additional 1,100 skiers per day.