The Canyons/PC fiasco actually has very little bearing on renewal of forest service leases.
1) The lessor of the land is Talsiker, not the forest service.
2) The reason the lease was awarded to Vail has nothing to do whatsoever with operational quality, it was because POWDR had a sweetheart rate grandfathered, and when they mistakenly did not renew, Vail made a much larger offer. It was about money.
3) There was zero discussion of employee wages or allowing additional concessionaires.
Consider the next 3 leases coming up in the next 10 years. Do you know what the terms are for renewal? Do you know what contracted options for renewal are already in place?
I agree instructors are underpaid for the level of training and the transient nature of the work. I've seen ads from ski areas recruiting high school students to teach skiing. "No experience? We'll teach you!" In the ski instructor arena (pre COVID), many ski schools have lowered their standards instead of raising wages to fill openings.
However, you don't get to set what price individual products sell for and claim it's in the public interest. You don't get to cherry pick only certain sales numbers and claim the profitability is too high. The lessee is going to be judged on the total package of services offered, and how that compares to other similar lessees. So your burden to change the way ski leases are written in the US as each comes up for renewal is to not only convince the forest service that a particular lessee is not serving the public interest, but that every lessee is not serving the public interest, that every lease should be changed with respect to ski schools even though they all have run that way for decades, and that ski school operations are primary over lifts, snowmaking, grooming and food for determining public interest. That's a high burden.
In Summit County you have far more than Vail properties. You have Copper, A-Basin, and Loveland just over the pass. It is not a monopoly or a (single) company town. Copper is what, 20 minutes from Vail?
Tom Quinn of the USFS reasearched the history of US public land concessionaires which clearly shows they were designed to be REGULATED MONOPOLIES. (
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0-r3MYbG0PNdUzE9vJzg9E )
Loveland and A Basin don't have lodging or local housing. Loveland is not part of the Summit Stage bus service and A Basin a farther/less convenient option from all parts of the county. Copper's strategy is to stay a bit below VR in price/pay and use the Edge employee housing to recruit workers. Upper management of all the Eagle & Summit Ski Areas meet regularly and share info including prices and employee wages. I went to a party at a friend's house in May 2021 and it was very clear there was going to be a big instructor/employee shortage this season...the resorts were all trying hard to recruit without considering a meaningful increase in wages. I'd hardly call the situation in Summit free market competition. In Eagle its worse as VR runs both resorts and the Eagle buses don't run to Summit (& vice versa).
Have you read an Ski Area SUP? (Form FS 2700 5b titled U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
SKI AREA TERM SPECIAL USE PERMIT
AUTHORITY and found at
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZZH-_2YraYjFKRMOEsR1i )
A lot of the questions you ask/statements you make are answered/contradicted there including-
VIII. REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION
A. Revocation and Suspension. The Forest Service may suspend or revoke this permit in whole or part:
1. For noncompliance with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations;
2. For noncompliance with the terms of this permit;
3. For failure of the holder to exercise the privileges granted by this permit;
4. With the consent of the holder; or
5. At the discretion of the authorized officer for specific and compelling reasons in the public interest.
B. Opportunity to Take Corrective Action. Prior to revocation or suspension under clause VIII.A, the authorized officer shall give
the holder written notice of the grounds for each action and a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, to complete the corrective
action prescribed by the authorized officer.
C. Revocation for Reasons in the Public Interest. If, during the term of this permit or any extension thereof, the Secretary of
Agriculture or any official of the Forest Service with delegated authority determines in planning for the uses of the National
Forest System that the public interest requires revocation of this permit, this permit shall be revoked after one hundred-eighty
(180) day's written notice to the holder. The United States shall then have the right to purchase the holder's improvements, to
remove them, or to require the holder to remove them, and the United States shall be obligated to pay an equitable
consideration for the improvements or for removal of the improvements and damages resulting from their removal. If the
amount of consideration is fixed by mutual agreement between the United States and the holder, that amount shall be
accepted by the holder in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States under this clause. If mutual agreement is not
reached, the Forest Service shall determine the amount of consideration. If the holder is dissatisfied with the amount
determined by the Forest Service, the holder may appeal the determination under the agency’s administrative appeal
regulations.
D. Suspension. The authorized officer may immediately suspend this permit, in whole or in part, when necessary to protect public
health, safety, or the environment. The suspension decision must be in writing. Within 48 hours of the request of the holder, the
superior of the authorized officer shall arrange for an on-the-ground review of the adverse conditions with the holder. Following
this review the superior shall take prompt action to affirm, modify, or cancel the suspension.
IX. RENEWAL
A. Renewal. The authorized use may be renewed. Renewal requires the following conditions: (1) the land use allocation is
compatible with the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; (2) the site is being used for the purposes previously
authorized and; (3) the enterprise is being continually operated and maintained in accordance with all the provisions of the permit.
In making a renewal, the authorized officer may modify the terms, conditions, and special stipulations.
X. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UPON TERMINATION OR NONRENEWAL
A. Removal of Improvements. Except as provided in Clause VIII. A, upon termination or revocation of this special use permit by
the Forest Service, the holder shall remove within a reasonable time as established by the authorized officer, the structures and
improvements, and shall restore the site to a condition satisfactory to the authorized officer, unless otherwise waived in writing or
in the authorization. If the holder fails to remove the structures or improvements within a reasonable period, as determined by the
authorized officer, they shall become the property of the United States without compensation to the holder, but that shall not
relieve the holder's liability for the removal and site restoration costs.
XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS...
B. Inspection, Forest Service. The Forest Service shall monitor the holder's operations and reserves the right to inspect the
permitted facilities and improvements at any time for compliance with the terms of this permit. Inspections by the Forest Service
do not relieve the holder of responsibilities under other terms of this permit.
C. Regulating Services and Rates. The Forest Service shall have the authority to check and regulate the adequacy and type of
services provided the public and to require that such services conform to satisfactory standards. The holder may be required to
furnish a schedule of prices for sales and services authorized by the permit. Such prices and services may be regulated by the
Forest Service: Provided, that the holder shall not be required to charge prices significantly different than those charged by
comparable or competing enterprises.