Does $400,000 a year operating include snowmaking?

One thousand a year per person is not that much different of a price than a seasons pass at a lot of resorts. I'd look at a some other options too. Possibly, for instance limit the number of "investors" to no more than 1,000 people but only the investors can ski there (you could almost use the additional investors as a dividend approach. For every additional 100 investors over 400, you lower the season pass price by $50 up to 1,000 investors). Alternatively, you could offer lifetime memberships for, say, $10,000 and then limited seasons passes after that, again, with a semi-private model in mind.

There's lots of different options for how to structure the business. I'd say the most important thing to do right now is put together a management team and begin doing some business planning and marketing studies. You'd want to be able to present your plan with a solid foundation in order to take ownership, you can't just wait for 400 or 500 people to voluntarily step forward and offer you their money. That won't happen.

I have never skied there, but am curious -- what state is the current infrastructure in? Is the snowmaking and lift infrastructure fairly modern and in good condition, and is there a good water supply for snowmaking? That, and at least one lodge/building in good condition, is the minimum needed to make it a worthwhile pursuit.

And for those of you who have skied there a lot, what is the terrain and natural snow situation like? Do the slopes hold snow well? (I noticed they are north facing, which is a great start).

This would be an interesting situation, since the state owns the land. Potential lessees would be putting in a lot of $$ to operate the ski area, but it would be difficult to justify long-term investments/improvements unless they would lead to short-term profits (since ultimately the improvements would be tied to state land use grants, etc). I am sure this has been a sticking point for every organization that has looked into this.

I am definately interested in Laurel Mountain. Back in January, I was told that a man, I have his name and phone number at the office, bought the resort and Village for around 2 mill. I heard the bank took the offer so I quit pushing the issue. If it fell through, I am there. We need a grant writer to get state grants. The grants are good for the state land but the state will do nothing for the Village. I think a co-op with 400 to 500 investors along with grant money would work.

As far as hearing that someone bought Laurel Mountain, please don’t believe any more rumors. From previous posts, I know that you have spoken with Tyson Cook in the past. He would be the only person to confirm any selling of the assets.

And based on the turnout (less than 20) of the last meeting (November or December of '06) to discuss a co-op effort for re-opening Laurel Mountain, I have serious reservations whether a co-op effort is even worth pursuing. Several people who were supposed to show up at this meeting did not. Frankly, unless someone or some group can devote themselves full time from now until next ski season to attain funding (i.e. grants), I can't imagine this effort is worthwhile. And for those of us working full time, I for one don’t have that kind of time.

With Somerset Trust's new twist on selling the ski area and village assets separately, there may be a chance that a previously interested party might be able to afford buying the ski area assets and operating it. My opinion is that a white knight is necessary at this point to resurrect Laurel Mountain. And if it doesn't happen soon, Laurel might be found in the Lost Ski Areas section of this website. And that would be sad.

If you got 20 people in December that is actually pretty good turn out. Just my $.02

The 10 or so people who were there definitely want to see Laurel reopen again, but at least $500,000 is required to reopen Laurel. I know that I can't afford $50,000. And I'm fairly certain no one else there could either. All I'm pointing out is that I don't believe the interest is there for a co-op effort. If we called another meeting, and if 100 people attended, then I would be encouraged. But at this point, I am very dubious that that would happen.

Re: white knight, you mean a guy like this has to get involved:

http://www.sugarbush.com/aboutus/cm.asp?pn=win'sword&pid=220

Look at the WSJ adverts and the "CEO Corner" video.

Basically, this was a successful Wall Street banker who loved skiing, so he bought Sugarbush and now runs it. They have made a lot of great improvements in the last few years. I think it would be refreshing to have this kind of ownership, driven by a love for skiing, running any ski resort. But of course the bottom line is $$ infusion.

That guy sounds like the person who just bought a ski resort just 15 miles south of Laurel Mountain… Bob Nutting. I wonder if that family might consider operating Laurel Mountain. The Dupres did it for 1 year. If someone would get Mr Nutting over to Laurel and give him a tour of the existing infrastructure and terrain, he might at least consider it.

On a separate rant, I guess there is one word that really sums up why I think Laurel probably won’t open this year and possibly for a long time to come: APATHY. This is my list of apathetic entities wrt Laurel:

1) Local politicians – There is a reason why Western PA continues to lose population. We have incompetent/inept people in government trying to maintain the status quo. They continue to blame the decline of the steel industry (beginning 30 years ago and ending 25 years ago) as to why Western PA is losing population. They fail to see Laurel (not only the ski resort but the entire state park) as a regional asset that can generate seasonal jobs and add to the quality of life. But as long as they have their cushy job in Harrisburg, why bother with attempting to improve the quality of life for those who remain behind here in backwards/backwoods Western PA.
2) DCNR – I know the local park ranger champions Laurel’s cause, but in general, what has the DCNR done in helping Somerset Trust sell/lease the existing assets? Have they contacted the Mellon family about removing the lodging restrictions? Have they considered making Laurel more than just a Winter resort? Mountain bikers rant & rave about Laurel Mountain and Linn Run, but I personally have not noticed one sign or advertisement indicating that Laurel/Linn Run is a mountain biker’s haven? People sort of just discover the beauty of Laurel & Linn Run state park instead of it being made common knowledge by the DCNR. I look at Rocky Gap state park in Maryland as a model for turning a rather unused state park into a regional asset.
3) Residents and business owners of Ligonier and surrounding communities – It amazes me how many people I speak to from Ligonier that have never skied Laurel. They would rather drive 35 minutes to Seven Springs than 15 minutes to Laurel. Granted Seven Springs has much more terrain open, but not to ski a hill (and a very challenging one at that with Lower Wildcat) in your backyard once or twice a year just to offer token support is unconscionable. Some of these people own businesses in Ligonier and surrounding areas and can’t see the financial benefit that comes from having Laurel open. And speaking of people with financial resources, there are plenty of Ligonier residents with boat loads of money. Just drive around state roads 381 and 711 and take a look at their estates/compounds. Where are they? I’m not pretending to tell them what to do with their money, but why can’t they be good stewards and help reopen Laurel with a grant or two? Are you listening Mellon family or are you too busy riding your horses (probably high ones) and hunting poor defenseless home grown foxes, ducks & pheasants with VP Cheney?
4) Laurel Mountain Village residents – I am almost certain there are only a handful of residents, both fulltime and part-time, who really give a rat’s A$$ about Laurel, but yet they are the first to complain about the Village roads or the general state of the Village. Myopia is a chronic ailment in Western PA and I think those that live above 2500 ft are affected even more. Just think if the resort took off. It makes their property more valuable. If the ski area became a success, someone might actually take an interest in the Village, see it for the rough gem it is, fix what’s broken and enhance it. But as long as the Village residents sit idly by and don’t at the very least contact their local reps, they get what they deserve… pot holed, un-paved, ravaged from nature roads and a substandard water/sewage system.
5) People like me – I complain a lot (see above), but besides attending a meeting or two or commiserating with like-minded others and occasionally writing my local reps, I’ve done nothing.

I’m beginning to believe there truly are very few people that really care about Laurel and I’m just one of a very few lone voices out there in the wilderness. But why shouldn’t Laurel meet with the same fate as the many other industries in Western PA? I would like to think it is not a fait accompli that Laurel will die as a ski resort. But I believe time is running short.

I have never had a chance to ski at Laurel Mountain, and I would love to see the ski area reopen. But looking at the broader economics of the mid-Atlantic ski region, I am not sure it would be financially viable, unless there was a way to transform Laurel Mountain into a thriving year-round resort.

The sad reality is that many ski areas in this region seem to bank most of their revenue (and hopefully some profit) almost entirely from weekends, and there aren't that many weekends in a season. Particularly for the "day areas," over the past few years you can visit midweek and it's almost a ghost town, even when conditions are ideal. With such finicky weather, it's quite possible to wipe out several good weekends, which can take a huge financial hit on the bottom line. (January was pretty much a bust this year, and I'm sure visits were way down over the holiday week and MLK weekend, normally quite profitable times for ski areas.)

I know of many skiers from this region who used to visit local areas regularly, but stopped doing so entirely after El Nino hit a number of years ago. Now they focus their skiing dollars on one or two big trips out west, where the snow is (generally) consistently good through the whole season. Out of the past ten years, there haven't been too many "banner" years. Perhaps this is caused by climate change, perhaps not, but it leaves an indelible mark on skiers and little by little, the mid-Atlantic region loses skiers. And, longer-term, climate change will probably not be kind to mid-Atlantic winter sports.

Thankfully, we are blessed with a wealth of great ski areas within a day's drive -- over 30. But with visits trending down, that's less skier visits for each area.

I've been working on DCSki Lost Ski Areas for awhile now (thanks to the help of a lot of readers serving as valuable historians), and I'm struck by how many ski areas there once were in this region -- we've uncovered over 30 lost areas in Pennsylvania alone! Few of these areas were on the scale of Seven Springs or Snowshoe, and the capital requirements of running a ski area back then surely do not approach the costs today. (And it was probably less common for folks to hop on a plane back then to go on a western ski trip, something that is more economical and practical today, so there was a big market for local hills then. Many were just that: hills.) But this is a fickle area, and one of the lessons I seem to be drawing is that it takes deep pockets and perseverance for local ski areas to thrive. They have to be prepared to weather several bad seasons in a row, and come out the other side ready to try again. Because a ski resort is really a long-term investment: you might not make a profit each and every year, while you wait for the season that brings ample cold temperatures and plentiful snow from Thanksgiving into late March. (Remember those seasons? They're nice!)

I believe this is what hurt Laurel Mountain after it reopened. Instead of a banner year, the first year suffered from finicky weather, and that's not good when you have loans to make payments on. Had the weather been ideal, the story could have been very different. The story is similar with Whitetail: the first few years were banner years, and the original Japanese investors continued to pump money into the resort, probably thinking that was the status quo. Then El Nino hit. The exact terms of Whitetail's sale were never disclosed (to my knowledge), but it's a fair guess that the original investors were not making much profit after making the loan payments, and that Snow Time probably got a pretty good deal. The costs of opening Whitetail were huge -- it was the first area in the region to have a high-speed quad, for example. At one point there were plans on the drawing board to aggressively expand the terrain at Whitetail, adding trails in between existing ones and running them off the backside of the mountain. Given the realities of the mid-Atlantic ski market today (and the difficulty resorts have had in some years to cover even 100% of their terrain with snow), that expansion plan seems to have little viability today.

These are some of the reasons why I have concerns about the options for reopening Laurel Mountain. I don't believe it's enough to raise money to run Laurel Mountain for one season; because what if that season is a bust? All of the investors will have lost their money, and then what about the next season?

I don't see Seven Springs purchasing Laurel Mountain either, because they already tried operating Laurel Mountain for one season, and if they saw it as worthwhile and potentially profitable, wouldn't they have continued that arrangement? My understanding is that they had no interest in continuing past the first season. (But correct me if I'm wrong.) Seven Springs is a different beast entirely; it is a year-round resort with a strong real estate base and lots of revenue generators. They can certainly focus their efforts on areas such as building a water park, etc.

If you look at some of the most successful areas around here (and elsewhere), their profit doesn't really come from skiing directly, but rather the joys of real estate. For example, you can make a nice profit selling condos to property owners, and then continue making a nice profit as those properties are placed in the lodging program. Not a bad business model. You still need to attract "butts to beds" as one ski industry official told me (apologies for the gruff term), and the best areas do that year-round through skiing, mountain biking, festivals, concerts, etc.

The best hope for Laurel Mountain is probably a patient, deep-pocketed investor who can generate additional revenue opportunities than skiing alone. But based on the realities of Laurel Mountain (e.g., inability to build slopeside lodging, etc.), I don't know if that's possible. And I'm certain that many of us would not like Laurel Mountain going in that direction, anyway. That would take the "magic" away. Bear in mind, too, that nearby Hidden Valley Resort has also been on the market. When two out of three houses on the street are for sale, I'm guessing that raises eyebrows among potential investors.

I have seen a lot of passion for Laurel Mountain and I hate to sound negative, but I am worried about the long-term viability of mid-Atlantic ski areas and I'm struggling to think of a way that Laurel Mountain could be re-launched in a self-sustaining way. But there are smart people out there, and one should never give up hope. I'm still not prepared to move Laurel Mountain from "Resort Profiles" to "Lost Ski Areas."