June Mtn closed!

[pkerr]

In case you Mammothites haven't heard. June is closed. At least for next winter.

Here is the official statement:

June 21, 2012
Rusty Gregory, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area Chairman and CEO, announced today the company will not operate June Mountain this summer and for the upcoming 2012-13 winter season. “June has operated at an annual deficit each year since its purchase in 1986,” said Gregory. “It is time to invest some of this subsidy into the analysis and planning required to position the resort for a sustainable future, then secure the approvals and financing required to create it.”

Mammoth purchased June Mountain in 1986 with the idea of significantly increasing the size of the resort by building new facilities, extending new runs to the June Lake Village, and fostering additional developed ski areas along the San Joaquin Ridge, resulting in a connection between Mammoth and June Mountains. For a number of reasons, these plans were never realized and June Mountain has, in turn, suffered from an identity crisis that has both stifled its ability to achieve its full potential and required substantial financial subsidy from Mammoth on an annual basis. Cessation of operations will help the company dedicate its focus to a new future for June Mountain. Mammoth will be working with its partner the U.S. Forest Service to reach the best possible result in this endeavor.

In the weeks to come, Mammoth will be working to determine if and to what extent it can absorb June’s year round workforce.

Mammoth Mountain will continue to offer world-class skiing, snowboarding and summer activities for locals and visitors to the region.

Mammoth Mountain has operated continuously under permit from the U.S. Forest Service since 1954, and operated both resorts for the past 26 years. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area also owns and operates a variety of resort businesses including recreation, hospitality, food and beverage and retail including Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Tamarack Lodge and Resort, Mammoth Snowmobile Adventures, Woolly’s Adventure Summit, Mammoth Mountain Bike Park and the Mammoth Mountain Inn. Mammoth Mountain also operates Juniper Springs Resort, the Village at Mammoth, and Sierra Star Golf Course.

[Go-Big-Ter]

The days of endless lift assisted powder tree runs have come to a close. I am going to miss that the most. When I think of Mammies powder frenzy where if you jam hard and fast off 23 AND if your lucky AND first in line AND pick your lines according...maybe 2 good runs and by the 3rd run it's over, tracked and ruined. June you can run trees all day and hit some tracks, but it is manageable and sometimes even on the 2nd day after a storm. Makes me just shake my head. Time to start hiking it I guess. We all knew this day was coming and I just found out. This sucks.

[Hutash]

That really Sux for June, instead of the usual June Sux.

I hope the FS makes them return the mountain to it's original state if they insist on this (most likely) power play.

[SnowtigerDaniel]

They need to sell it to Vail resorts.
1. It would then be included in the Epic pass.
2. Mammoth would have competition for So-Cal skier dollars.
3. Vail might make some improvements.

[TonyC]

Detailed thread on the subject here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13693

[Rocketman]

I remember a few years ago when Intrawest tried to close down June Mountain. Mammoth decided not to close it when their contract with the forest service said that they would have to completely restore the mountain to its original (pre ski resort) state. The cost of doing that would be enormous. The new corporation must have found a way around that requirement. Maybe they will put the mountain into a perpetual improvement operation that will take many years to complete. They will neither open the mountain nor close the mountain. That way they avoid the cost of restoring the mountain to its original state and are able to write it off as a loss. Wheather you ski there or not, the closing of June will hurt the local communites in the area.

[snowfiend]

http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/junelake/documents/minutes/notes%20September%206.pdf

After reading this I'm surpised this day took so long to come. Very sad but business is business and without:
Viability of June Mountain; Mammoth Mountain is carrying financially; need for $20 million on Mountain improvements (first phase); additional skier visits needed 117,000; $20m; 1284 hotel equivalents/ additional beds

I know that is 2006 money but we still have not seen real deflation yet in land values to make up for all this.

[notagoodskier]

With the mountain closed next winter could you still hike the runs and get turns or would you be trespassing?

[Big Tim]

http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/junelake/d ... istory.pdf

[SurfnSnowboard]

http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/junelake/documents/June%20Mountain%20Financial%20History.pdf

Thanks for posting that link I was looking for it and couldn't find it.

[6IX]

[SkierPete]

They need to sell it to Vail resorts.
1. It would then be included in the Epic pass.
2. Mammoth would have competition for So-Cal skier dollars.
3. Vail might make some improvements.

Unlikely that Vail or another large operator will make that acquisition. Given the June infrastructure, location and available lodging it would not make much fiscal sense. I could see a private equity firm picking it up and attemping another Yellowstone Club type of structure given the proximity to LA via private plane.

http://www.yellowstoneclub.com/index.php/

[SkiSox]

http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/junelake/documents/minutes/notes%20September%206.pdf

After reading this I'm surpised this day took so long to come. Very sad but business is business and without:
Viability of June Mountain; Mammoth Mountain is carrying financially; need for $20 million on Mountain improvements (first phase); additional skier visits needed 117,000; $20m; 1284 hotel equivalents/ additional beds

I know that is 2006 money but we still have not seen real deflation yet in land values to make up for all this.

That document needs to be thoroughly de-bunked. There is no doubt that June is in need of capital to address a few specific deficiencies, but there are many ways to skin a cat. The specifics of that plan are relevant only if you look through the prism of a pradigm that seems wholly inappropriate for June. Let's take them one by one:

Chair 1 Replacement: $8MM
This implicitly assumes you are going to install some sort of new, extravagant, high-capacity lift out of the base. $8M, especially in 2006 dollars, is well more than you'd need for even the newest HSQ, so were probably budgeting for some sort of Chondola or something of that nature. While J1 clearly needs to be replaced to make the mid-chalet more easily accessible, it is fundamentally false that the only answer is a new detachable lift for $8MM. There are any number of used fixed grip and now detachable lifts available for a small fraction of that $8MM (like 10% of that figure). Any of them would suffice in achieving two critical goals for the J1: 1) increasing capacity out of the base area and 2) making that ride quicker and more comfortable for riders of all ages. While a detatchable lift would be ideal due to the need for downloading based on June's topography, it's certainly not necessary.

Chair 2 replacement: $4MM
Again, the implicit assumption is that J2 needs to be replaced and that the replacement must be a detatchable lift. I'm not sure there's any compelling evidence that J2 needs to be replaced at all, let alone with a detatch. It's not like that lift sees long lines or cries out for a shorter ride time. If J2 needs to be replaced due to mechanical/age issues, then you can once again go with the used lift route. Otherwise, I'd hold off entirely.

Chalet Addition/Renovation: $4.5MM
This is another one I don't quite understand. Why spend $4.5MM on this when there are much more pressing needs like expanding the ticket hut at the base so people have a place to put their boots on? Moreover, why not let customer demand dictate large investments like this instead of a business plan that may or may not be in synch with the realities of June Mtn's market?

Wastewater improvements: $0.4MM
Presumably this is to handle the larger capacity Chalet, but I don't know. If they are compliant at today's discharge levels, I'd like to see the case for the upgrade that is based on actual need instead of some dream projection.

Snowmaking improvements on Ch. 7: $2.0MM
Here's another one I don't understand. Guaranteeing good snow surfaces is definitely important, as this year's season has borne out. That said, why would you spend $2MM to improve the snow surfaces on a part of the mountain that gets the most snowfall and which is skiable by a relatively small segment of the skiing population (experts and upper intermediates)? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus efforts on J2, 3, 4 and 6 which service terrain that everyone can use? Supplement that with coverage of the Canyon Trail and you can offer top-to-bottom coverage even in the leanest of years, even if the resulting terrain is a bit bland.

Fundamentally, Mammoth's plan represents a complete lack of vision in how to run a ski resort. Rusty and Co. have run Mammoth quite well, but that's the only model they know: big, expensive, modern, real-estate driven. As in the rest of the country (see Bridger Bowl, Alta, MRG, Mt. Baker, A-Basin), the Eastern Sierra has the opportunity to offer a successful, low/no frills skiing experience that appeals to a mix of locals and families alike.

Let's face it: June will never be a destination ski resort. There isn't enough room inthe market for that. But it doesn't have to be. There's always going to be a base level of demand from the local communities (June, Lee Vining, Bridgeport etc..) who are lookign for a relatively low cost skii experience. It also has an opportunity to carve out it's niche as a ski area that appeals to families throughout SoCal as a whole. As a father of two young kids, I would like nothing better than the chance to enjoy the Eastern Sierra at a price point (tickets, lodging, food etcc..) that's 30-40% off the typical cost at Mammoth. To further do so in an environment that is not the zoo at Mammoth, and at a resort with a great mix of terrain for learners, all of which comes back to a single base, makes and even stronger case for a new vision at June.

More than a lack of paying customers, June Mtn. has suffered from a chronic lack of leadership and vision. The Rodeo Grounds plan and planned infrastructure upgrade serve only to illustrate that Mammoth/Rusty know only one path to growth . That path has largely been discredited and is anyway completely inappropriate for a mountain with June's location, terrain and assets. It's time for MMSA to step aside and let someone else run June - how can anyone have confidence that the same crew who has done nothing but run the place iunto the ground for the last 25 years will somehow be able to come up with a sustainable plan with an extra year of thought?

[egieszl]

I've got news for you and your response clearly shows why you're not in the ski business. June Mountain absolutely needs a gondola to replace Chair J1 and ultimately needs a detachable lift to replace J2. People who spend vacation dollars on ski trips expect that sort of mountain infrastructure or they look elsewhere.

June Mountain is severely handicapped by it's design and the antiquated lift on the face makes the ski area very undesirable for many. Downloading on the current lift is intimidating, troublesome and in many ways dangerous. Carrying equipment for the inexperienced (beginners) is not easy. Canyon Trail, even with snowmaking, is narrow and less than ideal for a critical intermediate link to the base. While it may be rated as intermediate it is intimidating for less experienced skiers and riders and especially when more experienced skiers aggressively descend it.

While a fixed-grip lift may be adequate to get by it will not address the fundamental problems with June Mountain and it will not make it more desirable thus increasing skier visits and making the business profitable.

A Gondola or Tram is an absolute necessary on any mountain that has a significant need for downloading. When Dave McCoy installed the QMC Tram on the Face in 1986 he was clearly addressing this necessity. Unfortunately, that lift was ahead of its time, plagued with problems and a design defect with the Yan detachable grips eventually let to its demise. However, the fact that he installed that type of lift (Tram/Gondola) proves that it's a necessity.

In terms of snowmaking the design of a system isn't always based on where you get the most or least amount of snowfall, but instead on ensuring that a good sampling of your terrain is open by Christmas when mother nature fails and that you have the capacity to accommodate holiday crowds. Christmas week makes or breaks a ski resort. For June Mountain to be really desirable it needs to be able to have terrain on J2, J4, J6 and J7 open. If J7 cannot run they loose an important lift for uphill capacity and it reduces the number of skiers the mountain can accommodate. The terrain served by J7 is also very desired by intermediate and advanced level skiers and riders. Not all of the runs in each of the given areas needs to be open, but a selection of the major ones do. On J7 Sunrise and Matterhorn would be ideal and Sunset if three were necessary. On J2 Mambo, Chalet and another beginner run. On J4 two runs and if possible Silverado offers a long easy beginner run to the mix. That is the point of the snowmaking plan.

With regards to the Chalet the upgrades are to address what would be an expected increase in the number of skier visits. The current facility may work at present, but it would not work if business levels increased. Yes, some of that is based on demand, but you get in trouble if you don't meet the needs of the demand in advance. If you wait until after the fact you're playing catch up and that can negatively impact the perception your customers have of their experience.

Finally, there are plenty of places to put your boots on at the base. There is an entire parking lot to do so. I don't see what the issue is at the base.

One of the single biggest issues with Mammoth Mountain and June Mountain is accessibility. Both mountains are a good five hour drive or longer from a major populated area and the limited local population cannot support these mountains. You mention a number of other small ski areas like A-Basin, Alta, Bridger Bowl, Mt. Baker, Mad River Glen but you fail to see the difference is that people don't have to drive hours to reach those ski areas.

[rphenry]

My opinion -

Some sort of better lift is needed from the base to the chalet - better in the sense of faster, bigger (to keep family groups together) and downloadable.

J2 can stay as it is - it's not that long a ride anyway. The obvious lift to upgrade to HSQ would be J4.

A top-to-bottom run that avoided the flats in the middle of the mountain would add to the challenge. It looks to me from the various topo maps that there is a possible route from top of J7 down through the woods to the west coming out at the top of the parking lot steeps.

As for snowmaking - make sure to cover the cat trail from the Chalet down to the bottom. When my sons were learning to ski they saw that as one of the big adventures of skiing at June.

Blue sky ideas

- a long diagonal lift and trail that linked with the June Lake village center, perhaps with walk-out steeps dropping off along the way.

- a lift from the Chalet up into the peaks to the west, with little or no trail development.