Strong pushback to a consultant’s report offering harsh criticism of Eaglecrest Ski Area was offered by its board of directors during a meeting Thursday night, but the resort’s new general manager — whose previous job involved coping with biggest fraud in ski industry history — also said “I have never seen a group of managers and operators this stressed out.”<\/p>\n
The <\/a>report<\/a> by Kirk Duncan, Eaglecrest’s general manager for seven years beginning in 2004, is intended to give the Juneau Assembly an overview of the ski area’s operational and economic prospects as city leaders consider future funding support for the resort. Duncan’s assessment states buildings and equipment are in poor shape due to neglect, wages are subpar, and the board’s leadership is responsible for many of the faults.<\/p>\n The latter was among the findings challenged in a multipage list of responses by board members that was presented — minus their names — during Thursday’s meeting by Mike Satre, the board’s chairman.<\/p>\n “The author claims the board of directors is the source of many of Eaglecrest’s challenges, but does not give specifics and supported examples of how the current governance model contributes to Eaglecrest’s challenges,” one comment states. “Further, he makes claims about board members’ skill sets that are inaccurate and unscrupulously convenient.”<\/p>\n Duncan’s report also states a used gondola Eaglecrest hopes to begin operating by 2027 might generate enough summer revenue to make the resort financially stable, but there’s no solid marketing research to support the hopeful projections of leaders at the ski area and Goldbelt Inc., which will host the summer tours. Meanwhile, Eaglecrest has a negative bank balance, is operating at a heavy loss and maintenance problems have resulted in consequences such as the shutdown of one of two mountaintop lifts for this ski season.<\/p>\n Another board response addressing those points declares Duncan’s report “overlooks important options.”<\/p>\n “In the author’s analysis of the next several years’ maintenance requirements, he seems to take the position that the only path forward is one where the Assembly funds every bit of deferred maintenance and (pay) plan gaps immediately,” the commenter asserts. “He does not analyze the impact of deferring maintenance until cash flow from the Gondola is available to bridge historical gaps in maintenance funding, or discuss approaches that strike a balance between catching up on maintenance and wages and managing tight resources.”<\/p>\n