In 2008, the citizens of Camden and Rockport gathered at the Camden Opera House for a presentation by Rick Knowlton, chairman of the Ragged Mountain Redevelopment Committee, who presented the committee’s vision of the Snow Bowl redevelopment. It was an extensive plan that included:

(a) a new base lodge;

(b) new chairlifts; and,

(c) expanded snowmaking and trail improvements.

We were told that in order to make the Snow Bowl “self sustaining” in the future the plan would have to be implemented in its entirety. The budget for the plan was $6.5 million and the town would need to raise $2 million for its contribution to the project, with the rest of the money being raised through private donations.

At the time there was general enthusiasm from within the community about the project and the Select Board members gave it their approval.

Fundraising for such an ambitious project was not easy and during this time some community members raised issues about the concept of the project. Several Select Board members questioned the revenues projected to make the area self sustaining, and others, including the chairman of the building committee, questioned the overall cost and sustainability of the project. However, the Committee remained unwavering in its vision and the cost of the project.

I questioned the wisdom of purchasing a 30-year-old chairlift that was no longer manufactured in lieu of a new lift.

It was my position, and others in the industry, that the highest priority to improving a ski area is the lift facility, especially when spending $6.5 million. It seemed logical to phase in some of the other improvements on the mountain if the budget was limited; the new chairlift should have been a priority and could not be phased.

It was pointed out that there was a substantial difference in cost between refurbishing the old lift and installing a new one, which was not in the budget. A representative from Doppelmayr USA, the world-leading tramway (chairlift) manufacturer, provided the committee with a proposal for a fully installed new chairlift with an extensive warranty, including all site costs, for $1.7 million by October 2014. He also questioned the validity of the out-dated numbers from the committee to rebuild the old chairlift.

We now know the committee did not have the experience to establish an accurate construction cost or take the lead on such a  large and complex construction project.

The major cost overruns on this project could have been avoided with some common sense and with skilled construction management.  

According to the most recent numbers provided by the committee, the same amount of money has been spent on the old lift, possibly more than installing a new lift after factoring in the engineers’ fees, the revenue lost by not opening in December, including season pass refunds and the added labor cost not allocated for lift installation after November.

One could argue that there were other reasons why the area was not ready to open in December but the fact remains that the chairs were not refinished on time or returned to the area until mid-January.

What makes the committee’s decision particularly difficult to accept is that the town could have had a relatively maintenance-free chairlift for many years and the necessary warrantees and service provided by Doppelmayr. A new lift would also protect the town from any future liability associated with an old refurbished lift. In addition, Doppelmayr already owns and maintains the Hall lift now being installed on Foxy and it only made sense to have them responsible for the care of both lifts.

But now we have a 30-year-old rebuilt lift that is no longer manufactured, installed by the town with no warranty, added maintenance costs and spare parts that will have to come from the State of Washington.

The recent accident at Sugarloaf Mountain and the one in 2010 both occurred on Borvig lifts, no longer manufactured since 1993, and more than 25 years old. This is a clear indication that even with an approved maintenance program old lifts are prone to have major problems.

As Mark Di Nola, a ski safety consultant, stated concerning the Sugarloaf accident, “the industry is aware of issues involved in the continued use of aging ski lifts.” (Maine Sunday Telegram, March 22, “Sugarloaf Lift Malfunction Injures 7”) 

The money spent to refurbish the old Snow Bowl lift was not spent “wisely” in spite of what Sam Appleton and his committee want the taxpayers to believe.

In order to complete the original vision by this committee it will require an additional $2 million more than the estimated $6.5 million project cost which they do not have on hand.

This will include the new base lodge and site improvements still to be completed on the mountain.

The lesson: I hope the public seriously questions and becomes involved through the Select Board in the design, size and cost of the new base lodge being proposed.

Currently, the plan calls for a 12,000-square-foot lodge, which at one time was 8,000 square feet while leaving the old lodge (4,000 square feet) in place. The proposed combined area of both buildings will now be 16,000 square feet, four times the size of the existing lodge.

At this juncture, it is unclear why the building has grown in size — and likely in budget — but it is important to avoid the past mistakes. It is a fact that 85 percent of the Snow Bowl revenue comes from the winter operation so the issue is how large does the lodge need to be and how much should the added cost of the building be allocated for the summer activities? The operational cost of the lodge should also be carefully considered since the costs will be determined directly by the size of the building.

Only time will tell whether the Snow Bowl will be profitable but given the fact that the Snow Bowl is on the coast and has limited operation, many seriously doubt that the Snow Bowl will be “self sustaining” on a consistent basis. In the end, the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for the substantial increase in operational costs of the facilities which is expected to be in excess of $100,000 over budget this season.

Steve Smith is a Camden taxpayer and skier.