Other side of new track story?

I've been spending a lot of time in the Ossipee Lake area this summer and recently had a chance to talk to a few locals about the new track situation up there (My stickered-up H2-yellow Suburban daily driver/race hauler tends to be a conversation starter at places like gas stations). Anyway, they saw my truck, asked me about it, told them I used it to tow a race car trailer, and they asked me what I knew about the new track. They proceeeded to give me a real education about the local opposition to this thing. I've copied a few editorial letters I came across in the local free paper, 'The Conway Daily Sun' and some related web addresses. I haven't seen any of this discussed here in this forum and thought it would be worthwhile to toss it out here for everyone to chew on. Seems like there is more local opposition to this thing than many of us realized. Letters to the editor follow, with the web addresses at the bottom.

*************
Citizens of Tamworth need to wake up

—To the editor:
CMI has gone too far — again.
First it was the backhanded way they used to remove and negate local town ordinance control of their operation by sponsoring SB 458 and getting it quietly passed without notice. Now they want to negate our right to vote!
At the Tamworth Planning Board meeting last July 21, CMI demanded that two of our town's elected representatives on the planning board recuse themselves from participating in any matter before the board involving CMI business. These are our elected representatives who express and promote the views of the electorate of Tamworth. Just because CMI doesn't like their views and actions does not give them the right to remove our voting rights to have our elected representatives conduct business on our behalf. Next they will be demanding that some of our state and national senators and representatives recuse themselves if they don't agree with CMI tactics and goals. What is voter representation all about if our elected officials cannot represent us?
CMI has even gone so far as to ask the court to slap an injunction on our two elected representatives "to enjoin the defendants from participating in any way in the consideration of the Plaintiff's application," et cetera.
When is the Town of Tamworth going to realize that CMI wants only to use us for their own personal profit and doesn't give a d___ about the town or its people!
Citizens of Tamworth: Wake up. We are being used!

Joe Binsack
Tamworth

***********************

How will CMI come up with the money?
*To the editor:
It's too bad the residents of Tamworth have been forced to spend thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars debating a racetrack that probably can't be built.
It's a shame Tamworth has been divided into pro-track and anti-track factions by a project that is simply too expensive to build and was an ill-conceived business concept from the beginning.
Is anyone else wondering how Stephan Condodemetraky, CEO of Club Motorsports Inc. (CMI), thinks he can raise $40 to $50 million to build CMI's proposed racetrack development?
CMI's projected costs have skyrocketed since the company first announced its plans for a $14 million development in July 2003. Even if CMI eventually succeeds in obtaining all the necessary federal, state and local permit approvals necessary to begin construction, it is not at all clear that CMI can raise the necessary money to finance its proposed race track.
After being forced to redesign its track to minimize wetlands impact, CMI announced in April 2004 that the total project cost had doubled to $28 million. Now it appears that the total project cost is going to be over $45 million.
Craig Lizotte of ESS Group, CMI's engineering firm, has reportedly told Condodemetraky that the cost of building CMI's redesigned racetrack will be above $32 million. When you add other upfront costs outlined in CMI's original business plan, the total cost of CMI's proposed race track development skyrockets to over $45 million.
Haley & Aldrich, an engineering consulting firm that has extensively reviewed CMI's new track design, estimates that 500,000 cubic yards of bedrock would need to be blasted and over one million cubic yards of soil would need to be moved. James Barrett of Haley & Aldrich estimates it would cost $15 million just to fracture the rock which would still have to be excavated, hauled and crushed before it could be placed elsewhere on-site, or trucked off-site at additional cost.
How does CMI plan to raise that much money? CMI’s original plan was to raise $5 million from equity investors and $15 million from member initiation fees. CMI targeted selling 1000 memberships during 2003 and 2004 at an average price of $15,000 each.
But between July 2003 and March 2004, CMI only sold 225 memberships at an average price estimated at $4,000 to $5,000 (CMI's current list price for a membership is $5,000). That’s only about $1 million from initiation fees so far.
Even if CMI manages to sell the remaining 775 memberships at $10,000 each (twice CMI's current Bronze membership price), that’s only another $8 million. CMI would still need to raise over $37 million from equity investors.
Can Condodemetraky convince new equity investors that CMI's race track will generate enough profits over the next 10 years to generate a positive return on their $37 million? It’s unlikely. Under CMI’s original investment model, a $5 million equity investment yielded a modestly attractive positive 27% return over 10 years. But that $5 million isn't enough anymore * it has ballooned to $37 million after the track redesign. Unfortunately, a $37 million investment yields equity investors a unacceptable negative 3.4 percent return over 10 years.
Investors will also see that none of CMI’s management team have any prior experience building, marketing or operating a racetrack.
Over the past 18 months, CMI has only raised an estimated $4 million in total capital from founders, equity financings, land mortgages, and membership initiation fees. In April 2004, CMI said it had commitments for about half of a new $3 million Series B equity round, but these funds appear to be in escrow and unavailable to CMI until the company has all necessary permit approvals to start track construction.
My calculations indicate that CMI has probably spent $3 to $4 million to date on land acquisitions, management salaries, public relations, marketing and sales, lobbyists, lawyers, Web site development, racetrack design, engineering consultants and permitting consultants.
If my calculations are correct, CMI may soon run out of money to pay critical expenses. It’s unclear how CMI can continue funding its current level of operations through Nov. 13, the date by which the Army Corps of Engineers must issue their decision on CMI's wetlands permit application. CMI will also soon need additional funds to refund deposits already paid to reserve 27 dates during 2004.
Condodemetraky doesn't have long to raise the necessary $40 to $50 million, either, since CMI has promised to refund members their initiation fees if the racetrack isn't open for racing by Dec. 31, 2005.

Alex Moot
President, Chocorua Lake Association


************************************
clubmotorsportsquestions.com

FOCUSTamworth.org

Thanks, 07, the more information we have, the better off we are. Having heard both a CMI presentation at an SCCA meeting and the ensuing Q&A, I believe the prevailing attitude in these parts is appropriate skepticism tempered with hope.

/Steve U
05 ITS

Steve & Steve,
It’s great to hear the local opinions to help us understand what CMI is going through. These opinions may feel extremely negative to us, but are really no different than what would be heard regarding any large scale development in a small community. In my 30 years of working for contractors, engineers and developers I’ve never seen a project of this scale permitted without opposition.

No community will welcome a race track with 100% open arms, especially after the legacy Saturday Night racers have left for us. You will almost be guaranteed a strong opposition to a race track in any community. We race at NHIS and LRP under court mandated restrictions, how could anyone rationally think it would be easy building a new race track.

These comments and opinions are not unusual and should not cast negatively on our considering renting track time from CMI. I posted concerns that SCCA would be looking at poor dates if NER holds off. CMI wants $500 to secure a date. CMI is willing to book 2006 dates at this fee. We need to set aside our concerns that the track won’t be built and the millions of other questions we have right now and look at the benefits and losses of spending $500.

The plus is we spend the money now and get the best possible 2006 dates we can. The worst case, we loose the $500.

I feel that risking $500 (less than 0.1% of the RRB annual budget) is a worthwhile risk to secure a June, July or August date as opposed to being, literally, left out in the cold with an April or October date. I look at it as investing in our future, a sound and smart business decision.

Why 2006? The track will not be open until mid to late 2005 at best (my opinion).

How do I arrive at this conclusion? I attended the July NER RRB meeting. Tom Murphy of CMI made a presentation to the group stating that they felt they would have the 1.4 mile portion of the course open by April 1, 2005. I feel there is no way this can happen.

They will not have all permits in place until October 1, 2004 (their estimate) and site work will go on until frost sets in (my estimate, Dec 15th at best). The paving plants close between Thanksgiving and December 15Th in southern NH. I can’t imagine that paving could happen after December 1st. The snow will most likely still be on the ground until April 1st at the site, so this means to be operational April 1st the 1.4 mile track construction will have to be done in an 8 week time frame. NO WAY! If NER wants a realistic date that will have a track, 2006 is our only option.

For what it’s worth CMI posts news articles on their website, both for and against. They can be accessed at http://www.clubmotorsports.com/pressroom/Coverage/

I thank you for the opportunity to ramble.


------------------
Dave Patten
Dunbarton, NH

Dave,

Just wanted to clarify your post. IF we get the permits on 1 Oct AND we have a good winter, we hope to have the 1.4 mile track open in early Spring/Summer. I think the APRIL date you mention is when construction would RESUME in 2005. I also advised the SCCA to book a track date in 2006 since I am not sure what the winter will be like.

I will post some rebuttal letters to the Moot letter and others
____________________________________________
The Citizen - August 5, 2004
Track critic’s faulty remarks
Editor, The Citizen:
With respect to a July 29 Citizen Letter to the Editor from Alex Moot, a publicly acknowledged Club Motorsports Inc. (CMI) opponent, important clarifications are necessary, particularly since Mr. Moot himself has admitted to the Conway Daily Sun that the financial numbers upon which he bases his arguments are outdated.
While CMI respects the right of anyone to express a public opinion — for or against our project — we believe you should be aware of the following regarding Mr. Moot's activities pertaining to CMI, so that you can judge for yourselves the credibility of his claims.
1. In November 2003, Mr. Moot posed as a potential CMI investor to obtain a Private Placement Memorandum containing confidential financial information.
2. On the very first page of the PPM is the confidentiality agreement, which plainly and boldly states: "This memorandum is not be reproduced in whole or in part or used for any purpose other than the evaluation of an investment in the company."
3. In December 2003, Mr. Moot violated the confidentiality agreement by using PPM financial data to attack the viability of CMI's project in Letters to the Editor and online forums.
4. Several newspapers refused to publish Mr. Moot's December 2003 letter because he obtained the information under false pretenses and used it to malign our project and the reputation of CMI employees.
5. Other newspapers in the Mount Washington Valley region have refused to publish his current letter.
6. Mr. Moot's current letter is based on outdated financial information, which has been revised in a subsequent PPM, as Mr. Moot has publicly admitted.
7. Mr. Moot is not an objective analyst, as his letter would have you believe. He has publicly opposed CMI personally, and for the Chocorua Lake Association.
8. When directly questioned by CMI, Mr. Moot admitted that he is not an expert on motorsports developments and has no experience in this regard.
9. Mr. Moot's letter contains several factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. For example, the total estimated project cost never "doubled" to $28 million. CMI has said from the beginning that Phases I and II would cost approximately $14 million, and Phase III would cost another $14 million — for a total of $28 million.
10. Mr. Moot's letter relies on unattributed hearsay to make its financial projections. (Reference to Craig Lizotte of ESS "reportedly told Condodemetraky..." that the costs would increase)
11. Mr. Moot's letter relies on the estimate of a tainted "expert" from the firm of Haley & Aldrich, which is being paid by opponents (FOCUS: Tamworth) to testify against CMI's project.
Given the deceptive manner in which Mr. Moot obtained financial information from CMI, his status as a biased opponent, his admitted reliance on outdated numbers, as well as the numerous factual errors and misrepresentations in his letter, we urge you to consider the credibility of his arguments carefully.
CMI is pleased to have recently received a Wetlands Permit from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. This is a major step toward our ultimate goal of building a world-class facility that will provide good new jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual tax revenue to the Town of Tamworth — as well as an economic stimulus to the region.
Stephan Condodemetraky
President and CEO
Club Motorsports Inc.


.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Ostrovitz:
I've been spending a lot of time in the Ossipee Lake area this summer and recently had a chance to talk to a few locals about the new track situation up there (My stickered-up H2-yellow Suburban daily driver/race hauler tends to be a conversation starter at places like gas stations). Anyway, they saw my truck, asked me about it, told them I used it to tow a race car trailer, and they asked me what I knew about the new track. They proceeeded to give me a real education about the local opposition to this thing. I've copied a few editorial letters I came across in the local free paper, 'The Conway Daily Sun' and some related web addresses. I haven't seen any of this discussed here in this forum and thought it would be worthwhile to toss it out here for everyone to chew on. Seems like there is more local opposition to this thing than many of us realized. Letters to the editor follow, with the web addresses at the bottom.

*************
Citizens of Tamworth need to wake up

—To the editor:
CMI has gone too far — again.
First it was the backhanded way they used to remove and negate local town ordinance control of their operation by sponsoring SB 458 and getting it quietly passed without notice. Now they want to negate our right to vote!
At the Tamworth Planning Board meeting last July 21, CMI demanded that two of our town's elected representatives on the planning board recuse themselves from participating in any matter before the board involving CMI business. These are our elected representatives who express and promote the views of the electorate of Tamworth. Just because CMI doesn't like their views and actions does not give them the right to remove our voting rights to have our elected representatives conduct business on our behalf. Next they will be demanding that some of our state and national senators and representatives recuse themselves if they don't agree with CMI tactics and goals. What is voter representation all about if our elected officials cannot represent us?
CMI has even gone so far as to ask the court to slap an injunction on our two elected representatives "to enjoin the defendants from participating in any way in the consideration of the Plaintiff's application," et cetera.
When is the Town of Tamworth going to realize that CMI wants only to use us for their own personal profit and doesn't give a d___ about the town or its people!
Citizens of Tamworth: Wake up. We are being used!

Joe Binsack
Tamworth

***********************

How will CMI come up with the money?
*To the editor:
It's too bad the residents of Tamworth have been forced to spend thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars debating a racetrack that probably can't be built.
It's a shame Tamworth has been divided into pro-track and anti-track factions by a project that is simply too expensive to build and was an ill-conceived business concept from the beginning.
Is anyone else wondering how Stephan Condodemetraky, CEO of Club Motorsports Inc. (CMI), thinks he can raise $40 to $50 million to build CMI's proposed racetrack development?
CMI's projected costs have skyrocketed since the company first announced its plans for a $14 million development in July 2003. Even if CMI eventually succeeds in obtaining all the necessary federal, state and local permit approvals necessary to begin construction, it is not at all clear that CMI can raise the necessary money to finance its proposed race track.
After being forced to redesign its track to minimize wetlands impact, CMI announced in April 2004 that the total project cost had doubled to $28 million. Now it appears that the total project cost is going to be over $45 million.
Craig Lizotte of ESS Group, CMI's engineering firm, has reportedly told Condodemetraky that the cost of building CMI's redesigned racetrack will be above $32 million. When you add other upfront costs outlined in CMI's original business plan, the total cost of CMI's proposed race track development skyrockets to over $45 million.
Haley & Aldrich, an engineering consulting firm that has extensively reviewed CMI's new track design, estimates that 500,000 cubic yards of bedrock would need to be blasted and over one million cubic yards of soil would need to be moved. James Barrett of Haley & Aldrich estimates it would cost $15 million just to fracture the rock which would still have to be excavated, hauled and crushed before it could be placed elsewhere on-site, or trucked off-site at additional cost.
How does CMI plan to raise that much money? CMI’s original plan was to raise $5 million from equity investors and $15 million from member initiation fees. CMI targeted selling 1000 memberships during 2003 and 2004 at an average price of $15,000 each.
But between July 2003 and March 2004, CMI only sold 225 memberships at an average price estimated at $4,000 to $5,000 (CMI's current list price for a membership is $5,000). That’s only about $1 million from initiation fees so far.
Even if CMI manages to sell the remaining 775 memberships at $10,000 each (twice CMI's current Bronze membership price), that’s only another $8 million. CMI would still need to raise over $37 million from equity investors.
Can Condodemetraky convince new equity investors that CMI's race track will generate enough profits over the next 10 years to generate a positive return on their $37 million? It’s unlikely. Under CMI’s original investment model, a $5 million equity investment yielded a modestly attractive positive 27% return over 10 years. But that $5 million isn't enough anymore * it has ballooned to $37 million after the track redesign. Unfortunately, a $37 million investment yields equity investors a unacceptable negative 3.4 percent return over 10 years.
Investors will also see that none of CMI’s management team have any prior experience building, marketing or operating a racetrack.
Over the past 18 months, CMI has only raised an estimated $4 million in total capital from founders, equity financings, land mortgages, and membership initiation fees. In April 2004, CMI said it had commitments for about half of a new $3 million Series B equity round, but these funds appear to be in escrow and unavailable to CMI until the company has all necessary permit approvals to start track construction.
My calculations indicate that CMI has probably spent $3 to $4 million to date on land acquisitions, management salaries, public relations, marketing and sales, lobbyists, lawyers, Web site development, racetrack design, engineering consultants and permitting consultants.
If my calculations are correct, CMI may soon run out of money to pay critical expenses. It’s unclear how CMI can continue funding its current level of operations through Nov. 13, the date by which the Army Corps of Engineers must issue their decision on CMI's wetlands permit application. CMI will also soon need additional funds to refund deposits already paid to reserve 27 dates during 2004.
Condodemetraky doesn't have long to raise the necessary $40 to $50 million, either, since CMI has promised to refund members their initiation fees if the racetrack isn't open for racing by Dec. 31, 2005.

Alex Moot
President, Chocorua Lake Association

---

Steve,

Joe Binsack does not tell you that the opposition has also asked a board member to recuse themselves.

The board members that CMI has asked to recuse themselves have publicly said they are against the project, written letters and signed petitions against the project. They cannot be impartial and should recuse themselves.

Alex Moot is not even worthy of discussion. His lack of honesty is well documented.

Regards,
Tom

Thanks for the response. That said, most of that letter seems to be an ad hominem attack on the this guy Moot and relatively little about the substance of his concerns about the fiscal viability of this thing. Also, it sounds like it was written by a trial lawyer [and trust me, I *know* what they sound like http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ] I'm not sure how you would know which papers decided to run or not run letters written by the guy, or anyone else. Are you guessing or do you know? I guess I'd love to see more of a response about the substance of what he says about the numbers and viability as oppossed to ripping on the guy personally (which may all be true, but isn't really relevant).

About the battle of the recusals: I was told that the anti-track people *did* ask one non-elected board member to recuse him/herself, (can't remember if it was a man or woman) but that he/she was the person who sold much if not all of the land to CMI. Seems like a reasonable basis for recusal, no? Again, any light you can shed on that would surely be appreciated by the readers here.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Steve

More recent local opinion regarding this project, from the same newspaper. Definately not as rosy a picture as what has been painted here on this forum. Let me add: I have no dog in this hunt, but having been personally solicited at NHIS and seen really only one side of this issue until recently, the level of local opposition to this seems to be quite a cause for concern, if not conversation.

**************************
8/12/2004

CMI letter does little to refute financial concerns

*To the editor:
On Wednesday, Mr. Stephan Condodemetraky responded to a letter by Alex Moot that was printed in this paper. Mr. Condodemetraky attacked Mr. Moot’s character, but did little to refute the letter’s basis point*that CMI’s proposed racetrack project is not financially viable.
I would like to question one of Mr. Condodemetraky’s statements in particular. He says that the information provided by the engineering firm Haley & Aldrich is “tainted” because the firm was paid by FOCUS: Tamworth to examine CMI’s wetlands application materials. By those standards, the sound study done for CMI by Tech Environmental Inc. of Waltham, Mass., is also tainted, because CMI paid for that study. The summer 2003 sound study by Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson was paid for by the Tamworth Foundation. The firm was interviewed and approved by CMI before the study was done, although after the results were released, CMI refused to pay the $10,000 they had promised to contribute toward the cost of the study. Does CMI now admit that study is the least biased because it was paid for by an organization that is neutral on the racetrack issue? Mr. Condodemetraky needs to apply the same standards to himself that he applies to others. Mr. Condodemetraky should and needs to repond to Mr. Moot’s financial concerns addressed in his letter.

Donna Veilleux
Tamworth

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8/12/2004

Still wondering how CMI will come up with the money

*To the editor:
How will CMI come up with the money?
Alex Moot asked in his letter of August 4, "How will CMI come up with the money?" On the same date, Stephen Condodemetraky did his best to impute underhanded behavior to Mr. Moot for having researched and written that letter. But, Mr. Moot, a Tamworth landowner who has made his living as a marketing analyst and is a partner in a successful early-stage venture capital firm, was behaving like a professional carrying out the due diligence that precedes any major investment. Moot may not be an expert in motorsports (of course, neither are Condodemetraky and his associates), but he is an expert in financial analysis, and it is significant that although Condodemetraky tried to shoot the messenger, he did not answer the question.
Condodemetraky expresses shock and surprise that Mr. Moot would dare to analyze CMI's business plans for information about the company. But if anyone has a need to know the plans and the financial status of the company, it's those of us who live here. CMI's proposed project could change the character of our town. The project's failure would leave us to cope with the mess,
In fact, we've already had a taste of how things could play out. One of Mr. Condodemetraky's first acts in Tamworth was to promise to cover half the cost of a sound analysis, and then refuse to pay it when the bill came due. The Tamworth Foundation has been unable to carry out its usual charities this year because they are still paying off CMI's half of the bill.
We learned another lesson when CMI participated in the process of drafting a Race Track Ordinance which they assured us they could live with, and then quietly lobbied for a bill (SB 458) that rendered our ordinance useless and threatens home rule and self-determination in all of New Hampshire.
Readers of Mr. Condodemetraky's letter will be struck by his assertion that the mere fact of opposition to CMI renders any statement or expert opinion untrustworthy and "tainted." This is a slippery slope. If CMI's opponents are automatically biased and untrustworthy, how about CMI's proponents? It's not logical to assert that everything CMI says is true and good, while anything an opponent says is false and bad.
But maybe logic is not the point here. If CMI can outshout and denigrate its opponents, perhaps they can continue to evade the real question: how can they come up with the money?

Susan Goldhor
Tamworth

**********************************

8/12/2004


Who should you believe, Condodemetraky or me?
*To the editor:
I’m not surprised that Stephan Condodemetraky of Club Motorsports Inc. (CMI) attacked me in his August 4 letter, but did not respond to my facts or conclusion that escalating construction costs have made CMI's racetrack too expensive to build.
Most notably, Stephan fails to deny that ESS Group, CMI's engineering firm, recently told him that the cost to build CMI's redesigned racetrack has skyrocketed to over $32 million. Nor does Stephan refute my calculation that the entire project will now cost $40 to $50 million*more than three times the original $14 million budget.
I challenge Stephan to explain how the total cost for the racetrack can remain constant, even though construction costs, development schedule, racetrack design, the amount of land and acquisition costs, number of garages, racetrack length, retail space, permitting difficulty, and amount of ledge to be blasted have all dramatically changed.
CMI told DES they’ve spent $3 million so far, without lifting a shovelful of dirt. Does anyone really believe the racetrack construction, for which CMI had budgeted $5 million, will be completed for $2 million more?
Stephan knows full well I did not initiate contact with CMI, and never signed a confidentiality agreement when CMI offered to send me a copy of their business plan. A CMI employee cold-called me on Nov. 5, 2003, to solicit me as a potential member and/or investor. I merely did the business analysis I am trained to do, asked questions any investor, Tamworth resident or elected official, should want answers to, and decided to share my analysis with the residents of Tamworth and nearby towns.
Who should you believe, Stephan Condodemetraky or me?
My family has owned a house in Chocorua for over 40 years, and I have a vested interest in acting honestly and ethically to maintain my local reputation.
In contrast, Stephan is a itinerant carpetbagger who has never lived nor worked anywhere near Tamworth. He currently lives and works two hours away in Derry. CMI is also based in Derry, and has yet to create a single full-time job in Tamworth. Since finishing college only 13 years ago, Stephan has led an itinerant lifestyle, founding six start-ups (EOF, PowerOasis, CMG, Online Environs, Inmateplacement.com, and CMI), most of which have struggled or gone out of business, and living in eight towns in southern New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
If CMI fails, Stephan will simply move onto another entrepreneurial endeavor in the next unsuspecting town.
It's a shame Condodemetraky has forced the residents of Tamworth to spend thousands of hours and large sums of money debating a racetrack that can't be built.
Stephan knows he can't raise $40 to $50 million. Isn't it time Stephan publicly admitted CMI's racetrack is too expensive to build and moved onto his next entrepreneurial pipedream?

Alex Moot
President, Chocorua Lake Association

It's obvious that there will be local opposition. As with this website, the negative may be loud but may be the minority.

It's all about the permits. If they get them, the representation of the people have spoken on their behalf.

Let's hope they get them.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Apparently their sales dept is still moving forward!

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread...ad.php?t=885335

"It's obvious that there will be local opposition. As with this website, the negative may be loud but may be the minority."

My concern is not that opposition exists at all. Of course it will. Its that the opposition has painted an extemely different picture of the current financial viability of this project than what the principals have put out there. CMI has chosen not to respond to those questions about the actual numbers, either here, where they've been active in the past, or in the local community press. As someone who belongs to club that has received both internal and external pressure to commit to dates, the viability of the place concerns me. It's not a couple of grand in depostis that I'm worried about. (although not somethign the nonprofits should be risking) If NER, NNJ or other local clubs commit to CMI at the expense of losing choice dates in '05 or '06 at NHIS or LRP, then we all lose if they don't get the thing built. These questions about the finances are valid and fair game, yet they remain unanswered.

"It's all about the permits."

It's all about the Benjamins, baby! I could get a permit to build a nuclear reactor next to a day care center if my lawyer was bigger, nastier, and better funded than the next guy.

"If they get them, the representation of the people have spoken on their behalf."

Well, there's obviously been some attemtps to circumvent the will of the people here by the battle of the recusals of elected officials. Demanding the removal of elected officials who may oppose your viewpoint is a time-honored tactic.

My point from the beginning was simply to toss out two things to the forum: 1) there's more noise about this thing than those of use that don't live there knew about, and 2) there are open, still unanswered questions about the fiscal health of this project.

I think it's very possible that the fiscal picture is dependent on the approvals to build the site. The residents who 'wonder' how the money will materialize have every right to 'wonder'...do they have a right to see a balance sheet? I don't think so.

Trust me when I say this: If they can get approval to build a top notch track in the Northeast, the money will come - in a big way.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

"I think it's very possible that the fiscal picture is dependent on the approvals to build the site."

You're correct in that a prerequisite to recieving financing from lenders is often the receipt of permits, special and otherwise. The disparity between the original $5 million dollar price and the as-yet unrefuted estimates of $30 million plus should be troubling to anyone with an interest in this project. In other words, assuming the permits are all granted, where will the flood of newfound money come from? I was hoping for a response on this.

"The residents who 'wonder' how the money will materialize have every right to 'wonder'...do they have a right to see a balance sheet? I don't think so."

Of course they do. Before any government entity allows the undertaking of a project with potentially massive local impact it is basic due dillegence to ensure that the builder has the financial backing to complete the project once it starts. Otherwise the community is left with a big, expensive, non-revenue generating hole in the ground that could be unattractively expensive to make suitable for future development.

"Trust me when I say this: If they can get approval to build a top notch track in the Northeast, the money will come - in a big way."

They very well may. But certainly, from our own experience in the NER, raising the money has been the one of the toughest aspects of building a new track. The NeDiv has some extremely affluent and sophisticated members, but in all the time the NER has explored the financing of a new track, there hasn't exactly been a pledge of huge funds from potential investors.
$5 million is a relative piece of cake for a handful of wealthy individuals. But $30 mil plus? If those numbers are wrong, a response would be great. If they're right, a response about where its coming from would be comforting to those that want to see a new track built.

The other thing I find interesting about this whole thing is that CMI is taking deposits from local organizations to hold weekend dates for races. In what I've read of the opposition from Tamworth residents they're not even aware of things like that. This recent bill that passed in the NH legislation, bill SB-458 allows CMI to circumvent town Racetrack Ordinances for sound levels and such. This passed because CMI is claiming itself as a "PRIVATE DRIVING INSTRUCTION AND EXHIBITION FACILITIES" and some of the definitions include "(d) Similar non-spectator activities which are recreational or educational in nature" and " II. A private driving instruction and exhibition facility shall not be considered a motor vehicle race track for the purposes of RSA 31:41-a or RSA 31:42 "

While I'm all for new tracks I'm just worried that this is going to later haunt CMI when SCCA, BMW club, and Porsche club are in town for "racing" and Tamworth residents find out. While this track would have to be built for this to happen it would be a shame if it was and then later shut down like what happened in Arizona.

It just seems they're might be problems that will come up later if this is ever built.

steve

hey guy's

just my two cents, first no other region can enter into a committment with CMI for dates without the approval of NER. this is due to the fact that the track is in NER geographical territory and any other region must recieve permission from NER to hold an event inside there bounderies.

as for the track use for "racing" what if we
rented the facility for "amateur competitions"? no spectators will be allowed but much like many tracks around the country guest of the facility are.

Steve I would dispute that there is no funding around for this type of venture, Steve nailed it when he siad if some one has the land and the permits tha cash will show.

these land / track speculators want the reword with minimal risk.

just my thoughts brian m

OK guys, Here’s the actual wording of SB 458 that went into effect on May 4, 2004.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Four
AN ACT relative to private driving instruction and exhibition facilities.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
4:1 New Chapter; Private Driving Instruction and Exhibition Facilities. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 287-F the following

new chapter:
CHAPTER 287-G
PRIVATE DRIVING INSTRUCTION AND EXHIBITION FACILITIES
287-G:1 Definition; Exemption.
I. "Private driving instruction and exhibition facility" shall mean a facility containing a paved roadway 2 or more miles in length the use of which is limited to:

(a) Providing instruction and training in safe driving skills, adverse weather driving techniques, or high performance driving;

(B) The exhibition, maintenance, and operation of vintage or specialty motor vehicles;

© Conducting supervised amateur competitions; and

(d) Similar non-spectator activities which are recreational or educational in nature.

II. A private driving instruction and exhibition facility shall not be considered a motor vehicle race track for the purposes of RSA 31:41-a or RSA 31:42.
4:2 Effective Date.

This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
(Approved: March 5, 2004)
(Effective Date: May 4, 2004)

What this means is CMI operating a "Private driving instruction and exhibition facility" is exempt from the Town’s “Race Track Ordinance”. It also means that CMI can rent the facility to NER or any other group for “Conducting supervised amateur competitions; and similar non-spectator activities which are recreational or educational in nature”, which is Club Racing.


------------------
Dave Patten
Dunbarton, NH

>>>Steve I would dispute that there is no funding around for this type of venture, Steve nailed it when he siad if some one has the land and the permits tha cash will show.<<<

Respectfully, I don't know that I ever said there is no money out there for this thing. There's been no response to that question. What I'm curious about is the apparent disparity between the two sets of numbers $5 mil vs. $40-$50 (I mistakenly said "$30 mil in previous posts.

I could see a bunch of uber wealthy individuals coughing up big funds for a Japanese style private playground/racing facility. Maybe. But how many and how much? Thats a lot of cake. Renting to clubs like us at rates we can afford and keepng the number of memberships sold at reasonable numbers in terms of amounts and prices seems to run counter to getting a decent ROI for investors who pony up $40 to $50 mil. Would NHIS be able to survive if it didn't have Cup dates? How will this place be fiscaly viable? This is one underlying question that seems to be wide open.

Since I've been asked: I have no beef with this facility or this company. Family stuff has kept me away from the track since the first couple of races this season, but nobody would welcome a new first class facility more than me. But since I came across these local articles I've been exposed to a whole other side of *this* project and felt it warranted discussion on this forum since its a topic many of us care about.

I understand that there is opposition to constructing CMI’s Valley Motorsports Park in the Tamworth area.

No new motorsports facility is going to be a slam-dunk to establish. When was the last road course built in New England, the 1960’s? What I find amazing is the lack of interest by NER-SCCA and it’s members to come forward and support CMI.

I have listened for years of how NHIS sucks as a road course and the Region needs a new facility. For over a decade we have been investigating how/where to build a new track, in fact at one point I gave a check to the New Track Committee to support their efforts.

Now a group wants to build a new facility and all I hear is how they will fail.

Why are we SO negative about what could be a new venue for us to race at? We as racers should be showing glowing support of CMI. The permitting and financial questions are for those who are investors and lenders to CMI and shouldn’t be a factor in our support. Our goal as racers should be to have a new race track to race on and no other.

What NER can do to help get the track built.

1. Focus on getting CMI’s track built. Look past all the personalities, opinions, financial speculations, permitting, etc. as they are not the real issue. Building the Track is!

2. Support CMI by NER reserving track time, this will show their lenders they have a ready customer base and income. I’m not saying blindly sign a reservation agreement, but negotiate terms that protect our expenditure and future commitments and expenses.

3. Take action to make construction happen. NER and its members need to show CMI support at an individual level as well. You do not need to agree with CMI’s development plan, financial plan or their business approach, but we need to support CMI on the grounds that they are building a new facility that we can play at. Help make it happen.

Once the facility is built, it will be up to the owners to make it work financially. If their rental structure makes events at CMI not feasible for NER fine, we don’t race there, but we need the track in place before we can turn them down.

To look at all the negatives and stand back, you in effect have become their opposition.

Ask yourself on a personal level. Do I want to be able to race at a new track?

If you answer yes, call for NER to rent track time and contact CMI directly yourself, even if it is just an e-mail saying you are behind their effort and support the construction of a new facility.

We need to support CMI’s construction of the facility.



------------------
Dave Patten
Dunbarton, NH

>>Now a group wants to build a new facility and all I hear is how they will fail.<<

I don' think that there has been much commentary on this forum claiming they will fail. Fair questions have been asked and left unanswered.

>>>Why are we SO negative about what could be a new venue for us to race at? We as racers should be showing glowing support of CMI. The permitting and financial questions are for those who are investors and lenders to CMI and shouldn’t be a factor in our support. Our goal as racers should be to have a new race track to race on and no other.<<<

Shoing blind support of something like this seems a bit cavalier and irresponsible to me. We're talking about a community that you and I don't have to live in, but real people and families reside there, make their homes there. I'm no altruistic saint, but it seems a bit selfish and self centered to ignore these issues for our own personal hobby.

The permitting and financial concerns should absolutely be of concern to us as a club. Due dillegence should demand it. What would you have our BoD do, reserve dates at a vapor facility at the expense of hard and fast dates elsewhere purely to "show support" for a private business? If they need our handful of dates that badly then they have bigger trouble than we know. Should we double book to cover ourselves? Then what happens?

>>Support CMI by NER reserving track time, this will show their lenders they have a ready customer base and income.<<<

As I said above, and you should know by now, this facility is not suppossed to live and die by private club rentals. Thats from them, not from us. Commitments for a couple hundred thousand bucks of our money spread over a few years of rentals is peanuts. And thats assuming we sacrifice dates at other tracks to "support" them.

>> I’m not saying blindly sign a reservation agreement, but negotiate terms that protect our expenditure and future commitments and expenses.<<<

How would you suggest that be done?

>>>To look at all the negatives and stand back, you in effect have become their opposition.<<<<

Really? Sounds a lot like "if you're not with us, you're against us". Speaking for myself, I am not opposed to anyone trying to build a track, but since when did asking for answers to legitimate questions that speak to the very heart of the project become analagous to opposition?

Blind support for anything? No thanks.

>>Ask yourself on a personal level. Do I want to be able to race at a new track? <<

Count me in as a 100% yes. Who on this forum wouldn't want new pavement to abuse? But just signing on the dotted line without having all the relevant info is imprudent at best. And there are a lot of unanswered questions.

I assume the NER BoD, Comp Board, and NTC have got their collective fingers on the pulse of this thing better than any of us. I trust they'll act appropriately, one way or the other, when the time comes. These are not people who make rash decisions based on hype and emotion and wishful thinking. When the *facts* are all in to *their* satisfaction, they'll act as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bg43wex:
...first no other region can enter into a committment with CMI for dates without the approval of NER. this is due to the fact that the track is in NER geographical territory and any other region must recieve permission from NER to hold an event inside there bounderies...

---

While it is in the rules, it is un-used/unenforced, and I cannot remember the last time anyone tried to use it.

Nelson is in NEOHIO, and they are another division, and they certainly don't "give permission" to NEdiv regions to run races there. NER doesn't "Give Permission" to the other three regions that run at Lime Rock. NEPA doesn't give permission to Jersey region to run at Pocono, and Glen doesn't give permission for Finger Lakes to run at "The Glen".

Yes, we don't object, but that is not the same as giving/denying permission. I seriously doubt you could enforce that rule to keep other regions from running up at Tamworth, having not enforcd it in other cases for these many, many years.

Also, you might find yourself at the wrong end of a lawsuit for Contract Interference. (But IANAL.)

Steve O.
I thank you for response to my comments.

It appears that we are generally on the same page as far as wanting “new pavement to abuse”. What we are at odds about is the level of commitment as individuals and as NER that we should make toward CMI.

As for the community, I in no way feel that our support of CMI can or will effect the decisions of the local authorities in the required permitting process. Trust me when I say no amount of outside influence will sway the community to allow CMI to build their facility. They will make their decision with or with out or support and under their terms.

The biggest thing we all can do as individuals is talk with the people at CMI. Tell them that you hope to some day make hot laps around their track. Let them know you are interested in seeing them succeed, take a site visit, consider membership and even join if you feel that is what’s right for you.

The support I do feel CMI needs from NER is committing to a $500 reimbursable rental reservation. The more timely this is made the better selection of dates we have. I am not suggesting that NER book dates at CMI and not renew dates at LRP or NHIS. I do believe under the current schedule that a May or June double regional at CMI could be added into the schedule without severally impacting our current staffing requirements or entry levels while still keeping our current dates intact.

You asked how I would protect the Region in signing a rental reservation. I won’t even try to detail the terms and conditions that would need to be included. Basics, reserve a date that is at least rationally believable that the facility could be ready for an event. Establish the payment terms tied to physical milestones, like no further payments until SCCA has approved the course, administration, timing and control structures are completed ready for operation, there is at least X number of days between the facility being 100% approved and the date of the event. We can write any agreement scope that we feel we need, this is a negotiation, but it has to start somewhere.

What I have urged is that a dialog between NER’s RRB and/or BoD needs to be started to actually discuss firm terms of a rental agreement with CMI. To my knowledge, other than generalizations, no serious discussion has ever occurred from either side.

As a racer I sit and wait for our Directors to make a move. To date all I see is a hands off policy. My opinion is that the lack of success by NER’s New Track Committee has jaded our BoD and RRB so badly that they and a good portion of our members believe that the construction of a new track is something that no one outside our circle could ever hope to complete. A lets wait and see if they can really pull this off, because we sure as hell haven’t been able to attitude is what I see.

Steve and others, please be aware that these views you’ve reprinted are editorials. The ones Steve has reprinted are all from the same newspaper, the Conway Dailey Sun. This paper has a reputation of printing fringe viewpoints and acting as a soap box for the extremely outspoken vocal minority. They thrive on bringing controversy to their front page, so view what they publish with an open mind.


------------------
Dave Patten
Dunbarton, NH

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Patten:

I do believe under the current schedule that a May or June double regional at CMI could be added into the schedule without severally impacting our current staffing requirements or entry levels while still keeping our current dates intact.

---

Dave,
What workers did you talk to?

The end of April had two drivers schools and a regional at NHIS.
Early May had a National at NHIS.
The week after that was the Drivers School and Regional at Lime Rock
The last Weekend in May was Memorial Day at LRP, which NER staffed.
The next weekend was the National at Lime Rock
Two weeks later was the Drivers school and regional by MoHud, which looked like NER was providing over half the workers.
Two more weeks and it was the 4th of July at Lime Rock which NER staffed, again.

Crammed in to that was the double regional at Pocono.

Most of the workers were burned out. And it was only the 4th of July! I had worked enough days by then to renew BOTH of my worker licenses for NEXT year.

Sure we could fit it in. Right. Not a Problem. There is lots of slack in that schedule.

Just pass the Speed and Uppers, please.

>>>It appears that we are generally on the same page as far as wanting “new pavement to abuse”. What we are at odds about is the level of commitment as individuals and as NER that we should make toward CMI.<<<

Dave, I agree, no "normal" racer (is there such a thing?) would not want to see more venues. I also agree that we have different opinions on the best course of action our mututal representatives, namely, the NER officials, should take as it relates to this particular venture.

>>>As for the community, I in no way feel that our support of CMI can or will effect the decisions of the local authorities in the required permitting process. Trust me when I say no amount of outside influence will sway the community to allow CMI to build their facility. They will make their decision with or with out or support and under their terms. <<<<

Again, I agree with you all around on this. Peronsally, knowing what I now know about the history of this project, I am sympathetic to the position of the local community. I know from oast personal conversations that the approach of the NER NTC has been more concerned about the opinion of local communities that have been considered, an approach I endorse. In short, if we won't be welcomed, we won't come. Most for-profits enterprises don't have the "luxury" of being that sympathetic.

>>>The biggest thing we all can do as individuals is talk with the people at CMI. Tell them that you hope to some day make hot laps around their track. Let them know you are interested in seeing them succeed, take a site visit, consider membership and even join if you feel that is what’s right for you.<<<

Well, I've heard the pitch in person, and even if I had the money for that kind of thing, I'm a Club *Racer*, so the appeal of a club where I can lap 'til I'm dizzy has limited appeal.
Thats aside from the investment issue: Add in the unanswered questions about the viability of this thing (either for a monetary return or simply if members will get have long to enjoy the place), and I am also not willing to hop on the bandwagon. But thats me. Certainly others will find value in this type of facility and will be willing to risk large sums of money in the hope it pans out.

>>>What I have urged is that a dialog between NER’s RRB and/or BoD needs to be started to actually discuss firm terms of a rental agreement with CMI. To my knowledge, other than generalizations, no serious discussion has ever occurred from either side. <<<<

Like I said earlier, I don't know either, but whatever they've done, or not done, I have no doubt that its not from lack of discussion and due consideration. They certainly have been in contact with the CMI people and will act on our Regions behalf in the same well-considered way they always do.

>>>Steve and others, please be aware that these views you’ve reprinted are editorials.<<<

I think I made it clear from the get-go that these were editorials letters.

>>> The ones Steve has reprinted are all from the same newspaper, the Conway Dailey Sun. This paper has a reputation of printing fringe viewpoints and acting as a soap box for the extremely outspoken vocal minority. They thrive on bringing controversy to their front page, so view what they publish with an open mind.<<<

I'll take it then that you're a regular reader of that paper and others in the area. Have other local papers not published lettes in opposition to the track, perhaps letters from some of the same people who write the Sun? They all can't be from people on the "fringe" can they? When CMI writes a letter to the editor smearing a local, what do you call that? Good business? I don't know the demographics, but based on the fact the locals *passed* home rule ordinances to keep the track out, I'm not sure how you can qualify local opposition as a minority.

Dave, either way, I appreciate your hashing this out here. I think its a fine use of this Northeast Forum for people who are inclined to follow the thread. What we say here won't change the outcome, but I think its provided all of us with some food for thought about the implications of what people may undertake on our behalf.

Steve

A short report aired by NH Public Radio this week contained the information that CMI has withdrawn its remaining applications to NH DES and will 'regroup'.
Does anyone have an idea of what this means?
I'd like to see CMI succeed but not at the expense of a lot of lost deposits
Bill Miskoe

caution this is hearsay.
I heard that CMI has determained that the use permit application that was withdrawn is not needed in their opinion.
dick

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RKramden:
While it is in the rules, it is un-used/unenforced, and I cannot remember the last time anyone tried to use it.

Nelson is in NEOHIO, and they are another division, and they certainly don't "give permission" to NEdiv regions to run races there. NER doesn't "Give Permission" to the other three regions that run at Lime Rock. NEPA doesn't give permission to Jersey region to run at Pocono, and Glen doesn't give permission for Finger Lakes to run at "The Glen".
(But IANAL.)

---

FYI - The BOD has tightened up the "Region of Record" requirements for 2005 and beyond. While Regions were supposed to get permission to hold events inside the geographic confines of another Region (and may Regions didn't know or care about it), the new rules require at WRITTEN request to the "Region of Record", and WRITTEN permission.

Fact.

Bill, found these zrticles in the locals papers.

***************************

Conway Daily Sun

8/24/2004

CMI withdraws application for planning board permit
Developer says it won't slow down race track
David Carkhuff

TAMWORTH—Club Motorsports Inc., announced Monday that it is withdrawing its application to the Tamworth Planning Board for a special-use permit under Tamworth's wetlands ordinance. A hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, but now, without an application, it's unlikely the planning board will meet to conduct its review.
The application was submitted June 17, as part of the project review and permitting process for Club Motorsports to construct Valley Motorsports Park, a three-mile racecourse where people can operate cars and motorcycles.
Scott Tranchemontagne, spokesman for Club Motorsports, said the decision to withdraw the application was specific only to this permit and did not hamper the overall project.
"Everything remains on course, the project is still moving forward, in fact we continue to work with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on those permits. We simply realized in this process that our current application as it was submitted ought to be withdrawn, and we want to look at our options moving forward," he said. "We're not saying anything about the process overall."
CMI President and CEO Stephan Condodemetraky agreed in a press release that the application withdrawal was based on new information.
“Based on some new information and further research, we believe we have made an application to the Planning Board that exceeds our permitting needs, and we are withdrawing it at this present time,” he said. “We are currently reviewing our options and determining if and or when we need to return to the planning board.”
Tamworth Planning Board uanimously had voted to schedule a new hearing on Aug. 25 so planners could decide whether the track would pose a regional impact.
Kate Vachon, member of the steering committee for Focus: Tamworth, a local watchdog group, said she was nonplused by the news.
"We are very unclear about what they mean here," she said. "If they're suggesting that they don't need this permit, we certainly disagree with that. This is a racetrack built over, around and in wetlands. There's no way that they don't need this permit."
Tranchemontagne cautioned, "We're not saying anything at all about what we may or may not do in the future in respect to the planning board."
Vachon said, "If they're trying to do something else to exempt themselves from local control, we think that is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed. Who knows?
Our position is that they are definitely governed by this ordinance, and that they definitely have not shown much respect for the planning board and the conservation commission by applying and then withdrawing."
Tranchemontagne responded, "My only response is it's unfortunate that diehard opponents like Focus: Tamworth make unfounded speculations.
Asked to confirm that the group was not going to try to avoid planning board review through a legislative remedy, he said, "That's not the issue here."
Senate Bill 458, which took effect May 4, prompted an outcry from race track opponents. The law "defines private driving instruction and exhibition facilities and exempts such facilities from local regulation of motor vehicle race tracks."
Opponents saw SB 458 as a legislative end run that exempted the development from local control of the Tamworth Race Track Ordinance.
Tranchemontagne said it was a necessary clarification of local authority.
The state has already issued Club Motorsports a wetlands “dredge and fill” permit, determining that the Valley Motorsports Park will impact less than three-quarters of an acre of wetlands and will not significantly impair wetlands, surface waters, and groundwater resources, CMI points out.

********************************

8/24/2004

Focus: Tamworth launches process to appeal CMI wetlands permit
Lengthy process could take up to a year
David Carkhuff

TAMWORTH—Club Motorsports Inc. vowed that a pending appeal of its state wetlands dredge-and-fill permit will not slow down its private race track development.

"This appeal process will in no way delay our development schedule," said
Scott Tranchemontagne, spokesman for Club Motorsports.

Focus: Tamworth filed a request for reconsideration of the permit with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services on Aug. 18. The agency granted the dredge-and-fill permit on July 29. Club Motorsports wants to build a 242-acre race track — what Tranchemontagne calls a "private driving motorsports facility" — on the north face of Mount Whittier in Tamworth.

The DES now has 30 days to grant or deny the request for reconsideration and to rule on the specifics of the Focus: Tamworth challenge.

"The appeals process is a natural part of the process, and we expected Focus to appeal based on their longstanding opposition," Tranchemontagne said.

But Focus: Tamworth predicted the filing will make it more difficult for Club Motorsports to begin construction.

"This is a lengthy process," said Charles Greenhalgh, Focus: Tamworth spokesperson. "We have been told it can take as long as a year, and will certainly take several months. Throughout the permitting process, Focus: Tamworth will continue to support careful and fair regulations that protect Tamworth's economic and natural resources."

The Focus: Tamworth request for reconsideration of the permit was submitted on behalf of more than 30 Tamworth property owners, the group reported.

"The request is the first step in an appeal of the DES decision," the group stated.

Tranchemontagne defended the DES permit, calling it exhaustive and adding, "We provided every piece of information that was required."

"Our appeal is based on a variety of grounds," said Sherry Young, an attorney with the firm of Rath, Young and Pignatelli in Concord, which is pursuing the appeal on behalf of Focus: Tamworth. The grounds, Young said, include:

• That there was no opportunity for public comment on the significant plan revisions that CMI made after DES requested changes in May.

• That CMI increased rather than decreased its wetlands impact. When the wetlands were re-examined in May, there were found to be more than the original delineation indicated, and the redesigned track crosses streams or wetlands 17 times instead of the previous 14. DES requested that impacts be decreased, not increased.

• That CMI failed to present realistic alternative sites for the development, as the law requires.

• That the permit was issued prematurely, before all effects to wetlands from construction of the project were considered.

• That several important issues raised by the Tamworth Conservation Commission, including stormwater management, the effect of runoff on abutters and the impact of increased water flow on stream banks near the project, were addressed by deferring to the site specific process.

• That the land that CMI proposed for off-site mitigation does not meet the requirements of the law. The parcel is more than 65 percent wetlands that are already be protected under current laws. The proposed "mitigation" does not protect more than a few acres of new land, the group alleges.

• That DES failed to consider the impacts of the project as a whole on recreation-based tourism, the aesthetic interests of the general public and the risk of MtBE and other gasoline contamination of the Ossipee Aquifer and private drinking water supplies throughout the region.

The DES may choose to hold a hearing before it decides whether or not to reconsider.

There are several more possible steps in the appeal process, including a hearing before the New Hampshire Wetlands Council, Focus: Tamworth reported. The Wetlands Council includes the commissioners of the state departments of Resources and Economic Development, Fish and Game, Transportation, State Planning, and Safety, plus seven members appointed by the governor. The appointed members include a conservation commission member, an elected town official, natural resource experts and members of the construction and marine industries.

The Wetlands Council's decision can be appealed to the Carroll County Superior Court, and then to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Either the Wetlands Council or the courts can instruct DES to deny the permit or to impose additional conditions.

On separate regulatory tracks, Club Motorsports needs a site-specific or "alteration of terrain" permit from DES as well as a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act, Section 404.

"We've very focused right now on the permitting process, the site-specific permit with DES" and the Army Corps of Engineers review, Tranchemontagne said.

Tamworth planning board decided that the project had a potential regional impact and scheduled a local hearing for 7 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 25, at the K.A. Brett School.