Gunstock Expansion Plans

[rocket21]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Having the ability doesn't change the financials... and whether it is all leased, or just portions, the food and accommodations part will need to be on the table. The campground should be seeing net positive revenue... but the only way to expand that is horizontally over more acres... while the hotel would go vertical. We may see it at the lodge rather than the peak... but without disrupting operations, that would be really hard... and a very complex lease.

I'm not understanding the first part of your message.

With regard to existing and future operations, as well as the campground, this has been encountered before. Mt. Sunapee also has a campground. I don't believe slopeside lodging in the park was ever a consideration with the lease.

I don't understand the push to build a hotel at Gunstock. What is the point of having a county-operated mega-resort? Doesn't Gunstock better serve county residents if it's an affordable, accessible, minimally-developed day-area?

I certainly get why certain developers would like to build a premium hotel up on the Overlook, but should county land be used for that purpose?

[John Mercier]

The leasee had attaching property that the State was not willing to allow either.
The lawsuit ended that.

To increase the accommodations at Gunstock in the current format, you would need to expand the campground (more acres) or build vertically at the lodge (disruption of current business).

And no, it better serves residents if it can support higher payments to the county... as most residents do not ski.

But even a private operator would tell the GAC/Delegation, that to keep slope fees low enough... with rising need for snowmaking and the amount of energy that goes to such... you are going to need something that subsidizes it.

[rocket21]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

To increase the accommodations at Gunstock in the current format, you would need to expand the campground (more acres) or build vertically at the lodge (disruption of current business).

To increase accommodations? There are essentially no accommodations during ski season, apart from two cabins that sleep a total of 8 adults.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

And no, it better serves residents if it can support higher payments to the county... as most residents do not ski.

If the primary goal of Gunstock is to provide higher payments to the county, then it should have been leased long ago.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

But even a private operator would tell the GAC/Delegation, that to keep slope fees low enough... with rising need for snowmaking and the amount of energy that goes to such... you are going to need something that subsidizes it.

If Gunstock were to maintain its current footprint, there wouldn't be much more snowmaking capacity needed. Likewise, there would be LESS energy needed due to advances in snowmaking energy efficiency.

The proposed hotel is not the panacea for the county. That said, it could be one heck of a moneymaker for a private developer, especially if the county foots the bill for the infrastructure (it won't be cheap to get the road and utilities halfway up the mountain).

[John Mercier]

Odd, Gunstock is showing winter camping.
https://www.gunstock.com/camping/winter-camping/

It could never find anyone with the financials to lease it.
The new GAC had the option to go that way... but I think they know that no private equity is willing to do so... if not they could talk to Goddard.

The same footprint will require more snowmaking... as we are seeing less natural snow. The efficiency increases will not keep up with the price increases.

All things being constant... slope fees will need to rise.
Lower fees for county residents would need to be offset with higher fees for non-residents.
If you lose some non-residents due to the higher fee, and other options for them, you have to increase the fees for the remaining non-residents starting the cycle again. At a certain point, there aren't any non-residents to transfer the costs to.

[rocket21]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Odd, Gunstock is showing winter camping.
https://www.gunstock.com/camping/winter-camping/

I think you'll find very few people who consider winter camping to be "accommodations" at a ski resort.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The same footprint will require more snowmaking... as we are seeing less natural snow.

The 2000s saw quite a few good winters in terms of natural snow, whereas the late 80s/early 90s, early 1980s, early 1970s, early 1950s, late 1940s, and mid-to-late 1930s were rough. Gunstock has more favorable weather than successful ski areas south of here have survived, and probably wouldn't need a dramatic increase in snowmaking to maintain a viable product in the event of sustained mild winters.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The efficiency increases will not keep up with the price increases.

You previously said "the amount of energy that goes to such," which does not comport with advances in snowmaking energy efficiency. I agree that energy prices are a major concern and are going to put significant upward pressure on pricing.

[fatlazyless]

From https://www.gunstock.com/calendar/ .... next Sunday, August 14, 10am-4pm is Belknap County Day with a FREE scenic chairlift ride or a FREE mountain coaster ride .... click on 'Belknap County Day'

Maybe this can become a Gunstock, show your Belknap County support day, or something, plus the price is very reasonable ... it's free! .... .... and shake hands with either the Gunstock Team management or with the 'free-stater', local state reps ...... someone for everyone ..... hoo yuh want? ..... what yuh want? .....

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by rocket21

I think you'll find very few people who consider winter camping to be "accommodations" at a ski resort.


The 2000s saw quite a few good winters in terms of natural snow, whereas the late 80s/early 90s, early 1980s, early 1970s, early 1950s, late 1940s, and mid-to-late 1930s were rough. Gunstock has more favorable weather than successful ski areas south of here have survived, and probably wouldn't need a dramatic increase in snowmaking to maintain a viable product in the event of sustained mild winters.


You previously said "the amount of energy that goes to such," which does not comport with advances in snowmaking energy efficiency. I agree that energy prices are a major concern and are going to put significant upward pressure on pricing.

Well, if you check the latest... you will notice the sled dog races cancelled and snowmobiling on this side of the lake to be a bit ''iffy''.

So they need to make snow... especially for Thanksgiving vacation and Christmas vacation... but also to replenish a base during the February vacation as that is when the sled dog derby gets cancelled.

As for the camping... that is all they have... thus the room for expansion. And as you stated... the winter camping isn't going to cut it; thus a hotel.

They can't just easily expand the number of customers, as they will run out of parking lot and create havoc on the transit corridor equal or worse than what happens in Meredith during the summer... one of the big complaints at Sunapee. So they need to get more money from each customer, and that is done by lateral and vertical integration.

[fatlazyless]

If Exit 21 was actually built back in 1968, as was the plan, it would have gone from Route 93 to the Laconia extension that is close to Gunstock.

Exit 21 would probably be known as the exit to get to Gunstock Ski Area.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/interstate_93 ..... with 44 exits on NH-Route 93, the never built Exit 21 is the only ghost exit that never happened.

Exit 21 ...... never made it ...... for some unknown reason? ...... which does not help Gunstock, too much? So, looking at the list of exits in the Route 93-New Hampshire list in Wikipedia, just take a good look at that Exit 21 that easily takes you to Gunstock. ..... what exit? ..... where is Exit-21? .....

Driving up Route 93 with its' 70-mph speed limit, is a quick, brief trip up the road to three other NH ski areas, further north, with larger trail systems ...... Route 93-Exit 28: Waterville Valley ..... Route 93-Exit 32: Loon Mountain ...... and Route 93-Exit 34: Cannon Mountain.

Here's a ski magazine article on Ski-93, New Hampshire from 2015..... http://www.powder.com/latitudes/ski-...e-free-or-ski/ ..... and guess what ..... the Gunstock Ski Area is NOT even mentioned. For Gunstock to appear in a ski magazine named 'Powder.com' ...... that magazine name should be changed to 'Wet Slush.com' to be honest ....

[rocket21]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Driving up Route 93 with its' 70-mph speed limit, is a quick, brief trip up the road to three other NH ski areas, further north, with larger trail systems ...... Route 93-Exit 28: Waterville Valley ..... Route 93-Exit 32: Loon Mountain ...... and Route 93-Exit 34: Cannon Mountain.

Here's a ski magazine article on Ski-93, New Hampshire from 2015..... http://www.powder.com/latitudes/ski-...e-free-or-ski/ ..... and guess what ..... the Gunstock Ski Area is NOT even mentioned. For Gunstock to appear in a ski magazine named 'Powder.com' ...... that magazine name should be changed to 'Wet Slush.com' to be honest ....

Ragged is also not mentioned. Gunstock and Ragged are mid-sized areas located south of the White Mountain and will never offer 2,000+ vertical feet like Cannon/Loon/Waterville.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If Exit 21 was actually built back in 1968, as was the plan, it would have gone from Route 93 to the Laconia extension that is close to Gunstock.

Exit 21 would probably be known as the exit to get to Gunstock Ski Area.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/interstate_93 ..... with 44 exits on NH-Route 93, the never built Exit 21 is the only ghost exit that never happened.

Exit 21 ...... never made it ...... for some unknown reason? ...... which does not help Gunstock, too much? So, looking at the list of exits in the Route 93-New Hampshire list in Wikipedia, just take a good look at that Exit 21 that easily takes you to Gunstock. ..... what exit? ..... where is Exit-21? .....

Interesting thought. Similarly, exit 19 not being a full on/off certainly didn't help the former Highlands ski area.

[rocket21]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

So they need to make snow... especially for Thanksgiving vacation

Gunstock has never counted on Thanksgiving for any measurable revenue.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They can't just easily expand the number of customers, as they will run out of parking lot and create havoc on the transit corridor equal or worse than what happens in Meredith during the summer... one of the big complaints at Sunapee. So they need to get more money from each customer, and that is done by lateral and vertical integration.

If parking is the limiting factor at Gunstock, why did the master plan propose to dramatically expand the ski area for more skier visits?

[John Mercier]

They make snow for Thanksgiving... so a cost without revenue is questionable tactic.

My point on the parking is that at some point, it maxes...
That point is being made up at Sunapee.

The Master Plan included building more parking and using the hotel funds.
https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...e9076bd6e.html

[rocket21]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They make snow for Thanksgiving... so a cost without revenue is questionable tactic.

They are not making snow for Thanksgiving. Gunstock has never counted on Thanksgiving for any measurable revenue. For small- to mid-sized areas, November snowmaking operations are generally about 1) testing/training and 2) building base if there are good windows. Snowmaking output is exponential; if you get cold, dry weather, you'll put down a lot more snow than at marginal temperatures. Some recent Novembers provided the best pre-Christmas windows for that.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

My point on the parking is that at some point, it maxes...
That point is being made up at Sunapee.

Sunapee is planning to add another lot this year, so they haven't reached their max. Likewise, if parking capacity was the primary concern at Gunstock, why would they be spending all of this money to pave the existing lot, rather than expanding parking?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by rocket21

They are not making snow for Thanksgiving. Gunstock has never counted on Thanksgiving for any measurable revenue. For small- to mid-sized areas, November snowmaking operations are generally about 1) testing/training and 2) building base if there are good windows. Snowmaking output is exponential; if you get cold, dry weather, you'll put down a lot more snow than at marginal temperatures. Some recent Novembers provided the best pre-Christmas windows for that.


Sunapee is planning to add another lot this year, so they haven't reached their max. Likewise, if parking capacity was the primary concern at Gunstock, why would they be spending all of this money to pave the existing lot, rather than expanding parking?

Because a parking lot needs to be repaved once in a while, and to expand horizontally means to extend the season. Sort of like the campground did without you even noticing.

[rocket21]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Because a parking lot needs to be repaved once in a while, and to expand horizontally means to extend the season. Sort of like the campground did without you even noticing.

Repaved? Gunstock's parking lot is not paved.

[Cobaltdeadhead]

My experience skiing Gunstock only dates to 2009, but they have never opened for Thanksgiving weekend and really shouldn't. The business won't be there 9 years out of 10. Thanksgiving isn't a profitable weekend for most ski areas. It's a marketing budget spend for basically everywhere but Killington or Sunday River.

But almost all major areas start blowing snow Thanksgiving weekend even without intention to open. It's left in stockpiles which are more resilient to melting out. Then it's an added bonus to push out when a place like Gunstock is ready to go for it and open second weekend of December.

It's not a bad formula

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by rocket21

Repaved? Gunstock's parking lot is not paved.

The last time I was up, I parked on pavement right off from Alpine Way.
I've never been to any of the other parking areas, as it was a small group called in by Goddard to seek investment by Goddard.
It never really went anywhere as we were told that we should not expect a return on our investment.

You would pave... as they do roads... to lower the maintenance factor.
Middleton Meredith is now all paved for the same reason.
Having large unpaved areas turned out to not be suitable to early spring conditions.

As for Thanksgiving... they would need to find more income.
If they don't expand the amount of time open, then they need to expand the number of customers, and resources max unless you can find full value customers during the current slow periods (guessing weekdays).

Without some sort of expansion, the only option would be higher lift tickets.
Belknap taxpayers are going to expect more revenue from the site... and aren't going to focus on subsidizing some residents' recreational pursuits.

That is what this whole ''privatize'' thing was about... getting more revenue from the area into the county.

[Winilyme]

Whatever happened to this? Is such an ambitious expansion still being considered or was it nixed? Lots of news and conversation three or four years ago and then...crickets.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

Whatever happened to this? Is such an ambitious expansion still being considered or was it nixed? Lots of news and conversation three or four years ago and then...crickets.

From Feb 25, 2025 .... http://www.indepthnh.org/2025/02/25/...ment-of-lifts/

In the Gunstock Mountain Resort, Wikipedia, a paragraph down the bottom says:

"Following a ski season that saw mechanical issues with Gunstock Mountain Resort's Panorama chairlift, including a six day stretch where it was inoperable. Gunstock Area Commission announced that they will be focusing on mechanical upgrades to their lift system in the 2025 off-season."

[BroadHopper]

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...41da156b1.html

Many upgrades to electricals that were dated back to the 80's and earlier. Not just the lifts but snowmaking machinery and transmission lines.

Since New bloods have taken over, thanks to Gary Kiedasch and Rusty Mclear, Tom Day and Robert Drake Gunstock is moving forward profitably. Being a nonprofit, much of the money is for badly needed upgrades and maintaining capabilities in a tight market. Belknap County manage to collect what was due to them.

Skiing since 1957, the best years were during huge expansions manage by Fritzy Baer followed by Tom Day. The worst years were Dick Tapply's disastrous Triple Chair to the top. Although I am not in favor of advertising nationwide and inviting the mass, I hate crowds, the money was well spent in infrastructure improvements.

I really believe privatizing is bad, as greed comes before upgrades and improvement. Take a look at the resorts owned by conglomerates. They have their share of problems.

[John Mercier]

Privatization was a Silber concept.
As a private entity, the resort would pay more money to Gilford under taxation, and any build out would benefit Gilford.

This was how Gilford originally saw this with the build out of the Arlberg, Gunstock Inn, Cherry Valley Condos, and even Gunstock Acres.

While the management proposed build out would increase revenue to Gunstock itself, and thus to Belknap County at the county level.

So a hotel/restaurant near the top of the mountain would have breathtaking views, better than the others and be slope-side.
Fear being loss of revenue to Gilford as the other properties wither.

It will always be an ongoing debate