Dunn County Speedway outlines phased noise‑reduction plan, committee asks for cost and acoustics study

Representatives of Red Cedar Speedway told the Dunn County Facilities Committee they plan a multi‑phase project to reduce racetrack noise that focuses first on Turn 3, the part of the track closest to the Menomonie downtown neighborhood.

At the committee’s request, Mark Thomas of Bedsider Racing presented a preliminary drawing showing proposed post locations, described a four‑phase construction schedule of two years per phase, and said the group is exploring materials ranging from reclaimed highway signs to wood and engineered absorptive panels in hopes of keeping costs affordable.

The plan calls for mounting posts close behind the existing concrete retaining wall and dirt berm that sit along Turns 3 and 4; Thomas said the posts would be set on small concrete pads and would be placed roughly 5 to 10 feet from the current track wall in most locations. He said teams have done decibel readings at multiple nearby locations and that the speedway already logs nightly decibel measurements for each class of car.

Committee members asked technical questions about whether metal panels would merely reflect sound toward other neighborhoods and whether dirt berms or engineered absorptive panels would be more effective. Thomas said the track can consult its contractors and the national racing association but does not yet have an acoustic engineer engaged to model reflection and absorption for the site.

Discussion covered site constraints: committee members and Thomas noted that adding large earth berms would consume substantial usable fairground space on parts of the track and that the east and west ends of the oval present different opportunities and limitations for earthen berms or structural barriers. Thomas said some other tracks use wood barriers or metal barriers; the group discussed painting the outward‑facing side of reflective metal panels with a flat, nonreflective finish to limit glare and community visual impact.

The committee asked the speedway to return with three deliverables at the committee’s next regular meeting: (1) cost estimates for alternative materials (state highway signage, concrete posts, timber or engineered absorptive panels), (2) examples and photos of comparable installations at other tracks, and (3) a recommendation or referral to a qualified acoustical engineer to produce a short study and mitigation options. Thomas agreed to pursue those items and to re‑run decibel checks in June to compare with prior readings.

Committee members and speakers emphasized that the speedway reads decibel levels nightly and has pursued muffler rule changes through its national association; Thomas said the track is actively proposing muffler and rule changes to reduce sound at the source but also wants physical barriers to reduce neighborhood impacts.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the plan; it gave direction to the speedway to develop cost and technical information and return at the committee’s June meeting.