Millville First & NJ Motorsports Park

Below are notes taken. There is no editorial comments made. We all just listened since it was a public meeting. My friend took the following:

Meeting Notes from Millville First Meeting, Dec. 9, 2008

Four Friends of Millville members attended this meeting. Our preference was that the proceedings of this meeting be communicated via video; however, at the start of the meeting, Emil Van Hook approached Mark Krull and demanded that he not tape the proceedings (Mark had his omnipresent camera). Andrew Van Hook added that if any recording of the proceedings was shared, Mark would be sued.

So my notes will have to suffice. I’m confident these are reasonably accurate, although there may be some errors due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. These were the proceedings as I recorded them:

Emil Van Hook: Millville sold the Motorsports land at $5 thousand an acre; its actual value is $50 thousand an acre. Millville First (MF) is not against development if it works to the benefit of Millville taxpayers. MF does not like the agreement with the Motorsports Park (MP) . MP does not pay taxes in the traditional way. Instead, they pay in lieu of taxes (PILOT). MP was given a 15-year PILOT in the amount of $175,000, with an option to renew for another 15 years. Nothing can be done about this. There is some development at the Motorsports Park that will not be under this PILOT agreement – e.g., hotels.

Emil referred to a chart illustrating the difference between the amount Millville is receiving through the PILOT agreement versus what the MP would pay without such an agreement. Using an estimated assessment of $40 million, if full taxes were paid by MP in 2006, Millville would have received $3,533,075 in taxes. The chart illustrated an increasing gap based on a 7 percent increase each year, using state averages. Millville tax increases, according to Van Hook, have been significantly more, and at times less. This year the increase has been less, but it is an election year. The problem is that the deal with MP does not consider the local taxpayer, who is significantly shortchanged.

David McCann spoke on the noise issue. He noted that as Emil demonstrated, the MP is an investment of taxpayer money. The investment was made on the taxpayers’ behalf in the belief that the MP will help economic development. Although the past season was only partial, there seems to be no spillover effect into the local economy. A recent survey indicated that downtown Millville would benefit from the synergy of the arts district and MP. It was suggested that if events were coordinated, Millville would be a destination for tourists. There is no evidence this is happening. The MP is event-driven; people come in just for their events and the benefit does not spill over into Millville.

Harry Fisher also spoke to the noise issue. The Porecca Drive Homeowner’s Association was involved in discussions with the MP developer and the city, but they did not get very far. The city passed a noise ordinance. However, 20 minutes at 80 decibels will never happen, because noise dissipates as cars move around the track. The Planning Board held a hearing on the MP development plan. Millville First had their own noise expert who conducted tests. The Planning Board did not take any action with respect to the city noise ordinance. A lawsuit on the part of environmental groups also did not have any impact on the noise ordinance. The outcome of the lawsuit was a consent agreement, which did not address the noise ordinance but instead addressed noise abatement through things such as asphalt, buildings, and trees. However, a lot of the provisions of the agreement never happened. The consent agreement was not monitored by the city.

A Daily Journal article today reported the 2009 lineup for the MP. The events include the loud open-wheel races as well as the AMA series anticipating attendance by 40,000 people. Things are going to get worse. There will be 80 decibel readings every 10 minutes.

There was some reference to circulation of a petition protesting three new tracks that were never part of the original plan.

Paul Porecca: People have to get involved in government. Things happen, and if you don’t act, it’s too late. It is not too late for the future of the MP, even though the city has opposed amending agreements. The city commission at the time (David Vanaman, who is here, was not a member at the time) asked the MP developer to present whatever they wanted to make the project a success. The city signed off. What can be done now: let the commissioners know how you feel about what is going on. They are sensitive to feedback. We can’t give them a blank check. The MP has to come half way and do their share. A recent news article said the MP wants to put in three motocross tracks. MF went to the city and asked if there would be public hearings. The proposal was to put these tracks on the residential side of the MP. This was a significant change the MP intended to make without city approval. It is clear these changes would have gone through if the city (thanks to MF) had not stepped up and asked MP to comply with the law. The Millville city commissioners are “in the pocket of the Motorsports Park” and “will do everything not to get in their way”. But any changes in approving MP plans is when citizens have to come out. Elected officials understand numbers. You must stay alert and let the commissioners know you are unhappy about noise and finances. Every taxpayer in Millville is supporting the MP “country club”. The city spent $25 million on cleanup at the MP site. The contract said the MP was supposed to pay for the cleanup. Granted, the city got the money from the state and the cleanup cost was about $7 million. You are all supporting the private country club. $27 million was spent on sewer, water – the commissioners said it is for the industrial park, but no one is there except MP. Perhaps we can do something in enforcement on noise abatement. MF asked the city about enforcement of the agreement with MP, and the city did not know who was in charge of monitoring noise and had to ask the solicitors. The original plan for MP was for a four-mile track that could be separated for races. MP said it would be better to have two separate tracks. The city heard about this and asked their attorney about the change. The MP said it was just a little thing and did not require action on the part of the Planning Board or commission. Going back to the original agreement with MP, any major changes must be approved by the Planning Board and the commission. If a substantial change, the commission must be involved. A minor change can be handled by the Planning Board. The city said “oops” on the creation of two tracks. In fact, the city is guilty of a lot of “oops” – the cell tower at the airport without a permit and the illegal contract with Sun (the city didn’t get money back). It was clear the MP had to get approval for changes. The city could ask the MP to apply for approval retroactively and then attach conditions to approval – e.g., noise abatement measures such as a wall. MP moved their track despite a consent order that said garages in certain places would serve to abate noise. Because they created two tracks, it looks as if these garages cannot be constructed as originally proposed. The commission is not going to do anything because it bought in to the MP “hook, line, and sinker without regard for the rest of us.”

Bob Teseroni: The MP has diverted traffic from High Street. The MP club house has a restaurant open, which is not helping the High Street merchants. At the Union Lake Crossing shopping center, the developer has not constructed the promised wall to protect school children. There are no soccer fields, as promised.

Paul Porecca: The city is not writing good contracts to protect its citizens. There is no time limit in their contracts as to when things must be completed. The construction of an oval track at MP is planned on the Cedarville Road side. This is the type of track NASCAR would use. We don’t know what the plans are.

Question: Why can’t the city require walls to control sound? Porrecca: This could have been a requirement but is probably not financially feasible. The city could have made different requirements. The only reason there is a wall at one track turn is because Citizens United and MF pushed for it.

Noted from audience: Permits have to be renewed (e.g., environmental). These could be held up by citizen objections. Complaint about traffic – Porecca notes it is going to get worse, especially if Nabb Ave. is extended. All traffic will go down Sherman.

Question about dirt bikes at MP. Porecca: State police permits are needed to run a race. There is a plan to put an ATV track next to the oval track south of Buckshutem. The MP does not need more permits from the city. Vigilance is needed. We must keep an eye on the Planning Board and the city to see if applications are filed.

Question: Will motorcycles be more annoying because of higher pitch: Emil Van Hook: Involvement is one of the most important issues. We have to be vigilant and knowledgeable. MF action resulted in the withdrawal of the Matzel & Mumford proposal to develop the land next to Union Lake (Wawa tract). There is also going to be an ordinance amending tax abatement, again thanks to MF. Eminent domain – no commission member would like to talk about eminent domain for private purposes, thanks to MF (not for public purposes). The shopping center has had a tremendous impact on Millville. Traffic is horrendous. MF started with protesting the development at Union Lake (Matzel & Mumford). It looks at issues and negotiates. Another success – one of the commissioners said at a public meeting that there would be no more 15-year tax abatements. The other 15-year abatement is Target, which pays $264,500 a year versus the $1.5 million it should be paying. This new position is a direct result of MF activity.

Question as to whether MP has met abatement commitments. Answer: Don’t know. MF has asked about vegetation planting. OPRA request filed asking what was done. Kim Ayres and city engineer said requirements had been met.

Question: $7 million environmental remediation costs should have been paid by developer. Can the city get this money back from the developer? Answer: Agreement says developer responsible for cleanup. The city gets $2 million a year from the state for environmental cleanup. The city chose to take three years funding and use it for cleanup of 1300 acres at industrial park. Much of this is wetlands that can’t be built upon. 500 of these acres are used by the MP. Most of the cleanup was done on these 500 acres. The MP should have paid for one third of the cleanup. Porecca: “You have to sue. I have two law suits.”

MP has not purchased land south of Buckshutem yet. They agreed to buy 707 acres and have purchased 500. They are in contract to buy the other 200 acres. Their 2004 contract expired because the city didn’t get its act together. MF called the city’s attention to the fact that they needed a new contract. MF pointed out the deficiencies. The city signed a new contract as a result of MF pushing, but the only change was that the MP is not required to use union labor. The contract calls for the purchase of 700 acres in stages. We don’t know the expiration date. Will check. It is probably, “whenever you’re ready.” There is no change in the price of the land. MP borrowed from Merrill Lynch – don’t know the impact.

From audience: Saw plumbing between the two tracks; looks as if for campers. The answer is to “get a whole new regime” (clapping). Response: That is an issue to be addressed in May. Vote them out.