We were given one project to review for the EAW – and a different one is being planned.

At a September 30th meeting to go over the draft of the Developer’s Agreement, Mr. Bass finally spoke.

1. One of the first things addressed was a viewing area.  After repeatedly being told there would not be an area for spectators, now it starts with a “viewing area”.  (This would be for members and their families unless the track was open to the public as it is designed to be a private club for people to sign up and become members. Access to the public has never been clear).  But the concern with having spectators goes with having events (noise, traffic).  Right now it's said there won't be grandstands, but it's also been said there wasn't going to be an area for spectators.  

2. Some events mentioned that this facility could host: Tator Days, Mankato Marathon, cycling events, events typically held on streets, corporations to test vehicles, etc.  As a marathoner I can say for certain that running 26.2 miles repeatedly around a track is NOT desirable.  Additionally, these types of events would absolutely change the expected traffic on Hwy14/CR17 that was reflected in the EAW. 

3. After saying “no motorcycles” for the last year, now he won’t make a definitive decision on them.  He has people calling to ask about drag racing and while another definitive decision wasn’t declared, now he says it wouldn’t be “dragsters going down the track every single day”. 

4. “Phases”.  Page 5 of the EAW, Section 6: Future Development. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? The box “No” was checked.  The Findings of Fact admits the EAW refers to phase 2 construction elements pertaining to the hotel and golf entertainment center, but those facilities are being reconsidered.  But now, phases are back.  No campground “at this time”.  Future residential condos “may be considered”.

5. Trackside commercial strip mall with automotive services (brakes, accessory sales, mechanic services).  On either end of this “mall” would be a corporate clubhouse and a member clubhouse with food.  This was NOT in the EAW for “future plans”, despite Mr. Bass’s insistence. Page 3 of the EAW: The “Clubhouse” contained: spaces for classrooms, spectator locations, sports shop, food services and suites.  So what would this bring IN to Eagle Lake?

6. While this has been discussed and settled already, Mr. Bass wanted it made clear that they are only paying to bring water and sewer over for their facility, oversizing the line for possible future development would be on the city. 

Other possible changes mentioned: winter driving, residential condos, no snowmobiles, and no sanctioned events without city council approval.  We also weren't given the agreement "exhibits" to review.  

None of this was surprising. Neither was Mr. Bass denying that there were any changes made from the EAW to now.  When I asked why we were past the review process and still discussing what this facility may/may not have or provide/not provide his reply was “What changes have been made?” In the same exchange he admits changes were made to the EAW. But then, “We didn’t change anything”. 

Councilman Ries thinks it’s silly to look forward and scout out potential issues.  “Putting a bandaid on a cut that isn’t there yet” is how he put it.  He too believes nothing in the project has changed and is frustrated people keep questioning the developer (to clarify or explain changes he’s made.)  He is not running for his seat and won’t be apart of the final decision.  If he has problems with residents speaking up about a large project with potential issues, it’s probably good he’s moving on from the city council. 

This proposal didn’t have to be a motorsports park.  It could have been a distribution center.  A truck stop.  A big box store.  A waterpark.  Still – the environmental and development processes would remain.  Would it be as messed up, conflicting, and error ridden as this proposal?  Where it’s relevancy, sustainability and contribution to the area is seemingly undecided months after it’s been reviewed by the public? I guess that depends on who is willing to look the other way.