By Michael Howell
Motor sports enthusiasts pushing for the development of a stock car racing track at the Ravalli County Fairgrounds have pulled back on the throttle and the meeting scheduled by the County Commissioners on November 9 for a possible decision on the issue has been cancelled. Jeff Carter, Fair Commission member and advocate for the racetrack, said that more time was needed to gather the data necessary to address the concerns that have been raised by residents living near the fairgrounds.
Carter said he was looking to find common ground and get more information about people’s concerns, “so we can meet in the middle.” He said he had just had a quick conversation with the head of engineering at the Butte School of Mines and Engineering and that Montana Tech is involved in stock car racing and he was interested in doing a study of the facility. He said Larry Hunter, a professor of Environmental Engineering at Montana Tech, who heads up Senior Projects, said that it could be a model for improving sound mitigation features and could be used all over the country.
“We’ve never said it’s something you are not going to hear. It’s just another noise that’s part of being in town,” said Carter. “Towns grow, there’s more noise and we’ve got to get along. It will be good for businesses, good for kids and families, good for everybody.” He submitted a “contact list” with 880 names and contact information who had signed up at their booth at the Fair this past year, who he said would be in favor of the development.
He was asked by a member of the audience if his position as a Fair Commissioner and as chief spokesman for the “unofficial” motor sports group proposing the facility constituted a conflict of interest.
“I volunteered for the Fair Board and my interest in motor sports is not a conflict,” said Carter.
About seventeen people, most of them residents living near the Fairgrounds, spoke against the proposal. Pershing Parker, a resident of The Arbors subdivision, said he was there to express his “shock and outrage at the proposal.” He (and others) said it would create a public nuisance with its noise, smells, dust, traffic, alcohol, depressed property values. Many expressed concern about the lack of any written plan or any data concerning the noise and other potential impacts. Parker said he did a house count and that it would negatively impact about 1, 248 people in the area.
“There is no common ground,” said Parker.
His wife, Muriel, said, “I don’t want to leave. Who would buy my property?” She said she was not against building a racetrack but that it should not be at the expense of people who already live in the area.
“Do not let this happen,” she pleaded. “Be the commissioners who will protect Hamilton and keep it the place we all love.”
Joyce Hellick, who lives 1,000 feet from the proposed site, said, “Not in our backyard, please!”
Four people spoke in favor of the proposal.
Jean Lewis said, “I’ve lived near the Fairgrounds for twenty years and I don’t see any impacts.”
Adel Howard said that she had lived here all her life and was for it. She said she had three kids with an interest in cars and motorcycles and that it was a “family friendly activity.”
Dean Allen said he had a son into it and he was “100% for it.”
Lisa Dunham said that the stock car tracks in Great Falls were in the middle of town and there was no problem. She said there was a subdivision a few miles from the one in Belgrade and a little one right next to it. She said it would be a benefit for kids.
In closing, Carter said that he would like to explore things, to get Montana Tech on board, “to at least look into what’s out there, what’s available and what we could do with it.”
Commissioner Doug Schallenberger said, “I think we have a very good idea of how the people are feeling on both sides.” He said this is a process and both sides have a right to go through the process. “You are doing the right thing. You are letting people know your opinion and it is a process. So hang in there and try to keep it civil.”
Commission Chair Jeff Burrows asked about the possibility of looking for another location.
Carter said, “We have not looked at any other property yet. We feel it is an appropriate spot.”
Fairgrounds manager Deborah Rogala explained that it is the Fair Commission that is bringing the idea forward because in a six-year-long planning effort looking at ideas it was the motor sports development that the most people asked for. So the Fair Commission has taken that to heart and brought this forward as a conduit for this portion of the public that came and asked for it.
“So that is why the Fair Commission has come forward and asked if it is appropriate,” said Rogala. “That is why we have come and opened this up again because it’s a big question and it is not up to the Fair Commission, the community must decide.” She said it is the County Commissioners who represent the whole community who must make the decision.
Commissioner Ray Hawk said, “You guys really haven’t gone out and looked for another place?”
“No,” said Carter.
“Are you going to?” asked Hawk.
Carter said, “At this point, it’s really difficult without hurting some feelings to say what I have to say so I’m not going to say it.”
“I guess I don’t understand that,” said Hawk. “How does that answer my question? So you are not going to go out and look for other property. Is that correct?”
“We believe it is the appropriate spot,” said Carter.
Commissioner J. R. Iman said that in the Fair Commission’s process a lot of ideas were brought forward for possible uses of the location but one thing different about this proposal was that all the others were based on the county providing the infrastructure, the buildings and the sewer and other things. But, he said, this particular proposal is being sponsored by a group that proposes to handle that at their own expense.
“I asked at a previous meeting if they have any resources. I think that’s a pretty important thing and something we have to consider,” said Iman.
Iman compared it to the subdivision process where impacts to the community are addressed. He said there is no subdivision process for county-owned land so this was the process for that and the commission needs to ask about the impacts on the public. He said the frequency of the activity is important because everyone in the Stonegate subdivision has signed onto a covenant that they will not sue over the noise at the Fairgrounds during the Fair. He said it was a restriction covering one week of activity and now they are considering an activity that may occur 8 to 10 weeks during the summer.
“That’s something different,” said Iman. He said the question of location must be addressed and it is an ongoing process. He said the only obligation for Stonegate residents is that they cannot object to the Fair’s one week of activities. “But if one week is acceptable, is 8 or 10 weeks acceptable? We have to decide that before we allow a new activity in an area where we have decided through a long process that houses can exist,” said Iman.
Commissioner Greg Chilcott said, “I think the big question here is what kind of neighbors we want to be to the people in Stonegate, Arbors, etc., and how we can be the best neighbors we can. And we also want to provide opportunities at the Fairgrounds to maximize the use of taxpayers’ property and how we can explore those options.”
Chilcott said the Fair Board has brought forth an option and it needs to be considered and the effects it may have on neighboring residents. He said there was some hesitation on the part of that board because “what was brought forward was kind of fluffy. There was a theory, but there was not a whole lot of data to support conclusions, especially when we talk about the nuisance factor of noise and dust.” He said he appreciated that the Fair Board and the sports group were willing to put the brakes on, slow up and see what they can find out from the Montana School of Mines and get better data to resolve some of the conflicting claims.
“This way we will know what we have in terms of impacts and how to mitigate them,” said Chilcott. “And if it can’t be mitigated, I’m pretty reluctant to allow it if we can’t mitigate those nuisance impacts.”
No date was set for any future meetings.