By DONALD WITTKOWSKI
In his strongest statement yet about the project, Mayor Jay Gillian outlined a series of “benefits” he wants for Ocean City from the developer of a wind energy farm that is proposed off the South Jersey coast and would include massive turbine blades visible from the shoreline.
Speaking at a City Council meeting Thursday night, Gillian said that the “overwhelming number” of residents he has listened to have expressed concerns about the Ocean Wind project that would be built by the Danish energy company Orsted.
“I understand that federal and state decision makers have the power to approve this project without Ocean City’s consent, but I intend to do everything in my power to advocate for Ocean City’s best interests,” he said. “Let me be clear. I do not intend to be an obstructionist, but it’s my job to look out for Ocean City.”
He noted that Ocean Wind representatives have reached out to his administration and want to discuss “potential host community benefits.” Gillian said he plans to push for the following benefits:
- The giant turbines that will generate wind power should not be seen from the shoreline, he said. He also said the project can be altered by the federal government’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to eliminate the visual impact of the turbines from the beach.
- The project should not move forward until all concerns of the fishing communities are adequately addressed.
- The project should not move forward until any potential threats to the environment and the public are addressed.
- Finally, Ocean Wind should provide Ocean City with an annual impact fee and fund a flood-mitigation project in the area where transmission lines would cross under the island.
“There is no way it can be constructed without making a direct impact on Ocean City,” Gillian said of the wind farm.
Orsted representatives has been talking to Ocean City about the possibility of running underground electric cables through town to connect the offshore turbines to a substation next to the decommissioned B.L. England Generating Station in Marmora. B.L. England is under consideration as one of the sites where Orsted would link the wind farm to the land-based power grid.
Among the major concerns raised by opponents of the project are the wind farm’s possible negative impacts on tourism, the commercial fishing industry and the environment, including marine life and migratory birds.
The project would include 99 wind turbines, each about 900 feet tall, stretching down the coast from Atlantic City to Stone Harbor about 15 miles offshore, passing by Ocean City in the process.
Opponents say the towering wind turbines would create a visual blight when viewed from the shoreline. They also fear that migratory birds would be killed by the spinning turbine blades
Orsted is now going through a rigorous government permitting process expected to take two years to complete. Under the latest timetable, the project would be finished by 2024.
Gov. Phil Murphy has touted the Ocean Wind project as a form of clean energy, making it a centerpiece of his goal to have at least 7,500 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in New Jersey by 2035.
Orsted plans to hold a public meeting in Ocean City, scheduled for 10 a.m. Nov. 6 at the Music Pier, to outline the project. Gillian is urging residents and anyone else interested in the project to attend the meeting. He said he is asking Orsted to “provide answers to all of the public’s questions” during the meeting.
Ocean City’s Council members have been among the strongest critics of the wind farm project – repeatedly expressing their concerns and opposition for the past year.
In June, Council voted 7-0 to approve a resolution that denounced state legislation that makes it easier for Orsted to build the project by stripping away local control over transmission lines and other onshore infrastructure from municipalities and county government in an effort to fast-track the project.
One of the wind farm’s most outspoken opponents, former Councilman Michael DeVlieger, who stepped down from the governing body in August, reiterated his concerns about the project during public remarks at Thursday night’s meeting.
“If they pull this off, I think we should fight it to the end,” DeVlieger said of Orsted moving ahead with the project.
DeVlieger told Council that there is simply “too much at risk here” to Ocean City’s tourism industry and the environment. He joined Gillian in urging the public to attend the Nov. 6 meeting, saying that “there’s a lot of questions to be asked.”
He also criticized the new state law that removes local oversight power of the project. The law allows wind farms to obtain easements, rights-of-way or other property rights from any level of government that are needed to build the project. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, or BPU, would make a final decision if local approvals are withheld by towns or counties.
“It blows my mind that they have stripped us of home rule,” DeVlieger said.
In other business at the meeting, Council debated whether it was proper for Gillian’s administration to use an engineering consultant, ACT Engineers, to pursue a $2 million grant for the city under a professional services contract.
The Council members said they supported seeking the grant, but questioned the legality of allowing ACT to do it under a purchase order that they said should have been closed after one year.
City Business Administrator George Savastano responded that Council’s questions amounted to “nit-picking” and should never have been brought up at the meeting. He repeatedly said that ACT’s work was done properly under the purchase order.
The city was ultimately unsuccessful in trying to obtain the grant. It would have helped fund a proposal to use sediment from the city’s dredging projects to rebuild the eroded shoreline of Shooting Island, a neighboring islet that serves as a barrier to protect Ocean City from storms.
Dave Breeden, president of the local taxpayer group Fairness In Taxes, originally questioned the legality of ACT’s work. Breeden told Council in public remarks Thursday that he reviewed ACT’s invoices and came to the conclusion that “ACT Engineering has abused this town.”
Council members Bob Barr, Keith Hartzell and Tom Rotondi followed up on Breeden’s remarks with questions of their own about the legality of ACT’s work under a purchase order they thought should have been closed after a year.
Rotondi wondered whether the Gillian administration had tried “an end around” by not telling Council about ACT’s work. Savastano responded to Council’s questions by saying, “We’re not doing anything wrong.”
Agreeing with Savastano, Councilman Peter Madden argued that Council was wasting time questioning the Gillian administration’s use of ACT Engineers to try to secure the Shooting Island grant.
“I think nit-picking is putting it lightly,” Madden said.
ACT Engineers has served as a key Ocean City consultant since 2015 for an array of flooding and dredging projects. In all, it has secured at least 40 contracts totaling $7.3 million from the city since then, according to Fairness In Taxes, or FIT.
In recent months, however, ACT Engineers has drawn criticism from Council and from groups such as FIT and the Ocean City Flooding Committee for the amount of money it has charged the city for its consulting work.
Earlier in the year, during a debate over another contract for ACT Engineers, Council agreed to create a pool of prequalified vendors that would compete for the city’s engineering work. Council said competition among the engineering firms would help the city obtain the best prices for contracts.
