Developers present $3.4 billion 'Renaissance at Bader Field' plan; commissioners seek details on housing, remediation and local hiring

At an Atlantic County Board of Commissioners meeting, developers for a proposal called "Renaissance at Bader Field" described a multimillion‑dollar redevelopment of the former Bader Field airport that they said would include residences, public retail, a museum and a private motorsport course.

Mike Bender, identified in the presentation as a project principal, said the proposal includes roughly 1,700 residences, retail and public space and a motorsport course in a bowl‑shaped site. "We know every inch of Bader Field. Been fortunate to have local, engineers and international engineers, help us with our strategies. So we've done extensive testing. We know where the PFAS is. We know how to remediate it," Bender said. Dan Gallagher, the project's tax and finance attorney, and Sonny McCullough, a project representative, joined the presentation.

The developers described major infrastructure and sustainability features: raising site grades by bringing in roughly 2.5 million cubic yards of soil, a marina, two parking garages, about 450,000 square feet of retail open to the public, a museum, a district energy plan with geothermal wells and a hydrogen microgrid, and solar generation. The presentation said the project would include 406 affordable and workforce housing units, with developers estimating about 200 affordable units within that total. The group estimated total investment at about $3.4 billion and said substantial private pre‑sales of residences and memberships would support financing.

Commissioners pressed on several points. Commissioner Gatto asked for a basic explanation for members of the public unfamiliar with the plan. Commissioner Parker asked specifically about the affordable housing mix; Bender said "I think affordable is about 200 of the of the 406," and said the affordable units would not be part of the private automobile‑club membership portion of the development. Commissioners also asked about noise, safety, security and local construction jobs.

On noise, the presenters said extensive sound testing showed peak readings in monitored neighborhoods of about 50 decibels and emphasized that the course sits in a bowl. On safety and access, the developers said use of the track would be restricted to certified drivers and members, and that security leadership included Jim DiOrio, identified as the former head of the New Jersey FBI office.

When asked about local contracting and labor, presenters said they had a project labor agreement and that construction managers included major firms; they said the construction managers had committed to keeping work in Atlantic City and surrounding areas. "They're very cognizant beyond the PLA that we're gonna put in place. Very cognizant about keeping the work here," Sonny McCullough said.

Developers described outstanding approvals and next steps. They said the project has been through years of state review and that Green Acres provisions were among the last outstanding items to resolve; the team said they expected to complete necessary state steps and then proceed with the redevelopment agreement with the city. When asked what would bring the project to finality, Gallagher said the proponents had moved from a memorandum of understanding to a redevelopment agreement with the city and that some state approvals were still required, naming the Division of Local Government Services (DCA) among agencies involved in the review.

Developers also described a tax‑relief mechanism tied to bringing new ratables into the city and a proposal to put part of the purchase price toward what they described as Atlantic City's outstanding junk bond obligations. Commissioner Risley and other board members said the presentation warranted committee review; the chair asked that the economic development and tourism committee examine any request for a county resolution of support.

The presentation drew public comments both supporting and urging scrutiny. A member of the public asked the board to endorse the project with a resolution; the chair said requests for resolutions typically are routed to the appropriate committee for due diligence.

The developers made data and studies available in a project data room and encouraged commissioners and staff to review environmental and engineering reports before taking further action.

Ending

The board did not vote on the project. County staff and commissioners directed that the presentation and the developers' materials go to the relevant committee for further review; commissioners signaled they would expect additional detail on environmental remediation, affordable housing counts, workforce and contracting plans, and any final state approvals before considering a resolution of support.