![]() ![]() ![]() Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 527497
|
||||||
Joe: Below is my response (blue) to the Board opinion on slots. I do not believe that we as voters have to sit back and do nothing. Let's move forward--we can at least do an email and phone campaign. Anyone interested? It was established that there is still the possibility that if “slots” are approved in the 2008 state-wide referendum, that the Worcester County Commissioners could, conceivably, attempt to “rezone” the area to “exclude slots.” They may attempt; but IMHO this is not going to happen. The It was established that if “slots” are approved by the state-wide referendum in 2008, that possible legal challenges could emerge to try to prevent them from being placed in It was established that if “slots” for It was established that HB3 establishes a 15-member Local Development Council (I think we should be talking to Mayor Rick Meehan and have some input to the 11 members that he can appoint to the Council) that shall review and comment on the multi-year plan prepared by the County for the use of the grant funding before the County may expend these funds. Local impact grants may be used for the following purposes: 1. infrastructure improvements 2. facilities 3. public safety 4. sanitation 5. economic and community development, including housing 6. other public services and improvements. It was established that one of the ‘keys’ to the “slots referendum” in It was established that under projected, optimum conditions, that the maximum amount of “slots revenue” that would be generated to Ocean Pines, if Ocean Pines was classified as a community that had a “10%” share of a surplus,” would be approximately $300,000 - $500,000 per year rather then the purported “millions of dollars” that have been speculated on. I believe it will be a lot more down the pike. It was the opinion of Directors Purcell, Rakow, and Sterrett that Ocean Pines would be better served, in the long run, by enhancing and maintaining a close, working-relationship with the Worcester County Commissioners on any slot-related issue or any revenue sharing issue rather than demanding Ocean Pines be designated a specific percentage of some anticipated, but unknown, “slot” revenue. We believe that through this relationship, Ocean Pines would be given a fair consideration from the impacts of “slots” and other economic matters affecting our Association. I would certainly hope so, too, but you are dealing with politicians. It was the opinion of Directors Purcell, Rakow, and Sterrett that the Local Development Council, with the appropriate representation, would present Ocean Pines with its “best chance” of future consideration of ‘need-related, revenue sharing’ and ‘community use’ of any “extra revenue” available; whether related to ‘slots’ or not. It was also felt that the need for Ocean Pines to maintain a compatible, cordial, and professional relationship with our Worcester County Commissioners far outweighs any theoretical enhancement of Ocean Pines’ coffers due to an as-yet-undetermined, slots-related process. OPA’s relationship with the commissioners may well be compatible, cordial and professional, but I believe that the county sees OP as perfectly capable of taking care of itself (spending its own dollars) and the county will continue to put its revenues elsewhere in the county until such time as OP stands on its hind legs and complains. We need that ombudsman. |
||||||
|
||||||
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: How has the BoD failed....since they did step up and have meetings etc. Isn't that what we wanted? Yes, that is true and if Del. Mathias cross-files it in the House...it will likely pass....if we get support from the Western counties. Why has the board failed? Fairly obvious to me -- the failure rests in deciding to not even try. And no, I for one was expecting a try, not just a couple of private meetings. |