Reading all 379 messages in thread
message board home

1/22/2008 5:31:01 PM

Reply or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board
Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 527583

From:

Ted Moroney Past OPA Board Member 2018-2019

Joined 7/15/2006

To:

Roseann Bridgman (Read)

Joined 5/19/2004

Roseann,

I was thinking about your statement that, We need that ombudsman. I think there is merit to that approach if the association wants to proceed with a campaign to amend the current legislation. No member of our Board is a professional lobbyist with extensive knowledge of the ways of Annapolis, and several of them have full time jobs that limit the total amount of time they can devote to this effort when combined with their Board and family responsibilities.

Perhaps a community leader with the time to volunteer, an understanding of the process and a willingness to lead the effort will emerge. If not, short of hiring a lobbyist to direct the process, I don't see how this can get done.

I wonder what the response of the community would be if the Board stated that they did not have the expertise and/or time to pursue the matter but were authorizing the hiring of a lobbyist at $xxxxx.xx to see the amendments through. I suggest that a number of people would not support spending money on lobbying efforts and would suggest those interested should form a political action committee and work through that group.

Just some thoughts!

Ted

For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:

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 Worcester County delegate doesn’t have the clout to get this past the General Assembly and the governor.

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 Worcester County. Legal challenges could be brought but, again IMHO, it would be a waste of time and taxpayers’ money and will simply postpone the inevitable. I do not believe such challenges would prevail. Worcester County is only one little dot in the overall scheme of things.

It was established that if “slots” for Worcester County are eventually approved, that Worcester County would receive local impact grants based on a percentage of gross “revenues” from those “slots.” Of that revenue, 70% will be “controlled” by the Worcester County Commissioners, 20% will revert to the Town of Ocean City, and 10% will revert to the Town of Berlin.

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 Worcester County is the status of Rt. 589 and its related improvements should “slots” be approved. The bill states that the State of Maryland SHALL take the necessary steps to ensure that the plans for the improvements and enhancements to MD route 589 are “under development on or before the date on which the video lottery facility (slots) at the Worcester County location is operational and open to the public.”

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.

message board home

Calendar