message board home
Next
1/22/2008 6:12:25 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 527611
|
||||||
|
Worcester County will receive a percent of total income. The county keeps 70%, OC gets 20% and Berlin 10%. The Delaware comparison was based on their total income from approximately 2000 machines. Machines here are likely to produce more per machine. What this area has that few others have is that it is already a major destination location. At any rate, based on 2000 machines here making the same as the one in Delaware, the County share would be in the range of 10 to 12 million. 10% of that is 1.2 million -- EVERY year. The amount in the news release is based on early start up income as all 2000 or so machines will not go online immediately. IOW, the news release intentionally minimizes the potential income as a means to support the decision. The lack of good projections and activities happening out of the control of the County and State seem to be just one of the many problems in relying on something as variable and volatile as slots to fix budget deficits. The county share (excluding OC and Berlin) will be spent as decided by the Worcester County Commissioners. There is a Council created in the legislation, but it is purely advisory. The county makes the final decisions on where the money is spent, so long as the spending complies with those purposes stipulated in the bill. The bill is vague on how OC and Berlin income can be spent. My take is these entities will receive cash and make their own decisions without any Council advice. I'd also assume the money would have to be spent on items conforming with the bill. Now, as to OPA, I believe if OPA were to be granted a state mandated 10% share, the funds could legally be spent on our police department, if nothing else. As for the state saying NO to projects, that is not likely to happen. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: No, I do not automatically believe everything that comes out in an OPA press release. Based on the group involved with this issue though, I believe there to be credibility. I recall the earlier posts about the revenue in Dover and how that served as a basis for the projected revenue in Worcester County. I'm not clear though how the Dover revenue was extrapolated to figure what revenue would stay in stay in Dover versus what would come to Ocean Downs. I'm trying to locate the backup documentation the State used to even come up w/ their projections. Overall, I think the matter of projections will be further complicated by other actions within Maryland and the adjacent states. Pennsylvania now has slots so West Virginia will progress to gaming tables, and PA is also predicting they will have gaming tables within the year. Delaware is discussing gaming tables. Baltimore is exploring slots and gaming tables. Non-profit groups in the lower shore are anxious for slots. All of this will have an impact on the projected revenue for Maryland in general and Worcester specifically. The lack of good projections and activities happening out of the control of the County and State seem to be just one of the many problems in relying on something as variable and volatile as slots to fix budget deficits. Do you have insight as to how the community grants will be distributed--whether or not the intended recipients will have to formally apply to the state for their "appropriation". I ask because the legislation clearly states that these funds are intended for use by the affected areas to offset impacts from slots. How will the State confirm this? I imagine there will be some process beyond just cutting checks and it doesn't appear to be a current practice of Ocean Pines to apply for grants. I think this should change--we are surely missing other opportunities from other sources--but in the meantime, I would have concerns about us following through to seek funds if there was a formal process (and especially if it involved impact metrics). And if there's a formal application process, there is also the possibility that the State could say no. This could especially be a possibility if the actual revene doesn't track with the projected revenue. There's just so many questions and unknowns.
|
