NEW FOR TUESDAY: Table Games Still Under ‘Consideration’; Casino Adding Parking, Satisfied With Flat Revenue

SNOW HILL — Table games at the Casino at Ocean Downs are under “serious consideration,” according to General Manager Joe Cavilla, but there are no concrete plans in place currently.

Cavilla was on hand during this week’s Local Development Council (LDC) meeting to update the group on what’s new with Ocean Downs. He said improvements are being made to parking and the race track. Additionally, Cavilla confirmed that casino revenue this year has been “flat” with what was earned last year, though a strong summer is anticipated.

“Table games are being seriously considered is the way I would put it at this point,” Cavilla told the LDC after being asked if the casino was moving in that direction. “That is a lot of construction that would have to happen at the facility to bring them in. Because of how restrictive the original license was, there weren’t a lot of extra things done to the building to bring it on line.”

When the much-discussed state legislation approving table games passed last year, Cavilla said that Ocean Downs was glad to have the option opened up but isn’t willing to go the same route as some larger casinos and remove slot machines to make room for table games like poker, black jack or roulette.

“We did not feel it was in our best interest to remove 300-400 machines because of our size to bring table games in,” he said.

Even if the casino was willing to sacrifice machines for tables, Cavilla pointed out that the facility would still lack some of the secondary infrastructure in place to support table games.

However, Cavilla revealed that his organization is still weighing making significant structural upgrades to allow the installation of table games and expects an announcement either way in the near future. After discussing table games, he also spoke about the casino’s slot revenue for the year, which is about even with last year.

“The revenue for the casino is flat with last year right now,” Cavilla said. “Last year we were able to report some decent growth but right now it’s pretty much flat.”

In December of 2012, the casino had posted roughly $46.5 million in revenue for the calendar year-to-date. 

There are a number of reasons for this stagnation, according to Cavilla, not the least of which was the opening of the Maryland Live! Casino in Anne Arundel County this fall. Though the location is well-removed from Worcester County, it still serves to draw off some business, especially from gamblers across the bay, said Cavilla. With all things considered, he added that maintaining revenue rates this year has been better than anticipated.

“Quite frankly I am pretty satisfied that we are flat,” Cavilla said.

There might be some light on the horizon as well, he continued, with Ocean Downs expecting a very healthy summer this year in terms of tourism in the county. Citing early hotel bookings as one indicator of a strong upcoming tourism season, Cavilla told the LDC that a lot of signs are pointing to a busy summer, which generally translates into healthy revenue for the casino.

While not directly related to slots, Cavilla also spoke about some improvements being made to the Ocean Downs’ facility and its harness-racing track.

“As far as the activity on the property right now, you’ll see that we’re constructing parking lots out front,” he said. “Some of the construction was delayed due to the rain, unfortunately. We’re also doing some improvements to the race track itself.”

With the addition of stabling areas, Cavilla explained that the track at Ocean Downs will be able to hold more horses for events with less hassle.

“We’ll be able to handle a significantly larger number of horses during a race meet without having to swap them in and out throughout the evening,” he said.

The racing calendar has also been expanded to 48 days for next season, an increase of four days from last summer. The schedule hasn’t been released yet, though Cavilla expects its publication soon.

After hearing Cavilla’s report, Snow Hill Mayor Charlie Dorman, who was recently added to the LDC, asked his fellow members about the distribution of casino funds to the area. Ocean Downs contributes a portion of all slot revenue to Worcester at large and several local municipalities. Dorman noted that neither Pocomoke nor his own Snow Hill receive a direct slice of that pie.

“When I look at this breakdown of the revenue you have here, I don’t see Snow Hill getting anything; I don’t see Pocomoke getting anything,” he said. “And I wonder why.”

The revenue from the slots is significant. Ocean City received over $433,000 in funds last year while both Berlin and Ocean Pines received more than $216,000. Worcester County itself received nearly $1.3 million in Fiscal Year 2012 not counting the funding given to local communities.

County Public Information Officer Kim Moses explained that when Ocean Downs was given permission to add slot machines the owner agreed to supply a portion of that revenue to the county as well as Ocean Pines, Ocean City and Berlin, the three communities that would be impacted by the slots and might have to deal with things like extra traffic or calls for police and emergency services. Though Pocomoke and Snow Hill aren’t considered directly impacted by the slots and therefore don’t receive individual funding, the money that goes to the county at large can help those towns, according to Moses.

For example, slot revenue was used to purchase additional county police vehicles as well as pay debt service on the Worcester Technical High School, which is located in Snow Hill and serves the entire county.

“That doesn’t help Snow Hill,” argued Dorman.

His community is the poorest in Worcester, the mayor continued, and would benefit greatly from direct funding. LDC Vice Chair Jim Rosenberg pointed out that the decision on how revenue is dispersed was made at the state level. The council has the option of discussing the dispersal with state delegates if they so choose but “can’t demand anything,” he concluded. The matter was left there without any formal decision on whether to try to change how funds are dispersed.

New Policies Put In Place At First Subcommittee Meeting

OCEAN CITY – The newly reinstated Ocean City Recreation and Parks Committee met for the first time in two-plus years this week, laying the ground work for the upcoming meetings with all Mayor and City Council standing committees and commissions to ease any concerns.

Shortly after the last time the Recreation and Parks Committee met, the former council majority voted to disband the individual meetings of City Council legislative committees and commissions to have departments report to the Mayor and City Council in front of the public at City Hall during scheduled legislative sessions instead.

Following last November’s election, as well as a flip of the council majority, Councilman Joe Mitrecic moved to have the committees and commissions reinstated. The council voted 5-2 to approve, with council members Brent Ashley and Margaret Pillas opposed.

Pillas and Ashley held strong to the reasoning behind the disbandment in the first place, and that is to conduct all city business in the council chambers at the same time and in front of the public. Ashley and Pillas did not volunteer to serve on committees and commissions and stated last week they will participate when those committee and commission discussions are reported back the Mayor and City Council.

On Tuesday morning, the Recreation and Parks Committee met at Northside Park. Appointed Councilmen Joe Mitrecic and Dennis Dare were present, accompanied by City Manager David Recor, Recreation and Parks Director Tom Shuster and Assistant Recreation and Parks Director Susan Petito. Council President Lloyd Martin was absent.

First on the agenda was the election of a chairperson. Councilman Dennis Dare motioned for Mitrecic, and the remainder of the committee was in consensus.

Next the committee decided to switch up the traditional meeting time of the Recreation and Parks Committee from 9 a.m. prior to the first work session of each month to following it instead.

This was decided to help ease the work load in preparing bi-weekly scheduled closed sessions beginning at noon followed by a public work session at 1 p.m. The next Recreation and Parks Committee meeting will be held Tuesday, April 9, at 4 p.m.

To ease concerns over transparency, Recor made several suggestions on how to proceed in scheduling committee and commission agendas and reporting back to the full Mayor and City Council on the progress made over discussion items.

“As you have probably already learned, I have been implementing a lot of structure, and I think the staff has responded very well to structure and consistency, dependability and liability,” Recor said.

The City Manager’s Office will take over creating the agendas, which will be posted on the city’s website for all to see at least one week prior to the meeting.

Recor also suggested having agenda items assigned for discussion on the committee and commission level during the Mayor and City Council bi-weekly legislative meetings on Monday evenings during council comments and city manager comments.

“Even if it is not a member of the recreation committee that wants to assign an agenda item, they bring it up at the regular meeting and the council decides whether or not it is placed on the agenda,” he said. “The full council is still involved in the discussion of the agenda, and the full council is still involved in a follow-up report, and it is scheduled so that it is known when it will occur.”

Lastly, Recor recommended adding a new section to the Mayor and City Council legislative meetings for reports on committees and commissions under council comments. Reports will be given at the second legislative meeting of every month on the prior week’s committee and commission discussions.

“I am hopeful then we can get everyone on board with the old system but with some new ways of insuring the flow of information,” he said.

Dare added he would also like to see the minutes of the committee and commission meetings posted on the city’s website prior to the report so that topics can be expanded upon.

“I believe those establishments of procedures will proactively address any perceived inefficiencies of the committee and commissions,” Recor said.

Salisbury Okays New Business Disclosure Rules

SALISBURY – The term transparency won over the majority of the City Council this week who voted to have businesses entering into the agreements with the city declare all partners and owners versus the minority who titled the legislation invasive.

A new section has been proposed to be added to the City Code titled, Business Disclosure Form Required, and the provisions require any vendors who contract with Salisbury for more than $3,000 in a single agreement or $10,000 for the fiscal year to fully reveal all partners or owners with more than a 5 percent stake in the company. It would mean that all parties in a LLC or all officers in a corporation would also have to be known before contracting with the city.

Before the legislative agenda was adopted on Monday evening, Councilwoman Laura Mitchell attempted to remove the ordinance and remand it back to work session for further discussion. The motion failed when the majority of the council voted to have the ordinance remain on the agenda for consideration that night.

When the ordinance was up for approval, Mitchell started off by listing several concerns, such as the applicant being required to submit their social security number and date of birth.

“That is an identity theft case waiting to happen,” she said.

Mitchell went on to state the council majority is claiming the intention of the ordinance is rooted in transparency purposes but the forms will not be available to the public unless they request a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

“How does that help with transparency if no one is going to see the information?,” Mitchell asked.

She added the ordinance would go into effect the date of passage and felt that the Procurement Office would have to instantly issue stop work orders for every current project being conducted with the City while the forms are being processed.

Mitchell offered an alternative to have a person filing or bidding on a job for the city to file an affidavit of whether or not they have a conflict of interest and the Procurement office or Board of Appeals would be notified.

“I am not against transparency … there is a better way to do this,” she said. “This is invasive and does not serve the … transparency purpose … I do not believe the public is going to know anymore unless they are paying for a FOIA request and are waiting 30 days at which time the case is already done.”

Councilwoman Shanie Shields stated although she signed the petition to have the new ethics law go into effect she too felt the business ownership form is invasive.

“Most of us that are City of Salisbury residents and have lived here all our lives, we know the people that work here in Salisbury,” she said. “This is invasive … when you have lack of trust, suspicion and paranoia it is seen as going after certain business people in this community.”

Councilman Tim Spies stated every poll and every election cycle brings in a call for greater government transparency from the federal government down to the local governments.

“Our idea is to have equal transparency at the local level and I fully support this because that is what we have been after for years, the public has asked for it for years…but what have we done going towards transparency and the answer is, not very far at all,” he said. “Here is where we do go forward.”

Council Vice President Deborah Campbell agreed the ordinance was initiated due to an outcry from the public for greater transparency.

“They want to know where their money is being spent and with whom, and they were very frustrated when they couldn’t find out,” she said.

Campbell pointed out that most businesses already file similar declarations on the state level, and Salisbury’s one page-form will be no more difficult. She advised City Solicitor Mark Tilghman if he were to come up with an amendment that would allow a vendor to be exempt on the municipal level if they had already gone through the process on a state level, she would make a motion to include that clause at the time of second reading.

“The notion that this is invasive, and it is improper to know who the public’s money is being spent with is just silly, and the public does want to know,” Campbell said.

Council President Terry Cohen concluded the ordinance is a transparency bill plain and simple.

“I have heard tonight, invasive, well we are not asking anyone to file their full tax returns or their accounting records,” she said. “We are just saying please declare who your beneficial owners are 5 percent and above, that’s it.”

The City Council voted 3-2 with Mitchell and Shields opposed to approve the ordinance that will instate businesses entering into agreements or filing appeals with the City of Salisbury will be required to provide business ownership information.