RSS | 
Twitter
| 
Be a fan!
Meetings usher in slots revenue changes
Staff writer
The deadline for local officials and members of nongovernmental agencies to apply for an estimated $12.7 million in the local share of slots revenue from The Meadows Racetrack and Casino will be Friday, Nov. 14.
Rate This Story:
1 the lowest - 5 the highest
Current rating:
"These are not the funds that were designated for tax relief," said Brian Eckert, director of the site development division of the Department of Community and Economic Development, Harrisburg.
Last year - the first year the legislatively-mandated local share became available to the county - agencies and municipalities requested more than $80 million worth of projects for $8 million in slots revenue. The situation has been the same in other counties with casinos falling under similar laws.
About 25 local officials attended the afternoon meeting at the Smith Township municipal building, and another 40 went to the evening gathering at the county office building.
Not among them was state Rep. Jesse White, appointee to the local share committee by the legislative delegation, or any other local legislators because of duties in Harrisburg.
White objected to the process as presented Monday because one-third of the local share was not specifically dedicated to water and sewer projects but instead was lumped in with economic development projects.
Sixty-six municipalities will have the opportunity to compete against each other, however, for one-third of the slots revenue money. North Strabane Township, the host community for The Meadows, has its own revenue stream from slot-machines played there.
"The legislative delegation spent months holding meetings, crafting a plan that would've been apolitical. The commissioners spent all of about four minutes before they decided they didn't want to have anything to do with it," White said Monday from Harrisburg.
"We are ignoring a major, major problem. We had the chance to hit a home run and instead I feel like I'm watching a little foul ball dribble down the line. What this is going to end up being is not what we proposed. We ended up being largely ignored."
Commission Vice Chairman Bracken Burns, who attended both meetings Monday, took a different view.
"If you subdivide it into municipalities or into water and sewage, or into economic development, every time you subdivide it, you tie your own hands," Burns said.
"The reality is, we gave 40 percent to the municipalities, so it isn't all that great a leap of faith to say we'll give a third this time."
Evaluators of projects will be looking at whether applicants have lined up sources of dollars, especially private contributions, in addition to the local share.
"If a municipality applies for filling potholes or building sidewalks, that may not rise to the top," said William McGowen, executive director of the Washington County Redevelopment Authority, which administers the local share. "The review committee doesn't want to see something the municipality should be paying for with taxes." He said evaluators would look favorably on municipalities merging to better take advantage of local share dollars.
Mark Segedi, Ellsworth Borough councilman, has been a vocal critic of the local share process, saying it doesn't help smaller communities. He said after the Washington meeting, "When you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."
Added to the board will be one representative apiece from Tri-County Boroughs Association and one from Second-Class Township Supervisors Association. McGowen no longer will be a member of the local share committee.
Commission Chairman Larry Maggi said the redevelopment authority wears many hats in the process, promoting the local share, receiving streamlined applications and assisting applicants and administering the program. But McGowen was removed to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest because the agency receives administrative fees from DCED.
For the first time, applicants can apply online by accessing www.racw.net.
Washington Councilman Matt Staniszewski said, "We're in a bad situation right now. Things like police cruisers and pavers would help a municipality like ours."
Burns told Staniszewski after the Slovan meeting, "It's not that they're not worthy, they're not eligible. It's job creation and community improvement."
Public hearings on some or all of the proposals are planned for early January. The county commissioners then will recommend projects to DCED, which has the final say by June 30, 2009.
Commissioners are morons : 9/23/2008
How is a police cruiser not "community improvement"? I guess it's better to give all the money to all of the Commissioner's cronies with failing industrial parks like Alta Vista instead of actually helping people. Jessie White is totally right and the County Commissioners are totally wrong.
Different view : 9/23/2008
I think that we are getting exactly what the legislators approved and the county has simply put in place a system that seems to work with the guidelines the legislators voted on. If a police crusier is not considered "community improvement" it is the legislators who are at fault because they approved the legislation and the guidelines. The legislators should have just given all the money to tax relief.
Here's a thought . . . : 9/24/2008
Why not take 50% of the money and pay for a regional police force, or expand the County Sheriff's responsibilities to include policing the municipalities in the county?
