OC Officials Delay Vote On CIP

OC Officials Delay Vote On CIP
Photo by Chris Parypa

OCEAN CITY – Citing concerns about the placement of certain projects, officials in Ocean City last week agreed to postpone the approval of the town’s capital improvement plan.

Last week, the council agreed to postpone the approval of the capital improvement plan (CIP) for fiscal year 2024. Council President Matt James said the delay would give staff additional time to rework the planning document and push both the Baltimore Avenue and sports complex projects to the following year.

“Maybe we give some direction to update these numbers and come back and present them again,” he said.

The draft CIP was first presented to the Mayor and Council in January. And last month, the council reviewed the project rankings and the selection of projects that were included in the fiscal year 2024 budget.

While the proposed planning document classifies projects by level of importance – with number one being the most critical projects and number five being the least – a bulk of recent discussions have centered around the major renovation of the Baltimore Avenue corridor and its placement on the priority list. Ultimately, the council agreed to keep the Baltimore Avenue redevelopment at its current ranking of three, but to put a pause on the project until grant opportunities could be explored.

“I currently have this debt service chart unchanged from our meeting on Feb. 14, so it’s still showing all $44 million in the Baltimore Avenue project as town bonds,” City Engineer Paul Mauser told the council last week. “And we’re proposing to make that 50% town bonds and 50% grants, since that is the current direction of the project.”

During last week’s discussion, James said he wanted to see both the Baltimore Avenue project and the sports complex project moved to fiscal year 2025 in the town’s CIP.

“We have both the sports complex and Baltimore Avenue on here,” he said. They are pretty large numbers with no real clear direction on either one of those topics at this time. I would prefer to pull those out. We don’t even have a piece of property identified for the sports complex, and at the last meeting we decided to pause Baltimore Avenue, not knowing exactly how we wanted to move forward.”

However, Council Secretary Tony DeLuca argued both projects should be made a higher priority in the town’s CIP. He said he would not vote on the planning document as presented.

“I just can’t comprehend that Baltimore Avenue and the sports complex are priority number three,” he said. “In my mind they should at least be number twos.”

Councilman Peter Buas also shared his objections to the proposed CIP and the council’s decision to pause the Baltimore Avenue corridor project.

“How are we supposed to convince our partners to invest in us when we refuse to invest in ourselves?” he said. “How are we supposed to convince the state to eventually fund a new bridge when it will dump directly into a road that looks like it does currently? How are we supposed to convince our visitors that we’re a world-class resort when we refuse to take a big swing on a project that will dramatically improve the entrance to town? And how are we supposed to convince our business partners to invest in their own facade when we refuse to create an environment that will encourage commerce on that corridor?”

He argued the town should continue the work it started on the Baltimore Avenue corridor.

“We’ve invested heavily, millions, in the plan and our residents deserve to see it through,” he said. “Pausing the project is a missed opportunity, and having the state come and pave the road is short-sighted.”

During last week’s discussion, James also questioned the proposed tennis center renovation projects. He pointed out the draft CIP had budgeted more than $1.5 million in fiscal year 2025 to transform the courts and construct a new building and deck.

“At first, we heard from the director of recreation that the deck may need to be replaced, so we may just need to tear down the whole building,” he said. “Then engineering suggested that the building is actually structurally sound. Is that correct?”

Mauser said that no major structural issues had been identified.

“There are no major structural issues at this time that need to be addressed immediately,” he replied.

James said he wanted to see the project pushed to future years.

“I would prefer to see that put down the road a little further if it’s not deplorable,” he said. “I don’t think we should be spending that money just because we had an idea.”

City Manager Terry McGean noted that the project was currently ranked as number four, less important, and would not be funded immediately.

“Even though it shows up in the CIP that way, typically when you actually go to the bond market, you are typically not funding projects that are ranked that low,” he explained.

With two council members absent and concerns raised about proposed projects listed in the CIP, the council ultimately agreed to postpone approval of the planning document to the next work session in March.

“The only thing we’re going to need an immediate vote on is not the bond projects, but the general fund projects that are shown in FY24,” McGean said. “That’s what we’ll need quickly. The bond projects we don’t vote on until we go to the bond market, but we can certainly move them so the plan reflects them happening in future years.”

About The Author: Bethany Hooper

Alternative Text

Bethany Hooper has been with The Dispatch since 2016. She currently covers various general stories. Hooper graduated from Stephen Decatur High School in 2012 and the University of Maryland in 2016, where she completed double majors in journalism and economics.