Commissioner Gary V. Hodge (D, District 4) this week adamantly denied that any of his fellow commissioners had stated or intended that the proposed Waldorf Baseball Stadium and Entertainment Complex would generate enough revenue to be self-sustaining.

But he didn't mention statements solicited from senior county staff by Commissioners President F. Wayne Cooper (D).

Taxpayer revenue will indeed be used to pay back the debt the county has incurred to pay for the project, Hodge stated this week.

“What we said was that revenue would cover one half of the bond,” Hodge told The Bay Net at Tuesday’s commissioner press briefing. 

Hodge, speaking on behalf of the board, further explained that the stadium offers a substantial quality of life benefit for the county which the board feels is worth using tax-dollars to pay for one half its debt service costs annually.

However, Hodge's statement contradicts a statement made by the county's captial projects chief last month, on Wednesday, May 23, after the commissioners announced the winning construction bid for the project.

Addressing citizens’ concerns over using taxpayer funds to pay for the stadium, Cooper made a point of confirming with Melvin "Chuck" Beall Jr., the county's chief of capital projects, that the project’s intention was indeed to generate enough funds through baseball and event revenue to cover the cost of the maximum annual $850,000 bond payment.

"I think a lot of people are very concerned that we should be doing other things with the money, other than building a stadium," Cooper said, addressing Beall last month. "And I think we need to clarify that the majority of the money will come in from the stadium that will be making payments towards the bonds. When [the stadium’s] being used for other activities throughout the year is the real key to this, to where we should not only make [the bond payment] through the stadium and the baseball league, or close to making it, ...but the other items should cover all that to where it’s really not going to take money from the tax payers other than from the entertainment for their visiting the center and using the center. Is that still correct? Or has this amount of money changed any of that?”

Beall answered, “No, I think it is still the ... expectation that that will, in fact, happen.”

“OK, so you still feel comfortable that the income coming in off of the outdoor entertainment complex will cover the bond policy?” Cooper asked.

“Yes, sir,” Beall answered.

The county’s contract with Maryland Baseball, LLC. guarantees $250,000 annually or percentages of the revenue generated by the franchise, whichever is greater. In addition to baseball generated revenue (from its 70 seasonal games) the county owns the stadium outright and will also receive revenue generated by rental fees when the complex is used for other events. 

If the yet-to-be-formed Maryland Blue Crabs, in their first season together, in an unfamiliar area and stadium, fail to draw the crowds, and the stadium fails to draw other events, then about $600,000 of taxpayer funds will be used to cover the portion of the bond payment not met by the complex’s revenue. That’s $200,000 more than the amount Hodge stated was worth the county’s annual investment.

WC:      Bonding the project.  I think a lot of people are very concerned that we should be doing other things with the money, other than building a stadium.  And I think we need to clarify that the majority of the money will come in from the stadium that will be making payments towards the bonds.  When its [the stadium’s] being used for other activities throughout the year is the real key to this, to where we should not only make it through the stadium and the baseball league, or close to making it –paying the bonds- but the other items should cover all that to where it’s really not going to take money from the tax payers other than from the entertainment for their visiting the center and using the center.  Is that still correct?  Or has this amount of money changed any of that?

CB:       No, I think it is still the-- the expectation that that will, in fact, happen.

WC:      OK, so you still feel comfortable that the income coming in off of the outdoor entertainment complex will cover the bond policy?  The fees that we will – not the fees but the cost of the bonds, to repay the bonds.  

CB:       Yes, sir.

WC:      David, do you feel good about that also?  We have David Eicholtz with us.  Our acting director of the fiscal department.

RF:       And while he’s coming up, recall the concession agreement guarantees you --

WC:      That was my next question.       

RF:       --a minimum of $250,000 of revenues generated by Maryland Baseball.  That’s the minimum.  It actually has percentages of the various things that Maryland Baseball collects revenues on and it can be more than that minimum.  But that’s a guaranteed minimum.

WC:      So if the sales are more the minimum will change, of course.  That’s why you’re saying it can be more.  Yes, David.

DE:      Well, obviously if the stadium can support itself will depend on the participation it gets there.  The amount of events we hold there.   So it’s really dependant on that, Commissioner.

RF:       What’s your estimated annual amortization costs on the principal and interest of our share of the bonds?  Approximately?

DE:      Based on the numbers I’ve seen, around 800 – 850,000 a year.

WC:      OK.  I think on the states behalf, the tax revenue was pretty high, that’s why the State decided to give their 1/3.  So, we need to look at the risk factors, but also, we also –if I’m not mistaken –have revenues coming in off of the sales of say—baseball caps, balls or any type of sales that go on.  Like a 10 or 15% revenue will be coming in.

CB:       Just to recap very quickly.  15% of the skybox revenues, we will receive 15% of the advertising on the main video scoreboard, 15% of the naming rights, and then 25% of all other net revenues. Which would include those type of sales, ticket sales, etc.

WC:      So the county still has a real good deal.  It’s –none of that has changes through this extended bidding process?

CB:       No, sir.

RC:       And, I –I just think it’s important to note that revenue is not necessarily limited to what revenue we will see coming exclusively from baseball.  I mean, in a lot of ways we have an opportunity to make it just with what we’ve described it as being, and that is an entertainment complex.   So, you know, we can’t limit ourselves to the potential revenue we can see generated out of this facility.  I mean I can see it as a great opportunity for the community and that what we need to let residents of Charles county understand.  It’s not exclusively a baseball stadium per se.  You know, that will certainly be the focal point but there really aren’t any limitations on how we can use the complex and the fact that we envision a lot of activity within that general area of the county makes this a very –potentially prosperous project overall for the county.  And I think that’s what the county’s citizens need to be aware of.  That it’s not exclusively a baseball stadium. 

WC:      And Mr. Beall, also, on the maintenance of the project, is any of that changed.  You were describing to us how –

CB:       No.  Through the concession agreement, Maryland Baseball LLC will be responsible for all of the maintenance--  Let me back up.  There’s a twenty year contract with Maryland Baseball through the concession commitment that they will provide for 15 years all of the maintenance, both normal as well as the capital maintenance and then after 15 years the county will be responsible for capital maintenance.  The logic there being that we will after 15 years have our debt service retired and we will have to debt on the facility and then we will provide any capital maintenance expenditures at that time while Maryland Baseball will still continue to do the normal day to day maintenance on the facility.

WC:      OK.  Commissioner Hodge?

GH:      Yes, I just want to follow up on Commissioner Collins’ excellent point and say that it is not unlike –Baseball is the anchor of the project but it offers a wider spectrum of opportunities beyond that.  You need the anchor to build the complex but beyond that there –our opportunities are only limited by our imagination, in terms of how we utilize the space and how the community engages in that process of identifying opportunities. 

WC:      OK.  Any further discussion?  Yes, Commissioner Graves?

SG:      I have a comment for follow up.  I believe I heard Mr. Beall talk about the possibility of having 4-H jamborees in the stadium and that would also, probably, extend out to the 4-h clubs in the county.  I see the opportunities for our non-profits to use it as a venue to create fundraisers to generate money to help serve the needs of the citizens of Charles County.  So.  Would that all fit in with that same model, do you think? 

Anna Dailey welcomes your comments on this article or other Charles County issues. 
Please leave feedback in the box below or contact her via email:  annadailey@thebaynet.com.