Leggett's Strategy On Slots: Hushed

"I know Montgomery has consistently been one of the strongest communities against slots, even when you pose the notion that you are going to solve the education funding issue or provide a panacea for the state's fiscal woes," Haller said. "There is a lot of underlying opposition and it is philosophic."

Leggett said his tactics are founded on fears that his county will be hammered by state officials. In a worst-case estimate outlined early in the summer by state budget officials, Montgomery could lose $155 million in state funds under certain scenarios. Already facing an expected shortfall of $270 million in the county's budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, Leggett is not eager to lose additional state money. The combined budget for the county schools and local government is about $4 billion annually.

High on Leggett's wish list in any state budget deal, he said, are maintaining state payments for teacher pensions, rather than asking the counties to pay; limiting income-tax increases and changes in corporate taxes; and making good on long-promised extra payments to county schools, which this year would have totaled about $23 million had they been paid by the state.

Leggett's efforts to quell vocal opponents of slots could have political benefits for O'Malley, giving him some fodder to neutralize opposition to slots from other politically powerful jurisdictions, including Prince George's, where many elected officials oppose slots.

Former Montgomery state senator P.J. Hogan, who served on the budget and tax committee and who was widely seen as a likely vote for slots, said he thought Leggett's approach would give the county some needed leverage at the bargaining table.

"Slots will be part of the package, absolutely. It's too big not to be," Hogan, a Democrat, said. "People should stop and wait and look at the whole package. No one item is going to solve the problem," he said.

Some county lawmakers are dismayed at Leggett's strategy.

At the July 30 meeting, some in the delegation said they would prefer an income-tax increase, which they argue would affect all Maryland residents equally based on their income, not on their propensity to gamble, several who attended said.

And some lawmakers at the meeting also urged changes in the tax structure of the kind proposed by state Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George's). Pinsky wants to plug some perceived loopholes that he says unfairly target Maryland companies but allow out-of-state firms with branches in Maryland to avoid taxes.

County Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large), a slots opponent who attended the meeting, said in a recent interview that an income-tax increase's affect on county residents could be limited if the council lowered the piggyback tax.

"We could cut our local rate and mitigate the impact on Montgomery County taxpayers, if the combination of the two is too much," Elrich said.

If slots became inevitable, Elrich said, another possibility would be to give control of slots to the state rather than to track owners and the gaming industry, increasing the state's take.

Two other prominent Montgomery Democrats have weighed in on the slots issue recently.

Last week, Maryland Labor Secretary Tom Perez, a former Montgomery County Council member, said in a report commissioned by O'Malley that slots are a reasonable solution to a host of state financial problems and could staunch the flow of at least $150 million in revenue from Maryland residents going to betting sites in Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The report was roundly criticized by former Montgomery delegate Peter Franchot (D), now the state's comptroller.