Having examined the past and current structure of management operations of the Inner Harbor the task force considered five separate concepts:

A. Creation of a separate city government department or agency,
B. Appointment of a Deputy Mayor or Special Assistant to Mayor for Harbor Management,
C. Private not-for-profit management entity similar in structure to Downtown Partnership of Baltimore,
D. Private not-for-profit quasi-governmental corporate entity similar to Charles Center-Inner Harbor Management, Inc., and
E. Maintaining the status quo.

A review of each of these potential management structures was considered, debated and is briefly discussed below:

SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR AGENCY

An immediate way to provide attention and focus to the Inner Harbor and its management and operational needs is through the creation of a separate government agency established specifically to handle harbor related issues. The creation of such an agency/department would establish a focus on one of Baltimore's greatest assets and visible attributes. Further, it would quickly identify to those inside and outside of government of the existence of a "one stop shop" to address issues regarding the Inner Harbor. The agency/department would assume the duties and responsibilities that are spread throughout city government and through internal human resources operations the appropriate employees with requisite experience could be transferred to the new agency/department.

Although this form of government involvement may seem logical to provide immediate attention to the issues of day-to-day involvement, accountability, and empowerment, it does not seem justified, fiscally prudent, or politically acceptable to create a separate government entity focused on a small, albeit important, portion of the city's landscape. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore have enormous responsibilities and obligations to all segments of Baltimore City and the creation of a specially designated governmental agency for harbor affairs seems to over-emphasize a focus given to the harbor in lieu of other pressing policy issues.

APPOINTMENT OF A DEPUTY MAYOR OR SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR

A second government structure, but a less expensive and comprehensive approach, is the appointment of a Deputy Mayor or Special Assistant to the Mayor for Harbor Management. This position could be accompanied with the creation of a Harbor Management Advisory Committee to ensure the involvement of the government agencies that will retain duties and responsibilities related to the harbor as well as interested stakeholders. This proposal contemplates the appointment of the position of Deputy Mayor or Special Assistant to the Mayor for Harbor Management who would be vested with complete day-to-day decision making responsibility for the harbor management area (boundary to be defined). The Deputy Mayor or Special Assistant to the Mayor would report directly to the Mayor's Chief of Staff consistent with the present management structure of the Mayor's office.

To empower the deputy mayor or special assistant to the mayor with the day-to-day responsibilities, the Mayor would need to issue an executive order delegating and/or transferring all decision-making and management powers (excluding planning and zoning authority) directly affecting the harbor development area to the newly created position. The executive order should include instructions to all department heads and city employees to direct harbor related issues (except those excluded above) to the deputy mayor or special assistant to the mayor.

As a new department is not being created and duties and responsibilities involving the harbor should remain in multiple city agencies, a coordinated and cooperative effort would be required to implement the day-to-day decisions of the deputy mayor or special assistant. In an effort to do so, a Harbor Area Management Advisory Committee should be established to serve as a policy advisor on harbor related issues. The deputy mayor or special assistant to the mayor should serve as the chair of the Harbor Area Management Advisory Committee. The Harbor Area Management Advisory Committee should not become involved in day-to-day activities or decision making but serve solely in an advisory role as deemed appropriate by the deputy mayor or special assistant to the mayor.

The deputy mayor or special assistant to the mayor for harbor management should be empowered to develop, in consultation with the Harbor Area Management Advisory Committee, administrative guidelines and procedures establishing the appropriate manner for the city department heads, employees and officials to direct issues affecting the harbor development area through the newly created position.

The Harbor Area Management Advisory Committee should consist of the following thirteen members:

(a) Deputy Mayor or Special Assistant to the Mayor for Harbor Development
(b) Harbor Master or other top ranking city official directly responsible for maritime issues related to the harbor
(c) President of the Baltimore Development Corporation
(d) Director of the Department of Public Works
(e) Director of the Office of Planning
(f) Deputy Mayor for Economic and Neighborhood Development
(g) President of the Greater Baltimore Committee
(h) President of Downtown Partnership of Baltimore
(i) President (or designated representative) of the President's Roundtable
(j) One member from a harbor development retail business appointed by the mayor to serve as a representative of the retail interests of the harbor
(k) One member of a harbor attraction or a harbor hotel appointed by the mayor to represent the hospitality and tourism industry of the harbor
(l) Two members of the general public appointed by the mayor, at least one of whom shall have maritime experience.

This Harbor Area Management Advisory Committee, consisting of an equal number of private sector and city government representatives, shall meet at least six times a year or, more frequently, at the discretion of the Deputy Mayor or Special Assistant to the Mayor for Harbor Management.

MANAGEMENT ENTITY SIMILAR TO DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP OF BALTIMORE

Another potential option would be the creation of a private not for profit organization similar in structure to the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore. Under this proposal, a separate corporate not for profit entity would be established with the mission of handling day-to-day activities and decision making within a designated geographic area ("Harbor Management Area"). The entity would be funded through the creation of a special taxing district within the defined harbor area and with assistance provided by city government. The organization would hire an executive director and staff and be governed by a board of directors elected from representatives of the special taxing district.

The Mayor and City of Baltimore would enter into a contractual relationship with the corporate entity and, in effect, transfer and delegate harbor related issues to that organization. The sole purpose and function of this corporate entity would be to handle the management activities and day-to-day operations of the harbor.

QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY COMPARABLE TO
CHARLES CENTER-INNER HARBOR MANAGEMENT, INC.

A fourth alternative is to revert to the original concept under which the Charles Center and Inner Harbor were developed. As outlined earlier in this study, a private not-for-profit corporation would be created and a contract executed with the city for the management and day-to-day operational decisions affecting the harbor. The quasi-governmental entity would be operated by an Executive Director and governed by a small board of directors, appointed by the Mayor, of not more than five individuals. The quasi-governmental entities singular purpose would be to oversee and manage the day-to-day operations of Baltimore's harbor area (boundaries to be established). The entity would have a small staff and budget appropriated by the city government and exposed to the rigors and scrutiny of the yearly city budget process.

Like Charles Center-Inner Harbor Management, Inc., a contractual agreement with the city would be executed delegating existing harbor responsibilities, currently shared among multiple agencies and departments, to the quasi-governmental entity with a corresponding obligation of the city and its department heads to provide the finances, support structure, manpower, and other needs and resources of the quasi-governmental entity. This contractual agreement would be in the form of an exclusive contract and the quasi-governmental entity would agree not to accept any other duties, responsibilities, or contracts with any other third party. In effect, its sole client or business would be that of managing the designated harbor area and satisfying the contractual terms and conditions of the contract entered into with the city government. Upon approval of this contract by the appropriate sources (City Solicitor, City Council and Board of Estimates, if necessary), the Mayor would execute an Executive Order to transfer harbor operational and management matters to the quasi-governmental entity and direct the departments that have operational duties and responsibilities affecting harbor operations to promptly and fully respond to the requests and needs identified by the quasi-governmental agency.

A distinct advantage of a private not-for-profit quasi-governmental entity is that it could serve as a buffer and provide protection and insulation to the Mayor from political pressure or influence. As with any quasi-governmental entity that is created, it is critical that the Mayor demonstrate clear and unquestioned empowerment of the outside corporate entity to handle all harbor related issues. This clear and unquestioned signal of authority from the Mayor is critical to ensure that the quasi-governmental entity has immediate internal credibility and respect from the city government's department heads. This relationship is crucial as the department heads full and unquestioned cooperation is vital for the effective implementation of decisions and policies of the quasi-governmental entity.

STATUS QUO

Although the current structure has failed as described in this report, the option of maintaining the status quo must still be considered an alternative. Recognizing the existing problems that have been caused by this management structure, as set forth in this report, and the weaknesses created in such a structure, this alternative is clearly not a preferred option.