The Future of Baltimore's Harborplace
BDC’s Rolley disputes Brew, BBJ claim that closed-door meetings to approve Harborplace tax break violated Open Meetings Act
“A candid discussion would have been difficult in open session,” Otis Rolley argues in defense of holding a closed meeting to approve massive tax saving
Above: BDC’s downtown offices in Charles Center. (design collective.com)
In September, Baltimore Brew and the Baltimore Business Journal formally complained about the secret meetings leading to the approval of lucrative tax breaks for three prominent development projects, including a 95% tax reduction for P. David Bramble’s Harborplace project.
Since then, the Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC), which held the meetings in August, has acknowledged one violation of the Open Meetings Act.
The agency admitted it should have provided advance notice that an August 25 meeting was going to be continued on August 28, which was when the BDC’s board approved the tax breaks.
But the agency’s acknowledgement of wrongdoing ends there.
BDC President and CEO Otis Rolley is disputing the other allegations made by The Brew and the BBJ in a complaint filed with the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.
The news organizations contend that the Open Meetings Act required the BDC to notify the public of what it intended to discuss in closed sessions held during the two meetings.
They further argue that, even if the BDC had announced its intention to discuss these deals in closed session, it would have been improper for the agency to do so, especially during the “unscheduled, unadvertised and secretive meeting” on August 28.
The tax breaks, approved at the August 28 meeting, were awarded through the newly created Downtown RISE district.
In addition to a 25-year PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) that could result in $366 million in tax savings for Bramble’s Harborplace, the board signed off on an $80 million tax abatement for a student dormitory pushed by the University of Maryland, Baltimore and creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District to advance developer Bill Struever’s redevelopment of the former Crown Cork & Seal factory near Greektown.
Otis Rolley was named president and CEO of the BDC last year. (baltimorecity.gov)
What Rolley Said
In an October 26 response to the Compliance Board, Rolley began by noting the reasons for going into closed session that were announced at both meetings by BDC Board Chair and Deputy Mayor Calvin A. Young III.
Young cited “BDC’s economic analysis of the projects, including an assessment of the financial necessity for the PILOTs,” Rolley wrote, saying “a candid discussion would have been difficult in open session.”
Young additionally justified going into closed session by saying, “public discussion or disclosure would adversely impact the ability of BDC in its proposal process and negotiations” and “disclosure of possible investment of public funds, in conjunction with the contract negotiations, would adversely impact the ability of BDC in its negotiations.”
In their complaint, The Brew and BBJ pointed out that the BDC was found in violation of the Open Meetings Act in 2016 for holding a closed door meeting to approve public financing for another high-profile project.
The board ruled that the quasi-public agency had improperly excluded the public and reporters while discussing – and approving – a $660 million TIF financing request by Kevin Plank for Port Covington, since rebranded as Baltimore Peninsula.
Rolley said the earlier rebuke by the Compliance Board was irrelevant because it stemmed from “an entirely different set of facts.”
“Contrary to what is implied in this allegation,” he argued, “there is no general prohibition against going into closed session to discuss PILOTs and TIFs.”
The Compliance Board, which has not yet ruled on the complaint, recently requested further information.
“Could you please provide the Compliance Board copies of the sealed, closed-session minutes for the August 25 and August 28 meetings,” Rachel Simmonsen, assistant attorney general and board counsel, asked Rolley last week.
Fulfilling that request will take some time, Rolley explained in an email to Simmonsen yesterday:
The draft Minutes of the August 25 and 28, 2016 [stet] Board of Directors Meetings have been prepared and proposed to the Board of Directors but with there not being a quorum at the October 29, 2026 Board of Directors Meeting, those Minutes have not yet been approved or corrected by the Board. I anticipate that the draft Minutes will be approved or corrected by the Board at its upcoming meeting on December 15. Immediately following, I will forward them to you as you have requested.