Canal Place officials oppose Senate bill they say would hand control to local electeds and jeopardize $8 million River Park fund

The Education, Business and Administration Subcommittee heard testimony from Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority on a bill described in testimony as Senate bill "10 70" that would change the agency’s governance and property-management arrangements. Carrie Cook, analyst for the Department of Legislative Services, told the committee the FY25 Canal Place allowance falls by about $234,000 from the prior year largely because of a one-time federal grant in FY24. Cook said Canal Place is a very small state instrumentality with four positions and 45% of its spending for personnel.

Deidre Ritchie, executive director of Canal Place, said the agency and its board oppose the bill. "My board at that time voted to oppose the legislation," she told the subcommittee, describing what she said were short notice consultations with the bill sponsor and community confusion when the legislation was introduced. Ritchie said Canal Place was created in 1993 to generate its own revenue and match state funds; the agency reported it generates about $570,000 a year from shops, festival grounds and parking that supports salaries and a required 1-to-1 match.

Ritchie warned that the bill would dissolve the current nine-member community board and replace it with a three-member board made up of local elected officials, require the new board to delegate management of Canal Place properties to other entities, and transfer hiring authority away from Canal Place. She said those changes could "disorganize Canal Place," remove local community oversight, and imperil the River Park At Canal Place project, noting that more than $8,000,000 is currently sitting in a Canal Place fund for that project. "If our agency is dissolved, that part that project stops," Ritchie said.

Kim Folk, Canal Place administrative specialist, accompanied Ritchie and answered budget and operations questions. Carrie Cook (DLS) recommended concurrence with the governor’s allowance but asked the agency to comment on operational impacts and whether changes in law could negatively affect investments in ongoing projects.

Committee members said they would meet with the bill sponsor before final action. No vote or formal committee action on the bill was recorded during this hearing. The committee moved next to the MSDE aid-to-education budget presentation.