Delaware General Assembly Pre-Game Show: Tues., March 18, 2014

Filed in National by on March 18, 2014

Assuming that neither snow nor St. Paddy’s Day waylaid them, the legislators return en masse to Dover today.

I expect the Governor and his staff to be meeting with legislators both to push for the infrastructure package (10 cents a gallon increase) and the clean water package ($45 on average per homeowner). This, to put it mildly, is a tough sell in an election year. I have to wonder why the governor didn’t do this at the beginning of his second term rather than throwing out a not-well-thought-through proposal late last session. It makes passage less likely. Although…a compromise on the infrastructure package could well be reached. One respected legislator suggested a phase-in, a nickel and more state borrowing the first year, and an additional nickel and less borrowing the second year. This is, after all, among other things, a jobs bill. If proponents can message this properly and emphasize this fact, reluctant D legislators could well be brought along.

I also expect caucuses to get briefings from their Joint Finance Committee members as to where things stand following the agency hearings (Oops. DEFAC says we’re down another $40 mill). Keep in mind that the budget bill likely won’t get marked up until around Memorial Day, so there will be a lot of dickering between now and then. And more DEFAC numbers.

There are at least two real interesting bills on agendas today. Now don’t let your eyes glaze over just yet, but the Senate will consider SB 160(Venables), which would “increase the weight limit for live-haul poultry trucks operating on Delaware highways within 100 miles of the plant…”.  Now, here’s where my Spidey Sense kicks in. The synopsis says, and I quote, that this bill is being considered to “to accommodate the poultry industry and ensure public safety.”  Because, you know, no two things are more compatible than accommodating the poultry industry and ensuring public safety. Exhibit A: The Delaware Bay. House co-sponsor: John Atkins. BTW, trucks could weigh in excess of 92,700 pounds before any fine could be assessed. I’m sure they’ll all come equipped with state-of-the-art brakes as well. BTW, this is the only bill on Tuesday’s Senate Agenda.

The House Agenda features SB 136(Henry), which “deletes the requirement that a petition for termination of parental rights contain a statement that each birth parent has been advised of the right to file an affidavit as provided by subchapter III of Chapter 9. The affidavit in subchapter III of Chapter 9 was previously repealed.” On the face of it, this would appear to be a housekeeping bill since the synopsis states that the subchapter reference has already been repealed. However, the roll call in the Senate demonstrates a sharp split, and not apparently on ideological grounds. I’d love to hear from someone with some knowledge as to what the controversy is here.

A huge week for committee meetings.  Here is the complete list of Senate committee meetings,  and here is the complete list of House committee meetings.

Highlights in the Senate:

The Natural Resources and Environmental Control Committee considers SB 166(McBride), which would cap the vertical limit of an industrial landfill at 130 feet above the mean sea level of the site. HB 198(Brady)  gives municipalities more leeway in enacting recycling measures that go beyond state minimums. An example would be the possible banning of plastic bags from Wilmington supermarkets. If there are any Wilmington supermarkets.

The Senate Small Business Committee considers two solid bills from Rep. Baumbach concerning manufactured housing communities. The bills are HB 106  and HB 107.   I especially admire this type of incremental, but positive, legislating. It shows legislators engaged at the all-important detail level. Good stuff.

All 832 members (number approximate) of the Joint House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will play musical chairs today while cozying up to ‘Our Bravest’ by coming together to full-throatedly endorse HB 236(Jaques). The bill ‘allows a member of the Delaware National Guard to annually receive a surf fishing vehicle permit without charge’. Because Service. Free Stuff.Freedom. Election Year.

Highlights in the House:

Yet another sop to farmers, courtesy of Bill ‘Lumpy’ Carson. HB 14  provides “that any income and/or capital gain received from easements preserving agricultural land shall not be taxed for purposes of Delaware personal income taxes.” Uh, why? They’re getting a break thanks to AgLand preservation, but they shouldn’t be taxed on that break? In the House Appropriations Committee (a full agenda).

Also in the House Appropriations Committee  is HB 23(Hudson), which “requires that all public meetings of the boards of education of traditional public school districts, vo-tech school districts, and public meetings of charter schools’ boards of directors be digitally recorded and made available to the public on the districts’ and charter schools’ websites within seven business days.” Solid bipartisan sponsorship, hope nothing derails this bill.

HB 169(Baumbach)  is designed to enable the City of Newark to receive direct payments due to ‘tax-exempt properties owned by the State’ within Newark. Currently, only Wilmington, Dover and Georgetown are eligible. I think that all Newark area legislators are on the bill as sponsors/cosponsors. Also in Appropriations.

It will be interesting to see what the House Business Lapdog Committee does with HB 186(Viola).  The bill “prohibits employers from deducting credit card processing fees from gratuities due to their employees.” The Forces of Evil can’t prevail again, can they?  BTW, what ever happened to restoring the CPI to the minimum wage bill? Uh, nothing. Didn’t happen. We noticed.

The House House Administration Committee considers HB 231 (Rep. D. E. Williams), which would significantly increase legislative influence on the Diamond State Port Corporation of Directors. The bill adds six new members, three each to be appointed by the Speaker of the House and by the President Pro-Tempore. This is a direct result of the failed Markell/Levin power play to enable Enron expatriates to run the Port. Wonder what the Governor will do if this bill reaches his desk…

Virtually the entire General Assembly is lining up to fight the scourge of e-cigarettes. I think a whole lotta states are getting ahead of the science and/or rational thinking on this one.  27 to be exact. Delaware aims to be 28. Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration, HB 241(Hudson).  In the House Judiciary Committee. BTW, look at all the prime co-sponsors. Will make for economies of scale when laying out campaign brochures this fall.

It ain’t gonna be ‘just’ National Guard members getting those free surf thingies. SB 31 (Ennis) would enable active members of the Ladies auxiliary or volunteer fire department ladies auxiliary to receive free surf fishing licenses. Betcha the menfolk get them already. In the House Natural Resources Committee. Let me explain why I ridicule this stuff. It’s because the General Assembly makes value judgments as to who should get these free considerations. Almost always ends up being to police, the military, etc. Yes, their service is valuable. But so valuable to get free stuff that other people who perform at least equally-valuable functions shouldn’t get? It’s pandering, pure and simple. And, of course, it’s trolling for votes.

So that’s your lineup for today and tomorrow. Be back later this week with more fact, rumor and innuendo.

However, if you can’t wait that long, I’m on the Al Mascitti Show today, 10 am to 12 noon, WDEL-1150 Newsradio on your AM dial.  Or just go here to stream. Which downstate politico is gonna have their ears singed on today’s show? Tune in to find out!

Tags: , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SussexAnon says:

    Why can’t Wilmington just ban plastic bags now? Is there a State Law that prevents this?

    P.S. I am a veteran, where is my free stuff? I could use from free car insurance, free state park passes and an Obama phone (and it better have unlimited data). Yeah, its only socialism when the “other” gets it.

  2. They can’t do it now b/c state law expressly prohibits it. Passage of this law would strike the following from the existing Code:

    ” (f)(1) Unless expressly authorized by this section, a county, city, or other public agency shall not adopt, implement, or enforce an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule to do any of the following:

    a. Require a store that is in compliance with this section to collect, transport, or recycle plastic carryout bags.

    b. Impose a plastic carryout bag fee upon a store that is in compliance with this section.

    c. Impose auditing or reporting requirements upon a store that are in addition to those set forth in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.”

  3. cassandra_m says:

    “to accommodate the poultry industry and ensure public safety.”

    Is NO ONE going to point out the stupidity of allowing heavier trucks on roads that we can’t pay to fix? Seriously? Somebody should have amended this to get the gas tax attached to this so the roads that these heavier trucks damage actually get fixed.

    The bill adds six new members, three each to be appointed by the Speaker of the House and by the President Pro-Tempore. This is a direct result of the failed Markell/Levin power play to enable Enron expatriates to run the Port. Wonder what the Governor will do if this bill reaches his desk…

    He should veto it. When I was documenting the Kinder Morgan atrocities, I called for a profesionalization of the Port’s board and I still do. Adding on the political cronies of the Speaker and Senate leader won’t help this asset to actually thrive. It *badly* needs the input of people who have some success at running something, and *badly* needs the political BS to take a backseat. The Port is a crucial economic asset and it is time to treat it that way.

  4. Cass, you can’t amend a bill that way in Delaware. No amendment can be broader than the scope of the bill’s title. The type of amendment you’re suggesting would go in different sections of the Delaware Code than what the title references. The bill IS stupid, however.

  5. cassandra_m says:

    That’s OK — it is just immensely stupid AND hypocritical for these legislators to pooh-pooh a bill to fix the roads and then turn around and try to approve something that will damage those roads even more.

  6. Cass: As far as I know, it is only Val Longhurst who has categorically said that she can’t support the gas tax and that it won’t happen. As critical as I am of Longhurst, I STILL can’t believe that a House Majority Leader would be that dismissive of the governor’s proposal.

    Sen. Venables is the prime sponsor of the monster chicken truck bill. I suspect that Venables, as a key player on the Bond Bill Committee, will be more receptive to Markell’s proposal than Longhurst.

  7. liberalgeek says:

    The land-preservation tax-exemption might actually be a way to sweeten the pot to get more land into preservation status.

    Example: a farmer wants to sell the development rights to some preservation trust and they offer him $1M. That guy might be wishy-washy on whether to take that money instead of a potential buy-out from a developer. If those proceeds were made free of state tax, it would be like bumping up the offer from the trust (sales to developers are still taxed).

    This isn’t my strong suit, but it seems reasonable to me.

  8. SussexAnon says:

    The city of Wilmington could ban plastic bags in supermarkets and stores and still be in compliance.

    They can’t transport or charge for bags they don’t have.

    Charging for a non plastic reusable bag would be legal, according to this code?

  9. SussexAnon, I’m no lawyer (obviously). However, the current Code section was drafted long before anyone envisioned a time when there might be a ban on plastic bags.

    So, I think any move to do so would invite legal action w/o the Code change. Needless to say, no municipality wants that.

    In addition, if a municipality envisions taking any of the initiatives prohibited in the Code, it would need the Code change.

    Finally, why should environmentally-friendly reforms be circumscribed by more rigid state standards?

    You may well be right on the legalities, I’m not sure, but I see no reason not to do this and avoid legal roadblocks.

  10. SussexAnon says:

    Thanks El Som. Of all the ban-the-bag conversations I have had with enviro friends, this code issue never came up.

    And SPOT ON about Markell coming oh-so-late to the party about—–everything. So tied up with negotiating business’ to come here he seemingly ignored just about everything else in the state. Clean water? Roads? Streamlining DelDot Permit processes? We couldn’t have had these discussions 2 or 4+ years ago? Not a word in policy about these issues for YEARS. No directives to get DNREC to get is s&^t act together? The Gov. is struggling to find his legacy other than being the worst environmental governor in a generation. Pretty tall order given the amount of time he has left.

  11. Ezra Temko says:

    Additional highlights today in legislative hall were:

    Delaware Repeal Project’s rally and lobby day (the former at Christ Episcopal Church with Sister Helen Prejean and then everyone walked over to legislative hall)

    The Same Day Registration coalition’s rally outside legislative hall

  12. I hope that Rep. Scott can find enough representatives with guts to petition the death penalty repeal bill out of committee and onto the floor.

    It’s not as simple as having the votes to pass the bill, it also means challenging your leadership. It requires courage, something that is in notably short supply in the Democratic Party. And in Dover.

  13. At the committee hearing on HB 14 (farmland preservation tax elimination), I raised that this could be justified if there is insufficient demand for the program, however the program is well over-subscribed, and thus adding additional incentives, which cost the state, is very poor public policy.

  14. At the time the bill was initially introduced (previous fiscal year), the projected revenue loss to the state, according to the official fiscal note, was as follows:

    “Fiscal Year 2014 Range from $200,000 to $590,000
    Fiscal Year 2015 Range from $170,000 to $520,000”

    Yup, perhaps more than half a mill a year for no reasonable public policy purpose. Just money thrown at farm owners.