Pre-filed Legislative Business II
(I am bumping this up since we closed out old business earlier this AM and wanted folks to have a chance to comment on these items.)
************************
The General Assembly gets back to work today, with a few items pre-filed in the House:
HB 4 sponsored by Hudson and Lavelle — Requires that all cash campaign contributions over $20.00 be reported.
HB 7 sponsored by J. Johnson and Brady, Keeley, Mitchell, D.P. Williams — Increases the amount of money that may be recovered from the parents or guardians of minors(under age 18) who are found guilty of damaging property from $5,000 to $10,000.
HB 8 sponsored by Hudson and Bonini — exempts from Delaware income tax income earned from the armed forces by residents on active duty. Assigned to Revenue & Finance Committee in House.
HB 11 sponsored by Hudson and Lavelle — From the website: “This Act redistributes the video lottery proceeds to equalize the State share with that of the video lottery agents.”
HB 13 sponsored by Lavelle — This would start the Constitutional Amendment process to mandate providing the Legislature and the public at least 3 legislative days to review the Budget Bill and at least 2 legislative days to review the Bond Bill before voting.
HB 15 sponsored by Longhurst — This bill would mandate a specific plastic bag recycling program for retailers using these bags. This is pretty specific and detailed — the bags have to be printed with a Return for Recycling message, each retailer has to provide a place for the bags to be returned, the retailer must send the bags for recycling and DNREC is the designated enforcer. Interestingly, this bill prohibits any city, county or public agency from creating their own bag recycling requirements; cannot create their own plastic bag surcharges; cannot impose any other reporting requirements other than those here in this bill.
HB 20 sponsored by Keeley — Requires public officers (as defined here) to officially disclose the family members (defined in the bill) who work for any State agency; or any organization, any school district, or any entity that receives funding from the State.
HB 33 sponsored by Booth — Reincorporates the charter of the Board of Public Works for Lewes. This bill details the administrative makeup and governing of this board and the extent of its authority.
HB 79 sponsored by Cathcart — From the website: “This bill allows New Castle County Council to consider how highway and road capacity may affect residential development as part of the Council’s review of a subdivision application. Council may also adopt regulations and ordinances that link or tie residential development to highway or road capacity or that restrict residential development in the absence of adequate highway or road capacity.”
HB 83 sponsored by Cathcart and Oberle — From the website: “In 1999, a provision was added to the Quality of Life Act of 1988 that prohibited the County Council from adopting regulations and ordinances that linked or tied residential development to school capacity or to the absence of school capacity. Now, 10 years later, such a prohibition is no longer necessary. This bill removes the prohibition that kept County Council from adopting those regulations and ordinances.”
Have comments or questions? Let us know in the comments below.
Tags: Delaware
And don’t forget,
Thursday is OOGA day in Delaware. Open Our General Assembly!
What: Floor vote on HB01 and amendments in the House of Representatives to apply Freedom of Information laws to the Delaware General Assembly.
Where: House Chamber, Leg Hall, Dover, DE
When: Thursday, March 19th at 2:00PM
Action: Call your representative and register your support for HB01 AND if you can make it to Dover, join us on Thursday to watch history in the making – maybe. This is not a done deal and our Representatives need to hear from us and see us there.
HB83 makes me very suspicious. What’s that one about?
HB15 sounds interesting. I currently recycle plastic bags through DSWA. Would this bill change this? I like the idea that you can return bags to the store, but if it’s the only place you can take them that creates a big inconvenience for me.
HB83 sounds fishy to me, too. The whole Workforce Housing debacle has been centered around NCCO passing ordinances without any consideration to schools, roads, etc. This sounds like an effort to remove the teeth from an existing statute that may have already invalidated Workforce Housing as passed. Why?
HB 15 is interesting. It looks like a pre-emptive strike on some exploratory work that a couple of communities are doing to look at the feasibility of charging extra for plastic bags, ala Ireland. The bill would keep intact any local programs for collecting bags with other recycling. But I do think that if a municipality wants tougher restrictions on plastic bags they should be able to have them.
HB20 is a step in the right direction, but doesn’t do anything to mitigate potential Conflicts of Interest.
HB 4 would be a slam dunk fr me if they would make the damn reports searchable.
I think that 79 and 83 are of a piece — they remove restrictions currently in place that dissallows consideration of school capacity and road sufficiency in the approval process.
Actually, El Somnambulo thinks that HB’s 79 and 83 are designed to deep-six Workforce Housing once and for all. Just look at the sponsors. While recognizing how screwed up the Workforce Housing Initiative has been, ‘Bulo thinks that there is more than a little class and race element involved in the ‘outrage’. Feel free to disagree.
The other Rethug bills are ‘talking point’ bills, except for HB 11, which appears to be part of a continuing effort against expanded casino gambling, including sports betting.
HB 4-does anyone really care who is shelling out $20 to go to a spaghetti dinner? Nobody is getting favors in return for such a contribution. Probably just an effort to keep watchdogs from following the BIG money, which has traditionally gone to the R’s.
HB 8 is something that routinely would be considered in JFC. By itself, HB 8 will have no impact until or unless it is incorporated into the Budget Bill.
‘Bulo likes HB 13, although it’s not always feasible due to logistical problems, especially with the Bond Bill. If it ever becomes law, pay special attention to the ‘Epilog Language’ in the Budget Bill. That’s where a lot of the ‘goodies’ are buried.
While HB 15 appears admirable, (a) it appears to be an unfunded mandate and (b) wouldn’t creating incentives to encourage people to bring their own shopping bags be a better approach?
HB 20 appears to be a ‘no-brainer’. Of course, would it be bad manners to point out that Rep. Keeley has a job with the Department of Labor, a job that she did not have when she took office?
HB 33 is a ‘charter change’. When a Delaware municipality needs to change its charter, it has to be done in Dover. You’ll see several charter changes throughout the session. They are invariably sponsored by the legislators who represent the particular municipality.
I agree that those bills are designed to take down WFH. There are certainly elements of the opposition to WFH that have ulterior motives, but for those of us concerned about the lack of planning around these developments.
WFH may happen anyway, and that is fine, so long as the proper planning is done and it is more than a money grab for developers.
HB15 may be hard to work, but I bet it is a way to head-off an effort to take deposits on the bags. Honestly, they should be outlawed, but we shall see.
El Som has a good point re: HB 4. It does ask those legislators who traditionally get small dollar funding to take on an additional reporting burden.
Some legislators already do this and report all contributions. It’s less the increased burden, which is minimal, than it is an empty symbol of a bill.
And keep in mind, if at any time, one’s contribution to a campaign exceeds $100, the amount must be reported. So, it’s not like you can get away with providing campaign contributions in $20 increments and not have to report them. Once the cumulative total exceeds $100, it must be on the campaign report. No exceptions.
For those in Bill Powers’ district, HB83 gets right to the talking point he tried to use against Cathcart in 08 on Walker’s behalf and a point the Council tried to use to defend their non-need to include school planning. HB83 will actually rid that and require school capacity planning to be mandatory, regardless. It is a good thing, no matter how it is attempted to be painted because two R’s are on the bill.
And HB79? It takes away the lame excuse NCCo has used for years, blaming DelDOT for the infrastructure conditions. It’s been NCCo planning all along, but they’ve legally been able to point blame at DelDOT.
I know, it’s a Republican-sponsored bill, therefore it must be evil. OooOoOoooOooooo…
I think the $20 reporting is a good thing. There has been many questions in the past about multiple sub-$100 donations not being properly aggregated and disappearing into that under-100 box. Quite frankly, I’d like ALL to be detailed; however, it’s a start and I don’t see other legislation out there to change it. Would it be better if Kowalko sponsored it?
Smitty: Party politics has nothing to do w/’Bulo’s reaction to HB 83, or 79 for that matter. He checked the sponsors and, as he expected, Senators DeLuca and Ennis were on both bills.
His skepticism is heightened b/c the General Assembly has not always been sympathetic to the rights of minorities, and the opposition to ‘workforce housing’ could well have the effect of creating a form of de facto segregation.
I just view anything that says certain regulations are outdated with suspicion automatically.
Damn it. It really sucks when I put on my superman cape and get all chest-puffy only to have El Som backhand-slap me back to reality. FTR – Blevins, DeLuca, and Ennis are co-sponsors for HB79, as well.
Sorry, El Som, I totally (and very touchily-so) misunderstood your assessment, then. Your follow up is right in that this is very bi-partisan. I can only guess why DeLuca may be on there, and it is only a guess, but I am thinking it is to increase the chances it makes it through the Senate and helps it in the Dem-Majority House (given Cathcart is the House sponsor). For the incumbents, Cathcart and Ennis have been actively working on this, and for the Freshmen, Jacques, of course, has come on board realtively recently. I have no idea about where BHL is, but then again, that’s a common question.
Nolo problemo. ‘Bulo, too, is surprised that Jacques and BHL aren’t on it. Bet they will be soon…
I’m not going to disparage Jacques on his so-far non-sponsorship. He did get some bills up there that hit on the WFH subject. I believe they may have been transition items from Lofink or things left up in the air upon the change, but Jacques has been there. With the current co-sponsorship, I am fine if he is on or not. If he votes N, then I will have issues. I give him a pass for now. We’ll see as this develops over time. BHL on the other hand, well…let’s just say I’m not a big fan and keep it at that.
You and ‘Bulo are in the minority here when it comes to the peripatetic BHL. The Beast Who Slumbers has it on pretty good authority that there were quite a few high-fives on the House side when she left for the Senate.
Yeah, I busted in on their party and joined the celebration. I’m sure it is on film somewhere. As Delaware-style fate would have it, you and I probably high-fived each 0ther and have no clue.
Well, I have been quite critical of her in the past of some Middletown festivities and it came as a mild surprise that she knows who the Smitty truly is as a result. Of course, I make little effort to hide much of anything, so it’s not a big deal, not so much as it is funny that she knows or even bothered to find out.