No longer the longest mandated day–although it could be. The hour of adjournment on the final regularly-scheduled day of this year’s legislative session will be determined by how quickly the parties can resolve the Bond Bill hold-up that has been precipitated by the Senate R’s holding the bill hostage b/c of the wind turbine bill that permits construction of the project in Sussex County. However, the Delaware General Assembly no longer needs to convene in Special Session after midnight.
The mission of the day in both houses will be to serve as a clearinghouse on the ‘must-pass’ bills and the ‘wanna-pass’ bills. The money bills of course are the must-pass bills, which is why the legislators can’t adjourn until the Bond Bill (along with the Budget bill, which is already in the hands of the Governor) and the Grants-In-Aid bill are today’s highest priorities. Well, technically, they don’t have to pass the Grants-In-Aid bill, but who would want to get between legislators and those oversized checks they carry around for photo ops? Yep, they’re passing it.
Both the House and Senate Agendas consist of multiple agendas. There is invariably a lot of skipping around today. Usually, each of the multiple agendas is in its own folder. It can be hard to follow. ‘Consent’ agendas are lists of several bills, all of which can be passed with one roll call. Any legislator may request that an item be removed from a consent agenda, and that request must be honored. Sometimes, an agenda consists of bills that must pass with super-majorities.
Communication between the House and Senate is ramped up today, as both chambers want to make sure that their members’ priorities are being duly considered in the other chamber.
Here are today’s legislative agendas:
Senate. Looks like I lied. Only one Senate Agenda. Although…
…it is almost certain that a bill or bills that don’t appear on one of those agendas will show up before the day is over. They can be considered under an (MTSR) Motion to Suspend Rules in either, or both, chambers. Same holds true for a bill that passes one chamber and must be worked in the other chamber. No time for committee meetings today.
Before we close, I want to share correspondence I received from NCC Councilman David Carter. While I disagree with him on this, his argument certainly has merit which should, but apparently hasn’t been, considered by legislators. First, from his correspondence to me, which he has granted me permission to share:
I had someone forward Alby’s recent post to me regarding the State marijuana legislation and his request for insight into the concerns raised by local governments. For context, I previously shared the message below with every member of the General Assembly, outlining specific issues from a local government perspective.
Unfortunately, I did not receive a single response or call from any state legislator. That kind of silence doesn’t foster the intergovernmental collaboration needed to move important policy forward constructively. It has caused me to make a complete reversal from strongly supporting to now opposing Marijuana retail in NCC.
As a result, New Castle County’s code is now out of sync with state law. Given the lack of engagement from the General Assembly, I don’t see the value in spending further time or taxpayer resources trying to reconcile the discrepancy and further burden NCC with this unfunded State mandate.
At this point, I’m inclined to let the courts sort it out, regardless of the time delays it may cause.
Please feel free to share this with Alby (I don’t know who that is or have an email). And of course, this is a public document should you wish to share it.
Best,
Dave
Dear Members of Delaware’s General Assembly.
I am reaching out to share my concerns regarding Senate Bill 75 (SB 75), which introduces new criteria for the minimum spacing between cannabis outlets and key community locations such asplaces of worship, schools, institutions of higher education, licensed childcare facilities, residential treatment centers, parks, and libraries. Under SB 75, the proposed minimum spacingwould be reduced to 500 feet, which is half of the current 1,000-foot requirement established in New Castle County’s Code.
I want to emphasize that I was previously a strong advocate for the responsible development of cannabis outlets in New Castle County, consistent with the original mandate passed by theGeneral Assembly. In good faith, New Castle County collaborated with our communities to draft and enact Ordinance 24-148, which regulates marijuana cultivation facilities, productmanufacturing, and retail stores. This ordinance, guided by state law, established a 1,000-foot minimum distance that balanced community expectations with responsible development. Ouranalysis identified over 500 potential locations for cannabis outlets under the existing spacing requirement, with opportunities for additional sites through Board of Adjustment reviews.
However, the changes proposed in SB 75 have raised significant concerns for me. I am deeply troubled by the reduction from 1,000 feet to 500 feet, a change I believe is both arbitrary andunjustified, given the substantial number of available locations already identified. I am concerned that this shift could create added costs, delays, and potential legal challenges for localgovernments, further complicating the responsible establishment of cannabis outlets.
In New Castle County, we approached cannabis regulation with thoughtful alignment to existing standards for liquor establishments, mirroring their spacing requirements to ensure consistency and community respect. This approach was designed to prevent arbitrary decision-making and to respect the expectations of our residents.
If SB 75 is intended to preempt local land use authority, I believe it is important to clarify which state agency will assume the responsibilities of land development, permitting, and compliance with building code standards. It would be helpful to understand whether this oversight would be managed by the Office of State Planning or another State regulatory body. Should the State choose to centralize this authority, I respectfully suggest that it also take on the associated administrative and operational responsibilities, ensuring clarity and accountability.
While I recognize the General Assembly’s constitutional authority over land use decisions, I respectfully urge that this authority be exercised with thoughtful consideration of its impact on local governance. New Castle County has acted responsibly in enacting a cannabis code that is transparent, equitable, and aligned with state guidelines. Our code currently allows for 500 parcels eligible for cannabis outlet development, which I believe sufficiently supports market demand while respecting community concerns.