The attached article was published by WDEL this morning.

I’d like to offer some clarification and further explanation of my thoughts on HB355 and SB238.

House Bill 355 will actually decrease transparency, inclusion, and fiscal accountability:

FDRPC BOARD RESTRUCTURING

- Decreases Delaware City resident participation from 4 members to 2. These appointments will no longer be made by the Mayor and Council of Delaware City, but by the Governor.

- Co-chairs of the Capital Improvement Committee are added, one of whom is Senator Poore who has co-sponsored all Fort DuPont legislation from the beginning, this seems like a conflict of interest. The Capital Improvement Committee is responsible for the Bond Bill and distribution of taxpayer dollars to the FDRPC. Another conflict when the group asking for taxpayer funding is compromised of the group responsible for granting it.

- The FDRPC Act currently allows for subcommittees to be formed and make recommendations on the redevelopment plan, track implementation efforts; review and provide recommendations on proposals for purchase, sale, lease, or disposition of lands or buildings; provide recommendations on infrastructure improvement plans and budgets; recommend rules, regulations, and policies to the board. ALL OF THESE SUBCOMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE REPEALED WITH HB355.

HB355 attempts to recognize and correct some of the illicit behavior carried out by the (former) Executive Director and FDRPC Management. While these are positive steps, these things should not be legislated, they should be addressed through the corporation’s Policies & Procedures. I fear that the following items could be an attempt to divert constituents from the power-grab of the Board restructure and elimination of sub-committee powers:

SMOKESCREEN

- Prohibiting employees from accepting gifts over $200

- Prohibiting employees from receiving free or discounted housing

- Credit card purchases must be over $500 must be approved by Executive Committee

- Checks over $10,000 require signature of the Treasurer

- Executive Director candidates must undergo a criminal and credit background check

- Hiring policy should be impartial and merit based

POWERS OF FDRPC vs PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS

- HB355 adds a clause about development at the Fort DuPont complex needing to follow applicable environmental law, regulatory requirements, and permitting processes. If the legislators REALLY wanted to correct the FDRP Act, they would have updated the most dangerous part of the legislation which is the enabling language of the FDPRC. The following is what grants the FDRPC its powers: “The Corporation shall be empowered, without limitation and notwithstanding any other laws to…”(buy/sell/develop/etc.). It is this empowering language that has been used time and again as one-size-fits-all excuse when any illegal or illicit behavior is discovered. Changing the language to how it appeared in the original bill (HB310 before a substitute was introduced a month before Governor Markell signed it) would have been more appropriate. It stated that the FDRPC board must follow all local, state, and federal laws to buy/sell/develop/etc.

POSITIVE CHANGES RESULTING FROM HB355

- I think it is encouraging that Representative Longhurst and Senator Poore are willing to amend the FDRP Act. With HB355, they’ve required that the FDRPC Executive Director provide an annual presentation to the City Council of Delaware City and provide a public forum whereby time is reserved for public comment. The original bill required community involvement, but that never came to fruition with Jeff Randol as the Executive Director, so perhaps this will be the remedy.

SB238 – crafted specifically to generate revenue from the RV Park planned on the Grassdale property, but also targets leased properties not currently subject to city property taxes.

- Speaking as a resident, I think additional revenue for the city is a positive thing

- Speaking as an advocate working to return the protected lands of Grassdale back to the public trust, this bill indicates to me that the legislators intention is not to return Grassdale back to the public, but rather to continue moving forward with the RV Park, despite the proposal of a joint resolution that would unwind the sale.