THIS WEEK IN DOVER

By Tyler Micik

The General Assembly returned to session this week after a two-week break. Two bills of note, which the Chamber opposes, were released from committee:

Senate Bill 51, known as the polystyrene bill, was released from House Health & Human Development Committee. The bill now moves to the House for a full vote. If passed, the Act would prohibit food establishments from providing consumers with ready-to-eat food or beverages in polystyrene foam containers or with single-service plastic coffee stirrers, cocktail picks, or sandwich picks. It also prohibits food establishments from providing single-service plastic straws, unless requested by a consumer.

Some republican members of the House of Representatives expressed support for an amendment to make the bill applicable to fire companies, health-care providers, nonprofit organizations, and others who are currently exempted from the bill. Their reasoning for the amendment is that the law, if passed, should be applied equally to all.

The State Chamber opposes the legislation. Businesses of all sizes recognize the need to use more eco-friendly products, and many businesses are already taking steps to do so because they see it as a benefit to the environment and communities they serve, and some of their customers prefer it. Forcing businesses to switch to products not made of polystyrene, could present challenges for some because such products are often more expensive and in turn could cost consumers more.

Lastly, House Bill 127 was released from the Housing Committee in the House and now heads to the full House for a vote. The bill enables each county to establish a fire protection fee and the money collected would go to support fire companies. The decision on whether to impose the fee would be up to each county individually, and the bill doesn’t contain any language regarding a specific amount or limit on the fee a county could charge. Additionally, the fee would apply to all businesses, including nonprofits and universities and grants the county the authority to establish penalties for failure to pay the fee. The State Chamber strongly opposes the bill due to the vast scope of businesses it will impact as well as the broad and ambiguous authority it gives each county to impose and collect the fee.