| Report: | 
Joint Sunset Committee
2004 Final Report
A Report to the Governor and
the General Assembly of the State of Delaware
June 10, 2004
DMS #0011420199
2004 Joint Sunset Committee Members
Rep. Stephanie A. Ulbrich, Chair Sen. David B. McBride, Vice-Chair
Rep. Deborah D. Hudson Sen. Colin R. J. Bonini
Rep. Peter C. Schwartzkopf Sen. Charles L. Copeland
Rep. Robert J. Valihura, Jr. Sen. Karen E. Peterson
Rep. John J. Viola Sen. David P. Sokola
Prepared by Lisa Schieffert, Joint Sunset Committee Analyst
with assistance from Judi Abbott, Division of Research
PO Box 1401 Legislative Hall, Dover, DE 19903
Office: 302-744-4088
E-mail: Lisa.Schieffert@state.de.us
Website: www.legis.state.de.us
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Board of Architects
Delaware Commission on Veterans Affairs
Delaware Health Care Commission
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Harness and Thoroughbred Racing Commissions
Executive Summary
The Sunset Law in Delaware, Chapter 102 of Title 29, enacted in 1979, provides for the periodic legislative review of state agencies, boards, and commissions. The purpose of sunset review is to determine if there is a public need for an agency, board, or commission and, if so, to determine if it is effectively performing to meet that need. Typically, agencies are reviewed once every six years.
The Joint Sunset Committee (JSC), the General Assembly’s only legislatively established committee, is responsible for guiding the sunset review process. The JSC is a bipartisan committee comprised of ten legislators. Five legislators are from the Senate and appointed by the Senate President Pro Tempore and five legislators are from the House of Representatives and appointed by the Speaker of the House.
Sunset reviews are generally conducted over a ten to twelve month time period commencing in July. A comprehensive review of each agency, based on statutory criteria, is performed by JSC staff who then prepares a preliminary report for use by the JSC during public hearings. Public hearings are scheduled when the legislative session convenes and they serve as a critical component of the sunset review process because they provide an opportunity for the JSC to best determine if the agency is protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
At the conclusion of a sunset review, the JSC may recommend the continuance, consolidation, transfer, or termination (sunset) of an agency, board, or commission. Although the JSC has sunset several agencies since its first reviews in 1980, the more common approach has been for the JSC to work with the agencies under sunset review to formalize specific statutory and non-statutory recommendations that have the end goal of improving government accountability.
2004 Sunset Reviews
This report details the work of the JSC from June 2003 through May 2004. Specifically, it focuses on the following agencies:
Board of Architects Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Delaware Commission on Veterans Affairs Harness Racing Commission
Delaware Health Care Commission Thoroughbred Racing Commission
Summary of Sunset Recommendations
Board of Architects:
1. Continuation of the Board of Architects provided that the final recommendations are implemented to the satisfaction of the JSC.
2. The Division of Professional Regulation should increase architect licensure fees to cover the necessary costs, as approved by the Division, to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare.
3. Amend Chapter 3 of Title 24 as follows:
§ Amend§303 regarding exceptions to follow the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) Model Law Sections 11(2-6) and 11(9-13).
§ Adopt the NCARB Model Law Section 1 pertaining to the definition for the “practice of architecture”.
§ Authorize the Board of Architects to enforce prohibitions against unlicensed practice by holding administrative hearings and levying civil fines, similar to the NCARB Model Law Section 12.
§ Require that architects provide administration and observation of the construction phase for all projects in which the architect has been retained in the design of the building, similar to NCARB Model Law Section 10A.
§ Include standard language for conducting criminal background checks.
4. The Board of Architects should research public safety issues associated with design/build projects and report its findings to the Joint Sunset Committee as part of the December 2004 sunset review progress report.
5. The Board of Architects, in cooperation with the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers, should develop draft legislation or a draft resolution, if determined by the Board to be necessary, to address the permitting problems associated with the concurrent practice areas of architecture and engineering. The draft legislation or proposed resolution should be submitted with the 2004 sunset review progress report.
Delaware Commission of Veterans Affairs (DCVA):
1. Continuation of the DCVA provided that the final recommendations are implemented to the satisfaction of the JSC.
2. The DCVA should combine its General Guidelines, Rules and Regulations, and Standard Operating Procedures into one regulatory document governing the Veterans Memorial Cemeteries. The regulations would be subject to the APA, which provides for a formal hearing process in which the public may address concerns regarding cemetery procedures.
3. The DCVA should post signage at the Veteran’s Cemeteries during holidays clearly stating the DCVA’s marker policy.
4. DCVA subcommittee(s) charged with cemetery related issues should continue to have civilian and family representation.
5. As part of the September and December sunset review progress reports, the DCVA shall provide the Joint Sunset Committee with an update on the replacement of the makers and other memorabilia.
6. The DCVA must comply with FOIA requirements.
7. The DCVA should post meeting agendas and minutes on its website.
8. Standard Operating Procedures or Regulations regarding fees for exhuming bodies should be clarified.
9. The Joint Sunset Committee will write a letter to the Governor encouraging the appointment of more women to the DCVA.
Delaware Health Care Commission (DHCC):
1. Continuation of the (DHCC) provided that Recommendation No. 2 is implemented to the satisfaction of the Joint Sunset Committee.
2. The DHCC should evaluate Health Fund programs and make recommendations to the Health Fund Advisory Committee (HFAC) regarding the best use of tobacco settlement dollars.
3. Amend Chapters 1 and 99 of Title 16 to reflect that the DHCC is responsible for evaluating Health Fund programs and for making recommendations to the HFAC regarding the best use of tobacco settlement dollars.
4. To address DHCC’s current staffing challenges, and to assist with the HFAC evaluation, or other related projects, the JSC will request that the Joint Finance Committee consider funding one additional full-time staff person.
Delaware Harness Racing Commission (DHRC) and Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission (DTRC):
1. Continuation of the DHRC and the DTRC provided that each Commission implements the final recommendations to the satisfaction of the JSC.
2. To address personnel issues and other structural problems, Chapters 100 and 101 of Title 3 should be amended so that both the DHRC and the DTRC report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture.
3. Each Racing Commission should hire one full-time Administrator of Racing.
4. Each Racing Commission should hire one full-time Administrative Specialist I.
5. The DHRC should adjust the working duties of the horse racing judges so that the judges work as a board of three, as opposed to one Presiding Judge with two Associate Judges.
6. Establishment of an Integrity Unit responsible for law enforcement at each of the three racetracks. The Integrity Unit should be comprised of Delaware State Police Officers and should be modeled pursuant to the Gaming Enforcement Unit Proposal and Organizational Structure submitted by the State Police. A resolution will be adopted formally requesting that the Joint Finance Committee, the Director of the Budget Office, and the Controller General determine the appropriate funding mechanism for the Integrity Unit.
7. Section 10015 and 10128(b) of Title 3 should be amended to direct both the DHRC and the DTRC to conduct all state and federal criminal background checks through the State Bureau of Identification, in accordance with Title 11, Chapter 85.
8. DHRC and DTRC regulations identifying criteria for license revocation, suspension, and denial should be codified.
9. To allow for comprehensive reporting of financial information, amend Sections 10010 and 10109 of Title 3 relating to annual reporting requirements by changing the reporting deadline from January 1 to July 1 of each year.
10. References to the term “steward” in Chapter 100 of Title 3 (DHRC) should be deleted because the State Steward position is non-existent.
11. To implement the 1990/1991 JSC recommendations for the DTRC, strike the following from Title 3: Section 10105(b) mandating an office in Wilmington; Section 10101 (b) phrase “good moral character”; Section 10104 requiring a $25,000 bond requirement for DTRC members; Section 10106 regarding the duties of the Secretary of the Commission.
12. Establishment of a Delaware Jockeys Health and Welfare Benefit Board to oversee and manage the $350,000 that is annually set aside from the video lottery for funding health and welfare benefits for jockeys.
13. Amend 3 Del. C. to permit the DHRC to license and inspect farms and training centers in Delaware where harness racing horses are stabled and trained.
14. Amend 3 Del. C. §10029 regarding drug-testing costs to: 1) delete the reference to the program in existence as of June 30, 1998, since the types of drug testing have changed dramatically since then; 2) increase the drug-testing program so that the DHRC may use the most reliable, up-to-date testing methods and equipment available in the industry; and 3) delete the public hearing working in the statute and apply a different standard of reasonableness. The current practice places the Commission in the difficult position of having to negotiate with the tracks that it licenses with regard to what would be a reasonable drug testing plan and the costs of that plan.
15. The Department of Agriculture, the Delaware Harness Racing Commission, and the Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission should implement a process or practice to ensure that Delaware’s equine drug testing regime meets or exceeds the highest standards of the horse racing industry and that they report back to the Joint Sunset Committee on their progress by January 15, 2005.
16. Legislation forwarding funds held for unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets to the State as its property according to Delaware State Escheat Laws and specifying that the unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets will be escheated after one year. This requires replacing Sections 10059 (DHRC) and 10168 (DTRC) of Title 3, which allows the licensees to retain unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets as their property, and requires amending Delaware State Escheat Laws as appropriate. Unclaimed pari-mutuel ticket funds will be escheated only upon state financing of specific costs that are mandated in Title 3 and are currently financed by the racetracks. The mandated costs should be determined by the Department of Finance and identified in a report due to the Joint Sunset Committee by January 15, 2005.
17. Proceeds from unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets should remain with the racetracks, as currently provided for in Code, and should not be escheated.
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
The sunset review of the Delaware Solid Waste Authority will be continued through June 2004 or later.
2005 Sunset Reviews
Agencies selected for 2005 sunset review are:
· Criminal Justice Council
· Delaware Health Resources Planning Board
· Delaware Solid Waste Authority (continued review if necessary)
· Division of Child Support Enforcement
The following members of the Joint Sunset Committee approve and submit the 2004 Final Report to the Governor and members of the 142nd General Assembly.
Board of Architects
Final Report
Recommendations
1. Continuation of the Board of Architects provided that the final recommendations are implemented to the satisfaction of the JSC.
2. The Division of Professional Regulation should increase architect licensure fees to cover the necessary costs, as approved by the Division, to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare.
3. Amend Chapter 3 of Title 24 as follows:
§ Amend§303 regarding exceptions to follow the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) Model Law Sections 11(2-6) and 11(9-13).
§ Adopt the NCARB Model Law Section 1 pertaining to the definition for the “practice of architecture”.
§ Authorize the Board of Architects to enforce prohibitions against unlicensed practice by holding administrative hearings and levying civil fines, similar to NCARB Model Law Section 12.
§ Require that architects provide administration and observation of the construction phase for all projects in which the architect has been retained in the design of the building, similar to NCARB Model Law Section 10A.
§ Include standard language for conducting criminal background checks.
4. The Board of Architects should research public safety issues associated with design/build projects and report its findings to the Joint Sunset Committee as part of the December 2004 sunset review progress report.
5. The Board of Architects, in cooperation with the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers, should develop draft legislation or a draft resolution, if determined by the Board to be necessary, to address the permitting problems associated with the concurrent practice areas of architecture and engineering. The draft legislation or proposed resolution should be submitted with the 2004 sunset review progress report.
Agency Background
The Board of Architects was created in 1933 by House Bill 242 to regulate the practice of architecture for the protection of the public. The Board’s primary objective is to protect the general public from unsafe practices which tend to reduce competition or fix the price of services rendered. The Board’s secondary objectives are to maintain minimum standards of architect competency and to maintain certain standards in the delivery of services to the public.
The objectives are met through the Board’s licensing program, through monitoring complaints, conducting formal hearings, promulgating rules and regulations, and imposing sanctions, if necessary. Specific powers granted to the Board for the purpose of carrying out these activities are outlined in
24 Del. C. §306.
The Joint Sunset Committee reviewed the Board of Architects in 1982 and again in 1989. The 1982 sunset review rewrote Chapter 3 of Title 24 and defined the practice of architecture as, “the rendering or offering to render those services in connection with the design and construction of a structure or group of structures which has as their principal purpose human habitation or use…”
The 1989 sunset review of the Board concluded with several recommendations for improving Board management. One recommendation requested suggestions from the Board as to how to license architects in corporations. In response, the Board proposed legislation (House Bill No. 206), in June 2003, which creates a statutory provision permitting business entities to offer architectural services through professionals registered with the Board after obtaining a certificate of authorization and requires renewal of the certificate. Delaware is one of few states that do not have this requirement.
Accomplishments
· Comprehensive review and revision of Board Rules and Regulations conforming to the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB).
· New continuing educational requirements for the 2003-2005 renewal periods which will maintain professional competency and better protect the public.
· Board representation at the NCARB.
Opportunities
· Passage of HB 206 will place accountability on architectural firms by ensuring that registered architects directly supervise architectural services.
Challenges
· General lack of public knowledge about the distinction between an architect, a professional engineer, and an interior designer.
· Proving the board with some jurisdiction over unlicensed practice.
· Insufficient fees to support more participation by board members in attending national and regional meetings.
Organization
Policymaking Structure
Nine governor-appointed members serve on the Board of Architects, of which four are public members. Senate confirmation is not required. Board members may serve two, three-year terms.
The Governor may suspend or remove a member for misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance. Members who fail to attend three consecutive meetings or who fail to attend at least half of all regular business meetings are considered resigned from office and a replacement is appointed.
The only qualification for the five professional Board members is that each must be a registered architect. The four public members must not be employed by a person or firm providing construction services, nor a member of an immediate family of an architect or engineer or an employee of an architect or having any material financial interest in a firm which provides construction services.
The 2003/2004 Board of Architects is:
Peter Jennings
President
Professional Member
Appointed: 6/02
Term Expires: 8/06
|
S. Page Nelson, Jr.
Secretary
Public Member
Appointed: 4/00
Term Expires: 8/06
|
C. Terry Jackson, II
Professional Member
Appointed: 2/94
Term Expires: 5/00 (hold over serving
on National Committees)
| Charles Ryan
Professional Member
Appointed: 5/97
Term expires: 5/03 (hold over) |
Susan Frederick, RA
Professional Member
Appointed: 3/99
Term Expires: 4/05
| Loretta Wootten
Public Member
Appointed: 10/00
Term Expires: 10/03 |
Steven Atchley
Public Member
Appointed: 10/01
Term Expires: 10/04
| Goodwin K. Cobb, IV
Public Member
Appointed: 12/01
Term Expires: 12/04 |
Alvin French
Professional Member
Appointed: 8/03
Term Expires: 8/06
|  |
The terms for Terry Jackson and Charles Ryan have expired; however the Board has requested that both be held over so that Mr. Jackson may serve in a leadership position for the National Council of Architectural Registration Board, and so that Mr. Ryan could participate in the Sunset review process. Mr. Ryan’s position will be filled with another architect upon the conclusion of sunset review. DPR has advised the Governor’s Office that Ms. Wooten’s term has expired and that she may serve another term.
Meetings
By law, the Board must meet at least once every quarter. In practice, the Board meets monthly.
The Board meets FOIA requirements for posting and conducting open meetings. The Board has not entered executive session or any other closed session meetings within the last three calendar years.
Compensation and Training
Board members receive $40 for each meeting in addition to mileage reimbursement. Board members attend a mandatory training session sponsored by the Division of Professional Regulation.
Staff
One merit Administrative Specialist is assigned to the Board of Architects and three other regulatory boards. She spends most of her time reviewing application materials and managing the Board (i.e., preparing meeting agendas, attending meetings, minutes, etc.).
DPR’s full-time investigative staff assists with complaints against those licensed by the Board pursuant to Title 29 §8807(h). Written complaints may be submitted to the investigative unit who then forwards it to the DPR Director. DPR provides a copy of the complaint to the appropriate board for further investigation. Investigators may also forward complaints to the Attorney General’s Office for review and enforcement.
In 2002, DPR initiated a process improvement study to evaluate current board assignments of the administrative specialists who support the 36 regulatory boards. The purpose of the study was to provide equity in work distribution. Board assignments were restructured and DPR continues to monitor the level of success it has had with the process.
Architects and Engineers --- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
In 1996, the Board of Architects and the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers (DAPE) agreed to a MOU to provide a framework for fostering a better working relationship between the Board and DAPE. .
As noted on the MOU, in the past, professional practice areas and professional practice competencies have been questioned by the permitting agencies due to a lack of understanding of the concurrent practice areas of architects and engineers. There also appeared to be a lack of understanding about the laws regulating the practice of architecture and the practice of engineering. The MOU was developed in light of those issues.
The mechanism which carries out the MOU is the Joint Advisory Panel, consisting of seven members, who meet at least annually and additionally as needed. The panel, “reviews referrals of questions concerning professional practices to determine whether the matter appears to have substance and thereafter to either (i) refer those matters which appear to have substance to either the Board or DAPE or (ii) reply to the referrer with a non-binding recommendation.”
The Advisory Panel could be problematic if it is performing duties that have been statutorily granted to the Board of Architects.
Licensing Program
Qualifications
Applicants for an architect license must:
· Hold a National Architectural Accrediting Board accredited professional degree in architecture or complete other education the Board deems equivalent.
· Completed a minimum of three years practical training in architectural work. Specifics of the training are outlined in Board Regulations and must be consistent with the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.
· Submit a Board approved application with appropriate fee.
Renewal
Licenses are renewed every two years provided that the license holder has completed 16 hours of continuing education credits acceptable to the Board. The Board is currently reviewing other state continuing education requirements to determine if changes to Delaware’s requirements are necessary.
Exam
The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) developed, administers, and scores a computerized exam. Persons may review the exam results upon request to the Board for approval and then the request is forwarded to NCARB which coordinates the review process.
The NCARB exam is scored by sections (pre-design, general structures, site planning, etc.) Review of test data for 2002 and 2001 shows that most Delaware candidates taking specific portions of the NCARB exam passed.
Reciprocity
Reciprocity is granted if the applicant submits an application, pays a pro-rated licensure fee, and meets one of the following:
· Applicant holds a current and valid registration issued by a registration authority recognized by the Board, and holds a NCARB certificate, or
· Applicant holds a current and valid registration issued by a Board recognized authority and meets the requirements for initial registration.
Board meeting minutes note that there has been some confusion with reciprocity language, especially the meaning of “initial registration.”
Disciplinary Action
Licenses may be subject to disciplinary action after notice and hearing for:
· Consumer fraud or fraud in order to acquire a certificate of registration.
· Restraint of competition or participation in price fixing.
· Violation of laws or regulations pertaining to architecture.
· Illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of architecture.
The Board may impose any of the following sanctions or take the following actions if a licensee is found guilty of one of the above mentioned violations:
· Issue a letter of reprimand
· Censure the architect
· Probation
· Suspend or revoke the license
· Issue cease and desist orders
· Seek injunctions or seek judicial enforcement of civil fines imposed by the Board. Civil fines may not exceed $2500 for the first offense and not more than $5,000 for the second offense.
Over the past three years, a total of 7 license applications were rejected and no licenses were suspended or revoked. From the information provided, no case hearings were brought before the Board.
If the Board has determined that a person is unlawfully practicing architecture in Delaware, the Board can formally warn the person, but it must file a formal complaint with the Attorney General’s Office if the offense continues. The AG’s Office, and not the Board, has the authority to seek an order prohibiting unlawful practice.
The issue of unlicensed practice is a concern for the Board and other architectural related organizations. Of the seven complaints received over the past three years, three involved the unlicensed practice of architecture. The Board issued letters of warning in all three cases. One case required the Board to issue the warning letter followed by a cease and desist order.
Unlicensed practice was a point covered in the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Delaware Chapter, white paper drafted in fall 2003 and developed for the purpose of reviewing the possibility of privatizing Board functions to provide better control and service to architects, allow for needed national interaction, and provide the appropriate methods to provide disciplinary action and penalties for infractions of law.
The AIA paper noted that the Board of Architects has limited enforcement capability and the Attorney General’s Office has been, at times, unable to enforce current laws related to the illegal practice of architecture. AIA explained a few other concerns with the Board’s structure such as, the Board’s inability to provide quality services to their members or represent the state at a national forum because the Board shares one administrator with two other boards, the Board is not represented by a cross-section of the practicing architects as is the case with professional engineers throughout the state, and the Attorney General’s Office will not allow the Board to make available as public information the number of architects by name and address who are registered in Delaware.
Evaluations
DPR conducts formal and informal performance reviews of Board staff. DPR also develops performance measures through the strategic planning process and monitors website hits, tracks the number of phone calls, and has upgraded the licensing software that maintains all licensee information.
Budget
DPR is responsible for providing fiscal support to the Board. Revenue is generated through license fees which were last updated in 2002 and are as follows:
License $66
Duplicate License $10
Verification $10
Renewal $66
Late Fee $33
Fiscal Year Source Expenses Revenue
2003 and 2004 ASF $71,750 (estimated) $83,600 (estimated)
2001 and 2002 ASF $67,700 (estimated) $78,900 (actual)
Actual Board expenses are unavailable until DPR completes its biennial evaluation of license rates in Spring 2004, at which time, Board overhead costs will be calculated.
Delaware Commission of Veterans Affairs
Final Report
Recommendations
1. Continuation of the DCVA provided that the final recommendations are implemented to the satisfaction of the JSC.
2. The DCVA should combine its General Guidelines, Rules and Regulations, and Standard Operating Procedures into one regulatory document governing the Veterans Memorial Cemeteries. The regulations would be subject to the APA, which provides for a formal hearing process in which the public may address concerns regarding cemetery procedures.
3. The DCVA should post signage at the Veteran’s Cemeteries, during holidays, clearly stating the
DCVA’s marker policy.
4. Civilian and family representation on DCVA subcommittee(s) charged with cemetery related issues should continue.
5. As part of the September and December sunset review progress reports, the DCVA shall provide the Joint Sunset Committee with an update on the replacement of the makers and other memorabilia.
6. The DCVA must comply with FOIA requirements.
7. The DCVA should post meeting agendas and minutes on its website.
8. Standard Operating Procedures or Regulations regarding fees for exhuming bodies should be clarified.
9. The Joint Sunset Committee will write a letter to the Governor encouraging the appointment of more women to the DCVA.
Agency Background
The Delaware Commission of Veterans Affairs (DCVA) serves Delaware’s more than 84,000 veterans. It was established by Senate Bill No. 332 in January 1986. Previous measures such as Senate Joint Resolution 26 and Executive Order No. 67 were directives but did not establish by law a permanent body to represent veterans’ interests in the state. Senate Bill No. 332 created an eleven member body, all of who must be veterans, appointed by the Governor from a list of recommendations from each of the statewide veteran’s organizations.
DCVA’s enabling statute has been amended several times. Senate Bill No. 79, signed in March 1989, gave the Commission the authority to operate a Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery and in 1996, House Bill No. 573 authorized operation of a Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Sussex County. Other amendments increased DCVA membership from eleven to fifteen; changed the DCVA administrator’s name from Executive Secretary to Executive Director; provided for the Commission to appoint veterans service officers; and permitted its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson to serve an additional term.
According to Title 29, Chapter 87, of the Delaware Code, the DCVA’s key responsibilities include:
· Representing veterans and their families.
· Representing the State in concert with other state veterans affairs agencies and the US Department of Veterans Affairs on matters of mutual interest.
· Establishing a repository for all veterans’ “Statement of Service” or similar documentary verification of active military service.
· Advising all departments and agencies of the State on all matters pertaining to veterans, their dependents, and survivors.
· Initiating, reviewing, and sponsoring legislation concerning veterans.
· Operating and administering the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemeteries.
Mission and Key Objectives
The mission of the DCVA is to assist, advise, and represent Delaware’s more than 84,000 veterans and their families regarding programs and benefits available to them under federal and state laws.
DCVA has identified the following as its primary objectives :
1. Pursue legislative, organizational, and constituent support to establish Delaware’s first State Veterans Home. Legislative support is needed to approve the federally required 35 percent state funding necessary to construct a 150-bed Veterans Home.
2. Increase the effectiveness of representation and services to Delaware veterans and their dependents by increasing the number of disability/pension claims processed with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
3. Consolidate all Department of Defense Military Records of Separation within the State Department.
4. Increase the number of interments at the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery.
5. Strengthen Delaware’s economy through support of the US Small Business Administration and Disabled Veterans Business Outreach center for access to programs and funding opportunities for disabled veterans interested in developing small businesses. Similarly, establish opportunities for women and minority veterans to establish small businesses in coordination with the State Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprise.
6. Increase the number of professionally trained volunteers and veteran advocates by the end of FY 2005.
Accomplishments, Opportunities, and Challenges
Some DCVA accomplishments include:
· Providing mental health services to Kent and Sussex County veterans through a $49,000 grant and other outreach services through a Mobile Veterans Service Center.
· Establish, maintain, and operate the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery in New Castle and Sussex Counties.
· Award High School Diplomas to WWII veterans.
· Increase the amount that a paraplegic veteran receives as a pension from the State of Delaware from $1,200 to $3,000 per year.
· Provide a military bonus of $300 to Merchant Marines.
· Establishing a Veterans Home Fund
DCVA noted that there are several opportunities for how it could improve services to Delaware veterans and their dependents, but the availability of resources must be considered before service delivery is expanded:
· Seeking legislative passage of a personal property tax exemption for disabled veterans and issue Certificates of Exemption to qualifying veterans.
· Establishing and maintaining a database of disabled veteran small business owners for certification and priority access to the State’s procurement system.
· Assuming responsibility as the State approving authority to enter into contracts with the federal government for the qualification, approval, certification, and supervision of educational institutions and training establishments applying for or participating in federal programs for educating and training veterans.
DCVA confronts several challenges including:
· Increasing outreach efforts to the 50,000 plus veterans who do not belong to veteran service organizations and informing them of their benefits.
· Providing an additional Veterans Service Officer in New Castle County to assist in claims development for veterans and their dependents. New Castle County is where the majority of the State’s veterans reside.
· Maintaining cemetery sites with required personnel and adequately funding future expansion projects in order to provide a final resting place with lasting memorials to the State’s veterans.
· Providing adequate services to recently separated veterans from active military service and services to recently relocated veterans from other states.
Performance Measures
· Increase outreach services by five percent per year through FY 2005.
· Increase access for veterans and families to other State agencies and to the US Department of Veterans Affairs by five percent through FY 2005.
· Increase by five percent the number of veterans and their families served through the DCVA’s web page.
Services
Benefits Assistance
DCVA assists veterans with obtaining state and federal benefits by managing the claims processing system, maintaining a repository of documentary verification of active military service, and maintaining information systems that provide veterans with electronic access to benefits and entitlement information.
Veterans’ Outreach
DCVA has several outreach services:
· Listening Post-Lower Delaware (LP-LoDel) provides mental health/counseling and referral services to veterans residing in lower Kent and Sussex Counties. Referral services include locating food, medicine, vocational rehabilitation, and referrals to drug and alcohol services. The program also provides transportation services. Lastly, program administrators visit incarcerated veterans and make home visits as needed.
LP-LoDel is administered through a contract between the DCVA and People’s Place II. The program’s FY 04 budget is $50,000 most of which is used to fund an outreach worker position.
· DCVA provides workshops or informational sessions to veteran organizations, civilian corporations, non-profit organizations and community based organizations when requested.
· DCVA publishes a quarterly newsletter, The Centurion, which is distributed to 30,000 subscribers. It also publishes a state veterans benefits booklet. Many of these publications may be found on the DCVA website (http://www.state.de.us/veteran).
Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery
Title 20 of the Delaware Code establishes a Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery (DVMC) and outlines eligibility for burial. DCVA operates one cemetery in New Castle County and one located in Sussex County.
The DVMC in New Castle County opened in 1989. Through June 2003, a total of 7,347 interments have occurred and 24,278 individuals have been pre-approved for burial. The DVMC-New Castle is undergoing a ten-year improvement plan and vault field expansion funded through a federal grant totaling $5.3 million.
The Delaware Veteran’s Memorial Cemetery in Sussex County opened in October 1999. Through June 2003, 741 interments have occurred and 3,741 individuals have been pre-approved for burial. The Cemetery recently completed an expansion project which included the addition of 384 new columbarium niches. The expansion was funded through a federal grant totaling over $218,000.
DCVA has approved General Guidelines and Rules and Regulations governing flowers, vases, flags, and pets at Veterans Memorial Cemetery locations. Rules and Regulations are distributed to interested parties as part of the pre-application process. Family members also receive a copy when either the veteran or the spouse is interred. Additionally, copies of the Rules and Regulations are posted throughout the cemeteries.
The DCVA recently developed draft internal Standard Operating Procedures governing the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemeteries. The document explains general administration of the cemeteries and also covers issues such as interment eligibility and services, and policies or procedures concerning the marker program.
Public Concerns
During early 2003, DCVA received numerous complaints from family members of veterans buried at the DVMC-New Castle specifically related to the removal of trees, markers, and benches, which were to be replaced with memorial bricks as part of the DVMC’s expansion project.
DCVA held two public sessions in an attempt to assess the extent of the problem. The sessions resulted in the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee of volunteer family members who were responsible for returning the markers to their original sites. The DCVA has since obtained written consent prior to the removal of any makers or other memorabilia and has placed a related letter is each interment file.
In addition, with the passage of Senate Bill No. 170, the DCVA must first notify the Co-Chairs of the Joint Legislative Committee on Capital Improvement prior to modifications or improvements to the Cemetery.
DCVA received approximately 30 complaints during the past three calendar years, 17 of which related to the memorial markers at the Veterans Memorial Cemetery. The other complaints were requests for enhanced services such as property tax exemption, state veterans home, full tax exemption for retired military pay, Veterans Emergency Relief Fund, and requests for Veterans Service Officer assistance in submitting claims to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Concerned individuals usually contact the Commission Office, the Veterans Memorial Cemetery or individual staff. The majority of complaints are taken over the phone. When written correspondence is received, attempts are made to contact the individual by phone or through a written reply. Most complaints are resolved immediately or they require referral to the federal or the state office of jurisdiction.
Organization
DCVA is one of the smallest state agencies and is located within the Department of State.
Effective July 2003, DCVA reorganized and established a more effective chain of command. Under the previous structure, the cemetery administrators reported to the DCVA; however communication problems rendered that system ineffective. The reorganization, sanctioned by the Secretary of State, centralized accounting functions within the Commission Office and made the Cemetery Director and state service officers accountable to the Executive Director (see organizational chart on the following page).
Policymaking Structure
Appointment
The DCVA is composed of 15 members, each nominated by their respective statewide veterans organization. All Commission members are appointed by the Governor for a 4-year term. Senate confirmation is not required.
Commissioners must be veterans who have served on active duty in the United States Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard for a minimum of two years and who have been honorably discharged or relieved. The minimum period may be waived if earlier release was granted because the individual was wounded or injured in the line of duty and rendered unfit for further service, or the individual was released prior to two years active duty for the convenience of the government.
Commission of Veterans Affairs
Organization Chart
The Commission elects one member to serve as Chairperson and one as Vice-Chairperson. Neither the Chair nor the Vice-Chair may serve more than two consecutive terms. DCVA members for 2003/2004 are:
Mr. James L. Thompson
Chairman
Marine Corps. League
Profession: Retired Military
Appointment: 10/24/96 – 11/22/04 |
Mr. George K. Hastings
Vice-Chairman
Military Order of the World Wars
Profession: Sub-Contractor, IIF Data Solutions
Appointment: 10/09/00 – 10/09/04
|
Mr. Robert D. Marcinkowski
Military Officers of America Association
Profession: Attorney
Appointment: 08/03/95 – 02/07/04 | Mr. Cornelius C. “Bill” Carroll
Military Order of the Purple Heart
Profession: Retired Military
Appoint: 6/23/00-62/23/04 |
Mr. Richard E. Ennis
Korean War Veterans Association
Profession: Levy Court Commissioner,
Kent County
Appointment: 08/05/03 – 10/25/05 | Mrs. Ruth B. Harden
WAVES National
Profession: Community Volunteer
Appointment: 4/26/01- 9/23/03 |
Mr. Jesse E. Kitson
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Profession: Telecommunications Network
Specialist III, DHSS
Appointment: 6/23/03 – 10/23/05 | Mr. Paul Lardizzone
Disabled American Veterans
Profession: DAV Department Veteran Service Officer
Appointment: 01/07/03 – 01/07/06 |
Mr. Richard M. Magner
AMVETS
Profession: MOPH National Veteran
Service Officer
Appointment: 08/08/00 – 08/08/04 | Mr. Gary “Mo” Morris
American Legion
Profession: Chief Dispatch Supervisor Delaware
Transit Corporation
Appointment: 01/08/99 – 05/16/07 |
Mr. Reese E. Phillips
La Societe 40 & 8
Profession: Retired Military
Appointment: 12/15/78 – 03/21/07 | Mr. David W. Timberman
DE/MD Paralyzed Veterans of America
Profession: Community Volunteer
Appointment: 07/30/01 – 10/23/05 |
Mr. Robert E. Wasson
Delaware Veterans, Inc.
Profession: Retired Military
Appointment: 10/16/01 – 10/16/04 | Mr. George E. Webb, Jr.
Vietnam Veterans of America
Profession: Retired
Appointment: 01/29/99 – 03/21/07 |
Mr. Barry B. Newstadt
Jewish War Veterans
Profession: Alderman, Town of Newport
Appointment: 08/05/03 – 05/16/07 | |
Removal
Any veteran’s organization as defined in §8720(b), Title 29, may petition the Governor to remove a member provided the reasons for removal are clearly stated.
The Governor may also remove a Commissioner for failure to attend three consecutively scheduled meetings without just cause.
One Commissioner was removed after submission of a petition from the Commander of the Veteran Service Organization to the Governor because of a change in his status from local member to a member at large affiliated with a group located in the Washington, DC area.
Committees
DCVA conducts much of its work through standing committees which include: Personnel, Finance, Commemorative Affairs, Cemetery, Education and Training, and Health and Social Services. DCVA committees report to the full Commission during public meetings.
Compensation
Commission members only receive compensation for travel expenses to Commission related events.
Meetings
DCVA holds monthly meetings at the main Dover Office. Meeting notices are published and meeting minutes transcribed as required by FOIA. Agendas are distributed at the meetings.
Executive sessions were conducted several times during the past three calendar years. The nature of the meetings involved commission elections, requests for constituent burial, and other cemetery issues.
Executive sessions and their purpose were rarely identified in meeting minutes nor were votes taken to enter executive session. Additionally, meeting minutes were rarely approved.
By-Laws
DCVA established By-Laws initially adopted in 1996. They are currently under revision to reflect the agency’s recent reorganization.
Staff
The Commission has a total of 22 employees none of which are appointed. The Commission Office in Dover employs 6; the Northern Cemetery employs 10; and the Southern Cemetery employs 6.
During FY 03, the DVMC employed 4 causal/seasonal individuals at the northern section and 1 casual/ seasonal at the southern section.
Antonio Davila, Executive Director, is responsible for the operational oversight of the Commission’s Central Office and the DVMC. He prepares and administers the budget, coordinates DCVA programs, serves as a liaison, and ensures compliance with statutory requirements, among other responsibilities. A cemetery administrator in New Castle County and one in Sussex County supervise and monitor the daily operations of the Veterans Memorial Cemeteries. Two administrative specialists support the general functions of the Commission Office.
Three (3) vacancies exist at the Veterans Memorial Cemeteries (2 at the northern and 1 at the southern). As noted on the JSC Questionnaire, over a 10 year period, the DCVA has made requests through the normal budget process to supplement the Veteran’s Service Officer (VSO) positions in order to provide services to 46,908 veterans in New Castle County. VSOs process claims and represent veterans before the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Since funding the positions in 1996, $4.5 million has been awarded in claims to Delaware veterans from the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs.
Over that same 10 year time period, similar requests have been initiated for additional administrative staff to handle increased veterans claims. These concerns have been and will continue to be addressed with the Delaware Department of State.
DCVA Budget
DCVA’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget is $1.7 million which includes the DCVA Office and the two Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemeteries. The sources of funding are as follows: $1.4 million is appropriated from the general fund; $111,000 from appropriated special funds; and $127,000 from non-appropriated special funds.
DCVA collects a $300 interment fee, which is allocated to the appropriated special fund of the servicing Cemetery. Estimated receipts for Fiscal Year 2004 are $111,000 ($90,000 New Castle County; $21,000 Sussex County).
Expenditures by Fiscal Year
FY 04 budgeted Expenditures
Internal Budget Unit | General Fund | Appropriated
Special Fund | Non-Appropriated
Special Fund | TOTAL |
| DCVA (20-0102) | 394.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 394.0 |
| DVMC New Castle Co. (20-0103) | 697.7 | 90.0 | 91.8 | 879.5 |
| DVMC Sussex Co. (20-0104) | 391.5 | 21.0 | 35.3 | 447.8 |
| 1483.2 | 111.0 | 127.1 | 1721.3 |
FY 04 Budgeted Expenditures by Line Item
General Funds (GF) | | DCVA
Dover | DVMC
New Castle | DVMC
Sussex | TOTAL |
Personnel
Travel
Contractual
Energy
Supplies & Materials
Debt Service | Total GF | 212.3
18.3
150.0
0.0
13.4
0.0
394.0 | 411.5
1.0
27.4
17.8
46.1
193.9
697.7 | 313.0
1.0
24.0
18.3
35.2
0.0
391.5 | 936.8
20.3
201.4
36.1
94.7
193.9
1483.2 |
Appropriated
Special Funds (ASF) | | | | | TOTAL |
Travel
Contractual
Supplies & Materials
Capital Outlay | Total ASF | 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 | 2.5
37.5
35.6
14.4
90.0 | 1.0
4.0
16.0
0.0
21.0 | 3.5
41.5
51.6
14.4
111.0 |
Non-Appropriated
Special Funds (NSF) | | | | | TOTAL |
Travel
Contractual
Supplies & Materials
Capital Outlay | Total NSF | 0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 | 1.0
25.6
46.9
18.3
91.8 | 1.5
12.5
16.3
5.0
35.3 | 2.5
38.1
63.2
23.3
127.1 |
Grand Total (All Funds) | | 394.0 | 879.5 | 447.8 | 1721.3 |
Veteran’s Home
Delaware is one of three states that does not have a veteran’s home, although constructing one has been discussed frequently among many interested parties. Plans cannot proceed until a legislative bill granting the home has been signed into law.
As of March 2004, funding has precluded passage of a bill. Estimated capital costs for the veteran’s home are $25 million and estimated annual operating costs are $8 million. The federal government will pay for 65 percent of the costs with the state funding the remaining 35 percent. To date, the state has committed $500,000 and, as of November 2003, just over $44,000 has been received by donations or as a result of House Bill 500, signed into law May 2002, establishing a Veterans Home Fund to which Delawareans may make a contribution when they pay their taxes.
The proposed Veterans Home would probably be a 150-bed facility offering nursing home care, adult day care, and domiciliary care at an estimated per diem cost of $210. The cost to the state for resident care will depend upon the resident’s income and differing federal reimbursement rates for each type of care. Eligibility criteria for the Veterans Home will be established in the future.
The five potential property sites for the Veterans Home include: Governor Bacon Hospital in Delaware City, the Home for the Chronically Ill in Smyrna, property at the Stockley Center, property offered by New Castle County, or property located in Milford. The State has contracted with an engineering firm who will conduct a feasibility study for each of these five properties and recommend the best option to the Veterans Home Feasibility Committee created by the House Bill 600 signed into law July 2002.
The DCVA must meet an April 15, 2004, federal deadline for submitting an initial veteran’s home application if the State wishes consideration of the application for placement on the Veteran’s Administration priority list for the next fiscal year.
Delaware Health Care Commission
Final Report
Recommendations
1. Continuation of the (DHCC) provided that Recommendation No. 2 is implemented to the satisfaction of the Joint Sunset Committee.
2. The DHCC should evaluate Health Fund programs and make recommendations to the Health Fund Advisory Committee (HFAC) regarding the best use of tobacco settlement dollars.
3. Amend Chapters 1 and 99 of Title 16 to reflect that the DHCC is responsible for evaluating Health Fund programs and for making recommendations to the HFAC regarding the best use of tobacco settlement dollars.
4. To address DHCC’s current staffing challenges, and to assist with the HFAC evaluation, or other related projects, the JSC will request that the Joint Finance Committee consider funding one additional full-time staff person.
Agency Background
The Delaware Healthcare Commission (DHCC) is an independent public body reporting to the Governor and General Assembly. The General Assembly created the DHCC in June 1990 following a submission of a report from the Indigent Health Care Task Force, which then Governor Michael Castle created and charged with examining ways to improve access to health care for the uninsured.
The Task Force report, issued May 31, 1990, recommended a six point strategy designed to serve as the foundation for the future work of the DHCC. Those strategies included:
1. Expanding and enhancing public program coverage.
2. Health Insurance Regulation Reform.
3. Developing innovative service delivery models, coupled with the provision of financial incentives for the expansion of employment-based and individually purchased coverage.
4. Other related health care access and cost management measures.
5. Establishing of a Health Care Commission.
6. Increasing the cigarette tax.
The General Assembly conferred upon the DHCC other responsibilities, identified in Chapter 99 of
Title 16, in addition to overseeing the Task Force Report:
· Develop pilot projects targeting health care access including monitoring and overseeing program progress and ensuring evaluation of each pilot program by an outside evaluator after 2 years of operation.
· Administer the Delaware Institute of Medical Education and Research (DIMER) and the Delaware Institute of Dental Education and Research (DIDER).
· Conduct studies and publish reports.
· Hire staff and contract for services.
Other key functions of the DHCC include:
· Determining additional data necessary to carry out its mission, preparing legislation to obtain data, and ensuring that data to support the goals of health care access is available and accessible.
· Recommending methods to reduce and control health care costs in conjunction with the private sector.
· Reviewing and recommending changes to state medical insurance regulations.
· Exploring all potential insurance options including size and makeup of risk groups.
· Studying and issuing recommendations concerning incentives to ensure that employers continue to provide health insurance coverage.
· Studying and recommending health plan benefits available through the health care access programs.
· Identifying cost savings to public programs that would result from implementation of health care access programs.
· Examining and recommending gatekeeping mechanisms for access to health care services and various benefit and service packages for a minimum care coverage plan.
The DHCC was initially composed of nine-members with representation from the public and the private sectors. It has since increased to eleven. In 1993, under the Carper Administration, DHCC’s statute was amended to add the Secretary of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families. Another member was added in 2000 under the Minner Administration.
The DHCC provides extensive policy research and offers recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly. For example, the DHCC offered policy guidance for developing the Delaware Healthy Children’s Program and, upon request, has offered recommendations to the Health Fund Advisory Committee concerning the use of tobacco settlement funds.
In addition to research, the DHCC manages several programs some of which include the Community Healthcare Access Program, the Delaware Health Information Network, and the Delaware Institute of Medical Education and Research.
The Uninsured in Delaware
The Indigent Health Care Task Force 1990 Report recognized that the uninsured do in fact receive health care services in Delaware because hospital emergency departments do not turn them away. However, the Task Force cautioned that the emergency room is not the most appropriate way to provide care. In a nutshell, the uninsured face three significant problems: 1) Lacking health insurance is a major barrier to receiving adequate access to care, especially preventative and primary care. 2) If the uninsured do receive care, the quality of care is often less than that received by their insured counterparts. 3) Health care costs continue to increase making health insurance unaffordable for many.
According to the 2002 report, Delawareans Without Health Insurance, close to 9 percent of the Delaware population was uninsured (about 76,000 people). This compares with a national average of 14.6 percent. A snapshot of this group shows that stat:
· 83% were above the federal poverty line (about $18,100/year for a family of 4).
· 65% were working and most work for small businesses that tend to not provide coverage.
· 76% were over the age of 17.
· 81% were white, 13% were Hispanic.
· 10% are non-citizens.
By income level:
· 24 percent of the uninsured (18,648 people) are income eligible for existing public coverage programs, but are not enrolled.
· 57 percent of the uninsured (43,029) have incomes above 200% of the FPL.
· 19 percent of the uninsured (14,623) have incomes that are too high for them to be eligible for Medicaid but too low for them to be able to purchase private health insurance. The DHCC has identified this subgroup of the uninsured as the target population for coverage expansion.
Accomplishments and Challenges
Some of the DHCC’s most significant accomplishments include:
· Reducing the ranks of the uninsured. According to a recent Governing magazine article, Delaware has the second lowest rate of uninsured adults in the nation (about 9 percent).
· Research. DHCC generates data to develop and support programs and policy recommendations.
· Consensus Building. DHCC composition represents a variety of stakeholders. This benefits Commission work because multiple perspectives on access, cost, and quality are considered.
· Easing Provider Shortages. Commission programs focusing on health professional workforce development activities helps ensure appropriate access to health care services.
· Pilot Programs. DHCC has the statutory power to create, monitor, and oversee pilot health access projects.
· Insurance Reforms. The Commission has been at the forefront of developing and understanding policies related to health insurance availability, cost, and coverage. Some of these policies include:
· Medical Malpractice Reform (1995 and 2003)
· Small Business Health Insurance (2002)
· Individual Market Health Insurance Reform (1999)
· Tax Deductibility for Employer Purchase of Health Insurance (1996)
Several challenges include:
· Responding to greater demands for projects or research with limited staff and shrinking budget resources.
· Effective communication.
· Diversifying the pool of applicants to medical school.
Mission and Objectives
Mission
The mission of the DHCC is to promote accessible, affordable, quality health care for all Delawareans. The Commission accomplishes its mission through a combination of policy research and program management.
Objective: Promote access to health care for all Delawareans
Uninsured Action Plan. The plan consists of two components:
1. Community Health Care Access Program (CHAP)
CHAP, created in 2001, is a statewide eligibility and referral system that links the uninsured to a “health home” or a safety net provider. Safety net providers deliver care either on a free or reduced cost basis and include five community health centers and a network of private physicians enrolled in the Medical Society’s Voluntary Initiative Program II. The ultimate goal of CHAP is to increase access to health care services thereby improving health outcomes.
Individuals may apply to the CHAP program at community health centers, at hospitals or by calling a
1-800 number. Care coordinators determine eligibility and direct qualified participants to the appropriate safety net providers. Those found ineligible for CHAP are referred to other programs (i.e., Medicaid, Delaware Healthy Children program).
CHAP targets the 14,623 uninsured whose household incomes fall at or below 200% of the federal poverty level ($36,200 for a family of 4) and who do not qualify for other health insurance programs such as Medicaid. As of November 2003, approximately 3,030 were enrolled in CHAP. Total CHAP enrollment since 2001 is 4,677. Sixty-eight percent of those enrolled are non-citizens.
CHAP’s budget for FY 04 is $1.5 million. The program was initially funded by a federal grant but that ended August 3, 2003. Master settlement funds in the amount of $1 million have been allocated to sustain CHAP as needed. Approximately half of the funding pays for care coordinators.
CHAP is being evaluated on several dimensions. It was determined that the safety net, which CHAP relies on, now serves 9,000 uninsured and has a capacity to serve 18,000. The capacity of the CHAP program is currently undetermined as is the cost-effectiveness of CHAP versus some other alternative. The Commission will continue CHAP and its evaluation through June, 2004.
2. State Planning Project (SPP)
The purpose of the SPP is to identify models for expanding health insurance coverage. The SPP workgroup has identified four options for expanding health insurance coverage: a limited benefit plan, one-third share plan, expansion of the Delaware Healthy Children Program, and government subsidized purchasing pools. These options were determined to be the most affordable, have the greatest impact on coverage, and enjoy the greatest public acceptance.
Implementation of any of the expansion options is not currently feasible due to state budget constraints. However, the DHCC will continue to use federal grant funds to prepare for implementation when the budget allows.
Additionally, as part of the SPP in 2004, the DHCC will implement the recommendations from the Small Business Health Insurance Task Force created by House Resolution No. 82 of the 141st General Assembly, enacted on June 30, 2002. Among the recommendations is a review of the small group health insurance law, investigate purchasing pools, and study the feasibility of a single payer system for Delaware. The Small Business Health Insurance Task Force work was administered in conjunction with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
SPP budget is $162,000 and is funded through a federal grant through FY 04.
Health Care Workforce Development
The DHCC 2002 Annual Report states that an adequate number and distribution of health care professionals is fundamental to assuring appropriate access to health services. With that in mind, the DHCC is involved with several workforce development programs.
Delaware Institute of Medical Education Research (DIMER)
DIMER was created by the General Assembly in 1969 as an alternative to establishing a state medical school. In 1995, the Joint Sunset Committee requested the DHCC to review the DIMER. As a result of the sunset review and subsequent legislation, DIMER was reorganized and moved under the auspices of the DHCC.
DIMER’s program budget for FY 2004 is $2 million. Jefferson Medical College is appropriated $1 million and the Pennsylvania College of Osteopathic Medicine (PCOM) is appropriated $237,500. The remainder of the budget is allocated to the University of Delaware and to Christiana Care, and is used to fund scholarships.
In exchange for financial support, at least 20 admission slots at Jefferson and at least 5 slots at the PCOM are reserved for Delaware residents. Over the life of the program, Jefferson College has accepted 200 Delaware students, and Philadelphia College has accepted 17 students. More than 25 percent of DIMER students return to Delaware to practice. In 2002, twelve of 23 students accepted at Jefferson attended medical school, and 7 of 7 students accepted at PCOM attended medical school.
DIMER is legislatively mandated to develop a recruitment program for minority students and residents of rural counties and underserved areas of Delaware. In 2003, the DHCC and DIMER established a work group to consider, among other issues, how to attract more minority students and more students from underserved areas of Kent and Sussex Counties.
Delaware Institute for Dental Education and Research (DIDER)
DIDER was created in 1981 to support the general practice residency program at Wilmington Hospital. This was viewed important because Delaware is the only state that requires one year of general practice residency training in a hospital as a condition of licensure. Residents in the general practice residency program provide care at the Delaware Psychiatric Hospital, Christiana Care Wilmington Hospital Health Center, and at Delaware Technical College in Wilmington, in affiliation with the dental hygiene program.
As set forth in law, DIDER addresses the need to: expand opportunities for Delawareans to obtain post graduate dental training; encourage dental personnel to practice in Delaware; and meet the overall dental needs of Delaware communities. It is hoped that DIDER will be successful at increasing access to dental services for low-income uninsured or Medicaid patients.
In 2001, the DHCC assumed administration of DIDER, allowing it to function in concert with DIMER and other state health policy activities while benefiting from DHCC staff support.
The DIDER Board of Directors oversees implementation of the program and serves as an advisory board to the DHCC. DIDER’s budget is $248,000. Four dentists are enrolled in the program.
State Loan Repayment Program for Dentists and Physicians
This program works in conjunction with DIMER and DIDER by providing funds that help physicians and dentists repay outstanding education debt in exchange for their commitment to practice in an underserved area in Delaware for a minimum of three years. Dentists are required to maintain a patient population comprised of at least 20% Medicaid or low-income dentally uninsured.
Program budget in FY 04 is $100,000 each for physicians and dentists.
Downstate Residency Rotation
This is a pilot program testing whether physician residents will consider locating to central and southern Delaware if exposed to the quality of life and medical community of those underserved areas. Through a MOU with the teaching institutions, the DHCC provides a stipend to the resident, an honorarium to the preceptor, and other payments to the teaching institution.
Since program inception, 63 residents have completed a total of 68 rotations. As a result of the rotations, 5 former physician residents established practices downstate.
FY 04 program budget is $150,000.
Nursing Implementation Committee
The Nursing Implementation Committee was created to identify the factors contributing to the nursing shortage, understand how the shortage impacts access, and develop strategies to fix it. A 2002 report showed that Delaware’s private hospitals and long term care facilities need at least 500 more registered nurses and 150 LPNs.
Policy Research
DHCC contracts with the University of Delaware Center for Applied Demography and Survey Research (CADSR) to produce an annual report, Delawareans Without Health Insurance. The report is a survey of the uninsured, their demographic characteristics, and factor influencing coverage levels.
Report cost is $15,000.
Objective: Promote a comprehensive health care system assuring quality care for all Delawareans
Policy Research
The DHCC contracts with the Institute for Public Administration and CADSR to administer the annual Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Survey (CAHPS). The survey provides an ongoing means to determine patient satisfaction with the health care system by measuring actual health care experiences rather than relying on opinion. Survey data is collected over 12 months, with approximately 150 surveys conducted monthly among Delawareans aged 18 and older. CAHPS will be phased-out over the next year or two.
Key findings of the 2002 survey indicate that most survey respondents are satisfied with the quality of their health plans and the health care services they receive.
The cost to produce CAHPS is $54,000.
Objective: Promote a regulatory and financial framework to manage the affordability of health care.
Policy Research
The report, Total Cost of Health Care, is produced annually under a contract with CADSR. The report provides a consistent methodology of objectively measuring health care costs in Delaware. It has since been expanded to measure and monitor cost shift trends.
Key findings of the 2001 report show that Delaware is essentially in the mainstream regarding health care expenditures.
The cost to produce the report is $22,500.
Other Activities:
Delaware Health Information Network (DHIN)
DHIN was created by the General Assembly in 1997 to facilitate the communication of patient clinical and financial information. The DHIN is supposed to create efficiencies in health care costs by eliminating redundancies in data and reducing administrative and data collection costs.
Although in its infancy stage, DHIN has the ability to monitor community health status and provide reliable health care information to policymakers, consumers, providers, researchers, and purchasers via the DHIN website. The DHIN Board of Directors is developing a statewide clinical information sharing utility that is predicted to reduce medical errors and improve the quality of care by providing patient’s medical information to treating providers at the time and place of care, while maintaining patient privacy. It will also support DHSS’s disease reporting system, which detects threats of infectious disease and bioterrorism. Additionally, the DHCC has convened a workgroup to determine the role of the DHIN in HIPAA education.
Funding for the DHIN is to be determined. The Longwood Foundation has provided some seed money. The rest is being sought through other donations and grants.
Health Fund Advisory Committee (HFAC)
The DHCC is statutorily directed to provide research and policy guidance to the HFAC. HFAC was created by Senate Bill No. 8 in response to Delaware signing the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry.
HFAC makes recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly for tobacco settlement fund expenditures, which in the past have funded numerous health-care related programs. For example, in
FY 2004, $500,000 has been appropriated for the DHCC and the Division of Public Health to carry out the Statewide Diabetes Control Plan and other diabetes awareness programs.
Specific Health Care Issues
Other health care issues addressed by the DHCC through task force representation, internal committees, or policy workgroups include: infant mortality, health disparities, mental health care, and chronic disease management and prevention.
Organization
DHCC is an Executive Department agency. The internal organization is:
Delaware Health Care Commission
Policymaking Structure
Eleven (11) members representing a cross-section of public and private sectors comprise the DHCC. Seven members are appointed and four are ex-officio. The Governor appoints five members, the Speaker of the House appoints one and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate appoints one. Senate confirmation is not required. The four ex-officio commissioners, defined by statute, include the Insurance Commission, Secretary of Finance, Secretary of Health and Social Services, and Secretary of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families.
The Governor designates one member of the DHCC to be chairperson who serves at the pleasure of the Governor. The remaining six appointed members serve one four-year term and are eligible for reappointment thereafter. At least one member from each county must be represented and no more than four commissioners may be of the same political party. Background and experience requirements are not defined by statute, but the Governor and General Assembly have appointed people with knowledge and interest in health policy.
There are no specific provisions for removal, and, to date, this has not been an issue. Ex-officio members are removed when they no longer hold their position. Commission members are not compensated other than for mileage.
The DHCC is:
Lt. Governor John C. Carney, Jr., Chair
Appointed: 09/01 Serves at the Pleasure of the Governor | A. Herbert Nehrling, Jr.
Public Member
Appointed: 12/98 and 5/03 Expires: 5/16/07 |
Carol Ann DeSantis, Secretary
Department of Services for Children, Youth
and Their Families, Ex-Officio Member
Term Began: 01/2001
| Dennis Rochford, President
Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay
Public Member
Appointed: 10/94 and 10/02 Expires: 10/06 |
Jacquelyne W. Gorum, D.S.W.
Dean, School of Professional Studies
Delaware State University
Public Member
Appointed: 11/94 and 5/03 Expires: 5/07
| David W. Singleton, Secretary
Department of Finance
Ex-Officio Member
Term Began: 1/2001 |
Joseph A. Lieberman, III, MD, MPH
Public Member
Appointed: 1/96 and 6/03 Expires: 6/07
| Lois M. Studte, R.N.
Public Member
Appointed: 3/95 and 6/03 Expires: 6/07 |
Vincent P. Meconi, Secretary
Department of Health and Social Services
Ex-Officio Member
Term Began: 1/2001
| Donna Lee Williams
Insurance Commissioner
Ex-Officio Member
Term Began: 1/93 |
Robert F. Miller
Public Member
Appointed: 10/96 and 5/03 Expires: 5/07
| |
DHCC Committees
Much of the DHCC’s work is conducted in committees that are typically composed of DHCC members and members representing constituencies impacted by the subject matter. Committees meet frequently throughout the year and report back to the full Commission with reports or recommendations.
Staff
Currently, the DHCC has four full time employees and one part time employee. Two of the full time employees are merit and two are exempt. Staff is hired through the standard merit system process.
Paula K. Roy is the Executive Director. Among her key responsibilities is overseeing DHCC staff and projects, providing information and recommendations to guide commission activities, and serving as primary liaison between the DHCC, its key constituencies, the General Assembly, and the general public.
The Director of Planning and Policy, Judy A. Chaconas, also serves as Deputy Director. Her key responsibilities include strategic planning, program development, research and report writing, and serving as the DHCC’s Public Information Officer. The Community Relations Officer, Marilyn Marvel, is the primary contact for the general public, oversees day to day management of work flow, and maintains communications with commissioners and other interested parties. Two staff members serve as administrative support to the professional staff.
Because of its small size and lack of internal human resource staff, the DHCC relies on three methods of training and professional development activities: 1) opportunities through the State Personnel Office; 2) Local training and seminar opportunities; and 3) regional and national conferences for professional staff.
The small staff size imposes challenges as more requests are made of the commission and more work is assigned to staff. As staff noted on the sunset review questionnaire, “the DHCC has become a victim of its own success.” The feasibility of hiring another professional staff member may be an area for further consideration by the JSC since health policy issues will continue to gather momentum.
DHCC and the Public
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
The DHCC conducts public meetings and executive sessions in accordance with FOIA.
Public Education
DHCC research reports are made available to the public through its website (www.state.de.us/dhcc), the DHIN web-site (www.dhin.org), or by calling the office. The Commission also issues an annual report and strategic plan. Other activities open to the public include statewide policy conferences on topics such as the uninsured and the nursing workforce.
Budget
DHCC’s operating budget is determined at the staff level with the Chairman’s approval. It is based on the annual strategic plan adopted by the Commission. The full Commission votes on budgetary needs and priorities for specific projects and initiatives in a public meeting.
DHCC was appropriated $3.2 million in FY 04, $4.0 million in FY 03, and $4.0 million in FY 02. DHCC’s budget is a combination of general funds and appropriated special funds (Tobacco Master Settlement).
Additionally, DHCC receives federal funds in the form of loan repayments or grants, which support DHCC programs such as the Community Health Care Access Program. DHCC was awarded approximately $1.0 million in federal funds in FY 01 and FY 02, and approximately $425,700 in FY 03.
The DHCC has identified two budget issues. One is the discontinuance of federal grants for FY 04. This means that some of the programs may need to be funded through the Tobacco Settlement Fund or other sources. The other problem is funding for pilot projects. The DHCC used to receive General Funds specifically for pilot projects. That funding was discontinued in FY 1998, but had no immediate adverse impact on the DHCC or its programs because funding was carried over year to year. As of FY 04, there is little left in the pilot project carry over ($460,000).
The Commission is currently evaluating program costs to determine where it could best use general funds and federal grants.
General Fund
Personnel $ 227,400
Travel $ 20,100
Contractual $ 79,500
Supplies $ 6,500
Capital $ 3,500
Education $ 5,000
Program evaluation $ 15,100
DIMER Operations $ 2,047,500
DIDER Operations $ 248,000
Master Settlement
Personnel $ 57,100
Diabetes $ 500,000
Total: $ 3,209,700
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
The Joint Sunset Committee will continue its sunset review of the Delaware Solid Waste Authority through June 2004, or later if determined by the JSC to be necessary. A final report will be issued subsequent to the review’s conclusion.
Agency Background
The General Assembly created the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) in 1975 as independent agency statutorily directed to resolve municipal solid waste problems without relying on taxes or the State’s faith and credit. DSWA’s mission is to define, develop, and implement cost effective plans and programs for solid waste management that best serves Delaware, and will protect public health and the environment. The plans and programs are articulated in the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan.
Key to the Plan is a collection and disposal system that managed over 900,000 tons of material during 2003. Municipal solid waste, which includes both residential and commercial/industrial waste, is collected by forty-six licensed haulers and transporters most of whom have signed exclusive use contracts with DSWA. Costs of the collection system are borne solely by the system users. The current solid waste disposal fee has been held constant at $58.50 per ton for the past eleven years.
Municipal solid waste is landfilled or recycled. DSWA operates three active landfills, one in each county, and continues to maintain the inactive Pigeon Point Landfill. DSWA’s RECYCLE DELAWARE program includes over one hundred drop-off sites located throughout the state and a voluntary curbside recycling program established in northern New Castle County, in addition to other waste specific recycling programs such as an electronic goods and oil filter recycling.
Some controversy surrounds the Cherry Island Landfill in Wilmington. The landfill is expected to reach its capacity in 2006 if its permitted height is not increased. Hence, DSWA has sought permit approval from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to expand the Cherry Island Landfill. DNREC approval of the permit is pending. In the meantime, emphasis has shifted away from landfilling and toward the State’s recycling efforts, particularly within the residential sector, which currently diverts only 13 percent of its waste stream from the landfills.
The Authority is governed by a seven-member governor appointed Board of Directors responsible for overseeing policy and financial decisions affecting its $4.7 million budget. Daily operations are carried out by the over one hundred DSWA employees.
The Joint Sunset Committee last reviewed the DSWA in 1993. Recommendations from the sunset review were implemented to satisfaction of the Committee in 1994. Those recommendations are discussed throughout this report.
History of Solid Waste Management in Delaware
| 1960s | Open burning and open dumping were the most common forms of municipal solid waste management. Local governments were responsible for waste management with oversight from the State Board of Public Health. |
| Early 1970s | Governor Russell Peterson transferred responsibility for solid waste management from the Board of Health to the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). |
| General Assembly directs DNREC to perform a Research and Development program to recover materials from solid waste and improve disposal practices. DNREC responds with a plan for managing solid waste on a statewide basis, which included the formation of a State authority for that purpose. |
| DNREC also became involved in assessing drinking water quality and determined the Potomac Aquifer near Llangollen was contaminated by leachate from the closed New Castle County dump. Other streams and aquifers in Kent and Sussex County also showed evidence of leachate contamination. |
| 1974 | DNREC adopts comprehensive regulations to manage solid waste disposal. Counties close dumps and pressure mounts to locate new landfill sites. |
| Governor Sherman Tribbitt recommended to the General Assembly that it consider creation of the Delaware Solid Waste Authority. |
| 1975 | General Assembly passed SB 410 creating the DSWA. Operations commence a year later. |
| U.S. Congress passed the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA formed a federal solid waste hierarchy with an emphasis on recycling, resource conservation, and resource recovery. Later amendments established the federal government’s regulatory role in MSW management by requiring state solid waste planning and new regulations for landfills. |
| Clean Air Act amendments enacted to govern air emissions from MSW landfills. Established monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements to demonstrate compliance. |
| Clean Water Act amendments enacted to govern the quality of water from point discharges at all DSWA facilities. |
Early to
mid-1980s | DSWA adopts the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan, which created a framework for actions to be taken by DSWA in carrying out its legislative mandates. The Plan was later revised and updated in 1994.
DSWA takes over waste disposal services from the counties: |
|
The Central Solid Waste Management Center in Dover and the Southern Solid Waste Management Center in Millsboro began providing municipal solid waste disposal services to southern Delaware. Both facilities were designed to operate MSW landfills.
|
|
The Delaware Reclamation Point was established in New Castle Country to process its residential and light commercial waste. Additionally, in NCC, Pigeon Point Landfill was closed and its successor, the Cherry Island Landfill, commenced operations.
|
| 1988 | HB 491 enacted and directed DSWA to implement a materials and recovery program for Kent and Sussex Counties. |
| 1989 | HB 421 enacted and directed the DSWA to implement a statewide infectious waste management program. |
| 1990 | SB 424 enacted directing the DSWA to implement a Statewide recycling and waste reduction program. |
| 1991 | DSWA opens the Pine Tree Corners Transfer Station to meet the MSW disposal needs of those living just south of the C&D Canal. DSWA also established a voluntary recycling program, which included the opening of 100 Recycle Delaware Centers. |
| 1994 | SB 141 enacted and directed the DSWA to conduct an environmental study prior to site selection and construction of any waste-to-energy facility. |
| U.S. Supreme Court Carbone decision overturns the general practice of interstate flow control nationally. |
| 1998 | Coastal Zone Act amended to prohibit incinerators in the Coastal Zone. |
| 2000 | SB 280 enacted and banned the siting of any waste-to-energy facility within three miles of any church, school, or residence. |
| 2003 | DSWA proposed a $66 million Cherry Island Landfill repair and expansion project. Voluntary curbside recycling program in Brandywine Hundred commences. |
Purpose of the DSWA
When the General Assembly created the DSWA it envisioned a structure that would protect public health from the hazards associated with open dumping and would also support state and federal environmental goals promoting recovery, recycling, and reuse. Specifically, the General Assembly declared that:
1) A statewide comprehensive program for management, storage, collection, transportation, utilization, processing and disposal of solid waste be established.
2) A program for the maximum recovery and reuse of materials and energy resources derived from solid wastes be established.
3) A program for protecting the land, air, surface, and groundwater resources of the State from depletion and degradation caused by improper disposal of solid waste be established.
4) A program in cooperation with the US EPA, or other federal and state agencies, for the demonstration of systems and techniques of materials recovery, market development, and reuse be established.
5) A statewide program for disposal of infectious waste, giving special attention to the management and operation of an infectious waste facility, be established.
6) A statewide solid waste management plan be developed and implemented by the Authority.
In furtherance of these goals, solid waste disposal and resources recovery facilities and projects were to be implemented either by the State, or under state auspices, with assistance from private industry as necessary.
The General Assembly granted the DSWA numerous powers to effectuate the purpose. Some of the Authority’s key powers include:
· Design, construct, finance, own and manage solid waste disposal, volume reduction, resource recovery, transfer, storage, transportation and waste handling facilities necessary in carrying out the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan.
· The development, implementation, and supervision of a licensing program for all persons who haul, convey, or transport any solid waste in Delaware.
· Contract with state, local, and regional authorities, persons or firms to provide solid waste management services, design and construct solid waste facilities and other services necessary to carry out the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan.
· Determine the location and character of any project to be developed [under this chapter], subject to the requirements of the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan, including the location of recycling centers, without the need to obtain land use approval.
· Adopt fee schedules and user charges for the services it performs.
· Issue bonds.
· Conduct hearings, examinations and investigations.
· Employ a staff and establish offices where necessary.
· Promulgate rules and regulations.
Organization
Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives
As stated previously, DSWA’s mission, as defined in the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan (SSWMP), is:
“Define, develop, and implement cost effective plans and programs for solid waste management which best serve Delaware and protect our public health and environment.”
Some of the goals listed in the 1994 SSWMP are:
· Recycle and reuse 35% of household solid waste discards through materials markets by 2001.
· Recover resources, including energy from at least 50% of combustible solid waste by 2001.
· Recover resources including energy from at least 70% of combustible solid waste by 2010.
· Plan a statewide system with potential for growth to meet the adopted goals for recycling and resource recovery.
· Maintain a 15 year reserve for statewide landfilling capacity.
Among the SSWMP objectives:
· Assess new technology through research and development, and incorporate the findings into new and existing projects.
· Incorporate flexibility into the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan to adjust to future changes in waste characteristics.
· Identify special wastes generated in the State, evaluate current management practices, and recommend courses of action.
· Develop an effective coordinated public information program that promotes public acceptance and support of a Statewide solid waste management system.
Accomplishments, Opportunities, and Challenges
DSWA identified the following as its most significant accomplishments:
· Since 1981, managing over 17 million tons of solid waste and sewage sludge.
· Design, construction, and operation of the Delaware Reclamation Point which simultaneously processed 1,000 tons per day of solid waste from New Castle County and 250 tons per day of sewage sludge from the City of Wilmington into recyclable products.
· Fiscally managing the development and implementation of statewide solid waste management projects with zero debt at the close of FY 2003.
· Development of Recycle Delaware program and the only statewide electronic goods recycling and oil filter recycling programs in the nation.
· Landfill gas recovery and reuse projects to use landfill gas as an alternative energy source.
· Numerous national and international awards for landfills, recycling projects and public outreach programs.
DSWA views the following as opportunities for improvement:
1. Automation of weigh scale functions to facilitate and expedite service to all customers.
2. Review and update the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan to include an in-depth analysis of alternate waste management practices with an emphasis on recycling costs and environmental impacts.
3. Construct and operate landfill gas to energy power plants in Kent and Sussex Counties.
DSWA views the following as challenges:
Examining mechanisms for collecting user fees including one which creates an assessment at the county level.
Expanding services to the general public while maintaining the user fee at its current level. Increased population growth and demand for services result in increased operational costs to DSWA. New revenue mechanisms need to be explored to meet this funding challenge.
Policymaking Structure
Appointment and Removal
The DSWA is comprised of seven gubernatorial appointed directors each serving three-year terms. Senate confirmation is required.
DSWA’s governing statute does not indicate how a director may be removed or who has the authority to do so, but §6403(b) states the Governor shall appoint an interim director in the event of a “failure of a director to perform his or her duties.” No DSWA director has ever been removed under this provision.
The Governor designates a director as chairman who serves at the pleasure of the Governor. Directors must be residents of and be qualified to vote in the State. Additionally, there must be at least one director from each county and the City of Wilmington. Directors registered in either major political party may not exceed the other major political party by more than one.
The DSWA Board of Directors is:
Richard V. Pryor, Chair
Appointed: May 1989 and again in May 1993
Expires: Serves at the pleasure of the Governor
Occupation: Director of Economic Development,
City of Wilmington
| Ronald G. McCabe, Vice-Chairman
Appointed: July 1979
Expires: June 2004
Occupation: Retired
|
J. Donald Isaacs
Appointed: October 1975
Expires: April 2004
Occupation: Retired
| Theodore W. Ryan
Appointed: February 1979
Expires: March 2005
Occupation: Retired |
William J. DiMondi
Appointed: June 1997 and January 2004
Expires: January 2007
Occupation: Wyoming Concrete Industries, Inc.
| Timothy P. Sheldon
Appointed: January 2004
Expires: January 2007
Occupation: Field Agent/Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local Union No. 1 of PA/DE |
One Board vacancy exists. The Governor’s Office is aware of it and is currently considering a list of potential candidates for appointment.
Authority directors are entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred during the performance of official duties. No other compensation is provided.
Meetings and Public Hearings
(Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Administrative Procedures Act (APA))
In 1993, the JSC recommended that the DSWA comply with the FOIA and the APA. Since 1993, public notices and agendas of Board and Committee meetings are published in statewide newspapers and posted at DSWA facilities. Meeting notices are also mailed to a list of eighty-nine (89) subscribers as directed to be by the JSC. Additionally, as recommended by the JSC in 1994, all DSWA meetings are held in public meeting places, specifically in the DSWA Public Meeting Room located at the DSWA office in Dover.
All Board meeting minutes are transcribed and maintained as a permanent record of the DSWA. Copies of minutes are available to the public for review at the Authority’s main office in Dover. Standard procedures, including a FOIA form, have been adopted to address public record inquiries.
The Board of Directors periodically enters executive sessions. Generally, executive sessions are held for the purposes of discussing personnel, property acquisitions, and other legal matters. A review of meeting minutes from the past three years shows that the Board adheres to the appropriate FOIA procedures for entering executive sessions.
DSWA promulgates regulations to license garbage collectors, control the use of DSWA solid waste facilities, and require reporting of solid waste in Delaware. DSWA complies with APA requirements including publication of regulatory changes in the Register of Regulations for public notice and review as well as notification of the public hearing schedule. DSWA holds public hearings and offers a public comment period following hearing.
DSWA Staff
As of August 1, 2003, DSWA staff consisted of 114 full-time regular employees. There were also 4 vacancies at that time. With the exception of the Chief Executive Office, Chief Operating Officer, and a few appointed engineers, DSWA employees are mostly merit.
The Chief Executive Officer (referenced in Code as the manager) must be a resident of the State, a registered professional engineer in the State, have obtained at least a masters degree in civil, mechanical or chemical engineering, have at least 10 years engineering experience including at least 3 years experience in the field of solid waste management. Among numerous responsibilities, the CEO recommends an organizational structure for implementing DSWA functions; recommends persons to be hired; and is responsible for the planning and implementation of a comprehensive statewide solid waste management program.
The CEO is N.C. Vasuki, P.E., DEE, who served as General Manager from 1976 to 1991 and as CEO/General Manager from 1991 to present. The Chief Operating Officer is Pasquale S. Canzano who served as Chief of Engineering from 1977 to 1991 and COO from 1991 to present. Other executive group members include Ronald J. Peters, Chief Financial Officer; Thomas E. Houska, Chief of Administrative Services; Richard P. Watson, Chief Engineer; and Virginia A. Creamer, Human Resources Administrator.
Private Contractors
Many DSWA services and functions are provided by private contractors. In FY 03, contractual services totaled $3.1 million.
By law, DSWA may enter contracts either on a negotiated or open-bid basis. In 1993, the JSC recommended that the DSWA produce a report documenting and opening its bid process. Since sunset review, DSWA’s developed specific contract procedures awarding contracts through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
RFP’s are noticed in statewide newspapers and may be advertised in local newspapers and other media depending on the nature and scope of the work required. DSWA staff recommends a contractor to the Board of Directors based on a review of the submitted RFP and subsequent interviews with the potential contractor. That recommendation must be approved by the Board of Directors at a public meeting before contract negotiations commence. The Board of Directors must also approve the final contract by vote at a public meeting. Generally, contracts are awarded to the lowest responsive bidder.
Interagency Agreements
DSWA coordinates solid waste management with other agencies or localities some of which include:
1. DNREC. DNREC regulates landfills among other related issues and requires DSWA to obtain permits for its projects in the same fashion as any other public entity or business.
In addition to permitting, DNREC and DSWA have several Memorandums of Understanding (MOU). One noteworthy MOU formalizes quarterly meetings between DSWA and DNREC to focus on policy issues and DSWA projects. This MOU addresses one 1994 JSC recommendation for both agencies to meet on a regularly scheduled basis to discuss issues of mutual concern.
2. State Planning Office. DSWA reviews its land use issues in accordance with the Livable Delaware Initiative. DSWA formalized an internal process for coordinating the development of its projects with the State Planning Office. A procedural regulation was adopted by the Board of Directors at a public meeting on January 22, 2003.
3. City of Wilmington. An 1995 MOA between DSWA and the City of Wilmington continues and maintains DSWA’s management of the stabilized sewage sludge product produced at Wilmington’s Waste Water Treatment Plant. The MOA was restated in 1997 to provide for the City of Wilmington to pay debt service to DSWA and DSWA to accept stabilized sewage sludge for use at the Cherry Island Landfill at no fee to the City. The 1997 MOA ended in June 2003 and stabilized sewage sludge is now accepted without charge to the City for use in regrading the closed Pigeon Point Landfill.
Budget
DSWA prepares an annual budget based on a fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30. The budget process is the prime responsibility of the Chief Financial Officer for its final preparation and presentation to the general public and Board of Directors for approval. Budgetary needs are determined principally by active contracts with the private sector and the operational needs dictated by DSWA’s programs and facilities. Operational costs, including capital costs, are to be recovered through revenues derived from DSWA's user fees.
DSWA’s Fiscal Year 2004 proposed budget is $47.9 million. Budget highlights include:
· Zero debt.
· Employee expenses increased from $5.4 million in FY 03 to $5.6 million.
· Professional services increased from $1.5 million in FY 03 to $1.7 million.
· Contractual services increased from $3.1 million in FY 03 to $3.3 million.
· Other expenses, including travel, remained relatively constant.
· Revenue from user fees is expected to be $42.3 million.
· Revenue from recyclables for FY 04 is estimated to be $500,000.
In 1993, the JSC expressed concern with DSWA’s legal expenses. Since sunset review, legal fees have been between .44% and 2% of total operating costs, depending on the legal matters brought before the Authority.
DSWA and the Public
Education and Outreach
DSWA has developed numerous educational materials for students and teachers including :
· Trash Can Dan and the Clean Up Kids designed for elementary students. There are currently over 7,600 Clean Up Kids members.
· Great Waste Mystery curriculum designed for grades 6-8 to promote responsible behavior and increase awareness of solid waste management practices. DSWA trained 440 Delaware teachers to use the curriculum.
· Activity and coloring books, lesson plans, and other interactive activities.
· Proton Dan Refuse Burning and Safe Alternatives Video for middle school students and up addresses hazards and illegality of refuse burning and discusses safe alternatives.
Public outreach efforts include:
· Annual Earth Day Festivals promoting recycling and reuse
· Solid Waste Forums
· Public Workshops
· Public tours of DSWA facilities
· Program brochures and quarterly newsletters (Trash Tracks)
· Radio series (Talking Trash)
· DSWA website (www.dswa.com)
· Citizen Response Line provides a toll-free number (1-800-404-7080) for residents to voice concerns or request information. It is staffed by one full time employee and is available from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Community Cleanup Initiative Program
The Community Cleanup Initiative Program provides a landfill use credit for each state representative and state senator to designate to a local community service or non-profit agency. Credits ($1,000 per Representative and $2,000 per Senator) are used by the designee to offset any landfill costs associated with community cleanup programs.
Public Complaints
In 1993, the JSC recommended the DSWA begin a system of tracking complaints, separating citizen complaints from licensee complaints. DSWA has complied with this recommendation.
Public complaints are generally received by the Citizen Response Line (CRL). All calls are logged and, if it is a complaint, a brief summary of the call is written and then forwarded to the appropriate program or facility manager to address. All calls are logged into a database and the database is used to evaluate program or staff needs.
In Calendar Year 2001, the CRL received 20 complaints; 30 complaints in Calendar Year 2002 and 58 complaints in Calendar Year 2003. Most complaints concern either the RECYCLE DELAWARE program or the Household Hazardous Waste program. Staff has noted that the number of recycling complaints had increased, requiring either additional staff to improve operations, a change in the number of bins at some locations, or search for additional centers.
DSWA also processes license related complaints and if necessary, will issue a Notice of Violation. All complaints are processed according to DSWA’s Compliance Standard Operating Procedure, which requires complaints to be logged, assigned a complaint number, investigated, and reports written if necessary. The complainant is also contacted with the investigations outcome, if so chosen to be.
Odor Complaints
Beginning in Fall 2002, DSWA received numerous complaints about odors from the Cherry Island Landfill. The Authority has responded by participating in DNREC’s odor roundtable, participating in studies with the University of Delaware, and has initiated permits to expand Cherry Island’s landfill gas system.
Throughout 2003, DNREC issued citations or other administrative orders against DSWA for various odor related offenses. In March 2004, the US EPA and DNREC concurrently issued an enforcement order against DSWA for permit violations relating to its landfill gas collection system, which is currently operated by a private contractor. The total DNREC penalty assessed is $135,000 and the total penalty assessed in the EPA administrative action is $75,900. DSWA will need to pay the penalties, negotiate a settlement, or request a hearing. At the time of this writing, DSWA has initiated discussions with the DNREC and the EPA regarding the Order, and is reviewing the landfill gas contract to determine if DSWA should assume direct control over its gas collection system.
Municipal Solid Waste Management in Delaware
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines municipal solid waste (MSW) as waste from residential, commercial, institutional, and some industrial sources. It does not include wastes that are typically landfilled with MSW such as municipal sludge, construction and demolition debris, tires, and other nonhazardous material.
Quantity of MSW
In Fiscal Year 2003, DSWA managed over 900,000 tons of solid waste statewide. Of that total, over 600,000 tons were managed in New Castle County; 100,000 tons in Kent County; and over 200,000 tons in Sussex County.
Over time, MSW quantities have changed as a result of population growth, economic factors, or a combination of both. Prior to 1991, MSW managed by DSWA grew rapidly. Between 1991 and 2000 MSW tonnage decreased and flattened. Since 2000, MSW tonnage has increased gradually.
Waste Stream Characteristics
MSW is characterized as either residential or commercial/industrial waste. About 50 percent of the MSW stream is residential waste and about 50 percent is commercial/industrial waste.
The following graph shows the aggregate MSW stream composition :
Not included in MSW waste stream is infectious medical waste and hazardous waste. Both of these wastes are prohibited from DSWA’s landfills in accordance with DNREC regulations. Infectious medical wastes are treated and disposed outside of Delaware. DNREC regulates healthcare wastes and is responsible for enforcing those regulations.
MSW Collection
The tipping (user) fee system is mandated in DSWA’s enabling legislation. Prior to 1992, DSWA provided solid waste disposal services on a county basis and charged tipping fees for those facilities located within each county. In 1992, DSWA switched to a Statewide User Fee System.
User fees are established through public hearings and are collected by unit weight or flat fee depending on the customer. The table below outlines user fees for FY 03:
Tipping Fee Description | Current Fee | |
Solid Waste | $58.50/ton | |
Asbestos | $100/ton
$100/load | |
Tires | $125/ton | |
Collection Station | $1/bag | |
Curbside Recycling | $6/Month Recycling
$9/Month Yardwaste | |
The current solid waste tipping fee of $58.50 has been held constant for eleven (11) years. User fees reflect the cost of system operations including debt service and cost increases due to regulatory adjustments. The average cost of household solid waste collection represents approximately 68 percent of the total cost to the homeowner of household solid waste management, with the balance of the cost incurred for disposal.
Regional Tipping Fees
Tipping fees for the Northeast Region vary from the lowest of $39/ton in Virginia to the highest of $70/ton in Vermont. Pennsylvania’s and New York’s state average tipping fee is $55/ton; Maryland’s state average is $48/ton; New Jersey’s state average is $60/ton; and New Hampshire’s state average is $66/ton.
Licensing
Forty-six (46) licensed DSWA collectors and transporters collect solid waste in Delaware (32 licensed private collectors and 14 licensed municipal collectors). Of the 898,000 tons of waste managed by DSWA in FY 2002, 758,000 tons (85 percent) were collected by licensed haulers. Two licensed collectors, Waste Management, Inc. and BFI, collect over half of the MSW in Delaware.
Among other licensure standards, collectors and transporters are required to obtain a DNREC Solid Waste Transporters Permit and understand which wastes are and are not acceptable at DSWA facilities. There is no fee to obtain a license from DSWA but DNREC collects a $300 per truck per year fee for all transporters of solid waste. Unlike Delaware, the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York all have state licensure fees.
In 1999, DSWA developed a contractual rebate program, called the Differential Disposal Fee Program (DDFP), in response to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision, which subjected flow control practices to federal scrutiny and significantly changed how waste managers protected their financial investment. The DDFP provides an incentive for licensed collectors to sign an exclusive use contract with DSWA. In return, DSWA pays the DDFP licensed collector an annual rebate based on the tonnage delivered. This practice helps to ensure waste is disposed of at a DSWA facility rather than non-DSWA facility. Currently 99 percent of the eligible tonnage is under contract through June 30, 2005.
MSW Disposal
DSWA has primarily relied on landfilling for waste disposal but also uses or has used waste-to-energy (1990-2000), materials and resource recovery (1982-1993), voluntary drop-off recycling (1990 to present), and subscription curbside recycling (2003 to present).
Landfills
DSWA manages four landfills statewide. Three are active and include: Cherry Island in New Castle County, Sandtown in Kent County, and Jones Crossroads in Sussex County. Pigeon Point landfill closed in 1985 but the DSWA continues to manage post closure responsibilities as required by the EPA.
In Fiscal Year 2003, almost 900,000 tons of trash was landfilled. Most of the material landfilled was MSW (858, 817 tons). The remainder was composed of: construction and demolition debris (37,306 tons), asbestos (2,468 tons), sludge (888 tons), and shredded tires (322 tons).
Northern Solid Waste Management Center – Cherry Island
Opened: 1981
Description: Cherry Island Landfill (CIL) is located on a 513-acre site in Wilmington. Another 160 acres of land adjacent to the landfill is owned by DSWA but is in use by the Army Corps. of Engineers until 2009 or until the Army Corps. finds another site for dredging.
CIL was constructed with a height limit of 176 feet. Currently, CIL stands 105 feet.
Unique to the CIL is its construction atop 50-60 feet of dredged materials, or spoils, that settles to form a natural liner meeting EPA and DNREC regulations for landfill construction.
Tonnage of Waste Managed: 525,000 tons each year from 190,000 New Castle County Households.
Cost: $31 million capital investment from 1985-2000.
Landfill Life: 2006 without repairs and expansion. 2037 with repairs and expansion.
Issues: In 2003, DSWA proposed a $66 million repair and expansion project. This project would expand CIL’s height to 290 feet and repair a layer in the landfill that, if left as is, would require CIL waste to be shipped elsewhere in seven years.
DNREC approval of the DSWA’s permit applications for CIL repairs and expansion and landfill gas system expansion are pending.
Central Solid Waste Management Center (CSWMC)
Opened: 1980
Description: The CSWMC is located in Sandtown, 13 miles southwest of Dover. The CSWMC site encompasses 529 acres of which 160 acres is or will be used for landfilling. The remainder is used for buffers. CSWMC also uses and active landfill gas collection system. It is operated by George and Lynch, Inc.
Tonnage Managed: 400 tons per day or approximately 125,000 tons per year.
Cost: $24 million capital investment from 1985-2000.
Landfill Life: 2016 at the current active cell. 2063 for the entire site.
The Southern Solid Waste Management Center (SSWMC)
Opened: 1984
Description: SSWMC is located at Jones Crossroads west of Millsboro. The SSWMC encompasses 570 acres including 200 acres used for landfilling and 370 acres used for buffers and other purposes. Because of the high water table, the SSWMC landfill is constructed entirely above ground.
Tonnage Managed: 606 tons per day or approximately 200,000 tons per year.
Cost: $42 million capital investment from 1985-2000.
Landfill Life: 2014 for the current active cell. 2036 for the entire site.
Collection and Transfer Stations
Collection and transfer stations facilitate MSW disposal throughout the state. Collection stations are small solid waste disposal sites located in rural areas of Sussex and Kent Counties. These facilities accept bagged MSW from residents in roll-off boxes. The boxes are then taken to a DSWA landfill for final disposition.
Transfer stations receive MSW from both commercial and residential customers. MSW is placed in transfer trailers and taken to a landfill for final disposition. There are two existing transfer stations (Pine Tree Corners and Pigeon Point Transfer Station). Three proposed transfer stations include Milford, Route 5, and Dover transfer stations. Permit applications for Milford and Route 5 transfer stations have been submitted to DNREC. The Dover transfer station is in the planning stage.
Recycling
The Waste Reduction and Recycling Act of 1990 mandated the inclusion of the following provisions, to the extent possible, as part of the SSWMP:
1. Long term planning of a coordinated program of source separation of recyclable materials and the utilization of large scale resources recovery projects.
2. Establishment of recycling centers.
3. Development of a marketing program for state, national, or international sale of recovered materials.
4. Development of an informational program and establishment of specifications for delivery of source separated recyclable materials to recycling centers to assure marketability of recovered materials.
5. Development of a recycling program in cooperation with the private sector.
6. Development of a coordination/cooperation program with public interest groups and municipalities.
7. Development of a public education and recycling promotion program.
8. Development of a program to source separated materials, which are harmful to the environment.
9. Development of a registration and information gathering system regarding the nature and extent of recycling and waste reduction undertaken throughout the state.
10. Development of incentive programs to encourage local and statewide recycling and waste reduction.
Additionally, the General Assembly listed the following materials as recoverable: newsprint, computer paper, white paper, cardboard, plastics, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, white goods, yard waste, used motor oil, asphalt, batteries, and household paint containers.
RECYCLE DELAWARE
DSWA responded to the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act with a statewide voluntary recycling program, called RECYCLE DELAWARE, consisting of 140 drop-off centers located throughout the state. Drop-off centers are open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and are free to use.
In addition to drop-off sites, in 2003, DSWA began a subscription curbside recycling program for all residents of Northern New Castle County. This subscription program provides a weekly collection service for $6 per month. Customers may have yard wastes collected and recycled for an additional $3 per month. Four hundred (400) have enrolled in the program since it began.
Other key services of the RECYCLE DELAWARE program include:
1. Electronic Goods Recycling collects discarded electronic goods for residents, schools and businesses currently at no cost. There are six locations statewide available for drop-off.
2. Household Hazardous Waste Collection provides a free drop off program for all residents. Four collection events are held each year.
3. Tire Recycling. DSWA separates tires for recycling at each landfill site. Tires are shipped to a private facility for use as a fuel substitute. Forty percent of total tires are recycled.
4. White Goods (used/discarded appliances). DSWA separates white goods from the waste stream for Freon removal and recycling.
5. Oil and oil filter collection. Guardian Inc. collects the oil for DSWA at the Intermediate Processing Facility and transports to Motiva. Motiva re-refines the oil for resale as a petroleum product. Guardian and Motiva provide their services at no cost to DSWA.
RECYCLE DELAWARE materials are processed at the Intermediate Processing Facility in Wilmington.
In FY 2003, the RECYCLE DELAWARE program collected 27,785 tons of material. Of that total, 24,944 tons (89%) was sold to markets, 972 tons (3.5%) was sent to the landfill, and the remaining 1,869 tons were provided to vendors/contractors.
In addition to DSWA, there are several private sector recyclers in Delaware. DSWA requires any facility operating for the purpose of recycling to file an annual report. In FY 2002, 379 companies reported to the DSWA that they had conducted recycling activities. These 379 companies identified 1.5 million tons of recycled material by the private sector.
Diversion Rates
A diversion rate refers to the tonnage of recyclables, reusables, compostables, and combustibles received divided by the total discards and multiplied by 100. The diversion rate can also be thought of as a landfill avoidance percentage.
Delaware’s MSW diversion rate in 2000 was 21 percent compared nationally to 28 percent. The MSW diversion rate accounts for both residential and commercial diversion of waste. Generally, the commercial sector diverts waste at higher percentage than does the residential sector.
Much of the focus in Delaware concerns the residential solid waste (RSW) diversion rate. Delaware’s RSW diversion rate is approximately 13 percent. New Castle County’s RSW diversion rate is 6 percent.
Both RSW rates are well below the 30 percent RSW diversion goal established by Executive Order 82 signed by Governor Carper in 2000. Executive Order 82 also established the Recycling Public Advisory Council (RPAC) and specifically charged it to assist DSWA and DNREC with achieving the RSW diversion goal.
In 2002, RPAC contracted with DSM Environmental Services to evaluate the quantities of material diverted and costs for an enhanced residential recyclables collection and processing system in New Castle County. New Castle County was the focus of the study because it generates 60 percent of the total RSW generated in the state.
The DSM study only included recyclables, leaf, and yard trimmings generated by NCC households. The report’s major conclusions were:
· Achieving a 30 percent RSW diversion rate in NCC will take a combination of organized curbside recycling, expanded leaf collection programs, a requirement to mulch grass clippings, and construction of a new Materials Recovery Facility to process the recyclables.
· An organized dual stream, bi-weekly collection of recyclables countywide or an organized single stream collection of recyclables countywide have lower costs than continuing to landfill the refuse.
· Adding curbside recycling collection to the existing refuse collection system would require a household fee of $1.80 - $2.60/month.
· Yard trimmings comprise 23 percent of the residential waste stream. Potentially, 39, 200 tons of leaf and grass waste could be recovered from the waste stream for a 15 percent impact on the recycling rate. Yard waste collection and processing costs would be $11/household/year for leaf wastes and $31/household/year from grass clippings.
RSW Diversion Rates in Other States
Caution should be used when comparing Delaware to other states or the nation as whole because there is little consistency in the methodology used for calculating recycling or diversion rates. Nonetheless, there is some value to understanding how other localities divert waste from their landfills.
The Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) published a study for the EPA showing that 18 communities have diverted between 40 percent to 65 percent of their RSW stream by recycling and composting. Specific data on each of the programs is provided on the next page.
WASTE REDUCTION RECORD SETTERS
(Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, D.C. 1999)
Community | Character | Population | Residential Waste
Generated (tons) | Recycling Level | Compost Level | Net Program
Costs / HH 3/Year |
| Ann Arbor, MI | Urban, college town | 112,000 | 47,900 | 30% | 23% | $ 78 |
| Bellevue, WA | Suburban, urban | 103,700 | 39,190 | 26% | 34% | $ 236 |
| Bergen Co., NJ | Suburban (70 towns) | 825,400 | 693,840 | 17% | 32% | NA |
| Chatham, NJ | Suburban borough | 8,300 | 8,010 | 22% | 43% | $ 228 |
| Clifton, NJ | Suburban, urban | 75,000 | 54,211 | 16% | 28% | $ 178 |
| Crockett, TX | Small rural city | 8,300 | 2,710 | 20% | 32% | $ 69 |
| Dover, NH | Small rural city | 26,100 | 9,460 | 35% | 17% | $ 73 |
| Falls Church, VA | Suburban | 10,000 | 6,660 | 25% | 40% | $ 215 |
| Fitchburg, WI | Small rural city | 17,300 | 4,150 | 29% | 21% | $ 108 |
| Leverett, MA | Rural town | 1,900 | 650 | 31% | 23% | $ 51 |
| Loveland, CO | Small residential city | 44,300 | 17,970 | 19% | 37% | $ 85 |
| Madison, WI | Urban, college town | 200,900 | 88,580 | 16% | 34% | $ 175 |
| Portland, OR | Urban | 503,000 | 172,830 | 23% | 17% | $ 211 |
| Ramsey Co., MN | Urban, suburban, rural | 496,100 | 673,300 1 | 39% 2 | 8% 2 | $ 237 |
| San Jose, CA | Urban | 873,300 | 433,576 1 | 19% | 26% | $ 187 |
| Seattle, WA | Urban | 534,700 | 288,106 1 | 29% | 21% | $ 155 |
| Visalia, CA | City in rural area | 91,300 | 50,810 | 16% | 33% | $ 202 |
| Worcester, MA | Urban | 169,800 | 57,570 | 27% | 27% | $ 75 |
1 Represents municipal solid waste (residential, commercial, and institutional waste streams).
2 Represents percentage of municipal solid waste composted as Ramsey County does not track residential materials separately from other MSW.
3 Net RSW program costs divided by the number of households served. Net RSW program cost is the cost of RSW program plus the costs of trash collection and disposal minus materials recovery.
Common strategies used by the communities identified in the ILSR report are:
1) Targeting a wide range of recyclables. The communities recover between 17 and 31 different types of materials from the waste stream.
2) Composting. For 10 of 18 communities, composting accounts for more than half of all residential waste reduction.
3) Convenience. Residents are more likely to participate if recyclables collection is frequent and uncomplicated. Curbside recycling combined with drop off sites increases the likelihood that residents will recycle. Sixteen of the 18 communities have curbside recycling programs.
4) Pay as you Throw (PAYT) Trash Fees. Under PAYT systems, residents pay by volume or weight for the trash they set out at the curb. The fees are a direct economic incentive to recover more and pay less. Eleven of the 18 communities use PAYT systems.
5) Mandatory Participation. Eleven of the 18 communities require residents to source separate their trash or ban the set-out of designated materials with their trash.
Funding Recycling Programs
DSWA funds the RECYCLE DELAWARE program through a surcharge on the per ton user fee charged at DSWA owned and operated landfills. Fiscal Year 2003 costs for Recycle Delaware were $4.8 million and the revenues from the sale of recycled material were $1.1 million for a net loss of $3.7 million.
In 2003, DNREC had $57,000 available for recycling assistance grants. Grant money is used to implement waste diversion initiatives for primarily small municipalities who are starting or expanding recycling programs. For example, The City of Rehoboth Beach used grant money to establish recycling at the beach in which 9,000 pounds of aluminum cans and 5,000 pounds of plastic bottles that would have otherwise been landfilled were recycled. Camden and Delaware City also implemented projects with the assistance of grant funds.
The Citizen’s Work Group on Recycling, in 2000, concluded that grant funding of at least $500,000 per year would be needed to increase the RSW diversion rate to 25 percent.
Funding mechanisms used by other states include taxing the consumer or offering companies tax credits as an incentive to buy recycled materials.
Solid Waste Management in Other States
All states landfill and have recycling programs of some type. Some also integrate waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities, also known as incinerators, into their solid waste management plan.
In Delaware, Senate Bill No. 280 prohibits incinerators within a three mile radius of any church, school, or residence. The following paragraphs briefly explain the WTE technology and provide an overview of some of the benefits and costs derived from solid waste incineration.
WTE facilities turn trash into steam or electricity to power homes and industry through the process of combustion. There are approximately 102 WTEs in 31 states processing 30 million tons of trash each year. The technology is also used worldwide, most notably in Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, France, and Japan.
WTE technology may be one of three main types:
· Mass-burn facilities generate energy by feeding mixed MSW into large furnaces dedicated solely to burning trash. The resulting energy produces steam or electricity. Mass burn facilities generally have a materials recovery facility on-site or close by to separate recyclables prior to burning.
· Refuse derived-fuel plants remove recyclable materials and noncombustibles, then shred or process the combustible fraction of the waste stream into a relatively uniform solid fuel.
· Modular facilities are similar to mass burn plants but are smaller, prefabricated plants that can be quickly assembled where they are needed.
Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) promulgated in 1995 strictly regulates WTE emissions by requiring WTE facilities to upgrade their pollution control technology. MACT equipment is designed to destroy harmful organics and dioxins through the combustion process and was also designed to prevent the release of greenhouse gases. Specifically, EPA data shows that since 1990 dioxin emissions from WTE facilities have decreased by more than 95 percent, lead emissions by 90.9 percent, mercury emissions by 95 percent, particulate matter by 89 percent, sulfur dioxide by 86.7 percent, and nitrogen oxides emissions by 17.6 percent. EPA also reports that dioxin emissions from WTE facilities represent less than 1 percent of the nation’s dioxin sources.
Technology has considerably changed how WTEs operate but it has not changed the controversy surrounding them. On one hand, WTE can offer the following benefits:
· WTEs reduce the volume of trash landfilled by up to 90 percent.
· WTEs generate about one-quarter of total biomass generation. Biomass (materials like paper, wood, cloth, food waste) is renewable energy and accounts for 1.4 percent of the total electricity market. Renewable energy totals slightly more than 2 percent of the electricity market.
· WTE power is cleaner than other fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas).
· WTE and recycling are compatible. WTEs use magnets and other devices to recover metals for recycling. As a result, EPA has reported that WTE plants have a 33 percent recycling rate compared with the 28 percent national average.
On the other hand, WTEs are often viewed as a source of pollution that may cause serious health and environmental effects. Some issues are:
· Asthma. Certain outdoor air pollutants exacerbate asthma symptoms. Because WTEs are a source of air pollutants such as fine particulates and sulfur dioxide, they likely will continue to be monitored for their impact on respiratory diseases.
· Dioxin toxicity. Dioxins are distributed into the environment as part of WTE stack gases and ash. Some research has demonstrated that dioxins may cause adverse effects upon the immune and nervous systems and is often associated with cancer.
· Metals toxicity. Metals from WTEs are distributed among ash and stack emissions. Mercury emission is a concern because it can accumulate in fish and other animals which in turn may be digested by people. Mercury can also contaminate local soil and vegetation.
· Ash disposal. At issue is whether metals contained in WTE ash are harmful if disposed in a landfill or used as landfill cover. It has been suggested by Greenpeace and other environmental groups that metals from ash may leak into and contaminate soil and groundwater.
Because of the potentially adverse health and environmental impacts, WTE opponents call for alternative ways to handle waste specifically through zero waste policies and recycling programs.
Lastly, WTEs are a significant economic investment. Typical construction costs are $200 million.
DMS #1441420130
Harness and Thoroughbred Racing Commissions
Final Report
Recommendations
1. Continuation of the DHRC and the DTRC provided that each Commission implements the final recommendations to the satisfaction of the JSC.
2. To address personnel issues and other structural problems, Chapters 100 and 101 of Title 3 should be amended so that both the DHRC and the DTRC report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture.
3. Each Racing Commission should hire one full-time Administrator of Racing.
4. Each Racing Commission should hire one full-time Administrative Specialist I.
5. The DHRC should adjust the working duties of the horse racing judges so that the judges work as a board of three, as opposed to one Presiding Judge with two Associate Judges.
6. Establishment of an Integrity Unit responsible for law enforcement at each of the three racetracks. The Integrity Unit should be comprised of Delaware State Police Officers and should be modeled pursuant to the terms of the Gaming Enforcement Unit Proposal and Organizational Structure submitted by the State Police. A resolution will be adopted formally requesting that the Joint Finance Committee, the Director of the Budget Office, and the Controller General determine the appropriate funding mechanism for the Integrity Unit.
7. Section 10015 and 10128(b) of Title 3 should be amended to direct both the DHRC and the DTRC to conduct all state and federal criminal background checks through the State Bureau of Identification, in accordance with Title 11, Chapter 85.
8. DHRC and DTRC regulations identifying criteria for license revocation, suspension, and denial should be codified.
9. To allow for comprehensive reporting of financial information, amend Sections 10010 and 10109 of Title 3 relating to annual reporting requirements by changing the reporting deadline from January 1 to July 1 of each year.
10. References to the term “steward” in Chapter 100 of Title 3 (DHRC) should be deleted because the State Steward position is non-existent.
11. To implement the 1990/1991 JSC recommendations for the DTRC, strike the following from Title 3: Section 10105(b) mandating an office in Wilmington; Section 10101 (b) phrase “good moral character”; Section 10104 requiring a $25,000 bond requirement for DTRC members; Section 10106 regarding the duties of the Secretary of the Commission.
12. Establishment of a Delaware Jockeys Health and Welfare Benefit Board to oversee and manage the $350,000 that is annually set aside from the video lottery for funding health and welfare benefits for jockeys.
13. Amend 3 Del. C. to permit the DHRC to license and inspect farms and training centers in Delaware where harness racing horses are stabled and trained.
14. Amend 3 Del. C. §10029 regarding drug-testing costs to: 1) delete the reference to the program in existence as of June 30, 1998, since the types of drug testing have changed dramatically since then; 2) increase the drug-testing program so that the DHRC may use the most reliable, up-to-date testing methods and equipment available in the industry; and 3) delete the public hearing wording in the statute and apply a different standard of reasonableness. The current practice places the Commission in the difficult position of having to negotiate with the tracks that it licenses with regard to what would be a reasonable drug testing plan and the costs of that plan.
15. The Department of Agriculture, the Delaware Harness Racing Commission, and the Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission should implement a process or practice to ensure that Delaware’s equine drug testing regime meets or exceeds the highest standards of the horse racing industry and that they report back to the Joint Sunset Committee on their progress by January 15, 2005.
16. Legislation forwarding funds held for unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets to the State as its property according to Delaware State Escheat Laws and specifying that the unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets will be escheated after one year. This requires replacing Sections 10059 (DHRC) and 10168 (DTRC) of Title 3, which allows the licensees to retain unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets as their property, and requires amending Delaware State Escheat Laws as appropriate. Unclaimed pari-mutuel ticket funds will be escheated only upon state financing of specific costs that are mandated in Title 3 and are currently financed by the racetracks. The mandated costs should be determined by the Department of Finance and identified in a report due to the Joint Sunset Committee by January 15, 2005.
17. Proceeds from unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets should remain with the racetracks, as currently provided for in Code, and should not be escheated.
Agency Background
The Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission (DTRC) was created in 1933, known at that time as the Delaware Racing Commission. The Delaware Harness Racing Commission (DHRC) was established in 1945. The Commissions are independent from each other although they share the common mission of regulating the horse racing industry in Delaware. For the purpose of this report, both Commissions are discussed together with differences noted where applicable.
The DTRC was initially created as a three member body responsible for licensing horse racing meets. The DHRC was most likely created in response to a 1935 amendment to the Delaware Constitution allowing wagering and betting on races at racetracks. The DHRC was a one person Commission responsible for licensing harness races and was accountable to the Department of Administrative Services. Legislation has since increased membership of both Commissions to five and both are now housed within the Department of Agriculture.
Other legislation stabilized the horse racing industry. The General Assembly established the Delaware Standardbred Development Fund in 1967 to promote Delaware bred harness horse races. In 1994, the Horse Racing Redevelopment Act authorized the video lottery at existing racetracks and established a portion of net proceeds to increase the horse racing purses. Several years later, the Horse Racing Redevelopment Act was amended and established the Delaware Standardbred Breeder’s Program, which is annually funded by $1 million of net proceeds from the harness race tracks and $1 million from the net video lottery proceeds. The Act was also amended to include a $350,000 annual sum from the video lottery proceeds designated for the organization that represents jockeys who regularly ride in Delaware.
Both Commissions were reviewed by the Joint Sunset Committee in 1991. The Committee’s recommendations for the DHRC were implemented in 1992 with the passage of Senate Bill 221. Some sunset recommendations for the DTRC have been implemented while other statutory recommendations have not.
Organization
Mission and Powers
The mission of the DHRC, as defined in the Delaware Code, is “to regulate and oversee the sport of harness racing within the State in the public interest.”
The Thoroughbred Commission’s primary purpose, as defined in the Delaware Code, is “to regulate and oversee the sport of thoroughbred racing within the State in the public interest.”
Key powers granted in furtherance of their missions include:
· Establishing license categories and fees.
· Awarding all racing dates in accordance with the minimum number of race days established by law.
· Fingerprinting applicants and conducting criminal background checks.
· Supervising human drug testing.
· Conducting inspections before racing meet.
· Holding administrative hearings.
· Determining eligibility to participate in Delaware owned races (Harness).
· Ensuring the State and the betting public receive their fair percentages of the wagering dollar by overseeing periodic accounting audits.
· Promulgating rules and regulations.
· Employing necessary personnel.
Current Structures
Delaware Harness Racing Commission
Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission
Key points to consider:
· The Department of Agriculture has no oversight authority for the Racing Commissions.
· The Administrator of Racing and an Administrative Specialist are shared between the DHRC and the DTRC.
· The Administrative Specialist is the only merit staff. The Racing Administrator, Harness Racing Judges, Inspectors, and Thoroughbred Racing Stewards are exempt from the merit system; however, persons fulfilling any of these positions are eligible for life, health, and pension benefits.
Policymaking Body
Each Commission consists of five governor-appointed members serving six year terms. Senate confirmation is required.
DHRC qualifications include :
· The person cannot be licensed or regulated by the Commission nor have any legal or beneficial interest in any firm, association, or corporation licensed or regulated or which participates in pari-mutuel meetings.
· Members must be of good moral character and not convicted of a felony in Delaware or elsewhere.
· No more than three Commissioners can be of the same political party.
· One Commissioner from each county must be appointed.
· Commissioners must be residents of the county from which they are appointed.
DTRC qualifications are the same as the DHRC, and also include that a person must be a qualified voter of the State, be at least thirty years old, shall have been a resident of the State for at least two years prior to appointment, and shall give bond to the State in the sum of $25,000 with the condition that the Commissioner will faithfully execute his or her duties.
The Governor may remove a Commissioner either for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. No Commissioner has ever been removed according to this provision.
The DHRC Chairman is elected by a majority of its members. The DTRC Chairman is selected by the Governor.
The 2003/2004 DHRC is:
Ms. Beth Steele, Chairperson
Kent County
Appointment: 06/24/1993
Expires: 7/03/05
Occupation: Riding Instructor
Democrat
| Mr. Robert L. Everett
Commissioner
Kent County
Appointed: 3/14/01
Expires: 04/22/07
Occupation: Retired Educator
Democrat |
Ms. Mary Ann Lambertson
Commissioner
Kent County
Appointed: 03/21/1990
Expires: 01/07/2003
Occupation: Retired
Republican
| Mr. George P. Staats
Commissioner
New Castle County
Appointed: 06/30/2003
Expires: 04/22/2007
Occupation: Farmer
Independent |
Mr. Kenny Williamson
Commissioner
Sussex County
Appointed: 03/14/01
Expired: 04/22/07
Occupation: Retired from DHSS
Democrat
| |
The 2003/2004 DTRC is:
Mr. Bernard Daney, Chairman
New Castle County
Appointment: 4/2000
Expires: 4/2006
Occupation: CPA
Democrat
|
Mr. Henry James Decker
Kent County
Appointment: 9/1998 and 5/2000
Expires: 5/2006
Occupation: Del Tech Employee
Democrat
|
Mr. W. Duncan Patterson, Jr.
New Castle County
Appointment: 10/1990 and 5/2000
Expires: 5/2006
Occupation: Commercial Real Estate Broker
Independent
| Mr. Edward Stegemeier
New Castle County
Appointment: 6/2002
Expires: 7/2008
Occupation: Beverage Distributor
Republican |
Ms. Carolyn Wilson
Sussex County
Appointment: 9/1998
Expires: 9/2004
Occupation: Co-Owner, Secretary
Republican
| |
Compensation and Education
Commissioners receive a $150 stipend for each meeting and the Chairpersons receive $250.
Commissioners are encouraged to attend meetings of the Association of Racing Commissioners International and other meetings hosted by similar organizations. Classes are also offered by the University of Louisville Stewards and Judges continuing education series.
Meetings
The Commissions must and do meet monthly. All meetings are open to the public and follow other standard FOIA requirements. Agendas are posted seven days in advance of the meeting at the Department of Agriculture, the racing facility, DHRC’s web-site, the Delaware Standardbred Owner’s Association office, and agendas are faxed to other interested parties. Minutes are transcribed and may be copied upon request.
Executive sessions are usually held at each meeting to discuss personnel issues and deliberate case hearings. Executive sessions are referenced in public meeting minutes and are transcribed but are not available to the public due to the nature of the executive session.
Commission Staff
Assisting the Commissions is an administrative specialist and the racing officials whose major responsibilities include:
1. Administrator of Racing. John Wayne is responsible for ensuring the orders and instructions of the Commission are carried out. The Administrator of Racing assigns cases to the Inspector and submits monthly reports to the Commission summarizing results of the Licensing Office, Judge’s/Steward’s Office and Inspector.
The Racing Administrator may also act as a hearing officer to hear appeals from administrative decisions of the steward or racing judges.
2. Presiding Judge (Harness) or Chief Steward (Thoroughbred). These officials review the daily racing program and ensure postposition draw for horses in races is fair and impartial. During races, they observe for any rule infractions, interference and unusual pari-mutuel betting patterns. They are also involved in post race drug testing.
The Presiding Judge or the Chief Steward address all protests, complaints and inquiries against racing officials (other than those concerning the judges or the stewards). Judges and stewards hold hearings on rule infractions and issue suspensions and/or fines. The Presiding Judge or Chief Steward represents their respective office before one of the Commissions during case appeals.
3. State Steward. Although identified throughout laws and regulations, the DHRC no longer employs a State Steward. The position functions almost identical to the Presiding Judge.
4. Inspectors. Inspectors supervise licensing staff; issue occupational licenses; conduct investigations; perform background checks; conduct human drug testing, and make periodic visits to Delaware training centers where harness horses are stabled.
5. License Inspectors (Harness) or License Clerks (Thoroughbred). These individuals verify licenses; file licensing applications, issue licenses, and collect appropriate fees. They are responsible for handling the deposit paper work and filing the daily activity report to the Dept. of Agriculture.
6. Commission Veterinarians. Veterinarians take blood samples from horses designated for post race drug testing; monitor races and respond to any equine emergencies; and make recommendations to the Judges or Stewards concerning the fitness of the horses racing.
Accomplishments
· Regulation of $37.3 million dollars annually worth of harness racing purse programs.
· Regulation of wagering on harness racing in Delaware which in 2002 was in excess of $168.5 million dollars.
· Regulation of $42.5 million annually of Thoroughbred racing purse programs.
· Regulation of wagering on Thoroughbred racing in Delaware, which in 2002 was in excess of $371.6 million.
· Hiring an Administrator of Racing, full time inspector, and other full time staff to support the Commissions’ daily functions.
Opportunities
· Pursue legislation enabling the Commission to effectively police the harness industry through conducting inspections at Delaware farms and training centers.
· Pursue legislation enabling the Commission to eliminate disqualified persons from participating in racing who are working behind the scenes at horse farms and training centers. (Harness)
· Pursue legislation mandating licensure for persons participating in harness racing who are stabled at horse farms and training centers in Delaware.
· Continued support for HB 282 introduced June, 2003, with the purpose of deterring the use of prohibited substances. (Harness)
· Improve the technology of forensic drug testing by supporting research and development that detects illicit drug use in racing contests. (Thoroughbred)
Licensing Program
The DHRC and DTRC regulate the horse racing industry by issuing licenses to:
· Racing Officials.
· Racing Participants.
· Racetracks, or others who conduct harness horse races, and their employees.
· Facilities operating pari-mutuel pools.
Racing Officials
Racing officials must apply for licensure with the required fee and may be required to submit fingerprints. Officials qualify for licensure if the DHRC determines he or she is of good moral character, experienced in harness racing, is familiar with the duties of his/her position, possesses mental and physical capacity to perform their duties, and is not suspended.
DHRC issued twenty racing official licenses in 2002 and 2003. None were issued in 2001, although twenty applications were received. No racing official licenses have been rejected, suspended, or revoked during the past three calendar years.
DTRC issued 32 racing official licenses during 2003 and 2002. Twenty-eight were issued in 2001. None were suspended or revoked during the past three calendar years.
Racetracks
License applications for racetracks must specify the days on which harness horse racing will be conducted. Licenses may only be issued to “private stock corporations” in compliance with the following requirements:
1. File specific financial information and other information regarding directors and officers.
2. Board of Directors cannot be less than 5.
3. Applicant’s can only have offices in Delaware.
4. A majority of the Board of Directors and Officers must be residents of Delaware.
Racetracks licensed to conduct harness horse races may also be licensed to operate pari-mutuel wagering and betting on harness horse races.
DHRC issues two racetrack licenses each year: one to Harrington, and one to Dover Downs. DTRC issues one racetrack license to Delaware Park each year.
Racing Participants
Racing participants must submit an application with the required fee and may be required to submit fingerprints. Applicants must be a minimum of 14 years of age for harness racing or 16 years of age for thoroughbred racing. Those under 18 may be required to show active participation in a certified educational program or have a high school diploma or equivalent.
DHRC submitted the following data regarding racing participants:
| Applications
Received | Licenses
Issued | Licenses
Rejected | Licenses
Suspended | Licenses
Revoked |
2003
(as of 7/24/2003) | 343 | 340 | 3 | 45
(219 Rulings) | 0 |
| 2002 | 1,027 | 1,023 | 4 | 53
(378 Rulings) | 0 |
| 2001 | 1,128 | 1,125 | 3 | 39
(396 Rulings) | 1 |
DTRC submitted the following data regarding racing participants:
| Applications
Received | Licenses
Issued | Rejected | Suspended | Revoked |
2003
(as of 7/24/2003) | 2,325 | 2,325 | 0 | 9 | 0 |
| 2002 | 2,571 | 2,571 | 0 | 81 | 0 |
| 2001 | 3,495 | 3,495 | 0 | 52 | 0 |
Exams
For the DHRC, racing officials, drivers, and trainers must pass a test administered by the United States Trotting Association prior to receiving a license. Racing officials are also tested prior to receiving national accreditation from the University of Louisville or University of Arizona.
For the DTRC, tests developed by the Stewards are given to trainers and their assistants, jockeys, jockey agents, and jockey agents.
Renewal Requirements
Licensees are renewed every one to three years depending on the license type. To renew, licenses must possess a racing record free from outstanding rulings in Delaware or elsewhere. Judges and Stewards must complete mandatory continuing education classes every two years.
Reciprocity
Reciprocal candidates must file an application, pay a fee, be in good standing, and have cleared an FBI or Royal Canadian Mounted Police fingerprint check within a specified time period. The Commission may also license persons holding permanent licenses issued by Association of Racing Commissioners International racing jurisdictions in North America. Additionally, the DHRC and the DTRC have been statutorily authorized to join the Interstate Compact for Uniform Licensure of Participants meeting minimum standards of honesty and integrity.
Annual Reports and Evaluations
By Law, both Commissions must produce annual reports to the Governor and General Assembly. There is no evidence that either Commission is doing this.
Monthly tracking of activities is performed by the Racing Administrator who prepares a Summary of Activities Report for DHRC meetings. The reports track various components of the licensing program and other administrative issues.
The DTRC accepts a verbal report from the Racing Administrator at each meeting. The Thoroughbred Commission annually evaluates services by interviewing the participants and the management at Delaware Park. It also holds meetings with a trainer, jockey, Horsemen’s Association Representative, management and track ownership representative.
Complaints and Investigations
Common complaints received by both Commissions concern specific races in which patrons have wagered, or from Delaware horsemen who have found it difficult to enter their horses as often as they would like at Harrington Raceway or Dover Downs. Complaints are supposed to be in writing and the Commission generally responds within 10 days. Copies of the complaints are filed with the Department of Agriculture.
Complaints involving post race positive tests, human drug use, hidden or undisclosed ownership, bookmarking, pari-mutuel cases, or race fixing are assigned by the Administrator of Racing to the Racing Inspector. Inspections are conducted within 30 days with a report forwarded to the Judges or Stewards for follow-up hearings, or referred to the Commission from the Judges or Stewards. The Inspector averages approximately 17 cases per month.
The State Steward or Judges receive complaints regarding the actions of a licensee at which time either may commence an investigation and conduct disciplinary hearings, if necessary. Judges or Stewards receive verbal complaints daily from horsemen and the general public concerning betting, driving infractions, and other related issues. DHRC judges received 5 written complaints during 2002 and 2 written complaints during 2003. Thoroughbred Stewards received 3 written complaints in 2002 and 4 written complaints in 2003.
Disciplinary Proceedings
By law, licenses are subject to suspension or revocation “for any cause whatsoever which the Commission may deem sufficient”; however the Commissions must state publicly its reasons for doing so. Pari-mutuel pool licenses may be revoked at any time without hearing at the discretion of the Commission.
Commission Rules identify specific reasons for disciplinary action, some of which include:
· Having been convicted of a felony or pending criminal charges in Delaware or another jurisdiction.
· Violating gambling or controlled substance laws or laws governing racing in Delaware or other jurisdictions.
· Having disciplinary charges pending in Delaware or another jurisdiction.
· Submitting false information on the license application.
· If the licensee’s spouse holds a license which the Commission determines to be a conflict of interest (Harness).
· Disorderly conduct on the licensee’s grounds (Thoroughbred).
Disciplinary proceedings are outlined in regulations rather than in law for the both Commissions. Appellants must pay a $250 fee to the Commissions to hear appeals of rulings made by the State Steward or Judges, or for the Administrator of the Standardbred Breeders program. Appellants are given notice prior to the hearing and their case is heard de novo. Case proceedings are open to the public and hearing procedures meet other APA requirements.
The DHRC heard eleven appeals during 2003: Nine decisions of the judges were upheld. One modified the judge’s decision and one reversed the Delaware Standard Breeders Fund Board decision.
The DTRC heard two appeals during 2002 and one during 2003. All DTRC decisions upheld the steward’s rulings.
Financials
In 2002, the General Assembly mandated the State’s annual operating budget appropriate ASF revenue to each Commission and permitted the Harness Racing Commission to transfer funds from the State Lottery revenue to cover budget shortfalls, provided that the Budget Director and Controller General approved the transfer.
For both Commissions, Fiscal Year 2004 budgeted expenses are slightly higher than actual expenses for FY 03 ($667,000 Harness and $856,000 Thoroughbred). The increase may be due to additional racing dates.
Harness Operating Budget -- Fiscal Year 04
Revenue (Jan. 1, 2003 – Dec. 2003)
License fees: $109,830
Fines: $ 41,289
TOTAL $151,119 |
Expenses (Budgeted)
Equine Drug Testing* $510,000
Personnel** $419,000
Fingerprints $ 35,000
Contractual $ 68,000
Travel $ 11,000
Supplies $ 12,000
Capital $ 12,000
TOTAL $1,067,000
|
Thoroughbred Operating Budget -- Fiscal Year 04
Revenue (Jan. 1, 2003 - December 2003)
License Fees $238,375
Fines $ 13,600
TOTAL $251,975 |
Expenses (Budgeted)
Personnel** $629,000
Contractual Services $170,000
Equine Drug Testing* $160,000
Fingerprints $ 61,000
Travel $ 14,000
Supplies and Materials $ 12,000
Capital $ 12,000
TOTAL $1,058,000
|
* Drug testing is covered 100% by the Racing Association
** Each race track is responsible for their share of employment expenses for the full-time judging staff or full-time steward staff.
License fees and fines are the primary source of revenue for both Commissions. License fees are established in Code as follows:
License Fees – Harness
Owners, trainers, drivers, grooms $50
State Steward $125
Presiding Judge $100
Associate Judge $75
Paddock Judge $50
Racing Secretary $100
Vendor and Photographer $50
Conduct a Harness Race $3,000
Pari-mutuel Racing Official $50
License Fees – Thoroughbred
Owners and trainers $50
Veterinarians, jockeys $30
Licensee Vendors and vendor
Employees $15
Stable Employees and
Association Employees $5
Stable Name $25
Partnership $25
Authorized Agents $50
Delaware Park $5,000
Horse Racing Purses
Video lottery machines were authorized by the General Assembly in 1995 to increase economic activity for Delaware’s harness and thoroughbred racing industries. Approximately 11 percent of net video lottery proceeds are used to increase the horse purses in Delaware each year contributing to a purse total of more than $88 million from slot revenue since 1996.
Delaware’s racetracks negotiate purse allocations each year with the Horsemen’s Association Board by considering a number of revenue-related factors. Racetracks from other states establish horse racing purses similarly. The charts below place Delaware’s average daily purse in context with other regional racetracks.
Thoroughbred Purse Distribution
Track/State | Live Race Days | Total Purses | Average Daily Purse |
Delaware Park, DE
(FY 03) | 139 | $34,876,227 | $250,908 |
Pimlico Race Course, MD
(FY 01) | 102 | $21,406,954 | $209,872 |
Laurel Park, MD
(FY 01) | 119 | $23,662,415 | $198,844 |
Timonium Race Course, MD
(FY 01) | 10 | $1,339,248 | $133,925 |
Philadelphia Park, PA
(FY 02) | 215 | $27,888,850 | $129,715 |
Penn National, PA
(FY 02) | 194 | $12,144,696 | $ 62,601 |
(Source: Maryland Thoroughbred and Harness Horse Racing Tracks, Office of the State Auditor, Department of Legislative Services, Maryland State Legislature, Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission 2002 Annual Report, and Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission 2003 Year in Review)
Harness Purse Distribution – 2002
Unclaimed Pari-Mutuel Tickets
By law, all unclaimed pari-mutuel ticket funds are returned to the racetracks as their property after one year. Uncashed ticket amounts for each of the three racetracks are as follows:
Dover Downs Harrington Raceway Delaware Park
2002 $77,738 $79,465 $517,000
2003 $88,598 $82,433 $463,000
Other Issues: Maintaining the Integrity of Racing
Recent events involving several harness racing officials prompted the JSC to consider how the Commissions could better maintain the integrity of the sport. Two proposals were considered in light of the integrity issues that ultimately resulted in final recommendations.
One proposal was to either modify the relationship between the Commissions and the Department of Agriculture, or transfer both Commissions to the State Lottery Office since a nexus exists between the video lottery and the racetracks. Rather than proceed with Commission’s current status as an independent agency, the Department of Agriculture worked with the Department of Finance to restructure the chain of command so that the Commissions would serve under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Commissioners would continue to be appointed by the Governor; however all employees of the Commissions would be able to utilize the various resources of the Department of Agriculture to manage and resolve personnel issues or other complaints.
The other proposal targeted racetrack security, which the JSC thought was lacking given that the horse racing industry is a multi-million dollar establishment that does not have the same security enforcement as does another multi-million dollar creation called the video lottery. Both Racing Commissions suggested the establishment of Integrity Unit at each of the three racetracks comprised of Delaware State Police. The State Police piggybacked on their suggestion and proposed creating a Gaming Enforcement Unit consisting of the current Video Lottery Enforcement Unit and a newly created Integrity Unit. Funding for the Integrity Unit would be determined through a joint effort between the Joint Finance Committee, the Budget Director, and the Controller General. |