Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lobbyist reports on ADU, tax and safety bills as council debates recording and cost impacts
Summary
City lobbyist James D’Shane updated Newark City Council on several state bills — including an ADU measure, a tax bill, a motorized scooter bill, proposed requirements to record executive sessions, a trauma‑kit mandate and new ADA parking rules — and presented a state revenue forecast that could affect grants and bond funding to the city.
James D’Shane, Newark’s lobbyist, briefed the City Council on developments at the statehouse on May 19 and warned that the state revenue forecast could affect how much money filters down to Newark for bonds and grants.
“May kinda gives you a precursor of what June may look like,” D’Shane said, summarizing the state’s May revenue outlook and noting continued uncertainty in consumer confidence and market softness that could reduce revenues available for bond bills and grants that benefit Newark.
The update covered several bills of interest to the city. D’Shane said an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bill “made it out of committee” and is awaiting a floor vote in the Senate; he said the bill’s language has not been amended since the council last reviewed it. He also said “House bill of 34 was released from committee very quickly” and that Representative Romer and the city manager spoke in committee. D’Shane reported that Representative Romer’s motorized scooter bill “made it out of committee, and it'll be ready for a floor vote whenever she brings it to the floor.”
D’Shane asked council for direction on a package of other bills. He described House Bill 78, which would expand recording requirements for public bodies and would require recording executive sessions and posting recordings once portions “are no longer privileged.” He said the city already records and posts meetings, but the new bill’s requirement to retain and later post executive session recordings would add staff, storage and legal complexity.
Council members uniformly raised concerns about recording executive sessions. Councilwoman Creasy said she viewed the provision as conflicting with the purpose of executive sessions: “the whole purpose of the executive session is to have a conversation about things that should not be publicized.” Another council member said the ability to withhold recordings only “so long as that disclosure would defeat the lawful purpose of the executive session, but no longer” would make candid executive conversations difficult.
D’Shane also described Senate Bill 104, which would require certain public buildings to keep multiple trauma kits on site with specified contents. He noted recurring replacement costs for kit supplies and fines for noncompliance. Council members and other speakers said the kits could impose a recurring cost and create liability concerns because staff are not trained to perform advanced trauma treatment; Councilwoman Ford observed that while she supports protection for citizens, staff “are administrators and legislators, but not trained particularly in the medical field.”
On Senate Bill 89, D’Shane said the bill’s drafting may be backwards; as written it would limit surcharges for credit‑card payments in ways that could prevent entities from recouping processing costs on large transactions. Council members said the proposal needs clarification.
D’Shane briefly reviewed a new substitute for House Bill 48 on ADA parking spaces, which would require parking lots to meet specified ADA standards within five years even if lots are currently grandfathered. He said the bill shifts enforcement and some permitting duties to local governments and could require many lots to be re‑striped or to seek waivers; council members warned the change would create unfunded administrative and capital costs and would render many existing lots noncompliant due to grade or other constraints.
Council discussion also touched on related bills mentioned by council members: residency and public‑access bills for school boards and a “freedom to read” bill. Several members urged the lobbyist and city counsel to press for clarifying language or carve‑outs on the executive‑session recording and parking provisions.
Why it matters: these bills, if enacted as written, could create recurring costs, new local compliance duties and legal complexity for the city and for local businesses. Council asked staff and counsel to review impacts and pursue clarifications where feasible.
