After months of sometimes-heated debate, Rehoboth Beach commissioners this week passed a package of proposed changes to the city’s charter for state lawmakers to consider.
Many of the changes are minor. City Solicitor Lisa Borin Ogden characterized them as administrative in nature.
“Changes to archaic language, changes to conform to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual, and editing unclear language. There is also reordering of language,” she explained.
Other changes proved to be controversial, reigniting arguments which have monopolized discussions at recent meetings.
The most contentious change is one that affects how much money the city can bring in from property taxes. Currently, the city is limited to a flat ceiling of $3 million per year in property tax revenue. But, as the city and its tax base grows, some commissioners have argued that the flat revenue cap will limit the city’s ability to serve a growing population. Instead, officials want to see a flexible cap, limited to 0.1% of the total value of taxable property in the city.
One persistent opponent of that measure has been Commissioner Suzanne Goode. At Monday’s meeting she reiterated her concerns about the measure contributing to what she characterizes as runaway spending and giving the city a blank check to raise taxes.
“I believe we're aiding and abetting a city hall structure, which has grown out of control, and we're not making any attempt to rein it in,” she said.
However, in a presentation before commissioners began their discussions, City Manager Taylour Tedder assured commissioners in a presentation that he had no intention of suggesting a tax hike.
“In our FY27 budget cycle that we just completed, we did a five-year projection of our budget in the next five years,” he said. “Again, we did not put in there any increase in property taxes, and the city has no plans to increase property taxes.”
Goode also objected to proposed changes to the rules governing who can run for city offices. New language in the charter would bar people from running for commission if they are married to, live with, or have a financial relationship with a currently-serving commissioner. Goode, whose husband ran unsuccessfully for commission last year, has been a consistent critic of the measure, which she contends is directed specifically at her.
Another change is a new provision allowing commissioners to increase their salaries by a simple vote, rather than through state legislative action. Any salary increases would come with an automatic six month waiting period. The changes also include a measure to require a full property reassessment every five years, and new requirements to modernize city audits.
There was some concern over a proposal that would allow the city to use Sussex County’s property valuations in its own reassessment process, something that many commissioners have expressed discomfort about previously. That issue, however, sparked little discussion on Monday, with commissioners seemingly reassured that while they would have the option to use Sussex County’s numbers, they would not be required to do so.
Around a dozen members of the community showed up to observe the discussion, with more than a half dozen commenting, mostly opposing the changes. The slate of charter revisions also sparked 17 emails which were included in the public record. Most of those emails, although from different senders, consisted of the same text, word-for-word.
With a motion to pass the package of charter revisions on the table, Goode made a last-minute attempt to separate the changes and vote on each individual one. But, Borin Ogden, the city’s solicitor noted that votes on individual items have already happened, at a meeting in February.
“The concern with going one by one is that you have already voted on those changes,” she explained.
Goode seemed unconvinced, raising concerns about violations of the Freedom of Information Act.
“While what Ms.Ogden said is mostly true, the problem is two of the proposed charter changes brought forth on February 9th were not noticed with seven days or with any notice to the public,” Goode contended.
That prompted a sharp response from Borin Ogden.
“The law fully allows this body to discuss, question, and make changes in public,” she retorted. “That's the essence of open government, not a violation of it. So be very careful that you're calling into question the veracity of the actions taken by this board.”
Commissioners passed the package of changes 5-2 with Goode and Commissioner Craig Thier voting against it. The next step in the process lies in Dover, where state lawmakers will have to pass the slate of revisions before they can take effect.
