Rehoboth Beach officials explore changes to charter

In advance of the state’s General Assembly beginning the next legislative session in January, Rehoboth Beach officials have begun to discuss possible changes to the city’s charter that would need approval by the General Assembly to become effective.

Mayor Stan Mills kicked off the discussion at the Oct. 6 workshop by saying the goal of the discussion was to identify which, if any, charter sections the city should invest time in proposing amendments to so the time is well spent and not wasted.

City Solicitor Lisa Borin Ogden said the charter has served the city well, but it was drafted many years ago and legal practices have evolved. The goal is not to change Rehoboth traditions and home-rule authority, but rather to provide clarity and usability for all citizens, she said.

At the end of this process, several meetings down the road, there will be a document that will be sent to the General Assembly, said Ogden.

The first possible change discussed relates to who can vote in city elections.

City Manager Taylour Tedder said the city has received comments from property owners whose property is in an irrevocable trust, and they are not allowed to vote. People with revocable trusts are allowed to vote, he said.

Former Mayor Sam Cooper provided background on why the city’s charter is worded this way. After some investigation, it was clear a revocable trust is an extension of the person, while an irrevocable trust is an entity, such as an LLC, he said.

Going into a trust is a choice, said Commissioner Patrick Gossett. If someone decides to put their property into a trust, whatever the reason, that is a choice, he said.

Mills and Commissioners Craig Thier, Susan Stewart and Chris Galanty also said they were against any changes that would allow irrevocable trusts to vote. Commissioner Suzanne Goode said she was in favor. 

The second change discussed was related to commissioner salaries. Right now, city code allows increases, but not to sitting commissioners, and increases can only be set during the organizational meeting. Approved increases are staggered and realized by the commissioners who win the elections over the course of the subsequent years.

Goode has brought this issue up in the past. She suggested the timing be changed so the increase is part of the annual budget discussion and realized at the beginning of the fiscal year, not staggered.

Ogden said in her research it is extremely rare for sitting officials to vote in favor of raising their own salaries.

This issue was addressed at the organizational meeting in September, and commissioners declined to give themselves raises. There wasn’t much discussion on the subject, but Stewart and Galanty, winners of this year’s election, reiterated they didn’t think a change was needed.

Another topic discussed was wording that would allow the city to use Sussex County’s property assessment for collecting taxes versus requiring the city to have its own assessment.

The key word is allow, said Tedder. This would give commissioners the flexibility to do so in the future if desired, he said.

At this time, Thier said he’s opposed to this suggestion because the county’s assessment records are a mess. His comment was met with general agreement.

Commissioners were also asked to consider an increase in the cap the city is allowed to collect in property taxes, which currently sits at $3 million. As part of the current fiscal year, the city has budgeted about $2.7 million.

Most cities have their property taxes capped on the assessed value of the community, said Tedder. Right now, there’s a fixed cap, he said, but basing it on a percentage of assessed value would allow that cap to move as the city’s total assessed value increases.

Speaking of increasing numbers, there was a discussion about increasing the amount of money the city is allowed to borrow.

Tedder said the city will have about $65.7 million in debt at the end of the year on a $75 million debt limit cap. Staff is asking commissioners to consider changing the methodology used to set the maximum borrowing amount, he said, pointing to other communities basing it on a percentage of the annual budget.

There were a few proposed changes that were primarily wording changes.

One was related to the fact that the city manager is supposed to have a draft budget prepared for the next fiscal year. Currently, the charter says May 1, but this city’s fiscal year runs April 1 to March 31. Tedder suggested changing the date to one that lines up with the budget.

Another suggested change would remove wording that the city conducts assessments on properties of at least $1,000, because, said Tedder, no property in the city is ever going to be valued at $1,000. It should be valued at whatever the actual valuation is, he said.

There was a suggested change in the maximum fine the city is allowed to impose, which is $500 right now.

Tedder proposed removing the dollar amount and putting a dollar amount for certain violations within the city’s fee schedule. Stewart and Commissioner Mark Saunders said they were in favor of this change.

Saunders said there seem to be a lot of repeat offenders, particularly in the rental business, and the city should have the ability to give a higher and greater penalty.

At the end of the discussion, Stewart said she would like to see something drafted related to family members not being allowed on the board of commissioners at the same time. None of the other commissioners agreed to this request one way or the other, but no one disagreed, either.

Two months ago, Stewart and Galanty defeated candidate Jeffrey Goode in the city’s municipal election. Jeffrey Goode is the husband of Suzanne Goode.

No specific timeline was given for when the proposed changes will come back before commissioners for further discussion.