Sussex County Council directs staff to draft building-permit fee enabling legislation for school construction

Sussex County Council on May 13 voted 4-1 to direct county staff to craft proposed state enabling legislation that would let the county impose a building-permit surcharge, modeled on Kent County's program, to fund the local share of school construction.

The vote followed public comment from school officials and residents pressing the council to act on impact fees or similar mechanisms. "It's been 2 years since the Delaware General Assembly gave Sussex County the power to make developers pay their fair share toward the cost of school construction," said Blair Catlin Brown, a school social worker and Delaware State Education Association executive board member, who presented over 600 petition signatures urging action.

Why it matters: Councilmembers and school officials said population growth and new residential development are increasing demand on school capacity and that current funding places the local share on existing taxpayers. The motion asks staff to prepare proposed legislation reflecting the building-permit fee allowed in Kent County in relation to school construction funding so the county and local legislators can consider state-level enabling language.

Discussion and key points

Multiple public commenters representing Indian River and Cape Henlopen school districts urged the council to adopt a mechanism to collect funds from new development. Kelly Klein, an Indian River School Board member and Selbyville Public Library director, told the council impact fees would help capital projects for schools and other public services. Tammy Smith, director of finance for Indian River School District, said the district supports a voluntary school assessment program and emphasized the need for capital funding while constructing a new high school.

Councilmember Steve McCarron, who introduced the item, framed the question as whether the council should direct staff to work with state legislators to pursue enabling legislation. McCarron cited Kent County's approach and said the Kent enabling language allows a surcharge "not to exceed 1.25% of construction value applicable to said building permit application" and noted that Kent sets a lower exemption threshold that the county could adjust.

Council debate highlighted competing principles. Supporters — including Councilmembers Lloyd, Wood and Gruenbaum — said a county-level fee tailored to Sussex County would provide predictable, local control and could be adjusted if inequities appeared. Opponents argued the county should not become the primary revenue-raising agent for schools. Councilmember Riley voted no, saying the state traditionally funds schools and that shifting that responsibility to the county could raise housing costs and worsen affordability for residents "living on a knife's edge." He also noted the realty transfer tax already generates revenue that is intended to support infrastructure.

Formal action

The council approved the motion "to direct county staff to craft proposed legislation to present to local legislators reflecting the building permit fee allowed in Kent County in relation to school construction funding." The motion was moved by Councilmember McCarron, seconded by Councilmember Gruenbaum, and passed with McCarron, Lloyd, Gruenbaum and Wood voting yes and Riley voting no.

Next steps and limits

The motion directs staff to draft proposed enabling language for state legislators; it does not enact any fee. Multiple councilmembers emphasized the draft would return for additional debate and that any ordinance implementing a fee would require separate approvals. Council comments and the motion referenced specific program mechanics (exemption thresholds, percentage caps and certificate-of-need processes) that would be decided in subsequent drafting and legislative work.

Ending

Councilmembers and school officials said they would continue to work with county staff and legislators on the next steps. The council will consider any draft language and potential local ordinance separately; no fee or rate was adopted at the May 13 meeting.