Does a Delaware town meeting agenda have to specify whether the council will do a 'first reading' or 'second reading' of a tax-rate proposal, or is 'New Tax Rate' specific enough?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Blades held a special council meeting on October 27, 2025. The agenda had two items: "New Tax Rate" and a personnel-matters executive session. At the meeting, the Council took up the first reading of a resolution titled "A Resolution Adopting the Change of Real Estate Property Tax Rate."

John Reiss filed a FOIA petition arguing that the agenda did not give proper notice. His position: the public should have been told it was a first reading of a tax increase, not just "New Tax Rate."

The AG disagreed. Two reasons:

1. FOIA does not regulate first-reading-versus-second-reading procedure. Whether a Town processes a tax change as a single resolution, a first-and-second-reading sequence, or an ordinance is municipal procedural law (Town Charter, Delaware municipal-government statutes), not FOIA. The AG's authority under § 10005 is limited to FOIA violations.

2. The agenda's substantive description was sufficient. Section 10004 requires a "general statement of the major issues" in "plain and comprehensible language." The standard is whether the item would alert citizens with intense interest that the subject will be addressed. "New Tax Rate" met that bar. Citizens interested in the property tax rate had notice that the rate was on the table.

This opinion is part of a connected series with 25-IB62 and 25-IB63, all involving the same Town of Blades property tax rate process and the same petitioner. The thread of reasoning is consistent: substantive notice satisfies FOIA, procedural form does not need to be spelled out on the agenda.

What this means for you

If you are a Delaware municipal clerk drafting agendas

Use plain-English subject descriptions. "New Tax Rate," "Property Tax Rate Adjustment," or "Real Estate Property Tax Rate" all describe the substantive issue. You do not need to break out whether the action is a resolution, an ordinance, a first reading, or a second reading. FOIA cares about the subject being clear, not about the procedural mechanism.

That said, "Old Business" or "New Business" or generic "Discussion" placeholders fail the test. The line is between substantive subject (sufficient) and generic catch-all (insufficient).

If you are a taxpayer monitoring municipal meetings

Look for substantive subject descriptions on the agenda. If the property tax rate is on the agenda in any form ("New Tax Rate," "Property Tax Resolution," "Tax Rate Ordinance"), expect the issue to be addressed. The procedural form (resolution, ordinance, first reading, second reading) is determined by the Town's procedures and may shift at the meeting.

If you want to participate, attend the meeting itself; do not rely on the agenda to predict the exact procedural posture. You are entitled to substantive notice, which the agenda must provide, but not procedural notice.

If you are a town councilmember considering whether to handle a measure as a resolution or an ordinance

You can decide that at the meeting itself, as long as the agenda item describes the substantive subject. Switching from "first reading of resolution" to "first reading of ordinance" mid-meeting is fine for FOIA purposes (see 25-IB63, the companion opinion). What you cannot do is switch from one substantive subject to another (for example, agenda lists tax rate but council instead votes on a zoning change).

If you are a citizen or watchdog considering a FOIA challenge to an agenda

Focus on substantive notice. A FOIA challenge has to allege that a substantive issue was discussed without agenda mention, not that the agenda mislabeled the procedural form. The AG opinion process is limited to FOIA, so procedural-form arguments will be deflected to municipal-procedure law (Town Charter or municipal code).

If you are a municipal attorney advising on agenda drafting

Two best practices. First, use plain-English subject lines. Second, when the procedural mechanism shifts at a meeting, have the presiding officer announce the change on the record (as the Mayor did here) so the meeting minutes reflect that the substantive subject was unchanged. That builds a record if a later challenge alleges the agenda was misleading.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10001 declares the policy: FOIA exists so citizens can observe public officials and monitor decisions of public policy.

29 Del. C. § 10004 sets the open-meeting requirements, including agenda content. Per § 10002(a), an agenda must include a "general statement of the major issues" the public body expects to discuss.

The agenda standard is a notice rule. Chem. Indus. Council of Del. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 1994 WL 274295 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994), adopted "plain and comprehensible language" as the operative phrase. Lechliter v. DNREC, 2017 WL 2687690 (Del. Ch. Jun. 22, 2017), and Ianni v. Dep't of Elections, 1986 WL 9610 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1986), set the threshold: the agenda item should "alert members of the public with an intense interest in the matter" that the subject will be taken up.

Lechliter v. Becker, 2017 WL 117596 (Del. Ch. Jan. 12, 2017), held that the agenda need not provide "every alternative that may take place with respect to a specific subject under consideration." So an agenda listing a lease amendment is adequate notice that a vote on the amendment may occur.

29 Del. C. § 10005(e) limits the AG's petition authority to FOIA violations. The AG has historically declined to opine on municipal-law questions outside FOIA, including issues about Council President or Mayor authority.

Common questions

Does FOIA require an agenda to say "first reading of an ordinance" or "first reading of a resolution"?

No. FOIA requires substantive notice, not procedural notice. As long as the agenda identifies the subject (here, the property tax rate change), the agenda has done its job. Whether the body addresses the subject through a resolution, an ordinance, a motion, a first reading, or a second reading is municipal procedure law and is not regulated by FOIA.

What kind of agenda would actually fail FOIA?

A vague agenda that does not identify substantive subjects. Generic placeholders like "Old Business," "New Business," "Council Discussion," or "Public Matters" are typically not enough because they do not flag any specific issue. The AG has historically found violations where the public could not have known from the agenda what topics would be discussed.

Can the council take up a topic that is not on the agenda at all?

Generally no. FOIA requires meeting agendas to identify the major issues to be discussed. Taking up a substantive topic with no agenda mention can violate § 10004. The exceptions are narrow (genuine emergencies, certain procedural items, etc.).

What if the agenda is misleading rather than vague?

That can also violate FOIA. The standard is whether a citizen with intense interest in the subject would recognize that the subject will be discussed. A misleading description that disguises the actual subject can fail the test even if it is not technically vague.

What is the difference between a resolution and an ordinance?

It varies by Town Charter, but generally: a resolution is a less formal expression of council intent that often passes with a single vote; an ordinance is more formal local legislation, often requiring a first and second reading and codified in the municipal code. The procedural rules are set by the Town Charter or the Delaware Code provisions on municipal government, not by FOIA.

Where can I challenge first-reading-versus-second-reading procedure?

Outside FOIA. If you believe the Town did not follow its Charter or the Delaware municipal-government statutes, you would pursue that in a separate proceeding (typically through a writ of mandamus or a declaratory judgment action). The AG opinion process is limited to FOIA.

Is the AG's "alert members of the public with an intense interest" standard subjective?

It is contextual rather than subjective. Courts and the AG ask whether a reasonable person interested in the topic would have understood from the agenda that the subject would be addressed. It is not whether any particular citizen happened to figure it out, but whether the agenda's language reasonably conveyed the substantive subject.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (FOIA); § 10001 (policy); § 10002(a) (agenda statement of major issues); § 10004 (open meetings); § 10005 (petition process); § 10005(c) (burden of proof); § 10005(e) (citizen right to petition).
• Cases: Chem. Indus. Council of Del. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 1994 WL 274295 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994); Lechliter v. DNREC, 2017 WL 2687690 (Del. Ch. Jun. 22, 2017); Ianni v. Dep't of Elections, 1986 WL 9610 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1986); Lechliter v. Becker, 2017 WL 117596 (Del. Ch. Jan. 12, 2017).

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/12/08/25-ib60-12-08-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-john-reiss-re-town-of-blades/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2025/12/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-25-IB60.pdf

Original opinion text

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB60
December 8, 2025

VIA EMAIL
John Reiss
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Town of Blades

Dear Mr. Reiss:

We write in response to your correspondence, alleging that the Town of Blades violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 regarding whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed more fully herein, we determine that the Town did not violate FOIA by failing to convey in its agenda that a "first reading" of a resolution was planned for the Town Council's October 27, 2025 special meeting.

BACKGROUND

The Town Council held a special meeting on October 27, 2025 with two agenda items: "New Tax Rate" and an executive session for personnel matters. The Petition alleges that the Town violated FOIA by failing to give proper notice to the public that a first reading of a resolution to raise taxes was planned for this meeting. The resolution was entitled "A Resolution Adopting the Change of Real Estate Property Tax Rate." The Petition states that a second reading of this resolution was scheduled for a later meeting.

DISCUSSION

FOIA is intended to ensure that public business is done in the open, "so that . . . citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy." FOIA requires a meeting of a public body to be open to the public, except in limited circumstances. In any action brought under Section 10005, the public body has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with FOIA.

This Office's authority is limited to determining alleged violations of the FOIA statute. The Petition claims that the Town Council violated FOIA by failing to provide notice that a "first reading" of a resolution to raise taxes would occur at the meeting. However, FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first and second readings of legislation; this municipal issue falls outside the scope of this Opinion.

Rather, FOIA requires sufficient notice be provided in the meeting agenda for the items intended to be discussed. An agenda for a public meeting must include a "general statement of the major issues" which a public body expects to discuss and must be worded in "plain and comprehensible language." "In order that the purpose of the agenda requirement be served, [a meeting item] should, at least, 'alert members of the public with an intense interest in' the matter that the subject will be taken up by the [public body]." While the public body must provide enough information to alert the public that a subject will be undertaken, the agenda's description need not provide for "every alternative that may take place with respect to a specific subject under consideration." We determine that this item, "New Tax Rate," provided adequate notice to a citizen with an intense interest in the tax rate change that the Council intended to address this subject at this meeting. Thus, we find no violation of FOIA in this regard.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Town did not violate FOIA by failing to convey in its agenda that a "first reading" of a resolution was planned for the Town Council's October 27, 2025 special meeting.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis
Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor

cc: Michael R. Smith, Attorney for the Town of Blades