Does a Delaware town meeting agenda have to say it will hold a 'first 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, with two agenda items: "New Tax Rate" and an executive session for personnel matters. 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." A second reading was scheduled for a later meeting.

John Reiss filed a FOIA petition arguing the agenda did not give proper notice because it did not tell the public a first reading of a tax-increase resolution was planned.

The AG found no violation, on two points. First, FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first and second readings of legislation; that is a municipal issue outside the scope of the opinion, and the Office's authority is limited to determining alleged FOIA violations. Second, FOIA requires the agenda to include a general statement of the major issues the body expects to discuss, worded in plain and comprehensible language, enough to alert a citizen with an intense interest in the matter that the subject will be taken up. The agenda need not provide for every alternative that may occur with respect to a subject. The AG determined that "New Tax Rate" gave adequate notice to a citizen with an intense interest in the tax rate change that the Council intended to address the subject at the meeting.

What this means for you

If you are a Delaware municipal clerk drafting agendas

Under this opinion, a plain-English subject line like "New Tax Rate" gives adequate notice that the subject will be taken up. The opinion holds FOIA does not require the agenda to spell out the procedural form (resolution, ordinance, first reading, second reading); it requires a general statement of the major issues in plain and comprehensible language.

If you are a taxpayer monitoring municipal meetings

The opinion treats a substantive agenda item like "New Tax Rate" as enough notice that the tax rate will be addressed. It does not require the agenda to predict the procedural posture, such as whether the Council will hold a first or second reading.

If you want to challenge first-reading-versus-second-reading procedure

The opinion holds that whether a town must notice a "first reading" is a municipal issue outside FOIA, and the AG's authority under the petition process is limited to FOIA violations. The opinion does not resolve that procedural question.

Common questions

Did FOIA require the agenda to say "first reading of a resolution"?

No. The opinion holds FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first and second readings of legislation, and that this municipal issue falls outside the scope of the opinion. FOIA required only a general statement of the major issues, which "New Tax Rate" provided.

What is the standard for an adequate agenda item?

The opinion states an agenda must include a "general statement of the major issues" the body expects to discuss, worded in "plain and comprehensible language," at least enough to "alert members of the public with an intense interest in" the matter that the subject will be taken up. It need not provide for every alternative that may take place with respect to a subject.

Why was "New Tax Rate" enough here?

The AG determined that item gave adequate notice to a citizen with an intense interest in the tax rate change that the Council intended to address the subject at that meeting.

Can I raise the first-reading procedure issue somewhere else?

The opinion treats that as a municipal issue outside FOIA and does not decide it. The AG's authority in this process is limited to determining alleged FOIA violations.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 is Delaware's FOIA. The opinion describes FOIA's purpose as ensuring public business is conducted openly so citizens can observe public officials and monitor decisions of public policy, and it states that in any action under Section 10005 the public body has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance.

The opinion notes the Office's authority is limited to determining alleged FOIA violations, and that FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first and second readings of legislation. For agenda content, the opinion applies the requirement of a "general statement of the major issues" in "plain and comprehensible language" that, at least, alerts members of the public with an intense interest in the matter that the subject will be taken up, while not requiring the agenda to provide for every alternative that may occur.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (FOIA); § 10005 (petition process).

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