|State||email sent||GIS parcel policy||Rating||Ambiguous||Non-commercial or Copyrighted|
(if not implied)
|Link||Assessor Data Policy||Rating||License||Link||Overall Rating (GIS + Assessor)|
Appears all data is online.
Mont. Code Ann. § 2-6-101 – 112; Article II, §
9 of the Montana Constitution
|New Jerseyemail@example.com||Appears all are online. But that may not cover any GIS data.||1||1|
Heather Hanson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Florida requires that governments submit parcels and assessor data to the Department of Revenue in a standardized way.
Appears GIS parcels are at discretion of Dept of Revenue (law says "may" include).
Currently they do require it.
Requirements by the Dept of Revenue are online.
|Delaware||LandUse@nccde.org||Cost of duplication, though there is something about "aministrative fees".|
29 Del. C. Section 10003 (m)
|Appears to be same.||2||2|
Data must be provided for cost of duplication. Some stipulations on confidentiality. Spoke with Texas office, which said appeals are made, which they may have allowed or denied.
|2||Appears to be same.||2||2|
|All data is available, but need to find laws that allow/prohibit.||2||Also available||2||2|
Recent Illinois Supreme Court case upheld provisions that state that data must be provided at cost of duplication.
35 ILCS 200/9-20
950 C. M. R. 32.06 (1) (e)
May not charge for production costs, only duplication costs.
|2||Appears to apply to assessor's data as well.||2|
|Hawaiiemail@example.com||See HRS §92-21|
Must be provided for cost of duplication. However, mentions several things other than direct time. Appears to not indclude cost of production only reproduction.
In any case, data appears to be online in general.
Data is open, must be provided at cost of duplication (subsection F).
People out of state can be more restricted (subsection A).
However, appears that someone in Virginia can get data and share it openly.
Oddly, there was a US Supreme Court case about restricting people out of state, ruled in favor of the defendants in Virginia. May have been for some documents that would only be available to citizen but are confidential, only for that person. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/foia-requests-blocked_n_3178003.html
2.2-3704(A) and (F)
|No Exceptions known.||2||2|
|Arkansas||Richard.Booth@BentonCountyAR.gov||Must be provided at cost of duplication. Also, cannot charge for less than 2 hours.|
|No exceptions known.||2||2|
Travis Gregorich <firstname.lastname@example.org>
|Appears that data must be provided for free/cost of duplication. Most counties have data available online it seems.|
Need to find exact laws. Some counties are charging. Reasons are given, need to go over them.
State allows county Board of Commissioners to set fees. In the case of Grand Forks County, the charge they set was $1000.
Appears they are in violation.
|2||Appears to be the same||2|
|Wisconsin||Peter Strand <Peter.Strand@co.eau-claire.wi.us>||Appears in violation. Data should be provided at cost of duplication.|
|2||Appears to be the same||2|
Appears charges are in violation. Board of Revenue of a county may establish charges, which is guided in part by the Department of Revenue of the State of Alabama. Department of Revenue provided opinons of Attorney General, which only stated that fees must be "reasonable". Nothing appears to allow costs to be more than the cost of duplication.
Was referred to 40-7-64, which allows the Department of Revenue to set charges, which the person I spoke with at Mobile County implied is encompassed by the "Plan for Equalization"
Was given the following opinion by the Alabama Department of Revenue:
One of the referenced opinon goes into slightly more detail on page 2:
Mark W. Tollison <mTollison@greenvillecounty.org>
|As far as can tell, requires cost of duplication. At least one county is charging more ($500), and provides legal justification for it.||2||2|
Rich Shaffer <email@example.com>
|Appears that people are charging based on "tax map" laws. This appears to apply to printed maps. As far as can tell, data must be provided for duplication cost, but laws regarding maps are not explicit and are apparently being written currently.|
|South Dakota||GIS@brookingscountysd.gov||Statutes were provided that were insufficient. At least one county is charging $2500 for parcels.|
Appears must provide at cost of duplication.
|Must charge "actual cost of furnishing copies."|
Statute 45-218 and Statute 45-219
|Oklahomafirstname.lastname@example.org||Appears that data is to be given at cost of duplication. Appears charges of $50 for each file are in violation.|
See Title 51 Sec 24:
|Must charge cost of duplication, no labor for less than 2 hrs.||2|
Janna Mock <Janna.Mock@wcattorney.com>
|Must charge "actual costs". At least one county is charging more.|
Appears must be provided for cost of duplication. Also, may not be charged for labor costs in excess of 4 hrs.
Is a section on "specialized services", when transferring a file, but does not appear to justify more than duplication costs.
At least one county is charging much more.
Nebraska Public Records Act
|Must charge reasonable fees.|
Not verified directly.
See: RS 44:32
|Appears only actual costs of producing copies. Have not verified directly.||2||2|
|Must charge actual costs. Not verified directly.||2||2|
|Maineemail@example.com||Appears must be provided at cost of duplication. Not verified directly.||2||2|
Apparently Secretary of State creates fees, which must be based on media cost and cost of machine (last part is difficult to understand).
Not verified directly.
State Statute of 1 VSA 316(d)
|Appears must be actual cost of copy. Not verified directly.|
2013 FOIA Act
|"Reasonable actual costs"|
|Iowafirstname.lastname@example.org||Must provide anything non-confidential at reasonable cost. However, some mention of Geographic databases. Appears to only apply to nonconfidential records, though unclear what is nonconfidential or not.|
|Appears to be that can charge for cost of retrieval. Unsure.||2||2|
|California||x||Completely open, as mandated by California Supreme Court||2|
|May charge cost of production. See Revenue and Taxation Code Section 408.3(c).||8||http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=rtc&group=00001-01000&file=401-409||8|
|Tennesseeemail@example.com||May charge for GIS data if commercial use. Cost of production.|
May be received at cost of duplication for non-commercial.
T.C.A. § 10-7-506
|8||Noncommercial||http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-10/chapter-7/part-5/10-7-506/||May apply to assessor's data, unclear.||8|
|Appears charges are in violation. However, also appears that any data can have a noncommercial license applied.|
|Coloradofirstname.lastname@example.org||May charge cost of production. Language is somewhat vague, but can be interterpreted that way with reason. There is a clause about nonprofits, will follow up on that.|
|No exceptions known.||8||8|
|Kentuckyemail@example.com||Law below is unclear, appears to be for cost of duplication, but prices are more along the lines of production costs. The Kentucky Dept Revenue actually provides guidline fees, so this is the state's interpretation.|
|Appears to be the same, as indicated in fee schedule.||7||8|
|Missouri||x||Can charge for cost of production.|
Also, check out:
|Appears to be the same.||7||8|
Can charge for cost of production.
"Appears that there is an examption for GIS data. Need to find specific exemption.
|Appears to be the same (see "more" link)||7||8|
|Wyomingfirstname.lastname@example.org||Allows charging for "constucting the record".|
Wyoming Public Records Act
|8||Applies to assessor's data, unless there is an exception.||7||8|
|Alaskaemail@example.com||May charge cost of production.|
|Appears to be the same||7||8|
|Minnesota||Kyle Oberg <Kyle.Oberg@co.cook.mn.us>||May charge developmental costs.|
13.03, Subdivision 3 (d)
|8||Appears to be same.||7||8|
|Indianafirstname.lastname@example.org||Specific exception for "electronic maps", may charge cost of production.|
|North Carolinaemail@example.com||Only says "provide copies at reasonable cost". At least one county interprets that as including all costs, not just for duplication.|
§ 132-10. Qualified exception for geographical information systems.
|Nevada||gismo@ClarkCountyNV.gov||May charge cost of production.|
|8||http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-239.html#NRS239Sec054||May not apply to assessor's data.||8|
|Georgia||JLana@cobbcounty.org||Can charge for cost of production.|
Georgia Senate Bill 230 & 406
|Michiganfirstname.lastname@example.org||Can charge for cost of production ("operating expenses").|
|Oregon||TychoG@co.wasco.or.us||Basically, may sell data as if it were private. Goes even further than "cost of production".|
Fees for geographic data; uses.
|May be same, following up||8|
|Law essentially says that govts may charge "reasonable" fee other than duplication costs.|
|8||http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-14/article-3/section-14-3-18||May only apply to GIS data.||8|
10-901 through 10-905 of the State Government Article of Code of Maryland
|Pennsylvaniaemail@example.com||May charge market value.|
Pennsylvania Right to Know Laws (RTKL)
|Language likely applies to assessor's data, unless there is an explicit stipulation.||8||8|
|May charge cost of production. Specific exemption for GIS cadastral data.|
§ 25-61-7 (2)