Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records And Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasurer proposes fee for bulk tax‑record CSVs; commissioners table decision for revisions
Summary
Clay County Treasurer proposed charging $500 for bulk CSV exports of county tax records to third parties (excluding existing escrow/titling partners); commissioners discussed legal/public‑record implications, consistency with other offices and formats (CSV vs PDF) and voted to table the proposal for wording revisions and interoffice alignment.
County Treasurer presented a proposal to charge $500 for full CSV exports of property tax records when asked by third parties (excluding established escrow/title companies). The treasurer said she has faced repeated commercial requests—some from out‑of‑state firms—and that the fee would compensate the office for staff time and reduce frivolous or potentially predatory bulk data requests.
Board members discussed that property tax records are public information and that the county already provides online access via Beacon and other public portals. Commissioners and staff raised two practical points: (1) CSV/Excel formats make bulk reuse easier for commercial purchasers and (2) other county offices (register of deeds, assessor) use different fee approaches (for example, a per‑page fee for scanned images). Commissioners suggested harmonizing fees across county record offices to avoid confusion and considered whether the treasurer should retain discretion to waive or deny requests.
A commissioner asked whether the county is legally compelled to provide data in a machine‑readable format; staff noted a recent hearing examiner case discussed at the state level over format requests and suggested a policy that charges for pre‑packaged CSVs while still allowing public access via the county’s web portals. Staff and commissioners suggested amending the draft to explicitly allow the treasurer to waive the fee for escrow or other existing partners and to retain authority to deny requests where appropriate.
After extended discussion the commission voted to table the proposed resolution and asked the treasurer to return with revised language that: (a) harmonizes with other record‑custodian fees, (b) clarifies that the fee is for prepared CSV/Excel exports rather than basic public lookup access, and (c) explicitly grants the treasurer discretionary authority to waive the fee for escrow/title companies or other approved users. The treasurer said she would bring a revised draft to the next meeting.
