Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State archivist warns ADA compliance and paywall plans could strain MD LandRec budget
Summary
The Maryland State Archivist told the Public Safety and Administration Subcommittee that millions of land‑record images and a looming ADA Title II deadline create major remediation costs, and that past paywall proposals were suspended after stakeholder pushback; DLS and the State Archives asked for oversight and funding clarity.
Elaine Reisbachman, the Maryland state archivist, told the subcommittee the agency suspended a proposed paywall for MD LandRec after substantial stakeholder pushback and is now working to find sustainable funding while meeting web‑accessibility requirements. "Records are always available at the archives," she said, adding that the challenge is making millions of records accessible online while preserving public access.
DLS analyst Elizabeth Weibel said the archives’ fiscal 2027 allowance decreases by about $1.6 million to roughly $12 million after accounting for deficiencies and described an $8 million fund swap tied to abandoned paywall plans and an additional $1.4 million technology deficiency. Weibel flagged an April 2026 accessibility deadline under ADA Title II and estimated remediation costs could be on the order of $1 million per year, a cost not included in the current budget.
The archivist explained the technical and operational complexity: the system processes more than a million land‑record images monthly and the agency manages hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of physical collections and large volumes of digital data. Corey Lewis (assistant) noted that remediation will require a hybrid automated/manual workflow and additional staffing and tools: "The acquisition of these tools is certainly paramount to our ability to make these records seamlessly accessible to the public."
Shelly Sarkar of the Maryland State Bar Association, during public comment, urged that any fee or subscription model be developed with industry partners because a per‑page fee could raise costs for real estate due diligence and legal work. She referenced HB576/SB425, saying the bills clarify the fee process so land records fees would be set by regulation rather than ad hoc executive action.
The subcommittee asked for continued stakeholder engagement and for the archives to provide progress updates on accessibility planning, anticipated costs, and any further proposals for fee or regulatory changes. The archives agreed to continue coordination with the judiciary, DoIT, the attorney general, and legislative staff and to provide requested follow‑up details.
