Is $10 for a 68-page copy of a county's comprehensive land use plan a reasonable public records fee?

Official title

02-IB31: FOIA Complaint Against Sussex County Council

Plain-English summary

A resident complained about an October 1, 2002 Sussex County Council meeting on two grounds: that the agenda item "Introduction of Proposed Zoning Ordinances" didn't give fair notice that the council would discuss changes to the comprehensive land use plan, and that the county's $10 charge for a copy of that plan was unreasonable. The AG rejected both claims. Twenty-six members of the public, including Sierra Club representatives who opposed the changes, showed up and participated, which the AG took as evidence the agenda language worked as intended, and the county went on to schedule two more public meetings given the level of interest. On the fee, the AG did the math: $10 for a 68-page document works out to under seven cents a page, well within the range the AG has found reasonable in the past (fifty cents a page in a different opinion), especially since the same plan was also available for free online. The AG noted that whether county rules require free copies of public records wasn't something within its jurisdiction to decide.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does an agenda item like "Introduction of Proposed Zoning Ordinances" have to specifically mention the comprehensive plan by name?
A: Not necessarily, according to this opinion. The AG found that language sufficiently alerted the public to the topic, pointing to the fact that at least 26 people, including an organized advocacy group, showed up and participated as evidence the notice worked.

Q: How much can a government charge per page to copy a public record?
A: There's no fixed cap in this opinion, but the AG found a rate of under seven cents a page (on a 68-page document) reasonable, consistent with an earlier opinion finding fifty cents a page reasonable elsewhere.

Q: Does the Attorney General decide whether local rules require free copies of certain government documents?
A: No, according to this opinion. The AG explained that even if a county ordinance required free copies, that question would fall outside its jurisdiction under FOIA.

Background and statutory framework

The complaint concerned whether Sussex County Council's October 1, 2002 agenda item on zoning ordinances gave adequate notice of a comprehensive-plan discussion, and whether the county's $10.00 copying fee for the plan was reasonable under 29 Del. C. § 10002(a), which requires that "any reasonable expense involved in the copying of public records" be charged to the requester. The AG found the agenda notice adequate given the strong public turnout it generated, and relied on Att'y Gen. Op. 94-IO13 for a comparable reasonable per-page rate, along with its own prior opinion, Att'y Gen. Op. 02-IB23, confirming the plan had already been made available in both paid-copy and free-online formats ahead of the meeting.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• 29 Del. C. § 10002(a), reasonable copying expense may be charged to the requesting citizen

Cases:

• Att'y Gen. Op. 94-IO13 (Mar. 15, 1994), fifty cents per page found reasonable for copying public records
• Att'y Gen. Op. 02-IB23 (Oct. 1, 2002), the comprehensive plan was available to the public in paid and free formats ahead of the meeting

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2002/12/06/02-ib31-foia-complaint-against-sussex-county-council/
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

December 6, 2002

Civil Division-Kent County

Mr. Daniel J. Kramer

8041 Scotts Store Road

Greenwood, DE 19950

Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County Council

Dear Mr. Kramer:

On October 1, 2002, our Office received your complaint under the Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Chapter 100 ("FOIA"), alleging that the Sussex County Council ("the Council") violated FOIA by: (1) discussing matters of public business at a meeting on October 1, 2002 without proper notice to the public; and (2) charging an unreasonable fee ($10.00) for a copy of the County's comprehensive land use plan.

By letter dated October 7, 2002, we asked for the Council's response, which we received on October 28, 2002.

The agenda for the October 1, 2002 meeting (attached to your complaint) lists for public discussion "Introduction of Proposed Zoning Ordinances." The agenda was posted on September 24, 2002, seven days in advance of the meeting as required by FOIA. We believe that this agenda item sufficiently alerted the public that the Council would be discussing proposed changes to the comprehensive land use plan. According to the sign-in sheets provided by the County, at least 26 members of the public attended, including representatives of the Sierra Club who opposed many of the proposed changes. Because of the great public interest in these issues, the County has scheduled two additional public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the plan.

FOIA provides that "[a]ny reasonable expense involved in the copying of [public] records shall be levied on the citizen requesting such copy." 29 Del. C. § 10002(a). The comprehensive land use plan was available for free on the Internet, or for $10.00 at the County zoning office. (1) The plan is 68 pages, making the cost per page at the zoning office of less than seven cents. We believe that is a reasonable amount to charge for copying under FOIA. See Att'y Gen. Op. 94-IO13 (Mar. 15, 1994) (fifty cents per page reasonable). We are not aware of any county ordinance that requires the County to make available copies of public records for free. Even if there were, that issue would not be within our jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Council did not violate FOIA.

Very truly yours,

W. Michael Tupman

Deputy Attorney General

APPROVED

Malcolm S. Cobin, Esquire

State Solicitor

cc: The Honorable M. Jane Brady

Dennis L. Schrader, Esquire

Phillip G. Johnson, Opinion Coordinator

I:\Phil\AG-OPN\2002\02-IB31.wpd

1. In Att'y Gen. Op. 02-IB23 (Oct. 1, 2002), we determined that the plan was available to the public in these two formats reasonably in advance of the October 1, 2002 meeting of the Council.