Laserfiche WebLink
<br /><, <br /> <br />A StudY of GIS 10' the Colorado D8Ilarlmenl of Nalu,al R8S0tlrces <br /> <br />October 9. 1992 <br /> <br />Fees and Cost Recovery <br /> <br />Additionally, two other changes significant to this topic were made in the July 1st <br />amendments. First, a clause was added specifically stating that nothing in this section of <br />the laws of Colorado was to affect any right the state or any of its agencies had to obtain <br />trademarlc or copyright protection for any public record. CRS 24-72-203(4). The specific <br />impact of this will be discussed below in the section on Copyrights, but basically conf'mns <br />the custodian's option to control redistribution of some information obtained from <br />government. Second, the amendments include two clauses with respect to cost recovery in <br />the access process. One allows the state or any of its agencies to recover up to its actual <br />cost when an infonnation request requires any manipulation of data to create and generate a <br />record in a form not used by the state or the agency involved. Any subsequent requests for <br />the same information may be charged the same fee, even though the information requested <br />has already been generated for a previous request. CRS 24-72-205(3). This creates a new <br />option for custodians to "create records" if they want to recover system costs. <br /> <br />This cost recovery clause appears to be addressing one of the issues raised by Sare-ent <br />School District v. Western Services,751 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1988). This case involved a <br />commercial entity, Western Sendees, requesting certain information about the class records <br />of school age children in a particular school district. The information was stored by the <br />school district in such a form that allowed identification of the individusl students with their <br />test scores, which is information not required to be released under Colorado Public <br />Records law. Western brought suit to force the school district to "sanitize." their records <br />and release the requested information in such a way that did not include information exeinpt <br />from releaSe. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the state's Public Records, law was <br />unambiguous and did not include an implied duty to delete exempt information, so as to <br />create a releasable record. Such "redaction" of exempt records from nonexempt records is <br />required in many states, in spite of the resulting "creation of records" to meet a request, but <br />under Sare-ent this is not so in Colorado. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />A more recent Colorado case, Tax Data Corporation v. Hult, 826 P.2d 353 (Colo. App. <br />1991), dealt with this issue again, from a slightly different angle. Tax Data was in the <br />business of supplying tax information to its customers. The company obtained this <br />information by searching public records in the treasurer's office for the City and County of <br />Denver. The treasurer stored this information on computer tapes and accessed it with <br />terminals installed in the office. The treasurer refused to allow Tax Data to access these <br />tapes directly. either through one of the office terminals or through a terminal which Tax <br />Data offered to provide and dedicate to public use. The treasurer instead offered to provide <br />the company with the information they sought, if the company would follow the office's <br />request procedure, which resulted in Tax Data receiving oral, hardcopy printouts or <br />certified printouts, as they required. The office was obligated to respond to any request <br />within three working days. Tax Data claimed that the only manner in which electronically <br />stored information could be inspected was through the use of computers, since this was the <br />format in which it was kept. <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG,aphics. Inc. <br /> <br />5 <br />