ITHACA — Gratiot County commissioners voted 5-0 on June 2 to deny a fee appeal from someone who had requested the county’s digital parcel, zoning and address-point data, upholding the county’s decision to charge under a separate state law that governs bulk mapping records rather than the standard public-records fee formula.
The request. According to the county’s written response, the requester asked in May for three digital datasets in their native format: the current parcel layer with tax attributes, zoning district boundaries, and address points. The county said it would provide the records under the fee structure in Michigan’s Enhanced Access to Public Records Act (EAPRA), which lets a public body charge a separate, board-adopted fee for geographic information system data and other bulk digital access, rather than the itemized labor-based fee that applies to an ordinary Freedom of Information Act request. The county asked for a deposit equal to half the estimated cost and noted that some of the underlying information is already available on its website.
The appeal. The requester appealed, arguing the fee should have been calculated under the state Freedom of Information Act’s general fee section instead, and objecting to the flat fee and the lack of an itemized labor breakdown that FOIA requires.
The county’s answer. In a June 3 letter signed by Board Chairman Dave Owens, the county said the appeal was considered at the June 2 board meeting and denied. The letter says GIS data falls under EAPRA, not the general FOIA fee provision, citing MCL 15.443 and MCL 15.234(10), the FOIA subsection that exempts records whose fees are specifically set by another statute. The letter adds that if the requested files turn out smaller than estimated, the county will use a smaller storage device and charge only its actual cost.
The letter tells the requester he may seek judicial review in circuit court within 180 days, and that a court could award damages, costs and attorney fees if it finds the county did not comply with the law.
This report withholds the requester’s name. He is a private individual who does not appear to have sought public attention, and the underlying dispute is fully described without it.