Did South Carolina FOIA require a county assessor to create a custom property report and provide it on the requester’s chosen medium?

Plain-English summary

Charleston County asked whether South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act required its assessor to compile a report matching criteria chosen by a requester and deliver it on the requester's chosen medium. The example involved filtering appraisal data by property size, tax district, value and appeal history. In 1996, the AG said the county had to provide access to existing, nonexempt public records for inspection or copying, but did not have to create a new report by extracting information from those records.

The county could choose to generate the requested document. If it did, the opinion said the statutory fee provision governed what it could charge. The letter did not identify a duty to create a custom file in a particular medium and did not decide whether any specific data field was exempt from disclosure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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

Could a requester inspect or copy the county's existing appraisal records?

The AG said access to existing public records was required, assuming the particular information was not exempt.

Did FOIA require the assessor to filter the database into a new list?

No. The opinion distinguished access to existing records from making a new document by extracting and organizing selected information.

Could the county voluntarily prepare the custom report?

Yes. The AG said it could choose to create such a document and pointed to the statutory rule for fees if it did so.

Background and legal framework

The opinion applied §30-4-10 and earlier AG letters concerning taxpayer lists and expenditure breakdowns. It treated access to records as the statutory requirement and preparation of a new list as a separate task. The letter was an informal view of the signing assistant attorney general; the earlier letters it enclosed were summarized but not reproduced in full in the PDF text below.

Citations

• §30-4-10; §30-4-30(b).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-5-1996-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/gewf5sxb/rosenblum.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATrORNEY GENERAL

March 5, 1996

A. Arthur Rosenblum, Esquire
Charleston County Attorney
Post Office Box 777
Charleston, South Carolina 29402-0777
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Rosenblum:
As you were advised, your letter of February 20, 1996, to Attorney General Condon has been referred to me for response. You had inquired, on behalf of the Charleston County Department of Assessments and Mapping, whether a county assessor is required by the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, S.C. Code Ann. §30-4-10 et seq., to compile a report (either manualJy or computer-generated) of all properties meeting certain criteria selected by the requestor and to provide that report on the media of the requestor's choosing (hard copy, magnetic tape, diskette, etc.)? One example of such a request was for all data maintained in the county's appraisal date base for properties hat have more than 2,000 square feet that are in certain tax districts with appraised values greater than
$100,000 that appealed their assessments in 1993.
You have advised that a computer-generated listing by individual parcel number is being made available for inspection free of charge to the public. Such listing will contain several dozen data fields for each parcel. Additionally, a public access computer terminal capable of accessing each parcel will be available in the county assessor's office in the very near future. In searching our files of previously issued opinions, I found two opinions which are responsive to your inquiry; copies of the opinions are enclosed herewith. The first is dated March 13, 1981, and addressed the question of whether the Aiken County Administrator was required, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, to furnish a list
) -• Rt \lflf:R_Jr C. Df:"f\,
LL7IS 81 11.0"(;
A : , . ~ ...~ ,,.M77 .

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLnturA.

sl:712 I 1-1549 • TELEPHONE·. Rm_-73-.-_
• "970 • •

FACSl:\IILE: so', ___
..,,.(S_
-' "'S'-'

A. Arthur Rosenblum, Esquire
Page 2

March 5, 1996
of the n~mes o~ delinquent taxpayers and, additionally, of the executions returned uncollect1ble durmg the 1979-80 fiscal year with the reason for such return. The inf~nn~tion ~as in th~ po~session of the tax collector's office, though that office did not maintain the infonnatton m the form requested. The issue was therefore whether the county was required to prepare and deliver the lists. The opinion concluded that there was no statutory requirement that the lists be prepared; as stated in the opinion: As understood, the records regarding delinquent taxpayers and executions

in the tax collector's office are available for inspection and copying. It is not a copy of these public records that is here requested. The request is that Aiken County extract and furnish certain infonnation in listed fonn from such records. The extraction and listing of such information is not required of the county by the Freedom of Infonnation Act. CONCLUSION: The Freedom of Infonnation Act, Sec. 30-4-10, et seq., does not require a public body to prepare and furnish a list that reflects infonnation extracted from public records. In an opinion dated December 3, 1981, this Office examined, inter alia, t?e issue of whether a state agency would be required, pursuant to the Freedom of Infonnatlon Act, to provide a comprehensive breakdown of its expenditures of state appropriated funds and other funds not appropriated by the state. The opinion observed that the Freedom of Information Act declares certain matters to be public information, among them "information in or taken from any account, voucher or contract dealing with the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds by public bodies .... " §30-4-50(a)(6). The opinion concluded: Under the [Freedom of Infonnation] Act, any person may require any public agency to produce for inspection or copying information concerning the expenditures of either public or private funds by that public body. However, a public agency is not required to 'breakdown' its expenditures. Access alone is a11 that is mandated under the law. [Emphasis added.] Applying the reasoning of these two opinions to the situation facing the Charleston

County Department of Assessment and Mapping, I would advise that access alone (for inspection or copying) of public records of a public body (assuming that the information

• contained in a particular record is not exempt from disclosure for some reason) is all that
  is required by the Freedom of Information Act. The public body is not required to create

279

A. Arthur Rosenblum, Esquire
Page 3

March 5, 1996
a record where the record does not otherwise exist by extracting information from Oth documents which are in the possession of the public body. On the other hand, the pubt body may create such a document for a requestor if it chooses; the fees which may ~c charged by the public body for doing so would be governed by §30-4-30(b). e This letter is an infonnal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senio Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as t: the specific questions asked. It has n?t, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a fonnal opinion. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

' f ~ iJ,/b'ZlJ4fl
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures

280