HARRISBURG (LN) — The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on Tuesday affirmed the Luzerne County Common Pleas Court’s January 15, 2025 order, ruling that Section 1307(b)(4) of the RTKL expressly permits agencies to base fees for complex and extensive data sets on the reasonable market value of the same or closely related data sets.
Susan Noto submitted the RTKL request on behalf of Zillow, Inc. on February 26, 2024, seeking an electronic copy of the county’s 2023 Assessment Files, including Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal Data for all parcels. The county’s open records officer responded that the information was available on its website and quoted a fee of $10,100 for the 2024 data. After Noto appealed to the Office of Open Records, the county’s per-parcel rate was established at $0.06 per parcel.
Appellants argued that Section 1307(b) of the RTKL should be construed as limiting duplication fees to the reasonable market value of duplication services, not the market value of the underlying data. The court rejected that reading, citing its precedent in Weiss v. Williamsport Area School District, which upheld fees for duplication services provided by government entities and colleges rather than only private businesses.
The court found that comparing fees charged by various Pennsylvania counties for similar CAMA Data provides the reasonable market value of the same or closely related data sets as specified in Section 1307(b)(4). The OOR had determined that $0.06 per parcel constitutes fair market value and is permitted under the statute. The trial court noted that Luzerne County’s per-parcel rate is equivalent to the median fee of—and falls below the mean of—those 15 counties whose per-parcel rate was entered into evidence.
Appellants also contended the county acted in bad faith, citing internal emails they said showed the county intended to use RTKL duplication fees to recoup costs of collecting and maintaining data, and alleged collusion with other counties to justify higher fees. The county maintained it established its fee rate before any inter-county communications and that an Adams County official’s inquiry was a good-faith effort to poll counties about reasonable market value to comply with the RTKL.
The court found no reversal or grant of access in the matter that would trigger an award of litigation costs under Section 1304(a) of the RTKL, and held the county’s response was made in good faith.
The court also denied Appellants’ September 30, 2025 application to supplement the record with a recent RTKL response from Lawrence County, which is now charging almost one-half million dollars for similar tax assessment records. The court found the Lawrence County decision, issued nine months after the trial court’s decision and 17 months after the OOR’s determination, has no bearing on the appeal.
Judge Anne E. Covey authored the opinion. President Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer and Judges Michael H. Wojcik, Lori A. Dumas, Stacy Wallace, Matthew S. Wolf, and Stella M. Tsai joined.