California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus
246 Cal. App. 4th 1432
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- California Public Records Research, Inc. sued Stanislaus County seeking a writ of mandate to reduce clerk‑recorder copy fees (charged $3 first page, $2 each additional) as exceeding costs allowed by Gov. Code § 27366. Trial court denied relief; plaintiff appealed.
- County relied on a 2001 fee study (GFR/Lauwerys) using a time‑based cost method: estimated productive staff cost $0.99/minute and an average of 3 minutes per duplication, yielding $2.97 per request. The study recommended per‑page fees ($3 first page, $2 subsequent) though its cost figures were on a per‑document basis.
- Earlier (1994) study had estimated 8 minutes per copy request and stated additional pages averaged one minute “per document” (i.e., not per page). The 2001 study did not break out per‑page time/costs.
- Court found the record lacked substantial evidence that copying additional pages cost $2 per page or that the first page alone cost $3, because the study produced only a per‑document average (~$2.97) and showed average document length ~2.5 pages.
- The Court of Appeal held the board abused its discretion in adopting the per‑page fee schedule under § 27366 and remanded with instructions: board must make findings, apply a “reasonably attributed to” test to indirect costs, and reset fees supported by substantial evidence. The court also granted plaintiff relief for demonstrated overcharge and retained jurisdiction to consider damages/refund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees ($3 first page; $2 each addl. page) are supported by substantial evidence under § 27366 | Fees are not supported because the 2001 study produced only a per‑document cost (~$2.97); no evidence ties costs to a per‑page basis | Board relied on the 2001 study and staff declarations; fee choice was within board discretion | Court: Insufficient evidence; board abused discretion because study did not justify per‑page fees; remand required |
| Proper meaning/scope of "direct and indirect costs" in § 27366 | "Indirect costs" must be limited by common‑law ordinary user fee principles; only costs reasonably related to providing copies are recoverable | § 27366 permits recovery of direct and reasonable indirect costs; broader allocation methods (e.g., fully allocated) acceptable if reasonably related | Court: "Direct costs" clear; "indirect costs" ambiguous and must be those reasonably attributed to providing copies (apply a reasonably‑attributed‑to test) |
| Whether Constitutional special tax rules (Art XIII C) invalidate fees absent voter approval | Fees exceed reasonable costs and thus could be a tax requiring voter approval | Fees are cost‑recovery and not a special tax | Court: If fees are limited to recoverable direct/indirect costs under § 27366 they are not a special tax; overlap means statutory compliance suffices on remand |
| Scope of review evidence — whether court may consider post‑2001 materials | Review should be limited to evidence before the board in 2001 | Board relied on the 2001 study and other materials; trial court implicitly allowed later declarations and deposition | Court: Treated the 2001 study and later submissions (deposition, 2014 declarations) as part of the record for purposes of assessing whether fees remain supported; did not exclude them on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432 (discusses mandamus to correct abuse of discretion)
- Klajic v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, 90 Cal.App.4th 987 (abuse of discretion standard in public entity decisions)
- Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne, 157 Cal.App.4th 997 (judicial review: arbitrary, capricious, or lacking evidentiary support)
- North County Parents Organization v. Department of Education, 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (definition of "direct costs" of duplication)
- Turnbull & Turnbull v. ARA Transportation, Inc., 219 Cal.App.3d 811 (reasonably‑related test for allocating indirect/overhead costs)
- Thompson v. County of Alameda, 27 Cal.3d 741 (distinguishing ministerial acts from discretionary functions)
- City and County of San Francisco v. Public Utilities Com., 6 Cal.3d 119 (cost‑of‑service/rate setting principles)