To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 12, 1997; City of Fairfax
5/12/1997 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On March 24, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated March 21, 1997, from Cathy Wolf. In her letter, Ms. Wolf requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to government data maintained by the City of Fairfax. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Marcia Pelzel, Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Fairfax, in response to Ms. Wolf's request. The purposes of this letter dated March 25, 1997, were to inform her of Ms. Wolf's request and to ask her or the City's attorney to provide information or support for the City's position. PIPA received a response, dated April 1, 1997, from Thomas W. Van Hon, an attorney representing the City. A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated February 27, 1997, addressed to the Fairfax City Clerk/Treasurer, Ms. Wolf requested access to the following data relating to recent federal and state grants: names of the recipients; dates of receipt; and amounts of the grants. In a letter dated February 28, 1997, Mr. Van Hon responded by informing Ms. Wolf that the requested information is classified as private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, benefit data. In a letter dated March 4, 1997, Ms. Wolf narrowed her request and asked for the names and addresses of the recipients of the 1993 Commercial/Residential Rehab Grant (Small Cities Block Grants). She asserted that Section 13.31 classifies those data as public. In a letter dated March 7, 1997, Mr. Van Hon responded to Ms. Wolf and stated that after a review of the issue, it was still his opinion that the data are classified as private. Ms. Wolf then submitted an opinion request.
Issue:
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Wolf asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
The data in question are regarding a Small Cities Development Program Grant provided by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) to the City of Fairfax. The Department provided Ms. Wolf with a breakdown of the total grant. In a letter dated March 3, 1997, William Atkins wrote, Of these funds [$496,726], $209,230 was designated for Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation, $74,970 was designated for Rental Rehabilitation, $194,530 was designated for Commercial Rehabilitation, and $17,996 was designated for General Administration. In his response to the opinion request, Mr. Van Hon wrote:
To determine the classification of the data requested by Ms. Wolf, the Commissioner first looked to the enabling statutory language for DTED. While Minnesota Statutes Section 116J.980 provides that DTED shall be responsible for state administration of the small cities development grant program, there appears to be no specific classification for the data collected as part of that program. The next question is whether, as the City has argued, the data in question are classified pursuant to Section 13.31.
In part, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, benefit data, states:
Subdivision 2 of Section 13.31 states that the names and addresses of applicants for and recipients of benefits, aid, or assistance through programs administered by a government entity that are intended to assist with the purchase of housing or other real property are public data. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.31 states that, unless otherwise provided by law, all other benefit data are private. In the present situation, it appears that the type of data on individualsrequested by Ms. Wolf are classified by Section 13.31. The individuals in question are recipients of benefits provided under what appears to be a rehabilitation program; owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation, and commercial rehabilitation. Generally speaking, benefit data are private. The exception, as per subdivision 2 of Section 13.31, is if the individual receiving the benefit is purchasing housing or other real property. This does not apply to the current situation because the Residential/Commercial Rehabilitation Grant is related to rehabilitation, not purchasing. One further point is necessary. Section 13.31 refers only to data on individuals. Therefore, if persons who received some of the grant monies were acting in a business capacity rather than as an individual, the information about those grantees is not classified under Section 13.31. Any such data are presumptively public pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Wolf is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 12, 1997 |
Welfare data
Benefit data
