The home addresses of property owners in Salt Lake County may once again be included in bulk information lists used by real estate agents, title companies and possibly bulk mailers.

NewReach, a Salt Lake County company that operates an Internet database designed for appraisers, developers and Realtors, appealed a recent policy change by Salt Lake County Recorder Gary Ott that removed home addresses from any bulk records request.

The company, which uses the bulk records from the county and other sources to compile its database, filed the appeal under the Government Records and Access Management Act, claiming that home addresses are public information that can only be protected in limited circumstances.

Ott said he removed the records legally under a law passed by the 2003 Utah Legislature that allowed at-risk public employees, such as police officers and judges, to have their addresses removed from their tax records for safety. To accommodate those employees without overwhelming his office with requests from an estimated 10,000 at-risk employees in the county, Ott decided to instead remove the addresses from all tax records.

"We've given a little bit of privacy to everyone, and it didn't cost us a thing," Ott told the Salt Lake County Council during the appeal hearing Tuesday.

Access to the records has not been restricted, Ott said, because the home addresses are still available through other methods, such as with a parcel number. The owner of an address, which is needed by real estate professionals, is also available if the address is known.

NewReach president Bill Gaskill said the policy is a direct violation of GRAMA because it restricts access to a select group of people — commercial data providers — while it also violates the law protecting at-risk public employees, since their records are not actually private, only more difficult to access. He also disputed the argument that Ott was protecting the public as a whole from telemarketers, direct mail advertising or door-to-door solicitations, because the only companies that have requested the bulk information are realty professionals or public information providers, such as Lexis Nexis.

"We haven't seen a huge push by people selling magazines or carpet cleaners," he said.

The County Council also heard an appeal from a California attorney, Yanni Pantis, who represents a mortgage company that claims that the 2 cents per-page fee — which amounts to approximately $20,000 for all of the county records — that the recorder office charges to commercial companies is unfair. At the most, the recorder should be charging everyone the $1,500 fee that is charged non-commercial companies for the entire list, Pantis said, and ideally should only charge the copy costs.

Ott said the fee is being charged at fair market value and that the companies are simply trying to maximize their profits at the expense of the county's taxpayers.

The County Council will decide both appeals during its meeting Tuesday, Nov. 4.

---

E-mail: jloftin@desnews.com