Merriam council hears proposal to rewrite public-records code, set new fees and time thresholds

MERRIAM, Kan. — The Merriam City Council on Monday reviewed proposed changes to Chapter 2 of the municipal code that would reorganize the city’s public-records procedures, move fees out of the code and onto a fee schedule, and allow charging for staff time if a records request requires more than 15 minutes of work.

City staff framed the package as a cleanup and an attempt to limit the burden on staff created by repeated, broad or highly detailed requests. The clerk said the code has not been substantially updated since 1994 and that recent state law changes affect how cities may calculate direct staff cost for records responses. The council directed staff to draft an ordinance and bring the proposed code changes and a revised fee schedule back for council consideration at the next meeting.

The proposed changes would: remove fixed fee references from the code and put them in the city’s fee schedule; eliminate some discretionary fee waivers; require that requesters attest their records will not be used for commercial solicitation; add explicit redaction procedures for exempt material; and adopt a 15-minute threshold after which direct staff costs may be charged. The clerk also said the city would continue to process readily available records without charge when possible and that routine, short requests would remain free.

“Whenever there is a fee involved, we’re going to let people know — we’re not going to wait until they get to that $100 mark,” the City Clerk said during the presentation.

Clerk staff described several specific fee- and process-related items in the draft: a $25 minimum inspection fee (up from $10 under the existing schedule), a 25-cent per-page copy charge for paper copies, an increase in the cost for supplying records on a flash drive to $15, and the application of direct staff costs when responding requires more than 15 minutes of cumulative staff time. The clerk said the city has received roughly 41 records requests through a new online portal since early June and that moving fees to the fee schedule will allow adjustments without amending the code.

Council members asked for clarifications on how the 15-minute threshold is applied and how direct staff cost would be calculated. The clerk said the 15 minutes refers to total staff time across departments and that the statute defines direct staff cost as the hourly rate of the lowest-cost staff reasonably necessary to perform the work; she said attorney time incurred to redact or advise on exemptions would be billable to requesters when the statute allows it.

“I’m convinced that it’s worth the try as opposed to spend all of the money to hire a person immediately,” City Administrator Engel said when council asked whether the policy changes should be tried before adding a full-time records position. Engel said the city could return in the future if the changes did not reduce staff burden.

The proposed code also would add language clarifying that the city is not required to compile information or statistics from raw data — a distinction staff said is intended to remind requesters that open-records requests are for documents and records, not for answering research-style or data-aggregation questions.

Public comment included strong criticism of the proposal and of current staff handling of requests. Resident Billy Crown said the changes would make records “less open” and argued they contravened state policy on public records; another resident, Danley, asked the council to guarantee a small number of free requests per resident each year and suggested candidates in an election should receive free access during a campaign period. Philip Klein, who described a history of frequent records use in Merriam, urged council to remain permissive.

Council members and staff repeatedly said ordinary, short requests would continue to be answered without charge and that the proposed fees target time-consuming, broad or repeated requests that require substantial staff time or legal review. No ordinance vote occurred Monday; staff will prepare ordinance language and an updated fee schedule for the council’s next regular meeting.

Next steps: staff will draft the ordinance and revised fee schedule and return them for council consideration at the next meeting.