Gilbert council reviews rising public‑records workload, costs and legal limits

Town Clerk Chiavelli Herrera and Town Attorney Chris Payne told the Gilbert Town Council on an Oct. study session that the town is completing most public‑records requests but is seeing rising volume, substantial manual review time and limited authority to recover costs under Arizona law.

“It often causes confusion when people say FOIA,” Chiavelli Herrera said, explaining that Gilbert is governed by Arizona Public Records Law and not the federal Freedom of Information Act. She told the council the town uses a commercial case‑management platform, described in the presentation as JustFOIA, to track requests and noted retention, redaction and confidentiality obligations under state law.

Why it matters: Council members raised cost and operational concerns after presenters said some single requests require dozens of staff hours to review and redact records. Council members pressed staff on whether procedural or legislative changes could curb repetitive or overbroad requests that they said are straining personnel and budget resources.

Herrera and Payne described the typical workflow for a records request: intake (by email, phone, in person or via the platform), routing to relevant departments, IT searches for emails or other electronic records, manual review for responsiveness, legal review for privilege or confidentiality, redaction as required, and final release. Payne described the legal standard for denying requests: the town must articulate a business reason under case law for withholding records on “best interest” grounds, and courts scrutinize that claim rather than allowing withholding simply because a disclosure might make the town look bad.

Examples staff provided highlighted the scale of some requests. An email/text search for communications involving two council members in August 2024 returned about 3,100 emails and 730 attachments; staff estimated roughly 40 hours of paralegal review for that request. A police example involved 437 body‑worn camera videos totaling 4,348 minutes and staff estimated 144 hours of processing for that single request. Sergeant Lorenzo Turia told council that video redactions are done with a “general blur.”

Staff shared recent activity counts: in 2023 the town received about 25,492 requests and completed about 24,373. Departments using the town’s platform include police, fire/EMS and most town divisions; the courts are not on the platform and follow the Administrative Office of the Courts’ procedures.

Costs and staffing: Herrera said the town currently pays about $20,000 annually for the records platform, with an anticipated upgrade to roughly $32,000 in fiscal 2026 and a 5% annual increase thereafter. Payne estimated the town attorney’s office spends roughly $300,000–$350,000 a year in attorney and paralegal time handling complex or privilege‑sensitive requests. Gilbert Police Department personnel costs tied to records processing were reported at about $2,100,000 for FY2025, reflecting several dedicated records positions and multiple specialist roles.

Fees and legal limits: Under Arizona law staff said the town may charge limited reproduction or mailing fees for noncommercial requests but cannot charge for electronic records produced for noncommercial requesters. Commercial requests require a $10 deposit and may trigger further charges. Vice Mayor Bobby Buckley and others asked whether staff may ask requesters their intended use; Herrera said the town may ask that question only when the requester has identified the request as for a commercial purpose.

Council questions and direction: Several council members called the volume “abuse” and urged exploration of responses including requiring requesters to pick up copies on physical media, modest per‑request fees, or state legislative changes. Staff said statutes constrain local changes—courts evaluate each request case by case—and recommended follow‑up research. The council directed staff to gather comparative data from peer cities, return with potential procedural changes, and open a dialogue with state legislators about statutory options.

The presentation stressed that the town must balance prompt disclosure with required redactions for privacy, law enforcement investigations, attorney‑client privilege and other statutory or case‑law exceptions. Payne emphasized the town must articulate a good‑faith legal basis when refusing records and warned that courts can order disclosure and impose fee awards if the town’s denial is not supported.

Council members asked for further analysis of alternatives such as routinely publishing certain officials’ emails or creating streamlined public‑access locations; staff said they would evaluate those options but noted operational and review costs before public posting. Council members also asked staff to track and report back on frequent requesters and potential patterns of duplicate or coordinated requests.

The study session ended with staff agreeing to research peer practices, possible procedural adjustments, and whether the town should work with state lawmakers to address perceived statutory gaps and resource burdens.