Council pauses vote on updated public-records fees after lengthy debate over email delivery and video charges

Council members debated a proposed resolution to update fees for public-records requests and then deferred final action to the council’s first May meeting to allow staff to refine language and respond to several questions.

The proposed changes would: update fees to reflect surrounding communities’ rates, allow the city to send records by email (the current policy did not allow email), permit electronic delivery (USB) or physical media (CD) and introduce a structured fee for police video footage. Staff said the proposals are not intended to be revenue-generating but are intended to better reflect staff time and file volume.

City staff explained the city’s public-records workload has grown in volume and complexity and that the existing fee schedule dated from 2005. A city official said the city produced documents that cost about $13,600 to assemble in one recent year while charging roughly $300, producing a net shortfall; staff presented updated fee comparisons from peer communities.

Council members raised several issues: whether email delivery should be charged (many said it should not), whether residents should pay less than businesses, how to handle deposits for large requests, and how to price video footage that requires redaction. Staff proposed a model similar to the Louisiana State Police schedule for videos (a base fee for short clips and a per-minute charge for footage exceeding a threshold); staff also recommended changing the video line item to a single “video” fee rather than itemizing body/dash/in-car cameras until ordinances and procedures were updated.

Councilmember Froehlich and others argued the city should not make it harder for residents to access records and said the fee schedule should prioritize public access while covering staff burdens. Some council members proposed allowing residents to view records in person for free as required by law. Others said the city should align with peer municipalities and add modest fees for voluminous requests or specialized redaction work.

After extended discussion the council substituted a motion to defer consideration. The measure to update the fee schedule and the proposed updated public-records form will return to the council at its first May meeting. Staff was asked to provide a more detailed breakdown of proposed charges, a clearer policy on email delivery and recommended language for redaction and video fees so the council could decide whether to adopt the proposed schedule or adjust specific line items.