Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates fee for body-camera requests; leaves ordinance on first reading
Summary
Council debated a proposed change to the city's public-records fee schedule that would allow charging for time spent redacting body- and dash-camera footage. The item was left on first reading after questions about mandatory language and exemptions for residents, media and victims.
The Independence City Council debated on April 8 a proposed amendment to the city’s public-records fee schedule (codified ordinances section 123.02) that would allow charging for labor-intensive requests for body-camera and dash-camera video. Council left the ordinance on first reading to get further legal clarification.
The city’s police chief and Detective Shirk described a growing volume of public-records requests from out‑of‑state, for‑profit actors and social‑media-driven requests that require extensive redaction. Detective Shirk said the department averages about 10 requests per month and that processing the footage consumes roughly 50 hours per month, an average of five hours to complete a typical request. "It averages to just about 50 hours a month...it can take about an average of 5 hours to complete a full request," Detective Shirk said.
Nut Graf: The proposed ordinance (2025-43) would align the city with guidance from Governor DeWine that permits cities to charge up to $75 per hour for work to prepare video for public release. The chief told council the department does not intend to charge victims, an attorney representing a victim, insurers or local media. "We would not charge any victim. No attorney representing a victim. No insurer representing a victim. No local media would be charged for this as well," the chief said.
Council discussion focused on the ordinance language. Several members urged explicit exemptions for residents and local media; others urged keeping the ordinance language requiring the fee (the word "shall") because the law director advised it would provide clarity for enforcement. Law Director Greg O'Brien emailed staff suggesting the ordinance use "may" to allow case-by-case discretion; council members said they wanted to hear the law director explain his view in person. After extended debate about the legal implications of "shall" versus "may," the council chose to leave the item on first reading to receive further guidance.
Questions from council included invoicing mechanics, the maximum charge mentioned in the presentation (capped at $750 for large requests), and the department’s plan to waive fees in appropriate cases. The chief said the department would provide estimates and require payment before finalizing non‑exempt requests; he also said waivers and any charges waived would be documented.
Ending: Council left Ordinance 2025-43 on first reading and directed staff to seek additional legal clarity and provide further data at an upcoming safety committee meeting.
