Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff flag rising cost of public‑records requests, propose fees to offset body‑camera redaction workload
Summary
City staff told council on July 15 that demand for public‑records requests — especially requests for police body‑worn camera footage — has grown to the point that the city’s current staffing and processes are strained and that a modest fee structure could reduce abusive requests and recover part of the expense.
City staff told council on July 15 that demand for public‑records requests — especially requests for police body‑worn camera footage — has grown to the point that the city’s current staffing and processes are strained and that a modest fee structure could reduce abusive requests and recover part of the expense.
Staff (Finance and Public Safety) presented program estimates showing the records program consumes about 1.54 full‑time equivalents across finance/admin and public safety. Staff said roughly 0.9 FTE of that time is spent on redacting body‑worn camera video. A police administrative employee explained why: “she averages probably at least a minute for every minute of that video that she has to go through and redact,” meaning redaction is roughly a minute of staff time per minute of footage.
The department said many requests are from requesters with no direct stake in the incident; an increasing share of those requests were described as data‑harvesting or commercial in nature. Staff noted legal exposure if statutorily required response deadlines are missed and asked the council whether it wanted staff to develop a draft resolution and fee schedule. Staff referenced a Spokane cost study that estimated roughly $0.76 per minute for redacted video and noted that charging nominal amounts for electronic transmittals can discourage high‑volume requesters while preserving access for residents and parties to incidents.
Staff recommended returning with a carefully drafted fee schedule designed to recover part — not all — of the growing cost and to protect limited staff resources. Council members asked staff to return with concrete options, including possible lower fees or exemptions for local residents or for parties to a case, and asked staff to work with the city attorney to ensure any fees comport with state law.
No ordinance or fee was adopted at the July 15 meeting; staff said they would research options, consult legal counsel, and bring a draft resolution and fee schedule back to council.
