South Charleston council adopts ordinance updating FOIA fees
January 05, 2025 | South Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The South Charleston City Council at its meeting adopted an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2218 and establishing fees for responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, approving the measure by voice vote after brief discussion about what charges are permitted.
The change updates the city's administrative fees for public-records requests and clarifies procedures for digital and paper copies. Councilwoman Laura Marker asked whether the city could charge for staff time, asking, "are we charging for, like, the manpower time?" Council members and staff noted that state law prohibits charging requesters for the time city employees spend gathering records.
The ordinance text sets copy charges for standard paper at 20 cents per page and $1 per page for pages that are not standard 8.5-by-11 inches, and allows the city to require prepayment in some cases. The ordinance also requires requesters who want electronic copies to provide a new USB drive rather than use a city device, a change officials said is intended to reduce cybersecurity risk from external media.
City officials discussed exemptions typically recognized under state public-records law: personnel-file materials and certain plans for public buildings, which can be withheld for safety and security reasons. The council referenced past requests that raised security and privacy concerns, including demands for police officers' home addresses and building plans for a local Islamic Center; officials said such items are treated under the statute's exemptions.
Marcy, a city staff member who read the ordinance title for the record, put the question for adoption. The motion to adopt was made by Rhee and seconded by Councilman Reimer. Council members voted by voice; the presiding officer declared the motion passed.
The ordinance replaces the administrative provisions in the prior ordinance and is framed as an operational update rather than a change to what state law allows the city to charge. Officials said further changes to what the city may charge would require action by the state legislature.
After the vote the council moved on to department-head reports; no bids or monthly financial reports were presented at the meeting.
The change updates the city's administrative fees for public-records requests and clarifies procedures for digital and paper copies. Councilwoman Laura Marker asked whether the city could charge for staff time, asking, "are we charging for, like, the manpower time?" Council members and staff noted that state law prohibits charging requesters for the time city employees spend gathering records.
The ordinance text sets copy charges for standard paper at 20 cents per page and $1 per page for pages that are not standard 8.5-by-11 inches, and allows the city to require prepayment in some cases. The ordinance also requires requesters who want electronic copies to provide a new USB drive rather than use a city device, a change officials said is intended to reduce cybersecurity risk from external media.
City officials discussed exemptions typically recognized under state public-records law: personnel-file materials and certain plans for public buildings, which can be withheld for safety and security reasons. The council referenced past requests that raised security and privacy concerns, including demands for police officers' home addresses and building plans for a local Islamic Center; officials said such items are treated under the statute's exemptions.
Marcy, a city staff member who read the ordinance title for the record, put the question for adoption. The motion to adopt was made by Rhee and seconded by Councilman Reimer. Council members voted by voice; the presiding officer declared the motion passed.
The ordinance replaces the administrative provisions in the prior ordinance and is framed as an operational update rather than a change to what state law allows the city to charge. Officials said further changes to what the city may charge would require action by the state legislature.
After the vote the council moved on to department-head reports; no bids or monthly financial reports were presented at the meeting.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting