Poulsbo staff propose $1-per-minute body-worn camera redaction fee; council signals support
Loading...
Summary
Staff proposed a fee of $1 per minute of raw body-worn camera footage (equivalent to $60/hour) to cover redaction costs under the Public Records Act. Councilmembers expressed support and asked staff to return with final language; staff will check whether tribal governments or other jurisdictions should be exempted.
City staff presented a proposed fee structure on Oct. 1 to recover costs associated with redacting and releasing police body-worn camera recordings under the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The proposal bases the fee on estimated staff time and benefits: a $60-per-hour charge, prorated to $1 per minute of raw footage, collected in advance to cover redaction and processing.
Professional services manager Kelly Zeman told council the proposal follows a statutory basis in the Public Records Act and was developed after an internal review of staff time and comparison with other local agencies. Kitsap-area departments and other nearby jurisdictions use similar models: Bremerton and Port Orchard use $1-per-minute-of-raw-footage structures; other agencies apply different calculations tied to reduction minutes.
Zeman said the city receives increasing requests for footage, including from nonexempt parties who sometimes republish material on social media; roughly 54% of recent requests were from nonexempt parties in staff analysis. The city’s approach would allow staff to collect a fee before processing so that administrative time is covered.
Councilmembers expressed general support for putting the fee on a consent agenda for the next meeting and asked staff to return with clarifications. Council asked whether tribal governments or other government entities could be added to the statute-defined list of fee exemptions; staff said the statutory exemptions are drawn from the RCW and that they would consult the city attorney about adding local exemptions or applying exemptions to tribal governments in formal requests.
Why this matters: body-worn camera recordings can require substantial staff time to review and redact; a fee aims to cover actual costs and deter purely commercial or frivolous requests that impose recurring burdens on staff.
Next steps: staff to finalize ordinance/resolution language for council consideration (staff said they planned for the fee to appear on the consent agenda), and to consult the city attorney on exemptions and the handling of requests from tribal governments and other jurisdictional agencies.
