Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Carson City supervisors debate new public‑records fee schedule amid concerns about body‑camera charges
Loading...
Summary
Carson City officials proposed a revised public‑records fee schedule that would keep the first 10 staff hours free but charge hourly labor and redaction costs for complex or media requests; law enforcement and records staff said body‑camera footage can require 4–8 hours of processing per recorded hour, while journalists and residents warned the proposal could deter public oversight and may conflict with state law.
Carson City supervisors spent a lengthy portion of their meeting considering a proposed update to the city and sheriff’s public‑records fee schedules that would treat routine requests as free for the first 10 staff hours and levy hourly charges for more complex 'research' requests and video redaction.
Records manager Kristen Marquez, speaking for the sheriff’s office, told the board that document requests are generally straightforward but that video records are labor‑intensive. 'One hour of body cam takes about 4 to 8 hours to process,' she said, describing frame‑by‑frame review, face and screen blurring and audio muting to protect privacy. The sheriff’s office proposed using a baseline support‑specialist rate of $23 per hour to cover staff time for redaction and production.
The proposal drew sharp public and media criticism. Kelsey Pedros, a longtime local journalist, told the board the fee schedule 'is not compliant with the law' and warned that charging for staff time would deter routine oversight and place a burden on local reporters and residents. Drew Rybar, a public commenter, added that the city had previously removed thousands of social‑media posts and asked why the public should pay for records the community already funded.
Legal counsel Todd Rees summarized his office’s review of the public‑records statute, NRS chapter 239, and legislative history around 2019 language changes. He said the legislature eliminated an 'extraordinary fees' provision and indicated that agencies may charge 'actual costs' when requests are time consuming, which his review interprets to allow recovery of staff time in some circumstances. Rees said the board must still balance policy and legal risk: 'The court will ultimately figure out who’s right,' he told supervisors.
Supervisors probed practical safeguards the public asked for: who would qualify for free copies (the sheriff’s office said routine requests are free for anyone up to the first 10 staff hours), how estimated fees would be communicated to requesters, and what process would exist if an estimate proved too low. Records staff said they would contact requesters early to narrow scope and that victims and other statutorily entitled parties would continue to receive free copies per existing law.
Board members raised alternative ideas, including separate resident and nonresident rates and the option to add staff instead of relying on fees. Several supervisors asked staff to return with clearer written procedures, a final single fee schedule that covers city and departmental video uniformly, and cost estimates for creating a dedicated records position.
No final action was taken on the fee schedules at the meeting. The board asked staff and the district attorney’s office for additional policy work, clearer legal citations, proposals for handling refunds or scope changes, and an analysis of whether a dedicated records position would be a better long‑term solution.
Ending: The board recessed for a short break and instructed staff to return with a revised proposal addressing scope, notification, residency questions and staffing options before any fee schedule is adopted.
