Belton council declines to waive fees for public-records appeal, citing staff burden and limited public benefit

Belton City Council voted against a motion to waive fees for an appeal of a Sunshine Law request submitted in writing by Steven Bock, whose materials were on the agenda but who did not attend.

The denial followed an extended discussion of how the city fulfills large public-records requests. The City Attorney explained the practical process: staff start with an IT query, pull returned files for the city clerk’s office to review individually for responsiveness, and then legal reviews potential redactions for attorney‑client privilege, personnel records or ongoing real-estate negotiations. "Privileged is attorney‑client communications between me and you all, or me and members of staff. That is an absolute privilege that I cannot waive," the City Attorney said in explaining legal constraints.

Council members debated whether waiving copying and staff-time fees would meaningfully "contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities" of the city, the statutory threshold for a fee waiver. One council member said the city had waived fees previously in very limited circumstances but warned that repeated, broad requests could strain clerk-office resources and become a taxpayer burden.

Council members also noted that staff had identified a date range in the request—January 1, 2024, through the date of the request—and discussed whether some portions of the appeal were narrow and public‑oriented while other portions resembled a continuation of a prior request.

On roll call the motion to waive fees failed; the council recorded a majority of votes opposed. The council directed no additional action on the appeal at the meeting beyond the vote. The clerk’s packet includes the written appeal for public inspection per Sunshine Law obligations.

The council’s denial affects only the fee question; staff noted the city’s legal obligation to provide responsive records subject to privilege, public‑records law, and reasonable specificity in requests. Council members urged staff to continue using the city’s established processes to limit overly broad returns and to require requesters to specify date ranges when appropriate.

The issue arose during the public‑records appeal discussion and the council’s final vote occurred before the meeting moved on to other business.