A proposal to implement steep new fees for public records requests is drawing fierce opposition from advocates for government transparency who say the move not only violates state law, but is in direct opposition to the core of the Nevada Public Records Act.
On Thursday, Feb. 19, 2026, the Carson City Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to adopt a new fee schedule requested by the Sheriff’s Office and the Clerk-Recorder’s Office. The proposal would allow the city to charge $23 an hour for staff time and $40 an hour for attorney time to fulfill “research” and “redaction” relating to records requests that require “significant” administrative effort.
The Sheriff’s Office is also proposing a $34 hourly fee to have a deputy present while a requester views body-worn camera footage.
City staff said their ability to charge these fees comes from a 2019 change in state law. However, according to Bob Conrad, President of the Nevada Press Association who testified on that bill as it was moving through, the law they are citing actually limited the government’s ability to charge fees for records, not expanded them.
In addition, he said an attempt was made just a few months ago during the 2025 session to allow government entities to begin charging these fees – and failed.
City officials argue the fees are a necessary response to the growing administrative burden of processing what they say are increasingly complex requests. According to city staff reports, a surge in requests for voluminous historical records, dashcam videos, and body-worn camera footage is straining resources. Under privacy laws, staff must perform frame-by-frame redactions on video files to protect the identities of victims and undercover officers, diverting personnel from core public safety missions.
However, there was no specific data provided showing these increases, such as the number of requests each year, or how much staff time is being contributed to them.
Transparency watchdogs argue that through this fee attempt, the city is attempting to pass on basic operational costs onto taxpayers, and whether they intend it to or not, it will result in deterring the public from accessing records.
Conrad said the move is a “double dip” on the public.
“We as citizens and taxpayers are already paying for people to work for the government,” Conrad said. “And [this proposal would allow for] the government then in turn to say, ‘well, if you want your records from us, you’re going to have to pay extra.’”
Conrad argues that charging for standard personnel time is in direct conflict with the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA). Under NRS 239.005, the “actual cost” a government entity can charge is limited to direct material costs, explicitly citing “ink, toner, paper, media, and postage.” He said statute clearly states that the term does not include costs a government incurs regardless of whether a record is requested, such as regular employee salaries.
The official state NPRA manual corroborates this, explicitly stating that agencies may not charge a fee for regular staff time, searching for documents, or reviewing records. An agency can only charge for personnel time if it requires explicitly incurred overtime to comply with the request.
“If Carson City approves this, our position is that they will be in direct violation of the Nevada Public Records Act and it will be litigated – it’s just a matter of when,” Conrad warned.
A Debate Rooted in Legislative History
The legal conflict stems from competing interpretations of a 2019 legislative update, Senate Bill 287.
While the 2019 bill eliminated a previous statute allowing governments to charge an “extraordinary use” fee, city attorneys argue that by doing so, the law allows those costs to be added into the definition of “actual cost.”
They cite 2019 legislative testimony where lawmakers acknowledged that local jurisdictions might need to recoup costs when a requester demands tens of thousands of documents that require employees to work over the weekend.
“Carson City, as prudent stewards of taxpayer funds, must balance providing documents for free against staff time being taken away from providing services to residents,” the District Attorney’s office wrote in a rationale statement, noting that routine requests will remain free.
However, one issue is that there is no definition as to what counts as a “routine” or “non-routine” request, which means that the decision will be left to the Clerk-Recorder’s or the Sheriff’s Office Record Division personnel to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Conrad also pointed out that the law already not just allows for, but mandates the government help requesters narrow what they’re looking for to make sure they can access their records quickly – which also has the benefit of saving staff time and effort.
Under NRS 239.0107, government agencies are mandated to make a “reasonable effort” to assist requesters in narrowing voluminous or vague requests. Conrad, who formerly served as a records officer for three different state agencies, noted that this step is routinely ignored by “adversarial” local governments.
“I often don’t see that [happening]. So when I see governments complaining about the amount and volume of records requests they get, the first question I have to ask is, have they attempted to narrow the request with the public records requester?” Conrad said. “Help them narrow the request so that all that time and effort isn’t put into searching for those records.”
A Failed Statewide Push Goes Local
The attempt to charge for staff time is not a new concept in Nevada, but previous efforts to legalize it statewide have failed.
During the 2025 legislative session, a bill—AB51—was introduced with the backing of the League of Cities that would have explicitly allowed government entities to charge for staff time on public records requests. The bill failed to advance.
The fact that a legal revision asking for those fees to be allowed was proposed – and did not pass – shows that those fees are not allowed under the current law.
“What Carson City is doing now is essentially skirting the actual language and intent of the Nevada Public Records Law by creating its own fee schedule,” Conrad said. “The proper place to do that is the legislature, not in Carson City government.”
Opponents also raised concerns about specific fees that could chill public access for the most vulnerable. The Sheriff’s Office proposal to charge $34 an hour for a deputy to stand by while a member of the public views body camera footage could deter crime victims from accessing evidence related to their own cases, Conrad said.
A growing coalition of organizations, including the ACLU of Nevada, the Nevada Open Government Coalition, and Our Nevada Judges, have signed on to formally oppose the Carson City fee schedule ahead of Thursday’s vote.
For transparency advocates, the fight is fundamentally about ownership and access.
“Public records belong to the public,” Conrad stated. “They are one of the only real ways that we get to see what’s really going on within government.”
The Board of Supervisors will discuss the two proposed policies tomorrow during their regular meeting.
Disclosure: This reporter also writes for This is Reno as a freelancer, of which Bob Conrad is the editor.
