The Carson City Board of Supervisors opted to continue a proposal which would establish new fees for public records requests, directing city staff to return with a single, consolidated policy that addresses several logistical and financial alternatives discussed during the meeting.
The proposed fee schedules, brought forward by the Sheriff’s Office and the city, sought to charge $23 an hour for staff time and $40 an hour for attorney time to process complex “research” and “redaction” requests. Under the proposal, “routine” requests requiring less than 10 hours of staff time would remain free to the public, while anything that constitutes as research or needs redaction would be charged a per-hour fee.
However, transparency advocates argue that charging for any amount of staff time is against the law when it comes to records requests, which they warned in an open letter is likely to lead to the city being sued over this policy. What constitutes as research versus routine requests was also not defined by the policy.
City and law enforcement officials explained the fees are intended to offset the massive labor required for complex media and data requests. Staff from the Sheriff’s Office Civil Records Division testified that processing just one hour of body-worn camera footage takes four to eight hours of frame-by-frame review to properly redact personal information, as well as the faces of victims, witnesses, and deputies. While they said they do have software to assist, it can’t catch everything that needs redaction, leading to staff having to undertake cleanup work.
While acknowledging the heavy staffing burden these requests create, supervisors identified multiple areas of the proposal that require further development before a vote could take place.
A primary point of contention was the existence of two separate fee schedules—one for the general city and one for the Sheriff’s Office. Supervisor Maurice White asked where the policy was that outlined to the public how and when fees could be increased, and it was determined one did not exist.
Supervisors pushed for a single, unified policy that is easy for citizens to understand and clearly regulates how and why fees can be adjusted in the future.
The board also requested that the revised policy explicitly outline exactly who gets what for free. While city staff noted that “routine requests” and certain reports for crime victims are free, supervisors insisted these exemptions be clearly delineated within the public-facing document.
Additionally, Supervisor Stacey Giomi asked staff to provide a cost analysis of simply hiring more personnel to handle the records requests instead of imposing fees on the public. Supervisors suggested exploring whether funding an additional half-time or full-time position might be a more effective choice for the city.
Giomi also asked the District Attorney’s office to research whether the city could legally implement a tiered fee structure based on residency. Noting that some massive data requests come from out-of-state university researchers who do not pay local taxes, supervisors questioned if out-of-county or out-of-state requesters could be charged a different rate than Carson City residents.
While the board focused heavily on policy logistics, the proposal did draw opposition from transparency advocates, such as the Nevada Press Association, who argued that charging for standard personnel time conflicts with the Nevada Public Records Act. In response, Deputy District Attorney Todd Reese advised the board that a 2019 legislative update allows jurisdictions to recoup labor costs for highly time-consuming requests, and stated he believes the city would have a reasonable defense if the policy were legally challenged, but ultimately it would be left for the courts to decide.
Board counsel Dan Yu said while there are persuasive arguments on both sides, without there being established case law on the matter following the 2019 change, it’s not possible to say unilaterally how any potential litigation would go. Instead, the DAs office is relying on their own research, as well as what other municipalities have done, to craft their suggestions to the board about legality.
The board concluded the discussion by continuing the item, instructing staff to revise the policy with the requested data and bring a consolidated version back for future consideration.
Disclosure: This reporter provided public comment in her capacity as a journalist arguing against the passage of this proposal.
