Title
Public Hearing - Approval of a Resolution Adopting a Revised Version of the Fee Structure for Redacting Body Worn Camera Footage Requested Under the Public Records Act
Recommended Action
Committee Recommendation:
Not referred to a committee.
City Manager Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing, and at its conclusion move to approve a Resolution adopting a revised version of the fee structure for redacting body worn camera footage requested under the Public Records Act.
Report Issue:
Whether to hold the public hearing, and at its conclusion move to approve a Resolution adopting a revised version of the fee structure for redacting body worn camera footage requested under the Public Records Act.
Staff Contact:
Sean Krier, City Clerk, 360.753.8110
Jeanelle Stull, Police Administrative Manager, 360.753.8067
Presenter(s):
Sean Krier, City Clerk, 360.753.8110
Background and Analysis:
In May 2024, the City of Olympia passed Resolution M-2525, which authorized a new fee schedule for redaction fees related to public records requests for body worn camera video. When a person requests body worn camera footage, staff must review the video and redact sensitive information before providing a copy to the requester. The City charges requesters for staff time spent on redacting the requested video. While state law exempts certain categories of requesters from paying redaction fees, the City also exempts non-profit organizations and their agents from these fees. This exemption was carried over from the original 2022 fee study.
During the public hearing held for resolution M-2525, several City Council members, as well as one member of the public, questioned the scope of this non-profit exemption. The City Council asked whether the exemption should be applied broadly to any non-profit (as it was worded in the fee study being presented), if it should be more narrowly construed, or if it should even be removed altogether. Although the City Council chose to pass resolution M-2525 containing the broadly applicable exemption as written, they directed staff to review the history of this exemption, and whether it should be narrowed or removed.
Upon review, City staff determined the origin of this exemption was a May 2022 survey which gathered public opinion regarding body worn camera copying fees. In this survey, two of the 73 respondents suggested that non-profit organizations should be given body worn camera video at no charge. Staff at that time determined this to be the most actionable suggestion provided by the public and included it as an additional exemption to public records copying fees.
A new review of the survey results by City staff have yielded a much different outlook than the original review. Specifically, although two respondents did suggest an additional non-profit exemption, 29 respondents of the 73 respondents supported only the legally required exemptions and found no other exemptions necessary. This notwithstanding, staff still reviewed every possible additional exemption suggested by respondents. None of these additional exemption suggestions were found viable to implement. City staff also determined that exemption for non-profit organization is open to abuse and should be removed.
Climate Analysis:
This item does not have an effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
Equity Analysis:
City Staff estimate that over ninety percent of individuals requesting body worn camera footage are exempt from paying under the proposed fee structure. Individuals exempt from paying are:
§ A person directly involved in an incident recorded by the requested body worn camera recording.
§ An attorney representing a person directly involved in an incident recorded by the requested body worn camera recording.
§ A person or his or her attorney who requests a body worn camera recording relevant to a criminal case involving that person.
§ The executive director from either the Washington state commission on African-American affairs, Asian Pacific American affairs, or Hispanic affairs.
§ If relevant to a cause of action, an attorney who represents a person regarding a potential or existing civil cause of action involving the denial of civil rights under the federal or state Constitution, or a violation of a United States department of justice settlement.
This promotes transparency in City policing while also preventing the City from being overburdened by superfluous requests. The City’s goal with charging this fee is deterring requests for “any and all” body camera footage that would require the City to reallocate significant funds to processing requests - funds which could instead be spent on addressing other inequities in the community.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
The community has an interest in transparency that is supported by the Public Records Act.
Options:
1. Hold the public hearing, and at its conclusion move to approve a Resolution adopting a revised version of the fee structure for redacting body worn camera footage requested under the Public Records Act.
2. Hold the public hearing, and at its conclusion do not move to approve a Resolution adopting a revised version of the fee structure for redacting body worn camera footage requested under the Public Records Act.
3. Take other action.
Financial Impact:
To provide a lower barrier to requesters seeking body worn camera footage while also maintaining the ability to recover some staff costs, the proposed fees do not factor in the following overhead costs associated with redacting body worn camera recordings: software/hardware, miscellaneous supplies, training fees, and office space utilized by staff redacting body worn camera footage.
Attachments:
Resolution
City of Olympia Body Worn Camera Recording Redaction Fee Study
Presentation