Opinion ID: 2570259
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The state statute, city code provisions, and city regulations

Text: We must first consider what provisions of law control. Fuller seems to contend that the Homer City Code (HCC) sections dealing with access to city documents, particularly HCC 01.80.010 and HCC 01.80.050(a), are inconsistent with the city regulations, Homer Regulation (HR) 01.03 and HR 01.05, that actually impose the fees. The city responds that the fee requirements in its regulations are consistent with its code and the relevant state statute, AS 40.25.110. Alaska Statute 40.25.110 governs access to public records and provides for payment of fees for searching for and copying public records in response to a request. [15] We have held that it applies to municipalities. [16] This statute does not expressly or impliedly prevent the city from charging a fee for searching for and copying public documents in response to a document request. Homer City Code 01.80.010 (1995) describes the city's general approach to requests for public records: It is the intention of the City to provide full and free access of the public to municipal records and information so that the people of the City may be well informed at all times as to municipal business. With the exception of the specific exemptions set forth under Section 1.80.040, all information and records in the control of the municipality shall be made available to the public upon request. Homer City Code 01.80.050 (1995) authorizes the city manager to adopt regulations that impose a fee for inspecting public records: The City Manager shall adopt regulations as to the time, place, and manner of inspection of public records held by the municipality. Such regulations may also provide: a. That a fee may be required. The fee shall not exceed the actual cost to the agency. No fee shall be charged when a person simply requests access to the information. In the event the person is unable to pay any requested fee, and signs an affidavit to the effect that he or she is indigent, there will be no cost to the above described person. In a seeming exercise of that authorization, the city promulgated regulations requiring a requester to pay a search fee. Homer Regulation 01.03 (2003) discusses payment of search fees for time spent searching for and copying records: If the production of records for one requestor in a calendar month exceeds five-person hours [sic], the requestor must pay a search fee. The fee for city staff to search the city's records will be the employee's actual salary plus benefit costs for the time to search and copy the records. The search fee will be in addition to the standard copying fee. Homer Regulation 01.05 (2003) also discusses imposition of search fees for production of records for inspection: There will be no copying fee for simple inspection of records, except when the production of the records for inspection by one requestor in a calendar month exceeds five person-hours. In that case the requestor will be required to pay the search fee as described in the preceding paragraphs. Alaska Statute 40.25.110 and HR 01.03 and 01.05 thus allow the city to require a records requester to pay fees when the production time for a response exceeds five hours a month. Drathman's total time exceeded five hours; therefore, per AS 40.25.110 and HR 01.03 and 01.05, the city was potentially entitled to charge Fuller a search fee. [17] Fuller does not seriously contend here that the city had no authority to assess some fee for producing the documents she requested. But she points to HCC 01.80.010, which states that [i]t is the intention of the City to provide full and free access of the public to municipal records and information.. . . Fuller also cites HCC 01.80.050(a)'s statement that [n]o fee shall be charged when a person simply requests access to the information. She therefore cursorily implies that these provisions required the city to make the documents available without charge. Fuller argues that HR 01.05 is inconsistent with HCC 01.80.050(a) and that HR 01.05 renders superfluous HCC 01.80.050(a)'s phrase [n]o fee shall be charged when a person simply requests access to the information. She argues that to give meaning to each sentence, the [n]o fee shall be charged language in HCC 01.80.050(a) should be applied to situations in which a fee otherwise would have been charged, i.e., instances in which more than five hours were spent searching for requested records. The city contends that its regulations are a reasonable result of reconciling the city code with mandatory state law. The city argues that reading HCC 01.80.050(a) to require free production of documents requiring more than five hours to produce would conflict with, and be preempted by, AS 40.25.110(c). It contends that just as the full access discussed in HCC 01.80.050 is subject to the numerous exceptions listed in HCC 01.80.040 and 01.80.060(a), both of which discuss documents that need not be disclosed, free access is subject to a reasonable fee not to exceed the city's cost. As the issues are presented to us here, there is no conflict between the statute, the city code, and the city's regulations. The statute authorizes imposition of a fee for searching for and copying records, the code authorizes adoption of regulations charging a fee, and the regulations impose a search fee. The tasks for which the regulation imposes a fee  searching for and copying requested records  are the same tasks the statute describes. [18] The regulations' five person-hour threshold is consistent with the statute's threshold. [19] We therefore reject any contention that HCC 01.80.010 and HCC 01.80.050(a) altogether precluded the city from assessing any fee here. HCC 01.80.050(a) deals with access to ... information, while HR 01.03 and 01.05 deal with producing records. Fuller did not simply seek access to records in city files readily available for inspection at city offices. Her request included specified records that she recognized were at a storage facility. Therefore HCC 01.80.010 and 01.80.050(a) cannot reasonably be read to foreclose a fee for time spent producing records in response to Fuller's request. There is a practical difference between accessing information and asking a public employee to find and gather records for inspection; the former might mean viewing on one's own time documents readily retrievable at city hall, and the latter might entail requiring city employees to search for and gather particular documents. The first task potentially costs the city much less than the second because less staff time is needed for the former. This differentiates between the activities addressed by HCC 01.80.050(a) and the activities addressed by HR 01.03 and 01.05. Finally, it could heavily burden a political subdivision to be required to comply with every search request, no matter how onerous, without charging some fee. We therefore conclude that HR 01.03 and 01.05 permissibly interpret HCC 01.80.050(a) and that HCC 01.80.050(a) does not conflict with AS 40.25.110. Fuller also observes that we have held that there is a presumption in favor of public access to records and that exceptions should be narrowly construed. [20] She contends that it therefore follows that provisions of law allowing access to public documents without payment of fees should be broadly construed in favor of free or inexpensive access to public records. The city argues that per AS 40.25.110(c), it correctly charged Fuller for the time Drathman spent reviewing the documents; state policy did not require the city to provide unlimited documents free of charge. It asserts that by promulgating HR 01.03 and 01.05, the city has interpreted HCC 01.80.050(a) to waive a fee only when the request is to look at documents that are readily available to public access, and which require neither a time-consuming effort to produce nor copying. Therefore, the city argues that its regulations are a reasonable interpretation of HCC 01.80.050(a) and conform with the requirements of AS 40.25.110(c). We agree with Fuller that there is a strong commitment in Alaska to ensuring broad public access to government records. [21] There is a presumption in favor of disclosure of public documents. [22] But this presumption does not resolve the questions before us here. By statute, reasonable fees are appropriate when the search and copying time in one month exceeds five hours per requester. [23] Fuller does not claim that the statute is invalid. The city is not attempting here to withhold documents from Fuller; it seeks to have Fuller pay the costs it incurred in carrying out the search she requested. In short, any contention that the city could not charge any fee for producing the records Fuller requested is inconsistent with AS 40.25.110, HR 01.03, and HR 01.05, all of which allow the city to assess fees. We therefore conclude that the city was not obliged to produce these records for free.