25FC:0206 William Hendrickson vs. City of Clear Lake Police Department - Investigative Report & Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report:

On December 2, 2025, William Hendrikson (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 25FC:0206, alleging that the City of Clear Lake Police Department (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on January 15, 2026.

Facts

In April 2025, Complainant submitted a public records request to the Respondent. Subsequent to that request, Complainant spoke with IPIB and alleged violations of Chapter 22 related to that request. When the Respondent raised those concerns, the matter was well outside the 60-day filing deadline and he was informed that IPIB would be unable to review any alleged violations from April 2025.

On December 2, 2025, Complainant filed a formal complaint with IPIB against the Respondent. On December 6, 2025, Complainant submitted another records request that was partly duplicative of the April request, but also requested several additional items. On December 16, 2025, the records clerk responded to the request in part and provided a fee estimate. The December fee estimate was $1,680 for the following records: “41 Calls for Service ($5.00), 14 Incident Reports ($5.00); 55 Miscellaneous related documents such as witness statements and report attachments ($5.00), 30 body or dash cam videos ($10.00 each), USBs for video storage ($15.00 each), and hourly staff time ($20.00/hour for admin staff and $60.00/hour for the Chief) for retrieving, copying, reviewing, and redacting confidential information.” The Respondent requested pre-payment of fees. Complainant did not respond to the fee estimate, but did raise an unreasonable fee allegation during the pending IPIB investigation.

On January 26, 2026, without prompting by IPIB, the Respondent provided to the Complainant an amended and reduced fee estimate for the requested incident reports and dispatch logs from $275.00 to $49.32. They maintained the rest of the fee estimate remained the same. They then re-requested prepayment.

On January 27, 2026, the Complainant submitted another request to the Respondent which was largely duplicative of the December request. The Respondent answered the fee request with another fee estimate.

IPIB began working with the parties to address the matter informally. IPIB staff provided feedback recommending the police department amend its fees (and fee policy) to remove any flat per record expenses except where a flat fee was elsewhere provided for in the law. The Respondent promptly updated its fee policy based upon IPIB’s recommendations.

The Complainant then added the following allegations during the informal negotiations:

1. Unreasonable and excessive fees.
2. Citation to the improper code section.
3. Failure to provide records.
4. Records were withheld without a clear statutory explanation
5. Improper narrowing of the scope of the request
6. An incomplete fee estimate
7. Delay and failure to respond within a reasonable time
8. Lack of clarity and transparency regarding which records exist and retention
9. Responses that fail to clearly state whether a record exists, has been retained or been destroyed, along with no retention policy or supporting documentation.

IPIB staff followed up to the new additional allegations, explaining that any allegations related to the April 2025 request were outside the agency’s jurisdiction. As to the following allegations that were related to the newly requested items in December, IPIB staff provided the following feedback to the Complainant.

1. IPIB made policy suggestions as part of an attempt to reach informal resolution
2. IPIB staff explained this is not a violation of Chapter 22.
3. IPIB staff explained that the governmental body has not been paid for the production and is entitled to receive payment before undertaking work.
4. IPIB staff explained that the governmental body has not withheld any records as confidential yet, because the production hasn’t been started.
5. IPIB staff found no evidence of this occurring.
6. IPIB staff explained that breaking a production into smaller, more manageable or affordable pieces is not a violation of Chapter 22.
7. IPIB staff explained the Respondent replied within two weeks and provided a fee estimate, which is not an unreasonable delay in response.
8. IPIB staff explained that the Respondent cannot be expected to explain which records exist before undertaking the records production.
9. IPIB staff explained that the Respondent can’t identify unavailable records before starting the production.

IPIB staff recommended informal resolution terms. On April 9, 2026, Respondent provided their new fee policy, which provides for the first 30 minutes free and removes all flat fee production costs. They also explained that the estimate provided on January 26th would be in alignment with the new policy. They explained they remained open and willing to work with the Complainant on production as soon as fees were paid for the records.

Complainant maintained that the improper fee calculation couldn’t be remedied by amending the policy and fee estimate, and requested a probable cause determination as to whether the Respondent has violated Chapter 22.

Applicable Law

“All reasonable expenses of the examination and copying shall be paid by the person desiring to examine or copy….The fee for the copying service as determined by the lawful custodian shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses or costs such as employment benefits, depreciation, maintenance, electricity, or insurance associated with the administration of the office of the lawful custodian.  Costs for legal services should only be utilized for the redaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” Iowa Code 22.3(2).

“…Although fulfillment of a request for a copy of a public record may be contingent upon receipt of payment of reasonable expenses, the lawful custodian shall make every reasonable effort to provide the public record requested at no cost other than copying costs for a record which takes less than thirty minutes to produce. In the event expenses are necessary, such expenses shall be reasonable and communicated to the requester upon receipt of the request. A person may contest the reasonableness of the custodian's expenses as provided for in this chapter….” Iowa Code 22.3(1).

“[P]ractical considerations can enter into the time required for responding to an open records request, including ‘the size or nature of the request.’ But the records must be provided promptly, unless the size or nature of the request makes that infeasible,” Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013).

Analysis

Unreasonable Delay

Complainant alleges an unreasonable delay. He has also maintained that the failure to produce the records is an unlawful denial under Chapter 22, even though he is contesting the fees and has not paid for the records.   To the extent this refers to the April 2025 request, the matter is outside IPIB’s jurisdiction. To the extent it refers to the December 2025 and January 2026 request, the Respondent acknowledged the request and provided a fee estimate in two weeks for the first and days for the second. The Complainant elected to pursue this complaint challenging the reasonableness of the fees. It is permissible for a government body to make the production of the records contingent on prepayment of the fee. The requestor has not paid for any of the record production, including the two items that the Respondent attempted to provide first. For these reasons, no unreasonable delay has occurred within the jurisdiction of IPIB.

Unreasonable Fees

Complainant also alleged the fee is unreasonable because it is excessive and because it was later reduced. Iowa Code § 22.3(2) provides that “actual costs” incurred by the government body may be charged to a requestor as a condition of production. “Such a fee is limited to the actual, direct costs of responding, including the hourly rates of employees assigned to the task and the cost of materials, such as paper and ink, if physical copies are provided.” 25FC:0011 Cliff Williams v. City of Keomah, citing 22AO:0003, Reasonable Fees for Producing Records Requests.

Respondent has provided a detailed breakdown of the expenses incurred in this matter. The estimate includes substantial time reviewing and redacting audio/video footage and other potentially confidential information for redaction. While IPIB had concerns about the December 2025 fee estimate breakdown, the Respondent immediately attempted to work with the Complainant to narrow the scope and review the fee estimate. Furthermore, when IPIB recommended informal resolution terms, the Respondent immediately updated their fee policy to incorporate recommended changes and remained willing to work with the Complainant to amend the fee estimate under the new policy.

The Respondent’s efforts demonstrate a good faith effort to provide a reasonable fee estimate and substantial compliance with the law. To the extent that any of the flat fees in the original estimate were not actual and direct costs, that has been remedied by the updated policy before any fees were paid. The breakdown provided to IPIB staff most recently demonstrates that Respondent is only charging for the actual time spent responding to the request, including the specific amounts attributable to each employee’s salary. Although the fee estimate is substantial, when considered in light of the number of records requested and reviewed for redaction, IPIB staff believe the current fee estimate is reasonable. If the costs exceed a requestor’s resources, that does not automatically make the fee estimate unreasonable. In that instance, the parties can and should work together to identify the most important records sought and narrow the scope of the request to reduce production costs.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:

1. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

2. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

3. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

4. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

Therefore, because Respondent’s fee estimate is for the actual costs of the production, permissible legal services, and a response to the request was provided within two weeks, no violation of Chapter 22’s requirements occurred, and it is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause.

By the IPIB Deputy Director,

_________________________

Charisa Flege, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on May 14, 2026, to:

William Hendrikson, Complainants

City of Clear Lake Police Department, Respondent

The Iowa Public Information Board

Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:

☐a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

☒b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

☐c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

☐d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

By the Board Chair

___________________________________

Catherine Lucas

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on May 26, 2026, to:

William Hendrikson, Complainant

City of Clear Lake Police Department, Respondent