The Iowa Public Information Board
COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report:
On February 19, 2026, Melissa Duffield (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0048, alleging that the City of Robins (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on February 19, 2026.
Facts
On November 17, 2025, Complainant submitted a public records request to the Respondent. The request was ten pages long and included twelve categories of requests. All twelve categories of requests were to include records from 2016 to the present date. Complainant also requested a fee estimate in advance and a fee wavier if possible. A copy of the request was provided to IPIB as part of its investigation.
On December 2,2025, the city clerk responded to Complainant with a spreadsheet breaking down the cost. The table included each staff person or contractor, the number of hours they would spend on the request, multiplied by each person’s individual hourly rate. The total fee estimate was $5,727.10. The Respondent also explained the use of third-party vendors in the estimate. Thee email explained that for requested emails that were archived or belonged to former city employee, the city has no internal IT personnel that could complete that portion of the request and would need to contract with their IT vendor for those particular email records. The IT contract charge was for 1 hour of work at their hourly rate of $140 to complete that portion of the production. The other third party was an engineering firm that was formerly contracted as the city’s engineer. They estimated that the engineering staff would take 8 hours to compile the responsive engineering records at $225 / hour. The clerk also informed Complainant the city was willing to waive the attorney fees for redaction and review, even though those are permissible fees. The Respondent informed Complainant rolling production could begin as soon as the fee estimate was paid in full.
The same day Complainant responded in a six-page demand letter, “Let me be unequivocally clear: I categorically reject this exorbitant and unlawful demand. This is not a good-faith cost estimate; it is punitive, retaliatory, and transparently illegal attempt to obstruct an ongoing state and federal investigation into public corruption, evil rights violations, and conflicts of interest within the City of Robins…” The letter further states, “You will provide a revised, itemized cost estimate that complies strictly with Iowa Code §22.3. This estimate must be limited only to the actual direct costs of copying and cannot include any charges for staff time spent searching for or reviewing documents, which are ordinary duties of your office…If you fail to immediately begin rolling production and provide a legally compliant cost estimate within 3 business days, I will consider your action a constructive and definitive denial of my entire request. I will then, without further notice. File an immediate and formal complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board.”
On December 3, 2025, the Respondent followed up and provided a further explanation that the city clerk had already accrued 11 hours beginning to compile the records and further explained why they had to work with the former contracted engineer at his hourly rate. The email also went into how direct and reasonable costs are calculated under Chapter 22.
On December 5, 2025, Respondent emailed the Complainant and informed her per her request on December 2nd that the readily available documents be provided first, the following items would be uploaded to the provided drive: “Building Permit Applications and Building Permits pertaining to Eagle View, 1st Addition; Building Plans for Eagle View, 1st Addition as was available as digital files; Voice recordings of the following meetings: October 8th Planning & Zoning Commission, November 3rd City Council Meeting, November 6th Meeting with City Staff, November 17th City Council Meeting, December 1st City Council Meeting; The City’s cell phone provider is US Cellular and our landline service is provided by Heartland Relay. The requested information regarding bonding of City Officials will be available next week.”
Per an affidavit provided by the city clerk, the clerk received no further communication regarding this public records request until the Respondent was notified of this Complaint. On February 16, 2026, legal counsel received another demand letter from Complainant with substantially similar arguments and responded to that on February 19, 2026, a copy of which was also provided to IPIB.
Complainant also submitted dozens of attachments to IPIB for consideration, including in support of allegations of civil rights violations, criminal obstruction of justice, various federal statute violations, and other matters outside this agency’s limited jurisdiction. The complaint was accepted only for the allegations within the agency’s jurisdiction, namely whether there was a violation of Chapter 22 through an unreasonable fee or constructive denial.
Applicable Law
“Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record. Unless otherwise provided for by law, the right to examine a public record shall include the right to examine a public record without charge while the public record is in the physical possession of the custodian of the public record. The right to copy a public record shall include the right to make photographs or photographic copies while the public record is in the possession of the custodian of the public record. All rights under this section are in addition to the right to obtain a certified copy of a public record under section 622.46.” Iowa Code 22.3(1).\
“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.” Iowa Code § 22.3(1).\
“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).
Analysis
The evidence provided to IPIB indicates that the public records request was responded to with a fee estimate for the extensive request in fifteen days. The estimated cost of production is not insignificant; however, in comparison with the breadth of the request, it is not unreasonable under the circumstances. The details provided to both the Complainant and IPIB show that the Respondent carefully calculated the fee estimate to ensure that the time spent and hourly rate was directly tied to the government employee or contractor completing the work and the part of the records production they would be responsible for.
“A reasonable cost for a public records request continues to be determined by the facts and circumstances of retrieving and copying the record. Reasonable fees for retrieving a public record are meant to only offset the cost of retrieving, reviewing, and copying the record.” Iowa Pub. Info. Bd., What Kind of Fees Can Be Charged for Producing a Records Request? (June 2, 2023), https://ipib.iowa.gov/standard/2023-06-02/reasonable-fees. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that “retrieval fees may in fact hamper access to public documents. However, such fees may also ensure continuing access to public records through increased funding and deterring excessive or overly broad requests. In any event, weighing these policy interests is for the general assembly. [citation omitted] We hold that in allowing for the recovery of expenses incurred in fulfilling requests for public records, Iowa Code section 22.3(1) authorizes reasonable fees for the time spent by the custodian or its employees in fulfilling the request.” Teig v. Chavez, 8 N.W.3d 484, 497 (Iowa 2024).
The fee estimate included a detailed breakdown of how the Respondent calculated each piece of the estimate. The estimate was broken down by the hourly wage of each person that would work on the request and how many hours they estimated their part of the production would take. The Respondent waived all attorney fees associated with the production. Although the city did not include an estimate of the total number of records they would have to retrieve and review, with twelve categories of requests spanning a decade, it’s not difficult to imagine a production in the tens of thousands.
Furthermore, the city specifically provided the requestor a reasonable explanation for their use and related fees for any contracted labor. For the IT contractor, the labor was limited to one hour and would solely be directed at accessing archived electronic communications only. Communications from the Respondent explained that they would use staff (at a lower hourly range) to retrieve the other electronic communications that could be accessed without IT assistance, which is a reasonable explanation. Chapter 22 does not prohibit the government from utilizing third party contractors when the work the contractor is utilized for cannot be accomplished by someone else on their staff. As to the governmental body’s use of the engineer, the government also had a reasonable explanation as to why this work had to be coordinated with the engineering firm –namely that the firm operated as the city engineer and stored city records related to their work that would have to be located and produced in response to the request. In a circumstance where the city must cooperate with the contractor that created and stores requested city records, it is reasonable for the city to include the time they have to pay for the contractor to produce the records in the contractor’s possession.
Based on the scope of the request and the detailed fee estimate provided to the Complainant, the fees requested for the retrieval of the records appear to be actual, direct costs and do not appear to be unreasonable. Complainant can pay the estimate and receive the records or may work with the Respondent to revise the scope of her search to reduce the costs.
IPIB Action
The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:
Redirect the matter for further investigation;
Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
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 promptly provided a reasonable fee estimate for the production of all requested public records, no violation of Chapter 22’s requirement 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 June 11, 2026, to:
Melissa Duffield, Complainant
City of Robins, 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 June 18, 2026, to:
Melissa Duffield, Complainant
City of Robins, Respondent