26FC:0218 Josh Patterson v. Polk County Public Works Department- Investigative Report and 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 August 11, 2026, Josh Patterson (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0218, alleging that the Polk County Public Works Department (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22. 

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on September 17, 2026.

Facts

On June 5, 2026, Complainant submitted an open records request for “copies of the current active air quality permit for this location, explicitly showing the legal business name and the designated ‘responsible official’ on file” and “field inspection notes & logs: copies of all inspector field notes, checklists, photographs and ‘paint usage records’ reviewed during the compliance evaluation conducted at this facility on June 5, 2026.” On June 8, 2026, the Respondent replied by telling the Complainant he needed to file his request through the FOIA portal system. In response on August 6, 2026, the Complainant informed the records employee that under Chapter 22, they were required to accept any format of a public records request. He then submitted in the same email an entirely new request for the following:

Any and all public records generated or held by your department from June 1, 2026, through the present day containing my name, my email address, or explicitly referencing, discussing, or logging data regarding the following specific search identifiers:

• Target Names / Email: [Your First and Last Name], "Josh" .. [email protected]
• Target Property & Private Operations: "125 NE 47th Pl, Suite B", "Brothers Body Shop", "Corrado Body Shop"
• Target Investigators & Personnel: "Donald Sharr", "Bernardo Granwehr", "Bert Dalmer", "Kinsey Ward" 

This request explicitly encompasses:

1.         All Electronic Communications: Every email, CC, BCC, thread, and digital attachment sent, received, or archived by county personnel regarding these targets.

2.         All Telephonic Records: Phone logs, voicemail audio files, connection time stamps, and switchboard meta data sheets for all inbound or outbound calls concerning these files.

3.         All Internal Text Logs & Memos: Every internal chat log (Microsoft Teams/internal network chats), case management entry, and system note exchanged between staff members.

4.         All Field & Permit Records: Hand-written or typed field notes, site inspection diaries, compliance metrics, and air quality emissions permits for the physical paint booth operations on-site.

5.         All Cross-Agency Communications: Every single message, file transmission, or coordination log sent between Polk County and the Office of Ombudsman or the Department of Transportation regarding any of these named individuals or entities.

6.         All Shared DOT and DNR Documentation: Any and all files, compliance documents, inspection reports, inter-agency referrals, and data logs shared with or received from the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) or the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding any of the parties, properties, or businesses listed above.

On August 7, the Respondent provided a fee estimate for the request records and gave instructions on how to submit payment. The fee estimate was provided in the form of an invoice which broke down the fee by the hourly labor of the individual completing the request ($35) by the anticipated number of hours to complete the request (2), for a total of $70.

The same day, the Complainant responded and asserted that the “agency is legally required to provide a reasonable, itemized breakdown of actual costs and cannot condition public access on a non-itemized lump sum.” He went on to assert that the Respondent must provide “a formal ledger itemization detailing exactly what records were retrieved during those 2 hours of labor.” He further asserted that the ledger must include “the volume or approximate page count of internal emails and chat logs compiled,” “the existence of any cross-agency communication files located between Polk County, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Department of Transportation,” and “the volume of shared DOT/DNR compliance or inspection files retrieved regarding 125 NE 47TH Pl.” He explained that he would pay the invoice once the Respondent provided “a lawful, itemized verification of the compiled data.” 

Later the same day, the Complainant sent another email rejecting the invoice altogether because it “unlawfully restricted” the search. Complainant asserted that the invoice showed the Respondent limited their search to the address at 125 NE 47TH Pl. However, upon IPIB’s review of the invoice, the only place this address is mentioned is in association with the “anonymous user” profile they created for the Complainant to process his public records request through their FOIA system. Nowhere does the invoice mention any of the search terms. Complainant concluded his email by directing the Respondent to “correct this violation immediately.”

On August 11, 2026, the Respondent followed up to clarify that the address provided “will be used as a point of reference to guide [the] search. However, it [did] not limit or define the full scope of the records…” The email also noted that the Respondent is required payment before their office would begin processing the request. Lastly, the Respondent explained that the “final cost may be higher or lower than th[e] initial estimate” which could result in an additional invoice or a partial refund.

The same day the Complainant submitted their final communication as follows: 

You have admitted in writing that your $70.00 invoice is structurally calculated based solely on a single narrow address phrase ("125 NE 47th Pl Suite B"). To claim that a five-second database query of a single address line requires "2 hours of labor" is an unallowable, artificially inflated fee. 

Furthermore, your statement that the final bill may be arbitrarily "higher" after the fact-while simultaneously refusing to run the actual server-wide audit for the requested keywords, text logs, and cross-agency files until a non-itemized fee is paid-is a flagrant violation of the reasonableness standards established by the Iowa Supreme Court and the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB). 

Your ongoing refusal to itemize these component costs, combined with the non-transparent practice of hiding behind a generic department email signature to avoid personal administrative accountability, demonstrates a deliberate lack of transparency. 

Be advised that I am treating this text as a formal, final administrative impasse. A formal enforcement complaint detailing these statutory violations, the inflated fee structure, and the non­compliant search parameters is being filed with the appropriate regulatory and oversight authorities. 

The complaint was submitted to IPIB the same day alleging a violation of Chapter 22’s reasonable fee requirements. 

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).

“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 must be reasonable and shall be communicated to the requester upon receipt of the request. 

A person may contest the reasonableness of the lawful custodian's expenses as provided for in this chapter.” Iowa Code 22.3(2)(a)-(c).

“The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for the services of the lawful custodian or the custodian’s authorized designee in supervising the examination and copying of the public records. All reasonable expenses of the examination and copying shall be paid by the person desiring to examine or copy.” Iowa Code 22.3(5)(a).

“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.” Iowa Code 22.3(5)(b).  

Analysis

Iowa Code § 22.3(2) permits a government body to charge a reasonable fee for the production of records, with the requirement that the fee cannot “exceed the actual cost of providing the service” and “[a]ctual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records.” The invoice provided to IPIB indicates that the Respondent provided a fee estimate that included only the labor of the employee completing the production and nothing else. The estimate was provided prior to the commencement of the production work, which is consistent with IPIB’s recommendation as a best practice. The Respondent’s decision to explain its fee policy—including its legal obligation under Chapter 22 to refund any unused funds, as well as its policy that additional fees may be required if the production takes more time than originally anticipated by the initial fee estimate—does not appear to constitute an admission of bad faith. Rather, it is advisable to inform the public of the government body’s Chapter 22 policies before undertaking the work so that the requester can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with paying for the request. Lastly, the two hours included both requests submitted by the Complainant, which were very detailed and sought several categories of items. Given the content of the two requests, it does not appear unreasonable to estimate that production would take approximately two hours.

The Complainant also asserted that the failure to provide an itemized ledger is a violation of Chapter 22 and such a ledger is required by law of government bodies when completing a public records request. There is no such requirement in the code or in case law. Although such a breakdown may be requested by a court or IPIB in the course of investigating whether a fee estimate is for “reasonable expenses,” the estimate given at this stage is for work not yet done. It would not be reasonable to require an estimate to include the level of detail demanded by the Complainant for every public records request when considering the estimate is for work which has not yet been done. At this point in a request for public records request, the standard of review is whether the fee estimate is reasonable based on the initial search and related factors which can be known about the records production before it is done. 

For the reasons set forth above, the two-hour estimate, calculated using the employee’s hourly wage, is a reasonable method of calculating the fee estimate in this case. There is no indication that the fee estimate included impermissible costs or any costs not directly attributable to the production of the records. Nor is there any prohibition against the government explaining its public records fee policy to requesters. Accordingly, it does not appear that any violation of Chapter 22 occurred with respect to the fee estimate, and the matter should be dismissed.

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 provided a reasonable fee estimate to complete the requested public records production, 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 September 11, 2026, to:

Josh Patterson, Complainant

Polk County Public Works 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 September 18, 2026, to:

Josh Patterson, Complainant

Polk County Public Works Department, Respondent