Victor Drops its Public Records Policy and Leaves the Coletti Dispute Unresolved

VICTOR. City Council on Wednesday directed staff to discontinue Victor's standalone public records policy and administer requests under Idaho Code Title 74, but left the substantive questions driving the work session to a future meeting, including how the city treats third-party IT pass-through charges, who reviews disputed bills, and whether resident Ashley Coletti will get another hearing on the balance she is contesting.

Coletti's billing dispute prompted the work session over records related to the Evans annexation and the planned site of Victor's independent wastewater treatment facility. Coletti has since joined the annexation challenge pending in the Idaho Seventh Judicial District (CV41-26-0091). Documents from her records request, including Frohlich's July 29 Letter of Intent and emails from City Administrator Jeremy Besbris dated February 17 and February 20, are cited in that filing. [See: Victor Ethics Complaint: Attorneys Clear Consultant's Dual Roles.].

What Coletti was billed, and what she has already been refunded

Coletti submitted a request for correspondence tied to the Evans annexation and asked the city to use Teton Tech, its outside IT contractor, to retrieve the records rather than have city staff do it. She told the council her reason was a lack of trust that the staff would produce everything responsive to the request.

Teton Tech bills at $150 per hour. City staff provided Coletti a fee estimate at that rate. Coletti agreed to the estimate and paid. When actual costs came in under the quoted amount, the city refunded her $1,000, which the council approved as part of Wednesday's disbursements. That refund has been made.

Coletti told the council that she later realized her initial production did not include all attachments and that she had to ask for them separately. She is asking the council to waive the roughly $1,390 remaining balance, not the portion already refunded.

Had she accepted retrieval by City Clerk Michelle Smith or narrowed the scope of the request, the $150-per-hour third-party billing that accounted for most of the cost would not have applied. The city's fee schedule reflects this structure: research over two hours and copying over 100 pages incur charges, but staff time is billed at the cost of the lowest-paid qualified employee, not at the contractor rate.

Why the standalone policy is being abolished

Victor's standalone public records policy, written years ago and approved by former City Administrator Olivia Goodale, had not been updated to reflect subsequent changes to Title 74. City Attorney Herb Heimerl told the council the local document produced more confusion than clarity and that Title 74 should govern directly.

Councilor Sue Muncaster proposed that the city follow the state code. Councilor Emily Sustick agreed. Council gave staff direction by consensus rather than a formal motion to discontinue the local policy and rely on Title 74 for all requests.

The cost Coletti is contesting came from two places. One was the third-party pass-through rate for Teton Tech. The other was the city's application of Title 74 to that pass-through. Neither was a function of the standalone records policy being discarded.

Two interpretation problems the council acknowledged

Heimerl and Besbris had said publicly, including in a Teton Valley News article that Coletti read aloud during public comment, that county residents might be charged differently for records requests. Title 74-101 defines a non-resident as someone who has not lived in Idaho for 30 days. A Teton County resident is an Idaho resident. Heimerl told the council that Victor's actual practice is not to charge county residents more, and that the public statements had been imprecise. Councilor Amy Ross, citing a reading of the statute, said she had been unable to square the public statements with the code text.

Victor resident Alex Highcamp, whose address is in unincorporated Teton County, told the council he had been quoted $2,000 to fulfill a records request and told he would be treated as a non-resident.

On third-party fees, Heimerl said a requester asking for an outside contractor rather than staff creates a cost he did not see how to avoid passing on. He acknowledged the council could adopt a policy not to pass on third-party costs, or to cap them at a rate lower than the contractor bills. Council took neither action on Wednesday and referred both to a future work session.

Jackson Hole News & Guide reporter Jeanette Boner, a Victor resident, told the council via Zoom that $150-per-hour quotes, sometimes estimated at up to 12 hours and paid in advance, serve as a financial barrier to records access. She said she has dealt with the same barrier for five years.

The disputed commitment to hear Coletti's petition

Council did not place Coletti's individual petition on Wednesday's agenda.

At the April 8 meeting, after Coletti made her request during public comment, Councilor Ross asked that the matter be placed on the April 22 agenda. Mayor Frohlich, presiding that night, asked whether three members supported the direction and then announced the item would be agendized for April 22. No member made a formal motion, and no vote occurred. Muncaster and Sustick, the other two councilors present, did not voice objection at the time. Hulsing was absent.

Sustick told Wednesday's meeting she did not believe the council should respond in the moment to public comment with agenda decisions, and that any process for contesting records charges should exist in policy first and be applied to individual cases after.

Hulsing and Ross argued that the direction given in open session should hold regardless of whether a formal motion was taken. Heimerl said three members need to give affirmative direction for staff to place an item, and that council did not give that direction at Wednesday's meeting. Coletti's petition remains off the agenda.

What council put off

The future work session will address two questions. One is whether and how to limit third-party IT pass-through charges. Smith told the council she has begun compiling an FAQ modeled on the City of Pocatello's, which publishes a specific fee schedule including rates for redacted DVDs and CDs. The second is what process applies when a requester contests a charge, including whether disputes first route to the city attorney, the council, or both.

Coletti's remaining balance falls between the old and new policies. What the April 8 exchange produced is itself now in dispute, and her petition remains unaddressed.

What to watch

The next council meeting is on May 13. Three members must direct staff to place Coletti's petition on the agenda for a hearing. The records-policy work session is expected to be scheduled in parallel. Heimerl said he will consult the Association of Idaho Cities and other city attorneys on how peer municipalities handle third-party pass-through fees.

Sources: April 8 and April 22 Victor City Council meeting recordings and transcripts; Idaho Code Title 74 §§ 101, 102, 103; Victor fee schedule; Amended Petition for Judicial Review in CV41-26-0091; prior Valley Signal coverage.