SALEM — City council approved a resolution permitting the implementation of a fee for the processing and redaction of video footage from body cameras, dashboard cameras and jail surveillance camera systems included in public records requests.

City council gave the resolution, which permits the department to develop and implement a processing fee in accordance with Ohio House Bill 315, its first reading in a Jan. 28 special meeting and previously discussed it at length in a Jan. 7 rules and ordinances committee meeting.

Ohio House Bill 315 permits law enforcement agencies to charge a fee for the processing and redaction of footage from body cameras, dash cameras, and jail surveillance systems included in public records requests in accordance with privacy law requirements. These fees can be up to $75 per hour for video processing with a maximum total fee of $750 for each request and have been cited by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine as a way to address “unfunded burdens” on law enforcement agencies caused by developing technology.

At that committee meeting Councilman Jeff Stockman, who chairs the committee, said Police Chief J.T. Panezott requested the city adopt legislation permitting the department to develop and implement a “formula for a fee system when people ask for bodycam or video footage that must be redacted by [the department].”

“It takes them hours and hours and hours to redact names and faces and things like that off these body cameras that they do. This is something that he said was vital to them so they can at least get back some of the money it costs them to sit in the back room and edit videos,” said Stockman.

Stockman also stressed that like all fees included in the city fee schedule the formula would have to be fact-based to cover the costs of the service and was not to make a profit.

“It’s not a money-making thing, it’s just to help pay for and offset his costs of doing it,” said Stockman.

Council ultimately voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Council also gave a second reading to revisions of the city’s animal ordinance which has previously been discussed at length by the rules and ordinance committee in October, December and most recently on Jan. 7, with concerns raised that the ordinances’ current language, which specifically disallows certain species of animal from being kept in the city rather than categories of animals, and with a lack of any mechanism to grant variances for specific cases in the wake of a request by a city resident to keep goats as part of a 4-H project.

The proposed update would eliminate section 505.15 from the ordinance which prohibits the keeping of bees within the city limits “which cause annoyance to other person or property damage,” instead adding regulation of bees to section 505.08 (a) which outlines prohibitions against conditions which cause a nuisance or property damage generally; and removes the word “domestic” from sections of the ordinance which cover injuring, killing, abandoning, or poisoning animals.

Section 505.13 (b), which has drawn the bulk of the criticism of the ordinance’s current language would be updated from reading “no person shall keep any swine, sheep or goats in the City of Salem except those living inside a residence inhabited by the owner. Horse, cattle and chickens may not be kept within 150 feet of any residence, other than the residence of the person keeping such animal or fowl anywhere in the city” to instead read “no person shall keep any swine in the city of Salem except those living inside a residence inhabited by the owner.” The section would also have a new subsequent paragraph added which specifies that “no person shall keep or harbor any animal that is not universally recognized as a domesticated animal on any property within the city of Salem” and defines a domesticated animal as “those animals universally recognized as pets or companion animals, farm and livestock animals, and those used for security.”

The updated ordinance would also specify that “all other animals not universally recognized as a pet or companion animal must have a permit to be kept or harbored in the city of Salem,” meaning there would be an individualized permitting process for any non-companion animals within city limits. These permits would be obtained through the health department and could be revoked for violations of the ordinance “or for any other such reason that [the board of health] believe is contrary to the public health, safety and welfare.”

The update would also follow recent legislative trends to have the fee for these permits be established annually as part of a city-wide fee schedule and make violations of the code a minor misdemeanor for the first offense and a fourth-degree misdemeanor for subsequent offenses.

Other items approved included an ordinance implementing regulations and a permitting process for excavations “performed in a street, alley, or other public right of way in the city.”

City council will meet next at 7 p.m. Feb. 18.