Request By:
The Honorable Tebbs S. Moore
City Attorney
City of Harrodsburg
Harrodsburg City Hall
Harrodsburg, Kentucky 40330
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General
Ms. Amy Wolfford, a Staff Writer for the Advocate Messenger, has appealed to this office, your April 12, 1989 denial of her April 11, 1989 request to inspect certain records of the City of Harrodsburg's Westside Renovation Project. The project is apparently funded by a $ 750,000 Federal grant, administered by the City of Harrodsburg and the Bluegrass Area Development District, and involves improvement of certain private dwellings.
FINDINGS IN BRIEF
For reasons explained below, we find the City of Harrodsburg did not act consistent with the provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884, by failing to cite a statutory exception as a basis for its denial of inspection of records. This office finds inspection of certain records sought by Ms. Wolfford should be allowed. Personal information, within the meaning of KRS 61.878(1)(a) contained in records sought to be inspected, may be masked. KRS 61.878(4). Discussion follows.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By letter of April 11, 1989, Amy Wolfford, a Staff Writer with the Danville Advocate Messenger, at Danville, Kentucky, asked, in substance, to inspect:
Any document, letter or memo with information on the inspection of the homes of Lizzie Sanders, Anna Taylor, Connie VanDyke and Leroy Yeast, all of whom are recipients of grant money in the Westside neighborhood. This request includes any write-up order and inspections by the grant administrator or his staff, the city building inspector, the independent inspector hired by the city, or any state or federal agency.
By letter of April 12, 1989, you denied the request, stating in part:
There is privileged financial and other personal information interspersed with the records and there has been no release provided by the property owners to protect the city from potential lawsuits and liability.
In addition the city is presently undergoing negotiations and other earnest efforts to complete the rehabilitation of the property in this Westside Neighborhood of Harrodsburg to the satisfaction of the homeowners, however, until that work has been completed by the contractors there is the very real and distinct possibility of litigation, and therefore, such records would be exempt from inspection at this time.
As soon as the work has been completed and the inspections finalized, records will then be available for public inspection.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRS 61.880(1) requires in part that:
An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.
Your letter of April 12, 1989, on behalf of the City of Harrodsburg does not cite, as a basis for denial of inspection of the records in question, one of the specific exceptions in KRS 61.878. Accordingly, the City of Harrodsburg did not act consistent with KRS 61.870 to 61.884. OAG 85-89.
Regarding that part of Ms. Wolfford's request that, in substance and in part, asks to inspect "any document, letter or memo" regarding inspection of certain homes where work had been done under a federal grant, the City should review its records within the scope of Ms. Wolfford's request. Upon review, the City should determine which records it may deny inspection of pursuant to exceptions listed in KRS 61.878. Ms. Wolfford should be advised which records she may inspect, and inspection of them should be promptly allowed. The city should advise Ms. Wolfford in writing which records it is denying inspection of, and express the basis of its denial as required by KRS 61.880(1).
Regarding that part of Ms. Wolfford's request to inspect, regarding certain homes that were the subject of federally funded improvements:
. . . [A]ny write-up order and inspections by the grant administrator or his staff, the city building inspector, the independent inspector hired by the city, or any state or federal agency. . . .
Inspection of these documents must be permitted.
Write-up orders, and inspectors' reports regarding building improvements funded with federal funds, are orders for work to be done, or statements of objective observations concerning work that has been done. Such orders or reports are not "preliminary recommendations or preliminary memoranda" within the meaning of KRS 61.878(1)(h). Accordingly, inspection of such documents may not be denied on such ground. See for example, OAG 80-596.
If such orders or reports contain some information excludable from inspection pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a) (information of a personal nature the public disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), the City may ask or, or in supplying a copy, blot out such information. KRS 61.878(4); OAG 82-234. Other information contained in write-up orders or building inspection reports (e.g., inspector's observations and directions) must be made available for inspection.
Homeowners not having given releases, the possibility of litigation, or the lack of completion of work, are not reasons within the statutory exceptions set forth at KRS 61.878, for denying inspection of public records.
The public is entitled to inspect public records regarding improvement of private property with federal grant monies, unless inspection is properly denied pursuant to a specific statutory exception. None appears applicable, under the facts involved here, that would permit a blanket denial of the records sought, or a delay of inspection until the project involved is completed.
Both Ms. Wolfford and your agency may have rights, pursuant to KRS 61.880, to appeal findings of this opinion to the appropriate circuit court. As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to Ms. Amy Wolfford, The Advocate Messenger, P.O. Box 149, Danville, Kentucky 40422.