Request By:
Mr. Jack Parrent
Property Valuation Administrator
Franklin County Kentucky
Franklin County Courthouse
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General
By letter of about February 14, 1989 Mr. John F. Wortman has appealed what he indicates, in substance, was your denial of his request to inspect certain records of your office.
FINDINGS IN BRIEF
The Property Valuation Administrator failed to act consistent with Open Records provisions by not making a written response, in keeping with KRS 61.880, to a request to inspect records of his office. While information derived from the property tax rolls may not be used for commercial or business purposes unrelated to property valuation or assessment, such ban does not apply to information obtained from other types of records of the Property Valuation Administrator's Office. Requests for information, as distinguished from records, and requests that particular methods of inquiry into public records be provided, are outside the scope of Open Records provisions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts appear based upon statements in Mr. Wortman's February 14, 1989 letter:
On February 10, 1989, Mr. Wortman asked to use certain records in your office to "look up owners names and mailing addresses for tax bills." Mr. Wortman explained to you, his letter indicates, that the purpose of his request was to "facilitate the completion of the Frankfort, Ky City directory. " The directory is published by a private firm, the R. L. Polk Company.
According to Mr. Wortman's letter, you indicated to him that since his request was for commercial purposes, the Open Records Act did not cover his request.
In addition to his verbal request, Mr. Wortman apparently submitted to you a letter listing twenty-eight addresses. The letter, a copy of which accompanied Mr. Wortman's letter to this office of about February 14, 1989, indicates:
Pursuant to the Open Records Act I hereby request the owner's names of the following properties for the purpose of looking up deeds in the Franklin County Clerk's office.
Mr. Wortman's letter also indicates there was discussion of your looking up the information for a fee, but that you felt the task would be too large a job to do on a regular basis. He also stated that you indicated you would permit him to conduct his own search of the alphabetically organized tax rolls.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRS 61.880(2) provides in part for the Attorney General to, upon request of one denied inspection of public records, issue a written opinion stating whether an agency ". . . acted consistent with provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884."
KRS 61.880(1) provides, in substance and in part, that a public agency, upon receiving a request to inspect public records, shall determine within three working days whether to comply with the request. The agency is to notify the requester, within that three day period, of its decision.
If an agency denies, in whole or in part, inspection of a record, its response must include a statement of the specific exception, among those set forth in KRS 61.878, authorizing withholding of the record, together with a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.
A copy of the written response denying inspection is to be forwarded immediately by the agency to the Attorney General. KRS 61.880(2).
Mr. Wortman's letter indicates he:
. . . verbally requested to use the Franklin County P.V.A. records to look up owners names and mailing addresses . . . to facilitate the completion of the Frankfort, Ky City directory.
This appears to constitute a request to inspect records. Mr. Wortman indicates you advised him that:
[S]ince [his] request was for commercial purposes the open records act did not cover [his] request. (Emphasis added.)
Such language, if used, tends to indicate you viewed at least part of Mr. Wortman's request as one to inspect records, specifically, tax rolls. This is because KRS 133.047(2) bans use, for commercial or business purposes unrelated to property valuation and assessment, of information obtained from the property tax roll (s). KRS 133.047(2) provides that:
Any person inspecting a property tax roll shall do so in a manner not unduly interferring with the proper operation of the custodian's office and said person shall not use information obtained from the property tax roll (s) for commercial or business purposes unrelated to property valuation and assessment.
A review of copies of denials of open records requests received by this office does not reveal that you issued a written denial to Mr. Wortman.
To the extent you denied inspection of the tax rolls or other records, but did not, in making such denial, follow the provisions of KRS 61.880, you failed to act consistent with the provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884.
If you denied inspection of the tax rolls because the request involved, in your view, use of information obtained or to be obtained from such rolls for "commercial purposes," in contravention of KRS 133.047(2), the proper course was to make such denial in writing, citing KRS 61.878(1)(j), and KRS 133.047(2). A brief explanation of how 61.878(1)(j) applied to denying inspection of the tax rolls should have been set forth in the written denial, and a copy of the denial should have been promptly forwarded to this office.
To the extent Mr. Wortman seeks access to Property Record or Property Assessment Cards, such access should be granted. See OAG's 89-40 and 89-50, copies attached. What might be termed the "commercial purpose" rule of KRS 133.047(2), applies only to information derived from the "tax roll (s)," and not to information derived from Property Assessment or Property Record Cards. Use of information obtained from Property Assessment or Property Record Cards, unlike information obtained from the "tax roll (s)," is not addressed by KRS 133.047(2).
To the extent Mr. Wortman asked that you provide "owner's names of the following properties," the request was one for information, as distinguished from a request to inspect reasonably identified records. Open records provisions address only inspection of records. They do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request. See, for example, OAG 79-547, at page 2.
Regarding so much of Mr. Wortman's letter as asks that this office "find the County Clerk's office is in violation of the open records act in that they cannot provide a deed to a property by that property address," such question is not one to be addressed in this opinion. Here, the issue primarily is denial of inspection of records of the Franklin County Property Valuation Administrator's office. Suffice it to say, Open Records provisions do not require either the Property Valuation Administrator, or the County Clerk, to provide access to records by specific indexing methods.
Your agency may have a right pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) to appeal the findings of this opinion.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to Mr. John F. Wortman.