22-ORD-202
October 3, 2022
In re: Chad Walker/City of Winchester
Summary: The City of Winchester (“the City”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not respond to a request to inspect
records.
Open Records Decision
On August 17, 2022, Chad Walker (“Appellant”), made a request to the City for
a list of parcels included in the City’s tax increment financing (“TIF”) district and for
the amount of property and occupational taxes collected for the TIF district. Having
received no response, the Appellant resubmitted his request on August 24, 2022.1 On
September 7, 2022, after receiving no response from the City to either request, the
Appellant initiated this appeal.
Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a
public agency “shall determine within five (5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of
any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the
person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” After the
appeal was initiated, the City responded to the Appellant’s request on September 14,
2022. On appeal, the City states only that the Appellant sent his request to the Mayor
and City Commissioners when he should have submitted his request to the City’s
records custodian.2
Under KRS 61.872(4), if “the person to whom the application is directed does
not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the
1
Both requests were made via email and sent to the Winchester Mayor as well as each City
Commissioner.
2
As a part of that response, the City has produced the only record responsive to the Appellant’s
request.applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the
agency’s public records.” Thus, the Mayor and City Commissioners were still required
to either notify the Appellant of the record custodian’s name and location or forward
the Appellant’s request to the records custodian. See, e.g., 22-ORD-041 (finding a
correctional facility violated the Act when its employee failed to notify the requester
of the official custodian’s contact information or forward the request to the official
custodian). Therefore, the City violated the Act when it did not respond to either of
the Appellant’s requests within five business days.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall
be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that
action or in any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint e-mailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/Marc Manley
Marc Manley
Assistant Attorney General
#329
Distributed to:
Chad Walker
William A. Dykeman