Skip to main content

Opinion

Opinion By: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General; Matthew Ray, Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Decision

David Pennington ("Appellant") submitted a request to the Center for records relating to the operation and financial management of a specific apartment complex in Eastern Kentucky. The Center provided some of the requested records but denied the Appellant's access to others. The Center did not cite any exemptions to the Act in support of its denial. This appeal followed.

As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether the Center is a public agency subject to the Act. The Center claims it is a private entity, but the Appellant claims that the Center is "funded by tax dollars [and] federal and state grants[.]" Under the Act, the definition of a "public agency" includes [a]ny body which, within any fiscal year, derives at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its funds expended by it in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from state or local authority funds." KRS 61.870(1)(h). This Office has found that in the absence of evidence that a private entity receives state or local funds, the entity is not a public agency under the Act. See, e.g. , 21-ORD-112.

Although the Appellant alleges that the Center is funded "by tax dollars," he provides no evidence to support his claim. The Center, however, explains that the only "tax dollars" it receives come from the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), a federal agency, in the form of rental subsidies for affordable housing. 1The Center also claims to have received a grant from "Federal Home Loan Bank," which it describes as a private entity despite containing the word "Federal" in its name. Even if there is some evidence in the record that the Center may be receiving federal funds, there is no evidence that the Center is receiving any state or local funds. The receipt of federal funds does not convert a private entity into a public agency under KRS 61.870(1)(h). Because there is no evidence in the records to support the Appellant's claim that the Center receives state or local funds, this Office cannot find that the Center is a public agency subject to the Act. Accordingly, this Office is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Center's denial of the Appellant's request.

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 emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.

Footnotes

Footnotes

LLM Summary
The decision addresses an appeal regarding a request for records from the Center, which was partially denied. The main issue was whether the Center qualifies as a public agency under the Kentucky Open Records Act. The Center argued it is a private entity, while the appellant claimed it was publicly funded. The decision concluded that the Center is not a public agency as there was no evidence of state or local funding, despite receiving federal funds, and therefore, the Office does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the denial of the records request.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
David Pennington
Agency:
Mountain Comprehensive Care Center
Type:
Open Records Decision
Lexis Citation:
2021 KY. AG LEXIS 246
Cites:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.