22-ORD-257
December 5, 2022
In re: Mary Rowe/City of Salyersville
Summary: The City of Salyersville (“the City”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it delayed access to records without
invoking KRS 61.872(5) or providing a detailed explanation for the
delay.
Open Records Decision
Mary Rowe (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the City for a variety of
records related to the City’s finances.1 The City responded by stating it would place
the request on a “30-day extension” because the City was “short staffed and it being
tax season.” The Appellant then initiated this appeal.
Upon receiving a request to inspect records, a public agency must decide within
five business days whether to grant the request, or deny the request and explain
why. KRS 61.880(1). A public agency may also delay access to responsive records
beyond five business days if such records are “in active use, storage, or not otherwise
available.” KRS 61.872(5). A public agency that invokes KRS 61.872(5) to delay
access to responsive records must also notify the requester of the earliest date on
which the records will be available, and provide a detailed explanation for the cause
of the delay.
Here, the City responded to the Appellant’s request within five business days
but stated only that it was placing the request on a “30-day extension” because the
1 The Appellant requested copies of all bills received by the City from September 1, 2022 through
October 26, 2022, for an itemized statement of such bills, for the Mayor’s starting salary and any salary
increases he has received through October 26, 2022, for an itemized statement of all bills submitted to
the City by a specific media company, for a list of loan accounts the city has with specific banks and
how much are owed on those loan accounts, and for a copy of the City’s last two audits.City was “short staffed and it being tax season.” The City neither cited KRS 61.872(5),
nor asserted the records were “in active use, in storage, or not otherwise available.”
Moreover, the fact an agency is understaffed or busy during a particular time of year
does not constitute a detailed explanation for why it must delay production of the
requested records. See, e.g., 22-ORD-134; 22-ORD-133; 19-ORD-188 n.1. Thus, the
City violated the Act when it failed to properly invoke KRS 61.872(5) and when it
failed to provide a detailed explanation for why it would take 30 days to respond to
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 e-mailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#415
Distributed to:
Mary Rowe
James Pete Shepherd
Jeff Lovely