24-ORD-228
October 21, 2024
In re: Sarina Gibson/Muhlenberg County Property Valuation Administrator
Summary: The
Muhlenberg
County
Property
Valuation
Administrator (“the PVA”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) when it provided all responsive records it possessed.
Open Records Decision
On or about August 27, 2024, Sarina Gibson (“the Appellant”) submitted a
request by mail for “all surveys done for PVA No. 074-00-00-005.000 and PVA No.
074-00-00-006.000,” two properties located in Greenville, Kentucky; “a letter of who
authori[zed] Kinkade Lane to be blacktop”; and “a copy of all easement[s] for” the two
properties. The request was directed to the “Muhlenberg County Ky Courthouse,”
with an incorrect street address, and was delivered on August 30, 2024, to the
Muhlenberg County Clerk’s Office, which hand-delivered it to the PVA on September
3, 2024.1 In a timely response, the PVA sent the Appellant copies of the property
cards for the two properties in question, stating it did not appear that any surveys
had been performed on either property. The PVA further advised the Muhlenberg
County Judge/Executive’s Office would have “the information about the road being
blacktopped” and any easements would be recorded in the county clerk’s office. This
appeal followed.
On appeal, the PVA states it provided all the information and records it
possesses relating to the Appellant’s request. Once a public agency states
1
The Appellant provided two other copies of her request that were purportedly mailed to the
Muhlenberg County Judge/Executive and the Muhlenberg County Road Department, with two return
receipts bearing illegible signatures. However, in response to this appeal, the Muhlenberg County
Attorney asserts those two copies of the request were not received by the respective agencies. The
Attorney General cannot resolve factual disputes between parties, such as whether an agency received
a request to inspect records. See, e.g., 24-ORD-123. In addition, the Appellant provided a copy of a
different request purportedly mailed to the city attorney for Central City, Kentucky. However, she
neither provided a copy of the response to that request nor claimed that no response was issued, which
is necessary to perfect an appeal under KRS 61.880(2)(a). Accordingly, the Office lacks jurisdiction
regarding that request. See, e.g., 24-ORD-216.affirmatively that it possesses no further records, the burden shifts to the requester
to present a prima facie case that additional records do exist. See Bowling v.
Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). Here, the
Appellant merely submitted a copy of the request and response, without stating how
she believes the PVA violated the Act. Because the PVA properly responded to the
request and the Appellant has not established a prima facie case that the PVA
possesses additional records, the PVA did not violate the Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#396
Distributed to:
Ms. Sarina Gibson
Ryan K. Rice, Esq.
Belinda McKinney, PVA