26-ORD-018 – Steven Megerle/City of Fort Thomas

Opinion Content:

January 15, 2026

In re: Steven Megerle/City of Fort Thomas

Summary: The City of Fort Thomas (“the City”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”), when it failed to notify the requester in writing
of its decision regarding requests under the Act. However, the Office
cannot find that the City failed to perform an adequate search for
records.

Open Records Decision

Steven Megerle (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the City containing five
parts.1 The City granted the Appellant’s request and provided responsive records as
to one part of the request.2 The Appellant initiated this appeal on two grounds: (1)
the City failed to conduct a search for records or affirmatively state whether
responsive records exist for the remaining parts of the request; and (2) the City did
not give any written reason for denial.

1 The five parts of the Appellant’s request for “Documents to Be Produced” are: (1) a “[c]opy of Staff
Report” for a specific application to the City on December 18, 2025; (2) “[a] copy of the application and
any supporting documentation attached and made to the Urban Review Board” by specific people as
the subject of a specific hearing; (3) “[a] copy of all notices of the December 18, 2025 Design Review
Board hearing mailed to specific people concerning a specific hearing; (4) “[a] copy of all written
communications, emails, letters text messages, between” specific people concerning a specific hearing;
and (5) “[a] copy of the notice letter provided under KRS 100 for the map amendments to the Fort
Thomas Zoning Code adopting the Tower Park historic overlay district mailed to all homeowners on
Greene Street that took effect . . . in 2024.”
2 The Appellant also asserts the City required the use of a particular form to complete his request.
However, he does not provide any of those communications from the City. Because the Office does not
have a written denial from the agency as to that issue, the Office lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
See KRS 61.880(2)(a).

First, the Appellant asserts the City denied his request and gave no reason for
its denial of his request.3 The Appellant further asserted that the City failed to
affirmatively state whether responsive records exist. When a public agency receives
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.” KRS 61.880(1) (emphasis added). Here, the Appellant
submitted a request to the City containing five parts, and in response, the City
provided responsive records relating to only one part of the Appellant’s request.
However, the City did not issue a written response to the other four parts of the
request.4 Thus, the City violated the Act.

Next, the Appellant asserted the City failed to conduct a search for records. On
appeal, the City asserts that it “has provided all documents in its possession.” 5 Once
a public agency states affirmatively that no further responsive records exist, the
burden shifts to the requester to make 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). If the requester makes a prima facie case that the agency possesses the record,
“then the agency may also be called upon to prove that its search was adequate.” City
of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing
Bowling, 172 S.W.3d at 341).

Here, to make a prima facie case that the City failed to conduct an adequate
search, the Appellant asserts the City failed to provide any “text messages” in
response to his request.6 But the failure to produce any text messages does not prove
that any text messages exist. The Appellant therefore has failed to make a prima
facie case that the City failed to perform an adequate search for records or that it

3 The Appellant asserts the City would not allow in-person inspection of the requested records. Yet,
he does not provide any written denial of in-person inspection. Accordingly, the Office lacks jurisdiction
to adjudicate that issue. See KRS 61.880(2)(a). On appeal, the City asserts it did not deny in-person
inspection of the records but, rather, was unable to provide “immediate inspection” and needed “a
reasonable time frame to schedule such inspection” of the records.
4 Specifically, the City denied part one of his request for a “[c]opy of Staff Report” for a specific
application to the City on December 18, 2025, because “[t]here is no staff report included due to the
meeting being postponed.”
5 A statement from a public agency that it has provided all records within its possession is
“tantamount to an affirmative statement that the remaining records requested do not exist.” 04-ORD-
040.
6 On appeal, the City states affirmatively that it does not possess any “text message” records.

possesses any additional records it has not provided to him. Therefore, the Office
cannot find that the City violated the Act.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General

Steven Megerle
Melissa Beckett
Tim Schneider