26-ORD-022 – Noel M. Botts/City of Burgin

Opinion Content:

January 21, 2026

In re: Noel M. Botts/City of Burgin

Summary: The Office cannot find that the City of Burgin (“the City”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because the City complied with
the request.

Open Records Decision

Noel M. Botts (“Appellant”) submitted a request for records to the City
containing two parts.1 The City granted the Appellant’s request and provided
responsive records.2 The City noted that, although it provided the requested reports,
those “reports were not existing records,” and because the Act “does not require a
public agency to create records,” it would not be creating these reports for the
Appellant in the future. The City also directed the Appellant to “access all of the
detailed billing information for its tenants through the portal on the City’s website.”
The Appellant initiated this appeal, seeking an advisory opinion from the Office
determining whether the City’s proposed future actions are “permitted” under the
Act.3

1 First, he requested “copies of any detailed statements showing how any alleged delinquent water
bills for any properties located in the City [sic] owned by August Properties, LLC.” Second, he
requested “copies of any accounting ledgers showing how any alleged water bills for any properties
located in the City [sic] owned by August Properties, LLC.
2 The records the City provided were “delinquent water bills and detailed transaction history
reports.”
3 The Office notes that this is a rare instance in which the agency both stated reasons for denying
the Appellant’s request, but then also provided the requested records. Essentially, the Appellant’s
stated basis for this appeal is the City’s notifying the Appellant of how it will handle future requests
for the same or similar records. The Appellant asked the Office to clarify whether the City’s proposed
handling of future records requests for the same or similar records is permitted under the Act.

The City asserts it created records to provide to the Appellant because they did
not exist beforehand. The City then notified the Appellant that, in the future, it would
not be extending him the same courtesy and would deny future requests because the
Act does not require it to create records to fulfill a request. On appeal, the Appellant
asserts he did not ask the City to create records, but rather, requested the
“information that it should already have in its water billing system.” The Act does
not require a public agency to create a record to satisfy a request. See, e.g., 24-ORD-
278; 24-ORD-229; 16-ORD-052. Further, the Act does not require a public agency to
fulfill requests for information. Rather, the Act only requires public agencies to
produce extant public records for inspection. See KRS 61.872(2)(a) (requiring a
request to inspect records to include, inter alia, a description of “the records to be
inspected”).

The City also directed the Appellant that, in the future, he should “access all
of the detailed billing information for its tenants through the portal on the City’s
website.” The Office has previously found that a public agency does not comply with
requests to inspect records merely by directing requesters to conduct their own search
on the agency’s website. See, e.g., 17-ORD-177; 12-ORD-111; 09-ORD-077. However,
a direct link to records stored online is sufficient to comply with a request for
electronic records. See, e.g., 19-ORD-151.4 Here, however, the City complied with the
Appellant’s request by providing the records he requested. Under KRS 61.880(2)(a),
“[i]f a complaining party wishes the Attorney General to review a public agency’s
denial of a request to inspect a public record, the complaining party shall forward to
the Attorney General a copy of the written request and a copy of the written response
denying inspection” (emphasis added). Thus, the Office has jurisdiction to adjudicate
an agency’s actual denial of a request, but not a potential denial of a future request.
Accordingly, the Office cannot find that the City violated the Act in its disposition of
the request at issue.

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].

4 An agency can provide a website link to electronic copies of the actual records requested, because
the requester need not conduct his own search for responsive records. Simply directing a requester to
the agency’s website is no different from placing a requester in a file room and telling the requester to
search for the records.

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General

Noel M. Botts
John K. Wood
Angela Stewart
Britney Smith