26-ORD-040 – Daniel Woodie/City of Park Hills

Opinion Content:

February 5, 2026

In re: Daniel Woodie/City of Park Hills

Summary: The Office cannot find that the City of Park Hills (“the City”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because the Office is unable to
resolve the factual dispute between the parties.

Open Records Decision

On December 23, 2025, Daniel Woodie (“the Appellant”) submitted two
requests for records to the City related to various City expenses. On the same day,
the City acknowledged receipt of the requests. On January 13, 2026, having allegedly
received no further response from the City, the Appellant initiated this appeal.

Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency must decide within five business days
whether to grant a request or deny it and “notify in writing the person making the
request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” This time may be extended
under KRS 61.872(5) when records are “in active use, in storage or not otherwise
available,” but only if the agency “immediately notif[ies] the applicant” and gives “a
detailed explanation of the cause . . . for further delay and the place, time, and
earliest date on which the public record will be available for inspection.”

Here, the Appellant claims that, as of January 13, 2025, he had yet to receive
a substantive response to his requests. He points to the City’s December 23
acknowledgement, which was issued within five business days but neither disposed
of the request nor gave a detailed explanation of the reason for delay and a specific
date when records would be made available to the Appellant. Rather, the City merely
stated the requests had been “forwarded to the city attorney.” The Appellant thus
claims the City failed to issue a timely response.

On appeal, however, the City asserts that, on January 5, 2026, it issued a
timely response to the Appellant’s requests. As proof, it provides a copy of that
response.1 In reply, the Appellant claims the City’s January 5 response is not genuine
but was “fabricated after the 5 days expired.” The Office has routinely found that it
is unable to resolve factual disputes between a requester and a public agency, such
as whether a requester received a response to his request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-276.
Accordingly, the Office cannot find that the City violated the Act because the Office
cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties as to whether the City timely
issued its response dated January 5, 2026.

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

Daniel Woodie
Kathy Zembrodt
Julie Alig
Daniel R. Braun

1 January 5, 2026, is the fifth business day following December 23, 2025. In the City’s January 5
response, it denied the Appellant’s requests because he is “not a resident of Kentucky.” The Office has
found on several occasions that the Appellant is not a resident of the Commonwealth for purposes of
the Act. See 26-ORD-033; 26-ORD-032; 26-ORD-031; 25-ORD-397; 25-ORD-156. Here, however,
because the Appellant based his appeal on the City’s alleged failure to respond to his requests, the
Appellant’s residency is not at issue.