Could a Kentucky city buy county property assessments from a reseller and avoid paying the property valuation administrator?

Plain-English summary

Kentucky's Attorney General concluded in 2013 that a city owed its county property valuation administrator (PVA) the statutory payment when it used the county assessment for city taxation, even if the city obtained the assessment from a reseller. The payment followed the city's use of the assessment, not the route by which it bought a copy.

The opinion separated access to records from the city's tax obligation. It said the PVA's property tax rolls were public records. A commercial requester could obtain them, subject to the records law's provisions on commercial purpose and fees, and the AG said a public agency could not prohibit resale of public records in general. But a city that used the assessment as the basis for its own levy still triggered KRS 132.285(1). The opinion acknowledged that buying from a reseller could leave the city paying twice for the same assessment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a Kentucky city avoid the PVA payment by buying assessment data from a private company?

The AG said no. Under the opinion's reading of KRS 132.285(1), a city owed the payment if it used the PVA's assessment for its own taxation, whether the copy came from the PVA or a third party.

Were county property tax rolls public records?

The opinion said they were. It also described provisions allowing a fee and a statement of intended use for commercial requests. Those access rules did not remove a city's separate payment obligation when it used the assessment for city taxes.

Could a seller pass the assessment to a city?

The AG said an agency could not ban resale of public records in general. It also described the commercial-use limits that could apply to the seller's original request. The opinion's answer about the city's payment did not depend on a general ban on resale.

Background and statutory framework

The request asked whether a city could buy an assessment from a third party and use it without compensating the PVA. The AG explained that KRS 132.285(1) let a city elect to use the county assessment for its ad valorem levy and required an annual appropriation to the PVA's office. The quoted rate at the time was one-half cent for each $100 of assessment. The opinion relied on its earlier OAG 92-70 interpretation: a city elected to use the PVA assessment when it actually used it as the basis for city assessment.

The opinion also discussed the public-records provisions governing commercial requests, including KRS 61.874(4)(a). It did not treat purchase through a reseller as a way around the city's statutory compensation requirement.

Citations and references

Statutes: KRS 132.285(1); KRS 132.220(1); KRS 132.420; KRS 61.874(4)(a).

Case cited: First American Title Co. v. Devaugh, 480 F.3d 438, 459-60 (6th Cir. 2007), cited in the opinion's discussion of restrictions on resale of public records.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Pages/Opinions.aspx
• Original Word document: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG13-002.doc

Original opinion text

OAG 13-002

January 25, 2013

Subject: Whether a city may purchase the county assessment made by the property valuation administrator from a third party and use it as the basis for taxation without compensating the property valuation administrator pursuant to KRS 132.285

Requested by: Rep. Tommy Thompson

House Majority Whip

Written by: Matt James

Syllabus: A city may not purchase the county assessment made by the property valuation administrator from a third party and use it as the basis for taxation without compensating the property valuation administrator pursuant to KRS 132.285

Statutes construed: KRS 132.285

OAGs cited: OAG 89-87, OAG 90-79, OAG 92-70

Opinion of the Attorney General

House Majority Whip Tommy Thompson has requested an opinion of this office on whether a city may purchase the county assessment made by the property valuation administrator (“PVA”) from a third party and use it without compensating the PVA. We advise that a city may not purchase the county assessment made by the property valuation administrator from a third party and use it as the basis for taxation without compensating the property valuation administrator pursuant to KRS 132.285.

KRS 132.220(1) requires all taxable property in a county to be assessed annually by Jan. 1, and KRS 132.420 commits this assessment to the PVA in each county. KRS 132.285(1) provides in relevant part:

[A]ny city may by ordinance elect to use the annual county assessment for property situated within such city as a basis of ad valorem tax levies ordered or approved by the legislative body of the city . . . Each city which elects to use the county assessment shall annually appropriate and pay each fiscal year to the office of the property valuation administrator for deputy and other authorized personnel allowance, supplies, maps and equipment, and other authorized expenses of the office one-half of one cent ($0.005) for each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessment;

KRS 132.285(1) thus allows cities to use the annual assessment by the PVA as a basis for city taxation, provided that the city compensates the PVA $0.005 for each $100 of assessment. At issue is whether a party may purchase the PVA’s assessment from a third party which has already obtained the PVA’s assessment without compensating the PVA.

KRS 133.047(4) provides that the real property documents submitted by a taxpayer are confidential, but that “other real property records in the office of the property valuation administrator shall be subject to the provisions of KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884,” which are the Open Records laws. The property tax rolls of the PVA are thus public records, and requests for them are treated as such. OAG 90-79. KRS 61.874(4)(a) provides that “if copies of nonexempt public records are requested for commercial purposes, the public agency may establish a reasonable fee.” KRS 61.874(4)(b) further provides that “[t]he public agency from which copies of nonexempt public records are requested for a commercial purpose may require a certified statement from the requestor stating the commercial purpose for which they shall be used, and may require the requestor to enter into a contract with the agency.” KRS 61.874(5)(c) makes it unlawful to obtain public records for a “commercial purpose, if the person uses or knowingly allows the use of the public record for a different commercial purpose.” Thus while the PVA assessments are subject to Open Records requests, if they are requested by a commercial entity, the PVA may request a statement of the commercial purpose from the entity, and enter into a contract with that entity. Should the commercial entity allow the records for a commercial purpose different than the one stated by the entity, the entity would be in violation of KRS 61.874(5)(b).

As applied to this particular situation, a private entity may request the property tax rolls from the PVA for a commercial purpose. The PVA may require a statement of that commercial purpose and a contract, and the private entity is subject to penalties if it deviates from that purpose. Thus a private entity which buys the property tax rolls for its own purposes may not subsequently resell the tax rolls to cities. However, a private entity may brazenly state as its commercial purpose that it intends to resell the tax rolls to cities. In the absence of a statute expressly providing so, resale restrictions on public records have been found not to be protected from antitrust actions by state action immunity. First American Title Co. v. Devaugh, 480 F.3d 438, 459-60 (6th Cir. 2007). See also Wiles v. Ascom Transport System, Inc., 478 Fed.Appx. 283, 292-93 (6th Cir. 2012) (allowing resale of personal information authorized for disclosure by Kentucky’s Driver Privacy Protection Act). Further, this office “has consistently recognized that under the Open Records Law, all persons have the same standing to inspect public records and that the purpose for which an individual requests those records is irrelevant.” 08-ORD-261; OAG 89-87. Thus a public agency may not prohibit resale of public records in general.

While a public agency may not prohibit resale of public records, if a city purchases the PVA’s assessment from a third party and uses it, the city would owe the PVA the compensation due in KRS 132.285(1). In OAG 92-70, we addressed the issue of cities who were purchasing the assessment for one year and then using the same assessment as the basis for successive years, without compensating the PVA. We advised that “a city ‘elects’ to use a PVA's assessment if, in fact, the city uses the PVA's assessment as the basis for its own assessments.” Id. Accordingly, we advise that if a city in fact uses the PVA’s assessment, whether purchased from the PVA or a third party, the city owes the PVA compensation under KRS 132.285(1). A city purchasing the PVA’s assessment from a third party would thus be paying twice for the same assessment.

In sum, if a city in fact uses a property valuation administrator’s assessment as the basis for its own taxation, whether purchased from a property valuation administrator or a third party, the city owes the property valuation administrator the compensation due under KRS 132.285.

JACK CONWAY

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Matt James

Assistant Attorney General