Utility Management Group, LLC v. Pike County Fiscal Court
2015 SC 000680
| Ky. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Utility Management Group, LLC (UMG), a private LLC, contracted beginning in 2005 to operate Mountain Water District (a public water district) and was paid millions annually; UMG also contracted with the City of Pikeville.
- A 2011 audit raised questions about the District/UMG relationship; Pike County Fiscal Court requested UMG business records in March 2011 under Kentucky's Open Records Act.
- UMG refused, claiming it was a wholly private entity; the Kentucky Attorney General opined (11-ORD-143) that UMG met KRS 61.870(1)(h)’s definition of a “public agency” because it derived ≥25% of funds from state/local authority funds.
- UMG sued in Pike Circuit Court; while the case was pending the legislature amended KRS 61.870(1)(h) (effective July 12, 2012) to exclude funds received under contracts awarded through a public competitive procurement process.
- The circuit court applied the amendment retroactively (and found the statute vague); the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 2012 amendment was not retroactive, “body” includes private entities like UMG, and the 1994 statute was not unconstitutionally vague.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: UMG was subject to the Open Records Act at the time of the 2011 request, the 2012 amendment is substantive (not retroactive), and the 1994 statute is constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UMG is a "body" subject to KRS 61.870(1)(h) (i.e., a public agency) | Pike County: UMG derives virtually all funds from public agencies and thus meets the ≥25% test and is subject to disclosure | UMG: "body" refers only to governmental/public bodies, not private companies | Court: "body" can include private entities that derive ≥25% of funds from state/local authority funds; UMG was a public agency under the 1994 statute |
| Whether the 2012 amendment to KRS 61.870(1)(h) applies retroactively to the 2011 request | UMG: amendment clarifies law and is remedial, so it should apply retroactively and exempt UMG | Pike County: presumption against retroactivity; amendment is substantive and cannot be applied to requests made before its effective date | Court: amendment is substantive (removes coverage for certain contractors) and not retroactive; 2011 request governed by pre-amendment law |
| Whether the 1994 version of KRS 61.870(1)(h) is unconstitutionally vague or unintelligible | UMG: terms like "body" and "state or local authority funds" are undefined and render statute vague | Pike County: statutory language is understandable in context; legislative intent can be discerned | Court: statute is sufficiently intelligible; presumption of constitutionality applies; 1994 statute valid |
| Whether Pike County's right to inspect vested at time of initial request | Pike County: right vests on statutory request and denial, entitling it to records and potential remedies | UMG: (implied) no vested right because law changed later or request was overbroad | Court: right vests at the time of the original request and denial (March 2011); award and remedies governed by law in effect at that time |
Key Cases Cited
- Shawnee Telecom Res., Inc. v. Brown, 354 S.W.3d 542 (Ky. 2011) (statutory construction principles; read statute as a whole)
- Comm. Dept. of Agriculture v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000) (presumption against retroactive application of statutory amendments)
- Moore v. Stills, 307 S.W.3d 71 (Ky. 2010) (distinguishing remedial amendments that may be retroactive from substantive ones)
- Bd. of Trustees of the Judicial Form Ret. Sys. v. Atty Gen. of Commonwealth, 132 S.W.3d 770 (Ky. 2003) (void-for-unintelligibility doctrine and separation-of-powers concerns)
- Curd v. Ky. State Bd. of Licensure, 433 S.W.3d 291 (Ky. 2014) (statutes presumed constitutional)
- Kentucky Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Jeffers, 13 S.W.3d 606 (Ky. 2000) (definition of remedial amendment)
- Folks v. Barren Cty., 232 S.W.2d 1010 (Ky. 1950) (courts should not legislate when statute is unintelligible)
- Ten Broeck DuPont, Inc. v. Brooks, 283 S.W.3d 705 (Ky. 2009) (appellate review limited to issues raised below)