However, the statute does not require agencies to provide such information for other properties that are part of the project. It found that RCW 8.26.180(3), which relates to acquisitions for public works projects, requires an agency to provide appraisal information to property owners for their property. The Washington Court of Appeals held that the appraisals were properly withheld pursuant to RCW 42.56.260(1)(a). The property owner sued, claiming that the withheld records were not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA). The disputed redactions involved appraisals and sale price information under RCW 42.56.260(1) which applies to certain information relating to agency real estate transactions. In response, the City produced 2,685 documents, some of which were redacted. Legal counsel for one of the property owners filed a public records request with the City seeking settlement agreements, purchase offers, purchase and sale agreements and purchase offers made in connection with the project. Pursuant to state and federal law, prior to commencing negotiations, the City was required to obtain appraisals to determine the fair market value of the properties to be acquired. City of Poulsbo () – The City of Poulsbo (City) needed to acquire real property from property owners for a road improvement project. The court held the penalty to be inadequate in light of the circumstances and constituted a manifest abuse of discretion.Ĭity properly exempted real estate appraisal documents and redacted sales price information with respect to property acquired for a road improvement project.Įkelmann v. The case also addressed the adequacy of the daily penalty, noting that the reviewing court does not exercise discretion but instead determines if the trial court abused its discretion when determining the penalty. Eventually providing the records did not cure the constructive denial in this case. Cantu’s records requests as it was not diligently working on the requests (it failed to provide a 5-day response, it missed its estimated compliance date, it provided no communication for a month and a half, it provided false information that the records office was closed for the summer, and it provided an empty Google directory to the requestor). And, the court held the District effectively denied Ms. Rather, the court held that an agency’s inaction, or lack of diligence in providing a prompt response to a PRA request, can ripen into constructive denial. The court disagreed with the District’s position that an agency must affirmatively deny a request before a cause of action for wrongful denial accrues. Cantu’s Aprequest amounted to a constructive denial of records. The court next considered whether the District’s response to Ms. The court held the search was inadequate as the District failed to search for a specific term used in the request and failed to use search techniques to locate alternative word forms, thereby unreasonable narrowing the search. The court next considered the adequacy of the District’s search in response to Ms. The appellate court agreed with the District’s interpretation. Cantu argued the use of the “slash” symbol created ambiguity and the words may be used in the alternative. Cantu’s October 2016 request for “All incidences/incident reports where was a victim of bullying, threats, harassment, etc.” The District interpreted this as a request for incident reports, whereas Ms. The court then reviewed the District’s response to Ms. The appellate court reviews PRA cases de novo. If facts are not in dispute, either party may move for summary judgment. The court first noted that several procedures are available for determining the merits of a PRA claim: (1) a show cause hearing (to determine if any agency has wrongfully denied a request or provided an unreasonable time estimate), which can be decided on the affidavits and where the agency carries the burden to establish its actions were reasonable and in compliance with the PRA and (2) other normal civil procedures, such as intervention, declaratory judgement and writ. Dissatisfied with the District’s response to her PRA requests, Cantu filed suit under the PRA. Cantu’s (a parent of a child in the Yakima School District) multiple Public Records Act (PRA) requests submitted to the Yakima School District. The school district violated the PRA by failing to conduct an adequate search and by constructively denying a records request due to its inaction in responding to the request.Ĭantu v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |