Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utilities authority reports law-firm inspection request from Craig County Rural Water District No. 2
Summary
At its May 20 meeting, the Veneta Utilities Authority reported that a Tulsa law firm inspecting records on behalf of Craig County Rural Water District No. 2 reviewed a large set of documents; copies are being produced and a statutory copying fee of $286.75 was paid.
Veneta Utilities Authority officials told the board on May 20, 2025, that a Tulsa law firm acting for Craig County Rural Water District No. 2 inspected utility records and requested copies, and staff are providing those copies for a statutory fee.
City Administrator Bridal Prince said the open-records request ‘‘was provided to the city. Probably should have been to the Vineyard Utilities Authority,’’ and that the authority is working with a law firm on how to respond.
Prince told the authority that the request sought a large volume of records and staff had compiled what they believed to be a responsive set for inspection. ‘‘I have spent a considerable amount of time putting together what we believe in our best efforts to be, responsive to the request,’’ Prince said. He said the request required several thousand pages be made available for inspection and that the requesters inspected the files in person with counsel.
Prince said the requesters then asked for copies of portions of the records and that the city clerk is in the process of making those copies. He told the board the requesters paid $286.75, which he described as ‘‘what we're allowed to charge by statute for, making the copies.’’
The authority did not take further action at the meeting. Prince said the packet provided to board members contains the inspection request dated March 31 and that staff are making copies in case the council or the authority needs to take any later action.
Details the administrators provided—such as the exact number of pages copied and the specific law firm name—were not read into the record at the meeting and are not specified in the board packet discussed at the session.
