Complainant alleged that the City violated the APRA when it failed to respond to his APRA request. The uncontroverted evidence indicated that the City had timely requested an extension. Similar to Koutsogiane v. Cumberland Fire District, PR 16-40, while the Complainant had received the City's extension prior to filing the instant complaint – and thus could have raised the sufficiency of the extension in his complaint – the complaint took no issue with the City's exercise of an extension. As such, we found that the City did not violate the APRA because it did timely respond to the Complainant's APRA request, namely by asserting an extension.
