FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Al Daigle,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 91-241

 

Marlborough First Selectman and Marlborough Association for Senior Housing,

 

                                Respondents                        February 26, 1992

 

                The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing on September 30, 1991, at which time the complainant failed to appear and the complaint was dismissed.  Subsequently, the matter was reopened and heard as a contested case on November 12, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

                After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

                1.  By letter of complaint filed September 5, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent had failed to provide him with certain requested financial records.

 

                2.  It is found that the complainant made several requests for financial records within the jurisdictional time period of thirty days prior to the date the complaint was filed.

 

                3.             It is found that the sole issue for decision in this case is whether the respondent association (MASH, hereinafter) is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                4.             It is found that on August 8, 1979, a certificate of incorporation as a non-profit corporation was filed by MASH  under 8-217, G.S. for the purpose of providing housing for elderly residents of Marlborough.

 

                5.             It is found that on November 11, 1979 MASH applied for federal assistance from the Farmers' Home Administration Program.

 

                6.  It is found that the application described at paragraph 5 was denied, and that the denial included these reasons:

 

#FIC 91-241                                           Page Two

 

                (a) the proposed elderly housing was improperly restricted to Marlborough residents; and

 

                (b) MASH lacked the requisite experience to carry out and operate the project.

 

                7.             It is found that on July 21, 1981, MASH received its designation under  8-217 and 8-218, G.S., from the board of selectmen of Marlborough as the town's community housing development corporation.

 

                8.             It is found that on October 29, 1981, MASH amended its certificate of incorporation to establish:

 

                (a)           the purpose of the corporation is to provide housing for eligible elderly and handicapped persons; and

 

                (b)           in the event of the dissolution of the corporation, all assets, after the payment of liabilities, would be returned to the agencies which had provided the funding (the town of Marlborough and the state).

 

                9.             It is found that on July 7, 1986 the town of Marlborough approved an appropriation of $75,000 for MASH to buy land for its elderly housing project.

 

                10.           It is found on July 31, 1987, in connection with advice concerning a question regarding an alleged conflict of interest, the town counsel advised the president of MASH that "although MASH is technically not a housing authority for Marlborough, it seeks status tantamount to that, and its activities vis-a-vis funding, grant applications and tax relief make it a defacto housing authority in the town."

 

                11.           It is found that on October 6, 1987 a resolution was adopted at a town meeting with these features:

 

                (a)           it appropriated $60,000 to be advanced, without interest, to MASH for use in the development of its elderly housing project;

 

                (b)           it authorized the execution of a cooperation agreement with MASH:;

 

                (c)           it provided a tax abatement for MASH pursuant to 8-215, G.S.; and

 

#FIC 91-241                                           Page Three

 

                (d)           it provided for waiver of all building and inspection fees, and permit fees for MASH.

 

                12.           It is found that the town of Marlborough and MASH did enter into a cooperation agreement that provided for:

 

                (a)           abatement of property taxes, special assessments, building and inspection fees, and

 

                (b)           full accounting from MASH regarding all advance funding expenditures, to include but not be limited to a copy of the project financing plan and development budget and quarterly reports on expenditures for the project.

 

                13.           It is found that MASH expects to receive a $2.5 million grant from the Connecticut Department of Housing for the construction of rental homes for the elderly under the conditions specified in the General Statutes at in Chapter 129, Connecticut Housing Authority Housing Projects, and Chapter 133, Housing, Redevelopment and Urban Renewal and Human Resource Development Programs.

 

                14.           It is concluded that MASH meets three of the four criteria advanced in Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOIC, 181 Conn. 544 (1980):  (a) it receives most, if not all of its funding from government;  (b) it is regulated by and closely involved with government; and (c) it performs a governmental function.

 

                15.           It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent MASH is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

                1.             The respondent MASH shall provide the complainant with copies of the financial records requested by him during August, 1991, within two weeks of the date of mailing the final decision in this matter.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 1992.

 

                                                                              

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

#FIC 91-241                                           Page Four

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

Al Daigle

173 South Main Street

Marlborough, CT 06447

 

Marlborough First Selectman

c/o Attorney Eugene Scalise, Jr.

Sherwood, Tillinghast & Scalise

Glen Lochen East

P.O. Box 595

41A New London Turnpike

Glastonbury, CT 06033

 

Marlborough Association for Senior Housing

c/o Attorney John H. Goodrich, Jr.

Gordon, Muir and Foley

Hartford Square North

10 Columbus Boulevard

Hartford, CT 06106-1944

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission