FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Murray Renshaw, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-419 | |
|
New London Development Corporation, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
April 10, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 1, 2001, 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.
The respondent is a
public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated
August 27, 2001 to the respondent, the complainant requested copies of:
a.
policies and
procedures used by the New London Development Corporation (hereinafter “the
NLDC”) to determine the amount of compensation paid to property owners whose
property was taken by eminent domain;
b.
details of any
instances in which the aforementioned policies were not followed, including
any internal memoranda, opinion letters or correspondence detailing what the
deviation was and why the deviation occurred;
c.
any and all
information relating to Mr. Hughie Devlin, the Primera Iglesia Bautista
Hispana Church, the Sonalyst Property, the Anton Property and any other
transaction where the NLDC paid more than it originally offered for the
purchase of property; and
d.
any and all
documentation including appraisals and formulas used by the NLDC which
provided more compensation to the property owners than originally offered.
3.
By letter dated
August 31, 2001 the respondent responded to the complainant’s request and
informed him that:
a.
the NLDC does not
maintain written policies and procedures that it uses to determine the amount
of compensation paid to property owners whose property is taken by eminent
domain;
b.
to the best of its
knowledge, no internal memoranda or opinion letters or correspondence
detailing deviations from this process exist;
c.
pursuant to
§1-210(b)(7), G.S., the contents of real estate appraisals are exempt from
disclosure until all property has been acquired and the NLDC does not disclose
the contents of real estate appraisals; and
d.
in response to a
previous request, copies of the agreements for Hughie’s Restaurant and
Sonalyst had been provided to him and that he could review those files again
or the files for the other two properties, Anton, and Primera Iglesia.
4.
By letter dated and
filed on September 4, 2001, the complainant appealed to this Commission
alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by failing to comply with his request.
5.
It is found that to
the extent the requested records exist, they are public records within the
meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
6.
Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that:
[e]xcept
as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records
maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records
are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records
and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records
in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the
provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights
granted by this subsection shall be void.
7.
Section 1-212(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that “any person applying in writing shall
receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record
. . . .”
8.
It is found that the
respondent is engaged in the acquisition of property in certain areas of the
city of New London for a development project.
9.
It is found that the
properties targeted for acquisition have been divided into sections and that
the properties for which the complainant seeks records are part of a section
labeled MDP-5C.
10.
It is found that
while all of the property targeted for acquisition in section MDP-5C has been
purchased by the NLDC, that section is only one part of the entire project and
as of the date of the hearing on this matter 21 properties still remain to be
purchased, nine of which were being pursued in court through eminent domain.
11.
It is found that
while the NLDC expects to have acquired all property within the next three to
five years, it has up to twenty years to complete the entire project.
12.
With respect to the
complainant’s request described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the
respondent has explained the acquisition procedure to the complainant and
informed him on more than one occasion that it does not maintain a written
policy regarding its acquisition procedures.
13.
With respect to the
complainant’s request described in paragraph 2b, above, the respondent
stated the hearing on this matter that it is not aware of any deviations from
its acquisition procedures even when such acquisition occurs through eminent
domain and it is found that the respondent does not maintain any internal
memoranda, opinion letters or correspondence detailing deviations from such
procedure.
14.
With respect to the
complainant’s request described in paragraph 2c, above, it is found that the
complainant was provided with access to all records relating to Mr. Hughie
Devlin, the Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana Church, the Sonalyst Property,
the Anton Property and provided copies of any of those records he required
copies of and that such records remain available to the complainant for his
review.
15.
With respect to the
complainant’s request described in paragraph 2d, above, it is found that
§1-210(b)(7), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act
shall require the disclosure of:
the
contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and
evaluations made for or by an agency relative to the acquisition of property
or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until such time as
all property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions have been
terminated or abandoned, provided the law of eminent domain shall nor be
affect by this provision.
16.
It is found that the
respondent provided the complainant with access to inspect and the opportunity
to copy the purchase and sales agreement (which included the final value
agreed upon by the NLDC and the property owner) with respect to all property
acquired by the NLDC for the project.
17.
It is found however
that the complainant sought access to inspect and copy records that disclose
the specific details of how the NLDC and the property owners in section MDP-5C
reached their agreement.
18.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainant argued that the exemption found in §1-210(b)(7),
G.S., does not apply to the appraisal records of the property in section
MDP-5C because all of the property in that section has been purchased and all
transactions with respect to that portion of the development project are
complete.
19.
At the hearing on
this matter, the respondent argued that while all of the property in section
MDP-5C has been acquired, that section is only a small portion of the entire
development project. The respondent argued that the exemption applies to the
entire acquisition process and in this case, would include the 21 remaining
properties that have yet to be acquired.
The respondent also argued that disclosure of any of the real estate
appraisal records, could affect the purchase price of those properties that
remain to be purchased, a result that §1-210(b)(7), G.S., is designed to
avoid.
20.
It is found that,
based on the facts and circumstances of this case, all of the property that
has been targeted for acquisition by the respondent pursuant to the entire
development project constitutes “all property” within the meaning of
§1-210(b)(7), G.S.
21.
It is found that the
respondent has not acquired “all property” in connection with the entire
development project.
22.
It is concluded,
therefore, that the exemption found in §1-210(b)(7), G.S., is applicable and
that the respondent did not violate §1-210 and 1-212, G.S., when it denied
the complainant’s request for access to inspect and copies of the contents
of the real estate appraisals.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 10, 2002.
_______________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
New London Development Corporation
c/o Steven D. Ecker, Esq.
750 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-419/FD/paj/4/11/2002