FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
J. Peter Fusscas,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-11
State of Connecticut Department of Transportation, Right of Way
Division,
Respondent May
25, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on February 25, 1988, 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:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated December 12, 1987, the
complainant requested copies of the following records:
a.
The real estate appraisal of the Zimmerman property located in the Town
of Andover.
b.
The real estate appraisals of other properties located in the towns of
Andover and Bolton relating to the proposed Route 6 expressway project, where
the property has been acquired or where all proceedings have been completed.
3. By letter dated December 22, 1987, the
respondent denied the complainant access to the requested records.
4. By letter of complaint dated December 31,
1987 and filed with the Commission on January 5, 1988, the complainant alleged
the respondent's failure to release the requested records violated the Freedom
of Information Act.
Docket #FIC 88-11 Page 2
5. The respondent claims the requested records
are exempt from disclosure under §§1-19(b)(4) and 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
6. It is found the respondent began acquiring
residential properties in the towns of Andover and Bolton for a proposed Route
6 expressway project around late 1985.
The proposed expressway would run from the Town of Bolton to the Town of
Willimantic.
7. It is found the respondent expects to
acquire all of the property for the Route 6 expressway project by July 1, 1988.
8. It is found the respondent acquires property
for the proposed Route 6 expressway either through a purchase agreement or an
eminent domain proceeding.
9. It is found appraisals are made on a case by
case basis and contain the methods of valuation and the valuations placed on
properties.
10. It is concluded the requested appraisals
described in paragraph 2a and 2b, above, are public records within the meaning
of §1-18a(d), G.S.
11. It is found the Zimmerman property was
condemned in January 1987 and the condemnee appealed to superior court. The respondent and the condemnee reached an
out of court settlement in August 1987.
12. With respect to the Zimmerman property, it
is found that there are no pending claims or litigation to which the respondent
is a party.
13. It also is found the Zimmerman appraisal is
not a record pertaining to strategy or negotiations with respect to pending
claims or litigation within the meaning of §1-19(b)(4), G.S.
14. It is concluded the Zimmerman appraisal is
not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(4), G.S.
15. It also is concluded the appraisals
described in paragraph 2b, above, are not exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(4), G.S., for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 12 and 13, above.
Docket #FIC 88-11 Page 3
16. Section 1-19(b)(7) of the Connecticut
General Statutes exempts from disclosure:
The contents of real estate appraisals . . . made for or
by an agency relative to the acquisition of property . . . until such time as all
of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions have been
terminated or abandoned, provided that the law of eminent domain shall not be
affected by this provision.
17. It is found the Zimmerman appraisal
constitutes a real estate appraisal made for a public agency relative to the
acquisition of property within the meaning of §1-19(b)(7), G.S.
18. It also is found that at the time of the
complainant's request for the Zimmerman appraisal the respondent had not
acquired all of the property for the proposed Route 6 expressway project within
the meaning of §1-19(b)(7), G.S.
19. It therefore is concluded the Zimmerman
appraisal is exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(7), G.S.
20. It also is concluded the appraisals
described in paragraph 2b, above, are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(7),
G.S., for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 17 and 18, above.
21. It further is concluded the respondent did
not violate §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to release the appraisals
described in parargaphs 2a and 2b, above.
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.
2. The Commission notes the exemption
enumerated in §1-19(b)(7), G.S., does not require the respondent to withhold
the requested appraisals, but merely permits it to do so. The respondent, in its discretion, may
determine whether or not to release the requested appraisals. It is the Commission's opinion that
disclosure of the requested appraisals would serve the public good.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of May 25, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission