FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Anthony and Rose Lillo and Orange Decorating Service, d/b/a ARM Co.,

Complainants,

against Docket #FIC 88-401

Orange Tax Assessor, Orange Town Attorney and Town of Orange,

Respondents July 12, 1989

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 16, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. It is found that sometime in September 1988 the complainants requested the respondent provide them with access to records of the property tax paid in 1986, 1987 and 1988 for four pieces of office equipment which the complainants lease.

3. It is found that the respondent denied the complainants' request.

4. It is found that by letter dated September 29, 1988, the complainants appealed to the Commission.

5. The respondent claims that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(5), G.S.

6. The Commission takes administrative notice of its Advisory Opinion #69.

7. It is found that the information the complainants seek is available only indirectly by multiplying the assessed value of each piece of equipment by the relevant tax rate.

8. It is found that the assessed values of the office equipment are recorded only on forms submitted in confidence to the respondent by the owner of the equipment.

Docket #FIC 88-401 Page Two

9. It is found that no statute requires the property owner to submit to the respondent assessments for the individual pieces of equipment.

10. It is further found that the assessed values are information of a commercial or financial nature.

11. Thus it is concluded that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(5), G.S., as commercial or financial information given in confidence, not required by statute.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

ANTHONY AND ROSE LILLO AND ORANGE DECORATING SERVICE, D/B/A ARM CO., 378 Boston Post Road, P.O. Box 1025, Orange, CT 06477

ORANGE TAX ASSESSOR, ORANGE TOWN ATTORNEY AND TOWN OF ORANGE, c/o William Fish, Esquire, Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, CityPlace, 35th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 12, 1989.

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission