FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
T. Dennie Williams and The Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 89-373
City of Hartford Director of Finance,
Respondent September 26, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 8, 1990, at which time the respondent appeared but the complainants failed to appear. On March 28, 1990 the Commission granted the complainants' request that the matter be reopened. The case was then heard on May 3 and May 15, 1990, at which time the complainants 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 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on October 11, 1989, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that their request to inspect the respondent's files on a proposed Hartford convention center project had been denied.
3. It is found that the complainant Williams visited the office of the respondent on October 4, 1989 and asked to see all of the respondent's files on a proposed Hartford convention center project.
4. It is found that on October 6, 1989 the respondent provided the complainant Williams with access to most of the files, and denied him access to two files that pertained to land acquisition, appraisals of a proposed convention center site, and ongoing negotiations with a developer and potential purchaser of city-owned property in connection with the convention center.
5. It is found that, with respect to the contents of the two disputed files as a whole, the respondent determined that the public interest in withholding the contents of the files clearly outweighed the public interest in disclosing them.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 2
6. At the hearing, the parties narrowed their dispute to thirteen documents from the two files described above, which the respondent submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection.
7. It is concluded that the thirteen documents are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
8. It is found that Document #1 is a development proposal dated May 12, 1987 from Gateway Partners to the City of Hartford Redevelopment Agency for a parcel of land owned by the City of Hartford.
9. It is found that Document #1 consists of the following parts:
a. "Section 1," consisting of a transmittal letter and a copy of a City of Hartford file memorandum dated March 27, 1987;
b. "Section 2," consisting of a description of the general partners comprising the developer;
c. "Section 3," denoted "Plans" and consisting of a reference to enclosed exhibits (which exhibits were not included with the copy of Document #1 submitted to the Commission);
d. "Section 4," estimating the costs of development;
e. "Section 5," denoted "Financing" and consisting a reference to an enclosed exhibit, and a copy of a letter dated May 7, 1987 concerning financing;
f. "Section 6," denoted "Government Assistance" and containing a sentence regarding government assistance for the proposed development;
g. "Section 7," consisting of a pre-construction activity schedule;
h. "Section 8," describing employment opportunities in the completed development;
i. "Section 9," denoted "Alternative Development: Other Information and Pertinent Data;" and
j. "Section 10," consisting of declarations of whether the developer is delinquent in any payments, has any outstanding housing or building code violations, or is in violation of any agreements with the City of Hartford.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 3
10. The respondent maintains that Document #1 is exempt from disclosure by virtue of 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) and 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
11. It is found that, taken as a whole, Document #1 is a completed and final version of a development proposal, not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
12. It is also found that the respondent's claims of exemption under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) and 1-19(b)(7), G.S., must be evaluated with respect to the separate components of Document #1, as described in paragraph 9, above.
13. It is found that the first two full paragraphs of the May 12, 1987 letter within Section 1 of Document #1, consisting of lines 7 through 16, describe the nature, size, components and total estimated development cost of Gateway's proposal.
14. It is found that the remainder of the May 12, 1987 letter, line 20 through the closing, recites the history of the relationship between Gateway and the City.
15. It is found that the May 12, 1987 letter described in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
16. It is found that the May 12, 1987 letter does not contain commercial or financial information given in confidence within the meaning of 1-19(b)(5), G.S.
17. It is also found that the May 12, 1987 letter does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
18. It is concluded that the May 12, 1987 letter is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
19. It is found that the memorandum to file dated March 27, 1987 within Document #1 recites points of understanding reached in a meeting of City and Redevelopment Agency administrators concerning planning issues pertaining to the development of the City-owned property.
20. It is found that the memorandum described in paragraph 19, above, is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
21. It is found that the memorandum described in paragraph 19, above, does not contain confidential commercial or financial information.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 4
22. It is also found that the memorandum described in paragraph 19, above, does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
23. It is concluded that the memorandum described in paragraph 19, above, is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
24. It is found that Section 2 of Document #1 describes the general partners of Gateway, giving their names, addresses, professional and political backgrounds, and business--especially real estate--activities.
25. It is found that none of the information contained in Section 2 of Document #1 details any intrinsically confidential commercial or financial information.
26. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that any of the information contained in Section 2 of Document #1 was in fact given in confidence.
27. It is found that Section 2 of Document #1 is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
28. It is also found that Section 2 of Document #1 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
29. It is concluded that Section 2 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
30. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that Section 3 of Document #1 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
31. It is concluded that Section 3 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
32. It is found that Section 4 of Document #1 estimates the hard, soft and land acquisition costs of the components of Gateway's proposed development.
33. It is found that Section 4 of Document #1 is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
34. It is also found that none of the information contained in Section 4 of Document #1 constitutes intrinsically confidential commercial or financial information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(5), G.S.
35. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that any of the information contained in Section 4 of Document #1 was in fact given in confidence.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 5
36. It is also found that Section 4 of Document #1 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibilty estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7).
37. It is concluded that Section 4 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
38. It is found that Section 5 of Document #1 is a completed letter, not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
39. It is also found that Section 5 of Document #1 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
40. It is found that Section 5 of Document #1 is addressed "To Whom It May Concern" and recites in general terms a certain bank's opinion of the Gateway partners as customers of the bank and businessmen generally, and the bank's position regarding the financing of the project.
41. It is found that none of the information contained in Section 5 of Document #1 details any intrinsically confidential commercial or financial information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(5), G.S.
42. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that Section 5 of Document #1 was given in confidence.
43. It is concluded that Section 5 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
44. It is found that the substance of Section 6 of Document #1 is a single sentence stating Gateway's requirements concerning governmental assistance.
45. It is concluded that Section 6 of Document #1 is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
46. It is found that none of the information contained in Section 6 of Document #1 details any intrinsically confidential commercial or financial information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(5), G.S.
47. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that Section 6 of Document #1 was given in confidence.
48. It is also found that Section 6 of Document #1 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 6
49. It is concluded that Section 6 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
50. It is found that Section 7 of Document #1 is a pre-construction schedule.
51. It is found that Section 7 of Document #1 is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
52. It is found that none of the information contained in Section 7 of Document #1 details any intrinsically confidential commercial or financial information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(5), G.S.
53. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that Section 7 of Document #1 was given in confidence.
54. It is also found that Section 7 of Document #1 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
55. It is concluded that Section 7 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
56. It is found that Section 8 of Document #1 describes employment opportunities in the completed development.
57. It is found that Section 8 of Document #1 is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1).
58. It is also found that none of the information contained in Section 8 of Document #1 details any intrinsically confidential commercial or financial information.
59. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that Section 8 of Document #1 was given in confidence.
60. It is also found that Section 8 of Document #1 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
61. It is concluded that Section 8 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7).
62. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that Section 9 of Document #1 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
63. It is concluded that Section 9 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 7
64. It is found that Section 10 of Document #1 is not a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1).
65. It is also found that none of the information contained in Section 10 of Document #1 details any intrinsically confidential commercial or financial information.
66. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that Section 10 of Document #1 was given in confidence.
67. It is also found that Section 10 of Document #1 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
68. It is concluded that Section 10 of Document #1 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), 1-19(b)(5) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
69. It is found that Document #2 evaluates the necessity, desirability and feasibility of certain conditions and requirements regarding price, deadlines, design, parking and financing of both the proposed convention center and the related acquisition by Gateway of City-owned property.
70. It is concluded that Document #2 is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
71. It is found that Document #3 consists of a cover letter dated March 21, 1988 and a memorandum dated March 7, 1988.
72. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the cover letter dated March 21, 1988 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
73. It is concluded that the cover letter dated March 21, 1988 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
74. It is found that the memorandum dated March 7, 1988 is an evaluation of a market and financial analysis for a proposed convention hotel in the City.
75. It is concluded that the memorandum dated March 7, 1988 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
76. It is found that Document #4 is preliminary draft of the terms of a contract between Gateway and the City.
77. It is concluded that Document #4 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
78. It is found that Document #5 is also a preliminary draft of the terms of a contract between Gateway and the City.
79. It is concluded that Document #5 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1).
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 8
80. It is found that Document #6 evaluates the acquisition of City-owned property by Gateway in connection with a proposed convention center in terms of uses, constraints, marketability, design, parking, financing and development teams.
81. It is concluded that Document #6 is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
82. It is found that Document #7 is a preliminary draft of the contract terms between Gateway and the City.
83. It is concluded that Document #7 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
84. It is found that Document #8 is a preliminary draft of the contract terms between Gateway and the City.
85. It is concluded that Document #8 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
86. It is found that Document #9 is a letter dated June 23, 1989 describing the General Assembly's action on a bill creating the Connecticut Convention Center Authority, and requesting that the contract between Gateway and the City be amended in accordance with a memorandum originally enclosed with the letter, but not part of Document #9 as submitted to the Commission.
87. It is found that Document #9 does not contain the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
88. It is concluded that Document #9 is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
89. It is found that Document #10 consists of three pages of handwritten notes made by the respondent to himself prior to a meeting with Gateway.
90. It is concluded that Document #10 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
91. It is found that Document #11 consists of an interdepartmental routing slip, two pages of handwritten notes on the draft contract for the sale of the City-owned parcel, a cover letter dated September 11, 1989, and a copy of a draft of the purchase and sale contract for the City-owned parcel.
92. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the routing slip described in paragraph 91 above is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
93. It is concluded that the routing slip described in paragraph 91 above is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 9
94. It is concluded that the two pages of handwritten notes described in paragraph 91 above are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
95. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the cover letter described in paragraph 91 above is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
96. It is concluded that the cover letter described in paragraph 91 above is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1) or 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
97. It is concluded that the draft of the contract described in paragraph 91, above, is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
98. It is found that Document #12 consists of an appraisal report of a City-owned parcel which Gateway proposed to acquire.
99. It is concluded that Document #12 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
100. It is found that Document #13 consists of an interdepartmental routing slip and a memorandum to file dated June 21, 1989 concerning the schedule of events following the execution of the contract for sale of the City-owned parcel.
101. It is found that the memorandum in Document #13 recites terms of the draft contract described in paragraph 91, above.
102. It is concluded that the memorandum described in paragraph 100, above is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
103. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the routing slip described in paragraph 100, above, is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1) or 1-19(b)(7).
104. It is concluded that the routing slip described in paragraph 100, above, is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1) or 1-19(b)(7).
105. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to disclose, promptly upon request, those records and portions of records concluded herein not to be exempt from disclosure.
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 10
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant copies of the records and portions of records concluded herein not to be exempt from disclosure.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 26, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-373 Page 11
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:
T. DENNIE WILLIAMS AND THE HARTFORD COURANT
285 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06115
CITY OF HARTFORD DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
c/o H. Maria Cone, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission