The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1994 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
You have requested an opinion as to whether proposed legislation regulating hospitals' net revenues, imposing taxes related to the provision of hospital services, and appropriating funds for Medicaid disproportionate share payments to hospitals is likely to be preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") because the amended statutes may "relate to" ERISA plans.
-
In your letter of May 20, 1994, you inquired whether the State of Connecticut should continue to require car rental companies to be licensed as sellers of gasoline. You explained that some car rental agencies require their customers to return the vehicles with a particular amount of gasoline. If the vehicles are not returned with the requisite amount of gasoline, the agencies will provide gasoline from their own pumps and will charge the customers for the gasoline.
-
This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.
-
We are writing in response to your request for a legal opinion regarding the "accessibility" of income and assets of the Hutterian Brethren in Connecticut, Inc., a Connecticut nonstock corporation, to its individual members. You report that many Hutterians (including families, the elderly, pregnant woman, and young children) are currently receiving medical assistance benefits under the state's Title XIX Medicaid Program from the Department of Social Services (DSS). Specifically you ask: 1. What amount of income of the Brethren is available to its individual members? 2. What amount of assets of the Brethren is available to its individual members? 3. What legal obligation does the Brethren have to financially support its members? 4. What legal obligation does the Brethren have to meet the medical needs of its individual members?
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding Public Act 94-241 ("the Act") authorizing the establishment of "enterprise corridor zones" by three or more contiguous municipalities with the approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development. Businesses located within approved enterprise corridor zones receive the same tax benefits as those located in enterprise zones.
-
You have asked for our opinion as to whether section 9 of 1993 Conn.Pub. Acts No. 93-388 applies to the payments in lieu of taxes made under Conn.Gen.Stat. 12-20a for fiscal year 1993-1994 due in September of this year.
-
This will respond to your request for advice concerning State funding for the purchase, by the Town of East Haven, of property of the Colony Beach Club. Specifically, you inquire as to whether the use of State funds for such a purchase would make the facility available for use by all Connecticut residents.
-
By letter dated July 6, 1994, your office made an inquiry pertaining to 15 of 1994 Conn. Pub. Act No. 94-6 of the May Special Session (hereinafter the "1994 Act"). The July 6, 1994 letter phrased the question as follows: Subsequent to your legal opinion of May 24, 1994, the General Assembly passed Public Act 94-6(15), copy enclosed, which provides for a definition of 'Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals' applicable retroactively to the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1993. As a result of this amendment, we respectfully request a formal opinion on the impact this revision has in relationship to the grand list year and fiscal year Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals payments should commence.
-
By letter dated April 27, 1994, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to whether the Governor had the authority to bind the State to the Gaming Compact between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Pub.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 or whether the Gaming Compact must also be submitted to the General Assembly for its approval.
-
We have received an inquiry from each of you relating to persons currently serving as justice of the peace. We first answer the Secretary's question and then that raised by the Speaker. 1. In a May 24, 1994, letter from Secretary Kezer, the Secretary inquires as to the validity of legislation providing for the extension of terms of current justices of the peace in light of Judge Dorsey's ruling in ACP v. Kezer, 2:92CV00550 (PCD) prohibiting holdover-terms after June 30, 1994. We answer that the legislation extending these terms is valid. 2. In an August 1, 1994, letter from Speaker Ritter, the Speaker asks whether "it is proper to fill vacancies which now exist" in the office of justice of the peace.
-
You have requested our advice regarding the interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-17 and regulations promulgated thereunder. These provisions require the Commissioner of Children and Families and the Commissioner of Education to jointly develop regulations to implement "a single cost accounting system" which is the system of determining payment for room, board and education to private residential treatment centers.
-
By letter dated August 17, 1993, you have asked our office as to the appropriateness of compensating a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, Gwen B. Weltman, for the period September 4, 1992 to June 3, 1993.
-
In your letter of April 26, 1994, you asked several questions concerning the responsibility of the Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") for state-owned telecommunications equipment that was stolen from a SNET truck. You have informed us that the University of Connecticut (the "University"), which owns the equipment, did not pursue a claim against SNET, and you have asked two questions: First: Does SNET have responsibility for State equipment in its custody?; and, Second: If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is there a valid c1aim against SNET? http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
-
You have asked our opinion on whether the Connecticut Historical Commission may establish gift shops in historic properties that are maintained by the Commission for the purpose of generating revenues to be used to help defray the costs associated with the operation of the properties.
-
This is in response to your letter dated June 30, 1994, in which you requested our opinion regarding whether the proposed Safety and Health Regulations, drafted pursuant to Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-228