The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1990 Formal Opinions
Page 3 of 3
-
In your letter of October 12, 1990, you posed several questions regarding the property tax relief program in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d. From discussions with your staff, we have been informed that the only question which we need answer concerns the proper interpretation of l989 Conn. Pub. Acts 89-251, e 192(h)(2), codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2).
-
You have requested an opinion on the following questions: l. Does legislation which changes the terms and conditions of loan forgiveness programs apply to borrowers who signed promissory notes prior to the enactment of such legislation? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, under what circumstances may the terms of the promissory notes be changed; and 3. Which of the changes made in the l986 legislation would apply to pre-l986 borrowers; and 4. For those provisions which do apply, what is the effective date for applying the changed provisions.
-
By memoranda dated October 20, 1989, you asked for a formal opinion on whether there are any statutes which prohibit towns from imposing "special exception" zoning permit requirements on family day care homes that are registered by the Department of Human Resources.
-
You have requested our advice concerning the types of accounts that are available for deposit of funds pursuant to section 51-81c of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended by Public Act 89-196. Section 51-81c established the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts program ("IOLTA").
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion from this office regarding the constitutionality of provisions of the proposed interstate banking bill which would set interest rate caps on credit cards as a condition of entry by out-of-state bank holding companies, out-of-state savings and loan holding companies, out-of-state banks, out-of-state savings banks, and out-of-state savings and loan associations.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion dated January 10, 1990, regarding whether vacant parcels qualify for inclusion under the Private College and General Hospital Grant Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-20a, which provides municipalities with a grant in lieu of property taxes for certain educational and medical facilities located in such municipalities which provide regional and statewide benefits.
-
In your letter of December 20, l989 you requested our opinion on the validity of actions taken at a meeting of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women [hereinafter Commission] which was held in a location other than that specified in the notice of regular meeting distributed by the Commission Chairperson.
-
By letter dated December 1, 1989 on behalf of the State Employees Retirement Commission, you asked whether the arbitration award between the state and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC), which was approved by the General Assembly on October 12, 1989, extends the retirement incentive provisions of Public Act No. 89-323 ("Act") to certain categories of employees in hazardous duty job classifications who had twenty years of such service on or before July 1, 1989 and became eligible for retirement as of that date as a result of provisions in the arbitration award which had an effective date of July 1, 1988.
-
Hon. Francisco L. Borges, State Treasurer, 1990-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested our advice with reference to an investment of twenty-five million dollars from five State retirement funds1 which you made in entities which acquired assets comprising the Firearms Division of Colt Industries, Inc. You question whether, due to the size of the investment and the participants, a notice filing with the Federal Trade Commission must be made under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Anti-Trust Improvement Act of l976, codified at l5 U.S.C. e l8a(a). Specifically, you ask whether this transaction falls under the exemption for a state, l5 U.S.C. e l8a(c)(4).
-
In a letter to our office from your predecessor, our advice is requested on the authority of the codes and standards committee to review the actions of the state building inspector taken pursuant to General Statutes e 29-200.
-
In your letter dated June 1, 1990, you requested the opinion of this office as to whether any person designated by you as a serving officer to collect money owed the Unemployment Compensation Fund would be entitled to a statutory right of indemnification. Specifically you inquire as to whether there is a right to indemnification from financial loss and expense from the state for any negligence or civil rights violations arising from such a person's actions while functioning as a serving officer.
-
In a letter dated May 29, 1990, you request our advice on the effect of 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-255 e4(c) on the plan review application and permit procedures and issuance of certificates of occupancy sections of the Connecticut State Building Code. Your questions appear to be directed primarily at the scope of the independent engineering consultant review required by 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-255.
-
You have asked us whether l989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-322, "An Act Concerning Liability of Corporate Directors" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), applies to banking institutions and credit unions organized under Title 36 of the General Statutes, "The Banking Law of Connecticut."