The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1992 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 3
-
You have requested our advice on whether the provisions of the Connecticut Fire Safety Code, the Connecticut State Building Code and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-315, with regards to automatic fire extinguishing systems, preempt the field so as to preclude local ordinances on the subject.
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion of the Attorney General, submitted in your capacity as Chairman of the Commission For Child Support Guidelines, on the following two questions: (1) Whether the child support guidelines, promulgated on January 1, 1991, are subject to the legislative review provisions of Public Act 91-209; and (2) Whether the January 1, 1991 child support guidelines, and all future guidelines, are subject to the rule-making procedures under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.
-
In your letter of June 5, 1992, you requested our opinion regarding the validity of certain legislation proposed by the Department Of Income Maintenance (DIM). That legislation would require any recipient, or any attorney representing such an individual, who initiates a legal action against a third party for recovery of medical expenses, to report the filing of that suit to the Department of Income Maintenance.
-
You have requested our advice on two questions: (1) Whether under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-19a(a), a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) grant is payable to a town for a correctional facility if such facility is not on the town's assessment list on the preceding October 1? (2) Whether Public Act No. 91-79, applies to towns that conducted revaluations prior to October 1, 1990 and currently are phasing in such revaluations?
-
This letter is in response to your memorandum of August 4, 1992, in which you requested our opinion concerning the meaning and enforcement of Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-112. We understand from the correspondence which you provided with your memorandum that you have requested information and documentation from the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") concerning the agency's processing of state income tax refunds. In particular, you have requested information concerning the numbers of refunds processed, when they were processed, how they were processed and the estimated number of refunds still pending. You have also inquired into possible reasons for any delays including any instructions which the agency may have given or received to delay the refund process or to separate refunds based on their face amount, and any hardware or software problems which may have occurred.
-
In your letter of February 27, 1992, you posed the question whether the filing of an annual report by a trustee under mortgage may be waived by the Banking Commissioner.
-
Robert Werner, Division Of Special Revenue, 1992-034 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have sought the advice of this office relating to the operation of an off-track betting system in the State of Connecticut. Specifically, you inquire whether, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-167a(b), the operation of "an OTB betting branch facility in the Hartford Jai Alai Fronton would violate the proscription against locating a 'Facility' within 35 miles of the location of the Teletheater in the Town of Windsor Locks ... ?"
-
Robert Werner, Division of Special Revenue, 1992-025 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
At the direction of the Gaming Policy Board, you1 seek the opinion of this office as to "whether the division, with the advice and consent of the Board, has the authority under existing legislation to contract with a private entity to assume the operational duties of the OTB system."
-
We are writing in response to your February 25, 1992, and February 27, 1992, requests for an Opinion on the constitutionality of proposed measures before the General Assembly which would impose durational residency requirements upon persons seeking General Assistance welfare benefits in the State of Connecticut. Specifically, you ask: 1) whether the State may deny General Assistance benefits to persons not satisfying a durational residency requirement; 2) whether the State may restrict General Assistance benefits for newcomers to a lower level of support than is available to longer term residents of Connecticut; and 3) whether any such restriction tied to the level of welfare support available in newcomers' previous states of domicile, is permissible.
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the confidentiality of information that the Department maintains on individuals with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and hepatitis B.
-
This letter is in response to your request, dated June 10, 1992, for our opinion concerning access by researchers to identifiable bail commission information.
-
You have requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether you have the authority to provide state reimbursement to a town that fails to meet the requirement that two-thirds of the employable general assistance recipients participate in a work or education program in accordance with § 17-281a(a). Conn.Gen.Stat. § 17-281a(f); § 17-292.
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the question whether municipalities of this state may utilize the services of an independent contractor, such as a collection agency, to aid municipal officials in collecting delinquent taxes.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue must conduct a hearing, under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), prior to revoking a lottery agent's license1 for failure to meet pre-established minimum sales levels for on-line and instant lottery ticket sales.2 Specifically, you inquire as to whether a lottery license is a "license" as that term is contemplated by the UAPA. We also understand that a question is raised as to the practical need for a hearing inasmuch as evidence of sales levels is documented and, presumably, incontestable.
-
By memo dated January 27, 1992 you requested an opinion from this office on whether state law can be construed to allow the Governor the option to not implement ("trigger off") an otherwise operable extended unemployment compensation benefit program (EB) should unemployment continue to rise to a certain level in this state. The purpose of this option is to allow the state's unemployed to be subject solely to a federally-funded emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) program. You also ask, assuming such a construction is allowable, whether the Governor may delegate the authority to "trigger off" state EB, as well as the authority to make all necessary contractual arrangements with the U.S. Department of Labor for administration of the EUC program, to the Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 31-250.