The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 41 of 42
-
James A. Gasecki, Sheriffs' Advisory Board, 1994-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In your letter of March 15, 1994, you indicate that in two lawsuits, Kennedy St. George v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00587(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and Lewis v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00593(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, the Attorney General's Office has advised the High Sheriff of Fairfield County and several persons in his department that it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General's Office to continue to represent them in those cases. Consequently, on behalf of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board you have asked for legal advice on the following question: Does the Sheriff's Advisory Board have authority to appropriate funds for the defense of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs in lawsuits brought against them in their individual capacities after the Attorney General has determined that providing a defense would be inappropriate pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether "it would be possible for the Milford and Hartford Jai Alai to be the subject of wagering at off-track betting (OTB) facilities."
-
At the close of the last Legislative session, you posed a number of questions about the Memorandum of Understanding executed by Governor Weicker and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe relating to the operation of video facsimile machines at the Foxwoods Casino on the Tribe's reservation in Ledyard.
-
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.
-
Hon. John G. Rowland, Executive Chambers, 1995-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
We have received your letters of February 8, 1995, soliciting our opinion on issues concerning temporary gubernatorial appointments arising from the application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-7(b)(2). Specifically, you both ask whether a "designate" under § 4-7(b)(2) must be sworn in pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 before exercising the powers and duties of the office.
-
You have requested our opinion on whether the owner of an unimproved parcel of land abutting a state highway must obtain a certificate of operation from the State Traffic Commission ("STC") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-311 in order to operate a so-called "flea market" on the land.
-
You have asked this office to determine whether the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) must reimburse the Town of Brookfield for exemptions granted to Fairfield Resources, Inc. (FRI), given that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has determined that FRI is operating illegally, and given that FRI operated in violation of a cease and desist order from October, 1993 until January, 1994.
-
Your office requested our opinion on four questions arising out of audits of municipalities and nonprofit entities conducted pursuant to the State Single Audit Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-230 et seq. (the "Act"). The Act establishes a uniform annual single audit procedure for recipients of combined federal and state financial assistance. The Act eliminates duplicate audits required under other state laws and regulations.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the Department of Liquor Control is authorized to issue a package store permit in the Town of Bozrah under the package store ratio law, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-14a.
-
Your office presented us with the following two questions relating to Section 51 of 1994 Conn. Pub. Act No. 94-4 of the May Special Session now codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-62h: 1) Is a municipality required to revalue all real property for property tax purposes by taking all the normal and necessary actions involved in the revaluation of real property, before its legislative body may vote to stay the implementation of said revaluation? 2) Does this legislation allow a municipality to defer beginning the process of revaluation until after the conclusion of the 1995 session of the General Assembly?
-
You have requested our opinion as to whether the State Insurance Purchasing Board (the "Board") has authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4a-20 to make payment on a premium for a surety bond purchased directly by the Treasurer.
-
You have asked for an opinion regarding whether the payments for educational and other services which the Board of Education and Services for the Blind ("BESB") makes for the benefit of blind or visually impaired students and blind or visually impaired students with additional disabilities, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295(a) and (b), respectively, are discretionary expenditures or in the nature of mandatory entitlements.
-
You have asked for an opinion regarding the Board of Education and Services for the Blind's ("BESB") reimbursement to towns, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295, for certain special education instructional and service costs for special education students who are blind or visually impaired. In particular, you have indicated that while the statute places yearly monetary limits on the amount BESB may reimburse towns per student for such costs, due to billing and paperwork delays, reimbursements owed to towns have gone into arrears in recent years. Further, you have indicated that in dealing with this statutory reimbursement scheme, BESB has switched from a cash to an accrual basis of accounting, and you now wish to know whether, consistent with the statutory amount limitations, actual reimbursement payments to towns in a given year may exceed the statutory limits, provided the costs being reimbursed accrued within the yearly statutory limits per child.