Did a Connecticut state grant force a town-owned beach club to admit nonresidents?

Plain-English summary

In June 1994, Connecticut’s AG addressed a proposed state grant to help East Haven buy the Colony Beach Club property. He understood the funding would come through the urban development municipal grant program. That statute did not say a municipality receiving such a grant must admit all Connecticut residents to the acquired property. State funding alone therefore did not create the access requirement posed in the question.

The answer depended on the grant’s terms. The Office of Policy and Management had discretion whether to fund the project and could include a nonresident admission condition in the agreement, itself or through the agency administering it. The AG was told the Department of Environmental Protection would administer any grant and that its usual agreements included provisions on nonresident fee differentials. He concluded that, absent an agreement term requiring nonresident admission, the cited grant statute imposed none.

East Haven officials at the time

The AG found no nonresident admission duty in the statute itself. Any such duty for this acquisition could arise from the actual grant agreement.

State grant administrators and beach users at the time

The opinion recognized agency discretion to attach an admission condition. It did not say one had already been imposed for this unapproved grant.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did state money automatically open the proposed East Haven beach property to everyone in Connecticut?
A: No. The AG said the urban development grant statute contained no such requirement.

Q: Could the state make nonresident access a condition of the grant?
A: Yes. The opinion said OPM or the administering agency could place an admission requirement in the grant agreement.

Q: Had East Haven already agreed to admit nonresidents?
A: The opinion did not identify an executed grant agreement. It addressed what the statute required and what a later agreement could require.

Background and statutory framework

The question concerned a possible urban development municipal grant under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-66c(b)(6)(B). The AG read its plain language and separated the statute’s lack of an access condition from the state’s discretion to set terms in a particular grant agreement.

Citations and references

Statute: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-66c(b)(6)(B).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1994-formal-opinions/the-honorable-robert-m-ward--assistant-minority-leader--1994013-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-c

Original opinion text

The Honorable Robert M. Ward , Assistant Minority Leader , 1994-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

June 20, 1994

The Honorable Robert M. Ward

State Representative

Assistant Minority Leader

Legislative Office Building

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Representative Ward:

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. Based upon discussions with representatives of the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") and of the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), it is our understanding that any State funding of such an acquisition by the Town would be provided as an urban development project municipal grant-in-aid under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-66c(b)(6)(B). Therefore, this opinion addresses the question of whether that statute imposes upon the municipal recipient of such a grant a requirement that it admit non-residents to the funded facility. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that statutes must be interpreted "as they are written." State v. Johnson, 227 Conn. 534, 542, 630 A.2d 1059 (1993), quoting Muha v. United Oil Co., 180 Conn. 720, 730, 433 A.2d 1009 (1980). Accordingly, we cannot read into the statute provisions which are not clearly stated. Glastonbury Co. v. Gillies, 209 Conn. 175, 179, 550 A.2d 8 (1988). The plain language of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-66c(b)(6)(B) imposes no requirement that the municipal recipient of an urban development grant admit non-residents to the facility which is the subject of the grant. However, the statute also contains no requirement that a grant-in-aid be provided for any particular project. Thus, the decision whether to extend a grant-in-aid for the acquisition of the Colony Beach Club property rests within the discretion of OPM. There is nothing which would preclude OPM, or another state agency selected by OPM to administer such a grant, from including, within the terms of the grant agreement, a requirement pertaining to the admission of non-residents to the facility. We are informed by OPM that any grant-in-aid provided to East Haven for acquisition of the Colony Beach Club property would be administered by DEP. Typically, grant-in-aid agreements prepared by DEP for municipal acquisition or improvement projects have included provisions relating to fee differentials for non-residents. However, absent some provision in the grant-in-aid agreement requiring that East Haven admit non-residents to the Colony Beach Club property, nothing in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-66c(b)(6)(B) would require that it do so.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Brian J. Comerford

Assistant Attorney General

RB:ko

cc: The Honorable William Cibes

Secretary

Office of Policy and Management

James Sullivan

Section Director

Office of Policy and Management

The Honorable Timothy R.E. Keeney

Commissioner of Environmental Protection

Charles J. Reed

Director of Land Acquisition

and Property Management

Department of Environmental Protections