Connecticut Senate Bill SJ00046

Connecticut 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/4/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Report Pass: 3/30/26
• Refer: 4/8/26
• Report Pass: 4/14/26
• Engrossed: 4/28/26
• Report Pass: 4/28/26
• Passed: 5/5/26

Caption

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CLAIMS COMMISSIONER TO MAKE PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE OF KALLMAN, MCKINNELL AND WOOD, ARCHITECTS, INC.

Summary

Senate Joint Resolution 46 is a claims resolution that accepts the recommendation of the Claims Commissioner to authorize payment to Kallman, McKinnell and Wood, Architects, Inc. for a claim against the state. The resolution orders payment of $106,568.64 from the General Fund’s adjudicated claims account, which is the mechanism used when a claim against the state exceeds the Claims Commissioner’s authority to settle without legislative approval. The bill does not create a new program or regulatory scheme; instead, it approves a specific monetary award arising from a claim against the state. Its practical effect is to direct the state to pay the named claimant and to recognize the Claims Commissioner’s recommendation as binding legislative authorization for payment above the statutory threshold.

Impact

This resolution affects state fiscal administration rather than substantive policy law. It authorizes a one-time payment from the adjudicated claims account of the General Fund and serves as legislative approval for a claim award exceeding $35,000, consistent with Connecticut’s claims process. The immediate parties affected are the state treasury and Kallman, McKinnell and Wood, Architects, Inc., which receives the ordered payment.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong support and no recorded opposition. The Judiciary Committee reported the resolution favorably, and the Senate passed it 35-0 after a 41-0 committee vote, indicating broad bipartisan agreement and little controversy in the legislative process. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as routine and noncontroversial.

Contention

There is no evident substantive contention in the available record. Because the resolution concerns payment of a specific claims award rather than a policy dispute, any discussion would likely have centered on whether the claim met the legal standard for payment and whether the amount recommended by the Claims Commissioner should be approved. The unanimous committee and floor votes indicate that no significant disagreement emerged among legislators.