My understanding of the Connecticut General Statute is that you cannot start charging a late fee UNTIL the 10th day.

Therefore, you are under no obligation.Plus, under the Statute of Frauds, any contract for a year or longer must be in writing, and you don't have a lease in writing yet.So, no, you are under zero obligation to give this guy a one-year lease.All you have to do at this point is give the proper notice that the lease is terminated, and you are now only offering a MTM agreement. 

If they have lived there more than a year, you need to provide 60 days proper notice to increase rent or terminate current leaseYou should consult the Oregon statutes to determine what type of notice is required for the kinds of changes you want to make.  

If, for some reason, he can not provide the unit any longer, is the ONLY situation where he would need to refund this money.Interest is irrelevant, there is no requirement what so ever to put this person's money into an interest bearing account, nor is there any amount of interest set by statute here.

the Florida Statute 83.51 does not specify directly who is responsible for an ongoing fumigation.

I doubt this will help, since I am in FL, however according to 2014 statute 83.49, "(1) Whenever money is deposited or advanced by a tenant on a rental agreement as security for performance of the rental agreement or as advance rent for other than the next immediate rental period, the landlord or the landlord’s agent shall either:(a) Hold the total amount of such money in a separate non-interest-bearing account in a Florida banking institution for the benefit of the tenant or tenants.

If they gave you actual statutes of laws that say differently, I'd like to know them, please.And, honestly, the process for a tenant to file a complaint against a landlord takes a year by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.  

I am reading the Florida Statutes and instructions.

=====Please note: In addition to state statutes, check for those of your local municipality too.

What is the statute in California, code section and cite please, that overrides implied easements as part of this "landlock provision"?