OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS
Legislative Office Building, Room 5200
Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240-0200
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ofa
HB-6538
AN ACT MAKING REVISIONS TO THE COMMON INTEREST
OWNERSHIP ACT.
AMENDMENT
LCO No.: 9311
File Copy No.: 473
House Calendar No.: 342
Senate Calendar No.: 369
Primary Analyst: PR 5/27/21
Contributing Analyst(s): ()
OFA Fiscal Note
State Impact:
Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 22 $ FY 23 $
Judicial Dept. GF - Cost 1,037,236-
1,234,045
1,060,853-
1,263,566
State Comptroller - Fringe
Benefits
1
GF - Cost 325,128-
406,411
334,882-
418,603
Note: GF=General Fund
Municipal Impact: None
Explanation
The amendment strikes the underlying bill and the associated fiscal
impact. The amendment requires the Judicial Department to monitor
by GPS device juveniles charged with a motor vehicle related offense
and juveniles charged with a subsequent related delinquency offense
while the previous related charge is still pending and results in a cost of
$1,362,364 to $1,640,456 annually.
The Judicial Department does not currently use GPS monitoring on
juveniles. Based on FY 20 data, there are approximately 225 juveniles
1
The fringe benefit costs for most state employees are budgeted centrally in accounts
administered by the Comptroller. The estimated active employee fringe benefit cost
associated with most personnel changes is 41.3% of payroll in FY 22 and FY 23. 2021HB-06538-R00LCO09311-FNA.DOCX Page 2 of 2
who would require monitoring based on the requirements of the bill.
The agency would need to hire an additional 12-15 juvenile probation
officers at an annual cost of $787,236 to $984,045. An additional cost of
$325,1285 to $406,410 would be incurred by the State Comptroller for
fringe benefits.
The amendment results in an additional cost of approximately
$250,000 annually for the cost of GPS monitoring. This cost will differ
depending on how many individuals require GPS monitoring.
The preceding Fiscal Impact statement is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely
for the purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the General
Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose. In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of
informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge. Whenever applicable, agency data is
consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any
specific department.