Connecticut 2022 2022 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB05417 Introduced / Fiscal Note

Filed 04/19/2022

                    OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS 
Legislative Office Building, Room 5200 
Hartford, CT 06106  (860) 240-0200 
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ofa 
sHB-5417 
AN ACT CONCERNING JUVENILE JUSTICE AND SERVICES, 
FIREARMS BACKGROUND CHECKS, AND LARCENY OF A 
MOTOR VEHICLE.  
 
Primary Analyst: PR 	4/19/22 
Contributing Analyst(s): ME, CW   
Reviewer: ME 
 
 
 
OFA Fiscal Note 
 
State Impact: 
Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 23 $ FY 24 $ 
Judicial Dept. 	GF - Cost 731,685-
867,731 
975,580-
1,156,975 
State Comptroller - Fringe 
Benefits
1
 
GF - Cost 220,558-
275,697 
294,077-
367,597 
Correction, Dept.;  Judicial Dept. 
(Probation) 
GF - Potential 
Cost 
See Below See Below 
Resources of the General Fund GF - Potential 
Revenue Gain 
See Below See Below 
Judicial Dept. 	GF - 
Appropriation 
2 million None 
Department of Emergency 
Services and Public Protection 
GF - 
Appropriation 
1 million None 
Note: GF=General Fund 
  
Municipal Impact: None  
Explanation 
The bill allows GPS monitoring of certain juveniles, establishes a new 
penalty structure for larceny of a motor vehicle, appropriates funds for 
specific purposes, and makes various other changes.  The sections of the 
bill with a fiscal impact are described below. 
Section 1 allows the Judicial Department to monitor by GPS device 
 
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 40.53% of payroll in FY 23.  2022HB-05417-R000525-FN.DOCX 	Page 2 of 3 
 
 
juveniles charged with a second or subsequent motor vehicle or 
property theft delinquency offense and is released into the custody of 
his or her parent or guardian and results in an annual cost of $1,019,658 
to $1,524,572. 
The Judicial Department does not currently use GPS monitoring on 
juveniles.  Based on FY 21 data, there are approximately 250 juveniles 
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 $725,580 to $906,975.  An additional cost of 
$294,077 to $975,580 would be incurred by the State Comptroller for 
fringe benefits. 
The bill 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. 
Section 8 – 10 and 13 – 18 sets a new penalty structure for larceny of 
a motor vehicle and results in a potential cost and potential revenue 
from fines.  On average, the marginal cost to the state for incarcerating 
an offender for the year is $2,500
2
 while the average marginal cost for 
supervision in the community is less than $800
3
 each year.    
Sections 19 – 21 appropriate a total of $3 million in FY 23 to the 
Judicial Department ($1,250,000 for expanding REGIONS) and $750,000 
for the Juvenile Alternative Incarceration account) and Department of 
Emergency Services and Public Protection ($1 million for regional crime 
reduction strategies). sHB 5037, the revised FY 23 budget bill, as 
favorably reported by the Appropriations Committee, is under the 
spending cap by $4.6 million in FY 23.  The appropriation contained in 
 
2
 Inmate marginal cost is based on increased consumables (e.g. food, clothing, water, 
sewage, living supplies, etc.)  This does not include a change in staffing costs or utility 
expenses because these would only be realized if a unit or facility opened. 
3
 Probation marginal cost is based on services provided by private providers and only 
includes costs that increase with each additional participant.  This does not include a 
cost for additional supervision by a probation officer unless a new offense is 
anticipated to result in enough additional offenders to require additional probation 
officers.  2022HB-05417-R000525-FN.DOCX 	Page 3 of 3 
 
 
the bill would result in the budget being under the spending cap by $1.6 
million in FY 23. 
 
The Out Years 
The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would 
continue into the future subject to inflation, caseloads, and violations.