Connecticut 2022 2022 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB05417 Introduced / Fiscal Note

Filed 04/29/2022

                    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. 
As Amended by House "A" (LCO 5819) 
House Calendar No.: 387  
 
Primary Analyst: PR 	4/29/22 
Contributing Analyst(s):    
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 
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 
juveniles charged with a second or subsequent motor vehicle or 
 
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-R01-FN.DOCX 	Page 2 of 3 
 
 
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.    
House "A" strikes the underlying bill and the associated fiscal impact.  
The amendment replaces the bill with language that results in the fiscal 
impact described above. 
The Out Years 
The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would 
continue into the future subject to inflation, caseloads, and violations.  
 
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-R01-FN.DOCX 	Page 3 of 3 
 
 
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.