Uniform Chart of Accounts Q&A

What is the uniform chart of accounts (UCOA)?

Connecticut’s Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA) is a benchmarking system that allows for the comparison of municipal and educational revenue and expenditures across towns and school districts.  It is based on a uniform system for reporting town and school district financial information.  Towns and school districts are not required to replace their current accounting systems with the UCOA; rather, they report their financial data in accordance with UCOA requirements.

Where did the UCOA originate?

The UCOA was first proposed by the Connecticut Commission on Educational Achievement, a commission of business executives established by an executive order from then Governor Rell to study ways to address the achievement gap in Connecticut.  The commission issued its report in the fall of 2010 and one of its recommendations was to establish a chart of accounts (see pages 21-22).  (The concept was used in Rhode Island when it reformed its school finance system.)

In 2011, the legislature authorized $6 million in bonds to the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to develop a state and local benchmarking system.  In 2012, it required the State Department of Education (SDE) to (1) make a uniform chart of accounts for school districts available on its website and (2) submit it to the Education and Appropriations committees by July 1, 2013. It required each board of education, regional education service center, and state charter school to start filing annual financial reports using the chart starting July 1, 2014 (PA 12-116, §§ 15 & 16).

In 2013, the legislature expanded the UCOA project to include all municipal revenue and expenditures, not just education, and designated funding for grants to towns and school districts to help them implement the project.  It required the OPM secretary, in consultation with SDE, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, and Council of Small Towns, to develop and implement, by July 1, 2014, a uniform system of accounting for municipal revenue and expenditures, including board of education and grant agency expenditures and revenue. It required the system to include a UCOA for municipalities that lists (1) amounts and sources of revenue and (2) cash and real or personal property donations of $500 or more. It required (1) OPM to make the chart available on its website and (2) by June 30, 2015, municipalities to implement the accounting system and use it to file any annual reports the OPM secretary may require (PA 13-247, § 257).  That same year, the legislature designated up to $450,000 for FY 14 for grants to towns and school districts to help pay for the new system (PA 13-247, §§ 87 & 328).  OPM set a December 31, 2014 deadline for the grant applications.

What is the UCOA’s status?

OPM contracted with Blum Shapiro to implement the benchmarking and UCOA projects.  They provided an update on the project to the MORE Commission in December 2015.  The presentation indicates that as of December 2015, the benchmarking database included municipal-level data for 147 of 169 municipalities.  It also indicates that the education-level data will be validated and entered into the database in 2016.

Where can town officials go to learn more about the UCOA?

Here are several resources on the UCOA that town officials may find helpful:

• UCOA User Manual for Municipalities

• UCOA (excel file)

• UCOA grant programs

• UCOA Municipal Benchmarking Site

What Constitutes Ambulance Chasing?

"Ambulance chasing" generally refers to the practice of asking someone who suffered an injury to file a lawsuit or use a particular service, such as hiring a particular attorney or using a particular doctor.

Connecticut law, as OLR Report 2015-R-0200 explains, makes it crime to solicit a person to instigate litigation or steer a party to hire an attorney or provider for the purpose of receiving compensation (CGS § 51-86). It also makes it a crime to receive or accept payment for (1) the prosecution of a claim or (2) referring a prospective client to an attorney.  Penalties for these crimes vary, with prison terms of up to three years and fines up to $5,000.

The law does not prohibit referrals between attorneys and healthcare professionals (CGS § 51-87) and sets standards for initial communication from attorneys to prospective clients to minimize undue influence.  For example, when someone is involved in a personal injury accident, an attorney must wait at least 40 days to contact that individual (CGS § 51-87a). When communication is permitted, it must be as outlined in the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, which includes rules for sending correspondence to prospective clients when attempting to obtain professional employment.

Click here to read the report. 

Financial Responsibility for Sidewalk Repair in Connecticut

A 2015 OLR survey of all 169 municipalities identified the party that is financially responsible for repairing public sidewalks (OLR Report 2015-R-0213). The survey found that 127 municipalities had sidewalk repair policies that were spelled out in ordinances or based on informal practices. (Four municipalities reported no policies and 38 reported not having sidewalks.)

Of the 127 municipalities with sidewalk repair policies, 74 (58%) are responsible for repairing sidewalks and 47 (37%) require abutting property owners to pay for sidewalk repairs, subject to certain exceptions. For example, many municipalities that require abutters to pay for sidewalk repairs exempt them from doing so if the damage was caused by the roots of municipally owned trees. Other municipalities exempt abutters in downtown areas or those whose sidewalks are used by children walking to school.

For specific information on each municipality, click here to read the full report.

Identified Adoptions in Connecticut

OLR Report 2015-R-0286 summarizes Connecticut’s identified adoption laws.

An ‘‘identified adoption’’ is one in which an unrelated child is identified for adoption by prospective adoptive parents before the child’s placement in the home. Under the law, only the Department of Children and Families (DCF) commissioner or a DCF-licensed or -approved child-placing agency may place an identified child for adoption.  Placing a child for identified adoption in violation of the law or assisting in such a placement is a class D felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine up to $5,000, or both (CGS § 45a-729).

Identified adoption regulations establish requirements that address:

1. advertising by the birth parent, prospective adoptive parent, and child-placing agency;

2. prospective adoptive parents' home studies;

3. activities in which the prospective adoptive parent may participate;

4. birth parent counseling; and

5. payment of birth parent expenses by the prospective adoptive parents (CGS §§ 45a-728 et. seq. and Conn. Agencies Regs. §§ 45a-728-3, et. seq.).

The adoption process requires the filing of an application and a written adoption agreement in the probate court.  Click here to read more details concerning the specific requirements.   

Filing Complaints Against Veterinarians

OLR Report 2016-R-0088 summarizes the process for filing a complaint against a veterinarian.
 
The Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for receiving and investigating complaints against veterinarians. The Connecticut Board of Veterinary Medicine, which consists of three veterinarians and two public members, generally makes final disciplinary decisions.  However, the DPH commissioner may decide to render them. 

DPH must investigate each allegation of specified acts or omissions by a veterinarian as set forth in law and conduct an investigation to determine if probable cause exists to issue a statement of charges and to begin proceedings against the veterinarian.

After notice and the opportunity for a hearing, the veterinary medicine board can take a number of disciplinary actions if it finds that a veterinarian has acted in violation of the law. These include license revocation or suspension, imposition of a civil penalty of up to $25,000, placement on probation, a letter of reprimand, or censure (CGS §§ 20-202 & 19a-17).

Read the full report here.

Drug Asset Forfeitures

OLR Report 2015-R-0204 explains the drug asset forfeiture law and how it is carried out.

Under the law, prosecutors file civil actions in court seeking an order to forfeit property seized related to drug crimes. If an order is issued, property is sold at public auction and the remaining funds, after debts and costs have been paid, are deposited in a drug asset forfeiture revolving account and used for substance abuse treatment and education programs and detecting, investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting people for drug crimes.

A three-person panel consisting of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) commissioner, statewide narcotics task force commander, and Connecticut Police Chiefs Association president distributes the funds to DESPP, local police departments, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), and the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) for certain purposes.  

Seventy percent goes to DESPP and local police departments in a way that equitably reflects their contribution in the actions leading to the forfeiture, 20% goes to DMHAS, and 10% goes to DCJ.

For a detailed accounting of the process and total funds collected in recent years, click here to read the full report.

Sales Tax on Automobile Repair Paint

OLR Report 2016-R-0029 identifies the circumstances under which auto paint suppliers charge sales tax on paint sold to auto repairers.  Suppliers must charge sales tax if the auto repairer purchases the paint for any purpose other than repairing a specific customer’s vehicle.  The repairer must first present the supplier with a sales and use tax resale certificate, which indicates that the paint is for a particular vehicle and the repairer will subsequently charge the customer for the paint and the sales tax.

This rule reflects a distinction the regulations make between “integral” and “non-integral” parts.  Integral parts, such as filters, belts, and hoses, retain their identity after an auto repairer installs them in a vehicle.  Non-integral parts, such as masking tape and sealants, are consumed by the service provider in repairing the motor vehicle and therefore do not retain their individual identity after use.

Suppliers do not collect sales tax on integral parts as the repairer will install them in a vehicle and charge the customer for the parts and sales tax.  Suppliers do collect sales tax on non-integral parts because the repairer purchases them for use on several vehicles.

For more information, read the full report here.

Primary Aggressor Laws in Connecticut and Surrounding States

OLR Report 2015-R-0302 summarizes Connecticut’s domestic violence arrest laws and the primary aggressor provisions in nearby states.

A primary aggressor law generally requires police officers, when considering whether to make an arrest in a domestic violence situation, to attempt to identify the “primary aggressor” by evaluating factors such as the comparative injuries the parties suffered and whether either party (1) has threatened or is threatening to harm another family or household member, (2) has a history of domestic violence or domestic violence complaints that can be reasonably ascertained, or (3) acted in self-defense.  

Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island have mandatory arrest laws which require police to make an arrest in cases in which they have probable cause of a domestic violence incident. Of those states, Connecticut is the only one without primary aggressor provisions. Massachusetts and New Hampshire do not mandate arrests but it is the preferred response. In Vermont, officers have discretion to make an arrest and there is no preferable response.

To read the full report, click here.

Integrated Domestic Violence Courts

OLR Report 2016-R-0012 summarizes the key elements of New York’s integrated domestic violence (IDV) court.

In an IDV court, one judge handles all cases in family, criminal, and matrimonial cases in which domestic violence is an underlying issue.  IDV courts are intended to reduce contradictory court orders and enhance services to victims and families. These courts are staffed by judges trained in many areas of law and the underlying aspects of domestic violence.

Under the New York model, IDV court judges and non-judicial staff participate in statewide training and education programs. These programs address the dynamics of domestic violence, staff roles and responsibilities, program coordination among court agencies and outside organizations, and the use of specialized computer systems.

Higher Education Institutions’ Definitions of Sexual Consent

OLR Report 2016-R-0006 provides each Connecticut higher education institution’s current definition of “consent” in sexual relationships and provides a source for each. Also, the report indicates whether each institution submitted a report to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee in 2015 about its sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence policies as required by law.

Currently, each Connecticut public and private higher education institution defines sexual “consent” for purposes of the institution’s conduct codes and disciplinary proceedings.  Such definitions are typically found in the institution’s student conduct code or Title IX policy handbook.

Generally, each institution’s definition contains all or many of the following: (1) a basic definition of “consent,” (2) method(s) of expressing consent, (3) duration, (4) parties’ relationships, (5) revocation, (6) coercion, and (7) legal age.

Institutions may soon be required to incorporate a “yes means yes,” or affirmative consent standard, into their campus policies.  Substitute House Bill 5376, which passed in both the House and Senate, requires all Connecticut colleges and universities to use a standard of affirmative consent when determining whether sexual activity is consensual in the context of their institutional policies on sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence.  This requirement would be in place beginning with the 2016-17 academic year.

The bill defines “affirmative consent” as an active, clear, and voluntary agreement by a person to engage in sexual activity with another person. It specifies that higher education institutions are not required to adopt the bill's definition verbatim but must use a definition that has the same or a substantially similar meaning.

The governor must now decide whether to sign the bill into law.

For more information, read the full OLR report here and a summary of the bill here.

Youthful Offenders

OLR Report 2016-R-0067 summarizes the youthful offender laws in Connecticut.  Youthful offender laws provide a special status in adult court for cases involving minors charged with committing certain felonies when age 15 through 17.  The laws provide these cases with greater confidentiality than regular adult cases and give judges different sentencing options (CGS §§ 54-76b, et seq.).

A minor, someone charged with committing a crime when under age 18, begins his or her case in juvenile court.  If the minor is charged with committing a felony when age 15 through 17, his or her case may or must be transferred to adult court depending on the charge.  Once in adult court, the court must determine whether the minor qualifies as a "youthful offender."  To qualify, the minor cannot be charged with certain crimes (such as a class A felony) and cannot have any prior felony convictions or certain juvenile adjudications.  Even if the minor qualifies, a prosecutor can request, and the court can order, that a minor's case be moved to the regular adult criminal court docket.

If a minor is granted youthful offender status, the proceedings are private and conducted separately from adult criminal court.  Records related to the minor have greater confidentiality and the records are erased once the minor reaches age 21 if he or she has completed any required supervision or commitment from the case and has no later felony convictions.  The court also has a different list of sentencing options than those available in either adult or juvenile court. 

For more information, read the full report here.

Job Creation by Startups and Young Companies

OLR Report 2016-R-0003 describes how startups and young companies contribute to job creation.

Research shows that startups are the primary driver of job growth in the U.S. economy and account for nearly all net new jobs in a given year.  Job creation by startups has driven net job growth in nearly every year since 1977. 

Although startups are the primary driver of net job creation in the U.S. economy, young firms contribute disproportionately to net job growth among existing firms.  Firms age one to five account for nearly two-thirds of net job creation.  While the oldest firms account for the largest share of current employment, the youngest companies account for the largest share of net job creation.

The research on new and young firms driving job growth runs counter to the commonly-held belief that small businesses drive job creation.  While early empirical research found a relationship between firm size and job creation, subsequent studies have found significant pitfalls with the studies’ supporting data, such as the lack of information on firm age. Research including data on firm age shows that it is new and young firms, which are generally also small due to their age, that drive job creation.  In fact, small, mature businesses have negative net job creation.

For more information, read the full report here.

2015 Achievement Gap Data

OLR Report 2016-R-0026 analyzes recent data on Connecticut's educational achievement gap.  Connecticut primarily measures student performance using the Smarter Balanced Assessment, commonly called SBAC because it was developed by the multi-state Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. 

The consortium created SBAC to align with Common Core State Standards, which Connecticut adopted in 2010.  According to the State Department of Education, SBAC scores reflect both the degree to which the new standards are implemented and the degree to which students have learned them. 

The SBAC data shows that Connecticut continues to have significant disparities in test scores between (1) racial groups, (2) high-needs and non-high-needs students, and (3) students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and those not eligible.

For more information, read the full report here.  

Penalties for Causing a Fatality When Texting While Driving

OLR Report 2015-R-0280 provides Connecticut’s and other states’ penalties for causing a fatality when texting while driving.  While there is no specific penalty in Connecticut, we found five states (Alaska, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Utah) that have enacted laws for such a crime.

In Connecticut, the offense of texting while driving is punishable by fines of $150, $300, and $500 for a first, second, or subsequent offense, respectively.  When a driver causes a fatality while texting, a prosecutor may charge the driver with applicable crimes not specifically related to illegal cell phone use, such as negligent homicide with a motor vehicle, misconduct with a motor vehicle, or 2^nd degree manslaughter, among others. 

Penalties in the states previously mentioned range from misdemeanors punishable by up to one year imprisonment to felonies with prison sentences of up to 15 years for a first conviction. Misdemeanor fines range from a maximum of $2,500 to a maximum $10,000 and felony fines range from a maximum of $5,000 to a maximum of $250,000.

For specific details on each state’s penalties, click here to read the full report.

Personal Health Information Disclosure

OLR Report 2016-R-0050 describes the laws that limit the circumstances in which health care providers may release a patient's personal health information.  Personal health information is protected by both federal and state laws.  The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides the minimum level of protection, while state laws may provide additional protection.

HIPAA's privacy rule establishes national standards to protect patients' medical records and other personal health information (45 C.F.R. §§ 160, 164(A), (E)).  The privacy rule limits the disclosure of patients' personal health information by covered entities without their authorization and gives patients a right to obtain, examine, and copy their medical records and request corrections.

HIPAA's security rule applies the protections of the privacy rule to electronic personal health information and requires that appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards be put into place to maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and security of electronic health information (45 C.F.R. §§ 160, 164(A), (C)).

Several Connecticut laws also address the privacy and disclosure of patients' personal health information.  These include laws that (1) establish a bill of rights that assures confidential treatment of patients' personal and medical records and (2) prohibit the sale of personal health information.  Connecticut law allows the disclosure of personal health information to certain state agencies.  For example, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DHMAS) contractors must disclose personal health information to the commissioner in certain circumstances.

For more information, read the full report here.

Connecticut’s Local Health Departments

OLR Report 2016-R-0024 provides a brief overview of Connecticut’s local health departments.

Currently, Connecticut has 73 local health departments serving the state’s entire population.  Fifty-three are full-time departments, while the remaining 20 are part-time.  The full-time departments include 33 individual municipal health departments and 20 health district departments (multi-town departments serving from two to 20 towns).  According to the Department of Public Health (DPH), based on the state’s 2013 estimated population, full-time health departments serve approximately 95% of the state’s population, while part-time departments serve the remaining 5%.

By law, a municipality may have a part-time health department if: (1) it did not have a full-time department or was not in a full-time district before January 1, 1998, (2) it has the equivalent of at least one full-time employee, and (3) the DPH commissioner annually approves its public health program plan and budget.

For more information, read the full report here.

Penalties for Driving Without Insurance

OLR Report 2016-R-0037 provides the penalties for driving a vehicle without auto insurance in Connecticut.

Under state law, anyone who owns a private passenger or commercial motor vehicle requiring registration must obtain and continuously maintain insurance. Violators face penalties based on the charge and type of vehicle registration.  Charges include operating a vehicle without insurance, failing to maintain insurance, and failing to carry proof of insurance. 

For a private passenger who fails to maintain insurance, a term of imprisonment of up to three months may be imposed.  A commercial vehicle registrant who knowingly operates a motor vehicle illegally faces a five year prison term.  Fines range from $50 to up to $5,000.  Other fees may also be applicable, such as a $175 restoration fee to have a license restored. 

The law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the vehicle owner’s registration and driver’s license for one month for a first conviction and six months for subsequent convictions.  A license may not be restored until the owner shows proof of insurance for each vehicle owned and pays the required fee.

For additional information, read the full report.

OLR Report Compares Connecticut and Vermont Land Preservation Property Tax Programs

Municipal property tax assessors assess most property based on its fair market value, which can fluctuate with the real estate market. If the law allows, assessors may assess other property based on how it is currently used, regardless of its potential fair market value. Assessments based solely on property’s current use are often lower than assessments based on a property’s fair market value, a difference that could result in lower property taxes. States authorize current use assessments to encourage property owners to conserve certain types of land by shielding it from market forces that could increase the assessment and consequently the taxes.

OLR Report 2016-R-0021 compares Connecticut’s and Vermont’s programs for assessing agricultural, forest, and open space land at its current use value. Connecticut’s 490 Program allows farm, forest, open space, and maritime heritage land (i.e., classified land) to be assessed at its current use value, which municipal assessors determined based on a schedule the Office of Policy and Management prepares in consultation with the Department of Agriculture.  Owners of classified land that change its use or sell within 10 years after it was classified must pay a conveyance tax penalty.

Vermont’s Use Value Appraisal (UVA) program allows certain agricultural, forest, and conservation land and farm buildings to be assessed at the current use value.  A state Current Use Advisory Board annually establishes the land values that municipal assessors must apply. Property owners must file a 10-year management plan for forest or conservation land and annual activity reports.  The state imposes a fee on the owner if he or she develops the land.   The state annually pays each municipality a stipend to offset the property tax revenue lost due to the UVA program.

Click here to read the full report.     

Shoreland Protection Laws

OLR Report 2016-R-0013 broadly summarizes shoreland protection laws in New England states.  Shoreland protection laws are statutory mechanisms to protect, on a statewide basis, the land near lakes, ponds, and rivers from pollution and other environmental challenges.  Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont each have a shoreland protection law that generally restricts certain activities (e.g., construction or clearing) within these areas through a permitting process.  The laws vary in scope and in how they are administered.

Maine's Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act requires municipalities to adopt shoreland zoning ordinances to regulate land use activity within (1) 250 feet of great ponds, rivers, or wetlands and (2) 75 feet of streams. 

New Hampshire's Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act restricts development and land use activity within 250 feet of large streams and designated rivers; tidal waters; and certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments.

Vermont's Shoreland Protection Act is limited to land surrounding certain lakes and ponds.  The act regulates development activity within 250 feet of these water bodies.

These shoreland laws work in conjunction with other laws that regulate activity near waterbodies, such as state wetland laws.  In Vermont, for example, certain wetlands have a required 100-foot or 50-foot buffer area.  Consequently, there may be shoreland areas that are also wetlands, potentially requiring both wetlands and shoreland permits.

For more information, read the full report here.

Municipal Home Rehabilitation Programs

OLR Report 2016-R-0036 briefly describes municipal home repair and rehabilitation programs available to Connecticut homeowners.

There are several different kinds of municipally administered home repair and rehabilitation programs available to homeowners.  The report provides examples of programs supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants and those supported with municipal funding.  HUD supported programs are the most common type found in Connecticut.  Eligibility criteria typically follow the HUD income guidelines for low- and moderate-income households.
 
Many of Connecticut’s municipalities administer homeowner rehabilitation programs utilizing funding available through the HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. CDBG funding is divided between “entitlement” and “non-entitlement” communities.  Entitlement communities (i.e., cities with a population of at least 50,000) receive funding directly from HUD.  Non-entitlement communities (i.e., municipalities with a population of less than 50,000) must compete to receive CDBG money through the state’s Small Cities program. The Small Cities grants are administered by the Department of Housing and the municipality. The municipalities (1) vet applications from residents for a portion of the funding allotted to the municipality and (2) may designate some funding for a project of the municipality’s choosing.

For more information, read the full report here.