Could Connecticut pay overdue reimbursements for blind students even if checks issued this year exceeded the annual cap?

Plain-English summary

In January 1995, Connecticut’s AG advised the Board of Education and Services for the Blind about overdue reimbursements to towns for instruction and services for blind or visually impaired students. Billing delays had pushed payments into later years, while the agency had moved to accrual accounting. The AG read the statutory annual cap as limiting reimbursable expenditure incurred for each student in a given year, rather than capping the total amount of checks issued in a later year for multiple prior obligations.

The opinion reaffirmed a 1962 office interpretation of the same provision. The agency could pay accumulated arrears in one fiscal year even if those payments collectively exceeded that year’s stated limit, as long as it did not ultimately reimburse more than the proper per-student annual cap for the year the underlying costs arose.

Reimbursement staff and town finance officers at the time

The relevant limit followed each student’s eligible costs for the year incurred. A later payment date did not erase a valid prior obligation or enlarge the amount eligible for that student.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did late paperwork make an otherwise valid reimbursement ineligible?
A: No. The AG allowed payment of prior-year costs within the applicable per-student limit.

Q: Could aggregate checks sent this year exceed the annual cap?
A: Yes, if they paid separate valid obligations from prior years and no student’s underlying annual costs exceeded the statutory limit.

Q: Could the board reimburse more than the limit for one student’s costs?
A: No. The opinion kept the cap on the reimbursable expenditure incurred for each student in the relevant year.

Background and statutory framework

The agency asked how Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295 applied to arrears under accrual accounting. The AG followed an earlier opinion distinguishing the year costs arose from the later fiscal year in which a reimbursement check was paid.

Citations and references

Statute: Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1995-formal-opinions/mr-george-a-precourt-board-of-education-and-services-for-the-blind-1995003-formal-opinion-attorney-g

Original opinion text

Mr. George A. Precourt, Board of Education and Services for the Blind, 1995-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

January 18, 1995

Mr. George A. Precourt

Executive Director

Board of Education and Services for the Blind

170 Ridge Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

Dear Mr. Precourt:

You have asked for an opinion regarding the Board of Education and Services for the Blind's ("BESB") reimbursement to towns, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295, for certain special education instructional and service costs for special education students who are blind or visually impaired. In particular, you have indicated that while the statute places yearly monetary limits on the amount BESB may reimburse towns per student for such costs, due to billing and paperwork delays, reimbursements owed to towns have gone into arrears in recent years. Further, you have indicated that in dealing with this statutory reimbursement scheme, BESB has switched from a cash to an accrual basis of accounting, and you now wish to know whether, consistent with the statutory amount limitations, actual reimbursement payments to towns in a given year may exceed the statutory limits, provided the costs being reimbursed accrued within the yearly statutory limits per child.

As you know, on June 5, 1962, this office, addressing this same question, albeit when the statute contained lower monetary amounts, opined that "bills for prior years but paid in the current fiscal year should not be included in computing the amount which may be spent in the current fiscal year," as the intent of the statute is only to limit the amount of actual expenditure incurred by towns on a per pupil basis that can be ultimately reimbursed by BESB.

We agree this continues to be an accurate interpretation of the law. Provided BESB is not ultimately reimbursing towns in excess of the statutory limits for any such expenditures in a given year, BESB may, consistent with the statute and BESB's accrual method of accounting, make to towns reimbursement payments which may exceed in the aggregate the annual limits set in §10-295.

Very truly yours,

Richard Blumenthal

Attorney General

Ralph E. Urban

Assistant Attorney General