Planning and Development Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-869
AN ACT CONCERNING COMMUNITY INVESTMENT BOARDS AND
Title: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSISTANCE.
Vote Date: 3/2/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable
PH Date: 2/19/2021
File No.: 82
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
N/A
REASONS FOR BILL:
Senate Bill 869 aims to require municipalities to establish community investment boards, and
to establish a state commission to increase accountability of funding to nonprofit providers.
Establishing community investment boards would allow communities and neighborhoods
more direct access to state funds and may create greater transparency for the community.
Further, state oversight of non-profit finances would ensure state funds are used efficiently.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
N/A
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Sen. Paul Cicarella- 34th District: Voiced support that residents know their communities
best, and thus should have control over some state funds for their towns. Further, involving
community members would increase transparency of where funds go, and would allow the
community to direct funding where it may be needed most. Testimony claims state funds are
too often used politically. It is claimed that with the bill's structure, 'state funds would be
dispersed between priorities identified by Community Investment Boards (CIBs), priorities
identified by municipal government, and priorities jointly agreed upon by community
investment boards and municipal legislative bodies." Already established neighborhood
revitalization zones shall be designated as community investment boards. Additionally,
testimony states there should be oversite on non-profits to ensure they use state funds in a
cost-effective manner. The bill would create a bipartisan commission to review such
requirements.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Kevin Alvarez, Director of Legislative Affairs- City of New Haven: Voiced opposition that
while community input is good, testimony claims 869 would have severe adverse effects for
New Haven. The testimony interprets the bill as allowing city governments to control 1/3 of
funds received by the state, with most funds being controlled by unelected boards appointed
by the chief executive. It is believed that PILOT, MRSA, and ECS are underfunded, and the
testimony encourages funding increases for PILOT. According to testimony, $40 million in
current state aid would be given to unelected authority, which for reference is a similar dollar
amount to New Haven's entire police spending.
Donna Hamzy, Advocacy Manager of Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM):
Voiced strong opposition, stating, "CCM is concerned that this legislation is encouraging an
unelected group of community members to make decisions on critical state funding to our
cities without any oversight by city government. We (the testifier) are also concerned with the
lack of detail around what such requirements would be, who would establish such
requirements and how such requirements would be set."
Jeff Shaw, Senior Director of Public Policy & Advocacy, The Alliance: Voiced support of
the intent, but questioned logistics. Testimony shows that the intent of the bill is supported,
but there is concern as to which grants would be used, and whether the bill would pull funding
away from grants already supporting essential programs. Testimony claims the
Neighborhood Assistance Act (NAA) already serves a critical role with tax credits for
businesses which fund tax-exempt nonprofits. It is further claimed the NAA program has been
regularly oversubscribed in total number of donations and amount pledged, as businesses
are capped at $5 million in tax credit per year. The testimony is concerned that 869 may pull
funding away from programs such as those associated with NAA.
Reported by: Colin Savino Date: 3/14/2021
Page 2 of 2 SB-869


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 4-66l, 12-18c
PD Joint Favorable: 4-66l, 12-18c
File No. 82: 4-66l, 12-18c