Government Administration and Elections Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6577
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE PROPERTIES REVIEW BOARD.
Vote Date: 3/31/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/10/2021
File No.: 505
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:
The Government Administration and Elections Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
In effect, this bill would expand the jurisdiction of the State Properties Review Board to
include licensing agreements, any purchase of agricultural development rights, and contracts
that other state agencies and quasi-public agencies have made. The State Properties Review
Board would no longer be under the Department of Administrative Services. This bill would
make the State Properties Review Board a part of the legislative branch.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Jeffrey Berger, Member, State Properties Review Board (SPRB): The State Properties
Review Board strongly supports House Bill 6577 for a series of reasons. First and foremost,
SPRB believes that housing the SPRB under the Legislative Department would avoid any
conflicts of interest and ensure that the contract review process is completed with utmost
independence and integrity. In addition, the SPRB highlighted their quick review process
compared to the extensive periods of time that agencies take agencies to process and submit
their proposals for review. For example, it took the Department of Agriculture 929 days to
finally submit their proposal, whereas the board only took 36 days to review the proposal.
SPRB stated that this bill would help ensure that they uphold their mission and ensure that
the Department of Administrative Services and Department of Construction Services award
contracts appropriately in terms of cost, the scope of work and as it relates to equitable
awarding of contracts among all consultants and bid-places. SPRB emphasized the need for
independent oversight, accountability, uniformity and transparency when reviewing state
agency contracts.
Katie S. Dykes, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection (DEEP): The
Department of Environmental Protection submitted opposition to this bill. DEEP believes that
expanding the jurisdiction of the State Properties Review Board is unnecessary, repetitive
and will result in the delay of approvals and transactions. In particular, Commissioner Dykes
cited Section 1(f)(5), which would expand Board review over state agency property
transactions. DEEP contends that this would add more bureaucratic review to the
Departments Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust Program. Currently, any acquisitions
made through this program are reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General and the Office
of Policy and Management. The lack of clarity in this bill would create delays and burdens for
all parties. Additionally, DEEP sought further clarification on whether Section 1(f)(5) only
applies to future direct acquisitions by state agencies, or if it would include bond funded
grants for municipal acquisitions. In addition, DEEP referenced Section 1(f)(2) and sought
clarification in terms of which types of state agency real estate license would be subject to
review by the State Properties Review Board.
Senator Cathy Osten, 19th Senate District: Sen. Osten expressed opposition to this bill. In
particular, Sen. Osten expressed concern in regards to the extensive administrative review
that the Farmland Preservation program would face as a result of this bill. Sen. Osten stated
that bureaucratic delays from the State Properties Review Board almost caused 15 farms to
lose funding last January. Sen. Osten believes that adding another layer of administrative
review will endanger preservation efforts and negatively impact Connecticut farming industry.
Noel Petra, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administrative Services (DAS): The
Department of Administrative Services expressed strong opposition to House Bill 6577. DAS
contends that this bill would vest too much power in the State Properties Review Board
(SPRB) and potentially violate the separation of powers doctrine by transferring the SPRB
from the executive branch to the legislative branch. DAS believes that reducing the threshold
for SPRB contract review to $25,000, down from $100,000 would result in SPRB micro-
managing agencies decisions and create unnecessary and time-consuming conditions.
Rather than save the state money, delegating SPRB expanded review powers will create
delays, require staff to answer SPRB inquiries rather than carry out their normal duties, and
result in a higher propensity for litigation from contractors. This bill would ultimately result in
more incurred indirect expenses. Additionally, DAS made note of the fact that SPRB is not
subject to any oversight, meaning that the decisions that they render cannot be appealed.
DAS proposed Senate Bill 1015, which advises the legislature to strictly define the scope of
the SPRB.
Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture: The Connecticut Department
of Agriculture expressed the current challenges that they face when submitting applications to
the State Properties Review Board seeking approval of a farmland preservation application.
The Department of Agriculture states that this process has resulted in delays and backlogs. If
the State Properties Review Board was to have authority over the Community Farms
Preservation Program, the Department of Agriculture contends that further delays would be
incurred, and less farmland would be able to be protected in Connecticut.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
None expressed.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Page 2 of 4 HB-6577
Jeanette W. Weldon, Executive Director, Connecticut Health & Education Facilities
Authority (CHEFA): CHEFA expressed concerns with House Bill 6577. CHEFAs testimony
indicated that all bonds issued by CHEFA are obligations of the not-for-profit entity, meaning
that their repayment doesnt involve taxpayer dollars. While CHEFA is a quasi-public agency,
they maintain financial independence and do not receive any taxpayer dollars to pay
employees, fund benefits or fulfil their operations. CHEFA recommends that the Committee
add an exemption for CHEFA and CHEFA subsidiaries or completely reject this bill.
Joan Nichols, Executive Director, Connecticut Farm Bureau Association: The
Connecticut Farm Bureau Association contends that the Connecticut Department of
Agriculture has been extremely diligent and timely in terms of dispersing federal funds from
the United States Department of Agriculture for the purpose of closing agricultural
easements. The Connecticut Farm Bureau Association contends that any additional oversight
from the State Properties Review board is unnecessary, creates longer delays and becomes
burdensome for farm families.
Nandini Natarajan, Chief Executive Officer, Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
(CHFA): The Connecticut Housing Finance Authority testified in opposition to House Bill
6577. As a quasi-public authority, this bill would require that contracts concerning real
property be reviewed by the State Properties Review Board. CHFA emphasized the fact that
their properties are not owned by the state and all of their contracting agreements are
internally and externally audited. CHFA views this expansion of authority to the State
Properties Review Board as burdensome and potentially inhibiting CHFAs ability to operate
efficiently.
Elisabeth Moore, Executive Director, CT Farmland Trust: CT Farmland Trust submitted
testimony in opposition to this bill. If this bill was passed into law, CT Farmland Trust believes
that it would be dely the preservation process and add a bureaucratic burden to farm owners
and land trusts. CT Farmland Trust contends that the Connecticut Department of Agriculture
already has a rigorous vetting process in place to ensure that the Community Farms
Preservation Program is conducted with utmost integrity. Ultimately, CT Farmland Trust
emphasized the unnecessary addition of the State Properties Review Board to this process,
as it would only exacerbate the time that this already lengthy process takes.
Susan Mitchell, Owner, Cloverleigh Farm: Ms. Mitchell strongly recommends that the State
Properties Review Board not partake in the review of the Community Farms Program. As a
farm owner herself, she describes the lengthy process that farm owners need to go through
to see which properties will be selected for participation in a preservation program. Ms.
Mitchell made clear that time is of the essence, and we need more affordable farmland
immediately without any unnecessary delays. Additionally, Ms. Mitchell proposed that Section
3 be removed from the bill, as well as the language in lines 154 and 155.
Eric Hammer, Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CFPA): The Connecticut Forest &
Park Association expressed opposition to Section 1(F) of the bill. Section 1(F) includes the
provisions that would allow the State Properties Review Board to review the Community
Farms Preservation Program. In addition, this bill would extend the review of the SPRB to
include programs and land acquisitions made by the Department of Energy & Environmental
Protection. CFPA contends that this would negatively impact efforts to protect farmlands,
public lands and open space by creating bureaucratic delays. The addition of the SPRB
review is unnecessary and unwise, since the Community Farms Preservation Program and
Page 3 of 4 HB-6577
the conservation programs of the Department of Energy & Environmental Services already
undergo rigorous review.
Amy Blaymore Paterson, Executive Director, Connecticut Land Conservation Council
(CLCC): The Connecticut Land Conservation Council expressed opposition to Section 1(f),
the provision extending review authority to the State Property Review Board. Since the
Community Farms Preservation Program, the Natural Heritage Trust Program and the Open
Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Program all undergo strict scrutiny and review, CLCC
believes that SPRB review is unnecessary and duplicative. CLCC urges the Committee to
remove Section 1(f) from the bill.
Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC): The Connecticut Lottery Corporation expressed
opposition to the bill. CLC is a quasi-public agency that has been tasked with operating and
managing the lottery free of the budgetary constraints of the state, all while providing
increased revenue to the state. Currently, CLC adheres to general statutes which mandate
that all real estate transactions be subject to review by the State Properties Review Board.
However, CLC believes that adding additional bureaucratic measures and layers of review by
the SPRB is unnecessary and restricts the CLC from operating in a business-like manner that
is distinct from the state government. Additionally, CLC expressed concern with the language
of the bill in Section 1, particularly the lack of an appeal process for decisions rendered by the
SPRB. Additionally, CLC would like clarity in terms of what type of information the SPRB has
access to (lines 89-99) and what constitutes a contractual agreement concerning real
property, (lines 83 and 138).
Kevin Dillon, Executive Director, Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA): The Connecticut
Airport Authority expressed opposition to this bill. As a quasi-public agency, the CAA
operates with more freedom than a state agency that must navigate all sorts of bureaucratic
hurdles. The CAA contends that it is illogical to allow the State Properties Review Board to
approve of any real property developments. Since the CAA is composed of aviation
professionals, the CAA believes that approval of such developments must be made by these
experts, not the State Properties Review Boards. If the legislature imposes additional
approval processes on quasi-public agencies, the CAA believes that Bradley International
Airports ability to maintain competitive will be significantly diminished.
Robert Chang, Owner and Operator, Echo Farm: Mr. Chang is one of three owners of
Echo Farm in Woodstock, Connecticut. In his testimony, he expressed his intent to apply to
the Community Farms Preservation Program. Mr. Chang expressed his opposition to the
provisions in the bill that would add the State Properties Review Board to the review process,
finding that such review is redundant and a disincentive for farm owners to participate in
farmland preservation.
Chelsea Gazillo, Working Lands Alliance: The Working Lands Alliance urged the
Committee to oppose Sections 1 and 4 of this bill. They contend that the additional layer of
review by the State Properties Review Board will create unnecessary application delays,
hinder efforts to preserve small farms and prevent first generation farmers from accessing
affordable farmland.
Reported by: Trevor Hoffman Date: 3-31-21
Page 4 of 4 HB-6577


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 4-9a
GAE Joint Favorable Substitute: 4-9a
File No. 505: 4-9a
APP Joint Favorable: 4-9a