An Act Concerning The Community Bank And Community Credit Union Investment Program Established By The State Treasurer.
Summary
SB 1255 makes a narrow, technical change to the statutory definitions used in Connecticut’s community bank and community credit union investment program administered by the State Treasurer. The bill revises the definition of “community bank” to mean a bank or out-of-state bank as defined in existing banking statutes, rather than the prior narrower list of Connecticut-chartered institutions. It also revises the definition of “community credit union” to mean a Connecticut credit union or federal credit union, replacing a more detailed definition tied to state credit-union organizational and governance requirements.
The practical effect is to update the eligibility language in the investment program statutes so the Treasurer’s program can rely on broader, cross-referenced banking definitions already found elsewhere in the general statutes. The bill amends Section 3-24j, which is part of the statutory framework for the community bank and community credit union investment program, and the changes take effect July 1, 2025. No new program is created; rather, the bill modernizes and clarifies who qualifies under the existing program.
Impact
The bill amends the definitions in section 3-24j of the general statutes, which in turn affects sections 3-24k and 3-24l through the cross-referenced definition structure. By replacing the prior detailed definitions with references to section 36a-2, the bill changes the set of financial institutions that may be treated as community banks or community credit unions for purposes of the State Treasurer’s investment program. This may affect which banks and credit unions can participate in or benefit from state investment activity under the program, while leaving the overall statutory program intact.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It received unanimous or near-unanimous approval at each recorded stage: 11-0 in committee, 34-0 in the Senate, and 147-0 in the House. The absence of recorded committee testimony or floor debate in the provided materials suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or clarifying update rather than a policy dispute.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only likely point of discussion would have been the scope of eligible institutions—specifically, the shift from a more detailed, Connecticut-focused definition of community banks and credit unions to broader statutory definitions that include out-of-state banks and federal credit unions. Any concern would likely come from stakeholders attentive to whether the program should remain limited to locally chartered institutions or be broadened, but the unanimous votes indicate no significant opposition.