Community Stadium District and Small Business Participation Act
Summary
This bill creates a Community Stadium District to tie any publicly backed pro football venue to local economic benefits, including small-business contracting quotas, prevailing wage, local hiring, apprenticeship use, and protections against displacement. It also sets up a fund financed by ticket surcharges, sponsorship revenue, and capped tax-increment revenue to support in-district small businesses while barring public money from covering the team ownership’s private costs.
Full text
Judicial Review
No judicial review
No Supreme Court cases are currently attached to this law.
No cases filed.
Sponsor
Jordan CarterDemocratic Party
Cosponsors
- Nate WeissDemocratic Party
- Eve BlackwellDemocratic Party
- Danny LauDemocratic Party
- Leon PattersonDemocratic Party
- Malcolm PriceDemocratic Party
- Charlene ShortDemocratic Party
Archived proceedingsColorado Chamber
Debate in progress
Community Stadium District and Small Business Participation Act
Floor statements
9
Speakers
3
Chair bulletins
3
Floor statements
Archived floor record-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
This bill awaits the Governor's action. Deadline: 2026-07-10 13:05:00 (UTC).
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
Voting is now open for 72 hours.
Closes:
Members may vote Aye, Nay, or Present. Results are visible in real time.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
Floor debate is open for 72 hours.
Opened:
Closes:
Keep remarks on topic. Voting opens automatically when debate closes.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
The Governor has signed this bill. It is now enacted.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Result: passed.
Aye: 56 seats
Nay: 43 seats
Present: 1 seats
Total seats: 100
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Governor Brenner, thank you — and I mean that. You just described this bill better than some of its supporters have.
You said the choice isn't between "no strings" and "no stadium," and that's exactly right. Nobody up here is against a team. The question was only ever whether we set the terms before the deal is signed or hope they materialize after, and we already know how "after" goes — it goes to whoever has the better lobbyists and the bigger legal team. You named that. It's why the bill puts the local-hire, apprenticeship, and small-business terms in the text, in advance, where they can be measured and enforced.
I want to take you up on the standard you set: workable, measurable, enforced with common sense. That's the right test, so let me show my work against it. Workable — the bill provides bid-readiness help and contract unbundling, because a set-aside a small firm can't actually bid on is just a number. Measurable — there's an annual public report on contracts awarded, jobs created, and wages paid, so nobody has to take my word for it. Enforced — if the hiring and contracting targets aren't met, the bill recovers a proportionate share of the public benefit. Those are the strings, and they're tied to results, not to trust.
And to your point about public dollars quietly covering private costs — the tax-increment revenue can go to the small-business fund and public infrastructure. It cannot go to the ownership group's operating costs or returns, and it sunsets. We wrote that line on purpose.
I'll say the same thing to you I'd say to anyone: if you find a place where these terms aren't workable or aren't measurable, bring it, and I'll help you fix it. That's a better use of this chamber than pretending the benefits trickle down on their own. A Minnesota small business and a Colorado small business want the same thing out of a project built next door — a fair shot at the work. This bill gives them the shot. I'm grateful to have you making that case, and I yield.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Colleagues, I’m a Republican, and I do not believe taxpayers should be writing blank checks for private owners. That is why I find some merit in this bill’s core idea. If a stadium wants any public backing at all, then the public ought to see something concrete in return: local hiring, apprenticeship opportunities, real access for small businesses, and clear limits so public dollars are not quietly shifted over to cover private costs.
I know some members have argued that any quota, wage standard, or district structure will scare investment away. That concern is not frivolous. But we just rejected an effort to strip this approach out entirely, and I think that was the right call. The choice is not between “no strings” and “no stadium.” The real choice is whether we set reasonable terms up front, or pretend the benefits will somehow trickle down on their own after the deal is signed.
As someone who came out of the private sector, I want these terms to be workable, measurable, and enforced with common sense. Minnesota small businesses can compete, but they should not be locked out by insiders with better lobbyists and bigger legal teams. If this chamber is going to bless a project with public involvement, then we should insist it leaves behind more than a scoreboard and a ribbon-cutting.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Motion voting has closed.
Motion: Remove language
Outcome: Failed
Aye: 47 seats
Nay: 53 seats
Present: 0 seats
Quorum: Met
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Motion voting has closed.
Motion: Remove language
Outcome: Failed
Aye: 47 seats
Nay: 53 seats
Present: 0 seats
Quorum: Met
+ React
Quick reactions