DynamicSim logo
S

Politics

State Legislature

Community Stadium District and Small Business Participation Act

Status: PassedState: ColoradoIssue: Small Business

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

To ensure that public participation in a professional football venue delivers durable benefits to Colorado's small businesses and the neighborhoods that host it, this bill establishes a Community Stadium District and a governing Authority — including local government, labor, small business, and ownership representatives — to define the district's boundaries and administer its requirements; the bill directs that not less than 35% of the total value of construction, procurement, and operations contracts be awarded to Colorado-based small businesses, with not less than 40% of that share reserved for minority-, women-, veteran-owned, or in-district firms, and requires all venue construction to pay no less than prevailing wage, meet a local-hire standard, and utilize registered apprenticeships while providing bid-readiness assistance and contract unbundling so small firms can compete; it grants in-district small businesses a right of first refusal on food, beverage, retail, and game-day vendor opportunities before any national operator and caps the share of vendor space any single concessionaire may control; it creates a Community Stadium Small Business Fund, capitalized by a per-ticket surcharge, a share of naming-rights and sponsorship revenue, and dedicated tax-increment revenue, to make revolving loans and micro-grants to local firms opening or expanding in the district, prioritizing targeted businesses and conditioning grants on wage and hiring standards; it authorizes the Authority to capture incremental district tax revenue above a base year solely for the Fund and public infrastructure — never for the ownership group's private costs or returns — subject to a legislated cap and a sunset no later than 25 years, and imposes no new general tax on Colorado residents; and it requires an annual public report on contracts awarded, jobs and wages created, fund activity, and increment captured, mandates anti-displacement measures for existing district businesses and residents, and directs the Authority to withhold or recover a proportionate share of public benefits whenever the contracting or local-hire targets are not met.

Judicial Review

No judicial review

No Supreme Court cases are currently attached to this law.

No cases filed.

Sponsor

Jordan CarterDemocratic Party

Cosponsors

Archived proceedingsColorado Chamber
Debate in progress

Community Stadium District and Small Business Participation Act

Floor statements
9
Speakers
3
Chair bulletins
3

Floor statements

-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
This bill awaits the Governor's action. Deadline: 2026-07-10 13:05:00 (UTC).
+ React
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