Bill Summary for Bill Number SB09-173

Date: 03/17/2009

Final
BILL SUMMARY for SB09-173

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND LABOR

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment C). The motion Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment B). The motion Moved amendment L.004 (Attachment D). The motion Moved to refer Senate Bill 09-173 to the Committee	FAIL FAIL FAIL PASS

12:03 PM -- Senate Bill 09-173

Representative Rice, prime sponsor, presented Senate Bill 09-173 concerning the economic development of large-scale regional tourism projects to be partially financed with a portion of state sales tax revenue above an existing base amount. This bill allows one or more local governments to pursue tourism-related projects on a regional basis using state sales tax increment financing. Local governments that wish to utilize the financing mechanism must designate a specific zone in which the sales tax increment will be collected. They must also designate a financing entity, which can include either an established urban renewal authority, an established metropolitan district, or a new regional tourism authority. Projects must first be approved by the Economic Development Commission. The bill sets forth the information that must be included in an application and the criteria that must be satisfied to approve the project. Substantial work must commence within 5 years of a project being approved.

Tax increment financing (TIF) allows for the cost of public improvements in a region to be repaid from increased taxes generated by new or expanded business activity in the region. Under TIF, any taxes collected above a base amount are dedicated to repay the bonds that were issued to raise money to complete the improvement in the first place. In Colorado, TIF is used primarily by municipalities for urban renewal projects. This bill provides for the use of tax increment financing on state sales taxes for tourism-related projects. The bill defines the base as total state sales tax collections in the zone in the 12-month period immediately preceding the month in which a project is authorized.

12:09 PM

Representative Rice discussed the issue of Urban Renewal Authorities and said he would like to look at the issue, but does not want to take them out of the bill. Representative Rice responded to questions from the committee regarding the oversight of the entities within the bill. There was a discussion about regional tourism authorities. There was a question about how the base number is determined. Representative Rice said currently it is set at revenue over a 12-month period and asked the witnesses to comment of that issue.

12:18 PM -- Chris Mendez, representing Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI), testified against the bill. He stated that CCI supported the general scope of the bill, but said they are concerned with the urban renewal authorities. Mr. Mendez talked about CCI's concern with urban renewal authorities and suggested they be taken out of the bill. Mr. Mendez responded to questions from the committee about urban renewal authorities.

12:25 PM -- Matt Cheroutes, Director of Communications for the Governor's Office of Economic Development and International Trade, testified in favor of the bill and said it was a good piece of economic development.

12:27 PM -- Jim Mulligan, an attorney representing the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, and the Colorado Competitive Council, testified in favor of the bill. He talked about the benefits of funding projects under the bill and commented on urban renewal authorities. Mr. Mulligan responded to questions about projects that may have been voted down by the public and how the bill would effect those. Mr. Mulligan explained that the projects under the bill still need to be reviewed.

12:36 PM -- Wendy Mitchell, representing Aurora Economic Development, testified in favor of the bill. She talked about other states that use sales tax revenue bonds and gave examples of projects that can be created under the bill. She also responded to questions from the committee about projects that may have been voted down by the public and how the bill would effect those. Representative Rice responded to the question and stated that the projects that have been voted down, were voted down because they asked the voters to commit general fund revenue to those projects.


BILL:	SB09-173
TIME:	12:42:59 PM
MOVED:	Gagliardi
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment B). The motion failed 8-3.
SECONDED:	Soper
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Bradford	No
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Liston	No
	Priola	No
	Ryden	No
	Scanlan	No
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	No
	Casso	Yes
	Rice	No

Not Final YES: 3 NO: 8 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB09-173
TIME:	12:47:29 PM
MOVED:	Gagliardi
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment C). The motion failed 9-2.
SECONDED:	Soper
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Bradford	No
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Liston	No
	Priola	No
	Ryden	No
	Scanlan	No
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	No
	Casso	No
	Rice	No

Not Final YES: 2 NO: 9 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB09-173
TIME:	12:48:38 PM
MOVED:	Soper
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.004 (Attachment D). The motion failed 7-4.
SECONDED:	Gagliardi
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Bradford	No
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Liston	No
	Priola	No
	Ryden	Yes
	Scanlan	No
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	No
	Casso	Yes
	Rice	No

Not Final YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB09-173
TIME:	12:51:18 PM
MOVED:	Rice
MOTION:	Moved to refer Senate Bill 09-173 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 10-1.
SECONDED:	Balmer
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Bradford	Yes
	Gagliardi	No
	Liston	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Scanlan	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Casso	Yes
	Rice	Yes

Final YES: 10 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

12:52 PM

The committee adjourned.