Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sports Venue Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SB 333 would create major-sport venue zones and broaden county taxing powers; League staff flag open questions
Summary
League staff outlined Senate Bill 333, a bill that would let municipalities or counties create major sporting-event venue zones (up to 50-acre secondary areas) and grant expanded tax increment, accommodations and resort tax authority, while raising stacking and governance questions.
League staff presented Senate Bill 333 to the Legislative Policy Committee, describing a mechanism to create “major sporting event venue zones” (MZEVs) that a city or county could use if an approved venue exists in the jurisdiction. The League characterized the draft as expansive and flagged uncertainties about allowable taxes, stacking with other districts, and housing provisions.
Under the draft described to members, a creating entity (a municipality or county) could establish a primary venue designation and a secondary project area up to 50 acres that must be contiguous or within two miles and connected by transportation. The bill’s qualifying venues include international-competition venues with more than $100 million in capital improvements and a range of professional and international facilities; staff noted the bill’s scope could include venues used for Olympic ceremonies and convention facilities associated with a venue.
SB 333 would permit use of property and sales tax increment for 25–40 year financing periods and allow the creating entity to levy a 15% accommodations tax or expand the transient room tax (TRT) rate; staff said the bill’s text is unclear whether additional TRT would stack on existing county or municipal rates or supplant them. The draft also gives counties authority to impose municipal-style taxes — including municipal telecom and energy/use taxes — inside a project area and, in one special provision, allows Summit County to impose a 1.1% resort communities tax countywide. The bill disallows applying tax increment where an existing TIF (RDA/HTRZ) already receives increment but otherwise leaves stacking of other taxes ambiguous.
Staff raised housing questions: the bill references affordable housing but provides limited detail, stating housing financed through the mechanism could be owner‑occupied at 20% of county AMI and rental housing at 80% of county AMI (language in the draft presented was terse). Members asked how multiple jurisdictions could collaborate on a zone and how counties and cities would coordinate if a venue sits partly inside a municipality and partly in unincorporated county land.
The League recommended a position of “pending” on SB 333 while it gathers more information about the bill’s scope, the interplay with other development districts, and tax headroom implications. Staff invited local examples of interjurisdictional partnerships that could inform amendments.
