Amends TCA Title 7, Chapter 40.

This bill revises various provisions of the Border Region Retail Tourism Development District Act, as discussed below. Generally the Act provides for special apportionment of sales and use tax revenue.<br /> <br /> (1) This bill specifies that the benefits of the Act apply to any cost incurred in connection with developing a project as a whole, even if:<br /> (A) The cost includes development of portions of the district or business in the district, or both, that do not, by themselves, generate state sales and use tax revenue or sufficient state sales and use tax revenue, by themselves, to meet the standards set forth in the definition of "extraordinary retail or tourism facility," including a retail store, or series of stores, or other attractions or facilities open to the public, that do not or will not, by themselves, generate state sales and use tax revenue; or<br /> (B) The sequence of development results in development of businesses or attractions, or both, to attract or stimulate interest in the project by retail businesses or retail tourism facilities to be developed at a later time.<br /> <br /> (2) Present law defines "extraordinary retail or tourism facility" as a single store, series of stores, or other public tourism facility or facilities located within a border region retail tourism development district, and including retail or other public tourism facilities that are reasonably anticipated to draw at least 1 million visitors a year upon completion. The extraordinary retail or tourism facility must reasonably be expected to require a capital investment of at least $20 million including land, buildings, site preparation costs, and is reasonably anticipated to remit at least $2 million in state sales and use tax, annually, when completed. This bill revises this provision to include "a combination of a single store, series of stores, or public tourism facility".<br /> <br /> (3) One of the requirements for receiving the special allocation under present law is that the commissioner of revenue, with approval by the commissioner of economic and community development, determines that the special allocation of state sales tax is in the best interests of the state. This bill revises this provision to instead provide that the finding must be that the allocation "is reasonably anticipated to attain the goals set forth in the definition of 'extraordinary retail or tourism facility' based on applicable objective professional standards".<br /> <br /> (4) This bill adds to the Act that no change to, or deviation from, a master development plan for a district, once the district is certified, or change in, or deviation from, a project in a district that has been certified, will result in a district losing its certification, or disqualification of any cost, so long as the district is reasonably anticipated to attain the thresholds described above in (2) based on objective professional standards. In order to support decertification or disqualification of cost, the commissioner will bear the burden of establishing that such change or deviation has caused the district to not be reasonably anticipated to attain the requisite thresholds.<br /> <br /> (5) This bill adds that the thresholds described above in (2) must be met based on the performance or reasonably anticipated performance of the projects in the district as a whole, and the commissioner does not have the discretion to exclude consideration of the cost to develop any business in a district.<br /> <br /> (6) Under present law, within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year for which a municipality is requesting an allocation of sales and use tax revenues, the municipality must submit to the commissioner a summary of the cost of the economic development project through the end of that fiscal year with supporting documentation certified by the chief financial officer of the municipality. This bill makes this provision discretionary instead of mandatory. This bill also revises the summary provision so that the summary will be of the cost through the end of that fiscal year or during the investment period or both.<br /> <br /> (7) Present law provides that the apportionment and payment must be made by the department of revenue to the municipality within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year for which the municipality is entitled to receive an allocation and payment. If the commissioner determines that any cost included in a certification of a municipality is not a qualifying cost, the commissioner must promptly give notice of the determination to the municipality. This bill adds that if, at the end of that 90-day period, the commissioner has not approved or disapproved the costs, with specific reasons for each disapproval, then those costs will be deemed to be approved.<br /> <br /> (8) This bill adds that once the commissioner has approved any cost, whether incurred by the municipality or, as a result of delegation, by an industrial development board or any developer acting by agreement with the municipality or industrial development board, such approval will be deemed conclusive that the district is being developed for an extraordinary retail or tourism facility.<br /> <br /> (9) This bill adds that a developer of a project within a district who has entered into an agreement with a municipality or industrial development board related to such project or any proposed project or district has standing, with respect to such project and district, to seek remedies to enforce the Act or any rights created by the Act, including specifically the remedy to appeal the commissioner's determination that a cost is not a qualifying cost.<br /> <br /> ON APRIL 30, 2019, THE HOUSE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED HOUSE BILL 620, AS AMENDED.<br /> <br /> AMENDMENT #1 revises the circumstances described above in the bill summary in (1)(A) to include portions of the district or business in the district that do not generate "visitors" sufficient to meet the standards set forth in the definition of extraordinary retail or tourism facility. This amendment also removes the following provisions from this bill:<br /> (1) The provision, described in item (6) of the bill summary, whereby the summary will be of the cost through the end of that fiscal year or during the investment period or both;<br /> (2) The provision, described in item (7) of the bill summary, whereby if, at the end of the 90-day period, the commissioner has not approved or disapproved the costs, with specific reasons for each disapproval, then those costs would have been deemed to be approved.<br /> <br />