Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 24
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-46-309 (2024)

Commencement of development

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Substantial work on a regional tourism project, including but not limited to the financing entity's issuance of bonds or other debt instruments, the repayment of which is secured by a pledge of the state sales tax increment revenue or the commencement of actual development or predevelopment, such as erecting permanent structures, excavating the ground to lay foundations, mass grading of the site, or work of a similar description that manifests an intention and purpose to complete the project shall commence within five years from the date of approval of the project by the commission.

(2) If substantial work on the regional tourism project toward the goals specified in the application pursuant to section 24-46-304 does not commence within five years of approval by the commission, the commission may revoke or modify its approval of the financing entity or the regional tourism project. Revocation of approval may be appealed to the commission, which may reinstate its approval upon a showing of good cause for the delay. Any state sales tax increment revenue that the regional tourism project has generated from the time of the original approval for the project may remain dedicated to the project to the extent that it has been previously expended or pledged by the financing entity for the financing of eligible costs. If substantial work on the regional tourism project does not commence within one year of reinstatement of approval from the commission, the commission shall revoke approval of the project.

(3) If the commission revokes its approval of the financing entity or the regional tourism project, the commission may require that any state sales tax increment revenue collected during that period, together with investment income earned thereon, that was not previously expended or pledged by the financing entity for the financing of eligible costs shall be refunded to the state treasurer, and no further moneys shall be remitted by the state.

(4) In evaluating whether substantial work has been commenced for purposes of administering this section, the commission shall rely on the information and data supplied in the annual reports submitted pursuant to section 24-46-308. The commission shall have authority to revoke its approval of a financing entity or a regional tourism project only pursuant to this section.

Source: L. 2009: Entire part added, (SB 09-173), ch. 434, p. 2414, § 1, effective June 4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2015–2016 · leading case: City of Aurora v. 1405 Hotel, LLC, 2016 COA 52.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Aurora v. 1405 Hotel, LLC, 2016 COA 52. · cites it 4× “2015, challenging the constitutionality of section 309 of the RTA, section 24-46-309, C.R.S. 2015; and (4) a claim seeking a declaration that procedural irregularities in the CEDC’s approval of the initial Gaylord Project invalidated the RTA award.”
City of Aurora v. 1405 Hotel, LLC, 2016 COA 52, 371 P.3d 794. “§ 24-46-309(2), (4). As noted, the Hotels asserted an as-applied constitutional *805 challenge, asserting that if section 809 prevented the CEDC from reconsidering the award, it would constitute an irrevocable grant in w~iolation of Colorado Constitution article II, sections 11…”
Hotel, 2016 COA 52. · cites it 4× “2015, challenging the constitutionality of section 309 of the RTA, section 24-46-309, C.R.S. 2015; and (4) a claim seeking a declaration that procedural irregularities in the CEDC’s approval of the initial Gaylord Project invalidated the RTA award.”
1405 Hotel, LLC v. Colorado Econ. Dev. Comm'n, 2015 COA 127. · cites it 9× “2014, challenging the constitutionality of section 24-46-309, C.R.S. 2014, of the RTA; and (4) a claim seeking a declaration that procedural irregularities in the CEDC’s approval of the initial Gaylord Project invalidated that RTA award.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-46-309(2): 3 cases
City of Aurora v. 1405 Hotel, LLC, 2016 COA 52. “2015, challenging the constitutionality of section 309 of the RTA, section 24-46-309, C.R.S. 2015; and (4) a claim seeking a declaration that procedural irregularities in the CEDC’s approval of the initial Gaylord Project invalidated the RTA award.”
City of Aurora v. 1405 Hotel, LLC, 2016 COA 52, 371 P.3d 794. “§ 24-46-309(2), (4). As noted, the Hotels asserted an as-applied constitutional *805 challenge, asserting that if section 809 prevented the CEDC from reconsidering the award, it would constitute an irrevocable grant in w~iolation of Colorado Constitution article II, sections 11…”
Hotel, 2016 COA 52. “2015, challenging the constitutionality of section 309 of the RTA, section 24-46-309, C.R.S. 2015; and (4) a claim seeking a declaration that procedural irregularities in the CEDC’s approval of the initial Gaylord Project invalidated the RTA award.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.