Establishes provisions relating to stadium financing, including the No Taxation, All Donation Act and the No Dog in the Fight Act
SB 10 creates a new state funding mechanism for large athletic and entertainment facilities through two new statutory sections in chapter 100, RSMo. The bill establishes the “No Taxation, All Donation Act,” which authorizes the state, through the Department of Economic Development and the Office of Administration, to use money from a newly created “No Taxation, All Donation Fund” to help plan, finance, build, or improve qualifying stadium or entertainment projects. The fund would consist of private donations, be held in the state treasury, and not revert to general revenue at the end of the biennium.
To qualify, a project must be an athletic and entertainment facility with seating capacity over 30,000 and total project costs of at least $500 million. The bill defines eligible facilities broadly to include stadium structures and related systems, and it specifically includes facilities tied to Major League Baseball or National Football League franchises, including headquarters and training facilities located in Missouri. The bill also provides a donor incentive: anyone contributing more than $10,000 in the aggregate would receive free parking at the funded facility.
SB 10 also adds the “No Dog in the Fight Act,” which limits the profitability of food sales at any facility funded by the new donation fund. Under that section, a covered facility could not realize more than 20% profit on food sold on the premises. The measure is narrowly focused on stadium financing and related facility operations, and it does not authorize adjacent residential, commercial, retail, or mixed-use development as part of the eligible project.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to create a dedicated state fund for privately donated stadium financing and to give the Department of Economic Development and the Office of Administration discretion to approve and administer such projects. It would also impose a new operational restriction on food sales at funded facilities. In practical terms, the bill would open a pathway for state involvement in major professional sports venue projects while limiting the scope of what can be financed and how certain on-site revenues are treated.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the general sentiment and contention cannot be measured from legislative debate in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to support large professional sports facility projects while emphasizing private donations rather than tax revenue, but it also contains unusual conditions and restrictions that could draw scrutiny from supporters and opponents of public involvement in stadium financing.
SB 10 would amend chapter 100, RSMo, by adding sections 100.243 and 100.245 to create a dedicated private-donation fund for qualifying stadium and entertainment facility projects and to authorize state agencies to administer those funds for approved projects. It would affect the Department of Economic Development, the Office of Administration, the state treasurer, private donors, and owners/operators of large professional sports facilities, while also imposing a cap on food-sale profits at facilities financed through the fund.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize. From the bill text, the measure appears supportive of stadium development and professional sports retention, but it also reflects an attempt to limit the use of public resources by relying on private donations and by restricting eligible project scope and food-sale profits.
The main points of potential contention are the creation of a state-administered stadium financing mechanism, the involvement of state agencies in approving projects for professional sports franchises, and the narrow eligibility criteria favoring large MLB or NFL facilities. Critics could object to any state role in subsidizing stadium projects, while supporters may question the practicality of relying on donations alone. The 20% food-profit cap and the free-parking incentive for large donors are additional unusual provisions that could be debated by facility operators, donors, and policymakers.