Senate discusses convention center investment bill; sponsor says substitute expected after negotiations

Senate Bill 306, described by the sponsor as a package of changes related to convention‑center investments and use of related tax revenue, was discussed at length on the Senate floor; the sponsor said a substitute would be filed after further negotiations and did not present a final tally in clear form on the floor.

Sponsor explanation: Senator McKay said the bill deals with sales and use tax authority tied to convention center improvements, distribution and use of the Hotel Impact Mitigation Fund created with the downtown convention center hotel, and options related to transfer of jurisdiction for a portion of state highway (300 West). He said the bill may focus on the downtown block and the distribution of tax revenues to support convention‑center and adjacent cultural facilities including Abravanel Hall and UMOCA, but that negotiators were still working on details.

Floor concerns: Senator Reebie asked why the proposal limited expansions to a "county of the first class" and whether other counties should be eligible to use similar funds; Senator McKay responded that he was open to consideration and that many issues remained under discussion. Senator Plumb asked about the one‑block radius and whether funds would be diverted from countywide transportation needs; McKay said county and municipal leaders were negotiating other funding mechanisms and that discussions about quarter‑to‑quarter funds and transportation mitigation were ongoing.

Next steps and uncertainty: Senator McKay said the bill will receive a substitute tomorrow after afternoon negotiations. The transcript did not record a clear final passage tally for the bill on that floor sequence; the sponsor and several senators indicated remaining negotiatons and a substitute are expected.

Provenance: Sponsor remarks and senators’ questions are recorded in the floor transcript; sponsor explicitly said a substitute will be filed the next day to refine jurisdictional control and mitigation options.

Ending: The bill remains subject to change; sponsors said they would return with substitute language to address county concerns and traffic mitigation options.