Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Point Of The Mountain Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances Point of the Mountain land-use changes, creates privilege-tax framework for state-owned site
Summary
Senators passed first substitute Senate Bill 166 to refine board membership for the Point of the Mountain State Land Authority, set a privilege-tax formula to mirror property-tax equivalents, and clarify public-notice and plat-recording procedures for the 700-plus acre site.
Get email alerts on the Point Of The Mountain Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utah Senate on Tuesday read for a third time and advanced first substitute Senate Bill 166, which updates governance and tax treatment for the Point of the Mountain State Land Use Authority, the body overseeing development of the former prison site.
Sponsor Senator Stevenson said the bill contains several technical and policy changes to facilitate development of more than 700 acres of state-owned land near the point of the mountain. Key changes include amending board composition to a seven-member authority (three gubernatorial appointees with development expertise, one House member, one Senate member, the mayor of Draper and the Salt Lake County mayor); creating a privilege-tax on state-owned land to mirror property-tax equivalents; and clarifying publication and plat-recording procedures.
"We have a blank canvas of over 700 acres... some of the most prime real estate in the United States," Stevenson said, summarizing the need to update statutory language for utilities, transportation and tax distribution. The sponsor told senators the privilege tax is a terminology change because state land is not subject to traditional property tax; the bill spells out distribution to local governments that provide services.
Senators asked technical questions about whether the privilege tax would change revenue distribution to first-class counties or cities. The sponsor said the change is terminology only and that the county and city would receive payments consistent with existing service responsibilities. Senator Riebe asked follow-up questions about how the privilege tax would be structured; the sponsor replied that it would not alter distribution but would clarify administration.
First substitute Senate Bill 166 was read for a third time after floor consideration; the clerk recorded 24 yes, 0 no and 5 absent. The bill will be transmitted to the House for consideration.
