Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Salt Palace Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House approves $17 million tourism package including Salt Palace funding after heated debate
Summary
The House passed second substitute House Bill 437, a $17 million tourism and renovation package that includes Salt Palace funding. Lawmakers debated interest use, repayment timing and constitutional concerns before the bill passed 56–19.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives on Feb. 22 approved a supplemental tourism and renovation package that includes funding tied to Salt Lake County’s Salt Palace convention center, passing second substitute House Bill 437, 56–19.
Representative Rob W. Bishop, sponsor of the measure, described the bill as a compromise package that spreads $17 million across the Salt Palace and other cultural and recreation renovation projects across the state. Bishop said the legislation is intended to provide an upfront revenue stream to counties ‘‘to meet their obligation of coming up with their money in those first couple of years when it’s tightest for them.’’
Opponents pressed the House over a provision allowing Salt Lake County to invest the state’s funding portion and use interest up front. Representative Brown moved to bracket portions of the bill to ensure the state’s $15 million commitment remained intact and to prevent counties from using state funds as operating cash. Brown said the maneuver could deprive the state of the interest over time and raised concerns about budget priorities across the state.
Representative Garn cited a report from the Legislative Auditor General that flagged multiple unanswered questions about the Salt Palace project, including the absence of final architectural drawings and firm cost estimates. ‘‘We don’t know if the project may cost $61 million or it may end up costing $161 million,’’ Garn said, urging caution and additional study.
The House clerk read a constitutional note attached to the bill: Article XIII, Section 5 of the Utah Constitution prohibits the legislature from imposing taxes for the purpose of any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, and the note said it is uncertain how a court would interpret the constitutionality of appropriating state funds to a county-owned facility. Sponsors argued the bill’s stated state purpose — promoting tourism and cultural enhancement — provides legal footing.
Amendment attempts to add matching-dollar language for smaller projects and to add specific community items were debated and several failed. Supporters, including Representative Jensen, argued the expansion would generate statewide economic returns, projecting convention activity could bring ‘‘$40,000,000 a year’’ and roughly $2 million in annual sales-tax revenue to state coffers under optimistic assumptions.
After extended debate over priorities, constitutionality and project scope, the House passed the second substitute bill. The measure will move to the Senate for further consideration.
What happens next: The bill is forwarded to the Utah Senate for its consideration and possible amendment. Given the constitutional question noted on the bill, legal review and Senate deliberations will determine whether the final package requires modification.
