Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Olympics Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House rejects amendment aimed at accelerating Salt Lake City’s Olympic sales‑tax payout; SB188 advances

Utah House of Representatives · March 3, 1998
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representative Jones proposed an amendment to SB188 to prevent a delay in Salt Lake City’s sales‑tax payout tied to Olympic coordination, framing it as a fairness and integrity issue; the amendment failed 29‑41 and the bill passed 50‑22 after extended debate about indemnification, state obligations and fiscal risk.

Senate Bill 188, which makes amendments related to State Olympic coordination, prompted one of the day’s most contentious floor debates when Representative Jones moved to remove a provision that would delay Salt Lake City’s sales‑tax payout. Jones argued the state should honor earlier agreements and not hold local revenue hostage to other bargaining leverage. He called the issue one of fairness and integrity, noting municipalities rely on expected revenues while preparing for the Games.

Representative Tanner, opposing the amendment, said the existing code allowed later payouts and emphasized statewide fiscal exposure if the state accelerated full payouts to Salt Lake City before overall Olympic finances were secure. Tanner and other opponents warned that accelerating payments could force future legislatures into difficult budget choices or litigation if a shortfall occurred.

Supporters of Jones’s amendment urged lawmakers not to renege on written agreements and highlighted Salt Lake City’s unique role as primary host and indemnified entity. The House voted on Jones’s amendment and it failed, 29 yes to 41 no. On final disposition, SB188 passed the House on the measure recorded as 50 yes votes and 22 no votes.

The exchange included multiple members raising questions about contract interpretation, timing of payments (January 15, 2002 vs. later dates under current code), and whether the state should treat Salt Lake City differently because of indemnification language in prior agreements.