Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate centers on highway bond tied to proposed —Grand Salt Lake Mall—; amendment attempts fail and bill falls
Summary
Lawmakers debated funding a highway interchange and using sales-tax increments to underwrite bonds tied to a proposed "Grand Salt Lake Mall." Critics called the measure an earmark and warned it would divert sales tax; an effort to increase authorizations failed and the bill did not pass.
Representative Dilley moved to uncircle Senate Bill 176 to authorize general obligation bonding for a highway interchange related to a proposed Grand Salt Lake Mall and the Legacy Highway corridor. He described an $8 million authorization for highway improvements, tied to tax increments generated by the private development, and read estimates that the project could yield new sales tax revenues during construction and operation.
Opponents repeatedly framed the measure as an earmark that would divert sales taxes to a specific private development and cautioned the state would assume primary liability for bonds if the projected tax revenues did not materialize. "This is a direct earmark ... it's a wrong kind of a measure," Representative Tanner said during debate. Representative Sites argued the bill would earmark sales-tax funds to benefit a developer rather than distribute them through the usual transportation budgeting process.
Representative Hickman offered a substantial amendment to increase authorizations (from $8 million toward $18 million and to add a $10 million interchange for Milepost 2 on I-15), arguing economic-return criteria justify the change; that amendment failed after a division and call of the House. After multiple motions and a roll call, the House recorded 24 yes and 42 no; SB 176 failed to pass and will be filed.
Why it mattered: Sponsors framed the proposal as accelerating a planned highway project tied to expected economic development and substantial projected sales-tax gains; critics said the legislation set an unfavorable policy precedent and risked reducing general fund flexibility.
Outcome: Motion to amend failed; bill failed on final vote (24 yes, 42 no).
