Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects county-option tourism tax tied to state travel council, 44-27
Summary
The Utah House voted 44-27 to reject Fifth Substitute Senate Bill 60, a county-option hotel/restaurant tax that would have routed one-third of revenues to the state travel council, set a $500,000 sports commission floor, and allowed counties to request up to 20% back for local promotion.
The Utah House of Representatives voted 44-27 to defeat Fifth Substitute Senate Bill 60, a county-option measure to impose an additional restaurant and hotel tax and route a portion of the proceeds to statewide tourism promotion.
Sponsor remarks and bill framework: The bill’s sponsor told the chamber the tax structure would include an eighth of a percent on restaurant sales and 1.5 percent on hotel rates as a county option. “The county will collect the money of which one-third of it — the first one third goes to the state travel council in that tourism promotion fund,” the sponsor said, adding that the first $500,000 would be set aside for the sports commission and the remainder used for nationwide or international branding. Counties could request up to 20 percent of their collections to use on local promotion while the statewide fund would assist smaller counties that cannot market widely.
Local-control objections: Opponents pushed back on the distribution. Representative Dunnegan warned that “if a county wants to promote tourism…they’re gonna immediately lose at least 33% to the state,” arguing that the formula would reduce local return and could prompt counties to raise rates to net desired local revenue. He urged the House to allow more local participation in decisions about how tax dollars are spent.
Sponsor defense and policy rationale: Proponents said statewide branding produces broad returns and helps smaller counties. The sponsor argued advertising delivers strong economic returns, saying, “for every dollar we put out on advertising, we have that much more come back by about tenfold.” Proponents said the county-option design allows individual county commissioners to decide whether to participate.
Procedure and outcome: A motion to cut off debate (previous question) was called and adopted; final voting showed the measure failed, 27 yes to 44 no, and the bill was returned to the Senate.
What happens next: Because the bill failed on the floor, it will return to the Senate. No implementation actions or appropriations attached to the bill were enacted by the House.
