Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Salt Palace Appropriation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves $4 million state share for Salt Palace expansion after heated debate
Summary
The Utah House passed House Bill 1,011 to appropriate $4 million toward expansion of the Salt Palace convention center, adopting an amendment making the appropriation nonlapsing and tying the payment to an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake City; the bill passed 60–13.
The Utah House on April 20 passed House Bill 1,011, approving a $4,000,000 state appropriation to assist in expansion of the Salt Palace convention center.
Representative Dave Clark, sponsor of the bill, said the funding would be conditional on an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City and that Salt Lake City must provide an $8,000,000 contribution. "What we're looking to do is ... assist in the construction of the Salt Palace," Clark said, and he described the facility as "350,000 square feet of an economic generator in this state." Clark also told colleagues the amendment would make the appropriation nonlapsing and allow timing flexibility tied to the interlocal agreement.
The nut graf: supporters argued the Salt Palace produces statewide economic benefits and that leveraging local contributions would return substantial recurring revenue to Utah, while opponents said the state should prioritize other spending needs and raised concerns about past litigation and fiscal prudence.
During debate, Representative Becker praised the package and called the convention center "an enormous benefit to the state in terms of attracting, folks as tourists and economic opportunities." Representative Noel urged caution by recalling prior litigation: "We're talking about spending some funds here…and I believe Salt Lake City and their mayor and their county voted to file a lawsuit that cost the taxpayers of the state of Utah 250,000,000 dollars," he said, asking the body to weigh past costs.
Representative Farrin, who opposed the bill, framed his objection in fiscal terms: he said he did not want the House to ‘‘buy a new convention center…with other people's money’’ and urged investment in job-creating measures instead.
Clark and other supporters pointed to survey and revenue estimates included with the bill. Clark asserted the expansion would generate "another minimum $2,200,000 per year every year thereafter," and cited customer-survey numbers arguing for repeat visitation and economic spillover.
After the amendment that made the appropriation nonlapsing and adjusted effective dates passed, the House voted 60 yes, 13 no to pass HB 1,011; the bill was then referred to the Senate for further consideration.
The House’s action requires Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to execute the interlocal agreement described in the bill language and meet the payment-condition timelines before the state's disbursement occurs.
