Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Tourism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tourism and Salt Palace expansion plan discussed in committee of the whole; state and local contributions sought
Summary
Senators heard a multi-part presentation on Senate Bill 175, a county-option tourism funding package to support Salt Palace expansion and operations. Local officials asked the Legislature to consider a four‑way partnership with state, county, city and private industry, each contributing roughly $15 million to a multi‑decade plan.
Senators resolved into a committee of the whole to receive presentations on Senate Bill 175, which would create a county-option funding mechanism to support tourism, recreation and convention facilities and to help finance and maintain an expanded Salt Palace.
Truman Clawson (co‑chair of the Salt Palace expansion committee) explained that consultants (Coopers & Lybrand) concluded the city and county need to expand and remodel the Salt Palace to remain competitive. Rick Davis and Thane Robson of the Convention and Visitors Bureau outlined economic impacts: convention delegate spending has grown sharply, supporting hotels, restaurants and transportation. Robson said Utah’s travel-and-tourism expenditures were expected to reach about $2.7 billion that year and the industry employed more than 60,000 people.
The proposal discussed would let counties adopt a local option to tax certain tourism-related transactions (examples discussed included a 5% tax on drink setups and a 3% tax on short-term car rentals) to create an ongoing revenue stream for operation and maintenance of the facility and other tourism or recreation projects (museums, theaters, bicycle trails, and similar facilities were mentioned as eligible).
Commissioner Bart Barker and private-sector representatives explained the financing package the committee had developed: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the state would each contribute $15 million up front; industry would put forward an equivalent share. Coopers & Lybrand estimated a project cost closer to $61 million; the package available at the time totaled roughly $55 million, with soft costs and contingencies creating the gap.
Senators asked clarifying questions about county-by-county adoption (it is a county option), eligible uses (museums and bicycle trails were explicitly listed in the bill language), and whether the state contribution needed to be upfront to secure bonding and favorable bond counsel letters. Commissioner Barker said the financing rests on a package of commitments and that bond counsel would be nervous if the package were incomplete.
No final vote on SB175 occurred in this sitting; senators agreed to take the bill into committee of the whole for presentations and to collect letters of commitment and further details before floor action.
