Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Tourism Tax topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate approves measure letting Salt Lake County add rental‑car levy to fund Salt Palace expansion

Utah State Senate · 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

The Utah Senate approved a second substitute to House Bill 360 allowing Salt Lake County to impose an additional rental‑car fee to finance tourism and cultural facility development, including potential Salt Palace expansion. Sponsor said it could yield roughly $4 million in state sales‑tax share and broader economic gains; the bill passed 24–0 with five absent.

The Utah Senate on March 3 approved a second substitute to House Bill 360, a measure that would allow Salt Lake County and other counties to impose an additional fee on rental vehicles and share proceeds statewide to finance tourism, cultural and convention facilities, including plans presented for an expansion of the Salt Palace.

Senator Craig Peterson, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, described the proposal as enabling local governments to raise revenues for long‑term tourist facilities rather than imposing a uniform new statewide tax. “This does provide ... an additional $4,000,000 per year in state share of sales tax revenues,” he said, adding an estimate that the expansion could generate about $86,000,000 in related visitor spending.

The measure frames the change as permissive — counties would be able to adopt the surcharge, and a sharing formula in the bill would direct some proceeds to counties beyond Salt Lake. Senators questioned whether to characterize the change as a tax increase or an enabling tool; Peterson said it is “enabling language” that allows local authorities to act while offering a mechanism to share revenue with other counties.

Under a roll call the chamber recorded 24 aye votes, no nays and five senators absent; the bill will be signed by the president in open session and returned to the House for final action.

Supporters argued the surcharge helps fund major infrastructure that otherwise would be difficult to finance, and that the bill includes sharing provisions so neighboring counties can benefit. Opponents who raised concerns during floor questioning sought to ensure the additional fee would not unfairly burden particular industries or communities.

The next procedural step is formal signature by the Senate president and transmittal to the House for enrollment and a final House signature.