A pair of tourism-advertising bills died in the 2004 general session because of a lack of support from certain parts of the industry. But the amount of money is expected to be the sticking point this time around. Supporters, however, see Utah desperately lagging behind other states' tourism pitches and missing out on an estimated $8.64 return through increased tourist spending for every state dollar spent on promotion.

Utah now spends $900,000 annually on advertising to out-of-staters, although counties do some promotion through car-rental and restaurant taxes, and ski resorts and Ski Utah spend a total of $10 million to $12 million annually on promotion.

Another issue that cropped up late in the interim committee process was representation on the Board of Travel Development, also known as the Utah Travel Council. A few legislators expressed concern that Salt Lake County and other geographic regions would not be ensured a representative on the reconfigured board.

Expansion of zones

If it worked for aviation and aerospace, it will work elsewhere.

That's the thinking behind a tax incentive bill backed by the Workforce Services and Community and Economic Development Interim Committee. It calls for local entities to establish economic development zones. Businesses locating in those zones would be eligible to apply for tax rebates from the state if they create a significant number of high-paying jobs, make large purchases from Utah vendors and suppliers or create a new enterprise in the state.

Existing legislation limits the rebate program to aerospace and aviation development zones near airports, and state officials have approved incentives for a couple of companies to place operations — and potentially hundreds of jobs — near the Ogden Hinckley Airport. That amount of interest in a fairly young program proves that an expanded program could be even more beneficial to the state, they say.

State economic development officials and a few legislators see the expansion of the zones as another incentive tool that Utah could employ to grow companies in-state or lure companies from out-of-state to put operations in Utah. The existing Industrial Assistance Fund cannot provide the kind of incentives to lure such huge operations and job-creation, they say.

The new incentive would not apply to companies that merely shifted jobs from one part of Utah to another. They also would have to add jobs above their baseline count of existing jobs. And, to get the new incentive, they would not be eligible for more money from the IAF.

Supporters say Utah really cannot lose because the incentives would be given to companies only after they have created the jobs or otherwise spent lots of money in the state under the parameters of the legislation.