Sample Talking Points on SB 243 (Historic Areas or Sites Amendments) and Contact Information for Legilsators

Members of the Senate Workforce and Services Committee

Sen. Wayne Niederhauser (R - Draper, South Sandy) wniederhauser@utahsenate.org 801.742.1606 (the bill's sponsor)

Sen. Stuart C. Reid, Chair (Ogden) screid@utahsenate.org 801.337.4182 (h)
Sen. Patricia W. Jones (D - Holladay/Murray) patjones@djasurvey.com 801.322.5722 (w)
Sen. Karen W. Morgan (D - Cottonwood Heights/Midvale kmorgan@utahsenate.org 801.538.1406 (w)
Sen. Ralph Okerlund (R - Monroe) rokerlund@utahsenate.org 435.979.7077 (m)
Sen. Jerry W. Stevenson (R - Layton) jwstevenson@utahsenate.org 801.678.3147 (m)
Sen. Michael G. Waddoups (Taylorsville/West Jordan) waddoups@utahsenate.org 801.355.1136 (w)


Talking Points:
In your statement, let them know any or all of the following points:

- SB 243 prevents local communities from preserving what is important to them. The menu of choices listed in the current statute lets communities decide - based on local preference and best practices - how to protect historic sites. That should not change.

- SB 243 is also a disincentive to the private process of redevelopment, inhibiting owners who want to revitalize historic properties in partnership with municipalities.

- A one year moratorium for historic preservation hurts Utah’s economy by stopping development of historic properties in the following ways:

1) Historic Preservation = Jobs.

According to a 2010 Rutgers University study:

- Jobs generated by historic rehabilitation require higher skill levels and pay better wages than those generated by new construction.

- In 2008, historic rehabilitation work created 58,000 jobs. These jobs have been concentrated in the construction, manufacturing, service, and retail sectors.

- $1 million invested in historic rehabilitation produces markedly better economic impact in terms of jobs, wages, and federal-state-and-local taxes than a similar investment in new construction, building highways, manufacturing machinery, agriculture, and telecommunication.

2) Historic Preservation is Tourism.

According to 2009 statistics, cultural and heritage visitors spent, on average, $994 per trip compared to $611 for all U.S. travelers. Perhaps the biggest benefits of cultural heritage tourism, though, are diversification of local economies and preservation of a community’s unique character. In Utah, tourism can be seen from Temple Square, the state’s most visited historic site, to the six heritage areas, hundreds of historic districts, to the publicly and privately owned historic sites and museums. (Source: Cultural & Heritage Traveler Study, Mandela Research, LLC)

3) Historic Preservation means private investment.

Municipalities often act as a stimulus to greater community reinvestment and as gateways to accessing multiple incentive programs for the public. According to the Rutgers study, for every $1 of incentive provided by the federal tax credit, $5 of private investment is leveraged. Three-quarters of this investment remains in the local community where the labor and materials tend to be hired and purchased.