SALT LAKE CITY — After discovering his ties to several properties disqualify him from being a Utah Inland Port Authority board member, House Speaker Greg Hughes now wants to change the bill he championed so he can stay in the seat he appointed himself to.

Hughes, a developer and property manager, is registered with at least eight companies that own land within the port authority's 5-mile restrictive boundary that prohibits board members from owning property other than their personal residence, under SB234's current conflict of interest provisions.

Those include: a batch of apartment developments along 200 West in Salt Lake City; the Holden Apartments at 854 S. 200 West; the Woodruff apartments at 235 S. 200 East; and a sliver of land, 0.05 acres, at 564 N. 800 West, owned by an expired limited liability company Wilkeshire Homes LLC, according to Utah business records.

Hughes' business partner, Gary Nordhoff, is also affiliated with several properties within the port's 5-mile radius.

The United Utah Party on Wednesday called on Hughes to resign from the inland port board, criticizing him for appointing himself to that body.

"Speaker Hughes never should have appointed himself to the position," the statement says. "The fact that he did so and now admits he might have a conflict of interest makes us suspicious about his motivation for appointing himself. The law is not ambiguous on this matter. He never should have appointed himself and, if he has a potential conflict of interest, he does not belong on the board."

Hughes told KSL on Thursday that he didn't know he had properties that would conflict with SB234's language until he got a map of the restricted area Tuesday, the day after the Utah Inland Port Board was supposed to have its first formal meeting but didn't because its members weren't officially empaneled amid questions about conflict-of-interest issues.

Hughes, who cited "ambiguity" in SB234 as to why he didn't file a conflict of interest form for the port authority board, lists only Steelers Holding LLC on his legislative conflict-of-interest disclosure, but none of the other companies that he's registered under in state records.

Related story:

Speaker Hughes appoints himself to Utah Inland Port Authority board

While Salt Lake City and state leaders continue to clash over how a future inland port will be governed, the appointments to that governing were announced Monday.

Hughes said he's not legally required to disclose any of the other companies aside from Steelers Holding LLC because it acts as a holding company for his property management and development entities.

He said there's nothing "nefarious" about him owning apartments near the inland port jurisdiction, noting that if he wanted to be involved with the inland port, he wouldn't be a board member.

"Putting myself on the board is the surest way I'm not going to be involved privately or personally in the inland port," Hughes said.

'More than just myself'

Hughes said he'll pull himself off the board he appointed himself to if he must — but he argues the language in the law needs to be changed to address a "broader issue."

"If there is such big opposition to me and I have to not be here so we can have this discussion, I'm ready to do that," he said. "But we have to have this discussion. We need to do it to better define board limitations."

"That buffer is problematic," Hughes added. "And it's about more than just myself."

Hughes, calling the 5-mile radius "unbelievably large," isn't the only board member who would be disqualified under SB234's current language.

Salt Lake City Councilman James Rogers — who represents the area of Salt Lake City that is mostly included in the inland port's boundaries — is also affiliated with a business that owns land in the restricted area.

"If that buffer negates the (person) that represents the majority of people in that area, I would argue that is contrary to legislative intent, and I think it's a sad scenario," Hughes said.

Rogers, according to his conflict of interest statement filed with Salt Lake City, owns Northgate Park, LLC, a company that owns the Northgate Business Park at 825 N. 300 West, which rents out office space.

But Rogers, like Hughes, doesn't want to give up his seat on the port authority's board. He said in a statement issued Thursday that it's "vitally important" to him to represent his district. "I am eager to be that representative," he said.

"I absolutely support transparency and strong ethical standards," Rogers added. "The sweeping 5-mile radius may not be the best tool to assure there are no conflicts of interest. Any disclosure of personal or professional financial benefit would better address any potential conflicts."

Rogers also said he has "a minority interest" by owning a building where tenants rent office space, and he's "far enough" from the port's boundaries that "it would not be conducive for port activity." He noted that his property is three blocks away from the Capitol and so an "objective observer would likely conclude" his business interests "do not have relevance to the port authority."

"I know there are other aspects of the legislation that need to be addressed, and I'm hopeful the general 5-mile restriction could be replaced with something that is even more robust in terms of ferreting out situations where a board member may actually benefit personally or professionally from the actions they take as a board member," Rogers said.

If Rogers is disqualified, one other Salt Lake City councilman could serve on the port board because his district falls within the port authority's boundaries: Councilman Andrew Johnston. According to Johnston's conflict-of-interest form filed with Salt Lake City, he doesn't own any properties within the boundary other than his personal residence, which is allowed under SB234.

Clashing opinions

Hughes and legislative general counsel John Fellows argue that the language in SB234 could also be interpreted to disqualify other board members, including Lara Fritts, Salt Lake City's economic development director; Stuart Clason, Salt Lake County's regional economic development director; or even Derek Miller, president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber, because of their duties for those entities.

Miller said Thursday he's confident he doesn't have a conflict.

"I think the law is pretty clear," Miller said.

The language in the law the speaker points to is a provision that states a board member may not own an interest in, be directly affiliated with, or is an employee or officer of "a firm, company or other entity that the individual is likely to participate in or receive compensation, or other direct financial benefit, from the development of the authority jurisdictional land."

Related story:

Utah’s 2020 trifecta: Airport, prison, port projects have huge implications for state economy

2020 is a big year for Salt Lake City and for the rest of Utah.

Miller, for example, Hughes said, reports to a board of directors that includes members who could have a direct financial interest in the inland port.

But Miller disagrees with the argument that he would "directly benefit from the development of the inland port."

"To argue that is a direct financial benefit is a stretch," he said.

Despite their complaints, it does not appear likely that Hughes or Rogers will get the changes they want.

Gov. Gary Herbert has "no interest in calling a special session for this kind of issue," his deputy chief of staff said Thursday.

"These are pretty sensible and understandable kinds of restrictions to help avoid conflicts," Paul Edwards said. "Cleary that was the intent for putting in the conflict of interest rules into the statute, and to try to modify those at this point — given all the other questions and concerns that have come up — it would just be inappropriate and I think would harm the public trust in moving forward."

Edwards also noted that the Utah Attorney General's Office gave a "firm legal opinion" that there was no ambiguity about the appointment of Carlos Braceras, director of the Utah Department of Transportation, whom Fellows used as an example earlier this week as a possible board member who could have a conflict of interest because of how SB234 is written.

"The issue for us is not how to accommodate individual circumstances," Edwards said. "The issue for us is how to make sure that there are not apparent conflicts in place that could put a cloud of concern over the decision making for this very important body.

"It's a curious place we've found ourselves in," Edwards added. "But it will be up to the appointed entities to try to resolve this as quickly as possible so the important work can go forward."

Related topics