[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6157653,"mediaKeyId","5463552-7283440df65491843f8999dd3c94cca0","parentId",5463552,"title","Committee reviews emergency-rule use after lapses at AG and Risk Management; staff cite notification failures","audioSeconds",2073,"startMs",4360000,"endMs",6433000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5463552-7283440df65491843f8999dd3c94cca0&start=4360&end=6433","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5463552-7283440df65491843f8999dd3c94cca0/thumbnail_4360000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6157653/Utah/Committee-reviews-emergency-rule-use-after-lapses-at-AG-and-Risk-Management-staff-cite-notification-failures","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157653-d294d73afaf270c84ea32d277c108655/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369177&Signature=fjjmqfXa4GeeIkskc5KZhoymjKeNE5xG-3HtAoCT4dScvLFLIFwauV2eZb6jYsrNPwIYdgFZfiZ-mzO1N3FiT9FTnmFVZW0hptkS~ziDpyc4pYvKp6Lfao~TpmyBVTEXWj2fLcUzekRyLpsVKIw8bA2b7qIrdlhffrjNHCDTpa4qOGPAuZj1-wQx57O-bod8tFt9Em-HiybN9pSWakGKEN3wgbzBVuUbe3eHL04brlzuTnfabZd7tQUGgRrDQZMR2DVapgxUyJdktVGtBNDR-HontxeCKFAU2LOGh9bhmU8PrDWLXCEpe-2SYrL2XGzDe5o6Px0SkdjjsvsxLRCwSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Legislature","date","2025-07-22T00:00:00Z","article","Lawmakers reviewed two emergency-rule filings from the attorney general’s office and an emergency rule from the Division of Risk Management after required administrative reviews or statutory publication deadlines were missed.

Paul Tonks, assistant attorney general, told the committee the attorney general’s administrative rules implementing the child protection registry and the white-collar-crime registry lapsed because the office failed to complete required five-year rule reviews. Tonks said the office immediately filed emergency rules on May 21, citing the statutory requirement that those registries be implemented and asserting that absence of rules would place the office in violation of state law. He said the office also concurrently filed substantive rulemaking to replace the temporary emergency rules.

Mike Brashinsky, director of the Office of Administrative Rules, said the office sends automatic 180-day notices when rules are due for five-year review but those notices were sent to former employees at the attorney general’s office; no current staff had been assigned to receive them, so the reminders were missed. Brashinsky said the lapse was a process failure and that the Office of Administrative Rules and the attorney general’s office coordinated to enact emergency rules and to refile permanent rules before the 120-day emergency period lapsed.

On a separate emergency rule, the Division of Risk Management filed emergency revisions after missing a statutory July 1 deadline to publish updated judgment-limitation caps under the Governmental Immunity Act. The legislative fiscal analyst computes updated caps by May 1 of even-numbered years; Risk Management is required to publish a rule by July 1. Dennis Flynn, assistant attorney general representing Risk Management, explained that staff turnover and an unclear assignment of responsibilities led to the missed July 1 publication; Risk filed an emergency rule to keep those limits current and has since submitted substantive changes that staff expect will take effect before the emergency rule expires.

Committee counsel and legislators raised concerns that emergency rules are intended for imminent harm or to meet federal or state compliance requirements and should not routinely be used to fix administrative oversights. Multiple staff described operational fixes: reassigning notification recipients, adding redundancy to compliance calendars, and ensuring named contacts are current so five-year reviews are not missed.

Ending: Committee members asked agencies to provide updated procedures and to minimize future emergency filings by ensuring timely five-year reviews and staff handoffs; no committee vote was required on the emergency rules themselves during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rules Review and General Oversight Committee - July 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The committee reviewed emergency rules filed by the attorney general’s office and the Division of Risk Management after required five-year reviews or statutorily mandated July 1 updates lapsed; agency and Office of Administrative Rules staff said notification and staffing gaps caused the lapses and described fixes.","taxTitle","2025 Utah Legislature, Utah Legislature, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",78171,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6157658,"State committee presses for clearer \"binding\" rules after Summit County petition signatures disqualified",3416,951000,4367000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5463552-7283440df65491843f8999dd3c94cca0&start=951&end=4367","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5463552-7283440df65491843f8999dd3c94cca0/thumbnail_951000.jpg","/articles/6157658/Utah/State-committee-presses-for-clearer-binding-rules-after-Summit-County-petition-signatures-disqualified","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157658-8c2ad0f250a2d5b0b32f5c19dc8cdc80/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369177&Signature=Qj9tROkIa8Y6N8ohDi3LS130r9mmZc-q32luaWHsyo2aP7WTPaQHHEn1r-WcjPWLRLrGSsEUbOKZSQrzw7cSHsaiyCwDBWRSwpU3GBEaotu7yz82OUOpt32AlfP~KQYbz9z9vPbkJfs4F97CoLbBzoTuLh6kgmM7nxbD38svr7Qwq0ELk90vtyzcXx7AHagBHxY1IzmPSZ49qe91iBCWnkAFA4XeZYKVM7PoMVIoAxAD~gv3zgwfWRrdMmmtrnbejTRfjClSlZf2nHtWhaDt-gB9ukteta24SmJ6NHtcFJfEH5PvZSE-b3Mg--52AS3geOKx8cuHirJC9jVlfVPbpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Utah legislative committee on a July special meeting opened a bill file to clarify referendum signature-packet requirements after speakers from Summit County and petition volunteers described thousands of disqualified signatures and inconsistent application of the code’s “binding” requirement.

Reid Galen, a Summit County resident who helped gather signatures for a referendum aimed at a Dakota Pacific development, told the Rules Review and General Oversight Committee that petitioners collected “more than 6,500 signatures, well above the required threshold” but that the Summit County clerk later “determined that half our signatures were invalid” because of what Galen called a subjective interpretation of a binding requirement. Galen said petitioners had made complete packets available at signing tables but that county staff later treated spiral-bound packets differently from three-ring binders.

Chris Williams, associate general counsel for the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, put the legal issue before the committee and displayed statutory text that requires referendum packets to be \"bound\" but does not define what counts as a binding. He said the code permits signature packets to be made available “in a manner that is conveniently opened for signing,” but that the statute’s lack of definition leaves room for differing county interpretations.

Multiple members of the committee and petition volunteers argued for clarifying changes. Representative Thurston proposed changing the affidavit signer line from “I have personally read the entire statement included with this packet” to language that requires each signer to certify they had an “adequate opportunity to read and understand” the materials before signing. Senator McKay proposed a committee bill file to address several cleanup items: whether packets must be permanently bound; clarifying an opportunity-to-read requirement; reviewing affidavit wording; and considering whether referendum rules should be construed to favor counting signatures in cases of ambiguity.

Angela Mosqueda, a volunteer, described practical decisions that reduced cost and waste: petitioners used spiral binding after a print shop recommended it would save about $20 per packet. She told the panel the code “currently does not say that the packets must be permanently bound,” and asked the committee to consider specifying permanence only if that is the legislature’s intent. Jimmy May, a Summit County resident, described the disqualification as disenfranchisement and criticized the clerk’s initial approach.

Action: the committee unanimously voted to open a committee bill file to consider the cleanup items outlined by Chair McKay; the motion carried without recorded dissent. The committee asked staff to gather drafting options and return with bill language drafting proposals for an upcoming meeting. The committee also noted that Summit County’s counsel declined to comment because the matter is in active litigation.

Ending: Committee members said they will pursue narrow statutory clarifications focused on definitions of “binding,” affidavit language about opportunity to review, and rules that favor counting valid signatures when statutory text is ambiguous.","Lawmakers asked for statutory clarifications to how referendum signature packets must be “bound” and how signers certify they had opportunity to review the proposed law, after Summit County residents said the county clerk invalidated many petition pages on technical grounds.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6157663,"Utah tax staff propose form changes to capture allocated unrelated business income from nonprofits",730,220000,950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5463552-7283440df65491843f8999dd3c94cca0&start=220&end=950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5463552-7283440df65491843f8999dd3c94cca0/thumbnail_220000.jpg","/articles/6157663/Utah/Utah-tax-staff-propose-form-changes-to-capture-allocated-unrelated-business-income-from-nonprofits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157663-1e6a7a67b50f9466201373e8ae8e7adb/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369177&Signature=cz~tsU6GQDIm8hWIEkp094yR5XsTbHgWJr3gceJt1JUF4G0YIeoMeXQzWT-bDRO39xv5SUNLh0GfyNznDnrBygsHL4neo50rsBFuJajroZ5qfTHshGe~f6YKFbCHYNMUHxdszFTaf~Jfc-tZS6iN9fgz78ajNQZAiodA9BdiAk-QtiGIAeMSS4Q00ih7lLIJPyQIvaYIv3LPhoQ4P-MKjXkWljcOGjksVzZ4vX-4lFATaVbvS4lV4zr0Ly5oC43q0F3y7zBxuizJuONSNSAgy46ka7wKM4Hfpcu6zxmv1Cl92gzl1uFAQeCNfJI2LRgQmICN14zMAEvs0GBpU0Sy9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tax Commission staff told the Rules Review and General Oversight Committee on a special July meeting that they will publish a revised state form to better record nonprofit unrelated business income and asked for public feedback. Jason Gardner, deputy executive director of the Utah State Tax Commission, said the issue was raised by tax practitioners and stems from changes in how nonprofit entities generate business-like income since Utah adopted unrelated business income taxation in 1994.

Gardner said, “Our current form apportions all income,” and that it does not separately account for allocated income. He explained that “allocated income is … allocated 100% to the state of corporate domicile,” and that the proposed draft form expands the current four-line state form to capture nonbusiness (allocated) income and to avoid “apportioning on top of apportionment” for income already apportioned at the partnership or LLC level. Gardner also said the commission is proposing a two-word statutory clarification to make state law read that unrelated business income is income “apportioned or allocated under the provisions of EDIPA.”

Senator Escamilla asked whether the commission was limiting the rule to certain nonprofit categories: “Is that definition that is provided by the IRS, like, a 5 1 c 3? Is that what we’re talking about, or is this a different type of nonprofit?” Gardner replied that the change would apply to “any type of nonprofit that receives this unrelated business income type,” including 501(c)(3)s and others that generate taxable unrelated business income. He and Commissioner Rebecca Rockwell said the Tax Commission can produce counts of filers if the committee wants more information.

Steve Young, a state and local tax attorney at Holland & Hart representing the Utah Taxpayers Association, told the panel the draft changes “look very good and helpful,” and said practitioners appreciate the commission’s outreach. Committee members pressed staff for clarity about which filers would be affected and asked that the commission publish the draft form and proposed statutory language so stakeholders can comment. The Tax Commission said it has a draft form and will invite public input before finalizing substantive changes.

Discussion only: committee members did not adopt any statutory change during the meeting. Committee chair McKay asked staff to post the draft and to accept public comment; no formal motion or vote on the Tax Commission proposal was recorded in the transcript.

Ending: The Tax Commission staff remained available for follow-up; committee members suggested clarifying the draft form, adding explanatory instructions about allocated vs. apportioned income, and providing the number of nonprofit filers who currently report unrelated business income.","Utah State Tax Commission staff told a legislative oversight committee they plan to revise the state unrelated business income form to account for “allocated” income that currently is not separated from apportioned income, and asked for public input before changing statute or forms.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reviews emergency-rule use after lapses at AG and Risk Management; staff cite notification failures

State committee presses for clearer "binding" rules after Summit County petition signatures disqualified

Utah tax staff propose form changes to capture allocated unrelated business income from nonprofits