Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Governmental Immunity Transparency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate approves changes to Governmental Immunities Act to require clearer notice contacts for government-owned entities

3571291 · February 7, 2025
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

First substitute Senate Bill 169 passed the Utah Senate unanimously (24–0, five absent). Sponsor said the bill requires governments to list doing-business-as names to ensure notice-of-claim rules under the Governmental Immunities Act are effective.

First substitute Senate Bill 169, an amendment addressing notice and transparency under the Governmental Immunities Act, passed the Utah Senate by voice and roll call with 24 yea votes, 0 nay and five absent.

Senator Wyler, the bill sponsor, told the chamber the measure is intended to increase transparency so members of the public and attorneys can determine where to send statutory notices of claim. He recounted a case involving the Utah Transit Authority and a private law firm, saying the firm followed UTA’s instructions on where to serve notice but the Supreme Court later held the notice was improper, and the case was dismissed for missing the statute of limitations. Wyler used that example to illustrate why clearer public lists of government entities’ operating names matter for notice requirements.

Wyler said the bill would require government entities to list the names and DBAs under which they operate so the public can identify the proper recipient for a notice of claim under the Governmental Immunities Act. He framed the change as a transparency and accountability measure rather than a shift in legal liability.

On the floor, there were no additional questions after Wyler’s presentation. The roll call recorded 24 yea votes; the presiding officer announced the bill had received 24 yay votes and would be read a third time.

The floor discussion did not specify implementation details such as the format or location for required DBA lists, nor did it cite a timeline for compliance. The transcript records the sponsor’s purpose and the roll-call outcome but does not include subsequent administrative instructions or effective dates on the floor record provided.

Votes at a glance: first substitute Senate Bill 169 — 24 yay, 0 nay, 5 absent; ordered read a third time.