Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee clears bill removing surety‑bond option and requiring crime insurance for public officials
Summary
House Bill 64 would remove the statutory requirement that certain public officers obtain surety bonds and instead require crime insurance; the committee voted unanimously to forward the bill after county insurance representatives explained the market issue with surety bonds.
Representative Dunigan introduced House Bill 64, which replaces a statutory requirement that some public officers obtain surety bonds with a requirement for crime insurance.
Nut graf: Johnny Miller of the Utah Counties Indemnity Pool and sponsor representatives told the committee the surety market effectively functions like a loan requiring indemnity; because the Government Immunity Act prevents recovery by surety companies from local governments, issuers will not underwrite those bonds. As a practical matter, counties currently use crime insurance to cover embezzlement and related losses.
Miller described surety bonds as a prearranged loan that expects reimbursement; because statute prevents recovery, sureties decline to issue bonds. The bill deletes the bond option and retains crime insurance as the required protection, which county representatives argued provides clearer coverage and avoids public confusion about the existence of a bond.
There was no public opposition in the committee's public comment period. Senator Vickers moved to favorably recommend HB 64; the committee approved the motion unanimously.
Ending: HB 64 advances to the full Senate; sponsors said the change clarifies practice and maintains indemnification via crime insurance rather than surety bonds.
