Utah County commissioners delay vote on facility-use policy that would tie event insurance to risk

Utah County commissioners on April 23 agreed to continue two agenda items concerning revisions to the county's facility-use policy and event-insurance standards to a May 7 meeting after discussing proposed changes that would base required insurance on the type and assessed risk of an event rather than a single blanket level.

The proposal would replace the current per-occurrence $3,000,000 requirement for events held on county property with a tiered schedule tied to risk categories (low, medium, high). Under the draft policy language, some events could be required to carry $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 limits instead of the current $3,000,000, and the county would eliminate the formal process for requesting a reduction to the insurance requirement.

The change, presenters said, also includes a conforming edit to county code on an unrelated deadline and relies on an industry-based risk categorization included in the event insurance standards attached to the agenda. "Those aren't just numbers that we pulled up out of thin air," said Tom, the county risk manager, referring to the standards and the practice used by event-insurance providers and industry guidance.

Commissioners raised several questions during the discussion about how the new policy would handle controversial or high-risk activities, the role of content-neutral standards, and whether community partners should retain the ability to seek exceptions. One commissioner asked whether the proposed change would remove a group's opportunity to request a reduction; staff answered that the draft removes the existing reduction/appeal process but preserves the ability to grant fee waivers under section 1.4 of the draft facilities policy.

Staff and commissioners discussed activities the county considers categorically too risky, which would be prohibited regardless of insurance. Tom and other staff members gave examples such as commercially operated inflatable "bounce houses," which they said have repeatedly presented safety problems and would be disallowed. Staff also said the county would not permit activities that are illegal.

Commissioners noted a previous case in which an applicant initially denied a reduction later returned and received a reduction; that example prompted concerns that removing the appeal process could remove flexibility for partner organizations. One commissioner suggested replacing insurance waivers with fee waivers where appropriate so the county could continue to support partner groups without making exceptions to insurance standards.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to continue the two items to the commission's May 7 meeting for further review; another commissioner seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote; all present responded "aye." The items will return to the commission on May 7 for further consideration.

The meeting then moved to public comment (no speakers) and into a closed session; the commission later returned and adjourned.

The proposed revisions under consideration include: keeping a tiered risk schedule in the event-insurance standards, removing the formal reduction/appeal procedure from the facilities policy, preserving a fee-waiver mechanism (section 1.4), and explicitly listing prohibited activities that the county will not allow on county property. Staff said the risk categories and associated insurance limits are based on industry standards and event-insurance market practice rather than being arbitrary figures.

The county did not adopt the policy changes on April 23; instead the commission continued the items for additional review and possible amendment at the May 7 meeting.