Committee flags clarifications and edits to countywide debt policy; forms subgroup

Committee members reviewed the countywide debt policy (policy 10-60 and county ordinance references) and highlighted technical and editorial issues that need clarification before the policy is finalized for broader review.

Attorneys and staff discussed whether references to the Utah Money Management Council in the debt sections refer to investment rules for debt proceeds (not the management of debt itself), and recommended clarifying language. Committee counsel also raised that the SEC’s amended Rule 15c2-12 does not provide a bright-line numeric safe-harbor for materiality; members discussed whether the policy’s 2% de minimis threshold aligns with securities-law practice and recommended deferring final materiality rules to bond counsel and the disclosure officer.

Other technical points included clarifying references to guaranteed investment contracts (GICs), rewording confusing sentences about bond anticipation notes, and fixing minor typos (instances where the word 'often' appears but 'of' was intended). The committee asked staff and counsel to form a small working group to propose precise edits and to bring those recommended revisions back to this committee before forwarding to the ECC and County Council.