Local treasurers; increases maximum amount of surety bond required.
Summary
HB2658 amends Virginia law governing the surety bonds required of local treasurers and directors of finance. The bill increases the maximum bond amounts for county treasurers and county directors of finance across all population brackets, raising the caps from $300,000 to $450,000 for the smallest counties and from $1 million to $1.5 million for the largest counties. It also allows the responsible court or governing body to continue excluding certain loan and federal revenue sharing receipts when calculating the minimum bond amount.
For city treasurers and directors of finance, the bill similarly raises the maximum bond limits, increasing the cap for cities under 100,000 population from $500,000 to $750,000 and for cities over 100,000 population from $1.5 million to $1.95 million. The underlying requirement that the bond be at least 15 percent of annual revenue remains unchanged, but the bill gives localities higher ceilings to better match current fiscal exposure.
Impact
The bill directly amends Sections 15.2-1529 and 15.2-1530 of the Code of Virginia, changing the statutory maximum surety bond amounts for county and city treasurers and directors of finance. It affects local governments, courts, and governing bodies responsible for setting bond penalties, and it may increase bonding costs or insurance requirements for affected finance officers while providing greater financial protection for public funds.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced unanimously through subcommittee, committee, and both chambers, with no recorded dissenting votes in any of the listed actions. The voting pattern suggests general agreement that the bond limits should be updated to reflect current financial conditions and risk levels.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the available record. The only substantive policy question reflected in the text is whether the higher bond ceilings are necessary and how much discretion local courts or governing bodies should retain in setting the bond amount. Because the bill passed unanimously, any concerns about increased costs for local treasurers, administrative burden, or the adequacy of existing bond levels do not appear to have generated opposition in the recorded proceedings.