AGO 85-17.

Case Date:November 19, 1985
Court:Colorado
 
FREE EXCERPT
Colorado Attorney General Opinions 1985. AGO 85-17. November 19, 1985Department of Law Attorney General Opinion FORMAL OPINION of DUANE WOODARD Attorney General Opinion No. 85-17 AG Alpha No. TR AD AGAOR B. J. Thornberry Deputy Treasurer Department of the Treasury 140 State Capitol Denver, CO 80203 RE: Federal insurance coverage for deposits of moneys in the Highway Fund and the Public School Income FundDear Ms. Thornberry: This legal opinion is written in response to your September 11, 1985 request that this office supplement a previous legal opinion dated May 8, 1985 (the "May 8 opinion"). That earlier opinion concluded that certain deposits of state moneys for which the state treasurer is custodian are entitled to federal deposit insurance coverage as deposits of separate public units. QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION Whether deposits of state moneys belonging to the Highway Fund and the Public School Income Fund are entitled to separate federal deposit insurance coverage up to $100,000 for each deposit at a federally insured financial institution. Yes. It is my opinion that each of these funds is attributable to a distinct public unit. Each is entitled to separate federal insurance coverage up to $100,000, even though the state treasurer is the custodian for both public units as well as other deposits of state moneys at a particular financial institution. ANALYSIS The May 8 opinion addressed seven different accounts which the treasurer believes are entitled to federal deposit insurance coverage as separate public units. That opinion concluded that each of the seven was entitled to separate coverage. The opinion advised that the controlling opinions in this matter would be those of the appropriate officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). You have stated that you forwarded copies of the May 8 opinion to the FDIC and the FSLIC. Officials at these agencies responded with favorable opinions except with respect to the Highway Fund and the Public School Income Fund. Federal officials stated that the information provided in the May 8 opinion was insufficient for them to determine the status of those two accounts. The May 8 opinion did not discuss these funds in great detail because both were the subject of favorable...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP