HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - INSURANCE RENEWAL (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
�44
Item to be presented by:
Ken
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: February 25, 1997
SUBJECT: INSURANCE RENEWAL
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
Each year at this time the City takes the opportunity to review its position for the purpose of procuring insurance.
Since incorporation the City has insured all operations through a traditional commercial insurance program. This
insurance was obtained through the use of a qualified municipal insurance broker, Antelope .Valley Insurance
Agency, by providing a detailed profile of the City, its functions, assets and liabilities, in the open and
competitive insurance marketplace. Due to the City's policy of aggressive defense of claims, training and loss
control procedures, an excellent loss history has been maintained and premiums for all exposures have not
increased substantially.
Each year various insurance pools contact the City to seek our participation in Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs)
for liability and property insurance protection. Therefore, for the upcoming insurance renewal of March 1, 1997,
staff explored the use of a pool to determine if this vehicle would be more advantageous given the City's current
insurance profile.
In order to prepare for the renewal three of the most prominent JPAs were asked to submit information regarding
the coverage provided and program structure. In addition, an informal premium quotation was requested. This
premium quotation was based on a detailed profile of the City of Santa Clarita. Three quotations were assessed
on the basis of financial stability, protection or coverages provided and participation or premium costs. Based
on these factors it was determined that the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority, (ICRMA) would be
the most advantageous pool for the City should the City Council elect to pursue a pooling arrangement. It should
be noted that the costs of entering into an insurance pool for liability coverage is very similar to those costs
associated with our current program.
Intergovernmental poohng is an alternative risk financing mechanism utilized by many cities and special districts.
They consist of cooperative agreements among public entities to cover insurance needs through a jointly owned
program. The participating entities pay premiums or contributions to a joint fund from which they pay claims
and the operational cost of administering the pool. Pools are influenced by state regulation as well as the
1!'
A 19 Item:
T
philosophy and objectives of the pools members. All typically have policy making boards composed of
representatives elected or appointed by their member agencies. Day to day operations are handled by an
administrator.
The majority of pools are typically "risk sharing" organizations whose members pool their funds and share in
the costs of losses. In addition many pools return excess funds as dividends to their members should actual losses
be less than projected at the beginning of the policy period. In essence, a percentage of the premium may be
returned if the pool does well for a given policy period.
Although pools function like insurance programs in that they charge premiums in exchange for coverage and use
the proceeds to pay losses, they do possess unique characteristics. Among these characteristics are homogeneous
membership; loss control requirements; commitment of participants or multi-year agreements; peer pressure to
conduct risk management as the pool participants feel adequate; accountability or giving credits for good
performers and debits for poor performers; assessibility or the assessment of members if they do not have enough
funds to pay losses and expenses; and shared information which means there are typically professionals on staff
to conduct research for the benefit of the members.
The following are the pros and cons of pooling:
Pros:
• Pools offer broad coverage tailored to the needs of their members over time.
• Pool members have a say in how the pool is operated and may elect boards that adhere
to the members demands.
• Pools utilize an equitable rating system specific to their participants exposures and risks.
• Determination of claims is based on the pools philosophy.
• Premiums are stable and insulated from the fluctuations of the insurance market
• The risks of a severe loss are spread over the entire pool membership.
• There is a potential to receive dividends or refunds due to good loss history.
Cons
• Members may be assessed additional premiums if the pool is unable to pay a severe loss.
The City would be required to increase reserves based on the potential payout beyond the
self-insurance rate. For example, if the City were to lose a multi-million dollar law suit,
we would have to pay the SIR or $250,000 plus 50% of the yearly premium before the
lose sharing among the pool would take place.
• There is a greater time commitment from staff in order to dedicate sufficient time to the
pool and serve the membership adequately. Several pools require a full-time Risk
Manager in order to ensure an appropriate level of participation.
• A city does not have complete control over deternilnation of its claims and may be forced
to settle or defend claims that are not consistent with its own philosophy.
• A multi-year commitment must be made or a city must "buy out" of its agreement
• Coverages and premium pricing do not differ dramatically from commercial insurance
programs in a soft insurance market.
At this time it does not appear to be cost-effective to switch to pooling. The City is assessed higher rates because
of potential exposure which is unknown at this time. Most pools require hiring a full-time Risk Manager which
would cost the City approximately $100,000 a year with salary and benefits. Pools also regulate the decisions
which the City would make regarding settling and paying out claims. With the efforts of Burke, Williams &
Sorensen, Carl Warren & Co., and staff, the City has maintained an excellent loss history. If we augment the Risk
staff and concentrate our efforts, we can continue to save money with in-house services and still turn the larger
complicated claims to the consultants.
The differences between commercial liability rates and pooling liability rates are approximately $124,897.
Assuming the City were to receive from the pool a minimum $50,000 refund after the fourth year, the difference
would be $74,897, This does not include hiring new staff, increased exposure of paying out a large claim and loss
of control regarding the way we currently handle claims.
The following are some examples of cities which are currently in the ICRMA pool: Downey, Culver City, San
Fernando, Huntington Park, Redondo Beach, Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, Compton, El
Segundo, Fullerton, Gardena, Hawthorne, Manhattan Beach, South Gate, Vernon, and West Covina. Santa
Clarita is not like any other city in the pool. The cities in the pool are typically full service and completely built
out. While this difference is taken into account in our percentage payment of claims, they may not be sensitive
to the unique characteristics and political realities of Santa Clarita. In speaking with ICRMA it was stated that
our quotation is also based on what we will be (we are still growing with undetermined insurance needs). So, the
fact that the City is not built out and our type of losses cannot be predicted, puts the City at a disadvantage.
Based on this information as well as a review of pros and cons, it is staff s recommendation to procure liability
insurance through AVIA in the amount of $130,815. Additionally, purchase property insurance from AVIA in
the amount of $132,654 for a total of $263,469 for 1997-98.
It is staff's recommendation to procure insurance through AVIA and continue the current insurance program.
Authorize the City Manager to procure insurance in the amount of $263,469 for general liability and property
insurance.
Comparison Table
Insurance Quote
COMPARISON TABLE
p&n'
14311 Po'
5 6
tX
-5 a � "w 1�
,T
Liability
$130,815
$255,712
Fee
$0
$29,453
Other costs
$26,700
$100,000
Subtotal
$157,515
$385,165
Potential Refund
$0
$50,000
TOTAL
$157,515
$335,165
Definition of costs:
Liability costs are premiums paid for coverages offered.
Fees are a one-time application fee which is required by ICRMA.
Other costs include the cost of a full-time Risk Manager for ICRMA or the cost to fund half a position to assist
in the risk program with our current insurance program.
Potential refunds are estimated by pools based on loss experiences over a period of time. The reasonable scenario
would mean the City receives at least a $50,000 refund after the fourth year considering no major losses occurred.
• QMOIQ
QOQp
ANTELOPE VALLEY INSURANCE AGENCY
City of Santa Clarita
23920 W. Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
I___
FOR COMPLETE INSURANCE SERVICE
44824 NORTH CEDAR AVE.
POST OFFICE BOX 2659
LANCASTER. CA. 93539-2659
18051 942 '8441
February 13, 1997
EFFECTIVE POLICY INFORMATION PREMIUM
DATE
03-01-97 Insurance Company of the West
TO Renewal of Policy Nos. CSR1174750-06/ESR1174751-06
03.-01-98 Primary General Liability and Automobile Liability $122,500.00
$10 Million Limit - Excess over S.I.R. of $250,.000.
(Includes $10'Million Excess Transit Coverage)
03-01-97 1 Reliance Insurance Company
TO Renewal of Policy No. QB8572264
03-01-98 Commercial Package Policy 123,564.00
(Includes Buildings, Personal Property, Autos,
Valuable Papers/Records, Computers, Contractors
Equipment,.Tools and Boiler & Machinery) As per
expiring Reliance Insurance Company Policy
03-01-97 Reliance Insurance Company
TO Renewal of Policy No. QB8570922
03=01-98 Business Income ($4,500,000 at 23920 W. Valencia Blvd) 9.090.00
Total Premium ($255,154.00
Premium to increase
liability limit to $15,000,000 8,315.00
Premium to increase
liability limit to $20,000,000
Total premium if limits are increased to $20,000,000 •15268,375.00
PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO ANTELOPE VALLEY INSURANCE AGENCY I THANK YOU
LIFE • ACCIDENT - AUTOMOBILE - FIRE • LIABILITY - BURGLARY - COMPENSATION - BONDS - ALL OTHER FORMS
License #0367601