Laserfiche WebLink
To aid in your review of this matter, the following is attached: <br />• Notice of Premium Options for Standard Premiums (LMCIT — 3 pages) <br />• LMC Memo on Workers' Compensation Retrospective Rating Options (3 <br />pages) <br />LMCIT staff also provided the following statements for your consideration: <br />)> Cities can potentially save money under a retro as compared to the guaranteed <br />cost option. They can also end up paying substantially more. <br />• Even if a city performs well for the first couple years under a retro, the city <br />probably wants to consider setting those savings aside or have a fund available <br />if the retro turns south. Workers' compensation claims can be unpredictable. <br />There's always the chance the claim that's seemingly innocuous initially <br />balloons up and leaves the city with an unexpected bill. <br />> They have had cities that have received $50,000 — $100,000 bills from claims <br />with a date of injury 10+ years out. The retro adjustments continue until all <br />claim activity from that agreement period ceases permanently or the retro plan <br />is closed out. The close out option is available 5 years after the first <br />adjustment is made for that year and the charge decreases each subsequent <br />year until 16 years after the first adjustment, when the retro year can be closed <br />out for no charge. <br />> WC claims continue to develop and have a long tail. Newer claims have a <br />higher development factor /likelihood of developing ultimately than do older <br />claims. In this case, although the cities performance under the retro plans as <br />of 2/29/12 looks good, we should note it is more likely there will be some <br />claim development and the premiums under retro options will go up rather <br />than down. <br />Historical, we have been a very safe work group. However, all it takes is one had claim <br />that could make us regret this decision. Staff's recommendation is that Rehm Option I <br />is superior to our current $10,000 deductible. The other alternative would be to lower <br />our deductible to minimize bad claim exposure, but our savings decrease dramatically. <br />($4,320 premium savings for the $10,000 deductible versus $2,931 for the $5,000 <br />option.) <br />2 <br />