My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 11221989
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1989
>
CC PACKET 11221989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 4:40:10 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 4:39:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
18
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 1987-1989
SP Name
CC PACKET 11221989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
November 8, 1989 <br /> Page 2 <br /> we discuss the issue before putting everyone in a corner on the <br /> question. After that meeting, I held a meeting with the authors of the <br /> resolution. <br /> In reviewing the resolutions passed by the cities and offered at the <br /> Coalition meeting, I believe some issues need clarification. The <br /> resolutions suggest that the League/LMCIT fee is an "excess profits <br /> tax". 'This is not the case. LMCIT has no profits. Any funds not used <br /> to pay claims, reserved for future claims, or to pay for the operation <br /> of LMCIT are returned to the LMCIT members. The trustees, in fact, <br /> voted to return $7 , 000, 000 at their October meeting. This means that <br /> LMCIT has returned $15, 000, 000 to members over the past three years. <br /> What does the 1. 5 percent fee cover and 'why is it hard to calculate an <br /> exact cost for League services? Consider how difficult it is to answer <br /> the following questions: How valuable to the LMCIT are the retention of <br /> the statutory limits on municipal liability? How valuable to LMCIT is <br /> the tort reform act which materially limited tort claims against <br /> cities? How valuable to LMCIT are many of the briefs filed at the <br /> - Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court on issues affecting <br /> municipal liability and personnel management issues? And, how valuable <br /> to LMCIT is the lobbying which the League conducts on personnel and <br /> management issues at the Legislature and with the Governor? , How <br /> valuable to LMCIT was League sponsorship and endorsement when LMCIT was <br /> established? And, how valuable to LMCIT was the three years of staff <br /> and board work which the League undertook to establish LMCIT? How <br /> valuable to LMCIT is the promotion of the insurance trust through <br /> articles in Minnesota Cities magazine? And, how valuable to LMCIT is <br /> the preparation of press releases and other promotional materials? <br /> Finally, how valuable is it to LMCIT to provide promotional materials <br /> and programs to city officials at the LMC annual meetings, regional <br /> meetings, and other meetings? These League services are unreimbursed <br /> by LMCIT and an exact valuation is difficult, if not impossible to <br /> achieve. <br /> How does LMCIT pay for the services it receives? LMCIT pays North Star <br /> Risk Services 12 percent of casualty program's premium volume for its <br /> services in managing the program. Employee Benefit Administration <br /> (EBA) is paid 9.4 percent of the workers compensation premium volume <br /> for similar services with respect to this program. This is a customary <br /> method of paying for some services and value received by LMCIT. <br /> Is the LMCIT fee structure unique? Is it unusual for LMCIT to pay a <br /> percentage of premium volume for the value it receives? No, it is not. <br /> A number of state municipal leagues sponsor pooled self insurance <br /> programs. Most charge a flat fee for these same kind of services and <br /> most charge more than 1 . 5 percent of premium volume. <br /> The LMCIT trustees suggested the proceeds from this fee be placed in a <br /> special account and not be combined with the League's general fund. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.