My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Finance Highlights 2006 1004
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Finance Committee
>
Finance Highlights 2006 1004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2007 4:01:51 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 3:13:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
10/4/2006
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2006 1106
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2006\Packet 2006 1106
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
<br />Baloca reported that the City has $8.2 million in reserves to handle current claims and also has <br />an 80% confidence level, which means that the City is 80% confident in its ability to settle <br />claims. <br /> <br />Jermanis explained that the City is responsible for the first $250 thousand to $1 million of the <br />liability claim and anything above will be handled by the excess pool (CJPRMA). Jermanis also <br />reiterated that the reserves are adequate and that the $8.2 million could fluctuate every year, <br />depending on the annual actuarial study. <br /> <br />Mayor Young inquired about the process for handling and reporting on a case with a potentially <br />large claim, (i.e. John Burris case). Jermanis emphasized that Meyers Nave, George Hills and <br />the Finance department will continuously communicate and discuss if the reserves are adequate. <br />Young is also recommending that any potential large claims be communicated to the Council. <br />Williams commented that not all cases are candidates for structured settlement. In fact, a <br />structured settlement is usually used when there is permanent injury. Baloca and Williams both <br />emphasized that the City would go out and solicit the assistance of a structured settlement <br />provider when needed. <br /> <br />Starosciak questioned how often a review of the self-insurance program is conducted. Baloca <br />responded that, to his knowledge, this is the first time that the self-insurance has had an <br />independent Review. However, the confidence level is determined in-house after review of the <br />annual actuarial study which is based on loss history, current loss and projected loss data. <br />J ermanis further explained that the confidence level is mostly budgetary; meaning that if the City <br />has no money then the confidence level could be budgeted lower or according to the amount <br />Council would like to keep in reserve. Starosciak also questioned about the approval authority <br />regarding claims. Jenuanis stated that the City Manager/Finance Director can approve claims <br />payment up to $25K. Starosciak recommends bringing the settlement threshold to Council for <br />reVIew. <br /> <br />2. Continued Discussion Regarding Single Family Residential Exemptions from the <br />Business License Tax (BL T) <br /> <br />At the last Finance Committee meeting (September 6, 2006), the Committee discussed the <br />possibility of creating an exemption to the BL T for Related Party Residential Property was <br />questioned. Staff looked at two possible alternatives: (1) creating a definition for family and <br />extended family, and crafting an exemption for rentals made to both relationship categories; and <br />(2) exempting all rental property owners that have only one residential unit. In regards to the <br />first alternative, Baloca reiterated that the legal definition of family is broader, and can be <br />considered discriminatory when compared to the definition of nuclear family and extended <br />family. Baloca also shared the administrative problems that could be created in trying to <br />determine relationships. In regards to the second alternative, exempting only one residential unit <br />would also not be a favorable solution since it would result in an approximate $62K loss of <br />revenue to the City. <br /> <br />Baloca stated that the City received six related party rental complaints where all the penalties <br />were waived. Total penalties waived to all residential property owners were over $1 7K. Staff is <br />recommending continuing its current practice of reviewing customer request letters for tax and <br />penalty waiver and make appropriate reductions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.