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 />Using 2004-05 payroll as a basis, San Leandro's $1 million liability self-insured retention <br />compares to five other California cities as shown in Table IV-I. <br /> <br />Table IV-1 <br />liability Self-Insured Retention Comparison <br /> <br /> <br />San Leandro 31.4 $1,000,000 32,000 <br />Mountain View 51.9 1,000,000 19,000 <br />West Covina 33.1 1,000,000 30,000 <br />San Buenaventura 46.7 1,000,000 21,000 <br />Alameda 59.6 500,000 8,000 <br />Redwood City 46.8 250,000 5,000 <br /> <br />Given all of the factors discussed in this section, we judge that the current $1 million <br />self~insured retention is at the high end of the City's reasonable capacity to retain risk. <br /> <br />B. Accounting and Funding <br /> <br />The City engages a qualified actuary to calculate the outstanding liabilities of its liability <br />self-insurance program and recognizes that amount on its balance sheet. This is generally <br />considered a best practice and complies with Governmental Accounting Standards for <br />self-insurance programs. <br /> <br />The City also funds the outstanding liabilities through an internal service fund, keeping <br />the balance of the fund approximately equal to the outstanding liabilities. This practice <br />matches the funding year with the fiscal year in which the liability~causing events took <br />place. Full funding of outstanding liabilities is considered a best practice, but is not an <br />accounting standard or legal requirement. <br /> <br />Like the City, some self-insured public agencies even fund their self-insurance programs <br />with a margin for contingencies. In contrast, very large public entities (e.g., City of Los <br />Angeles, State of California) tend to fund self-insured losses only at the rate at which <br />they are paid. Of course, there are partial funding plans that fall between these two <br />extremes. So, each self-insured entity can exercise a high level of discretion in <br />establishing its funding plan. While we have no precise data on the funding practices of <br />self-insured California cities, our experience supports that most such cities, similar in size <br />to San Leandro, fund either the full or discounted (for investment income) amount of the <br />outstanding liability detennined by their actuaries. <br /> <br />38 <br /> <br />ARM <br /> <br />Tee h <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.