6/7/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A TIME PERIOD FROM PARCH IST TO FEBRUARY 28TH, AND THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTING OF AUGUST 1976 THROUGH .JULY 1977. MS. CUNNINGHAM STATED THAT THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT IN THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTING THEY MUST HAVE A CUT-OFF DATE IN ORDER TO ALLOW TIME TO FIGURE RATES FOR THE NEXT YEAR SO THEY TAKE WHAT HAS HAPPENED UP TO THAT CUT-OFF DATE AND THEN PROJECT FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR. COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT WHEN WE HAD AN 83% LOSS RATIO; WE FELT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DUE SOME TYPE OF REBATE, BUT THEY JUST LEFT THE RATES THE SAME. NOW WE HAVE A 102% LOSS RATIO AND ARE HAVING TO PAY ALMOST 17% MORE, WHICH ISNOT CONSISTENT. MS. CUNNINGHAM POINTED OUT THAT THE COUNTY HAD MONEY SAVED LAST YEAR, BUT THE RESERVE IS DOWN THIS YEAR AND NOW THERE IS A $2,000 LOSS AND THEY DONT KNOW WHAT CLAIMS STILL WILL COME IN. IN ORDER TO PROJECT WHAT WILL HAPPEN, THEY MUST FIGURE BASED ON PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT THERE IS AN OVERLAPPING PERIOD IN THE RATING REVIEW. HE THEN DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE ANNIVERSARY DATE TO COINCIDE WITH OUR FISCAL YEAR, COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT MR. BROWN HAS ALREADY TOLD US IF WE UPDATED THE POLICY, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE AT HIGHER RATES. SHE WONDERED WHAT THE POSSIBILITY WOULD BE OF TAKING THE PROPOSAL NOW -OFFERED AND EXTENDING IT TO OCTOBER OF THE NEXT YEAR RATHER THAN ON A D MONTH BASIS. MS. CUNNINGHAM INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE CONTRACT IS A 12 MONTH CONTRACT, AND IT IS RATED FOR 12 MONTHS, IF YOU WENT OVER THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST THE RATES ACCORDINGLY, COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER SUGGESTED ACCEPTING THE 16.9% RATE INCREASE JUST UNTIL OCTOBER AND THEN BIDDING AGAIN, AND THE BOARD AGREED THEY WOULD LIKE TO GET TO THE OCTOBER DATE. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO CHANGING THE ANNIVERSARY DATE, IT WAS NOTED THAT BY HAVING AN OCTOBER ANNIVERSARY DATE, RATE INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE RECEIVED IN TIME FOR THE BUDGET SESSIONS, AND IT.WAS DECIDED TO REMAIN WITH THE PRESENT ANNIVERSARY DATE. 13 5 5