My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/3/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
2/3/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:17 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:42:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/03/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
FEB 3 1987 BOOK UY1i d0 <br />In addition to underwriting cost exposures for county employees, <br />the trust fund is utilized by two non -county agencies for medical - <br />surgical 'insurance' for their employees. Those agencies are: <br />.. Indian River County Mosquito Control District <br />.. Indian River County Water Management District <br />Those agencies pay amounts into the trust fund on a per employee <br />basis notwithstanding the county's ultimate exposure. Those pay- <br />ments for FY85-86 were: <br />Indian River County Mosquito Control District <br />Premium Per Emploee <br />Single Plan 70.00 per month <br />Married Plan 167.50 per month <br />Annual Premium Collected <br />Single Plan 8,120.00 <br />Married Plan 29,647.50 <br />TOTAL 37,767.50 <br />Average Number of Employees - 21 <br />Indian River County Water Management District <br />Premium Per Employee <br />Single Plan 70.00 per month <br />Married Plan 167.50 per month <br />Annual Premium Collected <br />Single Plan 2,450.00 <br />Married Plan 18,257.50 <br />TOTAL 20,707.50_ <br />Average Number of Employees - 10 <br />TOTAL BOTH DISTRICTS 58 475 <br />Please note that the aggregate sum of $58,475 is not based on <br />actuarially derived data. Notwithstanding what the county's actual <br />costs incurred for these agencies were, the sum determined is <br />to be collected, and in fact collected, was $58,475. <br />Such an arrangement amounts to the county functioning as a medical - <br />surgical insurance 'company' underwriting a program of insurance. <br />We are not licensed to do so. <br />Additionally, means do not exist whereby we would be able to re- <br />cover costs incurred by these districts in excess of the determined <br />'premium' amount. <br />Of greater concern to me however is the fact that neither of these <br />districts are coterminous with the county boundaries yet the county <br />general fund remains exposed to costs incurred for these districts <br />above the 'premium' amount. As a result, the county's taxpayers <br />would have been liable for costs beyond the $58,475 in FY 85- <br />86. Such additional costs should be incurred by either the dis- <br />tricts or a licensed insurance company. <br />36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.