My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/20/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
3/20/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:44 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:53:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/20/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
Analysis <br />The actuarial study should be conducted at a time to coincide with <br />the County's annual budget preparation process to assure adequate, <br />though not excessive, funding of the self-insurance program. <br />Because Coopers & Lybrand conducted the first such report, they <br />maintain the background data required for the update. County staff <br />will be responsible for providing updated information on losses and <br />exposures since the last study, but much of the data collection has <br />already been accomplished. <br />At this time, Siver as well as County staff recommends that we <br />proceed with Coopers & Lybrand for the 1989-90 update without a <br />formal request for proposal (RFP) process. The time required for <br />an RFP would extend until mid-June the County's receipt of the <br />actuarial report. Such a timeframe would make early budget <br />planning most difficult. As referenced in the attached Coopers & <br />Lybrand letter, they can have a draft report available within four <br />to six weeks of receipt of our updated data, making that schedule <br />more realistic for budget purposes. <br />As for costs, Coopers & Lybrand's proposed fee of $8,000 to $10,000 <br />represents the current costs for actuarial updates, according to <br />Siver staff. At the time the initial study was done, renewal costs <br />were estimated at no more than $5,000. Since that time, however, <br />actuarial firms have raised their fees and without a renewal <br />provision in the initial agreement, the County is now faced with <br />the higher than expected costs. While the County might find through <br />an RFP process some actuarial firms who would propose higher fees, <br />it is doubtful that any would be lower. Coupled with the <br />additional time to assemble anew all the data Coopers & Lybrand <br />already has on file, and the RFP timeframe itself, it is most <br />advantageous to work with Coopers & Lybrand once again. <br />While staff recommends a one-time renewal with Coopers & Lybrand <br />as a continuation of previous work, we also recommend that the <br />county -prepare an RFP'for the upcoming fiscal year. By doing so <br />well in advance of the actual need, we can be prepared to begin the <br />annual update well in advance, and we can include in the RFP the <br />annual renewal rates in order to lock -in costs on a three-year <br />basis. <br />Recommendation <br />Because of the critical timing involved, staff recommends the Board <br />::. authorize Coopers & Lybrand to prepare the actuarial update for <br />the self-insurance fund at a cost not to exceed $10,600.00, with <br />:;,i;-;;; ...* the understanding that a request for proposals will be issued for <br />upcoming fiscal year. <br />Administrator Chandler explained that since last year was <br />our first year being self insured, there are some distinct <br />advantages to us by having Coopers -Lybrand do the second <br />actuarial study, but Chairman Eggert pointed out tha.t it would.be <br />at twice the cost. <br />31 BOOK <br />®��� <br />MAR 2 1 _ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.