Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Self-insurance

self-insurance fund: timely item


City is not interested in self-insuring buildings; would take too long to see any gains
self-insurance has saved us $5 million since FY03, $700,000 a year
there would be no savings by purchasing building insurance; the City does insure several of their high-cost buildings
WPS has so many buildings, that adding school buildings onto the city insurance doesn't save money (than if we just bought insurance ourselves)
annual premium quotes of $220,000 to $245,000 with LIMITED coverage ($250 million a year)

recommend staying with self-insurance

question from Foley on where we would put students if we had a catastrophic failure; emergency support from city?
Yes, we'd need it
should some of our newer buildings be insured? Foley asks
perhaps we look at buildings that the city still has bonds on, requote based on that

2 comments:

T-Traveler said...

City is not interested in self-insuring buildings

what does this mean?

how much is in the self-insurance fund?

is it subject to appropriation?

cascadingwaters said...

Self-insurance is a, uh, more reassuring way of saying not insured. The city provides their own insurance, which works out to they pay for it if anything breaks.

There is no such fund and thus it is not subject to appropriate. For Belmont School, for example, we'll have to shuffle funds around (unless we get community support to make up for it).