7.1. SR 10-20-2008REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
City Council 7.1,
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Administration October 20, 2008 Tim Simon, Finance Director
Item Description Reviewed by
Insurance Renewal and Consider $10,000 Deductible Level
Reviewed by
Action Requested
The City Council is asked to consider renewal of the city's insurance policies with the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) including a change in the deductible.
Background/Discussion
For over twenty years the City of Elk River has participated in the LMCIT. Mary Eberley of First
National Insurance Agency will present the July 1, 2008, LMCIT renewal, which was just received from
LMCIT. Coverage has been in Binder since the official July 1" renewal date even though the renewal
documents and rates were just received. The workers' compensation insurance renewal is included as
well; that policy will renew on October 1, 2008. The policy has remained unchanged for the most part,
except that the Council is asked to consider the various deductible options. The details of the proposal
are outlined in the attached memo from Mary Eberley.
Here are a few highlights which are outlined in Mary Eberley's attached memo:
• The City continues to receive a dividend for participating in the LMCIT program
• Builders' association claim has an impact of approximately $30,000; this will be the last renewal
period impacted by the builders' associations claim
• The property schedule has added nearly $18 million
• The overall increase comes to about 8.8% with no change in deductible
• The City again has an excellent Experience Modification factor of .77
The City continues to be proactive in promoting safety and safety standards through the continued
dedication of all City employees and the Safety committee. These efforts result in a substantial
premium savings for the City.
We are recommending that the Council consider changing to a $10,000 deductible option. Please review
the options attachment presented by Mary Eberley outlining deductible options. Historically, in looking at
the last five years the city would generate a net savings every year going to the $10,000 deductible option.
The $10,000 deductible option has been reviewed and approved by the ERMU's commission contingent
on City council approval. Mary will give a brief overview of the options at the meeting.
C:\Documents and Settings\jmiller\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK3E\InsuranceRenewal.doc
Financial Impact
See attached premium summary & comparison -2008 worksheet
Attachments
• Letter from Mary Eberley -First National Insurance Agency
• City of Elk River premium summary & comparison
• Deductible Options
• Balance Sheet of the Insurance Reserve Fund as of 09/30/08
ACtlon Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
C:\Documents and Settings\jmiller\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files \ OLK3E\InsuranceRenewal. doc
+ ` M1
t 2 Main ~ire`c^t Efk river Mfd 553:30 Phor7e: f763~ 441-2500 ~Iwvw.firstnationaftin~nci~f.cam
t7ctaber l4, 2008
To: Hanaralale iViayor :. Couz~ril Persans
City of Elk River
Thank you far taking time an yaur October 20th Meeting agenda to discuss the City's
2008 League of Minnesata Cities Insurance Trust proposal.
Once agaiia, yaur City staff and llae ERML7 staff`have dare excellent wank in helping to
put together the City's renewal propasal. I appreciate the apportunity to work with there
all, and would like to pa}r special eornpliment to Tim Sian far his very good ideas and
questions as we warked with the League to put this renewal together.
As you can see, there is anc~tlu:r increase in premium cast this year - abaut 8,8°l° gar
almost. $29,000. In general, it~+:~ increase is due to exposure changes, and eat to LMCIT
rate increases. The Property schedule is greater lay abaut ~ 17..6 xt7i.ll.an in value, and. tl~e
City's ratable expenditures are also greater than last year's. We will offei° same options
fa the Co~,uYCil to consider as cost control measures, and will also be happy to investigate
any other questiozas the Council may have.
The folio~~>ng paints irzel~i~?e Highlights we feel are important to bring to the Council's
attention:
1 } 2008 LMCIT :Rates -- LMC1T property rates did fiat change far 2008.
Municipal liability and auto liability rates decreased by 4%, and auto physical
damage rates decreased. ley 10%. These rate reductions have helped to offset
some of the increase its premium cast due to increased exposures.
2} The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Tn~st paid a dividend to the City of
1=:1:k River in the atr~aunt of $ 34,230 in. December 2007. 'I"l~.is is significantly
greater than t11e dividend paid in 2006 -almost twice as much! Over the 2I
years floe .City of Elk River has been participating in the LMCIT program, it
has returned an average di~ridend of 18.1°ro annually.
3} Tlxis is the last year for the City's L,MCIT prexnittms to be impacted by the
builders' associations ciain~, There is a premium surcharge of approximately
$26,700 in the Municipal Liability premium and another ~ 3,600 in the Auto
Liability prem..ium far a total afjust over $30,000. This matter is considered a
"Land use" coverage claim, and is counted twice in the experience rating
falula. Thais particular suit was settled successfully, but defense costs were
significant and are also included in the farinula.
There was also a reductioaa of about 2.6°lo to the experience credit applied to
the City's bas,: ~~t-wniiuna for 200$. '1'°`7.- experience bating. pro~;~-am measures
a city's claim or loss experience to that of others over athree-year experience
period.
The Property Schedule has increased again with the addition of the YMCA
building and the normal inflationary factor the League applies to property
values to provide replacement cost coverage. The premium expense for the
YMCA building will be reimbursed to the City by the Y, and totals
approximately $7,500. We will work with staff to prepare any necessary
documentation for this reimbursement.
4) The City's Workers Compensation coverage renewed on October 1st, and
again shows an excellent Experience Modification factor of .77. The City's
safety training, risk management efforts continue to help control Workers
Compensation coverage expenses. This modifier means the City receives a
discount from LMCIT base rates of 23%.
The League's Workers Comp rates have increased an average of 5% for most
classifications for 2008. And though the League notes an overall reduction in
the frequency of claims, rising medical costs continue to impact workers
comp rates. In fact, medical costs now make up about 63 percent of LMCIT's
total worker comp loss costs. The best possible strategy is to avoid the
injuries in the first place!
5) An optional quote for Excess Liability coverage has again been secured. At
$1,000,000 limits, the additional cost would be $69,812. At a $2,000,000
limit, the annual additional cost would be $ 104,718. These quotes are also
influenced by the land use claim noted in item 3. above.
The City has declined the purchase of additional limits in the past, but we will
continue to offer the quotes for the Council to consider. The City has elected
the League's waiver option, and generally has a total of $1,200,000 available
for any one "occurrence". There are some special exceptions, and in some
cases, separate limits for special types of losses, however, the general limit is
currently $1,200,000. This limit was recently amended when the State
changed the tort limit as of January 1, 2008.
The Council will want to again consider its prior decision to waive the
statutory tort limit for municipalities. The statutory limit is currently set at
$400,000 for any one claimant, and $1,200,000 for any one `occurrence'.
LMCIT has historically offered the option to "waive" this statutory limit,
making the full "occurrence" limit available for any one incident. The City of
Elk River has elected to "waive" the statutory limit, but may wish to re-visit
this decision again.
We have enclosed a copy of the League's most recent risk management memo
regarding both the "waiver" question and considerations for purchase of
excess liability limits. If the Council wishes to consider these questions
again in a work shop setting, we'd be happy to present in more detail. If the
Council should decide to make a change to "non-waived" status at this time,
we will make necessary premium changes and can also add the excess limits
if desired.
6) The City changed to a $5,000 deductible in 2007. Given the City's loss
history and the increase in premium costs again this year, we are
recommending the Council consider increasing the City's package deductible
to a $10,000 level for 2008. We have prepared a brief analysis of
approximate premium savings and deductible costs over the past 5 years, to
help display rationale for this option.
As noted last year, the frequency of claims appears to have declined
over the past 4-5 years. This reduction in frequency points to the
effectiveness of good loss control, risk management and safety training.
Of course, there is always a chance that the averages will not be the norm for
2008, but the indicators are good. The City's choice of the $10,000
deductible option for Workers Compensation has been effective, as frequency
of claims has dropped and the experience modifier is excellent.
The City has also been adding new procedures and safety training to help
help prevent losses. The City has also set aside LMCIT dividends to help
fund deductible expenses and loss control programs, so would have this
reserve from which to fund any possible additional deductible expenses. This
new deductible would be acceptable to ERMU and also to the YMCA.
The potential premium savings of approximately $31,750 would also keep the
LMCIT insurance costs at about the same level as last year. If the City selects
the $10,000 deductible this year and finds it was not a good choice, the City
can return to its previous deductible at the next renewal.
It is also important to keep in mind that the LMCIT package deductible
applies on an "occurrence" basis, rather than "per claim". This means that in
the event of storm damage to a number of City facilities, the deductible would
be applied only once to the total of paid damages to the "occurrence" -the
storm. Another example would be an auto accident in which a City vehicle
was responsible for damage to 2 or 3 other vehicles. There maybe 2 or 3
claimants, but the deductible would apply once.
If the Council is not entirely comfortable with a flat $10,000 deductible, we
have secured an alternative option for $10,000 occurrence deductible with a
$50,000 aggregate, and a subsequent $1,000 `maintenance' deductible. This
option would provide the chance to cap deductible costs at $50,000, or
slightly more in the event the City exceeded the `average' number of paid
claims. It would also provide immediate premium savings of approximately
$28,750.
7) The League's "No-Fault Sewer Back-up" coverage was reviewed and
declined several years ago. The League has since offered options to increase
the limit of coverage from $10,000 to either $25,000 or $40,000, although the
conditions of coverage have not changed. If the Council is interested in this
coverage, it will be necessary to apply and be approved for coverage by the
League's underwriter.
These are just some of the points we thought might be of interest or concern, but
if the Council has any other questions, we'd be happy to address them. If not, we
recommend as follows:
For 2008 we recommend the Council purchase the LMCIT proposal at a$10.000
package Deductible level or an approximate premium total of $325.230. We will also
review the propert,~and vehicle schedules,for items valued under this new deductible and
remove them.
As always, I appreciate the opportunity to work with the City and its excellent staff, and I
thank you for your continued business.
Respectfully,
C--.---'
Mary Eberley, C
Agent
~:./%
`~,.._..
j~EAGU~ t)I
SINN ESUTA
~IT1 ES
CONNECTING & 1NNQVATINC
st:vc;t: t~a~
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE OPTIONS
Liability Limits, Coverage Limits, and Waivers
LMCIT gives cities several options for structuring their liability coverage. The city can choose either
to waive or not to waive the monetary limits that the statutes provide; and the city can select from
among several liability coverage limits. This memo discusses these options and identifies some
issues to consider in deciding which of the options best meets the city's needs.
What are the statutory limits on municipal tort liability?
The statutes limit a city's tort liability to a maximum of $400,000 per claimant and $1,200,000 per
occurrence. These limits apply whether the claim is against the city, against the individual officer or
employee, or against both.
What are the coverage limits for LMCIT's basic primary liability coverage?
LMCIT's liability coverage provides a limit of $1,200,000 per occurrence, matching the per-
occurrence part of the statutory municipal tort liability limit. Under the basic coverage form the
$400,000 per claimant part of the statutory liability limit is not waived, so if the statutory limit applies
to the particular claim, LMCIT and the city would be able to use that limit as a defense.
Beside the overall coverage limit of $1,200,000 per occurrence, there are also annual aggregate limits
(that is, limits on the total amount of coverage for the year regardless of the number of claims), for
certain specific risks. Aggregate limits apply to the following:
Products /com leted o erations $2,000,000 annuall
Failure to su 1 utilities $2,000,000 annuall
EMF $2,000,000 annuall
Limited ollution* $2,000,000 annuall
Mold $2,000,000 annuall
Land use liti ation** $1,000,000 annuall
Em to ers liabilit work com $1,200,000 annuall
* Includes sudden and accidental releases of pollutants; herbicide and pesticide application; sewer
ruptures, overflows and backups; and lead and asbestos claims. The limit applies to both damages
and defense costs.
** Coverage is on a sliding scale percentage basis, and applies to both damages and litigation costs.
L>MAC,UIa C71' INNhSC~TACITIES ~as~r~i~~~~s~~-~nv~.r~v~sr i°iit,~:~ tt}51}Z~i-1l(?d enx:{651)81-I'L~;~B
1 N S U ltA N C la TI~U ST s~. 3>~~rt. nth ;:;ujs-ac~a~ rc,i ~ t r:t ~ (fiC1t~} ~~5-t 1~l ~v~n: tv~v~~:t.nar:.e~u~~
If the statute limits our liability to $1,200,000 per occurrence, why would the city
purchase higher coverage limits than that?
There are several different reasons why cities should strongly consider carrying higher limits of
liability coverage.
1. The statutory tort limits either do not or may not apply to several types of claims. Some
examples include:
• Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, etc.
• Claims for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city agrees
in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party.
• Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual aid
agreements with adjoining states, or when a city official attends a national conference or goes
to Washington to lobby, etc.
• Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but it
could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fund-raiser, for
example.
• Claims based on a "taking" theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently include
an "inverse condemnation" claim, alleging that the regulation amounts to a "taking" of the
property.
2. LMCIT's primary liability coverage has annual limits on coverage for a few specific risks. The
table on page 1 lists the liability risks to which aggregate coverage limits apply. If the city has a
loss or claim in one of these areas, there might not be enough limits remaining to cover the city's
full exposure if there is a second loss of the same sort during the year. Excess liability coverage
gives the city additional protection against this risk as well.
However there are a couple of important restrictions on how the excess coverage applies to risks
that are subject to aggregate limits:
• The excess coverage does not apply to three risks: failure to supply utilities; mold; and
"limited pollution "claims if either the pollutant release or the damage is below ground or in
a body of water; and
• The excess coverage does not automatically apply to liquor liability unless the city
specifically requests it.
2
3. The city may be required by contract to carry higher coverage limits. Occasionally, a contract
might include a requirement that the city carry more than $1,200,000 of coverage limits.
Carrying excess coverage is a way to meet these requirements. (There's also another option for
cities in this situation. LMCIT can issue an endorsement to increase the city's coverage limit only
for claims relating to that particular contract. There's a small charge for these "laser"
endorsements.)
4. There may be more than one political subdivision covered under the city's coverage. An H}ZA,
EDA, or port authority is itself a separate political subdivision. If the city EDA, for example, is
named as a covered party on the city's coverage and a claim were made that involved both the
city and the EDA, theoretically the claimant might be able to recover up to $1,200,000 from the
city and another $1,200,000 from the EDA, since there are two political subdivisions involved..
Excess coverage is one way to provide enough coverage limits to address this situation. Another
solution is for the H1ZA, EDA, or port authority to carry separate liability coverage in its own
name.
This issue of multiple covered parties can also arise is if the city has agreed by contract to name
another entity as a covered party, or to defend and indemnify another entity.
5. Cities sometimes choose to carry higher coverage limits because of a concern that the courts
might overturn the statutory liability limits. However, those limits have now been tested and
upheld several times in Minnesota. While it's always possible that a future court might decide to
throw out the statutory limits, this is now less of a concern.
What excess liability coverage limits are available?
Excess coverage is available in $1 million increments, up to a maximum of $5 million.
Does the optional excess coverage apply to all types of claims?
No. The excess liability coverage does not apply to the following types of claims: limited pollution,
mold, failure to supply utilities, auto no-fault, uninsured /underinsured motorist, workers
compensation, disability, or unemployment claims, or claims under the medical payments coverage.
We're just a small city. Isn't excess liability coverage really just something that big
cities might need?
Absolutely not. If anything, excess liability coverage is even more important to a small city.
If a city ends up with more liability than it has coverage, the city will have to either draw on existing
funds or go to its taxpayers to pay that judgment. A large city faced with, say, a million dollars of
liability over and above what its LMCIT coverage pays might be able to spread that $1 million cost
over several thousand taxpayers. The small city by contrast might be dividing that same $1 million
cost among only a couple hundred taxpayers. $1 million divided among 5000 taxpayers is $200
apiece -annoying but probably at least manageable for most taxpayers. $1 million divided among
200 taxpayers is $5000 apiece -enough to be a real problem for many.
LMCIT now gives the cities who participate in the primary liability coverage the
option to waive the $400,000 per claimant statutory liability limit. What's the effect
if we do this?
If the city chooses the "waiver" option, the city and LMCIT no longer can use the statutory limit of
$400,000 per claimant as a defense. Because the waiver increases the exposure, the premium is
roughly 3% higher for coverage under the waiver option.
If the city waives the statutory limit, an individual claimant could therefore recover up to $1,200,000
in damages on a claim. Of course, the individual would still have to prove to the court or jury that
s/he really does have that amount of damages. Also, the statutory limit of $1,200,000 per occurrence
would still apply; that would limit the individual's recovery to a lesser amount if there were multiple
claimants.
Why would the city choose to pay more in order to get the waiver-option coverage?
Does it give the city better protection?
No. Buying coverage under the "waiver" option doesn't protect the city any better. The benefit is to
the injured party.
The statutory liability limit only comes into play in a case where
1. the city is in fact liable; and
2. the injured party's actual proven damages are greater than the statutory limit.
Very literally, applying the statutory liability limit means that an injured party won't be fully
compensated for his/her actual, proven damages that were caused by city negligence. Some cities as
a matter of public policy may want to have more assets available to compensate their citizens for
injuries caused by the city's negligence. Waiving the statutory liability limits is a way to do that.
Other cities may feel that the appropriate policy is to minimize the expenditure of the taxpayers'
funds by taking full advantage of every protection the legislature has decided to provide. There's no
right or wrong answer on this point. It's a discretionary question of city policy that each city council
needs to decide for itself.
How would the waiver affect our city's coverage or risk on those claims that the
statutory tort liability limits don't apply to?
It doesn't. Waiving the statutory tort limits has no effect on claims that the statutory limits don't
apply to.
4
What's the effect of waiving the statutory limits if we have excess coverage?
If the city has $1 million of excess coverage and chooses to waive the statutory tort limits, the
claimants (whether it's one claimant or several) could then potentially recover up to $2.2 million in
damages in a single occurrence. If the city carries higher excess coverage limits, the potential
maximum recovery per occurrence is correspondingly higher.
Carrying excess coverage under the waiver option is a way to address an issue that some cities find
troubling: the case where many people are injured in a single occurrence caused by city negligence.
Suppose, for example, that a city vehicle negligently runs into a school bus full of kids, causing
multiple serious injuries. $1,200,000 divided 50 ways may not go far toward compensating for those
injuries. Excess coverage under the waiver option makes more funds available to compensate the
victims in that kind of situation.
The cost of the excess liability coverage is about 25% greater if the city waives the statutory tort
limits. The cost difference is proportionally greater than the cost difference at the primary level
because for a city that carries excess coverage, waiving the statutory tort limits increases both the per-
claimant exposure and the per-occurrence exposure.
If we waive the statutory tort liability limits, does it increase the risk that the city will
end up with liability that LMCIT doesn't cover?
No. The waiver form specifically says that the city is waiving the statutory tort liability limits only to
the extent of the city's coverage.
Of course, that's not to say that there is no risk that the city's liability could exceed its coverage
limits. We listed earlier a number of ways that could happen to any city. But the waiver doesn't
increase that risk.
Can we waive the statutory tort limits for the primary coverage but not for the excess
coverage?
No. If the city decides to waive the statutory tort limits, that waiver applies to the full extent of the
coverage limits the city has. The city cannot partially waive the statutory limits.
I'm confused. Is there a simple way to summarize the options?
It's not necessarily simple, but the table on the following page is a shorthand summary of what the
effect would be of the various coverage structure options in different circumstances.
I'm still confused. Who can I talk to?
Give us a call at the League office. Pete Tritz, Ann Gergen, Doug Gronli, or any of LMCIT's
property/casualty underwriters will be glad to talk with you.
Pete Tritz 2/08
H
j
j'~~
~ V
~,' ca., t1'7
W
T.L~
C~
'^^
~~7
W Gr
.^
?-+1
O
U
.~
.--i
.~
h~i
U
v
~ 4.
o
~
~' ~
b
~ ~
.~ ~
3 ~'
~
U
O ~ N
;~ ~
~
~'' 0 a~
3
~ ~ ~
. i
.~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0
U ~ O O O O
a cC ,~ O O O O
~'~ ~ ~ O O O O
~ 'v~ N N O O
N ~
...
~ ~ ~ w 69 69 6
9
~.. ~ ~" ~ ~
~ ~ ~,~
~
.
~ N U
~ r
-+ O
c
G U y~
~ ~ ~
f+ +-+ C
~ ~. ~
.
O ~
~
~ N
E-' Ll.
,.b ~
U
~
~
O
r-. v
V
~
~ O O O
O O
,5." ~ '
a> O O O
3 ~, ~
~~ 0 0 0 0
O ~ y~~
y
cd ~ 'v, N N N N
~ ~ .., c~ r. .--~ .-+ N
bF3 b9 69 69
~' U
~
~ F"
~
' °
~ ~' ~ ~ ~ oo °o 00 o
0 o
a~ o
'~ 0
° 0
°
eo ~. o o o o
v ~
~ ~ '~ ~ N
cd
~
° o
F-'
°~
~ ~ ~ ~
:~ ~
~" ~ ~
~" O
~' O
~I.d
V
j ~ ~
> .''~ U
~ ~ U ~
n
~ OU OU •~ U ~ U ,~
~ .
V1 v ~
vi ~ v ~, y ~' y ~,
~ ~"' N y N y O~ O ~~+
~
~ O > O
y ~ 9 '~ > n O~ O v~
~ .~ 3 .~ ~ °O 3 °o
~
V +.., ..,
~ ~ +r ..,
~ c ~'
~ ~ .
o
~•~ ~ ~ ~•~
oQ Q3 xo x3
f
N
irk
s
~, t
CAS N
~: ~.
t^3 C^
C
iro C
4 GiC%
~_
;~ "t
.t M
~;
a- ~_
f;
2
w
~.^''
t/3
Ls.a f "'
z
L.ti.
G~A
~~
w
J
I ~ M O O N N ~ O O D CO DO 01
1 o M O CO W Ln H W O J 00 W 00 O 1~
O U O O 00 ~ f~ Z ~ d1 I~ ~ O to d1
M
O v~
t~ O
r M
f~ O
N J M~
N~ J ~ o
EA o t7'
~ J
U N
69 ~
~- ~D u
M
~
~
~ ~
~
EA
~ U
Z
~ ~ U
Z
o
~
Z
~ ~
~
~ M N ~ OD
N M O °~
~ ~ o
°
OC ~
o
N o ~
O ~ o ~ O (D W M Imo- ~W ~ ~ N W f~ M O~ ~o N
p ~ ~
U~ ~ I~ ~ O Cfl Z O O ~ ~ O ti O ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ M= ~ o
A O ~ J ~ N v o
ti v v 6
R d' N Z Z lf3 Z EA cf? M h o
O
O EA (n y ~
V) b9 EA ~ o 6f? ~ to
N r> ~ ~ ~ o p
W O n w.
N ~ ~ L
~ ~ U
N
f~
O M
O ~
o~ 00
~ ~
f~ 'a'
d7 D
W f~ fn
f~ I- O
W 00
O ~ ~
~ O
W M
~ M
N 00 cj
N c
O CO U ~ CO r I~ ~ O Z D I~ o N
r ~ s- .- ~D
N ~ v~
~ O
fiT M
ti 'V'
N J
U O O
M J
U ~- o
Ef? o
~- J
U N
Efl O
EA M n
M~
C ~ u
~ ~ ~ Z ~~ Z p ~ Z ~
O
N fA O
o o EA
~
~
00 `n
N
O_ ~
N
aO
O
N a>
O~ ~
O ~
M to
to D
W M (n
~ I- O
W ~
~ J O
~ M
O M
~ 00
N ~ ~
00 c
O O U ~ N CO O O Cfl Z O I~ o ~ d'
~ O O M
N ~ v~ f~
~ C~ N J O~ J ~ O
~ O
~ r
b9 O
Efl M n
O ~ v p r ~ Z ~ ~ Z o ~ V
O
N fn o
o o EA
~
~
~ ~
N
~ ~
O
(M
n
6v
~ ~ ~ M ~ (O fn O ~ V'
~ f~
~ _O ~ r-
~ 0
O O U~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ Z O d o O ~-
N
~ N
d' v~
t ~ O
b4 ~
`7 Oj
~ ~
U ~
N ~ ~
U r o
Ef-T ~ O
EA ~ r
EA 00
EA {n o
~ ~
C ~ N 0 ~ ~ Z ~ M Z O t~/} ~
N p o0 49
o ~
~
o ~
~ N
~
~"'
~
O O
~ '"' ~
~~ d'
O oO
f~ O
O O
W r (n
~ F- ~
W r-
O J 117
~ N
O OO
00 O M c
ap O O ~ ~~ N O M ~ O Z O ~ o O ~ CO N tCl o
N N ~ 'a ~ ~ ~ J N ~ J ~ O ~ 69 EA Lf~ ~
N ~ ~ n ~ d ~ ? ~ ~ Z a ~
Z N ~c oo q ~
~ ap o
f~ ~ i»
~ fO-
a °~
o `°
~ Q
~
~ ~ ~.
~ ~ W Z ~ m ~
~ ~'
~
J
C7
~
~
~
J }
Y ~
Z
W
Q }
~
C
a~
~
~ 1-
J
_
J ~ J I-
J d Q
W y
W
~
J
m
a ~
W U Z ~
W Q
a Q Q otf 'J G' ~ ~ w J
J ~ ~ O ~ Q
~ a m U_
Z 0 O N W
~ D O. W a, Z 0
O F-
~ O ~ O > > ~ r
x ~ O d X w a d O
V a v a ~ ~ Q ~ a v m w w a O ~ F-
N
N
c0
a0
O
O
N
O
N
C
(0
L
U
E
.~
N
a
.~
C
7
U
N
a~
rn
C
f0
L
U
N
N
O
Z
E
a~
L
o..
c
N ~
. O
~
(V ~
~ U fl
U y .
.~ ~
r-. C N
N
o
~ O
U M "O U
.~ t0 ~ N N
N ~ ~ ~
7
f6 ~
~
O N
~ L
O U
~~ U Q O
U O N ~
~ ~ Ch ~ QO
N
~ N _
c ~
~ ,~
o N
N
~
f~ N
N O N '3 p ~ p ~ C
~ ~
7 ~ ~ LC)
~ N r O f~
~~ O `= C ,..,
~ N
N
L O Q
N Q 6F} X N~
~ O V
~
U U ~' ~ 7 ~ ~
>' O
O O
3 ~ C N D
~ Q X ~ N
~ ~ O
~ ..pr Cfl
~
0
O N
~ ~ (0
~ U j -
.Q Q f0 •N (rj
~ EA
.
7
O C ~ (6 ~ N
Q
= X
EA
C ~ N ~ N ~ O ~ ~' N O
.
~
~
VUi
0 ~ ~
0 ~ (4 ~ ~
y m ~-' N
N '
'C
O U ~. N
>
C U U c
~
p
t0 O O
N ,
O
N ,~ N M O
J
~~ O
V Q N~ X E E L o2f _
3
o-
c
~ v N o N ~_ a° i
~ v
c N Q ~ p~ o N c~
L O
0 L O L
°~
~ ~ O ~ •-
~ ~ N
0
0 ` Q- tq o_ o E
~~ ; O W N ,~ ~
C N
-p (p C O
~-+
N .. ~
N
a. ~ ~
o a~ v ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q
0 o v
i
co ~~ ~ U ~ ~ ~
... c
v
-
(0 N p N O N ~ LL E N ~ O A
C f0 fn O
' > O O _Q C (0
fV
3 ~~ U N
O N
'C O Q j
O
O C~ N ~
~ U U L N
f6 U N o In ~ C
__ N V~ O
. C
~ O
~ N N O
m ~.
o
~- 3 m ~ C 'p W
-O m a EA ~~
~ cQo M
y
N N ~ N c
U~ J . ~ O Ef}
~
r-
Q
Q ~ E
~ O ~ N
~ N ~ ~ ~p ~ ~
/
~
M N~ 'L N~ 'C O C y~ '~ >1 O L
fn
O Q Q- CN
~ C L L fU0 U
N •~ ~ N Q
-p
E v
o
E O) N
o
`
g a g~ c v
i
~ a , i c
c
o u
>, (6 f-
~
N W o
N .~ W~ v
C S C ~ ~ c
~ 3
C
U
L C~ ~
~
N Q c0 -_
~ c '~- J L
+-.
C N p J
N
'~ >
J O~ L
N
E Q
O
C ,
O
D :.-_ O
v- o~ ...
U
c '
N> O N C N
O Q C (0 7 ~«.
~~ N O U O
U
V
~ ~~ ~
~~-a ca C O N
~a E U~~ L
c , 3~ O
C fA N
f
O~ ~
>'
~
U .
7 0 ~ ~~ N L
N C N
p
N
L ~
HN
U 'CJ
--Z
QaF ~N W a.
~ Q
o
a ~ ~ v -a a U
~ co ~ Q ca ~
J
~ N M
-6
N ~
.~ ~
O C
N N
N
f0 N
O L
C
'p N
U '~
~ U
~ ~
~ ~
C -p
cu -a
N y
~_ U
f0 ~
O O
f0 ~
Z O
ii O
d' ~
O
M
0
d
E
R ~"
G
~ w
v `
d d
4
~ '
~ a
' a
a~
E 'Q
~ w
d
a ~
~ a
~-
d c
V J
~ Q
7 0
V
o w
e y
y d
4; Q
t6
a °'
Q
O j
~ .Q
X d
V V
c
a
ti ,
U cvi
g o
W ~
~ o
0
~ N
W '
~ _
~ o
J O c
W y a
~ .Q
O v C
~ ~
d ~
U ~ C
N
C1
C
R
O
O
O
O
O
00
~ O O O 00 CO O
M O ~ M CO O
Z 6~? ~ ~ EA ~ b9
X
O
Q
O.
a
N
C
~~ O O O O O O
~ O O O O f~ t~
y L()
~ L()
M In
M In
~ r'
M r
M
a ~ ~» ~ ~ ~ ~
X
0
a
Q, ~
o
a Q
O
a~
~ ~ O O N ~ CD N
o ~
-
V ~-
~ ~rS o
~ ~ ~
~ cwt
~ o ~
-d » v~ m ~
0 ~
Efl ('6
_
~ ~ ~
a ~ ~,
~ t
~ ~
C
O
N
N
O
'
M M `d' ~?' N
N
~
O
'o N v ~ i
v
O °'
~
C ~_
> N
~
~ ~ Q = ° ~
M
I~
~
f~
M ~ ~ >
~
a c o
0
~O `"C ~ ¢
s o 0
~
~ 3
>- r~
° ~
o ~
° v
o ~
° g
o co
° -a
o r~
° co 'o
a m
~ ~ ~.
U
'~ o
N p o
N p o
N p o
N p o
N ~ N O Q ~' N
.
W ~ o O
O
~ U
V
. i» ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~
ss N
~
~
o ~
~
O
a ~ ~
~ O
~ ~
~ c
o
~' ,~
Q p ~ ~ a.
w
J ~
i '~
N a~
~
m
V
a ~p
~
H
v
O
o N
>
~
3 ~
o d Q a~
"s ~ w a
~ ° `~
i ~
G J
Q O O
o
> p" W ~ t
n
~ a
N
~ ~
m
10-15-2008 10:25 AM CITY OF ELK RIVER PAGE: 1
BALANCE SHEET
AS OF: SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2008
^ 291-INSURANCE RESERVE
ACCOUNT # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
ASSETS
291-1010 Cash - Insurance Reserve
291-1012 Fair Value-Investments
291-1150 ACCOUnts Receivable
291-1310 Due From Other Funds
291-1380 Interest Receivable
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES
EQUITY
291-2400 Fund Balance
TOTAL BEGINNING EQUITY
BALANCE
570,689.02
1,786.00
( 1,761.40)
1,863.78
3,939.00
576,516.40
582,357.98
582,357.98
TOTAL REVENUE 26,699.00
TOTAL EXPENSES 32,540.58
TOTAL REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES ( 5,841.58)
TOTAL EQUITY & REV. OVER/(UNDER) EXP. 576,516.40
576,516.40
--------------
--------------
TOTAL LIABILITIES, EQUITY & REV.OVER/(UNDER) EXP. 576,516.40
--------------
--------------