|
- Michael Hammond
Membership Growth Impact Study
The Membership & Marketing (M&M) Committee is
charged with overseeing MVRMA's marketing activities and making
recommendations on prospective members. Every other year, the M&M
Committee conducts a survey of all Board Trustees to determine their
interest in adding prospective cities to the "Approved List" for marketing
activities. Using the 2005 survey, the M&M Committee identified eight
cities where MVRMA could market its program. Two of the cities were in the
Dayton-Cincinnati area, and the remaining six were in the Columbus area.
Before making any recommendation to the Board for
adding cities to the "Approved List," the M&M Committee suggested a
Management Study to review the impact of potential growth. The Board
approved the study in June 2005 and began the RFP process. The study was
intended to review the advantages and disadvantages of membership growth
and determine the financial impact of adding members. Among other things,
the study was to examine staffing considerations and MVRMA’s ability to
serve another region of the state. The objective was to provide
information necessary for the Board to make an informed decision regarding
expansion of the Association’s membership.
In September 2005, the MVRMA Board engaged the
services of Godbold, Malpere & Co. of Roswell, Georgia to perform this
study. Godbold, Malpere & Co. are casualty actuaries and risk management
consultants. They have provided actuarial services for MVRMA since its
inception and are knowledgeable about MVRMA's operations as well as the
impact of past growth.
Terry and Mary Jo Godbold met with the Membership &
Marketing Committee in a working meeting on March 7, 2006 to review the
results of their study. Subsequently, Terry Godbold presented an executive
summary of the "Management Review and Impact Study of Potential Membership
Growth" at the Quarterly Board Meeting March 20, 2006. All Trustees
received a copy of the very detailed final report.
Following is a brief summary of that report:
1. MVRMA has a history of controlled growth
requiring each member to meet tough underwriting standards and adopt a
philosophy with emphasis on safety and training.
2. Historical financial results have demonstrated
the benefit of this approach.
3. Growth for the sake of growth is not consistent
with that philosophy.
4. Analysis clearly indicates, from a financial
perspective, there are distinct advantages to growing and expanding to the
Columbus area.
5. Current staff is very capable of handling the
additional workload during a transitional period.
6. Additional resources will be needed to
accommodate the expansion to another region on a permanent basis.
7. Expansion into the Columbus area should be based,
at a minimum, on the four cities that comprise CORMA.
The report detailed several advantages of member
growth. Some of the key advantages were:
l Operating costs would be spread over a
larger base, thus lowering costs for all members.
l
Expanding to another region of the state would allow for a greater
geographical spread of property exposures.
l The larger the pool the more the "law
of large numbers" operates, which would allow for more predictable results
for planning and budgeting.
l Increased growth
would eventually result in additional staff and provide a back-up to the
critical areas of claims and loss control.
l Growth would
allow for any catastrophe or major loss event to be absorbed over a larger
base, thus reducing the impact on any one member.
Importantly, the report also concluded that while
there are excellent reasons for expansion, it would not be a wrong
decision to stay the same size. The decision not to grow will be a more
subjective evaluation and rationale. There is no overwhelming reason why
MVRMA can not continue to be successful at its current size. It is already
a known quantity with a well established history and a sound excess
insurance program. Its current size allows for a reasonable spread of
expense and an ability to reasonably forecast losses.
After giving careful consideration to all aspects of
the report, the Board approved the Membership & Marketing Committee's
recommendation to add the four cities that comprise CORMA (Dublin, Upper
Arlington, Westerville and Pickerington) to the "Approved List" for
marketing activities.
A complete copy of the Management Review & Impact
Study of Potential Membership Growth is available by contacting the MVRMA
office.
back to top
- Surdyk, Dowd & Turner
Memorandum Regarding Increasing Prevalence of
Constitutional Challenges to Zoning Code Sign Regulations
Members should be aware of the increasing litigation
that has arisen over the past several years regarding provisions in their
sign regulations that pertain to billboards. "Billboards" in this context
typically means freestanding signs that advertise products or services
produced elsewhere than upon the parcel where the sign is located. Many
zoning codes contain restrictions on location of these signs - permitting
them when the product or service is conducted on the premises where the
sign is located but prohibiting them elsewhere.
Some attorneys have created a niche market to seek
out problematic sign regulations. They seek to persuade a court that a
provision of the subject regulations is content-based. As it states, a
"content-based" restriction treats signs differently based upon their
message. For example, a code provision banning "[b]illboards and all
off-premises signs except for church and institutional directional
signs and special event signs" is likely unconstitutional because
church signs and special event signs are distinguished from other
billboards and off-premises signs. That limitation is easily distinguished
from a provision that states, "No freestanding pole sign shall contain
more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet of sign area per side
(maximum 2 sides)."
Under federal law, political subdivisions may enact
content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions limiting billboards if
the restrictions are not based upon the sign's content. Such items as sign
height, setback and advertising space restrictions are generally upheld in
the Sixth and other Circuits. E.g., Prime Media, Inc. v. City of
Brentwood, Tenn., 398 F.3d 814 (6th Cir.2005);
Harp Advertising Illinois, Inc. v. Village of Chicago
Ridge, Ill., 9F.3d 1290 (7th Cir.1993). "[R]estrictions of this kind are
valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of
the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a
significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample
alternative channels for communication of the information." Clark v.
Community for Creative Non-Violence 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).
The courts have determined that public and traffic
safety, elimination of visual clutter and aesthetics are significant
governmental interests. Members of City Council of City of Los Angeles v.
Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984); Wheeler v. Commissioner of
Highways, Com. of Ky., 822 F2d 586 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
1007 (1988). "[T}he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied so as
the...regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be
achieved less effectively absent the regulation... So long as the means
chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the
government's interest, however, the regulation will not be invalid simply
because a court concludes that the government's interest could be
adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative." Ward v.
Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798-800 (1989) (internal citations,
footnotes and quotations omitted). Ample alternative channels for
communication may be found in other billboards and signs permitted in the
subject code.
Federal courts have upheld the off-premise exclusion
as long as the restriction does not unfairly burden commercial or
non-commercial speech. In the leading case on billboard restrictions, the
Court held that San Diego could justifiably ban all billboards, but it
could not restrict on-premise signs to commercial messages only.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981). A
jurisdiction, however, may enact a billboard restriction that permits
on-premise advertisements for the parcel owner's business, whether that
business furthers commercial or non-commercial interests. Messer v. City
of Douglasville, Ga., 975 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir.1992); Chicago Observer,
Inc. v. Chicago, 929 F.2d 325 (7th Cir.1991); Rzadkowolski v. Village of
Lake Orion, 845 F.2d 653 (6th Cir.1988); Wheeler, 822 F.2d at 590. The
test for unfair burden on commercial speech is similar to that set forth
in Clark. See Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service
Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
Other issues typically raised in these cases involve
the amount of discretion granted to the reviewing official in determining
whether to grant or deny a zoning certificate application, the amount of
time the authority has to respond with an affirmance or denial and whether
the code provides notice of an aggrieved applicant's appeal rights and
establishes relevant deadlines for appeal, hearing and decision. An
example of problematic discretion is regulations requiring a zoning
inspector to conclude whether the proposed sign: (1) complies with sign
design guidelines; (2) would not detract from the character of a historic
or architecturally significant structure; (3) would not be located so as
to have a negative impact on adjacent property; (4) would not detract from
the pedestrian quality of street or area; and (5) would not add to an over
proliferation of signs on a particular property or area.
An available defense when challenged with these
suits is for the jurisdiction to amend its sign regulations to remove the
potentially offending provisions. If the authority takes action prior to
final judgment by the court, and providing the new regulations are
constitutional, plaintiff's counsel would not be able to recover attorney
fees and, if the plaintiff has brought an action for injunctive relief,
that action would be moot. What is still unclear is whether amendment of
the regulations moots a damages claim. The best estimate currently is that
amendment does not moot the damages claim and exposure would remain for
the period between denial of the sign application to the date the amended
regulations became effective.
back to top
- Craig Blair
Our members often receive complaints related to rain
storms and high winds that have caused damages. As with all third-party
liability situations, these claims should be reported to MVRMA. Staff will
then review them to determine if a negligent act by the member caused the
loss.
At various times during the year, heavy rains can
cause sewer lines to become surcharged and create back-ups. However,
storms are "natural acts," and a member city is not usually held liable
for the overcapacity of the drainage system.
Ohio law provides protections for our members while
engaged in "govern- mental functions," such as the design and construction
of a storm sewer system. However, maintenance of the sewer lines is
considered a "proprietary function" and as such, our members can be held
liable if the lines are not properly maintained. To avoid liability, a
city must regularly inspect and clean its lines and document this
activity. A city is also expected to remove debris from a blocked line in
a timely manner once notified of a problem.
Recurring back-ups in an area can not be ignored.
The sewer lines should be checked to determine the problem, and changes
should be made if warranted. Due diligence by the city can be a defense
against future claims.
High winds may also cause a rash of complaints when
limbs and branches blow out of city owned trees causing damage to fences,
houses and autos. Like rain storms, high winds are considered "natural
acts," and negligence can not be assessed against the city. The only
exceptions would be if the city failed to trim or remove a tree known to
be in poor condition or if an "open and obvious" hazard to exists.
The key to protecting the city in these situations
is a timely response in order to resolve the problem and address any
concerns about future problems.
back to top
Buckle Up - It's the LAW!
-Starr Markworth
While conducting my SPEC visits, I have noticed a
startling trend. In every member city I have driven through, I have
observed city employees who are not wearing safety belts while driving
city vehicles.
Safety belts save an estimated 9,500 lives in
America each year (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998).
Safety belts are the most effective means of saving lives and reducing
serious injuries in traffic crashes. They are also the law.
As it stands today, Ohio law requires front-seat
passengers of cars, vans, pickup and delivery trucks, taxis, commercial
trucks, tractor trailers and buses with safety belts installed to wear
them at all times while on public roadways. If the driver is under 18, all
vehicle occupants must wear seat belts.
What’s Your Reason For Not Wearing One?
l "I’m only going down the street."
Actually, this is the best time to wear a safety belt, since 80% of
traffic fatalities occur within 25 miles of home and under 40 miles an
hour.
l "I won’t be in an accident: I’m a good
driver." Your good driving record will
certainly help you avoid accidents. But, even if you're a good driver, a
bad driver may still hit you.
l "I’ll just brace myself."
Even if you had the split-second timing required for this action, the
force of the impact would shatter the arm or leg you used to brace
yourself.
l "I’m afraid the belt will trap me in
the car." Statistically, the best place to
be during an accident is in your car. If you’re thrown out of the car,
you’re 25 times more likely to die. And, if you need to get out of the car
in a hurry - as in the extremely small percentage of accidents involving
fire or submergence - you can get out a lot faster if you haven’t been
knocked unconscious inside your car.
l
"They’re uncomfortable." Actually, modern safety belts are now so
comfortable you may wonder if they really work. Most of them give when you
move - a device locks them in place only when the car stops suddenly. You
can put a little slack in most belts simply by pulling on the shoulder
strap. Others come with comfort clips, which hold the belt in a slightly
slackened position. If the belt won’t fit around you, you can get a belt
extender at most car dealerships.
l "I don’t need a belt - I’ve got an
airbag." An airbag increases the
effectiveness of a safety belt by 40 percent. But, airbags were never
meant to be used in place of safety belts.
Car accidents kill 40,000 people each year, and
they're the leading cause of death for people under the age of 35. Safety
belts can prevent death in about half of these accidents. There are no
acceptable excuses for not wearing a safety belt - BUCKLE UP!
back to top
Insurance Market Update
Driver Alliant's January 1 liability renewals varied
from flat to an increase of 10%, depending on the category and
characteristics of the risk. Since that time, reinsurance treaty renewals
have been completed without any fanfare.
Going forward, the liability marketplace seems to be
softening slightly, and there have been some developments of note: 1.
The emergence of Markel Re - With $5 million in capacity, Markel Re is
actively seeking public entity reinsurance and excess liability business.
2. The reemergence of Am Re - Am Re seems to have bolstered its
relationship with its European partner, Munich Re, and is displaying a
renewed interest and appetite for public entity accounts. In fact, GEM,
the captive that reinsures MVRMA, placed its reinsurance layer with Am Re,
with very favorable terms, at its January 1 renewal. 3. The emergence
of yet another reinsurance carrier - We predict yet another
reinsurance carrier will emerge in the public entity excess liability
marketplace in the very near future. 4. Katrina property losses will
probably not affect capacity in the liability marketplace. Because of
these developments, we anticipate a liability marketplace that will soften
slightly over the remainder of 2006.
For property, we see a contracting marketplace for
carriers writing excess limits at higher attachment points. In some cases,
these carriers are attempting to lower attachment points, in order to gain
additional premium, but are also reducing limits. This group of carriers
coincidentally also writes catastrophic perils such as earthquake, flood
and wind. The catastrophic or cat peril marketplace, where exposure exists
for these perils, has deteriorated rapidly over the last 30 days. MVRMA
and Ohio do not have significant exposure to these perils and should be
relatively unaffected by this trend.
The hardening of the property marketplace is also
being influenced by rating agencies and their questioning of the
reliability of property rating models. Until models are updated and
revalidated, it's anticipated the capacity approach from these excess
carriers will be very conservative.
Contrasting this hard market with 9/11 events, we do
not see additional capital and surplus rushing into the property
marketplace. Investors are taking a wait and see attitude until the 2006
hurricane season and until assured that rating models will accurately
reflect exposures. We anticipate the property marketplace will continue to
deteriorate through 2006, with the 2007 trend dependent on the 2006
hurricane season.
back to top
April 5, April 18, April 19
Workplace Harassment - Supervisors
MVCC
AM Session: 9-11:30
PM Session: 1-3:30
May 4 & 5
May 16-18
June 6-8
NAPD Driver Training
W. Carrollton Fire Station and
Rice Field
8:30-4:30
May 9
Safety Overview
MVCC
AM Session: 8:30-11:30
PM Session: 12:30-3:30
May 10
How to Understand People/
Predict Behavior
MVCC
8:30-12:30
May 31
Trenching/Shoring
Location TBA
8:30-3:30
back to top
|
