Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Risk Management Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County to consider 49% increase in liability charges after actuary flags shortfall
Summary
Actuary analysis showed the county's liability fund is below recommended reserves; staff and the actuary recommended raising charges to departments to restore a healthier reserve position and reduce future volatility.
Spokane County staff on June 2 told the Board of County Commissioners that the county’s liability/risk reserve is below the level recommended by the actuary and recommended increasing department charges to the risk pool by 49% to move reserves nearer the actuary’s target range.
What staff reported: The county’s actuary presented a range of reserve targets tied to expected loss distributions (the meeting materials described a “1‑in‑20” event benchmark). Staff said the current reserves are on a downward trajectory and that a 49% increase in liability allocations across funds would reverse the decline and move the fund toward the actuary’s bottom‑of‑range for the 1‑in‑20 event. A larger increase (discussed as higher than 49%) would reach a mid‑range or “breakeven” position recommended by the actuary.
Why it matters: Commissioners were told that the county is exposed to large single‑event or litigation costs and that without increasing the liability charge the fund balance could be insufficient in the event of an unusually costly claim or wave of claims. Staff stressed that workers’ compensation and liability programs suffer multi‑year payout patterns and that the county is effectively two years behind in actuarial recognition of claims activity.
Impacts and mechanics: Budget staff prepared department‑level costings showing how a 49% increase would translate into line‑item charges for each department and fund. Staff noted the allocation already included a number of non‑general (enterprise and special) funds that would be billed separately; commissioners discussed whether some non‑general funds would absorb their share or whether the general fund should cover a portion of the increase.
Board direction: Commissioners asked staff for a near‑finalized allocation schedule and for staff to return with a close reconciliation that shows the amount that would be charged to general fund departments versus other funds. Commissioners signaled support for moving toward the actuarial recommendation (the 49% figure) while asking staff to provide final, department‑level numbers and to explain implications for the 2026 budget cycle.
Ending: Staff will return with a reconciled allocation showing the split between general‑fund departments and other funds, and with communications to department heads so that divisions can plan for any budget impacts in the 2026 budget.
