Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Actuarial Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Actuary: LaSalle County insurance trust faces multimillion‑dollar shortfall under 2032 projection
Summary
Actuary Stephen Glicksman told the LaSalle County Insurance Trust that, under a draft actuarial study projecting claims through 2032, the trust would need roughly $20.4 million plus a $1 million contingency to be fully pre-funded; trustees discussed bonds, shorter funding horizons and accepted the draft report for the record.
Stephen Glicksman, an actuary, presented a draft actuarial study to the LaSalle County Insurance Trust on March 18, saying the report projects outstanding and future claims through 2032 and lays out associated reinsurance and administrative costs.
Glicksman described a "table one" face-value total for outstanding and future claims and then added accompanying reinsurance and administration expenses. He reported a combined funding need shown on the committee's exhibit SU-3 of about $20,425,000 and recommended adding a $1,000,000 margin for catastrophic contingency. According to the figures discussed in the meeting, the trust currently holds roughly $6,110,000, leaving an approximate gap of $15.3 million to fully pre-fund the program through 2032.
Trustees pressed the actuary on the composition of that total. Glicksman said reinsurance represents the bulk of the added costs (he identified approximately $10.4 million in reinsurance across the projection) with administration expenses calculated separately. He also ran alternate exhibits using different assumed interest yields: a conservative 2.5% scenario (the draft shown to trustees) and additional exhibits at 3% and 3.5% that he said he would provide after the meeting.
Board members debated financing approaches. Some trustees said issuing long-term bonds to pre-fund the trust would produce a stable pool and protect budgeting from year-to-year shocks; others warned bonds come with issuance costs and interest that could exceed investment returns, and suggested a shorter financing horizon (for example four years) with periodic reassessment. One trustee noted that using available I‑Fiber or general-fund balances could postpone borrowing but would reduce the county's cash reserves. Glicksman and trustees agreed the projections are a snapshot of assumptions that should be updated periodically.
After discussion the committee voted to accept and place the draft actuarial study on file and requested that the actuary provide the alternate exhibits calculated at 3% and 3.5% for comparison. The motion to place the draft report on file carried after a voice vote with at least one recorded opposition.
What happens next: trustees instructed staff to include the actuary's alternate exhibits in the record when they are received and said they would continue working through funding options, including comparing the projected cost of issuing bonds versus relying on levies or existing fund balances.
