AGENDA - cdn.ymaws.com€¦ · AGENDA Executive Committee February 15, 2018 WSTIP Office ~ Olympia WebEx: Click to join Password: Abc123 Dial-in: 1-415-655-0003 Access Code: 808 650

AGENDAExecutive Committee

February 15, 2018 WSTIP Office ~ Olympia

WebEx: Click to join Password: Abc123 Dial-in: 1-415-655-0003 Access Code: 808 650 710

9:00 am

CALL TO ORDER – President Diane O’Regan

1. Roll Call of Members and Introduction of Guests

2. Changes in Agenda/Motion to Accept Agenda

Sign-in sheet

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Minutes – January 18, 2018

2. January 2018 Administrative Vouchers/Checks – Total voucher approval of

$1,677,872.94 including staff payroll and internet/credit card payments.

3. January 2018 Claims Vouchers/Checks – Total voucher approval of

$522,898.40.

4. 06-30-2017 Actuarial Report

Page #

002

005

018

021

*WP #

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Thurston County Investment Portfolio Report - Coit

2. Retreat Outcomes - Christianson

3. Coverage Document Review Project – Christianson & Hughes

4. Training Academy Discussion - Kerrigan

5. Business Case for Pierce Transit’s Drive Cam Project – Kerrigan

6. WSTIP Employee Handbook Update / Sick Leave Law – Christianson

048

085

095

109

116

125

ACTION ITEMS

1. Claims Audit Report – Adams 134

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

1. Governance Policy Committee – No Report

2. Board Development Committee – Verbal Report

3. Emerging Risks & Opportunities Committee – No Report

4. Data Governance Committee – No Report

STAFF REPORTS

1. Executive Staff Report –Christianson, Powell, Kerrigan, Adams 160

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 (1) (i) to discuss with legal counsel representing the

agency litigation in which a member acting in an official capacity is a party, when

public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or

financial consequence to the agency.

The Executive Session is expected to conclude after 30 minutes, unless extended by

the Presiding Officer.

1:00 pm RECAP and ADJOURN – President Diane O’Regan *WP = Work Plan Item #

Board Development Committee Meeting – 02/15 after EC MTG

Governance Policy Committee Meeting – 02/15 after EC MTG

Emerging Risks and Opportunities Committee Meeting – 03/07 @ WSTIP

Data Governance Committee Meeting – 02/15 @ WSTIP

https://wstip.webex.com/wstip/j.php?MTID=md7bf4753ba91109a75ceeeb4a553d572

Minutes of the

Executive Committee Meeting

January 18, 2018

Cedarbrook Lodge ~ SeaTac, WA

Executive Committee Members Present Staff Present

Amy Asher, Small Member Rep, RiverCities Transit

Danette Brannin, At-Large Member Rep, Mason Transit

Nick Covey, Medium Member Rep, Link Transit

Kevin Hebdon, Large Member Rep, Ben Franklin Transit

Staci Jordan, Vice-President, Island Transit

Diane O’Regan, President, C-Tran

Cedric Adams, Claims Manager

Anna Broadhead, Board Relations (virtually)

Tracey Christianson, Deputy Director

Al Hatten, Executive Director

Richard Hughes, Counsel

Joanne Kerrigan, Member Services Manager

Andrea Powell, Administrative Services

Manager.

Board Members Present

Sara Crouch, Jefferson Transit;

Kevin Gallacci, Clallam Transit;

Tom Hingson, Everett Transit;

Ken Mehin, Grays Harbor Transit

Agustin Ortega, Yakima Transit

Jim Quintana, C-Tran

Heather Stafford-Smith, Intercity Transit

Call to Order President O’Regan called the meeting to order at 8:02 am. She welcomed all participants as a sign in

sheet was passed around the room and a verbal roll call took place. O’Regan called for changes to the

agenda, and hearing none she asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Jordan moved to approve

the agenda. Covey seconded the motion and it passed.

Consent Agenda Minutes – December 7, 2017, November 2017 Administrative Vouchers/Checksi,

November 2017 Claims Vouchers/Checksii, December 2017 Administrative Vouchers/Checksiii, December 2017 Claims Vouchers/Checksiv

O’Regan asked if there were any items to remove from the consent agenda. There were no items

removed from the consent agenda. Brannin moved to approve the consent agenda. Asher seconded

the motion and the motion passed.

Discussion Items Training Academy Committee

Kerrigan explained she was looking for direction as to whether to pursue the operator trainer training

academy and went through each of the options. Committee members discussed and would like staff to

ask Board members to talk to their safety and training departments to see what the interest level is and

then report back at the February Executive Committee meeting.

Data Governance Committee

Powell said she is looking for a volunteer to chair the Data Governance Committee and additionally, the

Committee needs members. Hebdon volunteered to chair. If you would like to participate on this

committee, please let Hebdon or Powell know. Emerging Risks and Opportunities Committee

Kerrigan reported the Emerging Risks and Opportunities Committee has a chair (Jordan) but is looking for

volunteers. Current volunteers are: Mike Burress, Rob Huyck, Ken Mehin, and Ed McCaw. Asher

volunteered to be on the committee. If you would like to participate on this committee, please let Jordan

or Kerrigan know.

Sub-Committee Reports

Governance Policy Committee

No report. Board Development Committee

No report. Emerging Risks and Opportunities Committee Report

No report.

Data Governance Committee

No report.

Staff Reports

Executive Staff Report

O’Regan asked if anyone had questions regarding the staff report. There were no questions asked.

Christianson spoke briefly about the Gilmore vs Jefferson Transit case which was heard last week at the

Supreme Court, a decision could take six months to over a year to be reached. She also said the

Committee will be seeing attorneys from the Sartin vs Pierce Transit case at the Executive Committee

meeting in February. If you have questions regarding items on the Executive Staff Report, please reach

out to staff.

Executive Session

The committee did not go into Executive Session. Recap and Adjournment Kerrigan will reach out to Board to determine interest in developing Operator Trainer Training Academy,

Hebdon volunteered to chair the Data Governance Committee and Powell will solicit more participation,

Emerging Risks and Opportunities Committee is looking for volunteers, Asher volunteered to be on the

committee, and staff will send a Doodle poll to Board members to determine best dates for Gettysburg

Leadership Experience (June 3-6, June 10-13, or September 9-12). O’Regan adjourned the meeting at

8:34 am.

Submitted this 15th day of February 2018.

Approved: ________________________________

Shonda Shipman, Secretary

i Check numbers 27360 through 27404 in the amount of $71,061.84. Internet transfers of $54,137.19 for the

11/15/2017 payroll; $49,527.22 for the 11/30/2017 payroll; $9,532.47 for Staff Benefits for 11/2017 and $166.00 for

W2 Fees. Internet and ACH payments for staff credit cards, travel/expense reimbursements and professional/misc.

services total $42,277.64. Total voucher approval, including November 2017 staff payroll and Internet and ACH

payments is $226,702.36.

ii Check numbers 10361 through 10474 in the amount of $3,118,988.83. Total voucher approval is $3,118,988.83.

iii Check numbers 27405 through 27480 in the amount of $120,835.57. Internet transfers of $51,931.26 for the

12/15/2017 payroll; $49,215.26 for the 12/31/2017 payroll; $9,532.47 for Staff Benefits for 12/2017. Internet and ACH

payments for staff credit cards, travel/expense reimbursements and professional/misc. services total $56,065.49.

Total voucher approval, including December 2017 staff payroll and Internet and ACH payments is $287,580.05.

iv Check numbers 10475 through 10577 in the amount of $438,140.32. Total voucher approval is $438,140.32.

January 2018 Administration Voucher Approval January 1st to January 31st 2018 vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080,

and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been e-mailed to the Executive Committee members on February 08, 2018. ACTION: I, __________________________, as of this date, ________________________, 2018 Move that the following checks be approved for payment: Vouchers: Check Numbers 27481 through 27540 in the amount of $1,499,209.09. Internet transfers of $69,188.43 for the 01/15/2018 payroll; $65,681.62 for the 01/31/2018 payroll; $9,913.74 for Staff Benefits for 01/2018. Internet and ACH payments for staff credit cards, travel/expense reimbursements and professional/misc. services total $33,880.06. Total voucher approval requested, including January 2018 staff payroll and Internet and ACH payments is $1,677,872.94. The motion was seconded by _________________________________and approved by a unanimous vote. I, the undersigned, PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE TRANSIT INSURANCE POOL (WSTIP) of the state of Washington, do hereby certify that the merchandise or services, herein specified have been received and the following checks are approved for payment. ___________________________________ PRESIDENT/VICE-PRESIDENT ___________________________________ DATE

Washington State Transit Insurance PoolJanuary 2018 Vouchers

US Bank Administration Account

Date Num Payee Description Account Amount

01/02/2018 ACH Clinton Wetzel Operation Safety Rep Project US Bank Admin 4,320.00

01/02/2018 Internet US Bank Visa (Purchasing Cards) Credit Card Exps (December) US Bank Admin 1,953.94

01/03/2018 27481 Ultra Construction Renovation and Design Conference Room Down Payment US Bank Admin 6,622.94

01/04/2018 ACH Christian DeVoll Travel Reimbursment US Bank Admin 1,136.90

01/04/2018 27482 Alliant Insurance - Newport Beach 2018 Liability(Hallmark)/Liability Reinsurance (MunichRe) US Bank Admin 465,817.05

01/04/2018 27483 Andrea Powell Travel/Expense Reimbursement US Bank Admin 319.89

01/04/2018 27484 AP Design Works LLC Business Cards/Email Banners US Bank Admin 70.00

01/04/2018 27485 Association of Washington Cities WPSL Webinar US Bank Admin 400.00

01/04/2018 27486 CareerBuilder Employment Screening, LLC Employment Screening US Bank Admin 25.00

01/04/2018 27487 Clallam Transit System Guest Rider - Grays Harbor Transit US Bank Admin 497.56

01/04/2018 27488 Cooper Studios LTD Staff/Board Portraits US Bank Admin 1,790.85

01/04/2018 27489 Crystal Springs (TX) Bottled Water US Bank Admin 74.56

01/04/2018 27490 Department of Enterprise Services Project Mgmt Fundamentals US Bank Admin 165.00

01/04/2018 27491 DESCO AV Conf Room - Installation/Programming US Bank Admin 25,244.86

01/04/2018 27492 Island Transit Guest Rider - Link Transit US Bank Admin 976.75

01/04/2018 27493 Law Office of Richard L. Hughes PLLC Legal Services US Bank Admin 3,363.75

01/04/2018 27494 Origami Risk LLC Mobile Forms Add'l Licenses/Service US Bank Admin 3,025.00

01/04/2018 27495 Sara M. Crouch Travel Reimbursement US Bank Admin 114.49

01/04/2018 27496 Transportation Safety Institute Instructors Course Materials US Bank Admin 1,680.00

01/04/2018 27497 Veritas Forensic Accounting & Economics Collision Avoidance Presentation US Bank Admin 227.70

01/08/2018 ACH Brenda Barnett Travel Reimbursement US Bank Admin 20.76

01/11/2018 27498 Christie Law Group, PLLC WSTIP Misc Matters US Bank Admin 2,658.00

01/11/2018 27499 Color Graphics Orion Crystal Star US Bank Admin 244.16

01/11/2018 27500 Consolidated Technology Services Technology Services US Bank Admin 8,530.63

01/11/2018 27501 Dept of Licensing Driver Record Monitoring US Bank Admin 9,723.68

01/11/2018 27502 Hermanson Company, LLP Service Call US Bank Admin 650.24

01/11/2018 27503 Jacobson Solutions Claims Staffing - Schirber US Bank Admin 1,487.44

01/11/2018 27504 JG McDonald and Associates Subrogation Review US Bank Admin 434.00

01/11/2018 27505 Lemay - Pacific Disposal Waste/Recycling Services - December US Bank Admin 97.84

01/11/2018 27506 Professional Temp Staffing Agency Temp Services - Thompson US Bank Admin 502.40

01/11/2018 27507 Puget Sound Energy Electric Utilities US Bank Admin 849.93

01/11/2018 27508 Replicon, Inc. Web Timesheet Billing/Time Renewal US Bank Admin 3,878.80

01/11/2018 27509 Right! Systems, Inc. Citrix XenDesktop US Bank Admin 2,640.00

01/11/2018 27510 StraderHallett PS Accounting Services US Bank Admin 1,745.00

01/11/2018 27511 Tracey Christianson Travel Reimbursement US Bank Admin 217.71

01/11/2018 27512 Verizon Wireless Staff Wireless Services US Bank Admin 402.06

01/11/2018 27513 Washington State Transit Association 2018 Membership Dues US Bank Admin 200.00

01/11/2018 27514 Yakima Transit-City of Yakima 2018 Risk Management Grant US Bank Admin 2,500.00

Page 1 of 2

Washington State Transit Insurance PoolJanuary 2018 Vouchers

US Bank Administration Account

Date Num Payee Description Account Amount

01/11/2018 27515 YourMembership.com, Inc. Hosting & Management Services US Bank Admin 7,344.75

01/11/2018 27516 Evergreen Maintenance Landscaping, LLC Landscape Maintenance - December US Bank Admin 450.43

01/11/2018 27517 Strategic Claims Direction LLC 2017 Liability Claims Audit US Bank Admin 7,700.00

01/12/2018 ACH Data Driven Safety, Inc. Driver Record Monitoring US Bank Admin 23,093.42

01/16/2018 27518 Association of Washington Cities Catering Services US Bank Admin 438.44

01/16/2018 27519 Constance Poulsen Half-Day Session Workshop - Prep/Delivery US Bank Admin 1,500.00

01/16/2018 27520 Alliant Insurance - Newport Beach 2018 Excess Commercial Liability(GEM)/Crime US Bank Admin 788,848.50

01/16/2018 27521 Clean-Rite Janitorial Services Inc. Janitorial Services - January 2018 US Bank Admin 600.00

01/16/2018 27522 Comcast Comcast Business Services US Bank Admin 411.46

01/16/2018 27523 Copiers Northwest, Inc. Copier Lease US Bank Admin 563.58

01/16/2018 27524 Office Depot Office Supplies US Bank Admin 1,569.91

01/16/2018 27525 Olympic Telephone, Inc. Network Drop Installation US Bank Admin 524.14

01/16/2018 27526 Professional Temp Staffing Agency Temp Services - Thompson US Bank Admin 502.40

01/18/2018 ACH Cedric Adams Travel Reimbursement US Bank Admin 153.69

01/24/2018 27527 Alliant Insurance - Newport Beach 2018 Excess Commercial Liability (Lloyd's) US Bank Admin 125,747.00

01/24/2018 27528 City of Pullman - Pullman Transit 2018 Risk Management Grant US Bank Admin 2,500.00

01/24/2018 27529 Hermanson Company, LLP HVAC Services US Bank Admin 364.57

01/24/2018 27530 Island Transit Travel Reimbursement - S. Jordan US Bank Admin 525.77

01/24/2018 27531 Jacobson Solutions Claims Staffing - Schirber US Bank Admin 1,796.16

01/24/2018 27532 JG McDonald and Associates Subrogation Review US Bank Admin 810.60

01/24/2018 27533 Ken Mehin Travel Reimbursement US Bank Admin 101.15

01/24/2018 27534 Michael Cain WSTIP Exec Retreat Entertainment US Bank Admin 700.00

01/24/2018 27535 MSDSonline 2018 HQ Account Renewal US Bank Admin 6,745.60

01/24/2018 27536 Office Depot Office Supplies US Bank Admin 304.60

01/24/2018 27537 Professional Temp Staffing Agency Temp Services - Thompson US Bank Admin 1,161.80

01/24/2018 27538 Steve--Mertens Travel Reimbursement US Bank Admin 344.00

01/24/2018 27539 Summit Law Group Labor & Employment Newsletter US Bank Admin 163.20

01/24/2018 27540 WA Co Risk Pool Risk Pool Leadership Reimbursement US Bank Admin 313.74

01/29/2018 Internet US Bank Visa (Purchasing Cards) Credit Card Exps (January) US Bank Admin 3,201.35

1,533,089.15

01/04/2018 5870 Health Care Authority Staff Benefits - Inv Month: 01/2018 US Bank Payroll 9,913.74

01/15/2018 Wire Trans WSTIP Payroll Account 01/15/2018 Payroll & Taxes US Bank Payroll 69,188.43

01/31/2018 Wire Trans WSTIP Payroll Account 01/31/2018 Payroll & Taxes US Bank Payroll 65,681.62

Total 1,677,872.94

Page 2 of 2

January 2018 Claims Voucher Approval January 1st to January 31st 2018 vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been e-mailed to the Executive Committee members on February 08, 2018. ACTION: I, __________________________, as of this date, ________________________, 2018 Move that the following checks be approved for payment: Vouchers: Check Numbers 10578 through 10669 in the amount of $522,898.40. Total voucher approval requested is $522,898.40. The motion was seconded by _________________________________and approved by a unanimous vote. I, the undersigned, PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE TRANSIT INSURANCE POOL (WSTIP) of the state of Washington, do hereby certify that the merchandise or services, herein specified have been received and the following checks are approved for payment. ___________________________________ PRESIDENT/VICE-PRESIDENT ___________________________________ DATE

Washington State Transit Insurance PoolJanuary 2018 Claims Vouchers

US Bank Claims Account

Issue Date Check Number Status Pay To The Order Of Bank Account Amount1/5/2018 10578 Cleared A&A Language Services, Inc. US Bank Claims 603.991/5/2018 10579 Cleared CIOX Health, LLC US Bank Claims 7.001/5/2018 10580 Cleared Ben Franklin Transit US Bank Claims 3,144.131/5/2018 10581 Cleared Coachman, Inc. US Bank Claims 454.691/5/2018 10582 Cleared Community Transit US Bank Claims 495.271/5/2018 10583 Cleared Dev, Romila US Bank Claims 3,500.001/5/2018 10584 Cleared IntercityTransit US Bank Claims 946.681/5/2018 10585 Cleared Jeanne M Gersten US Bank Claims 727.751/5/2018 10586 Cleared Kitsap Transit US Bank Claims 1,598.131/5/2018 10587 Cleared Matrix Absence Management, Inc US Bank Claims 1,037.001/5/2018 10588 Cleared Pierce Transit US Bank Claims 12,050.931/5/2018 10589 Cleared Rosenberg, Kyla US Bank Claims 242.281/5/2018 10590 Cleared Safeco Insurance Co of Illinois US Bank Claims 2,225.101/5/2018 10591 Cleared Whatcom Transportation Authority US Bank Claims 1,089.001/8/2018 10592 Cleared Matsanga, Nadine Kinsi US Bank Claims 300.001/8/2018 10593 Cleared Buell Real Time Reporting US Bank Claims 668.501/8/2018 10594 Cleared Ephrata Collision Center US Bank Claims 1,670.201/8/2018 10595 Cleared Jacobs & Jacobs, Inc Trust Acct US Bank Claims 15,399.981/8/2018 10596 Cleared Swedish Medical Center US Bank Claims 5.601/12/2018 10597 Cleared AC Branch Holdings, LLC (dba AmeriClaim) US Bank Claims 2,026.701/12/2018 10598 Cleared Ben Franklin Transit US Bank Claims 300.001/12/2018 10599 Cleared Carlson, McMahon & Sealby, PLLC US Bank Claims 11,387.021/12/2018 10600 Cleared Community Transit US Bank Claims 19,837.501/12/2018 10601 Voided Davies Pearson, P.C. Trust Account US Bank Claims 0.001/12/2018 10602 Cleared Enterprise Rent A Car US Bank Claims 104.681/12/2018 10603 Cleared Heater, Rebecca US Bank Claims 4,000.001/12/2018 10604 Cleared IntercityTransit US Bank Claims 1,560.321/12/2018 10605 Cleared J&E Appraisal, LLC US Bank Claims 130.801/12/2018 10606 Cleared Link Transit US Bank Claims 6,770.971/12/2018 10607 Cleared Matrix Absence Management, Inc US Bank Claims 459.001/12/2018 10608 Cleared Meridian Adjusting & Appraisals US Bank Claims 336.001/12/2018 10609 Cleared MultiCare Health System US Bank Claims 240.001/12/2018 10610 Cleared Pierce Transit US Bank Claims 5,525.041/12/2018 10611 Cleared Skagit Transit US Bank Claims 423.801/12/2018 10612 Cleared Spokane Transit Authority US Bank Claims 24,199.171/12/2018 10613 Cleared Whatcom Transportation Authority US Bank Claims 5,325.381/12/2018 10614 Cleared Witherspoon Brajcich McPhee, PLLC US Bank Claims 3,727.771/12/2018 10615 Cleared Yakima Transit US Bank Claims 4,352.591/12/2018 10616 Cleared Cascade Auto Center Collision Repair US Bank Claims 1,010.051/12/2018 10617 Cleared Waller, Nita US Bank Claims 4,571.491/16/2018 10618 Cleared Trick Shoppe Custom Paint & Body US Bank Claims 5,357.351/16/2018 10619 Cleared Alvarez Law US Bank Claims 60,000.001/16/2018 10620 Cleared Robert G. Thompson, MD US Bank Claims 1,300.001/16/2018 10621 Cleared Allstate Property & Casualty US Bank Claims 1,481.701/16/2018 10622 Cleared HOOVER, ASHLEY US Bank Claims 1,500.001/16/2018 10623 Cleared Valerie Dupont US Bank Claims 2,537.81

Page 1 of 2

Washington State Transit Insurance PoolJanuary 2018 Claims Vouchers

US Bank Claims Account

Issue Date Check Number Status Pay To The Order Of Bank Account Amount1/16/2018 10624 Cleared Cascade Meadows Apartments US Bank Claims 858.731/19/2018 10625 Cleared Ben Franklin Transit US Bank Claims 300.001/19/2018 10626 Cleared Cascade Auto Center US Bank Claims 1,162.811/19/2018 10627 Cleared Hi-Tech Collision US Bank Claims 1,055.491/19/2018 10628 Issued Zaremba Claims Service-Yakima US Bank Claims 442.001/19/2018 10629 Issued Olympia Auto Body, Inc. US Bank Claims 2,060.871/19/2018 10630 Cleared Kunkel, Karl US Bank Claims 1,150.881/25/2018 10631 Issued AC Branch Holdings, LLC (dba AmeriClaim) US Bank Claims 1,367.851/25/2018 10632 Cleared Brownlie Wolf & Lee, LLP US Bank Claims 4,306.001/25/2018 10633 Issued Brager, David US Bank Claims 982.881/25/2018 10634 Issued Capitol Pacific Reporting, Inc US Bank Claims 1,005.801/25/2018 10635 Cleared Coward, Bertha US Bank Claims 5,000.001/25/2018 10636 Issued Davies Pearson, P.C. Trust Account US Bank Claims 60,000.001/25/2018 10637 Issued Gonzalez-Sandoval, Victor US Bank Claims 775.531/25/2018 10638 Issued Hendricks-Bennett, PLLC US Bank Claims 740.001/25/2018 10639 Issued Heng, Kimberly US Bank Claims 4,325.851/25/2018 10640 Issued IntercityTransit US Bank Claims 3,552.231/25/2018 10641 Issued JG McDonald and Associates US Bank Claims 9,595.101/25/2018 10642 Cleared Law, Lyman, Daniel, Kamerrer & Bogdanovich, PS US Bank Claims 3,323.681/25/2018 10643 Cleared Leroue, Cecil US Bank Claims 3,500.001/25/2018 10644 Issued Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP US Bank Claims 552.421/25/2018 10645 Issued Malarchick Law Office US Bank Claims 21,727.501/25/2018 10646 Issued Matrix Absence Management, Inc US Bank Claims 5,366.191/25/2018 10647 Issued Mills Meyers Swartling PS US Bank Claims 49,875.081/25/2018 10648 Cleared Naegeli Deposition and Trial US Bank Claims 625.001/25/2018 10649 Cleared Paine Hamblen LLP US Bank Claims 1,847.001/25/2018 10650 Issued PEMCO Mutual Insurance Co. US Bank Claims 2,720.121/25/2018 10651 Cleared Smith Goodfriend, PS US Bank Claims 43,615.611/25/2018 10652 Issued State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co US Bank Claims 2,106.711/25/2018 10653 Issued State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co US Bank Claims 3,595.601/25/2018 10654 Issued Summit Law Group US Bank Claims 3,757.501/25/2018 10655 Issued The CEI Group, Inc. US Bank Claims 2,690.761/25/2018 10656 Issued USA Express LLC US Bank Claims 527.251/25/2018 10657 Cleared The Rusing Firm Trust Account US Bank Claims 7,500.001/25/2018 10658 Issued Wells Fargo US Bank Claims 1,027.051/25/2018 10659 Issued WA Arbitration & Mediation Service US Bank Claims 1,162.501/29/2018 10660 Issued Ben Franklin Transit US Bank Claims 8,352.261/29/2018 10661 Issued C-Tran US Bank Claims 7,847.691/29/2018 10662 Issued Matrix Absence Management, Inc US Bank Claims 3,738.121/29/2018 10663 Issued Witherspoon Brajcich McPhee, PLLC US Bank Claims 11,130.761/29/2018 10664 Issued Zaremba Claims Service-Yakima US Bank Claims 1,777.651/29/2018 10665 Issued Community Transit US Bank Claims 2,619.621/29/2018 10666 Issued AMICA Mutual Insurance US Bank Claims 300.001/29/2018 10667 Issued Copart US Bank Claims 1,756.911/29/2018 10668 Issued IntercityTransit US Bank Claims 8,057.371/29/2018 10669 Issued Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC US Bank Claims 8,484.66

Total 522,898.40

Page 2 of 2

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool

Actuarial Evaluation As of June 30, 2017 With Roll Forward to December 31, 2017

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2800, Seattle, WA 98101 T: (206) 398 3000, F: (206) 398 3100, www.pwc.com/us

Ms. Tracey Christianson

Executive Director

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool

2629 12th Court SW

Olympia, Washington 98502

January 5, 2018

Dear Ms. Christianson:

Please find attached a copy of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's actuarial evaluation of the Washington State Transit Insurance Pool (“the Pool” or “WSTIP”) as of June 30, 2017 with reserve roll forward to December 31, 2017. Please refer to the “Executive Summary” and “Key Findings” sections of our report for the major results of our study. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to Washington State Transit Insurance Pool and we look forward to your review of our report. If you have any questions or comments regarding the study, please call Kevin Wick at (206) 398-3518 or Steve Higgins at (206) 398-3567.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Wick, FCAS, MAAA Stephen J. Higgins, Jr., ACAS, MAAA

Managing Director Manager

Mark W. Littmann, FCAS, MAAA

Principal

cc: Al Hatten

Table of contents

Page

Purpose................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Outstanding Claim Liability ................................................................................................................. 5

Funding Adequacy ................................................................................................................................ 5

Projected Loss Rates ............................................................................................................................. 7

Projected Future Payments .................................................................................................................. 8

2018 Rating Calculations ...................................................................................................................... 8

Disclosures and Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 12

Exhibits Section

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Reserve Estimation as of December 31, 2017 ................................................................................................... 2

2018 Projected Loss and Loss Rates .................................................................................................................. 3

Automobile Liability ........................................................................................................................................... 4

General Liability ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Auto Physical Damage ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Property ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

2018 Experience Rating ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendix

Auto Liability Claim Frequency, Claim Severity and Loss per Exposure

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool Actuarial Evaluation as of June 30, 2017 Page 1

Purpose

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool has retained PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) to provide

an actuarial review of the Pool’s self-insurance program. In this report, we provide estimates of:

1. Outstanding claim liability as of December 31, 2017;

2. Projected funding adequacy as of December 31, 2017;

3. Deductible credits for 2018;

4. Unallocated loss adjustment expense estimates;

5. Projected loss and loss rates for accident year 2018;

6. Projected future payments (cash flow requirements) for calendar payment year 2018; and

7. Application of the experience rating plan by member for 2018.

Each of these issues is estimated as of the June 30, 2017 accounting date based on data valued as of June

30, 2017. We continued to receive information and supplemental data from the Pool through December

12, 2017. None of the additional information reflects activity between the valuation date of the data and

the date it was provided. The estimates in this report are actuarial central estimates which represent the

expected value over the range of reasonably possible outcomes. As such these estimates are subject to

variability. Actual results may differ substantially. This report and supporting work-papers document the

procedures and results of PwC’s analysis.


Executive summary

1. Washington State Transit Insurance Pool's net unpaid claim obligations as of December 31, 2017

are estimated to be approximately $17.7 million. This estimate is presented graphically in the

chart below along with the historic unpaid claim liabilities from prior fiscal year-ends.

The 2017 year-end estimate represents an increase in net unpaid claims of approximately $0.8

million compared to the Pool’s 2016 year-end booked reserves. This increase is primarily due to

greater than expected loss experience from the 2017 accident year.

2. In PwC’s December 2016 report, ultimate losses for 2017 were projected to be roughly $7.8

million. The current ultimate loss estimate for 2017 is approximately $8.4 million. This increase

in estimated ultimate loss is due to greater loss experience from all four coverages. For

comparison purposes we have included the following table, which presents historical net incurred

losses by coverage through the first six months of the accident year.

$0.0$2.0$4.0$6.0$8.0

$10.0$12.0$14.0$16.0$18.0$20.0

Mill

ion

s

Net Unpaid Claim Obligations


Net Incurred Loss Through the First 6 Months of the Accident Year

Accident Year

Auto Liability

General Liability

APD

Property

2013 1,251,963 11,780 77,413 0

2014 813,298 54,992 137,935 6,607

2015 669,375 111,930 35,125 22,990

2016 580,974 64,452 39,881 16,500

2017 995,542 585,415 202,841 333,000

For the general liability and property coverages, the 2017 increase in loss is due to greater claim

severity; there were two property claims and five general liability claims with incurred values

greater than $50,000. For auto liability and APD, the increase in 2017 loss appears to be due to

an increase in the number of claims. The 267 reported claims for auto liability and the 241

reported claims for APD were record highs for the number of claims reported during the first six

months of the year (see the 6 month columns of Exhibits 4-19 and 6-18, for auto liability and

APD, respectively). Please note that 2017 is a very immature accident year.

3. The following graph presents WSTIP’s prior and projected surplus levels along with the

accompanying target funding ranges. The most recent indications suggest that WSTIP’s equity

level is expected to increase to roughly $22.5 million ($1.1 million increase) as of December 31,

2017; this is below the lower end of the target funding range. The 2014 through 2017 target ranges

(in red) are based on the Pool’s actual liability retention limits.

The funding target ranges are based on information from the December 2014 capital modeling

study and the Pool’s risk and retention levels. The target funding ranges presented for 2018

through 2025 (in yellow) assume a higher ($5 million) retention level than WSTIP’s historical

retention levels and that Pool losses will increase by roughly 4% per year going forward.


Actual program costs will vary from the estimated amounts. Accordingly, the funding plan should

be reviewed and adjusted as necessary, at least annually. Based on the assumptions noted above,

it appears that Option #3 (10% annual rate increases) suggests that WSTIP may be able to

support a $5 million liability retention by FYE 2021.

$15.9$18.6 $19.5 $19.8

$18.0 $19.1$21.4 $22.5

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

12/3

1/20

10

12/3

1/20

11

12/3

1/20

12

12/3

1/20

13

12/3

1/20

14

12/3

1/20

15

12/3

1/20

16

12/3

1/20

17

12/3

1/20

18

12/3

1/20

19

12/3

1/20

20

12/3

1/20

21

12/3

1/20

22

12/3

1/20

23

12/3

1/20

24

12/3

1/20

25

Mil

lio

ns

Surplus versus Target Funding (5M SIR)

Target Option #1 (Maintain Rates) Option #2 (7% Increase) Option #3 (10% Increase)


Key findings

Outstanding claim liability

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool's outstanding claim obligations net of self-insured retentions

and net of deductibles as of December 31, 2017 are estimated to be approximately $17.7 million. This

represents an increase in net unpaid claims of approximately $0.8 million (5% increase) compared to the

Pool’s 2016 year-end booked reserves. The estimate of outstanding claim liability represents the

undiscounted outstanding claim obligations as of the December 31, 2017 reserve date, for self-insured

claims incurred on or before that date.

The reserves for outstanding claim liability include a provision for outstanding loss and loss adjustment

expenses. Allocated loss adjustment expenses (“ALAE”) are those that can be associated directly with

specific claims, such as legal fees. Unallocated loss adjustment expenses (“ULAE”) are expenses that are

normally associated with the overhead costs of administering claims. In this report, ULAE reserves have

been estimated separately from the loss and ALAE reserves. The ULAE reserve estimation is presented on

Exhibit 1-4.

Also included in this report is an Appendix which presents the historic frequency, severity and loss per

exposure rates for WSTIP’s automobile liability coverage. For consistency and comparability of

presentation, the auto liability losses have been limited to $250,000 per occurrence. Although the

number of reported claims has increased, frequency rates continue to appear to be rather stable due to the

increase in mileage. However, the severity and loss per exposure ratios for the 2017 accident year are

among the Pool’s highest historically.

Funding adequacy

In August 2015, PwC provided an updated Target Fund Balance Review for WSTIP regarding the fund

balance as of December 2014. In this study the Pool’s target funding range was estimated based on

WSTIP’s risk profile. Lower and upper ranges were established as target fund balance levels. The lower

range was defined as the fund needed to address the possibility of a 1-in-100 year event to cover the

various major financial risks faced by the Pool such as underwriting, reserving, asset/credit and

operational risks. The upper range was defined as the fund needed to address the possibility of a 1-in-200

year event.


Using the results of this study, the 2017 year-end target funding range at the current retention level is

estimated to be between $29.3 million and $36.2 million. The estimated 2017 year-end fund balance of

$22.5 million is below the lower end of this range.

WSTIP is a capital contributor to Government Entities Mutual (GEM) with an estimated surplus account

of $1,273,834. However, per discussions with Pool management only $750,000 of this estimated surplus

account is available for withdrawal to support other program risks. As such, the $22.5 million fund

balance estimate noted above has been adjusted to reflect a reduction due to the $523,834 (= $1,273,834 -

$750,000) overage.

WSTIP’s management and oversight board also have a long-term goal of accumulating sufficient capital to

be largely independent of the commercial insurance market. Meeting this goal has been defined as being

in a financial position to support a liability retention level of $5 million per occurrence at a 1-in-100 year

event level. The target fund balance necessary to support this secondary goal as of the 2017 fiscal year-end

would be between approximately $32.9 million and $40.8 million. The decision whether to increase the

retention to $5 million would be dependent on market conditions and other considerations beyond just

having sufficient funding.

The graph below presents the projected December 31, 2017 fund balance along with the Pool’s risk profiles

under both the current and the $5 million per occurrence scenarios. For comparison purposes, the

Washington State regulatory minimum is also shown.

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

Current ($2.5m liab/$250k prop) $5m liab/$250k prop

Mill

ion

s

Reinsurance Arrangement

December 31, 2017 Funding Adequacy

Target (1-in-100 to 1-in-200 year event)

Regulatory Minimum (80% C.L.)

Projected 2017 FYE Fund Balance


Projected loss rates

The Pool has asked PwC to make loss projections under the following retention assumption for 2018:

Property and auto physical damage retentions of $250,000 per occurrence, and a liability retention of

$2.5 million per occurrence. The aggregate 2018 loss projection includes all losses, allocated loss

adjustment expenses (ALAE) and unallocated loss adjustment expenses (ULAE). The following table

breaks out the components of the 2018 ultimate loss and ALAE projections for automobile liability and

general liability. The 2018 loss and ALAE estimations are presented in greater detail in exhibit section 3.

The liability loss projections are gross of member deductibles.

2018 Liability Losses by Loss Layer

$0 - $250K $250K - $1M $1M - $2.5M Total Loss Rate

(1) Exposures

(2) Loss Rate

(3) Exposures

(4) Loss Rate

(5) Exposures

(6) (1)x(2)+(3)x(4)+(5)x(6)

(7)

Auto Liability $44.6 101,912 $13.8 101,912 $11.5 101,912 $7,122,660

General Liability $121.5 5,135 $37.0 5,135 $18.5 5,135 $909,180

Mileage (in thousands) is used as an exposure base for automobile liability. For general liability, the

number of employees is used as the exposure base. Actual and future projected estimates of these two

exposure bases were provided by WSTIP. To the extent that the actual mileage or the number of

employees is different from projections, the ultimate loss estimates will need to be revised.

The following table presents the components of the 2018 ultimate loss projections for auto physical

damage and property. Both APD losses and property losses are estimated at the $250,000 self-insured

retention. The 2018 loss and ALAE estimations for the first party coverages are presented on Exhibits 3-3

and 3-4. Each estimate is net of member deductibles.

2018 First Party Losses

Vehicle/Property Values

(1)

Loss Rate Assuming a $250,000

Deductible (2)

Ultimate Loss ($250,000 Deductible)

(1)x(2) (3)

APD 227 $2,235 $507,755

Property 383 319 122,301


The Pool provided 2017 vehicle and property values (in millions) that were used as an exposure base for

the first-party coverages. The 2017 values were trended forward to 2018 by 3% to adjust for inflation.

The exposure estimates were also adjusted for member deductibles.

The aggregate loss and ALAE estimate for 2018 is presented on Exhibit 2-2.

The calculation of the unallocated loss adjustment expense portion of the 2018 loss projection is

presented on Exhibit 1-4.

The aggregate loss and loss adjustment expense (Loss + ALAE + ULAE) projected for 2018 is presented

on Exhibit 1-2 at a variety of confidence levels.

Projected future payments

The estimated future payments over the period from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 are

approximately $3.7 million. The estimated future payments for calendar year 2018 are $8.2 million. A

schedule of estimated payments by calendar year appears on Exhibit 2-2. Please note that these estimates

are highly variable due to the timing and volatility of potential settlement amounts.

2018 rating calculations

The overall framework for the Pool’s member assessments is as follows:

Indicated Assessment = Exposures x Base Rates x Experience Mod Factors

x Deductible

Factors

+ Other Rating Cost Components

Exposures

The exposure (mileage, number of employees, property values, and vehicle insured values) assumptions

by member are presented in column (1) of each member’s rate assessment calculation exhibit (Exhibit

8-6).

Base rates

Base rates are calculated on Exhibit 8-1 and presented in column (2) of the rate assessment calculation

exhibit.


Experience modification factors

Experience modification factors are calculated on the rate assessment calculation exhibits (Exhibit 8-6).

The experience rating formula uses the most recently completed three years of losses. The member’s

actual three-year losses are compared to their expected three-year losses. The expected loss level is

determined by multiplying the member’s mileage and FTE counts during the period by the Pool average

loss rate. The Pool’s average loss rates are calculated on Exhibit 8-4. A member’s relative loss experience

(actual loss divided by expected loss) is compared to that member’s prior modification factor in order to

determine the final experience modification factor.

In order to promote stability, various risk-sharing mechanisms have been implemented throughout the

formula:

1. In measuring loss experience, each single claim is capped. The size of the loss cap is determined by

the size of the member as measured by the number of miles driven by each member during each

individual loss year. The table below presents the loss limits for the four levels of mileage. The loss

limit protects the individual member from being too adversely impacted by a single claim.

Annual Miles During Year Loss Limit

Over 15,000,000 miles $250,000

5,000,000 - 15,000,000 miles 100,000

1,000,000 - 5,000,000 miles 50,000

Less than 1,000,000 miles 25,000

2. A weighting system is used with the experience rating. The amount of weight given to the member’s

most recent relative loss experience is determined as E / (E + K) where E is the expected three-year

loss level and K is a constant which varies for each size group of members. Smaller members are

expected to have more volatile loss experience due to their size. The weighting scheme is designed

to allow all members to be self-rated to the extent their experience is deemed credible. The table

below presents the K-values for each size of member.


Annual Miles in Latest Year K-Value

Over 15,000,000 miles 8,500,000

5,000,000 - 15,000,000 miles 5,000,000

1,000,000 - 5,000,000 miles 2,500,000

Less than 1,000,000 miles 1,500,000

3. The experience modification factor is based on a weighted average between the current relative loss

experience (using the weight E / (E + K) from point 2 above) and the prior mod factor (using the

complement of E / E + K). Under this system, if a member has consistent losses either above or

below the expected loss level, their mod will continue to move towards their long-term average.

Deductible Factors

All but three members participating in the property or APD pool coverages during 2018 will have a

$5,000 deductible. Pierce and Spokane will have $25,000 deductibles; C-Tran will have a $10,000

deductible. Everett and Pullman do not participate in either of the property or APD pool coverages.

Yakima does not participate in the property pool coverage. The 2018 deductible factors for each of these

coverages assuming a Pool deductible of $250,000 and a 15% risk load are presented in the following

table. The risk load is based on discussions with WSTIP management regarding the profitability of the

deductible layers. Deductible factors are applied directly to the base rates.

Estimated Deductible Factors (to be Applied to Base Rates for 2018)

Deductible Option APD Property

$5,000 0.832 0.973

10,000 0.771 0.960

25,000 0.695 0.937

Please note that these deductible factors are based on industry experience.

It is important to note the difference between deductible factors and deductible credits. When

determining a member's premium, the deductible credit (loss elimination ratio) should be applied only to


the loss fund component of the rate. Deductible factors are applied directly to the base rate. Deductible

credits and deductible factors are presented on Exhibit 8-3.

Please note that the deductible credits presented in Exhibit 8-3 are “average” credits based on industry

experience. The experience for an individual member may be different. This type of variation exposes

WSTIP to issues regarding adverse selection. WSTIP should consider the fact that with a deductible

program, the Pool will retain the more uncertain (higher layers) of the losses.

Other rating cost components

Other rating cost components are parts of the overall rate assessment that are charged directly to specific

members depending on participation. The other rating cost components are presented on Exhibit 8-5.

These types of costs include premium for underground storage tank liability insurance, crime and fidelity

premium, Origami licenses, Driver Record Monitoring Program costs, premium for pollution liability, and

UIM premium.

UIM premium rates for van pool ($0.0075 per mile) and non-van pool ($0.0060 per mile) are mandated

by WSTIP Board policy. In the study, APD losses including UIM are projected. The member contribution

generated by these board mandated UIM rates is calculated and assumed to be the UIM portion of the

overall APD costs. The APD base rate is lowered accordingly to reflect these separate UIM charges.

Other rating information

Per the Pool’s request, we have rounded the modification factors and the rates so that the indicated

premium assessments presented in the rate assessment calculation exhibits are easier to follow. The rates

are then balanced to force a specific overall contribution level to be collected. This year the balancing

factor used in the calculation is approximately 0.6%.

Several of the underlying program costs included in the rate calculations are projections. The most

significant projection is the estimate of 2018 losses because the actual claim cost amounts will not be

known with certainty until many years in the future. In addition, due to the timing of when rates need to

be communicated, the projected costs of the program also include estimates of excess and reinsurance

charges and program administrative charges. The rating procedure recognizes that the actual excess and

reinsurance charges and the final budgeted administrative charges (and final actual administrative

charges) will vary in some degree from the current provisions. However, such variance is typically

minimal in comparison to the variance between actual and projected losses.


Disclosures and methodology

Background

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool began its self-insurance program on January 1, 1989 and

currently consists of twenty-five full member transit systems. The following table shows the dates when

each member joined the Pool:

Pool Membership Joining Date

Transit System Membership Date

Ben Franklin Transit January 1, 1989

Clallam Transit System January 1, 1989

Community Transit January 1, 1989

Grays Harbor Transportation Authority January 1, 1989

Intercity Transit January 1, 1989

Island Transit August 13, 1992

Jefferson Transit January 1, 1989

Kitsap Transit January 1, 1989

Link Transit December 4, 1990

Mason Transit Authority January 1, 1993

Pacific Transit System January 1, 1989

Skagit Transit August 1, 1993

Whatcom Transportation Authority December 19, 1995

Grant Transit Authority February 1, 1997

Twin Transit July 1, 2002

Pullman Transit January 1, 2003

Spokane Transit Authority July 1, 2004

Valley Transit December 1, 2004

Columbia County Public Transportation February 7, 2005

Cowlitz County Transit March 13, 2005

Everett Transit May 1, 2005

Yakima Transit September 1, 2005

Asotin County PBTA July 1, 2007

Pierce Transit January 1, 2009

C-Tran January 1, 2011

The purpose for forming the Pool was to provide member transit systems with programs of joint self-

insurance, joint purchasing of insurance and joint contracting for hiring personnel to provide risk

management, claims handling, training and administrative services. Insurance coverages provided by the


Pool include: automobile liability, general liability, auto physical damage, and property. In the event of a

funding shortfall the Pool has reassessment capabilities.

The Pool's governing body consists of its Board of Directors, which is comprised of one representative and

at least one alternate from each member system. The Board of Directors meets four times a year. The

Executive Committee consists of the Pool's officers (President, Vice President, Secretary and Past

President), a representative from each size transit agency group (small, medium, and large) and one

additional representative (at large) which can be from any size agency. The Pool’s appointed Treasurer

also sits on the Executive Committee as a non-voting member. Once elected as Secretary, the positions

roll up through the ranks until rolling off as Past President. The member representatives (large, medium,

small, and at large) are elected annually. The Executive Committee handles the day-to-day governance of

WSTIP and also serves as the Claim Review Committee in all cases involving indemnity reserves greater

than $250,000. The Executive Committee meets almost monthly.

Member systems joining the Pool must remain members for a minimum of three years. A member may

withdraw from the Pool at the end of any fiscal year by giving six months written notice of its intent to

withdraw. No member may withdraw within its first three years of membership. Any member

withdrawing from the Pool may not be allowed to rejoin the Pool for a period of three years.

Historical liability amounts retained by the Pool are presented in the following table.

Historical Liability Amounts Retained

Loss Period Amount Retained

1/1/89-12/31/92 $250,000 per occ.

1/1/93 - 12/31/94 $300,000 per occ.

1/1/95 - 12/31/96 $300,000 per occ. plus $200,000 agg. deductible of layer in excess of $300,000

1/1/97 - 12/31/98 $300,000 per occ. plus $400,000 agg. deductible of layer $200,000 excess of $300,000

1/1/99 - 12/31/00 $250,000 per occ.

1/1/01 - 12/31/02 $250,000 per occ. plus $250,000 agg. deductible of layer in excess of $250,000

1/1/03 - 12/31/03 $500,000 per occ.

1/1/04 - 12/31/05 $600,000 per occ.

1/1/06 - 12/31/07 $1 million per occ.

1/1/08 - 2/31/08 $1 million per occ. plus 33% of losses $3 million excess of $1 million

1/1/09 - 12/31/10 $1 million per occ. plus $500,000 agg. deductible of layer in excess of $1 million

1/1/11 - 12/31/14 $1 million per occ. plus 17% of losses $3 million excess of $1 million

1/1/15 - 12/31/16 $2 million per occ.

1/1/17 – 12/31/17 $2.5 million per occ.


For general liability losses occurring during 1996 through 1998, the aggregate corridor deductibles do not

apply.

C-Tran joined WSTIP on January 1, 2011 retaining ground up liability insurance. Pierce Transit joined the

Pool on January 1, 2009 with a liability deductible of $1 million per occurrence. Beginning January 1,

2010, Pierce Transit retained ground up liability insurance through WSTIP. All member systems have a

$5,000 deductible for Public Officials Liability claims.

The Pool’s retentions for first-party losses have been as follows:

Property claims: $250,000 pool deductible effective July 1, 2013. $500,000 pool deductible from

July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013; $250,000 pool deductible from July 1, 2011 through June 30,

2012. Property and auto physical damage deductibles are $5,000 for all members except C-Tran

($10,000 deductible), Pierce Transit ($25,000 deductible), and Spokane Transit ($25,000

deductible); Yakima Transit, Pullman Transit and Everett Transit do not purchase property

coverage through the Pool.

Auto Physical Damage claims: $250,000 pool deductible effective July 1, 2013. $500,000 pool

deductible from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013; $250,000 pool deductible from July 1, 2011

through June 30, 2012. UIM is first dollar coverage. Auto physical damage deductibles are

$5,000 for all members except C-Tran ($10,000 deductible), Pierce Transit ($25,000 deductible),

and Spokane Transit ($25,000 deductible); Pullman Transit and Everett Transit do not purchase

APD coverage through the Pool.

Since January 1, 1998 the Pool has adjusted claims in-house. Prior to that time, GAB Robins, Inc. had

adjusted WSTIP’s claims.

Distribution and use

This report was prepared for internal use by the management of the Pool, and not for any other party.

Distribution of this report to the Pool’s external auditors is permitted with the understanding that the

report will be distributed in its entirety and that the furnishing of this report is not a substitute for the

auditor's own due diligence. Judgments as to the conditions, methods, and data contained in this report

should be made only after studying the report in its entirety and understanding the reliance and

limitations inherent in our analysis, as described in the subsequent sections. The use of parts of this

report in isolation may result in erroneous or misleading conclusions. The Actuarial Services staff of PwC

is available to explain or elaborate upon the findings presented in this report, and it is assumed that users


of this report will seek out such explanation on any matter in question. Other use or further distribution

of this report will not result in the creation of any duty or liability by PwC to a third party, and third

parties should place no reliance on this report or data contained herein that would result in the creation of

any duty or liability by PwC to the third party.

Reliance on data The data used in this analysis was prepared by and are the responsibility of WSTIP. It was furnished by

Ms. Tracey Christianson, Executive Director of the Pool. PwC assumes no responsibility and makes no

representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. While our

work may involve analysis of accounting records and other financial information, our actuarial

engagement does not include an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. At the

time of this review the data was unaudited.

Data provided by the Pool included the following:

Historical and projected exposures (total miles, vanpool miles, number of employees,

automobile values, total insured property values);

Deductibles by transit system, and year;

Self-insured retention history;

Estimates of 2018 non-claim expenses and other costs;

Annual reports; and

Claim listings valued as of June 30, 2017.

The loss data compiled from the Pool's database included paid loss, incurred loss, accident date, claims

status (open and closed), as well as other specific information for each reported claim.

References to the term "loss" should be understood to mean loss and allocated loss adjustment expense

(ALAE). These expenses would include the costs of adjusting claims, such as legal expense, that are

assigned to specific cases.

Qualifications of the actuaries Kevin Wick is a Managing Director with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and is a Fellow of the Casualty

Actuarial Society. Steve Higgins is a Manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and is an Associate of

the Casualty Actuarial Society. Mark Littmann is a Principal with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and is a

Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society. All three are members in good standing of the American


Academy of Actuaries. As such, Mr. Wick, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Littmann each meet the Qualification

Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein.

Limitations The projected ultimate liabilities and associated reserves for loss shown in this report are actuarial central

estimates. As estimates, these values are subject to variability. The possibility of this variability arises

from the fact that all factors affecting the ultimate liability for loss and loss adjustment expenses have not

taken place and cannot be evaluated with absolute certainty. Our projection of liabilities is based on the

Pool's historical experience, and we have not anticipated any extraordinary changes to the various factors

that might impact the future cost of claims. We have, however, used methods of estimating reserve

requirements that we believe produce reasonable results given current information. No guarantee, either

express or implied, should be inferred that losses and loss adjustment expenses will develop as shown in

this report.

The most recent evaluation of losses available for this report is June 30, 2017. Since estimated reserves as

of December 31, 2017 are desired, payments from July 1 to December 31 were estimated. To the extent

these estimates vary from actual payments, estimated reserves will vary. This estimation procedure,

therefore, further increases the variability of our results. In addition, the future loss estimates that are

projected over a five-year period are subject to additional uncertainty due to possible changes in loss

experience, exposure to loss, and potential future retention levels.

PwC recently completed a target fund balance review for the Pool using data valued as of December 31,

2014. The target funding ranges used in this report are based on that study; we have assumed that much

of WSTIP’s projected risk profile as of the current year-end is comparable to their risk profile as of the

2014 year-end.

Analysis

The actuarial analysis was divided into the following major work steps:

Ultimate Loss and Reserve Estimation

Future Losses and Loss Rates

Cash Flow Analysis

Confidence Levels

Deductible Credit Estimation

Unallocated Loss Adjustment Expense Estimation


Ultimate Loss and Reserve Estimation The auto liability, general liability, auto physical damage and property insurance loss triangles are used in

this report. The auto liability claims represent the majority of the Pool’s loss experience. Due to data

limitations, it has only been in the more recent years that the Pool has been able to separate their loss

experience by coverage. As such, the ultimate loss development and estimation techniques have been

supplemented by industry development information as required.

The first step of the analysis was to estimate the ultimate loss for each accident year through June 30,

2017. A large portion of the total cost of insurance claims that occur in each year is paid in subsequent

years. This normal delay in payments creates a need to set aside funds each year to pay the future costs of

already incurred claims. However, it is difficult to determine the exact amount of losses incurred during a

year until sometime after the end of that year. One reason is that it is difficult to estimate ultimate costs

for many claims when they are first reported. The claims adjuster makes estimates of the ultimate cost of

individual claims based on the information available about each case. The unpaid amount estimated for

an individual claim is called a "case reserve."

In most insurance programs, case reserves somewhat understate the ultimate cost of claims because the

reserves are generally based only on the most currently available information about the circumstances

surrounding each known claim. The result is that total estimated costs for claims incurred in a year are

often revised upward over time. Though many claims settle for less than originally expected, decreases in

estimated costs are more than offset by newly reported claims and by increases in case reserves for other

claims about which new information emerges. This phenomenon of progressively revising reserves is

called "loss development."

Loss development is a normal and expected part of most insurance programs. Even if it is substantial,

loss development does not necessarily imply that claims are being administered improperly. For financial

purposes, however, it is important to estimate the amount of future loss development to recognize the

entire liability.

The application of several actuarial techniques is important in order to estimate the ultimate costs of

claims. Each technique relies on a specific set of assumptions about the stability of the claims

environment and thus provides additional insight into trends in claims costs. These methods will also

give inapplicable results when the important assumptions on which they rely are violated. Thus, the


methods applied act as checks and balances against each other, and, within reason, the more methods

applied, the more likely it is that accurate loss estimates will be obtained.

Some methods may provide accurate results in some years and inaccurate results in others, depending on

the situation in the local claims environment. Knowledge of the local environment and experience with

the actuarial estimation methods is required to select the best results in each set of circumstances.

The actuarial methods used to estimate ultimate loss included the following:

Paid loss development

Incurred loss development

Loss per exposure

Bornhuetter-Ferguson

Paid loss development assumes that the ratio of losses paid in one period to losses paid in an earlier

period is approximately constant over time. For example, if, on average, paid losses at 24 months after

the start of the year were 150% of losses at 12 months, loss development from 12 to 24 months is projected

to be 50%. Similarly if losses at 36 months were 120% of losses at 24 months, then the combined loss

development from 12 to 36 months is projected to be 80% (1.50 x 1.20 = 1.80). The process of estimating

period-to-period development factors is normally continued until a level of maturity is reached at which

point no additional movement is expected.

Incurred loss development is similar to paid loss development but uses incurred losses (paid loss plus case

loss reserves) instead of paid losses.

Loss per exposure is used to estimate ultimate loss by multiplying the exposures to loss by estimated

losses per exposure. In the loss per exposure method, loss per exposure estimates for several of the more

mature years are based on ultimate losses selected from indications of the development methods. These

losses are divided by loss exposures to produce losses per exposure for these older years. The losses per

exposure are trended to more recent years and then multiplied by exposures to yield ultimate loss

estimates for the more recent years.

The Bornhuetter-Ferguson technique based on exposures and paid loss is a variation on the traditional

development approach. The basic premise underlying this technique is that loss varies proportionately

with exposures. Losses per exposures are selected based on historical loss experience and resulting


trends. This is balanced by assuming that only future losses will develop at this rate. The percent of paid

loss to ultimate loss implied from the paid loss development method is used to determine what percentage

of ultimate loss is yet to be developed. Current losses are added to losses yet to be developed, yielding an

estimate of ultimate loss for each year. This method is also performed using incurred losses instead of

paid losses.

The loss per exposure and Bornhuetter-Ferguson approaches are particularly useful for the more recent

years because of their relative stability compared with that of development techniques. Paid loss

development factors, in particular, can be very large for the most recent years; a relatively small change in

the reporting or payment pattern could significantly distort the calculated result.

Based on a review of the results of the actuarial methods, an estimate of ultimate loss for each accident

year was selected. The Pool's 2009 net ultimate loss for liability also incorporated Pierce Transit's

estimated net losses (i.e. Pool losses net of Pierce's $1 million deductible). The analysis of each of the

coverage lines is based on data that is net of member deductibles and net of the Pool’s self-insured

retentions. The selected reserves as of June 30, 2017 were calculated by subtracting the net paid losses

from the net ultimate loss estimates.

Claim Counts

The following actuarial methods were used to project ultimate claims:

Reported claim development; and

Claim frequency.

Reported claim development is similar to paid loss development but uses reported claims (closed claims

plus open claims) instead of paid losses.

Claim frequency is used to estimate ultimate claims by multiplying exposures to loss by estimated claims

per exposure. In this method, claim frequency estimates for several of the more mature years are based

on ultimate claims selected from indications of the reported claim development method. These claims are

divided by loss exposures (worker hours) to produce claims per exposure for these older years. The claims

per exposure are trended to more recent years and then multiplied by exposures to yield ultimate claim

estimates for the more recent years.


Future Losses and Loss Rates The projected ultimate liability losses for accident year 2018 were estimated based on a loss per exposure

method. Using the Pool provided exposures and the estimated ultimate losses limited to $250,000 from

the prior accident years, historical estimated liability loss rates were calculated. These rates were then

trended forward. Based on the indications from the trended rates, estimated loss rates were projected for

accident year 2018 at the $250,000 retention level. Projected exposures were then multiplied by the

projected loss rates and increased limits factors to estimate ultimate loss at the various retention levels.

In estimating future losses, no adjustment was made for the liability deductibles. Auto liability

deductibles have not been offered since 2007. A $5,000 deductible is available for Public Officials

Liability, but this type of claim have been infrequent historically.

For first-party losses, the method used to project losses was similar to that utilized to estimate liability

losses. However, due to the fact that the first-party claims data is net of deductibles, the Pool’s estimated

exposure (vehicle/property values) was adjusted for the varying deductible levels within the membership.

In this manner, first-party loss rates gross of deductibles could be estimated and trended to current levels.

Historical loss rates were calculated based on current estimates of ultimate loss. Based on these

indications, an estimated loss rate was selected for fiscal year 2018. The exposure bases for both property

(insured values) and auto physical damage (vehicle values) are inflation sensitive. As such, no other trend

rate was used in the loss rate estimation. It was assumed that loss costs would increase at the same rate

as the exposure bases used. The loss rates were then adjusted to the expected retention level. Multiplying

the projected loss rate by the projected exposure (and the ILF) results in the projected ultimate loss.

Cash Flow Analysis

The cash flow analysis provides useful information regarding the timing and level of expected future

payments. The timing of future payments was based on a payment pattern established by reviewing the

historical relationship between cumulative paid loss and estimated ultimate loss.

The methodology used in our analysis is based on the assumptions that the self-insured liability is fully

funded, that payments are made in the middle of each successive year on average, and that the assumed

payment pattern continues to apply. Calendar year paid loss and ALAE projections are presented under

both funding scenarios on Exhibit 2-2.


Confidence levels Underwriting Risk – This is the risk that next year’s business result may deviate from the Pool’s rating

plan. PwC utilized a Frequency-Severity approach as the general framework for estimating underwriting

risk. We separately modeled the severity of individual claims and the frequency of claims for each

coverage. Severity parameters and distribution shapes were selected based on historical individual

claims, which were developed and trended to the future year level. Development factors were derived

based on a review of factors to settlement, with the experience segregated into groups by number of years

open.

Historical claim frequency per exposure by accident year was examined to project an expected number of

claims and the variability around this expected number. The frequency and severity parameters were

assumed to be independent. Because there is a large volume of smaller attritional losses, we modelled

these claims separately.

Using the selected of distributions for frequency and severity, simulations of ultimate losses for the 2017

underwriting year were constructed. Both gross estimates and estimates limited to the retention level

were modeled, as well as other contemplated retention levels. Based on the outcome of the simulations,

percentiles of fund needs were developed for the risks analyzed.

Reserving Risk – This is the risk that eventual losses and expenses may exceed the loss reserve liability

that the Pool is booking as of the current fiscal year-end. To quantify the reserving risk, a bootstrap

method is performed using an incurred loss triangle. The idea behind bootstrapping is that the collected

sample of claims data (incurred loss triangle) is often the best guess one has as to the nature of the

population from which the sample was taken. As a starting point, PwC selected development factors. The

historical deviation from these selected factors (called “residuals”) is then randomly repeated in the future

development periods through simulation to arrive at a range of IBNR results. The key advantage of the

bootstrapping method is that it provides a way to simulate observations from a population of unknown

parameters using the obtained sample as the sole basis for these simulations (i.e. no assumptions need to

be made about the sample claims data).

Deductible credit estimation The first-party deductible credits presented in this report are “average” credits based upon industry

experience.


Unallocated loss adjustment expense estimation Unallocated loss adjustment expenses were estimated using a method based on the ratio of paid ULAE to

paid loss and ALAE. A selected ULAE to loss and ALAE ratio is applied to loss and ALAE reserves,

making the assumption that some of ULAE payments are made when a claim is reported and the

remaining part as the claim is paid. Therefore, the whole ratio is applied to “pure” IBNR reserves, while

only a portion of the ratio is applied to development on reported claims. Two scenarios were constructed

using the assumptions that 0% and 100% of the estimated IBNR loss reserves is attributable to IBNR

claims. Based on the range of estimates provided, a total ULAE reserve was selected. Once the ULAE

reserve was estimated, the ratio of the ULAE reserve to the loss and ALAE reserve could be calculated.

The estimated reserve, the ratio of ULAE to loss and ALAE reserves, and the estimation of the ULAE to be

incurred during 2018 are presented on Exhibit 1-4.

Olympia, WA 98502-60802000 Lakeridge Drive SW

Thurston County WA - WSTIP

20881Portfolio Number

For period ending:January 31, 2018

(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633

01/29/2018 7:31:05PMPage 1

Software & Services for Financial Institutions www.finser.com

Page 2

Olympia, WA

As of 01/31/18Table of ContentsThurston County WA - WSTIP

Page 3

Management Analysis ReportsI.

5Total Portfolio Investments At Par Value Held To Maturity

6Total Portfolio Investments At Par Value Fixed Rate Only

7Maturities by Month Par Value

9Five Year Cash Flow Projections by Month

15Ten Year Cash Flow Projections by Month

17Budget Projection Report

18Budget Projection Report Monthly Accruals

20Book Value Distribution by Maturity

21U.S. Government Securities

22U.S. Government and Agency Ratings

Pledge & Safekeeping ReportsII.

23Pledge Report by Maturity Date

24Safekeeping Report by Maturity Date

Accounting ReportsIII.

25Accounting Detail

29Accounting Summary

30Monthly Accrual Summary

31Accounting Method by Security

Transaction ReportsIV.

32Transaction Summary

33Purchases

34Accrued Interest Purchased Outstanding

Security InventoryV.

35Book Value Balances by Security

36Security Inventory Report Held To Maturity

37Distribution by Type and Item Count

Table of Contents(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301, San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633Rel 2.4 V36.1320881 7:33:59PM TOC1000S01/29/2018

Olympia, WA

As of 01/31/18Table of ContentsThurston County WA - WSTIP

Page 4

The information contained herein has been produced using information that we believe to be reliable, but on which we do not guarantee the accuracy.

Market value appraisals are updated monthly prior to the beginning of month-end processing for investments tracked by FinSer's investment portfolio software. Most security types are priced using internally developed software and procedures. Subscription pricing services supplement FinSer's internal pricing system particularly on security types where underlying collateral, cash flow projections or trade data is not readily available. Exchange traded prices are converted to "bond-like" fair market prices, based on par equaling 100. The price source for each individual security is available in the "Fair Value Measurement Detail Report." The appraisals do not necessarily reflect net results obtainable in the event of actual liquidation. Fair market values assigned to infrequently traded securities or securities with unique cash flow characteristics or obscure collateral are particularly susceptible to variances from the true market or liquidation values.

Average life calculations on pass through instruments and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs) are derived from reported historic or estimated pre-payment speeds on specific pass through pools and CMOs. These historic or estimated pre-payments speeds may not necessarily reflect future pre-payment speeds.

ASC 820 fair value classification levels shown in this report are based on FinSer’s interpretation of the fair value hierarchy established by ASC 820. Financial institution management is ultimately responsible for determining applicable ASC 820 fair value classification levels.

Copyright 201*, Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. Reproduction of S&P Credit Ratings in any form is prohibited except with the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC (together with its affiliates, S&P). S&P does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of any information, including ratings, and is not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, or for the results obtained from the use of ratings. S&P GIVES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. S&P shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including lost income or profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of Ratings. S&P's ratings are statements of opinions and are not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, hold or sell securities. They do not address the market value of securities or the suitability of securities for investment purposes, and should not be relied on as investment advice.

Copyright © 20**, American Bankers Association CUSIP Database provided by the Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved.

MattAccount Representative: 96321Batch: 01/19/2018Yield Curve Date:

Table of Contents(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301, San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633Rel 2.4 V36.1320881 7:33:59PM TOC1000S01/29/2018

Olympia, WA Held To Maturity Page 5

Thurston County WA - WSTIP Total Portfolio Investments At Par Value As of 01/31/18

U.S. GovernmentU.S.

Year AgenciesOther

SecuritiesTaxable

MunicipalsPass Through

Securities CMO/ABS/OASCorporate

BondsTax-ExemptMunicipals

Tax Adj.Yield Securities

Avg.Yield

All

1.911.915,000,000 5,000,00020192.012.015,000,000 5,000,00020202.152.155,000,000 5,000,00020212.242.245,000,000 5,000,0002022

Par & Yield: 20,000,00020,000,000 2.08 2.08¹

Book Value19,805,872 19,805,872

Fair Value19,683,008 19,683,008

Profit / (Loss))(122,864 )(122,864

Percent of Portfolio%100.00 100.00%Par Value

3 yrs, 4 mths3 yrs, 4 mthsWeighted AverageLife ²

3.1853.185Duration ³Adjusted

² Weighted average lives on declining balance securities reflect the speed selected for book value calculation. See Accounting Method by Security report for more information.¹ Projected book yield based on client-selected amortization method and speed assumptions. See Accounting Method by Security report for more information.

³ Modified duration adjusted for calls where appropriate and consensus prepayment speeds.

I. Management Analysis Reports(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301, San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633Rel 2.4 V36.1320881 7:31:11PM MGT1000S01/29/2018

Olympia, WA Fixed Rate Only Page 6

Thurston County WA - WSTIP Total Portfolio Investments At Par Value As of 01/31/18

U.S. GovernmentU.S.

Year AgenciesOther

SecuritiesTaxable

MunicipalsPass Through

Securities CMO/ABS/OASCorporate

BondsTax-ExemptMunicipals

Tax Adj.Yield Securities

Avg.Yield

All

1.911.915,000,000 5,000,00020192.012.015,000,000 5,000,00020202.152.155,000,000 5,000,00020212.242.245,000,000 5,000,0002022

Par & Yield: 20,000,00020,000,000 2.08 2.08¹

Book Value19,805,872 19,805,872

Fair Value19,683,008 19,683,008

Profit / (Loss))(122,864 )(122,864

Percent of Portfolio%100.00 100.00%Par Value

3 yrs, 4 mths3 yrs, 4 mthsWeighted AverageLife ²

3.1853.185Duration ³Adjusted

² Weighted average lives on declining balance securities reflect the speed selected for book value calculation. See Accounting Method by Security report for more information.¹ Projected book yield based on client-selected amortization method and speed assumptions. See Accounting Method by Security report for more information.

³ Modified duration adjusted for calls where appropriate and consensus prepayment speeds.



Page 7Olympia, WA Par ValueAs of 01/31/18Thurston County WA - WSTIP Maturities by Month

MONTH 2019 2020 20232018 2021 2022 All Other Maturities2024

JanuaryTaxableTax Exempt

FebruaryTaxableTax Exempt

MarchTaxableTax Exempt

AprilTaxableTax Exempt

MayTaxableTax Exempt

JuneTaxableTax Exempt

JulyTaxableTax Exempt

AugustTaxableTax Exempt

SeptemberTaxableTax Exempt

OctoberTaxableTax Exempt

November5,000,000 5,000,0005,000,000Taxable 5,000,000

Tax Exempt2.2352.1542.0081.911

DecemberTaxableTax Exempt



Page 8Olympia, WA Par ValueAs of 01/31/18Thurston County WA - WSTIP Maturities by Month

MONTH 2019 2020 20232018 2021 2022 All Other Maturities2024

5,000,0005,000,0005,000,0005,000,000Totals%25.00 %25.00 %25.00 %25.00Percent of Par 1 1 1 1

Note: Pass through securities and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations are not included in this report.Par

PercentYieldItems

2.2352.1542.0081.911



Olympia, WA

Five Year Cash Flow Projections by MonthThurston County WA - WSTIP As of 01/31/18

Page 9

U.S. Governments U.S. Agencies Other Securities Municipals Taxable

Municipals Tax Exempt

Pass Throughs ABS / OAS Corporates All Securities CMO /

Maturing ParFebruary 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cash Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

000

Maturing ParMarch 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParApril 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParMay 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 178,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,125

Total Cash Flow 178,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,125

000

Maturing ParJune 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParJuly 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParAugust 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParSeptember 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParOctober 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParNovember 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 178,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,125

Total Cash Flow 178,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,125

000

Maturing ParDecember 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParJanuary 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


000

Maturing ParYearly Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Interest 356,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 356,250

Total Cash Flow 356,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 356,250

000



Olympia, WA


Page 10






000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 178,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,125

000



000



000



000



000



000

Maturing ParNovember 2019 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000Interest 178,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,125

Total Cash Flow 5,178,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,178,125

000



000



000

Maturing ParYearly Totals 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000Interest 356,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 356,250

Total Cash Flow 5,356,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,356,250

000



Olympia, WA


Page 11






000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 134,375 0 0 0 0 0 0 134,375

000



000



000



000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 5,134,375 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,134,375

000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 5,268,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,268,750

000



Olympia, WA


Page 12






000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 93,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 93,750

000



000



000



000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 5,093,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,093,750

000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 5,187,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,187,500

000



Olympia, WA


Page 13






000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000

000



000



000



000



000



000


Total Cash Flow 5,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,050,000

000


Total Cash Flow 5,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,100,000

000



Olympia, WA


Page 14

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2/201

84/2

018

6/201

88/2

018

10/20

1812

/2018

2/201

94/2

019

6/201

98/2

019

10/20

1912

/2019

2/202

04/2

020

6/202

08/2

020

10/20

2012

/2020

2/202

14/2

021

6/202

18/2

021

10/20

2112

/2021

2/202

24/2

022

6/202

28/2

022

10/20

22Total Principal and Interest by Month

Interest is stacked above Principal.



Olympia, WA

Ten Year Cash Flow Projections by MonthThurston County WA - WSTIP As of 01/31/18

Page 15

178,125178,125

178,125178,125

356,250356,250

178,125178,125

5,000,000178,125

5,178,125

5,000,000356,250

5,356,250

134,375134,375

5,000,000134,375

5,134,375

5,000,000268,750

5,268,750

93,75093,750

5,000,00093,750

5,093,750

5,000,000187,500

5,187,500

50,00050,000

5,000,00050,000

5,050,000

5,000,000100,000

5,100,000

Totals

Maturing ParInterestTotal Cash Flow November

Maturing ParInterestTotal Cash Flow May

20222021202020192018



Olympia, WA

Ten Year Cash Flow Projections by MonthThurston County WA - WSTIP As of 01/31/18

Page 16

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2/201

8

2/201

9

2/202

0

2/202

1

2/202

2

Total Principal and Interest by Month

Interest is stacked above Principal.



Page 17Olympia, WABudget Projection Report As of 01/31/18Thurston County WA - WSTIP

Projected for 2019Instrument Type Projected for 20182018 To Date Total for 2018

32,887.01 377,789.11 410,676.12 404,440.314,504.47Discount Accretion 56,383.54

AmortizationU. S. Government Bills, Bonds, Notes 348,428.59354,292.58325,910.0428,382.54Interest

Net Income

0.00 0.000.0051,879.07

0.0056,011.72

Total Taxable Earnings 32,887.01 404,440.31410,676.12377,789.11Total TaxFree Earnings 0.00 0.000.000.00Total Accretion 56,383.544,504.47Total Amortization 0.00 0.00

51,879.070.00 0.00

56,011.72



Monthly Accruals for 2018Olympia, WA Page 18

Thurston County WA - WSTIP Budget Projection Report As of 01/31/18

Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 2018 Total

410,676

354,293

56,384

InterestAmortization

AccretionNet Income

28,383

4,50432,887

30,34029,20630,17429,20130,17430,17429,20130,33529,36130,34027,404

35,1554,815

33,8664,660

34,9894,815

33,8614,660

34,9894,815

34,9894,815

33,8614,660

35,15034,02135,15531,7534,8154,6604,8154,349

U. S. Government Bills, Bonds, Notes

Principal Change


AccretionNet Income

28,383

4,50432,887

30,34029,20630,17429,20130,17430,17429,20130,33529,36130,34027,404

35,1554,815

33,8664,660

34,9894,815

33,8614,660

34,9894,815

34,9894,815

33,8614,660

35,15034,02135,15531,7534,8154,6604,8154,349

354,293

410,67656,384

All Market Segments for 2018

Principal Change



Monthly Accruals for 2019Olympia, WA Page 19

Thurston County WA - WSTIP Budget Projection Report As of 01/31/18

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 2019 Total

404,440

348,429

56,012

)(5,000,000


AccretionNet Income

30,340

4,81535,155

22,76328,96230,17429,20130,17430,17429,20130,33529,36130,34027,404

26,9174,154

)(5,000,00033,600

4,63834,989

4,81533,861

4,66034,989

4,81534,989

4,81533,861

4,66035,15034,02135,15531,753

4,8154,6604,8154,349

U. S. Government Bills, Bonds, Notes

Principal Change


AccretionNet Income

30,340

4,81535,155

22,76328,96230,17429,20130,17430,17429,20130,33529,36130,34027,404

26,9174,154

)(5,000,00033,600

4,63834,989

4,81533,861

4,66034,989

4,81534,989

4,81533,861

4,66035,15034,02135,15531,753

4,8154,6604,8154,349

348,429

404,44056,012

)(5,000,000

All Market Segments for 2019

Principal Change



Page 20Olympia, WAAs of 01/31/18Book Value Distribution by MaturityThurston County WA - WSTIP

TotalOver 5 YearsOver 3 Months Over 1 Year ItemType of Security Over 10 YearsThrough 10 YearsThrough 1 Year Through 5 Years3 Months or Less CountBook Value

Fixed Rate Securities by Maturity *

19,805,871.6619,805,871.66U.S. Govt. Securities 4Average Yield 2.0772.077

%100.000Average Yield

19,805,871.6619,805,871.66 4

Percentage of Fixed Rate Portfolio2.0772.077

Book Value

Note: All average yields are weighted by book value.



As of 01/31/18U.S. Government SecuritiesThurston County WA - WSTIP

Page 21Olympia, WA

P/SCode CouponCusipDescriptionPar Value Maturity Date @ Price Yield Current Book Fair Value

ASC320 Price

CallDuration ¹Adjusted

4,971,679.701.750U01HTM 1.911U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 9128283H1 4,985,774.7411/30/2019 99.4341.7844,985,774.742019 Totals5,000,000 1.7841.750 4,971,679.701.911 99.434

4,920,703.151.625U01HTM 2.008U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 912828M98 4,947,565.7711/30/2020 98.4142.7384,947,565.772020 Totals5,000,000 2.7381.625 4,920,703.152.008 98.414

4,890,625.001.750U01HTM 2.154U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 912828U65 4,926,141.4911/30/2021 97.8133.6654,926,141.492021 Totals5,000,000 3.6651.750 4,890,625.002.154 97.813

4,900,000.002.000U01HTM 2.235U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 912828M80 4,946,389.6611/30/2022 98.0004.5534,946,389.662022 Totals5,000,000 4.5532.000 4,900,000.002.235 98.000

U.S. Government SecuritiesMaturityYear Par Value Book Value Fair Value Profit / (Loss) Coupon Yield Average Life Duration ¹ Convexity

Adjusted

Held To Maturity4,971,679.70 )(14,095.04 1 yr, 10 mths 1.7841.7505,000,0002019 0.04814,985,774.74 1.9114,920,703.15 )(26,862.62 2 yrs, 10 mths 2.7381.6255,000,0002020 0.10004,947,565.77 2.0084,890,625.00 )(35,516.49 3 yrs, 10 mths 3.6651.7505,000,0002021 0.16884,926,141.49 2.1544,900,000.00 )(46,389.66 4 yrs, 10 mths 4.5532.0005,000,0002022 0.25274,946,389.66 2.235

20,000,000 19,683,007.85 )(122,863.81 1.781 3 yrs, 4 mths 3.185 0.142419,805,871.66 2.077

¹ Modified duration adjusted for calls where appropriate and next fully-indexed rate adjustment date.



As of 01/31/18U.S. Government and Agency RatingsThurston County WA - WSTIP

Page 22Olympia, WA

Ratings on Long-Term Senior Debt

Moody S & P Fitch

AaaAaaAaaAaa

AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+

AAA *-AAA *-AAA *-

Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB)Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC)Federal Farm Credit Bank System (FFCB)

U.S. Direct Obligation and Guarantees (MBS)

Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) Debt Obligations

GSE, FDIC and NCUA Guaranteed Securities Aaa AA+ AAA *-

Aaa AA+ AAA *-

PLEASE NOTE: Ratings were obtained from U.S. Government agency web sites and apply only to Long-Term Senior Debt. Short-term debt, subordinated debt, and Preferred Stock carry different ratings. See government agency or rating agency web sites for more information including detailed explanations of the rating criteria. FinSer makes no representations or warranties with respect to the information contained herein and takes no responsibility for supplementing, updating, or correcting any such information.



Unpledged SecuritiesOlympia, WA Page 23

Thurston County WA - WSTIP Pledge Report by Maturity Date As of 01/31/18

Fair Value Book Value MaturityCouponMoody / S&P320 DescriptionOriginal Face ID # CusipCodeReceiptASC

Current Face SKSafekeeping

1.7509128283H1 10001 U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000.00 HTM 4,985,774.74 4,971,679.701001 11/30/2019N5,000,000.001.625912828M98 10002 U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000.00 HTM 4,947,565.77 4,920,703.151001 11/30/2020N5,000,000.001.750912828U65 10003 U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000.00 HTM 4,926,141.49 4,890,625.001001 11/30/2021N5,000,000.002.000912828M80 10000 U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000.00 HTM 4,946,389.66 4,900,000.001001 11/30/2022N5,000,000.00

1.78120,000,000.00Items 4 19,805,871.66 19,683,007.8520,000,000.00

*=Prerefunded N=New Purchase S=Sold C=Called M=Matured O=Paid Off D=In Default C=Sunk T=PutNote: Refer to the U.S. Government and Agency Ratings report for ratings on treasury, agency and passthru securities.

II. Pledge & Safekeeping Reports(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301, San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633Rel 2.4 V36.1320881 7:32:25PM MIS1002S01/29/2018

Olympia, WA Location 1001: Wells Fargo Custody Services Page 24

Thurston County WA - WSTIP Safekeeping Report by Maturity Date As of 01/31/18

Fair ValueBook ValueMaturityCoupon DescriptionPledge

Cusip ID # Current Face Original Face Moody / S&PSafekeepingReceipt Code

11/30/20191.750U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,0009128283H1 10001 4,985,774.74 4,971,679.70N5,000,00011/30/20201.625U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000912828M98 10002 4,947,565.77 4,920,703.15N5,000,00011/30/20211.750U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000912828U65 10003 4,926,141.49 4,890,625.00N5,000,00011/30/20222.000U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000912828M80 10000 4,946,389.66 4,900,000.00N5,000,000

4 1.78120,000,000 19,805,871.66 19,683,007.8520,000,000

Maturity Status Codes: *=Prerefunded N=New Purchase S=Sold C=Called M=Matured O=Paid Off D=In Default C=Sunk T=Put

II. Pledge & Safekeeping Reports(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301, San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633Rel 2.4 V36.1320881 7:32:31PM MIS2000S01/29/2018

Accounting DetailPage 25U.S. Government Securities

As of 01/31/18Thurston County WA - WSTIPOlympia, WA

Purchase Face Purchase Cost

DescriptionPurchase Date Cusip Record ID Coupon Maturity Status

Interest This Period

Amortized This Period

Amort To Date Remain Prem

Accreted This Period

Accrt To Date Remain Disc Receivable

Interest

Held To Maturity

6,971.151.750U S TREASURY NOTES9128283H1

N11/30/201910001

6,971.15 618.49)(14,225.2601/03/2018

618.495,000,000.004,985,156.25

6,473.211.625U S TREASURY NOTES912828M98

N11/30/202010002

6,473.21 1,472.02)(52,434.2301/03/2018

1,472.025,000,000.004,946,093.75

6,971.151.750U S TREASURY NOTES912828U65

N11/30/202110003

6,971.15 1,532.11)(73,858.5101/03/2018

1,532.115,000,000.004,924,609.38

7,967.032.000U S TREASURY NOTES912828M80

N11/30/202210000

7,967.03 881.85)(53,610.3401/03/2018

881.855,000,000.004,945,507.81

0.0019,801,367.19 )(194,128.34Held To Maturity 0.0020,000,000.00 0.00 4,504.4728,382.541.781 4,504.4728,382.54

1.781 4,504.4728,382.54)(194,128.34

4,504.470.0019,801,367.1920,000,000.00 0.00

0.00U.S. Government Securities 28,382.54

Status Codes : N = New Purchase S = Sold M = Matured C = Called P = Put * = Pre-refunded T = ASC 320 Transfer Record I = Impaired

III. Accounting Reports(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301, San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633Rel 2.4 V36.1320881 7:32:41PM ACC1000S01/29/2018



Interest Reconciliation Held to Maturity TotalAvailable for Sale

Interest Earned Not Collected (IENC) 0.00Accrued Interest Purchased 0.00

Breakout of 12/31/2017 Ending Balance

0.00

Monthly Entries for 1/31/2018Accruals 28,382.54Coupons Received 0.00

Transaction Entries for 1/31/2018

Interest Sold 0.00Calls/Sinks/Puts 0.00Adjustments 0.00

33,276.11

Interest Receivable Balance as of 1/31/2018 61,658.65

Interest Receivable Balance as of 12/31/2017

Accrued Interest Purchased

Interest Shortfall 0.00

Breakout of 1/31/2018 Ending Balance28,382.54Interest Earned Not Collected (IENC)

Accrued Interest Purchased 33,276.11

General Ledger Balance

Adjustments to System



0.00




33,276.11













Available for SaleBook Value Reconciliation for Par Accounting

Held to Maturity Total

Original Par Value 0.000.00Unamortized Premium0.00Unaccreted Discount0.00Book Value Balance as of 12/31/2017

Monthly EntriesAmortization 0.00Accretion 4,504.47

Purchased Par 20,000,000.00Transaction Entries

0.00Unamortized Premium)(198,632.81Unaccreted Discount

Sold Par 0.00

Calls/Sinks/Puts 0.00Principal Adjustments 0.00

Unaccreted Discount 0.00Unamortized Premium 0.00

Maturities 0.00

19,805,871.66Book Value Balance as of 1/31/2018

Original Par Value 20,000,000.000.00Unamortized Premium

)(194,128.34Unaccreted Discount



Original Par Value 0.000.00Unamortized Premium0.00Unaccreted Discount0.00Book Value Balance as of 12/31/2017



0.00Unamortized Premium)(198,632.81Unaccreted Discount

Sold Par 0.00



Maturities 0.00


Original Par Value 20,000,000.000.00Unamortized Premium








Previous Cost

TransactionType Description

January 2018ASC320

Transactions

DateTransaction

Book Value CouponMaturity Par Value Cusip Safekeeping Location

5,000,000.009128283H1 1.750U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2019 HTM01/03/18 4,985,156.25 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase5,000,000.00912828M80 2.000U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2022 HTM01/03/18 4,945,507.81 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase5,000,000.00912828M98 1.625U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2020 HTM01/03/18 4,946,093.75 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase5,000,000.00912828U65 1.750U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2021 HTM01/03/18 4,924,609.38 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase

20,000,000.004 1.781 19,801,367.19 0.00



Page 29Total PortfolioOlympia, WA

As of 01/31/18Accounting SummaryThurston County WA - WSTIP

Interest Book ValuePar Accounting Reconciliation

Original Par Value 0.000.00Additional Par

Paydowns to Date 0.00Delayed Principal Payments 0.00

Prior Par Value 0.000.00Unamortized Premium0.00Unaccreted Discount0.00Book Value Balance as of 12/31/2017



0.00Additional Par0.00Unamortized Premium

)(198,632.81Unaccreted DiscountSold Par 0.00

Additional Par 0.00



0.00Principal PaydownsMaturities 0.00

0.00Pre-refunded Premiums


Original Par Value 20,000,000.00Additional Par 0.00Paydowns to Date 0.00Delayed Principal Payments 0.00

Current Par Value 20,000,000.000.00Unamortized Premium






0.00




33,276.11











As of 01/31/18Monthly Accrual SummaryThurston County WA - WSTIP

Page 30Held To MaturityOlympia, WA

28,382.54

33,276.11

28,382.54

33,276.11

AccrualsCoupons ShortfallInterest Purch.Interest SoldCalls/SinksAdjustments

TotalU.S. Govt.Interest

4,504.47

20,000,000.00

)(198,632.81

4,504.47

20,000,000.00

)(198,632.81

AmortizationAccretionAdjustmentsPurchased Par Unamort Prem Unaccrt Disc Additional ParSold Unamort Prem Unaccrt Disc Additional ParCalls/Sinks/PutsPrincipal PaydownsPrincipal AdjMaturitiesPre-refunded

TotalU.S. Govt.Book Value Par Accounting

18,525,966.5619,805,871.66

32,887.01387,218.02

2.0901

18,525,966.5619,805,871.66

32,887.01387,218.02

2.0901

Beginning BVWeighted Avg BVEnding BVIncomeIncome(annualized)Accounting Yield

TotalU.S. Govt.Accounting Yield



Page 31Olympia, WA

As of 01/31/18Accounting Method by SecurityThurston County WA - WSTIP

ASC 320 Book Price Price Description MaturityID #Cusip Fair Value Purchased Accounting Method AssumptionPrepaymentPurchase Final Amort.

Date

U S TREASURY NOTES100019128283H1 11/30/2019 99.715HTM 99.703 99.43401/03/2018 11/2019Straight Line to MaturityU S TREASURY NOTES10000912828M80 11/30/2022 98.928HTM 98.910 98.00001/03/2018 11/2022Straight Line to MaturityU S TREASURY NOTES10002912828M98 11/30/2020 98.951HTM 98.922 98.41401/03/2018 11/2020Straight Line to MaturityU S TREASURY NOTES10003912828U65 11/30/2021 98.523HTM 98.492 97.81301/03/2018 11/2021Straight Line to Maturity

Items4U.S. Government

Total Portfolio Items4

Note: Accounting method under client control.



TransactionsJanuary 2018Transaction SummaryThurston County WA - WSTIP

Olympia, WA

As of 01/31/18

Page 32

DescriptionCusipDateTransaction

TypeTransaction

Cost Par Value CouponMaturity Book Value Safekeeping LocationPrevious

320ASC

5,000,000.009128283H1 1.750U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2019 HTM01/03/18 4,985,156.25 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase5,000,000.00912828M80 2.000U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2022 HTM01/03/18 4,945,507.81 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase5,000,000.00912828M98 1.625U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2020 HTM01/03/18 4,946,093.75 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase5,000,000.00912828U65 1.750U S TREASURY NOTES 11/30/2021 HTM01/03/18 4,924,609.38 1001 Wells Fargo Custody S0.00Purchase

20,000,000.004 1.781 19,801,367.19 0.00

IV. Transaction Reports(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492


Olympia, WA Page 33

Thurston County WA - WSTIP Purchases As of 01/31/18

Original FaceDescriptionCusip

ID # Safekeeping Location IssuedMaturity Coupon

Yield ¹ Purchased Price Cost Accrued Interest

PurchasedASC320

Premium / (Discount)

Current Par

U S TREASURY NOTES 1.7509128283H1 11/30/2019 01/03/18 99.703125 4,985,156.25 5,000,000.00 )(14,843.75 8,173.08 HTM10001 1001 Wells Fargo Custody Services 1.90911/30/2017 5,000,000.00

U S TREASURY NOTES 2.000912828M80 11/30/2022 01/03/18 98.910156 4,945,507.81 5,000,000.00 )(54,492.19 9,340.66 HTM10000 1001 Wells Fargo Custody Services 2.23611/30/2015 5,000,000.00

U S TREASURY NOTES 1.625912828M98 11/30/2020 01/03/18 98.921875 4,946,093.75 5,000,000.00 )(53,906.25 7,589.29 HTM10002 1001 Wells Fargo Custody Services 2.00811/30/2015 5,000,000.00

U S TREASURY NOTES 1.750912828U65 11/30/2021 01/03/18 98.492188 4,924,609.38 5,000,000.00 )(75,390.62 8,173.08 HTM10003 1001 Wells Fargo Custody Services 2.15411/30/2016 5,000,000.00

20,000,000.004 19,801,367.19Securities Purchased in January 99.0068362.0761.781 )(198,632.81 33,276.11

20,000,000.00

¹ Bullet Securities - purchase yield; Declining Balance Securities - projected YTM using month-end book value and default or client selected amortization and cashflow projection methods.



Page 34Olympia, WA

As of 01/31/18Accrued Interest Purchased OutstandingThurston County WA - WSTIP

First OutstandingCoupon AIPCost PurchasedYieldCouponMaturity CusipID #DescriptionPar Value

U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 01/03/18 05/1811/30/2019 1.909 4,985,156.259128283H110001 8,173.081.750U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 01/03/18 05/1811/30/2022 2.236 4,945,507.81912828M8010000 9,340.662.000U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 01/03/18 05/1811/30/2020 2.008 4,946,093.75912828M9810002 7,589.291.625U S TREASURY NOTES5,000,000 01/03/18 05/1811/30/2021 2.154 4,924,609.38912828U6510003 8,173.081.750

19,801,367.1920,000,000 33,276.114 1.781January 2018



Page 35Olympia, WA

As of 01/31/18Book Value Balances by SecurityThurston County WA - WSTIP

To Date ASC 320 Book Value Par Value Fair Value Purchase Cost CouponDescription MaturityID #CusipOriginal Paydowns

U S TREASURY NOTES10001 1.7509128283H1 11/30/2019 4,971,679.70 4,985,774.745,000,000.00HTM 4,985,156.25U S TREASURY NOTES10002 1.625912828M98 11/30/2020 4,920,703.15 4,947,565.775,000,000.00HTM 4,946,093.75U S TREASURY NOTES10003 1.750912828U65 11/30/2021 4,890,625.00 4,926,141.495,000,000.00HTM 4,924,609.38U S TREASURY NOTES10000 2.000912828M80 11/30/2022 4,900,000.00 4,946,389.665,000,000.00HTM 4,945,507.81

1.781 Items4 19,683,007.85 19,805,871.6620,000,000.0019,801,367.19U.S. Government

Total Portfolio 19,805,871.6619,683,007.851.781 Items4 20,000,000.0019,801,367.19

V. Security Inventory(210) 224-8787(210) 224-5492

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 301, San Antonio, Texas 78216-4633Rel 2.4 V36.1320881 7:33:40PM REG1014S01/29/2018

Security Inventory ReportThurston County WA - WSTIP As of 01/31/18

Held To MaturityOlympia, WA Page 36

Profit/(Loss)Fair ValueBook ValuePurchase CostPurchasedYield ¹ Call Date & PriceMaturityCouponState DescriptionPar ValueCusipStated Prerefund or ASC 820

Level

U S TREASURY NOTES )(14,095.044,971,679.705,000,000.00 1.750 01/03/189128283H1 4,985,156.251.91111/30/2019 4,985,774.741

4,971,679.704,985,156.25 )(14,095.045,000,000.00 2019 Totals 4,985,774.741.9111.750

U S TREASURY NOTES )(26,862.624,920,703.155,000,000.00 1.625 01/03/18912828M98 4,946,093.752.00811/30/2020 4,947,565.771

4,920,703.154,946,093.75 )(26,862.625,000,000.00 2020 Totals 4,947,565.772.0081.625

U S TREASURY NOTES )(35,516.494,890,625.005,000,000.00 1.750 01/03/18912828U65 4,924,609.382.15411/30/2021 4,926,141.491

4,890,625.004,924,609.38 )(35,516.495,000,000.00 2021 Totals 4,926,141.492.1541.750

U S TREASURY NOTES )(46,389.664,900,000.005,000,000.00 2.000 01/03/18912828M80 4,945,507.812.23511/30/2022 4,946,389.661

4,900,000.004,945,507.81 )(46,389.665,000,000.00 2022 Totals 4,946,389.662.2352.000

1.781 2.077 19,805,871.6620,000,000.00 Securities Listed4 )(122,863.8119,801,367.19 19,683,007.85

¹ Weighted average yield to maturity using current book value, client selected amortization method and speed selected for book value calculation. Municipal bond yields do NOT reflect possible tax benefits.



Page 37Olympia, WA

As of 01/31/18Thurston County WA - WSTIP Distribution by Type and Item Count

Expired This Month Total ItemsSecurity Type Active Items

4U.S. Government Securities 4



February 2, 2018

TO: WSTIP Executive Committee

FROM: Tracey Christianson, Executive Director

SUBJECT: Retreat Outcomes

Attached are the “game plan” write-ups from the three hard-working retreat groups. If you attended the

retreat, please review the game plan for your group to ensure you are satisfied with the write-up. If you

wish to see photos taken of the sticky note maps, please click here.

I would like to be sure to include any ideas, collective comments or thoughts that might not have made it

up to the final game plan, but is still worthy of memorialization. Staff noted items that met that criteria on

the game plan notes section. We would like to add yours if you think we missed it.

After staff wrote the game plan maps, we met to discuss the most promising ideas. The most promising

ideas of all groups can be encapsulated with these three ideas:

Develop an education program on emerging technology (a.k.a. a road show) which includes a

range of technology innovations (including using telematics, coaching, on-board technologies).

Create a vehicle for funding opportunities to all members for technology pilot projects.

Increase WSTIP value to members by creating more shared services including project

management and grant writing.

With the concurrence of the Executive Committee, staff will work incorporating these three ideas into the

Strategic Plan action plan and Executive Committee work plan with greater development of the three

ideas, and their corresponding phases/benchmarks, and tasks.

For example, the Strategic Priority for loss prevention is: WSTIP desires to keep people and property

safe. In keeping with that priority, we adopted the following two goals:

Reduce claims resulting from aggressive braking, pedestrian/bicycle strikes and improper mobility device securement by 10% over the previous year by December 31, 2017. By December 2020 have a minimum of a 50% reduction in claim frequency and severity of claims greater than $500,000 as compared to the loss data December 31, 2015.

Action Items:

1a. Document accountability and compliance to Best Practices with annual reporting to Board by December 2016.

1b. Conduct ongoing reconnaissance for emerging risks with semi-annual reporting to the Executive Committee on findings and recommendations.

1c. Reduce bus pedestrian/cyclist strikes to “zero.”

https://wstip.box.com/v/2018RetreatFiles

1. Report out by June 2017 on outcomes of the Collision Avoidance Pilot study. 2. Compare Idea Grant Study to the loss data of December 31, 2015 and index mileage as

baseline.

The strategy priority could be updated to:

Reduce claims resulting from aggressive braking, pedestrian/bicycle strikes and improper mobility device securement by 10% over every previous year evaluated on an annual basis. By December 2020 have a minimum of a 50% reduction in claim frequency and severity of claims greater than $500,000 as compared to the loss data December 31, 2015.

Action Items: (These prior action items would stay and these new items would be added) Document accountability and compliance to Best Practices with annual reporting to Board by December 2018. Conduct ongoing reconnaissance for emerging risks with semi-annual reporting to the Executive Committee on findings and recommendations. Reduce bus pedestrian/cyclist strikes to “zero.”

(These action items would be added based on the retreat outcomes)

Develop an education program on emerging technology (a.k.a. a road show) which includes a range of

technology innovations (including using telematics, coaching, on-board technologies).

Development of education program / pilot

Revise as appropriate / create call to action for the member

Deliver program to senior leadership

Get call for action

Project manager / grant coordinator to take up call for action with a lead to implementation


Create the process and identify funding

Garner Board support and adoption

Educate the membership

Increase value to members by creating more shared services including project management and grant

writing.

Phase 1 – identify staffing needs and delivery methods

Phase 2 – create work scopes for adoption

Phase 3 – identify funding necessary for future budgets

Assuming the above is on the right track, the Executive Committee Work Plan would start filling up with

items that this joint body would have the greatest impact in, such as:

Confirm program goals for education program on emerging technology.

Assist with the identification of a key message to each stakeholder group.

Receive the first draft of the materials of the education program and provide feedback.

Volunteer to pilot with senior leadership for feedback.

Identify the call for action and champion that adoption to the full Board.

I am going to stop here so that the Executive Committee can decide if this is the right direction and

provide us feedback.

/tc

2018 Retreat – Group 1 Game Plan Three Game Plan Ideas

Develop an education program on emerging technology (a.k.a. a road show) which includes a

range of technology innovations (including using telematics, coaching, on-board technologies)


Increase value to members by creating more shared services including project management and

grant writing.

Our Most Inspiring/Promising Idea Develop an education program on emerging technology (a.k.a. a road show) which includes a range of technology innovations (including using telematics, coaching, on-board technologies)

Identified Team Members Leadership (meaning managers, board, operations, drivers)

IT staff

Vehicle/fleet maintenance staff

Existing partners (for help)

Munich Re

Champion Board members

Tracey and Joanne (WSTIP staff)

Professional support to develop the message

Identified Opportunities More awareness of member needs

Discover surprise champions that are unknown now

Create a vision for next focus of WSTIP members

Neighboring agencies as real examples of technology use/success

Smaller and medium agencies partnering together

Member more engaged, aware and open to new ideas

Identified Success Factors Call to action statement adopted by half of transit agencies

Delivery of individualized risk stories to all members by Quarter 3

New buy-in from quieter members

Identified Challenges

Lack of time / competing with other priorities

Conveying ROI

Scheduling of meetings with senior leadership.

Consistent message to the members

Phases and Tasks

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Survey member’s

training needs

Develop and implement

roadshow

Deliver customized

education roadshow

Select a leader Incorporate into site

visits by staff to keep

agency more informed

Create a call for action

statement for member

adoption

Identify stakeholders Use MPO / RTPO as

outreach

Create program goals

WSTIP make strong

announcement

Identify technology that

members are most

likely to adopt

Create a technology

education program

Customize by agency

receiving education

Develop

communication pieces

appropriate for

stakeholder groups

(decision makers,

employees, and

drivers)

Notes This group felt their three ideas would flow into each other with the two remaining bullets having a lot of

overlap or potentially simultaneous development.

Other ideas of note included: telling a risk story that is more individualized to the member, exploring other

insurance avenues (such as marine), providing enhanced contract review (maybe a Best Practice for

contracting), becoming more aggressive with members with largest losses.

2018 Retreat – Group 2 Game Plan

Three Game Plan Ideas

Start now … EC develops initiative Feb of 2018 and by January of 2020 we are in full swing with

a Project Manager and team in place

The need for the good people (humans) will be there as it is now, it just may be in a different area

(driver v. transportation supervisor, claims manager v. customer relations manager, or operations

manager v. technology lead)

Eliminate the gaps between large, medium, small; green, black, red; the five climates of

Washington

Our Most Inspiring/Promising Idea Get a technology expert on staff. Needs assessment first, and hire a project manager. This might be two people and a combination of on-staff or contracted services.

Identified Team Members Training/Technical Support

Prevention (serious loss review)

Analysis (reports/deliverables and how to read/use them)

Legal

Coverages/Re-insurance

Funding/Grant Writing

Product Development (technology advances quickly)

Identified Opportunities Increased Ridership

Revitalization of Public Transit

Actuarial Remodel

Expanded Membership

Eliminate Cash Transfers/Deposits

Identified Success Factors Stability/Smooth Transitions

Collaboration

Growth (personnel (experts), members, relationships

Expanded Coverage/New Risk Management

Cost

Efficiency

Consistency

Predictability (results and thus rates)

Trust (“let it go”)

Uniformity where applicable

Progress and Results regardless of size

Identified Challenges

Patience (history takes time to become obsolete)

Major Losses

Fear/Selection/Management/Maintenance (technology is not perfect or self-sufficient)

Need for Public Transportation (elimination of grid-lock and pollution)

How to Measure Success

Different Environments (urban/rural, weather, road condition(s), etc.)

Politics

Unions

Cost

Time Constraints on Personnel

Change in Landscape (predict the future/urbanization)

Phases and Tasks

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Executive Committee

(EC) to Develop the

Initiative

Present to the Board

for Buy-In and Approval

Explore P3 funding

(public owner and

private sector partner)

Identify Interested

Parties

Committee Input and

Support

Build the Budget for a

Project Manager (PM)

and Team

State-Wide Conference

Hire a PM Connect with Voters,

Legislators, and

Governor

Est. American Public

Transportation

Association (APTA)

Connection &

Involvement

Notes

Whether through a Committee, the Executive Committee, or the Full Board; there will be continual

discussion of expectations, status, and deliverables to the Board. Our group was also interested in where

the “savings” go and when? This team worked very hard on refining the original design challenge: If technology (collision avoidance) works as expected, how do we REALLOCATE RESOURCES from LOSSES RELATED TO VEHICLE OPERATION to serve CURRENT AGENCIES AND FUTURE MEMBERS, including but not limited to transportation-network-company (TNCs), state regulators, and partners in and out of Washington state.

2018 Retreat – Group 3 Game Plan Three Game Plan Ideas

Technology Solutions for All Size Members – give small Members Access to big ideas & ensure

they are not left behind.

WSTIP Sponsored Grants for Advanced Technology – utilizing a portion of Member premiums to

create a grant fund.

Educate Members / Promote the Opportunities (the roadshow) Our Most Inspiring/Promising Idea Using WSTIP resources to educate Members and explain future technologies and how they are expected to impact transits. Communicate how WSTIP provides value outside of the liability insurance functions and provide funding for research and development. Identified Team Members

Grant Coordinator

Project Manager

Data Analyst

(The functions above may be combined in a Staff position – looking for ongoing care and feeding

of the program)

Field Rep (Technical Chris)

Board sub-Committee – Research and Development

WSTIP Board

Member Boards (explain why their premiums should be used this way)

Vendor partners

Identified Opportunities WSTIP / WSTA Partnership

WSTIP / Vendor Partnerships

Be seen as an industry leader / reputation

Be attractive to prospective employees

Public sees transit is forward thinking

Reduce claim frequency/cost

Secure grant funding for technology projects

Identified Success Factors Did not identify specific factors. Talked about reduced claim frequency / user acceptance

Identified Challenges Funding

Grant Challenges (no state/federal grants available)

Available resources for small Members

Buy-in from Members and their Boards Staying Current with technology (speed of changes in the market)

Could be 3 people or one person and any

combination of on-staff and contracted. It is the roles the team was identifying

Phases and Tasks

Define the Program

Needs Assessment

Create the process (rules /

steps)

Market to Members

Get buy-in from

Members

Create vendor Partnerships

Establish Timeline

Define Staff positions Hire Staff

Identify Funding

Created Budget

Grant Process

Identify

Funding

Create

Application

Award Grants

Track Metrics

Data Analytics

Report back to

Board

Process

Improvement

No specific timelines identified

February 7, 2018



SUBJECT: Public Officials Liability Coverage Document Review Project Plan

Action Requested Review and feedback of project plan.

Discussion of what members would like to have covered.

Discussion of research needs (what to ask members) regarding coverage desires.

Executive Summary As a continuation of last year’s conversation about coverage for “other than auto liability exposures,” staff

are pursuing a review of the WSTIP Coverage Documents starting with the Public Officials Liability

coverage document. As we discussed at the Retreat, there is both risk and opportunity for WSTIP in this

space. Once WSTIP is clear on what it wishes and does not wish to cover, we will also have to clarify the

coverage with the actuary to determine appropriate pricing reflected in the revised document. There is an

assumption that this same process would be used next year to review the General Liability coverage

document.

Background At the end of last year, our actuary identified that our “other than auto liability” coverage has been

increasing. Even though we kept the cost of our expiring coverage to a reasonable amount, we

recognized the need to be prepared for rate increases, and the opportunity to refine and define our

understanding of the coverage provided under WSTIP’s Coverage Documents. This project is outlined to

accomplish this.

Other themes came out from the 2018 Retreat that also need to be considered and kept in mind when it

comes to reviewing coverage. Some of those themes are: telling a risk story that is more individualized

to the member, looking for opportunities for WSTIP outside of the traditional auto liability coverage, and

holding members with large losses more accountable. In keeping with those themes, this would also be

the time to incorporate new loss prevention techniques as underwriting requirements within the

document, expand coverage, or restrict coverage. All participants in this project must keep in mind,

members might desire a lot more coverage, but there must be an equal desire to fund any expansion of

coverage.

Requirements For a more detailed idea of the risks already discussed, see Appendix for the prior memo regarding “other

the auto liability.”

Deliverables Completion of member risk survey.

Completion of member discussion regarding desired coverage.

Draft public officials document by July Executive Committee meeting.

Review of Interlocal Agreement, Bylaws, and governance policies to provide a complete picture of how

this coverage line is integrated into WSTIP’s business.

Possible discussion of automatic appeals process for coverage restrictions.

Completion of pool market scan of enhanced coverages and restricted coverages.

Preliminary review and input by actuary regarding costs (increasing/decreasing).

Timeframe

Member research – March and April

Review of Interlocal Agreement, Bylaws, and governance policies – March and April

Partner reviews – March and April

Final reviews from coverage expert and broker - June

July Executive Committee meeting - final draft completed

July Executive Committee meeting – first presentation of draft coverage document

August Executive Committee meeting – final presentation of draft coverage document / assumes a final

approval for presentation to the full Board

September Board Meeting – discussion item of preliminary document / assumes approval

December Annual Meeting – finalized document for 2019 implementation

Resources needed

Staff time including general legal counsel time

Coordination of partner reviews (Reinsurance carriers, broker)

Coverage expert – to be hired. General counsel has suggested hiring a coverage expert to conduct a

review of the coverage document before presentation of the draft coverage agreement to the Executive

Committee (anticipated at the June Executive Committee meeting).

Identified costs General legal counsel hourly costs

Specialized counsel hourly costs

Actuarial review costs

Staff time

(Assumes broker and reinsurance carriers will be low or no cost)

Stakeholder identification Executive Committee

Board of Directors

State Risk Manager

Actuary

WSTIP staff

Broker

Reinsurance carriers (GEM, Munich Re, Lloyds of London)

Human resources staff within transit agencies

General legal counsel within transit agencies

Reporting Monthly reporting to the Executive Committee and quarterly reporting to the Board.

Check in reporting to the state risk manager.

Check in reporting to the reinsurance carriers.

Final reporting / education to human resources and general legal counsel.

Risk/Issues One of the risk or issues in doing a coverage document review is that members become of aware of

coverages that may have been in place and not utilized. This can lead to the presentation of late reported

claims under the current policy.

We may identify gaps in coverage previously not realized between our own WSTIP policy and that of our

reinsurance carriers or excess carriers.

Doing a review or not doing a review can have an equal risk of increasing costs.

Doing the review does not necessarily hold members accountable for losses as identified in the 2018

Executive Committee retreat. This coverage is rated on a per employee basis, so the largest members

pay the most. Providing a system to incorporate experience rating for this coverage document would

have to be a separate project. However, other limits and controls could be put in place as part of the

coverage document such as:

Pre-termination legal review of non-represented staff by an experienced human resources

attorney required for coverage.

Higher deductibles.

Limited defense only coverage for uncovered matters.

New exclusions to limit WSTIP’s involvement and therefore limit costs.

We do anticipate presenting options worthy of consideration.

/tc

October 18, 2017


FROM: Tracey Christianson, Deputy Director

SUBJECT: Non-Auto Liability Exposures / Underwriting and Coverage

Overview Prior to the September Board meeting and during the actuary’s development of the various components

of the loss fund, staff met with the officers to discuss some seriously escalating costs. This discussion

item is an overview of that topic, bringing the rest of the committee up to date, and a discussion of options

that WSTIP may wish to consider in the future.

Background The actuary uses four exposure types to help categorize risks. When we provide our historical losses to

the actuary, we match our losses up to those exposure types. These exposure types are: miles (fixed

route, demand response, non-revenue, and vanpool), number of employees, vehicle values, and

property values.

The loss fund for auto liability is priced by using the miles for the modes times a rate determined by the

actuary. The loss fund for what the actuary considers as general liability is priced differently. In these

circumstances, the term general liability is not an accurate label. It would be better to think of these risks

as non-auto liability exposures. To determine the loss history associated with non-auto liability, the

actuary lumps together all risks associated with the public officials document and all liability risks not

accounted for in the auto liability pricing model. The non-auto liability exposure is then priced using

number of employees times a rate determined by the actuary.

The loss fund necessary for the non-auto liability exposures has always been low (in comparison to the

auto liability loss fund). Below is the loss fund amounts for the last three years and the two loss funds

proposed by the actuary for 2018:

Loss Fund Year Loss Fund

Amount

Percentage Increase

Over Prior Year

2015 $758,778

2016 $783,367 3%

2017 $830,220 6%

2018 – Version 1* $1,492,512 80%

2018 – Version 3** $906,701 9%

*Version 1 – is the amount we discussed with the officers on the conference call.

**Version 3 – the amount the actuary finally settled on.

Even though staff were successful in arguing there was no “new” risk, the actuary did point out the claim

costs associated with non-auto liability exposures continues to escalate and we were warned that it

appeared that escalation was going to continue.

Again, the pricing model for these exposures utilizes the exposure type: number of employees.

Therefore, the larger your number of employees, the more significant this issue is for a member’s

assessment. For example, when we received the first loss fund (Version 1) the impact was significantly

felt across the larger members, but particularly Pierce who has the largest number of employees.

Coverage

Here is a sample of the losses associated with non-auto liability risks (not an exhaustive list):

Loss Year Claimant vs. Transit Agency

2017 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015 vs. Spokane Transit Authority (Open)

Description – Public officials – Alleges the agency’s advertising policy was discriminatory.

2017 Davies, Kit Na vs. Community Transit (Open)

Description – Employment practices - Alleges termination of employee was due to race

discrimination.

2017 Thompson, Stephen vs. Spokane Transit Authority (Open)

Description – Employment practices - Claimant alleges wrongful termination, disability

discrimination.

2017 Guettinger, Stephanie vs. Columbia County Public Transportation (Closed)

Description – Employment practices - Whistleblower and alleged gender discrimination

2017 Sawin, Van vs. Pierce Transit (Closed)

Description – Employment practices - Allegations of wrongful termination in violation of

the USERRA. DOJ representing plaintiff.

2017 Amesquita, Maria vs. Kitsap (Closed)

Description – Employment practices - Allegations of harassment, disability discrimination

and hostile work environment. EEOC action.

2017 Wayne, Ryan vs. C-Tran (Open)

Description – Slip and fall in transit facility

2015 Moon, Virginia vs. Clallam (Open)

Description – Slip and fall in transit facility

2014 Baker, Rod vs. Pierce Transit (Open)

Description – Employment practices - Alleges termination of employee was due to gender

discrimination. Successful summary judgement motion was appealed by plaintiff. Waiting

for oral arguments to be set for the appeal.

2013 Stone, Helyn vs. Skagit Transit (Open)

Description – Slip and fall on sidewalk after exiting bus.

2012 Fulbright, Andrea vs. Columbia County Public Transportation (Closed)

Description – Assault on bus / sexual misconduct by passenger.

2012 Scott, Tyler vs. Intercity Transit (Closed)

Description – Claimant leaning on wastebasket at transfer station, wastebasket fell and

cut his Achilles tendon requiring a surgical repair.

2011 Tetreault, Ashley vs. Kitsap Transit (Closed)

Description – Assault sexual misconduct towards passenger by bus driver.

Here is a graphic depiction of the non-auto liability claims in the last 10 years.

Discussion Topics These are the topics the Executive Committee should consider discussing:

Is the exposure type (number of employees) appropriate for all the claim types?

Is there a general understanding of what the public official’s policy covers?

Is there any desire to restrict or expand coverage?

Is there any desire to clarify the document to address when coverage is triggered?

If the loss fund continues to escalate, and WSTIP is not tolerate of the costs, what insurance

market options are there?

What are the pros and cons of returning to the insurance market?

Any general idea on cost?

Brian White, our broker with Alliant Insurance Services, approached the insurance market to get an

indicator of might be available for at least some of the exposures. Please see his memo on the topic

attached which includes a discussion on some of the pros and cons.

/tc

Public Entity Group

Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. 1420 5th Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101PHONE (206) 204-9140 www.alliantinsurance.com

October 19, 2017

Tracey Christianson, Deputy DirectorWashington State Transit Insurance Pool2629 12th Court SWOlympia, WA 98502

“Carve Out” Option for Public Officials & Employment Practices Liability Coverage

Dear Tracey:

Over the last month we have discussed the rising claims cost of the Pool’s Public Officials &Employment Practices Liability (POL/EPL) coverage. In strategizing potential cost savings andstabilization opportunities, we discussed the idea of “carving out” a majority of this loss exposure fromthe pool, and transferring the risk to an insurance company.

One of the markets we have discussed this idea with is Chubb Insurance Group, a leading writer of thiscoverage in the United States. Chubb has expressed a great deal of interest in offering an insurancealternative to WSTIP and we have worked with them to conceptually structure an option for the Pool’sconsideration.

Please keep in mind that this option has been developed without all of the standard underwritinginformation that Chubb normally collects in its full application underwriting process. Instead, weprovided Chubb with some basic information including loss history, employee counts and gross revenuesat each agency. Therefore the following terms are not representative of a firm quote and additionalunderwriting will be necessary, but these terms do provide a view into what might be possible with aleading POL/EPL insurance carrier:

Limit: $2,500,000 per Claim Policy Aggregate: $10,000,000 all Claims Attachment Point: $100,000 per Claim Premium Range: $350,000 - $400,000

We selected the $2,500,000 limit because we would like to keep WSTIP’s existing reinsurance and excesspartners in place above that amount in order to provide coverage up to the pool’s current limit, which is$20,000,000. We estimate the cost of WSTIP’s reinsurance and excess above $2,500,000 for thiscoverage to be less than $20,000 total. This is far less than we could secure this coverage for elsewhere.

Due to the reinsurance nature of WSTIP’s coverage with GEM and Munich, there are some policymechanics that must be worked out with Chubb and WSTIP in order to preserve coverage above$2,500,000. The simplest solution in this regards is for Chubb to reinsure the Pool’s existing POL/EPLMemorandum of coverage (MOC). It remains to be seen whether they will agree to do this, but their legaland policy forms departments are considering that option now. Another option would be for the Pool toamend its MOC to more closely align with the terms and conditions of Chubb’s standard POL/EPL policyform.

Tracey ChristensonOctober 19, 2017Page 2

The attachment point of $100,000 was selected because it takes a majority of the historical claims out ofthe proposed Chubb coverage layer. This enables Chubb to offer a lower premium than if the deductiblewere higher for example. One topic which we have not yet discussed with Chubb, but will should thePool desire to move forward, is their ability to match retroactive dates of coverage that the Pool currentlyprovides its membership, given the claims-made nature of the POL/EPL coverage.

In continuing this analysis the pool should also consider the following:

The actuarially determined savings of claims cost within the WSTIP pooled layer excess of

$100,000, should this risk be carved out;

Decreased claims control during the loss adjustment process:

o While Chubb has agreed to allow WSTIP to select defense counsel, this would involve an

approval process, as well as commitment from the chosen counsel to follow agreed upon

hourly rates.

o There are also special Chubb litigation management guidelines that chosen counsel must

agree to follow. Your counsel may view these as more burdensome than current litigation

practices, albeit they are somewhat standard in the insurance defense business.

o Typically, POL/EPL policies have what are known as “hammer clauses”, which is a

financial penalty equivalent to a portion of the defense and damages portion over and

above what a particular claim could have been settled for, if you as the insured did not

agree to the terms of the settlement but the plaintiff and carrier did.

It is possible that with complete applications from each transit agency, and through a broader

marketing effort, that we can improve on the proposed terms and conditions.

We look forward to assisting WSTIP further in this evaluation, and addressing any questions the Poolmay have in this process.

Sincerely,

Brian A. WhiteFirst Vice President(206) 204-9126

cc: Lilian Vanvieldt, Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.Gordon DesCombes, Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.

1

Coverage Comparison Chubb Public Officials / Employment Practices Liability Policy & WSTIP Memorandum of Coverage

Chubb POL & EPL Policy WSTIP MOC

What is Covered?

Wrongful Employment Practices

Wrongful termination / dismissal / discharge Yes Yes

Employment-related misrepresentation Yes Yes

Discrimination Yes Yes

Sexual Harassment or unlawful workplace harassment Yes Yes

Failure to employ Yes Yes

Failure to promote Yes Not specifically addressed, but could be covered under the language of “and other employment related

practices or policies”

Demotion Yes Yes

Discipline Yes Yes

Retaliation Yes Not specifically addressed, but could be covered under the language of “and other employment related

practices or policies”

Negligent evaluation Yes (see above)

Failure to grant tenure Yes (see above)

Libel, slander, defamation, humiliation, Yes Yes

Invasion of privacy Yes Yes

Emotional distress Yes Yes

Additional Coverage Grants

Wage & hour defense costs coverage Sometimes a small sub-limit of $100,000 is granted for defense costs only; otherwise claims for unpaid wages or

overtime pay for hours actually worked are excluded. Exception for any Claim for Retaliation.

Not specifically addressed

Third party coverage (discrimination or harassment of non-employees by employees)

Yes Not specifically addressed

Defense & Settlement Provisions

Duty to defend Yes Yes

Defense Costs Inside limits; some policies provide for additional defense “side car” limits.

Defense costs inside the limits per Section 7E

Required to get Insured’s/Covered Party’s consent?

Yes Not required

Hammer clause (if Insured/Covered Party refuses to give consent to settlement)

Yes, 70/30, share (carrier/insured) over what it could have settled for

(see above)

2


Pre termination Incentive or Penalty Some policies provide an incentive up to $25,000 for consulting a designated attorney prior to a termination

Pre-litigation services outside of policy limited to $5,000

Counsel Selection

Process Prior to inception of policy, insured designates preferred counsel, subject to carrier’s approval including hourly rates.

Approved counsel must follow carrier’s litigation guidelines. Otherwise, insured can use any number of

carrier approved defense firms.

Not addressed. WSTIP selects counsel.

What is a Claim?

Suit/civil proceeding Yes seeking monetary Damages or non-monetary or injunctive relief

Yes

Written demand Yes for monetary and non-monetary or injunctive relief Yes

Binding arbitration proceeding Yes, only if insurer has provided its prior written consent .Yes

Regulatory Investigation Yes, commenced by the service of a written notice or subpoena from the investigating authority…


EEOC proceedings Yes, commenced by issuance of a notice of charge or formal investigative order by or in association with EEOC or

any other similar fed, state, local government authority.


Other Requests to toll or waive a statute of limitations Not specifically addressed

Reporting Requirements:

When is a claim first considered made? Awareness by any officers, director, Risk Manager, General Counsel, Human Resources Manager, or organizational equivalents, of a written demand, or civil proceeding…

Earlier of the following: 1. When notice of claim is received and

recorded by WSTIP 2. When “you” (member) become aware of

wrongful act which may subsequently give rise to a claim being made and you give

written notice to WSTIP

When must the claim be reported to the Insurer/ WSTIP?

As soon as practicable By the end of the coverage period or extended reporting period

During the policy period only Yes, no later than 60 days after the end of the policy period By the end of the coverage period or extended reporting period

Not more than X days after claim is first made No, except where limitation exist as described immediately above.

By the end of the coverage period or extended reporting period

Reporting of incidents or circumstances qualify for claims notice under policy

Yes Not addressed, but in practice no

Who is an Insured?

Public Entity (named insured) Yes, the municipality, governmental body, department or unit which is named in the Declarations Page

Yes

Employees Yes Yes, current and former

Commissions, boards, other units, and employees thereof

Yes, where operated by and under the jurisdiction of such Public Entity and within an apportionment of the total

Yes

3


operating budget indicated in the application for this Policy.

Volunteers Yes, acting for or on behalf of, and at the written request and under the direction of the Public Entity

Yes

Officials and Employees of Public Entity while serving with an outside tax exempt entity

Yes, where duly appointed at the written request of the Public Entity

Only while serving in the capacity of their official capacity (see below)

Persons Providing Servicing under Mutual Aid Agreement for Public Entity

Yes, written Yes, written

Officials and Employees of Public Entity while serving in outside 501C3

Yes, as a director or officer, provided that appointment is based solely upon person being an official or employee of

the Public Entity and is directed in writing by the Public Entity to serve in that capacity.

Yes, “other units”

Damages (or Loss)

Punitive (and exemplary) damages Yes, where insurable by law Not addressed

Judgements & Settlements Yes Yes

Multiplied damages Yes Not addressed

Pre- and post-judgment interest Yes Not addressed

Injunctive, non-monetary, declaratory relief No Maybe

Specific to Wrongful Employment Practices

Front and back pay Yes Not addressed

Liquidated damages, BUT ONLY pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Equal Pay Act

Yes Not addressed

Damages DO NOT INCLUDE:

Fines or penalties

Not covered damages Yes, excluded

Taxes Not covered damages Yes, excluded

Employment-related benefits, retirement benefits, vacation and sick days, medical/insurance benefits, deferred cash incentive compensation or any other type of compensation other than salary, wages, bonuses, commissions and non-deferred cash incentive compensation

Not covered damages Not addressed, but in practice this is something we have not paid for

Cost to comply with any injunctive or other non-monetary or declaratory relief, including specific performance

Not covered damages Not covered, although attorney fees may trigger coverage

Liability or costs incurred to modify any building or property to make it more accessible

Not covered damages Not addressed

Exclusions on policy/ MOC (not an all-inclusive list)

4


Fraud, dishonest, criminal acts, or intentional or knowing violation of law

Yes, except carve back for defense coverage until claim adjudicated; but exclusion NOT imputed onto other

Insureds.

Yes, excluded

Illegal gain of profit, remuneration or advantage Yes; but exclusion NOT imputed onto other insureds. Yes, excluded

Relief or redress in any form other than monetary damages

Yes, excluded except carve back for claims expense (defense) subject to a limit of $100,000

Excluded, but also unclear wording in this area

Bodily injury Yes, except carve back for Mental Distress arising out of a Wrongful Employment Practice

Yes, excluded but various carve backs exist

Property damage Yes, excluded Yes, excluded except in wrongful employment practices

Personal injury Yes, excluded other than libel, slander, or defamation in any form arising out of a Wrongful Employment Practice.

Defamation, slander and libel included in personal injury definition

Eminent domain, condemnation, inverse condemnation, etc.

Yes, excluded Yes, excluded

Insured vs. Insured Yes, excluded except in regards to Employment Practices this exclusion only applies to cross or counter claims

brought by one insured vs another insured.

Not addressed

Breach of Contract Yes, excluded but does not apply to Wrongful Employment Practices claims.

Yes, excluded and assumption of liability in a contract is also excluded

Medical Services including Medical Malpractice Yes, excluded Yes, excluded for a whole list of medical providers as part of professional services

Professional services provided by lawyer, architect, engineer or accountant to third party

Yes, excluded Architects, engineers, surveyors or draftsmen are excluded

Accountant and attorneys are not addressed

ERISAi Yes, excluded Yes, excluded

Improper collection of taxes Yes, excluded Yes, excluded

Pending or Prior Litigation Yes, excluded Outside the two reporting periods, excluded

Notice given under Prior Policy Yes, excluded (see above)

Prior Knowledge Yes, excluded (see above)

Exclusions solely applicable to Wrongful Employment Practices

FLSAii Yes, excluded with retaliation carve back Not specifically address unless in 2B and then excluded

Obligations imposed under Work Comp, disability benefits, unemployment compensation, retirement benefits, etc.

Yes, excluded but with carve back for retaliation claims (see above)

COBRAiii Yes, excluded but with retaliation carve back (see above)

OSHAiv Yes, excluded but with retaliation carve back (see above)

NLRAv Yes, excluded but with retaliation carve back (see above)

WARNvi Yes, excluded but with retaliation carve back (see above)

ADAvii accommodations Yes, excluded (see above)

Other exclusions Pollution Nuclear material, war, maintain insurance, bond or self-insurance; disappearance of money, asbestos, mold,

5


Claims or potential claims listed on application or submission

Wage & Hour with retaliation carve back.

lead, pollution, debt financing; cost, civil penalty, fines levied as complaint or enforcement by an federal, state or local government entity.

i Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974 (ERISA): Regulates administration of pension plans and other employee benefits for the employees' protection. ii Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (Wage & Hour Claims): Sets out guidelines for minimum wage and overtime pay, child labor, record keeping and hour requirements for employees in

both the public and private sectors. iii Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA): Protects those who lose health benefits by providing the opportunity to continue group coverage for a limited amount of time after a

voluntary or involuntary job loss, reduction in work hours, transition between jobs, death, divorce or other life situations. iv Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA): Protects workers in the private sector against hazards in the workplace and requires employers to comply with standards laid out by the

Department of Labor. v National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): Regulates the employer/employee relationship, allows employees the right to organize into unions, and encourages collective bargaining. vi Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN): Requires employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. vii Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Protects workers against discrimination based on disability and provides other accommodations and protection to individuals with disabilities.

Page 1 of 6

February 8, 2018


FROM: Joanne Kerrigan, Member Services Manager

SUBJECT: Strategic Plan Discussion Item – Training Academy

Action Requested

In January, the Executive Committee asked staff to poll Board Members to ask their own

safety/training/risk departments their interest level for the program. Attached to this memo is the status of

that polling. Twenty one members responded that they would support the project. This is the third

attempt to get direction for staff to create a charter for a new Committee on the topic of the training

academy for trainers. This charter would be reviewed, and if appropriate, potentially approved at the

March Executive Committee meeting.

Background

At the Annual Meeting in December, staff recommended further exploration of a state-wide Training

Academy specifically for Transit Trainers. Background information presented is below for the Executive

Committee’s reconsideration. To anticipate further activity, staff is seeking direction from the Executive

Committee on the next phase.

Here are options the Executive Committee could consider:

1. Create a stakeholder group or committee, to include transit trainers and possibly other industry

professionals, to further develop the Trainer’s Academy with a goal of representing the topic in

time to be incorporated into the 2019 budget.

2. Create a sub-committee under the Emerging Risks and Opportunities Committee to further

develop the Trainer’s Academy with a goal of representing the topic in time to be incorporated

into the 2019 budget.

3. Instruct staff to coordinate the rest of the detailed development and implementation without

assistance from a stakeholder group or committee.

4. Instruct staff to do further research with topics of interest identified by the Executive Committee.

5. End the idea.

Staff’s recommendation is #1. Information previously presented on this topic is below:

Background information (previously presented to Executive Committee and Board)

One of the strategic goals under developing products and services calls to create an improved

standardized curriculum and approach to training via a state-wide operator training academy by

12/31/2017 (for both new operator and refresher training). Staff surveyed the membership to find out who

Page 2 of 6

is doing the training now, what the cost is and how long it takes. Based on the research on how training

is done now for new hire and refresher training, the feasibility for setting up a state-wide operator training

academy is complex. We recommend instead developing an Operator Trainer Certification Program to

train trainers/instructors so they receive a standardized curriculum that can be then implemented at their

own agencies within the confines of their own policies and procedures.

TRAINING ACADEMY FOR TRANSIT TRAINERS: Operator Trainer Certification Program The intent of the Operator Trainer Certification Program is to establish safety criteria and certification for

coach operator instructors to provide consistency and a level of safety standards for all WSTIP members.

The program will be funded and managed by WSTIP and will serve to provide training for all WSTIP

members. There are six courses which have been designated as requirements for successful certificate

completion. The costs per person to an agency to train an instructor are as follows:

Registration

Course Length Fee Travel Costs

Instructor's Course for Transit Trainers (TSI FT00562,

5 days)

5 days $140 **$118 (lodging) +

65 (meals) x 5 =

$915 per person

Fatigue Awareness and Sleep Apnea Awareness for

Transit Employees (TSI FT00588)

Online

course, 30

minutes

0

0

Curbing Transit Employee Distracted Driving (TSI

FT00555, Online)

Online

course, 30

minutes

0

0

WSTIP’s annual supervisor school 4 ½ days $75 per

day x 4 =

$300

$118 + 65 (lodging

and meals x 4) =

$732 per person

WSTIP’s Operator Development Course and

Instructors Guide Boot Camp (requires development)

3 days $225 $118 + 65 (lodging

and meals x 3) =

$549 per person

WSTIP’s Safety and Training Trainer’s Showcase

2 days $135 $118 (lodging) x 2

= $236 per person

Total 14 days $800 $2,432

Grand Total $3,232 pp

*Average of WA state per diem rates is used. This is the cost of lodging, per diem meals, assumption is they would

take an agency vehicle to training.

Each trainer who successfully completes the criteria is awarded a Transit Operator Trainers Certificate of

Completion through the program from WSTIP. A training schedule will be developed annually for

Instructors who wish to pursue the voluntary WSTIP’s Transit Operator Trainers Certification.

Estimated costs of the program would be contingent on staffing and development of an instructor’s

curriculum for the ODC and Instructors Guide Bootcamp. One time set up costs are estimated at $50,000

for curriculum development for the ODC Bootcamp and an annual on-going maintenance cost of $25,000

Page 3 of 6

for consultants of the program hired by WSTIP. Costs may be offset with a potential partnership with

WSDOT to fund this program through the Rural Transportation Assistance Program.

In Appendix A, attached, an outline covers new operator training curriculum and refresher training

curriculum. These areas of focus would be an integral to addressing high-risk claim areas such as

pedestrian and bicycle collisions, rear end and collisions with fixed objects and special management like

squaring turns to reduce the severity of left and right-hand turn events. These elements would be

coordinated and incorporated into the program curriculum.

Recommendation – Develop a Transit Operator Trainer Certification Program to create

consistency and make safety a priority for transit trainers. Putting an emphasis on train the

trainer cuts down on costs and allows for agency flexibility at their agency to incorporate their

own policies and procedures. JK/tc

Page 4 of 6

APPENDIX A

New Operator Orientation Training - New operator orientation and training procedures detail the method

for successfully informing, initiating, and integrating trainees into a transit agency’s community and safety

culture. It includes an overall orientation and job-specific training that will be conducted by the

safety/training coordinator and/or the new employee’s supervisor or his/her designee. The purpose for this

formal procedure is to ensure new employees receive a consistent message regarding the vision, mission,

goals, and safety-initiatives, and that employees are required to follow. It is also a means to facilitate

motivation in new employees and enhance their employment experience with their organization and

improving the likelihood of long-term safety and successful employment.

Transit Trainers are responsible to ensure all new coach operators receive the following:

1) Personnel Policies and Procedures

a) Drug-free workplace

b) Drug and alcohol testing policy

c) EEO/Civil Rights

d) Dual Employment

e) Electronic Communication

f) Accident Preventability/Recordability Process

g) Reporting activity on Commercial Driver License

2) Safety and Security

a) Accident/incident prevention and reporting

b) Occupational illness/injury reporting and return to work

c) Workplace Violence

d) Emergency response plan

e) Personal protective equipment

f) Safety Committee, bulletin board and suggestions

g) Safe Driver/Worker recognition program

h) Hazard Communication (workers right to know)

i) Hazardous materials in the workplace (MSDS)

j) Blood borne pathogens

k) Ergonomics

l) Fire safety

m) First aid/CPR

n) Fatigue Management

o) Wellness

Job Specific Training

1) Customer Service

a) Basic Customer Service (101) including transit agency philosophy

b) Communicating with customers

c) Working with different customers (passenger sensitivity)

i) Elderly

ii) Disabled

Page 5 of 6

iii) Children

d) Difficult situations

e) Conflict de-escalation

2) Fare policy

3) Technical training

a) Vehicle familiarization

b) Vehicle inspection (pre- and post-)

c) Lift operation

d) Wheelchair securement

e) Bicycles/Bike racks

f) Strollers

g) Operator seat adjustments

h) Mirror adjustments and reference points

4) Driving skills

a) Communications equipment and systems technology

i) Radio procedures

ii) Emergency communication

b) Defensive driving (ODC LLLC)

i) Obstacle course training

ii) Preventing driver distractions

iii) Following distances

iv) Railroad crossings

v) Pedestrian awareness (Rock and Roll video)

vi) Bicycle awareness

vii) Backing

viii) Merging, lane changes and passing

ix) Special driving conditions

x) Turns and intersections

c) Route training

i) Flag stops

ii) Entering and exiting stops

iii) Boarding and alighting

iv) Map and schedule training

v) ADA announcements

vi) Defensive driving techniques

Safety and Security

1) Operator safety

a) Physical defense

b) Verbal defense

c) Conflict de-escalation

2) Customer safety

a) Boarding and alighting procedures

b) “See Something, Say Something” program

3) Emergency procedures

Page 6 of 6

a) Customer emergencies

b) Vehicle emergencies

i) Accidents

ii) Vehicle fires

iii) Vehicle break-down

iv) Vehicle evacuation

4) Digital recording systems

a) On board vehicle cameras

b) Facility and bus terminal cameras

Refresher Training – The purpose of operator refresher training is to refresh defensive driving skills;

introduce equipment, re-enforce existing and new procedures, or routes; and/or reinforce other safety-

initiatives. Refresher training should be held on a periodic basis (at a minimum of every two years) and is

directed at operators that have been employed by the transit agency for at least two years. Refresher

training will also be used anytime the operator has been off work for 30 days or more. An operator that has

been out of work for 30 days or more should be assigned to the training department or designee prior to

returning to any revenue service. This return-to-work refresher training should consist of a review of

defensive driving skills, mirror and seat placement, routes, new ADA regulations or policy changes, and

any new technology or equipment.

Recommended Transit Coach Operator Instructor Certification and Training

To ensure transit coach operator instructors receive a consistent level of training and certification to teach

coach operators the skill sets necessary to accomplish the training listed above, WSTIP recommends

instructors complete the following courses:

Instructor's Course for Transit Trainers (TSI FT00562, 5 days)

Fatigue Awareness and Sleep Apnea Awareness for Transit Employees (TSI FT00588)

Curbing Transit Employee Distracted Driving (TSI FT00555, Online)

WSTIP’s annual Supervisor School

Stepping Up to Supervisor

Managing People and Performance Evaluations

Coaching: Strategic Leadership

Legal Issues for Supervisors

WSTIP’s Operator Development Course and Instructors Guide Boot Camp (requires development)

WSTIP’s Safety and Training Trainer’s Showcase

Support Program (Y/N)

Interested in Serving on Committee

Need more information

Asotin

Yes

Ben Franklin

Yes

Yes

Clallam

Yes

C-Tran

Yes

Columbia Co

Yes

Community Transit

Yes Yes

Everett

Yes

Grant

Yes

Grays Harbor

Yes

Intercity

Island

Yes

Jefferson

Yes

Kitsap

Yes Yes

Link

Yes

Mason

Yes Yes

Pacific

Yes

Pierce

Yes

Pullman

No response

River Cities

Yes Yes

Skagit

No response

Spokane

Yes

Twin

Yes

Valley

No response

Whatcom

Yes

Yakima

Yes

Pierce-WSTIP Partnership proposal for

Lytx-DriveCam Driver Monitoring

By: Rob Huyck

Date: February 8, 2018

Table of Contents Project Proposal ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................................... 1

The Solution .................................................................................................................................................. 1

What value will WSTIP gain from partnering on the initiative? ................................................................... 2

Claims Reduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Value Proposition and Return on Investment .......................................................................................... 3

Deliverables............................................................................................................................................... 3

Return on Investment ............................................................................................................................... 4

Integration of Lytx-DriveCam with the FTA funded collision avoidance project ...................................... 4

Knowledge Transfer .................................................................................................................................. 5

Project Metrics and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 5

Key Tasks and Timing Factors ....................................................................................................................... 6

Product Description and Resource Requirements ........................................................................................ 6

Product Description .................................................................................................................................. 6

Staff Resource Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 6

Citations .................................................................................................................................................... 7

Project Profile ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Pierce-WSTIP Partnership: Lytx-DriveCam proposal Page 1 of 7

Project Proposal Pierce Transit is requesting WSTIP participation in the implantation of Lytx-

DriveCam driver monitoring. Pierce intends to install this technology on all directly

operated paratransit and fixed route vehicles. This will encompass approximately

600 operators. Pierce Transit completed its negotiations with the Amalgamated

Transit Union 758 providing for the implementation of Lytx-DriveCam in December

2017.

The total project budget is $500,000 and $353 per bus annually for monitoring.

Pierce is requesting WSTIP participation of $100,000. The Emerging Risks and

Opportunities Committee of the Board referred this matter with an affirmative

recommendation to the Executive Board in December 2017.

Problem Statement Pierce Transit continues to experience a loss rate that is above the national average

for large transit agencies and outside the WSTIP standard (placing us on the

member improvement list). Pierce has embarked upon a series of initiatives to

reduce the loss rate.

When an accident occurs, it is often difficult to timely evaluate the true actual

circumstances of the event. Thus, accident investigation, root cause analysis,

liability, and defense investigation can be compromised. As a result, the

opportunity for timely operator feedback, coaching and learning opportunities are

lost. In addition, one of the risks associated with the traditional operator bidding

system is that it is possible that less senior operators often drive the riskier routes.

The transit operator is the lynchpin to improved accident performance.

The Solution Pierce Transit believes the future of risk management and claims reduction rests

with improved access to a relevant driver safety program that can change driver

behavior through a combination of comprehensive driver coaching and expert

event analysis in consort with the use of advanced data analytics.

Pierce is currently working on several initiatives to reduce loss rates. These

initiatives include: developing a new bus operator training curriculum; purchase of

a bus simulator; installation and testing of collision avoidance warning systems and


automatic emergency braking. However, it is generally accepted in the public

transit industry that the technology with the largest known loss prevention impact

is the Lytx-DriveCam or equivalent.

Pierce has determined that to meet its accident reduction targets and keep a high

level of performance in risk management, the procurement and installation of the

Lytx-DriveCam vehicle technology will be required. Lytx-DriveCam is a complete

driver safety program proven to change driver behavior through a combination of

expert event review and analysis, advanced analytics, prioritization of incidents,

and comprehensive driver coaching. This technology will assist Pierce in actively

supporting every driver in the fleet with dedicated support from the Lytx team of

experts.

With this technology, Pierce will successfully address the following critical success

factors:

Capture relevant risk events that could be caused by risky driving

Analyze and score the events

Review the events and scores with the drivers

Develop a coaching and improvement program for the driver so that the driver

returns to the field with improved skills.

What value will WSTIP gain from partnering on the initiative?

Claims Reduction

As stated earlier, Pierce is above both the national and WSTIP member expected

losses in claims. Reducing this index will of course reduce injury and death but also

provide WSTIP members an opportunity to experience less cross-subsidization of

Pierce’s risk in addition to providing a more effective rate setting process. We

would be further in our goal of reducing cross-subsidization for all members and

reduce the cost of member’s cost of risk. An example of the impact of the Lytx-

DriveCam system can be found in a 2014 report by Virginia Tech Transportation

Institute.


Potential reduction in large truck and bus traffic fatalities and injuries using Lytx-

DriveCam. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, 2014

Table 1. Total U.S. Injury Crashes Prevented with the DriveCam® Program

Year Total Number of

Injury Crashes

Mean Injury Crashes

Prevented with Lytx System

Mean Injury Crash

Reduction Percentage

95% Confidence Interval for the Injury

Crash Reduction Percentage

2012 73,000* 25,294 34.7% 34.3% to 35.0%

2011 73,000 25,730 35.3% 34.9% to 35.6%

2010 67,000 23,997 35.8% 35.5% to 36.2%

*2012 data has not yet been published; 2011 crash data and vehicle count data substituted.

Table 2. Total U.S. Fatal Crashes Prevented with the DriveCam® Program

Year Total Number of

Injury Crashes

Mean Injury Crashes

Prevented with Lytx System

Mean Injury Crash

Reduction Percentage

95% Confidence Interval for the Injury

Crash Reduction Percentage

2012 3,568* 859 24.1% 22.7% to 25.5%

2011 3,568 727 20.4% 19.1% to 21.7%

2010 3,512 595 17.0% 15.7% to 18.2%

*2012 data has not yet been published; 2011 crash data and vehicle count data substituted.

Value Proposition and Return on Investment

Deliverables

Based upon national experience with Lytx-DriveCam, Pierce’s expectation is to

recognize a 40% reduction in collisions in the fixed route and paratransit modes

during the first full year of implementation. Once Pierce obtains this reduction in

accidents WSTIP members will immediately recognize the impact of reduced

subsidization of Pierce risk and a more effective rate setting environment within

the pool of members. As well, reduced claims equate to less WSTIP staff time

dedicated to claims settlement.


Return on Investment

The following projections of the potential financial impact associated with the use

of Lytx-DriveCam is based upon the following information:

12-month period. Installation won’t be complete until June of 2018 so this

information is based upon the first full twelve months of operation which

likely would span the 2018 and 2019 year of operations.

Targeted loss rate reduction of 40% in the first 12 months of implementation.

We also provide an example of the breakeven percentage reduction.

WSTIP investment of $100,000.

Claims data provided by WSTIP.

Example 1: Lytx-DriveCam provides a projected $483,334 in claims reduction at the

targeted 40% reduction in loss.

Sum of Total claims Paid over

2012-2017

Average incurred Claims

Per Year

Projected Annual average incurred Claims

w/out Lytx-DriveCam

Projected Annual 12

month Average reduction in loss

Projected 12 month Claims with DriveCam

Average Annual Claims

Reduction With DriveCam

$15,708,368 $1,208,336 $1,208,336 40% $725,002 $483,334

Example 2: Shows the breakeven point for loss reduction at approximately 8%

Sum of Total claims Paid over

2012-2017

Average incurred Claims

Per Year

Projected Annual average incurred Claims

w/out Lytx-DriveCam

Projected Annual 12

month Average reduction in loss

Projected 12 month Claims with DriveCam

Average Annual Claims

Reduction With DriveCam

$15,708,368 $1,208,336 $1,208,336 8.27% $1,108,407 $99,929

Integration of Lytx-DriveCam with the FTA funded collision avoidance project

Many of you are aware that Pierce was awarded an FTA grant to study a 100-vehicle

deployment within fixed route of the Rosco Vision Systems Shield+ collision

avoidance warning system (CAWS).

With the addition of the Lytx-DriveCam product Pierce will be able to attain the

following:

Enhanced data collection-Both Lytx-DriveCam and Shield + will produce data

streams during an event. The combination of the two data streams will


provide a method validating each data set and enhancing the perspective of

what is happening during vehicle operations.

Enhanced driver training – the CAWS provides a greater situational

awareness and therefore greater warning capability due to the greater

camera coverage (frontal and side) but does not provide the programmatic

capability to timely analyze the event and provide the subsequent follow-up

and training that Lytx-DriveCam provides. Pierce believes that the

combination of the two will be greater than each individually. The Lytx-

DriveCam product will super charge the claim reduction environment.

Knowledge Transfer

Because of the Pierce-WSTIP partnership, Pierce will provide a set of knowledge

transfer products that will be available to other WSTIP members. These would

include:

Presentations at WSTA committees

Presentations at WSTIP Board meeting

Video training products developed by Pierce

Written best practice materials

On site member visits

Project Metrics and Evaluation Goals

Based on both University research and national transit experience with the Lytx-

DriveCam system, Pierce Transit management has set an initial goal of accident

reduction at 40% from current 2017 baseline.

Equipment will be effectively installed and maintained in working order

Operators will have been timely coached

First status report by the end of 2018 (this would be a 6-month report)

Defining success is in concert with the activities of Operations and Maintenance

management.

Good project management techniques, including a project charter to keep

management up to date with the status of the project.


Key Tasks and Timing Factors Task Date

Hire system administrator 3/2018

Initiate procurement from GSA 2/2018

Installation on Pierce/Sound Transit equipment (350 vehicles)

o Target installation commencement 3/2018

o Target installation completion 6/2018

Go live date 6/18 or 7/18

First status report 12/2018

Product Description and Resource Requirements

Product Description

The Lytx-DriveCam system is a lagging indicator system that is triggered by an event

matching pre-selected criteria. The operator reviews the video and is coached on

proper responses to situations in a positive environment. Experience has shown

that the percentage of operators that will trigger the device will be in the 30% range

(which equates to a pool of 180 drivers at Pierce). Repeat behavior is predicted to

be low but it does occur. Pierce will use competition to encourage grouped cohorts

to improve their safe driving behaviors against each other. The system

administrator will be responsible for reviewing incoming videos and arranging

operator coaching sessions. Management intends to keep pre-set criterion to a

minimal level initially due to staffing requirements.

Staff Resource Requirements The Pierce product work leadership team will be composed of:

Skip Huck, Executive Director – Maintenance; project governance team

Mike Griffus, Executive Director – Service Delivery

Team resources: system administrator

Transit Services Manager

Transit Services Assistant Managers

https://www.lytx.com/en-us/fleet-services/programs/enterprise-fleet-management


Citations

1. Two university studies and practical experience have shown the probable

minimum reduction in collision events is 34%.

2. One University study states, “agencies that have had the Lytx-DriveCam system

in place for at least a year have seen up to a 50 percent decrease in collisions

following implementation. According to the NTD data cited in the Research

Findings section of the report.” Video-Based Driver Risk Management Systems:

Evaluating effectiveness at Improving Transit Safety, Michael A. Litschi, Mineta

Transportation Institute, 2011.

From our Collision Avoidance System project partner, Virginia Tech Transportation

Institute, their retrospective study says we can expect a 34% minimum reduction

in collisions (See Chart in the Claims Reduction section above).

Experientially, Cleveland RTA, with worse traffic and 900 buses, over the 2015 –

2016 period experienced a 63% drop in collisions on Lytx-DriveCam equipped

vehicles over 2014 baseline. Cleveland’s installation costs paid for themselves in

year one.

The 63% drop in collisions experienced in Cleveland would equate at Pierce Transit

to a savings in claims costs of around $272,850 per year or more.

The installation budget is approximately $500,000 and there is an annual

subscription fee $353 per bus (annually).

Project Profile Today’s date: January 22, 2018

Name of project or proposal:

Name of Requesting organization: Pierce Transit

Name of Requesting Individual: Rob Huyck

Date funding required or requested: March 2018

Amount of funding required: $100,000

Name of other funding entities and or project participants involved: None

Category of project: Vehicle Technology [X]

Human Factors [X]

Training [X]

Research [X]

February 8, 2018

TO: Executive Committee


SUBJECT: General Leave Policy / Paid Time Off

Action Requested: Approval of revised general leave policy to come in accordance with new paid sick leave law.

Background:

WSTIP hired HR consultant, Kara Turner, to advise us on the implementation of the new paid sick leave

law, to review our personnel policies in general, and to conduct a staff salary survey (later this year). To

come into compliance with the new paid sick leave law that went into effect on January 1, Kara is

recommending we excerpt just the general leave section of policy and revise it now. Upon approval, it

would be distributed to staff with a required acknowledgement of the policy.

However, Kara would continue to review the personnel policies with a goal of a more extensive review of

the whole document. For example, we are discussing proposing a different carryover number for the

general leave (less than the 690 currently in the policy). We are also considering further changes

throughout the document.

Although we discussed the new sick leave law with staff at the last meeting, staff were not advised of the

specific language of this policy change.

Rick has reviewed this policy and gave suggestions which were incorporated into the language you see

here.

/tc

PAID GENERAL LEAVE POLICY Washington State Transit Insurance Pool (WSTIP) provides Paid General Leave as a benefit to employees to use as vacation or for absences due to an employee or eligible family member’s health concern as outlined below. Accrual & Carryover Employees will accrue Paid General Leave based on years of service according to the following chart:

Length of Service General Leave Accrual (working 32 or more

hrs/wk)

General Leave Accrual (50%) (working between 20-31 hrs/wk)

0 to10 years 24 days/year 8 hrs/pay period

12 days/year 4 hrs/pay period

10+ to 15 years 30 days/year 10 hrs/pay period


15+ to 20 years 36 days/year 12 hrs/pay period


20+ years 42 days/year 14 hrs/pay period


All employees (regular, temporary, interns) working less than 20 hours per week will accrue 1 hour of General Leave for every 40 hours worked. Full-time employees may carry over 690 hours of General Leave from one calendar year to the next. Part-time employees may carry over 200 hours from one calendar year to the next. An employee will begin accruing General Leave on his/her first day of employment and is eligible to use the leave upon completing 90 calendar days. General Leave may be taken in increments of 15 minutes or more. Paid General Leave is not considered worked time for the purposes of calculating overtime. Scheduled General Leave Scheduled General Leave for vacation purposes should be planned out as far in advance as possible. Usually General Leave will be requested and approved by supervisors at least two (2) weeks prior to the date requested. WSTIP schedules such leave based on its operational needs and the requests of other employees. Any request to use more than three consecutive weeks of general leave requires the advance approval of the Executive Director.

General Leave Usage for health-related reasons In compliance with Washington’s Paid Sick Leave law (Initiative 1433), employees may also utilize General Leave to care for their health and the health of their family members. Employees are required to give reasonable notice regarding the need for such leave and, in all circumstances, must personally notify their supervisor no later than their scheduled reporting time or as soon as possible thereafter in the event of an emergency. When an employee is absent for more than three consecutive days, WSTIP may require verification that the employee is taking leave for an authorized purpose. Other than Washington Paid Sick Leave absences, in the case of illness or injury, or other need for leave that cannot be planned, employees are expected to give as much notice of the need for leave as possible. When illness extends beyond one day, the employee (or his/her designee if necessary) is expected to keep the supervisor informed regarding anticipated return to work. WSTIP reserves the right to require documentation from a health care provider to confirm the basis for leave. “Family members” is defined as a child or parent (including biological, adopted, foster, step, a child for whom the employee stands in loco parentis, or legal guardian), a spouse, registered domestic partner, spouse’s parent, the employee’s parent, grandparent, grandchild or sibling. Sick leave may be used for the following circumstances:

• An employee’s mental or physical illness, injury or health condition;

• To accommodate the employee’s need for medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition;

• Preventive medical care; • Care of a family member with an illness, injury, health condition, care of a family member who needs

medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury or health concern;

• Closure of the employee’s place of business or child’s school/place of care by order of a public health official for any health-related reasons;

• If the employee or the employee’s family member is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; or other absence covered by the Domestic Leave Act, RCW 49.76;

• Or in any other circumstance required by Washington’s Paid Sick Leave Law currently or in the future.

. General Leave Cash Out While WSTIP encourages employees to utilize accrued General Leave to rest and rejuvenate, the organization does allow employees (after one year of service) the opportunity to cash out a portion of their General Leave balance as determined by the Executive Director based on budgetary, operational, and other factors in the best interest of WSTIP. All regular full-time and part-time employees on paid status may cash out up to half of their accrued General Leave under the following conditions

• Only accrued hours over 40 hours of leave are eligible to be cashed out.

• Request to sell back leave must be submitted in writing and must include the number of hours or pay periods;

• Payouts will be made on the following regular pay periods and are subject to mandatory standard deductions;

• Payouts will be calculated using the employee’s regular rate of pay.

Separation & Reinstatement Employees separating from employment will be paid for any accrued unused General Leave. If an employee leaves from the organization and is rehired within twelve months of separation, previously accrued General Leave that was not cashed out at the time of separation will be reinstated and the previous period of employment will be counted for purposes of determining the employee’s eligibility to use General Leave. Notice WSTIP will provide employees with regular notice about the amount of Paid General Leave the employee has earned and used. Any questions and concerns about the Paid General Leave policy may be directed to payroll administrator.

WSTIP 05/2016 20

All eligible WSTIP employees are required to participate in the State of Washington Public

Employees Retirement System (PERS).

WSTIP’s Deferred Compensation Plan

Regular full-time WSTIP employees may participate in a variety of voluntary deferred

compensation plans.

WSTIP’s Workers Compensation Benefits

Workers compensation benefits are paid to WSTIP regular, probationary, and temporary

employees for work-related injuries or illnesses through the Washington State Department of

Labor and Industries.

(Note: Any WSTIP employee injured while working must immediately

report the injury to his or her supervisor.)

SECTION 6. PROVIDING LEAVES OF ABSENCE

What Is the Purpose of General Leave

WSTIP employees may use general leave for the following purposes:

Vacation, sick leave, leave to care for the employee’s sick child or to care for an immediate family

member with a serious or emergency health condition, medical and dental appointments, and

other personal leave needs.

How Does an Employee Become Eligible for General Leave?

Regular full-time WSTIP employees on paid status earn general leave based on their years of

service in accordance with the following schedule:

6-months - 10 years 24-days of leave per year

11-years – 15-years 30-days of leave per year

16-years – 20-years 36-days of leave per year

20 + years - 42-days of leave per year

General leave is accrued per payroll period, such that the total accrual in a year is consistent with

the above schedule. Regular part-time WSTIP employees on paid status earn general leave at

the rate of half of a regular full-time employee.

anna

Cross-Out

WSTIP 05/2016 21

Full-time WSTIP employees on paid status serving their introductory period earn general leave at

the rate of 4 hours per pay period. Part-time employees serving their introductory period earn

general leave at the rate of 2 hours per pay period.

Note: General leave accrued during a pay period cannot be used until the

following pay period.

WSTIP encourages employees to take regular vacations.

WSTIP employees may not carry more than 690 hours of general leave in to the next year.

When Can Employees Use Their General Leave

To use general leave (other than in cases of illness or injury, or other circumstances where it was

not possible to provide advance notice), an employee must seek advance approval from his or

her supervisor. WSTIP schedules such leave based on its operational needs and the requests of

other employees. Any request to use more than three consecutive weeks of general leave

requires the advance approval of the Executive Director.

In the case of illness or injury, or other need for leave that could not be planned in advance,

employees are expected to give as much notice of the need for leave as possible. When an

illness extends beyond one day, the employee (or his/her designee if necessary) is expected to

keep the supervisor informed regarding anticipated return to work. WSTIP reserves the right to

require documentation from a health care provider to confirm the basis for leave.

Note: WSTIP employees take general leave in increments of at least one

hour.

Leave Sell Back

All regular full-time and part-time WSTIP employees on paid status may sell-back up to half of

their accrued general leave under the following conditions:

Must maintain at least 40 hours on an on-going basis for non-exempt and 80 hours for

exempt;

Request to sell back leave must be submitted in writing and must include the amount of

hours or pay periods.

Payouts will be made on the regular pay periods as described in Section 4;

Payouts will be based on a 40 hour work week for non-exempt employees; and

Payouts will be based on days sold for exempt employees with a minimum of half the

monthly salary.

Note: Certain mandatory deductions will be taken from the pay-out to

employees, as required by law.

What Legally Required Leaves of Absence Exist at WSTIP

WSTIP 05/2016 22

WSTIP grants an employee a leave of absence as required by law for the purpose of fulfilling any

required legal or military obligation. For example, employees may take leaves of absence for jury

duty, military reserve duty, and other such activities.

Employees must provide reasonable advance notice of any need for such leave.

Note: WSTIP expects employees to return to work each day or portion of

the day that they are not selected for jury duty or called as a witness.

A full-time/part-time regular employee impaneled for jury duty or subpoenaed in a WSTIP-related

matter will receive his or her regular hourly-rate/salary.

A full-time/part-time employee receives his or her regular salary to fulfill a military obligation leave

for up to 21 working days during each year beginning October 1st and ending the following

September 30th.

Note: Leave related to military obligations is governed by the provisions of

RCW 73.16 as presently enacted or hereafter amended and by federal law.

Bereavement Leave

WSTIP employees are allowed bereavement leave as follows:

Full-time regular employees are allowed up to five days (40 hours) of paid leave for the

loss of an immediate family member.

Regular part-time employees are allowed up to 2.5 days (20 hours) of paid leave for the

loss of an immediate family member.

Bereavement leave is in addition to any general/personal leave that may be used or is available.

Bereavement leave, if taken, must be used within six months of the family member’s death.

WSTIP may require documentation to confirm the basis for a request for bereavement leave. Leave for Spouses of Military Personnel During a period of military conflict declared by the President or Congress, an employee who is the

spouse of a member of the Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves is entitled to up to 15

days of unpaid leave while their spouse is on leave from deployment, or before and up to

deployment. The purpose of this leave is to support the families of military personnel serving in

military conflicts by permitting them to spend time together before a family member is deployed or

while the family member is on leave from a deployment. An employee must work an average of

20 hours per week to be eligible for this family military leave.

An employee who seeks to take family military leave must provide WSTIP with notice of his/her

intent to take leave within five business days of receiving official notice that the employee’s

WSTIP 05/2016 23

spouse will be on leave or of an impending call to active duty. The employee may substitute any

available accrued leave for any part of this family military leave.

Leave for Disability Caused by Pregnancy or Childbirth

A female employee is entitled to disability leave for the period of time that she is temporarily

disabled because of pregnancy or childbirth. Medical certification may be required to confirm the

need for leave. Pregnancy/childbirth disability leave is unpaid and health benefits are not

automatically continued; however, accrued leave may be used and the employee may continue

insurance coverage at her expense during any extended period of unpaid disability leave.

Leave for Religious Observances

Under Washington law, all WSTIP employees are entitled to up to two unpaid holidays per

calendar year for “a reason of faith or conscience or an organized activity conducted under the

auspices of a religious denomination, church, or religious holiday.” Unused leave does not carry

over from one calendar year to the next.

The law provides for unpaid leave, and there is no provision for substituting paid time off. If you

wish to be compensated for the time off, please follow the policies for using general leave,

personal leave or other paid time off.

An employee who seeks to take a day off under this law must submit a written request to his/her

supervisor at least two weeks in advance. Untimely requests will only be considered if you can

demonstrate that timely notice was not possible under the circumstances. A request should

include the following information:

Your name

The day(s) that you are requesting off

A sufficient description of the reason for the leave so that WSTIP can determine if it is

properly granted

If the request is untimely, the reason why it was not possible to submit the request in a

timely manner.

Timely requests will be granted unless the absence would cause an undue hardship.

Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Leave

This leave is available to employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or

stalking. It is also available to employees with a family member (child, spouse, parent, parent-in-

law, grandparent, or person with whom the employee has a dating relationship) who is a victim of

domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The leave may be taken in blocks, intermittently,

or on a reduced leave schedule. The amount of leave that an employee may take is limited to a

"reasonable" amount. This leave is unpaid, but an employee may elect to use the employee’s

accrued general or personal leave, compensatory time, or other paid leave accrual during the

time off.

Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Leave may be taken for the following purposes:

WSTIP 05/2016 24

To seek law enforcement or legal assistance or to prepare for or participate in

any legal proceeding related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;

To seek health care treatment for physical or mental injuries from domestic

violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or attend to such health care treatment for a

family member;

To obtain (or assist a family member in obtaining) services from a domestic

violence shelter, rape crisis center, or other social services;

To obtain (or assist a family member in obtaining) mental health counseling

related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; or

To participate in safety planning, to temporarily or permanently relocate, or to

take other actions to increase the safety of the employee or family member

relating to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

When possible, employees must give advance notice of the intention to take leave. If advance

notice is not possible, employees (or their designees) must give notice of the need for this leave

no later than the end of the first day the employee takes the leave. WSTIP may require

verification to support the need for the leave. Depending on the situation, verification can take

the form of police reports, court documents, or the employee's own written statement of the need

for the leave. Upon notification of the intention to take leave, WSTIP will explain the applicable

verification requirements. Except where disclosure is authorized or required by law, WSTIP will

maintain confidentiality of all information provided by the employee in conjunction with Domestic

Violence/Sexual Assault Leave.

Use of Accrued Leave to Care for Sick Family Member

Consistent with the Washington Family Care Act, employees may use their choice of any accrued

leave (whether general leave, compensatory time, personal leave, etc.) that they have available

for their own use in order to care for: (1) their child, where the child has a health condition

requiring treatment or supervision, or where the child needs preventive care; or (2) their spouse,

parent, parent-in-law, or grandparent where such family member has a serious or emergency

health condition. Where the need for family care leave is unexpected, WSTIP understands that

advance approval of the use of leave (as is required for certain kinds of leave) may not be

possible. Employees are required, however to notify their supervisor of the need to take time off

to care for a family member as soon as the need for leave becomes known. WSTIP reserves the

right to require verification or documentation confirming the need for family care leave.

When Can an Employee Be Granted Unpaid Leave

An employee must use all of his or her general leave and other forms of accrued paid leave before

WSTIP will grant an unpaid leave, with the exception of Leave for Religious Observances.

Note: Absent extenuating circumstances, failure to return from unpaid

leave status on the agreed-upon date is considered a voluntary resignation

from WSTIP employment.

WSTIP 05/2016 25

Unpaid General Leave of Absence

If the leave does not result in significant additional expense or disruption to WSTIP operations, or

otherwise create an undue hardship for WSTIP, an unpaid leave of absence may be granted

to an employee by the Executive Director or the Deputy Director.

Any request for an unpaid leave of absence must submitted by the employee in writing to the

Executive Director/Deputy Director. The request should indicate the reason for the requested

leave and the expected date of return. In the event that a request for unpaid leave is for medical

reasons, an employee must include a doctor’s certificate indicating the nature of the medical

problem and the anticipated length of absence. An employee returning from an unpaid medical

leave of absence must provide a doctor’s written certification of his or her ability to return to work.

Requests for an unpaid leave of absence will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into

account operational needs and coverage issues, financial and other impacts, legal obligations

and other relevant factors.

WSTIP Employee Benefits Can Change When on Unpaid Leave

An employee on unpaid leave of absence for more than 30 consecutive days must self-pay his or

her insurance premiums.

February 08, 2018

TO: Executive Committee

FROM: Cedric Adams, Claims Manager

SUBJECT: 2017 Claims Audit Summary

Action Requested:

Acceptance of the 2017 Claims Audit Report as presented. Staff response to recommendations are in the

narrative below.

Background:

WSTIP is required by WAC to conduct an independent audit of its claims handling and claims every three

years. WSTIP conducted an RFP for services and chose Gary Jennings, from Strategic Claims Direction LLC

for our audit. We did this with the mindset that we would implement his feedback with that of our 2014 audit

from Brian Stiefel of Praxis Claims Consulting, Inc.

Both audits reflected positively on WSTIP and all its contributors. The 2014 and 2017 audits highlighted:

timely and accurate member reporting, claims assignments, claimant contact, and claims management; proper

coverage confirmation; truthful reserves; thorough investigations; appropriate liability decisions; proper

identification and pursuit of potential recoveries; good defense counsel analysis; a concerted effort to move

cases toward settlement or resolution; a robust claim administration and document storage system; and

overall compliance with AGRiP’s Advisory Standards specific to claim management.

The key takeaway from the 2014 audit was the recommendation for uniformity of process in analyzing and

documenting the claims. The key takeaways from the 2017 audit dealt with recommendations on how to

improve caseload management for more effective and efficient claims handling. After proper disbursement of

workload, the 2017 auditor recommended more frequent internal audits to identify strengths and areas for

improvement.

Standards that we want to continue, apparent in both the 2014 and 2017 audits.

“None of the files reviewed presented any coverage issues as they relate to the facts of the loss, late

reporting, etc.”

“Reserves should reflect neither the most optimistic or most pessimistic but the most probable

outcome.” Overall reserving reflected “Most Likely Outcome” and was generally on target.”

“The consistent use of initial letters of instruction, initial case analysis, budgets and litigation plans

would serve to keep the litigation process on track as well as confirm that the case is being managed

by the adjuster rather than the defense counsel.”

Areas of improvement /Actions Items

Staffing - In the 2014 audit there were 469 open claims handled by staff and a team of 5 to 6 independent

adjusters. The list of open claims in 2017 rose to 920 and in addition to the staff, was handled by same

number of independent adjusters. We have had changes in the claims staff (Denise retiring, Jerry departing,

and Tracey and Cedric coming on board), and additionally WSTIP began to handle all Pierce Transit claims

(which we previously handled utilizing Pierce Transit staff paid by Interlocal Agreement). The claims audit

recognizes that we need to address staffing needs in the claims department.

Staff had already recognized this as an issue and received approval to hire a Claims Associate (estimated to

be on board in early April 2018). This will enable us to manage caseloads based not only on geographical

location but also on claim type and recommended workload maximums. For example, property damage (PD)

claims are less time-consuming than bodily injury (BI). Our new Claims Associate position, along with the

existing Claims and Technology Assistant will take some of the PD claims, which will decrease independent

adjuster workload and increase time for them to provide efficient and quality work on our higher-level PD and

BI claims.

Additionally, we will expand the adjusting and defense counsel rosters to not only help manage workload, but

to create some depth in the team’s knowledge and experience with WSTIP and our Members. Staff expects to

put out a RFI or RFQ in 2018.

Semi-Annual In-House Audits – It was recommended that staff do a semi-annual in-house claims audit, and

once staffing is completed we will start doing this. The Claims Department will conduct at least, semi-annual

audits, to provide feedback to all involved parties, ensure meaningful direction and follow-up, and to confirm

claims are moving towards fair and equitable resolutions in the most effective and efficient manner.

In order to improve the accuracy of claim our files, the Coverage, Liability, Injury/Damages, Plan of Action,

Reserves method of reporting/noting was recommended (CLIPR). This will also help spur essential

communication, analysis, thoughts, ideas, and direction.

Update Claims Handling Procedures – The claims audit recommends and staff had already identified a

need to update our claims handling procedures/manual. This manual had not been updated since the change

to Origami and many processes are out of date. Combining the Claims Manual, the Independent Adjusters

Guidelines, and the Defense Counsel Guidelines will create a comprehensive source for WSTIP staff to

manage claims and litigation.

Liability Claims Audit Report

January 2018

Prepared by:

Gary Jennings, CPCU, ARM, ALCM, AIC, ARe, SCLA

(678) 520-3739

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool Claims Audit – January 2018

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Description Page I. Executive Summary 3 II. Gap Analysis to Leading Industry Practices 4 III. Objective and Scope 5 IV. Findings and Recommendations 7

A. GENERAL CLAIM PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 8 1. Organizational Structure 8 2. Staffing 9 3. Procedural Documentation 11 4. Claims System 13

B. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT 15 1. File Documentation, Organization, and Support 15 2. Claims Intake, Set-up, and Assignment 16 3. Contact 16 4. Investigations 17 5. Liability Decisions 18 6. Payments and Supporting Documentation 18 7. Reserving 19 8. Settlement Evaluations and Negotiations 20 9. Litigation Management 21

10. Recoveries 22 11. Supervision 23

VI. Conclusion 24


3

l. Executive Summary and Key Recommendations Gary Jennings of Strategic Claims Direction LLC (“SCD”) performed a claims audit of a sample of Liability in 2017 for the Washington State Transit Insurance Pool (the WSTIP” or “the Pool”). The Pool’s claims are self-administered with assistance on most claims by outside adjusters. We performed a gap analysis to evaluate how the WSTIP’s performance adhered to leading industry practices, and to provide recommendations if we identified gaps between its performance and leading industry practices. We accessed the claim files for our claims audit through Origami, which the WSTIP uses for its claims administration system. The audit revealed that the Pool meets leading industry practices in most areas. We provide recommendations in only two areas, which we will discuss in the following paragraphs.

Specifically, the areas in which the Pool’s performance met leading industry practices in its liability program were as follows: Prompt claim review, set-up, and assignment Documentation by the POOL claims staff and independent adjusters of their actions, plans, and decisions Timely contact with the member representatives and the claimants Prompt and thorough investigations Appropriate liability decisions Accurate indemnity payments with appropriate damages documentation Reserves which were within a reasonable range Identifying and pursuing potential recoveries

The following claims management categories are those in which the Pool’s performance did not meet leading industry practices and require improvement.

Supervising the claims with meaningful direction and follow-up

Key Recommendations

The Pool should:

Develop systematic and meaningful supervisory reviews to ensure that the claims are headed toward closure or document the supervision which takes place.


4

II. Gap Analysis to Leading Industry Practices

The following matrix summarizes The Pool’s conformance to leading industry practice. We describe the Leading Industry Practices at the beginning of each of the sections that describes key claims management components and activities, and we also provide our findings and recommendations.

The following key illustrates our expectation levels.

The color key for the assessment is:

Exceeds expectations

Meets expectations

Below expectations – needs attention

Much below expectations – significant problems need immediate attention

Our summary of THE WSTIP’s performance in the major claims management categories is shown in the following table: Key

√ Leading Industry Practices / Standards were met X Leading Industry Practices / Standards were not met

Sections Claims Management Components

Consistent with leading

industry practices?

A. GENERAL PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS See below

1. Organizational Model √

2. Staffing Expertise √

3. Procedural Documentation √

4. Claims System √

B. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT See below

1. File documentation, Organization, & Support √

2. Claim Intake, Set-up, & Assignment √

3. Contact √

4. Investigations √

5. Liability Decisions √


5

Sections Claims Management Components

Consistent with leading

industry practices?

6. Indemnity Payments & Supporting Documentation √

7. Reserving √

8. Claim Resolution / Settlements √

9. Litigation Management √

10. Recoveries √

11. Supervision √

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (Average) √

III. Objectives and Scope

SCD was engaged by the Pool to perform this claims audit to measure its program against leading industry practices. The agreed deliverable was to provide a report to the Pool evaluating the performance of its liability claims program. Our analysis is based on our analysis of a sample of claims that we reviewed via access to the Origami system. Our work included:

Review of documents that the Pool provided at our request including, but not limited to: o 2017 open liability claims from 10/1/2014 – 10/1/2017 attached o Closed claims from 10/1/16 to 10/1/17 attached o Current Excess/Reinsurance information o Payment/Reserve Authority Level o Reports (Monthly Claim Report, Open Claim by Adjuster) o Organization Chart o Claims Manual o Independent Adjuster Guidelines o Defense Counsel Guidelines o Loss of Use Rate Documentation o In-house repair facility rates

Review of a sample of 68 liability claims randomly selected from the loss runs.


6

o One loss run titled “2017 Claims Audit Open Loss Run” reportedly listed all open claims and included the name of the Outside Adjuster and the WSTIP Adjuster. This list included 920 claims. In most cases, however this loss run listed the independent adjuster in both columns. The information following shows the number of claims managed by each “WSTIP adjuster”, as they were referred to in this report.

“WSTIP Claims Professional” # of Claims

Bruce Gibbs 31 Cara Deblinger 113 Cedric Adams 47 Craig Vance 47 Denise Ellison 2 Diane Manzer 42 Jim McDonald 73 Julie Kemink 22 Karey Thornton 388 Liz Bowers 1 Marie Carey 47 Tracey Christianson 6 Valerie McAfee 101 TOTAL 920

o Another loss run we received was titled “Open Claims by All Adjusters.” This loss run also included the names of the

“WSTIP Adjusters” as defined in the previous report, and also had a column titled “WSTIP Backup Adjuster”, which included

the names of the WSTIP Pool personnel who were responsible for oversight. The number of claims managed by each of the WSTIP Pool personnel as “WSTIP Backup Adjuster” were:

WSTIP Pool personnel # of Claims

Cedric Adams 340 Denise Ellison 1 Karey Thornton 360 Tracey Christianson 216


7

No Name Listed 2 TOTAL 919

Note there is a slight discrepancy in the total

o The claim types or coverages of the sample of claims we audited were:

Type or Coverage # of Claims

Auto Liability: Bodily Injury (3rd Party) 39 Auto Liability: Property Damage (3rd Party) 22 Auto Liability : Legacy 2 Underinsured Motorist 4 General Liability: Property Damage (3rd Party) 1 TOTAL 68

o The statuses of the claims reviewed were:

Status # of Claims

Open 45 Reopened 5 Closed 18 TOTAL 68

As noted previously, the Pool often assigns claims to independent adjusters for managing the claims. The Pool claims staff provides oversight of the IAs’ work and provides instruction and guidance as needed.

IV. Findings and Recommendations

The Pool wished to compare its claims management performance to leading industry practices. Our description of leading industry practices is shown in each portion of Section B. The evaluation of the Pool’s claims practices and the comparison to leading industry practices are based on our professional experience and observation of insurers, third party administrators, and self-administered programs.

The findings are based on the interviews with the Pool‘s representatives, documentation review, and a review of the sample of open and closed claims, which were selected as described in the previous section. We provide recommendations if there is a gap between


8

the Pool’s practices and leading industry practices. This report refers in each section to our findings and recommendations relative to numerous components of management.

We are not providing department names, claimant names, or claim file numbers so that the appropriate privacy can be maintained. To continue our emphasis on privacy we have identified the claims using the following Audit Reference Numbers L1 to L69. We provided the Pool with a cross-reference table that lists the claims in our sample with the respective Audit Reference Numbers for the claims reviewed. A. GENERAL CLAIMS PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 1. Organizational Structure Summary – Leading Industry Practices

The claims are managed by a claims unit which is managed and directed by a Claims Manager or Supervisor. Claims are managed by adjusters with jurisdictional experience and expertise. The supervisor oversees the day-to-day activities and performance of the adjusters, and provides direction and training when required. The claims staff may assign claims to independent adjusters (INDEPENDENT ADJUSTERs) with the specific expertise needed for the types of claims assigned. Some claims programs use independent adjusters to provide specific expertise or to augment their internal claims staff. The extent to which this is successful depends upon the requirements the managing adjusters provide for the independent adjusters, the experience and expertise of the independent adjusters, and the supervision over these adjusters. The claims staff frequently reviews the claims assigned to independent adjusters to confirm that they are managing the claims in accordance with the company’s claims management practices and procedures.

Findings Recommendations

We were provided with an undated organization chart. We understand that the Executive Director shown on the chart has retired and the Deputy Director has been promoted as Executive Director.

The claims organization reports to the Executive Director and Deputy Director. The Pool’s personnel who managed or supervised the claims that we reviewed were:

Position

Deputy Director (now Executive Director) Tracey Christianson Claims Manager Cedric Adams Claims & Technology Assistant Karey Thornton

None. The organizational structure meets Leading Industry Practices.

The independent adjusters managing claims on behalf of the Pool generally performed well.


9

These Pool professionals typically assign claims to independent adjusters which the WSTIP claims staff can use whenever needed. The people and independent adjuster companies that the Pool assigned on the sample of claims we reviewed were: o Valerie McAfee, Marie Carey, and Bruce Gibbs - Partners Claims Services

o Jim McDonald - JG McDonald & Associates

o Bronwyn Wilson - Rose City Adjusters

o Craig Nance - Zaremba Claims Services

o Tanya Kassa – Kassa Adjusting

o Diane Manzer – AmeriClaim

Thirteen (13) of the claims reviewed (19.12%) were not assigned to independent adjusters but were fully handled by Pool personnel.

The claims we reviewed were managed principally by the independent adjusters with periodic oversight by the Claims Manager, the Claims & Technology Assistant, and the Deputy Director.

In general, the independent adjusters assigned to the claims we reviewed provided useful services to the Pool.

2. Staffing and Caseloads

Summary – Leading Industry Practices

Adjusters in each line should have pending caseloads that allow them to proactively manage their assigned claims, and the caseloads should be equitable among claims personnel with similar titles and responsibilities. Caseloads in each line that are consistent with leading industry standards are as shown in the chart below. These assume that the Pool personnel or a TPA are managing the claims

Claim Type

Workload

Maximum Comments

AL and GL Property Damage, Auto Physical Damage, UIM PD

200 - 250 These claims turn over quickly. The primary responsibility is promptly obtaining an appraisal or estimates to determine the amount to pay for repair or replacement.

AL or GL Bodily Injury Claims, UIM BI

125 This assumes a diverse range of BI claims, ranging from minimal injuries to severe or even catastrophic injuries and complex claims, including litigation. It also assumes that the adjusters use a relatively efficient claims management system to perform their duties.


10

If claims are assigned to independent adjusters, the Pool should confirm that the independent adjuster employees are fully qualified to handle the claims they are assigned. The additional reporting responsibilities that are required to perform should require a somewhat smaller pending caseload maximum for them, preferably in the range of 85 to 100 claims. Claims managers and supervisors should carry no pending workloads, since their responsibilities include oversight and management of the claims office and the claims personnel. They should maintain close oversight over adjusters who are managing complex and/or litigated claims. They are also responsible for managing vendors to whom the claims administrator has outsourced specific functions (e.g., medical bill review, medical case management, legal defense).


The claims staff is generally well qualified to manage the Pool’s claims.

The Deputy Director, the Claims Manager, and the Claims & Technology Assistant oversee all claims. The Claims & Technology Assistant also handles minor property damage claims.

We were provided with a report titled “Open Claims by All Adj” dated 10/1/17 which listed the

open claims managed by each adjuster. This report was somewhat confusing, however, because it also listed independent adjuster representatives and Pool employees as the primary adjusters. The claim counts for each adjuster were:

Adjuster # Comments

Bruce Gibbs 31 Partners Claims Services Cara Deblinger 113 Former WSTIP employee Cedric Adams 47 Claims Manager of WSTIP Craig Nance 47 Zaremba Claim Service Denise Ellison 2 Former WSTIP employee Diane Manzer 42 AmeriClaim Jim McDonald 73 JG McDonald & Associates Julie Kemink 22 Former WSTIP employee Karey Thornton 388 WSTIP Claims & Technology Assistant Liz Bowers 1 Former WSTIP employee Marie Carey 47 Partners Claims Services Tracey Christianson 6 WSTIP Deputy Director (now Executive Director) Valerie McAfee 101 Partners Claims Services TOTAL 920

The Pool should clarify its reports by listing the IAs separately from the Pool claims staff so there can be a clear accounting of the claims overseen or managed by the WSTIP claims staff and the claims assigned to IA representatives.

.Claims still assigned to former WSTIP employees should be re-assigned to current WSTIP employees.

It appears that the WSTIP needs additional personnel to manage the claims handled by Karey Thornton and those handled by former WSTIP employees.

The promotion of the Deputy Director to Executive Director also means that her ongoing responsibilities for claims oversight should cease. These claims should be reassigned to the Claims Manager.


11

We also noted that some claims were still assigned to former WSTIP employees. Based on our recommended caseloads, the caseloads are appropriate except for that of

Karey Thornton, WSTIP Claims & Technology Assistant. Her caseload of 388 claims is excessive. While she manages minor property damage claims for the most part, she also handles a few bodily injury claims and oversees the work of several independent adjusters.

Our review indicated that the Pool claims staff and the independent adjuster representatives possessed the appropriate experience and expertise.

The Pool should conduct a staffing analysis to determine the number of claims professionals required to appropriately manage and supervise the current open claims and expected future claims volume.

3. Procedural Documentation Summary – Leading Industry Practices

Procedural documentation (e.g., Claims Procedures) should include detailed guidance/checklists on executing claims management activities and steps (e.g., investigation, litigation management, subrogation/recoveries) to include interview guides and investigation checklists. Procedures should also include times in which specific activities should be performed (e.g., three-point contact within one working day of claim receipt). The claims system is used to document the claim.


The WSTIP maintains several manuals and reference documents to guide the claims staff in the management of claims. The 2016 CLAIMS MANUAL, which was revised 7/29/16, is a 13-page manual with the following unnumbered sections: Section Section Name

Mission Statement

The Role of WSTIP Claims Personnel

Receipt of an Event and Potential Claim

Coverage

Establishing an Event File

Establishing a Claim File

Outside Investigators/Adjusters

Diary

Reporting to Excess Carriers/Reinsurers

Contact After Notice

The Pool may consider combining the CLAIMS MANUAL, THE

INDEPENDENT ADJUSTERS

GUIDELINES, and THE DEFENSE

COUNSEL GUIDELINES to create a more comprehensive single manual which includes not only the topics already covered but also additional topics and directions we recommend.

Establish section numbers for each section of the 2016 CLAIMS MANUAL so it will be easier to refer to specific sections or topics as needed.

The manual provides preliminary guidance to THE WSTIP’s claims


12

Investigation of the Event

WSTIP Reserving Philosophy and Practices

Additional WSTI Reserve Practices

Liability Determination and Denials

Notice of Representation

Litigation Files

Documentation

Requesting Payment

Settlement Authority of WSTIP Staff

File Closing

Subrogation

Other Claims Department Responsibilities

Appendix List

The WSTIP maintains INDEPENDENT ADJUSTER GUIDELINES 2016. This 3-page document includes the following sections: Section

# Section Name

I Introduction II Claim Assignment III Getting Started IV Interim Reports V Meetings with Members and Claimants VI Billing VII Ongoing Communications VIII Settlements

The WSTIP also maintains DEFENSE COUNSEL GUIDELINES. This 6-page document was shown as amended in December 2003. These guidelines describe defense counsel’s

requirements and responsibilities. This document includes the following sections:

staff, but does not provide detailed checklists, investigation guidelines, and other aids which would be beneficial by defining more specific requirements and steps for each part of the claims management processes. This would improve consistency and help the adjusters to perform their claims management responsibilities without omitting key parts. For example, the manual could include items such as the following with greater detail: o “Red flags” which might indicate

that the claim is potentially fraudulent

o “Red flags” or scenarios which

provide advice or guidance on identifying potential subrogation

o Investigation checklists o Recorded statement guidelines

We provide additional recommendations concerning the DEFENSE COUNSEL

GUIDELINES in Section 9

LITIGATION MANAGEMENT of this report.


13

Section

# Section Name

I Introduction II Case Assignment III Getting Started IV Periodic Reports or Requests V Meetings with Member VI Billings VII On-Going Communications VIII Settlements

The WSTIP also maintains Loss of Use Rate Documentation regarding its vehicles as well as In-house repair facility rates.

4. Claims System Summary – Leading Industry Practices

The claims program uses a claims system or Risk Management Information System (RMIS) which not only stores the financial transactions (e.g., payments and reserves) for each claim, but also provide useful tools to assist the Adjusters and supervisors in their day-to-day responsibilities. Adjusters may record their activities in the claim file, which may be viewed either chronologically or by claims management component (e.g., 3-point contact, investigation, recoveries, litigation management, and supervision). The system is set up to trigger diaries or transfers to other claims personnel, including supervisors or managers who may need to approve or authorize payments or reserves which exceed the Adjusters’ authority levels. Trigger diaries or assignments may also be used to require review at specific cost levels (e.g., when a claim’s total incurred cost exceeds $50,000; when a reserve change exceeds

$10,000; when a claim reaches 50% of the SIR and reporting is required to the excess carrier). The claims system or RMIS also provides a library of standard reports which may be selected, altered somewhat, and scheduled for regular distribution to selected personnel. The system also provides user-friendly or intuitive tools to allow the users to create ad hoc reports when needed for claims department management, distribution to selected customers, and/or financial management purposes. The claims system is linked to an imaging system that allows the storage and easy retrieval of documents which have been scanned into the system. Ideally, these scanned documents are associated with notes in the claim files which refer to information in those


14

documents. Lastly, the system facilitates electronic claims management, which does not require the use of hardcopy files. This feature allows adjusters, supervisors, managers, and others to review the claim files in their entirety, and this can be done within the claims office or if a reader is working remotely. This also allows the organization to work remotely in the event of any emergency event which prevents employees from going to the office. With proper back-up claims systems also allow users to retrieve information that would no longer be available in a hardcopy file in the event of an emergency or catastrophe. Electronic files also reduce or eliminate the need for on-site and off-site storage of hardcopy files, and allow for a simpler process for file destruction when the appropriate time passes.


The Pool uses Origami as its claims system. Origami is a strong Risk Management Information System (RMIS) which has many features beyond its claims management module. We did not review the use of Origami beyond its use as a claims system, since that would be beyond the scope of this engagement.

The WSTIP claims staff and independent adjusters used Origami effectively to manage the Pool’s claims.

None.


15

B. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT Core claims management practices provide consistent claims management and are applied to all departments and to all claims when possible. These practices establish roles and responsibilities so that the appropriate actions will be taken and documented. The claims system’s diary system is used to schedule future activities and to enhance the timeliness of actions taken. We reviewed the sample of claims to determine if the required activities and steps were taken. The review was based on the documented activities and information found within the <claims system> file notes and financial transactions, and documents maintained in the hardcopy files. We reviewed these files with the presumption that activities or

tasks that were not documented were not performed. 1. File Documentation, Organization, and Support

Summary - Leading Industry Practices

Claim files are thoroughly documented by all claims personnel managing or reviewing a claim (e.g., adjusters, supervisors, directors, managers, and others). The file notes include summaries of conversations, interviews, investigations, pertinent correspondence, strategies, and action plans. The claim files should be organized, structured and documented so that any reader may review the file and promptly determine the status and action plan to resolve the claim. Vendors are required to submit periodic and concise updates on their work. Claims systems include diaries that may be user-directed or automated. The adjusters are required to develop and document action plans at specific intervals, starting at 14 days after the claim was opened and assigned. The action plans briefly restate the injury information and information about the incident and the involved parties. The adjusters identify steps that must be taken to move the claim toward resolution, with specific target dates for completion. The adjuster reviews the reserves when each action plan is developed to confirm that the reserves are reasonable based on the information available. Subsequent reviews are done every 60 to 90 days, the frequency of which will differ depending on the severity of the injury, the treatment required, and other actors. If unexpected events occur, the adjuster may find it necessary to develop action plans earlier than 60 or 90 days. Supervisors, directors, and managers periodically review the claims to confirm that the adjusters are managing the claims appropriately and to guide the adjusters as needed. The managers or supervisors also fully document their review and instructions in the claims notes. The adjusters document discussions between the adjusters and the managers or supervisors that relate to individual claims.


16


In general, we found that the Pool claims staff and independent adjusters input notes, maintained documents, and set diaries appropriately.

2. Claim Intake, Set-Up, and Assignment Summary – Leading Industry Practices

Claims should be set up and assigned on the same day as the receipt of the claim. If that is not possible due to the late afternoon arrival of a new claim, then the claim should be set up and assigned no later than one working day after claim receipt.


Our review indicated that claims were typically set up and assigned the same day of receipt. . None.

3. Contact Summary – Leading Industry Practices

For liability claims, the Adjuster makes two-point contact within one working day of claim receipt. This includes contact with the school representative and the claimant(s). This prompt contact is critical for several reasons, including but not limited to the following: The adjuster begins the investigation promptly, which allows all claims management decisions to be initiated promptly The school may provide information in addition to the information provided on the initial first notice of loss. The claimant is aware that his/her claim has been reported and the claim is being investigated The school representative and claimant(s) are promptly informed of actions they need to take to move the claim forward The adjuster, the school representative, and the claimant(s) set up communication channels for future discussions.


The initial contact, especially with claimants, was sometimes delayed. Examples included o L6 when contact was made two days after receipt, o L10 when the claim was set up 9/30/16 but the first notes were 10/10/16, o L12 when there was nothing in the file to indicate prompt contact with the claimant, o L66 and L68 when the Pool claims staff handled the claims.

We could not determine in some cases when the independent adjuster contacted the member or the claimant. Examples included L19, L20, and L22. The date the assignment was received, the date of contact with the claimant(s), and the date a recorded statement was taken were not shown on the report. Therefore we were unable to confirm timely

Contact all parties within one workday of claim receipt or one workday after a claimant or witness is identified and their contact information is available.

Require the independent adjusters to record the date of assignment and the date of contact with all parties.


17

contact. 4. Investigations Summary – Leading Industry Practices

Investigations are initiated at the time of first contact, which should occur within one working day of claim receipt. Documented investigation procedures are developed and documented for current and future claims personnel to provide guidance for managing claims effectively, and to develop and maintain consistent practices. Prompt investigation is needed to not only determine liability, but is also needed to gather information concerning the initial estimate of property damage or bodily injury. The initial investigation may include information such as:` Information from the member regarding the facts of the claim based on the information provided by the employee involved in the

incident, or of property conditions if a general liability claim is submitted that relate to the current claim. Investigations covering liability issues if there is subrogation potential Recorded statements taken from the employee and any witnesses to the incident Obtaining police reports, fire reports or reports from other public authorities that assist in determination of the cause of the alleged

incident. Submitting an inquiry to ISO ClaimSearch to determine if the claimant had previously reported workers’ compensation lost time

claims or liability bodily injury claims for the same part of the body or for conditions that might impact the recovery and ultimate condition of the claimant when s/he reaches maximum medical improvement.


As with initial contact, in some cases were could not determine the timing that the investigations began. Examples include the same claims listed in the previous section.

We found no evidence that the Pool used ISO ClaimSearch to obtain information concerning prior injuries. This can be a useful resource for identifying prior injuries or illnesses that require additional investigation.

Require the Pool claims staff and the independent adjusters to clearly show when they began the investigation, the dates they performed specific tasks relative to the investigation, and when they took recorded statements from the claimant and witnesses.

Use ISO ClaimSearch for all bodily injury claims. This can be automated through Origami.


18

5. Liability Decisions Summary – Leading Industry Practices

Liability decisions are made by the adjusters with guidance by the Directors. Clients may provide input to make liability decisions, but the Director of Claims has final authority. The basis for the liability decisions are documented in the claims files. Liability decisions are made and communicated to the involved parties as promptly as possible to maintain control over the claim to the extent possible.


We agreed with the liability decisions reached by the Pool adjusters or independent adjusters.

We also found evidence of discussions between the Pool claims staff, the independent adjusters, and sometimes defense counsel to review questions of liability and reach a decision.

None.

6. Payments (Indemnity)


Authority is sufficient for the claims staff to efficiently complete their job functions, while providing appropriate controls. Claims are resolved promptly, and the information on which the resolutions are based shall be maintained in the claims file. Claims requiring mandatory reporting to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) shall be filed as required.


We found that the damages were well documented and supported the settlement values and ultimate payments.

Generally, the payment authority levels were:

Position

Payment/Reserve

Authority Levels

Executive Director $250,000 Deputy Director $100,000 Claims Manager $50,000 Claims & Technology Assistant $5,000

None relative to damages documentation.

The payment authority levels are reasonable and consistent with other pools we have audited.


19

7. Reserving Summary – Leading Industry Practices

Initial case reserves are established on the claims system at the time or shortly after the claim is received and set up. Some claims organizations establish initial case reserves on the day the claim is input into the claims system, while others input an initial estimate at a later point, but in all cases within 30 days of claim receipt. It is critical to update reserves as circumstances require, and the Adjuster and supervisor should take a long-view of the expected ultimate outcome of the claim to avoid stairstepping reserves. This is especially important in WC claims, in which some claims are of a “long tail” nature (e.g., claims may remain open for many months or years, such as WC lost time claims). The claims file/system includes a reserve analysis worksheet based on the information obtained to date. Reasonable case reserves rely upon the Adjuster’s active involvement in all claims management phases, including litigation and settlements.


The WSTIP 2016 CLAIMS MANUAL specifies that claim reserves are to be based on the State of Washington’s Local Government Self-Insurance Program claims reserving guidelines. This means that the WSTIP claims personnel reserve at Jury Verdict Value, which includes adjustments from full value based on degrees of negligence, the presence of co-defendants and their probable contributions, and other factors. Several examples are shown for clarity.

The claims staff has differing levels of authority depending on the position. The reserve authority levels are the same as the payment authority levels, which are:

Position

Payment/Reserve

Authority Levels

Executive Director $250,000 Deputy Director $100,000 Claims Manager $50,000 Claims & Technology Assistant $5,000

Liability claims reserves do not change frequently, since the Pool claims staff or independent adjusters base property damage claims on appraisals or one or more shop estimates. Bodily injury claim reserves are often not revised until the Pool claims staff or independent adjusters receive the related medical bills, medical reports, and confirmed wage losses (if any) from

None.


20

the claimant. When claimants are represented, it often requires several weeks or months for the adjuster to obtain the demand package from the claimants’ attorneys. In the meantime it

is difficult to assess the reasonableness of the reserves. We found that the Pool’s reserve estimates, which were often recommended by the

independent adjusters, were within a reasonable range. We found a few minor exceptions, such as L3, but the reserves were reasonable and based on the Jury Verdict Value.

8. Settlement Evaluations


The claims staff members promptly identify and pursue settlement opportunities based on the permanent impairment ratings provided by qualified physicians. Independent medical examinations may be required to ensure that an objective and qualified physician provides the rating. Settlement authority levels are established to provide control. Claims personnel submit proposed settlements in excess of their authority to the next higher level of supervision or management. The adjusters, for example, will review and approve a settlement proposal submitted to them, and if it is above their authority, will submit to the Supervisor, who has greater authority. Settlements are submitted to the board for approval or to a court for approval if required in that jurisdiction.


We were provided with the settlement authority levels, which is shown below: Position Settlement Authority

WSTIP Executive Committee

Any liability claims over $100,000 and first party claims over $100,000

Executive Director

$100,000 per claimant for third party claims and $100,000 for first party claims with the concurrence of the WSTIP Board President

Deputy Director $100,000 per claimant for first and third party claims Claims Manager $30,000 per claimant for first and third party claims Claims Assistant $5,000 per claimant for first and third party claims Realistically, however, the Pool claims staff discusses settlements prior to determine a maximum amount to authorize for settlement, whether the settlements are negotiated by the Pool claims staff, independent adjusters, or defense counsel.

The independent adjusters have no authority except that given by the Pool claims staff. The same is true for defense counsel.

These settlement authority levels are reasonable and are similar to other risk pools we have

None.


21

audited.

9. Litigation Management


Claims personnel manage the litigation process, resolving issues with claimants’ attorneys when possible. When required, the claims

personnel promptly send suits/hearing notices to defense counsel with specific instructions on actions to take. Claims personnel continue to negotiate with claimants’ attorneys when it poses no danger to the Pool with the hope that the claims can be resolved with minimal or no legal expenses. A small number of defense firms are identified for defense purposes to provide control. Fee arrangements are negotiated prior to using the defense firm. Litigation management procedures are developed that defense counsel must follow to provide consistent litigation management and that clarify the Pool’s and the defense attorneys’ roles and responsibilities. These procedures may include items such as timely confirmation of assignments, method and timing of updates, creation of budgets, fee and billing agreements, etc. Defense firms/attorneys are audited periodically to confirm adherence to agreed-upon procedures.


The WSTIP created the DEFENSE COUNSEL GUIDELINES to clarify the defense attorneys’

requirements while defending the WSTIP and its members. These guidelines define the defense attorney’s role and responsibilities relative to litigated cases.

These guidelines do not clarify the adjusters’ activities and steps in litigated cases. The Pool should not only protect its clients but also keep legal expenses at the lowest level possible. That can only be done through the adjuster’s direction to defense counsel.

We noted claims (L4 is an example) where it appeared the member had some liability for the claimant’s property damage and bodily injury. We did not see, however, the adjuster’s

consideration that a settlement should be attempted before additional legal expenses were incurred.

The DEFENSE COUNSEL GUIDELINES are useful for defining the defense attorneys’

roles and responsibilities for litigated claims.

We have found in our claims audits that the roles and responsibilities of the adjusters are also critical to define so that the adjusters guide the defense attorneys. The adjusters should regularly consider all resolution alternatives to litigation, when feasible, and evaluate the case value at intervals in the preparation for litigation. This will keep the adjuster and the defense attorney focused on taking


22

only the litigation steps required to resolve the claims. For example, the adjuster should assess the claim and if settlement has strong potential, then the adjuster should tell the defense attorney to abstain from scheduling a deposition until settlement negotiations have reached an impasse. This helps to reduce the litigation expenses, which have gotten increasingly costly in the management of liability claims.

10. Recoveries


Claims personnel begin the subrogation identification and investigative process at initial contact. The claims personnel identify potential subrogation opportunities and perform or direct the investigation required to assess liability. Potentially responsible third parties are promptly put on notice of the subrogation lien and are updated periodically on the claims’ status. Full recovery is pursued where possible. Any reduction in the lien must be approved by the Claims Director or Assistant Directors or the Pool representative with that level of authority. If tort feasors can be found and contacted but refuse to reimburse the Pool, the Pool should contact the state to begin the process of terminating the other party’s driver’s privileges if the damage or injury was due to a motor vehicle accident. If the loss was due to a crime, the county prosecuting attorney in the county of loss should be informed of the damage and should be informed of the cost of the claim so that restitution can be included in sentencing. If all else fails and the loss cost is sufficiently large for cost-effective pursuit, then the adjuster may assign the claim to a subrogation attorney who will pursue the reimbursement for a percentage of the recovery.


The Pool claims staff recognized and pursued potential recovery opportunities. None.


23

If tort feasors were uninsured, the Pool requested that they reimburse the Pool in a lump sum payment, or if needed, by signing a promissory note arranging to pay specific amounts per week or month.

The Pool also informed county prosecuting attorneys of the claims costs if a party had been arrested for an act that caused the loss. This was done so that restitution could be included in the sentencing if it was appropriate and cost-effective.

11. Supervision


Supervisors review the adjusters’ work at specific intervals to confirm that the adjusters are managing the claim in a proactive manner and are thorough and timely in their work. The supervisor should review each bodily injury claim approximately 30 days after the claim has been opened and assigned and approximately every 45 to 60 days thereafter. The supervisor should review the adequacy of the adjuster’s work to that point, and should evaluate the reasonableness of case reserves. If the supervisor observes effective and timely claims management in the different categories, then the supervisor should affirm the performance with the adjuster. If the supervisor identifies areas or steps requiring improvement, the supervisor should point these out and direct the adjuster when needed. The supervisor should document the review, findings, and direction, and should follow up in subsequent reviews to confirm that the work continues to be effective, and that any directions or improvements which were identified in the prior review have been followed. The supervisor may also see, from these reviews of individual adjuster performance or all adjusters’ performance, areas that require general improvement which could be accomplished through additional training.


The Claims Manager is ultimately responsible for the management of the claims. The Pool claims staff is also responsible for overseeing the work of the independent adjusters. We are concerned that the claims volume exceeds the Pool’s ability to properly supervise the claims.

We also noted that some of the small claims managed by the Claims & Technology Assistant were not supervised by others higher in the chain of command (examples include L66, L67, and L68). The Assistant managed these claims properly, but we believe that all claims, regardless of whether they are high or low in cost, should be supervised to some extent.

Perform a staffing assessment so that the Pool will have the appropriate number of claims personnel to manage claims efficiently and effectively.

It is not feasible for a Claims Manager to review all small value claims. We recommend, however,


24

that the Pool establish a supervisory audit procedure so that the Claims Manager or his designee reviews a random sample of small value claims on a monthly basis.

V. Conclusion

In general, we found that the Pool managed its claims in adherence to leading industry practices. The primary recommendations focus on performing a staffing assessment to determine the number of Pool claims personnel required and to develop an audit procedure for the review of a random sample of claims of all sizes, including low-cost claims. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Washington State Transit Insurance Pool with this claims audit. Please contact Gary Jennings at 678.520.3739 if you require additional information or clarification.

February 8, 2018

TO: WSTIP Board of Directors


Andrea Powell, Administrative Services Manager

Joanne Kerrigan, Member Services Manager

Cedric Adams, Claims Manager

SUBJECT: Executive Staff Report – February 2018

GEM

Al and I attended the GEM strategic planning retreat and Board meeting. It was interesting to see an

organization like GEM grapple with issues of like relevance, growth, and membership retention. There

was a very interesting overlap of issues from our own retreat to theirs. I will distribute the minutes from

the GEM Board meeting next month when those become available.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACTIVITIES

FACILITIES

The WSTIP Conference room refresh is in progress and is scheduled to be complete by the time the

Executive Committee meets. We have installed new conferencing equipment; paint, carpet and cabinet

work. The contractor was selected utilizing the available contracts from the State of Washington.

ORIGAMI

The Origami contract is due for renewal in March. Staff provided the prior agreement to Rick Hughes,

general legal counsel, for review and we received his feedback. We have done some preliminary

negotiations on costs.

TECHNICAL SERVICES

Andrea has been out of the office with the flu. She will update this section verbally during the meeting.

ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS

The mid-year actuarial analysis, rate study, and assessment calculations was finalized post-Board

meeting. This report is included in your packet. As a reminder, we did have one member ask for more

UIM coverage post calculation of the assessments. This means the total assessment (income) numbers

will be off by a slight amount because of that additional UIM. However, we asked the actuary to correct

their report so it would be obvious and give our financial statements a reliance number.

In related activity, staff has sent the year-end actuarial data to PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for

analysis and we received a preliminary report on Wednesday. We have not had a chance to review the

report with PWC, however, it appears adverse loss history is increasing the target surplus requirements.

Page 2 of 11

THURSTON COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL – NEW INVESTMENTS

WSTIP now owns $20 million in designated investments and will be paid interest as coupons are received

from issuer/safekeeping. WSTIP will also be paid the full $5 million on each security as they mature. The

yield calculation is a calculation of the interest rate of the bond as well as the price paid for each

security. The difference in the face value and the amount paid at maturity is included in the yield

calculation. The total amount of cash out to be charged to WSTIP’s fund = $19,834,643.30

Here is a break-down of instruments that were purchased and maturity dates:

$5 million Treasury maturing 11/30/2019 with a 1.75 coupon at a discount. Principal amount at said

discount = $4,985,156.25, accrued interest on security to date $8,173.08 for a total cash out of

$4,993,329.33 and a yield of 1.908964.



$4,953,683.04 and a yield of 2.008496.



$4,932,782.46 and a yield of 2.154318.



$4,954,848.47.

UPCOMING WSTIP-RELATED MEETINGS AND EVENTS

2018 Feb 15 – Executive Committee Meeting, WSTIP Offices, Olympia

Mar 4-7 – AGRIP Spring Conference, San Diego, CA

Mar 22 & 23 – Quarterly Board Meeting, Alderbrook Lodge, Union (near Shelton)

Apr 26 – Executive Committee Meeting, WSTIP Offices, Olympia

May 24 – Executive Committee Meeting, WSTIP Offices, Olympia

Jun 3-6 – PRIMA Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN

Jun 28 & 29 – Quarterly Board Meeting, The Davenport Hotel, Spokane

Jul 26 – Executive Committee, WSTIP Offices, Olympia

Aug 5-8 – AGRIP Senior Staff Institute, Vancouver, B.C.

Aug 18 & 19 – WSTA Roadeo, Tri-Cities area

Aug 20 & 22 – WSTA Public Transportation Conference, Tri-Cities area

Aug 23 – Executive Committee Meeting, WSTIP Offices, Olympia

Sep 9-12 – Gettysburg Leadership Experience, Taney Town, PA

Sep 11-14 – CAJPA Conference, Lake Tahoe, NV

Sep 27 & 28 – Quarterly Board meeting, Heathman Lodge, Vancouver

Sep 30-Oct 3 – AGRIP Fall Education Conference, Portland OR

Oct 25 – Executive Committee, WSTIP Offices, Olympia

Dec 6 & 7 – Quarterly Board meeting, TBD

Board Member Rep travel is in bold.

Page 3 of 11

MEMBER SERVICES ACTIVITIES

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT

Laura Juell, Risk and Training Coordinator will be going on maternity leave and is expected to come back

March 19. Kathy Thompson, a temporary employee, has been contracted to help take over some of

Laura’s tasks while she is out.

ABOVE AND BEYOND AWARD AND DRIVER RECOGNITION AWARDS

Five applications for the Above and Beyond awards have been submitted. The Executive Director will

review applications in February and announce awards at the March Executive Committee meeting. The

Above and Beyond award is $2,500 per year. Driver recognition awards are taken throughout the year

and processed.

JEFFEREY S. RISTAU SCHOLARSHIPS

WSTIP has received and approved two applications for a total of $2,000 to date. $18,000 is still available

for 2018.

TRANSIT AGENCY VISITS

Chris has started his member visits. He has completed visits to Pierce, Grays Harbor, Yakima, and Ben

Franklin. The WSTIP loss prevention team reviews the loss history of all members focusing our attention

on those members that are getting an extra charge for their loss history. We then take a quick look at the

loss history and any trend. For members that can benefit from extra attention from Chris, we place the

member on the “member improvement list” and determine how many extra visits they will receive.

Members on the MIL were notified by email in January; Pierce, Kitsap, Link, Spokane and Grays Harbor.

Chris has scheduled Reasonable Suspicion for Supervisors training at Ben Franklin Transit on February

28 – March 1 and is always available to schedule that training at your agency if needed. He has also

completed Preventability/Accident Review training at Island Transit on January 10 (Whidbey) and January

18 (Camano). Joanne will be visiting all members with a Vanpool program to update the compliance with

that best practice. She has visited Grays Harbor.

TRAINER’S ACADEMY

Staff presented an outline for the development of a Transit Trainer’s Academy in lieu of a state-wide

Operators training academy at the Annual Meeting. Members’ training departments were polled on their

interest level for such a program and there is a discussion item on the agenda.

COLLISION AVOIDANCE PROJECT AT PIERCE

WSTIP signed an interlocal agreement with Pierce Transit to manage the research partners associated

with this project in December. The research partners include Dr. Jerry Lutin, Janet Gates, University of

Washington, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, and Veritas. The kickoff conference call had over 35

participants on January 17.

Follow up conference calls were conducted:

UW Scope Review – January 22

Veritas Scope Review – January 23

Virginia Tech Scope Review – January 24

Page 4 of 11

Veritas Data Points Review – January 24

Pierce Operation design domain & claims analysis – January 31

Future scheduled meetings include:

February 6 - Rosco review (part 1)

February 7 - DCS review (part 1)

February 9 - Rosco review (part 2)

February 13 - All Team

February 15 - DCS review (part 2)

RURAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RTAP) AWARD

WSTIP Training classes are posted on the WSTIP website. Registration fees are one flat fee of $75 per

day for all participants. Staff is coordinating with WSTA and CTA-NW as best we can to reduce

duplicative class offerings and to coordinate training schedules. CTA-NW intended on hosting monthly

committee meetings, but have now decided to do it quarterly.

WSTIP EDUCATION/MARKETING VIDEO

Staff engaged Washington Technology Solutions (WATech) to update the marketing video for WSTIP.

The primary purpose of the video is to educate WSTIP’s Board about the organization (risk pool vs an

insurance company, convey WSTIP’s vision, mission, high-level coverage of WSTIP’s products/services

and to clarify who WSTIP is - its membership/board) and to cultivate Board leadership and engagement.

Staff has gone through the rough cuts of the video footage and the post production work has begun.

Target date for deliverable is late February/early March.

VANPOOL REFRESHER TRAINING

WSTIP will start year four of a five-year contract with FirstNet Learning to provide online vanpool

refresher training for volunteer vanpool drivers at member agencies. Staff will provide two webinars in as

a refresher to vanpool coordinators on the administrative duties.

RISK POOL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Cycle two of the Risk Pool Leadership Development Program has begun. There are six participants for

the 2018 program. Participating pools include: Association of Washington Cities Risk Management

Services Agency, Enduris, Washington Cities Insurance Authority, Washington Counties Risk Pool,

WSTIP, Water and Sewer Risk Management Pool, Southwest Washington Risk Management Insurance

Cooperative; Washington Schools Risk Management Pool; and Housing Authorities Risk Retention Pool.

The program is also supported in part by the Association of Governmental Risk Pools.

CLAIMS

TOP 10 OPEN LIABILITY CLAIMS BY VALUE

1. Gilmore vs. Jefferson

2. Sartin vs. Pierce

3. Parnell vs. Kitsap

4. Edwards vs. Ben Franklin

5. Robertson vs. Whatcom

6. Mitchell vs. Spokane

7. ATU Local 1015 vs Spokane

Page 5 of 11

8. Engen vs. Grant

9. Munoz (Felipe and Maria) vs. Skagit

10. James vs. Whatcom

11. Stubits vs. C-Tran

12. Golovan vs. C-Tran

* indicates newly added information.

FAQ – Why are there 12 claims on the Top 10 List? Once a claim hits the Top 10 List, we don’t stop

reporting on it just because another claim escalates higher. Therefore, you don’t lose the continuity of

reporting.

Gilmore vs. Jefferson Transit (2008 case). A Jefferson Transit bus rolled into the back of a plumbing

truck driven by Gilmore. We had an unexpected and adverse judgment for $1.2 million after a June 2016

jury trial. We filed a motion for a new trial and a remittitur motion. Both motions were denied. We

appealed the adverse verdict to the Division 2 Court of Appeals. The appellant court ruled in our favor.

Plaintiff asked for a Supreme Court review of the case. Our reply brief was filed June 23, 2017. Since,

then we filed an objection to an amicus memo and an amicus memorandum response filed by the

Washington State Labor Council. The Washington State Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on

this case. The oral argument was heard on January 11, 2018 and all three issues were argued. The

issues were: 1) Did the trial court err in barring expert testimony for a biomechanics expert on the level of

physical force resulting from the collision? 2) Is it misconduct to ask a jury to “punish” the government as

a defendant in a tort case? and 3) Can the door to evidence of L&I payments be opened when a tort

plaintiff does not seek special damages, thus thwarting the state’s subrogation right, yet relies on his

claimed dire financial situation as a basis for general damages? The Supreme Court will likely issue an

opinion in six months to a year. Our attorney is Catherine Smith from Smith Goodfriend.

Amicus briefs were submitted from:

1. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (argued on question #3 arguing that

the trial court was correct in not letting in any evidence about industrial insurance compensation

in third-party liability matters, however, alternatively said that the court could hold that the RCW

that disallows evidence does not apply when the plaintiff seeks general damages only – like in

this specific case),

2. Washington State Association for Justice Foundation (took up all questions saying the trial

court was correct in all things and argued for reinstatement of verdict),

3. Washington State Labor Council (supporting the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence in

question #3),

4. From the risk pool industry, a joint brief was submitted by the Washington Counties Risk Pool,

Washington Cities Insurance Authority, Enduris, Housing Authorities Risk Retention Pool,

Washington Schools Risk Management Pool, and the Southwest Washington Risk

Management Insurance Cooperative (supporting a new trial based on question #2).

5. Doctor Brian Chan, Doctor Michael Chan, and Professor Michael Freeman (supporting the

trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony referenced in question #1),

6. The Supreme Court also received a petition from the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers

requesting an extension to file an amicus brief.

Page 6 of 11

Sartin vs. Pierce (2015 case). The Pierce driver in this event suffered an unanticipated cardiac arrest and

lost consciousness while driving the bus near the I-5 in Tacoma. The bus careened off multiple nearby

vehicles. Plaintiff Sartin was a passenger in one of these vehicles. Sartin went to the ER and was

released the same day. He started treating with a chiropractor and primary care physician for neck,

shoulder, and back injuries. An MRI of his back (July 2015) revealed a disk problem. He tried steroid

injections to attempt to avoid surgery. However, this was not successful and Sartin had surgery in

February 2016 which did, for the most part, resolve his back issues. Sartin contends there are some

things he can no longer do, such as golfing and dirt bike riding. Also, his wife is disabled and at time uses

a wheelchair. Medical specials are $90K, wage loss $80K (at the time of loss he was a painter earning

$31.65 per hour), and decreased earning capacity $50K (lost seniority in the union). Our current defense

is “sudden illness,” arguing that a driver who is suddenly stricken by an unexpected loss of consciousness

is not chargeable with negligence. We have spoken with the bus driver’s doctors, and decided to file a

summary judgment motion. Mediation on Sartin was unsuccessful. However, there was a companion

claim to this one; Sacksteder, which we settled in mediation on January 4. There are also several other

potential claimants in other vehicles and on board the bus.

Here are some details the Executive Committee may wish to know:

1. Jury trial is set for February 22, 2018 before Judge Stanley Rumbaugh in Pierce County Superior

Court.

2. We have a strong likelihood of prevailing on the spoliation argument related to the bus video

(ruining video of the event). Plaintiffs contend we withheld evidence because we did not save the

entire video of McPike driving the bus. They contend the video would have showed that McPike

was driving erratically prior to the accident. Pierce Transit followed pattern, practice, and the

collective bargaining agreement in handling the video extractions related to this accident and

spoliation requires a showing of intentional, bad faith destruction of evidence.

3. The volume of information submitted to the Court on motion for summary judgement, alone, may

be enough to defeat our motion. Further, case law regarding sudden medical emergency

generally treats the foreseeability of the medical emergency as a question of fact for the

jury. Consequently, the chances of a successful ruling on summary judgement are slim.

4. Our witnesses and medical evidence related to the foreseeability of Mr. McPike’s sudden

incapacitation are strong.

* Our Motion for Summary Judgment was denied, as the Judge felt there was a question of fact for trial

and a jury amongst the multiple issues presented. Our focus will now turn to trial preparation. Plaintiff

Sartin and counsel may have teamed up with an attorney from the Firm that represented Sacksteder

through resolution at our initial mediation. They have made us aware that they would like to give

mediation another chance, devoting the entire time to the Sartin matter. However, this trial may be

delayed as the plaintiff, has recently filed suit against the Pierce driver’s certified medical examiner who

provided McPike his DOT medical card. We are asking the court to combine these lawsuits, which will

delay the trial until approximately March of 2019. Also of note, a bus passenger is now represented by

the same firm that represented Sacksteder. Our attorneys are Caryn Jorgensen from Mills Meyers and

Tim Malarchick from the office of Tim Malarchick. Caryn is representing Pierce and Tim is representing

the widow of the driver/estate, Ms. McPike. We have asked Caryn Jorgensen to come to the Executive

Committee to discuss this case.

Page 7 of 11

Parnell vs. Kitsap (2016 case). The representative for Margaret Parnell’s estate filed suit against Kitsap

Transit and the City of Bremerton stating the location of the bus stop contributed to the death of Margaret

Parnell. Parnell was killed when a vehicle, driven by Calob Courtney, left the roadway, jumped the curb

and hit the bus shelter where Ms. Parnell was sitting. At the scene, Courtney exhibited signs of

methamphetamine use and admitted to also smoking marijuana earlier in the day. The estate of Parnell

claims Kitsap Transit was negligent in its placement of the shelter as it is “known that almost 1/3 of all

motor vehicle accidents and deaths are from single vehicles running off the road,” “curbs of 6 inches or

more in height are required to discourage cars from leaving the roadway,” and the “location for this shelter

was unsafe and placed the bus shelter immediately between two driveways without full curb protection

….” The initial demand is for $10 million. A similar claim was also filed with City of Bremerton. We have

entered into a joint defense agreement with the City. Our attorney is Caryn Jorgensen from Mills Meyers.

Edwards vs. Ben Franklin (2013 case). Ben Franklin’s bus rear-ended plaintiff Edwards who was driving

his vehicle. This is a significant injury case with medical specials exceeding $300K (now near $400K)

and allegations of a full permanent disability. Mediation on April 21, 2017 was unsuccessful. Regarding

the claimant’s condition, both plaintiff doctors were deposed to determine their opinion on the cause and

relation to the event. Those depositions are under further review. The trial date changed from February

2018 to September 2018 to allow for more discovery. Our attorney is Pat McMahon from Carlson

McMahon.

Robertson vs. Whatcom Transit (2013 case). This is an on-board injury of a passenger being loaded on a

paratransit vehicle. Roberson’s toe/foot was caught in the lift while boarding. Robertson suffered a

broken toe that would not heal. Six months later Robertson died. The plaintiff is alleging a wrongful

death claim and currently seeking a $525K settlement (without wrongful death). A summons and

complaint has been filed, but no trial date set. We hired Dr. Ehni, an infectious disease expert to review

the medical records. Mr. Robertson did have mobility issues along with other health related problems.

Trial is set for April 2018, but we will attend a mediation on this matter in early March. Our attorney is

Mark Lee from Brownlie Wolf and Lee.

Mitchell vs. Spokane Transit (2015 case). This is a car collision accident involving a Spokane Transit

vanpool. Ms. Mitchell was a passenger in the vanpool vehicle when another party hit the van broad-side.

Ms. Mitchell was ejected out a window and yet another vehicle hit Ms. Mitchell. We paid Mitchell a large

portion of the under/uninsured motorist limit so that portion of the claim is closed. However, Mitchell still

has a cause of action under a liability theory and we received a formal claim for damages to that effect.

We are unsure of what theory(ies) Mitchell will forward, but believe it will center around her not wearing a

seat-belt at the time of the accident. The claim for damages asked for $12 million in damages. Medical

specials are close to $450,000 at last notification. We continue to collect her medical records to evaluate

her damages prior to litigation.

* Although far from any pre-injury state the latest records obtained and reviewed show physical and

mental improvement as Ms. Mitchel continues her therapy and rehab (March of 2016 (7-months post-

accident). Our attorney is John Riseborough from Paine Hamblen.

ATU Local 1015 vs. Spokane Transit (2017 case). The STA Board approved appealing this case at their

November 16, 2017 meeting. We decided to keep the appeal with James McPhee, who was the lead

attorney during the trial, and is most familiar with the case. The request for ATU attorney fees was

Page 8 of 11

submitted, but will not be paid before a ruling on the appeal. Ultimately, the STA is arguing that they

deserve some form of deference when applying a reasonably related advertising policy to their public

transportation bus platforms. Our attorneys are John Drake and James McPhee from Witherspoon

Brajcich McPhee.

Bermudez vs. Ben Franklin Transit (2014 case). This is a collision that occurred in an intersection

between a paratransit van and Bermudez. Liability is in question but is possibly averse to Ben Franklin.

Our driver separated from service and we had difficulty locating her. In October of 2016, medical specials

were thought to be around $76K. The initial demand sent in 2016 was for $525K. Trial is set for

February 5, 2018. We finally located and interviewed our driver, and she will present as a good witness if

necessary. Bermudez was deposed on August 17, 2017. We scheduled an IME with Dr. Brown to review

the claimant’s medical records and suspicious treatments. Dr. Brown concluded that the claimant’s

compression fracture was the result of the claimant falling from a 10-foot ladder and landing directly on

his back. The settlement conference is scheduled for January 11, 2018 and the trial set for February 5,

2018. Mediation was scheduled for December 4, 2017, but we were able to settle this case in late

November. Our attorney was Pat McMahon from Carlson McMahon.

* This case will soon be closed and will fall off the Top-10 for the next meeting.

Engen vs. Grant Transit (2011 case). This is a complete fault case where we rear-ended a car at 55-60

mph. The bus driver was able to veer to the right to avoid a full-on collision. In 2015, the claimant

claimed $40K in medical expenses and $468K in general damages. A trial date has still not been set and

the parties are exploring mediation. We agreed to have Dr. Brown conduct an independent medical exam

(IME), as we have a multitude of medical records and want to hone in on injuries related to this event.

The IME results include a long history of back and neck pain and treatment, evidence of symptom

magnification, no signs of permanent injury, and doubts as to necessary treatment for injuries sustained

in this particular event. We will schedule and attempt to find resolution in mediation but also anticipate

the potential for trial. Our attorney is Pat McMahon from Carlson McMahon.

Munoz, Felipe and Maria vs. Skagit (2013 case). Maria Munoz claims to have her arm caught in the bus

door upon her exit. She says she was holding onto her husband with her other hand and the bus began

to pull away resulting in alleged dragging of them both. Mrs. Munoz complains of neck, shoulder, and

arm pain along with an exacerbation of her mental health disorders (depression and anxiety). Mr. Munoz

complains of shoulder and elbow injuries as well as trauma from the incident. We hired a medical expert

to review the records and a forensics specialist to look at operational aspects of the door. The IME

opined a contusion of the forearm at most for Mr. Munoz and multiple inconsistencies throughout his

medical evaluation. Ms. Munoz was opined to have non-anatomic pain syndrome.

* We decided to take this case to trial and are in the midst of trial-preparations. Trial is currently set for

late April, but at the plaintiff’s request, the trial is likely to be continued to later in the summer. Our

attorney is Pat McMahon from Carlson McMahon.

Stubits vs. C-Tran (2017 case). Laurene Stubits slipped and fell on a piece of metal artwork embedded in

the platform at one of C-Tran’s bus transfer stations. Ms. Stubits fell with her arm outstretched. She

sustained a significant injury (fracture) to her right wrist. The initial demand was for $100K. Medical

specials were claimed to be $50K. This is an interesting case in that the artist that created the artwork

issued C-Tran an additional insured endorsement, but when contacted, the carrier (at least initially)

Page 9 of 11

denied our tender. The tender was later accepted, and C-Tran’s Travelers Insurance defense counsel is

Mike Hallinan from Goehler & Associates in Lake Oswego, OR. Our attorney is Jessie Harris from

Williams Kastner.

Golovan vs. C-Tran (2014 case). This is a collision between a paratransit van and Golovan. Liability is

very much in question. Our version of the event is that Golovan was parked and then attempted to make

a U-turn in front of the transit vehicle. Golovan’s version claims he was in the proper lane of travel, had

his turn signal activated and was making a proper left-hand turn. He further claims our driver was trying

to pass him on the right. No injuries were reported on scene and the damages to vehicles were minimal.

Medical specials are $67.5K, of which $15K have already been paid. Total settlement demand was

$500K including a disputed $139K in lost wages. The plaintiff was deposed on August 8, 2017. We are

currently working towards settlement of this case through on-going negotiations. Our attorney is Jessie

Harris from Williams Kastner.

James vs. Whatcom Transportation Authority (2016 case). Plaintiff James was de-boarding a paratransit

vehicle when she cut the back of her leg. James is legally blind. Her leg would not heal and James had

to have a skin graft. Due to the additional nursing care needed, plaintiff had to leave her assisted living

situation to a nursing home. Claim was denied due to lack of evidence on what James cut her leg on.

Ms. James claims $50K in medical specials and sent a settlement demand of $2 million. We are currently

in the discovery process. Our attorney is Mark Lee from Brownlie Wolf and Lee.

GENERAL CLAIMS INFORMATION (AS OF 01/31/2018)

Total open litigated files = 37

Total open liability claims = 762

Grand Total of Claims (all years since 2006) = 11,958

Claims Closures 01/01/2018 to 01/31/2018– Total of 105 claims closed last month. Includes 6 claims

withdrawn, 5 sent to collections and closed, 18 claim denials, 1 mediation/settled, 23 no formal claim filed,

19 settlements, and 33 closed subrogation claims.

CLAIMS ASSOCIATE HIRING PROGRESS AND PLAN

We received 17 applications for the position. The deadline to apply was Friday, January 26, 2018. We

sent out four short questions for the applicants to respond to by Friday, February 9th. We will select a

group of applicants to move forward to phone-interviews on February 14-15 and skills/personality tests

before the March 13-14 interviews. Our plan is to have them start on April 2, 2018.

Page 10 of 11

Subrogation - As of February 7, 2018, there were 385 open 1st party auto-collision or property damage

claims. Receivable totals to date for the year are below both as a total and for each member. We were

able to collect $124,362.89 in the month of January.

Page 11 of 11

/tc

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total

Ben Franklin 33,858$ 33,858$

Community 3,404$ 3,404$

C-Tran 7,848$ 7,848$

Intercity 8,195$ 8,195$

Jefferson 1,062$ 1,062$

Kitsap 16,996$ 16,996$

Link 4,442$ 4,442$

Mason 402$ 402$

Pierce 24,818$ 24,818$

RiverCities 4,013$ 4,013$

Skagit 6,053$ 6,053$

Spokane 3,602$ 3,602$

Whatcom 643$ 643$

Yakima 9,025$ 9,025$

124,363$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124,363$