Select Committee on Insurance Relations - Property and Casualty — Charleston, WV
Date: 2022-02-24
Time: 17:00

CITY OF CHARLESTON
 West Virginia
 Council Member – 12th WARD
Joseph Jenkins Finance Committee, Chair
839 Gordon Drive Parking Committee, Chair
Charleston, West Virginia 25303 Parks and Recreation Committee
304-575-9202
joseph.jenkins@cityofcharleston.org


 AGENDA
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AGENT RELATIONS – PROPERTY & CASUALTY
 Thursday, February 24, 2022
 5:00 p.m.
 IN PERSON - AV Room #308
 City Hall, Charleston, WV

  I. Approval of Previous Minutes:

 a. 2-15-2022


  II. Discussion and Approval:

 a. Motion to confirm that the official, average score of the Committee's members does not
 include Councilmember Reishman's scores, and that the official score, determined pursuant to
 the Committee approved procedure and assessment parameters, upon which this Committee's
 recommendation to Council is based upon, shall be: WVCorp - 178 and USI - 177.

 b. Q&A with WVCorp and USI to allow ALL Councilmembers the less formal opportunity to obtain
 additional information on the proposals evaluated by the Committee prior to a vote on the
 Committee’s recommendation at the March 7, 2022 Council meeting.

  III. Adjourn




 City Council | 501 Virginia Street, East | Post Office Box 2749 | Charleston, West Virginia 25330
 www.charlestonwv.gov | 304.348.8179 | 304.348.8038 fax
 Page 1 of 1

MINUTES
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AGENT RELATIONS –
 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

 THE MEETING WAS HELD IN THE AV ROOM #308 IN CITY HALL

 5:30 P. M., FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Joseph Jenkins, Chairperson, called the meeting of the Select Committee on Insurance
Agent Relations – Property and Casualty to order at 5:30p.m., February 15, 2022.

Committee Members Present:
Joseph Jenkins, Chair
Bobby Reishman (left at approximately 6:46)
Becky Ceperley
Mary Beth Hoover
Adam Knauff (arrived at 5:32, not present for approval of previous minutes)
Jennifer Pharr
Shannon Snodgrass (over Zoom)

Members Absent:
None




A roll call was taken, and it was determined that a quorum was present.




 1. Approval of Previous Minutes 12-20-2021.

Councilmember Reishman motioned to approve the previous minutes from 12-20-2021.
With those being present having voted unanimously in the affirmative, the Chair
declared the previous minutes as approved.



 February 15, 2022
 2. Discussion, score and approval

Councilmember Jenkins stated that the three companies that were previously selected
have submitted insurance proposals. The Committee will be discussing those
proposals. Councilmember Jenkins added that they will go into Executive Session to
discuss the proposals, but would exit into Regular Session if any questions needed to
be asked of the companies.

Councilmember Reishman motioned to enter Executive Session. With no objections, the
Committee entered Executive Session.

Councilmember Reishman motioned to leave Executive Session. With no objections,
the Committee left Executive Session.

Councilmember Jenkins stated that he thought it would be appropriate for the
Committee to disqualify RCM&D due to their lack of response.

Councilmember Knauff motioned to disqualify RCM&D. With the members being
present having voted unanimously in the affirmative, the Chair declared RCM&D as
disqualified.

Councilmember Jenkins asked WV Corp to explain their non-applicability of the sexual
abuse line of coverage. WV Corp replied that sexual abuse and molestation is covered
under their General Liability policy. There are no exclusions or coverage limitations.

Councilmember Jenkins asked if there was a requirement regarding the risk pool (for
example, if the City joined for 3 years and was not allowed to leave it after 1 year). WV
Corp replied that there are no guidelines as to how the City would have to participate in
the group. The only requirement is that the City must participate for three years before
they can receive a dividend. Councilmember Jenkins asked what their history of
dividends was. WV Corp replied that 19 members have returned a $50,000 dividend
and several $300,000.

Councilmember Jenkins pointed out that the property valuation is approximately $45
million less than what the City is currently insured for. He asked if that was based on
revaluing or certain exclusions. WV Corp replied they did not do anything to alter the
building schedule, so there might be an error in the building value in the system. They
added that the price difference to compensate for that would be approximately $18,000.
It is not their intent for any City property to be excluded.

Councilmember Jenkins asked if there is anything excluded in the umbrella policy. WV
Corp replied that they don’t issue a separate policy, they show excess limits for options,
but the actual policy will be for $5 million. There is not a separate excess policy.

Councilmember Jenkins asked USI why the valuation of City property is roughly $9
million less than current. USI replied that they and Traveler’s quote sight unseen. They



 February 15, 2022
wanted to make sure that they were insured to value, and the limits were increased.
Jenkins added that their limit is $507 million, and the current is $516 million.
Councilmember Jenkins asked if they treat the $1 million limit and the umbrella as
separate policies. USI replied that typically there would not be exclusions on the
umbrella policy. Even though it would be a separate policy, the coverage would be
identical. A representative from Travelers added that they do not include vehicle values
in their property number, which can be found in the public sector quote. The difference
of $9 million is that they trended some buildings to be rated on a higher value because
of valuation issues. It would be the same coverage, just an additional $4 million on top.

Councilmember Jenkins asked what ACAV meant in relation to auto physical damage.
Finance Director, Andy Wood, replied that it meant Actual Cash Value and Agreed
Value.

Councilmember Snodgrass asked WV Corp to explain their relationship with the WV
Municipal League. WV Corp replied that they have endorsement agreements with WV
Municipal League, the County Commissioners Association of WV and the WV
Association of Counties. The latter two don’t participate in any sort of endorsements or
agreements related to municipalities. The endorsement agreement with the WV
Municipal League pays them a 2% override on property casualty and .5% override on
workers comp.

Councilmember Snodgrass explained to USI that it is difficult to evaluate them based on
the fact that they did not submit proposals for workers comp or cyber. USI replied that
the City’s current policy with Safety National has an effective date of July 1. If they were
awarded the contract, they would want to explore an option with Safety National, and
they cannot get a quote on March 31 for July 1 (it’s too far out). They would also like to
explore retention. For cyber, AIG has confirmed that they will release a quote to them by
March 1 or March 15.

Councilmember Jenkins asked USI about the gap coverage. USI replied that they are
still exploring options on that. They are going to recommend that the City take a higher
retention to save money. USI added there hasn’t been a workers comp claim that has
exceeded $2,000, excluding a claim from 2014. WV Corp added that there have been
no public safety presumptions included into the system until last year. Going from a
$300,000 retention to a $600,00 to save a small amount of money might not be
something they would recommend.

WV Corp added that they perform on-site property valuations. In-land marine is how
they classify miscellaneous equipment (contractor equipment, radio towers, boats, etc.).

USI asked if the WV Municipal League received $85,000 for the first three years. WV
Corp replied that WV Municipal League had an existing agreement with CIS, and their
revenue from that was $80,000 (possibly not $85,000 as suggested). One part of their
agreement with the Municipal League was that WV Corp keep that amount whole for
three years, and added that municipalities would get Board seats once some



 February 15, 2022
benchmarks were met.

Councilmember Knauff confirmed with USI that they could get quotes for workers comp
in approximately 90 days.

Councilmember Snodgrass asked what was the largest municipality that they
underwrite. For WV Corp: Berkely County and the City of Bridgeport. For USI:
Huntington, Beckley, Morgantown, Wheeling, Kanawha County, etc.

Councilmember Hoover motioned to enter Executive Session. With no objections, the
Committee entered Executive Session.

Councilmember Knauff motioned to leave Executive Session. With no objections, the
Committee left Executive Session.

Councilmember Jenkins stated that before he left, Councilmember Reishman gave
Councilmember Jenkins his scores. Councilmember Jenkins added that he thought it
would be appropriate to include his scores, and Councilmember Snodgrass disagreed.

Councilmember Hoover motioned to include Councilmember Reishman’s scores. With
the majority of those being present having voted in the affirmative, with 1 recognized
Nay from Snodgrass, the Chair declared that Councilmember Reishman’s scores will be
included.

Councilmember Jenkins declared the scores to be: 5 scores for USI and 6 scores for
WC Corp
  USI – 177 (out of 200)
  WV Corp – 180.83 (out of 200)
The Chair declared that the Committee will choose to recommend WV Corp. They will
further discuss to choose which plan.

Councilmember Pharr asked what the results would be if Councilmember Resihman’s
score were not included. Councilmember Jenkins confirmed that it would be 178.

Councilmember Jenkins stated that he was partial to the option WV Corp #3 due to the
cost and self-retention. He asked if Wood could get past claims so they could better
analyze the proposals. Wood replied that they did some of that initial analysis in their
proposal. WV Corp added that the $300,000 retention is the most cost-effective option
based on historical claims.

City Attorney, Kevin Baker, added that the City has had a lot of flexibility to choose
which attorney will defend claims, and asked if that would be the case. WV Corp replied
that they would typically ask who they would prefer, and would be willing to work with
the City Attorney to add their preferred attorneys to their panel.




 February 15, 2022
Councilmember Hoover motioned to approve plan WV Corp #3. With the members
being present having voted unanimously in the affirmative, the Chair declared WV Corp
#3 as the Committee’s recommended plan.




Councilmember Knauff motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned.




 February 15, 2022

MINUTES
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AGENT RELATIONS –
 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

 THE MEETING WAS HELD IN THE AV ROOM #308 IN CITY HALL

 5:00 P. M., FEBRUARY 24, 2022

Joseph Jenkins, Chairperson, called the meeting of the Select Committee on Insurance
Agent Relations – Property and Casualty to order at 5:00p.m., February 24, 2022.

Committee Members Present:
Joseph Jenkins, Chair
Bobby Reishman (left at 7:17)
Becky Ceperley
Mary Beth Hoover
Adam Knauff
Jennifer Pharr
Shannon Snodgrass

Members Absent:
None

Other Councilmember Present:
Larry Moore
Bobby Brown
Bruce King
Naomi Bays (over Zoom)
Ben Adams
Brent Burton
Chad Robinson




A roll call was taken, and it was determined that a quorum was present.




 February 24, 2022
 1. Approval of Previous Minutes

Councilmember Reishman motioned to approve the previous minutes from 2-15-2022.
With those being present having voted in the majority in the affirmative, the Chair
declared the previous minutes as approved. Note, further into the meeting
Councilmember Snodgrass stated that she wanted her vote to approve the previous
minutes withdrawn, but there was not an official revote.

 2. To confirm that the official, average score of the Committee's members does not
 include Councilmember Reishman's scores, and that the official score,
 determined pursuant to the Committee approved procedure and assessment
 parameters, upon which this Committee's recommendation to Council is based
 upon, shall be: WVCorp - 178 and USI - 177.

Councilmember Hoover added that the scores of 178/177 is almost a tie in her eyes.

Councilmember Jenkins added that they are meeting in part to confirm the apparent
assumption of the Committee that Councilmember Reishman’s scores were not
included in the final tally since one company not was not scored by him at all. He added
that this will be a procedural clarification, despite the fact that he believes the
Committee did approve the 180.3/177 scores as well as approved Option #3 from WV
Corp.

Councilmember Snodgrass stated that she assumed Councilmember Ceperley would
not be voting on this matter as she was absent from the last meeting. Councilmember
Ceperley added that she assumed she would as she had read all of the materials and
watched all of the videos from that meeting. Councilmember Snodgrass asked
Councilmember Reishman if he was going to recuse himself from voting, and
Councilmember said no. Councilmember Snodgrass asked if he had a conflict, and
Councilmember Reishman said no.

Councilmember Snodgrass stated that given the irregularities with the EOI, and
considering the information that has been provided, the end of the process has been
rushed, adding that the two companies were never asked to do a formal presentation.
Councilmember Reishman added that he did not believe the word “irregularities” to be
correct. He asked what was irregular. Councilmember Snodgrass replied that there was
a lot of information put forth by the City that she thought was incorrect/omitted on a
spreadsheet. Councilmember Reishman disagreed. Councilmember Snodgrass stated
that there were things left on the table and things that got discussed that were not
correct. She said they were told by someone in the City that it was a one-year contract,
and it is really a three-year contract.

Councilmember Jenkins stated that at this point, the Committee is just confirming a
procedural clarification. Councilmember Jenkins stated that he vehemently disagreed
that there were any irregularities. He believed that such irregularities are being pushed
by one of the parties to sow doubt and discord within the Committee. All information



 February 24, 2022
was provided to the Committee before the scoring at the last meeting, during which both
parties were present, and a lengthy discussion was held. The timing had been set
during the beginning of the first meetings. Councilmember Jenkins added that there
were no irregularities in the EOI, that it clearly states the entire insurance package and
how they will be scored. He was disturbed that a member of the Committee would
question the integrity of what they have done, because nothing has been held back. He
added that it is not true that it is a three-year contract.

Councilmember Snodgrass added that she felt like the Administration tried to push this.
Councilmember Reishman asked what they said that was wrong. Councilmember
Snodgrass replied that the delay with USI providing quotes with cyber security was not
fully disclosed. Councilmember Jenkins replied that it was discussed during the last
meeting why they couldn’t obtain the cyber quote. Councilmember Snodgrass said the
Administration was biased given the association with the WV Municipal League.
Councilmember Jenkins added that it was disclosed in their proposal that WV Corp was
endorsed by the WV Municipal League, although that relationship could have been
clearer. However, that was clarified during the last meeting before the proposals were
scored. He stated that he does not see anything that should materially affect the
scoring.

Councilmember Knauff stated that he believed there were things that affected the way
that he voted that had he known beforehand, he would not have scored the way he did,
which was primarily cyber and workers comp. He stated that USI claimed they were not
told to provide that. Additionally, they were given a table that had blanks from USI.
Councilmember Jenkins added that was because they didn’t provide a quote by
February 7, adding that the timeline and what was required was set forth in the EOI.
During the last meeting, USI properly explained why they had difficulty with getting
quotes from cyber and workers comp

Councilmember Knauff added that he asked where the disclosure for the agreement
with the WV Municipal League was and was told it was in the proposal, but he cannot
find it. Councilmember Jenkins agreed that it was limited to the endorsement in their
disclosure without further explanation. However, an explanation was given during
questioning at the last meeting.

Councilmember Knauff added that the City has to pay to get out of the contract before
three years. Councilmember Jenkins corrected that the City does not have to pay, as
was clarified at the last meeting, and the only thing that would be lost was the potential
to receive a dividend.

Councilmember Jenkins added that these things were are discussed at the last meeting.
He added that some of the concerns were valid, and that they should go to Council.
However, there has not been any new information that has been given that calls into
question the scoring.

Councilmember Snodgrass added that the conflict of interest is that the current Mayor is



 February 24, 2022
on the Board of the WV Municipal League, and that should have been disclosed. She
added that it would be fiscally irresponsible when the scores are this close not to have a
presentation by both groups. Councilmember Jenkins added that was on the agenda for
the meeting. He added that rescoring at this point would destroy the integrity of the
process, and would open the Committee up to protests.

Councilmember Pharr stated that she would not be changing her scores, because she
based them on what was presented and her research. She did not think it was fair that
Councilmember Reishman left the previous meeting prior to the other company
presenting, and she appreciated his willingness to have his scores removed. She added
that she thought some confusion came about due to comments that were made at the
end of the last meeting. Councilmember Pharr confirmed with Councilmember Jenkins
that the Committee has already voted to recommend Option #3 of WV Corp to Council
with the scores of 180.3 vs 177. The vote presently before the Committee
to remove Councilmember Resihman’s scores to have the same recommendation go
begore Council with the scores of 178/177. Councilmember Pharr added that she was
confused about the Municipal League. She added that the Committee should have a
contingency in place because of that confusion.

Councilmember Ceperley stated that, having viewed the videos from the last meeting,
everything was explained clearly to her. She will abstain from voting if a member has
concerns about it.

Councilmember Hoover agreed that if there was a recount, the numbers would be
skewed. She did want to ask some more questions to the groups as to how they got the
numbers that were submitted in addition to the ones that were asked at the previous
meeting.

Councilmember Snodgrass added that the average Councilmember not in the business
would not understand. She expressed concerns that the Committee did not vote on nor
ratify the score.

Councilmember Jenkins stated that the minutes of the previous meeting that were
approved without objection clearly stated that the score were added and announced
without the need to motion to approve them. There was a motion that was approved to
include Councilmember Reishman’s scores. The Committee then approved by motion
the third WV Corp option. Councilmember Jenkins stated that rescoring just so those
scores could be more spread apart changes that. Councilmember Snodgrass added
that she felt like members of the Administration had been lobbying for one side, and that
the Chair of the Committee had driven it a certain way.

Councilmember Knauff asked who motioned to approve the scores of 178/177.
Councilmember Jenkins clarified that Councilmember Reishman made the motion with
no second required.

From the Audience, Mayor Goodwin stated that she took offence to anyone assailing



 February 24, 2022
the integrity of the Administration or insinuating that one of the groups had been picked
before the process began. It was offensive and not true.

Councilmember Jenkins added that it was disappointing that Councilmember Snodgrass
would attack him directly since the Committee started receiving misinformation after the
last meeting. He has not seen or had any pressure from the Administration regarding
which company to choose. The only exception was when the Committee asked the
Finance Director or the City Attorney directly what they thought about something, which
was appropriate to ask since they would be dealing directly with the company chosen.

Councilmember Pharr stated that she agreed that Councilmember Reishman’s scores
should not be included, because at the time of approving to include his scores she did
not know he hadn’t scored one of the companies. Councilmember Pharr asked if a
member called the motion and then left before that vote, would that be negated.
Councilmember Jenkins replied that it would not.

From the audience, Councilmember King asked if at the next Council meeting will they
be voting on both companies. Councilmember Jenkins clarified that the
recommendation from the Committee will be Option #3 from WV Corp for Council to
approve or not. He added that they must have insurance in place as their current plan
expires March 31, 2022. The Committee has done a lot or work and has had a lot of
discussion, and it is a close call which he believes shows that both of the plans could be
beneficial.

Councilmember Snodgrass stated that she wanted to again hear from both companies
and rescore as this is the biggest expenditure that they City will make.


Councilmember Reishman motioned to confirm the scores to be 178/177.

A roll call was taken:

Yeas: Hoover, Jenkins, Reishman
Nays: Knauff, Snodgrass, Pharr
Abstain: Ceperley

With the Yeas and Nays being a tie of four to 4 (4 to 4), the motion fails, and the scores
will stand as 180.3/177.




 February 24, 2022
 3. Q&A with WVCorp and USI to allow ALL Councilmembers the less formal
 opportunity to obtain additional information on the proposals evaluated by the
 Committee prior to a vote on the Committee’s recommendation at the March 7,
 2022 Council meeting.


From the audience, Councilmember Robinson asked for clarification as to WV Municipal
League’s endorsement of WV Corp. He added that he used to represent WV Municipal
League for around 15 years, and at that time at least they did not endorse products or
services. A representative of WV Corp further explained that WV Corp has had an
agreement with AssuredPartners from 2007. WV Corp replaced an existing
endorsement of the AssuredPartners Program. He didn’t know about other products, but
they have been endorsing an insurance product and receiving endorsement revenue for
at least the past 20 years. Councilmember Robinson added that endorsement and
membership benefits were two different things. Councilmember Snodgrass added that
the WV Municipal League website mentions WV Corp as their insurance, and they will
get a commission from the City’s insurance company. Councilmember Robinson added
that every Mayor serves on the Board of the Municipal League, so saying that someone
serves on such a Board doesn’t mean they agree with something or are pushing
products.

Councilmember Knauff as what USI saw to be irregularities or anything that was
improper or misrepresented in how the City presented USI’s proposal. A representative
of USI stated that he had never seen an EOI as vague in its requirements; it solely listed
coverages with a paragraph that said that the excess workers comp had a July 1
expiration date. Two other coverage had different effective dates as well. In the past,
when the current company made their proposals, workers comp, crime and pollution
were never listed. He added that there are very few markets that are interested in
insuring larger cities. He has had discussions with the Administration since the
beginning that it is a July 1 policy, and they would not be able to produce a quote that
early as the companied they work with don’t provide quotes 6 months in advance.
Regarding the cyber insurance, USI (and AIG) was not able to provide that because of
the City’s lack of protocols. It was made clear to the Administration that AIG would be
willing to provide a quote once those protocols were put into place. Finance Director,
Andy Wood, added that was clearly explained to the Committee at the last meeting. USI
added that at the last meeting Councilmember Jenkins stated that it was a tough call
and mentioned that USI didn’t provide workers comp or cyber quote. USI stated that he
has made this clear to the Administration many times. Councilmember Jenkins added
that there was a deadline that was set forth in the EOI, and he understood the
difficulties USI had as they were explained to the Committee. He added that there was
no stop-gap coverage provided that ended on March 31, so if chosen on April 1 City’s
self-insured retention would go from $300,000 to $600,000 at least until July 1. While he
understood they couldn’t get the quotes, they would have no idea what the cost of the
missing quoted would be. He said that the Committee probably gave them a break on
that as the Committee completely disqualified RCMD for similar reasons.
Councilmember Jenkins added that it was his fault that he felt like he had to come up



 February 24, 2022
with an explanation as to why they weren’t chosen, and he shouldn’t have said that.
However, it did factor into his scoring, which was appropriate to do so.

Councilmember Knauff asked if USI could offer the missing quotes now or if the
effective date was still too far away. USI replied that they do have buffer workers comp
numbers, adding that the City has never had a workers comp claim since 2013 above
$200,000 and are currently insured for $300,000. He added that there were savings
there for the City. They provided a cyber security quote the day of this meeting at 2:00
of $2 million. Had AIG not told them, the City would not be aware of those
vulnerabilities. USI added that it doesn’t make sense for the City to participate in a risk
pool.

A representative from WV Corp responded that he had been involved with self-
insurance pools since 1994. These types of pools purchase re-insurance. They are
backed by AIG, and if they were to have a $10 million property loss AIG would pay that
claim on behalf of the pool. Continental Casualty is their liability reinsurer. The City is
not too big to participate in a risk pool, as they would not be sharing in the risk of the
pool but sharing in the group purchasing power of the reinsurance. He added that it was
clear what the RFP was asking for. He added that if someone had a carrier provider that
couldn’t produce a renewal proposal 45 in advance or renewal, they should not be the
insurance provider. He claimed USI knew they could produce those proposals 60 days
in advance, and knew what could be put on the proposal from Safety National and they
know that the cyber proposal they provided was adequate, as it creates material risk.
WV Corp’s cyber policy is underwritten by a A-15 carrier, and provides all of the
coverages that the City needs. He added that it is unusual for a bigger City such as
Charleston to do WV Corp’s proposal in West Virginia, but it is not unusual nationally.
WV Corp told the City in their proposal that if they selected the self-insured option they
would remove the assessment provisions from the member agreement. There is no
assessment and no risk. USI added that WV Corp has quoted sight unseen.

Councilmember Snodgrass asked USI how many times they came to the City evaluate.
USI replied they spent 2 full days at the Sanitary Board, a full day at the Convention
Center, City Hall, and the other City Departments. WV Corp stated they did not do that,
but their proposal includes physical cost evaluations as an included service. They do
desktop evaluations of the buildings.

Councilmember Reishman confirmed with WV Corp that their proposal is $900,000 less
expensive, and in 15 years they have never had an assessment.

From the audience, Councilmember Burton added that some statements that USI had
made about AssuredPartners were totally inaccurate. One being that insurance was
always presented to the City during the first week in March.

Councilmember Pharr added that she wanted to hear about the plans. Councilmember
Hoover agreed.




 February 24, 2022
Councilmember Snodgrass added that in the past, when insurance went before Council,
the works comp numbers were not included because they could not get them until after
the second Council meeting in March. Councilmember Jenkins added that it did include
stop-gap insurance, which USI did not present. When the proposals were due, there
were deficiencies on USI’s proposals, but it was understandable as to why.

Councilmember Snodgrass asked WV Corp why Kanawha County, Morgantown, etc
has not chosen to be in a risk pool. She stated that a City the size of Charleston does
not need to take risk. WV Corp replied that they agreed with that, which is why their
proposal does not have the City taking that risk. He added that when the pool was
started in 2007, they made an agreement with the WV Municipal League (who was
partnered with another company at the time) that they would not actively market with
cities and towns. They have been pursuing cities and towns since mid-2021 now that
they have an agreement with the WV Municipal League. Their program is backed by
reinsurance security that is equal in financial strength to the USI proposal.
Councilmember Snodgrass asked if there was any financial risk that they see to the
City. WV Corp replied that the financial risk to the City is based off of the risk of the
reinsurance. If they are able to maintain A-15 reinsurance, then there is no greater
financial risk than with any other provider.

Councilmember Pharr asked for clarification for the WV Corp Option #1. WV Corp
replied with that plan there was risk. In Option #3, the City is self-insured with the risk
being the degree of claims that the City would have. The program is structured very
similarly to how AssuredPartners’s all-lines-aggregate program.

Councilmember Hoover inquired as to the brokerage fees of the 2 companies. WV Corp
replied that since they have negotiated everything on behalf of the group, their fees are
embedded in the premiums. They are not selling through a producer. USI replied that
their brokerage fee of $250,000 is related to the man hours it would take to provide local
risk control and services.

Councilmember Snodgrass stated again that she was disappointed that the WV League
was not fully disclosed in WV Corp’s proposal. She confirmed that WV Municipal
League would receive commissions from certain parts of the City’s contract with WV
Corp. WV Corp added that their financial statement states that they have sponsorships
and in what amount, but it doesn’t specifically say as to where, which was a mistake.
Councilmember Reishman added that he didn’t care about that, he was focused on
what the cost to the City would be.

Councilmember Jenkins stated that USI stated that do not have any relationships with
the City, but Andy Richardson is Vice Chair of the Charleston Coliseum and Convection
Center Board which oversees the City’s largest insured asset. USI replied that
Richardson is offering a workers comp TPA solution, and they were not aware of what
Boards he served on. Additionally, they had a problem with the fact that some members
scored WV Corp the max score for the Relationship section. Councilmember Jenkins
replied that they would charge the City a $250,000 brokerage fee, their premiums are



 February 24, 2022
higher, the self-insured retentions are higher, and that all goes into the cost benefit
analysis that was scored. Councilmember Jenkins added that USI had a reasonable
explanation for why workers comp, cyber etc was missing, but there is a chance AIG
would come back with a figure that was obscenely expensive or refused to give a quote.

Richardson replied that he never considered his Board position as a conflict as his local
company, Smart Casualty Claims was making the bid. Councilmember Jenkins added
that, likewise, no one from the City is getting a fee from the Municipal League.
Richardson added that agreements like with the Municipal League are not unusual.

From the audience, Councilmember Adams asked what the premiums were for WV
Corp Option #3 and USI. After discussion, it was determined to be:
 WV Corp Option #3: $1,497,770
 USI Option #1: $1,670,574 – likely an additional $280,000 for workers comp
 (noting that some of the quotes were not provided by the due date)
The premium for last year was roughly $1.8 million.

Councilmember Snodgrass asked if either company had any business relationships with
anyone on the Committee past or present. Both said no.

Councilmember Pharr asked if there was flexibility with the USI commission. USI replied
they would be prepared to do that for $175,000 instead of $250,000.

Councilmember Pharr added that with the scoring being so close, they should have a
contingency in Option #3 doesn’t pass. Councilmember Jenkins said he did not believe
that was the proper process because there could be protests depending on what
happens at Council. They could pre-plan to meet before the Council meeting on March
21, 2022 depending on the timing of any possible protests.

Councilmember Snodgrass added that the protest section of the EOI is probably the
worst she has ever seen, and they should probably look at that as it all goes back to the
City Manager. Councilmember Jenkins stated that the Committee approved the EOI.

Councilmember Pharr asked what would happen if the insurance resolution does pass
Council on 3-7-2022. What would the Committee then need to do. Councilmember
Jenkins replied he would announce a meeting of the Committee as soon as possible.
The Committee would need to approve a new recommendation. WV Corp added that
they would not protest. When ask if they would also not protest, USI was not able to
answer. After discussion, the Committee agreed that March 18 would be a good date to
meet.

Councilmember Snodgrass confirmed that the scores will go to Council as 180.3/177.
Councilmember Snodgrass stated that the Committee did not vote on the scores after
they were tallied. Councilmember Jenkins replied that was not necessary. The
Committee then moved to accept the Option #3 Plan from WV Corp.

Chief of Staff, Mat Sutton added that the City Manager drafted the EOI. The Committee


 February 24, 2022
then made changes to the EOI and approved it.




Councilmember Knauff motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned.




 February 24, 2022