Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Approval of Workers’ Compensation Program Structure and Recommendation Transition Self-Funded Worker's Comp STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 7.1 DATE: November 18, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Colleen Tribby, City Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Workers’ Compensation Program Structure and Recommendation to Transition to a Self-Funded Workers’ Compensation Plan Prepared by: Sarah Monnastes, Human Resources Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will receive a report on Staff’s analysis of workers’ compensation programs and discuss Staff’s recommendation to transition to a self-funded workers’ compensation program, supported by a third-party administrator for day-to-day claims administration and excess insurance for catastrophic claims. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the City’s transition to a self-funded workers’ compensation model beginning January 1, 2026, authorize the establishment of a workers’ compensation trust account, and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements related to administration and excess insurance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The recommended self-funded program option requires contracting with a third-party administrator and purchasing excess insurance, which costs approximately $165,000 annually, combined (this would be pro-rated for the current fiscal year). The City is also required to establish a workers’ compensation trust account, which Staff recommends funding with an initial $50,000. Claims will be paid directly out of the trust, and the City can replenish the funds as needed. Staff will return with a mid-year budget adjustment to request the appropriation of these funds for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2025-26. In addition, the City currently has approximately $187,000 held by the Cities Group . Although a portion of that will be used to fund dissolution costs, some amount is expected to be returned to Dublin in Fiscal Year 2026-27, which may partially offset expenses in the second year. 149 Page 2 of 5 DESCRIPTION: Background Since 2005, the City of Dublin has been a member of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority (Cities Group), which has administered workers’ compensation claims and related benefits on behalf of its member agencies. The City pays $3,000 annually for the Cities Group program and operates with a self-insured retention (SIR) of $1 million per claim and a $10 million per claim limit. Under this structure, the City is financially responsible for the first $1 million of every claim, with pooled excess coverage providing protection for catastrophic or severe losses up to $10 million dollars. The City is then responsible for anything over $10 million. As documented in the Staff Report presented to the City Council on October 21, 2025 (Attachment 1), the long-term viability of the Cities Group became uncertain following the withdrawal of Foster City, whose claim volume and size represented a disproportionately large share of the group’s overall risk pool. The withdrawal significantly weakened the group’s financial stability and its attractiveness to reinsurers. After further review, the Cities Group Board concluded that dissolution was the most prudent path forward for all remaining members. The Board subsequently adopted a resolution directing the cessation of all workers’ compensation operations by January 1, 2026, and requiring each member agency to transition its workers’ compensation program independently. As a result, Dublin must secure and implement a new workers’ compensation structure prior to that date. Following the October City Council meeting, Staff conducted a comprehensive review of the City’s historical claim experience and existing risk structure, and analyzed viable options available to California municipalities: 1) enrollment in the State Compensation Insurance Fund; 2) contracting directly with a joint powers authority (JPA) for claims administration; or 3) establishing a self-funded workers’ compensation program supported by a third -party administrator (TPA) and excess insurance coverage. Based on Staff's analysis, the self -funded program is the most prudent option for Dublin. A discussion of the analysis is provided below. Analysis Claims History In selecting the workers’ compensation structure that is most appropriate for the City as it transitions away from Cities Group, Staff looked at the City’s historical loss experience using the complete loss-run data from January 1, 2005 through September 30, 2025. The loss -run captures more than 20 years of claims activity and provides a comprehensive picture of Dublin’s long-term risk exposure. Over the 20-year period, annual claim payments ranged from as low as $374 in 2020 to $86,466 in 2005, with most years falling below $14,000. Recent experience is even more modest, with total paid losses of $8,754 in 2024 and $2,546 recorded through Sept ember 30, 2025. These results reflect Dublin’s low-frequency, low-severity claim environment, supported by a predominantly administrative and professional workforce and strong internal safety practices. The City’s exposure is further reduced by contracting out police, fire, and 150 Page 3 of 5 maintenance services, which shifts the highest-risk functions outside the City’s direct operations. This historical claim performance must also be considered in the context of the City’s current risk structure through Cities Group, under which Dublin operates with an SIR of $1 million per claim and a $10 million per claim limit. It is important to note that Dublin’s claim activity has remained far below the SIR level. Workers’ Compensation Program Options Considered 1. State Compensation Insurance Fund. The State Compensation Insurance Fund is a fully insured workers’ compensation program in which the State assumes full liability for all claims. Agencies pay an annual premium based on payroll, class codes, and statewide actuarial factors, and in exchange the State Fund becomes responsible for claims payments, litigation costs, medical management, and all associated liabilities. While the State Fund provides guaranteed acceptance for public agencies and delivers a predictable, standardized administrative process, participation comes with several notable limitations. Specifically, because the program is fully insured, agencies relinquish nearly all control over claims handling. This includes decisions regarding compensability, medical treatment direction, settlement strategy, litigation oversight, and return-to-work coordination. For Dublin, which has historically benefited from close oversight of claims and early-return-to- work practices, this loss of control could negatively impact claim outcomes and increase indirect costs such as lost productivity and modified duty availability. This reduction in control could lengthen claim duration, increase disability time, and diminish the effectiveness of the City’s return-to-work approach. Additionally, while the State Fund premium calculation is based on the City’s claim experience, premiums include statewide risk assumptions, administrative overhead, and insurer operating costs. As a result, the premium does not reflect Dublin’s actual workers' compensation exposure, which typically totals only a few thousand dollars per year. The annual premium quoted for Dublin to participate in the State Fund is $206,000, significantly higher than the City’s historical claims. 2. Workers’ Compensation Joint Powers Authority (JPA). A workers’ compensation JPA is a collective risk-sharing arrangement in which multiple public agencies pool their workers’ compensation exposures and jointly fund the costs of claims, administration, and long-term reserves. Member agencies contribute annual premiums that support both current claim payments and the reserves needed to cover future liabilities for the entire pool. JPAs provide shared governance, access to pooled resources, and standardized risk - management practices; however, participation also requires agencies to operate under uniform policies and claims-handling procedures established by the pool. Although the overall structure of a JPA is similar to that of Cities Group, where agencies pooled their claims and purchased excess insurance collectively, the JPAs reviewed by Staff differ in one important respect: they maintain much lower levels of SIR than Cities 151 Page 4 of 5 Group’s $1 million SIR. The JPAs that provided quotes operate with SIRs in the range of $5,000 to $150,000. This lower retention level increases the amount of pooled claim costs and administrative overhead that must be funded by all members. For a low-loss agency like Dublin, this means paying significantly more into the pool to support claims generated by higher-risk members. Because JPA contributions are calculated based on the pooled actuarial needs of all members rather than on each agency’s individual loss experience, low-loss agencies often subsidize agencies with higher claim frequency or severity. For Dublin, whose workers’ compensation losses have been consistently modest and well below its long-standing $1 million SIR, this structure is financially unfavorable. The JPAs reviewed quoted annual participation costs between $250,000 and $535,000, far exceeding the City’s typical annual losses. Joining a JPA would therefore require the City to contribute substantially more than is warranted by its actual risk profile. In addition, even in years where the City’s losses totaled less than $10,000, Dublin would still be required to pay several hundred thousand dollars into a pooled program, effectively subsidizing agencies with much higher claim activity while receiving no materially different protection than the structure under which it already operates. 3. Self-Funded Program with TPA and Excess Insurance. A self-funded program allows agencies to pay only the actual cost of their workers’ compensation claims while maintaining a dedicated trust account for those expenses. Under this model, a third -party administrator handles day-to-day claims administration in close coordination with agency staff, including medical coordination, investigations, regulatory reporting, litigation oversight, and return-to-work support. The TPA charges a flat annual fee of approximately $4,000, with additional à la carte fees for individual claims and specialty services. Based on projected activity in Dublin, the TPA’s total annual cost for the City is expected to be no more than $15,000. To protect the City against catastrophic or unusually high -cost claims, the program includes the purchase of excess workers’ compensation insurance, estimated at $100,000 annually. Under the proposed structure, the City would assume an SIR of $750,000, meaning the City is responsible for all claim costs up to that amount. The excess insurance provides statutory limits coverage, which means the insurer will pay all legally required workers’ compensation costs (i.e., medical care, wage replacement, permanent disability benefits, lifetime medical awards, and death benefits) without a dollar cap, as required under California law. Once the City’s $750,000 SIR is reached, all additional benefits owed under the Workers’ Compensation Act are fully covered by the excess carrier. This enhances the catastrophic protection the City currently receives through Cities Group. Given that the City’s annual claims have remained far below $750,000, and that Dublin has decades of successful experience operating within a high -retention framework, a self- funded workers’ compensation program remains the approach most consistent with the City’s historical losses and overall risk profile. This option aligns costs with actual experience, ensures unspent funds stay in a City-controlled trust rather than subsidizing a pool, and preserves essential catastrophic protection through statutory-limit excess 152 Page 5 of 5 coverage. For these reasons, the self -funded model not only represents the lowest-cost option but is also the most actuarially appropriate and operationally consistent approach for the City moving forward. Under this option, the City would need to establish an initial trust account to cover anticipated claim expenses and maintain liquidity, at a level consistent with claims history. Staff recommends depositing an initial $50,000 into the trust, with funding levels evaluated annually thereafter. Next Steps Upon City Council approval to use the self-funded model, Staff will execute an agreement with the selected TPA, bind excess workers’ com pensation insurance coverage effective January 1, 2026, and create the required trust and fund structure. Staff also will complete State self- insurance filings, coordinate record transfers with Cities Group, and update the City’s internal reporting and return-to-work procedures. Finally, Staff will bring a mid-year budget amendment to the City Council to fund the transition. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1) October 21, 2025 Staff Report (without attachments) 153 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 5 DATE: October 21, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Colleen Tribby, City Manager SUBJECT: Dissolution of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority Prepared by: Sarah Monnastes, Human Resources Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider approving a resolution consenting to the dissolution of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority and authorizing execution of a Dissolution Agreement to govern the dissolution process. The Board of Directors for the JPA has determined that an orderly dissolution is the most effective means to transitioning the remaining Member Agencies to independent administration of their workers’ compensation programs. Approval of the resolution will allow the dissolution process to proceed in coordination with the other member Agencies, with operations anticipated to conclude by the end of 2026. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution Consenting to the Dissolution of San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority Pursuant to Section 5 of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Agreement and Approving a Dissolution Agreement to Govern the Dissolution Process. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City’s current annual payment for workers’ compensation coverage is approximately $3,000. With the dissolution of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority (Cities Group), the City of Dublin will need to enroll in a new workers’ compensation program, which Staff anticipates will cost significantly more ($200,000 - $500,000 annually). Additionally, the City currently has about $187,000 in funds held by the Cities Group. As part of the dissolution process, member agencies, including the City, will be required to share in the costs associated with administrative closeout and legal obligations of the Joint Powers Authority. Following the completion of this process, the City expects to receive a portion of its contributed funds back, which may help offset some of the transition costs in the first year. Attachment 1 154 Page 2 of 5 DESCRIPTION: Background The San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority (Cities Group) was formed on October 5, 1978, for the purpose of allowing its member agencies to pool resources to fund and administer their respective workers’ compensation programs. The Cities Group now also administers other benefits, such as life insurance, long-term disability, and dental programs, on behalf of some of the member agencies. However, the Cities Group’s primary purpose remains the administration of workers’ compensation programs. The founding members of the Cities Group were the Cities of Half Moon Bay, Foster City, and Brisbane, and the Towns of Atherton and Hillsborough. The City of San Carlos was added to the membership in 1989, and the City of Dublin was added to the membership in 2004. Although the City of Brisbane withdrew from membership in the early 2000s, th e Cities Group has enjoyed stable membership during its 47 -year history. However, in November 2024, the City of Foster City submitted a withdrawal notice to the Cities Group, indicating that it planned to withdraw from membership as of July 1, 2025. Pursu ant to Section 4 of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), as amended in 1997, any member agency that has completed at least three years of membership may unilaterally withdraw from the Cites Group on July 1 of any calendar year, after providing notice of its i ntent to withdraw on or before January 1 of that same year. Ultimately, Foster City’s membership was terminated August 1, 2025 pursuant to an agreed termination under Section VIII(B) of the Cities Group Bylaws, as amended in 2000. Under the Termination Agr eement with Foster City, Foster City assumed all liability for the past, current, and future claims it generated. The Cities Group, therefore, is no longer responsible for any claims generated by the City of Foster City. After receiving the withdrawal notice from the City of Foster City in November 2024, four of the five other member agencies also submitted withdrawal notices prior to the January 1, 2025 deadline. Unlike Foster City, however, those members indicated that they issued their notices in order to reserve their right to withdraw from the Cities Group but had not yet determined whether they intended to withdraw as of July 1, 2025. Ultimately none of the other members withdrew from the Cities Group, and the membership remains as follows: the Ci ty of San Carlos, the City of Half Moon Bay, the City of Dublin, the Town of Atherton, and the Town of Hillsborough. Although the Cities Group has continued to operate successfully after the departure of the City of Foster City, the future viability of the Cities Group is in question. Because Foster City represented a disproportionately large share of the total claims handled by the Cities Group, the Group will become financially less stable and will be less attractive on the reinsurance market. With this in mind, and at the Board’s direction, Cities Group staff worked with the Board President to conduct initial research into the possibility of merging the Cities Group with another Joint Powers Agency or other public agency administering workers’ compensat ion programs. However, each of the identified agencies indicated that Cities Group members wishing to move their workers’ compensation programs would have to do so individually, rather 155 Page 3 of 5 than moving all five Cities Group members as a unit. The Cities Group Board President and staff presented this finding to the Board of Directors in February 2025 and recommended that each member agency conduct its own due diligence to determine where it might take its claims should the Cities Group dissolve. The Board held several discussions in the following months about the future of the Cities Group and the prospect of dissolution. On June 10, 2025 the Cities Group Board of Directors approved a resolution which found that an orderly dissolution of the Cities Group was the preferable method of transitioning the member agencies out of the Cities Group, rather than having each member agency individually withdraw. That resolution directed Cities Group staff to create and present to the Board a dissolution plan under which the Cities Group would cease providing claims administration and all other benefit services on behalf of the members on or before December 31, 2025. In accordance with the Board’s direction, the Cities Group staff drafted a Dissolution Agreement that would govern the dissolution process and establish the ongoing rights and obligations of the members. The draft of that Dissolution Agreement was provided to the attorneys representing each of the member agencies, and Cities Group staff worked with representatives from each agency to address questions, concerns, and objections to the terms of the Dissolution Agreement. After completing that review process with representatives of each of the five member agencies, the Dissolution Agreement was presented to the Board at its meeting on September 9, 2025. Discussion At the September 9, 2025 meeting, the Board of Directors approved the resolution (Attachment 3), which formally recommends to the councils of the member agencies that they each consent to the dissolution of the Cities Group and approve the Dissolution Agreement. Pursuant to Section 5 of the JPA, the Cities Group cannot dissolve unless all Member Agencies consent to the dissolution. Therefore, each of the five councils must adopt resolutions providing that consent. A draft resolution consenting to the dissolution of the Cities Group and authorizing the City of Dublin to execute the Dissolution Agreement is included as Attachment 1, with the Dissolution Agreement included as Attachment 2, to this Staff Report. If approved by all five councils of the member agencies, the Dissolution Agreement will govern the dissolution process and set forth the rights and responsibilities of each agency during that process. Most notably, the Dissolution Agreement would require the following:  Each member agency must remain a member of the Cities Group for the duration of the dissolution process (Section 2);  Cities Group will cease all claims operations and the provision of other benefits as of the “Transfer Date” on January 1, 2026 (Section 4);  Each member agency must take responsibility for all of its past, current, and future 156 Page 4 of 5 claims as of the Transfer Date and assume all liability associated with those claims (Section 5);  As of the Transfer Date, the costs of operating the Cities Group will be split equally among the five member agencies as “Shared Expenses”, rather than apportioned based on claim volume (Section 6);  At the direction of the Board of Directors, the Cities Group will conduct audits and/or other studies to determine the correct ending fund balances for each of the member agencies as of the Transfer Date, and those with negative balances will be required to bring those balances to $0 on or before August 1, 2026 (Section 7);  Member agencies with positive fund balances as of the Transfer Date that are not depleted through the assessment of Shared Expenses shall be refunded the balance of those funds prior to the final dissolution of the Cities Group (Section 7);  The Board shall select one or more member agencies to retain the records of the Cities Group for the periods required by statute (Section 12);  The member agencies agree to waive all potential claims related to the Cities Group that they may have against one another or against the Cities Group (Section 14); and  The dissolution will occur at the time that the Board finds by adoption of an “Ending Resolution” that all of the Cities Group’s outstanding obligations have been resolved. Several member agencies requested that Cities Group staff provide an estimated schedule for the dissolution process. A preliminary estimated schedule, which anticipates the completion of the dissolution process by the end of calendar year 2026, is included as Attachment 4 of this Staff Report. However, pursuant to Section 5 of the JPA, the Cities Group must resolve all of its outstanding obligations before it can complete the dissolution process. The actual timeline for the dissolution, therefore, will be dictated by the pace at which the outstanding obligations of the Cities Group can be resolved. Consent of the member agencies to the recommended dissolution will provide clarity to the agencies and the Cities Group staff and enable them to plan for the date on which claims will no longer be handled by the Cities Group. It is also important to allow enough time for Cities Group staff to work with the member agencies to transfer claims to new claims administrators. For those reasons, each agency must obtain council consent to the dissolution and approval of the Dissolution Agreement by October 31, 2025. For reference, the Cities Group Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws, and the amendments to each, are attached here as Attachment 5. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: None. 157 Page 5 of 5 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1)Resolution Consenting to the Dissolution of San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority Pursuant to Section 5 of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Agreement and Approving a Dissolution Agreement to Govern the Dissolution Process 2)Exhibit A to the Resolution – Agreement Dissolving the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Pursuant to Section 5 of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Agreement 3)Exhibit B to the Resolution – A Resolution of the Cities Group Board of Directors of the San Mateo County Cities Insurance Group Joint Powers Authority Recommending that the Member Agencies Approve the Dissolution of the Joint Powers Authority Pursuant to the Terms of a Dissolution Agreement 4)Estimated Schedule for Dissolution 5)Cities Group Joint Powers Agreement, Bylaws and Amendments 158 Recommendation to Transition to a Self-Funded Workers’ Compensation Program November 18, 2025 159 Purpose of Tonight’s Item Provide overview of Workers’ Compensation program options Share analysis of the City’s 20-year claims history Review viability and cost of available program structures Present Staff recommendation for program structure Request Council authorization to implement new program effective January 1, 2026 160 Why a New Program is Needed •Cities Group JPA is dissolving January 1, 2026. •Each member agency must now establish its own WC structure. •Goal –Ensure financial stability, strong claim oversight, and continuity of service. 161 Dublin’s Claim History (2005 –2025) 162 Current Structure Member of the Cities Group JPA $1 million SIR per claim $10 million per-claim limit City has never approached the $1 million retention level Historical losses indicate Dublin is well-suited to a high- retention model 163 Program Options Reviewed State Compensation Fund 01 Workers’ Compensation JPA 02 Self-Funded with TPA + Excess Insurance 03 164 Option 1: State Compensation Fund •Guaranteed acceptance •Claims fully insured and administered by State Pros •Loss of local control over claims decisions •Could extend claim duration and reduce effectiveness of return-to-work •Premium cost: $206,000 annually, significantly higher than City’s losses •Does not reflect Dublin’s actual risk profile Cons 165 Option 2: Workers' Compensation JPA •Shared resources •Standardized risk management •Much lower SIR levels ($0 -$150,000) Pros •Lower SIR levels = higher pooled costs •Low-loss agencies subsidize higher-risk members •Annual costs quoted to Dublin: $250,000–$535,000 •Significant mismatch with Dublin’s historical losses •No meaningful benefit over prior structure Cons 166 Option 3: Self-Funded Program (Recommended) •City pays only actual claim costs •Excess insurance protects against catastrophic claims •Program mirrors long-standing structure •Lowest overall cost •Greatest control over claims, treatment, and return-to-work •Unspent funds remain under City control Pros •Minor additional administrative tasks required (e.g., OSIP reporting, actuarial) Cons 167 Financial Impact: Self-Funded Program Third-Party Administrator •$4,000 Annual Fee •Additional fees, based on actual claims •Estimated annual cost = $15,000 Excess Insurance •City pays first $750,000 •Insurance pays everything else; no cap •Estimated annual cost = $100,000 Trust Account •Separate bank account claims are paid from •Initial funding recommended = $50,000 •Further funding based on claim expenses 168 Next Steps (If Approved) •Execute an agreement with the selected TPA. •Bind excess workers’ compensation insurance coverage effective January 1, 2026. •Create the required trust and fund structures. •Complete State self-insurance filings. •Coordinate record transfers with Cities Group. •Update the City’s internal procedures. •Request mid-year budget amendment to fund the transition. 169 Requested Council Action Approve the City’s transition to a self- funded workers’ compensation model beginning January 1, 2026. 1 Authorize the establishment of a workers’ compensation trust account. 2 Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements related to administration and excess insurance. 3 170 Thank You Any Questions? 171