Sponsored By:

by Robert Bambino, CPCUDirector of Risk Management

The U.S. NationalInventory of Dams – aregistry that captures

information about structures thatare greater than or equal to 25’in height or impounding 50acre-feet or more of water, (anacre-foot is equal to 325,851gallons of water), contains a listof 79,000 structures. TheRegistry also includes structuresabove 6’ in height where failurewould potentially cause damagedownstream. According to theFederal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA), more than9,000 dams nationwide havebeen designated by their statesas “high-hazard,” meaning thatdam failure would most likelyresult in a loss of life. Thenation’s inventory is aging withmore than 80% of America’s dams built before 1980. New YorkState alone has approximately 55 state-determined deficient dams.

NYMIR’s ExperienceNYMIR currently insures fifty-nine dams for liability coveragethroughout New York State. They vary in size from a few acre-feet to others that are over 100 acre-feet. Depending on thelocation and downstream property at risk in the event of a dam

failure, exposures can be minor orconsiderable – increasing the proba-bility of damage to personal and realproperty, roadways and bridges, aswell as for injuries and loss of life.

The Role of the New York StateDepartment of EnvironmentalConservation (DEC)The DEC is responsible for dam safetyin New York. Dam safety standardsare outlined under the EnvironmentalConservation Law (ECL), Article 15,Title 5. The DEC periodically inspectsdams; answers questions from damowners or managers and reviews per-mit applications. In addition, underthe ECL, the DEC has the power toinspect and investigate dams whenev-er required to do so for public safetyreasons. The DEC can issue orders topersons or public corporations toremove or repair dams and impound-ment structures. If an order is violated,

the DEC can enter property to removeor repair the unsafe structure. Article 15 permits the recovery ofcosts and expenses. Also, upon written request from a damowner, the DEC will release information about a dam’s charac-teristics (size, type, and recommendation status) to the damowner or a designated third-party.

The DEC uses a hazard classification system, whereby a ratingcan be assigned to dams based on the potential impacts of adam failure:

Dams: Controlling a Potentially Hazardous Exposure

IT’S

Insuring Our Own Future

Volume 9 • Number 2 • Fall 2005

The New York StateAssociation of Counties

The New YorkConference of Mayors

The Association of Towns of the State of New York

OUR POLICYNew York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal

Phot

o by

Art

hur

Mig

none

Continued on page 2

Dams: Controlling a Potentially Hazardous ExposureContinued from page 1

Hazards, Risk and Responsibility• Natural hazards include flooding from

high precipitation, flooding from dam failure, earthquakes and landslides. New York doesn’t have the same flood plain exposure as other states. However, according to a U.S. Geological Survey, the lower Hudson Valley, sections of the Adirondack Park and the Niagara – Erie area have the greatest potential for seismic activity.

• Human hazards involve community development, often times in hazardous areas surrounding dams and other structures.

Section 15-0507 of Article 15 of the ECLstates that owners of dams (or other structure that impound waters) shall oper-ate and maintain structures and all appur-tenant structures in a safe condition.Generally, if repairs, renovations or re-construction of the dam is needed, a permit must be obtained from the DEC,pursuant to Article 15.

Sample Dam Safety ProgramThe DEC, in its publication An OwnersGuidance Manual for the Inspection of Dams in New York State* includesinformation about dam hazards and risks;inspection guidelines; instrumentation,monitoring maintenance and operationsguidelines; emergency action plans; suggestions to improve dam safety; andprocedures for developing a safety program. The primary purpose of a dam safety program is to determine what types

of actions are needed, over the long andshort term, to assure the maximum safeoperation of the dam.

The main components of a safety programinclude:• Assessing the condition of the dam and

its components• Conducting preliminary and detailed

inspections• Identifying repairs and maintenance

needs• Establishing periodic and continuous

monitoring capabilities• Establishing an emergency manage-

ment plan (EMP)• Documenting the safety program

Guidelines for assessing existing condi-tions include:• Reviewing existing data – primarily

engineering information• Visiting the dam site and inspecting the

dam – identifying and evaluating access roads, upstream and down-stream slope, crest, abutments, spill-ways, outlets and drains and the sur-rounding reservoir area. The inspection should identify: cracks, slumps, seepage, and signs of deterioration, such as internal corrosion, weathering, an unstable or deteriorating settlement foundation.

• Assessing the significance of the findings

• Monitoring and further inspections• Incorporating the results of the first four

steps to create a dam safety programAn inspection program should involve

three steps:1. Periodic technical inspections –

performed by a qualified design professional familiar with dams

2. Periodic maintenance inspections3. Informal observations by project

personnel

Sample Dam Emergency ActionPlan (EAP)The DEC’s Owners Guidance Manual andFEMA’s Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety*review similar issues and procedures tocreate an emergency action plan for damowners and operators.

The DEC’s EAP suggests a systematic procedure to:• Identify emergency conditions or

hazards that threaten a dam• Expedite an effective program to

address hazards and conditions to prevent dam failure

• Respond to failures that do occur, to reduce injuries, loss of life and propertydamage

A checklist for dam EAP plans is on page72 of the DEC’s Owners GuidanceManual. Points to evaluate and address toidentify conditions and hazards include:• Are all indicators of potential failure

covered in the plan? (Erosion, riprap displacement, high amounts of seep-age, boils, piping, whirlpools, settle-ment, cracks, sinkholes, etc.)

• Are all emergency situations covered? (Earthquakes, floods, storms, large landslides, fires, civil disturbance, terrorism,etc.)

• Are all possible failure or problem locations identified?

Fortunately, NYMIR subscribers can usetheir existing EAP to address dam safety, inthe same manner as they address otherexposures, such as severe weather andfires. Coordination with other municipalagencies, emergency notification to theaffected community, evacuation and shel-tering plans, a pre-set communicationssystem, and supply sources for buildingmaterials should all be planned and docu-mented with contact information updatedregularly.

Continued on page 8

2

High HazardClass ‘C’

A dam located in an areawhere failure may cause lossof human life, serious damage to homes, industrialor commercial buildings,important public utilities, mainhighways or railroads and/orwill cause extensive economicloss.

Intermediate hazardClass ‘B’

A dam located in an areawhere failure may damage iso-lated homes, main highways,minor railroads, interrupt theuse of relatively importantpublic utilities, and/or willcause significant economicloss or serious environmentaldamage.

Low HazardClass ‘A’

A dam located in an areawhere failure will damagenothing more than isolatedbuildings, undeveloped lands,or township or county roadsand/or will cause no signifi-cant economic loss or seriousenvironmental damage.

by Wayne Keebler, Underwriting VicePresident

The question of whether municipaltractors and other motorized equip-ment should be assigned insurance

cards comes up periodically when theyare involved in accidents. Basically, every“motor vehicle” that is registered in NewYork requires proof of financial security,which for insurance purposes is statutoryliability insurance coverage. In general,whenever a “motor vehicle” is driven oroperated on the public highways of NYState, it must be insured. A “motor vehi-cle,” as defined by the state, is any pow-ered (not self-propelled) vehicle used onthe public highways, with the exception oftractors used exclusively for agriculturalpurposes or snow plowing.

Normally vehicles designed for and usedon public roads are required to have aplate and be registered and insured as an

“automobile”. Self-propelled MobileEquipment which occasionally must beused on public roads would carry insur-ance coverage under the General Liability(GL) policy. Since Personal Injury Pro-tection (PIP) and Uninsured/ Under-insured Motorists (UM/UIM) are not normally provided on a GL policy, a stan-dard endorsement needs to be attachedwhich provides minimum (basic limits)personal injury protection and UM andUIM coverage for mobile equipment. Ifbasic limits are not considered sufficient,Mobile Equipment can be added to anAuto policy at a reduced Auto Liabilitypremium.

An “auto” must carry an insurance cardand, generally speaking “self-propelledmobile equipment” used only occasional-ly on public roads must carry a copy ofthe Declaration page of the GL policy withthe Mobile Equipment Endorsementattached.

NYMIR will provide insurance cards forany vehicle listed on an auto insurancepolicy. By State law, however, NYMIRcannot provide an insurance card for self-propelled mobile equipment unless thatequipment is covered on an auto policy(even though municipalities are notrequired in New York to have VIN numberspecific auto insurance cards). Somemunicipalities are putting a generic insur-ance card in mobile equipment to obtainplates and to show in event of a loss. Theproblem is that coverage higher than basiclimits may be provided on the auto policyand the mobile equipment cannot berated under a GL policy above basic limitsfor PIP, UM and UIM coverage. The onlysolution to this State-imposed catch twen-ty-two is to add any self-propelled mobileequipment which may be used on publicroads to the auto policy. It is a bit moreexpensive to do this way, but New YorkState is enforcing this interpretation.

P O I N T S O F I N T E R E S T

Insurance Cards for Tractors?

Precedent-Setting Decision On EmergencyEvacuations For People With Disabilities

3

Last December, a Maryland courtdeclared that the Americans withDisabilities Act (the ADA) requires

places of public accommodation to con-sider the needs of people with disabilitiesin developing emergency evacuationplans. This groundbreaking decision -means that shopping malls, stores, restau-rants, movie theaters, museums, andother private entities subject to the ADAthroughout the country, whether landlordsor tenants, must now seek to accommo-date people with disabilities in the devel-opment and modification of emergencyevacuation procedures.

The court’s significant decision arose outof a lawsuit filed by a woman whobecame trapped during an emergencyevacuation in a local shopping mall thathad no accessible exits for persons with

disabilities. The woman, who uses awheelchair, was shopping at a store in amall when suddenly the store and theMall were evacuated. After store person-nel required her to exit into an area of theMall that was below ground level, shefound that she was trapped there andunable to evacuate because the elevatorswere shut down and all the exits had

stairs. Abandoned by store employeesand trapped, she resolved to use her terri-fying ordeal as a vehicle for ensuring thatfellow citizens with disabilities would notbe similarly victimized in emergencyevacuation situations.

In briefs filed with the court, the storetook the position that the ADA does notrequire places of public accommodationto modify evacuation plans in order toaccommodate the needs of people withdisabilities. The court rejected the store’sview and wrote that Title III applied.Municipalities should review the codes ofsuch public attractions and requirementsfor owners or tenants in their communi-ties to ensure that ADA emergency evacu-ation plans are in place so that anymunicipal rescue efforts are based onclear and comprehensive directives.

Protecting Your Property

by Susan O'Rorke, AAI Regional Manager

N YMIR is continually seeking ways to enhance the serv-ices we provide to our members. This is one reasonthat NYMIR is providing free property valuations to

each of its members.

NYMIR has accelerated this program to appraise all subscriberswho joined prior to 2004, by the end of 2005. Subscribers whojoined in 2005 will have their valuation completed in 2006.

NYMIR has contracted with CBIZ Valuation Group LLC to per-form this service. This appraisal includes a physical valuation ofall municipal owned buildings valuations at $100,000 or more.In addition, business personal property will be projected

through a modeling process. An insurance valuation report willbe completed after the review is done. This report will be sentdirectly to the municipality and a copy sent to the municipali-ty's insurance broker. Please review the report with your broker.If there are any discrepancies with the report, please contactNYMIR within 30 days. After 30 days, NYMIR will make anyappropriate adjustments to the property values for each member.

NYMIR appreciates the cooperation of all subscribers in com-pleting this program. This outside review of property values willbenefit both you and NYMIR to ensure that your property valuesare up to date and fully insured.

If you would like further information on this value added pro-gram, you may contact Ron Acebal, Director CBIZ ValuationGroup, at 800-800-7402 ext 101 or at racebal@cbiz.com.

4

by Robert Bambino, CPCUDirector of Risk Management

Getting to Yes is a process subscribers can use to decidewhether or not to approve activities or events that present addi-tional accident risk, but at the same time serve a worthwhilepurpose within their communities. Through a process of riskidentification and evaluation, an informed decision can be madeas to whether to go ahead, and if so, what types of efforts areneeded to safely mange an activity or event. The example pro-vided here is for athletic events, but the process can be used fornumerous other potential activities.

Regional Soccer, Softball and Other Athletic TournamentsWhen the municipality has the ball fields and/or facilities of suf-ficient size to accommodate the proposed event; it should con-sider the following points:

1. Are there inspection procedures to ensure that fields and facilities are suitable for use? Yes ___ No ___

2. Did the tournament sponsor complete a use of facilities application? Does it list the sponsor's responsibilities?

Yes ___ No ___3. Has the tournament sponsor provided an insurance

certificate, with general liability and excess insurance? Depending on the size of the tournament, the sponsor should have general liability limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, and excess limits of at least

$1,000,000. Yes ___ No ___

4. Does the certificate list the municipality as an additional insured, and is the additional insured endorsement provided with the certificate? Yes ___ No ___

5. Have security needs been addressed? Yes ___ No ___6. If there are food vendors, do they have the necessary permits?

Yes ___ No ___7. Will participants sign waiver and release forms?

Yes ___ No ___8. Will custodians be on site during the event?

Yes ___ No ___9. Are emergency management and evacuation plans in place?

The Plans should cover all foreseeable emergencies and assign responsibilities. The plans must be communicated to the tournament sponsor and all affected personnel and include feedback from local law enforcement.

Yes ___ No ___10.Is there an accident reporting system in place?

Yes ___ No ___

If the answer is no to more than one or two of these questions,the municipality may not be prepared at this time to approve orsponsor the event. Additional planning is in order.

Keep in mind that not all events and activities are automaticallycovered by NYMIR insurance policies. Please speak with yourmunicipality’s insurance agent before approving or sponsoring special events or activities, or contact the NYMIRUnderwriting Department.

Getting to Yes

by Leonard Rosenbaum, Esq.Claims Counsel

On March 30, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down asignificant decision, Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. __,6255.Ct.1536 (2005), concerning an employee’s right to sue underthe Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for anemployer’s practices that have a “disparate impact” on individ-uals 40 years of age or over. While the Court ultimately held infavor of the employer (the City of Jackson, Mississippi) based onthe specific facts of the case, the Court ruled that disparateimpact claims are cognizable under the ADEA.

The Smith case involved the adoption of a new pay plan by theCity granting raises to all City police officers in an effort tobring their starting salaries up to the regional average. Underthe plan, however, officers with less than five years of servicewere provided proportionately larger raises than officers withgreater seniority. Consequently, a group of officers over the ageof 40 filed suit under the ADEA claiming that the City deliber-ately discriminated against them because of their age (a “dis-parate treatment” claim) and that they were adversely affectedby the plan because of their age (a “disparate impact” claim).

Supreme Court Upholds Lower Court RulingBoth the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFifth Circuit granted summary judgment for the City, dismissingplaintiffs’ claims. The Fifth Circuit held that disparate impactclaims are categorically unavailable under the ADEA, eventhough such claims are viable under Title VII of the Civil RightsAct of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination based on race,color, religion, sex or national origin). The Supreme Courtaffirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, holding, in part, that plaintiffsfailed to identify any specific practice within the City’s pay planthat had an adverse impact on older workers. The Court alsoheld that the City’s plan was based on “reasonable factors”other than age – that is, raising the salaries of junior officers tocompete in the market. However, the Court disagreed with theFifth Circuit’s reasoning that disparate impact claims are neveravailable under the ADEA. The Court held that because the lan-guage of the ADEA and that of Title VII are virtually identical,the ADEA authorizes disparate impact claims comparable tothose brought under Title VII. The Court did note, however, thatthe scope of disparate impact liability under the ADEA is nar-rower because the ADEA permits “otherwise prohibited” activi-ty “where the differentiation is based on reasonable factorsother than age.” Thus, if reasonable factors other than age dis-

crimination account for the alleged adverse impact, as theSupreme Court found in Smith, the employer’s conduct oraction is not in violation of the ADEA.

Review Municipal Employment PoliciesEmployers must be careful that their employee policies are notdiscriminatory. In light of this landmark ruling, employersshould re-assess their employee policies and programs to deter-mine if those policies have any potential adverse impact onolder employees. While the adverse impact may not be intend-ed or deliberate, it could be actionable if the contested activityand disparate impact are not based on “reasonable factors otherthan age discrimination.”

Preventing ADEA ClaimsMunicipalities should incorporate risk control techniques intopersonnel and other employment practices to control age dis-crimination claims. All policies concerning harassment and dis-crimination, as well as training programs and evaluations,should address age discrimination. Additionally, policies shouldbe reviewed annually to ensure that the municipality is in com-pliance with the most recent employment laws.

E M P L O Y E E R E S O U R C E D E S K

The Age Discrimination Employment Act of

1967, as amended, appears in Volume 29 of

the United States Code, beginning at section

621. The ADEA prohibits employment dis-

crimination against persons 40 years of age or

older. The Older Workers Benefit Protection

Act (Pub. L. 101-433) amends several sections

of the ADEA. In addition, section 115 of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-166) amends

section 7(e) of the ADEA (29 U. S.C. 626(e)).

5

“Disparate Impact:” A Valid Cause of Action Under the ADEA

6

Q. Can you provide any direction forhow to deal with exposures related tostreets and roads? We are especially con-cerned about work zone and road designsituations.

A. These matters continue to be leadingloss drivers for NYMIR subscribers. Thereare excellent resources available on ourweb site, www.nymir.org, (click RiskManagement, then Streets and Roads) forin-depth information on municipal signusage, underground facility protection,special use roadway management – sea-sonal minimal maintenance, and aban-doned roadways. A sample sign inspec-tion log is included, along with sampleprior written notice laws for cities, coun-ties and towns.

Q. Our municipality is planning a newplayground. Is there any reason not toinclude a sandbox?

A. Sandboxes tend to be a high mainte-nance item. Sand is easily scattered and thrown. Sandboxes also attract animalsand can become the neighborhood litter

box, thus creating a potential health haz-ard and certainly generating complaintsfrom municipal users. If you are able tomaintain and monitor the sandbox thereis no reason not to install one, but if youaren’t staffed to keep an eye on it’s con-dition it could present problems.

Q. Can you give us an overview forsewer back-up and maintenance issuesand liability so we can communicateclearly with our residents?

A. Sewer back-ups are a frustratingexperience for property owners. Theproperty owner is responsible for mainte-nance of the lateral sewer line from theirproperty to the sewer main. The munici-pality is responsible for maintaining themain sewer line only. Sewer linesbecome blocked due to build-up ordebris in the pipes that becomes trappedand results in a back up. When thisoccurs, wastewater from the home orbusiness is blocked from flowing into themain and flows backwards – through thefirst available plumbing appliance outlet.A large deluge of rain or flood watersmay also cause back-ups when the mainlines become overwhelmed with runoff.Clear communication is an excellentstart to clearing up questions on the partof residents. It is important to tell themthat the municipality’s Department ofPublic Works will respond to and investi-gate all sewer back-ups, and that if thereis a problem with the main line, themunicipality will make sure the problemis addressed and repaired as soon aspossible. However, the problem is withina lateral line, the property owner will beso informed and advised to call a licensedplumber. This of course can be a costlyproblem, so concise documentation byyour DPW is critical to any potential liability claims.

Communications about how to take careof the sewer system are beneficial bothto the resident and the municipality. Itmay seem to be common sense, butreminding them annually about notplanting trees or large shrubs near sewer

lines, not disposing of grease and fatsdown the drain, not disposing of diapersor other disposable hygiene products intoilets, not allowing bones and foodscraps into the sink drain, not connectingbackyard drains, sump pumps and otherflood control systems to the sanitarysewer, and considering the purchase of aback-flow valve (preventor) for theirsewer system to help reduce the likeli-hood of wastewater entering their prop-erty is a very wise practice.

Q. Our town is considering the installa-tion of a skatepark. How litigious areskaters?

A. A survey of California and the stateof Washington, two states that have had

municipal skate parks longer than most,showed that only two claims were filedin 20 years. Many participants, particu-larly those involved in getting the parkbuilt, develop a sense of ownership andare not likely to cause problems thatmay get the park closed or cause itsfunding to be withdrawn. Therefore, itappears that overall, skaters are not verylitigious. It is important to require per-sonal protective equipment, however,and enforce all safety requirements. Seethe Spring, 2005 issue of It’s Our Policyfor ways to incorporate loss controlguidelines during your skatepark plan-ning process.

N Y M I R B U L L E T I N B O A R D?

Practical Risk Management Perspectivesfor Police Professionals

Every time police officers put theirbody armor on…it’s risk manage-ment. The air bags mounted in the

steering wheels and dashboards of patrolcars…it’s risk management. Risk managementis easy to recognize and is pervasive in allaspects of our personal and professional lives.

In law enforcement, the management ofrisk is an expensive and critical aspect pri-marily due to the diversity and complexitiesthat police work entails. Police officersmust carry weapons, drive at high speeds,and have the authority under law todeprive others of their freedom. At times,police work must be performed under theworst circumstances – dealing with domes-tic violence, confronting combative offend-ers, working fatigued or with limited per-sonnel, and often with only seconds tomake a critical decision. This unique blendof authority and power combined with thedynamics of police work can create aninvasive climate for risk and potential expo-sure to liability.

Defining Risk ManagementRisk management is any action taken byany member of an organization that willeliminate, mitigate, or control risk. It is theprocess of making and carrying out deci-sions, processes, policy, training, directives,discipline, supervision, or procedures tostop or reduce the adverse effects of loss toan organization. Risk can be complex –researching and developing new policy andprocedures to prevent or control sexualharassment, for example, or it can be sim-ple – tacking down a loose piece of carpetat the top of the stairs.

Risk management is tangible. It’s found inthorough background investigations to hirethe best officers, retaining appropriateinsurance, maintaining a safe work envi-ronment, or properly servicing and main-taining equipment in good working order.Risk management is also conceptual,strongly influenced by ethics, self-control,professionalism, leadership, self-disciplinedbehavior, and quality customer service.Risk management’s foundation is built upon

maintaining safety and saving moneythrough loss reduction or elimination andserving as a protective blanket from civilliability.

Risk Solving FormulaThe following self-explanatory model illus-trates a simple five-step formula that can beeasily applied to most areas of risk. Thisprocess is sequential, allows for flexibility,and can be applied under a number of cir-cumstances by anyone with any level ofexperience.

STEP 1: IDENTIFY RISKA Chief of Police appoints a committee toreview department policy. The committeefinds that portions of the organization’s pol-icy were obsolete and in need of modifica-tion.

STEP 2: ANALYZE RISKThe areas in need of change were closelyexamined and compared to model policiesobtained from the International Associationof Chiefs of Police as well as polices uti-lized by surrounding agencies.

STEP 3: DEVELOP STRATEGY AND ACTThe committee reached a consensusregarding all the changes that needed to beimplemented. The findings were reduced toa formal report with detailed recommenda-tions for new policy and a strategy for spe-cific training that should follow its approvaland implementation. The report was sub-mitted to and approved by the Chief. Thepolicy was disseminated to all employees

and training in its content was conducted.

STEP 4: ASSESS ACTIONThe Chief of Police directed his PatrolDivision Captain to make formal inquiriesat staff meetings regarding the revised poli-cy over the following four months. Theinformation gathered verified that the poli-cy was well received by patrol officers,department trainers, and supervisors andthat it clarified what officers’ parameterswere while pursuing violators. The pursuitsthat occurred during this time frame were

closely examined and it was found that thedecisions made by pursuing officers tendedto be more responsible.

STEP 5: MONITOR RISKOne of the agency’s AdministrativeLieutenants was assigned to monitor theagency’s pursuits and to investigate anysubstantial problems. Furthermore, anyinformation regarding police pursuit relatedissues was to be collected and recorded topotentially benefit future changes in policyor pursuit training.

The practice of managing risk is both anindividual and team effort and is mosteffective when all members of an organiza-tion realize the importance of and acceptthe responsibility for safety and loss reduc-tion. Risk management – concept and prac-tice – is making good decisions and solvingproblems and through this, police officersand the organizations they serve realize thevalue and importance of the managementof risk by non-risk managers. Reprinted With Permission of the Author, Lt.Andy Borrello, San Gabriel Police Department.

7

Step 1

IdentifyRisk

AnalyzeRisk

DevelopStrategyand Act

AssessAction

MonitorRisk

Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Ken Andrews, PresidentTown Councilman, Town of DeWitt

John LaPointe, Vice PresidentSupervisor, Town of Putnam

John Layne, TreasurerMayor, Village of Airmont

Robert Bondi, SecretaryCounty Executive, Putnam County

Donald BarberSupervisor, Town of Caroline

Stanley J. DudekRisk Management Officer, Orleans County

Sandra FrankelSupervisor, Town of Brighton

Gale HatchVillage Clerk-Treasurer, Village of Ilion

Dominic F. MazzaCounty Administrator, Livingston County

John T. McDonald, IIIMayor, City of Cohoes

Kim K. MullerMayor, City of Oneonta

Jon SteadClerk of the Board, Fulton County

Timothy WhitesellSupervisor, Town of Binghamton

8

Mission

NYMIR’s mission is to provide the most

comprehensive insurance and risk

management programs for the local

governments of New York State.

NYMIR represents control for its

members over their own insurance

future. Through an elected Board of

Governors, members control the

company’s rates, coverages, claims

handling, and risk management services.

Our motto is simple - insuring our own

future - that’s what NYMIR is all about.

It’s Our Policy is the official publication of the New YorkMunicipal Insurance Reciprocal.

NYMIR24 Aviation Road, Suite 204Albany, NY 12205-1135Telephone: 518-437-1171or 1-800-NYMIR05Fax: 518-437-1182

Web site: www.NYMIR.org

A. Kevin CrawfordExecutive Directorkcrawford@kcnymir.orgTelephone: 518-465-7552

Brian CusterPresident, NYMIR Division,Wright Risk Managementbcuster@wrightrisk.com

©2005 New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal

NYMIR Board of Governors

Join us in welcoming those whohave joined the NYMIR familysince the last issue of It’s Our

Policy. Since our inception 12 years ago,NYMIR has steadily grown to become thelargest insurer of municipalities in NewYork State. We are the only insurer solelydedicated to the insurance needs of thecounties, cities, towns, villages and special districts throughout the state.

City of TonawandaCounty of Tioga

Oak Orchard Small Watershed ProtectionDistrict

Port Washington Garbage DistrictTown of Amboy

Town of BarringtonTown of ClarenceTown of Conklin

Town of De PeysterTown of Eagle

Town of EsopusTown of FayetteTown of LivoniaTown of MontourTown of OwascoTown of Preble

Town of RensselaervilleTown of Richfield Town of RutlandTown of Taylor

Village of CohoctonVillage of Lyons Falls

Village of NicholsVillage of Red HookVillage of Waterville

NYMIR’s Newest Members

Service as a NYMIR Board MemberNYMIR’s charter encourages Board member representation from across the state,and from all forms of municipalities. We welcome inquires from anyone interestedin serving on the NYMIR Board of Governors as well as recommendations of thosewhom you believe might be interested in election to office. To find out more aboutservice as a Board member, please contact Executive Director, Kevin Crawford, 146State Street, Albany, NY 12207, or 518-465-7552, or kcrawford@nytowns.org.

Dams: Controlling a Potentially Hazardous ExposureContinued from page 2

Additional information about dam risk man-agement is available on the websites of thefollowing: Association of Dam SafetyProfessionals; FEMA - National Dam Safety;NYS Department of EnvironmentalConservation; NYS Office of EmergencyManagement; and NYS Office of HomelandSecurity.

Dam Coverage Through NYMIRLiability coverage is available for certaindams that are owned and/or operated bysubscribers. However, dams must beunderwritten before coverage can beoffered. Contact your insurance repre-sentative or NYMIR underwriting (1-800-NYMIR05) if you have any questions.

* A copy of this report can be found on the NYMIRweb site (www.nymir.org) in the risk management section.