Amazon Park, 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

JENNINGS Carrie A From: DAUT Myrnie L To: JENNINGS Carrie A Cc: JOSEPH Cathy A; SOLIN Chuck R; MORGAN Dick A; ANDERSEN Chris F; EVELETH Doug A; SUTTON Ron W Subject: RE: Amazon Park Restroom Date: Friday, February 28, 1997 10:56AM Bob: The short answer to your question is that you could apply for Loss Prevention Funds to cover the additional expense of upgrading the fixtures. The LPF applies to prevention of property damage as well as to employee safety issues and I would support your application. I'm sorry that we didn't think to suggest this before now. If the Fleet Board doesn't approve the request, I will agree to pay for the cost of the stainless steel sinks and for one -half the cost of the stainless steel toilets from the Risk Fund. (According to Ron Sutton, a stainless steel sink only costs $100 more than a ceramic sink, but a stainless steel toilet costs $750 more than a ceramic toilet.) FYI, we checked our claims for the past 5 years. and we have only paid $1,953 in damage claims for the Amazon restroom during this period and it was all paid in FY96. This issue is one that we have spent some time discussing so, I would like elaborate on Risk's perspective. know that vandalism is becoming an increasing problem. It makes sense to put in stainless steel fixtures (or maybe even remove the restroom completely) to reduce future losses. The problem Risk has is that our claims reimbursements follow the same principles as our property insurance coverage with CHUBB - and that is that we replace what was damaged with "like kind and quality ". We do not provide funds for upgrading facilities through the claims process. Cost for upgrading facilities is borne by the departments. This situation is very similar to requests we have received that Risk pay for security upgrades. Departments have argued that if security was enhanced, the City would lose less property and Risk would pay fewer claims, which is true. And departments have also argued that they have no incentive to budget for security enhancements, since Risk will pay for losses, which is also true. The fact that Risk will reimburse departments for losses resulting from thefts and vandalism has created a disincentive for the departments to be responsible for upgrading their facilities. The attitude seems to be "If Risk won't pay for it, we won't do anything to address the problem." The security issue is one of interest to both Risk and Facilities, since departments also ask Facilities to fund security improvements and Facilities responds just as Risk does: "That's not what the fund was set up for." Doug Eveleth, Chuck Solin and I met recently to discuss ways of addressing this issue and came up with the idea of creating a second Loss Prevention Fund within the Risk Fund which would be devoted to funding security improvements and would be administered by the Facility Board. If the Risk Fund projections are favorable for FY98, (and we are having the worst claims year in over 5 years!) I was planning to present a recommendation to the Executive Managers this summer. The idea has already been presented to the Facility Board and was supportive of the concept. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this idea. and From: JENNINGS Carrie A To: SUTTON Ron W Cc: DAUT Myrnie L; MORGAN Dick A; ANDERSEN Chris F Subject: Amazon Park Restroom Date: Thursday, February 27, 1997 2:06PM FROM: Bob Hammitt Last Saturday I was contacted by Police Services that the Amazon Park restroom had been vandalized and the water needed to be shut off as it was running continuously. When I got to the site I found that both of the sinks had been ripped off of the wall . The one from the mens bathroom had been thrown against the building outside. The facilities plumber went to the site this morning to replace the sinks and found that last night somebody took a heavy object and completely destroyed Page 1