ISO Considering Change, input wanted.

I’ve been invited to sit in on a discussion, along with several others, with ISO. Purpose here is to brain storm ideas for changes in their rating system. Since my brain is only partly cloudy today, I’ll entertain ideas from the members. Hear is your chance, I’ll pass along any good ideas.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Trainer on January 17, 2009 at 12:13pm

Capt that has become pretty obvious, secrets, different standards, double standards. I hope I have not made anyone mad; I’m just trying to get clarification. If I am to stick my neck out on information from someone else, I want to be sure that it’s first hand knowledge from someone who has dealt directly with ISO during an audit on their dept, and not hearsay. I can screw things up enough on my own, without anyone’s help. :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on January 18, 2009 at 10:07am

I'm not talking about point values per item. I'm talking about what the real costs of dropping from say, an ISO Class 4 to and ISO Class 2 mean in terms of tax costs vs. fire insurance costs. I can figure out what it costs to buy the equipment, structure training, and strucure paperwork to go for an improved ISO class rating. If I can prove that improving my department's ISO class rating by one level will cost each residential taxpayer $50 per year and will cost each residential taxpayer $150 per year of tax dollars, but it will save the homeowners $300 per year and the commercial owners $1,000 per year, then it's an easy sell.

If I can't prove that it will save them anything, then I'm asking them to spend tax dollars on something that has - at best - nebulous value to them.

This is especially true for places that requires sprinklers in every commercial building and every residential occupancy bigger than a duplex. We get zero credit for that, because the rating schedule doesn't take this into account. We have to be able to show water supply to fight a fully-involved fire in our largest building, but those fires don't happen because of the sprinkler systems.

That's why the ISO should do insurance ratings based on actual community fire loss, not on an archaic system that relies on manual firefighting as the only way to protect the community.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on January 18, 2009 at 12:02pm

Here is an example that I found:
Rate Analysis Example - Restaurant
PPC ANNUAL PREMIUM DIFF From Class 4 to a 3 or 2
10 $19,404
9 $16,259 $3,145 or 16%
8 $14,184 $2,076 or 27%
7 $12,863 $1,321 or 34%
6 $11,573 $1,289 or 41%
5 $10,850 $723 or 44%
4 $10,661 $189 or 46%
3 $10,473 $189 or 48% $189 or 2%
2 $9,906 $566 or 49% $755 or 7%
1 $9,529 $377 or 51%
Also:
When our ISO class went from an 8 to 6, the average savings in premium per household was about $50.
ISO should be measured against what residents pay for protection. For instance; if they are in an area where they have an ISO of 9 and their taxes are through the roof, they have every right to be upset. When we sell our services, it should be based on the fact that we are going to squeeze every dime and provide the best service that we can for their money. If they keep seeing their taxes go up and no appreciable improvement in service, then you have a fight on your hands.
When they are paying insurance on a home that is in an area where they just barely have protection (ISO 9), they are paying more anyway, because the assumption is more fire damage will result from delay in getting a fire department there that didn't "grade" well at their last review.
So, we have to do what we can to improve that. That might include installing dry hydrants throughout the district, adding a station or relying on mutual aid.
And mutual aid is where I believe that ISO should be looking to change what they do.
IMHO.
Art

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trainer on January 18, 2009 at 1:17pm

Ben from what I know about the classes, if you’re a vol it’s 5 and paid depts a 4, to lower beyond will not be cost effective. The 2 that apply the most; manpower and location of stations, you get into some big money. I’m trying to figure out how the sprinklers will help as far as ISO criteria, insurance companies all ready give a premium discount for them, so there(insurance companies) not even looking for that info. By rights that should reduce the amount of equipment and manpower needed to fight those fires (commercial), I don’t know, this is a little beyond my expertise.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on January 18, 2009 at 1:55pm

And not all insurance companies are discounting residential for sprinklers.
Which might explain why there is so much resistance to their installation.
Trainer; keep in mind ISO class is not always about money. Some fire departments want to get to the highest rating as they can to up their status amongst the fire community as well. Remember when Springfield got their Class 1? That is all we heard about when we were at the conference. Since then, I think they slipped to a 2?
Anyway, working towards a better rating is not a bad thing, if you have the money and resources.
Art

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony P on January 18, 2009 at 5:18pm

This is just too funny! I came here to see what else had been added, as usual, and what is the ad right next to the thread? Why, an ad ffrom a company called 'SAI Global' for Audit and Certification to ISO 9001. Now is that coincidence or is Google trying to be funny? (ISO 9001 is an international Standard for Quality Management Systems for companies.)

Oh well, I thought it funny...