2015-11-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

492 Mr. Miller apologized for not changing that term, and thanked Member Lenz for 493 catching that for his updating before moving on to the City Council. Mr. Miller 494 clarified that the discount was now "financially based" versus the old criteria for an 495 age -based discount, with the need for certain income thresholds to be met before 496 qualifying for a discount. 497 498 At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Miller advised that each year the City's 499 outreach included the city newsletter article, and continuous website information. 500 501 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Miller reported that as with any discount 502 program, it was funded by those not receiving any discount; and was a city program, 503 not affiliated with the county or state. 504 505 At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Nreed that with the change in 506 eligibility and financial criteria requirements made in January of 2015, there were 507 now only about 20-25 households signed up. Mr. Miller opined that more were 508 eligible, but after consulting with staff, they declined to participate, whether 509 because they didn't want to go through applyi r didn't want to share their 510 financial situation. 511 512 Member Seigler opined they may feel an approximate discount of $87/year was not 513 worth their time. 514 515 At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Miller advised that he had tracked the number 516 of seniors contacting staff when the senior discount program was taken away, 517 estimating 100 contacts. Mr. Miller reported about half that number asked why it 518 had been removed, and after explaining the new criteria and rationale, they 519 understood. However, Mr. Miller reported that the other half were of a different 520 mindset, and with most stating they had been receiving it for a number of years, 521 their rationale was based on a sense of entitlement and nothing much beyond that. 522 4 523 With no more questions of the PWETC, Chair Stenlund thanked Mr. Miller for his 524 informative presentation and responses. 525 526 6. Water Service Presentation and Discussion 527 Noting that the PWETC at this meeting was still missing two of its members, Mr. 528 Culver questioned how much detail and discussion those members present wanted 529 to do to avoid repeating it at a future meeting. 530 531 Mr. Culver further reported that he had briefly mentioned the warranty program 532 with the PWETC expressing some interest in having a representative from the firm 533 come to a future meeting to provide more details and respond to questions of the 534 PWETC. Since that representative would be coming from Philadelphia, Mr. Culver 535 sought to confirm the interest of the PWETC in such a presentation for next month, 536 noting that this also affected the next discussion about meeting schedules during Page 12 of 18