Laserfiche WebLink
537 At the further request of Member Cihacek, Ms. Shiwarski addressed how their firm <br />538 maintained premium rates based on infrastructure prices nationally moving forward <br />539 by basing their standard pricing on cities under 50,000 households and transferring <br />540 that risk across the United States. Ms. Shiwarski noted that one city or year may <br />541 result in a lot of claims, and others not, but by transferring those risks they were <br />542 able to maintain that standard pricing to-date. <br />543 <br />544 At the request of Member Cihacek, Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm had not <br />545 seen a significant price escalation over the last two years, and not typically with <br />546 their current customer base. Ms. Shiwarski advised that their first client had been <br />547 in West Virginia and their rates had been grandfathered in, with newer partners <br />548 providing an opportunity to adjust rates accordingly to address risk. <br />549 <br />550 Chair Stenlund asked if the rates escalated if using thee a lot. <br />551 <br />552 Ms. Shiwarski responded that they did not, with every sident in a community <br />553 paying the same rate no matter if or how often they used the warranty service. Ms. <br />554 Shiwarski admitted there was no way to get around those who consistently abused <br />555 the system, but reported that when the majority of their customers discovered what <br />556 a repair could have cost compared to their premium, they were well'satisfied and <br />557 stayed with the warranty program. "'���iillllllllllllll �. <br />558 <br />559 At the request of Member Seigler, Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm didn't need <br />560 to legally gt the city's approval before marketing its residents, but stated that their <br />561 firm chos°not to do so without city approval. By partnering with the city, Ms. <br />562 Shiwarski noted that they were able to reach a greater amount of people and more <br />563 generous coverage through that partnership with the National League of Cities than <br />564ey could accomplish without that partnership; and therefore had chosen not to <br />565 JAt <br />arket independent of that partnership. <br />566qqw <br />567 the request f Member Lenz, Ms. Ashley confirmed that this warranty program <br />568 was only available to single-fa ily homes, unless a duplex had a single service line <br />569 they could cover; but clarified' as not yet available to commercial properties. <br />570 <br />571 If the city allows marketing of this program, Member Heimerl asked if it was <br />572 accepting anyad ' ' al legal risk or financial obligation for the city in endorsing <br />573 this group. """ii11lllllllll�� <br />574 <br />575 Ms. Shiwarski advised that their agreement held the city harmless; with Mr. Culver <br />576 noting that the City Attorney would need to review and report to the City Council <br />577 providing assurances there was no city liability. <br />578 <br />579 In referencing the three mailings by this firm, Member Wozniak asked if their focus <br />580 was on educating the public by explaining their responsibility to maintain these <br />581 utilities or simply aimed at selling them a policy. Member Wozniak opined that <br />582 educating residents, as previously addressed by the PWETC, sounded attractive to <br />Page 13 of 18 <br />