Laserfiche WebLink
583 help residents understand their responsibilities and cost liabilities for catastrophic <br />584 failure of their service lines. <br />585 <br />586 Ms. Shiwarski offered to provide Mr. Culver with a copy of their standard letter <br />587 that started out stating the educational aspects for dissemination to the PWETC; but <br />588 noted each municipality had input in that language as well and could customize it <br />589 for their community and infrastructure situation. <br />590 <br />591 At the request of Mr. Culver, Ms. Shiwarski confirmed that their firm typically sent <br />592 out the letter to residents on city logo and including a co -signature by a city official, <br />593 designated staff person or the city as a whole, at the preference of each municipality. <br />594 <br />595 Mr. Culver reported that, during his research with another Minnesota community <br />596 using the warranty program, some of its residents had become annoyed with the <br />597 letter they were receiving after already subscribing to the warranty program but still <br />598 receiving continued mailings. Mr. Culver sought clarification from Ms. Shiwarski <br />599 as to whether a resident would continue being solicited once the subscribed to the <br />600 program. <br />601 �. <br />602 Ms. Shiwarski advised that they would not receive additional solicita ions for any <br />603 service to which they subscribed, but may receive them for those services they had <br />604 initially chosen not to receive. However, Ms. Shiwarski noted that all a resident <br />605 had to do was call their firm and ask to be removed from future mailings. Ms. <br />606 Shiwarski advised that their firm used their own mailing list by using their own <br />607 mapping software, and not one provided by th 'ty's utility company. Ms. <br />608 Shiwarski advised that this way a city could sta they were introducing this <br />609 warranty program and assure their residents that the city wasn't giving out their <br />610 rso d o y ' formation. <br />nal utilit m <br />612 hair Sten un as���ke hout dol <br />ommunity survey, if the city could seek <br />613 terest of the commum is an educational input and receive their input to alert <br />614 ublic that this warra y program was being considered and seeking public <br />615 co nt and interest for such a program. <br />616 <br />617 Mr. Cu uggested the Speak Up! Roseville website as another potential option. <br />618 <br />619 If Roseville is intsted, Ms. Shiwarski offered the services of their marketing <br />620 team to help put that information out there. <br />621 <br />622 Members agreed that there may be some concern among residents of another area <br />623 of government intervention that they would prefer to avoid. <br />624 <br />625 Member Cihacek opined that, as he heard the program described, he wasn't sure if <br />626 that argument would hold weight for him, since residents had the option of <br />627 accepting or opting out. <br />628 <br />Page 14 of 18 <br />