Laserfiche WebLink
At the further request of Member Cihacek, Ms. Shiwarski addressed how their firm <br />maintained premium rates based on infrastructure prices nationally moving forward <br />by basing their standard pricing on cities under 50,000 households and transferring <br />that risk across the United States. Ms. Shiwarski noted that one city or year may <br />result in a lot of claims, and others not, but by transferring those risks they were <br />able to maintain that standard pricing to -date. <br />At the request of Member Cihacek, Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm had not <br />seen a significant price escalation over the last two years, and not typically with <br />their current customer base. Ms. Shiwarski advised that their first client had been <br />in West Virginia and their rates had been grandfathered in, with newer partners <br />providing an opportunity to adjust rates accordingly to address risk. <br />Chair Stenlund asked if the rates escalated if using the service a lot. <br />Ms. Shiwarski responded that they did not, with every resident in a community <br />paying the same rate no matter if or how often they used the warranty service. Ms. <br />Shiwarski admitted there was no way to get around those who consistently abused <br />the system, but reported that when the majority of their customers discovered what <br />a repair could have cost compared to their premium, they were well satisfied and <br />stayed with the warranty program. <br />At the request of Member Seigler, Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm didn't need <br />to legally get the city's approval before marketing its residents, but stated that their <br />firm chose not to do so without city approval. By partnering with the city, Ms. <br />Shiwarski noted that they were able to reach a greater amount of people and more <br />generous coverage through that partnership with the National League of Cities than <br />they could accomplish without that partnership; and therefore had chosen not to <br />market independent of that partnership. <br />At the request of Member Lenz, Ms. Ashley confirmed that this warranty program <br />was only available to single-family homes, unless a duplex had a single service line <br />they could cover; but clarified it was not yet available to commercial properties. <br />If the city allows marketing of this program, Member Heimerl asked if it was <br />accepting any additional legal risk or financial obligation for the city in endorsing <br />this group. <br />Ms. Shiwarski advised that their agreement held the city harmless; with Mr. Culver <br />noting that the City Attorney would need to review and report to the City Council <br />providing assurances there was no city liability. <br />In referencing the three mailings by this firm, Member Wozniak asked if their focus <br />was on educating the public by explaining their responsibility to maintain these <br />utilities or simply aimed at selling them a policy. Member Wozniak opined that <br />educating residents, as previously addressed by the PWETC, sounded attractive to <br />Page 13 of 18 <br />