My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-11-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-11-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2016 8:45:23 AM
Creation date
1/27/2016 8:44:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/24/2015
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
help residents understand their responsibilities and cost liabilities for catastrophic <br />failure of their service lines. <br />Ms. Shiwarski offered to provide Mr. Culver with a copy of their standard letter <br />that started out stating the educational aspects for dissemination to the PWETC; but <br />noted each municipality had input in that language as well and could customize it <br />for their community and infrastructure situation. <br />At the request of Mr. Culver, Ms. Shiwarski confirmed that their firm typically sent <br />out the letter to residents on city logo and including a co -signature by a city official, <br />designated staff person or the city as awhole, at the preference of each municipality. <br />Mr. Culver reported that, during his research with another Minnesota community <br />using the warranty program, some of its residents had become annoyed with the <br />letter they were receiving after already subscribing to the warranty program but still <br />receiving continued mailings. Mr. Culver sought clarification from Ms. Shiwarski <br />as to whether a resident would continue being solicited once they subscribed to the <br />program. <br />Ms. Shiwarski advised that they would not receive additional solicitations for any <br />service to which they subscribed, but may receive them for those services they had <br />initially chosen not to receive. However, Ms. Shiwarski noted that all a resident <br />had to do was call their firm and ask to be removed from future mailings. Ms. <br />Shiwarski advised that their firm used their own mailing list by using their own <br />mapping software, and not one provided by the city's utility company. Ms. <br />Shiwarski advised that this way a city could state they were introducing this <br />warranty program and assure their residents that the city wasn't giving out their <br />personal utility information. <br />Chair Stenlund asked, without doing a community survey, if the city could seek <br />interest of the community via an educational input, and receive their input to alert <br />the public that this warranty program was being considered and seeking public <br />comment and interest for such a program. <br />Mr. Culver suggested the Speak Up! Roseville website as another potential option. <br />If Roseville is interested, Ms. Shiwarski offered the services of their marketing <br />team to help put that information out there. <br />Members agreed that there may be some concern among residents of another area <br />of government intervention that they would prefer to avoid. <br />Member Cihacek opined that, as he heard the program described, he wasn't sure if <br />that argument would hold weight for him, since residents had the option of <br />accepting or opting out. <br />Page 14 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.