2016_0111_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Stenlund asked if the rates escalated if using the service a lot. Ms. Shiwarski responded that they did not, with every resident in a community paying the same rate no matter if or how often they used the warranty service. Ms. Shiwarski admitted there was no way to get around those who consistently abused the system, but reported that when the majority of their customers discovered what a repair could have cost compared to their premium, they were well satisfied and stayed with the warranty program. At the request of Member Seigler, Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm didn’t need to legally get the city’s approval before marketing its residents, but stated that their firm chose notto do so without city approval. By partnering with the city, Ms. Shiwarski noted that they were able to reach a greater amount of people and more generous coverage through that partnership with the National League of Cities than they could accomplish without that partnership; and therefore had chosen not to market independent of that partnership. At the request of Member Lenz, Ms. Ashley confirmed that this warranty program was only available to single-family homes, unless a duplex had a single service line they could cover; but clarified it was not yet available to commercial properties. If the city allows marketing of this program, Member Heimerl asked if it was accepting any additional legal risk or financial obligation for the city in endorsing this group. Ms. Shiwarski advised that their agreement held the city harmless; with Mr. Culver noting that the City Attorney would need to review and report to the City Council providing assurances there was no city liability. In referencing the three mailings by this firm, Member Wozniak asked if their focus was on educating the public by explaining their responsibility to maintain these utilities or simply aimed at selling them a policy. Member Wozniak opined that educating residents, as previously addressed by the PWETC, sounded attractive to help residents understand their responsibilities and cost liabilities for catastrophic failure of their service lines. Ms. Shiwarski offered to provide Mr. Culver with a copy of their standard letter that started out stating the educational aspects for dissemination to the PWETC; but noted each municipality had input in that language as well and could customize it for their community and infrastructure situation. At the request of Mr. Culver, Ms. Shiwarski confirmed that their firm typically sent out the letter to residents on city logo and including a co-signature by a city official, designated staff person or the city as a whole, at the preference of each municipality. Mr. Culver reported that, during his research with another Minnesota community using the warranty program, some of its residents had become annoyed with the letter they were receiving after already subscribing to the warranty program but still receiving continued