Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident warns Waite Park council about HomeServe mailings using city logo

Waite Park City Council · June 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Waite Park resident raised concerns that HomeServe service-agreement mailings, which used an Excel Energy mailing label and the Waite Park logo, overstate coverage and may mislead residents about sewer and electrical protections.

A member of the public told the Waite Park City Council that mailings from a company called HomeServe are using the Waite Park logo and an Excel Energy mailing label in a way that could mislead residents about what is covered under sold service agreements.

The commenter, identified in the meeting as Mike, said the letters and the fine print do not match residents’ expectations and that the contracts do not cover common winter problems such as frozen sewer lines. “It really doesn't cover anything if you read it,” he said, arguing that homeowners may buy the $20-a-month agreement expecting protection that the fine print does not provide.

Council members responded in the meeting, noting that an earlier program the city had sanctioned came through the National League of Cities and that this mailing appeared to be an XL-branded program separate from the sanctioned option. The city did not take immediate action during the meeting beyond being asked to check the mailings and the company’s claims.

Why it matters: Residents can be misled into buying protection plans that do not cover the failures they most fear, like frozen lines. The council was asked to verify whether the mailings improperly imply a city endorsement and to compare coverage with the city’s prior sanctioned program.

What’s next: The commenter asked the city to review the mailing and the company’s claims; the meeting transcript records the request but does not include a follow-up staff assignment or timeline.