Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Billing Dispute topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ferrelview trustees decline to waive more-than-$2,000 water charge for 525 Park Street Lot 42

Village of Ferrelview Board of Trustees · January 13, 2026
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

City staff reported a large meter reading at 525 Park Street Lot 42 after a previously inactive account was reactivated; board members voted informally to hold firm on charges and declined to assess tampering fees.

City Administrator April Baxter presented a billing dispute for 525 Park Street Lot 42 during the Village of Ferrelview Board of Trustees’ Jan. 13 meeting, reporting that a newly requested service showed the meter had "advanced significantly."

Baxter said she had read email communications with Ferrelwood mobile-home-park property manager Betsy Kilker indicating the prior manager, Barb Selleck, had asked that the address be placed inactive and winterized by the park maintenance team in November 2023. Baxter said inactive accounts are not on monthly-reading routes; only vacant accounts are monitored for usage. A service request on Nov. 7, 2025 led to discovery of the high usage.

The area manager for GBH Property requested some form of credit; Baxter said the bill for usage exceeded two thousand dollars. Building Commissioner Grant Lewton said because minimum monthly fees (customer connection charge, primacy fee, emergency maintenance fee) had not been paid for nearly two years it would be best for the village to "hold firm on the charges." Mr. Turley and Mr. Damm indicated they would not assess tampering fees and agreed to hold firm.

The board’s decision was operational: staff were to maintain the account charges as billed. No formal motion to waive or reduce the charge was recorded.

Next steps: the affected property manager may pursue a separate appeal or request with the village; staff did not record a formal credit or refund at the meeting.