Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Utility Billing Dispute topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ferrelview trustees decline request to credit $2,000+ water bill 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

Staff said the meter at 525 Park Street Lot 42 advanced substantially after the unit was reactivated; the property manager requested a credit but trustees, citing unpaid minimum monthly fees, agreed by consensus to hold firm on the charges and not assess tampering fees.

City Administrator and Treasurer April Baxter reported to the Village of Ferrelview Board of Trustees that a new service request for 525 Park Street Lot 42 revealed significant meter advancement and a usage bill exceeding $2,000.

Baxter read email correspondence from Betsy Kilker, property manager for Ferrelwood Mobile Home Park, and said the previous manager, Barb Selleck, had asked that the address be placed in inactive status after the unit was winterized in November 2023. Baxter explained that inactive accounts are not on the monthly reading route and that vacant accounts are monitored for usage only.

GBH Property’s area manager asked the village for a credit given the large bill. Trustees discussed that minimum monthly fees — including the customer connection charge, primacy fee and emergency maintenance fee — had not been paid for almost two years. Building Commissioner Grant Lewton said it would be best to hold firm on the charges; Chief Water Operator Kevin Turley and Trustee Mathew Damm agreed. The board did not assess tampering fees and reached consensus to uphold the charges.

The board did not record a formal roll‑call vote on the credit request; the decision was recorded as a consensus of trustees present. Staff did not specify the exact credit amount requested by GBH Property.

The matter may be revisited if the property provides additional documentation to staff or formally requests an appeal at a future meeting.