Quantcast

Fri Nov 21 2008 1:56 AM
Email:   Password:     |  Register/Subscribe
Search Site:
Advanced
Search
  Archive

FREE Sample
PDF Edition

The Crescent News
Newspaper Subscriptions


Sunday in Parade

Home | Back

Paulding County socked with $121,562.95 AEP bill

Email To A Friend
Printer Friendly
Comments
Add to Reddit Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us

Cn8508pauldingbill-thumb


By LISA NICELY

nicely@crescent-news.com

PAULDING -- American Electric Power billing errors over a five-year period have led to a current electricity bill of more than $115,000 for the Paulding County jail.

The total amount due on the jail's electric bill dated July 14 is $121,562.95. County commissioners have agreed to pay $4,812.07 up front, which was the actual monthly electricity usage amount billed for the jail, on July 23. That leaves a balance of $116,750.88, representing five years of under-billings.

The county had been paying AEP just over $13 each month since 2003, when the county purchased the old AEP building on Perry Street and renovated it to house the new jail.

It wasn't until questions were raised about the operating budget for the jail that, county officials say, they realized they should have been billed a higher amount for the past five years.

"They (AEP) were actually reading the meter, but when it got to AEP (the billing office), that's where the confusion entered in," said Commissioner Tony Burkley. "They had it calculated as a company-owned building, and they were billing themselves for that amount. ... We didn't have an idea what our actual electric bill would be out there.

"They (AEP) took total responsibility for the oversight and were glad we brought it to their attention," he added.

According to AEP spokesman Shelly Clark, the issue was first brought to the company's attention on June 25 by the Paulding County prosecutor's office. An investigation order was then issued by the utility to examine why the bill was so low.

"The meter was registering the usage, but the coding on the account was to bill only the minimum charge," said Clark. "This was because it was (once) a company facility. We took responsibility that the code did not get changed when the county took control of the account. It was one of the situations that fell through the cracks."

AEP and the county have worked out an agreement where the county will now repay the $116,750.88 over a 65-month period. That figure is based on a breakdown from Jan. 28, 2003-June 2, 2008, by AEP. That works out to approximately $1,796.16 a month.

Additionally, the county will be paying the correct monthly bill for electricity used, which is expected to range from $3,000-$7,000 (estimates based on actual usage once the new jail building was occupied in mid-2006).

The repayments begin in August. AEP is not charging the county late fees or interest.

Sheriff Dave Harrow said he was surprised at the total figure owed by the county for the new jail property.

"I was astounded," he said. "They gave us (only) so many months to pay it off. I think they should have accepted a little more responsibility. According to them it was a computer glitch."

The issue was first raised by a county resident after the sheriff's office released a report listing expenditures paid from the jail's operating levy (.75-mill, five-year levy passed in November 2002 but not renewed by voters in 2007). The Crescent-News had also been questioning the low utility bills since reviewing jail funding over the past two months.

County Auditor Susan Simpson confirmed a county resident first brought up the issue after looking at the report Harrow's office made public. She said she told the resident she didn't know why the bill was so low.

"I said, 'I don't know, they must be paying the remainder of the bill out of the general fund.' I looked into the general fund and didn't see any money going to AEP for that," said Simpson. "Then I came down to the commissioners and told them of the inquiry about why it was just $13, and that I didn't see any (additional payment) coming out of the general fund for that account. It was an odd amount to take out just that $13."

Burkley described the under-billing as a mix-up where one office thought the other one was taking care of it and vice versa.

"Each one (commissioners' office and sheriff's office) was assuming the other was taking care of that (electricity bill)," he said, adding that officials started questioning the utility bill after they saw the report detailing operating fund expenditures.

"Dave, I'm sure, just assumed we were receiving the normal bill and he was paying (for) what could have been a pole light," said Burkley. "We were assuming he was paying the bulk of the electric bill from the 149 fund (jail operating levy fund). When we saw the report generated, both of us saw that it wasn't being taken care of from either end."

A Nov. 21, 2007, voucher for a $13.26 AEP bill only contains the initials of a clerk from Harrow's office, but states it was approved by the sheriff. Harrow said he has never actually seen a utility bill for the new jail.

"I don't know what the bill's been from the get-go," he said.

Harrow said he doesn't remember any of the electric bills, which are addressed to commissioners but have the new jail's address of 500 E. Perry St. He said if his office receives them he assumes the bills are forwarded, unopened, to the commissioners' office.

So why didn't anyone -- AEP, commissioners or sheriff's office -- catch that the bill should have been more before this?

"In hindsight some may say it should have been caught earlier," acknowledged Clark. "I don't know if it would have raised flags with them (the county), since the inception of the account the billing was the same. It also depends on how closely they monitor their billings. The (kilowatt) use history was always the same."

Part of the problem may be that some bills for the jail are sent to the jail, then are forwarded to the commissioners' office for approval before being paid by the county auditor's office (the county's fiscal agent). Other bills go directly to the commissioners' office, according to commissioners.

Harrow said since the bill wasn't large and stayed the same throughout the time the jail's been there, no flags were raised about it.

"Obviously there was a mistake made in billing. (It's) one of those bills that just go (through) and no one pays attention to them," he said. "It wasn't like it was a large bill anyone would have noticed. It stayed the same throughout. I've never paid any attention to the electric bill since I came into office. Those came out of the general fund. I've got 19 line items I take care of from the general fund."

He pointed out that expenses such as electricity, telephone, water and sewage are not among those 19 line items.

The commissioners' office receives bills from every county facility.

"The county pays a multitude of electric bills, gas bills and utility bills," said Burkley, adding that when it was determined "there was something out of the ordinary," AEP was contacted. "They were glad we brought that to their attention, and they assumed responsibility for the error so we worked out an agreement to take care of it.

"We have a multitude of buildings here that have electric bills attached to them," Burkley said later. "That (jail) fund report we saw triggered everything. We did further investigating to see if the electric bill was getting paid out of a different fund. The operating fund was only paying $13. So then we asked if the general fund was paying the rest. We found it hadn't been and AEP was making a mistake billing-wise."

The auditor's office must have an original detailed receipt or invoice and approval by a department head or elected official to pay a bill. Simpson's office's only responsibility is to check if a bill is for a proper public purpose.

"It wasn't our place (the auditor's) to question it (the amount)," said Simpson. "We don't justify the amount."

The balance of $116,750.88 will not be paid from the jail's operating fund.

"There's not much money left in the operating fund," said Burkley. "It expires in October. That (the balance of the $116,750.88 billing) will come out of the general fund. It's something we will have to budget for. Those are fixed costs, so it's not something that is adjustable. You have to pay it."

The county plans on placing a new 2.5-mill operating levy on the ballot in November.

"If the levy fails in the fall we'll have to make cuts, not just because of that (the large jail balance owed to AEP). "There are other expenses we've incurred in the past that will affect that, too."




Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. Crescent-News.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
   Next 10 Comments of 19 Total Comments
19.
    Posted by fedupeagles August 11, 2008
Nothing about this story surprises me. I agree with others that we need new commissioners in this county. I was surprised to learn a couple of years ago that the commissioners also oversee the Paulding Co Child Support Enforcement Agency. My first question is- WHY?, and the next question is- Is there actually any oversight of the CSEA at all? If you have ever had to deal with the incompetence of this county office, you already know the answer to that.

18.
    Posted by fedupeagles August 11, 2008
Nothing about this story surprises me. I agree with others that we need new commissioners in this county. I was surprised to learn a couple of years ago that the commissioners also oversee the Paulding Co Child Support Enforcement Agency. My first question is- WHY?, and the next question is- Is there actually any oversight of the CSEA at all? If you have ever had to deal with the incompetence of this county office, you already know the answer to that.

17.
    Posted by skeebo August 10, 2008
If the Paulding Co. Commissioners were doing there job this would not have happened. The Commissioners are suppose to do the budgeting along with the dept. heads.
What Paulding Co. needs is Commissioners that work for there pay not just two days a week.

16.
    Posted by Brad Dysinger August 10, 2008
Since there seems to be some questioning of my honesty I'm posting my resignation letter that I sent when I resigned the SWCD. It is self explanatory. Liz stole from Ditch Maintainence.

Brad Dysinger
21750 County Road 60
Grover Hill, Ohio 45849

September 21, 2007

Paulding Soil and Water Conservation District
260 B Dooley Drive
Paulding, Ohio 45879

To: SWCD Board of Supervisors
Paulding County Commissioners
Ed Crawford

This letter is to inform you that I am resigning my position as Supervisor on the Paulding County SWCD effective September 30, 2007. I enjoyed the last five years and I hope that I've served the people and the soil and water of Paulding County honestly and to the best of my ability. I know I've tried.

One of the reasons I'm leaving is to start up a consulting business aimed at helping interested land owners through the hassle of all the programs that FSA, SWCD, and the NRCS offer. As we all know many times these alphabet organizations look imposing to land owners and not worth the trouble so land owners fail to take advantage of all that's out there. I hope my experience can help steer them through the maze of government programs and also improve Paulding, County's Soil and Water along the way.

The other reason I'm leaving is the upcoming Flat Rock ditch petition fight, and make no mistake about it it's going to be a fight. At the Flat Rock Festival dozens of people asked me about Flat Rock and they wanted to know what I thought about it. I'm sure you've all heard the hostility people have about this project. In my opinion the board did everyone in Paulding County a disservice by telling Tim that he can't speak or write about Flat Rock without being fired. No matter whether you're for or against the project all of us on the board understand that Tim knows more about Flat Rock than anyone else and information shouldn't be suppressed by any branch of government, including the SWCD or County Engineer.

In my opinion the engineer's threat against the Ditch Maintenance Program, and Tim, is what the board should have been upset about, and would be what the people of Paulding County would be upset about. I'm also afraid that if by some unfortunate circumstance the Flat Rock creek log jam removal project goes through and happens Paulding and Payne will look like Ottawa in the future, and everyone living in the watershed will have had the pleasure of paying to make it happen.

The Paulding County SWCD Supervisors should be proud of how well ditch maintenance has operated and not worry about threats to take ditch maintenance away from the SWCD by the engineers' office. I think we all know that this project is being driven by politics more than facts.

Once again let me say that I've enjoyed the last five years very much but it's time for me to move on. I won't be giving up my goals of making Paulding County's Soil and Water better I'll just be taking a different approach.

Sincerely,


Brad Dysinger

15.
    Posted by truthseeker August 10, 2008
Seems the good 'ole boys think smearing Brad's name with the Liz issue is the way to save their strangle hold of the county. Maybe you should ask Travis McGarvey and the commissioners why Brad resigned. He resigned long before Liz was caught. Yes, ask to see his resignation letter. Then ask McGarvey and the commissioners why he resigned.

14.
    Posted by jlove August 9, 2008
Using services without paying especially knowing about it is the same as stealing. If he overpaid and the AEP wouldn't give the money back that would be stealing also. Doesn't the Sheriff know "Crime doesn't pay!" And yes he did pay the bill at the old jail.

And to blondienewspaper, perhaps Brad Dysinger did know something at the Soil and Water, ask to see he resignation letter on file and why he resigned from the Soil and Water before the exposure of Liz.

13.
    Posted by blondienewspaper August 8, 2008
I'm just am interested bystander. Don't vote in this county. Just read a lot.

12.
    Posted by truthseeker August 7, 2008
Oh that's right, more of the same will continue to help Paulding County. The problem with everything that has gone on in Paulding County, just as many other counties nation wide, is that too many people just didn't care about politics. Now people are starting to care and look at the mess we are in. So we should assume that blondienewspaper thinks we need to re-elect the same people that have run Paulding County in the ground? Sometimes change is necessary to get things going in the right direction. And the blame for the theft from the soil and water lies solely on the auditor before Sue Simpson. It was his job the oversee all monies being spent in the County, not Brad Dysinger. Somehow the previous auditor 'overlooked' where the money was going. And yes cstrahley, I would agree that AEP is just as much at fault as anyone. If I am late with my bill, they threaten me. If they forgot to bill me, they'd come back and tell me to pay up. And that is what they are doing. Too bad some individuals knew it wasn't being paid and let it slide.

11.
    Posted by cstrahley1 August 7, 2008
Since I made the first comment, I want to add that: when the average person misses a utility payment, don't they receive an overdue notice? AEP doesn't contend they ever sent such a notice to Paulding County officials. AEP didn't change
their billing after the building was sold, so how can they now claim Paulding County is at fault?
It is nice that no interest is being charged by AEP; however, a compromise is called for as to the actual amount of the bill. Mediation, anyone?

10.
    Posted by blondienewspaper August 7, 2008
How could Brad Dysinger help with this situation? He sat on the Soil and Water Board while someone embezzeled over $100,000 from Soil and Water. She is currently serving time in prison. Pointing fingers isn't going to help pay this AEP bill and neither will electing Brad Dysinger.

   Next 10 Comments



Terms of Service Copyright Defiance Publishing, LLC 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expresse written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications