|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
News Sections
Citizen Journalism
Marketplace
The Crescent News
Newspaper Subscriptions Community
Forms
|
Home |
Back
Paulding County socked with $121,562.95 AEP billAugust 5, 2008
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
Next 10 Comments |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||