An Oxford couple’s questioning of their sewer bills led to a discovery that has township and village officials attempting to straighten out a mess that could potentially go all the way back to the 1970s.
‘We’ll get to the bottom of it,? said township Supervisor Bill Dunn.
It appears five single family homes and one duplex along the west side of West St., located between Dennison and W. Burdick streets, are being incorrectly billed for sanitary sewer services.
Two of the homes are being double-billed. They’re being charged by both the township and the village, according to officials.
The other four homes are being billed by the township when in reality, the village should be charging them because it’s providing the service.
‘We’re looking into it,? Dunn said.
One of the homes being double-billed belongs to Richard and Raquel Esckelson, who live at 26 West St. They raised the issue.
‘When you think about it, if (they) didn’t bring this up, I’m not so sure it would have been discovered,? said township Clerk Curtis Wright.
All six homes are located in the township, just outside the village limits. The east side of West St. is part of the village.
Although not in the village, these six homes are all connected to the village sewer system and have been since between 1973 and 1976 based on township records.
Records indicate state law required these properties to connect to the closest available sewer system and some of the owners were allowed to make quarterly payments on the connection fee (i.e. capital charge) over a 20-year period.
Given all the properties are connected to the village system, they should all be receiving sewer bills from the village, not the township, according to officials.
‘It’s not like we have a sewer going down the street,? said Dunn, who noted the closest township sewer line is located more than 1,000 feet to the west in the Oxford Oaks condominium development.
Wright is investigating the matter on the township’s end since his department handles the sewer bills.
‘As far as how it actually happened, I don’t know,? he said. ‘I don’t have that answer.?
Wright said he is attempting to determine exactly how long these customers have been receiving township sewer bills.
Based on the data he’s collected thus far, the township has been billing the duplex and three of the homes since at least 1994 and the other two homes since 1996 and 2003.
Wright said he must also determine how much, if anything, should be refunded to the current property owners and potentially, previous owners, ‘if we can track them down.?
‘How far back are we going to go? I don’t know,? he said. ‘Wherever we are, we have to just move forward and try to do the right thing here.?
‘If we owe them money, then we’re going to give it to them,? Dunn said.
‘To hear that from a public servant, that’s encouraging,? Richard Esckelson noted. ‘That would make a nice Christmas present.?
According to Wright’s preliminary estimates, the township may have to refund a total of between $40,000 and $45,000 for bills paid from 1973 through the present.
Despite this hefty sum, the impact on the sewer fund should be negligible, according to Dunn.
‘It’s no big deal,? he said. ‘We’ve got plenty of money in our sewer account.?
On the village’s end, Clerk Susan Nassar is also examining the situation.
According to her, any customers hooked up to the village sewer system, but currently not receiving a bill, will have to begin paying the village going forward.
In Nassar’s opinion, either these customers or the township or some combination of both should also be retroactively billed by the village because the customers received sewer service, but were paying the wrong entity for it.
She based her opinion on Section 70-84 of the village ordinances, which states, ‘No free service shall be furnished by the system to the village or to any person, public or private, or to any public agency or instrumentality.?
However, this language specifically concerns the village water system. There is no such language included with the sections pertaining to the sewer system.
Village Manager Joe Young said before any decisions are made regarding potential retroactive billing, all the information must be gathered, then reviewed by municipal attorney Bob Davis. ‘Ultimately, it will be the council (that decides),? he said.
Young noted it seems more logical to have the township pay the village directly for all the sewer money it has been collecting from these customers.
Having the township refund the money to the customers, then having them in turn, pay the village ‘doesn’t make good sense,? in the manager’s view.
But Wright does not believe the township can simply turn these monies over to the village because the customers paid the township. He believes if any refunds are owed, they should be paid directly to the customers.
‘That’s my feeling right now,? Wright said. ‘I’m not denying we owe money and (the village is) probably entitled to some of it, but as far as I’m concerned this is going from us to the customers and then, (the village can) decide how (it wants) to bill (them).?
‘If you were one of these customers that’s paid us all these years, wouldn’t you expect to get that money back (from the township) before you pay the person you really owe it to?? he continued. ‘I’m just trying to figure out what’s the fair and right thing to do here. The village wasn’t our customer; it was the (people) living at these residences.?
Officials said the amounts refunded to these sewer customers or owed by them would be commensurate with how long they’ve owned the property. In other words, they wouldn’t benefit from or be responsible for the time period prior to their ownership.
Richard Esckelson said he first noticed the double-billing in 2008 or 2009.
He questioned the village about it back then, but was told he was part of the system and had to pay. Instead of questioning the township, too, he dropped the matter.
‘You get busy with life and you just don’t address those issues,? he said.
His wife resurrected the issue last week when she found out they were still receiving two sewer bills.
‘This is too long we’ve been paying double,? Raquel said.
‘It rekindled the fire,? Richard noted.
Based on the ‘very civil? and ‘expedient? response he received from Dunn and Wright, Richard feels like the situation is finally going to be rectified.
‘Both those two fellas were gems,? he said. ‘They need to be commended . . . If we saw that kind of response from other public servants, America would be a finer place to live.?