Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Electric bill leads to dispute

A dispute over electric bills for a five year period led to a confrontation between a local resident and the Prescott City Council.

Rudy Preston addressed the council at its regular monthly meeting Monday, Feb. 16, saying the area he now lives was annexed into the city limits in May 1998 and became their electricity provider. Prior to this date, those living in the area of Exit 46 were serviced by Entergy.

Preston said he and his wife, Faye, moved her son Thomas Edward Stovall from Arkadelphia to Prescott in late 1998 because he's handicapped and confined to a wheelchair.

Stovall received his first electric bill from Prescott in October 1998, but, Preston said, before this no one had ever asked if his house was all electric or had a gas hot water heater.

The city charges a different electric rate for those with gas hot water heaters. The electric rate for homes with electric hot water heaters is 6 cents per kilowatt hour (KWH), while the rate for a gas hot water heater is 7.8 cents per kWh.

Preston said from the time Stovall moved into the home remodeled for him, he had been charged the higher rate, along with the $10.06 monthly service charge.

In December 2003, Preston said he attempted to contact Prescott Mayor Howard Taylor, only the mayor wouldn't return his calls. Reportedly, Preston tried to call Taylor three times with the same results.

He said a woman at city hall gave him Taylor's cell phone number, which was called. Preston told Taylor what was going on with the utility bills. However, Taylor reportedly told Preston he had a meeting to go to but would call him back.

Preston said after three days passed and nothing was heard from the mayor, he called Larry Stockton, who manages the electric department.

During the conversation, Preston said, Stockton admitted to knowing what Stovall had paid and didn't need a meeting with Preston about it, because it was up to Stovall in 98 to inform the city the house was all electric.

Preston reportedly told Stockton he wanted to bring the issue before the city council and was allegedly told Stockton would recommend the council not reimburse Stovall because it wasn't the city's fault.

However, Preston said, Stockton did agree to send someone to Stovall's house to verify it was all electric, and if it was to correct the billing rate. This was done.

Preston told the council he talked with a "higher up" with Entergy, who said this company knew Stovall's house was all electric.

"I have talked to a number of people in our annexed area," Preston said, "and they say no one asked them and they never told anyone with the Prescott Electric Co. whether they had gas or not. They are all electric, too, but were not overcharged. It seems to me that Thomas was the only one in our annexed area that was "literally screwed" on his electric bill."

About a year ago, Preston said, Stovall spent $4,400 to install energy-efficient storm windows on the house, thinking this may have been the reason his bills were so high.

Preston asked the council to reimburse Stovall about $2,500, which, he said, Stovall overpaid the city from 1998 to 2003.

During the session, Taylor asked why no one questioned the figures before this. He said the principal of the matter is the city wasn't told, but the rates were changed when the city found out.

Preston's wife said the gas lines in the area were on the other side of the road and natural gas wasn't available to them until 1999.

Preston said the change of rates doesn't rectify the 63 months Stovall was overcharged. The city, he added, wouldn't be giving Stovall the city's money, but money Stovall had already paid in. "We only want his money back."

The Prestons did say they had spoken with an attorney on the matter, and the situation could be investigated if it's not settled. The investigation, Faye said, would include the entire city to see if others have been overcharged on their electric bills.

The Prestons left, with the council addressing the situation toward the end of the meeting, after other business had been taken care of.

Stockton said the rates are published as are all ordinances approved by the council. The annexed area, he added, has between 15-20 customers, with most being on the electric water heater rate.

"I thought when we did the annexation we sent everyone a letter explaining the situation, but I can't find the letter," Stockton said. "I don't know who's responsibility it is, but it's not the city's job to call every individual as the rates are published. I don't know what happened in this case."

City Attorney Glenn Vasser said it's generally incumbent on the homeowner to notify the city of any change, but this is an unusual situation, as these homeowners were absorbed into the system.

Stockton pointed out the property in question was annexed in 1995, not 1998, and there was a rate change in 1999, which was published. "This happened after the notice of a rate change was published," he said.

The council considered having Vasser draft a letter to be sent to the Prestons, but he suggested the situation be handled in a non-legal and non-political manner to keep things from getting worse. Vasser said Taylor and Stockton should take a copy of the ordinance to the Prestons along with proof of publication.

"Everyone was put on proper notice of this when the rate changed in 1999," he said.

The council agreed and charged Taylor and Stockton to meet with the Prestons.