• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Brave Heart

Beach Crab
Apr 14, 2010
3
0
Walton County
This sounds like pretty serious "erroneous billing errors" and my question is~~~ who has been validating the addresses vs.billings prior to now? Maybe someone should also be questioning the last person who verified that everything was ok with Dayco.. undoubtedly someone was not doing their job until now.....As far as the payback of $5 K a month, it should be an insult to the County, I think their franchise agreement is only for 5 years....Could there be criminal charges coming forward???
 
Last edited:

WCTA

Beach Lover
May 27, 2009
124
120
Walton County
www.waltontaxpayers.org
This sounds like pretty serious "erroneous billing errors" and my question is~~~ who has been validating the addresses vs.billings prior to now? Maybe someone should also be questioning the last person who verified that everything was ok with Dayco.. undoubtedly someone was not doing their job until now.....As far as the payback of $5 K a month, it should be an insult to the County, I think their franchise agreement is only for 5 years....Could there be criminal charges coming forward???


It is our understanding that no one has ever verified the billings. The audit firm has recommended certain procedures that are to be followed in the processing of addresses, billing and verification of invoices submitted.

It is commonly referred to as a "lack of internal controls" in the accounting industry. It was a reportable condition and was addressed in the Management Letter to the County Commission as well.

They should require a lump sum repayment - not an interest free 60 month payment plan.
 
Last edited:

Brave Heart

Beach Crab
Apr 14, 2010
3
0
Walton County
It is our understanding that no one has ever verified the billings. The audit firm has recommended certain procedures that are to be followed in the processing of addresses, billing and verification of invoices submitted.

It is commonly referred to as a "lack of internal controls" in the accounting industry. It was a reportable condition and was addressed in the Management Letter to the County Commission as well.

They should require a lump sum repayment - not an interest free 60 month payment plan.


Thank you for providing accurate and factual findings that are dead on the money. Here is some extra food for thought : Not only were residential addresses that never existed billed to the county , but there seems to be also double billing on commercial garabages too, one for the County, one for the commercial too...If I were someone, I would be putting on my thinking cap....I would guess the county is paying Dayco between $190-200 K a month for gb collection, and for a offer to pay the county back at $5K a month, seems someone does not think this a serious matter...
 
Last edited:
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter