Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT  (Read 105555 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #330 on: April 21, 2008, 07:17:59 PM »

Share/Bookmark

Fort Wood Hotel

Boards

Devils Elbow

Attractions

Sports

St. Robert

Waynesville

PC Daily

Dixon

Menu Guide

Fun Links

Homework

Crocker

Fort Wood

Swedeborg

Big Piney

Laquey

Classifieds

Restaurants

Richland

Fort  Hotels

I guess I can't disagree with your logic!  But, I would hope that our elected officials would get involved with such issues because they affect the people of the County. 

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #331 on: April 21, 2008, 07:31:45 PM »
I couldn't agree with you more 02..  I was aghast that they blew the County audit off so it doesn't surprise me that they are doing the same with the Sewer Dist. Hopefully the election will result in some folks that care.

Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #332 on: April 21, 2008, 08:12:14 PM »
Exactly what part of the county aduit are you concerned about?

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #333 on: April 21, 2008, 08:13:23 PM »
It starts with the Presiding Commissioner if you ask me.  He will not be up for re-election until 2010.

Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #334 on: April 21, 2008, 11:24:47 PM »
The audit period ended December 31, 2006, before the presiding commissioner took office,   so he wasn't part of the audit period. So what specific part of the audit is a problem.?

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #335 on: April 22, 2008, 07:36:57 PM »
Believe the concern is that the audit results were received since he (Bill Ransdall) took office and the Commission has been pretty quite about what they are doing with the audit findings for the area's they control.  I don't really remember what many of those problems were, but I do remember the boat that was sold to JT Roberts for $1.00.

Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #336 on: April 22, 2008, 11:50:52 PM »
Did you read the audit report with the responses from all the effected activities as to the action to be taken.   You forgot the sale of the boat was in lieu of paying a storage fee .

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #337 on: April 23, 2008, 12:44:15 AM »
Did you read the audit report with the responses from all the effected activities as to the action to be taken.   You forgot the sale of the boat was in lieu of paying a storage fee .

   The boat etc was federal property. It was not turned back over to the county when he left office. Then he presents a "storage fee" for something he should not have had on his property in the first place?


Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #338 on: April 23, 2008, 02:02:31 AM »
Then why didn't you go pick it up?

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #339 on: April 23, 2008, 11:41:17 AM »
Then why didn't you go pick it up?

    We tried, he was never home.

Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #340 on: April 23, 2008, 02:11:46 PM »
He was never home for 10 months?

Offline okie the thread killer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4857
  • Karma: +2619917/-766
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #341 on: April 23, 2008, 03:17:19 PM »
I believe he was in Howell County on his farm.
I have it on good authority that the Hokey-Pokey really IS what it's all about.

Offline jeepguy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 245
  • Karma: +67202/-6
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #342 on: April 23, 2008, 03:24:51 PM »
face it the boat was fine on his property when he was the Sherriff but once he was voted out he decides to charge back storage, please just goes to show you how much of a crook JT really was.

Offline murfyzlaw

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +156512/-29
  • Gender: Female
  • My beautiful grandsons
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #343 on: April 23, 2008, 03:26:15 PM »
face it the boat was fine on his property when he was the Sherriff but once he was voted out he decides to charge back storage, please just goes to show you how much of a crook JT really was.

I hear you jeepguy
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Remember that no matter how bad things are in your life, there are others dealing with much worse obstacles, and be thankful for what you have.

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #344 on: April 23, 2008, 06:39:19 PM »
Looks like we will not see a LE sales tax in the near future.  If JT gets back in the County will be even shorter on funds once he starts files suits agian.  What did it cost the last time?  Does anyone know?

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #345 on: April 23, 2008, 07:13:59 PM »
Looks like we will not see a LE sales tax in the near future.  If JT gets back in the County will be even shorter on funds once he starts files suits agian.  What did it cost the last time?  Does anyone know?

Did some quick Casenet research and couldn't find an amount.  Did fiind a lawsuit where he sued anyone from Crazy Horse to the Highway Patrol. 
 
 
25V05011098C - J T ROBERTS V WELDON WILHOIT ET AL
 

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #346 on: April 23, 2008, 07:19:32 PM »
I believe most of the discretionary fund was gone when JB took over.  Something close to $75K.  Correct me if I am wrong or not even in the ball park JB.

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #347 on: April 23, 2008, 09:18:56 PM »
I seem to remember something about an amount of over 100K, something like 120K, but it's been to long and I have slept several times since I saw the article in the daily guide.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #348 on: April 23, 2008, 10:20:47 PM »
The correct answer is even worse. JT paid his attorney's the sum of $137,630.46 from the civil fee fund to pay his cost for filing suit against the Pulaski County Commissioners, the 911 Telephone Board, the Pulaski County Clerk, several others and the MSHP.The payments went from 2002 through 2004 since the civil fee fund is capped at $50,000.00 per year that goes to the sheriff.
In addition the taxpayers paid for the attorney's who defended the County Commission and the other County officials that he sued. According to the State Audit for that year the total cost to the taxpayer was $252,000.00 something. I cannot remember the exact figure right now but you can look it up in the state audit that year. I have the other figure to the penny because I have a copy of the lawsuit paperwork in my office and i looked it up before I came home.
I just had a small brain attack I believe that I have that state audit stored on my PC as a pdf file I will try to check in a minute.
JB

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #349 on: April 23, 2008, 10:24:09 PM »
• The financial condition of the county’s General Revenue Fund declined through
2001 due primarily to a large increase in disbursements in 2001. In 2001, various
lawsuits filed by county officials resulted in approximately $114,000 in legal fees
and other costs incurred from the General Revenue Fund. (The Sheriff incurred
approximately $138,000 in attorney fees from the Civil Fees Fund.)
In addition, the cost of boarding prisoners increased significantly as the Sheriff
made an effort to keep the county jail’s prisoner population at or below the
maximum capacity. As a result, the amount paid for prisoners housed in other
jails increased by over $200,000 in 2001. Based on the daily prisoner counts, it
appears the county could have done a better job of maximizing the capacity of the
county jail during 2001 and 2002, which could have decreased the amount spent
for boarding prisoners at other jails. In addition, due to a budget dispute between
the Sheriff and other county officials, the jail was not utilized as a full-time
facility for 18 days in February 2002. As a result, the county incurred
approximately $15,000 in additional prisoner boarding costs.
• Various concerns were noted regarding county officials salaries. Salary increases
of $11,193 annually given to the county treasurer in 2003 and $1,000 annually
given to the sheriff in 2002 appear questionable. In addition, salary increases
given the former associate county commissioners for the period September 1,
1997 to December 31, 2000, were ruled unconstitutional; however, the County
(

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #350 on: April 23, 2008, 10:27:50 PM »
Source for the above was the "Yellow Sheet" or introduction for the Missouri State Auditor's report #2003-103. You can go to the Missouri Auditor's office and find it on line as a PDF file you can down load.
JB

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #351 on: April 23, 2008, 10:40:58 PM »
[/font]
Two factors contributed to the significant increase in the disbursements of the General
Revenue Fund during 2001 and early 2002 as follows:
A. In 2001, various lawsuits were filed by county officials, which among other things,
sought clarification of certain statutory authority and duties of the Sheriff and other
county officials. Before the lawsuits went to trial, the Sheriff, Presiding
Commissioner, County Clerk, County Treasurer, and 911 Board Chairman signed a
settlement agreement on September 12, 2002. The county spent approximately
$114,000 in attorney fees and associated costs related to the lawsuit (approximately
$52,000 was spent in 2001). These costs were paid from the General Revenue Fund.
(The Sheriff incurred approximately $138,000 in attorney fees related to the lawsuit
which are being paid from the Civil Fees Fund.)
B. The cost of boarding prisoners significantly increased during 2001, as follows:
2002 2001 2000 1999 1998
Board of prisoner costs $ 244,324 241,816 25,243 10,265 6,241
Prisoner attendance records indicate while the number of prisoners housed in the
county jail prior to 2001 routinely exceeded the jail's maximum capacity, little was
done to alleviate the overcrowding. Starting in April 2001, the Sheriff indicated he
made an effort to keep the number of prisoners housed in the county jail at or below
the maximum capacity, so more prisoners needed to be sent to other jails. As a
result, significant increases in county prisoners housed in jails located outside the
county caused the significant increase in board of prisoner costs. However, while the
total number of county prisoners did increase after 2000, prisoner attendance records
-51-
indicate the county jail was not fully utilized during 2002 and 2001, and prisoners
were housed in other jails every day that there was room in the county jail.
The maximum capacity of the county jail is 28 prisoners, and a circuit court order
requires the Sheriff to keep an extra spot open if a prisoner needs to be moved to the
jail on short notice. The daily prisoner count indicates the county jail was at 25
prisoners or less 32 percent and 41 percent of the time for the years ended December
31, 2002 and 2001, respectively, and on a few occasions, 20 or fewer prisoners were
housed in the county jail for several consecutive days. The cost of boarding a
prisoner outside the county jail is normally $30 per day while the county's out-ofpocket
costs are much lower for prisoners kept in the county jail. Thus, it appears
the cost for boarding of prisoners could have been decreased if the county jail's
capacity was maximized before prisoners were boarded outside the county.
In addition, the jail was not utilized as a full-time facility for approximately two
weeks in February 2002. For a period of 18 consecutive days, the daily prisoner
count indicates no prisoners were housed in the county jail and all prisoners were
housed in other jails. The Sheriff indicated only prisoners who were scheduled to
appear in court were kept at the jail during the day and all other prisoners were
housed in other jails. The Sheriff indicated this was done because county officials
had tried to reduce the budget of his employees' salaries by a total of approximately
$22,000 (out of a total salary budget of approximately $400,000) and he could not
staff the jail on a 24-hour basis. As a result, the county incurred approximately
$15,000 in additional costs to house county prisoners in other jails.
While the county continues to incur significant costs for board of prisoners, additional
attorney fees have not been incurred since 2002. It appears the county incurred significant
costs on attorney fees and board of prisoners because the county officials did not work
together and resolve their differences. County officials indicated that cutbacks were made to
other items beginning in 2002, such as employee fringe benefits, because of the
unavailability of money in the General Revenue Fund.[/font]
[/b][/font]

Offline murfyzlaw

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +156512/-29
  • Gender: Female
  • My beautiful grandsons
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #352 on: April 23, 2008, 10:44:26 PM »
Pretty sad.  They were suing eachother and playing games with our money.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Remember that no matter how bad things are in your life, there are others dealing with much worse obstacles, and be thankful for what you have.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #353 on: April 23, 2008, 10:51:35 PM »
Pretty sad.  They were suing eachother and playing games with our money.

   Only one person filed a lawsuit, his name was JT. The others were defending themselves from JT's lawsuit.

Offline murfyzlaw

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +156512/-29
  • Gender: Female
  • My beautiful grandsons
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #354 on: April 23, 2008, 11:05:30 PM »
I stand corrected, that fact makes it even worse.  He played games with the taxpayers money, and boy could we use that money now.  Thanks JB
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Remember that no matter how bad things are in your life, there are others dealing with much worse obstacles, and be thankful for what you have.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #355 on: April 23, 2008, 11:28:26 PM »
He was never home for 10 months?

  Never home for us.

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #356 on: April 24, 2008, 01:40:54 PM »
Thanks JB, your right, I got the amount wrong by quite a bit. 

Offline pistolwhip

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #357 on: April 25, 2008, 01:25:31 PM »
Thanks JB, your right, I got the amount wrong by quite a bit. 
JB what about the commissioners trying to impeach JT,  over a failure to purchase a bond within 15 days, which he obtained the same day he was elected, AND  the fact that JT didnt get any of the civil fees money, and the order issued by Judge Wiggins which ordered him to vacate the court house and turn it over to the commissioners, which had been filed by the commissioners. If you are going to tell the story, get it correct and all the facts. By the way if JT had been impeached, 85 other sheriffs would have been impeached and all persons arrested and all civil and criminal process performed by the 86 sheriffs for the prior 4 years would have been null and void.  Read the law. Thanks to his efforts you now enjoy using the civil fees money.........

Offline ~kathy~

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4721
  • Karma: +2469839/-8400
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #358 on: April 25, 2008, 02:02:36 PM »
Thanks to his efforts you now enjoy using the civil fees money.........
 

HAHA What money??????????
Go ahead and blame me....Everyone else does

Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #359 on: April 25, 2008, 02:30:05 PM »
JB always has a bad habit of not telling all the facts.   It's always that one little piece of information that makes all the difference.