Elk Konnected Hand out at County Commissioners meeting on 4/25

[Janet Harrington]

From what I have learned there is money in the county taxpayers coffers placed there by the state for use as a recreation fund, which has been available to the real and actual communities for their individual use for a long time.

Ross, the money that is placed in the county government (taxpayers) coffers by the state is money that was collected as a tax by the businesses in each county that sell the alcoholic beverage. This is NOT money given to the county by state. This is money from the purchasers of the alcohol that is sent into the state, handled by the state and returned then to the counties per a formula based on state law.

The reason I bring this up is because from reading your post, you make it sound like the state is giving the county money for the recreation fund which in fact, all the state is doing is handling the collection and the distribution of the money spent by the people who purchase alcohol. This can be found in the Kansas Statutes starting with K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 79-41a02; 79-41a04.

In an attorney general's opinion, 96-47, I respectfully submit what Attorney General Carla Stovall opined about how a county may use this money.


The local alcoholic liquor fund is financed through a 10% tax on alcoholic drinks sold in private clubs. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 79-41a02. Revenues are placed in the fund by the state treasurer and are allocated to each city and/or county on the basis of how many clubs contributed to the fund within that particular governmental unit. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 79-41a04(b). One-third of the money received is earmarked for a special parks and recreation fund. As this situation involves a county's portion of the liquor fund, K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 79-41a04(e) is applicable, which declares that such money may be "expended only for the purchase, establishment, maintenance or expansion of park and recreational services, programs and facilities." Such funds are under the direction and control of the board of county commissioners. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 79-41a04(e).

The 10% tax imposed on clubs and drinking establishments was enacted in 1979 and included provisions addressing the use of such funds, however, there is no legislative history that illuminates the legislative intent for requiring the funds placed in city and county coffers be used only for the purposes previously mentioned. In light of the fact that the statute places control of the funds in the hands of the county commissioners, it is our opinion that the county may only use the funds for the purchase, establishment, maintenance or expansion of park and recreational services, programs and facilities. However, this does not preclude a county from allocating such funds to a city's parks and recreation department provided that the monies are used by the department for the purposes indicated in the statute.



This opinion was written by an assistant attorney general named Mary Feighny.

Just wanted to make it clear that this is not state money.

[Patriot]

... However, this does not preclude a county from allocating such funds to a city's parks and recreation department provided that the monies are used by the department for the purposes indicated in the statute.

Personally, I think the above quote illustrates exactly what should be done in our case instead of paying part of the wages for a 'youth coordinator' and renting carnival rides for various fairs billed as Elk Konnected events.  Give it proportionally to the various cities.  They can perhaps best determine their local park & recreation needs.  Of course, that means county leaders would have to be mature enough to give up some control.

[Ross]

Ross, the money that is placed in the county government (taxpayers) coffers by the state is money that was collected as a tax by the businesses in each county that sell the alcoholic beverage. This is NOT money given to the county by state. This is money from the purchasers of the alcohol that is sent into the state, handled by the state and returned then to the counties per a formula based on state law.

Thanks Janet. I did phrase that poorly.

I'm Pooped and off to bed Goodnight All.

[redcliffsw]

Looks to me like the statute ought to be repealed.  It's not the job of the State to capture money for others'
projects, no matter how desirable their good works appear to be.  The government should not be the source
for charity or good works including the charity or assistance to business.



     

[Ross]

Redcliffsw,

Could the words morally bankrupt with greed and power possibly apply here, to the entire thread?

I wonder?

It could be considered a sinful thing by many, many christian's couldn't it?

[Catwoman]

Looks to me like the statute ought to be repealed.  It's not the job of the State to capture money for others'
projects, no matter how desirable their good works appear to be.  The government should not be the source
for charity or good works including the charity or assistance to business.    

Careful, Red...The same could be said of subsidies...You are edging closer to the sacred cow than you should.  You're liable to get a tongue-lashing if you start saying that peoples' freebies should be taken away! lol

[Ross]

Careful, Red...The same could be said of subsidies...You are edging closer to the sacred cow than you should.  You're liable to get a tongue-lashing if you start saying that peoples' freebies should be taken away! lol

Red is 100% correct.

They should be removed. Back when I was a kid my dad became disabled and no income. Welfare tried to get my mother signed up. She refused. She stood on her own two feet. And all us kids helped out. My mother earned a dollar an hour and we survived on depression type foods. we raised rabbits and chickens in the back yard for eating and grew a garden. We new we were poor, but we were independent and rich in so many other ways for it.

Subsides are nothing more then welfare with a fancy name. And usually it appears to me that it is the wealthy that recieve subsidies. Which imakes it welfare for the wealthy.

They are cutting all of it in other countries through austerity, and some of it is happining here. They just aren't calling it austerity "yet".

I call them "Beggar-Thy-Neighbor" programs.

Do you get subsidies?

[Catwoman]

Red is 100% correct.

They should be removed. Back when I was a kid my dad became disabled and no income. Welfare tried to get my mother signed up. She refused. She stood on her own two feet. And all us kids helped out. My mother earned a dollar an hour and we survived on depression type foods. we raised rabbits and chickens in the back yard for eating and grew a garden. We new we were poor, but we were independent and rich in so many other ways for it.

Subsides are nothing more then welfare with a fancy name. And usually it appears to me that it is the wealthy that recieve subsidies. Which imakes it welfare for the wealthy.

They are cutting all of it in other countries through austerity, and some of it is happining here. They just aren't calling it austerity "yet".

I call them "Beggar-Thy-Neighbor" programs.

Do you get subsidies?

LOL  Oh...I wish I did.  I have gone online and seen the amount paid out to individuals in subsidies...That would go a heck of a long way to paying off my student loans that I had to take out.  I am STILL paying back student loans, even at my age.  The only thing that is State-related in my paycheck is the fact that my wages come from the School District, which gets part of its funding from the State, paid in part from taxes (meaning ME, too).  I get a very small stipend to buy things for my classroom at the beginning of each year.  However, it is not nearly enough to provide everything that my students need for a fully developed education, so I pay out between 1500 and 2000 per year, out of my own pocket, to make sure that my children are getting every advantage that I can provide.  I beg no one for the funds to do this...I provide it on my own.  So...To answer your question fully and directly...NO.  I am a public school teacher, which means that I am a State employee, just like the county road workers.  I get no subsidies.  And, for once...I agree with you, Mr. Ross.  Red is 100 percent correct.  

[Ross]

I too do lots of things for other people.
At my own expense.
I have bought meals for children at school activites mine and others that are not mine
because they were hungry.

I have provided meat from my cow I had butchered to a couple of people that
otherwie would not have meat on their tables.

I have performed work for others with my tractor, that they could not afford to hire someone.
I even paid for the diesel.

Therefore to Commissioner Liebau, I volunteer considerbly and I don't feel I need to volunteer for your
Elk Konncted, LLC so your organization can benefit from it. And that is not being vile. And I am sure plenty of other people in Elk County volunteer in many other ways without an organization to tell them when and how.
And they do it without bragging in the newspaper.

Back to the subsidies. That in my opinion is exactly what the Konnected Kounty Kommissioners are trying to set up in our county government subsidies and welfare by other names. I.E. economic development, property tax rebates for someone who spends $20,000 or more on property, entraprenurial prograams, still called welfare and "Beggar-Thy-Neighbor" programs  in my books. And they would probably be used by the wealthies people in the county, people that don't need it.

Back to the student loan stuff, I was recently reading something about someone trying to fix it where older people don't have to finish paying them off. Now, I don't know if that applied to governent loans, but I'd bet it did. I wish I would have kept that story for you. Sorry I didn't.

[Catwoman]

I appreciate that, Ross...But I probably would have gone ahead and repaid them, sans the deleting of part or all of them.  I believe in repaying my debts.  I was lucky to get the loans.  Lucky to get to go to college when I did.  Nowadays, kids are expected to be in the top third of their class or get above a 21 (or is it a 22) on their tests.  So many kids will be cut out of the ability to go...And the chasm between the haves and have-nots will be made even greater.  The ability to go to college used to be hard for the middle to lower middle class...It's fast becoming almost impossible now.  The people who find a way to get out of repaying their debts just make it harder for the people who come after them to get the help.