Probation to start targeting tax returns

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

With more than $150,000 in back payments owed in probation fees, the Putnam County Adult Probation Department may have found a way to recoup some of the money.

The Putnam County Commissioners gave their approval Monday to a plan for adult probation to collect user’s fees from the state tax returns of the individuals in question.

The commissioners learned that the department is owed $156,310 in back payments from about 340 clients.

That translates to an average of just shy of $460 owed by each of these clients.

The program involves the local department turning over the names and amounts owed to the Indiana Department of Revenue. The amount owed would be taken from the client’s state tax refund, if one is owed.

The commissioners approved the request unanimously.

In other business:

• The commissioners approved a $33,973 bid from Johnson Controls to install a new fire panel at the Putnam County Jail.

The bid was one of three submitted, alongside a $30,782 bid from Koorsen Fire & Security and a $38,000 bid from B&R Fire Protection.

While the Johnson bid was not the lowest, the commissioners chose it at the request of Chief Deputy Matt Demmings, who said Maintenance Supervisor Tom Gilson thought it best to stick with the company.

Johnson purchased Simplex, the jail’s former fire panel provider.

The plan was for the money to be taken from the cumulative jail fund, pending approval by the Putnam County Council on Tuesday.

The expenditure and installation will not take place until 2020 and the commissioners still need to formally sign a contract.

• A $4,500 was approved between the Putnam County Clerk’s Office and CSI, the former provider of court record tracking services.

The county made the transition to the state-run Odyssey program last March, but the judgment collections did not transfer as they were supposed to.

Furthermore, Odyssey hasn’t helped with the transition, causing extra work of manually updating records for the clerk’s staff and the need to continue contracting with CSI.

Chief Deputy Clerk Debbie Ensor said the office will need to continue with CSI through the end of 2020. Ensor believes the transition will be complete within the year

“We’re a good halfway through right now,” she said.

The expenditure is to be taken from the clerk’s perpetuation fund.

• The county is looking into transferring a vehicle from the sheriff’s department to the planning and zoning department.

Currently, County Planner Don Hatfield is putting lots of miles and wear and tear on his personal vehicle as he criss-crosses the county for inspections.

The commissioners were in favor of getting something, but worried about the condition of any vehicle with which PCSD would be willing to part.

“We recognize that it would be in our best interest to get him a new vehicle versus what we’re paying for mileage and what he’s having in repairs,” Commissioner Rick Woodall said.

• County Highway Supervisor Mike Ricketts reported being short one plow truck following a recent wreck that likely totaled one of his dump trucks.

While Ricketts expects to get through the winter with the trucks the department has -- currently 13, with six Kenworths he considers to be in really good shape -- he’s looking toward the purchase of new vehicles next year.

The problem is that several Freightliners in the fleet have an exhaust system that is getting cost-prohibitive to keep in good working order.

“I think we need to try to get six trucks,” Ricketts said. “If you guys could help me pay it out of the EDIT or I could move some stuff around. We just need to figure out how to come up with six trucks.”

The EDIT plan will be reviewed and approved in January.

Comments
View 3 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    Since the BG disabled comments on the article re: the cost of the last election, I will post here as it is still local gov't related if a bit off-topic for this article.

    While I can appreciate the fact that the cost of running the election has diminished, there are two things I would like to point out:

    1) Comparing a 2015 Primary election cost per vote to a 2019 General election cost per vote is not a very accurate comparison. The cost per vote will fluctuate with the number of people voting in relation to the total cost and not necessarily b/c of the use of vote centers. While its true that vote centers may bring down the total cost (which is good), what has been stated is a bit disingenuous.

    2) Why is it that no one in local office or any other major party representative (father/son Baird for example) ever decries burdening the taxpayer with paying for Primary Elections?

    Primary elections are for the individual political parties members to choose who they wish to put up in the general election. These political parties are PRIVATE organizations.

    These primary elections serve NO PURPOSE for the general electorate (voters) unless you are a member of one of these parties. (Or you are cross-voting in the primary for the purpose of influencing the other parties choice of candidate.)

    So why is it that the general electorate (voters/taxpayers) paying for something that should be handled by the individual parties respectively?

    All the "minor" parties (Libertarian Party, Constitutional Party, Green Party, etc) handle their own candidate selection through committee or caucus.

    If the town council was REALLY interested in saving money, you would think this would be an easy first step.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Wed, Dec 18, 2019, at 9:38 AM
  • RE: intercepting state tax refunds to pay delinquent probation fees. Is this a new concept? Sounds like a no-brainer to me. But anyone determined to avoid paying could just have enough of their checks withheld to keep from getting a state refund in the first place. Plus, isn't it illegal to not pay the fees? Just have the handcuffs ready when they come in for their probation appointment.

    -- Posted by Ben Dover on Wed, Dec 18, 2019, at 9:49 AM
  • I don't understand why it's taken this long for them to decide to garnish tax refund checks. They were quick to garnish refund checks from those who owe arrears in child support, or those who have judgments against them... this should have been done years ago.

    -- Posted by momof2ingreencastle on Thu, Dec 19, 2019, at 8:28 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: