These changes would have changed the funding plan, removed Jackson City Council approval for the complex board’s plans, and created a new judge in the complex area. The House voted in favor of sending the bill back to the committee. This was expected to kill the bill. Before it adjourned, the Senate did not take any action on the amended bill. The original bill established a fund to support the new district. It would be funded with 12.5% of the municipality’s annual sales tax revenue, private donations and any other money appropriated from the legislature. The amended bill would have eliminated the additional infusion of sales taxes funds and provided no direct appropriation. This raises questions about funding for infrastructure improvements in Capitol Area. Rep. Mark Formby (R-Pearl River), who signed off on the changes in a House-Senate confer committee said that poor economic conditions forced the changes. “We don’t perceive the money being available now so we were hoping for the Capitol Complex District to be established, get board established, get boundaries and then return. It is intended to fund it when the economic climate is better next January. Formby, a Republican from Pearl River, signed off on the changes as part of a House-Senate conference committee. Formby stated that the House and Senate members decided to delay funding. However, they were able to “lay the foundation” and establish the Capitol Complex District. The bill also removes the Jackson City Council’s final approval of the infrastructure plan that the Capitol Complex’s board creates. Formby stated that this was a change he cared deeply about. He said, “It doesn’t make sense that we are going create a (n executive) district and then create an advisory committee to help the district have direction. Then we will go back to Jackson City Council and give them veto power over the activities of that district.” “If they are going to give them that power, then I don’t see any reason to create that district,” he said. Last week, Senator David Blount, D. Jackson, stated that he supported the original legislation because it was the state acknowledging its responsibility to maintain the infrastructure in the area it uses each session. Blount stated that he did not support the bill as it stands. “The latest version of this bill eliminates oversight from the elected city governing authorities. It creates an appointed judgeship (at this level) that does not exist elsewhere in the state.” These changes were met with criticism by Jackson City Council members, who previously voted unanimously in favor of the original legislation. Melvin Priester Jr., Council President, stated that this bill does not look like the one we signed up for in the fall. Many of us have supported this measure for quite a while and it’s just a slap on the face and it’s very disappointing that in an eleventh hour, this bill was changed into something that we cannot support. Priester posted earlier in Facebook that there was going to be partnership. But, hey, don’t look at a gift horse in its mouth. Priester pointed out the changes made to the bill, which stated that each district will have its own judge, who will be appointed and appointed by the governor. Priester wrote: “That is new, and that turns this bill into an annexation law in my opinion.” Akil Bakari spoke for The Coalition for Economic Justice, and said, “All we’ve heard about this session is about these massive tax cuts and shortfalls of the foretasted revenue. Given the history of Mississippi’s dealings with Jackson, I couldn’t believe that they would actually fund us._x000D