Thursday, October 15, 2015

County loses to School & Town - Now, who is going to pay?


Who is going to pay?  The current Board of Supervisors or the Tunica County Tax Payer?

 

On July 4, 2015, Judge Lackey ruled in favor of the Town of Tunica and the Tunica County School District as it relates to the distribution of gaming tax dollars in Tunica County.  As a part of this ruling, Judge Lackey wrote –

 

“Tunica County, Mississippi should be assessed with all attorney fees for which the Town of Tunica and the Tunica County Schools are liable as a result of this cause.  Tunica County, Mississippi should be assessed with interest at the highest legal rate on the sums which have not been properly paid to the Town of Tunica and the Tunica County School District as directed by House Bill 1002.  Tunica County, Mississippi should be assessed with all costs of this proceeding.”

 

The current Board of Supervisors voted to not follow the law when they decided to stop paying the Town and School district.  While under appeal, the County will eventually have to pay them back.  Who knows if the county has the over $4 million it currently owes in money that it did not disburse and presumably spent.  But the real question should be – Who is going to pay the interest and all costs of the proceeding? 

 

The current Board of Supervisors have already raised property taxes by 386% in less than 4 years.  Should the taxpayers of Tunica County be held accountable for their irresponsible decision to not follow House Bill 1002 or, should the individual current Board members be held financially responsible for this action?

 

What are your thoughts?  Who should pay the highest interest allowed and all costs of this misguided and unlawful decision? 

2 comments:

  1. Well the members that voted yes to it all need to pay up. Since they didn't follow the letter of the law I believe they are all bonded. So that should fall on the bonding companies who wrote the bonds. Isn't that how it works?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete