Okay, it's currently 10 a.m.

We will call the public works committee meetingslash public hearing for the city council to order.

First of all, Council Clark, do you have anything?

Okay, first of all, we will hear the first 10 minutes.

We're gonna donate uh donate to a hearing from the administration.

First, I'd like for them to take a few minutes to explain how we got here before they go into the details of uh some of what they see as the positive aspects of this bill.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I'm gonna make a few remarks and then uh recognize the city attorney uh Drew Martin to make some additional comments, and our bond council as well as uh financial consultant for the city will have some opportunity to speak.

And um because they didn't know about the fact that you had to sign up in advance.

There are a number of legislators who are here and uh they've asked to uh make some comments and we'll try to do all that within the 10 minutes that we have allotted.

Thank you, sir.

All right, so three and a half years ago, the city of Jackson lost all of its credibility when its water and sewer system collapsed due to neglect, a lack of proper proper management, funding, and a habit of kicking the can down the road.

The federal government stepped in and took over after the city council voted unanimously within a matter of hours, with the support of the mayor at that time, and put one man from Virginia in charge of everything.

The city, including the city council and the mayor, had no say in the operations of its wastewater system, which was named Jackson Water.

Now many improvements have been made, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

In our discussions with the federal judge who oversees this system, we've been advised to come up with a plan for what life would look like after Jackson Water goes away.

After several months of testimony and discussions with the legislature, which must approve any structural changes to our system, a bill was drafted, which would create a new authority to replace Jackson Water.

This new authority would be made up of nine members, with Jackson having control of six of the nine slots on the authorities board.

These six appointments would either come from Jackson or must be approved by the mayor of Jackson and the Jackson City Council.

They are as follows.

The mayor of Jackson, two appointments by the mayor of Jackson, requiring Jackson City Council confirmation.

One appointment by the City of Byron submitted to the mayor of Jackson and requiring confirmation by the Jackson City Council.

One appointment by the city of Ridgeland submitted to the mayor of Jackson, and that they also must be confirmed by the City Council.

One appointment from the Greater Jackson Chamber of Commerce present or his or her designate.

Two appointments by the governor, and one appointment by the lieutenant governor.

The City of Jackson must agree to lease its wastewater sewage uh water sewer system to the authority.

The authority would then assume the city's debt on the wastewater system, which would result in approximately 200 million dollars being wiped off of the city of Jackson's books, improving the city's bond rating and ability to pave more streets and roads, support crime fighting and economic development, amongst many other things.

Another element of the legislation is that contracts would require competitive bids and take no rate and no rate hike or major contract expenditure may be entered into without an agreement by three-fourths of the members of the authority.

Once the authority has paid off the debt, the authority is dissolved, and the wastewater system is returned to the city.

So where does that leave us?

Right now, neither the city council nor the mayor have any control of our water sewer system.

So we're not giving up anything, we're getting something back.

With this legislation, the arrangement with the set with the state is that we would control six out of nine votes and free ourselves up from 200 million dollars in debt.

When I was elected in the middle of last year with an overwhelming vote of 67% of the electorate out of a field of six candidates, I told you that we would make some tough decisions to get our city back on track.

If I had another choice to make, I take it, but I don't see one.

The question now is whether the city council is willing to make another tough decision.

Or if not, what's the alternative?

Leave it in the hands of Jackson Water, which is going broke, or give it back to the city, which has neither the money nor manpower to run things.

Mr.

Chairman, I will yield my time at this time.

Okay, and doing so, Mr.

Martin, can you just take a minute, minute and a half to tell us how we get here today at this place?

And what was the process leading to this?

In terms of this legislation?

Yes, sir.

I'll do my best.

Uh Drew Martin, city attorney.

So to address that issue, what you have to understand is, and the mayor covered a lot of the background, so I'm gonna try not to go back over that in the interest of time and so forth.

Uh, what's coming next is there will be a transition from Jackson Water to whatever is next.

Okay.

Uh let me polish your minute.

Yes, sir.

My question is.

I understand.

Do you understand the question?

Yes, sir.

I think so.

I think you know, we it's gone past the House.

Right.

Okay.

How did that be?

Oh, you want to go?

Yes, sir.

I'll go straight to that.

And then now that it's in the hands of the city council, how did we get here?

So I'm not a part of uh the lobbying arm of the city.

I I so, and that's the only reason I don't know all of what I think you're asking.

But in brief, the state has been looking for a year or two or more at creating a vehicle by which uh the the city's water and sewer system could transition away from Jackson Water.

If you remember last year there was a bill that was put forward that would have created a municipal authority that looked a lot like this one in many aspects, with one big difference, and that big difference was that was a nine-member board where three positions were appointed by the city, confirmed by the city council, three were appointed by the governor, three were appointed by the lieutenant governor.

So, in other words, there would be six of nine seats that were wholly appointed by the state, three appointed by the city, and all of the governance of that board would have been by majority rule, meaning in under every circumstance, the city would have three votes, even if they all voted together, and would need two of those state representatives to vote in their favor to get anything done at all.

So you can see the movement from that bill to this bill and how different that is.

I think that's that's okay.

And the House has passed this one, and now what's awaited is the Senate uh to vote on it.

Yes, sir.

The only other thing I would add, uh other than specific questions that that the council might have is what's cut what I was about to say a minute ago.

What's coming is a transition.

Jackson Water is not meant to be a permanent solution.

I think Mr.

Hennefon would agree with that.

I know that Judge Wingate would agree with that.

That is an interim third-party manager, and that means what it says.

So the question is what comes next.

The city's had four years uh to think about that.

The state has as well.

This is a vehicle that does that, that allows a transition that I believe the federal government and the state government will support, that will leave the city with the majority of confirmations on the board.

By the way, once even if all of this gets passed, what's next is a transition plan that has to be submitted to the federal court.

That transition plan is addressed to some extent in this legislation.

It requires the city to have a voice in that transition along with the state and the federal government.

After that transition occurs, all of that has to occur before this authority that's being created would do anything other than be appointed.

The board itself will be creating its own rules, its own bylaws because it's a public entity.

Those bylaws will be voted on by the members who are selected and confirmed by this city council.

And after even after all of that, the legislation still requires the authority to enter a lease with the city.

The city maintains ownership of all of its assets, and that lease has to be negotiated.

Until that lease is negotiated, this authority would have no power to do anything.

This gives us a seat at the table.

It's the best one we have today, and it does give the city majority voice on that process.

Mr.

Harrison or Mr.

Thomas, if either one of them has anything to add.

Let's see if we can make it brief so we can get on with the public.

Good morning, uh Trey Harrison, bond counsel for the city of Jackson.

I will only address, and I'll be brief, uh address it from the perspective of public finance.

And you know, currently it would behoove the city and or this vehicle to refinance or restructure uh the majority of that debt to take cash flow strain off of the system.

I think this vehicle is something that's palatable to the bond insurer.

It would give them the necessary assurances to move forward with restructuring some of that debt and refinancing some of that debt.

Interest rates are coming down, and we have the city has to have the consent of the bond insurer.

This organization, uh, this new legislation with respect to the water authority would also have to have their consent as well, and that's important with respect to any type of public financing vehicle.

Um currently, it is still very much the city's debt that 197 million.

Nothing would happen until as Mr.

Martin Attorney Martin provided that the lease takes place, and then those assets would then move over to the authority.

Um, in addition to assets, uh those leased assets, that is also the debt as well.

And so that debt would no longer be on the city's books upon um uh restructure and as well as the lease taking place.

That's all I have to add.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

With the uh city Michael Thomas been uh financial consultant for the city of Jackson.

Okay, so um uh I I concur with the uh recommendation about this house house bill.

One of the challenges that's gonna immediately face the city is uh the collection process that's associated with uh water sewer.

Uh right now, uh I'm I would say that that would be a primary concern on my on my part uh because the collection rate currently is about sixty-two percent in that roughly sixty-two percent of businesses and sixty-two percent of residential customers are paying their billings, and because of that, uh while Jackson Water has done a great job of you know repairing the infrastructure, they haven't done a great job in collections, and so there's a looming problem that's coming that I think this authority will help resolve.

There has to be some kind of transition process, and part of that process has to be starting a reliable uh billing and collection system, uh, and also making sure that that collection rate gets up from 62 percent to 95 percent.

So I think the uh this commission could work that out.

Okay.

Very well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we shall hear uh from the public.

First up, I have Mr.

Dean Julius.

You have how long do we have the clerk?

Three minutes.

Okay, at the 30 second 30 seconds is ticked off.

You'll see the yellow sign means to get ready to wrap it up.

Red sign means it's done.

Okay, Mr.

Dean Julius.

Okay, Mr.

Ernest Ward.

We'd like for all the one that has in who like and come up here with me.

Um they represent Azure Association Jackson neighborhoods.

Associate your South Jackson neighborhoods.

Represent Azure Cmore.

Good morning.

Of course, I'm not Ernest.

I'm John Bird, Vice President of the Association of South Jackson Neighborhoods, which encompasses this wards four, five, six, and we are 501c nonprofit.

So to the mayor, council men and women, directors of staff, thank you all for having us here today to discuss.

We only have five topics this concerning.

First one is the new brand board makeup.

The mayor just expanded on it.

The building issues for an accurate reading, the grievous process.

One of the things that most of the citizens of City of Jackson is that we have to make sure that we have a good grievance process right now.

We don't have one.

Also in the local person stations and various kiosk payments.

They promised that, but we still don't see it.

Some of the wards don't have the finances or resources in order to sustain the utility.

So that's very important.

And the broken meters or the meters that are misreading.

We all know that there's a misreading in this in the uh situation.

The mayor just proposed a wiping out their debt.

So it's a good thing if we can write the debt and write the wrongs.

So as an as jam body, which represents a large chunk of the city, which represents wards four, five, six, and seven.

It's very important that the residents have a voice in this.

Unfortunately, the whole city can't be here, but we are here.

Thank you, Chairperson.

I appreciate the the concerns that you've laid out.

So given those concerns, which I think are incredibly important concerns.

Does Ask Jan support this house bell as a way to address these concerns?

From my perspective and reading the bill, we have we have caught between a rock and a hard place.

Both are not good standards.

The city of Jackson has gotten itself in that they're gonna be collected.

We all just got to get out of it.

We was offered a solution.

Now it's problematic that we're in this situation, but we got to get out of this situation.

So this is a way to ease out of the burden and get back into hopefully a sound ground.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Ward.

And uh association.

Mr.

Bird.

Okay, I'm gonna have to change uh.

Mr.

Mayor Councilman, means and women and his staff.

Uh we lately, Mr.

Mayor, we had some uh screaks being paid in our neighborhood, and I sent it to you.

I don't know if you looked at it later, but I think uh Peter uh having also uh Lorenzo uh analysis have it, and he said you want to take care of those.

But what we want to do in the future, contractors are had in the city.

Who is overseeing the contractors?

How we know they are doing a good job.

We we are tired of people coming to our neighborhood, having the contract and not doing a great job, and we're not gonna allow them as you're not gonna allow them to come in our neighborhoods and just do anything to us, and we're not gonna say anything.

Okay, Mr.

Bird, I certainly appreciate those comments.

However, we need to keep it to this agenda.

We have a lot of folks that want to.

Yes, I just want to mention that that's chairman.

Um, someone is going to reach out to Mr.

Ward to address those paving issues that he addressed.

I understand some gravel is being strewn on on the sidelines of the street, so we're gonna address that.

Certainly appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Ward.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you all.

Okay, next we have uh Kabin Williams.

Cavin Williams.

Okay.

If Cavan Williams is not here, we'll go to the next person, Mr.

Ranjar Batar.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, Mr.

Council.

The next five people sleep line up.

Okay, all right.

Yeah, so look, so we can go ahead and get this.

Number five, we have Jennifer Welch.

We have I think Debbie Sanders Carter.

We have uh Dr.

Fran Bridges and Mr.

Pete Perry.

So if you would get in the queue and uh state your name and let's see what we have here.

Go ahead.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Welch.

I am the founder and CEO of Vesica Real Estate.

I employ 15 people in the state of Mississippi, owner manage 500 rental units, 400 of those being in Jackson.

I've served as the president of the Mississippi Apartment Association, and I currently serve on the Greater Jackson Chamber Partnership and the City of Jackson's Planning Commission.

I have served on Mayor Horns Housing Task Force, where I became more familiar with the issues that were affecting local housing providers, including concerns and complaints of Jackson Water.

I do want to say that I'm grateful for the work that Mr.

Hennefine has done.

When our city lost water, it greatly affected operations, and I lost good tenants and good staff during that time.

So to have consistent reliable water is really important to my operations.

The makeup of this board is an important matter, so I wish to start with some comments on that section.

Section five defines particular members of the board, and I want us to consider member 12.

Is there a list of current large non-health care businesses that fit this criteria?

If so, could that list be reviewed by the public?

I would also like to see the criteria of the section broadened by adding an additional language, one that affects multifamily housing providers.

So it currently reads an employee of a large non-health care business with a minimum of 200 employees working in facilities within the service area, and I would like to see it add to be added, or an employee of a local housing provider with a minimum of 200 rental housing units within the service area.

One final comment I have about the bill is that there is a Section 10 letter C that provides an opportunity for people to collect data from the president or the director of the authority.

And I don't see a constraint on the time that that information should be provided.

I have been in a situation where I have a right to information, but there is a delay in the delivery of that information, which makes decision making very difficult.

Um to a maximum of 30 days for that that requested information be turned over.

Those are my only comments.

Thank you for this time.

Can you uh make a copy of or present a copy to our clerk of counsel?

Yes.

Any questions from the colleagues?

Comments.

Okay.

Next.

Is there anyone else?

So we read off Mr.

Batra, uh, Miss Welch, Sanders Carter.

Okay, Dr.

Bridges, Pete Perry, not here, Pauline Rogers.

Okay, we have Pauline Rogers, Massambi Lombritt.

I think she's here.

If you would get in queue and uh, you know, approach the side.

Uh as I call your name, Mr.

Robert Gibbs, Mr.

Jeffrey Taylor.

Okay, so out of the names of call, who's first.

Okay, present your name, please.

Pauline Rogers.

I didn't know if it was somebody before me.

Apparently not.

Okay.

You're it.

Good morning.

I'm Pauline Rogers, Jackson Homeowner, not for profit business owner, long serving re-entry provider in the state, zero recidivism taxpayer, community advocate, and I oppose House Bill 1677.

Why do I oppose it?

I know we don't have other options.

I'm just giving my reasons for opposition.

We should have had this meeting probably before this meeting.

But it restructures power before repairing trust.

It centralizes authority without audit and bas auditing historical uh billing gaps, addressing meter placement irregularities, protecting residents from retroactive penalties, requiring water, quality verification and clarifying infrastructure liability.

You cannot reform administration without correcting foundation.

If the infrastructure and billing systems have been consistent for decades, expanding enforcement authority creates greater harm.

The bill risks institutionalizing systemic inequality historically for the disproportionate impact of the poor, physically impaired, the elderly, et cetera.

Strict enforcement against residents, lenient accountability for systems.

This is not reform.

This is imbalanced.

It does not adequately address infrastructure and integrity, data transparency, consumer safeguards, historic building mismanagement.

Legislation should not move faster than repair.

If HB 67 1677 moves forward, these demands must include if this bill is pushed through a full independent forensic audit of Jackson's water billing history, a 12-month retroactive billing cap, unless fraud is proven, no water shutoffs during the billing disputes, mandatory water quality testing after meter installation, public disclosure map of all meter locations, a clear documented registry distinguishing water well properties from municipal connections, an independent resident oversight board, infrastructure liability protection for homeowners when meters are off site.

Without these protections, this bill places risk resident at risk.

I am not here to avoid accountability.

I'm here to demand balanced accountability.

If systems fail for decades, residents should not be forced to absorb the cost of that failure.

Water governance must prioritize transparency, safety, and justice administration.

Until those safeguards are embedded, I stand firm against opposition.

Thank you very much.

Okay, uh next.

Out of those names I call Ms.

Rogers, Ms.

Lambre.

Okay, there you go.

Please.

Good morning.

Mayor Horn and members of the council.

My name is Nisham B.

Lambright Haynes, and I'm here today, representing the Jackson NACP in opposition to House Bill 1677.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Our major concern with House Bill 1677 is the establishment of this separate governing authority without a sunset, without a clear sunset provision.

And I realized that the mayor and attorney Morgan did talk about the sunset provision that talked about the settling of the debt, but that was not clear to us.

And as drafted, House Bill 1677 creates a structural shift and operational control away from our elected municipal leadership with no mechanism for reassessment.

When authority to manage public utility is moved from elected officials and entrusted to an appointed board, the public loses direct avenue from accountability at the ballot box for a public benefit as essential to survival as water.

The loss of democratic oversight is magnified.

Structural changes of this magnitude should include a clear pathway for review, revision, and return of authority once the system is stabilized.

Working families who are already navigating inflation and economic instability cannot absorb additional financial strain.

For many residents, even modest increases in utility bills can mean the difference between assessing water, food, medication, or housing cost.

House Bill 1677 removes sole municipal governance and allows appointed management.

We I believe in Jackson.

I believe in our management.

Jackson can manage its own water system.

I believe in our city council.

I believe that we have the ability to manage Jackson.

For communities that have historically experienced limited access to the governance process, this level of engagement is insufficient for permanent restructuring of essential public utility.

We believe the council and legislature have the responsibility to reconcile the following before adopting this measure.

A sunset provision that would return the control of water to the municipality upon stabilization with a clearly defined framework for what would constitute a stabilized system, required public hearings and affordability analysis before any rate increases, structured and ongoing community input opportunities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay, next uh we have Mr.

Robert Gibbs.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the council, mayor.

My name is Robert Gibbs.

I'm a lifelong residence of Jackson.

I live in Ward II.

I own, in addition to my law firm, I own several businesses here in Jackson.

So Jackson is important to me.

And I try to keep up to date on the legislation that affects Jackson.

And this is one that affects Jackson.

If we look at where we are now, we're in a situation where Jackson does not control its own asset.

To me, that's a very bad situation to be in.

Someone else controls them.

Whoever hires the employees is someone different than the city of Jackson.

When someone says we need elected officials to do that, when it was under the city of Jackson authority at that time, we could not manage our own asset.

The situation we are in now is going to change.

So the question is, how does it change and to what entity should it change to?

In my opinion, House Bill 1677 may not be the best option, but it has control by the members of this council and the mayor.

And the city council fought that, the mayor fought that, and now they have come back to bring a bill that I believe we can live with.

I don't believe there's another bill out there that's going to give us any more than what we have now.

The ability to take almost 200 million dollars of debt off the city books so that the city can do other things with its own monies to refinance uh bonds to give the city extra money.

To me, that's a no-brainer.

And why someone would oppose that, I don't understand.

So I stand here today in favor of the authority.

I believe the fact that the mayor in the city council, the mayor in the city council controls five of those votes, is one of the most important things that we could have.

And if we don't have that council, the thing that may come the next time may be much worse.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, next we have Mr.

Jeffrey Taylor.

Good morning.

Morning, sir.

Uh, my name is Jeffrey Taylor, resident of City of Jackson, and I'm a taxpayer.

I stand before you to encourage you to uh support House Bill 1677 as a Mr.

Gill stated it gives us the best option.

It may not be the greatest option, it may not be a perfect bill.

Most bills aren't perfect.

The constitution wasn't perfect, Constitution Mississippi wasn't perfect, that's why they had amendments to it.

But it is the lesser of other evils.

What if if the legislature comes back and says that the governor gives us nine or gets eight appointments and the lieutenant government gives one?

No, it's unlikely, but it's it's a possibility.

The city has five appointments to the board that has two fail uh points to it.

First is the the uh mayor brings forth the nomination, then the city council has to confirm this nomination.

Two two fails uh checkpoints on it.

If it's somebody that is not who you thought they were, as I read it, you know, they serve at the will and pleasure of the board.

So we have checkpoints in place.

Again, as a taxpayer, what is the other option that we have when we still have city control?

An elected board.

Who do you elect?

Someone that's popular or someone that's knowledgeable.

Oftentimes in election, we we elect the popular people, not the informed, not the knowledgeable.

So I stand before you again in support of that bill.

Thank you.

Okay, we have uh next we have Bishop Ronald Krudik.

Ms.

Chairman, City Council, Members Mayor.

Um I'm Ronnie Kruter, Diocese Bishop of the Fellowship of International Churches, New Horizon being one of those churches, but also seven other churches that I always say manage here in the city of Jackson.

I'm also the chairman of Jackson Downtown Partners, lifelong resident of Jackson, Mississippi.

Uh live in South Jackson.

Uh over the last few years, I've been out of water three times, once for a month, two weeks and a week.

Uh glad to say this past freeze, didn't lose nothing.

Hallelujah.

Okay.

Um I'm here supporting uh House Bill 1677.

Um because first, I I'm excited that you're not talking about something similar to the one cent sales tax commission, okay?

We're talking about something that you're gonna have a level of control over.

You got votes as a part of this.

Um, you know, I'm amazed, frankly, that Ridgeland and Byron agreed to this.

And if it doesn't go forward, uh, well, it's been passed anyway in the House, okay.

If it doesn't go forward, I don't think you're gonna get a better deal in terms of this.

Politics is the art of compromise, and we're never gonna have something perfect in terms of this, but you have a level of control and an opportunity to get rid of all the debt.

That is here as well.

Why not go forward with this?

Hey, the mayor supports this.

Give him an opportunity as a part of this.

We've been suffering in Jackson, Mississippi, with a whole lot of things that uh we don't need to suffer with anymore.

Here's an opportunity to go forward in a strong way, and I hope that this city council will support this, and particularly get with our senators, uh, particularly Blunt Fraser and Norwood, and tell them support this bill, 1677.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bishop.

Okay, next we have Alder Woman Rochelle Gibson from the City of Barum.

Are there any other senators with us today?

Okay.

Morning, ma'am.

Good morning, mayor and council.

I am Ottawa and Gibson.

I represent the Ward 5 area of the great city of Byron.

And um, on behalf of the mayor and the board of Alderman, um, it's our only concern that we have adequate representation of the board.

Um, we represent 14,000 people of paying customers in the city of Byron.

Um, we have over a hundred businesses that that's on the water system as well.

Um we're not against the bill.

We are only asking that we represent 14,000 people and that we have adequate representation on the board.

And that's my only concern, and the mayor's not here, but I think it's another, well, supposed to be another Ottoman here, but that's our only concern.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh, were there any questions among colleagues for the city of Byron?

Okay.

Next, we have Dominic Delion.

Okay.

Morning, sir.

Good morning, Mr.

Mayor, City Council.

Um, I don't have much to say um other than anything that takes the infrastructure control back to the city.

I would support.

I feel like this is not completely that, but it may be in many ways the best solution.

It's I don't think a complete solution, but it's a solution.

I don't know that I support it like many residents.

I haven't read the 133-page bill, and I would prefer that we have more time to think about that.

Finally, I would say I still do not understand how we lost control of our water system and our sewer system.

How it was essentially this asset was given to another authority for the last three and a half years, and now we're gonna give it to another outside authority, not the city council, not the mayor, although we will have a lot of power over that.

When I say we, I mean the mayor and the city council.

Finally, I do have a few questions which I assume would be answered here.

If the two other cities nominate someone in the city council for whatever reason doesn't agree to that, what happens?

Byron and Richland, what happens?

Is there a process that says we don't approve that person, or is that going to be an automatic thing?

If it's automatic, then I would be concerned that really only four of the nine positions are governed really by the city council and the mayor, and essentially by the voters of the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, and uh Danielle Holmes.

Good evening, good morning.

My name is Danielle Holmes.

I'm a resident of Jackson, Mississippi.

I'm also an individual who has been boosts on the ground and a part of the water fight here in the city of Jackson and that's in currently in federal court.

I want to first start by saying this is not about personalities or political parties.

This is about whether the people who live in this city will still have a meaningful voice over the most essential services in their homes.

Right now, many residents don't realize the water system is not being run the way a normal city utility is run.

After the 2022 collapse, the federal court stepped in.

Jackson Water is court-appointed third party manager operating under the authority of Judge Henry Wingate.

The mayor does not control operations, the city council does not control operations, and neither does the state control operations.

The court does.

That matters because whoever controls the water system controls the rates.

And water is not a luxury bill.

You can live without cable, you cannot live without water.

Families in Jackson are already stretched thin.

People are already choosing between groceries, medicine, rent, and electricity.

Residents did not break the system, yet they're the ones who will carry the financial burden to stabilize it.

So the question is simple and fair.

What protections exist in HB 1667 to prevent residents from being overburdened by future rate increases?

If the city is already in federal proceedings with Jackson water over proposed rate increases, why create a governing authority structure where rate decisions move further away from officials, voters can hold accountable.

This is not an argument against fixing the water system.

Everyone here agrees the system must be stable and reliable.

We want clean water, we want working infrastructure, and we want long-term sustainability.

But public water must remain public.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have a little bit of time, not a whole lot.

Let me get my notes out.

My name is Richard Grant.

I am uh co-chair of the Jackson Democratic Socialist America.

I am also 17 years going on 18 years in the Mississippi Army National Guard.

Uh I was promoted to Jackson, and I believe this order should be embedded in their communities, which they're assigned.

And since being in a Jackson in the last two years, I don't know a lot about Jackson politics.

So you have to forgive me on that, but I helped organize to make five families out of Blossom when the water cris when the water crisis hit them in the most severe way.

Um I want to speak in in principle, I am in opposition to House Bill 1677 due to his lack of democracy.

But it was the talk of the church yesterday, and just the wave of hopelessness in this community.

It's just it's just so hard to stand against.

Excuse me, sir.

Yes, sir.

We're looking here, and your name is not on any of these comment sheets.

Oh, forgive me, sir.

I just I'm a new parent and my father just passed.

I've been trying to understand.

Okay, but go ahead and proceed.

But make it brief, please.

It will be, sir.

Thank you.

Now, I wanted to mention my opposition.

I do think there is a better deal, Bishop.

That the better deal is to do an interlocal deal like we did with the airport.

Instead of letting the state take the initiative and coming down on the city, the city should work with the city of Bayram more and give Byron a voice and give riding a small voice in lieu of the state and the chamber.

Uh that it's the simple democratic option, and it would try to counter the city.

But also, I can understand the hopelessness of the residents.

And I live in Ward 7 across from Joint Force headquarters.

Uh, is I think the city missed a mark with the housing task force.

As someone was very involved in Blossom and seeing a housing task force come up, the housing task force went from something to address residents and tenants' concerns to publishing a report that basically said, Woe is me, the landlord.

And and saying that, I am a landlord myself.

I was promoted here from North Mississippi, and I own houses.

I understand a couple houses.

I understand what it takes to own a rental property, but it's not that hard.

The housing task force did nothing to address those concerns.

Okay, let's keep it to the water authority.

Yes, sir.

Uh it's tying into that is how can the city, how can residents and tenants trust the city when they miss us to mark with the housing task force?

And I feel like our best option is to do an interlocal deal at this point.

And then there's just more the city could have done with the housing task for smart metering, submetering.

Uh I brought up to my councilman the how hard I rent right now and how hard it is to buy property, especially to use the FHA, the loan or VA loan in Jackson, because the amount of as is properties.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Certainly appreciate it.

Look, I'm sorry.

Why is he being escorted out?

I don't think he's not being escorted out.

I think he had his did he had appropriate time.

Okay.

So uh next, we have winding down on time here.

I would like for uh us to uh have any questions or follow-ups.

Okay, representative Gibbs.

You have something to add to the discussion.

In addition, I'd like to hear about uh not only your opinion, but the other members of the House that voted in opposition.

What were some of the things discussed?

And how did we get here to a point where this thing is in our lap today without a series of public hearings?

I need to know that.

Yeah, so first of all, good morning.

Uh, my name is Justice Gibbs, state representative representing portions of North Jackson.

I kind of want to pull back the curtains to the negotiation process before we got here today.

It has always been the position of our delegation that if we do not have control of this water authority, our vote is no.

We are a no.

When we first started these negotiations from the governor's office on down, they said Jackson's not gonna have control.

We're not gonna have control, and guess what?

We got the votes to do what we want to do.

You can have every Jackson delegation member vote no, stand up on the podium in front of cameras, but at the end of the day, you have to get an affirmative vote out of the House and the Senate, and the governor has to sign it for it to become law.

We worked for months to try to move us from us not having any say to us having a majority say again.

Again, this is something that the governor said that he would not even entertain.

But now he's entertaining it because the mayor and his team have tried to work with them to approve why we need to have the majority.

I agree with a lot of the concerns that residents have raised today.

I agree with all of it.

But the problem is how do we get there with the current structure of state government?

I can vote in in in lock instead with what my constituents want, but I am one vote out of 122.

And I have Republican senators in the other chamber that's saying we hope that this becomes a mess.

Because if it becomes a mess, you know what the Senate can do?

They can take this bill, they can amend it and say we're taking out every seat that we've given city council approval for.

What happens at that point is that the bill has to come back to the House of Representatives, which is something a lot of people have not been talking about.

The House would then have to approve that amendment that was made by the Senate.

Well, guess what?

We don't have the votes to be in opposition of that amendment.

So where we are today is in the best spot that the city of Jackson can be in.

We have control, and we really have to manage our wishes and our expectations with the amount of votes that we can influence in the state legislature.

So again, I agree with a lot of these things.

There's a lot that I wanted in the bill that was told to me that it could not get in the bill.

A lot of concerns that I pushed with the lobbyists with state leadership.

But at the end of the day, it is addition and subtraction that is done with regard to the bill that goes up to the board and what is passed and what's not passed.

We're living in a state where we do not have the majority.

So we have to work within the confines of what is realistic.

And I understand that.

So some of your uh other colleagues that oppose it, what were their uh reasoning?

That's a good question.

I I can speak to my vote.

I was a present vote because I have high respect for the city council.

And I have members on this board that I have a lot of respect for that communicated to me that they were not brought into this process.

That's a concern to me.

That's very much a concern.

And so, with that, I amended my vote because I want to ensure that the city is on the same page.

But when it comes to the context of the legislation, this is the best opportunity for the city of Jackson moving forward.

I can't speak for other members, but what I can tell you is that it was an overwhelming majority that voted yes, and the Democratic senators in the city of Jackson also are indicating that they want to vote yes on this bill.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right.

Okay, um, we will have one round city attorney or someone on the mayor's staff, if there are any questions.

Any questions, I'd like to uh, or anything that needs to be explained, elaborated on, either from my colleagues or from the from the forum here.

Now's that time.

Mr.

Uh Martin.

Go right ahead, sir.

Just a simple question.

Uh I was taking notes on a lot of some of the concerns that people wanted to have.

They want a grievance process, they want a forensic audit, they want no water turnoff uh during billing disputes.

Um are these things things that the new water authority could do?

Yes, short short answer is yes, and some of those things they will have to do because this is a public body, not a private corporation like Jackson Water currently is.

So, for example, constitutionally, this authority is going to have to have a process by which customers can dispute their bills.

There's somebody mentioned one of the speakers mentioned that water shouldn't be cut off during a valid dispute as a constitutional right that this authority will have to follow.

Uh this kind, and if we have the right voice, by the way, I think we have heard from enough citizens and from this council and from this administration that a live person customer service office needs to be established, at least during regular working hours and probably on Saturday as well.

Those are things that we need a voice at the table to ensure.

But in terms of dispute resolution and appeals process process, those will be constitutionally required.

Thank you.

Right ahead.

Um councilwoman Thompson.

Thank you.

The guy earlier, he asked about if the city council did not approve whoever we appointed to Byron or Regional.

Can you explain to him what how would that work?

So no one will be able to be appointed from Byron Oridwan without the mayor putting that person up before the council and the council confirming that individual.

So in the event that the mayor refused to put somebody up, or the council did not confirm that individual, it would be up to Byron or Ridgewin to then nominate a new person who would then go to the mayor for the mayor to approve and nominate uh before this council for confirmation.

That process in theory could go forever, I suppose, but the idea there is to encourage compromise to find a candidate who will represent Byron, but a candidate who will also uh be approved by this by the city of Jackson.

Yes, ma'am.

My question is the constitutional rights.

Under the authority, they are gonna have constitutional rights, but under the present system, they don't have people don't have constitutional rights.

Well, the question is whose job is it to enforce those constitutional rights.

Jackson Water is a for-profit corporation.

The City of Jackson is not, this water authority will not be.

I understand that, but I'm asking about the constitution.

So right now, if somebody's water is turned off constitutionally, constitution doesn't apply to those private corporations.

It applies to the governmental entities.

That's the difference.

Okay, I think we had a perhaps a follow-up from the woman there in Byron.

Can you speak up, please?

Or speaking to the mic.

Representation of the city of Byron if we don't have a say so.

Well, I'm not a Byron resident or an elected by our official, but I will answer this.

Byram has at most 6,000 customers in the system.

They're sewer only, they're not drinking water.

Uh and Byron will get to choose who it wants, and presumably, if Byron chooses someone that the city will confirm, then they will get that representation.

Okay, how is that if we don't have the final say so we might send a representation from the city of Byron, but the board and the mayor has the five, well, the council and the mayor has the final say so.

So we we could send 10,000 people to represent the city of Byram, but if the Jackson board or council doesn't approve it, we don't have a say so.

In theory, that's possible, but it is in everyone's best interest, both for Byron and for the city to have a qualified person on that board that will represent both interests.

Okay.

Yeah, I just don't believe the by the city of Byram has representation or adequate representation if we don't have a say so.

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions?

Last question.

Back to the constitution and rights.

So as a public business, what rights do citizens have?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I'm sorry.

You saying constitutionally.

Let me go back to it this way.

I think I think I do know what you're trying to say.

So the difference is this.

If if a public entity provides a constitutional service to the city, so the constitution the Supreme Court has said, like it or not, most of us don't, that there's not a constitutional right to the for a city to provide you with water.

But if they do, there's certain things they have to provide.

Among those is your due process right to have a bill that reflects what water you used and what you can be charged for.

And if you have a dispute, there's actually a mission, there's a U.S.

Supreme Court case that came out of Memphis where they said if the public is providing that service, doesn't apply to a private corporation.

If a public is providing that service, there has to be a dispute process by which you have due process to a hearing, a notice in a hearing to try to show that your bill is wrong, and this entity will be held to that.

Jackson Water is not.

I understand it, but has there ever been a court case against a public entity that does water?

Yes.

Well, it's Memphis, it was the Memphis case involved water.

Yes, ma'am.

But it was a I'm asking, not with a government, with a public like Jackson Water.

As a private, you mean as a private, yes.

That's that's what we were missing.

Yeah, okay, private.

The short answer is the law is a little murkier there.

Um it's a lot murkier there.

There have been lower court cases that have gone in different directions and made different statements.

There's not a U.S.

Supreme Court case that provides clear authority on that issue.

So the so Jackson, the city or citizens of Jackson have never filed a lawsuit against Jackson Water for anything dealing with billing, et cetera, since we know we have so many problems with collection turnoffs, et cetera.

There have been some individuals have filed some suits against Jackson Water.

Uh the stipulated orders by the federal court in this case give Jackson Water and its agents broad immunity from most types of claims.

The city has not filed a suit against Jackson Water Councilman Foote, been quiet.

Thank you for checking, but I have no questions at this point in time.

Okay.

Nothing.

Okay, folks.

Any other questions from the from the yes, sir.

You name it.

Okay, go ahead.

Right now, the city right now, the debt is secured by the revenue of the system first and foremost.

That revenue is controlled by Jackson Water.

The city, because it took out all of that debt, is also still responsible for it.

Once the municipal authority is created, the bond money and the debt in it will ultimately be transferred to that authority.

The authority will then be responsible for the debt.

The city will be a guarantor at least for some period of time.

But the short answer is that if that fine if that debt is refinanced, which is what will have to happen, uh, that will extinguish the city's debt at that point, it'll be the authorities' debt.

Okay, go ahead, sir.

And I don't mean to be simplistic, but when you say the authority who is paying that $200 million, that's my real question.

Well, it's you are correct.

At the end of the day, the the people that are the customers, all of us that are customers of the system will pay the rates, and that is what secures the debt.

The system, whether it no matter who it's run by, will need to be able to cover its debt and its operating costs and create reserves.

Okay, final question, sir.

Yes, please.

It it does in the sense of what the city can provide as city services, and it also it also opens the door to significantly reducing the system's annual debt requirements in terms of what they pay, uh, which should uh have a lowering pressure on what rates need to be.

Okay, we have another question here.

My name is Danielle Holmes.

Speaking of debt, did the city of Jackson ever uh claim the 35.6 million in opera funds?

That's a finance question that I can't answer that.

I'm sorry.

The mayor can answer it.

What is the question?

The 35.6 million in opera funds.

Did the city ever receive those funds?

Yeah, Mike, you want to turn it on?

Uh 15 and a half million went to Jackson Water.

2.9 million went to Jackson Water.

And uh I believe that they uh dedicated uh most of that debt to the water treatment facilities, some filters and whatnot, uh and a portion of that has been spent, but there's still a balance.

Uh I think somewhere around five million dollars that that has not been drawn down by Jackson Water.

Well, it's it was uh I say it's been drawn down, but but it has not been been uh utilized by Jackson Water.

I think they're looking to see what in the um opera rules uh will qualify them to for uh an expenditure, and um there's some that that will probably won't qualify under the opera rules, uh so that that money may wind up being returned uh to the to the state's opera fund and and be reallocated.

Could you give it the exact amount that the city received of the 35.6 million?

Uh uh no I can't at this time, but we'll get that information to you.

Okay, uh whoa, now we're having several questions.

Please make them very very brief.

We have uh a meeting coming up at uh 1115.

Uh yes, ma'am.

I want to know if the city has a data tracking city for people that are all well versus city adding meters to address because they've never gotten a bill from any particular adjustment.

Do they have a track mechanism for will that would be a Jacksonwater question?

Okay, Mr.

Hennepin.

Can you answer that question, sir?

Sure.

Sure.

Um we have GIS mapping that has all of the pro parcels that are either on well or on city water.

We know where all the meters are.

Again, we've got about 4,000 accounts that we have meters and don't have accounts, and we've got a uh few thousand that don't have meters, don't have accounts, and we're still locating those.

But of the 60,000 accounts, metered accounts, a majority of those have new meters in place.

We know right where they are, and we know exactly which ones are supposed to be on well water and which ones are supposed to be on city water.

We can provide that map, but it's um it requires a license.

So from the uh Esri, which is the GIS company that runs it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

One uh Mr.

Hennepin, before you leave.

Uh councilwoman, did you have a question?

I have a question.

There has been talk of about 18,000 people that are not paying bills, and about 6,000 people that are not being billed totally.

So do we know exactly who these 18,000 bills are?

And if we only bill 60,000 people, that's one-third of the billing population not paying a bill.

Is that a true statement?

No, so the numbers that Mr.

Thomas quoted and have been thrown around quite a bit by the city.

Compare the number of bills sent out any given month and the number of payments received any given month.

And that's a report that we provide, but there's not a relationship, a direct correlation between the number of bills we send out in February and the number of payments we receive in February.

The number of payments we receive in March potentially tries to line that up.

The much better measure is revenue, the actual dollars that show up because the end of the day, what we need is adequate revenue to support the system.

And of the last over the last well, uh last four months in 2025, we were over 90 percent of the revenue required.

Now, some of that is people paying past due revenue, so it's not a reflection necessarily of current bills entirely, but it's a much better number than trying to compare the number of bills that go out in a month and the number of payments that come in, which is again is that 60% number that's cited.

We also think a lot of the number of bills that go out, maybe going to properties that see water go through the meter, but they're abandoned properties with squatters.

You know, we we have to put hands on a number of these properties to try to get the actual number of accounts down.

We inherited this data from the city of Jackson.

The metering data that we got rolls back from actually continue to roll forward from the Siemens Project to the next metering upgrade to where we are today, and it is never been fully cleansed.

And we've hired Horn to help us, uh, the consulting firm Horn.

Um, and we continue daily.

The numbers change every day.

I'm glad we clarified that.

Yeah, not John Horn.

He did a great job of verifying for us, but no, it was the consulting firm firm.

But the the number the number we've been really focused on of late are the number of people that we think are using water and don't have an associated account, and we call those non-account, and that's somewhere it it varies from day to day, it's in the 4,000 range.

We've actually printed a list out in December that was at that point in time current, and we know that there's water going through the meter, we know the address and location of the meter, but when we look in the billing system, there's no associated account, so there's no name, no address.

I mean, there we have the address, so there's no name associated with that account.

Those accounts, when we're in area shutting off for non-payment, we shut off those accounts without notice because they're not in our system.

We have no way to notify them.

So those are a lot of the ones you hear about are people saying, My water got shut off, I never got notice.

Turns out they've never had an account, they've been using water for years, in many cases, decades, and have never established an account in the system.

So we've got a lot of cleanup to do, and it's gonna take time, but we're making progress.

We thank you for your services, and thank you for clarifying that because knowing that people are saying that we have 18,000 people that are not paying or past due, and that we as elected officials are not doing anything about it, really sounds bad because that's one third of the population being billed, and so I wanted to clarify that.

And that 4,000 people, I also wanted to clarify that, and I would like to know if you know if that's residential or commercial.

Those are majority residential, though.

Okay, so we spend every day working on getting people to pay, finding those accounts that don't have it.

I mean, it it is a slow, tedious, and challenging process, and it's painful.

We don't want to shut people off.

We'd much rather people came forward and said, Hey, I've been using water and never got a bill.

What do I need to do?

Open an account, pay up your past due balance, and we only go back to December 1st of 2022 when we became an entity.

We don't reach back for your whole history, but if you've been in that property since December 1st of 2022, we will reach back and we'll put you on a payment plan and bringing you forward to get you current.

Okay.

Did that set aside?

Okay.

We hit yes, we have one other uh question that's been back for been back there for a while.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Uh my question, I guess it's to the internal is can this new authority require uh landlord presidential owners to uh would it require sorry?

Um would it require them?

Could it require them to have smart metering submetering and also if the landlord mean the landlord includes the water and the rent, have an escrow account for that to where people are not on the hook again?

Uh the short answer to that question is none of that is addressed in the legislation.

Okay, we had another question on the back.

He's been handed hand up for a while.

Hey, good morning.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak.

My name is Gary Brown.

I'm the owner of a patent house.

Uh stole its property in Jackson Oldest uh house in Jackson.

I purchased a property just two years ago and uh started doing things over to uh get it up to speed.

I called the city immediately and told them that I needed water.

They changed the water to my name, I'm assuming.

All of a sudden I get a bill almost two years later for $1,800, and they tell me after calling, calling, first they cut my water off, get a bill for $1,800, and then they tell me I have to pay the bill all of a sudden.

I'm a small business, I can't afford to pay 1800.

I can't afford to pay any of that right now.

My trash has never been picked up.

I have no one to talk to.

I have the largest event in my history.

Mississippi Blues Marathon has 22,000 people coming this week.

I'm a title sponsor.

They're telling all those 22,000 people to come through the patent house and gallery.

I don't have anyone to talk to about get my water.

Okay, have you reached out to Jackson Water?

I want me to talk to them.

They tell me to send an email.

I send several emails.

The person okay.

All right, if you if you would, could you uh discuss that with maybe with Jackson Water outside?

Uh uh councilwoman.

Okay, this question is for Mr.

Ted.

Um, do you have any plans of updating the data collection?

And if so, how missed that as I was going to my question was do you have any um um plans on updating the um collection data?

And if so, how we provide regular quarterly reports with updated collection information.

I don't know which data you're looking for.

Just that's published published regularly.

Uh every quarter, we show a complete update, so that the history since we started collecting what the dollars collected, what the number of bills collected.

That's that's readily available on our website under our quarterly reports, and the most updated one would be the quarter that ended uh December 31st, 2025.

Like the people addresses and stuff, that kind of data.

We don't provide addresses publicly on water accounts.

What I'm I'm I'm missing your question, I'm sorry.

No, asking, are you do you have any um what I'm trying to say?

Are you trying to update the system where you can keep up with the data more frequently?

Yes, absolutely.

We and we use a variety of sources to try to make sure the post office addresses are correct.

We got an incredible amount of return mail.

Post office isn't exactly delivering regularly.

And it's not always because the addresses are wrong, but yes, we're updating when when anyone reaches out to us in the call center, we try to verify their current information today as one of the first things that's done again to update that information as we move forward.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Parkerson, I just Mr.

Hedefin, um sorry to keep you got you're getting your steps and today.

Um, you know, I think there's numerous things that we would find common ground on.

I think we I would personally concede that you inherited a meth.

And I think the infrastructure issues were terrible.

I think billion customer service were terrible.

And a lot of people want to put that on one particular administration, but we have to be real.

That went back decades.

That went back after numerous, numerous administrations, and you inherited a real big situation.

I greatly appreciate the work that you've done on the infrastructure side.

Uh and I know my businesses and my residents really really appreciate that.

Though I feel frustrated with the status of billing and customer service, and I concede with you, you did not create those billing customer service problems from from the get-go.

You inherited a mess.

You also inherited an infrastructure mess.

That was terrible.

You took aggressive, swift action on the infrastructure side, and that has made our city better, and I appreciate that.

I'm not on the inside of Jackson Water.

I can't speak to all the details.

I don't feel like the same aggressive action was taken on the billing and customer service side.

There seems to be more of a frenzy lately, and I appreciate those efforts, but I I feel like we did not let that system, we did not do justice on that side of the house.

So I feel so appreciative of the work you've done on the infrastructure side.

I feel frustrated with the bailing and customer service side.

So I first want to say that.

And I'll say this.

The other thing that I think we can both agree on is you are the interim third party manager.

And so, and in some form or fashion, there is going to be something after Jackson Water.

It's a big question mark right now, but something is coming next.

What would you say to this next group that where you think you want them to continue the success that you've seen?

And where are the places where you feel like I wish we would have done better with this, or I wish we could have addressed that at an earlier point to set them up for success.

Let me go to your first comments, Kevin, quickly.

We did focus first on drinking water.

This was a drinking water crisis, and we spent great deal of time and energy getting the drinking water system functional.

We followed that with the sewer system to get the sewer out of the streets, which was in all of your neighborhoods, bubbling up, running down the street daily.

We took care of that.

The third thing we went after is billing and collections because we thought you had to have a functioning water system, a functioning sewer system before you start beating people up about not paying their bill.

And so this has followed the exact plan we set out.

And yeah, there's been a frenzy because we are now a hundred percent turned towards billing and collection.

And I take I take offense that everyone likes to say, oh, you've done a great job with the infrastructure.

We're doing a great job with the billing system, it's just painful.

People don't want to pay their bill.

There's been a culture here of folks who are I can appreciate that.

Bad bills, bad bills coming out.

Whatever, you know, I'll take, I'll take whatever.

Okay, all right.

Let's have whole let's have some water here.

Anyway, so your second question is what recommendation?

I think I think something along the lines of what you've laid out in this authority.

There's probably a long time.

Okay, let's hold it down, please.

As much as you can remove the politics, and I know that's again something that many people made a comment about.

But if you can remove the politics from decisions like investment in infrastructure, investment in rates, investment in in the system itself.

Your investments on a water system are for 50 to 100 years.

You got to be looking forward.

You can't be thinking about the four years you're in office.

It needs to be thought seven generations forward.

You're making huge investments to ensure that the next generation has future water.

We're we're on a razor-thin edge where we are today.

Thankfully, for federal infrastructure money, we're making investments in the plants and the system that would never have been made.

And if they had to be born by the ratepayers, it never would have happened.

So, you know, thank Congress, thank everybody that got the 600 million, and it was 600 million that we're really dealing with.

That that is what has kept this system surviving and alive and not having to put the burden on the backs of our ratepayers.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh uh, Mr.

Parkinson did that answer your question.

Okay, we have one last comment or question.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Dr.

Catherine Robinson.

So I just wanted to ask the council is if it is true that Mr.

Ted Hemphill himself was helping to hand pick those names to be on the authority board.

Um, and was those names also was it also omitted by Mayor Horn, if it is true, was it omitted that the city council should be omitted from helping to pick those names for the authority board?

I'll address that.

Uh initially, back in the spring uh when Mr.

Hennepin uh when Mr.

Hennepin requested a rate increase from the federal judge.

He also suggested an authority that he would select from what everything I understand, and uh that authority uh would be set up uh uh under the approval of the judge that was before my term.

Had nothing to do with what we're talking about today.

Okay, okay, we're gonna have to wrap this up, but I'd like to make a comment uh if there's no other comments for my colleagues, and that is this.

I don't want to just discuss the merit of what's going on today, but I do have a message for our politicians out there.

How dare you bring something to us without going to the public?

How dare you bring something without the public comments?

They're the ones who's paying the bills.

Okay, you can set up and you can be on this side or that side, but the people must always be informed, they must always be included, and they must always help us with these difficult decisions.

So don't bring it to don't bring it without public comments.

Okay, um, with that, we're gonna dismiss and go into uh deliberation as a council because we will be considering something to uh to reply to the state senate.