Jackson City Council Public Hearing on Water Authority Bill HB 1677 – Feb 16, 2026
Jackson City Council Public Works Committee Meeting & Public Hearing on House Bill 1677
On February 16, 2026, the Jackson City Council’s Public Works Committee held a public hearing to discuss House Bill 1677, which would create a new regional water authority to replace the federally-appointed Jackson Water. The meeting featured presentations from city officials and extensive public testimony. No vote was taken; the council planned to deliberate privately afterward.
Administration Presentation
- Mayor Horn (unidentified by name in transcript) opened by explaining that 3.5 years ago Jackson’s water system collapsed, leading to federal takeover. The proposed nine-member authority would give Jackson control of six seats (mayor, two mayor appointments confirmed by council, one each from Byram and Ridgeland confirmed by council, and one from the Greater Jackson Chamber). The authority would lease the city’s wastewater system, assume ~$200 million in debt, and dissolve once debt is paid, returning the system to the city. The mayor framed this as regaining control and reducing city debt, urging the council to make a “tough decision.”
- City Attorney Drew Martin detailed the legislative history, noting an earlier version gave the state six of nine seats. HB 1677 is a significant improvement. He stressed that the authority’s creation requires a transition plan approved by federal court and a lease negotiated with the city.
- Bond Counsel Trey Harrison stated the authority would allow refinancing of the city’s $197 million debt, improving the city’s bond rating and cash flow.
- Financial Consultant Michael Thomas highlighted that Jackson Water’s collection rate is only ~62%, and the new authority must improve billing and collections to ~95%.
Public Comments & Testimony
- John Bird (VP, Association of South Jackson Neighborhoods) expressed concerns about board makeup, billing, grievance process, and meter accuracy, but concluded residents are “caught between a rock and a hard place” and the bill offers a way out.
- Jennifer Welch (Vesica Real Estate, Chamber & Planning Commission) supported the bill but recommended adding multifamily housing provider representation on the board and a 30-day deadline for information requests.
- Pauline Rogers (homeowner, business owner, re-entry provider) opposed HB 1677, calling for a forensic audit, billing caps, no shutoffs during disputes, and other consumer protections before any governance change.
- Nisham B. Lambright Haynes (Jackson NAACP) opposed, citing lack of a clear sunset provision, loss of democratic oversight, and risk of rate increases. She demanded a sunset clause, affordability analysis, and structured community input.
- Robert Gibbs (attorney, business owner) supported the bill, stating it gives the city majority control and removes $200 million in debt, calling opposition “a no-brainer.”
- Jeffrey Taylor (resident, taxpayer) supported the bill as the “lesser of other evils,” highlighting the dual checks of mayor nomination and council confirmation.
- Bishop Ronald Krudik (Fellowship of International Churches, Jackson Downtown Partners) supported the bill, noting the city gains control over its water system and debt relief, and urged council to support it and lobby state senators.
- Rochelle Gibson (Alderwoman, Byram) expressed concern that Byram, with 14,000 customers, has inadequate representation on the board, saying “we don’t have a say so.”
- Dominic Delion expressed hesitancy, wanting more time to review the 133-page bill, and asked what happens if council rejects a Byram/Ridgeland nominee.
- Danielle Holmes (water rights activist) opposed, questioning protections against rate increases and whether residents will bear the financial burden. She argued public water must remain public.
- Richard Grant (DSA, Army National Guard) opposed due to lack of democracy, suggesting an interlocal agreement like the airport authority instead.
- State Representative Justice Gibbs explained the negotiation process: the delegation insisted on city control, and the bill is the best achievable given the state’s Republican supermajority. He voted “present” out of respect for council concerns but called the bill the best option.
- Gary Brown (business owner) recounted personal billing and service issues with Jackson Water, seeking help, but was directed to resolve outside the hearing.
Discussion Items
- Councilwoman Thompson asked the city attorney to clarify the confirmation process for Byram/Ridgeland nominees: the mayor must nominate and council confirm; if not approved, a new nominee is sought. She also asked about constitutional due process rights under the new authority vs. Jackson Water. Attorney Martin explained that as a public entity, the authority must provide due process (notice, hearing for disputes), unlike Jackson Water, a private corporation.
- Councilman Foote had no questions.
- Chairman (unidentified) expressed frustration that the bill was brought without prior public hearings, stating “the people must always be informed.”
- Multiple speakers questioned debt repayment: the city attorney clarified the authority’s revenue from ratepayers secures the debt; the city remains a guarantor until refinancing.
- Danielle Holmes asked about $35.6 million in EPA funds. Financial consultant Michael Thomas said $15.5 million went to Jackson Water, $2.9 million to the city, with ~$5 million unused and possibly returned.
- Councilman (unidentified) asked Jackson Water representative Ted Hennefin about billing data accuracy. Hennefin clarified that the often-cited 62% collection rate compares bills sent vs. payments received in the same month, which is misleading; revenue collection is over 90% over recent months. He acknowledged ~4,000 accounts using water with no associated account in the billing system.
- Councilman Kevin (first name only) praised Hennefin for infrastructure improvements but criticized slow progress on billing and customer service. Hennefin defended his timeline, saying infrastructure came first, and billing is now the focus.
- Dr. Catherine Robinson asked whether Hennefin helped hand-pick names for the authority board; the mayor denied that, stating the earlier proposal was before his term.
Key Outcomes
- No vote was taken during the public hearing; the council dismissed to deliberate in private before responding to the state senate.
- The chairman emphasized the need for public involvement in such decisions.
- The city council’s ultimate position on HB 1677 remains undetermined, but the hearing highlighted strong community divisions and specific concerns about board representation, consumer protections, and democratic oversight.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com