Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rankin County supervisors add, then adopt resolution consenting to Jackson annexation near airport; recess set for Oct. 15
Summary
The Rankin County Board of Supervisors voted to add and adopt a resolution consenting under Mississippi law to a proposed City of Jackson annexation of lands adjacent to the Jackson Municipal Airport as part of a settlement in consolidated annexation cases involving Flowood and Pearl; the board also voted to recess to Oct. 15.
The Rankin County Board of Supervisors voted during a meeting to add to its agenda and adopt a resolution consenting to the City of Jackson’s proposed annexation of certain lands in unincorporated Rankin County adjacent to the Jackson Municipal Airport, action the county said is required to effect a settlement in consolidated annexation court proceedings involving the cities of Flowood, Pearl and Jackson and the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority.
County staff summarized the background and legal basis for the request, saying, “what we are here on today is, 2 different annexation proceedings that are pending in the chancery report of Rankin County. 1 is, 2018 13 dash 13 95, and 1 is 02/1714. These annexations involve City Of Flowood, City Of Pearl, and have as a part of, the, parties to those proceedings, the city of Jackson and the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority,” and described the consent as part of a settlement that requires the board’s approval under Mississippi Code Section 61-9-5.
Supervisors moved and seconded to add consideration of the resolution to the agenda and then to adopt the resolution; both motions were approved by voice vote. The transcript identifies the presence of supervisors named Brad and Jay during the motions but does not record a roll-call tally by name.
The staff presentation and motions noted that the annexation consent is a condition of a broader settlement of consolidated annexation cases. The specific conditions attached to the county’s consent were mentioned as part of the proposed resolution but not specified in the meeting record.
The board also voted to recess the meeting to Oct. 15. That motion was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.
No further details on the precise parcels to be annexed, the text of the resolution’s conditions, or a roll-call vote count were provided in the meeting record. Next procedural steps indicated in the meeting record are the formal adoption of the resolution (completed) and the scheduled recess to Oct. 15.
