Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Management Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances ballot language for nonbinding countywide referendum on joint water management agency, cites $100 estimated residential fee and roughly $100,000-
Summary
Rankin County supervisors on March 17 reviewed draft ballot language for a nonbinding countywide referendum on creating a joint water management agency and discussed an estimated $100 annual residential fee and about $100,000 to hold a countywide election.
Get email alerts on the Water Management Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rankin County Board of Supervisors discussed and advanced draft ballot language on March 17 for a proposed countywide nonbinding referendum that would ask voters whether they favor forming a countywide joint water management agency to address stormwater, drainage and erosion.
The draft ballot text presented to the board reads in part: “The Rankin County Board of Supervisors is considering the creation of a countywide joint water management district or similar agency whose purpose will be to address drainage, erosion and flooding problems throughout Rankin County and its cities. The proposal includes the establishment of a fee to be paid by property owners on an annual basis to fund the district's operations.” The staff inserted an estimated residential fee of $100 per year on the draft ballot; the transcript records that the residential fee must not exceed $100 under direction previously given to staff.
County staff clarified the draft does not yet include a commercial fee estimate because that analysis remains in progress. Staff also said municipalities would not be automatically included in the agency; municipalities would have to vote by their governing bodies to opt in.
Board members asked about the cost and outreach for the referendum. County staff estimated the countywide special election would cost in the neighborhood of $100,000. Supervisors discussed whether the county should fund an education campaign and how to schedule the referendum; staff recommended further review and planned to return with final verbiage and a plan at the next meeting.
Supervisors agreed to take the draft language up at the board’s next meeting and to supply copies of the proposed ballot language prior to the scheduled vote on adopting a resolution setting the referendum.

