Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Water Authority topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Mayor pushes for city majority on proposed Jackson Metro Water Authority as council presses billing fixes

Jackson City Council · February 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Jackson leaders debated S.B. 2,611, a bill to create a Jackson Metro Water Authority, with the mayor insisting the city must hold a board majority while councilors urged better billing, collections and earlier inclusion in negotiations; no formal vote was taken.

The mayor said the city must retain control as the Legislature considers a bill to create a Jackson Metro Water Authority, and council members pressed for fixes to long-standing billing and collections problems before the system is returned to local control.

City Attorney Drew Martin opened the discussion by describing two bills provided to the council: Senate Bill 2,611, which would create a Jackson Metro Water Authority, and Senate Bill 2,649, a repeal of an airport-takeover law. Martin said the water-authority bill would create a public entity to take over the city’s water and sewer system when interim management by Jackson Water ends, and that the authority could refinance system debt and remove that debt from the city’s books. He told the council the airport repeal bill had been killed and that the 2016 state law to disband the airport authority never took effect because of litigation.

Why it matters: The structure and membership of any water authority will determine how much direct control the city has over water operations and finances, and council members said they must have a voice as negotiations continue.

Mayor (unnamed) told the council the administration has been negotiating with federal and legislative stakeholders for months and said repeatedly that "we have to have the majority on the board." She said the current legislation reflected earlier proposals from Representative Shonda Yates and a senate sponsor and that the administration is working with legislative chairs to change the language to secure a city-favorable composition.

Martin and the mayor outlined different descriptions of board membership that appeared in versions of the bill. Martin initially summarized an earlier drafting that he said would have produced a 13-member board with state and city appointments; later he corrected the description, saying the bill before council would have four appointments by the city’s mayor and multiple state appointments. The mayor outlined a proposed structure designed to produce a city-aligned majority: "the mayor would have four appointments" plus nominees from the chamber of commerce and the Jackson Public Schools board of trustees, each confirmed by the council.

Council members said they had been left out of earlier negotiations and asked for a council representative to be included in talks with the Legislature. One council member said she was "very apprehensive about taking back the water system if the billing part of it isn't fixed. It has been broken for 11 years." Other councilors and the mayor described efforts in federal court and with the EPA and said the city is pressing Judge Wingate and Jackson Water to address billing, collections and appeals procedures before returning operations.

Drew Martin said the city has filed correspondence with the court and requested that Jackson Water hire vendors and collection services to identify unbilled accounts and pursue unpaid bills; he said that in "two years, the number of bills that have gone out and not been paid equals $75,000,000." Council members recommended hiring outside billing and collections experts and urged officials to present clearer, earlier information about legislative language and timelines so the council is not "blindsided."

The council moved into executive session to discuss litigation tied to these matters; after returning to open session members reported that "no action was taken." The council did not vote on S.B. 2,611 at the meeting and said it will continue to track legislation and negotiations and to seek changes that protect the city’s interest.