HB 1677 water authority

Speaking for the Association of South Jackson Neighborhoods (wards 4-6), he raised five concerns: grievance process, payment kiosks, proposed rate hikes, broken/misreading meters, and wards' ability to sustain the utility — but acknowledged the city is 'caught between a rock and a hard place' and must get out of the situation.

Real estate CEO with 400 Jackson rental units asked that Section 5's board criteria be broadened to include multifamily housing providers with 200+ units, and requested a 30-day deadline for the authority director to respond to information requests.

Jackson homeowner and community advocate opposed the bill, saying it 'restructures power before repairing trust,' and demanded a forensic audit of billing history, a 12-month retroactive billing cap, no shut-offs during disputes, water quality testing, meter maps, and an independent resident oversight board.

Representing the Jackson NAACP in opposition, she warned the bill creates a governing authority with no clear sunset provision, removes democratic accountability, and could burden working families; she demanded a sunset clause, affordability analysis before rate hikes, and ongoing community input.

Ward 2 attorney and business owner supported the bill, saying the city currently can't control its own asset and that removing ~$200 million of debt is 'a no-brainer,' warning the alternative next session could be worse.

Taxpayer urged support, calling the bill 'the lesser of other evils' and praising the two checkpoint structure — mayoral nomination plus council confirmation — for board appointments.

Bishop of the Fellowship of International Churches and chairman of Jackson Downtown Partners supported the bill, citing his repeated water outages, the compromise control structure, debt relief, and urged senators Blunt, Frazier, and Norwood to support it.

Said he'd support anything returning infrastructure control to the city, called the bill possibly the best solution but not complete, wished for more time to read the 133-page bill, and questioned what happens if the council rejects Byram/Ridgeland nominees.