THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

The West Jackson County Utility District was organized within the bounds of Chapter 831, Local and Private Laws of 1966. The Jackson County Board of Supervisors created the district by resolution in 1974 and it lay dormant until 1992. In 1992 the district was reactivated in response to federal and state mandates pertaining to wastewater pollution south of Interstate 10. Prior to the reactivation of the district, privately owned utility companies offered water and sewer service to the district. These private providers continue, via contract, to provide services to a portion of the customers within the district.

In 1992, the district’s service delivery plan focused on meeting requirements of federal and state mandates. The district sought first to connect all private providers with Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Wastewater Authority, then to provide sewer service to individuals within the district boundaries. The district elected to provide sewer service based on population within district areas. Provision of sewer service initially addressed the larger areas located south of Interstate 10. The district has recently begun to offer water and sewer service to newly constructed subdivisions north of I-10 and is exploring options to provide additional service delivery in this area.

As of May 1999, the district had a customer base of approximately 2,977 customers and predicts a 24% customer increase in FY 2000. Following the FY 2000 expansion, the district will be serving approximately 69% to 75% of the households within the district’s boundaries.

The district chose to bill each area an independent rate. The district has adopted an equitable method for allocating the costs associated with implementation and operation of the systems by considering debt, sewage treatment, maintenance, and other costs. In addition to taking the service area costs components into account, the board has adopted a policy by which the commissioners review and adjust each rate annually.

In determining the financial solvency of the district, PEER applied utility-specific measures that compare revenues and expenditures and analyzed the ratio of current assets to current liabilities and cash and cash equivalents to current liabilities. Based on these criteria, the district is currently generating sufficient revenues to meet expenditures and debt payments and the district’s ratios exceed the industry average for utility companies.

While the district maintains procedures for monitoring administrative and contractual expenditures, weakness exists in the handling of delinquent accounts. The district does not adhere to its delinquent account policy. Customer service is not consistently being terminated according to the board-approved policy (at twenty days past due). While PEER understands the district’s need for flexibility in this area, the lack of written policy regarding payment plans and extensions provides the potential for inequitable treatment among customers.

Other weaknesses in the district’s operations exist because the district has limited authority over private utility providers. The district also shares authority with the Public Service Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality. The district’s limited authority could potentially lead to private provider accountability problems in the areas of pollution control, verification of private provider customer base, and complaint resolution.

1. If the district chooses to allow service extensions and late payment arrangements, the district’s board should approve a written policy concerning this and should distribute copies of the policy to all customers.

2. The district should seek to clarify its authority over private providers to establish accountability. Options include:

   • Establish the following criteria in contracts between districts and private providers:

     • clear, effective billing procedures

     • maintenance agreements

     • designated responsibilities

     • cause for termination of contract

   • Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to examine the possibility of pursuing eminent domain proceedings against private providers within the district service area.

3. The district should report problems to those entities that exercise authority over service delivery.

   In cases in which pollution by providers causes an eminent threat, the district should immediately contact the Department of Environmental Quality to make a formal complaint.

4. In order to improve the accuracy of customer base information, the district should:

   • require private providers (via contract) to report the number of active customers accurately and periodically

   • solicit Public Service Commission filing information to determine the number of customers in private service areas. While this information might not be current, it could be used to help verify information that the private provider reports to the district.