Licensed contractors; require itemized statements and establish acceptable fees for residential builders and remodelers.
HB 1500 would add a new requirement for Mississippi-licensed residential builders and remodelers to provide customers, upon request, an itemized financial statement within 15 business days after a job is completed. The statement would have to include invoices, fees, receipts for materials, and the fee charged for the completed job. The bill also directs the State Board of Contractors to define “large” and “small” projects and to set an acceptable fee range for each, with a cap of 20% of construction costs for large projects and $150 per hour for small projects.
The bill further amends Mississippi’s consumer protection law to make charging fees above the board’s acceptable range an unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive trade practice. That means a violation could trigger not only contractor-board discipline but also enforcement under the state’s consumer protection statutes. The bill brings forward existing contractor-discipline provisions without major substantive changes, preserving the board’s authority to investigate complaints, hold hearings, impose penalties, suspend or revoke licenses, and assess fines.
In practical terms, the bill would increase transparency in residential construction billing and give homeowners a clearer basis to challenge charges they believe are excessive. It would also expand the regulatory role of the State Board of Contractors by requiring it to create fee standards and by tying those standards to both licensing discipline and consumer-protection enforcement. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and caption is consumer-protection oriented, with the measure framed as a way to protect customers of residential builders and remodelers from unclear or excessive charges. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition.
The main point of potential contention is the fee-setting authority given to the State Board of Contractors, especially the bill’s specific limits on what builders may charge for large and small projects. Contractors may view the caps as restrictive or difficult to apply across different project types, while consumers and regulators may see them as necessary guardrails against overbilling. Another possible issue is how the board will define large versus small projects and enforce the fee ranges in practice.
HB 1500 would create a new statutory section governing residential builders and remodelers and would amend the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act to treat charging above the board-approved fee range as a deceptive or unfair trade practice. It would also reinforce existing disciplinary authority under the contractor licensing laws, allowing the State Board of Contractors to investigate violations, impose sanctions, and coordinate enforcement with consumer-protection remedies. The bill would directly affect licensed residential builders, remodelers, homeowners, and the State Board of Contractors.
The bill appears generally favorable toward consumer protection and billing transparency, with its purpose framed as helping residential customers obtain clearer information and limiting excessive contractor fees. Because no committee discussion or vote history is available, there is no recorded legislative debate to show formal support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure is presented as a regulatory and consumer-focused reform rather than a controversial policy change.
The most notable likely contention is the board’s authority to set and enforce an acceptable fee range, including the 20% cap for large projects and $150 hourly cap for small projects. Contractors could argue that these limits are too rigid, may not reflect market conditions, or could be difficult to apply to complex jobs, while supporters would likely argue they are needed to prevent overcharging and improve transparency. A second issue is enforcement: by making excessive fees a consumer-protection violation, the bill opens the door to additional legal exposure beyond licensing discipline, which may be seen as either a strong deterrent or an overreach depending on perspective.