AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 57-1-701, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS "ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES" AND "SITE DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS" FOR PURPOSES OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Summary
HB1633 amends Mississippi’s Site Development Grant Program statute to revise the definitions of “eligible expenditures” and “site development improvements.” The bill broadens and clarifies the types of costs that may be funded through the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) grant program, including professional fees for site due diligence, contributions toward site and public infrastructure improvements, acquisition of publicly owned property for economic development, acquisition of easements and rights-of-way, and improvements to electricity and gas delivery for industrial sites. It also keeps the existing framework that allows grants to eligible counties, municipalities, and nonprofit local economic development entities to improve the marketability of industrial property.
The bill continues to place the program within a special fund in the State Treasury, allows unspent money to remain in the fund, and authorizes MDA to administer grants, set matching-fund requirements, adopt rules, and report annually to the Legislature and Governor. It also preserves the provision allowing a limited share of bond proceeds or legislative appropriations to reimburse MDA’s administrative costs, subject to a 3% cap and federal tax-law compliance. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
HB1633 updates Section 57-1-701 of the Mississippi Code by expanding and refining what costs qualify for site development grants and what improvements count as site development work. In practical terms, it gives MDA and local economic development entities more flexibility to use grant funds for industrial site preparation, utility access, infrastructure, land acquisition, and related due-diligence expenses. The bill affects counties, municipalities, and nonprofit economic development entities that apply for assistance under the program, and it may increase the range of projects eligible for state support.
Sentiment
The available voting record shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition: the House passed the bill 121-0, the Senate passed it 51-0 as amended, and the House then concurred in the Senate amendment 113-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate controversy. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a routine economic development measure with broad support.
Contention
There is no documented substantive contention in the provided materials. The only likely policy questions suggested by the text are whether the expanded definitions could broaden state spending exposure or give MDA too much discretion in approving eligible expenditures and improvements. However, the unanimous votes indicate those concerns did not generate visible opposition in the legislative process provided here.