AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 75-76-5, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO DEFINE THE TERM "PROJECT" UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 75-76-129, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT REVENUE COLLECTED FROM CERTAIN ADDITIONAL LICENSE FEES IMPOSED AND LEVIED UNDER SECTION 75-76-183 SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE CITY OF JACKSON DEVELOPMENT FUND CREATED IN THIS ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 75-76-183, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO IMPOSE AND LEVY ADDITIONAL FEES FOR A LICENSE TO CONDUCT GAMING AS A LICENSED GAMING ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS PART OF A PROJECT UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION SHALL ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LOANS AND GRANTS TO ASSIST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW BUSINESS ENTERPRISES AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUSINESS ENTERPRISES IN THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI; TO PROVIDE AN APPLICATION PROCESS FOR ENTITIES THAT DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM; TO CREATE THE CITY OF JACKSON DEVELOPMENT FUND AS A SPECIAL FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY; TO PROVIDE THAT MONIES IN THE CITY OF JACKSON DEVELOPMENT FUND SHALL BE DISBURSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, UPON APPROPRIATION BY THE LEGISLATURE, TO PROVIDE LOANS AND GRANTS FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT FOR THE FIRST FULL STATE FISCAL YEAR DURING WHICH A LICENSED GAMING ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS PART OF A PROJECT UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT IS OPERATING AND REMITTING LICENSE FEES IMPOSED AND LEVIED UNDER SECTIONS 75-76-177 AND 75-76-195, AND FOR EACH OF THE TWO IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING STATE FISCAL YEARS, IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF REVENUE DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY OF VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI, OR WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR EACH SUCH FISCAL YEAR UNDER SECTION 75-76-197 AND CHAPTER 965, LOCAL AND PRIVATE LAWS OF 1993, IS LESS THAN THE AVERAGE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH REVENUE DISTRIBUTED ANNUALLY TO THE CITY OR COUNTY FOR THE FOUR STATE FISCAL YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FULL STATE FISCAL YEAR DURING WHICH THE LICENSED GAMING ESTABLISHMENT BEGAN OPERATING AND REMITTING SUCH LICENSE FEES, THEN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION SHALL DISBURSE FUNDS TO THE CITY OF VICKSBURG OR WARREN COUNTY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE AMOUNT OF SUCH REVENUE SHORTFALL FOR EACH SUCH FISCAL YEAR; TO PROVIDE THAT A PORTION OF THE REVENUE COLLECTED FROM CERTAIN LICENSE FEES COLLECTED FROM A LICENSED GAMING ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS PART OF A PROJECT UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT SHALL BE USED TEMPORARILY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES; TO BRING FORWARD SECTIONS 75-76-33, 75-76-67, 75-76-77, 75-76-89 AND 75-76-203, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, WHICH ARE SECTIONS OF THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 19-3-79, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON, CORPORATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY APPLYING FOR A LICENSE FOR A GAMING ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS PART OF A PROJECT UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 87-1-5, 97-33-1, 97-33-7, 97-33-17, 97-33-25 AND 97-33-27, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE LEGAL GAMING IN A LICENSED GAMING ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS PART OF A PROJECT UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT; TO BRING FORWARD SECTION 27-109-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, WHICH DEFINES THE TERMS "CRUISE VESSEL" AND "VESSEL" FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT; TO BRING FORWARD SECTION 95-3-25, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, WHICH RELATES TO VARIOUS FORMS OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING, FOR THE PURPOSES OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 67-1-5, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "QUALIFIED RESORT AREA" UNDER THE LOCAL OPTION ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAW; TO AMEND SECTION 67-1-101, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT SHALL BE A LEISURE AND RECREATION DISTRICT UNDER THE LOCAL OPTION ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAW; TO PROVIDE THAT ANY OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A LICENSED GAMING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSED BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2026, THAT MAKES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LICENSED GAMING ESTABLISHMENT IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF AT LEAST $100,000,000.00 SHALL BE ALLOWED A CREDIT AGAINST LICENSE FEES IMPOSED UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT; TO PROVIDE THE TIME PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE MADE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
House Bill 1702, titled the “City of Jackson Revitalization Act,” would create a new category of gaming project under the Mississippi Gaming Control Act for a major capital development near downtown Jackson. The bill defines a “project” as a mixed-use development near the Capitol Complex Improvement District, within 6,000 feet of the New Capitol grounds, with at least $500 million in capital investment and one licensed gaming establishment. It then authorizes that project to operate under special gaming rules, including exemptions from certain local notice and referendum requirements that otherwise apply to cruise-vessel or vessel gaming licenses.
The bill also creates a City of Jackson Development Fund in the state treasury and directs certain development fees from the project’s gaming license to that fund. The Department of Finance and Administration would administer a grant and revolving loan program to support development in Jackson, with loans and grants available for buildings, facilities, and infrastructure tied to new or expanding businesses. In addition, the bill sets aside portions of gaming revenue for several specific public purposes, including revenue shortfall payments to Vicksburg and Warren County for a limited period, Jackson State University stadium construction, improvements to the Mississippi Children’s Museum, support for the UMMC Cancer Center and Research Institute, extension of Lakeland Drive to I-220, and a tram or land transportation system linking the airport, downtown Jackson, and UMMC.
HB1702 would also amend several gaming and criminal statutes to make clear that legal gaming is allowed in a licensed gaming establishment that is part of a defined project. It would revise provisions governing illegal gambling, nuisance abatement, and seizure of gambling devices so they do not apply to the project’s licensed gaming establishment. The bill further amends alcohol-control law to treat a project as a “leisure and recreation district” and expands the definition of “qualified resort area” to include numerous specific locations and types of developments, many of them tied to gaming, mixed-use, or entertainment venues. Finally, it creates a tax credit for existing licensed gaming establishments that make at least $100 million in capital improvements between July 1, 2026, and July 1, 2029.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-development and pro-gaming, with the measure framed as a Jackson revitalization and economic investment package. Because no committee transcripts or vote history were provided, there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence here to show support or opposition. Based on the structure of the bill, its supporters would likely emphasize downtown redevelopment, job creation, tourism, and targeted public projects, while critics would likely focus on the use of gaming expansion and earmarked revenue to drive public investment.
The main points of contention likely center on the creation of a special gaming project for Jackson, the diversion of gaming-related revenue to multiple designated projects, and the broad set of statutory exemptions and location-specific provisions. The bill appears to favor a particular large-scale development and a limited set of beneficiaries, which could raise concerns about preferential treatment, fiscal risk, and whether the revenue commitments are too dependent on the success of a single gaming project. The inclusion of numerous site-specific qualified resort area designations and the exemption from local gaming referendum procedures are also likely to be controversial.
HB1702 would substantially amend Mississippi gaming, alcohol, and criminal nuisance laws to create a special legal framework for a large mixed-use gaming project in Jackson. It would add a new definition of “project” in the Mississippi Gaming Control Act, authorize additional development fees for such a project, redirect those fees into a new City of Jackson Development Fund, and establish a state-administered loan and grant program for Jackson development. It would also carve the project out of several existing restrictions on gaming and gambling, while adding a capital-improvement tax credit for certain existing gaming establishments. In practical terms, the bill would create new statutory exceptions and funding streams affecting the Mississippi Gaming Commission, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Finance and Administration, gaming licensees, and local governments receiving gaming revenue.
The bill’s tone is strongly favorable toward economic development, especially in Jackson, and toward using gaming-related investment as the mechanism for that development. No committee discussion or vote data were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate to measure support or opposition. On its face, the bill is designed as a redevelopment and infrastructure package, suggesting likely support from proponents of downtown Jackson investment and gaming expansion, with likely skepticism from those concerned about gambling policy, revenue diversion, or special treatment for a single project.
The most notable points of contention are likely the special carve-out for a Jackson gaming project, the diversion of gaming fees to a dedicated development fund, and the bill’s many targeted spending commitments for specific institutions and infrastructure projects. Critics may object that the bill creates preferential treatment for a particular development and uses gaming revenue to subsidize public projects that may not be directly tied to gaming regulation. The exemptions from local referendum requirements and from several anti-gambling statutes could also draw opposition from lawmakers or stakeholders who prefer local control, narrower gambling authorization, or a more general statewide policy rather than site-specific exceptions.