Mississippi Senate Bill SB2720

Mississippi 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/23
• Refer: 1/16/23
• Engrossed: 2/7/23
• Failed: 2/13/23

Caption

Tax-forfeited land certified to state; authorize Secretary of State to withhold 10% for the cost of tree removal.

Impact

The implementation of SB2720 is expected to have notable implications for local governments. By allowing the Secretary of State to proactively manage tree removal on tax-forfeited properties that pose safety risks, the bill seeks to enhance public safety and promote better management of abandoned lands. Municipalities will have access to funds for maintenance and cleanup, potentially improving the aesthetic and safety conditions of affected areas. The change in the funding structure, exempting the Land Records Maintenance Fund from certain transfer requirements, could also ensure that local jurisdictions receive necessary support.

Summary

Senate Bill 2720 aims to amend the Mississippi Code of 1972, specifically Section 29-1-145, by authorizing the Secretary of State to withhold up to 10% of the proceeds from the sales of tax-forfeited properties certified to the state. This withholding is intended to cover costs associated with the removal of hazardous trees that could pose an immediate threat to life or property on adjoining parcels. The bill also permits the Secretary of State to reimburse the municipality where the most tax-forfeited lands are located for cleanup and maintenance costs from the Land Records Maintenance Fund.

Contention

While supporters argue that this bill provides essential safety measures and supports local municipalities, potential points of contention may arise regarding the allocation of funds and the extent of the Secretary of State's authority in managing tax-forfeited properties. Critics may express concerns about the efficiency and adequacy of the funds being made available and whether the 10% withholding could negatively impact the revenue generated from property sales, ultimately affecting local budgets. Observers may also debate the implications of centralizing such authority within the state government versus retaining local control.