Opinion ID: 1921785
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Thereafter Provision.

Text: ¶ 34. The appellants argue that the City failed to comply with Mississippi Code Annotated 57-7-1. Specifically, the appellants contend that the statute requires that the surplus lands must be set aside and improved for industrial and commercial purposes and thereafter be sold pursuant to the terms and conditions prescribed by the municipality. The statute provides, in part, that the property may be set aside and improved for industrial and commercial purposes and the same may thereafter be operated or the same may be leased or sold upon such terms and conditions as a municipality or governmental subdivision shall prescribe. See Miss.Code Ann. § 57-7-1 (Rev.2003). ¶ 35. The clear and unambiguous language of the statute does not mandate that the surplus land must be set aside and improved by the municipality. The language of the statute states that the municipality may set aside and improve the land for industrial and commercial purposes and the same may thereafter be operated or the same may be leased or sold upon such terms and conditions as prescribed by the municipality. Miss.Code Ann. § 57-7-1 (Rev.2003). Additionally, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 57-7-1 does not mandate that the property can be sold only after improvements are made by the municipality. The statute does not mandate that improvements must be made on surplus land, therefore, the sale of the land is not dependent on whether improvements have been made to the land prior to its conveyance. [4] The second paragraph of Section 57-7-1 provides that if improvements are made, then [t]he cost and expense of such improvements to said real estate shall be paid for from funds made available from the lease or sale of such lands to the extent such funds are available. Miss.Code Ann. § 57-7-1 (Rev. 2003). This language implies that the monies for the improvements would be available after a lease or sale is finalized unless there is an unusual arrangement for prepayment of all or a portion of the lease payments or sale of the property. Therefore, a municipality would begin the improvements after it received payments for the lease or sale. In addition, should a municipality make improvements before a lease or sale is finalized, then the municipality would place its funds at risk in the event that the lease or sale should fail to be consummated. [5] Accordingly, we find that this issue is without merit.