Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeSoto County approves 10-year tax incentives for Chamberlain Group and GE Vernova
Summary
The DeSoto County Board of Supervisors on May 18 approved 10-year real- and personal-property tax incentives and free port warehouse designations for The Chamberlain Group LLC and GE Vernova International LLC, totaling tens of millions in assessed value for each project.
The DeSoto County Board of Supervisors voted May 18 to approve multi‑year tax incentive packages for two large industrial projects in the county.
The board approved a 10‑year real‑property and personal‑property incentive and a free‑port warehouse designation for The Chamberlain Group LLC at 7401 Woods Blvd., Olive Branch, with the board record showing real‑property value of $34,822,200 and personal property of $5,394,223.64 (effective Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2035). The motion to approve was made by Supervisor Jessie Medlin and seconded by Supervisor Mark Gardner and passed by recorded vote.
Separately the board approved a similar 10‑year package for GE Vernova International LLC at 590 Nail Road, Horn Lake, which the minutes list with real‑property value of $39,473,433 and personal property listed at $147,488,786 (same effective dates). Supervisor Lee Caldwell moved the motion and Supervisor Jessie Medlin seconded; the board recorded unanimous support from members present.
Why it matters: Both approvals are intended to reduce the upfront tax burden for large capital investments and to make DeSoto County more competitive for industrial development. The packages cover both real‑property and substantial personal‑property investments, which can reduce county and municipal tax revenue in early years while projects are constructed and begin operations.
What the board recorded: The minutes show the board voted on each incentive individually, and the Tax Advisory Committee was formally dissolved during the same meeting. The record does not list additional conditions tied to the incentives beyond the motions recorded. The board’s vote counts are noted in the minutes; one supervisor, Jessie Medlin, is identified in many agenda items as the motion maker.
Next steps: The minutes do not specify required follow‑up actions such as performance reporting or clawback provisions. The county’s Board President was authorized to sign the incentive documents as recorded in the minutes.
