J. Meek - July 7, 2025 - Streets Within a Municipality

550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680 July 7, 2025 Jacqueline Meek, Esq. Attorney, Webster County Board of Supervisors 65 North Dunn Street Eupora, Mississippi 39744 Re: Streets within a Municipality Dear Ms. Meek: The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion. Background You provide the following in your request: a private developer built a subdivision containing approximately 35-40 homes within the corporate limits of the town of Mathison (“Town”) in Webster County (“County”). The streets within the subdivision still belong to the developer and are being used by the owners of the homes for access to their homes and neighborhood and as a way out of the subdivision. The developer now wishes to convey the streets within the subdivision to the County. Questions Presented 1. May a developer deed a street to the County when it is located in the corporate limits of the Town? 2. If the developer deeds all of the publicly travelled streets to the County, does that property become a municipal street with the Town responsible for its maintenance? 3. May the developer’s conveyance be made directly to the Town and the County contribute when the County and Town can agree to an interlocal agreement where the County bears part of the costs? 4. Is an interlocal agreement necessary every time the County contributes to the maintenance of a municipal street or could it first become a budgeted item in the County’s budget to be paid by the County as necessary and appropriate? Jacqueline Meek, Esq. July 7, 2025 Page 2 550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680 Brief Response 1. The County cannot accept from a developer the conveyance of streets that are within the corporate limits of the Town. 2. The response to question one renders this question moot. 3. Upon the appropriate factual determination, a county may contribute to or assist in the maintenance of municipal streets pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 65-7-85 or another applicable statute. Whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies to a specific situation are factual determinations outside the scope of an official opinion. 4. This office does not opine on the necessity or terms of an interlocal agreement by official opinion because whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies to a specific situation are factual determinations to be made by the County and the Town. Applicable Law and Discussion As an initial matter, Section 7-5-25 authorizes the Attorney General to issue official opinions to various public officials and bodies “upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.” This office cannot “provide opinions to one entity [or individual] regarding duties of another.” MS AG Op., Criswell at *1 (Aug. 26, 2016). Generally speaking, “the governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power to exercise full jurisdiction in the matter of streets, sidewalks, sewers, and parks; to open and lay out and construct the same; and to repair, maintain, pave, sprinkle, adorn, and light the same.” Miss. Code Ann. § 21-37-3(1). In the Brown opinion cited in your request, we were asked whether a county could accept into its county road system a street within an area that had been annexed by the municipality. MS AG Op., Brown at *1 (Nov. 10, 2006). Citing Mississippi Supreme Court cases, we stated that “a municipality has the duty to maintain city streets” and that a road within an area that is annexed by the city “becomes a city street and the city becomes responsible for its maintenance.” Id. at *1. Here the streets currently lie within the corporate limits of the Town. Thus, it is the opinion of this office that the County may not accept from a developer the conveyance of streets that are within the corporate limits of the Town. However, in regard to your third question, we also noted in Brown that the county could maintain or assist in the maintenance of municipal streets pursuant to Sections 65-7-79, 65-7-83, and 65-7- 85, if applicable. Id. Section 65-7-79 deals with situations in which a main highway runs through several municipalities in the county. Section 65-7-83 allows for concurrent jurisdiction between the county and municipality “over any street in such municipality for maintenance purposes where such street is a continuation of or intersects a local or county road already under the jurisdiction of such board of supervisors.” Section 65-7-85 provides: The several counties of the state, acting by and through the boards of supervisors thereof, are hereby invested, within their discretion, with full authority to expend monies and to do, within any municipalities of the county all acts regarding Jacqueline Meek, Esq. July 7, 2025 Page 3 550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680 construction and maintenance of roads and streets that they may do within the county outside the limits of said municipalities. The authority granted under this section shall be construed as additional and cumulative to all existing authority for the expenditure of county funds within municipalities. Whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies to a specific situation are factual determinations to be made by the County and the Town and thus outside the scope of this opinion. Because your questions deal with the expenditure of public funds, you may also wish to contact the Division of Technical Assistance in the Office of the State Auditor. If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Beebe Garrard Beebe Garrard Special Assistant Attorney General