Can a Mississippi county pay for a feasibility study on converting a vacant school into an artist residency to boost tourism?
Plain-English summary
Coahoma County (home of Clarksdale, with deep blues-music heritage) was considering whether to redevelop a vacant school building as an artist residency, using out-of-town and out-of-state resident artists to enhance the County's tourism profile. Before committing to the redevelopment, the Board of Supervisors wanted to commission a feasibility study and pay for part of it. The Board's attorney asked whether the County had statutory authority to do so.
The AG said yes, under the county home-rule statute (§ 19-3-40). Mississippi gives counties broad authority "to adopt any orders, resolutions or ordinances with respect to county affairs, property and finances, for which no specific provision has been made by general law and which are not inconsistent with the Mississippi Constitution," including specific other statutes.
The AG had previously authorized municipalities to pay for feasibility studies under the parallel municipal home-rule statute (§ 21-17-5), and had authorized other public bodies to commission studies in various contexts. The county home-rule statute had similar language. So the Board could fund the feasibility study, provided it found that the expenditure would benefit the County.
A footnote tied this to the Mississippi Constitution's donation prohibition (Article 4, § 66): an expenditure for a public or authorized purpose, even if it produces incidental private benefits, is not an unlawful donation. The artist residency might benefit individual artists, but if the County reasonably found the project would enhance tourism and economic activity in the County, the public purpose carried the day.
The opinion was narrowly limited to the feasibility study question. It did not address whether the actual artist-residency use of the vacant school building would be a permissible public use of public property, which would be a separate analysis if the County moved forward.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2021. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
What the opinion said for each audience, at the time
For Mississippi county boards of supervisors
In 2021, the home-rule statute gave county boards a flexible tool for studying potential redevelopment, infrastructure, or service projects before committing to them. Feasibility studies fit comfortably within home-rule authority. The board needed to:
1. Find that the study would benefit the county (record the finding in the minutes).
2. Procure the study consistent with applicable purchasing rules.
3. Pay only the county's portion (other parties could share the cost).
For rural counties pursuing economic development through arts and tourism
Rural counties with vacant institutional buildings (schools, hospitals, factories) were increasingly looking at adaptive reuse for tourism, arts, and creative-economy purposes. The 2021 opinion was permissive: studying such projects was within county authority. Whether to ultimately redevelop the building was a separate question requiring its own analysis.
For economic development consultants and feasibility study firms
The 2021 opinion confirmed that Mississippi counties were legitimate clients for feasibility study work on creative-economy and tourism projects. Firms could pitch counties on services like market analysis, demographic studies, ROI projections, and operational feasibility.
For Coahoma County citizens watching the project
The artist-residency idea might have struck some as exotic for a Mississippi Delta county. The AG opinion did not endorse or critique the substantive idea; it just confirmed the procedural authority to study it. If the Board concluded after the study that the project wasn't viable, the County's investment in the study was still legitimate.
For attorneys advising public bodies on home-rule expenditures
The home-rule analysis is two-step: (1) is there a specific statute prohibiting the action? (2) if no, the public body can act under home rule, provided it finds public benefit and complies with the constitution. The AG opinion provides a clear example of how the analysis works for feasibility study expenditures.
Common questions
Q: What's the difference between county home rule and municipal home rule in Mississippi?
A: Both are similar in concept and language. Section 19-3-40 (counties) and § 21-17-5 (municipalities) both let the local government adopt orders, resolutions, or ordinances for matters not specifically addressed by general law and not inconsistent with state law or the constitution. The county version's language was modeled on the municipal version.
Q: What does "no specific provision has been made by general law" mean?
A: If state law specifically addresses an issue, the local government is bound by that specific provision. Home rule fills the gaps where state law is silent. For feasibility studies on possible redevelopment projects, no specific state statute governs, so home rule applies.
Q: Why does the constitution's donation clause matter?
A: Article 4, § 66 prohibits the legislature from "granting a donation or gratuity in favor of any person or object" except by two-thirds vote. This has been read to mean public funds can't be used for private benefit unless the expenditure has a public purpose. The AG opinion's footnote (citing prior Mayo opinion) said expenditures for public purposes are not donations even if they produce incidental private benefits.
Q: Does this opinion authorize the actual artist residency?
A: No. The opinion specifically said: "The application of this opinion is limited to the question presented and does not address whether the proposed use of the vacant school building, if that building remains public property, is a proper public use." That would be a separate question requiring a separate opinion if the County moved forward.
Q: How much can a county pay for a feasibility study?
A: The opinion didn't set a dollar limit. The reasonableness of the expenditure is part of the public-benefit analysis: a $10,000 study might be reasonable; a $1,000,000 study might not be, depending on the project's potential value. The Board has to make that judgment call.
Q: Can a county fund half the study and have someone else fund the other half?
A: Yes. The opinion specifically authorized "pay[ing] for a portion of the study." Cost-sharing with state economic development agencies, foundations, or other partners is common in feasibility studies and was contemplated in the request.
Background and statutory framework
Mississippi's home-rule framework for counties was added in 1989 (§ 19-3-40), modeled on the earlier municipal home-rule statute (§ 21-17-5). Both grants are conditional: they apply only where state law is silent and where no constitutional or general statute would be violated. They give local governments needed flexibility while preserving the legislature's primary role in defining local government powers.
Feasibility studies have a recognized place in public administration: they let public bodies make better-informed decisions on whether to pursue major projects. The AG's prior opinions (Pigott 1994, Sherard 2001, Barton 2015) had consistently found that public bodies had authority to commission studies under their general powers. The 2021 opinion extended that consistent line to county governments under the home-rule framework.
Coahoma County's interest in creative-tourism redevelopment fit a national pattern. Rural counties had been exploring arts-based economic development since at least the 1990s. Successful examples (Marfa, Texas; Eureka Springs, Arkansas; Asheville, North Carolina) had inspired similar efforts elsewhere. Whether the model would work in Coahoma County was the question the feasibility study would help answer.
Citations and references
Constitutional provisions:
- Miss. Const. art. 4, § 66, prohibition on donations or gratuities (footnote analysis)
Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 19-3-40, county home-rule statute
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5, municipal home-rule statute (analogous)
Prior AG opinions cited:
- MS AG Op., Barton (July 24, 2015), municipalities authorized to fund motel/restaurant feasibility study under § 21-17-5
- MS AG Op., Pigott (Jan. 27, 1994), Pearl River Development District authorized to commission feasibility study related to flood control
- MS AG Op., Sherard (June 1, 2001), public body authority to commission feasibility studies
- MS AG Op., Mayo (July 31, 2020), expenditure for public or authorized purpose, with incidental private benefit, is not unlawful donation
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/T.RossJr._May-3-2021-Authority-to-pay-for-a-feasibility-study.pdf
Original opinion text
May 3, 2021
Tom T. Ross, Jr., Esq.
Attorney for Coahoma County Board of Supervisors
Post Office Box 579
Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614
Re: Authority to pay for a feasibility study
Dear Mr. Ross:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Question Presented
May the Coahoma County Board of Supervisors ("Board") engage a firm to conduct a feasibility study to determine whether the redevelopment of a vacant school building for the purpose of attracting and housing resident artists thereby enhancing the County's image as a tourist and vacation destination and pay for a portion of the feasibility study?
Brief Response
Yes. Pursuant to the county "home rule" statute, the Board may engage a firm to conduct a feasibility study and pay for a portion of the study, provided it finds that the expenditure will benefit the county.
Applicable Law and Discussion
We have previously opined that municipalities are authorized to expend funds for the purpose of conducting a feasibility study to determine whether a motel/restaurant would be prosperous within the municipality, in accordance with its authority under the "home rule" statute applicable to municipalities, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-17-5, provided that the municipality finds that the expenditure will benefit the municipality. MS AG Op., Barton at 1-2 (July 24, 2015). Other opinions issued by this office have authorized a public body to commission a feasibility study under various circumstances. See, e.g., MS AG Op., Pigott at 2 (Jan. 27, 1994) (authorizing Pearl River Development District to conduct a feasibility study related to flood control); MS AG Op., Sherard at *1 (June 1, 2001).
Section 19-3-40 is the county "home rule" statute and contains similar language to the "home rule" statute applicable to municipalities. It provides, in part:
(1) The board of supervisors of any county shall have the power to adopt any orders, resolutions or ordinances with respect to county affairs, property and finances, for which no specific provision has been made by general law and which are not inconsistent with the Mississippi Constitution, the Mississippi Code of 1972, or any other statute or law of the State of Mississippi; and any such board shall likewise have the power to alter, modify and repeal such orders, resolutions or ordinances. Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the powers granted to boards of supervisors in this section are complete without the existence of or reference to any specific authority granted in any other statute or law of the State of Mississippi.
We find no provision of state law that would be inconsistent with a county board of supervisors, pursuant to Section 19-3-40, engaging a firm to conduct a feasibility study to determine whether the redevelopment of a vacant school building for the purpose of attracting and housing resident artists to further enhance the County's image as a tourist and vacation destination and pay for a portion of the study, provided such board of supervisors finds that the expenditure will benefit the county.[1]
The application of this opinion is limited to the question presented and does not address whether the proposed use of the vacant school building, if that building remains public property, is a proper public use.
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/ Phil Carter
Phil Carter
Special Assistant Attorney General
[1] MS AG Op., Mayo at *1 (July 31, 2020) ("Our office has consistently opined, that an expenditure for a public or authorized purpose, and not for the sole benefit of private individuals, is not an unlawful donation under Section 66 of the Mississippi Constitution, even if the expenditure results in incidental benefits to private individuals.").