Under Mississippi's unit-system county road administration, can a board of supervisors deliberately split road bond money equally among the supervisor districts?

Plain-English summary

Mississippi counties run roads under one of two models. Under the older beat system, each supervisor controlled the roads in his or her own district. Under the countywide unit system, all county roads are administered at the county level and funds are spent based on the needs of the county as a whole, not by district. Section 19-2-3 requires every county to operate on the unit system from and after October 1, 1989, unless it qualifies for an exemption under § 19-2-5.

Adams County operates under the unit system. The Adams County Board of Supervisors was considering taking out a road bond under § 43-35-15 and dividing the bond proceeds approximately equally among the supervisor districts.

The board attorney asked whether that was legal under the unit system. The AG said no. Section 19-2-3 requires that in unit-system counties "the distribution and use of all road and bridge funds available to the county or any district thereof" be made "on the basis of the needs of the county as a whole, as determined by the board of supervisors, without regard to any district boundaries."

Bond proceeds are not exempt. The statute covers "all road and bridge funds," and the AG concluded the funds from a § 43-35-15 bond, like any other road or bridge funds, must be spent based on countywide need, not divided evenly among the districts.

What this means for you

If you're a Mississippi county supervisor in a unit-system county

Under this opinion, a unit-system board cannot agree to divide road or bridge funds, including bond proceeds, equally among the supervisor districts. Section 19-2-3 requires the distribution and use of those funds to be based on the needs of the county as a whole, "without regard to any district boundaries." A deliberate even split among districts is the kind of district-based allocation the statute prohibits.

If you're a county engineer or road manager

The opinion confirms that road and bridge spending in a unit-system county is a countywide-need question, not a district-by-district one. The board, not individual supervisors, decides where the money goes, and the standard the statute sets is the need of the county as a whole.

If you're a county resident frustrated that "your" supervisor is not getting your roads fixed

Under the unit system, the supervisor for your district does not control a fixed share of "your" road money. The board collectively decides, and § 19-2-3 requires it to follow countywide need rather than divide funds by district. The opinion does not address how a resident challenges an allocation; the board's road expenditures are public records you can inspect.

If you're a county board attorney

The opinion gives a board attorney a direct answer for a board that wants to split bond proceeds evenly: § 19-2-3 does not allow it. The funds from a § 43-35-15 bond, like all other road and bridge funds in a unit-system county, must be allocated based on countywide need, not by district.

Common questions

Q: Are there any Mississippi counties still under the beat system?
A: Section 19-2-3 says counties "shall operate on a countywide system" beginning October 1, 1989, "[u]nless otherwise exempted under the provisions of Section 19-2-5." A small number of counties may have qualified for exemption. If your county is one of them, the unit-system rules in this opinion do not apply directly to you.

Q: What if the road conditions are roughly equal across districts?
A: Then the funded projects might also be roughly equal across districts. That outcome is not problematic; what the AG prohibits is starting from "we will divide equally among districts" rather than starting from a needs assessment.

Q: Does this apply to all road money, or just bond proceeds?
A: Section 19-2-3 reaches "all road and bridge funds available to the county or any district thereof." The opinion applies that broad language to bond proceeds specifically, but the statutory standard is not limited to bonds.

Q: What was the prior MS AG Op., Moorehead (Dec. 8, 2006)?
A: That earlier opinion established the same principle: unit-system counties must spend road and bridge funds "without regard to district boundaries." This 2023 opinion reaffirms it and applies it specifically to bond proceeds under § 43-35-15.

Q: Can the board still listen to individual supervisors about which roads need work?
A: Of course. Each supervisor has detailed local knowledge about roads in his or her district. The unit system is about decision-making and allocation, not about ignoring local input. The board, as a whole, makes the call.

Background and statutory framework

Under Mississippi's older beat system, each supervisor effectively ran the roads in his or her own district. Section 19-2-3 replaced that model with a countywide unit system, effective October 1, 1989, for all counties not specifically exempted under § 19-2-5. Section 19-2-3 lays out what that means:

[E]ach county in the State of Mississippi shall operate on a countywide system of road administration . . . and the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges in each county shall be on a countywide basis so that (a) the distribution and use of all road and bridge funds available to the county or any district thereof, (b) the planning, construction and maintenance of county roads and bridges, (c) the purchase, ownership and use of all road and bridge equipment, materials and supplies, (d) the employment and use of the road and bridge labor force, and (e) the administration of the county road department shall be on the basis of the needs of the county as a whole, as determined by the board of supervisors, without regard to any district boundaries.

The "without regard to any district boundaries" clause is the operative limitation. It applies to all five enumerated areas (funds, planning, equipment, labor, administration). Bond proceeds under § 43-35-15 fall under category (a), distribution and use of road and bridge funds. The AG relied on its earlier Moorehead opinion (Dec. 8, 2006), which had already read § 19-2-3 to require unit-system counties to spend road and bridge funds "without regard to district boundaries."

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Miss. Code Ann. § 19-2-3 (countywide system of road administration)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 19-2-5 (exemptions from countywide system)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 43-35-15 (county road bonds)

Prior AG opinions referenced:

• MS AG Op., Moorehead (Dec. 8, 2006), road and bridge funds spent "without regard to district boundaries"

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/S.Slover-March-13-2023-Road-Department-Sharing-Funds-Equally-Among-Districts.pdf

Original opinion text

March 13, 2023

Scott F. Slover, Esq.
Board Attorney, Adams County
Post Office Box 846
Natchez, Mississippi 39121

Re: Road Department Sharing Funds Equally Among Districts

Dear Mr. Slover:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Question Presented

If the Adams County Board of Supervisors ("Board") takes out a road bond pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 43-35-15, is it legal —under a unit system— for the Board to intentionally divide the bond money used for roads approximately evenly between the districts, or should the Board use the funds without any regard to the district boundaries?

Brief Response

Pursuant to Section 19-2-3, a county that operates under the countywide system of road administration, or the "unit" system, is required to distribute and use all road funds based on the needs of the county as a whole and without regard to any district boundaries.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 19-2-3 states, in pertinent part:

Unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of Section 19-2-5, from and after October 1, 1989, each county in the State of Mississippi shall operate on a countywide system of road administration . . . and the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges in each county shall be on a countywide basis so that (a) the distribution and use of all road and bridge funds available to the county or any district thereof, (b) the planning, construction and maintenance of county roads and bridges, (c) the purchase, ownership and use of all road and bridge equipment, materials and supplies, (d) the employment and use of the road and bridge labor force, and (e) the administration of the county road department shall be on the basis of the needs of the county as a whole, as determined by the board of supervisors, without regard to any district boundaries.

(Emphasis added). This office has opined that Section 19-2-3 requires a county that operates under the countywide system of road administration, or the "unit" system, to spend road and bridge funds "without regard to district boundaries." MS AG Op., Moorehead at *1 (Dec. 8, 2006).

Accordingly, if the Board takes out a road bond pursuant to Section 43-35-15, the Board is required to expend the road funds from those bonds and any other road or bridge funds based on the needs of the county as a whole and without regard to any district boundaries.

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/ Abigail C. Overby
Abigail C. Overby
Special Assistant Attorney General