Can a Mississippi city let a political party's local executive committee meet in city hall for free?

Plain-English summary

Gulfport's city attorney asked the AG whether the City could let a political party's municipal executive committee use a meeting room in City Hall for a private meeting (not open to the public) at no charge. The City did not normally rent out spaces inside City Hall and had no policy or fee schedule for private use.

The AG's answer is conditionally yes. The Mississippi AG's office has consistently held that public entities can let private individuals or groups use public facilities, but only under two conditions. First, the public entity must have adopted a uniform written policy that allows the use. Second, the public entity must collect from the user any costs that the entity incurs because of the use (cleaning fees, utility costs, custodial overtime). Without those two safeguards, a free use of public space becomes a "donation," which Article 4, Section 95 of the Mississippi Constitution prohibits unless explicitly authorized by law.

So Gulfport can host the political party's committee meeting if (a) it adopts (or already has) a written policy that uniformly permits this kind of private use, and (b) it bills the committee for any actual costs the City absorbs. The opinion does not address whether a particular existing policy is good enough; that is a fact question for the city's governing authorities, not the AG.

The opinion is short but worth reading because it captures a recurring issue in Mississippi local government: a city or county wants to be a good neighbor to a community group (a Boy Scout troop, a non-profit, a political committee), lets the group use a meeting room without thinking through the formalities, and creates a constitutional-donation problem. The fix is the same in every case: a written, uniform policy plus reimbursement of actual costs.

What this means for you

If you are a city attorney or county attorney

Audit your client's current practice on outside use of public meeting space. If there is no written, uniform policy, get one drafted and adopted by the governing authority. The policy should: (1) clearly state who is eligible (private individuals, non-profits, political committees, etc.) and on what terms, (2) require a written request and approval, (3) require the user to reimburse the public entity for actual costs (cleaning, utilities, custodial overtime), and (4) apply uniformly without favoritism for particular groups. Once the policy is in place, document each use against it.

If you are a municipal governing body member

You don't need to charge fair-market rent for use of public meeting space, but you do need a written policy, and you do need to recoup actual costs. The "actual costs" piece matters: free coffee for a Saturday morning Boy Scout meeting may be a real cost (custodian comes in to enable and lock up), and the constitution does not let you absorb that cost as a donation absent specific statutory authority. Build a simple cost-recovery line into your policy.

If you are a political party municipal executive committee or other private group requesting space

Ask the city or county for a copy of its written use policy. If they don't have one, ask them to adopt one rather than waving you in informally. The informal accommodation creates legal risk for the city even if everyone has good intentions. A simple policy makes the use lawful for everyone, and the modest cost reimbursement is small compared to renting commercial space.

If you are a citizen or auditor

Free use of public buildings by private groups, without a uniform policy and cost reimbursement, is one of the cleaner constitutional violations to spot. If you see a city or county doing this, the remedy is to ask the governing body to adopt or follow a policy. The AG opinion gives you the textual hook (Article 4, Section 95) and the practical solution (the policy plus cost reimbursement framework).

Common questions

Q: Why does Article 4, Section 95 of the Mississippi Constitution come into this?
A: Section 95 prohibits the legislature from authorizing payment, donation, or gift of any of the funds or property of the state to any person, association, or corporation, except as therein authorized. The AG's office has long read that to extend to municipal donations: a city giving away the use of its property without consideration is in the same category as a direct cash donation, which the constitution forbids.

Q: Is "consideration" satisfied by reimbursing actual costs?
A: Yes, per the AG's 2020 Barton opinion, which the 2025 Bruni opinion cites and reaffirms. Reimbursement of cleaning fees, utility costs, and other actual expenses removes the "donation" character. Consideration does not have to be fair-market rent.

Q: Does the policy have to charge a fee?
A: No. The policy must require reimbursement of actual costs. If a particular use happens to involve no marginal cost to the city (no cleaning needed, no utility increase, no staff time), the policy can let that use happen without a fee. But the policy must require cost recovery where costs do exist.

Q: Can a city favor one group over another in its policy?
A: The AG opinions consistently require the policy to be "uniform." That means similar groups must be treated similarly. A policy that lets Republican Party committees use city hall for free but charges Democratic Party committees would not be uniform and would create both constitutional and First Amendment problems.

Q: What if the meeting is technically a "public" meeting open to anyone?
A: That changes the analysis only marginally. The AG's framework still requires a uniform policy and cost reimbursement, but a public-meeting use is more clearly within the city's general civic-engagement role and is less likely to be characterized as a donation. The Bruni opinion was specifically about a private (closed) meeting, which is the harder case.

Q: Can a city charge below fair-market value for the use?
A: Yes. Multiple AG opinions confirm that fair-market value is not required as long as the policy is uniform and the consideration covers actual costs. The constitutional problem is uncompensated use, not below-market use.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi takes a strict view of municipal donations. Article 4, Section 95 of the Mississippi Constitution prohibits the legislature from authorizing payments or donations of state funds or property except as expressly provided. The AG's office and Mississippi courts have long read that prohibition to reach down to municipal and county property as well, since cities and counties are creatures of state law. Cities cannot donate what the state itself cannot give.

In practice, a "donation" of public property arises whenever a city lets a private group use that property without consideration. The use itself has economic value (rental value, custodial time, utility costs); giving it away for free is functionally a transfer of public resources to private hands.

The escape valve is the uniform-policy framework. If the city adopts a written, uniform policy permitting private use of municipal property and requires cost reimbursement, the use is no longer a donation; it is a regulated use that the city is authorized to permit. The policy must be uniform (no favoritism), and the cost reimbursement must cover actual expenses the city incurs.

The framework dates back at least to MS AG Op., Short (Apr. 24, 2009), and was reaffirmed in MS AG Op., Barton (Oct. 5, 2020). The 2025 Bruni opinion does not change the framework; it applies it to a political-party committee scenario.

For political party committees specifically, the analysis is the same as for any private group. There is no separate "political party" carve-out. The constitutional concern is the donation, not the identity of the recipient.

Citations and references

Constitution:
- Miss. Const. art. 4, § 95 (donation prohibition)

Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25 (AG opinion authority)

Prior AG opinions referenced:
- MS AG Op., Short (Apr. 24, 2009) (uniform-policy framework for use of public facilities)
- MS AG Op., Barton (Oct. 5, 2020) (cost reimbursement requirement)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/J.-Bruni-December-8-2025-Private-Use-of-City-Hall-by-Political-Partys-Municipal-Executive-Committee.pdf

Original opinion text

December 8, 2025

Jeffrey S. Bruni, Esq.
Attorney, City of Gulfport
Post Office Box 1780
Gulfport, Mississippi 39502-1780

Re: Private Use of City Hall by Political Party's Municipal Executive Committee

Dear Mr. Bruni:

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

Background

In your request, submitted on behalf of the City of Gulfport ("City"), you state: "Our inquiry concerns the authority . . . to allow for the no-cost use of meeting space . . . to conduct a private meeting/hearing . . . ." You further state that the City does not normally rent out spaces within City Hall and does not have any ordinance or policy setting a fee for the private use of spaces within City Hall.

Question Presented

Does the City have the authority to allow a political party's municipal executive committee to utilize meeting space in City Hall free of charge when the purpose of the use is to conduct a private meeting of that political party's municipal executive committee to which the public is not invited?

Brief Response

The City has the discretion to allow private individuals or groups to use municipal facilities if it is in accordance with a uniform policy enacted by the municipal governing authorities allowing such use.

Applicable Law and Discussion

As an initial matter, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 7-5-25, opinions of this office are limited to prospective questions of state law. We do not by official opinion, interpret or approve administrative policies enacted by local governmental entities.

The Attorney General's Office has consistently opined that public entities are authorized to permit the use of public facilities by private individuals or groups so long as the public entity has adopted a uniform policy that allows such use. MS AG Op., Short at *1 (Apr. 24, 2009). When our office was asked whether a municipality could allow a private entity to use a municipal auditorium and not charge a fee for such use, we stated:

A municipality is not required to charge a fee when allowing non-municipal individuals or entities to use municipal property. However, such use must accord with a uniform policy enacted by the municipal governing authorities. Furthermore, the municipality must collect from the user any expenses that the municipality is required to expend as a result of the municipal facility being used — i.e., cleaning fees or charges for utilities; otherwise, such uncompensated use would constitute a donation, which is prohibited by Article 4, Section 95 of the Mississippi Constitution unless explicitly authorized by law.

MS AG Op., Barton at *1 (Oct. 5, 2020). This remains the opinion of this office. Accordingly, the City has the discretion to allow private individuals or groups to use municipal facilities if it is in accordance with a uniform policy enacted by the municipal governing authorities allowing such 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/ Beebe Garrard
Beebe Garrard
Special Assistant Attorney General