Can a Mississippi county that helps fund a community college reduce its yearly tax levy to the college based on its own changing budget?

Plain-English summary

Northwest Mississippi Community College serves eleven member counties in north Mississippi. Some of those counties had taken the position that they could lower their tax levy to the college from year to year if their own millage rates or financial picture changed. The college's board attorney asked the Attorney General to clear the issue up.

The AG's answer is that the counties are wrong, with one narrow exception. Section 37-29-141(1) sets up the funding model: every member county must levy at least one mill for the support of the junior college and one mill for enlargement, improvement, and repair, with an additional mill possible if the college's board votes for it. That is the floor.

The statute also has a "no-decrease" rule that is the heart of this opinion: "No county shall levy a smaller tax millage for capital improvements and general support of a junior college district than was levied for the previous year, unless requested to make such reduction by the board of trustees of the district." The college's board, not the county, decides when a cut is acceptable.

The single exception runs through countywide reassessments. When a county does a general reassessment that raises overall ad valorem assessments, it is allowed to drop its millage rate, because a lower rate against a higher base can still produce the same dollars. But the county's aggregate junior-college budget for that year cannot drop below the prior year, and the one-mill plus one-mill statutory floor still applies.

Importantly, the AG flatly refuses to recognize a county's "changing financial position" as a reason to cut the levy. The legislature did not write that exception into Section 37-29-141, so it does not exist.

What this means for you

If you are a county supervisor

When you set the next budget year's millage for a junior college, your starting point is last year's levy, not last year's millage rate alone. Total dollar support for the college either holds or rises, except in the single reassessment-bump scenario. You cannot cut to absorb a county budget shortfall unless the college's board of trustees asks for the reduction in writing. If you cut without that request and without a documented general reassessment, you create exposure for the county under both the statute and any subsequent enforcement.

If you are a junior college trustee or community college president

You hold the lever. The "unless requested" carve-out in Section 37-29-141 means a member county cannot reduce its levy without a board action. Don't grant such requests informally; if a county asks for relief, take it up at a board meeting and document the vote. If a county tries to cut the levy on its own initiative, your remedy starts with citing this opinion at the county's budget hearing and escalates to the appropriate enforcement channels (state auditor, the courts) if the county won't restore.

If you are a college finance director

Build out a year-over-year ledger that tracks each member county's total dollar contribution, not just its millage rate. The reassessment exception cuts at dollars, not rates, so you need both. If a county's general reassessment shows up at the assessor's office, ask the county's budget officer in writing whether the county plans to use the reassessment exception, and ask for the math showing the aggregate dollars are not falling below last year's level.

If you are a county tax assessor

Section 37-29-141(1) ties your work to the college funding question. When the county undergoes a general reassessment, the supervisors gain a narrow ability to reduce millage; that decision turns on the reassessment having actually raised total ad valorem assessments. If the supervisors ask you whether a particular reassessment qualifies, the safer answer is to point them at the statute and the AG's two prior opinions (Newell 2011 and Griffin 2020) and let the county's lawyer make the call.

If you are a school finance attorney

This opinion locks in the line of authority from MS AG Op., Newell (May 13, 2011) and MS AG Op., Griffin (Nov. 17, 2020). Cite both alongside this one when responding to a county that wants to argue otherwise. The AG's express rejection of "changing financial position" as an exception is useful language to drop into a brief or hearing memorandum.

Common questions

Q: Can a county reduce its millage rate to the junior college at all?
A: Generally no, unless the college's board of trustees requests the reduction. The single statutory exception is a general property reassessment that raises ad valorem assessments overall; in that case the county can lower the rate as long as the aggregate dollar budget for the college does not drop below the previous year and the one-mill-plus-one-mill floor is still met.

Q: Does the county's own budget pressure ever justify a cut?
A: No. The AG specifically holds that "Section 37-29-141 provides no exception to a member county's mandatory tax levy amounts for the changing financial position of said member county." Budget shortfalls are not a defense.

Q: What is the absolute floor for a member county's contribution?
A: One mill for support of the junior college plus one mill for enlargement, improvement, and repair, since October 1, 1989. After October 1, 1990, the college's board can recommend an additional mill by a 60% affirmative board vote. If a county is over-levying in one of the two categories but under-levying in the other, excess from one can fill the deficiency in the other (Section 37-29-141 expressly allows that swap).

Q: What if a county sits in two junior college districts?
A: Section 37-29-141 says the combined levy for both districts cannot fall below the minimums otherwise required. So the floor is preserved at the combined level.

Q: Does this apply only to Northwest Mississippi Community College?
A: No. Section 37-29-141 covers all junior college districts in Mississippi. The opinion was occasioned by a Northwest MCC question but the rule reaches every member county of every junior college district statewide.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi finances its junior (now commonly called community) college system through a partnership: the state appropriates direct funding, but member counties also impose ad valorem property taxes for their assigned college. Section 37-29-141 lays out the floor, the maximum board-recommended addition, and the stability rules.

The stability rules matter because before they were written, counties could cycle millages up and down based on their own short-term politics, leaving colleges unable to plan multi-year capital projects. The legislature responded by writing in the rule that a county cannot reduce its levy unless the college board agrees, with the single reassessment carve-out so that purely paper-driven millage changes (dollars constant, rate adjusted) would not be banned.

The AG's office has applied that rule consistently for over a decade. MS AG Op., Newell (May 13, 2011) and MS AG Op., Griffin (Nov. 17, 2020) both reach the same result. The 2026 Lamar opinion adds nothing new doctrinally; it just answers a county-level argument that the AG has now rejected three times in fifteen years.

The "no changing financial position" holding is worth noting because counties have repeatedly used it as an informal argument. The AG's flat refusal to read that exception into the statute means a county cannot rely on its own budget pressure as cover for a cut.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 37-29-141 (junior college district tax levy)

Prior AG opinions referenced:
- MS AG Op., Newell (May 13, 2011) (same rule on county tax-levy stability)
- MS AG Op., Griffin (Nov. 17, 2020) (same)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/J.-Lamar-March-10-2026-Tax-Levy-Amounts-for-Member-Counties-of-Junior-College-Districts.pdf

Original opinion text

March 10, 2026

John T. Lamar, Esq.
Attorney, Board of Trustees
Northwest Mississippi Community College
214 South Ward Street
Senatobia, MS 38688

Re: Tax Levy Amounts for Member Counties of Junior College Districts

Dear Mr. Lamar:

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

Background

According to your request, Northwest Mississippi Community College is a public two-year institution that primarily serves eleven member counties in North Mississippi. Some member counties have taken the position that they may provide different tax levy amounts every year, depending upon their current millage rates and other factors.

Questions Presented

1. Does Mississippi Code Annotated Section 37-29-141(1), or any other statute, permit member counties to pay less in taxes for funding and support to the community college than it did the previous year?

2. Is the payment of taxes for funding and support to the college pursuant to Section 37-29-141(1) or any other statute required, regardless of changing millage rates and/or the purported changing financial position of the member county?

Brief Response

1. Pursuant to Section 37-29-141(1), a member county generally cannot reduce its tax millage supporting a junior college district from the previous year unless first requested by the junior college district board of trustees. However, in the instance a county has a general property reassessment to increase ad valorem taxes, the county may reduce its millage rate provided the aggregate budget is not lower than the previous year, and it continues to meet the minimum requirement set forth in Section 37-29-141(1) — one mill for support and one mill for enlargement, improvement, and repair.

2. Please see response to question 1. Further, Section 37-29-141 provides no exception for the changing financial position of a member county.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 37-29-141(1) addresses "tax rate[s] for [junior college] district support and maintenance from each of the member counties." As set forth therein:

From and after October 1, 1989, no county shall levy less than (a) one (1) mill for the support, and (b) one (1) mill for the enlargement, improvement and repair of the junior college within the district of which the county is a member. From and after October 1, 1990, the board of trustees of any junior college district may, by a sixty percent (60%) affirmative vote of the members of such board, recommend an additional one (1) mill which may be used for the support or for the enlargement, improvement and repair of the junior college within the district of which the county is a member. If a county is levying more than the minimum levy required herein for one category but less than the minimum levy required for the other, then the excess millage under the one may be applied towards making up the deficiency which exists in the other. If a county contributes to two (2) junior college districts, the combined levy for both districts shall not be less than the minimums required herein.

...

No county shall levy a smaller tax millage for capital improvements and general support of a junior college district than was levied for the previous year, unless requested to make such reduction by the board of trustees of the district. When a county has a general reassessment of property to increase the county ad valorem tax assessments, such county may reduce the millage for general support and capital improvements, provided that its aggregate budget for junior college purposes is not lower than was paid the previous year.

Miss. Code Ann. § 37-29-141 (emphasis added).

In summary, a county cannot reduce the tax millage supporting a junior college district from the previous year unless requested by the junior college district board of trustees. However, if a county has a general property reassessment to increase ad valorem taxes, the county may reduce its millage rate provided the aggregate budget is not lower than the previous year, and it continues to meet the minimum requirement set forth in Section 37-29-141(1) — one mill for support and one mill for enlargement, improvement, and repair. See MS AG Op., Newell at 1 (May 13, 2011); MS AG Op., Griffin at 1 (Nov. 17, 2020). Finally, Section 37-29-141 provides no exception to a member county's mandatory tax levy amounts for the changing financial position of said member county.

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/ Matthew Ross
Matthew Ross
Special Assistant Attorney General