How should a Mississippi county reimburse its road and bridge fund when road crews work on other county projects?

Plain-English summary

DeSoto County's road and bridge department sometimes supplies labor, equipment, or materials for work unrelated to roads and bridges, including mowing county parks and storm cleanup. Its attorney asked how much the county's general fund should repay the road and bridge fund for that use. The questions proposed market rates, actual costs, replacement cost, and other possible measures. They also asked whether general fund payments for employee benefits, insurance claims, or periodic support of the department changed the answer.

The Attorney General said road and bridge tax proceeds under Section 27-39-305 are for road and bridge construction or maintenance. Prior AG opinions require reimbursement to the road and bridge fund when its resources are used for other purposes. The amount is tied to costs the fund incurred, but the AG found no statute prescribing how to calculate those costs. It left both the existence and amount of costs to the county board of supervisors as factual determinations. The opinion recommends asking the State Auditor's Technical Assistance Division for further guidance.

The county's periodic transfer of general fund money into the department's budget does not change the reimbursement analysis. Section 27-39-303 separately permits up to 30% of the county's total general fund expenditures in a fiscal year to pay for road and bridge maintenance. The AG did not use those transfers as a credit against costs from unrelated projects.

What this means for you

County supervisors and finance officers

When the road department's resources are used outside road and bridge work, the opinion calls for reimbursement of costs to its fund. It supplies no market-rate, depreciation, wage-offset, or materials-pricing formula. The board decides as a matter of fact whether the fund incurred costs and, if so, their amount. The AG says its office cannot validate or invalidate past county actions under Section 7-5-25.

Road and bridge department managers

The opinion applies the same cost question to employees, equipment, and materials used for non-road projects. It does not decide how the county's self-funded employee insurance arrangement changes a specific reimbursement calculation; that is part of the factual cost determination left to supervisors.

Common questions

Q: Must a county pay back its road fund when road crews mow a county park? A: Under the opinion's account of prior AG guidance, a board that determines road department resources are needed for non-road work must reimburse the road and bridge fund for costs caused by that use. The board determines the costs in its own case.

Q: Does Mississippi law require market rates or depreciation for the equipment charge? A: No prescribed method appears in the law the AG reviewed. The opinion does not select market rate, depreciation plus operating costs, or another fixed formula.

Q: May the county count prior general fund support as reimbursement? A: The AG says periodic general fund supplementation for road and bridge maintenance under Section 27-39-303 does not affect reimbursement for costs of using road department resources on unrelated projects.

Background and statutory framework

Section 27-39-305(1) authorizes a countywide ad valorem levy for road and bridge construction or maintenance. The opinion cites earlier AG letters that restrict those proceeds to that purpose and require reimbursement when county road personnel or equipment are used elsewhere. It then distinguishes that reimbursement obligation from any particular valuation method: neither that section nor another identified state law fixes the calculation.

Section 27-39-303 permits the county to devote up to 30% of its general fund expenditures to road and bridge maintenance. The opinion treats that authority as separate from repaying costs incurred for non-road projects. Section 7-5-25 limits the AG to prospective questions of state law, so the opinion does not audit any past chargeback.

Citations and references

• Section 27-39-305(1) (road and bridge tax levy)
• Section 27-39-303 (general fund support for road and bridge maintenance)
• Section 7-5-25 (scope of AG opinions)
• MS AG Op., White (Aug. 5, 2016); Byrd (Jan. 23, 2001); Neyman (Mar. 8, 2013)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/A.-Emerson-October-15-2026-Road-and-Bridge-Department-Chargebacks-to-General-Fund.pdf

Original opinion text

October 15, 2026
Adam B. Emerson, Esq.
Attorney, DeSoto County Board of Supervisors
5293 Getwell Road
Southaven, Mississippi 38672
Re:

Road and Bridge Department Chargebacks to General Fund

Dear Mr. Emerson:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion. Background According to your request, DeSoto County’s (“County”) Road and Bridge Department (“Department”) is funded primarily through an ad valorem road-and-bridge tax levy pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 27-39-305. You state that the Department “provide[s] labor, equipment, and materials for county maintenance and projects that fall outside the scope of road and bridge maintenance.” Those projects include “mowing county parks, transporting equipment, storm cleanup, and performing minor grading or dirt work at county buildings.” You also note that the County has a self-funded insurance plan and that all insurance claims made by Department employees are paid through the County’s general fund. Questions Presented

1. Are there established legal guidelines or standards governing the amount that the County’s road
   and bridge fund should be reimbursed from the County’s general fund when Department resources are used for general county purposes?
2. Should the reimbursements for use of Department equipment be calculated at market rates,
   actual cost (depreciation, fuel, and maintenance), or at some other standard?
3. May the Department be reimbursed from the County’s general fund for the wages paid to
   Department employees during the hours they work on projects unrelated to road and bridge maintenance, when employee benefits and insurance claims for Department employees are paid from the general fund? 550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680

Adam B. Emerson, Esq.
October 15, 2026
Page 2

4. Is the appropriate method for calculating the value of materials purchased by the Department,
   and used for general county purposes, actual cost, replacement cost, or current market value?
5. Does the fact that the County periodically supplements the Department’s budget with money
   from the general fund affect the calculation of the amount the Department may be reimbursed for the use of its employees or equipment on projects unrelated to road and bridge maintenance? Brief Response
6. No. Section 27-39-305 does not expressly provide any standards or guidelines for determining
   the amount the County’s road and bridge fund must be reimbursed for the use of the Department’s services and equipment on projects unrelated to road/bridge construction or maintenance.
7. Please see response to question number 1.
8. Please see response to question number 1.
9. Please see response to question number 1.
10. No. Section 27-39-303 authorizes the use of up to 30% of a county’s total general fund
    expenditures in any fiscal year to pay for road and bridge maintenance. Applicable Law and Discussion We begin by noting that Section 7-5-25 allows this office to opine upon prospective questions of state law only. We may not validate or invalidate any past action. Section 27-39-305(1) authorizes boards of supervisors to “annually impose a countywide ad valorem tax levy or levies for the maintenance and/or construction of roads and bridges.” This office has “consistently interpreted this statute to mean that such funds must be used solely for th[e] purpose” of maintaining or constructing roads and bridges. MS AG Op., White at 1 (Aug. 5, 2016). But this office has also opined that, if a board of supervisors makes a factual determination that it is necessary to “use the services and equipment . . . of the county road department” for non-road and bridge purposes, the county must “reimburse[]” the “road and bridge fund” for the “cost[s]” to the fund of using the department’s resources. MS AG Op., Byrd at 1 (Jan. 23, 2001); see also MS AG Op., Neyman at *1 (Mar. 8, 2013) (“[A]ny use of road personnel and equipment must be reimbursed to the road fund from the county general fund or other lawful sources.”). Neither Section 27-39-305 nor any other state law of which we are aware prescribes a method or standard for calculating the amount the County should reimburse the Department for the use of its resources on projects unrelated to roads and bridges. Whether the Department incurs any costs as a result of any such project and, if so, the amount of those costs are factual determinations that must be resolved by the County’s Board of Supervisors. For additional guidance regarding this 550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680

Adam B. Emerson, Esq.
October 15, 2026
Page 3
matter, we recommend that you contact the Technical Assistance Division of the Office of the State Auditor. Finally, you ask whether the fact that the County periodically supplements the Department’s budget with money from the general fund affects the amount the Department may be reimbursed for the use of its resources on non-road and bridge projects. It does not. Section 27-39-303 separately authorizes the County to use up to 30% of its total general fund expenditures in any fiscal year to pay for road and bridge maintenance. Periodically supplementing the Department’s budget in accordance with this statute thus has no bearing on the County’s ability to reimburse the Department for costs incurred as a result of being required to use its resources on projects outside the scope of its regular duties. 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/ Wilson Douglas Minor
Wilson Douglas Minor
Special Assistant Attorney General

550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201
POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205
TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680