Can a private developer in Mississippi deed subdivision streets inside a town's corporate limits to the county, or do those streets become municipal property?

Plain-English summary

A private developer built a 35-40 home subdivision inside the corporate limits of the Town of Mathison, in Webster County. The streets are still private (the developer's property). The developer now wants to deed them to the county. The county attorney asked the AG four questions about whether the county can accept those streets, whether the town has to maintain them, and how the county and town might cost-share the maintenance.

The AG's answers:

1. The county cannot accept a developer's conveyance of streets that are inside a town's corporate limits. Section 21-37-3(1) gives municipalities "full jurisdiction in the matter of streets, sidewalks, sewers, and parks; to open and lay out and construct the same; and to repair, maintain, pave, sprinkle, adorn, and light the same." The Brown opinion (Nov. 10, 2006), citing Mississippi Supreme Court cases, said a road inside an annexed area "becomes a city street and the city becomes responsible for its maintenance."

2. Moot, given the answer to #1.

3. A county may contribute to or assist in the maintenance of municipal streets under Section 65-7-85 (or Sections 65-7-79 or 65-7-83 depending on facts), if the appropriate factual determination is made. Whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies are factual determinations outside the scope of the AG opinion.

4. The AG does not opine on the necessity or terms of an interlocal agreement. That is for the county and town to determine.

So: the streets, once accepted (typically through municipal acceptance) become municipal streets. The town is responsible for maintenance. The county can help under Section 65-7-85, which allows boards of supervisors to expend county money "within any municipalities of the county [to perform] all acts regarding construction and maintenance of roads and streets that they may do within the county outside the limits of said municipalities." That authority is "additional and cumulative" to other expenditure authority.

The AG also flagged the limit on its opinion authority. Section 7-5-25 lets the AG opine on questions of law to specific officials and bodies "upon any question of law relating to their respective offices." The Criswell opinion (Aug. 26, 2016) clarified the AG cannot "provide opinions to one entity regarding duties of another." Some questions in the request implicated the town's duties, which is outside the county attorney's office.

What this means for you

For county attorneys and boards of supervisors

The opinion holds that "the County cannot accept from a developer the conveyance of streets that are within the corporate limits of the Town," because § 21-37-3(1) gives municipalities "full jurisdiction in the matter of streets." On maintenance, it says that "upon the appropriate factual determination, a county may contribute to or assist in the maintenance of municipal streets pursuant to" § 65-7-85 "or another applicable statute," and that whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies are "factual determinations outside the scope of an official opinion."

For municipal attorneys, city councils, and developers

The opinion treats streets within a town's corporate limits as the town's responsibility, drawing on the Brown opinion's statement that a road within an annexed area "becomes a city street and the city becomes responsible for its maintenance." It does not authorize conveying those streets to the county. For county assistance with maintenance, the opinion identifies § 65-7-79 (a main highway running through several municipalities), § 65-7-83 (concurrent jurisdiction where a municipal street continues into or intersects a county road), and § 65-7-85 (county discretionary expenditure within municipalities), each "if applicable."

For others

Because the request also touched on the town's duties, the opinion noted that under § 7-5-25 and the Criswell opinion it cannot "provide opinions to one entity regarding duties of another." It suggested contacting the Division of Technical Assistance in the Office of the State Auditor on the public-funds questions.

Common questions

Can a private developer deed subdivision streets to a city instead of the county?
Yes. Cities can accept dedicated streets through their normal subdivision-acceptance process. State law gives municipalities full jurisdiction over streets within their corporate limits.

Can the county refuse to help with municipal street maintenance?
Yes. Section 65-7-85 says the county may, "within their discretion," expend money on roads and streets within municipalities. The board of supervisors has discretion. They can also condition contributions on an interlocal agreement.

Is an interlocal agreement always required?
No. The statutes (especially Section 65-7-85) authorize county discretionary expenditure within municipalities without expressly requiring an interlocal agreement. Whether to use one depends on the specific situation and what each side wants documented. The AG specifically declined to opine on which situations require an agreement.

What if a road runs through both county and city jurisdictions?
Section 65-7-83 contemplates concurrent jurisdiction "over any street in such municipality for maintenance purposes where such street is a continuation of or intersects a local or county road already under the jurisdiction of such board of supervisors." That can be the basis for shared maintenance.

Who is the right office to consult on expending public funds for cost-sharing?
The AG referred the requesting attorney to the Division of Technical Assistance in the Office of the State Auditor. Get their guidance on the procedural mechanics.

Can a county take over annexed streets that come into the city?
The Brown opinion held that streets within an annexed area "become a city street and the city becomes responsible for its maintenance." Annexation does not preserve county jurisdiction over the streets.

Background and statutory framework

Section 21-37-3(1):

The governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power to exercise full jurisdiction in the matter of streets, sidewalks, sewers, and parks; to open and lay out and construct the same; and to repair, maintain, pave, sprinkle, adorn, and light the same.

That gives municipalities exclusive jurisdiction over streets within their corporate limits. The Brown opinion (Nov. 10, 2006), citing Mississippi Supreme Court cases, applied this to annexed roads.

Section 65-7-79 deals with main highways running through several municipalities in a county.

Section 65-7-83 allows concurrent jurisdiction between county and municipality "over any street in such municipality for maintenance purposes where such street is a continuation of or intersects a local or county road already under the jurisdiction of such board of supervisors."

Section 65-7-85:

The several counties of the state, acting by and through the boards of supervisors thereof, are hereby invested, within their discretion, with full authority to expend monies and to do, within any municipalities of the county all acts regarding construction and maintenance of roads and streets that they may do within the county outside the limits of said municipalities. The authority granted under this section shall be construed as additional and cumulative to all existing authority for the expenditure of county funds within municipalities.

Section 7-5-25 limits AG opinions to questions of law from specific officials and bodies regarding their own offices. The AG does not opine on contracts or factual determinations.

Citations

• Miss. Code Ann. § 21-37-3(1) (municipal jurisdiction over streets)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 65-7-79 (main highways through several municipalities)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 65-7-83 (concurrent jurisdiction over municipal streets continuing into county roads)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 65-7-85 (county discretionary maintenance authority within municipalities)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25 (scope of AG opinions)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/J.-Meek-July-7-2025-Streets-within-a-Municipality.pdf

Original opinion text

July 7, 2025
Jacqueline Meek, Esq.
Attorney, Webster County Board of Supervisors
65 North Dunn Street
Eupora, Mississippi 39744
Re:

Streets within a Municipality

Dear Ms. Meek:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Background
You provide the following in your request: a private developer built a subdivision containing
approximately 35-40 homes within the corporate limits of the town of Mathison ("Town") in
Webster County ("County"). The streets within the subdivision still belong to the developer and
are being used by the owners of the homes for access to their homes and neighborhood and as a
way out of the subdivision. The developer now wishes to convey the streets within the subdivision
to the County.
Questions Presented

1. May a developer deed a street to the County when it is located in the corporate limits of the
   Town?
2. If the developer deeds all of the publicly travelled streets to the County, does that property
   become a municipal street with the Town responsible for its maintenance?
3. May the developer's conveyance be made directly to the Town and the County contribute when
   the County and Town can agree to an interlocal agreement where the County bears part of the
   costs?
4. Is an interlocal agreement necessary every time the County contributes to the maintenance of a
   municipal street or could it first become a budgeted item in the County's budget to be paid by the
   County as necessary and appropriate?

Brief Response

1. The County cannot accept from a developer the conveyance of streets that are within the
   corporate limits of the Town.
2. The response to question one renders this question moot.
3. Upon the appropriate factual determination, a county may contribute to or assist in the
   maintenance of municipal streets pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 65-7-85 or
   another applicable statute. Whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies to
   a specific situation are factual determinations outside the scope of an official opinion.
4. This office does not opine on the necessity or terms of an interlocal agreement by official opinion
   because whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies to a specific situation
   are factual determinations to be made by the County and the Town.
   Applicable Law and Discussion
   As an initial matter, Section 7-5-25 authorizes the Attorney General to issue official opinions to
   various public officials and bodies "upon any question of law relating to their respective offices."
   This office cannot "provide opinions to one entity [or individual] regarding duties of another." MS
   AG Op., Criswell at 1 (Aug. 26, 2016).
   Generally speaking, "the governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power to exercise
   full jurisdiction in the matter of streets, sidewalks, sewers, and parks; to open and lay out and
   construct the same; and to repair, maintain, pave, sprinkle, adorn, and light the same." Miss. Code
   Ann. § 21-37-3(1). In the Brown opinion cited in your request, we were asked whether a county
   could accept into its county road system a street within an area that had been annexed by the
   municipality. MS AG Op., Brown at 1 (Nov. 10, 2006). Citing Mississippi Supreme Court cases,
   we stated that "a municipality has the duty to maintain city streets" and that a road within an area
   that is annexed by the city "becomes a city street and the city becomes responsible for its
   maintenance." Id. at *1. Here the streets currently lie within the corporate limits of the Town. Thus,
   it is the opinion of this office that the County may not accept from a developer the conveyance of
   streets that are within the corporate limits of the Town.
   However, in regard to your third question, we also noted in Brown that the county could maintain
   or assist in the maintenance of municipal streets pursuant to Sections 65-7-79, 65-7-83, and 65-7-85, if applicable. Id. Section 65-7-79 deals with situations in which a main highway runs through
   several municipalities in the county. Section 65-7-83 allows for concurrent jurisdiction between
   the county and municipality "over any street in such municipality for maintenance purposes where
   such street is a continuation of or intersects a local or county road already under the jurisdiction of
   such board of supervisors." Section 65-7-85 provides:

The several counties of the state, acting by and through the boards of supervisors
thereof, are hereby invested, within their discretion, with full authority to expend
monies and to do, within any municipalities of the county all acts regarding
construction and maintenance of roads and streets that they may do within the
county outside the limits of said municipalities.

The authority granted under this section shall be construed as additional and
cumulative to all existing authority for the expenditure of county funds within
municipalities.

Whether an interlocal agreement is needed and which statute applies to a specific situation are
factual determinations to be made by the County and the Town and thus outside the scope of this
opinion.
Because your questions deal with the expenditure of public funds, you may also wish to contact
the Division of Technical Assistance in the Office of the State Auditor.
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