Committee advances bill letting counties contract with Mississippi Development Authority to staff welcome centers; debate centers on PERS removal and local fund

Senator Chastenal introduced Senate Bill 28-83, which would allow counties that operate welcome centers to enter into agreements with the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) to staff those centers and remove those staff from membership in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). "This will be done to remove these people who work in the welcome centers from the PERS system," Senator Chastenal said, and he told the committee that the change would both save the state money and give county supervisors more control to hire locals as greeters or part-time staff.

The bill creates a special account — the Mississippi Welcome Center Staff Grant Fund — to hold grant money that counties could apply for to pay staff. Senator Chastenal said funds in that special fund "will not be swallowed up by the general fund but will roll over and continue to remain in the special fund." The chair indicated he preferred to discuss whether a separate fund is necessary before floor action and said he would consult with the sponsor.

Several senators expressed concerns and asked clarifying questions. Senator Parks said she was "very concerned" that some supervisors could opt not to apply for grants and effectively close or reduce welcome-center operations; the sponsor and other members responded that the bill does not require counties to participate and that counties could still pay from their budgets or apply for MDA grant money. Senator Hill and others asked whether MDA or counties would be the employer; the bill allows MDA to enter into agreements but does not compel counties to participate and the committee record shows staff would be under contract, not county employees in PERS.

Committee members asked for turnout numbers and how many positions would be removed from PERS; the sponsor said he did not have a count and that the number of affected employees is "not specified" in the committee record. Other senators raised fiscal and policy questions about PERS savings versus obligations to existing members and whether the proposal would meaningfully affect PERS funding levels.

A motion of "title sufficient, do pass" was made and the committee reported the bill forward; the chair said he would discuss the special-fund language with the sponsor prior to floor consideration.