D. Hunt - May 14, 2026 - Classification of Groups of Municipal Employees for Purposes of Insurance Coverage

550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680 May 14, 2026 David R. Hunt, Esq. Attorney, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission 1192 West Lakeshore Drive Starkville, Mississippi 39759 Re: Classification of Groups of Municipal Employees for Purposes of Insurance Coverage Dear Mr. Hunt: The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion. Background The Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) has elected to provide health insurance for its employees and their dependents. CPUC currently pays 100% of the cost of its employees’ group insurance coverage but is exploring establishing two different groups of employees based on whether they choose to participate in The Healthy You! Program of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi (the “Program”). For employees who choose to participate in the Program, the CPUC will pay 100% of the cost of the employees’ insurance coverage, but the CPUC will only pay 70% of the total coverage cost for employees who choose not to participate in the Program. Question Presented Is it permissible for CPUC to establish two groups of employees, based on their voluntary participation in the Program, and pay different costs of group insurance for such employees or provide different coverages for those employees? Brief Response Provided that the CPUC treats all employees within the same group in the same manner, Mississippi law does not preclude CPUC from establishing two groups of beneficiaries based on their participation in the Program. David R. Hunt May 14, 2026 Page 2 550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680 Applicable Law and Discussion As an initial matter, in accordance with Mississippi Code Section 7-5-25, opinions issued by this office are limited to matters of state law. We cannot, by official opinion, interpret any rules, regulations, or federal law that may be applicable. We first note that our previous opinions have found that employees of a commission established pursuant to Section 21-27-13 are to be considered municipal employees in every respect. MS AG Op., Hammack at *2 (May 9, 1997). We have also determined that when a municipality establishes such a commission, the municipality delegates broad authority to the commission. MS AG Op., Clark at *1 (Mar. 21, 2003). Turning to the relevant statutes, Section 25-15-101 provides: The governing board of any county [or] municipality . . . may negotiate for and secure for all or specified groups of employees and their dependents of such county or municipality, or institution, department . . . a policy or policies of group insurance covering . . . life . . . health, accident, and hospitalization . . . . Section 25-15-103(4)(a) states: A municipality may provide group life insurance coverage for all or specified groups of its public employees and group hospitalization benefits for such public employees and their dependents, and the municipality may pay the total of the cost of all benefits under this section. You ask whether, under these statutes, a utility commission may assign its employees to different groups to provide different levels of coverage based on the employees’ voluntary participation in the Program. Previously, this office has opined that “[i]t is our opinion that, pursuant to Section 25-15-101 and Section 25-15-103, the board of supervisors may lawfully provide group life insurance coverage for all or specified groups of its public employees and group hospitalization benefits for such public employees and their dependents, and the county may pay the total of the cost of all benefits under this section.” MS AG Op., Munn at *1 (Jan. 31, 2020) (emphasis added). In that same opinion, we reasoned that the County had discretion over whether all employees or only specified groups would be provided a certain level of coverage. Id. We have also said that Sections 25-15-101 and 25-15-103 “contemplate that when the governing authorities of a municipality elect to provide group health insurance for their employees and dependents that all employees within a specified group be treated in the same manner regarding the payment of the cost of said dependent coverage.” MS AG Op., Keith at *2 (Feb. 2, 2018) (citing MS AG Op., Creekmore at *1 (Nov. 2, 1994)). We do not read these statutes as precluding a commission from establishing two groups of employees to provide different levels of coverage, provided that the commission treats all employees within each group in the same manner. There is no other Mississippi statute that would preclude CPUC from establishing two groups of employees based on their participation in the program. However, this office has previously cautioned that if a municipality wishes to cease providing a benefit to its employees that it has David R. Hunt May 14, 2026 Page 3 550 HIGH STREET • SUITE 1200 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201 POST OFFICE BOX 220 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TELEPHONE (601) 359-3680 previously paid for all or part of, the municipality must provide its employees “with reasonable notice.” MS AG Op., Rutledge at *1 (Feb. 4, 2005). Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that so long as CPUC treats all employees within each group in the same manner, CPUC may establish two different groups of employees based on their participation in the Program. We cannot opine on any rules, regulations, or federal law that may be applicable to this question. If this office may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Maggie Kate Bobo Maggie Kate Bobo Special Assistant Attorney General