FAQs

The short answer is no, and you must enroll them on their date of hire. Under R.S. 11:2214(A)(1) any person who becomes an employee as defined in R.S. 11:2213 on and after September 9, 1977 “shall become a member as a condition of his employment.”

To comply with the mandatory enrollment provisions of R.S. 11:157(A), regulations require that an employer must enroll each employee in MPERS on the first day the employee qualifies for membership. The employer shall remit to MPERS the required employee and employer contributions no later than the fifteenth day of the month following the first day the employee qualifies for membership. If the employee subsequently submits an affidavit under R.S. 11:157(C) before the end of the first calendar month during which the employee qualified for MPERS membership, a prorated amount of employer contributions shall be refunded to the employer.

Failure to enroll eligible employees in MPERS means that neither employer nor employee contributions were paid to MPERS. In this situation, the employee must be enrolled, and R.S. 11:2227(J)(1), which provides the following, applies:

J.(1) If any employer fails to transmit either employer's contributions or member's contributions within five days after their due date, the payment shall be delinquent. As used in this Subsection, "due date" means the close of the tenth day after the end of the month for which payment of employer's and member's contributions is applicable or deducted. In addition to the employer and member contributions owed, the employer shall submit an amount determined in accordance with Paragraph (2) of this Subsection.

(2)(a) Interest charged at the legal rate shall be due from the date the payment became delinquent.

(b) Any employer who becomes delinquent for a period in excess of ninety days in the collection and remittance of the amounts due as monthly contributions is also subject to a penalty of twenty-five percent of the aggregate monthly contributions due.

(c) Any employer who becomes delinquent for a period in excess of one hundred and eighty days in the collection and remittance of the amounts due as monthly contributions is liable for the greater of the amounts in Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this Paragraph and an amount equal to the actuarial cost of a purchase of the service credit for which contributions were not timely paid calculated by the system's actuary pursuant to R.S. 11:158(C).

(d) The employer that failed to transmit the required contributions in a timely manner shall also reimburse the system any legal and actuarial fees paid by the system in the collection of amounts pursuant to this Paragraph.

Once enrolled and all applicable payments have been received, the employee can then choose to opt-out by filing an affidavit. He will then receive a refund for the principal amount of the employee contributions.

MPERS does not offer back DROP.

Yes, if you are married you must leave at least a 50% option, unless the spouse relinquishes their rights to your retirement.

Complete the Member Enrollment Form and the Forfeiture of Benefits Attestation.

Complete the Beneficiary Designation Form.

Complete the Request for an Estimate Form

Members can receive one free estimate per year.

The IBO is the Initial Benefit Option.  A member can elect to choose the IBO retirement and receive a lump sum benefit and receive a reduced monthly benefit for the rest of the member's life.

Member prior to January 1, 2013

12 years of service at age 55
20 years of service at age 50
25 years of service at any age

Member on or after January 1, 2013 - Hazardous

12 years of service at age 55
25 years of service at any age

Member on or after January 1, 2013 - Non-Hazardous

10 years of service at age 60
25 years of service at age 55
30 years of service at any age

As of June 30, 2022, the unfunded actuarial accrued liability ("UAAL") was $788,517,441. That figure represents the actuarial present value of benefits payable to members of the fund less the present value of future normal costs attributable to the members. It is not MPERS' debt. It is debt owed by all participating MPERS employers (including New Orleans) to MPERS to fund benefit payments.

The normal cost is that portion of the actuarial present value of MPERS benefits and expenses allocated to a valuation year by the actuarial cost method. This is analogous to one year’s insurance premium. If employers only paid the normal cost each year, then the UAAL will never be paid off. In fact, Louisiana law generally requires any UAAL, once created, to be paid off by employers over a 15-year period.

How are these payments determined? As a percentage of payroll (technically, "earnable compensation"). But what happens if an employer like New Orleans goes from having a high payroll in one year to a very low payroll in the following year (because many officers quit or retired)? Well, the annual "loan payments" that are required to pay off the $788,517,441 don't go down. However, the amount that New Orleans pays does. So, who pays for the portion of the debt payment that New Orleans otherwise would have paid? Mostly, all of the other employers (Baton Rouge, Gretna, Kenner, etc.).

That's not really fair, so the Legislature enacted a law to partially rectify this situation. In New Orleans' case, the law is "triggered" by dropping by at least 50 officers from one June 30th to the next. Each June 30th that the City loses at least 50 officers ("partially dissolves"), it becomes directly responsible for another layer of a portion of the UAAL that it alone will pay over a 15 year period. This helps offset the debt that's payable by the remaining employers.

Notably, the law has a mechanism for New Orleans to cease liability for at least part of the debt payments should it increase the amount of officers by at least 50.

How does all of this affect or potentially affect your retirement check? It shouldn't, and definitely hasn't.

Has New Orleans made partial dissolution payments to MPERS? So far, they have. But they haven't paid them timely (even after MPERS' board of trustees offered to waive the interest if they did so and agreed to automatically pay electronically each month going forward). The City passed on the offer and didn't pay timely. Therefore, it had to pay MPERS interest.

Based upon recent news articles, it appears that Mayor Cantrell and her administration have promised to sue MPERS on the issue, merely because they don't like the partial dissolution statute. If it happens, MPERS will take all appropriate action against the City and any of its attorneys who sign off on a frivolous lawsuit.

Yes. Going forward, MPERS doesn't plan to offer any settlement under any terms more favorable than the amended resolution's. The example below shows why municipalities should rush to meet the relevant deadlines and take advantage of these terms as soon as possible. 

First, let's illustrate what the employer would normally owe, absent a settlement. Under R.S. 11:2227(J)(2), any employer who becomes delinquent for a period in excess of one hundred and eighty days in the collection and remittance of the amounts due as monthly contributions is liable for the greater of (1) the amount of employer and member contributions owed plus interest charged at the legal rate from the date the payment became delinquent plus a 25% penalty and (2) an amount equal to the actuarial cost of a purchase of the service credit for which contributions were not timely paid, as calculated by the system's actuary pursuant to R.S. 11:158(C). Further, the employer that failed to transmit the required contributions in a timely manner shall also reimburse the system any legal and actuarial fees paid by the system.

Next, let's turn to what would be owed under a settlement authorized by the amended resolution. One particular delinquent employer has a single employee that it failed to enroll since January of 2015. Under R.S. 11:2227(J)(2)(c), as of September 30, 2023, the employer owed MPERS $267,510.63. That amount is obviously past due and increases each day. It must be paid in full immediately, and the employer has already been sued by MPERS.

If the employer entered into a settlement under the amended resolutions's terms, that amount would be immediately lowered by the sum of $35,648.43 (judicial interest) and $46,289.94 (25% penalties), which is $81,938.37. That would leave the employee and the employer respectively owing principal amounts of contributions totaling $44,577.74 and $140,582.02. Those amounts would be able to be paid off over 48 months with interest at 6.75%, which would result in respective monthly payments of $1,062.31 and $3,350.13.

However, to protect MPERS, the employer would have to pay MPERS the difference between the (1) the actuarial value of service credit for the employee (calculated through date benefits begin) and (2) the sum of the employee and employer contributions and associated interest paid by employer on behalf of employee, within 30 days of receipt of request from MPERS, IF AND ONLY IF the employee sticks around and eventually applies for payment of benefits by MPERS for retirement or disability, or dies and his survivors become eligible for benefit payments.

As you can see, the savings can be significant. But they start disappearing on December 2, 2023.

Under a settlement pursuant to the amended resolution's terms, the delinquent employer would pay (over up to 12 months) 100% of the principal amount of employer contributions, with interest at MPERS’ assumed actuarial rate of return calculated with a beginning date of July 1, 2023. However, if any of these former employees applies for benefits, within 30 days of notice, the former employer must pay MPERS the difference between past due payments credited and actuarial value of service credit (calculated through date of retirement).

This discount is still very large. Remember, under R.S. 11:2227(J)(2), any employer who becomes delinquent for a period in excess of one hundred and eighty days in the collection and remittance of the amounts due as monthly contributions is liable for the greater of (1) the amount of employer and member contributions owed plus interest charged at the legal rate from the date the payment became delinquent plus a 25% penalty and (2) an amount equal to the actuarial cost of a purchase of the service credit for which contributions were not timely paid, as calculated by the system's actuary pursuant to R.S. 11:158(C). Further, the employer that failed to transmit the required contributions in a timely manner shall also reimburse the system any legal and actuarial fees paid by the system.

To be eligible for a settlement authorized by the amended resolution, sufficient records (for the period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending on the last day of the month that fell before the month in which the records are provided to MPERS) must be received by MPERS on or before December 31, 2023.

Municipalities that either chose not or do not have sufficient payroll records to provide will not be able to take advantage of the amended resolution’s settlement terms. Since many initial records sent by municipalities to MPERS are insufficient and thus require MPERS to request additional records, waiting until the deadline in the resolution to provide any records is not a good strategy for any municipality seeking to take advantage of the settlement terms which enable both MPERS and the municipalities to avoid the cost of litigation.

Absolutely, MPERS is essentially legally obligated to do so. MPERS has already sued Stonewall, Richwood (settled), Killian, Cotton Valley (settled), New Orleans, Moreauville, Cottonport, Baskin (settled), Simmesport, Elton, Greensburg, Ferriday (twice), Dodson (settled), Springfield, Cheneyville, Glenmora, Roseland, Forest Hill, Zwolle, Grayson, Melville, Grand Couteau, Varnado, Gibsland, Henderson, and Lecompte. MPERS is mandated to hold accountable municipalities and public officials who don't honor the benefits that its municipal police officers are promised under Louisiana and federal law (which include disability and survivor benefits, not just retirement benefits).

Fortunately, other municipalities (including but not limited to Port Barre) had the good sense to settle before being sued. Those municipalities may have settled under more favorable terms than the resolution's. However, after years of certain municipalities' noncompliance, the resolution's terms are now the best that MPERS can offer.

Notably, MPERS has had to make public records requests of many of these and other municipalities to determine which officers (if any) need to be enrolled and what amounts the municipalities owe under state law. Of course, these municipalities were required under Title 11 to report the requested information to MPERS monthly, regardless of any public records request, but failed to do so.

Sadly, some municipalities violated state law yet again by failing to respond (or responding only after several months) to MPERS' requests. In fact, some of those same municipalities (namely, Cheneyville, Grand Isle, Lecompte, and Springfield) subsequently made (mostly pointless) public records requests of MPERS, all while failing to provide or fully provide responsive records to the public records requests that MPERS made of them to try to enforce their compliance with the retirement laws.

Unfortunately, not only are they hurting their own police officers and their families (there is almost certainly at least one deceased officer of some delinquent municipality who was never enrolled in MPERS and subsequently killed in the line of duty and whose spouse or children are not receiving benefits because of it), they are also increasing the employer contribution rates for all participating municipalities and shortchanging the amount of MPERS' retirees potential cost-of-living adjustments.

Yes, you need to act very quickly. No, MPERS will absolutely NOT extend deadlines any further. Please send us sufficient records and enroll all of your eligible officers well before the deadlines described above.

We do not care if your insurance company's lawyers are waiting on writs or appeals because they said they can get you "hometown cooking." An amended resolution settlement is not a right. In our opinion, it's just an intelligent option.

These FAQs will be unpublished after 12/31/23, because all municipalities eligible for an amended resolution will be determined shortly thereafter. Any delinquent municipality who misses deadlines will be sued unless it negotiates an individual settlement with MPERS, which will it cost more than an amended resolution settlement.

Absolutely not. We look forward to receiving those funds and will use them to provide benefits to police officers and their beneficiaries.

Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

The Windfall Elimination Provision or WEP applies to a benefit you earned because of private sector employment. A modified benefit formula is used to calculate your Social Security benefit amount if you receive an MPERS pension, resulting in a lower Social Security benefit. Its purpose is to remove an unintended advantage or “windfall” that you might otherwise receive as a result of the interaction between the regular Social Security benefit formula and a relatively short career in Social Security-covered employment.

You can find a Social Security Administration fact sheet on the WEP here. Also, click here to view a history of the WEP and an explanation of how it works from the Congressional Research Service. 

You may be able to avoid the Social Security offset if you meet one of these criteria:

• You were age 62 or disabled before 1986, or
• You qualified for an MPERS retirement benefit, including a reduced benefit, by having worked at least 10 years before September 1, 1985 (but had not attained normal retirement age or retired prior to that date), or
• You have at least 30 years of “substantial” earnings in a job where you paid Social Security taxes. If you have between 21 and 29 years of substantial earnings, you should not be subject to the full reduction.

Government Pension Offset (GPO)

The GPO affects the Social Security benefit paid to you based on earnings of your deceased spouse if you also receive a pension from a government agency, such as MPERS.

Your Social Security benefit may be completely eliminated because you receive a government pension.

You may be able to avoid the Government Pension Offset if you meet one of the following criteria:

• You were eligible to retire before December 1982, and you meet all of the requirements for Social Security Spouses’ benefits that were in effect in January 1977.
• You were eligible to retire before July 1, 1983, and were receiving half of your support from your spouse.

Social Security Information

• Call SSA at 1-800-772-1213
• Download the WEP Fact Sheet
• Download the GPO Fact Sheet
• Visit www.ssa.gov and use the online WEP and GPO calculators
• View Additional Information for Government Employees

Social Security can give you the location of an office nearest you. MPERS employees cannot help you with Social Security issues.

Benefits change when the federal tax tables are adjusted.  If you have a change in your municipality deduction, please contact the city for specifics.