Category: Affidavit Municipalities

What if “we don’t do MPERS?”

This is not legally possible. You might not do full-time employees though. For MPERS’s purposes, full-time means mean employment on a permanent, regularly scheduled basis for at least an average of thirty hours per week.

Which municipalities’ employees have the ability to opt-out of MPERS via affidavit?

EVERY employer MUST enroll their eligible employees in MPERS. However, the following municipalities’ employees are able to opt out via affidavit, but only AFTER they are enrolled in MPERS. If your specific municipality is not listed on here, then your MPERS-eligible employees cannot opt out of MPERS. The employers on the following list must contribute to both MPERS and Social Security.

  • ALBANY
  • AMITE CITY
  • ANGIE
  • ARCADIA
  • ASHLAND
  • BALDWIN
  • BASILE
  • BENTON
  • BERNICE
  • BONITA
  • BOYCE
  • BREAUX BRIDGE
  • BROUSSARD
  • BRUSLY
  • CAMPTI
  • CARENCRO
  • CASTOR
  • CHATHAM
  • CHENEYVILLE
  • CHURCH POINT
  • CLARENCE
  • CLAYTON
  • CLINTON
  • COLFAX
  • COLUMBIA
  • COTTONPORT
  • CULLEN
  • DELCAMBRE
  • DELHI
  • DELTA
  • DENHAM SPRINGS
  • DIXIE INN
  • DONALDSONVILLE
  • DUBACH
  • DUSON
  • ELIZABETH
  • ELTON
  • EPPS
  • ERATH
  • ESTHERWOOD
  • FARMERVILLE
  • FENTON
  • FERRIDAY
  • FRANKLIN
  • FRANKLINTON
  • GEORGETOWN
  • GIBSLAND
  • GLENMORA
  • GOLDEN MEADOW
  • GRAMBLING
  • GRAND COTEAU
  • GRAND ISLE
  • GRAYSON
  • GREENSBURG
  • GUEYDAN
  • HARAHAN
  • HARRISONBURG
  • HENDERSON
  • HESSMER
  • HODGE
  • IOTA
  • IOWA
  • JONESVILLE
  • JUNCTION CITY
  • KAPLAN
  • KENTWOOD
  • KINDER
  • KROTZ SPRINGS
  • LAKE ARTHUR
  • LAKE PROVIDENCE
  • LECOMPTE ​
  • LEESVILLE
  • LIVINGSTON
  • LOGANSPORT
  • LOREAUVILLE
  • LUTCHER
  • MADISONVILLE
  • MAMOU
  • MANDEVILLE
  • MANGHAM
  • MANY
  • MARION
  • MARKSVILLE
  • MELVILLE
  • MER ROUGE
  • MERRYVILLE
  • MONTGOMERY
  • MOREAUVILLE
  • MORGANZA
  • NAPOLEONVILLE
  • NEW LLANO
  • NORTH HODGE
  • NORWOOD
  • OAK GROVE
  • OBERLIN
  • OLLA
  • PALMETTO
  • PARKS
  • PATTERSON
  • PEARL RIVER
  • PINE PRAIRIE
  • PIONEER
  • PLAIN DEALING
  • PLAUCHEVILLE
  • PLEASANT HILL
  • PONCHATOULA
  • PORT BARRE
  • ROBELINE
  • ROSEPINE
  • SALINE
  • SCOTT
  • SIBLEY
  • SIMMESPORT
  • SIMSBORO
  • SLAUGHTER
  • SPRINGHILL
  • ST. FRANCISVILLE
  • ST. JOSEPH
  • ST. MARTINVILLE
  • STERLINGTON
  • SUNSET
  • TANGIPAHOA
  • TULLOS
  • URANIA
  • VIDALIA
  • VIVIAN
  • WALKER
  • WASHINGTON
  • WATERPROOF
  • WELSH
  • WHITE CASTLE
  • WINNSBORO
  • WISNER
  • YOUNGSVILLE
  • ZWOLLE

Do employees hired by employers who fall under R.S. 11:157 have to opt in to MPERS?

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.

Should I execute and file an R.S. 11:157 affidavit?

In our opinion, absolutely not. It’s not a required form, and you’d be waiving your rights to valuable benefits. Your employer will do everything that it can to talk you into executing and filing it, but it’s not in your best interest (it just saves them money). And doing so may prevent you from joining MPERS if you become employed by a different employer.

What happens if I don’t enroll my municipality’s police employees?

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.

How will MPERS determine if we have failed to enroll eligible employees?

Via state supplemental pay reports, public records requests, etc. However, the proper course is for employers to follow the law. We absolutely understand that sometimes mistakes happen. That said, those mistakes will result in costs.

Category: COLAs

When was the last COLA granted?

On June 22, 2022, the board of trustees authorized granting a 3% one-time permanent COLA under R.S. 11:2225(A)(7)(b) (which has been repealed). The 3% COLA is based on the member’s benefit at that time. The COLA was paid beginning on July 1, 2022 benefit payments to all eligible benefit recipients who retired on or before July 1, 2021. If you were eligible, the COLA is reflected in your current benefit.

MPERS’s actuary estimated the present value cost of the COLA to MPERS’s employers at $47,221,459. The employers are required to pay this amount, plus interest over a 15-year period.

What are the legal hurdles to granting a COLA?

As of June 30, 2022, there are no more legal hurdles to granting a COLA. However, COLAs must be pre-funded and can no longer be put on the “charge card.”

Presently, in order to grant a COLA, two things need to happen:

  1. there must be sufficient funds in the funding deposit account (the current balance is $0); and
  2. the MPERS board of trustees needs to approve it.

The board will charge employers an additional 0.425% in employer contributions for FY 23-24 and then 0.85% for all fiscal years thereafter.

When will the next COLA be granted?

When there are sufficient funds in the funding deposit account (the current balance is $0), and the MPERS board of trustees approves it.

The board will charge employers an additional 0.425% in employer contributions for FY 23-24 and then 0.85% for all fiscal years thereafter.

We hope to have enough funds to pay some form of COLA in 2028 or 2029, which will most likely be sooner than a COLA could have been granted under previous law.

The last three COLAs were granted in 2022, 2014 (which couldn’t have been granted but for special legislation), and 2008. A complete list of MPERS COLAs can be found here.

Category: Delinquent Municipalities

Where can I find a copy of the amended resolution’s terms?

The third amended and restated resolution regarding delinquent contributions can be found here.
The New Orleans Partial Dissolution Delinquency resolution can be found here.
The General Dissolution Delinquency resolution can be found here.

Is the amended resolution only directed towards the employers set forth in Exhibit A?

Absolutely not. The amended resolution is directed towards ALL delinquent municipalities/employers. Those listed in Exhibit A are merely ones who have to contribute to both MPERS and Social Security but whose employees individually have the right, under R.S. 11:157, to opt out of MPERS after being enrolled.

In fact, MPERS mailed the amended resolution to about 100 municipalities.

See the FAQs regarding affidavit municipalities for more information on the municipalities/employers listed in Exhibit A.

Will municipalities save under the terms of the amended resolution (compared to what the courts will award MPERS or what can obtained through individual negotiations)?

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.

What amount would be required to be paid for former employees not currently employed by another MPERS employer?

Under a settlement pursuant to the amended resolution’s terms, the delinquent employer would pay (over up to 48 months) 25% of the principal amount of employer contributions for former employees who are not employed by another MPERS employer, with interest at MPERS’ assumed actuarial rate of return calculated with a beginning date of July 1, 2023. However, if any former employee applies for benefits, payment of the difference between the 25% of the employer contributions paid and the actuarial value of service credit for said employee (calculated through date benefits begin) must be paid within 30 days or upon terms agreed upon by MPERS and the member.

This discount is actually larger than 75%. 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.

MPERS contends that it can go back even further than 10 years, per attorney general opinions. However, we are only seeking to go back at least 10 years (since January 1, 2013), and the amended resolution terms effectively negate all prescription arguments by effectively only going back 2.5 years (25% of 10 years) and then not even requiring the full R.S. 11:2227(J)(2) amount to be paid.

What amount would be required to be paid for former employees currently employed by another MPERS employer?

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.

What’s the deadline for municipalities to enroll their employees and still be eligible for an amended resolution settlement?

Eligible employees are required to be enrolled on the first day of employment that they become eligible for MPERS membership. This is mandatory, and no Louisiana municipalities are exempt from this requirement. However, not all municipalities having been following state law (in fact, some municipalities are particularly unfriendly to their own police officers and continue to refuse to enroll them in the retirement system, even after being sued by MPERS), despite over 4 years of outreach by MPERS. This robs the officers of valuable benefits, and also increases the employer contribution rates for all law-abiding MPERS municipalities.

That said, to be eligible for a settlement pursuant to the amended resolution terms, a municipality must enroll all MPERS-eligible employees on or before December 1, 2023, and begin paying employee and employer contributions for all enrolled employees no later than the payroll beginning on July 1, 2024.

What’s the deadline for municipalities to get required records to MPERS and still be eligible for an amended resolution settlement?

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.

What happens if we don’t meet both the records and enrollment deadlines?

Municipalities must meet both deadlines. If yours does not, it will NOT be eligible for a settlement under the amended resolution’s terms. MPERS will file suit against your municipality and/or mayor, and the municipality/mayor will have to pay whatever amount the courts order it to pay (or else they can negotiate a settlement directly with MPERS, which will be much more costly than one under resolution settlement’s terms).

We’ve been working on getting all municipalities in compliance for over 4 years now. It’s time to get this done.

Will MPERS really sue a municipality and/or a mayor for not accepting a settlement pursuant to the amended resolution’s terms?

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.

MPERS is an expensive plan compared to Social Security. Can’t you just let it slide?

No, both state and federal law mandate that we DO NOT let it slide. MPERS is a qualified pension plan (specifically, a governmental plan) under Internal Revenue Code § 401.

The IRS requires MPERS to operate strictly in accordance with the terms of the state statutes and certain federal laws. Specifically, MPERS must cover the employees that the state statues describe as being eligible and, when they are eligible, MPERS must provide those employees the contributions or benefits set out in those statutes. If MPERS doesn’t, it risks losing its status as a qualified plan, which could result in harsh tax consequences for ALL MPERS members. MPERS cannot do this without the cooperation of and contributions from ALL employers of eligible employees.

Besides, we think that providing strong disability, survivor, and retirement benefits to police officers is actually a good thing! We commend the Louisiana Legislature for making these benefits mandatory, no matter the size of the municipality.

Also, the municipalities skirting the law are making MPERS’ employer contribution rate higher by not sharing in the burden. And some of these municipalities don’t even have legal authority to contribute to Social Security. Their employees should only be in MPERS and MPERS only.

So, are you saying that we need to act quickly? Will the deadlines be extended?

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.

But can’t tough-talking attorneys get us a better deal than the amended resolution’s terms?

Only if they can convince the courts, which MPERS’ attorneys feel is highly unlikely. Also, the municipality that hires them will likely end up paying both their own and MPERS’ attorneys fees. And even if the tough-talking attorneys’ fees are paid by an insurance company, it’s still not “free.” Increased attorneys’ fees can raise both the municipalities’ insurance rates and the MPERS’ employer contribution rate.

Also, it hasn’t worked out for them so far. The best they have done is file venue exceptions, thinking they could get “hometown cooking” by moving the case from the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish to the municipality’s judicial district court. Even if successful, will it really work out better for the municipality if the case is heard at a courthouse closer to the police officers and families who are being shortchanged? All it does is delay and increase the costs of a real solution to the problem. And it sticks law-abiding municipalities with the bill in the meantime.

MPERS’ attorneys believe, aside from shortchanging their own police officers and those police officers’ families, hiring tough-talking attorneys (whether directly or indirectly through an insurance company) may be the worst thing that some municipalities have ever done. That said, municipalities should definitely have their attorney advise them on this issue and help resolve the matter. Good attorneys know how to identify a problem and figure out how to resolve it smoothly. They don’t see a client in a deep hole and jump in and help dig it even deeper.

Do the amended resolution’s terms cover public records requests penalties and attorneys’ fees that are awarded to MPERS?

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

I received a proposed amended resolution settlement as well as a calculation. It gives a deadline sooner than 12/1 or 12/31. Do I need to act sooner?

Yes, please read the letter carefully. It likely contains a date by which MPERS will file suit against your municipality if the amended resolution is not agreed to by then.

What if we missed the 12/1/23 enrollment deadline?

Unfortunately, your municipality is no longer eligible for a settlement under the amended resolution. However, you must enroll all of your eligible employees immediately and provide all records to MPERS. If you do so, then MPERS will consider a settlement, but it will likely not be on terms as favorable as under the amended resolution. The longer you wait to enroll your eligible employees and provide records, the larger your MPERS bill will be.

Category: DROP

How can I receive an annual DROP statement?

DROP statements will be available online in the member portal after every December.

Should I rollover my MPERS DROP monies to an external account?

Assuming that you are a Louisiana resident, this depends on whether or not you enjoy paying more in state income taxes than is necessary. Under R.S. 11:2228, all monies paid by MPERS are exempt from any Louisiana state tax. This includes DROP withdrawals.

If you are a Louisiana resident and rollover your MPERS DROP funds, your withdrawals will now be subject to Louisiana income tax (ranges from 2-6%). It makes no sense to rollover these funds. Read more about it here.

Also, if you keep your money with MPERS, you have several investment options, which you can read about here.

Finally, if someone tries to sell you a variable annuity or a fixed indexed annuity, RUN (don’t walk) out of their office. These can have high fees and steep cancellation penalties.

What is Back DROP?

MPERS does not offer back DROP.

What is DROP?

DROP is the Deferred Retirement Option Plan. Upon entry into DROP your service credit stops and both the employee and employer stop paying contributions. Member completes the DROP Application and chooses their retirement option at that time. Benefit is calculated and that monthly amount is deposited into a DROP account for up to 60 months, depending on the duration specified on the application. DROP funds are available upon retirement.

What is my DROP Balance?

Contact the MPERS office.

Category: Leave Conversion

Which members are eligible for leave conversion?

Only members of this system whose employing municipality irrevocably elects such coverage. Currently, only the following employers have irrevocably elected coverage:

  • Folsom
  • Mandeville
  • MPERS (for employees of the retirement system itself who are also members)
  • New Orleans
  • New Roads
  • Slidell

What amount of leave hours can be converted to retirement credit?

The starting point is your total unused earned annual and sick leave hours that you accrued and accumulated. From that amount, you must subtract the total number of leave hours for which payment can be made in accordance with law at the time of your retirement. Next, your employer will convert the hours to days by dividing by the average number of (non-overtime) hours in your work day. This will be reported by your employer to MPERS. Then, once your employer pays MPERS the full cost, you will be credited in accordance with the following formula:

Days Percentage of a Year
1-26 10
27-52 20
53-78 30
79-104 40
105-130 50
131-156 60
157-182 70
183-208 80
209-234 90
235-260 100
Fractional days of one-half or more shall be granted as one day and less than one-half day shall be disregarded. Any member who terminates his employment for any period of time but who later becomes reemployed as an active contributing member in this system shall contribute to the system for not less than eighteen months subsequent to his reemployment date before using converted unused earned sick and annual leave for purposes of benefit computation. Additional membership service obtained by conversion of unused earned sick and annual leave shall not be used in computation of average final compensation.

Can my employer limit the amount of leave that I can convert?

No, the only limitation is the reduction for the amount of unused earned annual and sick leave for which payment can be made in accordance with law at the time of retirement (regardless of whether actually paid). Unfortunately, we have had some problems with an employer arbitrarily “changing” the formula set for in R.S. 11:2218(J) by applying a reduction factor. If your employer attempts to do this, then you should consult with your own personal attorney immediately.

Category: Members

How do I transfer my service credit from another Louisiana State Retirement System?

Complete the transfer application.

Can I come to the office and meet with a staff member to discuss my retirement?

Yes, although it is best to schedule an appointment to ensure that the staff can be prepared in advance.

Can I leave my spouse a benefit?

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

How can I receive a refund of my employee contributions and what is the time frame?

Complete the refund of accumulated contributions form.

You must be out of municipal police service for a minimum of 60 calendar days to be eligible for your refund.

How do I become a member of MPERS?

How do I change my address?

How do I change my beneficiary?

How do I find out my contribution balance?

Contact the MPERS office.

How do I request an estimate?

Complete the Request for an Estimate Form

Members can receive one free estimate per year.

How many years of military service can I purchase and how?

Up to four years. Please send a copy of your DD214 discharge papers.

What is the IBO?

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.

When am I eligible for early retirement?

Member prior to January 1, 2013

20 years of service at any age – actuarially reduced from age 50

Member on or after January 1, 2013 – Hazardous

20 years of service at any age – actuarially reduced from age 55

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

20 years of service at any age – actuarially reduced from age 55

When am I eligible for regular retirement?

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

When are annual contribution statements mailed?

Usually, statements are mailed around the fourth quarter of each year.

Category: New Orleans

What’s the New Orleans leave conversion lawsuit against MPERS all about?

In short, it’s all about the City denying valuable retirement benefits to almost every single one of its police officers who retired on or after January 22, 2007.

On January 22, 2007, the New Orleans City Council enacted Ordinance 22493 M.C.S. irrevocably electing coverage under La. R.S. 11:2218(J), thus requiring the City to convert its retiring MPERS members’ uncompensated leave to MPERS retirement service credit.

Since Ordinance No. 22493 became effective, the City has not converted all unused earned sick leave accrued and accumulated by employees for which payment was not made at the time of retirement, as required by state law. From January 22, 2007 until May 12, 2013, no retiring MPERS member employed by the City received any retirement service credit for unused sick leave.

One member who retired on May 12, 2013 received such credit (many years later, and only after suing the City), but from May 13, 2013 until June 29, 2021, no MPERS member employed by the City received service credit for unused sick leave.

In 2021, MPERS researched the City’s civil service leave rules and determined that, in its opinion, just about all (everyone but those who burned through all sick leave or already earned a maximum benefit equal to one hundred percent of their average final compensation) of its retiring police officers have been getting shortchanged by the City. The bottom line is that, reading MPERS’ leave conversion law in conjunction with the City’s civil service leave rules, retiring officers MUST get cashed out for the maximum amount possible under the civil service rules before any leave can be converted to MPERS retirement service credit. The leave that must be converted to MPERS retirement service credit is that which is left over, which turns out to be the portion of the sick leave that the City cannot legally pay the retiring officer for at the time of retirement. Annual leave doesn’t come into play, because a retiring City police officer can receive cash for all of that leave.

Of course, the City would like the portion of sick leave that it “magically washes away” to stay in City coffers rather than be converted to MPERS retirement service credit. However, no one forced the City to irrevocably adopt the ordinance mandating leave conversion. Presumably, it did so in hopes that officers would take less sick leave, because they could rest assured that they’d be fully compensated in the long run. In fact, that sounds like an excellent policy for a City that is losing over 50 police officers every year but hopes to stem the tide.

At any rate, shortly after MPERS attempted to enforce the law correctly, New Orleans sued MPERS and lost (see the update below).

As of August 8, 2023, only approximately 25 total retiring MPERS members employed by the City have received any retirement service credit for unused sick leave. The City likely shortchanged most (if not all) of those 25 retiring members on their cash payout in order to “compensate” for the unused sick leave that was converted to MPERS retirement service credit.

Given the City’s refusal to properly compensate retiring New Orleans police officers, MPERS strongly encourages all of these individuals to consult with their own private attorney before retiring. And if you are interested, you can review MPERS’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and associated documents.

Update: On December 12, 2023, Judge Johnson signed a judgment declaring that MPERS’ interpretation of Ordinance 22493 M.C.S. and La. R.S. 11:2218(J) is correct. Basically, if you retire from the City of New Orleans, then you must receive the maximum cash payout for terminal annual and sick leave. The terminal sick leave that New Orleans can’t pay you must be converted to MPERS retirement credit (up to the amount that would provide you a maximum benefit equal to one hundred percent of your average final compensation). The maximum amount of sick leave that can be converted to retirement service credit is 272 days, which converts to 1.1 years of service credit. The actual amount that you must convert depends on how many sick leave hours you have at retirement. New Orleans must pay MPERS for the entire cost of the conversion in order for credit to be granted.

MPERS expects the City to file a suspensive appeal, which will delay the application of Judge Johnson’s judgment. However, MPERS expects to prevail in the long run.

Also, the judgment was a partial summary judgment that did not address the prescriptive period (statute of limitations) issue. If MPERS prevails, the courts will have to decide how far the City must go back to rectify the situation.

What’s the New Orleans retention payments lawsuit against MPERS all about?

In short, it’s all about the City denying its police officers valuable retirement (and disability and survivor) benefits (noticing a trend here?).

As you likely know, the City has adopted a plan under which it makes certain recruitment and retention incentive payments to its police officers.

La. R.S. 11:2213(10) broadly defines earnable compensation for MPERS members as “the full amount of compensation earned by an employee for a given month, including supplemental pay paid by the state of Louisiana, but shall not include overtime.” Common sense and a plain reading of the law dictates that the recruitment and retention incentive payments are earnable compensation. Louisiana’s attorney general believes so, and has since 1977. This means that both the police officers and the City must pay contributions on the compensation. The payments will fund overall higher retirement, disability, and survivor benefits for the City’s police officers.

However, we assume the City didn’t do its homework and budget for the employer contributions associated with the incentive payments that would be required to be paid. Or maybe it just didn’t want to pay. But the City did pay at least some of the contributions, and then turned around and sued MPERS on May 17, 2023. MPERS answered, asserted affirmative defenses, and made counterclaims against the City. MPERS has no idea when this frivolous lawsuit will be resolved.

Obviously, if the City doesn’t report recruitment and retention payments to MPERS as earnable compensation and pay contributions thereon, it will result in lower benefits for the City’s police officers. Therefore, MPERS strongly encourages New Orleans police officers to monitor their payroll stubs like a hawk and to email our CFO, Taylor Camp, if employee contributions are not being withheld on recruitment and retention incentive payments.

What are the New Orleans Police Department partial dissolutions all about?

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.

If I retire from MPERS and go back to work for the NOPD in a non-officer capacity, will my retirement benefits be stopped?

On March 6, 2023, the Attorney General issued La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 21-0062 about employees required to be enrolled in MPERS. In addition to police officers, any employee (1) who is employed full-time in the police services of a municipality, (2) who is under the direction of a chief of police (including, but not limited to, the superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department), (3) who is paid from the budget of the applicable police department, and (4) whose duties call for services to be rendered by one person must be enrolled in MPERS. Individuals meeting these criteria are eligible for membership in MPERS without regard to whether their positions fall within the classified or unclassified service.

Any MPERS retiree who is re-hired by the NOPD as a full-time employee in a civilian capacity on or after the opinion date of March 6, 2023 (or who first began working at least an average of thirty hours per week on or after March 6, 2023) must have their MPERS retirement benefit stopped and be re-enrolled into MPERS.

If you don’t want this to happen, don’t work at least an average of thirty hours per week. Inform the City that you can only work a maximum of 29 hours per week and have them schedule you that way.

Full-time, for MPERS purposes, means an average of thirty hours per week. Apparently, the City’s definition is thirty-five hours, and City employees are providing incorrect information to retired officers who are rehired in a civilian capacity.

Category: Reemployment of Retired Employees and Tax Penalties Before Age 59½

Can MPERS retirees return to work with an MPERS employer and continue to receive their monthly retirement benefit?

No, unless an exception applies. MPERS retirees generally are prohibited from working for any MPERS employer in any capacity while continuing to receive a monthly pension. These limitations are the result of policy decisions made by the Louisiana Legislature and plan provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) in order to allow MPERS to maintain its tax-qualified plan status.

There are two exceptions to this general rule. Act 536 of the 2024 Regular Session provides that the following two groups of retirees will not have their retirement benefits suspended if they are first employed as a full-time employee no sooner than 90 days following their date of retirement and file with MPERS, within 30 days after the effective date of their employment, a written irrevocable election to not receive additional service credit or accrue any additional MPERS benefit:

MPERS retirees who retire as a police officer during the period beginning July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2026; and,

MPERS retirees who retired as a police officer on or before January 1, 2024 and who first subsequently become a full-time employee on or after June 10, 2024 and before July 1, 2028, if they retired with:

  • at least 25 years of service credit OR
  • between 20 and 25 years of service credit AND have attained the age of 55.

    For both exceptions, during such employment, the reemployed retiree and the employer must make contributions to MPERS. Upon termination of employment, employee contributions paid since reemployment shall, upon application, be refunded without interest, to the retiree. The retirement system shall retain the employer contributions and interest on the contributions.

    Retirees who either 1) return to work sooner than 90 days following the date of retirement or 2) fail to file the election in writing and with MPERS within 30 days after the effective date of the retiree’s employment will NEVER be able to qualify for these exceptions.

    Why does the Code impose limitations on rehiring retirees?

    Generally, the rules surrounding limitations on rehiring retirees are based on the notion that a qualified retirement plan under Code § 401(a) (such as MPERS) requires that the plan be established and maintained primarily to provide systematically for the payment of definitely determinable benefits over a period of years, usually for life, after retirement. In other words, qualified retirement plans are supposed to pay benefits upon actual retirement.

    There are certain exceptions to this general rule which allow retirement payments to begin after retirement, but these exceptions do not apply under MPERS’ plan terms. All MPERS retirees are required to have a bona fide separation from service in order to receive benefits. See Question 7 below for further information regarding bona fide separations.

    What happens to the monthly pension benefit if a retiree is reemployed?

    If a retiree becomes an “employee” (as defined in R.S. 11:2213(11)), monthly pension benefits will be suspended until the retiree again terminates employment and the employee and employer must make contributions to MPERS. The employee will earn additional service credit in MPERS. The retiree will be required to pay back any retirement benefits received while simultaneously earning MPERS credit.

    Also, if a retiree is employed on a full-time basis by a police department of any Louisiana municipality but is not an “employee” (as defined in R.S. 11:2213(11)), monthly pension benefits will be suspended until the retiree again terminates employment, and the employee and employer must make contributions to MPERS. The employee will earn additional service credit in MPERS. The retiree will be required to pay back any retirement benefits received while simultaneously earning MPERS credit.

    Last, if a retiree is employed by any MPERS employer but is not an “employee” (as defined in R.S. 11:2213(11)) within the 90-day period immediately following the effective date of retirement, monthly pension benefits will be suspended for the duration of such employment or the lapse of 90 days from the effective date of retirement, whichever occurs first, even if such service is part-time, based on employment by contract, or in a non-qualifying position.

    Please refer to the MPERS Member Handbook, Section 7.29 and the exceptions explained in Question 1 above.

    Who is an “employee” under R.S. 11:2213(11)?

    • A full-time police officer, empowered to make arrests, who earns at least $375 per month (excluding state supplemental pay) including:
      • A full-time police officer, decommissioned due to illness or injury, employed by a Louisiana municipality, and engaged in law enforcement; and
      • Any person who is employed on a full-time basis by a police department of any Louisiana municipality, who is under the direction of a chief of police, and who does not meet any other definition of employee;
    • Any elected chief of police whose salary is at least $1,000 per month;
    • Any academy recruit who is participating in, or who is awaiting participation in, a formal training program as required by Peace Officer Standards and Training Certification, previous to commission as a municipal police officer, with complete law enforcement officer authority;
    • Any full-time secretary to an appointed chief or elected chief of police;
    • Any full-time employee of MPERS;
    • Any legal investigator employed by the city of Baton Rouge and parish of East Baton Rouge in the parish attorney’s office who receives state supplemental pay and who transferred into MPERS on the date of February 26, 2000, as a result of the merger agreement; or
    • Any member who retires after June 30, 2021, and who is employed on a full-time basis by a police department of any municipality in Louisiana.

    What happens to the monthly pension benefit when a reemployed retiree again terminates employment?

    Upon termination of the subsequent employment, the retiree will again begin receiving the suspended monthly pension benefit. The retiree may not change the payment option or the beneficiary originally selected.

    The retiree will receive an additional benefit based on the additional service rendered since reemployment. This additional benefit will be added to the original benefit previously suspended. The original benefit will not be recalculated.

    The additional benefit will be calculated as follows:

    • For additional service of less than 36 or 60 months, as applicable, the additional benefit shall be based on the AFC used to compute the original benefit.
    • For additional service of 36 or 60 months, as applicable, or more, the additional benefit shall be based on the AFC during the period of re-employment.
    • The additional benefit plus the original benefit shall not exceed an amount which equals 100% of the AFC used to compute the additional benefit.

    Can a reemployed retiree participate in DROP?

    No.

    What is a bona fide separation from service?

    The Code (and its accompanying Treasury Regulations) requires MPERS, employers, and employees to ensure that reemployed retirees who have started their benefit actually terminated employment and the termination was not part of a pre-arranged plan to return the retiree to employment with their employer.

    The IRS, in various contexts, has discussed what constitutes a bona fide separation from service:

    • There can be no explicit or implicit agreement between the employer and the employee that upon retirement the employee will return to service with the employer.
    • No separation from service occurs if both the employer and the employee know at the time of “retirement” that the employee will, with reasonable certainty, continue to perform services for the employer.
    • This is generally a facts and circumstances analysis and there is no particular time period of separation that will definitively establish a bona fide separation from service. However, the longer the period of separation, the less it appears that there was a prearranged agreement between the employer and the employee that the employee would return to employment.
    • Note that guidance and cases have found that true separation from service did occur even when only five months passed after the termination of employment when the facts and circumstances clearly showed that there was no intention at the time of termination for the employee to ever return to work for the employer.

    Which reemployed retirees are subject to an IRS 10% early distribution penalty?

    If a retired member who is younger than age 59½ returns to work for the same employer or plan sponsor without a bona fide separation from service, the retiree is in violation of certain early distribution rules. Those retirees are subject to a 10% early distribution tax penalty, in addition to normal income tax liability, on any retirement benefits received until the member turns age 59½ so long as they continue to work for the employer without a bona fide separation from service. MPERS must report this on the annual Form 1099-R by the selection of the appropriate distribution code. Even though a qualified public safety member reaches normal retirement age under the Code to begin a retirement benefit at age 50 or 25 years of service under the plan, if the member does not have a bona fide separation of service, the member is subject to the 10% early distribution tax penalty.

    How much of the monthly pension benefit is subject to the 10% penalty if a retiree returns to work without a bona fide separation from service?

    If the retiree is younger than age 59½, all of the taxable pension payments the retiree receives prior to turning age 59½ or prior to having a bona fide separation from service (whichever is earlier) would be subject to the penalty.

    How is the penalty paid?

    MPERS will not withhold any additional income tax amounts related to this penalty from any benefit payments. The 10% penalty owed on early distributions of benefits must be paid as part of the retiree’s income tax return. Retirees should consult with their accountant or tax advisor on this issue.

    Is a DROP distribution subject to the 10% penalty if a retiree returns to work without a bona fide separation from service?

    Yes, to the extent DROP is paid directly to the retiree. No, if the DROP balance is rolled into another qualified plan or tax deferred IRA. If the retiree returns to work before age 59½ without a bona fide separation from service, the DROP distribution would be subject to the 10% penalty if the retiree takes a lump sum distribution of the DROP benefit (whether in whole or in part) when the retiree exits the DROP. If the retiree elects to take the DROP distribution in the form of monthly payments, each monthly payment would be subject to the penalty until the retiree turns age 59½ or has a bona fide separation from service (whichever is earlier).

    Can the retiree avoid the penalty by returning to service as an independent contractor, leased employee, or other temporary employee?

    No. If the retiree returns to work, for the same employer, as an independent contractor, leased employee, or other temporary employee without a bona fide separation from service, then there is not a termination of the employment relationship. As a result, the retiree still would be subject to the 10% penalty.

    What if an MPERS employer violates the MPERS plan document by employing a retiree on terms other than those provided by the MPERS plan?

    If an employer employs a retiree in violation of the MPERS plan document, then the employer puts MPERS’ plan qualification at risk, and MPERS could lose its tax-qualified status. In addition, the 10% penalty described above would apply if the retiree has not had a bona fide separation from service and is younger than age 59½.

    • The IRS has stated that whether a bona fide separation from service has occurred is based on a facts and circumstances analysis of the employee’s retirement and the reemployment.

    Category: Retirees

    How do I change my direct deposit?

    Complete a direct deposit form and return with a voided check.

    How do I receive another 1099R?

    Contact the MPERS office.

    What is the WEP and the GPO?

    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

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

    When do I receive my retirement benefit?

    Benefits are payable on the first business day of each month. MPERS prepays for the month. If the first falls on a weekend or holiday, benefits are paid on the first business day.

    Why did my monthly benefit amount change?

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

    What types of post-retirement employment will cause my MPERS retirement benefits to be suspended?

    Please refer to the Title 7, Chapter 29 of the Member Handbook.