Legislative Update

January 29, 2026

House Bill 31, authored by Rep. Michael C. Echols (R-Monroe), the House Republican Majority Leader, has been filed for the 2026 legislative session.

If the bill passes, it would apply to at least two-thirds of MPERS employers. Officers hired after a town or village opts out would receive no MPERS coverage. HB 31 does not require municipalities to provide replacement defined-benefit, disability, or survivor benefits.

The Board directed its actuary to study the bill's full actuarial and financial impact and has taken no position pending the study. State law also requires an actuarial note from the Legislative Actuary analyzing the same.

This newsletter addresses HB 31 as originally filed and does not reflect any amendments that may be adopted during the legislative process.

Municipal Police Would Be an Outlier

Under the proposal, towns and villages could exit the statewide police retirement system for future hires.



State police, sheriffs' deputies, firefighters, teachers, state employees, and municipal employees (mayors, clerks) would continue participating in their statewide defined benefit retirement systems with lifetime benefits. Municipal police would be the only major public safety group in Louisiana that could be hired without defined benefit coverage.

Effect on Surviving Spouses and Children

If a future officer is killed in the line of duty after his municipality opts out, his family would receive no MPERS survivor benefits—no monthly lifetime income or guaranteed survivor support, apart from any limited survivor benefits that may be available under Social Security or any one-time line-of-duty death benefits under federal or state law.

This has happened before: officers have been killed in the line of duty after their municipalities failed to enroll them in MPERS. Their surviving spouses and children received no lifetime income.

Under current law, these failures to enroll were illegal. Under HB 31, towns and villages could legally do this to future officers and their families.



Historical Context: The Louisiana Constitution requires the legislature to establish a system for compensating surviving spouses and dependent children of officers killed in the line of duty. MPERS is the legislature's chosen primary mechanism for municipal police. MPERS was created in 1973 and provides lifetime survivor benefits—up to 100% of the officer's final average compensation for the spouse's lifetime, under the statutory survivor-benefit structure.

What the Bill Does

HB 31 would let municipalities with 5,000 or fewer residents opt out by permanent resolution. Of approximately 187 municipalities, about 129 could opt out. The other approximately 58 must remain—including Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Shreveport, Lafayette, Bossier City, Monroe, and West Monroe.

Monroe and West Monroe, which include portions of Representative Echols’s District 14, exceed the population threshold and therefore could not withdraw. These cities and all others must remain in MPERS and, it appears, would pay higher rates as smaller municipalities opt out and shift their unfunded liability to remaining employers.

MPERS was created in 1973 primarily to provide retirement security for police in Louisiana's towns and villages. The 129 municipalities that could opt out are the smaller municipalities the system was designed to serve. These municipalities could, over time, fully abandon the system created for them and their own police officers, thereby shifting the financial consequences to cities and the towns and villages' own future officers and officers' families.

The bill would let towns and villages eliminate retirement coverage for their future police officers while maintaining retirement coverage for other municipal employees (mayors, clerks, staff, firefighters), who participate in separate retirement systems.

For municipalities not in Social Security for police, opting out of MPERS could require addressing federal Social Security or replacement-plan compliance for future hires. 

Social Security does not provide lifetime, recurring benefits comparable to MPERS:


• Social Security replaces about 40% of income. MPERS provides 100% of average final compensation after 30 years.
• Social Security provides survivor benefits in some cases, but they are generally limited and often depend on age and eligibility rules. MPERS provides up to 100% of an officer’s average final compensation to the spouse for life.
• Social Security requires total disability. MPERS pays if an officer cannot perform police work.
• Young officers killed or disabled in the line of duty may not have accumulated enough Social Security credits to qualify for benefits.

Who Asked for This?



The Board does not know which municipalities requested this legislation or expressed to Rep. Echols their desire to eliminate lifetime MPERS survivor, retirement, and disability benefits for their own future police officers. Rather than identifying those municipalities in the legislation or limiting the proposal to them, the bill would extend that authority to every town and village statewide.

Financial Impact: How HB 31 Would Shift Costs and Risk

If enacted, HB 31 would create incentives that favor current budgets over the long-term protection of future municipal police officers and would place upward cost pressure on those municipalities that remain in the system.

MPERS carries municipalities’ unfunded liabilities from prior years, when employer contribution rates were calculated using assumptions that proved too optimistic. Employers currently contribute 33.475% of payroll. Only about 9–10% of it pays for benefits being earned today. The remainder pays down municipalities' (including towns and villages) old pension debt through level annual payments, similar to a fixed mortgage.

If key assumptions are met—including continued participation—the scheduled payoff of that debt will cause the employer contribution rate to decline sharply in about eight years. In fact, subject to final approval, the employer contribution rate will decrease from 33.475% for fiscal year 2026 to 29.35% for fiscal year 2027—a reduction of over 4 percentage points. This marks the second decrease of at least 4 percentage points in six years.

In 2014, municipalities' unfunded liabilities were bundled into a 20-year amortization schedule. Municipalities will fully pay off this debt on June 30, 2034—more than halfway through the scheduled payoff. This 2014 debt represents approximately 75% of the system's total unfunded liability. Most of the current employer contribution rate pays down this debt, so its payoff in about eight years should trigger a very substantial rate reduction for all employers. If towns and villages opt out under HB 31, the resulting payroll loss and UAL reallocation would increase rates for remaining employers during the years leading up to that relief.

The employer contribution rate is not extra money that could be reused. Part pays for benefits being earned in the present; most is already committed to municipalities' past unfunded obligations. HB 31 would allow towns and villages to stop enrolling new officers before their share of that old debt is fully paid, while leaving the remaining employers responsible for completing the payments.

HB 31 would not require opting-out towns and villages to replace MPERS retirement, disability, or survivor benefits for future hires. As a result, future officers hired by those towns and villages—and their families if tragedy occurs—would bear the full cost of replacing those protections, without employer-provided lifetime protection.

Replacing MPERS-level protection on an individual basis—without pooling and without employer contributions—would typically require over 45% of a police officer's pay, if such coverage were even available. For most officers, that would not be realistic. The practical result would likely be less protection, not cheaper protection.

As towns and villages opt out, MPERS payrolls would shrink—but their approximately $53 million share of unfunded liability, as currently allocated, would not disappear. It would be reallocated to the employers that remain. Cities and other municipalities that stay in MPERS could be left paying both their own legacy costs and the costs shifted from those that leave. The bill does not specify whether towns and villages that opt out would be required to pay their share of unfunded accrued liability under existing law. By default, it would shift to the remaining municipalities. No council or board vote by the remaining municipalities would be required; the shift would occur automatically under the law.

Internal illustrative estimates (very rough estimates, not actuarial projections) show the potential impact on major cities if all 129 towns and villages opt out:

• New Orleans: Currently $146M; could absorb about another $12M
• Baton Rouge: Currently $88M; could absorb about another $7M
• Shreveport: Currently $60M; could absorb about another $5M
• Lafayette: Currently $38M; could absorb about another $3M
• Bossier City: Currently $20M; could absorb about another $2M
• Monroe: Currently $16M; could absorb about another $1.3M
• West Monroe: Currently $6.8M; could absorb about another $537K

HB 31 would not eliminate pension costs.

It would change who pays them, by operation of law.

COLA Funding Drops Immediately



Currently, COLAs for retirees are funded by contributions on active payroll statewide. When towns stop enrolling officers, payroll shrinks. Lower payroll means fewer dollars for COLAs. When fewer dollars are available, future COLA payments would be reduced for everyone.

Contribution Rates Would Rise for Remaining Employers

When towns opt out, their share of unfunded liability gets reallocated to employers that remain in MPERS. This would increase contribution rates for cities that cannot opt out.

At the same time, system-wide payroll would shrink. Lower payroll means less money contributed and less money for investment. Less investment means lower earnings to help fund benefits. The system would also lose new members in those towns—younger members whose contributions and longer service help sustain the system.

The actuarial study will quantify how much rates would increase, how much payroll would decline, the impact of losing new members, and how these changes would affect long-term sustainability.



MPERS is not a state system. Benefits are funded by employer and employee contributions, investment earnings, and insurance premium tax revenue—but if employer contributions fall short, the system cannot make up the difference through other sources alone.

What Happens Next

The Board directed the actuary to study the bill's actuarial and financial impact, including the true cost of reducing future MPERS membership. The Board has taken no position pending completion.



MPERS staff will share findings with Rep. Echols and other legislators. The Board will provide another update when results are available.

Questions?

MPERS' Board of Trustees has a fiduciary duty to help members understand the potential impact of proposed legislation.

Contact MPERS: (225) 929-7411 or via Contact Us on lampers.org

Contact Rep. Echols: (318) 598-4010 (Monroe office) echolsm@legis.la.gov

Find your representative and senator.