LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
 
ACTUARIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
 
79TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
 
May 13, 2005

TO:
Honorable Robert Duncan, Chair, Senate Committee on State Affairs
 
FROM:
John S. O'Brien, Deputy Director, Legislative Budget Board
 
IN RE:
HB831 by Gonzales (Relating to the eligibility of certain appellate judges to retire with full benefits.), As Engrossed

HB 831 as engrossed would change one of the four eligibility requirements for service retirement of Judicial Retirement System Plan II (JRS II) members. Currently, the eligibility requirements for normal service retirement of JRS II members are the earliest of:

           

            (I) at least age 65 with at least 10 years of service (YCS) if currently holding judicial office, or

            (II) at least age 65 with at least 12 YCS, regardless of currently holding judicial office, or

            (III) at least age 55 with at least 20 YCS, regardless of currently holding judicial office, or

            (IV) the sum of age and years of service credit equals at least 70 and served at least two full

                  terms on an appellate court, regardless of currently holding judicial office.

 

The bill would change the final eligibility requirement to the sum of age and service credit equals at least 70 and served at least 12 years on an appellate court, regardless of currently holding judicial office. The length of one full term is equal to six years, and therefore, two full terms would equal twelve years. Certain JRS II members who begin service in the middle of a term would be able to retire somewhat earlier under this provision, though there would no impact unless they actually retired under this provision and it was was prior to their serving two full terms. According to the JRS II actuary, the bill is expected to affect relatively few JRS II members and to allow earlier retirement eligibility by relatively few years for those affected.  

 

The bill, if enacted, is not  estimated by the JRS II actuary to have a material actuarial impact. The analysis assumes no further changes are made to JRS II and cautions that the combined economic impact of several proposals can exceed the effect of each proposal considered individually.

 

 

SOURCES:

 

Actuarial Analyses by Steven R. Rusher, Actuary, Towers Perrin, February 28, 2005

Actuarial Review by Mr. Richard E. White, Actuary, Milliman USA, Inc.,  March 28, 2005



Source Agencies:
338 Pension Review Board
LBB Staff:
JOB, WM