SCSHB 831 changes one of the four eligibility requirements for service retirement of JRS I and JRS II members. Currently, the eligibility requirements for normal service retirement of JRS I and 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. The only JRS II members affected by the proposal are those who have served twelve years, but not 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.  

This bill would also allow JRS I members to retire when they have served at least 12 years on an appellate court and have reached the Rule of 70, if that is earlier than the current service retirement eligibility requirements. The JRS actuary understands that there are a small number of JRS I members who would benefit from this improvement. Therefore, this bill is expected to slightly increase JRS I benefit payments.

The JRS actuary certifies that this change would allow the JRS II to remain actuarially sound through the next biennium based on current State contribution rate of 16.83%.  The improvements in this bill are expected to increase future JRS I benefit payments by a small amount. Because the JRS I is not advanced funded, no offer of an actuarial opinion on the effect of this proposed legislation on the actuarial soundness of this Plan. 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, May 18, 2005