LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
 
ACTUARIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
 
85TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
 
March 26, 2017

TO:
Honorable Joan Huffman, Chair, Senate Committee on State Affairs
 
FROM:
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
 
IN RE:
SB2190 by Huffman (Relating to the public retirement systems of certain municipalities.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted



The following new information was supplied by Agency 338 338 - Pension Review Board:

CSSB 2190 would make significant changes to Articles 6243e.2(1) (affecting the Houston Firefighters' Relief & Retirement Fund (HFRRF)), 6243g-4 (affecting the Houston Police Officer's Retirement System (HPOPS)), and 6243h (affecting the Houston Municipal Employees Retirement System (HMEPS)), Revised Civil Statues, to immediately reduce benefits,increase employee contributions, outline funding policies, codify certain actuarial assumptions and methods for purposes of valuing benefits, and detail an approach to making modifications to the assumptions, methods and benefits under certain economic scenarios with the intent of minimizing the volatility of future contribution requirements for the affected retirement systems. Currently,the City of Houston's (the "City") contribution structure for HFRRF is outlined in its governing statute, and for HMEPS and HPOPS the contributions are established through the most recent meet and confer agreements with the City.

 

The proposed changes of the bill, if enacted, would help strengthen the long-term sustainability and improve the actuarial soundness of the affected retirement systems by lowering the current and future liabilities.

 

Background on Actuarial Analyses

It is our understanding that the actuarial analyses relating to CSSB 2190 provided for HPOPS and HMEPS have been completed based on the language developed during negotiations between the City and the respective system. The actuarial analysis provided by HFRRF relies on assumptions,methods, and plan provisions outlined in the July 1, 2016 valuation report which has not been provided to the PRB. In accordance with Texas Government Code Section 802.302(h), the PRB is also including the actuarial analysis prepared by Retirement Horizons Incorporated (RHI) at the direction of the City. In some cases, the plan provisions used in the analyses differ from the language included in CSSB 2190. The PRB has noted in the Synopsis of Provisions section these differences and have provided commentary in the Findings and Conclusions section regarding the potential impact of these differences.


Baseline and If Bill Enacted Scenarios

The following tables provide the key financial impact on HFRRF, HPOPS and HMEPS as provided in the actuarial analyses. The Baseline scenario utilizes assumptions, methods, and plan provisions described in the latest valuation reports from the systems (July 1, 2015 valuation reports for HFRRF (prepared by RHI for the City) and HMEPS and July 1, 2016 valuation report for HPOPS), with modifications, including a lowered 7.0% discount rate; the change from an open to a closed 30-year amortization period; and marking the assets to market.

 

Also, the Baseline scenario for HFRRF (prepared by Conduent) utilizes the assumptions, methods,and plan provisions described in the July 1, 2016 Valuation Report with smoothed value of assets as of July 1, 2016. The PRB has not been provided with a copy of this report, but has been informed that this valuation uses a 7.00%assumed rate of return and calculates the City contribution based on a 30-year closed amortization period beginning July 1, 2015 (i.e. a 29-year amortization period as of July 1, 2016).

 

 

The If Bill Enacted scenario shows the effect of the additional changes to assumptions, methods, increased employee contributions, and the decreased benefit provisions as contained in the bill.

 

The following tables outline the previously mentioned scenarios.

 

Houston Firefighters' Relief & Retirement Fund (Prepared by RHI at the Request of the City)

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Change

Discount Rate

7.00%

7.00%

 

Amortization Method

Individual EAN

Ultimate EAN

 

 

 

Actuarial Accrued Liabilities (AAL)

$5,223,159

$4,249,641

($973,518)

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA)

($3,729,670)

($3,729,670)

$0

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (millions)

$1,493,489

$519,971

($973,518)

 

 

Funded Ratio

71.41%

87.76%

16.35%

 

 

Employer Normal Cost

34.69%

13.14%

(21.55%)

Administrative Expense

2.00%*

2.00%

0.00%

Amortization Payment

34.28%

10.68%

(23.60%)

Total Employer Contribution for FYE 2018**

70.97%

25.82%

(45.15%)

Total Employer Contributions for FYE 2018 (as a percentage of gross pay)***

64.59%

23.50%

(41.09%)

*The provision for administrative expenses expressed here exceeds the maximum allowable under the bill, which is 1.25%.

**The definition of payroll would be changed under the bill to exclude overtime. The City contribution has been calculated as a percentage of pensionable pay, excluding overtime for both the Baseline and If Bill Enacted scenarios.

***For comparison purposes, the total employer contribution has also been calculated as a percentage of gross pay (including overtime).

 

 

Houston Firefighters' Relief & Retirement Fund (Prepared by Conduent at the Request of HFRRF)

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Change

Discount Rate

7.00%

7.00%

 

Amortization Method

Individual EAN

Ultimate EAN

 

 

 

Actuarial Accrued Liabilities (AAL)

$5,189,396

$4,485,026

($704,370)

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA)*

($4,089,047)

($3,729,670)

$359,377

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (millions)

$1,100,349

$755,356

($344,993)

 

 

Funded Ratio

78.80%

83.16%

4.36%

 

 

Employer Normal Cost

29.90%

13.85%

(16.05%)

Administrative Expense

N/A**

1.25%

1.25%

Amortization Payment***

22.30%

16.50%

(5.80%)

Total Employer Contribution for FYE 2018

52.20%

31.60%

(20.60%)

Total Employer Contributions for FYE 2018 (as a percentage of gross pay)

52.20%

28.80%****

(23.40%)

*Smoothed value of assets for the Baseline scenario and market value of assets for the If Bill Enacted scenario.

**The actuarial analysis does not indicate if there is an explicit assumption for administrative expenses under the Baseline scenario.

***The amortization payment for the Baseline scenario has been calculated using a 29-year amortization period as of July 1, 2016.

****The total employer contribution has been calculated as a percentage of gross pay(including overtime).

 

 

Houston Police Officer's Retirement System

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Change

Discount Rate

7.0%

7.0%

 

Amortization Method

Individual EAN

Ultimate EAN

 

 

 

Actuarial Accrued Liabilities (AAL)

$6,894,274

$6,081,391

($812,883)

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA)

($4,758,079)

($4,758,079)

$0

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (millions)

$2,136,195

$1,323,312

($812,883)

 

 

Funded Ratio

69.01%

78.24%

9.23%

 

 

Employer Normal Cost

29.82%

12.86%

(16.96%)

Administrative Expense

1.00%

1.00%

0.00%

Amortization Payment

22.14%

17.91%

(4.23%)

Total Employer Contribution for FYE 2018

52.96%

31.77%

(21.19%)

Both scenarios include the discounted value of expected POB proceeds ($750 million).



Houston Municipal Employees Pension System             

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Change

Discount Rate

7.00%

7.00%

 

Amortization Method

Individual EAN

Ultimate EAN

 

 

 

 

 

Actuarial Accrued Liabilities (AAL)

$5,509,951

$4,734,999

($774,952)

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA)

($2,400,023)

($2,625,896)

$225,873

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (millions)

$3,109,928

$2,109103

($1,000,825)

 

 

 

 

Funded Ratio

43.56%

55.46%

11.90%

 

 

 

 

Normal Cost (% of payroll)

8.39%

6.98%

(1.41%)

Administrative Expenses

1.19%

1.19%

0.00%

Amortization Payment

29.64%

19.67%

(9.97%)

Total Employer Contribution for FYE 2018

39.22%

27.84%

11.38%

If Bill Enactedscenario includes the discounted value of expected POB proceeds ($250 million).

 


ACTUARIAL EFFECTS

PRB's actuarial review states that the affected retirement systems are currently identified as being actuarially sound under the PRB Guidelines for Actuarial Soundness. However, the City has stated that its pension liabilities for the three retirement systems have risen to $8.1 billion and it is facing the prospect of increasing costs that have the potential to outpace its ability to pay. The proposed changes help strengthen the long-term sustainability and improve the actuarial soundness of the affected retirement systems.

Also, the PRB actuarial review states that the differences in the bill provisions versus the provisions valued in the actuarial analyses would have no material impact on the conclusions regarding actuarial soundness. Further, while the bill requires voter approval for the issuance of POBs, the HPOPS and HMEPS actuarial analyses do not address the impact on future costs if the proceeds of the POBs are not received. However,if the POBs are not issued, the bill provides that the amortization schedule established for the initial liability layer should be adjusted beginning with the annual required contribution for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019.Since the bill requires an automatic adjustment of the required contributions for HPOPS and HMEPS should the systems not receive the planned POB proceeds;the bill would still serve to improve the actuarial soundness of these two systems.


Corridor Midpoint

The bill establishes a unique funding policy that establishes a "target" contribution rate for the City, develops a minimum and maximum corridor around the City's target contribution rate, and defines steps that must be taken should the annual calculated contribution move outside this corridor. The following tables outline the projected corridor midpoint for the three systems.


Forecast of Corridor Midpoint for HFRRF
(This projection was included in the actuarial analysis provided by RHI.)

FY

City Normal Cost Rate

Admin Expenses

Amort. Of UAAL

City Cont. Rate

2017

36.48%

2018

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2019

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2020

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2021

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2022

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2023

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2024

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2025

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2026

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2027

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2028

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2029

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2030

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2031

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2032

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2033

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2034

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2035

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2036

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2037

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2038

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2039

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2040

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2041

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2042

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2043

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2044

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2045

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2046

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2047

13.14%

2.00%

10.68%

25.82%

2048

13.14%

2.00%

0.00%

15.14%

 

Corridor Projection Results for HPOPS

Valuation as of July 1,

Employer Normal Cost

Employer Cont Rate for FY Following Val Date

Employer Cont. Rate

Comp (in Millions)

Employer Cont (in Millions)

2016

13.86%

31.77%

31.35%

424.3

133

2017

13.89%

31.85%

31.77%

436

138.5

2018

13.86%

31.82%

31.85%

448

142.7

2019

13.88%

31.84%

31.82%

460.3

146.5

2020

13.95%

31.92%

31.84%

472.9

150.6

2021

14.00%

31.98%

31.92%

485.9

155.1

2022

14.04%

32.03%

31.98%

499.3

159.7

2023

14.07%

32.07%

32.03%

513

164.3

2024

14.09%

32.10%

32.07%

527.1

169.1

2025

14.10%

32.12%

32.10%

541.6

173.9

2026

14.11%

32.13%

32.12%

556.5

178.8

2027

14.11%

32.13%

32.13%

571.8

183.7

2028

14.11%

32.13%

32.13%

587.5

188.8

2029

14.12%

32.14%

32.13%

603.7

194

2030

14.12%

32.14%

32.14%

620.3

199.4

2031

14.12%

32.14%

32.14%

637.4

204.8

2032

14.13%

32.15%

32.14%

654.9

210.5

2033

14.13%

32.14%

32.15%

672.9

216.3

2034

14.13%

32.14%

32.14%

691.4

222.2

2035

14.14%

32.14%

32.14%

710.4

228.3

2036

14.14%

32.14%

32.14%

730

234.6

2037

14.14%

32.13%

32.14%

750.1

241.1

2038

14.15%

32.14%

32.13%

770.7

247.6

2039

14.15%

32.13%

32.14%

791.9

254.5

2040

14.15%

32.13%

32.13%

813.6

261.5

2041

14.16%

32.13%

32.13%

836

268.6

2042

14.16%

32.13%

32.13%

859

276

2043

14.16%

32.13%

32.13%

882.6

283.6

2044

14.17%

32.13%

32.13%

906.9

291.4

2045

14.17%

32.13%

32.13%

931.9

299.4

2046

14.17%

14.17%

32.13%

957.5

307.7

2047

14.18%

14.18%

14.17%

983.8

139.4

 

 

Corridor Projection Results for HMEPS

Valuation as of July 1,

Normal Cost/Employer Contribution Rate for Fiscal year Following Valuation Date

Employer Contribution Rate for Fiscal Year

Comp (in Millions)

Legacy Liability Contributions (in Millions)

Employer Contributions (in Millions)

2016

8.17%

29.36%

613.8

180.2

2017

8.21%

8.17%

630.7

124

175.5

2018

8.25%

8.21%

648

127.4

180.6

2019

8.29%

8.25%

665.8

130.9

185.8

2020

8.34%

8.29%

684.1

134.5

191.3

2021

8.37%

8.34%

702.9

138.2

196.9

2022

8.41%

8.37%

722.3

142

202.4

2023

8.44%

8.41%

742.1

145.9

208.4

2024

8.47%

8.44%

762.5

149.9

214.2

2025

8.50%

8.47%

783.5

154.1

220.4

2026

8.52%

8.50%

805.1

158.3

226.8

2027

8.54%

8.52%

827.2

162.7

233.1

2028

8.56%

8.54%

849.9

167.1

239.6

2029

8.58%

8.56%

873.3

171.7

246.4

2030

8.60%

8.58%

897.3

176.4

253.3

2031

8.62%

8.60%

922

181.3

260.5

2032

8.63%

8.62%

947.4

186.3

267.9

2033

8.64%

8.63%

973.4

191.4

275.4

2034

8.64%

8.64%

1,000.20

196.7

283.1

2035

8.65%

8.64%

1,027.70

202.1

290.8

2036

8.65%

8.65%

1,056.00

207.6

299

2037

8.66%

8.65%

1,085.00

213.3

307.1

2038

8.66%

8.66%

1,114.80

219.2

315.8

2039

8.67%

8.66%

1,145.50

225.2

324.5

2040

8.67%

8.67%

1,177.00

231.4

333.5

2041

8.68%

8.67%

1,209.40

237.8

342.6

2042

8.68%

8.68%

1,242.60

244.3

352.1

2043

8.69%

8.68%

1,276.80

251.1

361.9

2044

8.69%

8.69%

1,311.90

258

372

2045

8.70%

8.69%

1,348.00

265.1

382.2

2046

8.70%

8.70%

1,385.00

272.3

392.9

2047

8.71%

8.70%

1,423.10

-

123.9

 

 

Actuarial Assumptions and Methods

The PRB actuaries have also noted in their review that the non-prescribed assumptions and methods used in the other three actuarial analyses are reasonable. The bill mandates the use of the Ultimate Entry Age Normal (UEAN) cost method and a 7.00% assumed rate of investment return, rather than what the systems used in the most recently published actuarial valuations.

The PRB actuarial review noted that the HFRRF analysis prepared by Conduent relies on assumptions,methods, and plan provisions outlined in the July 1, 2016 actuarial valuation report and the changes proposed in the bill. The PRB has not received a copy of this report. Since the PRB actuaries have not had the opportunity to review the majority of the assumptions, methods, or plan provisions underlying the actuarial analysis, they are unable to speak to its reasonableness.

The Entry Age Normal (EAN) level percent of payroll cost method is a mathematical construct designed to spread the costs of a participant's total benefit as a level amount over their entire career. This is done by calculating an annual amount that will remain relatively constant when expressed as a percentage of pay, and be sufficient to fully fund the anticipated benefits when the participant separates service. This results in a relatively stable normal cost contribution requirement from year to year.

 

The PRB actuarial review further states that the UEAN cost method is a variation of the Entry Age Normal (EAN) cost method. The UEAN cost method calculates the total anticipated benefits, or Present Value of Future Benefits (PVFB), based on a member's actual benefit provisions, but calculates the future accruals or Present Value of Future Normal Costs (PVFFNC)using the benefit provisions for new hires. The Actuarial Accrued Liability(AAL) is the difference between the PVFB and PVFNC. The purpose of this approach is to produce a stable normal cost calculation over the anticipated careers of the entire population, not just over the individual participant's career. When comparing results between these two variations, the UEAN cost method will result in a higher AAL than EAN. However, this is offset by lower expected future normal costs. Both cost methods converge to the same values at the time the participant is expected to separate service.

 

The following tables show the changes to assumptions and methods for each system.

 

 

Summary of Changes in Assumptions for HFRRF

(Prepared by RHI at the Request of the City)

 

 

July 1, 2015 Val

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Cost Method

Individual EAN

Ultimate EAN

Ultimate EAN

Discount Rate

8.50%

7.00%

7.00%

Inflation

3.00%

2.75%

2.75%

Payroll Growth

3.00%

2.75%

2.75%

Individual Pay Increase Rate

Nominal rate = Real rate inflation. No changes were made to the real rate so all nominal rates decreased in accordance with the change in inflation.

Cost of Living Adjustment

3.00%

3.00%

2.00%

DROP Interest Crediting Rate

8.50%

7.00%

4.75%

DROP Duration

         5% 3 years

         30% 8 years

         65% 10 years

9 years

9 years

Payment of DROP balances

Unknown

Installments over 15 years for active members and 10 years for inactive members.

A factor of 0.8654 was applied to active DROP balances and a factor of 0.9105 was applied to inactive DROP balances to account for the 4.75% DROP interest crediting rate.

Development of Valuation Pay

Valuation pay is projected by increasing the prior year's pay with the nominal individual pay increase rate.

Historical valuation pay was regressed with the nominal individual pay increase rate.

Based on input from the City of Houston and the HFRRF actuary, the valuation pay was reduced 9% for future years to account for the removal of overtime.

Load of Nature of Average Monthly Salaries

5% load applied to active liabilities and normal cost for differences between the definition of avg monthly salary (average of the highest 78 pay periods), and the average of the final 78 pay periods.

5% load was removed for members with under 20 years of service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Changes in Assumptions for HPOPS

 

 

July 1, 2016 Val

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Cost Method

PUC

Individual EAN

Ultimate EAN

Discount Rate

8.00%

7.00%

7.00%

Payroll Growth

3.00%

2.75%

2.75%

Ultimate Salary Increase Rate

2.00%

2.75%

2.75%

Cost of Living Adjustment

2.70%

2.70%

2.00%

DROP Interest Crediting Rate

6.40%

6.40%

5.10%

Retirement Rates

 

See age/service table in valuation

For members hired after October 9, 2004, 3% per year the member's first retirement eligibility exceeds 45 is added to the retirement rate at first eligibility up to a maximum increase of 30% at age 55. For members in DROP as of July 1, 2016, retirement rates are multiplied by 110% to reflect that future employee contributions are no longer credited to the DROP balance.

 

Summary of Changes in Assumptions for HMEPS

July 1, 2015 Val

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Discount Rate

8.00%

7.00%

7.00%

Inflation

2.50%

2.25%

2.25%

Payroll Growth

3.00%

2.75%

2.75%

Ultimate Salary Increase Rate

3.25%

3.00%

3.00%

Cost of Living Adjustment

Pre-2005 hires: 3.00%

Pre-2005 hires: 3.00%

1.00%

Post-2004 hires: 2.00%

Post-2004 hires: 2.00%

DROP Interest Crediting Rate

4.65%

4.65%

4.00%

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS OF PROVISIONS

CSSB 2190 would amend and add sections to Title 109, Revised Civil Statutes Articles 6243e.2(1), 6243g-4, and 6243h to reduce benefits (summarized in tables below), increase employee contributions (summarized in tables below), outline funding policies, codify certain actuarial assumptions and methods for purposes of valuing benefits, and detail an approach to making modifications to the assumptions, methods and benefits under certain economic scenarios with the intent of minimizing the volatility of future contributions requirements for the affected retirement systems. The bill would also require the city to make contributions as outlined by the risk sharing sections.

 

Risk Sharing Corridor

The bill would set baseline assumptions in statute to implement the risk sharing corridor. The corridor sets a minimum and maximum city contribution rate. In a falling-cost environment, gains are used to accelerate the payoff of unfunded liabilities or reduce the interest rate. In arising-cost environment, adjustments are made to the amortization period,employee contributions, or benefits to reduce the city contribution rate.

 

Additional Reporting Requirements

The bill would add reporting requirements for the three systems, including the requirement to conduct actuarial experience studies at least once every four years with the first experience study for HPOPS and HMEPS published no later than September 30, 2022. The systems must also contract with an investment consultant to perform an audit on investments at least once every three years.

 

City Approval of POBs

The bill would amend Chapter 107, Local Government Code to require voter approval for POBs issued to fund the Houston pension systems.

 

Effective Date

Except as otherwise provided by the Act, the Act takes effect July 1, 2017 if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, or September 1, 2017.

 

It is our understanding the actuarial analyses provided for HPOPS and HMEPS have been completed based on the language developed during negotiations between the City and the respective system. The actuarial analysis provided by HFRRF relies on assumptions, methods, and plan provisions outlined in the July 1, 2016 actuarial valuation and the proposed legislation.In accordance with Texas Government Code Section 802.302(h), the actuarial analysis prepared by RHI is also included at the direction of the City. In some cases, the plan provisions uses in the analyses differ from the language included in the bill. We have noted the differences in the following tables, which outline the primary changes to benefit provisions.


Summary of Plan Benefit Changes for HFRRF

 

Employee Contributions

     Current

9.00%

     Proposed

10.50%

 

Final Average Salary

     Current

Highest 78 pay periods of salary

     Proposed

Final 78 pay periods of salary, excluding overtime

 

 

Retirement Benefit

   Eligibility

     Current

20 Years of Service

     Proposed

Hired before effective date: 20 Years of Service or age 50 and 10 Years of Service (RHI analysis does not include 55/10 as a retirement eligibility age)
Hired on or after effective date; Rule of 70

 

 

   Amount

     Current

Final Average Salary x [Years of Service (20 max) x 2.5% Years of Service (>20) x 3.0%; 80% max]

     Proposed

Hired before effective date:

Final Average Salary x [Years of Service prior to effective date (20 max) x 2.5%  Years of Service prior to effective date (>20) x 3.0% Years of Service after effective date (20 max) x 2.75% per year Years of Service after effective date (>20) x 2.0%; 80% max] (The RHI and Conduent analyses freeze the accrued benefit as of the effective date rather than just the multiplier)

Hired on or after effective date:

Final Average Salary x [Years of Service (20 max) x 2.25% Years of Service (>20) x 2,0%; 80% max]

 

Termination Benefit

     Current

Terminate with at least 10 years of service but less than 20 years of service, choice of:

    Refund of employee contributions with 5% interest or

     Final Average Salary x 1.7% x Years of Service, payable at age 50

     Proposed

Members hired before the effective date will not receive interest on employee contributions made after the effective date

 

Members hired after the effective date receive a refund of employee contributions without interest only

 

 

Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)

     Current

3.0% compounded, beginning at age 48

     Proposed

Simple crediting rate of 100% of the 5 year smoothed return minus 5.00%%, not less than 0% or greater than 4%, beginning at age 55 with a 3 year freeze on COLAs for members under 70 years of age.

 

 

 

Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)

     Current

Eligibility is 20 Years of Service

 

Interest credited is 100% of the 5 year average investment return, not less than 5.0% or greater than 10.0%

 

COLA credited to account

 

Member contributions credited to account for 10 years

 

 Participation limited to 13 years (Conduent actuarial analysis states the maximum participation is 10 years; RHI actuarial analysis does not mention this maximum participation period, but assumes DROP participation of no more than 9 years, so the maximum has no effect)

Retirement annuity is increased upon exit by 2% per year of DROP participation up to a maximum of 20%

     Proposed

Must be hired prior to effective date

 

Eligibility is 20 years of Service or age 55 and 10 years of Service

 

Interest credited is 65% of the 5 year compounded average investment return, no less than 5.5%

 

COLA and member contributions not credited to account after effective date

 

 

Participation limited to 13 years (The actuarial analysis does not mention this maximum participation period, but assumed DROP participation of no more than 9 years, so the maximum has no effect.)

 

Retirement annuity is increased upon exit by 2% per year of DROP participation up to a maximum of 20% as long as accrued at least 20 years of service as of the effective date (The RHI actuarial analysis assumes members must be current DROP participants to receive this increase.)

 

 

Post Retirement Option Plan (PROP)

     Current

Up to 100% of DROP account, $5,000 Lump Sum payment, and/or a portion of monthly annuity may be deposited and earn the same interest credit as DROP accounts

     Proposed

No new funds may be added to PROP accounts




Summary of Plan Benefit Changes for HPOPS

 

Employee Contributions

     Current

If sworn prior to October 9, 2004 9.00%

If sworn after October 9, 2004   10.20%

     Proposed

All                                              10.50%

 

Retirement Benefit

   Eligibility (if sworn after October 9, 2004)

     Current

Age 55 with 10 Years of Service

     Proposed

Rule of 70

 

 

   Amount (if sworn prior to October 9, 2004)

     Proposed

Total benefit will be subject to maximum 80% of Final Average Salary (The actuarial analysis does not take into account this maximum.)

 

Termination Benefit (if sworn after October 9, 2004) (The actuarial analysis does not include this change.)

   Eligibility

     Current

None

     Proposed

10 Years of Service

 

   Amount

     Current

None, refund of employee contributions (without interest) only

     Proposed

Monthly annuity payable at age 60 equal to Years of Service x 2.25% x Final Average Salary or refund of employee contributions (without interest)

 

Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)

     Current

Simple crediting rate of 80% increase in CPI-U, not less than 2,4% or greater than 8.0%

     Proposed

Simple crediting rate of 100% of the 5 year smoothed return minus 5.00%, not less than 0% or greater than 4%

 

Must be 70 years of age or older as of April 1 for fiscal years ending June 30, 2018 and 2019 and 55 years of age or older for fiscal years end on or after June 30, 2021 (The actuarial analysis assumes a COLA is granted for anyone 70 years of age or older for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020.)

 

Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) (if sworn prior to October 9, 2004)       

     Current

Eligibility is 20 Years of Service

 

Interest credited is 100% of the 5 year average investment return, not less than 3.0% or greater than 7.0%

 

COLA credited to account

 

8.75% of member contributions are credited to account

 

No maximum participation period

 

Retirement annuity is recalculated upon exit as the greater of annuity credited to DROP immediately prior to DROP exit (i.e. including COLA) or using service at DROP entry and Final Average salary at DROP exit

 

Proposed

No entry after June 30, 2027

 

Interest credited is 65% of the 5 year compounded average investment return, no less than 2.5%

 

COLAs occurring after effective date not credited to account

 

Member contributions not credited to account

 

Participation limited to 20 years

 

No recalculation of annuity at DROP exit

 

Post Retirement Option Plan (PROP)  (if sworn prior to October 9, 2004)

     Current

Up to 100% of DROP account, $5,000 Lump Sum payment, and/or a portion of monthly annuity may be deposited and earn the same interest credit as DROP accounts

     Proposed

No new funds may be added to PROP accounts



 

Summary of Plan Benefit Changes for HMEPS

 

Employee Contributions

     Current

Group A: 5.00%

Group B: 0.00%

Group D: 0.00%

     Proposed

Group A: 7.00% for FYE 2018; 8.00% thereafter

Group B: 2.00% for FYE 2018; 4.00% thereafter

Group D: 3.00% (2.00% for service benefit; 1.00% for cash balance benefit)

 

Post-Retirement Survivor Benefit (Groups A &B)

     Proposed

Group D: Cash Balance Benefit equal to 1.00% employee contributions credited with the DROP interest crediting rate.

 

Post-Retirement Survivor Benefit (Groups A &B)

     Current

100% Joint & Survivor, no actuarial reduction

     Proposed

80% Joint & Survivor, no actuarial reduction

 

Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)

     Current

Group A/B: 3.0% not compounded, if hired before 2005; 2.0% not compounded, if hired after 2004.

Group D: 0%

     Proposed

50% of the rolling 5 year net investment return minus 2.00% less than the assumed rate of return (currently 5.00%), not less than 0.00% or greater than 2.00%

 

Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) (Groups A & B)

     Current

Interest credited is 50% of the prior year investment return, not less than 2.5% or greater than 7.5%

 

COLA credited to account

Proposed

Interest credited is 50% of the rolling 5 year net investment return, not less than 2.5% or greater than 7.5%

 

COLA credited on or after 62 years of age

 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Given that the bill provisions for the three retirement systems would strengthen the funding policy and reduce current liabilities, it increases the long-term funding security for all members of the affected retirement systems. It impacts all current and future active members because it increases the employee contributions for all three affected systems. In addition, certain classes of active and inactive members are impacted by changes in plan provisions.

 

As noted elsewhere, the benefit provisions valued under the actuarial analyses differ in various ways from the bill language. The PRB's impact statement reviews the benefit provisions evaluated by the actuarial analyses and does not review the additional bill provisions not reviewed in the actuarial analyses received by the PRB.  The differences are briefly noted below.

 

For the actuarial analysis of HFRRF prepared by RHI, we note four specific differences between the bill provisions and the actuarial analysis.  We do not have sufficient data to determine the direction or magnitude of the impact of these differences, but believe it would be small.

 

For HPOPS, we note three specific differences between the bill provisions and the actuarial analysis. We do not have sufficient data to determine the direction or magnitude of the impact of these differences, but believe it would be small.

 

In addition to these changes, there are additional considerations to note for both HFRRF actuarial analyses. The HFRRF analysis prepared by RHI relies on grouped census data for retirees, disabled members,beneficiaries, and members with deferred benefits, as well as aggregate DROP balances for inactive members as of from the July 1, 2015, provided by the HFRRF actuary. RHI also did not receive a formal actuarial communication from the HFRRF actuary to confirm the plan provisions or actuarial assumptions and methods being used. Given these issues, the actual costs and savings could be materially different from the results provided in the actuarial analysis provided by the City.

 

The HFRRF analysis prepared by Conduent relies on assumptions, methods, and plan provisions outlined in the July 1, 2016 actuarial valuation report and the changes proposed in the bill.

Based on the benefit provisions as provided in the other three analyses, the establishment of the Baseline scenarios, and assuming the issues raised specifically with the HFRRF analysis prepared by RHI would not result in a material difference in results, the actuarial analyses prepared by GRS and RHI provide a reasonable estimate of the changes due to the bill.

 

GASB EFFECTS

All three actuarial analyses include data showing impact on accounting information. The passage of CSSB 2190 with the assumption and benefit changes (lower discount rate, strengthened funding policy, employee contribution increases, and benefit reductions) is likely to have a positive impact on the retirement systems and the City under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) reporting standards (GASB 67 & 68).   

 

Houston Firefighters' Relief & Retirement Fund

(Prepared by RHI at the Request of the City)

($ amount in 000s)

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Total Pension Liability (TPL)

$5,317,821

$4,164,952

Plan Fiduciary Net Position (FNP)

$3,729,670

$3,729,670

Net Pension Liability (NPL)

$1,588,151

$435,282


Houston Police Officer's Pension System     

($ amount in 000s)

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Total Pension Liability (TPL)

$7,400,000

$6,394,000

Plan Fiduciary Net Position (FNP)

$4,080,000

$4,080,000

Net Pension Liability (NPL)

$3,320,000

$2,314,000



Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

($ amount in 000s)

Baseline

If Bill Enacted

Total Pension Liability (TPL)

$5,584,635

$4,859,952

Plan Fiduciary Net Position (FNP)

$2,400,023

$2,400,023

Net Pension Liability (NPL)

$3,184,612

$2,459,929

 

 

METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS

 

According to the PRB actuaries, to the best of their knowledge, no material biases exist with respect to the data, methods or assumptions used to develop the analyses other than those specifically identified above and in the actuarial review. The PRB did not audit the information provided but has reviewed the information for reasonableness and consistency with other information provided by or for the affected retirement systems. The PRB is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the information provided to the agency. All actuarial projections have a degree of uncertainty because they are based on the probability of occurrence of future contingent events. Accordingly, actual results will be different from the results contained in the analysis to the extent actual future experience varies from the experience implied by the assumptions. This analysis is based on the assumption that no other legislative changes affecting the funding or benefits of HFRRF, HPOPS, or HMEPS will be adopted. It should be noted that when several proposals are adopted, the effect of each may be compounded, resulting in a cost that is greater (or less) than the sum of each proposal considered independently.

 

SOURCES

City of Houston Cost Analysis for HFRRF by David A Sawyer, FSA, EA, MAAA; and Carly A. Nichols, FSA, EA, MAAA, Retirement Horizons Incorporated, March 15, 2017.

HFRRF Actuarial Analysis by David L. Driscoll, FSA,EA, MAAA, FCA; and Janie Shaw, ASA, MAAA, Conduent Business Services, LLC,March 23, 2017

HPOPS Actuarial Analysis by Mark R. Randall, FCA, MAAA,EA; and Joseph P. Newton, FSA, EA, MAAA, Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company, March7, 2017.

HMEPS Actuarial Analysis by Lewis Ward; and Joseph P.Newton, FSA, EA, MAAA, , Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company, February 17, 2017.

Actuarial Review by Robert M. May, FSA, EA, MAAA,Board Actuary; and Kenneth J. Herbold, ASA, EA, MAAA, Staff Actuary, PensionReview Board, March 17, 2017.

 

GLOSSARY

Actuarial Accrued Liability(AAL) -The portion of the PVFB that is attributed to past service.

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA)- The smoothed value of system's assets.

Amortization Payments - Theyearly payments made to reduce the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL).

Amortization Period - The numberof years required to pay off the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. TheState Pension Review Board recommends that funding should be adequate toamortize the UAAL over a period which should not exceed 40 years, with 15-25years being a more preferable target. An amortization period of 0-15 years isalso a more preferable target.  

Actuarial Cost Method - Amethod used by actuaries to divide the Present Value of Future Benefits (PVFB)into the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL), the Present Value of Future NormalCosts (PVFNC), and the Normal Cost (NC).

Funded Ratio (FR) - The ratioof actuarial assets to the actuarial accrued liabilities.

Net Pension Liability (NPL) - Theliability of employers and non-employer contributing entities for pensionbenefits shown on the entity's balance sheet for FYE 6/30/2015 and later. TheNPL equals the TPL minus the market value of plan assets. (If plan assetsexceed the TPL, there is a Net Pension Asset.)

Total Pension Liability (TPL) - Theportion of the actuarial present value of projected benefit payments attributedto past periods of employee service under the Entry Age Normal valuationmethod.

Discount Rate - A single rate used todiscount and calculate the TPL which is equivalent to discounting futurepayments reflected in the TPL at the long-term expected rate of return untilplan assets are projected to be exhausted, and discounting at the municipalbond rate for subsequent payments reflected in the TPL.

Market Value of Assets (MVA) -The fair market value of the system's assets.

Normal Cost (NC) - The portionof the PVFB that is attributed to the current year of service.

Present Value of FutureBenefits (PVFB) - The present value of all benefits expected to be paid fromthe plan to current plan participants.

Present Value of Future NormalCosts (PVFNC) - The portion of the PVFB that will be attributed to future yearsof service.

Unfunded Actuarial AccruedLiability (UAAL) - The Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) less the ActuarialValue of Assets (AVA).

 



Source Agencies:
338 Pension Review Board
LBB Staff:
UP, KFa